Can digital get to vinyl sound and at what price?

[bonzo75]

Begs the question…which stage is on the record. The one with eyes open or the one with eyes closed

 

[Rensselaer]

Begs the question…which stage is on the record. The one with eyes open or the one with eyes closed

Or after Scotch, one eye open and one closed

 

[Kingrex]

I just don't understand why you want to complicate the experiment with ripping from a CD to begin with, why not just take any audio file, make a copy of it, and compare?

CD Ripping aka reading an audio stream from a CD Player is a way more complicated process than just taking a file on a computer and making a copy of it. But sure, if you can get a perfect ripping process that results in a bit by bit identical file both times, then sure, we can use those files.

I don't understand why you want to simplify it so much. Many people rip their CD to a drive to play the music via Roon, JRiver etc. It warrants investigation to understand what limitations might arise in the process.

 

[thedudeabides]

I think this comes down to some folks being more sensitive to digital distortion (as yet unmeasurable) than others.

How does one distinguish digital distortion versus other analogue related distortions? What specifically are the clear, undeniable indicators or may it be a mentally induced bias towards analogue similar to other biases we all have? Some folks on this forum are clearly anti digital and 100% analogue biased. Best.

 

[Kingrex]

As a retired engineer who worked in R&D for several major consumer electronics manufacturers and has designed and produced several tonearms + turntables as well as digital equipment i have a different perspective.
I see both systems as sonically dominated by resonances of different natures that leave a particular type of sonic signature

Analog is dominated by acoustic resonances where every material, shape, cartridge and alignment, mass and material to material junction has a unique resonant signature that imparts character. In my opinion only the lathe that cut the master would have the least contribution to the pressing and even then the pressing is a result of the lathe signature. My belief is that a technically “perfect” playback setup would be fairly lifeless. The tables people like have a synergistic composition of material resonances.

Digital is dominated by the resonant artifacts of the sampling frequency, clock errors, RF noise, power supply noise, etc.
These resonances tend to not be consonant with the music and the only way to deal with them is to eliminate or mitigate them as there is no way to treat them like the analog counterparts. Technology and manufacturing is eliminating most digital issues but for the most part we are stuck with the redbook Fs that will impart a signature even with apodizing filters to eliminate the harmonics of the Fs.

If we stop to think about it, even measured distortion is a harmonic resonance that is measured by harmonic order and magnitude.

Knowing these differences it’s best to accept that these are 2 vastly different approaches that will probably always be dominated by different resonant domains whose signature will differentiate the 2 approaches as the implementations mature and converge on perfection.

Now that is a heck of an answer. I was just reading through Xymox post on Cable Modems ( https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/cable-modems.30094/ ). He too talks about all the noise from digital equipment and how it propagates inside itself and to other equipment. I believe you are calling this a resonant frequency.

I find it interesting you feel a Perfect analog setup might be perceived as lifeless. Not sure why. But I can see how people like pleasing distortions

Anyhow, a thoughtful response on how the 2 sources technically differ and how they will probably never sound exactly the same.

 

[Kingrex]

How does one distinguish digital distortion versus other analogue related distortions? What specifically are the clear, undeniable indicators or may it be a mentally induced bias towards analogue similar to other biases we all have? Best.

I think DHT4ME response says a lot. A digital distortion has nothing to do with the fundamental music distortions. Analog distortions are mostly related to the fundamental signal. Aside from say motor noise or noise in the power supply of the phono stage.

 

[thedudeabides]

I think DHT4ME response says a lot. A digital distortion has nothing to do with the fundamental music distortions. Analog distortions are mostly related to the fundamental signal. Aside from say motor noise or noise in the power supply of the phono stage.

What???

 

[Al M.]

Digital is dominated by the resonant artifacts of the sampling frequency, clock errors, RF noise, power supply noise, etc.
These resonances tend to not be consonant with the music and the only way to deal with them is to eliminate or mitigate them as there is no way to treat them like the analog counterparts. Technology and manufacturing is eliminating most digital issues

Agreed.

but for the most part we are stuck with the redbook Fs that will impart a signature even with apodizing filters to eliminate the harmonics of the Fs.

Except that the "pre-ringing" distortion of a digital filter is a myth. It is the mathematically necessary result of a bandwidth-limited signal (which all digital audio signals are):

https://gearspace.com/board/mastering-forum/925681-echoes-past.html

As he says in conclusion: "Transients are untouched and perfectly preserved."

To help understand his answer, the alleged "pre-ringing" is related to

Gibbs phenomenon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[sigbergaudio]

I don't understand why you want to simplify it so much. Many people rip their CD to a drive to play the music via Roon, JRiver etc. It warrants investigation to understand what limitations might arise in the process.

Sure, but that's a completely different discussion than "if I copy an audio file, the sound is degraded."

 

[DHT4ME]

How does one distinguish digital distortion versus other analogue related distortions? What specifically are the clear, undeniable indicators or may it be a mentally induced bias towards analogue similar to other biases we all have? Some folks on this forum are clearly anti digital and 100% analogue biased. Best.

One easy way to identify the signature of the 44k sample rate is to use a program like HQ Player with an apodizing algorithm that strips the fundamental Fs artifacts from the uprezz. It is a very nice tool for identifying the signature of upsample algorithms and if you have a DAC that is NOS it usually can accept sample rates up to the chips limit or the limit of the interface. To see the effect use a non even integer of the base Fs.
HQP is a great learning tool if you take the time to listen to the effects of algo/dither combinations on the ringing/harmonic/artifact. The best sounding combos take considerable processing power and it becomes obvious that many compromises are made to get the simple standalone DAC box solution.

Many artifacts show up when the full scale output is reached or is approached. Technically the digital representation should never reach the 0 (max) point and always should have some headroom as its a hard limit even though the majority of representable info is in the loudest last level of data.
When you upsample redbook it is common to reduce the signal by a touch because the reconstruction filters can create a transient waveform that will calculate to a higher signal level when reconstructed and push toward or clip signal transients. Dac chips do the upsampling either internally or by an ASRC chip ( most Ladder dacs) just before the DAC chip and the math is fixed in the latter. I found that reducing the level a bit higher to -1.5 db to 2.5 db is needed and some tracks readily show the result.

Daphile is a free OS/player that has upsampling capacity and with the highest quality settings it will record that you have digitally clipped the transients and prompts you to reduce gain digitally in the upsample algo. I do not use Daphile any more however it was the first clue for me that correlated measurable problems with a particular sonic characteristic especially since my DAC is NOS.
Knowing that there was a preference for NOS DAC's among a segment of the audiophile community and knowing that the majority of DAC's upsampled internally it was an eye opener as the sonic character of upsampling without a gain reduction reminded me of a lot of digital quality issues I had encountered over the years. I now see why MFSL purposely reduced the gain on a lot of their releases.

Tracks that are recorded hot seem to be frequently harsh/digital artifact plagued. I can't think of many modest level recodging that have issues.
Tracks that I have found to be problematic to the above and yield better results from a gain reduction when upsampling are good tracks to identify the digital problems. Most Enya albums, There are a few Allison Krauss tracks, almost every rock CD that I had and on and on. I don't have a formal list however I should say that these are results from R2R ladder dacs. I understand that there is significant headroom in the Sabre dacs 26+6 bits so possibly that moves the bar significantly.

My post engineering profession is in digital imaging and its amazing how many things in digital audio have corresponding imaging situations.

 

[Republicoftexas69]

One easy way to identify the signature of the 44k sample rate is to use a program like HQ Player with an apodizing algorithm that strips the fundamental Fs artifacts from the uprezz. It is a very nice tool for identifying the signature of upsample algorithms and if you have a DAC that is NOS it usually can accept sample rates up to the chips limit or the limit of the interface. To see the effect use a non even integer of the base Fs.
HQP is a great learning tool if you take the time to listen to the effects of algo/dither combinations on the ringing/harmonic/artifact. The best sounding combos take considerable processing power and it becomes obvious that many compromises are made to get the simple standalone DAC box solution.

Many artifacts show up when the full scale output is reached or is approached. Technically the digital representation should never reach the 0 (max) point and always should have some headroom as its a hard limit even though the majority of representable info is in the loudest last level of data.
When you upsample redbook it is common to reduce the signal by a touch because the reconstruction filters can create a transient waveform that will calculate to a higher signal level when reconstructed and push toward or clip signal transients. Dac chips do the upsampling either internally or by an ASRC chip ( most Ladder dacs) just before the DAC chip and the math is fixed in the latter. I found that reducing the level a bit higher to -1.5 db to 2.5 db is needed and some tracks readily show the result.

Daphile is a free OS/player that has upsampling capacity and with the highest quality settings it will record that you have digitally clipped the transients and prompts you to reduce gain digitally in the upsample algo. I do not use Daphile any more however it was the first clue for me that correlated measurable problems with a particular sonic characteristic especially since my DAC is NOS.
Knowing that there was a preference for NOS DAC's among a segment of the audiophile community and knowing that the majority of DAC's upsampled internally it was an eye opener as the sonic character of upsampling without a gain reduction reminded me of a lot of digital quality issues I had encountered over the years. I now see why MFSL purposely reduced the gain on a lot of their releases.

Tracks that are recorded hot seem to be frequently harsh/digital artifact plagued. I can't think of many modest level recodging that have issues.
Tracks that I have found to be problematic to the above and yield better results from a gain reduction when upsampling are good tracks to identify the digital problems. Most Enya albums, There are a few Allison Krauss tracks, almost every rock CD that I had and on and on. I don't have a formal list however I should say that these are results from R2R ladder dacs. I understand that there is significant headroom in the Sabre dacs 26+6 bits so possibly that moves the bar significantly.

My post engineering profession is in digital imaging and its amazing how many things in digital audio have corresponding imaging situations.

If you are using a computer for streaming. PC or Laptop, some assumptions here.

 

[DHT4ME]

If you are using a computer for streaming. PC or Laptop, some assumptions here.

Yes, a computer is needed to test these situations, however as a means to identify sonic attributes it is an easy to accomplish task. High level use is obviously an whole other topic.

 

[Rexp]

How does one distinguish digital distortion versus other analogue related distortions? What specifically are the clear, undeniable indicators or may it be a mentally induced bias towards analogue similar to other biases we all have? Some folks on this forum are clearly anti digital and 100% analogue biased. Best.

The clearest indicator of digital distortion is you want to turn the system off or skip to a good sounding album. Regarding the difference between analogue and digital distortion, one area that is different is digital distortion burns my ears whereas analogue distortion doesn't.

 

[Phantom-Audio]

From my personal experience, digital DACs are inching closer to the appealing sound of analog. However, I firmly believe that it may never be feasible to replicate the exact sound of analog using digital technology. This belief stems from the inherent differences in how both sounds are recorded right from inception.

Several of my newly acquired albums, which are digitally mastered on vinyl, bear a striking resemblance to the sound of streaming digital files. This similarity can be attributed to the recording technique used. That said, I enjoy both digital and analog formats, with my preference varying based on the music I choose to play.

 

[Ron Resnick]

How does one distinguish digital distortion versus other analogue related distortions? What specifically are the clear, undeniable indicators or may it be a mentally induced bias towards analogue similar to other biases we all have? Some folks on this forum are clearly anti digital and 100% analogue biased.

I think these are very good questions.* I, myself, cannot describe a particular distortion of digital.

All I know is that when I want to listen to music and I have the same title on both analog and digital, I reach for the analog. I reach for the analog even though the analog occasions a significant inconvenience in time and effort compared to playing digital. I don't suffer the inconvenience of analog because I am biased in favor of analog. I reach for the analogue despite the inconvenience because I achieve more enjoyment from listening to the music on analog.

You will never see or hear me use casually the word "distortion." Like "coloration" I think "distortion" is used in this subjective hobby as a general purpose slur.

* I think the allegation of bias is misplaced. Someone who prefers analog doesn't prefer analog because he/she is biased towards analog. He/she prefers analog simply because he/she genuinely prefers the sound of analog. He/she may go into a digital versus analog comparison session prejudiced towards analog because he/she prefers analog himself/herself; but that doesn't mean he/she is biased in favor of analog.

So I think the suggestion of bias here confuses rather than illuminates.

 

[hopkins]

My own experience with digital is that lower "distortion" translates into a blacker background, better resolution and instrument definition and placement.

Overall, I find that my digital system now provides for a very detailed yet relaxed sound. This was not always the case. Can it improve further? Who knows... I have heard a lot of digital sources/DACs and nothing out there has blown my mind, so at this point, I rather spend money on speakers.

How does it compare with analog? My turntable is not "high end" and is connected to my DAC through an ADC, so some will say that I am not getting the best out of an analog source.

However, many people (not necessarily audiophiles) do play LPs through their DACs, and appreciate the sound. Are they all deluded?

We also know that the quality of a well recorded LP can shine through a good vinyl rip.

I don't believe that a good quality ADC "kills" the sound of vinyl.

My phono preamp/ADC is the M2Tech Joplin. One aspect I find interesting is that the RIAA equalization is done through DSP and not in the analog domain. However good a phono preamp may be, there is always loss/distortion involved with analog signal treatment. So there are probably pros and cons to each solution. I have not found many other units that work like the Joplin.

A better quality turntable would certainly bring me further improvements, but is not worth the investment considering I play mostly digital.

Long story short: for those who have a digital only system and want to dabble in vinyl, a good phono/ADC can be a very good starting point (and perhaps sufficient).

 

[Another Johnson]

My preference for convenience, my preference for more choices over fewer, and my preference for smaller over larger physical footprint for both storage and devices makes me biased toward digital.

What drives me to ignore or overrule my prejudice in favor of digital is that, when I do suck it up and play vinyl, I am nearly always rewarded with an even more stunning experience.

I am not at the high end of either format according to many posters here. My Rossini Apex isn’t even at the top of dCS’s line. No one would consider my McIntosh MDA200 in the same breath as “best.”

My phono cartridges (Kleos, Etna Lambda, and as of yesterday Charisma V2.1) are not at the top of Lyra’s or Clearaudio’s lines. My Best LP12 is behind the latest and greatest due to my neglect of upgrading my Radikal to Radikal 2. My recent resurrection of a previously neglected Clearaudio Master Reference w/ Universal 12” arm would be another “Ho Hum” for the true chasers of high end vinyl.

In my system I can listen to Quobuz, Prime, CD, or SACD for hours and hours with great enjoyment. I can queue up lengthy playlists of new artists, remasters, and even expanded bonus collections from old familiar works. I can even listen to digital streams of materials heretofore only available to me from my collection of 10” 78 rpm shellacs.

And then, if I like, I can go to the stacks and find something that none of the streaming services offer (yet), or I can grab something specifically for comparison. When I do, I am nearly always glad that I did.

If I were starting today, I would definitely start with streaming because of the HUGE collection of music available at low cost. I would only add vinyl later (in order to evaluate whether its differences would be worth it in my value system). I think that today vinyl and vinyl playback gear are luxury items.

If I could only have one, I’d go with digital because of the access to such a wide range of music. But, unlike many, I have no interest in selling off my analog collection of music, or my analog gear. It’s WAY too much fun, and brings too much joy to even think about getting rid of it.

How much does it cost to make digital sound like vinyl? No one knows. It’s never been done.

 

[wil]

The clearest indicator of digital distortion is you want to turn the system off or skip to a good sounding album. Regarding the difference between analogue and digital distortion, one area that is different is digital distortion burns my ears whereas analogue distortion doesn't.

For me, the solution to a poorly recorded/mastered/processed album is to not listen to it.

Listen to something else — it’s easy to find music that sounds really good on a well set up digital system— (and I’m not talking about uber high-end systems or “audiophile” music/recordings).

No ear burning, teeth gnashing or digital bashing required.

 

[Republicoftexas69]

Hi Ron,

For me, there is very little (if any) difference between the words "biased" and "prefers".

I prefer not to be around biased people what ever their biases are, or if they align with my preference.

 

[thedudeabides]

I think these are very good questions.* I, myself, cannot describe a particular distortion of digital.


He/she prefers analog simply because he/she genuinely prefers the sound of analog. he suggestion of bias here confuses rather than illuminates.

Very little difference, if any between biased and favors. Just checked the definition of bias. "Prejudice in favor of...." IMO, there is no confusion.