This is a major part of the "digital problem" as I see it. So many things can undermine the results, making it confusing/expensive/frustrating to get anywhere close to "right". But thanks to the pioneering work of many of the members on this site, and elsewhere, good solutions have been found. But should it really be so difficult? Maybe it's just birthing pains, and given time the solutions become well understood and available to all...
Why, oh why, does vinyl continue to blow away digital?
- Thread starter godofwealth
- Start date
Agreed, many things can undermine the result, which is problematic. Here are some thoughts from an earlier post of mine on another thread:
I have said before, even modest vinyl has an easier way of sounding natural and "right", whereas digital is more fragile and vulnerable to imperfections in its components and connections. On the other hand, if done right, digital can sound stellar.
That also holds for rhythm & timing, the 'foot tapping' factor, if you will. Digital is far less robust in that respect than vinyl, and especially in earlier digital times (I remember the Nineties too well) this was a very serious problem. Yet digital *can* perform well.. My own current digital kills it in rhythm & timing and compares well in that regard with the best analog that I have heard. However, it took me at least 5 CD playback devices (CD player or transport/DAC combo) over more than two and a half decades to get to a point where my digital finally could compete in rhythm & timing, with my current playback being the best.
Perhap's. But I believe the solution will require a complete rethink of how it should work.
It's issues are far more complicated than currently realised.
I do believe that advancements in high order dsd may be the way forward. Finding a way to up its bitrate being a logical step.
Why is that?
Out of curiosity, how much have you spent on those "at least" 5 CD playback devices (CD player/transport/DAC combo) over the two and a half decades?
At what price point does a digital system match the rhythm and timing of "modest vinyl"? At what cost does digital compete with the very best (analogue) vinyl playback systems in sounding "natural" and "right"?
Since Sony released its' CD format, fantastic amounts have been spent trying to improve the presentation from that format. R&D should have resulted in lower retail prices over time, but after looking up the costs that someone today would have to spend to set up a top flight digital system that would allegedly compete with even modest analogue vinyl systems, I am astonished. Perhaps "digital" has gone as far as it can. Perhaps engineers should look for a different type of storage medium?
You probably haven’t heard or been paying attention to the advancements from companies like Wadax and Taiko. I have first hand experience and know what’s currently achievable . It’s can be expensive to get streaming to sound this good. A well sorted cd player is a more simple and less $$ path.
Have often wondered this myself...
Would be genuinely interested in your thoughts here; what are the challenges and are any, in your view, insurmountable?
Digital is riddled with time-phase nonlinearities that analog is largely free of.
A different storage medium such as my full spectrum frequency-modulated optical analog disc format perhaps?
But I do believe that digital audio can still be vastly improved upon.
For instance, I have long theorized that a dac could be designed so that it reconstructs the digital/analog waveform and data in a way that parallels an analog waveform free of its degrading nonlinearities.
A Zanden DAC does this passively to a large extent, but it doesn't quite solve all of the issues, and is limited to Redbook payback.
Another big issue that is a pet-peeve of mine is the lack of fine resolution that currently plagues all digital formats.
I believe that we need to put all the findings and ideas on the table and work from there to find an agreeable solution.
Digital has a major problem of pre and post echo due to oversampling and filtering. It’s inevitable even if you use a NOS dac because it’s already embedded in the original signal a couple of times by AD and DA conversions during the mixing and mastering processes. Thanks to audio engineers who praise computer convenience, use printer usb cable for converters, believe balanced cable isn’t effected by cable quality and length, advocate bits are bits theory and above all think their pro equipment in the studio can reflect all the differences better than a high-end audio setup does.
The problem whether analog or digital lies in the recording and mastering process. Now it’s even worse with digital due to high level of computer involvement. Some believe that computer processes do no harm to audio but IME it sucks the life out of it.
I take a Mitsubishi X-80/800 digital recording over to a modern one made on computers any time of the day.
The problem whether analog or digital lies in the recording and mastering process. Now it’s even worse with digital due to high level of computer involvement. Some believe that computer processes do no harm to audio but IME it sucks the life out of it.
I take a Mitsubishi X-80/800 digital recording over to a modern one made on computers any time of the day.
Mike made an interesting comment about accuracy versus completeness. I think his observation references the notion that analog is a less accurate representation of a complete wave form, while digital is a more accurate representation of an incomplete/sampled wave form. Or so I had thought. The more discussions I read about this the more I think analog is both more complete and in fact perhaps even more accurate, despite its inherent challenges.
I think those trying to improve the sound of both formats are really trying to lesson the subsequent corruption of the original captured signal, both in converting it to storage and in reading it later. It seems that despite the inherent limitations of cartridge/tonearm/turntable/phono curve correction and amplification, the information, from an all analog process, that gets to our ears at the listening seat, is more convincing. Digital is improving, and it is already satisfying and good enough for some, but many will admit that there is still something lost or missing in the presentation compared to vinyl.
We keep having this discussion because those interested want to revisit whether or not there has been any substantial progress in narrowing the gap. The Michael Fremer panel discussion about advancements to vinyl playback continuing to make progress is pretty interesting. These designers and others are working hard to lesson the losses in the vinyl chain. The same is happening on the digital side. Progress is being made in both formats, and for that, we hobbyists should be excited.
I think those trying to improve the sound of both formats are really trying to lesson the subsequent corruption of the original captured signal, both in converting it to storage and in reading it later. It seems that despite the inherent limitations of cartridge/tonearm/turntable/phono curve correction and amplification, the information, from an all analog process, that gets to our ears at the listening seat, is more convincing. Digital is improving, and it is already satisfying and good enough for some, but many will admit that there is still something lost or missing in the presentation compared to vinyl.
We keep having this discussion because those interested want to revisit whether or not there has been any substantial progress in narrowing the gap. The Michael Fremer panel discussion about advancements to vinyl playback continuing to make progress is pretty interesting. These designers and others are working hard to lesson the losses in the vinyl chain. The same is happening on the digital side. Progress is being made in both formats, and for that, we hobbyists should be excited.
A good amount, but not that much. I can't afford $ 50K or $ 100K DACs. Not that those cannot be worthwhile.
Don't know the price point where it starts. All I can say that my current digital, which I think sounds "natural" and "right" and has excellent rhythm & timing, is less than 10 grand including *all* components in the digital chain (ok, including the high-quality power cords the price point of 10 grand is reached). My preamp costs considerably more...
I made some decisions that some might find curious per pricing. My reclocker and the AES/EBU cable between reclocker and DAC each cost almost as much as the DAC itself, which is only $ 2,200 *). There is a reason for all this, it's not a fluke or silliness. The DAC can compete with multiply higher priced DACs *if* the entire digital environment is right. Good digital cables are part of that. For components, see my signature.
It did, when it comes to achieving great quality. If some want to spend more to achieve SOTA, that is also fine and up to them.
________________
*) Part of it is that the DAC is direct web sale. As the designer explained, the same DAC sold via dealers would have to cost at least $ 6K, not just because of the mark-up, but also because a more expensive DAC would sell much less units. With the sales figures they have they can achieve better bulk price quotes from parts manufacturers. Regardless, the DAC can also comfortably compete with others far above a $ 6K price point, as I have heard multiple times myself.
The problems effecting the duplication and reconstructing chains can be a major issue.
The blind leading the blind.
The potential issues are endless.
Not exactly. There is no problem of an "artifact" here. The "pre- and post echo" ripples are a natural result of the signal being bandwidth-limited.
This is explained and very well demonstrated here, at 17:20 in the video. It is worthwhile watching the entire video, as it dispels with a lot of false myths around digital:
I did look up the price to set up a Wadex digital replay system and the DAC alone is nearly twice the cost of my entire analogue rig. Same the Wadex transport. Then there are the connectors, the power supply, amplification, speakers, etc. My point is should we keep putting money into this format in hopes of one day making it sound as real/natural as a much less expensive vinyl replay system?
One plan to rid the digital market from bad press has already been put in place, that being diluting the analogue-mastered vinyl market with digitally-mastered vinyl so that new audiophiles hopefully go through life having never heard the better format.
What about looking into something other than digital to record and playback music from. Apparently a phonograph cartridge has been marketed that reads the groove undulations with laser. I assume the output is analogue, and that the conversion of that into a waveform that can be amplified directly. That should sound better than complicated phono systems. As the laser can cut too, perhaps a new LP with full bandwidth grooves that are cut closer together and won't need RIAA manipulation could be developed.
i guess what i think/guess (from a technically ignorant perspective) is happening is that the analog recording chain and mastering process adds process artifacts to the end result, but, OTOH analog has more meat on the bones of data, along with less disruption of phase and timing. analog captures peaks and decay more completely. it has lots of headroom in dynamic range and noise floor. so technical limits are not hard. it keeps going. so analog is a bit dirty. maybe direct to disc is 'less dirty'.....but can sound a bit hard.....along with the performance limitations.
digital is relatively clean, but while the recording process and mastering process is apparently transparent, it has sins of omission. music cohesion and flow is to a degree stripped out. so it's accurate at particular points, but less complete and does add some artifacts too. i do find that as dacs have improved some of these sins of omission have been resolved. and that the forward looking error correction of the Wadax makes a significant difference for whatever reason restoring some of that rightness.
anecdotal story. no proof. but made me think:
at Axpona 24' i was in the big Acora room sitting in row 2 in the sweet spot and Robert Harley sat down next to me. (i've met him before but don't 'know' him). we briefly talked about both having the Wadax in our systems (i commented i had demo'd the Level 4 cables he had written about). we were listening to the SAT tt, arm and Lyra Atlas Lambda cartridge. it was sounding wonderful. we switched places so he was in the sweet spot and we both commented how both seats sounded great. then they switched to digital and we switched places again, and seating position made a much larger difference, the soundstage had collapsed. then they switched back to the SAT and back again was the full soundstage in either spot. it was like two completely different systems.
we both commented how our Wadax digital does not do that. it relatively fills the room in an analog way.
why does this happen?
btw; in my show wrap-up i did choose the Acora room with analog as one of my 2 favorite rooms. it was awesome.
Last edited:
Never heard of them. Amazing you have first hand experience.
Ps: classic NLF problem. To compare 100k digital to 10k and think there is an improvement (which might be compared to the 10k), completely missing the point that they are equidistant from vinyl.
Pps: if you want to become strong, no matter how much you improve your bicep curls, it won’t help. You have to start deadlifting and improve on it. Similarly if you want to get realism, you have to become a vinyl heavyweight
The CD format was technically fully developed by the end of the 90s. The new formats are still in their infancy. Nobody is using the full potential - just look at how many pure high-bit recordings there are. The MP3 generation has the world in its grip. The high-end user is in the minority, a fringe group so to speak; if that changes then there will be progress.