Why, oh why, does vinyl continue to blow away digital?

Al M. said:

In this statement you conflate your own personal, subjective perceptions and preferences with those that humankind as a whole is supposed to have: "it doesn't have the effect over the mind and will of an individual" (emphasis mine). Don't you think this is a bit arrogant and generalizing? My own mind, will and psyche do not agree with you. If you would have said instead, "over my individual mind and will" there would have been nothing to object.

Where does this leave us? As I said in my first post on the thread, there is no point in bashing each other for different subjective sensibilities and preferences.

Funny that it is mostly certain vinyl enthusiasts who want to impose their subjective perceptions and preferences onto others and show the superiority of their tastes that should be shared by everyone, not lovers of digital. But we have discussed this curious phenomenon already.

Click to expand...

You may have me pegged wrong or I'm not coming across properly. As I've stated, I have a digital based system. I'm not a "vinyl is greatest" cohort, neither am I a "Digital is the only way" total objectivist either. I believe measurements, but my ears and my psyche are varied by my preferences. I've taken "perfect measuring" equipment out of my system and replaced with stuff that measures badly compared to the previous ...but sounds better to me. People that are objectivist are subjected to sighted biases as well...those being the measurements themselves. I'm actually agreeing with your statement - you are not delusional. My issue is the fact that both sides of this coin refuse to come to term with the other. The fact that your mind and will do not agree with mine makes perfect and right sense. My own mind and will do not agree with data on many occasions. This is why I've come to terms that I like what I like...and everyone else does too....how is that offensive?

wil said:

Auto tune is a world away from “perfect.” It’s the ultimate bastardization of the human voice. I don’t really see how it has anything to do with digital audio per se. Rather it’s about the abysmal state of processed music in our popular culture.

Click to expand...

And once again...I agree Auto-Tune is the ultimate bastardization of the human voice - under an o-scope it may look perfect but it doesn't sound right or natural. It's kind of weird - I get beat up over at ASR over being a subjectivist in disguise, and now over here - I'm being jumped for being a possible objectivist. One look at my system would say that I'm neither - I just like what sounds good to me.

Now your issue of processed music - yes it is, however how to you think some people thought when new instruments were introduced? I was just talking to a preacher and we were looking a the "black church" ...I can say that because I'm a preacher. We looked and saw that what's being done now in the way of the "dance" and the rhythms in church today are just the things they weren't allowed to do back then. "Precious Lord" was originally rejected by the church for sounding too jazzy, now it's in hymn books everywhere. Oh Happy Day was rejected as R&B, it's in the hymn books as well now. Kirk Franklin's Stomp...decades from now...will possibly garner the same treatment. We like what we like and after we die out, the next generation makes there music the standard. It's not just in church...its in popular music as well. There will be a day when we're all in the dust that our grandkids will proclaim that Taylor Swift was the best singer ever (cringe emoji). To their generation...yep because they like what they like.
Vinyl made a come back, CD is making one, reel to reel did too. I've owned all of these formats and love them all - because they serve me the music I want to hear...my way.

prerich said:

You may have me pegged wrong or I'm not coming across properly. As I've stated, I have a digital based system. I'm not a "vinyl is greatest" cohort, neither am I a "Digital is the only way" total objectivist either. I believe measurements, but my ears and my psyche are varied by my preferences. I've taken "perfect measuring" equipment out of my system and replaced with stuff that measures badly compared to the previous ...but sounds better to me. People that are objectivist are subjected to sighted biases as well...those being the measurements themselves. I'm actually agreeing with your statement - you are not delusional. My issue is the fact that both sides of this coin refuse to come to term with the other. The fact that your mind and will do not agree with mine makes perfect and right sense. My own mind and will do not agree with data on many occasions. This is why I've come to terms that I like what I like...and everyone else does too....how is that offensive?

Click to expand...

My apologies for misunderstanding!

(I overlooked that you mentioned that you have a digital based system and I just now looked at your signature for equipment.)

I agree with most of your post. I am also not wedded to perfect measurements, even though measurements are useful. I have a tube preamp and amp, which by definition do not measure as well as competent solid state. Like you I also have an R2R DAC, which by definition doesn't measure as well as delta sigma.

Here is an ad by Schiit in Stereophile about an earlier version of my DAC:, after John Atkinson had called the DAC "obsolete":




The fine print in the left hand lower corner says:

That’s what some have called Yggdrasil.

Why? Because Yggdrasil uses 20-bit D/A converters. But you know, pretty much everything we do is obsolete. Heck, a lot of our products use tubes. And we stubbornly cling to discrete design, Class A and AB topologies, and physical knobs, switches and potentiometers. And you know, we’re 100 % cool with that.

(And if you really, really want a "non-obsolete", "32-bit" DAC, you can save $ 2,200 and get our $ 99 Modi 2 with the AK4490 converter.)

Kingrex said:

I hear Mike say he plays mostly classical. And all older analog classical. And a little all a analog jazz. And that is the magic in his system.

I hear Bonzo repeat over and over, what is the source material. Others too.

Back to Mike. I heard him say, digital classical is not that great.
I also hear him say, digital vinyl is a crap shoot of quality compared to Qobuz. Many times the Qobuz is better than the digital vinyl.

That to me say, if your into classical and old jazz, a well applied vinyl setup is going to be satisfying. The best media available with lots of good clean records still out there.

If you hate classical and jazz, then don't waste your money on vinyl. Its unlikely the digitally recorded and mastered vinyl will sound better than Qobuz. Focus on digital as the digital will probably blow away the low quality vinyl.

This discussion superfically circles the most important aspect of selecting audio equipment. What music do you like? Focus your equipment selection around what makes you feel good when you sit and listen. If its not classical and jazz, don't waste your time with vinyl.

Click to expand...

Plenty of well recorded analog pop, rock ,folk and country on vinyl, just stay away from recordings made after ca 1980

rDin said:

Was it laserdisc that had analog audio? Did anybody every hear that in action??? Any good?

Click to expand...

Sounded a little better than digital from dvd of that time, played trough a Theta Voyager into a Casablanca converter. But not many music laserdiscs available.

Mike Lavigne said:

Rex,

what i wrote in my response to you had lots of details which to me are important. i hope you are ok with my clarifying what you wrote as representative of what i said. to me it was not clear and was not properly qualified.

best regards,

Mike


your question was:

Hey Mike. Roughly what % of records that you listen to regularly have any digital processing?

what i said.

over the last 5-10 years, very few records i play 'often' have a digital source. maybe one in 20 or one in 30. most of those with a digital source i play now are recent Jazz recordings by Charles Lloyd, or Christian McBride and a few others like that. prior to that i did have a few favorites which were digitally recorded; such as 'Famous Blue Raincoat' or 'Brothers In Arms' . over the last 5-10 years, i'm mostly playing string quartets, other chamber music, violin, piano, and cello solos and concertos, and large orchestral for Lp's and some jazz and blues favorites which are analog based. the new all analog DG Original Source series has had heavy rotation.


this is misleading and needs to be qualified specifically. i realize what you likely intended to say digital vinyl classical.

what i said.

as my digital has improved i lean toward the native source file for most digitally sourced recordings. so most digitally sourced Lp's are not played unless it's requested. some are very good for sure, but that is just how i do it. i find that it's a toss up whether a digitally sourced recording sounds better as an Lp. some older dsd sourced Lp's are mostly better with the native file.
results all over the board. 50% of the time the streaming file is equal or better to the Lp of current music. but now that i have Level 4 Wadax that could get skewed more toward the streaming file.

i do purchase current music Lp's which are almost all digitally sourced, but those are rarely played very many times. not that i don't enjoy them, but few really grab my attention for repeated plays; although there are exceptions. and mostly i can grab the digital easily which many times is equal. i do purchase some mono reissues too, but those are obviously all analog.

the point you missed that was central to what i wrote is that having digital such as the Wadax skews how i view my vinyl choices. as it gets close enough or is better than lots of digitally sourced vinyl that i'm then doing the files or streaming. and Level 4 pushes that further.

ever since changing from the MSB Select II/Extreme to the Wadax it is a different equation in my system as to how i approach this whole question.

i'm not anti-digitally sourced vinyl. but what i listen to is effected by my alternate choices.

Click to expand...

I appreciate your very precise with your words. I take no offense and hope you don't feel I am mischaracterizig your words or intent.

Hence I said, I hear you saying.

And I still hear you say, AAA classical and jazz is fantastic on vinyL. Can't be beat.
Vinyl that has a digital footprint is rarely in the same leage as AAA and a DAC can be a optimum source for music with digital in the recording/producing process.

I personally experience it this way. Just this morning I played some classical I like on Vinyl. Old $3 records. Fantastic. It has a life. I turn it up and up. Then I put on some classical from Qobuz and top out on volume quickly and don't really like it.
But then I play my Tony Bennett/Diana Krall and I am just as satisfied with turning it up on either Qobuz or vinyl. I actually sort of.prefer the digital of that album.

Maybe my mind will change at some time. As of now, I find digitally produced music is fantastic via a digital front end. A turn table does not make it better. So the OP in my view is incorect or way to unspecific in his title. Vinyl only bests digital on a small slice of source material available to listen to. Digital can easly best vinyl when the correct media is played.

Kingrex said:

Vinyl only bests digital on a small slice of source material available to listen to.

Click to expand...

The source material is huge.

Kingrex said:

Digital can easly best vinyl when the correct media is played.

Click to expand...

Only in a side by side compare, if you play a good digital recording on digital vs poor recording on vinyl. However, best digital playing the best digital recordings is not going to come close to decent vinyl playing good recordings. And not necessarily expensive recordings.

Digital vinyl Shostakovich

Al M. said:

My apologies for misunderstanding!

(I overlooked that you mentioned that you have a digital based system and I just now looked at your signature for equipment.)

I agree with most of your post. I am also not wedded to perfect measurements, even though measurements are useful. I have a tube preamp and amp, which by definition do not measure as well as competent solid state. Like you I also have an R2R DAC, which by definition doesn't measure as well as delta sigma.

Here is an ad by Schiit in Stereophile about an earlier version of my DAC:, after John Atkinson had called the DAC "obsolete":


View attachment 131526

The fine print in the left hand lower corner says:

That’s what some have called Yggdrasil.

Why? Because Yggdrasil uses 20-bit D/A converters. But you know, pretty much everything we do is obsolete. Heck, a lot of our products use tubes. And we stubbornly cling to discrete design, Class A and AB topologies, and physical knobs, switches and potentiometers. And you know, we’re 100 % cool with that.

(And if you really, really want a "non-obsolete", "32-bit" DAC, you can save $ 2,200 and get our $ 99 Modi 2 with the AK4490 converter.)

Click to expand...

I am an R2R guy too.

Kingrex said:

Maybe my mind will change at some time. As of now, I find digitally produced music is fantastic via a digital front end. A turn table does not make it better. So the OP in my view is incorect or way to unspecific in his title. Vinyl only bests digital on a small slice of source material available to listen to. Digital can easly best vinyl when the correct media is played.

Click to expand...

Rex, You seem to follow what Mike is saying. I remember him implying that to him, his best digital (native) source played back on his greatest digital gear sounds great, but not as musically compelling/enjoyable/involving/real as his best vinyl LPs on his turntables. Mike, do I have that right?

Kingrex said:

I appreciate your very precise with your words. I take no offense and hope you don't feel I am mischaracterizig your words or intent.

Click to expand...

Rex, no don't feel there was any negative intent. no worries.

Kingrex said:

Hence I said, I hear you saying.

And I still hear you say, AAA classical and jazz is fantastic on vinyL. Can't be beat.

Click to expand...

this is not a case that classical and jazz vinyl can't be beat, only that is what i mostly listen to. it's my heavy rotation. i have lots of rock/pop excellent pressings which are part of my listening. but it's 5%, not 15% or 80%. just where i'm at right now, also similar with the digital distribution of my interests.

new digital streaming music is more rock/pop so i am sampling that all the time too. i'm choosy though. but stuff can catch my eye and i'll explore. but my gravity tends toward classical and jazz.

hard to boil me down to a simple musical viewpoint. i hope that never changes as it led me on an amazing discovery path and evolution.

Kingrex said:

Vinyl that has a digital footprint is rarely in the same leage as AAA and a DAC can be a optimum source for music with digital in the recording/producing process.

I personally experience it this way. Just this morning I played some classical I like on Vinyl. Old $3 records. Fantastic. It has a life. I turn it up and up. Then I put on some classical from Qobuz and top out on volume quickly and don't really like it.
But then I play my Tony Bennett/Diana Krall and I am just as satisfied with turning it up on either Qobuz or vinyl. I actually sort of.prefer the digital of that album.

Click to expand...

agree that you cannot judge music by a name or category, or price point. keep your heart open to music and formats. prepare to be captured, and you just might be.

PeterA said:

Rex, You seem to follow what Mike is saying. I remember him implying that to him, his best digital (native) source played back on his greatest digital gear sounds great, but not as musically compelling/enjoyable/involving/real as his best vinyl LPs on his turntables. Mike, do I have that right?

Click to expand...

yes. i can choose some pressings that blow the top off expectations. go places digital cannot. yet when i'm doing digital i'm not thinking 'can't wait to play vinyl'. so just allow each format to strut it's stuff. plenty to strut.

PeterA said:

Rex, You seem to follow what Mike is saying. I remember him implying that to him, his best digital (native) source played back on his greatest digital gear sounds great, but not as musically compelling/enjoyable/involving/real as his best vinyl LPs on his turntables. Mike, do I have that right?

Click to expand...

Well analog TT converted the digital only Bonzo , the original Pi ...!


Nuff said ..!

Lagonda said:

Plenty of well recorded analog pop, rock ,folk and country on vinyl, just stay away from recordings made after ca 1980

Click to expand...

Funny Boy......

Bruce B said:

Funny Boy......

Click to expand...

Nothing funny about that, when i listen to recordings made after 1980 i have very low expectations to them. I do still listen to them if i like the music !

There are plenty of digitally recorded records, of all genres, that sound much better than the commercial digital release. And analog recorded vinyl rips usually sound much better than the commercial digital version. So in both cases, when the frequency extremes are filtered out by the vinly process, it sounds better.

Rexp said:

There are plenty of digitally recorded records, of all genres, that sound much better than the commercial digital release.

Click to expand...

agree. it varies case to case. but i agree with "plenty". maybe even most.

Rexp said:

And analog recorded vinyl rips usually sound much better than the commercial digital version.

Click to expand...

i have over 1000 2xdsd vinyl rips, and own almost 100% of the source all analog vinyl. 10 years ago when i first got those vinyl rips i agree that the rips mostly surpassed the digital commercial releases with a few exceptions. then as my digital has improved over the last decade, now a good tape hirez digital transfer is mostly better than those 2xdsd vinyl rips. or a better way to put it would be i prefer the more native digital transfer. it sounds more real. the important point is that you need the native digital transfer, not just any digital transfer. and sometimes that is hard to figure out.

Rexp said:

So in both cases, when the frequency extremes are filtered out by the vinly process, it sounds better.

Click to expand...

again; vinyl rips do somewhat soften and add some liquidity to the mix (especially 2xdsd). this can make things more listenable compared to some commercial digital transfers.....as you say....a bit blunted. but again; as dacs have improved over the last 10 years, that data at the frequency extremes is actually musical information, and the best dacs take full advantage of it. so in my case i do not agree. i want it all and rely on my dac to deliver the full performance envelope of info, which does cause the commercial digital to mostly surpass that vinyl rip. but this is very system and dac dependent. no wrong or right to it.

there are cases where i still do prefer the vinyl rip, but not too often as they call attention to what is missing. adding an additional adc step on top of the vinyl mastering is not transparent in direct compare.

i'm glad i have those vinyl rips, but dac advancements can change things.

Mike Lavigne said:

i have over 1000 2xdsd vinyl rips, and own almost 100% of the source all analog vinyl. 10 years ago when i first got those vinyl rips i agree that the rips mostly surpassed the digital commercial releases with a few exceptions. then as my digital has improved over the last decade, now a good tape hirez digital transfer is mostly better than those 2xdsd vinyl rips. or a better way to put it would be i prefer the more native digital transfer. it sounds more real. the important point is that you need the native digital transfer, not just any digital transfer. and sometimes that is hard to figure out.

Click to expand...

So in the case of the Ella Fitzgerald track below, you would say this is a rare case of where a vinly rip of an analog record might beat the commercial digital release?

Rexp said:

So in the case of the Ella Fitzgerald track below, you would say this is a rare case of where a vinly rip of an analog record might beat the commercial digital release?

Click to expand...

i'll check that out. off the top of my head don't know. my expectation/recollection is that the tape transfer digital is better than the rip. as i recall i have a 2xdsd rip of that.

that i-phone video is of my 45rpm single disc (source of the rip). obviously i did not take or post that video.

in this case as i recall the tape transfer digital is 192/24 and is very fine. might be my file, might be a streaming file.

on this particular recording; i have the 33rpm vinyl, the 4 disc Classic Records 45rpm, and a 1/2" 15ips very low generation master dub direct from a 30ips 1/4" safety (which i had in room some years ago). not sure how many digital files of it i own.

btw; 'Misty' on this record, is one of two of my all time most played cuts. the 45 of Reiner/Chicago, Scheherazade 2nd movement is the other one.