The recorded source is digital (most of the time) but the playback is not.
Although I mostly listen to the digital set (convenience and laziness I suppose) I like the sound of vinyl; maybe it's the effect of a tiny cut diamond snatching a surface that does it...
Might be the same digital file the source comes from. But the playback equipment and technology is radically different. Would you find it odd if you had a SS amp and a tube amp and they sounded different? Why? Its the same source. Same for source equipment. A record and phono preamp are radically different than a digital file and DAC .
The digital anti-aliasing filter that corrupts the digital sound during the recording process might be the the reason for "bad" cd sound. There is a filter acting on the vinyl sound too, but it is a RLC type analogue filter and acts on the cartridge signal (coil voltage) during the playback. Compared to anti-aliasing filter, which is very sharp and violent, this filter treats the transients in a more pleasing way.
So, maybe these filters make the difference.
I had a phono 20+ years ago with scratched-up 14-minute-a-side albums. I had not heard vinyl since. In the last 10 years, as I built up my current and last system, I have been 100% digital. I have had outstanding DAC's in Lumin X-1. Lampi Horizon and Pacific and my current DAC AC Kassandra. My Music server is Lucas Audio LDMS which plays a supercritical role for me. I love my music.
Last week a new Audiophile friend invited me to his house for a listening session. He had a super nice turntable with Constellation and PS Audio source equipment. He was able to set up a direct experiment going from Vinyl to Digital to CD with the same song. I could tell a difference within 15 seconds. Vinyl was king followed by CD followed by Digital. I was bummed. Here I thought my digital system was king. I could say that his source was not as good as mine and that was true but I am not sure to the degree I heard. So after seeing this thread for a long time, I can finally respond.
I still love the convenience of sitting in my chair and just switching music on my computer but I do know that I am missing something. It is not enough to make me start buying albums and buying a turntable. Thankfully, I have no room anyway.
If it was not so hard, I would love to take my digital systems over to his house just to do another comparison but I can say that Vinyl is king for a true audio experience.
The digital anti-aliasing filter that corrupts the digital sound during the recording process might be the the reason for "bad" cd sound. There is a filter acting on the vinyl sound too, but it is a RLC type analogue filter and acts on the cartridge signal (coil voltage) during the playback. Compared to anti-aliasing filter, which is very sharp and violent, this filter treats the transients in a more pleasing way.
So, maybe these filters make the difference.
A lot of modern DACS provide a variety of filter options. You can up-sample and then have a very gradual filter that starts rolling off slowly just above 20 kHz. Seems like it only makes an audible difference if the roll-off is significant within the audible range. Steep low pass filters don't seem to do anything bad to the passband.
If it was not so hard, I would love to take my digital systems over to his house just to do another comparison but I can say that Vinyl is king for a true audio experience.
Does vinyl maintain something that digital destroys? Or, does vinyl add something that digital fails to add? All the evidence points to the latter, which suggests digital could be made to sound like vinyl, while making vinyl sound like digital would be pretty much impossible. For years, I was amazed at how slide film converted to digital always seemed to look better than shots taken directly with digital cameras. Eventually I saw examples of digital camera shots that had been expertly adjusted to look like slide film. It was extremely difficult to tell them apart, and I definitely couldn't establish a preference. The important point, I think, is that adjusting digital to look convincingly like slide film is not an easy task. So if you really like the look of slide film, maybe just shoot slides. And if you really like the sound of vinyl, maybe just spin vinyl.
I still love the convenience of sitting in my chair and just switching music on my computer but I do know that I am missing something. It is not enough to make me start buying albums and buying a turntable. Thankfully, I have no room anyway.
Will , I would recommend looking for a high quality dedicated CD transport , should you already own enough CD’s to justify another piece of equipment .
yes. but......"destroys" is too harsh a word. more like less musical essence and realism with every digital process applied. it misses stuff. but hearing the best possible digital much less is missing. just less of good things. digital is evolving.
yes, somewhat. a bit of noise, but you can hear around that noise because unlike digital with analog the limits are very soft and variable. there is also a touch of vinyl character added; but it's variable based on the recording/mastering process and is mostly slight
at digital's best it's likely slightly more like tape as far as character. it can be clean like tape.....at the very top of digital. the best digital finishes notes and has weight like vinyl, just lesser by degrees. but vinyl has a higher ceiling for those magical moments, and goes there quite a bit with the best pressings. the best digital has taken big steps forward in realism, but not where the best vinyl is.
you can use dsp to add vinyl character, but then you throw away some realism in the process.
why would you want that? you would need to subtract upper frequency weight and tonal density. subtract top end purity.
direct to disc can be somewhat clean like digital and tape. a bit of that type of sound in some direct to disc pressings. but d-t-d has that really high ceiling for realism higher than digital.
For years, I was amazed at how slide film converted to digital always seemed to look better than shots taken directly with digital cameras. Eventually I saw examples of digital camera shots that had been expertly adjusted to look like slide film. It was extremely difficult to tell them apart, and I definitely couldn't establish a preference. The important point, I think, is that adjusting digital to look convincingly like slide film is not an easy task. So if you really like the look of slide film, maybe just shoot slides. And if you really like the sound of vinyl, maybe just spin vinyl.
as a learning photographer it seems like all things are possible visually with all the very highly developed noise reduction and Photoshop related tools. and now even A.I. interfaces.
A lot of modern DACS provide a variety of filter options. You can up-sample and then have a very gradual filter that starts rolling off slowly just above 20 kHz. Seems like it only makes an audible difference if the roll-off is significant within the audible range. Steep low pass filters don't seem to do anything bad to the passband.
I've used a lot of different filter designs, upsampling, high sample rate PCM and DSD. Steep filters definitely have an effect on the passband, esp true brick wall filters. Even upsampling DACs have to use steep filters for the first sample rate conversion stage.
I tend to prefer the slower rolloff ones, or apodizing ones, but the difference between digital filters, is much smaller than filter vs non filter/analog filter. I put NOS and DSD in the same bucket here, because both can sound very direct and tangible because of the absence of digital filters. NOS has audible rolloff, aliasing, and phase shift, but DSD does not and can have a qualitatively similar effect.
I used to do tape to digital transfers, and without a doubt, with every ADC and sample rate, something very obvious was lost from the analog source tape in the digital conversion. DSD was the only format that seemed to preserve the original sound, more or less. At least, depending on the ADC and DAC. 24/352 (DXD) and 24/192 are both reasonably good, but only DSD actually sounded like the real thing. MQA is also an improvement in some ways as a playback format, but comes at a cost to overall sound quality.
I suspect that other things besides filter steepness might be at work here including the filter kernel type (as opposed to the MQA triangular kernel), and even just the EMI/noise within the DAC from the DSP filter itself.
magic can happen in transfers and most of the best analog was tape to vinyl
This alone is a transfer and a process so this makes me wonder what is correct
another thought is our play back Methods might be adding to the loss. correct me if I am wrong but all formats are lossy in that it’s mathematical approximation
and just this is dropping off bits
I think pcm is more loss again im guessing
and dsd does have higher sample rates to possibly capture more data
Now you are one who can directly compare but even in this scenario still can loose all above and then the various analog signal of the product used
To decode
Lastly I have a bunch of analog vinyl transfers from a really good vinyl rig
some to me are on par or better then the digital versions I own
dsd 128 is what was used.
yes. but......"destroys" is too harsh a word. more like less musical essence and realism with every digital process applied. it misses stuff. but hearing the best possible digital nothing is destroyed. just less of good things
Here's an interesting video where a guy presses it to the limit - up to 400 clone cycles, which means he converts from digital to analog, back to digital, back to analog ...... 400 times! You can hear what it does to the sound.
It's amazing any sound could come through with any clarity at all after 400 cycles.
It could be argued that 99% or more of the damage occurs on the first A/D conversion. Subsequent D/A to A/D steps will then sound pretty similar thereafter. If that's the case, then A/D to D/A steps added to a digital recording will not be as damaging as when done with a pure analog source.
My subjective experience with digital recordings is that adding A/D to D/A steps in the playback chain caused degradation, or at least a noticeable change. It wasn't always unpleasant. I didn't test this rigorously. Perceptually it seemed to take some of the crisp edges off, smoothing the sound, maybe rolling off the highs a tiny amount, and making it seem less dynamic.
One problem with those test was that I was using standard consumer level line inputs into a pro audio ADC, using adapter cords to take standard RCA to pro XLR inputs.
You can get a digital system to sound pretty darn close to vinyl these days, but you gotta pay to play for sure to get that quality. I personally think I bettered it with my current dac compared to my previous ($13k) vinyl rig. With that said, I'd say the variations in vinyl are much greater than in digital, and the one thing no one seems to have pointed out is that it's a physical media platform and it's quality is highly dependent not just on mixing but also the quality of the pressing and competence of the person pressing. It also experiences wear and tear over time.
And it goes without saying there is a convenience to digital that enables most to overlook whether one is better than the other. You can argue this from my angles, but at the end of the day current digital has got SO good I can't really hear the difference in my system. But my heart is generally more with vinyl from a purist standpoint.
Hmmm... I stream quite a bit of what I listen to. It is convenient and I think digital has come a long way and it now sounds very good. I am certainly not irritated by it anymore. A few friends have more sophisticated digital playback than me and I can hear the advancements. Digital can be incredibly good!
Still for a truly entertaining and closer to the real thing experience I still prefer vinyl! Sound wise I find the meat is just tastier closer to the bone. If that makes sense to anyone, lol.
Of course I have been spinning vinyl since the late 60's so I am probably prejudiced ! The physical handling of the media, the cover art and liner notes just take me closer to a total experience.
there are always going to be similar threads going on at the same time. also; within each thread there are numerous separate narratives going on.
it's normal for these popular topics. and part of the deal. a policy of combining threads would add confusion, not reduce it. once members take a little time they can navigate it.
more limited subjects are different. it can make sense to do it. mods can figure it out.
