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

I am not attributing aesthetic choices to "gear and tech". You do not get the same results with film and digital. Let's keep things simple.
In order to keep things simple, your statement requires proof, because it is an exceptional statement.

I have mine. I can make an m11 file look as 400tx or rollei 200 negative by applying the characteristic tone, exposure level curves, and applying the appropriate grain/sharpness filter. Undistinguishable beyond anything anyone can say, as anyone in the business can confirm. That's to be expected, btw, by reading the specs, understanding what they mean, and knowing the same for the films you use.

I'm not trying to be pedantic, orthogonal or holier than thou here, but some things are just wrong, no matter how much we repeat them online. Like I said, don't fall for low-fi, internet grade analogies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wil
In order to keep things simple, your statement requires proof, because it is an exceptional statement.

I have mine. I can make an m11 file look as 400tx or rollei 200 negative by applying the characteristic tone, exposure level curves, and applying the appropriate grain/sharpness filter. Undistinguishable beyond anything anyone can say, as anyone in the business can confirm. That's to be expected, btw, by reading the specs, understanding what they mean, and knowing the same for the films you use.

I'm not trying to be pedantic, orthogonal or holier than thou here, but some things are just wrong, no matter how much we repeat them online. Like I said, don't fall for low-fi, internet grade analogies.

You are right, I don't have proof. I have never seen a digital print that can mimic a high quality black and white film print of a simple portrait. Without trying to sound pedantic, while not a photographer myself, I have been surrounded by photographers all my life, some of which you would certainly know well.
But I'll take your word for it! I was not making a parallel to audio.
 
You are right, I don't have proof. I have never seen a digital print that can mimic a high quality black and white film print of a simple portrait. Without trying to sound pedantic, while not a photographer myself, I have been surrounded by photographers all my life, some of which you would certainly know well.
But I'll take your word for it! I was not making a parallel to audio.
Same platinum prints, never seen a digital match the luminance and tonal qualities but don't have proof that it can't be done.
 
I.had some 33 pressing but got rid of it. This album is a perfect example of an album that gets played and its hard to find a used one in good condition. Digitql is very good. I don't see a reason to spend $22 plus on 2 or 3 more to find one that plays well. Plus, I have a 15ips tape thats pretty outstanding.
This record drives home the point that your limiting your access to a massive catalog of great music if you listen to vinyl. Digital is way better than vinyl on a much larger and broader catalog of music. Vinyl is better on a selection that is smaller and many times worn out.
You sir listen to shitty music on a questionably TT, stop buying albums previously owned by stoners ! ;)
 
The artist and producers approve what the mastering engineer presents to them. The ultimate sound quality is with the mastering engineer. Mixes reach the mastering engineers hands at all different levels of qualities and he goes to work from there to produce the final mix. The whole art is that he can take a Nirvana mix produced for a few hundred dollars and can make a better final product than with a multimillion dollar Celine Dion mix crafted with all the creature comforts and privilege that it entails. It is not about the quality of the mix going into the mastering engineer’s hands but what comes off his hands that matters the most.
Such absolute nonsense, without a quality recording, all the mastering engineer can do is turd polishing. :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mcsnare
You sir listen to shitty music on a questionably TT, stop buying albums previously owned by stoners ! ;)
Good point. Your a fool to play vinyl unless you invest a minimum $120,000 into your table, phone stage and cartridge. Then another $50,000 into 200 good albums to play. Otherwise, play digital. :)
 
Good point. Your a fool to play vinyl unless you invest a minimum $120,000 into your table, phone stage and cartridge. Then another $50,000 into 200 good albums to play. Otherwise, play digital. :)

not true. I gave a buddy of mine my college Denon DD turntable from 1980. He has some rock albums and is enjoying it very much. Total investment well under $1000. one simply has to know what gear to pick out and how to set it up properly.

If your claim was even remotely true, vinyl would’ve died out a long time ago. Let people enjoy what they enjoy.
 
In al seriousness, many people claiming their vinyl is so much better than digital have $100,000 into the whole of the vinyl rig. At an average of $300 for a excellent double reel classical music recording, you could get 330 amazing albums to play. The machine is only $10,000 for very very good. Your way further ahead as far as quality of playback to put vinyl money to tape and the rest to digital for the variety of music at your fingers. If your playing with a $17,000 vinyl setup like I am, your not going to extract anything superbly above what good digital can do. You might prefer some albums over digital, but its not earth shattering. The tapes on the other hand are. I have a $3500 tape deck and $2700 outboard preamp. Its way way way better than my other sources. Its a different stereo with a great tape in play.
 
Good point. Your a fool to play vinyl unless you invest a minimum $120,000 into your table, phone stage and cartridge. Then another $50,000 into 200 good albums to play. Otherwise, play digital. :)
I have around $10 K into my used TT included arms and cartridges. If you buy decent used albums, you get a lot for a extra $10 K.
 
not true. I gave a buddy of mine my college Denon DD turntable from 1980. He has some rock albums and is enjoying it very much. Total investment well under $1000. one simply has to know what gear to pick out and how to set it up properly.

If your claim was even remotely true, vinyl would’ve died out a long time ago. Let people enjoy what they enjoy.
I think you and your friend want to believe that. And you do believe it. And that makes you both happy. And you should keep spinning vinyl. But it does not make it a reality. I have the same story, just the opposite outcome. $5000 into vinyl and a Hifi Rose is just as good. I lived it with a Rega RP6, Allnic H1201 with a Denon and a Bobs SUT. And 2 pros that set up the table. It was not better than digital. It was different. And there were a few nice albums. Neither is sonically superior in any meaningful way.

I also have a friend with a $15,000 clear audio, very nice phono stage and cartridge. He stepped up to $89,000 plus in vinyl to best his digital. And I think he may be denying his remorse that it was not earth shattering. The sound that is. The expense was.
 
In al seriousness, many people claiming their vinyl is so much better than digital have $100,000 into the whole of the vinyl rig. At an average of $300 for a excellent double reel classical music recording, you could get 330 amazing albums to play. The machine is only $10,000 for very very good. Your way further ahead as far as quality of playback to put vinyl money to tape and the rest to digital for the variety of music at your fingers. If your playing with a $17,000 vinyl setup like I am, your not going to extract anything superbly above what good digital can do. You might prefer some albums over digital, but its not earth shattering. The tapes on the other hand are. I have a $3500 tape deck and $2700 outboard preamp. Its way way way better than my other sources. Its a different stereo with a great tape in play.

What if you have 5000 early and original pressings that you love, let the vinyl guy enjoy what he’s got and optimize the playback system if he wants. Why not just except that people make different choices and let them enjoy their hobbies the way they want?
 
I do prefer film, so I speak from a position of comfort. I roll my own film cartridges, develop and print on my lab. Have a few prints on private and public collections around the world.

From the hundreds of photographers I crossed paths with, I never found one that preferred film over digital because of quality/limitations over the last 15 years. It has nothing to do with the outcome, but about the process itself. The isolation, the slow feedback loop. Same in my case and all others that use film I know of. Of course we can debate if those two things are really separate. I don't think it is appropriate for this thread.

The differences from the 50s to now are about aesthetic and place in history, as there is nothing else to be about. Attributing aesthetic choices and general cultural and artistic movements to gear and tech is demeaning to the people that do the actual work. It is about intent and circumstance, nothing else. Don't let yourself be taken by low-fi analogies.
Well said. True from my experience.

I started with medium and large format color transparency film. When carefully printed I could get beautiful darkroom Cibachrome/Ilfochrome prints. It's a difficult process with necessary careful/arduous masking process to control the high contrast problems inherent in the media.

I then began getting my transparencies carefully drum scanned to very high resolution. This eventually enabled me to forgo the antiquated darkroom process and opened the brave new world of digital editing and printing on pigment ink printing.

At first, I missed some qualities of the Ilfochrome chemical process. There was a depth that I found missing. But eventually, with help from one the best fine art color printmakers in the US, I learned better the tremendous tools and art of digital printing which left the limitations of color darkroom printing far back in the dust.

Just on the mundane and basic subject of color fidelity, I could not disagree more with G.O.W about the comparison of film/chemical to digital photography. Color film photography is in the Stone Age compared to digital. With color film you are starting at an often grossly "colored", misrepresentation of nature. (Think of all those weird Kodachrome prints from your childhood.) It would take heroic efforts to fight the biases inherent in the film stock.

I can get far more true to life color with a full digital system from camera sensor to Photoshop editing to Inkjet printing. The delicate, nuanced controls available with digital editing are so much more advanced than the chemical/darkroom process. It's is a revelation and a world apart in quality.

It should go without saying that this refers to digital editing done by someone who knows what they are doing. These digital tools can (and often do) lead to monstrous results left to the devices of someone with no ability to control them.

I'm also not referring to the sub category of fine art black and white printing which is far more conducive to fine art printing than is color darkroom.

However, digital black and white printing can certainly equal the best darkroom black and white. Like anything worthwhile, it takes time and dedication to the art. Too many people make judgments based on tools used poorly.

This attempt to conflate digital audio and digital photography is brought up regularly and predictably by analog enthusiasts who feel the need to think that all analog processes are inherently superior.

I'll never change their minds, but at least with regards to photography, I can provide a reality check that might be useful to everyone else. Sorry for the long post!
 
Last edited:
What if you have 5000 early and original pressings that you love, let the vinyl guy enjoy what he’s got and optimize the playback system if he wants. Why not just except that people make different choices and let them enjoy their hobbies the way they want?
I view posting not as a way to change behaviors. Its more a way to provide opinions/information to lurkers that are questioning what path to take. No one is going to tell a person with 5000 albums to give up vinyl.

Normally I would think myself crazy to suggest tape. You have to develop relationships that are not open to everyone. Their are people out there with thousands of classical tapes. And they have hundreds that are sorted and of a very high quality. I played Brahms, Vivaldi and Handel today. I'm blown away how good it is. I actually played tape 2 of my Beethoven Symphony #6, three times back to back last night. Its so darn good I rewound it again and again to play it over. I never do that with any other source. I also played the tape 1 once through.

No one is getting close to that performance with vinyl without significant investment. Its not happening with an old Duel or JVC or Techniques. You also need something along the lines of an Allnic 5000 or better. And an Ortofon Anna D or better. Your putting out $55,000 or more with cables, racking etc. And you have to work to find the gem of a record that has it in the groove. These comments pertain to classical in particular. You could do very well with vinyl compared to my tapes with your Led Zepplin, Billy Joel, Cat Stevens, Steely Dan. They are all really good. But I find the realism of classical shines on tape. Not sure with my Thelonious Monk. That was pretty spectacular this morning too. But I do have a couple Ray Charles on Vinyl that are really really good. So who knows.
 
I also have a friend with a $15,000 clear audio, very nice phono stage and cartridge. He stepped up to $89,000 plus in vinyl to best his digital. And I think he may be denying his remorse that it was not earth shattering. The sound that is. The expense was.
What speakers and amps, and what sorts of records and music does he play
 
If it's compressed that's not the fault of the digital medium. It's the fault of the engineer who made it compressed and the record company who made him to.
While this is totally true, pragmatically it doesn't mean much at the end of the day if all the digital releases are junk because they are brick walled. I find it ironic that the medium with the worst dynamic range often has the best dynamic range because the digital version has been compressed to within an inch of its life to sound good on earbuds at the gym or in a car going 100mph with the windows open.
 
While this is totally true, pragmatically it doesn't mean much at the end of the day if all the digital releases are junk because they are brick walled. I find it ironic that the medium with the worst dynamic range often has the best dynamic range because the digital version has been compressed to within an inch of its life to sound good on earbuds at the gym or in a car going 100mph with the windows open.

What does "all the digital releases" mean? Classical music isn't brickwalled; usually record companies take pride in using the dynamic range available. Only in rare cases is there some obvious compression. Jazz mostly keeps a nice dynamic range as well, as do the better classic rock releases on digital (while in the latter case, some compression was standard fare already back in the day at the making of the record, for purposes of creating a certain sound; it's on the vinyl too).

Yes, a lot of today's pop and rock is severely compressed, but that's not what I mostly listen to. Most of my listening is classical, including lots of modern classical, and jazz.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wil
In al seriousness, many people claiming their vinyl is so much better than digital have $100,000 into the whole of the vinyl rig.
Anecdote: my return to vinyl (thankfully, I never sold my original collection) was off the back of listening to a £230 Rega RP1 with built-in phono stage(!) After a twenty year break from vinyl, I became curious about hearing a record again. Picked up the cheapest Rega, so that I could experiment at low cost, and span some records, and ... WOW!!!
 
This attempt to conflate digital audio and digital photography is brought up regularly and predictably by analog enthusiasts who feel the need to think that all analog processes are inherently superior.

95% of my listening is digital, yet I enjoy analog as well. I would be happy with listening 100% to either, but digital facilitates access to music, and simplifies storage. I have invested years in building my digital collection and annotating my albums in a custom web application of my own design. So I am hardly an "analog enthusiast" (with the exception of mono versions, which are sadly not often available in digital format, and cases where the digital versions have been clearly botched).

I make no parallel with photography, because the work of the artist, in this case, contrary to music, is inseparable from the medium. Also, in the case of photography, do you ever hear someone ask: is that picture accurate to the live event?

If Duke Ellington were alive today, I doubt he would care whether his recordings were issued in analog or digital! What's more important is that people listen.
 
Last edited:

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu