Can digital get to vinyl sound and at what price?
- Thread starter ScottK
- Start date
I'll preface my question below that it has nothing to do with the ongoing vinyl/digital debate
What changes if any did you make to the digital set-up itself that further enhanced the performance that you have realized; or it simply the same set-up benefited by room dynamics? I may have missed the specifics if previously mentioned. Thanks
Your going down a road with a logic that is somewhat flawed. If I understand you corecrly. I hear you say, In any system you are able to develop a vinyl setup that is better than digital. I can't fault the thinking that if I put my efforts and reaources into vinyl, it would become.the best source. That is what I have been saying. But that does not prove vinyl is better than digital. It just means you worked toward making it better.
I changed a choke in the crossover and put the stereo in a new room. The platform and footers are the same. But they are on a carpet, not a stand. The cables are all the same. The power is through a Torus RM20 in a dedicated 12 awg wire instead of a WM45 with a #10 branch to a duplex.
No you are not understanding correctly, I am saying the best digital systems will never beat the best vinyl systems. The top 5, or top 10, systems if you go around will always be the good analog ones
However, digital can easily sound better than the vinyl if compared next to each other in the same system, and the vinyl either hasn't been set up correctly, has some bad component in the chain not to your liking, or is using bad to meh records. Just comparing next to each is a good data point at times but does not take away from the bigger picture.
You should try just saying what you want to say in a clear, concise manner.
What music is played. And are these mostly $1M systems based on horns?
I meet a lot of people that are digital with vinyl they don't use because they can't hear a consistent difference. These are very nice $300k systems. Sometimes when you measure for a trend, you throw out the worst and best to get a more accurate general trend.
Also, since we're talking about playback performance based upon the pinnacle of execution, have any of the finest systems you've heard when playing digital used a file coppied from a master tape, recorded with a extreme pro setup such as Bruce would make. Then played it through a top flight digital playback chain?
I have heard people say done properly, it's hard to tell what's the digital filinW.and what's the tape. So if the tape plays better than the vinyl, why wouldn't that digital file properly procured, supersede the performance of the vinyl.
I have heard people say done properly, it's hard to tell what's the digital filinW.and what's the tape. So if the tape plays better than the vinyl, why wouldn't that digital file properly procured, supersede the performance of the vinyl.
i have a number of these HD transfers; the actual source tapes and original vinyl are better. the digital is not fully transparent. the vinyl is more complete. but HDTT digital is very good....and good enough. and sure, it can fool people unless you can actually do a head to head compare.
the vinyl is a much bigger challenge for the tape than the digital transfer. it takes the very finest tape playback to surpass the vinyl.
but any anecdotal result is possible. there is no proof out there to get your hands on.
Last edited:
I suggest stop meeting these people unless they are giving you a contract for their power supply. Then upgrade their power and tell them wow now your digital really sounds better than your vinyl. They will love it.
Another way to look at it is people who have top notch, digital and top notch vinyl many times find they are very close. Close enough that the source material starts becoming to defining factor.
If that be the case and other influences such as power or room can have a profound impact, why worry about whether it's a digital or vinyl source. Spend your time worrying about how well is your room set up and how well have you addressed feeding that system. You won't know the difference if you're not making a direct comparison. Yet, I still hear day after day incredible performance, from a new room, and a choke.
It is probably far more important to do something such as changing your speakers and amps than it is to fret over a digital or vinyl source. @bonzo75
Wouldn't you say moving to horns and SET would be far more impactful than the difference between digital and vinyl.
If that be the case and other influences such as power or room can have a profound impact, why worry about whether it's a digital or vinyl source. Spend your time worrying about how well is your room set up and how well have you addressed feeding that system. You won't know the difference if you're not making a direct comparison. Yet, I still hear day after day incredible performance, from a new room, and a choke.
It is probably far more important to do something such as changing your speakers and amps than it is to fret over a digital or vinyl source. @bonzo75
Wouldn't you say moving to horns and SET would be far more impactful than the difference between digital and vinyl.
Maybe you have not listened to a "properly set up" digital system either?
You probably cannot give a single example of a CD that sounds good!
IMHO every component in the signal chain is important but if source is not very good the rest cannot fix it no matter how good they are. If vinyl is the source then quality of records, cartridge, tonearm turntable and phono defines how good the source is. Otherwise with low quality source it’s no different than watching a DVD resolution (480p) on an 8K panel.
I ripped records, cleaned and mastered them professionally to be rereleased on vinyl. In short all I can say is A/D conversion sucks.
IMHO a vinyl setup is necessary if you want to listen old or new all analog recordings faithful to the original sound.
Just like A/D conversion any process done digitally inside the computer also affects the sound. It slightly wipes out life and enjoyment somehow. There is no such a thing like transparent process. If you think otherwise it only means you don’t have a good enough setup to reveal it.
I ripped records, cleaned and mastered them professionally to be rereleased on vinyl. In short all I can say is A/D conversion sucks.
IMHO a vinyl setup is necessary if you want to listen old or new all analog recordings faithful to the original sound.
Just like A/D conversion any process done digitally inside the computer also affects the sound. It slightly wipes out life and enjoyment somehow. There is no such a thing like transparent process. If you think otherwise it only means you don’t have a good enough setup to reveal it.
Yes, exactly. No downstream electronics can correct problems starting at the source. There, it all begins with the turntable. Just as a conductor is the orchestra's clock, the turntable is the origin of time for all that follows.
There's a lot of vinyl bring produced today that includes a digital stage, and I'm not sure the consensus is that it's worse.
Older material, provided good quality original source material (master tapes, etc...) are still availablecan also sound really good in digital format, sometimes better than some previous LP versions.
When it comes to playback of vinyl, if you use an ADC and DAC, you introduce additional steps, but you also remove steps: the phono preamp and analog EQ (RIAA). So it's not that simple... This is how I listen to vinyl and I certainly don't get the impression that it sucks life out of the recording. Of course, the equipment used matters.
Last edited:
The other thing to consider is that, in order to judge the sonics of an ADC, you need a DAC. If the DAC doesn't perform optimally, of course you will think the A/D conversion is lacking and removes life and enjoyment.
Of your own account you have very limited experience of combining vinyl and digital. Get back to us when you do.
Similar threads
