A silly serious question, sort of

[bill10907]

Prior to financial difficulties, I was running a wholly vinyl system comprised of an ARC PH8 phonostage, ARC REF 3 preamp, Clearaudio Performance SE table, and Stradivari V2 cartridge. Amp was Classe CA 2300. Cables were Cardas Clear Beyond speaker and Clear interconnects. Speakers were Thiel 3.6. I thought this system was pretty good and was a not-insignificant investment.
Now I have a digital system comprised of an ARC REF 3 preamp, Conrad Johnson Classic 60se amp, PS audio Perfectwave DAC w Bridge II (Ethernet fed), and Thiel 1.6 with SS1 sub fed by Cardas Golden Cross speaker. The digital system has 12 tubes and super warm speaker cables to soften the digital sound.
OK, now that the systems are out of the way, on to the good stuff (or not).
I have read a lot of vinyl vs digital debate on Audiogon, and it is seldom grounded in the context of actual stereo systems, or terms that exist outside good, bad, better, etc. FWIW, at sufficient volume, vinyl generated a feeling of musicians being in my listening room. But, as many of my records are now 40 years old, many are only VG. Compared to digital, those records lacked resolution and were often harsh. With digital, those recordings sound great and I hear components of songs I had missed with a crappy record. Also, I can stream a world of music, achieve pretty good resolution, and a listenable sound. What I miss though is the "magic" of good vinyl, the sense that musicians were in my listening room, and a life-like quality to voices and instruments. Whats more, sound just floated in the air. My good friend has an all McIntosh system with Sonus Faber Futuras. Fabulous system, but it also lacks that "magic," even though it is worth a ton compared to my system. My question, which may be a silly question, is whether this "magic" is attainable with digital? I wish I had a better word than "magic," but is such a hard quality to describe or name. When just background sound or listening at moderate levels, digital is fantastic, and it takes a considerable investment, I think, to bring vinyl resolution to this level. But when listening at live-music levels, what I consider a listening session, digital is just not there. Thoughts from those who have had similar experiences, please.

 

[dorch]

Short answer – yes digital can do this! (at least for me).

It does of course depend on exactly what you are looking for and what “flavor” of music you like. Powerful and energetic, highly detailed, warm and soothing, atmospheric and so on.

As with analog, digital does take investment and time to give a realistic experience if that's what you are after. Once you are past “its just 1´s and 0´s”, have looked at what professionals say (Sound on Sound magazine is a good way in), you will perhaps appreciate that “everything matters” – cables, network , isolation, servers, DAC type and so on.

The full-volume, live experience will, of course, depend on the aural cues that you personally use to identify things as real. For me effective delivery of volume contrasts (quiet to suddenly very loud), good creation of ambient sound from the venue, the performers and even the audience, realism of instruments (especially things like piano) all contribute to that feeling.

Everyone will have their own preferences and views and its probable that nothing can be the same as really “being there” – as the current lack of being able to go to live concerts really emphasizes – but for me the best digital systems can do this. With some added benefits of lower noise levels, greater choice etc.

 

[wil]

Yes, Digital can/will get you there. In the end, it will still come down to the quality of the recording/mastering. And this applies to both media.

 

[ddk]

Prior to financial difficulties, I was running a wholly vinyl system comprised of an ARC PH8 phonostage, ARC REF 3 preamp, Clearaudio Performance SE table, and Stradivari V2 cartridge. Amp was Classe CA 2300. Cables were Cardas Clear Beyond speaker and Clear interconnects. Speakers were Thiel 3.6. I thought this system was pretty good and was a not-insignificant investment.
Now I have a digital system comprised of an ARC REF 3 preamp, Conrad Johnson Classic 60se amp, PS audio Perfectwave DAC w Bridge II (Ethernet fed), and Thiel 1.6 with SS1 sub fed by Cardas Golden Cross speaker. The digital system has 12 tubes and super warm speaker cables to soften the digital sound.
OK, now that the systems are out of the way, on to the good stuff (or not).
I have read a lot of vinyl vs digital debate on Audiogon, and it is seldom grounded in the context of actual stereo systems, or terms that exist outside good, bad, better, etc. FWIW, at sufficient volume, vinyl generated a feeling of musicians being in my listening room. But, as many of my records are now 40 years old, many are only VG. Compared to digital, those records lacked resolution and were often harsh. With digital, those recordings sound great and I hear components of songs I had missed with a crappy record. Also, I can stream a world of music, achieve pretty good resolution, and a listenable sound. What I miss though is the "magic" of good vinyl, the sense that musicians were in my listening room, and a life-like quality to voices and instruments. Whats more, sound just floated in the air. My good friend has an all McIntosh system with Sonus Faber Futuras. Fabulous system, but it also lacks that "magic," even though it is worth a ton compared to my system. My question, which may be a silly question, is whether this "magic" is attainable with digital? I wish I had a better word than "magic," but is such a hard quality to describe or name. When just background sound or listening at moderate levels, digital is fantastic, and it takes a considerable investment, I think, to bring vinyl resolution to this level. But when listening at live-music levels, what I consider a listening session, digital is just not there. Thoughts from those who have had similar experiences, please.

What you're missing isn't because it's digital, a good CD playback setup will give you the magic and even challenge many analog front ends but you can't get blood out a stone and computer audio is a boulder! It's just the nature of the beast and you'll never get that magic from a computer front end no matter how much you spend or what you buy. It's easy money for a dealer but we refuse to sell them.

david

 

[iain]

slightly off topic, but my vinyl sound started to deteriorate before I noticed that Many of my records were getting mouldy. A record cleaning machine made them sound better than they ever had, but it took a long time to clean them. I hadn't been able to see the mould at first, but could certainly hear it as a lack of resolution and harshness

 

[rando]

Digital magic is a marketing point as much as analog magic was. 90+ years on you can more easily combine the right set of equipment than it was possible to looking at it sitting on a showroom floor. Analog is mature in innumerous ways the digital experience is not.

I believe if you step back a little you will notice that tuning a system solely for streaming is a very high energy, high maintenance, task currently. In this larger topic I'd point out 'the label' doesn't always provide audiophile preferred versions or remasters to streaming services. What they choose to provide could change mid-track at any time or date. I'd second idea to explore other sources a bit further if your desires tend towards casually repeatable playback. Then use streaming to explore new music and higher than RBCD options where they exist. I know, rebuying some/all your music in a new format.

Have you tried any known good quality 192/24 vinyl rips? Unearthed a well captured one in my library few days ago possessed of that floating in the air quality. HDTT releases are also rightly popular among many here.

 

[andromedaaudio]

To me digital system magic is possible , but the system needs an old school Mark levinson DAC , 2000 s era .
Or a Zanden tube DAC , all the rest i ve heard so far i would just shut of after 2 -3 tracks

 

[wil]

What you're missing isn't because it's digital, a good CD playback setup will give you the magic and even challenge many analog front ends but you can't get blood out a stone and computer audio is a boulder! It's just the nature of the beast and you'll never get that magic from a computer front end no matter how much you spend or what you buy. It's easy money for a dealer but we refuse to sell them.

david

Well, there you go -- the Word from on high...

This reminds me of the kind of statements I used to hear in my profession (fine art photography). First (before my time) it was that color photography could never be as "worthy" as black and white. Then it was that digital capture and printing could never, never equal chemical photography. It took a few years before this notion was shown the door. The parallels are hard to ignore.

 

[ddk]

Well, there you go -- the Word from on high...

This reminds me of the kind of statements I used to hear in my profession (fine art photography). First (before my time) it was that color photography could never be as "worthy" as black and white. Then it was that digital capture and printing could never, never equal chemical photography. It took a few years before this notion was shown the door. The parallels are hard to ignore.

You can disagree with my comment but what I said has nothing to do with from high or from low, it's how it is and a direct reply to OP's question.

Your photography analogy is inaccurate, I never said anything about digital vs analog as a medium only about computer front end.

There's very little in common with high end film properly hand printed and digital photography photoshop'd to death inkjet prints, you should know that as a commercial photographer dealing with light. With digital you do lighting with analog film you capture the light. Same is true for 35mm Cinerama with analog surround sound vs digital movies and THX surround, nothing in common visually, sonically or as an overall experience.

david

 

[wil]

You can disagree with my comment but what I said has nothing to do with from high or from low, it's how it is and a direct reply to OP's question.

Your photography analogy is inaccurate, I never said anything about digital vs analog as a medium only about computer front end.

There's very little in common with high end film properly hand printed and digital photography photoshop'd to death inkjet prints, you should know that as a commercial photographer dealing with light. With digital you do lighting with analog film you capture the light. Same is true for 35mm Cinerama with analog surround sound vs digital movies and THX surround, nothing in common visually, sonically or as an overall experience.

david

No offense, David, but your comments re photography, digital or analog, are just misinformed. I don't want to derail this poor thread which seems destined to devolve into another digital/analog dead-in, but since many audiophiles like to compare photography and audio, I'll just point out:

-- Digital photography does not equal "photoshopped to death." Such a shallow statement indicates a point or view which has nothing to do with fine art print making in the digital realm. Photoshop is a tool which can be use poorly or artfully. It's just a set of tools -- the quality of the resulting print is 100% in the hands of the user.

-- Light is captured the same way (through the aperture of a lens) whether upon pixels or silver halide crystals. The distinction you make between digital "making" light and analog "capturing" makes no sense -- both are recording the light, but on different technologies.

While I respect your accomplishments and knowledge in analog Audio, maybe your understanding and experience of computer audio, like digital photography, might not be as deep as you believe.

 

[ddk]

No offense, David, but your comments re photography, digital or analog, are just misinformed. I don't want to derail this poor thread which seems destined to devolve into another digital/analog dead-in, but since many audiophiles like to compare photography and audio, I'll just point out:

I wasn't comparing digital and analog audio I only replied to OP regarding computer audio and his comment missing the magic.

-- Digital photography does not equal "photoshopped to death." Such a shallow statement indicates a point or view which has nothing to do with fine art print making in the digital realm. Photoshop is a tool which can be use poorly or artfully. It's just a set of tools -- the quality of the resulting print is 100% in the hands of the user.

I never said that digital equals photoshop'd to death just used the extreme example vs a high end hand print to point out there is plenty of difference between the two. Quality of file and experience of the user definitely matters but unlike hand prints the user is constrained by the inkjet's output.

-- Light is captured the same way (through the aperture of a lens) whether upon pixels or silver halide crystals. The distinction you make between digital "making" light and analog "capturing" makes no sense -- both are recording the light, but on different technologies.

That was the point wil, they're different technologies and light isn't captured the same way nor do they share the same output qualities.

While I respect your accomplishments and knowledge in analog Audio, maybe your understanding and experience of computer audio, like digital photography, might not be as deep as you believe.

I might not be a very good photographer but I had darkrooms since as far back as I can remember even owned a commercial lab for 12 years in the Far East, pretty sure I can diffrenciate between film and digital photography. Been using photoshop commercially since mid 90's and 20+ years of digital photography gives me at least a little experience ; but you're right about none of this having anything to do with the OP and I don't want to continue with photography analogies either, they're moot.

My experience with computer audio is mostly limited to having been told that this is "the best" on numerous occasions by people who know all about it, never heard what OP refers to as "magic" even once. Exactly why I never went for it myself and if that limits my exposure fine, I'll change my mind if proven wrong. OP's question was very specific, he used the word "magic" that's what I addressed with my response.

david

 

[Lagonda]

I wasn't comparing digital and analog audio I only replied to OP regarding computer audio and his comment missing the magic.

I never said that digital equals photoshop'd to death just used the extreme example vs a high end hand print to point out there is plenty of difference between the two. Quality of file and experience of the user definitely matters but unlike hand prints the user is constrained by the inkjet's output.

That was the point wil, they're different technologies and light isn't captured the same way nor do they share the same output qualities.


I might not be a very good photographer but I had darkrooms since as far back as I can remember even owned a commercial lab for 12 years in the Far East, pretty sure I can know the differences between film and digital photography. Been using photoshop commercially since mid 90's and 20+ years of digital photography gives me at least a little experience ; but you're right about none of this having anything to do with the OP and I don't want to continue with photography analogies either, they're moot.

My experience with computer audio is mostly limited to having been told that this is "the best" on numerous occasions by people who know all about it, never heard what OP refers to as "magic" even once. Exactly why I never went for it myself and if that limits my exposure fine, I'll change my mind if proven wrong.

david

But the real reason you had your own dark room back then was because you could not have the pictures you took in your single days developed by strangers David. I remember a few embarrassing moments picking up photos i had gotten commercially developed before digital

 

[Lagonda]

The Polaroid camera was definitely not developed for it's picture quality, but every playboy owned one

 

[BruceD]

The Polaroid camera was definitely not developed for it's picture quality, but every playboy owned one

Maybe not altogether--if you look at the work of Dr Land's Muse Marie Cosindas use of the Medium.

I had the fortune to view some of her original 10 X 8 Film Polaroids in NY for a Helena Rubenstein Campaign when I worked as

Annie Liebowitz's Assistant in the late 70's.

Apologies for the digression to the Thread poster.

BruceD

 

[stehno]

Prior to financial difficulties, I was running a wholly vinyl system comprised of an ARC PH8 phonostage, ARC REF 3 preamp, Clearaudio Performance SE table, and Stradivari V2 cartridge. Amp was Classe CA 2300. Cables were Cardas Clear Beyond speaker and Clear interconnects. Speakers were Thiel 3.6. I thought this system was pretty good and was a not-insignificant investment.
Now I have a digital system comprised of an ARC REF 3 preamp, Conrad Johnson Classic 60se amp, PS audio Perfectwave DAC w Bridge II (Ethernet fed), and Thiel 1.6 with SS1 sub fed by Cardas Golden Cross speaker. The digital system has 12 tubes and super warm speaker cables to soften the digital sound.
OK, now that the systems are out of the way, on to the good stuff (or not).
I have read a lot of vinyl vs digital debate on Audiogon, and it is seldom grounded in the context of actual stereo systems, or terms that exist outside good, bad, better, etc. FWIW, at sufficient volume, vinyl generated a feeling of musicians being in my listening room. But, as many of my records are now 40 years old, many are only VG. Compared to digital, those records lacked resolution and were often harsh. With digital, those recordings sound great and I hear components of songs I had missed with a crappy record. Also, I can stream a world of music, achieve pretty good resolution, and a listenable sound. What I miss though is the "magic" of good vinyl, the sense that musicians were in my listening room, and a life-like quality to voices and instruments. Whats more, sound just floated in the air. My good friend has an all McIntosh system with Sonus Faber Futuras. Fabulous system, but it also lacks that "magic," even though it is worth a ton compared to my system. My question, which may be a silly question, is whether this "magic" is attainable with digital? I wish I had a better word than "magic," but is such a hard quality to describe or name. When just background sound or listening at moderate levels, digital is fantastic, and it takes a considerable investment, I think, to bring vinyl resolution to this level. But when listening at live-music levels, what I consider a listening session, digital is just not there. Thoughts from those who have had similar experiences, please.

When I hear or read the word "magic" when another is describing a playback presentation, I like to substitute it with "believability". Still very broad brushed but it narrows things down just a bit to cause one to think, where is my listening perspective? Are the musicians here playing right in front of me in my somewhat smallish room? Or is my listening perspective believable enough that my ears have been transported to somewhere in the recording hall, even if it's near the men's restroom?

Speaking of which, from a performance perspective you don't ever want the musicians to sound as if they're in your listening room. In fact, about the only thing worse would be if it sounded like the musicians were playing in your walk-in closet. Do you really want Mahler's Symphony of 1000 to sound as though they are playing in your room? How about a much smaller mariachi band playing in your room? At live performance volume levels, you'd be running out of the room before the first notes finished reverberating with both ears bleeding. Even at half of the live performance volumes.

When you use the word magic or believability, imagine yourself in a small concert hall or large recording hall with your ears planted a few rows deep into the audience and the musicians on the soundstage. IOW, there should always be a good perceived distance between the performers and you. Much of how that distance is perceived at a live event is the volumes of ambient information which is the result of the musical notes traveling about the soundstage merging and melding with other notes, forming new notes, and interacting with the concert / recording hall's boundaries as it flows toward you. Many don't realize it, but much of the volumes of a live performance's ambient info is embedded in most every recording, even those recordings some may lable as inferior-engineered recordings. A truly resolving playback system will ensure much of this ambient info remains audible at the speaker but getting there isn't so easy. Especially if we never try.

Either vinyl or digital has the potential to get you there as it's not necessarily the format that's bottlenecking. But I definitely lean toward digital to make this happen.

If per chance, you still prefer the musicians in your listening room perspective, you might wanna' stock up on room acoustic treatments. Lot's of 'em.

 

[wil]

I wasn't comparing digital and analog audio I only replied to OP regarding computer audio and his comment missing the magic.

I never said that digital equals photoshop'd to death just used the extreme example vs a high end hand print to point out there is plenty of difference between the two. Quality of file and experience of the user definitely matters but unlike hand prints the user is constrained by the inkjet's output.

That was the point wil, they're different technologies and light isn't captured the same way nor do they share the same output qualities.


I might not be a very good photographer but I had darkrooms since as far back as I can remember even owned a commercial lab for 12 years in the Far East, pretty sure I can diffrenciate between film and digital photography. Been using photoshop commercially since mid 90's and 20+ years of digital photography gives me at least a little experience ; but you're right about none of this having anything to do with the OP and I don't want to continue with photography analogies either, they're moot.

My experience with computer audio is mostly limited to having been told that this is "the best" on numerous occasions by people who know all about it, never heard what OP refers to as "magic" even once. Exactly why I never went for it myself and if that limits my exposure fine, I'll change my mind if proven wrong. OP's question was very specific, he used the word "magic" that's what I addressed with my response.

david

I agree it's a good idea to keep one's mind open to new possibilities especially when they challenge one's prior conclusions. The comment about computer based audio being a "boulder" upon which no "magic" could be extracted comes across as if your attitude was written in stone long ago!

The comments about digital photography and printmaking also seem to cling to a stone-age mentality (sorry for hammering this metaphor). I was taught digital printmaking by one of the best fine art printmakers is the country. He used be a master of Dye Transfer printing which was believed at the time to be the peak expression of fine art color printmaking. He took the same dedication to mastering digital printing and he'll tell you now that his digitally produced ink jet prints are more subtle and expressive than his best dye transfers.

 

[ddk]

I agree it's a good idea to keep one's mind open to new possibilities especially when they challenge one's prior conclusions. The comment about computer based audio being a "boulder" upon which no "magic" could be extracted comes across as if your attitude was written in stone long ago!

The comments about digital photography and printmaking also seem to cling to a stone-age mentality (sorry for hammering this metaphor). I was taught digital printmaking by one of the best fine art printmakers is the country. He used be a master of Dye Transfer printing which was believed at the time to be the peak expression of fine art color printmaking. He took the same dedication to mastering digital printing and he'll tell you now that his digitally produced ink jet prints are more subtle and expressive than his best dye transfers.

Computer audio comment was based on current and recent experiences.

We digress again , call me a Flintstone but it doesn't change the fact that there's a difference between digital and film photography/cinematography. I don't deny the quality and capabilities of inkjets and use them for commercial and larger scale personal work more than ever but as a neanderthal and all things being equal still prefer my old Fuji Pictrography machines and ultimately film and silver prints where I find the magic even if I can't go back back there anymore.We're not disagreeing about the state of art in digital photography, today's or even that of 20 years ago which was already excellent, we simply have different preferences.

david

 

[thedudeabides]

No offense, David, but your comments re photography, digital or analog, are just misinformed. I don't want to derail this poor thread which seems destined to devolve into another digital/analog dead-in,

If this D vs A discussion were a beaten horse, that poor animal would have died at least a thousand deaths (and counting) by now. As I've said before, it doesn't matter what medium you use, it's the message and emotional impact of the music that matters.

 

[ddk]

If this D vs A discussion were a beaten horse, that poor animal would have died at least a thousand deaths (and counting) by now. As I've said before, it doesn't matter what medium you use, it's the message and emotional impact of the music that matters.

It was never a D vs A conversation nor was the OP about that.

david

 

[Gregm]

My experience re your question is, yes you can get magic with digital at realistic amplitudes.
You need a top notch digital front end (In my case a Select II & an audio optimised music server, all cabled accordingly).
To surpass this in vinyl, you need, beyond the obvious outstanding TT and arm, a hi dynamic range cartridge (say, an Allaerts, a top Clearaudio or ZYX, etc) and a superlative phono & cabling to match.

For all the limitations and the frustrations (compulsory mqa, etc) digital has opened a rich world of music — as you note.

At the moment i’m listening to Sting “Still My Beating Heart” (24/96) on my second system, at realistic levels, and Sting is plausibly in my room — more or less. But with my Select II, it wasn’t about being here — I was there.

In my book, thats the magic!