Can digital get to vinyl sound and at what price?

[the sound of Tao]

Separation of instruments is a macro attribute and detail but not inner detail. Why describe it that way? For example, I find Lyra to have details, but not the same inner details as vdh, Dava, or red sparrow on vyger. I find koetsu to be not detailed.

i find big SS amps capable of having details, but not the inner details of good sets based systems.

Genuine question Ked ( I try not to do too many ingenuine questions)… I noticed the other day when you were talking about sonic cues you mentioned in your list macro dynamics and I wondered why not macro and micro dynamics or just dynamics?

I do think I get essentially what you are pointing to but would you characterise inner details as being fine resolution, a rendering of timbre or sonic textures, micro dynamics or some combination of all these? I do think that these can be seen as some of the characteristic strengths that can be found in a combination of SET and horn in particular and at some varying levels in both great digital and analogue.

 

[hopkins]

Do you? There is reason we are here, what is your reason?

Share my experience and learn from others' ? Obviously Audiogod has no experience to share and is not interested in learning from others, at least not in this thread. It's your time to waste with a troll.

 

[AudioGod]

Share my experience and learn from others' ? Obviously Audiogod has no experience to share and is not interested in learning from others, at least not in this thread. It's your time to waste with a troll.

Lol
I've been an audiophile for about 25 years .
I probably have more experience with pro audio gear more than anyone else here
I'm not a mainstream audiophile
So my experience may be different than yours
But I don't judge people or call them trolls just Becaue they have a different opinion than mine.

 

[hopkins]

Lol
I've been an audiophile for about 25 years .
I probably have more experience with pro audio gear more than anyone else here
I'm not a mainstream audiophile
So my experience may be different than yours
But I don't judge people or call them trolls just Becaue they have a different opinion than mine.

Whatever your experience may be, you have not said anything in this thread to demonstrate that you have any, and nothing to show that you have any interest in learning from others. So why are you even posting here? I don't know.

 

[AudioGod]

Whatever your experience may be, you have not said anything in this thread to demonstrate that you have any, and nothing to show that you have any interest in learning from others. So why are you even posting here? I don't know.

That's just your opinion about me.
It's not an axiom or a scientific fact or anything like that.

 

[hopkins]

That's just your opinion about me.
It's not an axiom or a scientific fact or anything like that.

WTF?

 

[AudioGod]

WTF?

Dude
What do you want from me?

 

[chuck]

But I'm more into Analytical and accurate sound .
I don't even need to enjoy the sound , I just want to hear the recorded music as close as possible to the original master.

Many on this forum assume that a system must have "musical" distortion to sound good. My rig was built to achieve exactly the same goal. My Boulder 3060 amp has THD of .0006%, the Boulder 1110 is similar. The Boulder 2150 amps measured so well it taxed Stereophile's measuring tools. The YG Sonja 1.3 had "excellent measured performance" - John Atkinson, Stereophile. My XVi are even better. There is no speaker or amp that measures poorly that will achieve the goal. As far as sound, my rig is spectacular. IMO better than any so called "musical" system I have ever heard and I have heard many.

When I first got a Boulder amp I was told by the experienced audio people that it needed a tube preamp to offset the amp. I believed them and had one of the best tube preamps for years, an ARC Ref40. It sounded very tube, the neutral amp just played the tube sound. When I got the Boulder preamp the sound was much better, clearer, with more musical density, more information. It added to the strength of the amp and the YGs instead of working against them.

There are many actual experts that say excellent measured performance and accuracy are the goal. Alon Wolf from Magico said so in the M7 YT video, YG founder Yoav Geva, Boulder founder Jeff Nelson.

 

[AudioGod]

Many on this forum assume that a system must have "musical" distortion to sound good. My rig was built to achieve exactly the same goal. My Boulder 3060 amp has THD of .0006%, the Boulder 1110 is similar. The Boulder 2150 amps measured so well it taxed Stereophile's measuring tools. The YG Sonja 1.3 had "excellent measured performance" - John Atkinson, Stereophile. My XVi are even better. There is no speaker or amp that measures poorly that will achieve the goal. As far as sound, my rig is spectacular. IMO better than any so called "musical" system I have ever heard and I have heard many.

When I first got a Boulder amp I was told by the experienced audio people that it needed a tube preamp to offset the amp. I believed them and had one of the best tube preamps for years, an ARC Ref40. It sounded very tube, the neutral amp just played the tube sound. When I got the Boulder preamp the sound was much better, clearer, with more musical density, more information. It added to the strength of the amp and the YGs instead of working against them.

There are many actual experts that say excellent measured performance and accuracy are the goal. Alon Wolf from Magico said so in the M7 YT video, YG founder Yoav Geva, Boulder founder Jeff Nelson.

EXACTLY .
Thank you.
I agree with every word of yours .
Finally someone who gets what I'm saying

 

[hopkins]

Dude
What do you want from me?

Maybe something more interesting than spewing ad nauseum the same textbook statements about digital ? There is nothing you have said in this thread that could not have come out of a Wikipedia page.

 

[AudioGod]

Maybe something more interesting than spewing ad nauseum the same textbook statements about digital ? There is nothing you have said in this thread that could not have come out of a Wikipedia page.

I'll try to be more original in the future

 

[hopkins]

Many on this forum assume that a system must have "musical" distortion to sound good.

I believe your premise is wrong. What you don't understand is why everyone does not have the gear you use and claim to be the best based on the manufacturers' marketing and a few specs?

 

[Rexp]

Many on this forum assume that a system must have "musical" distortion to sound good. My rig was built to achieve exactly the same goal. My Boulder 3060 amp has THD of .0006%, the Boulder 1110 is similar. The Boulder 2150 amps measured so well it taxed Stereophile's measuring tools. The YG Sonja 1.3 had "excellent measured performance" - John Atkinson, Stereophile. My XVi are even better. There is no speaker or amp that measures poorly that will achieve the goal. As far as sound, my rig is spectacular. IMO better than any so called "musical" system I have ever heard and I have heard many.

When I first got a Boulder amp I was told by the experienced audio people that it needed a tube preamp to offset the amp. I believed them and had one of the best tube preamps for years, an ARC Ref40. It sounded very tube, the neutral amp just played the tube sound. When I got the Boulder preamp the sound was much better, clearer, with more musical density, more information. It added to the strength of the amp and the YGs instead of working against them.

There are many actual experts that say excellent measured performance and accuracy are the goal. Alon Wolf from Magico said so in the M7 YT video, YG founder Yoav Geva, Boulder founder Jeff Nelson.

Yes Boulder amps measure well and sound good but this thread is about digital vs vinyl and the distortion embedded in some audio files and created by some digital playback systems is, as yet unmeasurable yet easily heard.

 

[AudioGod]

Yes Boulder amps measure well and sound good but this thread is about digital vs vinyl and the distortion embedded in some audio files and created by some digital playback systems is, as yet unmeasurable yet easily heard.

Lol
So it's like dark matter ?

 

[exupgh12]

I just want to hear the recorded music as close as possible to the original master.

Without being the individual who recorded and edited the original master, it's impossible to ascertain what the authentic master sound was. Therefore, your assumption lacks a factual basis or foundation.

You can't do that with vinyl .

yes you can, (analogue master for instance) but your arguing just for the argument not for listening.

I understand that we share a common background, and I'd like to express my thoughts honestly but kindly. While I respect your interest in listening to graphs, it seems that it might not align with the typical interests or focus of this hobby or forum, in my perception. Everyone has their unique preferences, and it's possible that this particular interest might not resonate widely within this context.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Neutral, flat and transparent means the system does not add anything to the sound. It does not mean it takes away what is already in the signal. It should not render anything flat and lifeless. By definition, a system with no sound signature of its own should reproduce exactly how the signal was recorded. If the recording is already flat and lifeless, it will remain so. I guess some people do like systems that add colour and "life" to flat and uninteresting recordings, but that kind of system will only do well with a small proportion of recordings.

The recording can only hope to reveal what was contained in the original performance and contained within the quality of the music. Musicality is so often written off as some inaccurate and untruthful component that glosses over neutrality but musicality isn’t an added synthetic… it’s the fundamental reality in a great performance of music. If a system strips out musicality and the soul and spirit of a performance when it’s been captured authentically in a recording then that’s not neutrality… that’s a crime.

 

[AudioGod]

Without being the individual who recorded and edited the original master, it's impossible to ascertain what the authentic master sound was. Therefore, your assumption lacks a factual basis or foundation.

yes you can, (analogue master for instance) but your arguing just for the argument not for listening.

I understand that we share a common background, and I'd like to express my thoughts honestly but kindly. While I respect your interest in listening to graphs, it seems that it might not align with the typical interests or focus of this hobby or forum, in my perception. Everyone has their unique preferences, and it's possible that this particular interest might not resonate widely within this context.

And yet I still feel that there's room for a more objective than a subjective approach even in WBF.
I'm not listening to graphs .
Like I said I like pro audio gear and have experience with it, and I know good accurate sound when I hear it.
I'm not a mainstream audiophile that's for sure .
What's surprising to me is that you have Magicos and Alon has the exact same approach as me.
Everything is science based and measurements based ( especially now when they use the Klippel machine )
So yours basically saying his approach is wrong ?

 

[hopkins]

Many on this forum assume that a system must have "musical" distortion to sound good. My rig was built to achieve exactly the same goal. My Boulder 3060 amp has THD of .0006%, the Boulder 1110 is similar. The Boulder 2150 amps measured so well it taxed Stereophile's measuring tools.

P.S. if you want to judge a system only by numbers, then take a look at my amp, which has a measured THD of < 0.001% (I assume they did not have the highest precision equipment to reach lower numbers) - but that is from the digital input to the speaker output! So that would have to be compared, in your case, to a measurement of the cumulative distortion of your DAC+preamp+amp (and related interconnects)... Hard to beat.

But there are many reasons why it may not be everyone's cup of tea.

https://www.ecdesigns.nl/00dc/powerdac-sx.pdf

By the way, according to the manufacturer himself, THD numbers don't tell the whole story.

 

[ssfas]

And yet I still feel that there's room for a more objective than a subjective approach even in WBF.
I'm not listening to graphs .
Like I said I like pro audio gear and have experience with it, and I know good accurate sound when I hear it.
I'm not a mainstream audiophile that's for sure .
What's surprising to me is that you have Magicos and Alon has the exact same approach as me.
Everything is science based and measurements based ( especially now when they use the Klippel machine )
So yours basically saying his approach is wrong ?

I had an all-in-one system for about 6 years that had THD of 0.00025%. I built a new music room and found it rather dry. I now use an integrated amplifier with THD of 0.007% (I never actually looked before). Does that imply it’s less accurate? It can easily convey the difference in resolution of a Holo May DAC (amongst the best measuring) and a less resolving DAC. It is just a whole lot more enjoyable to listen to.

The speakers I use are far more relaxed than any studio monitors I’ve heard, but are full of insight and detail, and can create an amazing soundstage. I went to a demo and decided inside an hour that was the sound I wanted. I never read a review or looked at a measurement.

I couldn’t give a fig about what the recording engineer heard. Quite a lot of what I listen to are musicians and singers I’ve heard live in Recital rooms, concert halls and opera houses, and for me the sole purpose of an audio system is to give an illusion of a live performance. I’m not terribly fussed about the science behind it, only the end product.

What gets me is the objectivist conceit that you need to consider an objective approach, which requires scientific knowledge. I have none, my background is in economics. So I was told to go and read a book by some professor in Canada. So I’m meant to become a scientist to enjoy listening to music? Life’s too short, I’d rather chat online to share experiences of achieving the audio illusion.

 

[Al M.]

Objectivists always, and also here, proclaim that they want to "accurately reproduce the recording as the recording engineer intended". The idea that this is possible is nonsense. That is proven by audio's "circle of confusion":

Audio's Circle of Confusion

Audio’s “Circle of Confusion” is a term coined by Floyd Toole [1] that describes the confusion that exists within the audio recording and r...

seanolive.blogspot.com

Based on this data, you can never know what the recording engineer heard in their studio and thus intended to be heard at home.

So if someone wants to convince me they want to "accurately reproduce what's on the recording" they might as well say the Earth is flat.

***

All you can strive for is a believable or enjoyable reproduction. Best to be able to combine both.

"Accurate reproduction"? Not so much.