Can digital get to vinyl sound and at what price?

[bonzo75]

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.

I often mention macro, micro, and dynamic range.

I just looked up the sonic cues post, where in my back and forth with Ron, I mentioned this "I value macro dynamics, in dual FLH. Dynamic range in simple crossovers, highest in crossoverless speakers." - in that part of the exchange, Ron was suggesting we choose equipment based on our cues, and I was trying to counter that we can choose different equipment based on different cues. While dual FLHs can tick all attributes, single driver crossoverless speakers like pnoe and yamamura maximise dynamic range way beyond anything else I have heard (Bill and G would tell you the same about pnoe). The distance travelled in a note is goose bumpy, after that with any crossover speaker it sounds like hitting a ceiling pretty quick.

While both have many other attributes, that was just an example highlighted for that exchange, which seemed logical at that time in an otherwise illogical discussion.

 

[ssfas]

Everything is science based and measurements based ( especially now when they use the Klippel machine )

This is just not true. I remember a discussion with Peter Thomas, the founder and owner of PMC, who make some of the world’s best studio monitors, and a wide range of other speakers for consumer use. They use Klippel, they have their own sound chamber and also use the sound chambers at the National Physical Laboratory in the UK. Klippel is primarily a very useful tool for doing quick measurements during the design phase. It does in minutes what otherwise can take a day. He told me that, after all the science, you just have to listen to find out if it sounds right.

I like PMC because their professional tech often feeds their consumer products, but they appreciate that people mostly don’t want that sound at home. I’ve heard their SE range speakers many times. They are their older pro monitors dressed for consumer use. They measure flat up to about 128db. I could never live with them. The sound is just too much for a domestic environment.

 

[AudioGod]

This is just not true. I remember a discussion with Peter Thomas, the founder and owner of PMC, who make some of the world’s best studio monitors, and a wide range of other speakers for consumer use. They use Klippel, they have their own sound chamber and also use the sound chambers at the National Physical Laboratory in the UK. Klippel is primarily a very useful tool for doing quick measurements during the design phase. It does in minutes what otherwise can take a day. He told me that, after all the science, you just have to listen to find out if it sounds right.

I like PMC because their professional tech often feeds their consumer products, but they appreciate that people mostly don’t want that sound at home. I’ve heard their SE range speakers many times. They are their older pro monitors dressed for consumer use. They measure flat up to about 128db. I could never live with them. The sound is just too much for a domestic environment.

And that's the sound I like
I agree that most audiophiles can't handle a brutal flat studio monitor
And that's OK

 

[AudioGod]

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.

Not exactly Becaue you can ask the sound engineer what's closest to his original master
Vinyl or digital
And he'll give you the answer

 

[Al M.]

Not exactly Becaue you can ask the sound engineer what's closest to his original master
Vinyl or digital
And he'll give you the answer

Obviously you are not even interested in understanding the argument.

Have you even read the link in my post? Given the speed of your reply it doesn't look like it.

You have not proven to be someone willing to learn anything.

 

[ssfas]

And that's the sound I like
I agree that most audiophiles can't handle a brutal flat studio monitor
And that's OK

You seem to have a thing about audiophiles. I demo’d our speakers with my wife, she even paid the bill without batting an eyelid. We’d first demo‘d some speakers at home that were far more monitor-like and we couldn’t stand them for more than about an hour. We agreed easily on the Wilson.

Putting together an audio system is not a scientific experiment. My wife knows absolutely zero about audio or science, but she knows what she likes. Studio monitors may solve an intellectual issue for some, but for most people they are just not enjoyable to listen to at home.

Putting labels on people like “audiophile” is utterly pointless. My wife enjoys listening to music at home just as much as I do, does that make her an audiophile? Does she disqualify because she prefers to listen on a chaise longue that is off-axis?

Lots of consumer speakers are “brutal flat” but voiced differently to pro monitors, sometimes made by pro monitor manufacturers like PMC, Harbeth, Dynaudio and others. They have different design objectives. There is one very simple, primary reason: recording studios and people’s homes have different acoustics. What is needed in a studio can be counter-productive in a home.

 

[AudioGod]

Obviously you are not even interested in understanding the argument.

Have you even read the link in my post? Given the speed of your reply it doesn't look like it.

You have not proven to be someone willing to learn anything.

I know about that
Floyd Toole is a god over at ASR.
And he actually replied in some of my threads over there
So yeah I'm willing to learn more than the average Joe probably

 

[AudioGod]

You seem to have a thing about audiophiles. I demo’d our speakers with my wife, she even paid the bill without batting an eyelid. We’d first demo‘d some speakers at home that were far more monitor-like and we couldn’t stand them for more than about an hour. We agreed easily on the Wilson.

Putting together an audio system is not a scientific experiment. My wife knows absolutely zero about audio or science, but she knows what she likes. Studio monitors may solve an intellectual issue for some, but for most people they are just not enjoyable to listen to at home.

Putting labels on people like “audiophile” is utterly pointless. My wife enjoys listening to music at home just as much as I do, does that make her an audiophile? Does she disqualify because she prefers to listen on a chaise longue that is off-axis?

Lots of consumer speakers are “brutal flat” but voiced differently to pro monitors, sometimes made by pro monitor manufacturers like PMC, Harbeth, Dynaudio and others. They have different design objectives. There is one very simple, primary reason: recording studios and people’s homes have different acoustics. What is needed in a studio can be counter-productive in a home.

I'm an audiophile
Why would I have something against audiophiles ?
I don't have a problem with anything you wrote .

 

[Kingrex]

I often mention macro, micro, and dynamic range.

I just looked up the sonic cues post, where in my back and forth with Ron, I mentioned this "I value macro dynamics, in dual FLH. Dynamic range in simple crossovers, highest in crossoverless speakers." - in that part of the exchange, Ron was suggesting we choose equipment based on our cues, and I was trying to counter that we can choose different equipment based on different cues. While dual FLHs can tick all attributes, single driver crossoverless speakers like pnoe and yamamura maximise dynamic range way beyond anything else I have heard (Bill and G would tell you the same about pnoe). The distance travelled in a note is goose bumpy, after that with any crossover speaker it sounds like hitting a ceiling pretty quick.

While both have many other attributes, that was just an example highlighted for that exchange, which seemed logical at that time in an otherwise illogical discussion.

When people talk about dynamic range, I never see them discuss how quick the range is achieved. For example, a car goes from 0 to 100 how fast. Same for dynamics. How fast do you go from 0 to 108db. I bet that has way more to do with musicality.

And not getting down on digital, just noting that the people who slap total dynamic range in your face never have an example of a musical pieces dynamic range as recorded on a piece of media. Is it the case that having a greater range means you use it. When I play music, my meter seems to read about 40 to 72 db. Seems to me I'm using maybe 40 db. I gave some extra for what might play below my room threshold. So, does digital technically have any greater range if you don't actually use it.

 

[Al M.]

I know about that
Floyd Toole is a god over at ASR.
And he actually replied in some of my threads over there
So yeah I'm willing to learn more than the average Joe probably

Great, so if you don't believe the Earth is flat you also shouldn't believe that there is a thing like "accurate reproduction of the recording". It just doesn't exist.

 

[Al M.]

When people talk about dynamic range, I never see them discuss how quick the range is achieved. For example, a car goes from 0 to 100 how fast. Same for dynamics. How fast do you go from 0 to 108db. I bet that has way more to do with musicality.

And not getting down on digital, just noting that the people who slap total dynamic range in your face never have an example of a musical pieces dynamic range as recorded on a piece of media. Is it the case that having a greater range means you use it. When I play music, my meter seems to read about 40 to 72 db. Seems to me I'm using maybe 40 db. I gave some extra for what might play below my room threshold. So, does digital technically have any greater range if you don't actually use it.

Very good points. Great vinyl playback can have explosive dynamics, i.e., it is dynamically fast. So is great digital, BTW.

 

[AudioGod]

Great, so if you don't believe the Earth is flat you also shouldn't believe that there is a thing like "accurate reproduction of the recording". It just doesn't exist.

But I I know it does
Or at least I know how to get the closest to that

 

[exupgh12]

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 ?

A. The speakers are not the focal point here; the discussion in this thread revolves around the source (vinyl vs. digital).

B. Considering your reference to Magico, since I'm acquainted with Yaeir Tamam (Magico's CTO), you might be astonished by how highly he admires my turntable as a source. He asserts that its performance surpasses digital significantly and even exceeds the turntable quality they have in their demonstration room.

 

[adrianywu]

Great, so if you don't believe the Earth is flat you also shouldn't believe that there is a thing like "accurate reproduction of the recording". It just doesn't exist.

If what you are saying means you need an inaccurate reproduction of the signal in order to sound "musical", just how inaccurate does it have to be ? And in what way should it be inaccurate ? If it is inaccurate in a certain way, surely, as it makes certain recordings sound "better", it will also make other recordings sound worse. Or is there a way to make something inaccurate that will render all recordings sound "better" ? Sort of like adding MSG to food ?

 

[ssfas]

Or at least I know how to get the closest to that

Pray tell.

 

[ssfas]

Is it an age thing?

Is it me, I'm of an age I just want to sit and enjoy music, I don't want to be lectured by people my kids age about how to spend my money.

 

[Another Johnson]

My younger son is a recording artist. He just finished a vinyl project which is also available for streaming on major services (no reveal or links from me).

He is the self appointed audiogod’s age. He exhibits far more grasp of what’s going on between digital and vinyl than ag.

I said earlier that ag is channeling Julian Hirsch. The dumbest assertion I’ve ever heard is that based on specs, the Pioneer receiver beats the (insert name of new at the time, but vintage now, tube gear here). It costs a third as much, and measures as better than the test equipment’s range.

People like ag are guys like Amir’s lawful prey. They deserve what they get.

You’all can’t save him from himself. More mature experience based understanding might, but that’s not the track ag is on. ag already knows it all, and it’s based on reading. Another reader. Sigh. Believe half of what you see, and none of what you hear is proven wrong once again.

 

[Kingrex]

Why does audiogod bother people. He says his taste is for a clinically accurate stereo. He bases this as far as front end gear on thd and dynamic range. So what. Other must seem as frustrating to him when they say they have never looked at a specification and only listen. Big deal.

 

[Al M.]

If what you are saying means you need an inaccurate reproduction of the signal in order to sound "musical", just how inaccurate does it have to be ? And in what way should it be inaccurate ? If it is inaccurate in a certain way, surely, as it makes certain recordings sound "better", it will also make other recordings sound worse. Or is there a way to make something inaccurate that will render all recordings sound "better" ? Sort of like adding MSG to food ?

You obviously haven't followed the logic of the argument. In a previous post I have linked to "The circle of confusion". Please read it.

There is no way to know what is "accurate".

To me "musical" is "believable". All I can strive for is a believable reproduction, the intrinsically unknowable "accurate" aside.

 

[Al M.]

But I I know it does
Or at least I know how to get the closest to that

No you don't. You refuse to follow the logic of the argument.

You really do believe the Earth is flat. Well, just keep on going until you fall off of it. Not my problem.