Can digital get to vinyl sound and at what price?

[AudioGod]

Let's make this simple
Most recordings nowadays are digital if not all.
When you transfer the digital master to another digital file you can't tell the difference between them.
Especially if they are hi res .
How do I know that ? sound engineers themselves say that.
Now if you transfer the same master to vinyl it sounds completely different most of the time .
Why? Vinyl has it's own sound .
Digital =100% transparent
Vinyl =has it's own sound .
Simple logic tells you , you can't improve upon the original master .
And if vinyl is claimed to be better sounding than digital , than somehow it magically improves upon the original master , which makes no sense at all.

 

[AudioGod]

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.

To you I'm an audio flat earther.
To me you are.
It all depends on the point of view

 

[Al M.]

To you I'm an audio flat earther.
To me you are.
It all depends on the point of view

No, it depends on logic.

 

[exupgh12]

Let's make this simple
Most recordings nowadays are digital if not all.
When you transfer the digital master to another digital file you can't tell the difference between them.
Especially if they are hi res .
How do I know that ? sound engineers themselves say that.
Now if you transfer the same master to vinyl it sounds completely different most of the time .
Why? Vinyl has it's own sound .
Digital =100% transparent
Vinyl =has it's own sound .
Simple logic tells you , you can't improve upon the original master .
And if vinyl is claimed to be better sounding than digital , than somehow it magically improves upon the original master , which makes no sense at all.

when discussing the playback quality specifically in the context of comparing different sources (such as vinyl versus digital), the focus tends to be on how the audio is reproduced or retrieved from those sources rather than how it was initially recorded.

The playback quality comparison between vinyl and digital usually centers around how each format retains and reproduces the recorded audio, considering factors like sound clarity, warmth, fidelity, dynamic range, and the overall listening experience. While the recording process influences the original quality, our discussion revolves around the differences in playback performance between the various playback mediums rather than the recording process itself.

 

[ssfas]

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.

I remember a guy I know, in his late 30s, (he's the son of a good friend) telling me he'd bought a valve amplifier. He told me it really helped him to get into the sound of a recording. He'd gone to an audio dealer and that's what worked for him. He is also a recording artist, quite an established one, and a Professor of Violin at the Royal Academy of Music. I think he knows a thing or two about tonal accuracy. The ears have it.

 

[AudioGod]

when discussing the playback quality specifically in the context of comparing different sources (such as vinyl versus digital), the focus tends to be on how the audio is reproduced or retrieved from those sources rather than how it was initially recorded.

The playback quality comparison between vinyl and digital usually centers around how each format retains and reproduces the recorded audio, considering factors like sound clarity, warmth, fidelity, dynamic range, and the overall listening experience. While the recording process influences the original quality, our discussion revolves around the differences in playback performance between the various playback mediums rather than the recording process itself.

I know that
I'm just adding another dimension to the discussion

 

[Al M.]

I know that
I'm just adding another dimension to the discussion

A dimension that doesn't exist in the real world.

 

[ssfas]

Let's make this simple
Most recordings nowadays are digital if not all.
When you transfer the digital master to another digital file you can't tell the difference between them.
Especially if they are hi res .
How do I know that ? sound engineers themselves say that.
Now if you transfer the same master to vinyl it sounds completely different most of the time .
Why? Vinyl has it's own sound .
Digital =100% transparent
Vinyl =has it's own sound .
Simple logic tells you , you can't improve upon the original master .
And if vinyl is claimed to be better sounding than digital , than somehow it magically improves upon the original master , which makes no sense at all.

Like a lot of people, I tend to listen to analog recordings on vinyl and digital recordings on digital, which is why I thing analog vs. digital is a pointless argument.

There are some modern analog recordings that are edited digitally, for example some recordings issued by World Circuit Records. They still have that analog sound. Likewise, plenty of systems do A/D - D/A conversion and it still sounds analog (with the benefit of being able to apply DSP).

Whatever makes analog sound subjectively "better", it doesn't seem to suffer from A/D/A conversion. I can't say I understand why.

So not as simple as you think.

 

[adrianywu]

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.

It is perhaps not possible to know what is "accurate", but it is certainly possible to know what is inaccurate. Anything that has non-linearity in frequency, phase and/or dynamic response is inaccurate.

 

[facten]

Studio monitors may solve an intellectual issue for some, but for most people they are just not enjoyable to listen to at home

Apparently enjoyable isn't a requirement - His quote "I don't even need to enjoy the sound"

 

[facten]

I went with the same approach. Boulder amp/YG speakers/Playback Designs MPD8.

Chuck , did you go just for accuracy, or finding components/speakers that provided accuracy but also enjoyment in listening. If both then you two don't have the same approach.

 

[Al M.]

It is perhaps not possible to know what is "accurate", but it is certainly possible to know what is inaccurate. Anything that has non-linearity in frequency, phase and/or dynamic response is inaccurate.

That I can agree with, mostly.

Fully agree on phase and dynamic response.

As for frequency: There certainly should not be peaks and valleys in the frequency response, but do you really want the "accuracy" of a ruler-flat in-room frequency response? That's not what most people would experience as natural, they prefer some roll-off. That's a matter of the room response itself, and of adjusting speaker positioning.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Obviously good on and off axis response

What does "good" mean here to you!

 

[Republicoftexas69]

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

Self loathing, not uncommon these days, especially amongst people in their 30s and 40s.

 

[Ron Resnick]

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.

. . .

"Accurate reproduction"? Not so much.

+1

Nonetheless I do think "reproduce exactly what is on the master tape or digital file" is a legitimate high-end audio objective, at least in concept. It helps us to understand each other's thought processes, theoretical objectives and sonic priorities.

 

[Ron Resnick]

you can't improve upon the original master .

This is a good opportunity for me to point out that the answer to the question embedded in this declaration depends entirely on one's high-end audio objective.

Someone who embraces the objective of "reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played" (Objective 2) will see this statement as obvious and as true.

Someone who embraces the objective of "create a sound that seems live" (Objective 4) will see this statement as inapposite and false.

As usual a lack of recognition about, and appreciation of, different legitimate high-end objectives is the source of much of the fencing we see here.

 

[PeterA]

+1

Nonetheless I do think "reproduce exactly what is on the master tape or digital file" is a legitimate high-end audio objective, at least in concept. It helps us to understand each other's thought processes, theoretical objectives and sonic priorities.

How is one able to judge success in this specific audio objective? I understand about theoretical objectives and your attempts to categorize, but this one would seem more objective than subjective, and I do not understand how we could ever know how close we are so it seems like an elusive quest.

How about "trying to achieve what we think or hope or guess is exactly the same as what is on the master tape or digital file"?

 

[Republicoftexas69]

How is one able to judge success in this specific audio objective? I understand about theoretical objectives and your attempts to categorize, but this one would seem more objective than subjective, and I do not understand how we could ever know how close we are so it seems like an elusive quest.

How about "trying to achieve what we think or hope or guess is exactly the same as what is on the master tape or digital file"?

How is one able to judge success in this specific audio objective?

Only you can answer that in your particular audio ecosystem.

 

[PeterA]

How is one able to judge success in this specific audio objective?

Only you can answer that in your particular audio ecosystem.

The original recording doesn’t make a sound unless it is played through a system. Each system is different, so how can we ever know what the original sounds like? I’m very curious to see how Ron will answer this question since he came up with this particular audio file goal.

 

[KHORN1]

Considering that most if not all vinyl lps are cut from digital masters, you may be beating a dead horse.