Please watch Part 1 of this Video shared by Romy the Cat :
Last edited:
Can digital get to vinyl sound and at what price?
- Thread starter ScottK
- Start date
Robert M. Pirsig - Wikipedia
António R. Damásio – Wikipedia
John Dewey - Wikipedia
Mark Johnson (philosopher) - Wikipedia
Hello
I was a vinyl expert some years ago, I even had a highly modifier Goldmund with Souther linear arm with unique parts I designed etc.... I stopped Vinyl for many reasons apart from sound, mostly convenience and difficulty to get perfect vinyls. After some years I can say that digital can sound very similar to real music but yes preferably with PLAYBACK DESIGNS CD and SACD, That's why I decided to represent them vs other brand mentioned previously on this thread. The difference in sound between digital CD/SACD and vinyl is like CD/SACD vs streaming. When the system is right, the difference is small. The other parameter to take in account is that no CD is equal to vinyl (sometimes better, sometimes far worse), exactly the same that listening the same recording in CD and with Qobuz even on hi-rez. To answer about tube DAC, some may have a pleasant sound, some are very good, I listen to none that are awesome, SS is better if you have the right DAC. But also the right power cord, the right decoupling feet, ... all is working as a system and can reduce the gap between reproduced music and live unamplified performance.At MOC Munich 2023, all the best demos were done by streamers, all vinyl demo I listened in 21 rooms I visited were less good. Comparison with SACD players would had been interesting.
It's not trueSo, I wasn't imaging things
Everytime someone copy/paste a digital file, it does change the sound!
"jit pai seow liow" => this time I must be going crazy
Maybe i wasn't so crazy after all.
.
To say the least
So, I wasn't imaging things
Everytime someone copy/paste a digital file, it does change the sound!
"jit pai seow liow" => this time I must be going crazy
Maybe i wasn't so crazy after all.
.
No, it does not. Copying and pasting a digital file results in an identical copy.
copy and paste is different than a conversion......which is either dac/adc or to another sampling rate. or some digital tool applied. file transfer is like copy and paste. when Grundmann refers to each digital step he is referring to some degree of manipulation. which is not to say that every copy and paste is harmless or cannot change things. but not certainly to the degree manipulation clearly does. if i move files from my NAS to my server, that is not changing things. but it could slightly. but more likely not.
we know that every CD ripping software sounds slightly different; but not always better or worse.
Grundman is speaking to how digital files are changed in 'form' from the native files to the end product. or how a digital step in making a record has a cost. there is no free step. musical essence is diminished each time clearly. in the analog recording/mastering process musical essence is retained much more. but it's not perfectly clean either. the difference is the type and degree of change. vinyl is different than the tape source, but not necessarily worse musically.
Last edited:
No, not slightly and no, not more likely than not. This is pure make believe. If your computer says the file was copied, the file was copied. Nothing missing. You could do it a thousand times and it will still be identical.
AD/DA conversions and applying digital filters are completely different processes than copying a file, and thus an entirely different discussion.
Musical essence as in something that is retained in analog processing and not in digital processing is an incredibly vague concept, to the point that I don't know how to discuss that.
Correct. If that were not so, I could not do my daily work as a scientist. There just cannot be any change in data in large files upon copying -- and there isn't, fortunately.
I don't know either. I don't know what "musical essence" is missing from digital. I guess we are wading into voodoo territory here.
The emotional attachment to analog is understandable, and I am always one of the first to defend analog against digital fundamentalists, but throwing around vague terms like "musical essence" or "completeness" doesn't help the cause.
I’ll echo Al’s experience. As a photographer, I have reproduced files innumerable times. I can guarantee you there’s absolutely no change from file to file. I would know if there was.
To think this is happening with a music file is fantasy in my opinion.
To think this is happening with a music file is fantasy in my opinion.
Fortunately the world of digital information is very well defined, deterministic (apart from stray cosmic particles flipping bits... and even then we have ECC) and not open to gray areas. If a file is copied, in the true sense of the word, it is a bit perfect copy and by definition nothing is changed. That is why the world works. Imagine your spreadsheet slowly loosing numbers as time goes by. Or the words you see on your browser rendering this forum being different from the ones I see on my end (we are looking at local copies, of copies of copies far away in copy redundant servers).
Main issue is people don't know what a file is. What it truly is, how it was designed. How a computer works. How anything digital works. Analog analogies simply don't work. It was because of the limitations of analog technology (in general, not audio) that digital technology was developed, and it is radically and fundamentally different. Of course it uses cables and so on, so we are tempted to run on analogies of familiar and intuitive things, but they are most likely flawed if we don't know what we are talking about.
TLDR. if you copy a file and the copy is different, then it is not a copy, it is a transformation and one of three things happened: a) you didn't ask for a copy at all b) your software doesn't work the way you think it does for whatever reason (someone lied, you misunderstood) c) you witnessed an almost miraculous event, and your file probably doesn't even work anymore.
Main issue is people don't know what a file is. What it truly is, how it was designed. How a computer works. How anything digital works. Analog analogies simply don't work. It was because of the limitations of analog technology (in general, not audio) that digital technology was developed, and it is radically and fundamentally different. Of course it uses cables and so on, so we are tempted to run on analogies of familiar and intuitive things, but they are most likely flawed if we don't know what we are talking about.
TLDR. if you copy a file and the copy is different, then it is not a copy, it is a transformation and one of three things happened: a) you didn't ask for a copy at all b) your software doesn't work the way you think it does for whatever reason (someone lied, you misunderstood) c) you witnessed an almost miraculous event, and your file probably doesn't even work anymore.
actual file playback performance is more than bits, there is also timing issues, types of cable issues, data transfer issues, noise issues. why does network gear matter? why do different types of data storage matter? why do clocks matter?...alot!!!! why does a physical media sound different than files? they should not. but they do. in my Wadax server what speed you write to the SSD drives matters in the performance. there are 4 different slots with different write speeds. crazy stuff.
these timing issues are almost never relevant to how business, industry, or science uses data. but music playback is affected to some degree. with music, bits being just bits is not the whole picture.
anyway; these small issues pale compared to how music recording data gets manipulated in the mixing and mastering processes. or how an analog recording suffers from an adc/dac process. that was my only point. but to say bits is bits is all there is, is also not quite right.
these timing issues are almost never relevant to how business, industry, or science uses data. but music playback is affected to some degree. with music, bits being just bits is not the whole picture.
anyway; these small issues pale compared to how music recording data gets manipulated in the mixing and mastering processes. or how an analog recording suffers from an adc/dac process. that was my only point. but to say bits is bits is all there is, is also not quite right.
Last edited:
Hi Amir,
Retaining detailed sound characteristics from an auditory A-B test with sections lasting over 30 minutes could pose a challenge due to human auditory memory typically focusing on shorter durations.
Remembering specific nuances for such extended periods without repetition might be difficult. How do you manage to recall and compare these sounds in your tests?
Thank you.
There is no timing issues when just copying a file. It doesn't matter if it take one second or one hour. Are we still talking about copying or are we talking about playback? Also, network gear doesn't actually matter as long as it is fast enough and stable (aka not broken). Different types of data storage also doesn't matter. Physical media vs files also not as long as the content of the file/media is the same.
I understand that this will be completely impossible to convince you about, but you are supporting one false statement with other false statements.
We agree on your second to last point, the mixing and mastering process significantly (and deliberately) alter how the music sounds, for better or worse.
An analog recording doesn't necessarily suffer from an AD/DA process.
I realize most of this sounds equally crazy to you as your statements sound to me, so I will not keep at this, just wanted to state it once.
File copy (the topic of my post) is not what you mention by playback (reading a file to memory, producing a bitstream, transporting and clocking said bitstream and converting that to analog signal). One is a purely digital, bit perfect, closed loop, easily verifiable and correctable operation, the other is a series of transformations with so many degrees of freedom a series of books is required to expose the main caveats with them.
No gimmicks or slight of hand here, just some honest appraisal of comparisons we did on my system (listed below): Note, in both comparisons I had to turn down volume two clicks when switching to the MoFi as they were recorded a bit hotter/louder (perhaps not enough though).
comparison one: (myself and three other audiophiles in attendance),
Acetate/Lacquer of Marvin Gaye "What's Going On", "Archival Tape Edition No. 011, cut from Master Tape (no59/99) at Supersense, Vienna on 13/Oct/2023; The above compared with a 45 RPM Ultradisc One-Step Pressing on "Supervinyl" by Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab which, I believe, was Master Tape through A2D processing into DSD64, from that through D2A processing to Lacquer, to Covert, to Vinyl (no4471/7500).
Results: Listener no 1 (listens to digital predominately), preferred the clarity of the MoFi record. He commented on all the HiFi aspects (sound stage, bass extension, clarity of voice and instruments) and thought it would be the record he would demo if I ever wanted to sell my system. Listener no 2 (listens to both, but predominately digital), preferred the acetate. He felt the pure analogue recording more real sounding, more relaxing to listen to. Listener no 3 (predominately analogue listener) preferred the acetate as well. Although he didn't think he could tell a difference on his home system, on mine he heard more air around instruments and voice on the pure analogue recording. Myself (predominately analogue), I preferred the pure analogue acetate recording by a fair degree. My perception is that the MoFi recording is a bit sharp/etched in presentation which does sound clearer or more distinct, and also draws one's attention to the various elements of HiFi, whereas the music played off the Supersense Acetate just wafted over me like live music. My feelings at the time were that I could listen to this sort of thing all day, but would probably stop listening after perhaps two sides of the MoFi as it causes some sort of discomfort in me.
Comparison two: (just the wife and I listening),
Electric Recording Company recording of Crosby, Stills & Nash, (ERC080) tape loop mastered with simple levelling from the Analogue master tape through all-valve amplification to the lacquer on the Ortophon cutter, then to convert to vinyl, limited production (no297/450). This was compared to a Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab Ultradisc One-Step Pressing on Supervinyl that was transferred from Master Tape to DSD128 (I believe), through some A2D processing, then D2A, Lacquer, Convert, Vinyl (no4738/12,000).
Results: Listener no 1 (the Goode Wife, rarely listens, doesn't follow the hobby so calls it as she hears it), preferred the MoFi DSD128-to-Analogue recording over the pure analogue ERC LP. She cited the "clarity" as being the reason. Listener no 2 (myself), I preferred the ERC, but by only a very slight margin. My reasons were greater air/3-dimentionality of the pure analogue recording. Example; when Stephen Stills sings "It's my heart..." in Judy Blue Eyes, on the analogue recording it sounds as if he is standing right of centre facing left where the microphone was placed. When he sings "it's my heart..." you can tell that he is turning his head to the right away from the microphone and then the voice comes back slightly delayed from the back wall of the recording studio...with the MoFi, it just sounds as if the volume is turned down where he stands. Similar 3-D effects lost when the guy on the left of centre sings in Spanish, on ERC slight head movements give 3-D impression of head singing, whereas with the MoFi, to me anyway, sounds like a speaker there making the clear voice but very 2-D.
Why did the MoFi come closer to matching analogue with the second example, hard to say. It could be the advantage of acetate over subsequent pressings, even if the subsequent pressings were at 45RPM. It could be that the CS&N MoFi, being recorded at a faster sampling rate (DSD128) makes it sound closer to analogue. One finding I haven't yet mentioned, the ERC recording of CS&N was not as fantastic-sounding as I had anticipated it would be. I watched a review of other re-pressings compared with original pressings on YouTube where the reviewer claimed that the original mastering wasn't great. So why would that make a difference in favour of the digital recording? I think, perhaps, that it is like photo-editing on your computer (in the digital realm). Very nice photos can be screwed up if you add colour and sharpness whereas not so nice photos can be improved greatly using those tools. Perhaps the Marvin Gaye was so good to begin with that MoFi didn't fiddle with the bass or treble except to turn up the volume a bit overall. The CS&N master tape, however, could do with some cleaning up and that corrected it enough to sound nearly as good (or better per my wife) as the pure analogue ERC version? I don't know, what do you all think?
comparison one: (myself and three other audiophiles in attendance),
Acetate/Lacquer of Marvin Gaye "What's Going On", "Archival Tape Edition No. 011, cut from Master Tape (no59/99) at Supersense, Vienna on 13/Oct/2023; The above compared with a 45 RPM Ultradisc One-Step Pressing on "Supervinyl" by Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab which, I believe, was Master Tape through A2D processing into DSD64, from that through D2A processing to Lacquer, to Covert, to Vinyl (no4471/7500).
Results: Listener no 1 (listens to digital predominately), preferred the clarity of the MoFi record. He commented on all the HiFi aspects (sound stage, bass extension, clarity of voice and instruments) and thought it would be the record he would demo if I ever wanted to sell my system. Listener no 2 (listens to both, but predominately digital), preferred the acetate. He felt the pure analogue recording more real sounding, more relaxing to listen to. Listener no 3 (predominately analogue listener) preferred the acetate as well. Although he didn't think he could tell a difference on his home system, on mine he heard more air around instruments and voice on the pure analogue recording. Myself (predominately analogue), I preferred the pure analogue acetate recording by a fair degree. My perception is that the MoFi recording is a bit sharp/etched in presentation which does sound clearer or more distinct, and also draws one's attention to the various elements of HiFi, whereas the music played off the Supersense Acetate just wafted over me like live music. My feelings at the time were that I could listen to this sort of thing all day, but would probably stop listening after perhaps two sides of the MoFi as it causes some sort of discomfort in me.
Comparison two: (just the wife and I listening),
Electric Recording Company recording of Crosby, Stills & Nash, (ERC080) tape loop mastered with simple levelling from the Analogue master tape through all-valve amplification to the lacquer on the Ortophon cutter, then to convert to vinyl, limited production (no297/450). This was compared to a Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab Ultradisc One-Step Pressing on Supervinyl that was transferred from Master Tape to DSD128 (I believe), through some A2D processing, then D2A, Lacquer, Convert, Vinyl (no4738/12,000).
Results: Listener no 1 (the Goode Wife, rarely listens, doesn't follow the hobby so calls it as she hears it), preferred the MoFi DSD128-to-Analogue recording over the pure analogue ERC LP. She cited the "clarity" as being the reason. Listener no 2 (myself), I preferred the ERC, but by only a very slight margin. My reasons were greater air/3-dimentionality of the pure analogue recording. Example; when Stephen Stills sings "It's my heart..." in Judy Blue Eyes, on the analogue recording it sounds as if he is standing right of centre facing left where the microphone was placed. When he sings "it's my heart..." you can tell that he is turning his head to the right away from the microphone and then the voice comes back slightly delayed from the back wall of the recording studio...with the MoFi, it just sounds as if the volume is turned down where he stands. Similar 3-D effects lost when the guy on the left of centre sings in Spanish, on ERC slight head movements give 3-D impression of head singing, whereas with the MoFi, to me anyway, sounds like a speaker there making the clear voice but very 2-D.
Why did the MoFi come closer to matching analogue with the second example, hard to say. It could be the advantage of acetate over subsequent pressings, even if the subsequent pressings were at 45RPM. It could be that the CS&N MoFi, being recorded at a faster sampling rate (DSD128) makes it sound closer to analogue. One finding I haven't yet mentioned, the ERC recording of CS&N was not as fantastic-sounding as I had anticipated it would be. I watched a review of other re-pressings compared with original pressings on YouTube where the reviewer claimed that the original mastering wasn't great. So why would that make a difference in favour of the digital recording? I think, perhaps, that it is like photo-editing on your computer (in the digital realm). Very nice photos can be screwed up if you add colour and sharpness whereas not so nice photos can be improved greatly using those tools. Perhaps the Marvin Gaye was so good to begin with that MoFi didn't fiddle with the bass or treble except to turn up the volume a bit overall. The CS&N master tape, however, could do with some cleaning up and that corrected it enough to sound nearly as good (or better per my wife) as the pure analogue ERC version? I don't know, what do you all think?
I don't remember who told me this. When transferring files from spinning drive to spinning drive, something would change slightly and it could be seen in something like a waterfall plot. Something to that effect. It was still considered a perfect file from the way we measure bit perfect. A transfer from a SS drive to SS drive was identical.
I might be remembering it wrong. Xymox has showed what I though was a real bit of data. Its wasn't just a on/off square form. It was this spray of millions of points. I might be all wrong again. He posted all that here on Whatsbestforum. I believe it was a thread on switches.
Years back, someone on Audiophile Style, Computer Audiophile at the time, sent me a pair of digital downloads from a CD to a drive of an ABBA song. One done with a regular computer. The other done with a high end type computer. Clean power so to speak. Both files are bit perfect. One sounds warmer and more full than the other. Same source CD. In order to hear the differences, he sent me a flash drive. He said sending it through the internet would impact the data. I can look around for the flash drive.
Maybe a file transfers as a file without corruption. Maybe some form of corruption occurs but is not show by the metrics of current standards.
There are way to many people who say they hear a switch. A ethernet cable. A server. A DAC. A footer under a server or DAC. You can't just dismiss thousands of listeners perceptions of digital audio. Heck, look at the Taiko thread. Are they all crazy. Does the server have 0 influence and they are all misguided. Is the new Switch Taiko is making all hokus pokus. Why does a software change in a server impact perceived sound. And why is it that there is software in a DAC chip. There seems to be so many places a bit perfect digital files passes through that should not impact what you hear, yet people are hearing it. And then you change it from digital to analog.
I trust science to a degree. But science keeps evolving. It hasn't just stopped and we all cheer we have the answers. It seems as it progresses, they toss out old beliefs and replace them with new. How long ago was it Jitter was unknown. Or at a minimum, not a part of the equation when designing for digital audio playback products. It seems science is always correct, until someone with a really high IQ theorizes a concept, then builds a tool and validates the concept and points to what he we can now see that we did not know existed in the past.
But really, I default to what I said earlier. Digital vs vinyl sources are very similar. Easy to be fooled on what you are listening too. There are other places that have a much more meaningful impact on sound quality if your spending money. Power, speakers, room jump to mind. And yes, room correction or equipment signal shaping software/hardware. Listen to a BACCH. It is very apparent what a BACCH is doing when you have the correct source material.
I might be remembering it wrong. Xymox has showed what I though was a real bit of data. Its wasn't just a on/off square form. It was this spray of millions of points. I might be all wrong again. He posted all that here on Whatsbestforum. I believe it was a thread on switches.
Years back, someone on Audiophile Style, Computer Audiophile at the time, sent me a pair of digital downloads from a CD to a drive of an ABBA song. One done with a regular computer. The other done with a high end type computer. Clean power so to speak. Both files are bit perfect. One sounds warmer and more full than the other. Same source CD. In order to hear the differences, he sent me a flash drive. He said sending it through the internet would impact the data. I can look around for the flash drive.
Maybe a file transfers as a file without corruption. Maybe some form of corruption occurs but is not show by the metrics of current standards.
There are way to many people who say they hear a switch. A ethernet cable. A server. A DAC. A footer under a server or DAC. You can't just dismiss thousands of listeners perceptions of digital audio. Heck, look at the Taiko thread. Are they all crazy. Does the server have 0 influence and they are all misguided. Is the new Switch Taiko is making all hokus pokus. Why does a software change in a server impact perceived sound. And why is it that there is software in a DAC chip. There seems to be so many places a bit perfect digital files passes through that should not impact what you hear, yet people are hearing it. And then you change it from digital to analog.
I trust science to a degree. But science keeps evolving. It hasn't just stopped and we all cheer we have the answers. It seems as it progresses, they toss out old beliefs and replace them with new. How long ago was it Jitter was unknown. Or at a minimum, not a part of the equation when designing for digital audio playback products. It seems science is always correct, until someone with a really high IQ theorizes a concept, then builds a tool and validates the concept and points to what he we can now see that we did not know existed in the past.
But really, I default to what I said earlier. Digital vs vinyl sources are very similar. Easy to be fooled on what you are listening too. There are other places that have a much more meaningful impact on sound quality if your spending money. Power, speakers, room jump to mind. And yes, room correction or equipment signal shaping software/hardware. Listen to a BACCH. It is very apparent what a BACCH is doing when you have the correct source material.
reading cd foobar paranoid mode reading speed 1× on ssd disk. Playback laptop (better powersupply)Foobar Ramdisk mode (no SSD runs) USB output - Mutec Reclocker 3+, then to the DAC with AES/EBU. I've loved this sound for years. I won't change it anymore.
Rex, I would make a distinction here. You are saying two different things.
1. Digital versus vinyl sources are very similar.
2. It is easy to be fooled by what you are listening to.
I have rarely heard vinyl and digital sound similar to each other in the same system playing the same music. However, on a few rare occasions, I have found it difficult to identify what I am hearing as one or the other.
If both digital and vinyl are of a similar level of quality, it is sometimes difficult to walk into a room having not heard a system before and be able to quickly identify the source as digital or vinyl. However, if that same system has both and they are then played for you one after the other, they usually sound quite different from each other.
Last edited:
Similar threads
