Can digital get to vinyl sound and at what price?

[tima]

I honestly have never gotten the sense that not yet available music can be accessed via streaming, but that's just my sense as I have no direct knowledge if you can since I don't stream

I'm not talking about music that is not yet available. I'm suggesting there is music that is available through streaming that is not on CD or on an LP record. I assume there is such.

Neither do I stream. I am talking about the arguments put forward to advocate for streaming. What is the case for it on its own merits, independently of some alternative format? We've heard various answers based on various views of what is important to the answerer. But it is really a choice and cannot be assessed without relative comparison. I assume that people who have spent money on streaming will praise it.

 

[facten]

I'm not talking about music that is not yet available. I'm suggesting there is music that is available through streaming that is not on CD or on an LP record. I assume there is such.

Neither do I stream. I am talking about the arguments put forward to advocate for streaming. What is the case for it on its own merits, independently of some alternative format? We've heard various answers based on various views of what is important to the answerer. But it is really a choice and cannot be assessed without relative comparison. I assume that people who have spent money on streaming will praise it.

Yes, going back i see that I misread your initial point , apologies. I agree with what you posted in the 2nd paragraph above.

 

[MarkusBarkus]

...I'm not sure where my use-case for streaming fits, but here is how I use streaming (Qobuz):

I read a couple of threads on WBF for jazz and classical music, and what's playing tonight, along those lines. Sometimes threads about prog-rock or electronic/dance/etc.

Many of the titles/songs folks post are not familiar to me, but I'm open minded about music, so typically, I take a screen-capture of the album or post listing title/artist/etc.

Then in a few days, when I get a chance, I go through the photos (screen caps) on my phone, and search for the titles on Qobuz. Some stuff is not my cup of fur, but some stuff is interesting (to me).

If I like it, the photo stays in "photos" to purchase later. If I think the album sucks, I delete the image.

When I circle back to Qobuz, I often buy 10-15 titles at a time (or more!). I download to my laptop and copy them to the server, re-scan the data, and listen as soon as I can.

I also use this model for marketing email I get from Elusive Disc and others: screen cap, and follow up.

I do listen to Qobuz directly and poke around sometimes as well. These days, SQ differences between local and stream isn't big, seemingly more disparity among masterings of various albums.

BTW: I sometimes use these screen caps to look for stuff at local shops. I still buy some CDs and rip them, retaining the CD and storing the files on the server. This is typically cheaper than Qobuz, but of course, more hit or miss.

I used to browse records shops for vinyl, but being able to hear stuff from Qobuz is great, and being able to discern SQ has value too; there have been a few times I have passed on an album because it sounded really crappy. I'm not curating the Smithsonian collection. Life is too short to listen to crappy tunes, for whatever reason.

 

[hopkins]

Neither do I stream. I am talking about the arguments put forward to advocate for streaming. What is the case for it on its own merits, independently of some alternative format? We've heard various answers based on various views of what is important to the answerer. But it is really a choice and cannot be assessed without relative comparison. I assume that people who have spent money on streaming will praise it.

You have an example in the post above. I use streaming in a similar way. For many, streaming services offer the opportunity to evaluate music before purchasing it. They still choose to own digital media, for a variety of reasons.

For others, they take it a step further and use it as their main source of listening, probably because they find it more convenient (no need for local files and a server) with little or no loss of quality. Moreover, many people here have explained that the catalog offered by streaming services is sufficiently large to satisfy their needs.

Some people choose to stream and "own": some of their albums are not available on streaming services, or not the best versions...

This is not rocket science. What is it that you don't understand?

 

[adrianywu]

Is this turntable high end enough to beat digital or not ?View attachment 123491

This is what a high end turntable looks like.

 

[hopkins]

Some mentioned the complexity of digital for the non "computer savvy". This is really true when it comes to setting up a local streaming system with your own files.

Playing CDs require no computer skills, obviously.

There was a time when it was complex to set up a solution to use Qobuz and the like on your Hi-Fi, but things have gotten much simpler in the past few years.

Using streaming service no longer require computer skills - as long as you can install an app on your phone and connect a streamer to your network (which can often be done through your phone) you are pretty much good to go. I have been using the WiiM Pro and it has been working flawlessly.

When it comes to local files, I find that things are still pretty complicated for those who don't really have any computer skills. There was a time when some streaming services allowed you to upload your own files and play them through the service's app - was it iTunes ? I forget. A while back I tried a few apps that could play music from your Google Drive account, for example. Things did not work as smoothly as with streaming services... I don't know if there are better solutions today, I have not looked into it recently. If there were, it could be appealing to some.

Amongst my "non audiophile" friends, I don't know anyone that still uses their own music files. Everyone is using streaming and to a lesser extent physical media (records and CDs). So maybe the prospect of getting better local media management applications is dim.

 

[Mcsnare]

Yes, that’s why I’m calling him out. He knows better and stated truths at first but has weaken his position to the classic audiophile stance. Given his first hand experience, he is doing a disservice to the forum community by perpetuating myths.

This is why I seldom comment in forums.

What did I say to perpetuate myths?
I said I prefer the sound of vinyl (in most cases) even with it being less true to the master than digital playback of the same source. I’ve written many times that the digital version is what the artist creates for the world to hear, at least for the last 25 years or so.
The vinyl is a sideshow. But because I don’t generally enjoy the sound of digital as much as a well done record, now I’m on your s&?t list?

 

[Carlos269]

This is why I seldom comment in forums.

What did I say to perpetuate myths?
I said I prefer the sound of vinyl (in most cases) even with it being less true to the master than digital playback of the same source. I’ve written many times that the digital version is what the artist creates for the world to hear, at least for the last 25 years or so.
The vinyl is a sideshow. But because I don’t generally enjoy the sound of digital as much as a well done record, now I’m on your s&?t list?

You are not on my bad list. I appreciate you stating the truth as you have done above. The part that I guess you missed is that digital has always been intrinsically more accurate than vinyl playback and what upset me was the distraction on Protools and other applications when those are part of the creative process and not part of recording or playback technology. By the way, some of the greats recording gear I own are from the early digital days: Daniel Weiss’ BW-102 modular Digital Audio Workstations, Meitner discrete DSD dac’s & adc’s.

Anyway, you made your statement with your post above. A statement that I agree with. We all have our preferences but there are always truths.

 

[Republicoftexas69]

You are not on my bad list. I appreciate you stating the truth as you have done above. The part that I guess you missed is that digital has always been intrinsically more accurate than vinyl playback and what upset me was the distraction on Protools and other applications when that are part of the creative process and not part of recording or playback technology. By the way, some of the greats recording gear I own are from the early digital days: Daniel Weiss’ BW-102 modular Digital Audio Workstations, Meitner discrete DSD dac’s & adc’s.

Anyway, you made your statement with your post above. A statement that I agree with. We all have our preferences but there are always truths.

I am sure Dave is relieved.

 

[Republicoftexas69]

This is why I seldom comment in forums.

What did I say to perpetuate myths?
I said I prefer the sound of vinyl (in most cases) even with it being less true to the master than digital playback of the same source. I’ve written many times that the digital version is what the artist creates for the world to hear, at least for the last 25 years or so.
The vinyl is a sideshow. But because I don’t generally enjoy the sound of digital as much as a well done record, now I’m on your s&?t list?

Please do not let these know it all types discourage your participation here. 99.9% of us understand and can read between the lines.

 

[Gregm]

This is why I seldom comment in forums.

Understood and appreicated; at least WBF is one of the better ones...

I said I prefer the sound of vinyl (in most cases) even with it being less true to the master than digital playback of the same source.

I, too, like the sound of vinyl - indeed, the sound of many recordings from the 50 and 60s, not excluding mono, is exquisite to my ears.

There is a point however that we all seem to accept: what is truer to the master, should sound better or is better because it is truer to the master...
And yet few of us (if any) know what the master really sounds like. Even if we had a masterm any reproduction thereof can only be an approximation: the reproduction is contaminated, as it were, not only by the front end's limitations (digital or analogue), but also by what follows; any system will impart its own signature.

That said, many people (you for one, I for another, very many others) prefer the sound of music reproduced using vinyl... which, under test, is less accurate in reproducing the medium (LP) than the digital front end (file)

So, this preference must be either,
A) a case of collective bias, delusion, and partial deafness spanning across all ages worldwide -- or,
B) something else that we have not linked to specific measurements and /or explained using psychoacoustics

In either case, does it really matter? Regards

(No digital basher here, I listen to my digital front end most of the time; it is sufficient and I'm lazy and my digital library is huge)

 

[Carlos269]

Understood and appreicated; at least WBF is one of the better ones...

I, too, like the sound of vinyl - indeed, the sound of many recordings from the 50 and 60s, not excluding mono, is exquisite to my ears.

There is a point however that we all seem to accept: what is truer to the master, should sound better or is better because it is truer to the master...
And yet few of us (if any) know what the master really sounds like. Even if we had a masterm any reproduction thereof can only be an approximation: the reproduction is contaminated, as it were, not only by the front end's limitations (digital or analogue), but also by what follows; any system will impart its own signature.

That said, many people (you for one, I for another, very many others) prefer the sound of music reproduced using vinyl... which, under test, is less accurate in reproducing the medium (LP) than the digital front end (file)

So, this preference must be either,
A) a case of collective bias, delusion, and partial deafness spanning across all ages worldwide -- or,
B) something else that we have not linked to specific measurements and /or explained using psychoacoustics

In either case, does it really matter? Regards

(No digital basher here, I listen to my digital front end most of the time; it is sufficient and I'm lazy and my digital library is huge)

Very few things in life cannot be explained by science. One of the reasons why digital has historically sounded “dry”, for lack of a better word, is due to the absence of colors and distortions associated with analog playback. This can be traced back to the analog magnetic tape versus digital capture of the recording and continuous along the way. Do a simple test of comparing a DDD recording played back digital and pressed on vinyl and hear what the extra mechanical modulations and magnetic-coupling effects impart on the sound of the recording. The LP’s are mastered for RIAA equalization but all other things considered. Dave (Mcsnare) alluded to his experience comparing the same mastering on LP versus digital format in one of his posts above.

The irony with our hobby is that the right kinds and mixture of added distortions can have a very euphoric, pleasing & enjoyable results. I have provided links to AES white-papers on how the controlled addition of low level white noise increases perception & intelligibility and other psychoacoustic phenomena.

Put all that aside and then think about what Jussi Laako is doing with HQPLAYER, using advanced digital processing to extract more information embedded in the recordings. MikeL used to throw the phrase around about “vinyl offers more topside”, which again is ironic as analog electronic noise floor is an asymptote for sound retrieval but not a barrier in the digital domain.

Mastering is also a creative endeavor that adds color, flavor and accents to the sound. I have found that the combination of HQPLAYER and my system-Remastering allows me to dial in the exact sound that I want, to the point where both digital and analog sources never sounded as good before, regardless of origin.

 

[wil]

I assume that people who have spent money on streaming will praise it.

And by this reasoning this would apply also to people spending money on a vinyl setup, no?

Not sure what point you’re trying to make.

 

[Rexp]

Very few things in life cannot be explained by science. One of the reasons why digital has historically sounded “dry”, for lack of a better word, is due to the absence of colors and distortions associated with analog playback. This can be traced back to the analog magnetic tape versus digital capture of the recording and continuous along the way. Do a simple test of comparing a DDD recording played back digital and pressed on vinyl and hear what the extra mechanical modulations and magnetic-coupling effects impart on the sound of the recording. The LP’s are mastered for RIAA equalization but all other things considered. Dave (Mcsnare) alluded to his experience comparing the same mastering on LP versus digital format in one of his posts above.

The irony with our hobby is that the right kinds and mixture of added distortions can have a very euphoric, pleasing & enjoyable results. I have provided links to AES white-papers on how the controlled addition of low level white noise increases perception & intelligibility and other psychoacoustic phenomena.

Put all that aside and then think about what Jussi Laako is doing with HQPLAYER, using advanced digital processing to extract more information embedded in the recordings. MikeL used to throw the phrase around about “vinyl offers more topside”, which again is ironic as analog electronic noise floor is an asymptote for sound retrieval but not a barrier in the digital domain.

Mastering is also a creative endeavor that adds color, flavor and accents to the sound. I have found that the combination of HQPLAYER and my system-Remastering allows me to dial in the exact sound that I want, to the point where both digital and analog sources never sounded as good before, regardless of origin.

What is the science that explains why some digital recordings sound better on vinyl?
What is the science that explains why you need HQplayer?

 

[Audiohertz2]

The science cant account for taste , a physiological evaluation might

 

[tima]

And by this reasoning this would apply also to people spending money on a vinyl setup, no?

Not sure what point you’re trying to make.

This seems rather defensive, but that is not uncommon around here.

Since you haven't figured it out yet, I am looking at the arguments made in advocacy for streaming, their relative importance and consensus among streamers, the general tenor and attitude of the discussion. I have not denigrated the technology although I do not use it.

Obviously you are invested as streaming appears your only source. (At least you have posted your system. Some do not and that reduces the value of their participation, so I give you credit for that.) Is that why you feel compelled to respond, to defend your technology choice? I don't recall reading you wax rhapsodic about listening to music through it.

 

[Carlos269]

What is the science that explains why some digital recordings sound better on vinyl?

Here is a very recent, October 2023, AES white-paper that provides some insight into the sources of imperfections in vinyl LP playback and their resulting impact on the audio spectrum:

Tracing Distortion on Vinyl LPs

What is the science that explains why you need HQplayer?

Here is a link to a recent article that will enlighten you in the ways in which HQPLAYER is processing digital audio in ways that had not been available before:

Staying in pure DSD

 

[Rexp]

Here is a very recent, October 2023, AES white-paper that provides some insight into the sources of imperfections in vinyl LP playback and their resulting impact on the audio spectrum:

Tracing Distortion on Vinyl LPs

Thanks. This paper says there is distortion created by vinyl tracking errors. It doesn't say why some and not all digital recordings sound better (more realistic) on vinyl.

 

[OLADRA]

Here is a link to a recent article that will enlighten you in the ways in which HQPLAYER is processing digital audio in ways that had not been available before:

Staying in pure DSD

This one tells you how they technically did it, and without a doubt, that's some fine use of available tech but concludes..

"So, why do I care about Pure DSD256? Same reason: it just sounds better." That's science for ya

 

[Carlos269]

Thanks. This paper says there is distortion created by vinyl tracking errors. It doesn't say why some and not all digital recordings sound better (more realistic) on vinyl.

You either didn’t read the full article, did not comprehend it, or did not make the connection on how the distortions associated with vinyl playback impart their sound qualities on recordings with digital origin.

This one tells you how they technically did it, and without a doubt, that's some fine use of available tech but concludes..

"So, why do I care about Pure DSD256? Same reason: it just sounds better." That's science for ya

The science lies in the filtering and modulators that are coded in the software. I don’t expect Jussi to detail this IP because of its military and tactical sensitive origins. If you are familiar with dynamic filtering and advance digital signal processing the technical details and convolution process are understood at a high level.