Can digital get to vinyl sound and at what price?

[hopkins]

Bit perfect this week will absolutely be different next week ..!

In a strict sense, "bit perfectness" is very easy to check. My DAC, but others have this feature as well, has a build-in "bit perfect" check. You can verify using short samples that a source is bit-perfect or not. See here, for example: https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/hopkins-system.35850/post-919562

I don't agree with the idea that networking can cause issues, provided the bandwidth is sufficient for streaming. Networking is highly reliable.

So "bit perfect" is easy to achieve, in this sense. If you consider it more broadly, not just looking at the signal coming into the DAC, but also in terms of what happens "inside" the DAC, then it is much more challenging, and there is no reliable way to check this.

 

[microstrip]

In a strict sense, "bit perfectness" is very easy to check. My DAC, but others have this feature as well, has a build-in "bit perfect" check. You can verify using short samples that a source is bit-perfect or not. See here, for example: https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/hopkins-system.35850/post-919562

Sorry, but you what we usually address when referring to bit perfect is the complete binary file path from source to receiver, not just a section of the path in our systems. Although being bit perfect can be checked in a few cases where we have access to the source or statistically using digital signatures of files, full bit perfectness is not easy to check.

Most good CD readers were considered bit perfect, as well as decently pressed well cared CD disks. Never read anything about this subject considering SACDs, however.

I don't agree with the idea that networking can cause issues, provided the bandwidth is sufficient for streaming. Networking is highly reliable.

I have the same idea, but it is a not proven feeling. When listening to streaming from services we can't know the source and even if their streamed versions are exactly the same that they sell as FLAC files. When asked, most streamer developers avoid answering such question.

So "bit perfect" is easy to achieve, in this sense. If you consider it more broadly, not just looking at the signal coming into the DAC, but also in terms of what happens "inside" the DAC, then it is much more challenging, and there is no reliable way to check this.

IMHO there is no such thing as broad sense "bit perfect". Once we move in analog there are analog distortions and noise - surely we can digitize these contributions and call them what we want, but it is still just digitized "analog not perfect", even if they are specific of digital systems.

I am always happy to endorse new audio terms, but only if they are properly defined and scrutinized.

 

[hopkins]

Sorry, but you what we usually address when referring to bit perfect is the complete binary file path from source to receiver, not just a section of the path in our systems. Although being bit perfect can be checked in a few cases where we have access to the source or statistically using digital signatures of files, full bit perfectness is not easy to check.

Most good CD readers were considered bit perfect, as well as decently pressed well cared CD disks. Never read anything about this subject considering SACDs, however.



I have the same idea, but it is a not proven feeling. When listening to streaming from services we can't know the source and even if their streamed versions are exactly the same that they sell as FLAC files. When asked, most streamer developers avoid answering such question.



IMHO there is no such thing as broad sense "bit perfect". Once we move in analog there are analog distortions and noise - surely we can digitize these contributions and call them what we want, but it is still just digitized "analog not perfect", even if they are specific of digital systems.

I am always happy to endorse new audio terms, but only if they are properly defined and scrutinized.

I did address the "full path" using "local playback"... The only variable to take into account is the stability of the applications you use, as I found out with some later upgrades to my streamer (WiiM Pro). See here: https://forum.wiimhome.com/threads/wiim-pro-no-longer-bit-perfect.2170/

Foobar2000 in exclusive mode on my PC is bit-perfect, and I know it will be bit-perfect as long as I don't install a new version...then I can simply check again.

To address the full path with a CD player I would simply have to burn the sample files to a CD. Easy to do, but I have not had the curiosity to do so.

To address the full path using streaming services, I would have to upload the sample files to Qobuz, for example. I actually tried doing so, but the service provider that offers the service (there are many) rejected the files. I would have to include them with some music (with a few seconds of silence before), and here again, I have not bothered doing so. Also, it costs around 50€... Once your "hidden sample files" are uploaded, you could check it regularly.

Conclusion: you can easily test for a "bit perfect" source to DAC path in different configurations.

As for the rest of your comments, I am basically saying the same thing. It's not a question of introducing new terms. All I am saying is that "bit perfect" is a non-issue and basic to achieve, and the real challenge is the processing in the DAC - here there is no way to check. But yes, it would make sense to check that if we could.

Until then, those who claim greater "accuracy" of digital can probably keep their mouths shut

 

[hopkins]

In addition, as mentioned before, if you broaden further the scope, and consider also the recording, there is a digital conversion step involved (unless you only listen to electronic instruments recorded straight to digital...) - the analog to digital conversion. Here the very notion of accuracy does not even make sense, as you are sampling, with all the potential errors involved, which can never be checked. You can throw HQPlayer or DSD in the discussion, it makes no difference.

So how accurate is digital? We will never know.

Simplest thing is to listen and decide on what you enjoy.

 

[microstrip]

I did address the "full path" using "local streaming"...

Can I ask what is exactly "local streaming" in technical terms?

To address the full path with a CD player I would simply have to burn the sample files to a CD. Easy to do, but have not have the curiosity to do so.

Every time we rip a CD we can easily check it versus the digital signature existing at AccurateRip - more than 95% os my rips were bit perfect.

To address the full path using streaming services, I would have to upload the sample files to Qobuz, for example. I actually tried doing so, but the service provider that offers the service (there are many) rejected the files. I would have to include them with some music (with a few seconds of silence before), and here again, I have not bothered doing so. Also, it costs around 50€...

Conclusion: you can easily test for a "bit perfect" source to DAC path in different configurations.

In fact, it is illegal for consumers to store streamed data, so we can´t compare. I have bought several Qobuz downloads , but there is no reliable way to compare the binary streamed data versus the files. Surely we will agree that suspicious pirate software is not a reliable way to approach the truth ...

In fact, for me the weak point of streaming is the almost complete ignorance of consumers of the tracks history and version, as well as the non traceability of the files - there are exceptions, but very few. We simply accept what they rent ...

As for the rest of your comments, I am basically saying the same thing. It's not a question of introducing new terms. All I am saying is that "bit perfect" is a non-issue and basic to achieve, and the real challenge is the processing in the DAC - here there is no way to check. But yes, it would make sense to check that if we could.

Yes, in some sense what we address are the specific flavors of the the digital to analog conversion of particular implementations. The same way some tape fans discuss the flavors of different tape machines.

 

[hopkins]

Can I ask what is exactly "local streaming" in technical terms?

Playing your own files from a PC, for example. It may not always involve a network, but that is a detail at this point.

Every time we rip a CD we can easily check it versus the digital signature existing at AccurateRip - more than 95% os my rips were bit perfect.

Correct. But you cannot rip from most CD players, so the method I mentioned is more "universal".

In fact, it is illegal for consumers to store streamed data, so we can´t compare. I have bought several Qobuz downloads , but there is no reliable way to compare the binary streamed data versus the files. Surely we will agree that suspicious pirate software is not a reliable way to approach the truth ...

Wrong. It is not illegal, you can publish your own music, and distribute it to all steaming services.

In fact, for me the weak point of streaming is the almost complete ignorance of consumers of the tracks history and version, as well as the non traceability of the files - there are exceptions, but very few. We simply accept what they rent ...

Agreed.

Yes, in some sense what we address are the specific flavors of the the digital to analog conversion of particular implementations. The same way some tape fans discuss the flavors of different tape machines.

Yes.

 

[microstrip]

(...) Wrong. It is not illegal, you can publish your own music, and distribute it to all steaming services.

Surely I was addressing storing captured streamed data from files of streaming services - we were addressing Qobuz - sorry for not writing it in full.

 

[hopkins]

Surely I was addressing storing captured streamed data from files of streaming services - we were addressing Qobuz - sorry for not writing it in full.

Ok, but making a bit perfect test does not involve capturing data. With my DAC, at least, it just involves embedding 5 seconds of samples, preceded by a few seconds of silence, in any music file (I could record my cat, for example). Once it's on Qobuz (perfectly legally) the bit perfect test is done simply by playing the music back through the DAC. You don't need to download it or capture it in any other way. There is nothing illegal, trust me on that one...

 

[hopkins]

By the way, even if you did that and found that the playback is not strictly "bit perfect" you would not know if the issue was with Qobuz itself or with the streamer used. You would need to check all streamers...

Anyway, as mentioned, this is only a small part of digital accuracy - the tip of the iceberg. Bit-perfect, as described here, is a necessary but not a sufficient condition...

None of this changes the fact that the recording/mastering quality is important as well (see my post above on that Ellington album - one of a million examples).

 

[Bruce B]

Every time we rip a CD we can easily check it versus the digital signature existing at AccurateRip - more than 95% os my rips were bit perfect.

What was the BLER of the CD from the original DDP? Guess we'll never know!

 

[microstrip]

Ok, but making a bit perfect test does not involve capturing data. With my DAC, at least, it just involves embedding 5 seconds of samples, preceded by a few seconds of silence, in any music file (I could record my cat, for example). Once it's on Qobuz (perfectly legally) the bit perfect test is done simply by playing the music back through the DAC. You don't need to download it or capture it in any other way. There is nothing illegal, trust me on that one...

Interesting. Are you saying your DAC bit perfect checker records 5 seconds of samples, then records them again and compares the data after synchronizing it? It is an in interesting feature, where can we read about it with more detail?

 

[microstrip]

What was the BLER of the CD from the original DDP? Guess we'll never know!

Although we can´t be sure, as AccurateRip shows that the digital contents of different versions of CDs , stamped in different facilities at different times is exactly the same we can assume that BLER was not an issue.

 

[microstrip]

(...) So how accurate is digital? We will never know. (...)

Sorry, accuracy is an objective quality and we can easily say how accurate is digital.
But yes, accuracy, isolated from other parameters, is is not an descriptor of sound quality

Simplest thing is to listen and decide on what you enjoy.

Yes, it is how establish preference.But in an hobby strongly driven by bias and education, knowledge of accuracy can be a good push in our enjoyment.

 

[thedudeabides]

tomrw , a decade from now, how many with decade old Digital can say so.

Try the Peter Gabriel CD, SO, Mercy Street circa 1980. That was when I knew digital had potential.

 

[PYP]

I don't see how this question is any less subjective or argumentative than the Op's question or any derivative of it. Who is in a position to set the standard for everyone else as to what it means to be a music lover, by what means they can only listen to music to be ascribed a "music lover", and what musical enjoyment is?

correct. My proposed question was not less subjective. I was trying to phrase an alternative that seemed to reflect the posts in this thread. To me, digital and analog will never sound the same because the distortion profiles are different. Trying to "prove" superiority often leads to arguments and isn't the point.

My question was mostly rhetorical. If you are a music lover, and let's assume everyone here is one, you will hopefully find your bliss. What these threads show is that journey can be long and can yield different answers at different times in our lives (even if you have the same wife throughout ).

 

[Rexp]

correct. My proposed question was not less subjective. I was trying to phrase an alternative that seemed to reflect the posts in this thread. To me, digital and analog will never sound the same because the distortion profiles are different. Trying to "prove" superiority often leads to arguments and isn't the point.

My question was mostly rhetorical. If you are a music lover, and let's assume everyone here is one, you will hopefully find your bliss. What these threads show is that journey can be long and can yield different answers at different times in our lives (even if you have the same wife throughout ).

I think what this thread shows is that some like digital a lot more than others and some don't like it all. It's likely a physiological thing.

 

[hopkins]

Interesting. Are you saying your DAC bit perfect checker records 5 seconds of samples, then records them again and compares the data after synchronizing it? It is an in interesting feature, where can we read about it with more detail?

Yes. You simply play back the files provided. Some other manufacturers have similar features (RME, for example).

Click on the "User Guide" button at the bottom of this page, and there is a section (page 8) on the bit-perfect test in the manual: https://www.ecdesigns.nl/info/powerdac-sx

 

[the sound of Tao]

Perhaps the question is: Can digital be just as enjoyable as vinyl for a music lover?

This whole issue seems to vary for audiophiles generally.

For music lovers who aren’t audiophiles the digital analogue issue isn’t likely a thing… they are more likely to go for what they view as great music in whatever way they are able… live, recorded in whatever format available and unlikely to focus on recording quality the way we tend to.

Audiophiles who love music though are much more likely to factor in their music choices (and perhaps for some primarily and maybe even for others almost totally) on the recording quality. Music and its performance quality and recording quality are not correlated and clearly highly variable.

Choosing digital can easily come down to a choice for greater specific music access and for me at a level ultimately I prioritise music performance over ultimate potential sound quality. But I still am an audiophile though not taking it to the boundaries.

I still have a minimum required standard (my audiophile nature) on recording and in the replay quality but I may compromise in the recording standard (at a level) to get a better music performance because music experience for me hinges more heavily on the music itself specifically and it’s performance quality. I have come to see myself as a music centred audiophile and not just a music lover.

It’s also about me wanting to access music performed anytime from over a century ago right through to today and wanting to be able to access music as it will be made in the future so for me being more analogue digital agnostic is a requirement. Music isn’t static. It responds to culture which also isn’t static. The relevance and response to a composer’s symphony or sonata changes generationally, that is the living nature of music. A format that contains my choices only to the golden era of (all analogue) recording isn’t what I then need to more fully understand music when it is experienced through a greater range of comparisons and through time and through a greater range of great performance responses.

Perhaps if I was just chasing sound quality and so choosing all analogue for its potential ultimate sound quality (notably potential and not always achieved) and if I wasn’t concerned about chasing the greatest music performances as these can just as easily be digital recordings. If I could afford it I’d just go both for an analogue setup and analogue library as well as a separate digital setup but the cost of a musically sufficient analogue library is just out of my reach.

So since I can’t have both at the level that I’d want either I chose the path that gives me music for all times rather than a potential for more ideal sound quality but then only over a very specific recording period that considerably limits the number of music performances that I can opt for.

There is also the more full on music focussed/obsessed equivalent of an audiophile (a musicophile perhaps rather than just a music lover) and Classics Today music reviewer Dave Hurwitz is an example of just that for me. Someone so absolutely music committed is unlikely to have the time and circumstances to allow themselves to be so much of a committed audiophile as well… and probably vice versa audiophiles can’t really afford to be a full on musicophile. I tend to believe both these obsessions just require way too much of ourselves and our personal resources and involve being pulled in very contrasting directions at times (possibly opposing) for anyone to engage in both these ways of being and then likely do either fully.

 

[Blackmorec]

I think what this thread shows is that some like digital a lot more than others and some don't like it all. It's likely a physiological thing.

It’s always a psychological ‘thing’. Psychoacoustics is the very basis of hearing and the stereo illusion. Giving meaning and context to 2 discreet sets of sound pressure waves in time is entirely psychological

As regards digital vs analog, you’re looking at a very mature, fully developed technology (analog) vs one still in the early stages of its development (digital). Early stage digital wasn’t particularly alluring, sound quality wise. What’s holding digital back is the getting-on-for universal belief that a recording that is a bit perfect copy of the original is as good as a particular recording can sound. What a lot of people haven’t realised is that a bit perfect copy can be GREATLY enhanced, while still remaining bit perfect.

Let me try to illustrate the point in a less (some will argue more) abstract way. Imagine the bits are sugar crystals. A crystal = 1 and no crystal = 0. Bit perfect would look at the pattern of crystals and decide if the pattern matches the originating pattern ie is the copy exactly the same as the original?. Back to the IT version of bits, logic tells us that as long as the 2 versions (original and copy) of the bits match exactly, everything is fine and can’t be improved, for that file. In IT, that’s correct. All a computer needs is an accurate file and the integrity of the data is maintained. That’s the basis of all networking. To end up with an unaltered copy of the data.
Back to the sugar analogy, as long as we’re only considering the bit structure, the IT concept works perfectly. But if we actually consume the sugar, then suddenly the actual content of each crystal plays a role. If there’s an off-flavour in the sugar, the data integrity may be fine, but the way it feels on our taste buds isn’t good and in order to make it taste good we have to find a way to purify the sugar.
In audio, we start with a file, process it in a myriad number of ways and end up with a file that if bit perfect, has exactly the same structure. From an IT perspective, that’s job done. But if along that processing we have introduced a number of impurities, when we consume those bits, they won‘t taste as good (sound as good). This is the HUGE difference between IT and Audio. In IT we consume those bits as data so the final arbiter is data integrity. In audio we consume those bits as sound, so the final arbiter is sound quality. You can measure data integrity. You can’t measure sound quality. One is an objective measure and the other a subjective measure.
The big difference between analog and digital is that in analog the original signal can only be protected and nurtured, whereas in digital the signal can be cleaned, refined and improved. The network is a way to move data files around, a good network does so with data integrity. From an IT perspective, that’s all that’s necessary. But if that data file is going to be consumed as music, the network can also function as a means to clean and refine the data stream and all I’m saying is that the cleaned and refined version of that data stream sounds (tastes) a lot better than the unrefined but non-the-less accurate version.
Coming back to the above point, the more refined the bit stream, the more enjoyable it is. If people know more about protecting an analog signal than they do about refining a data stream, it’s very likely they’ll prefer the analog. On the other hand if someone has truly grasped how a data stream can be refined, that refined stream can sound absolutely gorgeous and will likely be preferred over the analog.

Finally just to mention that DACs have a major role to play in how much the bit stream quality affects the final sound.

 

[bonzo75]

It’s also about me wanting to access music performed anytime from over a century ago right through to today and wanting to be able to access music as it will be made in the future so for me being more analogue digital agnostic is a requirement.

You don't need digital for this. You can stream off YT to a nice soundbar. So when you say you need a digital rig to do the same, you are saying a good dac/transport > YT + soundbar, and that makes it equally condescending to an analog person saying analog > good dac/transport.

Good recordings are better than bad recordings or average recordings at appreciating the music. Bad recordings take the mind off the music - due to some pain points in the recording. Average recordings are good to listen, assess tune and tempo. But what good recordings do better is they layer the orchestra more, show the conductor counterpointing better. Playing good recordings on excellent systems help us understand the soloist differences better due to small microdynamic shifts and inflections.

There is also the more full on music focussed/obsessed equivalent of an audiophile (a musicophile perhaps rather than just a music lover) and Classics Today music reviewer Dave Hurwitz is an example of just that for me. Someone so absolutely music committed is unlikely to have the time and circumstances to allow themselves to be so much of a committed audiophile as well… and probably vice versa audiophiles can’t really afford to be a full on musicophile. I tend to believe both these obsessions just require way too much of ourselves and our personal resources and involve being pulled in very contrasting directions at times (possibly opposing) for anyone to engage in both these ways of being and then likely do either fully.

There are many classical forums that way. Strangely these discussions are very friendly even though they differ on preferred performances of a particular piece or performer. Feels great and normal when I log back on to WBF on to the digital analog thread