You start by saying that it is a "psychological thing" and conclude by saying that if everyone applied your recipes they would prefer digital. That's a bold statement, and a very general one, that I doubt could withstand comparison over a wide variety of albums.
Can digital get to vinyl sound and at what price?
- Thread starter ScottK
- Start date
You start by saying that it is a "psychological thing" and conclude by saying that if everyone applied your recipes they would prefer digital. That's a bold statement, and a very general one, that I doubt could withstand comparison over a wide variety of albums.
If I was mainly concerned with recording quality that’d be completely true Ked but performances aren’t at all constricted to any one time or in their recording quality and that is the where the balance of priorities more is for me… maybe it’s the long term impact of horns and SET for me and this priority is a return to more where I started out before I got caught up in reading audio publications, chasing box speakers and solid state. So this is more cyclical than nlf.
The music experience is more about music than it is about ultimate recording quality for me but I still want it to maintain a high level of sonic quality as well. Digital isn’t the ultimate but it can still be very good if done well.
This balance I find is just a better fit for my priorities and just more nourishing for me. I’d rather lean more into a growing focus on performance in music these days rather than just being so much caught up into recording quality on its own. I value both at a level… just a different level.
Recordings and performances are not always mutually exclusive. There is a sufficiently high cross section. And the good performances which are poorly recorded are best heard on YT. It's the balance of priorities as you said.
They aren’t mutually exclusive but they also aren’t at all correlated, so it’s nothing unfortunately you can rely on. I don’t tend to listen to poor recordings, I just don’t limit myself to the best recordings because I simply can’t. It’s a choice we each make between what we value most.
sorry, I meant digital recording is a poor recording, a good LP is much better, doesn’t have to be the best
Always for you it’s going to be about recordings Ked, I do get that… my focus is just more balanced on performance and while YouTube and a soundbar are good for you at home I have a system that i find connects to the music and the performance better than that as an approach for me.
Exactly. I’m not sure how it makes any sense why it’s either a soundbar or golden age vinyl? This kind of constriction would be music hell for me.
Sound quality is extremely important to me. I’ve become conditioned/addicted to it. A wide range of music, ancient to modern is also extremely important for my music life.
And great modern music didn’t end at Shostakovich as some here seem to believe…
I’m happy to say I don’t feel I’m compromising with my digital listening path. I hasn’t been an easy journey, but it’s been well worth it.
Yes i enjoy finding out how drunk and influenced Dr. Hook or Janis Joplin where when making their recordings !
I just think we each find what we really need… we aren’t static either and neither is this pursuit, we are audiophiles and sound quality is always at the core and a big part of the focus but there can be more to it. Finding increasing meaning in our innate drive to do this is part of the discovery. It isn’t compromise if it is where you need to go. Someone else can’t show you that. It’s always up to us to determine what’s meaningful for each of us.
Yes i enjoy finding out how drunk and influenced Dr. Hook or Janis Joplin where when making their recordings !
well the best Zep performances are their live from Earls' Court 1975, and bootlegs from June 1977. I would not listen to the latter on anything more than YT, the recording quality is that bad. So you don't need a high end playback system for those.
too expensive, and all studio. Mike has some brilliant ones, some originals are in thousands. How the west was won is an excellent live performance on average CD quality
Republicoftexas69
Well-Known Member
No I do not think it is psychological, on some systems digital sound’s mediocre and like wise for vinyl or analog. My analog front end sounds better than my digital but not by a wide margin but enough that I prefer spinning wax. I also have more money in my digital front end than my analog. I have drawn the line and spent all I am going to spend on either.
Republicoftexas69
Well-Known Member
Your post (most of which I deleted above) is a very clear explanation of how you approach this hobby. That is the kind of explanation I find missing in the usual tit for tat: what is our goal and how does it influence our choice of the means of getting there?
Your "music centered audiophile" rings true for me too. I certainly prefer well-engineered gear and great industrial design. And I prefer a comfortable, multi-purpose room with large windows even if that isn't optimal for audio.
Equipment definitely influences how I listen. When I added the Grimm MU1 (server/streamer/DDC), I started to listen more closely to the performers, the sequence of the songs on their album, the songs that seemed more personal than others, and the direction of their improvisation when other directions were evident, etc. Lately, I am enjoying albums of solo guitar. I can listen deeply into the tone, timbre, timing and technique. Of course, all other music is welcome too, especially after my ear has been trained on more simple content.
Thanks. I have now read it - unfortunately, as I was referring, this type of test only tests the bit perfect path of our own PC servers. The owner just plays a supplied WAV file and the machine checks for bit accuracy of the DAC - something that any decent server / DAC system has, as widely known by the digital people - transmitting these low bit rates is not a challenge. IMHO it is just a marketing feature, not a needed or really new useful option YMMV.
Bit perfect is a democratic concept of digital audio - any audiophile could easily have it with CD or downloads, and probably has it with good streaming. The "flavors" of the conversion to analog are the origin of the audiophile preferences, and in some case audiophile elitism.
If it were not a challenge, then why are so many "players" in fact not bit-perfect?
Anyway, as I mentioned, this is all a small aspect of digital so-called "accuracy" (which is theoretical and can never be confirmed, as I explained, when you consider the problem from the recording to the DAC's output).
I don't understand what you mean in your last paragraph, but perhaps this does not have to be dwelled on any further.
I don't know if this really means anything, but through my limited interactions with "audiophiles" I have noticed that a number of them qualify certain digital sources and DACs as sounding "analog". In my understanding it has a positive connotation, and means that the sound is "easy on your ears", but it's like a "guilty pleasure" that some would practically be ashamed to admit they appreciate.
My own conclusion is that a good sounding digital system is simply the one that leaves you with the feeling that it offers the most out of the recording, all other things remaining equal (which is rarely the case). Perhaps this is too simplistic, I don't know.
My own conclusion is that a good sounding digital system is simply the one that leaves you with the feeling that it offers the most out of the recording, all other things remaining equal (which is rarely the case). Perhaps this is too simplistic, I don't know.
Last edited:
I tend not to say my analog sounds better than my digital, rather some of my LP's sound better than their digital equivalents. Also some of my CD's sound better than their streaming equivalents.
The reason I prefer one over the other is likely due to distortion embedded in the version I don't like. This distortion is more bothersome to me than others it seems.
Similar threads
