Can digital get to vinyl sound and at what price?

[Ron Resnick]

Digital is in its infancy.

How do you figure this? Digital is approximately 40 years old.

I would consider 40 years hardly to be infancy.

 

[adrianywu]

I have a few random thoughts on this subject.

1. It’s better to use digital to playback digital recordings. It’s better to use LP or tape to playback analog recordings.

2. Music gets robbed with an ADC and DAC conversion although it has become much better lately.

3. Analog tape holds the most musical information, followed by good LP. LP is really more around dvd-audio or SACD in sound quality. I learned this from Tim DeParavicini.

4. I prefer DSD to PCM, although PCM can sound very good.

5. Both digital and analog can sound amazing when the original recording is good and the mastering is good.

6. Some think of digital as being more clean sounding for some reason but like the wow and flutter of vinyl digital has it’s own issues. You have jitter, zero crossing distortion, ringing, etc.

7. I tend to prefer DACs with very good linearity. I think that’s why I gravitated to the dCS products. That is something they excel at.

8. The recent Continuum Caliburn experience has taught me that a lot of the quietness of digital can be replicated with very good analog playback.

Hi Lee,

I agree with your comments. My digital system is more of an afterthought, a way for me to explore different music and recordings on streaming sites, as well as offering convenience for some less serious listening occasions.

1. I do agree with this. I see little point in putting digital recordings onto vinyl, except perhaps for those audiophiles who do not want to invest in digital playback. Unfortunately, the resources put into music production nowadays pales in comparison to that during the golden age, since profit from streaming and media sales is so lean. Labels no longer invest in their own recording teams and facilities. There are few engineers nowadays with the same level of skill and experience as Kenneth Wilkinson, Bob Fine, Lewis Layton, Rudy van Gelder etc. Folks like Alan Parsons and John Dunkerley are getting long in the tooth. Early digital recordings can mostly be written off. We are therefore stuck with old analog recordings if we want the best sound quality.

2. I have transferred all my master tapes to DSD128. I feel this is the best way to archive digitally. Even with my very modestly priced Tascam DA3000, the result is quite satisfactory.

3. Agree completely that analog tape is still the best. It somehow draws me into the music and makes me pay attention in a way that even LPs fail to do.

5. Interestingly, I have been comparing my own DSD master tape transfers to the commercially available DSDs ripped from SACDs (mostly Esoteric reissues from Japan). They can sound quite different. The Esoteric rips tend to be a bit brighter and sound less natural.

6. On my modest DAC (PS Audio Directstream MkII), there is a clear difference between CD rips and native DSD128. The CD rips tend to sound more veiled and less well defined, with less depth.

 

[plasmod3]

you can get digital well beyond the analogue level but not with on the shelf . the only way i have found is to go off shelf and do a bit of diy to known components. but yes in my system digital is better than analogue. digital has more details than analogue. having said that my digital set up is easily 2-3 times the price of my analogue. and my analogue is no cheapie either...sat tonearm, at mc 2022 cart etcetc

 

[Rexp]

Interesting. They each have their opinion. Objectivity is not the result of a vote. The closest you get is some notion of consensus, but what counts as that is likewise not objective.

'Imagine this:
There are 3 identical rooms, in room A a guitar is being played. In room B a recording is being played of the same guitarist/song on a cheap hifi. In room C the same recording is being played on a good system. 100 people visit all 3 rooms, 100 people think room C is more like the live guitarist. Are the 100 people correct that room C has
greater fidelity or are they expressing a subjective view?'

Would the group be correct in identifying room C to be of higher fidelity than room B?

 

[plasmod3]

'Imagine this:
There are 3 identical rooms, in room A a guitar is being played. In room B a recording is being played of the same guitarist/song on a cheap hifi. In room C the same recording is being played on a good system. 100 people visit all 3 rooms, 100 people think room C is more like the live guitarist. Are the 100 people correct that room C has
greater fidelity or are they expressing a subjective view?'

Would the group be correct in identifying room C to be of higher fidelity than room B?

it will be a normal curve distribution and half will be wrong haha!

 

[bonzo75]

Well, why would 10 years be needed to prove I am wrong?

exactly. You have been caught red handed too many times. Already convicted multiple times.

 

[tima]

msg#274

Imagine this:
There are 3 identical rooms, in room A a guitar is being played. In room B a recording is being played of the same guitarist/song on a cheap hifi. In room C the same recording is being played on a good system. 100 people visit all 3 rooms, 100 people think room C is more like the live guitarist. Are the 100 people correct that room C has
greater fidelity or are they expressing a subjective view?

msg$284

'Imagine this:
There are 3 identical rooms, in room A a guitar is being played. In room B a recording is being played of the same guitarist/song on a cheap hifi. In room C the same recording is being played on a good system. 100 people visit all 3 rooms, 100 people think room C is more like the live guitarist. Are the 100 people correct that room C has
greater fidelity or are they expressing a subjective view?'

Would the group be correct in identifying room C to be of higher fidelity than room B?

Unless I'm missing something, the top quote from msg#274 and the bottom quote from msg#284 are the same except the bottom quote adds the last line: "Would the group be correct in identifying room C to be of higher fidelity than room B?"

My response to your second message is similar in reasoning to the answer that I gave your original message, that is:

Interesting. They each have their opinion. Objectivity is not the result of a vote. The closest you get is some notion of consensus, but what counts as that is likewise not objective.

The idea that an individual or a group can "be correct" about a judgement on the faithfullness of a recording to a live performance presumes there is an answer to your question that is independent of subjective judgement, that is, an objective answer, some external reality or 'fact' that is true apart from people's experience and judgement. There is no such thing.

A group of people is still a collection of individuals. There is no 'group opinion' apart from or distinct from the opinions of each person in the group. Just because their opinions agree does not make the group an entity or a reality separate from the collection individuals.

You seem to be poking at the basic notion of objectivity. What are you after?

 

[AMR / iFi audio]

What would be the point of grafting analog distortions onto digital distortions?

I believe the analogue distortion would dominate in the perceived sound. Well, it's basically food for thought for me at this point, but interesting one.

 

[Another Johnson]

Some seem to want to define what’s best by democracy. Some prefer a Republic. Some prefer leaving individuals to choose for themselves (libertarian).

Obviously this is a political thread and should be closed since it’s unresolvable.

I started a new thread with a suggestion on quantification of your differences. It has not gained any legs. This appears to be more fun.

A possible quantification strategy to better understand the digital vs analog question

I’m starting this thread because I think the idea will be lost in the existing related threads. Heck, it might get lost here too, but we’ll have to wait and see. When Bob Carver was trying to prove that he could replicate the sound of anyone else’s amp, he basically processed the same signal...

www.whatsbestforum.com

 

[Rexp]

msg#274


msg$284


Unless I'm missing something, the top quote from msg#274 and the bottom quote from msg#284 are the same except the bottom quote adds the last line: "Would the group be correct in identifying room C to be of higher fidelity than room B?"

My response to your second message is similar in reasoning to the answer that I gave your original message, that is:



The idea that an individual or a group can "be correct" about a judgement on the faithfullness of a recording to a live performance presumes there is an answer to your question that is independent of subjective judgement, that is, an objective answer, some external reality or 'fact' that is true apart from people's experience and judgement. There is no such thing.

A group of people is still a collection of individuals. There is no 'group opinion' apart from or distinct from the opinions of each person in the group. Just because their opinions agree does not make the group an entity or a reality separate from the collection individuals.

You seem to be poking at the basic notion of objectivity. What are you after?

Ok, what about if the group are all experienced guitarists and they are asked if the guitar is metal or nylon stringed. 100% couldn't tell from the cheap system. 100% guessed correctly with the good system. Is the good system of higher fidelity?

 

[Joe Whip]

Stating the truth is often understood by some as being smug.

PS: “Soray“ is spelled “Sorry.” So many atmos speakers no wonder you can’t keep things straight. Enjoy.

I have two separate rooms. One for two channel on a home theater with Atmos so I can and do keep things straight. Sorry. The problem with truth speakers and truth tellers is that truth is usually not their concern.

 

[Audire]

How do you figure this? Digital is approximately 40 years old.

I would consider 40 years hardly to be infancy.

What I’m referring in my statement is (1) streaming and (2) the new generation of DACs. Streaming is rather new as it began around 1999 (Napster). And while DACs have been out longer, the newer generation of DACs (Horizon, Wadax, etc.) seem to be just beginning. The DAC I own today is light years beyond the one I used in the mid 80s.

Technology in digital audio is thrusting forward. Newer innovations in DACs and Streaming platforms are on the proverbial drawing boards…. How many devices does just Emile have planned for us?

Almost 90% of an iceberg is underwater. As far as digital audio goes, I believe we’ve only seen the tip of the iceberg. As such I see it as only in its infancy. If what has happened in digital audio during the past 10 years continues then I believe the future is bright for digital…. Who knows what is under the water of future innovations?

 

[ScottK]

Denafrips developed an new FPGA firmware update that among other thing was to "Fine-tune the sound quality in the mid-range and lower octave of the bass, to achieve a balanced, organic, analog-like sound signature that is characteristic of Denafrips". I performed the update yesterday and must say it was very positive. As this thread has mostly gone off topic I will answer my own question. I don't think the gains from spending $40K+ on a new DAC would provide enough "utility" for me to justify the cost. Instead I have decided to wait a few years in the hope of either trickle down tech or a breakthrough technology (unlikely). I have always believed that speakers are the most important component in a HiFi system. I started my listening in HS with AR-3a's and will go out with my glorious new Alexx V's. Next to speakers I consider the source as extremely important (of course the system needs balance everywhere in the chain). That will have to wait a while.

 

[Joe Whip]

I agree with you about speakers. The second most important factor is the room itself.

 

[ScottK]

I agree with you about speakers. The second most important factor is the room itself.

Yes but I have that. My room is 16'X40'X 16'(vaulted). The rear wall is mostly open and extends back another 30' thus I don't have a standing wave issue. My Wilson dealer commented on setup it is was a wonderful acoustic space.

 

[mtemur]

who cares about preferences of the typical recording engineer? recording engineers are generally ignorant of true analog performance. when i've had them in my room they mostly are blown away by what great vinyl pressings can do on high quality turntables. the digital tools they have to mimic analog sound are not in the realm of the real thing.

there are exceptions of course.

where would these guys get exposed to top level vinyl? or what would cause them to pursue it?

and many of these guys might have top flight adc's, but maybe not the best dac's. they might not even really know how good their digital is either. i suppose we can't expect them to view sonics like audiophiles. which, of course, is my point.

I can not agree more. That also reflects my experience with recording or mastering engineers. They're not famous or best engineers around but it is important to understand how they approach sound quality in general. They use printer usb cables for A/D and D/A converters, don't care about ASAPI drivers, bit perfect, dithering, oversampling etc. Their "better" means a software with more options.

I don't think it was like this in the past. IMHO convenience offered by digital technology caused it. Quality and convenience inversely correlated.

 

[PeterA]

What I’m referring in my statement is (1) streaming and (2) the new generation of DACs. Streaming is rather new as it began around 1999 (Napster). And while DACs have been out longer, the newer generation of DACs (Horizon, Wadax, etc.) seem to be just beginning. The DAC I own today is light years beyond the one I used in the mid 80s.

Technology in digital audio is thrusting forward. Newer innovations in DACs and Streaming platforms are on the proverbial drawing boards…. How many devices does just Emile have planned for us?

Almost 90% of an iceberg is underwater. As far as digital audio goes, I believe we’ve only seen the tip of the iceberg. As such I see it as only in its infancy. If what has happened in digital audio during the past 10 years continues then I believe the future is bright for digital…. Who knows what is under the water of future innovations?

From what I have read, Ron is extremely careful to qualify that he is talking ONLY about high resolution stored files and NOT streaming. Al M. seems to strongly prefer the sound of physical CDs to streaming. These two data points suggest to me that streaming has a long way to go. And yet, we all stream lots of data and think nothing of it.

 

[Joe Whip]

I can not agree more. That also reflects my experience with recording or mastering engineers. They're not famous or best engineers around but it is important to understand how they approach sound quality in general. They use printer usb cables for A/D and D/A converters, don't care about ASAPI drivers, bit perfect, dithering, oversampling etc. Their "better" means a software with more options.

I don't think it was like this in the past. IMHO convenience offered by digital technology caused it. Quality and convenience inversely correlated.

Not the ones I know.

 

[Rexp]

I can not agree more. That also reflects my experience with recording or mastering engineers. They're not famous or best engineers around but it is important to understand how they approach sound quality in general. They use printer usb cables for A/D and D/A converters, don't care about ASAPI drivers, bit perfect, dithering, oversampling etc. Their "better" means a software with more options.

I don't think it was like this in the past. IMHO convenience offered by digital technology caused it. Quality and convenience inversely correlated.

Yeah, my ex business partner owned a mastering studio, all the engineers were tone deaf, lol.

 

[Joe Whip]

The only streaming of music I do is Atmos from Apple Music. This is all done via HDMI through a 4K Apple TV, sounds amazing. I can also stream 4K video with Atmos sound and get a perfect picture on my 83” Sony OLED. When I compare my CD rips to CD playback through the same DAC, they are very close although I think the rip sounds better, again, marginally. Not sure why streaming 2 channel should sound worse, but quite a few have reported that. it would be interesting to find out why.