There are a lot o classical masters that are out there. Many studio decided they did not want to deal with them There are people I know that purchase the lot. Oddly there is a lot of not so good medai. But many jems also.
Can digital get to vinyl sound and at what price?
- Thread starter ScottK
- Start date
This is true, not true for major R&R acts though.
I would love to have master tape copies of the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, and the Rolling Stones...The Doors too. That's not going to happen for me so I'll play my records.
The stuff that's out there for tape does not interest me much.
Most of my analog tapes are of live FM broadcasts of classical music from the 1980's.
I used Ampex 456 analog tape and those tapes still sound very nice even now
I knew a guy once that bought master tape copies from Analog Productions(Acoustic Sounds) in the USA just because he liked the sound with his Studer A820 but he didn't really like the musical material. He was shocked to find out that my ReVox B77 MKII was made by Studer and that ReVox was the home audio brand from the parent company Studer. Another thing that he was surprised about was that my tape machine could also play at 15ips though I recorded at 7.5ips to get more music on the tape....
Last edited:
That is nice, sort of sweet, but nowhere near what I had on that CD. Note, the recordings on that CD had clicks and pops (and most in mono) so were made from records, not tape. Might help place when?
There are quite a few Ellington and Hodges bootlegs. If I ever come across a likely candidate I'll let you know!
I was posting in my new room thread my perceptions. My playback source is digital. I am blown away how good it sounds. Would my vinyl be better. Maybe, probably, almost definitely on some recordings. But come on. Most members on this forum and others never having heard my equipment would crap all over my digital and state their much more expnesive gear is far better. That defication only furthering the point on how good digital is.
Sure, I have heard lots of bad digital. I heard some yearerday. Compressed and bloated. I asked the owner to disconnect the DSP operating the system, but he won't. He's convinced it's better. In the past when this person has listened to my system, he went right to adding subs. The system sounds significantly different in the new room and with the new air core choke in the crossover. Irregardless, the digital playback is incredibly natural and lifelike. If I had no othet source, I would be fully satisfied. It does require very good source material. But that goes for all sources.
FWIW I am looking at
James Romeyn subs. 4 x 10 inch. These are used to create a swarm.
Ashly Protea SP series dsp processor. This controls the 4 amps attached to the sub enclosures.
Not sure the amps yet. Probably 4 mono class D.
JR with Wally tools would set the swarm up. I have decided I won't bother with individual subs. The swarm seems to have a much higher acceptable integration success. Too many people fail with individual subs. But, most people don't have the tools and experience JR has, so there is that too.
Sure, I have heard lots of bad digital. I heard some yearerday. Compressed and bloated. I asked the owner to disconnect the DSP operating the system, but he won't. He's convinced it's better. In the past when this person has listened to my system, he went right to adding subs. The system sounds significantly different in the new room and with the new air core choke in the crossover. Irregardless, the digital playback is incredibly natural and lifelike. If I had no othet source, I would be fully satisfied. It does require very good source material. But that goes for all sources.
FWIW I am looking at
James Romeyn subs. 4 x 10 inch. These are used to create a swarm.
Ashly Protea SP series dsp processor. This controls the 4 amps attached to the sub enclosures.
Not sure the amps yet. Probably 4 mono class D.
JR with Wally tools would set the swarm up. I have decided I won't bother with individual subs. The swarm seems to have a much higher acceptable integration success. Too many people fail with individual subs. But, most people don't have the tools and experience JR has, so there is that too.
Totally agree. I have stopped comparing my digital to vinyl and I am fully satisfied with it as my only source. It just sounds so good -- why even bother?
BTW, I am marveling at the organic fluidity of my digital replay. Perhaps this has also to do with my beloved tube amplification not messing it up, so that it can shine through.
I agree. I’ve long ago given up comparing vinyl and digital replay. They’re entirely different. Distortion in digital is completely unique to the way PCM works. Analog distortion is linear. It’s fixed. A tube or solid state preamp or amp has a certain noise threshold. It is not level dependent. Digital PCM distortion is far more insidious. It’s entirely level dependent. A DAC might measure great at 0 dB (full signal), but every 3 dB reduction results in loss of a bit. An oboe playing in an orchestra is about 40-50 dB down from full signal strength. You’ve lost roughly half the bits in your 16-bit digitization. Analog vinyl distorts very differently. At high frequencies the tracing distortion from a cartridge can be high, but it’s over 10 kHz where thankfully the distortion is more innocuous. Also it’s primarily second harmonic in nature.
All said and done I have both vinyl and digital and enjoy both, just like I have tube and solid state gear. No solid state amp at any price is going to match the sheer beauty of any of my SET amplifiers but they can drive far less efficient speakers than my SET amps can. You win some and you lose some.
If you go to as many live classical concerts as I do, you realize ultimately no stereo can ever come close to capturing the dynamics and richness of live music. It’s like climbing the tallest mountain to get to the moon. Sure, from Mount Everest, you are closer to the moon. But there’s a lot of distance remaining.
All said and done I have both vinyl and digital and enjoy both, just like I have tube and solid state gear. No solid state amp at any price is going to match the sheer beauty of any of my SET amplifiers but they can drive far less efficient speakers than my SET amps can. You win some and you lose some.
If you go to as many live classical concerts as I do, you realize ultimately no stereo can ever come close to capturing the dynamics and richness of live music. It’s like climbing the tallest mountain to get to the moon. Sure, from Mount Everest, you are closer to the moon. But there’s a lot of distance remaining.
Al and Godofwealth. I totally agree. I have had SS Dartzeel and let it go for my transformer coupled differential design PP amp. I have 40 watts of the most natural and real sound I have heard. I have a $15k SET 845 amp. It doesn't touch my Found Music Blade amp. Same for my tube based preamp. The way they play with digital is unbelievable. Especially with 96 db open baffle speaker with a horn tweeter. Its not at all like any SS amp with a Magico/Wilson/Focal/Rockport I have heard. It presents much different. Much better on many levels. The levels I care about. I'm confident the amps are a big part. The whole is. But the amps are special. Well, the First Sound preamp is too. High resolution files stored on a internal hard drive also help. They are better than the standard Redbook WAV files I have on the same drive.
At some time I will hook up my vinyl. Its just going to take time. I'm in no rush. I really only have about 30 albums I really enjoy that are very high quality. The ones I reach for. Most of those I can find something similar on digital. Like my Ray Charles. My records are excellent. But the digital versions are also very good. Im not without the music. The Harry Belafinte I have on digital is just as satisfying as the vinyl cuts I have. Every once in a while I think about a SS amp. Like the Ayre VX5 Twenty. Or a Coda. But I know it won't come close to the magic I get from the Blade. It will hit harder and have a stronger bass foundation. But thats it. And that is not what I am chasing. Now that I have pissed a bunch of people off, time to go to bed.
At some time I will hook up my vinyl. Its just going to take time. I'm in no rush. I really only have about 30 albums I really enjoy that are very high quality. The ones I reach for. Most of those I can find something similar on digital. Like my Ray Charles. My records are excellent. But the digital versions are also very good. Im not without the music. The Harry Belafinte I have on digital is just as satisfying as the vinyl cuts I have. Every once in a while I think about a SS amp. Like the Ayre VX5 Twenty. Or a Coda. But I know it won't come close to the magic I get from the Blade. It will hit harder and have a stronger bass foundation. But thats it. And that is not what I am chasing. Now that I have pissed a bunch of people off, time to go to bed.
Slow down guys give people time to read this thread. One guy started another thread on a topic that has been answered multiple times in this one. I can only imagine he hasn’t completed reading this
Haaaa 188 pages of back and forth ramble.
I agree vinyl is better than digital in many well applied systems. But digital is so good in many systems, and the delta so small, the concern becomes moot. Especially when you consider, getting your vinyl set up optimally may require hirng an expert to do it.
I had 3 experts set mine up and it was not correct. It took JR of Wallytools to come to my place to get it precise. Thats a $5k approximate bill, on top of everything else. The systems where Bonzo hears superior vinyl are well tuned by an owner that is very skilled, or a well respected expert did the work. That leaves everyone else, which is pretty much, everyone, will a less than optimum vinyl setup.
So, whats the argument. If you buy the right analog equipment. And if you pay the right expert to set it up, and if you have a really good record, vinyl is a superior format. And, you probably need that expert on retainer to come every year to keep it set up. Or you have to buy tools and be taught how to use them to possibly maintain the cartridge setup. And if you don't apply the knowledge you were taught frequently, you will forget or loose the touch and need to pay the $5k again.
Digital is darn close behind vinyl with digital being better on some source media. And if your vinyl is out of alignment, the digital may be better on everything.
So, ok. Vinyl is better. But at what expense/cost to performance/value/time relationship.
Maybe people that enjoy music are happier with digital as they just enjoy it. They don't have to maintain it.
I agree vinyl is better than digital in many well applied systems. But digital is so good in many systems, and the delta so small, the concern becomes moot. Especially when you consider, getting your vinyl set up optimally may require hirng an expert to do it.
I had 3 experts set mine up and it was not correct. It took JR of Wallytools to come to my place to get it precise. Thats a $5k approximate bill, on top of everything else. The systems where Bonzo hears superior vinyl are well tuned by an owner that is very skilled, or a well respected expert did the work. That leaves everyone else, which is pretty much, everyone, will a less than optimum vinyl setup.
So, whats the argument. If you buy the right analog equipment. And if you pay the right expert to set it up, and if you have a really good record, vinyl is a superior format. And, you probably need that expert on retainer to come every year to keep it set up. Or you have to buy tools and be taught how to use them to possibly maintain the cartridge setup. And if you don't apply the knowledge you were taught frequently, you will forget or loose the touch and need to pay the $5k again.
Digital is darn close behind vinyl with digital being better on some source media. And if your vinyl is out of alignment, the digital may be better on everything.
So, ok. Vinyl is better. But at what expense/cost to performance/value/time relationship.
Maybe people that enjoy music are happier with digital as they just enjoy it. They don't have to maintain it.
A $1000 plug and play turntable will blow away a SOTA digital source with most AAA records. It's not that Digital is crap, it's that most digital transfers are crap. This of course is only according to what I hear, you may hear it very differently.
Ron also had two experts set up his analog and stopped using it. Now he has bought another cartridge that will be set up by an expert.
The ones I hear have better records than the ones you and Ron use, and signal paths better suited to analog. I doubt the guys setting it up know more than Dohmann or JR about the mechanics of carts and arms, but they have very good ears in knowing what to listen for that allows them to know when set up is right and wrong.
Maybe the less than optimum vinyl set up you refer to comes from trying to follow foo fi system news and audition tracks, rather than the analog equipment itself.
Vinyl is not a passive hobby.
I learned from scratch with perseverance. Today, there are more tools -- gobs more tools -- to assist with setting up a tonearm and cartridge than there were 10-15 years ago. While experts make hay over a minutiae of fine details the basic mechanics are not that exotic. I"m not saying that the fine details are not worth studying or are not realities and I'm grateful there are those who continue to pursue them. I am saying its not hard to get a cartridge and tonearm very very close to right if you have a modicum of patience and are willing to take the time to understand how your tonearm operates. If you are not willing to learn, then fine -- point your remote at a box or your finger on a screen.
I"m not quite sure what to make of people who require an expert -- usually an expensive trip -- to change a cartridge. If you want to pay someone to show you how to catch a fish -- to give you training -- that's fine. But vinyl is not a passive hobby and imo that's a good thing. That is part of the enjoyment of doing vinyl.
The key is what bonzo said, at least partly -- you need to have a reference, you need to know what to listen for. You cannot hit a target if you don't know where it is. You don't need the best equipment and you don't need golden ears but you should know how to listen. I thnk that's true across an entire audio system.
Nice post Tim. I agree that having a target is very important,
I have noticed that at least three members here who hire vinyl set up guys are now touting their different formats, not surprisingly ones that are less hands on. The guys I know who seem to enjoy their vinyl the most all do their own setups, and they tend not to have multiple formats. Vinyl is an active pursuit, and it is rewarding in part for that reason. It requires curiosity, patience, and persistence.
I have noticed that at least three members here who hire vinyl set up guys are now touting their different formats, not surprisingly ones that are less hands on. The guys I know who seem to enjoy their vinyl the most all do their own setups, and they tend not to have multiple formats. Vinyl is an active pursuit, and it is rewarding in part for that reason. It requires curiosity, patience, and persistence.
I will take a cartridge set up by someone with good ears without special tools, over a cartridge set up by microscope and special tools any day of the week. And spend the money saved on a better cartridges, good AAA records can be had cheap in the used market, just don't by the rare ones.
In my case, it isn’t nostalgia for the golden era of audio itself, but I do appreciate the “realness” that simple recordings (with minimal number of microphones, volume of instruments/singers balanced by moving them closer or further from the microphones, short runs of pure copper balanced cables to triode amps to cutter head for D2D cut onto the shellac) and playback (MC cartridge through SUT’s, instead of complicated MC phono stage in a pre-amp, a separate MM phono stage that used transformers instead of caps in the RIAA network, instead of a preamp, and played direct through a minimalist design Class A SET with attenuators using non-magnetic tantalum foil resistors, first-order crossover to classic paper cone Alnico speakers) provides over multi-mic’d, intensively processed on mixing console engineer fantasy’s that are converted to computer language and stored in acetate then played back through more electronics in some megabuck DAC to megawatt amplifiers needed to get the dynamic sound effects from inefficient modern speakers with rare material cones to justify outrageous prices.
The over-processed latter will sound more “hi-fi”; cleaner, more dynamic, extend further in frequency extremes and “measure” far better than the prior … it just won’t sound quite so “real-to-life”.
Last edited:
When I mentioned nostalgia, I was referring to acoustical recordings. I happened to be listening yesterday to Louis Armstrong's early recordings (from the excellent compilation "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man") - going from one 1925 track recorded acoustically to the next (still in 1925) recorded with electric microphones, the difference is stunning in terms of bandwidth and clarity of the instruments. Perhaps some acoustic recordings (of a small ensemble, or even a soloist) can be really impressive, but how many of those are there? And what does it take to really hear them in the best conditions?
Anyway, I completely agree with you about "simple" recordings and playback, in principle. How does digital fit into that? It is difficult to generalize.
The only caveat is that I also appreciate some heavily processed recordings which could never be made with a very simple setup - but they are mostly electronic/pop music, so a completely different "ball game".
Vis à vis speakers, I also get your point - having tasted the magic of old Alnico speakers (Altec) myself, and also being so often (if not "always") disappointed by modern speakers. I did consider going down the multi-way vintage speaker road at some point, but decided it was not something I was ready to do, for a number of reasons. I do admire the commitment of those who do! I found something in the meantime that I find really satisfying (to my ears, in my room...) even if it is not perfect. I've given up on trying to understand what makes a speaker appealing to me, and to others. The only thing I know, from experience, is that price and dimensions are no guarantee of success.
Last edited:
All due respect, the descriptors you use in the last paragraph sound like clichés rather than being based on real listening experiences to the best digital can offer.
But it seems in these discussions people believe what they want to believe.
Similar threads
