Can digital get to vinyl sound and at what price?
- Thread starter ScottK
- Start date
A question with a plethora of answers. Varies with each individual and the specfic acoustical environment.
Last edited:
It is CD dependant. Holly Cole, Patricia Barber and the remastered Jennifer Warnes RB CD's are good examples to the contrary. There are certainly others.
Are you going to run your $1000 TT through a BACCH or something as such,.or a $20,000 phono preamp.
Last time Ked was barking about Gerrard tables and I looked them up, it was something like $9k. Then I'm told I need a Kuzma Stabi arm arm for $8k or so. A cart for $5k or so. Then the phono pre. Sky is the limit, but lets says its $18k. So a good vinyl rig is $41,000.
I don't see $1000 complete vinyl setup sounding good at all. I had an RP6 with Exact cartridge and Fono pre. It sounded ok. I enjoyed it. End of story. That was more like $4k.
I don't see $1000 complete vinyl setup sounding good at all. I had an RP6 with Exact cartridge and Fono pre. It sounded ok. I enjoyed it. End of story. That was more like $4k.
Ever since the blanket episode the very thought of listening to Michael Jackson gives my pussy nightmares
I think were saying the same thing. People who tout vinyl as so great are using Redbook files that don't play so well on the average equipment they utilize. Their exposure is limited. Once they hear a proper digital setup with proper files, they will fail to determine if they are listening to vinyl or digital if they do not know.
Interesting how we perceive things differently. I’ve no dog in the eternal vinyl vs digital controversy that seems to rear its ugly head just about everywhere these days. OTOH, I find the vinyl lovers’ level of enthusiasm often times dogmatic, extreme, even obnoxiously offensive at times.
Presumably you (and others) have already convinced yourself that vinyl is more musical than digital, otherwise I doubt you would have initiated this thread. Yet, there’s no genuine evidence to support your conviction no matter how many may agree with you. In fact, if anything, it probably ought to be impossible to ever prove beyond a shadow of any doubt which format is genuinely superior. Especially since both formats have their pros and cons.
If indeed vinyl’s superiority cannot be proven beyond the shadow of any doubt, then might that imply lovers of vinyl have succumbed to an age old performance-limiting preconceived narrative? If true, boy would that ruffle some feathers, eh?
Regardless, there is another perspective you may not have considered.
It’s been established in numerous other industries that digital is genuinely more accurate than analog. It’s even been reiterated in this forum a few times but I recall a supposed industry expert recently posted in another thread that digital is a more accurate format everywhere except in high-end audio. Paraphrased. That’s a rather awkward claim to make, don’t you think? If nothing else, that essentially implies that digital possesses an intelligence to discern which industry its operating – which IMO is absurd thinking.
How about this? Instead of wondering which format sounds more musical, might it be more beneficial to consider which format has the greatest potential for being more accurate?
If a recording contains exactly 100% of all the music info we ought to hear (it does) but by the time the input signal reaches the voice coils/speaker diaphragms we’re only hearing 90, 75, or even just 60% of that music info, well… doesn’t that imply something in our playback chain has compromised its accuracy somewhere? Greater accuracy implies greater detail. And greater detail implies we’re hearing more of the music info embedded in the recording, right?
Assuming we’re in an industry where performance is paramount – like high-end audio, if somebody offered me a product that was assured to possess greater potential accuracy than the other, hands down give me the flavor with the greater potential accuracy every time. Because my goal is to always hear potentially more of what’s embedded in a recording.
For example. You’ve got in your head that your current vinyl is roughly 10% more musical than your digital and there’s a few implications and rabbit holes associated with that claim. Regardless, when something is more accurate, isn’t it also more revealing? IOW, if something is revealing more of the music, wouldn’t it also be revealing more of any distortions too?
So instead of wondering which format is more musical on its face in a given system, might it behoove you to instead ask which format is potentially revealing more – good and bad? With that mindset and sticking with your 10% claim, might it be possible that your current digital is roughly 10% more accurate/revealing and what you interpret as less musical may actually be a 10% increase in sonic cries for help by audibly revealing more distortions (along with more music info)?
And in contrast, might your supposedly more musical vinyl actually be masking these sonic cries for help by roughly that same percentage? IOW, might your potentially more accurate digital be trying to audibly communicate roughly 10% better than your vinyl that you’ve got shortcomings / distortions in your system that have yet to be sufficiently addressed?
After all, if digital is genuinely more accurate than analog in most any other industry, then what is the likelihood that it’s also potentially more accurate in this industry too? When something in high-end audio is more accurate (more revealing) than something else, doesn’t that imply that it has the potential to reveal more of the distortions as well as more of the music?
Anyway, given the scenario you pose here I ask you, … Is it at all possible that when you say your vinyl is 10% more musical than your digital, might you really be saying your vinyl is 10% more masking of distortions (more tolerable) than your digital and it’s that perception that makes you and others think it’s more musical?
As for your thread’s title question, “Can digital get to vinyl sound and at what price?”, I’m pretty sure I don’t want to potentially compromise my digital to sound like others’ vinyl at any price.
At least you post vids of your system so we know the sound you like. I have no doubt that you would prefer your digital to a $1000 all in one turntable or any turntable.
So Rex are you going to actually post some videos… you can’t keep going on at others about sharing videos of their setups as evidence and never post any yourself
I think you'll find I can....So Rex are you going to actually post some videos… you can’t keep going on at others about sharing videos of their setups as evidence and never post any yourself
There is little doubt that modern high resolution digital, esp. DSD, is technically superior to analogue, which has remained more or less static since the introduction of Dolby SR in the early 1990s. From a recording point of view, I would challenge anyone to distinguish a live mic feed from one encoded and decoded in real time with DSD. I have done this often, and cannot tell a difference. However, the process of recording the signal onto a storage medium and the retrieval can introduce some artifacts, depending on the equipment. These artifacts are miniscule when compared to those introduced during the mastering and production of vinyl records. The only argument I can see is whether analogue recordings, esp. those from the golden age of stereo between 1954 and the mid-1970s, are best served by staying analogue or digitized. I would say if properly done, they are best digitized for the majority of users. This means encoding with minimal manipulation into high rez DSD. Of the 400 or so transfers I have done so far from my master tapes, I would say pretty much all of them are superior to commercially available vinyl LPs, whether these are original releases or audiophile reissues. But I must also say that many commercial digital reissues of old recordings have not been done well. The redbook CD files should not even be considered nowadays, and even the high rez transfers were either upsampled from low resolution files, or done without much care, which is reflected in the end result. For new recordings, there is little point in the extra expense of using analogue tape, other than for commercial reasons. Unfortunately, few modern digital recordings are being made with the same care and technical expertise afforded the classic analogue recordings of the golden age. Oftentimes, the best recorded versions of certain pieces remain those made 60 years ago. And if no well transferred digital reissues of these recordings are available, vinyl remains the best option unless one has access to the master tapes. Of course, the original 4-track tapes of these recordings, if in good condition, will almost always be superior to the vinyl records, and often cost less than the new audiophile reissues, but this is a separate topic in itself.
Yes, unfortunately, and for those it does not take a high end setup to immediately tell the difference between the LP and CD versions. It does not even take a mint version of the LP!
But many of these late 1950s-early 1960s LP are now very expensive and/or difficult to obtain.
Yesterday I was listening to Bud Powell's 1957 album "The Amazing Bud Powell, vol 3". I would bet that the original LP has better quality than the digital releases, but a near-mint version of the original LP on discogs is worth 300$... It may be worth purchasing if you are a die-hard fan of Powell, and you are going to spend many evenings listening to it.
Vinyl is fun to listen to, but digital is unavoidable if you care about music as much as high fidelity.
Last edited:
The modern re-mastering of many of these analogue recordings leaves much to be desired. That's why the original releases are so expensive. This is why I have been investigating 4-track tapes. At least for the more popular classical titles, including many on the TAS super LP list, the tapes are cheaper than the original LPs in mint condition. Many shaded dog titles can be bought for $15 to $30, and the same goes for the Decca SXL and Mercury Living Presence titles. The tapes have far less distortion and noise than the LPs, and often have wider dynamic range. Rock and jazz titles have become very expensive, unfortunately. One needs to play them with a high quality machine, preferably with modern playback electronics, and not a $300 Akai found on Ebay.
There are some very good ones. I gave some examples previously. Hopefully there will be more in the future.
Agreed. While I do think you can great sound from vinyl at lower prices than digital, it’s probably at $10k or higher with cartridge.
Agree partially but series like the Atlantic 75, Tone Poets, Impex, Intervention Records, new OJC, UHQRs, MFSL One Steps, etc. suggest mastering chains have never sounded better.
Digital is still working towards great and most peoples perceptions are based on less than perfect implementstion.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |