No, I never go on my computer when I am listening to music.
I don't watch much TV and I try to limit my computer time.
Can digital get to vinyl sound and at what price?
- Thread starter ScottK
- Start date
No, I never go on my computer when I am listening to music.
I don't watch much TV and I try to limit my computer time.
Do you also have a strickt bedtime ?
Do you also have a strickt bedtime ?
Do you want to know my sex life?
I find the better your system and room set up are the better digital sounds. You can hear this because of the quietness of digital. It’s understood that you are starting with a great digital system as well. Analog always sounds good but you will hear the improvements as well in better imaging and spatial cues.
No, i already know you limit your computer time !
We are going to have to revive Jerry Springer for this one (and thats not all, Jerry).
If you take a competent ADC such as the Merging Horus, and monitor the mic feed directly and after A/D-D/A, there is really no difference, at least with DSD128 or above. I can hear some telltale signs if it is done with PCM, even with 24/192. I describe it as adding a sheen to the sound, as if there is a brightness, even though the frequency response has not changed. Recording the signal on hard disc (SSD) and then retrieving it does cause degradation because of jitter, noise and other issues.
1:1 copying using properly aligned professional tape recorders is very transparent. There will be 2dB more background noise and probably slightly higher 3rd order harmonics, which is hardly noticeable. I think the problem with PCM digital is the supersonic noise, even though far out of audible range, still has an effect on how in-band frequencies are perceived.
but it does not end up in the realm of good all analog vinyl. why that is i cannot say. whatever might be heard in the control room is not there with the end files. dsd/dsd128/dsd256/dsd512 files or sourced vinyl all fall short of full analog sourced vinyl. just stuff missing. but it's very very good no doubt. good enough even. but.....not the same as good vinyl. in my experience.
No, i already know you limit your computer time !
Touche, I walked into that one.
"Absolute garbage" appears to be another ridiculous exaggeration. Your personal opinion aside, please provide us with some objective evidence that "many others" agree with your assertion.
Let's take your example of the North Dakota track, by Lyle Lovett, which you, rightly IMO, described as kinda dry and typically digital. The words I would use is absolute garbage. It's kinda like you can't be a little bit pregnant. Things sound real or they don't.
I don't think the recording is this bad...perhaps your digital is exacerbating these issues?
However, it is a reason why I think most audio electronics suck. Most have way too many electronic artifacts like dryness, synthetic quality to tone and timbre etc.
Lack of artifice is rare as hen's teeth.
I'm listening on Tidal so there might a better version but Ron said his vinyl copy sounded like the Qobuz version so I doubt it.
Is it poor design or are these distinctions intentional and how the designers differentiate their products from the rest, claiming musicality or neutrality, while all sounding different to try to attract their customer?
Usually it is one person's vision of how things should sound. Some have a good idea what it should sound like an some don't and some just design by numbers.
Elliot G.
Industry Expert
I totally agree and with the work I have done with products to eliminate noise the digital sounds much better. The assumptions that digital is digital and its all kind of the same is profoundly false. Even within the best digital products there are many ways to improve the overall sound. These findings have happened becasue of the technology not inspite of it.
The control of all the electrical noise areas such as power, grounding, intramusic, and all the others I don't the name for that we have in our homes and listening areas is IMO pivital.
I have gone on a 3 month journey ( described elsewhere) that took time and money but the results were IMS fantastic.
disagree. there is a big difference between "indifference to digital for any of a hundred reasons", and being "dissatisfied" with digital after actually investing in trying to find enjoyable digital. and mostly i think that those who are indifferent to digital involves more that they like the analog media they have and are not motivated to explore what digital has to offer.
musically digital is capable of musical satisfaction, but it does require actual effort to find it. and mostly that is related to our music exploration viewpoint, and how much that matters. and adding expensive digital to an all analog system requires an investment. not spending the money is a legit reason, but that does not = dissatisfaction. that's a price/value question.
indifference to digital could be as simple as time. maybe analog already takes up the time one has, and so adding another format is just not worth it.
there is ample evidence that WBF is all in pushing digital boundaries (within current tech) if you open your eyes.
as far as better digital formats, that's a case for a wider technology breakthrough from science or industry. which like most things means follow the money. when large corporations or defense department budgets chase technology maybe better digital formats might spin off from that. but commercial music distribution or a few mouth breathing mono brow audiophiles won't move the needle on that. not enough money involved.
maybe the video gaming industry which is many multiples larger than the music scene might carry enough horsepower to open new tech. at least that is possible with the budgets, but not likely. but pushing the realism of the gaming experience does matter to the bottom line there.
Last edited:
Elliot G.
Industry Expert
I may be late to this however may I know what your digital and system is?
I think this information is important in understanding the conversation
thanks
Similar threads
