The best digital I’ve heard anywhere was also in Utah. it was a physical CD not streaming. This is the basis of my earlier comment about system context. In this particular case the same system played both digital and vinyl very well. I don’t know why some people say the system has to be optimized for one or the other. The vinyl did sound better though.
Can digital get to vinyl sound and at what price?
- Thread starter ScottK
- Start date
The best digital I’ve heard anywhere was also in Utah. it was a physical CD not streaming. This is the basis of my earlier comment about system context. In this particular case the same system played both digital and vinyl very well. I don’t know why some people say the system has to be optimized for one or the other. The vinyl did sound better though.
Also the EMT927 and two AS2000s with Neumann cartridge.
Last edited:
Yes, unfortunately the discussion is now lead by fundamentalists and extremists - no serious argumentation is possible any more.
It become a ridiculous debate.
Republicoftexas69
Well-Known Member
Irony is completely lost here, are you a refugee from Agon or ASR?
By selectively looking at metrics where digital excels, you miss the problems of digital which include:
1. Imperfect ADC and DAC.
2. Jitter.
3. Zero-Crossing Distortion.
4. Pre and Post Ringing.
May be some magic mushrooms / a bottle of whiskey , Wodka makes it interesting again.
Kinda like being " suspended in disbelief"
Kinda like being " suspended in disbelief"
They should have done at least 24/88.2 but still a great achievement.
Or suspended in wine.
This thread has just become a place for childish mud slinging. It's embarrassing!!!!
Thanks for telling us of this important detail.
I have explained it several times with detail. Sound engineers have explained. It would have been nice if you disagreed with proper explanations when the arguments were presented, but you prefer to show your ignorance.
Just an individual opinion - as you, I own the Lamm ML3 and LL1. One reason I am trying to sell them is that I find that they sound really great with vinyl, but are not my current preference with digital and I listen mainly to digital.
BTW, I say that a system optimized with vinyl will not sound optimal with digital. Some what different from your sentence.
Agreed. And vice versa. One of the many reasons why I stick to a single source in my system is that I don't want to get into a rabbit hole on this.
Yes imagine if someone criticised this thread for childish behaviour while at the same time posting laughing emojis at someone's comment. Now that would be really embarrassing.This thread has just become a place for childish mud slinging. It's embarrassing!!!!
Republicoftexas69
Well-Known Member
Completely agree. I enjoy both formats and really do not give much thought to the FE or sonic comparisons other than this particular musical piece sounds wonderful, I have that album I will give it a spin. To say if a person doesn't have a vinyl rig the no not what they speak is extremely biased. Or conversely if they do not have digital.
I agree completely with you Tima, and would like to add something to consider, that we are comparing apples and oranges.
The pure analogue recording and playback process to/from vinyl is very low tech. Forgetting about cylinders and 78's that established/formed the process used, if we just look at commercially available long-play (33RPM) vinyl records the technology has been pretty much the same since 1930, when RCA Victor released the first examples, and the best-sounding examples of pure-analogue records made today are made in pretty much the exact same way as then.
Digitally-processed music, whether on CD, MPV, hard drive or stream, uses much higher (newer) technology than analogue recordings and that technology is constantly improving. Digitally-processed music sounds unique and is loved by many. It sounds different to pure-analogue because it is different.
A primitive analogue recording to magnetic tape, or direct to disc, is capturing the actual sound waves (all of them) from the musicians/singers in real time, then playing it back by reversing the process and amplifying the output.
The more technical digital process (beyond my ability to convey fully, but generally) is a conversion of the most dominant sound waves (those that would not be heard because of louder waves are by algorithm cut to save on processing and storage) into a series of measurements of the sound waves, and it is those measurements which are then recorded as on/off codes (bitstream) or groups (eg. 20-bit bytes) that must be decoded and converted back into the frequencies segments that were recorded (not those cut) and played back as an interpretation of those original sound waves. Sort of like trying to put Humpty-Dumpty together again. Consider the difference of sound between SET and Push Pull amplification. Push Pull divides the signal and then recombines it in order to achieve greater power, but in the process looses something in comparison to SET.
IMHO, the process involved in converting analogue to digital and then back to an analogue rendition will always give a character to the sound that is discernible by many (usually those who prefer pure analogue) and will never sound the same a pure analogue.
Last edited:
There is always the "ignore" function to simplify matters here
Similar threads
