Can digital get to vinyl sound and at what price?

[Al M.]

I think Peter declines to be a conduit to the ideas and techniques of someone who is knowledgeable and who chooses not to share that knowledge here beyond what he has done already. There is an obvious animus toward David Karmelli from those in your circle; some fester at the mere mention of his name. You don't need anything from David and I suspect he has nothing to offer you -- that's been going on for years. He's not here, he rejected FWB, so instead you badger Peter with your usual doublespeak? You injected yourself in a conversation between Peter and micro. It is Mike Lavigne who speaks of cults. "Not a good look." Why are you so upset about David and attacking Peter? No, that was rhetorical, I don't think the answer matters. No minds will be changed. Give it a rest, Mike.

No, Tim.

Peter was mentioning to Microstrip that David Karmeli gave him a reason why he thinks digital sounds so good in his system, and then declined to divulge that reason:

David explained to me the other day why digital sounds so good in his system. The reason surprised me. You should contact him and ask. Perhaps the reason will surprise you too. The system does not have to be optimized for one or the other as demonstrated by his system. The reason is much more basic.

That is what caused both Mike and Steve Williams to call out cultishness. I did not want to inject myself into this at the time, but I call you out now for misrepresenting the situation and trying to whitewash things, Tim, as if Peter was the "victim" here (and no, David is not a "victim" either).

If, as you say, "Peter declines to be a conduit to the ideas and techniques of someone who is knowledgeable and who chooses not to share that knowledge here beyond what he has done already", then he should also stop mention his name anymore, and stop teasing people with information David told him while declining to divulge it.

Otherwise you get a legitimate response like Mike's:

Peter. your choice to 'go mysterious' on us just fans the flames of cult-ness. that's your choice, don't blame others for it. you bring up this 'best digital' experience tease, then won't make the case. not a good look.

but i can see that explaining David's methods would open them to criticism, or dismissal. a no win situation.

 

[Rexp]

So why do you think John Coltrane is so appreciated by people (including myself) who may have never heard him on vinyl?

Here are the jazz critic Jan Evensmo's comments on this album:

"Playing the session recently with headphones three times during a flight from Johannesburg to Frankfurt, and one final time back home, it strikes me how hypnotical fascinating it is. I have to admit I cannot follow for a minute the elaborate analysis by my good friend Lewis Porter, but it does not really matter, because the uniqueness of this music gets through anyway, to me as an experienced listener without theoretical background, and to the common man. Even scale-heavy items like “Countdown” and “Giant …” are not so difficult after all, swinging with a perfect rhythm section. Then “Spiral” and “… Song Flute” should pose no problems to any of you. And if you still feel a bit conservative about JC’s music, go for the blues!!! My favourite items, after considerable consideration but nevertheless with rather obvious results, are the blues of “Mr P. C.” and “… Mary”. If you enjoy Bessie Smith, you should enjoy these too!!! And listen to Paul Chambers behind an inspired Flanagan!!! This session is connecting the basics of early-century jazz and blues to the very new trends, no anachronisms involved, a must for every jazz lover, no matter style preferred!!!"

John Coltrane - JazzArcheology.com

John Coltrane (1926 – 1967) was a late bloomer who turned out to be one of the greatest names in jazz history, not only as a tenorsax player but as a personality whose ideas changed the whole course of jazz from the late fifties… Download The Tenor Saxophone of John Coltrane (PDF-file) – click...

www.jazzarcheology.com

That's what it's all about. The system is secondary. I don't think Evensmo had a vinyl rig in his plane seat

Are you sure it was that album? I think he
was listening to this album which is a rare high quality digital transfer:

As i've said before, good recordings sound good even on budget equipment. So the recording quality comes first.

 

[tima]

No, Tim.

Peter was mentioning to Microstrip that David Karmeli gave him a reason why he thinks digital sounds so good in his system, and then declined to divulge that reason:



That is what caused both Mike and Steve Williams to call out cultishness. I did not want to inject myself into this at the time, but I call you out now for misrepresenting the situation and trying to whitewash things, Tim, as if Peter was the "victim" here (and no, David is not a "victim" either).

If, as you say, "Peter declines to be a conduit to the ideas and techniques of someone who is knowledgeable and who chooses not to share that knowledge here beyond what he has done already", then he should also stop mention his name anymore, and stop teasing people with information David told him while declining to divulge it.

Otherwise you get a legitimate response like Mike's:

Haha. It is Peter's or anyone's perogative to say what they choose to say. He is under no obligation to "divulge" what other's tell him in confidence or otherwise. Where did you get the idea that he is obligated to tell you anything?

Feel free to think you are being "teased" -- it's in your head, that's your perogative. If you can't handle that put him on ignore, put me on ignore. I'm not whitewashing anything -- there are many here who attacked David when he was participating and continue to do so in his absence. You can try telling Peter or anyone what he should say or not say - good luck with that! Peter is not a victim, David is not a victim -- a victim of what? The snarky foolish comments he gets dished upon him for years now? Berating Peter for calling his system thread 'Natural Sound' -- omg, that's so presumptious, so insufficiently inclusive. Clutch your pearls. Do you think he cares, do you think I care -- I know David does not care. Peter's not the one whining or attacking others out of nowhere. Your coterie can huddle, spew subtle epithets, do the like thing and talk about cults all day long - ha ha. You are fortunate he continues to participate.

 

[Joe Whip]

Nope, it's not about what I listen to. You like Jazz, right? Take John Coltrane for example, now if you actually want to hear how great he is, the best recordings are on vinyl. Imagine a younger person listening to Coltrane on streaming services and dismissing him as an ok saxophone player. Now that's sad!

You should hear the Atmos version of Blue Train. Phenomenal.

 

[Rexp]

You should hear the Atmos version of Blue Train. Phenomenal.

Is it from the original analogue master?

 

[Joe Whip]

I will have to investigate that. But it is my go to version of that album. i have written about it before elsewhere. Open, spacious, amazing.

 

[Rexp]

I will have to investigate that. But it is my go to version of that album. i have written about it before elsewhere. Open, spacious, amazing.

I don't have atmos so these albums play in stereo. I'm afraid all versions of Blue Train on Tidal/Qobuz don't do it for me. This new album is good tho;

 

[Al M.]

Haha. It is Peter's or anyone's perogative to say what they choose to say. He is under no obligation to "divulge" what other's tell him in confidence or otherwise. Where did you get the idea that he is obligated to tell you anything?

Feel free to think you are being "teased" -- it's in your head, that's your perogative. If you can't handle that put him on ignore, put me on ignore. I'm not whitewashing anything -- there are many here who attacked David when he was participating and continue to do so in his absence. You can try telling Peter or anyone what he should say or not say - good luck with that! Peter is not a victim, David is not a victim -- a victim of what? The snarky foolish comments he gets dished upon him for years now? Berating Peter for calling his system thread 'Natural Sound' -- omg, that's so presumptious, so insufficiently inclusive. Clutch your pearls. Do you think he cares, do you think I care -- I know David does not care. Peter's not the one whining or attacking others out of nowhere. Your coterie can huddle, spew subtle epithets, do the like thing and talk about cults all day long - ha ha. You are fortunate he continues to participate.

At first I wanted to comment, but I guess your answer speaks for itself, Tim. Let others draw their conclusions.

 

[microstrip]

I didn’t want to sound negative. I just wanted to add a reality check. I have invested heavily in both digital and analog, for the simple reason that it enhances my ability to listen to all types of music with the widest possible reach. I have bought over the past two to three years a large collection of mono jazz vinyl albums that might never make it to Roon. The only way to listen to a lot of great jazz from the 1930s to the 1950s is on vinyl in mono. It sounds splendid to my ears, even though it’s obviously not very faithful to the real live sound. When I listen to the sound of a big band from the 1930s or 1940s in mono vinyl, I can only imagine how thrilling it must have been to hear the great jazz performers live! I can’t do that, sadly, without time travel. So, mono vinyl is the best I can do. For example, the wonderful Time-Life Jazz series has incomparable liner notes written by music lovers who knew the jazz classics. This series is worth acquiring for just the liner notes with the fabulous black and white photographs. To me, no streaming album compares to this level of liner notes and the dedication required in producing this series.

Streaming provides a great source of enjoyment for me for listening to modern classical music to a wide range of composers with a simple swipe. That’s amazing in and of itself. Roon is a great boon to music lovers like me, and I was one of the earliest lifetime members of Roon, the best $500 I have ever spent in the last 35+ years in high end audio.

But, getting back to the main point. Here’s an analogy. We all take pictures with our digital cameras, from humble smartphones to fancy medium format cameras. I have bought virtually every type of camera format there is, from Nikon film cameras, to Leica rangefinders and 100 mega pixel Hasselbad medium format cameras (that cost a bundle!). You know what? Compared to the real world, all digital cameras simply suck! There’s a simple reason. The CCD sensor used in every digital camera does not see color! It’s not like the human eye in any way at all. CCD sensors (or CMOS sensors) only see grayscale! Color is an illusion created by the Bayer filter (https://www.arrow.com/en/research-and-events/articles/introduction-to-bayer-filters).

That is, an algorithm examines the gray scale pixels and synthesizes color. It’s remarkable that it works at all, but of course, it is no match for the human eye. Even with my fancy 100 megapixel Hasselblad, I can go out into my garden, see a lovely rose in bloom (in the Bay Area, we have an ideal weather for growing roses) with my naked eyes, take a very high resolution image that takes up hundreds of megabytes, look at it on my fancy 8K Dell monitor, and boy, does it suck! I mean, it’s not remotely close to what my eye sees in my garden. So, all this fancy camera technology is great, but it does not come close to the human visual experience.

That’s exactly the analogy I wanted to make with high fidelity recordings. The great violinist Jascha Heifetz called hifi “High Phooey and Hystereo”!. He had a point. It is so far removed from what instruments sound like in the concert hall, and recording live music is like trying to reach the moon by climbing the tallest mountain. Yes, on Mount Everest, you are closer to the moon, but it is still a long ways away!

Yet, that’s the best we have, and I enjoy it (both cameras and hifi), since it does enrich my life But it is no substitute for real human experience in the aural or visual worlds. The human eye and the human ear are miracles of evolution. Cherish and enjoy them.

Thanks for you time and comments - nice writings. Unfortunately image analogies are just a way of misleading people - there is nothing in common between photos and sound reproduction. If I wanted to tease you I would say that the retina is digital - it counts single photons.

Such nice prose only moves us sideways for another subject.

 

[DasguteOhr]

I just showed some quotes from a website
What's bombastic about it?
No one even tried to disprove all of that View attachment 113865View attachment 113866View attachment 113867

Since you keep repeating that, I'm going to tear it apart now. the technical superiority of cd is based in theory. point 1 dynamic no system in the world would be able to reproduce 90dB not even an impulse. very good recording reach max 30dB dynamic the cd cannot play any advantage.
point 2 channel separation good master tapes reach 45-50dB in stereo (mono 60dB). good pickups have been adjusted 40-45 db for example denon dl 103 (41.8dB )jan alaerts mc measured 43.4 dB by myself
ok the tape and cd are better but vinyl comes very close to possible value.
if vinyl is as bad as you claim then explain to me why vinyl plugins are used in modern digital recordings. the three most famous are to my knowledge are:
A) Abbey Road Vinyl
B) Vinyl Strip
C) iZotope Vinyl
to get more emotional, more natural, more musical, more physical, more multifaceted, more spatial - in short, a sound that offers a more intensive musical experience than all digital formats to reach.
I hope I have brought you closer to the measured values are good but often only half the truth. trust your ears and not just only the numbers.

Exsample abbey road vinyl user interface

 

[microstrip]

This had never made sense to me, and I have had no practical experiences to support this proposition.

If we dot have a minimum knowledge (or do not want to get it) things never make sense.
I have argued this point several time in WBF and I do not remember reading from you on it.

In a forum where I recognize that the majority is addicted to vinyl since long it will be hard to get such practice.

 

[microstrip]

I think it's kind of easy for digital to sound relatively good on vintage loudspeakers, because, I think, the high frequency roll-off of vintage loudspeakers tends to suppress any edgy artifacts of digital playback.

IMO extremely wrong! First, edgy artifacts of digital playback are fortunately a thing of the past. No one is anymore discussing vinyl versus digital using these early days of digital. And unless your vintage speaker have blown tweeters the spectral zone that was responsible for the edgy artifacts is not in the roll off of vintage speakers.

I own a Quad 34/606 system that I sometimes listen with ESL63. It has tow levels of roll off filters to remove noise from tape or radio. No way these filters would help with early digital equipment - they would make the sound even worst, edgy and thick!

But yes, some tube equipment that was not rolled off at all, such as the Audio Research SP8 /D70 II would help a lot early digital.

 

[microstrip]

i have a great respect for Peter, and how serious and engaged he is in the hobby. yet he chooses to go down roads that he then has to deal with, and makes his own bed. no blame involved.

I easily subscribe it.

micro can be a stickler. don't confuse his intolerance for sloppy logic with lack of understanding. we don't always agree. but i stay away from tech talk stuff.

Thanks for the praise. In fact I react when I see people using pseudo science to obfuscate or mislead audiophiles, particularly if these people have financial interests on this hobby.

And I am always happy to agree or disagree with anyone in this hobby.

 

[Republicoftexas69]

If we dot have a minimum knowledge (or do not want to get it) things never make sense.
I have argued this point several time in WBF and I do not remember reading from you on it.

In a forum where I recognize that the majority is addicted to vinyl since long it will be hard to get such practice.

Addicted to vinyl? No it is the medium that has been around the longest. Also what of tape?

 

[SoundMann]

Addicted to vinyl? No it is the medium that has been around the longest.

Yes. And those who poopoo it should be asking themselves, why hasn't this outdated technology gone the way of the buggywhip?

 

[Bartolo]

Nope, it's not about what I listen to. You like Jazz, right? Take John Coltrane for example, now if you actually want to hear how great he is, the best recordings are on vinyl. Imagine a younger person listening to Coltrane on streaming services and dismissing him as an ok saxophone player. Now that's sad!

The hyperbole is killing me. I have very good Coltrane vinyl and access to cd and better quality digital recordings. There is no way one would "dismiss" him because they listened to him on a digital source. Even on a lossy mp3, his musicality is there, just not the fidelity.

 

[Al M.]

Yes. And those who poopoo it should be asking themselves, why hasn't this outdated technology gone the way of the buggywhip?

Well, in a sense it did. The current "vinyl resurgence" among youngsters and not so young ones is for the very most part based on digital remasterings transferred to vinyl, and with records often played back on a turntable with, gasp, USB port. So that revival of analog is kinda fake.

However, there is hope for connoisseurs. For example, the current excellent all AAA Tone Poet series from Blue Note. But don't expect that to reach a mass market.

 

[Bonesy Jonesy]

I am a scientist (a biochemist) and obviously I like numbers too. Having said that, in music reproduction I also trust what my ears tell.me.

Have you ever heard just how voraciously dynamic top level vinyl playback can sound? It's just astounding, and it puts lots of digital -- certainly not all of it -- to shame. Especially on great jazz pressings digital can have a hard time competing with those dynamics.

Recorded live large orchestra pieces are the same.

The more complex the music and the more people playing instruments especially natural (non electronic) instruments and especially in a live recording the more digital sources suffer.

 

[facten]

Nope, it's not about what I listen to. You like Jazz, right? Take John Coltrane for example, now if you actually want to hear how great he is, the best recordings are on vinyl. Imagine a younger person listening to Coltrane on streaming services and dismissing him as an ok saxophone player. Now that's sad!

If you read my post #782 you will note that I don't disagree that vinyl sounds better. However, for me it's a matter of degree while you appear to draw a far and wide distinction between the two. And, as far as your Coltrane example, it may simply come down to a lack of interest in that genre of jazz versus someone not having an appreciation for his talent whether or not they listen on vinyl or a digital format. In such a case that I guess would make them "music adverse" in your world.

 

[Al M.]

If you read my post #782 you will note that I don't disagree that vinyl sounds better. However, for me it's a matter of degree while you appear to draw a far and wide distinction between the two. And, as far as your Coltrane example, it may simply come down to a lack of interest in that genre of jazz versus someone not having an appreciation for his talent whether or not they listen on vinyl or a digital format. In such a case that I guess would make them "music adverse" in your world.

I discovered Coltrane on CD, and I love the music.

I've heard him on vinyl as well.