Can digital get to vinyl sound and at what price?

[Gregm]

So much for pushing the envelope...(sad)

Tom

I get your gist -- but, amazingly an old LP12 can sound OK (better than an old Dual, for example) I am not an ardent fan of the LP12, but I am surprised that someone finds the sound of an aged dac better than the LP12/ denon 103 combo...

IMO, a major problem with digital reproduction disappointment comes from the compressed content.
However good your dac, it won't unflatten the compressed sound...

 

[bonzo75]

That may be the case. Two similar but different sound signatures. The best way I can describe the differences in my system is the digital sounds a little "homogenized" while the vinyl sounds more alive and acoustic instruments do sound more "real".

this is so surprising

 

[PYP]

IMO, a major problem with digital reproduction disappointment comes from the compressed content.
However good your dac, it won't unflatten the compressed sound...

do you mean the mastering process? The analog vs. digital "debate" makes sense to me only in the context of comparing a specific album(s) that used the same master tape for the vinyl and digital versions.

 

[adrianywu]

do you mean the mastering process? The analog vs. digital "debate" makes sense to me only in the context of comparing a specific album(s) that used the same master tape for the vinyl and digital versions.

I agree completely. I have transferred my master tapes (over 270 recordings) directly to DSD128 without any additional mastering. Playing back through my new PS Audio Directstream Mk II DAC, I cannot honestly say I can hear any difference. Unlike PCM, which I almost always can detect some "digital" characteristics, the DSD transfer is completely transparent. The fact that MFSL has been using DSD to cut their lacquers without anyone, including audio critics, noticing tells us that. And what they have been doing maybe the best solution, but of course they should be open about it.

 

[bazelio]

Oh, I think quite a few people noticed that many MFSL records don't sound that great. It was just that nobody knew why.

DSD can sound good, though. But, more often than not, it doesn't quite have the "liveness" or drive of its PCM counterpart. And the final resulting sound is so heavily dependent on the filter and shaper used that just generically referring to "DSD" is insufficient.

 

[adrianywu]

Oh, I think quite a few people noticed that many MFSL records don't sound that great. It was just that nobody knew why.

DSD can sound good, though. But, more often than not, it doesn't quite have the "liveness" or drive of its PCM counterpart. And the final resulting sound is so heavily dependent on the filter and shaper used that just generically referring to "DSD" is insufficient.

Of course, implementation is the key. However, the technology is at least now able to faithfully reproduce the original source.
Even the MFSL albums that were mastered direct from the master tapes in the past often do not sound that great, so I am not sure the DSD step is at fault. One thing is for sure, their One Step LPs were being sold at high prices in the secondary market before all this blew up.

 

[bazelio]

One thing is for sure, their One Step LPs were being sold at high prices in the secondary market before all this blew up.

Which is why there are lawsuits.

 

[PYP]

Which is why there are lawsuits.

seems someone became interested in what the process was and pursued an explanation. Once discovered, at least one reviewer said "Oh, of course I could hear the difference" yet recommended them before the discovery as the best sounding. Others were mad, perhaps in part because they couldn't hear the difference and enjoyed them??? How many kept their vinyl anyway?

The company was clearly wrong in what they did and paid the price.

 

[Gregm]

do you mean the mastering process? The analog vs. digital "debate" makes sense to me only in the context of comparing a specific album(s) that used the same master tape for the vinyl and digital versions.

Agreed, but I 'd also expect the dynamic ranges to be identical...

 

[PYP]

Agreed, but I 'd also expect the dynamic ranges to be identical...

are you saying there is an example of using the same master tape and then a measurable difference between analog and digital reproduction of the same tape?

 

[Another Johnson]

MoFi vinyl has always been off, starting in their half speed mastering era. I stopped buying them in the late ‘80s when my ears told me they weren’t actually as good as the hype.

It always surprises me when people repeatedly buy something, and are happy with it until someone else points out a flaw that has never bothered them. Once the flaw is discovered, they become whiners … “I got screwed by MoFi because the 50 records I bought, one at a time, all sound defective! I want my money back plus damages. Can I keep the records?”

This thread seems similar. I am not interested in looking at spectra to decide whether or not I like a recording. I’m going to listen to it. Great recordings will get my repeat custom. I won’t be snookered repeatedly by a company putting out poor recordings.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I agree completely. I have transferred my master tapes (over 270 recordings) directly to DSD128 without any additional mastering. Playing back through my new PS Audio Directstream Mk II DAC, I cannot honestly say I can hear any difference. Unlike PCM, which I almost always can detect some "digital" characteristics, the DSD transfer is completely transparent. The fact that MFSL has been using DSD to cut their lacquers without anyone, including audio critics, noticing tells us that. And what they have been doing maybe the best solution, but of course they should be open about it.

i have 1000 DSD128 vinyl rips from Lps i own, and can easily hear the difference on each one. vinyl always better, even though i like the dsd 128 files. on some of those files i also own PCM tape transfers which i prefer to the dsd 128 rips. that result varies.

i have DSD 256, 15ips 1/2" tape, and 30ips 1/2" tape from the same mic feed from this recording. i play the DSD 256 file often (really enjoy it) and have on multiple times compared the dsd to the tape. not close, the tape more than slightly better.....30ips better than the 15ips.

these results have been consistent whether MSB Select II, Taiko Extreme, or Wadax Ref dac and server, and also either Studer A-820/King Cello or ATR-102 w/MR-70.

honestly hard to imagine that you truly cannot hear a difference from the dsd 128 transfer to the source tape. but respect that's how you hear it. maybe your digital is better than mine. or my tape better than yours.

 

[Republicoftexas69]

This debate will be around for ever, just like cables and tweaks. If you think digital sounds better then God Bless and enjoy.

 

[microstrip]

i have 1000 DSD128 vinyl rips from Lps i own, and can easily hear the difference on each one. vinyl always better, even though i like the dsd 128 files. on some of those files i also own PCM tape transfers which i prefer to the dsd 128 rips. that result varies.

i have DSD 256, 15ips 1/2" tape, and 30ips 1/2" tape from the same mic feed from this recording. i play the DSD 256 file often (really enjoy it) and have on multiple times compared the dsd to the tape. not close, the tape more than slightly better.....30ips better than the 15ips.

these results have been consistent whether MSB Select II, Taiko Extreme, or Wadax Ref dac and server, and also either Studer A-820/King Cello or ATR-102 w/MR-70.

honestly hard to imagine that you truly cannot hear a difference from the dsd 128 transfer to the source tape. but respect that's how you hear it. maybe your digital is better than mine. or my tape better than yours.

These compares only tell us what you prefer in your system, not what is better. And curious that you use a simple piano recording as an example - since long we know that in a test carried by Tony Faulkner in a studio recording a piano, blind listeners preferred the sound of the tape machine to the live microphone feed and digital only come third - the used digital system was not a current top system.

In an hobby where we can listen to the materials of grounding cables we will always have differences in some conditions if the listeners are trained - audiophiles train to listen to some types of differences and ignore others.

 

[itay123]

Can't understand why you need to compare vinal and digital every moment??

Two different formats like RtoR,
a lot depends on the setup itself,

No good vinal or digial no matter how fine!! it is will not "save" an unbalanced setup nor a problematic placement of speakers and/or terrible acoustics.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

These compares only tell us what you prefer in your system, not what is better.

ALL my visitors share my opinions. not hard to hear so far. but fair to say it's only for my system.

And curious that you use a simple piano recording as an example - since long we know that in a test carried by Tony Faulkner in a studio recording a piano, blind listeners preferred the sound of the tape machine to the live microphone feed and digital only come third - the used digital system was not a current top system.

i used what i had.

i think a concert grand piano solo is a great candidate to show differences. lots of overtones and dynamic shadings. tonal fireworks. and they all come through in the listening.

this was a recording i knew was done to be fair and optimal to each format; with top level digital and top level tape. can't say how rigorous Mr. Faulkner's process was. back in the early days of dsd many claims were made that did not hold much water to me after doing my own investigations over the years. YMMV.

also the performance for PCM has improved over the years with lower noise dacs and improved servers. dsd's advantages have been blunted.

i was a champion of dsd for many years. have plenty of dsd files still and enjoy them.

In an hobby where we can listen to the materials of grounding cables we will always have differences in some conditions if the listeners are trained - audiophiles train to listen to some types of differences and ignore others.

sometimes there is no audible difference, as @adrianywu mentioned above. we are all free to judge recordings based on our experiences. agree this is all subjective. but when we ignore preferences, then why are we even here on this forum?

 

[PYP]

i have 1000 DSD128 vinyl rips from Lps i own, and can easily hear the difference on each one. vinyl always better,

To you, does better mean experiencing music as in a live concert? Real (naive?) question, not bait for endless thread "debates" (which usually seem to be monologues in parallel, never to converge). Since I haven't had vinyl in a very long time (and never at the level of the setups many folks have here), I'm curious about the qualities of today's vinyl playback.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

To you, does better mean experiencing music as in a live concert?

not particularly. unless it's a live event acoustical recording. then yes, more like the original live experience. better means less processed, less calling attention to it as a recording, more nuanced and musically textured. better flow and more liquid.

a step closer to the event.

we are talking here about rips from the vinyl source. so the vinyl source has a large obvious logical advantage.

Real (naive?) question, not bait for endless thread "debates" (which usually seem to be monologues in parallel, never to converge). Since I haven't had vinyl in a very long time (and never at the level of the setups many folks have here), I'm curious about the qualities of today's vinyl playback.

we are not all exposed to the same experiences. so there will always be disagreements. some of us refuse to accept what we have not heard for ourselves, which makes sense. and this will always be the case. so we project how we think it should be. and results can vary system to system and listener to listener.

i'm format agnostic, love them all equally....for what they are. and i'm invested at the highest level in each one. and so this subject does drive me and interest me.

 

[microstrip]

ALL my visitors share my opinions. not hard to hear so far. but fair to say it's only for my system.

i used what i had.

i think a concert grand piano solo is a great candidate to show differences. lots of overtones and dynamic shadings. tonal fireworks. and they all come through in the listening.

IMO to show differences, not to evaluate the performance of the format.

this was a recording i knew was done to be fair and optimal to each format; with top level digital and top level tape. can't say how rigorous Mr. Faulkner's process was. back in the early days of dsd many claims were made that did not hold much water to me after doing my own investigations over the years. YMMV.

also the performance for PCM has improved over the years with lower noise dacs and improved servers. dsd's advantages have been blunted.

i was a champion of dsd for many years. have plenty of dsd files still and enjoy them.

I was not addressing DSD.

sometimes there is no audible difference, as @adrianywu mentioned above. we are all free to judge recordings based on our experiences. agree this is all subjective. but when we ignore preferences, then why are we even here on this forum?

I am not asking anyone to ignore his preferences - our individual particular preferences are the essence of the high-end - just to acknowledge they exist.

 

[Rexp]

honestly hard to imagine that you truly cannot hear a difference from the dsd 128 transfer to the source tape. but respect that's how you hear it. maybe your digital is better than mine. or my tape better than yours.

Some folks can't tell the difference between mofi digitally sourced vinyl and AAA vinyl either. Its more likely they just don't hear so well in general.