Can digital get to vinyl sound and at what price?
- Thread starter ScottK
- Start date
No. The measurements do not explain the performance of a component such as a speaker or an amp — they don’t even begin to explain how a component will sound. This is the fundamental flaw that the “ASR camp” makes. Maybe one day we will have a more comprehensive set of measurements, but I doubt it.
I don't know about the science, but the ASR guy comes across as the world's most arrogant SoB head of a cult of cave dwellers, that of course being my personal opinion and I may be completely wrong, but that smug grin did it for me. I got banned for believing in aliens, which I consider a statistical certainty.
Go back to the 1960s and measurements were vital. The first thing Peter Borwick and his associates at Gramophone did (in those days they were called Technical Reports) was measure the device to check it met all the manufacturer's specifications. Comments on listening observations were brief or non-existent. In those days it mattered, as power was expensive and noise was audible. That became largely irrelevant by the 1980s.
Bad measurements are for me an indication that the designer is a bit careless, if not hopeless, and to be avoided. It's more the impression than the actual performance. Like the candidate that didn't polish their shoes, however clever they are. Thankfully there are no objective measurements to settle the digital v. vinyl debate.
Last edited:
I got banned from ASR for the apparently inexcusable suggestion that members trust their ears to judge a component, not the data.
If you follow their “tests” you will quickly spot major flaws:
1. They let their desired conclusion drive the hypothesis and experiments. This, of course, is the opposite of the scientific method.
2. Most of the tests are either intentionally rigged, or poorly conducted, or both — or measure something irrelevant.
For you car guys - not sure if you recall Hyundai ads in the ‘90s, but they would compare an Elantra’s rear seat hip room (or another basically irrelevant stat) to that of a Mercedes E Class (or another much more expensive luxury car), and try to make that point that because the Hyundai has an extra millimeter of thigh room in the center rear bench, it was somehow better.
The problem with measurements is that in some cases worse measurements actually yield better components. The DarTZeel 18NS preamp is widely regarded as one of the world’s best. Its measurements are not that great: signal to noise is about 92dB, considerably lower than other top performing preamps. Herve has made the point that by designing for the best measurements, you can get worse sound. Eliminating global feedback will make measurements worse, for example.
If you follow their “tests” you will quickly spot major flaws:
1. They let their desired conclusion drive the hypothesis and experiments. This, of course, is the opposite of the scientific method.
2. Most of the tests are either intentionally rigged, or poorly conducted, or both — or measure something irrelevant.
For you car guys - not sure if you recall Hyundai ads in the ‘90s, but they would compare an Elantra’s rear seat hip room (or another basically irrelevant stat) to that of a Mercedes E Class (or another much more expensive luxury car), and try to make that point that because the Hyundai has an extra millimeter of thigh room in the center rear bench, it was somehow better.
The problem with measurements is that in some cases worse measurements actually yield better components. The DarTZeel 18NS preamp is widely regarded as one of the world’s best. Its measurements are not that great: signal to noise is about 92dB, considerably lower than other top performing preamps. Herve has made the point that by designing for the best measurements, you can get worse sound. Eliminating global feedback will make measurements worse, for example.
The content is clearly art. The engineering in this at its best might hope to approach being an art form as well as being a technical science but because this is fundamentally (for many if not most) an application for essentially an experiential pursuit it likely can’t actually be perfectly either.
But that this pursuit is ultimately about feeling from an end users perspective is clear and certainly even more so on this forum where the culture is mostly about experience rather than being only academic in nature.
At any rate science is only good when it works within the limits of its testing and evidencing and I guess that its in the assumptions where many less qualified science warriors may trip over. Some seem to completely overestimate the value of the numbers that it works with and also completely underestimate the complex layering of responses in human experience when we are engaging with sound and music.
If the function of this pursuit was mainly about quantities rather than qualities science would be much better qualified to be the final arbiter.
Last edited:
I never said a business should not make money. I never said some musicians don't become wildly successful. Just look at Taylor. Even Jimmy Buffet.
My perception is that many of those that do very well treat it as a business and have a solid support system. Family, managers etc.
Maybe I have watched too much hollywood seeing movies where the artist are driven to the brink. Many then lost to drugs. Most stories of the Hollywood entertainment industry and the recording industry do not glamorize the business behind the artist.
But really, this thread is not about the artist and labels. Its not even about recording capabilities and playback performance. It's I love digital or I love analog or can't we all just get along.
I don't know many that would argue, very very few stereo if any reach a level where they would fool a listener into believing they are listening to a live performance of any kind. That seems to be a measure many ascribe too. Its one of many. And this does beg the question of which source helps get us as close as possible to that. I, for the most part find digital and vinyl sources are very close and sonically hard to tell apart. I believe they are sonically closer than the differences between tube and SS. And especially between the wide variety of playback from speakers. Its kind of funny how people get so spun up on digital vs vinyl when I see that as one of the lesser influence on overall playback. I say that as one compared to the other when at the same caliber. I am not saying the source and media are not critical. I am saying the differences between the two seem to be pretty negligible if someone were trying to decide between one or the other when trying to achieve a sonic signature. I feel the amp and speaker voice stronger and have a larger influence.
My perception is that many of those that do very well treat it as a business and have a solid support system. Family, managers etc.
Maybe I have watched too much hollywood seeing movies where the artist are driven to the brink. Many then lost to drugs. Most stories of the Hollywood entertainment industry and the recording industry do not glamorize the business behind the artist.
But really, this thread is not about the artist and labels. Its not even about recording capabilities and playback performance. It's I love digital or I love analog or can't we all just get along.
I don't know many that would argue, very very few stereo if any reach a level where they would fool a listener into believing they are listening to a live performance of any kind. That seems to be a measure many ascribe too. Its one of many. And this does beg the question of which source helps get us as close as possible to that. I, for the most part find digital and vinyl sources are very close and sonically hard to tell apart. I believe they are sonically closer than the differences between tube and SS. And especially between the wide variety of playback from speakers. Its kind of funny how people get so spun up on digital vs vinyl when I see that as one of the lesser influence on overall playback. I say that as one compared to the other when at the same caliber. I am not saying the source and media are not critical. I am saying the differences between the two seem to be pretty negligible if someone were trying to decide between one or the other when trying to achieve a sonic signature. I feel the amp and speaker voice stronger and have a larger influence.
The best sound signature is no sound signature at all...
You want a neutral and flat and transparent system as much as possible
We welcome all refugees from other audio forums.I come from ASR
How does this have any meaning if we cannot agree on what is "no sound signature"? A system which you think has no sound signature might sound dry and flat and lifeless to me, which does not sound like real music to me, and so is, to me, itself a "sound signature."
I do? What if "neutral and flat" sounds dry and lifeless and analytical and unnatural to me?
PS: You ain't in ASR no more!
Dry, dull, lifeless and flat is a fairly horrible sonic signature when you know you’re playing fabulously life-filled engaging and dynamic music… more about being neutered rather than being neutral… definitely not an obvious sign of true neutrality.How does this have any meaning if we cannot agree on what is "no sound signature"? A system which you think has no sound signature might sound dry and flat and lifeless to me, which does not sound like real music to me, and so is, to me, itself a "sound signature."
I do? What if "neutral and flat" sounds dry and lifeless and analytical and unnatural to me?
PS: You ain't in ASR no more!
Thing is that if your system is neutral and flat then you can EQ it to your liking .How does this have any meaning if we cannot agree on what is "no sound signature"? A system which you think has no sound signature might sound dry and flat and lifeless to me, which does not sound like real music to me, and so is, to me, itself a "sound signature."
I do? What if "neutral and flat" sounds dry and lifeless and analytical and unnatural to me?
PS: You ain't in ASR no more!
Make it warmer or more musical or more Analytical .
But if your system is "musical "or colored or warm
Then you can't do that , your kind of stuck with that sound.
I find it interesting in another group I participate in, one of the members competes in car audio competition. He said many use microphones and software to tune. He did too. This resultes in perfect soundstage and precise location of instruments. These atributes score high. But he felt that sucked the life out of the music. So he went back to tuning by ear. He said tuning by ear results in a more natural and real sound. He did not say this leads to wins. But it leaves roon to question the science and appreciate what some say is the art.
Yes I'm a refugee from Audiophilestyle, came here precisely to get away from the bits is bits Neanderthals!
How do you define neutral and flat? Rooms have their own frequency response, and just toe-in of speakers can affect frequency response as well. Apparently a flat in-room response is not even something that is generally liked.
And how do you know something is "neutral"? Some "neutral" components sound "bright" because of the higher harmonics involved in their distortion pattern (e.g., some solid state amps), even if THD is low. Human perceptional psychology is complex, and thus a simplistic "flat" frequency curve often comes with hopelessly naive and gullible assumptions that ain't "science".
He still uses DSP, but he uses one that allows selection of different Opamps. He adjusted the phase, time, eq and levels all by ear. This is quite different than using a mic and software which he says leads to a technically more precise result. Per his words, tuning by ear instead of software gives a more fun, lively, dynamic and musical that is easy to listen to for hours.
A new claim to solving the digital problem:
“In our quest to unlock the full acoustic potential of music, we have discovered that the primary cause of this contaminating “digital signature” is the common switching process inherent in traditional DAC circuitries” – Michael Børresen
the-ear.net
“In our quest to unlock the full acoustic potential of music, we have discovered that the primary cause of this contaminating “digital signature” is the common switching process inherent in traditional DAC circuitries” – Michael Børresen
Aavik SD-880 DAC To Revolutionize Streaming | The Ear
Aavik is excited to announce the launch the Aavik SD-880, the newest member of the flagship 880 series, our first ever streaming DAC. A further result of the
the-ear.net
Similar threads
