Can digital get to vinyl sound and at what price?

[Republicoftexas69]

I am quite content with both my digital and analog FEU. I do not have nearly the amount some have invested and I try to live within a budget, it may pale in comparison to others. For me it is making the best with what tools I have at the time. I am in a good place and have been for several years now. Enjoy the music.

 

[Audire]

I’m a huge Emile fan.

But to advance digital fundamentally will require orders of magnitude advances. Not the micro-refinements we now see here and there.

We need leaps not baby steps to surpass analog.

One first learns to walk as a baby and then learns to take leaps. Some engineers are interested in the sound first. They continually experiment and refine. They are dedicated to audio. Leaps and bounds are coming. The last 10 years has shown that…

 

[Kjetil]

I really don't get the idea of trying to get something superior to sound like something inferior.

(Donning Stahlhelm)

 

[wil]

there are digital lovers who don't really have the measure of great vinyl.....and can't spend the time over lots of music to be able to compare broadly.

there are vinyl lovers who don't really have the measure of great digital, and can't spend the time over lots of music to be able to compare broadly.

then there are a very few who have both the very tip top level digital and tip top level vinyl. and take a lot of time to compare the two. and for good measure have tip top level tape too.

great digital can sound very much like vinyl, but will lose head to head clearly if you are going direct with better pressings. but the overall experience of listening to digital is very satisfying. it can be 'good enough' to hold it's own even with great vinyl sitting there as a choice.

anywhere below the tip top levels there are plenty of variables so any result it possible. how long is a piece of string? it depends.

i reject completely this notion of vinyl distortions. or the certainty of digital distortions. at the top level that is not how it is. it's degrees of great. sins of omission maybe.

As the inevitable and ever-repeating “vinyl is superior to digital” postings come along, I think Mike’s post should be auto-inserted as a reminder of rational thought based on solid experience.

I am happy that the vinyl experience is so satisfying to those that use it. I’m not sure I get the constant need to promote it being “better.”

I’m greatly enjoying the music on my digital playback system. I seriously doubt it’s fundamentally inferior, or even different, from very good vinyl playback. I also don’t doubt the best golden-age recordings in analog will be the best. Recording quality always washes over everything else.

 

[hopkins]

Digital has potential, but there's something clearly missing, even with the best equipment (at least the ones I have heard). Hopefully we will get there someday!

 

[Al M.]

Digital has potential, but there's something clearly missing, even with the best equipment (at least the ones I have heard). Hopefully we will get there someday!

What exactly is "clearly missing"? Specifics please.

 

[PeterA]

I don't understand this any better when you post it than when Peter posts it.

How many high-resolution local computer files using a respected, current generation DAC have you listened to recently?

Seriously -- I used to think what Peter thinks and what you think. I don't think this way anymore. These days high-resolution local computer files can sound pretty darn close to vinyl. (And this is me saying this!)

Are you sure, is Peter sure, that each of you is not operating and posting on the basis of stale personal experience?

For digital to sound like vinyl, you must concede that vinyl sounds like digital. Could you describe the vinyl set up in its system context and the digital high-resolution local computer files you directly compared it to in that same context to conclude that they sound "pretty darn close"? In what ways, or how exactly do they sound pretty darn close?

In your system thread, you infer that your digital sounds very different from your analog tapes and from your vinyl. Are you now streaming music as much and playing tapes and LPs because you think the formats sound like each other?

Ron, in your recent member visit video, you asked Jim a question (around 3:30 mark) about how he thought the optical cartridge sounded different from his other cartridge, and in his response, he said something like, "it did not sound like digital in any way". You nodded as if you agreed with him or understood what he meant. What did he mean that it did not sound like digital in any way?

 

[Ian B]

I'm both impressed with how much better SOTA digital systems sound these days, and also disappointed that they still seem unable to do some things the analog formats can. Vinyl as a sound is not close to my heart, but I worked for some time in Studer-based analog recording studios and have heard for myself again and again something being lost in the tape to digital transfer. Of course, you lose something going from digital to tape as well, but whatever doesn't translate into the digital realm seems to make things sound more three dimensional and alive.

Double rate DSD is as close as I've heard, but even there the implementation in many converters often prioritizes detail and does not sound truly analog.

I guess what is relevant is that digital systems can now sound satisfying, even if they can't match analog in all ways. I have to think a big part of that is the studio ADCs and processing, things the home audio consumer has no control over. Realistically, you may be listening over a $30k+ DAC, but the original capture was from a card that cost at most $1000 per channel, usually less.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I guess what is relevant is that digital systems can now sound satisfying, even if they can't match analog in all ways. I have to think a big part of that is the studio ADCs and processing, things the home audio consumer has no control over. Realistically, you may be listening over a $30k+ DAC, but the original capture was from a card that cost at most $1000 per channel, usually less.

it's not really improper execution of the current tech, it's the actual current tech. converting an analog signal to numbers, and then back again, is not free.

yet.

we can continue to improve and refine the current tech, but there is no getting over the hump.

we need new tech to get there. but since strong market forces are not sufficiently motivated to push for new tech, it's not going to happen. i'm personally happy with digital where it's at right now. and i'm as motivated as anyone about the subject. if i'm not pushing it, who is?

no one. so don't expect anything to change. some baby steps as time goes by is it.

 

[microstrip]

I’m a huge Emile fan.

But to advance digital fundamentally will require orders of magnitude advances. Not the micro-refinements we now see here and there.

We need leaps not baby steps to surpass analog.

Nothing can advance stereo fundamentally - the standard is defined. And something as simple as listener preference can make digital surpass analog.

But such comments are nice to confirm the need of permanent bias support in this hobby.

 

[microstrip]

What exactly is "clearly missing"? Specifics please.

Analog tape and vinyl noise and distortions, what else?

 

[Audire]

we need new tech to get there. but since strong market forces are not sufficiently motivated to push for new tech, it's not going to happen. i'm personally happy with digital where it's at right now. and i'm as motivated as anyone about the subject. if i'm not pushing it, who is?

no one. so don't expect anything to change. some baby steps as time goes by is it.

No one?

Mike respectfully, you have no idea what every engineer has in their mind. Taiko, Horizon, WADAX, MSB DD, are the new baby steps at present, but the future no one actually knows. What’s actually being planned? Do you know? No you don’t!

By the progress made in the last 10 years, the future of digital has only just begun!

All I can say is I believe the future is bright for digital. As you know it is yet young. It’s just getting started. New strides are in the works. So, get ready, as new innovations are right around the corner IMO.

 

[Ian B]

Analog tape and vinyl noise and distortions, what else?

The answers you get will be a lot of qualitative language like "less depth," "less 3D," "smaller images," "less fluidity," etc. But the most effective way to understand the problem is to start with a true analog source, convert it to digital and then compare the two. Without a doubt they will not sound identical as they, in theory, should. Something audible will be lost that is not easily defined as distortion, noise etc.

The best theoretical understanding I have heard comes from digital filters creating smear and timing uncertainty, and digital devices creating lots of RF and ground plane noise. But nobody really knows for sure.

 

[microstrip]

it's not really improper execution of the current tech, it's the actual current tech. converting an analog signal to numbers, and then back again, is not free.

We agree- the same way that recording in tape or vinyl is not free.

we can continue to improve and refine the current tech, but there is no getting over the hump.

we need new tech to get there. but since strong market forces are not sufficiently motivated to push for new tech, it's not going to happen.

Yes, market forces are not focused in your and analog fans preference.

i'm personally happy with digital where it's at right now. and i'm as motivated as anyone about the subject.

Sorry, even if you are motivated your system and biases are not. You have been listening extensively for long years to your analog system.

if i'm not pushing it, who is?

no one. so don't expect anything to change. some baby steps as time goes by is it.

Oops. No comment.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

No one?

Mike respectfully, you have no idea what every engineer has in their mind. Taiko, Horizon, WADAX, MSB DD, are the new baby steps at present, but the future no one actually knows. What’s actually being planned? Do you know? No you don’t!

By the progress made in the last 10 years, the future of digital has only just begun!

All I can say is I believe the future is bright for digital. As you know it is yet young. It’s just getting started. New strides are in the works. So, get ready, as new innovations are right around the corner IMO.

digital formats beyond PCM and dsd?

who is doing this?

if we stick with PCM and dsd, what tells you there is a breakthrough challenging analog in that direction? i see nothing like that.

and i am as pro-digital music reproduction as anyone.

 

[microstrip]

The answers you get will be a lot of qualitative language like "less depth," "less 3D," "smaller images," "less fluidity," etc.

Yes, these are the typical answers I get from vinyl aficionados.

But the most effective way to understand the problem is to start with a true analog source, convert it to digital and then compare the two. Without a doubt they will not sound identical as they, in theory, should. Something audible will be lost that is not easily defined as distortion, noise etc.

You are focusing on transparency applied to something that has been manipulated by tape or vinyl recording . It is not what is being addressed. It has been explained why such test is misleading and inconclusive in an hobby where changing a signal cable or even a power cable can ruin the sound of a great system.

The best theoretical understanding I have heard comes from digital filters creating smear and timing uncertainty, and digital devices creating lots of RF and ground plane noise. But nobody really knows for sure.

These results are extremely dependent on playback system. I am addressing the best digital recordings, not the poor ones.

 

[Audire]

digital formats beyond PCM and dsd?

who is doing this?

if we stick with PCM and dsd, what tells you there is a breakthrough challenging analog in that direction? i see nothing like that.

and i am as pro-digital music reproduction as anyone.

The key word there is “if.”

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Nothing can advance stereo fundamentally - the standard is defined.

if there is advancement in digital music reproduction surpassing analog, it will not be related necessarily to stereo. it will be some sort of technical sound break though maybe not even related to music reproduction. then pulled into the music reproduction process and applied to stereo or surround.

And something as simple as listener preference can make digital surpass analog.

until/unless evolution of the species changes how our senses work, our preferences for less processed music reproduction will not change. it's hard wired into us.

But such comments are nice to confirm the need of permanent bias support in this hobby.

those sorts of biases are not learned. more like imprinted. we simply become aware of them.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

The key word there is “if.”

and please reveal the alternative.

 

[hopkins]

What exactly is "clearly missing"? Specifics please.

The pitfalls of digital affect pretty much everything (perhaps aside for frequency response). Generally speaking, less accuracy in digital to analog conversion (which could result from a number of factors) leads to a more "veiled" sound. There is always a sense, but to a varying degree, that digital playback is not getting the most of what's on the recording. This comes from my experience testing a number of digital sources and DACs, and sometimes correlating this to specific changes made (by the manufacturer) to a same equipment and listening to the differences.

I am convinced that there is more potential, but I don't know what the limits are. This is my personal conclusion, and it does not mean I don't enjoy "digital" - this is what we are stuck with anyway, unless we want to corner ourselves in listening only to those albums available in analog...and analog (vinyl) has its specific issues as well.