Paul McGowan Prefers Digital
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
How did you optimize your system for one or the other format, and did you preference for one depend on this optimization?
From some of Marc's comments, I may be misunderstanding Paul's assertion. Is Paul talking about simply spending more money on one format or the other, or about changing conditions in the room and the rest of the system to optimize one format over the other? I had assumed that he was talking about the latter, but Marc mentions the things and their costs of what he has done to the specific source components, not the room or other system context. MikeL has optimized everything involved to the point were he thinks he is getting the best of what each format has to offer, and it is in the same room with the same sound treatments, speaker positioning, and ancillary gear.
Marc, I'm not asking about what number or cost of specific improvements one has made to one format over the other. I take Paul's comments to mean that the room, speaker/listening seat positioning, ancillary gear, acoustic treatments, etc. etc. are developed in such a way to optimize one format over the other.
I'm not asking about specific improvements to only one source component or the other. Paul seems to imply that it is a much greater system wide optimization that is necessary to get the best out of each format, and that the choices one makes are different, perhaps radically, depending on whether he wants to optimize digital or analog.
Am I missing what Paul means with his assertion?
Peter, I cant see any argument that listening position, speaker set up etc would make any difference here. Thats crazy.
But get noise supression right, and your digital will transform (power cables, grounding, dedicated lines, balanced power, fuses all make more difference to my digital than my analog).
Get vibration isolation right, and your analog will transform (Stacore and Rollerblocks under tt and phono count for more than under cdp).
Since Ive gone to town on both sources I feel Ive optimised both, and am more source agnostic than Ive ever been before.
But get noise supression right, and your digital will transform (power cables, grounding, dedicated lines, balanced power, fuses all make more difference to my digital than my analog).
Get vibration isolation right, and your analog will transform (Stacore and Rollerblocks under tt and phono count for more than under cdp).
Since Ive gone to town on both sources I feel Ive optimised both, and am more source agnostic than Ive ever been before.
Hi Marc,
Actually I don’t think it is crazy at all that one could have different speaker positioning and seating preference for an analogue versus digital setup.
If you do a room sweep with an LP (with your analogue rig) and a digital file (with your dac), you could see quite different results. This will likely occur for sure at the bottom end and also at the highest end (probably elsewhere too). Since bass is so linked to speaker positioning then you could easily have optimum positions dependent on source. Without over complicating things, the reduced channel separation of analogue may also mean that you prefer staging with your speakers in one position more for one format over the other.
I have heard a ton of dacs but never a MSB. One day I can come up to Al’s 
Al, could you post a 1kHz sine wave from both an LP and digital source? I'd be fascinated to see how they compare. Of course there smoothness would depend on the turntable's wow and flutter specifications, and those of other ancillary components so these examples may or may not be representative of the best of either format, but I'd be interested nonetheless.
I believe MSB will be at AXPONA. That'll be a good opportunity. Let me know if you're truly interested, and we can schedule a private listening time with them, and you can bring your music, etc.
Or, if you want to get out of the cold, you can come to San Diego, where we have a few systems with SELECT that we can use for demos
cheers,
Alex
I could see this also. In fact, I could see moving speaker toe-in very slightly to account for slight tonal balance shifts between cartridges. But, who would ever be willing to make such adjustments? I presume most of us would simply rather enjoy the different presentations each different component presents to the listener.
One of my audio buddies here just mentioned to our audio group that he has made recent changes to his system so that a digital and an analog recording of the same performance now sound virtually identical through his system. I had always thought these recordings were mastered differently. I find this pretty interesting and look forward to hearing the comparison one day.
I believe MSB will be at AXPONA. That'll be a good opportunity. Let me know if you're truly interested, and we can schedule a private listening time with them, and you can bring your music, etc.
Or, if you want to get out of the cold, you can come to San Diego, where we have a few systems with SELECT that we can use for demos
cheers,
Alex
Alex, I am planning a trip to San Diego in early May. I'll contact you as I would enjoy meeting you and hearing your demo rooms.
Well my answer can't be objective. But based solely on experience, what markers I use for critical judgment, and electrical theory.
Hypothetically what would happen if a system would be capable of reproducing all the information on a digital recording ,both DDD and AAD?
Those DDD and ADD recording were transferred from the digital and tape masters used for making the Vinyl master also. The tape master captured all information (theoretically} that the microphones could pick up at the venue and space.
Would you expect to hear great clarity of the recorded human made event. Could you hear movements of the players, their interaction with their instruments. intakes of air from the brass and woodwind players, musicians seats creaking ,turning of pages of the score ,and the physical exertion of the conductor.
This is just some of the markers of clarity I hear. But how would that translate to the faithful or near faithful reproduction of the event? Simply a level of the suspension of dis- belief.
I believe that if a wide set of markers produce realism then everything on the recording is linear revealed. You cannot have one marker false and another correct. If so the recorded event cannot sound real. It is truly the system and critical evaluation and common sense that produce
real results.
If my system matches the audio signal purity that was present in the recording process...what should I expect to hear. Clarity, realism, dynamics, immersive, projecting,and a multi dimensional presentation that is believable. Of course this is all subjective. But I do have a method to my madness.
P.S. I asked my self many years ago...How can cable makers market their cables with such delineated levels of performance? I found the answer and the level of realism and SQ improvement has been profound. Signal integrity is the most important element in a audio system.
Last edited:
I believe MSB will be at AXPONA. That'll be a good opportunity. Let me know if you're truly interested, and we can schedule a private listening time with them, and you can bring your music, etc.
Or, if you want to get out of the cold, you can come to San Diego, where we have a few systems with SELECT that we can use for demos
cheers,
Alex
Al M. will need to figure out a way to hear KeithR’s level of MSB DAC directly in Al’s own system.
I think he's saying that if you are an analog-head you demo the rest of your gear primarily with that so are by nature, optimizing it for that chain.
Respectfully, I think you are underestimating my effort to maintain intellectual honesty on this matter. I was not proselytizing. I was not alleging Paul’s preference was “wrong.” I was trying to ferret out the true underlying elements driving Paul’s professed preference.
Yes, I have a pro analog bias, but I do not think I am intellectually dishonest or dogmatic about it.
I hypothesized two possible non-sound quality reasons, based on my assumptions driven by my pro analog bias, for Paul’s declared preference. I tried to challenge and test the logic and intellectual honesty underlying Paul’s declared preference. I tried to put Paul to his proof.
Paul very kindly and graciously took my scepticism and my challenge questions seriously, and he answered them fully. He didn’t have to. Paul is a titan in his field and a true living legend in high-end audio. But he was humble enough to take my skepticism and my questions seriously.
It turns out my assumptions, derived from my pro analog bias, about his preference were totally wrong.
Please see my post #118 in which I wrote: “I believe I have the answer to the question I posed to Paul yesterday: Paul prefers digital not for convenience and not for any business strategy reason but because he truly believes that digital is the best sounding source medium for his listening preferences.”
Last edited:
Fair enough, dude! I apologize if I communicated a mixed message.
But in my mind I had no desire or thought to change Paul’s mind. I simply was trying to dig to the bottom of, and to understand the basis of, Paul’s declared preference.
Similar threads
