I agree with you 100% on this last point Ron. When I bought my current cd player, I loved the inherent sound of the player paired with my neutral and natural sounding Jorma cables. If the player was bright or dry sounding & I needed to use cables as tone controls, I would have moved on.
Paul McGowan Prefers Digital
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
corrected above
Thank you, Bob. On the phone I make quite a few typos, which I usually correct when I get back to a bigger computer on which I can see the words.
Please give us examples in your system, Al. What components or acoustic treatment or anything else have you selected primarily because you are focused on digital?
This makes sense to me. It really does. I don’t see why what pushes the musical signal (the source) into the front of the system should change how the line stage or cables or amplifier or speaker or speaker positioning or room acoustics or tweaks, etc., are selected or optimized.
Try as I might I am not seeing why Paul’s view is intuitively correct.
KeithR, you “liked” Paul’s reply. Why do you feel that a system necessarily is optimized for one source or the other?
Short answer - yes. You are allowing your bias and personal preferences to cloud your judgement. How can you tell someone what they prefer is wrong? IMO you're propagating the old nostalgic argument that "vinyl sounds better" which held (more) water in 2010, but today digital is levels better $ for $ than vinyl and constantly improving. So for the vast majority of Audiophiles' budget digital is indeed "better" if it's your cup of tea.
So, if digital was inconvenient to use and as inconsistent as top vinyl you would more easily accept Paul's preference and would not be bothered with it?
I would find it easier to accept Paul’s preference, because I wouldn’t be distracted by my suspicion that Paul is secretly sacrificing some sound quality to secure convenience and consistency.
No, no, no. I would never tell somebody that what he prefers is wrong. (In a subjective hobby there is no objective “right.”) I believe I never do that. I do not believe I did that here.
I simply am trying to understand the basis for his preference, and I asked him questions to analyze the motivations driving that preference.
Hmmm. That was not my intention here, Tim.
I feel here the same way I would if I managed a political commentary magazine, and I wrote therein an article about an interesting opinion piece from a nationally syndication columnist I read in a newspaper. I really don’t see anything wrong with that.
My reply to Paul:
Thank you very much, Paul, for your very thoughtful, detailed and introspective reply. I certainly agree with you that in audio there aren’t any absolutes.
I am having trouble agreeing intuitively that one tailors a system to the source medium. I am not understanding why one source medium rather than another would occasion the selection of certain speakers or a certain amplifier or a certain line stage or certain cables (unless one were attempting merely to alter tonal balance). I would think that a better system betters all sources.
Which is not to say that some systems are not optimized for vinyl or optimized for digital; many systems are optimized for one or the other. I am just not presently seeing that it has to be this way — that a system organized around one medium is necessarily detrimental to the sonic qualities of another medium.
What is more obvious to me is that not everyone is equally committed to optimizing both digital and vinyl. Most people focus on one medium. I think very few people are truly committed to both digital and vinyl in a truly equal and impartial way.
If you find even top-tier vinyl playback to sound colored and to be limited in its ability to reproduce the sound of live music then I understand your source preference for digital. Knowing that dynamics and extension at the frequency extremes are among the sonic attributes which are of great importance to you also helps me to understand better your source preference for digital. Digital, to my ears, excels at dynamics and at the frequency extremes.
I can only imagine how visiting Harry in Sea Cliff must’ve been like going to Mecca!
Thank you, again, for elaborating on your opening post!
PS: Yes, I shamelessly adopted (ah, plagiarized) some of MikeL’s insightful comments.
Thank you very much, Paul, for your very thoughtful, detailed and introspective reply. I certainly agree with you that in audio there aren’t any absolutes.
I am having trouble agreeing intuitively that one tailors a system to the source medium. I am not understanding why one source medium rather than another would occasion the selection of certain speakers or a certain amplifier or a certain line stage or certain cables (unless one were attempting merely to alter tonal balance). I would think that a better system betters all sources.
Which is not to say that some systems are not optimized for vinyl or optimized for digital; many systems are optimized for one or the other. I am just not presently seeing that it has to be this way — that a system organized around one medium is necessarily detrimental to the sonic qualities of another medium.
What is more obvious to me is that not everyone is equally committed to optimizing both digital and vinyl. Most people focus on one medium. I think very few people are truly committed to both digital and vinyl in a truly equal and impartial way.
If you find even top-tier vinyl playback to sound colored and to be limited in its ability to reproduce the sound of live music then I understand your source preference for digital. Knowing that dynamics and extension at the frequency extremes are among the sonic attributes which are of great importance to you also helps me to understand better your source preference for digital. Digital, to my ears, excels at dynamics and at the frequency extremes.
I can only imagine how visiting Harry in Sea Cliff must’ve been like going to Mecca!
Thank you, again, for elaborating on your opening post!
PS: Yes, I shamelessly adopted (ah, plagiarized) some of MikeL’s insightful comments.
I make tons of typos, and mine are much worst because it gives a totally incoherent meaning to some of my posts (no more). Steve makes few typos too; he must be using his iPhone.
I only mentioned it because your extra attention to the proper language, words, photos, videos, ...everything the hyperbole police can find fault @. It's ok, it keeps everyone in check, not going overboard like all of us do on occasions (style and humor). Some don't, like Peter (going overboard from his sailing boat). ...And Tango...of course.
That new Folding Samsung phone ($2,000) was made for people like us with tiny keyboard screens on their phones. But it is still a 7.4-inch tablet when unfolded...so that keyboard is still relatively small.
My tablet (9.6") has a bigger keyboard when I position it horizontally. Vertically the keys are still small and it's easier to hit the wrong ones.
I too give importance to small details, and if I see a typo of mine I made a week ago, which I cannot correct, I feel a little less than perfect. I am a supporter of editing posts because of our small devices, for a fair amount of time...say ten days to two weeks. No big deal we always adjust with what we have and given to. It's the same with music...analog and digital.
I like the man, Paul.
P.S. MikeL has also a unique style when typing. Plus, he uses Microsoft Internet Explorer @ work to browse. That too is relatively unique, and old fashion. But it comes with the work territory (I guess they're not allowed to bring their own laptops or tablets and surf WBF during their working hours).
We all have our drives, our ride, our love, our hobbies and passions and interests and investments and goals and wishes to the heavens in life as in death, that's what audio brings the best in people...the music.
Last edited:
Ron, as you know I've spent a fortune on tweaks, but no ancillisries I've ever invested in have been specific to digital over analog, or vice versa. Tweaks have all been to one end, to make both sources sound more realistic.
In terms of concentrating on one source over another, my current analog costs twice as much as my digital, and I've made three dozen changes to it compared to the half dozen on my cdp.
So you could say I'm reasonably even handed on trying to get both sources to sound great, it's just that the analog side always has more avenues to go down.
And I'm getting more and more compares to live unamplified to try and get a mental fix on what I should be trying to achieve at home.
My current thoughts? Much as I hate to say it, digital ticks more boxes than vinyl. Except for a few. It's closer to live. Except in some areas.
These boxes and areas that vinyl ticks and is closer to happen to be ones that still makes lp playback compelling. More compelling than digital.
But for anyone less swayed by these, digital would win every day of the week.
And now I'm privy to a fantastic digital high end system, SGM server into Aqua Formula XHD dac, at Blue58, analog supremacy, in my mind anyhow, is seriously challenged by what I'm hearing.
But this is the thing. To get to the level of digital being as natural as vinyl, it requires Herculean efforts to control noise. Taking yr music off the Web and via CAT/Ethernet throws so many noise and hash spanners in the works, that only OCD effort here gets digital to start to outclass vinyl. And this is v tough to get right.
In terms of concentrating on one source over another, my current analog costs twice as much as my digital, and I've made three dozen changes to it compared to the half dozen on my cdp.
So you could say I'm reasonably even handed on trying to get both sources to sound great, it's just that the analog side always has more avenues to go down.
And I'm getting more and more compares to live unamplified to try and get a mental fix on what I should be trying to achieve at home.
My current thoughts? Much as I hate to say it, digital ticks more boxes than vinyl. Except for a few. It's closer to live. Except in some areas.
These boxes and areas that vinyl ticks and is closer to happen to be ones that still makes lp playback compelling. More compelling than digital.
But for anyone less swayed by these, digital would win every day of the week.
And now I'm privy to a fantastic digital high end system, SGM server into Aqua Formula XHD dac, at Blue58, analog supremacy, in my mind anyhow, is seriously challenged by what I'm hearing.
But this is the thing. To get to the level of digital being as natural as vinyl, it requires Herculean efforts to control noise. Taking yr music off the Web and via CAT/Ethernet throws so many noise and hash spanners in the works, that only OCD effort here gets digital to start to outclass vinyl. And this is v tough to get right.
Ron, I have not selected any components specifically because I am focused on digital, except the digital itself. My current DAC does have less artifacts than my previous ones, but I am not claiming it is free of them.
As for other components, I could gave mellowed my cables, or chosen a more 'friendly', less HF extended tube amplifier. I didn't. My cables are neutral, and my tube amp is highly linear, also due to its superior output transformer. I chose maximum resolution, not a 'friendly' sound.
What I did do is trying to attenuate any artifacts that can come from an adverse reaction of system and especially room to the extended HF response to digital. I have found that the problems with digital often don't come from digital itself, even though sometimes they do, but because digital tends to ruthlessly reveal shortcomings in system and room. Often 'digital harshness' in my system was related to uncontrolled room reflections, for example.
In that sense, all my acoustic treatments strive to mitigate artifacts, and recently the ceiling diffusers have caused another big step forward. As for the system, cleaning of all the contacts with DeOxit has helped a lot, it took out artificial hardness that also could have falsely been attributed to the digital. I also found that switching to top level speaker stands removed some 'grain' that I thought had been digital related. Last week I found out that my Pass B1 buffer is another weak link, at least when it comes to compatibility with my particular amp, and that I need an active gain preamp. Some more artifacts will be removed. More on that another time.
We will not learn anything from component lists or systems - as Tim wisely said before it will only create momentum. There is so much variation in this aspect that we can not generalize.
In order to better understand the need for different systems we have to analyze the basics of formats and the subjective reasons for preference. IMHO the key words are "information" and "stereo". Current top digital can l handle a lot more information than analog - if not properly used it can expose the limitations of the two channel illusion, sounding subjectively inferior to a system that masks the technical tricks of the recording. We can learn a lot from debates involving professionals on how they use the analog and digital recording systems. BruceB once posted on WBF why the does different mastering for analog and digital - perhaps he can help on this subject.
I see your point. Guess I saw it differently. There's really three issues. I read it as yourself questioning another's format preference on a different forum, then bringing it over here where the other person was not a likely participant. Did you invite Paul if he wanted to justify or account for his preferences on your forum? It seems like needless pot stirring.
I'd hate to see us adopt a skepticism about the motives or abilities of others. "Do you really like X or are you just saying you like it because your business is X?" That's not real far from: "Are you lying to me about your choices in order sell product?"
I don't believe you had ill intent, but it was odd to question his preferences in that way. It seemed like you wondered if others thought he was was believable. That sort of skepticism can lead to a devisiveness "I believe him." "I don't believe him." As Paul noted: "My readers will know...". He was writing/responding within the context of his discussion group or regular participants, a context not carried over here.
The third issue: If the topic was new information, a new product, or something particularly educational that Paul wrote, pointing it out might be worthwhile wherever it was, but do we really need to import (yet another) analog vs digital preference discussion?
Just my opinion.
Hey, Paul has heard top analog and digital. Rubs shoulders w those who still prefer analog. He prefers digital. Makes no anti-analog comments. For him digital has evolved in 2019 to a point where any previous compromises are now balances of vices and virtues. End of story.
What I wanted to say is that in the sixties there was a quest for quality and some firm have kept this practise. But with CD it's more difficult to find good recording which sound natural. They exist but you must search for those. I write this as I have 2 subscriptions to classical musical magazine which are delivered with CD of extracts of new recordings and I sometime buy CD.
Yes, very interesting. I wonder what MikeL would have to say about one system not being able to do both well. Also, if one follows the advice about comparing digital to vinyl in different systems, each optimized for the one format, it would be impossible to compare apples to apples because of variables with the context, system components, music, room, etc. So what he is really suggesting is a very broad general opinion about each format.
I've often wondered what it would be like to hear Al M's Yggy DAC in my system or my SME in his system. I guess that would just be a waste of time.
Al, what do you think about Paul's comment relative to MikeL's views on digital and analog in his system? Do you think Mike's ultimate preference for vinyl is because his system must somehow not be optimized for digital? It seems to me that Mike is agnostic when it comes to system set up and that he wants all formats to sound their best in his room.
EDIT for clarity: I'm not suggesting that Mike's system is not optimized for both. I'm suggesting that perhaps Paul would conclude that because Mike prefers analog in his system it must therefore be optimized for vinyl. I do not think that is the case from what I have read from Mike about his system.
Last edited:
Similar threads
