Paul McGowan Prefers Digital

[PeterA]

...

who is to say which systems are optimized for vinyl or optimized for digital? i would agree that not everyone is equally committed to optimizing digital and vinyl.......and that few are truly fully committed to both.

but some are. i view myself as one of those and clearly feel analog has the higher ceiling.

I was hoping you would comment MIke. I have yet to hear your system, but from what you and others have described over countless pages leads me to believe and trust your comment.

I especially agree with this first question. Who indeed is to say which systems are optimized for vinyl or optimized for digital? I would be curious to read how Paul would make such an assessment. And I would like to learn more about what he thinks goes into optimizing a system for one format over the other. He mentioned sub settings, speaker positioning, perhaps cables. What is it about the two formats that would predicate one type of set up over another? Is it frequency response, tone, noise floor, or what? And why would dealerships not then only display one format in each room set up if they really want to optimize the sound for a potential client?

Perhaps this is a subject for a dedicated thread.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Peter, just how is MikeL's system not optimised for digital? He has $140k tied up in the world's premier 3 box dac and server, and has tweaked seriously w Troy and Tana. He's sweated the details on noise suppression on his network.

I'd call that devotion above and beyond to digital. And while he states he still feels analog is at the summit, he slums it LOL most of the time w playlists made up from his digital.

 

[PeterA]

Peter, just how is MikeL's system not optimised for digital? He has $140k tied up in the world's premier 3 box dac and server, and has tweaked seriously w Troy and Tana. He's sweated the details on noise suppression on his network.

I'd call that devotion above and beyond to digital. And while he states he still feels analog is at the summit, he slums it LOL most of the time w playlists made up from his digital.

Sorry Marc. My point was the exact opposite, so I am sorry for not being more clear. It seems to me that Mike has optimized his system for both formats and not set up his system to favor one over the other. It is clear to me that he has tried to take both formats as far as they will go given his abilities. He has even stated such. My point is that Paul does not seem to allow for this possibility.

I will edit a previous post for clarity.

My good friends Ack and Madfloyd also have both formats and seem to enjoy both fairly equally in their systems. I think both formats sound excellent in each of their systems. I can't remember either one of them ever telling me that they were optimizing their systems for one format over the other.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Peter, I've delved into getting the most from my Eera cdp, and have closely followed Blue58's SGM journey, first w Audio Aero dac, thence via T&A to current Aqua dac.

And what we've both found, that ties in w all the advice from those who've been truly invested in digital, incl the server designers, is that even more than analog, noise truly is the enemy.

So, Blue has made massive steps w things like a SaTa cable and attending to his network. I've found that power cords, other cables, fuses etc make a more critical difference to my cdp than my tt.

At the high high end of digital, MSB w SGM etc, it seems this is even more the case. Have you read what Emile at Taiko and the MSB designers are doing to combat noise? Way beyond what analog demands.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Peter, just how is MikeL's system not optimised for digital? He has $140k tied up in the world's premier 3 box dac and server, and has tweaked seriously w Troy and Tana. He's sweated the details on noise suppression on his network.

I'd call that devotion above and beyond to digital. And while he states he still feels analog is at the summit, he slums it LOL most of the time w playlists made up from his digital.

if we just look at dollars i am not only equally invested in vinyl as digital source gear, but also relatively equally invested in RTR tape. and all my grounding and anti-resonance is applied to both digital and vinyl (not tape sources specifically). you have to remember that my dart pre mostly supports vinyl with 2 phono stages, the MSB has it's own world class preamp were i to not have vinyl. then there are multiple arms and cartridges, none inexpensive. and there are always pieces coming and going in any involved system like mine. we can forget just how spendy these things are.

my stated general system building approach has always been optimization of each format, and a system that gets out of the way of the music and is not restrictive or leaning this way or that way.

i could not respect Micro (Francisco) more, but on this narrow format optimization issue don't personally follow his direction in my approach. i don't doubt that he does focus more on optimizing his digital. i do agree with his views about the significance of gear and system synergy and how that relates to judging gear objectively. i too have focused on that. so we can all learn from that perspective.

 

[Al M.]

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.

I think there can be two main problems as to why both sources may not be equally optimized for a system:

1. Problems with room acoustics
2. Differences in tonal balance between the analog and digital set-ups

Since I don't suspect any of the two issues apply to MikeL's system, I don't see why indeed it should not sound optimal for both analog and digital. So I believe him when he says that the system is optimized for both. When he prefers his analog, I view this as a matter of taste.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I think there can be two main problems as to why both sources may not be equally optimized for a system:

1. Problems with room acoustics
2. Differences in tonal balance between the analog and digital set-ups

Since I don't suspect any of the two issues apply to MikeL's system, I don't see why indeed it should not sound optimal for both analog and digital. So I believe him when he says that the system is optimized for both. When he prefers his analog, I view this as a matter of taste.

of course, the word Ron uses is 'prefer' in the thread title. i guess taste = prefer (preferences).

but if 50 listeners come to my room, which favors neither format, and has both formats apparently optimized, and 50 listeners all 'prefer' vinyl after listening seriously, then we have a pretty strong data point i think.

and that is how it's played out so far......

does that make vinyl better?

 

[spiritofmusic]

Hmm Mike, invite Paul, and let's see if it's 51 out of 51 LOL.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Hmm Mike, invite Paul, and let's see if it's 51 out of 51 LOL.

his dac designer Ted Smith (good friend of mine) has been to my room likely 100+ times over the years.

i know what he thinks.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Ok, Mike, let's flip this around. Is it harder pound for pound to get digital to a level where it's competitive w analog?

I don't mean choice of brand, I mean the effort needed to e.g. reduce noise. My limited expts show that my cdp went up several notches upon install of balanced power, dedicated lines, grounding. My analog not so much. The lp side of things responded more to vibration management and room acoustics.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Marc mentioned above how i listen mostly to digital these days, which is true. i love it. and feel digital does everything musically that i need. and it works for me in the ease of access and livability that i appreciate.

yet still analog can be better, but it's important to not see this as any sort of negative thing. i only get going on these type threads when i see postings in conflict with my views. we have great digital music reproduction now and that analog can be better should not detract or diminish the enjoyment and satisfaction of our digital listening experience.

 

[Tango]

I have been reading comments as if room acoustic plays different role in digital vs vinyl. You have to adjust room acoustic a certain way to make best of digital. And you have to adjust room acoustic a different way to do best vinyl. Really? What characteristics of room that fit digital better than vinyl. I am no digital person and I am interested in learning. No sacasm.

Kind regards,
Tang

 

[microstrip]

of course, the word Ron uses is 'prefer' in the thread title. i guess taste = prefer (preferences).

but if 50 listeners come to my room, which favors neither format, and has both formats apparently optimized, and 50 listeners all 'prefer' vinyl after listening seriously, then we have a pretty strong data point i think.

and that is how it's played out so far......

does that make vinyl better?

Mike,

With such unanimity I would feel tempted to say that your room and system favor one of the formats ...

IMHO your system is an exception in the general panorama. You are someone who has a fantastic room, big speakers and seat close to them. You have large bass towers with DSP and extreme tweaking - you have a very open mind to whichever benefits your system. IMHO your system is unique and too finely optimized to allow any generalization to our less ambitious systems. But is always great to read about it and your audio evolution.

 

[bonzo75]

Mike,

With such unanimity I would feel tempted to say that your room and system favor one of the formats ...

IMHO your system is an exception in the general panorama. You are someone who has a fantastic room, big speakers and seat close to them. You have large bass towers with DSP and extreme tweaking - you have a very open mind to whichever benefits your system. IMHO your system is unique and too finely optimized to allow any generalization to our less ambitious systems. But is always great to read about it and your audio evolution.

Sorry, recently when I said Mike is an exception ( my reply to someone pointed him out as an example of a person who has a good "cone" system) you challenged me that why is like an exception

 

[microstrip]

I have been reading comments as if room acoustic plays different role in digital vs vinyl. You have to adjust room acoustic a certain way to make best of digital. And you have to adjust room acoustic a different way to do best vinyl. Really? What characteristics of room that fit digital better than vinyl. I am no digital person and I am interested in learning. No sacasm.

Kind regards,
Tang

I would immediately suggest room bass performance. Digital bass needs very good behavior of room in the low bass. And we can't use the trick of switching the subs off with top digital - IMHO digital needs to full spectra to sound great. Anything that goes wrong in this area robs dimension and fluidity to digital.

But is more than bass. I can't avoid returning to information. Digital has more information along all the spectra. Something wrong in the room - this usually means excessive or uneven reflections - will exaggerate part of this information, creating an unpleasing, artificial sound.

The best digital I listened was always in large or very large rooms - and curiously vinyl playback was not exceptional on them.

 

[microstrip]

Sorry, recently when I said Mike is an exception ( my reply to someone pointed him out as an example of a person who has a good "cone" system) you challenged me that why is like an exception

A completely different context, our previous exchange of posts does not apply to what is being debated.

 

[PeterA]

Ok, Mike, let's flip this around. Is it harder pound for pound to get digital to a level where it's competitive w analog?

I don't mean choice of brand, I mean the effort needed to e.g. reduce noise. My limited expts show that my cdp went up several notches upon install of balanced power, dedicated lines, grounding. My analog not so much. The lp side of things responded more to vibration management and room acoustics.

Marc, it seems to me that Mike has address all those things in his system for both formats. In your own system, have you chosen to optimize one format over the other? If so, what have you done for one that you have not done for the other, and do you make specific choices regarding room treatments, speaker position or something else to optimized your system/room for one over the other?

Paul seems to suggest, that for those people who listen to both formats, they have optimized one over the other. I'm curious to learn if this is actually the case. I understand for those who have only one format that they think it sounds good with that format. But does that really mean that if one temporarily tried the other source format, the preference for one format over the other is more dependent on how the room is optimized than it is for the inherent differences between the formats?

Do we really need to listen to each format separately in its own optimized setting to form judgements about the sound of each?

 

[thedudeabides]

This tired, old subject again? Certainly there are many more interesting things to talk about.

Agreed. See my previous comments on the "vinyl obsession" thread. To say it in another way, some analogue folks simply can't accept, for whatever reason, how / why many people prefer digital over analogue. I'll leave it to others to try to explain why this is true but the previous thread title seems like a valid starting point.

And I think the OP's comment about his visit to ML's place and not listening to the MSB DAC speaks volumes about his particular anti digital bias.

And why intelligent people can't simply accept the fact that this hobby is totally subjective by nature and personal preferences are extremely common is beyond my comprehension. As an example, look at the discussion regarding cartridges and their inherent sonic differences not to mention turntables, arms, etc.

 

[Elliot G.]

And I totally respect that. My only point is that that the reasons of convenience and practicality should not be confused with, or justified by, sound quality.

You keep saying that. Ron you seem to have an issue with people that have a different choice than yours. If you Choose records great but that does not mean your opinion is the correct one and the only one. Again I don't know Paul's opinion nor why he said what he said but I do find the way people who like records speak with condescension towards those who listen to and enjoy digital.

 

[PeterA]

Agreed. See my previous comments on the "vinyl obsession" thread. To say it in another way, some analogue folks simply can't accept, for whatever reason, how / why many people prefer digital over analogue. I'll leave it to others to try to explain why this is true but the previous thread title seems like a valid starting point.

And I think the OP's comment about his visit to ML's place and not listening to the MSB DAC speaks volumes about his particular anti digital bias.

Moving beyond the vinyl/digital debate, do you agree with Paul McGowan's comment that a system should be optimized for a particular format? I think this discussion is moving in that direction, and I'm curious since you are a digital guy, if you have tried to optimize your system for that particular format. Or do you not think that is important? I'm curious because I have friends who listen to both formats and seem to enjoy both more or less the same.