Paul McGowan Prefers Digital

[thedudeabides]

Moving beyond the vinyl/digital debate, do you agree with Paul McGowan's comment that a system should be optimized for a particular format?

From my personal experience when I had both formats, I totally agree with that premise.

 

[bazelio]

BruceB once posted on WBF why the does different mastering for analog and digital - perhaps he can help on this subject.

In the typical case digital masters that are so often leveled up and limited, basically crushed, probably don't work well on the vinyl medium assuming you like your stylus staying put in the groove. Likewise excessive out of phase bass is problematic on vinyl. Bass is probably the vinyl medium's biggest weakness to me.

 

[Al M.]

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.

Francisco, you have more experience with digital vs. analog bass, so I will defer to your expertise. As for room reflections, yes, that can be a real problem for digital vs. analog, I fully agree. I suspect this is especially the case for high frequencies.

An acoustician told me that digital's "downfall" is the flat frequency response to 20 kHz, which he says creates problems in many living rooms, which tend to be bright and edgy. He said he did experiments with DSP attenuation of digital in the high frequencies, and in that manner managed to get some of his CDs to sound identical to the LP. He thus thinks that often LP playback is comparably HF attenuated and thus will cause less problems with undesired room interactions. It will also depend on the type of LP playback of course. I have often found top vinyl set-ups to have subjectively great HF extension. Yet I don't think any of us can hear anymore linearly to 20 kHz (newborn babies can ), which precludes proper judgment of extension into the highest regions.

Unfortunately the digital vs. analog debate has in the past neglected adverse room interactions which may have guided preference in some vinyl lovers' rooms, a preference that then may have had less to do with the merits of the digital medium itself than with the fact that their analog playback did not excite their room problems.

And the digital vs. analog debate also has neglected reference to unamplified live music as arbiter, but that is a different matter.

 

[ack]

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 could not disagree more, just like I don't agree with his claim that even the best analog sounds colored. The problem, as I see it, is that it's extremely hard to do digital right, especially in the analog section, therefore, folks try to build a system that hides digital's ugliness instead of pursuing great digital. Same goes for analog. In the end, I feel one can have a system that does justice to both; perhaps it's too expensive to achieve that, but I believe it is possible.

 

[spiritofmusic]

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?

Peter, I've just put in the equivalent of two dozen pricey and not so pricey changes to my vinyl playback, and really gone to town on optimisation. The Stacore platform being the most visible and significant change.
My cdp, only a half dozen changes.
And so, from a start where my analog and digital cost the same, my vinyl playback is now 2x cost outlay of my cdp. I've gone as far as I can w my analog short of starting again and investing in a GP Monaco or Vyger. So, yes I've done my best to optimise both sources.

 

[astrotoy]

I am shocked, shocked, that people are ignoring the best analogue source and playback, tape - good old 15ips 2 track tape! Cost of equipment - very comparable to the better digital and vinyl. My quite high end tape playback rig costs just about the same as my playback DACs (one stereo and one mch) and my vinyl rig . Cost of source materal - expensive, but not all are crazy if you know what you are doing. Sources - more limited than vinyl or digital - but not as limited as you think if you know what you are doing (at least several thousand albums).

Larry

 

[Audiophile Bill]

I am shocked, shocked, that people are ignoring the best analogue source and playback, tape - good old 15ips 2 track tape! Cost of equipment - very comparable to the better digital and vinyl. My quite high end tape playback rig costs just about the same as my playback DACs (one stereo and one mch) and my vinyl rig . Cost of source materal - expensive, but not all are crazy if you know what you are doing. Sources - more limited than vinyl or digital - but not as limited as you think if you know what you are doing (at least several thousand albums).

Larry

Hi Larry,

I think *most* folks don’t dispute the potential sonic quality of tape but don’t select to focus on it due to software availability.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

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.

i've seen, heard and read about systems using limited recordings of specific genres and particular aspects of those recordings, or even a particular attribute of specific instruments as the unique touch points for system building. it could be any number of things which that listener values above all. or, given limited space and resources priorities were established and respected. for whatever underlying reason, the system has strong bias toward certain music and maybe format too.

nothing in any way wrong or even ill advised about that. no judging about correctness. no worries.

only that these systems don't tell us much about the bigger picture.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I am shocked, shocked, that people are ignoring the best analogue source and playback, tape - good old 15ips 2 track tape! Cost of equipment - very comparable to the better digital and vinyl. My quite high end tape playback rig costs just about the same as my playback DACs (one stereo and one mch) and my vinyl rig . Cost of source materal - expensive, but not all are crazy if you know what you are doing. Sources - more limited than vinyl or digital - but not as limited as you think if you know what you are doing (at least several thousand albums).

Larry

not all of us are ignoring tape.

from post #85 in this thread.

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.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Mike,

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

. . .

This so turns the logic of MikeL’s point upside down that I simply have to hope you are joking.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Yesterday I posted on Paul’s PS Audio blog this question: “Paul: What are the components of your vinyl replay set-up in your new listening room?”


Today Paul kindly responded with this post:

A Clear Audio Master Solution table (still can’t believe a German company would call their product this) and arm with a Lyra cartridge. The phono preamp is Darren’s new Stellar which is amazing.

Again, it’s hard to imagine how specific systems are to their sources but in my experience they are all set up to optimize the source. Decisions as major as speaker and amplifier choices are made on the basis of the source medium. Think about it for a moment. If you’re into vinyl then you will judge everything based on how your vinyl sounds. If a new amp it’s put into that system and evaluated with that source. If it doesn’t suit then it goes bye, bye. That same amp or speaker might have sounded perfect with a different source.


I replied to Paul:

Thank you very much, Paul, for answering the question about your current vinyl set-up. I am grateful to you for taking my questions seriously and for having the patience and the grace to reply thoughtfully.

Clearaudio makes wonderful turntables and tonearms, and Lyra makes great cartridges.

I share your amusement at the name of the your turntable! It’s name might have been formed by the combination of a prefix representing the number of rotating platters and a suffix representing the horsepower of the turntable’s motor!

 

[Ron Resnick]

So (in answer to one of my questions from yesterday) Paul does indeed believe that the source medium drives the selection of most other components, or maybe even every other component, in the system.

Paul’s experience as both an audio engineer and as a listener is so vast in both breadth and time that I am very sceptical of my own view in the event I feel that I disagree with him on a particular question, but I would have thought that when we change a component tin a system we listen for the change to the sound of the system, not to the sound of the source. (Or is that, in effect, saying the same thing?)

 

[Mike Lavigne]

This so turns the logic of MikeL’s point upside down that I simply have to hope you are joking.

i think it's fair for Micro to question whether my system, in fact, actually is or is not favoring one format over another. when he (if he) visits i'm sure he could comment and offer his opinion on what he thinks.

just because i don't think it plays favorites does not make it fact.

you could comment too if you would have actually allowed me to play digital for you.

most frequent visitors who listen to digital in my system like it plenty and none in the last few years have told me they thought digital was not well served.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Ron, at least we can contend your's and Al's point that maybe Paul hasn't based on his view on excellent analog. Clearaudio w Lyra doesn't quite fit my idea of the analog I'd settle with, but it's indeed a good comparator to digital, in having good detail retrieval, and a crisp, clear perspective on music.

At least we're not comparing 2019 top digital with a Linn LP12 circa 1973 LOL.

 

[Al M.]

Ron, at least we can contend your's and Al's point that maybe Paul hasn't based on his view on excellent analog. Clearaudio w Lyra doesn't quite fit my idea of the analog I'd settle with, but it's indeed a good comparator to digital, in having good detail retrieval, and a crisp, clear perspective on music.

Depending how well it's set up. The best analog doesn't mean anything if it's not set up well.

 

[spiritofmusic]

I remain dumbfounded anyone would go to Mike's room and not listen to WELL OPTIMISED sota digital. Even just one song. You gotta be open to being challenged as you go thru life, and Mike's Select/SGM would surely have challenged a few preconceptions.

For my part, after boring people to tears in the 80s extolling vinyl over CD, the last 5 years with a stellar cdp that replicates a lot of what I love from the best tts, has really got me eating humble pie. Add in regular exposure to the best digital I know ie SGM/Aqua, and I find fewer and fewer reasons to promote vinyl over digital. But the areas where analog still prevails remain as strong as ever, and I still judge lp playback to shade it over digital. However it's a converging target.

 

[Ron Resnick]

. . . it's indeed a good comparator to digital, in having good detail retrieval, and a crisp, clear perspective on music.

At least we're not comparing 2019 top digital with a Linn LP12 circa 1973 LOL.

We know that little things can mean a lot to the sound, especially with vinyl replay. Is Paul handling properly the vibration isolation of the turntable in view of the twelve 12” woofers deployed on the Infinity IRS V? Is Paul obsessing over perfecting VTF, VTA, cartridge loading, etc.? Is he sweating the details and set-up on his analog as much as he is sweating the details and set-up on his digital?

But these are quibbles. The fact is Paul has a highly-regarded and well-respected vinyl playback set-up. And I agree with your comment which I excerpted above.

 

[Ron Resnick]

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.

 

[Al M.]

For my part, after boring people to tears in the 80s extolling vinyl over CD, the last 5 years with a stellar cdp that replicates a lot of what I love from the best tts, has really got me eating humble pie. Add in regular exposure to the best digital I know ie SGM/Aqua, and I find fewer and fewer reasons to promote vinyl over digital. But the areas where analog still prevails remain as strong as ever, and I still judge lp playback to shade it over digital. However it's a converging target.

Even though I have spent all my audiophile days with CD, I did always find analog almost by definition superior in some crucial aspects, until recently. Step by step, my view has been changing dramatically over the years. By now I feel digital, even "just" Redbook CD, has caught up with analog in a way that makes it hard for me to unambiguously think that it remains superior.

On the flip side, I have heard too much utterly convincing analog playback to understand Paul McGowan's position. I remain dumbfounded by his derogatory comments about vinyl, as I have expressed on this thread.

 

[spiritofmusic]

You could say that about many people, Ron.
My collection stretches to 2000 prog, fusion and electric jazz lps, w some classic rock, and increasing jazz and classical.
1000 cds of similar material.
My preferences are across the board challenging recordings, masterings and mixes. And very few aren't pulled apart by modern servers/dacs to the point they can be borderline unlistenable in many cases. All the digital in 2019 is doing is exposing the limits of recording from five to six decades ago. I don't really want my music to be dissected this way, and so vinyl w it's ability to remain warmer and more immersive means it's the format of choice for me.

But from the POV of need to hear right back into mixes, or concentrate on new music n/a on vinyl, digital is the only choice.