Paul McGowan Prefers Digital

[Ron Resnick]

Hmmm. I have no desire to get behind the argument that LP measures better than digital.

 

[AWZ1979]

I prefer the sound of vinyl over digital music. Even over high quality DSD and 192/24 flac files. However I still listen to digital music 80-90% of the time. The convenience and versatility of digital over analog can’t be argued. But I definitely think analog (vinyl) sounds better.

 

[Al M.]

I prefer the sound of vinyl over digital music. Even over high quality DSD and 192/24 flac files. However I still listen to digital music 80-90% of the time. The convenience and versatility of digital over analog can’t be argued. But I definitely think analog (vinyl) sounds better.

Welcome to the forum!

 

[Al M.]

Hmmm. I have no desire to get behind the argument that LP measures better than digital.

Wise move, Ron! And in return I will not argue with you when to your ears LP sounds better.

 

[AWZ1979]

Thanks! Good to be here.

 

[Lee]

The "2.5 x" better resolution is irrelevant according to Shannon/Niquist. What matters is that the CD sampling rate covers 20 kHz, the upper limit of human hearing (of children, at best). More relevant for resolution is bit depth, related to dynamic range. The bit depth of CD is 16, the one of analog tape and LP is about 13. Of course you can claim the resolution of CD is not as great as its nominal bit range because of quantization noise, and to some extent you might have a point. But then there is dither in order to randomize quantization noise.

But LP measuring better? Have you ever seen the crooked graph of a 1 kHz sine wave from LP? It's an embarrassing sight, frankly. You can argue that it doesn't matter, and perhaps that is true. You can also argue that LP sounds better. But LP measuring better? That's a joke.

Not true. Sampling rates enable better digital filters which improve reproduction in the audible range.

 

[Al M.]

Not true. Sampling rates enable better digital filters which improve reproduction in the audible range.

That's a different argument than the one you originally presented, and a more reasonable one. I'll leave debating digital filters to the experts.

The recommended sampling rate by the Audio Engineering Society (AES) was in 2018 (I suppose that hasn't changed in 2019) still 48 kHz, and not some number like 192 kHz. Shannon/Nyquist still holds after all. But recommended is 48 kHz rather than 44.1 kHz precisely because of filtering.

 

[Lee]

That's a different argument than the one you originally presented, and a more reasonable one. I'll leave debating digital filters to the experts.

The recommended sampling rate by the Audio Engineering Society (AES) was in 2018 (I suppose that hasn't changed in 2019) still 48 kHz, and not some number like 192 kHz. Shannon/Nyquist still holds after all. But recommended is 48 kHz rather than 44.1 kHz precisely because of filtering.

I do professional recordings of classical ensembles at 24/192 or 24/176 and DSD. Many engineers disagreed within the AES over 48khz. Most feel 88.2 or 96 is the minimum. Bob Ludwig and Joe Palmaccio among others.

It's a popular myth that digital measures better...and it does but only in some categories like dynamic range. LP has no jitter. LP has no zero crossing distortion. LP has no ADC and DAC conversion errors because it stays analog.

I like good digital too but too often the "digital measures better" is trotted out and it shortchanges the excellent sound quality of LP. Reel to reel measures poorly in some areas as well but anyone with experience will agree R2R is the best source.

 

[Al M.]

I do professional recordings of classical ensembles at 24/192 or 24/176 and DSD. Many engineers disagreed within the AES over 48khz. Most feel 88.2 or 96 is the minimum. Bob Ludwig and Joe Palmaccio among others.

It's a popular myth that digital measures better...and it does but only in some categories like dynamic range. LP has no jitter. LP has no zero crossing distortion. LP has no ADC and DAC conversion errors because it stays analog.

I like good digital too but too often the "digital measures better" is trotted out and it shortchanges the excellent sound quality of LP. Reel to reel measures poorly in some areas as well but anyone with experience will agree R2R is the best source.

I agree, LP can sound excellent. But not because it "measures" better. I would never, however, use the measurement argument against LP sound.

 

[Al M.]

As for the high level of CD resolution, I will relate an experience from tonight. I need an active gain preamp to replace my Pass B1 buffered preamp, because the latter has limits handling orchestral music feeding into my amp. I have a not cheap preamp on loan to try out, and while it does some things well, compared to the Pass buffer resolution of the stunning timbral micro detail from the DAC ( e.g., on solo violin, string trio) went down a lot, dramatically so. The signal from Redbook CD through even my $ 2,300 DAC has such fine resolution that it can be considerably diminished by just one still competent, but not quite optimal electronic component in the chain. With earlier digital, or on a less resolving system, the change in preamp might not have made a noticeable difference in resolution at all. I had already been afraid of this loss of resolution, and have had plans, confirmed by tonight's experience, for a preamp in the $ 8k to 15k range in order to get the advantages from an active gain preamp without the losses in resolution (the DAC will also be replaced, for other reasons).

 

[tima]

i can make the case good electronica is harder to render than classical

I listen primarily to classical. However, I like some electronica though my taste may be dated - I don't really know to know. Say, Trentemøller.

Can you gve examples of electronica albums (LP) that are harder to render than classical? Hopefully in some area besides synth low bass?

 

[Catcher10]

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.

....and sales.

Lets not forget that at the end of the day he is a salesperson. I respect Paul's opinions on his videos and his information on how gear works and things like "what are watts, gain, volume, dB..." and so on. He tries very hard to use laymen terms to describe electronics.
In general I agree with Ron, in that I believe PS Audio focuses only on the digital format, in one of the videos I remember Paul mentioning that they voice or tweak their designs with digital in mind. Is it that much easier, cheaper (from a mfg view), quicker to design, build and sell digital inspired gear?
I guess I also feel since his first design was a phono stage, why has he not kept that passion at least a part of his PS Audio focus? I have no issue with Paul's clear love of digital, that's his choice, but his reply to Ron really is more in character of a "plain old audio guy professing his digiphile love over analog". His reasons are not well put IMO. Not sure I buy into his premise that you build a system to bring out the best in one format.

Around 1984-85 I jumped into digital in a big way, I bought a Sony CDP-302 ran me $600, also bought around $300 worth of CDs same day, running about $16 a pc.......Even back then I was not fully impressed by the CD sound, what I did like was the technology and ease of playing a CD and skipping, programming, shuffle play and the remote. This continued for about 15yrs when my CD fad came to an end with an Onkyo CDP.
What I realized was that digital playback had a ways to go, a revelation to audio and how we listen, but it was not what it was built up to be back in the mid 80's. I feel the same about CDs as Paul feels about vinyl, so I don't find much fault in his opinion, I never will....but I simply wonder about his deeper reasons as to why he feels this way......Again, he is a salesmen at the end of the day and needs to promote PS Audio gear. Respectfully, I doubt I ever own any PS Audio gear.

Cheers

 

[Ron Resnick]

. . . I ask myself all the time...what am I missing? Answer...nothing.

How do you know you are not missing anything?

 

[Ron Resnick]

. . . the DAC will also be replaced, for other reasons).

I would really, really, really like you to audition an MSB DAC in your system.

 

[Al M.]

I would really, really, really like you to audition an MSB DAC in your system.

We'll see, Ron. Don't be surprised if that actually happens.

 

[Bodhi]

I would really, really, really like you to audition an MSB DAC in your system.

The MSB is one of the two best sounding dac's i've ever heard.

 

[spiritofmusic]

The other one is the other MSB too? LOL

 

[thedudeabides]

How do you know you are not missing anything?

Seems fairly obvious to me. With his ears, his system, and his biases, he is not. I loved your comment about about PM "secretly sacrificing some sound quality to secure convenience and consistency". With all due respect, how would you have any idea what PM is thinking / feeling and is secretly sacrificing? IMHO, totally speculative / presumptive on your part, with no basis in fact or anything else for that matter except for your profound analogue / anti digital bias.

 

[Al M.]

The other one is the other MSB too? LOL

You Brits always crack me up .

 

[spiritofmusic]

I'm serious. It could be the best two dacs are the MSB Select II and the MSB Reference.