What You're Missing

[Gregadd]

...



No, only thre recording medium would have to be near perfect, ie: audibly indistinguishable from the analog source The source medium, vinyl, can be as imperfect as you like. All the needledrop comparison does is determine what difference, if any, can be heard between the vinyl itself and the digital copy of the vinyl. If the digital copy is indistinguishable from the analog, then clearly the long-standing position that digital is missing something is wrong. So is any notion that digital is adding something, like harshness or brittleness, etc. Once demonstrated, the old disagreement should be resolved once and for all. And if they are merely "virtually" indistinguishable from one another, whatever that means, then it doesn't put that the absolute to bed, but it should end the hyperbole around the differences between the two mediums that abounds in the hobby.

If digital can copy and reproduce vinyl's sound, the differences between them can only be the recordings or something added to the recordings by vinyl's playback technology.

Of course we know that even if we could bring all the parties here together in a room and demonstrate this, it would not be accepted as fact. Frantz is wise to exit the discussion early.

Tim

I agree that the vinyl can be imperfect in theory. But its artifacts would be distracting.

It's pretty well accepted that every time you handle the signal it is distroted. That is true of both CD & vinyl. Indeed converting vinyl to digital adds another layer of conversion. That implys another layer of distortion. Digital would have to make a perfect copy. If that's true then tell me the name of that didgtal recorder.

I'll sidestep the digital anaolog arguments as well as test taking techniques.

 

[mep]

I want to swing this back to the intent of the OP and that is to ask those who can afford it and believe that analog will lift their system to a new level from digital why they haven't done so. And Lloyd, you quickly come to mind.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

That implys another layer of distortion.

It doesn't just imply it; it is another generation, another layer of distortion. The question is, can you hear it"

Digital would have to make a perfect copy.

Nope, not perfect. Just audibly transparent.

Tim

 

[rbbert]

I want to swing this back to the intent of the OP and that is to ask those who can afford it and believe that analog will lift their system to a new level from digital why they haven't done so. And Lloyd, you quickly come to mind.

For me, the occasional and small improvement in sound quality from the best analog sources doesn't come close to the degree of frustration I experience with all the negatives of much analog (surface noise, clicks and pops, more time and effort dealing with physically larger media and its storage and the generally much shorter playing time), even though those are (of course) not always present or a problem.

 

[Peter Breuninger]

These threads are like action movie squeals... you know the outcome but you sit and watch the darn thing anyway. Vinyl is easy to get good but hard to get great. You have to have a real talent for set up for vinyl to reach it's full potential. I can understand some folks being reluctant to take the dive and I respect that. My best and most legendary listening sessions, notwithstanding my love of vinyl (and expertise), are almost 50/50 vinyl to digital. We are talking concert like, planets all lined up listening sessions. Interesting, I still prefer vinyl to get to the heart of the music. Does that make sense?

 

[flez007]

I have so much fun having different source formats! Really! - somedays I feel like randomly play my 1TB music server while reading or surfing at the web, some other days clean & playing LPs (I am fine with ocassional clicks and pops, textures win all the time!) and some others I feel like listening to the full potential of my system and play my tapes. It is as simple as that

 

[NorthStar]

---Some days I just like playing my acoustic guitar, live. :b

And I'm good with r.a.d.i.o. (analog, digital, and HD). :b

Between Tapes, LPs, and CD/SACDs, Tapes are a no-go as I never got to buy commercial R2R Tapes. LPs are mostly in the closet now (but they used to be the main & only attraction for so many years starting in the 60s). And CD/SACDs are now the form/norm (less time to setup, clean, and flip). ...And I'm not restricted to just Stereo or Mono any longer. :b Ha!

At the end it's all 'bout the music anyway. ...The flow of the notes/vocals during a state of mind.
The message still get across, I ain't missing much. I think.

 

[Bill Hart]

These threads are like action movie squeals... you know the outcome but you sit and watch the darn thing anyway. Vinyl is easy to get good but hard to get great. You have to have a real talent for set up for vinyl to reach it's full potential. I can understand some folks being reluctant to take the dive and I respect that. My best and most legendary listening sessions, notwithstanding my love of vinyl (and expertise), are almost 50/50 vinyl to digital. We are talking concert like, planets all lined up listening sessions. Interesting, I still prefer vinyl to get to the heart of the music. Does that make sense?

Yes, and well put. The other variable, apart from set up, is the particular recording - some just come alive on my system (yes, unfortunately, many are those tried and true warhorses)- that's what's wonderful about wading through a bunch of stuff that i'm unfamiliar with, or haven't listened to in years over my system- the joy of discovering some gem that is both musically and sonically a knock-out. I suppose digital would suffer from the same variable too (or is that an area when digital could potentailly better vinyl through some kind of post-production 'fixing')?

 

[Lee]

These threads are like action movie squeals... you know the outcome but you sit and watch the darn thing anyway. Vinyl is easy to get good but hard to get great. You have to have a real talent for set up for vinyl to reach it's full potential. I can understand some folks being reluctant to take the dive and I respect that. My best and most legendary listening sessions, notwithstanding my love of vinyl (and expertise), are almost 50/50 vinyl to digital. We are talking concert like, planets all lined up listening sessions. Interesting, I still prefer vinyl to get to the heart of the music. Does that make sense?

Well said Peter.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

My best and most legendary listening sessions, notwithstanding my love of vinyl (and expertise), are almost 50/50 vinyl to digital. We are talking concert like, planets all lined up listening sessions. Interesting, I still prefer vinyl to get to the heart of the music. Does that make sense?

It makes perfect sense, Peter, and this is a different subject, perhaps a more interesting one, but surely everyone understands that if their systems are that variable, there is something seriously wrong? These transcendent listening events are not a matter of digital vs analog, or any other X vs Y. These events are created by the systems between our ears. Do they require sufficient fidelity to allow our emotions to take over? Perhaps. But that is highly variable from person to person and experience to experience. It's not about gear. It's about emotional connection and suspension of disbelief. I've had some of my best moments listening through headphones. And of course I know, and knew then, that phones cannot create a horizontal image anything like what would be presented from a stage. But when you fall into that place where you are immersed in the art and you've left your analytical mind behind, that doesn't matter a bit.

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

It doesn't just imply it; it is another generation, another layer of distortion. The question is, can you hear it"

Yes you(the genral public) can. It often goes unrecognized. No doubt credited to the general imperfection of recorded music.

Nope, not perfect. Just audibly transparent.

Tim

Careful you are using audiophile terminology


I compare anaolg and digital to butter and margerine, or sugar and artificial sweethner. They both are pretty good imitators. They keep getting better. Side by side, the comparison is futile.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Yes you(the genral public) can. It often goes unrecognized. No doubt credited to the general imperfection of recorded music.

The general public has been shown to hear the difference between an analog recording, vinyl or R2R, and a digital copy of that analog recording playing back through the same system? Got links?

Careful you are using audiophile terminology

In this context, audibly transparent is not audiophile terminology. It means the difference between the two is not audibly recognized. The only way to determine that would be in a blind A/B comparison. Not only is that not audiophile, many Audiophiles would deny the results unless they supported their beliefs.

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

The general public has been shown to hear the difference between an analog recording, vinyl or R2R, and a digital copy of that analog recording playing back through the same system? Got links?

Somethings are obvious. Not everything needs a study. However sit tight. Soon there will be a study for everything with whatever outcome you desire.

In this context, audibly transparent is not audiophile terminology. It means the difference between the two is not audibly recognized. The only way to determine that would be in a blind A/B comparison. Not only is that not audiophile, many Audiophiles would deny the results unless they supported their beliefsTim

Ah the blind compariosn. Why don't we just incorporate that argument for you by reference. Just put a little *beside it. Audiophiles don't own denial. There is enough of that for everyone.
So you created you own terminolgy. You have suggested you wanted to be or are an audiophile. I assumed you were being facetious. Why don't I just call it a "Monkism."

 

[NorthStar]

I compare anaolg and digital to butter and margerine, or sugar and artificial sweethner.
They both are pretty good imitators. They keep getting better. Side by side, the comparison is futile.

---- Margarine & Sweeteners are Healthier for you. :b

123 (MSH)

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Somethings are obvious.

True. This just isn't one of them. Anyone who has worked with recording - both digital and analog - can tell you it's not obvious at all. One generation of really good analog is hard to differentiate. The audible difference in just one generation of digital it is so subtle it takes professional ears and a great deal of experience to even know what to listen for. And it is exactly the kind of "difference" that becomes unrecognizable, even to the very experienced, when knowledge is removed. I don't expect you to agree with this; I don't even expect you to understand it. But I've copied thousands of recordings from CD to hard drive - one generation down - and the difference is not obvious; it's theoretical. Not even in Redbook. A first generation hi-res recording of an analog source? I'd buy you your Martin Logans back if you could spot that one.

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

Pardon me while I wipe the food from my eye. I knew food would be thrown.

This statement by a guy who should know a little about master tapes

...Which goes to show you that the self-proclaimed king of converters still falls short of the best analog systems...

It is axiomatic that if something is better it must be different.

As far as me understanding let me put it this way: I was forced to enter the digital world if I wanted to hear new music. My entry proved that both sides had lied to me. With digital and vinyl in the same room anyone who proclaimed they were identical was and remains wrong. No offense to anyone who holds a different opinion.

 

[microstrip]

(...) A first generation hi-res recording of an analog source? I'd buy you your Martin Logans back if you could spot that one.

Tim

Tim,

Would you keep the challenge if it was a first generation of a 16/44.1kHz recording of a Tape Project analogue recording?

I find curious that you mix Redbook, several rates of HIREZ PCM and DSD in your comments as if they were all the same.

 

[MylesBAstor]

---- Margarine & Sweeteners are Healthier for you. :b

123 (MSH)

Actually butter is healthier than margarine and probably doesn't contribute to CHD, despite what you've read, because of the size of the particles it forms.

 

[Gregadd]

---- Margarine & Sweeteners are Healthier for you. :b

123 (MSH)

It depends on who is paying for the study.:b

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

It depends on who is paying for the study.:b

"Natural" is always better.