Why CDs May Actually Sound Better Than Vinyl

[bonzo75]

The DAC used with HQ Player was a well regarded DAC for DSD, the NADAC. And on native Quad DSD that DAC was considerably better. So yes, I don't think the HQ player software rises to the level of the dCS algorithms.

Then the right way is to compare HQP in a good streamer with a CDP into the NADAC, otherwise you are comparing NADAC with dCS simultaneously

 

[Al M.]

Then the right way is to compare HQP in a good streamer with a CDP into the NADAC, otherwise you are comparing NADAC with dCS simultaneously

The NADAC is better on DSD than on straight PCM (HQPlayer obviously upsamples PCM to DSD), as we also heard ourselves, so a CD player into the NADAC will be suboptimal.

It would be interesting to compare PCM from a computer, upsampled to DSD over HQPlayer, fed into a dCS Rossini with a CD played over a transport played into that same DAC. I have good reasons to believe that the internal algorithms of the dCS Rossini would still win.

 

[bonzo75]

The NADAC is better on DSD than on straight PCM (HQPlayer obviously upsamples PCM to DSD), as we also heard ourselves, so a CD player into the NADAC will be suboptimal.

It would be interesting to compare PCM from a computer, upsampled to DSD over HQPlayer, fed into a dCS Rossini with a CD played over a transport played into that same DAC. I have good reasons to believe that the internal algorithms of the dCS Rossini would still win.

Agreed - so you agree HQP into NADAC > CDP into NADAC. Now, this might be less than dCS Rossini, but that has NADAC in the equation.

I have compared aurender into vivaldi dac and vivaldi transport, and the transport was better. But again, not by much. I considered these differences big when I only evaluated digital, but now from an analog perspective they are very small in comparison.

When people ask me about Lampi for DSD, I keep saying it is the DHT that makes the difference, not DSD, though the DSD sounds better than the PCM. A change in valves makes a big difference to the sound.

 

[Argonaut]

The other thing is that no dac can ever compete with the software updates happening externally. So your V2.0 quality will be surpassed by HQ Player, bughead, wtfplayer or someone else much faster and they are either free or cheap.

It is my understanding that the DCS updates achieve in part entirely what you ascribe to be deficient of 'other DACS' ?
I did read recently a list of, and explanation as to the nature of the suite of changes within the V2.0 firmware which If I recall was more than merely the equivalent of an simple driver update, I shall endevour to publish I I can find my way back to it.

 

[bonzo75]

It is my understanding that the DCS updates achieve in part entirely what you ascribe to be deficient of 'other DACS' ?
I did read recently a list of, and explanation as to the nature of the suite of changes within the V2.0 firmware which If I recall was more than merely the equivalent of an simple driver update, I shall endevour to publish I I can find my way back to it.

At that price, buy a Thorens reference . Or a Micro Seiki, Audionote reference, Vyger Indian, 4 tonearms, 4 cartrdiges, one SS phono, one valve phono. Or a tape deck with many tapes. Stream digital through Lampi, or downsize digital to Lumin.

 

[fas42]

A perfect system in an imperfect room will give you imperfect sound. That is a simple fact of basic acoustics. No room takes care of itself.

Room "compromises" are dealt with in the mind? Here it is again, the word compromise. And you rebuked me for it. And "dealing with in the mind" is a compromise on its own, rather than having actual uncompromised sound.

Compromise is an inescapable fact. Learn to deal with it.. Otherwise you will always be disappointed and never satisfied.

No rebuke intended! There is an area of psychology which is attempting to understand how us humans interpret sound and compensate for it not being "perfect", which is very active with research currently. Called Auditory Scene Analysis, it's an explanation for how our hearing can be remarkably adept in the face of conflicting sounds and environment - why we can listen to, and enjoy the performance of a busker on a busy street, for example.

IMO this is what good audio is about - it should exploit this characteristic of our hearing, to be able to adapt to the room, say, "in the mind". My own adventures in audio have unknowingly used this behaviour - and has meant that I've been able to keep away from disappointment in the general sense.

 

[microstrip]

There were similar reports of audiophiles in HKG and Mainland China , trading in their Vivaldi stack for the Trinity . I looked ! ... couldn't find a single dCS at the local pawn shops

Jazzhead,
I did the same - after reading such news I started looking to the Vivaldi stacks in the european used sites. I did not find any ...

 

[Mike Lavigne]

i'll choose the Trinity.....if we are talking about PCM up to 196/24. redbook as good as dsd. better in some ways.

if/when the used one's hit $15k i'll jump back on one. I only sold mine due to the investment I had in it.

keep talking......

 

[microstrip]

I think much of the debate on this thread, as on many threads, arises from members simply subscribing to different views on the objective of high-end audio. I think many posts talk past each other for this reason.

The three primary alternative objectives of high-end audio are:

1) recreate the sound of an original musical event,

2) reproduce exactly what is on the master tape, and

3) create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile.

When members who believe in different objectives post their views without explicitly stating their objective and addressing the fact that they may simply subscribe to different objectives, much unnecessary consternation and frustration occurs.
(...) .

Ron,

Are you using sound with its physical (vibration of air) or subjective (perceptive) meaning in 1?

IMHO I do not think the objectives are intrinsically alternative. It is known since long that 1) is not fully achievable using stereo recordings and we must use 3) in order to determine how far we are progressing in 1).

And those aiming it 2) can do it in a subjectively pleasant way or very unpleasant.

 

[TBG]

I have always thought the sampling rate of DSD is a big step in the right direction. I readily admit I know nothing about digital, and nothing about the pros and cons of PCM vs DSD. However, I have always assumed it is no coincidence that the only digital I have heard which I think sounds like a truly high-end format is DSD.

I totally agree but would add that quad DSD is clearly even better. I should also note that I have three players on my music server: Foobar, JRiver MC-21, and Signalyst and they sound different?? Thanks to William Elder of Archiving Vinyl and his AMS server and dac, I know I'm at the edge of the art, but man am I enjoying it.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ron,

Are you using sound with its physical (vibration of air) or subjective (perceptive) meaning in 1?

IMHO I do not think the objectives are intrinsically alternative. It is known since long that 1) is not fully achievable using stereo recordings and we must use 3) in order to determine how far we are progressing in 1).

And those aiming it 2) can do it in a subjectively pleasant way or very unpleasant.

By "sound" in 1) I meant our subjective perception of it.

For those focused on 2) isn't subjectively pleasant or unpleasant not relevant to them? I would think the goal of the devotees of 2) would be to try to achieve the goal of 2) and let the pleasant or unpleasant "chips" fall where they may.

 

[TBG]

Why is this ironic? It seems that the goal of DSD is to mimic the mic feed.

I guess we just have different experiences. This past weekend, for a second time, I directly compared the Janaki String Trio on Jarlung in both 45 rpm LP to the quad DSD digital file last weekend going through an HQPlayer and Merging +NADAC. The differences were less pronounced the first time I did this a month ago. This time, the tonearm was better adjusted, and the sonic differences were very clear. The level of resolution and realism were considerably higher with the analog. I can't explain why, but both my host and I heard much more information on the LP.

I find these listening sessions confusing, because so many on line reports I read directly oppose what I have heard in multiple settings with my own ears. I guess that is why people don't pay much attention to these anecdotal reports.

I think one of the seamy sides of listening to ones ears is that there is different electronics, rooms, and ears involved. I say 'ironically' as I suddenly realized that being in a choice seat at a symphony really is not achievable, but nevertheless, I love what I'm hearing.

Would it not be great were we to capture what we are hearing and post it for everyone to hear. But then again, even were this done, I doubt if there would be agreement about what is heard.

 

[Diapason]

Would it not be great were we to capture what we are hearing and post it for everyone to hear. But then again, even were this done, I doubt if there would be agreement about what is heard.

This is the bit that interests me the most. As I said (far) upthread, I've had many situations where a fellow audiophile has attempted to demonstrate the superiority of vinyl within his system, and in nearly every case I haven't agreed with his assessment. I don't think this is purely a question of pride or bias on either side, I think these responses and opinions are genuinely held by both parties. I can only come to the conclusion that what's important for me in the pursuit of "good sound" is different to what's important to others. They're hearing something different, targeting something different, and getting a completely different view of what's heard.

This was brought home to me again recently at a group demo, when the responses to what we were hearing ran the gamut from great to dire. Only very rarely have I been to a gathering of audiophiles where everybody agreed. Admittedly, I'm often an outlier, but maybe there's something in that. (FWIW, last time it happened was when the superiority of a Lampi Big 7 was unquestioned among a group of DACs in a shootout.)

What saddens me (as it always does in audiophilia) is that in real life most people are happy to live with their preferences, but online it suddenly becomes tremendously important to persuade everybody that your preference implies an absolute truth. This gets argued on all sides and rarely generates any light. Even here, we're all just talking past each other for the most part. Throw in the usual misunderstandings and misconceptions about how digital actually works, and we're back at square one.

So ultimately, isn't it possible that what we all perceive as "better" depends on our own innate preferences and sonic touchstones? For some, incorrect timbre is a deal-breaker, for others it's separation, for others it's scale, blah blah blah. I'm certainly getting tired of the notion (not too prevalent here, admittedly) that if I prefer digital I'm either deaf or deluded. I feel like I'm not a "proper" audiophile because I don't have a TT...

 

[TBG]

Diapason, I do have a very good vinyl setup using the Nantais Lenco A78 and Ikeda It-407 tonearm and 9TT cartridge into a BMC MCCI phono stage with all cabling being High Fidelity Cables. I also have the Dalby record weight. I have always thought that vinyl sounded best, but that has gradually left as digital has gone to quad DSD. There is no question for me that note decay, ambience, tonal accuracy, player and singer noises,bass control and extension are superior to vinyl. Having heard the Zanden phono stages at CES, I have learned about the importance of the frequency adjustments for vinyl. I presently don't have that capability but wish I did.

Now that what good digital can do with the filters shifted to at least 100k Hz, I have to say that I find it more real.

It's your money; screw what others think.

 

[f1eng]

f1eng, Do you think that the direct microphone feed sounds similar to the sound of actual live music? And if so, how different do the two sound to you? As one who has a lot of experience in this area, how would you describe their differences?

I ask because, I do not doubt what you write about a digital recording being more accurate to the direct microphone feed. So I assume with all of that accuracy with the digital recording itself, if the digital recording does not sound like live music, then the digital replay equipment must be at fault. I'm curious because with my limited experience, I think that reproduction through a very good analog system with a very good record actually sounds TO ME more like what I hear when I listen to live classical music, either in a chamber setting or at a great hall like where I hear the Boston Symphony Orchestra.

For me it is about timbral accuracy, presence, dynamics and tone. Perhaps "accuracy" is the wrong word here, based on what you suggest in your post. From my own listening to solo cello, for example, I get that sound more often from a well recorded LP than from any digital that I have ever heard. However, I have not heard a direct mic feed in a recording studio. I guess the closest I have come to that is a mic feed going through some board at a small scale jazz venue. And on those occasions, I would prefer the sound without it going through the mic and being amplified.

In the end, I am more interested in the sound of the final product as I hear in through my system in my room, and in which format sounds more real to me. Whether one more closely resembles the mic feed is a secondary concern to me, if the final product does not sound real.

Finally, why do you think that analog, with all of its known inherent flaws, is still favored by so many people for its sound quality? I think, that to them, as to me, it sounds more real. But, intellectually, I fully admit that I don't understand why that would be the case. Are we analog guys simply preferring grossly colored reproduced music thinking it actually sounds more real to us?

OK, back from a nice trip with the grandchildren.
Firstly the microphone feed sounds like the sound at the microphone position. People listen to classical music much further away from the orchestra than even the simple old microphone techniques using a crosser pair ORTF pair Decca tree and so forth. Nowadays multiple microphones are recorded and mixed down to stereo later but tend to be mounted far closer to the instruments than any concertgoer's ears ever would be.
Recording engineers manipulate the resulting channels and mix to stereo.
I prefer the older methods using only 2 microphones, personally, which is worse for noise but better for everything else IMHO.
Back in the day a pair of sensitive microphones above and behind the conductor's head produced a microphone output far closer to that a concert goer would hear but still a front of stalls balance.

When I first started recording seriously I was surprised that the standard alignment for a tape recorder was done at -20 dB and decided I would use 0dB because the signal is not often at -20dB and often peaking at +7 dB. I learned a lot then. There was no way the recorder could achieve a level frequency response at 0dB. In fact analogue recorders I have used all roll off the high frequencies at levels above -20 dB.
So does sitting further from the orchestra than the recording microphones...
I have only heard of one reel to reel recorder which has even frequency response in the bass.

There is a lot of experience needed to cut an LP, involving certain manipulations of the original recording, which change the sound.
Firstly the bass must be mono to ensure a continuous groove if the level goes high. This is of benefit on playback since both speakers and amps are handling the bass.
Secondly the LP medium does not have a high signal to noise potential so the low level sounds are almost always amplified relative to the average level to make sure the quiet parts of the music don't descend too close to the LP noise. This has the beneficial effect on playback of the hall ambience being more audible relative to the average level.
The maximum level which can be cut in the top octave is less than that at medium frequencies due to cutter limitations.

So overall there is no way an LP is likely to sound like the microphone feed.

I have not written that the LP is "grossly coloured" but it is coloured in ways that are nice, euphonic and maybe/probably in a way which is similar to the sound change one gets by being quite a long way from the orchestra in a concert.
Whilst it is true that quite a lot of people prefer the sound of LPs, I would be surprised if it is a majority of music lovers even if there is a hard core of audiophile enthusiasts who feel that way.

If that sounds more real to some people that is fine and dandy.

It is, IMHO, fortunate happenstance though, not any inherent superiority of LPs, the shortcomings of which, as I wrote before, sound nice and have been known about and fully explained for decades.
In fact the flat disc was invented to make music cheaper to distribute than tape, not for sound quality and the original analogue or digital recording is of much higher accuracy than the LP cut from it.

 

[bonzo75]

Diapason, I do have a very good vinyl setup using the Nantais Lenco A78 and Ikeda It-407 tonearm and 9TT cartridge into a BMC MCCI phono stage with all cabling being High Fidelity Cables. I also have the Dalby record weight. I have always thought that vinyl sounded best, but that has gradually left as digital has gone to quad DSD. There is no question for me that note decay, ambience, tonal accuracy, player and singer noises,bass control and extension are superior to vinyl. Having heard the Zanden phono stages at CES, I have learned about the importance of the frequency adjustments for vinyl. I presently don't have that capability but wish I did.

Now that what good digital can do with the filters shifted to at least 100k Hz, I have to say that I find it more real.

It's your money; screw what others think.

Hi, how do you get Quad DSD of 50s - 70s classical recordings?

 

[Diapason]

Is it therefore possible that microphone techniques currently in use are (often) more suited to analogue recording than digital recording? I've asked before here about the ubiquity of close-micing for exactly this reason, but is there any logic in that? Are the well-understood limitations of analogue offsetting the problems associated with close-micing?

 

[TBone]

So ultimately, isn't it possible that what we all perceive as "better" depends on our own innate preferences and sonic touchstones? For some, incorrect timbre is a deal-breaker, for others it's separation, for others it's scale, blah blah blah.

"Better", to my ears = the least amount of limiting/compression within any pressing/recording.

Compression/limiting absolutely destroys details (like "timber"), squashing the dynamic life right out of the music. This has nothing to do with format or equipment choices, neither can magical restore what was once there.

I'm certainly getting tired of the notion (not too prevalent here, admittedly) that if I prefer digital I'm either deaf or deluded. I feel like I'm not a "proper" audiophile because I don't have a TT...

You are certainly not deaf, nor are you any less of an audiophile. Vinyl lovers, me included, have long over-preached/hyped the format based on little evidence past prose alone, often leveraging CD/digital as the poor-audiophile cousin based on I heard this that there I think fluff easily found/read EVERYWHERE on the audiophile-net, most of it fragmented beyond any meaning.

 

[f1eng]

This is the bit that interests me the most. As I said (far) upthread, I've had many situations where a fellow audiophile has attempted to demonstrate the superiority of vinyl within his system, and in nearly every case I haven't agreed with his assessment. I don't think this is purely a question of pride or bias on either side, I think these responses and opinions are genuinely held by both parties. I can only come to the conclusion that what's important for me in the pursuit of "good sound" is different to what's important to others. They're hearing something different, targeting something different, and getting a completely different view of what's heard.

This was brought home to me again recently at a group demo, when the responses to what we were hearing ran the gamut from great to dire. Only very rarely have I been to a gathering of audiophiles where everybody agreed. Admittedly, I'm often an outlier, but maybe there's something in that. (FWIW, last time it happened was when the superiority of a Lampi Big 7 was unquestioned among a group of DACs in a shootout.)

What saddens me (as it always does in audiophilia) is that in real life most people are happy to live with their preferences, but online it suddenly becomes tremendously important to persuade everybody that your preference implies an absolute truth. This gets argued on all sides and rarely generates any light. Even here, we're all just talking past each other for the most part. Throw in the usual misunderstandings and misconceptions about how digital actually works, and we're back at square one.

So ultimately, isn't it possible that what we all perceive as "better" depends on our own innate preferences and sonic touchstones? For some, incorrect timbre is a deal-breaker, for others it's separation, for others it's scale, blah blah blah. I'm certainly getting tired of the notion (not too prevalent here, admittedly) that if I prefer digital I'm either deaf or deluded. I feel like I'm not a "proper" audiophile because I don't have a TT...

I think you are 100% correct from my own experience.
The hifi Wigwam forum here in the UK has an exhibition every March. Enthusiasts set up a system of their choice in a hotel room and exhibit/demonstrate to other enthusiasts. It is inexpensive to visit and I enjoy going to listen to all these different systems. Dealers and Importers are not allowed except record dealers selling LPs
Several things stand out but the two most notable IME are firstly that the cost of the system does not correlate well with sound quality and secondly that, assuming everybody exhibiting is doing so to show what good sound quality they get, the variety of sound varies enormously between the exhibits which shows that enthusiasts can be seeking widely different things in their hifi.

 

[Ron Resnick]

. . . I don't think [preference for analog or digital] is purely a question of pride or bias on either side, I think these responses and opinions are genuinely held by both parties. I can only come to the conclusion that what's important for me in the pursuit of "good sound" is different to what's important to others. They're hearing something different, targeting something different . . .

. . .

What saddens me (as it always does in audiophilia) is that in real life most people are happy to live with their preferences, but online it suddenly becomes tremendously important to persuade everybody that your preference implies an absolute truth. This gets argued on all sides and rarely generates any light. Even here, we're all just talking past each other for the most part. Throw in the usual misunderstandings and misconceptions about how digital actually works, and we're back at square one.

. . .

I agree with all of these points!