Why CDs May Actually Sound Better Than Vinyl

[PeterA]

Personally, I keep getting caught up on the idea that
1) digital is "closer" to the mic feed; but
2) analogue gives a sound subjectively "closer" to "reality".
(The "" are there for obvious reasons.)

These things can both be true at the same time, of course, there's no real reason why not. However, I find myself unconvinced by arguments trying to show either 1 or 2 to be false.

Boy, this sums it up pretty well, IMO.

The interesting thing to me is that someone yesterday actually answered my question about how close the mic feed sounds to the actual live performance in the other room. He wrote that they were very different. (I will look for the exact quote and post buried somewhere in the last 10 pages.) So, if that is indeed the case, the defense of digital based on it's ability to make a "more accurate" copy of the mic feed seems completely at odds to the goal of those who are more interested in how real the final result sounds to them in their listening rooms, regardless of whether that end result is with a digital or analog source? Is that the intent of all of these filters and algorithms shaping the sound: to make it sound more real sounding, based on subjective observation, to the individual listener?

 

[ddk]

Again, I think you have good points here, and they are certainly the result of a lot of experience, but I am not certain how much they all hold for top level CD playback. In particular, I have found solo violin to sound very convincing on CD through the dCS Rossini -- far from hopeless. Same for tenor and baritone saxophone sound, which are in my experience even more problematic on regular CD playback. I would refrain from proclaiming your views as invariable dogma until you have heard top level CD playback.

It's not just with the Rossini there are a couple of other ones I've heard that do strings very well now, unfortunately also high priced. IMO This is were DACs have gained real ground in the last couple of generations. Of course you have to consider the transport as the half of the equation when considering RBCD.

david

 

[thedudeabides]

Is that the intent of all of these filters and algorithms shaping the sound: to make it sound more real sounding, based on subjective observation, to the individual listener?

With all due respect, what other intent would there be?

 

[ddk]

Some people have taken offence at the very suggestion that what is nice sounding about LPs is the euphonic distortion added both by manufacturing or replay id LP discs. OTOH nobody has come up with another explanation of why LPs sound nice, since there isn't one.

That's not true, various counterpoints are offered in this thread but you've conveniently chosen to ignore it all.

david

 

[microstrip]

It's not just with the Rossini there are a couple of other ones I've heard that do strings very well now, unfortunately also high priced. IMO This is were DACs have gained real ground in the last couple of generations. Of course you have to consider the transport as the half of the equation when considering RBCD.

david

+1!

 

[sbo6]

Boy, this sums it up pretty well, IMO.

The interesting thing to me is that someone yesterday actually answered my question about how close the mic feed sounds to the actual live performance in the other room. He wrote that they were very different. (I will look for the exact quote and post buried somewhere in the last 10 pages.) So, if that is indeed the case, the defense of digital based on it's ability to make a "more accurate" copy of the mic feed seems completely at odds to the goal of those who are more interested in how real the final result sounds to them in their listening rooms, regardless of whether that end result is with a digital or analog source? Is that the intent of all of these filters and algorithms shaping the sound: to make it sound more real sounding, based on subjective observation, to the individual listener?

Peter, I made the comment of how the live event sounds nothing like listening behind the other side of the glass. How the engineers decide to manipulate it is what we are all trying to achieve. For the live event especially in a studio, you can't compare it to the recording. Where to stand and listen? Humans are binaural, most recordings are not (except Chesky), so the comparison is mute IMO. Stereo is a synthetic recreation of an event sometimes live most often multi tracked over time.

 

[Al M.]

Did you listen to CDs where the violin or sax hadn't sounded good on other digital?

I know this is meant for Al M, but I was with him for his Rossini audition and we played a selection of his CDs which we have heard many times on his own system. They were more convincing through the Rossini. We also compared those same CDs through three different digital players in the same system that day. They sounded best to me through the Rossini, and especially the violin and sax instruments on those recordings. It was quite startling in fact, because the reproduction reminded both of us of the high level of resolution we hear with good analog and a complete absence of digital artifacts which I usually hear as fatigue inducing glare and harshness. In essence, the individual notes sounded more complete and natural. Overall resolution and timbral accuracy in particular was highest with the Rossini DAC and the same transport that Al has in his own system. It was a memorable listening session. He started a thread on this subject elsewhere on the forum.

Thank you for this answer, Peter, with which I agree.

I should add that the violin on the 1986 Hungaroton CD of Bartok's violin sonata (excellent interpretation be Kremer, Smirnov) sounds really bad in tone on my DAC (though highly dynamic), whereas other violin sounds good on my DAC, and in some exceptional cases, very good. I was taken aback at how very convincing the Bartok, which I had thought of as a bad recording, sounded through the Rossini. Also one string quartet recording that we listened to sounded very good, much better than in my system. After you had left, Peter, I also played two violin recordings that in my opinion sound very good, though still not stellar, in my system, and they too sounded exceptional on the Rossini.

As for baritone and tenor sax, I have never heard it close to convincing on any CD playback, neither on mine nor on that from several other DACs. Sax had been the one huge disappointment of digital for me, especially compared to your and Madfloyd's analog. Sax on Trane's Blues by John Coltrane sounded better on the dCS Rossini than at home, but still not convincing. But when we played that modern jazz recording, where on my system the saxes also sound rather thin and harmonically emasculated, I remember that we both nodded when the saxes came on (tenor and baritone). As you say, it was quite startling. It was that Aha moment where I said to myself, "so digital theory really is correct!".

We have discussed our experiences on this thread:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...le-Redbook-CD-afternoon-at-Goodwin-s-High-End

 

[microstrip]

Personally, I keep getting caught up on the idea that
1) digital is "closer" to the mic feed; but
2) analogue gives a sound subjectively "closer" to "reality".
(The "" are there for obvious reasons.)

These things can both be true at the same time, of course, there's no real reason why not. However, I find myself unconvinced by arguments trying to show either 1 or 2 to be false.

Most of us feel some agreement with this comfortable discourse.

But 1) is of little value is the mandatory manipulation "spoils" or " corrupts" the purity of the information.
And if 2) is not false we must ask for technical explanations of why - I can not believe that digital sound engineers degrade recordings intentionally to fuel audiophile forums debates!

 

[Al M.]

It's not just with the Rossini there are a couple of other ones I've heard that do strings very well now, unfortunately also high priced. IMO This is were DACs have gained real ground in the last couple of generations. Of course you have to consider the transport as the half of the equation when considering RBCD.

david

Yes, I was astonished that we heard the sound that we did with my humble Simaudio CD transport (which, however, is lifted from their pricey players) -- the MIT digital cable connecting it to the DAC was double the price! Yet given the importance of transport I want to have not the Rossini DAC, but the Rossini Player with its built-in transport, which should provide a result even superior to what we heard.

(The price difference between the dCS Rossini DAC and Rossini Player is the same as the cost of the MIT digital cable that I will not need to purchase by going for the Player.)

 

[PeterA]

Peter, I made the comment of how the live event sounds nothing like listening behind the other side of the glass. How the engineers decide to manipulate it is what we are all trying to achieve. For the live event especially in a studio, you can't compare it to the recording. Where to stand and listen? Humans are binaural, most recordings are not (except Chesky), so the comparison is mute IMO. Stereo is a synthetic recreation of an event sometimes live most often multi tracked over time.

Thanks sbo6. So it seems in the end, that the engineers are starting with something that "sounds nothing like" the original music event. This would be the case with both analog and digital recordings then. By engineers, are you referring to the recording engineers who are making the master recording in the studio or to the engineers who are designing the recording and playback gear, or to both? Either way, they are relying on their subjective taste and what they want the product to sound like.

This seems to align with those who prioritize the sound of the final product rather than the accuracy of intermediary steps. I can see how accuracy is good but it does not stay that way for long. That the digital copy is "accurate" does not seem to be enough when listening to one's system hoping to hear something that sounds real. The shaping of the sound or voicing of the equipment seems to be vital to the end result, regardless of format.

We then get back to what sounds best to us, or, more "real" to us. And that, as everyone has written, is subjective, and a matter of personal preference. I can be pretty dense, so it is with considerable effort that I am beginning to better understand what the issues are, and I better appreciate the differing opinions.

 

[PeterA]

deleted, repeated post.

 

[sbo6]

By engineers, are you referring to the recording engineers who are making the master recording in the studio or to the engineers who are designing the recording and playback gear, or to both?

Peter, the former, the recording engineers.
On a slightly different note - one of the things I find both fascinating and at the same time obsessive is that in recording studios, engineers aren't usually focused on the absolute clarity, dynamics and staging as examples as much as audiophiles are. The focus is more about - the vocal level vs instruments, panning for best effect/distribution, how can I use less/more compression or effects to improve the experience and of course, loudness. I think the % of recordings focused on absolute quality/clarity and accuracy to capture the event are minute (e.g.: Chesky) but I think it's growing.

 

[PeterA]

Thanks sbo6. I'm learning a lot from this thread. Thank you Steve for initiating the discussion.

Steve, as someone who has just jumped into analog in a very serious way recently, what are your thoughts and how much do you still listen to your digital?

 

[Al M.]

Thanks sbo6. So it seems in the end, that the engineers are starting with something that "sounds nothing like" the original music event. This would be the case with both analog and digital recordings then. By engineers, are you referring to the recording engineers who are making the master recording in the studio or to the engineers who are designing the recording and playback gear, or to both? Either way, they are relying on their subjective taste and what they want the product to sound like.

This seems to align with those who prioritize the sound of the final product rather than the accuracy of intermediary steps. I can see how accuracy is good but it does not stay that way for long. That the digital copy is "accurate" does not seem to be enough when listening to one's system hoping to hear something that sounds real. The shaping of the sound or voicing of the equipment seems to be vital to the end result, regardless of format.

We then get back to what sounds best to us, or, more "real" to us. And that, as everyone has written, is subjective, and a matter of personal preference. I can be pretty dense, so it is with considerable effort that I am beginning to better understand what the issues are, and I better appreciate the differing opinions.

Great analysis, Peter.

If all that is the case, why should we go for an "accurate reproduction" of the recording? After all, the recording engineers make their own subjective decisions of how it should sound and tailor the result that way. So why should we, as listeners, not make our own decisions instead rather than taking the equally subjective decisions of the recording engineers as more authoritative than ours? Are we supposed to worship on the pseudo-scientific altar of a misplaced concept of "accuracy"? As a scientist, I have no sympathy for that.

Especially when we cannot even know what the recording engineers heard when they made their subjective decisions? It is well documented that the in-room frequency response of certain studio monitors greatly varies in different studios around the world. Now that's a scientific fact.

Let's say, for example, that vinyl alters the frequency response of the final mastering of the original recording. And CD does not. How big of an issue is this? I would say it is potentially much less of a problem than the audible alteration of harmonics of instrumental timbres of several kinds of instruments on all digital playback but the very best, rendering them more artificial sounding than in real life and on analog.

Of course, overall frequency balance is much easier to measure than an alteration of harmonics of instrumental timbres. Hence the digital objectivist's claim that digital is superior. Yet such superficial analysis misses the point, in my view.

Again, I do not at all dismiss the notion that digital indeed has the potential to be superior as a whole to analog on the technical level (in some areas it measurably was from the beginning), and as I have stated repeatedly, I am convinced that digital theory is correct, current audible problems with practical implementation aside. I personally also find little use for the 'reflection' (good, analog) vs. 'reconstruction' (bad, digital) argument. As a technical argument it demonstrably fails, on several levels. Yet I have as of yet heard very little digital playback that possibly even matches great analog (on the best recordings/pressings) when actually listened to. The correct technical implementation of the theory still needs to be worked on.

 

[Steve Williams]

Thanks sbo6. I'm learning a lot from this thread. Thank you Steve for initiating the discussion.

Steve, as someone who has just jumped into analog in a very serious way recently, what are your thoughts and how much do you still listen to your digital?

Hi Peter

I got my turntable and launched the analog side of my system in Augst of last year. I can say that since then I have only listened to digital twice in that time, once when Philip O'Hanlon was at my house and recently when Ked was here. I don't dislike digital at all and enjoy my setup but since last August I honestly haven't been interested in anything but analog . There is just something so much better for my ears when I lisyten to vinyl. As Peter has pointed out and I agree when it comes to me and that I just have no fatigue when I listen to vinyl.

I started the thread because I found it the article an interesting read and thought it would be good discussion. Once again my thanks to everyone for such an interesting, informative and truly polite thread which in days gone by almost certainly would not have made it past 10 pages before it would be closed because of the bickering. What I see here is that for most everyone there is no right or wrong answer but rather a sonic preference for most people. I have been bitten by analog and for me the only thing I have been changing up has been my arm/cartridge combination. Having said that I must admit that I read all of the digital threads here as so much new information is gleaned

Thanks all

 

[amirm]

At the risk of getting stoned to death, here is the measurements of a Linn Sondek LP12, reproducing a 1 Khz tone with different cartridges and arms. A transparent system would have single sharp line in the middle and absolutely nothing else: http://www.stereophile.com/content/...power-supply-measurements#ERebyA16vPkzCtOd.97

I don't have a 1 Khz test for DACs but have the much harder 12 Khz one from a DAC that I bought 3 years before the above turntable review. Here it is with the same horizontal scale:

You can clearly see the superiority of digital. Its graphs are in color and the LP in black and white!

As I said, case closed.

 

[Al M.]

Thanks for re-posting this, Amir. I was referencing to that in an earlier post, addressing the 'reflection' (analog) vs. 'reconstruction' (digital) argument, with reconstruction allegedly being bad. An argument that obviously fails.

I will note that the vertical scale in your graphs is much steeper for the digital than the analog, making the comparison even worse for analog than it seems at first glance.

If you get stoned to death, I might too for my support on this .

 

[bonzo75]

That looks like a graph of vinyl showing digital the middle finger

 

[amirm]

That looks like a graph of vinyl showing digital the middle finger

Yeh, Vinyl is jealous that way....

 

[Al M.]

And its middle finger is quite crooked. Arthritis problems?