Why CDs May Actually Sound Better Than Vinyl

[Ron Resnick]

. . . I do not doubt what you write about a digital recording being more accurate to the direct microphone feed. . . .

I'm curious because . . . 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.

. . . 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. . . .

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.

Peter A subscribes to 1), as do I.

But someone focused on reproducing the sound of the microphone feed likely subscribes to 2).

 

[Al M.]

Al, Your post gets to the heard of what I was trying to ask f1eng, and what I think is THE critical issue when it comes to music reproduction. You just wrote it in a much more clear and concise way. Excellent writing.

Thank you, Peter. We both have a very similar thinking about these issues, regardless of the fact that one of us comes from the 'analog-only' side and the other from the 'digital-only' side, when it comes to listening at home.

 

[Ron Resnick]

With all due respect, another subjective generalization that is meaningless. . . .

That is interesting, because I never thought of it as meaningless. I take it to mean that analog playback seeks to reflect as perfectly as possible the original analog waveform, whereas digital selects an approximation -- the sampling rate -- and seeks to make that approximation as perfect as possible.

 

[Al M.]

That is interesting, because I never thought of it as meaningless. I take it to mean that analog playback seeks to reflect as perfectly as possibly the original analog waveform, whereas digital selects an approximation -- the sampling rate -- and seeks to make that approximation as perfect as possible.

Again, see my post # 159.

 

[PeterA]

Thank you, Peter. We both have a very similar thinking about these issues, regardless of the fact that one of us comes from the 'analog-only' side and the other from the 'digital-only' side, when it comes to listening at home.

You are most welcome. I think the difference is that we have divergent opinions about what levels of inconvenience we are able to tolerate to get us to the music we love to hear. Chuckle.

 

[Al M.]

You are most welcome. I think the difference is that we have divergent opinions about what levels of inconvenience we are able to tolerate to get us to the music we love to hear. Chuckle.

Hehe

Actually, I have no problem with the inconvenience as long as you do the work, if I know that a short while later I get to hear the most glorious music, as is often the case on your system . . .

 

[Ron Resnick]

Which is technically incorrect. In theory digital allows for a perfect reconstitution of the original audible signal, not in approximation, but as an accurate copy. That digital so far has not been able to approach theoretical perfection in its practical implementations is another matter. The latest dCS gear may come much closer to this than what we had heard previously in more than three decades of imperfect 'Perfect Sound Forever'.

Fair enough, Al! I did not know this. I do not understand this, and I really want to understand this. I accept your expertise in this matter.

 

[Al M.]

Fair enough, Al! I did not know this. I do not understand this, and I really want to understand this. I accept your expertise in this matter.

Hi Ron,

I didn't very well understand it either for the longest time, but we had a discussion that you might find useful here:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...d-theoretically-sufficient-timbral-resolution

In post #1 I point to a link and a video that was discussed many times at WBF by xiph.org. These are worthwhile (I think you watched the video once).

I thought Groucho's response # 15 to my original post was very helpful, and I particularly appreciated Amir's responses # 14 and # 22. There were several other helpful contributions too.

***

Again, all this is the theory. Based on audible results it was clear that until now the practical approach to the perfect theory was rather compromised indeed, when it came to processing of complex music signals rather than sine waves. That may be changing now with the latest exciting developments at the high end of digital implementation.

When I heard the dCS Vivaldi and later the dCS Rossini on plain humble 16/44 Redbook CD I thought, "so digital theory really is correct!". No doubt the results from these playback sytems will be improved even further in the future, but it was so good and convincing that any lingering remaining doubts about the theory were laid to rest, at least for me.

Al

 

[fas42]

Indeed. Some people 'want it all' with their systems, but you just can never get it. You have to know your priorities and preferences, and taylor your system accordingly. Everything is a compromise, and you have to learn to live with that fact, if you want it or not.

Shame to give up on the big quest ... if one happens to achieve a very standard of playback then one knows that it is always there if one wishes to push all the buttons at once. A bit like having a very high performance vehicle - one every rarely extends it to its full potential, but it's very satisfying to know that the potential is always there, on tap, for those moments when you wish to indulge .

Then a new challenge can emerge - can one extract very close to that potential of using the best of the best, just with ordinary, reasonably priced items? That in itself becomes a very interesting journey ...

 

[TBone]

Depends on the recording.
There is a much bigger difference in SQ between different recordings than between competent hifi systems, which is why I haven't got too precious about SQ differences in equipment for the last 15-20 years.

... my point exactly.

 

[Al M.]

Shame to give up on the big quest ... if one happens to achieve a very standard of playback then one knows that it is always there if one wishes to push all the buttons at once. A bit like having a very high performance vehicle - one every rarely extends it to its full potential, but it's very satisfying to know that the potential is always there, on tap, for those moments when you wish to indulge .

Then a new challenge can emerge - can one extract very close to that potential of using the best of the best, just with ordinary, reasonably priced items? That in itself becomes a very interesting journey ...

You call it a shame, I call it realism. You can pursue the big quest in an unlimited manner when you have the absolute perfect room that is built and treated to no compromise at all, and when you have endless amounts of money. But who has that?

In fact, if I had unlimited resources, I would want to have at least two systems, one for the really large scale stuff, and one for chamber music and similar. Both in two different custom-built rooms of very different sizes. To expect that one system and one room can do it all to perfection is delusion, in my view. After all, many great concert venues also have one large and one small hall, at least -- for a reason.

And even with two rooms perfectly suited for many kinds of music, there would be other music where for optimal presentation to my personal taste I would still want to have something in between. So if you think about it, it is very hard to get out of the circle of compromise. Let's not fool ourselves about the 'big quest' here.

As for using just ordinary, reaonably priced items, that is what I am mostly going for. But I know the limitations. I have a better and better-treated room than many, which goes a long way to allow for great sound, but also that room is limited in size and potential, especially compared with some uber rooms out there.

For the 'big quest' many people really want to push the limits and put super-large and very tall speakers into too small rooms -- an all too common mistake and not a good recipe for success, in my view.

 

[Robh3606]

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.

Peter A subscribes to 1), as do I.

But someone focused on reproducing the sound of the microphone feed likely subscribes to 2).

Hello Ron

How do you do #1??? I see live music all the time and there is no way you can create the sound of the original musical event. Just not going to happen, you can get something that might fool you if that's what you mean. Go to a GA show and walk around and it's very clear what I hear over there is not what I hear 20 feet away. There is actually such a large range that could be correct setting a system up that has the right feel, I can understand but that's not recreating the original. That is more in line with #3

Rob

 

[TBG]

That is interesting, because I never thought of it as meaningless. I take it to mean that analog playback seeks to reflect as perfectly as possible the original analog waveform, whereas digital selects an approximation -- the sampling rate -- and seeks to make that approximation as perfect as possible.

Yes, but the "approximation" in quad DSD is over two-million per second. This moves the filters out to over 100k Hz. This makes the overtones of the music which are well above what your ears can hear, but your mind knows are there makes the sound more real than the frequencies that you can cut into vinyl. Vinyl can get wonderful music off recordings, but quad DSD is real in the proper circumstances and other equipment.

 

[TBG]

I like your three goals. I have always sought to achieve #1 and always viewed as a goal. I have always questioned #3. I recorded live music onto tape and know how far it is from real although closer than I heard on even the best vinyl. But master tapes have their limitations also. As I see it those who choose #3 are just saying "close enough."

But with quad DSD and a good dac plus an exceptional amp, the NAP H-Cat X-10 MkIII amp and High Fidelity Cables Pro series cables, I am within a whisker of realism. Ironically, what I am hearing on many recording is a perspective from the microphones rather than third row center.

 

[fas42]

You call it a shame, I call it realism. You can pursue the big quest in an unlimited manner when you have the absolute perfect room that is built and treated to no compromise at all, and when you have endless amounts of money. But who has that?

I actually aim for the system to be "perfect" - IME, the room then takes care of itself, what they call auditory scene analysis kicks in, and room "compromises" are dealt with in the mind.

For the 'big quest' many people really want to push the limits and put super-large and very tall speakers into too small rooms -- an all too common mistake and not a good recipe for success, in my view

The big quest for me includes the ability to always have system headroom, no matter how loud it's running. Super large speakers are not necessary for this, just the right drivers that can produce the SPLs cleanly.

 

[Robh3606]

The big quest for me includes the ability to always have system headroom, no matter how loud it's running. Super large speakers are not necessary for this, just the right drivers that can produce the SPLs cleanly.

Hello Frank

That is where higher efficiency speakers offer a real advantage. Most of them will be on the large side there is really no way around it. Either you will be using horns or bass reflex boxes with large drivers.

Rob

 

[fas42]

Hello Frank

That is where higher efficiency speakers offer a real advantage. Most of them will be on the large side there is really no way around it. Either you will be using horns or bass reflex boxes with large drivers.

Rob

Cheers,

I agree about higher efficiency speakers, but largeness is only needed for the bass drivers; my preference would be on sealed enclosures, using brute force amplifier drive to get the necessary excursions. Very high quality subwoofer drivers, repeated enough times so that they never went into high harmonic distortion figures at any time.

 

[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?

This is the nub of the question IMHO but I am on holiday with my grandchildren in Wales at present so have little free time, I will answer later since I think it is all about microphone choice and position, this makes a massive difference.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Hello Ron

How do you do #1??? I see live music all the time and there is no way you can create the sound of the original musical event. Just not going to happen, you can get something that might fool you if that's what you mean. Go to a GA show and walk around and it's very clear what I hear over there is not what I hear 20 feet away. There is actually such a large range that could be correct setting a system up that has the right feel, I can understand but that's not recreating the original. That is more in line with #3

Rob

I think that is a fair criticism. One can never actually achieve 1). We can use it only as an aspirational goal to create as believable a facsimile of the real thing as is possible -- to maximize our suspension of disbelief.

This is what Peter A, among many others here, attempts to do.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Yes, but the "approximation" in quad DSD is over two-million per second. This moves the filters out to over 100k Hz. This makes the overtones of the music which are well above what your ears can hear, but your mind knows are there makes the sound more real than the frequencies that you can cut into vinyl. Vinyl can get wonderful music off recordings, but quad DSD is real in the proper circumstances and other equipment.

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.