Have a listen to these two tracks recorded with a Tascam X8, does it sound real?
Tascam Portacapture X6 | Audio Examples
SOS June 2023 Chris Timson These files accompany my...
Why, oh why, does vinyl continue to blow away digital?
- Thread starter godofwealth
- Start date
Yes, that was a nice live experience yesterday, and you raise such important points here, Peter. Real music is not etched, thin and bright sounding like modern "hi-fi" sound often is, but full and dynamic sounding, and with localization that is anything but "pinpoint". Even though it often does, reproduction at home, be it vinyl or digital based, does not need to fall into the trap of "hi-fi" sound.
A few things to keep in mind, the range of trumpet isn’t that extended. Typically, even with harmonics, they only extend out to 2.5 KHz. What is important to observe is that above 1.5 KHz the trumpet is quite directional and becomes more so with higher frequencies.
Regarding cymbals, their frequency range of their fundamental notes, depending on the type of cymbals, is only typically between 300-600 Hz, but “crash” style cymbals can go all the way up to 4-6k Hz for upper sheen. “Air” and high harmonics from crash cymbals can go all the way up to 20kHz, and beyond the hearing range.
From physics, we know that the level of high frequency sound decreases or drops off by the square of the distance from the source. The inverse square law and the rule of thumb for decibels. Each time distance is doubled, intensity is cut by a factor of four. Since each time intensity is cut in half the sound level decreases 3 dB, it follows that doubling distance reduces the sound level by 6 dB. In other words, because high-frequency sound has a short wavelength, it is the first to fade as sound travels over distance or through air. In general, low frequency waves travel further than high frequency waves because there is less energy transferred to the air.
From the above, you can see that depending on how far away and at what angle you and Al were sitting from the trumpets and cymbals will dictate how much high frequency energy and extension you would have heard. Recordings on the other hand are done by close-mic techniques, placing the recording microphone directly on or in close proximity to the mouth or opening of the trumpet and in close proximity to the cymbals.
In summary, the sound from the audience perspective is not going to be the same as the sound from the recordings perspective. You can try to justify curtailed and dull treble all day but recordings will typically have higher high frequency content/energy and wider high frequency extension than what you and Al experienced at the very old house built in 1745.
Last edited:
My intent is to not piss anyone off. Just an observation but.......
My question. Why do people keep starting threads like this again and again and again? So analogue fans can repeat the same posts, that have been posted on other WBF A v D threads, ad nauseum? So digital fans can post the same comments like they did before? So folks who enjoy both can post the same comments like they did before?
Your question. Highly unlikey. But it does beg the question. Why is it that some folks apparently have an insatiable need that requires constant reinforcement by others, who share their beliefs, to support their personal preferences? Is it a phobia or is it something else? Respectfully. TDA.
Last edited:
Perhaps I am not understanding you. I wish I could agree with this but I do not.
I believe that a LampizatOr Poseidon and an Aries Cerat Kassandra are superior sources to my Baltic 4.
I believe that a Brinkmann Balance and a Vyger and an Air Force 1 Premium are better sources than an entry level Pro-Ject.
I believe a Studer A820 is a better source than a consumer Teac.
That is a good question indeed. Those who prefer digital or simply have no analog source usually don't feel the need to resort to opening a thread claiming "vinyl sucks".
I can't even remember a thread that starts with a claim that "vinyl sucks" or a question like "why is digital superior?" (other than tongue-in-cheek). If one exists, it might be fun to dig it up.
Exactly. There seems to be the need here to periodically confirm a subjective sense of superiority.
No doubt this constantly occurs on other male dominated Internet forums as well, not just in audio. I’ve often thought this would be a more interesting place if there were just a few women here.
1) I agree with many of these points. Indeed what you are describing is what I often call "contemporary high-end dealer sound."
But I think you are making an unfair generalization.
The industry is not monolithic. There are many current companies that are not moving uniformly in the direction you suggest.
Off the top of my head so please forgive me for leaving out companies I am not recalling at this moment, but for loudspeakers I am thinking of PBN, Zu, Fyne, Tannoy, Alsyvox, Clarisys, Magnepan, Lorenzo, Diesis, Diptyque, Destination Audio, Viva Audio, Tune Audio, Devore, Living Voice, Gobel, VSA, Rockport, MAAT, Wilson, just to name a few. In my opinion matching many of these speakers with the "wrong" electronics easily will pull the sound of these loudspeakers into the "contemporary high-end dealer sound" I personally do not care for.
2) Your view that the industry in general is moving away from the "sound of music" is itself highly preventative. The fact that I happen to agree with you is equally highly pejorative.
Consumers buying systems which make the type of sound that I am calling "contemporary high-end dealer sound" would disagree vehemently that they are not aiming for the "sound of music."
3) In a subjective hobby I strongly disagree with mistaking one's personal preference for any kind of objective fact. I hope you are not back to your view that if somebody does not like the type of sound you like, than they don't know what "natural sound" is.
In other words the fact that I may agree with your personal preference in sound does not make either of us "correct" in any objective sense.
I'd say the other critical thing he champions is the time domain accuracy of the signals. That our ears/brain can hear *timing* at accuracies way beyond typical reconstruction rates. Recent advances in neurophysiology seem to back this up (I don't have the links to hand, sorry @tima !) This is a major focus of his work and it's why I personally think analog sources trumps digital because, as I understand it, this critical timing information is already present and correct...
as a committed format comparison junkie for 3 decades, along with as high a digital commitment as anyone on the forum, pondering how digital and vinyl compare is an area i live in every day. it drives me.
and it comes down to realism......the communication of the event to all our senses objectively and subjectively; vinyl at it's best easily surpasses digital in realism. there is also visual evidence when i observe how the data density, along with peaks less smeared, of vinyl, reveals itself as higher peak output time and time again on my dart 468 mono block read outs just as an aside. for whatever technical reasons, vinyl can simply relate information better.
but why? i stick with the 'what'....that i hear.
i also think that when it comes to our senses, very small objective differences translate into dramatic emotive differences. and experientially i can relate where 'blow away' type thinking comes from.
i seriously love my digital and it's 75% of my listening.
"blow away"????? i can go there at particular moments i suppose. but digital in and of itself 'blows me away' too. Level 4 Wadax is awesome.
and it comes down to realism......the communication of the event to all our senses objectively and subjectively; vinyl at it's best easily surpasses digital in realism. there is also visual evidence when i observe how the data density, along with peaks less smeared, of vinyl, reveals itself as higher peak output time and time again on my dart 468 mono block read outs just as an aside. for whatever technical reasons, vinyl can simply relate information better.
but why? i stick with the 'what'....that i hear.
i also think that when it comes to our senses, very small objective differences translate into dramatic emotive differences. and experientially i can relate where 'blow away' type thinking comes from.
i seriously love my digital and it's 75% of my listening.
"blow away"????? i can go there at particular moments i suppose. but digital in and of itself 'blows me away' too. Level 4 Wadax is awesome.
Last edited:
@ mike i.m seriously thinking about joining the wadax family and adding the wadax studio player before the end of this tax year.
It ll be my largest audio purchase ever but hey the music choice is unlimited and more or less free of charge
It ll be my largest audio purchase ever but hey the music choice is unlimited and more or less free of charge
The problem with digital is to be certain that all the analog electrical information produced by microphone is transferred into digital. I'm not sure if all the info can be able to transferred into digital no matter how high the sampling rate is.
Thanks to everyone for your reactions and comments. There are a few undeniable hard facts that to me at least are very surprising.
1. Vinyl continues to thrive and in fact is the dominant selling physical medium today. See https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/21/arts/music/vinyl-records-delays.html
2. Vinyl is not just preferred by old geezers like me, who grew up with vinyl, but a lot of young folks who seem to want to go through the trouble of listening to vinyl. There was a recent article about the Pittsburgh vinyl record store Attic records, where the store owner commented on 7-year olds who come in with their moms looking for Taylor Swift vinyl. To me, it's mind blowing that kids today who could just stream music on their phones want to own vinyl. I would never have expected that.
3. I don't mean to imply that I don't enjoy digital, or that it has not gotten substantially better in the last 35 years I have owned digital (starting from the original Philips/Magnavox CD player to the Lampizator Pacific/Mola Mola Makua DAC/Preamp/Chord Dave.Blu2 front ends that I use regularly). In short, I have invested much more money in digital than analog, but the gap remains (in my brain, perhaps this is where it's just perhaps my delusions!).
4. A final thought is that this situation might not be different from the widespread use of analog instruments in orchestras. Every orchestra tunes at the beginning to the sound of their principal oboist, and the process of making the wood reeds for oboes has not changed for centuries. In short, whether it's the Stradivarius violin or a great oboe or a Steinway piano, digitally generated musical instruments have not replaced analog instruments. So, perhaps analog methods for generating music is still preferred for the same reason that many folks continue to like analog methods for recording and reproducing music (despite their known nonlinearities and distortions).
1. Vinyl continues to thrive and in fact is the dominant selling physical medium today. See https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/21/arts/music/vinyl-records-delays.html
2. Vinyl is not just preferred by old geezers like me, who grew up with vinyl, but a lot of young folks who seem to want to go through the trouble of listening to vinyl. There was a recent article about the Pittsburgh vinyl record store Attic records, where the store owner commented on 7-year olds who come in with their moms looking for Taylor Swift vinyl. To me, it's mind blowing that kids today who could just stream music on their phones want to own vinyl. I would never have expected that.
3. I don't mean to imply that I don't enjoy digital, or that it has not gotten substantially better in the last 35 years I have owned digital (starting from the original Philips/Magnavox CD player to the Lampizator Pacific/Mola Mola Makua DAC/Preamp/Chord Dave.Blu2 front ends that I use regularly). In short, I have invested much more money in digital than analog, but the gap remains (in my brain, perhaps this is where it's just perhaps my delusions!).
4. A final thought is that this situation might not be different from the widespread use of analog instruments in orchestras. Every orchestra tunes at the beginning to the sound of their principal oboist, and the process of making the wood reeds for oboes has not changed for centuries. In short, whether it's the Stradivarius violin or a great oboe or a Steinway piano, digitally generated musical instruments have not replaced analog instruments. So, perhaps analog methods for generating music is still preferred for the same reason that many folks continue to like analog methods for recording and reproducing music (despite their known nonlinearities and distortions).
I'd say the other critical thing he champions is the time domain accuracy of the signals. That our ears/brain can hear *timing* at accuracies way beyond typical reconstruction rates. Recent advances in neurophysiology seem to back this up (I don't have the links to hand, sorry @tima !) This is a major focus of his work and it's why I personally think analog sources trumps digital because, as I understand it, this critical timing information is already present and correct...
Except that I don't hear the alleged problem -- even in comparison with vinyl.
Perhaps that is because the proprietary filter algorithm of my DAC is optimized for both frequency and timing domain, I don't know.
I used to hear the difference with vinyl on transients in the past, but digital has progressed (as has my system). There is not a moment where I listen to vinyl and go,: "Oh, ok, that's the difference." It doesn't happen.
I'd say the other critical thing he champions is the time domain accuracy of the signals. That our ears/brain can hear *timing* at accuracies way beyond typical reconstruction rates. Recent advances in neurophysiology seem to back this up (I don't have the links to hand, sorry @tima !) This is a major focus of his work and it's why I personally think analog sources trumps digital because, as I understand it, this critical timing information is already present and correct...
Not all digital is created equal. Look into HQPLAYER and high rate DSD playback with chipless DAC’s, such as the T+A DAC200 and those based on the Signalyst DSC discrete Delta-Sigma digital-to-analog converter “Open Hardware”. There is a cutting edge of digital filtering, modulators, reconstruction filters, and playback that is beyond mainstream high-end audio, off the shelf IC chip converters, and Rob Watt’s realm.
Ron, You should not chop up posts and extract snippets out of context. You omitted the parts of my post that described the actual sound and experience of my listening to live jazz last night. Those omitted parts add meaning and context to the rest.
You write about "contemporary high-end dealer sound" and listed selected gear, while I described what I heard from live music and how it differs from what I experience from modern audio systems. I am describing my experience, what I actually hear from both, and sharing an opinion about the direction of the industry. I want to know why the industry seems to be moving away from, not closer to, the sound and listening experience of live music. I am not claiming facts or correctness, simply pointing out that live and reproduced are such different experiences to me. I care much more about that than the endless analog versus digital debates. I think it is a fair observation, certainly subjective, and especially now after reading so much about the newest offerings in Munich.
This gets to the heart of @marty Munich observations also. He listened to a lot of great live music while in Europe and then heard some of these super systems. There seems to be a disconnect, and I have to wonder if modern systems are really getting us closer to the experience we have of listening to live music. For me, vinyl does it a bit better than digital, especially streaming, but that is not my main concern. Nor is it that some like Al M. prefer digital to vinyl. My interest is playing back a recording that seems real to me.
Last edited: