Why, oh why, does vinyl continue to blow away digital?

[hopkins]

Your are changing the basis of this discussion and pivoting on your argument. No one has ever said that dacs are perfect or that components within are perfect so that is not what was being discussed here.

Yes, nothing is perfect, and we have no way of knowing the extent to which what makes a DAC "imperfect" has an impact on sound quality. So this is completely "on topic".

A conversion error on a single sample (or on a single bit within a sample) will result in a completely different output frequency. That's not something you experience with analog...

 

[Carlos269]

A conversion error on a single sample (or on a single bit within a sample) will result in a completely different output frequency. That's not something you experience with analog...

What do you mean? Explain how a conversion error happens on a single sample and how it results in a different frequency. I assume you are speaking during decoding and not during encoding.

 

[hopkins]

What do you mean? Explain how a conversion error happens on a single sample and how it results in a different frequency. I assume you are speaking during decoding and not during encoding.

Timing errors. Component glitches (ex: resistors). Noise interference. There are multiple sources of imperfection in a DAC.

I'm not a "technician", I don't understand all this, but I do know that many DAC designers know this and try to minimize these issues.

How do these imperfections translate into our listening experience? You can only listen for yourself to determine that.

 

[Al M.]

Not sure I agree with that. For example, I am having a discomforting experience with digital cables. I have cables of two formats sPDIF and AES/EBU. The cables are identical models from the same supplier and the same lengths. The brand is Inakustik and the model is their Air Reference copper. Coming out of my Mutec reclocker they sound VERY different. The sPDIF is more present, apparently more detailed and wider band but soundstage is somewhat flattened and busy passages a bit more congested. The XLR cable moves the acoustic center downward for less apparent treble; however, depth and soundstage improve and the low end has more umph (but less resolution and articulation). Which is right? Is either right? The difference is not really subtle. The fact that people's internet also impacts the SQ (switches, etc.) is another indicator of a substantial number of small but pernicious distortions that clearly impact the timing and interpretation of the digital stream by the DAC chips.

It is like the SS vs. Tube discussion. One (SS) has clearly better Objective measurements but this doesn't translate into clearly audible superiority and many would argue it is almost the inverse of distortion level that sounds better. Of course it is the quality of the distortion not the quantity of the distortion that is having the pernicious effects. I think the same is true with digital vs. analog. Digital has clearly lower distortion but the type that is there is wholly unnatural and has no basis in nature. Analog distortions are in some sense natural in that it is fundamentally due to vibrations of a needle physically tracing a groove with squiggles. That motion gets converted to an electrical signal. Digital works in a completely different way that has no precedent in nature and so it's distortions are also wholly unnatural and therefore detectable as synthetic at exceedingly low levels.

Does digital sound cleaner than analog? Often times yes but not universally. Does it sound more "real"? Almost never because of the issues stated above.

Forget algorithms, chip sets, filters etc. it is more fundamental and wired into our evolution of how we hear and what we evolved to hear.

I recently, in my cable struggle, was listening to the very well recorded album Llyria from Nik Baertsch on ECM. After going back and forth between RCA and XLR cables, I decided to listen to the LP, which I have to see which was closer. The result was that neither were really the same as the LP. The LP had the depth of the XLR but also had more top end resolution like the RCA without flattening the soundstage. Winner was the LP.

I agree with you that cable quality is of utmost importance in digital, even though "theoretically" digital cables should make no difference. I have a very expensive AES/EBU cable from Mutec reclocker to DAC (see my signature) for a reason. And I am not claiming that is perfect either.

It is also true, as you say:

"Digital has clearly lower distortion but the type that is there is wholly unnatural and has no basis in nature."

That is why the human ear/brain interface is several orders of magnitude more sensitive to digital jitter than it is to roughly its equivalent, analog wow and flutter. A major problem is that while in wow and flutter all frequencies are affected equally, in jitter the timing error affects different frequencies differently -- and in an inconsistent manner, depending on the music signal from moment to moment.

Digital can be made musical, but this requires reducing all its unnatural distortions to a minimum. To my ears, I have achieved that in my system, making digital a highly engaging and enjoyable experience for me.

Funny though that some of the nasty distortions that I previously might have attributed to digital, or actually did so, were in fact room distortions and distortions resulting from suboptimal speaker set-up in the room. Or distortions that were downstream of the digital related to suboptimal power delivery to components (remedied by competent power cords). Digital isn't to blame for everything .

 

[PeterA]

Are you disputing that digital playback is more accurate than analog playback?

More like the original file or more like the experience of listen to live music? Accurate compared to what?

 

[Carlos269]

Timing errors. Component glitches (ex: resistors). Noise interference. There are multiple sources of imperfection in a DAC.

I'm not a "technician", I don't understand all this, but I do know that many DAC designers know this and try to minimize these issues.

How do these imperfections translate into our listening experience? You can only listen for yourself to determine that.

I think that you are spinning your wheels.

 

[hopkins]

It is also true, as you say:

"Digital has clearly lower distortion but the type that is there is wholly unnatural and has no basis in nature."

That is indeed an interesting comment. I would be curious to know if there have been experiments where you introduce much higher levels of errors in the conversion process and listen for differences. You could in fact take a digital file and introduce random errors in the samples, for example, and gradually increase the number of errors...

 

[Carlos269]

More like the original file or more like the experience of listen to live music? Accurate compared to what?

How accurately the signal at outputs compares to the data at the inputs, it’s that simple. That is the only frame for evaluation of accuracy.

 

[hopkins]

How accurately the signal at outputs compares to the data at the inputs, it’s that simple. That is the only frame for evaluation of accuracy.

In addition to my previous comments regarding the impossibility of performing this test on actual music (complex source), you are also discounting errors in the ADC conversion. What is an "accurate source"? Here again, we don't know!

 

[bonzo75]

Thanks for the correction, Mark. Regardless of ownership, Warner Classics is re-issuing many great recordings on LP.

Releases | Warner Classics

The home of classical music: Warner Classics and Erato present artists from Maria Callas to Joyce DiDonato, Mstislav Rostropovich to Gautier Capuçon

www.warnerclassics.com

Classical recordings - Search: WArner Classics vinyl (page 1 of 14) | Presto Music

www.prestomusic.com

Here is a great example. A case can be made that this is the greatest (or one of the very great) Mahler 2nds.
This is an essential recording for any collection: the greatest interpretation of Mahler's Second ever placed before the public, made under ideal studio conditions and now in the best sound possible.
- Tony Duggan Review

View attachment 131676

The original record is hard to find and expensive in M/NM. I am happy for the reissue from Warner.

I don't know if this is true but I read it on the internet :

"As of 2013, EMI UK's catalogue is owned by Warner Music Group after the acquisition of the Parlophone Label Group's assets." Parlophone had been owned by EMI.

The reissue just won’t have the dynamic range this has. The later editions from EMI of this were poor. Then it is boring to listen to

 

[Rensselaer]

For those who like that video: It is the famous 'Letter Duet' from Mozart's opera The Marriage of Figaro. My favorite is Kiri Te Kanawa and Lucia Popp with Solti conducting the London Philharmonic (London 417 395-2). Gorgeous.

An emotionally evocative piece, made more so by the placement in this movie and narrative accompanying it. Nice.

 

[bonzo75]

I always knew that as Sull’aria not as letter duet. Heard it again last year at Milan opera.

 

[Carlos269]

In addition to my previous comments regarding the impossibility of performing this test on actual music (complex source), you are also discounting errors in the ADC conversion. What is an "accurate source"? Here again, we don't know!

I believe that we were limiting the scope of this conversation to the accuracy of playback.

 

[hopkins]

I believe that we were limiting the scope of this conversation to the accuracy of playback.

The topic is digital versus analog, so you do need to consider all the differences.

Anyway, I'll stop here - carry on...

 

[wil]

I was talking more about the experience of music and the experience of sound within the experience of listening… they are clearly enmeshed and variable. In the experience of listening where you are appreciating the sounds and where you are appreciating the music is likely to be closer to quick change states so more power to you if you’ve mastered that level of awareness… I do think it’s a challenge at times to know the difference for me at least.

This is a really interesting subject for me , even more so than OP subject (what was it, “Grammer in Audio”?).

I tend to seek a listening state where music and sound awareness merge. Sound is the very stuff music is made of— how can the two really be separated? I tend to notice the physiological effects when I can reach into that state, like eyelids going half mast or involuntarily closing.

 

[wil]

Those are two of the four primary audiophile objectives.

There are more than merely two audiophile sub-hobbies. We have at least:

-- box swapping (perpetually trying different components and putting together different systems)

-- listening to music

-- music (LPs, CDs, tapes, files) collecting

-- DIY

-- basic hobby of researching, putting system together, listening to music

-- traveling to audition and to play music on other people's systems

This last one on Ron’s list is exceedingly rare. I believe there’s only one documented case worldwide.

 

[Lagonda]

Those are two of the four primary audiophile objectives.

There are more than merely two audiophile sub-hobbies. We have at least:

-- box swapping (perpetually trying different components and putting together different systems)

-- listening to music

-- music (LPs, CDs, tapes, files) collecting

-- DIY

-- basic hobby of researching, putting system together, listening to music

-- traveling to audition and to play music on other people's systems

And don't forget the hobby of always trying to put AAudiophiles into categories, it is a sub category all in itself Ron ! Ps. the AA was a typo, but it fits quite well, so i left it for effect.

 

[hopkins]

Those are two of the four primary audiophile objectives.

There are more than merely two audiophile sub-hobbies. We have at least:

-- box swapping (perpetually trying different components and putting together different systems)

-- listening to music

-- music (LPs, CDs, tapes, files) collecting

-- DIY

-- basic hobby of researching, putting system together, listening to music

-- traveling to audition and to play music on other people's systems

and

- discussing audio online with strangers

 

[prerich]

So simple. So true. Yet, so difficult for some to apparently comprehend.

I have recently developed a taste for country music which I never liked in the past. Classical is still my goto choice but not many radio stations in New Mexico play that genre. I watched the recent 2024 CMT Music Awards and loved it.

Times change. Preferences change. It is a basic fact of life.

True!!!!!

 

[Lagonda]

That angry cop who breaks in must be a digital guy. Or maybe it is Lagonda and just hates classical.

If he had played "The Soggy Bottom Boys" the whole joint would have been jumping and dancing ! A missed opportunity !