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

[tima]

With Mahler’s second there’s plenty of good to great performances but Otto Klemperer with the Philharmonia sits right up at the peak for me… along with Bruno Walter and Columbia SO and Vladimir Jurowski with the London Phil… it’d be one of my one of my all time favourite Klemperer recordings as well. It’s a benchmark fabulous performance of the M2.

I agree. I have the Bruno Walter but it is worn. I should look for a better copy. Jurowski needs a different label that also does LP.

 

[tima]

I figure if we had a better understanding of perception and a model of the varied perceptual modes that people employ we’d also have a greater understanding of how experience and expectation work to shape preferences… but then we’d have a shipload less to argue about.

Nah -- there's always something.

I'm happy to take someone at their word about their preference as long as that doesn't involve dissing something else.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Nah -- there's always something.

I'm happy to take someone at their word about their preference as long as that doesn't involve dissing something else.

Well it’s not like that ever happens lol.

 

[tima]

Obviously, these numbers are magnitudes more critical than the sensitivity of the human ear for analog wow and flutter.

I canna speak to digital but I believe the threshold for hearing W&F via record playback is, imo, misleading. As it decreases below the obvious level of the wavering piano note, sound improves in other areas we may not recognize as or attribute to lower wow & flutter. At least that's what I found with the significant increase in stable timing accuracy between the Monaco 1.5 and 2.0. Improvements in resolution, particularly lower frequencies, general clarity and overall energy or vivacity.

 

[tima]

Well it’s not like that ever happens lol.

LOL indeed!

 

[Holmz]

How do you convert digital without the DAC?? Of course to look at the analog sine wave you have to run it through a DAC and analog output stage. Don’t be daft. The only way to see if the sine wave is pure post conversion is to perform an FFT… you certainly can’t see it from the wave on a scope unless it grossly distorts.

Looking at the FFT will tell you/us what exactly?

Let’s say it was 1k FFT, and we have 20Hz per bin.
The signal can be anywhere in that bin.
I suppose we could say that some people actually appreciate that the FFT gives both amplitude and phase, or a complex FFT. Although few seem to express that as important.

One might be better off looking at the phase between each sample.
You do not even need a DAC then, as one can compute the phase with maybe a Hilbert transform, etc.

 

[Carlos269]

Looking at the FFT will tell you/us what exactly?

Let’s say it was 1k FFT, and we have 20Hz per bin.
The signal can be anywhere in that bin.
I suppose we could say that some people actually appreciate that the FFT gives both amplitude and phase, or a complex FFT. Although few seem to express that as important.

One might be better off looking at the phase between each sample.
You do not even need a DAC then, as one can compute the phase with maybe a Hilbert transform, etc.

What you are after when performing Sine wave reconstruction test is to determine how accurately the Sine wave is reconstructed. If not accurately then by looking at the FFT decomposition and the magnitude of those components that you don’t expect to be present, such as those that are not harmonics, you get a picture of if the dac is putting emphasis on particular frequency regions, if there is added reverb or equalization, and if distortion/harmonics components have been intentionally added to sweeten the sound. There is much that these measurements will tell, if you know what to look for. As I mentioned to Brad, it is the magnitude of the frequency components that you don’t expect to be present that will tell the story.

 

[wil]

You can create a sound that seems live by reproducing what’s on a good recording. That will please the audiophile who is seeking a live sound.

Right, and not to be mistaken for an overly live/ reverberant listening room which is adding a layer of coloration/distortion onto the recording.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

My issue here is that this view pre-judges a critically important predicate step. That predicate step is "What is my high-end audio objective?"

Possible objectives:

1) recreate the sound of an original musical event,

2) reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played,

3) create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile, and

4) create a sound that seems live.

If one selects, in advance, the objective of "reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played," then "which is more accurate?" is a logical question to ask.

But if one selects, in advance, the objective of "create a sound that seems live" then assessing which is more "accurate" becomes spurious.


* Whom I adore, by the way.

you missed one. the only one.

my goal for a normal listening session is to enjoy the session and be immersed in the experience. and maybe i want to hear what a particular performer(s) or piece of music, or musical genre, might sound like. parts of this are the dynamics, scale, authority and sounds that hopefully sound real enough to make me connect and be affected say wow! or smile. get my shoulders to relax, take me someplace.

OTOH if i am listening critically or investigating things then yes, i start thinking objectively about these ideas. but most times i want that crap far away from my mind. i want to melt into the music, or if i'm multitasking i want the music to embrace me.

sometimes my mind slips into a critical listening mode, i have to get it back to cruise and enjoy mode. if we are investigating things then maybe we switch back and forth. but hopefully that is not anything typical for your listening.

but importantly my objective generally is not to be objective. period. and for our systems to pull us into that mind set. so we can be open to the musical message. we walk away thinking about the music and not the sounds. if our systems are not accomplishing this, we have work to do or attitudinal opportunities.

accurate as a general conscious objective? who cares besides forum posters? real is what we want.

 

[Al M.]

No offense intended but that's a 20th Century criticism. Today there are multiple means for cleaning vinyl records that allow them to remain near-new or pristine. It's a viable medium.

Record Cleaning and Related Topics

www.whatsbestforum.com

Over the years, firmly in the 21st century, I have heard numerous complaints about pops, crackles and background surface noise, as well as admiration for the quiet background of digital -- from vinyl enthusiasts.

In that context, see also Ron's post #441, where he cites surface noise from vinyl as one of the reasons why he prefers analog tape.

 

[bonzo75]

Right, and not to be mistaken for an overly live/ reverberant listening room which is adding a layer of coloration/distortion onto the recording.

If the room sounds that way on every recording how are you reproducing the recording? That’s your personal system/room color.

 

[Rensselaer]

Some people think their subjective preferences are just a reflection of hard facts, and thus should be universally shared by everyone, whereas the world is a bit more complicated than that.

Everyone can justify their subjective preferences by hard facts of their choosing. That doesn’t make the facts wrong -- even though many can't even get the facts right -- but their use to bolster subjective preferences is commonly highly selective and often depends on interpreting their practical meaning and importance in a manner that is debatable.

Finally, many simply mistake their subjective preferences for hard facts, for lack of analytical thinking or for psychological reasons.

This thread is questioning why the OP subjectively prefers the sound of pure analogue to digitally sourced.

To date, no one has been able to “measure” “realness” of a presentation, however everyone is able to subjectively analyse which of the two blind presentations sounds more real to them.

Are you claiming that choosing between two presentations that which sounds most natural is not an analytical process? Are saying that subjective preferences skew blind listening tests? That preferences in such cases is not hard facts but the outcome of some psychological defect?

 

[Kingrex]

you missed one. the only one.

my goal for a normal listening session is to enjoy the session and be immersed in the experience. and maybe i want to hear what a particular performer(s) or piece of music, or musical genre, might sound like. parts of this are the dynamics, scale, authority and sounds that hopefully sound real enough to make me connect and be affected say wow! or smile. get my shoulders to relax, take me someplace.

OTOH if i am listening critically or investigating things then yes, i start thinking objectively about these ideas. but most times i want that crap far away from my mind. i want to melt into the music, or if i'm multitasking i want the music to embrace me.

sometimes my mind slips into a critical listening mode, i have to get it back to cruise and enjoy mode. if we are investigating things then maybe we switch back and forth. but hopefully that is not anything typical for your listening.

but importantly my objective generally is not to be objective. period. and for our systems to pull us into that mind set. so we can be open to the musical message. we walk away thinking about the music and not the sounds. if our systems are not accomplishing this, we have work to do or attitudinal opportunities.

accurate as a general conscious objective? who cares besides forum posters? real is what we want.

I don't know how to digest this Mike. I'm probably most engrossed by the music and not at all thinking about how well the system is playing it back in the car.

If someone is stating one source or the other is superior, they are not listening to the music. They are analyzing a stereo.

If someone spends little to no time setting up a stereo and keeps what they have for a very long time, they are probably listening to the music.

No offense intended but that's a 20th Century criticism. Today there are multiple means for cleaning vinyl records that allow them to remain near-new or pristine. It's a viable medium.

Record Cleaning and Related Topics

www.whatsbestforum.com

Naaaa. Not so true. Even pristine brand new records seem to.get something into them over time.

And I have never bought a used classical album that is clean of background noise. My cleaning is pretty good. I have talked plenty what I do on the Neil thread.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I don't know how to digest this Mike. I'm probably most engrossed by the music and not at all thinking about how well the system is playing it back in the car.

If someone is stating one source or the other is superior, they are not listening to the music. They are analyzing a stereo.

If someone spends little to no time setting up a stereo and keeps what they have for a very long time, they are probably listening to the music.

i can see how you are interpreting my post, that's fair. i did not mean it so literally. no one has worked harder than me to meticulously work on system and room setup and gear synergy. which means yes, i had to deal with all the nuts and bolts. and part if it was accuracy and objective judgements layer by layer. but along the way i had to check my objective mind at the door and enter the room for the experience on a regular basis to see how it was satisfying my objective. especially when i was tuning my room. or making major gear decisions. i had always to stop and make sure i was approaching the issue properly.

my objective was the experience of the music. the tools were all those other things. and honestly now it's not that hard to get my mind right where it needs to be to hear whether things are real and that it pulls me in. and mostly when that happens those other check list things are going on too.

btw; it's ok to have any damn thing as an objective. i'm only speaking for myself.

and if accuracy is your goal. have at it.

 

[PeterA]

The Dac can only convert what is send to its inputs. Ideally the dac should not editorialize but just convert.

You are judging components and audio systems by something that they have very little control of. If what you are looking to hear is not in the source material then it is very unlikely that you will hear what you want to hear.

This brings me to what I have been saying now for decades, the source material is the dominat factor. The mastering is the dominant factor. That is why HQPLAYER and adjusting the source material is where you can more effectively influence the resultant sound.

In order words you might be expecting of a component or system what it can’t possibly deliver if it is not in the source material.

I will not go into what I have said in the past but hopefully you understand what I’m saying and the ways to overcome these limitations.

I think we agree on this Carlos. This is a discussion about why the OP prefers analog to digital and whether or not he is delusional. Such a discussion should, in my view, included everything involved from capturing the original music, storing it, and then replaying it, that is presenting it to the listener in a room at the listening seat. Yes, I am talking about the entire analog or digital chain, much of which we have no control over, but it is what matters. The original source material matters, and the real issue is vinyl records or digital CDs or files, or streamed bits. The discussion has moved toward the conversion process in the dacs we can buy and use in our systems, but the issue is really much broader than that. As a listener, I care about what I hear in my room. Some of that I can control and some I can not. I can not control the original source material except by choosing what to buy and which format I prefer. Regarding this, we all have choices, and we make them.

If we are talking about accuracy, I would like to discuss how accurate what we hear at the listening seat is to what was created by the instruments and voices at the original event. Once that information is captured and then converted to digital, can it ever be as representative at the listening seat to the original musical event as is analog, despite analog's known challenges? It is the conversion from sound existing in an analog world to digits and how we react to the resulting reconversion back to analog so that we can try to make sense of the music.

Those involved in the production of music have moved to digital as the process moving forward. Yet analog survives because it appeals to many listeners. My first dealer, back in the 90's told me that if I wanted to enjoy my new CDs that I should never play those same recordings on my turntable. Now, years later, I understand what he was telling me: not that CDs can not be enjoyed, but that the same music on vinyl will be a more enjoyable, and for him and for me, a more realistic/natural listening experience.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Over the years, firmly in the 21st century, I have heard numerous complaints about pops, crackles and background surface noise, as well as admiration for the quiet background of digital -- from vinyl enthusiasts.

In that context, see also Ron's post #441, where he cites surface noise from vinyl as one of the reasons why he prefers analog tape.

I have a KL Audio RCM, which I love and which I think is totally amazing. I don't clean every record every single time before I play it.

Even if one cleans every single record every single time before he/she plays it there occasionally still will be a pop or tick on some record or another at sometime or another.

We all are entitled to our preferences and idiosyncrasies and sensitivities in this subjective hobby. If even the most occasional tick or pop can disrupt a listener's concentration or enjoyment of the music I can understand that and respect that. If a listener's merely latent worry or anticipation that he/she is "waiting" for the next tick or pop can disrupt a listener's concentration or enjoyment of the music I can understand that and respect that.

 

[Carlos269]

I think we agree on this Carlos. This is a discussion about why the OP prefers analog to digital and whether or not he is delusional. Such a discussion should, in my view, included everything involved from capturing the original music, storing it, and then replaying it, that is presenting it to the listener in a room at the listening seat. Yes, I am talking about the entire analog or digital chain, much of which we have no control over, but it is what matters. The original source material matters, and the real issue is vinyl records or digital CDs or files, or streamed bits. The discussion has moved toward the conversion process in the dacs we can buy and use in our systems, but the issue is really much broader than that. As a listener, I care about what I hear in my room. Some of that I can control and some I can not. I can not control the original source material except by choosing what to buy and which format I prefer. Regarding this, we all have choices, and we make them.

If we are talking about accuracy, I would like to discuss how accurate what we hear at the listening seat is to what was created by the instruments and voices at the original event. Once that information is captured and then converted to digital, can it ever be as representative at the listening seat to the original musical event as is analog, despite analog's known challenges? It is the conversion from sound existing in an analog world to digits and how we react to the resulting reconversion back to analog so that we can try to make sense of the music.

Those involved in the production of music have moved to digital as the process moving forward. Yet analog survives because it appeals to many listeners. My first dealer, back in the 90's told me that if I wanted to enjoy my new CDs that I should never play those same recordings on my turntable. Now, years later, I understand what he was telling me: not that CDs can not be enjoyed, but that the same music on vinyl will be a more enjoyable, and for him and for me, a more realistic/natural listening experience.

But here is the deal Peter. You have no experience with the latest advancements in digital playback. When I listen to the sound of most analog systems over system videos and in person, I find them very lacking of the low level details, nuances, and resolution that I hear when listening with HQPLAYER.

I think that for you to make this statement: “the same music on vinyl will be a more enjoyable, and ………for me a more realistic/natural listening experience.” You have to compare analog playback to what digital playback can really do.

You claim that DDK’s “The Absolute Nothing” turntable is the pinnacle of your analog playback experience. I claim that “HQPLAYER 5 outputting DSD512x48 or DSD1024x48 to a chipless DSD digital to analog converter” is the pinnacle of my digital playback experience. Neither of us has heard the other in person, but when I listen to the comparisons of system videos playing the same song to me is like comparing a Black & White (Analog) television set to an 8K OLED (Digital) television. If that soft, homogenous, and slightly out of focus sound with weight is what some members here prefer than so be it, but stop calling it more natural. When you get prescription glasses for the first time you don’t realize how bad your vision is until you first put on the prescription lenses and then take them off. Is time for you to experience HQPLAYER and feel that same sensation about analog versus digital playback and then come back and state which one is more “natural”.

 

[PeterA]

i can see how you are interpreting my post, that's fair. i did not mean it so literally. no one has worked harder than me to meticulously work on system and room setup and gear synergy. which means yes, i had to deal with all the nuts and bolts. and part if it was accuracy and objective judgements layer by layer. but along the way i had to check my objective mind at the door and enter the room for the experience on a regular basis to see how it was satisfying my objective. especially when i was tuning my room. or making major gear decisions. i had always to stop and make sure i was approaching the issue properly.

my objective was the experience of the music. the tools were all those other things. and honestly now it's not that hard to get my mind right where it needs to be to hear whether things are real and that it pulls me in. and mostly when that happens those other check list things are going on too.

btw; it's ok to have any damn thing as an objective. i'm only speaking for myself.

and if accuracy is your goal. have at it.

Mike, that is quite a claim. How did you reach that conclusion?

 

[Big Dog RJ]

Mmm... some very interesting points of discussion. Well, getting back to the OP's questionnaire... there are times I certainly do prefer the TT rig, no doubt! However, when the recording on SACD / DSD is top flight, that's very enjoyable too! So, this is the reason why I simply settled with Esoteric's entry level SACD player and a humble Rega RP8 (upgraded). Sure! I can easily go for Eso's latest & greatest as well some very fancy TT rig at a very lofty price... that vicious cycle never ends! So why bother?

Just put a sock in it, cancel all that unwanted noise, sit back and just enjoy those finest tunes!
Woof! RJ

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Mike, that is quite a claim. How did you reach that conclusion?

lots of people have worked as hard. all in is all in. been a life focus.