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

[PeterA]

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...

www.soundonsound.com

I can't listen to digital on my system, so I can only listen over headphones at my computer, so....
No, not really. These sound good perhaps relative to some others, but not particularly real sounding to me. Do you have anything beyond simple midrange recordings to really test things?

 

[sbnx]

Noise wrecks audio playback. This is true for vinyl but way more true for digial. What is jitter but a type of noise. I also agree with the post above about timing errors and digital reconstruction filters and the like. Far greater care has to be taken than the typical engineer thinks. It seems that designing the typical DAC out there goes like this. Pick a DAC chip, put it in a beautiful box with a decent power supply. Add some inputs and outputs. Then add a decent output stage. And let's not forget to add a clock. There we go. Job done. It produces sound...right. I bet we can get someone to pay $50K for this.

Look at all of the tiny details the analog designers are sweating. Resonance conrol of the arm, perfect pickup in the cartidge, super high accuracy of the TT rpm, super flat platter, platter made of materials ot absorb vibration, plinth materials to absorb micro-vibration, and on and on. If DAC designers would think like this then we are getting somewhere. This is why Wadax sounds so good. Look at the details this guy is sweating over. There are a few other brands that are tyring to design DACs to the same level of care.

We have gadgets that can help greatly with the noise issue but the consideration of timing is fundamnetal to that specific DAC designer. We have no way to deal with timing errors. This is inherent to the product.

 

[Al M.]

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

Bad argument. Most vinyl today is digital sourced.

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.

Again, invalid argument. Most vinyl today is digital sourced (and you mention Taylor Swift as example for vinyl that people love). If people not into the high-end side of things prefer their digital vinyl over pure digital, then they must love the colorations from their particular vinyl playback, because it ain't analog. It's at the heart of it still digital. Or the D/A converter used for vinyl production is better than what they have for their digital. Oh, wait a minute: Their turntables usually have a USB port...never mind...

Or they love the vinyl for reasons of handling, the looks etc.

Or they love vinyl for all the above.

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 don't see why that is even an argument at all. You are now conflating digital sound production with digital recording and playback.

Of course people play analog instruments, why would they otherwise? I would -- and so would probably virtually everyone else -- boycott orchestral concerts if they would replace their instruments with digital samplers or digital sound producers. The sheer thought of that is pathetic to me. It would ruin the whole experience, including the visual one.

 

[Al M.]

Noise wrecks audio playback. This is true for vinyl but way more true for digial. What is jitter but a type of noise. I also agree with the post above about timing errors and digital reconstruction filters and the like. Far greater care has to be taken than the typical engineer thinks. It seems that designing the typical DAC out there goes like this. Pick a DAC chip, put it in a beautiful box with a decent power supply. Add some inputs and outputs. Then add a decent output stage. And let's not forget to add a clock. There we go. Job done. It produces sound...right. I bet we can get someone to pay $50K for this.

That's exactly my beef with typical 'regular' DACs too. The engineers take the digital side for granted and the only engineering they do is in the power supply and analog stages.

 

[Imperial]

I

That's exactly my beef with typical 'regular' DACs too. The engineers take the digital side for granted and the only engineering they do is in the power supply and analog stages.

what is the best, correctly made dac you know of?

 

[Rensselaer]

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.

You make a good point Peter. I see the price of equipment go up and up but do not hear an improvement in presentation/realness anywhere near that price point. In truth, I feel as I believe you are saying here (and in your prior posting), that modern systems seem further away from natural sound than some vintage systems that we own or remember. Perhaps it is the memory of those simpler systems playing records into low power triodes and sensitive paper cone speakers sounding more emotive than their expensive modern digital systems that makes them declare that vinyl sounds better. I don’t know, but I think you are onto something important to this hobby when you query whether improvements in technology have actually improved the sound or not … perhaps a new thread?

 

[Al M.]

Iwhat is the best, correctly made dac you know of?

I don't know. Wadax is often cited as the best, but MSB, dCS and others also fully control and engineer their digital domain.

The designer of my Yggdrasil DAC (Mike Moffat, formerly Theta Digital) uses off-the-shelf industrial precision chips, but fixes the zero-crossing problems that these give *) with his own solution, and the filter algorithm is also entirely his. So he is a digital designer first as well, while also of course designing the power supply and, possibly in collaboration with his amp designer partner, the analog stages.

__________________

*) These precision chips are not designed for audio purposes, but Moffat wanted to use them anyway because they have much better linearity and other measurements than typical audio DAC chips.

 

[Ron Resnick]

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.

This is wrong as to frequency. The inverse square law applies even to radio frequencies ("RF")! The particular audio frequency ("AF") in question doesn't change the application of the inverse square law -- which applies to RF as well as to AF.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Wadax is often cited as the best,

Yes, by the people who prefer it to the other top alternatives. I'm not sure this is a majority view.

Obviously, people who prefer other top alternatives don't cite Wadax as the best.

 

[bonzo75]

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.

There is no pattern here. You have randomly listed speakers to keep a broad group of forummers happy.

 

[Ron Resnick]

There is no pattern here. You have randomly listed speakers to keep a broad group of forummers happy.

I fully respect your disagreement. But, to me, there is a consistency to this list. You might feel better if I remove Wilson from this list.

With selected associated components I can make each of these speakers -- to my ears -- sound other than "contemporary high-end dealer sound."

 

[bonzo75]

I fully respect your disagreement. But, to me, there is a consistency to this list. You might feel better if I remove Wilson from this list.

With selected associated components I can make each of these speakers -- to my ears -- sound other than "contemporary high-end dealer sound."

You can't. There is too much wrong in the driver mismatch, sensitivity, requirements for bad electronics, the way it does bass. Either way, you can't lump in the same category speakers with different philosophies that appeal to people who audition differently and listen for different things with different types of music and sources. I understand your requirement to show you have balanced tastes and can arrange things to make different systems musical.

 

[Al M.]

Yes, by the people who prefer it to the other top alternatives. I'm not sure this is a majority view.

Obviously, people who prefer other top alternatives don't cite Wadax as the best.

Ron, my post obviously says nothing that contradicts your caveat. You just chose to selectively quote only a small part of it, not even including the following "but", which has to be read in the context of my post before that, which Imperial cited when asking his question.

 

[Imperial]

I don't know. Wadax is often cited as the best, but MSB, dCS and others also fully control and engineer their digital domain.

The designer of my Yggdrasil DAC (Mike Moffat, formerly Theta Digital) uses off-the-shelf industrial precision chips, but fixes the zero-crossing problems that these give *) with his own solution, and the filter algorithm is also entirely his. So he is a digital designer first as well, while also of course designing the power supply and, possibly in collaboration with his amp designer partner, the analog stages.

__________________

*) These precision chips are not designed for audio purposes, but Moffat wanted to use them anyway because they have much better linearity and other measurements than typical audio DAC chips.

Yes. So you Are saying something that is vital.
Who is the designer and what is his track record.
And how can you tell IF the designer know his stuff.

Not so many people know this, let alone other designers. Or there would be just one way to make a dac… correctly.

It is very rare, but They do exist…
Some know, IF a product is worth having as They know IF the designer has done his homework.

So a little irony here, and tounge in cheek.
But , most audiophiles Are not at the level of insight and just want Good sound at a price They think its worth paying for.

Iknowledge truly is power.
But these days, so is buying power.

 

[PeterA]

I fully respect your disagreement. But, to me, there is a consistency to this list. You might feel better if I remove Wilson from this list.

With selected associated components I can make each of these speakers -- to my ears -- sound other than "contemporary high-end dealer sound."

Ron, you are singling out speakers. My comments are about system presentations in rooms. That includes all components, cables, accessories, room treatments, set up - all of it. The gestalt, or overall experience is not like what I heard last night. The differences between brands and approaches is relatively small compared to what I am trying to describe. The pursuit of ever more detail, extension, low distortion and imaging comes at the expense of that full, rich, dynamic sound with weight and mass that I hear live, all that energy expanding in space, felt by the listener in the chamber, at the symphony, and at the jazz club. The rhythm and head bobbing I see at live jazz, the rapt attention at classical concerts, the head banging at rock events, where is that at the shows, and listening rooms? Yes, some get closer than others, but the gap is still there, and may be growing. With all the research and cost of new gear, I am surprised that we do not seem to be getting much closer to the real experience.

Perhaps it is as simple as the mics pick up details that we don't hear further back, and they are embedded and emphasized by the engineers and mastering process, but somehow, many system presentations still seem far removed from the live experience and are somewhat synthetic. Sorry, just my opinion. People still love music and going to live events. I wish systems presented a closer experience.

 

[hopkins]

... but somehow, many system presentations still seem far removed from the live experience and are somewhat synthetic. Sorry, just my opinion. People still love music and going to live events. I wish systems presented a closer experience.

Do you judge the quality of a movie based on the same criteria? A novel? A painting?

 

[Carlos269]

This is wrong as to frequency. The inverse square law applies even to radio frequencies ("RF")! The particular audio frequency ("AF") in question doesn't change the application of the inverse square law -- which applies to RF as well as to AF.

I’m not sure what the point is that you are trying to make here. Yes, the inverse square law applies to all frequencies in the audio spectrum in terms of intensity or sound pressure level. This is the classic formula of how sounds propagates from a point source. In real environments with air as the medium and in rooms with people & furnishings, because the high frequencies spectrum of music has less energy than the energy of lower frequencies spectrum of music, things are not all equal as you present it. In real life, lower frequencies travel further than higher frequencies as they have more energy to force the air molecules to vibrate, as I presented in my original post.

 

[PeterA]

Do you judge the quality of a movie based on the same criteria? A novel? A painting?

Great question. It depends on the goals of the creators. A painter can be all over the place, striving for realism before photography or abstract creation, and artistic freedom. A novelist is telling a story, perhaps with a message or philosophy. I don’t know what to judge that against. Where is the reality in a novel one reflects and conjures up images based on experience and can either relate or not. I find a pretty easy to get lost in a movie. My mind gets absorbed by the images sounds and story and action.

One of the early goals of Audio I had thought was a realistic representation of the original event. I’m wondering if that is still the goal. Perhaps it’s more art along every step of the creation and playback to evoke a feeling or simply enjoyment.

All that is fine. Entertainment, enjoyment are worthy goals. Is that all we are trying to do with our systems? Personally, I am trying to get closer to the listening experience I have at the live event. Everyone might have that same goal, I am not really sure.

 

[PeterA]

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.

Carlos, thank you for this explanation and I have no reason to dispute it. It makes sense. And perhaps it has to do with the mics and the recordings. My point is that modern systems seem to be moving away from the type of sound that I heard last night live. I am wondering why. Perhaps it is just too difficult to figure out and the industry is not able to create an experience which is similar to the live event.

 

[Carlos269]

Carlos, thank you for this explanation and I have no reason to dispute it. It makes sense. And perhaps it has to do with the mics and the recordings. My point is that modern systems seem to be moving away from the type of sound that I heard last night live. I am wondering why. Perhaps it is just too difficult to figure out and the industry is not able to create an experience which is similar to the live event.

In the 70’s and 80’s, speakers had a knob in the back that would let you adjust their high-frequency contour to suit the listening environment and owner’s preferences.

I think that simple adjustment capabilities would go a long ways to making you and others happy. This whole lack of adjustments philosophy adopted by the high-end audio industry is a tool used to promote equipment churn.

If I disconnect the super-tweeter and attenuate the high-frequency driver on my big horn system I would get a sound more like what you consider “natural”. Conversely, if I leave the super-tweeter and high-frequency drivers as they are and increase the gain on the power to the lower frequency drivers, I would also achieve the “natural” sound you aspire to.

Here’s the deal, at least for me, attenuating the high frequency energy and details robs me of the texture that I prefer to hear with my music. If I wanted to listen to a smooth presentation, I would have settled for much less costly, simpler and less capable systems, and not the highly resolving systems that I have assembled.