While your appeal resonates, it doesn't satisfy one's natural curiosity on these subjects. Indeed, the name of this forum is an implicit call to curiosity!
Let's enjoy both music and *good faith* discussions on related subjects.
Why, oh why, does vinyl continue to blow away digital?
- Thread starter godofwealth
- Start date
Let's enjoy both music and *good faith* discussions on related subjects.Rensselaer replied:
Admittedly I should have been more accurate in my formulation. My statement:
"I have also not ridiculed those who prefer the sound of AAA",
was in direct response to the wording of your accusation.
Yet in the context of your post the real point was not, or should not have been, if I have ridiculed those who prefer the sound of AAA, but if I have ridiculed those who prefer the sound of AAA *for their preference*.
I have never done the latter. Never.
Yes, I did ridicule or heavily criticize bad arguments in favor of vinyl and against digital. And yes, I did ridicule the snobbish attitude of some vinyl enthusiasts who tout the alleged superiority of their tastes. But I have not ridiculed or even criticized a preference for vinyl.
I have only on a number of occasions explained why vinyl is not for me personally, but I have no problem with others' preferences for vinyl. What is more, I enjoy vinyl in friends' systems. Hey, sometimes I even ask them for hearing great vinyl!
Yet when it comes to criticism, I have not only criticized bad or questionable arguments against digital, I have also criticized bad or questionable arguments against vinyl. I just don't like bad or questionable arguments, period, regardless which side they come from.
In #419 I have agreed with Brad (morricab) that Carlos' argument against vinyl, based on greater "accuracy" of digital in terms of magnitude of measurable errors, is flawed:
What is more, numerous times I have explicitly defended vinyl, for example on resolution and dynamics in #472 here:
So if you think that
a) I am attacking the preference for vinyl
b) I instinctively and uncritically always defend digital (for my critical attitude when it comes to digital, see #552 from this morning)
you just haven't paid attention. You would not be the first one on the forum.
Last edited:
Al, is your position that digital playback is not more accurate than analog playback?
I assume that you will respond that you do believe that digital playback is more accurate than analog playback. So if it’s not more accurate because of the magnitude of measureable errors, then why is it more accurate?
I’m curious to hear how you explain yourself on this one, as you have put yourself in a difficult situation of trying the explain accuracy in different terms than relative to errors.
Then each thread would be like, 5 posts and done...where's the fun in that????
Just out of curiosity, have you tried and SPDIF version of your MIT SL-Matrix Digital Plus AES/EBU cable (1.5 m)? I would be very curious to know if you hear a significant difference like I do between SPDIF and AES/EBU interfaces.
Accuracy in audio is not defined by lowest THD and IMD...unless you are a pure objectivist like at ASR forum. So, you can say that digital has lower measurable distortion than analog and that is mostly true...although there is a very interesting article in Audioholics that challenges some of those notions.
In a word, accuracy in audio comes down to psychoacoustics. Geddes, Cheever and others have demonstrated that what measures the best may not sound the most realistic to a human listener. I don't say forget your oscilloscopes and FFT analyzers but for sure don't look at the raw numbers without understanding how humans hear that data. So, while accuracy in audio is messy, and yes somewhat subjective, it is not as simple as your sine wave reconstruction test...period.
No, I haven't. I have a spare high-quality BNC cable (which is also SPDIF), but I lent it to a friend of mine. I'll ask him for it next time so I can compare.
The discussion was about the accuracy of the playback, period. If you take other things into consideration then things become more complicated but we must first establish a baseline with regards to the accuracy of the equipment and technologies used for playback. You can always fend arguments away by opening up the discussion but we are speaking strictly of analog versus digital playback equipment and technologies here. As the lawyer’s say, you can always throw weasel words or phrases to dilute someone else’s argument, but this is strictly about playback equipment and technologies.
Last edited:
Of course you would say that. You don't even seem to understand the argument Brad is making, an argument that I fully support.
State your position on record regarding the accuracy of analog versus digital playback. That’s how it starts, you take a position and then provide evidence to support your position. Of the four of us, I’m the only one that has done both, while you guys are hanging out in the peanut gallery. Take a stand and justify your position. It will be a more effective strategy for you than playing king of the hill with me.
i listen to 80% digital and love it. have a huge investment in it. it's amazing and as i sit here listening it's hard to imagine i need anything better.
i respect that there are alternatives to my Wadax. i've not heard everything. who knows what the future might bring.
at it's best vinyl and tape are a little objectively better at attaining the highest musical heights. but the gap has closed especially with this most recent Wadax step forward.
i'm not into proof, never have been and never will be. i'm a listener. i justify my position with having made huge commitments to every aspect of system building and optimizing each format including media. and then listening to all three all the time, as well as frequent feedback from visitors to my room agreeing with my perspective and that my format efforts seem to be top flight. i'm at peace with my views.
i respect your desire to somehow justify your views of your approach. hope you find what you are seeking somehow.
i don't care that much about accuracy. it's just an aspect of system building and decision making. dozens of times i have stated that digital is more accurate but incomplete, analog is much more complete but adds distortion. our senses much prefer complete. it's more real to humans. the Wadax is certainly the most complete digital i have heard.
Last edited:
Hopefully you will get to listen to an optimized HQPLAYER based system at some point.
Tape and vinyl have a euphoric sound. I certainly like the sound of both but know that they are not neutral.
Have any visitors provided you with constructive criticism?
My life and career have center around science and technology. Validation and confirmation are not “nice to haves” but required in my professional life. Gut-feel and intuition are not good enough on the type of projects that I work on so those standards have been a part of my life for a long time.
You do realize that the output of the dac is analog and it is the same type of waveform of the analog sources; when you are listing to digital playback you are not listening to segments but a continuous waveform indispensable from that of any other analog source. So that “completeness” argument dissolves in plain air.
There are a few humans on here that beg to differ.
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |