To me, the question of whether vinyl or digital is better completely misses the point and is irrelevant. I listen to digital for the effortless convenience and ease and range of music it offers. What an incredible luxury! These are other values than purely sound quality. SQ is surely important to me, but these benefits are so much more valuable to me than any slight improvement in sound quality that vinyl may offer (which assertion and preference I do not challenge). Admittedly the foregoing does assume a certain level of sound quality in my digital listening, which my very good system produces. So the first question in the vinyl vs. digital debate should be, which approach to listening do you prefer? That would tell you much more about the person and their listening emphases, and of course would cancel most following discussion.
Why, oh why, does vinyl continue to blow away digital?
- Thread starter godofwealth
- Start date
I agree with most of what he espouses, but I draw the line on some of the more controversial things like being able to hear a digital copy as being different.
I know some pro MEs who do fabulous work that think I’m crazy for using audiophile cables at my studio.
i hear exactly that.....at every digital conversion a loss of musical essence. your take on this might be related to your rejection of realism as a goal in your work. whereas many here hold realism as the highest thing. and i think Bernie sees it how we see it.
you might be right for what you want......and miss entirely something (not everything) that many of us want. not saying your work misses realism, but it might not be focused on that as it might be.
for sure; just as the Bob Ludwig's and Bernie Grundman's of the world see things differently.
Last edited:
Al, you are right, i should have said #2 below.....which is what i meant. i did edit my post.
(1) i believe 1:1 digital copies at the same format and resolution are mostly equal. no loss. OTOH (2) when you change resolutions or bit depth, or switch from PCM to dsd or vise versa, then changes/losses are possible/likely. and (3) an adc<->dac for sure is going to cost you. the process of that might help you somewhere else, but something is lost.
these are three distinctly different things.
digital is better than analog at 1:1 copies.....mostly. but in the best cases analog starts out with a big lead.
Last edited:
In summary, I think that all that could be said on this subject has been said. We are at the point of repeating ourselves.
I think that we can clearly conclude that digital is technically more accurate than analog and that many prefer analog because of the added distortions, which result in a euphonic sound.
This discussion has run its course. No amount of technical details and expert experience's and logical reasoning is getting through to those that refuse to learn and entertained that they might like the flavor of their food with added salt, pepper and ketchup. I have posted AES papers on this site of how added distortion can increase clarity and intelligibility.
Many, including Mcsnare and others, have said that vinyl and magnetic tape playback sounds very enjoyable and euphonic but we don’t kid ourselves into believing that is more accurate than digital playback and that is the crux of the matter.
I add salt to my pineapple slices when I eat them as the pineapple has more flavor and tastes better to me with the added salt. Which one is more pure? The plain pineapple or the pineapple with the added salt? This is the same with recordings. You decide which one you like better but only one is more accurate and authentic to itself.
I think that we can clearly conclude that digital is technically more accurate than analog and that many prefer analog because of the added distortions, which result in a euphonic sound.
This discussion has run its course. No amount of technical details and expert experience's and logical reasoning is getting through to those that refuse to learn and entertained that they might like the flavor of their food with added salt, pepper and ketchup. I have posted AES papers on this site of how added distortion can increase clarity and intelligibility.
Many, including Mcsnare and others, have said that vinyl and magnetic tape playback sounds very enjoyable and euphonic but we don’t kid ourselves into believing that is more accurate than digital playback and that is the crux of the matter.
I add salt to my pineapple slices when I eat them as the pineapple has more flavor and tastes better to me with the added salt. Which one is more pure? The plain pineapple or the pineapple with the added salt? This is the same with recordings. You decide which one you like better but only one is more accurate and authentic to itself.
Last edited:
What I have not read from your many posts is which format you think sounds more like real music? Despite all the flaws with analog, I still think in the end that it sounds more like real music. Why is that?
To those who prefer to listen to analog because they think it sounds more real, you simply tell them that they enjoy it because they like the added euphonic distortions. There is a different discussion to be had. I’m curious about why some think analog sounds more real. Until that is discussed and answered, I think there is more to be discussed about this topic.
Fair enough. It is up to you and those that believe that analog playback sound more like real music to provide the logic, technical evidence, or theories as to why that is the case. Let’s hear from you and others as why this is so. The floor is yours.
I didn’t think you would answer the question about which sounds more real. That seems to be avoided in favor of describing accuracies during processes and simple preferences.
I cannot explain why analog sounds more real to me than does digital. This is just my opinion based on listening to various systems over the years and comparing what I hear to my memory of the sound of live music. I am hoping those experts in the industry might be able to address this topic.
Might it be that despite the losses, the analog process starts out with more information, so after the losses, there is still more information making it through to the listening seat? I have no idea, but that might be part of it, and the lack of conversions to and back from something that is a bunch of bits.
Last edited:
I told you to listen to high-rate DSD from HQPLAYER and then report on which one sounds more real. We are repeating what has already been said but you insisted.
Carlos, Yes you did tell me. I do not know where I could do that and I think you have stated that you don’t invite people to listen to your system. I can listen to your videos which you say are representative of your system sound.
I will now assume that you think this exact digital sounds more real. Thanks.
Last edited:
agree that the silos are reinforced. and nobody is changing sides based on this thread.
your summary misses the biggest single point that analog is more complete, but agree in addition to 'more' it adds stuff as does digital too. but that 'more' is actually more. and like Bernie says about digital, "things are missing'. and that more is the difference maker to those who value what it does for the music.
I wasn’t taking about conversion. D to D. Like copy and paste. Bernie has said he hears a difference.
“More complete” doesn’t mean anything. Use supporting evidence or look for something that explains it but more complete is devoid of any explanation. You have already seen the comparisons in resolution and content granularity and information density capacity differences between digital and analog. We are responding to you with technical evidence and you respond back with vague phrases like “more complete”, which lack any substance or merit. Walk us through the logic.
I bet we can double that. Easily. I believe in the good folks on WBF.
Its a never ending story / impossible to declare victory
If one group is in the ditch / with the back against the wall , they can simply say the other sides system isn t revealing enough and they fought their way out to start all over again
done and done ad nauseum. it's not about graphs or numbers. wrong forum for that.
you want your spin on things but trivialize what analog does. we get it's how you see it, but does not fit our experience. which is right where we started.
will you ever admit analog is more complete? no. but reducing analog's advantages to only distortion is just ill informed.
That "completeness" thing is a head scratcher for me too. I don't get it. It's a nice catch phrase in support of analog, but what does it mean?