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

[godofwealth]

Listening to the fabulous King Oliver’s Creole Jazz band’s Canal Street Blues with Johnny Dodds recorded in 1923! This rarity comes from a Time-Life compilation of great jazz masters. This was recorded direct to disk, long before tape recording was invented. There’s an amazing realism to the sound despite the rather primitive equipment used. Played back on a Garrard 301 with an SME 312s carrying the humungous Miyajima Zero Infinity true mono cartridge.

 

[marty]

Listening to the fabulous King Oliver’s Creole Jazz band’s Canal Street Blues with Johnny Dodds recorded in 1923! This rarity comes from a Time-Life compilation of great jazz masters. This was recorded direct to disk, long before tape recording was invented. There’s an amazing realism to the sound despite the rather primitive equipment used. Played back on a Garrard 301 with an SME 312s carrying the humungous Miyajima Zero Infinity true mono cartridge.

View attachment 132567

Love it! The pic is a little disingenuous as Johnny Dodds was Oliver's clarinetist. Oliver played the cornet and is perhaps most famous as Louis Armstrong's mentor. Just as Coltrane thought that it wouldn't be right for him to play the alto because that was the instrument of his mentor Charlie Parker, Coltrane switched to tenor much like Armstrong switched to trumpet because he didn't feel right playing the same instrument as Oliver. Oliver thought Armstrong was the most gifted musician he ever heard. It was Oliver that convinced Armstrong to leave New Orleans and join his band in Chicago, thus giving birth to Armstrong's career. Oliver is in good company. It is not without reason that Wynton Marsalis considers Armstrong the greatest American jazz musician of all-time.

 

[godofwealth]

Funny you should mention Louis Armstrong. I’m listening now to the incomparable blues singer Bessie Smith sing her heart out in the track Reckless Blues with Armstrong playing the cornet. This was recorded in New York in 1925. In those days Bessie Smith commanded a princely salary of $2000/week.

 

[stehno]

It makes no scientific sense. And I am nothing if not a diehard scientist with a PhD in computer science to boot, having spent a large part of my career teaching in one of the world’s greatest PhD programs in CS, and now working at one of the world”s leading software firms in the Bay Area. I’m no technological Luddite. I’ve invested heavily in digital with top solid state and tube DACs.

But each time I play my vinyl on one of my turntables, man oh man, why do I always feel that digital sucks? I’m listening to a garden variety pop album — Fleetwood Mac — on an SME 20/12 table with the V12 arm with a Koetsu Onyx Platinum feeding the ARC Ref 3SE phono stage. The sound is organic, so compelling to listen to that my left brain analytical mind that whispers this is all distortion sounding pleasant is quashed by my right brain saying who cares when it sounds so good?

Am I delusional?

Fremer's analog system

Presumably unadulterated (no system, no room) "official?" digital Youtube video.

bobvin's analog system

My digital system

I think delusional is an excellent word. Not just for you but for perhaps a host of others too.

I’ve only browsed this thread and noticed some good informative comments but also some rather lame, ignorant, contemptuous, and/or derogatory comments as well. Isn’t this behavior more commonly known as sealioning?

Regardless, above are 2 analog and 2 digital-sourced videos. These are all set to auto-start at roughly the same mark since in the first 30 seconds of bobvin’s video, Bob has his butt up, volume down, and camera turned toward his gear (unbalanced presentation).

Obviously every playback config above is quite different but the subject matter here is, does vinyl's performance really blow away digital? And if the source is so important as some allude, does anything else really matter much?

Given that...

1. Does the discerning ear genuinely perceive being "blown away" between the sonic differences of these videos?

2. What are those sonic differences?

3. Can any sonic differences be attributed directly to the vinyl or digital format and/or source?

4. What, if any, are the caveats or concerns with any of these videos?

Presuming of course the listener is listening with headphones and volume levels at least approaching that of the perceived live performance level.

 

[Ron Resnick]

above are 2 analog and 2 digital-sourced videos.

Different sources, yes. But all four -- post video -- are digital now.

 

[godofwealth]

Fremer's analog system

Presumably unadulterated (no system, no room) "official?" digital Youtube video.

bobvin's analog system

My digital system

I think delusional is an excellent word. Not just for you but for perhaps a host of others too.

I’ve only browsed this thread and noticed some good informative comments but also some rather lame, ignorant, contemptuous, and/or derogatory comments as well. Isn’t this behavior more commonly known as sealioning?

Regardless, above are 2 analog and 2 digital-sourced videos. These are all set to auto-start at roughly the same mark since in the first 30 seconds of bobvin’s video, Bob has his butt up, volume down, and camera turned toward his gear (unbalanced presentation).

Obviously every playback config above is quite different but the subject matter here is, does vinyl's performance really blow away digital? And if the source is so important as some allude, does anything else really matter much?

Given that...

1. Does the discerning ear genuinely perceive being "blown away" between the sonic differences of these videos?

2. What are those sonic differences?

3. Can any sonic differences be attributed directly to the vinyl or digital format and/or source?

4. What, if any, are the caveats or concerns with any of these videos?

Presuming of course the listener is listening with headphones and volume levels at least approaching that of the perceived live performance level.

I don’t comment on systems I don’t own. I have in my house state of the art analog and digital playback systems that I listen to everyday. I’m not biased against digital. I own nearly 6000 CDs and SACDs collected over 40 years. I’ve no desire to get rid of them.

My very best digital source in my house is a CEC TL0 belt-driven two chassis CD transport. Played back through a state of the art DAC like a Mola Mola, it sounds better to my ears than any streaming source I’ve heard. But I hasten to add that I don’t own a Taiko! Perhaps if I tried the new Olympus I might change my mind. But after having listened to DACs for 30+ years, I have a pretty good idea of how they sound and how they perform. Yes, things have gotten better. The best DACs are closer to analog than 30 years ago. But in my mind the gap remains. So I continue to listen and enjoy vinyl, while I’m able to physically install and maintain my turntables and cartridges. I’m sure as age creeps in, I’ll resort more to streaming. Eventually as my hearing declines, I’m sure it won’t matter anymore and convenience will dictate my choice of source.

But I’m hardly going to change mind about analog vs digital after 35+ years of comparing both systems! I like choice. There’s plenty of rare vinyl that will never be released on streaming or digital. And vice versa, lots of new digital albums can only be streamed. So logically it makes sense to maintain both if one has the space and funds, which I certainly do.

 

[stehno]

Different sources, yes. But all four -- post video -- are digital now.

And your point being, Ron?

Assume for sake of argument, all have been bastardized by being digitally recorded, so? Are you alluding that since digitalizing sound brings everything down to a worthless common digital denominator?

Fremer has stated that his videos are reasonably representative of what he hears in his room and I agree. Maybe bobvin would agree also?

It’s been stated that digital is more accurate and that’s been established too many times over the past 40+ years in many industries and contrary to what one stated in this thread, high-end audio is no exception to that potential level of accuracy. If such potential accuracy didn’t apply to high-end audio then the implication ought to be that digital has an intelligence to discriminate between industries. Hopefully, nobody’s making that claim.

But again, assume for the sake of argument you are correct. 2 of the videos are from analog-sourced systems and since digital is a highly accurate format, that should imply the analog sourced systems should be head and shoulders over the 2 digital sourced videos because they are analog-sourced. If for no other reason that digital is so highly accurate, right?

Or are you saying that digital’s accuracy is seriously compromised when recording an analog sourced sound?

 

[godofwealth]

And to reiterate what I’ve said elsewhere on WBF several times, from a strictly engineering point of view, the fundamental limitations in hifi are the extremely poor performance of loudspeakers and intrinsic limitations of listening room. These are physical constraints that cannot be overcome no matter how much money you throw at the problem. And working in the Bay Area, we’re used to a different scale of money, witness the fact that a growing number of tech companies located within a short distance from my house are exceeding $3 trillion in market cap (Apple, NVidia).

Loudspeakers cannot even resolve 16-bit audio. The world’s best loudspeakers can barely get below -70dB over the whole audio spectrum. That’s about 12 bits of resolution. 24 bits? In your dreams. Those of you who think 24-bit recordings “sound better” are just imagining it. You cannot mathematically resolve 24 bits on any physically realizable loudspeaker. Not today, not tomorrow. Can’t be done. You’ll need to have signal to noise ratios below -140dB to resolve 24 bits. Ain’t going to happen.

Then there’s just the physical and acoustic constraints of average sized listening rooms. It’s almost impossible to get below 30dB in a standard room. And unless you want to go quickly deaf, you can’t listen above 95-100 dB for long. So, we have a 60-70 dB dynamic range that can’t be exceeded. This range is well within 16-bit Redbook CD. Not surprisingly I have found zero correlation between bit depth and sound quality. The very best digital recordings I own are all on CD, and while some SACDs sound very good, none completely trumps CD. The DSD process is very noisy and introduces massive ultrasonic noise and many artifacts. So, for me, Redbook CD remains state of the digital art. Certainly some 24-bit recordings on Qobuz sound great. I listen to streaming almost every day. But again, I’m deeply disappointed by how compressed most high resolution classical music sounds when streamed.

These are my personal opinions over a lifetime of listening. Nothing more.

 

[Ron Resnick]

And your point being, Ron?

Assume for sake of argument, all have been bastardized by being digitally recorded, so?

No; I have heard some very natural digital recordings. I would not make such a Philistine-type argument.

Are you alluding that since digitalizing sound brings everything down to a worthless common digital denominator?

My point is that all four videos now have a common denominator -- each original musical signal has now been converted to digital.

 

[bonzo75]

No; I have heard some very natural digital recordings. I would not make such a Philistine-type argument.


I guess my point is that all four videos now have a common denominator -- each original musical signal has now been converted to digital.

You have to work so hard and be such a mature poster to transition the 250th digital Vs vinyl thread to the 225th video cannot be fair to the analog signal thread

 

[stehno]

No; I have heard some very natural digital recordings. I would not make such a Philistine-type argument.


My point is that all four videos now have a common denominator -- each original musical signal has now been converted to digital.

Right. But let's not forget that all all playback configs, whether analog or digital-sourced, generate an analog sound at the speaker especially those that are sourced by the supposedly superior vinyl format that blows away digital.

So again, even if all in-room presentations are severely compromised by recording digitally (as you seem wont to think), shouldn't any such compromise be indiscrimenately applied equally to all in-room videos regardless of source? IOW, if vinyl is genuinely superior, shouldn't a vinyl-sourced in-room video still sound genuinely superior to digital? Simply because a digital recording will more accurately capture and relay vinyl's supposedly blown away superiority?

Unless of course in contrast to Fremer (Mr. Vinyl), you think digital recordings somehow unfairly discriminate between analog-sourced and digital-sourced presentations and hence are not reasonably representative of your own in-room presentations?

 

[Gregm]

I’ve heard Mravinsky’s recordings of the Tchaikovsky symphonies. Sadly, in this case, the DG vinyl is too harsh for my ears. Muti is nice, but not in Karajan’s league. I might have the Szell on CD.

I was referring to the performance, not the recording (the remastered Mravinsky is slightly better than the original soviet vinyl).
Likewise, on this work and with the same orchestra, I find Muti's performance better than Karajan's (check the winds, the phrasings, the emotional content...).
If I were to compare Muti to Karajan overall, I would readily agree with you -- I just would not be as dismissive. Regards

 

[the sound of Tao]

Sibelius' 7th was written about 25 years after Tchaik died -- I am sure the Sibelius reminds you of Tchaik, not the other way round

I don't wish to be argumentative -- but aren't you being a tad dismissive here ? Think of Szell's Cleveland, Boston with Munch, the Concertgebouw, Paris Conservatory, the Vienna Philharmonic... (to name a few greats)

Speaking of Tchaik's 5th (I share your enthusiasm for this piece), you might these performances interesting as well: Muti / Philharmonia, Szell / Cleveland, Mravinsky - Leningrad. Regards

In the Tchaikovsky 5 also a huge fan of Mravinsky with the Leningrad Phil, Szell/Cleveland, Muti/Philharmonia.

There are so many really good T5’s out there but a shortlist (as a work in progress) I’d also add Fricsay/Stockholm Phil, Klemperer/Philharmonia, Ormandy/Philadelphia… and for more recent (OMG digital … analogue only guys look away) Tchaik 5 performances I’d go to Jurowski/London Phil and the fantastic Honeck/Pittsburgh performance.

 

[Gregm]

Hi - @the sound of Tao , Jurowski / London Phil & Honeck / Pittsburgh are my contemporary favourites as well.

 

[wil]

I’ve only browsed this thread and noticed some good informative comments but also some rather lame, ignorant, contemptuous, and/or derogatory comments as well. Isn’t this behavior more commonly known as sealioning?

Regardless, above are 2 analog and 2 digital-sourced videos. These are all set to auto-start at roughly the same mark since in the first 30 seconds of bobvin’s video, Bob has his butt up, volume down, and camera turned toward his gear (unbalanced presentation).

Obviously every playback config above is quite different but the subject matter here is, does vinyl's performance really blow away digital? And if the source is so important as some allude, does anything else really matter much?

Given that...

1. Does the discerning ear genuinely perceive being "blown away" between the sonic differences of these videos?

2. What are those sonic differences?

3. Can any sonic differences be attributed directly to the vinyl or digital format and/or source?

4. What, if any, are the caveats or concerns with any of these videos?

Presuming of course the listener is listening with headphones and volume levels at least approaching that of the perceived live performance level.

The Fremer vid is better than the others to me (which don't sound bad either). It has a refined, spellbinding quality. I suppose we should expect this kind of result from a $300k turntable and Primo d' Primo recording/pressing!

 

[bonzo75]

The Fremer vid is better than the others to me (which don't sound bad either). It has a spellbinding quality. Refinement, clarity and a sense of time stopping (while time is of course moving). How's that for videos not communicating anything? I suppose we should expect this kind of result from a $300k turntable and Primo d' Primo recording/pressing!

The Fremer is from the phono, not from the system

 

[andromedaaudio]

I ll take this

 

[andromedaaudio]

Over this anytime based on SQ .

 

[PeterA]

I ll take this

Did you actually compare them to each other in the same system, each of those turntables to the DAC?

In each case, what did you prefer about the Digital to the vinyl?

 

[andromedaaudio]

Did you actually compare them to each other in the same system, each of those turntables to the DAC?

In each case, what did you prefer about the Digital to the vinyl?