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

[Holmz]

Seems that way to me too. Digital as streaming seems unsettled. CD seems more mature at least in terms of transports. Regular news about new Dacs. Cables typically are less costly to change than the components the connect

Back in ‘84 the fellow said get a TT as the CD seem immature.

Now 4 decades later that promise of perfect sound echos with newer and better equipment each year to remove the problems from the last year or three.

 

[Kingrex]

Seems that way to me too. Digital as streaming seems unsettled. CD seems more mature at least in terms of transports. Regular news about new Dacs. Cables typically are less costly to change than the components the connect

Vinyl users role cartridges. They also flip through a lot of phono pre. They play with platforms, weights, mats and cleaning machines.

 

[andromedaaudio]

I think its time for Micro to show us his system , or at least his sources to give his claim some credit

From mike we know he has top notch digital , tapemachines , TT s to make comparisons all well documented
From micro the only " analogue" i saw a picture of was an advertisement of a studer A 80 / for parts only on audio markt .
Dont know what happened with that....

 

[bonzo75]

I think its time for Micro to show us his system , or at least his sources to give his claim some credit

So many years as an audiophile and no other forum audiophile has ever met him, at a show or otherwise. I wonder if he is Caesar

 

[Holmz]

I think its time for Micro to show us his system , or at least his sources to give his claim some credit

So are we to push his opinion up if he has high $ stack?
Or push it down?
Or how does the stack relate to the validity of the hypothesis that he puts forth?

From mike we know he has top notch digital , tapemachines , TT s to make comparisons all well documented
From micro the only " analogue" i saw a picture of was an advertisement of a studer A 80 / for parts only on audio markt .
Dont know what happened with that....

 

[DasguteOhr]

Back in ‘84 the fellow said get a TT as the CD seem immature.

Now 4 decades later that promise of perfect sound echos with newer and better equipment each year to remove the problems from the last year or three.

The 16-bit signal had already reached the technical limit by the end of the 1990s. For example, the DP 90/DC 91 Accuphase had multiple DAC chips (32x 20bit) connected in parallel to remove even the last traces of noise( perfect low level resolution). A new format was needed, and SACD was born. The market was once again open to new technology. I'm sure a new format will come along.

 

[PeterA]

Vinyl users role cartridges. They also flip through a lot of phono pre. They play with platforms, weights, mats and cleaning machines.

Some do. Many do not.

 

[morricab]

Indeed, they listen to other things and other distortions than many high-end enthusiasts do when it comes to assessing accuracy and quality of sound.

There is also a varying sensitivity to digital artifacts, including among recording engineers.

Dismissing the opinions of recording engineers therefore based on their allegedly inferior equipment etc. is not very convincing.

In addition it should be mentioned that there is also digital that is much freer of format-specific artifacts than typical digital and thus much less psychoacoustically disturbing, if at all (how this exactly will be perceived will, again, depend on the individual listener).



Agreed. But again, the distortions of both formats will be differently assessed by recording engineers than by high-end enthusiasts, since both types of listeners will be listening to different things.

***

BTW, I consider your post the best answer so far to my "challenge".

And it’s exactly because engineers will be assessing recordings for other things that their views on sound quality should be taken with a big grain of salt.

 

[Al M.]

And it’s exactly because engineers will be assessing recordings for other things that their views on sound quality should be taken with a big grain of salt.

No, they do assess sound quality, they often just seem to be looking for different things. Their ideas of accuracy to the signal may differ from audiophiles. However, their point of view should not necessarily be dismissed, as they have insights into the recording process that audiophiles usually don't have.

 

[tima]

Vinyl users role cartridges. They also flip through a lot of phono pre. They play with platforms, weights, mats and cleaning machines.

I responded to this message:

It seems people replace/upgrade digital boxes (and cables) more than they do turntables and tonearms, at least here on WBF.

No one said analog users are static with their setup. Cartridges I agree. Phonostages, I don't see the frequency of change that I do with DACs. Routers, Ethernet cables, USB cables, Fiber, Digital Switches, LPS, Modems, Clocks, Streamers, etc. The rate of new and change seems higher with digital audio.

 

[Al M.]

Seems that way to me too. Digital as streaming seems unsettled. CD seems more mature at least in terms of transports.

The lack of maturity of streaming is one of several reasons why so far I have avoided it in my system. But streaming is getting better than it used to be, for sure, and in some instances even can be great.

 

[Lagonda]

So are we to push his opinion up if he has high $ stack?
Or push it down?
Or how does the stack relate to the validity of the hypothesis that he puts forth?

In Micro's case a current hearing test would be much more informative than any pictures. He likes to discuss audio and the great "audio scholars" much more than actually listening to music, he always values magazine reviews much higher than his own ears. I am sure there is a logical reason for this.

 

[Holmz]

The 16-bit signal had already reached the technical limit by the end of the 1990s. For example, the DP 90/DC 91 Accuphase had multiple DAC chips (32x 20bit) connected in parallel to remove even the last traces of noise( perfect low level resolution). A new format was needed, and SACD was born. The market was once again open to new technology. I'm sure a new format will come along.

Ok you’re making my point for me.

From 84 til the end if the 90s is 15 years.
It was supposedly perfect in 84, then technically perfect in 99, and every year or two there are new DAC chips, R2R, clocks, routers, etc.
It is like watching a warlock over a cauldron with everyone lining up for the new magic potion.

I need a new cart once in a while.
And some of the CDs skip.

 

[Lagonda]

So many years as an audiophile and no other forum audiophile has ever met him, at a show or otherwise. I wonder if he is Caesar

What happened to Caesar ? Not a single post in the thread of MBL's current troubles ! Has he given up on Audio ?

 

[mtemur]

I’d like to share a couple of thoughts:

• Every now and then, I see people raving about CD’s dynamic range — 96dB for 16-bit, to be exact. They argue that 65,536 amplitude steps (from 16-bit resolution) are far superior to analog’s capabilities. But I wonder if they ever consider DSD’s 1-bit resolution, which only offers two steps. So how can 1-bit DSD sound superior to 16-bit CD or even 24-bit high-res PCM? Let me answer that: DSD uses a completely different algorithm than PCM. Focusing solely on technical numbers misses the point — there are many other factors that define sound quality beyond bit depth, resolution, or sampling rate. Just like DSD vs CD example technical specs are not enough to determine the sound quality of analog. So, next time you’re going to mention 96dB dynamic range of 16-bit CD please remember far more superior DSD only has 1 bit.
• Emphasizing CD’s 96dB dynamic range is completely misleading when it comes to actual recorded music. Most commercial releases are compressed to between 10–20dB of dynamic range, depending on the genre. In practice, the 96dB spec offers no real advantage here. Sure, a higher dynamic range for the recording medium is desirable and brings a lower noise floor, but it’s misleading to suggest that any medium less than 96dB means you’re “losing” parts of the music. That’s simply not how it works.
• Occasionally, I read comments like “Digital has come a long way. It’s now on par with analog.” Funny thing is, I remember hearing the same claim 25–30 years ago. Back then, they said the small gap between digital and analog was about to close. It never did — and after three decades, it still hasn’t. I find it unlikely that it ever will, even in the next 30 years.

 

[PeterA]

So many years as an audiophile and no other forum audiophile has ever met him, at a show or otherwise. I wonder if he is Caesar

Very funny, but they have distinctly different styles. I don’t remember Cesar ever appealing to authority or referring to the “experts”, books, studies. Caesar‘s posts struck me as opinions from his direct experience. I found him to be quite refreshing.

 

[Ron Resnick]

So many years as an audiophile and no other forum audiophile has ever met him, at a show or otherwise. I wonder if he is Caesar

No; Francisco and Caesar are too different in their styles of arrogance.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Caesar has accepted a job as reviewer..
It takes up all his time.

 

[bonzo75]

Very funny, but they have distinctly different styles. I don’t remember Cesar ever appealing to authority or referring to the “experts”, books, studies. Caesar‘s posts struck me as opinions from his direct experience. I found him to be quite refreshing.

If you had to post as another person, you would not write the same way you are writing - you would pretend to be completely different. For example, your other personality is more likely to be Argonaut so that none of us guesses you two are the same.

 

[facten]

He can be found on Audiogon and Hifi Haven