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

[thedudeabides]

I am happy to be proven wrong on rereconstruction.

Who and how is someone going to do that (no responses yet) and what would it take (measurements, etc.) to prove you wrong? As you are aware, there are numerous reasons for someone to prefer A over D. Just like many things in audio AKA subjectivity. Your reason is one possible choice in a long list of personal biases. Best.

 

[spiritofmusic]

I'm one of the few vinylphiles who has traditionally never got my TT to consistently outperform my CDP.
And my CDP in a decade has not fatigued me once, superlative across the range of areas you'd want in resolving, musical sound.
For the first time since whenever, that tide has turned, now my CDP rarely beats my TT.
My perspective is that vinyl playback now I've got it where I want it to be, still shows greater tonal discrimination between recordings, and is more musical in mids and treble...latter I didn't suspect because this was my biggest previous achilles heel.
Tonal individuality, greater accuracy mids on up, and greater ability to energise a room as a live performance does, means that somehow vinyl is more immersive, more energetic, and imho more accurate than digital.
Only taken my 28 years in this hobby to discover how much, lol.

 

[bonzo75]

What do you consider to be a high fidelity audio person? What sort of equipment would they own?

No equipment

 

[bonzo75]

99% of people have limitations that stop them from pursuing options in either their digital or vinyl. If they kept trying, they would most likely supersede one or the other.

Not if they knew their recordings.

 

[tima]

My perspective is that vinyl playback now I've got it where I want it to be, still shows greater tonal discrimination between recordings, and is more musical in mids and treble...latter I didn't suspect because this was my biggest previous achilles heel.
Tonal individuality, greater accuracy mids on up, and greater ability to energise a room as a live performance does, means that somehow vinyl is more immersive, more energetic, and imho more accurate than digital.

That's a positive message -- a good thing. And vinyl can deliver tonality, dynamics, attack and decay -- immersive vitality -- in the bass as well.

 

[thedudeabides]

For better or worse, very few people have that level of knowledge. Much more easily said than done.

 

[Audiohertz2]

No equipment

Thats high incredulity not fidelity ...

 

[Kingrex]

Not if they knew their recordings.

I have vinyl jazz and classical that are my prefered favorites. I have some ethnic Rythem type music that is fantastic on digital. Doubt it comes on vinyl. I could laud all I want on my vinyl. But there is heaps of music I would have to do without if I only had records.

 

[Gregm]

Al and Ron, I am a pretty bad speller, and when you factor in typing on a small screen on a social media platform like this, the result is often bad. It’s partially me and it’s partially the educational system or my lack of attention and disinterest in details. That’s a whole different discussion.

I’m sorry if these small transgressions or mistakes or evidence of poor education drive you up the wall. I guess we could all spend a lot of time complaining about things, but I’m here to share ideas and to learn about our hobby not to read lectures about others’ poor grammar.

May I respectfully point out that despite confessing to bad spelling, you don't seem to have allowed any to creep into your paragraph -- and that includes it's (=it is), others' (there are more than one), etc.
Clearly you are affected by the apostrophe pandemic!

 

[rDin]

Who and how is someone going to do that (no responses yet) and what would it take (measurements, etc.) to prove you wrong?

What would it take is a great question, and one we should all regularly ask ourselves as we seek to increase our own certainty, one way o[r] the other, on any given topic. Here, I suppose are a few things that would shift my certainty one way or the other:

Show me, experimentally, that digital reconstruction is 100% accurate to the original waveform. The maths is fine, but in practice...?

Or perhaps one of the subjective views below which, while it wouldn't necessary show 100% reconstruction, might suggest we've reached "good enough", ie beyond our brains ability to detect losses.

All DAC designers hang up their gloves, claiming there are no gains left to make.
The community consensus settles on the view that all DACs sound alike.
Or, better yet, settles on one particular DAC as "the one" that unequivocally bests all others.
Edit: Or the number of people claiming vinyl sounds better dries up.

As you are aware, there are numerous reasons for someone to prefer A over D.

Sure, and those points are interesting, but they don't address my personal concern: whether there are flaws in digital reconstruction which contribute to my preference for the sound of vinyl over current digital solutions.

 

[tima]

rDin, I do like that you are distinquishing playback from source creation. While some of us can hear or appreciate the difference of an AAA source from a DAA source (compare TOS issuances to their original) once the stylus touches down in the groove, it is analog reproduction regardless of source provenance.

Sure, and those points are interesting, but they don't address my personal concern: whether there are flaws in digital reconstruction which contribute to my preference for the sound of vinyl over current digital solutions.

What is interesting about these sorts of discussions is the effort to explain one's preference. It seems only after the fact that we attempt to link a physical explanation of a technology to what we hear or prefer. Personally I feel no compunction to justify my acceptance of the fact that playing a vinyl record is more likely to satisfy me in a way that some digital format will not. I haven't heard everything but of what I have heard, my preference is pretty consistent.

Faced with making a choice between a vinyl front end or a digital front end, should one start with measurements? Even if there is some "proof" that, for example, digital reconstruction is 100% accurate to the original waveform, that proof plays at best as a secondary consideration to what my ears tell me. If you are asked "why do you prefer analog to digital?" (or the other way around) is the answer you give based on a technology explanation? Maybe on audio forums. No amount of posting will convince me that my preference is other than what it is. There is zero sense to the notion of "what should my preference be?"

I say people should listen using whatever technology they want to use. Preference is neither right nor wrong. What I do find interesting, given a person's choice, is their familiarity with live acoustic music.

 

[PeterA]

May I respectfully point out that despite confessing to bad spelling, you don't seem to have allowed any to creep into your paragraph -- and that includes it's (=it is), others' (there are more than one), etc.
Clearly you are affected by the apostrophe pandemic!

Drat. I hope the apostrophe police do not notice.

 

[rDin]

What is interesting about these sorts of discussions is the effort to explain one's preference. It seems only after the fact that we attempt to link a physical explanation of a technology to what we hear or prefer. Personally I feel no compunction to justify my acceptance of the fact that playing a vinyl record is more likely to satisfy me in a way that some digital format will not.

This is sheer curiosity on my part. Having reached a point, after years of head scratching, where I think I may have an, or at least a partial, answer as to why I still prefer the sound qualities of vinyl over digital, a forum like this, where members often have more experience and knowledge than myself, and are willing to engage in good faith, is a great place to stress test such ideas.

Faced with making a choice between a vinyl front end or a digital front end, should one start with measurements? Even if there is some "proof" that, for example, digital reconstruction is 100% accurate to the original waveform, that proof plays at best as a secondary consideration to what my ears tell me.

Yeah, this is absolutely not about an objectivist approach to audio. I've always followed my ears, and recommend everybody do the same. However, in the context of the vinyl vs digital discussion, and in light of my own conclusion, when DAC designers like Rob Watts make claims about reconstruction; that reconstruction of the original waveform is absolutely critical for our brains perception of audio and that no DACs are currently achieving it, well then it seems worthwhile to test that claim out. Given that a DAC has one job - reconstruct the original analogue waveform - it seems not unreasonable to ask just how well any given DAC does that?

The future of audio is digital. Would be nice to think that by the time digital is the only option that there are no question marks left about it's fidelity...

 

[Rensselaer]

Bad argument. Most vinyl today is digital sourced.



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.



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.

I do not believe that those on this particular forum who prefer analogue sourced music buy digital sourced records. This is one audiophile who doesn't buy digital-to-analogue-to-vinyl records (that companies like Sony are flooding the market with), except a couple chosen specifically to compare with pure analogue versions of the same for blind listening tests.

The records chosen to represent the best of the digital-to-analogue-to-vinyl are DSD-to-analogue one-step Ultradisc's by Mobile Fidelity, namely UD1S 2-008 "What's Going On" by Marvin Gaye, and the other is UD1S 2-021 "Crosby Stills and Nash". I believe that most digital enthusiasts will accept the Mobile Fidelity One-Step DSD-to-analogue-to-Ultradisc as being legitimately amongst the best examples of digital-to-vinyl LPs available?

The best pure analogue versions that I could find for comparison are: for "What's Going On", another "One Step", meaning a lacquer (No. 011, 59/99) cut from a master tape (or safety copy) on 13/Oct/2023 at Supersense in Viena,; and for Crosby Stills and Nash I obtained an Electric Recording Company all valve Ortofon Heritage pressing from the original master tape (297/450).

Of all the attendees who have attended my blind listening tests with a stated preference for the sound of digital over analogue, just one person preferred the digital-to-analogue-to-vinyl version ("what's going on") over the strictly analogue-to-vinyl version after the listening test. He said it was because of the words sung were easier to discern, clearer on the digitally-sourced recordings. Those who preferred the strictly analogue after listening to each played on exactly the same system, the rest, said the reasons for changing their opinion was primarily that the pure analogue sourced music seemed to evoke more emotion, was more relaxing while listening and did not focus the mind on the various "hi-fi" aspects of the sound reproduction (bass slam, imaging, air, etc.).

 

[bonzo75]

Should be easy for a 100k digital to beat this Garrard 401 then

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[PeterA]

Should be easy for a 100k digital to beat this Garrard 401 then

One would think so. But in what sense do you mean “beat”?

 

[Rensselaer]

Whether the some of the (best?) digital systems sounds as good as the best analogue systems isn't the question we should be asking, but rather how close to real does our choice take us and at what cost? I am admittedly not an expert, my opinions that follow are based upon my own (possibly faulty) reasoning from years of being in the hobby and reading the usual stuff geared towards the hobbyist.

I read herein where someone pointed out that record sales are up, that is true. And another says that records released today were cut mostly from digital sources, true again. Record sales are up from where they were. After the release of the CD, and for the following 10 years or so, the CD dominated the market so much that they nearly wiped out vinyl record production completely (and most of the experienced recording engineers retired or left to other careers as well) . Sony had the copyright to the process, Philips (their partner), the copyright to the transport mechanism. They cornered the market and the money was rolling in.

But people started to become dissatisfied with CD sound. Stories started circulating that if you used a green marker to colour the rim of the CD it would prevent scattered red laser waves from distorting sound, and the rest. Manufacturer's tried to get around the Sony/Philips copyrights by inverting the platter or designing a completely different transport that had nothing in common with the Philips model, increasing byte size and sampling rates or going bit-stream to get around the Sony copyrights. All this technology increased the price of products and placated customers for a bit, but it didn't bring the sound of digital music to the level of good analogue, yet... it continues.

People on this forum talk about "upgrading" to level four Wadax. Have you seen what that costs? The Wadax Atlantis Transport sells in the UK for £110,000.00 , the Wadax Atlantis Reference DAC for £160,000.00 , the Akasa optical dual for £26,000.00 and the Wadax Reference Power Supply for £50,000.00 . Will that expenditure guarantee better sound than any turntable playing vinyl records? It looks to me like the industry has hooked you and is using your in for a penny/in for a pound commitment to clean you out.

Sony hasn't given up trying to get all the bananas either. They have bought up companies that hold the rights to music left right and centre and keep the master tapes locked up. I hear that Sony will only release DSD copies of the master tapes to companies that wish to re-master/cut records. It appears to me that Sony wants to flood the vinyl market with digital to vinyl LPs so that the younger buyer never gets access to a medium that sounds better than their digital. Dilute until lost to memory (to all but a few of us analogue die hards). Heaven forbid that the youth of today accidentally hear an inexpensive record player playing an analogue record that sounds better than their streamer and earbuds.

Why would anyone think that digital technology will not (or doesn't already) surpass analogue replay systems in the ability to reproduce the same emotions and feelings that live music does? Start with the premise that the best amplifier is a straight wire with gain. Every component added, every processing step, degrades from that ideal. Take sound waves and convert them to measurements, then reconstruct those measurements (only, not that which wasn't measured) back into sound waves with all the necessary converters, filters, processes and components to do that, and see if the results sound as good as a cartridge, SUT, valve phono, triode amp and high sensitivity paper speakers do.

 

[bonzo75]

One would think so. But in what sense do you mean “beat”?

I was just being sarcastic. You can replace beat by outdo, be more natural, etc. it can out price it for sure

 

[Al M.]

I do not believe that those on this particular forum who prefer analogue sourced music buy digital sourced records.

Agreed, most of them probably don't. But that was not the line of argumentation that I was responding to in the post which you quoted in your reply.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Based on what i heard i dont understand why the majority of spenders/ designers put so much money in expensive TT designs

The SQ gain versus dollar is small compared to HQ tape .
I d really like to see that change and the industry focusses more on tape / new machines designs /more tape releases etc.
I ve seen / heard monsters of TT where i think where did the money go?
Was it all worth the trouble.
Sure it all looks cool.

For example in munchen the best LP i heard was at FM acoustics and they were playing with an older model Transrotor.
Kronos / gershman was nice too