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

[nirodha]

The only "good" in terms of musical engagement that can come out of a conversion, be it digital or analog, is if it is preserved with respect to the original music signal *). With good implementation of digital, emotional engagement is preserved to a degree comparable to good analog, at least for me. Others subjectively may feel differently, and that's fine too.

_______________

*) Some would say that emotional engagement can actually be enhanced by euphonic distortion. Yet this kind of distortion is something that is not usually associated with the digital medium.

Your brain is the largest component in the sequence of conversion.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

This is cool

- Why do you think we need to 'find' the common parts?

my point was that regardless of whether factually analog samples or not (the alleged common parts with digital) the conversion is benign to the essence of the music (whatever that is) relative to the math used for digital. the word 'need' is not in play. i will leave it to techies to dissect the physical process. i'm just an observer of the musical part.

Didn't we build all of these processes as any other engineering topic? Don't we, by default, know what these things do (from a mechanicist pov)?

someone did.

- Given the complexity of both of these processes how confident should we be on our intuitions when discussing details?

we put confidence in our listening experiences that support our opinions. the more serious, relentless and uncompromising our (room/system/media and quality listening) efforts, the more sure we are of our intuitions. i've done the work to eliminate my own personal doubts about it.

 

[RCanelas]

I must admit your follow-up is clever in talking about the recording media and particles and splitting polymer molecules. Sure, on that score with enough terrabytes of memory and you could claim that digital recording is continuous.

At that point I was talking about bit depth (dynamic range). 'Resolution'. How many shades of gray can you resolve in a single shot. More than a year ago in this thread I did some math:

Just a bit of fun, those 24 bits, how do they compare to the potential of vinyl? the smallest groove is about 0.04 mm, so half that divided by 24bits is ~1.2e-11. That's the information size, in meters, you'd need to get to reproduce 24bits on a record. So do we get it? A small molecule is about ~1e-9 meters. We're in about two orders of magnitude off, in favor of a simple 24bit recording. It is, at minimum, 100x more resolving than analog.

Again, I don't really care about these numbers. At these scales and values I don't think they correlate very well with musical reproduction. But it is fascinating to see just how off our intuitions are, no? Terrabytes? We are orders of magnitude more resolving with 24bits than the actual molecular structure of vinil, never mind the process. Surely the difference is somewhere else, so why focus on these and risk being wrong about it?

But I don't think that is the continuity claimed for analog -- at least as I understand. That continuity is the continuity of time. Capturing sound as discrete quanta within some time period -- so many ones and zeros -- yields exactly that. Then repeat for the next time period. And those multiple samples must be put back together via a digital to analog converter. Put Back Together.
While tape may consist of "discrete suspended particles" the process of magnetizing it is time continuous. Earlier I talked about this as a sample of 1. The direct-to-disc recording feeds the audio signal directly to a lathe cutting head without dividing the result into whatever bit depth (bytes, words) represents content within a slice of time.

Again, it might be challenging to see the quantization in vinil, tape or other analog mediums, but it is there. The particles in tape are obvious, if they are discrete in amplitude they are discrete in time. I'd argue even more in time, since you have varying degrees of polarization (dynamic range of a single particle) but you either have a particle in the plane of the head or you don't (time resolution). The same for vinil, just like you can only cut or deform transversely along the groove in discrete molecular intervals (dynamic range) you also can only do it longitudinally (time resolution). You can't reproduce an infinitely large and instantaneous impulse on analog any better than on digital encodings, meaning neither are continuous. So again, my proposal is that the difference is somewhere else, and we could avoid saying inaccurate things by going in these other directions.

Fwiw, I see none of this as about musical engagement. I don't see this as a discussion about flaws in the process. I see it as an account about (some of) the difference between analog and digital processing. While those may be topics worthy of discussion, they are deflecting from that accounting. This is not "artificial" or useless as you write -- it seems quite reasonable to have an understanding about the differences between the different approaches.

Fully agree. My hypothesis is that understanding these technical differences in these approaches require nuance and fundamental knowledge that is sometimes not easy to get and easily confused with ossified misleading marketing terms. That is what I meant by 'artificial or useless'. We might be chasing ghosts instead of focusing on the real stuff that causes these differences:

- mastering
- gear type, topology, quality and design principles
- rituals an expectations
- effect of noise and noise as dithering
- preferential fundamental distortion modes
- ...

 

[Mike Lavigne]

i submit Exhibit A (1,2,3, and 4). this morning listened to 2 hours of nice classical digital. then just randomly grabbed 4 Lp's and started playing them. last summer i did briefly clean and sample these, but don't know the music or the pressings at all.

the musical pull of the vinyl is undeniable. the tension and drive embracing. get past any thought of whether this is or is not music you would choose. just listen. all early 70's recordings, probably $3 to $5 pressings easily acquired.

 

[microstrip]

One important point worth noting is that digital audio involves trading off a different set of distortion criteria than analog. Take an analog preamplifier or amplifier, regardless of whether it’s solid state or tube. Its distortion is usually independent of input or output levels, unless it is being overloaded at either end. So, it’s fairly common to see power amplifiers being rated as offering x% distortion over any output level from a few milliwatts to hundreds of watts (whatever the “x” is). This is absolutely not the case in digital.

Measurements are facts and should be looked at their sources. Sorry, as far as I remember it is not true in general. Just look at a graph from a just released amplifier review of Stereophile. Preamplfiers also show this trend.

Take Redbook CD standard, still the dominant recording standard for 99% of all albums (high res audio is still a very niche item). At 0dB, meaning full signal level, CD offers 96dB (16-bit) resolution. Impressive. Yes, but that’s a meaningless number. Music is not a 0dB signal. As music is often highly dynamic — a single oboe in an orchestra may be 50 dB down from 0dB — the actual distortion performance may not be that superior to analog tape. You can see this in published measurements of DACs where distortion grows quickly as the signal level is decreased. So, when you hear a DAC, its distortion is rapidly changing depending on input level.

Well , since long we have a few extra bits ... Why still addressing the 80's?
At -50 dB this dCS DAC shows better than .01% THD!

And yes, single instruments in an orchestra can be buried in noise - it is why great recordings of the past, relying on tape, raised their gain during recording. Not needed any more using top high resolution digital.

 

[microstrip]

Al,. Since you disagree with Ron’s comment that nothing good comes from the unnecessary conversion of an analog wave form to digital, could you explain what good in your opinion do you think does come from such a conversion in terms of emotional engagement?

Easy - I said it in a previous post : freedom from the artifacts of tape and vinyl. Remember that sound reproduction is a mix of compromises - every technique has its problems and virtues.

Emotional engagement is a psycho-acoustic matter. Each of us has an individual opinion on it, but a general find would need a statistical analysis of a large valid sample.

 

[microstrip]

(...) I’ve never heard a digital presentation after conversion from the original analog that has more emotional engagement than the original analog presentation. Some seem to get close, but I’ve never heard the conversion process increase emotional engagement.

From the Stereophile review of the Aida 2 by M. Fremer;

On the last night of the few months I had Sonus Faber's recently revised Aida loudspeakers in my own sitting room—my basement listening room—I decided to check out the boxed set of Beethoven symphonies from the Berlin Philharmonic, issued on vinyl (10 LPs, Berliner Philharmonic BPHR160092). Though released in 2017, it had arrived here only recently, and I first wanted to hear Sir Simon Rattle's interpretation of Symphony 9.

The vinyl releases (and associated high-resolution downloads) were recorded at 24-bit/192kHz with a pair of mid-side (M/S) microphones.(...) At around 2am, as the reverberation of the Ninth's last notes faded away, I found myself exhausted, overwhelmed, and somewhat disoriented, all in the most pleasurable way, by the most convincing illusion I've ever experienced—by a considerable margin—of having been transported from my modestly sized listening room to a concert hall (the Berlin Philharmonie).
I haven't heard the multi-miked version. I have sets of the Beethoven symphonies by Bernstein, Karajan, Klemperer, Leibowitz, Walter, and Paavo Järvi—all of them sound good, some better than others. This new one from Rattle and Berlin might be the most spatially together and believable of all, and it's digital. Of course, I think the reason for this is the minimal M/S miking. The digits are just how it's originally stored, and the software keeps getting better.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

From the Stereophile review of the Aida 2 by M. Fremer;

On the last night of the few months I had Sonus Faber's recently revised Aida loudspeakers in my own sitting room—my basement listening room—I decided to check out the boxed set of Beethoven symphonies from the Berlin Philharmonic, issued on vinyl (10 LPs, Berliner Philharmonic BPHR160092). Though released in 2017, it had arrived here only recently, and I first wanted to hear Sir Simon Rattle's interpretation of Symphony 9.

The vinyl releases (and associated high-resolution downloads) were recorded at 24-bit/192kHz with a pair of mid-side (M/S) microphones.(...) At around 2am, as the reverberation of the Ninth's last notes faded away, I found myself exhausted, overwhelmed, and somewhat disoriented, all in the most pleasurable way, by the most convincing illusion I've ever experienced—by a considerable margin—of having been transported from my modestly sized listening room to a concert hall (the Berlin Philharmonie).
I haven't heard the multi-miked version. I have sets of the Beethoven symphonies by Bernstein, Karajan, Klemperer, Leibowitz, Walter, and Paavo Järvi—all of them sound good, some better than others. This new one from Rattle and Berlin might be the most spatially together and believable of all, and it's digital. Of course, I think the reason for this is the minimal M/S miking. The digits are just how it's originally stored, and the software keeps getting better.

anecdotal. a data point. unless we had an all analog mic feed pressing to compare we just tip our hat that that digitally recorded one is very fine and move on. performance and the whole recording process are big parts of any result. not just the format.

 

[PeterA]

anecdotal. a data point. unless we had an all analog mic feed pressing to compare we just tip our hat that that digitally recorded one is very fine and move on. performance and the whole recording process are big parts of any result. not just the format.

I think Ron’s point about emotional engagement from an original analog signal not improving after a digital conversion was completely lost.

 

[Kingrex]

No signal improves as you step on it. The Lacquer, stampers and vinyl media don't improve the original tape copy.

 

[tima]

The thread title is also just a personal, subjective opinion, nothing more.

Now you sound like Resnick.

Facts are facts, no matter what they sound like.

Saying "personal, subjective opinion" is poor literacy as "personal, subjective" add nothing to the statement. Blame me for expecting better from you. By definition opinions are personal. By definition opinions are subjective." Adding "just" is an attempt to demean opinion, saying it does not count, it does not matter and by association the person offering it -- all without effort to say why or providing a countering opinion. I will guess the vast majority (>90% ?) of statements on this forum are opinion. Do you think the participants on this thread are unable to distiquish what is and is not opinion? Do you think only stating facts is the only conversation worth having?

It strikes me that one function of FWB is to provide a platform for sharing one's opinion. I'm not ready to see opinion devalued because I disagree with it.

 

[tima]

The only "good" in terms of musical engagement that can come out of a conversion, be it digital or analog, is if it is preserved with respect to the original music signal *).

Talking about musical engagement (presumably the listener's reaction to what he hears) strikes me as an analytical way of considering format and listening enjoyment -- thinking/talking about music in terms of equipment. As I listen to, for example, Mahler's 6th Symphony from von Karajan on the DG TOS AAA release or listen to Mahler's 2nd from Bernstein on the DG ADD version, my engagement -- my attention to and enjoyment of the music -- is neither heightened nor reduced. It is simply great music and I'm happy to have both performances.

 

[Al M.]

my point was that regardless of whether factually analog samples or not (the alleged common parts with digital) the conversion is benign to the essence of the music (whatever that is) relative to the math used for digital.

That's a bold statement. What is the evidence?

A number of recording engineers will tell you that digital introduces less distortions compared to the original music signal and thus is more accurate, so wouldn't that count as being more benign to the essence of the music?

 

[Rexp]

Talking about musical engagement (presumably the listener's reaction to what he hears) strikes me as an analytical way of considering format and listening enjoyment -- thinking/talking about music in terms of equipment. As I listen to, for example, Mahler's 6th Symphony from von Karajan on the DG TOS AAA release or listen to Mahler's 2nd from Bernstein on the DG ADD version, my engagement -- my attention to and enjoyment of the music -- is neither heightened nor reduced. It is simply great music and I'm happy to have both performances.

Yes some digital recordings sound better, much better, on vinyl.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

That's a bold statement. What is the evidence?

why did you selectively quote me to remove my answers and qualifiers? below i quoted my whole post and bolded what you left out. i made it clear that my perspective holds no proof or evidence. just my experiences to remove doubts about my opinions. but they are just opinions.

A number of recording engineers will tell you that digital introduces less distortions compared to the original music signal and thus is more accurate, so wouldn't that count as being more benign to the essence of the music?

i take little value from the feedback of recording engineers. they don't have high quality playback gear, don't have high quality vinyl front ends, or extensive vinyl collections. so they really have little opportunity to know about this subject. a few have some degree of these things, but very few. and they have commercial agendas too.

i would agree that digital has less distortion (it's cleaner) in one sense, that's not the problem. the problem is what is missing. it's the reduction of the musical essence that is the biggie. and lowered micro-dynamics is another. and you can only know that by seriously investigating high quality vinyl and all analog pressings.

my point was that regardless of whether factually analog samples or not (the alleged common parts with digital) the conversion is benign to the essence of the music (whatever that is) relative to the math used for digital. the word 'need' is not in play. i will leave it to techies to dissect the physical process. i'm just an observer of the musical part.

someone did.

we put confidence in our listening experiences that support our opinions. the more serious, relentless and uncompromising our (room/system/media and quality listening) efforts, the more sure we are of our intuitions. i've done the work to eliminate my own personal doubts about it.

 

[bonzo75]

A number of recording engineers will tell you that digital introduces less distortions compared to the original music signal and thus is more accurate

Can you quote a few of these?

 

[Al M.]

why did you selectively quote me to remove my answers and qualifiers? below i quoted my whole post and bolded what you left out. i made it clear that my perspective holds no proof or evidence. just my experiences to remove doubts about my opinions. but they are just opinions.

My apologies, Mike, I did not mean to quote selectively.

i take little value from the feedback of recording engineers. they don't have high quality playback gear, don't have high quality vinyl front ends, or extensive vinyl collections. so they really have little opportunity to know about this subject. a few have some degree of these things, but very few. and they have commercial agendas too.

The thing is, recording engineers would say the same thing about analog tape too, and well-performing tape machines will be easier to find than well set-up and well-performing vinyl.

 

[Al M.]

Can you quote a few of these?

Google is your friend.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

My apologies, Mike, I did not mean to quote selectively.

thank you, Al.

The thing is, recording engineers would say the same thing about analog tape too, and well-performing tape machines will be easier to find than well set-up and well-performing vinyl.

again; recording engineers are not where i find my truth about this. and having a tape deck in your studio is a different thing than a wider knowledge about high quality all-analog playback. the tape deck is merely a tool to them. a tool that is a pain to use. i respect you view these guys as an authority. i do not.

obviously i'm a serious tape guy with very high level tape decks. so i get that part. but if they seriously think their digital competes musically with their decks then more reason to see their views as incomplete.

 

[bonzo75]

Google is your friend.

Google cannot find any credible ones. It seems to be quoting you, micro, and your other digital friend from this forum.