Where audiophiles click...

Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

High resolution vs Vinyl


  • Please log in to reply
2331 replies to this topic

#46 Orpheus

Orpheus

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 3,261 posts
  • Country: AU
  • State: NSW

Posted 14 November 2011 - 06:11 PM

It's more than harmonics.
Vinyl always sounds more dynamic to me.


I think an aspect of that is the treatment of harmonics. It makes it more "alive".

My pet, unsubstantiated, theory is that the difference between vinyl and digital is this. Digital reproduces what it is given. A turntable performs what it is given. Each record becomes a little amplified acoustic performance, as ultimately, the stylus and cartridge are little acoustic instruments just as a guitar or a violin are.

This is why it sounds more like live music.

Arg might be right, it may be less "accurate". But it sounds better :).

#47 LogicprObe

LogicprObe

    I SHOULD HAVE BEEN BANNED A LONG TIME AGO...

  • Members
  • 8,873 posts
  • Country: AU
  • State: NSW

Posted 14 November 2011 - 06:24 PM

Can the chip in a DAC develop the same slew rates as the pick up head of a tone arm?
That's what I've always wondered.
Give me ambiguity or give me something else.

#48 Shmonk

Shmonk

    Member

  • Members
  • 289 posts
  • Country: AU
  • State: NSW

Posted 14 November 2011 - 06:53 PM

...I don't really care why records sound better. But there is something that digital is missing


Or, picking up on previous comments about digital being more accurate, is it that people prefer vinyl because there is something that vinyl records are missing?

#49 proftournesol

proftournesol

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 5,650 posts
  • Country: AU
  • State: VIC

Posted 14 November 2011 - 07:10 PM

This is an interesting question. I think that we have to also distinguish between recording in hi-res v analog as well as digital hi-res v analog playback. It puzzles me that digital playback sounds so poor in comparison to vinyl playback on every system I've heard when almost all modern LP releases are recorded in hi-res digital. Something happens in the mastering or mixing or playback process that clearly degrades digital sound in comparison to analog. There's clearly more compression but also less micro-dynamics and less emotion conveyed in the music. Clearly it's been captured in the first place or it wouldn't be present in the analog vinyl.

There's also clearly more to go in vinyl playback. Having listened to a Caliburn, it's light-years ahead of digital playback in all these areas, and if Mark Doehmann's plans for a new vinyl cutting lathe design come to fruition then a new era in vinyl production dawns:)

regards Michael
Analog: Pink Triangle (totally Funked) Kuzma Stogi Reference, Soundsmith Straingauge Digital: modified CEC TL-51X transport , MacMini, Weiss Minerva DAC Tuner: Tandberg A3011 Preamp: Octave HP500se Speakers: ADAM Tensor Deltas | Vibration management: HRS | Cables: Argento Serenity, WSS Kabel, Nordost, Transparent, Cardas |

Second System Source: Cambridge Audio DV99 | Apple TV (Gen 1)| DACMagic | Amplification: Sugden A25 Speakers: ADAM HM2


#50 Arg

Arg

    The Argentinian

  • Members
  • 946 posts
  • Country: AU
  • State: SA

Posted 14 November 2011 - 10:51 PM

OK, Arg, when you are in Sydney, come and listen to my turntable (see two posts up) and then listen to CDs, SACDs, anything you care to bring. The digital equipment I have, you will see, is well regarded, and very expensive.

I challenge you to use your ears and decide for yourself.

That is what I did. I couldn't give a toss about what is theoretically good and theoretically bad, and I don't really care why records sound better. But there is something that digital is missing, because they do sound better.

I don't know why, but harmonics are a critical part of it.

Hi Orpheus,

In your own words, you couldn't give a toss, you don't really care, and you don't know why.

Much as I'd love to listen to your setup (it's one of my favourite things to do), I don't think I want to discuss this topic with you -- it's too hard!

You see, I do give a toss, I do really care, and I've got a pretty good idea why (as per post #43). cheers

P.S. I have heard the 17D3 pretty extensively and I think it is really, really nice. You lucky lad!

#51 LogicprObe

LogicprObe

    I SHOULD HAVE BEEN BANNED A LONG TIME AGO...

  • Members
  • 8,873 posts
  • Country: AU
  • State: NSW

Posted 14 November 2011 - 11:09 PM

No.
#43 is wrong...........well, there would be a bit of that but it's not the whole reason.
Give me ambiguity or give me something else.

#52 Arg

Arg

    The Argentinian

  • Members
  • 946 posts
  • Country: AU
  • State: SA

Posted 14 November 2011 - 11:26 PM

Hi Logicprobe, keep talking, I'm listening.....

#53 LogicprObe

LogicprObe

    I SHOULD HAVE BEEN BANNED A LONG TIME AGO...

  • Members
  • 8,873 posts
  • Country: AU
  • State: NSW

Posted 14 November 2011 - 11:35 PM

Hi Logicprobe, keep talking, I'm listening.....


See posts #45 and #47.
I've had too much coffee and have to go to bed.
Give me ambiguity or give me something else.

#54 Arg

Arg

    The Argentinian

  • Members
  • 946 posts
  • Country: AU
  • State: SA

Posted 15 November 2011 - 07:40 AM

Can the chip in a DAC develop the same slew rates as the pick up head of a tone arm?
That's what I've always wondered.


Hi, for a DAC with output amplifier, the specified slew rate is typically that of the amplifier. i.e. it's an analogue circuit limitation. Say 8V/us.

For a stylus the slew rate is a function of maximum acceleration and output voltage. I have seen a figure of 1mv/us (0.001V/us).

#55 KenTripp

KenTripp

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,164 posts
  • State: VIC

Posted 15 November 2011 - 07:40 AM

No idea why this comes down to a one or the other option for some people. Even the title conveys that it's a competition. And why is CD even getting a mention? It's not a "digital vs analog" debate after all, otherwise we'd also be including tape (video and reel to reel) and everything else analog and digital. It's high res digital (DVD-A, SACD and downloads) vs vinyl and there is no winner. Both with the right equipment can sound wonderful but if it's music that we're really interested in and not equipment then surely it's in our interests to be able to play as many different sources of material as possible.

#56 Batty

Batty

    Rock The World

  • Members
  • 4,826 posts
  • State: SA

Posted 15 November 2011 - 08:05 AM

I think KenTripp is on the right tack, I have Vinyl, CD, SACD and all sorts of digital files for streaming. If it's music I'm in the mood to listen to, I don't really care what the format is.

Oh one exception is low bitrate MP3, Mp3 should be 192 or above.

Analogue setup: 1986 Townshend Rock Mk2/AO rewired RB250/Soundsmith retipped VdH DDT-II special, Marshall Leech head amp, Copland CSA-14, Castle Howards.
PC System: i7 win8, T Amp, Monitor Audio Monitor One.
Digital System: Squeezebox Touch, DVD P181 as transport for CD, Audio gd NFB2.

 

Plus 4 additional TTs

 

No Sub-woofers were used in the reproduction of this sound

 

 


 


#57 Arg

Arg

    The Argentinian

  • Members
  • 946 posts
  • Country: AU
  • State: SA

Posted 15 November 2011 - 09:01 AM

Hi KenTripp, totally agree with you, all formats can be very enjoyable, or not. I have CD's I hate the sound of and records I hate the sound of. I have CD's I love the sound of and records I love the sound of.

CD gets a mention because the OP gave the impression that hi-res digital is slowly getting close to the sound quality level of LP, which stands supreme, and by implication that CD is not competitive on sound quality because of its inherent limitations i.e. 16 and 44.1. I wanted to correct that.

The big issue for digital audio has been, and continues to be, the studio production.

Edited by Arg, 15 November 2011 - 01:24 PM.


#58 Bus_Boy

Bus_Boy

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,536 posts
  • Country: AU
  • State: QLD

Posted 15 November 2011 - 09:26 AM

Well recordered / mastered digital (of pretty much any format) over vinyl for me. The vinyl flaws greatly reduce my music enjoyment / immersion. I have heard a great number of high end vinyl set ups but have never walked away feeling the need to get one for myself. Maybe in the future I'll get at TT but it is not high on my list of priorities.


I find your comment interesting how you say it reduces your music enjoyment. When i first started out a couple of years ago i had never heard a TT in action. My first one was a sour experience with speed issues and i'm fairly certain a factory warped platter. Second time around though things have been much better.

What made me ditch my digital collection was just the way vinyl get's you involved. Regardless of whether i could find a digital recording that sounded better, vinyl got me up off the couch and actually interacting with the music. Hi Fi after all is just a hobby, and i think the more you can get involved the more enjoyment you can get out of it.

Probably a pointless and off topic post too :party

#59 Orpheus

Orpheus

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 3,261 posts
  • Country: AU
  • State: NSW

Posted 15 November 2011 - 09:31 AM

Or, picking up on previous comments about digital being more accurate, is it that people prefer vinyl because there is something that vinyl records are missing?


No, it is not because of something that is missing. There is a lot of detail if you have a good enough rig. As I said, I believe that it is because the cartridge and stylus are "performers", and not merely reproducers. This means they are adding something, they are interpreting. I consider this a good thing.

#60 Orpheus

Orpheus

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 3,261 posts
  • Country: AU
  • State: NSW

Posted 15 November 2011 - 09:38 AM

Hi Orpheus,

In your own words, you couldn't give a toss, you don't really care, and you don't know why.

Much as I'd love to listen to your setup (it's one of my favourite things to do), I don't think I want to discuss this topic with you -- it's too hard!

You see, I do give a toss, I do really care, and I've got a pretty good idea why (as per post #43). cheers

P.S. I have heard the 17D3 pretty extensively and I think it is really, really nice. You lucky lad!


No, I didn't say I don't give "a toss". I am honest enough to say that I don't know why it sounds better. I have a theory, just as you have. You will find it in post no. 46.

My theory, which is plausible, is reinforced for me by the nature of the difference in sound.

In the end, what I am emphasising is that I trust my ears. Where I have the same recording on record or digital, I find there is more life and beauty in the record. Schubert's ninth, with the Israel Philharmonic, is an excellent example. The strings are lush and beautiful on record, and the precise decay of the hall immacutely revealed. Not so on the CD.

On Paper Airplane, which is very well recorded on CD as well as vinyl, the record comes up trumps. Both are very good.

High resolution is, as I think you have observed, only marginally better, and the mastering is more important (Ozmilsy, I am coming round to your point of view).

So, to explain my view fully, I believe that it is what vinyl adds, rather than what digital is missing, which is the key.

#61 Orpheus

Orpheus

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 3,261 posts
  • Country: AU
  • State: NSW

Posted 15 November 2011 - 10:42 AM

And just to make one further point about a turntable being an "instrument", and giving an acoustic performance. There was a thread a while back about how live music, no matter how poorly amplified and how poor the sound system, sounds "live", and somehow more real.

I believe this is the same phenomenon.

#62 djb

djb

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,870 posts
  • Country: AU
  • State: VIC

Posted 15 November 2011 - 10:57 AM

arg
the key word in orpheus's sentence is' theoretical'
' I couldn't give a toss about what is theoretically good and theoretically bad'
omitting it in your reply reverses Orf's meaning


#63 Orpheus

Orpheus

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 3,261 posts
  • Country: AU
  • State: NSW

Posted 15 November 2011 - 11:08 AM

BTW, Arg, you are missing a chance for some pretty serious aural testing.

dCS are considered world leaders in the area of digital playback, and this particular system is right up there for computer audio. The system is revealing; stacked Quads, tBI subs, and Townshend supertweeters.

Your challenge is to bring digital recordings which do not suffer from the limitations you speak of (SACD being at least the equivalent of hi-resolution computer), so that we can see whether digital is "better" than vinyl.

To my ears, the Garrard 401, which is over 40 year old technology, sounds better.

#64 millsy

millsy

    Member

  • Members
  • 559 posts
  • Country: AU
  • State: QLD

Posted 15 November 2011 - 11:13 AM

Most of the high res files I have downloaded are 24 bit/96 kHz. (I have no idea what that actually means, but thought it might be useful for the purposes of this discussion).
These have been ripped to DVD. MAX was used to convert to Wav.
The DVD has then been played in my PerfectWave transport

The 24/96 refers to the format storing 24bits of information for each sample, and the 96kHz is that sample rate :party

Personally I like the vinyl sound over high res digital, however it depends on the music I'm listening to :) Each has a place in my opinion

#65 Rick

Rick

    Member

  • Members
  • 444 posts
  • State: NSW

Posted 15 November 2011 - 11:41 AM

Well recordered / mastered digital (of pretty much any format) over vinyl for me. The vinyl flaws greatly reduce my music enjoyment / immersion. I have heard a great number of high end vinyl set ups but have never walked away feeling the need to get one for myself.

I'm with this bloke.
IMO, digital has it over vinyl by a reasonable margin, and has done so for some time.

That's not to say I don't enjoy vinyl, but if I have to choose a better sounding format, digital is it.

For the record (pun intended), I have a very large collection of both digital and vinyl.

Oh, I also don't see (hear) much (any?) improvement in hi-res digital - IMO, redbook is sufficient for blameless high fidelity reproduction. YMMV.
Chief, cook, and bottle washer at Equinox.
Builder of Equinox speakers, dealer for Primare and Cambridge components.

#66 Orpheus

Orpheus

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 3,261 posts
  • Country: AU
  • State: NSW

Posted 15 November 2011 - 11:52 AM

I'm with this bloke.
IMO, digital has it over vinyl by a reasonable margin, and has done so for some time.

That's not to say I don't enjoy vinyl, but if I have to choose a better sounding format, digital is it.

For the record (pun intended), I have a very large collection of both digital and vinyl.

Oh, I also don't see (hear) much (any?) improvement in hi-res digital - IMO, redbook is sufficient for blameless high fidelity reproduction. YMMV.


The explanation for this otherwise inexplicable post will lie in your turntable. What turntable/arm/cartridge do you have, and what flaws are troubling you?

#67 djb

djb

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,870 posts
  • Country: AU
  • State: VIC

Posted 15 November 2011 - 12:12 PM

i aint missing the chance
i'm coming up from melb to hear this system
place and plane booked


#68 aad_ht

aad_ht

    Member

  • Members
  • 389 posts
  • State: VIC

Posted 15 November 2011 - 12:17 PM

I believe it is inherient in our DNA that we have our own qualities that we enjoy in life, I find that there are so many different factors which can influence our music format choice.

For one, when I am tired or exhausted I tend to not enjoy Vinyl as much, as I am less tolerant to the light crackles and noise that is part of the vinyl experience. Other times I am completely into them and only feel like listening to vinyl. I tend to pay a bit too much attention to my "tired" mood and end up deciding off that which is not good, its the good moments which should get the most credit and truly expresses how I feel about the music format.

There is a certain care/finesse that is necessary with listening to a decent vinyl and I find you have to be in the right mood for it, but once your there... Its a truly magical aural experience (I nearly wrote something else lol)


Edit: I also find there is a lot more setup required to get a high fidelity sound from Vinyl, care with the Stylus, vinyl disks remaining dust free etc

Edited by aad_ht, 15 November 2011 - 12:23 PM.

Cycling Motivation.com.au - Pedal Powered Passion

#69 Steve M

Steve M

    Member

  • Members
  • 913 posts
  • State: WA

Posted 15 November 2011 - 12:18 PM

I'm with Orpheus on this one, vinyl just sounds better to my ears too - all technicalities aside.

I've been in this hobby for a very long time and a humble carefully chosen s/h vinyl rig at about $2K still beats any digital I have had or heard. Like Orpheus, I think the benefits come from the added harmonics with vinyl. I don't think there is anything missing with vinyl, while there seems to be with digital replay. It always comes across as a certain flatness to the sound stage that makes you think the music is fabricated by electronic equipment.

In case you think that I am somewhat biased in these views, vinyl only constitute about 20% of my listening habits.

Arg, just intrigued to know, you say you quite enjoy exposing your ears to other people's systems etc, have you never noticed (again putting aside technical comparisons) that vinyl just seems to sound inherently more real when done right on the best recordings? I'm a little surprised that a man of your audio experience hasn't noticed this? Btw, I enjoy reading your posts, always good to read concise clear thinking from a technical viewpoint. However, I am curious know about the 'real' Arg and what his ears are telling him in terms of musical enjoyment?

At the end of the day we can all discuss this 'til we turn blue, but the fact of the matter is 95% of the world's best cost no object systems still have vinyl as the top tier source material.
Blog site: http://stevem1960.blogspot.com.au/

Every story has three sides to it - yours, mine and the facts.

#70 Dr X

Dr X

    Member

  • Banned
  • 2,203 posts
  • State: NT

Posted 15 November 2011 - 12:23 PM

Isn't it a fact that the majority of Vinyl pressings come from a digital source? And also that this is an ever increasing trend?

#71 Steve M

Steve M

    Member

  • Members
  • 913 posts
  • State: WA

Posted 15 November 2011 - 12:29 PM

Isn't it a fact that the majority of Vinyl pressings come from a digital source? And also that this is an ever increasing trend?


Yes, but the digititus is cured when the vinyl antedote is administered!

Thought you might enjoy that quip, seeing you are a Doctor ;-))
Blog site: http://stevem1960.blogspot.com.au/

Every story has three sides to it - yours, mine and the facts.

#72 datafone

datafone

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,653 posts
  • Country: AU
  • State: QLD

Posted 15 November 2011 - 12:53 PM

The explanation for this otherwise inexplicable post will lie in your turntable. What turntable/arm/cartridge do you have, and what flaws are troubling you?

don't forget "phono stage"
:party

Just Vinyl

SR-838/2M Bronze - Tweaked BHL Phono - Custom EL34 - ML-1's - Aurealis cables/IC's


#73 Arg

Arg

    The Argentinian

  • Members
  • 946 posts
  • Country: AU
  • State: SA

Posted 15 November 2011 - 12:57 PM

No, I didn't say I don't give "a toss". ....


Try your post #44 Orpheus, "I couldn't give a toss about what is theoretically good and theoretically bad, and I don't really care why records sound better."

I work on a different principle, where I am interested in these things and see it as a way to improve my results at home. :party

#74 Captain Crunch

Captain Crunch

    Member

  • Members
  • 368 posts
  • State: VIC

Posted 15 November 2011 - 01:01 PM

And just to make one further point about a turntable being an "instrument", and giving an acoustic performance. There was a thread a while back about how live music, no matter how poorly amplified and how poor the sound system, sounds "live", and somehow more real.

I believe this is the same phenomenon.


If you want to recreate live at home then horns will do it! People are always saying how you can't recreate live realism. That could have a lot to do with the fact that horn loaded speakers are used for live concerts but most use cones at home. Horns are amazing when done right!
Wyred4Sound Dac-1 With Async USB, Wyred4Sound STi-1000 Integrated Amp, Yamaha RX-V3900 A/V Receiver, Ascension Centre & Surrounds, Wadia 170iTransport/iPod Classic, Oppo BDP-83 Blu-Ray.
Coming Soon: DIY 2-Way Cornscalas With Eliptrac 400 Horns/Faital Drivers & ALK xovers And One Pair Of DIY 12" GR Research/Rythmik Amp, Dual Driver Servo Subs!

#75 proftournesol

proftournesol

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 5,650 posts
  • Country: AU
  • State: VIC

Posted 15 November 2011 - 01:06 PM

I think that the problem here lies with the question in the thread's title 'High resolution vs Vinyl'. It isn't a competition so there doesn't have to be a 'best' or a 'winner'. I have what many consider to be a high resolution digital and vinyl system, and I have my preference but that doesn't make digital not enjoyable, nor without merit. Similarly some are in this hobby for the music and the gear is only a means to the end, some are into the gear, some are into both, there's a place for all, even those who don't share your own perspective.

regards Michael
Analog: Pink Triangle (totally Funked) Kuzma Stogi Reference, Soundsmith Straingauge Digital: modified CEC TL-51X transport , MacMini, Weiss Minerva DAC Tuner: Tandberg A3011 Preamp: Octave HP500se Speakers: ADAM Tensor Deltas | Vibration management: HRS | Cables: Argento Serenity, WSS Kabel, Nordost, Transparent, Cardas |

Second System Source: Cambridge Audio DV99 | Apple TV (Gen 1)| DACMagic | Amplification: Sugden A25 Speakers: ADAM HM2


#76 Arg

Arg

    The Argentinian

  • Members
  • 946 posts
  • Country: AU
  • State: SA

Posted 15 November 2011 - 01:20 PM

BTW, Arg, you are missing a chance for some pretty serious aural testing....dCS ... stacked Quads, tBI subs, and Townshend supertweeters.... Garrard 401....


Orpheus, I would LOVE to take up your offer (listening to the vast range of audiophile hifi is a great thrill for me), but I have to decline because Sydney is far away and I have no trips scheduled right now. thanks a mill anyway.

#77 Rick

Rick

    Member

  • Members
  • 444 posts
  • State: NSW

Posted 15 November 2011 - 01:49 PM

The explanation for this otherwise inexplicable post will lie in your turntable. What turntable/arm/cartridge do you have, and what flaws are troubling you?

Never mind........... :party

Edited by Rick, 15 November 2011 - 02:12 PM.

Chief, cook, and bottle washer at Equinox.
Builder of Equinox speakers, dealer for Primare and Cambridge components.

#78 Drizt

Drizt

    Über Member

  • Banned
  • 12,593 posts
  • Country: AU
  • State: VIC

Posted 15 November 2011 - 01:53 PM

I think (hope) Orpheus was joking around?
System: The one that brings me much joy.

Join 'Club Active'

#79 Orpheus

Orpheus

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 3,261 posts
  • Country: AU
  • State: NSW

Posted 15 November 2011 - 02:00 PM

Yes, I was.

#80 Rick

Rick

    Member

  • Members
  • 444 posts
  • State: NSW

Posted 15 November 2011 - 02:01 PM

Yes, I was.

:party.................
Chief, cook, and bottle washer at Equinox.
Builder of Equinox speakers, dealer for Primare and Cambridge components.

#81 Orpheus

Orpheus

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 3,261 posts
  • Country: AU
  • State: NSW

Posted 15 November 2011 - 03:45 PM

:party.................


Sorry.////

#82 Arg

Arg

    The Argentinian

  • Members
  • 946 posts
  • Country: AU
  • State: SA

Posted 15 November 2011 - 03:45 PM

The explanation for this otherwise inexplicable post will lie in your turntable. What turntable/arm/cartridge do you have, and what flaws are troubling you?


Gee wiz Orpheus, it is far from 'inexplicable' for someone to prefer digital, given that it is far more accurate. :party :)

To dislike digital is to dislike master tapes, which *is* explicable given how badly they are often made.

Now, going vinyl can help here by smoothing over some of the studio production nasties in a pleasant way. It can even help with speaker and room issues in the home listening environment. The vinyl mastering process plays a role, as it typically involves moderate dynamic compression (more 'inner life'), treble attenuation (less 'listener fatigue', less 'harshness'), and in the lower registers a combination of conversion to mono and peak limiting (less room boom, 'better' subjective bass if the room issues have not been managed well). Expensive vinyl playback gear is the finishing touch in the 'vinyl treatment' as it applies a smooth warm layer of distortion or 'harmonics' over the signal in the groove, further reducing listener fatigue and hiding nasties. It's like a security blanket.

The way forward, for audiophiles who are going round and round in the vinyl 'groove' and can't see a way out other than dreaming of yet-to-arrive digital formats, involves a little reversing to find the right turnoff they missed:

1. Find some outstandingly well produced digital source material.

2. Commit to rebuilding the playback system around that source.

3. Prepare psychologically for high-end audio life without that sonic security blanket. Take comfort that it will still be there to cuddle and enjoy, and often, but we are not going to build our system around it any more than we would build our homes around our mothers (gulp!).

4. Consider the possibility of changing loudspeakers, particularly if they have evolved through a process of careful voicing with LP as the primary source. Probably move to the second listening room any speakers that are 'classics' from a bygone era. Reputations need to be let go of, as these speakers probably have issues that are bound to sound better behind a security blanket. Choice of speakers is another topic, OT for this thread.

5. Don't just dump those (new?) top-notch speakers in the room and proceed to judge digital! There is still work to do! The power, extension and dynamics of a top digital production at decent volume levels is going to test the mettle of the speaker and room as an interactive system, and any deficiencies will be outed. Use a measurement system and sort it out. "Ooh, yuk", I hear half the audiophiles saying, "can't I just do it by ear? My ever so cultured and infinitely subtle ear?". The answer is no; you can tune by ear later, but do this bit first as an essential. (And it's another topic too OT for this thread).

6. Make sure you have sufficient adjustability in your signal path to sort out issues identified in step 5. Adjust the room treatment and layout first, but then have *some* means of adjusting the sound electronically. Let go of any myths previously believed on this topic. Fail this step and we will NOT have good digital sound. It is a demanding medium.

7. Electronically adjust the bass level below 200Hz to taste: this varies a lot between individuals. Other frequencies not so much.

OK, now we are ready to *start* appreciating digital. There are still going to be a lot of awful productions out there, including some of our favourite music: there is no security blanket with this approach. And remember that many performances may be super performances of music we love but the performers' composite live *sound* may be not to our liking even when we are listening to it live.

Finally, even if we do all the above and successfully, keep the vinyl going! It is super cool, ultra-hobby-friendly, and in far too many instances the vinyl-playback production is simply superior to the often-incompetent digital-playback production.

#83 Orpheus

Orpheus

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 3,261 posts
  • Country: AU
  • State: NSW

Posted 15 November 2011 - 03:55 PM

Gee wiz Orpheus, it is far from 'inexplicable' for someone to prefer digital, given that it is far more accurate. :party :)

To dislike digital is to dislike master tapes, which *is* explicable given how badly they are often made.

Now, going vinyl can help here by smoothing over some of the studio production nasties in a pleasant way. It can even help with speaker and room issues in the home listening environment. The vinyl mastering process plays a role, as it typically involves moderate dynamic compression (more 'inner life'), treble attenuation (less 'listener fatigue', less 'harshness'), and in the lower registers a combination of conversion to mono and peak limiting (less room boom, 'better' subjective bass if the room issues have not been managed well). Expensive vinyl playback gear is the finishing touch in the 'vinyl treatment' as it applies a smooth warm layer of distortion or 'harmonics' over the signal in the groove, further reducing listener fatigue and hiding nasties. It's like a security blanket.

The way forward, for audiophiles who are going round and round in the vinyl 'groove' and can't see a way out other than dreaming of yet-to-arrive digital formats, involves a little reversing to find the right turnoff they missed:

1. Find some outstandingly well produced digital source material.

2. Commit to rebuilding the playback system around that source.

3. Prepare psychologically for high-end audio life without that sonic security blanket. Take comfort that it will still be there to cuddle and enjoy, and often, but we are not going to build our system around it any more than we would build our homes around our mothers (gulp!).

4. Consider the possibility of changing loudspeakers, particularly if they have evolved through a process of careful voicing with LP as the primary source. Probably move to the second listening room any speakers that are 'classics' from a bygone era. Reputations need to be let go of, as these speakers probably have issues that are bound to sound better behind a security blanket. Choice of speakers is another topic, OT for this thread.

5. Don't just dump those (new?) top-notch speakers in the room and proceed to judge digital! There is still work to do! The power, extension and dynamics of a top digital production at decent volume levels is going to test the mettle of the speaker and room as an interactive system, and any deficiencies will be outed. Use a measurement system and sort it out. "Ooh, yuk", I hear half the audiophiles saying, "can't I just do it by ear? My ever so cultured and infinitely subtle ear?". The answer is no; you can tune by ear later, but do this bit first as an essential. (And it's another topic too OT for this thread).

6. Make sure you have sufficient adjustability in your signal path to sort out issues identified in step 5. Adjust the room treatment and layout first, but then have *some* means of adjusting the sound electronically. Let go of any myths previously believed on this topic. Fail this step and we will NOT have good digital sound. It is a demanding medium.

7. Electronically adjust the bass level below 200Hz to taste: this varies a lot between individuals. Other frequencies not so much.

OK, now we are ready to *start* appreciating digital. There are still going to be a lot of awful productions out there, including some of our favourite music: there is no security blanket with this approach. And remember that many performances may be super performances of music we love but the performers' composite live *sound* may be not to our liking even when we are listening to it live.

Finally, even if we do all the above and successfully, keep the vinyl going! It is super cool, ultra-hobby-friendly, and in far too many instances the vinyl-playback production is simply superior to the often-incompetent digital-playback production.


Well I have both digital and analogue, and I have done my best to get the best out of both of them.

I've had a number of speakers over the years. I am a recent convert to vinyl, having had poor experiences with inferior turntables and cartridges. I'd always given up in the past.

I "voiced" my system first with the classic dCS stack (Verdi/Elgar), and finally with the dCS Puccini and uClock. If you don't know them, look them up. They are a good, very "honest" digital source.

I have stereo subs which are well integrated, and controlled by a Crown amp.

I see the reference to "classics from a bygone era", which no doubt is a reference to the ESL57s. I've heard a lot of speakers, and stacked Quads with subs are pretty hard to beat for the music I listen to.

I have some very good digital recordings, and I happily listen to just about anything if it is music I want to hear.

Ultimately, the turntable brings me closer to the music.

I have heard many systems set up fully in the way you are suggesting, by measurements. They measure magnificently. They don't sound very good to me, which is, after all, what I am interested in.

I don't accept that what I like in vinyl is unwarranted harmonics or "distortion". It is micro-detail, I'm afraid, Arg, it is the precise measurement of rate of decay, it is more convincing timbre, it is space and time.

Sorry, I do trust my ears. Until I heard a good enough turntable, I was essentially against them, because of pitch instability, and distortion. I am not influenced by "myths".

Edited by Orpheus, 15 November 2011 - 03:59 PM.


#84 Steve M

Steve M

    Member

  • Members
  • 913 posts
  • State: WA

Posted 15 November 2011 - 05:08 PM

Both parties well said, there's a convergence of thought somewhere there I reckon? The ESL-57 is not an anachronism, they have a rapier like sharpness of attack with the things they are good at and common to all stats, compared to the cave man club approach of some so-called highly engineered 'boxes'. Agree with Arg on the need for adjustability of bass, allows for individual taste and rooms and has an effect on the balance across the full spectrum of sound.
Blog site: http://stevem1960.blogspot.com.au/

Every story has three sides to it - yours, mine and the facts.

#85 Monkeyboi

Monkeyboi

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,878 posts
  • Country: AU
  • State: WA

Posted 15 November 2011 - 05:22 PM

Upsampling a CD to high resolution won't make any difference, it is like taking a 20 megapixel picture of a chess board, you still end up with an 8x8 image. Detail lost is detail lost.

Agreed. However upsampling to a higher frequency has the potential to simplify the filter design and minimise (but not eliminate) some distortion especially in the higher frequencies.

What does 24bit/96kHz mean. The khz is the frequency of the sampling done, how many times a second you take the analogue sound and take a sample at one point in time to be remembered as a part of the digital recording, the higher khz the better. The bit number is how detailed the number is, 16 bit means the voltage is remembered as a number between 0 and 65,000 whereas 24 bit is 50% more detailed, the sound is remembered as a number between 0 and 16,000,000.

More steps but not smaller step sizes which would have lead to lower quantising distortion and potentially less loss of detail (micro dynamics). To maintain compatibility with existing 16 bit technology, 24 bit DACs use the same step size just at 24 bit level there are a lot more of them.
In practice, 21 bits would be enough with current levels of technology as the noise floor in the ADC and DAC electronics rarely exceeds a signal to noise ratio of 124dB which is pretty much the limit of human hearing anyway.
24 bit comes into its own during the recording and digital mixing phases where the wider dynamic range capability makes it easier to record music with a wide dynamic range with a diminished possibilty of overloading the encoder (assuming a competent engineer at the controls). In the playback arena, dithering higher bit depth recordings down to 16 bits will in most cases not significantly impact on playback quality. Higher bit depths (e.g. 24 bit) don't require dithering to reduce quantising distortion in the lower levels.

Cheers,
Alan R.

Amplification: ME-850HC power amp, Sony STR-DA5600ES receiver, Sony TA-P9000ES pre-amp, Sony TA-N9000ES x2 power amps, Sony TA-E9000ES pre-pro, custom analogue buffer / switch, custom RIAA pre-amp.  Sources (digital): Sony SCD-XA5400ES SACD player, Sony MDS-JA3ES minidisc deck, Tascam DA20 Mk2 DAT deck, Philips DCC900 Digital Compack Cassette deck, Sony BDP-S370 Blu-ray player, Sony PS3 slim, Pioneer DV-S838A DVD-Audio player.  Sources (analogue): Technics SL1200 GLD turntable, Tascam 42B reel to reel, Sony TC-K570 cassette deck.  Speakers: Quad ESL2905 (fronts), KEF Q75 (rears), Richter Odin (sub) & Unicorn (centre). DACs: CEC DX-71 Mk2, Emotiva XDA1.  Cartridges: Shure V15 type 3 (MR stylus), Shure V15VxMR.  Misc: dbx 119, Aurex AD-2 noise reduction system, Sony SQD2010 SQ/QS quad decoder, JVC 4DD5 and Pioneer QD-240 CD4 demodulators, VPI record cleaning machine.
Computer room system: Sony STR-DA5200ES receiver, Boston Acoustics CR9 speakers, Technics SL1200 (original version from the 70s)
Semi retired gear: Equinox Audio Jupiters, Sony SCD-XA333ES SACD player, Philips DCC130 portable Digital Compact Cassette player, Sharp Minidisc portable, 250W + 250W monoblock power amps.
Retired gear in storage: Sansui AU-417, Sansui TU-417, Richter Wizards, KEF Concerto x2 pairs, Sony ST-JX741 tuner, Sony CDP-338ESD CD player, Yamaha CA700 integrated amp,Tascam analogue mixing desk and a lot more other stuff than I care to list (mainly video) 


#86 LogicprObe

LogicprObe

    I SHOULD HAVE BEEN BANNED A LONG TIME AGO...

  • Members
  • 8,873 posts
  • Country: AU
  • State: NSW

Posted 15 November 2011 - 08:04 PM

Although, just to confuse the issue........of the 16 bits on CD audio, only 8 bits are for music. (by memory. Don't crucify me if I'm wrong)
Give me ambiguity or give me something else.

#87 kajak12

kajak12

    ENJOY YOUR JOURNEY

  • Members
  • 4,202 posts
  • Country: AU
  • State: WA

Posted 15 November 2011 - 09:13 PM

1. Find some outstandingly well produced digital source material

Got any suggestions always looking for outstanding digital source material?

“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
-David Rockefeller, “Memoirs of David Rockefeller” 


#88 JA

JA

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 3,962 posts

Posted 15 November 2011 - 09:32 PM

Got any suggestions always looking for outstanding digital source material?


You could try recording your own from a live performance. That way you know what it should sound like.

Best
JA
The GFC was nothing compared to what we will see in the next 1-2 years....
Eliminate debt, Cash up, maybe even gold/silver-up and hunker down.
Sell high, buy low.

Evidence and knowledge is out there.... Let discovery be your reward
Have Fun
JA

Nessun Dorma @ 12yoPosted Image

#89 LogicprObe

LogicprObe

    I SHOULD HAVE BEEN BANNED A LONG TIME AGO...

  • Members
  • 8,873 posts
  • Country: AU
  • State: NSW

Posted 15 November 2011 - 09:48 PM

You could try recording your own from a live performance. That way you know what it should sound like.

Best
JA


....and this little baby is the easiest and most cost effective way to do it!

http://www.ebay.com....984.m1438.l2649

Posted Image
Give me ambiguity or give me something else.

#90 warrengday

warrengday

    Member

  • Members
  • 408 posts
  • Country: AU
  • State: VIC

Posted 15 November 2011 - 10:10 PM

of the 16 bits on CD audio, only 8 bits are for music. (by memory. Don't crucify me if I'm wrong)


This is wrong.