jazznut said
I think individual comparisons with certain recordings can easily be done and they sometimes show such obvious audible quality differences, that I doubt, there wouldn't be an agreement of open minded fans of either concept, which sounds better.
This may be true, but we will rarely (ever?) be comparing apples to apples. As I menti9oned, even if the mastered file producing the digital and vinyl release is the same, the vinyl will re-EQ'd and more. At that point, you are not comparing only mediums but also final sound manipulatins.
There is no question some vinyl sounds better than the same album on Redbook; Redbook, some better than SACD, etc. This is because the quality of what goes on the final medium varies tremendously, even when it is the “same” album.
And I can easily understand people wondering why someone should spend much money on a still imperfect sampling process as for vinyl playback . . .
Both digital and vinyl remain "imperfect." I hope this is always true and we can continue to make improvements.
I'm wondering why people still spend good money for physical digital media drives, which are totally avoidable in today's even more convenient streaming era (for pure sound reasons).
Because streaming is a pain, it takes much longer to find what I would like to play, and often does not have what I am interested in. It appears to be a different experience if you listen to pop; there is only one version of Hotel California, a hundred plus of The Four Seasons. dozens of The Goldberg Variations, over thirty of Mozart's Requiem (I have them).
This discussion reminds me of Michael Fremer’s reports of playing inexpensive recordings of his state-of-the-art analog system for others at audio shows. He states people were delighted with the sound and often opined they sound better than the commercial CD of the same recording. He made these CDs with either an inexpensive Alesis Masterlink or Tascam digital deck - very modest equipment.
This means two things:
Digital can easily capture that which is “magic” in vinyl sound. Even a mainstream $1,000 all purpose ADAC will do the job.
Either the changes made by the cutting engineer or the playback of vinyl itself is euphoric to many.
Jazznut said:
I'm wondering why people still spend good money for physical digital media drives, which are totally avoidable in today's even more convenient streaming era (for pure sound reasons).
Because streaming is a pain, it takes much longer to find what I would like to play, and often does not have what I am interested in. It appears to be a different experience if you listen to pop; there is only one version of Hotel California, a hundred plus of The Four Seasons. dozens of The Goldberg Variations, over thirty of Mozart's Requiem (I have them).
But you could easily buy the disc media and rip it with your PC, so you still don't need an expensive high end drive and have access to all music.
So for me the only reason to have a drive seems to be a love for physical media and/or the reluctance to rip the existing or newly bought discs.
Elk said
This discussion reminds me of Michael Fremer's reports of playing inexpensive recordings of his state-of-the-art analog system for others at audio shows. He states people were delighted with the sound and often opined they sound better than the commercial CD of the same recording. He made these CDs with either an inexpensive Alesis Masterlink or Tascam digital deck - very modest equipment.
This means two things:
Digital can easily capture that which is “magic” in vinyl sound. Even a mainstream $1,000 all purpose ADAC will do the job.
Either the changes made by the cutting engineer or the playback of vinyl itself is euphoric to many.
1) IMO yes and probably also no:
I think you can really get quite what’s on vinyl when recording a needledrop in hires and play it back with the DS.
Fremer experiment: I think the fact that these people liked needledrops better than original CD’s on the one hand proves, that something they like better was transported (possibly mainly tonality aspects as redbooknstandard and limited transfer equipment was used), it doesn’t prove, that all that vinyl offers was transported, because they didn’t make the comparison backwards.
I personally don’t think, all that vinyl offers can be captured by redbook. But let’s assume it can be captured by hires and played back by the DS.
It still means, digital can capture vinyl sound but it can’t produce it. You would need a kind of DSP setting that artificially produces exactly all these effects, which up to now no one really fully understands afaik (especially those extending some quality aspects and not only influencing tonality). I wouldn’t have the patience to experiment with plugins to achieve this, guess it’s not possible.
Means: the ability to reproduce vinyl sound doesn’t help the digital concept (for those who like it) as long as it can’t produce it itself, because for a “better sounding” needle drop one still needs a vinyl setup.
agreed. Not proven for me by this special Fremer experiment, but agreed generally.
It still means, digital can capture vinyl sound but it can’t produce it.
Sorry, I don't think that is proven by the experiment, or experience either. My guess is that maybe you haven't listened to some of Cookie Marenco's productions, but maybe you have. I think all we are proving is that this is a highly subjective issue, and while vinyl may be truth for you, it is not necessarily truth for another. Paul has mentioned more than once, and I think credibly, that comparing digital vs. vinyl in the abstract is [my words] a near-fruitless exercise. Not all vinyl is recorded or produced the same, not all turntables are the same, not all cartridges, etc. Substitute the right words, and you can say the same about digital. I have people listen to my system at home, and some [but not all] have said: "now I know why you don't listen to records." But that is only their perception. Nothing more. Maybe if they heard your vinyl, they might change their mind. Who knows?
Vinyl may be very euphonic, and maybe even euphoric [not the same word] to some. But not necessarily to everyone.
I maybe have to clarify a few things to avoid misunderstanding:
that I wrote “digital can capture vinyl sound but can’t produce it” was no conclusion out of the Fremer experiment that ELK mentioned. It was my statement, which I believe is true. It is also true IMO that the Yarlung recordings are fantastic, I know them and just mentioned them in another thread here.
the fact that a Yarlung recording let’s say sounds as good as what you understood by my vinyl description doesn’t IMO mean that digital can produce the sound vinyl does by it’s various “shortcomings”. How and why should it?
Vinyl is not “truth” for me. Most of really good and the best recordings, but not all sound more or less preferable to me, and only! with a vinyl setup (without phono stage) of 3-4 times the budget of a DS. Worth buying as vinyl. And what’s possibly a bit arrogant, sorry, is that I’m quite sure, a majority of open minded people would hear the same under these conditions, not as a matter of taste. And these conditions include the necessity, that the whole setup is not especially voiced to one of the sources. So you see I’m far from preferring vinyl generally independent of supporting recordings or gear.
That vinyl is not for everyone is absolutely clear for me, although I doubt, many of those who speak against it, ever made serious comparisons under such conditions. I think most (digiphobes and vinylphobes) made unfair comparisons within the same setup or heard the other in a different setup. I think most made comparisons under conditions, I’d prefer the same as they did. I think many prefer the one or other for more general reasons and characteristics than comparing individual recordings individually.
IMO the fact that we compare apples to oranges in terms of technology and concept doesn’t mean we can’t compare their resulting sound. I never understood that. We also compare the sound of tube with solid state or hybrid amps, of planar speakers with horns (i.e. on HiFi shows), the picture of LED with plasma TV’s, the motors of petrol with diesel cars etc. So why the heck not the sound of digital to vinyl? Just because there’s something positive in both one can’t fully improve in the other?
Jazznut said:
I'm wondering why people still spend good money for physical digital media drives, which are totally avoidable in today's even more convenient streaming era (for pure sound reasons).
ELK said:
Because streaming is a pain, it takes much longer to find what I would like to play, and often does not have what I am interested in. It appears to be a different experience if you listen to pop; there is only one version of Hotel California, a hundred plus of The Four Seasons. dozens of The Goldberg Variations, over thirty of Mozart’s Requiem (I have them).
Jazznut said:
But you could easily buy the disc media and rip it with your PC, so you still don’t need an expensive high end drive and have access to all music.
Sure, but this is not streaming. You are then using a "physical digital media drive" to rip, and another "physical digital media drive" to store the ripped files.
I do not see this as a problem, just one of many ways of storing and playing back music.
I personally don’t think, all that vinyl offers can be captured by redbook. But let’s assume it can be captured by hires and played back by the DS.
I don’t know, but Redbook has more than enough S/N, dynamic range and frequency response to do so. I have heard some very nice needle drops on Redbook.
It still means, digital can capture vinyl sound but it can't produce it. You would need a kind of DSP setting that artificially produces exactly all these effects . . .
There are a number of tape, tube and vinyl plug-ins which produce many impressive effects. Depending on what a particularly listener hears as "vinyl" it probably can be reproduced as long as they can identify what it is they like. There are additionally compression tools which allow one to both compress the bass end and move it to the center as required when cutting vinyl with heavy bass content, etc.
As another Fremer example, his website is replete with many comparison tests of phono pres, etc. all recorded and presented on digital recordings which his denizens download, discuss, and vote on. One can easily hear that they were produced by different vinyl setups.
Sure, but this is not streaming. You are then using a "physical digital media drive" to rip, and another "physical digital media drive" to store the ripped files.
I do not see this as a problem, just one of many ways of storing and playing back music.
ah, my mistake, I meant playback from harddrive instead of expensive physical media drive (no matter if a cheap CD/DVD/SACD drive was used for ripping before)
jazznut said
ah, my mistake, I meant playback from harddrive instead of expensive physical media drive (no matter if a cheap CD/DVD/SACD drive was used for ripping before)
I think many like the process of opening a jewel case, reading the booklet, etc. when loading a CD into a nice transport. It is the digital equivalent of enjoying putting a record on a turntable.
I personally don’t think, all that vinyl offers can be captured by redbook. But let’s assume it can be captured by hires and played back by the DS.
I don’t know, but Redbook has more than enough S/N, dynamic range and frequency response to do so. I have heard some very nice needle drops on Redbook.
It still means, digital can capture vinyl sound but it can't produce it. You would need a kind of DSP setting that artificially produces exactly all these effects . . .
There are a number of tape, tube and vinyl plug-ins which produce many impressive effects. Depending on what a particularly listener hears as “vinyl” it probably can be reproduced as long as they can identify what it is they like. There are additionally compression tools which allow one to both compress the bass end and move it to the center as required when cutting vinyl with heavy bass content, etc.
As another Fremer example, his website is replete with many comparison tests of phono pres, etc. all recorded and presented on digital recordings which his denizens download, discuss, and vote on. One can easily hear that they were produced by different vinyl setups.
I don’t doubt redbook has enough dynamic range, I just think among others, that it’s limitation of frequency extension over the audible range alone sets it apart from hires and vinyl.
Many vinyl aspects it can transport, I’m sure… certainly enough to be able to recognize one player from the other an to hear tonality aspects etc. But I doubt redbook can capture all that makes highest quality vinyl sound.
jazznut said
ah, my mistake, I meant playback from harddrive instead of expensive physical media drive (no matter if a cheap CD/DVD/SACD drive was used for ripping before)
I think many like the process of opening a jewel case, reading the booklet, etc. when loading a CD into a nice transport. It is the digital equivalent of enjoying putting a record on a turntable.
Sure, I understand this. As much as I like this with LP’s, it’s just in case of a CD case and booklet the convenience of a NAS library and 6000$ saved for a proper physical drive overrules it here.
jazznut said
Sure, I understand this. As much as I like this with LP's, it's just in case of a CD case and booklet the convenience of a NAS library and 6000$ saved for a proper physical drive overrules it here.
Perhaps for you. Others may disagree, and often do. :)
Keep in mind many report the DMP sounds better as well.
I don’t doubt redbook has enough dynamic range, I just think among others, that it’s limitation of frequency extension over the audible range alone sets it apart from hires and vinyl.
Redbook more than covers the audible frequency range. And does so vastly more accurately than vinyl.
The frequency response of LP is roughly +/- 3dB over 20Hz top 20kHz, is limited on the low end by severe tracking limitations (the cartridge will leap out of the groove at anything approaching a fullscale 20Hz tone), and the many cartridges exhibit resonant peaks as a result of preamp loading, etc.
Redbook on the other hand easily reproduces higher and lower than 20Hz to 20kHz, perfectly flat.
It may be this inaccuracy is an aspect of vinyl some listeners find compelling.
So far I thought what I cut from Wikipedia is true, while this is not the limitation of hires and vinyl:
“An audio CD can represent frequencies up to 22.05 kHz, the Nyquist frequency of the 44.1 kHz sample rate.T he selection of the sample rate was based primarily on the need to reproduce the audible frequency range of 20–20,000 Hz (20 kHz)”
But enough for today, that’s not my comfort zone I stopped argumenting against the superiority of CD over vinyl long ago
I do not understand the point. Vinyl is inaccurate within the audible frequency range of 20Hz to 20kHz by roughly +/- 3dB, from input to the cutting head through playback. Digital is vastly superior in this respect. And many of the LPs touted as having spectacular sound were made from analog tape in the '50’s and '60’s which rarely exceeds 20kHz.
Additionally, we play the sound back on speakers that have even less accurate frequency response, limited transient response, phase issues, in-room issues, etc. Yet the different sound of an LP is apparent. Accordingly, any magical difference in LP sound is not a result of superior frequency response, transient response, etc.
What is clear is that vinyl imposes a sound on the original recording. The vast majority of LPs are made from a digital master. If you listen to the CD or SACD, you listen directly to the file released by the mastering engineer: it is bit perfect and sounds as good as your equipment. The LP, on the other hand, will sound different from the original sound even if the cutting engineer made no changes to EQ, compression, etc. and just put the mastered file on the LP.
Thus, LP changes the sound of the master and imposes its own sound. Some like this, others do not.
Elk said
Thus, LP changes the sound of the master and imposes its own sound. Some like this, others do not.
That’s it in a nutshell. Wonderful that we have all these choices.
I agree based on my own thought without any practical experience (don’t know if you both have any relevant comparing vinyl/SACD with masters).
But I t’s interesting that Mastering Guru Steve Hoffman stated in a posting I pasted somewhere else here, that during his vinyl / SACD mastering process, they made possibly the first and only ever careful comparison of the results and it was exactly the opposite. He said vinyl sounded closer to the master.
I have tremendous respect and appreciation for Hoffman [and own a bunch of discs mastered by him], but I don’t think that what he said is the opposite of what Elk wrote. Those are not inconsistent conclusions, especially when one considers what the master engineer does.
P.S. One of my favorite box sets is the Absolute Originals Creedence Clearwater Revival SACD set. I remember when I first played them how much they reminded me of when I played Creedence as a teenager on my vinyl stereo. The clarity of the memory was wonderful, but I have no doubt that the Garrard, BIC and Dual turntables and whatever cartridges were in them, plus the Dynaco electronics, and JBL and Advent loudspeakers, could not hold a candle to the system I have now. And I would not be surprised if something vinyl somehow sounded more “euphonically” similar to those old masters and my old equipment, much like an all-tube amp might sound more like my Dyna 70 than the BHK mono block does. And someone might prefer them on vinyl, and Hoffman might well think that on vinyl they sound more like the master tapes. I think that is actually Elk’s point.
But I have a very high confidence factor that the digital system I have [feeding analog electronics and electromechanical speakers] is revealing that recording far more accurately and completely than the vinyl system.
I stopped argumenting against the superiority of CD over vinyl long ago