The problem with digital is the conversion of the signal from analog to digital and back again. If the process of converting back and forth you introduce noise and distortion in the process whereas analog is analog, no conversion, just reproduce the original analog perfectly as you can and you would be fine.
Of course the quality of the equipment you use to master and do the conversion matters, as well as the quality of the equipment use to reproduce the signal is also critical otherwise why are we spending so much of our hard earn dollars on paying for the components if they all sound the same.
Of course, with the exception of audiophile record labels, most recording are made in the digital format these days, even ones that end up on vinyl.
1 Like
Yes, very true. I still wonder if thereās such a thing as good noise in audio? And if all noise were removed from a digital recording, would it sound really good, or would it be unnatural? What part, if any, does noise play in terms of making music sound organic?
Low level random background noise is meant to one of the things that brings subjective enjoyment to vinyl. I canāt find the reference but there was a paper done on that topic. Perhaps the limited channel separation creates a euphonic effect.
I love that analogy!
1 Like
My theory:
Vinyl reproduces fundamentals properly. Even in the old āboom and sizzleā days of midfi audio, the fundamentals from vinyl were always present ā the better your equipment, the better your fundamental reproduction.
I remember going into a audio store back when there were many, and thinking I was listening to a live performance of a solo sax. What I was in fact listening to was a small bookshelf system ā no extended bass or treble. What the system got perfectly: fundamentals.
What makes Windom so special IMHO is the restoration of fundamentals ā something that we all have become accustomed to NOT hearing with digital reproduction: we get sparkling highs, remarkable bass, but no fundamentals; that is, we hear overtones and undertones of fundamental notes but always a recessed fundamental, which is where all the power and excitement in music resides.
Again, me theory.
2 Likes
IMO quite the same measures improve digital and vinyl. Lower noise (inspite of vinyl having a much higher noise level generally), better channel separation etc.
IMO vinyl is not good because of its limitations (except maybe that some good distortion contributes), but mainly inspite of those limitations. I guess the secret lies in the different processes of producing its media and the different weaknesses it has within the playback process (which , although they are more obvious, somehow seem to often have a less harmful effect than the remaining weaknesses of digital, especially those existing before major anti jitter measures were applied)
2 Likes
I enjoy the term technostalgia used in the article to describe the nostalgic appeal of technology of oneās own past.
The arguments of vinyl v. digital are precisely the same as automatic v. manual transmissions in cars. Despite the fact modern automatics are demonstrably quicker and more efficient than manual shifting, manual adherents continue to argue shifting on oneās own is better.
Vinyl is inherently noisier than digital and has less dynamic range. There are additionally limitations in bass reproduction (volume, placement within the stereo image, etc.). Like tape, there is a degree of dynamic compression which occurs naturally. All of this, and other factors, lead to a sound some find highly pleasing. Others hear the limitations.
I find intriguing the repeated posts that the quieter the DSD gets the more it sounds like vinyl. I find each firmware update sounds better than the last, but it does not sound more like vinyl.
There is no good or bad in this regard. We should all listen to that we find most compelling. And a good number of us listen to both.
2 Likes
Maybe more like master tape?
No, more like what was placed on the CD.
Very little of what most of us listen to was ever on tape.
I suggest we not get bogged down in yet another vinyl v. digital discussion here. There are many threads on this topic, this one probably the best: click.
I think you put your finger on it, Mark. The more I read through the follow on responses the more it got me thinking about what I posted above. Your post got me to thinking about the many times Iāve heard master tape copies at Harry Weisfeldās. That I think is a closer analogy to where the DS sound has been going. I think also Ted put his finger on where some of the difference is - vinyl (and tape), for whatever noise each may have, is different from noise generated by jitter and sampling non-linearities. Maybe itās just best left as (IMO) Windom continuing the path to sounding more analog-like.
1 Like
We must be careful with definitionsā¦a master usually is a work part, it still has to be mastered (unless itās suitable for a flat transfer). It may sound less affected from following production processes, but not always what youād like to hear on your setup.
So if something āsounds like the masterā, this mostly isnāt a pure advantage and mostly not a suitable goal 
But itās common hifi press jargon and therefore adopted everywhere.
Youāre differentiating between a Mix Master and a final Stereo or Mono Master? Confused.
Interesting video from Paulā¦Live vs. analog.
I better refer to this (other than the small picture implies, itās a short post about that matter from SH):
Just to bolster my point, those of you with access to a R2R recorder/player, play a R2R tape! The audible difference between a factory prerecorded tape and digital is stark ā fundamental tones galore!!
Tape has its own problems, but fundamental reproduction is not one of them.
Right. Always been a PITA, as it is easy to confuse the Mix Master and the, uhā¦Mastered Master. Wish there was an entirely different name.
I fully agree with this. The goal for a recording shouldnāt be to sound like analog and even less like vinyl, but like live.
Digital should sound as much like analog as vinyl should sound like digitalā¦namely in the otherās strengths it didnāt reach yet.
I think we only cite a limited technology as reference because thereās nothing else yet really existing, that betters it in the certain aspects we refer to. We seem to take something approachable and imaginable as reference instead of taking the real goal (maybe because we know that this is too far to be reached).
1 Like
Re: your last paragraph - I am SO glad soundmind doesnāt post in the Forumsā¦
1 Like
Know what you mean
For my partā¦we had it recentlyā¦I try to get my vinyl playback as near to digitalās strengths as my digital playback to analogās. Both aim for live sound finally.