HQP vs. Vinyl Reassessment

[zackthedog]

'Vinyl Lovers' what are you going on about. Are you saying because the guy prefers the vinyl version of Mingus his hearing is somewhat skewed to prefer viny? What utter rubbish! He prefers it because it SOUNDS BETTER, the reason is, as others have said, the analog to digital mastering probably wasn't great on this album.

 

I don't think that's what he's saying at all. I think you're being over-sensitive. :-). The fact is that there are artifacts in analogue playback that sometimes make it more pleasant to the ear. That doesn't mean that digitaL playback is necessarily inferior.

[firedog]

'Vinyl Lovers' what are you going on about. Are you saying because the guy prefers the vinyl version of Mingus his hearing is somewhat skewed to prefer viny? What utter rubbish! He prefers it because it SOUNDS BETTER, the reason is, as others have said, the analog to digital mastering probably wasn't great on this album.

 

Forgetting your nasty tone, my answer is this: there are people who pretty much always prefer the sound of vinyl. Vinyl has a "sound", just like tape has a "sound". That's why you can put a digital master on vinyl and many people will prefer it. The vinyl imparts a sound that they like - it's something that isn't there in the digital file, it's part of the playback medium itself. I'm not referring with this to any specific album, but to vinyl in general.

 

People who like vinyl think that "sounds better". "Sounds better" is a subjective term. There are other people who generally prefer the sound of digital playback, because they think it "sounds better" than vinyl or tape playback. Have them do the same comparison of digital playback of a digital master vs cutting that same master to vinyl and playing it back - and they will usually prefer the digital playback.

 

There isn't a right or wrong answer to this - some people like the sound of vinyl better, others digital. It is a question of personal taste, not a question of someone having "skewed" hearing. In playback what one person thinks sounds harsh or unnaturally detailed, another thinks sounds natural and accurate. That can happen in different formats, or with the same item being played back over two different pieces of equipment. That's diferent personal taste. It doesn't mean one person is right and another wrong. It's just the way it is.

 

Specifically, I have two very good sounding digital versions of the Mingus album - one mastered to DSD - that I prefer to my vinyl version - and my vinyl version is relatively old and predates digital masters for vinyl. I like the sound of vinyl, but I tend to prefer the sound of digital. Others would probably hear the same versions on my equipment and disagree.

[davide256]

I've been really pleased with HQP/Roon esp now that it works well. More so of well recorded albums..pcm to dsd and dsd to 256dsd conversions. I was listening to Mingus, Mingus, Mingus dsd64 to 256 yesterday and found it wanting. I haven't listened to vinyl for awhile so though it'd be an interesting "where am I now evaluation".

 

My vinyl setup is ok: Nottingham Spacedeck with Rega arm and a Lyra Dorian cartridge to my weak link, a Music Hall PH-1 preamp to Emotiva XMC-1 out. Listened to the Mingus album, and to my disappointment, the vinyl rig is so much more musical...instruments sounding like real instruments and a really good transparent sound. The 256dsd file sounded flat and dull, though prob. with a wider dynamic range, in comparison.

 

I just wasn't expecting this given the money and time I've spent trying to learn CA, and implementing a sound digital system. Perhaps it's the iFi Micro that's the weak link. No idea. But overall, I'm disappointed...

 

Having tried and compared the iFi Micro, I can tell you that its not going to compete with good analog playback... you need to up the ante on your DAC solution. Exasound, Chord and Schitt multibit DAC's seem to be the latest favorites. You will also likely have to upgrade the mini's power supply solution if you want to stay that route vs use purpose built audio gear.

[Rexp]

Forgetting your nasty tone, my answer is this: there are people who pretty much always prefer the sound of vinyl. Vinyl has a "sound", just like tape has a "sound". That's why you can put a digital master on vinyl and many people will prefer it. The vinyl imparts a sound that they like - it's something that isn't there in the digital file, it's part of the playback medium itself. I'm not referring with this to any specific album, but to vinyl in general.

 

People who like vinyl think that "sounds better". "Sounds better" is a subjective term. There are other people who generally prefer the sound of digital playback, because they think it "sounds better" than vinyl or tape playback. Have them do the same comparison of digital playback of a digital master vs cutting that same master to vinyl and playing it back - and they will usually prefer the digital playback.

 

There isn't a right or wrong answer to this - some people like the sound of vinyl better, others digital. It is a question of personal taste, not a question of someone having "skewed" hearing. In playback what one person thinks sounds harsh or unnaturally detailed, another thinks sounds natural and accurate. That can happen in different formats, or with the same item being played back over two different pieces of equipment. That's diferent personal taste. It doesn't mean one person is right and another wrong. It's just the way it is.

 

Specifically, I have two very good sounding digital versions of the Mingus album - one mastered to DSD - that I prefer to my vinyl version - and my vinyl version is relatively old and predates digital masters for vinyl. I like the sound of vinyl, but I tend to prefer the sound of digital. Others would probably hear the same versions on my equipment and disagree.

Yes my answer was a bit on the angry side, the good news is it's only your opinion and there are plenty of people on here who use both vinyl and digital and select which to play purely on which was better mastered rather than preferring one medium over another.

[blownsi]

I still think that vinyl sounds familiar to some people and that skews their opinion. I see the same with vintage receivers. There are folks that swear than a 70s Pioneer SX series is better than anything Krell/ARC/Levinson. My ears do not agree. While I do like the sound of a good vinyl setup, it takes significantly more money these days to get one to best a modest DSD DAC IMHO.

[davide256]

I still think that vinyl sounds familiar to some people and that skews their opinion. I see the same with vintage receivers. There are folks that swear than a 70s Pioneer SX series is better than anything Krell/ARC/Levinson. My ears do not agree. While I do like the sound of a good vinyl setup, it takes significantly more money these days to get one to best a modest DSD DAC IMHO.

 

That all depends on your level of "audio education". Attend a few audiophile shows, hang out at your local high end audio store a bit and you will find things change for identifying what you can live with for sound and what is too big a compromise. As for Pioneer SX series, I still curse the salesman who convinced me that was a good first audio purchase

[Forehaven]

I hear you. At the risk of stepping on toes, I'll say that I've found it awfully hard to get USB audio to sound good. My LP setup is even more modest than yours, and sometimes it trounces the daylights out of my digital setup. OTOH, I have some digital recordings that are extremely beautiful, and since there's no basis for comparison, I enjoy them on their owen terms. And I have digitized analogue albums that far surpass their old vinyl versions. And the fact is that most of the new music I listen to will *never* be on vinyl, so I've got to make the best of it I can.

 

I'm reminded of the old joke:

 

Patient (waving his arm over his head): Doctor, it hurts when I do this.

 

Doctor: Don't do that.

 

So maybe don't torment yourself by comparing music engineered for vinyl with its digitized counterpart.

 

Since my system is similar to yours, I'll be so bold as to make a few suggestions:

 

1) If you are using the CAD OSX Optimzation script on your Mac Mini, don't. Run the reverse script and see if the sound isn't warmer and more analogue-like. If so, use the more basic script from Sonic Studio, which only shuts down the most intrusive items. The CAD script makes my system sound waaaayyyy too lean and bright.

 

2) If you are sourcing your files from the Synology, try moving an album to your main SSD and play it back from there.

 

3) Try removing the Regen.

 

4) If you are not using an NAA, try a Cubox (or better, if you like) with HQ Player. It's so much quieter and sweeter. I can't go back to running my DAC directly off the Mini after this. Too much noise and grit.

 

Hope this helps. :-)

 

Zach, Thanks for the suggestions, I really appreciate it. Already using SS optimiz. app, but will certainly try the others. I've been closely following Sonore's Microrendurer, I just found out what it actually does just the other day lol So I'll def. give Sonore's a try if it's not too spendy, otherwise I'll get a Cubox. And good suggestion for using the SSD, just kind of a pain. The only other tweak I've been considering is Network isolation and better power supplies...got to save for any of these options.

 

 

Having tried and compared the iFi Micro, I can tell you that its not going to compete with good analog playback... you need to up the ante on your DAC solution. Exasound, Chord and Schitt multibit DAC's seem to be the latest favorites. You will also likely have to upgrade the mini's power supply solution if you want to stay that route vs use purpose built audio gear.

 

David, this was my first assumption, my iFi being the weak link. But, given too all the threads recently about LPS upgrades on everything it seems. As above, something I'll get too, in addition to the Network Isolation. Problem for me, $ wise, is I need/want a much better DAC and PhonoPre lol!

 

To be honest, if I had the money, I'd seriously consider a Lampizator DSD (of course I've never heard one). I do love the sound of tubes, done correctly, meaning retaining still a neutral presentation.

[firedog]

Yes my answer was a bit on the angry side, the good news is it's only your opinion and there are plenty of people on here who use both vinyl and digital and select which to play purely on which was better mastered rather than preferring one medium over another.

 

And somehow you think from anything I wrote here that I don't understand that? Try a course in reading comprehension - my posts here were carefully phrased to not talk about either side as an absolute of one being better than the other or of listeners thinking that.

[zackthedog]

Zach, Thanks for the suggestions, I really appreciate it. Already using SS optimiz. app, but will certainly try the others. I've been closely following Sonore's Microrendurer, I just found out what it actually does just the other day lol So I'll def. give Sonore's a try if it's not too spendy, otherwise I'll get a Cubox. And good suggestion for using the SSD, just kind of a pain. The only other tweak I've been considering is Network isolation and better power supplies...got to save for any of these options.

 

 

 

 

David, this was my first assumption, my iFi being the weak link. But, given too all the threads recently about LPS upgrades on everything it seems. As above, something I'll get too, in addition to the Network Isolation. Problem for me, $ wise, is I need/want a much better DAC and PhonoPre lol!

 

To be honest, if I had the money, I'd seriously consider a Lampizator DSD (of course I've never heard one). I do love the sound of tubes, done correctly, meaning retaining still a neutral presentation.

 

I'm curious about the MicroRendu as well. The Cubox was an improvement but I'm sure it has limitations. :-). I'm about to receive an iFi Nano. I doubt it will beat my Arcam irDac but I'm dead curious to hear DSD upsampling. I'll let you know what I think, if it's a downgrade or what. I'm pretty much in the same boat you are. I will say that I get some pretty satisfying sound on new classical digital recordings. And if it's any comfort, I'd rather listen to a good digital transfer than, say, and old Angel pressing. :-)

[zackthedog]

Well, the Nano is a disappointment. Very dry and compressed compared to the Arcam, which is far sweeter, more liquid and involving, as well as grander in presentation. If the Micro is only a step up from this, I'd have to agree with Dave that perhaps the iFi is not going to get you closer to analogue. If you get a chance to hear the irDac you should, it pours out a lot of music. For me, DSD will have to wait till I can afford something better. :-)

[Rexp]

And somehow you think from anything I wrote here that I don't understand that? Try a course in reading comprehension - my posts here were carefully phrased to not talk about either side as an absolute of one being better than the other or of listeners thinking that.

I think you've confused yourself, what is your answer to the OP, is it:

 

A. The reason you prefer the vinyl is you're the type to prefer vinyl.

B. The reason you prefer the vinyl is because you're vinyl rig beats your digital rig.

C. The reason you prefer the vinyl is because the mastering is better than the digital version.

D. Some other reason, please elaborate.

[davide256]

In the FWIW column I find the Aries mini very acceptable for DSD and it's probably on par with the Arcam DAC if you use an LPS. The lack of an external power supply seemed to be the main deficit of the iFi DAC's, pity they didn't have a 5v jack to see how they behaved with a better current source

[firedog]

I think you've confused yourself, what is your answer to the OP, is it:

 

A. The reason you prefer the vinyl is you're the type to prefer vinyl.

B. The reason you prefer the vinyl is because you're vinyl rig beats your digital rig.

C. The reason you prefer the vinyl is because the mastering is better than the digital version.

D. Some other reason, please elaborate.

 

Any of the 3 could be the reason on their own, or two of them together, or all 3 of them. I don't know him or his rig, or what versions of the album he compared, or him. There are people for whom A is true, even when B and C might not be true.

 

I'm certainly not confused about my ideas, I am wondering why it is such a big deal to you and why you think the "reason" has to be limited to one choice.

[orgel]

Well, the Nano is a disappointment. Very dry and compressed compared to the Arcam …

 

I'm not saying the Nano is as good as the Arcam, but if you're letting the DAC do upsampling/filtering (as opposed to doing it in software), be sure to flip the toggle on the Nano to "Minimum Phase."

 

I think you probably get the best out of the iFi DACs if you do upsamplling/filtering in software (by using HQPlayer, the iZotope stuff in Audirvana Plus, or the like).

 

--David

[Miska]

Nano can do quite OK for the price when running at DSD256. But there are obviously limitations on how much a 160€ DAC can do...

[zackthedog]

Thanks for the comments, orgel and Miska. I was running it with HQ Player/Cubox, and easily achieved upsampling to DSD128 without problems, even 265 if I kept the filter to poly -2, so in that respect it performed very well. I just can't say I liked the sound very much. I can't fault the technical performance. :-). And I didn't spend a lot of time with it, it just seemed clear to me that I'd be better off to put the money elsewhere.

 

Davide, I will look at the Aries, thanks. I really do like the Arcam, though some might find it way too "romantic". I just wish it had more upsampling options, even for PCM. The lack of 176 is kind of a pain. :-)

[realhifi]

And if it's any comfort, I'd rather listen to a good digital transfer than, say, and old Angel pressing. :-)

 

+1

[kennyb123]

And if it's any comfort, I'd rather listen to a good digital transfer than, say, and old Angel pressing. :-)

 

+ 1

 

The Angel pressings help to refute the argument that we prefer vinyl because it has pleasing qualities we enjoy. Angels can be anything but pleasing.

 

Different story for their UK equivalents on early pressings on EMI SAX or ASD.

[crenca]

I'm not saying the Nano is as good as the Arcam, but if you're letting the DAC do upsampling/filtering (as opposed to doing it in software), be sure to flip the toggle on the Nano to "Minimum Phase."

 

--David

 

Now that I think about it I am not sure where I got this idea, but I thought it was the opposite of this. If you are letting DAC do the work (playing sub 192 PCM or even DSD64) you want the toggle to be "standard", where as if you are doing software upsampling (using HQPlayer or what not) and filtering, you want the nano toggled to "minimum phase" (thereby cutting the nano's filtering to minimum).

 

Do I have it backwards?

[ajay556]

One cannot compare vinyl until one has used a keith monks (KM) record cleaner. A huge difference after cleaning with KM vs wand vacuum cleaner. YOu will fall off your chair....vinyl is far superior for the same price of a digital setup. Digital has its place for convienece of compilation and unattended listening But lets not waste time. Ferrari is better than porche...lets not argue porche is better...NObody is saying porche is bad its an amazing vehicle. Vinyl is storing actual signal vs digital is an interpretation of signal....lets get to more important thinks in life...enjoy your music

[orgel]

If you are letting DAC do the work (playing sub 192 PCM or even DSD64) you want the toggle to be "standard", where as if you are doing software upsampling (using HQPlayer or what not) and filtering, you want the nano toggled to "minimum phase" (thereby cutting the nano's filtering to minimum).

 

Do I have it backwards?

 

I reckon it's a matter of preference, but the iDSD nano (sketchy) documentation says:

 

"[W]e recommend Minimum Phase for listening; Standard for measurements."

 

--David

[davide256]

Current state of technology

 

1. Stereo vinyl is better than digital for midrange color and sophistication of detail... no fixed bit rate, D/A conversion technology limitations and 55 years of R&D improvement

2. Digital is better than vinyl for transients and low bass.. there are mechanical limitations in these areas for recording to groove and stylus playback. Love my Sheffields but digital doesn't struggle in these areas. 15 years of serious R&D improvement ( digital science pioneers between 1985 -2000 but industry ignored them)

 

I have complete faith that digital will equal vinyl in the next 10 years as it catches up on serious R&D for what it takes to correctly capture higher order harmonics of massed orchestral instruments and convert them correctly retaining the volume accuracy necessary for good stereo imaging. Hallelujah that we no longer are in the desert of digititus playback that existed before 2000

[semente]

Digital can record and playback vinyl with little to no change in sound. It therefore must be close to transparent, and can't have much of a signature of thinness, hardness, and unnaturalness. Much digital music may sound that way for other reasons, but it isn't a signature of the process. I haven't been in a position to make my own LP. I have recorded to reel and cassette tape. Each tape has a sound of its own. Digital recordings of tape sound like tape.

 

In theory, I'm sure you're correct. But in practice, "thinness, hardness, and unnaturalness", are probably the biggest complaints of digital, but not so much with analog. If its not a digital issue, then what? Its the same type of complaints over and over, from different people and different systems. For the most part, it seems like digital, for whatever reason, is prone to these sonic flaws. Just to be clear, I've heard digital that doesn't have these qualities, but its usually with expensive gear.

 

My guess is that if those flaws are not in the masters then it could be down to poor mastering, or filtering and jitter on the hardware side of things.

 

Vinyl produces colourations which are perceived as pleasing by a large number of people.

It's possible that those colourations mask some of the flaws you've mentioned or compensate for them.

 

R

[crenca]

I reckon it's a matter of preference, but the iDSD nano (sketchy) documentation says:

 

"[W]e recommend Minimum Phase for listening; Standard for measurements."

 

--David

 

Well, that is ambigous of iFI fer sur. Perhaps iFI will post a response as to what this means. In any case I tend to think you are right. Interestingly, I have had mine set to "standard" since beginning to play with HQPlayer and upsampling, even though I thought I had it set the other way...just goes to show ya...

[Rexp]

My guess is that if those flaws are not in the masters then it could be down to poor mastering, or filtering and jitter on the hardware side of things.

 

Vinyl produces colourations which are perceived as pleasing by a large number of people.

It's possible that those colourations mask some of the flaws you've mentioned or compensate for them.

 

R

The OP has stated he has some SACD's he enjoys as much as his vinyl playback so I don't think it is a hardware/medium issue, the problem is there are so many poor digital recordings and digital remasters around.