Jump to content
IGNORED

HQP vs. Vinyl Reassessment


Recommended Posts

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.

 

Yes, I have heard some very pleasing sacd's. But, given my present system limitations, the iFi Micro, I still just seem to enjoy vinyl more often.

 

I agree with Dave though, it's only a matter of time before digital will be able to record the harmonics that I find so lovely.

Ryzen 7 2700 PC Server, NUC7CJYH w. 4G Apacer RAM as Renderer/LPS 1.2 - IsoRegen/LPS-1/.2 - Singxer SU-1/LPS1.2 - Holo Spring Level 3 DAC - LTA MicroZOTL MZ2 - Modwright KWA 150 Signature Amp - Tidal Audio Piano's.  

.

Link to comment
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.

 

Why stop there?

 

Why not shut down Computer Audiophile, since you have completely and definitively determined for the rest of us that digital is far inferior, despite the numerous limitations imposed by the vinyl medium (mono bass below 100Hz, limited dynamic range equivalent to 12 bits, snap, crackle, pop, wow, flutter, coloration, distortion, etc).

 

Thanks for saving the whole website from itself!

Link to comment

Did I not read here somewhere that because of the physics of vinyl (the size of the molecules, etc.) that it is limited in theory to something less than the amount of information in a 24/96 file? I ask not as an input into "which is better", I was just trying to recall if I read that here...

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
Why stop there?

 

Why not shut down Computer Audiophile, since you have completely and definitively determined for the rest of us that digital is far inferior, despite the numerous limitations imposed by the vinyl medium (mono bass below 100Hz, limited dynamic range equivalent to 12 bits, snap, crackle, pop, wow, flutter, coloration, distortion, etc).

 

Thanks for saving the whole website from itself!

 

You omitted the critical part about the Keith Monks record cleaner - sonic bliss at a surprisingly affordable 1695GBP.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
Why stop there?

 

Why not shut down Computer Audiophile, since you have completely and definitively determined for the rest of us that digital is far inferior, despite the numerous limitations imposed by the vinyl medium (mono bass below 100Hz, limited dynamic range equivalent to 12 bits, snap, crackle, pop, wow, flutter, coloration, distortion, etc).

 

Thanks for saving the whole website from itself!

 

When your addicted to certain distortions it's just like drugs. You think they're your friend when in actuality they're killing you.

I do still like Rice Krispies for breakfast now and then.

"The gullibility of audiophiles is what astonishes me the most, even after all these years. How is it possible, how did it ever happen, that they trust fairy-tale purveyors and mystic gurus more than reliable sources of scientific information?"

Peter Aczel - The Audio Critic

nomqa.webp.aa713f2bb9e304522011cdb2d2ca907d.webp  R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press.

 

Link to comment
When your addicted to certain distortions it's just like drugs. You think they're your friend when in actuality they're killing you.

I do still like Rice Krispies for breakfast now and then.

Love Rice Krispies too, do you have any albums where you prefer the vinyl version to the digital?

Link to comment
Love Rice Krispies too, do you have any albums where you prefer the vinyl version to the digital?

 

I wasn't the person you asked, but - there are some albums where I certainly do prefer the vinyl, and it ain't due to distortions. It's due to stuff like dynamics on the LP that raise the hair on the back of my neck, and those dynamics aren't there to the same extent on at least some digital sources. Examples:

 

Miles Davis, Amandla - When I was buying my first high end system, the first cut, "Catembe," was my primary demo music. So far, no digital version I've heard - CD, 24/192 file, not even the Japanese SHM-SACD - equals the LP.

 

The Who, Tommy - I bought this when it came out in 1969. The first crashing electric guitar chord in "Pinball Wizard" can take a large share of the credit for spawning the entire metal genre. Neither the CD nor the 24/96 version on the DVD-A (which was also the HDTracks download version for a while) came close. The SHM-SACD is its equal in dynamics and betters it in clarity.

 

Steely Dan, Gaucho - The choruses on the title track and "Hey Nineteen" are growing, blooming things of beauty on the LP. Exactly like Tommy, the CD and DVD-A versions don't hold a candle to the LP, but the SHM-SACD is at least its equal.

 

The Clash, London Calling - The producer for the hi res digital remastering, together with the surviving band members, intentionally decided to make the new version louder, which has the effect of pushing Joe Strummer's vocals further down in the mix. I love Joe Strummer's vocals. So LP version wins.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment

I'd love to get rid of my vinyl and my turntable. They take up far too much space. The hassle of cleaning them, the limited time, the end of side distortion, the scratches and pops, and the sheer inconvenience of it all. I even went so far as selling half my collection a year ago and downgrading to a cheaper turntable, as a step towards getting out of vinyl altogether.

 

But then I listen to it. Whenever I think I could easily live with digital only, listening to a clean original pressing on my LP12 reminds me that that day is still a long way off. We all know that digital measures better than vinyl in every conceivable parameter. But digital still sounds like it is missing something, that it has had the life sucked out of it. You only recognise this when you hear the same recording on vinyl. And it's not nostalgia - I hate vinyl and its rituals and would happily give them away. The medium is ridiculous. Dragging a sharp rock through a mechanically spinning groove pressed in plastic is embarrassing. And it's not the distortions of vinyl either - those are easy to hear and dismiss.

 

My suspicion is that it is to do with timing. Digital still has pre- and post-ringing artifacts which dull the leading and trailing edges of notes. Vinyl, for all its faults, seems to preserve the edges of notes and the timing of the start/stop of notes better. This is just a guess, barely informed speculation.

 

Digital is a great medium and constantly improving. But, despite its superiority in so many measurable ways, it still seems to lack something essential which vinyl, despite its faults, has preserved. Maybe its the timing issue, maybe something else. I'm sure it will get there one day, but it's not there yet.

Link to comment
snip

 

My suspicion is that it is to do with timing. Digital still has pre- and post-ringing artifacts which dull the leading and trailing edges of notes. Vinyl, for all its faults, seems to preserve the edges of notes and the timing of the start/stop of notes better. This is just a guess, barely informed speculation.

 

snip

 

This is a not uncommon idea. I don't really see it fits however. I would believe the ringing artefacts of filters between digital formats would have more relevance.

 

You don't have recorded LP's pushing the rise and fall times of digital, most definitely not if you record them at 96 khz. There isn't anything steep enough to ring the filters. I am not disputing it might sound that way just that vinyl sounds different for reasons other than this.

 

Vinyl also has very poor control of timing. I was reading an old thread on another forum trying to determine the effect of demagnetizing vinyl. A couple of people with extremely expensive and high quality TT setups recorded LP prior to and after demagnetizing. There were too many variables to learn anything. Consecutive playing resulted in play to play variations of usually .3% in speed. Even if you waited 24 hours between plays. Noise levels varied much more than expected. They managed to get several playings recorded of the same equipment and disk that were quite discernibly different in the digitally recorded version. That last conclusion was certainly a surprise. At one point two new LPs were opened played and recorded. Another surprise from this was even 5 playings significantly eroded high frequency info above 20 khz.

 

So while ringing filters might alter sound in digital, I don't see that LP does better. It doesn't have the steep response at high frequencies for that to be true.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
Love Rice Krispies too, do you have any albums where you prefer the vinyl version to the digital?

 

Honestly no. After getting used to the silent backgrounds of CD, their immunity to acoustic vibration, and all the rest of digital's superior aspects, not to mention the admitted convenience factors, I just can't get past all of vinyls limitations to care about the points that Jud makes. I still have every album I ever purchased since about 1969, though now all have been needle drop ripped to 16/44 with Audacity. But when I play them, the minute the stylus hits the vinyl and the grinding of surface noise begins any interest in any details of HighFidelity pass and only the enjoyment of the musical performance remains. Then listening thru the wow and flutter, off center holes, changing sound from outer to inner grooves, etc, BLAH. And please don't try and blame my vinyl equipment or it's condition. I had VERY good equipment and always took extreme, almost obsessive anal care of my records. ALL records are noisy, just some more than others. At lease some of the MF stuff had reasonably quiet surfaces when new, as for the average label releases most sounded like they mixed sand in the plastic. Besides who wants to jump up and down every 20 minutes, spend the next 5 changing the record and my record clamps, cleaning the vinyl, cleaning the stylus, squeezing my Zerostat, cueing the arm and lowing it to the surface. Man that is SO 1930s

The day the first CD player, a Magnavox 560 entered my living room, the days of the LP were over for me. JMHO

"The gullibility of audiophiles is what astonishes me the most, even after all these years. How is it possible, how did it ever happen, that they trust fairy-tale purveyors and mystic gurus more than reliable sources of scientific information?"

Peter Aczel - The Audio Critic

nomqa.webp.aa713f2bb9e304522011cdb2d2ca907d.webp  R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press.

 

Link to comment
I wasn't the person you asked, but - there are some albums where I certainly do prefer the vinyl, and it ain't due to distortions. It's due to stuff like dynamics on the LP that raise the hair on the back of my neck, and those dynamics aren't there to the same extent on at least some digital sources.

 

How can it be dynamics when you know much better than me that even 16/44 beats the pants off vinyl for dynamic range capability, not to mention what 24 bit offers.

I hold it's differences somewhere in the mastering-manufacturing chain that something your hearing went wrong-isn't right from these antique analog tape recordings. If the dynamics are inferior something has to be wrong there.

"The gullibility of audiophiles is what astonishes me the most, even after all these years. How is it possible, how did it ever happen, that they trust fairy-tale purveyors and mystic gurus more than reliable sources of scientific information?"

Peter Aczel - The Audio Critic

nomqa.webp.aa713f2bb9e304522011cdb2d2ca907d.webp  R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press.

 

Link to comment
Honestly no. After getting used to the silent backgrounds of CD, their immunity to acoustic vibration, and all the rest of digital's superior aspects, not to mention the admitted convenience factors, I just can't get past all of vinyls limitations to care about the points that Jud makes. I still have every album I ever purchased since about 1969, though now all have been needle drop ripped to 16/44 with Audacity. But when I play them, the minute the stylus hits the vinyl and the grinding of surface noise begins any interest in any details of HighFidelity pass and only the enjoyment of the musical performance remains. Then listening thru the wow and flutter, off center holes, changing sound from outer to inner grooves, etc, BLAH. And please don't try and blame my vinyl equipment or it's condition. I had VERY good equipment and always took extreme, almost obsessive anal care of my records. ALL records are noisy, just some more than others. At lease some of the MF stuff had reasonably quiet surfaces when new, as for the average label releases most sounded like they mixed sand in the plastic. Besides who wants to jump up and down every 20 minutes, spend the next 5 changing the record and my record clamps, cleaning the vinyl, cleaning the stylus, squeezing my Zerostat, cueing the arm and lowing it to the surface. Man that is SO 1930s

The day the first CD player, a Magnavox 560 entered my living room, the days of the LP were over for me. JMHO

Understood, thanks

Link to comment
I'd love to get rid of my vinyl and my turntable. ---

I'm sure it will get there one day, but it's not there yet.

 

Try recording to DSD. And all hassles are gone like most of content in Your post...

Sorry, english is not my native language.

Fools and fanatics are always certain of themselves, but wiser people are full of doubts.

Link to comment
How can it be dynamics when you know much better than me that even 16/44 beats the pants off vinyl for dynamic range capability, not to mention what 24 bit offers.

I hold it's differences somewhere in the mastering-manufacturing chain that something your hearing went wrong-isn't right from these antique analog tape recordings. If the dynamics are inferior something has to be wrong there.

 

Talking about dynamics is fun if you talk about it in theory. In practice most albums, vinyl or CD don't have much dynamic range at all.

 

Most of it is lost during mixing.

[br]

Link to comment
How can it be dynamics when you know much better than me that even 16/44 beats the pants off vinyl for dynamic range capability, not to mention what 24 bit offers.

 

I hold it's differences somewhere in the mastering-manufacturing chain that something your hearing went wrong-isn't right from these antique analog tape recordings. If the dynamics are inferior something has to be wrong there.

 

Here's the DR Database for Tommy. These measurements are in accordance with the International Telecommunication Union (a standards body) dynamic range standard. The standard does have some problems in my opinion, but it does give a good general sense of the real life dynamic range of a recording: Album list - Dynamic Range Database

 

OK, which recording of the album on what medium has the greatest dynamic range?

 

Now why is this? It's because you're talking about the maximum possible capability of these media (as you mentioned), but not how much of that capability is actually used for a particular recording. Yes, as you say, "something has to be wrong there." It's called the loudness wars.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment

 

The Who, Tommy - I bought this when it came out in 1969. The first crashing electric guitar chord in "Pinball Wizard" can take a large share of the credit for spawning the entire metal genre. Neither the CD nor the 24/96 version on the DVD-A (which was also the HDTracks download version for a while) came close. The SHM-SACD is its equal in dynamics and betters it in clarity.

 

 

Agree with you about the SHM (my Japanese 24/192 is apparently derived from the same master); but I think you exaggerrated quite a bit about pinball wizard spawning metal. Jeff Beck's Truth and Led Zep's first album were already out in 68, as were some of the harder parts of the White Album. There are a few others I could mention here in the same vein, that I think go alot farther in telling us where metal came from than one chord in Pinball Wizard.

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment
Here's the DR Database for Tommy. These measurements are in accordance with the International Telecommunication Union (a standards body) dynamic range standard. The standard does have some problems in my opinion, but it does give a good general sense of the real life dynamic range of a recording: Album list - Dynamic Range Database

 

OK, which recording of the album on what medium has the greatest dynamic range?

 

Now why is this? It's because you're talking about the maximum possible capability of these media (as you mentioned), but not how much of that capability is actually used for a particular recording. Yes, as you say, "something has to be wrong there." It's called the loudness wars.

 

Ah, OK for sure, if your talking about CD/Digital casualties of the loudness wars. But they don't count, they were purposely destroyed. LOL

I'm surprised at the amount of compression used on the first listed CDs DR9 as early as 1984, usually don't see em that bad that early, strange. Specially when there's other CD's of the same vintage and later at DR11 which for one point would be inaudibly different from the DR12 of the vinyl.

Some funny business was going on with the US mastering.

But the CD would still be the superior sounding medium do to the lack of all the other vinyls limitations. JMHO

"The gullibility of audiophiles is what astonishes me the most, even after all these years. How is it possible, how did it ever happen, that they trust fairy-tale purveyors and mystic gurus more than reliable sources of scientific information?"

Peter Aczel - The Audio Critic

nomqa.webp.aa713f2bb9e304522011cdb2d2ca907d.webp  R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press.

 

Link to comment
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, .

 

To get back to the OP.

 

I have been listening to Vinyl alongside digital for 2 decades. My vinyl and digital front ends are both made up of current products and each is a similar and (to me) substantial investment. The "bad" news as far as your original post goes is that I agree 100% with your assessment. In terms of sheer realism of sound reproduction and instruments located in a space, Vinyl is hard to beat. Compared with CD, I've always found vinyl to be consistently and significantly superior. Compared with DSD and other hi res formats, the gap is closing but still there.

 

Having consistently listened to and invested equally and recently in both formats I have no axe to grind, just saying it as it is. I also note that others (on this forum and elsewhere) who use both formats in their current systems come to a similar conclusion. Given that the music we listen to is recorded by microphones and reproduced by speakers that ultimately operate in the analogue domain at each extreme of the signal chain, perhaps it is not surprising that a format which remains "native" analogue throughout (at least for the recordings I listen to) has advantages over one which undergoes conversion at least twice in the process?

 

My advice would be just to enjoy your ifi or maybe upgrade to something like a Chord 2Qute and then buy a better phono stage....

Link to comment
To get back to the OP.

 

I have been listening to Vinyl alongside digital for 2 decades. My vinyl and digital front ends are both made up of current products and each is a similar and (to me) substantial investment. The "bad" news as far as your original post goes is that I agree 100% with your assessment. In terms of sheer realism of sound reproduction and instruments located in a space, Vinyl is hard to beat. Compared with CD, I've always found vinyl to be consistently and significantly superior. Compared with DSD and other hi res formats, the gap is closing but still there.

 

Having consistently listened to and invested equally and recently in both formats I have no axe to grind, just saying it as it is. I also note that others (on this forum and elsewhere) who use both formats in their current systems come to a similar conclusion. Given that the music we listen to is recorded by microphones and reproduced by speakers that ultimately operate in the analogue domain at each extreme of the signal chain, perhaps it is not surprising that a format which remains "native" analogue throughout (at least for the recordings I listen to) has advantages over one which undergoes conversion at least twice in the process?

 

My advice would be just to enjoy your ifi or maybe upgrade to something like a Chord 2Qute and then buy a better phono stage....

 

I think that there used to be a large gap between CD quality and a good quality vinyl front end. When I bought my first CD player in 1994, it sounded pretty much unlistenable (a budget Sony CD play that got very good reviews at the time).

 

But in just over 20 years there have been huge improvements in digital front ends, and I'm amazed how good my two Chord DACs (2Qute and Hugo) sound even with Red Book recordings. To me, my current digital and vinyl front ends are roughly comparable and mastering and recording quality makes more difference than the format, but my phone preamp/record deck/arm and cartridge would cost about five times the cost of a 2Qute.

 

It is hard to generalise about digital vs vinyl without talking about a particular price point - the verdict for state of the art front ends will not be the same as for say sub-1000 dollar systems. It might be counter-intuitive but the better a vinyl front end is, the more forgiving it tends to be of defects in the LP - the noise from record defects tends to be at a lower level and not in the same plane as the music.

System (i): Stack Audio Link > 2Qute+MCRU psu; Gyrodec/SME V/Hana SL/EAT E-Glo Petit/Magnum Dynalab FT101A) > PrimaLuna Evo 100 amp > Klipsch RP-600M/REL T5x subs

System (ii): Allo USB Signature > Bel Canto uLink+AQVOX psu > Chord Hugo > APPJ EL34 > Tandy LX5/REL Tzero v3 subs

System (iii) KEF LS50W/KEF R400b subs

 

Link to comment
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...

 

In my experience the two mediums can sound similar. but not exactly the same. The vinyl typically will sound a touch sweeter, denser, and airier, even when comparing 24/96 sources. Likely due to a dose of second order distortion endemic to vinyl playback. You can get a similar result with an SET amp. I have owned a few of those.

 

Non audiophile system auditions usually conclude with a preference for the vinyl option. I have a few records that are so dull and flat, that no one ever picks them. A few musician buddies were in awe of the White Album (CD version) played back on an 845 tube amp. No doubt, the Second order distortion can make things sound a bit more real.

 

So I guess you have to decide, or maybe you don't. Vinyl may sound more like the real thing, but digital is likely a more accurate representation of the master. Certainly both can be enjoyable, if not identical. Any didactic commitment to one over the other, with the exception for the love of convenience, would be a bit silly, provided one's favorite material is easily found well mastered in either medium.

Link to comment

I find it interesting how the vinyl proponents so easily totally dismiss all of vinyls proven, measurable, HIGHLY AUDIBLE weaknesses? You never even mention them in your posts as if they don't exist. What's wrong with vinyl, let me count the ways. No I won't bother, we already been over them. If you prefer the noise and distortions of vinyl, God Bless, but technically your position hasn't a leg to stand on, I guess that's why you ignore them all.

"The gullibility of audiophiles is what astonishes me the most, even after all these years. How is it possible, how did it ever happen, that they trust fairy-tale purveyors and mystic gurus more than reliable sources of scientific information?"

Peter Aczel - The Audio Critic

nomqa.webp.aa713f2bb9e304522011cdb2d2ca907d.webp  R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press.

 

Link to comment
I find it interesting how the vinyl proponents so easily totally dismiss all of vinyls proven, measurable, HIGHLY AUDIBLE weaknesses? You never even mention them in your posts as if they don't exist. What's wrong with vinyl, let me count the ways. No I won't bother, we already been over them. If you prefer the noise and distortions of vinyl, God Bless, but technically your position hasn't a leg to stand on, I guess that's why you ignore them all.

 

Because those making these arguments obviously haven't heard vinyl done right, because if they had they would get why vinyl proponents can so easily accept the tradeoffs.

 

Everything in the real world comes with its own set of tradeoffs. That some feel that only vinyl comes with a set of tradeoffs suggests their arguments are based in theory more so than in practice. Taking their advice seriously might be equivalent to taking seriously the claims from a virgin about what sex must feel like. [emoji3]

Digital:  Sonore opticalModule > Uptone EtherRegen > Shunyata Sigma Ethernet > Antipodes K30 > Shunyata Omega USB > Gustard X26pro DAC < Mutec REF10 SE120

Amp & Speakers:  Spectral DMA-150mk2 > Aerial 10T

Foundation: Stillpoints Ultra, Shunyata Denali v1 and Typhon x1 power conditioners, Shunyata Delta v2 and QSA Lanedri Gamma Revelation and Infinity power cords, QSA Lanedri Gamma Revelation XLR interconnect, Shunyata Sigma Ethernet, MIT Matrix HD 60 speaker cables, GIK bass traps, ASC Isothermal tube traps, Stillpoints Aperture panels, Quadraspire SVT rack, PGGB 256

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...