Lies about vinyl vs digital

[Rexp]

6 hours ago, GUTB said:

 

Which streamer/DAC beat your turntable setup?

I believe he uses an Innuos into a Devialet, I heard both separatley and not been particularly impressed, maybe the combo is magic.

[Rexp]

31 minutes ago, The_K-Man said:

 

What has gotten worse, what has driven the quality of releases on CD and digital download into the toilet, is this demand for it to be LOUDER.  You can have LOUD up to a point, where fidelity starts to suffer.  Vinyl simply cannot be driven that hot, or else even the best tonearm/stylus combination will not be able to track it properly, if at all.  Like I said earlier, digital will reproduce S-H-I-T perfectly if that what is desired.  It will reproduce a sonic TURD even better than can any analog format.  It will also handle the guns of 'Overture 1812' just fine, if wanted to.  

 

The sonic limitations Redbook CD imparts on the material transfered to it are infinitely small compared to the hiss of analog tape or the surface noise of even only once- or twice-played vinyl, not to mention inherent channel cross-talk in the stylus & cartridge combination in a phono reproduction system, noises which can be engineered to a minimum, in manufacturing,  but not completely eliminated.  To hear the quantization noise of digital/CD at 16Bit 44.1kHz, you'd need to record several minutes of pure silence to it, finalize it like any other, and play it back on the most powerful sound system in acoustically isolated conditions.  And even THEN, only only 1/5 people might detect it: A hiss comparable to the backround noise on analog tape.  Even at a volume setting that would instantly deafen most people if that disc had actual content on it.

 

Get it through your heads that any 'inferiority' you're hearing in CD nowadays have to do with PRODUCTION values, not with the format itself.  With older CDs, you are likely hearing issues with less-evolved ADC converters, and jitter and timing issues with the recording chain 35 years ago.  But those are NOT lent by Redbook itself!

 

It's what is put ON CD or in digital format, NOT the format itself.

 

Any refutiation henceforth, of the points above, is just that: pure DITHER.

 

Thank you!

Can you explain why digital recordings generally sound better on vinyl than cd?

[Rexp]

3 hours ago, The_K-Man said:

 

 Because what is sent to vinyl omits the 'final step':  Brickwall limiter and make-up gain.  Those musical peaks omitted from the CD are left in for vinyl.

 

Besides that, the masters for both CD/digital and the record are identical.

Would 16/44 classical recordings from the 1980's have been brickwall limited?

[Rexp]

15 hours ago, The_K-Man said:

 

The format has nothing to do with what is brickwall limited and made louder, or is not.

 

All redbook CDs are 16bit 44.kHz resolution.

You stated the lack of brickwall limiting is the reason vinyl sounds better, the above example suggests this in not the case.

[Rexp]

42 minutes ago, The_K-Man said:

 

By "above example" which do you mean?

That 1980's digital recordings didn't use brickwall limiting yet the CD versions still sound poor..

[Rexp]

48 minutes ago, The_K-Man said:

 

That might be due to a number of factors, such as recording technique with the digital recorders, and early ADCs(analog to digital converters).  I explained that in an earlier post.

No, the recording is good as it sounds good on vinyl, there must be another reason.

[Rexp]

10 hours ago, barrows said:

First of all, why bother trying to make an argument for one format over another by comparing worst examples of one to best examples of another?  Apples to apples makes so much more sense if you want to gain any traction with folks.

I have nothing against those who love vinyl playback, but the facts are that current, good, digital playback and recording are superior.

 

One of the best ways to experience this is to have the experience of comparing well done, high resolution, needle drops to direct vinyl playback on the same rig.  In every case I am aware of of this type of comparison the direct vinyl playback is found to be indistinguishable from the digital playback of the needle drop.  Where the needle drop retains all the "vinyl LP sound qualities" that folks love, and somehow, "magically" none of the "evil digital sound".  The only conclusion which is reasonable to draw from such experiences is that people love vinyl sound (or not) because of its flaws and inaccuracies, and not because it is actually technically superior to good digital in any way.   Which is OK with me, as long as the vinyl lovers own the idea that they like vinyl for its flaws.

 

I have been collecting LPs over the last few years, although I currently do not own a turntable set up, as I hope to get a 'table going for fun sometime later.  And the LPs are likely mostly good investments.

If you cant tell a 16/44 needle drop from the original something is wrong somewhere.

[Rexp]

6 hours ago, The_K-Man said:

 

But people on here are using what they hear to determine if vinyl or digital/CD is better.  Very often what they hear, the content itself, has been compromised on one format in a way that it sounds inferior to the way it sounds on the other.  This leads so many to make the false assumption that the format with the inferior sounding version(typically a brickwalled loudness war casualty on CD, or early CD release with ho-hum digital chain - suitcase converters, etc.) is automatically the inferior format.  It's a trap so easy to fall into.

 

You want apples to apples?  Take the exact same master, particularly the one destined for Vinyl LP, with just enough compression and bottom end roll off and all the other compromises, press it to both vinyl and to CD, with NO additional processing to the CD version(brickwall limit, etc). 

 

I challenge you to be able to hear a significant audible difference between the two during playback, aside from the inevitable surface rush of the stylus on vinyl, in such a comparison.

I would to take up such a challenge, while there are many poor quality digital recordings that sound similar on vinyl and CD, the better recordings sound much better on vinyl. 

[Rexp]

9 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

Jonathan, I don't see the relation with what was dealt with in this thread.

And btw, nothing edgy there. For me the album (Crime of The Century) is totally flawed in what ever digital version I am aware of. This, while it is an icon in general. On LP only, sadly.

Can you recommend a supertramp cd that isn't flawed?

[Rexp]

30 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

I like to add that probably their first is the best sounding. Notice though that this was just in this transition period of old en newer recording means (end 60's begin 70's - this one is from 1970) when all sounded nicely hollow but all so open. Cymbals are superb, to name something. But this is technical merit I coincidentally like (take the first Deep Purple albums and you have the same sound) which surely doesn't mean that you will sit back and listen to it in a "oh what does this sound superb !" fashion. No. But it is the opposite of compressed.

Thanks! Will check it out

[Rexp]

On 7/11/2018 at 2:21 AM, GUTB said:

So what’s going on?

 

1. Do my DACs just all suck in the ability to render high dynamic performance?

2. Are some posters without the ability to discern high end sound?

3. Has my brain fooled me?

1. Probably

2. Definitely

3. No

[Rexp]

7 hours ago, fas42 said:

As I mentioned in another thread, just visited the audio mate down the road - who was gung ho about vinyl when I first met him. This attitude has progressed to the point where both forms of replay do justice to the recordings, when fully in the zone.

 

This is relevant here, because in the prior visit the vinyl setup was sounding sick - no matter what we tried, it just failed to come alive, there was an unpleasant flatness to the sound with every recording. So we moved across to digital, which gave some excellent feedback. Well, it turns out that there was a mechanical issue - the TT has been heavily modified by him, barely recognisable from its original form - and the main bearing had started to show issues some time earlier, and he had replaced that with a 'superior' arrangement. Which gave marked improvement at the time ... but he then discovered, after that last visit, that the bearing surfaces had degraded - it was one of those annoying situations where the better option doesn't have the durability of the 'lesser' parts - so the advantage is only short term.

 

Replaced that with the "normal" bearing type, so when I visited this time LPs were back in a good place - a full hit of vinyl "goodness", . Which was good enough so that the crackle and pops were "invisible" - and also good enough to make obvious the real issue of straightforward TT setups - cartridge tracking angle error. With pivoted arms, there are two sweet spots where the alignment is correct, and elsewhere, it's 'wrong'; and this becomes very obvious - and annoying, at least to me. This is the killer problem of vinyl, not surface noise - to my hearing. Only solved with parallel arm arrangements, which then opens up other problems.

 

The interesting comparison this time, between vinyl and digital, was using some classic Sinatra from the golden years, late 50's. When the vinyl rig was fully stabilised it delivered a big, rich sound, with good tonality of his voice - when we moved over to digital, the same tracks initially were a major fail, so far behind in SQ it was almost unrecognisable as the same material. Which prompted a major round of investigation, and tweaking, of the DACs - with a positive outcome: at its best, the digital source now had all the qualities of the vinyl we had heard earlier.

 

The overall point here is that vinyl in good shape, and digital in good shape both deliver the same message - if one format is lacking in SQ then it's because of some fixable issues.

And the digital source was? I'm holding my breath...

[Rexp]

Thanks, Im guessing the unmodded units wouldn't cut it?

[Rexp]

17 hours ago, GUTB said:

My new vinyl rig crushes my digital, and I don’t know what to do in order to move forward with it.

 

Today, my vinyl of the same albums I have digital copies are much better. The key qualitative factor is dynamic performance; my vinyl displays dynamic swings of greater magnitude and speed/resolution. My digital sounds weakened, narrowed, compressed, lessened or more polite in comparison. I need to figure this out but I don’t know what to do except try other DACs. Could a DDC effect this?

I heard a system at a show last week where the Audio Reseach CD9+Nagra HD DAC seemed to match the Kronos Turntable, would need home audition to confirm it. At the other end of the budget scale I've been enjoying Tidal via UAPP app 

[Rexp]

10 hours ago, Norton said:

 

This correlates pretty closely with my experience.  My vinyl set up isn’t remotely “warm”, it’s the  visceral  “in the room” dynamics that has really attracted in the past.

 

However, I’m getting most if not all  of this with digital these days, even plain RBCD, and digital wins hands down for refinement, tone and detail.  

 

I still enjoy listening to vinyl for a couple of hrs a week, but just find  digital more interesting now, not least for the easy opportunities for music discovery.

Wow since when did you prefer CD, i mean what changed? 

[Rexp]

Can anyone explain why in this comparison of vinyl v cd (Anne Bisson, 3rd track demo) the vinyl is vastly superior to the cd? Even on youtube the difference is clear. 

 

[Rexp]

34 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

The older vinyl were good for their day. Often, the major problem with the older recordings on digital is the DolbyA encoding left on during the transfer process...  There IS a problem with 'depth' why playing something that is DolbyA encoded.  That is one reason, after 30yrs a reallly capable decoder of DolbyA material is being created.  It has been needed for 30yrs, getting worse and worse.  Since CPUS are powerful enough to do the job now (probably starting when the Pentium4 came out -- but no marketing interest), and a capable developer has finally become availabe to do the work essentially for free (2000+ person-hours has gone into because of the need for testing and lack of specification), then the decoder has finally come-to-pass.

However, to proclaim that digital itself is at fault is so wrong in so many ways.  Many of the recordings, especially from the era before 1990, have been left unpleasntly encoded whn distributed in digital form, it has caused alot of people to deny 'digital' itself its proper place -- which is the best possible way to transfer audio to the masses.  Rumble (from many sources), transducer distortion (from many sources), the need for special EQ (because of cutter/vinyl groove issues), or special dynamic limiting (because of tracking ability issues), do not make vinyl a very good way of transferring recordings nowadays.

The recording distributors have not help the matter, and the idea of a class action (by someone who is actually interested in such things -- I AM NOT) might be in the offing.   It is in the interest ot the industry to keep the secret about the lazy lack of decoding secret.

 

Yes but how about new recordings, the Anne Bisson in the video I posted was made last year by Bernie Grundman. The cd version is a bad joke, also available on Tidal 

Listen to "Four Seasons in Jazz Live at Bernie's" on TIDAL
Check out this album on TIDAL: "Four Seasons in Jazz Live at Bernie's" by Anne Bisson http://tidal.com/album/84948190

Does this sound good to you? 

[Rexp]

I was thinking boxing rather than racing, no one can lay a glove on you, keep up the good work! 

[Rexp]

Interesting that this chain won best of show at Axpona: turntable->Seta phono preamplifier->Lynx Hilo ADC->Mac Mini/Pure Vinyl->Lynx Hilo DAC directly driving the power amplifiers>vandersteen speakers. The live AD/DA apparently sounded way better than the stored files. 

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/axpona-2019-analog-sources/

 

 

[Rexp]

You and I differ, I think most digital sounds crap in comparison to vinyl, I didn't witness the improvement heard by the reviewer but am open to the idea that somehow the process of storing the digital file leads to a degradation in SQ. 

[Rexp]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

With regard to LP limitations I meant that certain levels of waveforms are just not attempted, because cartridges will never be able to track them, or adjacent grooves are just too close to each other - that type of thing.

 

I have never had issues with digital "capturing all the information" - CD replay for me conveyed all I have ever heard from vinyl, in the earliest years of the silver disk being around - I can think of only about 2 TT rigs I've heard in the last 35 years that had anything really special about them.

 

 

'Didn't do an "intensive" listen, but the vinyl was showing up a more convincing rendition of the cymbal work, in the Chesky recording. Which is how it often happens - CD playback fails to finesse that part of the spectrum, but analogue walks it in quite easily' 

 

The above is a response you gave on a related thread. Confused or what... 

[Rexp]

9 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

You do not understand - many mics record up to 50khz, and LPs easily reproduce that. It is present on pretty much any vinyl rip. You keep emphasizing text meaning  you just want to ignore some facts. But “the facts is the facts” and that energy is there. Just look at at any competent LP recording. (Shrug) 

 

What that energy means may be controversial, the same as when it is recorded at a high res to the digital realm. It is not controversial at all when running the digital files through a DAW. 

 

And what *I* find with my own little ears, is that high-res vinyl rip recordings sound like the best vinyl, and are easily identified as such. 16/44.1 or even 24/48 vinyl rip recordings do not - invariably sounding like a heavy - very heavy - layer of cotton is over the speakers. Honestly, you demand people believe that two identical files can sound different because of unknown and unknowable reasons, but you are gonna give me crap over this? 👏

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for your insights, would you say your rips sound as good as the original? 

And could the inferiority of the 16/44 rips be down to your ADC rather than the format? 

 

[Rexp]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

 

Yep, that was the goal. To get digital vinyl rips that are indistinguishable (to me at least) from the actual playing LP. Well, minus any clicks and pops and such, but I mean it still sounds like vinyl playing.  Not like a digital file. 

 

I am not sure abotu the ADC. It is the same ADC, and at 24/192k produces a great result. At 24/48, not so much. At 24/96, a much better result, but you can still tell it is a digital playback. At 176.4 it is to me everybit as good as 24/192k.  

 

I have tried other ADCs, including some rather expensive ones. Still, seem to get the same result. 

 

I can only theorize that something is not being captured at 24/48. Of course, there is an outside chance it is just expectation bias as well, but I don't think so. My wife can easily tell the difference, as can some friends that have heard it. 

 

The high data rate can be infuriating too - as it picks up everything that is wrong with a record, just as well as the dog gone cartridge does.

 

-Paul

 

 

Mmm what do your rips sound like when down sampled to 16/44? Cheers

[Rexp]

5 hours ago, KingRex said:

Thanks, I have been looking to obtain some high res files and been unsure where to really look.  I seem to have gathered about 1910 CD to burn over the past few year.

How do your CD's sound compared to vinyl? This question also to @Paul R

[Rexp]

27 minutes ago, Paul R said:

Well, talking about them is nothing like hearing them for yourself on your own system. 

 

I grabbed an old album, in this case a 1967 release of a 1959 Angelicum Chopin Recital by Alberto Mozzati. The record is in pretty good condition. This is just about a minute of the 5th track on the 1st side. Etude in G Flat Major Op 25, no 9.  A bit of thunderous piano, followed by a bit of delicate piano work. 

 

I did apply RIAA equalization to the music when I wrote it out along with some gain. This is what I normally do anyway. So here, in fact, is what the original recording at 192K sounds like, and the same file after having been subjected to SRC to bring it to 16/44.1.

 

A Chopin Recital 

 

 

 

A Chopin Recital (44.1) (AIFF).zip 10.92 MB · 0 downloads A Chopin Recital (192) (AIFF).zip 42.14 MB · 0 downloads

Fantastic! Will have a listen tonight, cheers