Lies about vinyl vs digital

[KingRex]

The major consensus among people who have compared top vinyl and top digital conclude that well done vinyl bests well-done digital. Currently my digital setup is much better than my vinyl. And my vinyl isn't that much of a slouch. With work and considerable expense I'm pretty confident I can learn how to make vinyl sound better than my digital. The opting phrase being learn how.

 

I've spent years understanding how to best implement digital and how to tune the system. That's years of not only my own efforts but texting and phone calling with other audio Associates attempting to recreate the highest quality digital playback possible.  It's not easy to make digital sound good. At the same time it's not easy to make vinyl sound good. Either take a significant amount of knowledge, training and learning to truly extract the best from the components in your system.

 

We haven't even scratched the surface with Source material. That may be one of the most critical factors in Optimum playback.

 

And then there's tape. Those people with high-end digital systemsm that also have vinyl besting their digital, also have tape. When you sit down and listen to a well done tape source with a quality recording, running home and playing your own system becomes a big disappointment.

 

In the end, a good digital system is strikingly Pleasant to listen to. Even those with top-flight vinyl and tape seemed to spend an inordinate amount of time listening to their digital. Why, because it's really darn good. And, there's a lot of new unheard material out there to enjoy. 

 

I personally predominantly stick to digital because I'm looking for new Media to enjoy. There is nothing at all not engagingly musical about my digital setup. Could I best it with vinyl. Probably. But then the question becomes why expend the money and effort. It might be notably better on a few albums, but my digital might be better on other albums.  Now you're back to the source question. When you're playing at high levels of performance Source material becomes critically important.

[KingRex]

John, I just laughed out loud when I read you saying you can't trust your hearing for comparison. Everything we are doing is listening and hearing. If you can't hear any sort of difference,  then what's it matter, play whatever you want. The point is we feel we can hear a difference. Am I missing something?

[KingRex]

If you want to talk about tracking error with vinyl, you really should go to audionirvana for the people know what they're talking about.

[KingRex]

Is your job in some sort of capacity to analyze stereo equipment. Specifically digital stereo equipment. If not why would you care anything about what you hear other than what you perceive  from an enjoyment standpoint.  If you and others here are saying you can't reliably hear the difference between anything then all conversations are about what ?.

[KingRex]

Thats interesting.  You have good reason to look through a lense of analysis.   Hopefully it does not adversely affect your enjoyment of just relaxing and listening for fun.  Now I have to read back on what you been saying. Dolby in a digital format. Wow, I can't even imagine what that really is.

[KingRex]

So John, how is what you're doing different from say MQA.  I'm not in disagreement at all that there's a bunch of source material that sucks out there. I have always heard what's lost is lost and can never be gotten back. Are you saying you're trying to develop a work around to that?

[KingRex]

Interesting.  I don't understand Dolby in digital, but I do understand the loss of EQ before storage.  It sounds like the original 16 or 24 tracks were stored,  not the final mixed down 2.  Is this correct.  If so, odd they would not save both. 

 

Was the final mix direct to the lathe?  Or the final mix to a 1/2" x 15 ips tape.  Then to the lathe.

[KingRex]

I actually like ABBA.  I asked John if he would share a couple songs so I could experience what his DolbyA is doing,  I have a few ABBA CD and maybe 6 vinyl.  John's version is over the top, no contest better.  I personally trust my ears, but I'm only in it for pleasure.    Voices are so much more pure and natural.  There is an ease and clean air.  I kept replaying and replaying the files.  If any of the digital files I owned were of the appropriate raw source,  then processed through John's technology,  I would buy them all again.  These songs are better than any 24/192 rip from 15ips tape or renastered high def files i have, and they are 16/96.  

 

I hope John is able to launch this "formatting " with some studios and get some more high quality digital material into the marketplace.  

 

Good job John.  We need more experts working to build new great music and hopefully save much of our old stuff.  

 

I also agree, this is not like MQA.  I am not technical in my skills but It sounds different to me.  It sounds closer to live.  Closer to correct and just right.  You know what it really sounds like. It sounds like all the artificial processing has been removed. It just sounds like music.

[KingRex]

Listening to John's files is a little frustrating.  It allows me to better her the hiss, clouding and digital artifacts of incorrect processing in other files I have.  I see better why people gravitate more to a fine piece of vinyl.  I technically understand little of what John is talking about, but I very much hear it.  I have played enough instruments to know what a real synthesizer sound like.  ABBA SOS is a prime example of how a mainstream production CD looses the subtle details of the instrument such as keyboards.  ,  John's version contains all the gritty, growly throatiness of the keyboard.  They music is more full of information making it more palpable, full and rich in tone.  It's easier for your ears to hear what is going on and therefore more relaxing and lacking in any fatigue.

[KingRex]

I forgot to mention.  I take his files, then convert them to WAV.  I have the Mojo Audio Mystique V3 DAC and Deja Vu server.  Ben with Mojo is very clear no upsampling and as little processing as possible should happen during playback.  I very much hear the difference between a FLAC file and WAV.  That little bit of processing is notable on my equipment.   

[KingRex]

I don't think I understand K-Man.

 

I do think I'm playing these wrong.  I believe John wants me to listen to the MP3 and FLAC as he sent both formats.  I will give a try later.  Have to finish working out and get to work.

[KingRex]

18 minutes ago, The_K-Man said:

 

In production a lot of benefits!  Particularly in production, when running individual instruments or entire song through a chain of processing.

 

For final delivery, dithering down to good ol' 16/44.1 for Wav/CD/lossy encoding is enough.

 

The problem with 'high res' is that just saying something is high res implies to the more gullible that it somehow enhances the sound.

 

I thought taking "keeping" the file at above 24 increases the dynamic range which also lowers the noise floor.  Most digital recorders are recording at 36??  Correct. 

[KingRex]

Frank may have some sort of something behind what he says.  Technically, maybe John can answer if he is lopping off dynamic intensity in the higher frequency.  There are 40+pages here.  I bet he addressed the topic.

 

I'm playing a moderately high end system worth about $40K.  I have not specifically listened for high frequency attenuation.   I was very quickly enraptured with a more open, expressive, natural sound.  I will take a more critical listen tomorrow and see if I hear a loss of high end detail.

 

Initially I was struck with how much more pleasant songs were.  More real. More natural.   I like what I hear much more than the original.        

 

 

[KingRex]

20 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

That's what I hear too.

Did you hear the full version of MGH - 03 - The Day Before You Came-corrected  ?

Yes, I have that file in flac 16/96.

 

I really like the version of SOS he sent me.

[KingRex]

John, MSB and DCS and maybe others have filters in their DAC.  Is your program anything like their filters ?

[KingRex]

You all have completely bummed me out.   I am even being told the PS to the devices burning a CD to my HD affect the sound quality.  This all leads me to ask, how do I find good downloads that are actually handled correct in the mastering of the original to a digital format.  How do I set up my equipment to accept a transfer of the media over the internet to my house and storage drives at my place.

 

The biggest issue is where are the good masters?  It sound like even MFSL has high res that may not be all the good.  Just poor masters that have been up-sampled.   Is there a thread on what are the best digital master files to purchase?

[KingRex]

2 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

 

The ideas in the first paragraph are held by very few people and can be safely ignored. 

 

When it comes to downloads from the big labels, the releases sold by the various outlets (HDTracks, ProStudio Masters, etc.) are all the same and originate from the labels themselves.

 

If you want good sounding downloads from other sources, I suggest the following sources:

 

https://www.soundliaison.com

http://www.chesky.com/content/binaural-series

https://www.nativedsd.com

 

I don't agree with the comments about MFSL. Most MFSL releases that I've heard are pretty good. Unfortunately, high resolution downloads aren't available. The best you can do is rip their SACD releases.

 

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.

[KingRex]

41 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Advise using software that supports the AccurateRip database to rip your CDs:

 

http://www.accuraterip.com/software.htm

I use DB Power amp with a Nimbi Robot to batch rip.  Everything is ripped to WAV