Lies about vinyl vs digital

[semente]

1 hour ago, Taz777 said:

Vinyl has always sounded better to me. In fact, my aim with my digital audio systems is to make them sound like vinyl one day, as I imagine many other audiophiles also seek to do.

 

When I had a vinyl system back in the late 80s/90s, listening to music was an event. Getting the record out of the sleeve, preparing the turntable, brushing the record clean of dust, lowering the tonearm onto the record and sitting back in a plush armchair to enjoy the music. I was more directly involved in the music that I ultimately heard so I think there's more than just the hearing involved when it comes to the overall level of enjoyment of music. There's also the visual element of a vinyl-based system that, in my experience, contributes to the enjoyment of the 'whole'.

 

A high-end vinyl-based can be beautiful to look at, and this heightens the senses and the enjoyment of the record (at least for me it did!). Contrast that with what I'm looking at right now as I type this at my computer: a black 'brick' LPS reading 15V and a small black box DAC showing 44.1. Whilst the sound is great from my computer-based audio system, it lacks the visual beauty of a vinyl system.

 

Spin a record while listening to a file and you're good. 😉

[The_K-Man]

9 hours ago, semente said:

 

Spin a record while listening to a file and you're good. 😉

 

Folks like the one you replied to probably know none of what goes into producing an album, or even singles.

 

They more than likely think that an artist or band go into a glass box, perform their songs, and those performances are recorded directly to vinyl, CD, cassette, or even all of those at once!  lol  It's infinitely more involved than that.

[Ralf11]

10 hours ago, Taz777 said:

A high-end vinyl-based can be beautiful to look at, and this heightens the senses and the enjoyment of the record ...

 

This can certainly be a factor in the overall experience, tho not in the SQ.

 

This is why I keep a photo of the visual beauty of a vinyl system on my DAC.

 

I also used to own a nice Porsche Boxster S - you could not see the engine at all.  I kept a pic of the engine in the trunk.  I wonder what @AudioDoctor does?

[semente]

28 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

This is why I keep a photo of the visual beauty of a vinyl system on my DAC.@AudioDoctor

 

Don't you mean a "beauty in vinyl"?

[Axial]

15 hours ago, Rexp said:

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. 

 

It is, the vinyl sounds beautiful. I just don't know how to explain the mechanics behind all that beauty versus the CD, beats me. Thank you.

[John Dyson]

4 minutes ago, Axial said:

It is, the vinyl sounds beautiful. I just don't know how to explain the mechanics behind all that beauty versus the CD, beats me. Thank you.

Even as an (honest) super technical person, I still understand that there are things about vinyl that people might like.  It isn't my 'cup of tea', but each of us hears things differently.  So, I understand preferring vinyl -- it would be wrong to claim 'vinyl sounds worse/better than digital' unless one is just talking about their own perception.   There are valid claims about the differences, but how someone perceives a recording is a personal thing.   There are all kinds of reasons why someone might prefer one over the other.  I tend to limit disagreement to cases where advantages/disadvantages of either medium are incorrectly claimed.  Sometimes, I do get emotional also, but I try do to be simply technical most of the time.

I am glad that you like what you hear -- the goal is to enjoy whatever aspect of the hobby that you choose.

 

[AudioDoctor]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

I also used to own a nice Porsche Boxster S - you could not see the engine at all.  I kept a pic of the engine in the trunk.  I wonder what @AudioDoctor does?

 

I have pictures of mine in pieces as it was being upgraded, but I keep them in the frunk... 😉

[fas42]

16 hours ago, Rexp said:

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. 

 

 

It's the same problem that has been around forever  - that's the signature of normal digital distortion, that deadness and lack of sparkle - that's the generic snap, crackle, pop of CD playback .

 

And like vinyl noises, digital 'noise' is quite difficult to completely eliminate - it's so not there, that it's hard to see, well, that it is there - most of the efforts I go to, address that factor; the kneecapping of the life and subjective impact of the SQ.

 

So, it is a type of distortion - once you can wrap your head, completely, around that thought, then you have a chance of doing something constructive about it - if you want to claim that the sound of the CD is actually like that, well, the ostrich on the beach has a much better chance of finding its way home ... .

[fas42]

13 hours ago, Taz777 said:

Vinyl has always sounded better to me. In fact, my aim with my digital audio systems is to make them sound like vinyl one day, as I imagine many other audiophiles also seek to do.

 

 

Has always been possible, even in the earliest days - vinyl has no interest for me, because digital can always match it, without any of the extra lifting that's necessary in the LP world ...

 

The downside is that you have to work just as hard to get digital 'right', perhaps even more so - if one doesn't expend that effort, then it's likely to always just be a hi-fi version of Muzak; it just never really hits the spot.

[The_K-Man]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

It's the same problem that has been around forever  - that's the signature of normal digital distortion, that deadness and lack of sparkle - that's the generic snap, crackle, pop of CD playback .

 

And like vinyl noises, digital 'noise' is quite difficult to completely eliminate - it's so not there, that it's hard to see, well, that it is there - most of the efforts I go to, address that factor; the kneecapping of the life and subjective impact of the SQ.

 

So, it is a type of distortion - once you can wrap your head, completely, around that thought, then you have a chance of doing something constructive about it - if you want to claim that the sound of the CD is actually like that, well, the ostrich on the beach has a much better chance of finding its way home ... .

 

What "digital noise" are you talking about?  NONE of my CDs exhibits "snap, crackle, or pop" except the one with 'RADIOACTIVE' by Imagine Dragons on it - but that's how I.D. wanted that track to sound, and they got it.

[The_K-Man]

51 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Has always been possible, even in the earliest days - vinyl has no interest for me, because digital can always match it, without any of the extra lifting that's necessary in the LP world ...

 

The downside is that you have to work just as hard to get digital 'right', perhaps even more so - if one doesn't expend that effort, then it's likely to always just be a hi-fi version of Muzak; it just never really hits the spot.

 

"Get digital right"?

 

Easy.  Stay below true peak during Recording, Mixing, and Mastering.  

 

Resist the urge, as artists, labels, and mastering engineers, to place loudness above all else as a production deliverable priority.  Give control of the volume back to those who buy your works and pay your salaries.  Stop cranking out over-processed, over-compressed, brick wall limited loudness-maximized SH|T - and you'll finally...

 

 

Get

 

Digital

 

Right

 

Again!

 

(In white letters on a red cap)

[fas42]

29 minutes ago, The_K-Man said:

 

What "digital noise" are you talking about?  NONE of my CDs exhibits "snap, crackle, or pop" except the one with 'RADIOACTIVE' by Imagine Dragons on it - but that's how ID wanted that track to sound, and they got it.

 

It's obviously not noise as in the vinyl sense - where it's clearly audible - but it's still noise ... it's that aspect of the sound which takes the sparkle out of a sharp transient - if you were to look at the waveform of the signal coming off the vinyl, you would see little sharp peaks everywhere - that's noise. If you look at the waveform of digital playback when it hits the speakers, the required peak has been neatly subtracted somewhat, by the 'noise' of the playback chain - the noise matches what the original signal  put out, but it's inverted; it cancels or nulls the recorded signal. This is why you get the digital "black hole", poor decay of notes, etc - the low level, and transient detail is being 'extinguished' by noise correlating with the signal - in the wrong direction.

[fas42]

21 minutes ago, The_K-Man said:

 

"Get digital right"?

 

Easy.  Stay below true peak during Recording, Mixing, and Mastering.  

 

 

 

Older, 'straight' recordings suffer just as much as overly compressed stuff - pop recordings of the 70's and 80's are spectacularly good to listen to - but you wouldn't know this if you listen on a typical audiophile rig.

[The_K-Man]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

It's obviously not noise as in the vinyl sense - where it's clearly audible - but it's still noise ... it's that aspect of the sound which takes the sparkle out of a sharp transient - if you were to look at the waveform of the signal coming off the vinyl, you would see little sharp peaks everywhere - that's noise. If you look at the waveform of digital playback when it hits the speakers, the required peak has been neatly subtracted somewhat, by the 'noise' of the playback chain - the noise matches what the original signal  put out, but it's inverted; it cancels or nulls the recorded signal. This is why you get the digital "black hole", poor decay of notes, etc - the low level, and transient detail is being 'extinguished' by noise correlating with the signal - in the wrong direction.

 

 

[fas42]

As they say, "You can't handle the truth!! ... "

[Ralf11]

7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

It's obviously not noise as in the vinyl sense - where it's clearly audible - but it's still noise ... it's that aspect of the sound which takes the sparkle out of a sharp transient - if you were to look at the waveform of the signal coming off the vinyl, you would see little sharp peaks everywhere - that's noise. If you look at the waveform of digital playback when it hits the speakers, the required peak has been neatly subtracted somewhat, by the 'noise' of the playback chain - the noise matches what the original signal  put out, but it's inverted; it cancels or nulls the recorded signal. This is why you get the digital "black hole", poor decay of notes, etc - the low level, and transient detail is being 'extinguished' by noise correlating with the signal - in the wrong direction.

 

I suggest building a wall around your DAC to keep out the noise.  A Faraday cage made of steel slats should work well if properly spaced out.

 

 

And I DO mean spaced out.  👻

 

[The_K-Man]

5 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

I suggest building a wall around your DAC to keep out the noise.  A Faraday cage made of steel slats should work well if properly spaced out.

 

 

And I DO mean spaced out.  👻

 

 

And that's a wall that won't cost billions of dollars!  🤣🤣🤣

[The_K-Man]

12 minutes ago, fas42 said:

As they say, "You can't handle the truth!! ... "

 

I seriously doubt that neither my 'regular Joe' stereo system, nor audiophile systems costing tens of times more, are 'sucking the peaks' of digital audio in or canceling them out with system noise.

 

Ave Maria ....!

[diecaster]

18 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

It's obviously not noise as in the vinyl sense - where it's clearly audible - but it's still noise ... it's that aspect of the sound which takes the sparkle out of a sharp transient - if you were to look at the waveform of the signal coming off the vinyl, you would see little sharp peaks everywhere - that's noise. If you look at the waveform of digital playback when it hits the speakers, the required peak has been neatly subtracted somewhat, by the 'noise' of the playback chain - the noise matches what the original signal  put out, but it's inverted; it cancels or nulls the recorded signal. This is why you get the digital "black hole", poor decay of notes, etc - the low level, and transient detail is being 'extinguished' by noise correlating with the signal - in the wrong direction.

 

What a load of dog doo!

[John Dyson]

1 hour ago, The_K-Man said:

 

What "digital noise" are you talking about?  NONE of my CDs exhibits "snap, crackle, or pop" except the one with 'RADIOACTIVE' by Imagine Dragons on it - but that's how I.D. wanted that track to sound, and they got it.

I think that fas42 is joking. :-).  Look at the smilely faces with the tongue :-).

 

John

[The_K-Man]

2 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

I think that fas42 is joking. :-).  Look at the smilely faces with the tongue :-).

 

John

 

I take this audio stuff seriously.  That's why I suggested it might be time for someone to take their meds.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, diecaster said:

 

What a load of dog doo!

 

Sorry, that's the way it is - walk into a room with digital playback, and it has that tired, dead, boring quality to it - whether you wish to call it distortion, noise, signal modulated noise, interference effects ... it's all about the circuitry not working correctly. Always fixable, but you may not wish to attempt to do so ... the industry largely refuses to accept that this behaviour occurs - but unless you resolve it by some method, digital replay will lack that 'magic' that vinyl does comparatively easily.

 

Most playback is not worth listening to, because it lacks that spark that live music making has - it's up the listener to decide if he wants to go to that level or not; by changing his approach.

[kelvinwsy]

4 hours ago, Axial said:

It is, the vinyl sounds beautiful. I just don't know how to explain the mechanics behind all that beauty versus the CD, beats me. Thank you.

I like to share my personal experience; Used to run a Microseiki TT set (BL-91) not the top but that made me (in the 1980's) shop for good LP's. Those were the days of Sheffield Labs, and other Audiophile Labels. Before the dreaded DIGITAL masters came along you had GENUINE Analogue Direct to Disc LP's. One of the most famous would be Thelma Houston and the Pressure Cooker - I've got the music in me Direct Cut.

I still have it in totally playable condition, A LAST Treatment (LP preservative coating applied 20 years ago and good dry storage) and recently judiciously LP cleaning rendered it totally like new.

Using my new ClearAudio Avantgarde Magnum with a Audio Technica AT-33EV MC to play this back on my Audionote Quest Silver 300B monobloc / Horn speaker system gives me the CHILLS. She was there in my music room.

 

But even for Sheffield Lab, not every Direct Cut was that great. Dave Grusin's Discovered Again was mastered at such low levels the dynamic response suffered. The bass was anaemic. And dont even mention the horrible stuff Lincoln Mayorga and Distinguished ... came up with... Audiophile Sound Not Good Music

 

To explain further... I cannot say the same about all the other commercial pressings from that era. The James Taylors, Linda Ronstadt's, Rolling Stones, Dire Straits even the Telarc Tchaikovsky's John Williams Boston Pops, Digital to Disc LP's  -- Mostly were just plain Garbage as far as mastering and recording onto the Vinyl.

 

I have a bunch of newer Digital Transfers to Disc - so called Audiophile Music - Bluegrass albums just guitar, banjo, ukelele recorded live and sounds wonderful.

The 64 Million Dollar question is do the Best of Digital trump (poor choice of word - No pun intended) the Best of Analogue. 

 

In my opinion. the BEST of the DIRECT TO DISC Analogue Disc remains the PINNACLE of Audio Recording and Reproduction.

 

My belief is that the Skill/Expert Knowledge/Care/Dedication/Passion put into the Recording/Transfer/Cutting process is the Essential Bit even if there is a digital chain in the middle. Having said that the end Medium (LP or a CD) will make all that difference. 

 

And I also have compared my McIntosh CD Player MCD7007 with the Disc Clamper Mechanism - again not the best of best through a PS Audio PWD II DAC through the same Tube/Horn speaker system playing the CD version of Dave Grusin's Discovered Again. An Absolute Piece of TRASH vs the Direct Cut.

 

I Contend that Digital Files with a superior Music Playing Software and with even a mildly improved Digital Playback system - Audiophile PC, Software/ USB streamer/ USB Decrapifier etc makes the Sound Quality of Playback far superior to the CD.

 

(I keep a HQPlayer DSD upsampling digital system which I play 10 x more than my TT system. 20000 tracks at my finger tips,  Sounds Fantastic)

 

So if we are comparing How high is the Audiophile Mountain Peak, then if the best of the Analogue or even Digital Direct Cuts is at Mount Everest, I maintain the best of Digital Streaming is like K2!! The best of the CD systems (maybe the best of the Belt driven Super Players may be around the K2 or slightly lower)

 

YMMV

 

Happy Listening.

[PeterSt]

7 hours ago, The_K-Man said:

16 hours ago, semente said:

 

Spin a record while listening to a file and you're good. 😉

 

Folks like the one you replied to probably know none of what goes into producing an album, or even singles.

 

Do you know yourself the relevance of what you are saying ?

Or you're mixing up posts. Or maybe you start to be a broken record ?

[John Dyson]

4 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Older, 'straight' recordings suffer just as much as overly compressed stuff - pop recordings of the 70's and 80's are spectacularly good to listen to - but you wouldn't know this if you listen on a typical audiophile rig.

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.