Lies about vinyl vs digital

[Confused]

36 minutes ago, firedog said:

But other people - including some on this forum- love the Innuos and can't say enough about it. 

I've extensively auditioned one Devialet model (I think it was a single 400) and thought it sounded quite good. Tastes differ. As do setups and what else is involved in the audition, such as speakers...

Devialet sucks!

 

Although I have the dual mono which is better, because it double sucks.

[audiobomber]

3 hours ago, The_K-Man said:

 

In order of importance, with (1) in my estimation being the most crucial:

 

1. Mastering

2. Artistic composition

3. Recording technique

4. Mixing

5. Acoustic treatment of room.

6. Studio interconnects.

7. ADC converters in studio and DAC in consumer playback.

 

Digital, or specifically the CD,  will just reproduce everything, from overprocessed Sh?t  to well produced music, better than will an analog source.  Catch my drift?  Production choices, as well as how well a song is written and composed, are more critical than the specific delivery format, as well as more important than USD$500 boutique interconnects.

Mastering ahead of composition? There's no mastering technique that will make music that I hate, appeal. 

[wdw]

13 minutes ago, Confused said:

Devialet sucks!

 

Although I have the dual mono which is better, because it double sucks.

 

Me too..have dual mono Devialet 440s feed by a dCS Bridge...it all totally sucks...big time

[audiobomber]

10 hours ago, MetalNuts said:

My Avatar shows that I am happy and content only.

Actually your bunny looks manic.

[NOMBEDES]

Audience to Neil Young:  "it all sounds the same".

Neil Young to Audience:  "it's the same song".

 

 

[Dr Tone]

1 hour ago, Confused said:

Devialet sucks!

 

Although I have the dual mono which is better, because it double sucks.

1 hour ago, wdw said:

 

Me too..have dual mono Devialet 440s feed by a dCS Bridge...it all totally sucks...big time

 

Finally you guys are seeing the light!  ?

[gmgraves]

17 hours ago, mansr said:

Digital can do this just fine with dither and possibly noise shaping. How do you think 1-bit DSD can achieve 120 dB dynamic range below 20 kHz?

 

Of course it can. I said that this drawback can be overcome. I just didn't want to muddy the waters by bringing-up dithering or DSD. I restricted my comments to LPCM

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Of course it can. I said that this drawback can be overcome. I just didn't want to muddy the waters by bringing-up dithering or DSD. I restricted my comments to LPCM

Dithering should be used with LPCM. Your decision to ignore it makes the comparison skewed.

[gmgraves]

7 minutes ago, mansr said:

Dithering should be used with LPCM. Your decision to ignore it makes the comparison skewed.

I disagree. My conclusion was (and is) that digital - even CD, as a recording system, ultimately, is better than analog (vinyl and tape), but that differences between various productions from recording to mastering to actual manufacturing, can make it a crap shoot whether the best sound is from a particular vinyl record, a CD, a high-res download or an audio blu-ray disc, or an SACD. In any particular case, the winner, SQ-wise could be any one of the above. 

[mansr]

10 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

My conclusion was (and is) that digital - even CD, as a recording system, ultimately, is better than analog (vinyl and tape), but that differences between various productions from recording to mastering to actual manufacturing, can make it a crap shoot whether the best sound is from a particular vinyl record, a CD, a high-res download or an audio blu-ray disc, or an SACD. In any particular case, the winner, SQ-wise could be any one of the above.

That part I agree with.

[Ralf11]

Here is the battery you need GUTB:

 

https://phys.org/news/2018-07-scientists-vanadium-battery.html?utm_source=menu&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=item-menu

[Confused]

1 hour ago, Dr Tone said:

 

Finally you guys are seeing the light!  ?

Only when I open the fridge door....

[mav52]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

I disagree. My conclusion was (and is) that digital - even CD, as a recording system, ultimately, is better than analog (vinyl and tape), but that differences between various productions from recording to mastering to actual manufacturing, can make it a crap shoot whether the best sound is from a particular vinyl record, a CD, a high-res download or an audio blu-ray disc, or an SACD. In any particular case, the winner, SQ-wise could be any one of the above. 

Bingo  , so true

[esimms86]

Here's an interesting test if you or a friend have a compatible setup and access to the music recordings. Listen to any of the new Steven Wilson Yes remixes on vinyl and compare them to Steven Wilson needle drops and remixes of Yes in digital.

[The_K-Man]

9 hours ago, audiobomber said:

Mastering ahead of composition? There's no mastering technique that will make music that I hate, appeal. 

 

But I have experienced the opposite: mastering that has sucked the joy of a song I might have enjoyed even more if they had not compressed or brickwall limited the sh- out of it.

[vmartell22]

On 7/4/2018 at 3:18 AM, 4est said:

If your vinyl rig was worse than digital in the 80s, it must have been pretty bad.

 

haha

 

Guess that was the case for many of us - just a kid then, was around and upon hearing CDs for the first time, music emerging out of digital silence, yes it was a big deal. And yes it was miles away from my vinyl system then. So yeah, I was one of those that could not wait to drop vinyl...  Might as well, I knew lot less then that I know now about taking care of vinyl, so guessing those records condition was not fantastic... now, well, analog system is way better... 

 

v

[mjb]

I grew up with vinyl, but when CD's arrived I couldn't switch fast enough. 

[The_K-Man]

4 hours ago, vmartell22 said:

 

haha

 

Guess that was the case for many of us - just a kid then, was around and upon hearing CDs for the first time, music emerging out of digital silence, yes it was a big deal. And yes it was miles away from my vinyl system then. So yeah, I was one of those that could not wait to drop vinyl...  Might as well, I knew lot less then that I know now about taking care of vinyl, so guessing those records condition was not fantastic... now, well, analog system is way better... 

 

v

 

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!

[sandyk]

8 minutes ago, The_K-Man said:

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!

 

 With some older albums such as " Roberta Flack-Killing Me Softly," where the tracks are at quite a low level, with only one or 2 peaks even reaching -6dB,  you are likely to be limited by the S/N of your gear.

It took me quite a bit of work to find out just how good the title track really is. Just don't assume that with pre - Loudness War albums that the analogue gear they used back then is to blame.

 I have heard a copy of the Master of " Peggy Lee-Fever" before all the other bits were mixed in , and it sounds FABULOUS, even by today's standards. Even some of the old Julie London albums can  sound damn good too with gear of decent quality.

[The_K-Man]

2 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 With some older albums such as " Roberta Flack-Killing Me Softly," where the tracks are at quite a low level, with only one or 2 peaks even reaching -6dB,  you are likely to be limited by the S/N of your gear.

It took me quite a bit of work to find out just how good the title track really is. Just don't assume that with pre - Loudness War albums that the analogue gear they used back then is to blame.

 I have heard a copy of the Master of " Peggy Lee-Fever" before all the other bits were mixed in , and it sounds FABULOUS, even by today's standards. Even some of the old Julie London albums can  sound damn good too with gear of decent quality.

 

In those examples, what mattered is how much of the actual performance - the dynamics, the vitality, the local acoustics - was left in and survived both the mixing and mastering stages.  Any analog imperfections, during production or playback, will be masked by those qualities, and most people, like myself, will readily forgive even an occasional vinyl click, or tape hiss.

[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?

[semente]

2 minutes ago, Rexp said:

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

 

I think he means that they sound "tastier" to him. ?

...

Or maybe it's just the way they're mastered.

[The_K-Man]

57 minutes ago, semente said:

 

...

Or maybe it's just the way they're mastered.

^^^BINGO!!!^^^

 

See my response to Rexp.

[The_K-Man]

1 hour ago, Rexp said:

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

 

 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.

[mav52]

1 minute ago, The_K-Man said:

 

 Because what is sent to vinyl omits the 'final step':  Brickwall limiter and make-up gain.

 

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

 

But it really depends on which master it really is.  Was it the original or the re-mastered master or the re-mastered re-mastered that is pleasing. So many of these CD' and downloads have been re-engineered to sound, "better" to some or worst than the original . Its a crap shoot sometimes on knowing which copy you really have.