Lies about vinyl vs digital

[semente]

On 7/15/2019 at 11:21 AM, PeterSt said:

 

Yes. Now you describe it like that, I think this is quite true. Still it is so that for me (and so many more) the "digitus" finally disappeared something like 2 years ago. When someone made a new USB cable. 

So for the life of me I couldn't get rid of the "digital" sound without that. Not that I really knew that - or recognized it as digital. It was indeed the more clinical thing (hard to counteract with OS settings). Not so at all any more.

 

My modified Pioneer CD player, which I've had since 2009, (was) is free of "digitus". If it weren't for a (not so) temporary move abroad and I wouldn't have changed sources to a music-file player...

[acg]

Hi Peter, 

 

Yes,  I must use a preamp,  there is no real choice. I need the gain and I also swap multiple sources. 

 

Cheers

[PeterSt]

1 minute ago, semente said:

My modified Pioneer CD player, which I've had since 2009, (was) is free of "digitus".

 

I think I recognize that. My last CDPlayer was a Teac P1 (I suppose I still have it somewhere) with some Audionote Signature whatever 10x modded DAC.

In retrospect, I don't recognize that as too digitally sounding. That (IMO) started to happen with computer playback.

 

... And not because computers as bad per se, but because it got better again (think less rounded and feel the problems coming to you).

 

There are still quite some discussions going on that computer playback is worse than CD playback. This is much harder to "fight" for me, although I am again fairly sure that it is the lack of "computer" experience to work it all out. Like I said earlier on - digital (referring to computers) is mighty difficult.

[PeterSt]

OffTopic:

 

2 minutes ago, acg said:

Yes,  I must use a preamp,  there is no real choice. I need the gain and I also swap multiple sources. 

 

Did you consider DSP ? that usually has gain too, and at the levels you will work (in signal current) it could really work (like we use it in the Orelo speaker for the bass).

Did you ?

You'd have your output channels, cross overs (if you'd accept the too low ADC sampling rate) and still one source with main (digital) volume.

[acg]

No,  I've not considered dsp for gain.   I have two analogue and two digital sources, with a third digital source planned... not so keen on ADC for the analogue stuff. 

 

Or do you mean dsp just for the dac?

[fas42]

11 hours ago, semente said:

 

My modified Pioneer CD player, which I've had since 2009, (was) is free of "digitus". If it weren't for a (not so) temporary move abroad and I wouldn't have changed sources to a music-file player...

 

Almost from the very start of CD there were players that were good enough - the Yamaha unit I started with in 1986 was the magic animal that delivered the SQ that changed everything for me; it was only slightly modified, by me, to hardwire all the key metal to metal contacts, and required a very long conditioning period, days of being left on, to bring it on song.

[fas42]

11 hours ago, PeterSt said:

There are still quite some discussions going on that computer playback is worse than CD playback. This is much harder to "fight" for me, although I am again fairly sure that it is the lack of "computer" experience to work it all out. Like I said earlier on - digital (referring to computers) is mighty difficult.

 

What drags digital SQ down is complexity, and higher frequency electrical activity anywhere in the vicinity. Simplify, simplify; isolate, isolate - repeat this as a mantra until the goal is reached, .

 

The friend down the road using a palm sized media player to drive the amp, where every tiny aspect of the setup has been experimented with and optimised - to produce SQ which is well in advance of the majority of ambitious high end rigs I've heard over the years - demonstrates what's achievable with a very low cost arrangement, if the areas which actually matter for long term listening pleasure are taken seriously.

[sandyk]

11 hours ago, acg said:

No,  I've not considered dsp for gain.   I have two analogue and two digital sources, with a third digital source planned... not so keen on ADC for the analogue stuff.  

 

 Hi Anthony

 Many people have similar requirements to yours, and further Digital Processing will inevitably degrade to some extent the SQ of at least some of the Input sources.

 Have you fitted input selection to your current project ?

 

Regards

Alex

[Doak]

Vinyl vs Digital?

My vote is for BOTH. 

I can and do thoroughly enjoy both formats. 

My LP and digital playback front ends represent VERY similar investments of time, money and energy (mental & physical). Each has its own deficiencies and advantages.

There is much music that  I LOVE listening to via each one. What is great on one may NOT be great on the other. This is too often the case to forsake either. Alternatives are a wonderful asset that can be and are quite advantageous. 

Carry on. 

[Rexp]

1 hour ago, Doak said:

Vinyl vs Digital?

My vote is for BOTH. 

I can and do thoroughly enjoy both formats. 

My LP and digital playback front ends represent VERY similar investments of time, money and energy (mental & physical). Each has its own deficiencies and advantages.

There is much music that  I LOVE listening to via each one. What is great on one may NOT be great on the other. This is too often the case to forsake either. Alternatives are a wonderful asset that can be and are quite advantageous. 

Carry on. 

Cool, do you have a preference for any particular digital format, hi-res etc? 

[acg]

9 hours ago, sandyk said:

 Hi Anthony

 Many people have similar requirements to yours, and further Digital Processing will inevitably degrade to some extent the SQ of at least some of the Input sources.

 Have you fitted input selection to your current project ?

 

Regards

Alex

 

Yes, my preamps all have input selection but also the power amplifiers themselves can accept either bnc or rca...but with no switch between...conceivably both sockets occupied at the same time and even run together (not ideal).  There are all sorts of combinations and permutations regarding where the analogue VC should be placed, but ideally it would be at the output of the preamp.  Peters digital VC in his software is magnificent, so perhaps I could run the Phasure dac such that it bypasses the analogue VC in the preamp.  At least that is what I have been thinking about today in my fleeting free moments. 

[StephenJK]

I don't consider either format to be superior and enjoy them both.  I do think a lot of CDs were issued with little to no care for the mastering or final sound quality but that's also true for LPs as well.

 

I continue to digitize LPs that I own.  Having completed about 1,600 rock, jazz and blues LPs I've moved onto the classical and opera.  They all get added to the same 2 TB drive as the CDs.  For any new music that might interest me I too often find that the only way the music is available in any level of quality (redbook or better) is with a physical CD.  I can rip that and then put the disc away.

 

Now, with the Devialet Expert Pro 440 monoblocks all incoming signals are digitized, processed to whatever configuration is used and then run through a DAC stage for final playback.  

 

Regardless of what some may thing of this type of digital signal processing, I hear things from the original LP or CD source I never heard before, and that's a good thing.  

 

And, of course, it ends the argument of which is better, the LP or the CD because they all get the same treatment.  My only technical issue now is whether the output configured from the amp to the digital recorder should be analog or digital.  I need to do some testing.

[John Dyson]

16 minutes ago, SJK said:

I don't consider either format to be superior and enjoy them both.  I do think a lot of CDs were issued with little to no care for the mastering or final sound quality but that's also true for LPs as well.

 

I continue to digitize LPs that I own.  Having completed about 1,600 rock, jazz and blues LPs I've moved onto the classical and opera.  They all get added to the same 2 TB drive as the CDs.  For any new music that might interest me I too often find that the only way the music is available in any level of quality (redbook or better) is with a physical CD.  I can rip that and then put the disc away.

 

Now, with the Devialet Expert Pro 440 monoblocks all incoming signals are digitized, processed to whatever configuration is used and then run through a DAC stage for final playback.  

 

Regardless of what some may thing of this type of digital signal processing, I hear things from the original LP or CD source I never heard before, and that's a good thing.  

 

And, of course, it ends the argument of which is better, the LP or the CD because they all get the same treatment.  My only technical issue now is whether the output configured from the amp to the digital recorder should be analog or digital.  I need to do some testing.

That is the kind of thing (maybe not 100% the same) as what I have been saying all along.  The big difference is in the 'preparation' for distribution, not so much the medium.  (Well, unless the vinyl is the grainy junk that they some used for '45s in the US way back when - must have left some of the metal in from the steel belted tires when creating the 'vinyl' back in the day. 🙂)

All of the fine arguments about 'vinyl sounding better' aren't really addressing the issue.  More accurately, the version of the recording that is on vinyl sounds better (in some cases.)

 

If the best recording version is on vinyl (assuming minimal ticks/pops/surface noise), and digitize it onto at least CD resolution -- then best of both worlds until a digital version with the same 'preparation'  (mastering) as the vinyl album.  (Hopefully, without the HF limiting and LF rolloff sometimes used on vinyl 'preparation'.)

 

John

 

[Doak]

9 hours ago, Rexp said:

Cool, do you have a preference for any particular digital format, hi-res etc? 

I do prefer hi-res, particularly well done 24/192 PCM and DSD 64 & 128.

 

[sandyk]

10 hours ago, John Dyson said:

(Well, unless the vinyl is the grainy junk that they some used for '45s in the US way back when - must have left some of the metal in from the steel belted tires when creating the 'vinyl' back in the day. 🙂)

 

IIRC, they didn't even bother removing the labels when recycling back then either. 

[PeterSt]

13 hours ago, SJK said:

I hear things from the original LP or CD source I never heard before,

 

Interesting.

[fas42]

13 hours ago, SJK said:

Regardless of what some may thing of this type of digital signal processing, I hear things from the original LP or CD source I never heard before, and that's a good thing.

 

Quite easy to understand why the LP material can actually perform better - the environment when ripping from the vinyl can be made to be quite different, in that the power amplifier and speakers are not active; the former can disturb the electrical situation, and the latter can introduce physical feedback to the TT. So, the new, generated source has less noise added by the full playback chain - and if the the digital replay is then of a high order, it "will sound better".

[Le Concombre Masqué]

17 hours ago, SJK said:

I don't consider either format to be superior and enjoy them both.  I do think a lot of CDs were issued with little to no care for the mastering or final sound quality but that's also true for LPs as well.

 

I continue to digitize LPs that I own.  Having completed about 1,600 rock, jazz and blues LPs I've moved onto the classical and opera.  They all get added to the same 2 TB drive as the CDs.  For any new music that might interest me I too often find that the only way the music is available in any level of quality (redbook or better) is with a physical CD.  I can rip that and then put the disc away.

 

Now, with the Devialet Expert Pro 440 monoblocks all incoming signals are digitized, processed to whatever configuration is used and then run through a DAC stage for final playback.  

 

Regardless of what some may thing of this type of digital signal processing, I hear things from the original LP or CD source I never heard before, and that's a good thing.  

 

And, of course, it ends the argument of which is better, the LP or the CD because they all get the same treatment.  My only technical issue now is whether the output configured from the amp to the digital recorder should be analog or digital.  I need to do some testing.

which ADC do you use? I have been considering a second hand TASCAM UH 7000 to live feed a 4 iteration of HQP* but I think I'll go Linux and this one does not have the drivers

 

*My digital front end is much better thanks to convolution via HQP and I want my LPs to benefit of it as well 

[StephenJK]

7 hours ago, Le Concombre Masqué said:

which ADC do you use? I have been considering a second hand TASCAM UH 7000 to live feed a 4 iteration of HQP* but I think I'll go Linux and this one does not have the drivers

 

*My digital front end is much better thanks to convolution via HQP and I want my LPs to benefit of it as well 

It's a bit complicated.  For years I used the analog output from a tape monitor loop on a preamp as the input to a Korg MR-2000S digital recorder.  It's still one of the best ADC's around, recording up to 1 bit/5.66 MHz.  If you're looking to record LPs I would highly recommend it.  It's no longer being made but many NOS units are around for about $1K.

 

With the change to the Devialet Expert Pro 440 monoblocks, I did check to make sure there would be an analog output that could be used the same way.  But - all inputs to the Devialet are digitized through their own ADC.  That way, any and all processing of line level or phono inputs can be done in the digital domain including with the phono the sensitivity for the input and the RIAA curve you would like to use.

 

That means the analog output from the Devialet to the Korg recorder will now have gone through both an ADC and DAC stage.  Not that there's anything wrong with that - I'm not one of those believers that "the bits get tired and some of them start to fall by the side of the road" type of guy.

 

But I do have the option of taking a digital output from the Devialet to a digital input on the Korg.  It will still function as a recorder, but I'm wondering what's the point?  I'm really just transferring the file to the Korg internal hard drive.

 

I'm tending towards using the analog output from the Devialet to the analog input of the Korg, despite the fact the path is now Devialet ADC, Devialet DAC and Korg ADC.  

 

The third option, of course, is to use a phono preamp and send the output of that directly to the recorder.  I just sold a Musical Fidelity Nu-Vista Vinyl thinking I wouldn't need it any more, but that's all part of the upgrade process.

 

From a scientific perspective, the conundrum is that I can no longer experiment or test properly, as I've lost the analog playback baseline.  I can't compare what the LP sound will be direct to the Korg as opposed to going through the Devialet as I need hardware to do that.  

 

I suppose the biggest issue is I would really prefer the analog recording from the LP to be straight to the Korg as before, and picking up a MC phono preamp shouldn't be that big a deal.

 

But, I work in R&D and it's all about finding the right solution for the problem.  

[Le Concombre Masqué]

47 minutes ago, SJK said:

It's a bit complicated.  For years I used the analog output from a tape monitor loop on a preamp as the input to a Korg MR-2000S digital recorder.  It's still one of the best ADC's around, recording up to 1 bit/5.66 MHz.  If you're looking to record LPs I would highly recommend it.  It's no longer being made but many NOS units are around for about $1K.

 

With the change to the Devialet Expert Pro 440 monoblocks, I did check to make sure there would be an analog output that could be used the same way.  But - all inputs to the Devialet are digitized through their own ADC.  That way, any and all processing of line level or phono inputs can be done in the digital domain including with the phono the sensitivity for the input and the RIAA curve you would like to use.

 

That means the analog output from the Devialet to the Korg recorder will now have gone through both an ADC and DAC stage.  Not that there's anything wrong with that - I'm not one of those believers that "the bits get tired and some of them start to fall by the side of the road" type of guy.

 

But I do have the option of taking a digital output from the Devialet to a digital input on the Korg.  It will still function as a recorder, but I'm wondering what's the point?  I'm really just transferring the file to the Korg internal hard drive.

 

I'm tending towards using the analog output from the Devialet to the analog input of the Korg, despite the fact the path is now Devialet ADC, Devialet DAC and Korg ADC.  

 

The third option, of course, is to use a phono preamp and send the output of that directly to the recorder.  I just sold a Musical Fidelity Nu-Vista Vinyl thinking I wouldn't need it any more, but that's all part of the upgrade process.

 

From a scientific perspective, the conundrum is that I can no longer experiment or test properly, as I've lost the analog playback baseline.  I can't compare what the LP sound will be direct to the Korg as opposed to going through the Devialet as I need hardware to do that.  

 

I suppose the biggest issue is I would really prefer the analog recording from the LP to be straight to the Korg as before, and picking up a MC phono preamp shouldn't be that big a deal.

 

But, I work in R&D and it's all about finding the right solution for the problem.  

thank you !

[StephenJK]

9 hours ago, Le Concombre Masqué said:

thank you !

Yes, I’m replying to my own post.  I’m convinced I’m not the only one to do so.

 

The more technically minded will have realized two things - If I use a phono preamp to the recorder I can’t hear what I’m recording and if I send a digital recording to the Korg I may as well just record to the music server laptop.

 

Just a few minutes ago I received an email from Devialet in response to my question about configurations for digital recording.

 

It turns out the USB connection from the laptop to the Devialet is bi-directional.  I. An run VinylStudio and record the digital output from the Devialet after a single ADC stage with RIAA compensation.

 

It looks like the Korg MR-2000S is no longer needed.

[Le Concombre Masqué]

3 hours ago, SJK said:

Yes, I’m replying to my own post.  I’m convinced I’m not the only one to do so.

 

The more technically minded will have realized two things - If I use a phono preamp to the recorder I can’t hear what I’m recording and if I send a digital recording to the Korg I may as well just record to the music server laptop.

 

Just a few minutes ago I received an email from Devialet in response to my question about configurations for digital recording.

 

It turns out the USB connection from the laptop to the Devialet is bi-directional.  I. An run VinylStudio and record the digital output from the Devialet after a single ADC stage with RIAA compensation.

 

It looks like the Korg MR-2000S is no longer needed.

Recording was not an option I had in mind, I was more thinking of live feed of HQPlayer. Don't know what sounds best, live feed or recording? I have a VPI cleaner but I guess that to add a ultrasonic cleaner when recording is a must. Plus thus it requires thinking and evaluation of what is worth the process... See it sells for $ 1149 on Amazon, wonder what is the second hand value.

[ajay556]

On 7/4/2018 at 4:07 AM, firedog said:

In the early 80's, if you had a typical entry level vinyl rig for people who cared about audio (say Shure or Ortofon cartridge and Dual Turntable), you may have been very favorably impressed by the sound of CD: no surface noise, lots of dynamics (louder than vinyl!), no clicks and pops.

 

But Vinyl actually has gotten better. Now that it is more of a specialty item and  considered expensive, the average  new disc is much better made and uses better raw material than back in the 70's and 80's. Cutting, mastering, etc are all more precise. 

Cartridges, turntables, and phono pre's have also improved (yes, I am talking in generalities and am not including "junk" equipment in my assessments, but stuff that is supposed to be good sounding). 

 

But, don't get me wrong. I have a turntable I never use and I prefer good digital to analog. It is orders of magnitude better than it once was, even compared to the beginning of this century. 

Can you share your analog and digital equipment and cost?

i have built both systems twice for the  same  cost. Vinyl had always been better  with music from 1950s - 1980s. With today’s music I would say it’s a toss up... they both are good in different ways 

[PeterSt]

5 hours ago, ajay556 said:

With today’s music I would say it’s a toss up...

 

I'd say that with today's music the needle won't stay in the groove. 🤩

[John Dyson]

8 hours ago, ajay556 said:

Can you share your analog and digital equipment and cost?

i have built both systems twice for the  same  cost. Vinyl had always been better  with music from 1950s - 1980s. With today’s music I would say it’s a toss up... they both are good in different ways 

Given old music that had been DolbyA encoded -- and using material based that (digital vs. analog), and assuming that I can find an undecoded (DolbyA copy), the quality of both the previous digital versions can be blown away.  Very possibly, the old digital material is still DolbyA encoded (flat spatial relationships, a bit harsh on the vocals, springy high frequencies, etc.)   The vinyl versions aren't usually leaked with the encoding like that.  I have found it to be true even on some Nat King Cole material (the three track masters being moved over to DolbyA encoded some time in the past.)

If you can find an example where I can find a DolbyA copy (which just might be your digital version plus some EQ), the digital version could be made to blow away any analog version with proper decoding and mastering.  (I am not good at mastering, but can decode DolbyA better than previously possible.)

That is not always the problem with the digital copies, but it is fairly common.  This 'fact' has been acknowledged by an individual who actually produced CD versions in the past.  (I had suspected and alleged it for about 5yrs now, but finally got some credible confirmation.)

 

* It is a total pain to decode 'leaked' DolbyA because of missing tones and no basis of reference, but it can be done, and with some patience the results can be astoundingly good.

 

John