Vinyl / High qual analog tape / High-res digital -- One of these is not like the other

Cleeds,

I am not sure why you are taking such an adversarial tone. The links you posted really do not discuss this topic, and this is not a conversation about "mastering", which if done differently for the formats, will make them all sound much much different.

This is a discussion about high resolution digital, good quality analog tape, and vinyl and what they are capable of. The link that CD318 posted gets into this, but dig further, and you realize that even though the first post makes it look like an exact comparison, read farther into the thread and it is not (as I posted), not to mention at that time he didn't even want to discuss high res formats due to, at that time, lack of availability. There is little discussion of the playback chain as well.


I never mentioned distortion at all with regards to vinyl. I specifically said "analog processing". That is a critical difference. Again the link that CD318 posted is interesting as Steve says they could tell CD and vinyl apart by listening to the tails on sounds (which does make me question their digital signal chain), and that tape and acetate master sounded the same (to him). I could sit someone down and in about 10-15 minutes teach them how to easily identify vinyl at least with headphones and near-field monitors, based on how the "sound-stage" changes. In normal listening environments because of the interaction of speakers, room, and cross-talk, the effect is not as consistent. Notice I said changes, not better, worse, but different and you don't hear that differences between high res digital and tape.

I am familiar with Mike's tests, and see that you have different results. I know that Mike has very high end equipment, but in the audiophile world, with digital, that could work against the most transparent result.  Most high end audiophile companies claim to make products "tuned" for the best sound (to whoever was doing the tuning by ear). There is a difference between technically transparent, and "tuned". If the DAC is "tuned", then it is not a faithful transparent reproduction of the digital capture. This is similar to some high end DACs now having user selectable filters, which all sound a bit different, but without knowing what the original source material sounds like, how do you know which one is most transparent?  It's the same with MQA. Claims technical superiority, but is it transparent or tuned? 


Cleeds, you saw my posts w.r.t. azimuth tuning on a turntable, and how tonearm pivot effects azimuth with height changes. Should be obvious from those posts I am not a neophyte w.r.t. vinyl. You did, however, make my point with your last line. I never said as a group you are preventing advancing, nor did I say that enjoying LPs was flawed (just the opposite actually). What I said is that blind devotion to a format based on perceived superiority, that may not actually be the case, can prevent you from moving forward. You could call that blind devotion, blind aversion as well. It would be akin to not buying a 2020 Hyundai based on how bad the 1980's vintage Hyundai Excel was.

"The suggestion that those of us enjoying LPs may be "preventing the next leap" is just absurd. Many of us have made that "leap" and found the potential of digital is often not realized."

This applies both ways too. There is a lot of blind devotion to Redbook CD capturing all the possible range of human experience.

roberttdid

I am not sure why you are taking such an adversarial tone ...

I really didn't intend to sound adversarial but c'mon, you have to admit this is a pretty tired topic.
You and I are probably much more in agreement on these matters than not.

This applies both ways too. There is a lot of blind devotion to Redbook CD capturing all the possible range of human experience.

That is really a good point and I'll take it one step further: If you want access to the highest quality copies of your favorite commercial recordings, you'll need to be able to play multiple formats.

Wow, three turntables and $160k in digital hardware? Do you mind me asking what you do for a living Mike?

i’m about to retire from managing a car dealership. it took 25 years to build up my system. a little each year. hifi is my way of coping with daily job stress.

I care to differ a little. I was busy typing my last post when yours was added. It is not that digital is missing something. It is that something is added to vinyl. I have several direct to disc albums and it is interesting to note that they sound more like Hi Res digital files than other records.

i cannot argue that the analog process is without any artifacts. OTOH digital absolutely misses things objectively, and by degrees. and the musical experience equation is much more diminished by what is missing from digital, even the very best digital, compare to anything added to the very best analog. been comparing the best of each 30 hours a week for decades. just how it sounds to me and my visitors.

if we take analog out of the discussion, digital music, at it’s best today, is objectively, completely, wonderful and satisfying. missing nothing. but on forums people like to bring up analog....so we do this dance. i don’t start threads like this. but sometimes i finish them.

I certainly agree that digital is more convenient. How could you not? I can’t listen to classical playlists streaming or otherwise. I just can’t enjoy it as background music. I have to sit in front of the system for classical.

there is a multi-task component to my listening which is unavoidable. but my 30 hours a week is time spent in my 2 channel dedicated room. so i might have classical playing while i’m reading or web surfing. the music competing for my attention. with analog there are no distractions, the music is too compelling. not that the digital cannot also be compelling.....and it too can demand i pay complete attention....just not as consistently.

Ideally digital and analog should sound exactly the same. If they don’t something is happening in the signal path or master to alter the original recording. What sounds better I suspect is a matter of taste more than anything.

filtering a musical signal through a math equation is not without a cost. on a forum here we can debate this. if we were both sitting in my room the debate would be very very short. a note or two likely, but sometimes a dozen cuts are needed to get it. i’ve had that experience dozens of times. my yard is littered with the bones of former digital zealots.....now reborn.

my yard is littered with the bones of former digital zealots.....now reborn.

:)


I think that it is possible to fool the ears but no so the soul with mathematical artefact at the end..... Case closed....We can approximate the sound but not the soul.... A great Jazz musician says about the African rhythm drum music, that this music always wheeled over, that can be feeled and not so easily reproduced.... :)

I will go on with my modest digital set-up tough but I will not dig your graveyard for my own tomb stone....

I dont think that digital lack something in particular, especially if rightly embedded, except that it is a mathematical approximation of the phenomenal analog qualia, be it the closest you can, it lack nothing in particular but it is not the same.... :)


But in most ordinary audio systems with regular source, I dont think that this difference is clearly perceptible.... I know I make the test.... And we cannot choose between the 2 my friend and i.....


What digital miss is in truth mikelavigne audio system..... :)

mikelavigne

... digital absolutely misses things objectively, and by degrees. and the musical experience equation is much more diminished by what is missing from digital, even the very best digital, compare to anything added to the very best analog.

This could be true, and it’s sometimes how digital sounds to me. So please tell us @mikelavigne : What is digital objectively missing?