Vinyl / High qual analog tape / High-res digital -- One of these is not like the other
One common theme I read on forums here and elsewhere is the view by many that there is a pecking order in quality:
Top - High Quality Analog TapeNext - VinylBottom - Digital
I will go out on a limb and say that most, probably approaching almost all those making the claim have never heard a really good analog tape machine and high resolution digital side by side, and have certainly never heard what comes out the other end when it goes to vinyl, i.e. heard the tape/file that went to the cutter, then compared that to the resultant record?
High quality analog tape and high quality digital sound very similar. Add a bit of hiss (noise) to digital, and it would be very difficult to tell which is which. It is not digital, especially high resolution digital that is the outlier, it is vinyl. It is different from the other two. Perhaps if more people actually experienced this, they would have a different approach to analog/vinyl?
This post has nothing to do with personal taste. If you prefer vinyl, then stick with it and enjoy it. There are reasons why the analog processing that occurs in the vinyl "process" can result in a sound that pleases someone. However, knowledge is good, and if you are set in your ways, you may be preventing the next leap.
"so if you compare the golden age of 2 channel analog it’s mid 50’s to around 1970. you have the relative purity of the process and the gear. those recordings are hard for digital to compete with. plus in many ways the expectations to make ’live’ recordings were much greater on the artists. and more resources were devoted to the process by the labels. the best of this era can’t be touched by the digital era."
I would tend to agree. All of that cramming more and more tracks onto the same tape (ofen 1/4 inch) can’t have helped things, nor the bouncing down that was regularly employed increasingly throughout the late 60s/70s. Nor the loss of that ’live’ sound after innumerable takes. No wonder the lo-fi Nebraska sounds so fresh.
I think the main issue is whether the industry has even ever cared about sound quality? All the evidence I’ve seen suggests that sound quality was always a minor, maybe even a trivial concern for them. And it wasn’t all Phil Spector’s fault.
What about the artists themselves? Certain bands like Pink Floyd and Steely Dan seem to have cared about their sound, maybe a few others like Dylan and Kate Bush too, but how many of the others? Obviously, not too many.
Apparently a new Dylan album is out soon. Should be interesting to see how it sounds / was recorded etc.
As an aside, I think you were quite brave on taking that controlled cable (or was it messing with your mind?) challenge. Especially with the results posted online.
No
offence to Mike, but his room, his equipment, his sound, is still tuned
to the sound he prefers, and that may even be a popular preference, but
still a preference.
That's true of any audio system. An illusion is the best any system can create, and even the best illusions are imperfect. So it is always about preference.
I find listening to our main system far more pleasing than reference
headphones, but when I need to pick out fine details, the reference
headphones are my go to, and even those I have a few of and they all
sound different.
Same here. At least with headphones, you eliminate any effects that are the result of room acoustics.
"The sound of a very good well-tuned system can be expected to change week to week and day to day and hour to hour sometimes for any number of reasons."
I guess it is acceptable to metion experience/thoughts about SACD vs. CD here. No tape, though.
At the first listen, SACDs may sound strikingly "better". There simply feels there is "more of everything". I am not sure if that is because of mastering (or whatever other process may be involved in preparing material for SACD) or because of the medium itself. I will never know, but to me SACDs almost always sound like "more" than their regular CD counterpart. Those that are not that impressive, at least do not sound duller than a CD. Basically, if there is an option, I always buy a SACD and do not regret it. Anyone I presented with music at home, seemed impressed by SACDs.
That was an easy part. However, when comparing SACD and CD layers of the same SACD, on the same machine, it gets a little more slippery. I convinced myself that it is always worth choosing SACD layer, but I am not sure I would be able to discern the difference every time, if pressed to. That is why I am suspecting the processing before stamping may be as important as the medium itself, if not even more important. I assume, and have no knowledge of it, that preparing for SACD may make the engineer assume different expectations from customers and adjust the sound to them.
The most complicated part may be deciding if all those SACDs are, in fact, "better". I seem to like them more, but I cannot say that they are "more natural". They may be, but it is not that easy to claim for sure. Not even for classical music, although that is where I think they are definitely worth giving a shot.
If I were you and wanted to experiment, I would buy a SACD machine (basic ones can be really cheap), a few hybrid SACDs, and check the format out. If I liked it, I might buy a few more, but building the SACD library at this point is questionable endeavor for someone already familiar with streaming. There are plenty of DSF downloads out there and your DAC may be all you need.
I have had a very limited experience with Tidal (in audio stores), but from what I have heard selection and sound quality would not make me consider it at all. I think CDs, SACDs, or better downloads would be much better. Again, not much experience.
Here is just an example. It may be frowned upon as "not audiophile-worthy", but you can get some idea and it would not set you back by much...
Let’s get real for a second. The sound of a very good well-tuned system can be expected to change week to week and day to day and hour to hour sometimes for any number of reasons. If anyone says it doesn’t he is a mere beginner.
to be fair.....over the years, there have been plenty of well-intentioned criticisms of my room and system, which i’ve appreciated and has helped me to overcome my own ignorance and move forward. i’ve written often about this issue.
i will leave it up to the readers to determine whether Amir’s comments fall into that category.
Thanks, OP. That’s the plan regardless. Today I have Teac NT-505 but I plan to eventually move up to hopefully dCS Bartok for streaming. If an SACD player could provide even better quality playing SACDs than the Bartok can for streaming, then I’d consider getting an SACD player as well, but regardless streaming will be bulk of listening. Thanks again to all who responded.
@kren0006, get the DAC. That will give you access to a larger body of music played through a component capable of supporting a wider range of formats including 24/192,4/8x DSD, etc. that are unlikely to be found in physical media.
No offence to Mike, but his room, his equipment, his sound, is still tuned to the sound he prefers, and that may even be a popular preference, but still a preference.
My personal experience when I have been working directly with musicians, and it is a view I have seen reported often (even here), is that when musicians hear recordings, they will identify high-res digital recordings as a more accurate representation of the sound of their playing. Note I did not say pleasing, I said more accurate. I find listening to our main system far more pleasing than reference headphones, but when I need to pick out fine details, the reference headphones are my go to, and even those I have a few of and they all sound different.
... does this mean a recording done with 96/24 or 192/24 (or dxd and Quad
dsd) is worse than analog? all other things being equal......yes (some
would reasonably beg to differ) ...
As you suggest, some would think your claim is debatable, but I think the debate would be purely academic. Here's why:
... the best music well recorded still serves us well......regardless of the format.
Exactly! And for any of the reasons I've previously cited in this thread, the best version of any particular commercial recording could be on CD, or SACD, or LP, or tape, or from a streaming service. There are so many variables.
Thanks glupson. I don’t want to sidetrack the thread too much and to be clear, I don’t yet have any SACDs, and the CDs I have from 80s, 90s I don’t play because as of now I no longer have a modern player. I’m strictly Tidal streaming today, and happy enough.
But in the spirit of this thread and assessing fidelity of different playback options, my main question was *IF* SACD delivers a higher fidelity or sound quality listening experience than hi res Tidal or Qobuz streaming (that’s what I do not know), then I’d be interested in newly investing in SACD. If not, then no.
Hi quality analog would be ideal for reasons articulated by others but for time/inexperience/$$ reasons analog not in cards for me at present time but maybe in 10 years.
"...whether to get a regular CD transport to run thru dac or a full sacd player."
I would buy SACD player. You could always play CDs through an external DAC, if wanted.
There are a few more ways. You could put your SACDs into a hard drive and not even need a SACD player. However, it would be a little itchy to have those discs laying around with nothing to play them on.
Thanks ricmci for perspective on SACD v CD. I’m still debating whether to get a regular CD transport to run thru dac or a full sacd player. Maybe more will opine on level of fidelity between sacd and Tidal mqa or hi res qobuz.
As to vinyl, yes, I agree that seems to be consensus but for now starting from scratch that rabbit hole is too wide and deep for me at present. Maybe in ten years upon retirement when I have more time to spend on it.....
mikelavigne your posts are the best opinions I read about this subject....Not only you are not dogmatic or obsessive but your gear and room qualities can gives to you the real possibility of experimenting and experiencing about that debate most of the times badly informed... Thanks....
What happens if we consider albums that were recorded digitally? As I understand it, most music has been recorded digitally for the last 40 years. Let’s say it was recorded digitally at 96/24 and I have a download or stream at 96/24. Is it missing anything? Does vinyl have something that the digital doesn’t? If it does, is that good?
it’s not that simple. yet in some ways it is.
in the late 60’s solid state was replacing tubed gear for recording and mixing, and more and more multi-track and plugs-ins and such were used. so from there into the late 70’s it was still analog mostly but the process was changing. then early 80’s it’s all digital plus those previous changes.
so if you compare the golden age of 2 channel analog it’s mid 50’s to around 1970. you have the relative purity of the process and the gear. those recordings are hard for digital to compete with. plus in many ways the expectations to make ’live’ recordings were much greater on the artists. and more resources were devoted to the process by the labels. the best of this era can’t be touched by the digital era.
fast forward to today and still the artist and recording quality is paramount; with the format helping the sum of the whole to another level. how often do we get all these elements to line up? statistically since there are vastly more digital recordings today, the best of those will end up at the top of the heap; but all analog recordings still will potentially sound the best.
the current crop of direct-to-disc Lp offerings are untouchable by digital, as well as the few done to tape and offered as tape to the public.
vinyl and tape (when well done) have a palpability and presence digital misses. a rightness and ease. yet digital has degrees less of those things. it's 'good enough'.
does this mean a recording done with 96/24 or 192/24 (or dxd and Quad dsd) is worse than analog? all other things being equal......yes (some would reasonably beg to differ). but it’s very rare that all other things are equal. the best music well recorded still serves us well......regardless of the format. i love all my classical digital and it’s a big important part of my listening.
What happens if we consider albums that were recorded digitally? As I understand it, most music has been recorded digitally for the last 40 years. Let’s say it was recorded digitally at 96/24 and I have a download or stream at 96/24 that hasn't been dynamically squashed (there are a lot of those out there, you just have to get out of the pop mainstream a little). Is it missing anything? Does vinyl have something that the digital doesn’t? If it does, is that good?
"Most of Springsteen - Nebraska was done on a cassette TEAC portastudio.... give it a listen, it has some jump factor spots..."
I recently bought Nebraska, ahem, LP. 2014 issue. I will not claim it is realistic, or not, but it is eerily good. First side better than the second one, for whatever reason. I would recommend it to anyone. Way more pleasant to listen to than an old CD or relatively recently remastered CD. I am not saying vinyl is better format, I am just saying this particular one is more pleasing.
Kren0006, my experience with SACD vs Redbook is far from eye-opening. However, vinyl compared to CD seems to be on most occasions better. I have little to no experience with streaming as don't want to give up the physical and mental pleasure of manipulating the created end product. Thus, can't offer a reasonable argument here but I would suspect that quality vinyl would out do all other musical sources in a random poll of Audiogoners (short of Geoffkait voting for tape)!
But I can only compare digital A2D then storage then D2A against 15 ips half track. Level matching is difficult because as Mike said the energy density is different and we KNOW the human ear/ brain like louder ( especially the short run ) granted I only have a modified Revox and a Wadia 17 but to me, my ears my system the virtues are mixed. I thought about a lathe, and sanity... returned briefly... ha
I chased my tail the same way but I got it wrong listening to somebody else origin event comparing masters of different formats where you were not there yields personal flavor selection not an accurate capture let alone recreation of the event... it all starts w microphone selection.... now where did I put that ultra FAT ribbon ???
But a system can or cannot separate vinyl and digital in 2 clearly separate category.... Most system cannot, mine cannot, mikelavigne system can it seems.... When we look at it we can and may trust him for the audible difference....I trust him....I dont think a deaf man will ever invest so much money in music reproduction....
+1 Mike Lavigne In short--vinyl sounds more natural. Digital sounds truncated. But it sure is convenient and I listen to digital more than vinyl.
My system has 2 cd players including a Spectral SDR 4000SV and two universal players. On the vinyl side, I have a VPI HRX rim drive with 3d arm and numerous cartridges (I mainly use Lyra Atlas ). Although I do not have Mike's raw materials, I can tell the difference between vinyl and digital on my system a vast majority of the time. That being said--the Spectral is a remarkable cd player.
Somewhere out there Mike, there is a guy called George who would say your amplifiers are crap because they don’t double in power output when you 1/2 the speaker impedance :-) ... and no I am not the one saying that and I don’t agree with him.
everyone has a right to their own opinion, even george. if i listened to measurements, then he might have a point, but i use my amplifiers for music reproduction.
Fremer and i will muddle through with our flawed amplifiers. we both could choose to own any amplifier out there, and we both have the ones we prefer.
here is a link to a post that George might like (or not like);
I just compared Fleetwood Mac Rumours on audiophile vinyl (Pallas pressing) versus SACD. I used an EMM SACD player and ARC Reference level preamplification. The SACD had better and clearer highs (guitar fills mostly). The vinyl had a denser and more satisfying vocals and mids. Ultimately it was a draw.
sorry to break it you, but the Pallus 45 rpm pressing of Rumours sucks. i have 2 copies of it. the bass is fat and lacks articulation, and the sound is congested and life less. my guess is the 45 is digitally sourced. not surprised the SACD is better, as i recall i also prefer the CD.
i love Rumours, one of my favorite recordings. so 10 years ago i went on a mission to find an original pressing; which after buying 10 early pressings i finally found an original, and it’s awesome. most of the early pressings are ’decent’. they did sell like 25 million copies of Rumours in the 70’s so there are lots of them out there. i also have a 15ips 1/4" early generation RTR master dub of Rumours which is even better than the original pressing.
typically a 45rpm reissue of a vintage rock album is on the same level but a little different than a good original pressing. but in this case the 45 is not very good at all. it is still great music, and the 45rpm format and vinyl gear will bring some positives, but it’s way down the list of best ways to hear this.
I just compared Fleetwood Mac Rumours on audiophile vinyl (Pallas pressing) versus SACD. I used an EMM SACD player and ARC Reference level preamplification. The SACD had better and clearer highs (guitar fills mostly). The vinyl had a denser and more satisfying vocals and mids. Ultimately it was a draw.
"where digital is better, is in the way it works for my life. it fits."
All the theory aside, this is the point in 2020.
mahgister also makes a good point. If you elevate your system to mikelavigne's level (pricewise and, hard to not believe, qualitywise), the view may be different.
Regardless of which format you seem to prefer, if you did not compare it, you would be fine.
Robberrttddidd, you are a bean brain. No hard feelings, though. You don’t need to pose for the camera. 🏋🏻♂️ We see through you like you were made of glass.
There, fixed it for you, both in accuracy, and in brevity. This will be the only attention I give you in this thread, so I would enjoy it while you can.
geoffkait22,775 posts06-18-2020 4:05pmAs
far as I know I’m the only goofball here.
As far as I know I’m the only friendly goofball physicist here and I’m a tape person through and though, at least these days, unless there’s a whole lotta tweakin’ going on with the CD and the CD transport as I’ve been counseling, even then... These truths are self-evident.
Somewhere out there Mike, there is a guy called George who would say your amplifiers are crap because they don't double in power output when you 1/2 the speaker impedance :-) ... and no I am not the one saying that and I don't agree with him.
What I will say is that even the peak watt meters will response somewhat "slow", and if there is a vast difference between the vinyl and digital wattage readings, that's the mastering, not whatever the source is, unless the source is artificially creating a "softer" sound.
Compared to CD, tape at 15, even 7.5 will have an extended frequency response past 20KHz. Compared to 24/96 or 24/192, the digital will have a much better frequency response >20KHz. Musicians seem to most note the difference between vinyl and digital. They like how they sound on vinyl, but feel that high res digital is closer to reality (with all its warts).
well; i have lots of digital and vinyl masters from the same tape source.
my darTZeel amplifiers have steady state and peak watt readouts on their face plates. readable from the listening position.
i can play the same recording back to back and see the peak readout in wattage. it’s not close how much more dense and dynamic the peaks are on analog. for that matter the tape is better then the vinyl.
a horn at full tilt, a drum whack.......
digital simply cannot muster the information at peaks. cannot do it. on paper it is suppose to be better. your engineering prof said it’s better. our friendly local goofball physicist said it’s better. but they were wrong.
and this difference is at the heart of every difference i speak about. digital is washed out and blunted relative to great analog. it’s a fact. you do have to have analog that can actually play back what is in the grooves or on the tape. and also proper resonance treatment so you are not blunting the peaks. i do have that treatment.
The one that’s missing the solid transparent soundstage, the puffy air, the correct tone of instruments, the bass frequency structure and slam, proper harmonic structure and warmth and sweetness of real music. That’s the CD system one.
... objectively the things digital misses are the tonal and timbrel completeness of musical parts, the focused dynamic power of the music, and the inner musical pace and flow. the data density of analog is much higher. the continuous-ness and tonal density are better. the ability to separate musical parts and retain air and dynamic shading is better......especially when the music gets very dense and complicated ...
Mike, we’re probably kindred spirits when it comes to this topic but for explaining our preferences. For example, when you say, "objectively the things digital misses ..." what you really mean is, "subjectively, the things digital misses ..."
Right?
If I’m wrong and you can objectively demonstrate this, please elaborate.
i agree that these threads seek some sort of objective result, but that unless you are weapons free to approach these questions with unlimited resources we are going to have multiple "valid" if "not too useful" anecdotal based viewpoints. which is why i qualify my views.......and that your mileage may......and likely does.....vary....from mine. not many crazy enough to take my approach, even though many have that option.
Cleeds Asks;
This could be true, and it’s sometimes how digital sounds to me. So please tell us @mikelavigne : What is digital objectively missing?
objectively the things digital misses are the tonal and timbrel completeness of musical parts, the focused dynamic power of the music, and the inner musical pace and flow. the data density of analog is much higher. the continuous-ness and tonal density are better. the ability to separate musical parts and retain air and dynamic shading is better......especially when the music gets very dense and complicated.
this is what i hear when i compare my best analog to me best digital.
and you can add multiple channels of digital, and the analog still comes out net better. i have a 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos separate home theater system and honestly, even with all that firepower digital high rez still falls short of the musical connection of two optimized analog channels.
when i add a big screen i love my movies. but for music i’m out in the barn.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
