How much do you need to spend to get digital to rival analog?

Dear @mikelavigne @david_ten @atdavid and friends:

No one here is a stupid person but gentlemans with good common sense and that’s why I invite all of you to read a simple explanation :


"" digital still cannot do the real world dynamics that analog can. and the soul of music is the dynamics. it’s the hard part. """

just forgeret if we are biased one way or the other , I respect that statement but explain nothing on the main digital/analog issue and I don’t agree with. Look:

starting at the recording cutting step and followed by the LP pressing is where starts the true degradation ( step by step ) of the LP recorded signal.

All of us know and even own LP test pressings samples ( expensive ones. ) that if you compare against the " normal " LP differences are not tiny, we can aware of the degradation in the normal LP pressing. After 200 pressings of the same recording that degradation ( maybe before. ) goes in increment.

On that LP pressing and before the LP playback process the LP were pressed with off-center and full of micro and macro waves in its recorded surface that makes a huge degradation to that recorded signal.

Now, during playback process the LP signal has to figth first with the unstability ( short time. ) of TT speed that degrades the recorded signal, after that it has to figth with all the TT micro-vibrations/resonances in the TT that arrives not only at the surface where the LP is seated but through the arm board too. Just before we listen nothing degradation of the signal is there ( no matter what. ).

Then comes the transducer job that’s the foundation of the LP playback technology ( arcaic but it’s what it’s. ).

The phono cartridge must follow the LP grooves modulations ( mimic it. ) and this just is imposible to achieve for any cartridge any where: so here not only exist more signal degradation but the lost of critical signal information that we can’t recovery in any way !!!!.
This cartridge must follow the modulations but each cartridge has different tracking abilities ( betweedn other things by its compliance characteristics. ) where we follow losting signal information but things does not ends here because exist a " natural " tracking error developed by the tonearm shape and this tracking error follows degrading the " soul " but the degradation goes on and on because many feedback resonances/distortions generated at different stages/sources between the TT/cartridge/tonearm: we have a feedback ( degradation-negative. ) from the TT/LP surface in between that the cartridge takes as a groove modulation adding information that just does not exist in the recorded grooves then exist feedback between the cartridge and the headshell with the same kind of added unexistent information and we have to remember too that exist the overall terrible feedback between the tonearm it self and the cartridge.

What next? the cartridge signal now pass through the soldered headshell connectors that are a degradation source and follow the degradation through the tonearm internal wire. Till this moment we are listening nothing yet and the signal is just a charicature of what was recorded. We have to remember too that due to that off-centered LPs characteristic exist signal degradation and where stays all the changes through the LP surface that suffers the VTA and VTF due to those micro and macro LP surface waves??????? !!!!!! and we have to remember all those micro micro jumps by the stylus tip when tracking the groove modulations that are as a car tires on a stones road where not always is in perfect touch and even by ms. does not touch the grooves.

Now the signal goes inside the phono stage and goes inside passing for input connectors and additional cable for the phono stage can work with ( obviously here exist more signal degradation and we follow losting signal and adding non-existent recorded information. ).

What happen inside the phono stage?: exist to main functions on it one is to amplify the carrtridge signal and some times 10K times only in this amplifier step the signal is added of different kind of noises generated by the phono stage gain stages ( not only one stage but more than one only to amplify the signal. ) then the second function that’s that the recorded signal must pass through the inverse RIAA eq. curve that between other things no one can say coicide/mimic the RIAA eq. that comes in the recording ( here exist losted and added information. ) and after that the signal mus pass for output connectors that are soldered and that continue the terrible signal degradation.

I can go on and on with what in reality happens in the LP signal but it’s useless, enough with what we read here.

Now, whom of you still think that through the LP exist that " soul " or those " nuances " that we have in live MUSIC?. How any one of us could think that the whole playback process can preserve the integrity of the very delicated recorded signal information?

Makes sense to you?

Certainly does not makes sense to me.

Soul, nuances and many other adjectives we use exist in our imagination because we want it exist that way. Believe or not we are biased to, it can’t be in other way because we " born " with LP not with digital ( I already explained this. ).

Remember that I’m not talking of what we like but what is happening in reality not what we like or are accustomed to.

Btw, all of us listen ( through our ears-/brain. ) through an ADC.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONs,
R.

Nah! Not in our imagination at all. Why is it that it is not good enough that some listeners find a certain truth in analog sound that eludes digital to varying degrees? We are talking about music, a key component of which is the emotion, expression, ability to engage, whatever one wants to call it. Yet, we insist on judging the effectiveness of a medium in conveying that aspect of it by using all sorts of technical criteria. A contradiction of sorts.

When was it established that we understand ALL that takes place during the record/playback process; let alone understand how to measure it? I think that the fact that all of those steps that degrade “the integrity of the very delicated recorded signal information“ still manage convey that certain truth to some listeners highlights, more than anything, just how much the digital process itself degrades “the integrity of the very delicated recorded signal information” in certain specific ways.

Re bias:

You wrote,

**** We need to understand digital ****

Why? I think that this highlights your bias. Sure, I like to understand how things work, but why does one need to “understand digital” in order to appreciate what it does well and not so well? What happened to just listening and judging based on what one hears first and foremost? 

Obviously, both mediums can sound very good. However, there are fundamental differences between the two which may or may not be important to each listener. I know what my ears tell me and it doesn’t need to “make sense”.

Regards.

So Mike, it appears you have an obvious bias in this regard which makes it difficult for us to interpret what you have to offer in this conversation.

obvious bias? really?

it’s tempting to get defensive with a comment like that. i will try to stay objective here in my response.

would a person who is at least as much invested in digital performance as anyone on the whole forum be somehow biased against digital? i want my digital to sound the best it can possibly sound, and have committed considerable time and assets acquiring the gear, then optimizing every aspect of it.

70% of my listening is to digital. i love it. i’ve got both files and streaming fully optimized.

i’ve spent 20 years with a focus on format optimization....all formats. so it’s a big important subject to me. i have digital, vinyl and tape optimized. i enjoy all three. i can fully appreciate digital, but i call a spade a spade when it comes to direct comparisons with analog.

so point out your evidence of bias here in my perceptions. i don’t see any.

i think it’s wrong to confuse theoretical advantages of digital on paper to real world listening realities. but unless you have the daily opportunity to compare the tip top examples of each one i can see how the theory might cloud your reality perception. that there is bias.

forget numbers and stuff. follow your ears and musical connection.

Dear @frogman : First than all I’m not biased to digital, my only compromise is with MUSIC.

Of course we have to understand digital because it’s a totally different media that makes sound as other mediums as LP or tapes: all are different and sounds/performs different.

I posted why playback LP experience can’t ( no matters what. ) preserve and mantain the integrity of the recorded signal.

Now, is you whom could tell us why digital can’t do it .

I like LP/analog and I like digital too. My main home room/system target is to stay nearer to the recording and digital puts any one nearer to the recording when LP/analog puts all of us far away from therejust: COMMON SENSE.

It’s not that what your ears tells you because what your ears tells you is absolutely and totally biased and this biased is something that your brain wall/defender impedes to change it easily.

Btw, have you good common sense or you need measurements on each one degradation levels on those " terribles " steps I explained in my last post? because if you need measurements on it then something wrong with you and forgeret what your ears tells you: this is not the real issue/subject and it does not matters if you are a musician/player or even a music composer. You only have to SEE the reality: what is happening down there.

""" and it doesn’t need to “make sense” ... """ , this is incredible but I respect your rigth to say it.

Sorry, I can’t have a true dialogue with a gentleman with low common sense because you are impliying that all those degradation steps in the playback LP process where information is totally losted, added non-recorded information and the generation of several kind of distortions/resonances and the like does not matters because even all those exist the LP hability playback process to preserve the signal integrity. It should be that way for you can post what you posted.

Anyway, I think that you make your point as I posted mine but at least I gave some " facts " and you gave no single fact on what you posted other than your " ears " but your ears are not part of that common sense I posted: what you like is not the issue, got it?

Emotions?, MUSIC is an ART and as an ART  wake up emotions of different levels in any human been it does not matters that we listen MUSIC through the M.Lavigne system or through a humble Walkman.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

Dear @mikelavigne  : ""  and musical connection.. """

obviously ( and not from your last post because I followed yourn posts on the digital vs analog experiences from many years . ) you have a real musical connection with digital, for me it's imposible not to have it even with humble digital hardware.

My listening time goes more to LP than digital and this is more by something that could be a rutinary attitude that other thing because I enjoy a lot digital too.
ASs a fact digital ( in some ways. ) help me to fine tunning my room/system and still does and as better performs my digital experiences as better performs too my analog listenin sessions.

R.