Which is more accurate: digital or vinyl?

May I offer a little more insight that over the years has led me to where I am at today in this hobby.

I mentioned the great argument, or the great debate,divide that has developed over the years.

Audiophiles all seem to be on one side of the fence or the other.
It wasn't always that way, at least not when I started.

So,when I say that everything is flawed,what do I think you should do?
Throw in the towel and give up?

Some folks do.They sell all the nice audio toys and retreat in defeat to a simple integrated amp system or a vintage pawn shop set up and sing the praises that the Holy Grail was there afterall back in 1970.They've "gotten off the merrygoround" of endless component swapping and trying to find the absolute sound and damned proud of it.They are no longer "audiofools" they tell us, we, who must still be audiofools.

They finally found out that all gear is flawed,and what they decided to do about it was mostly out of anger and contempt because nothing that they had bought at any price made them happy.
So what's left for them to do but lash out at the evil High End and call it all snake oil?

Well they could have done what myself and others have done when we came to the conclusion that irregardless of how well that amp or speakers meet spec, and how well reviewed they were, or how high they scored on the must have scale,something was always missing no matter how much you paid for it.
The gear's not perfect afterall.

Yet the real audio junkies(the folks who are the most educated in specsmanship and flaunt their knowledge of why things can or just can't be)maintain that a perfectly measured amp or component is well, perfect, and that if they just happen to own one, well that's all you need to do to arrive at audio Nirvana is to follow their lead and buy what they have been listening to.Accept their stamp of approval or fall prey to the snake oil salesman.

I like how they care about what you spend your money on.

Their ears have become immune to the flaws and deficiencies of thier system partly because they just haven't heard that many other good systems, and partly because they are so wrapped up in the measurements that listening for flaws just isn't in the equation.Flaws? How can there be any? My system measures perfectly.I have the specs and papers to prove it.

And then there are some folks like myself who have lived with a great deal of components over the years.Tried more than one amplifier technology, owned different typees of gear, and who can listen to vinyl and digital replay and find some good in both.

What some of us have done is to also get off the merrygoround, but where we differ is that we don't exchange one set of flawed components for another and then try to convince ourselves and the world that "my flaws" are the best there ever was or will be things have never improved, only gotten worse.

No we post on audio threads that adding a dedicated line improved the sound of what we had.That a fuse, power cord upgrade made as big or bigger improvement than interconnects or speaker wires.We treat the room, which is now starting to gain approval,in other words we accept the system that we have at the moment, knowing that it is flawed and not perfect(even if it is a perfectly measured kit)and try to make improvemnts to what we have.

This is to me the more logical next step in the game and makes more sense to me than chuking out good gear every six months looking for the next "fix" as a mentor of mine from years ago so apptly called most of his customers "audio junkies".

But ,try and post that something that can make something already perfect more "perfect" and you set off the next flame war.

You'll see every reason why(mostly quotes from years ago) such tweaks are nothing but snake oil.
Yet the posters supporting this side of the debate seldom if ever have even seen never mind tried the device in question.For most it's the first they've ever heard of such a thing, but "my years of study in electronics tells me it just can't be so" is usually the trump card.

Or so they would like the nebies to think.

This was as still is a great hobby.
It's filled with great surprises and you can improve your sound and in so doing improve the listening experience.

My advice is to try some of the things others talk about and decide for yourself if something so small and insignificant as a fuse or demagnetizing an lp or cd really works.
All you have to do is to try it.
You only have to buy it if it works for you.
And forget about "you can't trust your ears"from the debunkers,because they are the only two things you can and should trust in this hobby.

And when you do, you'll understand that topics like "which is more accurate"really are just a starting point for everything that polarizes this hobby.

Better to think about how can I make vinyl or digital more accurate in my system.

To me that makes more sense.

"They sell all the nice audio toys and retreat in defeat to a simple integrated amp system”

Hey! I did not retreat in defeat to my simple integrated amp system. :)

RE***And yes, I still say that if you really cannot hear the HUGE differences between the live and the recorded in your own above example, or you truly think they are negligible and unimportant, then I truly pity you, as you are clearly missing a very great deal of what the musicians are trying to communicate to you. ***

You shouldn't pity me, you should say, wow, he must have a well put together system!

Also, i'm not intimidated by your credentials as to why you think you can hear better than me. And i'm quite confident you THINK can hear BETTER than me... OR ...that you can LISTEN better than i can. Hogwash.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist(or a professional musician(i've heard this a thousand times)) to know what a unamplified....harmonica, acoustic guitar, trumpet, trombone or violin sound like...played alone in a quiet room. It's immediately self apparent when you are.

The argument goes...i'm a professional musician, i'm a recording engineer, i go to live concerts twice a week THEREFORE because you don't have the same degree of exposure you can't know what real instruments sound like, therefore your experience must be rejected. Hogwash.

The sound of the above name instruments heard alone/live in a quiet room is easily discernible and their attributes/characteristics are self evident.

For the last 6 years i have been vigorously LISTENING and comparing systems, both my own and other audiophiles systems[this in itself has been a kind of training], previous to that i have lived in this world for many more decades and have heard and have played instruments all my life so if you would be so kind, please do not tell me i don't know how to listen or that your ear is better than mine cause you're a pro!

While i attest that the differences between the live event of the nirvana unplugged concert and the norah jones track i mentioned in a previous post and my stereo playback are negligible i also now attest, that for past 5 years i have ALMOST never or extremely rarely have heard a system sound like the actual event. Therefore, i DO have the ear/discernment to reject stereo reproduction that does not mimic or encapsulate the actual event.

If i didn't, how could i say all those years and to almost all the systems i have heard, own included..."this sounds fake"..."this parameter is wrong or that parameter is wrong?"

And...i can attest to the fact that 95 percent of my home playback does not mimic reality, nor have 99 percent of the systems i have heard. One other system i did hear it mimic reality on a couple tracks too. It was the tape of the 'star wars' theme.

I am a timbre and dynamics 'freak'. That is, timbre...(an instruments inherent signature pertaining to ...what the materials utilized in its construction and how those materials vibrate/sound as they push air when played)are my highest audiophile value with dynamics as it's close handmaiden.

So, if the timbres during my stereo playback or anybodies stereo's playback are off, to my mind, the music...in this respect loses its ability to fool you into thinking you are listening to a live instrument.

Also, you can go and hear and be exposed to many system's which you think are the best that is possible but still take away the experience that it did not imitate the live event, regardless of whether the system was ultra extreme expensive.

Dollars spent ...doesn't always translate to..."this is the best possible".

There are alot of expensive systems that have something amiss but tired audiophiles don't know where to go from there or don't know how to pinpoint the problem, except to throw more money at the problem.

What i'm trying to say is...while it is possible these great systems you have been exposed to had limited synergy between the components so that there was some parameter that could not fool you into thinking this sounds like live instruments therefore you believe it impossible that it can be so. I really want to labour this point since, i have been sorely disappointed by hifi dealers rooms and other audiophiles systems, over and over and over. I'm pretty picky and fussy and i keep it to myself but some of these hifi dealers rooms sound poor.

Secondly,

RE***I truly pity you, as you are clearly missing a very great deal of what the musicians are trying to communicate to you. ***

No, i'm not.

I'm getting alot of what they are trying to communicate with my system, ESPECIALLY on the specific musical pieces i've named already several times ....because my system can mimic the fabric that makes music music.

RE***I truly pity you, as you are clearly missing a very great deal of what the musicians are trying to communicate to you. ***

Do you know what i'd get out of seeing patti smith live unplugged? Do you know what i'd get hearing patti smith on my stereo? Will i 'get' the deep emotion she is trying to communicate because i hear her voice live and her guitar live?

No i wont, cause i'm not interested in patti smith. So, i don't get much emotion from patti recorded OR live. Which is to say...that music is MORE than whether or not you hear timbres reproduced accurately or not. I guess what i'm saying is that there are other things, other than just dynamics and correct timbres that evoke a emotional response in music.

for example...the words, the arrangements, how loud, or how soft something is played, how fast or slow, how a person uses their voice, how it all sounds when its happening together...other things too i'm sure.

I love music and timbres produced by a stereo that mimicks reality on SOME DAYS is just a luxury, not a necessity.

ON SOME DAYS...i'm just as content listening to my favorite music on my 12 dollar getto blaster that plays, radio, tape and cd all in one unit!!! as much as i would on my 40,000 dollar system because music is more than just timbre and dynamic response.

Emotions can be evoked by a memory we attach to a song, by the words, all kinds of things. Timbre is not the single channel alone to emotional connection. As i said patti smith 'LIVE!'even with the genuine clash of a real cymbal is just ho hum for me i won't get what she is trying to convey SIMPLY BECAUSE it is live.

So, if someone thinks 100 percent accurate timbre and dynamics is a necessary prerequisite to connecting emotionally and that 55.2 percent correct timbre is insufficient to convey musical emotion then i would have to disagree with them. There is so much more going on between a piece of music and the listener irregardless of whether not it is faithfully reproduced.

Many times the HIGHEST percentage of emotional connection is made APART from either dynamics or correct timbres and can be attributed to some other parameter. Other things are going in the human psyche that while listening to music we are unaware of.

Anyways...I have a good ear, i know what real instruments sound like, i am just as good a listener out there as anyone, i am picky about timbres, i have not heard correct reproduced timbres for years and was able to discern that they were in fact 'off' and all i can share is my experience ,whether people want to believe them or not, When my system has warmed for at least an hour and a half , with certain well recorded tracks and certain recorded sparse live musical events recorded on dvd, watching and listening to those and distinguishing those from actual live events (from a sonic perspective only)becomes extremely difficult.

RE***I still say that if you really cannot hear the HUGE differences between the live and the recorded in your own above example....****

Learsfool, I have to say...if you still hear a HUGE difference between well recorded music and your stereo, you should take a second look at your system.

Kind regards,

.

Vertigo - I think most people reading this thread will understand that you have misrepresented my comments. It seemed to me that you were clearly implying that I and everyone else disagreeing with you don't know what we are talking about, that our ears must be inferior, and that we haven't ever heard a really good system, and I was merely responding to that by informing you of my experience. My irritation at your attitude certainly was obvious in my post, but that was all it was. I know I am not the best writer, especially late at night when I am tired and irritated, but I assure you I would never resort to the type of argument you are now trying to attribute to me, which I definitely agree is hogwash, and I meant nothing of the sort. I think my main point was and is obvious enough, and needs no further elaboration.

If I am mistaken in your attitude, and my irritation is misplaced, I do apologize. I leave you the field, since further discussion seems pointless, and I sincerely wish you joy with your listening.