2. tech-talk
  3. 1319134183

Which is more accurate: digital or vinyl?

More accurate, mind you, not better sounding. We've all agreed on that one already, right?

How about more precise?

Any metrics or quantitative facts to support your case is appreciated.
mapman
vertigo
130 posts
 
RE***Ever heard the term,"the devil is in the details"?***

RE***Which brings up another old saying, "you don't know what you are missing".***

In a friendly manner, all i can say is..."you are preaching to the choir" and perhaps you have not understood the points I/WE are trying to make.

Nobody here is strictly preaching AGAINST a system that is superbly/highly resolving.

You seem to believe that it is possible to have state of the art resolution and AT THE SAME TIME have all recordings in one's collection sound wonderfully musical. Perhaps that has been your experience. It has not been mine.(i do not consider my system "state of the art") Perhaps, we are different kinds of listeners and have different preferences and therefore we are defending two different things.

On norah jones's debut lp and a few other lps, I like you have done everything i know how to "resolve the devils in the details" and guess what? i think i have succeeded at that masterfully. Fine and ok. But what about my other lp's? Why doesn't the amazing sound i've acheived with those recordings translate over to the rest of my collection?

You might answer...well, those lps weren't up to snuff and that's fine with you because you are ok with listening with warts and all. And i can partly understand and accept that too. I think i know what you mean here.

But...

I just feel and know from experience that it would be possible to make those other lps to sound better than they do then when the system is dialed in for those few select recordings already mentioned(norah jones, etc). How? Through subtle or major system changes.

This will make the DETAILS in THOSE lps sound more right, more musical but NOT necessarily at the expense of resolution but rather in regard to HOW those details are RENDERED.

Now, if i make those other lps sound as good as is possible through long hours of listening and tweaking and i can finally say , yes, they sound great , they sound musical, the details are there but then i go a put back on the norah jones lp it now is no longer sounding as good as it did before!

I care just as much as you about the rendering of fine details in a recording but have found as soon as you have achieved that on certain lps you lose some of it on others and vice versa.

My European mother and father you to say " you can't have your butt on two chairs at the same time" In other words, you have to choose one or the other. (smiling)

There is the possibility that without knowing it your system is actually one of the systems that pulls back from extreme resolution and is making a majority of albums sound great to you. Or maybe you really haven't achieved perfect timbres, which by the way is a extremely narrow window to operate and move in and therefore your system is more broad and forgiving. I'm not saying it is...i'm saying...maybe.

But if you were to try and push the envelope, REALLY push it! you would find the same problem?

At the same time it is also possible that MY system has some kind of character or attribute that makes some lps sound stellar but others a bit off. Perhaps i can make the majority of the different types of recordings all sound as good as a select number of lps by some kind of change. I don't know what that change would be and i confess i am skeptical about achieving the goal of being able to render timbres (high resolution) perfectly across most lps, most of the time.

I guess some would argue that in light of all this (this huge obstacle/challenge) perhaps it is better to sacrifice A LITTLE BIT of resolution to make more lps, more satisfying. NO, we are not saying go to zero resolution or wear one pant legged pants but perhaps it makes sense to take a few degrees off in the resolution department to make more lps enjoyable, the way the artist and producers would have wanted.

If norah jones sounds great and the playbacks resolution is wonderfull who can tell me i need to change something? If i've acheived the goals you subscribe to why is there still a problem? How do i proceed to make my other lps sound like this one without changing anything in the system, since if i do, norah jones won't have great resolution anymore if i do?

The sun is a good thing and helps us to see but staring into the sun for too long could ultimately leave us blind. Between seeing and going blind there are many graduations in between and we argue it is important to strike a kind of optimal balance and that sometimes it is possible to go too far one way so that what was once perceived as progress, actually is not?

.
lacee
811 posts
 
Why would you use the Nora Jones lp as a benchmark?

I wouldn't, and as such I don't adjust the sound of my system to enhance one lp over the other.
Even if one lp is 200 gram and the other is the thinnest oil embargo vinyl.I listen to them as they are.
I may prefer the sound of one over the other but I wouldn't try to adjust my system to lessen the difference.

You are dumbing down one for the sake of the other.
That's where I'm different.
I don't have a template or benchmark disc that I try to make all my cds and lps emulateby manipulating individual aspects of the system.
You would never have time to enjoy any music but would be in a constant state of adjustment.
I don't see any pleasure in that.
I know some folks who adjust the cartridge parameters for individual lps.
This can work, but what do you do with cd's?

What do you do if one cd is brighter than the other?
Go out and swap cables and amps etc for each disc?

I wouldn't go down that road.
And yet some folks do.

What happens when you find out it was the speakers that were at fault, and the new speakers make the bass shy system tweaked for more bass to now be bass heavy?
And the reference lp is no longer the reference you thought it was with the new speakers?
Nora Jones now sounds like Tom Jones, or worse yet they both sound the same!.

I do have what I consider well recorded lps, and cd's.

But I don't reconfigure or voice my system to any one or two particular cd's or lp's.

What I have noticed when I upgraded power cords for example, was that all my recordings were improved, not just the well recorded ones.

That's how it works for me.
I am not trying to improve just the best performances, but when they sound even better then I know that the less well recorded music will also be improved.

One is not at the expense of the other as you seem to imply.

The greater the resolve, the greater the resolve on good and poor recordings in all formats.

This is why I can't come to terms with your reasoning.
Perhaps I am not making myself clear enough.

I don't tweak my system to make the poor recordings sound great,that would alter the performance of the good ones and skew them in a direction not pleasant to the ears.

The only thing greater resolution does for me is to make me appreciate the great recordings even more, not dislike the lesser recordings.

What happens is that the differences between fair and great recordings is more discernable, which is as it should be, at least to me.

All music wasn't created equal and wasn't recorded equal, so it shouldn't be made to sound equal by a hifi system.

You can't see the forest for the trees is quite apt,so is being able to see that the forest isn't comprised of just one variety of tree.

If there are several varieties of trees I want to see them all, the tall, the short, the crooked and the straight.I want to be able to differentiate between the deciduous and the coniferous.

This is the performance I expect from my hifi system.

When you know that nothing sounds the same, why try to make it all sound the same?

To do so is just mediocrity.

No more great sounding lps or cds just a lot of OK sounding ones.
vertigo
130 posts
 


RE**Why would you use the Nora Jones lp as a benchmark?***

Because it is received in the general audio community as a well recorded album. Because it is very quiet. Because it contains uncongested music which makes it easier to focus on how minute changes are manifesting themselves. This is not a 200gm / 120 gm issue. I don't discriminate against thinner records and nothing i said implied that. This is one record i like to go back to amongst others...like...

Police synchronicity "every breathe you take" or " king of pain" 125g
Dire straits "sultans of swing" 125g
Fleetwood mac rumours "dreams" 125g
Bob dylan good as i been to you "canadee i o" "jim jones" "sittin on top of the world" 125g
Nirvana bleach "about a girl" "love buzz" "negative creep"130g
Glenn Gould the goldberg variations 125g
Miles davis kind of blue 200g reissue

RE***I wouldn't, and as such I don't adjust the sound of my system to enhance one lp over the other.***

I know...as i said in my previous post... where your system is at present, probably homogenizes more than you would like to think? and yet at the same time don't you swear, as a musician, by how important it is to render timbres correctly and don't you swear by how important it is for you to have high resolution in order to really enjoy music? I feel like your statements contradict each other, like you are talking out of both sides of your mouth?

You probably are not. I think the way to reconcile this is to understand when you use the word "resolution" and "timbre" and when i use those same words, ultimately they mean different things to each of us based on our reference point, which are...our systems. We understand those terms in the degrees in which we are able to present them (and have heard them in our systems) without flaw... compared to live instruments. So with that said...This is why when i say there are moments that things sound real, you kinda have to scoff at that? But in my world that has been my goal and i have used a few select recordings, 125g or not, as a reference to strive for the attainment of that goal. I would argue, you don't have that same goal to the same degree that i pursue it, but if you chose to, i submit that your experience would be the same as mine. That is...if you tweaked to the point of trying to make at least some of your lps sound REAL you would automatically be going down the road of alienating others since the task of making ALL YOUR LPS sound real AT THE SAME TIME is going to be impossible and unrealistic you therefore have to by default try and make some sound real.

Which is a more realistic goal? Making a few lps sound real or all your lps sound real? I would say the former, though still a challenge, is a more realistic goal than the latter.

In order for YOU to attain the KIND and LEVEL of timbrel fidelity and resolution (which you so strongly champion)that I HAVE of a marine band harmonica (for example), i argue you NECESSARILY will HAVE TO alienate other recordings AS A CONSEQUENCE of the pursuit of perfection. There is no other way around it. The ALTERNATIVE is to make all recordings sound pretty ok or excellent but then it could never be said ANY have perfect timbre.

It seems the difference between me and you is, you don't strive for actual perfect timbrel fidelity at any cost rather you settle for goal of timbres that appeal to a broad number of lp's or cd's. My goal is to take anything in my collection that i think has the chance of sounding real and pushing THOSE to the limit! As i understand it, in order to go for extreme timbres, i NEED to focus on those viable candidates since they are my best hope for achieving that goal.(this is my logic) As i pursued this goal i noticed the closer i got to real with these candidates, the further left behind other non candidate lps were left as a by product of this process. It is my understanding then based on personal experience that if one seeks THIS goal (the goal of making SOMETHING sound real)... alienating other lps will be a automatic "necessary evil" But if one never tries to make SOMETHING sound real they will by default be making a degree of "general compromise".

I mention the norah jones lp for the sake of simplifying the discussion but there are quite a few i use and then from there i go and listen anywhere in the collection.

RE***What do you do if one cd is brighter than the other?
Go out and swap cables and amps etc for each disc?

I wouldn't go down that road.
And yet some folks do.****

The answer depends on how faithfully you want to render timbres?(timbres and resolution are inseparable)

The point i've been trying to make and actually you are helping me make it...is...that if you want 100 out of a 100 type quality of timbres, Yes, in fact, you might have to change amps and cables for each cd/lp but if you want 75 out of a 100 type quality timbres, no, you don't. Just spin any record or any cd and you're ok.

Just as a backdrop to the discussion, remember midfi system's distinguish between "good" and "bad" recordings, just as state of the art systems do. Even low fi can. So, just because one is discerning between good and bad timbres or good and bad recordings or hearing warts and all it doesn't necessarily follow that one is not dabbling to some degree in mediocrity since mediocrity between systems will be a relative term.

One persons "impeccable" timbres, is not another persons "impeccable" timbres.

RE***I wouldn't go down that road.
And yet some folks do.***

The folks who DO are striving for the goals of a certain type and degree of timbrel fidelity. They are striving for the kind of timbrel fidelity and resolution of degrees that you do not strive for and it is at this point that i find it ironic.

It's ironic you won't go down that road but say things like:

"When you know that nothing sounds the same, why try to make it all sound the same?

To do so is just mediocrity.

No more great sounding lps or cds just a lot of OK sounding ones."

It seems you are guilty of what you despise/condemn since you won't strive for perfect timbres if it means only doing so for some recorded music. Therefore by default in reality, though you'll disagree, most of your lps and cds play in a general sort of way.

RE***That's how it works for me.
I am not trying to improve just the best performances, but when they sound even better then I know that the less well recorded music will also be improved.

One is not at the expense of the other as you seem to imply.

The greater the resolve, the greater the resolve on good and poor recordings in all formats.****

Yes and no. There are some things of a general nature, of which it can be said "one is not at the expense of the other" but in some things, like the finest of nuances and subtleties "one IS in fact at the expense of others"

For example...If you want your system's forte (what it's going to excel at) to be classical music and there are speakers more suited for rock and some more suited for classical aren't you forced to choose one type of speaker over another if you want to achieve your goal? or can you get a rock speaker and still have your system's forte be classical?

So, too if you don't want to compromise in ANY AREA AT ALL in regards to timbres you will have to sacrifice some recordings for others in order to flesh out those last few nuances/attributes that complete somethings timbrel envelope to the destruction of others or as i have said before you do in fact have a compromised system (at least in the sense that i define "compromised system")and are catering to watered down timbres that appeal to a larger section of your lp's.

Are you still using the Fidelity Research FR-1 MK3 ?

At what level does this cart reproduce timbres and resolution? Does it compromise them or not/to what degree if any? Where does it fit in the hierarchy of other cartridges out there in this regard? Is it "midfi "no compromise"" or "hi end mediocrity"? and how does your answer to those questions relate to how we both understand the words we use like...resolution and timbre and to the degree to which we can have meaningful/effective communication about those terms?

.
rpg
126 posts
 
Many quality recordings are Digitally recorded, mixed and then mastered. So, when making a Vinyl of the performance, I can't but doubt that the Vinyl could be better as there must be a D/A conversion to make the Vinyl master?? So what additional information is in the Vinyl verses the CD?
lacee
811 posts
 
Vertigo, I don't know how much clearer I can be.
I think you are starting to get it, as you are repeating things in your post that I first stated.

No I don't use the Fidelity Research,my vinyl set up is a modest Rega P-9, Exact 2, into a Manley Steelhead.

Not my most ambitious Vinyl set up.
In the past I owned the LP12 with the FR arm and cart, An Oracle Delphi versions 1, 2, with an EMT air bearing arm, then a Sota with SME V arm, then VPI SCout, and now the Rega.

My friend's vinyl system is my reference for what a great vinyl system is capable of-SME 30/12, Clear Audio Strad cart, Audio Research Ref phono stage and AR 40 Anniver pre amp,all top flight Siltech cables and all top flight power cords and conditioning.

It was on this system that I clearly could discerne how much more there was to hear on a vinyl recording than what most of us think is as good as it gets.

I can never tweak my gear enough to even come close to this type of resolution, and clarity.
It clearly ditinguishes between great and less great recordings,and his digital Scarlatti gear is a great vinyl/digital comparison.

But I digress,my whole point all along has been that the more resolution, the better, and that the more resolution you have the easier it is to distinguish between the wheat and the chaff.

And in this case you don't have to use one limited amount of "reference' recordings" that you've read about somewhere to prove the point.
It's there on all recordings.
There are great recordings that folks know about( and are bored with aka P.Barber)and some recordings from lesser known groups and labels that can astonish you with their realism.Check out Fidelio,I have several of Rene's recordings and they are very well done, yet not many outside of a small community know about them.Art Duddley does ,but just recently.

But I wouldn't voice my system to them.
A well set up system doesn't need to be voiced to any small set of recordings.

Or to any one type of music.

If it does sound best with one type of music, then that is not for me.
But there are folks out there who listen to string ensembles exclusively and seek out systems that compliment this one style and no harm in that.

I like several female vocalists and Cassandra Wilson and Liz Wright come to mind.Ive seen Diana Krall in a small venue at the beginning of her career, and I also like a young woman by the name of Anne Bisson(Fidelio again)but I wouldn't voice a system around any of them, as good as they are.

Talk about diverse vocal timbres.
Who would you choose to voice your system around?

If you tip the scales in favour of one and voice your system accordingly, you'll do a disservice to all the others.

Poor Norah Jones might get left out in the cold.

The more resolve you have when the system is properly set up, the more you can tell the difference between recordings and vocalists.Or so you should.If they all sound the same then the system is not accurate,it's painting everything with the same brush.
Everyone sounds like Pat Barber.

I have a few old 6 eyes and old Columbis of jazz in mono from the 50's & 60's that can run circles around most of all the "reference" recordings that get all the press.ONe of my faves is the Louis Armstrong plays WC Handy- original pressing, mono.
I believe it's now been re-issued, It's a great primer on how they used to get it right, that somehow has been forgotten.

And yet I never would think about setting my system up around this lp as good as it is.It is only one example of how diverse the music and recordings are and I like the diversity.

Which is what I find so strange about your approach.

When all the components are set up optimally, when care is taken with where and on what the gear is seated and the power to the gear is addressed, as is the room itself, then there's no need to fine tune it so that a few "reference" recordings sound great.

They will,and so will the lesser well recorded material, and you will like everything you play, yet be able to hear quality differences and recording techniques that lesser systems aren't capable of.

If the kick drum in a vintage recording is not as deep as your reference recording is,why alter it ?
Or on the other hand why fatten out all the sound because the kick on your reference is fuller than the old mono disc recorded the kick?

Why try and alter what was the original sonic truth and super impose another set of "reference" sonics to it?

Isn't it better to be able to hear the differnce?

In a highly resolving system everything will not sound the same, as I keep saying, you won't have a collection of all C grade material.
You will have A grade, B grade, C grade, and even F grade.

And you'll love them all for what they are.Because they are what they are and haven't been altered to sound like some "reference" disc.

Most folks never attain this type of resolution or are reluctant to do so because they fear this will render a great majority of their music unlistenable.

It is the complete opposite ,and completely opposite to setting up a system that is optimized to only make a few recordings sound great, aka P. Barber recordings.

A system that is set up properly and that consists of gear that doesn't impose a sonic signature or has sonic limitations,will sound great on any music that is played back through it.Hence no need to voice the system around lite jazz or the squeals of P.Barber.

I play all types of music and so does my friend.
Neither of us voiced our systems to a specific type of music or to any specific discs.
Both play back everything we feed them.
Classical or rock,Holst's Planets from Fidelio, or vintage Zimmerman from Columbia.
Again this is what I expect from an audio system.
No curtailment at the frequency extremes and great clarity .
Both of our systems accomplish this.

His just plays back better than mine.

And so it should.


More to discover