+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 17 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 161

Thread: Digital audio vs vinyl

  1. #31
    Join Date: Apr 2008

    Location: Warrington

    Posts: 3,451
    I'm Neil.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marco View Post
    I know where you're coming from, Neil, and agree. However, who knows what would happen, in that respect, were you to invest more money in every aspect of your vinyl set-up, which successfully addressed key areas of its performance, thus allowing it to compete with your digital set up?

    I'm afraid when I hear folk saying how 'so much better' their CDP or digital source is than their turntable, or vice versa, my first thought is: get a better turntable or CD player, and attempt to level the playing field, than necessarily that the music format itself, belonging to the preferred playback equipment, is inferior or superior...

    One thing you're unquestionably right about is that *all* CD transports introduce jitter, to varying degrees, and so the complete absence of that effect with a file-based set up, is one of the main reasons why, all else being equal, it has the potential to outperform any CD player.

    Marco.
    Hi Marco, yeah I hear ya, thing is, I think I'd need to spend five figures (or at least high four figures) to get to that point with my vinyl, and as it's a secondary listening source I don't think it's a wise investment. Don't get me wrong I really enjoy using the turntable, but yeah concede that the investment has been made in digital.
    Mana Acoustics Racks / Bright Star IsoNodes Decoupling >> Allo DigiOne Player >> Pedja Rogic's Audial Model S DAC + Pioneer PL-71 turntable / Vista Audio phono-1 mk II / Denon PCL-5 headshell / Reson Reca >> LFD DLS >> LFD PA2M (SE) >> Royd RR3s.

  2. #32
    Join Date: Oct 2012

    Location: The Black Country

    Posts: 6,089
    I'm Alan.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marco View Post
    Everything in audio of course is a compromise, ..................... quite simply, no players made today can compete with.
    Hi Marco,

    The compromise in the system James is referring to is cost, pure and simple.

    I've personally heard the DAC part of it, from a file based system, and it is streets ahead of anything else digital I have heard, including your Sony.
    You really need to hear the Chord top of the line stuff, the advances made in the digital filtering (the software) are awesome. I only use that word when it is fitting.

    I am even tempted to go down that route for my CD playback but the cost is not insubstantial.

    Cheers,
    Alan
    I love Hendrix for so many reasons. He was so much more than just a blues guitarist - he played damn well any kind of guitar he wanted. In fact I'm not sure if he even played the guitar - he played music. - Stevie Ray Vaughan

  3. #33
    Join Date: Apr 2008

    Location: Warrington

    Posts: 3,451
    I'm Neil.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Macca View Post
    This isn't really correct, any transfer of digital info can create jitter, it isn't confined to CD transports or players. The good news is that it is completely inaudible. If you don't believe this consider that a turntable, even the best turntable, has jitter (aka wow & flutter) at much higher levels (several orders of magnitude) than the worst of digital, and you can't hear that either.

    Digital's real problems lie elsewhere.
    If jitter is inaudible, why can I distinguish between my USB front end and my CD transport in a blind test? Bear in mind that my DAC uses no re-clocking, and is dependent on being fed with a low jitter signal. However, reclocking can introduce all sorts of variables & is not perfect, which is why many designers of the 'minimal school' decide not to use it.
    Mana Acoustics Racks / Bright Star IsoNodes Decoupling >> Allo DigiOne Player >> Pedja Rogic's Audial Model S DAC + Pioneer PL-71 turntable / Vista Audio phono-1 mk II / Denon PCL-5 headshell / Reson Reca >> LFD DLS >> LFD PA2M (SE) >> Royd RR3s.

  4. #34
    Join Date: Mar 2008

    Location: Galashiels

    Posts: 13,669
    I'm inthescottishmafia.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firebottle View Post
    Hi Marco,

    The compromise in the system James is referring to is cost, pure and simple.

    I've personally heard the DAC part of it, from a file based system, and it is streets ahead of anything else digital I have heard, including your Sony.
    You really need to hear the Chord top of the line stuff, the advances made in the digital filtering (the software) are awesome. I only use that word when it is fitting.

    I am even tempted to go down that route for my CD playback but the cost is not insubstantial.

    Cheers,
    Alan
    From some of my reading, the new Mytek dacs are in the same ballpark for a lot less wonga Alan.
    “Music has always been a matter of energy to me, a question of fuel. Sentimental people call it inspiration, but what they really mean is fuel. I have always needed fuel. I am a serious consumer. On some nights I still believe that a car with the gas needle on empty can run about fifty more miles if you have the right music very loud on the radio”

    Hunter S Thompson

  5. #35
    Join Date: Sep 2013

    Location: North Island New Zealand

    Posts: 1,757
    I'm Chris.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marco View Post
    I know where you're coming from, Neil, and agree. However, who knows what would happen, in that respect, were you to invest more money in every aspect of your vinyl set-up, which successfully addressed key areas of its performance, thus allowing it to compete with your digital set up?

    I'm afraid when I hear folk saying how 'so much better' their CDP or digital source is than their turntable, or vice versa, my first thought is: get a better turntable or CD player, and attempt to level the playing field, than necessarily that the music format itself, belonging to the preferred playback equipment, is inferior or superior...

    One thing you're unquestionably right about is that *all* CD transports introduce jitter, to varying degrees, and the complete absence of that effect with a file-based set up, is one of the main reasons why, all else being equal, it has the potential to outperform any CD player.

    Marco.
    And all SPDIF links similarly introduce some jitter. In 1997 I had published method of overcoming SPDIF
    http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazin...iesofspdif.htm

    Which involved Bitclock Data and LRCK each transferred separately using a 3 wire link between a pioneer PDS701 and a
    Audio synthesis DSM. Listening tests between the linked set up and a PDS 801 into another DSM using
    SPDIF revealed how superior the link set was over SPDIF.

    Which is to say that if you want the best from digital, you have to look a bit further than what is commercially available

    Also the brickwall filter in CD players is looked at here:
    http://wilson-benesch.com/reviews/Li...C_Sep-1998.pdf

    What needs to be done is to extend the frequency response of CD, not just its dynamic range
    as is being done recently. Organizations like AES can start to examine what is needed to
    do this, and propose new standards to be introduced http://www.aes.org/

    We then would start to see digital really moving forward,

    Whilst a turntable cartridge and a phono amplifying stage and its connecting cable, are celebrated as analog
    along with reel to reels, in an electronics view a phono stage represents adjusting for correcting what is called RIAA
    So an understanding of RIAA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization shows that frequency is much higher
    in available bandwidth at the cutting lathe - up to 100Khz ( see eRIAA in the above link )

    RIAA has much similarity to the invention of emphasis and de-emphasis proposed by Murray Crosby
    which is also a integral part of companding,used in Dolby and DBX noise reduction.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crosby_system
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Companding

    Dolby mainly, but also DBX have been used in almost every recording since 1965
    to extend at the recording, the available dynamic range. But even in 2017 you
    are not hearing yet the capability of those recordings. In the case of DBX there
    is and was the ability to make the recording medium ( usually 30ips reel to reel )
    capture up to 120db vs the limitations of CD players today most below 100db.
    The good thing is that dynamic range is still within those recordings.

    The available bandwidth of LP starts to give meaning to why analog might be preferred when done well.
    Those with a LP of Thelma Houston's Pressure Cooker know just what can be done with a analog
    direct to disc recording.

    However on the downside is no research being done to determine if modern day LP's originate from CD masters
    hence the meaning of analog is likely being changed to possibly now be a RIAA curve of a CD master.

    Sadly I suspect this is now occurring as the mothers of recordings are no longer capable of
    transferring - being worn out, so the next best thing is a CD master to make an LP from.

    On the plus side those with LP collections dating before CD ie 1983, have escaped this transfer process,
    But the fact that a equalization curve like RIAA was used I think may greatly assist a CD master
    of a RIAA LP transfer to retain some of the ability of an otherwise all analog recording and LP
    production.

    Cheers / Chris

  6. #36
    Join Date: Aug 2009

    Location: Staffordshire, England

    Posts: 37,771
    I'm Martin.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yomanze View Post
    If jitter is inaudible, why can I distinguish between my USB front end and my CD transport in a blind test? Bear in mind that my DAC uses no re-clocking, and is dependent on being fed with a low jitter signal. However, reclocking can introduce all sorts of variables & is not perfect, which is why many designers of the 'minimal school' decide not to use it.
    There could be a lot of variables involved there. Jitter is just distortion so if you have enough jitter and the programme material is sufficiently simple (i.e a very good recording of just one instrument) it is potentially audible when compared to playback with zero jitter. (Blind tests have been done for this I believe, but they did use a shedload of jitter).

    I'm just pointing out that it is incorrect to assume that any issue with digital playback sound quality is due to jitter, since it is very unlikely/impossible to be the cause of any audible problems when listening to 'normal' music regardless of what sales and marketing might say.
    Current Lash Up:

    TEAC VRDS 701T > Sony TAE1000ESD > Krell KSA50S > JM Labs Focal Electra 926.

  7. #37
    Join Date: May 2010

    Location: Vancouver, Canada

    Posts: 2,166
    I'm Alex.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marco View Post
    Good point, Stuart. R2R, done well, playing high-fidelity studio master tapes, has the potential to trounce ANY turntable - and most certainly ANY digital source!

    *But* the best T/Ts, playing the finest recordings on vinyl, can get pretty close, and more often than not, usurp what even the best of digital audio can produce.

    Marco.
    Plus, we're now slowly discovering that vinyl is a good archival medium. Contrary to some of the propaganda back in the 1980s - 90s, which claimed that LPs deteriorate, we're now seeing that even 50 - 60 years old LPs, if properly taken care of, completely retain the information imprinted into them. While at the same time it is a proven fact that magnetic tapes irreversibly deteriorate with the passage of time, which doesn't make them a good archival choice.
    Don't you just hate it when you cannot detect where the post ends and a signature line begins?

    Alex.

  8. #38
    Join Date: May 2010

    Location: Vancouver, Canada

    Posts: 2,166
    I'm Alex.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marco View Post
    Think about it.... How could it do that, if the results produced were genuinely more accurate (i.e. achieving higher fidelity)? The only way that could be so, would be if the recording was "less compellingly listenable" to start with. But if it's making a good recording "less compellingly listenable" in that way, then by definition, it's not achieving higher-fidelity.
    Hi Marco,

    You make a number of good points. In principle, I totally agree with you. But being of an inquisitive nature, I cannot help myself but continue to turn every stone along the pathway. So I don't want you to think that, just because I'm examining some of your statements, I'm disagreeing with you.

    Here is an example I came up with that could possibly shed some light on the issue we're discussing: I am a big fan of Van Gogh's paintings, and I love to study them any time I get an opportunity. Of course, traveling the world to meet those canvases is expensive and exhausting. So we resort to books and visiting online exhibitions.

    Now, I think we'll all agree that experiencing Van Gogh's paintings by looking at reproductions is not really going to give us the full appreciation. But it's a nice approximation. Various books offer reproductions of various quality, and it is what it is.

    With the advent of digital technology, we can now visit Van Gogh's museum online, and select one of his paintings, and then zoom in to the magnificent details. I don't know if you've ever tried this, but the level of magnification is magnificent! I don't think that even in person, standing in front of one of his canvases, I'd be able to zero in on such fine details.

    Still, despite the largely improved accuracy of the digitally magnified details of the canvas, the experience is less compellingly lifelike! true, in real life encounter with the canvas, I cannot experience such level of accuracy as I can when experiencing it via the digital simulacrum, but nevertheless it cannot get even close to the real life experience.

    I think the same principle may apply to the differences between experiencing musical reproduction via digital system vs experiencing the same reproduction via vinyl playback.

    What do you say?
    Don't you just hate it when you cannot detect where the post ends and a signature line begins?

    Alex.

  9. #39
    Join Date: Dec 2008

    Location: East Riding of Yorkshire these days

    Posts: 4,779
    I'm Shaun.

    Default

    Hmmm... well, I am engrossed in this thread so I have spent the last three hours of my life listening to my system via CD and vinyl.

    Software: Shedding Skin by Ghostpoet, CD and vinyl

    I am very aware that these two copies could well have been mixed and mastered differently but in my system, here is what I found.

    The CD playback was similar to a Sergeant Major inches from your nose shouting out orders. It was very upfront and aggressive/dynamic. The bass was extremely propulsive, tight and forceful. I found the whole sound was tight to the point of sounding robotic. Stereo image was stunning with the right material. Stereo depth was OK.

    Vinyl playback was massively different with huge stereo depth way back behind the loudspeakers. The whole sound was altogether softer and a lot more palatable. The bass was also softer and more rounded. Altogether the sound was a lot more 'organic' whatever that means but it seems to be a good word to describe what I was hearing. The sound was way more realistic. I found that the 3D stereo effect was not as great as it was from CD with sounds appearing 180 degrees either side of my ears with CD but not with vinyl.

    So, I prefer the gentle nature of my vinyl system but really prefer the stereo imaging from CD. Fortunately I do not really have to make a decision one way or the other. I have both and I am keeping both.

  10. #40
    Join Date: Apr 2008

    Location: Warrington

    Posts: 3,451
    I'm Neil.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firebottle View Post
    Hi Marco,

    The compromise in the system James is referring to is cost, pure and simple.

    I've personally heard the DAC part of it, from a file based system, and it is streets ahead of anything else digital I have heard, including your Sony.
    You really need to hear the Chord top of the line stuff, the advances made in the digital filtering (the software) are awesome. I only use that word when it is fitting.

    I am even tempted to go down that route for my CD playback but the cost is not insubstantial.

    Cheers,
    Alan
    I don't think any filtered DAC can match a filterless DAC in terms of reproducing transients & having the dynamic contrast & 3D soundstage like good vinyl has, but you lose a bit of resolution & some frequency response at the top end. Rob Watts mentions that the 'perfect' FIR filter is of infinite taps, the Hugo has 26,000 yet he has heard 'better' as the taps increase, but at the same time, there are people doing cutting-edge work with zero filtering that for me sounds more like vinyl or tape in terms of that naturalness. Maybe the DAVE gets close to reproducing the vision of infinite filter taps, with resultant sound quality (I haven't heard it) - at a price!
    Mana Acoustics Racks / Bright Star IsoNodes Decoupling >> Allo DigiOne Player >> Pedja Rogic's Audial Model S DAC + Pioneer PL-71 turntable / Vista Audio phono-1 mk II / Denon PCL-5 headshell / Reson Reca >> LFD DLS >> LFD PA2M (SE) >> Royd RR3s.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 17 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •