+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 17 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 161

Thread: Digital audio vs vinyl

  1. #21
    Join Date: Jan 2013

    Location: Birmingham

    Posts: 3,068
    I'm James.

    Default

    Marco have you noticed differences between file based digital audio vs CD? Personally I have found the best I have heard is via file based audio even when the material has been ripped from CD. However CD is certainly not dead yet as I have heard an alternative take on CD which upscales the output to remarkable effect. The system allows A-B comparison between plain Vanilla CD output and upscaled version.

    I am not about to throw away my discs yet!

    I am sure you can get good results from older equipment as I trust your ears mate.
    VPI Scout 1.1 / JMW 9T Tonearm / 2M Black /Croft 25R+ / Croft 7 / Spendor SP2

  2. #22
    Join Date: Jan 2008

    Location: Wrexham, North Wales, UK

    Posts: 71,620
    I'm AudioAl'sArbiterForPISHANTO.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by killie99 View Post
    Is the turntable THE BEST system I've ever heard? Nope. Best I've ever heard was a Studer R2R, never heard anything like it before or since.
    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.
    "A man is a success if he gets up in the morning and gets to bed at night, and in between he does what he wants to do" -- Milan Kundera.

  3. #23
    Join Date: Nov 2013

    Location: Scotland

    Posts: 165
    I'm Michael.

    Default

    The best black stuff set up I've ever heard was fronted by the Kronos Turntable. You could buy a detached house up here for the cost of that system. This system sounded great and shows what records can be capable of. If you have an LP12 or something similar then you are nowhere near the Kronos based system. This is the trouble with analogue. To get the best from it you need to invest so heavily, the Kronos is not for most. I was shocked by this turntable! I've had Logic dm101's, all singing and dancing LP12's and a Rock Reference and I wasn't even close. My digital set up easily competes with what I had in analogue so unless I have a big lottery win I will just have to be happy with that!

  4. #24
    Join Date: Jan 2008

    Location: Wrexham, North Wales, UK

    Posts: 71,620
    I'm AudioAl'sArbiterForPISHANTO.

    Default

    Hi Jim,

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
    Marco have you noticed differences between file based digital audio vs CD? Personally I have found the best I have heard is via file based audio even when the material has been ripped from CD.
    Yes I've heard numerous differences, with sometimes files sounding better than CDs, and vice versa, when reproduced by their respective playback equipment. Ultimately however, recording quality aside, it all comes down to the ability (or inability) of the playback equipment, and associated ancillaries, to preserve the musical information contained in the source format.

    However, all else being equal, especially in instances where noise has been effectively addressed, and the highest quality of DAC is used, file-based audio should shade it.

    However CD is certainly not dead yet as I have heard an alternative take on CD which upscales the output to remarkable effect. The system allows A-B comparison between plain Vanilla CD output and upscaled version.
    Lol... Been there, done that and heard it, about 10 years ago, with an (undeniably superb) and very expensive DCS combination.

    I know where you're coming from, but trust me, when you get your ears around it, the up-sampling process carries its own (distinctive) sonic signature [there always exists some form of payback when manipulating the music signal], and as much as I can hear what it does right, I can also hear what it does wrong...

    Everything in audio of course is a compromise, but for me there are better ways of hearing CD at its best, than through today's high-end up-sampling players.

    I am sure you can get good results from older equipment as I trust your ears mate
    Cheers mate, as I do yours. You definitely can, but it's not so easy to obtain truly excellent ones

    One fact you have to consider with CDPs, is that during the heyday of their production, when there existed demand for it from wealthy customers worldwide, the major Japanese companies with the technical and financial wherewithal to produce 'no compromise' designs (particularly Sony), engineered them to a such a high standard that, quite simply, no players made today can compete with in that area.

    In that respect, I'm talking primarily about CD transports, and the quality of their design and implementation, DAC chip selection and the knowledge of how to fully optimise performance, and most crucially of all, the use of massively over-specced PSUs [witness there how heavy the best vintage players are in comparison with their modern counterparts], together with the optimal implementation of such - all of which costs vast sums of money in both tooling and know-how.

    And *that* is why vintage high-end Jap 'battleship build' CD players can sound so amazing, *especially* when certain ageing electronic components are replaced and upgraded accordingly, which will not only have drifted well out of spec in the ensuing years since originally being fitted, but are rendered as obsolete now by the best of what's produced today.

    Today's players, in comparison, which albeit in terms of judicious software implementation, are able to produce excellent sound, simply aren't as well-engineered - and *that*, when almost all else is equal (after successful component upgrades have been carried out in the best vintage CDPs/DACs), is what will always put, even the best of today's players, at a distinct disadvantage against the cream of the 'old guard'.

    For me, what limits the performance of most of today's high-end players is the quality of their transport mechs (if they employ the use of the plastic-constructed DVD-ROM variety. Anything less than a TEAC Esoteric VRDS Neo, for me is a no-no), and/or switch-mode PSUs, which for me, regardless of how supposedly 'well done', I wouldn't have near any of my kit, or IMO, any audio equipment that purports to be the best.

    Marco.
    "A man is a success if he gets up in the morning and gets to bed at night, and in between he does what he wants to do" -- Milan Kundera.

  5. #25
    Join Date: Jan 2008

    Location: Wrexham, North Wales, UK

    Posts: 71,620
    I'm AudioAl'sArbiterForPISHANTO.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yomanze View Post
    The real revelation for me was converting to a media server and Halide Bridge, which offers me an incredibly low 10ps jitter with my 44.1kHz files. CD transports tend to be 100s of ps or even ns levels of jitter. My DAC uses no reclocking, just a PLL, so responds well to low jitter. Let's just say my Audial Model S / Halide Bridge comfortably outperforms my vinyl setup in every way except for when the vinyl mastering is better, which it often can be.
    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.
    "A man is a success if he gets up in the morning and gets to bed at night, and in between he does what he wants to do" -- Milan Kundera.

  6. #26
    Join Date: Mar 2017

    Location: Seaford UK

    Posts: 305
    I'm Dennis.

    Default

    Important points to remember when comparing and evaluating the formats;

    Imprinting with vinyl sound early in life, this forming a sort of reference,

    The mastering of vinyl almost certainly was done by those who understood the limitations of the medium and hence adjusted the recording for optimising with it, The direct transfer of this to CD may be very flawed, showing vinyl type adjustment compromises clearly.

    To me both are capable of giving great pleasure but vinyl is so maintenance intensive that time does not allow it.
    Digital will improve, and there will always be purists who want non compromised audio to ensure full quality is available.

    For me the weakest link is now speakers.

    As a personal request, I have a Linn Valhalla which I have never really liked*, and on which I changed the Ittock II for a RB300.
    Accepting that vinyl is a compromise I would like to change it for one which is as good or better, but which has that 'something' which makes it an attractive artefact.

    Recommendations please; considered TD 124 but seems too maintenance intensive, Nottingham, and Michell. Also I love the Alphason H1100S. SMEIV, Townsend, RB300? I would prefer small footprint.

    *Like the feeling one gets when introduced to someone one does not like, and one just cringes and baulks at everything they seem to be, as happens on occasions.

  7. #27
    Join Date: Jan 2008

    Location: Wrexham, North Wales, UK

    Posts: 71,620
    I'm AudioAl'sArbiterForPISHANTO.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pharos View Post
    As a personal request, I have a Linn Valhalla which I have never really liked*, and on which I changed the Ittock II for a RB300.
    Accepting that vinyl is a compromise I would like to change it for one which is as good or better, but which has that 'something' which makes it an attractive artefact.

    Recommendations please; considered TD 124 but seems too maintenance intensive, Nottingham, and Michell. Also I love the Alphason H1100S. SMEIV, Townsend, RB300? I would prefer small footprint.
    Best start a new thread in Analogue Art for that one, Dennis

    Marco.
    "A man is a success if he gets up in the morning and gets to bed at night, and in between he does what he wants to do" -- Milan Kundera.

  8. #28
    Join Date: May 2012

    Location: Dagenham Essex

    Posts: 7,097
    I'm I'mteachingmarcotheartofpishanto.

    Default

    Best I've ever heard was a Studer R2R, never heard anything like it before or since.

    Shh don't tell everyone or they will all want one
    Music , fills the gaps between silence !

    TAT Sale post Leader " Marcos Mentor "

    Also a pishanto specialist confirmed by Head Daftee

    Real name " Allen " or "Zoomer Nut”, “Numpty Napper”.

    ±± KEEP IT REEL

  9. #29
    Join Date: Aug 2009

    Location: Staffordshire, England

    Posts: 17,528
    I'm Martin.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marco View Post
    I
    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.
    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.
    Martin



    Current Lash Up:

    Technics SL1200 with Sumiko h/s & Nagaoka MP50 * Firebottle valve MM phono stage * Parasound CDPi1000 * NVA P90SA passive pre / Krell KSA50S Power amp * JM Lab Electra 926 loudspeakers *



    "I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me." - Hunter S Thompson

  10. #30
    Join Date: Feb 2013

    Location: W Lothian

    Posts: 35,558
    I'm Grant.

    Default

    Here we go....jitter ! , getting like cables
    Regards,
    Grant ....

    I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy simply-doesn't-work
    .... ..... ...... ...... ................... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
    DENON DV2900 - TWIN PRO MONOBLOCK AMPLIFIERS - XIANG SHENG DAC\PRE\HEADPHONE AMP - AUDIO TECHNICA ATH-MSR7 & OPPO PM-3 PLANAR HEADPHONES - WIN10 JRIVER23, SPOTIFY PREMIUM - SMSL M6 MINIDAC - FULL RANGE TWIN TELEFUNKEN's - Q ACOUSTIC BT3 actives - CANTON SUB - MAINS REGENERATED AND FILTERED.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 17 FirstFirst 1234513 ... 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
  •