View Full Version : Which provides the more accurate playback - vinyl or CD/digital?
Just a bit of fun really, so hopefully it won't turn into a bun fight!
Anyway, I'm not talking about which sound you prefer or how you like to enjoy your music, as that's a whole other ball game . . . but which do you believe portrays most accurately what the recording engineer has captured for playback in the home environment - vinyl or digital? I'm also not talking about compressed music files (.mp3 .aac etc.) so assume the digital format is either a lossless file or standard Red Book CD at 16bit/44,100 Hz.
I'm also not asking what sounds better in some circumstances as it's clear a recording purposely mastered for vinyl playback in the 70's, which has been later transferred to digital for CD can produce disastrous results. No doubt we all have plenty of examples of this in our own collections. The question is simply this;
Under ideal conditions in a like for like comparison of the same recording mastered for either vinyl or digital, which format do you believe will give you the 'most accurate' representation of what has been captured from the artists performance when you play it back . . . a vinyl LP or a digital CD or lossless file such as FLAC?
EDIT:
Some people seem to be struggling with the concept, so to make it clear, I am not asking which you prefer and it's not a competition or vinyl vs digital question, I am genuinely interested to see what peoples perception is in a 'like for like' comparison for accuracy, not which you believe to be best sonically ;)
Audio Al
23-02-2014, 10:34
Vinyl
Even my daughter said " whats wrong with that record ?"
She is used too listening to U2 on vinyl when she visits on this occasion it was a CD playing
I was told to play the vinyl :)
She knows you know :D
I prefer vinyl playback, generally. But under ideal conditions there is no question that digital is more accurate, on recording and playback. Always surprises me that anyone could think otherwise even though I used to myself.
The question could equally have been
How much do you know about the recording and playback process?
a) nothing
b) something
And I'm warning you now if you want a bun fight I've got a whole f**kin bakery sat here ;)
It's a question that is not easy to answer in the real world, as a pristine record on a top flight turntable is a joy to listen to, but a boot sale find LP on a cheap budget deck sounds 'orrible, so it's not really relevant then what the recording engineer intended :lol:
In the latter situation, even a budget CD player is the much preferred playback source :eyebrows:
Stratmangler
23-02-2014, 12:19
I ain't going there!
Ali Tait
23-02-2014, 12:24
By measured performance digital is superior, as SS amps often measure better than valve amps, but many of us know how good valves and vinyl playback are. Just goes to show that measurements are not everything, or at least we cannot currently measure what it is we like so much to hear.
Certainly the best sounds I play at home are from the black stuff.
jandl100
23-02-2014, 12:27
digital & solid state :thumbsup:
losenotaminute
23-02-2014, 13:14
I have hardly touched my CD player since getting the LP12. When I compare the same track on LP and CD it is difficult to tell the difference, but a good LP usually has the edge for me. It's a more enjoyable representation of the music, seems to have more life in it. Whether or not this is more accurate I don't know, so I voted accordingly.
Lawrence
istari_knight
23-02-2014, 13:19
CD. No contest.
Gordon Steadman
23-02-2014, 13:29
I ticked CD but would listen to valves and vinyl every time. Who cares which is most 'accurate'? All that matters is which gives the most enjoyment of music. Some would be surprised to hear that the main purpose of hi-fi is to let us enjoy music in the home:)
Spectral Morn
23-02-2014, 13:31
Playback of what - digital or analogue recordings?
And accurate to what? Live, unamplified, live amplified, studio live recording, studio created, protools created, protools and studio created etc. Or a personal notional idea of what things should sound like.
Just thought I would throw these aspects in as this question goes beyond merely the playback technology question I feel, and thus also worth thinking about in relation to the above question......
Also does all analogue/analogue to digital created music sound better played back on analogue equipment and does all digital, digital to analogue created music sound better reproduced by digital equipment?
Regards Neil
All that matters is which gives the most enjoyment of music.
Agreed :thumbsup:
It is as I said just meant to be a bit of fun to see what people generally think/believe, nowt more than that.
Playback of what - digital or analogue recordings?
And accurate to what? Live, unamplified, live amplified, studio live recording, studio created, protools created, protools and studio created etc.
Accurate to whatever the event was which was then recorded in some fashion and put to disc.. Could be any of those and sometimes more than one of those on one album.
Just a poll on what people believe is potentially more accurate regardless of people's sonic preference. i.e. an opinion on the ideas rather than on listening - at least that's what I understand from the question.
If it's a general question about what one believes would be most accurate in a perfect world then it doesn't matter.
I prefer vinyl playback, generally. But under ideal conditions there is no question that digital is more accurate, on recording and playback. Always surprises me that anyone could think otherwise even though I used to myself.
The question could equally have been
How much do you know about the recording and playback process?
a) nothing
b) something
And I'm warning you now if you want a bun fight I've got a whole f**kin bakery sat here ;)
Its not about wether digital or vinyl plays back more accurately. Its nothing to do with measurements, specifications, distortion figures, jitter, blah blah blah. Its all about which one sounds better to YOUR ears.:lol:
The Barbarian
23-02-2014, 14:08
Vinyl but not at liberty to say why!
Just another thought. I have heard both excellent vinyl and digital but it depends entirely on how well the recording was engineered in the first place. I still think vinyl sounds more realistic and "live". After all isn't that what we are all trying to approach when putting together a system? Although digital has moved on even the best DSD or 24 bit or ripped recordings played at the highest resolution using top end equipment still sound slightly synthetic unlike the best analoq vinyl which to my ears sounds more real.
How does one judge accuracy though?
There may well be more accuracy in some parts of a perfectly cut piece of vinyl than with 16/44.1 but then you get to say the bass and it tends towards mono because of the thickness of vinyl needed etc and in the treble perhaps the accuracy reduces because of the grainularity of the vinyl and then there could be resonances in certain areas etc etc - all a result of the physicality and physics properties of any physical medium (meaning it is recorded/played with physical contact, not it just being holdable like a CD is).
CD may have more consistant accuracy across the whole but perhaps vinyl can be more accurate in say the mid-band or some specific area (imagine a curve of "accuracy" on a graph as it sweeps across the frequency band).
So an integral of "accuracy" for both might give the same number, the same "area under the curve". In that case you could say they were just as accurate even if one ended up completely pants in one particular aspect.
I'm going to have to go with I don't know. Off the top of my head it would be CD, but thinking about it reveals I don't really know.
Just a poll on what people believe is potentially more accurate regardless of people's sonic preference. i.e. an opinion on the ideas rather than on listening
Exactly Nat.
Its not about wether digital or vinyl plays back more accurately. Its nothing to do with measurements, specifications, distortion figures, jitter, blah blah blah. Its all about which one sounds better to YOUR ears.:lol:
Let's hope you didn't vote in that vein as it is specifically NOT what the poll is about.
Vinyl but not at liberty to say why!
Haha... You have secret information?! You'd have to kill us if you told us.. etc.
chris@panteg
23-02-2014, 14:32
If you have the original master tape and a machine to play on then you can judge, but otherwise how can you know for sure?
Having heard such a machine at Whittlebury last year, I'm not sure either get that close unless you go seriously high end, don't really care TBH.
I have amended the first post slightly as some seem to have either misread it, or not read it?
I am just asking for a personal opinion - its not that tough guys ;)
Oldpinkman
23-02-2014, 14:51
I voted vinyl - partly because of a couple of very recent surprise experiences. I guess it depends on your definition of "accurate".
If "accurate" is a ruler on a frequency response its digital
If it is dynamic range, oh ok lets give digital that one too
If accurate includes harmonics from frequencies outside the human audible range, then it ain't red book CD
But if "accurate" is sounds like music, rather than sounds like a copy of music, then its vinyl for me. Assuming as has been pointed out, the vinyl hasn't been abused, and is being played on decent equipment. :)
If you have the original master tape and a machine to play on then you can judge, but otherwise how can you know for sure?
Having heard such a machine at Whittlebury last year, I'm not sure either get that close unless you go seriously high end, don't really care TBH.
With comparing to master tape you are comparing a stage removed to a stage removed, a variable on a variable.. Many albums are recorded to digital directly so what then would happen if you transfer that digital original to master tape?
You might well find that you still prefer the sound of the master tape and therefore claim it to be more accurate because it sounds more "real".
And hardly accurate several years down the line or after many plays when much treble has been lost - might still tick many important boxes for "realism" on a subjective level of course but still less accurate (which is what the question is about).
The brain has an amazing ability for filling in the gaps and so the overall most accurate medium might not always give the most believable account if it's lacking in some particular areas in practical reaity.
Audioman
23-02-2014, 15:24
If we are talking about analogue tape as a source of the music a high quality vinyl set up will likely be more accurate. Music remains in the analogue domain eliminating extra stages of D/A or A/D conversion. If the original recording is high res digital then a high res playback source such as DVDA or DSD would likely be the most accurate.
In either case 16/44.1 is unlikely to be the most accurate replay source as both dynamic range available and non-capture of out of band harmonics will impact on the music. Of course if the master is 16/44.1 whatever source used is unlikely to improve on red book CD.
All this does not take into account other variables in terms of production of vinyl lps and cds. Either format can be seriously limited by the mastering quality most notably brickwalled CD. Also it is unlikely that any CD player in practice is able to reproduce even a full 16 bit resolution.
Some very interesting responses, thanks chaps :thumbsup:
I wouldn't have a clue, but having only ever collected records I have never felt any need to move to a different format ;)
Digital has better signal to noise ratio, higher dynamic range and lower distortion. Better channel seperation and awider and more accurate frequency response. How can it be less accurate?
Digital has better signal to noise ratio, higher dynamic range and lower distortion. Better channel seperation and awider and more accurate frequency response. How can it be less accurate?
Your inbox is full Martin ;)
Oldpinkman
23-02-2014, 16:46
Digital has better signal to noise ratio, higher dynamic range and lower distortion. Better channel seperation and awider and more accurate frequency response. How can it be less accurate?
Potentially because it is digital. It has to convert soundwaves into measurements of soundwaves. "Analogue" is a continuously variable copy rather than a stepped sampled one. Physical limitations of the systems making that copy may make it imperfect, but it has the theoretical potential to be perfect in a way digital can't. I think it depends a bit what we meant by "digital"
I meant material I want to listen to that I can readily lay my hands on, rather than esoteric sample material from enthusiasts. For me that effectively means redbook atm. Granted, in the recording studios, 24 bit 96K is a different kettle of fish. :cool:
Some proponents of vinyl say that at its max resolution in some parts of the audio band it has a much higher resolution than 16/44.1. De Paravicini for example:
When CD arrived in the 1980s, Tim de Paravicini was among the first to explain the shortcomings of the new format's sound quality by pointing out that existing analog media were superior when analyzed in terms of sampling rate. He argued then that a digital medium would need a much higher sample rate than 44.1kHz (and a higher bit rate than 16) to match the resolution of analog tape or vinyl. I asked him to explain this again.
"Well, the quick nutshell of it all is this. An analog microphone we all understand, and a valve or transistor amplifier is linear in its working range. On a vinyl record, when you are cutting an acetate, there is no modulation or chopping it up—you are down to the molecular level of the acetate to store that information. It's a totally random but very minute-resolution storage system.
"When it comes to digital, it's how to operate it, how many bits we devote to it, and the sampling frequency, as to how we store that information. The original digital system of CD, with 16 bits and 44.1kHz sampling, was what the mathematicians deemed to be the minimum acceptable to human hearing for so-called hi-fi. They never looked at all the artifacts and all the problems. And they never did enough analysis of the human hearing mechanism to realize that we don't stop hearing at 20kHz—people can discern and detect sound up to 45kHz. We have, as I say to people, an equivalent risetime of 11 microseconds in the hearing mechanism. And the ability to resolve detail in those digital systems wasn't quite good enough.
"In analog, you can change the thing and keep on aspiring to perfection without a compatibility issue. With digital, once you change any parameter, you've got a compatibility issue. Now, you can record on ProTools at 24-bit/192kHz, but it's not compatible with CD. I did my own summation—and this is from 20 years ago—that if we did 384kHz at 24-bit, we'll have a system that will resolve on a par with the best analog. That's the holy grail. And the problem, for the computer people, is having the balls to go that whole hog.
The thing with digital at the CD resolution level is the consistancy with which it is accurate, with vinyl its accuracy varies with frequency.
Which is more accurate in total? I don't know.
Go to higher resolutions of digital and the likelyhood that vinyl is more accurate in total becomes less and less.
Remember though that accuracy and subjective realism are NOT one and the same! Psycho-acoustics plays a massive part and the brain can fill in many things, especially compensate for frequency response inaccuracies which in many ways are unimportant for subjective realism (which people translate as subjective "accuracy" despite still having no idea as to what the original event sounded like..)
I mean I can get different frequency responses dependent on my hair length, headware, colds, the room resonances, the people and objects around me filtering things etc etc but still feel a sound is real and not a recorded event.
The Barbarian
23-02-2014, 16:56
EDIT:
Some people seem to be struggling with the concept, so to make it clear, I am not asking which you prefer and it's not a competition or vinyl vs digital question, I am genuinely interested to see what peoples perception is in a 'like for like' comparison for accuracy, not which you believe to be best sonically ;)
Accuracy! I listern to vinyl as i believe instruments sounds as i want them to sound, or if you like how i feel they should sound..Digital doesnt give me the same results, hence i find Vinyl is the more accurate to me.
Potentially because it is digital. It has to convert soundwaves into measurements of soundwaves. "Analogue" is a continuously variable copy rather than a stepped sampled one. Physical limitations of the systems making that copy may make it imperfect, but it has the theoretical potential to be perfect in a way digital can't. I think it depends a bit what we meant by "digital"
I meant material I want to listen to that I can readily lay my hands on, rather than esoteric sample material from enthusiasts. For me that effectively means redbook atm. Granted, in the recording studios, 24 bit 96K is a different kettle of fish. :cool:
I guess there is theory and there is theory...
There is theory as it applies to current vinyl production meaning the grainularity of the vinyl and the speed of travel of the needle at 33.3 means the highest frequency accurately portrayed is lower than CD quality - that from some calculations I read somewhere. Also down at the bass end, the spacing of the groove is pretty standardised and so we're forced to go to mono. Then there is the EQ for the heads and all that business.
Get some kind of pure vinyl which can be perfectly cut to a molecular level with wide track spacing and all the rest and playing at 45... it all becomes a different story.
Accuracy! I listern to vinyl as i believe instruments sounds as i want them to sound, or if you like how i feel they should sound..Digital doesnt give me the same results, hence i find Vinyl is the more accurate to me.
But the poll question specifically asks which you think has the capability to be more accurate whether that is borne out in the resulting media or not.
i.e. regardless of what you hear, which do you THINK could/should be the most accurate?
It's a poll of one's thoughts of the technicality of it all, NOT subjective experience.
That kind of makes it an interesting poll as it's different to the normal subjective opinion that is always expressed.
The Barbarian
23-02-2014, 17:05
You can't say something is accurate just because of some spec! At the end of the day your ears tells you whats accurate or am i missing summert loike? I filled in the poll thats all that matters really..
I'm working towards getting a full 24/386 or 354 recording system together just for my own recording and musical fun. I guess it can do DSD too. Just waiting on that good priced secondhand pro convertor to come up, something like the DAD AX24.
Then I'll be looking to see what vinyl rips on my system would be like at THAT res.. (maybe I should just try 24/96 first? hehe).
You can't say something is accurate just because of some spec! At the end of the day your ears tells you whats accurate or am i missing summert loike? I filled in the poll thats all that matters really..
People say all sorts of stuff, and they believe it too!
Why should this poll be any different? It's just asking your opinion on the theory and asking that you try very very hard to seperate your personal listening experience from what you think COULD be possible from both media..
The Barbarian
23-02-2014, 17:24
But i do not understand the definition of what people perceive as accurate! apart from some spec saying so! Like i said you are the only one that can judge what is accurate {to you} or not. This is a round & around in circle hobbie everyone knows that.
None of my analogue recordings were ever indistinguishable from the mike feed whilst making them whereas all my digital ones were, or as near as makes no difference.
The analogue ones sound really nice though.
LPs are a bit like a MP3 version of the tape, modified to take account of the limitations of the LP manufacturing and playing systems, so LPs are not as accurate as the tape they come from which is not as accurate a recorder as a digital one, but it sounds just fine nevertheless.
The difference between a poor and good recording is massively more than the difference between LP and CD IME anyway.
But i do not understand the definition of what people perceive as accurate! apart from some spec saying so! Like i said you are the only one that can judge what is accurate {to you} or not. This is a round & around in circle hobbie everyone knows that.
My reference for accurate was always comparing the off tape sound with the direct feed, this requires no measurements, just ears, but it does require one to have actually done quite a lot of recording over the years.
Anybody who hasn't done this can not make a valid judgement as to whether some record/replay system is accurate or not, merely whether they prefer the result.
The Barbarian
23-02-2014, 17:32
& that is pretty much what i originally said, my lugholes are telling me what i perceive as accurate.
Some proponents of vinyl say that at its max resolution in some parts of the audio band it has a much higher resolution than 16/44.1. De Paravicini for example:
The thing with digital at the CD resolution level is the consistancy with which it is accurate, with vinyl its accuracy varies with frequency.
Which is more accurate in total? I don't know.
Go to higher resolutions of digital and the likelyhood that vinyl is more accurate in total becomes less and less.
Remember though that accuracy and subjective realism are NOT one and the same! Psycho-acoustics plays a massive part and the brain can fill in many things, especially compensate for frequency response inaccuracies which in many ways are unimportant for subjective realism (which people translate as subjective "accuracy" despite still having no idea as to what the original event sounded like..)
I mean I can get different frequency responses dependent on my hair length, headware, colds, the room resonances, the people and objects around me filtering things etc etc but still feel a sound is real and not a recorded event.
Tim may well be able to design some lovely valve amplifiers but he either has failed to understand how the digital record replay system works or has been grievously misled because that quote is a load of absolute rubbish, I'm afraid
& that is pretty much what i originally said, my lugholes are telling me what i perceive as accurate.
Maybe being pedantic here but your lug holes are telling you what you like the sound of. You can only know if it is "accurate" if you were present at the recording and compared the live feed with the output.
Lots of people prefer LP, I love it myself, but there is no possible way on earth that it can be an accurate representation of the original microphone feed for a multitude of reasons that have been well known for decades.
Sounds lovely? Yes.
Accurate reproduction of the original? Not possible on LP.
I haven't had a chance to read through this thread properly yet (as my parents were round today for their Sunday lunch, and after consuming rather a lot of wine and liqueurs, I probably need to sober up a bit more before tackling this topic properly).
However, aside from the 'accuracy' argument, which is largely a straw man, one thing that instantly stikes me is that, IMO, the only people who are genuinely qualified to answer the question are those who have daily access to BOTH a top-notch digital and analogue source - and crucially, in terms of the latter, suitable (pristine condition) records of audiophile produced recordings, able to show off what their top-notch turntable is capable of (and so are able to make the relevant comparisons), preferably when using identical recordings on both vinyl and digital formats.
ONLY THEN, are you truly in a position to comment with any degree of authority on the matter, and so vinyl and/or digital fanboys, who either don't own a top-notch digital source or a turntable, and/or the appropriate recordings to show off the latter (as noisy, poorly produced vinyl is no way to assess the potential of the format), are welcome to offer their opinion on the topic, but it will only carry a certain amount of weight/credibility... ;)
Marco.
Sounds lovely? Yes.
Accurate reproduction of the original? Not possible on LP.
It's not entirely possible with digital either, Frank, as BOTH vinyl and digital sources exhibit their own inherent colorations, which to some degree are a departure from true accuracy.
Therefore, the best thing to do is forget all about any notions of accuracy and go with what your ears say sounds best and/or (using your experience) what YOU think best/closest represents the sound that left the studio....
The biggest mistake people make is in considering that the process of digital music recording (or reproduction) today is 'transparent' or 'faultless'. It isn't.
The fact is, there is no 'free lunch' in audio, with either digital or vinyl, and that applies in both the recording and replay chain. Therefore, amigos, choose your favourite 'flavour' of coloration and live with it! ;)
*THAT* is the reality.
Marco.
I've not read through it in totality myself Marco (ref your post #44) but there's two issues seemingly being (deliberately) confused here. Firstly, accuracy and secondly what we prefer the sound of.
In a nutshell, limitations of both digital and analogue recording (not playback...just the recording) include limitations of the mic's used, how they're used and where they're used because the studio or venue plus the mic are potential sources of distortion if we're talking "ultimate" accuracy.
Let's say for arguments sake, an identical recording is made one using analogue means and one digital (for the recording ONLY). Both should be capable of results accurate enough as to be undetectable audibly from one another, all things being equal.
Next let's deal with playback and assume that say a CD is compared with an LP. I know that I prefer most decently recorded LPs I listen to because more care is needed with the mastering simply because you can't compress the hell out of the for a vinyl cut without lowering playback levels to vanishingly small amounts which would sound obviously crap. I have just one recording of euro-pap in my entire collection suffering from such appalling mastering (rather, I had).
Next let's look at CD (well mastered). It has to Red Book standards anyway, over 90dB dynamic range capability and potentially can be mastered much higher. I think that I picked up the old chestnut in the thread about digital playback being an approximation of analogue...a series of steps approximating a sinewave, and that analogue was a pure sinewave. Can we PLEASE knock this tired untruth on the head once and for all? Once a digital signal passes through the D to A stage, it BECOMES a perfect sine wave...there are no steps involved. It's an exact replica of the analogue sine wave which was converted to those little bits and stored digitally ready for conversion back to analogue.
The differences in sound between CD and LP have so many causes, it is impossible to generalise with any certainty that one is better than the other when we take into account the variability of recording, mastering and playback with all the stages involved.
If dealing SOLELY with theory, then it is fact that digital replay is more accurate, period as it has far lower (vanishing) distortion across the entire frequency response. The fact that many of us prefer vinyl is not down to it being more accurate. It's most likely down to use having reasonably mastered and cut recordings and playing those back on reasonable kit, distortion and all, to give us a more pleasing sound. There seems to still be way to many badly mastered CDs out there, and people who think that all CD players sound the same should really get out more and listen to more as they are as variable as vinyl.
It's the way the mediums are mastered and laid down plus the level (standard) of accuracy gained from replay that I suspect will guide most of us to having a preference.
I for one have no preference as a good LP played back on the system I have is difficult to distinguish from an equally good CD. An outstanding CD has audibly better dynamic range. Hugh Masekela's Coal Train single from his Hope album is reputedly so well mastered on CD that it has a full 90dB range which is 50% up on the equivalent LP. How true that is I don't know, but the CD sounds better to my ears. Equally there are LPs that I much prefer over the LP version as they haven't been compressed to hell.
Perspective is everything.
All good points that make good consistent sense.
The question asked was accuracy though and I still contest that -nobody- who has not done an "off-tape/direct feed" comparison during a recording can make a valid judgement on which is more accurate.
I have, and I am prepared to discuss the results with anybody else who has but other than that it is a question of preference not accuracy, which quite honestly what counts.
Who wants to sit and listen to a sound they don't enjoy and keep trying to convince themselves that it is worthwhile because it is more accurate to the original microphone feed...
Of course, in the case of LP unless one is in the position to monitor a direct-to-disc recording, which I and I suspect no other forum member has, it is impossible to judge whether an LP is accurate enough by ear.
The question asked was accuracy though and I still contest that -nobody- who has not done an "off-tape/direct feed" comparison during a recording can make a valid judgement on which is more accurate. I have, and I am prepared to discuss the results with anybody else who has but other than that it is a question of preference not accuracy, which quite honestly what counts.
Sure, but how do you factor in ALL variables applicable under those circumstances, such as the quality of the digital and vinyl source equipment used to produce the recording? Are you saying that when you done the comparison, the digital and analogue equipment used were of identical quality - and crucially, how do you know for sure that was the case??
Could it have been that the digital source equipment used that day was inherently better than its vinyl/analogue counterpart, and so the former produced the more transparent results?
Furthermore, I've asked you this before, and I still haven't received a satisfactory answer yet, when I compare the best (identical) recordings I have on digital (CD) and analogue (vinyl), I often struggle to tell them apart - and trust me, I enjoy a very high standard of replay from both.
Therefore, and here's the key question: if digital was so inherently superior to vinyl, in terms of accuracy, why am I not hearing a marked difference in the presentation of the music (in a very revealing system), to reflect that supposed fact, whenever I do the comparison???
:popcorn:
Marco.
All good points that make good consistent sense.
The question asked was accuracy though and I still contest that -nobody- who has not done an "off-tape/direct feed" comparison during a recording can make a valid judgement on which is more accurate.
I have, and I am prepared to discuss the results with anybody else who has but other than that it is a question of preference not accuracy, which quite honestly what counts.
Who wants to sit and listen to a sound they don't enjoy and keep trying to convince themselves that it is worthwhile because it is more accurate to the original microphone feed...
Of course, in the case of LP unless one is in the position to monitor a direct-to-disc recording, which I and I suspect no other forum member has, it is impossible to judge whether an LP is accurate enough by ear.
Agreed Frank.
It's impossible to judge with any degree of accuracy just how "accurate" the stored music is (whatever the format) let alone how accurate the playback is compared to the stored signal, and that in itself is impossible to compare with the live mic feed unless you happen to be there as you say. I think one can only point to things like dynamic range and distortion potential for playback, and even then, by ear alone, there's no way one can point to how much better or worse one piece is to another unless one is so badly mastered as to render any comparison rather meaningless.
Ok, here's an offer for the digital boys to consider...
I'll digitise some copies of Stevie Ray Vaughan's 'Tin Pan Alley' onto CD, recorded from my turntable, and send a CD to anyone who uses an FBA or CD-only system (any minimal surface noise from the vinyl, as my records are mint, will be removed via editing software, so the recording in that respect will be silent), where they can compare said recording to their most uber-sounding, audiophile-produced file and/or commercially produced CD of the same music.
Then, what I'd like them to do is carry out a blind test, by getting someone else in the same house (wife, GF, friend or whatever) to play both tracks, one produced from my T/T (the supplied CD can be ripped onto a computer if necessary), and the other from the commercially produced CD, or file from their FBA system, and see if, under blind conditions, they can tell the difference between both recordings...
I guarantee that any difference heard will be minimal, and certainly not representative of either recording being notably superior (more 'accurate') than the other, which of course *should* be the case if the supposedly more transparent/superior audiophile quality digital recording of the track, were true.
So who wants to take up my offer? :)
Marco.
ooh Tim, you are awful, but I like you! ;) I have multiple (hundreds) of albums on both vinyl and CD (ripped to FLAC these days) - IMHO, based on your question - it will be digital which is more accurate.
PaulStewart
23-02-2014, 22:33
Having compared master tape to both CD and vinyl on a number of occasions, I would have to say that on equal good repro systems the higher resolution of vinyl made it obviously more accurate. This is of course when using analogue masters, when using digital master tapes, there was not a lot in it. Just did a similar test on some Blu Ray audio discs and the same holds true. These are all full range digital files of course, when you get down to MP3s or terrestrial non TV based DAB where most of the musical information has been thrown away, there is no contest. Another interesting test is to compare standard commercially downloaded MP3 lo-fi to old commercial musicassettes. The later is so far superior and accurate it makes you wonder how people ever considered it a format worth selling. At the moment I've just got a shed load of commercially released Mini-Discs and am planning a similar test on those.
I'm picture editing the paper tonight and Mick fleetwood has written an opinion piece on vinyl for the Sunday, it's in todays paper in it he says "My ears miss that analogue sound. Most people have no idea that what they are hearing on a daily basis is actually digital sound, or that digital sound has no sound waves, no high fidelity. All that compressing, in my opinion, takes a lot of the traditional dynamics out.". This is a man who has been recording and listening for years. It's on our website and you can read the whole piece HERE (http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/461345/Mick-Fleetwood-goes-his-own-way-Dreams-of-vinyl)
Cheers
I have multiple (hundreds) of albums on both vinyl and CD (ripped to FLAC these days) - IMHO, based on your question - it will be digital which is more accurate.
Was the vinyl source used to make the recordings you ripped of identical quality to the CD source?
Furthermore, I stand by my earlier assertion which is that the only people genuinely qualified to answer Tim's question are those who have access to and have heard both formats at their best.
No disrespect, mate, but do you honesty think you qualify? Last time I looked, your T/T (and therefore experience of hearing vinyl at its best), whilst decent, wasn't exactly 'top notch'! ;)
Marco.
Hi Paul,
Having compared master tape to both CD and vinyl on a number of occasions, I would have to say that on equal good repro systems the higher resolution of vinyl made it obviously more accurate. This is of course when using analogue masters, when using digital master tapes, there was not a lot in it.
I would agree up to a point, but experience has more often than not shown me that when both (digital and analogue) recordings are at their absolute best, there is little to choose between them. This has been the case not only in my own system, but in other systems belonging to friends, where the digital and analogue (vinyl) sources are of comparable (high) quality.
In my experience, if a big difference exists, sonically, between the results achieved by using digital or analogue recording or replay equipment, it's usually because of a lack of parity (in terms of quality) between the equipment used for the purpose. That is why I think some folk here with top-notch digital replay systems (file-based or otherwise), but which contain either no analogue sources, or ones of poorer quality to their digital source(s), are naturally biased in favour of the latter.
Incidentally, the same applies the other way round...!
The fact is, you need to have equally good (high-quality) digital and vinyl sources in your system, and access to the best recordings on both formats, before you can properly answer the (thorny) question that Tim has posed!! ;)
I'm picture editing the paper tonight and Mick fleetwood has written an opinion piece on vinyl for the Sunday, it's in todays paper in it he says "My ears miss that analogue sound. Most people have no idea that what they are hearing on a daily basis is actually digital sound, or that digital sound has no sound waves, no high fidelity. All that compressing, in my opinion, takes a lot of the traditional dynamics out.". This is a man who has been recording and listening for years. It's on our website and you can read the whole piece HERE (http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/461345/Mick-Fleetwood-goes-his-own-way-Dreams-of-vinyl)
Thanks for that - I'll check it out :thumbsup:
Marco.
The Grand Wazoo
24-02-2014, 00:33
No. I disagree Marco.
Under ideal conditions in a like for like comparison of the same recording mastered for either vinyl or digital, which format do you believe will give you the 'most accurate' representation of what has been captured from the artists performance when you play it back . . . a vinyl LP or a digital CD or lossless file such as FLAC?
Tim's question has the words "...which format do you believe..." in it.
What you have heard, or own (and remember that they are not the same thing) needn't have any bearing on the matter whatsoever. You could have never heard either format. Ever. And still be perfectly well qualified to answer. Anyone with a head on their shoulders and the ability to type is qualified to answer the question mate! And what's more, they can't be wrong!
WOStantonCS100
24-02-2014, 03:01
It still depends on the mastering format. If it was mastered to 24/192 (or any particular digital resolution), it's not going to get anymore accurate than a 24/192 (or that particular digital resolution) file. If it was mastered in 16/44.1 it's foobar anyway, so who cares. ;) If it was mastered to analog tape (provided no second or even third generation R2R tape dub), it's vinyl by a million miles over CD; but, only a leg up on 24/192 or DSD128. I have plenty of CDs; but, of the consumer physical formats, it is the worst representation of the master one can get.
Audioman
24-02-2014, 08:38
Just a bit of fun really, so hopefully it won't turn into a bun fight!
Anyway, I'm not talking about which sound you prefer or how you like to enjoy your music, as that's a whole other ball game . . . but which do you believe portrays most accurately what the recording engineer has captured for playback in the home environment - vinyl or digital? I'm also not talking about compressed music files (.mp3 .aac etc.) so assume the digital format is either a lossless file or standard Red Book CD at 16bit/44,100 Hz.
Going back to Tim's original wording my answer is that I believe vinyl gives the most accurate representation assuming we are talking about standard lossless files or red book CD. I don't see how anyone who hasn't had experience of both formats can believe anything unless they are basing that on others opinions. My belief is based on experience in that I find the presentation of music more believable with vinyl and more like real music being played. Of course no hi-fi is going to reproduce music as played in the concert hall or studio realistically yet alone with absolute accuracy. Any comparison with analogue v digital studio feeds by engineers in the process of making a recording in this context is irrelevant. Of all the formats available I find red book CD the less convincing overall even though one can find examples were a CD version of a particular album equals or betters the vinyl for a whole number of reasons.
Paul.
No. I disagree Marco.
Tim's question has the words "...which format do you believe..." in it.
What you have heard, or own (and remember that they are not the same thing) needn't have any bearing on the matter whatsoever. You could have never heard either format. Ever. And still be perfectly well qualified to answer. Anyone with a head on their shoulders and the ability to type is qualified to answer the question mate! And what's more, they can't be wrong!
Lol, well yes, I guess so. However, if you haven't got the experience necessary to answer the question properly, then your opinion on the matter doesn't carry much weight. Any daftee can waffle about what he or she wants, but that doesn't mean that what they're saying has any basis in reality.
That's why the key word in my last post, Chris, was "properly", in terms of answering the question. In order to do that, you need to have the required practical experience at your disposal. It's a bit like someone asking the question, which turntable do you believe produces the more 'accurate' sound: a Gyrodec or an LP12?
If you haven't heard either turntable, or only one of them, and someone else has owned and used both extensively, and produced recordings from them for analysis, then it doesn't take a genius to work out whose opinion on the matter is the more credible! ;)
Marco.
P.S I notice that no-one has taken up my earlier offer.... Shame, as that would go a long way to ending the argument.
Going back to Tim's original wording my answer is that I believe vinyl gives the most accurate representation assuming we are talking about standard lossless files or red book CD. I don't see how anyone who hasn't had experience of both formats can believe anything unless they are basing that on others opinions.
That's precisely it. If we're going to apportion the same level of credibility to the opinions of those who 'believe' (whatever they want to believe) based on hearsay/merely regurgitating the opinions of others, or less than satisfactory experience of a particular subject, as those with extensive experience of said subject, who actually *know* what they're talking about, then what's been written about audio on the whole of this forum becomes largely meaningless!!
Marco.
I've voted 'not really sure'. What I really mean is 'it depends'. Which is partly a cop-out, but mainly reflects the fact that either format can be more or less accurate than the other, but without having heard the master tapes, there's no way of knowing which is more accurate for any specific recording.
Ok, here's an offer for the digital boys to consider...
I'll digitise some copies of Stevie Ray Vaughan's 'Tin Pan Alley' onto CD, recorded from my turntable, and send a CD to anyone who uses an FBA or CD-only system (any minimal surface noise from the vinyl, as my records are mint, will be removed via editing software, so the recording in that respect will be silent), where they can compare said recording to their most uber-sounding, audiophile-produced file and/or commercially produced CD of the same music.
Then, what I'd like them to do is carry out a blind test, by getting someone else in the same house (wife, GF, friend or whatever) to play both tracks, one produced from my T/T (the supplied CD can be ripped onto a computer if necessary), and the other from the commercially produced CD, or file from their FBA system, and see if, under blind conditions, they can tell the difference between both recordings...
I guarantee that any difference heard will be minimal, and certainly not representative of either recording being notably superior (more 'accurate') than the other, which of course *should* be the case if the supposedly more transparent/superior audiophile quality digital recording of the track, were true.
So who wants to take up my offer? :)
Marco.
I’m not sure what this proves.
The quality limiter in such a case will be the A/D converter used to rip from the vinyl. In effect one would be comparing the capabilities of the A/D converter (Marco’s) with whatever conversion process that was used to make the commercial CD; in fact, comparing digital with digital.
I already have a copy of SRV Tin Pan Ally ripped by Marco, very nice it sounds too. It isn’t perfect, there are still some slight vinyl replay noises but it sounds very nice.
However, the MFSL version on Couldn’t Stand The Weather UDSACD 275 sounds better to my ears but I don’t believe this was the version Marco ripped so a pointless comparison really.
I think Frank (f1eng) and any others who have mentioned comparing format replay with mic feeds are on the right track regarding accuracy as far as subjective impressions go, mic feeds v replay is a bit of a shocker. :eek:
You did write some time ago you had improved on the A/D conversion Marco so I would be interested in having a listen. If you have the MFSL version ripping that would be good. If not, could you give the details of the version you do rip so a fair comparison can be made?
I've neglected to vote, as in order to do so, I'd need an option in the answers provided, entitled: 'Impossible question to answer, as there are too many variables!'
;)
Marco.
Hi John,
I’m not sure what this proves.
The quality limiter in such a case will be the A/D converter used to rip from the vinyl. In effect one would be comparing the capabilities of the A/D converter (Marco’s) with whatever conversion process that was used to make the commercial CD; in fact, comparing digital with digital.
Sure, and that's absolutely true, but the fact is there is always a quality limiter present in all comparisons we do in audio, but that doesn't stop us from forming an opinion on what we've heard, based on the practical experience of listening.
Therefore, all I'm asking people to do is compare my 'digitised' vinyl version of 'Tin Pan Alley' with the 'bestest' sounding version they have, either on a commercially produced CD, or a computer file, and see whether the supposed 'inferiority' of vinyl, as being claimed by some, is in any way obvious.
The test, in that respect, is as valid as doing the same thing in your own system, using your own equipment and A/D converter. It's not a definitive test by any means, but if both the equipment used to make the initial recording and that used to reproduce it are essentially 'transparent', then any BIG differences between vinyl and digital replay, at their best (as claimed by some), should be obvious.
Most importantly, in terms of this discussion, it would also provide some sort of valid reference point for those who have neither heard nor owned a top-notch turntable, as to what is possible from vinyl replay, using their digital equipment as a benchmark in comparison. If we're going to have these types of discussions, then they should be founded on something rather more valid than 'belief'!
I already have a copy of SRV Tin Pan Ally ripped by Marco, very nice it sounds too. It isn’t perfect, there are still some slight vinyl replay noises but it sounds very nice.
However, the MFSL version on Couldn’t Stand The Weather UDSACD 275 sounds better to my ears but I don’t believe this was the version Marco ripped so a pointless comparison really.
Indeed, and furthermore, my T/T has changed almost beyond recognition since that recording was made, and so any new version I produced would be rather different, and in my view (based on relevant experience), much better! ;)
You did write some time ago you had improved on the A/D conversion Marco so I would be interested in having a listen. If you have the MFSL version ripping that would be good. If not, could you give the details of the version you do rip so a fair comparison can be made?
It's the 180g audiophile vinyl version, supplied by Pure Pleasure records, dude. And yes, the A/D conversion I now have access to has also been improved, so when I get a chance I'll do you a new copy and you can see what you think :)
Marco.
|Hi Marco
I'd like to have a go at your comparison, I have SRV's CSTW on CD.
I have compared the vinyl with the CD on my system as a friend has the original UK pressing. We both preferred the vinyl. However there is no doubt in my mind the CD is more accurate to the recording. You are confusing superior and inferior with more accurate and less accurate. Less accurate is not necessarily inferior when it comes to 'communicating the music in an enjoyable fashion.'
The idea that red book CD is the worst representation of the master is IME a nonsense. I have never met a musician (who records) who thinks that is the case. They invariably regard compact cassette and vinyl as joke formats incapable of resolving accurately what they laid down in the studio. All adopted digital recording as soon as it became available. I have heard unmastered mixes that have been ripped to CD, the dynamics and frequency response are truly breathtaking even on a modest system, some compression has to be applied in the mastering process or they would destroy some speakers on the peaks.
Tim - inbox now cleared. :)
I've neglected to vote, as in order to do so, I'd need an option in the answers provided, entitled: 'Impossible question to answer, as there are too many variables!'
;)
Marco.
So your answer is 'Not really sure'!
|Hi Marco
I'd like to have a go at your comparison, I have SRV's CSTW on CD.
I have compared the vinyl with the CD on my system as a friend has the original UK pressing. We both preferred the vinyl. However there is no doubt in my mind the CD is more accurate to the recording. You are confusing superior and inferior with more accurate and less accurate. Less accurate is not necessarily inferior when it comes to 'communicating the music in an enjoyable fashion.'
The idea that red book CD is the worst representation of the master is IME a nonsense. I have never met a musician (who records) who thinks that is the case. They invariably regard compact cassette and vinyl as joke formats incapable of resolving accurately what they laid down in the studio. All adopted digital recording as soon as it became available. I have heard unmastered mixes that have been ripped to CD, the dynamics and frequency response are truly breathtaking even on a modest system, some compression has to be applied in the mastering process or they would destroy some speakers on the peaks.
Tim - inbox now cleared. :)
:):clapclapclap:
There's absolutely nothing wrong with Red Book standards at all. The problem lies in that so few CDs actually make Red Book standard. That's the real loss. If they did, CD would have converted a lot more people. Also to decry 16 bit/44.1 as some sort of irrelevance and that only higher res is capable of accurate/acceptable results is an equal nonsense. Properly implemented, 16/44.1 is more than adequate for very decent results. There may be people with Golden ears who hear "night and day" differences but I wonder how much of that is down to mastering and how much to imagination. That's a whole different thread though ;)
So your answer is 'Not really sure'!
Lol... No, I'm pretty sure, but it's just that none of the answers provided are sufficiently representative of my experience to enable me to vote.
Marco.
Digital is by far and away the most accurate, but digital distortions e.g. digital filtering are much less easy on the ear than analogue ones. Having said this speed instability on analogue is particularly irritating especially on piano.
:)
There's absolutely nothing wrong with Red Book standards at all. The problem lies in that so few CDs actually make Red Book standard. That's the real loss. If they did, CD would have converted a lot more people. Also to decry 16 bit/44.1 as some sort of irrelevance and that only higher res is capable of accurate/acceptable results is an equal nonsense. Properly implemented, 16/44.1 is more than adequate for very decent results. There may be people with Golden ears who hear "night and day" differences but I wonder how much of that is down to mastering and how much to imagination. That's a whole different thread though ;)
Exactly. Years ago (1991) I got to compare the same albums on vinyl and CD in two completely different systems. In both cases there were a few people present. Decks were a SystemdeK IIX and a Linn LP12. No-one preferred the CD, the vinyl was far better by a margin on everything we had duplicates of ( about half a dozen albums). Because of that I stuck with vinyl until it became difficult to buy new releases (about '95). That experience coloured my whole thinking on the matter and I accepted without question all the bollocks talked about how bad digital replay and recording is. It was only when I started talking to professional musicians about the subject that I started to re-think my position.
Aside from the piss-poor mastering of a lot of CDs the hardware itself has to be taken into account. I believed until recently that any competent CD player was as good as another and it was just a question of choosing your poison. When I heard in my system the clear gap in SQ between the Technics SLP1200 and my Parasound, or my Sony players that was nothing to do with presentation but sheer clarity and neutrality in the reproduction I realised that it is not just mastering but the quality of the player (probably the power supplies) that contribute to the negative attitudes to digital replay.
Digital is by far and away the most accurate, but digital distortions e.g. digital filtering are much less easy on the ear than analogue ones. Having said this speed instability on analogue is particularly irritating especially on piano.
You don't get any of the latter on a good direct-drive turntable (speed stability is rock solid)! ;)
I disagree with digital (or vinyl/analogue) being far and away the most 'accurate'. See my earlier responses. The fact that, as you say, digital has its own inherent distortions, and so has vinyl/analogue, means that neither is genuinely accurate.
How else could it be so? Are you saying that one form of distortion is more 'accurate' than the other? How do you choose which is which?
Macca, I'll get to your earlier post (#64) in a minute :)
Marco.
Hi Martin,
I'd like to have a go at your comparison, I have SRV's CSTW on CD.
No problem. I'll get that sorted as soon as I can :)
I have compared the vinyl with the CD on my system as a friend has the original UK pressing. We both preferred the vinyl. However there is no doubt in my mind the CD is more accurate to the recording. You are confusing superior and inferior with more accurate and less accurate. Less accurate is not necessarily inferior when it comes to 'communicating the music in an enjoyable fashion.'
Sure, but that’s not what I mean.
First of all, the term 'accurate' is not ambiguous; something is either accurate or it isn’t. However, 'accuracy' does not form the basis of my argument, as I consider that it’s an inappropriate term to use in a subjective discussion such as this, and so I prefer to use the terms 'realistic' and 'lifelike', based on my musical perception of such. Therefore, allow me to be crystal clear on the matter:
I don’t prefer vinyl to digital because I believe that it is more 'accurate' or 'superior' to digital (using measurements as the judgement criteria), or because it’s 'nicer to listen to', but because I consider that, at their best (and I hear them at their best in my own system every day), the results that both formats are capable of in such circumstances are remarkably close. At the highest level, the gap is simply not as wide as some think.
However, if pushed, I prefer vinyl because experience tells me that the finest recordings I own on vinyl ultimately sound more realistic/lifelike than their digital counterparts, based on my experience of listening to real (un-amplified) voices and instruments (which form my perception of 'musical accuracy'), and so the inherent distortions of both formats aside, I consider that analogue/vinyl, at its best, gets closer to the 'truth' than digital does (that 'truth' representing the 'live' listening experience I’ve referred to and, in essence, my perception of what the 'truth' represents) – BUT, at the highest level of both formats, there’s not much in it!
In my view, those who consider that there are MAJOR differences between both formats, in terms of 'accuracy' (unless one believes that the technical measurements currently available to us tell the WHOLE story - count me out), simply haven’t heard both formats, or the equipment required to reproduce them, at their best – and that applies to those who are claiming the superiority of vinyl as much as those who are claiming the opposite.
Marco.
In my view, those who consider that there are MAJOR differences between both formats, in terms of 'accuracy' (unless one believes that the technical measurements currently available to us tell the WHOLE story - count me out), simply haven’t heard both formats, or the equipment required to reproduce them, at their best – and that applies to those who are claiming the superiority of vinyl as much as those who are claiming the opposite.
Marco.
I agree with this para but I have to point out we are discussing accuracy not superiority and the OP specified all things being equal so we should assume the best TT in the world vs the best digital reproducer.
As for the live unamplified instruments and voices being a benchmark - If we could go back in time and record 'Kind of Blue' digitally would it sound more or less like the real thing than the analogue recording that we have? And if we cut that recording to vinyl would it sound les accurate or more accurate than the same recording replayed as 16/44.1 ?
I don't think you would find anyone in the business who would say that the digital recording was less accurate than the analogue or that the digital replay was less accurate than the vinyl replay. There will always be people who prefer the analogue recording cut to vinyl. I could be amongst them. But that is irrelevant to accuracy.
losenotaminute
24-02-2014, 12:55
I would like to give credit where it's due, this thread is unusually interesting and well mannered for a vinyl v digital online discussion. Well done AOS. I voted don't know, but I do believe that vinyl has the edge in one important respect. There's something 'organic' or 'real' that listening to vinyl can convey that I just don't experience when listening to CD. It may well be the "imperfections" in the format, but listening to a solo 'cello or a solo piano on vinyl more closely matches (and this could be interpreted as being more accurate) the experience one gets when listening to the performance live. Digital always sounds a bit "digital" to me.
When I attend a classical concert, I'm always listening for those tiny imperfections and variations that make a performance special. When the performance is close to flawless, it's a special feeling that you have witnessed something quite unusual. It's like that listening to an LP. When you listen to a CD you know that every time it's going to be exactly the same, how boring is that!
By analogy, take the example of an oil painting by a famous artist. If you offer someone a perfect copy, so perfect that no-one can tell the difference, but they know that it's a copy, most people will prefer to own the original. I feel a bit like that when it comes to vinyl. It's the original format, the one that CD or digital tries to copy, but even if the copy is perfect it's still a copy. Each bit of vinyl is a mini work of art whereas each CD is just a clinical copy, at least to me.
Lawrence
I do think the original post is flawed in that its like trying to compare apples with pears, lazers with stylus. They are just so different forms of technology. It may be possible to compare one TT with another or one digital replay system against another but to compare the two technologies in terms of accurancy doesnt get you anywhere. I agree with Marco, accuracy is not really a relevant term to use in this survey. But again that is my opinion.
I agree with this para but I have to point out we are discussing accuracy not superiority and the OP specified all things being equal so we should assume the best TT in the world vs the best digital reproducer.
Indeed, and experience suggests that the results would be *very* close, which is the whole crux of my point!
As for the live unamplified instruments and voices being a benchmark - If we could go back in time and record 'Kind of Blue' digitally would it sound more or less like the real thing than the analogue recording that we have?
Less, IME. Some of the original jazz recordings I have on vinyl (mono and stereo) from the 1950s, on Columbia and Blue Note labels, not just of Miles Davis, sound much more lifelike (based on my perception of such) than the audiophile CDs I own of the same recordings. They are indeed prime examples of what I was referring to in the fourth paragraph of my last post! [The bit that starts "However, if pushed.."]
I don't think you would find anyone in the business who would say that the digital recording was less accurate than the analogue or that the digital replay was less accurate than the vinyl replay.
Perhaps not, but I'm not talking about 'accuracy', in a technical sense, as I think it's a rather silly term to use in a subjective debate, such as this. I've already outlined in my reply to Neil why it's a fallacy to consider that vinyl or digital is more 'accurate' than the other, as both have their own inherent distortions, neither of which are more faithful than the other to the accuracy of original sound.
Therefore, as far as 'accuracy' is concerned, all we realistically have to work with is our perception of such, unless you're a measurements freak and consider that the technical data available provides all we need to know, in terms of assessing 'accuracy'.
I don't, and consider that there are many things that determine how musically accurate a piece of audio equipment or recording is other than what the specs say, which is why that despite the so-called 'proof' of the latter, in favour of digital superiority, vinyl, in the right circumstances, can sound more lifelike to the listener.
There will always be people who prefer the analogue recording cut to vinyl. I could be amongst them.
Yup - and some of them will have more credible grounds for holding that opinion than others! ;)
Marco.
Indeed, and experience suggests that the results would be *very* close, which is the whole crux of my point!
Less, IME. Some of the original jazz recordings I have on vinyl (mono and stereo), not just of Miles Davis, on Columbia and Blue Note labels, sound much more lifelike (based on my appreciation of such) than the CDs I have of the same recordings. They are indeed prime examples of what I was referring to in the fourth paragraph of my last post!
Marco.
Not comparing like with like - the original jazz recordings were all in analogue so the CD is just a digitised version. That is why I specified that the recording be made digitally too. If their performances had been recorded digitally those old vinyl jazz records would sound even more accurate to the actual sound as heard in the studio.
And whilst I am willing to accept that red book 16/44.1 is not perfect it is not realistic to say that its imperfections can be traded off with those of vinyl on a 1 for 1 basis. Technically speaking vinyl falls woefully short of 16/44.1
But I am arguing accuracy here as that was the set up in the OP. Subjectively I prefer vinyl but I agree that at top flight level there is certainly not a difference in sound quality worth worrying about.
Without even taking into account the problems with RIAA equalization, tracking errors, bandwidth, groove width etc, a few thoughts for those who voted for vinyl.
Does anyone have a record in perfect condition?
Just one click or pop, a single small audible scratch, the merest hint of rumble, let alone the tracking problems at the beginning and end of the groove pretty much automatically mean vinyl must lose.
None of the above would have been on the master, be it digital, or analogue.
One of the reasons I sold off my vinyl was because no matter how carefully I treated my records virtually every one had a defect albeit extremely small. Often brand new vinyl came with such defects.
Ever tried taking a record back to a shop which looks in pristine condition saying at say three minutes into track four there’s a barely audible click. :doh:
It really doesn’t matter in this case which one prefers the sound of. Some people I know enjoy the defects providing they are not too intrusive. It’s just not accurate.
No doubt digital has its problems but by and large once you’ve got the bits, particularly with FBA, it either plays, or it doesn’t, and every replay is exactly like the last.
Not comparing like with like - the original jazz recordings were all in analogue so the CD is just a digitised version. That is why I specified that the recording be made digitally too. If their performances had been recorded digitally those old vinyl jazz records would sound even more accurate to the actual sound as heard in the studio.
I disagree, as in my opinion, the reason why the original vinyl recordings sound so shockingly vivid and real (heard through the appropriate replay equipment) is precisely because of how they were recorded and the equipment that was used (all analogue from start to finish, using valve mics, mixing desks, etc).
Recording the same music digitally would (to an extent) adulterate the realism of the sound, as it would then by imbued with the 'sonic signature' of digital distortion.
And whilst I am willing to accept that red book 16/44.1 is not perfect it is not realistic to say that its imperfections can be traded off with those of vinyl on a 1 for 1 basis. Technically speaking vinyl falls woefully short of 16/44.1
Sorry, I completely disagree, as my extensive experience in that area shows something rather different (something you might hear for yourself when I send you the vinyl rip we've discussed)! :eyebrows:
Subjectively I prefer vinyl but I agree that at top flight level there is certainly not a difference in sound quality worth worrying about.
Precisely, so what does that tell you? How can, on one hand, vinyl 'fall woefully short' of digital, as you've just stated, and on the other, as you say, it's the case that "at the top flight level there is certainly not a difference in sound quality worth worrying about"? ;)
It's either one or the other!
Marco.
I disagree, as in my opinion, the reason why the original vinyl recordings sound so shockingly vivid and real (heard through the appropriate replay equipment) is precisely because of how they were recorded and the equipment that was used (all analogue from start to finish, using valve mics, mixing desks, etc). Recording the same music digitally would (to an extent) adulterate the realism of the sound, as it would then by imbued with the 'sonic signature' of digital distortion.
The analogue tape will have much lower signal to noise ratio, speed instability, higher distortion and lower dynamic range than the digital recording. It simply cannot be more realistic in any respect. You could still use valve mics and valves in the desk with the digital recording so they are irrelevancies.
Sorry, I completely disagree, as my extensive experience in that area shows something rather different (something you might hear for yourself when I send you the vinyl rip we've discussed)! :eyebrows:
If I can get my SLP1200 working again :)
Precisely, so what does that tell you? How can vinyl 'fall woefully short' of digital, as you've alluded to, if as you equally say, at the top flight level there is certainly not a difference in sound quality worth worrying about? ;)
It falls woefully short on the measurements, hence it cannot be the 'more accurate' medium. In use, though, it sounds wonderful, something on which we both agree. I think the reason for that is that some of it's flaws become strengths when viewed psycho-acoustically i.e with our ears and brain.
Does anyone have a record in perfect condition?
Yes, many 100s of them (perhaps more)! All the vinyl I've bought brand new, which I received in perfect condition, has stayed in perfect condition. Furthermore, all the records have been meticulously cleaned on an RCM to ensure that they play without any of the clicks and pops normally associated with vinyl.
Just one click or pop, a single small audible scratch, the merest hint of rumble, let alone the tracking problems at the beginning and end of the groove pretty much automatically mean vinyl must lose.
Did you hear any clicks or pops in the SRV track I ripped? Furthermore, there is professional software available, such as 'Click Repair', which removes all of such noise from vinyl recordings, during the digitization process. Therefore, it is a non-issue.
The other thing worth noting here is that the above are merely 'hi-fi considerations'. Whether or not there are a few audible clicks and pops on a vinyl recording has got nothing whatsoever to do with how musically lifelike the actual recording sounds to the listener, especially if said noise only occurs in between tracks and can't be heard over the music itself.
That doesn't stop it being annoying to certain people, though.
Marco.
The analogue tape will have much lower signal to noise ratio, speed instability, higher distortion and lower dynamic range than the digital recording. It simply cannot be more realistic in any respect. You could still use valve mics and valves in the desk with the digital recording so they are irrelevancies.
And digital too has its own problems, which is why, at the end of the day, all we can do is choose our 'favoured flavour' of distortion and worry not about any silly notions of 'accuracy'!! ;)
How many more times to I have to write that before it sinks in?
It falls woefully short on the measurements, hence it cannot be the 'more accurate' medium.
Of course the above presumes that everything we can genuinely hear can currently be measured, in terms of not only assessing the performance of audio equipment itself (analogue or digital), but also how realistic a recording of music sounds to our ears? If you believe that then you must have access to some new technology I've not heard of yet..........
At this point, Martin, I think it's best that we just to agree to disagree, as I don't consider for one second that what the measurements state is ALL that we have to consider when assessing the musical accuracy (note my use of the word 'musical') of vinyl versus digital, so let's just leave it there :)
Marco.
Oldpinkman
24-02-2014, 14:30
My mate Joe and the band he plays in - now "Dave Migden and the Twisted Roots" (formerly Dave Midgen and the Dirty Words - same line up - new PR) released their new album on Friday with a launch at their traditional venue The Grey Lady in Tunbridge Wells. I haven't yet succeeded in actually getting a vinyl production run - but there is a strong intent. It is imho their best to date - certainly their most accessible, and much the best produced (although the last album "Killing It" was much better than the first, fairly ropey if we are honest, "2nd Hand Tatoo". )
The album is recorded in analogue on a Studer A827 using 2 inch tape. The following quote of Joes brother in law, Dave Migden, is on the CD sleeve
"The band and I have always wanted a particular sound in the recordings, which is the genuine sound of a band playing music in a room. Sounds very obvious, but is hard to achieve unless your are lucky enough to work with someone like Mike Thorne.
When people talk of the vintage sound, it feels that they are referring to a time before we had too many digital options with music. A time when we recorded the sound of a performance in a room with its own natural reverb and ambience, not a digitally created environment. Through the purpose built rooms, vintage tape machines, acoustic pianos, Hammond Organ and Leslie (previously owned by Booker T), vintage snare drums and many more luscious features, we have created the genuine organic sound that we were aiming for."
Guess that's analogue then. And yes, I can get the master tape to compare to. Just need that vinyl pressing. How many interested parties can I tell them I know?? :)
You certainly can put me down for a copy! :)
Incidentally, what you've quoted in your last post (from the band) is *precisely* what makes a recording of music sound real, and which is also almost impossible to measure!!!
Some folk here should have a long, hard, think about that.... ;)
Marco.
Good grief what have you scamps been up to in here whilst I've been away?
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w63/greatgig/crash_zps6287a043.jpg (http://s173.photobucket.com/user/greatgig/media/crash_zps6287a043.jpg.html)
Guys this wasn’t meant to turn into an elongated dissection of how do you measure such a comparison and I had hoped that had been clear, a bun fight was most certainly not on the agenda (even a small one!). In fact there was no agenda, just genuine curiosity about what people's own personal perception was about the accuracy of vinyl compared to digital and vice versa, nothing more than that.
Every person here should have an opinion on that one way or the other and if not they likely won't know or even care, so I thought I had the bases covered . . . . you can be a serious lot sometimes. Marco I know voting must be a tricky for someone with such steadfast views about digital against vinyl, but go on son, you can do it ;)
And by the way, I have your SRV needle drop of Tin Pan Alley and can attest it certainly is fine and I also agree that 99 out of 100 (non audiophile) people would probably struggle to discern between the two if you matched it against a good FLAC file, heck I couldn’t detect much of a difference myself, but that really wasn't what I was after, far from it in fact. I was just curious to know what people believed and nothing more. In truth I actually thought more people would plump for vinyl than digital.
There was a bunfight? Damn I must have missed that.
Did you hear any clicks or pops in the SRV track I ripped? Furthermore, there is professional software available, such as 'Click Repair', which removes all of such noise from vinyl recordings, during the digitization process. Therefore, it is a non-issue.
The other thing worth noting here is that the above are merely 'hi-fi considerations'. Whether or not there are a few audible clicks and pops on a vinyl recording has got nothing whatsoever to do with how musically lifelike the actual recording sounds to the listener, especially if said noise only occurs in between tracks and can't be heard over the music itself.
That doesn't stop it being annoying to certain people, though.
Marco.
I don’t want to get overly pedantic but the question is what’s more accurate; not more musical, more enjoyable, more involving…………
Anyway Marco, you’ve pretty much close the case with your comment that there is digital software that repairs the inaccuracies/replay problems of the vinyl medium.
And yes, as I believe I told you when you kindly did the original rip. It was indeed one of the better rips I’ve heard, but it had one quite noticeable click and a couple of places where surface noise was apparent.
None of the above makes vinyl replay inferior or less enjoyable on a subjective basis.
But, anything one can hear that isn’t on the master copy renders the copy less accurate than the original.
LOL. Tim!! Well, these subjects can become rather emotive! :eyebrows:
Marco I know voting must be a tricky for someone with such steadfast views about digital against vinyl, but go on son, you can do it...
I don't have "steadfast" views about digital against vinyl - this implies that my views are inflexible. My views are simply a direct reflection of my experience to date, and so if that changes, then so do my views ;)
I can't really vote, as for me none of the answers provided adequately cover the reality of the situation. However, one thing I will say, as indeed I have always said, is that good vinyl sounds like good digital, and not some euphonic mush that may be 'pleasant on the ear' to some, but which does not in any way represent the sound of REAL music!
When you can get vinyl sounding almost identical, or indistinguishable, from digital 'done well', as both John and you, who have heard my SRV vinyl rip have stated (or alluded to), then *THAT* is when vinyl can be considered as 'accurate' - and trust me, it takes plenty of money and know-how thrown at it, in order to get there!!
Therefore, if you want an easy life and access to top-notch sounds, go the the FBA route, or buy a proper CDP from the days when they were built on the premise of optimising sound quality first!
:exactly:
Marco.
I don’t want to get overly pedantic but the question is what’s more accurate; not more musical, more enjoyable, more involving…………
Yes, but I contend that there's a difference between 'technically accurate', based on the parameters we currently know of and are able to measure, and 'musically accurate', based around that which most genuinely represents the sound of real instruments and voices.
The two for me, are NOT necessarily the same.
Therefore, just because, superficially based on what we are currently able to measure, digital wins that particular battle, it doesn't automatically follow that the results it produces are more musically accurate, i.e, in the final analysis, more 'real'. At the end of the day, it's about appreciating music, not analysing noise....
I trust you can see where I'm coming from, even though you may not agree?
Marco.
Audioman
24-02-2014, 15:34
Sorry chaps you digital fanboys are spouting the same old measurement nonsense. It's not just this forum but whenever this topic comes up on the Hoffman forum you get the same old arguments.
1. Easy to show nice curves and the Nyquist theorem to prove red book digital is perfect. But this obviously doesn't tell the whole story in terms of what we hear.
2. Both analogue tape and vinyl lps obviously have more than adequate dynamic range to reproduce music realistically even if in theory digital has more dynamic range.
3. Hands up those who own a CD or player capable of producing that dynamic range.
4. The standardised conversion of signal to vinyl is very well researched and developed (RIAA) and has proven to work very well. Digital has to go through as many steps that could compromise the sound in terms of A to D and D to A conversion. There does not appear to be a standard for D to A and in some cases CD players offer different filtering options.
5. The question is how well either analogue or digital reproduces the original music or performance irrespective of the way recorded. This is determined by what we hear not by measurement so the best measured format does not necessarily produce the best sound in terms of the way the human ear is attuned to interpret it.
6. Background noise of a non intrusive nature or the odd click or pop is irrelevant to final result in terms of 'musicality' and closest approximation to the original 'performance'.
7. A good hi-fi system should set out to reproduce the original performance as best as possible. In doing so preserving the smaller nuances of the music and conveying long term listenability and aural pleasure.
Having heard many different combinations of equipment I have yet to hear a CD based system that fully satisfies point 7 no matter the cost yet have heard modestly priced vinyl based systems that do.
The strange thing is even in cases were an example of identically sourced vinyl and CD can be compared, the vinyl in terms of extended or more concentrated listening is usually more satisfying musically, even if superficially identical sounding. Vinyl based systems give a more solid sound image with better soundstaging and a lack of artifacts that cause long term listening fatigue. I'm sure many will attest to the ability to listen to vinyl for longer periods of time.
Remember it is musicality and a convincing portrayal of the performance that makes good sound not measurements. In my view that represents accuracy. Accurate as possible to the way the performers would sound if in front of you.
Paul.
7. A good hi-fi system should set out to reproduce the original performance as best as possible. In doing so preserving the smaller nuances of the music and conveying long term listenability and oral pleasure.
I think you mean 'aural pleasure' unless your hifi system really does suck.
This thread has gone the same way as usual I'm afraid.
It has become a digital v analogue "what I prefer" discussion involving people who, on both sides, believe that only they have good enough ears/kit to judge.
The fact is the original question was which is more accurate?
As soon as one starts to edit the recording it is no longer accurate! Most classical recordings are compressed a little
before producing a CD simply since the dynamic range of the music would not be reproduce able on typical domestic equipment and totally useless in a car.
Many pop CDs have been compressed hugely and recorded up to the limit, some say because that is what sells some say that is what is best suited to 95% of buyers who only listen to their music in the car and on portables, either way once this is done it is no longer accurate.
LPs have certain limits to their manufacturing and playback which mean they can never be accurate. You could spend 400 billion on your record player and it still couldn't be accurate to the analogue tape it originated from since the LP can not be.
Anyway, whilst both have distortion neither is perfect. If one takes the audibility threshold as around 0.1%, which is accepted in some quarters but maybe not others, red book CD has distortion below audibility and every cartridge ever made has audible distortion over at least some (usually all) of the audio band.
I still contest that the only people whose opinion is valid on this issue of accuracy are those that have compared the mic feed with off tape during a recording with their own ears. Anybody else has never heard a true comparison so is merely speculating.
All LPs and CDs have been messed about to appeal to their potential customer base after the original recording has been made, so simply comparing a CD and LP tells nothing whatsoever about accuracy, just preference.
I am absolutely 100% sure from personal listening experience that my digital recording is more accurate than analogue, though the best analogue recorder I own and use is a Revox B77 and there may well be better ones which I haven't heard. I do know others who have better analogue recorders and they have told me that none are completely transparent but that is opinion I can not vouch for.
I think you can make a very good recording on reel to reel tape, not as accurate as 44/16 digital but really good and those distortions that are added are euphonic. The LP will not be as accurate as the original analogue tape for inevitable reasons known about for decades, but it can still sound lovely if cleverly manipulated by an experienced mastering engineer who understands the strength and weakness of the media.
But that is still simply a question of offering for sale a temptingly nice sounding product rather than accuracy and I fear that the commercial pressures in the pop business mean that the true potential of CD is never offered to customers whereas the LP is always offered as product for hifi enthusiasts who won't be playing it in a car or a portable...:)
End product for listening to pop music on a hifi at home the LP is almost certainly going to have been more sympathetically manipulated than the CD.
Neither will be an accurate representation of the original mic feed though...
I think you mean 'aural pleasure' unless your hifi system really does suck.
:lolsign:
Marco.
Rothchild
24-02-2014, 16:57
"The band and I have always wanted a particular sound in the recordings, which is the genuine sound of a band playing music in a room. Sounds very obvious, but is hard to achieve unless your are lucky enough to work with someone like Mike Thorne.
When people talk of the vintage sound, it feels that they are referring to a time before we had too many digital options with music. A time when we recorded the sound of a performance in a room with its own natural reverb and ambience, not a digitally created environment. Through the purpose built rooms, vintage tape machines, acoustic pianos, Hammond Organ and Leslie (previously owned by Booker T), vintage snare drums and many more luscious features, we have created the genuine organic sound that we were aiming for."
The tape machine is something of a red herring in here imo, yes tape has a sound but the real issue is the room and the instruments I'd wager that your mate could swap in a good 24 channel interface and record to hard disk such that 99 in 100 people wouldn't know the difference (I'd probably even go to 999 in 1000). Rooms are crucial, instruments are crucial, talent is entirely irreplaceable in either the analogue or digital domain and the performance itself is everything, the transcription format comes relatively low down the pecking order (albeit slightly higher than distribution media that most of us end up with - because at that point the room is the most important thing again!)
I've posted previously that 'the sound of a band in a room' is an artifice of a very high order. Making things sound 'real' in recorded media is oh so much more than the 'platform' used to capture the recording to.
I am absolutely 100% sure from personal listening experience that my digital recording is more accurate than analogue...
And I am equally 100% sure from my personal listening experience that neither my digital or analogue recordings are more 'accurate' than the other, simply that both are flawed to some extent, and in different ways.
So who is right - he that shouts the loudest?? The answer is neither of us, as it comes down to what your experience to date has told you. I don't give a flying toss what the measurements say, as measurements don't tell the full story.
You still haven't answered my previous question, Frank... If digital is supposedly more 'accurate', then why doesn't that supposedly superior 'accuracy' translate very obviously, sonically, into high-resolution 'real world' playback conditions?
People here with very good systems, who've heard my vinyl rip of SRV's 'Tin Pan Alley', have stated that it is near indistinguishable from their reference recordings on digital, so how can that happen if vinyl is so inferior??
And this time, rather than conveniently dodge the question, I'd like an answer to it! ;)
Marco.
Audioman
24-02-2014, 17:17
I think you mean 'aural pleasure' unless your hifi system really does suck.
LOL. I regularly get pleasure from sucking vinyl. Far tastier than CDs. :)
And I am equally 100% sure from my personal listening experience that neither my digital or analogue recordings are more 'accurate' than the other, simply that both are flawed to some extent, and in different ways.
So who is right - he that shouts the loudest?? The answer is neither of us, as it comes down to what your experience to date has told you. I don't give a flying toss what the measurements say, as measurements don't tell the full story.
You still haven't answered my previous question, Frank... If digital is supposedly more 'accurate', then why doesn't that supposedly superior 'accuracy' translate very obviously, sonically, into high-resolution 'real world' playback conditions?
People here with very good systems, who've heard my vinyl rip of SRV's 'Tin Pan Alley', have stated that it is near indistinguishable from their reference recordings on digital, so how can that happen if vinyl is so inferior??
And this time, rather than conveniently dodge the question, I'd like an answer to it! ;)
Marco.
It perhaps means that the threshold of audible distortion is more likely to be 2 or 3 % than 0.1% ???? I am not that bothered by the measurements though. I am going entirely on listening to the original mic feed and comparing it to the recording at the time of the recording.
Have you personally heard the before and after output of both a top quality analogue recorder and a good quality digital recorder?
If not you have no way of knowing whether one is more accurate than the other whilst your speculation as to whether the n-th generation manipulated copy of that original recording released on CD or LP is more convincing or not is, of course, completely valid.
It perhaps means that the threshold of audible distortion is more likely to be 2 or 3 % than 0.1% ????
Or perhaps the superior 'accuracy' of digital over vinyl, in reality, is not as significant as you think? ;)
More to the point, if the difference is inaudible (or at best extremely difficult to hear), why does it matter??
Have you personally heard the before and after output of both a top quality analogue recorder and a good quality digital recorder?
If not you have no way of knowing whether one is more accurate than the other whilst your speculation as to whether the n-th generation manipulated copy of that original recording released on CD or LP is more convincing or not is, of course, completely valid.
But my argument, Frank, is not based upon the supposed 'accuracy' of one format over the other, simply that neither are truly accurate, and so all we can realistically do, as audio enthusiasts, is choose what we think sounds the best/most realistic to our ears.
It is utterly pointless fretting over any audio equipment, analogue or digital, producing genuine 'accuracy', as it is but a pipedream, and so far better to choose our favoured flavour of 'inaccuracy', and live with it! That makes for a rather more pleasurable and easier life – a life which centres around the appreciation of recorded music, rather than the analysis of 'sound'.
What is it about the above that you find disagreeable or difficult to accept?
Marco.
Rothchild
24-02-2014, 18:16
And I am equally 100% sure from my personal listening experience that neither my digital or analogue recordings are more 'accurate' than the other, simply that both are flawed to some extent, and in different ways.
I'd interpreted Frank saying 'my recordings' as him meaning recordings he's made, where he knows absolutely what the source was and what the signal chain was to capture with with, I don't think he means his record collection.
Surely the quickest way to understanding the accuracy of the media is to play with the shortest possible path; instrument in room, mic, pre, transcribe, playback, amp, speakers (in a room, maybe the same one).
Maybe the few of us around here who do indulge in this pastime might have some valid views about capture and reproduction and shouldn't just be boxed in as measurement obsessives because we utilise logic and empiricism to help us understand the things we're interested in.
I'm sure you're right about Frank, in terms of them being his own recordings, from start to finish, and I don't have a problem with that, or what you've just mentioned. Knock yourself out', Marc, as they say!
I'm simply not interested in chasing the pipedream of 'accuracy' in audio - of far more interest to me is creating the most musically convincing illusion I can in my system, from recorded music, using both analogue and digital equipment, and my experience of getting the most out of it :)
Marco.
Rothchild
24-02-2014, 18:46
Yup, regularly 'knocking myself out' with this stuff.
The reason my HiFi is so ghetto is that most of my spare money goes on microphones and ancillary recording equipment, a good proportion of my weekends are spent with talented people right there in front of me and I have to come up with a way of capturing it effectively (maybe even accurately). I wasn't suggesting it as 'maybe we should test' I was pointing out that there are folk round here who don't need to second guess what Stevie Ray Vaughn might or might not have sounded like in the studio to determine what goes on when sounds are captured and reproduced (digitally or on analogue gear).
I'm sure you're right about Frank, in terms of them being his own recordings, from start to finish, and I don't have a problem with that, or what you've just mentioned. Knock yourself out', Marc, as they say!
I'm simply not interested in chasing the pipedream of 'accuracy' in audio - of far more interest to me is creating the most musically convincing illusion I can in my system, from recorded music, using both analogue and digital equipment :)
Marco.
I quite agree with you that chasing accuracy alone is not the important thing. Any recording you buy, on CD or LP will have been manipulated in some way to sound the way the producer wants on the equipment it is likely to be listened on. In the case of pop CDs that means huge compression, unfortunately.
On top of that pop recordings are usually multi tracked and even recorded in different places and times and mixed together later. The concept of "accuracy" in this context is meaningless.
On one forum a while ago one poster linked to some excerpts of a classical recording (Handel's Messiah) where two recordings were made simultaneously, firstly in 2 tracks from 2 strategically placed microphones (ORTF layout IIRC) and secondly multi tracked and mixed down from loads of spot microphones.
There was a bit more noise on the 2 track (the microphones, being further away from the musicians, picked up more ambient noise) but on my system here it was notably preferable to the mix down.
The actual release was the multi-track mix down, so accuracy was not even possible, though the recording is still lovely and would be totally convincing if I hadn't heard the simple mic setup (which is my preference and what I used to do myself). I have bought a copy.
The reason we are debating accuracy here is not that is super important but that that was the question asked in the original post.
The reason my HiFi is so ghetto is that most of my spare money goes on microphones and ancillary recording equipment, a good proportion of my weekends are spent with talented people right there in front of me and I have to come up with a way of capturing it effectively (maybe even accurately). I wasn't suggesting it as 'maybe we should test' I was pointing out that there are folk round here who don't need to second guess what Stevie Ray Vaughn might or might not have sounded like in the studio to determine what goes on when sounds are captured and reproduced (digitally or on analogue gear).
That's fair enough, Marc, but it doesn't mean that the results you've obtained are, in actuality, any more 'accurate', musically, than those of us have achieved by using our subjective experiences and the ears God gave us :)
Marco.
The reason we are debating accuracy here is not that is super important but that that was the question asked in the original post.
Which is precisely why I why I haven't voted, and instead have extrapolated the discussion into other more relevant areas, as I consider that genuine accuracy is not achievable with either digital or vinyl! ;)
Anyway, reading the rest of your post, I'm glad we essentially agree that fretting over 'accuracy' (as a music enthusiast replaying a recording, produced in a studio, that he or she has had no control over) is bollocks, so I think we can leave it there :)
Marco.
Rothchild
24-02-2014, 19:14
That's fair enough, Marc, but it doesn't mean that the results you've obtained are, in actuality, any more 'accurate', musically, than those of us have achieved by using our subjective experiences and the ears God gave us :)
Marco.
True, it just means that my perspective is only as good as yours. That said, I'm happy to claim that my recordings are at least 100% more accurate than anyone who hasn't ever made a recording ;-)
I don't have "steadfast" views about digital against vinyl - this implies that my views are inflexible. My views are simply a direct reflection of my experience to date, and so if that changes, then so do my views ;)
Perhaps "a robust defence of your opinion" would have been a more appropriate response Marco.
I have to say though I have thoroughly enjoyed reading this thread, some very compelling argument from both sides of the fence. From my viewpoint, well I obviously voted digital, but its not something I fret about, in fact I have not fretted about my choice of source component for some time now, the only thing I fret about is can I afford to buy another album this month, or book another gig, which is where all my spare cash goes.
As an aside I just wanted to mention Marc's (Rothchild) signature with a link to Bandcamp, as I would have not have discovered it otherwise. This is to listen to the pony collaboration (http://theponycollaboration.bandcamp.com/) and I really enjoyed the 3 track sample Marc, especially 'When I'm Lost' and I'll look out for them, as I'd love to see them live. Did you record that?
True, it just means that my perspective is only as good as yours. That said, I'm happy to claim that my recordings are at least 100% more accurate than anyone who hasn't ever made a recording...
Sure, you can't criticise the results produced by a process you don't have any experience of! I'd love to try what you and Frank have done, in terms of producing your own recordings from start to finish, as one can only learn from the experience, but I've not had the opportunity so far to do so :)
Incidentally, one other point about the 'accuracy' debate, in relation to 'vinyl versus digital', is that it is patently obvious, as a result of reading some of the posts on this forum and elsewhere, that the majority of folk don't have much of a clue about setting up a turntable properly, and even more importantly, don't own a sufficient quantity of audiophile quality recordings, in pristine condition, in order to form a proper conclusion on what the software or the hardware are *truly* capable of!
Therefore, on that basis, how on earth are they qualified to judge on any notion of 'accuracy'? :doh:
Marco.
Therefore, on that basis, how on earth are they qualified to judge on any notion of 'accuracy'? :doh:
Marco.
Is that a necessary requirement then, before having an opinion?
The Barbarian
24-02-2014, 20:20
I'm totally amazed that Digital voting is in the lead, however i guess im not
:rolleyes:
Perhaps "a robust defence of your opinion" would have been a more appropriate response Marco.
I have to say though I have thoroughly enjoyed reading this thread, some very compelling argument from both sides of the fence. From my viewpoint, well I obviously voted digital, but its not something I fret about, in fact I have not fretted about my choice of source component for some time now, the only thing I fret about is can I afford to buy another album this month, or book another gig, which is where all my spare cash goes.
No worries, muchacho. I'm in a similar position, although unfortunately I don't get to as many gigs as I'd like - still manage to get to quite a few, though, but not on your level! :)
Marco.
Is that a necessary requirement then, before having an opinion?
Lol, no, but it is to have a credible one! We've been here already... I know nothing about brain or back surgery, and so my opinon on which is 'easier' should be treated with the appropriate respect ;)
Marco.
Rothchild
24-02-2014, 20:38
As an aside I just wanted to mention Marc's (Rothchild) signature with a link to Bandcamp, as I would have not have discovered it otherwise. This is to listen to the pony collaboration (http://theponycollaboration.bandcamp.com/) and I really enjoyed the 3 track sample Marc, especially 'When I'm Lost' and I'll look out for them, as I'd love to see them live. Did you record that?
Thanks Tim, means a lot that you like it. Yes, I recorded, edited and mixed all of it (on that EP in particular everything was recorded in my house). We're very nearly done with the last EP that completes the third album, Wasted Afternoons and Lost are the first part of it (you can listen to the other 2 albums on Bandcamp too), all 'homemade' using a number of borrowed spaces and a fair bit of ingenuity.
Pony are on hiatus from gigging at the moment (the guitarist and female singer just had their first child so are otherwise engaged!) but the writer is just getting together a new act and I've been enjoying working with http://jacquiandgeoff.bandcamp.com/ with the drummer from Pony (in fact I'm dipping in and out of the forum this evening as I work through the final draft mixes of their second album, which again I've recorded and mixed in it entirety)
Is that you in front of that beast of a mixing desk? Do we get you hear anything you've made with it? EDIT: Just looked a bit closer and realised that it's Dave Grohl at the sound city desk, I guess it's possible (in which case the fact you like Pony is amazing and we'll come out of retirement!)
Which is precisely why I why I haven't voted, and instead have extrapolated the discussion into other more relevant areas, as I consider that genuine accuracy is not achievable with either digital or vinyl! ;)
Thus scuppering the intention of the poll and thread? Naughty naughty!
Would this mean that all discussion relating to thoughts on theoretical objective accuracy will be defacto guided towards subjective impressions and personal experience (no matter how little experience that might actually relate to) on AoS? Seems a shame, almost scary..
The reason we are debating accuracy here is not that is super important but that that was the question asked in the original post.
"................................. but this amp goes to 11"
Thus scuppering the intention of the poll and thread? Naughty naughty!
Would this mean that all discussion relating to thoughts on theoretical objective accuracy will be defacto guided towards subjective impressions and personal experience (no matter how little experience that might actually relate to) on AoS? Seems a shame, almost scary..
Well, quite. One wonders how long anyone would be allowed to get away with 'extrapolating' a Marco thread into 'other more relevant areas'.
Thus scuppering the intention of the poll and thread? Naughty naughty!
Would this mean that all discussion relating to thoughts on theoretical objective accuracy will be defacto guided towards subjective impressions and personal experience (no matter how little experience that might actually relate to) on AoS? Seems a shame, almost scary..
Not at all... It's called thread drift, dude, and it happens all the time!
Furthermore, I'm only one person posting my opinion - if enough people want the discussion to go in a different direction, and offer their contrary opinions, then all they have to do is contribute to that effect and it will happen. Simples :)
Marco.
EDIT: Just looked a bit closer and realised that it's Dave Grohl at the sound city desk, I guess it's possible (in which case the fact you like Pony is amazing and we'll come out of retirement!)
Yes, well spotted it is the Rupert Neve Sound City desk, with two people I greatly admire and respect sitting out front, Dave Grohl and Rick Rubin.
I'll check out that other Bandcamp link later too, thanks.
Accuracy is in the mind of the ear-holer... :ner:
Slightly off-topic again (naughty me! :spank:), but I've just read this comment on pfm, from paskinn - someone whose postings often resonate with me, on the thread entitled 'Vinyl is more alive than ever':
Life isn't just a reductionist trudge through a bleak economic landscape. It gains meaning through emotion and experiences.
I wear a rather costly mechanical watch. Why? Because, there on my wrist, is a device which contains the ideas and skills of literally centuries of craft and thought.
Only a highly skilled society can make such intricate and beautifully machined devices. This device is accurate to within less than 2 seconds a day, week in, week out. Purely because of huge skill and design, with features devised centuries ago. Of course a cheap digital watch is even more accurate. And your mobile tells the time anyway.
You can also wear plastic shoes, nylon shirts and eat cheap plastic bread. But real life needs texture and richness. Doesn't have to be vinyl, watches or any particular thing, but we are creatures in a physical landscape and we have to invest it with some meaning of our own.
I competely agree. The bits in blue indicate exactly why I enjoy owning a physical/tangible music collection, and vinyl plays a big part in that. Lots of people enjoying owning 'stuff' - especially when that stuff is big part of their personal identity.
Marco.
Slightly off-topic again (naughty me! :spank:), but I've just read this comment on pfm, from paskinn - someone whose postings often resonate with me, on the thread entitled 'Vinyl is more alive than ever':
I competely agree. The bits in blue indicate exactly why I enjoy owning a physical/tangible music collection, and vinyl plays a big part in that. Lots of people enjoying owning 'stuff' - especially when that stuff is big part of their personal identity.
Marco.
I agree too Marco.
I too prefer to use the actual LP or CD over streamed files. I like the fact that my racks are in view, and probably reduce lateral reflections from my speakers by making the side walls uneven.
I am also delighted that, for example, a complex mechanical perpetual calendar mechanism is still made and incorporated in a few watches despite the fact that this can be done electronically for pennies.
I agree too Marco.
I too prefer to use the actual LP or CD over streamed files. I like the fact that my racks are in view, and probably reduce lateral reflections from my speakers by making the side walls uneven.
I am also delighted that, for example, a complex mechanical perpetual calendar mechanism is still made and incorporated in a few watches despite the fact that this can be done electronically for pennies.
Absolutely. It's the whole sensory experience that matters and not just the convenience factor. Looking at analogue watch with in-built calendars tells you more than just the time and date. It tells you that someone skilled and with intelligence designed and made it. It completes the link between the designer and the owner. Reading the time from a faceless digital watch may be (and often is) more accurate but it is without these sensory experiences and appreciations.
Streamed music for me takes away part of this sensory response to seeing the cover art, being able to read the pamphlets or descriptions (without calling them up on a digital display) and removing part of the direct link between artist and end listener. In reality, the music may be the same as makes no odds but it is all a very personal preference.
No disrespect, mate, but do you honesty think you qualify? Last time I looked, your T/T (and therefore experience of hearing vinyl at its best), whilst decent, wasn't exactly 'top notch'! ;)
Fair point - my Garrard 401 with SME 3009 II Improved and Nagaoka MP-30 isn't in most eyes "top notch" - but then neither is the £100 laptop I guess!
Lol - so the answer is you haven't heard vinyl or digital at its best, in order to form an opinion on their respective levels of 'accuracy', which exceeds beyond the level of a daftee? :D
Seriously, though (and this isn't just aimed at you, dude), the only way anyone can comment with authority on the respective 'accuracy' of both formats, are those who've heard BOTH at their most 'accurate'. Simples :)
Tony Sallis, of Coherent Systems, would be in an excellent position to comment on this matter, as he has precisely that level of experience, even though I know he considers that ultimately digital (FBA) is better.
Marco.
Hi Frank,
I too prefer to use the actual LP or CD over streamed files. I like the fact that my racks are in view, and probably reduce lateral reflections from my speakers by making the side walls uneven.
It's interesting you should mention that, as when I installed some Expedit shelving recently, from Ikea, and 'adorned' the walls in my music room accordingly with vinyl, it resulted in a markedly improved sound from my system overall! Plus, I also think it looks cool :)
I am also delighted that, for example, a complex mechanical perpetual calendar mechanism is still made and incorporated in a few watches despite the fact that this can be done electronically for pennies.
When I can, I much prefer using high-quality mechnical items, designed and produced 100% by man, than anything adulterated by computers.
I believe that the ever-increasing reliance on computers will eventually lead to our ruination, as the more that they perform all manner of tasks for us, the less we require using our natural skills and intuition – and the sickness in our society derived from that is already deep-rooted, and continues to spread relentlessly....
Marco.
Hi Frank,
It's interesting you should mention that, as when I installed some Expedit shelving recently, from Ikea, and 'adorned' the walls in my music room accordingly with vinyl, it resulted in a markedly improved sound from my system overall! Plus, I also think it looks cool :)
When I can, I much prefer using high-quality mechnical items, designed and produced 100% by man, than anything adulterated by computers.
I believe that our ever-increasing reliance on computers will eventually lead to our ruination, as the more they do all manner of tasks for us, the less we require using our natural skills and intuition – and the sickness in our society derived from that is already deep-rooted, and continues to spread relentlessly....
Marco.
Two of the greatest inventions by man (The bicycle) and (The TT/Vinyl) require a fair bit of human interaction which is healthy and positive unlike Computers/Digital which require little human imput other than for people to sit for long hours in a state of inactivity.
The Barbarian
27-02-2014, 12:36
It's neck & neck at tho mo..come on vinyl lad
:yay:
Oh dear, some rather intransigent statements are being made now.
Chaps, the trick is to control the technology and not let it control you and without computers none of you would be reading this! :rolleyes:
Chaps, the trick is to control the technology and not let it control you and without computers none of you would be reading this! :rolleyes:
Indeed, Timbo me old boy, but unfortunately not everyone does that... There are plenty who are brainwashed by technology, and so allow their lives to be dictated by it.
You only have to observe the 'zoomers' who can't live without their mobile phones, text friends and family rather than speak to them (sometimes when they are even in the same room as them! :mental:), drive anywhere without a sat-nav, read a book without a Kindle, or move their fat backsides off of their sofas, and go into towns and shop in proper shops, rather than online, etc - the list goes on and on!!
My reading this forum, via the use of a laptop, is one of the very FEW times I use any form of computer, or an invention of very recent technology. In most other circumstances I distance myself from it as much as possible, as I firmly believe it dehumanizes us :)
Marco.
Online shopping has to be the greatest invention of the last ten years - no need to drag your raggedy ass around the 'shops' anymore - what a joy that has been. Shopping can be a more pleasant experience in some foreign countries where they know what service is and don't employ the brain dead as shop assistants but it has always been a dreadful way to spend time in the UK.
I'm no techno fan but I am prepeared to forgive technology of all its sins just for that one blessing.
If digital was so accurate why are so many systems exhibited at hifi shows around the world fronted up by vinyl? You would have thought they would have used the most accurate device they could lat their hands on especially when it seems some of the companies have an unlimited budget! mmmmm:scratch:
Online shopping has to be the greatest invention of the last ten years - no need to drag your raggedy ass around the 'shops' anymore - what a joy that has been. Shopping can be a more pleasant experience in some foreign countries where they know what service is and don't employ the brain dead as shop assistants but it has always been a dreadful way to spend time in the UK.
I'm no techno fan but I am prepeared to forgive technology of all its sins just for that one blessing.
Not me - I like to be amongst other people in the real world! Fortunately, being semi-retired, I'm able to frequent shops and town centres when they're at their least busy ;)
The only thing I ever buy on-line is hi-fi related items and music. Everything else, especially food items, is bought in person.
Marco.
If digital was so accurate why are so many systems exhibited at hifi shows around the world fronted up by vinyl? You would have thought they would have used the most accurate device they could lat their hands on especially when it seems some of the companies have an unlimited budget! mmmmm:scratch:
You have a point there, Jim! ;)
Marco.
Not me - I like to be amongst other people in the real world! Fortunately, being semi-retired, I'm able to frequent shops and town centres when they're at their least busy ;)
The only thing I ever buy on-line is hi-fi related items and music.
Marco.
I find some of my most exciting music finds are trawling bric a brac shops and markets with a record store for music I never expected to come across and sometimes in excellent condition. This excitement never happens online!
The Barbarian
27-02-2014, 13:17
Arnt most the top notch systems around the world vinyl based! why do you think that is that then?
;)
I find some of my most exciting music finds are trawling bric a brac shops and markets with a record store for music I never expected to come across and sometimes in excellent condition. This excitement never happens online!
Indeed - ditto for me, 'taint the same thrill buying it on-line, but sometimes 'necessary evils' are, erm, necessary...! ;)
Marco.
It's easier to get vinyl to 'sound good' than it is to get digital to 'sound good'.
People don't tend to buy hi-fi based on how accurate to the signal it is, but on how good they perceive the sound to be. A highly inaccurate sound can still sound very good or in fact 'better than life'.
That may be counter-intuituve but there you go.
Anyways I thought the general consensus was that most systems at hi-fi shows sound crap?
The Barbarian
27-02-2014, 13:25
Believe me Marco if i could get away from computers i would in a flash it's just that the whole world seems to have structured itself around everyday necessities online so it is indeed a necessary evil.. You know me i will live the old life in anyway possible & do as much as possible..Going across the grain of the whole discussion even if Vinyl playback were not as accurate as Digital i would still opt for the Vinyl out of principle but like i say this is going against the discussion in question..
The Barbarian
27-02-2014, 13:28
It's easier to get vinyl to 'sound good' than it is to get digital to 'sound good'.
People don't tend to buy hi-fi based on how accurate to the signal it is, but on how good they perceive the sound to be. A highly inaccurate sound can still sound very good or in fact 'better than life'.
That may be counter-intuituve but there you go.
Anyways I thought the general consensus was that most systems at hi-fi shows sound crap?
Hi Martin
Ive always believed & always will believe that it's the whole presence that digital conveys, IMHO seems to trick people into believing it sound so super great..
Same with Digital TV it may look very nice & bright, detailed & almost breathtakingly realer than real but in reality {at least to me} it don't look anywhere near real/natural.
It's easier to get vinyl to 'sound good' than it is to get digital to 'sound good'.
Experience suggests quite the opposite, actually, which is why I've spent rather more on my T/T, than on my CDP/DAC, in order to get it up to the level of the latter, in terms of 'accuracy'... You may like to digest that statement for a moment ;)
People don't tend to buy hi-fi based on how accurate to the signal it is, but on how good they perceive the sound to be. A highly inaccurate sound can still sound very good or in fact 'better than life'.
That may be counter-intuituve but there you go.
Indeed.
However, I buy hi-fi equipment not on how 'accurate' to the signal it is (based on incomplete/tell-only-half-the-story technical measurements), or 'nice' it sounds, but on how close its sonic and musical abilities are in allowing it to replicate the sound of real instruments and voices in a genuinely lifelike manner, based on my experience over many years of hearing such at live, acoustic-only and amplified musical events.
Marco.
Hi Andre
Like you I prefer the sound of vinyl over digital. But the original question was 'which do you think is more accurate'. That is not necessarily the same as asking 'which sounds better' maybe we should have a poll on that question instead since that seems to be the question a lot of people would prefer to be asked :)
Believe me Marco if i could get away from computers i would in a flash it's just that the whole world seems to have structured itself around everyday necessities online so it is indeed a necessary evil.. You know me i will live the old life in anyway possible & do as much as possible..Going across the grain of the whole discussion even if Vinyl playback were not as accurate as Digital i would still opt for the Vinyl out of principle but like i say this is going against the discussion in question..
Indeed, and of course I agree with you. The slightly off-topic nature of the discussion now is simply to 'perk things up a bit' and have a giggle! :D
Marco.
The Barbarian
27-02-2014, 13:37
Thread drift, o well makes it all the more interesting..
Same with Digital TV it may look very nice & bright, detailed & almost breathtakingly realer than real but in reality {at least to me} it don't look anywhere near real/natural.
That's one of the reasons why I'll continue to use our Sony CRT TV until it dies, as the colours (even in comparison with HD) are much more natural to my eyes, especially skin tones, and on other natural phenomena, such as grass and sky.
Every digital TV I've seen so far (to a lesser of greater degree) make the latter look like it belongs to Red Indians, and something 'overblown' and alien, which doesn't look like real grass or sky to me...
Digital TV, in my experience, much like digital photography, has the tendency to homogenise colours (or exaggerate them), rather than highlight the subtleties of various tones, and make everything appear 'pin-sharp and squeaky clean', at the expense of how nature intended it to look. That is NOT accuracy.
One can also draw parallels with how digital processes impart similar characteristics on recorded music.
Marco.
Stratmangler
27-02-2014, 14:03
After a long while thinking about it I have a question for Tim.
What do you mean by most accurate playback?
If it's repeatable playback then it has to be digital, and it doesn't matter whether it's a horribly compressed MP3 or a master recording hot from the studio.
Whether or not that digital media playback sounds any good is of no consequence.
It's just not possible to get exactly the same playback from a piece of vinyl - a particle or two of dust could land on the record between plays, the temperature could rise or fall in the room affecting the cartridge tracking, etc., etc., ...
The same could be said of reel to reel tape, although this tends to more be more consistent than vinyl replay - every time the tape passes over a playback head a miniscule amount of oxide is removed.
And again, the sound quality of the playback is of no consequence.
So I did "go there" after all :ner:
The Barbarian
27-02-2014, 14:09
Marco:
Yep & this digital malarky is what attracts people.. But at the end of the day let people come up with what they want but never ever say that this false presentation is more accurate.
What i will not buy is the argument put forth regarding the comparison between original master tape qwality & what you get on a record/CD..
Hi Andre
Like you I prefer the sound of vinyl over digital. But the original question was 'which do you think is more accurate'. That is not necessarily the same as asking 'which sounds better' maybe we should have a poll on that question instead since that seems to be the question a lot of people would prefer to be asked :)
Accurate is easier to measure: less distortion = more accurate, in the same way a digital watch is more accurate than a wind-up watch, because it (measurably) keeps better time, so a clear answer should be possible to the 'which is more accurate' question, assuming you know how to measure the relevant parameters.
'Which sounds better' essentially means 'which do you prefer', because 'better' is an entirely subjective, aesthetic judgement which brings in all sorts of elements to do with what each individual grew up with, their resistance or otherwise to new technologies, their previous purchasing decisions etc etc, so there can be no clear answer.
Audioman
27-02-2014, 18:26
That's one of the reasons why I'll continue to use our Sony CRT TV until it dies, as the colours (even in comparison with HD) are much more natural to my eyes, especially skin tones, and on other natural phenomena, such as grass and sky.
Every digital TV I've seen so far (to a lesser of greater degree) make the latter look like it belongs to Red Indians, and something 'overblown' and alien, which doesn't look like real grass or sky to me...
Digital TV, in my experience, much like digital photography, has the tendency to homogenise colours (or exaggerate them), rather than highlight the subtleties of various tones, and make everything appear 'pin-sharp and squeaky clean', at the expense of how nature intended it to look. That is NOT accuracy.
One can also draw parallels with how digital processes impart similar characteristics on recorded music.
Marco.
Hang on all TV is digital unless unknown to me there is some analogue transmitter still in operation.:) I assume you mean digital TV displayed on CRT screen as opposed to the various types of flat computer screens out there. Last time I looked the latest flat screen technology was getting better for a price but not quite there yet.
As far as accuracy is concerned the closest approximation to reality is what counts and that is a CRT screen or a vinyl record. Nothing to do with what measures best.
Paul.
Hang on all TV is digital unless unknown to me there is some analogue transmitter still in operation.:) I assume you mean digital TV displayed on CRT screen as opposed to the various types of flat computer screens out there. Last time I looked the latest flat screen technology was getting better for a price but not quite there yet.
Yes, that's exactly what I meant, lol!
As far as accuracy is concerned the closest approximation to reality is what counts and that is a CRT screen or a vinyl record. Nothing to do with what measures best.
Glad you agree! :)
In terms of what I've outlined previously, flat-screen TVs are not an advancement.
Marco.
The Barbarian
27-02-2014, 19:07
We have two brand spanking new LED TV's, according to everyone & reviews they are superb :rolleyes: The wife loves em, clarity fine detail etc etc but the least amount of time i personally spend watching em the better if you know what i mean.. I suppose they look ok :D apart from everone has Jaundice compared to mi old telly..
I wonder whether one of the reasons for vinyl ( turntables) being popular with the 'high end' manufacturers is that it is easier for them to charge more. When you look at all that gorgeous engineering and the use of exotic materials it maybe does not feel so outrageous to be charged such huge prices. Whereas with digital everybody knows the technology is relatively inexpensive and shares many of its components with mass produced computers and the like. It just does not seem as glamorous does it? that anonymous box of transistors etc.
Accurate is easier to measure: less distortion = more accurate, in the same way a digital watch is more accurate than a wind-up watch, because it (measurably) keeps better time, so a clear answer should be possible to the 'which is more accurate' question, assuming you know how to measure the relevant parameters.
And that's the big question... In terms of audio, I don't believe we're able yet to measure ALL the relevant parameters that determine how genuinely accurate a specific component is.
For example, it's been established that both vinyl and digital have different forms of inherent distortions, therefore which of those distortions 'matters least', as it were, in order for the format in question, or component, to deliver the most 'accurate' sound - and how exactly do we measure for that? Essentially, which form of artifice, present in digital or vinyl music replay, has the least impact on accuracy?
You see, that's exactly my point: as both vinyl and digital (even at their best) distort the music signal in one way or another, how do we determine which format produces the most faithful sound, due to its inherent distortions having the least impact on the integrity of the music signal? I contend that you cannot measure for that, and so it boils down to which forms of distortion annoy the listener the least, when replaying recorded music on either medium.
For some, it may be the surface noise and tracing distortion of vinyl, and for others it may be 'digital glare'. The point is that, despite what measurements tell us, neither vinyl or digital is perfect, and so we're back to square one, and what I've always said, which is: worry not about silly notions of 'accuracy', as you're kidding yourself on if you believe that either vinyl or digital is capable of producing it, and choose instead your 'favourite flavour' of inaccuracy!
Quite simply, *that* is the reality, as it's all one big illusion.
'Which sounds better' essentially means 'which do you prefer'...
Not necessarily. 'Which sounds better' could mean, as it does in my case, that which you consider more closely represents the sound of real voices and instruments, i.e. what is most musically accurate, even if certain technical measurements appear to 'prove' differently.
'Which you prefer' could be taken to mean, what is 'nicer to listen to', which suggests a preference for euphony, as opposed to realism/accuracy. I don't prefer vinyl (at its best) to digital because it produces a 'nice sound'; I prefer it because, to my ears, it produces a more realistic one!!
All the decisions I make in audio are based around my system delivering a 'lifelike sound' with recorded music (based on my experienced perception of such), not necessarily a sound that is 'pleasant' or 'easy on the ear'. Real instruments, played with conviction by talented musicians, produce a sound which is far from being euphonic, so I want my system (and the components in it) to capture a believable snapshot of that realism.
*That* is my 'accuracy'!
:exactly:
Marco.
If digital was so accurate why are so many systems exhibited at hifi shows around the world fronted up by vinyl? You would have thought they would have used the most accurate device they could lat their hands on especially when it seems some of the companies have an unlimited budget! mmmmm:scratch:
The cynic in me says it is because LPs are back in fashion and the various mega expensive analogue rigs are almost as profitable as cables as a line to sell.
A lot of enthusiasts turn their noses up as much at any demo without a TT as fashion victims do at the "wrongly" dressed.
The thing is Marco all these recordings are more or less successful illusions created by better or worse recording engineers.
Do they choose the most accurate microphones? No, they choose their favourite microphone for each instrument. The voice microphone will not be the same as the instrument microphones and both have their own signature.
These will be multi track mixed, reverb added pan potted, compressed and then if going to LP bass monoed and HF limited.
The fact that any fan is fooled into thinking they are listening to the real thing is a tribute to the artistry and skill of the recording engineers not the technology used for replay...
Sure, Frank, I completely agree! So why should an audio enthusiast, merely playing recorded music on his or her stereo, worry about bollocks, such as 'accuracy'?
In the real world, there is no such thing, as you quite rightly state. The fact is, it's ALL an illusion. Therefore, simply choose the one that makes most sense to you - job done! :)
Marco.
I really like my illusion and unlike a magic show, I get to keep it... :D
The cynic in me says it is because LPs are back in fashion and the various mega expensive analogue rigs are almost as profitable as cables as a line to sell.
A lot of enthusiasts turn their noses up as much at any demo without a TT as fashion victims do at the "wrongly" dressed.
You surely don't think they sell many of those rigs do you frank. Most people live in the real world and use much more realistically priced decks or older stuff bought back to life and in some cases enhanced ie the technics crowd:)
The Barbarian
28-02-2014, 00:45
Back in fashion! whats that bollox about then?? Reality gets overshadowed by commmerical dross.
There are plenty who are brainwashed by technology, and so allow their lives to be dictated by it.
Just as there are plenty brainwashed by non-technology, love outdoors survival life, or into steam fairs or obsessed by bicycles or fell running or vinyl and turntables, people who absolutely refuse to have any digital music in their house (as per a person I bought from via ebay once - vinyl and cassette only), battle re-enactment societies, obesessed by playing Bridge or Poker.... and their lives will be dicated too.
It's the person who brainwashes themselves, not the external objects or influences.
You've effectively brainwashed yourself into being who you think you are, to be deep (?) about it; self-image, how you want others to see you etc. Me too of course.
People who love new technology are no different.
The Barbarian
28-02-2014, 01:04
:lolsign:
It's neck & neck at tho mo..come on vinyl lad
:yay:
:doh: This wasn't a competition to see what was best...
...seems you've been unable to grasp the poll. :lol: Just wanted to add in that double-entendre there for the hell of it! hehe
It was a survey to see who *thought* which was potentially technically the best, based on their understanding of how each one worked. i.e. NOT judging by ear on the practicalities of it all - which may be flawed in either case and so you're not hearing the medium at it's absolute maximum possibility. At least that was my understanding of the OP and poll from Tim.
It would have been interesting to then compare results against people's real-world preference which seems to be vinyl on AoS at least in the vocal majority even if a small majority.
I think there is too much emotion involved (see my previous post about self-image etc) and so to even conceive of digital being more accurate would be like stabbing one's self in the ear ... and so it's resorted to ideas of accuracy being equated to personal favourite experience.
Is kind of the ultimate self projection if you see what I mean (ones interpretations of personal experience then becomes an absolute belief about the world around you, rather than just understanding it as a personal interpretation of one individual mind of the outside world) much like the difficulty people had once with the notion that the earth was not the centre of the universe, even after presented with many a logical proof.
"It really FEELS like we are at the centre of the universe! How can my feelings be wrong? Afterall, all that matters is how I feel about the world"
The Barbarian
28-02-2014, 01:18
Aint interested in the opening thread, i seee it as an opening into what I WANT to say, my view see, not very often im wrong :lol:
And that's the big question... In terms of audio, I don't believe we're able yet to measure ALL the relevant parameters that determine how genuinely accurate a specific component is.
For example, it's been established that both vinyl and digital have different forms of inherent distortions, therefore which of those distortions 'matters least', as it were, in order for the format in question, or component, to deliver the most 'accurate' sound - and how exactly do we measure for that? Essentially, which form of artifice, present in digital or vinyl music replay, has the least impact on accuracy?
You see, that's exactly my point: as both vinyl and digital (even at their best) distort the music signal in one way or another, how do we determine which format produces the most faithful sound, due to its inherent distortions having the least impact on the integrity of the music signal? I contend that you cannot measure for that, and so it boils down to which forms of distortion annoy the listener the least, when replaying recorded music on either format.
For some, it may be the surface noise and tracing distortion of vinyl, and for others it may be 'digital glare'. The point is that, despite what measurements tell us, neither vinyl or digital is perfect, and so we're back to square one, and what I've always said, which is: worry not about silly notions of 'accuracy', as you're kidding yourself on if you believe that either vinyl or digital is capable of producing it, and choose instead your 'favourite flavour' of inaccuracy!
Quite simply, *that* is the reality, as it's all one big illusion.
So, to be level headed about it as the poll kind of asks (not which sounds more realistic), you'd have tick "Don't know" in the poll ?
Aint interested in the opening thread, i seee it as an opening into what I WANT to say, my view see, not very often im wrong :lol:
That's not very community spirited of you.
Just start up an Andre's thread and you'll not have to keep waiting for these openings - saves time.
It's easier to get vinyl to 'sound good' than it is to get digital to 'sound good'.
People don't tend to buy hi-fi based on how accurate to the signal it is, but on how good they perceive the sound to be. A highly inaccurate sound can still sound very good or in fact 'better than life'.
That may be counter-intuituve but there you go.
Anyways I thought the general consensus was that most systems at hi-fi shows sound crap?
The last line is very true! Appart from the wigwam show, everyone always complains about how bad shows sound. And I agree with what you say about highly inaccurate sound being able to sound great.
If I were the dealer showing off gear, I'd be wanting to both pick something that sounded great over the broadest range of music, had a fantastic "We're serious about YOUR hobby and ethusiasm" image (which necessitates vinyl - digital is too divided by formats and a bit too throw-away to induce so much enthusiasm) and appealed to people with lots of money who want a piece of industrial art in their rooms (try making a DAC look sexy!), play those punters, who spend hundreds on the perfect pressing, like fiddles with some spiel about after going to all those lengths for the perfect pressing now you need the perfect turntable or your efforts are wasted (which is like insurance sales, fear based!) and also play the addiction card for all those obssessives looking for rare vinyl and pressings etc etc etc etc etc
Given the luxery style of market, it's just win win win win and win for marketing a good turntable over a good DAC. Adds to that whole connoisseur imagary BS that is 99% of all life-style marketing today.
Digital is like this: you buy an expensive DAC, you pay money for a well recorded and brand new digital file/media and.... you're done!
Less likely that customer has addiction/obession problems and probably less likely to be upgrading every year for another "hit" (and there are no expensive consumables like cartridges or accessories like vinyl cleaning machines to push on them either).
And so... statement turntables are more promenant at shows than ever before!
Oh, and I'd also want to avoid possible bad digital design (especially if not my own product) being exaggerated by interfering with solid state electronics further in the chain (high frequency stuff) and therefore my mega-statement amps getting the blame!!
Just as there are plenty brainwashed by non-technology, love outdoors survival life, or into steam fairs or obsessed by bicycles or fell running or vinyl and turntables, people who absolutely refuse to have any digital music in their house (as per a person I bought from via ebay once - vinyl and cassette only), battle re-enactment societies, obesessed by playing Bridge or Poker.... and their lives will be dicated too.
It's the person who brainwashes themselves, not the external objects or influences.
You've effectively brainwashed yourself into being who you think you are, to be deep (?) about it; self-image, how you want others to see you etc. Me too of course.
People who love new technology are no different.
Essentially, Tim got it right earlier: it's about YOU controlling technology, not IT controlling you, and some folk in that respect are almost beyond help.
When it gets to the stage that you'd rather text someone who's in the same room in the house as you (or across tables at a restaurant, as I've seen), than SPEAK to them like a HUMAN BEING, then the illness runs deep!!
Marco.
So, to be level headed about it as the poll kind of asks (not which sounds more realistic), you'd have tick "Don't know" in the poll ?
Nope. I don't believe that vinyl or digital is 'more accurate', so how can I vote on that basis?
If there had been an option of: 'neither vinyl nor digital is more accurate than the other, as both are fundamentally flawed', then I'd have ticked that, as it reflects what I consider is the reality! :)
Furthermore, IMO, 'realistic' is a more meaningful term to use than 'accuracy' (as most folk relate the latter simply to deficient/incomplete in relevance technical measurements), when assessing how close the sound of a specific hi-fi component or system, when reproducing recorded music, gets to that of the real thing, which is precisely why my argument centers around the notion of 'realism', not 'accuracy'.
Marco.
I think there is too much emotion involved (see my previous post about self-image etc) and so to even conceive of digital being more accurate would be like stabbing one's self in the ear ... and so it's resorted to ideas of accuracy being equated to personal favourite experience.
That's certainly not where I've been coming from. As far as I'm concerned, the issue was nailed in the first five paragraphs of post #151. Read that again, and digest it properly, if you're not getting the message correctly ;)
Quite simply, the 'accuracy' argument, between vinyl and digital, is a straw man. If you don't know what that term means, then look it up.
Furthermore, if you want me to answer the poll, using only the options Tim provided, then the closest you're going to get to that is my response to Macca in post #138, when he wrote:
It's easier to get vinyl to 'sound good' than it is to get digital to 'sound good'...
...to which I responded:
Experience suggests quite the opposite, actually, which is why I've spent rather more on my T/T, than on my CDP/DAC, in order to get it up to the level of the latter, in terms of 'accuracy'... You may like to digest that statement for a moment ;)
Think properly about what I've written there. The clue lies in the bit in blue... *But* there's more to it than that. As ever in audio, things are not as 'black & white' as some folk would like to believe!
Marco.
Stratmangler
28-02-2014, 09:21
Nope.
If there had been an option of 'Neither vinyl nor digital is more accurate than the other, as both have their fundamental flaws', then I'd have ticked that! :)
Marco.
I'm 100% with you on this one Marco.
Audioman
28-02-2014, 09:30
The last line is very true! Appart from the wigwam show, everyone always complains about how bad shows sound. And I agree with what you say about highly inaccurate sound being able to sound great.
If I were the dealer showing off gear, I'd be wanting to both pick something that sounded great over the broadest range of music, had a fantastic "We're serious about YOUR hobby and ethusiasm" image (which necessitates vinyl - digital is too divided by formats and a bit too throw-away to induce so much enthusiasm) and appealed to people with lots of money who want a piece of industrial art in their rooms (try making a DAC look sexy!), play those punters, who spend hundreds on the perfect pressing, like fiddles with some spiel about after going to all those lengths for the perfect pressing now you need the perfect turntable or your efforts are wasted (which is like insurance sales, fear based!) and also play the addiction card for all those obssessives looking for rare vinyl and pressings etc etc etc etc etc
Given the luxery style of market, it's just win win win win and win for marketing a good turntable over a good DAC. Adds to that whole connoisseur imagary BS that is 99% of all life-style marketing today.
Digital is like this: you buy an expensive DAC, you pay money for a well recorded and brand new digital file/media and.... you're done!
Less likely that customer has addiction/obession problems and probably less likely to be upgrading every year for another "hit" (and there are no expensive consumables like cartridges or accessories like vinyl cleaning machines to push on them either).
And so... statement turntables are more promenant at shows than ever before!
Oh, and I'd also want to avoid possible bad digital design (especially if not my own product) being exaggerated by interfering with solid state electronics further in the chain (high frequency stuff) and therefore my mega-statement amps getting the blame!!
Nat. I hope you are not implying that vinyl is a luxury for the well healed. As Andre mentioned there is a certain company based at Borehamwood that produce fantastic looking turntables that sound good and at reasonable prices. I am prepared to stick my neck out and say that anything more expensive only produces a fairly marginal improvement in SQ in the context of a normal domestic environment. Also I have picked up perfect pressings for little money and paying large sums is no guarantee of pressing quality. It's easier to perceive the added cost of a fancy turntable rather than fancy DAC or CD player. The later appear to be a very easy way to make large profits given the use of standard mass produced technologies plus a nice case and a few higher quality components.
The only gauge of accuracy is which format more convincingly reproduces one's expectations of how the music should sound.
Paul.
The only gauge of accuracy is which format more convincingly reproduces one's expectations of how the music should sound.
By jove, I think that man has got it!! :clap:
;)
Marco.
Audioman
28-02-2014, 09:59
By jove, I think that man has got it!! :clap:
;)
Marco.
I think that is what I have been saying all along. For me then it is vinyl by a considerable margin. I think you are sitting on the fence a bit with this one Marco as I know you have a preference for analogue.
Paul.
I'm not sitting on the fence, Paul.
I only have a preference for analogue/vinyl in instances where I consider it produces the more realistic results, musically, which isn't always the case.
Besides, the discussion is not about preferences; it's about what we consider is fundamentally more 'accurate' (a term which instead I have replaced with 'realistic'), for reasons already given.
I'm afraid that you can't pigeonhole my views on this matter neatly into one specific box, as for me, there is no definitive answer to the question that was posed.
One point I would make, which I think it's important to grasp in this debate, is that there is a BIG difference between "one's expectations of how the music should sound", and that which we 'prefer' or consider as 'nice to listen to'. See my reply yesterday to Joe, in that respect.
Marco.
rectorydp
28-02-2014, 10:43
I love vinyl. I grew up listening to vinyl albums. I spent many hours flicking through the racks in independent record shops trying to find new and interesting sounds. I loved getting the vinyl home, opening up the cover and looking through all the notes. I enjoyed that first needle-drop to start my session listening to the pristine vinyl. It sounded great (well sometimes it wasn’t so great when I chose some new band that turned out to be rubbish!). I played music all the time. I went to concerts every week. Music was, and still is, very important to me. I still go to festivals and small venues to get that feel that you get from live music. However, I never thought that vinyl was accurate. How could it be? Let’s face it; we are dragging a stylus through a wiggly groove cut in a fallible material.
Here is a stylus tracking a record
http://www.sciencephoto.com/image/215073/large/H1000104-SEM_of_diamond_stylus_in_groove_of_LP_record-SPL.jpg
Let’s look a bit closer.
http://24.media.tumblr.com/2c00dc2cc49f4640c08f2f81d916cdf6/tumblr_mv6f0794aw1qf2xtoo1_400.png
There is no way that this can be accurate. Look at the groove itself. It has many imperfections.
http://www.synthgear.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/record_groove.jpg
Add to that dust and other grunge. Consider the wear and tear on the groove over many plays; dragging the stylus through that little channel.
And we haven’t even considered what the engineer had to do to get the groove into the record in the first place; where he had to compress the dynamic range to make it trackable by a good range of equipment and to make sure that the music fits onto one side of the disc.
Alan Shaw of Harbeth did a little video (see post 179 on this thread http://www.harbeth.co.uk/usergroup/showthread.php?2046-An-honest-appraisal-of-vinyl-v-digital-romance-v-reality/page9) showing the signals from test tones on vinyl and CD on an oscilloscope. These were just single frequency test tones and therefore very simple compared to recorded music. The signal from vinyl is jumping around and clearly distorted and that from CD is clear and rock solid. The problem with the vinyl wasn’t so much a problem with frequency but with the amplitude, ie it is not primarily an issue with wow and flutter but other more fundamental problems associated tracking a groove cut in vinyl. You could argue that the performance on vinyl could be improved with a better turntable. Alan used his Thorens 125/2 with SME3009 and Shure V15/III. It is not the last word in performance but it is not too shabby either. I am sure the output could be improved but you cannot eliminate the fundamental problems in vinyl replay itself.
Turntables, arms and cartridges can be fantastic pieces of engineering and wondrous to behold. LP covers can be works of art. Vinyl can, and often does, sound great but I cannot make a case for it being accurate. The underlying mechanics are just too flawed.
Hi David,
Nice post - I particularly loved the pictures :)
Turntables, arms and cartridges can be fantastic pieces of engineering and wondrous to behold. LP covers can be works of art. Vinyl can, and often does, sound great but I cannot make a case for it being accurate. The underlying mechanics are just too flawed.
I agree, but then digital is also flawed, simply in a different way.
Therefore, in the final analysis, one can only choose which flawed medium produces the most realistic, not 'accurate' (based on deficient/incomplete in relevance measurements), results to our ears, as dictated by our perception of how real voices and instruments sound.
At the end of the day, *that* is the only 'accuracy' that matters, when assessing the 'faithfulness to the original sound' of recorded music reproduced by a hi-fi system.
Marco.
Audioman
28-02-2014, 11:25
I love vinyl. I grew up listening to vinyl albums. I spent many hours flicking through the racks in independent record shops trying to find new and interesting sounds. I loved getting the vinyl home, opening up the cover and looking through all the notes. I enjoyed that first needle-drop to start my session listening to the pristine vinyl. It sounded great (well sometimes it wasn’t so great when I chose some new band that turned out to be rubbish!). I played music all the time. I went to concerts every week. Music was, and still is, very important to me. I still go to festivals and small venues to get that feel that you get from live music. However, I never thought that vinyl was accurate.
Does that mean you think digital is more accurate and for what reason?
How could it be? Let’s face it; we are dragging a stylus through a wiggly groove cut in a fallible material.
Here is a stylus tracking a record
http://www.sciencephoto.com/image/215073/large/H1000104-SEM_of_diamond_stylus_in_groove_of_LP_record-SPL.jpg
Let’s look a bit closer.
http://24.media.tumblr.com/2c00dc2cc49f4640c08f2f81d916cdf6/tumblr_mv6f0794aw1qf2xtoo1_400.png
There is no way that this can be accurate. Look at the groove itself. It has many imperfections.
http://www.synthgear.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/record_groove.jpg
Add to that dust and other grunge. Consider the wear and tear on the groove over many plays; dragging the stylus through that little channel.
Making many assumptions based on those pictures. What makes you assume that those apparent imperfections are even picked up by the stylus or that the wavy groove isn't an accurate interpretation of the original sound especially if it is from an analogue sources. Because it looks messy doesn't mean it sounds messy and if you magnified a CD plenty of imperfections will be apparent, especially in the surface lacquer. A modern stylus tracking at 1.5 to 3.0 grammes isn't going to produce any significant wear after 100s of plays.
And we haven’t even considered what the engineer had to do to get the groove into the record in the first place; where he had to compress the dynamic range to make it trackable by a good range of equipment and to make sure that the music fits onto one side of the disc.
Improved vinyl cutting technology and better playback equipment has enabled audiophile releases to be cut with little if any compression. Audible dynamic range in practice can be as good, if not better than CD/digital. Anyway most digital sources are now rather compressed to some extent at least.
Alan Shaw of Harbeth did a little video (see post 179 on this thread http://www.harbeth.co.uk/usergroup/showthread.php?2046-An-honest-appraisal-of-vinyl-v-digital-romance-v-reality/page9) showing the signals from test tones on vinyl and CD on an oscilloscope. These were just single frequency test tones and therefore very simple compared to recorded music. The signal from vinyl is jumping around and clearly distorted and that from CD is clear and rock solid. The problem with the vinyl wasn’t so much a problem with frequency but with the amplitude, ie it is not primarily an issue with wow and flutter but other more fundamental problems associated tracking a groove cut in vinyl. You could argue that the performance on vinyl could be improved with a better turntable. Alan used his Thorens 125/2 with SME3009 and Shure V15/III. It is not the last word in performance but it is not too shabby either. I am sure the output could be improved but you cannot eliminate the fundamental problems in vinyl replay itself.
Alan Shaw and the Harbeth Forum are known to be pro digital / anti analogue. You can't eliminate the fundamental problems with digital either. I have been using cartridges that track the groove rock solid and used turntables that produce no audible wow and flutter.
Turntables, arms and cartridges can be fantastic pieces of engineering and wondrous to behold. LP covers can be works of art. Vinyl can, and often does, sound great but I cannot make a case for it being accurate. The underlying mechanics are just too flawed.
Nor can you make a case for digital being any more accurate. With digital and analogue (vinyl ) playback we are dealing with two different systems of mechanical and electrical transference of the signal. They both are measurable in different ways so you can't apply measurements of digital 'accuracy' to analogue for comparative purposes.
Paul.
With digital and analogue (vinyl ) playback we are dealing with two different systems of mechanical and electrical transference of the signal. They both are measurable in different ways so you can't apply measurements of digital 'accuracy' to analogue for comparative purposes.
That's a very relevant and true statement.
Marco.
rectorydp
28-02-2014, 12:24
Hello Paul you make some interesting points that I would like to respond to.
Does that mean you think digital is more accurate and for what reason?
The point I was making in my post was that vinyl is inaccurate because the underlying mechanics are flawed. I do believe that digital is more accurate because it overcomes most of these mechanical issues. I do recognise that it introduces other problems but I believe they are less significant and the D to A conversion can be very good.
Making many assumptions based on those pictures. What makes you assume that those apparent imperfections are even picked up by the stylus or that the wavy groove isn't an accurate interpretation of the original sound especially if it is from an analogue sources. Because it looks messy doesn't mean it sounds messy and if you magnified a CD plenty of imperfections will be apparent, especially in the surface lacquer. A modern stylus tracking at 1.5 to 3.0 grammes isn't going to produce any significant wear after 100s of plays.
My concern is about the the lumps and bumps in the vinyl. It is an imperfect material and those lumps and bumps would disturb the tracking of the stylus. It is a basic transfer mechanism. If you drag the stylus over a bump then it will be picked up. You can see that we are dealing with an imperfect substrate when you look at the surface.
Most of the imperfections in a CD surface are irrelevant because we only need to know if a bit is on or off. It is only when we have significant disruption that it is likely to have an effect. We know that CDs can be highly accurate because I can rip a CD and get exactly the same checksum as someone else using completely different equipment and a different copy. And if we are talking about a digital file/stream then those imperfections are not relevant at all.
Improved vinyl cutting technology and better playback equipment has enabled audiophile releases to be cut with little if any compression. Audible dynamic range in practice can be as good, if not better than CD/digital. Anyway most digital sources are now rather compressed to some extent at least.
Yes I am sure that cutting technology continues to improve but the engineer does often make compromises to suit a wide range of playback equipment. I would agree that digital has been unnecessarily compressed in many cases. However, this is not because of the limitations of the technology but rather because of ridiculous beliefs about what is required to make a release successful.
Alan Shaw and the Harbeth Forum are known to be pro digital / anti analogue. You can't eliminate the fundamental problems with digital either. I have been using cartridges that track the groove rock solid and used turntables that produce no audible wow and flutter.
Yes Alan is pro digital because he believes it is more accurate. However, that doesn't take away from what he showed on the oscilloscope. I believe he gave an honest presentation of what he saw. Furthermore, I had already indicated that the distortion was not primarily due to wow and flutter.
Nor can you make a case for digital being any more accurate. With digital and analogue (vinyl ) playback we are dealing with two different systems of mechanical and electrical transference of the signal. They both are measurable in different ways so you can't apply measurements of digital 'accuracy' to analogue for comparative purposes.
Yes I can. If you look at the video from Alan you will see that the simple test tone is much more accurately created from the CD. Clearly we could try the same experiment with different turntables and digital equipment. I am sure that we could see improvement in the analogue signal. However, there is a vast gap to bridge even with this simple signal. There are problems with both technologies but I believe that digital is able to deliver a more accurate representation of the input signal than does vinyl. That does not necessarily mean that all digital sources are more accurate than all vinyl. Clearly that is not always the case because of the way they have been produced.
rectorydp
28-02-2014, 12:34
Hi David,
Nice post - I particularly loved the pictures :)
Thanks Marco
I agree, but then digital is also flawed, simply in a different way.
Therefore, in the final analysis, one can only choose which flawed medium produces the most realistic, not 'accurate' (based on deficient/incomplete in relevance measurements), results to our ears, as dictated by our perception of how real voices and instruments sound.
At the end of the day, *that* is the only 'accuracy' that matters, when assessing the 'faithfulness to the original sound' of recorded music reproduced by a hi-fi system.
Marco.
Yes they are both flawed but I would argue that in terms of faithfulness to the electrical input signal, digital can be more accurate.
My post was in response to the original poll and post. I know that you have indicated that you would prefer to answer a different question. However, I quite liked Tim's original question because it was actually less emotive. I felt it could be answered with more certainty. In my view of course :)
You're entitled to your opinion, David, but there's is so much wrong (hopeful supposition) in that post (#177), that I don't know where to start, so I'll leave it to Paul, or someone else to deal with.
However, I would recommend that you read my post #151, and let what is written there sink in properly, especially the first five paragraphs, as it might provide you with another way of looking at the matter.
Marco.
Thanks Marco
Yes they are both flawed but I would argue that in terms of faithfulness to the electrical input signal, digital can be more accurate.
My post was in response to the original poll and post. I know that you have indicated that you would prefer to answer a different question. However, I quite liked Tim's original question because it was actually less emotive. I felt it could be answered with more certainty. In my view of course :)
No worries - I have no problem with that at all, and your input is appreciated. However, I think it's best if we simply 'agree to disagree' :)
There's just one point I would make, and that is that it's about appreciating how realisitic recorded MUSIC sounds, not analysing "electrical input signals". Despite what you may think, the two are not the same. Once you grasp that fact, then you may be able to view the debate in a different light.
Marco.
I agree, but then digital is also flawed, simply in a different way.
.
Hi Marco
Since this appears to be the crux of your argument I was wondering in what specific ways you consider digital to be 'flawed'?
Spectral Morn
28-02-2014, 13:12
I've neglected to vote, as in order to do so, I'd need an option in the answers provided, entitled: 'Impossible question to answer, as there are too many variables!'
;)
Marco.
Precisely what I was hoping folks would think about discuss based on my post. Frankly and with respect the basis of the poll is flawed as the question accurate to what still stands and can't really be answered as there are way too many variables to answer the question in regards to accuracy - which implies total faithfulness to the original music recorded. I think if the poll was worded Which do you think might be more accurate then it has legs to run on but again the question of accuracy to what comes up again.
I guess unless one records a piece of live music amplified or unamplified with the very best equipment, all cabling in phase (including the equipment to rule out possible phase issues) and then uses that to make a comparison the question remains unanswered. However any series of comparisons would need to be based on at least two recordings - made at the same time - one all digital and one all analogue + perhaps all the other possible variations on a theme too.
I do however think that the best most optimally set up analogue chain has the best chance of being most accurate overall (perfection probably doesn't exist) because human beings hearing is an analogue process not a digital one. That theory was put forward years ago (not sure who by) to explain why many folks prefer analogue recordings and playback over digital and I am yet to hear a more plausible explanation.
Regards Neil
Precisely what I was hoping folks would think about discuss based on my post. Frankly and with respect the basis of the poll is flawed as the question accurate to what still stands and can't really be answered as there are way too many variables to answer the question in regards to accuracy - which implies total faithfulness to the original music recorded. I think if the poll was worded Which do you think might be more accurate then it has legs to run on but again the question of accuracy to what comes up again.
I guess unless one records a piece of live music amplified or unamplified with the very best equipment, all cabling in phase (including the equipment to rule out possible phase issues) and then uses that to make a comparison. However it would need to be based on at least two recordings one all digital and one all analogue + all the variations on a theme.
I do however think that the best most optimally set up analogue chain has the best chance of being most accurate overall (perfection probably doesn't exist) because human beings hearing is an analogue process not a digital one. That theory was put forward years ago (not sure who by) to explain why many folks prefer analogue recordings and playback over digital and I am yet to hear a more plausible explanation.
Regards Neil
I agree with the last paragraph of your post Neil. I have many discussions with various people over the years regarding digital and analogue playback trying to find a technical answer that explains why analogue sounds more convincing than Digital.
It may well simply be that in the end we must all listen in analogue and to try and produce sound in the digital domain which is then converted to analogue simply cannot trick the ear.
I have heard plenty of vinyl that does:)
I thought that at the lowest level everything is effectively digital, including vinyl?
Anyways my personal theory is that digital is hampered from sounding as realistic as it should do due to 'glare' introduced by uneccassary gian stages and by noise and possibly distortion caused by a lack of attention to the power supplies.
Audioman
28-02-2014, 13:39
Hello Paul you make some interesting points that I would like to respond to.
The point I was making in my post was that vinyl is inaccurate because the underlying mechanics are flawed. I do believe that digital is more accurate because it overcomes most of these mechanical issues. I do recognise that it introduces other problems but I believe they are less significant and the D to A conversion can be very good.
My concern is about the the lumps and bumps in the vinyl. It is an imperfect material and those lumps and bumps would disturb the tracking of the stylus. It is a basic transfer mechanism. If you drag the stylus over a bump then it will be picked up. You can see that we are dealing with an imperfect substrate when you look at the surface.
Most of the imperfections in a CD surface are irrelevant because we only need to know if a bit is on or off. It is only when we have significant disruption that it is likely to have an effect. We know that CDs can be highly accurate because I can rip a CD and get exactly the same checksum as someone else using completely different equipment and a different copy. And if we are talking about a digital file/stream then those imperfections are not relevant at all.
Yes I am sure that cutting technology continues to improve but the engineer does often make compromises to suit a wide range of playback equipment. I would agree that digital has been unnecessarily compressed in many cases. However, this is not because of the limitations of the technology but rather because of ridiculous beliefs about what is required to make a release successful.
Yes Alan is pro digital because he believes it is more accurate. However, that doesn't take away from what he showed on the oscilloscope. I believe he gave an honest presentation of what he saw. Furthermore, I had already indicated that the distortion was not primarily due to wow and flutter.
Yes I can. If you look at the video from Alan you will see that the simple test tone is much more accurately created from the CD. Clearly we could try the same experiment with different turntables and digital equipment. I am sure that we could see improvement in the analogue signal. However, there is a vast gap to bridge even with this simple signal. There are problems with both technologies but I believe that digital is able to deliver a more accurate representation of the input signal than does vinyl. That does not necessarily mean that all digital sources are more accurate than all vinyl. Clearly that is not always the case because of the way they have been produced.
I think the problem here is that you have started off with the assumption that vinyl playback is inaccurate because it relies partly on mechanical design rather than completely on electronics. An assumption too that digital must be better at processing sound than analogue electronics plus mechanics. Those bumps in the vinyl only affect sound if significant enough to deflect the stylus producing surface noise and pops. In practice this remains to a degree separated from the music reproduction though likely to spoil ones enjoyment. This does not stop the music in terms of the way the groove is cut being replicated at least as well as being converted to 0s and 1s. There is a complex process in both digital and vinyl playback were there are many stages that can introduce inaccuracies. At least with a vinyl based system analogue sound waves remain as analogue throughout the process. You are also quoting the use of test tones to prove your case and these tones do not equate to a music signal.
There appears to be a view by most people that a new technology is better and smarter in design. In fact I think some of the old mechanical technologies were much more clever as they were thought up without the aid of powerful computing tools to achieve perfect design in terms of measurements. The Gramophone was developed over a century or more and on the face of it looks a cumbersome method of recording and playing back a signal. However clever minds worked out how to replicate an analogue waveform with a combination of electronics (RIAA standard) and mechanical playback. This has been refined to such a degree that silent playback can be achieved together with preserving the sound and musicality of an analogue signal.
Of course in terms of reliably reproducing silent backgrounds the CD / digital file is more successful but in terms of preserving musicality and an apparently broader bandwidth staying in the analogue domain is often better. Something is lost in the digital domain until you reach the highest resolutions available. Also people lose sight of the fact that we listen in analogue and digital is just a convenient storage device that has to be converted from analogue and back again.
Paul.
I thought that at the lowest level everything is effectively digital, including vinyl?
Anyways my personal theory is that digital is hampered from sounding as realistic as it should do due to 'glare' introduced by uneccassary gian stages and by noise and possibly distortion caused by a lack of attention to the power supplies.
Lol... You've just answered the question you asked me!
'Glare' is at the heart of it, and why despite digital being in some ways superior, technically, said glare can never be completely removed, or its insidious effect on the music signal, as I believe that it is an inherent by-product of the digital music-making process.
Therefore, those for whom the effect of said 'glare' is most annoying on the ear, when listening to digitally reproduced music, digital can never be considered as truly 'accurate', and the same applies with vinyl, for those whom its noise and inherent distortions are unlistenable, which is precisely why neither medium is more 'accurate' than the other.
It's really as simple as that. If anyone is unable to grasp that fact, and instead insists on continuing that side of the debate, then I can only presume it stems from a desire to be deliberately obtuse.
Marco.
rectorydp
28-02-2014, 13:53
No worries - I have no problem with that at all, and your input is appreciated. However, I think it's best if we simply 'agree to disagree' :)
There's just one point I would make, and that is that it's about appreciating how realisitic recorded MUSIC sounds, not analysing "electrical input signals". Despite what you may think, the two are not the same. Once you grasp that fact, then you may be able to view the debate in a different light.
Marco.
I am perfectly happy to 'agree to disagree'. However, I do take issue with your point. I never said that the two things are the same and it is not what I think. I am quite able to "grasp that fact" and you do me a disservice by suggesting otherwise. I very much appreciate listening to well-recorded and reproduced music (I refer to my original post). I was answering the original question/poll and specified 'electrical input signals' to make it clear how I was limiting the scope and taking out some of the variables.
Rothchild
28-02-2014, 14:27
I thought that at the lowest level everything is effectively digital, including vinyl?
Anyways my personal theory is that digital is hampered from sounding as realistic as it should do due to 'glare' introduced by uneccassary gian stages and by noise and possibly distortion caused by a lack of attention to the power supplies.
Except both the things cited as are not the digital part.
As for Neil's 'in phase' recording, this would limit the capture to at best a 2 mic stereo recording, because any multi-mic setup will inherrently have phase issues (because waves arrive at the face of the microphone at different points in their cycle according to their distance from the source). In terms of the absolute polarity it wouldn't matter per-se for the test proposed as long as it were the same in both systems.
Also, the concept of 'all digital' 'all analogue' is a bit of a misnomer; microphones, cables and preamps are analogue, it's only the recording medium that becomes the point at which you have digital or analogue (ie to tape or converted to a bitstream and saved on a drive). The test is hard though, as you' would have to pick an appropriate and fair gainstaging method that gave an honest comparison (tape can sound pleasing when distorted with high levels, digital doesn't; but digital can archive and reproduce low level details which would be lost in tape hiss at low gains on tape).
Hi David,
I am perfectly happy to 'agree to disagree'. However, I do take issue with your point. I never said that the two things are the same and it is not what I think. I am quite able to "grasp that fact" and you do me a disservice by suggesting otherwise. I very much appreciate listening to well-recorded and reproduced music (I refer to my original post). I was answering the original question/poll and specified 'electrical input signals' to make it clear how I was limiting the scope and taking out some of the variables.
I apologise if my last reply to you was somewhat terse, and I accept what you've written above.
The problem is when I see terms such as "electrical input signals" bandied about in a discussion about musical accuracy, it's usually a sign that the point is being missed by someone (usually a blinkered 'digital fanboy') who believes that when it comes to the old vinyl vs. digital debate, the numbers tell the whole story.
That is something I vehemently disagree with and am very passionate about challenging. However, if you're telling me that the above doesn't apply to you, then I accept that :)
Marco.
One other point I'd make about the 'accuracy' argument in general, and the whole 'measurements über-alles' mantra in audio, is that in my experience systems built upon that principle rarely produce a sound that resembles that of real music; in fact I'd go as far as saying that, to my ears, the sound that they produce is completely a-musical.
I'm attending the Scalford show on Sunday, as I usually do every year, and expect to have this fact rammed down my ears yet again, from the systems in question, and so I'm not quite sure where that puts the notion that whatever is most technically accurate will automatically produce the most 'accurate' sound....
If the sound produced by those systems in question is indeed 'accurate', then you can keep it! ;)
In saying that, however, there are usually plenty of systems there which I consider do produce a sound that resembles that of real music, but they are almost always the ones voiced and assembled by ear, by experienced enthusiasts who understand what it takes for a system to reproduce music believably, rather than ones built from the readouts on an oscilloscope.
Marco.
rectorydp
28-02-2014, 17:22
Hello Paul
I nearly missed your response in amongst the other traffic.
I think the problem here is that you have started off with the assumption that vinyl playback is inaccurate because it relies partly on mechanical design rather than completely on electronics. An assumption too that digital must be better at processing sound than analogue electronics plus mechanics. Those bumps in the vinyl only affect sound if significant enough to deflect the stylus producing surface noise and pops. In practice this remains to a degree separated from the music reproduction though likely to spoil ones enjoyment. This does not stop the music in terms of the way the groove is cut being replicated at least as well as being converted to 0s and 1s. There is a complex process in both digital and vinyl playback were there are many stages that can introduce inaccuracies. At least with a vinyl based system analogue sound waves remain as analogue throughout the process. You are also quoting the use of test tones to prove your case and these tones do not equate to a music signal.
No I didn't start with such an assumption. I started from the point that vinyl makes use of flawed mechanical coupling. There is always going to be some error introduced by the mechanism because of the nature of the surfaces and the mechanism. Cartridge manufacturers have recognised this for a long time and have tried all sorts of techniques to improve the mechanism but it always has inaccuracies. I return to the second point at the end.
I am not quoting the use of test tones to prove my case. I am more realistic than that. However, they do strongly support they case. No they do not equate to a music signal; they are much simpler. However, it would be much more difficult to compare the signals by eye if they were music signals. I would suggest that a complex music signal will just compound the errors that are observed with the single frequency tones.
There appears to be a view by most people that a new technology is better and smarter in design. In fact I think some of the old mechanical technologies were much more clever as they were thought up without the aid of powerful computing tools to achieve perfect design in terms of measurements. The Gramophone was developed over a century or more and on the face of it looks a cumbersome method of recording and playing back a signal. However clever minds worked out how to replicate an analogue waveform with a combination of electronics (RIAA standard) and mechanical playback. This has been refined to such a degree that silent playback can be achieved together with preserving the sound and musicality of an analogue signal.
I am not one of these people. I pick and choose according to what I sense and understand. My speakers in the office were designed in the 60s. I prefer mechanical watches. I have several pendulum clocks in my house. Conversely I prefer to use a mobile phone rather than a phone box ;)
Of course in terms of reliably reproducing silent backgrounds the CD / digital file is more successful but in terms of preserving musicality and an apparently broader bandwidth staying in the analogue domain is often better. Something is lost in the digital domain until you reach the highest resolutions available. Also people lose sight of the fact that we listen in analogue and digital is just a convenient storage device that has to be converted from analogue and back again.
I do not lose sight of the fact that we listen in the analogue domain. However, we have other imperfect mechanisms along the way before we reach the ear such as the conversion from electrical signal to sound waves and interactions with the room.
My focus was on the original question. The crux of the issue for me is that I believe that the A to D/D to A process is capable of being more accurate than the mechanical coupling and equalisation required by vinyl. We mustn't forget that it is often the case that the chain is not entirely analogue for vinyl either and so may already include conversions.
I believe that the video I linked to is a good illustration of how the vinyl source can be inaccurate. I am happy for you to provide evidence the other way. I, personally, still buy vinyl although I mainly play digital so I am not against vinyl by any means. I am just making a case for the way I voted and I hope that, in doing so, it can provide food for thought for other people when/if they ponder the question. The most important thing is not to fret about the answer but rather to enjoy the music.
The crux of the issue for me is that I believe that the A to D/D to A process is capable of being more accurate than the mechanical coupling and equalisation required by vinyl.
Perhaps, all else being equal. Trouble is, that often isn't the case.
What if the digital replay equipment in question, used to arrive at that theory, was sonically superior to its vinyl counterpart (as I believe was the case in Alan Shaw's example)? And how do you achieve irrefutable parity in that respect, between the sources used to replay both formats, in order for the test to be fair? ;)
Also, just so we know, when you say "accurate", do you mean technically accurate (based only on established technical measurements) or musically accurate (based on what closest resembles the sound produced by real voices and instruments), because the two aren't necessarily the same.
The most important thing is not to fret about the answer but rather to enjoy the music.
Hear, hear! :)
Marco.
Nat. I hope you are not implying that vinyl is a luxury for the well healed. As Andre mentioned there is a certain company based at Borehamwood that produce fantastic looking turntables that sound good and at reasonable prices. I am prepared to stick my neck out and say that anything more expensive only produces a fairly marginal improvement in SQ in the context of a normal domestic environment. Also I have picked up perfect pressings for little money and paying large sums is no guarantee of pressing quality. It's easier to perceive the added cost of a fancy turntable rather than fancy DAC or CD player. The later appear to be a very easy way to make large profits given the use of standard mass produced technologies plus a nice case and a few higher quality components.
Not at all implying that - all hifi is there for all pocket depths. I've some fantastic turntables and arms and carts all for less than some people spend on shop bought coffee in a year!
I was talking about the specific subject of the post I was responding to. That of why there is so often a top TT in expensive set-ups at shows - not to do with general vinyl playing at home. Someone implied that maybe they always use a TT because vinyl is more accurate whilst I was saying there are more basic marketting and selling reasons to choose to have a TT front your display.
Quite easy to add 2 and 2 together and get 5 just because one likes the number 5. Accuracy or lack of it, either way, won't have much to do with the dealer's choice.
The only gauge of accuracy is which format more convincingly reproduces one's expectations of how the music should sound.
Paul.
I completely disagree there!
If you re-read your own sentence there is such vagueness introduced into the equation already that it makes it yet more impossible to judge.
How does one account for "one's expectation" of a sound??
Imagine this:
So I expect it to sound overly sweet because I read on the sleeve it was recorded with a certain classic mic and mixed on this desk, and I've heard the performer play a certain way before and the orchestra too and I've heard other performances on record at the venue.... Then it sounds detailed and non-sweet and the performer has changed their style and then I don't recognise the venue sound as per all the other records.
So compared to that expectaion (and I am so confident and almost biggoted in my views that I KNOW I'm right - I've been listening to hifi for a long time, I'm well versed in third-hand info on recording techniques) this record sounds all wrong! So I blame the pressing, I blame the mastering etc etc etc etc. If it is a CD, I blame digital, I blame the format..
The reality is though, never known to me, this record is more accurate than ever before and all the others were poorly made and the performer HAS changed their style to get the sound they really like (not what they were forced to accept before) and the pressing is perfect, the venue sounds different because of different mic placement etc etc
To better judge which might be considered more accurate, the better way is to take away the human psychology as much as possible!
If you don't want to take away the human element then simply don't get involved in judging accuracy and concern yourself ONLY with self-fullfillent. That's no bad way to live..
If there had been an option of: 'neither vinyl nor digital is more accurate than the other, as both are fundamentally flawed', then I'd have ticked that, as it reflects what I consider is the reality! :)
If you think about it for a little bit, you're just avoiding saying "I don't know". I voted "I don't know" - quite happy to admit that I don't know as there are so many different technical view points on the potential abilities of vinyl for a start.
What you're saying is that they both have flaws and different flaws could be worse than others dependant on who's judging.. So on balance you couldn't really judge which is more accurate.. QED you don't know..
Come on, you can just say it. Might well be therapeutic and open up a whole new side of yourself :lol:
Therefore, in the final analysis, one can only choose which flawed medium produces the most realistic, not 'accurate' (based on deficient/incomplete in relevance measurements), results to our ears, as dictated by our perception of how real voices and instruments sound.
I think a big problem with that approach is the music part.
Music is amazing to humans because of how it lights up our brains in emotional and euphoric ways and if it's a well known piece our brian lights up and sings along with it, pre-empting everything we hear etc etc.
Music does not in itself engage our brain's natural instincts, human ability to react to our environment and pass judgement on the fine intricacies of what is going on around us - "was that sound a spoon being dropped or a coin or a spanner or even a phone ringtone? Does it represent danger as I've previously experienced it? How far away was it, were was the sound located?" etc etc THAT is a judgement of realism!
Better to judge the ability of a system on field recordings (like I think Frank as F1eng has made many of) that more directly engage our instincts and less involve interference from memory replay like music does.
If you think about it for a little bit, you're just avoiding saying "I don't know". I voted "I don't know" - quite happy to admit that I don't know as there are so many different technical view points on the potential abilities of vinyl for a start.
What you're saying is that they both have flaws and different flaws could be worse than others dependant on who's judging.. So on balance you couldn't really judge which is more accurate.. QED you don't know..
Come on, you can just say it. Might well be therapeutic and open up a whole new side of yourself :lol:
Lol...! But I do know, based on my interpretation of the term 'accurate' in the context of this debate. The problem is that some people live in a very 'black & white' world, and the answers to some questions aren't black or white! ;)
Btw, in your last post you've completely misunderstood the point Paul was making.
When he wrote that "The only gauge of accuracy is which format more convincingly reproduces one's expectations of how the music should sound", he meant in terms of it matching his perception of how it should sound, based on his experience of hearing the sound of real instruments and voices, live - his 'realism benchmark', as it were (which is exactly what I've been saying), not what you were banging on about, daftee...... :D
Marco.
In terms of what I've outlined previously, flat-screen TVs are not an advancement.
Marco.
Now then me ole' mucker, I've kept pretty quiet during this thread, but I just can't let this one go . . . as there's more to compare here than just one element. Slight thread drift I know, but hey I'm the OP so what the hell :D
If you honestly feel that way Marco, then I don't think you have seen the best that digital TV can offer and you might be missing a trick. CRT technology although pleasing, warm and fuzzy and giving us a nice feeling inside, cannot, even on a good day, get close to the stunning results 1080 HD can produce on a modern TV. Some of the BBC wildlife productions are literally breathtaking in high definition and when viewed on an appropriate screen, can make your toes curl.
CRT technology was expensive to produce in comparison to newer models, its bulky, uses more resources during production, is harder to dispose of and the big one compared to modern LED or OLED screens is the power consumption, which is vastly different. The power you could save by buying a newer LED set could pay for itself over its lifetime to make the set free, if you ran it alongside a big CRT screen. So there are some pretty major advancements right there.
I recently trialled four LED televisions at home (Samsung, SONY, LG and Panasonic) and I'll admit that three out of the four fed with standard definition produced very disappointing results, especially very unnatural skin tones and washed out black levels and I'm extremely fussy when it comes to a natural looking picture. However, feed them high definition content and the difference is less pronounced. The best and most natural looking picture was a Panasonic in True Cinema mode with the colour tweaked down slightly - and I can tell you now, no CRT I have ever seen (and I used to accept nothing less that a SONY Trinitron in the past) would get close to it for definition, natural colour saturation and true blacks. Like many digital screens though, fast motion is an issue and you have to spend quite a bit of money and go up the respective model range to get something close to CRT in this area, even the best may struggle against the fluid motion of an analogue CRT being fed a good quality signal. So sports fans are likely to be disappointed and annoyed with a £500 LED, as the motion can appear unnatural compared to CRT. However, the goal posts have moved in this area as well, as the broadcast feeds are now digital, which can also have an impact on the end result when it comes to motion. I don't have a TV licence anymore and only watch Netflix, BBC iPlayer or DVD/Blu-ray discs and a Wi-Fi Smart TV is a wonderful bit of kit as far as I'm concerned, as I choose exactly what I want to watch, when I want to watch it. I have no idea what's on the broadcast channels anymore and frankly I don't miss them at all - the world seems a much better place without TV ads and I have not let a TV schedule rule my spare time since July last year. Its surprising how liberating it can feel not knowing (or caring) what's on the TV.
Anyway back to the topic . . . a good plasma will beat any CRT you would like to match next to it in HD, you should see a Panasonic TXP42GT60B Marco. If you think an old SONY CRT is better than this, you should maybe check one out?
Unfortunately Panasonic have now stopped making Plasma panels and the push amongst the manufacturers during 2014 is going to be towards OLED, as they are simpler and cheaper to produce than Plasma panels, extremely thin and light and use a fraction of the power. So they are a much greener product in every way. The colour palette on a good OLED is unmatched at the moment, especially a 4K one as you can get true blacks as the technology actually turns the diode off, so it really is black, unlike an LED backlight which cannot be turned off completely at diode level. The issue with OLED at the moment seems to be the longevity of the cells.
So I think Marco, on this occasion your knowledge is a little out of sync and needs an upgrade. You may think you 'prefer' your old SONY CRT because you don't know any better, but good examples of digital TV's can outshine them in every area, apart from maybe motion on the cheaper models, but good 1080 high definition really is a joy to behold, especially the natural world. Like anything you get what you pay for and if you are judging them on a trip around a brightly lit showroom, trust me, you are not seeing them at their best, especially plasma. Get them set up right and choose the right panel for your tastes and room lighting and you will be surprised by the results. I think a lot of people fail in this area, as they don't know or even try to set them up for the environment they are being used in.
If anyone truly believes that the best a CRT screen can offer is superior to the best a digital screen can offer, then it might be time to go to Specsavers. Of course if you go around looking at digital televisions with your 'analogue tinted spectacles' on, then nothing you read here is likely to change your mind, but you really are selling yourself short and living in a world of digital denial . . . . all IMHO of course ;)
I don't have a TV at all THUS I WIN in the anti-technology stakes!
There's just one point I would make, and that is that it's about appreciating how realisitic recorded MUSIC sounds, not analysing "electrical input signals". Despite what you may think, the two are not the same. Once you grasp that fact, then you may be able to view the debate in a different light.
Sadly what vinyl has on it is a reaction to the electrical input signal.
If it was a was a wax disc or cylinder cut by a needle on a membrane reacting directly to sound then you might well want to compare the resulting sound to the original sound. Even then you will be listening very much to the resonances and narrow band of the membrane and the cutting ability of the simple needle and reaction of the wax.
What we get from a turntable as a whole system is an electrical signal. So vinyl, despite people feeling that the groove is a some direct analogue representation of "the music" is actually a physical representation of an electrical signal. I think that's an important point to get one's head around, to re-frame the whole notion of vinyl.
Often the specific choice of language can influence thought than internal analogy. So let us make the terminology the same for both digital and analogue.
Digital goes through an A/D process to the medium and then via D/A process on replay.
Analogue goes through an A/P process to the medium and then via a multi-stage P/A process . P = physical
In both cases people seem to think of the "A" part as the sound itself but "A" means an Analogue electrical signal! Nothing to do with sound directly.
A/D is nothing to do with sound, it is only to do with electrical signals. Similarly the A/P process of vinyl or tape is also ONLY related to electrical signals and again nothing to do with sound or music.
I don't have a TV at all THUS I WIN in the anti-technology stakes!
Haha, more power to you Joe - I didn't have one for awhile, but I do like films (a lot) so have allowed one back into my living room ;)
If you honestly feel that way Marco, then I don't think you have seen the best that digital TV can offer and you might be missing a trick.
Lol... You're right - I most certainly haven't seen the best that digital TV/flat-screens can offer; I'm simply commenting from my experience of it so far, having used/watched about two dozen different HD and flat-screen set-ups belonging to friends and family.
I'm pretty sure that your set-up would be different! However, like getting the best out of vinyl, HD home cinema set-ups appear to require sufficient expertise and suitably high-quality hardware, before you can experience them producing their most 'accurate' performance! ;)
Marco.
Sadly what vinyl has on it is a reaction to the electrical input signal.
If it was a was a wax disc or cylinder cut by a needle on a membrane reacting directly to sound then you might well want to compare the resulting sound to the original sound. Even then you will be listening very much to the resonances and narrow band of the membrane and the cutting ability of the simple needle and reaction of the wax.
What we get from a turntable as a whole system is an electrical signal. So vinyl, despite people feeling that the groove is a some direct analogue representation of "the music" is actually a physical representation of an electrical signal. I think that's an important point to get one's head around, to re-frame the whole notion of vinyl.
Often the specific choice of language can influence thought than internal analogy. So let us make the terminology the same for both digital and analogue.
Digital goes through an A/D process to the medium and then via D/A process on replay.
Analogue goes through an A/P process to the medium and then via a multi-stage P/A process . P = physical
In both cases people seem to think of the "A" part as the sound itself but "A" means an Analogue electrical signal! Nothing to do with sound directly.
A/D is nothing to do with sound, it is only to do with electrical signals. Similarly the A/P process of vinyl or tape is also ONLY related to electrical signals and again nothing to do with sound or music.
That's not the point I was making, Nat. You do have a tendency to get the wrong end of the stick!
The point I was making is that there is more to understanding what makes recorded music sound like REAL music, using digital or vinyl formats, than just technicalities, otherwise we'd all build our systems solely on what the specs say, and ignore everything else.
Marco.
When he wrote that "The only gauge of accuracy is which format more convincingly reproduces one's expectations of how the music should sound", he meant in terms of it matching his perception of how it should sound, based on his experience of hearing the sound of real instruments and voices, live - his 'realism benchmark', as it were (which is exactly what I'e been saying), not what you were banging on about, daftee...... :D
That's ok then 'cos that's exactly what I banged on about :D
Unless you mean you only buy records which you were at the recording of AND sat at the position of the mics themselves (sound can change a lot dependant on your immediate surroundings)?
I can imagine the problems one might face at the record shop.. "Great record! Oh.. I've not been to that venue, can't buy it... WOW! That record looks fantastic and I've been to that venue! Oh... different orchestra, not heard them before. Can't buy it."
And then that is ignoring the fact that you're buying a representation of the electrical signal from the mixing desk - mic pre-amps, mics, mic mountings even. You're not buying a direct representation of the sound of live instruments.
How can you judge if the commercial physical MEDIA and it's process is accurate if you're ignoring the whole recording process and only judging to direct, live sound?
The real live sound could be washed out by the whole recording process and so the electrical signal represented on the vinyl is washed out. Then distortions created by vinyl REPLAY could then re-add in aspects of sound which are fake BUT are also similiar to certain dynamic elements which were washed out in the recording process. Then the brain hears the two added together and fills in the gaps and it all sounds more realistic, more like the live event.
So as a medium of storage, if you will, of a representation of the electrical signal, it is being less accurate but the distortions make it sound more like real life...
Do you think that is impossible?
Sorry, I'm losing the will to live..... I've made my position crystal clear in this debate, and have no intention of going round in circles with someone who continually misses the point and seems to enjoy going round in circles regurgitating the same old things.
Therefore, I suggest that we simply 'agree to disagree' and move on.
Marco.
Sorry, I'm losing the will to live..... I've made my position crystal clear in this debate, and have no intention of going round in circles with someone who seems to enjoy going round in circles regurgitating the same old things.
Therefore, I suggest that we simply 'agree to disagree' and move on.
Marco.
Why not just bow out of the discussion yourself and let others carry on if they wish to? It seems a good-natured discussion as these things go.
No worries - I have no problem with that at all, and your input is appreciated. However, I think it's best if we simply 'agree to disagree' :)
There's just one point I would make, and that is that it's about appreciating how realisitic recorded MUSIC sounds, not analysing "electrical input signals". Despite what you may think, the two are not the same. Once you grasp that fact, then you may be able to view the debate in a different light.
Marco.
That's not the point I was making, Nat. You do have a tendency to get the wrong end of the stick!
The point I was making is that there is more to understanding what makes recorded music sound like REAL music, using digital or vinyl formats, than just technicalities, otherwise we'd all build our systems solely on what the specs say, and ignore everything else.
Marco.
Hmm... I'm not sure. I think you're getting the wrong end of the stick with my posts :lol:
In a discussion about which format is more accurate it is ALL about analysing electrical signals..
There is a long string of processes in a recording and the part we are discussing is just a slice of it. The part we judging is the point at which we can cut out one and replace it with the other.. e.g. we can take out beginnings of the A/D (lets assume for simplicity its an AAD CD!) and hook it up instead to a vinyl cutting machine. At the other end of the chain, we're talking about where it connects to line level somewhere in a preamp.
What comes in is an electrical signal, what comes out is an electrical signal. ALL about electrical signals.
So what we are judging is the ability of each to present the most accurate electrical signal to the preamp from the electrical signal coming out at the mastering desk..
If instead you insist on only considering the WHOLE process, much of which is repeated in both cases and also much of which is system dependent and of which the vinyl/CD aspect is a small percentage and THEN comparing that to what one hears live...
...well, not only are you carring the weight of the your audio world on your shoulders there but you're also urinating into a rather strong gale! :D
Sorry, I'm losing the will to live..... I've made my position crystal clear in this debate, and have no intention of going round in circles with someone who continually misses the point and seems to enjoy going round in circles regurgitating the same old things.
Therefore, I suggest that we simply 'agree to disagree' and move on.
Marco.
Ok.
If you state you think I've mis-understood your post but then post something which suggests that it was you who mis-understood my post then I should surely try to get you back on track to what I was addressing in your post? That way we can sort out the mis-understanding and carry on..
Unfortunately you seem to continue to insist that it was me who mis-understood and I say no, it was you.. and yes, THAT is a pointless circular arguement.
Oh well.
Still, my points I think are still worth (kind of - as worthy as anything I write, which is debatable) saying anyway for open discussion..
Why not just bow out of the discussion yourself and let others carry on if they wish to? It seems a good-natured discussion as these things go.
I'll carry on or not, as I see fit, Joe. I was only suggesting that when two people clearly don't agree on something, after some reasoned debate by both parties putting their relevant views across, it's usually best to simply agree to disagree and move on.
However, I'm not stopping anyone contributing more to the discussion if they want.
Marco.
I do have a habit of going on to make sure my point is expressed more understandably and also not being particularly concise - I'd be the first to admit it.
The best and most natural looking picture was a Panasonic in True Cinema mode with the colour tweaked down slightly - and I can tell you now, no CRT I have ever seen (and I used to accept nothing less that a SONY Trinitron in the past) would get close to it for definition, natural colour saturation and true blacks.
Agreed. I have a Panasonic flat screen TV too, and I used to have Sony Trinitron and Philips CRTs - both reputed for their natural colours and presentation. The Panny really is in a different league for definition, colour accuracy, geometry and motion processing.
I do have a habit of going on to make sure my point is expressed more understandably and also not being particularly concise - I'd be the first to admit it.
No problem, Nat. I appreciate your honesty!
Debates have to end sometime, when most relevant avenues in a particular topic have been exhausted or when misunderstandings are becoming more frequent. At that point, it's best to 'agree to disagree', and move on, than risk falling out with each other or just going round and round in circles getting nowhere, trying to 'win' an argument that cannot be won.
TBH, I'm pretty bored with this thread now, so I'll probably not comment any further unless someone comes up with something new that piques my interest! :)
Marco.
I'm pretty sure that your set-up would be different! However, like getting the best out of vinyl, HD home cinema set-ups appear to require sufficient expertise and suitably high-quality hardware, before you can experience them producing their most 'accurate' performance!
:lol: touché
Hehehehe... I thought you'd like that one! :D
Marco.
As I posted the OP and as the discussion seems to have run its course, I thought I would close with some final comments of my own. Firstly a big thanks to all those who took part, there has been some very interesting commentary throughout this thread. The current poll result I find intriguing and it confirms what I believed would be the consensus here - I'm shocked, but not in the least surprised. I think its also interesting who has commented and who has not.
Anyway, great discussion and one of my more successful questions. I do enjoy finding out stuff about what people think and enjoy when it comes to music - which is such a wonderful gift to the human race.
I'll leave you with one final thought . . . and its primarily for those who believe vinyl is the more accurate, but maybe we should all have a go and I include myself here too and I'm going to start tonight. So, within the confines of my original question (whether you think it flawed or not, it was asked that way for a reason) if you know any recording engineers, sound engineers or professional musicians, go and ask them the exact same question and see what they say?
And finally, don't fret about any of it, just enjoy the music however that might be, as it truly does make the world a better place ;)
Great discussion Tim even if the subject did stray a little! However thats what makes AOS a great place to discuss our perception of the audio world. Just to answer your question regarding professional musicians and recording engineers. From what I have gleaned over the years you will find that both engineers and musicians will be split in their opinions, as were members of the forum :).
Glad you enjoyed it, Tim. It's these sorts of discussions that define AoS as a vibrant community of informed and discerning audio enthusiasts and music lovers!
The poll results are indeed interesting, but don't forget that digital was leading the way for a long time, or that fact that in the end there was little in it... This for me shows that AoS members are open-minded, able to recognise the strengths and weaknesses of both formats, and consist no more of 'vinyl fanboys' than digital ones ;)
From what I have gleaned over the years you will find that both engineers and musicians will be split in their opinions, as were members of the forum
Indeed - that's also my understanding. There are many specialist audiophile labels that make a point of using all-analogue equipment, often the best vintage varieties of such, including valve, simply because they consider that it produces superior results.
On that point I'd have to agree, as indeed I've said before, the best recordings I have on vinyl, together with the best sounding CDs (AAD produced), sonically outperform their all-digital counterparts.
Quite simply, nothing I own in that respect can compete with the jazz recordings I have on vinyl, on Blue Note and Columbia labels, from the 1950s, some of the stunning classical music I have from the same era (and into the 60s) on Decca, Mercury Living Presence, or DG, or recordings again from the same era on Capitol, of Dean Martin, Nat King Cole, Frank Sinatra, etc, where the sheer vibrancy and realism of the sound is utterly breathtaking, when played on a top-notch T/T and system! :eek:
Digital, at its best today, can get close to that, but not quite close enough.
Marco.
It begs the question Marco as you have mentioned regarding those early recordings, do the engineers have the equipment today to capture the analogue sound in the same way? It may be that they need to go revisit the techniques and equipment used then to try and record music as realistically now even if it is then processed in the digital domain?
Audioman
01-03-2014, 12:02
It begs the question Marco as you have mentioned regarding those early recordings, do the engineers have the equipment today to capture the analogue sound in the same way? It may be that they need to go revisit the techniques and equipment used then to try and record music as realistically now even if it is then processed in the digital domain?
They often use vintage valve mics to get the right sound then piss up everything with Pro Tools.
Lol! :eyebrows:
Btw, I suggest that what you've just written 'elsewhere' on this subject should also be posted here (as I agree with it in its entirety) ;)
Marco.
As it seems that this thread has run its course and will shortly close, I'd like to add my comments.
I didn't contribute to the disscussion at all, not because I found the topic of little interest, to the contrary I found it fascinating. The reason for my lack of input was firstly that I, along with many others, didn't understand what was meant by "accurate". Like Marco, I would have preferred the use of the term "realistic", but even that is open to misunderstanding.
In the end I did vote, choosing the cop-out option of "not really sure", since like Marco I regard both playback arrangements to be equally flawed. I had to do this because I get enormous satisfaction from both - and it still amazes me how good both can sound.
There were some excellent insightful comments by several contributors; making this the most interesting threads this year.
So thanks to Tim for kicking it off and to everyone else for their contributions.
It begs the question Marco as you have mentioned regarding those early recordings, do the engineers have the equipment today to capture the analogue sound in the same way?
No, Jim, I don't think they do.
Why do you think such equipment is so sought after today, on the used market, by recording professionals who know what it's capable of? ;)
Marco.
I didn't contribute to the disscussion at all, not because I found the topic of little interest, to the contrary I found it fascinating. The reason for my lack of input was firstly that I, along with many others, didn't understand what was meant by "accurate". Like Marco, I would have preferred the use of the term "realistic", but even that is open to misunderstanding.
In the end I did vote, choosing the cop-out option of "not really sure", since like Marco I regard both playback arrangements to be equally flawed. I had to do this because I get enormous satisfaction from both - and it still amazes me how good both can sound.
As usual, Barry, we are on the same page :)
Marco.
Audioman
01-03-2014, 12:44
Lol! :eyebrows:
Btw, I suggest that what you've just written 'elsewhere' on this subject should also be posted here (as I agree with it in its entirety) ;)
Marco.
OK here it is.
The people who advocate CD/digital use measurements rather than ears. Basing opinions on bad analogue sources and vinyl pressings will result in the wrong conclusions. If Dave want's to take Rumours as an example he obviously hasn't been listening to an actual first pressing or hasn't heard the Hoffman and Grey remaster on 45 rpm vinyl. The later produces a sound quality you will newer hear from any digital system. This is a very well recorded album. A view I held in 1977 and more so today - based on my ears. Not so good sounding on digital and I have the Japan SACD.
Another assumption, which I was unable to convince Nat8808 is wrong, is that AD/DA conversion must be more accurate than transferring sound by mechanical means. Somehow he is stuck with the conviction that the use of test tones is the only way to measure accuracy. You can't get through to these people as they have been brainwashed into equating digital measurements to an analogue signal. Even have seen proclamations of vinyl being equivalent to so many bits in other discussions - always less than 16bit BTW. My Ears tell me the opposite is true.
Btw Dave referred to is DSJR who made some interesting observations on software quality.
Paul.
Thanks, but why the change of font? It just makes it more difficult to read! :)
{Edit - ah, you've now enlarged it}.
Marco.
Just a bit of fun really, so hopefully it won't turn into a bun fight!
Anyway, I'm not talking about which sound you prefer or how you like to enjoy your music, as that's a whole other ball game . . . but which do you believe portrays most accurately what the recording engineer has captured for playback in the home environment - vinyl or digital? I'm also not talking about compressed music files (.mp3 .aac etc.) so assume the digital format is either a lossless file or standard Red Book CD at 16bit/44,100 Hz.
HUGE can of worms Tim and you really should know better :respect: :)
These days, digital can and should offer a totally open window on what's going on upstream, but we all know what happens when the window is opened too wide and there are far too many things done to mess up the pure signal coming off the keyboards and mics :(
Analogue may well sound nicer to those of us at home, but back in the day, pro's had to really work hard at it to get a really high-fidelity sound onto tape, which itself has very audible losses over the live feed into the studio monitors. Dolby SR apparently minimised this to all but insignificance, but in the days before Dolby A it was significant without absolute care.
You know, listening AT HOME to commercial recordings requires a huge amount of suspension of disbelief, so play whatever format takes your fancy and enjoy the music however it gets to your ears :lol:
I have Rumours on a dull sounding original UK pressed LP and an equally dire first edition CD. I also have it as remastered FLACs and although slightly less 'dirty,' I still don't find it that wonderful. The tracks taken from Rumours and placed on the greatest hits CD of twenty odd years ago have the treble boosted a bit and I preferred these at the time.
I also said elsewhere that I haven't heard or invested in the 45's of Rumours and shall investigate further :)
HUGE can of worms Tim and you really should know better . .
I know . . . but as I said, just a bit of fun really :eyebrows:
The people who advocate CD/digital use measurements rather than ears. Basing opinions on bad analogue sources and vinyl pressings will result in the wrong conclusions.
That is what I've been saying throughout this whole debate, and what I think Alan Shaw has been guilty of in his test. Quite simply, you CANNOT judge vinyl at its best, in terms of accuracy, unless you test it at its best!!!
And so I'm afraid that some clapped out old Thorens (or whatever it was he used), with an SME arm and a Shure cartridge, just won't cut it, in that respect.
However, I'm sounding like a broken record now, so I promise that I won't make that point again! :D Hopefully, it'll have penetrated now into the hard heads of the 'digital fanboys' ;)
Marco.
losenotaminute
01-03-2014, 13:44
That is what I've been saying throughout this whole debate, and what I think Alan Shaw has been guilty of in his test. Quite simply, you CANNOT judge vinyl at its best, in terms of accuracy, unless you test it at its best!!!
And so I'm afraid that some clapped out old Thorens (or whatever it was he used), with an SME arm and a Shure cartridge, just won't cut it, in that respect.
However, I'm sounding like a broken record now, so I promise that I won't make that point again! :D Hopefully, it'll have penetrated now into the hard heads of the 'digital fanboys' ;)
Marco.
Hi Marco,
On the whole I agree with your position in this discussion, I think "realistic" is a better term than "accurate". I'm not sure it's fair however to put a straw man and bat it down, no-one I think is claiming that a crap vinyl setup or a crap recording is a useful tool in reaching a conclusion.
Given that you have heard both digital and vinyl "at its best" can you let us know what systems was used when you reached this position? Was it the one in your signature or something different?
Thanks
Lawrence
Well at least my vote has equalled the balance between vinyl and digital.
I've gotta admit I am amused by the result. Technically, vinyl is a joke compared to digital. But the human ear doesn't match up too well with the measurements, it always seems.
Hi Dave,
Analogue may well sound nicer to those of us at home...
For some of us, it's not about "nicer" (far from it), but rather what sounds more realistic (based on our experienced perception of such). There is a difference, you know! ;)
...but back in the day, pro's had to really work hard at it to get a really high-fidelity sound onto tape, which itself has very audible losses over the live feed into the studio monitors.
And there was me thinking that the beauty (and success) of the recording process in those days was because it was so direct and simple! :scratch:
It's been put forward by some, which I agree with, that one of the reasons why digital at its best ultimately doesn't produce as realistic sounding results as analogue/vinyl at its best (and this appears to be borne out by the best available analogue recordings), is because of the artificial manipulation of the music signal, associated with the digital music replay and recording processes.
Are you saying that this is incorrect? :)
Marco.
Stratmangler
01-03-2014, 14:08
And there was me thinking that the beauty (and success) of the recording process in those days was because it was so direct and simple! :scratch:
The recording process was indeed much simpler in the late '50s and early '60s, and much of it was one take performance, something which is rarely done today.
Multitrack recording consisted of three tracks only, so things had to be properly planned out too.
This is probably why so many of these recordings stand out as the gems that they are.
One of the few modern labels that operate in this way is Opus3 - their stereo recording are precisely that, as they're live performances by groups into a pair of microphones, and there's no further manipulation of the recording.
http://www.opus3records.com/phil.html
Hi Lawrence,
On the whole I agree with your position in this discussion, I think "realistic" is a better term than "accurate". I'm not sure it's fair however to put a straw man and bat it down, no-one I think is claiming that a crap vinyl setup or a crap recording is a useful tool in reaching a conclusion.
Given that you have heard both digital and vinyl "at its best" can you let us know what systems was used when you reached this position? Was it the one in your signature or something different?
I'm glad you agree that 'realistic' is a term that most of us can relate to better than 'accuracy', especially those of us who don't believe that high-end audio, in the digital or analogue domain, can be adequately reduced to a set of numbers!! ;)
The term "at its best" is of course subjective, but yes the system listed in my signature, which I use every day, I consider allows me to judge both digital and analogue replay 'at its best', as that fact has been confirmed whenever I've compared my gear with the best currrently available equipment, often costing far in excess of my own (largely, judiciously modified vintage) gear.
Now, don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean that no other equipment can do it better, or that I own the best that you can get (perish the thought), but simply that I consider the analogue and digital sources in my system to be of a sufficiently high standard (together with the number of appropriate recordings of music in my collection) to allow me to comment with reasonable authority on the respective merits of both formats, in reference to the notion of 'realism', as indeed is the case with many other members here who own both digital and vinyl equipment of a similar standard, and a music collection to do it justice.
However, it is of course not the only equipment I've used in order to form my opinion on the matter. Over 30 years as an audio and music enthusiast, some of which time was spent in the audio industry, has allowed me to have access to all manner of high-end analogue and digital equipment, including in the last few years, some top-notch high-res FBA systems, which have produced a sound that was stunning, and that got very close to the standard I've heard from vinyl/analogue 'at its best'.
Therefore, I consider that my experience above, together with my many years of attending live musical events, both large, small, amplified and acoustic, at a multitude of venues all over the world, qualifies me to comment with some authority on the topic of this discussion.
I hope that was a thorough enough answer for you! :)
Marco.
Audioman
01-03-2014, 14:21
I think the definition of simple may be different for digital fans. Digital recording makes things easy in enabling complex editing and mixing to be done at the press of a button. Producing good analogue recordings requires more skill in setting up even a simple recording and at the later editing and mixing stage if this is employed. This extra recording skill does not imply analogue recording is inferior. Quite the opposite it forced attention to detail which made recordings better.
No need to bother too much about fine details with digital as it can be fixed later in the digital domain. I suppose the best known result of this is auto tune.
Paul.
The recording process was indeed much simpler in the late '50s and early '60s, and much of it was one take performance, something which is rarely done today.
Multitrack recording consisted of three tracks only, so things had to be properly planned out too.
This is probably why so many of these recordings stand out as the gems that they are.
One of the few modern labels that operate in this way is Opus3 - their stereo recording are precisely that, as they're live performances by groups into a pair of microphones, and there's no further manipulation of the recording.
http://www.opus3records.com/phil.html
Indeed. That's Eric Bibb's label, right? No wonder his albums are amongst the finest sounding digital recordings I own! :exactly:
Thanks for the link. I'll have a good read through of that later :)
Marco.
losenotaminute
01-03-2014, 14:28
Hi Lawrence,
I'm glad you agree that 'realistic' is a term that most of us can relate to better than 'accuracy', especially those of us who don't believe that high-end audio, in the digital or analogue domain, can be adequately reduced to a set of numbers!! ;)
The term "at its best" is of course subjective, but yes the system listed in my signature, which I use every day, I consider allows me to judge both digital and analogue replay 'at its best', as that fact has been confirmed whenever I've compared my gear with the best currrently available equipment, often costing far in excess of my own (largely, judiciously modified vintage) gear.
Now, don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean that no other equipment can do it better, or that I own the best that you can get (perish the thought), but simply that I consider the analogue and digital sources in my system to be of a sufficiently high standard (together with the number of appropriate recordings of music in my collection) to allow me to comment with reasonable authority on the respective merits of both formats, in reference to the notion of 'realism', as indeed is the case with many other members here who own both digital and vinyl equipment of a similar standard, and a music collection to do it justice.
However, it is of course not the only equipment I've used in order to form my opinion on the matter. Over 30 years as an audio and music enthusiast, some of which time was spent in the audio industry, has allowed me to have access to all manner of high-end analogue and digital equipment, including in the last few years, some top-notch high-res FBA systems, which have produced a sound that was stunning, and that got very close to the standard I've heard from vinyl/analogue 'at its best'.
Therefore, I consider that my experience above, together with my many years of attending live musical events, both large, small, amplified and acoustic, at a multitude of venues all over the world, qualifies me to comment with some authority on the topic of this discussion.
I hope that was a thorough enough answer for you! :)
Marco.
Hi Marco,
Yes, no argument from me, thank you.
I think it's interesting whether you can achieve great realism with vinyl for a reasonable price. Digital does have the advantage I suspect that it might be easier and cheaper to get great realism, with vinyl you might strike lucky but on the whole I expect more effort is required to get a system that displays the synergy required to make it really perform. Would you agree? I know this is taking the thread slightly off topic, but I wonder if VFM and ease of implementation considerations should come into the discussion.
Lawrence
Stratmangler
01-03-2014, 14:31
Eric Bibb has done 4 albums with them.
Most of his stuff is on Manhaton or Telarc, with a few lesser known labels too.
losenotaminute
01-03-2014, 14:34
Indeed. That's Eric Bibb's label, right? No wonder his albums are amongst the finest sounding digital recordings I own! :exactly:
Thanks for the link. I'll have a good read through of that later :)
Marco.
I saw Eric Bibb perform in Edinburgh a few months ago at the Queen's Hall (a venue with very good acoustics). The sound was superb and you could tell that he really knew how to set up the band and had a great sound engineer. I think his keyboard player (whose name escapes me) is involved in producing his records....they clearly know what they are doing.
I was also very impressed by the quality of Eric's acoustic guitars, they sounded really beautiful played live.
Lawrence
I've gotta admit I am amused by the result. Technically, vinyl is a joke compared to digital. But the human ear doesn't match up too well with the measurements, it always seems.
Indeed, not always, but often. That's simply because not all that we can genuinely hear, we can currently measure - and that state of affairs will remain until the resolving ability of our measurement apparatus matches that of the intuitions and skills we were born with! ;)
Marco.
I think the definition of simple may be different for digital fans. Digital recording makes things easy in enabling complex editing and mixing to be done at the press of a button.
Producing good analogue recordings requires more skill in setting up even a simple recording and at the later editing and mixing stage if this is employed. This extra recording skill does not imply analogue recording is inferior. Quite the opposite it forced attention to detail which made recordings better.
That's a very good point, Paul, and one I wholly agree with. Of course, when I mentioned the issue of simplicity earlier to Dave, I was thinking in terms of maintaining the integrity of the "electrical input signals" present, to borrow a favourite snippet of language from from Nat :)
Marco.
Hopefully, it'll have penetrated now into the hard heads of the 'digital fanboys'
Here we go with those slurs again, and you were doing so well Marco :rolleyes:
I think it's interesting whether you can achieve great realism with vinyl for a reasonable price. Digital does have the advantage I suspect that it might be easier and cheaper to get great realism...
Yup, and for me, that's a big reason why many of the pro-digital brigade have arrived at their conclusions, simply because they're been able to achieve more success with digital, using the budget that's been available to them, or simply because it suited their lifestyle more.
In my experience, you simply can't achieve genuine 'realism' (certainly my definition of it) 'on the cheap' with vinyl. Yes, a decent T/T can produce a 'nice sound', but not one that can realistically be considered as 'accurate'. That requires a bit more effort, and unfortunately money, to take things to the next level.
Like I've said before, that is why it's cost me £6k+ (which equates to much more in pure performance terms, based on the cost of current high-end varieties capable of competing with it) to own a turntable that is capable of delivering genuine 'musical realism'/technical accuracy (note here that I consider the former attribute, highlighted in blue, is best delivered by analogue equipment and processes, and the latter, digital, but when vinyl is at its best, you can get both!), as far as the format will allow, and much less (£3.5k) on a digital source (again the same SPPV rules apply, versus current high-end varieties), which gets 95% of the way to achieving what my T/T is capable of, sonically, despite costing significantly less.
...with vinyl you might strike lucky but on the whole I expect more effort is required to get a system that displays the synergy required to make it really perform. Would you agree? I know this is taking the thread slightly off topic, but I wonder if VFM and ease of implementation considerations should come into the discussion.
Hopefully, I've covered the VFM/SPPV thing above. As for convenience/ease of implementation, that is where digital scores most.
The fact is, that to hear vinyl at its best, requires not only a great deal of effort and expense, in terms of assembling both the relevant hardware and software, together with the room to house it all in, but a significant amount of experience and know-how to get the most from it, quite simply because with a high-end turntable, you're dealing with a precision mechanical instrument that responds to the tiniest of manual adjustments and translates them into fundamental, easily heard, sonic improvements - or otherwise if you get it wrong - and so the margin for error, in terms of achieving an 'accurate' sound, is much greater than it is with digital replay...
Most people simply either don't have the patience or desire to get involved in all that surrounds hearing vinyl at its best, or the necessary practical requirements needed to house a top-flight turntable, the paraphernalia that goes with it (including an RCM), and a record collection to do it justice. Squashing it all into a communal room, shared with the 42" flat-screen TV, along with 'Little Johnny' and all his toys, just won't cut it. A dedicated music room, where all aspects of set-up can be permanently optimised, is really what is needed.
It therefore stands to reason that the balance of experience of the majority of audio enthusiasts on forums (and elsewhere) favours digital over vinyl, and thus why in general, measurements aside, they consider it as better or more 'accurate'. Their conclusions are understandable, as it is simply what the most significant part of their audio experience, to date, (or all of it) has told them.
However, that doesn't mean to say that, in actuality, they are right... ;)
Marco.
Here we go with those slurs again, and you were doing so well Marco :rolleyes:
That was purley intended as tonque-in-cheek, Tim, hence the smiley! You should know me better than that by now :)
Marco.
Most people simply either don't have the patience or desire to get involved in all that surrounds hearing vinyl at its best, or the necessary qualifications required to own and house a top-flight turntable
I have a BA and am working towards an MA; will that do?
Very droll, as usual, Joe!
I'll take your BA and raise you my degree in daftness!! :D
Marco.
I have a BA and am working towards an MA; will that do?
I've seen many highly qualified graduates make an absolute pigs ear of setting up a turntable/cartridge combination - just not their area of expertise IMO. Mind you, there used to be a large number of space cadets who thought they knew how to set up a wayward LP12 too (and many 80's examples were very variable in build and wood-softness in critical areas)......
I've seen many highly qualified graduates make an absolute pigs ear of setting up a turntable/cartridge combination - just not their area of expertise IMO. Mind you, there used to be a large number of space cadets who thought they knew how to set up a wayward LP12 too (and many 80's examples were very variable in build and wood-softness in critical areas)......
I was just intrigued to know what qualifications might be needed to own a 'top-flight turntable'. I freely admit to being a walking disaster area when it comes to things mechanical and electrical. (Not that I own or have ever owned an LP12).
I've seen many highly qualified graduates make an absolute pigs ear of setting up a turntable/cartridge combination - just not their area of expertise IMO. Mind you, there used to be a large number of space cadets who thought they knew how to set up a wayward LP12 too (and many 80's examples were very variable in build and wood-softness in critical areas)......
Hi Dave,
Any chance you could answer post #231? Cheers! :cool:
Marco.
Hi Dave,
For some of us, it's not about "nicer" (far from it), but rather what sounds more realsitic (based on our experienced perception of such). There is a difference, you know! ;)
And there was me thinking that the beauty (and success) of the recording process in those days was because it was so direct and simple! :scratch:
It's been put forward by some, to which I agree with, that one of the reasons why digital at its best ultimately doesn't produce as realistic sounding results as analogue/vinyl at its best (and this appears to be borne out by the best available analogue recordings), is because of the artificial manipulation of the music signal, associated with the digital music replay and recording processes.
Are you saying that this is incorrect? :)
Marco.
You can take any high quality external source, say a well made LP, pass it through a pro grade A-D, loop it back to the D-A part and do a direct comparison. The insertion of the digital unit in the tape loop *should* be totally inaudible IF the levels are matched - been there and done it thirty years ago with a now hopelessly outdated Sony 1610 processor. Others have digitised their records and as long as the levels are properly matched, the digital recording sounds the same as the record to them. This personal and anecdotal experience I share is the reason why I honestly feel there's nowt at all wrong with digital if done right, but the tendency now is to add all sorts of software and outboard processing in the mixing and mastering that can easily screw it all up.
The 50's and 60's engineers who cared were very well aware of the shortcomings of the formats they worked with, but it's my view that keeping it all simple, helped them do their job better. I distinctly remember hearing the Ella and Louis recordings from the early 50's on CD. Through big monitors the two of them could have been standing right in front of you, so realistic was the reproduction. Musicality and rhythm as audiophool terms didn't come into it, because the sound was so 'real,' as reproduction went, IMO obviously. We had a Linn owned flat above our London store, and the Castle Sound engineer (could have been Callum Malcolm, don't know) was raving about how good digital recording was over the (rather excellent) analogue system he used before. ironically, all us Linnies at the time, preferred the side on the analogue-digital LP they made that turned out to have been cut via the Sony PCM-F1 recorder they used, much to their consternation...
I was just intrigued to know what qualifications might be needed to own a 'top-flight turntable'.
Lol... None, of course. If you re-read my post, you'll see it's now been worded properly to reflect what I actually meant. That's the problem with typing too quickly!!
Marco.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.