|
|
Post by geebo on Oct 30, 2014 12:38:34 GMT -5
things a little foggy Jim.  I feel like I'm reading a political thread, with campaign attack ads!  "Vote for vinyl! Because digital will raise taxes and destroy your infrastructure!" "CDs cause high gas prices!" Don't forget digital is the cause for global warming. |
|
|
|
Post by jmilton on Oct 30, 2014 13:43:05 GMT -5
I feel like I'm reading a political thread, with campaign attack ads! "Vote for vinyl! Because digital will raise taxes and destroy your infrastructure!" "CDs cause high gas prices!" Don't forget digital is the cause for global warming. ...but only a little "bit". |
|
|
|
Post by Priapulus on Oct 30, 2014 13:54:58 GMT -5
In contrast, if, as I maintain, vinyl simply alters the sound in pleasant ways, and a digital recording can make a reasonable reproduction of the original, then it makes sense that a digital rip of a vinyl original would retain most of the "virtues" of the vinyl "original. It ought to be simple enough to create a filter that emulates the pleasant vinyl distortions. Perhaps in the future we will see EMO preamps with a VINYL/DIGITAL filter switch.
Sincerely /b
p.s. I like vinyl for the gestalt of the experience. If music was the only criteria, I'd stick with digital...
|
|
|
|
Post by Axis on Oct 30, 2014 14:10:46 GMT -5
In contrast, if, as I maintain, vinyl simply alters the sound in pleasant ways, and a digital recording can make a reasonable reproduction of the original, then it makes sense that a digital rip of a vinyl original would retain most of the "virtues" of the vinyl "original. It ought to be simple enough to create a filter that emulates the pleasant vinyl distortions. Perhaps in the future we will see EMO preamps with a VINYL/DIGITAL filter switch.
Sincerely /b
p.s. I like vinyl for the gestalt of the experience. If music was the only criteria, I'd stick with digital...
Soon to come Emotiva Tube amps and Turntable will make me way pleasant !  |
|
|
|
Post by NorthenLight on Oct 30, 2014 15:12:05 GMT -5
Digital is good; high resolution audio...eg.; SACD, 32/352, etc., but analog is still not dead, just yet. |
|
|
|
Post by drtrey3 on Oct 30, 2014 16:44:05 GMT -5
Analog won't die while there is still great music that is not available in digital.
Trey
|
|
|
|
Post by lionear on Oct 31, 2014 15:46:43 GMT -5
Last night, after playing a few old LP's, I put Enya's "Watermark" LP on my turntable. The bass was incredibly deep and powerful and the soundstage was wide and deep. A lot of the sound is generated by synthesizers and there's also a lot of processing on Enya's voice. However, everything was "nice". I did run into one issue. While playing everything at the same volume level as my earlier LP's (6 clicks on my preamp - the normal level for just about every LP that I have), I felt that Enya and the whole presentation was a bit "distant" - the imaging was at the proper size, but at that perspective, I knew I should be hearing a lot more detail. So I set the volume to 6 1/2 clicks, and even 7 clicks. Now 7 clicks is way too loud for my speakers, and messes up the soundstage presentation. However, the sound still sounded "distant" - it was louder but still lacked the finer details that one would expect to hear when the volume goes up and the soundstage presentation is brought "closer". It's what our brain expects, as in viewing a Mandelbrot set at a greater magnification. I backed off on the volume to 6 clicks. It was maddening and spoilt the mood. This morning, I checked the details on the LP. The SPARS code on the CD was DDD, meaning that the LP was either DAA (very unlikely) or DDA (most likely). As far as a DDA LP goes, it's a good LP. But we're ultimately limited by the digital stuff upstream. There's no way to test this, right? So did I imagine it? Some would say, yes. If you can't see a reading on a voltmeter, or a test printout, it doesn't exist. Well.... OK. Logically, I may indeed have imagined it. But it's also possible that I didn't. How does one do a test? Stuff like double-blind testing isn't good enough - I want a voltmeter reading! (Like the curious case of AC leakage.) In any case, I now know that if an LP sounds distant and lacks in details - it was probably made from a digital source. (I guess this is a repeat of what Gary Cook reported at the beginning of the thread. However, I hope I've added to the discussion by proposing a test - turn up the volume, and if more details don't come through, it's digital. And seriously, how many people who listen to digital end up turning up the volume really loud, because their brain is expecting the details, which ultimately, aren't there?) And please note, you can't blame the recording engineer for this. (The poor guys! They get it from the musicians, the business folk.... everyone!) The AES and IEEE may even say that there's nothing left to test. We have THD, frequency response, etc. and that is all there is to audio. Even when one recounts the story of TIM, they just wait until no one remembers what happened with TIM. (It's funny - when TIM was first proposed, they denied that it existed. When shown the proof, they then tried to say that it was covered by their earlier definition of THD. And of course, it wasn't because the stuff on THD didn't mention the need for wide bandwidth.... But academia is a savage dog-eat-dog world. In one sense, the AES and IEEE are right. When it comes to the audio that generates a lot of money (e.g. cellphones, telecom, TV), digital audio is clear enough - in fact, it's sort of amazing that one can talk on a cell phone to someone on the other side of the world with the same clarity as a local call. That's not something that analog audio can do. But when it comes to "high end" audio, it's always been a different thing. :-) By the way, I don't understand this thread: emotivalounge.proboards.com/thread/39636/hi-end-usb-dacsI bet they all have THD below 0.1% and thus THD is not an issue. And I bet they all measure absolutely flat. So they should all sound exactly the same, right? What's the measurement(s) that sets them apart? (I'm also shocked by those prices.) |
|
|
|
Post by routlaw on Oct 31, 2014 17:34:31 GMT -5
Lionear, not sure I follow your logic regarding turning up the volume to hear more details. Well it doesn't work that way on my setup anyway. If I want more volume for what ever reason yes I crank it up, but its not because I need more details or at least to this point it has not been. Not sure if you looked into the link I provided earlier in the conversation but will post again for you to examine the record/LP in question assuming its in this database: dr.loudness-war.info It is possible you might find some of your answers here depending upon how much DR was induced compared to the original digital source. I would encourage you to explore. Hope this helps |
|
|
|
Post by lionear on Oct 31, 2014 19:32:27 GMT -5
Lionear, not sure I follow your logic regarding turning up the volume to hear more details. Well it doesn't work that way on my setup anyway. If I want more volume for what ever reason yes I crank it up, but its not because I need more details or at least to this point it has not been. Not sure if you looked into the link I provided earlier in the conversation but will post again for you to examine the record/LP in question assuming its in this database: dr.loudness-war.info It is possible you might find some of your answers here depending upon how much DR was induced compared to the original digital source. I would encourage you to explore. Hope this helps Thanks for the link. It looks very interesting and I'll check it out. What I mean is that, when it comes to live music, if you're far away, the sound will sound "distant". There's a certain tonal balance, etc. But there's also less detail. When you get closer to the live music, the tonal balance will change and you'll hear more details. There's such a thing as too close, of course. For large orchestras, I believe the ideal distance is around Row E to Row H. When one turns up the volume in a sound system, one affects this perspective. At the ideal volume setting, one is neither too far away or too close. I listen to large orchestras in Row E to Row H, then try to get as close to that perspective as possible. The high-end cartridges are adjusted to give this type of perspective. Of course, my system isn't good enough to present the soundstage in realistic size. I'll need a huge room and a Genesis 1 for that. But still, there's a ideal perspective for my system and I dial my system in to get that perspective. On my system, the ideal perspective happens about 6 clicks up on the volume knob. There may be some very slight adjustments because not all LP's are recorded at the same level. But that's the sweet spot as far as volume is concerned. With the Enya LP, I thought to myself, "Wow! This sounds really great! But I'm not getting the fine details so I must be too far away." (You can say, in technical terms, that I suspected that the LP was cut at a lower level and so required a higher volume setting.) So I turned up the volume - to bring me "nearer". And then my brain expected to hear finer details. That is something that does happen with analog. However, I didn't get it with the Enya LP. This is the frustrating thing about digital. I know of a lot of people who keep cranking up the volume in order to get the details. In the absence of details, the brain is left to fill in the gaps. Bose is very proud that they only have to play some frequencies and the brain will extrapolate the missing ones. Others emphasize the overtones of bass notes when mixing tracks, so that headphone users can "hear" more bass. It's a more subtle technique than using a graphic equalizer, I guess. But the cost is brain fatigue. I think there are people who will go through that and never suspect that it's because of digital. They'll spend some time upgrading cables and components but eventually play their system less and less. (And that eventually shows up in sales figures - people walked away from HT and bought sound bars. Sales of all music declined because fewer people spend their leisure time listening to music. And the hi-fi segment of the industry crashes....) (The 6-click volume setting has nothing to do with dynamic range. When a crashing crescendo comes, my system will play loud and when there are soft passages, the system will play soft. But that is in the LP so it won't change the soundstage perspective, and the level of detail remains constant.) Analog is "easy.... like Sunday morning". |
|
|
|
Post by NorthenLight on Oct 31, 2014 22:34:55 GMT -5
It's like digital video versus analog video ....
|
|
|
|
Post by NorthenLight on Oct 31, 2014 22:39:34 GMT -5
.... Blu-ray discs versus VHS tapes...even Laserdiscs.
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Nov 1, 2014 0:48:08 GMT -5
lionear: Keith has mentioned why DAC;s can sound different in another thread. Interestingly he mentioned all kinds of stuff that aren't perfectly reproduced that don't get reported in standard literature. Probably because it's hard to standardize such things in easy to identify means. It was a fascinating read. Most of the literature you get out there absolutely do not talk about this stuff. But I wonder why my XDA-1 sounds very different from a DC-1 if they are both easily operating at "inaudibility". Now of interest, the reason they sound different is because of ways in which they produce the analog portion of the sound. Digital filters play a role as well as other stuff. As he mentioned, despite this, CD's on paper have significantly higher quality specs than vinyl. However, consistently you hear that vinyl sounds better despite all the archaic pops and clicks etc. At some point, one has to wonder, is this really a matter of old fuddy duddy's that like to hold a disc in their hands or if it actually is superior? If it is....and I do not have anywhere near the experience in vinyl to say it is....then I have to say that though vinyl has tons of distortion these could be the reasons 1. The distortions themselves are either way less noticeable by the human ear. 2. The distortion to the sound created by the DAC even though less is MORE dstressing to the human ear. 3. The continous capture of sound (though still technically limited by the medium) vs "sampling rate" of a CD is somehow better sounding. Other less exciting reasons could be: 1. Masters for vinyl - which is a niche market - is for some reason consistently way better than a CD made for a much larger audience. 2. The vinyl introduces a very pleasing distortions...or better said....sound signature that is simply more natural sounding to the human ear. Like a very slightly rolled off treble, warmer mids etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by drtrey3 on Nov 1, 2014 8:36:04 GMT -5
lionear, bass takes up space. It takes up space in our listening room, those wavelengths are LONG, and it takes up space on an lp. Same reason. Records with substantial bass and longer than 20 minute program material are cut with a lower volume to make space on the vinyl. I wonder if you lp is cut low this way.
Trey
|
|
|
|
Post by lionear on Nov 1, 2014 12:40:19 GMT -5
lionear, bass takes up space. It takes up space in our listening room, those wavelengths are LONG, and it takes up space on an lp. Same reason. Records with substantial bass and longer than 20 minute program material are cut with a lower volume to make space on the vinyl. I wonder if you lp is cut low this way. Trey Thanks for the response. Yes, that's what I thought - that the LP was cut at a lower level and so I turned up the volume. But when I did, I didn't get better resolution. I got a certain "blandness". Cutting the LP at a lower level does not affect the resolution. The resolution of my playback system exceeded the resolution of the source. I put that down to the fact that the source was digital. It was all the more telling because I'd just played some fully analog LP's. The resolution of my playback system is pretty good, but it's by no means "the best". I can upgrade my turntable, arm or cartridge and I'll get better resolution because there's still more info in the grooves. Even from LP's made in the 1950's! |
|
|
|
Post by lionear on Nov 1, 2014 13:06:39 GMT -5
lionear: Keith has mentioned why DAC;s can sound different in another thread. Interestingly he mentioned all kinds of stuff that aren't perfectly reproduced that don't get reported in standard literature. Probably because it's hard to standardize such things in easy to identify means. It was a fascinating read. Most of the literature you get out there absolutely do not talk about this stuff. But I wonder why my XDA-1 sounds very different from a DC-1 if they are both easily operating at "inaudibility". Now of interest, the reason they sound different is because of ways in which they produce the analog portion of the sound. Digital filters play a role as well as other stuff. As he mentioned, despite this, CD's on paper have significantly higher quality specs than vinyl. However, consistently you hear that vinyl sounds better despite all the archaic pops and clicks etc. At some point, one has to wonder, is this really a matter of old fuddy duddy's that like to hold a disc in their hands or if it actually is superior? If it is....and I do not have anywhere near the experience in vinyl to say it is....then I have to say that though vinyl has tons of distortion these could be the reasons 1. The distortions themselves are either way less noticeable by the human ear. 2. The distortion to the sound created by the DAC even though less is MORE dstressing to the human ear. 3. The continous capture of sound (though still technically limited by the medium) vs "sampling rate" of a CD is somehow better sounding. Other less exciting reasons could be: 1. Masters for vinyl - which is a niche market - is for some reason consistently way better than a CD made for a much larger audience. 2. The vinyl introduces a very pleasing distortions...or better said....sound signature that is simply more natural sounding to the human ear. Like a very slightly rolled off treble, warmer mids etc. Thanks for your reply. Yes, I have read some of the reasons why DAC's sound different. But I don't think you will detect this in the waveform of a test signal. Which means that there are a few things that the tests are missing. In addition to the possibilities that you've mentioned, I think it's also possible that distortions that are produced by the LP are less objectionable than the distortions that are produced by digital. I guess I'm not ready to concede that digital is "perfect sound..... forever". |
|
|
|
Post by NorthenLight on Nov 1, 2014 14:00:24 GMT -5
lionear, bass takes up space. It takes up space in our listening room, those wavelengths are LONG, and it takes up space on an lp. Same reason. Records with substantial bass and longer than 20 minute program material are cut with a lower volume to make space on the vinyl. I wonder if you lp is cut low this way. Trey And analog LPs take a lot of space (physically) in your listening room, compared to digital hi-res audio music files in your PC (Mac). Also, LPs are limited to two-channel stereo, but digital hi-res music can have up to 5.1 (SACD & DVD Audio), 7.1 (music videos on Blu-ray - DTS-HD MA), and even 7.1.4 (Auro-3D and Dolby Atmos on Blu-ray Music only). Try to do do Auro-3D or/and Dolby Atmos with an LP. This is strictly a "restricted" 2-channel stereo music medium. And we won't go into all the rituals plus the cleaning process . Stylus wear, arm adjust/balancing, and cart weight plus azymuth. And much much more, of course. And try to introduce Dirac Live between you phono preamp and your preamplifier. But we've been there several times already before. At the end we play what we like, and we love what we play, yes. |
|
tesla
Sensei
Amplitude Fetishist
Posts: 152
|
Post by tesla on Nov 1, 2014 15:18:34 GMT -5
Keith, your observations, opinions, and preferences correspond exactly with mine. Thank you for echoing my own thoughts. I was beginning to think I was alone.
The whole vinyl vs. digital debate will undoubtedly rage on ad nauseam, just as the tube vs. solid-state argument has since the invention of transistor audio equipment.
I have no axe to grind. I’m on no holy crusade to win converts to my personal philosophy. It doesn't bother me in the least that some prefer vinyl and/or tubes. However, it does rub my fur in the wrong direction when one of them plays the accuracy card. The notion that vinyl-based music reproduction is somehow “truer” to the original performance is absolute nonsense to anyone who as delved into turntable rumble, wow and flutter, acoustic feedback, tone arm resonances, phase shift resulting from angular tracking errors, and so forth.
It’s obvious from the mountains of test data that have been collected over the decades since audio reproduction began that analog transducers always have been and always will be the weakest links in the audio chain at both the input (recording) and output (playback) ends.
I've been into audio for more than 40 years. I've gone through my tube phase, my “straight wire with gain” phase, and just about every other phase that overcomes audiophiles at one time or another. I have a huge vinyl collection, including the usual suspects from the high-octane labels. I own a killer turntable with a killer tone arm and at least a few killer cartridges, along with a killer moving-coil head amp. Yet, I never ceased to depend on my trusty old Burwen Research 1201a and KLH TNE-7000 to make record listening tolerable by at least minimizing the surface noise, ticks, and pops that are invariably there detracting from my musical enjoyment.
All of my LP’s and their related playback gear have been in storage for several years, banked, along with my Super Beta and Laser Disc equipment and media, awaiting the day when the Smithsonian comes knocking. As far as I’m concerned, those who prefer LP’s are welcome to their preference. But I’d rather they didn't waste their time trying to sell it to me. Been there; done that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Loop 7 on Nov 1, 2014 17:38:38 GMT -5
I'm overly sensitive to many of the qualities used to describe sound that causes fatigue. "Glare, etch, bright..." I've heard some $10,000 vinyl/tube systems owned by friends and must admit I have been extremely impressed and never once bracing for the uncomfortable passage. Really great music. However, I've heard some harsh and hostile vinyl systems at "high end" shows.
I grew up with vinyl but was in CD land by the time I hit high school so I just can't bring myself to move in another direction.
I've yet to secure the analog-like sound I seek but an SSD based Mac Mini running Amarra and a DAC that's voiced to be polite, I'm making progress. If budget allowed, I think I would buy the top of the line PS Audio DAC but think of all the Emo gear $6k buys!
|
|
