Agreed with the comments so far: words like "always" aren’t helpful and I can’t take anyone’s claim seriously with descriptions like "always looking through a dirty window pane."
Though I do think the OP was jesting somewhat as a flame on the other thread.
Both digital and LP can be awesome. I’m crazy about vinyl these days, but my digital source - just ripped CDs and Tidal streamed to a regular old Benchmark DAC - continues to sound fantastic - pristine, clear, beautiful. Admittedly things do get some help in sounding rounded and organic going through my Conrad Johnson tube gear. But in any case I’ve had many great listening experiences with digital in plenty of systems, not just mine.
And besides, there’s no good argument against digital’s better potential accuracy. A good digital needle-drop copy can accurately capture the sound of vinyl more than the reverse.
|
I checked out that audiogeorge website.
It put the musings in that post in context.
I prefer geoffkait’s website; it’s more entertaining.
|
Clearly, the OP and many others in this (and the zillion identical) threads, conflate *preference* with *fact*. This is what so often happens in the audiophile world. Someone has a subjective reaction or perception and then this becomes in their mind an objective fact from which to base some new theory. So you get some audiophiles saying "Digital is cold, sterile, it's incapable of producing MUSIC and emotional involvement. So here's my theory for why digital just can't produce music in a satisfying manner..." And meanwhile most of the world, including probably a majority of audiophiles, have been enjoying digital music for ages. "Huh? Digital sounds awful and can't transmit the emotion of music? Speak for yourself; we've been deeply connected and loving music delivered digitally for a long time." (Whether the OP meant to speak only for himself, or if he meant the broad condemnation of digital sound his post seemed to make, is up to him to clear up if he wishes). |
cakyol
After about late 1990’s to 2000’s, most vinyl music is first recorded digitally in the studio and then pressed onto the vinyl. There is HARDLY any direct analog recordings any more.
So, everyone who THINKS that they are listening to analog on vinyl, wake up and come to the 21st century.....
Why would you think your second paragraph follows from your first? You do realize that the majority of vinyl people are listening to are older recordings coming from the analog age, don’t you? Not the 90's to 2000s when vinyl was being produced ever more rarely. Not only is the second hand "crate digging" market for old vinyl by far the lions share of the vinyl bought, but even the chart topping vinyl in Billboard tends to be titles from the golden analog age. The vast majority of the vinyl I own is analog source. And even with new vinyl releases, while many come from digital masters, depending on the title efforts are made to go back to the analog masters.I have plenty of such newly pressed vinyl. And even in the case of digital masters used for vinyl, they also can sound fabulous (it always comes down to the master sound quality, whether the original is analog or digital). |
I know what Orpheus means about the "Gestalt" of vinyl.
It really gets me as well. There’s just an "it" factor that draws me in and gives me this big "aaah..." when listening.
That doesn’t make digital sound bad to me though. Sometimes I really enjoy going back to digital for it’s own virtues.
My previous vinyl rig was more modest - a Micro Seiki turntable and cheap old Rotel phono stage. At that point vinyl still had an "it" factor that made it different than digital - a classic "warmer, crisper" sound.But it also sounded a bit on the nostalgic, slightly lower-fi side vs digital. I’d still tend to listen to a lot more digital.
But when I upgraded my vinyl rig to a much better turntable, cartridge and phono stage, that’s when vinyl seemed to leap ahead of digital in terms of what I wanted to play. Now it doesn’t have that slightly creaky nostalgia sound, but rather the noise floor is so low, the detail so clear and smooth, the sound so big, rich yet punchy and focused, that it just tends to sound "better" or more satisfying to my ears than digital (generally speaking). It’s not better technically, but it has a texture, heft and sense that it is that much more detached from the speakers making the sound while simultaneously having a "right there in the air in front of me" texture that blows me away.
I just received 3 albums I bought on discogs, from 1977, 1980 and 1984.All three are mint condition and dead silent wax, with absolutely gorgeous sound quality and the musical content just makes me giddy.Flicking through pixels looking at selections to play via my phone app (streaming to system) just isn’t nearly as fun and satisfying a way to interact with my music collection. And...choke...CDs. Yuck! I don’t mean yuck for sound quality - CDs are great and I ripped all mine lossless. But CDs themselves as physical objects just absolutely suck IMO. I was just down rifling through some of my many hundreds of CDs stored in my basement, and they aren’t pretty lookin’, don’t feel nice in the hand, always feel on the verge of snapping (which they often do), and just have no appeal to me these days.
I get that others, of course, have different experiences and really enjoy everything about CDs.
And also I would not ever try to push anyone toward vinyl. If you aren't in to it, it's a hassle of sorts. And can be expensive. But if someone asks why I like it so much, I'll tell them.
|
Once again, analog is a REAL TIME REPRESENTATION OF A MUSICAL PERFORMANCE. Digital is an approximation of the same. Get it? What in the world does that mean? Both digital and analog can be representations of a musical performance and both are an approximation! (And if that is a refrain of the tired old "analog captures the sound continuously, digital chops it up and misses parts" then that’s just a myth and a misunderstanding). |
|
bsmg, Keep in mind: I'm a huge fan of vinyl! I think my analogy of the digital generated voice versus the recorded human voice stands on its merits. I've been recording the human voice (and countless other sounds) on analog and then digital recorders for many decades. Digital does a superb job with voices or most other sounds.
But if you’ve been acclimated to the sound of vinyl and then have the
chance to be exposed to digital, I think most of us old folks will stick
with vinyl.
I've followed the vinyl revival very closely and have monitored a great many articles, comments sections and on-line discussions, and I see quite a lot of evidence for the opposite: I've seen so many older people who grew up listening to vinyl express bafflement at the resurgence. Comments like "I don't get why ANYONE would want to go back to vinyl. I grew up with it; it was a pain in the butt and didn't sound as good as CD!" My father-in-law is pretty typical. He was an audiophile and lover of classical music. Had a great turntable, cartridge, speakers. When CD came along he couldn't dump his records fast enough. For him to finally hear all the subtleties in orchestras without having to listen through background hiss, or any pops or ticks at all, and to hear perfectly even pitch, was a godsend. Tons of people felt the same. I also remember at first thinking digital sounded incredible in one sense, a bit too sterile in another. But as more and more CDs became available in the 80's in to the 90's, I couldn't wait to re-buy tons of music on the new format for the SOUND because it was so pure, clean, detailed and dynamic. I'm 55, grew up with vinyl, so it's not like when CDs came along I wasn't completely familiar with the sound of vinyl. Most older audiophiles (and of course there are many outside this forum in the world) moved on to digital and remain happy there. I've become enthusiastic about vinyl again myself, loving the sound and physicality. But I still hear virtues good digital has over vinyl. Both are great. |
@sleepwalker65 You know that digital does not record the entire analog waveform right? Actually, in practice, it does capture the entire waveform. It simply does it differently than analog. It’s like saying "You know a FLAC file doesn’t capture the entire musical file, right?" Sure, it’s true a FLAC file is "physically different" from the original file, at about 1/2 the size. But in the sense that matters for the purpose - capturing and transmitting the *same information* - it DOES capture all the relevant information. Essentially the same premise holds for digital recording. Look at the links I already provided.
The question becomes, after one reviews all of the complicated mathematics: “in practice, does it satisfy my expectations?”
In the context of the issue you are responding to, that’s an awkward way to put it, and blurs the issues being discussed. We have to delineate between someone’s subjective perception of what he hears and likes, vs coming up with technical explanations. As we’ve seen, some audiophiles who prefer analog over digital, in trying to justify or explain this, adopt incorrect technical ideas, such as the claim that digital can not or does not recreate the original wave form and analog does. That’s just wrong. Talk of preferences will bring in all sorts of differing opinions, which is fine, but I was responding to the promulgation of incorrect technical claims. |
rauliruegas
Dear analog and digital lovers: For we can truly enjoy the MUSIC in any
home audio system that room/audio system needs to be a FULL range audio
room/ system.
Please remember when you are speaking for yourself, rather than declaring things as objective facts. I remind you of this, because you don't write like you are aware of how you sound.
Any home system with passive stereo speakers can't honor MUSIC ( with
any source alternative. ) with out a dedicated designed amplifier that
meets exactly the woofer(s) needs for what was designed and the MUSIC
needs to puts IMD and THD at minimum.
Subwoofers more that anything are for stereo systems and as a side " line " need it for home theather. Not the other way around.
Again, speak for yourself. Any music can be "honored" via appreciation from the listener, however that happens. Note that probably a majority of musicians...who know a little about how they like their music honored...don't necessarily own the type of system specs you recommend. My current system is not full range and I use tube amps, so I presume this likely goes astray of your recommendations. Yet all of my musician friends love to hear their music on my system. They come away thrilled. My brother even brings over different masters of albums he's working on and he loves what he hears. By all means, talk of your own goals. But it just looks silly to make proclamations from your own goals as if you were delivering objective prescriptions to be adopted by all music lovers. |
@tweak1
In case your last post isn't a joke...
....I'm glad to see someone so open minded.
I have many items I can sell as well if you are interested. A ball of special yarn that when placed on your digital source will open up the soundstage, guaranteed! $300. Because it's special yarn.
I have some fine beach property near Nashville as well I'm looking to offload.....;)
|
