[TheChairGuy]

Hmmmm...8 hours and 27 replies - gotta' watch this one

Far too many responses in too short a time might make pruning necessary if it continues at this pace

Please keep it BORDERING civility, okay folks?

I replaced vinyl with CD 10 years and and those 5 years were the most miserable music listening years of my life  I returned in 2005, figured out some of my mistakes with vinyl earlier from tinkering and reading the 'net forums, and viola, vinyl trumped CD handily.

But, the last 5 or so years has really improved CD and at such low prices that I at least find it listenable now.  I built a nice library of DVD-A (SACD was tried and sounded very, very weird to me....doesn't it to anyone else out there. 

I don't mean to slag SACD - but it's way out weird sounding to me.  I read it has inherent phasing errors, but beats me, I didn't know I was so sensitive to that kinda' think, honestly.

Anyhow, DVD-A sounds glorious.  But, I have to say today that either because I am aging and losing hearing acuity (shit happens! eek) or redbook technology has advanced...I don't find a significant difference in sonic superiority for DVD-A anymore.  There are some really top notch DAC's today that give you all the CD library with none of the loss to DVD-A in sonics (I feel now)

I gotta' say that today there are only 1/3 of my cartridges that all-in-all better the digital set up for goosebumps.  If I had a larger room than the 12 x 14' one I'm in...perhaps the digi system would trump it (vinyl sounds better in intimate surroundings as it has less bass and higher dynamic range - perhaps more suited to bigger venues to enjoy it more for simple enough, real reasons.

It is perhaps why vinyl continued more strongly in the UK and Japan thru the dark 90's as they typically have smaller listening areas than the US and Canada, et al.

Had I a larger room I'm not 100% sure at this point in my 48 years if any of my cartridge/deck combo's would best digital.  I think vinyl would still pip it - but not entirely sure.

For me, I am surprised as hell that digital sounds as good as it does for as little money as it does today.  Before 5-6 years ago I found it virtually unlistenable at any price and now - pretty damn decent even if you have less than $200 invested in it.  Especially if you cover over some of it's sins with tubes somewhere in the chain

Anyhow - that's my stance today on it.  However, I have been known to throw some vinyl on, lay down a 10" or longer arm with either of my two fave decks and a modded/Longhorn'ed Grado on it and realize all over again tha vinyl really does rule  No matter - I am never convinced of that listening to digital, despite it being pretty dang good all in all.

I'm keeping something of an open mind to it...even if any of you read any closemindedness into my post here.

John

[dlaloum]

I gotta' say that today there are only 1/3 of my cartridges that all-in-all better the digital set up for goosebumps.  If I had a larger room than the 12 x 14' one I'm in...perhaps the digi system would trump it (vinyl sounds better in intimate surroundings as it has less bass and higher dynamic range - perhaps more suited to bigger venues to enjoy it more for simple enough, real reasons.

As part of my Digital-Analogue hybrid, I have the ability to EQ the TT output - which I do based on a pink noise frequency response analysis.... this invariably involves boosting around 5k-10k, lowering  100hz to 400hz and raising the lower bass area (25Hz - 60Hz) - most of these adjustments by only 1 or 2db max, the lower bass boost does require a bit more usually to bring it up to neutral...

I think the results are very positive - still a work in progress....

but the hybrid has substantial potential...

bye for now

David

[wgscott]

You guys keep going up the ladder, downloading huge files (hope your hard-drive, or SSD doesn't crash) all in the hopes for superior sound. can't blame you for that, but aren't you just really trying to duplicate the sound of vinyl, in the digital domain?

If I want to hear snap, crackle and pop, I can pour myself a bowl of rice crispsies and put milk on it.     

[TONEPUB]

Agreed.  I have remarkably clean records that I've always taken great care of.  Combined with a fairly heavy duty cleaning regimen for used discs, my records are almost all very quiet.

I've had my share of aggravation with vinyl over the years, but noise has never really been one of them!

[orthobiz]

It's all about what is important to you as an individual. For me, when I am collecting vinyl, archiving it, cleaning it, buying it, what have you...I am an audio archeologist. Just picked up a Columbia 2-eye red label Moby Grape Wow from the late 60's and I am holding a piece of history. To know that the record was engineered by the original guy from the original master tape and is an original pressing is important to me.

I don't care if I have to get up to change the record. It's good exercise. And I don't need to digitize it and pump it into every room in my house. Listening critically is a luxury, I do it from my favorite chair in my favorite room when I have time to savor the sounds.

If you go to other websites, such as stevehoffman dot tv, you will see frequent threads on "what's the best CD of this or that album" all the time. They have remastered the hell out of certain music, brickwalled it, made it worse, from who knows which master tape in who knows what condition by who-knows-who. The music is too bright, has too much bass, blahblahblah. Many times the "answer" about which one is best is...the original vinyl!

Now maybe one could argue that currently recorded music is done digitally so why not get the best resolution digital out of it...I still don't care. If the record is important to me and it's on vinyl I am likely to buy the vinyl copy anyway.

My answer to Wayner's question is "yes." The "but" comes in when you figure out who you as an individual listener are and what is important to you. The fun thing about this hobby is that it's so many different things to so many different people.

Paul

[*Scotty*]

I find that one of the most alluring things about my vinyl rig is its black as interstellar space background. The music just appears out of nowhere.  My digital setup which is 16/44.1 has not quite yet equaled this aspect of vinyl performance in my system.
 There is not a gross difference between the two but it is clearly audible in A/B/A comparisons between the two types of media.
This is one of the reasons I still run a vinyl rig.
Scotty

[Devil Doc]

I prefer vinyl because I'm more involved. I like the ritual. There are things I can do to improve things. Cartridges are all different. Bits is bits.

Doc

[G E]

Wayner-
interesting thread that has pulled some scabs off based on some of the replies I read

My take- i enjoy both worlds. Have a pretty good library including both hi Rez and el pees and CDs too

I am spinning vinyl Parallel lines (blondie) as I write this and it sounds very good. Lots of available software in this format is a big plus

but I also have quite a few sacd and DVD a recordings as well. Well-done recordings and masterings have a dynamic range vinyl can't touch. Not so well done discs can sound awful (Genesis sacd is a prime example)
And some of these hi Rez recordings are in multichannel which can be lots of fun.

there is room for all formats in my world.

[mgalusha]

Amazing how some are so strongly pulled to one or the other. I'm in the both camp and I embraced computer audio very early but then I am an IT guy so it was a natural progression. I am also very fond of machinery of all types and that naturally draws me into the more mechanical playback mechanism of vinyl.

Someone else pointed out that many folks who are embracing high res digital have likely never heard a well set up turntable. Note I didn't say expensive, just properly tuned. Most folks my age (51) who are non audiophiles are simply stunned by how vinyl can sound, they all grew up with lousy record players and were overjoyed by the lack of hassle brought about by the digital formats. I've converted my next door neighbor without really trying and now he buys records to bring over, he has no 'table of any kind but is very good at articulating the differences between digital and vinyl.

Me, I love 'em both, as long as I have music to listen to I really don't care what the format is. Bring on the tunes.

mike
 

[vinyl_guy]

To answer the OP's question: No, I don't think so. It is all about the music and any system or media that gets you emotionally involved in the music is a good thing. I much prefer vinyl to my excellent CD rig because I prefer the sound of vinyl and I enjoy the ritual of playing vinyl. When I'm lazy or when music is background for cooking, etc, then I throw a CD into my OPPO 83SE with the ModWright tube analog mod. Both are good, but for me vinyl is better, especially for serious listening sessions. Lou Hinkley, who has a great sounding computer based system (better than CD's), has been trying to talk me into adding a computer based unit to my system, but I have no interest. To me, computers are for work, the Internet and email. TT are for music

Laura

[neekomax]

For someone like me, who grew up with cassettes then CDs, and who then ripped those CDs to hard drive based files around 2000, vinyl is a nice idea, but would be serious investment in terms of money and space.

If you're older and have always had some sort of vinyl collection, I could see making the growth of that collection your priority, and favoring it as your medium of choice. I've had friends with vinyl setups, and it does sound great*, so I get it. But saying that I'm a wannabe because I don't have a vinyl rig is like Ralph Lauren saying that we're all wannabes because we drive cars that aren't vintage Bugattis like he has.

Actually, some of the best sound I ever heard was music my friend produces himself using digital/midi and mic'd live recording that he mixes down to reel to reel. The playback from that tape is so warm, so alive, and has an analog compression that makes his music so damn tight... man. So maybe vinyl afficianados are just RTR wannabes  ?   

*There may be digital rigs that are just as good or better than a comprable vinyl rig, but I wouldn't know because I've never heard a super high end setup of any kind.

[Wayner]

I think the question I was getting at, is this: will there ever be a digital level where high res folks will be happy. If we look at the history of digital music, we see evidence that where ever it is, even right now, it's not good enough.

SACDs were supposed to make all of us burn our 44.1 CDs, because of their superior sound, yet, to me, the SACD is a gigantic failure, in regards to sales volume. A dud if you will.

Then others claimed that the SACD fell short, we need 192k/24 bit to achieve that analog sounding bliss, but soon that fell short and was not good enough.

So the files get bigger and bigger, the selection of music gets smaller and smaller. Can I get Camel-A nod and a Wink in 192/24? no. Can I get FM-City of Fear in 192/24? no.

In the end, don't we want the digital recording to have enough little zeros and ones to simply fill in all the missing blanks of the analog wave in the first place?

And then, are we not right back to the analog wave, the very one we started out with? It's like going on a journey to our left and when we finish, we are 1 foot over to the right, but having circled the globe.

I never started this thread to start a fight, as some have made references to, but merely to understand where (and when) is the high res format ever going to be enough, or will it never be enough.

In my own head, what a wonderful thing it would be to have all the music I ever wanted to hear, be in a perfect, no guess, total and complete digital domain. Our music could be archived in perfection.

But, then a nice record, one that I actually like, can be heard right now, in almost perfect high res.

Wayner 

[ted_b]

I think the question I was getting at, is this: will there ever be a digital level where high res folks will be happy.

????  Who are you to say I am not happy with my digital setup???  It sounds glorious, as does my vinyl rig.   Why must you put down a system you haven't heard?

[woodsyi]

I swing both ways and I am proud of it.     In music that is. 

[Mike Nomad]

Assuming the OP isn't simply er, trolling for responses...

If you want to make a reasonable vinyl vs. digital argument, the approach is one of time.

Digital, as a format is about 30 years old. So, take a mechanical / acoustic recording from the 1920s, and compare it to a 24/192 download. Or an SACD. Or a Blu-ray. Tell us how much better sounding the recording is from 90 years ago.

Re: Availability of titles. You have no idea how much catalog comes out every month. The expectation that everything ever recorded needs to be available when a new format is launched, is simply delusional.

Re: The Wave. A wave is a wave is a wave. Analog or digital, you want as many 0s and 1s, or oxide particles as you can get. And like a lot of things, we always want them to go faster. A good general text for all the gory details would be John Watkinson's The Art Of Sound Reproduction.

In general, you confuse the limitations of formats, at a given time, with the ability to master correctly. The text mentioned above would have some good, overlapping value on this point as well.

(to get to the crux of the biscuit)

I've been happy with hi-rez since I started picking up DAD (24/96 resolution) from Classic Records, about 10 years ago. I don't miss the BS associated with vinyl one bit (sorry). Dollar to dollar, I get _way_ better playback bang for the buck in the digital domain than analog.

On those occasional dark and stormy nights, when I have an aching for that halcyon analog sound, I pick up my remote... and engage the tube stage in my preamp.

[Chromisdesigns]

<,snip>>  Can I get Camel-A nod and a Wink in 192/24? no. Can I get FM-City of Fear in 192/24? no. <<snip>>

Wayner, I've got a question -- did you pick these two albums particularly as examples, and if so, why?  Is it because they are limited distribution?  Were they all-analog recorded and mastered?  I did a bit of searching but couldn't find the answer.

However, I'll pose this question -- for a recording which is either digitally recorded and mastered, or digitally mastered at the least, how can a vinyl pressing contain any information not in the digital master and/or recording?  It would seem the BEST you could ever do in that case would be a digital release format with the same sampling rates as the original digital recording and/or mastering.

Would you agree with that?  If not, why?

Regards,

Bob

[Cheeseboy]

Wayner,
You are so correct.  I blame my passion for audio on the turntable.  I was so lucky to have a great table set up early on in my life.  I took a lot of music with me on cassettes that I had recorded for the car and the Walkman.  Thank you Mr. Morita.  The essence of the music I loved was there.  I spun a lot of cd and many of the recordings were up to my standards.  I have an extensive collection of records and cd.
 
They say it takes a village to raise a child.  That village supplied me many records and cd’s over the years to push my listening habits beyond just rock and roll.  Today many of the music cuts I want to hear are convenient and available in digital.  The village is pushing me to listen to new material.  I’m so happy that I can find this stuff easily.  The investment is reduced the availability is enhanced.  We are so lucky to have this new source of media.

Perhaps what you are trying to say is that we are very much like the five blind men seeking the essence of the elephant.  To one man it may be that the leg of the elephant is like a tree.  Therefore, all elephants are treelike.   Another it might be that the trunk is like a snake therefore all elephants are like a snake.  We have all been exposed to the original elephant in live performance.  We heard it again by the turntable, cassette, cd and take our own path to describing the pleasure that we receive from our listening experience in new digital media.

We are so incredibly blessed to have people pushing the limits of digital so that my roots and standards of fidelity can be maintained.  They can be convenient and everyone can take advantage of them.  It is a new view of the same elephant.  My musical truth was described by my turntable in my youth.  It is still a valid media source.  It has always been my reference media source.  Most people will never forget where they came from.  Also most people are restless and want to move forward with emerging technology.

I think there is a place for all of these sources in my home.

[konut]

I think the question I was getting at, is this: will there ever be a digital level where high res folks will be happy.

Not only are there hi-rez folks who are happy, but 16/44.1 folks that are completely ecstatic.

 

If we look at the history of digital music, we see evidence that where ever it is, even right now, it's not good enough.

A gross generalization. Besides your assertions, please cite a source for this.

 

SACDs were supposed to make all of us burn our 44.1 CDs, because of their superior sound, yet, to me, the SACD is a gigantic failure, in regards to sales volume. A dud if you will.

Since when is sales volume a measure of quality? Rolls Royce and Fabergé eggs were certainly "duds"!

Then others claimed that the SACD fell short, we need 192k/24 bit to achieve that analog sounding bliss, but soon that fell short and was not good enough.

Besides your assertion, please cite a source.

So the files get bigger and bigger, the selection of music gets smaller and smaller. Can I get Camel-A nod and a Wink in 192/24? no. Can I get FM-City of Fear in 192/24? no.

Play what you like, like what you play.

In the end, don't we want the digital recording to have enough little zeros and ones to simply fill in all the missing blanks of the analog wave in the first place?

Yes we do. 16/44.1 does this quite nicely if you bothered to get a first rate DAC.

And then, are we not right back to the analog wave, the very one we started out with? It's like going on a journey to our left and when we finish, we are 1 foot over to the right, but having circled the globe.

We're right back where we started, recreating sound waves after having been sent through electronic circuits

I never started this thread to start a fight, as some have made references to, but merely to understand where (and when) is the high res format ever going to be enough, or will it never be enough.

Its plenty good enough right now given the right source material, and careful handling to the end product, and high enough quality playback equipment.

In my own head, what a wonderful thing it would be to have all the music I ever wanted to hear, be in a perfect, no guess, total and complete digital domain. Our music could be archived in perfection.

But, then a nice record, one that I actually like, can be heard right now, in almost perfect high res.

Wayner 

Perfection is a noble goal. Unfortunately, as that we are all human beings, we'll have to satisfy ourselves with the imperfection of whatever PLAYBACK MEDIUM WE PERSONALLY PREFER.

From konut, a vinyl has been.
 

[Wayner]

Those are 2 of my favorite LPs. One is recorded in pure analog, the other digitally. I mentioned them, because if I'm now suppose to be a high-res wannabie, then I want the music that I like to be in this format. So do high-res guys (and gals) just settle for music that sounds really good (from a sonic stand point) and sit there with their remote searching their computer files for some high res music that they actually like?

FM is on vinyl and is an excellent recording, the Camel album is only available on CD.

Wayner

[Wayner]

Well, konut, I'm certainly not going to pick apart everything that you say, word by word, but you want some proof about high-res never good enough, well there is already material that is avalible in limited selections, much higher in resolution. I believe I saw a 384/24.

They are simply filling in the space of an analog wave with more numbers. More numbers in the same amount of time means faster machine. That may mean that the 192/24 stuff will become obsolete.

Wayner