jdandy
New member
I like that dogs are not snobs, nor are they impressed by the price of anything. 
Analog and Vinyl: no longer the benchmark
- Thread starter jmusica
- Start date
- Status
I like music. Depending on the recording, one format can sound better than the other. So, I like both formats.
It was entertaining to read the nine pages of comments, jokes and, sometimes, very strong opinions. At the end of the day, I ask, so what? Relax and enjoy the music, that’s what this hobby is all about.
Cheers!
It was entertaining to read the nine pages of comments, jokes and, sometimes, very strong opinions. At the end of the day, I ask, so what? Relax and enjoy the music, that’s what this hobby is all about.
Cheers!
Kingrex
Active member
A lot of people keep pointing to uber priced supreme products. It is a little annoying when a poster states you must have the best of the best to have an opinion. To a degree, who cares about the best besides those that can afford it. Most of us are middle class and have a more modest setup. We are interested in what works in our price level. We don't want to throw money at products seeing if it sticks. We want feedback on what others are finding to work.
As per the uber players, Mike Lavigne knows what is king in his system. And he has spent time optimizing both. Maybe there are best at the top. I don't know as I don't have them at my home. I have heard his system and be it digital or vinyl, either are stunning. Many other people commenting about the best of the best may have only focused significant resources to one source so have no base to make a real comparison. Maybe some have.
I have tried to be balanced in my purchases but I do have more $ into my digital. About $9K, (list $14,500). I believe my purchasing power and equipment represents a larger swath of users who are into audio. A modest but quality system. I am not sure why my analog does not shine more. Yea I made the plinth. I tried to mimic what Vertere does since I have their arm. I used 4 layers of Acrylic and Corian. I isolated between layers. I have a Groove Tracer Delrin platter and subplatter. I have a double belt Michael Lim pulley. I have a Denon 103r in an aluminum headshell with a sapphire cantilever and line contact diamond. I have an Allnic H1201 phono stage and a tone arm cable from some guy in Britton. Cost about $400. I spent another couple hours this weekend getting the Pivot to Spindle dead on 222 mm. I then used my Smart tractor and a few different lenses to dial in the cartridge as well as I could. I then messed with the VTA and set the weight. It really did not change the overall tone. I also adjusted the phono stage input. Got a touch more treble. With all that it's still super pleasant and easy to listen too. Nothing great or magical, just very nice. Then I put on a digital file and all the Air, Clarity, Impact, Speed, extension of tone is back. The digital just plays so much better in my setup. It's no contest and does not require any sort of blind test. Guitars sound so much more real. So do violin. I feel less stressed with the digital. It's so much easier to hear what is going on in the music. I can relax and enjoy an insightful listen. I don't feel like I am missing anything or listening through a haze. With the vinyl it is sweet but I don't have the detail and feel of real instruments. I don't know how well my digital would do on the Stradivarius vs Guarneri test, but I bet I could hear the difference. I get suggestions on how to improve my vinyl setup. They are a new $20K phono stage. Or a new $1.5K to $7K cartridge. Maybe just get a new Techniques SP10 Mark 3. All huge investments.
I find in the Sub $15K range digital really shines. There are some great combinations of parts that can make an amazingly beautiful presentation of vivid and enticing music. I also know a dealers who won't even mess with vinyl any more as he wants to provide the best sound for a reasonable price. I bought my DAC and a couple cables from him. He does want me to upgrade my DAC to the Rockna. That is one more step towards the MSB. I'm on the fence on that.
I think the reason Mike L can say some people may want the clarity and gravitate towards digital is because they have a system such as mine. Mike gets the clarity, dynamics etc with his vinyl setup. Its wonderful. I don't think the $8K vinyl gets anywhere near what he does. IMO inexpensive vinyl is missing that clarity. I think the digital take a much bigger step in that direction at these prices. You do have to do it right or is sounds thin, gritty and annoying. No one wants to hear that. The unfortunate misconception most people have is in thinking the DAC is going to clean this up. I believe it is the server doing the real work. You have to have a unit like mine and set it up right, or the Innuos Zenith SE or the Antipodes DX. Maybe a Sonore Signature Rendu. Anything less and your not fully in the game. IMO. That is the reason I advocate digital over vinyl for a guy willing to spend $40K on a complete system. In this price category where the average user is affording gear, I believe you get a much better performing system with digital. Spend $32K on vinyl and all bets are off. You may beat my digital every time. I just don't know. I have heard really nice vinyl at that price point and higher. Not lower.
As per the uber players, Mike Lavigne knows what is king in his system. And he has spent time optimizing both. Maybe there are best at the top. I don't know as I don't have them at my home. I have heard his system and be it digital or vinyl, either are stunning. Many other people commenting about the best of the best may have only focused significant resources to one source so have no base to make a real comparison. Maybe some have.
I have tried to be balanced in my purchases but I do have more $ into my digital. About $9K, (list $14,500). I believe my purchasing power and equipment represents a larger swath of users who are into audio. A modest but quality system. I am not sure why my analog does not shine more. Yea I made the plinth. I tried to mimic what Vertere does since I have their arm. I used 4 layers of Acrylic and Corian. I isolated between layers. I have a Groove Tracer Delrin platter and subplatter. I have a double belt Michael Lim pulley. I have a Denon 103r in an aluminum headshell with a sapphire cantilever and line contact diamond. I have an Allnic H1201 phono stage and a tone arm cable from some guy in Britton. Cost about $400. I spent another couple hours this weekend getting the Pivot to Spindle dead on 222 mm. I then used my Smart tractor and a few different lenses to dial in the cartridge as well as I could. I then messed with the VTA and set the weight. It really did not change the overall tone. I also adjusted the phono stage input. Got a touch more treble. With all that it's still super pleasant and easy to listen too. Nothing great or magical, just very nice. Then I put on a digital file and all the Air, Clarity, Impact, Speed, extension of tone is back. The digital just plays so much better in my setup. It's no contest and does not require any sort of blind test. Guitars sound so much more real. So do violin. I feel less stressed with the digital. It's so much easier to hear what is going on in the music. I can relax and enjoy an insightful listen. I don't feel like I am missing anything or listening through a haze. With the vinyl it is sweet but I don't have the detail and feel of real instruments. I don't know how well my digital would do on the Stradivarius vs Guarneri test, but I bet I could hear the difference. I get suggestions on how to improve my vinyl setup. They are a new $20K phono stage. Or a new $1.5K to $7K cartridge. Maybe just get a new Techniques SP10 Mark 3. All huge investments.
I find in the Sub $15K range digital really shines. There are some great combinations of parts that can make an amazingly beautiful presentation of vivid and enticing music. I also know a dealers who won't even mess with vinyl any more as he wants to provide the best sound for a reasonable price. I bought my DAC and a couple cables from him. He does want me to upgrade my DAC to the Rockna. That is one more step towards the MSB. I'm on the fence on that.
I think the reason Mike L can say some people may want the clarity and gravitate towards digital is because they have a system such as mine. Mike gets the clarity, dynamics etc with his vinyl setup. Its wonderful. I don't think the $8K vinyl gets anywhere near what he does. IMO inexpensive vinyl is missing that clarity. I think the digital take a much bigger step in that direction at these prices. You do have to do it right or is sounds thin, gritty and annoying. No one wants to hear that. The unfortunate misconception most people have is in thinking the DAC is going to clean this up. I believe it is the server doing the real work. You have to have a unit like mine and set it up right, or the Innuos Zenith SE or the Antipodes DX. Maybe a Sonore Signature Rendu. Anything less and your not fully in the game. IMO. That is the reason I advocate digital over vinyl for a guy willing to spend $40K on a complete system. In this price category where the average user is affording gear, I believe you get a much better performing system with digital. Spend $32K on vinyl and all bets are off. You may beat my digital every time. I just don't know. I have heard really nice vinyl at that price point and higher. Not lower.
Kingrex, I think you are right. Great, truly great, digital is much more affordable than great vinyl.
However, top level vinyl gives you all the clarity, precision, dynamics and speed that you need (provided the LP pressing/mastering is of high quality, which is not always the case). Those here who say that vinyl just can't do certain things, like orchestra for example, apparently just haven't heard top vinyl -- which is very expensive. But top vinyl can be truly amazing, on any kind of music.
On the other hand, many vinyl enthusiasts who claim that vinyl is by definition superior apparently haven't heard great digital -- which thankfully does not have to be incredibly expensive (while the very best digital probably still has to be). Another factor: due to disparities of tonal balance between the particular vinyl and digital set-up in one's system, often (not always) either source will sound better than the other simply because the system/room is just optimized for the source that the owner prefers in the first place. Which obviously makes pronouncements about the sound of the other, non-optimized source biased.
However, top level vinyl gives you all the clarity, precision, dynamics and speed that you need (provided the LP pressing/mastering is of high quality, which is not always the case). Those here who say that vinyl just can't do certain things, like orchestra for example, apparently just haven't heard top vinyl -- which is very expensive. But top vinyl can be truly amazing, on any kind of music.
On the other hand, many vinyl enthusiasts who claim that vinyl is by definition superior apparently haven't heard great digital -- which thankfully does not have to be incredibly expensive (while the very best digital probably still has to be). Another factor: due to disparities of tonal balance between the particular vinyl and digital set-up in one's system, often (not always) either source will sound better than the other simply because the system/room is just optimized for the source that the owner prefers in the first place. Which obviously makes pronouncements about the sound of the other, non-optimized source biased.
CPP
Active member
So very true and I might add, the first thing that will ruin a hobby is snobbery.
AJ Soundfield
Well-known member
Or they have (btw, highly insulting to suggest otherwise), but don't conflate facts and opinions. Facts like wider dynamic range vs lower, noise, distortion, temporal errors, lowest frequencies, channel separation, etc, etc...and about 90% of the soundfield missing due to vastly inadequate sampling of the original.
Now I have no problem with folks whose systems/ears are incapable of rendering those factual differences, they are welcome to whatever opinion they wish to hold, as those are different from facts.
cheers,
AJ
"about 90% of the soundfield missing": You seem to be coming back to criteria of non-stereophonic reproduction (given your post #65 in this thread).
I am talking about stereophonic reproduction, like practically all participants in this discussion appear to do. My comparisons of vinyl vs. digital are in that realm. If you find that too inferior, be my guest.
a.wayne
Well-known member
I like that dogs are not snobs, nor are they impressed by the price of anything.
Swift kick to the owners nut sack fixes dat .....
AJ Soundfield
Well-known member
Right. Analog vs Digital is not confined to just mono or stereo, unless one is a mono/stereophile (which most "audiophiles" might actually be).
Fine, how does every single thing I listed not apply? How does vinyl, in physical reality, come anywhere near digital in those domains? It doesn't. That fact that some can't hear those differences, or prefer the lower fi version, is more telling of them/their systems. But as we agree, preferences rule.
Oh boy, another measurement debate. Not interested.
Fact: while vinyl is limited to a nominal dynamic range of 60-70 dB, it can sound phenomenally dynamic. And don't tell me I haven't heard a truly dynamic system, which would be laughable. Seems like you haven't heard top vinyl after all, however insulting you may find that notion.
We could go on with other parameters, but I guess you get where I'm going.
jdandy
New member
Well, I guess you got some heat in the debate after all...
Al M. .......Looks that way. I guess even a tired topic can still grow legs.
AJ Soundfield
Well-known member
Right, it all comes down to opinions like "can sound dynamic" and "sounds dynamic to me, so you must not have heard" vs facts like 40-50db more dynamic range. Facts like more distortion, laughable LF, channel separation, etc, etc. and every other fact, vs "opinion" based on hearing/limited to 19th century tech/early 20th recording systems. That's the difference. Fact vs opinion.
Btw, this all harkens to these rather prophetic words by none other than the patriarch of the modern audiophile https://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/index.html
Lets just say for my needs for fidelity to this
Which isn't limited to "maybe 60-70db" of dynamic range, has no temporal errors, has dynamic bass to below 20hz, has far greater "channel separation", etc...and isn't limited to a paltry 2 channel reduced sample, a one million dollar vinyl system is woefully inadequate. YMMV
Attachments
a.wayne
Well-known member
Thanks for this detailed response and its pretty obvious your digital smokes your analog in your current setup , my only disagreement is you keep throwing in cost, your digital beats your analog not because of cost, as your analog budget is good enough to match or best your digital imo, more comparisons and a few merry go round purchases maybe necessary to get you sorted ..
just recently a friend brought over his new phonostage he was raving over to compare, its on ebay now.
Unfortunately this is how it is ..
Regards ,
AJ Soundfield
Well-known member
a.wayne
Well-known member
Excellent, thanks for that link!
J. Gordon Holt:
"We seem to have come to a tacit agreement that it's no longer necessary, or even desirable, for a home music system to sound like the real thing. We speak in hushed and reverent tones about reproducing the ineffable beauty of music, when in fact much real music is harsh and vulgar and ugly. [...] And whenever we hear a loudspeaker or a CD player that shows subversive signs of sounding more 'alive' or 'realistic' than most, we dismiss it out of hand as being too 'forward' or 'aggressive.' As if a lot of real music isn't forward and aggressive!" (End quote.)
So well said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have repeatedly pointed out to audiophiles the fact that real music often sounds hard and aggressive. Many systems just sound too inoffensively polite sometimes -- or always -- to be believable.
But music can also sound soft and tender, and that should be properly reproduced as well. A believable system must represent a very wide palette of timbres, also along the hardness/softness range.
J. Gordon Holt:
"That was found difficult to achieve, and it was abandoned when most music lovers, who almost never heard anything except amplified music anyway, forgot what "the real thing" had sounded like. Today, "good" sound is whatever one likes." (End quote.)
Right on! If you don't take unamplified live music as benchmark, then anything goes.
AJ Soundfield
Well-known member
Attachments
AJ Soundfield
Well-known member
You're welcome Al Read on:
Do you still feel the high-end audio industry has lost its way in the manner you described 15 years ago?
Not in the same manner; there's no hope now. Audio actually used to have a goal: perfect reproduction of the sound of real music performed in a real space. That was found difficult to achieve, and it was abandoned when most music lovers, who almost never heard anything except amplified music anyway, forgot what "the real thing" had sounded like. Today, "good" sound is whatever one likes. As Art Dudley so succinctly said [in his January 2004 "Listening," see "Letters," p.9], fidelity is irrelevant to music.
Since the only measure of sound quality is that the listener likes it, that has pretty well put an end to audio advancement, because different people rarely agree about sound quality. Abandoning the acoustical-instrument standard, and the mindless acceptance of voodoo science, were not parts of my original vision.
I remember you strongly feeling back in 1992 that multichannel/surround reproduction was the only chance the industry had for getting back on course.
With fidelity in stagnation, spatiality was the only area of improvement left.
As you were so committed to surround, do you feel that the commercial failures of DVD-Audio and SACD could have been avoided?
I doubt it. No audio product has ever succeeded because it was better, only because it was cheaper, smaller, or easier to use. Your generation of music lovers will probably be the last that even think about fidelity.
Judging by online forums and by the e-mail I receive, there are currently three areas of passion for audiophiles: vinyl playback, headphone listening, and music servers. Are you surprised by this?
I find them all boring, but nothing surprises me any more.
Yeah, I read that, thanks.
- Status