You are happy with both your high quality Digital front end and your Record Player. How much do you use the latter?

Ravenswood10 posted:

What a strange place this is - a load of grumpy late middle aged blokes having a go. Get out more gents!

Would the rest of us miss all the dogmatic assertions though?  Probably not. 

Going out to walk the dog...

KRM posted:

Would it be unfair to say this is a debate between:

- people who have both formats, love both, but think vinyl is capable of sounding better, and frequently does;

- people who have put all their Audio eggs in the digital basket and really want us to agree that digital must be better?

Keith

Hmmmm - I have both formats and love both but think digital is clearly better in some cases at least (to my ears Live Dead on MQA is better than either of my 2 vinyl copies). As I said above - a long way above - vinyl is more about nostalgia for me although it does sound very nice. I never listen to either format and feel dissatisfied that I'm not using the other but mostly I value convenience and accessibilty over geek nostalgia.

Of course that's just me - I don't want to start a quarrel!

Muttonjef, I didn't miss it. I'm not the guy who is 2 steps behind who believes advertising blurb.

What you haven't understood, is that your Hugo TT is now old obsolete technology 

analogmusic posted:

Muttonjef, I didn't miss it. I'm not the guy who is 2 steps behind who believes advertising blurb.

What you haven't understood, is that your Hugo TT is now old obsolete technology 

 

No I use my ears analogue which is clearly as lesson one needs to learn, and I listen to music, not boxes and specifications!

And at some point soon your imaginary friend DAVE with go the same way. It's called progress old chap.

I have both vinyl and digital, I have found that I use CD less since buying a Melco. I have gotten my system to the point where I am avoiding further changes. I have days when I cannot be bothered with music in any form and others when I listen dawn to dusk. I have 2000 plus LPs and cannot afford to duplicate them in whatever digital form. With around 1700 CDs ripped as well it could be argued I have more than I can listen to. When I can listen without distraction or competing priorities I will choose vinyl.

Yet, I know that vinyl has to be imperfect, I grew up with the Beatles, followed by Hendrix, the introduction of the fuzzbox to electric guitar. Fuzz, an over driven transistor circuit where the soundwave is clipped, a sine wave becoming a square wave. No one has ever given me an answer, what shape is that fuzzbox sound when cut into the master, then pressed into vinyl, how does a stylus track a square wave?

As long as a I am able to derive pleasure from what I listen to, it really doesn't matter!

KRM posted:

Would it be unfair to say this is a debate between:

- people who have both formats, love both, but think vinyl is capable of sounding better, and frequently does;

- people who have put all their Audio eggs in the digital basket and really want us to agree that digital must be better?

I’m currently listening to a nearly 40 year old pressing of Never Forever. It sounds utterly mesmerisingly gorgeous. To be fair, Kate Bush has to take a big slice of the credit.

Keith

Yes, unfair…...  Some people have (or have had in my case) both, but think digital is capable of sounding better.

French Rooster posted:

I agree that albums recorded in digital and remastered for digital can sound extremely good.  But, for me, my best recorded lps sound better than the best hirez i have.    I am far to be the only one to think that.      These are different feelings and points of view, you have yours, i have mine.  no problem with that.

There are indeed as many different tastes and sensitivities as there are members in this forum. What you experienced with "old" recordings is certainly true due to vinyl-oriented mastering. We can understand you're enjoying a lot your vinyls and that's all good. But stating that vinyl is in general more dynamic etc., as you stated previously, isn't correct.

As you certainly know the vinyl as a media has his very own limitations, artifacts and flaws. No need to go into details here or make a long list, only three examples : limited dynamic range (~60 dB, which means the recorded music has to be compressed),  there is only one needle reading two channels and finally the harmonic distortions inevitably introduced by that very needle (which btw gives this vinyl specific warmth that the human brain enjoys). 

I enjoy classical music and symphonic music in particular. The CD in the past and now the HiRes are two little miracles for symphonic music amateurs. The dynamic range and details that those media offer are simply astonishing. In this particular case, vinyl recordings, even the very best, sound flat.

Beachcomber posted:

French Rooster posted:

 Original lps sound more dynamic in my system vs 24/192 or dsd.  

Not sure what you mean by more dynamic.  In terms of dynamic range, it is impossible for vinyl to get the dynamic range of digital.  In theory, vinyl can get about 60dB, maybe up to 80 dB (I think tape can get to about 80dB, not sure that vinyl ever can).  Digital, even CD quality, can get 90 to 96 dB (though it is up to the engineers - in both cases) to actually achieve these figures.

dynamic as extension of the note, better micro dynamics, disappearing of the speakers....

Wugged Woy posted:

KRM posted:

Would it be unfair to say this is a debate between:

- people who have both formats, love both, but think vinyl is capable of sounding better, and frequently does;

- people who have put all their Audio eggs in the digital basket and really want us to agree that digital must be better?

I’m currently listening to a nearly 40 year old pressing of Never Forever. It sounds utterly mesmerisingly gorgeous. To be fair, Kate Bush has to take a big slice of the credit.

Keith

Yes, unfair…...  Some people have (or have had in my case) both, but think digital is capable of sounding better.

And missed was “and frequently does” against the digital preferrers. Also missed was those people who have all their eggs in the vinyl basket. 

French Rooster posted:

Beachcomber posted:

French Rooster posted:

 Original lps sound more dynamic in my system vs 24/192 or dsd.  

Not sure what you mean by more dynamic.  In terms of dynamic range, it is impossible for vinyl to get the dynamic range of digital.  In theory, vinyl can get about 60dB, maybe up to 80 dB (I think tape can get to about 80dB, not sure that vinyl ever can).  Digital, even CD quality, can get 90 to 96 dB (though it is up to the engineers - in both cases) to actually achieve these figures.

dynamic as extension of the note, better micro dynamics, disappearing of the speakers....

FR, that sounds more DAC resolution related rather than media... I guess one needs to be cautious about making media generalisations based on one’s replay equipment.

For me I have yet to hear the Mandelbrot effect on phono... and that includes some pretty uberspecced LP12 setups...bit I am not saying it’s not possible, just I have yet experience it with phono, but on certain next gen electronic DACs it can be really enjoyable and satisfying if the recording allows. I guess it’s best to keep an open mind and keep listening to what certain new advancements can bring to musical enjoyment... life is too short not to... and remember vinyl replay setups are digital if you are playing just about any media from the last twenty years or so...

TomSer posted:

French Rooster posted:

I agree that albums recorded in digital and remastered for digital can sound extremely good.  But, for me, my best recorded lps sound better than the best hirez i have.    I am far to be the only one to think that.      These are different feelings and points of view, you have yours, i have mine.  no problem with that.

There are indeed as many different tastes and sensitivities as there are members in this forum. What you experienced with "old" recordings is certainly true due to vinyl-oriented mastering. We can understand you're enjoying a lot your vinyls and that's all good. But stating that vinyl is in general more dynamic etc., as you stated previously, isn't correct.

As you certainly know the vinyl as a media has his very own limitations, artifacts and flaws. No need to go into details here or make a long list, only three examples : limited dynamic range (~60 dB, which means the recorded music has to be compressed),  there is only one needle reading two channels and finally the harmonic distortions inevitably introduced by that very needle (which btw gives this vinyl specific warmth that the human brain enjoys). 

I enjoy classical music and symphonic music in particular. The CD in the past and now the HiRes are two little miracles for symphonic music amateurs. The dynamic range and details that those media offer are simply astonishing. In this particular case, vinyl recordings, even the very best, sound flat.

it is not the opinion of other well known specialists, as Michael Fremer, Jonathan Valin.  For me, the best vinyl rigs sound more dynamic than digital.  Perhaps the numbers and specs say the contrary, but my experience is different.  I have listened to some best digital systems available, as soulution, dcs, meitner...and best vinyl systems like clearaudio statement, basis 2800, vpi hrx, and my feeling , listening and experience tell me that vinyl can be more dynamic..   Perhaps i am wrong, but i don’t care.   It is my experience.

It is a fact that digital can reproduce greater dynamic range than vinyl. Whether it does depends entirely how the recording is recorded and mastered, a matter of choice made by the engineers. Some classical music does expoit that dynamic range, perhaps because of  the nature of the music, unlike, say rock or folk. But affecting a lot of CDs apparently has been the so-called ‘loudness war’, where allegedly compression has been taken to extremes to exploit a belief  ( possibly fictitious) that th loudervmusic sounds th ebettervit will sell - that is entirely the choice of the engineers/record companies, and nothing to do with the medium, and fortunately is not universal.

Innocent Bystander posted:

It is a fact that digital can reproduce greater dynamic range than vinyl. Whether it does depends entirely how the recording is recorded and mastered, a matter of choice made by the engineers. Some classical music does expoit that dynamic range, perhaps because of  the nature of the music, unlike, say rock or folk. But affecting a lot of CDs apparently has been the so-called ‘loudness war’, where allegedly compression has been taken to extremes to exploit a belief  ( possibly fictitious) that th loudervmusic sounds th ebettervit will sell - that is entirely the choice of the engineers/record companies, and nothing to do with the medium, and fortunately is not universal.

Exactly. Digital has greater theoretical dynamic range, but in practice, vinyl is often more dynamic due to choices made by the mastering engineers. 

Innocent Bystander posted:

It is a fact that digital can reproduce greater dynamic range than vinyl. Whether it does depends entirely how the recording is recorded and mastered, a matter of choice made by the engineers. Some classical music does expoit that dynamic range, perhaps because of  the nature of the music, unlike, say rock or folk. But affecting a lot of CDs apparently has been the so-called ‘loudness war’, where allegedly compression has been taken to extremes to exploit a belief  ( possibly fictitious) that th loudervmusic sounds th ebettervit will sell - that is entirely the choice of the engineers/record companies, and nothing to do with the medium, and fortunately is not universal.

It is certainly true that CDs are not always mastered as well as they can be.  I understand, though, that the loudness war is largely over now - at least I hope so.

KRM posted:

Would it be unfair to say this is a debate between:

- people who have both formats, love both, but think vinyl is capable of sounding better, and frequently does;

- people who have put all their Audio eggs in the digital basket and really want us to agree that digital must be better?

I’m currently listening to a nearly 40 year old pressing of Never Forever. It sounds utterly mesmerisingly gorgeous. To be fair, Kate Bush has to take a big slice of the credit.

Keith

I think that would be unfair.  I started with vinyl (and later used tape), and have only recently (less than a year ago) sold my TT.  So it has taken me about 40 years finally to get rid of the vinyl.  And as for " really want us to agree that digital must be better?" - I really have no problem with the fact that some people prefer vinyl to digital. But I would say that those who love vinyl are equally trying to persuade others that vinyl is better.  

KRM posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

It is a fact that digital can reproduce greater dynamic range than vinyl. Whether it does depends entirely how the recording is recorded and mastered, a matter of choice made by the engineers. Some classical music does expoit that dynamic range, perhaps because of  the nature of the music, unlike, say rock or folk. But affecting a lot of CDs apparently has been the so-called ‘loudness war’, where allegedly compression has been taken to extremes to exploit a belief  ( possibly fictitious) that th loudervmusic sounds th ebettervit will sell - that is entirely the choice of the engineers/record companies, and nothing to do with the medium, and fortunately is not universal.

Exactly. Digital has greater theoretical dynamic range, but in practice, vinyl is often more dynamic due to choices made by the mastering engineers. 

Also phono often appears more dynamic because of the companding (artificial dynamic expansion) of bass frequencies due to compensation of the limitations of the vinyl format(RIAA eq).. care is usually required in mastering vinyl not to over modulate the lower frequencies (ie by limiting the dynamic range of lower frequencies) so as to avoid tracking errors, especially with LP. 12” 45 rpm vinyls are more tolerant, hence their appeal for bass heavy dynamic electronic dance music.

I have been told, not sure how true it is, that many early CDs sounded quite bright because they used the straight vinyl master that had its bass contoured down to allow longer playing time (perhaps knowing that the RIAA eq would probably over compensate) 

Beachcomber posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

It is a fact that digital can reproduce greater dynamic range than vinyl. Whether it does depends entirely how the recording is recorded and mastered, a matter of choice made by the engineers. Some classical music does expoit that dynamic range, perhaps because of  the nature of the music, unlike, say rock or folk. But affecting a lot of CDs apparently has been the so-called ‘loudness war’, where allegedly compression has been taken to extremes to exploit a belief  ( possibly fictitious) that th loudervmusic sounds th ebettervit will sell - that is entirely the choice of the engineers/record companies, and nothing to do with the medium, and fortunately is not universal.

It is certainly true that CDs are not always mastered as well as they can be.  I understand, though, that the loudness war is largely over now - at least I hope so.

Loudness war not quite over, sadly.

Beachcomber glad that know NDX and CDX have replaced the vinyl. I would like to know more about your setup 

Other than is far more to loudness and the loudness wats than dynamic range alone... indeed the loudness wars of twenty years ago have largely gone, put bluntly the industry popular replay channels whether it be HDTV, Spotify or Apple music etc adopt Loudness Normalisation... there are even European standards on it. Therefore a track that is compressed and limited to extreme (true loudness war fashion) will tend to now on many popular platforms sound dull and lacking compared to a more genuinely dynamic track.. we have been starting to see more dynamic content again thank goodness.... 

https://www.soundonsound.com/t...ues/end-loudness-war

Thanks Simon,

Interesting stuff, which I’ll finish reading tomorrow as it’s getting a bit late.

However, I don’t think Courtney Barnett’s mastering engineer got the memo and he’s not the only one.

 Can I just add I have a lovely old Pye Continental valve radio and BBC FM broadcasts sound much better on it than either internet radio or DAB  streamed through both my Chord Dac and my new Roberts DAB/FM radio. 

Bob the Builder posted:

 Can I just add I have a lovely old Pye Continental valve radio and BBC FM broadcasts sound much better on it than either internet radio or DAB  streamed through both my Chord Dac and my new Roberts DAB/FM radio. 

Ah, the warmth of valves (and likely no tweeter)!

yikes, I think you’ve hit on it!  Sound appeal is proportional to age of the medium and system, evidently the effect of maturity like a vintage wine.  Now what about a wind-up gramophone and 78s (my introductiont to recorded music) ...  shellac beats vinyl perhaps? 

I have a great Verdier Platine turntable with a Lyra Kleos SL cartridge on a Moerch Transcriptor tonearm,  Into a Superline Supercap.   I could not be happier with this setup.  

I listen most to the CD555 and my wife streams Spotify.  

Convenience for the win.

I’ve used vinyl alongside digital for the last 20 years, although only adding vinyl after starting with CD.  Rough breakdown over past year: DAC (Mirus, via Roon or its own SD card transport ) 50%, SACD (Esoteric player) 30%, Vinyl (Rock7) 20%.  .  As some others have mentioned, I tend to stick with one format for a period of time rather than combining digital or vinyl each day.

As a former hardcore vinyl fan with 4K plus LPs (almost all analogue classical) I have to admit though that my vinyl listening has  reduced markedly  in last couple of years with better digital hardware and recordings.