Message to golden-eared audiophiles posting at ASR for the first time...

[Aperiodic]

All transducers, IMHO.

Microphones, cartridges, speakers.

I attended a talk by Klaus of Odyssey Audio at Capital Audiofest a few years back. He began by declaring that transducers are where the biggest problems remain (I believe his words were "where fidelity goes to die"). Nobody dissented. He immediately followed this statement with a request for assent to the proposition that "vinyl sounds better than digital." All present nodded agreement. I guess none of them were aware that phono cartridges are transducers. The contradiction seemed lost on the audience. (There is another seriously flawed transducer in their signal chain- the cutting lathe used to make the master their pressing is made from- but this didn't appear to occur to the room full of people who had just agreed that 'vinyl sounds better' despite 'transducers [being] where fidelity goes to die'.

My take is: Good analog sounds better than it has a right to, but good digital far exceeds it in every way. The vinyl devotees are simply arguing over which cart, TT, tonearm etc has the gross flaws that sound more tolerable to them. There's plenty to argue about and obsess over. That's the reason for the obsession over a technology that traces its origins to Thomas Edison.

There is a mindset in the audio community (or at least the subset that goes to shows) that 'real audiophiles spin vinyl'. I don't miss vinyl. My definition of 'audiophile' is as follows:
Someone interested in the art and science of recording and reproducing sound.
It seems to have taken on a different meaning for many in the years since I first got interested in quality reproduction of music at home.

 

[DavidEdwinAston]

Brilliantly put Aperiodic.

 

[Robin L]

I attended a talk by Klaus of Odyssey Audio at Capital Audiofest a few years back. He began by declaring that transducers are where the biggest problems remain (I believe his words were "where fidelity goes to die"). Nobody dissented. He immediately followed this statement with a request for assent to the proposition that "vinyl sounds better than digital." All present nodded agreement. I guess none of them were aware that phono cartridges are transducers. The contradiction seemed lost on the audience. (There is another seriously flawed transducer in their signal chain- the cutting lathe used to make the master their pressing is made from- but this didn't appear to occur to the room full of people who had just agreed that 'vinyl sounds better' despite 'transducers [being] where fidelity goes to die'.

My take is: Good analog sounds better than it has a right to, but good digital far exceeds it in every way. The vinyl devotees are simply arguing over which cart, TT, tonearm etc has the gross flaws that sound more tolerable to them. There's plenty to argue about and obsess over. That's the reason for the obsession over a technology that traces its origins to Thomas Edison.

There is a mindset in the audio community (or at least the subset that goes to shows) that 'real audiophiles spin vinyl'. I don't miss vinyl. My definition of 'audiophile' is as follows:
Someone interested in the art and science of recording and reproducing sound.
It seems to have taken on a different meaning for many in the years since I first got interested in quality reproduction of music at home.

What kills me is the notion that analogue lust indicates a "higher calling" to music. I guess that makes the consumer feel better. But if it's devotion to music we're talkin' 'bout, remember it's all about specific pitches and specific timing. And those are the two places where analogue record/reproduce is always going to fall on its ass. Can't get more accurate with pitch and speed stability than digital record/play. No record can be 100% perfectly centered, no record will be consistent from beginning to end, there will always be less available potential energy at the end of a record side than its beginning, most LPs of classical music are "off" enough that folks sensitive to pitch variation will notice.

From my perspective, sheet music or musical instruments laying around the place are more indicative of a higher calling to music than a fancy turntable. Brings to mind the music room of a well known conductor. Has a French double harpsichord and a viol de gamba on one side of the room, with marked up sheet music open at the harpsichord, and an all-in-one stereo on the floor, in a corner of the room, unplugged, apparently unused.

 

[ahofer]

it's all about specific pitches and specific timing.

And noise.

From my perspective, sheet music or musical instruments laying around the place are more indicative of a higher calling to music than a fancy turntable. Brings to mind the music room of a well known conductor. Has a French double harpsichord and a viol de gamba on one side of the room, with marked up sheet music open at the harpsichord, and an all-in-one stereo on the floor, in a corner of the room, unplugged, apparently unused.

And can probably summon a pretty good rendition of a piece in his head from reading the score.

 

[EdTice]

I attended a talk by Klaus of Odyssey Audio at Capital Audiofest a few years back. He began by declaring that transducers are where the biggest problems remain (I believe his words were "where fidelity goes to die"). Nobody dissented. He immediately followed this statement with a request for assent to the proposition that "vinyl sounds better than digital." All present nodded agreement. I guess none of them were aware that phono cartridges are transducers. The contradiction seemed lost on the audience. (There is another seriously flawed transducer in their signal chain- the cutting lathe used to make the master their pressing is made from- but this didn't appear to occur to the room full of people who had just agreed that 'vinyl sounds better' despite 'transducers [being] where fidelity goes to die'.

My take is: Good analog sounds better than it has a right to, but good digital far exceeds it in every way. The vinyl devotees are simply arguing over which cart, TT, tonearm etc has the gross flaws that sound more tolerable to them. There's plenty to argue about and obsess over. That's the reason for the obsession over a technology that traces its origins to Thomas Edison.

There is a mindset in the audio community (or at least the subset that goes to shows) that 'real audiophiles spin vinyl'. I don't miss vinyl. My definition of 'audiophile' is as follows:
Someone interested in the art and science of recording and reproducing sound.
It seems to have taken on a different meaning for many in the years since I first got interested in quality reproduction of music at home.

Digital clearly can sound better than vinyl. For example, Bon Jovi Slippery when wet was very well mastered for Vinyl and they kept it that way for the CD mastering. But the also put together a shit version for iTunes. On the other hand Led Zeppelin Houses of the Holy was great on LP and early release CDs. But the mastering for the box set that came out in 1993 (The one for which I overpaid at the time) sounded like crap.

I imagine that for many listeners, their first experience with CDs was pretty poor (mine was) and in a blind test, they can still somehow pickup some giveaway that the source is vinyl and that triggers a positive mental association. When they hear the digital source, there is a triggered negative association.

I owned a Tom Petty 8-track which (like many 8 tracks) had fade out in the middle of a song. I eventually owned the CD but it took a long time before I wasn't expecting the tracks to be split.

I'm not saying that vinyl is ever objectively better. But if those experiences are ingrained, they will continue. George Bush famously refused to even try broccoli because he has such negative association with his mother forcing him to eat it!

This was pre-internet and I can remember being in a discussion (with somebody whose ignorance was eclipsed only by their arrogance) about why CDs sounded so disappointingly bad and getting a long (and inaccurate) discussion about how CDs can't capture harmonics. Blah blah blah.

The entry-level equipment of today is better than the best that could be bought only a few decades ago. But even if one accepts that some LPs were exceptionally well mastered, it doesn't explain why one would continue to play back vinyl. Why not buy a USB audio interface and make your own FLACs if you like the original mastering so much?

 

[DonR]

I was an early adopter of CD back in 1985 when I got a Sony D-5. I remember many early CD's contained flaws in the disc themselves that caused some very strange artifacts on playback. They were wild days back then. Poor DACs, hot players, crappy lasers, poor mastering, poor transfers, low-quality media, etc. Most of that seemed to have sorted itself out by the early 90's when I got my Second CD player, a mid-range Sony home deck but bad memories linger and good memories fade quickly.

 

[EdTice]

I was an early adopter of CD back in 1985 when I got a Sony D-5. I remember many early CD's contained flaws in the disc themselves that caused some very strange artifacts on playback. They were wild days back then. Poor DACs, hot players, crappy lasers, poor mastering, poor transfers, low-quality media, etc. Most of that seemed to have sorted itself out by the early 90's when I got my Second CD player, a mid-range Sony home deck but bad memories linger and good memories fade quickly.

Which Sony device did you have?

 

[DonR]

I can't recall the model number but it was like one step down from their top non-ES model. Had a remote, variable line out, CD text labelling and 20 track selection. I ran it as my only source to a Realistic SB-300 PA amp and some Frankenstein DIY speakers. It all sounded perfectly fine to me.

 

[krabapple]

I was an early adopter of CD back in 1985 when I got a Sony D-5. I remember many early CD's contained flaws in the disc themselves that caused some very strange artifacts on playback.

What were these artifacts?

They were wild days back then. Poor DACs, hot players, crappy lasers, poor mastering, poor transfers, low-quality media, etc. Most of that seemed to have sorted itself out by the early 90's when I got my Second CD player, a mid-range Sony home deck but bad memories linger and good memories fade quickly.

Audiophiles have absorbed a lot of received wisdom that vastly overstates the 'poorness' of early CDPs.

RETRO: Technics SL-P110 (1986) & Sony CDP-690 (1990) CD Players. Did early CD players sound bad?

A blog for audiophiles about more objective topics. Measurements of audio gear. Reasonable, realistic, no snakeoil assessment of sound, and equipment.

archimago.blogspot.com

 

[Robin L]

And noise.

Most musicians try to get the noise out of their head, and sometimes that can be a challenge. Just ask the Beatles.

And can probably summon a pretty good rendition of a piece in his head from reading the score.

Yup:

 

[DonR]

What were these artifacts?

Strange discontinuities in sound at particular sections. Almost as if data was missing or unreadable. I had two copies of Changesonebowie and it exhibited several of these artifacts on different parts of each disc which I put down to poor media quality.

That may have been the very CD player I had, the CDP-690. Looks nearly identical from what I recall.

EDIT: I just read that review of the Sony you posted and its spot on in my experience. The early Sony D-5 had lots of compromises as it was supposed to be semi-portable (optional case with D-cells ) and it definitely was not nearly as forgiving on damaged or low-quality CDs as the later unit but even then those Bowie CDs just wouldn't play nice.

 

[Aperiodic]

Digital clearly can sound better than vinyl. For example, Bon Jovi Slippery when wet was very well mastered for Vinyl and they kept it that way for the CD mastering. But the also put together a shit version for iTunes. On the other hand Led Zeppelin Houses of the Holy was great on LP and early release CDs. But the mastering for the box set that came out in 1993 (The one for which I overpaid at the time) sounded like crap.

I imagine that for many listeners, their first experience with CDs was pretty poor (mine was) and in a blind test, they can still somehow pickup some giveaway that the source is vinyl and that triggers a positive mental association. When they hear the digital source, there is a triggered negative association.

I owned a Tom Petty 8-track which (like many 8 tracks) had fade out in the middle of a song. I eventually owned the CD but it took a long time before I wasn't expecting the tracks to be split.

I'm not saying that vinyl is ever objectively better. But if those experiences are ingrained, they will continue. George Bush famously refused to even try broccoli because he has such negative association with his mother forcing him to eat it!

This was pre-internet and I can remember being in a discussion (with somebody whose ignorance was eclipsed only by their arrogance) about why CDs sounded so disappointingly bad and getting a long (and inaccurate) discussion about how CDs can't capture harmonics. Blah blah blah.

The entry-level equipment of today is better than the best that could be bought only a few decades ago. But even if one accepts that some LPs were exceptionally well mastered, it doesn't explain why one would continue to play back vinyl. Why not buy a USB audio interface and make your own FLACs if you like the original mastering so much?

My first experience with CD playback was very underwhelming. It was one of those 1st gen Philips players with the angled front panel (and the 14-bit processor). Source material was 1st gen Rykodisc release of Frank Zappa's 'One Size Fits All'. I don't know what if any 'remastering' it got. I suspect that they just (like many early analog-sourced reissues) just rolled (some version of) the tape and released the result. And what was the result? All the defects the anti-digital phobics ranted about were on full display. But was that because of digital per se or from bad mastering and primitive hardware implementations? Experience suggests the latter; the 2012 remaster of the same album sounded great.

BTW, 'remastered' doesn't always mean 'better'. In the digital age, it often just means 'more compression' and 'more bass'. Now that the producer can apply amounts of both that would make most tonearms and carts jump the groove, s/he often takes the opportunity.A good example is the recent release of The Band's 'Stage Fright' (with the dark cover). The compression is massive. It sounds like crap (to me). But that is because of bad production choices, not because it's digital. Thank goodness it can be streamed so it didn't cost me $15-20 to find out that it sucks.

 

[EdTice]

My first experience with CD playback was very underwhelming. It was one of those 1st gen Philips players with the angled front panel (and the 14-bit processor). Source material was 1st gen Rykodisc release of Frank Zappa's 'One Size Fits All'. I don't know what if any 'remastering' it got. I suspect that they just (like many early analog-sourced reissues) just rolled (some version of) the tape and released the result. And what was the result? All the defects the anti-digital phobics ranted about were on full display. But was that because of digital per se or from bad mastering and primitive hardware implementations? Experience suggests the latter; the 2012 remaster of the same album sounded great.

BTW, 'remastered' doesn't always mean 'better'. In the digital age, it often just means 'more compression' and 'more bass'. Now that the producer can apply amounts of both that would make most tonearms and carts jump the groove, s/he often takes the opportunity.A good example is the recent release of The Band's 'Stage Fright' (with the dark cover). The compression is massive. It sounds like crap (to me). But that is because of bad production choices, not because it's digital. Thank goodness it can be streamed so it didn't cost me $15-20 to find out that it sucks.

I was definitely an owner of mass-market CD players that were underwhelming. Back then, the only way to compare things was marketing material (useless) and listening tests (that were always rigged in stores). There seem to have been two ways that music was compressed. One was to use multi-band limiters/compressors which didn't produce great results. The other was to have an implicit limiter by clipping the input when mixing. I may not have expressed this perfectly since I'm not in the business of mixing/mastering. The former produced lifeless mixes. The latter actually helped crappy DACs since by forcing way more voltage out of the early gain stages.

Whenever we start having these discussions it becomes hard because there doesn't even seem to be completely-agreed terminology. Dynamic range tends to be measured peak-rms. But if you take the same source material reduce RMS by -3dB by having inaudible clipping of the input signal you'll get the same RMS-peak as if you had first compressed/limited down and then pulled the whole mix up by 3dB. The former will sound better on cheap equipment and (if genuinely inaudible) not affect playback on good equipment. The latter will be unconditional suck!

 

[avanti1960]

Hello friend. Hey, listen...we know how it is. Believe me, most of us have been there too. You've spent years toiling in the muck of audiophilia. You read ALL the reviews. You watched ALL the youtube videos. You visited ALL the other forums where everything always makes a difference. You bought the cables and the little bridge thingies for them to sit upon and the benefits were magical. You bought the $1000 IEMs that only truly sang after 250 hours of burn-in. Not 200 hours...or 225 hours, but 250 hours! It must be that for the magic to appear! You converted your entire music library to super high res and enjoyed the blissful new details that never were revealed by the awful, cludgy mess that was 16/44 cd. Never have your ears been assaulted by the likes of bluetooth audio or lossy mp3! You searched endlessly for the perfect dac...the dac that truly brought the magic! You bought one after another, each more expensive than the last, searching for the one, true dac that sounded better than all the rest...

And then you arrived here...and posted about your dac discovery, and were told that a dac shouldn't sound like anything at all! Suddenly your audio reality came crashing down around you. How can this be? Why shouldn't a dac sound great?? Why would expensive dacs even exist if they all sound the same??? Wounded, you lash out angrily! It's idiocy! It's retarded! These people have dead ears! It hurts. We understand. It's been a long time and you've spent a lot of money, all for naught. But once the pain diminishes and you've had time to deal with your emotions just give it some thought. Do some reading here and once your ban is lifted, maybe ask a few questions. Instead of locking your eyes shut against the bright light of objectivity...just open them up a little. Just a squint! Let a bit of that light in and bask in a warm, tubey glow that actually means something! Perhaps, as with many of us, a weight will begin to lift off your shoulders. Perhaps there is freedom in this new reality! You might discover that there is a different way...a way that wields real magic. A way that actually answers questions and reveals truth while at the same time leaving your wallet fat and happy! Welcome my friend. Welcome to ASR where the truth shall set you free!

Late to the thread but you are showing your naivete'- big time. But I know how it is, believing you can make broad sweeping assumptions that must be facts because measurements say it is so and that you are unable to hear any differences in your budget gear.
First off DACs (and CD players) can sound markedly different from one another and not for the reasons you might think. The great sounding units tend to have highly developed analog amplification sections and power supplies that can make the sound more refined, energetic and dynamic. Look under the hood.
Actually don't- just stick to your DragonFly USB though, that's all you need right?

 

[DonR]

Late to the thread but you are showing your naivete'- big time. But I know how it is, believing you can make broad sweeping assumptions that must be facts because measurements say it is so and that you are unable to hear any differences in your budget gear.
First off DACs (and CD players) can sound markedly different from one another and not for the reasons you might think. The great sounding units tend to have highly developed analog amplification sections and power supplies that can make the sound more refined, energetic and dynamic. Look under the hood.
Actually don't- just stick to your DragonFly USB though, that's all you need right?

Talk about a broad and sweeping statement. I would like to see the science behind this claim.

 

[Ken1951]

Talk about a broad and sweeping statement. I would like to see the science behind this claim.

Just someone else to add to the ignore list.

 

[SIY]

First off DACs (and CD players) can sound markedly different from one another and not for the reasons you might think. The great sounding units tend to have highly developed analog amplification sections and power supplies that can make the sound more refined, energetic and dynamic. Look under the hood.
Actually don't- just stick to your DragonFly USB though, that's all you need right?

Evidence? Or is this being declared ex cathedra?

 

[TheBatsEar]

I was writing long winded and definitive prose on measurements and subjectivity and all that. But what's the point. That deep into the thread it's only about having and keeping the last word.

Look under the hood.
Actually don't- just stick to your DragonFly USB though, that's all you need right?

Always talk as politely as if you talk to your mother and people will respect your input. You can thank me later.

 

[Killingbeans]

Actually don't- just stick to your DragonFly USB though, that's all you need right?

Sure, if you want to spend $300 on this:

AudioQuest Dragonfly Cobalt Review (Portable Headphone Adapter)

This is a review and detailed measurements of the AudioQuest Dragonfly Cobalt portable DAC and headphone amplifier ("dongle"). It is on kind loan from a member and costs US $300. The Dragonfly Cobalt dates way back to when these dongles came in the form of USB flash Thumb drives: This makes...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Not exactly what I would call bang for the buck. But yeah, it's probably perfectly fine as a DAC in any practical sense.

 

[Robin L]

I was writing long winded and definitive prose on measurements and subjectivity and all that. But what's the point. That deep into the thread it's only about having and keeping the last word.


Always talk as politely as if you talk to your mother and people will respect your input. You can thank me later.

If I did that, I'd be in so much trouble!