Digital vs Vinyl

[audio2design]

@levimax The fake loudness war, though, is the one where the DR meter lives. The one where @broad can compress a song from DR14 to DR6 and not be able to tell them apart by ear. Great tool! The one where Ian Shepherd can blend the bass and the DR jumps by 6 despite, he guarantees, zero change in dynamics or dynamic range. Great tool! The one that routinely adds 4 to 8 points to LP regardless of whether the CD is of the same master or a more compressed master, and, therefore, the fake loudness war that gives a vast misleading impression of LP being broadly and generically about 6 points "more dynamic". The one that scores DR8 for the studio master of Random Access Memories, but DR13 for the LP that originated from that same master (guaranteed by the production team). Great tool!

But the most insidious of the many insidious aspects of the DR meter, is the way it has created confirmation bias in a large audiophile community. So, now, many audiophiles say, "what it says, I hear". Well yeah there's a reason for that, guys, and it's not the one you are assuming. We have cases of audiophiles shouting down the line to the engineers that they can definitely hear the DR meter’s extra 5 points of DR on version B over version A, while the engineer is guaranteeing that there is no difference in dynamics, and the audiophiles saying "you're wrong, I can clearly hear it". Man, that is a topic that has gotten seriously out of control. Please don't feed it.

NAILED IT!

 

[Newman]

regardless of that. if you buy the version with the high DR score you can't go wrong. Maybe you could have bought the version with the low DR score and in reality its DR would be the same as the version with the high score.

But the relevant objective has still been achieved - you have bought a high DR version.

That’s a decent thought, at least for digital-vs-digital. It assumes the tool is reliable enough (used this unintended ‘backwards’ way) to never get the score difference reversed, which is still a pretty big assumption, given the amount of evidence that things other than compression can alter the score when used this backwards way to analyze a completed master. Forget it for vinyl, of course: so many vinyl factors have been thought to fool the tool (even cartridges are a factor), that you could easily have 4 to 8 points added by them, despite some compression added during the vinyl mastering (which is routine). So, a vinyl with higher DR score could easily have less dynamics than a digital with lower DR score.

Chasing down (digital) versions that score high on the DR meter as a matter of policy might lead to a fair waste of money as you hand over big bucks to profiteers, but hey, it’s a hobby. I would suggest 5 points of clear air between digital versions as a ‘margin for error’ before spending any extra.

cheers

 

[rdenney]

Is that a Toyota T100 I espy or "merely" a Taco? Either way -- nice truck

A ‘95 T100–old enough now for antique plates, and still in decent running condition with 200K miles. It deserves better than me.

Rick “mobile workbench for standing up that tower” Denney

 

[Mart68]

That’s a decent thought, at least for digital-vs-digital. It assumes the tool is reliable enough (used this unintended ‘backwards’ way) to never get the score difference reversed, which is still a pretty big assumption, given the amount of evidence that things other than compression can alter the score when used this backwards way to analyze a completed master. Forget it for vinyl, of course: so many vinyl factors have been thought to fool the tool (even cartridges are a factor), that you could easily have 4 to 8 points added by them, despite some compression added during the vinyl mastering (which is routine). So, a vinyl with higher DR score could easily have less dynamics than a digital with lower DR score.

Chasing down (digital) versions that score high on the DR meter as a matter of policy might lead to a fair waste of money as you hand over big bucks to profiteers, but hey, it’s a hobby. I would suggest 5 points of clear air between digital versions as a ‘margin for error’ before spending any extra.

cheers

You're absolutely right but vinyl is in the past for me so that's not an issue. And being a skinflint I won't pay silly money for a CD. I buy used ones where I can. I find the DR database very useful for avoiding the worst versions, given the alternative is just to take pot-luck.

I only have a handful of CDs that are ruined by compression, all of them are 'Best Of' compilations. I've got a couple of Eagles albums on re-master that are a bit hot but I bought them before discovering the database, Given the level of sales of Eagles albums I don't think I'll have too much bother locating the original releases to replace them when I get around to it. (Helps that I am not into much 'obscure' music of course).

 

[wrat]

DISCLAIMER : a little late to this party and have not read whole thread, I always wonder why its VS I mean all but the staunchest vinyl nut KNOWS on paper that digital is superior in just about every aspect (if not every aspect) but just like anything else "the proof is in the pudding" so to speak. many recent rock/pop releases are "ruined" with excessive compression and/or brickwalling ( check Black Sabbath 13 for a good example) ... One can have a preference for one or the other WITHOUT making it a VS battle, ... I just picked up 2 copies of The Rolling Stones Steel Wheels the first was a remaster that was WAY to loud and I promptly disposed of it and kept the original and thats not even that extreme of an example
using the Stones for another example Bridges to Babylon the original '97 release has a DR of 7 then a '09 remaster drops it to 6 , I find stuff like this very fatiguing to listen to , yet the vinyl for Bridges is DR 12 for original and for a 2018 release is DR 10 .. I dont have the vinyl but in this case I would almost certainly prefer it.....
Point being why VS why not just enjoy both?

 

[Newman]

have not read whole thread

I’m sorry, but it shows. At least try from pg 20, please.

cheers

 

[wrat]

I’m sorry, but it shows. At least try from pg 20, please.

cheers

I just did and it changes very little of what I said, so just drop the part of comparing the digital release of Bridges to the vinyl release of Bridges.. and your left with a digital comparison of Steel wheels '89 release or '09 remaster one is loud and fatiguing one is not. why is that? perhaps because one has DR of 13 and one is DR 8...
Ad to that why is it always a VS which was my point , VS infers battle listening to music is a hobby/pastime , enjoy digital, enjoy vinyl, enjoy live music whatever

 

[magicscreen]

I have some vinyl rips in 24/96 or 24/192.
They sounds way better than the CD versions.
Imagine how good they can be played on a real turntable.

 

[board]

I have some vinyl rips in 24/96 or 24/192.
They sounds way better than the CD versions.
Imagine how good they can be played on a real turntable.

They sound "better" because either they came from a different master, or more likely due to the frequency response of the cartridge, rumble (added bass) and possibly also the frequency response of the phono preamp, although this is less likely.
They wouldn't sound any better on a real turntable, since the digitization process is inaudible, even at 16/44.1 (higher sample rates and bit depths don't sound any different), unless you use an extremely poor A/D converter, and/or record at extremely low volume levels, and therefore the noise floor of the A/D converter would be audible. So, using decent equipment, which doesn't cost a fortune at all, and recording at reasonable peak levels, the recording will sound identical to the original vinyl record.

 

[Frgirard]

I have some vinyl rips in 24/96 or 24/192.
They sounds way better than the CD versions.
Imagine how good they can be played on a real turntable.

different Mastering between CD and Vinyl. Why Is it so hard to understand ?

rip your vinyl in 16/44 and come back with a successful abx

 

[Mart68]

Played on a 'real turntable' (as opposed to an imaginary one I guess) you'll get added reverb from feedback, so might well 'sound better' than the digital recording of the same.

I notice a lot of people like lots of reverb (whether real, added by studio effects, or by acoustic feedback) and associate this with the sign of 'a good recording' and 'the realistic sound of instruments and vocals.' I think much of vinyl's continuing popularity is due to this. A degradation perceived as an enhancement,

 

[board]

Played on a 'real turntable' (as opposed to an imaginary one I guess) you'll get added reverb from feedback, so might well 'sound better' than the digital recording of the same.

I notice a lot of people like lots of reverb (whether real, added by studio effects, or by acoustic feedback) and associate this with the sign of 'a good recording' and 'the realistic sound of instruments and vocals.' I think much of vinyl's continuing popularity is due to this. A degradation perceived as an enhancement,

Yes. Just like certain frequencies are more pleasant than others. Tonearms have resonance peaks which add ripples up through the frequency spectrum, which might boost the bass a little bit. Then there's also rumble which adds more bass, although some, but far from all, phono preamps do have a rumble filter. Then the cartridge often has a dip in the harshness region, which makes the sound more relaxed, and then it almost certainly has a peak around 10-12 kHz, which will add "air" and "sparkle".
More bass, less harshness, more sparkle = more pleasant in the end. All changes and colourizations to the original recording, a "remaster" essentially, which makes people conclude that vinyl is a better technology than digital, when in fact it's the exact opposite, since you don't add any of these things when you digitize something - it will sound the same, whereas it's essentially impossible to play a record the way the original recording actually sounds.

 

[Mart68]

Rumble filter is an interesting one, no-one I know uses a phono stage with a rumble filter. They won't go near them in fact.

But properly implemented they can only improve sound quality, at least objectively. Subjectively the use of them does not seem to be preferred,

 

[Snoopy]

I have some vinyl rips in 24/96 or 24/192.
They sounds way better than the CD versions.
Imagine how good they can be played on a real turntable.

I got a bunch vinyl rips by a kinda famous guy that is needle dropping these with equipment that is seriously expensive.

Still if I hear hissing and popping sounds from the Vinyl at all I replace it with a CD rip.

 

[sergeauckland]

Rumble filter is an interesting one, no-one I know uses a phono stage with a rumble filter. They won't go near them in fact.

But properly implemented they can only improve sound quality, at least objectively. Subjectively the use of them does not seem to be preferred,

I'm one, both my turntables have rumble filtering built-in to the RIAA phono stage. It's absolutely essential for broadcast use, and if one thinks about it, pretty much essential for home use especially with reflex-loaded, Transmission-Line or horn loaded loudspeakers.

S.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Rumble filter is an interesting one, no-one I know uses a phono stage with a rumble filter. They won't go near them in fact.

But properly implemented they can only improve sound quality, at least objectively. Subjectively the use of them does not seem to be preferred,

A pickup cartridge is a seismic type transducer. At very low frequency it follows the spiral and outputs nothing. As frequency increases there begins to be a small output but the output is due to the effective mass bouncing on the suspension not accurate transduction. As the frequency increases so does the bounce until at resonance the bounce can be 10 or more dB more than any vibration in the TT (there won't be any music so it will be warps, motor noise or surface ripples in the moulding which is being exaggerated). At resonance there is a 180 degree phase shift and the bounce on the suspension starts to decrease until at around 2x the resonant frequency the cartridge body becomes stationary relative to the groove (depending on damping). From this frequency up the cartridge output can be accurate.

Without a "rumble filter" this non-music spurious, but inevitable, output will be amplified and sent to the speakers.
It may well be on some music include some exaggerated music output if the mass/compliance is not a good match.
Whatever, without filtering sub 20Hz output from a cartridge there is a risk of overloading the amp with spurious subsonic dross.
OTOH for a lot of people more bass is more better and accuracy isn't what they are looking for!

IME a record player pickup requires a filter to eliminate the dross that can come out of it at frequencies below 2x resonance (at which it starts working properly).

The anti filter bollox is just another of the long list of complete or partial misunderstanding amongst enthusiasts of how record players actually work and the application of static thinking to a dynamic system common from pretty well every "guru" I have read

 

[mhardy6647]

Rumble filter is an interesting one, no-one I know uses a phono stage with a rumble filter. They won't go near them in fact.

Anecdotally, and FWIW, it seems that many if not most modern outboard phono preamps, yes even the pricey ones, have (infrasonic) LF rolloff built in.
Rather different than the old amp/receiver "rumble" LF filters, though.

 

[thefsb]

Played on a 'real turntable' (as opposed to an imaginary one I guess) you'll get added reverb from feedback, so might well 'sound better' than the digital recording of the same.

I notice a lot of people like lots of reverb (whether real, added by studio effects, or by acoustic feedback) and associate this with the sign of 'a good recording' and 'the realistic sound of instruments and vocals.' I think much of vinyl's continuing popularity is due to this. A degradation perceived as an enhancement,

Reverb is the MSG of sound.

 

[thefsb]

I have some vinyl rips in 24/96 or 24/192.
They sounds way better than the CD versions.
Imagine how good they can be played on a real turntable.

Imagine how good these recordings could be if you used your rips to cut a lacquer and played that on a real turntable.

 

[watchnerd]

I own a Degritter record cleaner. And find it more than quaint.

Got in during the development phase for a lower price. Generally quite happy with it. I own and buy a lot of records, new and used, and want clean records BUT I'm too lazy to make record cleaning in to it's own hobby, so I was willing to pay for the convenience factor, and the looks factor (god record cleaners are ugly!) AND the sound factor - I have sensitive ears and most vaccum/blow based record cleaners are too loud. The Degritter's fan level is highly variable and user selectable. It's an amazingly well-thought out device and, where I'd find typical record cleaning a chore, it makes it almost fun. Just drop a record in, hit a button, go do something else (including listen to a record) and return to a shiny, clean, dry record ready to play.

It has rendered nice sonic results on many records too, from subtle to incredibly obvious. I had one record I recieved that was so dirty and gritty it sounded like it had been pulled out of a garbage can. Unlistenable. But a cleaning on the Degritter made an incredible transformation - it literally went to sounding almost brand new, with very, very little detectable noise. That's a rare level of difference to be sure, but awfully welcome that it's available.

Of course, those who aren't in to vinyl or who care less about dirt/noise, or who are less lazy or whatever, will not see it as money well spent from their point of view. But for me it was the record cleaner I was waiting for. (And an absolutely terrific company to deal with. I've rarely dealt with a company that was so reliable in answering emails and queries, to respond to user feedback in improving the device, etc).

I'm thinking about pulling the trigger on a Degritter.

Are you still happy with yours?

Do you have the black or gray one?