The Search for The Perfect Sound

[AudioSceptic]

I've just caught up with Ep 241 of The Next Track <https://www.thenexttrack.com/>, in which they talk to Geoff Edgers about the vinyl revival and the idea of "perfect" analogue sound <https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts...ive/2022/perfect-sound-quality-vinyl-records/>. Although pressing quality has always varied, can there really be such an audible difference, greater than the difference between TTs/arms/cartridges, for example, and can any of it sound better than digital (done right, of course)? Is this all delusional or is there something here to think about?

 

[Chr1]

If both are "done right", vinyl can never sound better than digital.
(Assuming "better" is high fidelity ie. accuracy to the source.)

 

[Cote Dazur]

can any of it sound better than digital (done right, of course)? Is this all delusional or is there something here to think about?

The answer is no, nothing here to think about.
Digital will always sound better, the only exception would be if you have a badly mastered digital file, different from the mastered digital file used for the analog record.
That said, you might still prefer the analog records over digital source for many reasons. perception bias is very strong in many domain, but particularly in the way we are hearing.
Objectively digital is superior in any way.
Subjectively, the world is your oyster and anyone should feel free to enjoy what they want when listening to music, preferably with a clear objective perspective, the snake oil charlatans are always lurking.

 

[WXfreak]

Should recordings even involve any processing at all? If you really follow the strict accuracy argument all the way to the end, the logical conclusion would be that everything should be recorded totally dry. No compression, no reverb, no processing of any kind. Anything that changes the signal could be called coloration, and by that logic it’s a deviation from the original sound.
But taken to that extreme, every recording would end up sounding dry and kinda lifeless. Even people who care a lot about objective measurments usually still listen to recordings where at least some processing was used somewhere along the way.
So that raises a real question. If absolute purity is the goal, where exactly do you draw the line between faithful reproduction and the normal production choices that make a recording sound natural in the first place? At some point the signal has already been shaped, so the idea of perfectly untouched audio starts getting a little murky.

 

[Purité Audio]

You are confusing creation and reproduction.
Keith

 

[JeffS7444]

TBH, "back in the day" I never attempted to compare various pressings of the same album: I simply bought the one I hoped might be the best, and called it good. And 1980s Mobile Fidelity did seem quieter, and in generally, of higher-quality, than your typical USA pressing of the era. But having said that, my all-time favorite version of Sgt. Pepper isn't Mobile Fidelity vinyl, nor the 24-bit USB collection, but rather, the Giles Martin remix purchased as a CD.

I figure that Parks Audio Waxwing is easily the most significant vinyl sonic upgrade I've experienced to date. Not just for pop and swoosh reduction, but the way it simplifies cartridge azimuth adjustment, which in turn, reduces groove pre-echo and inner-groove distortion by a surprising degree.

The way I decide whether to buy vinyl or digital recordings mostly has to do with whether I particularly like the way the vinyl is packaged: Large-format artwork, colored pressings and other extras can be fun.

 

[BlueTunes]

What is their definition of "analogue sound"?

And how would that differ from a definition of "digital sound".

What a load of tripe.

 

[Salt]

Should recordings even involve any processing at all? If you really follow the strict accuracy argument all the way to the end, the logical conclusion would be that everything should be recorded totally dry. No compression, no reverb, no processing of any kind. Anything that changes the signal could be called coloration, and by that logic it’s a deviation from the original sound.
But taken to that extreme, every recording would end up sounding dry and kinda lifeless. Even people who care a lot about objective measurments usually still listen to recordings where at least some processing was used somewhere along the way.
So that raises a real question. If absolute purity is the goal, where exactly do you draw the line between faithful reproduction and the normal production choices that make a recording sound natural in the first place? At some point the signal has already been shaped, so the idea of perfectly untouched audio starts getting a little murky.

I possess one 'Direct To Disc' album, and it is, compared to mixed and mastered discs, mediocre die listening enjoyment with home equipment.

 

[DSJR]

I've just caught up with Ep 241 of The Next Track <https://www.thenexttrack.com/>, in which they talk to Geoff Edgers about the vinyl revival and the idea of "perfect" analogue sound <https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts...ive/2022/perfect-sound-quality-vinyl-records/>. Although pressing quality has always varied, can there really be such an audible difference, greater than the difference between TTs/arms/cartridges, for example, and can any of it sound better than digital (done right, of course)? Is this all delusional or is there something here to think about?

It was Linn that almost put me off vinyl for life, when they took a 30IPS half inch 'Blue Nile' master tape (no Dolby needed) played on what I think is an ATR 102, cut an acetate at 45rpm in front of me, played said acetate on their top deck (surprisingly close as it happened) and then played the 12" single previously cut using the same tape and lathe. The 12" single was awful in comparison (soft and less defined) and that was nothing compared to the LP version of the song which the top LP12 of the period annihilated in comparison. I commented that the vinyl was crap and the response was "Yes, vinyl's crap, ours is better than everyone else's crap, but it's still crap!"

A coulple of years later, I heard a properly working Decca Microscanner set up on a Notts Analogue deck and arm ideally suited to it and it was this that restored some faith in the vinyl medium, as the reproduced sound was more as I remembered it. In fairness to Linn, the LP12 and its anciliaries has been (expensively) upgraded since those days and sounds far clearer and better focused, the Blue Nile album was properly remastered a few years back and sounds gorgeous on CD at last and in my dotage, I'm discovering how basically good a well sorted Rega 3 can sound in comparison (oops! - you can tell I'm no longer an audiophile - cough)...

 

[Waxx]

I love vinyl records (yes i know, digital is objective better) and tested some of those audiophile turntable setups. I even had some (cheaper) audiophile models with MC cells but turned back to the good old Technics SL1200MKII and other variations of Technics direct drive turntables. They are in my book by far the best arround for vinyl, and with a well calibrated MM cell do all what i need. Now i use a 2009 SL1200MKII with a NOS Stanton 500-II (got the cell for free) and an original mint 1976 SL1500 with an relative cheap AT-VM95En cell and that is all what i need to enjoy vinyl records. When the stanton 500 (NLA) wears out, i'll probally also replace it with a AT cell as they are the best i know. An I feel zero urge to "upgrade" my vinyl setup since i have those set up years ago.

 

[Waxx]

What is their definition of "analogue sound"?

And how would that differ from a definition of "digital sound".

What a load of tripe.

Analog they mean the typical vinyl colouration of the sound. I love that also, even if my turntable downstream goes trough a Minidsp Flex, the colourations remain and make music (subjectivly) sound better. And for many it does it, there is a reason why the old outdated tech of vinyl records remain so popular. It's not a hype, it's a colouration of sound that fit human ears very well for many types of music. Altough i love vinyl, there are genres (classical for instance) that i don't want on vinyl, only clean digital. But many genres sound better with the vinyl sound to me. In reality i use both.

 

[thcdru2k]

I don’t own any vinyl or tube gear. Everything I listen to (CD, FLAC, Spotify) is digital through solid-state amplification. Since so many people clearly enjoy vinyl and tube amps, I think listener preference doesn’t correlate with accurate reproduction.

 

[AudioSceptic]

Should recordings even involve any processing at all? If you really follow the strict accuracy argument all the way to the end, the logical conclusion would be that everything should be recorded totally dry. No compression, no reverb, no processing of any kind. Anything that changes the signal could be called coloration, and by that logic it’s a deviation from the original sound.
But taken to that extreme, every recording would end up sounding dry and kinda lifeless. Even people who care a lot about objective measurments usually still listen to recordings where at least some processing was used somewhere along the way.
So that raises a real question. If absolute purity is the goal, where exactly do you draw the line between faithful reproduction and the normal production choices that make a recording sound natural in the first place? At some point the signal has already been shaped, so the idea of perfectly untouched audio starts getting a little murky.

Unless we are talking about a wholly acoustic performance, how is that even possible? And even then, we have to use microphones: how many, placed where, which response patterns and oriented in which directions? Should the recording studio be acoustically dead or be more like the room where we will listen? How many channels do we need? 2 seems enough for me but is there a genuine need for more?

 

[AudioSceptic]

You are confusing creation and reproduction.
Keith

Who are you responding to? If it's me, I'm only inviting comment on the article and any confusion is there.

 

[AudioSceptic]

TBH, "back in the day" I never attempted to compare various pressings of the same album: I simply bought the one I hoped might be the best, and called it good. And 1980s Mobile Fidelity did seem quieter, and in generally, of higher-quality, than your typical USA pressing of the era. But having said that, my all-time favorite version of Sgt. Pepper isn't Mobile Fidelity vinyl, nor the 24-bit USB collection, but rather, the Giles Martin remix purchased as a CD.

I figure that Parks Audio Waxwing is easily the most significant vinyl sonic upgrade I've experienced to date. Not just for pop and swoosh reduction, but the way it simplifies cartridge azimuth adjustment, which in turn, reduces groove pre-echo and inner-groove distortion by a surprising degree.

The way I decide whether to buy vinyl or digital recordings mostly has to do with whether I particularly like the way the vinyl is packaged: Large-format artwork, colored pressings and other extras can be fun.

How does a phono preamp simplify azimuth adjustment? Isn't that purely geometric?

 

[whereisbrian]

Analog they mean the typical vinyl colouration of the sound. I love that also, even if my turntable downstream goes trough a Minidsp Flex, the colourations remain and make music (subjectivly) sound better. And for many it does it, there is a reason why the old outdated tech of vinyl records remain so popular. It's not a hype, it's a colouration of sound that fit human ears very well for many types of music. Altough i love vinyl, there are genres (classical for instance) that i don't want on vinyl, only clean digital. But many genres sound better with the vinyl sound to me. In reality i use both.

What you call sound coloration is a distortion; the average ear distorts the perceived frequencies and favors the midrange.

I have a good turntable simply because I still have 500 vinyl records, but I prefer listening to FLAC files.

 

[AudioSceptic]

It was Linn that almost put me off vinyl for life, when they took a 30IPS half inch 'Blue Nile' master tape (no Dolby needed) played on what I think is an ATR 102, cut an acetate at 45rpm in front of me, played said acetate on their top deck (surprisingly close as it happened) and then played the 12" single previously cut using the same tape and lathe. The 12" single was awful in comparison (soft and less defined) and that was nothing compared to the LP version of the song which the top LP12 of the period annihilated in comparison. I commented that the vinyl was crap and the response was "Yes, vinyl's crap, ours is better than everyone else's crap, but it's still crap!"

A coulple of years later, I heard a properly working Decca Microscanner set up on a Notts Analogue deck and arm ideally suited to it and it was this that restored some faith in the vinyl medium, as the reproduced sound was more as I remembered it. In fairness to Linn, the LP12 and its anciliaries has been (expensively) upgraded since those days and sounds far clearer and better focused, the Blue Nile album was properly remastered a few years back and sounds gorgeous on CD at last and in my dotage, I'm discovering how basically good a well sorted Rega 3 can sound in comparison (oops! - you can tell I'm no longer an audiophile - cough)...

I know that you take any opportunity for a bit of Linn-bashing but surely they deserve credit for making the TT a more important part of the chain, in turn leading many others to make competing players, some probably better, and some a lot more expensive? Was there anything else around in 1972 that was obviously better?

But anyway, this is about the idea of "perfect sound" on the record, and how audible it's likely to be on *any* equipment.

 

[AudioSceptic]

I love vinyl records (yes i know, digital is objective better) and tested some of those audiophile turntable setups. I even had some (cheaper) audiophile models with MC cells but turned back to the good old Technics SL1200MKII and other variations of Technics direct drive turntables. They are in my book by far the best arround for vinyl, and with a well calibrated MM cell do all what i need. Now i use a 2009 SL1200MKII with a NOS Stanton 500-II (got the cell for free) and an original mint 1976 SL1500 with an relative cheap AT-VM95En cell and that is all what i need to enjoy vinyl records. When the stanton 500 (NLA) wears out, i'll probally also replace it with a AT cell as they are the best i know. An I feel zero urge to "upgrade" my vinyl setup since i have those set up years ago.

Those ATs seem pretty low end compared to some of the MCs out there: are they really good enough to let you hear what's on the record? (First time I've seen "cell" used to mean phono cartridge: is it short for something?)

 

[AudioSceptic]

Analog they mean the typical vinyl colouration of the sound. I love that also, even if my turntable downstream goes trough a Minidsp Flex, the colourations remain and make music (subjectivly) sound better. And for many it does it, there is a reason why the old outdated tech of vinyl records remain so popular. It's not a hype, it's a colouration of sound that fit human ears very well for many types of music. Altough i love vinyl, there are genres (classical for instance) that i don't want on vinyl, only clean digital. But many genres sound better with the vinyl sound to me. In reality i use both.

I agree. I much preferred vinyl until I eventually realised that it was that colouration that I liked. It's crazy, isn't it, how such a flawed system can sound so good when distortion gets added at every step?

Was CD "perfect sound forever" when it was launched or were there real faults, other than bad mastering choices?

 

[Waxx]

Those ATs seem pretty low end compared to some of the MCs out there: are they really good enough to let you hear what's on the record? (First time I've seen "cell" used to mean phono cartridge: is it short for something?)

don't let the price fool you, i had those expensive MC's (Denon and Shure mainly), and they are not better, they are just more prone to distortion, more expensive (also because you can't replace the needle) and way more fragile. The AT is fairly neutral and when calibrated right, as good as it gets. The VM540ML is slightly better than the AT-VM95 series, but also a lot more expensive. I don't feel the need to change mine. Shure also was very good (long my workhorse) but NLA.

I agree. I much preferred vinyl until I eventually realised that it was that colouration that I liked. It's crazy, isn't it, how such a flawed system can sound so good when distortion gets added at every step?

Was CD "perfect sound forever" when it was launched or were there real faults, other than bad mastering choices?

The very first had issues with the ad/da conversion, but soon that was largely solved in the better devices. But even today you still got crappy dac's in cheap devices. But luckely you also got absolute transparent ones in the same priceclass as proven on this site.