Thread: Digital vs. Vinyl

Posts: 140
Page: prev 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 next

Post by DSD February 28, 2010 (121 of 140)
No!!! 0.03% is a very small helping of THD and since it is tubed it is even rather than odd harmonic distortion.

Also Paul tubed SACD players sound the best IMHO, but since my Xindak SCD-2 was so mechanically unreliable I settle for solid state SACD.

Post by Disbeliever March 1, 2010 (122 of 140)
DSD said:

No!!! 0.03% is a very small helping of THD and since it is tubed it is even rather than odd harmonic distortion.

Also Paul tubed SACD players sound the best IMHO, but since my Xindak SCD-2 was so mechanically unreliable I settle for solid state SACD.

Whilst not directly related to SACD this my take on antique tubes/valves . Tube/valve designs have their followers for varying reasons,nostalgia and a belief by many that the tube/valve sound is in some way better because it gives a warmer presentation; at the end of the day personal preferences will always apply, but for those of us who have over many years followed technology and its advances feel that the many disadvantages of tube/valve technology, no longer represents a level playing field against solid state. Here are some of the major reasons. To produce a first class tube/valve amplifier capable of driving many of the modern multiway speakers, you are looking at an almost prohibitive cost of decent transformers, which include heavy chokes,expensive coupling capacitors and high voltage resistors, then this amplifier from the first day of switch on will be changing its characteristics as the tubes/valves settle then age, so that in order to maintain its distortion levels a regular balance check will be required of the output devices. If you are a regular listener then of course tube/valve replacement will become mandatory fairly regularly,there is a problem of heat etc. Technically the distortion from tubes/valves is mainly second harmonic which is less irratting to the listener but still suffers a level some fifty to one hundred times that of solid state, some tube/valve designs do not even meet the IEC HI FI standard for distortion at 0.02% or more which will get worse as tube/valves age, some designs have now done away with feedback altogether resulting in very low damping factors,again failing the IEC standard. Most tube/valve designs are still largely the same as those early efforts from Mullard and Brimar so there is a limit to what can be realistically achieved in future design. By contrast solid state has hundreds of variations and technically are regarded as BLAMELESS, and for an equivalent cost to the tube/valve would produce an amplifier of superb performance, distortion down to 0.002% damping factor up to 100+ compact size, powerful and trouble free, no competition whatever from tube/valves.. Thats your choice!!!

Post by armenian March 1, 2010 (123 of 140)
Another way to look at this using photographic analogy.

Many pro portrait photographers use “soft” photographic lenses for producing portraits for obvious reasons, most people prefer not to see wrinkles and other skin blemishes, but rather smooth and perfect skin, never mind the reality and the ravages of aging.

The same principals are at work in audio, tube gear are the audio equivalent of soft lenses, they produce “smooth” and “wrinkle free” sound for those who prefer their music that way, never mind distortion and other nasties that go with the tube gear.

Vahe

Post by Fitzcaraldo215 March 1, 2010 (124 of 140)
audioholik said:


Michael Fremer still complains about Neil Young's 24/192 pcm transfers saying they don't sound as good as vinyl versions while Steve Hoffman praises Grimm Audio converter stating it sounds transparent to the original masters.

Michael Fremer believes strongly that analog, specifically vinyl, is always better. He believes that it is even better than live mike feed, and concedes that hi rez digital masters sound more like mike feed, but that analog tape or vinyl masters from the same mike feed sound more like live music!! He supports noted analog mastering engineer Bob Ludwig in this regard. They both are, of course, highly biased. He and Bob are certainly entitled to their opinions, but I strongly disagree. I think Fremer's logic supporting his view is quite convoluted. For those interested, here is a "debate" I had with him (analogcorner) in another forum, beginning at this post:

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/hirez/messages/26/263644.html

There is no question that many people prefer the euphonics (principally random noise and even order - principally 2nd order - harmonic distortion) added by mag tape, vinyl and tubes. They have every right to like it or to think that it sounds more like the real thing live. But, having lived with mag tape and vinyl and tubes for decades, my ears tell me otherwise based on the best recordings I have heard through some excellent systems. Hi rez digital, be it DSD or PCM, is to me the most transparent and true to life recording and playback medium yet, and by quite a bit.

Post by DSD March 1, 2010 (125 of 140)
Carl the theory is that analog recording "somehow" restores some of the feeling of listening to live music that the microphone feed looses.

Post by xmen269 March 1, 2010 (126 of 140)
Unlike analog, digital loses some"information" and is not "complete".Michael is right.But problem with Michael is that he is not telling u the other side of the reality,and the reality is "degradation" and "deterioration" of analog formats.Yes in that sense he is biased.Looks like he is "emotionally attached".And people like Michael will say that they love and prefer the analog sound of degradation and deterioration over digital formats.And they will make this degrading and deteriorating analog sound the standard to compare digital formats.This degradation and deterioration makes analog formats pure wastage of money.

Post by Fitzcaraldo215 March 2, 2010 (127 of 140)
DSD said:

Carl the theory is that analog recording "somehow" restores some of the feeling of listening to live music that the microphone feed looses.

Yes, I understand the theory, but I do not buy it. I do not believe in magic, nor do my ears.

Post by Windsurfer March 2, 2010 (128 of 140)
DSD said:

Carl the theory is that analog recording "somehow" restores some of the feeling of listening to live music that the microphone feed looses.

People who spend more time listening and paying attention to what they are hearing in the concert hall know that this is dated nonsense. Analog recordings can be very fine, especially noteworthy are the RQR recordings from PentaTone. But today's recording equipment far outstrips the capabilities of yesterday's analog recording devices. As for vinyl, it is a waste of money, and a waste of time, when is SACD available, especially SACD in multichannel.

Post by dcramer March 2, 2010 (129 of 140)
Windsurfer said:

As for vinyl, it is a waste of money, and a waste of time, when is SACD available, especially SACD in multichannel.

It's not a waste of time if you want the best sounding version of some reissued performances, especially if you already have a sizable collection (note I said SOME). I already cited the Munch Living Stereo rendition of Daphnis and Chloe on Chesky vinyl earlier in this thread, and the London LP version of the Sibelius 1st with Maazel gives me everything the Esoteric SACD does for a LOT less money. Otherwise, I'm in general agreement with you and all my current purchases of new performances are on SACD. I KNOW I'm not the only multi-format person here and find Tom's wine analogy spot on. Fanaticism for any format to the exclusion of others (unless you never collected vinyl to begin with) is polarizing and an invitation to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Don

Post by Fitzcaraldo215 March 2, 2010 (130 of 140)
dcramer said:

It's not a waste of time if you want the best sounding version of some reissued performances, especially if you already have a sizable collection (note I said SOME). I already cited the Munch Living Stereo rendition of Daphnis and Chloe on Chesky vinyl earlier in this thread, and the London LP version of the Sibelius 1st with Maazel gives me everything the Esoteric SACD does for a LOT less money. Otherwise, I'm in general agreement with you and all my current purchases of new performances are on SACD. I KNOW I'm not the only multi-format person here and find Tom's wine analogy spot on. Fanaticism for any format to the exclusion of others (unless you never collected vinyl to begin with) is polarizing and an invitation to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Don

I am in complete agreement with you. Sorry if I come across as a crazy anti-analog zealot. I am not. But, dealing with a polarizing pro-analog zealot like Fremer might make me appear so. I have not thrown 50 years worth of my vinyl collecting out the window, by any means. There are performances there that are irreplaceable, and many sound quite good. It's just that nothing duplicates the sound I get at live concerts like hi-rez multichannel. It's head and shoulders above anything else.

Page: prev 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 next

Closed