[Exacoustatowner]

yes, but to getting closer to the music you can also use EB's "Expectation Biases"

EB's and PLU's are essential!

 

[jtaylor991]

  I think it’s entirely possible to be at either end of the spectrum and be WRONG.
 
I’ve stated before that I still enjoy listening to vinyl and tubes and want to understand WHY. (96% of my listening is digital for sheer practicality).
 
100% understand and agree with all of the advantages (technical and practical) of digital but again still want to understand why so many people express preference for Vinyl/Tube. Much of the preference can be explained by nostalgia, tactile pleasure of physical medium etc. but I’m still CURIOUS if there are psycho-acoustic principles behind why some people hear digital as “bright”, “thin” etc.  Not everyone is a “Flat Earther” but are not also 100% convinced that there might not be inherent properties in either medium that affect how people perceive (and enjoy!) music. Like it or not our brains are heavily involved in how we “hear” music and if there is a physical aspect to reproduction that affects how our brains interpret then it would be a real variable.
 

 
I've spent most of my weekend reading through a couple of these drawn-out vinyl vs. digital threads. My stance has never been that vinyl was technically superior to digital, because I totally understand how it simply ISN'T. That being said, I have collected some because I get a sense of space in the music that I rarely experience with digital (I can't say never -- just while I've been reading this weekend a couple of albums on Rdio streamed at 320kbps even wowed me with their vinyl-like (to me) fidelity in that regard). Someone in this thread or another pointed out that it may be some sort of psychoacoustical effect brought on by the noise floor or something like that. Maybe the music masks the noise floor just like it masks my tinnitus (I'm gonna get it looked at soon!) but the presence of it gives some sort of ambient air to the recording that tricks my brain into feeling a "room" so to speak. That seems like a totally rational explanation. I don't have any sort of nostalgic preference for vinyl, nor do I find any special tonal qualities in it; I don't find it inherently "warm" or "analog sounding", but listening to it compared to digital (in general) could be compared to taking off my sunglasses indoors. There's nothing new that I couldn't see before, but everything is more there and real. The weird thing for me is that that's really the only thing it brings.
 
I'm reading through these trying to convince myself otherwise because I hate everything else about vinyl. I deal mostly with new purchases of electronic music on vinyl (which probably seems even more stupid to some since it obviously would have a nearly completely digital path until hitting my turntable), so I don't necessarily need to worry about a whole lot of crackles and pops (just whatever debris is left from the plant), but it's expensive. And I still do have to deal with that from any other purchase. Sometimes stuff gets warped in the mail and I have to exchange it (Amazon makes that process easy and free, but it's still time I'm not listening to the record). I have to deal with knowing that I could potentially be degrading the quality of the media with a worn stylus or something. I have a couple of records that already have a skip or sticky place in them (it's just my cart/stylus not tracking -- one of them I just increase the weight by half a gram for that one side of four for the album and all is good). It's annoying to set up the turntable properly to ease worries about said degradation. I still am going to bump the cabinet every so often and possibly scratch something when the needle jumps.
 
What I've considered is doing digital vinyl transfers to the highest fidelity recording I can (DSD128?) for archival purposes and then listening to those.
 
I'm going to do some kind of A/B testing with digital and vinyl versions of the same release and try to see if I'm not actually experiencing what I mentioned earlier. After all, I experienced it with some records and then have been buying exclusively vinyl when it's available ever since (which is only a few years -- I'd rather get out of it earlier rather than later!), so it may be a farce. Like I said, even 320kbps streaming this weekend for a couple of albums totally wowed me. Some of my vinyl albums seem like they should be more "wow" for me. I feel like this may be evidence of the recording and master being different. I always thought that to be the case, don't get me wrong, I didn't think vinyl was actually superior on paper (as previously stated), but I may have been wrong in assuming that the vinyl master would be just plain better in the vast majority of cases.
 
Also, I wanted to mention that I've had the same experience with a reel-to-reel tape deck. I have a Frank Sinatra tape (factory recorded) that just sounds so great, such wonderful staging from what I remember (the deck is in storage). I have a bunch of other Peter, Paul, and Mary ones too that had a super wide soundstage, but not that realistic (not dissimilar to the Beatles stereo masters with the vocals and instruments split to separate channels?), and there was some hiss and what not in the recording (I deemed it OK because it was there on Spotify too, interestingly enough).
 
Anyone have any advice on proper A/B testing? I don't really know how to do it without "knowing", but maybe non-blind will be good enough for me. My vinyl rig is a Dual CS-5000 turntable with Ortofon Omega cartridge and stylus (well, the stylus is upgraded to one that's $20 from my record store that I got because I could buy it alone vs. a whole new Omega combo), which was like $40 on Amazon, so nothing too high-fidelity. Same receiver and cans in my sig that I use with my PS Audio DLIII DAC. It did make me curious how well my $40 cart+stylus performed compared to my ~$500 DAC.

 

[arnyk]

  Anyone have any advice on proper A/B testing? I don't really know how to do it without "knowing", but maybe non-blind will be good enough for me. My vinyl rig is a Dual CS-5000 turntable with Ortofon Omega cartridge and stylus (well, the stylus is upgraded to one that's $20 from my record store that I got because I could buy it alone vs. a whole new Omega combo), which was like $40 on Amazon, so nothing too high-fidelity. Same receiver and cans in my sig that I use with my PS Audio DLIII DAC. It did make me curious how well my $40 cart+stylus performed compared to my ~$500 DAC.

 
Given that a good digital recorder (typically composed of a high quality professional audio interface and recording software) can make sonically accurate recordings of any analog signal, that's the way to go.  Examples of modern high quality audio interfaces would be:
 

1. PreSonus AudioBox USB
2. Presonus AudioBox 22VSL
3. Focusrite Scarlett 2i2
4. Lynx L22 (among the very best around)
5. (legacy - buy used) M-Audio AP 24192
6. (legacy - buy used - starter level gear) M-Audio AP 2496

Examples of high quality recording software would include:
 
Audacity (Freeware)
Adobe Audition
Reaper (shareware)
 
 
The basic approach is to do your A/B testing by making and then comparing high quality digital recordings of A and B. A good tool for doing this is FOBAR2000 with the ABX plugin (freeware). Key to good comparisons are an accurate, stable listening environment which might be based on high quality headphones driven by a good headphone amplifier.
 
Key to performing a good listening test are enforcement of high technical standards.  The following standards need to be conformed to:
 
Comparison to a fixed, reliable standard (usually a short, straight wire).
Level matching +/- 0.1 dB 20-20 KHz
Rapid switching under listener control.
Listening to the identical same piece of music or drama within a few milliseconds, 
Listening comparisons using the identical same audio system 
Listening comparisons done by the same listener working alone.
 
Most of all of these standards are easy to enforce once you become familiar with your recording facility including the editing software, and playback/test facility.
 
One can find more technical assistance with this process here or  at:  http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?act=idx

 

[upstateguy]

  It's like when I hear people complain about sibilance and I wonder if they've actually heard an S.

 
Ban Ss.
 
End of problem.

 

[analogsurviver]

I have no idea where do you guys come from with the notion that live music, violins included, is "bright". At least, compared to recorded music. My experience is the opposite, in most cases at least.
 
That "S" problem has multiple sources - be it in analog or digital.  And is real. 
 
In analog, it mostly has to be traced back to trackability - how loud a signal at given frequency can still be tracked without the mistracking ( impossible to express in %, it is jarring distortion ). It is a function of the quality of the tonearm, cartridge and their adjustment(s). And as it is, due to the RIAA curve ( 20 Hz on record are recorded at - 20 dB ref 1 kHz, 20 kHz at + 20 dB ref 1 kHz ) , practically all the action for the phono cartridge occurs in the treble - in the range from 5-10 kHz to be more precise. Velocities in the groove can exceed 100 cm/sec - which only a handful of top cartridges is able to track - IF and WHEN really properly adjusted.
 
A single pass on a record containing loud sibilant ( or flute... etc ) with an inferior or poorly adjusted cartridge will damage the groove beyond repair - and the very first audible sign that this is occuring is with "S" sounds. Sibilans can be bright, can be loud - yet when played back with top notch phono equipment, they will NOT draw attention to themselves - the only "effect" you will hear will be a very naturally sounding reproduction. 
 
Digital has a whole set of its problems in this "S" regards - but is generally never as offensive or jarring as with analog phono gone bad. However, only high frequency sampling will yield sound similar to really outstanding analog phono gear. Why on earth did the de-essers come into being  - if not for ameliorating the "S" problem on low sampling frequency ( CD redbook)  digital? 

 

[sonitus mirus]

Ssssssometimessss the ssss's are intentionally recorded.
 
 

 

[analogsurviver]

  Ssssssometimessss the ssss's are intentionally recorded.
 
 

True - trussssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss........................................................t
 
in me
 
jussssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss......................................................t
 
in me
 
clossssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssse your eyessssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
 
and trussssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssst
 
in me ....

 

[jnorris]

   
Ban Ss.
 
End of problem.

That'_  _illy

 

[upstateguy]

 

   
Ban Ss.
 
End of problem.

That'_  _illy

 LOL 

 

[RRod]

   
Ban Ss.
 
End of problem.

 
Fine by me, gets rid of SACD and DSD ^_^

 

[analogsurviver]

   
Fine by me, gets rid of SACD and DSD ^_^

That is much the same as saying " ban the (insert your favourite slow-food dish here)" - so that all the restaurants can give way to McDonald's ...

 

[RRod]

  That is much the same as saying " ban the (insert your favourite slow-food dish here)" - so that all the restaurants can give way to McDonald's ...

 
It's not like that at all 

 

[analogsurviver]

   
It's not like that at all 

OK - you do get calories required at McDonald's. You do get even some vitamines, etc. In a strictly unified and standardized form - as much similarity as possible around the globe. The Big Mac become Le Big Mac in France - etc; but it should be the same.
 
There will be MUCH more variety in a "restaurant" - and the care with which the food is prepared can go to the max possible, chefs hors categorie, etc. It is redundant for survival, it is overkill - yet people will crave, at least once, to be served and fed like kings and queens.
 
Similar with CD redbook and vinyl/hirez. There is a similar difference - fine one, not that CD is totally useless, but it just does not provide for the variety that CAN and sometimes IS recorded on the master ; and vinyl and hirez will simply provide more of the original quality of the master.
 
I can not afford to eat at expensive restaurants every day; yet, for a special occasion, I will always chose "Le Restaurant chez XY" over McDonald's.
 
Luckily, analog vynil does not have (although it can...) to cost an arm and a leg - and access to music can even be less expensive than with CDs. Althoughof necessity a notch or two below "sky is the limit", it can still have the edge over CD redbook. With hirez, the price that has to be paid to stay in the ring with analog is getting prohibitive for all but the most well to do.

 

[BeatsWork]

   
It's not like that at all 

 
 
Agree it's hard not to be cynical sometimes about what are genuine attempts to move the industry forward vs. create "need" for upgrade.  Staying away from "Audio"  i.e.
 
I need 10 more speakers for my Atmos setup to compliment my 4K, Curved LCD screen with 480hz refresh for my 3d UHD Blue ray discs ......

 

[Sal1950]

DSD/SACD, over hyped formats pushed to sell yet more hardware and software to neurodic audiophiles. Outperformed both technically and sonicly by 24/96 PCM