Why do vinyl or digital specific systems sound better?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ต.ค. 2017
- Albums played on a vinyl specific system sounds better than those played on a digital specific setup. Why is that and is there anything we might learn from this? Have your own question for Paul to answer? www.psaudio.com/ask-paul/
- วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![มองหน้ากันไม่ติด (Awkward) - โอ๊ต ปราโมทย์ FEAT. MAIYARAP [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4b02SY_r6Gw/mqdefault.jpg)
Although I prefer CDs overall, I've found that any system I set up
sounds about equally good for either records or CDs.
Which of us is doing something wrong?
It's not about Me or You being wrong; it's about what we're Doing being right or wrong.
For example. maybe my equipment isn't up to revealing significant differences.
None of the amplifiers / receivers I've used has been newer than a 1979 model.
The one that has sounded best to me so far has been a Sansui AU-710 (717),
which unfortunately developed a problem in its protection circuit
and has been out of commission for at least five or six years.
There is no right or wrong, as long as you enjoy it!
Surely the way to counter this is to have your amplification and speakers as neutral as possible - then either prioritise one source (CD, FLAC, vinyl, whatever) and compromise on (or eschew) the others, or divide resources between the three equally.
Well although I agree it is "possible" to optimize your music system around the preferred format, here is where I disagree. I think a well designed and calibrated system can play both formats equally well. The problem comes that no matter how good the system and how well it is calibrated you will always hear the limitation of digital. No matter how good the system is, digital cannot capture the critical a aspects of music that make it sound real. No matter what sample rate I have never heard digital sound organic, rich in tone, in which instruments sound like they should. Analog does simple as that. So even in the best system, analog will always sound more musical and more involving.
Unless you go up to 512 DSD. That, imho, is indistinguishable from analog. But, it’s a rare bird.
I am old enough to remember a time when the 78 rpm record was the only format for home listening. I was always interested in records but it was only when my parents took me to the Radio City Music Hall where I first heard a live orchestra and said to myself: "So that's what music really sounds like!" -- and I was reborn an audiophile. I saw the gradual improvements through the years: The LP appeared in 1948 but for me it was 1956 when I put together my first component hi-fi system. It was obvious to me that the recording industry was attempting to reach a point where a recording would sound like live music. The greatest single step forward in the art of audio recording was long before the appearance of the LP. It was in 1925 that the first electrically recorded 78s appeared and that was the most significant improvement of all time in recorded sound. However most people still had the old acoustic phonographs - - the first electrical phonographs were expensive. So the average record buyer couldn't, at first, hear the improvements of the new electric records. The appearance of the Long Play record in 1948 was another big step forward. The next thirty years saw many improvements in the LP record: Wider frequency response, lower distortion, the stereo LP in 1957. To my way of thinking, the introduction of digital recording and the compact disc was simply another leap toward in achieving a perfect audio signal and summarily eliminating a host of problems plaguing the LP: noise from scratches, inner groove issues, eccentric pressings, noisy pressings due mold non-fill, pre and post echo from adjacent grooves, warped pressings, etc. etc.
When I was a teenaged audiophile I knew an old guy nearby who had a a bunch of home made audio gear in his basement. He did not like the long play record and preferred 78s. He said the 78s had "more power" than the new LPs. He based this on the fact that his old 78 ceramic cartridge had more output than the long play type and this made it better to him and nothing was going to change his mind.
Like the new intro music.
Great new series of videos again! I will have to catch up. You're right about vinyl, and I don't think I can go back. On the other hand, CAS/digital systems have a much higher dynamic range. Most of the time I find that makes "everyday listening" less practical because my home is not always quiet enough for the quiet passages. C'est la vie.
I suspect that Paul’s system has significantly more resolution than those who say that their system does analogue and digital just as well. Then too, it’s a matter of economics: a better/best digital front end might have a word clock, an upscaler, and more associated with its DAC; an analog system might have to go to $20,000 to get the turntable + stand + cartridge + tonearm, then, what about the preamp? Point being, both the analog and digital domains require significant investment in developing the source before entering a line stage preamp. And at this point, it seems to me, effective amplification can be frustrating. The output of the digital DAC may not match the output of the analog phono-stage. Can you adjust trim levels? Yes, but the engineer may start talking about ‘gain structures’ at this point. So, bottom line, excepting some single source solutions in which analog and digital domains have been authoritatively integrated (and I don’t know of any), you are left with a compromise when trying to do both analog and digital in the same system. What I have gleaned from Paul’s repeated attempts to make his point on this topic, is that it’s a fools errand to try to make an amp/preamp serve two masters at the same time; or perhaps he is reflecting the reality that many of us face in the workplace of trying to please two bosses at the same time. One can never be free in that situation, and perhaps that is the message Paul wishes to convey in the case of trying to NOT choose analog over digital or digital over analog. The news may be harsh, but he is trying to save us a lot of trouble. That is my gist of things for everything it costs you to learn it (
Paul, thank you for studying.
My system sounds great on both vinyl and digital. I have a slight preference for vinyl, but not a significant one. Maybe that is because I concentrate on the music, and not the equipment, and what is right with the music, not what is wrong with it. Embrace the music!
Well can also be due to simple bias.
Proberly not so popular view xD
incredibly self-indulgent 27 second intro Paul.
Leave it alone. Its fine. If someone doesnt like it, let them fast forward a bit...
Been to several high end audio shows and vinyl always sounded better.
Got a decent stereo (Clearaudio, Lehmannaudio, Synthesis, Wilson Watt Puppy DIY speakers).
When I play a CD there is no life or soundstage thats even close to the analogue system.
Spending big bucks on a transport and DAC isn't worth getting the max. out of CD, the red book limits CD, it can't do any better.
Not only is my logic right, none of the digital systems performed.
Could you explain that?
When you have a state of the art digital system, it sounds very close the analog. BUT, not quite.