A small Vinyl vs Digital Test

[crwilli]

Originally Posted by Weirdcuba

Craig - you’re ruining the entire thing by using the word “economizing.” Gotta get rid of that part of the analysis entirely.

Ha! I am rarely called too logical.

[vintage_tube]

Originally Posted by ariess

I don’t totally understand your response. The order of higher dynamical range is vinyl (60-80 dB), redbook (90-96db), and SACD (120 dB). That doesn’t mean you will prefer the format with higher dynamical range, but I don’t understand why you said the reverse?

As for the quality digital, a 10 years is a long time of evolution and state of the art digital has improved a lot. If you really want your digital to kick the ass of your vinyl as you wrote, you have a better chance if you update your digital front end (Paganini 2s new in 2007). Even trying a Schiit Yggdrasil DAC ($2300) might surprise you.

Adam -- my bad, I was not referring to dB measurements related to Dynamic Range of media but to the Dynamic Range Database (DRD) of recordings.

Basically it's a metering foobar2000 component, which takes sliding scale measurements.

The DRD uses a sliding scale from 1 to 20 (1 being the worst, 20 being the best) to rank the dynamic quality of each of the recordings available. This number represents the difference between the peak decibel level on a recording and the recording’s average loudness. DRD applies the following descriptors to these ranges: 1-7=bad; 8-13=transition; and 14-20=good.

Evaluation for each album on the website includes the album’s average dynamic range, the track with the weakest dynamic range, and the track with the greatest. It also provides individual dynamic range measurements for each track on the album.

It's purpose was to emphasize over processing of & the resultant loudness wars associated with digital releases.

It's not without error though but it does provide an avenue of research available to the audio enthusiast to compare various releases and their dynamic quality.

In the end, the best advice is listen with ones own ears. That's the final verdict of any juror.

Regarding the 10 year old DCS Paganini stack. Yes, time has flown by, but dCS doesn't use DAC chips which get stale over time. It's all software driven for the most part with some processing chips ensuring the 1's and 0's go where there supposed to go and be prompt about it. In fact, my entire dCS Paganini stack -- all 4 boxes were last updated with the latest software in 2015 and the clock was upgraded once again in 2016 to "super clock." After those though, dCS no longer plans any further upgrades and are no longer software supported.

It's a shame I admit, my dCS Paganini only processes 2 million algorithms per second whereas the new Vivaldi and Rossini DACs' kick it's butt with 4 million ps. It may not have a 2017 or 2018 shipping label on the boxes, but I'd venture to say the stack can still hold it's D-A head high.

Oh well. Win some lose some. There is always a first and second place ribbon given.

I'd rather take any further dCS digital upgrade dollars (roughly $20K) onto the next up in the SME product line & cartridge than I currently have. That Sir, would be the ultimate digital killer, bar none.

Best Sir,

Bob

[Josep]

90% of my time i play analog in my system but as i always say... you have to spend a lot of money and effort to make analog sound good.

I always recommend my friends to stay away from vinyl

[ylee]

For me vinyl has a certain midrange magic that few DACs come close to matching. My R2R ladder d1-twelve SE comes very close and was and remains a revelation to me given I've listened to digital since 1987 (it should considering its cost). Digital has come a long way, even since 2010. The dcs units I've heard are stellar as well. The Meridian Ultra DAC I auditioned spring of last year ain't shabby either. The Esoteric DAC I heard a couple years ago sounded nice and warm as well. But very good vinyl rigs still have what sounds to me a more appealing midrange for voices and most instruments.

Palpability is where vinyl also naturally seems to excel. As I type, I've got Murray Perahia/Bernard Haitink and the Concertgebouw Orchestra's performance of Beethoven's Piano Concerto No. 4 spinning on the turntable. I bought this record in 1987, and the CD version around 1989. Their presence in my room on vinyl sounds natural and full, unlike the CD version I've ripped to my Melco hard drives. My record sounds plenty loud with enough dynamic range to more than satisfy. Both versions I have are from the original mastering. There is no contest between the two. The only thing my CD version is better at is the lack of clicks and pops that are endemic to vinyl.

In having walked into my recent turntable purchase with an existing personal record collection I grew up listening to, my Rega RP10 is sort of like a time machine - especially from an emotional standpoint. So this adds to the magic of what I'm experiencing nowadays. Listening to the digital versions always make me happy. But the black grooves of my personally historic record collection gives me joy.

[1KW]

Vinyl is a whole new hobby onto itself and those who enjoy it know what I am talking about. While I love the convenience of digital and with DSD , MQA streaming , hi res. PCM better DAC technology etc this part of the hobby has never been more appealing one does not replace the other. Both are very enjoyable

[1KW]

Originally Posted by W9TR

Good analog is a very deep hole. While all this is open to debate in relative terms, in my opinion the really good stuff starts in this neighborhood:
$4000 MC carts
$8000 TT + power supply
$4000 Arm (maybe low?)
$4000 phono preamp

Certainly this is up for debate but I think it is reasonably right and directionally correct. Besides, it’s what I’ve spent already! It is at least a good start.

Then there are the setup tools:
Alignment Jig (ex Feickardt)
Test records
Audio analyzer to set cartridge loading
USB microscope
10x jeweler’s loupe
Fozgometer
Record cleaning machine (ultrasonic is best)

Add all this up and you are in the $25k range.

All of this is a royal pain in the wazoo, and for technical specs that are truly abysmal compared to digital.

So I guess if I had stopped buying and playing great vinyl I would be a digital guy. But I always thought good LP’s sounded better, so I’ve stuck with it now for 50 years.


As my digital font end gets better, it sounds more like my analog front end! So if I didn’t already have a great analog front end I doubt I’d dive in today.

Tom

My vinyl set up rivals my digital system which cost more than twice as much.

[GreginNH1]

My vinyl set up is now on par with my digital set up.

I feel as if I now have pretty much of an equal playing field between vinyl, steaming and SACD playback. Of course, the big variable is recording quality.

Put a MFSL or well engineered record on the TT and it’s going to be really hard to beat.

There are times when the mood strikes for any of the three media and my rig comes through regardless the choice.

[j3brow]

My vinyl and digital are roughly equal quality and price. 7k dac vs 6.8k table, arm, cart.

IMO, it’s easier to achieve great digital these days which has greatly closed the gap between these two formats.

Its all about the source recording and mastering these days.

[gadawg]

Originally Posted by GreginNH1

My vinyl set up is now on par with my digital set up.

I feel as if I now have pretty much of an equal playing field between vinyl, steaming and SACD playback. Of course, the big variable is recording quality.

Put a MFSL or well engineered record on the TT and it’s going to be really hard to beat.

There are times when the mood strikes for any of the three media and my rig comes through regardless the choice.

That's where I hope I end up!

[essjay]

all comments removed.