It’s important to remember that the LP he mentions was mastered from an early digital tape made with a Soundstream recorder.

@saint6563

Жыл бұрын

So a fair comparison; since both were sourced from the same source. Just like how Vinyl Junkies brag incessantly the best CD release of a title is their needledrop. Proving CD can provide analog-like playback & "It's All In The Mastering". Plus MFSL fooled Analog Only Guys for decades with digital sourced wax.

@gotham61

Жыл бұрын

@@saint6563 Many vinyl advocates would argue that the LP is limited by the early digital source. Not all digital is equal. A 1978 Soundstream digital recorder is not comparable to a 2023 4X DSD recorder.

@glenncurry3041

Жыл бұрын

@@saint6563 Far from a fair comparison. It's like proving fresh tomatoes make a better sauce compared to canned by using canned tomatoes in both batches!

@rosswarren436

Жыл бұрын

@@saint6563 yes, but MFSL was using the very resolving DSD format, not PCM, so there is that. If you start out with a better source, you at least have a better chance of getting it right (depending on any subsequent mastering).

@peacearchwa5103

Жыл бұрын

@@rosswarren436 The early Telarc Digital recordings were NOT recorded using PCM, but with the higher-resolution Soundstream digital recording system. Those Soundstream digital recordings were downsampled to 16-bit PCM for the Compact Disc releases, while they were transferred directly from Soundstream's own DACs (without downconversion) during Telarc's cutting of its LP masters. I don't have a good enough digital playback system to verify but I've long thought wondered whether using the right digital gear the Telarc CDs would equal the excellent sound of the first-class Telarc LPs.

I love this, because this has been my experience exactly since purchasing a P.S. Audio Dac and cd transport, not to advertise for PS Audio but to just say I think you are on target with this segment Paul. I hate to use the word: MAGIC, but what that DAC and Transport revealed had me going back doing this with every album/cd I had that were the same recording. Thank your letter writer for saying what I didn't say. I will also add I don't always agree with you and there have been times I was so put off by your opinion that I didn't watch your KZread segments for a month or so, but I have come back to appreciate you even more. Thank you.

Progress is good. 20 years ago I recall hearing a $20k CD player that sounded emphatically worse than a much cheaper phono setup, and then just a few years ago was delighted to hear a newer DAC that retrieved far more detail from a normal CD than I had ever suspected was there, just like your reader described.

@ThinkingBetter

Жыл бұрын

In the 1980s I bought my first CD player Denon DCD1600 using a state of the art Burr Brown DAC. There is no sane reason why a CD player needs to cost US$20,000. I enjoyed listening to my DCD1600 using my Stax electrostatic headphones already in the 1980s and even at that time it could easily beat my turntable. When something sounds great it's mostly about good passionate engineering and not about making it cost a lot of money. Even my 1980s CD player ran 4 times oversampling with linear phase filters and using 16 high precision resistors for precise decoding. It probably costed a lot more on the BOM than what modern DACs cost, but nobody added insane snake oil margins to it.

@neocollective5959

Жыл бұрын

Ouch...and $20K two decades ago really was a small fortune. Glad you mention that right when I'm shopping for a new CD player, haha

Nice explanation !!! I do believe the analog stage matters most for DACs and today’s DACs are just incredible at all sorts of price points.

@rosswarren436

Жыл бұрын

Indeed. DACs have come a long way from say, ten years ago. I'd put a low cost Geshelli Labs J2 of today up against a $5000 DAC from 2013.

@paulmichaelfreedman8334

6 ай бұрын

@@rosswarren436 I have yet to find an affordable 8-channel HDMI to 8 discrete analog outputs DAC. The one I have cost nearly € 100,- but has terrible SNR (audible at high power). I Use it to convert multi-channel digital audio from my car audio backend (which performs digital filtering and curve corrections according to tuning data) to analog for the power amps (pioneer). HDMI is really useful for this as the backend hardware is a raspberry Pi with HDMI output. Did have to hack and recompile the linux kernel to support 8 audio channels over HDMI, default is 2 (stupid!).

@rosswarren436

6 ай бұрын

@@paulmichaelfreedman8334good luck with that. Seems like if there were a market for it, some manufacturer would address it. Is there any way you could use four separate DACs with HDMI input (to get 8-channels)? Yeah, pricey for sure. Rats.

@paulmichaelfreedman8334

6 ай бұрын

@@rosswarren436 I can output the discrete digital streams to GPIO pins if I want to, and link them up to discrete DACs, if I want to. It just makes it all...bigger and more work. But if that might be the only option...then I will ultimately go for that.

@thefloop2813

3 ай бұрын

@@rosswarren436 The dac in my scarlet usb interface that cost me $120 sounds better then high end dac's of ten years ago.| Also, wow, you car audio guys are always so entertainingly extra.

I got a tube amp for my flac files, best of both worlds for warmth and clarity. Never looking back~

@martinfox2244

Жыл бұрын

Which amp?

@chungang7037

Жыл бұрын

@@martinfox2244 Aune Flamingo for headphones

I have had the exact same experience as your correspondant from Dearborn with my system. Several years ago I played the Telarc LP of Fennell with the Cleveland Symphonic Winds (excellent pressing) and the CD version I bought later when CD players arrived. My conclusion switching amp input back and forth in real time was they did sound virtually the same! This was with a much more modest system than described by you. My phono setup was my AR XA turntable and forty year old Shure cartridge. CD was played with my Oppo player. I've upgraded everything since then and should try this again.

Great video, Paul. Thank you. The windshield analogy is really good. And yes, I’ve been confronted with the LP vs CD sound quality in several occasions. I thought that my ears were playing tricks on me, but no. It’s the quality of the dac. And yeah, I totally agree with you 😂😂

@greenbow7888

Жыл бұрын

I thought that analogy clouded the explanation. It would have been better to explain how cables, PSUs, etc, caused previos DACs to be poorer. Simple enough to say, that they added noise to the system. Cables pick up RFI and that casues noise in the analogue parts of the DAC. Instead of just explaining what happened, he mansplained it.

We truly do live in great times, at least technically. We can have our cake and eat it too. Vinyl? Yes. Digital? Yes. Whatever makes you happy. Life is short. Listen all you can.

I think it's still a matter of judgment- digital vs analog- for many people in many systems, no matter how good digital has gotten in recent years. In my system, with the digital end being Luxman's flagship cd/sacd player (intro'd in 2020), and the analog end being an SME 20/2, Lyra Skala cartridge, and Aesthetix phono stage (from the 00s) - and so I'd say roughly equivalent levels of high-end performance across 'columns'- I do think the analog end is often usually stronger in certain respects, and more enjoyable overall, while the digital end is better in other ways. The speakers are Vivids and so highly resolving, dynamic, nuanced, and well-balanced in my listening room. Linestage is modern tube (with NOS Siemens and Telefunkens) and the amp is solid state. In any case, there are so many potentially variables in any system from front to end (and so much variation in the recording quality/mixes/file/pressing quality of media making it into digital or analog formats) that one format can easily trump the other or vice versa depending upon the whole context, including what you value in your listening While the complexity of much of the large orchestral classical music I often listen to is typically preferable through my digital end, especially when high-res, due to its ability to unravel more dense and complex instrumental info and without the noise of analog, I find the bulk of my jazz and rock and world music and r & b listening to be preferable from a good lp pressing- more 'live' sounding and emotionally compelling- more 'organic sounding' and with a greater sense of depth - despite the hassle of caring for analog media and the stylus, and periodic surface noise (typically quite minimal on good pressings well cared for, no matter how many lp plays). So in my experience, digital isn't simply better than analog yet at a given tier of component quality; and about 60-70% of the time I prefer analog for my at-home listening. That being said, I haven't heard the very top-of-the-line analog rigs, nor the digital ones (though I'm intrigued by recent mention of Wadax gear, currently insanely expensive even by most high-end standards).

I have been making CDs with a Tascam 900 series recorder from LPs for a few years for myself and friends. Recently I purchased a Denon A110 player. When played back through the Denon the home made CDs sound much better than when played back through the Tascam --- the machine that made the CDs themselves. Like Paul says, the DAC is where it's at.

@brianbumgardner8704

Жыл бұрын

But, what about recordings that were made before CD's, DAC's, etc.? These will always sound best when they are vinyl albums on either an analog system or, a digital system. Just my opinion.

@thecarman3693

Жыл бұрын

@@brianbumgardner8704 Indeed. Those are the majority of recordings I make for those who want to hear them on their current stereo systems, which basically have either abandoned vinyl or never went for those top end turntable/tonearm/cartridge mega-buck combos. They still have the albums but want them 'updated'. I transfer the records on a Technics SP-10R using a Graham 12" Phantom III and Sussurro cartridge.

Cleaning the windshield. Excellent explanation. The data is there you just couldn’t hear it. Thanks.

Tom in Dearborn, Michigan's experience, comparing a CD to a vinyl pressing is unique, and could have had any number of other results, due to the following: Not all CD releases sound the same. The same exact song's sound quality, from the same exact recording session, can vary wildly. It is why we are fed re-master after re-master. The studios screw up one release after another -- including countless remasters that sound worse than the original release. It is why Paul created Octave Records -- because just about every studio's releases are botched, and it is pot-luck if they happen to get one right. And it gets even more unpredictable with vinyl pressings. Which stamper plate was used for that particular pressing? Was it derived from a first generation copy of the master tape? Or a second generation? Or a tenth generation? Was the pressing that Tom heard the first one that came off of the pressing machine? Was it the 1,000th one that came off the pressing machine? Was it the last one that came off of the pressing machine? Depending on the stamper code, and when that specific vinyl was pressed, can make a huge difference in sound quality. In fact, the quality control is so mismanaged that you can have an amazing sounding side 1, and a lifeless sounding side 2 (or vice versa). And all of the above is before we even get how the actual stereo components affect the sound quality. My point is that when someone claims that the CD sounds better than the vinyl, or the vinyl sounds better than the CD, or that they both sound nearly identical... ...it is all a crap shoot. Any combination of the above can be someone's experience. Tom can compare some other CD with vinyl, and have the opposite results. The "which sounds better" debate will never end, because too many people do not understand that their specific copy of any particular song can be far different sounding (quality-wise) than people that they are arguing with. If only person "A" that is arguing with person "B" were to meet and compare their specific copies, they would awaken to realize "Holly crap, no wonder we could not agree." There are so many variables that affect sound quality. To generalize CD vs. vinyl, and to say that one sounds this way and the other sounds that way, is like saying that all hamburgers taste like this, and all wine tastes like that.

@glenncurry3041

Жыл бұрын

I had the unquie experience of an actual A/B/C comparison between direct to disc, 1/2 track Ampex analog tape and digital. An AES meeting in Nashville in the studio the recording was master at. Using that mastering system for playback in the control room. DtoD played back on the cutting lathe, SME arm, Sure V15. Ampex 1/2 track it was recorded to. And the Soundstream digital recorded to was recorded to. All three original materials played back where they were sourced. !00% of those that attended choose the vinyl as best.

@rosswarren436

Жыл бұрын

I am sooooo over all the "reissues and remasters". I saw a statistic saying that 72% of music sales were reissues. Sad and boring.

@NoEgg4u

Жыл бұрын

@@rosswarren436 "I am sooooo over all the "reissues and remasters". I saw a statistic saying that 72% of music sales were reissues. Sad and boring." Re-issues and re-masters are the way of studios saying (but not saying) we screwed up that sound quality on that album, and we are doing it, again. So to people that claim how talented the studio personnel are... then why are they re-doing the work? How could the creations by such talented people have gone wrong? And not just occasionally. Virtually every popular album has been re-mastered, conveying that virtually every popular album was screwed up. And it gets worse. They have a re-master one year, and a few years later, yet another remaster. So the re-master, which was to re-do the mess from the original release, is yet another mess. But don't worry... the 2nd re-master (3rd time mastering) will be done right. And it gets worse. The original release almost always sounds best. The re-masters often boost the bass, unnaturally. Rather than simply turning up the gain on the bass guitar, they use an equalizer, so that the bass guitar loses its cohesion -- no longer has an authentic sound. The re-masters often bring the band forward, unnaturally so. They sound as if they are all blasting in your face, all vying for your attention, when they should each sound like they are standing in their own space. Instead of the music being about the team work of the band, re-masters often make it sound like a competition within the band. The re-masters often use filters to lower tape hiss. Well, they do lower the level of tape hiss. But they also kill the natural sound of the music. I have a song by The Andrew Sisters (Sing Sing Sing). It is available on dozens of digital albums. All but one suck. I found one where they left in the tape noise, and the ladies and the band sound fantastic. I also have songs where the artist kicked the microphone stand, or his/her foot stomped the floor close to the microphone stand. That sent very low octave frequencies into the recording, for that moment. Most releases equalize that out -- and it kills the sound quality. Where they leave it alone, the sound quality stays intact. I believe an example is by Diana Ross and The Supremes (but I do not recall the song's name). With few exceptions, the studio personnel are dolts that know how to operate the knobs and levers.

@vinylrules4838

Жыл бұрын

@@rosswarren436 Sadly, most of today's pop music is crap. There are great musicians out there, but one has to seek them out.

Paul, whats the best way to add some Tube sound to the Sprout?

Great Explanation Paul! Wow! Loved it! One thing you didn’t expand upon that you have with Preamps and Amplifiers in the use of a very good Power Supply! Some of us understand that using a DAC/Transport or CD player with a Wall Wart sounds like Crap! Just like looking through a dirt windshield!

In my experience, the DAC made a huge improvement over my vinyl, partly because I have an older MM cartridge and middle of the road phono preamp, but when I saw a test video of my DAC from a guy, whose name I won't mention (but rhymes with a beer) and he demonstrated all the errors my DAC has in it's output, I realized for sure that I don't care about empirical measurements anymore. I'll look at them for sure, but no longer trust that my ears will give a rats ass about them in actual listening. My PSAudio Gain Cell Dac, admittedly your entry level device, is still giving me audio nirvana every time I play my music. I am still in a constant state of experimentation (almost 60 years of it) and that DAC is still at the heart of all my systems. My latest configuration is so pleasing that I'm up to the wee hours every single night exploring my musical collection and finding this system is making EVERY song better and more revealing of the best parts of it, where I used to have issues with poorer recordings. Thanks for building that DAC which does exactly what I want, and handles so many inputs and outputs as well. Real value there.

Yup. I listen to my D10X with CDs and have an Aurender N20 streamer going through the D-10X'S DAC and it's unbelievable how good both pieces are. But you can't have one and not it's companion ,if you're choosing a streamer. I had an A30 before and the digital presentation was lacking and wrong. It had the sparkle. However, it did not have the finesse or ability to flesh out the neuances of the piano as an organic instrument that resonated when the hammer strikes the strings as well as the pianist pushing down on the keys and the creek the bench makes. Subtle, but just draws you in to the performances through the D-10X'S internal DAC The subtlies that are effortless were missing with the A30 and it's dac. I couldn't even take advantage of its ripper, it just was too colored and lacking. So I traded it in for the N20 and now all is well plus I have access to more music 😃

I just like Paul and like music 😊 Thank you so much for this video!

The best explanation about the new DAC’s and digital data that a ever heard, WoW 🤩

Sorry have to say it. I agree with you fully. I think that great digital not only exposes us to more of the detail, but it also does it with less distortion than inferior digital playback. I think it has less to do with modern digital as it does with well implemented digital. From Apoxna 2023 I listened to a cost no object Aries Cerat DAC playing into triode/fet electronics. It was wonderful. Analogue but detailed beyond any vinyl rig. Nothing modern about it. It used 24 old r2r chips per channel, SOTA clocks, ridiculous level of choke filtering, transformer I/V and triode/FET output. All old technology well implemented.

Hi Paul I think that Toms question was in relation to the data contained on a LP .why listening to an LP on a system with a high end tone arm and cartridge (more expensive than his system)he could only just tell which was the LP and which was the CD , he stated usually he could tell the difference in a few notes. I think he was asking , was all this extra data /information always there on the LP . without absolute high end equipment we do not hear it.

I understand your point Paul. I did an interesting experiment. I played music using an external DAC to my Yamaha receiver which I believe if I’m not in pure direct mode will do A/D for the DSP and room corrections and then do final D/A again. That path sounds better than just running the music digitally into my setup and having the receiver only do the final D/A conversion. I have to ask myself, what flavoring or what is being added to the music to make it perhaps sound “nicer” or more “pleasant” that my Yamaha ESS D/A doesn’t do? If the external DAC was able to extract and provide more detail in the music that my Yamaha ESS DAC couldn’t do, why isn’t it not loss when it goes through my DAC after being converted to digital and back the analog in the final stage?

That LP record was digitally sourced. It says Telarc digital right on the label. To really compare the two, you'd need to compare a full AAA (all analog) album to a 16/44 CD version of the same master tape.

First when doing direct comparisons of a analog vs a digital version of the same piece there are many factors that contribute to the sound of each. So its often not a simple answer which is better. Each format is recorded and mastered differently, and of course it depends on the caliber of equipment that your comparing them on. Not to mention there are many factors that contribute to the sound of a well designed and set setup turntable. Just being expensive does'nt means its good.

More important than the DAC in digital reproduction is the clock & output stage. Digital is also more sensitive to power fluctuations.

@shayk313

Жыл бұрын

This is interesting. I swear I have heard power fluctuating during digital hi res playback but thought I was just hearing things. Thanks for sharing that info

Do i need a dac if i have a new avr? Or is there a dac in the avr? Thank you

Thanks paul 👌👍

Spot on Paul, as ever.

Great recording

I invested heavily (for me) in a Moon Mind II streamer and a Denaphrips Pontus DAC and I love them for the quality and convenience but vinyl on my Project X1 with a Ortofon Black 2M cartridge gives me goosebumps I don’t get from digital and I would consider my TT setup to be lower grade than the digital. $5000 for the digital and $2100 for the TT. I’ve done countless A/B comparisons and can hardly tell the difference as to which I prefer technically but the digital rarely provides the “feels” I get from that shaky little diamond in lengthy and focussed listening sessions.

Thanks Paul for a layman’s explanation. I know that my old original CDs sound so much better now with a better system/DAC/ speakers BUT it’s still hard to convince the Vinyl disciples. Your words are worth using as evidence. Love your work!

I have a 50 year old pressing of Carmen (Bernstien and the Met), I believe it was the first time the entire opera was released on a multi disc vinyl pressing and I also have that same recording on a 2014 dual CD released by Pentatone. I find them both to be almost indistinguishable on my system. a SirectStream Dac and a Rega RP3 connected to a Rogue RP5 preamp the Rega has been updated with an external AC source, an aluminum subplatter and a acrylic platter. I prefer the vinyl only because a can still read the liner notes, these old eyes gave up reaing CD notes a while back. I have several hundred records that are 40-50 years old and see no reason to replace them with CD's outside of the convenience of streaming tracks from my Roon library.

I agree that it's much more likely added sound to the recording than something that goes missing when it comes to any electronic audio device, and that's what's been cleaned up more and more over the years. I compared my PC (with at the time upgraded soundcard) to a CD player from the 90s that I dusted off, the CD player sounded like a bad cassette player in a car from the 80's in comparison. 😂 So even a 'bad' device like a PC have improved over the years.

@RAM_845

Жыл бұрын

I'm running an external ASUS USB DVD Player to play my Audio CDS which I've had since high school hahh

@PSA78

Жыл бұрын

@@RAM_845 I guess 99% of the improvements have been made to the analog side and converting to analog. 🙂

@captainwin6333

Жыл бұрын

I did the same recently with what in its day was a good Marantz CD player and an Oppo Bluray against my streaming FLAC from NAS to an RME ADI-2 DAC and both the Marantz and Oppo sounded incredibly thin. You couldn't pay my to use the old Marantz or Oppo now for music.

@PSA78

Жыл бұрын

@@captainwin6333 I compared my old NAD against my computer, I wouldn't even in good conscience give it for free to someone after hearing it. 😄 I think it's easy these days to forget how good even the 'bad' stuff has become when it comes to digital audio. 🙂

As you have synergy in a system, you must have synergy in a turntable. Plynth, arm cartridge. also the recording.

Even some of the affordable SMSL DAC's have come a long way from what they were producing a few years back in sound quality.

Just the DAC, or the circuitry that uses the DAC?

Been team digital for a while but I still collect records that are sentimental to me however there is an amazing middle ground.... A real treat is to transfer well conditioned records to DSD using a ADC like Mytek and a good turntable. Even the standard Technics 1210s that DJs use will work great assuming you have a good cartridge but anything competent will work. Output as DSD or transcode it to PCM it doesn't matter it'll sound great but the source has to DSD. I have a friend that's been doing that and it just blows my mind.

Yes but records have more information that is not uncovered because they're not cleaned the release agent from the mould is still in the grooves this can be as much as 2DB in the grooves unveiled

Because I'm the umpteenth person to watch this Paul should send me his top disc player,. his top DAC, his top pre amp, his top 2 channel smplifier and his top speakers all with his favourite cables and wires and with free shipping to me here in Canada. This way I won't have to listen to Mahler on cheap equipment anymore, during my old age. And he will feel just wonderful about himself for doing it !! All for free, of course. Free to me that is. Yup.

@craigellsworth3952

Жыл бұрын

I'll bring drinks. We can listen between hockey games, eh.

@barney6888

Жыл бұрын

​@@craigellsworth3952 OHHH When I was ten, I watched the Leafs get stepped on by Montreal, the year after the Leafs won the Cup. I never forgave them for this. Since Bettman, the whole thing has been rigged to just sell tickets and ads. The Leafs are bums, now Boston knows how it feels and the rest of the league are corrupt, colluded crooks. I've seen peewee hockey played with more heart and guts than these flakes think they're fooling us with. OHHH OHHHHH OHHHHHHH MAN they've killed the sport for money. the same filthy corruption of hi end. "Tipping the scales in the marketplace", and God's judgement is soon to arrive. Go ahead and call me crazy, but you'll all see.

It’s all about “precision” in the playback…with DAC’s we have now what musicians had…thank you Sir…

I stream Apple music and when I changed my streamer setting from 16/44 to 24/192 the soundstage just opened up like it was floating in the room. Regardless of what Apple said it was coming in at even the 16/44 recordings. I don't know how or why but it's quite noticeable.

@gtric1466

Жыл бұрын

@Douglas Blake That does make sense, didn't think it was possible, Appreciated

I have been thinking the same thing since I bought a demo $700 dac for $500 and a closeout tube buffer for $200 in order to get anything close to this on my turntable will need something like an ortofon blue cartridge and needle or better still have clicks scratches from well loved records and the inconvenience of changing record every side listened compared to cd player with remote Love my records but listen to cds way more often

I always say if you really want to hear the difference use a really good headphone set up and then you’ll be able to tell the difference and it won’t be subtle? Which is better? Well that is up to you. :)

2:45 "at Octave records, we use the SACD for DSD and the higher sample rates, which do sound better for sure, despite.... I'm not going to name names." LOL Oh c'mon. Name names!

One day soon I will invest in a pair of great speakers, amp and DAC and will stream hi quality audio using Roon.

I'll take a cd over vinyl anytime. Vinyl is pricey along with maintenance.

An excellent analog system (turntable, LP, cartridge etc.) sounds very similar to an excellent digital system. This is not a new phenomena, it's been that way for quite a while. Ultimately the latest digital systems especially when combined with high bit and sample rate digital masters sound even better.

I think many have brought a CD player, heard a few CD's, then thought 'thats what that format has to offer', then just moved on without asking the question 'can it be better', or they answer that one with 'vinyl' Maybe akin to a computers CD rom drive, you pop in a CD and bit perfect data comes out (or you get an error msg), there is nothing more, or less, that is the data as stored, period. They then think the same is happening with an audio CD player, ever though it also had to convert that data to analogue, by varying degrees of success. When you can see there may be issues with such, you are now on the audiophile road.

@zizendorf

Жыл бұрын

Agreed! For the life of me I have not understood why folks have 'demeaned' CD's especially as opposed to "streaming". I know, this video is the vinyl to CD comparison. I use two sources - either vinyl or CD. In either case, the quality of the recording/engineering/performance is the most critical variable. In a number of cases I've got duplicate recordings for particular performances/recordings. In the case of those that are better, there's little discernable difference to my ears - save for the CD's offering no 'surface noise'.

I was surprised to discover that one of my best sounding videos on my desktop has an audio bit rate of only 96 K/bit per second. (44100 / 16 bit sample rate). Using a revealing high end DAC and speakers. The more noise I removed from my computer and modem the better it sounded.

Depends on the recording. I’ve heard some albums sound better digital, and some on vinyl.

It's really interesting to finally realize what the Analog disciples are missing when it comes to digital formats. My father is an "LP or no car" (or whatever the phrase is), whereas I know that LPs are limited in terms of how much data can actually fit on that standard sized medium in terms of how *precise the needle is* when the recording embeds into that medium. Whereas when it's digital files, the files are encoded in whatever format, and that format will never change, nor will the accuracy in terms of the source. The real issue (such as even with analog sources) is making the best representation of your source from speakers. As someone that works in I.T. and also has a very basic (foundational) understanding of how currents work (after all, that's basically all we're talking about: varying voltages processed as signals through an assortment of electronic circuitry that will then be sent as a signal through some cables to your speakers), the more "stuff" (circuitry, wires/cables, etc...) there is between source and speaker, the more degraded that source signal will most likely be. We're not even getting into signal pollution from your transformers or dirty power from your house. I think a great visual analogy to the potential between digital and analog is that analog is like push-rods in an engine, whereas digital is like a camshaft. There's nothing wrong with pushrods, but there's a limit to their efficiency as "cam float" is definitely a thing. Also, the more you play your analog source, the more wear on that source and the sound *will degrade* over time! However, with camshafts, the inherent limitations of a pushrod are non-existent; they can rev and high or low as required and aren't bound by any sudden, dramatic changes in revolutions of the engine. The timing will always be what it should be. Digital will always be the same as far as sound quality and reproduction for any given recording. However, the sensitivity of the equipment will determine how accurate that representation will be from your speakers. The data will never change (assuming you don't change it), it's just how well technology evolves to reproduce, well, accurately represent the sound when you play it. I think maybe that's why analogists think it's better than digital, because with analog the signal is theoretically "smooth" (there is no "pixelation" or "sampling" with analog as it's inherently...organic, I guess?), but the signal won't have the density or range as a digital signal can. I think it may be helpful to know what equivalent analog medium could create the signal density and range as a digital signal, and how large that analog medium would be, as well as the precision required for the recording device. I'm almost certain it would require something akin to laser precision to produce such a result. Maybe similar to LIGO type precision.

@glenncurry3041

Жыл бұрын

"I think a great visual analogy to the potential between digital and analog is that analog is like push-rods in an engine, whereas digital is like a camshaft." Perfect example of why your comparison fails! Engines with push rods have camshafts. They have to! If you understood the technology the difference is where the camshaft is. Pushrod engines have the camshafts by the crankshaft. The other style is where the camshaft is over the heads. Just like analog has a far better bandwidth. Signals up to 125kHz have been played back on them. And vinyl will last virtually for eternity. Where CD's had a projected 20 year life and files go away when power is removed in digital storage. Vinyl could be played by Mad Max.

@ryanshannon6963

Жыл бұрын

@@glenncurry3041 aside from vinyl being very susceptible to environmental conditions? Magnetic tape degrading from repeated listening? Yes, I've worn by cassettes to running the sound to secretly reduced clarity. Files aren't magically deleted with no power. Also, if you don't understand valve float then you don't understand why modern engines with efficiency in mind don't use push rods with their overhead cam. The exhaust and intake valves will remain open once high enough revolutions occur, which is why high performance engines moved away from pushrods and went to camshafts and lobes. I don't have to worry about stacking my digital files to prevent warping, distortion of the tracks, etc... Don't confuse physical existence with "stability". Gravity, electricity, magnetic fields, etc... Would like to have a word with you. Also, physical mediums have a limit based on physical size, digital does not, just density of information based on any given medium.

@glenncurry3041

Жыл бұрын

@@ryanshannon6963 So doubling down on being flat out wrong about pushrods? Desperately dragging in valve float as a red herring! SAD! Again: pushrod engines HAVE camshafts and lobes! My Dodge 383 V8 with crankshaft mounted cam shafts had 3/4 race lobes with roller bearings riding on them and solid lifters to stop valve float. And OHV engines can have valve float as well. You are just flat out 100% wrong! Next vinyl is far more environmentally stable that any multi-material optical storage. And can be played completely mechanically with no electrical power. Just try to access a digital file when there is no power and then tell me they are not mutually required. "Also, physical mediums have a limit based on physical size, digital does not," And now digital storage does not require physical space? Just WOW! You need too much education for me to bother with.

The best sound, open reel by a very large margin if you were buying classical music at the time of the Sony 880-2, Technics 15xx, Tandburg, Revox. I have the original of Scheherazade by Amerset and the remake from the original on a CD and it was quite good, but there is some big differences. SACD ad DSD/DXD is the 2nd best as it is full dynamic range. Phono is 3rd especially the Classical and Jazz low volume pressings. Engineers like Doug Sax are very very rare, and the pressings of London and Decca of Andre Previn. Seiji Ozawa, Herbert von Karajan of early pressing such as the Original of Holst's The Planets conducted by Andre Previn is so far beyond the new pressings and any form of CD it is worthless to try to even look for them and I have most of all of them. PS: the rise time and settling rate of the Sony 880 is so fast that it's square wave is essentially perfect all the way up to 40Khz and I've read this since it first came out and it is a legendary R2R.

@craigellsworth3952

Жыл бұрын

Jim, you must hear one of the United Home Artists reel to reel decks.

I remember when I used to listen to LPs on the very first rega planar and get annoyed because it was never as satisfying as BBC radio and I think it is because they had vastly superior equipment and importantly they had suality equipment to clean the records. I was really happy when CDs came along and I could throw away all my LPs.

So I don't need a new CD player (Arcam Alpha 9), I need to add a DAC? But this already has an excellent DAC; and sounds brilliant already!?

I misread what was going on in his note completely... I thought he was expressing surprise that the vinyl sounded as good as the CD ... he commented on the enormous amount of money his friend invested in his turntable.. I thought he was surprised by the performance of the vinyl vs. the CD. Recall his commented that the friends cartridge cost more than his whole system... so I thought he was surprised what a tremendous difference that investment made??? I missed that boat! Lol

Fredrick Fennell/Cleveland Symphonic Winds?

@piccman1

Жыл бұрын

Yes. He actually did two of them I believe.

@paulcohen2556

Жыл бұрын

@@piccman1 There were three LPs that came out as 2 CDs. I was one of the instrumentalists on these recordings. Many stories to tell.....

@piccman1

Жыл бұрын

@@paulcohen2556 nice. You played with David Zauder. He was from Detroit as am I. These are great recordings of the wind band repertoire.

@paulcohen2556

Жыл бұрын

@@piccman1 Yes, I knew David Zauder well as a player. In addition to that recording, he often played with the Blossom Festival Band (as did I) directed by Leonard B. Smith, also from Detroit.

@piccman1

Жыл бұрын

@@paulcohen2556 Top stuff, Paul. I worked with LBS with the Detroit Concert Band.

Thousand dollar DAC vs thousand dollar turntable, I think vinyl will sounding best until five or ten grand. Still live with my moderate DAC cause it’s convenient and sounds ok.

Huh…cool..never knew.

That Telarc is a bad choice for doing a vinyl to CD comparison. It was digitally mastered on the Soundstream digital recorder using a 16bit 5ok sampling. So you are listening to digital sourced material either way. Vinyl might have a way of forcing analog restrictions/ filtering no electronic circuit can duplicate? But at best the vinyl will not change the digital recording much.

@jmtennapel

Жыл бұрын

The mastering curve voor vinyl or CD is quite different, so the original recording system doesn’t say much on how it sounds on the media it is played back from, given those media have had different masters. The digital recording system only had the advantage of not having tape hiss, but the mixes made from those early digital recordings where all still analogue, since digital mixing consoles where not invented yet ;-)

Hi Paul, thank you for your vids that i like a lot. An email adress to send you my HiFi questions? Thanks in advance! 😉

Thanks informative video. I agree cd can sound as good as lp , and better especially in recordings with too much dynamic range for lp ( limited to about 60db cf 96db for cd). The dac makes an enormous difference. 99% of cd players use the inferior delta sigma dac. I used to have Accuphase dp450 and lps of the same recording usually sounded better. Then I bought the Aqua La Scala r2r dac and the difference was minimal. I then bought the Aqua La Diva cd transport with i2S cable to La Scala. With this combination, over sixty recordings I have on cd and lp, lp NEVER sounded better than cd. So the only issue with cd is your playback equipment. I think that’s similar to what you are saying. But I disagree that higher resolution sounds better than cd: 1) that’s scientifically impossible because cd already exceeds hearing capacity-nobody can hear beyond 20-22khz which is what cd gives (Nyquist theorem). And no disrespect but at 70 you can’t possibly hear above 12khz. Then there’s the 24 v 16 bit argument. Sure 24 bit translates to 144db dynamic range cf human hearing of 141db. A win for high resolution right? Wrong : if you listen to any 96db sound for one minute you’ll go deaf. I don’t know of any orchestral recordings that exceed dynamic range of45db (1812 overture maybe has the greatest dynamic range and it’s shown to be 45db by stereophile ). But aside from that there’s always background noise and the masking effect limits practical human capabilities to 85db- and that’s never ever reached. Even the Telarc recording of Tchaikovsky 1812 has a dynamic range of 45db! And most recordings have much less. Don’t believe me? Read the stereophile review of it: www.stereophile.com/content/recording-october-1979-telarc-1812-overture In short it’s impossible to hear any benefits from more than 16/44.1. I have compared about thirty sacds blurays and CDs (high resolution on oppo205 to Geerfab dbob to Aqua La Scala dac. Only where the manufacturer has sabotaged the cd layer to make sacd/bluray sound better is there a difference. Proof? Buy an esoteric sacd of any recordings of a big commercial label and play the cd layer through the La diva and La Scala. In precisely zero cases does higher resolution sound better -esoteric cd layer beats any label sacd or bluray. The difference is not the resolution. The difference is 1) mastering and 2) playback equipment.

Ah Paul, you’re contradicting yourself again. A while back you did an entire video on how analog sounds better than digital, and has a certain something that digital just can’t reproduce. Anyway, I find this ongoing debate boring. Both analog and digital sound great. I have both in my system. What is often overlooked (ignored) on the vinyl side is it’s superb collectibility. Collecting vinyl is so much more fun and rewarding. Digital is convenient, but ever have the inclination to show someone your digital music collection? Exactly.

@craigellsworth3952

Жыл бұрын

Forget collecting either. Most audiophiles will all be dead in 10 to 15 years. Me included. Who is going to want either collection when the music is all available now via streaming.

could it be; the digital sources are "less limited" by their medium?

Perhaps you've improved the specs, but l doubt any digital source can outdo a top turntable, tone arm and cartridge.

You forgot hiss or ham were the recording was made for unprofessional persons. But, I had respect for them because they were the pioneer in recording .

If the cd sounds like a lp? You failed on digital audio.

You can get better noise floor and S/N ratio with DACs.

Excellent presentation Paul! I'll be token dissenter here. I disagree. I think progress in digital has been poor from a SQ standpoint (I'm speaking generally here PS Audio makes a wonderful product). However, critical listeners have rejected the various delta sigma / pulsed quantize digital algorithms and noise shaping shenanigans in digital. This is supported by the overwhelming popularity of R2R and NOS dacs over the last 10 years. The consumer fervency of 30+ year old R2R ladder chip designs and technology is not indicative of digital progress. Digital is and always will be a approximation of an analog signal. No one ever says ""Gee wiz, my Turntable sounds so digital." Perhaps it's easier to get better sound from $99 dac than a $99 turntable but that's a mistake in consumer education IMHO and the audio industry is shooting its self in the foot with that message. Don't take the bait kids! Banish the digital demons and embrace analog! LONG LIVE VINYL!

DACs are all the rage now days..

POV: You don't understand Nyquist theorem.

And by the same token, digital can still sound somewhat sterile. I think that the questioner should go back to his friends house and listen again. He may not come to the same conclusion.

Upsampling dosen't add elements of music that are not there on the original red-book format. Upsampling present the interpolation in the DAC with more sampling points. THerefore making it easier for interpolation to recreate the original sound wave more accurately. It does two things. One it makes music more accurate and real. Secondly it whipes out the myth conversation hypotheses over whether HD audio being better than red-book.

Why do people feel compelled to tell Paul they don't always agree with him? Of course not, but some things are better left unsaid. Worse, it can sound arrogant and insulting.

Lots of nonsense in this. ALL "audio data" if you will is compressed to a point to fit various mediums. Comparing DACs to phono stages or digital to analog is a waste of time. It is comparing apples to oranges. When one compares say, turntables one does not compare a turntable to a CD player or streaming service. Comparisons are supposed to be like item to like item. Audio data is compressed for vinyl records because not only is there so much room, but the wave form is different in analog signal than digital signal. Same goes for CDs, the data is still somewhat compressed due to the restrictions of the medium. Same with streaming, audio data is compressed to fit in the bandwidth of the network on which it travels. Same thing with terrestrial radio, in case you did not know. It is the amount and kind of compression that matters and that has evolved and may continue to evolve, I don't know. The other underlying factor that is important and often avoided by those who prefer pseudoscience over real science is the fact that the human ear can only hear so much, period. You can have audio data outside of what one is able to hear with the best ears and it simply doesn't matter. One can't hear it or feel it (except in the case weaponized frequencies). I question anyone who claims they can hear differences outside of normal human hearing. Yes, some have more sensitive hearing (myself included) and may be able to pick up certain distortion perhaps or something, but we still can't hear subsonic or audio data outside of our natural limitation. In other words to put in colloquial terms, "golden ears" is a myth. On the other side of the same coin it also points to the fact that one can't hear the difference between CD, MQA, DSD or high-rez. It is physically impossible. However, that is actually a good thing! The whole idea behind all those things is precisely that one can't tell the difference using that base of least compression, in this case, the CD. In other words, CD, MQA, DSD, High-rez should indeed all sound the same! It opens up more ways to get music that is enjoyable. One should want a stream or computer file or whatever to sound like a well produced CD. Then one can take their music collection with them where ever on what ever if they so choose. To me, worrying about whether something is DSD, High-rez, etc. only takes away from the music and the enjoyment of it. This is why audiophiles are usually miserable, because they don't listen to music, they listen to gear and worry about format, "audiophile recordings" and other mythology trying to chase it. That is why they are so snobbish and behave like cult members. Remember, misery loves company. If you are happy with your system and your music or what have you and you tell that to an audiophile, it upsets them. The good news is that there are now plenty of choices in gear and what have you that can give one whatever they need at almost any price point. Granted, not as good as before Covid (or political tectonic shift for the worse), but it is still possible to find an extremely good DAC at an affordable price or a turntable or what have you. Alternately, if one has patience, one can save up for something. The thing to keep in mind is that it does not take tens of thousands of dollars to get High Fidelity or "high-end" sound. (I have normal original pressings of vinyl records that can be considered "reference". I have a few early "remastered" CDs that could be considered "reference". No need for an "audiophile" sticker or whatever). If one is into recordings with "audiophile" stickers or what have you, that's perfectly ok too. To each their own. The point is the data is the same in each format and we can only hear so much. In fact, much of what we do hear is with our brains and not our ears. At the end of the day, stereo, soundstage, etc. is an illusion, but achievable mostly through set up. Most gear is able to support the illusion.

@davidfromamerica1871

Жыл бұрын

The “Audiophile Industry Association Group” LOL. Are like the Pilgrims of the early 1600’s. They are right and you get burned at the stake philosophy. You were safer living with the Indians. 😀👍😎🤗

@rosswarren436

Жыл бұрын

Actually a 44.1kHz/16-bit "Redbook" CD can reproduce a dynamic range of about 96 dB, more than humans are capable of. A 24-bit file can reproduce a dynamic range of 144dB, far surpassing human hearing. The "compression" done on these mediums have nothing to do with their limitations but rather how the studio WANTS the music to sound. A little compression can help soft sounds not be lost when you are playing them back say in a noisy car, but too much compression saps the music of life. Sadly the "loudness wars" that led to all albums being compressed to hell has contributed to most modern music sounding like crap.

@ericelliott227

Жыл бұрын

@@rosswarren436 Precisely!

@davidfromamerica1871

Жыл бұрын

@@rosswarren436 I do a very short spot check of the top 40 charts once in awhile. I have no idea who any of those people are..😀😀😀😀😀 All I know is Hank Williams SR. didn’t make the 40 again. 😂😂😂😂😂🥺

@rosswarren436

Жыл бұрын

@@davidfromamerica1871 I have a local "classic country radio station", WAME here in NC. Hank Williams SR gets played often.

I don’t always agree with you Paul. It is mostly the mastering. Not the DAC. He I think is saying this to sell some more of his DACs. Same thing with my Telarc “Star Tracks” disk and LP. They are indistinguishable and fantastic recordings. Mastering mastering mastering

AI audio is robotic. But if you like that who am I to disagree?

@ryanshannon6963

Жыл бұрын

It's not, because it's not a robot, but that's still completely irrelevant to the video.

@artyfhartie2269

Жыл бұрын

@@ryanshannon6963 Digital audio is processed using computer chips. AI. Dont bother with a reply. Idiots bore me

@staLkerhu

4 ай бұрын

Being an idiot is one thing, advertising it for no reason at all is another... 🤷‍♂@@artyfhartie2269 But don't worry, not many people will see it there.

I'm from the way-back analogue world, and I've never understood how you can debate analogue Vs digital. Electronic instruments aside, anything that comes via a microphone starts life as analogue (even a digital microphone is analogue at the first stage) and when it hits your speakers ends life as analogue. You can't hear digital sound. Up until recently all Elton John's live concerts were 100% analogue. But analogue is a poor storage and transmission medium. People who say vinyl is better -- and especially when talking about older recordings, are referencing a recording done on multitrack tape mixed down to stereo and then pressed onto vinyl. Sure they added a clever RIAA curve to compensate for vinyl's deficiencies, but how can you compare that to something saved to a HDD with brilliant A/D converters? How can tape be better? Tape is lossy. So the argument really goes back to inferiour A/D conversions. But how far do you have to go back? In 1986/.87 Roy Orbison went into the studio and re-recorded all his hits. I'm not sure if it went to tape (probably) or onto a HDD. But it was dropped onto CD. Sounds absolutely great. Is someone going to tell me that his old 50s and 60s vinyl records sound better? I've got the CD, it's simply called Roy Orbison's Greatest Hits -- In Dreams. The cover features Roy sitting on a stool with a bunch of cable surrounding the stool.

I'd like to know where all these pristine music streams are. All I hear is remastered butchery. Every version sounds different and non of them sound good. If I find a recording from the classic rock era that has NOT been remastered it is almost always better than the newly butchered MQA.

Cowboy fans believe that Dac throws too many picks.

🤣🤣🤣

The best (NOS) DAC cannot beat the sound of the best Phono. Digital audio will never pass analog recording. It's mathematical impossible.

Nice guy but I have never seen someone who says so much yet speak so little……