Vinyl vs Streaming

Yes, I consider vinyl is well worth any extra work involved. For me, it is enjoyable work anyway.

In my experience sound quality wise, vinyl and digital in all its forms have been leapfrogging each other for decades. Vinyl has been the ascendancy lately, but streaming is gaining ground.

Recently, I discovered that moving the server, a Roon Optimized Core Kit, ROCK NUC with SSD storage and the ethernet switch away from  satellite TV reciever was a big step forward for streaming. That led me to wonder if there was more I could do to close the gap with vinyl.

AI suggested that my ageing loudspeakers were optimised for vinyl and I should try adjusting the degree of digital room correction in the bass applied. At the same time, I toed in the speakers more in an attempt to lessen the effects of reflections from side walls. I also upgraded the ethernet cable between the switch and the server to a Melco C100.

The result was that in some ways streaming far exceeded vinyl. For example the bass was tuneful without a trace of being spoiled by room resonances - quite the most impressive that I've ever heard. Yet overall, vinyl remained more coherent and convincing. Depending on the nature of the music, some harshness remained in places with steaming.

However, I have more ideas to improve streaming. It is still a work in progress. Whether it will ultimately match vinyl I can't say at this stage. Regardless, I see the benefits of running both vinyl and streaming side by side as being different they complement each other. 

If there is a digital/analog equivalent to the photography analogy in music or sound reproduction, I'd like to know what it is. It seems plausible that there would be a similar story but I do not know at what resolution or bit rate, this revolution would occur.

@billpete 

That is a great analogy. The one thing about cameras is that the advent of digital bestowed 35mm technology with no practical relevance. If only oil would have been besmirched in the same way by, um, sunlight. Some industries completely cave as they realize their time is up, while others hang on because there is still a bit of monetary viability left to squeeze out of it. 

I will have to rack my brain today to figure out if there was a similar industry that surrendered to another in such fast fashion. I think maybe what we saw with photography was what many thought would happen in music circles - a complete capitulation from an old technology (analog) to one that was better (digital)- in large part- because of it's convenience. 

But that is not what happened. Film cameras just went from being quite expensive to being nearly worthless. Akin to the steep fall of Longaberger baskets...or beenie babies. Not that cameras were collectibles, but they were perched on a cliff and fell all the way to the bottom, in just a couple years.

Back in the early 80's, I had a friend who lent me a Sony AM/FM Walkman. That was a revelation. Such great sound and soooo portable. 

Phones, and the marriage of music, should have been all that and then some. But photography was the focus. Phone engineers went after the easy prey, low hanging fruit, and I assume, because music files required more onboard storage than photos (which were rather grainy at the time), they never really got around to offering up a phone that could "do it all" and court every human sense(s).

But, wait, there is still time!

We audiophiles may eventually get rid of all of our gear in lieu of a pocket piece. We will all be able to get together to watch Full Metal Jacket on my super phone that has the projector feature an USB jacks for my B&W minis. It will even play Black Sabbath at 100db on its integrated McInstosh/Bose amplifier!

https://vertu.com/lifestyle/high-end-phone-best-for-music-movie-streaming-2025/

@goodlistening64 - those are great points; I went to college in Rochester, NY, in the early 70's, and Rochester had Xerox, Bausch & Lomb, and other large companies, but Eastman Kodak was 'Great Yellow Father' and ruled the photography roost. They were very ill-prepared for advent of digital photography and down that cliff they dropped like a stone. It still exists, but it's kind of a little company now, I think; nowhere close to where it was and will never be again. I'm sure there are audio companies that have experienced something similar. 

Setup: Initial costs and setup efforts for quality streaming or to be able to play LPs with above average equipment can be a lot of work, and cost.

Although just to play some LP’s, to determine if you will like/stick with it: something like an AT120 TT and it’s internal phono EQ will get you playing quite easily. I had one for years with an upgraded cartridge.

https://www.amazon.com/Audio-Technica-AT-LP120XUSB-Direct-Drive-Hi-Fidelity-Anti-Skate/dp/B07N3S4X3P/ref=sr_1_1?sr=8-1

Content: I imagine buying LP’s is higher cost than Streaming, and considering what you might risk money on, far more limiting, and can be a downright failure like the Ocie Elliott LP I just received (could understand only 2 words per song), or a Melody Gardot LP I simply disliked the content and gave away the next day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_in_the_Blue

Then there is the ’hands on’ aspect of LP’s, which some of us like. We get personal satisfaction out of choosing; assembling the equipment; choosing and aligning cartridges; handling LP’s, the resulting sound our personal accomplishment.

You can imagine my pride and joy assembling this for just under $5,500:

SUT (out of sight) included, but subsequent alternate cartridge purchases are after the $5,500. 

@larsman 

I guess Kodak had one good engineer (Steve Sasson) at the time!

The reactionary antibodies within Kodak’s leadership rejected the digital camera, fearing it would cannibalise existing business. As Sasson later told the New York Times, “it was filmless photography, so management’s reaction was, ‘that’s cute — but don’t tell anyone about it.’”

https://www.weforum.org/stories/2016/06/leading-innovation-through-the-chicanes/