Vinyl vs Streaming

@newton_john it’s fun to implement all these improvements in the streaming chain but keep in mind you’re still left with whatever the version of the master that’s available for streaming. I don’t know what kind of music you’re listening to but if your selections consist of older recordings they will all be digitally remastered, which in most cases is the worst sounding version you can play. At the end of the day the master of the album is one of the biggest contributors. This is where it all starts. There are some absolutely wonderful quality new recordings out there on streaming that sound amazing though. It’s a mixed bag. Essentially it all starts at the source. Your equipment just faithfully reproduces it. 

ghdprentice (quoting "AI")

If vinyl can reach roughly the top of the audible band under good conditions, then 44.1 kHz digital already covers that, because it can represent frequencies up to a little above 22 kHz under the sampling theorem. 

That’s simply mistaken. First, LP can easily reach well beyond 22 kHz, a trait that some believe gives LP its "air." Meanwhile, 44.1 digital never, ever gets to 22 kHz because it has to filter the output to prevent aliasing. But I give credit to AI for its use of boldface, which really lends an aura of certainty and credibility to its assessment, no matter how misguided.

Using the standard rule of roughly 6 dB per bit, 60 dB of vinyl-like dynamic range works out to about 10 bits, and 72 dB works out to about 12 bits. That is why people often treat very good vinyl as somewhere around 10–12 effective bits. 

So what? You’ll be very, very hard-pressed to find any LP or CD with even 60dB dynamic range. If you doubt me, check the dynamic range database. But even that is moot, because with analog and LP, you can easily hear signal that is below the noise floor. Not so with digital, though.

It’s difficult to compare analog and digital based on numbers like this, and it’s prone to the sort of misinterpretation that AI stepped right into.

@audphile1 

Thanks. A good reason to keep both formats.

@Billpete "... I think it must be more complicated than the explanations that we have."

Exactly. Numbers tend to fail in something so nuanced as musical reproduction. Both are a long string of translations and electrical amplifications and end up being completely dependent on the devices you are using. Hence most folks just abandon a few measurable variables and 

The description that Vinyl and CD are in the ball park similar in resolution sounds to me about right. Ballpark... so heavily dependent on the components that that is probably as good an answer as there is. Implementation is just everything. 

@ghdprentice Thanks for the generous offer to hear your system. If I ever make it back out to the west coast, I'll do my best to look you up. I really only hear my own gear anymore since I retired to rural MO. For the most part, I'm OK with that. I do enjoy the discussions here even though there is often a lot of bickering over what is better, best and so on. So much of this is open to interpretation that it often seems pointless. Measurements mean something, they just don't mean everything, if that makes sense. I guess there is no real way (so far) to make a measurement of live music, analog reproduction vs digital reproduction. Fair enough for now. It's been an interesting thread, thanks to the OP. It is an age old discussion that has been beaten to death but it just won't seem to go away.