Which is more accurate: digital or vinyl?

.

(i left two posts today)

High resolution and timbre.

Between High resolution and portrayal of instrumental timbres.

You can have any one of these combos

1.Low resolution, very good timbre
2.low resoution, poor timbre
3,high resolution, poor timbre
4,high resolution, very good timbre

It does not follow in every case that high resolution necessarily must equal poor portrayal of timbre.

It is a question not just of how high the resolution (the amount of info it can read) but just as important, is HOW that info is portrayed in RELATION to a live instruments timbre.

Play any fine instrument live. This is the embodiment of "lots of info and faithfulness to timbre" (well, there's nothing to be faithful to since it the real thing)

It is wrong, i think if anyone should argue that.... as resolution goes up portrayal of timbres must go down and therefore things necessarily must sound less real.

As long as a systems high "information" retrieval is FAITHFUL to "timbre" at the same time... there is no paradox necessary or at least there is no paradox on CERTAIN recordings that find synergy with what the rest of the system is doing.

What i suspect is happening then in systems that are pushing state of the art in resolution is...that they are operating within a narrower and narrower "range" ...increasing the demand on recordings that aren't "sympathetic" to that narrow range and when the unique signature of how that system was put together finds the right synergy with a recording that has a certain "bent" to it, shazaam, wow, this sounds amazing! But the double edged sword is (with that very narrowed range it is operating in) it has now "alienated" many other records in the collection from sounding good because there are so many variables between different "recordings."

Hmm? Maybe i'll have to become one of those guys who goes back to 'midfi' or vintage because of this. There's a very compelling argument that could be made to justify doing so.

Maybe i should have kept my marantz 2270 and 2325's and just be done with it. What's so great about great timbre? Is it really worth all that money just to acquire it on a few recordings? How many times do we keep walking when we pass a live street busker, or i've seen people fall asleep at live classical music events? (haha) (just thinking aloud)

Maybe the best is to find some middle ground.

Which is better? 1.to have a few things in your collection sound sublime and the rest sound mediocre OR 2.to just have most sounding pretty darn good?

If i did go back to midfi i know that i would be going from... SOME things sound real ...to... nothing ever sounds indistinguishable from real.

But maybe that would be ok to me, since as i've stated before music is much more than JUST having perfect instrument timbre.

.

Vertigo I am glad you have picked up on some of my thoughts, and are beginning to understand what I must be poor at explaining.

I did say that the less resolving, mid fi systems and most vintage gear, have a way of sounding more "musical" to the folks who like to use that term.

I try not to use that term,it means something different to everyone with a system.

Read some of the non professional takes on most high end gear and you will see that a lot of folks don't like the sound of high resolving gear no matter how much synergy there is.Too much detail, fatiguing, non musical, are some descriptors that I've read.
Give them an old 12 inch driver in an untuned particle board box and Sansui receiver and they have found their musical nirvana.
And good for them if that's what makes them happy.
But sorry that's not my idea of a good time.
If it doesn't sound "musical" or nice to their ears, then it's not very good.
Musical to them and not musical to me,and vice versa.

We both know what we like, and settle with the sound that we like.

My preference is to enjoy at 100% the recordings that are well recorded and sound that way thru my system.
I am perfectly content with the fact that this may only account for 40% of my recorded collection.
I would rather be content enjoying the differences than never being able to know that there are any.
Or in other words, I would rather enjoy a small percentage of my collection to the max than to enjoy my whole collection at a lesser degree.

In other words again, I don't want a system that drags the good recordings down to the level of the poor ones.

There's no pleasure in that for me.

I will still enjoy the musicianship and the music on all the recordings, just not the "sound" of those recordings.

And this is why I can't enjoy systems that are low in resolution .To me they make everything sound the same,and I know that's not how it is in the real world.

If the system makes some recordings less pleasurable because for the first time the music is being heard thru a system that isn't rolled off in the treble or seriously compromised in high frequency retrieval,then it's not the fault of the gear.

The gear is only telling it like it is.
So what is more realistic?
A system capable of distinguishing between recordings and studios or a system that homogenizes everything with no distinction between well recorded music and poorly recorded music?

Again, check out Harley's take on the sound of the early jazz recordings or even some of Chet Atkins early mono lps and tell me they don't sound more "real"(for want of a better term)than most everything recorded in the last few years,using analog or digital.

Until a person hears how uncluttered and unprocessed this music is,they don't have a clue about what I or Harley is talking about.

I once had a debate on this forum with someone who flat out told me I didn't know what I was talking about, because I said that early 50's and 60's jazz lps sounded more "real" than most of todays recordings did.
He said we have progressed and a lot of advancements have been made.
I stated, that the old engineers were masters at capturing the sound of the instruments in the room they were played in more accurately because they didn't rely on audio processing and gimmicks and "fixing it in the mix" or even post production work on pro tools.

So when I say that my friend's system reveals these differences even more than mine does,it doesn't mean that the music is any less enjoyable thru his system.
In fact I enjoy it more.Because it gives me a clearer picture about what is going on behind the scenes.

It only demonstarates how many differences there are in recordings, how much the quality varies from studio to studio, label to label and in the amount of processing some recordings get.
It's very easy to distinguish between purist recordings and the ones that aren't.

In other words, his system and most of the better system pull this off, but it's not the perfect cup of tea for the folks who want to have a nice warm and fuzzy relationship with their music and hifi system.

So like I"ve mentioned, there are two ways at the least for folks to persue this hobby.

It's often mentioned that folks who invest large sums of money in the gear are just gear heads.
Partly true, guilty as charged.

But it's all for a good cause.The ultimate enjoyment of recorded music.Which for me is the enjoyment of hearing the trail of reverb at the end of a Dylan harmonica recording that just isn't there in my room or any place else, outside of that studio.

When you are a musician, you can give up and just play the music and forget about the quality, because you know it's not real.
Or you can strive to build a system that at least gets you close enough to "real" to know it when it ain't.

Lacee, my 60's dylan first pressings are some of the most impressive recordings i have in my small collection. I have heard many "incarnations" of the playback of these same lps... change... as my system goes through it's changes. I have a record in my head of the several different ways i have these lps sound and can compare them with each other. Some were more romantic and colored and some were more neutral and clinical.

RE***I once had a debate on this forum with someone who flat out told me I didn't know what I was talking about, because I said that early 50's and 60's jazz lps sounded more "real" than most of todays recordings did.
He said we have progressed and a lot of advancements have been made.***

I'm not surprised. From the little experience i have in this area i would probably take your side and agree with what you have said. It seems today everything is overproduced and over processed? I'd like to see a return to simple analog tape recordings, with sparse tracks and limited manipulation.

I think at the heart of the problem of "hifi" is the myriad of variables that exist both from a recording standpoint and from a playback standpoint.

That is...you can't build a system that will play all the types of recordings that exist out there equally well? You can dial in your system for certain types of recordings but then once you've done that you fail to serve the other types of recordings.In other words, just when you've set the ball up and are ready to kick, you look up and the goal posts have been moved! So basically, it seems that "hifidelity" is a futile exercise in so far as if one sets their goal to have all their software sound perfect.

When i started out, i was very naive, romantic and idealistic.

Lately, as i have reflected, i have almost come to the conclusion that the term "hi fidelity" was probably a term originally coined simply to sell the "snake oil" of "great sound". Which essentially means that they have hung the billboard of "hifidelity"... when the stuff in the bottle has no power to heal! And we all bought some! (I laugh)

Sorry if my outlook is a bit bleak but it only comes on the heals of that romantic idealist that was full of hopes of an attainable ideal and who has become to some degree disappointed! Where i have arrived and where i set out to go are not the same thing.

But...I can't complain. Some of the promises of hifi are being delivered, i guess, i just need to lower my expectations.

Maybe the ideal is to build the system that is between midfi plus and below state of the art.

I think i might put together a system that is just a glorified getto blaster. (smile)

Don't give up Vertigo,and please don't regress.

It's is a bit of a shock when you hear a really superb system and discovering how great all the music sounds,but that the system is revealing all the flaws as well.

But this is the direction that I want to travel further towards, and as I've said ,doing things about the power to my gear and treating the room, really has gotten me closer.

Not closer to reality, but closer to the reality of the recording and playback process which if you really think about it is reality.

It's all an illusion, but the better the illusion, the more I enjoy the music.

Somefolks don't enjoy this type of realism, and rather enjoy systems that cover up some of the nasties of the recording chain.

To me if it sounds like a bad recording , then that is what it is,I don't want it to mask the impefections,because if a system is good at that it is also masking great recordings.

It's like grading all the smart kids and the less smart ones, lumping them altogether and giving the class one big C .

If I have some grade A recordings I don't want them reproduced at a C level.

Sure everything sounds alright, just like all the kids get a pass, but is that the way we want things to be?

It's just breeding mediocrity, and sorry for the preaching, but this seems to be where society is at.

But why settle for it if you don't have to.

Assembling a truthful system isn't hard or even that expensive to do, if you pay attention to a few things that some folks describe as snake oil.

Well snake oil to them is nirvana to me, if it gets me a system that is revealing of everything there is about a piece of recorded music.

I'll take my music, warts and all, over music that's rendered all sweet and gooey.

But that's they way I like it, it's not the way you or anyone else has to like it.

And from all that I've been reading on forums and in reviews, it seems the goo is the more popular.

I guess I am a coffee black type and the others are triple triple lovers.

In the end we are still listening to the music and that's what matters,no matter what it's played back thru.

.

RE***Don't give up Vertigo,and please don't regress.***

Appreciate the encouragement. Thanks, fellow audiophile sojourner...

I liked your "school grades" analogy.

I appreciate your response but i wonder if you have really understood my points? The reason why i wonder if you have understood my points is because i am having trouble understanding why you would encourage me not to regress or give up since the reality is....that the goal is unattainable?

So, it is not that i am a pessimist, rather it is that i am a realist! I like to think that i am able to see things as they are.

I haven't reached a definitive conclusion on the question but i have to ask myself ...why strive for an impossible goal if striving FOR that goal only leads to the displeasure of frustration? I thought the goal of hi fidelity was pleasure and satisfaction? (i smile) The other questions i have to ask are... what's the goal? Deriving pleasure from "FIDELITY" that is only available to a select number of recordings on a system that has been specifically dialed in for those recordings or deriving pleasure from a broad number of recordings on which the focus is "catching the value of tune" and actually achieving that!!?

What really is the truth about the relationship between pleasure and "hi fidelity"?

(for me) It depends on the day... Some days i am deriving pleasure from the PURSUIT of attaining fidelity and some days i am not, some days it has the opposite effect. Some days, i just want to listen to all kinds of music and recordings that are simply euphonic and that's just fine with me cause euphonic equals pleasure. (but i know to those who are seeking hi fidelity "euphonic" can be a dirty word!)(smile)

re***It's is a bit of a shock when you hear a really superb system and discovering how great all the music sounds,but that the system is revealing all the flaws as well.***

In light of the above statement and some of your previous posts how would you reconcile your "paradox of high resolution systems" with your above statement that (paraphrasing) "the superb system makes "all" the music sound great"?

My guess would be that you still are able to derive pleasure from "poor sounding recordings"?

It is difficult for me to make blanket statements about "poor sounding recordings" since i prefer to comment on a case by case basis but generally i feel the "warts" detract from "the original point of the song" on a "hi performance system" that has been dialed in with a certain bent toward certain recordings and therefore i suspect in some cases a midfi system(or a system with a different "bent") would serve certain types of recordings better and serve the "songs" better.

This brings me to a point i alluded to in my previous post but perhaps i failed to clearly communicate.

It was the "moving goal post" analogy.

Make adjustments to your system so that recordings of certain well regarded recordings sound sublime then play other perceived "lesser" recordings and the system shows up the lesser recordings for supposedly what they are ("poor recordings") relative to the better recordings BUT if you were to focus your system adjustments for some time on those so called "poor recordings" i argue you can make those sound better than you believed they could. Once you succeed at making those lesser recordings sound better than you thought now try those well regarded recordings, now they sound worse than how you remembered they could sound.

See how you can't win? This is what i mean by "the goal posts are constantly moving and shifting" Which is the part of "hi fidelity" that i perceive is absurd and a exercise in "expensive futility".

So, what i mean to say is that to some degree it is an oversimplification to say recordings are objectively better or worse in regard to "serving the music" because there is no standard by which to measure this. ?? Alot of how a recording will sound has to do with how you've dialed in your system.

One might mistakenly CONCLUDE a record is a poor recording but is it in fact a poor recording simply because it sounds bad on your system compared to a "better recording" because your system has been dialed in for that kind of a recording? Those with midfi system's might not understand the level of the kind of nuances i am talking about which can compliment a certain type of recording to the alienation of many others(unfairly so). As you "go up" in hifi the double edged sword gets sharper and sharper.

If you tried that "poor record" on a system that was considered great in the 80's you might really enjoy that record the way it was INTENDED for that time and that period and change your opinion about the quality of that recording.

So, with this context added and if all this is true then i hope folks can i understand me when i say that at the very least, to some degree ..."hi fidelity" is an exercise in futility and "snake oil" since the myriad of contingencies keep the goal posts constantly moving. Once we make the "good recordings" sound great by dialing in the system for those, now the perceived "poor recordings" sound worse then they really should. Once we've made the "poor recordings" sound much better than we thought they could, now the perceived "good recordings" sound only mediocre or poor.

I'm not saying i'm right...I'm saying...i think i'm right...this is how i see it.

Remember sisyphus in greek mythology and his boulder(not the amp, no ...the rock)?

I remember the sound of one of my previous systems it was...systemdek turntable with humble profile arm, with denon 103, manley stingray, lehmann audio black cube, nautilus 805's , cardas golden reference interconnect.

Hey, this was a very musical system! its worth about 5 grand used. Now, just the arm i own is worth just about as much as that whole system.

Does the system i have now sound better than that one? From my memory of the two sounds i would have to answer sometimes yes ...and...sometimes ,no and maybe some times..."different".Some 80's and 90,s stuff, i think, in a general way could maybe bring more pleasure on the old system because the resolution was lower and because that old system found better synergy with those types of records. That old system has no where near the clarity,neutrality,timbrel fidelity and transparency of my current system but from my fuzzy memory i remember some recordings "serving the music better" than they currently do on my system even though it can be said in a certain sense my present system should sound better.

That old system could sound bright,colored and grainy but it was a toe tapper. Overall i think i much prefer the virtues of my present system, things sound real, but that other system could be alot of fun too! The old system was like a fun toy my present system is more like a sophisticated instrument? Its all very interesting.

I guess deciding to regress or not will come down to which way i finally, prefer to listen to music.

RE***Which is more accurate: digital or vinyl?***

It has to be decided on a case by case basis, from track to track, from system to system, from quality of set up to quality of set up, from player to player, from cartridge to cartridge, on and on the list can go.

.



.