Article: And Now For Some Serious Good Schiit (Skoll Yggy!)

3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

That is beside the point though. Liking a playback medium is totally fine. I just start to get frustrated when people suggest it’s better to take the master digital file, write it to a piece of plastic, then drag a needle over it, and it’s better. Of course better is subjective, but by any objective standard, it can’t be more accurate to the source than the actual source. 
 

You have to search the world high and low for an actual vinyl record that was made with a completely analog process. I see now they are even playing word games by saying “all analog mastering” but say nothing about the rest of the process. Even when an all analog record is found, the pops, ticks, and noise present, however minimal, would all exclude any other medium from even being released to the public. If CD had those issues, it would still be just a patent. 

This raises two important related points about vinyl:

Definitely true that taking a digital master file and converting it to analog, as is typically done today, typically produces a vinyl record that sounds more like a CD than vinyl vs CD of an album from decades ago.  Part of this is the aesthetic of the engineering, part technology.  So if your primary listen is music of the 2020s, you will not notice as big a difference as you would if your primary music is circa 1990 or earlier.

But it is not difficult to build a library of AAA vinyl, and almost AAA vinyl that sounds distinctively different from digital.  My sweet spot is jazz and rock from 1950-90, and between Discogs, audiophile vinyl reissuers, Amazon, and local record stores; I've bought about 350 LPs since adding vinyl to my system in early 2023.  Very few of these records have significant ticks/pops.

3 hours ago, PeterG said:

My sweet spot is jazz and rock from 1950-90, and between Discogs, audiophile vinyl reissuers, Amazon, and local record stores; I've bought about 350 LPs since adding vinyl to my system in early 2023.  Very few of these records have significant ticks/pops.

I’m a huge fan of jazz from those eras as well. 
 

Defining significant is a tough one. A single tick in digital playback would be deemed disqualifying and too significant to continue. With vinyl, people are just used to it. I have no problem with people liking it. 
 

3 hours ago, PeterG said:

But it is not difficult to build a library of AAA vinyl, and almost AAA vinyl that sounds distinctively different from digital.

I’m with you on the second sentence, but the first is iffy to me. 
 

I think 99% of vinyl released today has a digital step. Even the typical audiophile labels have to do this, as we all found out with MoFi. 
 

I’m happy for people who like it and those who said the MoFi one step albums were the best. I shake my head when those people now change their mind about that same sound quality, but we all can change our minds. Not a big deal. 
 

In addition, accuracy isn’t the goal of everyone, like I believe it used to be back in the day. If money was removed from the equation, I’m willing to bet 99.999% of professionals making records would say digital is more accurate. I only guess this based on what people say behind closed doors. But, I don’t blame them for championing vinyl as it’s how many make a living. Plus, if people like it, it’s all good, a win-win. 
 

If the discussion can remain reasonable, like your comments, I love reading the perspectives, to educate myself. Even if I argue the other side, I’m still learning the what and why people like and do what they do. I love that. 
 

Vinyl is like MQA to me. It should always be a choice for people who like it. When those people start talking about its superiority, the discussion should remain in the subjective category as objectively I don’t buy it. That’s just me though. 

30 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I think 99% of vinyl released today has a digital step. Even the typical audiophile labels have to do this, as we all found out with MoFi.

 I’m happy for people who like it and those who said the MoFi one step albums were the best. I shake my head when those people now change their mind about that same sound quality, but we all can change our minds. Not a big deal.

They don't really "have to," but some do. BTW the One Step process has to do with how the discs are pressed and nothing to do with how the files are handled. . MoFi never actually claimed the process was all analog, but the way they marketed it led you to believe it was. That's where the "scandal" came in. I don't recall reading that anybody changed their mind about how they sounded, they were just angry that they got duped. If I'm wrong about that  somebody please point me to the correction.

I think you are a bit out of the loop when comes to the current AAA releases. You are correct about new music being recorded today having a digital step, or many digital steps, but there are reputable companies releasing AAA vinyl by going back to the master tapes of older recordings that were produced before digital recording existed. Blue Note being one example.. Either that or we are being blatantly lied to and the vinyl industry insiders like Michael Fremer are being seriously duped. 

if interested you can google "aaa vinyl releases"

and as far as "accurate" is concerned, I really don't care. All I care about is how it sounds... Like you alluded to, accuracy is not the goal, never was. Almost all recordings now and in the past are/were massaged with EQ, compression, etc to make them sound better, so when did we start being concerned about accuracy? Remember the early days of digital when everyone was focused on bit perfect 16/44.1 playback? Remember the HdTracks scandal when we found out some of their 24/96 files were actually just GASP !!!!  upsampled ?

Now, for most, the focus is about taking the digital file and massaging it to make it sound better. Some of the most highly regarded DACs  like DCS and EMM convert PCM to DSD and then back to analog. Many  have a variety of digital filters built in to tailor the sound to one's liking and highly regarded programs like HQplayer do it for you in software.  Then add in convolution for corrections for your room, and accuracy is really out the window . 

So regarding vinyl cut from digital files.....which you said " by any objective standard, it can’t be more accurate to the source than the actual source"...  ......  If taking the digital file, converting it to analog to cut a groove in plastic that  I can drag a needle through sounds good to me,   it seems to me the end result is no different than all of the digital manipulations going on in your world to make the digital files sound good to you, because all of what you are doing isn't accurate to the actual source either.

I have absolutely no problem with whatever you or anyone does to the file to make it sound good,, but I don't agree when you say vinyl is less accurate than digital when all of these manipulations are being done on both sides of the fence.... I guess it boils down to which inaccuracies we prefer because neither of us is listening to the source.

4 hours ago, bbosler said:

I think you are a bit out of the loop when comes to the current AAA releases. You are correct about new music being recorded today having a digital step, or many digital steps, but there are reputable companies releasing AAA vinyl by going back to the master tapes of older recordings that were produced before digital recording existed. Blue Note being one example.. Either that or we are being blatantly lied to and the vinyl industry insiders like Michael Fremer are being seriously duped. 

Yeah, except that the amount of vinyl being released that never has a digital stage is miniscule. Your examples only prove it. Blue Note is a drop in the bucket, as are other tiny specialist labels/releases. You aren't being lied to, just what you think is mainstream is a tiny market segment. 

Almost all vinyl - probably 99% - being produced today is produced from  tapes or masters that have been converted to digital at some point before the master disc for the vinyl is cut. 

You have a little bit of an argument if you really only listen to old AAA releases.

But 2 points: :

1) as Chris said, there's no logical basis for saying a analog master converted to digital and then to vinyl, and then played back with a needle scraping over it - is going to sound better than that original digital master properly and directly played back. By definition, the only thing the vinyl playback process can add is distortion of various types.

If you think that distortion is euphonic and sounds better, fine. But at least be honest and admit that's what you prefer.  

2) I've heard lots of vinyl played back on excellent systems. And if sounds fine. Even great sometimes. BUT - I always notice the vinyl artifacts. Maybe you don't. Good for you. 

The vinyl artifacts always mean that vinyl sounds worse to me. And I've felt that way since the early CD days. Yes, some early CDs sounded harsh, not all. But a good many of the people who claim they never liked CD are engaging in revisionist personal history.  Many of them preferred it to their vinyl and even got rid of their LPs, and only later got caught up in the vinyl revival and claimed they always preferred vinyl. I don't care what they prefer. Just don't tell stories about why you like what you like. 

I love digital and Atmos can only be done that way. As to vinyl, I’ll say only this:  to my ears, digitized vinyl — if of really fine quality — has a sound that the digital version of the same album does not have. I still use analog for RIAA and then digitize — maybe that makes a difference?

I’ll put Chris on the spot. He has much better hearing than I do and he’s heard digitized vinyl at my home. Chris, does it sound like vinyl or digital, to your ears? JCR 

8 hours ago, bbosler said:

They don't really "have to," but some do. BTW the One Step process has to do with how the discs are pressed and nothing to do with how the files are handled. . MoFi never actually claimed the process was all analog, but the way they marketed it led you to believe it was. That's where the "scandal" came in. I don't recall reading that anybody changed their mind about how they sounded, they were just angry that they got duped. If I'm wrong about that  somebody please point me to the correction.

Many have to because the tape never leaves the vault. Iron Mountain even converts some inside its facility. 
 

MF had second thoughts on the sound after finding out. 
 

8 hours ago, bbosler said:

and as far as "accurate" is concerned, I really don't care. All I care about is how it sounds... Like you alluded to, accuracy is not the goal, never was. Almost all recordings now and in the past are/were massaged with EQ, compression, etc to make them sound better, so when did we start being concerned about accuracy

Huh? I’m talking about accuracy during playback. Traditionally that’s what High Fidelity was all about. 
 

8 hours ago, bbosler said:

Remember the early days of digital when everyone was focused on bit perfect 16/44.1 playback? Remember the HdTracks scandal when we found out some of their 24/96 files were actually just GASP !!!!  upsampled ?

 

Now, for most, the focus is about taking the digital file and massaging it to make it sound better. Some of the most highly regarded DACs  like DCS and EMM convert PCM to DSD and then back to analog. Many  have a variety of digital filters built in to tailor the sound to one's liking and highly regarded programs like HQplayer do it for you in software.  Then add in convolution for corrections for your room, and accuracy is really out the window

Bruce, you’re way out of your league here. Upsampling is done to make playback more accurate to the source (pushing noise out of the audible range etc…). 

8 hours ago, bbosler said:

if interested you can google "aaa vinyl releases"

Given how few records can be pressed, when using a true master tape, I still don’t believe half of those saying aaa are really aaa.

I’ve read several pages about new releases and they all skirt around the issue. “From the master tape” and “all analog mastering” mean nothing in the aaa context. 

I have a few needle drops of records I own. The needle drop sounds the same to these ears as playing back the vinyl. The needle drops so far are at 24/96. They were not done by me, just my records.  I sent one to Chris quite awhile ago. He can chime in. That tells me that whatever is going on in the vinyl process can be captured by digital. The issue with digital is the mastering and the dynamic compression. I have a few not commercially available flat transfers of master tapes. They sound utterly fantastic. The truth is, we rarely get to actually hear what is on those master tapes, which is a real shame.

1 hour ago, JoeWhip said:

I have a few needle drops of records I own. The needle drop sounds the same to these ears as playing back the vinyl. The needle drops so far are at 24/96. They were not done by me, just my records.  I sent one to Chris quite awhile ago. He can chime in. That tells me that whatever is going on in the vinyl process can be captured by digital. The issue with digital is the mastering and the dynamic compression. I have a few not commercially available flat transfers of master tapes. They sound utterly fantastic. The truth is, we rarely get to actually hear what is on those master tapes, which is a real shame.

This has also been my experience. A good needle drop is indistinguishable from the vinyl and sounds like vinyl. To me that means that being "digital" is perfectly accurate, and the problem some people have with digital isn't the "digital", but the mastering and compression - not the recording itself. 

I remember years ago the review of the Ayre ADC by JA1. He said even with his own recordings, he couldn't tell the difference between the analog and digitized versions. 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/ayre-acoustics-qa-9-usb-ad-converter-page-3

13 minutes ago, PeterG said:

are releasing AAA vinyl that many believe is superior to any previous versions.  Steely Dan, The Cars, and a huge set commemorating Warner's 75th Anniversary, are just a few examples.  Listening to these is a bit surreal--you are hearing the music in its original medium, but better on a better stereo than anyone dreamed of at the time of the original.

I am happy you've found what you like.

But as far as the quote above, it sort of makes me laugh. Fremer and others said the same thing about the MOFI releases that were digitized to DSD 256 before being made into vinyl - "the best version ever," they said. 

They probably were/are and would be picked by most in blind testing as the best versions.

But I guarantee you a lot of those same vinyl heads would have told you how the MOFI version that was "the best ever" when they thought it was AAA  - would have said it wasn't the equal of their prevously obtained XXX  pressing - if they had known it was created from a 256 DSD transfer of the analog master tape. 

That's how sighted listening judgements work. 

And BTW, vinyl isn't the original medium - tape is. Your LP is a degraded vinyl version of the master tape. 

I think his point was the original source was analog, although you are correct. Tape and vinyl are very different. Even with tape, different tape formations have different sound. I have heard companies that make commercial reel to reel tapes discuss this at Axpona. Just like film. Different film stocks produce different imaging even with the same camera. In short, there is more than one way to skin a cat.

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Bruce, you’re way out of your league here. Upsampling is done to make playback more accurate to the source (pushing noise out of the audible range etc…).

 

 Huh? I’m talking about accuracy during playback

  "accuracy during playback?" I apologize because this will sound snarky.... but are you kidding me?  this not just upsampling.... Conversion to DSD is not just upsampling. If it was simple upsampling why do we get ongoing updates of the PS Audio way of doing it, APEX upgrades for the DCS way, and firmware updates from others. . .The various DAC chips and the DCS ring  circuits act on the data in various ways that they hope sound the best.  If it was just upsampling why have the PPPG crowd been going at this so fervently with ongoing updates to the algorithm? If the digital way is so accurate why does a USB or ethernet cable change the sound in the profound ways that many claim? If digital playback is so accurate why does changing the streaming hardware that is supposedly delivering the exact same data so profoundly changing the sound as many claim?

Various DAC chips and R2R DACs change the signal in various ways.. Putting the data through various digital filters in the DAC changes the data.   It has to or there is no point in doing it. Applying convolution changes the data. Running it through HQP to apply dithering and filters changes the data.
 

 What is being done to the data  by all these digital  methods during playback is not accurate to the source either. Any change to the data or the signal is distortion. What you are doing  to the data is not just upsampling to push down the noise floor ..

So while I readily admit my choices are a matter of preference, what I really find curious is how many on the digital team  (not all) take such a condescending tone when schooling the vinyl team about how distorted it is, yet have no issue glorifying all  the extreme measures they go through to manipulate (distort) the data in the digital playback chain. How they hold their nose when talking about vinyl distortion yet  celebrate digital distortion. 

And I'll leave it at that. Thanks for the exchange.

7 hours ago, firedog said:

But at least be honest and admit that's what you prefer.  

I said I preferred it. I never claimed it was more accurate. I never said it was better.

I don't appreciate being told I am dishonest.

55 minutes ago, PeterG said:

But all of this is a bit academic.  The only way for a person to know whether they would benefit from vinyl is to borrow an analogue rig from their dealer, buy a handful of LPs that you can compare to some of your favorite CDs, and listen at home for a week or so.  This is what I did.  Changed my thinking entirely.  PM me if you would like more specific advice.

Totally with you @PeterG!

56 minutes ago, PeterG said:

But also true that many near-AAA records sound like just AAA and also sound significantly different from any CD of that album.

Agree 100% again. It's awesome that people have the option to purchase and listen to these. It's a wonderful time to be in this hobby.

56 minutes ago, PeterG said:

One incredible thing today is that several companies, such as Analogue Productions and Rhino (Warner!), are releasing AAA vinyl that many believe is superior to any previous versions.  Steely Dan, The Cars, and a huge set commemorating Warner's 75th Anniversary, are just a few examples. 

I briefly looked into this and stuggled to find them advertising AAA. I saw a lot of loose language around analog mastering, but no AAA. Do you have a link showing AAA on these. I found the Atlantic releases on Acoutstic Sounds, and none of it said AAA. IN the big picture it realy doesn't matter, I'm more curious now becuase two people have said this is happening and I struggle to find it :~)

Thanks for the posts. 

7 minutes ago, bbosler said:

"accuracy during playback?" Are you kidding?

Not at all. There are different ways to reduce nonlinearities and artifacts. It's all backed by measurements. 

8 minutes ago, bbosler said:

If it was just upsampling why have the PPPG crowd been going at this so fervently with ongoing updates to the algorithm?

See my above statement.

8 minutes ago, bbosler said:

Putting the data through various digital filters in the DAC changes the data.

No. It removes things like nonlinearities and artifacts not present in the recording. 

9 minutes ago, bbosler said:

What is being done to the data  by all these digital  methods during playback is not accurate to the source either. Any change to the data or the signal is distortion. What you are doing  to the data is not just upsampling to push down the noise floor ..

Huh?

9 minutes ago, bbosler said:

what I really find curious is how many on the digital team  (not all) take such a condescending tone when schooling the vinyl team about how distorted it is, yet have no issue glorifying all  the extreme measures they go through to manipulate (distort) the data in the digital playback chain. How they hold their nose when talking about vinyl distortion yet  celebrate digital distortion. 

I have never seen this, in all my years here. Perhaps you're reading it on another site?

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I briefly looked into this and stuggled to find them advertising AAA. I saw a lot of loose language around analog mastering, but no AAA. Do you have a link showing AAA on these. I found the Atlantic releases on Acoutstic Sounds, and none of it said AAA. IN the big picture it realy doesn't matter, I'm more curious now becuase two people have said this is happening and I struggle to find it :~)

agreed,

some like Blue Note  definitely do make the AAA claim, but  for the Atlantic series they say something about using the master tapes but do not say AAA, so I assume there is a digital step

1 minute ago, bbosler said:

agreed,

 

some like Blue Note  definitely do make the AAA claim, but  for the Atlantic series they say something about using the master tapes but do not say AAA, so I assume there is a digital step

I see this series, is this it? https://store.bluenote.com/collections/classic-vinyl-series

Is this the sentence people are suggesting means AAA?

"This Blue Note Classic Vinyl Edition is stereo, all-analog, mastered by Kevin Gray from the original master tapes, and pressed on 180g vinyl at Optimal."

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Not at all. There are different ways to reduce nonlinearities and artifacts. It's all backed by measurements. 

so  are you saying you can take a digital file, put it through a PCM to DSD conversion, apply dithering and filters as in HQP , apply convolution,  and  whatever else is being done to the file...... and are still "accurate to the source"  ??

If so, we simply have different definitions for accurate

5 minutes ago, bbosler said:

 

so  are you saying you can take a digital file, put it through a PCM to DSD conversion, apply dithering and filters as in HQP , apply convolution,  and  whatever else is being done to the file...... and are still "accurate to the source"  ??

 

If so, we simply have different definitions for accurate

 

 

You're mixing a couple concepts.

The first, usampling, format conversion, filtering. The second, convolution.

The first is used becuase DACs have nonlinearites and artifacts introduced as part of the conversion process. Using something like HQP can reduce nonlinearites and push artifacts into the inaudible range, enabling the listener to hear what's in the file more than without using HQP. 

The second concept, convolution, enables the listener to minimize the effects of the room, enabling him/her to hear what's in the file much better than without it. This is the concept of High Fidelity at the ears rather than the output of the DAC. If a DAC outputs the signal "perfectly" but the room has huge freqnency humps, it doesn't really matter what was in the original file. Thus, correcting for the room, enables much more accurate playback. 

28 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

You're mixing a couple concepts.

 

The first, usampling, format conversion, filtering. The second, convolution.

 

The first is used becuase DACs have nonlinearites and artifacts introduced as part of the conversion process. Using something like HQP can reduce nonlinearites and push artifacts into the inaudible range, enabling the listener to hear what's in the file more than without using HQP. 

 

The second concept, convolution, enables the listener to minimize the effects of the room, enabling him/her to hear what's in the file much better than without it. This is the concept of High Fidelity at the ears rather than the output of the DAC. If a DAC outputs the signal "perfectly" but the room has huge freqnency humps, it doesn't really matter what was in the original file. Thus, correcting for the room, enables much more accurate playback. 

I see your point, but you are also mixing 2 concepts

We have no way of knowing what the source (the musicians making the sound) sounded like,  so you are distorting (changing) the data in a way that you have decided makes it more accurate. Yes, some of that can be backed up with measurements, but it ultimately means changing it in a way that pleases your brain. Nothing wrong with that, but I'm not buying into the idea that doing so  somehow makes it "accurate."

My take is, you  are convinced what you are hearing is more accurate because it please your brain. In my case, I am  also doing what I am doing because it pleases my brain without thinking it is somehow more accurate.

However... if what I hear from my system sounds to me more natural as in, an acoustic guitar recording played back on my system sounds to me more like I think the guitar should sound than it does through your digital system, is my system not more "accurate?" At least to me?

BTW I actually have a job I have been ignoring so I better get to that, at least for now.

29 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I briefly looked into this and stuggled to find them advertising AAA. I saw a lot of loose language around analog mastering, but no AAA. Do you have a link showing AAA on these. I found the Atlantic releases on Acoutstic Sounds, and none of it said AAA. IN the big picture it realy doesn't matter, I'm more curious now becuase two people have said this is happening and I struggle to find it :~)

Ha!  Good thing I wrote that near-AAA sounds the same 😉  I had forgotten that Acoustic Sounds (the retail arm of Analogue Productions) has been careful to avoid overpromising, and some of the provenance here is unknown/inconsistent, etc, and of course they do not want to diss their own near-AAA releases.  With detective work some AAA confirmation is available on some albums, such as the Coltrane R&B. 

Regardless of the technical details...For those interested in vinyl, the Atlantic 75 (not Warner as I typo-ed above) is an exceptionally good set of AAA and near-AAA vinyl.  If a person uses 2-3 of these in an at home comparison as I described above, and they are not overcome with joy, they should pack up the turntable back to the shop and forget the whole thing https://store.acousticsounds.com/index.cfm?get=results&labelid=9378&orderby=artist_s asc&CategoryID=5

10 minutes ago, bbosler said:

However... if what I hear from my system sounds to me more natural as in, an acoustic guitar recording played back on my system sounds to me more like I think the guitar should sound than it does through your digital system, is my system not more "accurate?" At least to me?

Yes, this is the paradox of the whole thing.  Especially noticeable on acoustic instruments and vocals, and especially when compared to live music in small venues with less amplification. 

I'm not very technical, but I believe this is differences in timbre and soundstage, neither of which are typically measured when we talk about accuracy, or at least they are not easily measured

9 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough. ..........When I talk about accuracy, I'm talking about accuracy to the recording delivered, and nothing to do with anything further upstream. If it's delivered as a digital file, I want to reproduce that file, at my ears, as accurately as possible. 

no, I get the point, especially about room correction. You can definitely show with measurements that the frequency response  picked up by the microphone in your room is closer to the spectrum coming unaltered  from the DAC, but you must admit every change you make to the data to make it that way also changes it in unintended ways. Otherwise we wouldn't have something like 1,000,000 different filter and upsampling combinations in HQplayer.

Your "more accurate" in frequency response might be my unacceptable phase shift or ringing. Your "more accurate" that you think sounds best might do something to the sound that I can't abide. So is it really more accurate?

so around and around we go

Drat! I just got fired for goofing off at work... oh well, more time to listen to records 😀

For those who love to talk about accuracy, here's a question:

Say you have an amplifier with very low distortion measurements and then someone brings you a tube amplifier which adds whole percentage points of distortion into your playback chain. 

Turns out you love the tube amp over the more "accurate" amp. 

In the interest of "accuracy", you're going to stick with your lower distortion amp?

I wouldn't and I suspect the vast majority of those on this site wouldn't either. I believe almost all of us listen to what we think sounds good. 

So please, let's dispense with the accuracy discussion. 

Accuracy is a tool, not a destination. 

Joel