DACs vs Turntables

[Mr Pig]

Sometimes, I’m pulled up short when the two merge in harmony and the performance lifts....

There’s a thrill to being so close to music making. Despite the fact that I’ve listened to many systems, from modest to very expensive, I’ve never heard music presented in that way or affecting me in that way.

I find this surprising as my aim is to have my system grab me in that way all the time! I assumed that many other people do likewise. For me it's what a music system is for. It's all it is for. You can break it down to things like timing and pitch accuracy, dynamics etc but the bottom line is that you really don't have to. If the music is connecting with you on an emotional, visceral level and you are not being distracted by sonic aberrations then the system is good.

I'm fortunate enough to have had a lot of live music in the house. My daughter is still at home and plays saxophone almost every day. It is totally possible to get a Hi-Fi system to convey the thrill and impact of a saxophone, or any other instrument, but it helps if that is your goal. If you are on a fool's errand trying to remove all vestiges of colouration and distortion, no chance. From what I've heard you'll end up with a flat, dull lifeless sound that bears little resemblance to real life.

Have you ever listened to speakers in an anechoic chamber?

No, I haven't. Just talking was very strange.

 

[JensenHealey]

Even spending more than a few minutes in an Anechoic Chamber is quite unsettling.

 

[Mr Pig]

Even spending more than a few minutes in an Anechoic Chamber is quite unsettling.

Apparently if you stay in one long enough you'll go doolally.

Which might help to explain the positions adopted by certain thread contributors?

 

[Del monaco]

I find this surprising as my aim is to have my system grab me in that way all the time! I assumed that many other people do likewise. For me it's what a music system is for. It's all it is for. You can break it down to things like timing and pitch accuracy, dynamics etc but the bottom line is that you really don't have to. If the music is connecting with you on an emotional, visceral level and you are not being distracted by sonic aberrations then the system is good.

I'm fortunate enough to have had a lot of live music in the house. My daughter is still at home and plays saxophone almost every day. It is totally possible to get a Hi-Fi system to convey the thrill and impact of a saxophone, or any other instrument, but it helps if that is your goal. If you are on a fool's errand trying to remove all vestiges of colouration and distortion, no chance. From what I've heard you'll end up with a flat, dull lifeless sound that bears little resemblance to real life.



No, I haven't. Just talking was very strange.

I think you’re right about the visceral quality of sound. At times, I get that immediacy, that 3 dimensional quality that brings the image into the room but it’s not the same as that original sound. It’s placed but lacks that final something. People often speak about veils and even in the most impressive systems, there still appears to be veiling, just less of it. The person playing the instrument isn’t as immediate as they are when they are there, in front of you, living and breathing, bristling and present. Or sometimes the microphone adjusts the voice and seems more intrusive in more ‘revealing’ systems. I suppose there is an approximation but, for me, it’s not quite there. I suppose this is why people continue to change, upgrade and tweak. They’re in a search for the holy grail. Like painters who search and search to reach a place that’s always distant. For me, I don’t want to chase this holy grail.I want to listen to the music and not be distracted too much by the system. The less invasive things are, whether it’s the sound, the cables etc., the more I will focus on the music. If it delivers this way I am happy. And, for the most part, I am happy.

 

[John Phillips]

A credible illusion depends first and foremost on the way a live unamplified performance is mic'ed. ...

Yes. And my definition of success is to have a system where what I hear depends primarily on the musicianship and the engineering production techniques, not the system itself.

 

[Mr Pig]

People often speak about veils and even in the most impressive systems, there still appears to be veiling, just less of it. The person playing the instrument isn’t as immediate as they are when they are there, in front of you, living and breathing, bristling and present.

I think to one extent or another that is always true. I think my system is relatively good in this regard but still think about as being like a very good PA rather than actual people in the room. There is a degree of system colour which can't be removed. Not without also removing aspects of the performance you really want to keep that is.

I do think it's possible to have a system that, while not a totally convincing replication of real life, gives a similar emotive connection with the music. That's good enough for me.

 

[Del monaco]

I think that’s right. Some just seem to get closer but it’s dependent upon so many variables therefore it’s not an assured experience.I’m sure everybody has had that ‘ the system sounds really good today’. But the next day, that allure has gone. I think there are many things we just can’t control no matter what we try to do.

 

[Mr Pig]

I’m sure everybody has had that ‘ the system sounds really good today’. But the next day, that allure has gone. I think there are many things we just can’t control no matter what we try to do.

I think you can.

Typically, when upgrading and making changes we often focus on what I would call 'Hi-Fi' perimeters. Is the bass tighter, is the treble smoother, is the sound stage wider. If you shift your perspective so that how well you are connecting with the music comes first, the whole game changes. You can end up with a system that rocks your world every time you play it, whatever you play on it.

For example I changed from a Linn Ittok to a modified RB300 because the Rega made more recordings 'work' despite being a bit less good in some technical areas. I've been using this approach for years now and can't imagine why you would want to do anything else. If connection with the music is your priority.

The thing is, you do not need to pay attention to the niceties of Hi-Fi reproduction. For example, having smoother treble. If the treble is genuinely a problem it will interfere with your enjoyment of the music. My CD player does not have the best treble you've ever heard. It's not terrible but I've heard better. It does not matter though as when I play music, even if I do notice the treble on a particular disk, I almost instantly forget about because I'm captivated by the music and thinking about that.

If you get to the end of a track or album and think 'that was wonderful' and you want to play it again then the system is doing a good job. Whatever technical flaws it might have. The notion of cleansing the sound of all colour and trying to conform to some invented idea of purity is anathema to me. Get the soul right and the rest will follow.

 

[Del monaco]

I think you can.

Typically, when upgrading and making changes we often focus on what I would call 'Hi-Fi' perimeters. Is the bass tighter, is the treble smoother, is the sound stage wider. If you shift your perspective so that how well you are connecting with the music comes first, the whole game changes. You can end up with a system that rocks your world every time you play it, whatever you play on it.

For example I changed from a Linn Ittok to a modified RB300 because the Rega made more recordings 'work' despite being a bit less good in some technical areas. I've been using this approach for years now and can't imagine why you would want to do anything else. If connection with the music is your priority.

The thing is, you do not need to pay attention to the niceties of Hi-Fi reproduction. For example, having smoother treble. If the treble is genuinely a problem it will interfere with your enjoyment of the music. My CD player does not have the best treble you've ever heard. It's not terrible but I've heard better. It does not matter though as when I play music, even if I do notice the treble on a particular disk, I almost instantly forget about because I'm captivated by the music and thinking about that.

If you get to the end of a track or album and think 'that was wonderful' and you want to play it again then the system is doing a good job. Whatever technical flaws it might have. The notion of cleansing the sound of all colour and trying to conform to some invented idea of purity is anathema to me. Get the soul right and the rest will follow.

I was thinking of such variables as the recording, the time of day, your mood, the ambient noise, your choice of music etc. I totally agree about connecting with the music.

 

[Mr Pig]

I was thinking of such variables as the recording, the time of day, your mood, the ambient noise, your choice of music etc.

Sure, but the approach is still valid. Yeah, there times the music sounds worse than at other times but the more music focused it is the less frequently this will happen. I can honestly say I really enjoy my CD player almost every time I put it on.

Conversely, there have been times I've found myself searching for a record or CD that I actually want to listen to. Or found myself switching off the turntable or CD player after just one side. More often the turntable actually.

A better system will work more of the time irrespective of other influences.

 

[Octavian]

I think you can.

Typically, when upgrading and making changes we often focus on what I would call 'Hi-Fi' perimeters. Is the bass tighter, is the treble smoother, is the sound stage wider. If you shift your perspective so that how well you are connecting with the music comes first, the whole game changes. You can end up with a system that rocks your world every time you play it, whatever you play on it.

A system which does this is probably so heavily coloured that it contaminates everything played through it. The question then is: are you actually connected with the music or with your system? The Linn mythology was very much based on the naively flattering idea that you are somehow more deeply interested in music than an average hifi enthusiast. But when practically every single Linn / Flat Earth testimonial uses the same accepted vocabulary and repeats the same ready made experiences ad nauseam, one has to wonder what this strange cult was all about.

 

[Mr Pig]

A system which does this is probably so heavily coloured that it contaminates everything played through it. The question then is: are you actually connected with the music or with your system?

You do say some really dumb things.

Define music? Playing of instruments and singing it a melodic manor, doesn't matter. Whatever environment you hear it in, the music you hear is coloured by the room, number of people in it, amplification if any etc etc etc. You hear the same band in two different venues and they'll sound different.

Why is this acceptable and good yet colouration added by your system or room is 'contamination'?

Your question doesn't even make sense, I don't know how to answer it.

 

[S-Man]

Seems to me that analogue can have significant objective limitations but mostly manages to keep the musical message intact.
Digital has fewer measurable limitations but often seems to lose some of the involvement.

Digital done right is better than analogue in my experience, but there is a lot of bland sounding digital out there!

 

[runforfree69]

After 40 years of vinyl I'm mostly listening to Denon DP80, fr66s, Koetsu RSP, in the past i've had some other nice tt's like LP12SE and Raven gt, sme, Lyra. Age, younger family and convenience led me to explore digital which at my age and going from a 2 year short dance with CD in the late 80's to todays technical delights was a challenge. I climbed the digital ladder as I feared I would up to Acousence DAC2/reclocker/PSU and now have their streamer which is a pro set up, I can't squeeze out much more, don't think, from a digital front end.

I've concluded for me, digital is very enjoyable but vinyl has the ingredient which is hard to put a finger on but generally takes me closer to the event or convince me i'm present on more music I listen to which includes the vinyl v cd copies of same music. Digital can be too perfect, certainly not as timbrally accurate and multi coloured as a top MC can produce. When a good tt produces air which my dac can do I feel like I could breath it in and smell it rather than the digital version which my brain is saying nice trick but just a touch science fiction. Example being Ella Fitzgerald sings Gershwin on Qobuz 24/192 versus my vinyl copy ; vinyl conveys the typical setting of jazz club but digital is a bit like hearing it in a gleaming white contemporary museum in broad daylight.

Chase the digital version of vinyl but it's an expensive and time consuming exercise in my experience which i enjoyed as I swapped DAC's in and out steadily going up the ladder but I discovered vinyl is still king at my budget. Or maybe i've been listening to vinyl too long, like it too much or am prejudiced against record companies fondness which gushed forth in the 80's to the detriment of vinyl availability.

I have friends in Germany who hold the same view I do, I've spoken to a few manufacturers such as Ralph at Acousence who admitted digital has made big strides, good dacs are getting cheaper and it's ultimately as always down to personal preference of our own ears. He actually said audition tt's and dacs side by side which never occurred to me as not many people do when at their dealers, it's either all tt's or all DAC. Different outcomes could be reached for the better.

 

[Del monaco]

Seems to me that analogue can have significant objective limitations but mostly manages to keep the musical message intact.
Digital has fewer measurable limitations but often seems to lose some of the involvement.

Digital done right is better than analogue in my experience, but there is a lot of bland sounding digital out there!

There’s a lot of bland music out there as well.

 

[Mr Pig]

I've concluded for me, digital is very enjoyable but vinyl has the ingredient which is hard to put a finger on but generally takes me closer to the event or convince me i'm present on more music I listen to which includes the vinyl v cd copies of same music. Digital can be too perfect, certainly not as timbrally accurate and multi coloured as a top MC can produce.

I agree as a generalization but there are sterile sounding turntables and digital systems. Maybe the ratio swings in favor of vinyl but you can get really satisfying music out of both.

It doesn't matter what the source or where it comes from, I am growing to believe you need a degree of harmonic distortion for a really satisfying sound. Most turntables just add this, job done. With digital you need your speakers or amp to add it but either way, it's a big part of making a tuneful system.

 

[Chris81]

Example being Ella Fitzgerald sings Gershwin on Qobuz 24/192 versus my vinyl copy ; vinyl conveys the typical setting of jazz club but digital is a bit like hearing it in a gleaming white contemporary museum in broad daylight.

If you use a good mastered record of the LP era it can and probably will sound better than the digital version. I also see the **** off with 24/192 from an album of 1950 how should it be "high res"? You can't add what hasn't been recorded in the original master.

If you use a good digital mastered 192/24 record it can and probably will sound "objectively" better the the vinyl version of the same master because the digital has some technical advantages.

As always the medium/master is making the sound, the influence of the source is much smaller in comparison. A good master, equally if on vinyl or hi-res/CD, will sound better on an average source the a middle to low master quality vinyl or hi-res/CD on a high end source.

 

[S-Man]

There’s a lot of bland music out there as well.

I agree.
However, the builders working next door had some diabolically un-bland pop music blaring out on their "site" radio all day. Give me bland music over vocodered sh!te every time!

 

[Bettisdad]

I think you can.

Typically, when upgrading and making changes we often focus on what I would call 'Hi-Fi' perimeters. Is the bass tighter, is the treble smoother, is the sound stage wider. If you shift your perspective so that how well you are connecting with the music comes first, the whole game changes. You can end up with a system that rocks your world every time you play it, whatever you play on it.

For example I changed from a Linn Ittok to a modified RB300 because the Rega made more recordings 'work' despite being a bit less good in some technical areas. I've been using this approach for years now and can't imagine why you would want to do anything else. If connection with the music is your priority.

The thing is, you do not need to pay attention to the niceties of Hi-Fi reproduction. For example, having smoother treble. If the treble is genuinely a problem it will interfere with your enjoyment of the music. My CD player does not have the best treble you've ever heard. It's not terrible but I've heard better. It does not matter though as when I play music, even if I do notice the treble on a particular disk, I almost instantly forget about because I'm captivated by the music and thinking about that.

If you get to the end of a track or album and think 'that was wonderful' and you want to play it again then the system is doing a good job. Whatever technical flaws it might have. The notion of cleansing the sound of all colour and trying to conform to some invented idea of purity is anathema to me. Get the soul right and the rest will follow.

Great post and I totally agree!

 

[k90tour]

Yes. That would be like dismissing a violinist that uses less brilliant gut strings.