I’ve thought the same…a little like smoothing over the cracks.
Yes, you’re correct I should have limited my statement to DSLR cameras.
You, are also correct, the majority of people use the in camera produced Jpegs. But the Jpegs produced by the in-camera software are not an accurate representation of what was recorded by the sensor. They are enhanced versions of reality, based on someones judgement as to which software produces the best image.
In the same way somebody at Naim (or a group of beta testers) will decide which software produces the best sound from a dac or streamer. They will not be trying to produce the most accurate sound, but the best sound. Don’t forget, the reason people use Naim equipment is it makes studio recorded music sound like live music. Accuracy isn’t the goal, it’s a non issue.
1 Like
When you listen to digitally rendered music, you are not listening to a photographic equivalent of a raw image. You are listening to the photographic equivalent on an in-camera software produced image.
The the dac/streamer firmware alters the sound. (see my previous post)
Dacs from different manufactures sound different. I think the chord dave has four different setting, which enable the user to alter the sound.
Different type of output stage op amps all sound different.
Different type of output stage capacitors all sound different. (Naim use tantalum, which are not distortion free, they could use capacitors that have less distortion, but they wouldn’t sound as good).
People don’t want reality, they want better than reality.
Oddly I don’t think of jpegs as enhanced, but either as quick snapshot output for immediate viewing for ‘family album’ type purposes, or as small files for easy posting/sharing non-critical applications. The raw file is the master, which can be developed to suit what the photographer wants. And capable of serious viewing - which the jpg generally isn’t as the artefacts are often visible. So jpg is like an mp3 file. But the raw is not like a finished wav or flac file, rather it is like a pcm file waiting for mastering, so in that respect it is unlike any music replay file. Taking that analogy further, leads me to say: unless, that is, the music was recorded perfectly, in which case nothing futher is needed and it is a perfect image…
1 Like
This person wants reality - or as close to that as I can get.
1 Like
My opening comment concerning photography was
I’m surprised you think digital photography is in any way close to reality.
I think we’re in agreement, well almost.
You’re saying jpegs aren’t accurate due to compression (although I’m sure they are also enhanced) and raw files will be modified/mastered, therefore not accurate or real.
The raw file represents the most accurate image recorded by the sensor. It is possible to view and print out the image, but nobody would wish to do so. I wonder how many of the images uploaded in the Nice Photo thread are un edited raw files.
In the future digital audio is going to get further away from reality.
I have a 6 year old Sony TV, when I bought it, it was Sony’s top of the range flagship model. It has the ability to recognise a large number of “things” that are in the broadcast image. IE. Hair, grass. It has a database which contains information on what hair should look like. When it recognises hair, it uses the info in the database to enhance the image of any hair on the screen.
So, in the future, will high end audio streamers be able to identify a violin playing and access the characteristics of a Stradivarius in a database. Or maybe use software to modify the output dependant on the type of music. (Classical or thrash metal)
Except, actually, sometimes (possibly depending on the sensor and its preset software) it may be a perfect representation, and doesn’t need any tweaking - but the photographer may choose to tweak it to suit his or her desire for the image. In that regard it may be like the output from the DAC in music replay, but some people prefer the sound more ‘coloured’.
The fact of the last point is borne out by some people’s preference for speakers known for their colouration, or that tailing off heavily in the bass, or create a “smooth” sound. ( …Or conceivably even the “Naim Sound”, at least perhaps insofar as some people declare a preference for older amps said to exhibit it more.). I have carefully refrained from venturing to include a “vinyl sound” in the list, but could that indeed be what it is?
Raw files are huge and you convert to a jpeg and cut the resolution size to post on a social media site. You would do this even if you did not edit the file.
I prefer vinyl when I have time to listen to music seriously.
I love the whole process of handling a LP, the rituals of setting up the LP and the tangible sleeve, artwork.
I’m lucky enough to have a very-well setup LP12, to this day I have not found any DAC that renders Michael Hedges’ Aerial Boundaries better than the LP12, the sound of the string decay, the texture, the timbre, the trembling of the strings sound so superb, so realistic, so vibrating from the LP12.
5 Likes
I’m with you. I still much prefer vinyl, and am happy for my very nice Cleaudio rig.
I love the display and handling of my albums, and like you enjoy the ritual of it all.
3 Likes
my equation is your record collection investment should be at least 10 times the equipment used to play it
It’s not about how many LPs that you own, it is all about what you own. 
Of course, it would take many years and efforts to build up a good collection of LPs.
1 Like
Why? Who cares about any equations? How does that have anything to do with enjoying music? My system is insured for $100k. I suppose my record collection of some 4000 LPs is worth maybe $50-60k. Are you really trying to argue that I should only have a system worth $5-6k to play it? Sorry, that strikes me as a very wrong (and silly) metric, not that there should even be any at all.
3 Likes
Interesting topic! I am a huge advocate of digital, I had my first digital music in 2001 and I moved away from CD’s totally over 10 years ago and have tried a variety of digital solutions.
I also love vinyl, a lot. It’s my main source.
My views.
Quality: I would say at high end, they are equal but arguably each format has a different signature, which can be said for all the equipment in the line.
Price: Digital wins hands down, these days pretty decent results can be achieved even from a phone into some active speakers.
Media: Again digital, easier to access a wider range of music. Subscription services are amazing.
Convenience: Digital, easily
Experience: Vinyl. From the buying to the playing - its all an experience. I have visited some of the most amazing neighborhoods around the world looking for record shops, physical touch and feel cannot be replicated by FLAC. With Vinyl a level of thought/investment goes into every purchase which adds an emotional attachment from digital ‘free-ness’. Saying that - services Tidal/Roon etc offer very good experiences with living room browsing and recommendations that Vinyl cannot even start to compete with.
My biggest regret is investing in years of CD’s - wish I had bought Vinyl. Conversely I am also glad I haven’t heavily invested in a digital front end (Sonos to DAC currently), major players (Spotify/Apple) still don’t offer CD quality and +10 years down the line we are still in discussion on format incompatibility.
8 Likes
Again, you are corresponding with someone who does.
and, of course, RAW files are not one standard image format, so they would not be viewable in all cases.
Yes, and that’s another reason why nearly everbody converts them. 
In my system, my ears tell me my LP12 is much better than my NDX2.
It’s not even close. It wasn’t close when the turntable was an Akurate…it’s nowhere in the same class now that the LP12 is a Klimax.
I’ve done A/B with many friends to show this…not one has said they prefer the Digital version.
NDX2 is used streaming with ROON on a Mac mini and I use a Cisco switch, playing as high quality files as I can get, or DSD files directly into the NDX2 from a USB hard drive, (which sounds very good)
I listen to Vinyl to immerse myself and savor the experience. I play Digital to have music on.
13 Likes
Indeed - but it doesn’t make the photo more realistic, of course.