View Full Version : Analogue Floyd
Haselsh1
28-01-2017, 10:35
OK, was up really early this morning so decided to listen to The Dark Side Of The Moon on vinyl using the Stanton ST.150 with Benz Micro Silver HOMC into a Project DS phono stage with QED Reference 40 interconnects. Now listening to 'On The Run' I noticed a lot of very low frequency bass that just shimmers very low to the floor. Got to admit I love this low frequency stuff so I kind of thought, wonder how good this is on the CD...?
So, Marantz CD player as transport into an updated Audiolab M-DAC into the Prima Luna preamp via Atlas Hyper interconnects. Playing the SACD reissue from a few years back that very low resonant bass was completely missing. There wasn't even a trace of it. Once again this has left me wondering whether, during the remaster, this was omitted on purpose...? If so, why the hell would they...?
There is, in my system, a clear difference between vinyl and CD showing that some of the audible spectrum is simply not there. I do understand though that this could be really showing the difference between differing versions of the same album. I think this needs further investigation within my own system
Unlikely it is the mastering. The thing with vinyl is that, like the Lord, it both addeth and taketh away. I'd be inclined to suspect acoustic feedback as the culprit.
OK, was up really early this morning so decided to listen to The Dark Side Of The Moon on vinyl using the Stanton ST.150 with Benz Micro Silver HOMC into a Project DS phono stage with QED Reference 40 interconnects. Now listening to 'On The Run' I noticed a lot of very low frequency bass that just shimmers very low to the floor. Got to admit I love this low frequency stuff so I kind of thought, wonder how good this is on the CD...?
So, Marantz CD player as transport into an updated Audiolab M-DAC into the Prima Luna preamp via Atlas Hyper interconnects. Playing the SACD reissue from a few years back that very low resonant bass was completely missing. There wasn't even a trace of it. Once again this has left me wondering whether, during the remaster, this was omitted on purpose...? If so, why the hell would they...?
There is, in my system, a clear difference between vinyl and CD showing that some of the audible spectrum is simply not there. I do understand though that this could be really showing the difference between differing versions of the same album. I think this needs further investigation within my own system
:lol:A lot of folks listening in the digital world are missing a lot more than that Shaun. You are correct it is the mastering at fault not acoustic feedback:rolleyes:
I did a little experiment over Christmas with Pink Floyds The Wall. I have an early original pressing on vinyl so I was keen to listen to my friends 16bit and 24bit mastered versions via a ruthlessly revealing digital set up. The 16 bit version sounded washed out and a bit thin but to my surprise and horror the 24bit version sounded flat as a pancake and worse!!:eek:
The vinyl sounded full bloodied,fat, rich analog with a depth to the bass the digital version completely lacked.
So rather than read or imagine what is going on I actually heard it. There is so much crap out there regarding digital audio,especially hi Rez stuff if you actually get to hear some of it as I do often the truth is brutally revealed.
Simply, if stuff is mastered crap you get crap.If it is mastered well on digital it can be awesome!
Digital and Hi Rez is in no way a guarantee you are going to get great stuff and in my experience is often so disappointing compared to vinyl warts and all.
I hear folk bang on about the technical ability and wide dynamic range digital has but this often does not translate into the listening experience as you found out with DSOTM.
Hard to accept that the SACD of DSOTM is badly mastered to the extent that bass frequencies are just 'missing'. I grant you that some of the re-mastering done to make 'hi rez' seem worthwhile is not an improvement. The DVD-A of Sinatra Live At The Sands is a huge disappointment, for example. And vinyl is always going to sound different in the bass since it is mono below 100 Hz, this will subjectively increase the amount and the presence of the bass. Acoustic feedback will also do this. Try putting the TT in a separate room from the speakers and see what happens then.
And that is before we get into the vagaries of the cartridge. I have several Stantons, great fun but not neutral, especially not in the bass.
I did a listen test as did a few others, a year or so back re dsotm. Sacd, older cd and an oldish vinyl. Vinyl won hands down, and sacd was classed last by a distance. Wasnt expected but true. Even the cd layer of sacd is piss poor.
Haselsh1
28-01-2017, 11:34
Thanks for your comments guys, I am now going to go and refit my old Ortofon OM40 and try the vinyl DSOTM all over again. I maybe some time....
Haselsh1
28-01-2017, 12:33
Well, what a bloody revelation...!
Firstly mainly technical differences with the two carts. Tracking of the Ortofon is audibly superior at the recommended force. Stereo imaging is just so precise and separated from each side but most of all, the OM40 is just so relaxed and easy to listen to. The Benz Silver gives the impression of more detail because it is much brighter and more forward but for me the OM40 just suits Floyd music so well. Now during the 'On The Run' track, that really low bass is still there but with masses of presence. In fact, the stereo is quite scarily real as that bass now rolls around the floor just to the left of the left side of the sofa on which I am sitting. The Benz Silver only hinted at this.
I have been using the Benz Silver for over a year now and I have grown used to it but the OM40 has shown itself to be a very different sounding cart. Yes I could say it is massively better but it isn't, it is massively different. At the moment I prefer the sound of the OM40 which, when you get used to listening to it, shows a whole load of audible stuff the Benz Silver almost covers up. One thing that is for definite in my system; the SACD of DSOTM is a pretty poor representation of the original master. I also have an old non barcoded version of DSOTM. That may be an interesting listen.
Haselsh1
28-01-2017, 12:37
Years ago to test for feedback we would put the stylus on the runout groove and tap the turntable sharply with the volume at normal listening. If there was any feedback, it would be bloody obvious really quickly. I still do that test even forty years later and I have no kind of feedback within my current system
Haselsh1
28-01-2017, 12:42
I did a little experiment over Christmas with Pink Floyds The Wall.
Interesting, I also have an eighties pressing of the Wall. I also have a new remaster of WYWH. I feel a big Floyd session coming on.
That isn't the same thing. Acoustic feedback from a turntable in inevitable, unless the TT is isolated from the room. It's an open loop, unlike digital. That it is perceived as an enhancement doesn't mean that it is not happening. It will make playback seem more 'awesome' compared to a digital version, especially with rock music.
Haselsh1
28-01-2017, 12:55
That isn't the same thing. Acoustic feedback from a turntable in inevitable, unless the TT is isolated from the room. It's an open loop, unlike digital. That it is perceived as an enhancement doesn't mean that it is not happening. It will make playback seem more 'awesome' compared to a digital version, especially with rock music.
I don't doubt it would appear more 'awesome' when the digital version clearly has some of the audible spectrum totally missing.
Haselsh1
28-01-2017, 13:18
One thing I do take seriously though is the possibility of airborne feedback. I think that everyone with a turntable needs to be aware of it and you Martin have obviously experienced it in your own system to comment on it here so I think that too needs investigating. I do have my turntable stood on a bloody big Pro-Ject isolation platform but of course that only helps reduce structural feedback. I just find it all rather odd that if indeed this is feedback, why only do it on one track on one album and then only for about thirty seconds.
. I just find it all rather odd that if indeed this is feedback, why only do it on one track on one album and then only for about thirty seconds.
Fair point. If it is that isolated an effect then maybe it is the mastering.
Haselsh1
28-01-2017, 14:20
Fair point. If it is that isolated an effect then maybe it is the mastering.
The fact is Martin I just don't know. All I did was, by accident, listen to one of my all time favourite albums on vinyl and then wonder what it would be like digitally. The digital version was a massive let down in comparison. On top of that, since my first listen, I have swapped cartridges and the effect is still there but with much greater presence. Surely they wouldn't mix out a whole load of lower frequencies...?
Have you tried whacking the volume up a bit with the SACD? In theory it should have more dynamic range than the vinyl so to compare fairly you need to use more power with the SACD. That bass may just be hiding.
Scratch that, just looked it up http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=&album=dark+side+of+the+moon
Actually worse than some of the vinyl issues (alhough this thing is just a rough guide). Not a very dynamic recording to begin with from the look of it.
RothwellAudio
28-01-2017, 17:01
...unless the TT is isolated from the room. It's an open loop, unlike digital...
Sorry to be pedantic, but I think you mean a closed loop. Closing the loop from the output to the input creates feedback.
dimkasta
28-01-2017, 19:47
If you are talking about this one, then yes it is a pretty bad remastering.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170128/9a9443c19dcf0aa489c69ae22a1051d7.jpg
Haselsh1
29-01-2017, 08:41
Yes Dimitris, that is the one I was referring to. My main problem with DSOTM is the amount of compression used when recording the original. Some of the really loud passages just don't do that, they just do not get any louder because of the compression. What they do is turn into this raucous great mush of background noise with a guitar solo over the top. This really shows the albums age to good effect. If you then compare DSOTM to say, The 5th Exotic by Quantic, a really modern album with shedloads of low frequency sonics the difference is quite staggering. It doesn't alter the fact that it is a quite unique piece of music but the production was bloody awful
Floyddroid
29-01-2017, 09:49
This can be said of many albums methinks. Steven Wilson seems to have garnished a lot of praise by turning classic albums some of which he has added extra bass to. Since reading this I have revisited my copy of dsotm on sacd. I think the psycho Acoustics of the whole experience have been put into disarray especially by the 5.1 mix. Listening to the original vinyl analogue version of this masterpiece is a totally different experience and should be treated that way. Personally I think the cd/sacd version has it's merits opening out the whole mid frequencies etc. However, that warm, dark and almost holographic soundstage of the original is by far the most pleasing. I think that it also depends on the difference and investment that has been made between inividual turntable and digital elements of any given system.
In addition, the difference I have found between listening to dsotm via different turntables is phenomenal. I listened to it on my 1210 a couple of years back and wondered where the bass and depth had gone. Listening to it on a couple of my other turntables was a revelation. Horses for courses.
The DVD-A of Sinatra Live At The Sands is a huge disappointment, for example.
As is your commercial CD version, you said, compared with the vinyl rip I sent you on CD, taken from this:
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/922/qEj0om.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/pmqEj0omj)
;)
Quite simply, there is NO finer sounding example of this album on ANY format, other than the above vinyl release on MO-FI, taken from the original master tapes!
Interesting discussion and findings, Shaun. I've conducted many similar tests myself over the years (with various albums on CD and vinyl), and demonstrated the clear and easily audible differences you've outlined to 'vinyl sceptics', who are always rather surprised at the results, and leave having experienced a valuable learning curve......
Without any shadow of doubt, there is demonstrable proof that vinyl/analogue recording and replay at its best is superior (gets closer to the music) than what is capable from its digital counterparts - and no amount of bleating to the contrary from digital fanboys or 'measurists', when their ingrained belief system is blown apart, will change what is patently obvious to all those who have heard it! :exactly:
Marco.
As is your commercial CD version, you said, compared with the vinyl rip I sent you on CD, taken from this:
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/922/qEj0om.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/pmqEj0omj)
;)
Quite simply, there is NO finer sounding example of this album on ANY format, other than the above vinyl release on MO-FI, taken from the original master tapes!
Interesting discussion and findings, Shaun. I've conducted many similar tests myself over the years (with various albums on CD and vinyl), and demonstrated the clear and easily audible differences you've outlined to 'vinyl sceptics', who are always rather surprised at the results, and leave having experienced a valuable learning curve......
Without any shadow of doubt, there is demonstrable proof that vinyl/analogue recording and replay at its best is superior (gets closer to the music) than what is capable from its digital counterparts - and no amount of bleating to the contrary from digital fanboys or 'measurists', when their ingrained belief system is blown apart, will change what is patently obvious to all those who have heard it! :exactly:
Marco.
Totally agree Marco. I have had the privilege of listening to a huge amount of digital music via a very high end system and many many recordings of classic stuff just don't cu the mustard on digital compared to their vinyl counterparts. There are some great superbly mastered digital recordings, however these are from recent years where the studio engineers finally understood what was required technically. Listen to anything Boris Blank has produced and it is an exercise in exemplary sound engineering in digital format.
Interestingly there are some old analog recordings that have been digitalised which are also excellent but these are an exception rather than the rule. For my money you will inveriably obtain better sonic results from vinyl that truly represents the artist and portrays a realistic sound that is musical and keeps you returning back to the record than any digital stuff I have ever heard.
Bernie Grundmann, who in my book is one of the worlds greatest studio engineers was once interviewed and he said the problem with digital was not in the recording which was a superb way of capturing music and sound but in the playback and problems with mastering it down to a format that could be converted into a good listening experience.
His exceptional quest for the best recording facilities possible means he still uses very old cutting lathes and valve preamps in the studio. Don't think he uses pro tools!
I have heard many digital versions of great albums that have been ruined once mastered to digital and the Floyd albums are classic examples but there are many others out there. This is why I stick solely to vinyl and will not get my fingers burnt again messing with digital systems. One day they may get there and the digital dream may arrive but to my ears it still falls short and is only good for convenience and the car!:lol:
Yes Dimitris, that is the one I was referring to. My main problem with DSOTM is the amount of compression used when recording the original. Some of the really loud passages just don't do that, they just do not get any louder because of the compression. What they do is turn into this raucous great mush of background noise with a guitar solo over the top. This really shows the albums age to good effect. If you then compare DSOTM to say, The 5th Exotic by Quantic, a really modern album with shedloads of low frequency sonics the difference is quite staggering. It doesn't alter the fact that it is a quite unique piece of music but the production was bloody awful
I'm guessing this is an exaggeration for effect, it really is not that bad a recording considering it was made so long ago. Compression wise it is about average according to the DR database. (the digital masterings are no better or worse than the vinyl in this regard). I have a 1990s CD issue and that is perfectly listenable, although it is one of those albums I rarely play anymore as I know every note from playing it to death in the '80s. A decent system is going to show up these differences in recording equipment through the ages as it will get the most out of good, modern recordings. As for adding 'extra bass' in the re-masterings this is akin to George Lucas ruining the original Star Wars with his idiotic CGI additions IMV.
All else being equal a modern, digital recording is always going to sound superior. Like comparing a Ford Anglia to a Ford Mondeo.
As is your CD version, you said, compared with the vinyl rip I sent you on CD, taken from this:
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/922/qEj0om.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/pmqEj0omj)
;)
Quite simply, there is NO finer sounding example of this album on ANY format, other than the above vinyl release on MO-FI, taken from the original master tapes!
Interesting discussion and findings, Shaun. I've conducted many similar tests myself over the years (with various albums on CD and vinyl), and demonstrated the clear and easily audible differences you've outlined to 'vinyl sceptics', who are always rather surprised at the results, and leave having experienced a valuable learning curve......
Without any shadow of doubt, there is demonstrable proof that vinyl/analogue recording and replay at its best is superior (gets closer to the music) than what is capable from its digital counterparts - and no amount of bleating to the contrary from digital fanboys or 'measurists', when their ingrained belief system is blown apart, will change what is patently obvious to all those who have heard it! :exactly:
Marco.
That album is one of the exceptions, though, not the rule. And I am still of the opinion that had two versions been made, one digital and one analogue, all else being equal, the digital recording would be superior, both technically and subjectively. The idea that analogue has some intrinsic superiority is bizarre, and almost all the musicians and studio technicians I have discussed this with are of the same view. They also advise that the dominating factor in any recording is how it is made, not whether it was recorded in digital or analogue. Also the choice of recording medium is an artistic one and as end users we should live with whatever the artist chose as it is a much a part of the 'work of art' as the type of drumkit that was chosen to be used.
I realise that this is a minority opinion on AoS but I am still sticking by it.
All else being equal a modern, digital recording is always going to sound superior.
Just to be clear... "Superior" to what exactly, and why (always)?
I'll get to your other post later, where you make many blanket statements, portrayed as fact, which simply aren't, but right now I have stuff to do.
Marco.
Just to be clear... "Superior" to what exactly, and why?
I'll get to your other post later, where you make many blanket statements, portrayed as fact, which simply aren't, but right now I have stuff to do.
Marco.
Less noise, less distortion, greater dynamic range and wider frequency response. These are facts. Granted this may still not deliver a better recording subjectively but as I pointed out above how it was recorded is more important in that respect than the medium used to record. There are some very good analogue recordings.
dimkasta
29-01-2017, 11:39
Generalizations rarely work. A "proper" sound system should have both digital and analog.
Stupid engineers, moronic musicians, idiotic marketing and small budgets can ruin anything. One of them is enough to pull everything else down with it.
As is your commercial CD version, you said, compared with the vinyl rip I sent you on CD, taken from this:
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/922/qEj0om.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/pmqEj0omj)
;)
Quite simply, there is NO finer sounding example of this album on ANY format, other than the above vinyl release on MO-FI, taken from the original master tapes!
Interesting discussion and findings, Shaun. I've conducted many similar tests myself over the years (with various albums on CD and vinyl), and demonstrated the clear and easily audible differences you've outlined to 'vinyl sceptics', who are always rather surprised at the results, and leave having experienced a valuable learning curve......
Without any shadow of doubt, there is demonstrable proof that vinyl/analogue recording and replay at its best is superior (gets closer to the music) than what is capable from its digital counterparts - and no amount of bleating to the contrary from digital fanboys or 'measurists', when their ingrained belief system is blown apart, will change what is patently obvious to all those who have heard it! :exactly:
Marco.
Its pretty good on original vinyl too.. no need for mofi :D
I'm guessing this is an exaggeration for effect, it really is not that bad a recording considering it was made so long ago. Compression wise it is about average according to the DR database. (the digital masterings are no better or worse than the vinyl in this regard). I have a 1990s CD issue and that is perfectly listenable, although it is one of those albums I rarely play anymore as I know every note from playing it to death in the '80s. A decent system is going to show up these differences in recording equipment through the ages as it will get the most out of good, modern recordings. As for adding 'extra bass' in the re-masterings this is akin to George Lucas ruining the original Star Wars with his idiotic CGI additions IMV.
All else being equal a modern, digital recording is always going to sound superior. Like comparing a Ford Anglia to a Ford Mondeo.
Digital recording is definitely not always going to sound superior via a DAC in a digital set up wether that is CD, or file based system. It may sound better however mastered to vinyl. Technically you are right that digital recording is theoretically superior to analog although the proof of the pudding is listening and this is where it all falls apart. The so called superiority of digital recording with all its great dynamic range and noise floor etc just does not come across in the listening experience. In many cases it sounds crap, technically it measures superior but sounds awful. You need to think why this is the case as are some of the worlds best digital engineers and when they can get there head out of the figures they may well find a solution.
It's similar to the old THD figures quoted for SS Amplifiers in the 80,s trying to make out this actually meant something when Old valve amps and technically measured distorted amps sounded way better.
Digital recording is definitely not always going to sound superior via a DAC in a digital set up wether that is CD, or file based system. It may sound better however mastered to vinyl. Technically you are right that digital recording is theoretically superior to analog although the proof of the pudding is listening and this is where it all falls apart. The so called superiority of digital recording with all its great dynamic range and noise floor etc just does not come across in the listening experience. In many cases it sounds crap, technically it measures superior but sounds awful. You need to think why this is the case as are some of the worlds best digital engineers and when they can get there head out of the figures they may well find a solution.
It's similar to the old THD figures quoted for SS Amplifiers in the 80,s trying to make out this actually meant something when Old valve amps and technically measured distorted amps sounded way better.
I agree the listening experience is the fly in the ointment here. Some of the most awesome playback I have heard has been analogue recordings on the vinyl medium. However implementation is everything. IME most active pre-amps are not good enough and smother the advantages that digital has over vinyl. Likewise IME the choke point with vinyl is the phono stage. Do you recall that NEBO where Steve's Pioneer PD71 was wheeled out and it was all a bit ho-hum until the phono stage was swapped? Likewise at MiBO when the Firebottle Vivant was swapped into Ali's system (over a 2 box Project, I think) and the improvement was not subtle.
Digital has different requirements but the principle remains the same, the system in question must be designed to extract the best from the medium used, else all bets are off.
I agree the listening experience is the fly in the ointment here. Some of the most awesome playback I have heard has been analogue recordings on the vinyl medium. However implementation is everything. IME most active pre-amps are not good enough and smother the advantages that digital has over vinyl. Likewise IME the choke point with vinyl is the phono stage. Do you recall that NEBO where Steve's Pioneer PD71 was wheeled out and it was all a bit ho-hum until the phono stage was swapped? Likewise at MiBO when the Firebottle Vivant was swapped into Ali's system (over a 2 box Project, I think) and the improvement was not subtle.
Digital has different requirements but the principle remains the same, the system in question must be designed to extract the best from the medium used, else all bets are off.
Yep agree the preamp is all important in the vinyl chain hence Berni Grundmann still uses valve preamps in his recording studios!
Agree with you regarding equipment used in digital playback and in my opinion most fall down with the DAC used, read DAC vs Preamp. It is this crucial link that still needs to be nailed and some are getting very close, however they still don't sound like the best analog but something different again. You choose your weapon as it were.
For me an optimised vinyl/ analog system is much more satisfying to listen too and conveys the music in a form my brain and ears can comprehend easily.
Firebottle
29-01-2017, 12:41
The pre-requisite to good digital reproduction comes down to the way the (necessary) filtering is implemented. If it is not implemented well then the sound suffers.
The filter has to be there to prevent aliasing, that is generating unwanted mix down products due to the sample rate, for those not cognisant with the techniques of digital recording/playback.
When I was introduced to the Chord Dave DAC I asked what made it special; it uses a programmable chip that can configured to (almost) any function and combination that you want. The particular designer Rob Watts has implemented a DAC with associated filtering that puts all dedicated DAC chips to shame.
The complexity and power consumption are very high though.
Quote from Rob Watts:
The FPGA in Dave is enormous and expensive. It dissipates 5W against Hugo's 0.8W - Chord have machined a heat-sink that holds the display and dissipates the FPGA power. To get all those taps in the filter I use all of the available capacity within this FPGA - it has 166 DSP cores running in parallel just to do the WTA filtering - in fact its amazing in that it only dissipates 5W.
Less noise, less distortion, greater dynamic range and wider frequency response. These are facts. Granted this may still not deliver a better recording subjectively...
Or in the real world when listening to the music in question.
So where was the less noise, less distortion, greater dynamic range and wider frequency response evident, when you compared the commercially produced CD of Sinatra at the Sands, with the vinyl rip I sent you on CD?
And if none of that was evident, and you thought my recording from vinyl sounded superior, how does that square with your earlier statement of:
All else being equal a modern, digital recording is always going to sound superior.
The key word there being "always". That's clearly not true, as I've just outlined an example where that isn't the case, and Martin, the Sinatra album isn't an exception; there are numerous other vinyl albums I could record in the same way, for you to compare against said album on CD, in order to demonstrate my point.
The fundamental and indisputable fact here is that if the claimed technical inferiority of vinyl automatically means that recordings of such are ALWAYS going to be inferior to those created by their digital counterparts, then that technical superiority would ALWAYS be sonically obvious - and it isn't.
Those limitations, if inherent in vinyl replay, can't just 'miraculously disappear' sometimes, if they really were an issue: they would, without exception, automatically be superimposed on *every* recording produced from a vinyl source.
Marco.
P.S I still intend to address your earlier post, but that'll be after the football and lunch! :cool:
Or in the real world when listening to the music in question.
So where was the less noise, less distortion, greater dynamic range and wider frequency response evident, when you compared the commercially produced CD of Sinatra at the Sands, with the vinyl rip I sent you on CD?
And if none of that was evident, how does that square with your earlier statement of:
The key word there being "always". That's clearly not true, as I've just outlined an example where that is not the case, and Martin, the Sinatra album isn't an exception; there are numerous other vinyl albums I could record in the same way, for you to compare against said album on CD, in order to demonstrate my point.
The fundamental and indisputable fact here is that if the claimed technical inferiority of vinyl automatically means that recordings of such are ALWAYS going to be inferior to those created by their
counterparts, then that technical superiority would be *sonically obvious every time* - and it isn't. Those limitations, if inherent in vinyl replay, can't just 'miraculously disappear' sometimes, if they really were an issue.
Marco.
P.S I still intend to address your earlier post, but that'll be after the football and lunch! :cool:
You are conflating two things here, analogue recording vs digital recording and vinyl playback vs digital playback. That confuses the issue because recording and playback are two entirely different things.
Re playback of Sinatra at the Sands, the vinyl rip you sent me is of a different mastering to the CD I have. The DVD-A is also a different mastering. To compare apples with apples you need to compare the same masterings. (Incidentally it is very likely that the cutting head used to make the master of your vinyl copy used a digital delay line).
Re recording of Sinatra At The Sands, my contention is that if they had access to some good digital recording equipment and had used that instead of an RTR the recording would be even better. Of course we have no way to test that but I would be interested in the explanation of any sound engineer who disagreed with that statement. Using better mics would help as well.
Now whether we take that recording and transcribe the waveform to a digital file or press it onto vinyl is an entirely separate issue. The recording is done and dusted, it is what it is. Our choice of replay medium for this recording must ultimately come down to which presentation we prefer, that is to say it is entirely subjective. Where I seem to differ from the hardcore vinalystas ;) on AoS is
1) If you want ultimate fidelity to the recording you need to replay it from a digital source. This is irrespective of how the recording was made.
2) The fact that high quality vinyl rigs almost always subjectively outperform their digital counterparts is not because analogue has some inherent technical advantage over digital, or that digital is inherently flawed in a way that makes it inferior to analogue.
The fact that high quality vinyl rigs almost always subjectively outperform their digital counterparts is not because analogue has some inherent technical advantage over digital, or that digital is inherently flawed in a way that makes it inferior to analogue.
So precisely why does that happen, then? Via which mechanism? Because, in my experience, it happens rather regularly. Remember, you're talking about "outperforming", which suggests something fundamental is occurring out with of simply personal preference or one being 'seduced' by analogue coloration.
And you're still missing my point, mastering has hee-haw to do with anything!
No mastering in the world could HIDE the (claimed) noise and distortion of vinyl, compared with that of CD, so why couldn't you hear that, along with the 'greater dynamic range and wider frequency response', when comparing my vinyl rip of the Sinatra album with your CD version, which in terms of your argument, in that respect should *always* be superior?
Marco.
So precisely why does that happen, then? Via which mechanism? Because, in my experience, it happens *so* often. Remember, you're talking about "outperforming", which suggests something fundamental is happening out with of simply personal preference or being 'seduced' by analogue coloration.
And you're still missing my point, mastering has hee-haw to do with anything!
No mastering in the world can HIDE all the (claimed) noise and distortion of vinyl, compared with that of CD, so why couldn't you hear all that 'horrible noise and distortion', when comparing my vinyl rip of the Sinatra album with your CD version, which in terms of your argument, in that respect should *always* be superior?
Marco.
Because that 'noise and distortion' doesn't sound like noise and distortion. Technically vinyl is not that bad at all, the noise and distortion introduced by vinyl replay will not make it sound bad, it will just alter the sound. Added to that the fact that some of vinyl's technical flaws turn out to be subjectively beneficial from a psycho-acoustics angle, and you have your explanation. The recording of the vinyl you made for me is from a very clean, almost undamaged disc (there are a couple of slight scratches towards the end IIRC) Your TT is top notch, there is no reason why it should not sound good.
WRGT vinyl systems sounding better. That is a different issue. Firstly the best turntables I have heard, the times when vinyl really impressed me as being able to do something truly special, were all heavily user-modded. I don't think I have ever heard a totally stock deck of any make that was anything special. Good, but not amazing. I've not heard any of the six figure stuff though.
Digital as I said is handicapped by implementation. Many/most active pre-amps will mask the true benefits of the low noise and distortion. A lot of expensive CD players and DACs are just expensive, not anything special, so cost comparisons (£5K of digital against £5K of TT for example) can be misleading. There is too much emphasis in digital these days on solving non-existent problems whilst ignoring the things that do matter. 'Better' DACs, 'high rez', MQA, it is all marketing plug in solutions because people buy plug in solutions and marketing spiel, kit that is truly better does not sell so they don't bother with it anymore.
Because that 'noise and distortion' doesn't sound like noise and distortion.
What does it sound like then, so I can look out for it next time? ;)
Technically vinyl is not that bad at all, the noise and distortion introduced by vinyl replay will not make it sound bad...
I beg to differ. If a cartridge is mis-tracking or a record being played is in bad condition, the subsequent sound reproduced will be bad. Or if that's not the "noise and distortion" you're referring to, which is it?
The fact is, and please take some time to digest this for a minute, Martin... If the claimed "noise and distortion" of vinyl is not translated to the *actual listening experience*, if sufficiently ameliorated by a high-quality, well set-up turntable, playing pristine records, then what difference does it make??
Essentially: why worry about what one cannot hear? :)
The recording of the vinyl you made for me is from a very clean, almost undamaged disc (there are a couple of slight scratches towards the end IIRC) Your TT is top notch, there is no reason why it should not sound good.
Indeed, and if my T/T (and records) are capable of said results, then quite clearly the format itself (vinyl) is capable of it, as if it wasn't, then my T/T wouldn't be able to do what it does, no matter how good it was!! Do you see my point?
WRGT vinyl systems sounding better. That is a different issue. Firstly the best turntables I have heard, the times were vinyl really impressed me as being able to do something truly special, were all heavily user-modded. I don't think I have ever heard a totally stock deck of any make that was anything special. Good, but not amazing. I've not heard any of the six figure stuff though.
Yup, but all you're doing is further proving my point, which is that, quite clearly, it's not the analogue format or the medium itself holding back the performance of vinyl. No-one's saying that any old record player is better than any CD player!
If the turntable used is good enough, then quite clearly it's capable of releasing/realising the full potential of the vinyl medium and analogue format, and furthermore when done well, that potential is often translated as being sonically superior to that capable by its digital counterpart, if of a similar quality and all else being equal - as we've heard together at NEBO and elsewhere on a number of occasions.
Marco.
Think its simply that Martin in general likes digital and doesnt like vinyl. Lots of folk are same and a few the other way.
I know that, but the stubborn wee bugger won't admit it! :lol:
I also think he gets WAY too bogged down by specs, which as we all know (depending on how they're applied) don't *always* tell the full story!
If he would just say what you've stated in the first place, then there would be no argument, as you like what you like, but as Martin has admitted himself only very recently, he doesn't like to 'back down' in debates and admit defeat... ;)
Marco.
Firebottle
29-01-2017, 14:50
I think i get what you are trying to say Martin, I'm sure you will correct me if I am wrong.
Given a digital recording of sufficient bit count (say Red Book 16 bit) and from as good a source as possible, the recording is going to be damn near 'perfect' in storing a facsimile of said music, or speech, or whatever, in terms of virtually zero distortion, wide bandwidth and more than adequate dynamic range.
Whereas a replay from a vinyl record (lets use vinyl as the analogue domain) has surface noise, tracing distortion and dynamic range constraints, all to varying degrees.
My contention is that for digital playback the format is undermined by the necessity to have bandwidth limiting filtering, no matter how many times oversampled or use of alternative techniques, that will always alter the impulse response or phase characteristics of the recording.
These alterations can be very small but the ear/brain being the amazing sense that it is picks up these anomalies.
The fact that vinyl replay doesn't need this type of filtering is perhaps why it can sound more 'real', or even analogue if you like.
:eek:
Given a digital recording of sufficient bit count (say Red Book 16 bit) and from as good a source as possible, the recording is going to be damn near 'perfect' in storing a facsimile of said music, or speech, or whatever, in terms of virtually zero distortion, wide bandwidth and more than adequate dynamic range.
Whereas a replay from a vinyl record (lets use vinyl as the analogue domain) has surface noise, tracing distortion and dynamic range constraints, all to varying degrees.
No argument there whatsoever :)
My contention is that for digital playback the format is undermined by the necessity to have bandwidth limiting filtering, no matter how many times oversampled or use of alternative techniques, that will always alter the impulse response or phase characteristics of the recording.
These alterations can be very small but the ear/brain being the amazing sense that it is picks up these anomalies.
Precisely! Especially the last bit... Up until now, no-one's mentioned the distortions of digital, indeed as if they didn't exist, and it were somehow the perfect 'recorded music replay or transcription process', which of course it isn't. It too has its limitations and sonic anomalies. Therefore, despite what some may think, digital is NOT perfect.
In reality, what we have is simply the analysing of two different sets of imperfections [analogue and digital derived], and the technical and sonic compromises they generate... And therefore which is *actually* 'superior' is always going to be subjective, rather than objectively definitive!
The fact that vinyl replay doesn't need this type of filtering is perhaps why it can sound more 'real', or even analogue if you like.
Yes, I think that's a big part of what's going on. For me, what digital subtracts is just as significant as what vinyl adds!
Marco.
dimkasta
29-01-2017, 15:29
The fact that vinyl replay doesn't need this type of filtering is perhaps why it can sound more 'real', or even analogue if you like.
My RIAA says hello :)
And about the noise free digital reproduction and recording, the anti-aliasing and dithering filters on my dac send their regards. The crosseyed output on my transport also giggles with a silly face and continues sending its not-so-square output signal.
Nothing is perfect in practice.
The two areas where digital has an advantage.
On solid state that can retrieve the data with almost perfect error correction. In direct contrast to CD that has to work real time on an imperfect medium, counting on verification algorithms to verify integrity and on custom error correction to smooth out the problem.
And the second is that digital tends to be more plug and play. Just connect everything and you are good to go. Only some wiring optimization perhaps. In direct contrast with vinyl where you have to give much love on matching and setting up your rig.
In direct contrast to CD that has to work real time on an imperfect medium, counting on verification algorithms to verify integrity and on custom error correction to smooth out the problem.
And yet some folk are trying to kind themselves on that the effects of said error correction/filtering are inaudible? ;)
I don't think so... For others and I, they're as sonically obvious as any of the recognised analogue/vinyl distortions, which is why in reality neither format/medium can be considered as being automatically superior.
As ever in audio, folks, it's a case of choosing your compromises! Those who *need* to think otherwise, in order to appease their cognitive dissonance or pacify their ingrained 'belief system', simply need to embrace and accept the truth.
Marco.
dimkasta
29-01-2017, 15:47
I had a conversation with a sound engineer a few years back on a local studio.
He said that he had tried r2r on a live recording, but could not bother doing it again. The difference was not that big (he did not express a direct preference). Maintaining and operating the machine was too much work, and he could not record as many channels as he wanted and for as long as he wanted.
Not to mention that he was required to digitize the recording anyway.
On normal studio work, r2r is just not an option. You cannot trust today's "artists" to give a stelar performance on the limited tape capacity. And the cost builds up fast. And you will probably digitize everything again anyway to fix timing or tonal errors or correct silly musician choices. Like fixing the overloading of the mic because the moronic singer decided it looks cool to cap and make out with the mic. Or to reamp the guitar because the guitarist thought it was a good idea to record his 100$ practice amp because this is the sound he likes. Thank god recording a direct channel is just one extra input on digital.
From a flexibility side, you cannot beat digital.
All the rest is in the hands of the engineers. Both on designing equipment, and operating them.
Arkless Electronics
29-01-2017, 16:18
Not a direct comparison with high end studio digital here... but I once did some live recording in which I split the signal to both a digital recorder at 2496 and also to my ReVox PR99 MkIII half track at 15ips. The singer/songwriter was present with a couple of his mates for the immediate playback. I played the digital first and all of us thought the digital sounded good. Then came the R2R and a big improvement was noted by everyone. It just sounded more real and natural somehow.
Of course all this shows is that this R2R sounded much better than this digital set up. To be fair, the PR99 was many thousands when new and the digital set up was typical home studio and probably £300 or so...
Haselsh1
29-01-2017, 16:40
All else being equal a modern, digital recording is always going to sound superior. Like comparing a Ford Anglia to a Ford Mondeo.
And yet, in the case of Pink Floyd's DSOTM it clearly is not superior. This then asks the question, why...?
dimkasta
29-01-2017, 16:50
Not really a fair comparison.
Although I have seen some of those budget units greately improved with a better psu.
One I remember especially is one of those cheap red focusrites a friend of mine used for his home recording rig
Not a direct comparison with high end studio digital here... but I once did some live recording in which I split the signal to both a digital recorder at 2496 and also to my ReVox PR99 MkIII half track at 15ips. The singer/songwriter was present with a couple of his mates for the immediate playback. I played the digital first and all of us thought the digital sounded good. Then came the R2R and a big improvement was noted by everyone. It just sounded more real and natural somehow.
Of course all this shows is that this R2R sounded much better than this digital set up. To be fair, the PR99 was many thousands when new and the digital set up was typical home studio and probably £300 or so...
Yup, and an interesting point. For some, however, Jez, it wouldn't matter the cost or relative capability of the digital set up, as 'noughts are noughts', and so the CD player on a £30 'hi-fi system', from a supermarket, should technically be just as 'accurate' as anything else! :doh:
Marco.
dimkasta
29-01-2017, 17:04
and so the CD player on a £30 'hi-fi system', from a supermarket, should technically be just as 'accurate' as anything else! :doh:
That was my argument a couple of years ago on a similar thread on a Greek forum. If digital was perfect, different devices would sound the same...
Firebottle
29-01-2017, 21:27
My RIAA says hello :)
RIAA is an equalisation not a bandwidth limiting filter, totally different scenario.
So much to reply to.
Marco is not getting the point I am making and is arguing against something I am not saying.
Error correction does not affect the sound. That is a fact. Why do supermarket DVD players not sound as good as proper CD players? Noise. That is also why proper cd players don't sound as good as the players where attention has been paid to the power supplies and the analogue output stage. Those players, and they are few, will be as good as playing the master tape (or file) with a redbook CD, as near as makes no difference. That the master may be compressed to fuck is not the fault of the medium.
Grant - I don't hate vinyl, I have 4 decks about 10 cartridges, and RCM, a ton of auxiliary gubbins and about 500 albums. I have the CD of many of those albums also and I always play the CD. Essentially I am caught between to stools because I am too emotionally attached to the vinyl to sell it all, so I also have to maintain the means if playing it. But I don't want to spend the kind of money it takes to get the TT to a level where it can compete with a Sony CD player I bought second hand for 50 quid.
Alan, I'm totally sceptical about there being some hidden issues with cd that only the best DAC designs can compensate for. That's based on hearing some top of the line players from the late '80's and early 90's. They got it right first time, at the high end anyway.
Noise and distortion -noise you only hear when it is taken away. Put in a better amp or pre-amp an suddenly you are aware that a load of hash you never noticed before has vanished. You only hear it by comparison. Hence the 'veils lifted' syndrome. But you can never know if there is yet anther veil to be lifted (there probably is).
Distortion doesn't have to be audible in order to be heard. Some sounds nasty, some doesn't. Some is in the bass where you don't notice as much, or at all. Nevertheless, the idea of fidelity to the recording requires that no distortions be introduced, even if their effect is merely increase the subjective impression of 'tone' or 'texture'.
dimkasta
30-01-2017, 02:29
RIAA is an equalisation not a bandwidth limiting filter, totally different scenario.
Yeah it was just a note that vinyl is not that innocent or pure either.
Error correction does not affect the sound. That is a fact.
Actually CD Players interpolate to fix unrecoverable issues. This will affect the sound. The amount of the change might be small, but it still is not the original.
There is no perfect reading on most commercial cd transports. You can see that from the various threads talking about checksums and verifying rips with known good databases. And that is from drives ripping CDs with multiple passes and other stuff. An audio CD transport working real time is usually even less efficient.
Have a look below about Secure ripping to see what problems exist when we want to retrieve a CD stream without errors.
http://dbpoweramp.com/spoons-audio-guide-cd-ripping.htm
You need to move on from CD to hear where digital has got too Martin, it is old school and easily surpassed by the latest file based technology. You will be surprised how much has moved on from the late 80's and 90's. You will also have to listen to some start of the art DAC's also to appreciate what is now being extracted from those digital files.
Basically CD does not cut it anymore!
Secondly even the best digital systems still sound well....digital/ analog, super clean, amazing dynamics and black background as you have alluded too with a specification that would make vinyl systems look Stone Age.
But do they play music you want to sit down too and listen all weekend without fatigue. Do they sound musical and bring the artist too life in a realistic way which sounds live? Not in my book.
I am afraid I was bitten by the digital bug back when it started and like the emperors new clothes I believed with loads of others that it was better than vinyl. After 25 years I learned I had made a big mistake.
Even now with digital having moved on so far I think the emperor is only half clothed!:lol:
Light Dependant Resistor
30-01-2017, 08:26
You need to move on from CD to hear where digital has got too Martin, it is old school and easily surpassed by the latest file based technology. You will be surprised how much has moved on from the late 80's and 90's. You will also have to listen to some start of the art DAC's also to appreciate what is now being extracted from those digital files.
Basically CD does not cut it anymore!
Secondly even the best digital systems still sound well....digital/ analog, super clean, amazing dynamics and black background as you have alluded too with a specification that would make vinyl systems look Stone Age.
But do they play music you want to sit down too and listen all weekend without fatigue. Do they sound musical and bring the artist too life in a realistic way which sounds live? Not in my book.
I am afraid I was bitten by the digital bug back when it started and like the emperors new clothes I believed with loads of others that it was better than vinyl. After 25 years I learned I had made a big mistake.
Even now with digital having moved on so far I think the emperor is only half clothed!:lol:
Where does the file based technology original audio file come from ? You can be fairly sure Pink Floyd spent no time remastering for file based technology rather
if indeed their albums are available in such formats it is from the CD, that has been digitally copied.
So my hand is up for the CD format. With CD you want short signal paths, and even though SPDIF is flawed, it is better to transmit and receive DATA, Bitclock and Left Right Clock
using Flip Flops either side, as I outlined in 1997. http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/viewpoint/0401/deficienciesofspdif.htm You will then hear CD as you should.
It remains the best format so far, the music publishers have provided IMO.
Where does the file based technology original audio file come from ? You can be fairly sure Pink Floyd spent no time remastering for file based technology rather
if indeed their albums are available in such formats it is from the CD, that has been digitally copied.
So my hand is up for the CD format. With CD you want short signal paths, and even though SPDIF is flawed, it is better to transmit and receive DATA, Bitclock and Left Right Clock
using Flip Flops either side, as I outlined in 1997. http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/viewpoint/0401/deficienciesofspdif.htm You will then hear CD as you should.
It remains the best format so far, the music publishers have provided IMO.
What I am suggesting Chris is to not listen to CD via player direct, ripping the CD for a bit perfect file copy is to my ears so much better. CD players are easily beaten for SQ going this route.
Light Dependant Resistor
30-01-2017, 09:22
Hi James
Indeed by ripping to WAV or Flac you are bypassing SPDIF, gaining admirable advantage.
Maybe not quite as much as the method I outlined in 1997, as the file based technology
will have some limitations. WAV and FLAC being very good but still a storage conversion
method, which are algorithms and foreign to the codes used initially inside CD players.
Cheers / Chris
So much to reply to.
Marco is not getting the point I am making and is arguing against something I am not saying.
Lol... So what are you saying then? *Be specific* and also address the points I'm making. I.E when you see a question mark in front of you, at the end of a sentence, that usually indicates an answer is required... ;)
You have a bad habit of avoiding the awkward/difficult questions you don't want to tackle, and diverting the discussion to what it is you wish to discuss instead... In that respect, you'd make a good politician!
Error correction does not affect the sound. That is a fact.
Ha- says who??
There are lots of supposed 'facts' out there in audio, which in practice, via critical listening, are highly questionable. Here's another 'fact': whenever the audio signal is manipulated in any way (with filtering or whatever), via the use of electronic circuitry, it creates a 'footprint', by imparting a sonic signature on the final results heard.
You need to get it out of your head that digital audio is somehow 'flawless'/100% neutral, or whatever other fanciful ideas you have about it being perfect, and entertain the notion that it too is imperfect and exhibits its own form of distortions.
Therefore, when analysing the 'superiority' between vinyl and CD, in reality all you're doing is choosing your favoured form of distortion, or rather that which least offends your ears, whether it's created by a needle tracing a record groove, or induced by the bandwidth limited filtering and signal manipulation in the digital domain, of a CD player.
That mate, at the end of the day, no matter what your text books say, is the reality of what is happening.
Marco.
RothwellAudio
30-01-2017, 10:18
Where does the file based technology original audio file come from ? You can be fairly sure Pink Floyd spent no time remastering for file based technology rather if indeed their albums are available in such formats it is from the CD, that has been digitally copied.
Back in the 1990s DSOTM was remastered as a 21st anniversary (25th?) "celebration". I read an interview with Alan Parsons about it. Basically, it was just a commercial ploy to sell more copies and they only had two days to do it. They just took the original two track master tape and mucked about with it in Pro Tools. It amounted to little more than EQ and some compression. I thought it didn't sound as good as the original.
Since then it has been remastered from the multitrack tape with the involvement of David Gilmour and with a lot more time spent on it. I'm not sure what was done but it was more than the first remastering.
It has probably been remastered on other occasions too.
Actually CD Players interpolate to fix unrecoverable issues. This will affect the sound. The amount of the change might be small, but it still is not the original.
Yup, that's my point. ANY kind of manipulation of the audio signal will result in *some form* of sonic penalty - and more often than not it is audible.
There is no perfect reading on most commercial cd transports.
Ha - that's a veritable can of worms, and another valid source of digital distortion... But of course, the 'experts' have concluded that transport mechanisms don't affect sound quality; it's all zeros and ones, after all! ;)
Bullshite.....
Marco.
You need to move on from CD to hear where digital has got too Martin, it is old school and easily surpassed by the latest file based technology. You will be surprised how much has moved on from the late 80's and 90's. You will also have to listen to some start of the art DAC's also to appreciate what is now being extracted from those digital files.
:
I have and it hasn't. You realise that the 'music' on a cd or record is just a simple waveform, the 'data' is just amplitude and wavelength? There is nothing 'extra' to retrieve that CD somehow 'misses'. Unless you hear audible problems it is recreating that waveform exactly. This isn't opinion, it is mathematics. I don't doubt that you have heard digital files sounding fantastic but whatever reason that was it isn't because the fancy DAC is 'extracting' more information, because that is an impossibility.
Yeah it was just a note that vinyl is not that innocent or pure either.
Actually CD Players interpolate to fix unrecoverable issues. This will affect the sound. The amount of the change might be small, but it still is not the original.
There is no perfect reading on most commercial cd transports. You can see that from the various threads talking about checksums and verifying rips with known good databases. And that is from drives ripping CDs with multiple passes and other stuff. An audio CD transport working real time is usually even less efficient.
Have a look below about Secure ripping to see what problems exist when we want to retrieve a CD stream without errors.
http://dbpoweramp.com/spoons-audio-guide-cd-ripping.htm
Just simply not correct. All error correction does is interpolate missed samples. Either it recreates the original waveform exactly, or there is an audible error. There is no in between where the music just sounds 'less good' than it is supposed to. The errors in reading you see when you copy a CD are corrected by the CD player on playback, or if not you will hear them. This is pretty basic stuff; I thought everyone got beyond these total myths about digital some years ago, obviously not.
This does burn my balls a bit because it is the perpetuation of this sort of thing that holds digital back. Everyone is trying various marketing tactics to attract the wealthy audiophiles who prefer vinyl to digital by claiming to have the solution to the none-existent problems they still believe in, whilst ignoring the actual problems.
Lol... So what are you saying then? *Be specific* and also address the points I'm making. I.E when you see a question mark in front of you, at the end of a sentence, that usually indicates an answer is required... ;)
You have a bad habit of avoiding the awkward/difficult questions you don't want to tackle, and diverting the discussion to what it is you wish to discuss instead... In that respect, you'd make a good politician!
Ha- says who??
There are lots of supposed 'facts' out there in audio, which in practice, via critical listening, are highly questionable. Here's another 'fact': whenever the audio signal is manipulated in any way (with filtering or whatever), via the use of electronic circuitry, it creates a 'footprint', by imparting a sonic signature on the final results heard.
You need to get it out of your head that digital audio is somehow 'flawless'/100% neutral, or whatever other fanciful ideas you have about it being perfect, and entertain the notion that it too is imperfect and exhibits its own form of distortions.
Therefore, when analysing the 'superiority' between vinyl and CD, in reality all you're doing is choosing your favoured form of distortion, or rather that which least offends your ears, whether it's created by a needle tracing a record groove, or induced by the bandwidth limited filtering and signal manipulation in the digital domain, of a CD player.
That mate, at the end of the day, no matter what your text books say, is the reality of what is happening.
Marco.
Read you previous posts again, didn't see any questions except for 'who says so' wrt error correction. The answer to that is 'mathematics says so.'
Ask me any questions you want I will do my best to answer them. Not avoiding anything.
You need to move on from CD to hear where digital has got too Martin, it is old school and easily surpassed by the latest file based technology. You will be surprised how much has moved on from the late 80's and 90's. You will also have to listen to some start of the art DAC's also to appreciate what is now being extracted from those digital files.
Basically CD does not cut it anymore!
I know where you're coming from, Jim, but as ever in audio, it's not quite as cut and dried as that.
I'd agree with your last sentence, in reference to the vast majority of modern CDPs (certainly anything post-2000, out with of the bespoke high-end arena), but listen to a vintage CDP, from the format's heyday, built with 'no compromise' by one of the huge Jap companies, such as Sony, Technics, etc, and trust me, you'll hear how CD was *supposed* to sound before quality went tits up and players started being 'built by accountants'! ;)
You will experience this for yourself and hear exactly where I'm coming from when you visit, when listening to my Sony CDP and DAC. These days, 95% of CDPs are hugely compromised plastic monstrosities, and easily outperformed by even the most modestly priced, well chosen and implemented streaming set up.
Secondly even the best digital systems still sound well....digital/ analog, super clean, amazing dynamics and black background as you have alluded too with a specification that would make vinyl systems look Stone Age.
But do they play music you want to sit down too and listen all weekend without fatigue. Do they sound musical and bring the artist too life in a realistic way which sounds live? Not in my book.
Again, I do know where you're coming from, and vinyl is still my preferred music source.
However, when digital is done well - truly well - either via CD or streaming, there shouldn't be a massive discrepancy between it and what's produced by even the best turntable. And you only come to realise that when both the digital and analogue sources in your system are comparable in price and (inevitably) quality.
In that respect, in my system, the Techy (and you know how good that sounds), in real terms, is probably only 5% better (sonically and musically) than my CDP/DAC - *BUT* that 5% is special and very significant, musically, in terms of the whole 'getting closer to the heart of the performance', and in terms of what sounds more 'real'.
Again, you'll hear this for yourself when you visit. Essentially, the Techy sounds as 'accurate' as the Sony, but with a smidgen more 'soul', and the Sony as 'musical' as the Techy, minus 5%. It's hard to put it into words, but you'll 'get' it when you hear it! :)
You can even bring your VPI round, as your personal vinyl benchmark, and play the same album on vinyl, as the Sony is on CD, and that will hopefully demonstrate and underline my point, which is that when digital is truly done well (in a vintage or modern context), it can get extremely close to creating the 'musical realism' and believability of its analogue counterpart.
Marco.
Read you previous posts again, didn't see any questions except for 'who says so' wrt error correction. The answer to that is 'mathematics says so.'
Lol - do you honestly expect me to answer that on a subjectivist audio forum? However, you should be able to guess my answer! ;)
Since when did mathematics explain *all* there is to know about audio, and in particular 'sound quality'?
Ask me any questions you want I will do my best to answer them. Not avoiding anything.
Well, sorry, you're giving a very good impression of it. If you want to answer all my questions, then simply go back through the thread, read all my posts directed at you, and where you see a question mark at the end of a sentence, that's where an answer is required.
It'll then become patently obvious where you have failed to answer those questions... For a start, try addressing the point I raised in my last post about essentially choosing your favoured form of distortion, 'cos at the end of the day, muchacho, that's ALL it is! :)
Marco.
Regarding that last bit [in bold]...
If you will accept that, and that vinyl and CD (analogue and digital) are both flawed music replay processes, but simply in different ways, therefore in the final analysis neither can be considered as OVERALL superior to the other, then we'll essentially be in agreement :)
I'm no blinkered 'vinyl fanboy', blinded by its inherent technical limitations [nor indeed am I emotionally or intellectually 'married' to one method of recorded music reproduction]; I'm simply a realist and thus ably acknowledge the limitations of both digital and analogue (CD and vinyl), and the FACT that at end of the day, all we can do, as indeed with any aspect of audio, is simply choose our compromises.
It's this 'digital is automatically superior to analogue because the maths says so' mantra, and it being portrayed as FACT, without simultaneously taking due consideration of the inherent flaws of digital, and how they affect what you hear, that I have a major problem with, not that you happen to prefer CD to vinyl, which you're perfectly entitled to (without explanation), as it's your personal preference.
Marco.
I must say, a very interesting exchange, and certainly nothing new. The advantages and disadvantages between vinyl and digital have been discussed at length from the beginning. Addressing the original post, the lack of bass in the footsteps on DSOTM, most likely the engineer who made the remaster for the CD version took it out on purpose. Either because he didn't even notice it, or felt it may not play well on cheap car stereos. Music in general has become more and more compressed, and the overall recording levels have been getting higher since the 70's, to improve the sound quality on portable playback gear.
As far as digital containing all of the music, that is debatable as well. A 16 bit recording can not contain any frequency above 20Khz. It has a brick wall that prevents any signal above that point. I saw an article many years ago, I wish had it to back up my claims, but anyway, the author showed frequency response graphs that showed vinyl reproducing minute frequencies up to 40KHz! While humans are not supposed to be able to hear frequencies above 20K, studies show there are psychoacoustic responses in the brain to frequencies up to 30K. Again, I wish I could produce the articles where I read this, but I read a lot, and it was many years ago. But the fact remains that all formats are mastered in digital at some point. But, modern studios are using much higher bit rates and sampling frequencies that produce much greater accuracy even at higher and lower frequencies than the Redbook 16 bit recordings on CD. This is why many SACD recordings sound better than their 16 bit counterparts. But not always? Again, the decisions lie in the hands of the engineers, what they choose to include, how good are their ears? And what they feel is important. Myself, I've got a $3500 vinyl playback setup, and a $5500 CD player. And they both sound wonderful! But somehow, I am much more likely to play a second vinyl record, and a third, than I am with the CD. Why? I don't really know, I just take it for what it's worth.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Addressing the original post, the lack of bass in the footsteps on DSOTM, most likely the engineer who made the remaster for the CD version took it out on purpose. Either because he didn't even notice it, or felt it may not play well on cheap car stereos. Music in general has become more and more compressed, and the overall recording levels have been getting higher since the 70's, to improve the sound quality on portable playback gear.
Spot on, Russell :thumbsup:
And in general not to the advancement of high-fidelity either!
I suspect you're also right about DSOTM. For me, it's the most plausible explanation put forward yet.
Marco.
I know where you're coming from, Jim, but as ever in audio, it's not quite as cut and dried as that.
I'd agree with your last sentence, in reference to the vast majority of modern CDPs (certainly anything post-2000, out with of the bespoke high-end arena), but listen to a vintage CDP, from the format's heyday, built with 'no compromise' by one of the huge Jap companies, such as Sony, Technics, etc, and trust me, you'll hear how CD was *supposed* to sound before quality went tits up and players started being 'built by accountants'! ;)
You will experience this for yourself and hear exactly where I'm coming from when you visit, when listening to my Sony CDP and DAC. These days, 95% of CDPs are hugely compromised plastic monstrosities, and easily outperformed by even the most modestly priced, well chosen and implemented streaming set up.
Again, I do know where you're coming from, and vinyl is still my preferred music source.
However, when digital is done well - truly well - either via CD or streaming, there shouldn't be a massive discrepancy between it and what's produced by even the best turntable. And you only come to realise that when both the digital and analogue sources in your system are comparable in price and (inevitably) quality.
In that respect, in my system, the Techy (and you know how good that sounds), in real terms, is probably only 5% better (sonically and musically) than my CDP/DAC - *BUT* that 5% is special and very significant, musically, in terms of the whole 'getting closer to the heart of the performance', and in terms of what sounds more 'real'.
Again, you'll hear this for yourself when you visit. Essentially, the Techy sounds as 'accurate' as the Sony, but with a smidgen more 'soul', and the Sony as 'musical' as the Techy, minus 5%. It's hard to put it into words, but you'll 'get' it when you hear it! :)
You can even bring your VPI round, as your personal vinyl benchmark, and play the same album on vinyl, as the Sony is on CD, and that will hopefully demonstrate and underline my point, which is that when digital is truly done well (in a vintage or modern context), it can get extremely close to creating the 'musical realism' and believability of its analogue counterpart.
Marco.
To be honest I have not really heard any of the great vintage CD players so I bow to your experience here. However I have heard some very expensive modern CDP and unfortunately they have been left redundant by ripped file base digital versions of the CD.
I also agree when digital is done really well it can sound awesome and as you say nearly as good as vinyl. I have heard some stuff that is simply beyond vinyl's capabilities but this is the exception rather than the rule. I think however your 5% caveat is spot on regarding that "soul" aspect of vinyl - I call it musicality.
With regards to the OP and DOSTM I am of the belief it is certainly the mastering from the digital source to either CD or SACD that is the problem - maybe carelessness who knows but on most Floyd albums the vinyl slaughters the digital version.
I understand that the technical aspects of digital music from every angle may well exceed vinyl but at the end of the day when you sit and listen all is revealed if you have a system capable enough and for me I still favour vinyl. It is close and getting closer but somehow I feel there will always be a difference with that indefinable quality you get from analogue and vinyl in the listening experience.
Yes it would be great to meet up and listen to some stuff and it might be good if you would like to come over to mine for a listen to my system in situ as it were as it has been tailored to my environment.
However it would be good to come over and bring the VPI for a session at yours. I will PM you some dates and we will try and make it happen.:)
Haselsh1
30-01-2017, 13:29
I have also done a comparison of an early eighties, late seventies pressing of DSOTM using my own system and the really low bass on the 'On The Run' track is still there in all its low frequency glory. OK so the whole album sounds more rounded and subtle, not as sharp and clearly defined, however I was quite surprised at how good it is. I thought about getting a CD of the album that is not the SACD version but how would I know I am getting a different version when all are listed as 2011 remaster...?
Light Dependant Resistor
30-01-2017, 13:45
Spot on, Russell :thumbsup:
And in general not to the advancement of high-fidelity either!
I suspect you're also right about DSOTM. For me, it's the most plausible explanation yet put forward.
Marco.
It is interesting to review what a RIAA eq curve looks like. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization
Even more interesting would be playback without RIAA. Doing so would reveal why in the case of LP
deemphasis and emphasis being the opposite of most CD mastering where emphasis and deemphasis is
utilized, has entirely different curve rates. Could this explain why ?
We should be pleased the mediums are similar, given all the steps involved :)
So poses an interesting question, why is RIAA the opposite relationship ?
Historically emphasis and deemphasis have much benefit in communication. First used by Major Edwin
Howard Armstrong for radio, but very much the work of Murray Crosby.
. But, modern studios are using much higher bit rates and sampling frequencies that produce much greater accuracy even at higher and lower frequencies than the Redbook 16 bit recordings on CD. This is why many SACD recordings sound better than their 16 bit counterparts. But not always?
The reason some SACD sound different is different mastering plus the 'character' of the SACD player. Studios use higher bitrates to give them more dynamic range to lose when mixing, not because it sounds better. There are frequencies on vinyl up to 40KHz? Well only if the recordings used mics capable of that frequency. 99% of the recordings you have on SACD didn't, ergo there is nothing there to reproduce.
Marco always accuses me of 'vinyl bashing' when this subject comes up. I'm not. My objections to some of the guff that gets talked are pretty simple to understand.
1) Both digital recording and playback are technically superior, by a margin, to analogue recording and playback. Analogue is not intrinsically better by virtue of being analogue; however subjective impressions may differ, this has nothing to do with 'flaws' or 'distortion' in digital, it is entirely due to the playback chain and personal opinion of 'what it should sound like'.
2) Unless mics capable of exceeding 22KHz were used in the recording there is no advantage to higher sampling rates, 44.1Khz captures the waveform in its entirety. You hear a difference with 'high rez' then you are hearing different mastering.
3) 99.9% of vinyl records made after about 1980, even if recorded entirely in analogue, has their wave form digitised before the record was pressed. It is not easy to escape digital even if you never play a file or a cd. Does it make a blind bit of difference to the sound? No.
4) to get the best out of digital your system needs to be optimal, in that it must be able to get the benefit of the very high signal to noise ratio. This includes the digital front end as well as the amplification. Those using file audio set ups where they have paid attention to the power supplies and other sources of noise will appreciate this, as will those using the handful of cd players that have had attention paid here. Everything else touted around about 'improving digital' is a complete waste of time and is marketed solely at those people who have no understanding of how it works and who mostly don't want to know.
Okay 4 is my own opinion based on my own theoretical and practical research i.e reading and listening, and may not be true. But I swear if I read one more time the error correction affects the sound I will bust a gut. Stop looking for answers where there can't be any and start looking for reasons why digital doesn't measure up for you that actually might make some sense!
Next time you get time to contribute, any chance you could have a go at my earlier post, #66? ;)
Specifically in reference to accepting the fact that both vinyl and CD are flawed music mediums [neither are perfect], and because of that, ultimately all we're doing by favouring one or the other, is choosing our compromises.
And no, I don't think you're "vinyl bashing"; merely, IMO, too wrapped up in specs and maths, and attributing a level of factuality to what they state that isn't merited. Plus, IMO, the absolutist way in which you analyse these matters, clouds your ability to apply some much needed lateral thinking....
I would also challenge 3) above, as extensive experience of ripping vinyl to a digital format has taught me that the resultant rip never sounds as good as the original vinyl music source - and that is precisely because of the limitations (sonic signature) imbued on the music signal by the digitisation process and its associated ancillaries.
I will demonstrate that to you next time you visit.
Furthermore, the vast majority of the finest sounding recordings I have on vinyl are pre-1980, and in fact from the late 50s/early 60s, when in studios valves were the 'weapon of choice', from mics to mixing desks, tape was used, and the whole process from start to finish was done in the analogue domain - and some of those vinyl recordings are *so* sonically superior to most of what was produced in the era you mention (and still even today), it's not funny!
Marco.
Okay post 66 although there are not really any questions to me accept maybe the first para, which I took to be rhetorical. But I will have a go at it as you insist
If we are talking about being faithful to the sound of an instrument or voice as it happened, then both digital and analogue, as recording methods, are flawed in that neither will be 100% faithful
Given the recording as a starting point we then have to ask, how was it recorded? If it was recorded digitally then you have 100 percent of the recording there in your home on your cd or file. The data of the waveform moves from one disc to another down a wire,but to listen to it on vinyl we must press a record and this means a whole host of compromises, most of which I grant you are either inaudible or actually make it sound subjectively better than its digital parent, but we end up with something that is less close to the original than the digital version. Maybe not different enough to matter, but still de facto different.
Then we come to playback, this should be simple as all we have to do is run our record or cd or file. The purpose of this item is to instruct our amplifier to change voltage over time, send that to the speakers, making the drivers move, creating standing waves of different frequencies which the pattern recognition system in our brain interprets as sound, music, and, if the system is good, real sounds of instruments and people.
It is the last bit that is the kicker of course. My view is that it is equally possible to get to that stage with either digital or analogue, and once you have that there is really nowhere else to go, so the format becomes irrelevant in terms of sound quality.
So short answer, no CD does not have significant playback imperfections in itself, although playback may be compromised in many ways - and usually is. Vinyl playback has what should be significant flaws but in practice these can be overcome to the extent that they really does not matter.
Regarding that last bit [in bold]...
If you will accept that, and that vinyl and CD (analogue and digital) are both flawed music replay processes, but simply in different ways, therefore in the final analysis neither can be considered as OVERALL superior to the other, then we'll essentially be in agreement :)
I'm no blinkered 'vinyl fanboy', blinded by its inherent technical limitations [nor indeed am I emotionally or intellectually 'married' to one method of recorded music reproduction]; I'm simply a realist and thus ably acknowledge the limitations of both digital and analogue (CD and vinyl), and the FACT that at end of the day, all we can do, as indeed with any aspect of audio, is simply choose our compromises.
It's this 'digital is automatically superior to analogue because the maths says so' mantra, and it being portrayed as FACT, without simultaneously taking due consideration of the inherent flaws of digital, and how they affect what you hear, that I have a major problem with, not that you happen to prefer CD to vinyl, which you're perfectly entitled to (without explanation), as it's your personal preference.
Marco.
.......A 16 bit recording can not contain any frequency above 20Khz. It has a brick wall that prevents any signal above that point.........
It's not the bits you mean here I think, it's the Sampling Frequency ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem )
I'm not going to come down on either 'side' in this discussion. I have both Vinyl and Digital replay facilities but unlike Russell I often find myself playing Digital more often than not. I usually decide to 'spend an evening with' vinyl and then listen to nothing but. That is a couple of times a month though whereas day to day it will be digital.
I agree with the 're-mastering' thoughts on here though and my most significant experience is with ENYA's first album. She did the soundtrack for the BBC series The Celts and the BBC release of this, on CD (just titled 'ENYA' (BBC CD 605) sounds wonderful. LOTS of Bass information, floor shaking stuff. After she 'became famous' though it was remastered and released again in 1992 as 'The Celts' and all that lovely Bass information was gone.
I am a latecomer to Vinyl in the great scheme of things, only realising what all the 'fuss' was about after buying a decent Arm, Vinyl replay suddenly coming in to focus as it were.
I have had a listen this morning to the four different versions of TDSOTM I have (1994 re-master CD, 2003 Hybrid SACD (CD Layer only available to me), Immersion Box Set CD version and the recent Vinyl re-release) and in order of preference I have to rate them as follows;
1) Immersion version
2) Vinyl version
3) Hybrid SACD version
4) 1994 re-master version.
The Vinyl and the Immersion were both very close with all the Bass frequencies in 'On The Run' presented beautifully. The other two were fairly 'flat' sounding but the CD Layer of the Hybrid SACD disc just having the edge over the 1994 version. Not a great disc at all.
I think Digital replay has come on in leaps and bounds over the last decade or so. With the very last drops of information now being realised from the 16/44.1 format. I have access to higher resolution files and to me I cannot fault CD resolution. I am not convinced there are benefits to be had from the higher Sampling Frequencies. Up-Sampling of CD's also makes things worse to my ears. It has been linked to on this forum previously but the paper on the XIPH website about the lack of need for anything more than 16/44.1 in the replay chain makes for very good reading.
Also the removal of Over-Sampling and Filters in the replay chain for me has been a revelation. Looking at the reproduced signals of a NOS, Filterless DAC I used to agree 'just can't be right' but after 'listening to my ears' rather than letting my eyes tell me it's wrong I have to say it has changed my Digital listening for the better.
Sorry for rambling a bit and for spewing forth but I was just writing down thoughts as I remembered the various posts in this thread that I wanted to comment upon.
It is great that this sort of discussion can take place here whereas this sort of debate can descend into slanging matches on some on-line discussions and this sort of debate is frowned upon on some forums but here it is nice that we can 'agree to disagree'. Long may it continue.
Jim.
Hi Jim,
To be honest I have not really heard any of the great vintage CD players so I bow to your experience here. However I have heard some very expensive modern CDP and unfortunately they have been left redundant by ripped file base digital versions of the CD.
Yup, that's also been my experience.
The reasons for that are many and varied, but there are two main things holding back the performance of most modern CDPs, and that's a) their piss-poor, plastic DVD-ROM transport mechanisms, compared with the CD-only, all-metal variety, of the best vintage machines [the material the transport mech is made from is relevant from a vibration/microphony P.O.V], and b) the sonic limitations of their switch-mode PSUs, compared with the huge, over-specced linear items used in the best vintage players - and how all of that was successfully implemented.
The other factor that comes into play are the sonic differences between multi-bit DACs and their bitstream counterparts, and the respective chipsets used. Something like a classic and well-implemented TDA1541-based DAC, found in many of the top vintage players, will sound markedly different from the Burr-Brown or Wolfson varieties used today - and as far as that's concerned, there will always be trade-offs between (ultimate) resolution and musicality.
The very same conundrum, and one which you yourself are now intimately familiar with, is also playing itself out over on the Shure cartridge thread, where one chap has just rediscovered the joys of vinyl after tracking down an M55, and after installing it, claiming that was always how he remembered it sounding. There's much I could say about that, and indeed on how digital audio has 'progressed' in a similar way, perhaps more technically than sonically.
However, I'll leave that for another day, save to say that the brighter, 'cleaner', more detailed sound we've all been brainwashed into believing is more 'accurate', and in turn how hi-fi equipment today is 'voiced' by manufacturers, from loudspeakers, to amps, to cartridges and CD players, is not in fact as 'accurate' as we've been led to believe. Let's just say that 'Squeaky-clean and clear' doesn't necessarily equate to being more 'real'... ;)
I also agree when digital is done really well it can sound awesome and as you say nearly as good as vinyl. I have heard some stuff that is simply beyond vinyl's capabilities but this is the exception rather than the rule. I think however your 5% caveat is spot on regarding that "soul" aspect of vinyl - I call it musicality.
Yup, and for me that 5% is where said musicality is 'won or lost', and why, as I said before, I believe that what the digital process subtracts from the music signal is just as significant as what vinyl *adds*, which is why the former cannot factually be considered as superior...
With regards to the OP and DOSTM I am of the belief it is certainly the mastering from the digital source to either CD or SACD that is the problem - maybe carelessness who knows but on most Floyd albums the vinyl slaughters the digital version.
Absolutely. I think that's obvious to anyone who's heard just how good DSOTM can sound, when the sonics of the original recording, created in the studio when the album was first produced, are most faithfully preserved. For me, that's what it's all about, and the format (and mastering) today which gets that right the most, is ultimately the one that will be the most engrossing and rewarding to listen to.
Yes it would be great to meet up and listen to some stuff and it might be good if you would like to come over to mine for a listen to my system in situ as it were as it has been tailored to my environment.
However it would be good to come over and bring the VPI for a session at yours. I will PM you some dates and we will try and make it happen.
Sounds good to me, mate. Let's get something in our diaries. It's about time we moved from merely discussing this, to actually making it happen! :cool:
Marco.
So short answer, no CD does not have significant playback imperfections in itself, although playback may be compromised in many ways - and usually is. Vinyl playback has what should be significant flaws but in practice these can be overcome to the extent that they really does not matter.
So, in effect, that's a roundabout way of saying that neither are perfect? Cool. We're in agreement :)
Now, what about the notion that no matter what sound we prefer, whether digital or analogue derived, all we're doing at the end of the day is choosing our compromises?
There is simply no need to be blinkered, 'married' to one format or the other, or blindly biased towards our 'favourite', to the extent that we're immune to its limitations. Hi-fi is (and always will be) a collection of trade-offs.
If we can agree there, then we can put this whole, largely pointless (and wholly circular), 'CD vs. vinyl' dispute to bed! :cool:
Marco.
Firebottle
30-01-2017, 17:36
Just by way of a small aside comment:
Since improving my own amplification, mainly I'm sure from reducing distortions to minuscule levels, every source is now more musical and enjoyable.
:dance:
Arkless Electronics
30-01-2017, 17:51
Next time you get time to contribute, any chance you could have a go at my earlier post, #66? ;)
Specifically in reference to accepting the fact that both vinyl and CD are flawed music mediums [neither are perfect], and because of that, ultimately all we're doing by favouring one or the other, is choosing our compromises.
And no, I don't think you're "vinyl bashing"; merely, IMO, too wrapped up in specs and maths, and attributing a level of factuality to what they state that isn't merited. Plus, IMO, the absolutist way in which you analyse these matters, clouds your ability to apply some much needed lateral thinking....
I would also challenge 3) above, as extensive experience of ripping vinyl to a digital format has taught me that the resultant rip never sounds as good as the original vinyl music source - and that is precisely because of the limitations (sonic signature) imbued on the music signal by the digitisation process and its associated ancillaries.
I will demonstrate that to you next time you visit.
Marco.
Agreed!
I must say, so many intelligent people on the same forum! Quite refreshing!
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Agreed!
Where's the "Shock/horror" smiley? :eek::D
Marco.
Arkless Electronics
30-01-2017, 18:37
Where's the "Shock/horror" smiley? :eek::D
Marco.
I thought it more amusing to await the predicted response as above:D
Haselsh1
30-01-2017, 18:43
Martin says "Unless mics capable of exceeding 22KHz were used in the recording there is no advantage to higher sampling rates, 44.1Khz captures the waveform in its entirety. You hear a difference with 'high rez' then you are hearing different mastering."
Digital does not capture at all it 'samples' it. And, it samples in slices or chunks which then give back a facsimile of the original analogue waveform. It is not the original waveform it is an impression of it. To reproduce an analogue waveform requires an analogue replay system otherwise it is only a facsimile of that waveform which of course is re-assembled by a chip on a board. And then of course if information is missing, it just makes it up and slots it in. Not with analogue though.
;)
I thought it more amusing to await the predicted response as above:D
Lol... I'm afraid the notion that an analogue signal can be digitally manipulated (to buggery), as indeed happens during your average vinyl ripping process, and come out the other end 'fully intact', is fanciful in the extreme.
Marco.
Arkless Electronics
30-01-2017, 19:03
Lol... I'm afraid the notion that an analogue signal can be digitally manipulated (to buggery), as indeed happens during your average vinyl ripping process, and come out the other end 'fully intact', is fanciful in the extreme.
Marco.
Theoretically it can... but my ears beg to differ (thought you'd like that:D) and it's not an Nth degree thing it's bloody obvious. I've sometimes wondered if people who have ripped their vinyl to digital, especially if they've used a poor front end and phono stage, realise how much they are missing out on...
Theoretically it can... but my ears beg to differ (thought you'd like that:D) and it's not an Nth degree thing it's bloody obvious.
Haha... Ditto, mine. And probably like you, have done it often enough in order to get a very good handle on what's happening sonically. Anyway, you know what they say about theories! ;)
I've sometimes wondered if people who have ripped their vinyl to digital, especially if they've used a poor front end and phono stage, realise how much they are missing out on...
Indeed, but I guess you could argue that if the vinyl front end is so poor, the digitisation process [I'm primarily thinking here of the noise reduction software available] helps ameliorate some of the nasties from the turntable (and perhaps also the record itself)!
Here's another one to consider, by extrapolating this further.... As poor as vinyl rips can often be, in comparison with the original, if you've got a good (properly set-up) turntable, phono stage, pristine records, a decent soundcard and the wherewithal to produce a reasonably faithful facsimile of the original vinyl source, it can sound MUCH better than your average commercially produced CD of the same album.
What's your view on that? For me, if you take the time to do it right, the results are a no-brainer. Only genuine 'audiophile' quality releases on CD can stand comparison.
Marco.
Arkless Electronics
30-01-2017, 19:37
Haha... Ditto, mine - and probably like you, have done it often enough in order to get a very good handle on what's happening sonically. Anyway, you know what they say about theories! ;)
Indeed, but I guess you could argue that if the vinyl front end is so poor, the digitisation process [I'm primarily thinking here of the noise reduction software available] helps ameliorate some of the nasties from the turntable (and perhaps also the record)!
Here's another one to consider, by extrapolating this further.... As poor as vinyl rips can often be, in comparison with the original, if you've got a good (properly set-up) turntable, phono stage, pristine records, a decent soundcard and the wherewithal to produce a reasonably faithful facsimile of the original vinyl source, it can sound MUCH better than your average commercially produced CD of the same album.
What's your view on that? For me, if you take the time to do it right, the results are a no-brainer. Only genuine 'audiophile' quality releases on CD can stand comparison.
Marco.
That's not been my experience. Sound cards, A2D's etc all vary as do their analogue sections and I've only tried a couple of different digital solutions so I can't speak as to what's possible with high end A2D converters etc. Ripped versions sound grey and lifeless compared to the original straight from vinyl to me.
Ripped versions sound grey and lifeless compared to the original straight from vinyl to me.
Indeed - no argument there... But so can a lot of commercially produced CDs - and worse in many other ways, too!
Also, a major advantage of doing your own rips is that YOU are in charge of the levels, and therefore how 'loud' the recording produced is, rather than some misguided studio engineer!
That, together with the fact that, with a vinyl source, you're dealing with an uncompressed format in the first place, means that the final results achieved can be markedly superior to those of any commercially produced CD.
That's what my ears tell me anyway ;)
Marco.
Light Dependant Resistor
30-01-2017, 20:54
Indeed - no argument there... But so can a lot of commercially produced CDs - and worse in many other ways, too!
Also, a major advantage of doing your own rips is that YOU are in charge of the levels, and therefore how 'loud' the recording produced is, rather than some misguided studio engineer!
That, together with the fact that, with a vinyl source, you're dealing with an uncompressed format in the first place, means that the final results achieved can be markedly superior to those of any commercially produced CD.
That's what my ears tell me anyway ;)
Marco.
But looking at the actual recording techniques reveals
A study of the original desk used for TDSOTM which was the TG12345 - I am unsure of which edition of desk, it can be seen there was the availability of 2.1 and 7.1 compression used
to mimic valve compressors the Altec EMI RS124 and the Fairchild 660. On which tracks and how it was used Alan Parsons comments
" What generally tended to happen was either no compression or compression on everything except the drums, because I totally hate—with a vengeance—compressing drums. So, although [producer] Chris Thomas wanted to compress everything, I talked him into compressing just the instruments and vocals, but not the drums". http://www.premierguitar.com/articles/Studio_Legends_Alan_Parsons_on_Dark_Side_of_the_Mo on?page=2
To a degree (- as you do not have access to the individual tracks , but if on all but the drums as Alan reveals ) you can recover- if indeed you can spot the tracks with compression the original sound by expanding
at the mirror image of the compression rate at 1:2 However it will be a matter of using a suitably equipped piece of equipment usually a mastering processor.
Also of interest is Alan's comments on Page 1 of the above article “Never be frightened to add bottom end.”
But looking at the actual recording techniques reveals
A study of the original desk used for TDSOTM which was the TG12345 - I am unsure of which edition of desk, it can be seen there was the availability of 2.1 and 7.1 compression used
to mimic valve compressors the Altec EMI RS124 and the Fairchild 660. On which tracks and how it was used Alan Parsons comments
" What generally tended to happen was either no compression or compression on everything except the drums, because I totally hate—with a vengeance—compressing drums. So, although [producer] Chris Thomas wanted to compress everything, I talked him into compressing just the instruments and vocals, but not the drums". http://www.premierguitar.com/articles/Studio_Legends_Alan_Parsons_on_Dark_Side_of_the_Mo on?page=2
To a degree (- as you do not have access to the individual tracks , but if on all but the drums as Alan reveals ) you can recover- if indeed you can spot the tracks with compression the original sound by expanding
at the mirror image of the compression rate at 1:2 However it will be a matter of using a suitably equipped piece of equipment usually a mastering processor.
Also of interest is Alan's comments on Page 1 of the above article “Never be frightened to add bottom end.”
Many of the Floyds albums certainly on vinyl had very deep bass which was not limited or curtailed as it was on many albums of the time. It was almost a production trade mark. Listen to the Wall vinyl version original pressings and the drum and cymbals after the helicopter bit are astounding.
Must admit when I saw them perform the Wall at Earls Court in 1979 the bass was magnificent but controlled. Their live production using quadraphonic was truly wonderful considering it was pre digital age DSP etc. I remember Rick Wright running up and down the piano in one part (not on the album) and they sent it round Earls Court in quadraphonic and it was like a train coming round and whistling past you. I was 16 and this stayed with me all my life. Sorry I digress but the Floyd at the height of their powers were indeed the best band I have ever seen, never mind the atmosphere they captured with all the visuals and pyrotechnics. Amazing days!
But looking at the actual recording techniques reveals
A study of the original desk used for TDSOTM which was the TG12345 - I am unsure of which edition of desk, it can be seen there was the availability of 2.1 and 7.1 compression used
to mimic valve compressors the Altec EMI RS124 and the Fairchild 660. On which tracks and how it was used Alan Parsons comments
" What generally tended to happen was either no compression or compression on everything except the drums, because I totally hate—with a vengeance—compressing drums. So, although [producer] Chris Thomas wanted to compress everything, I talked him into compressing just the instruments and vocals, but not the drums". http://www.premierguitar.com/articles/Studio_Legends_Alan_Parsons_on_Dark_Side_of_the_Mo on?page=2
To a degree (- as you do not have access to the individual tracks , but if on all but the drums as Alan reveals ) you can recover- if indeed you can spot the tracks with compression the original sound by expanding
at the mirror image of the compression rate at 1:2 However it will be a matter of using a suitably equipped piece of equipment usually a mastering processor.
Also of interest is Alan's comments on Page 1 of the above article “Never be frightened to add bottom end.”
Hi Chris,
I was talking about vinyl rips in general, nothing to do with Floyd's DSOTM :)
Marco.
Yo daftee,
Any chance you could address post #77, next time you deem to grace us with your presence! ;)
Marco.
Yo daftee,
Any chance you could address post #77, next time you deem to grace us with your presence! ;)
Marco.
I really don't think I can add anything to my previous post (#74)
Well, for me, that says it all... Clearly, you don't want to address the fact that all any of us are doing with hi-fi, digital or analogue, is choosing our compromises. There is no 'perfect' anything in audio.
For some reason, best known to you, challenging your ingrained beliefs to the contrary scares you. Or at least, that's all I can conclude from your non-response, sorry.
Marco.
Well, for me, that says it all... Clearly, you don't want to address the fact that all any of us are doing with hi-fi, digital or analogue, is choosing our compromises. There is no 'perfect' anything in audio.
For some reason, best known to you, challenging your ingrained beliefs to the contrary scares you. Or at least, that's all I can conclude from your non-response, sorry.
Marco.
Like I said you are not getting what I am trying to say. You jumped to the assumption that I was saying that digital is better than vinyl and came out with your usual arguments.
If you have enough money to spend and you spend wisely I don't think either source is compromised to the extent that those compromises will not be wholly masked by the compromises in the loudspeakers, which are orders of magnitude greater.
What I was arguing against were some of the crazy misconceptions about how digital audio works. For example so many people believe that digital has come on leaps and bounds when those of us who own or have owned the old Japanese high end players know there is something seriously flawed with that thinking.
Then there are the people who are disappointed by digital compared to their analogue set ups. Yeah, I know what that's like. I didn't jump to the conclusion that it was a problem with the medium though, and looked for other causes/solutions because I have at least a layman's understanding of how it works. So I did not assume it was the error correction, or jitter, or the sampling rate or the bit rate. When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains etc.
You will see when I get these bastard Technics players working again, and sort out the speaker cable. I am pretty close to cracking it :)
Like I said you are not getting what I am trying to say. You jumped to the assumption that I was saying that digital is better than vinyl and came out with your usual arguments.
If you have enough money to spend and you spend wisely I don't think either source is compromised to the extent that those compromises will not be wholly masked by the compromises in the loudspeakers, which are orders of magnitude greater.
What I was arguing against were some of the crazy misconceptions about how digital audio works. For example so many people believe that digital has come on leaps and bounds when those of us who own or have owned the old Japanese high end players know there is something seriously flawed with that thinking.
Then there are the people who are disappointed by digital compared to their analogue set ups. Yeah, I know what that's like. I didn't jump to the conclusion that it was a problem with the medium though, and looked for other causes/solutions because I have at least a layman's understanding of how it works. So I did not assume it was the error correction, or jitter, or the sampling rate or the bit rate. When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains etc.
You will see when I get these bastard Technics players working again, and sort out the speaker cable. I am pretty close to cracking it :)
Are you actually saying an old prehistoric technics CD player does a better job with digital than say a hard drive file based ripped CD played via a high end DAC such as Chords Dave or indeed any other high end DAC?
Like I said you are not getting what I am trying to say. You jumped to the assumption that I was saying that digital is better than vinyl and came out with your usual arguments.
If you have enough money to spend and you spend wisely I don't think either source is compromised to the extent that those compromises will not be wholly masked by the compromises in the loudspeakers, which are orders of magnitude greater.
What I was arguing against were some of the crazy misconceptions about how digital audio works. For example so many people believe that digital has come on leaps and bounds when those of us who own or have owned the old Japanese high end players know there is something seriously flawed with that thinking.
Then there are the people who are disappointed by digital compared to their analogue set ups. Yeah, I know what that's like. I didn't jump to the conclusion that it was a problem with the medium though, and looked for other causes/solutions because I have at least a layman's understanding of how it works. So I did not assume it was the error correction, or jitter, or the sampling rate or the bit rate. When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains etc.
You will see when I get these bastard Technics players working again, and sort out the speaker cable. I am pretty close to cracking it :)
Are you actually saying an old prehistoric technics CD player does a better job with digital than say a hard drive file based ripped CD played via a high end DAC such as Chords Dave or indeed any other high end DAC?
Are you actually saying an old prehistoric technics CD player does a better job with digital than say a hard drive file based ripped CD played via a high end DAC such as Chords Dave or indeed any other high end DAC?
The old Players often have Multi-Bit DACs which to a lot of ears is better than 'modern' 1 Bit DACs and similar (I'm not sure what the Chord uses (a Ring DAC or variant?)).
Where, IMHO Digital has come on in leaps and bounds in the last decade or so is the implementation of Multi-Bit DACs with 'modern' thinking re Over-Sampling, or the removal thereof, and less Filtering.
To me listening to an Audio Note DAC, for example, demonstrates how much the Multi-Bit DAC Chips were 'held back' by the associated circuitry deemed necessary at the time.
Jim.
Are you actually saying an old prehistoric technics CD player does a better job with digital than say a hard drive file based ripped CD played via a high end DAC such as Chords Dave or indeed any other high end DAC?
I'm interested to know what you think the Chord Dave is doing that makes it so much better and what it is that the Sony and Phillips engineers missed back in the 1980s? DACS can all have a different character, but the idea that these new 'uber DACS' are somehow retrieving 'additional information' is one that I completely reject. The analogue output stage and power supplies are a different matter so maybe that is why Dave sounds good. But that makes it no different to what the best players were doing 30 years ago
I thought I had made a reply in this thread and now it seems to have disappeared.
Firebottle
31-01-2017, 09:33
Martin, see this for an insight into the performance gains and technology used in the DAVE dac:
http://www.chordelectronics.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/DAVE-Technology-Presentation.pptx
I've heard it and it lives up to all the hyperbole.
:)
I had a reply in this thread and with no reason given to me it has been removed, if this is how you these forums then I will be going, see you all nice while it lasted.
Hi Chris,
I can state as fact (by looking at the logs) that no posts have been removed on this thread to date, so I'm not sure what it is you're referring to... To double check you haven't made a mistake, go into your profile and list your recent posts, and see if what you're referring to is there.
If what you're referring to is there, then copy the details and re-post it here, where it will remain - and if that's the case, there must've been some form of system error, which I can only apologise for and will need looking into.
Let me know what you find.
Marco.
I'm interested to know what you think the Chord Dave is doing that makes it so much better and what it is that the Sony and Phillips engineers missed back in the 1980s? DACS can all have a different character, but the idea that these new 'uber DACS' are somehow retrieving 'additional information' is one that I completely reject. The analogue output stage and power supplies are a different matter so maybe that is why Dave sounds good. But that makes it no different to what the best players were doing 30 years ago
You may well reject what they are doing but have you heard one? You are correct that the Power supplies and analogue output stages have been improved but until you actually hear what a DAC like DAVE actually sounds like and what it does with digital information utilising FPGA technology then you may be surprised how much has improved. I am not particularly interested in the technical side of old CD or new CD players or DAC's but I have listened to many and this is how I judge digital music reproduction. I have been on a massive journey listening to all manner of digital set ups and I would say from a purely audible point of view the latest FPGA DAC technology is by far the best.
Martin, see this for an insight into the performance gains and technology used in the DAVE dac:
http://www.chordelectronics.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/DAVE-Technology-Presentation.pptx
I've heard it and it lives up to all the hyperbole.
:)
I am as you know Alan a deep digital sceptic but even for me DAVE does truly amazing stuff with the old ones and noughts!
I had a reply in this thread and with no reason given to me it has been removed, if this is how you these forums then I will be going, see you all nice while it lasted.
Can see no trace of anything being moderated. Are you sure it got sent properly? It can happen that you either forget to send it or occasionally it doesnt go first time.
Sometimes I have glitches Grant where I think I have sent something and when u look back it doesn't appear. Usually happens when I'm sending stuff from my phone.
I am as you know Alan a deep digital sceptic but even for me DAVE does truly amazing stuff with the old ones and noughts!
Heard good things about dave. Heck of a price, si not likely to actually hear one though.
Sometimes I have glitches Grant where I think I have sent something and when u look back it doesn't appear. Usually happens when I'm sending stuff from my phone.
Me too. Ive forgot to press send on occasion and left the page and its all gone lol. Also as you say sometimes it just doesnt send. I think we have go so used to technology working that we forget glitches still occur.
No posts are removed without good reason.
Heard good things about dave. Heck of a price, si not likely to actually hear one though.
I am sure there are other good DACs out there but DAVE is exceptional. Both Alan and Brian have heard it now and I think their reaction said it all. It is jaw dropping good. Makes you realise what can be now achieved with those digits.
Martin, see this for an insight into the performance gains and technology used in the DAVE dac:
http://www.chordelectronics.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/DAVE-Technology-Presentation.pptx
I've heard it and it lives up to all the hyperbole.
:)
I've read it before. 'Timing errors', that's as far as you need to read. Sorry Alan but it is cobblers. It may well sound subjectively very good, and there will be reasons for that. Claiming to fix non-existent problems is very much how DACs are marketed these days. No one wants to read 'We coloured it to sound good' so they claim some imaginary technical advancement instead. See also MQA.
I've read it before. 'Timing errors', that's as far as you need to read. Sorry Alan but it is cobblers. It may well sound subjectively very good, and there will be reasons for that. Claiming to fix non-existent problems is very much how DACs are marketed these days. No one wants to read 'We coloured it to sound good' so they claim some imaginary technical advancement instead. See also MQA.
If it sounds "subjectively very good" and its not timing errors or transient info, what is it - something must be making the sound better and its not imaginary if it can be heard?
Firebottle
31-01-2017, 14:11
I know this is personal but you have gone down in my estimation Martin.
The technical info I linked to isn't pish, if you do a decent amount of research into the skills and dedication of Rob Watts as a digital designer you would have a respect for his goal of achieving the best fidelity possible from a bit perfect digital source.
There are no timing errors to begin with, the errors are in the reconstruction into the analogue domain, specifically the accuracy of transient information.
:)
I was going to edit that but why bother.
Just to get back on track with the OP no amount of technology at the moment can sort out poor mastering, you can't polish a turd as they say. The mastering is DSOTM is flat and poorly executed compared to the vinyl but I must say you also need the right vinyl. I bought a new copy on vinyl recently and it sounds totally washed out and thin. Vinyl mastered from the original analogue tapes and in early pressings up to 1980 are probably the best sounding.
I know this is personal but you have gone down in my estimation Martin.
The technical info I linked to isn't pish, if you do a decent amount of research into the skills and dedication of Rob Watts as a digital designer you would have a respect for his goal of achieving the best fidelity possible from a bit perfect digital source.
There are no timing errors to begin with, the errors are in the reconstruction into the analogue domain, specifically the accuracy of transient information.
:)
The designer doesn't write the marketing spiel, though. A good AO stage is nothing new, although they are quite rare since it is one of the areas that costs money to do right. That doesn't mean it is breaking any new ground over what the Japs were doing with their flagship stuff in the 1980s though.
Hi Chris,
I can state as fact (by looking at the logs) that no posts have been removed on this thread to date, so I'm not sure what it is you're referring to... To double check you haven't made a mistake, go into your profile and list your recent posts, and see if what you're referring to is there.
If what you're referring to is there, then copy the details and re-post it here, where it will remain - and if that's the case, there must've been some form of system error, which I can only apologise for and will need looking into.
Let me know what you find.
Marco.
Sorry it seems it was my error please accept my apologies for the earliar flounce, my head is not in a good place at the moment
I just want to lash out at any little thing.
I lost my wife of some 30 odd years just into the new year and at the moment things are not good for me.
Will edit my last post on this.
Like I said you are not getting what I am trying to say. You jumped to the assumption that I was saying that digital is better than vinyl and came out with your usual arguments.
I'm "not getting" what you're trying to say, Martin, because you're expressing yourself rather poorly!
I "jumped to the assumption" that you were saying digital is better than vinyl, simply because unless you and I are speaking a different language, the following clearly suggests that's the case. Here are some quotes from what you wrote earlier:
All else being equal a modern, digital recording is always going to sound superior. Like comparing a Ford Anglia to a Ford Mondeo.
I am still of the opinion that had two versions been made, one digital and one analogue, all else being equal, the digital recording would be superior, both technically and subjectively.
Re recording of Sinatra At The Sands, my contention is that if they had access to some good digital recording equipment and had used that instead of an RTR the recording would be even better.
If you want ultimate fidelity to the recording you need to replay it from a digital source.
Given the above, what logical conclusion can one come to other than you (quite clearly) think that digital is better than vinyl? Either that, or you have serious problems communicating your thoughts to others, using the written word :scratch:
Complicating matters further, even though (as evidenced above), you clearly consider that digital is better than vinyl, you don't seem able to pinpoint why - and moreover - exactly why it seems the case that during your most recent listening experiences vinyl has outperformed digital... I give you this:
Less noise, less distortion, greater dynamic range and wider frequency response. These are facts. Granted this may still not deliver a better recording subjectively…
So short answer, no CD does not have significant playback imperfections in itself, although playback may be compromised in many ways - and usually is. Vinyl playback has what should be significant flaws but in practice these can be overcome to the extent that they really does not matter.
In that respect, one is tempted to say, if it doesn't really matter *in practice*, then why worry about it at all.....?? In practice is surely what matters most, as then you're dealing with something real [a genuine experience], and not simply theory.
Now let's examine some evidence of your cognitive dissonance:
I agree the listening experience is the fly in the ointment here. Some of the most awesome playback I have heard has been analogue recordings on the vinyl medium.
And last but not least, this rather damning little snippet:
The fact that high quality vinyl rigs almost always subjectively outperform their digital counterparts is not because analogue has some inherent technical advantage over digital, or that digital is inherently flawed in a way that makes it inferior to analogue.
So *exactly* why is that 'outperforming' happening then? You provide no explanation for your statements.
And here's the crux of the matter, and the very thing this whole debate stands on....
If as you say, some of the most awesome playback you have heard has been analogue recordings on the vinyl medium, then why cling so tenuously onto the notion that digital is better than vinyl, if quite clearly, during your most recent listening experiences, your ears are telling you something quite different....??
At the end of the day, what's most important: what the maths says, or your ears...??
Marco.
Sorry it seems it was my error please accept my apologies for the earliar flounce, my head is not in a good place at the moment
I just want to lash out at any little thing.
I lost my wife of some 30 odd years just into the new year and at the moment things are not good for me.
Will edit my last post on this.
No problem, Chris. I completely appreciate that and sympathise. Please don't concern yourself with what happened at all, and I hope you get though this difficult time soon.
Marco.
I know this is personal but you have gone down in my estimation Martin.
You and me both, mate. The problem with Martin, much as I like him in many ways and consider him a friend, is that he's one of the most stubborn, pigheaded fuckers there is, and would no sooner 'back down' in a debate and admit making a mistake, or defeat, than relinquish his Scouse roots and turn Mancunian!! :lol: :lol: :D
;)
Marco.
Firebottle
31-01-2017, 17:22
:lolsign:
To be fair, judging from Martins latest response about the Analogue Output Stage I don't think he understands the impact of the filtering and noise shaping on the subjective timing on the reconstructed sound.
Whether you or I could differentiate such short timing errors that are being addressed by Rob Watts is not known, but he hears a difference and has always relied on listening test throughout his (very) long period of development.
Arkless Electronics
31-01-2017, 17:50
You and me both, mate. The problem with Martin, much as I like him in many ways and consider him a friend, is that he's one of the most stubborn, pigheaded fuckers there is, and would no sooner 'back down' in a debate and admit making a mistake, or defeat, than relinquish his Scouse roots and turn Mancunian!! :lol: :lol: :D
;)
Marco.
po, kettle, black :D
Ha - and you're King Kettle of the Blackest Pot!! :lol::eyebrows:
Marco.
Arkless Electronics
31-01-2017, 18:10
Ha - and you're King Kettle of Blackest Pot!! :lol::eyebrows:
Marco.
:ner::lol::)
I'm "not getting" what you're trying to say, Martin, because you're expressing yourself rather poorly!
I "jumped to the assumption" that you were saying digital is better than vinyl, simply because, unless you and I are speaking a different language, the following clearly suggests that's the case. Here are some quotes from what you wrote earlier:
Given the above, what logical conclusion can one come to other than you (quite clearly) think that digital is better than vinyl? Either that, or you have serious problems communicating your thoughts to others, using the written word :scratch:
Complicating matters further, even though (as evidenced above), you clearly consider that digital is better than vinyl, you don't seem able to pinpoint why - and moreover - exactly why it seems the case that during your most recent listening experiences vinyl has outperformed digital... I give you this:
In that respect, one is tempted to say, if it doesn't really matter *in practice*, then why worry about it in the first place.....?? In practice is surely what matters most, as then you're dealing with something real [a genuine experience], and not simply theory.
Now let's examine some evidence of cognitive dissonance at work:
And last but not least this:
So *exactly* why is that 'outperforming' happening then? You provide no explanation for your statements.
And here's the crux of the matter, and the very thing this whole debate stands on....
If as you say, some of the most awesome playback you have heard has been analogue recordings on the vinyl medium, then why cling so tenuously onto the notion that digital is better than vinyl, if quite clearly, during your most recent listening experiences, your ears are telling you something quite different....??
At the end of the day, what's most important: what the maths says, or your ears...??
Marco.
look again at all those quotes of mine you have listed: they all refer to recording not playback. This is what I said earlier: they are two completely different things. It is my opinion that all else being equal a digital recording will be better than an analogue one. Replay is an entirely separate matter.
:lolsign:
To be fair, judging from Martins latest response about the Analogue Output Stage I don't think he understands the impact of the filtering and noise shaping on the subjective timing on the reconstructed sound.
Whether you or I could differentiate such short timing errors that are being addressed by Rob Watts is not known, but he hears a difference and has always relied on listening test throughout his (very) long period of development.
If that is the same Rob Watts who used to be with DPA then I agree he knows his stuff. You hardly ever see DPA kit up for sale, people bought it years ago and never sell it because it is so good. So no argument there. The price of DAVE is extortionate, there is no need for it to cost that much, and the marketing is the usual bullshit but that won't be his fault.
Other than having the ability to decode higher sampling frequencies I'll wager that in quality terms (if not in presentation) you would not be able to get a fag paper between it and Marco's Sony SA1 (?) DAC from 30 odd years ago. You are an engineer and I am a salesman so we come at it from different angles but we both know there is rarely anything new under the sun, especially with a technology that is almost 50 years old. I mean, come on!
look again at all those quotes of mine you have listed: they all refer to recording not playback. This is what I said earlier: they are two completely different things. It is my opinion that all else being equal a digital recording will be better than an analogue one. Replay is an entirely separate matter.
Why? Recording or playback, it doesn't really matter - your language on this thread (and posts on the forum to date) clearly demonstrate that you consider digital superior to vinyl, OVERALL, so it matters not a jot whether you're referring to the recording chain in the instances I've quoted. In many other areas in this debate, you're the master of contradiction and don't really seem to know what you like most.
Besides, I could let you hear jazz and classical recordings I have on vinyl, from the late 50s [produced totally in the analogue domain], that would blow your mind, in terms of the breathtaking realism of their sound - and which piss all over anything produced post-1980, when digital and solid-state equipment began to dominate in recording studios.
Only in the last few years have recording technicians mastered how to get the most from the digital technology available to them now, and produced recordings comparable in quality to the best of what was achieved from analogue in the heyday of the 50s and early 60s.
And as many studio engineers or recording artists you can quote today who prefer digital, I can cite just as many who go to considerable lengths to record in studios that still use all-analogue equipment, from valve mics to mixing desks, simply because they're passionate about believing that's *still* the best way of capturing the most realistic and lifelike sound from their voices and instruments.
Marco.
Other than having the ability to decode higher sampling frequencies I'll wager that in quality terms (if not in presentation) you would not be able to get a fag paper between it and Marco's Sony SA1 (?) DAC from 30 odd years ago.
Which item(s) here are you comparing the Sony to? :)
Marco.
Firebottle
31-01-2017, 19:03
look again at all those quotes of mine you have listed: they all refer to recording not playback. This is what I said earlier: they are two completely different things. It is my opinion that all else being equal a digital recording will be better than an analogue one. Replay is an entirely separate matter.
Thanks for stating that Martin, I suspected that your stance was considering the digital recording to be the superior, and one I cannot fault.
:)
Why? Recording or playback, it doesn't really matter - your language on this thread (and posts on the forum to date) clearly demonstrate that you consider digital superior to vinyl, OVERALL, so it matters not a jot whether you're referring to the recording chain in the instances I've quoted. In many other areas in this debate, you're the master of contradiction and don't really seem to know what you like most.
Besides, I could let you hear jazz and classical recordings I have on vinyl, from the late 50s [produced totally in the analogue domain], that would blow your mind, in terms of the breathtaking realism of their sound - and which piss all over anything post-1980, when digital equipment began to dominate in recording studios.
Only in the last few years have recording technicians mastered how to get the most from the digital technology available to them, and produced recordings comparable in quality to the best of what was achieved from analogue in the heyday of the 50s and early 60s.
And as many studio engineers or recording artists you can quote today who prefer digital, I can cite just as many who go to considerable lengths to record in studios that still use all-analogue equipment, from valve mics to mixing desks, simply because they're passionate about believing that's *still* the best way of capturing the most realistic and lifelike sound from their voices and instruments.
Marco.
If I seem contradictory it is because you are asking questions that I cannot answer with a simple yes or no.
For sake of argument let's say we have the best possible vinyl set up verses the best possible digital set up. Speakers and amps the same for both. We play our test record. Does not matter a jot whether this is an analogue or digital recording since it is replay we are interested in. But both have been mastered optimally for their respective mediums, exploiting them to the max, and the disc has been pressed perfectly, centre hole dead on, no warps or noisy vinyl, it is the best possible. Both front ends have been selected to give as neutral as possible presentation to the recording.
Which would I subjectively prefer? I honestly have no idea.
Thanks for stating that Martin, I suspected that your stance was considering the digital recording to be the superior, and one I cannot fault.
So if that's true, why does a vinyl rip, produced in the digital domain, sound sonically mangled, in comparison with the original vinyl source? Jez and I were discussing this earlier, while the 'digitalistas' amongst us remained strangely silent! ;)
Marco.
There could be many reasons, without further details it is impossible to even speculate.
If I seem contradictory it is because you are asking questions that I cannot answer with a simple yes or no.
Then take the time to explain yourself properly, so that the question is adequately answered - that way I might get an inkling as to what lies inside that daft head of yours! :D;)
For sake of argument let's say we have the best possible vinyl set up verses the best possible digital set up. Speakers and amps the same for both. We play our test record. Does not matter a jot whether this is an analogue or digital recording since it is replay we are interested in. But both have been mastered optimally for their respective mediums, exploiting them to the max, and the disc has been pressed perfectly, centre hole dead on, no warps or noisy vinyl, it is the best possible. Both front ends have been selected to give as neutral as possible presentation to the recording.
Which would I subjectively prefer? I honestly have no idea.
:lolsign:
The thing that I would ask you, and what I'd really like to know, is that if push came to shove and it was indisputably obvious that a selection of vinyl recordings I played to you, produced during the golden era I referred to earlier, using valves and analogue processes throughout, was so sonically superior to *anything* you've heard from digital, would you allow that experience to 'update' your opinions on the matter accordingly, even if what you'd heard flied in the face of maths and specs?
Marco.
There could be many reasons, without further details it is impossible to even speculate.
Oh, if tempted, I could certainly proffer a few! ;)
The FACT is, it happens - and has happened regularly to anyone who's dabbled in that kind of thing enough, which correct me if I'm wrong, you have no experience of yourself [ripping vinyl to CD]....?
Marco.
P.S Please answer post #127 :)
Firebottle
31-01-2017, 20:52
So if that's true, why does a vinyl rip, produced in the digital domain, sound sonically mangled, in comparison with the original vinyl source? Jez and I were discussing this earlier, while the 'digitalistas' amongst us remained strangely silent! ;)
Marco.
It might be produced in the digital domain, as you put it, but is still has to be re-constructed into the analogue domain to hear it. That's where the degradation occurs.
Which item(s) here are you comparing the Sony to? :)
Marco.
I'm comparing it to everything else I've heard to date, in so much as you can when it is an unfamiliar system. In retrospect your system is a good balance of being fun to listen to and 'revealing', I sort of appreciated that then but more so several years on.
In my own system the best I have had of about 30 CD players (of all makes and types, and price) is the Technics SLP1200. It has that similar quality where you can hear the acoustic of the vocal booth, or the space in which a piano was played, even in a busy mix, and you don't have to listen for it, it is just there. Plus it has a right wallop to it.
Ali's squeezebox touch at one of the NEBOS, we had a couple of very decent CD players there, Marantz and Sugden, Ali says 'this is the best digital source we have here' - I thought what? He was right though.The whole thing is a quagmire really.
Is anyone still reading this other than Marco? If so, can I ask why?
Stratmangler
31-01-2017, 21:04
Is anyone still reading this other than Marco? If so, can I ask why?
It's like car crashes and naked women.
Seen plenty of times, but you just can't stop yerself from looking .....
I'm comparing it to everything else I've heard to date, in so much as you can when it is an unfamiliar system. In retrospect your system is a good balance of being fun to listen to and 'revealing', I sort of appreciated that then but more so several years on.
Cheers. I think you'll find your Techy broadcast player in a similar ballpark when you get it fixed. However, I was specifically referring to this:
Other than having the ability to decode higher sampling frequencies I'll wager that in quality terms (if not in presentation) you would not be able to get a fag paper between it and Marco's Sony SA1 (?) DAC from 30 odd years ago.
What is the "it" you're referring to above? :)
Oh, and could you please have a go at the last paragraph of post #132? You did say ask any questions I wanted, and you'd answer them... ;)
Marco.
I was referring to the Chord DAVE. Not heard that which is why I said 'I'd wager', based on experience of course ;) I might be wrong but you'd have to demonstrate it in practical terms to convince me.
I was referring to the Chord DAVE. Not heard that which is why I said 'I'd wager', based on experience of course ;)
Ah I see... Not heard the Chord in question, so can't comment.
I might be wrong but you'd have to demonstrate it in practical terms to convince me.
Is that an answer in relation to post #132? Don't really get what you mean...
Marco.
Then take the time to explain yourself properly, so that the question is adequately answered - that way I might get an inkling as to what lies inside that daft head of yours! :D;)
:lolsign:
The thing that I would ask you, and what I'd really like to know, is that if push came to shove and it was indisputably obvious that a selection of vinyl recordings I played to you, produced during the golden era I referred to earlier, using valves and analogue processes throughout, was so sonically superior to *anything* you've heard from digital, would you allow that experience to 'update' your opinions on the matter accordingly, even if what you'd heard flied in the face of maths and specs?
Marco.
Just an interesting fact here Marco, Rob Watts who is contracted to design the FGPA programmed chips for Chord actually mentioned on another forum (HEAD FI) that those recordings of the golden era with simple miked set ups and all valve equipment were recorded very well and shone through even when played through digital equipment.
Ah I see... Not heard the Chord in question, so can't comment.
It that an answer in relation to post #132? Don't really get what you mean...
Marco.
Meaning regardless of the marketing blurb I have to hear it for myself. And even if I like it, especially if it is very good, I like to know how it does it. It isn't always the reason the blurb gives,
Ah, ok. That should be easily done.
You know that Elvis track (Fever) I played at the MiBO bake-off, which made the T/T (nearest the door where everyone was coming in from the car park), which had that amazing Philips cartridge on it, sound quite incredible?
The album was called 'Elvis is Back' - this:
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/922/f0iR3m.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/pmf0iR3mj)
'Fever':
n5EJ2Lp7I9Q
As you can see, the album is on a label called 'RCA Victor Living Stereo'... The recording process is known as 'Living Presence'. Well, virtually *anything* recorded on that label, from around that era, sounds UTTERLY STUNNING, and simply knocks, even the best digital recordings, into a cocked hat! There is just no real comparison.
There are plenty more examples I could give of this type of thing, from the Verve and Columbia label, with jazz music, and Capitol, with the likes of Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin and Nat King Cole, and Decca (black label) and Deutsche Grammophon [including RCA Victor Living Stereo] amongst others, with classical music - all from the mid-to-late 50s and early 60s. The sound quality on these albums is nothing short of breathtaking....
Honestly, mate, you've got a lot to learn in this particular area, which I've only discovered since getting majorly into collecting 'vintage' vinyl recordings, and modern high-fidelity reissues of such ;)
Marco.
Hi Jim,
Just an interesting fact here Marco, Rob Watts who is contracted to design the FGPA programmed chips for Chord actually mentioned on another forum (HEAD FI) that those recordings of the golden era with simple miked set ups and all valve equipment were recorded very well and shone through even when played through digital equipment.
Indeed. The simplicity of the set-up and the dedication to perfection and know-how of the recording engineers in those days, critical positioning of mics, etc, without a doubt played a huge part in the results achieved. However, so did the type of equipment they used ;)
There's a vivacity and totally 'wide open', hugely dynamic, 'alive' quality, in particular obtained with the valve-driven Telefunken, Neumann and RCA microphones used back then, which capture the richness and tonality of the human voice like nothing else I've ever heard....
Most other microphones, in comparison, make it sound as if the mouths of the singers (and musicians instruments) have been stuffed with a sock!
Btw, I'll get to your earlier post about 'ancient' CD players, and how they can sound so much better than a lot of today's digital equipment, tomorrow, as I'm off to bed soon :)
Marco.
Fascinating and enlightening article on Mercury Living Presence here in Stereophile: http://www.stereophile.com/content/fine-art-mercury-living-presence-recordings#tpLwlYScSuHRUTCF.97
Well worth a read, folks, especially for getting a good handle on why some of these vintage recordings sounded as good as they did - and in many cases still do so today! :)
Great quote from the article in question:
"It was a realism," the Fines' rightfully proud son says today of his parents' sonic aims. "They wanted an honesty: the honest sound of the instruments, how they really sounded. They wanted a clarity to everything. They weren't as interested in sounding like you were in the tenth row as they were in hearing inside the music."
Yes indeed, and they duly delivered it... :thumbsup:
That's also precisely how I want my hi-fi system to reproduce recordings of live musical performances!
Marco.
.......................in particular, obtained with the valve-driven Telefunken, Neumann and RCA microphones used back then, which capture the richness and tonality of the human voice like nothing else I've ever heard...................
Have you any recordings from this Label..........................?
https://www.tacet.de/main/seite1.php?language=en&filename=tubeonly.php&layout=tube
They used to have this...
https://www.tacet.de/main/seite1.php?layout=katalog&language=en&filename=production.php&bestnr=00174
on Vinyl (I have a copy) and the Sleeve notes make very interesting reading with lots of info on all the Microphones used, Neumann etc etc.
Jim.
Firebottle
01-02-2017, 08:11
I like to know how it does it.,
This is from the Chord website. The main differences from 'standard' DAC's appear to be the use of the WTA filter and a Pulse Array DAC.
'WTA Filter
The WTA filter algorithm has taken twenty years of research to develop. It solves the question as to why higher sampling rates sound better. It is well known that 96 kHz (DVD Audio) recordings sound better than 44.1 kHz (CD) recordings. Most people believe that this is due to the presence of ultrasonic information being audible even though the best human hearing is limited to 20kHz. What is not well known is that 768 kHz recordings sound better than 384 kHz and that the sound quality limit for sampling lies in the MHz region. 768 kHz recordings cannot sound better because of information above 200 kHz being important – simply because musical instruments, microphones, amplifiers and loudspeakers do not work at these frequencies nor can we hear them. So if it is not the extra bandwidth that is important, why do higher sampling rates sound better?
The answer is not being able to hear inaudible supersonic information, but the ability to hear the timing of transients more clearly. It has long been known that the human ear and brain can detect differences in the phase of sound between the ears to the order of microseconds. This timing difference between the ears is used for localising high frequency sound. Since transients can be detected down to microseconds, the recording system needs to be able to resolve timing of one microsecond. A sampling rate of 1 MHz is needed to achieve this!
However, 44.1 kHz sampling can be capable of accurately resolving transients by the use of digital filtering. Digital filtering can go some way towards improving resolution without the need for higher sampling rates. However in order to do this the filters need to have infinite long tap lengths. Currently all reconstruction filters have relatively short tap lengths – the largest commercial device is only about 256 taps. It is due to this short tap length and the filter algorithm employed that generates the transient timing errors. These errors turned out to be very audible. Going from 256 taps to 1024 taps gave a massive improvement in sound quality – much smoother, more focused sound quality, with an incredibly deep and precise sound stage.
The initial experiments used variations on existing filter algorithms. Going from 1024 taps to 2048 taps gave a very big improvement in sound quality, and it was implying that almost infinite tap length filters were needed for the ultimate sound quality. At this stage, a new type of algorithm was developed – the WTA filter. This was designed to minimise transient timing errors from the outset, thereby reducing the need for extremely long tap lengths. The WTA algorithm was a success – a 256 tap WTA filter sounded better than all other conventional filters, even with 1024 taps. WTA filters still benefit from long tap lengths; there is a large difference going from 256 taps to 1024 taps.
The new Chord products using WTA filters all start with 1024 taps. The filters are implemented in FPGAs (Field Programmable Gate Arrays) using a specially designed 64-bit DSP (Digital Signal Processing) core.
Fourth Generation Pulse Array DAC
Pulse Array as a DAC technology has been universally praised for its outstanding natural sound quality. The fourth generation builds on this success; it employs 64 bit, 7th order noise shaping; 2048 times oversampling rates and improved pulse width modulated elements. These refinements give much better measured performance; better detail resolution with a smoother more focused sound quality.'
The DAVE DAC has even longer tap lengths than mentioned above.
:cool:
This is from the Chord website. The main differences from 'standard' DAC's appear to be the use of the WTA filter and a Pulse Array DAC.
'WTA Filter
The WTA filter algorithm has taken twenty years of research to develop. It solves the question as to why higher sampling rates sound better. It is well known that 96 kHz (DVD Audio) recordings sound better than 44.1 kHz (CD) recordings. Most people believe that this is due to the presence of ultrasonic information being audible even though the best human hearing is limited to 20kHz. What is not well known is that 768 kHz recordings sound better than 384 kHz and that the sound quality limit for sampling lies in the MHz region. 768 kHz recordings cannot sound better because of information above 200 kHz being important – simply because musical instruments, microphones, amplifiers and loudspeakers do not work at these frequencies nor can we hear them. So if it is not the extra bandwidth that is important, why do higher sampling rates sound better?
The answer is not being able to hear inaudible supersonic information, but the ability to hear the timing of transients more clearly. It has long been known that the human ear and brain can detect differences in the phase of sound between the ears to the order of microseconds. This timing difference between the ears is used for localising high frequency sound. Since transients can be detected down to microseconds, the recording system needs to be able to resolve timing of one microsecond. A sampling rate of 1 MHz is needed to achieve this!
However, 44.1 kHz sampling can be capable of accurately resolving transients by the use of digital filtering. Digital filtering can go some way towards improving resolution without the need for higher sampling rates. However in order to do this the filters need to have infinite long tap lengths. Currently all reconstruction filters have relatively short tap lengths – the largest commercial device is only about 256 taps. It is due to this short tap length and the filter algorithm employed that generates the transient timing errors. These errors turned out to be very audible. Going from 256 taps to 1024 taps gave a massive improvement in sound quality – much smoother, more focused sound quality, with an incredibly deep and precise sound stage.
The initial experiments used variations on existing filter algorithms. Going from 1024 taps to 2048 taps gave a very big improvement in sound quality, and it was implying that almost infinite tap length filters were needed for the ultimate sound quality. At this stage, a new type of algorithm was developed – the WTA filter. This was designed to minimise transient timing errors from the outset, thereby reducing the need for extremely long tap lengths. The WTA algorithm was a success – a 256 tap WTA filter sounded better than all other conventional filters, even with 1024 taps. WTA filters still benefit from long tap lengths; there is a large difference going from 256 taps to 1024 taps.
The new Chord products using WTA filters all start with 1024 taps. The filters are implemented in FPGAs (Field Programmable Gate Arrays) using a specially designed 64-bit DSP (Digital Signal Processing) core.
Fourth Generation Pulse Array DAC
Pulse Array as a DAC technology has been universally praised for its outstanding natural sound quality. The fourth generation builds on this success; it employs 64 bit, 7th order noise shaping; 2048 times oversampling rates and improved pulse width modulated elements. These refinements give much better measured performance; better detail resolution with a smoother more focused sound quality.'
The DAVE DAC has even longer tap lengths than mentioned above.
:cool:
Thanks for putting that up Alan, I was looking for something to explain latest DAC technology. If you have not heard this technology then I would imagine it would be difficult to comment on how good its implementation is in the Chord DAVE DAC.
I am not an armchair general audiophile and only comment on what I have actually heard.
Firebottle
01-02-2017, 08:39
A little more detail on the implementation:
'......its FPGA cores, carrying out sampling interpolation with a very long-tap WTA filter, before passing onto the fifth-order sigma-delta modulator (with a -200 dB noise floor with little to no modulation) and finally to the Pulse Array DAC based around a concept of a high, but constant switching rate to allow for predictable and therefore cancel-able noise levels.'
This link explains the FPGA approach better than any other I have found:
http://sonoritydesign.co.uk/sonority/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Hugo-DAC-Technical-Master-Class.pptx
Martin, no more questions until you understand it :eyebrows:
Have you any recordings from this Label..........................?
https://www.tacet.de/main/seite1.php?language=en&filename=tubeonly.php&layout=tube
They used to have this...
https://www.tacet.de/main/seite1.php?layout=katalog&language=en&filename=production.php&bestnr=00174
on Vinyl (I have a copy) and the Sleeve notes make very interesting reading with lots of info on all the Microphones used, Neumann etc etc.
Jim.
Hi Jim,
Interesting... And no, I've not tried any of their recordings. You have to watch though, that some of these companies aren't doing the 'tube thing', simply for euphonic effect, or because it's fashionable or nostalgic, and cashing in on that concept, as comments such as: "The timbres glow more" worry me somewhat, in that respect! ;)
Creating a 'cosy warm' sound, or whatever, is not the reason I'm into valves, and why when implemented optimally with the right equipment, I consider them to be most ideally suited for recording or reproducing music to the highest standard.
However, I'm not saying that's what TACET are about, but I'd need to do some more reading up on them first, and then if I'm satisfied with what I see, I may give some of the titles below a punt and report the results on the forum:
https://www.tacet.de/main/seite1.php?itemsPerPage=300&language=en&filename=katalog.php&type=LP-180g&search=yes
:cool:
Marco.
Haselsh1
01-02-2017, 11:51
There is an album by a band called Ondatropica who produced said album by the same name that is entirely vintage analogue. Mics, desks, the lot, all analogue. It is the work of a guy called Will Holland aka Quantic. I have it on vinyl and CD but of course only the vinyl is 100% analogue.
This is from the Chord website. The main differences from 'standard' DAC's appear to be the use of the WTA filter and a Pulse Array DAC.
'WTA Filter
The WTA filter algorithm has taken twenty years of research to develop. It solves the question as to why higher sampling rates sound better. It is well known that 96 kHz (DVD Audio) recordings sound better than 44.1 kHz (CD) recordings. Most people believe that this is due to the presence of ultrasonic information being audible even though the best human hearing is limited to 20kHz. What is not well known is that 768 kHz recordings sound better than 384 kHz and that the sound quality limit for sampling lies in the MHz region. 768 kHz recordings cannot sound better because of information above 200 kHz being important – simply because musical instruments, microphones, amplifiers and loudspeakers do not work at these frequencies nor can we hear them. So if it is not the extra bandwidth that is important, why do higher sampling rates sound better?
The answer is not being able to hear inaudible supersonic information, but the ability to hear the timing of transients more clearly. It has long been known that the human ear and brain can detect differences in the phase of sound between the ears to the order of microseconds. This timing difference between the ears is used for localising high frequency sound. Since transients can be detected down to microseconds, the recording system needs to be able to resolve timing of one microsecond. A sampling rate of 1 MHz is needed to achieve this!
However, 44.1 kHz sampling can be capable of accurately resolving transients by the use of digital filtering. Digital filtering can go some way towards improving resolution without the need for higher sampling rates. However in order to do this the filters need to have infinite long tap lengths. Currently all reconstruction filters have relatively short tap lengths – the largest commercial device is only about 256 taps. It is due to this short tap length and the filter algorithm employed that generates the transient timing errors. These errors turned out to be very audible. Going from 256 taps to 1024 taps gave a massive improvement in sound quality – much smoother, more focused sound quality, with an incredibly deep and precise sound stage.
The initial experiments used variations on existing filter algorithms. Going from 1024 taps to 2048 taps gave a very big improvement in sound quality, and it was implying that almost infinite tap length filters were needed for the ultimate sound quality. At this stage, a new type of algorithm was developed – the WTA filter. This was designed to minimise transient timing errors from the outset, thereby reducing the need for extremely long tap lengths. The WTA algorithm was a success – a 256 tap WTA filter sounded better than all other conventional filters, even with 1024 taps. WTA filters still benefit from long tap lengths; there is a large difference going from 256 taps to 1024 taps.
The new Chord products using WTA filters all start with 1024 taps. The filters are implemented in FPGAs (Field Programmable Gate Arrays) using a specially designed 64-bit DSP (Digital Signal Processing) core.
Fourth Generation Pulse Array DAC
Pulse Array as a DAC technology has been universally praised for its outstanding natural sound quality. The fourth generation builds on this success; it employs 64 bit, 7th order noise shaping; 2048 times oversampling rates and improved pulse width modulated elements. These refinements give much better measured performance; better detail resolution with a smoother more focused sound quality.'
The DAVE DAC has even longer tap lengths than mentioned above.
:cool:
You see, you wonder why I am sceptical, but Chord's own explanation is highly suspect:
The WTA filter algorithm has taken twenty years of research to develop. It solves the question as to why higher sampling rates sound better.
Higher sampling rates sound better? Really? When the difference is so small people cannot pass a blind test?
It is well known that 96 kHz (DVD Audio) recordings sound better than 44.1 kHz (CD) recordings.
No it isn't. When the mastering is the same and the only difference is the sampling rate the differences are so miniscule that no-one can reliably spot them
Most people believe that this is due to the presence of ultrasonic information being audible even though the best human hearing is limited to 20kHz.
If we are using 'believe' as in 'believe in a divine power' then maybe so. There is zero evidence to suggest this is true.
. So if it is not the extra bandwidth that is important, why do higher sampling rates sound better?
They don't.
The answer is not being able to hear inaudible supersonic information, but the ability to hear the timing of transients more clearly. It has long been known that the human ear and brain can detect differences in the phase of sound between the ears to the order of microseconds.
yes, about 5 microseconds
This timing difference between the ears is used for localising high frequency sound. Since transients can be detected down to microseconds, the recording system needs to be able to resolve timing of one microsecond. A sampling rate of 1 MHz is needed to achieve this!
No it doesn't, our hearing is not capable of distinguishing a 1 microsecond transient, 5 is the best we can do. So there is no need for 1Mhz sampling rate. That claim is perhaps the most ludicrous of them all.
This is why I am not prepared to entertain their marketing bollocks. They may well have a great sounding product, I'd bloody well hope so for 8 grand. But what's that saying? 'I'm not angry that you lied to me, I am angry that because you lied I can never again trust anything that you say.'
Firebottle
01-02-2017, 12:43
I'll just tackle the one point:
Higher sampling rates sound better? Really? When the difference is so small people cannot pass a blind test?
Perhaps it is because the tests have been conducted with kit with standard DACs that cannot resolve the differences.
There is an album by a band called Ondatropica who produced said album by the same name that is entirely vintage analogue. Mics, desks, the lot, all analogue. It is the work of a guy called Will Holland aka Quantic. I have it on vinyl and CD but of course only the vinyl is 100% analogue.
What does the vinyl sound like then, Shaun, and how does it compare, sonically, with the CD? :)
Marco.
I'll just tackle the one point:
Perhaps it is because the tests have been conducted with kit with standard DACs that cannot resolve the differences.
But that isn't what Chord seem to think, otherwise why make the statement: It is well known that 96 kHz (DVD Audio) recordings sound better than 44.1 kHz (CD) recordings.
If they had added 'when using the DAVE DAC', you would have a point. But they don't, they are saying this is already a given prior to DAVE, when it isn't. The USP appears to be that DAVE has the equivalent of sampling at 1Mhz and that this makes even more difference than 96 or 192, which we already clearly hear as better, so DAVE is better still. Except we don't clearly hear 96 or 192 as better.
You see, you wonder why I am sceptical, but Chord's own explanation is highly suspect:
The WTA filter algorithm has taken twenty years of research to develop. It solves the question as to why higher sampling rates sound better.
Higher sampling rates sound better? Really? When the difference is so small people cannot pass a blind test?
It is well known that 96 kHz (DVD Audio) recordings sound better than 44.1 kHz (CD) recordings.
No it isn't. When the mastering is the same and the only difference is the sampling rate the differences are so miniscule that no-one can reliably spot them
Most people believe that this is due to the presence of ultrasonic information being audible even though the best human hearing is limited to 20kHz.
If we are using 'believe' as in 'believe in a divine power' then maybe so. There is zero evidence to suggest this is true.
. So if it is not the extra bandwidth that is important, why do higher sampling rates sound better?
They don't.
The answer is not being able to hear inaudible supersonic information, but the ability to hear the timing of transients more clearly. It has long been known that the human ear and brain can detect differences in the phase of sound between the ears to the order of microseconds.
yes, about 5 microseconds
This timing difference between the ears is used for localising high frequency sound. Since transients can be detected down to microseconds, the recording system needs to be able to resolve timing of one microsecond. A sampling rate of 1 MHz is needed to achieve this!
No it doesn't, our hearing is not capable of distinguishing a 1 microsecond transient, 5 is the best we can do. So there is no need for 1Mhz sampling rate. That claim is perhaps the most ludicrous of them all.
This is why I am not prepared to entertain their marketing bollocks. They may well have a great sounding product, I'd bloody well hope so for 8 grand. But what's that saying? 'I'm not angry that you lied to me, I am angry that because you lied I can never again trust anything that you say.'
Clearly you have heard all these claims that Chord have made and come to the conclusions that you have quoted to refute their claims?
Haselsh1
01-02-2017, 13:22
What does the vinyl sound like then, Shaun, and how does it compare, sonically, with the CD? :)
Marco.
LOL... I'll have to get back to you on that one as the vinyl is still sealed :eyebrows:
When the mastering is the same and the only difference is the sampling rate the differences are so minuscule that no-one can reliably spot them...
I have to say that this has mostly been my experience with 'hi-res' digital recordings, but NOT always, and I'll explain that in a minute. I've carried out comparisons between standard 44.1 and high-resolution recordings, over quite a few years now, and the majority of the latter have been rather sonically disappointing.
And it's very easy for me to do such tests quickly and conclusively, as I've got a separate hard-drive with about 1TB of solely hi-res files on it (which is fed to the RPi/IQ-Audio DAC, with full hi-res capability), and on another hard drive with identical albums on 44.1, so swapping between both and keeping all other variables the same, is easy, and quite often it's the latter that sound better!
Perhaps that's because recording engineers become lazy, as it's hi-res, and so they think that it's technical superiority will be enough to guarantee a good recording?
*But* I suspect, like you say, the results I obtained in that instance were because the mastering on the 44.1 albums was better, which negated any sonic advantages offered with the hi-res stuff. That said, however, I have also heard hi-res 'done right', where the mastering was of the highest calibre, and someone who really knew what they were doing maxed out the advantages, and *that* is when you can hear the differences - and they are considerable.
What makes that obvious for me is playing the best CD (44.1) copy I've got, in terms of mastering, of a specific album, on the Sony (as the DAS-R1 DAC is old, multi-bit technology, and can't do hi-res), and compare it with the same album, equally as well-mastered, but hi-res, streamed through the RPi - and with the latter, whilst it doesn't quite trounce the 44.1 version, there's a whole extended window of musical information/detail present, which the 44.1 version simply misses.
Therefore, as ever in audio, its all about the implementation, not simply trying to compare apples with pears! :exactly:
Marco.
P.S Pedant that I am, I corrected your spelling of 'minuscule' ;)
LOL... I'll have to get back to you on that one as the vinyl is still sealed :eyebrows:
Coolio.... Would be interested in your thoughts when you do the comparison :)
Marco.
Firebottle
01-02-2017, 14:39
its all about the implementation
:exactly:
I have to say that this has mostly been my experience with 'hi-res' digital recordings, but NOT always, and I'll explain that in a minute. I've carried out comparisons between standard 44.1 and high-resolution recordings, over quite a few years now, and the majority of the latter have been rather sonically disappointing.
And it's very easy for me to do such tests quickly and conclusively, as I've got a separate hard-drive with about 1TB of solely hi-res files on it (which is fed to the RPi/IQ-Audio DAC, with full hi-res capability), and on another hard drive with identical albums on 44.1, so swapping between both and keeping all other variables the same, is easy, and quite often it's the latter that sound better!
Perhaps that's because recording engineers become lazy, as it's hi-res, and so they think that it's technical superiority will be enough to guarantee a good recording?
*But* I suspect, like you say, the results I obtained in that instance were because the mastering on the 44.1 albums was better, which negated any sonic advantages offered with the hi-res stuff. That said, however, I have also heard hi-res 'done right', where the mastering was of the highest calibre, and someone who really knew what they were doing maxed out the advantages, and *that* is when you can hear the differences - and they are considerable.
What makes that obvious for me is playing the best CD (44.1) copy I've got, in terms of mastering, of a specific album, on the Sony (as the DAS-R1 DAC is old, multi-bit technology, and can't do hi-res), and compare it with the same album, equally as well-mastered, but hi-res, streamed through the RPi - and with the latter, whilst it doesn't quite trounce the 44.1 version, there's a whole extended window of musical information/detail present, which the 44.1 version simply misses.
Therefore, as ever in audio, its all about the implementation, not simply trying to compare apples with pears! :exactly:
Marco.
P.S Pedant that I am, I corrected your spelling of 'minuscule' ;)
Any obvious differences you are hearing are not down to the higher sampling rate. That's a fact. So there must be other factors at play.
And that really is the problem with this whole debate. people hear something and then immediately decide on the reason for it, without investigation, without consideration. I don't dispute what people hear. I dispute what they claim is the reason they hear it. Hi-fi marketing has a lot to answer for in that respect.
Any obvious differences you are hearing are not down to the higher sampling rate. That's a fact. So there must be other factors at play.
And that really is the problem with this whole debate. people hear something and then immediately decide on the reason for it, without investigation, without consideration. I don't dispute what people hear. I dispute what they claim is the reason they hear it. Hi-fi marketing has a lot to answer for in that respect.
To be honest Martin I don't think there is always an answer as what people hear and science and electronics engineers have been trying to find out the reasons why and what we hear for many years so they latch onto what they think maybe the reason and use this to validate their explanation of what is going on. As digital technology has evolved engineers have certainly moved forward and learnt a lot of what causes poor digital sound/recording and what is needed to improve it.
They are getting there but what annoys me is that a proclamation is made about that this is as good as it needs to be or as good as it gets and then 6 months on an improvement somewhere in the chain is made and whatever equipment you have is suddenly old hat. Doesn't really happen with amplifiers or speakers and in many ways the science and engineering goes backwards because the manufacturers are relying on the mathematics and data and specifications in order to produce something rather than listening.
Digital technology as has been stated elsewhere in this post has specifications that on paper should equal "perfect sound forever" but in listening this does not translate.
Now I am not against digital and believe it could one day be part of my system especially as I have actually heard what it can potentially do but not at my price range I would add. However even at the highest level it still sounds errr digital and processed.
I believed all the digital guff and hype all those years ago and took a tragic path with music that led to a dead end where I stopped listening. Then by chance I heard some vinyl on a great set up and I saw the error of my ways and the scales fell off my ears! This has happened to many many people as they have been reaquainted with vinyl, not because its just become fashionable again but because they have been exposed to a music source that connects with their ears and brain easily and in a very satisfying way.
Now the OP was talking about DSOTM and lack of bass on digital version etc and the much better results he was getting from vinyl. For me this sums up the problems with digital and all that it promised. I have many albums on CD which compared to the vinyl version are pathetic and most of the Floyd albums are in this category.
I still think vinyl is the ultimate medium for listening to high quality audio and so do many of the top audiophiles around the world. Digital from my experience even done at the very highest end is still an inferior way to listen to music and as such I am still sceptical about "the perfect sound forever". The specifications and mathematics don't add up!
Haselsh1
01-02-2017, 16:34
The specifications and mathematics don't add up!
Could that be because what we get from the music we listen to via our hi-fi has fuck all to do with binary digits and numbers...? My ears operate via fluctuating electrical signals, analogue ones. My ears do not operate via binary digits in the hi-fi sense.
Firebottle
01-02-2017, 16:42
......... down to the higher sampling rate.
It's not actually a higher sampling rate. The WTA filter (I actually typed WTF -oops) is one with more 'taps' in the software construct forming the digital filter.
The source is usually still 16/44.1 so the sample period is 22.6uS. To get the timing precision to reconstruct the analogue waveform, or in layman's terms to fill in the gaps between the 22.6uS samples, requires any digital filter to repeat and repeat the number crunching to smooth out the transition from one sample to the next.
With more and more repeats (taps) to the filter the precision is increased and errors become less and less.
Any obvious differences you are hearing are not down to the higher sampling rate. That's a fact.
Lol... Here we go again with your 'facts'! I'm afraid I disagree, or at least I suspect it's closely related to the above in some way.
Remember that I have a huge collection (1TB of music) of hi-res files, on a dedicated hard-drive. Therefore I could carry out the same test with any number of tracks, I have 100s, (where the mastering on BOTH the hi-res and 44.1 files are of the highest standard), and 100% of the time the hi-res files are sonically superior.
Bit of a coincidence, no? ;)
You have no experience (that I know of), of having a computer audio source in your system, and comparing recordings there with those on CD, so with respect, you should bear that in mind when commenting on these matters.
The problem is, once you've decided something is 'fact', when in reality it may not be, it takes some shifting from that stubborn noggin of yours! :doh: :ner:
Marco.
To be honest Martin I don't think there is always an answer as what people hear and science and electronics engineers have been trying to find out the reasons why and what we hear for many years so they latch onto what they think maybe the reason and use this to validate their explanation of what is going on.
:exactly:
...and so another 'fact' is born, until such times as new information becomes available, which renders said 'fact' as obsolete. It's called the scientific process, and the reason why we evolve as a race.
Thank heavens for the human capacity for inquisitiveness and the desire to continually push boundaries, eh? ;)
Marco.
Lol... Here we go again with your 'facts'! I'm afraid I disagree, or at least I suspect it's closely related to that in some way.
Remember that I have a HUGE collection (1TB of music) of hi-res files, on a dedicated hard-drive. Therefore I could carry out the same test with any number of tracks, I have 100s, (where the mastering on BOTH the hi-res and 44.1 files are of the highest standard), and 100% of the time, the hi-res files are sonically superior.
Bit of a coincidence, no? ;)
Remember, you have ZERO experience (that I know of), of having a computer audio source in your system, and comparing recordings with CD, so with respect, you should bear that in mind when commenting on these matters.
The problem is, once you've decided something is 'fact', it takes some shifting from that stubborn noggin of yours! :doh: :ner:
Marco.
I haven't decided it is a fact. Think about it, would there be so much debate about the benefits of higher sampling rates if the differences were obvious? We have discussed this before and both Chris (Stratmangler) and Gazjam, who have compared apples to apples both agreed with me that the difference was very small indeed and you had to listen for it.
So if you are hearing obvious differences then you are not comparing like with like. It isn't as easy as you think it is to do that. Incidentally after that discussion I did comparisons on a friend's set up since we were both interested and he is a software engineer and knows what he his doing in that respect. His set up is not high end but not budget either, although if the differences are so obvious that shouldn't matter. We both said things like 'Was that any different? I'm not sure.'
Yup, and I've already said that in a lot of instances the differences *are* small, so we're in agreement there. We're also in agreement that the mastering is of more significance, in terms of the results heard, sonically, than anything else.
Where we're not in agreement is when the mastering of both a 44.1 music file and a hi-res one (of the same album) is excellent (i.e. there are no obvious anomalies in that area with the recordings in question), the hi-res version sounds *markedly* superior in the way I've described. I'd go with Alan's theory, in that respect, as being the likely cause.
As I have unlimited access to numerous (respective) files in which to carry out those comparisons, my opinion in that area is just as much 'fact', as your contrary one, probably more so, as at least I have considerable experience from my own system to back up mine, not simply theory or the odd sesh at a friend's house... ;)
Next time you're round here, I'll carry out the same comparisons with you that I've already done, and you can see what you think.
Marco.
Could that be because what we get from the music we listen to via our hi-fi has fuck all to do with binary digits and numbers...? My ears operate via fluctuating electrical signals, analogue ones. My ears do not operate via binary digits in the hi-fi sense.
Analogue is the key Shaun, in the end it all has to be turned back into analogue in order that we can hear it by those big analogue boxes(speakers). How many times over the last 20 years have you heard the digitali keep saying it almost sounds like analogue! This is because really the digital fan boys want it to sound like analogue. I don't agree that digital does good analogue.
Good analogue does good analogue!
In the end all this digital stuff will come round full circle and the Great DAC convertors will recreate something that puts the whole picture back together. It will have to be very good though filling in all those bits that the sampling misses out which we supposedly can't hear!
Nope I don't care what experts or digital fan boys ever write or say in the end my analogue ears tell me the truth not the theory or facts and figures which constantly need to be revised.
We are analogue creatures in an analogue world although the digital folk would love to have us all wired into a chip on the Internet. Best thing for digital is TV and computers.
But keep trying you digital engineers you may get there someday and convince my ears that it is as good as analogue. I might even like the convenience of sitting on my arse and controlling it all from an iPad.
I am quite cynical of the Hifi industry because they always want to try and keep selling you another black box because they try and convince you your old one Isn't good enough, with digital boxes their right!:lol:
There are more truisms in that post, mate, than you probably realise ;)
Marco.
.................Creating a 'cosy warm' sound, or whatever, is not the reason I'm into valves, and why when implemented optimally with the right equipment, I consider them to be most ideally suited for recording or reproducing music to the highest standard...............
I am with you there. They're definitely not 'cosy' !! ;)
I remember reading somewhere a quote from an old Valve hand, possibly a Mullard Engineer interviewed about Valves as Transistors were being introduced ''...if your Valve Amp sounds warm, it is most likely because it is broken.............''
I'd be interested on your thoughts re the TACET Label.
Cheers,
Jim.
Arkless Electronics
01-02-2017, 19:56
I'll see your DSOTM and raise you a "The Nightfly" Donald Fagen. And it's digitally recorded! Purely down to mastering of course but the first thing I thought when I heard it on CD was "where's the bass gone?"
..............the Sony (as the DAS-R1 DAC is old, multi-bit technology, and can't do hi-res)................................
Fed with the 'right' information the TDA1541 is capable of 384kHz.
It might be the lack of bits (16 as opposed to 24, 34 etc etc) but with my 1541 DAC I am struggling to hear differences between 44.1 and anything higher.
Jim.
Arkless Electronics
01-02-2017, 20:23
I find 2496 etc very noticeably better than standard Red Book
I find 2496 etc very noticeably better than standard Red Book
I don't know the DPA Little Bit DAC. What architecture does it utilise?
Arkless Electronics
01-02-2017, 20:33
I don't know the DPA Little Bit DAC. What architecture does it utilise?
It doesn't do 2496! And I don't know... not interested enough to be bothered... Philips DAC and probably bitstream though.
Rothchild
01-02-2017, 20:40
I'll see your DSOTM and raise you a "The Nightfly" Donald Fagen. And it's digitally recorded! Purely down to mastering of course but the first thing I thought when I heard it on CD was "where's the bass gone?"
Funnily enough I was playing with this the other night when I was messing about with different carts and setups, I had the vinyl and cd ripped versions running very close to each other. To be fair I was more interested in top end resolution but I can't say that I noticed any significant difference. It was also the recording I used to determine that (by a tiny margin) prefer the sound of my cd player to that of my Pi (but not so much that the convenience of the Pi is outweighed).
Arkless Electronics
01-02-2017, 20:43
Funnily enough I was playing with this the other night when I was messing about with different carts and setups, I had the vinyl and cd ripped versions running very close to each other. To be fair I was more interested in top end resolution but I can't say that I noticed any significant difference. It was also the recording I used to determine that (by a tiny margin) prefer the sound of my cd player to that of my Pi (but not so much that the convenience of the Pi is outweighed).
I no longer have it on vinyl but when I got it on CD I was most disappointed by the lack of the awesome bottom end on the vinyl version I once had..
I am with you there. They're definitely not 'cosy' !! ;)
I remember reading somewhere a quote from an old Valve hand, possibly a Mullard Engineer interviewed about Valves as Transistors were being introduced ''...if your Valve Amp sounds warm, it is most likely because it is broken.............''
I'd be interested on your thoughts re the TACET Label.
Hehe, Jim. I'll defo let you know :)
Marco.
Fed with the 'right' information the TDA1541 is capable of 384kHz.
It might be the lack of bits (16 as opposed to 24, 34 etc etc) but with my 1541 DAC I am struggling to hear differences between 44.1 and anything higher.
I know what you mean, as in that respect, I'm the same with the Sony. However, with my Raspberry Pi streamer and IQ Audio DAC (with 24-bit/192kHz playback), given the right (properly mastered) hi-res recording, the difference is clear.
Marco.
Clive197
02-02-2017, 12:16
Tried the DSOTM experiment last night. The vinyl certainly has the bass clout as described and had the best overall SQ but I would certainly not dismiss the SACD or CD which in my system did not lack bass.
Discs used: Vinyl - Mobile Fidelity (Japanese pressing) & EMI 2003 remaster (good but no cigar).
SACD-EMI 2003 remaster
CD - EMI 20th Anniversary Edition (1993)
I no longer have it on vinyl but when I got it on CD I was most disappointed by the lack of the awesome bottom end on the vinyl version I once had..
I thought The Nightfly is an all analogue recording?
Agree the CD is light in the bass compared to the vinyl. I have both. That is nothing to do with the format and everything to do with the mastering , though.
Stratmangler
02-02-2017, 12:40
I thought The Nightfly is an all analogue recording?
Agree the CD is light in the bass compared to the vinyl. I have both. That is nothing to do with the format and everything to do with the mastering , though.
You no read sleeve notes?
It's all on the lyrics/credits sheet inside the vinyl release (at least it was with the initial release).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nightfly
You no read sleeve notes?
It's all on the lyrics/credits sheet inside the vinyl release (at least it was with the initial release).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nightfly
I think I was getting it mixed up with 'Gaucho'.
Arkless Electronics
02-02-2017, 13:23
I thought The Nightfly is an all analogue recording?
Agree the CD is light in the bass compared to the vinyl. I have both. That is nothing to do with the format and everything to do with the mastering , though.
As I said when I mentioned it.... the same no doubt applies to DSOTM.
Rothchild
02-02-2017, 13:30
Out of interest I just recorded the vinyl version of the nightfly and put up against my FLAC ripped from CD. So far I've just been playing with the opening track IGY.
I normalised them both (to minimise level differences) and had a bit of a play.
It's true, they don't present the same, but I'm going to have to concur with Martin here, the difference is in the mastering.
The vinyl version appears to have additional compression on it, which is bringing out the lower-mids more. The cd version sounds cleaner and more dynamic (because this is a pre-loudness war record made by 'real' engineers who were relishing in the extra dynamic range digital provided them, so they weren't smashing their masters) and the vinyl version sound 'warmer' and more 'present' (the vocals come forward a little and the low end of the keys and the top end of the bass are a little more 'glued' together).
I would suggest that the cd version is closer to what was on the tape in the studio.
Arkless Electronics
02-02-2017, 13:44
Out of interest I just recorded the vinyl version of the nightfly and put up against my FLAC ripped from CD. So far I've just been playing with the opening track IGY.
I normalised them both (to minimise level differences) and had a bit of a play.
It's true, they don't present the same, but I'm going to have to concur with Martin here, the difference is in the mastering.
The vinyl version appears to have additional compression on it, which is bringing out the lower-mids more. The cd version sounds cleaner and more dynamic (because this is a pre-loudness war record made by 'real' engineers who were relishing in the extra dynamic range digital provided them, so they weren't smashing their masters) and the vinyl version sound 'warmer' and more 'present' (the vocals come forward a little and the low end of the keys and the top end of the bass are a little more 'glued' together).
I would suggest that the cd version is closer to what was on the tape in the studio.
Erm.. yeah... nothing else would cause it.
Rothchild
02-02-2017, 14:10
Erm.. yeah... nothing else would cause it.
I suppose it could be the low level of accuracy in analogue reproduction? ;-)
It's a digital recording, so the chances are that the digital master is closer to the source than the analogue one. Where else in the chain is likely to be adding frequency conscious compression to the lower mids?
A few truths about digital recording and mastering from someone who knows a thing or two about mastering.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=+bernie+grundman+wax&&view=detail&mid=7B09B1408C807917E02F7B09B1408C807917E02F&rvsmid=A89880F1F541D148BB69A89880F1F541D148BB69&fsscr=0&FORM=VDFSRV
It's a digital recording, so the chances are that the digital master is closer to the source than the analogue one.
That's the general point I was trying to make a while back.
Trouble is, listening in the real world doesn't always bear that out! ;)
Marco.
I suppose it could be the low level of accuracy in analogue reproduction? ;-)
Ha - don't you start! :ner:
;)
Marco.
Rothchild
02-02-2017, 19:32
A few truths about digital recording and mastering from someone who knows a thing or two about mastering.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=+bernie+grundman+wax&&view=detail&mid=7B09B1408C807917E02F7B09B1408C807917E02F&rvsmid=A89880F1F541D148BB69A89880F1F541D148BB69&fsscr=0&FORM=VDFSRV
The best (and for me most accurate) comment in there was 'the moment you put a microphone up you're faking, the whole thing is an illusion' a lot of the rest of it was myth and wishful thinking.
For instance them talking about the latency of plug-ins. It is indeed true that each process takes an amount of time to complete, but it's also the case that this delay is calculable and therefore can be dealt with - all digital workstations worth any attention have had 'PDC' (plugin delay compensation) for years now, I can even bring analogue gear in to my digital domain with sample level accuracy by pinging a signal out and timing the delay of it turning back up at the input - my mixing software automatically compensates all the tracks to deal with the loopback latency.
Anyway, in other news I had a further little play with the 2 versions of Nightfly earlier, I can get the digital version very close to the analogue one with a small, fairly wide boost at around 140Hz, that certainly brings the low end in line, some mild multiband compression in the low-mid and mid range brings the keys and vox out. It's not completely exact but then I only spend half an hour on it and I'm not Bob Ludwig! Even with this treatment the attack of the snare is still not as squished as on the record so I'm guessing the master to vinyl was compressed a bit harder than what I'm doing.
The best (and for me most accurate) comment in there was 'the moment you put a microphone up you're faking, the whole thing is an illusion' a lot of the rest of it was myth and wishful thinking.
For instance them talking about the latency of plug-ins. It is indeed true that each process takes an amount of time to complete, but it's also the case that this delay is calculable and therefore can be dealt with - all digital workstations worth any attention have had 'PDC' (plugin delay compensation) for years now, I can even bring analogue gear in to my digital domain with sample level accuracy by pinging a signal out and timing the delay of it turning back up at the input - my mixing software automatically compensates all the tracks to deal with the loopback latency.
Anyway, in other news I had a further little play with the 2 versions of Nightfly earlier, I can get the digital version very close to the analogue one with a small, fairly wide boost at around 140Hz, that certainly brings the low end in line, some mild multiband compression in the low-mid and mid range brings the keys and vox out. It's not completely exact but then I only spend half an hour on it and I'm not Bob Ludwig! Even with this treatment the attack of the snare is still not as squished as on the record so I'm guessing the master to vinyl was compressed a bit harder than what I'm doing.
Are you anything to do with the same bandcamp that handles Rodrigo y Gabriella?
Rothchild
02-02-2017, 20:37
Nah, Bandcamp is just a distribution platform. The Pony Collaboration are on Spotify too but we're not connected to anyone else on there either. (although I wish, Rodrigo and Gabriella are great!)
Anyway there's an interesting read here http://tapeop.com/interviews/105/bob-ludwig/ which suggests that the digital issue may (ironically) not be as close to the digital multitrack as I'd initially assumed. The fact of the matter remains though that the digital version is cleaner and more dynamic but the analogue version is warmer and more 'fun'.
Nah, Bandcamp is just a distribution platform. The Pony Collaboration are on Spotify too but we're not connected to anyone else on there either. (although I wish, Rodrigo and Gabriella are great!)
Anyway there's an interesting read here http://tapeop.com/interviews/105/bob-ludwig/ which suggests that the digital issue may (ironically) not be as close to the digital multitrack as I'd initially assumed. The fact of the matter remains though that the digital version is cleaner and more dynamic but the analogue version is warmer and more 'fun'.
Ok thanks. In the end you have to choose which sound you prefer and enjoy and really that is all the matters.:)
Funny but I find now I am only listening now to my headphone rig. I am going to seriously consider stopping buying records full stop :stalks: Not even sure I need the main system these days...heresy I know:rolleyes:
Funny but I find now I am only listening now to my headphone rig. I am going to seriously consider stopping buying records full stop :stalks: Not even sure I need the main system these days...heresy I know:rolleyes:
Whatever floats your boat Grant and if it sounds good then great, after all the youngsters all seem to live in that headphone world!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.