View Single Post
  #36   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

On Wed, 2 May 2012 14:48:03 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On May 2, 10:38am, ScottW wrote:


But it doesn't have to start at 16/44. Recording at low sample rates
requires aggressive anti-alias filters which can have audible effects.
Record at higher rates, digitally filter and then convert to lower
rates appears to be the norm for recording today.

I get that and agree with you. But there are some here who seem to be
claiming that even when you start at 16/44 it should be transparent.
All I am saying is that with the CDs I have burned directly from
analog sources the results have not been completely audibly
transparent. Nothing more nothing less. Obviosuly based on my
experience I would opt for hi res capture.


That's very interesting. 16-bit/44.1KHz sampling SHOULD be transparent
to any analog source other than perhaps, mastering quality condenser
microphones, and the things that recording at 24-bit and 88.2 KHz or
higher bring to the table shouldn't affect a transfer made from a
vinyl record or a non-master analog tape. The only way that I can see
which would cause your transfers to be less than completely
transparent would be if there were some fault in the analog equipment
used to make the digital transfers. For instance a faulty A/D
converter or some fault in the analog electronics of that converter
would have to occur before it could make such a transfer sound other
than exactly like the source. Of course, a fault in the CD playback
could accomplish the same thing.

I have made analog to digital transfers using such mundane equipment
as the $35 (or less) Behringer U-Control UCA222 analog to USB digital
interface. It makes perfectly transparent transfers. I used to record
a major symphony orchestra for their archives and I have dozens of
master tapes. A few years ago, I decided that the master tapes which
were all recorded at 15 inches-per-second, 1/2 track stereo, were
beginning to deteriorate (many were recorded on Ampex Grand Master
type 456 which is subject to the backing on the tape turning to goo
over time rendering the tape useless). I wanted to get them into
digital form as soon as possible. 24-bit was not as cheap or as
plentiful as it is today (a Behringer FCA202 24/96 D/A-A/D converter
is available today for about $80, but not then) so I decided to try
the UCA222. I first made a transfer of a performance of Stravinsky's
"Petroushka" which I recorded using a sample 10.5 inch NAB reel of
Sony's Ferrichrome tape that I was given at an AES convention. This
tape had the widest dynamic range (due to the high overload tolerance
of the FECr) of any of the recordings. I figured that if the little
Behringer USB box could do a decent job on this tape, it could handle
any of them.

To say that I was flabbergasted at the results is an understatement.
When I played the CD I made from the computer file back and did a
blind A/B comparison with the master tape, I couldn't reliably tell
which was which. Neither could anybody else. So, over the next few
months, I transfered all of my symphony masters to CD. The all sound
splendid. On some I can tell a slight difference in the highs, and
that changes depending upon which Redbook playback filter on my Sony
XA777-ES SACD player that I use, but these differences are trivial
and still don't allow anyone to tell the CD apart from the master
tape. I'd say, that for all intents and purposes this cheap little
converter makes wholly transparent digital copies of analog sources.

Of course, CD playback is going to sound a little different on each
player, especially on the top-end, but that's because different CD
players have different types of high-frequency filters (some have
better bass than others as well), but none of these differences are
going to be anywhere near the magnitude of say, playing the same
master tape on two different tape decks, or playing a record using
two different cartridges. Are you sure that what you are calling a
not transparent transfer can't be marked down to just differences in
playback equipment of the kind I''ve just mentioned?