Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Robert Peirce Robert Peirce is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 140
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

The first letter in the May/June Absolute Sound claims his LPs sound
significantly better than the same albums downloaded from HDtracks.
Ignoring for a moment that this might be true, I wonder how much depends
on equipment?

I have just begun to convert some LPs to 192/24 digital files using
PureVinyl and a TC Impact Twin. It happens the Impact Twin actually
plays the LP in order to convert it, and it is no problem whatsoever to
play the LP and the digital file through the same device. When I do
that I don't hear any difference.

I suspect, if I played the LP, or the file, through a top of the line
device and the other through something much poorer, I would hear a
difference. However, it would be the equipment, not the source. How
often do you think that might be the case? Maybe my hearing is just
shot.

  #2   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, 25 Apr 2012 16:42:36 -0700, Robert Peirce wrote
(in article ):

The first letter in the May/June Absolute Sound claims his LPs sound
significantly better than the same albums downloaded from HDtracks.
Ignoring for a moment that this might be true, I wonder how much depends
on equipment?



Excellent question. Truth to tell, LPs are a bit of a paradox. A cheap CD
player always sounds better (to my ears, at least) than a cheap turntable. An
expensive CD player sounds very much like a cheap one. There MAY be a sonic
difference between a $50 CD player and $5,000 CD player, but that difference
is largely subjective and may or may not show up in a DBT. OTOH, a cheap
turntable/arm/cartridge through a cheap phono preamp may sound O.K., BUT, the
same record played on a really good turntable/arm/cartridge costing thousands
and played through a very accurate RIAA phono preamp (such as the Parasound
JC-2) will sound unmistakably better in almost every way.

That leaves the question, will the LP of a superior sounding performance
sound better on an expensive phono rig than will the CD mastered from the
same master tape and played on any CD player?

I've mentioned this before, but I have a Classic Records remastering on 4
single sides on 200 gram vinyl at 45 RPM of Stravinsky's "Firebird" by Antal
Dorati and the London Philharmonic recorded by Mercury's Bob Fine. The
aforementioned Classic Record release was mastered by the recording's
original producer, Wilma Cozart Fine who also remastered all of the Living
Presence recordings (including the CD of this performance) for Philips in the
1990's. Fine said in an interview at the time that the CDs were
"indistinguishable from the master tapes." That being the case, one would
think that her later 45 RPM vinyl remaster of that same master tape would
sound pretty identical to the CD. I'm here to tell you that they sound
NOTHING alike. The LP sounds alive, with palpable imaging and much more
APPARENT dynamic range. It also sounds much cleaner and more real. I have
played the record vs the CD (with matched volume) for dozens of people, and
even though there is no doubt that they are BOTH the same performance, every
single listener has said that the LP sounds more like a real performance than
does the CD.

This is, of course, anecdotal (for whatever that's worth) but it does show
that just because digital is doubtless more accurate than analog ever could
be, that doesn't mean that commercially made CDs are always going to sound
better than vinyl records made from the same source. There are so many
variables in both processes that once cannot simply assume that the CD will
always sound better.

In fact, most newly remastered CDs of previously released pop material will
likely sound significantly worse than the original CD release, and if the
material is old enough to have first been released on vinyl, chances are a
prisstine vinyl copy will sound significantly better than the latest CD
master. That's just the nature of the modern music business.

Obviously, with pre-released material, the best any release can be is for the
final product to sound exactly like master mix. a carefully mastered
"audiophile" LP can indeed sound much better than a sloppily made or
purposefully altered CD release.

I have just begun to convert some LPs to 192/24 digital files using
PureVinyl and a TC Impact Twin. It happens the Impact Twin actually
plays the LP in order to convert it, and it is no problem whatsoever to
play the LP and the digital file through the same device. When I do
that I don't hear any difference.

I suspect, if I played the LP, or the file, through a top of the line
device and the other through something much poorer, I would hear a
difference. However, it would be the equipment, not the source. How
often do you think that might be the case? Maybe my hearing is just
shot.


In the case of high-resolution downloads, you are buying a pig in a poke.
The "masters" that HDTeacks and others sell copies of come from the record
companies which own them. Sometimes the record company makes the digital
conversion to 24-bit, sometimes they farm that out to a third party, and
sometimes the seller themselves do the analog-to-high-res conversion
themselves.

You, the buyer has no way of knowing what you are getting. You might be
getting a high-res conversion of the original master, or you might be getting
an upsampled 16-bit/44.1 Khz digital copy of the master that was made at
some time in the past to make CDs from. You also might be getting a third or
fourth generation copy of the master that was made and EQ'd to make LPs from.
It is also possible that the 24-bit copy sent to HDTracks was down converted
from a DSD master made a decade ago to create SACDs from. Any or all of these
scenarios have built-in room for incompetence, human error, and downright
chicanery.

So, as you can see. It's not a simple question. Yes, LPs can sound better
than the CD of the same material and LPs can also sound worse. But aith all
things being equal (and the seldom are) a well mastered CD from a good master
tape SHOULD sound better than any LP. That they don't is not the fault of
either technology, but rather the people involved.

  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

On Apr 25, 4:42=A0pm, Robert Peirce wrote:
The first letter in the May/June Absolute Sound claims his LPs sound
significantly better than the same albums downloaded from HDtracks.
Ignoring for a moment that this might be true, I wonder how much depends
on equipment?

I have just begun to convert some LPs to 192/24 digital files using
PureVinyl and a TC Impact Twin. =A0It happens the Impact Twin actually
plays the LP in order to convert it, and it is no problem whatsoever to
play the LP and the digital file through the same device. =A0When I do
that I don't hear any difference.

I suspect, if I played the LP, or the file, through a top of the line
device and the other through something much poorer, I would hear a
difference. =A0However, it would be the equipment, not the source. =A0How
often do you think that might be the case? =A0Maybe my hearing is just
shot.


It is a comparison of apples and oranges. Yes the vinyl playback
equipment makes a difference but so does the initial mastering of the
LP vs. the mastering of the hi res download and the source tapes used
for each, There are to many variables between the two for anyone to
draw any conclusions about any specific causes of preference. No doubt
this will degrade into some senseless debate over analog v. digital
and/or some senseless debate over the transparency of digital. Doesn't
matter. The reasons for the differences are obvious, real and not just
a result of the nature of vinyl or hi res digital.

  #4   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 Thu, 26 Apr 2012 06:06:31 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On Apr 25, 4:42=A0pm, Robert Peirce wrote:
The first letter in the May/June Absolute Sound claims his LPs sound
significantly better than the same albums downloaded from HDtracks.
Ignoring for a moment that this might be true, I wonder how much depends
on equipment?

I have just begun to convert some LPs to 192/24 digital files using
PureVinyl and a TC Impact Twin. =A0It happens the Impact Twin actually
plays the LP in order to convert it, and it is no problem whatsoever to
play the LP and the digital file through the same device. =A0When I do
that I don't hear any difference.

I suspect, if I played the LP, or the file, through a top of the line
device and the other through something much poorer, I would hear a
difference. =A0However, it would be the equipment, not the source. =A0How
often do you think that might be the case? =A0Maybe my hearing is just
shot.


It is a comparison of apples and oranges. Yes the vinyl playback
equipment makes a difference but so does the initial mastering of the
LP vs. the mastering of the hi res download and the source tapes used
for each, There are to many variables between the two for anyone to
draw any conclusions about any specific causes of preference. No doubt
this will degrade into some senseless debate over analog v. digital
and/or some senseless debate over the transparency of digital. Doesn't
matter. The reasons for the differences are obvious, real and not just
a result of the nature of vinyl or hi res digital.


Well, I hope it doesn't devolve into such a debate. Facts are facts, and that
digital, even 16/44.1, is better than analogue is simply not not open to
question, it's just a fact. Also, there's no sense in arguing LP vs. CD. When
"best practices" are used to master and manufacture both, the CD will win
hands down. But there's the rub. "Best practices" aren't always used * for
EITHER format. Generally, and especially with pop music, the latest
remastered pop music sounds worse on modern CD than it ever did on the
original vinyl release or even the initial CD release. In spite of better and
better equipment, remasters today are often mixed to sound louder than the
previous release. They are also, often, a product of modern knob-twiddlers
who try to second guess the original producer and "fix" things that these
modern engineers found objectionable in the original mix. Then of course
there's the state of the original masters themselves. Many of these old
analog masters - especially stuff from the 70's and 80's are falling apart.
Every time the tape is rewound it sheds oxide. That's the music laying in a
reddish-brown pile on the tape deck fascia. There are lots of reasons, but
when someone tells you that the latest re-release of "Dark Side of the Moon"
doesn't seem to sound as good as their older CD of the same title, they're
not hallucinating. It likely doesn't sound as good. But I;ll bet it sounds
LOUDER!
  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

On Apr 26, 5:54=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 06:06:31 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ):





On Apr 25, 4:42=3DA0pm, Robert Peirce wrote:
The first letter in the May/June Absolute Sound claims his LPs sound
significantly better than the same albums downloaded from HDtracks.
Ignoring for a moment that this might be true, I wonder how much depen=

ds
on equipment?


I have just begun to convert some LPs to 192/24 digital files using
PureVinyl and a TC Impact Twin. =3DA0It happens the Impact Twin actual=

ly
plays the LP in order to convert it, and it is no problem whatsoever t=

o
play the LP and the digital file through the same device. =3DA0When I =

do
that I don't hear any difference.


I suspect, if I played the LP, or the file, through a top of the line
device and the other through something much poorer, I would hear a
difference. =3DA0However, it would be the equipment, not the source. =

=3DA0How
often do you think that might be the case? =3DA0Maybe my hearing is ju=

st
shot.


It is a comparison of apples and oranges. Yes the vinyl playback
equipment makes a difference but so does the initial mastering of the
LP vs. the mastering of the =A0hi res download and the source tapes use=

d
for each, There are to many variables between the two for anyone to
draw any conclusions about any specific causes of preference. No doubt
this will degrade into some senseless debate over analog v. digital
and/or some senseless debate over the transparency of digital. Doesn't
matter. The reasons for the differences are obvious, real and not just
a result of the nature of vinyl or hi res digital.


Well, I hope it doesn't devolve into such a debate. Facts are facts, and =

that
digital, even 16/44.1, is better than analogue is simply not not open to
question, it's just a fact. Also, there's no sense in arguing LP vs. CD. =

When
"best practices" are used to master and manufacture both, the CD will win
hands down. But there's the rub. "Best practices" aren't always used =AD =

for
EITHER format. Generally, and especially with pop music, the latest
remastered pop music sounds worse on modern CD than it ever did on the
original vinyl release or even the initial CD release. In spite of better=

and
better equipment, remasters today are often mixed to sound louder than th=

e
previous release. They are also, often, a product of modern knob-twiddler=

s
who try to second guess the original producer and "fix" things that these
modern engineers found objectionable in the original mix. Then of course
there's the state of the original masters themselves. Many of these old
analog masters - especially stuff from the 70's and 80's are falling apar=

t.


  #6   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 Fri, 27 Apr 2012 05:35:56 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ):

[quoted text deleted -- deb]

And yet the CD that you find quite inferior to the Classics 45 rpm LP
of the Firebird suite was mastered about as well as it could be and in
blind tests that series of CDs were found to be pretty much
indistinguishable from the master tapes. The "best practices" were
used in mastering that CD. So what you find to be better (as do I by
the way) is probably not more accurate. It would seem that your
"facts" are very much in conflict with one another. If CD as a medium
is "better" as you claim to be fact then it does not jive with your
opinion that the Classics 45 rpm LP of the Firebird is "better" than
the CD. They were both mastered from the same tapes with the same
playback gear under the supervision of the same producer.


Not at all. The Firebird is an anomaly and neither you or I, I dare say, have
ever heard the Mercury "Firebird" master. We can't know which is the more
accurate, the LP or the CD. We can just know which gives us the greater
illusion of an orchestra playing in a real space. For me (and all I have
played the two for) it's the Classic Records release.
  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

On Apr 27, 2:46=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 05:35:56 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ):

[quoted text deleted -- deb]

And yet the CD that you find quite inferior to the Classics 45 rpm LP
of the Firebird suite was mastered about as well as it could be and in
blind tests that series of CDs were found to be pretty much
indistinguishable from the master tapes. The "best practices" were
used in mastering that CD. So what you find to be better (as do I by
the way) is probably not more accurate. It would seem that your
"facts" are very much in conflict with one another. If CD as a medium
is "better" as you claim to be fact then it does not jive with your
opinion that the Classics 45 rpm LP of the Firebird is "better" than
the CD. They were both mastered from the same tapes with the same
playback gear under the supervision of the same producer.


Not at all. The Firebird is an anomaly and neither you or I, I dare say, =

have
ever heard the Mercury =A0"Firebird" master.


You are correct that neither of us have heard the master but the
Firebird is hardly an anomaly. Classics only did five titles from the
Mercury catalog on 45 rpm LP and all five of them excel. It is no
anomaly.


We can't know which is the more
accurate, the LP or the CD. We can just know which gives us the greater
illusion of an orchestra playing in a real space. For me (and all I have
played the two for) it's the Classic Records release.


Well this is true if we completely ignore the blind comparisons that
Dennis Drake and Wilma Cozart Fine did for the press between the CDs
and the original master tapes. I don't see any reason to ignore those
blind comparisons.

  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
rtweed rtweed is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

It seems to me that there's a very simple test to confirm or refute
the "does LP inherently sound better than digital" question:

- take your highest quality LP that you believe sounds superior, play
it on your best analog equipment possible and record it digitally
(preferably using your best ADC and highest resolution you want).

Now do a DBT listening to the original LP and the digital recording of
the LP.

My prediction is that nobody will be able to tell the difference and
the digital recording will exhibit all the same perceived qualities of
the analog original.

If this proves to be the case, any differences between the LP and
commercially-released CD (or whatever other digital format) must be
due to differences applied when each were created, or inherent changes
in sound as a result of cutting to and playing back from vinyl.

  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

On Apr 27, 6:03=A0am, rtweed wrote:
It seems to me that there's a very simple test to confirm or refute
the "does LP inherently sound better than digital" question:

- take your highest quality LP that you believe sounds superior, play
it on your best analog equipment possible and record it digitally
(preferably using your best ADC and highest resolution you want).

Now do a DBT listening to the original LP and the digital recording of
the LP.

My prediction is that nobody will be able to tell the difference and
the digital recording will exhibit all the same perceived qualities of
the analog original.

If this proves to be the case, any differences between the LP and
commercially-released CD (or whatever other digital format) must be
due to differences applied when each were created, or inherent changes
in sound as a result of cutting to and playing back from vinyl.


This is not a test of which sounds "better" but a test of transparency
of digital. I have done this test both with hi res and with CD rips of
vinyl. The CD rips were not perfectly transparent. I was able to
reliably hear differences. OTOH when I did the same test with 24/96
rips I was not able to discern any differences. If one wants to do a
test to determine which is "better" between CD and vinyl in so far as
which offers a superior aesthetic one need only to get a CD and LP of
the same titel that we know were mastered with no processing or the
same processing in the mastering and do blind A/B comparisons. I have
also done that. The LP has won every time and for the same basic
reasons. Of course the results will depend on one's vinyl playback
gear since their are substantial differences to be found there.

  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
rtweed rtweed is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

On Apr 27, 3:45=A0pm, Scott wrote:
On Apr 27, 6:03=A0am, rtweed wrote:









It seems to me that there's a very simple test to confirm or refute
the "does LP inherently sound better than digital" question:


- take your highest quality LP that you believe sounds superior, play
it on your best analog equipment possible and record it digitally
(preferably using your best ADC and highest resolution you want).


Now do a DBT listening to the original LP and the digital recording of
the LP.


My prediction is that nobody will be able to tell the difference and
the digital recording will exhibit all the same perceived qualities of
the analog original.


If this proves to be the case, any differences between the LP and
commercially-released CD (or whatever other digital format) must be
due to differences applied when each were created, or inherent changes
in sound as a result of cutting to and playing back from vinyl.


This is not a test of which sounds "better" but a test of transparency
of digital. I have done this test both with hi res and with CD rips of
vinyl. The CD rips were not perfectly transparent. I was able to
reliably hear differences. OTOH when I did the same test with 24/96
rips I was not able to discern any differences. If one wants to do a
test to determine which is "better" between CD and vinyl in so far as
which offers a superior aesthetic one need only to get a CD and LP of
the same titel that we know were mastered with no processing or the
same processing in the mastering and do blind A/B comparisons. I have
also done that. The LP has won every time and for the same basic
reasons. Of course the results will depend on one's vinyl playback
gear since their are substantial differences to be found there.


Exactly - it's a test of transparency, and removes all other variables
that would otherwise result in differences between a vinyl or CD
recording of the same master tape. And you've proven to yourself that
with high enough digital resolution, you can't tell the difference.

My case rests m'lud. The logical conclusion must therefore be that
you subjectively prefer the sound of commercially-released vinyl
versions to their high res digital versions for the very reason that
the formers' reproduction is *not* transparent and faithful to the
original.







  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger[_4_] Arny Krueger[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 854
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

"Scott" wrote in message
...
On Apr 27, 6:03 am, rtweed wrote:
It seems to me that there's a very simple test to confirm or refute
the "does LP inherently sound better than digital" question:

- take your highest quality LP that you believe sounds superior, play
it on your best analog equipment possible and record it digitally
(preferably using your best ADC and highest resolution you want).

Now do a DBT listening to the original LP and the digital recording of
the LP.

My prediction is that nobody will be able to tell the difference and
the digital recording will exhibit all the same perceived qualities of
the analog original.

If this proves to be the case, any differences between the LP and
commercially-released CD (or whatever other digital format) must be
due to differences applied when each were created, or inherent changes
in sound as a result of cutting to and playing back from vinyl.


This is not a test of which sounds "better" but a test of transparency
of digital. I have done this test both with hi res and with CD rips of
vinyl.


Unfortunately, tests like these end up being tests of the person
synchronizing the LP and the digital playback.

Unless the synchronization is held within about 10 msec, 100% positive
results can be obtained in a comparison of two absolutely identical items.


  #12   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 Fri, 27 Apr 2012 07:45:07 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On Apr 27, 6:03=A0am, rtweed wrote:

Snip

This is not a test of which sounds "better" but a test of transparency
of digital. I have done this test both with hi res and with CD rips of
vinyl. The CD rips were not perfectly transparent. I was able to
reliably hear differences. OTOH when I did the same test with 24/96
rips I was not able to discern any differences. If one wants to do a
test to determine which is "better" between CD and vinyl in so far as
which offers a superior aesthetic one need only to get a CD and LP of
the same titel that we know were mastered with no processing or the
same processing in the mastering and do blind A/B comparisons. I have
also done that. The LP has won every time and for the same basic
reasons. Of course the results will depend on one's vinyl playback
gear since their are substantial differences to be found there.


This is not my experience. I find that CDs made from vinyl records sound
identical to the records as do DSD and 24/96 LPCM copies of the records.
  #13   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 Fri, 27 Apr 2012 06:03:15 -0700, rtweed wrote
(in article ):

It seems to me that there's a very simple test to confirm or refute
the "does LP inherently sound better than digital" question:

- take your highest quality LP that you believe sounds superior, play
it on your best analog equipment possible and record it digitally
(preferably using your best ADC and highest resolution you want).

Now do a DBT listening to the original LP and the digital recording of
the LP.

My prediction is that nobody will be able to tell the difference and
the digital recording will exhibit all the same perceived qualities of
the analog original.


I've done that. And yes the CD sounds identical to the Classic Records LP it
was made from (as one would expect). The point is not that LP is superior to
CD, it's that individual instances of either can be superior to the other in
EXECUTION.

For instance, I have the famous Marc Aubort/Joanna Nickrenz set "Ravel, All
the Works for Orchestra and Piano and Orchestra" With Skrowaczewski and the
Minnesota Orchestra recorded for Vox/Turnabout in the early Seventies. The
original release, on a vinyl "Voxbox" set sounds lousy due to the poor
quality of the Vox pressings in those days. Yet, I have had the pleasure of
hearing the original master tape at Mobile Fidelity's mastering studio in San
Francisco and its gorgeous as is the SACD of the "Daphnis et Chloe" that
Mobile Fidelity released on SACD as well as the earlier re-packaging done on
Vox CDs when the Vox catalogue was owned by Moss Music Group.

If this proves to be the case, any differences between the LP and
commercially-released CD (or whatever other digital format) must be
due to differences applied when each were created, or inherent changes
in sound as a result of cutting to and playing back from vinyl.


That's the whole point. Just because digital is more accurate than analog,
doesn't automatically mean that a CD will necessarily sound better than an LP
of the same performance.


  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger[_4_] Arny Krueger[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 854
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

"Robert Peirce" wrote in message
...

The first letter in the May/June Absolute Sound claims his LPs sound
significantly better than the same albums downloaded from HDtracks.
Ignoring for a moment that this might be true, I wonder how much depends
on equipment?


If a LP sounds different from the same album downloaded from HDTracks there
are two bonafide more-or-less technical reasons:

(1) The audible distortion and noise that are inherent in the LP format.

(2) The real possibility that we're comparing two different jobs of
mastering.

IME while digital transcriptions of LPs often sound very much like the LP
itself, they are always easy to distinguish from the commercial digital
releases of the same musical work.

There is also a well-known situation where many people have a strong
emotional connection with various aspects of listening to LPs.

I have just begun to convert some LPs to 192/24 digital files using
PureVinyl and a TC Impact Twin.


What a cornucopia of highly audible software and hardware EFX processors!

My first thought is that you must really dislike the sound of vinyl to feel
the need for signal-massaging power on the scale encouraged by these
products.

Marketing-wise these products seem to be tearing themselves apart. One part
hypes super-accurate processing with zillions of bits and samples, and
another part is designed to bend sound like a pretzel.

It happens the Impact Twin actually
plays the LP in order to convert it, and it is no problem whatsoever to
play the LP and the digital file through the same device. When I do
that I don't hear any difference.


Please explain to me how the Impact Twin "plays" the LP in a unique,
exceptional, or unusual way as compared to traditional DAW editing/mixing
tools.

I suspect, if I played the LP, or the file, through a top of the line
device and the other through something much poorer, I would hear a
difference.


Depends which knobs you turn on that Impact Twin. Controls like "De Esser",
Reverb" and "Comp" (IOW, compressor I think) paint a picture of inherently
audible signal processing that any producer of hyper-processed musical
tracks could appreciate and use to practice his "art".

http://www.tcelectronic.com/media/tc_near_small.jpg


However, it would be the equipment, not the source. How
often do you think that might be the case? Maybe my hearing is just
shot.


With equipment that has this kind of power to bend signals, it is a matter
of your gun, your bullet, and your foot. We're talking .44 Magnum!



  #15   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Robert Peirce Robert Peirce is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 140
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

I have just begun to convert some LPs to 192/24 digital files using
PureVinyl and a TC Impact Twin.


What a cornucopia of highly audible software and hardware EFX processors!

My first thought is that you must really dislike the sound of vinyl to feel
the need for signal-massaging power on the scale encouraged by these
products.

Marketing-wise these products seem to be tearing themselves apart. One part
hypes super-accurate processing with zillions of bits and samples, and
another part is designed to bend sound like a pretzel.


I think, perhaps, you are missing my point. I am not using any of the
many "features" on the Impact Twin, just its DAC capability. I use the
mic input directly from the TT output, convert to digital and store in a
file on my computer. It is much like using a pre-amp with all the tone
controls deactivated.

I use PureVinyl to create the file and to edit the tracks and track
names. It does nothing to what is in the file itself once it is
created. I use PureMusic to play it back with RIAA equalization done in
software. There might be some argument about whether that is better or
worse than doing it in hardware. I don't really want to start that
discussion because I don't know.

As far as I know, playing an LP, without saving the output to a file, is
neither unique nor exceptional. It is just something you can do. My
point was that playing the LP directly and playing the file produced
from playing the LP sounded the same when using the same device. My
feeling was that might not happen if you used different, unequal,
devices for one versus the other.

Whether I hate or love LPs is irrelevant. I probably have about the
same number of LPs as I have CDs and I have a lot of both. In my
experience, both media can produce wonderful and terrible reproductions.
However, I am planning to move to a much smaller space and there are
advantages to getting everything into a computer based music server.



  #16   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger[_4_] Arny Krueger[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 854
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

"Robert Peirce" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

I have just begun to convert some LPs to 192/24 digital files using
PureVinyl and a TC Impact Twin.


What a cornucopia of highly audible software and hardware EFX processors!


My first thought is that you must really dislike the sound of vinyl to
feel
the need for signal-massaging power on the scale encouraged by these
products.


Marketing-wise these products seem to be tearing themselves apart. One
part
hypes super-accurate processing with zillions of bits and samples, and
another part is designed to bend sound like a pretzel.


I think, perhaps, you are missing my point. I am not using any of the
many "features" on the Impact Twin, just its DAC capability. I use the
mic input directly from the TT output, convert to digital and store in a
file on my computer. It is much like using a pre-amp with all the tone
controls deactivated.


Please note that I specifically addressed how these products are being
marketed.

I made no prognostications about how you were using them.

I did post my first reactions, because that is what happened when I read
your post and checked out the equipment.

I applaud your avoidance of all the questioanble bells and whistles.

IME far simpler and economical hardware and software can provide equivalent
results when the signal processing is not used.


I use PureVinyl to create the file and to edit the tracks and track
names. It does nothing to what is in the file itself once it is
created. I use PureMusic to play it back with RIAA equalization done in
software. There might be some argument about whether that is better or
worse than doing it in hardware. I don't really want to start that
discussion because I don't know.


As a rule doing the RIAA equalization in certain hardware configurations
delivers the best dynamic range from a given set of pre amplier stage(s).
But it may or may not make an audible difference either way.

As far as I know, playing an LP, without saving the output to a file, is
neither unique nor exceptional. It is just something you can do. My
point was that playing the LP directly and playing the file produced
from playing the LP sounded the same when using the same device. My
feeling was that might not happen if you used different, unequal,
devices for one versus the other.


Probably true.

Whether I hate or love LPs is irrelevant. I probably have about the
same number of LPs as I have CDs and I have a lot of both. In my
experience, both media can produce wonderful and terrible reproductions.
However, I am planning to move to a much smaller space and there are
advantages to getting everything into a computer based music server.


In the case of LPs, digital transcriptions save wear and tear on the analog
media, some of which may be irreplaceable.

  #17   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 Fri, 27 Apr 2012 07:45:52 -0700, Robert Peirce wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

I have just begun to convert some LPs to 192/24 digital files using
PureVinyl and a TC Impact Twin.


What a cornucopia of highly audible software and hardware EFX processors!

My first thought is that you must really dislike the sound of vinyl to feel
the need for signal-massaging power on the scale encouraged by these
products.

Marketing-wise these products seem to be tearing themselves apart. One part
hypes super-accurate processing with zillions of bits and samples, and
another part is designed to bend sound like a pretzel.


I think, perhaps, you are missing my point. I am not using any of the
many "features" on the Impact Twin, just its DAC capability. I use the
mic input directly from the TT output, convert to digital and store in a
file on my computer. It is much like using a pre-amp with all the tone
controls deactivated.

I use PureVinyl to create the file and to edit the tracks and track
names. It does nothing to what is in the file itself once it is
created. I use PureMusic to play it back with RIAA equalization done in
software. There might be some argument about whether that is better or
worse than doing it in hardware. I don't really want to start that
discussion because I don't know.


Software implementation of the RIAA EQ *SHOULD* be better than hardware
implementation because it can be more accurate to the ideal RIAA curve.
However, this depends a lot on who the wrote the software, how many data
points they used, and how accurate that the programmer felt was "accurate
enough". OTOH, the records that one is playing were made with a recording
RIAA curve that WAS almost assuredly implemented in hardware and any hardware
RIAA filter is going to only be as accurate as the nearest standard
components values to the calculated ideal. In other words, if the calculated
value for a certain resistor in the filter comes out to 45, 634 Ohms, and the
nearest standard resistor value is 47,000 Ohms +/- 10%, then there will be
that much error in the finished filter.

As far as I know, playing an LP, without saving the output to a file, is
neither unique nor exceptional. It is just something you can do. My
point was that playing the LP directly and playing the file produced
from playing the LP sounded the same when using the same device. My
feeling was that might not happen if you used different, unequal,
devices for one versus the other.

Whether I hate or love LPs is irrelevant. I probably have about the
same number of LPs as I have CDs and I have a lot of both. In my
experience, both media can produce wonderful and terrible reproductions.
However, I am planning to move to a much smaller space and there are
advantages to getting everything into a computer based music server.


You are right about the quality differences between CD and LP being often
down to the execution of the individual release. That's sort of the point
here. And I understand your desire to move all your LPs to computer files -
I'd hate to have to do it for 2500 LPs though 8^)

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
digital photography vs. digital audio [email protected] Pro Audio 31 May 10th 07 02:27 PM
Mac Pro digital output Look for a set of speakers with digital input Maya Pro Audio 0 November 12th 06 08:26 AM
digital recodring equiptment (Sony TCD-D8, SBM-1, Core Sound mics and digital I/O cable) - ends tomorrow SC Miata Marketplace 0 February 8th 04 05:40 AM
FA: digital recodring equiptment (Sony TCD-D8, SBM-1, Core Sound mics and digital I/O cable) SC Miata Marketplace 0 February 2nd 04 12:40 AM
Connections between digital mixer and a digital recorder? psongman Pro Audio 7 October 17th 03 06:38 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:16 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"