Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|