Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP still better than Digital?
I can hear the howls of derision now from certain parties who post here
regularly. I'm out of my mind. There can just be no other explanation for it! OK. Tonight I go to an audio acquaintance's home to try to solve a puzzle. This guy has a damn good system. His speakers are fairly new Wilson Sasha's. His amps are Nelson Pass XS-150 monoblocks and his pre-amp is an Classe CP-700. His front end is a Marantz SA-11S2 SACD/CD player. Recently he bought a Weiss dac202U digital to analog converter connected via Firewire to a MacBook Pro running Amarra. Several moths ago, his father-in-law passed away leaving him a considerable classical record collection. Our friend had no record player but his Classe preamp did come with a phono preamp option. Not really being all that interested in records, but being nonetheless curious about the record collection he'd inherited, he purchased a Music Hall MMF5.1 turntable ensemble for around $900 complete with arm and "Music Hall" branded MM cartridge (which I suspect is really a British Goldring). The dilemma is this. Right along, Our Friend has been purchasing High-Resolution downloads of things that interested him from HDTracks. Recently he bought the Antal Dorati/London Symphony 24/176.4 download of The music of Borodin and Rimsky Korsakov. Using his Mac and Amarra to stream the recording to his Weiss DAC, he was very impressed with the purchase until he found that his father-in-law had a copy of the original issue from 1961 on Mercury Living Presence LP. Just for the hell of it, he decided to give the LP a spin on his $1000 turntable rig. Expecting to laugh it off the turntable, he was startled to find that the LP sounded better than the HD download through his $7000 DAC!. That's when he called me. Turns out that I have both the mid-'90's CD transferred by Wilma Fine, the record's original producer as well as the later remastered SACD of the same title. I suggested that I bring them over as well as some equipment. I showed up over there this evening with both silver-disc versions of the Mercury disc as well as my test SACD/CD, a Shure test record, a copy of the BMC SACD of "The Reiner Sound" and a Classic Records 33.3 RPM reissue of same, and a HP400D RMS voltmeter. The first thing I did was make as sure that we used the controlled outputs of the SACD section of the Marantz player, the volume controlled outputs of the Weiss, for both the CD and the Firewire feed from the Mac to insure that the record, the SACD, the CD and the HD feed were all level matched exactly (at least to the test signals). I told my host, that most likely, what he was hearing as "sounding better" was simply because the LP was louder than the HD feed and my set-up procedure should eliminate that. Then we listened to the HD feed all the way through, then he put on the 50-year old record and after I made sure the volume was the same, we listened to that. There was no doubt about it. a 50 year-old LP on a $900 record player was much more musical, imaged better, had much better sheen to the strings, etc. The record was just much more relaxing to listen to. Even our host's wife agreed as did another buddy we'd invited. Next we compared the CD layer of the Reiner disc (through the Weiss) to the Classics reissue LP, and again, the LP was just much nicer to listen to. It sounded more real, had better string tone, and threw a wider and deeper soundstage, etc.. All who listened this evening, agreed that a relatively cheap record player TROUNCED a $7000 highly touted 'state-of-the-art' DAC. I admit that this isn't very scientific and there's plenty of room for slip between the audio quality of the various "versions" of these two venerable analog "classics" , but at the very least it shows that we shouldn't be too quick to pronounce the death of vinyl yet... even OLD vinyl. There's still a lot of musical enjoyment to had there. |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP still better than Digital?
In article ,
Audio Empire wrote: All who listened this evening, agreed that a relatively cheap record player TROUNCED a $7000 highly touted 'state-of-the-art' DAC. I'd be interested in knowing how a digital transfer of the LP fared playing through the same DAC. The problem, of course is getting a perfect transfer. However, if it actually is first rate and the DAC is as well, it ought to sound the same. If it does, then the other transfers are sub-par. If this transfer is sub-par then the problem might be how the transfer was made or how it is played back. In other words, I don't doubt the LP sounded better but there are too many variables to decide why. I have transferred a number of LPs to 192/24 using Pure Vinyl and a firewire DAC. I can also play the LP through the DAC without digitizing it. When I do this the LP sounds the same as the transfer. Frankly, I am not a critical listener. I just want it to sound right, although probably not perfect. Consequently, I am not trying to say anything is necessarily the ultimate that is possible. I am just trying to remove as many variables as I can. It is possible the LP played through the DAC sounds worse than it would have played through my Classe pre-amp, but that would have been the pre-amp not the LP. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP still better than Digital?
On Saturday, June 16, 2012 10:31:54 AM UTC-4, Audio Empire wrote:
I can hear the howls of derision now from certain parties who post here regularly. I'm out of my mind. There can just be no other explanation for it! Actually, what you'll hear is a big yawn. Cuz we've heard it all before, too many times. snip The first thing I did was make as sure that we used the controlled outputs of the SACD section of the Marantz player, the volume controlled outputs of the Weiss, for both the CD and the Firewire feed from the Mac to insure that the record, the SACD, the CD and the HD feed were all level matched exactly (at least to the test signals). Which, alas, doesn't mean anything, esp. given that you're comparing an analog recording to digital ones, all three of which have been mastered differently. I told my host, that most likely, what he was hearing as "sounding better" was simply because the LP was louder than the HD feed and my set-up procedure should eliminate that. That's one possibility (and you didn't really fix it), but there are at least two others that are as important or more so: 1) It is well known that LP reproduction involves audible levels of distortion that are often heard as euphonic. Your description of the sound is quite common, so this was almost certainly a factor. 2) As I said, you are listening to three different masters. Even if she tried to make an identical recording, Wilma Fine was not a calibrated test instrument. Her hearing wasn't same, her tastes and sonic preferences weren't the same, and she would certainly have been expected to take advantage of what digital recording offered her. Even if the only difference was in the levels of compression used, that would be enough to make one sound better than the other (and the more compressed one sound louder, most probably, your efforts at level-matching notwithstanding)/ I admit that this isn't very scientific and there's plenty of room for slip between the audio quality of the various "versions" of these two venerable analog "classics" , but at the very least it shows that we shouldn't be too quick to pronounce the death of vinyl yet... even OLD vinyl. There's still a lot of musical enjoyment to had there. Just as you say. I didn't mean to tweak you for being unscientific above, so much as to point out that it's impossible to be fully scientific given what you're trying to do. Of course vinyl can sound wonderful, for a variety of reasons. I'm glad your friend got to find that out. bob |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP still better than Digital?
On Sat Jun 16 14:31:54 2012 Audio Empire wrote:
I admit that this isn't very scientific and there's plenty of room for slip between the audio quality of the various "versions" of these two venerable analog "classics" , but at the very least it shows that we shouldn't be too quick to pronounce the death of vinyl yet... even OLD vinyl. There's still a lot of musical enjoyment to had there. My bet is that the LP grooves are sending uncorellated noise to both channels, giving an impression of spaciousness and even depth that is artificial but quite enjoyable. The higher freq noise would also give a "sheen" to the strings. I noticed several times that when I listened to an FM broadcast with a lot of noise surrounding the music (due to reception) the music had this imaging quality, as if the brain is trying to listen around the noise and fills in some details. Anyway, with uncorellated noise the two channels have a maximum difference from each other, which may have a psychoacoustic effect similar to sonic holography, or at least providing an artificial ambience behind the music signal. Gary Eickmeier |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP still better than Digital?
On 16 Jun 2012 14:31:54 GMT, Audio Empire
wrote: I can hear the howls of derision now from certain parties who post here regularly. I'm out of my mind. There can just be no other explanation for it! OK. Tonight I go to an audio acquaintance's home to try to solve a puzzle. This guy has a damn good system. His speakers are fairly new Wilson Sasha's. His amps are Nelson Pass XS-150 monoblocks and his pre-amp is an Classe CP-700. His front end is a Marantz SA-11S2 SACD/CD player. Recently he bought a Weiss dac202U digital to analog converter connected via Firewire to a MacBook Pro running Amarra. Several moths ago, his father-in-law passed away leaving him a considerable classical record collection. Our friend had no record player but his Classe preamp did come with a phono preamp option. Not really being all that interested in records, but being nonetheless curious about the record collection he'd inherited, he purchased a Music Hall MMF5.1 turntable ensemble for around $900 complete with arm and "Music Hall" branded MM cartridge (which I suspect is really a British Goldring). The dilemma is this. Right along, Our Friend has been purchasing High-Resolution downloads of things that interested him from HDTracks. Recently he bought the Antal Dorati/London Symphony 24/176.4 download of The music of Borodin and Rimsky Korsakov. Using his Mac and Amarra to stream the recording to his Weiss DAC, he was very impressed with the purchase until he found that his father-in-law had a copy of the original issue from 1961 on Mercury Living Presence LP. Just for the hell of it, he decided to give the LP a spin on his $1000 turntable rig. Expecting to laugh it off the turntable, he was startled to find that the LP sounded better than the HD download through his $7000 DAC!. That's when he called me. Turns out that I have both the mid-'90's CD transferred by Wilma Fine, the record's original producer as well as the later remastered SACD of the same title. I suggested that I bring them over as well as some equipment. I showed up over there this evening with both silver-disc versions of the Mercury disc as well as my test SACD/CD, a Shure test record, a copy of the BMC SACD of "The Reiner Sound" and a Classic Records 33.3 RPM reissue of same, and a HP400D RMS voltmeter. The first thing I did was make as sure that we used the controlled outputs of the SACD section of the Marantz player, the volume controlled outputs of the Weiss, for both the CD and the Firewire feed from the Mac to insure that the record, the SACD, the CD and the HD feed were all level matched exactly (at least to the test signals). I told my host, that most likely, what he was hearing as "sounding better" was simply because the LP was louder than the HD feed and my set-up procedure should eliminate that. Then we listened to the HD feed all the way through, then he put on the 50-year old record and after I made sure the volume was the same, we listened to that. There was no doubt about it. a 50 year-old LP on a $900 record player was much more musical, imaged better, had much better sheen to the strings, etc. The record was just much more relaxing to listen to. Even our host's wife agreed as did another buddy we'd invited. Next we compared the CD layer of the Reiner disc (through the Weiss) to the Classics reissue LP, and again, the LP was just much nicer to listen to. It sounded more real, had better string tone, and threw a wider and deeper soundstage, etc.. All who listened this evening, agreed that a relatively cheap record player TROUNCED a $7000 highly touted 'state-of-the-art' DAC. I admit that this isn't very scientific and there's plenty of room for slip between the audio quality of the various "versions" of these two venerable analog "classics" , but at the very least it shows that we shouldn't be too quick to pronounce the death of vinyl yet... even OLD vinyl. There's still a lot of musical enjoyment to had there. The Mercury CD transfers were notoriously bad, so using them as samples doesn't prove anything about the relative merits of LP v. CD. All the indications are that the HD files are upsampled copies of the CDs with their transfer faults. See http://mercury.lacyway.com/ CD reissues for some detail about the transfer issues. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP still better than Digital?
|
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP still better than Digital?
On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 13:44:28 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article ): On Sat Jun 16 14:31:54 2012 Audio Empire wrote: I admit that this isn't very scientific and there's plenty of room for slip between the audio quality of the various "versions" of these two venerable analog "classics" , but at the very least it shows that we shouldn't be too quick to pronounce the death of vinyl yet... even OLD vinyl. There's still a lot of musical enjoyment to had there. My bet is that the LP grooves are sending uncorellated noise to both channels, giving an impression of spaciousness and even depth that is artificial but quite enjoyable. The higher freq noise would also give a "sheen" to the strings. I noticed several times that when I listened to an FM broadcast with a lot of noise surrounding the music (due to reception) the music had this imaging quality, as if the brain is trying to listen around the noise and fills in some details. Anyway, with uncorellated noise the two channels have a maximum difference from each other, which may have a psychoacoustic effect similar to sonic holography, or at least providing an artificial ambience behind the music signal. Gary Eickmeier Possible. I guess. Whatever the reason, there's still a lot of listening pleasure in those old grooves for any rational music listener. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP still better than Digital?
On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 13:17:22 -0700, Robert Peirce wrote
(in article ): In article , Audio Empire wrote: All who listened this evening, agreed that a relatively cheap record player TROUNCED a $7000 highly touted 'state-of-the-art' DAC. I'd be interested in knowing how a digital transfer of the LP fared playing through the same DAC. The problem, of course is getting a perfect transfer. However, if it actually is first rate and the DAC is as well, it ought to sound the same. If it does, then the other transfers are sub-par. If this transfer is sub-par then the problem might be how the transfer was made or how it is played back. In other words, I don't doubt the LP sounded better but there are too many variables to decide why. Oh, I absolutely agree. But it's nice to know that there is still a lot of pleasure in records for many people. I have transferred a number of LPs to 192/24 using Pure Vinyl and a firewire DAC. I can also play the LP through the DAC without digitizing it. When I do this the LP sounds the same as the transfer. Frankly, I am not a critical listener. I just want it to sound right, although probably not perfect. Consequently, I am not trying to say anything is necessarily the ultimate that is possible. I am just trying to remove as many variables as I can. It is possible the LP played through the DAC sounds worse than it would have played through my Classe pre-amp, but that would have been the pre-amp not the LP. I get you. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP still better than Digital?
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
... I can hear the howls of derision now from certain parties who post here regularly. I'm out of my mind. There can just be no other explanation for it! You're not out of your mind, you're just too biased. OK. Tonight I go to an audio acquaintance's home to try to solve a puzzle. This guy has a damn good system. His speakers are fairly new Wilson Sasha's. His amps are Nelson Pass XS-150 monoblocks and his pre-amp is an Classe CP-700. His front end is a Marantz SA-11S2 SACD/CD player. Recently he bought a Weiss dac202U digital to analog converter connected via Firewire to a MacBook Pro running Amarra. Somebody clearly has money to burn. If he has spent as much time doing reliable listening tests as he has obviously put into sighted evaluations, his system would no doubt be very different. Several moths ago, his father-in-law passed away leaving him a considerable classical record collection. Our friend had no record player but his Classe preamp did come with a phono preamp option. Not really being all that interested in records, but being nonetheless curious about the record collection he'd inherited, he purchased a Music Hall MMF5.1 turntable ensemble for around $900 complete with arm and "Music Hall" branded MM cartridge (which I suspect is really a British Goldring). Doesn't even sound like the best stuff or even anything close. The dilemma is this. Right along, Our Friend has been purchasing High-Resolution downloads of things that interested him from HDTracks. Recently he bought the Antal Dorati/London Symphony 24/176.4 download of The music of Borodin and Rimsky Korsakov. Using his Mac and Amarra to stream the recording to his Weiss DAC, he was very impressed with the purchase until he found that his father-in-law had a copy of the original issue from 1961 on Mercury Living Presence LP. Just for the hell of it, he decided to give the LP a spin on his $1000 turntable rig. Expecting to laugh it off the turntable, he was startled to find that the LP sounded better than the HD download through his $7000 DAC!. The myth that is hidden in this anecdote is the idea that human preferences, which Science knows to be very capricious, has nothing to do with the outcome, and that the perception of better sound described therein was actually a reliable objective truth. |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP still better than Digital?
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
... On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 13:42:09 -0700, wrote (in article ): On Saturday, June 16, 2012 10:31:54 AM UTC-4, Audio Empire wrote: I can hear the howls of derision now from certain parties who post here regularly. I'm out of my mind. There can just be no other explanation for it! Actually, what you'll hear is a big yawn. Cuz we've heard it all before, too many times. There are some who post here regularly who have so much invested in LP being inferior to EVERYTHING, that those are the folks from whom I expected (and still expect) the howls of derision. Trust me, my investment in digital audio or just audio seriously pales compared to the aforementioned investment in equipment with highly questionable price/performance. If I'm prejudiced against what he has, he must be 100 times+ more prejudiced against what I have. |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP still better than Digital?
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Audio Empire" wrote in message ... Several moths ago, his father-in-law passed away leaving him a considerable classical record collection. Our friend had no record player but his Classe preamp did come with a phono preamp option. Not really being all that interested in records, but being nonetheless curious about the record collection he'd inherited, he purchased a Music Hall MMF5.1 turntable ensemble for around $900 complete with arm and "Music Hall" branded MM cartridge (which I suspect is really a British Goldring). Doesn't even sound like the best stuff or even anything close. I believe that that's part of his point. -- www.jennifermartinmusic.com |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP still better than Digital?
"Jenn" wrote in message
... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Audio Empire" wrote in message ... Several moths ago, his father-in-law passed away leaving him a considerable classical record collection. Our friend had no record player but his Classe preamp did come with a phono preamp option. Not really being all that interested in records, but being nonetheless curious about the record collection he'd inherited, he purchased a Music Hall MMF5.1 turntable ensemble for around $900 complete with arm and "Music Hall" branded MM cartridge (which I suspect is really a British Goldring). Doesn't even sound like the best stuff or even anything close. I believe that that's part of his point. His alleged point seems to be confusing personal preference with some kind of technological difference. |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP still better than Digital?
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 05:50:12 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message ... I can hear the howls of derision now from certain parties who post here regularly. I'm out of my mind. There can just be no other explanation for it! You're not out of your mind, you're just too biased. Pot, kettle, black! OK. Tonight I go to an audio acquaintance's home to try to solve a puzzle. This guy has a damn good system. His speakers are fairly new Wilson Sasha's. His amps are Nelson Pass XS-150 monoblocks and his pre-amp is an Classe CP-700. His front end is a Marantz SA-11S2 SACD/CD player. Recently he bought a Weiss dac202U digital to analog converter connected via Firewire to a MacBook Pro running Amarra. Somebody clearly has money to burn. If he has spent as much time doing reliable listening tests as he has obviously put into sighted evaluations, his system would no doubt be very different. Maybe, maybe not. This is all good stuff, now I agree with you, that there is no need to spend this level of money to get this level of performance, however, there's no doubt that the money he spent got him very decent sound. The amp/preamp ensemble is clean, the speakers are very good, the source components are excellent. Even the realitively inexpensive turntable does a better than average job. I wouldn't have bought that stuff. There is no need, but then bling doesn't matter to me as much as sheer performance does. . Several moths ago, his father-in-law passed away leaving him a considerable classical record collection. Our friend had no record player but his Classe preamp did come with a phono preamp option. Not really being all that interested in records, but being nonetheless curious about the record collection he'd inherited, he purchased a Music Hall MMF5.1 turntable ensemble for around $900 complete with arm and "Music Hall" branded MM cartridge (which I suspect is really a British Goldring). Doesn't even sound like the best stuff or even anything close. I think that's the point. "An under $1K phono rig "outperforms" a $7K DAC - one of the darlings of the high-end set." The dilemma is this. Right along, Our Friend has been purchasing High-Resolution downloads of things that interested him from HDTracks. Recently he bought the Antal Dorati/London Symphony 24/176.4 download of The music of Borodin and Rimsky Korsakov. Using his Mac and Amarra to stream the recording to his Weiss DAC, he was very impressed with the purchase until he found that his father-in-law had a copy of the original issue from 1961 on Mercury Living Presence LP. Just for the hell of it, he decided to give the LP a spin on his $1000 turntable rig. Expecting to laugh it off the turntable, he was startled to find that the LP sounded better than the HD download through his $7000 DAC!. The myth that is hidden in this anecdote is the idea that human preferences, which Science knows to be very capricious, has nothing to do with the outcome, and that the perception of better sound described therein was actually a reliable objective truth. The truth hidden in the myth of this anecdote is that if people think that the LP sounds superior to digital, then it does. The reason might be, as someone else suggested that the CDs were substandard transfers of the masters, and even though I don't believe that (I have all of the Mercury CDs that interest me and for the most part, Ms. Fine did a splendid job), it might have some merit. The audio hobby is about personal enjoyment of music more than it about absolutes. We can tell someone that cables and interconnects all sound the exactly the same, but if he believes otherwise, then what of it? Sure, I think it's criminal that companies like Nordost and Crystal are selling interconnects that cost multiple thousands of dollars and perform no differently than a pair of throw-away interconnect cables costing pennies, but if someone thinks that their many thousands of dollars investment in cables and interconnects has improved the sound of their stereo systems, who am I (or you, for that matter) to tell them they've been ripped off. If they can afford that kind of bling, the I say let them have at it! BTW, the stereo system owner in this anecdote called me last night to tell me that he'd spent one of the best audio weekends of his life. After I left, Friday, he dug into his FIL's record collection looking for treasures and thoroughly enjoyed his voyage of discovery. I say, good on him! |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP still better than Digital?
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 05:50:32 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message ... On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 13:42:09 -0700, wrote (in article ): On Saturday, June 16, 2012 10:31:54 AM UTC-4, Audio Empire wrote: I can hear the howls of derision now from certain parties who post here regularly. I'm out of my mind. There can just be no other explanation for it! Actually, what you'll hear is a big yawn. Cuz we've heard it all before, too many times. There are some who post here regularly who have so much invested in LP being inferior to EVERYTHING, that those are the folks from whom I expected (and still expect) the howls of derision. Trust me, my investment in digital audio or just audio seriously pales compared to the aforementioned investment in equipment with highly questionable price/performance. If I'm prejudiced against what he has, he must be 100 times+ more prejudiced against what I have. Who said I was talking about you? Besides, no one is talking about the equipment here, the mention of which is just background - to set the stage, as it were. The "howls of derision" would come from the premise and the conclusion, that even a modest LP rig can outperform a $7000 - and highly touted - DAC. |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP still better than Digital?
On 6/18/2012 4:44 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 05:50:32 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in ): "Audio wrote in message ... On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 13:42:09 -0700, wrote (in ): On Saturday, June 16, 2012 10:31:54 AM UTC-4, Audio Empire wrote: I can hear the howls of derision now from certain parties who post here regularly. I'm out of my mind. There can just be no other explanation for it! Actually, what you'll hear is a big yawn. Cuz we've heard it all before, too many times. There are some who post here regularly who have so much invested in LP being inferior to EVERYTHING, that those are the folks from whom I expected (and still expect) the howls of derision. Trust me, my investment in digital audio or just audio seriously pales compared to the aforementioned investment in equipment with highly questionable price/performance. If I'm prejudiced against what he has, he must be 100 times+ more prejudiced against what I have. Who said I was talking about you? Ahem, I should have thought that to be self-evident...though maybe not confined to him :-) Besides, no one is talking about the equipment here, the mention of which is just background Speak for yourself. I'm coveting those Sashas no matter what you say. Never met a Watt/Puppy that didn't sound hollow in the mids to me, but the Sasha changed that. Over twice the price of my demo Sophias however, so... - to set the stage, as it were. The "howls of derision" would come from the premise and the conclusion, that even a modest LP rig can outperform a $7000 - and highly touted - DAC. I don't think the modest LP rig can outperform a good digital 'rig' in any objective, measurable sense. Doesn't mean you don't enjoy the sound of the LP rig more though, which is what counts. Keith |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP still better than Digital?
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 19:30:02 -0700, KH wrote
(in article ): On 6/18/2012 4:44 PM, Audio Empire wrote: On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 05:50:32 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in ): "Audio wrote in message ... On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 13:42:09 -0700, wrote (in ): On Saturday, June 16, 2012 10:31:54 AM UTC-4, Audio Empire wrote: I can hear the howls of derision now from certain parties who post here regularly. I'm out of my mind. There can just be no other explanation for it! Actually, what you'll hear is a big yawn. Cuz we've heard it all before, too many times. There are some who post here regularly who have so much invested in LP being inferior to EVERYTHING, that those are the folks from whom I expected (and still expect) the howls of derision. Trust me, my investment in digital audio or just audio seriously pales compared to the aforementioned investment in equipment with highly questionable price/performance. If I'm prejudiced against what he has, he must be 100 times+ more prejudiced against what I have. Who said I was talking about you? Ahem, I should have thought that to be self-evident...though maybe not confined to him :-) It's still an presumption on Arny's part. 8^) Besides, no one is talking about the equipment here, the mention of which is just background Speak for yourself. I'm coveting those Sashas no matter what you say. I understand. They are very good (although different, I don't think that they are any better than my Martin-Logans). I could happily live with either. Never met a Watt/Puppy that didn't sound hollow in the mids to me, but the Sasha changed that. Over twice the price of my demo Sophias however, so... What I thought ruined the Watt/Puppy was the Wow. Every time I went to my local Wilson emporium, I had to ask them to turn the Wow off. Sure, it filled in the low bass, but at the expense of the rest of the presentation. - to set the stage, as it were. The "howls of derision" would come from the premise and the conclusion, that even a modest LP rig can outperform a $7000 - and highly touted - DAC. I don't think the modest LP rig can outperform a good digital 'rig' in any objective, measurable sense. Doesn't mean you don't enjoy the sound of the LP rig more though, which is what counts. My point precisely. It's the results that count. |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP still better than Digital?
Each time this topic has another life cycle I go again to a test to settle
it. Having its origin in this group a digital copy was made from an lp. A blind test was done to see if which was playing at any given time could be determined beyond guessing alone. It could not. Whatever was on the lp was captured in the digital to the degree source could not be determined. So when we see an lp and a digital recording compared in the present case we must first conclude based on the previous test, that something in the content was altered in going from lp to digital. The tests are different of course. In the previous test it made no matter which was preferred because if no difference could be spotted it was a mute question. If in the current test differences so large as to evoke preferences are heard our conclusion about change in content is also warrented. In the first test "better" was the same. In the current test it was different but has next to no relevance on the question of "better" because we must conclude the content is different. The "better" is the original content not the medium. |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP still better than Digital?
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:42:48 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Jenn" wrote in message ... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Audio Empire" wrote in message ... Several moths ago, his father-in-law passed away leaving him a considerable classical record collection. Our friend had no record player but his Classe preamp did come with a phono preamp option. Not really being all that interested in records, but being nonetheless curious about the record collection he'd inherited, he purchased a Music Hall MMF5.1 turntable ensemble for around $900 complete with arm and "Music Hall" branded MM cartridge (which I suspect is really a British Goldring). Doesn't even sound like the best stuff or even anything close. I believe that that's part of his point. His alleged point seems to be confusing personal preference with some kind of technological difference. Wrong, again, Arny. It's your prejudice against vinyl that showing here, not mine. My point was to show several things: Sounding great and being accurate can be two different things. And while there can be no doubt that digital done right is certainly technically superior to analog in every way (I look at it this way. When you switch between the state-of-the-art mike feed and the digital recording itself, and cannot hear ANY difference, then the recording format, while possibly still not perfect, is certainly better than the microphone one is recording, and better than that you cannot get), it doesn't mean that commercially sold digital recordings, whether Red Book or some high-end format like DSD or 24/192 will necessarily sound better than the vinyl release that came first. Any other agenda that you might ascribe to my anecdote, is purely of your own making. |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP still better than Digital?
|
#20
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP still better than Digital?
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
... On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:22:17 -0700, wrote (in article ): In the first test "better" was the same. In the current test it was different but has next to no relevance on the question of "better" because we must conclude the content is different. The "better" is the original content not the medium. Of course in my anecdote, we have no idea which of the copies sounded the most like the masters since we don't have the masters (originals) to compare to. I can only hope that the LP is a closer approximation to the master than are either the HiRez copies, the Red Book CD, or the SACD, because they definitely sound less like "real music" to all concerned. My suggestion would be to make a digital copy of the CD - any CD - and mix it with some uncorrelated noise, maybe even some blank groove noise ( a silent track if you can find one) and see if the "magic" of the LP comes through. The artifacts of LP reproduction are the only difference between the two media (aside from bass reproduction), and I predict that they must constitute the reason for all this discussion. Gary Eickmeier |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP still better than Digital?
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 18:11:00 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message ... On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:22:17 -0700, wrote (in article ): In the first test "better" was the same. In the current test it was different but has next to no relevance on the question of "better" because we must conclude the content is different. The "better" is the original content not the medium. Of course in my anecdote, we have no idea which of the copies sounded the most like the masters since we don't have the masters (originals) to compare to. I can only hope that the LP is a closer approximation to the master than are either the HiRez copies, the Red Book CD, or the SACD, because they definitely sound less like "real music" to all concerned. My suggestion would be to make a digital copy of the CD - any CD - and mix it with some uncorrelated noise, maybe even some blank groove noise ( a silent track if you can find one) and see if the "magic" of the LP comes through. The artifacts of LP reproduction are the only difference between the two media (aside from bass reproduction), and I predict that they must constitute the reason for all this discussion. Gary Eickmeier No, that's not the only difference. LPs are EQ'd differently than CD production (if done right). Besides this test has been done and it is definitely NOT the reason these LPS and digital copies sound so different. |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP still better than Digital?
On Saturday, June 16, 2012 10:31:54 AM UTC-4, Audio Empire wrote:
I can hear the howls of derision now from certain parties who post here= =20 regularly. I'm out of my mind. There can just be no other explanation for= it! Mpfffff. I will accept "sounds different" and I will even accept "sounds better" as = long as you add "to the two of you". Hey. That is why there are many flavor= s of ice-cream, and why stuff like Nutella or Bovril or SenSen still exists= .. De gustibus non est disputandum.=20 As to trouncing a $7,000 DAC, that is to be expected rather than to be a su= rprise. Given that after the first $150 or so the remainder is eyewash, smo= ke and mirrors one will be inevitably disappointed with any results out of = such a box assuming an honest listener is giving an honest opinion both rar= e commodities.=20 On the other hand, many here, including this person, still maintains a viny= l system or systems. And still takes pleasure in it. Along with tape, casse= tte, CDs, OTA tuner and HD tuner. And take pleasure in all of them. Which i= s better is a function of many things several of which are not rational.=20 Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP still better than Digital?
On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 16:23:31 -0700, Peter Wieck wrote
(in article ): On Saturday, June 16, 2012 10:31:54 AM UTC-4, Audio Empire wrote: I can hear the howls of derision now from certain parties who post here= =20 regularly. I'm out of my mind. There can just be no other explanation for= it! Mpfffff. I will accept "sounds different" and I will even accept "sounds better" as = long as you add "to the two of you". Hey. That is why there are many flavor= s of ice-cream, and why stuff like Nutella or Bovril or SenSen still exists= . De gustibus non est disputandum.=20 As to trouncing a $7,000 DAC, that is to be expected rather than to be a su= rprise. Given that after the first $150 or so the remainder is eyewash, smo= ke and mirrors one will be inevitably disappointed with any results out of = such a box assuming an honest listener is giving an honest opinion both rar= e commodities.=20 On the other hand, many here, including this person, still maintains a viny= l system or systems. And still takes pleasure in it. Along with tape, casse= tte, CDs, OTA tuner and HD tuner. And take pleasure in all of them. Which i= s better is a function of many things several of which are not rational.=20 Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA When one source of a performance sounds constricted, compressed and strained with a harsh top end and/or flabby bass and the same performance from another source is NONE of those things, but is, instead clean, with no OBVIOUS constriction or compression with a silky sounding top end and good taut bass with good extension, then that second presentation sounds better and more musical than the first. It's really that simple. There are lots of reasons why that might be so, and none of them really have anything to do with digital vs analog, per se. It has to do with the quality of the source material which, in these cases, would be so-called master tapes, which might not be microphone masters at all (and in fact probably aren't). But are rather third or fourth generation copies and might even be LP mastering copies that have been eq'd and compressed (with all the bass summed to the left channel) with LP cutting in mind. It also may be because these later CD transfers were indifferently mastered by people who don't really care what they sound like ("...this stuff is fifty-plus years old. Who cares about the sound?"). You never know. I have all of the RCA Red Seals remastered by BMG to SACD. I figured they ought to sound great because they are SACD. I bought the whole catalogue (some 60 discs) while they were available. They certainly sounded OK, and when they didn't come up to expectations, I put it down to master tape deterioration. Well, then JVC started to send me some of their Red Book XRCDs of many of these same titles. I was flabbergasted at how much better these JVC XRCDs sounded than the same performances on SACD! It was hard to believe that both came from the same master tape! The difference was, apparently, that JVC had access to the microphone masters of some of these recordings and they REALLY carefully made their Red Book CDs from those. The SACDs - well, who knows? Also, and I'm not saying this to be unkind, anyone who thinks that all DACs sound alike (as you seem to be saying) haven't really listened to different DACs in double-blind sessions. They do not sound the same. They may sound superficially similar, but they differ in the details. Things like soundstage presentation, depth, separation of instruments in the orchestral sound field and high frequency distortion are all over the place from DAC to DAC. These things are readily heard in a controlled DBT by anyone who cares to listen carefully. Sure I've run into people who have sat-in on DAC DBTs and have sworn that they cannot hear these things, but it's been my experience that such listeners have come into these tests with a chip already firmly in place on their shoulder and something to prove in their hearts. Take away what you will from that. Audio_Empire |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP still better than Digital?
I mostly agree with Audio_Engine. While it's fun to debate formats it is
also a little silly. I have LP's that sound great and I have LP's that are sound awful. I have CD's that sound wonderful and others that are nearly unlistenable. There are many variables that make generalizations difficult. The August 2012 _Absolute_Sound_ has a nice article by Robert Harley on the audio production chain that can result in a lovely or dreadful digital recording. Quite interesting. The LP is a remarkable technical achievement that still can make excellent music. It is almost incredible that it works as well as it does by dragging a little needle through a spiral groove. I am not throwing my records away anytime soon and you can still pick up great tunes at the swap meet for very little $$. So after my caveat about generalizations I will offer my opinion of the relative merits of the available recorded media with my own playback equipment: SACD - The best sound is from the format didn't quite catch on. Expensive. I will only purchase my very favorites or when available at close-out prices. I have about 30 SACD's. LP - A clean quiet disc of a good recording is next best. I have built a collection of 2000+ over the years and am still adding to it via swap meet and yard sale. Many are delightful historical objects to own. I can't bring myself to buy new discs at $25 though. CD - Digital recording and playback has come a long ways in the last 15 years or so. There is a universe of available music at reasonable prices. My collection is at about 1500 discs. Still below a good recording on a clean LP, IMHO, but capable of providing an enjoyable and moving musical experience. MP3 - Can't beat the convenience and the ultimate in portability. At best sounds washed out to me, somewhat like a cassette. I don't have any experience with the high bit/sample rate digital recordings yet. I imagine that they can sound very good and perhaps rival SACD. Of course, they are subject to the quality of the analog to digital chain as described in Mr. Harley's article. Paul South Pasadena, CA |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP still better than Digital?
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 04:36:42 -0700, Paul D. Spiegel wrote
(in article ): I mostly agree with Audio_Engine. While it's fun to debate formats it is also a little silly. I have LP's that sound great and I have LP's that are sound awful. I have CD's that sound wonderful and others that are nearly unlistenable. There are many variables that make generalizations difficult. The August 2012 _Absolute_Sound_ has a nice article by Robert Harley on the audio production chain that can result in a lovely or dreadful digital recording. Quite interesting. The LP is a remarkable technical achievement that still can make excellent music. It is almost incredible that it works as well as it does by dragging a little needle through a spiral groove. I am not throwing my records away anytime soon and you can still pick up great tunes at the swap meet for very little $$. So after my caveat about generalizations I will offer my opinion of the relative merits of the available recorded media with my own playback equipment: SACD - The best sound is from the format didn't quite catch on. Expensive. I will only purchase my very favorites or when available at close-out prices. I have about 30 SACD's. I have hundreds of SACDs, and I have to say that they are as variable as any other commercial format. I have great-sounding SACDs and I have mediocre sounding SACDs. LP - A clean quiet disc of a good recording is next best. I have built a collection of 2000+ over the years and am still adding to it via swap meet and yard sale. Many are delightful historical objects to own. I can't bring myself to buy new discs at $25 though. I too have over 2000 LPs. Like anything else they run the gamut from dreadful to truly magical. At their best, it's hard to imagine anything being better. CD - Digital recording and playback has come a long ways in the last 15 years or so. There is a universe of available music at reasonable prices. My collection is at about 1500 discs. Still below a good recording on a clean LP, IMHO, but capable of providing an enjoyable and moving musical experience. This is not my experience. My experience tells me that a CD, done right, is about as close to perfect as one could want. I have some JVC XRCD titles of both (British) Decca and especially RCA victor Red Seal titles that sound so great that they make the same titles, mastered by BMG to SACD, sound truly wretched by comparison. MP3 - Can't beat the convenience and the ultimate in portability. At best sounds washed out to me, somewhat like a cassette. MP3 is OK for background music and Internet Radio, but that's pretty much all. I can't stand to listen to listen to it on headphones and by the time that you kick-up the data rate so that MP3s are listenable on headphones, you might as well switch to FLAC or Apple Lossless Compression (ALC) because there is no longer that big of a difference between the size of the files! I don't have any experience with the high bit/sample rate digital recordings yet. I imagine that they can sound very good and perhaps rival SACD. Of course, they are subject to the quality of the analog to digital chain as described in Mr. Harley's article. I record in DSD, which is the SACD format. Unfortunately, I can't make SACD recordings from those DSD files because the disc format is NOT straight DSD. It involves special formating as well as some lossless compression (I've been told). IOW, burning a DSD file to a blank DVD does not an SACD yield and SACD authoring software is NOT reasonable ($5K for the cheapest app I've seen). However, I do have software called "Audiogate" that will allow a DSD file to be "translated" into Linear PCM and from that I can make everything from a 24-bit/192 KHz DVD-Audio Disc down to an MP3. Mostly I make 24/192 DVDs (using Discwelder Bronze) and Red Book (16/44.1) CDs (using Audacity) for myself and for clients. Of course, I've experimented with other formats and varying bit-rates. Here is what I have found: 24-bits sounds noticeably cleaner than does 16-bit, however, there is no advantage whatsoever to sampling-rates above 48KHz. I can compare 24-bit discs made at 88.2KHz, 96KHz, 176.4KHz, and 192 KHz and NOBODY can tell the difference in the same material laid-down in different data rates in a DBT. This is the easiest kind of DBT to facilitate. Merely burn a DVD-A with the same cut burned at the different sampling rates and in random order, slap the disc on a player that will play DVD-A and run it through either the player's internal DAC, or use a good external DAC, and let the disc play. Then let the listeners decide which is which. They can't. In fact several people that I have run this test for have questioned whether or not I actually recorded the sample cut in various sampling rates and suggested that they were all the same. I had to take the masking tape off of the player's vacuum fluorescent display on the player and SHOW them that the cuts were made at 48, 88.2, 96, 176,.4 and 192 KHz! As for digital's accuracy, as I said before, when the recording sounds EXACTLY like the mike feed when the monitor headphones are switched between the mike and the recording (on a digital recorder with read-after-write capability such as the Marantz PMD671), that's about as accurate as it gets. It means that, for all intents and purposes, the recording chain (from the microphone-on, anyway) is as totally transparent as it needs to be. Paul South Pasadena, CA |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP still better than Digital?
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:08:42 -0700, ScottW wrote
(in article ): On Jun 26, 4:36=A0am, "Paul D. Spiegel" wrote: LP - A clean quiet disc of a good recording is next best. =A0I have built= a collection of 2000+ over the years and am still adding to it via swap mee= t and yard sale. =A0Many are delightful historical objects to own. =A0I can= 't bring myself to buy new discs at $25 though. Out of a hundred or so used records I've found maybe one or two that are clean and quiet. People who dump their collections at the yard sales, swap meets, and thrift stores don't appear to generally be people who ever knew or cared to bother with proper care of vinyl....and still more played their old vinyl on BSR groove grinders that no amount of cleaning can overcome. That is unfortunately true. I've been to estate sales where some elderly gent has passed away, and found well cared-for LP collections, but at flea markets, garage sales, and yard sales, you'd be damn lucky to find anything worth buying (although I did find a perfect unopened copy of Rimsky-Korsakov's "Tale of the Tsar Sultan" and "Russian Easter Overture" on London once for $1!). IME there is far more clean and quiet bang for the buck in a Classic records or Analogue Productions reissue than all the swap meets in SoCal. Can't argue with that! |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP still better than Digital?
Audio Empire wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:08:42 -0700, ScottW wrote Out of a hundred or so used records I've found maybe one or two that are clean and quiet. People who dump their collections at the yard sales, swap meets, and thrift stores don't appear to generally be people who ever knew or cared to bother with proper care of vinyl....and still more played their old vinyl on BSR groove grinders that no amount of cleaning can overcome. That is unfortunately true. I've been to estate sales where some elderly gent has passed away, and found well cared-for LP collections, but at flea markets, garage sales, and yard sales, you'd be damn lucky to find anything worth buying (although I did find a perfect unopened copy of Rimsky-Korsakov's "Tale of the Tsar Sultan" and "Russian Easter Overture" on London once for $1!). Or the time I went to our local dump and found a large box containing 18 volumes of the Deutsche Grammophon Beethoven Bicentennial Collection maybe 60 LPs altogether. Each one unopened, unplayed, no mildew, each and every one in absolutely pristine, new condition. Oh, the box was the original shipping carton, as well. A week later, I went back and managed to grab maybe 1/4 of the Telefunken Bach Cantata collection, many of which were still in their shrinkrap. The whole mess, someone was throwing away. -- +--------------------------------+ + Dick Pierce | + Professional Audio Development | +--------------------------------+ |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP still better than Digital?
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 16:33:42 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ): Audio Empire wrote: On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:08:42 -0700, ScottW wrote Out of a hundred or so used records I've found maybe one or two that are clean and quiet. People who dump their collections at the yard sales, swap meets, and thrift stores don't appear to generally be people who ever knew or cared to bother with proper care of vinyl....and still more played their old vinyl on BSR groove grinders that no amount of cleaning can overcome. That is unfortunately true. I've been to estate sales where some elderly gent has passed away, and found well cared-for LP collections, but at flea markets, garage sales, and yard sales, you'd be damn lucky to find anything worth buying (although I did find a perfect unopened copy of Rimsky-Korsakov's "Tale of the Tsar Sultan" and "Russian Easter Overture" on London once for $1!). Or the time I went to our local dump and found a large box containing 18 volumes of the Deutsche Grammophon Beethoven Bicentennial Collection maybe 60 LPs altogether. Each one unopened, unplayed, no mildew, each and every one in absolutely pristine, new condition. Oh, the box was the original shipping carton, as well. A week later, I went back and managed to grab maybe 1/4 of the Telefunken Bach Cantata collection, many of which were still in their shrinkrap. The whole mess, someone was throwing away. I'd say you were very, very lucky, Dick. How did you manage to stumble on them? |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP still better than Digital?
On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:12:50 -0700, ScottW wrote
(in article ): On Jun 26, 3:53=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote: MP3 is OK for background music and Internet Radio, but that's pretty much all. I can't stand to listen to listen to it on headphones and by the tim= e that you kick-up the data rate so that MP3s are listenable on headphones,= you might as well switch to FLAC or Apple Lossless Compression (ALC) because there is no longer that big of a difference between the size of the files= ! Have you tried variable bit rate? I've just been using Windows Media player variable bit rate and highest quality. Sounds pretty good to me though I haven't paid much attention to file size. I'd use lossless but my old Sansa clip doesn't supports it. ScottW No, I haven't. I use Apple Lossless for ripping discs for portable use on my iPod Touch, and don't need compression for anything else except Internet radio, and of course, I have no control over what the individual radio stations do. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
[quote=... and of course, I have no control over what the individual radio
stations do.[/QUOTE] That ain't necessarily so. I use a DBX 118 dynamic range enhancer at about a 1:1.4 expansion ratio between my Mac MR-71 and preamp. The music, what little decent music is still going over the air, gets back some of the life the stations squeezed out of it. Not a perfect fix, by any means, but without it the music is lifeless. I wouldn't be without it. MS Last edited by Stager : August 13th 12 at 04:26 AM |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|