I have to ask this(actually, I thought I mentioned this in another thread.). It's been at least 25 years of digital. The equivalent in vinyl is 1975. I am currently listening to a pre-1975 album. It conveys the soul of music. Although digital may be more detailed, and even gives more detail than analog does(in a way), when will it convey the soul of music. This has escaped digital, as far as I can tell.
IMHO people object to digital playback and not the recording itself. Most of the LP material comes from digital masters but very few object to that. Perhaps the real problem is in the playback where in redbook CD (16/44.1) higher frequencies are represented by just few samples while resolution is only 1 part in 65k. Making 10 kHz sinewave in 4 points is very difficult while 20kHz in 2 points is practically impossible. AFAIK Nyquist requirement guarantees only preservation of the frequency (no aliasing) and not the amplitude. SACD is roughly equivalent to 20/96 and is already much better sounding than redbook CD. I've never heard 24/192 masters but few people who did said that sound is incredible.
THis evidences itself as lesser detail and resolution at higher frequencies. This will offend some more than others. Those with younger highly trained ears are likely more susceptible in general since ability to hear high frequencies is typically far superior when young and declines with age.
Learsfool, It`s fine that you1re a professional musician I don`t think it gives you any more or less authority on the topic. I have several good friends who play music for a living and when listening to music together in various home systems with a digital source have expressed complete joy and emotional connection with the performances. These people have had exposure to good analog and enjoy that as well. These sources were the Well tempered table and a Linn LP12. I certainly agree with fast42 and niacin, a properly setup using high quaility digital sources can sound absolutely soulful,passionate,vital etc. We have at times listen to the same titles in both formats to compare, one is`nt consistently superior to the other.
While it really depends on the recording, I think the remaining issue in digital is occasional glare in vocals and maybe a woodwind or upper-midrange piano note sometimes. But this is much less prevalent nowadays.
Learsfool, thanks for the thoughtful response. Unfortunately, however, your guess was wrong -- I am particularly interested in achieving the results I mentioned in the very areas that concern you, "the human voice, or other acoustic instruments, such as a full symphony orchestra". I have experienced one of the world's most respected classical guitarists playing on a couch opposite me, my brother blowing on a saxophone full bore a few feet away, and a time listening to a big band in full cry, where I stepped around the typically hopeless PA setup, and stood right next to the front side of the low stage, only a few feet away from the trumpet and trombone, etc. The latter experience was magnificent, effortless and massive sound; as a test, I "shouted" at the top of my voice during a dense passage, but could not hear myself at all, while the sound from the instruments was effortlessly enveloping and flowing over me, fantastic stuff. This level of reproduction is my benchmark ...
All those deficiencies you mention can be there in setups, but, and sorry, "distortion is distortion is ...". A very key point you make is "analog has more surface noise - but this type of distortion is not embedded in the music itself, and can be listened through". That is exactly the principle that I use for making digital playback (which is what I am using exclusively) work properly. Yes, the type is distortion is "different", but can, and I repeat, can be reduced to the point of being effectively, musically, inaudible. This is nothing to do with readings someone has got on a distortion meter, they are about as useful as saying a car has been measured as being capable of 100mph, for picking which vehicle is superior on the road!
I have certainly been able to enjoy, on a digital setup, the famous climax of Beethoven's 9th with the impact I mentioned earlier, and at the other extreme, the earliest recordings of Melba, 1910's or so, and the ambience and realism of the piano accompaniment in the distance delicately and convincingly captured ...
Kijanki, you are correct that I was speaking of the recording process, and not the playback; you are also correct that most audiophiles will be much more concerned about the playback. My objection is much more to the process of digital recording and processing, and what it does to the sound in the first place, long before anyone's playback system can get involved. Digital playback systems have indeed come a long way - I agree that SACD sounds better than CD, and I have heard a couple of 24/192 masters, which do sound pretty good.
Mapman, you are certainly correct about younger people hearing high frequencies better. It is also an unfortunate fact that everyone in my profession is guaranteed to lose at least 20% of their hearing during the course of our careers, due to the sheer decibel levels onstage. I'm not anywhere near that mark yet, but I should be wearing earplugs more than I do. I try to resist temptation to play my system loudly at home, and I try to avoid any other noisy environment when not at work.
Charles1dad, I didn't and wouldn't say that being a professional musician gave me any more authority on the technology; I was just explaining where I was coming from. That said, I do obviously have great familiarity with what acoustic instruments and voices sound like before they are recorded, and I am well qualified to judge whether a recording has captured this or no (even if I don't always completely understand the technical why of it). A performer's passion for the music should come through no matter how bad the recording and how bad the system it is played on; this is not what I was speaking of, nor was I speaking at all of enjoyment derived from listening to performances - for me, that goes without saying. For any musician, the performance always comes first - the recording is a very distant second, even among those musicians who also consider themselves audiophiles. If one is too busy listening to the recording or the system to enjoy the music, than priorities are most definitely in the wrong place, IMO.
Frank, while I think I understand where you are coming from now, we will definitely have to agree to disagree that "distortion is distortion is..." For me, it is not a matter of what types of distortion digital has managed to eliminate; it is a matter of what is not present in a digital recording that is in an analog one. To say that digital throws the baby out with the bathwater would be grossly exaggerating the case; but I and many of my fellow musicians do believe that digital recording/processing simply removes too much information (especially timbral and spatial information) from the music somehow, and I know more than a few recording engineers and equipment designers who agree.
Learsfool, I would just take issue with a couple of your points, if I may ...
"objection is ... the process of digital recording and processing, and what it does to the sound in the first place, long before anyone's playback": as the only way to know what 'has been done' is by monitoring via a playback of some form, how you can know when the sound has gone "astray". How you do know that the recording hasn't been "perfect", and that it isn't the playback at the recording location that is at fault. And before you say, of course the recording engineers are using high performance, professional equipment, remember my comment about a car capable of 100mph -- it's straightforward to make a car capable of staggering speeds, whether you to want to take a ride in it is another matter!
"what is not present in a digital recording that is in an analog one" and "removes too much information": this type of comment is still made over and over again, and waves a big flag to me that says: digital distortion in the PLAYBACK!
Vinyl has a distinctive, characteristic distortion of pops, crackles and whoosh, tape has one of high frequency hiss, and digital has one of sounding like information has been lost! Granted the latter type of distortion IS disturbing, of course it shouldn't be there, but getting rid of it is NOT solved easily. If it were, none of this type of discussion would take place. But it can be solved, many people have largely done it, there are comments by those who have transcribed good vinyl recordings to digital and then find it almost impossible to pick whether it is the LP or the digital copy playing. What the person has done, of course, is exactly equivalent to having a very high quality accoustic horn gramophone set up in the recording studio with a microphone stuck in front! And it worked ...
Learsfool, My friend who works for very large recording studio said that they got rid of very expensive analog tape recorders more than 10 years ago and everything since is done digital. Your ears, being in orchestra, plus experience with live instrument sounds, is better than mine (I'm sure), but how many people can tell just by listening if LP was recorded from analog or digital tape? I cannot do that, but even if I could detect small sound difference I would still prefer version without hiss of analog tape.
Such hiss can be suppressed in CD playback by de-emphasis but as far as I know cannot be removed from LP playback. On the other hand - de-emphasis feature of CD players is almost never used since everything is recorded digital (no tape noise) these days.
Frank, Kijanki, some very good questions. I'll do my best to answer them briefly. I'll start with Frank's discussion of playback at the recording site. I have had to record myself, or have a professional record me, more times than I care to count. More than a few times, I have convinced the engineer (always when it was a personal friend) to experiment with me, using both an analog and a digital set-up. I assure you, there are clearly heard differences between what is heard in the hall live, what is on the analog recording, and what is on the digital recording. It's a fun experiment to do, listening to the differences in timbre, and to the sense of space, or as audiophiles would have it, soundstaging and imaging and bloom and other such terms.
As far as orchestral recording goes, what I was thinking of was the difference between say recordings from the 50's and 60's, the so-called "golden age" of orchestral recording, and the way it is done digitally today. In the golden age, pretty much all of the best labels just hung a couple of mikes up out in the hall (or in the case of Mercury, high above the orchestra, usually about 15 to 20 feet, if I remember correctly). There was then very little done to the recording in the way of mixing, in the modern sense. Done in this way, the recording sounds about as close as it can get to what it actually sounds like to a live audience member sitting in the best seats in the hall.
Today, in a typical orchestral recording session, there may be as many as twenty mikes onstage, as well as overhead. Almost never are any placed out in the hall anymore. These mikes are much closer to the instruments than they should be, and then all of these separate tracks have to be mixed, which is almost never done on site (with the reference to the live sound). The resulting mix is therefore more what the engineer thinks sounds good (often even the conductor is not involved anymore, except on site) rather than a re-creation of what the performance actually sounded like in the space it was recorded in. You lose much more of the sense of a real space on this type of recording. And this is not to even go into how many edits are done nowadays compared to in the past. Often, what you are listening to on a modern orchestra recording has no real resemblance to any single take that was actually done. This is one reason why many people complain that modern orchestras do not sound as "musical" somehow as the older ones did - the "life" they are missing has indeed been taken out by the process. The average symphonic recording nowadays has hundreds of edits on it.
So to the playback - on a well-done recording, tape hiss is all but inaudible, and if one takes good care of their LP's, one can get dozens if not hundreds of plays from many of them without ever hearing a pop or crackle. Other times, these things are very audible; sometimes the pressing was bad and there is nothing one can do about it. Regardless, this is merely surface noise. I personally will put up with this if it means that I get a more accurate (meaning lifelike) representation/resolution of the sound of the instruments and voices I am listening to, and a better sense of the space that they are in (which, of course, very much affects their performance, which will change in subtle ways in a different venue on a tour, for example). Analog recording captures these things so much better than digital recording does - this is easily demonstrated on any decent system. There is no mistaking the difference between the best orchestral recordings of the golden age, and the ones done today that may have much less surface noise, but sound so much more characterless in comparison (speaking of the recording, of course, not the performance).
Learsfool, My friend who works for very large recording studio said that they got rid of very expensive analog tape recorders more than 10 years ago and everything since is done digital.
And many sites such as Apple have no intention of offering LP or master tape dubs because they make millions selling MP3.
Lets not confuse commercial interests with quality.
I have friends in the recording business and all of them say analog is still the best. There are high resolution files that pretty much equal analog but we mortals here at Audiogon have NO access to them.
Audiogon is about audiophiles and love of music. I understand the desire to make CD the best it can be, there are thousands of titles on CD that may never be on any other format. BUT as for best reproduction regardless of format, analog is still the best available to us as consumers, even if the master was digital.
I've explained that in other posts but can repeat here if you wish.
For me it is only issue of playback, since I cannot tell analog from digital master (other than hiss of tape). I believe it is better to allocate all resources into digital than building two systems (since LP selection is so limited).
Again, LP playback might be perfect but it doesn't "sound" good to my ears:
- clicks and pops - wear of the media - very limited selection - inability to listen to whole record at once - difficulty in changing tracks - no playlists - no way to make backup - no server - no wireless - no remote - constant cleaning - maintenance of the hardware - cost of supplies (including stylus) - wow and flutter - rumble - feedback
Learsfool, I'm pretty sure there are one mike digital recordings but agree that digital is promoting multi-microphone use. I'd like to know why they do it since one mike recording seems the most natural to me. They have to gain something by placing more microphones since it is more complicated. Is it an option to use deficient (cheaper) recording hall.
Long, long time ago I had decent TT but did not take enough care of records, I admit. Over time I got overly sensitive to pops and clicks. Today I would be very careful and also buy better quality vinyl - but it is expensive and buying used wouldn't be an option to me. It adds cost of the media to my previous list of turn offs.
I agree that with proper care I can get dozens or even hundreds of playbacks without clicks or pops but it also means that my favorite records will be gone first.
I see often these threads stating that digital has no soul, no quality etc. while my home system, being half decent, already sounds very good to my ears and has plenty of soul. Analog lovers are a little bit like communists - won't rest until everyone else shares their believes.
I'm sorry, Learsfool, like Kijanki, I'm going to have to do another round ...
A "thought" experiment: a classic Mercury recording session happening in the 50's, with that very straightforward microphone setup, feed the signals to both a modern, high quality analogue tape machine, and a current digital recorder setup. You're saying that, in every case of analogue tape and digital recorder setup, that the digital will be markedly inferior to the analogue upon playback, at that recording location on the day -- am I correct in understanding you?
If I am, then I would still beg to differ, because you still have not separated the process of recording from the process of playback! My experience is not yours of the quality of playback of digital, so my conclusion is that the recording has worked well enough, but the quality of playback varies quite markedly, and this includes the playback at the desk of the recording engineer! I have experienced very high quality analogue playback (and, conversely, highly excrutiating, blurred and harsh sound from very expensive vinyl setups), and have sat several rows back from the stage soaking up the vigour of Beethoven's 7th, and still have no difficulty saying that digital has no trouble, no trouble whatsoever capturing that experience ...
Well said Albert! Thank God for Reference Recordings HRx! This is probably as good as a mortal can get. :-) I am in total disbelief listening to these converted to LPCM DVD-A on my NWO-M! Amazing!
I guess what is not realized on this thread is that the best analog is what the best sound comes from, and if you can get digital to sound close enough, you already have a winner. IMO, of course.
LOL Kijanki, funny last comment on your latest post. It is not necessarily that I want to convert everyone to my beliefs, in fact there is more good vinyl for me if they don't! I am just trying to explain my own point of view. As always, it depends on what one's personal sonic priorities are. Those who place eliminating surface noise as their highest priority will of course always go the digital route.
I have never been involved with an orchestral recording session that did not involve multiple mikes. Even for my orchestra's archival recordings, which are broadcast on the local classical station, they use at least eight. I am not sure why this came about, either; as you say it doesn't really make any sense. I think it may be a case of "because they can." It also gives the recording engineer MUCH more personal control over what the end result of his mixing sounds like (as well as being much easier to edit - any idiot can make a recording with a laptop now). They almost never listen to what the musicians have to say about it, even the conductors nowadays very rarely get involved in what the actual end product actually sounds like. It's a crying shame, really. Technology winning out over aesthetics yet again.
Frank, your "thought experiment," unless I am mistaken somehow, is the exact experiment I was talking about having made several times, most recently about a year and a half ago. I am also not sure how you can conclude that a recording must have worked right without playing it back...
To put a finer point on this, I could agree that digital can decently capture the experience you mention (Beethoven 7 several rows back), this I am not denying; my argument is that an analog recording will capture it much better yet. Again, it depends on what your sonic priorities are. If one's priority is to recreate the timbre of the instrument, especially it's overtones, and the ambient noise of the room along with it, then yes, the analog recording was indeed markedly superior every time. Digital processing simply removes too many overtones from the very complex timbres of most acoustic instruments - something many designers are still trying to solve. Unfortunately, though in other aspects the technology has markedly improved, in this particular area (which is of course fundamental to musicians, who work very hard to get as close as possible to the exact sound they want) there has been very little, if any progress since the technology was invented.
Albertporter, -- "analog is still the best available to us as consumers, even if the master was digital" -- I obviously wasn't in the groove (no pun intended!) when I read that, your statement does not make sense!
Each process in transferring sound from a storage medium to our ears is either A->A or D->A, that is, either analogue to analogue, or digital to analogue.
Going from digital master to vinyl playback are (at least) the steps: 1) D->A: digital goes through DAC in mastering setup 2) A->A: analogue signal drives the cutter for the stamper disc 3) A->A: cartridge mechanically vibrates a coil or magnet to create a low level signal for the preamp 4) A->A: preamp boosts signal to create an analogue signal for the power amp
and you're saying that is superior to:
1) D->A: digital goes through DAC to create an analogue signal for the power amp.
Are you saying some sort of magic is taking place in those extra A->A stages? Yes, some type of filtering is taking place in these processes, but if you want that type of change of sound to occur just add an extra box to do some processing into your home setup. Of course, some people add tube circuitry into DAC's as a means of achieving this end ...
Learsfool, I'm pleased I did get the first bit right, that is, I was correct in understanding what you were saying.
But, as to "how you can conclude that a recording must have worked right without playing it back", I'm very sorry, another "thought" experiment, and bear with me please ...
Recording a signal digitally and playing it back, for BOTH monitoring AND home playback purposes, is in essence two key processes: A->D, a conversion from an (microphone) analogue waveform to a digital representation (which from then on can be captured with zero distortion), and D->A, the digital representation converted back to an audio signal driving, say, headphones. Let's say, for argument, there was 10% distortion, loss of information, change of sound or whatever you want to call it in this overall process. Where was this 10% lost? Was it:
1) 10% loss in the A->D and 0% in the D->A, OR 2) 0% loss in the A->D and 10% in the D->A, OR 3) 5% loss in the A->D and 5% in the D->A, say
Based on my experiences I would, as a very rough guess, say: 0.1% loss in the A->D and 9.9% in the D->A
and it appears to me that you think it's 1), that is 10% loss in the A->D and 0% in the D->A
That's where we differ, and that's why I believe digital CAN do the job ...
The recording is usually done in the analog domain using high quality Pro tape machines, or direct-to-disc cutting lathe, or at high resolution digital PCM or DSD. So unless if you have a vinyl pressing from the master analog tape or high-res digital master (DSD or PCM 176.4/24 +), there is no way to experience anything that is even close to the original performance.
What Albert tied to say is that, even though the original master recording is initially done in the digital domain, it will 99% sound best on vinyl compared to any uncompressed (WAV or AIFF) digital with less than 176.4/24 resolution. I do have recordings that were done on vinyl and also in SACD/DVD-A so I can compare. Not only that, I've experimented with my own digital recordings from my vinyl setup using the industry-standard top-line AKM Analog to Digital Converters. For the record, nothing that is WAV or AIFF and less than 176.4/24 or 192/24 compares to the vinyl on A-B test. The CDs I made from those tests are my “car copies”.
So while I am sure you are immensely enjoying the convenience of your digital, it really takes a great deal of effort to approach analog quality with digital. CD can indeed sound very nice but nowhere near vinyl made from the original analog or digital master recording.
Albertporter, -- "analog is still the best available to us as consumers, even if the master was digital" -- I obviously wasn't in the groove (no pun intended!) when I read that, your statement does not make sense!
Each process in transferring sound from a storage medium to our ears is either A->A or D->A, that is, either analogue to analogue, or digital to analogue.
Going from digital master to vinyl playback are (at least) the steps: 1) D->A: digital goes through DAC in mastering setup 2) A->A: analogue signal drives the cutter for the stamper disc 3) A->A: cartridge mechanically vibrates a coil or magnet to create a low level signal for the preamp 4) A->A: preamp boosts signal to create an analogue signal for the power amp
and you're saying that is superior to:
1) D->A: digital goes through DAC to create an analogue signal for the power amp.
Are you saying some sort of magic is taking place in those extra A->A stages? Yes, some type of filtering is taking place in these processes, but if you want that type of change of sound to occur just add an extra box to do some processing into your home setup. Of course, some people add tube circuitry into DAC's as a means of achieving this end ...
I pasted this without even reading it, I know where you're going and it's wrong.
WE CANNOT GET HIGH RESOLUTION FILES. The guys that record music have the good stuff, they sell us the crappy MP3 and CD.
If you convert the ultra high resolution files at the studio (source) to analog it gets a lot of what was on the hard drive.
When the hard drive is down sampled over and over to produce what is available to us at Best Buy, it's much less resolution than the best analog.
Alex, -- "takes a great deal of effort to approach analog quality with digital" -- yes, I agree, it is simply easier to get pleasant sound from a TT than frequently the typical at home CD setup. But that is not the fault of the CD medium itself, but IS the fault of the CD playback mechanism. Simply put, it is injecting too much unpleasant distortion directly into the signal, AND adversely affecting the following amplifier stages. Subtle distortion, yes, but very unpleasant.
So, again, I emphasise, it is at the actual moment that the digital recording is being played, running through the DAC when the damage is done. Let's consider those tests you did:
1) Vinyl to top line AKM ADC encoded at 192/24: Recording 24 1) Same vinyl to top line AKM ADC encoded at 44.1/16: Recording 16
Now, from my point of view, Recording 16 is effectively the same quality as Recording 24, assuming the AKM device is top line as you say.
Now let's play them back -- for argument's sake in a SACD player. Oh dear, Recording 24 is much better than Recording 16! You would say, just what I expected. But I would say, what's happening is that the mechanism in the SACD player is much better at its job of playing back Recording 24 than it is of Recording 16; in other words, at the point of playback more "nasty" distortion is being generated directly and indirectly by the SACD player when ACTUALLY PLAYING 44.1/16 material than when PLAYING 192/24 material, even if it is of the same original audio!
So, in simple terms, the CD sound is lousy because the CD playback is not working properly, or at least not as well as the SACD playback ...
Well said Albert! Thank God for Reference Recordings HRx! This is probably as good as a mortal can get. :-) I am in total disbelief listening to these converted to LPCM DVD-A on my NWO-M! Amazing!
I guess what is not realized on this thread is that the best analog is what the best sound comes from, and if you can get digital to sound close enough, you already have a winner. IMO, of course.
Best wishes, Alex Peychev
Having good digital is important for anyone who wants to hear those artists that don't release on LP.
I wish there was a CD player that allowed me to listen without being constantly reminded of it's flaws.
That being said I have heard positive things about your players if you're the Alex Peychev that does all the digital work.
My friend Joe Harley who's behind the Blue Note Jazz Vinyl Reissues at Music Matters was also responsible for the JVC HRCD project. Joe and I have been friends for 30+ years, he has an incredible ear !
Joe told me that the best digital, sitting on the drive in the studio was enough to make analog guys like he and I appreciate what digital can do. He then explained that every time It’s moved or transferred, reclocked or down sampled it takes a huge hit.
I think there is a lot going on with digital clock speed, error rate and bit problems that really screw with the sound. Eventually this problem will be solved but I'm not going to wait.
When digital gets where it should be and for a price I can justify, I'll jump on board. I have digital right now but it's an Oppo.
Oppo is "OK" at best, but priced like a used interconnect here at Audiogon :^). So, the fact it has flaws is acceptable for price paid.
The problem is many players that cost $15K, 20K $45K and more beats the stuffings out of the Oppo but still gets creamed by my Studer and turntable. With that much invested in digital I'd be pissed.
Hope I live long enough for it to be fixed. I think the technology is there but like I've posted here at Audiogon a dozen times, as long as Apple is making hundreds of millions selling MP3, the guys capable of issuing (true) high resolution digital are not even looking.
Albertporter, I'm sorry, it appears at the moment that you're starting to come from the direction of "conspiracy" theories, and definitely we are too far apart in our thinking. Thanks for the input anyway and cheers ...
I wish there was a CD player that allowed me to listen without being constantly reminded of it's flaws.
Same here but its very difficult creating such beast. :-)
That being said I have heard positive things about your players if you're the Alex Peychev that does all the digital work.
Yep, same Alex Peychev. :-) Thank you for the nice words!
My friend Joe Harley who's behind the Blue Note Jazz Vinyl Reissues at Music Matters was also responsible for the JVC HRCD project. Joe and I have been friends for 30+ years, he has an incredible ear !
Joe told me that the best digital, sitting on the drive in the studio was enough to make analog guys like he and I appreciate what digital can do. He then explained that every time It’s moved or transferred, reclocked or down sampled it takes a huge hit.
I respect Joe Harley, although I don't know him in person. I agree with him because my experience is similar.
I think there is a lot going on with digital clock speed, error rate and bit problems that really screw with the sound. Eventually this problem will be solved but I'm not going to wait.
Absolutely, clocking and data transfer are very important, but there is more. :-)
When digital gets where it should be and for a price I can justify, I'll jump on board. I have digital right now but it's an Oppo.
Oppo is "OK" at best, but priced like a used interconnect here at Audiogon :^). So, the fact it has flaws is acceptable for price paid.
I don't blame you! With analog sources like yours it will be next to impossible not to find digital flaws.
The problem is many players that cost $15K, 20K $45K and more beats the stuffings out of the Oppo but still gets creamed by my Studer and turntable. With that much invested in digital I'd be pissed.
Sure, but in my experience there are also recordings available on high-res digital media that, for some reason, sound better than the analog release, so I guess good digital is not a bad thing to have around.
Hope I live long enough for it to be fixed. I think the technology is there but like I've posted here at Audiogon a dozen times, as long as Apple is making hundreds of millions selling MP3, the guys capable of issuing (true) high resolution digital are not even looking.
Maybe you would consider auditioning my NWO-M digital player, and I'd be thrilled if Joe Harley can hear it too!!
My system won't like any cable with more than a whisper of dielectric. :-)
My Audio Note with important diode change, and 47 Lab Flatfish feeding it will change your mind.
That would be nice, wish we lived close enough to each other to listen together.
I heard one of the upper level Audio Note DACs some years ago at the home of one of the members of my audio group. I admit It was prettier than most of what's out there.
We got very different results with each transport and cable. I thought the best was with the CEC belt drive.
Sorry my mid fi digital rig has out performed some very expensive analog rigs iv'e heard lately . I'm wondering what a very hi end dig rig in a properly synergized system would do for music . A friend who has spent an amazing amount of time and money on his analog set up , not to mention building and voicing is entire system around that rig , recently purchased a mid fi Cd player and often comments on it not being close to analog . The cost is about one tenth the analog rig and little has been done to voice the set up . What can I say .
Folks have been saying that digital is poor-sounding compared to their old vinyl. I'm wondering if the big problem isn't that digital sounds bad, per se, but maybe a a lot of the problem is that most recordings are mixed and mastered by engineers who don't care about the sounds of the end result, and only want to mix it really loud and get it out the door.
I have also read that mastering of recordings has changed, for the worse, since the days of vinyl, before CD. I listen to rock, jazz, jazz/fusion a lot and I am finding that practically every CD in these genres that comes out these days are heavily compressed and in general sound like crap.
So maybe a lot of the problem is in the mastering for CD?
I am getting disheartened. So maybe CDs in my favorite genres sounds like crap that I'm almost thinking of getting out of the game.
One of my all-time favorites and system test disc is the Reference Recordings "Rachmaninoff Symphonic Dances".
If you hear the difference between this excellent CD and the RR 176.4Khz/24bit HRx disc made from the original analog master, you will change your mind, forever! :-)
Simply, half of the info is missing on the CD and there is no transport or DAC available to make up for it!
Oh, sorry, Aplhifi, that is something I plan on trying, computer fed music. It is not as easy as I hoped. The USB interface provided for AN is not well liked.
Data volumes and available bandwidth of many home digital systems and associated higher costs is still a major barrier for large scale application of high res digital.
It will continue get better over time.
Source material may still be limited, but it is possible for one to implement high res digital in their home systems today if really desired, but the cost will be high and overall utility to users will be lower in most every aspect save perhaps the one that matters most to audiophiles: sound quality.
mp3 and other compressed formats are not a conspiracy against good sound as many expound, but more of a practical compromise that helps enable greater value to the masses overall. Sound quality is just one thing that most factor into their buying decisions.
When it comes to top-quality, there are only several CD transport manufacturers in the world of which Sony, Philips and Pioneer are used the most for building audiophile equipment. There are some manufacturers building their own mechanisms, but the Digital Signal Processors (DSPs) used are still Sony, Philips or Pioneer (and strangely enough, some recent Sony and Denon products use Panasonic). This being said, I have extensive in-depth experience with all of the above that includes pure CD, CD/SACD and CD/SACD/DVD transports.
You are correct that it is much easier to obtain best results with a regular CD transport, but there are limitations to it. The processors are old, noisy and 16 bit (no headroom). The disc spins at x1 speed so there is not much room for large size memory buffering (only 512KB of FIFO memory is used), and the so called "read until right" is impossible, so you hit it and it skips.
On the other hand, most CD/SACD/DVD universal transports are built with newer, faster and quieter DSPs with at least 24 bit resolution (lots of headroom for CD data processing). The DSPs have built-in memory controllers and large SDRAM memory devices attached to them (16, 32 or even 64MB). The disc spins at x4 filling up the SDRAM memory. The laser pick-up can go back to a problematic passage and re-read it until the best information is retrieved, all while you are enjoying uninterrupted audio data coming from the memory buffer. The transport jitter is greatly reduced. But what is the problem with such transport then? Unlike CD-only transport, the “universal beast” needs multiple clocks produced by a PLL-based multi-clock generator, usually locked to a 27MHz video clock reference. The PLLs used are very jittery thus decreasing the entire transport performance. But what if the original PLLs and VCOs are replaced with a single PLL solution that is so advanced that its phase noise is as low as the one of a bare crystal? You have a winner, and there is no regular CD transport capable of competing with it, IMHO!
The 47 Lab Flatfish transport is house made. It is a top loader rigidly supported. The sound feeding my DAC is as pure as the driven snow. I share your thought on simplicity.
The 47 Lab Flatfish transport is house made. It is a top loader rigidly supported. The sound feeding my DAC is as pure as the driven snow. I share your thought on simplicity.
Sure, the metal transport housing pieces are house-made, not the actual CD transport. CD transport is the laser/tracking/spindle motor assembly and associated Digital Signal Processing and Servo. That cannot be house-made so it is either Philips or Sony.
Albertporter, when I read your response to my earlier posting I was somewhat taken aback, and hence responded a little brusquely, I apologise for that.
Following that posting by myself, I went "Back to the Future" and looked at the thread material of late '08', and very vigorous it was too! To me, the nub of it in relation to yourself was your comment:
There was a time when I put all my effort into making digital right and at one time I had my system where digital and analog were very close. One day a friend who had not visited in a long time, a guy with excellent ears, listened with me and pointed out the fact that I had managed to "down grade" the analog source to make the digital warm and friendly enough to enjoy.
After that, I returned to my quest to make the music as dynamic, transparent, resolved and emotionally involving as possible and when that formula is applied, analog excels and CD falls.
I can very much sympathise with your "battle", as in many ways I have gone through similar myself: the difference being that in my case I was able to reach a positive, rather than negative outcome, with what would be considered pretty ordinary equipment, playing very ordinary CD's; others have seemingly achieved similar results. I will just repeat what I have said elsewhere that I have experienced very expensive, highly tweaked, at home vinyl setups that have sounded a) stunning, and b) excrutiatingly harsh and unpleasant, so I certainly am aware how there can be two ends of the scale, irrespective of the time and money spent.
The answer, to repeat myself, is system engineering, and yes, in digital it can be much harder to get it right, compared to vinyl, but superb results on that "nasty" 44.1k digital CAN be achieved.
Finally, a "thought" experiment. I would suggest that your own system, in top form, be modified by the addition of a black box completely hard wired in, with a bypass switch. This would be engineered so well that it would be 100% transparent with the bypass engaged (unlike how all these DBT setups most surely are typically set up,) to yourself and anyone else you care to have listen. In the black box is a "done right" 44.1 analogue to digital converter feeding a 44.1 digital to analogue converter, engineered CORRECTLY with current technology, and, you can guess what's coming, I would seriously suggest that the people listening would find it close to impossible to pick when the extra circuitry was part of the mix ...
It is clear how much in-love you are with your transport, and I appreciate that, but have you seen how a top-line Esoteric VRDS-NEO compares to the "outsourced" transports you are talking about? Take a close look at this here. The "outsourced transports" are on the left. Please note that the shiny disk you see on the picture is a Magnesium clamper that is not only a clamper but the actual spindle motor. In other words, it clamps and spins the disc at the same time.
Alex, thanks for that set of thoughts! I agree with you, minimising phase noise is everything, but I would say the only place where it is critical is right next to the DAC chip (or discrete circuitry, Accuphase, say). The big trouble with separate transport and converter box is getting the clean clock where it is needed, and of course as you know there are many ways of doing this. I am intrigued to note that the newish Naim DAC solves the problem by having multiple, slightly different frequency crystals, so you have minimal buffering needs AND bare crystal phase noise. And, by all accounts, it can do an excellent job of the converting ...
I can very much sympathise with your "battle", as in many ways I have gone through similar myself: the difference being that in my case I was able to reach a positive, rather than negative outcome, with what would be considered pretty ordinary equipment, playing very ordinary CD's; others have seemingly achieved similar results. I will just repeat what I have said elsewhere that I have experienced very expensive, highly tweaked, at home vinyl setups that have sounded a) stunning, and b) excrutiatingly harsh and unpleasant, so I certainly am aware how there can be two ends of the scale, irrespective of the time and money spent.
The answer, to repeat myself, is system engineering, and yes, in digital it can be much harder to get it right, compared to vinyl, but superb results on that "nasty" 44.1k digital CAN be achieved.
Finally, a "thought" experiment. I would suggest that your own system, in top form, be modified by the addition of a black box completely hard wired in, with a bypass switch. This would be engineered so well that it would be 100% transparent with the bypass engaged (unlike how all these DBT setups most surely are typically set up,) to yourself and anyone else you care to have listen. In the black box is a "done right" 44.1 analogue to digital converter feeding a 44.1 digital to analogue converter, engineered CORRECTLY with current technology, and, you can guess what's coming, I would seriously suggest that the people listening would find it close to impossible to pick when the extra circuitry was part of the mix ...
I appreciate your passion, I felt that way at one time a good many years ago.
As time passes you realize it's a delusion that you can make a difference and then get down to the business of making music the best you can with what really works and what is available instead of just wishing.
I am friends with a good many people in the business, have completed advertising photography for dozens and dozens of high end brands, both analog and digital.
The short answer is, only long term listening can reveal what is really right and what is not. Digital can be "good" but never the level of analog master tape or LP at its limit.
Over the years we have had duplicate copies of both CD and LP and compared with many brands and quality levels. If you get LP reproduction poor enough and digital good enough then digital can make a good showing.
If you have analog at the best it can be and digital the best it can be then analog wins unless there is an extraordinary (bad or good) copy on both sides. I can't cling to the <20% times when digital makes a "decent" showing for an investment of $25K +.
Over the last few years I've worked hard to accumulate master tapes. I had my Studer rebuild two years ago by the (previous) head guy at Studer USA. You have no idea what this machine can do, it will scare the hell out of you sometimes and set your head straight as to what is possible.
My turntable when it's maxed out at 100% can get maybe 80% (+) of what the tape is doing. The CD is not worth comparing at that point, believe me.
Also, read this (partial) post of mine on this same thread nearly three years ago. It's still very much true and why I sometime come off as angry.
I've had at least a hundred thousand dollars worth of digital through my system, most on loan or product that was a perspective item for review. I also bought a lot.
When a promise is made over and over and disappointment follows there are a couple of reactions a person can have. Sadness that it's not what you were expecting, and later (after the same things happen fifty times), anger that you were taken advantage of.
I've had this enough times to be angry, I've given up on digital other than for background or breaking in components. Happy for others that have made it work, perhaps we hear differently or it's a system thing.
(Alex) Sure, but in my experience there are also recordings available on high-res digital media that, for some reason, sound better than the analog release, so I guess good digital is not a bad thing to have around.
I don't disagree that digital is good to have around. I have a player but it's really only impressive on Blue Ray.
I'm frequently frustrated to find an artist I really love (an excellent example HERE ) and find there is no LP release.
Buying and playing on poor performing digital only makes me angry, most of my CDs get transferred to my iPod and play in the car where the sound is so bad you don't notice :^).
(Alex again)Maybe you would consider auditioning my NWO-M digital player, and I'd be thrilled if Joe Harley can hear it too!!
I would be pleased to hear what you have. Joe lives in California, so unfortunately I only see him at shows. When I was younger I traveled to visit friends out there pretty often.
Many fond memories of good times with Steve McCormack, Richard Vandersteen, Joe Harley, Mike Elliott (Counterpoint) and many others out there but we have all gotten older and life more complicated.
""""It is clear how much in-love you are with your transport, and I appreciate that, but have you seen how a top-line Esoteric VRDS-NEO compares to the "outsourced" transports you are talking about? Take a close look at this here. The "outsourced transports" are on the left. Please note that the shiny disk you see on the picture is a Magnesium clamper that is not only a clamper but the actual spindle motor. In other words, it clamps and spins the disc at the same time."""""
Aplhifi,
Ok, I looked and was unimpressed. As I said, the Flatfish is an outstanding performer. All the heavy armor never did any good against the fleet of hoof power hitting Mongols. All the heavy mass CD spinners with whatever clamps cannot make any ground against the short path simplest parts Flatfish.
The reason is, the answer is in the 47 Lab philosophy, "Only the simplest can accomplish the most complex."
That is correct; clocking is very important, as well as transports, DACs, analog stage etc. It is really a synergy of everything, and same applies to analog and the complete audio system. So if you are happy with it, just smile and enjoy your favorite tunes. :-)
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
