lowrider nailed it
My system has been essentially the same for a couple years; Marantz HD CD- 1 used as a transport, Audio Alchemy DDP-1 + PS 5 (preamp/dac), WireWorld cabling, and Emerald Physics KC II speakers with WW wire loom upgrade and Clarity Caps). Amp was Audio Alchemy DPA-1 (both AA pieces got a fabulous review in TAS just 3 years ago) but at 125w was not able to create an adequate spl in my large room.
I then tried PS Audio M700s, which, at ~ 2.5xs the wattage did much better job in my room, but fortunately, I got wind of Ric Schultz’s new EVS 1200 class D (as were the other amps) but Ric uses the newest IcePower 600w modules (2 per amp= true dual mono) with lots of tweaks to the modules and elsewhere. All this for $2200 sounds too good to be true, He offers a money back guarantee, so with nothing to loose I dug deep into my bug out money and took the plunge, knowing I would sell the DPA-1 if the 1200 brought the goods.
Rics 1200 is not an off the shelf amp. It takes him a good bit of time to do the mods, and each is built to order, though he does so in small batches. It took almost 2 full months to get it. While it sounded good from the get- go, the transformation from ~50-80 hours play time was jaw dropping. The music sounds intimate/delicate when it is, and brash and bold when it is. When properly recorded, the music is EXTREMELY life-like, still catching me off guard.
For me, the analog v digital debate is no longer an issue, but I will try a 'better" dac
|
So what you’re saying is, you don’t have a turn table to compare with, so you’ll just assume your DAC setup is better. Got it. Im sure glad you told us that story about how awesome your class D amp is though. |
|
Anyone can listen to a cd or a files and a vinyl with the same very known musical piece and decide for himself if the analog version and digital one are close enough..."Close enough" is the key concept, because there is big difference between 2 turntables in different system and rooms, like there is difference between files read trough different convertor...
Even if you compare in the same embedding audio room, vinyl turntable with a digital convertor with the same speakers and amplifiers, the results means nothing,because you can have a better convertor that will make the listening more analogous...There will always be some turntable better than my convertor, and there will always be some convertor better than your turntable, it is a without end technological hierarchical progression toward an asymptotic point where the resolution powers of your ears reign supreme...
The only thing that count is your impression, is this music playing with an electronical halo or glare or not FOR YOU? In my digital system the answer is no for my ears...Good bye turntables...
Turntables are not religious necessities in an audio life...Neither the convertors, or class D amp....Music is music, with or without a turntable or a convertor...
By the way the most important choices and decision are not nowadays between a turntable or a digital convertor, these choices are up to the "taste" and caprices or budget of the audiophile, they are only a preference not a life and death audio decision...The important decisions and choices nowadays are between the cleaning, treatments, and tweaks that will transform the house and room embedding of the audio system relatively to mechanical vibrations, electro-magnetic interferences and noises, and acoustical dispositions of the room, nevermind if you have a turntable or a convertor...These choices are vital choices not the choice of a convertor or a turntable... Nowadays with the technology involved these choices between convertors and turntables are only markets hyped ideology and facts... There is fantastic turntables, and there is fantastic convertors also, thanks to many great audio engineers...But most houses and rooms are noisy, and destructing the music, unbeknownst to the owner... This is fact, and a real problem, not hypes or dogmas or debates between different audio religious characters...
|
I have never really understood this whole argument or concept of trying to get one to sound like the other, they do not and never will.
I embrace multiple analog and digital sources and accept each one for what it is and what it brings to the table, warts and all.
NONE of them sound the same and that’s just fine and dandy with me.
Today is a streaming day.
Tomorrow might be a vinyl day.
Next day might be a cassette tape day.
So what?
I am just enjoying the music.
Remember that’s the aim. |
I have never really understood this whole argument or concept of trying to get one to sound like the other, they do not and never will. @uberwaltz Generally, and for most systems, I agree. There, however, is convergence at the highest levels for both approaches. Our definitions for musicality, emotion, engagement, life-like, naturalness, accuracy, etc. don’t change based on the source type. |
Mahgister
i have read many of your posts and enjoy your enthusiasm. However I have to comment on your opinion of vinyl rigs and records as superfluous material. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, so here is mine. Nothing could be more superfluous than a collection of rocks and minerals linked together by wires and some sort of electrical box in the music room. I say this as a professional geologist while listening to Uriah Heap on CD.
Enjoy the music!
|
David
Agreed and musicality is the end game for me.
That being said there are and always will be different levels of said musicality achieved via differing sources and mediums.
However that is not how I read the OP.
Pursuing analog sound sound from digital is not quite the same as trying to extract the highest level of musicality from each source possible.
Without attempting mostly unsuccessfully to obtain analog sound from digital ( which on its own is a user definable aspect with even more sub arguements available?).
Just my viewpoint of course.... |
uberwaltzI have never really understood this whole argument or concept of trying to get one to sound like the other, they do not and never will. That depends on what the goal is. If the goal is accuracy, the best analog and digital can sound remarkably similar. If you want to test that claim, use a first-class reel-to-reel deck and the digital recording equipment of your choosing and connect them simultaneously to the same live mike feed. On playback, A/B the results. You might be surprised. There are some listeners who prefer the warm distortion that some analog recorders impart, and that’s a fine preference. But that doesn’t mean both analog and digital can’t achieve a high level of accuracy and when they do, they can sound quite alike. I embrace multiple analog and digital sources and accept each one for what it is and what it brings to the table, warts and all. Me too! It needn’t be an either/or thing. |
flatblackroundI only say that vinyl are superfluous for ME... And i say that against those who promote vinyl as a theological miracle in sound...By the way i dont recommend to ALL people to place rocks under cable etc etc... I only partake my discovery about the noise level and simple means to improve it with the use of crystals on certain location... Each one of us have his own agenda to battle against noise...But noise is THE problem.....I listen to Mompou with these rocks now, and trust me a geological course does not teach all that is to know about rocks and sound... I wish you the best... P.S. There is and will always be a difference between vinyl and digital, not so much in musicality "per se" because the technology is so advanced now that there is only a little margin of audible difference... But for example the effect on health by the sound is improved with analog and not so by digital, this important fact speak about analogous against digital... These things being said i prefer digital because of the convenience and the impossibility to transform my 10,000 files of music in 10,000 vinyls...And a turntable when I own one was a pain in the ass for me...I dont even mention the price of my low cost miraculous dac versus the cost of the same quality turntable for my system... |
I am very pleased to learn that analog music is better for one’s health. Old fart audiophiles should be pretty healthy and look forward to a lot more listening. I know I get a good workout moving this stuff around.
Incorporating my mineral and rock collection is way down the list of possible system improvements and tweaks that circulate in my brain. Actually it is not on the list. Just can’t go that far. Great that it has worked for you.
Back to the topic. Yes, by all means push digital as far as you can and want to. It sounds like music to me.
|
Sorry, not buyin’ it. Digital is a pale facsimile of what it should be. I don’t even have to compare it to analog. Unless you’re extremely motivated and pugnacious you simply can’t extract all of the data on the CD. No way, Jose! And if you don’t do anything at all the best you can expect is about 50% of what’s actually on the CD. And that’s if you’re lucky. Heck, the humble cassette on a Sony Walkman has more life, sweetness and air than a CD ever thought of having. So give me a break! Yes, I know what you’re thinking, “but my CDs sound fabulous!”
|
A turntable is mechanically very vulnerable to vibrations of his own makings and constant fluctuations of the courant from the wall for his continuous rotations, not speaking about the needle deficiencies and limitations and other things that are problematic... Sorry nothing is perfect not a dac neither a turntable... Pick your problem but dont speak about a panacea...No grudge against you Master Geoffkait … : )
A walkman is not like speakers, and most headphones are not speakerslike at all...I dont know what you listen to but me I want more than clarity and air, I want 3-d musical holography and more than that naturalness of timbre in music...You owns a very good walkman indeed... A very good headphone too it seems...
By the way I own some vinyl of Moondog 45 years ago that I listen to with my turntable and if I listen to it now in files format it is like night and days for the perceived details... It is too easy to say that 50 % of the sound is not perceived with a cd... This is only caricatural sayings about a much complex issues indeed implicating more factors than only the opposition turntable versus dac...
I concede tough that for the human nervous system anolog sound is better for health than digital.... Nothing is simple and nothing is so simplistic to be on the same side of the equation...
Dont take it personal Geoff I like you very much....:)
|
Anyone who’s spent time in a good digital studio knows a first generation multi track digital mix can sound very transparent and engaging.
Commercial digital releases are sampled and resampled at least 4 times so they just can’t sound as liquid as analog or the original tracks.
Too bad record companies don’t release multi track releases with sub mixes to be listened to on a program like Reaper or Pro Tools. That would be a whole new ballgame. Until then, although my digital system is more expensive I usually listen to vinyl.
|
Yes it’s possible - EAR Acute Classic, Audio Note DAC and Lampizator Big 7 willl serve your needs. |
My system sounds amazing. No harshness. I have detail, an expansive sound stage, and the voices sound like they are in the room with me. Digital streaming and class d amplifiers. Worth it! |
Raise your hand if you wear glasses so you can see 20/20.
Raise your hand if you have corrective hearing devices that normalize the environmental damage and adjust hearing parameters according to your effective 'listening' age.
So even since Ben Franklin we've been able to smooth out differences in vision. Now, other than 'hearing aids' the same does not exist for hearing and there is no 'standard' other than hearing 'beep' 'beep' at difference frequencies, which is not the same as hearing music or reading a street sign at 40 feet. The only true benchmark we have is getting a 12-year old to listen to something and we deduce what we missed by them describing what they heard.
How many still cling to their black box faux wood grain 27" CRT's playing S-VHS? That's analog.
But how many think our 4K TVs are actually showing 4K...or even HD...it's digital anyway....but it's okay for vision....I just ignore the sloppy compression and carry a film projector with me just in case. |
Listening age is an old wives tale.
|
"Ticks" and "pops" in vinyl are usually caused by static and dirt. Clean your records and then get rid of the static before you play them. Of course, take care of your records in the first place. No more noise. |
Whats that you say Katie?
Speak up young fella please!
|
mayor
I have owned several hi-end TTs, and have heard many exotic high end TT setups ($$$$$) at various friends' houses many many times
That aside, you're welcome regarding my experience so far with the EVS 1200
|
As a vinyl lover for years I was not able to enjoy digital as much as vinyl. But my perspective has changed! Several improvements to the power supply (including grounding) of my system and to my digital front end have further reduced the difference between digital and analog. A vibraplane platform and an oversized solid core silver power cord (DIY - not expensive!) were further improvements. I would have never thought a simple red book CD is able to deliver a 3-D stage with imaging while at the same time providing high resolution without sounding noticeably digital. Obvious flaws of early digital recordings remain unpleasant to listen to - but if the recording and mixing was done right even a red book CD is able to impress!
|
cleeds2,434 posts09-11-2019 1:41pmelliottbnewcombjrDigital is a broken chain, no matter how many links, how much you polish those broken links, Digital will/can NEVER be the unbroken chain analog is. It isn't clear what you mean here. Digital isn't perfect - and neither is analog - but neither represent a "broken chain." Of course, some people believe that digital data is missing because of sampling rates (which is false, as long as Nyquist is observed) or that the LP has infinite resolution (which is false, or you could install Windows on it).
.......................
ah, I used wrong terms, how about this: analog is unbroken ribbon, digital is an assembled chain.
mouth, mic, lp cutter = unbroken ribbon. mouth, mic, tape = unbroken ribbon. lp groove, stylus, phono eq, amp, speaker = copy of an unbroken ribbon. tape, tape eq, amp, speaker = copy of an unbroken ribbon.
digital is bits, assembled into a chain, no matter how many, how manipulated, how quiet, ....
after some 45 years, my simple summation is: analog has unbroken overtones in perfect timing, relative strengths, decay strength, ....
Analog is definitely higher noise ... Often true, but no inherently so. It depends on the analog recording and the digital recording to which it's being compared.
Experiencing the Artist's conceived presentation of their chosen play list, in the order presented, is a part of LP ... And of CD, too.
... amplification, it's the same, transistors were the instant on, less heat, more affordable dream, again, just not nirvana, not Analog like tube amplification is ... Again, it isn't clear what you mean here. Solid state amplifiers for hi-fi use are certainly analog.
....................................
yeah, I am wrong about that, audio transistor amps are analog, thanks for catching that. given analog source, why do I prefer tubes to digital amplification? they say tubes include warm distortion, whatever it is, given great speakers (high efficiency for tubes), properly matched to the listening space, both sound great. When I do comparison testing, i.e. Sgt Peppers, CD; LP; R2R tape, I, and everyone, pick LP over CD, and Tape over LP, and, without fail, my 30 watt tube amps over my 300 wpc SS McIntosh. The LP has more noise than the CD, the Tape has more noise than the LP, yet |
I’ve had this debate with myself for years.
Finally after much changing of equipment I’ve got to the point where both analog and digital domains are almost equal in quality.
It is true there are variations between the two media, but now they’re both musical in my system. |
I’ve had this debate with myself for years.
Finally after much changing of equipment I’ve got to the point where both analog and digital domains are almost equal in quality.
It is true there are variations between the two media, but now they’re both musical in my system. |
Here's a thought. Anyone in socal willing to do an A-B comparison with his or her system to the available folks here on this thread? I'm sure hearing is very subjective so if we can all hear the same comparison, we may be able to come up with an agreement between digital and analog. You're all welcome to come to my house but my system is less than ideal although vinyl does sound smoother imo. |
So, for CD playback, and I don’t mean to be snooty, everything is broken. A simple comparison of cassette vs CD will confirm. Broken lines, broken strings,
Broken threads, broken springs,
Broken idols, broken heads,
People sleeping in broken beds
Ain’t no use jiving
Ain’t no use joking
Everything is broken
Broken hands on broken ploughs
Broken treaties, broken vows
Broken pipes, broken tools
People bending broken rules
Hound dog howling, bull frog croaking
Everything is broken
|
As a long-time recording engineer and mixer, my preference is for digital as it is what I heard in the studio. Mastering for vinyl and pressing a record changes the sound significantly from the master mix. No doubt that some people prefer the way the vinyl process changes the sound, but it is not the same mix the artist, producer and engineer heard in the studio. |
Maybe it's time to review your meds GK... |
Dear friends : My take on this audio subject is that ech one of us are not totally rigth or totally wrong. In some ways each one of us have more or less " reasons " about. What’s not questionable is each one of us preferences, this is out of question. I’m with the gentlemans that think today digital technology is superior to the analog/LP medium. Even that I like LP technology too, at the end I’m a music lover and then an audiophile too. Digital and LP have its own trade offs, a lot more negative trade-offs in the LP side nd that’s why makes no sense to me that some of you are against digital because does not sounds like the LP but all of you analog lovers need to make a favor and ask your self: why digital should be sound s analog when analog/LP is a wrong technology full of degradations and full of distortions? why is your reference against digital? Maybe could be because is what we are accustom to for many many years but this fact does not tell me and can’t tell me is the rigth way to go because today it’s not when the digital it’s. I listen to both formats and even that like almost all of you I’m accustom to LP sound I know for sure digital is superior. LP signal degradations and full of distortions????. Please let me explain where through the long road the recorded LP signal information must pass before we can listen nothing through our speakers: With out " seeing " both whole proccess ( digital/LP ) I want to analize 2-3 steps on the analog side: RIAA eq.: this analog recording step is " fulminant " for the audio signal, terrible for say the least, because we have to think that from 20 hz to 20 khz the audio signal is equalized in between ( around ) -18 db to +18 db. In reality the RIAA is an equalization curve, a severe one that affects every single MUSIC note/harmonics. Other step is that the equalized audio signal must be recorded/cutted and end in the vinyl material where is imposible to be faithful to that " original " equalized audio signal. All these severe audio signal degradation does not exist in the digital recording process that’s more " direct " than analog. Exist other degradation issues in the analog recording process but with those are enough by now. Playback at each one of us room/system: digital is extremely easy and more " direct " too, with a lot lesser signal degradation than in analog and when we are taling of " signal degradation " we are talking that we are adding distortions at each of those additional steps. Digital needs a DAC and is " done ". There is no need of a phono cartridge with all its disadvantages and other additional steps to listen it. During playback process and before the cartridge we have to " figth " with every kind of unstabilities in the TT even on speed accuracy, motor noises, damping problems and the like. Along those comes the LP imperfections as: off center records and the fact that all LP comes with macro and micro surface waves due that are not totally flat. All those develops additional distortions to the analog playback experiences. But not all stops there, the worst is forth coming when the stylus tip touch the first recorded groove: first than all is that for the playback process stays faithful to the recording that stylus tip must be ridding/tracking exactly with the same angle that the grooves where cutted ( this never happens not even in LT tonearms. ) and must rides/follow those grooves adding nothing but the movements/modulations that produces those grooves. This is that must mimic the grooves with out any kind of generated vibrations/movements kind of feedback: impossible to achieve it, all the analog playback process is added by different kind of distortions and we can´t do nothing at all. ELLIOT.. POSTED: """ analog is unbroken ribbon, digital is an assembled chain. """ really?. No way my friend, analog is an assemblend chain and not only because the cartridge stylus can’t read exactly the recorded modulations but because at micro and I mean it MICRO levels the stylus tip is not riding stable and continuos but with micro jumps. Each groove modulation is an obstacle/wall for the cartridge very tiny stylus tip In that stylus tip job exist differences on the problem/distortions levels depending on the stylus tip shape, stylus clean shape, stylus tip damaged level, LP surface clean condition or dust, and very critical the self cartridge tracking abilities and the cartridge/tonearm accuracy in the set-up. A nigthmare for say the least. But things go on: that cartridge is mounted in an imperfect item name it: tonearm that generates by it self several kind of different distortion levels some by its feedback and some other because not well damped design and all these affects and degrades the audio signal. Additional the audio signal must pass through the tonearm internal wires and cartridge tonearm input/output male/female connectors before gone to the phono stage. More distortions generated there. The worst for the end: signal goes through the phono stage: at this step begins the real earthwake a full 10.0 Ritcher scale one when that already and heavy degraded audio signal must pass for the inverse RIAA eq. that never can mimic the recorded RIAA eq. due that always exist deviations ( the phono stage spec in your unit: 20 hz to 20 khz +,- 0.1 db., in the best cases. ). This second equalization stage destroy per se what left of that audio signal but things goes on because the signal must be amplified almost 10K times ! ! ! ( LOMC cartridges. ) before the linepreamp can handle the signal. So, now just imagine if what we are listening through the LP is better than on digital medium where the signal did not pass through all those " torture " analog steps.. We like analog because for to many years we are accustomed to those very high distortion levels: we are accustom to, our ears/brain takes it as the rigth sound to listen MUSIC when digital is something totally " new " for the brain. NO analog/LP it’s not the rigth sound. Today digital is nearest to the recording and nearest to what the recording microphones pick-up and these means nearest to the live music. Analog/LP is far far away from there no matters what. Btw, all those gentlemans that can’t listening for more than 20 minutes digital because the " harsness " or digital sound have a room/system probelm and why I think this way: digital is really more more demanding that analog. Through today digital medium this medium can’t hide all the room/systems " errors "/distortions at each one room/system link when through analog/LP all those room/system self distortions are totally hidden due to the higher distortions generated/developed in the LP playback proccess. Today digital is a true test for every single room/system. If digital just does not performs good/rigth in your system then you are in trouble. Period. In the other side nothing is wrong with digital vs analog because for your information inside our ears all of us have an ADC !!!! surprise?, please read these article information where we can read these 3 highligths about: """ the ear. This small organ has quite a few surprises in store for us. We’ see that it’s literally crammed with equalisers and dynamic compressors, including a multi‑band one. It even includes an extremely efficient filter bank, as well as a highly sophisticated analogue‑to‑digital converter. The Inner Ear: Multi‑band Compression, Pitch Tracking & ADC"" There are two kinds of hair cells. The outer hair cells are the actual receptors. When the tectorial membrane moves, so does the hair on the the outer cells. This movement is then encoded into electrical digital signals and goes to the brain through the cochlear nerve. """ " "With the hair cells, we come to the end of the audio path inside the ear. Hair cells are neurons, and the purpose of the outer hair cells is to convert the mechanical vibrations that come from their cilia into nerve signals. Such signals are binary (all or nothing), and seem to be completely decorrelated from the analogue signals to which they correspond. In other words, they’re digital signals, and the inner hair cells are analogue‑to‑digital converters. """ Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. Just for your records please read what this gentleman posted on digital:
https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/interesting-project-started-by-michael-fremer/post?postid=1261854#1261854
and look his room/system:
https://systems.audiogon.com/systems/615
|
I forgot: Do you know that our brain has a very complicated sampling rate for harmonics that we think we can't hear?
R. |
this may sound odd, but I try and get my vinyl to sound like cd and my cd to sound like vinyl. By that I try and get cd warmer and the vinyl to sound clearer and distortion free |
rauliruegas
I forgot: Do you know that our brain has a very complicated sampling rate for harmonics that we think we can’t hear? >>>>>I did not know that. 🤪 |
Dear @parrotbee : Why do you want to get CD warmer when live MUSIC seated at nearfield position is everything but warmer ?
I don't know what is your reference, mine is live MUSIC and digital puts me nearest to that reference.
R. |
I'm no expert but I like vinyl sound more than digital even with it's vices because real sound is not harsh. Analog has it's own coloration but at least there's no harshness to the reproduction. This is the only reason I don't favor digital. If it's possible to remove the digital harshness completely, then there's no advantage to vinyl, imo. |
Dear @jaferd : Harsh through digital? , then your room/system has problems with. Please re-read my long post.
Digital is not harsh per sè, problem is in your system. You don't need to be an expert to understand it.
R. |
Der @geoffkait : """
digital generally still sounds thin, unnatural, bloated, bass shy, inarticulate, congealed, zippy, two dimensional, generic, metallic, electronic, like paper mache, bland, hard, piercing, compressed, airless and sour ""
you have a problem too, not digital technology.
R. |
@rauliruegas I've stopped worrying about the cerebral requirement for having a live reference.
My simple test now is does the sound connect me to the music? in which case warmer cd, cleaner vinyl - I may be unconsciously making them sound the same.
I can't remember the last un-amplified live jazz, or rock ever heard - do you? Probably a street busker without electricity. I don't work in a studio so I don't sit in a booth mastering sound.
I do listen in the near field - but I have found the move towards a tube output CD player which certainly ain't harsh and cold. I don't find that near field lacks warmth - in fact I don't understand your remark that near field is anything but warm - being far or near is about perspective and imaging - not warmth.
let me put it this way - play rock via a naim nait 3 amp in the near field using a CD player without tube output vs a tube amp driven by a valve output phono stage - there's gonna be a world of difference in warmth. |
rauliruegas
Der @geoffkait : """ digital generally still sounds thin, unnatural, bloated, bass shy, inarticulate, congealed, zippy, two dimensional, generic, metallic, electronic, like paper mache, bland, hard, piercing, compressed, airless and sour "" you have a problem too, not digital technology. >>>>>>When’s the last time you had your ears candled? 🕯 |
Ok GK, I'll bite. What gatefold album did you get those lyrics from???? :-) |
All crap. Lets face it old guys. Digital is way more accurate than analog, you don't have to deal with noise issues or the 10% harmonic distortion or the needle getting stuck. You are all disillusioned by the fact that there is very little to tamper with. No tweaky stuff you can make yourself think you made sound better. All an illusion. You are all ripe targets for any scheister that wants to rip you off with magic trinkets and silly wire.
"digital sounds thin,unnatural, bloated, bass shy, inarticulate" and on and on and on. My back side. I could call it for what it is but then my post would be deleted. Which it probably will anyway.
I love vinyl. I have so many records I can't help but love it and there is an art to the best vinyl playback but it is not more accurate than full res digital. It can't be. Just look at the distortion specs of even the best cartridges. As high as 10%!
You might care to notice that I did not say digital sounds better than analog. I said it was more accurate. |
To the OP, atm PS Audio has a promo going on that will allow you to trade in ANY PS Audio DAC toward the purchase of a new Direct Stream DAC.
They will give you a $2000. credit for your old DAC, no matter age, or model. I have a PSA NuWave DSD DAC that I purchased new, after they were discontinued for $800. They will give me 2K toward the DSD.
I'm very tempted to jump on a new DSD, directly from PSA for 4K. I would rather go this route than purchase a used unit for a few hundred less. Just my 2 cents.
Might be worth looking into...
|
mijostyn
All crap. Lets face it old guys. Digital is way more accurate than analog, you don’t have to deal with noise issues or the 10% harmonic distortion or the needle getting stuck >>>>Accuracy is a tricky thing. On paper CDs are specified/promoted to have at least 90 dB Signal to Noise Ratio and 90 dB Dynamic Range. Yet on CDs the tape hiss from the original master tape is almost never audible whereas it is on records and cassette. One wonders what else is missing. As for noise and distortion in CD playback it can be reduced significantly with vibration isolation and RFI/EMI countermeasures, etc. So, obviously there is considerable noise and distortion in CD playback to begin with, you’re just used to it, that’s all. So what good is the 90 dB spec? As for the “theoretical” 90 Dynamic Range the overly compressed CDs these days kind of eliminate that spec for any important or meaning. As for the musicality by comparisons to the same recording on record or cassette the CD in most cases sounds like a poor facsimile in terms of bass articulation, sweetness, air and dynamics. |
rauliruegas9
Let me say this about accurate. First, I never said anything about accurate, analog or CD, and I did say Digital can be involving. Your list of LP chain of distortions is phenomenal, OMG, thanks for that, I mean it. How do we not hate LP after hearing accurate digital? How can many of us find severely compromised LP 'more involving' than accurate and admittedly involving CD? My answer, after 45 years of paying attention, by instinct (no evidence I know of), is analog's reproduction of overtones is somehow better than digital's, and somehow our brains perceive the difference. My most accurate speakers were JSE Infinite Slope Model 2's. Measured and positioned using professional sound meter in my listening space, via acoustic designer, I moved my big efficient horns/15" woofers elsewhere and listened to accurate noiseless CD's and those accurate speakers via accurate McIntosh SS 300wpc amp for a few years. I decided to move the horns/15" woofers back, Oh Happy Day, preferred them. Then, because they are so efficient, I moved my 30 wpc tube mono blocks back in. Oh Happy Day. Then I resurrected my Thorens/SME/Shure MR back in. New LP's sounded terrific, more involving. Older LP's, too much obvious noise. I had to re-acquire my brain's ability to filter the noise to be immersed within those noisy LP's. Of course new LP's, especially ones recorded by people who knew what they were doing are preferred. Gave the JSE's to my son, he came of musical age during the period of their use, he loves them. Thorens 124 bearing's weakness was bass transferred from my springy floor (split level built in 1951), so I sold it, got a modern digital drive TT, it sounds terrific, as good as the Thorens/SME without the floor vibration transference problem. And, here we are, advising OP, many of us who love LP's, that he will do better with TT/LP's than digital, IF, as he says, he desires the elusive 'LP Sound'. OP mentioned digital mid-range preference, but like you, I suspect that is a speaker/room interaction issue unrelated to Analog or Digital. Analog is wrong but I prefer it! |
mijostyn
re: personal involvement in results is a part of LP preference I agree. In the beginning, CD players were prohibitively expensive, acquired by people likely to already have excellent TT and acquired cartridge alignment skills. Those skills, bit by bit (hah, that's a digital process)) steadily improved their existing LP sound. (and R2R as Tape was also a rich mans game). CD took away all personal involvement in the results, 'threw away' the years of acquired skills. Also, early CD's were conversions of old analog masters. Incredibly, (I read somewhere back then) some LP masters, having 1st stage phono eq, were converted without 2nd stage Phono EQ. The complaint of harshness was true because those digital copies had exaggerated highs and cut bass. A switching DAC, alternating left/right processing was less desirable than dual Burr-Brown dacs. more bits, 1 bit, less jitter, OMG, green stripes on the outer edge of CD's, the string of what could be 'improved' was longer than the list of what is wrong with the entire LP chain. Except for the green stripes, and placing barbell weights on top of your CD player, personal involvement was/is still missing. |
Of course, every response here is based on the personal equipment of the poster.
How can there be any accurate judgement when everybody’s listening on different components?
Fruitless endeavor. |
Longtime vinyl lover here--someone who successfully transitioned to digital-only in the desktop audio setting (including quality headphones--very revealing of digital). A few observations:
1 - The trad way to get better sounding digital is to throw extreme money at delta-sigma conversion chips. Things like intricately designed input sections; big power supplies; heavyweight output sections; and sometimes, exotic bit-shaping circuitry in the digital section (ie, not defaulting to stock filter options of the chip itself. I haven't heard any of these dreadnaughts, which can cost upwards of $20K-$30K, but trust the comments I read that these DACs are a glimpse of sonic heaven.
2 - But back in the real world, I found one needn't spend so much or work nearly so hard to get better digital sound. I'll echo what teo_audio said about R2R & ladder DACs. Yes, it's an old technology and requires precise resistor matching (if a true ladder is used); or absent that, a very well conceived & programmed FPGA section. But these types of DACs sound far less "digital" than anything I've yet heard.
3 - In my experience, the NOS (non-oversampling) variant of R2R & ladder DACs is best for me. The sound is simply more organic, relaxing, suggestive of recording space, and representative of actual, 3-dimentional instruments (which produce 3D notes). Not all NOS DACs are amazing--these designs have to be very carefully planned & executed w/quality parts. But that's a given in any audio sphere.
My 1st non-D/S DAC was the humble NOS 19 by the well-known Chinese audio designer/mfr, Audio GD. It completely transformed my relationship w/digital. For the first time, I could relax and hear music coming from this DAC. I got interested in Audio GD and decided to buy their biggest selling DAC ever, the resistor ladder DAC-19. It, too, is very fine-sounding digital.
I since sold the NOS 19 & replaced it with an NOS DAC I got interested in, the MHDT Labs Orchid. It, too, offers very humane, musical sound. I just swapped out the stock tube from the buffer circuit for a highly-recommended NOS variant. Even w/o the tube being fully burned in, it already sounds rather amazing. |
(forgot to say) Ladder DACs are hardly a "new thing." Theta Digital & a couple others did tremendous development/refinement of early R2R circuits in the '90s, and some of those DACs are still around, sounding amazing. But the mass market never adopted this form of digital, preferring delta-sigma instead (by a wide margin). And now R2R & ladder DACs are having a distinct renaissance, luckily for me. |
Wrm57 said it correctly
I’ve listened to two excellent & expensive vinyl systems
They are better....
The question for me is; will mid level vinyl sound better ?
Im awaiting a final listen to a Chord Huei Phono stage & then pull the trigger.
My mid level Analog will be :
Project Classic, Hana SL & “ probably “ a Musical Surroundings Phenomenona 2 Phono ( or Chord?)
Will it be better than Chord Quetest running Tidal & DSD upsample?
we will see
jeff
|
Amazing.
People in this thread are saying CDs can't compare to vinyl !
Well.....DUUUUUUUUUH
Certainly pro digital people that say digital is equal to vinyl are talking HiRez digital.
DEEEEEERRRRRRRRRR
Amazing. |
