General Asylum

General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories.

Return to General Asylum


Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

About digital recording of analogue sources

85.19.92.6

Posted on December 18, 2014 at 01:29:44
beppe61
Audiophile

Posts: 4705
Joined: January 29, 2004
Hi and sorry to start again an old discussion
Every time i have listened to an analogue source (LP or tape) i have always had a sensation of listening to music and my brain relaxes.
Very unfortunately not so with digital
So i have some questions for Inmates who have experience of digital recording of analog sources, LP or tapes
1) what did you use as a recorder ?
2) did you compare source and recording ? what was lost (i.e. PRAT, soundstage, transparency, etc.)
I have come to the conclusion that if i can find a very good recorder i could put some files on its memory and play them back with satisfaction.
I am only looking for a musical sound and not fatiguing in the long term
As IMHO analog is completely listenable and satisfactory.
I could stay hours listening vinyl or tapes without stress ...
given the right music of course.
Thanks a lot.



Kind regards,
bg

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
RE: About digital recording of analogue sources, posted on December 18, 2014 at 03:13:18
Digital generally is not sweet, present, airy, harmonically correct, pitch correct and tonally accurate but some gets pretty close. Close but no cigar. The biggest selling points (theoretically, at least) for digital are SNR and Dynamic Range. Everything else analog wins. It's not even close. Even Dynamic Range frequently loses to analog these days. You know, what with the loudness wars and everything.

 

RE: About digital recording of analogue sources, posted on December 18, 2014 at 04:04:14
beppe61
Audiophile

Posts: 4705
Joined: January 29, 2004

Hi and thanks a lot for the very valuable reply
So i am right when i say that to record a good vinyl played back on a decent set-up is a challenging task for a digital recorder ?
Then i am sure that they are not all equally "analog-like"
If i would be able to find an analog-like digital recorder i think i will have a very good chance that files loaded in the recorder internal memory and played back will be quite listenable and enjoyable
Reading many reviews i agree that while dynamic and definition could be reached quite easily this "analogness" it is indeed a challenge.
I have a candidate in the Korg MR-2000S
When i read people mentioning its good sound i am sure they have in mind analog as a benchmark for good sound.
I have never heard a not musical analog set-up ... never.
I do not think that the analogness is correlate to the analog circuitry of the recorder ... IMHO is entirely correlate to the digital circuitry
For instance i have listened a very good analog sound from phono preamp based on op-amps --- so i do not think that an analogue output stage can give analog sound to a bad digital
I would say that even high rez is not a guarantee of good sound.
In the sense that a quite analog sound could be obtained also with cd format (i guess)
I repeat .. high def and high dynamics are secondary to me.
But i need confirmation from people who have really used a standalone digital recorder
Thanks again.


Kind regards,
bg

 

Sorry ... i see now "... some gets pretty close ... ", posted on December 18, 2014 at 04:14:48
beppe61
Audiophile

Posts: 4705
Joined: January 29, 2004
Hi and sorry again
Do you have any recommendations ?
at this stage i need to understand if this "analog quality" is exclusive of extremely expensive digital recorders.
I would much prefer standalone to avoid complex chains.
I have even read an article expressing some doubt that external clocks, for instance, can have a positive impact on sound with better sound coming from the unit used with its internal clock.
So it is all very confusing.
Thanks again.


Kind regards,
bg

 

I would get a DSD recorder to do LP's n/t, posted on December 18, 2014 at 04:58:28
reuben
Audiophile

Posts: 1637
Joined: September 28, 2004
v
Dark energy? Ridiculous!
We live in an electric universe.

 

RE: About digital recording of analogue sources, posted on December 18, 2014 at 05:34:23
Picklesnapper
Audiophile

Posts: 492
Location: East Coast U.S.
Joined: January 16, 2010
Every time I read or hear something about this I wonder what it is I can't hear. At last year's Capital Audiofest someone in one of the demonstration rooms rooms played a cd and said, "Don't those digital artifacts annoy you?". Well, no, they don't. So I ask, what digital artifacts are you hearing that I'm not?

By the way, I use a Linn Majik CD Player and to me it makes music. It isn't analog, but what I hear pleases me.

 

" what digital artifacts are you hearing that I'm not? ", posted on December 18, 2014 at 05:47:10
beppe61
Audiophile

Posts: 4705
Joined: January 29, 2004

Hi i cannot say exactly
But when i listen to analog the sound is more dense and choesive
The digital is not or better sometimes is more similar to analog than other times
I do not think it is an issue of output stages or resolution
I heard a good sound from very old cd players like Grundig and Philips to realize after that their resolution was lower than 16 bit
But i still remember the piano from a cd played by the vintage Grundig CD 7500 but also from a Rotel 965BX
Maybe they were not the last word in definition but the sound was very cohesive like when listening to analog
I have seen someone calling this kind of sound "meaty" and also more palpable.
with some music the effect is more evident than with other music
For instance dance music of orchestra ... or great piano recordings
I have a cd of Burt Bacharach
The same music from an LP played on a decent turntable is usually so much more musical that the average digital.
I have to say that lately i am more interested in using pc as audio source and maybe this makes things more complicated.
It is a very evident effect ... the LP invites to dance much more.
Thanks again.
Kind regards,
bg

 

RE: I would get a DSD recorder to do LP's n/t, posted on December 18, 2014 at 06:17:59
beppe61
Audiophile

Posts: 4705
Joined: January 29, 2004

Hi and thanks for the helpful advice
The problem is that my library is almost 100% of cds.
Differently from what someone says that a good sound depends heavily on the output stage or high rez i think that a good sound instead depends on a good implementation of the digital circuit
Things like PRAT for instance cannot be given by a tube analog sound
And not all dac chips are equal also.
I think that this issue has caused me a lot of bad decisions when buying hifi equipment
It was always a problem with the source and not with the rest of the chain
I am completely sure that if i listen to an LP even with my actual simple integrated and old Tannoy speakers the sound would by musical, maybe not exceptional but completely musical.
Thanks again.
Kind regards,
bg

 

RE: About digital recording of analogue sources, posted on December 18, 2014 at 06:50:00
There are some examples of "good digital" but everything is relative, no? It is easier to make the statement, most vinyl and tape like cassettes sound good, or even very good. I listen to cassettes a lot and they cannot be beat by good digital for air, pitch control, correct tonality, and "realism" if you know what I mean. I have some cassettes that are digitally remastered and they sound quite good, indeed, but still they do not have that certain undefinable something that straight analog cassettes have in spades.

 

RE: " what digital artifacts are you hearing that I'm not? ", posted on December 18, 2014 at 08:51:21
ahendler
Audiophile

Posts: 5151
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Joined: January 24, 2003
You can get the type of sound you are describing with a NOS dac.
Two I would recommend at opposite price points are
Teredak Chamelion $500
Metrum Hex $3295
These are both non oversampling dacs with no digital filtering and no separate analog stage. Out is taken directly off the 16 parallel chips.
The sound of these dacs is what I call organic
Alan

 

RE: I would get a DSD recorder to do LP's n/t, posted on December 18, 2014 at 08:54:03
ahendler
Audiophile

Posts: 5151
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Joined: January 24, 2003
As I stated above get a NOS dac
Teredak Chamelion $500
Metrum Hex $3295
Alan

 

Isn't going to happen, at least not with today's technology, posted on December 18, 2014 at 09:39:36
Ralph
Manufacturer

Posts: 4769
Location: Minnesota
Joined: April 24, 2002
LPs have a lot more bandwidth than most people think. Almost any LP playback system has 30KHz bandwidth and many go higher.

Our cutterhead is an ancient Westerex 3D system, built in the late 1950s. It has no troubles cutting 30KHz to disk, and we can easily play it back with low distortion on a Technics SL-1200 with Grado Gold cartridge. We have to look at the waveform on a 'scope of course...

It does not matter that the only thing up there might be noise. The added bandwidth reduces phase shift, which the ear uses to create the soundstage we hear. The rolloff is also fairly benign, which helps reduce phase shift. The sharper cutoff found in many digital recording systems to prevent aliasing contributes to phase shift. This is one reason why digital systems that scan at a multiple of the playback frequency (for example, 88Khz instead of 44Khz) tend to sound better- you don't have to roll off the source so hard.

In a monitor amplifier, to get faithful reproduction, you need at least 2 octaves outside the audio passband (80Khz). That seems to be a reasonable target for digital as well. When it routinely has that kind of bandwidth and storage is easy and permanent, I think we will finally see the LP fade from the marketplace.

The marketplace has kept the LP alive for the simple reason that the market likes it. That is not because its more distorted. Its because its more musical and has a greater sense of permanence. These are the things digital has to overcome if it is to get rid of that pesky LP once and for all.

 

I record with a Korg MR-2000S, posted on December 18, 2014 at 09:40:38
SJK
It's a digital recorder. It sits in the stereo rack and is connected to the monitor loop of the preamp. The recorder is something that you might see used in a professional studio for a final two-track mixdown. It was about $1,400 when I bought it but I amortized that over all of the CD's that I wouldn't have to buy to replace my albums, and with many to have better sound.

When I'm playing albums I just have to hit record and pause when flipping over. I modified the recorder so that it has a 320 GB drive instead of the original 80 GB. I record at the highest possible resolution, 1 bit at 5.66 MHz. At the end of the day, each album is saved as a FLAC file at 24/96. I could go with 24/192 but I don't hear a difference and the file sizes are double. I do keep the original DSD file, just in case.

Frankly, I haven't done a direct LP to digital comparison. When I play the digital files it sounds like the album, I don't hear any "digital overtones" or sense any loss of anything from the original recording. In other words, I believe that with the very high resolution recording and mastering, the final digital copy is very true to the original signal.

Edit: With the digital recordings of the LP's at high resolution, it's interesting to note that what I find truly makes a difference (not surprisingly) is the DAC, that's where it all happens.

I'm using an Arcam FMJ D33 SuperDAC and it seems to be continually improving.

 

Interesting info., posted on December 18, 2014 at 10:26:19
cdb
Audiophile

Posts: 2948
Joined: April 6, 2001
Do you use the Korg for file storage?
How do you manage file titling and cataloging/searching?

 

RE: About digital recording of analogue sources, posted on December 18, 2014 at 11:03:19
Hi Beppestar,

How you transfer LPs to digital partly depends on what you want to do with the resulting files. If you want to make CDs for use in the car or elsewhere, I'd record at 16/44. If you want high quality files to play from your computer hard drive, then record at a greater bit depth and higher sample rate, such as 24/88 or 24/96.

Whether or not you get a dedicated outboard recorder or an internal card for your computer also depends on what you want to do. Currently, I use an internal card which can be fed from either my stereo system or my mic preamps.

There are some very good cards from Lynx, RME, M-Audio, and others.

:)

 

RE: Interesting info., posted on December 18, 2014 at 13:24:02
SJK
I record in the native format of DSD. I then transfer the files from the recorder to my laptop via the USB port. Once the files are in my laptop, each album is in a different directory with a code name, something like DF001 etc. That numbering scheme can be reset on the recorder.

I rename the Korg files so that the folder is the album title, as well as the project name file that's stored in the folder.

Then, I use the Korg software Audio Gate to convert the files from DSD to FLAC at 24/96. The album is now one single sound file.

I open that file into VinylStudio and do an internet search with that program to find the track information and cover art. I can move the track markers around to compensate for slippage with runout tracks etc., or for lengthy runouts when I didn't pause or stop the album in time.

After that, I'll run a crackle filter only. On rare ocassions I'll need to do a few manual edits to get rid of scratches that the crackle filter couldn't deal with.

And then, finally, the album is saved out from VinylStudio as an album with a folders and naming convention that I can specify - much like you can with any decent CD ripping software.

As you can see, making the recording is the easy part. Converting is done as a background task with Audio Gate. Most of the time is in finding track and cover art information and doing any necessary manual entries or repairs.

Mind you, I'm not that fussy - I figure if the crackle filter can make an improvement over a poor album then I'm better off. There are people here who do this professionaly and will take hours to manually edit scratches.

Hope this helps.

 

RE: About digital recording of analogue sources, posted on December 18, 2014 at 16:44:55
I've used a Sony RCD500 and a Tascam RW900 mkII for most of my analog to digital transfers. Early on in this process I found the analog sourced material to be better than that from CDs or FM. However I've never done a head to head comparison of digital recordings made from each - I would suspect the results would be similar to CD v. Analog comparisons I've made. And that is that pre-1990 or so original vinyl is almost always better. Since then it's a crap shoot - sometimes CD, sometimes vinyl and sometimes no difference.

I think the mastering/production of the material (cd/vinyl) is what is most important. Recording vinyl to digital seems to preserve much, if not all, of the characteristics I appreciate from vinyl.

 

RE: I record with a Korg MR-2000S, posted on December 18, 2014 at 17:50:42
boboli
Audiophile

Posts: 997
Location: Phoenix Arizona
Joined: May 12, 2005
A member of our audio club did essentially the same thing, with a Korg unit, approximately 4-5 years ago. He was very pleased with the r silts. I considered doing the same, but I like the whole vinyl thing.

 

RE: About digital recording of analogue sources, posted on December 18, 2014 at 18:28:31
hahax@verizon.net
Audiophile

Posts: 4279
Location: New Jersey
Joined: March 22, 2006
I know that Gordon Holt and Steve Stone recorded tons of performances off the Boulder Symphony. And I'm pretty sure Gordon used a Sony DAT to record. I also know he checked the levels of the orchestra during practice and then set the DAT recording level and just let it go for the entire performance. The recording was then simply put onto CDs.

I've only heard one of these recordings, a Carmina Burana and it's exciting. This isn't surprising. Gordon was into audio mainly to approach live sound with recordings. And he had a great ear and sense of what he heard. So that's one example of recording digital to CD that I believe works. And I have no doubt that the other recordings work too.

It can be done. What happens commercially is often another story. But the commercial purpose is to sell, sound 'good' to the majority. And unfortunately we usually get what the majority pays for. Musically the tyranny of the majority. But that's usually true for analog too.

 

I don't have an issue with playing vinyl...., posted on December 19, 2014 at 09:01:06
SJK
But greatly enjoy the fact that as I record the albums to digital format they become portable.

Whether at home with the music server or on the road with my laptop/dragonfly/headphones I can enjoy any and all music simply by playing it.

 

RE: I record with a Korg MR-2000S, posted on December 19, 2014 at 09:31:36
beppe61
Audiophile

Posts: 4705
Joined: January 29, 2004

Hi and thanks a lot for the very interesting advice
So in the end to get a very similar copy of the original high rez seems mandatory
Problem is that most of my collection is on CD
Have you tried to copy a wav file on the internal memory of the recorder and listen ? is the result comparable to that from a good cd player ?
I read great things about the Korg being very musical indeed.
Thanks again.
Kind regards,
bg

 

The Korg is a great recorder...., posted on December 19, 2014 at 13:19:20
SJK
But doesn't have a DAC section that even begins to equal my Arcam SuperDAC. I can only play back, as you mention, if the file is not in DSD format, which is what I use to record with.

As a result, the only comparison to vinyl that I can make is when playing back from my music server - and with that I find 24/96 to be extremely faithful to the original.

 

RE: About digital recording of analogue sources, posted on December 19, 2014 at 13:50:34
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Agree with your comment about cassettes. Good ones can not be transferred to 44/16 digital without loss of quality. The differences are obvious. Less so at 176/24. Results are similar for 7.5 IPS tape.

I did fair comparisons: digitize cassette at 176/24, convert via software to 44/16, convert back to 176/24 and compare the two 176/24's with each other and with the analog original (Nak CR 7. Recordings were low speed cassette copies of reel to reel master tapes.) I used iZotope SRC for the conversions and tried many different settings to see if I could get tonal balance, imaging and lack of digital glare. There were settings that got close on 2 out 3 of these, but it was like squeezing a big balloon into a small suitcase. No go.

Bad cassettes that were multiple generations in the cassette format, high speed dubbed, stored under bad conditions or played many times on cheap, dirty or magnetized equipment were another story.



Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: About digital recording of analogue sources, posted on December 19, 2014 at 14:06:56
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
I you are going to go through all the bother of cleaning the LP, transferring it taking care nobody is walking about creating footfalls, and listen to it to make sure there were no screwups then you would be foolish not to do it at the highest possible resolution digital format. This is the format you should archive and backup. If you need portable copies or copies to give to your friends, etc. you can downsample the hi-res files to whatever format you desire. At 176/24 loss less compressed is about 2.3 GB per hour. DSD128 will be about twice as large. Disk storage is under $0.10 per GB. How much do you value your time?

One other thing you may notice on LP transfers is that the lower resolution digital magnifies the impact of any clicks or ticks.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: " what digital artifacts are you hearing that I'm not? ", posted on December 20, 2014 at 01:29:51
beppe61
Audiophile

Posts: 4705
Joined: January 29, 2004
Hi and thanks for the valuable advice
I will look for the cheaper dac you mention (price is an object here unfortunately)
Thanks a lot
Kind regards,
bg

 

I agree completely on this , posted on December 20, 2014 at 01:38:32
beppe61
Audiophile

Posts: 4705
Joined: January 29, 2004

Hi yes i agree and actually my idea is to test a digital recorder copying a good sounding analog
For instance about the Korg DSD recorder i read of a test recording the signal from an LP in dsd
The copy was quite ok but the soundstage a little shrinked
But what interests me most is the cd format
I am sure that if a recorder can record nicely with this format it should be also a nice player.
And i do not think that must be necessarily ultra expensive. Just well designed and built.
Thanks again,

Kind regards,
bg

 

RE: The Korg is a great recorder...., posted on December 20, 2014 at 01:42:20
beppe61
Audiophile

Posts: 4705
Joined: January 29, 2004
Hi and thanks again
Very interesting advice
I was just think to the two halves of a same apple
If the whole apple is good also the dac part must be very good
And i like very much the rack recorders
Thanks again.
Kind regards,
bg

 

" Good ones can not be transferred to 44/16 digital without loss of quality. ", posted on December 20, 2014 at 01:48:46
beppe61
Audiophile

Posts: 4705
Joined: January 29, 2004

Hi and thanks for the very interesting information
I cited you words that sound like a final judgement on the format
So the cd format has no hopes to be truly musical
This is very unfortunate for me as almost all of my collection is on CDs
It is a matter of fact that the pro format DAT is a 16/48k
So it seems to me that also the pros had judged the cd format not enough
I feel that even this little increase in sampling rate could make a difference
Again i am very sad that the world is stuck with this cd format
It does not respect the music in the end
Thanks again

Kind regards,
bg

 

RE: Isn't going to happen, at least not with today's technology, posted on December 20, 2014 at 01:55:43
beppe61
Audiophile

Posts: 4705
Joined: January 29, 2004

Hi and thanks for the very interesting advice
Let's assume that the CD format is lossy
Still i had different sensations listening to a same cd on different players
There are some players that are more musical and therefore pleasant that other
Less fatiguing ... more kind to the real instruments
They are more involving
Evem some vintage players are more musical than current ones !
this is for me tha hardest part to accept
Thanks again.
Kind regards,
bg

 

Significant achievement, posted on December 20, 2014 at 03:11:35
layman
Audiophile

Posts: 559
Location: Washington, D.C.
Joined: August 8, 2007
I think audiophiles are in luck. I was fortunate to encounter and audition the latest iteration of the Lampizator DSD DAC at the New York Audio Show 2014 and I think it represents a significant achievement, a significant improvement in the quality of digital audio playback.

I cannot claim to understand what the designer has done or how he has achieved this engineering miracle but I can attest that his DAC produces the least "Digital" sounding digital audio that I have yet heard.

I hear a significant reduction in digital "glazing," everything sounds so much clearer, cleaner and more precise, the equivalent of lifting a smoky, distorting pane of glass from a visual image.

The sense of analog "ease" returns listening to the Lampizator DAC. I no longer get the teeth-clenching, headache-inducing "digi-sickness" (caused in my estimation by the enormous amount of effort our brains extend trying to paint over and normalize digital distortions) that I get with most other digital. Without all the mental effort of dealing with distortions, we are free simply to enjoy the music.

I think that those who appreciate live, unamplified, undistorted music will really love the improvement in fidelity that the Lampizator DAC brings.

 

Lampizator DSD DAC, posted on December 20, 2014 at 03:19:25
layman
Audiophile

Posts: 559
Location: Washington, D.C.
Joined: August 8, 2007



nt

 

RE: " Good ones can not be transferred to 44/16 digital without loss of quality. ", posted on December 20, 2014 at 07:23:16
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
CD format can be perfectly musical. However, it will seldom be transparent, namely the same recording made in a higher resolution format by the same people with the same care is going to sound better. If the conversion to 44/16 is done well the differences are going to concern the realism of the reproduction. The music generally comes through OK. To me, it's musical if you can tell that the musicians were grooving and if noise, distortion and other artifacts aren't annoying.

Given that almost all new recordings are made in high resolution and converted down to CD format, there are no extra production costs in offering downloads at high resolution. There are extra server costs for storage and bandwidth. Delivering a high resolution download at 176/24 uses about six times more internet bandwidth than 44/16, representing about $0.25 vs $0.04 in server bandwidth charges at today's rates. These costs are less than credit card processing costs.

There is little reason for absurdly high prices for high-res new releases. Some of the better download sites are introducing their new releases at the same price for all formats because of these economics. There is justification for higher prices for new high resolution digital remasters of older analog recordings, because doing a high quality remaster takes expensive equipment and engineering talent.




Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

WARNING!!, posted on December 20, 2014 at 13:13:19
"WARNING: The music on this Compact Disc was originally recorded on analog equipment prior to modern noise reduction techniques. This Compact Disc preserves, as closely as possible, the sound of the original recording, but it's high resolution also reveals limitations in the master tape, including noise and other distortions."

;-)

 

RE: " Good ones can not be transferred to 44/16 digital without loss of quality. ", posted on December 21, 2014 at 04:45:38
beppe61
Audiophile

Posts: 4705
Joined: January 29, 2004

Hi and thanks again and i am fully aware now
As i have noticed cd was not enough for pro even in the old times
They ask for 48k for DAT
I am very sad if i think that i have only cd
But my new dac can process also high rez so i could buy some files and listen for myself
Speaking of dat. Do you think that the little difference can gain something for sound quality ?
Thanks again
Kind regards,
bg

 

RE: About digital recording of analogue sources, posted on December 21, 2014 at 04:49:59
beppe61
Audiophile

Posts: 4705
Joined: January 29, 2004
Hi and sorry for the late reply
To summarize it seems that the cd format is lossy
In some cases can sound better than other but important info in the signal are missing
This is a great pity because it does not do justice to music
Still i am puzzled by the difference in "musicality" from one set-up to another
I have to read more before attempting another buy
Thanks again
Kind regards,
bg

 

" Recording vinyl to digital seems to preserve much, if not all, of the characteristics I appreciate from viny, posted on December 21, 2014 at 04:56:36
beppe61
Audiophile

Posts: 4705
Joined: January 29, 2004
Hi and thanks for the very interesting reply
When you say " Recording vinyl to digital seems to preserve much, if not all, of the characteristics I appreciate from vinyl " with which format do you record ?
Actually what i do not like of the cd is the medium
When i read about of the huge differences among transports i think this can be correlate with the optical system that is fundamentally wrong
I very much prefer reading from a solid state memory
Actually i am about to do some test with cd files
My belief is that solid state memory makes the reading process much less critical than with optical media.
Thanks again
Kind regards,
bg

 

RE: About digital recording of analogue sources, posted on December 21, 2014 at 05:02:07
beppe61
Audiophile

Posts: 4705
Joined: January 29, 2004

Hi and very interesting indeed
But the DAT is 48k and i have a friend who swears that a dat copy of an LP sounds very good indeed
The recordings so were downsampled to 44.1k ? and still sounded very good ? this is interesting indeed
I am willing to buy a digital recorder only to try these dammed 48k
Maybe they make all the difference in most of the occasions (i.e. low to average quality set-ups)
Thanks again
Kind regards,
bg

 

RE: Significant achievement, posted on December 21, 2014 at 05:04:47
beppe61
Audiophile

Posts: 4705
Joined: January 29, 2004

Hi and thanks for the kind suggestion
I read about Lampizator ... actually i bought a Squeezebox after reading his positive opinion.
This dac looks pretty amazing but it is over the budget for me
As i said from the very beginning i am just looking for a nice and not fatiguing sound
I have been recommended to look at NOS dacs that were popular some years ago
Maybe that is the best bet
Thanks again
Kind regards,
bg

 

RE: " Recording vinyl to digital seems to preserve much, if not all, of the characteristics I appreciate from viny, posted on December 21, 2014 at 12:26:41
All my playback is from my computers hard drive or from an iPod attached to an external DAC. My recording is done to CDRWs which I rip to my computer.

 

Yup! nt, posted on December 22, 2014 at 09:28:54
Ralph
Manufacturer

Posts: 4769
Location: Minnesota
Joined: April 24, 2002
-

 

RE: Isn't going to happen, at least not with today's technology, posted on December 24, 2014 at 02:10:03
beppe61
Audiophile

Posts: 4705
Joined: January 29, 2004

Hi and sorry to bother you again
But reading your words again it seems to me that you think that the digital has no chances against analog.
This perplexes me as many recent LP take origin from a digital master.
I can agree quite easily on the necessity of higher resolution that that of the CD format this appears clearly.
But even the 48k DAT seems to give a sensible boost in musicality.
A friend of mine made some copies of LPs with a Pioneer DAT and we found them quite musical. Very convincing indeed.
I will but a cheap digital recorder and try myself some copy of analog at 16bit/48k and listen. Maybe they are enough to get some musicality.
Thanks a lot again.





Kind regards,
bg

 

RE: Isn't going to happen, at least not with today's technology, posted on December 24, 2014 at 05:59:42
I'm pretty sure it's the same old story. The farther you get away from the pure analog Recording the less musical a result you will wind up with. Everything is relative. Depends on the system, and what the person considers "musical" but if you listen to say tape that it is all analog vs tape that contains digitally remastered material you can appreciate what digital brings to the table in terms of dynamic range and SNR but also what pure analog brings to the table in terms of sweetness, warmth and credibility.

 

RE: Isn't going to happen, at least not with today's technology, posted on December 24, 2014 at 06:11:23
beppe61
Audiophile

Posts: 4705
Joined: January 29, 2004


Yes but analog is really a pain
Much better a memory stick with all the music inside
Just look at what the pro they are doing in the recording studio
I love these digital recorders on ssd or sd
I think i will end up buying one able to play files from a usb disk
There is a nice Tascam out now. Slim and nice.
Thanks again.







Kind regards,
bg

 

I've been using something like that for years., posted on December 24, 2014 at 10:33:19
Ralph
Manufacturer

Posts: 4769
Location: Minnesota
Joined: April 24, 2002
They work just fine. But they don't have the bandwidth of the LP that's for sure. They do rival analog tape though.

I also appreciate the convenience, the ability to do micro-edits and lack of noise. But in practical recording situations the noise is not a concern. So we usually back up any of our recordings with digital, but in comparison of the two by the clients, the analog is an easy sell.

 

RE: I've been using something like that for years., posted on December 25, 2014 at 02:24:52
beppe61
Audiophile

Posts: 4705
Joined: January 29, 2004
Hi thanks and sorry again but i think i am missing something
1=They work just fine.
2= But they don't have the bandwidth of the LP that's for sure.
3= They do rival analog tape though.

So best digital recordings rival analog tapes, this means to me comparable quality, more or less
So you are saying that a LP produced by a master tape or digital is superior to the master
how could this be possible
thanks again
Kind regards,
bg

 

Page processed in 0.042 seconds.