|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
74.130.29.193
In Reply to: RE: The problem is the obsolete CD format, not digital. posted by Todd Krieger on September 05, 2015 at 01:37:54
The irony is that if you want digital to sound exactly like vinyl or analog tape, you need only make a digital recording of a vinyl record or an analog tape. I've been doing this since 1991 when I bought my first DAT recorder and all my digital copies of vinyl sound just like vinyl. The most glorious sounding digital recordings I've ever heard came from a friend who copied his high-speed master tapes from a Studer tape recorder to 24/192 digital.
Of course, I suppose there is an associated downside with making CDs directly from vinyl records in that every record playing system sounds different. There is so much distortion introduced in the vinyl reproduction process that no two turntables sound alike. Consequently, if you like the sound of your own turntable, you might not like the sound of the system chosen for making the CD. That is also why you will hear noticeable differences if I send you a digital recording made from my Sota Millennia with SME V/DL-S1 and you compare it to the same LP played on your own system using an entirely different vinyl front-end. Perhaps this is why CDs are normally not produced from vinyl.
Anyway, from all my many measurements as well as my extensive listening experience, I have found digital to be exceedingly accurate in reproducing analog musical waveforms. I have also found hi-rez digital to be capable of transparently copying both vinyl and analog tape with such accuracy that the digital copies will be audibly indistinguishable from the original analog sources.
Best regards,
John Elison
Follow Ups:
"The irony is that if you want digital to sound exactly like vinyl or analog tape, you need only make a digital recording of a vinyl record or an analog tape."
The few times I've tried this, I ended up getting the ills of both formats: The surface noise of the vinyl, the listenability of digital.....
Now digitized music transcribed to vinyl is a different story..... The Telarc Soundstream digital-mastered LPs are still the best commercially-released recordings I've ever heard.
Well, you obviously didn't use a very accurate digital recorder. I have never used my computer to make digital recordings. I have always used standalone digital recorders. I got good results with a TASCAM DA-20 Mk II DAT recorder. Then in 2003 I bought an Alesis Masterlink ML-9600 hard drive digital recorder. A year ago I bought a TASCAM DA-3000 DSD recorder. None of these were very expensive and all of them are exceedingly accurate and transparent.
As far as Telarc is concerned, if you've read any of their critiques of the SoundStream, they claimed they could not hear the slightest difference between the live microphone feed and its digital AD/DA conversion in real-time. In other words, they conducted A/B comparisons between their live microphone feed and its digital conversion through the SoundStream.
I have done identical A/B comparisons in my own stereo system. My Pass Labs X1 control preamplifier is fully balanced including a balanced tape loop. I can play a record and conduct an A/B comparison in real-time of its digital AD/DA conversion using the tape monitor switch on my X1, and there is no audible difference that I can detect.
Best regards,
John Elison
In the early 80's our studio got there first digital equipment. a Mitshubiche 2 trac and multi track. For us playback was also indistinguishable from the live feed. The problem always when we sent the master out to produce cds when we got a test cd and played back on what ever was the then state of the art cd player the cd sounded nothing like the master tape. I have copied vinyl to a little Zoom recorder at 24/88 and that file sounds identical to the lp
Alan
Well, that tells me that digital is definitely not the problem. It sounds to me like the people you sent your digital masters to decided to remaster the recordings. It seems unlikely the data would be changed in the CD manufacturing process otherwise. Another reason for the difference might have been the CD player you used.I know for a fact the CD players I owned were not a problem because the 16/44 Redbook CD-Rs I burned from my 24/88 digital recordings of vinyl sounded like vinyl to me. However, ultra expensive high-end CD players might present a problem.
Edits: 09/08/15
Even when we gave instructions not to change anything in the mastering they did not sound the same. I think the problem was the early cd players. It was at the start of the digital age
Alan
I've ripped all my old CDs, but I rarely listen to them. I've got over two thousand albums in higher resolution digital, some of which sound exceptionally good. Still, a whole lot of my hi-rez stuff doesn't sound much better than CD.
Such is life! ;-)
Todd has said that he (or his system) is sensitive to RF noise created by digital. Such noise was probably present in the output of the Soundstream recorder, but was removed by the LP production/playback process.Claims that a product or process is transparent, especially claims in regard to a commercial product, are suspect. All that can be said is that at one particular point in time one particular set of people were unable to hear a difference on the particular equipment used. This may have been true, but it is entirely possible that the same equipment used today by different listeners trained to hear digital artifacts might find a lack of transparency. Indeed, given a 50/16 PCM format this is likely, albeit less so than 44/16. At the time the Soundstream Telarc records were being released there were a number of audiophiles who were actively opposed to these digital records, among them Clark Johnsen, who organized a public demonstration, the "Digital D party" held in Boston.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Edits: 09/06/15
I also like the Telarc Soundstream Vinyl a lot but I think what really helped was the excellent original engineering and mastering
Alan
Frankly, I consider all claims by other listeners AND SOMETIMES EVEN MY OWN LISTENING to be suspect, because of expectation bias, group-think (which I think might apply to Clark Johnsen's demos), and other psychological vagaries. What cracks me up is the certainty with which some audiophiles voice their opinions - as if they were God-given revelations! For instance, I (and others) have a higher opinion of CD SQ than you do. Who can say which of us is correct?
Amid all the sound and fury, I guess what I'd like to see is more MODESTY in the recounting of our listening experiences. ;-)
"I'd like to see is more MODESTY in the recounting of our listening experiences" On the Asylum. You got to be kidding. We just have to keep in mind that when a poster says something blew him away it is just an opinion. When a dozen or more posters and some major reviews all say the same thing it just means for me this is a product I might want to listen to someday
Alan
A properly designed digital system does not introduce RF noise into the audio signal. Furthermore, a defective system does not constitute a problem with digital.
I think you're grasping at straws for an argument that will allow you to bypass opening your ears and hearing for yourself the accuracy of a quality digital recorder copying an analog source. When you do that, you'll find that digital can sound just as analog as vinyl or analog tape.
If record companies wanted CDs to sound like vinyl, all they would have to do is cut a master lacquer as their source for the digital master. Peter Ledermann of Soundsmith used to cut playable master lacquers and sell them for $100. I heard one and it sounded better than vinyl with a virtually noiseless surface. If you want analog sounding digital, this is all it would take. However, you would be stuck with the sound of the particular vinyl front-end used to play the master lacquer.
Best regards,
John Elison
DAC reviews usually measure the output spectra in the audio band. This is how these devices are typically measured and reviewed, but this does not mean they don't have RF output. If you would like me to agree, I would agree with you that almost all consumer digital audio products are improperly designed. That's the way it is, and in many cases they are improperly designed because the designers don't really know what they are doing. (With rare exceptions, there isn't enough money in high end audio to attract the necessary talent which is working on telecommunications and military systems where there is more money to be made.)
I suggest you look at some of Miksa's measurements of DAC spectra into the RF region. You will see that many, if not most, DACs are not properly designed. In the linked page post #806 is most relevant.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
At the 2015 CES I had a long talk with the chief engineer from Prism Audio. To demonstrate jitter they had one of there own excellent dacs and a poorly designed dac they put together. I asked him how do you design a bad dac and he said it was really easy. It is done all the time. Being a gentleman he wouldn't name any dacs
Alan
> I suggest you look at some of Miksa's measurements of DAC spectra into the RF region.
I suggest you buy a TASCAM DA-3000 DSD Recorder and make a digital copy of a vinyl record, but I doubt that will ever happen.
Good luck,
John Elison
Tony- You make yet another set of good informed obserations. Makes a lot if sense that the braintrust is not in the consumer audio little niche industry. I am very suspicious of the arguments for DAC types ( NOS vs oversampling, vs up sampling) I suspect there are bigger and more fundamental issues at stake, from analogue stage quality, to power supplies. Let's face it; a good spiel and a fancy faceplate is a fairly reliable way to make some money around these here parts. And then there is the OCD accuracy myopia that sacrifices musicality for measurements and the majority of the industry is somewhere between theses poles.
Anyway, are there any specific key design specs that you have found to be significant or indicative of the engineering quality?
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: