|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
65.19.73.221
In Reply to: RE: The problem is the obsolete CD format, not digital. posted by John Elison on September 05, 2015 at 21:41:31
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: 09/06/15Follow Ups:
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: