HTTP/1.0 200 OK Content-type: text/html
Can't connect to database, trying again....HTTP/1.0 200 OK Content-type: text/html
Can't connect to database, trying again....
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
98.232.224.41
Is vinyl (with the quite obvious caveat that the record was spun on a true high-end component and not an old Garrard, AR, or Dual…) equal or superior to the 192/24 format? Of course, I realize this is entirely subjective, but a goodly number of reports would be interesting.
(To those becoming impatient, I beg your indulgence just a wee bit longer, this is going somewhere, eventually….).
Follow Ups:
Once again the technology wars come up. Let's assume you had Identical recordings on CD/Vinyl/one of the numerous bitrate Computer Audio files. Now let's assume person A compares all three and chooses the latter. Great. That speaks to that album and you could conclude that cutting edge computer DAC wins.
Problem is that if it is about the music and not just wanking to the tech then there is a vast amount of music that sounds better on vinyl than other formats - ditto to CD.
And the recording itself is what matters. I will use an example. I have a Ray Charles album on Vinyl and CD - the CD is unlistenable dredge and I sold it off - the Vinyl is utterly superb. Vinyl is better than CD in this case.
I have Sarah McLachlan's "Surfacing" on CD and Vinyl (180g I think) - about even - an edge to the vinyl but not a big one. I then bought the Japanese K2 re-master of this album and the CD destroys both. Therefore, CD sounds better than vinyl - oops - err what?
Bottom line is this: We live in a great time to be able to afford very good very competent very affordable sources from all of the technologies on tap. You can buy an ~$500-$2,000 computer audio DAC that will do a pretty good job with your computer. You can still buy CD/SACD players that are quite good in the same price range and you can buy a $500 Rega, Edwards Audio, or a ProJect turntable that includes its own phono stage and won't be ruinous to your vinyls.
On any given album over the different formats I bet each will carry the day depending on the quality of the transfers to the format. Moreover, there is a lot of music on each you may not be able to get on the other format. For example I have vinyls that have 4-5 extra tracks not available on the CD - I have CD's that carry an extra track or two that the vinyl version lacked (perhaps due to time limits). Vinyl and CD second hand can be dirt cheap. Hi-Res downloads of course can range from zero if you do it illegally to over $30 which seems to me to be grossly overpriced since there is zero physical media cost or dealer networks etc.
Well that excludes me right there as I only listen to music.
First off, I have never been able to reliably identify the better sound when comparing 96k to 192k releases, but then the comparisons I've done have been with music released by others, so I don't know whether those 192k files were *always* 192k... or were upsampled. The studio where I assist does lots of work in 96k, but none that I've been involved with at 192k. When we have done comparisons in the studio using a UAD 2192, I can almost always correctly tell the difference between 44.1 and 48-or-higher, but for the most part I have not been able to accurately tell whether that higher sample rate is 48 or 96. There are exceptions: on a few recordings with either a chamber group or a solo singer with acoustic guitar, I can tell which is 48 and which is 96. We never work at 192, so I can't offer much there. I've had pretty much the same results at home using a Metric Halo ULN-2 for the adc/dac.
So, if I can pervert the original question to, "Which is better, good digital or vinyl?" my answer is, "Vinyl is almost always better, and not for the usual reasons." Consider these scenarios:
1. tracked and mixed on analogue tape:
This is so rare, I've only heard a few done this way in the last several years, and, despite the purity of the process, some of these have tracking or mix problems, effectively reducing the number of good projects even further. But there are certainly standouts, even if they are rare.
2. tracked and mixed in 24-bit digital, and bounced to tape for the vinyl version
This is pretty common, and for every release I know of that went though this, the vinyl is lots better that the digital, regardless of sample rate. I've been involved in a few that were done this way, and what I *think* I hear on the vinyl is the sound of the Studer or Ampex deck used to deliver the mix.
Of course I'm not sure, so the next time I'm involved in a project where the two-track mix is going out on half-inch two-track for the vinyl version and as a digital file for the CD/hi-rez versions, I'll make sure we make a digital copy from the tape playback, so we can compare the no-tape digital file to the tape-included digital file. If there is a real difference there, the question will be partially answered. If there is not, then the presumption has to be that something in the vinyl mastering/cutting/pressing process adds the magic. And if that's the case, we still have some hunting to do to nail it down, as record lathes presumably sound different, lathe operators presumably operate them somewhat differently, the amps that drive the lathes certainly sound different, and there are many steps that occur after cutting the master, each of which can add or subtract something.
And that perverts the question to this: what are the big contributors to the digital vs. analogue sound in music releases? I don't know if we'll ever track them down, but it is worthwhile to try.
WW
"A man need merely light the filaments of his receiving set and the world's greatest artists will perform for him." Alfred N. Goldsmith, RCA, 1922
A simpler answer?Traditionally phonograph mastering used some dynamic range compression, often done tastefully and manually. In moderate doses it can sound good as the quieter parts are more perceptible, and thanks to fletcher Munson effects, sound more correct.
As far as I have heard, people who rip their phono with a high quality ADC say that the resulting digital file upon playback sounds virtually identical.
Edits: 04/22/14
Usually its there for other reasons- one of the most common being that the producer does not want the mastering engineer to take the extra time and test cuts to do the mastering job without compression.
(An LP mastering system is impossible to overload, see the link below which is in this same thread)
For Redbook, its usually a good idea to apply compression, as the bits available to define the signal drops off with the signal level. This causes a loss of low level resolution.
So as a result 'tasteful' compression is going to be with us for a while...
There is no need for dynamic range compression for home listening if one has a decent domestic situation and an adequate playback system. If the producers want to limit the dynamics to increase the size of their (perceived) market they should instruct the musicians to limit their dynamics. The result will be better musically and sonically.
There is certainly no need for Fletcher Munson compensation on playback. One simply adjusts the volume control to appropriate concert hall volume.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
multiplied compared to what seems just a few years ago.
I've always had my doubts whether an all-digitially produced product could rival analogue. I guess the physical reality vs mathematical reproduction (a gross simplification, I know) lends the former more warmth? Anyhow, this gives engineers something to do...
It's about the music, not the specs. My vintage AR plays the music beautifully. And the specs are good. :-)
old Shure and various MC cartridges delivered from the common arms of those very turntables (I owned an AR the longest of any).
However, this IS a forum that respects SOTA, so I thought I'd center on the Rolls-Royce type components and their devotees.
I had an old Kenwood DD spinner. Awful. A step down, even, from my dual 1209.
However, I made a GIGANTIC improvement in this machine by junking out the shell and whatever cart I had at the time…..It would have been an M91ED or perhaps an inexpensive Grado….a best buy, at that time.
I installed an expensive…to em…..Ortofon LM20…which was a head-shell-less cart which plugged directly to the end of the tonearm. I had to REMOVE and junk out the counterweight which would NOT adjust low enough for the new cart. I installed the tiny counterweight that came with the cart and borrowed a scale.
A revelation in that it was like buying a NEW record collection. No comparison. Even with that awful, budget TT……
That being said, I was NEVER able to keep vinyl pristine which is why, in '83, I without hesitation after first listen, bought a Magnevox 4x oversample CD player and started buying discs. I made cassette copies for friends and ended up selling a 'bunch' of CD players.
Too much is never enough
Why not back up and start from here:
"Is 192-kHz 24-bit superior to 96-kHz 24-bit, and please specify whether you are speaking of native sample rates of new recordings, or of transfers from old analog master tapes, many of which have no musical content over 13,000 Hertz, only tape hiss."
Or even from here:
"Is 192-kHz or 96-kHz PCM superior to 44.1-kHz PCM, first for transfers from old analog master tapes, many of which have no musical content over 13,000 Hertz, only tape hiss, and then second for new native recordings."
I will caution everyone (perhaps the OP does not need cautioning) that playback performance of 192-kHz PCM can be rather DAC-dependent, and certainly is player-software dependent.
In my professional experience (which even includes a bit of pure-DSD recording the results of which I can't really do anything with) the watershed, the line in the sand, is between Red Book and 20-bit 44.1-kHz PCM. The single most important sound-quality increment is going from 16-bit to 20-bit recording (keeping in mind that early analog-to-digital converters were 14-bit or in cases even 12-bit).
For a lot of source material and even more importantly, for many commonly-used microphones, a properly functioning 44.1-kHz converter is all you will need because whatever the Platonic ideal is of the harmonic structure of a trumpet or whatever, many mics aren't catching anything over 20kHz. Lost in the noise.
So, until someone makes a serious stab at blind testing of, for instance, a good concert piano mic'ed using "known good mikes" (choosing at random, AKG 414s in ORTF) and makes one pass at 44.1/16 and one pass at 44.1/20 and one pass at 44.1/24 and then 24/96 and 24/192, and then has a decent playback system and listeners like Michael Fremer who have previously demonstrated the ability to do better than random coin-tossing in public blind testings, there will just be a lot of what I referred to in the April issue of Stereophile as "faith-based chatter" and no rigorous inquiry.
NB, there are ADCs that as far as I know take whatever the input is and process it as 6-bit (or so) quasi-DSD, and so there, you have just injected an uncontrollable variable.
I am not ruling out that depending upon the origin and the content of the recording involved, higher sample rates will sound better--but is that just the natural goodness of the particular ADC involved in recording or the particular goodness of the DAC on playback? I certainly believe that my recent 192-native project sounds best at 192; but the other files were sample-rate converted. That is an uncontrolled variable.
Until someone (I regret I did not think of this last time out, on my pipe-organ project) makes the Quixotic effort to use a state-of-the-art ADC separately to record the same source at 44.1 as well as again at higher sample rates, everyone who states an opinion is only giving voice to assumptions and prejudices, or so it would seem to me.
FWIW, one of the most experienced recording and mastering engineers tells me that if the end product is to be a CD, it is far better to record at 44.1/24, because even downconverting from 88.2 "leaves fingerprints."
I have previously expressed my disinclination to take part in faith-based chatter about the sound of vinyl. It has a distinctive, bandwidth-limited mechanically-resonant sound that many people have warm emotional associations with. (As do I. Sealed copies of my JMR 180-gr. Bob Ludwig remastering of "Songs My Mother Taught Me" for over $300.)
So what we need is, à la Shakespeare's "The Tempest," a desert island where children are raised on nothing but pentatonic harp music and Kodály's choral exercises, and 21 years later, we can ask them to decide about vinyl.
Here are two spectra for "Willow Weep for Me" from Clifford Brown's "and Strings" albumm of IIRC 1956. The first is centered on Middle C.
The second starts at 13,000 Hz.
JM
Why not back up and start from here:
"Is 192-kHz 24-bit superior to 96-kHz 24-bit, and please specify whether you are speaking of native sample rates of new recordings, or of transfers from old analog master tapes, many of which have no musical content over 13,000 Hertz, only tape hiss."
Or even from here:
"Is 192-kHz or 96-kHz PCM superior to 44.1-kHz PCM, first for transfers from old analog master tapes, many of which have no musical content over 13,000 Hertz, only tape hiss, and then second for new native recordings."
I will caution everyone (perhaps the OP does not need cautioning) that playback performance of 192-kHz PCM can be rather DAC-dependent, and certainly is player-software dependent.
I think the big problem is these formats are not genuinely “tried and true”..... I think the industry has thrown product to market that were not really “beta tested”.... It was presumed everything would work just fine.
In my professional experience (which even includes a bit of pure-DSD recording the results of which I can't really do anything with) the watershed, the line in the sand, is between Red Book and 20-bit 44.1-kHz PCM. The single most important sound-quality increment is going from 16-bit to 20-bit recording (keeping in mind that early analog-to-digital converters were 14-bit or in cases even 12-bit).
I personally think the ideal resolution for digital audio would have been something close to 18 bit/55 kHz...... Resolute enough to capture everything beyond human hearing, but not excessive where overcoming RFI would become a seemingly impossible task.
For a lot of source material and even more importantly, for many commonly-used microphones, a properly functioning 44.1-kHz converter is all you will need because whatever the Platonic ideal is of the harmonic structure of a trumpet or whatever, many mics aren't catching anything over 20kHz. Lost in the noise.
I think a lot of recent mics have been designed to mitigate aliasing issues with signals above 22 kHz..... Although I’ve heard examples of “close”, I’ve never heard a CD’s top end that I thought fully captured the information present on vinyl.
So, until someone makes a serious stab at blind testing of, for instance, a good concert piano mic'ed using "known good mikes" (choosing at random, AKG 414s in ORTF) and makes one pass at 44.1/16 and one pass at 44.1/20 and one pass at 44.1/24 and then 24/96 and 24/192, and then has a decent playback system and listeners like Michael Fremer who have previously demonstrated the ability to do better than random coin-tossing in public blind testings, there will just be a lot of what I referred to in the April issue of Stereophile as "faith-based chatter" and no rigorous inquiry.
I think one could pass an ABX of 16/44 vs. 20/44, but no bit depth greater than that. I also think one could pass an ABX of 16/44 vs. 16/48, but no sample rate greater than that. (The RFI might be a cue to pass early trials, but will blunt one’s senses afterwards. This has been my personal experience.)
NB, there are ADCs that as far as I know take whatever the input is and process it as 6-bit (or so) quasi-DSD, and so there, you have just injected an uncontrollable variable.
Is this a form of dither?
I’m kind of shocked there hasn’t been more controlled evaluations of different dither algorithms. (At least with formats of bit depth of 16 bits or less.)
I am not ruling out that depending upon the origin and the content of the recording involved, higher sample rates will sound better--but is that just the natural goodness of the particular ADC involved in recording or the particular goodness of the DAC on playback? I certainly believe that my recent 192-native project sounds best at 192; but the other files were sample-rate converted. That is an uncontrolled variable.
I think the biggest misnomer is the notion that a 16/44 recording would somehow sound better if sampled first at a high resolution digital rate (such as 24/192) and then converted to the final rate. I think the best 16/44 recordings are sampled directly at the native rate from the analog. I personally think SRC degrades the sound more than any form of straight A/D.
Until someone (I regret I did not think of this last time out, on my pipe-organ project) makes the Quixotic effort to use a state-of-the-art ADC separately to record the same source at 44.1 as well as again at higher sample rates, everyone who states an opinion is only giving voice to assumptions and prejudices, or so it would seem to me.
AMEN!!! If I were King, I’d sample at all rates independently off the same analog, where the ideal filtering is applied at all rates. It’s the only fair way to compare rates. (Although for me, the 16/44 would still win, due to lower RFI than high-rez.)
FWIW, one of the most experienced recording and mastering engineers tells me that if the end product is to be a CD, it is far better to record at 44.1/24, because even downconverting from 88.2 "leaves fingerprints."
Totally agree.... This is why, for example, the Beatles Box Sets, which were first sampled at 24/192 prior to converting to CD, sounded *worse* to me.
Heck, more often than not, I like the original pressing better than the remastered version. I’ve gotten a lot of flack for saying that, but I trust my ears over consensus.
I have previously expressed my disinclination to take part in faith-based chatter about the sound of vinyl. It has a distinctive, bandwidth-limited mechanically-resonant sound that many people have warm emotional associations with. (As do I. Sealed copies of my JMR 180-gr. Bob Ludwig remastering of "Songs My Mother Taught Me" for over $300.)
So what we need is, à la Shakespeare's "The Tempest," a desert island where children are raised on nothing but pentatonic harp music and Kodály's choral exercises, and 21 years later, we can ask them to decide about vinyl.
Here are two spectra for "Willow Weep for Me" from Clifford Brown's "and Strings" albumm of IIRC 1956. The first is centered on Middle C.
The second starts at 13,000 Hz.
JM
I’m not sure what your point is here. You only cited a vinyl recording that happens to have limited bandwidth. (The fact there are ZERO residuals from noise in the > 13k graph raises some flags here. The graph might be indicating possible muting, sharp low-pass filtering, or malfunction.)
In past reviews, the square wave responses of most modern cartridges, even moving magnet ones, suggest that vinyl is capable of going beyond 30 kHz. (The rise and fall times were demonstrably faster than that of typical CD players for square waves at the same frequency. Most were done at 1 kHz.) The only limitation, bandwidth wise, is the analog master tape. Or bandwidth limiting in some cases.
I'll take Clifford Brown playing any song, any way I can. Off to amazon I go to ordter, and hear, this recording. Not for the sonics, or to debate which format sounds better, but to hear Brownie play an aweome song.
(hopefully) stirring too much, myself.
On a SOTA vinyl system, listen to recordings renowned for their high fidelity (may as well used archaic terminology).
On a SOTA digital-based system, listen to (similarly lauded) recordings produced and played back using the highest resolution technology now available.
(Yes, this isn't scientific, but--- as you point out--- it's all subjective, anyhow).
To those that have done this, which do you prefer? Since most of us have only one truly high-end system, which would you (meaning not just you but those who have experienced them both) prefer to own and live with?
Edits: 04/22/14
...Mr. Fremer what his comparisons have shown.
He should ask you, Mikey, an ex reviewer yourself. Oh, wait, you don't listen to LPs.
...have any interest in anything with resolution above Redbook CD.
It's good enough and I have no interest in recreating my music library again.
Which is why SACD failed and most likely the future for hi res downloads.
I trust a good part of you reasoning is the magic those 250s put into the music.
I hear you about not wanting to replace each record with the latest / greatest recording. I'd much prefer to buy something I don't have yet. Ordered the Clifford Browne disc that was discussed up thread. Great songs, and of course Brownie. Absolute sound quality be darned.
And, thanks.
Where do you get the 13 Khz limit with modern Lp playback using MC cartridges???
nt
For a lot of source material and even more importantly, for many commonly-used microphones, a properly functioning 44.1-kHz converter is all you will need because whatever the Platonic ideal is of the harmonic structure of a trumpet or whatever, many mics aren't catching anything over 20kHz. Lost in the noise.
The reason you go for bandwidth is not because there is material up there but to reduce phase shift.
So, until someone makes a serious stab at blind testing of, for instance, a good concert piano mic'ed using "known good mikes" (choosing at random, AKG 414s in ORTF) and makes one pass at 44.1/16 and one pass at 44.1/20 and one pass at 44.1/24 and then 24/96 and 24/192, and then has a decent playback system and listeners like Michael Fremer who have previously demonstrated the ability to do better than random coin-tossing in public blind testings, there will just be a lot of what I referred to in the April issue of Stereophile as "faith-based chatter" and no rigorous inquiry.
Personally, I go for something as real if I can hear it and verify it with measurement. Consequently I tend spout 'spec-based chatter' instead.
FWIW, one of the most experienced recording and mastering engineers tells me that if the end product is to be a CD, it is far better to record at 44.1/24, because even downconverting from 88.2 "leaves fingerprints."
I find that the elimination of the brick wall filter to be far more important- and so do recordings at 88.2KHz as the resulting Redbook has less phase shift and sound better (less 'digital'). It is easy enough to hear this difference, although usually I am dealing with the raw files in this regard than the final CD.
I have previously expressed my disinclination to take part in faith-based chatter about the sound of vinyl. It has a distinctive, bandwidth-limited mechanically-resonant sound that many people have warm emotional associations with. (As do I. Sealed copies of my JMR 180-gr. Bob Ludwig remastering of "Songs My Mother Taught Me" for over $300.)
I can't speak for all LPs, but most cutting systems have no worries putting 30KHz on the lacquer. We run a Westerex 3D and it goes down well below 20Hz as well (our cutter amps have full power to 2Hz). Your comment about 'mechanically-resonant' is blatantly false- it may be that your playback system has/had faults but that is not something coming from the cutting system. It is true that any cutterhead has a mechanical resonance, but it is also true that there are a variety of techniques for dealing with it, not unlike how you deal with mechanical resonance in a loudspeaker. FWIW this is a common myth associated with vinyl.
...is: Your system lacks sufficient resolution to detect the HF information present. If actual listening had been inviolved, the listener perceiving nothing there would probably be characterized as too unskilled to detect the low level information. ;-)
So then it becomes, the playback tape deck and the ADC used in remastering were not good enough.
Whereas in truth, the gear at the session in 1956 was probably, RCA ribbon mics, a three-channel mixer derived from radio broadcast gear, a very early mono tape recorder, and tape stock from before the tape-formulation revolution of the mid-1960s.
A cynical friend says, that recording sounds so good because it does not excite the resonances usually found in dome and inverted-dome tweeters.
An inexpensive DAW program (I have a Mac so I can use the Mac-only package Amadeus Pro) can be a great educational tool.
JM
The bass frequency plot only shows a dynamic range for the various signal frequencies of approx. 16 dB.
If one looks VERY closely, it would be difficult to see anything much below about 30-40 dB down from the maximum signal displayed, as the thickness of the bottom most lines of data (one pixel above 0.00 volts) would only be about that low in level.
In point of fact, if any signals were below -40 dB, they would be invisible on the 2nd plot.
Linear amplitude plots are the refuge of a trickster or someone who has something to hide. Just my opinion.
Jon Risch
So, the recording in question was made in 1955.
I do not know where in NYC it was recorded, but I think that it is safe to say that it was an early mono tape recorder with an early high-noise tape stock, and most likely an early three-to-one mixer modeled on radio station gear. RCA ribbon mics were the rule in most commercial studios then; German condenser mics were available but very expensive.
So I do not think that my assertion re: the absence of content as opposed to tape hiss it totally off base--as pertains to this recording. I would not say the same thing about the stereo recording of Debussy's La Mer with the Boston Symphony.
As far as the resolution of a graph goes, sorry, Amadeus Pro does not have a "Vertical Zoom" control for the Spectrum function the way it does for main view.
I never said that there was no signal there, I merely offered the opinion that the music was lost in the tape hiss. Which is why Ray Dolby started down the road toward solving that problem.
JM
...the comments were somewhat tongue-in-cheek.
Regarding the technical sufficiency of 24/44.1, hasn't the market already spoken on that one?
As I recall, the most recent Beatles vinyl rereleases were cut from 24/44.1 digital masters. As I recollect, the reviews tended to be quite critical of the sonics and most of the criticism tended to center on the 44.1 sample rate. IIRC, M. Fremer was ambivalent about them and A. Dudley pretty much declared them a fraud. Some around here claimed that the USB flash drive version sounded markedly better than the vinyl because it was done at 24/96. Turns out the flash drive was also 24/44.1. I hear rumors that the Beatles vinyl is going to be released again but this time from something higher rez than 24/44.1 Perception (or expectation) is everything.
The sample rate used for cutting the Beatles LPs in my opinion matters FAR LESS than the capabilities of the DAC used to create the analog signal that was embedded in the vinyl.
My recollection is that they used what I would call a "budget" DAC.
Not what I would call a "respectable, professional-quality, no-excuses-based-on-budgets" DAC.
And SURELY not a top-shelf, competitive-with-the-best-out-there DAC.
I have the current (recently upgraded) version of the Bricasti M1 DAC in for a follow-up, and it makes 44.1 sound sublime.
JM
...just about everyone knows the bit rate and depth used for the Beatles reissues. Just about no one knows the "quality" of the DAC used. I'm aware of no review of this release that atrributes its substandard sound quality solely to the DAC. Most mention bit rate/depth, right or wrong. If the rumor of yet another vinyl reissue is true, do you really believe a 24/44.1 master would be used again with only a higher quality DAC? I don't. Sure, a better DAC will be in the chain but so will be an advertisably higher sample rate, technically warranted or not.
I'm not disputing the possibility that objectively, 20-24/44.1 is fully adequate for most consumer grade music, only that the market probably won't accept it regardless of technical merit. After all, this is the hobby that on the fringes embraces magic pebbles, system correcting cell phone calls and faith based cryogenics.
...the very same DAC that ALL of the reviewers gushed about for years. Now it is described as decidedly mid-fi and unacceptable for all but the most pedestrian of listeners.
You simply cannot trust what is written about most gear nowadays - today's magnificent darling is tomorrow's mentally challenged, red-headed stepchild...
-CD-
...I didn't realize the Benchmark had fallen from grace so much as to be considered mediocre mid-fi. And some people wonder why high end audio appears to be in a bit of a decline. But I guess that still reinforces my point: perception IS reality in the consumer market.
gets my vote.
In the last year or so we finally got our LP mastering operation on line. During that process a lot of myths that I thought were fact bit the dust.
For example the typical LP has plenty of bandwidth- lower than 20Hz and higher than 20KHz (we can do 30KHz pretty easily and our cutterhead was made in 1961). Distortion is mostly a function of playback. This is because it is impossible to overload an LP mastering system- it has more dynamic range than any audio system around, even microphones.
The limitation to dynamic range exists in playback, not record. If the recording engineer is careful (mainly making sure that proper microphone technique is observed), the recorded LP will need no signal processing or limiting to put the signal in the groove.
In our case our stock cutter amps make 125 watts, but by the time the cutterhead is getting about 12 watts you have pretty well toasted it. Yet it can easily cut grooves no cartridge/arm combination could hope to play back.
If the system is set up properly the resulting lacquers are so quiet that the noise of whatever phono preamp is used is actually the noise floor. I have no doubt that the lathe cuts rival digital in that regard. The surface noise comes in during the pressing process. But Acoustic Sounds has modified pressing machines that do not vibrate as the LP is being pressed. We have done some jobs through their operation and the noise floor is spooky quiet- very similar to the lathe cut.
Additionally I have found that a lot of ticks and pops that LPs get blamed for are actually artifacts of the phono preamp and can be substantially reduced with proper design.
Having compared 24 bit 192 KHz sound files directly against the same track on LP the difference is still audible and not subtle- you hear it in 5 seconds flat (this using some of the best digital we could get our hands on- in this case the Stahltek system, which retails for over $75,000 and is one of the very best we have heard). Digital still has a long way to go, and to its credit has gotten a lot better over the years. I have no doubt that it will eventually get there. I think to do that the scan frequencies are going to have to exceed 300KHz and we are a ways off from that right now. The first thing of course will be convincing a digital designer there there is a good reason to do that. That right there will be the hardest part in pushing digital technology to improve- convincing designers that the current technology is still no-where near close.
Based on your description of the cutter system you have it seems to me that you can better capture the dynamics of live music with that system than with even a very good R2R tape deck.
The few d2d lps I have do have that "live in the studio" feel to them.
I found your comments pretty insightful, and I am curious to understand more about the analog context in your evaluation. Thanks!
Playback: Triplanar arm with various cartridges (ZYX Universe, Grado Statement, Transfiguration Orpheus) mounted on an Atma-Sphere model 208 turntable, Atma-Sphere MP-1 preamp, Atma-Sphere MA-1 amplifiers and Classic Audio Loudspeakers model T-3.3 or High Emotion Audio Bella Twins. We also have a set of High Emotion Audio Bella 7s.
Record: We have a variety of mics in the studio, as well as a variety of multitrack analog recorders. 2-channel machines are the Studer A-80, Ampex 300 transport (1/4" half track) with 351 electronics, Ampex AG-440 (1/2" tape path) with 351 electronics and we have a Sony that allows for rapid replacement of the head stack for 1/4" and 1/2" tape. The lathe is a Scully manual system, modified with variable speed lead screws using an Arduino to calculate the lead screw velocity. The cutterhead is a Westerex 3D cutter, driven by our M-60 amplifiers, otherwise the rest of the system is refurbished Westerex series 1700 electronics for pre-emphasis, high frequency limiting (if needed) and feedback/monitor. We have an in-house low frequency limiter that is based on a Neumann circuit, that detects out-of-phase bass and will temporarily cause mono operation below a certain frequency we can set, in case we are working with a sloppy recording.
According to Mr. Marks we shouldn't even discuss this question because it is only a matter of opinion. But almost everything discussed in the asylum is basically opinion. If we can only discuss what we can objectively prove the asylum would cease to exist.
Ralph, I found your reply really well crafted. You present us with valuable information but still the conclusion that digital has a long way to go is still mainly based onsubjective listening. You say you hear the differences in 5 seconds flat but I bet there are many on the asylum that would contend that the digital sounds better. I for one agree with you and prefer vinyl over all other formats and I can play back all current formats
Alan
I said that I was disinclined to participate in such discussions (vinyl vs. digital).
I don't believe I told anyone else what they could or could not discuss.
If I did, please point it out to me by cutting and pasting.
Vinyl versus digital is an analogue of discussions about the unassailable total world-bestriding greatness of every last little piece of potboiling music an angry guy named Louie Beethoven wrote.
The way that works is, (1) people subjectively--totally subjectively--decide to decide upon which characteristics make for greatness in a composer. (2) They then totally subjectively decide upon those characteristics, such as the ability to eke the greatest amount of repetitious argumentative music out of the smallest possible germ of a phrase, that Beethoven had more of than anyone else, ever. (3) They then look around and see who "OBJECTIVELY" does the best job of meeting their totally subjective criteria.
Surprise! Beethoven is "objectively" the best!
The other gentleman first of all has a financial investment in vinyl equipment and an expectation of earning money by cutting lacquers. Good for him. But that's hardly a double-blind test, is it? He also discounts ticks and pops as non-issues; whereas some persons of discernment and taste will find ticks and pops to be deal-breakers. (See the flowchart above.)
And lest anyone think I am being a cad, how many times have I been told that the ability to buy gear at dealer cost minus rep's commission FATALLY compromises my judgment? Gimme a break.
Nonody really knows how a microphone sounds, we can only approximate an idea by using it with various mic preamps. Many pieces of gear lean out sound, other pieces of gear fatten it up. One engineer told me that even if Plangent Processes was totally 100% effective and not with any unintended side effects, people who have grown to love the sound of those master tapes recorded with all kinds of mechanical intermodulation generation and played back with the same, will find the REAL, not clouded-up sound of the master tape "too thin."
At the end of the day, no camera is perfect for all purposes, which is why fine-art photography is an art, and the same can be said for recording music and playing it back.
I have no problem with anyone's claiming that they prefer LPs and I have no problem with anyone's claiming that an LP for them brings them more deeply into the music--as long as they realize that there is some Vaseline on the lens. Because if there wasn't any Vaseline on the lens, ALL turntables, tone arms, and cartridges would sound alike, would they not? So, you can pick your poison but I'll pick my own, thanks.
Just please don't hang noodles from my ears by saying that analog is more "accurate," because I think that all that means is, "Analog is accurate insofar as I subjectively decide to define accuracy, magnifying artifacts I enjoy listening to, and ignoring artifacts that are best ignored."
Great, fine. I love LPs too--for nostalgia, etc. There's a warmth there that very much might not have existed when the musicians were playing... . Honestly, I think that both the SMMTM LPs are a little warmer than real, but nobody has ever died from listening to them, and I am as happy as anyone is to make a virtue of necessity. And I did some page-turning on that session, so I heard at least some of the sound from up close, far closer than an audience or even the mic array.
BTW, I am equally dismissive of those who flatly state that, "Digital sounds better."
Really? A $239 Tascam chip-based 24/96 shirtpocket recorder sounds better than a fully-restored Studer A80 with Cello electronics running 30 ips half-inch two track?"
Give me a break on that, too.
JM
Asylum readers need to put this on their bulletin boards:
"Many pieces of gear lean out sound, other pieces of gear fatten it up. One engineer told me that even if Plangent Processes was totally 100% effective and not with any unintended side effects, people who have grown to love the sound of those master tapes recorded with all kinds of mechanical intermodulation generation and played back with the same, will find the REAL, not clouded-up sound of the master tape "too thin."
might be aghast at how you'd label Bach's. Or Chopin's. I wish you'd bring this up in Music. THAT would be an interesting discussion.
Edits: 04/22/14
The other gentleman first of all has a financial investment in vinyl equipment and an expectation of earning money by cutting lacquers. Good for him. But that's hardly a double-blind test, is it? He also discounts ticks and pops as non-issues; whereas some persons of discernment and taste will find ticks and pops to be deal-breakers. (See the flowchart above.)
If you are referring to me as the 'other gentleman' you have it wrong. Really wrong. It seems as if you only breezed over my post without really reading it.
So here is some background. I acquired the lathe and its associated cutter hardware about 23 years ago at low cost. Further, the lathe is now installed in a recording studio space that does not rely on the work of the lathe at all. IOW we don't have to make a profit with it to operate it. Refurbishing the unit and sorting out how it works has been quite an education and many myths similar to ones you purport have died along the way.
Finally, I don't discount ticks and pops as non-issues, what I stated was that the behavior of a phono preamp can enhance them. Now if you don't have a preamp that messes with the ticks and pops the result is far more benign; with very relaxed treatment of the LP the ticks remain quiet and people often comment about how silent my records and system seem to be. I have experienced many preamps that emphasize ticks and pops and they can indeed drive you nuts.
Hi Alan, in the particular case of '5 seconds flat', the designer (Mike Stahl) of the digital system was there when I did the comparison. In fact he was playing a hi rez file and since I had the same cut on LP, asked him if he would like to hear them compared. He did indeed!
So I put it on (a track by Massive Attack, FWIW...). Five seconds in, he turned to me and said 'Digital has sooo far to go.'
Mike readily admits that LPs sound better and I have no doubt that that is part of why his equipment sounds so good- its head and shoulders above the next best digital (dcs) that I have heard.
We record digital backups of our analog recordings in the recording studio (it is adjacent to our LP mastering operation). Invariably the clients prefer the analog version on comparison, hi rez files notwithstanding.
I'm pragmatic about this- clearly Mike is too. You can't make improvement if you can't also admit that improvement is needed :)
But I agree there are likely many who would take me to task, but the challenge is that to do so, you must take the position that the current technology needs no improvement whatsoever (it also helps to have exposure to the technologies- most people have not had hands on experience with LP mastering so I probably have an advantage here...). To put this in perspective Redbook is a technology that while still in use, was introduced about 1980, when the lowly Apple 2 was the king of desktops. Most cell phones have considerably more computing power than that nowadays- why do we persist with what is clearly an antiquated format (and while the LP is certainly antiquated, I feel that Redbook went out of date a lot faster)? The answer is that it has nothing to do with sound quality.
I thought JMs response was nearly perfect.Of course we all have the right to express our subjective opinion. However it's the veracity of that opinion that should always be questioned and as audiophiles that is what we should do. You seem to have a problem with that? Ok fine then chose whatever side you want to believe in and join in the hubris trumpeting at the full strength of your lungs.
Gotta admit best playback I ever heard was digital, second analog tape and thirdly vinyl. Which is best? It's a moot issue. Any/all of it can be absolutely fantastic. Unfortunately most of it rarely is......
Give me rhythm or give me death!
Edits: 04/22/14
For your consideration, on the identical system...in the identical room...using music from the same original source (analog master tape dub) -- the 'best' I've heard has been: analog tape...DSD...vinyl...RBCD.
Unfortunately, levels weren't matched.
Vbr,
Sam
analog tape...DSD...vinyl...RBCD
Where do you suppose hi-res PCM fits in?
-reub
Why, thank you, Reuben :-)
There has been discussion regarding hi-res PCM.
If I were recording in PCM and knew I was going to edit, later, I would invest in a hi-res A/D converter like Pacific Microsonics and work in 176.4/24 or 192/24 format.
Fortunately, there are the Korg MR-2000s, Tascam DA-3000, and Merging Technologies for DSD :-)
Vbr,
Sam
Tape is the limiting factor in a lot of LPs. If its possible to bypass it (which is really hard on the musicians, which is why direct-to-disk is so rare) the results are spectacular compared to tape.
D2D...expressed colloquially -- "doesn't suck." :-)
Vbr,
Sam
" For your consideration, on the identical system...in the identical room...using music from the same original source (analog master tape dub) -- the 'best' I've heard has been: analog tape...DSD...vinyl...RBCD."
Are you saying that single analog master tape tube provided the best analog tape, DSD, vinyl and RBCD reproduction you've ever heard?
Given an analog master tape it seems it seems reasonable and somewhat expected your order of preference....
Give me rhythm or give me death!
My understanding was the master tape dub, DSD file, vinyl, and RBCD were all based on the same master tape.
The dub sounded 'best' to me. I was literally shocked at how close DSD emulated the analog tape dub. A discernible sonic difference was evident between DSD and vinyl. RBCD seemed woefully inadequate.
Of course, albeit the various formats may have been sourced from the identical master tape -- what occurred thereafter, e.g., EQ, remastering, etc., is unknown to me.
Vbr,
Sam
Unfortunately most of it rarely is......
IMO this is the bigger problem. A lot of this discussion could be avoided if there was simply a greater dedication to 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: