|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
50.166.19.42
In Reply to: RE: Uh oh, your hair's on fire! posted by John Elison on March 25, 2015 at 08:43:29
Is it true that he nailed 5 out of 6 passes?
"Hope is a good thing. Maybe, the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."
Follow Ups:
Actually, he would have nailed 6 out of 6 if we had used his thirty thousand dollar Meitner CD player. My CD-R didn't sound at all like vinyl when played on his Meitner. Since his rules allowed me to use my own CD player, that's when I connected my old Audio Alchemy and discovered just how accurate my CD sounded. Mike told me that his Meitner revealed how my CD-R truly sounded and that my Audio Alchemy just couldn't resolve enough detail to sound different from vinyl. I really got a laugh out of that one.
Best regards,
John Elison
not certain your motive, considering it's all archived.
I didn't know anything about this until yesterday, let alone that it was all archived. It also seemed easier to ask a question directly than research the archives. It's pretty cool the guy was able to discern the differences. I'll read the archives to find out what he attributes the differences to.
"Hope is a good thing. Maybe, the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."
> > It's pretty cool the guy was able to discern the differences. < <
Cool perhaps, but certainly not remotely surprising either, at least to anyone I know who's recorded or ripped high quality LP> 16/44 transfers.
Even I think I'd have trouble discerning 100% of my own recordings in direct comparison, even though I went thru the recording phase (much listening) and am very well aware of the sonic differences between the copy played back on my CDP vs TT.
Let me provide another example: moons ago, an acquaintance would arrive at my house so he could spend a few hours listening to my system. He loved it, and this bud didn't even own a stereo, never mind being an audiophile. The thing was, he absolutely refused to entertain my digital alternatives. Once I turned to digital, he lost all interest. It was actually a good way to make him leave.
Anyway, a few years later, after I got my first CD recorder, he came over with some of his "audiophile" buds, and demanded the same analog experience. But after a few LPs, I pulled the old switcheroo using a LP-CDR; nobody noticed any "digital" intrusion.
That gave me a chuckle.
I've downloaded a few needle drops. I have the Mirror Spock version of the UHQR Sgt. Pepper and DSOTM. They are native 24/96 files, and they sound great.
For me, digital copies always seem to soften the sound. Notes don't decay like they can on vinyl. DSD seems to retain those nuances to a greater extent.
I've noticed that JE is now making DSD recordings of his records. So much for not being able to hear differences at 16/44.
"Hope is a good thing. Maybe, the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."
> I've downloaded a few needle drops.
If you can handle 24/96 FLAC, Michael Fremer posted some needle drops comparing different MM cartridges on a VPI Traveler turntable not too long ago. The interesting thing is that for kicks he threw in a recording of his ridiculously expensive Continuum Caliburn turntable with Ortofon Anna cartridge. I don't know if these FLAC files are still available for download, but the thing I found most interesting is that the vast majority of people who listened to them felt the VPI Traveler sounded better than the Continuum Caliburn.
> > I've downloaded a few needle drops. I have the Mirror Spock version of the UHQR Sgt. Pepper and DSOTM. They are native 24/96 files, and they sound great. < <
Share / trade ?
> > For me, digital copies always seem to soften the sound. Notes don't decay like they can on vinyl. DSD seems to retain those nuances to a greater extent. < <
I used to think 16/44 evil, when asked to record a certain recording for a friend years ago (to determine recorded sibilance vs mistracking) I flat out refused to consider digital, because everything I'd heard on CD to that point couldn't capture what even a modest turntable could routinely do.
In other words, I was blaming 16/44 ENTIRELY based on poor mastering techniques, and dragging down the format with it (Teresa anyone). My first recorder was a commercial Sony. A POS in terms of build quality, and certainly not at all transparent in terms of recording quality. It's meters were so slow and inaccurate, I'd end up clipping dynamic peaks without knowing it until after recording. However, despite not being close to "perfect", it was still obvious that 16/44 rips captured the majority of my rigs capabilities. And even more surprisingly, they were often head-over-heals better (certainly more dynamic) than the commercial CD release.
My current profession Sony W66, significantly closes that gap between source and copy. In direct comparison to my TT, it's just like you stated, dimensional data (depicting space & time, like a fading note) is curtailed, and the image as a whole is shrunk a touch. But note, this is also very much LP dependent, dimensional depth of field clues are not nearly as apparent (or important) with the vast majority of studio recordings.
When it comes to instrumental impact, perceived layering of the recorded venue, and especially wide bandwidth/frequency extreme resolution, very little difference if any exist.
However, I will also add this; my CDP offers above average wide bandwidth and transparency. It also is one of the rare players I've had in my system which can give my TT a run for the money. In fact, given the same mastered software (especially if recorded originally in digital), they tend to sound identical.
Now that said, I'm not disputing the advantages of DSD, or hi-rez PCM for that matter. Advantages exist given the right circumstances, but considering the vastly increased file sizes, and the fact that anyone can replay WAV files on near any device, as a sharing tool, DSD is far too restrictive.
tb1
> considering the vastly increased file sizes, and the fact that anyone can replay WAV files on near any device,
> as a sharing tool, DSD is far too restrictive.Nearly every DAC being made today can convert DSD; otherwise, the DAC is not marketable. I bought an ifi Nano iDSD DAC for $189 that will convert up to DSD(128). Probably, the only audiophiles today that don't have DSD capability are diehard vinyl fanatics. The Oppo BDP-103 sells for $500 and plays just about everything digital including DSD files directly from a USB flash drive.
If you are serious about copying vinyl to digital, you might consider buying a TASCAM DA-3000 , which will record at nearly any digital resolution from 16/44 up to DSD(128) and it sells for $1000. TASCAM often has sale rebates and I bought mine for $800 from Sweetwater during one their rebate offers. The TASCAM DA-3000 also is a great sounding playback device for commercial DSD files because it accepts a USB flash drive for playback. It records only on SD and CF cards. I find its DAC to be one of the best sounding DACs for playing commercial DSD files up to DSD(128).
As far as file size and memory requirements are concerned, storage space is pretty cheap these days. I buy 4-TB external USB hard drives for $130 each.
Edits: 03/27/15
really?
John give your head a shake, please!
if a professional Sony is not "serious" enough for you, fine, but considering you've NEVER heard my rips, your advice reeks of pretentious "reality". (and we are aware of your "issues" there)
DSD, I have no interest, simply because the DSD requirement has never been fully established within my not so (big gulp) ... "serious" ... system.
tb1
Isn't it obvious? His motive is keep this thing going as long as possible.
Are we still having fun???
So tell me about that layover again...
NIAGRA FALLS!
Slowly I turned. Step by step. Inch by inch...
"Hope is a good thing. Maybe, the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."
no need to pile on, especially late to the party.
John, take care.
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: