In Reply to: measurements mean little...... posted by mikel on March 8, 2003 at 23:53:30:
I agree with Stephen. The only way to judge the quality of any formats is in the studio. Whatever consumer music media, they still decend at least one generation down from the studio master. Sometimes the replication to consumer media may have used the 2th, 3th, or even 5th or 6th generation studio masters that seriously degrade the potential for them to sound alike. I believe you more than anyone else, know what I am talking about here. Does an Australian LP pressing sound like the Japanese pressing, like the US pressing or not? Does the subsequent pressing sounds like the first pressing?I believe the first generation studio master should be the absolute reference to which all playback media must be compared to. The one that sound closest to the studio master should be deemed the most "transparent", "clear" and "detailed" one of all.
Whether the studio master sound close to "live" is another matter altogether. Some recordings are not enginnered to sound like the real performance, but as an interpretation of it. Some recording enginners do try to capture the original performance as closely as possibly, with possible limitation posed by microphone quality, cables quality and recording equipments, and occasionally, they do succeed.
There is no point then to compare any consumer media to "live" performance. The generation gap between them is just impossible to bridge with the current technology.
Does vinyl or digital sound more like the "live" performance?
Does it sound like the first generation studio masters in the first place?
I know you guys may think - Okay wiseguy, how the hell we are gonna get the studio master to compare with our SACDs, CDs, and Vinyl LPs?
I dunno.
Sometimes you need to talk a lot to say very little :-)
I admit that digital has one HUGE downside.It tend to obscure low-level musical information.
For many music lovers, including myself, it is within the low-level information that one finds the real "soul" and "meaning" of the music. Agree?That is where the true instrumental textures exist. That is where the actual recording spaces exist. It is there that human differences of feeling and expressiveness are discerned. This is all the basic essence of "human individuality".
Digital recordings also tend to homogenize instruments, including human voices, during complex musical passages. This is most easily observable within orchestral compositions, especially those with large forces and choirs. This problem also exists in common analog recordings, but to a much less noticeable degree.
What the track-repeat procedure that I have discovered, is to correct the jitter-induced errors that allow my player to recover a dramatic part of these low-level musical information that were unapparant before.
Let's not forget also that digital has some strength that vinyl cannot overcome due to its inherent limitation:
1. It has superior speed pitch, which is very important with many forms of music (solo piano);
2. It has a quieter background compared to most records, which is important for many forms of music (classical guitars, acappella choir);
3. It can record higher dynamic volumes, which is important for some music (Classical, Jazz, Audiophile recordings);
I paint my discs with the green pen CD stoplight, which I'm sure you must have heard people mentioned about. Linning the inner and outer edges of the disc with the green paint cleans up the "greyish haze" and "grunch" between the notes, leading to a much more natural sonic presentation.
The SID green disc helps make digital in whatever form (SACD & CD) more acceptable, closer to the sense of involvement that I get with my analog set-up. Although I have been using the CD Stoplight already, this green disc has taken digital playback to another new higher level of enjoyment. Without it, my players suddenly seems "sour". I can't think of any other way to describe it.
I find that the best "lock-in" sound is achieved when the disc has been played in its entirety once or twice in the player. Somehow it has a "lubricating effect on the mechanical gears which improve reading accuracy the second time around. I also notice that the sonic quality is affected by some data-reading program of the player. For instance, why would SKIP BACKWARDS work better than the numercal keys?
After the disc had spunned in the player for more than one round, I would select the track by numerical key Then I would repeat the track using the SKIP BACKWARD key within time window of 10 - 12 secs. Any later or earlier, it would not lock in as well. If I miss the time-window, then I have repeat the procedure using numerical keys again. Pressing SKIP BACKWARD keys more than once is not good for sound.
Once you get it, the sound is simply marvelous.
As it is right now, I hardly feel the urge to touch any of my 300 LPs.It is now my vinyl that has to play catch up.
Spending $2500 on a Lyra Helikon cartridge?
Spending another $2500 - $3000 on a SME tone-arm?
Spending $1200 on the QC motor upgrade?
Spending $1500 on the Orbe Platter upgrade?No, I rather save the money for Ed Meitner's new DAC. It was hinted to me by Dan Agnanos, my speaker's designer that this DAC is able to overcome the disc-drive jitter problem. But you already know that.
Don't limit its performance by placing the transport and DAC on Aurios and Symposium Rollerblocks! Even The svelte platform is very detrimental to sound. I have 3 of them, unfortunately.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Reality means little...... - jeromelang 00:16:11 03/09/03 (4)
- Re: Reality means little...... - Stephen 04:29:37 03/09/03 (3)
- Re: Reality means little...... - mikel 06:59:48 03/09/03 (2)
- Try listening without the aurios under the SACD-1000 for a while. - jeromelang 17:06:40 03/09/03 (1)
- Try air bladder if you like palpable analog sound! - Ric Schultz 17:46:13 03/09/03 (0)