|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
12.211.53.4
In Reply to: Re: How is the state of digital copy vs original LP... posted by Stephen Murphy on December 17, 2005 at 14:47:18:
Actually, I can't hear the slightest difference in clicks and pops or in the music. To me, CD-R copies sound identical to the LPs. However, in one respect, they do sound quieter. This is because I fade out volume in-between songs, which gives the illusion of a quieter background very similar to CDs. Then, when the LP has low noise with few clicks and pops, the music masks the noise and the effect is like a very quiet record with a few clicks and pops.
Follow Ups:
Our experiences are obviously different then. The first time I recorded an LP to DAT I was immediately struck by the difference in the way the digital copy rendered clicks and pops. The digital copy preserved many of the LP's positive qualities, but identical? Not to my ears. The A/D in that case was a highly modified Sony SBM-1, but have also used nicer/modern converters with similar results.I'm not surprised; the extremely sharp transients produced by dirt and scratches impacting a stylus cannot be easy to record or reproduce. Accurately encoding that kind if signal demands a very high resolution format. Heck, even resolution-independent limitations are problematic. Clicks and pops usually result in digital clipping, so there's signal corruption right from the start!
-Anthony
> > > Clicks and pops usually result in digital clipping,
> > > so there's signal corruption right from the start!I'll agree with you that clipping will certainly alter the sound. I guess most of my records are very clean because the clicks and pops I encounter rarely exceed the maximum level of musical peaks. Moreover, I'll have to admit that I don’t really focus on noise when I compare digital copies with the original. Mostly, I focus on cymbals and other high frequency sounds because that is the area that always bothered me about CD digital.
My ML-9600 digital recorder is connected into the tape loop of my Pass Labs X1 line stage and I can play a record and switch back-and-forth using the tape monitor. Switching is instantaneous and inaudible. Furthermore, simply placing the ML-9600 in its record mode runs the signal through its digital converters. When I switch between tape and source there is no audible difference that I can detect even when listening with Grado HP-1 and RS-2 headphones connected to a Grado headphone amplifier.
I guess the bottom line for me is that I actually derive greater pleasure from listening to digital copies than records because I cannot detect any sonic differences and CD-Rs are much more convenient.
I don't think anyone here doubts you yourself can't hear the difference between a record and a digital recording of a record, be it on your Alesis or an early 90's DAT recorder. You have said it here many times. I think it speaks volumes.
The thing that gets me is that if you or anyone else can really hear the difference, it seems like someone would have conducted an objective double blind ABX test to prove it. If this is the case, I would like to read about it. It just seems to me that someone of importance and means who believes that analog is king and digital is crap would have taken the time and effort to prove to everyone that digital cannot accurately copy a vinyl LP.In my way of thinking, the lack of any proof also speaks volumes.
The results are already in: different A/D converters produce unique results! Within the concert taping community for example, it's common knowledge that a Sony SBM-1 sounds different than a Benchmark AD2K, which sounds different than an Apogee AD1000, which sounds different than an Apogee Mini-Me, which sounds different than a Grace Design V3, which sounds different than an Edirol UA-5, which sounds different than a Sony PCM-M1 DAT machine, which sounds different than a Sony PCM-2600 DAT machine, which sounds different than... get the idea?The point is, they're all different, and that being the case, only one could possibly be exactly true to the source. Digital is certainly not "crap," but it's never exactly true to the source, which again, tends to be common knowledge among those with firsthand experience. In the same token, no A/D converter will be exactly true to the analog signal from a phono stage.
-Anthony
The only way to prove that two components sound different is by conducting a double blind ABX test. The whole point of ABX testing is to prove that differences exist.Personally, I don't believe that anyone else can hear things that I can't hear and I also don’t believe that anyone else can hear the difference between a digital copy and an LP made with an Alesis ML-9600 connected to Pass Labs electronics. Therefore, if you wish to prove to me or anyone else that you can hear a difference when others can't, a valid ABX test is absolutely necessary.
If you can identify two different components repeatedly during a double blind ABX test, no one can possibly doubt your ability to hear the difference. This is why I'm rather surprised that no one has published an ABX test showing once and for all that digital cannot even copy a lowly phonograph record accurately.
Why are you now saying only your Alesis can handle the job? You have been telling us for years that your DAT and TASCAM make perfect copies. You should be selling used cars John.
Why can't you or anyone else provide me with ABX proof that you or anyone else can hear the difference between different digital recorders and players let alone a digital copy of a record? I guess we can all ask questions, but until you can provide some answers, we don't have much more to talk about. The responsibility for proof is always on the person who claims to hear the difference—not the person who says there is no difference.
My CD-R copies are virtually identical to the original vinyl. Note that I didn't say "absolutely identical," simply because I can heard differnces, usually subtle, when I play the same CD in different high-end players. So not all of the players can exacltly match the sound of the vinyl. My Ayre CX-7e comes so close that in blind listening, experienced listeners generally can't tell which is which. If they can detect a difference in some cases, it's a toss up as to which they prefer (again blind). Several times I've heard people say the CD-R sounds more real, more natural than the original vinyl, not knowing which is which. They are always extremely close. I use an outboard ADC feeding into the USB input of my computer. For what it's worth, if I make a CD-R from the 2-channel analogue output of an SACD, it's fairly easy to distinguish the original SACD from the CD-R. This simply says that RBCDs are capable of capturing all the significant information on a vinyl disc, but not an SACD. The latter shouldn't be a surprise, but the former will be fighting words to many.
If you are not willing to say "absolutely identical", then your experience is not the same as John's. He has said that his 1990s DAT recorder, his Tascam CDR recorder and his Alesis all sound identical to the record.I'm thinking that if you gave a good listener all three of those machines to listen to for a week, not only could he tell you the difference between a live record and a digital recording from one, he could most likely tell you which of the 3 digital machines recorded it. All this stuff has a sonic signature and one is fooling himself if he thinks he has something that is 100% transparent. Your own post bears this out.
Ugh, I hate it when commercial transfers do this. If the surface/tape noise is continuous, the ear adjusts. If the disc fades to "digital black" in between tracks, it's just a reminder of the surface noise. Obviously you feel differently enough not to keep the surface noise.I even prefer that original digital recordings have continuous "room tone" between tracks without fading (in acoustic and live recordings). To put it fancifully, fading to black throws me back into the environment of the listening room rather than leaving me in the environment of the recording space.
> > > Ugh, I hate it when commercial transfers do this. If the surface/tape noise is continuous,
> > > the ear adjusts. If the disc fades to "digital black" in between tracks, it's just a reminder
> > > of the surface noise. Obviously you feel differently enough not to keep the surface noise.
Yes, I feel differently. However, the beauty of digital recording is that you can do it any way you wish. If you simple want to copy an LP directly without any manipulation, you can do that and achieve an exact duplicate of your LP.
> > > I even prefer that original digital recordings have continuous "room tone" between tracks without fading
> > > (in acoustic and live recordings). To put it fancifully, fading to black throws me back into the
> > > environment of the listening room rather than leaving me in the environment of the recording space.
Yes, in live recordings I normally do not fade; however, it depends on the recording.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: