|
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 18, 2005 at 07:55:03:
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.
Follow Ups:
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.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: