|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
192.181.133.141
In Reply to: RE: A Superb Direct to Disc Recording posted by flood2 on January 02, 2023 at 17:07:32
> I asked what you thought was best and how you rank 30ips tape, digital and lacquers.
Well, it depends on how you define best. If you define "best" in terms of accuracy, I think hi-res DSD is the most accurate format because, based on my experience, it seems to make transparent copies of the other two formats.
On the other hand, if you're asking me which format sounds best to me when making a live recording, I'd have to pick either 30ips tape or a master lacquer. At any rate, I like the sound of 30ips tape and lacquer better than digital when we're talking about using it to make the original recording of a live performance. Both tape and lacquer seem to have a more musical sound quality when used to make the original recording.
However, because of the accuracy of DSD, it seems to capture the musical sound quality of both tape and lacquer when used for recording those other two formats. At any rate, it fools my ears and others who've heard my DSD recordings of vinyl. This is why I believe we could have DSD recordings that sound identical to vinyl by first recording a performance to a playable master lacquer and then using a DSD recorder to copy the master lacquer.
With respect to Stockfisch recordings, I own one of them in DSD64 format and I think it sounds very good. I own several DMM LPs from other manufacturers and I like them, too. In fact, I've always though DMM vinyl sounds better than vinyl made from master lacquers. On the other hand, I thought that Peter Ledermann's playable master lacquer sounded better than any vinyl record I'd ever heard.
Happy New Year!
John Elison
Follow Ups:
Happy New Year to you too John!
You make an important point distinction between what is accurate versus euphonically preferable that forms the basis of the oft debated analogue/digital merits.
I haven't had the luxury of hearing 30ips tape or a lacquer. Nor have I sat in on a live mic feed to compare the difference between a digital feed vs analogue feed so I don't know what I am missing. Therefore, my opinions are limited to the grade of equipment I use, but I agree that the quality of DAC/ADCs today is such that "essentially transparent" performance is available to the average consumer for relatively modest outlay and that anyone can make high resolution transfers of vinyl from their own collection.
Even amongst well-respected recording engineers there is disagreement regarding what they define as the "best" medium to work with. Bob Ludwig prefers working digitally and believes that he has greater control with less destruction of the sound (added distortion) compared to analog systems.
Rob Watts (Chord) has stated in an interview (in which he responded to some negative comments made in a review of the M Scalar on ASR regarding surprisingly "high" levels of jitter) where he said that contrary to what people believe about digital recordings being harsh, he feels that the opposite occurs even with very high sample rate conversion. When monitoring a mic feed he believes that digital conversion softens the sound from reality. His digital designs (and digital filter designs) focus on transient response and he is prepared to sacrifice jitter performance to achieve what he believes to be a better sound.
Whilst I would never suggest to anyone on this particular forum to listen to a digital recording of their vinyl rather than playing the record each time they wanted to listen to it, I would encourage them to consider it as a tool for preserving the very FIRST play of a new record in order to create a reference "document" to refer back to if anything were to happen to the record...one at least has that as a reference to go back to and enables a more reliable comparison between pressings and remasters and hearing the effects of equipment changes. That's what I like to do anyway.
At the end of the day, everyone can enjoy whatever they want.
All the best for 2023!
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
> Whilst I would never suggest to anyone on this particular forum to listen to a digital recording of their vinyl rather than playing the record
If you're concerned about accurate reproduction, you might find it beneficial to listen to a digital copy of a record versus the record itself. This is because most, if not all turntables, are affected to some degree by acoustic feedback. Records with loud, deep bass normally respond the most to acoustic feedback. If you have a high quality digital recorder like the TASCAM DA-3000 DSD recorder, you might find you get a more accurate performance from the digital copy than the vinyl record. You can test this very easily.
With your speakers turned off, make a digital copy of the vinyl record. Next, synchronize the record with the digital copy so you can make an A/B comparison as you listen at a loud volume level. Depending upon the degree to which your turntable is affected by acoustic feedback, you might hear a noticeable difference. I've done this comparison and find that with some records the difference is quite noticeable. The bass is very tight and well defined on the digital copy whereas it seems to linger and reverberate more from the vinyl record. It doesn't necessarily sound bad on the vinyl record, but the difference is sometimes quite noticeable. Consequently, if you want to hear the bass response the way it was intended to sound, it might be beneficial to listen to the digital copy instead of the vinyl record.
You should try this sometime and see what you think, assuming you have an accurate digital recorder to copy your vinyl.
Happy listening!
John Elison
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: