Jump to content
IGNORED

Computer Audio vs Analogue


gedd

Recommended Posts

No wonder digital gets a bad reputation. Such a disgrace. And that's not even one of the more egregious example of a loudness war victim, only one that I came across by chance today. And in this instance you at least (potentially) still have access to the better version.

 

Thankfully this issue seems confined to the realm of popular music for now.

 

Some of the older pre-loudness war stuff wasn't great either. There wasn't a version of Tommy that held a candle to my 1969 LP until I got the Universal SHM-SACD, which says it was sourced from the original analog tapes. (This extra care in the recording of at least some SACDs or DSD albums could well be partly responsible for how much many people say they like it.)

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
You are quite correct about the fact that many of the last century's greatest artists and performances were analog and that a CD or SACD or DCD-A or high-res file of the artists and performances are from analog sources. What amazes me is that you have bothered to rip over 800 LPs to digital. I've done a few, and it's time consuming. First you have to digitize the LP (both sides, in real time), then you have to "de-tick" it with the tools available from an app like Audacity on a tick-by-tick basis, then break it up into separate "cuts" (also using Audacity or some other like program), then you have to (often) photograph the cover, back and front (because LP covers are bigger than the beds of most home-style scanners). I can't imagine having the time to do 800 LPs and I'm RETIRED! My hat's off to you Larry!

 

George, it is 8000 records and tapes so far! I am retired also for about seven years. The last five I've spent researching (with the help of a great consultant, Tim Marutani) the best way I could to do the ripping and declicking and then doing it. I've got about one more year (about 8-10 records a day, 300 days a year) to finish the project. I'm using a pro set up, Pyramix to rip, Izotope RX2 to declick - automated, and Mykerinos card to PM Model Two to convert at 192/24. (In the last 18 months, I also researched and wrote my Decca book for Winston Ma and FIM). Better to keep busy than the alternative :-).

 

Larry

Analog-VPIClas3,3DArm,LyraSkala+MiyajimaZeromono,Herron VTPH2APhono,2AmpexATR-102+MerrillTridentMaster TapePreamp

Dig Rip-Pyramix,IzotopeRX3Adv,MykerinosCard,PacificMicrosonicsModel2; Dig Play-Lampi Horizon, mch NADAC, Roon-HQPlayer,Oppo105

Electronics-DoshiPre,CJ MET1mchPre,Cary2A3monoamps; Speakers-AvantgardeDuosLR,3SolosC,LR,RR

Other-2x512EngineerMarutaniSymmetrical Power+Cables Music-1.8KR2Rtapes,1.5KCD's,500SACDs,50+TBripped files

Link to comment

Welcome to the 8000 LP and tape ripped club! Larry

 

I have converted all of the CD's and SACD's to digital files and over 8000 of the LP's and tapes.9ce11.jpg

Analog-VPIClas3,3DArm,LyraSkala+MiyajimaZeromono,Herron VTPH2APhono,2AmpexATR-102+MerrillTridentMaster TapePreamp

Dig Rip-Pyramix,IzotopeRX3Adv,MykerinosCard,PacificMicrosonicsModel2; Dig Play-Lampi Horizon, mch NADAC, Roon-HQPlayer,Oppo105

Electronics-DoshiPre,CJ MET1mchPre,Cary2A3monoamps; Speakers-AvantgardeDuosLR,3SolosC,LR,RR

Other-2x512EngineerMarutaniSymmetrical Power+Cables Music-1.8KR2Rtapes,1.5KCD's,500SACDs,50+TBripped files

Link to comment
Completely non scientific answer ...

 

Personally (and if the same music was available to me in both formats) ... I would take a Project Debut turntable and budget amplifier and speakers over a similar level digital system (say £1000 for source, amplifier and speakers where source for digital includes buying a computer AND a DAC). However I think digital quickly gains an advantage over this level until levelling out when talking high 4 and 5 figure components...

Eloise

 

I knew there was a reason I liked you.

David

Link to comment

To add to the many right things that have been written : it takes the 45 rpm Classic to beat (? both have their assets) the 24/192 Kind of blue : in the end analogue is known to me only as a publicly released medium and I've spent insane money on original pressings (sometimes beaten flat by the 24/192, i.e. the Velvet Underground & Nico). The question of originals and/or audiophile mastering apart, I think that publicly available analogue has to be on 45 (ever compared the 45 & the 33 of a same mastering ?) to beat the best of digital nowadays.

Link to comment

I may I ask a question why would someone as technically savvy as the ones here use PCM and not dsd 128 to be the format to use for play back. What am I missing ?? Lastly having heard some ultra hiend vinyl and open reels. Reels seems to be a bit above the vinyl and even 45 is at best on par with open reels. For me some of the best dsd128 in own is from analog open reel tapes . What's any bodies thoughts on this thought .

al

Link to comment

Hee hee... I recently even found a Kid Rock song I like- as repulsive as he is.

 

And sometimes, the something about the artist can just be repulsive and ruin the enjoyment of the music, presented in any environment and any format. And tastes change over time too, as our ears age and our experience increases.

 

-Paul

Forrest:

Win10 i9 9900KS/GTX1060 HQPlayer4>Win10 NAA

DSD>Pavel's DSC2.6>Bent Audio TAP>

Parasound JC1>"Naked" Quad ESL63/Tannoy PS350B subs<100Hz

Link to comment

After my long and war-waging efforts to figure out what is best, my friend and I sort of came up with these ideas.

 

Now this doesn't count in the music that's available on the formats, because that could decide ones decision on it's own, but more just with the pure ability of audio reproduction.

 

I've come up with a three breaking points where it's pretty easy to categorize things. This includes all the parts on the vinyl side from the pre to the catridge and on the digital side it's taking into consideration the "added" parts in a computer through the dac (so things like processor or memory or storage, not really counting).

 

Under $1,000:

Vinyl here is the winner, hands down. Everytime I'd find a dac that I liked under $1,000 (and even tipping to the $1,200 range), I would think, there's no way vinyl sounds this good. Then I'd take the DAC over to my friends house and we would play all the same selections (some from the very same master, some not as we couldn't find the exact)... what came of this is... Every time we'd listen to the digital versions, we felt we were missing something. Not necessarily clarity or quality...but it might even be PRaT was missing. There was an overall musicality to what we were hearing coming off the records that while the digital sounded very close, the realism, quickness, and energy wasn't there.

 

$1,000 - roughly $3,000 (could even stretch to $5,000):

This is where things start to blur. The digital side of things makes leaps in progress to get closer to the music. PRaT is improved, low end extension really starts coming into it's own and the sound stage can really start to get a 3D depth to it (should be noted that you can get all this with the sub $1,000 vinyl setup). We didn't noticed this last point until getting to this level of Digital that this is what we were hearing with the vinyl setup at the lower cost. On the vinyl side things do get better, it's just not quite at rate of return as on the digital side. This is where I think either side can make a very solid argument for who should take the ranks of being on top. It's all a tweaking game at this point and finding the right matching components to get the exact sound you like. It's like eating Pizza... it's great yeah, but there's a bazillion types of pizza and everyone has their favorite, nothing wrong with that.

 

Over $3,000/$5,000:

This is where Digital really starts to show it's superiority I think. You start getting into the better equipment of PSU, dedicated Media PCs, better DACs, DSD, all this stuff and it equates to being able to extract all the information you need for a sound that can truly rival most (if not almost all) of the vinyl setups out there. Now vinyl still holds it's own here... it's not like Digital runs away (like say a Koenigsegg Agera R vs a Ford Focus in a drag race)... but Digital gives you the better sound and at this pricing point it's tough to make an argument for vinyl with all of it's maintenance and upkeep. Though I think Digital has almost as much upkeep just in different ways. ha ha. Right here though, having to pick sides, digital wins. It just makes more sense to go down this avenue.

 

This is a nutshell wrap up of the few years my friends and I have been going back and forth on the subject and there is more to it, but it'd be like a novel to write it all out.

Link to comment

I am sad to inform that vinyl seems to have the upper hand in my system.

Digital Source : DCS Vivaldi 4 stack + Antelope 10M Reference clock. (APEX in progress)

Analog Source : AVID ACUTUS SP + FR64S + Koetsu Blue Azule + ARC Ref 10 phono

Analog Source : TECHDAS AF3 + FR66S + Koetsu Blue Lace, Groove Master III + Phasemation PP2000, Glanz 10" + DS Audio Grandmaster

Phono : ARC ref 10 + DS Audio Master 1

Amp : Naim Statement

Speakers : Focal Stella Utopia

Link to comment
I've always been able to discern a difference between listening to the direct mic feed and listening to the playback of the recording--- until I started experimenting with 4x PCM from a very high quality set of converters. My favored format has become 24/192 PCM as for the first time in my experience, I have not yet been able to tell the recording from my direct mic feed.

Hi, Barry -

 

As always, your experience and insight are both interesting and enlightening for me. But I'm a bit concerned about the concept of "mic feed" as used by recording engineers, specifically the practice of using it as the reference source. For me, that term should describe the sonic input to the microphones, not their electrical output, which I would have called board feed had anyone asked me :) Only when what goes into the mic is indistinguishable from what comes out of the 'phones or speakers will I be satisfied (I'm always happy).

 

It's wonderful to now have formats (and equipment of requisite quality) that can produce recordings sonically indistinguishable from the output of the mics - this is a major step toward TAS heaven. But the big question for me has always been how closely the recording sounds like what went into the mics, not what came out of them. After 6 decades of listening to everything out there everywhere I could, I still haven't heard reproduced music that sounded and felt consistently like it was live. To date, more of the closest imitators (to me) were from vinyl sources than from digital - but I suspect that has less to do with the technical quality of the recording-reproducing chain than it does with the environments in which the recordings were made (and heard), the skill and passion of all who made them, and the nature of the program material when the equipment in the chain was of equal quality and equally well suited to the program and listening environment. Vinyl seems to me to do passion better and more consistently than digital does.

 

I always come back to the same example - what kind of piano is it on the recording? Differences in scale, action, design, construction etc do give pianos distinct sounds that many can identify live. So if you don't know what the piano was, you can't know how good the recording is. For me, comparison must start at the sonic "mic feed", not its electrical output. How would you know if the reproduced piano that sounds like a Steinway is, in fact, a Steinway? The subtleties that distinguish one from another are obviously very hard to capture with precision. Sonic differences in the piano's action can be clearly audible in a blast of scherzo 32nd notes but not at all audible in legato passages. Some pieces played by the same pianist on Steinway, Fazioli and Bösendorfer will sound very different on each because the pianos' mechanical factors predominate.

 

Obviously, the same is true for all instruments, including the human voice. The only reference is the source. At its best, vinyl seems to me to have come a bit closer a very few times. And I expect digital to get there with consistency not possible from vinyl. But Rodgers and Hart said it best: "who knows where or when"?

 

Best regards -

 

David

Link to comment
I may I ask a question why would someone as technically savvy as the ones here use PCM and not dsd 128 to be the format to use for play back. What am I missing ?? Lastly having heard some ultra hiend vinyl and open reels. Reels seems to be a bit above the vinyl and even 45 is at best on par with open reels. For me some of the best dsd128 in own is from analog open reel tapes . What's any bodies thoughts on this thought .

al

 

Al, if you are speaking of "why not rip vinyl to DSD128" there is a paucity of editing solutions in DSD128 for de-clicking and even simple editing, short of owning a Sonoma or Pyramix workstation, and even then de-clicking is a PCM event. For open reel, you might need PCM sweetening, but at least a decent DSD splicer. But I agree, the stuff that Jan is doing for Opus 3, for example, is marvelous.

Link to comment

For me, using the gear shown below, theres not much in it. Vinyl still has the edge, not quite so clinical. More foot tappin'. Maybe I need to find a way to soften up the digital side of things.

Saying that, most of my media purchases are CD. Why a new vinyl record has to cost 2-3 or more times that of a CD beats me. Strange to say it but it seems like vinyl is the new kid on the block and as such commands a premium. Thats how it seems but that doesnt mean I understand it.

MacMini 8Gb OSX > Pure Music / Bitperfect / Amarra / iTunes > Synology DS215J NAS > Schiit Wyrd > Stello U3 > Naim Uniti Atom, Harbeth P3ESR. Meier Corda Arietta Headphone Amp > Sennhieser HD650 Phones (Cardas rewire). Isol-8 Powerline Axis. Isotek GII Orion Power Conditioner. Cardas Clear USB Cable. Tellurium Q Black Speaker Cable. All other cables by Mark Grant.

Vinyl still has it's place. Technics SL1200. Modified with Mike New Bearing, KAB Strobe Disable, MCRU 2 box PSU, Isonoe Feet, SME M2-9 Tonearm > Goldring 2400 >Rothwell Simplex Phonostage.

Link to comment
Hi, Barry -

 

As always, your experience and insight are both interesting and enlightening for me. But I'm a bit concerned about the concept of "mic feed" as used by recording engineers, specifically the practice of using it as the reference source. For me, that term should describe the sonic input to the microphones, not their electrical output, which I would have called board feed had anyone asked me :) Only when what goes into the mic is indistinguishable from what comes out of the 'phones or speakers will I be satisfied (I'm always happy).

 

It's wonderful to now have formats (and equipment of requisite quality) that can produce recordings sonically indistinguishable from the output of the mics - this is a major step toward TAS heaven. But the big question for me has always been how closely the recording sounds like what went into the mics, not what came out of them. After 6 decades of listening to everything out there everywhere I could, I still haven't heard reproduced music that sounded and felt consistently like it was live. To date, more of the closest imitators (to me) were from vinyl sources than from digital - but I suspect that has less to do with the technical quality of the recording-reproducing chain than it does with the environments in which the recordings were made (and heard), the skill and passion of all who made them, and the nature of the program material when the equipment in the chain was of equal quality and equally well suited to the program and listening environment. Vinyl seems to me to do passion better and more consistently than digital does.

 

I always come back to the same example - what kind of piano is it on the recording? Differences in scale, action, design, construction etc do give pianos distinct sounds that many can identify live. So if you don't know what the piano was, you can't know how good the recording is. For me, comparison must start at the sonic "mic feed", not its electrical output. How would you know if the reproduced piano that sounds like a Steinway is, in fact, a Steinway? The subtleties that distinguish one from another are obviously very hard to capture with precision. Sonic differences in the piano's action can be clearly audible in a blast of scherzo 32nd notes but not at all audible in legato passages. Some pieces played by the same pianist on Steinway, Fazioli and Bösendorfer will sound very different on each because the pianos' mechanical factors predominate.

 

Obviously, the same is true for all instruments, including the human voice. The only reference is the source. At its best, vinyl seems to me to have come a bit closer a very few times. And I expect digital to get there with consistency not possible from vinyl. But Rodgers and Hart said it best: "who knows where or when"?

 

Best regards -

 

David

 

Hi David,

 

You raise an interesting question. I suppose any answer depends on the philosophical approach one takes to reproducing audio and what one deems the job to be of each link in the chain.

 

Speaking only for myself (of course), while the ultimate goal (for some of us) is to have reproduction that sounds indistinguishable from what we'd experience at the event itself, I find that to achieve this end, I must recognize that different parts of the chain have different responsibilities. For example, I don't think it is the playback system's job to reproduce reality. I think it is the playback system's job to reproduce the *recording*. I think it is the *recording's* job to capture said reality.

 

To clarify, not all recordings are made with the goal of sounding real. Though this happens to be my own interest in what I do for Soundkeeper, I know other engineers who do not see to capture reality at all but instead, seek a more impressionistic view of a performance - either by selecting gear (from mics onward) that provides certain "colors" they like or by using techniques that attempt to do something that perhaps cannot occur in reality. If I play such a recording on my system and the system makes it sound like something it isn't (i.e., real) then the system is actually coloring the sound further. I see this as a distortion - pleasant or otherwise, desired or not, still a distortion. As I see it, the system should give me the sound of the recording. On the other hand, if I have a recording made with the goal of sounding real, the system should give me the sound of *that* recording.

 

Getting back to the mic feed example I use, I consider it the job of the system to give me the sound of my mic feed. (I don't use any sort of board, finding these to always get in the way sonically, so I don't call it a "board feed". Neither do I mix microphone inputs, preferring to keep it to a single mic signal per playback channel.) Mic selection, number and placement are critical. Depending on what I seek, I can quite radically alter the sound of anything by moving my mics half an inch or less. So I consider it my job as engineer to capture the sound in a way that provides the listener with the necessary cues to make the recording convincing and the overall experience, as close as possible to being present at the event, in the best position for listening to it. If I do my job properly, the information is in the signals leaving the microphones. This is why I often say that in my experience, 90-95% or more of the ultimate quality of a recording has already been determined by the time the signals are leaving the microphones. No recording or playback system, in my opinion, can make it better (i.e., more truthful to the event) than what it is. They can only get in the way. Or stay out of the way - to the degree that is possible.

 

If it isn't in the mic feed, nothing else in the recording or playback chains can make that Steinway sound like not only *a* Steinway but *that* Steinway.

 

So, I chose my mics to sound like what occurs in their presence. I choose everything else--from mic cables and the rest of the recording chain, all the way to the speakers in the studio/listening room--to get out of the way. If everything else can reasonably get out of the way, I'll hear the sound of my mic feed. If I did my recording job properly, that mic feed will sound like the event.

 

In the end, the mic feed determines everything else. That is why I want to hear the sound of my mic feed in the listening room.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

Link to comment
I may I ask a question why would someone as technically savvy as the ones here use PCM and not dsd 128 to be the format to use for play back. What am I missing ?? Lastly having heard some ultra hiend vinyl and open reels. Reels seems to be a bit above the vinyl and even 45 is at best on par with open reels. For me some of the best dsd128 in own is from analog open reel tapes . What's any bodies thoughts on this thought .

al

 

Hi Al,

 

Speaking only for myself (of course), the answer to your question is easy. I use PCM because when done properly, it sounds like my mic feed. I have not heard another digital format that, to my ears, gets close. (I know other folks who love DSD and respect their choice. It just isn't my cup of sonic tea.)

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

Link to comment
I think it is the playback system's job to reproduce the *recording*. I think it is the *recording's* job to capture said reality. To clarify, not all recordings are made with the goal of sounding real.

We're in complete agreement. And this is perhaps the main reason it's so difficult to judge the "quality" of a source or playback system without knowing what the performance sounded like. It's also why I get so irritated at dramatic pronouncements about sound quality that are made in total ignorance of and with total disregard for the sound on which the judgment is based. It may well be that the greater technical accuracy and lower overall distortion in digital file creation, storage and processing makes vinyl sound more pleasing if the inherent mechanical limitations of vinyl are masking some of the sonic aberrations you describe.

 

If it isn't in the mic feed, nothing else in the recording or playback chains can make that Steinway sound like not only *a* Steinway but *that* Steinway.

For sure! Again, what I'm addressing is that so many judge on the basis of what they think they're supposed to be hearing, while so few care or try to find out what they're supposed to be hearing (e.g. what instruments were played, in what spatial arrangement, with what natural acoustic properties etc). You know what's hitting the elements in your mics because you're there. Trying to decipher the details of a musical performance from hearing it reproduced after the fact is like trying to decide if the sex was great by watching the delivery - the baby offers no clues.

 

D

Link to comment
Trying to decipher the details of a musical performance from hearing it reproduced after the fact is like trying to decide if the sex was great by watching the delivery - the baby offers no clues.D

 

awesome!

Speaker Room: Lumin U1X | Lampizator Pacific 2 | Viva Linea | Constellation Inspiration Stereo 1.0 | FinkTeam Kim | Revel subs  

Office Headphone System: Lumin U1X | Lampizator Golden Gate 3 | Viva Egoista | Abyss AB1266 Phi TC 

Link to comment
Hi Blake,

 

All good points.

There is, however, one thing that can guide a listener to something closer to the original. While I'm very lucky to be able to compare things with the original mic feed or with the original master (of recordings I didn't do myself), it is still possible for "civilians" to make accurate assessments using one simple criterion:

The more transparent a component, system, format, etc., the greater the differences between recordings.

 

Every recording sounds very different from every other recording. The best components, systems, formats, will reveal this to the greatest degree. Any coloration within a component, system, format, is applied to everything that passes through it, ultimately diminishing the differences between recordings. For example, when different recordings have a common sound in the treble, that is a treble coloration in the component, system, or format.

 

So, finding those components, systems, formats that reveal the greatest differences between recordings will take one closer to the true absolute sound. The component, system, or format is doing a better job of getting out of the way.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

 

Very good suggestion! I've been using this criterion for years when deciding on a purchase or a tweak. If it better reveals differences among recordings, it makes it into my system (provided I can afford it).

For my system details, please see my profile. Thank you.

Link to comment
Trying to decipher the details of a musical performance from hearing it reproduced after the fact is like trying to decide if the sex was great by watching the delivery - the baby offers no clues.

 

D

 

awesome!

 

I gotta say, even though that's a great quote, when it comes to sex I feel whenever you're having it, that's pretty great by definition. :)

 

(Apologies for the OT.)

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment

I don't know that it really matters.

 

I use a Rega P9 with a Dynavector Te Kaitora moving coil cartridge into an Audio Research PH5 phono stage and then to an Audio Research LS26 preamp.

 

At the same time that I play records I take the tape monitor output to a Korg MR-2000S digital machine and record the albums at 1 bit/5.66 MHz.

 

I then transfer the recording from the recorder to a computer where it can be mastered to include track information, cover art and run through a crackle filter if necessary. The final result is saved out as a FLAC file at 24/96.

 

The albums are then transferred to a USB drive connected to a laptop being used as a music server. The ripped CD's (now over 650) and the recorded LP's (now over 700) are stored in separate folders for playback from JRiver Media Center.

 

Because I don't have the CD's and LP's in the same library, it's difficult to do a comparison. But I can tell you this - I don't believe there's been any loss in sonic quality whatsoever from the digitization process. If it was a poor quality album, it still sounds that way. If it was a good or great recording, much the same.

 

In other words, it all goes back to the quality of the source recording. Yes, as a rule we believe that an LP will sound better than a CD but there's so many variables that it just doesn't matter that much anymore. If I had a choice of format, it would be LP.

 

But, and a big but, that would only be with albums that are "pre-digital". I see no advantage in paying a premium for an LP that was recorded, mixed and mastered digitally and then at the last minute run through an ADC so that an LP can be made - may as well buy the CD.

Link to comment
I gotta say, even though that's a great quote, when it comes to sex I feel whenever you're having it, that's pretty great by definition. :) )

Here's a profound observation from a parent with 35 years of experience, Jud: it's a good thing sex feels so good, because if they told us what was going to happen as a result, we'd have been extinct generations ago. The song ends, but the malady lingers (and although it's correct either way, that's a pun and not a typo).

 

Your analogy goes even further into audiophilia, Jud. The fun of creating the sound delivered by your speakers was had by somebody else unless you were in the band. And put that way, it makes observations on the accuracy of reproduced sound from those who have no idea what the performance sounded like a bit hollow.

 

D

Link to comment

 

Your analogy goes even further into audiophilia, Jud. The fun of creating the sound delivered by your speakers was had by somebody else unless you were in the band. And put that way, it makes observations on the accuracy of reproduced sound from those who have no idea what the performance sounded like a bit hollow.

 

D

 

Actually people in a band don't know what they sound like either. They know it from their perspective right over the instrument they play. The sound of the entire group a short distance away....no one in the group knows. They would know the fun had of course.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment

There will always be some kind of discrepancy between what can be seen as "accurate", i.e., the measured accuracy of an audio signal, and the magnitude of those qualities that are the reason we listen to music in the first place. All listening is subjective, the shape of the pinnae have an acoustic impact on sound, and, even though it is true the fact this can be eliminated by using (custom) In-Ear Monitors instead of speakers, doing so will undoubtedly introduce a whole new set of problems, like, for example, it will greatly affect that which we call the "soundstage", etc... On top of that, the brain responds to sounds in ways that are so tremendously complex that, when talking about "accuracy" from a strictly "musical satisfaction" or "closeness to the artist" point of view, the term "accuracy" is quite simply no longer universally applicable. Instead of the size of an error in a signal, we are now talking about the value. The only way to try and come up with this value is by understanding fundamentally how we hear, combined with listening critically to everything. It's a big challenge no doubt, but to conclude that older formats are necessarily always "inferior" or, heaven forbid, "irrelevant" is blatantly ignoring this challenge.

 

That being said, I like the sound of vinyl even though I already know it is vastly inferior to properly done PCM at 4x rates. Sometimes (sometimes often), it IMO is just the best we have, and better than the 50 (or so) years old original studio master tape, especially when it's possible to thoroughly clean the vinyl prior to transferring it to digital and both manually and carefully edit out those highly annoying clicks and pops by using iZotope RX 3 Advanced. :)

If you had the memory of a goldfish, maybe it would work.
Link to comment
Personally, I, hugely prefer manual declick over automated. Sometimes, it takes only about half an hour per LP side, whereas other times it can take days.

 

Way back in 2001, Silicon Chip magazine published their LP Doctor project which was able to declick records automatically while playing them via it's inbuilt Phono Preamp, or allow them to be saved as declipped .wav files via a soundcard.

 

Silicon Chip Online - LP Doctor

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...