Lies about vinyl vs digital

[esldude]

14 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Could it just be that *your* digital rig sucks??

(sorry, couldn't resist)

It ain't the rig sucking here.  

[esldude]

5 minutes ago, Fokus said:

 

ROTFL

 

 

Very funny.

Very, very funny.  You don't have to understand what any of it means.  Just quote the marketing buzz words du jour.  Oh, and know what sucks, very important to know what sucks.  

 

 

[esldude]

From the page of Holo

 

Cyan DSD Edition

DSD is natively supported on this Discrete Resistor Ladder DAC
Holo Audio is the world’s first to support DSD natively on Resistor Ladder DAC. This is not the DSD converted to PCM before digital-analog converter, but directly by the discrete components of the DSD digital to analog converter. Supported currently on MAC (DOP)and Linux (DOP), and Windows/PC (Direct Native and DOP). Please note, the word ‘R2R’ is the name of a kind of architecture of resistor ladders. This architecture requires less resistors yet still is capable to deliver more than acceptable performance. Most DACs in the industry use this architecture. The DSD module of Cyan does not use R2R architecture for the DSD, more specifically it uses a very specific architecture which is optimized to perform DSD to analog. So to be entirely accurate the DSD module of the Cyan is using resistor ladders, not R2R.

[esldude]

3 hours ago, gmgraves said:

snippage..........Turns out most people don't want wide dynamic range music. It's a great idea and a high-fidelity ideal, but the truth is that people don't want to keep raising and lowering the volume of their playback to keep from blasting the family and neighbors on crescendos or to adequately hear the triple pianissimos.

 

This is a key point that some will overlook.  There is a level of moderate compression that will make most recordings sound more dynamic than one not compressed.  Our problem in the loudness wars is compression way beyond that making it all loud without any appreciable dynamic range. 

 

LP for many reasons must do a a little compressing to fit thru the envelope of the LP medium.   As George is saying, most people would not want and do not find a completely uncompressed recording to their liking.  A little bit of compression will make it seem more dynamic although it really has less dynamic range.  Digital allows someone to mess it all up all the way around in ways that LP can't allow to even happen.  

 

As stated elsewhere, the issue of dynamics isn't a problem with the digital format, it is a problem elsewhere in the production.  LP isn't superior by nature, it simply places a limit on how badly you can muck up the dynamics.  

[esldude]

16 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

No. I have brought it forward more often : Supertramp's Crime of The Century in "original" CD fashion. This is unplayable for it's way too wide dynamics and it doesn't even use half of the digital space (so go figure). You can't play this without changing the volume (thus you can't play this at all).

Btw, the dynamics are also NOT forceful. They are only crazily steep.

 

snippage...........

 

 

 

 

What?  I happened to have listened to this earlier this evening.  It sounded very nice, and I never touched volume once.  

[esldude]

Just now, PeterSt said:

 

Then you must have listened not to this "original" version. From the top of my head : 15dB or so more dynamic headroom (used) and that at half of the space (so could have been 21dB).

From the original CD I purchased back when it was a newly released album.  I also have Breakfast in America, but it is an MFSL.  

 

I do sort of have things calibrated here. I set it up like David Katz suggested.  Single channel of pink noise at 83 db SPL.  I actually listened 3 db below my reference setting.  It gets pretty loud, and there are soft parts.  Which btw, would leave me with theoretically 21 db headroom the way I have it set up currently.  

[esldude]

4 hours ago, Rexp said:

If you cant tell a 16/44 needle drop from the original something is wrong somewhere.

Bull shite.  Nothing is wrong. Well other than you being full of it. 

[esldude]

1 hour ago, Rexp said:

I would to take up such a challenge, while there are many poor quality digital recordings that sound similar on vinyl and CD, the better recordings sound much better on vinyl. 

Yeah, and you don't get out much to hear real music do you?  I don't even need your answer. 

[esldude]

6 hours ago, semente said:

The Audiocheck website is back on again today so here's the link to the 16-bit dynamic range test:

 

Audible Dynamic Range Sound Test

Dynamic range represents the ratio between the loudest signal you can hear and the quietest. Dynamic range is expressed in terms of decibels (dB). Being a ratio, the decibel has no units; everything is relative. Since it is relative, it must be relative to some reference point that has to be defined. Our reference point here is the loudest level you can comfortably bear for one second.

This test helps you benchmark the dynamic range of your sound system.

The file first starts with a reference point: a slightly compressed pink noise which tops out at 16-bit full scale (0dbFS). This noise plays for 1 second. Adjust the level of your system so that this noise plays loudly, without being uncomfortably loud.

Right after the noise, a voice is played back at a specified level. Noise references and voiceovers alternate with each other, with the voice being played at decreasing levels.

Play the file until you can't hear the voiceover anymore. The dynamic range of your system is roughly given by the level the voice message was playing at when it was still (barely) audible.

Interestingly, much emphasis is put on 24-bit audio recordings nowadays, with a dynamic range exceeding 140dB. Our example is only 16-bit, with a maximum dynamic range of 96dB, yet that should be plenty. Judge for yourself.

 

https://www.audiocheck.net/audiotests_dynamiccheck.php

I managed about 60 db below full scale.   Lawnmower running across the street or I might have gotten one more step.  Isn't out of line with similar noise added testing I've done.  Because of a stimulus closer to our peak hearing frequencies those net about 10 or 15 db lower before they aren't heard.  

 

Dithered 16 bit is enough for playback.  And few if any real recordings will actually tax that. 

[esldude]

42 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Good!  I can keep my vinyl collection then.  I guess it's vinyl - those old acoustically amplified black round things are heavy and not flexible like modern vinyl.

I do believe you have shellac.  Not LP either.  

[esldude]

13 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

I'll take some pics after done staining deck & fence, and waxing the sports car (also vintage...)

do you also have a vintage mahogany speed boat there at the lake?

 

 

[esldude]

5 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

the point is not to die a long, lingering death

 

get it over with quick

Is that a comparison with analog death versus the on/off nature of digital?

[esldude]

12 minutes ago, GUTB said:

So I just spent 200 hours breaking in a new DAC to try and overcome this digital hump.

 

http://www.thebestamp.com/DA_Converters_USB-DACs/DA-512DSD-2.php

 

The most interesting part of this DAC is the use of two big power tubes, the KT-150, in tube-rectified output stage. I thought it would probably be a XMOS + 9018 going by the DSD512 and 384 kHz PCM specs -- but as it turns out it's Amanero which surprised me. That's good and bad: good in that Amenaro doesn't suck and it has two clocks one for each rate family so I can use auto-rate family in HQPlayer. Bad in that I need to flash the damn thing if I want to play DSD512 without noise.

 

I'm not ready to post detailed listening impressions yet. However, it does seem clear that dynamic performance is still lacking!! And another thing, I'm worried that my XRCD rips don't sound as good as off the CD player -- it could be in my head of course, but now I'll have to hook the CDP up again. There's no way that CDP should be superior to my custom no-fan linear PSU isolated SSD, Paul Pang USB on battery + HQPlayer.

Seems a principal of fairness you start a thread, Vacuum Tubes SUCK!

 

And one titled:  Breaking in a new DAC sucks!!

[esldude]

49 minutes ago, GUTB said:

If you needed to have a license to be an audiophile you wouldn't have these kids buying $100 Chinese DACs hooked up to $200 powered speakers placed on a computer desk and calling themselves audiophiles. The reason why is because the licensing body would be made up of experienced audiophiles who know how to get good sound and who can prove it through a large body of work in the audiophile space. There may be some "engineers" who don't know the least bit about good sound but the majority of the body would set forth the licensing guidelines.

This idea is so neuro-typical.

 

Live and let live (assuming the proper licensing is in order). 

[esldude]

1 hour ago, The_K-Man said:

 

I understand, but here's the conundrum:

 

A year or so ago, I breached the subject of remastering and how it was affected by, and actually became a component of, the digital-era loudness war(1995- roughly to present), on the 'Sound Science' subforum of the site Head-Fi.

 

Two longtime stalwarts of those forums, 'Bigshot' and 'Gregorio', seemed to defend remastering and even some of the practices now unfortunately associated with it.  They even went so far as to suggest that remastering legacy classic rock, pop, country, etc. albums from the 1980s and decades earlier was "the only way to appeal to younger listeners" with older bands and their works.

 

Of course, they also toed - as industry insiders - the company line, repeated touting the remaster as superior to the original album or CD release, whenever I begged to differ with their statements.

Yes Gregorio always defends current practice as that is his business. 

 

I think current mastering practice is horrible.   Within my limited experience even small time studios will master your material slammed to the max no matter what you ask for.  It takes about 3 rounds of "no, I won't have it that way" to eventually get them to back off to some semblance of sanity.  

[esldude]

1 minute ago, The_K-Man said:

 

Yet when I pressed him in that regard he denied it and told me I was 'conflating' and 'obfuscating' matters.  🤣🤣

 

As far as current practices go, your next paragraph reminds me of a restaurant where all steaks get cooked well to the powe of 10, regardles of whether the customer asks for well, medium, or rare.  I would like to believe that the vsst majority of Mastering Engs. fulfill the client's(artist, label, whoever) wishes, without imposing their own style on the project.  I have heard Lord-Alge has a reputation as a 'slammer'(brick waller), so I know I would not take anything of my own to him nor would I recommend him.

My worst experience was a group of friends with a band.  A Christmas Lullaby with voices and a few stringed acoustic instruments was a DR6 when the guy was finished.  This was after sitting down and specifically telling the guy we DO NOT WANT THIS COMPRESSED TO HECK AND BACK.  DO NOT SLAM IT.  He was mystified as to what we didn't like about it.  He did eventually fix it.  

[esldude]

I hate nitrogen in tires.  You have to use those damned green valve stem caps.  

I'll take natures own 78% nitrogen mix thank you and preserve my chromed valve stem caps.  

Besides I have a set of 44 year old tires and the rubber is still good with nothing other than natural air in them.  

[esldude]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

Modern tires use a partially randomized tread design to give higher cornering and traction while minimizing sound buildup and transmission to the passenger cabin.

 

And... BTW, tires make xlnt isolation devices for your audio system - see the isolation thread...

I can provide real world examples where sound of tires is still a problem.  It might be minimized, but it isn't eliminated. 

[esldude]

3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Word on the street is that this is an audio site :~)

Well there are more tires on the street so hardly surprising it gets mixed up with this site.  

 

Think the off topic posting has increased after the name change? 

 

 Would you consider changing it back?

 

Or maybe it should have been Styling like an Audiophile. 

[esldude]

Oops someone already posted the good video. 

[esldude]

52 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

I don't play vinyl while driving.  That Becker is NLA - it was $1200 when they were making it but I thought that price was nuts.  I'd spend $400 on something like it tho.  I have a Nak head unit I can stick in the dash or can keep looking for something else.

 

I have kept a very few MFSL LPs etc. but don't have a turntable for them (except an antique one which needs a needle anyway) - OTOH I have a couple of vinyl rips to files which sound pretty decent.

 

I've lost interest in the process of playing an LP, tho still sometimes use a hand chisel on wood ...

You don't play vinyl while driving...........?????

Okay does that include a cassette tape of a vinyl LP played in the Nak head unit if you install it?  That would be playing vinyl on acetate while driving at that. 

[esldude]

41 minutes ago, Axial said:

 

You said "competent DACs"; how many of those exist? 

Plenty.  Some number in the millions at least. 

[esldude]

6 hours ago, sandyk said:

You probably class the attached as competent too  ?  

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/55514-so-how-does-a-1299-dac-sound/

 

 

No I wouldn't. I've checked a few of similar devices. They usually have very poor clocking with prodigious amounts of jitter, substandard distortion and poor frequency response.

[esldude]

12 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 Did your ears tell you this, or didn't you listen to them after first doing the measurements ?  (Evil Grin)

I've done different ones both ways.  In the cases where I listened first, I would say the sound was not good though upon seeing measurements I was surprised it didn't sound worse. Mostly foggy, indistinct and lacking frequency extremes.  One exception was a device that had high distortion at even moderate levels.  Going quite large as the level increased. Using that with movies the sound became increasingly bright almost having a tearing sound on peaks.  That one you didn't want to listen to at all. 

[esldude]

1 hour ago, Axial said:

 

Ok, some measure better than others, some measure poorly, but overall there are many decent/competent DACs; it seems that the majority agree, including I.

 

Some of my best friends are . . . the analog record players. 

Some of their rigs are finely tuned to get optimal performance.

They don't know many DACs (and they did play with some of the best) that can equal the audio sound quality of their analog systems. Some come really close, one or two...@ the most...and cost well in the 5 digits.

 

But regardless of price, it is well known that analog music is more "melodic" generally, depending of the master recordings of course. Eg.; R2R and TT.

Are those well calibrated audiophiles breathing different air? 

 

Who's the authority in absolute sound quality and in audio reproduction? ...The closest to the master tapes.

 

Well I don't know who is the authority.  I've recorded simply with a pair of mikes.  Was present for the recording, and upon good playback get music that is reasonably real and plenty enjoyable.  Yet much of what people think of as melodic easy on the ear music has more sparkle, attack and sharp bits now and again than most people apparently have in mind.  With good recording and playback and no processing you get those sharper bits without them being annoying.  The "analog sound" rounds things off and covers it with a layer of fog that puts you at arms length with the real thing.  It can be quite enjoyable.  It is of lower fidelity.  No arguing with someone's preference, but that is not always for fidelity.  

 

I've mentioned many times before comparing CD, RTR and LP years ago back when digital was new.  CD had a basic balance like RTR.  LP was the odd man out. So I think no not closer to the master tape.  For that reason CD will not sound like LP unless you mess with it quite a bit.  It isn't like LP is the top dawg reference and CD can't attain that.  CD is closer to the real reference and LP can't get there without altering the signal far more than CD does.