Lies about vinyl vs digital

[John Dyson]

On 1/23/2020 at 2:03 PM, daverich4 said:

 

I did compare your version to the 24/96 version that I've had for some time and as I suspected, preferred your version by quite a bit. I dug out my Radio Shack SPL meter to do some comparisons. A volume setting of 65 played my 24/96 version at an average of around 80-85 dB. That's how I might typically listen to music. Your version actually measured louder than I thought it was. A volume setting of 90 gave a similar 80-85 dB and a volume setting of 100 produced an average of around 85-90 dB. That's louder than I would normally listen to but on my system, I have zero headroom with your version. I did DL the two new versions you linked to and will see how I do with those. Thanks for what your doing, it seems a big step up in quality.

Thanks for your feedback -- I like doing nice things for friend/correspondents and also for the music.  Trying to decode for the general public, that is 'professional' feralA decoding is much more difficult, than just making it sound good.   I have been trying to keep my standards high, but there is still too much 'experimentation' and depending on hearing audible defects.

 

I am very, very close to understanding the filter set needed for feralA decoding.  The DolbyA decoding done by the DA decoder is probably more perfect than a true DolbyA, but the feralA decoding has a couple of complications.   One is that the person who decodes must be able to guess at the filter configuration, and then also know the sound of decoding defects.   If I was decoding just for me, it would be easy -- sounding good is actually pretty easy.  The goal is to 'sound good for everyone', and that is very, very hard.

 

It is enjoyable to make people happy, and hopefully increase the interest in the older music.  The feralA decoder should make it much more practical for the advanced audiophile to correct the recordings for themselves.  While doing these feral decodes, I am learning what is needed for creating the feralA filters.

 

The feralA decoder configuration will NOT be commercial, and will be a useful subset of the professional DolbyA DHNRDS decoder.  Still have to work out the logistical details.

 

Anytime there is interesting music, music that you love (anyone reading this), and you think that it is feralA -- just let me know, and maybe I can do something with it for you. (That is do a decode for you.)   Later on, the decoder will be more practical to use, and less of a science project to use it.  At that time, then the audiophile can give it a try themselves.  I'll probably be around for a long time to 'give a hand' if needed though.

 

John

 

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

The feralA decoder configuration will NOT be commercial, and will be a useful subset of the professional DolbyA DHNRDS decoder.  Still have to work out the logistical details.

 

Anytime there is interesting music, music that you love (anyone reading this), and you think that it is feralA -- just let me know, and maybe I can do something with it for you. (That is do a decode for you.)   Later on, the decoder will be more practical to use, and less of a science project to use it.  At that time, then the audiophile can give it a try themselves.  I'll probably be around for a long time to 'give a hand' if needed though.

What I'd like to see, eventually, is a freely available decoder and a website where people could submit good settings for various albums. No, I'm not volunteering to run that site.

[John Dyson]

4 minutes ago, mansr said:

What I'd like to see, eventually, is a freely available decoder and a website where people could submit good settings for various albums. No, I'm not volunteering to run that site.

Hmmm...  Yea -- mega CPU usage for sure.  I never said that the DHNRDS didn't suck up every last bit of my 4 core Haswell :-).

One criterion was that at the highest quality level (or nearly the highest quality level), that the program run in real-time on my 4 core Haswell....   Today, the way that it is written, and the available modes, it can run between 3X faster than realtime to 2X slower than realtime.  Of course, the 2X slower is an experimental mode to find asymtotically the highest quality that can be achived using the current techniques.   The slowest practical mode is about 1.2X slower than realtime, but most of the time I play and run tests at realtime while listening.  (So I decode while listening, just like it was a compressor or expander that can run in realtime.)

 

It is very easy to make the decoder run perhaps 4X faster than realtime, but at that quality level it would be roughly equivalent to a true DolbyA (probably squeeze in a few quality improving features at that speed.)

 

Providing a service like that, if it ever became popular (unlikely), it would be good to modify the program to run in the cloud :-).

 

John

 

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Hmmm...  Yea -- mega CPU usage for sure.  I never said that the DHNRDS didn't suck up every last bit of my 4 core Haswell :-).

One criterion was that at the highest quality level (or nearly the highest quality level), that the program run in real-time on my 4 core Haswell....   Today, the way that it is written, and the available modes, it can run between 3X faster than realtime to 2X slower than realtime.  Of course, the 2X slower is an experimental mode to find asymtotically the highest quality that can be achived using the current techniques.   The slowest practical mode is about 1.2X slower than realtime, but most of the time I play and run tests at realtime while listening.  (So I decode while listening, just like it was a compressor or expander that can run in realtime.)

 

It is very easy to make the decoder run perhaps 4X faster than realtime, but at that quality level it would be roughly equivalent to a true DolbyA (probably squeeze in a few quality improving features at that speed.)

 

Providing a service like that, if it ever became popular (unlikely), it would be good to modify the program to run in the cloud :-).

I meant people would run the decoder on their own computers. The website would only collect settings that have been found to give good results.

[John Dyson]

34 minutes ago, mansr said:

I meant people would run the decoder on their own computers. The website would only collect settings that have been found to give good results.

Good idea, something could be worked out for that...  I gotta get my a** in gear to add in the feralA section soon (days, not weeks.)  I think that there is a good set of standard formulas that haven't let me down.  They even work for the odd recordings like 'Linda Ronstadt', where the feralA has some strange behaviors.

 

Got something that I am actually very proud of.  I just did a test decode of one of the master tapes in my library.  Did a spectrum display of the snippet...  Take a look at the difference between DolbyA and DHNRDS!!! (Yea, I know that the lows around 20Hz are different, but otherwise.)  The audible difference on the snippet is qualitative and shows some improvement (I am so frustrated, but I'd lose all access to anything if I shared anything like that!!!  I really want to brag...  But take a look at the match of the spectrum.  Sure, that isn't everything, and almost isn't anything -- but it does show that the general freq resp balance could be close.)  Figure that the DHNRDS DA architecture is TOTALLY, ABSOLUTELY conceptually different than the DolbyA HW.   It is better than I could wish for.

[John Dyson]

Richard didn't like the LF frequency response (actually, I did the rolloff on purpose, still have an --hpf switch -- too much LF causes troubles.)  Anyway, here is the new comparison between DolbyA and DHNRDS DA!!! :-).

 

[semente]

@John Dyson I really think that this discussion deserves its own topic. Perhaps you could ask @The Computer Audiophile to split and move the relevant messages.

 

Cheers!

[John Dyson]

5 hours ago, semente said:

@John Dyson I really think that this discussion deserves its own topic. Perhaps you could ask @The Computer Audiophile to split and move the relevant messages.

 

Cheers!

I have thought about that -- like some other areas, have been confounded by it.  This note does not advocate either way...  It shows the reason why I am not able to make such a decision myself...

 

Here is why -- lots (maybe too many) of specific details about the feralA decoding -- YES.   But also the biggest reason why vinyl REALLY DID sound VERY different from CDs in the early days is that the feralA distorted the comparison.  The vinyl was usually not feralA, and even today it is less often feralA, and CDs on pop/jazz were most often feralA.  How to compare the merits of each medium when mastering difference are a major distorting factor in the comparison?

 

So, when comparing vinyl & digital, how can feralA be avoided as a topic?   This is NOT because I might nor might not be advocating the fact that feralA is the biggest reason for the sound difference, it is just a natural part of the problem...

 

ON THE OTHER HAND, there are people who still don't believe that feralA has been the major issue, and secondarily there is also a slight difference in sound on vinyl vs. digital -- however slight in comparison.  (There ARE differences, but sometimes not really obvious -- I have been fooled.)

 

feralA sometimes dominates the conversation, but is DEFINITELY (no question) a major part of the confusion/apparent difference in quality between the different mediums..

 

WHAT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO?   Maybe a quick diversion, giving an opinion with good backing argument would be helpful...

Maybe a hybrid answer where diversions into greater feralA details get moved?

 

One thing that would be wrong -- totally silencing the feralA issue on this thread -- because it IS a real reason for the difference and difficulty in comparison.  A hybrid solution would be ideal.

 

John

 

[John Dyson]

For now, until we decide what to do about the feralA vs vinyl vs digital, I will try to suppress FeralA only discussions and keep them for the PM group for now.  There will be occasional mention, so -- the feralA stuff will only be mentioned (by me) as a side note WRT the whole vinyl vs digital issue.

 

* Sorry about the extreme diversion about the frequency spectrum thing -- I was SUPER happy at the time, and probably should have resisted the urge.

 

Splitting the thread might be appropriate.  I'll let others make the decision.  I am NOT against splitting the thread, I am just not comfortable making the decision to push for it.

 

John

 

[Hi-Fidelity-4-All]

On 7/15/2019 at 4:07 AM, StephenJK said:

And that’s why years ago I decided to record all of my LPs.  I have a Korg MR-2000S that records at 1 bit/5.66 MHz to an internal drive.  Transfer the files to a computer, run the single file from the recording through the Korg Audiogate converter to create a 24/96 FLAC file, or leave it as DSD, then into VinylStudio for track breaks and titles, cover art and any crackle/hiss/rumble/eq filters you might want to use.

 

It’s a lot of work initially to develop the experience and a logical workflow, after that you simply record any album when it’s being played.

 

i added a field to my database for Recorded - Y/N, but sometimes forgot to update. The fallback was a package of blue stick-on inventory dots from Staples, I install one in the top left corner of the album jacket plastic sleeve.  At a glance I can tell if it’s been recorded or not.

 

if you ever want to get into this let me know and I can give you a full rundown on tips tricks and pitfalls.

 

Edit:  Korg MR-2000S is no longer being made but used and NOS are available at great peices.  This is something you would use to digitally record your final two track album before sending it to the manufacturing plant for CD or LP pressing.

Excellent. Thanks!

I've been using the KORG DAC-DS-10R for the last couple of years, and happy with the results. However, I recently added a large number of new and NM condition records to my collection. I'm thinking of upgrading to the KORG MR-2000S as I currently also have a relatively new high-end cartridge. Seems like a good time to get a better ADC for these new records.

Based on the functionality of the 2000S it seems I can just swap the units and expect better results. Also, the one thing I don't like about the DS-10R I'd that it runs off USB power. I would expect the power supply of the 2000S (and of course the upgrade ADC components) to make a significant improvement.

Thanks for any thoughts or suggestions 👍

[GUTB]

On 8/30/2020 at 4:15 AM, Hi-Fidelity-4-All said:

Excellent. Thanks!

I've been using the KORG DAC-DS-10R for the last couple of years, and happy with the results. However, I recently added a large number of new and NM condition records to my collection. I'm thinking of upgrading to the KORG MR-2000S as I currently also have a relatively new high-end cartridge. Seems like a good time to get a better ADC for these new records.

Based on the functionality of the 2000S it seems I can just swap the units and expect better results. Also, the one thing I don't like about the DS-10R I'd that it runs off USB power. I would expect the power supply of the 2000S (and of course the upgrade ADC components) to make a significant improvement.

Thanks for any thoughts or suggestions 👍

 

Isn't there an obvious qualitative downgrade from digitizing your records?

[JoeWhip]

I have a few needledrops friends have done. Sound the same as the vinyl which btw is damn good.  24/96.

[GUTB]

1 hour ago, JoeWhip said:

I have a few needledrops friends have done. Sound the same as the vinyl which btw is damn good.  24/96.

 

Really. Can you describe your record player chain and DAC?