Lies about vinyl vs digital

[AudioDoctor]

1 minute ago, diecaster said:

 

HRC

 

Two peas in one horrible pod. They should both be in jail.

[sandyk]

25 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

Two peas in one horrible pod. They should both be in jail.

 

 Perhaps, but remember that this is an INTERNATIONAL forum.

[Ralf11]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 

 Perhaps, but remember that this is an INTERNATIONAL forum.

 

you want to jail Boris "Brexit Boy" Johnson too?

[wgscott]

1 hour ago, diecaster said:

 

HRC

 

Good point.  A nazi-enabler at the head of a kleptocracy who thinks science is voodoo and wants to destroy the planet even faster is vastly preferable to a boring but competent self-entitled bureaucrat.

[Ralf11]

the point is not to die a long, lingering death

 

get it over with quick

[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?

[Ralf11]

it's hard to get anything past this group

[GUTB]

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.

[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!!

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

 

you want to jail Boris "Brexit Boy" Johnson too?

 

I feel sure that the Poms can take care of their own problem politicians.

[PeterSt]

7 hours ago, gmgraves said:

However I know that the difference between a 20 Megapixel Raw digital  image blown up to fit a 100" screen and a Kodachrome color slide projected with a Leitz Pradolux projector on the same 100" screen would favor the Kodachrome absolutely,

 

Then maybe use other gear for it ?

 

 

This is exactly 100" wide. So not diagonal which will be more (115" or so).

Notice that the focus is on the left hand connector (actually where the wires enter the shrink tube) and the right hand grounding eye and only there. Diaphragm is 7.1. Some zoom lens, not zoomed in. I suppose the Exif is stil accessible after posting.

Of course view this on your 8K monitor, preferably a 115" one (and sell your car first).

 

The trick : Apart from a 42MP camera, no AA filter.

Might you see noise, it is related to diffraction and the electronics dealing with that (personally I don't see it at 7.1).

 

So the whole point is : nothing has been zoomed digitally and any 8K projector / beamer of 115" would show it 1:1. Also notice that the pixels won't even be bigger than how you look at it right now, because all you need to do is stick 5 1680 wide monitors or 4 1920 monitors next to each other, hence, what you currently see on the single e.g. 1920 monitor is just "it" for the large screen, although the resolution is unnecessary low (1920 wide instead of 7990). But it is good enough, I'd say (read : it doesn't require an 8K projector really).

 

What this the heck has to do with vinyl vs digital ? well, if you see that this is all about leaving out the AA filter ... everything. The only problem could be that this is so razor sharp that the shallowness which can't be avoided at any diaphragm setting will show the out of focus just the same. Like in this picture. There is just no way to have all in decent focus, no matter the maybe 0.3" difference in distance to for example the connector and the middle of the cable (which was lifted a bit for the purpose, to no avail).

 

Try to compare this with an AA filter present and envision that all now will be so much blurred that nothing is really out of focus because everything is to begin with. It is just "unsharp".

No difference with audio ...

And take the moiré - *if* you ever run into that in the first place - for granted.

No difference with audio ...

 

 

 

 

[PeterSt]

25 minutes ago, esldude said:

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

 

DACs must be sucked in. Didn't you know ?

[sandyk]

19 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

  8 hours ago, gmgraves said:

However I know that the difference between a 20 Megapixel Raw digital  image blown up to fit a 100" screen and a Kodachrome color slide projected with a Leitz Pradolux projector on the same 100" screen would favor the Kodachrome absolutely,

 

 A UHDTV 8K Video Ultra High Definition 7680x4320 picture has a resolution of 33Megapixels, not 20.

[wgscott]

1 hour ago, GUTB said:

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

 

And you call other people here neuro-atypical.

[PeterSt]

33 minutes ago, sandyk said:

A UHDTV 8K Video Ultra High Definition 7680x4320 picture has a resolution of 33Megapixels, not 20.

 

Alex, you can't talk to both at the same time and blame both. Anyway, here's my 42MP :

 

 

And we are not talking about TV. Just saying. Or : Movies will never utilize the height.

But this is all not important of course.

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

 

Alex, you can't talk to both at the same time and blame both. Anyway, here's my 42MP :

 

 

And we are not talking about TV. Just saying. Or : Movies will never utilize the height.

But this is all not important of course.

 Peter

 Your attention is needed here in the most recent posts

 

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/forum/9-music-servers/

Alex

[GUTB]

6 hours ago, wgscott said:

 

And you call other people here neuro-atypical.

 

I never did that. I sometimes remind people that I’m neurotypical.

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, GUTB said:

I sometimes remind people that I’m neurotypical.

 

Curious that you have to do this at all. Do you think people believe that you're not?

[AudioDoctor]

46 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Curious that you have to do this at all. Do you think people believe that you're not?

 

And there's the 1 million dollar question.

[look&listen]

9 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

This is exactly 100" wide. So not diagonal which will be more (115" or so).

Notice that the focus is on the left hand connector (actually where the wires enter the shrink tube) and the right hand grounding eye and only there. Diaphragm is 7.1. Some zoom lens, not zoomed in. I suppose the Exif is stil accessible after posting.

Of course view this on your 8K monitor, preferably a 115" one (and sell your car first).

 

The trick : Apart from a 42MP camera, no AA filter.

Might you see noise, it is related to diffraction and the electronics dealing with that (personally I don't see it at 7.1).

 

I not care about where is focus (too much),

not care about camera,

not care about lens,

not care about filters.

Only care about terrible confused background!

 

Eye wants to see detail of foreground objects, but dim, alternating, low contrast background prevents attempt and frustrates viewer. Seen previous examples like this in Lush^2 thread & they just as frustrating, now must say something. Not understand why photos set up this way?? Please find better background for interesting Lush^x cable pictures 

 

I long use neutral gray poster card as background for detail equipment pictures. Tried white & black card but contrast problems often happen. Lighting is other problem, but too much off topic.

 

[marce]

On 11/13/2018 at 8:02 AM, ajay556 said:

Time and time again vinyl has been sweeter and smoother than digital. And the proof is in the engineering of storing and retrieving data. Cannot agree with science.

 And please don't get me started with digital cameras and film cameras. Film photos is far superior in quality than digital's resolution -  any day

 

A very good comparison is a sketch artist

One draws a picture of a person based on data given by another person  - DIGITAL

Other draws a picture of the person from the person sitting right infront - ANALOG

 

Go figure which picture will be more accurate!!!!

Except it isn't the truth just a distorted reality that you want to believe....

[marce]

18 hours ago, gmgraves said:

I find modern digital photos to be quite satisfactory. I have made 16 X 20 prints of some of my digital photos and they look very good. However I know that the difference between a 20 Megapixel Raw digital  image blown up to fit a 100" screen and a Kodachrome color slide projected with a Leitz Pradolux projector on the same 100" screen would favor the Kodachrome absolutely, the digital picture wouldn't suffer too badly! 

20 Megapixels... 50-100 are common for large blow ups these days.

[GUTB]

Just now, marce said:

Except it isn't the truth just a distorted reality that you want to believe....

 

In my experience, across the board from dealer showrooms, trade shows and my own system -- vinyl is superior.

 

I spent a lot of money on my vinyl setup, around $10k actual dollars (not MRSP). It took a while but it's at the point where it's about 90% as quiet as my digital. On my best records the only hint it's not a CD is the odd pop from a random piece of dust or something. Of course I have heard pristine records being played on ultra high end systems at shows which are virtually indistinguishable from CDs based on noise.

 

What has made vinyl superior isn't the warmth and natural frequency extension -- that's a factor, but to me not the main one. The main factor is the heightened dynamic expression which I believe is what leads vinyl to sound more "real" and "there".

 

Until I can bridge that gap between digital and analog my digital is going to remain in an impasse.

[barrows]

11 hours 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.

Your playback computer uses a commercial motherboard which produces a lot of noise which will aggravate any connected DAC.  Commercial mother boards produce noise from both the processor itself and the onboard DC/DC converters (miniature SMPS).  Get a good Ethernet Renderer, and distribute audio to the system over Ethernet to isolate all the noise from the DAC/audio system.  At that point, if using the right products, the Renderer based set up should easily outstrip a physical disc spinner.

[Norton]

2 hours ago, GUTB said:

What has made vinyl superior isn't the warmth and natural frequency extension -- that's a factor, but to me not the main one. The main factor is the heightened dynamic expression which I believe is what leads vinyl to sound more "real" and "there".

 

This correlates pretty closely with my experience.  My vinyl set up isn’t remotely “warm”, it’s the  visceral  “in the room” dynamics that has really attracted in the past.

 

However, I’m getting most if not all  of this with digital these days, even plain RBCD, and digital wins hands down for refinement, tone and detail.  

 

I still enjoy listening to vinyl for a couple of hrs a week, but just find  digital more interesting now, not least for the easy opportunities for music discovery.