Lies about vinyl vs digital

[Rexp]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

 

Yep, that was the goal. To get digital vinyl rips that are indistinguishable (to me at least) from the actual playing LP. Well, minus any clicks and pops and such, but I mean it still sounds like vinyl playing.  Not like a digital file. 

 

I am not sure abotu the ADC. It is the same ADC, and at 24/192k produces a great result. At 24/48, not so much. At 24/96, a much better result, but you can still tell it is a digital playback. At 176.4 it is to me everybit as good as 24/192k.  

 

I have tried other ADCs, including some rather expensive ones. Still, seem to get the same result. 

 

I can only theorize that something is not being captured at 24/48. Of course, there is an outside chance it is just expectation bias as well, but I don't think so. My wife can easily tell the difference, as can some friends that have heard it. 

 

The high data rate can be infuriating too - as it picks up everything that is wrong with a record, just as well as the dog gone cartridge does.

 

-Paul

 

 

Mmm what do your rips sound like when down sampled to 16/44? Cheers

[mansr]

8 hours ago, John Dyson said:

I was wrong about the method used for SRC -- even though the polynomal technique is used for certan cases.

The problems with the complexity stand.

The increase in error (however small) stands.

What errors are you talking about? There are of course rounding errors due to limited arithmetic precision. That may be an issue an ancient 16-bit DSPs. With 32-bit precision or better it is not.

[mansr]

8 hours ago, John Dyson said:

I was afraid that someone would key in on the term 'asynch' -- it doens't affect the algorithm as an example.

An ASRC converts from arbitrary input rates to a fixed target rate. The ratio isn't necessarily even rational, and with the source and target not being synchronised, there can be gradual drift over time as well. All this makes it much harder than conversion by a fixed, rational factor. Various approximations are required, resulting in errors beyond simple arithmetic rounding. ASRCs are needed in some applications. Not, however, any that are being discussed here.

 

8 hours ago, John Dyson said:

Most importantly -- checked the source code count for xiph sample rate library -- 2300 lines of code, 350k lines of .h file data.

Source code for integral conversion:  perhaps 4-5 lines of code plus an FIR filter.

You're being unfair, or you've misunderstood the code. To be fair, you must include the FIR filter implementation in the comparison. Alternatively, the non-integer resampling is also just a few lines of code plus a polyphase filter.

[semente]

11 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

They are recorded. That is, the sound cues that matter to the listening brain are picked up by the microphones, whether the person setting up the microphones went to some effort to 'optimise' pickup, or merely switched on some convenient recording device. I have been regularly "bowled over" when listening to recordings done right back at the start of the recording era, when I'm able to "see" into the space where the music happened - "the backing piano is well back, exactly there - and the playing is completely 'transparent' ..."

 

 

The recording is now a historical document - I see the job of playback to present it exactly as it is - and it turns out there is plenty enough, every time, to make it 'work'.

 

 

Live gigs, using a PA setup?

 

Are you being disingenuous?

 

"the sound cues that matter to the listening brain are picked up by the microphones, whether the person setting up the microphones went to some effort to 'optimise' pickup, or merely switched on some convenient recording device"

 

You want me to believe that this:

 

 

Will yield the same results / pick up the same cues as this:

 

 

If you do, I'm done.

[The_K-Man]

40 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Are you being disingenuous?

 

"the sound cues that matter to the listening brain are picked up by the microphones, whether the person setting up the microphones went to some effort to 'optimise' pickup, or merely switched on some convenient recording device"

 

You want me to believe that this:

 

 

Will yield the same results / pick up the same cues as this:

 

 

If you do, I'm done.

 

I think - at least I hope - what he's saying, is that sonic greatness starts at the beginning, during the recording sessions.   What happens after that - during mixing and mastering - can either make or break the elements that draw one in to the actual performance being recorded.

 

To be sure, the equipt. and setup in the second(color) photo is superior to what is in the first.  But what is the point, if excessive processing is used to just make the released product - in the second, modern example - louder and nothing else?

 

Then the older session will have triumphed by virtue of lack of all that processing, even if the frequency response, especially toward the top end, falls short of a recent equivalent release.

[KingRex]

You all have completely bummed me out.   I am even being told the PS to the devices burning a CD to my HD affect the sound quality.  This all leads me to ask, how do I find good downloads that are actually handled correct in the mastering of the original to a digital format.  How do I set up my equipment to accept a transfer of the media over the internet to my house and storage drives at my place.

 

The biggest issue is where are the good masters?  It sound like even MFSL has high res that may not be all the good.  Just poor masters that have been up-sampled.   Is there a thread on what are the best digital master files to purchase?

[The_K-Man]

3 minutes ago, KingRex said:

The biggest issue is where are the good masters?  It sound like even MFSL has high res that may not be all the good.  Just poor masters that have been up-sampled.   Is there a thread on what are the best digital master files to purchase?

 

These are the questions most audiophiles - LOVERS OF SOUND - are either afraid to face, don't want to, or think can be answered by 'tuning their room', or with expensive cables and interconnects.

[kumakuma]

23 minutes ago, KingRex said:

You all have completely bummed me out.   I am even being told the PS to the devices burning a CD to my HD affect the sound quality.  This all leads me to ask, how do I find good downloads that are actually handled correct in the mastering of the original to a digital format.  How do I set up my equipment to accept a transfer of the media over the internet to my house and storage drives at my place.

 

The biggest issue is where are the good masters?  It sound like even MFSL has high res that may not be all the good.  Just poor masters that have been up-sampled.   Is there a thread on what are the best digital master files to purchase?

 

 

The ideas in the first paragraph are held by very few people and can be safely ignored. 

 

When it comes to downloads from the big labels, the releases sold by the various outlets (HDTracks, ProStudio Masters, etc.) are all the same and originate from the labels themselves.

 

If you want good sounding downloads from other sources, I suggest the following sources:

 

https://www.soundliaison.com

http://www.chesky.com/content/binaural-series

https://www.nativedsd.com

 

I don't agree with the comments about MFSL. Most MFSL releases that I've heard are pretty good. Unfortunately, high resolution downloads aren't available. The best you can do is rip their SACD releases.

 

[Paul R]

12 minutes ago, KingRex said:

You all have completely bummed me out.   I am even being told the PS to the devices burning a CD to my HD affect the sound quality.  This all leads me to ask, how do I find good downloads that are actually handled correct in the mastering of the original to a digital format.  How do I set up my equipment to accept a transfer of the media over the internet to my house and storage drives at my place.

 

The biggest issue is where are the good masters?  It sound like even MFSL has high res that may not be all the good.  Just poor masters that have been up-sampled.   Is there a thread on what are the best digital master files to purchase?

 

Pretty much relax and enjoy the music. The power supply  to your HD is unlikely to have any noticeable effect on the sound. Nor the one to your CD burner, if you are still burning physical CDs? (!)

 

Remember, audiophiles obsess over tiny little things that basically make no difference at all to most folks. Even more, the hobby is supposed to be fun, not induce a nervous breakdown. 🤪

 

Everyone finds a different set of technology, processes, procedures, rituals, and what have you, that is pleasing to them. For me, I separated out the server and players, and I could not be happier with the result. And I rediscovered vinyl records, which is also a lot of fun. (And frustrating, but amazing fun!)

 

There are folks here who found their groove with music on a USB sticks, others on QoBuz, others with Frankenstein-computer rigs, others with great attention to detail regarding power supplies, a few with Uber expensive gear, a few who delight in getting great sound from inexpensive gear, and... well you get the idea.

 

Choose a path and have fun tripping down it. And - if you change your mind a little later, that’s okay too!  Just be sure to take all the advice you get with a tiny grain of salt. The only correct choice is what pleases you!

 

-Paul

[semente]

1 hour ago, KingRex said:

The biggest issue is where are the good masters?  It sound like even MFSL has high res that may not be all the good.  Just poor masters that have been up-sampled.   Is there a thread on what are the best digital master files to purchase?

 

I hardly ever buy anything but classical music.

A lot of it is very well recorded and skilfully mastered.

[semente]

4 hours ago, The_K-Man said:

 

I think - at least I hope - what he's saying, is that sonic greatness starts at the beginning, during the recording sessions.   What happens after that - during mixing and mastering - can either make or break the elements that draw one in to the actual performance being recorded.

 

To be sure, the equipt. and setup in the second(color) photo is superior to what is in the first.  But what is the point, if excessive processing is used to just make the released product - in the second, modern example - louder and nothing else?

 

Then the older session will have triumphed by virtue of lack of all that processing, even if the frequency response, especially toward the top end, falls short of a recent equivalent release.

 

That, excessive processing, isn't really that much of a problem in classical music, even if there's hardly anyone left doing real stereo anymore.

[KingRex]

2 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

 

The ideas in the first paragraph are held by very few people and can be safely ignored. 

 

When it comes to downloads from the big labels, the releases sold by the various outlets (HDTracks, ProStudio Masters, etc.) are all the same and originate from the labels themselves.

 

If you want good sounding downloads from other sources, I suggest the following sources:

 

https://www.soundliaison.com

http://www.chesky.com/content/binaural-series

https://www.nativedsd.com

 

I don't agree with the comments about MFSL. Most MFSL releases that I've heard are pretty good. Unfortunately, high resolution downloads aren't available. The best you can do is rip their SACD releases.

 

Thanks, I have been looking to obtain some high res files and been unsure where to really look.  I seem to have gathered about 1910 CD to burn over the past few year.

[semente]

2 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

 

The ideas in the first paragraph are held by very few people and can be safely ignored. 

 

When it comes to downloads from the big labels, the releases sold by the various outlets (HDTracks, ProStudio Masters, etc.) are all the same and originate from the labels themselves.

 

If you want good sounding downloads from other sources, I suggest the following sources:

 

https://www.soundliaison.com

http://www.chesky.com/content/binaural-series

https://www.nativedsd.com

 

I don't agree with the comments about MFSL. Most MFSL releases that I've heard are pretty good. Unfortunately, high resolution downloads aren't available. The best you can do is rip their SACD releases.

 

 

The unfortunate problem with (most) audiophile labels is, and has long been, that they record a lot of music and/or performances that nobody really wants to listen to (or would learn about if it weren't for audioshows and hifi magazines).

[kumakuma]

36 minutes ago, KingRex said:

Thanks, I have been looking to obtain some high res files and been unsure where to really look.  I seem to have gathered about 1910 CD to burn over the past few year.

 

Advise using software that supports the AccurateRip database to rip your CDs:

 

http://www.accuraterip.com/software.htm

[kumakuma]

2 minutes ago, semente said:

 

The unfortunate problem with (most) audiophile labels is, and has long been, that they record a lot of music and/or performances that nobody really wants to listen to (or would learn about if it weren't for audioshows and hifi magazines).

 

I've found a lot of "audiophile" releases that I really like.

 

Some not so much.

 

For example, I haven't found anything by David Chesky himself that stands up to repeated listening. Some of the other releases in Chesky's binaural+ series are great though.

 

[mansr]

2 hours ago, kumakuma said:

The ideas in the first paragraph are held by very few people and can be safely ignored. 

One person, to be exact.

[kumakuma]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

One person, to be exact.

 

I was trying to be diplomatic. 👺

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

I've found a lot of "audiophile" releases that I really like.

 

Some not so much.

 

For example, I haven't found anything by David Chesky himself that stands up to repeated listening. Some of the other releases in Chesky's binaural+ series are great though.

They have made some good recordings, though I wish they'd dial back the signature Chesky sound a little.

[KingRex]

41 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Advise using software that supports the AccurateRip database to rip your CDs:

 

http://www.accuraterip.com/software.htm

I use DB Power amp with a Nimbi Robot to batch rip.  Everything is ripped to WAV

[esldude]

5 minutes ago, KingRex said:

I use DB Power amp with a Nimbi Robot to batch rip.  Everything is ripped to WAV

You would be better off ripping to FLAC or AIFF.  Those support cover art and such better than WAV.  

[kumakuma]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

They have made some good recordings, though I wish they'd dial back the signature Chesky sound a little.

 

How music sounds no longer matters to me.

 

Using Frank's techniques, I'm now able to peer directly into the souls of the performers themselves.

[Ralf11]

I can do better than that!  I use a cable that gives me the character of flowing water, AND no Frank-ensteiney re-soldering required.  It just plugs in.

[fas42]

15 hours ago, Paul R said:

I believe it was common to run both async and non-async drivers back then for exactly the same hardware - USB 2.0 ports. The software alone made all the difference.  That was especially true under Windows, which needed special software drivers for - well - just about anything I guess. 

 

I don't' think the circuits today are that much different -  just a jump to USB-3 or USB-C. Still a very limited set of USB hardware.

 

 

The circuitry may be used in different modes, as you describe - and that's what's making the difference! The software is merely altering the pattern of the signals running through identical hardware, to get the job done - and the hardware itself is better in one mode than in the other - we're back to a DAC which makes 48k signals more musical than the identical data in 44.1k, simply because the cards happen to fall that way, for the structure of the circuitry; another DAC could be the reverse of that.

 

If the engineering was 100%, then every mode would sound identical - because the raw data being fed in is identical. It's not the protocol as an intrinsic thing that makes the difference; it's that it turns out to be easier to get the circuitry, the hardware to do a better job of processing the signal, which results in less audible degradation - so, why make things hard for yourself; fiddle with the software until the hardware is 'most comfortable' doing its job.

 

It's the combination of getting the hardware good enough, and then driving it in the smartest possible way, which delivers best sound - I don't believe in stock answers; every situation is likely be different, and therefore normally experimenting is necessary.

[sandyk]

5 hours ago, kumakuma said:

The ideas in the first paragraph are held by very few people and can be safely ignored. 

 Bullshit !

KingRex has already VERIFIED hearing differences, and accurately described the  differences, between 2 versions of John's SOS file with identical .md5 checksums , so stick THAT in your pipe and smoke it !

 

 Don't even bother replying as you have nothing of further interest to say to me, and you will be ignored !

 

[esldude]

3 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Bullshit !

KingRex has already VERIFIED hearing differences, and accurately described the  differences, between 2 versions of John's SOS file with identical .md5 checksums , so stick THAT in your pipe and smoke it !

 

 Don't even bother replying as you have nothing of further interest to say to me, and you will be ignored !

 

You mentioned this before (I think in email), but I thought the two SOS files had different EQ?  If so they wouldn't have identical checksums.  Which two files are you referring to exactly.