Lies about vinyl vs digital

[fas42]

5 hours ago, Confused said:

So how did you find the comparison of the uncoded clips with and without pre-emphasis?

 

The clip with pre-emphasis was a halfway house - dulled, but not as much as the processed.

 

I did try again after the later posts here, with original and processed - this laptop has tiny sound, the bass and volume are poor; symphonic works are almost inaudible at times - but it's OK for pop. And my hearing is learning to compensate, . Loaded into Audacity, noted that the processed was some dBs down on the original - so normalised the two; set into repeat play, and instantly switch between the two versions - the more I did this the more I preferred the original ... there's a guitar filling in some nice backing towards the end; and the sound of this was too toned down in the processed - I don't like losing the sense of the individuality of the contributing sound elements.

[kumakuma]

23 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Intense levels of treble hold no terrors for me. Live instruments do this as part of their sound making, and this is a fundamental reason why live, acoustic music has such a powerful impact - that sense of intensity is something I do not want to lose; and if such is part of the creative mix of a track, I want it to be there, in spades.

 

Disturbing sibilance or shrillness in the playback are markers of distortion anomalies in the replay chain. If you 'sort out' the weaknesses in the setup, then the disturbing quality vanishes - because, you have eliminated the sources of the distortion artifacts. "Shrillness" is replaced with "intensity" - a vastly better alternative, .

 

 

[fas42]

These days there's a lot of confusion between intensity; and highly compressed, distorted, subjectively overloading, volume - go into any "live venue" these days, and you'll get plenty of the latter, through its PA rig with indicator LEDS sitting in red just about all the time ... .

 

Not interested in the latter, at all. One reason I gave up on so-called live shows. However, I can recall sitting in a tiny alcove with a grandson going for it, on a set of drums - this is intensity: zero distortion, but the subjective sensation was immense; my world was nothing but the sense of the sound completely drowning me - in a good way, .

 

This is what I want a playback rig to do ... be able to deliver that same experience.

[The_K-Man]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

I come from a rather unusual perspective, compared to most - I evolved my thinking, over time, to consider that the recording, no matter how flawed it may be, to perhaps most listeners, as being the 'master' of the situation. T

 

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

Disturbing sibilance or shrillness in the playback are markers of distortion anomalies in the replay chain. If you 'sort out' the weaknesses in the setup, then the disturbing quality vani

 

Your two statements, above, to me, contradict each other!

 

First you state the source - the album or file itself - as the arbiter of quality, then toward the end of your comment you blame the playback system.

 

Well which one is it, fas?  Or is it a little bit of both?

 

You need to clarify this, or you will continue to see lots of "D"(isagree) votes on your comments.

[Ralf11]

wasted words

prove to warn

[The_K-Man]

32 minutes ago, fas42 said:

These days there's a lot of confusion between intensity; and highly compressed, distorted, subjectively overloading, volume - go into any "live venue" these days, and you'll get plenty of the latter, through its PA rig with indicator LEDS sitting in red just about all the time ... .

 

Not interested in the latter, at all. One reason I gave up on so-called live shows. However, I can recall sitting in a tiny alcove with a grandson going for it, on a set of drums - this is intensity: zero distortion, but the subjective sensation was immense; my world was nothing but the sense of the sound completely drowning me - in a good way, .

 

This is what I want a playback rig to do ... be able to deliver that same experience.

 

 

Well then don't blame the rig for less than satisfactory sound, blame the operator, and/or the physical setup(are speakers elevated above crowd sufficiently, etc).

 

Modern PAs, even for just 500 people, are now equipped with a side-chain(compressors, limiters, EQs, 'aural exciters', and  other magic boxes) worthy of top notch NY or LA recording studios.  Digital mixers now possess most of these effect on-board, and in the wrong hands, the effects of the recording loudness war can creep readily in to the live side.

 

It's part of why I rarely ever go to concerts any more.  If it's  too loud 50 rows back - or up in the nose-bleed seats - then one could only imagine how loud it is within 40 feet of the stage!

[The_K-Man]

6 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

wasted words

prove to warn

 

In what context?

 

In response to....?

[fas42]

6 minutes ago, The_K-Man said:

 

 

Your two statements, above, to me, contradict each other!

 

First you state the source - the album or file itself - as the arbiter of quality, then toward the end of your comment you blame the playback system.

 

Well which one is it, fas?  Or is it a little bit of both?

 

You need to clarify this, or you will continue to see lots of "D"(isagree) votes on your comments.

 

The recording is the arbiter of the ultimate quality of what you can hear.

 

The playback system can only degrade that quality, to some degree - never enhance it. The goal is to make the level of degradation approach zero.

 

Turns out that if you get close to that goal of zero impact by the introduction of the playback chain, that there is enough, good, information on the recording for one's brain to compensate for the recording's lack of 'perfection' - this is something that I've learnt over many years.

[The_K-Man]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

The playback system can only degrade that quality, to some

degree - never enhance it. The goal is to make the level of

degradation approach zero.

 

Now that you worded it that way, I can think of instances where that might be true:

 

1.  Listening through speakers with significantly limited and/or uneven frequency response.  Next time(general public), do you research before buying!

 

Purchase speakers that are as flat and wide a reaponse as you can afford.

 

2. Lousy setup:  Picture a typical, cramped, on-campus dorm room, where one's roommate stacks one speaker on top of the other in one corner of the room. Not much separation or field depth there, lol!

 

3. Wiring: This one is nuanced, and the effect is likely to be noticed only with more powerful systems in relatively large listening spaces(a living room the size of the East Room in the White House, for example):

 

Using AWG20(and up) to wire your speakers.  Come on, that stuff's for door bells! You'll be choking the low end depending on how far you run it, and depending on the wattage demands of your speakers.

 

AWG16 speaker wire should be sufficient for most listening situations, in rooms with one measurement up to 40'(13m), and 9'(3m) ceilings.

[Ralf11]

24 minutes ago, The_K-Man said:

 

In what context?

 

In response to....?

Frank

 

- those are lyrics

[sandyk]

16 minutes ago, The_K-Man said:

AWG16 speaker wire should be sufficient for most listening situations, in rooms with one measurement up to 40'(13m), and 9'(3m) ceilings.

 

Not necessarily. Some manufacturers even specify the specific resistance requirements to ensure correct dampening of their speaker designs. Either too high a resistance, or too low a wiring resistance can affect the resulting sound to some degree .

[The_K-Man]

15 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

Not necessarily. Some manufacturers even specify the specific resistance requirements to ensure correct dampening of their speaker designs. Either too high a resistance, or too low a wiring resistance can affect the resulting sound to some degree .

 

That's audiophile-speak they're peddling!

 

Like BMW or such specifying 91 or higher octane gas in certain vehicle models.  Things will run fine on 89.

[sandyk]

30 minutes ago, The_K-Man said:

 

That's audiophile-speak they're peddling!

 

Like BMW or such specifying 91 or higher octane gas in certain vehicle models.  Things will run fine on 89.

 No it isn't.

 I even tried using some VERY heavy gauge rack cable as used in Telephone Exchange power cables, and it degraded performance a little compared with the multi strand heavy duty cable already in use.

 Actually, I didn't expect to hear ANY difference, let alone a negative one.

The attached is part of the recommendations for my old DCM QED 1A speakers.

[John Dyson]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

John, I come from a rather unusual perspective, compared to most - I evolved my thinking, over time, to consider that the recording, no matter how flawed it may be, to perhaps most listeners, as being the 'master' of the situation. This means that I must optimise my playback to the point where the words "minimally listenable" is never part of the equation; and the huge gain using this approach is that I can put on any recording, sight unseen, and it always opens up as a powerful listening experience - I may strongly disagree with the mastering decisions, and query 'mistakes' and sloppiness; but it still comes across as 'genuine' music making.

 

So, I don't want to remaster what the source is - I'm happy with the listening with what I have, but if I can hear different versions of some original recording sessions, I will still have my favourites, .

Actually, I am often achieving something much closer to the original source as intended by the artists.  I don't really want to hear much creativity from anyone except the original artist and recording engineers.   Adding too much 'love' by the distributors (as done too often nowadays) is destructive, and effectively distorts expectations of the listening public.  ('Love' in the drug dealing world is another word for 'cut' or dilution...  It might benefit some miscreants, but at the expense of other miscreants :-)).

 

The destruction(dilution)  by the distributors, oh so accepted nowadays almost seems like the concept of 'excess love' being added to illegal substances.  Fentanyl is one kind of well known 'love' that is so very destructive when another slightly less destructive evil is being adulterated by it.   Not doing DolbyA decoding or excessive compression/EQ/ambiance is yet another form of 'love' in a more legal (but IMO, just as dishonest) context.

 

One might mention a loss of treble -- of course, that IS true in some respects, but if equipment is set up for defective audio to begin with, and if listening expectations are distorted because of incessant & expected over-processing, then my results WILL not sound as expected.  You are getting MUCH closer to the original recordings (well, most of the time) with my results.  A DolbyA decode DOES NOT decrease the peak levels of high frequencies (or any frequencies) when the levels are above about -10dB,  so most of the HF loss is the removal of excessive ambiance as created by the compression/DolbyA encoding.

 

When using equipment and listening style which expects the 'distorted' sound of undecoded material, eventually everything ends up being tuned to compensate for the problematic issues.

 

I agree about shrillness problems -- however, a bit of excess sibilance doesn't bother/worry me FOR MY OWN LISTENING.   As long as I can find the destructive formula used against the recording so as to undo it, I will remove any sibilance or destruction left over -- whether if it is caused by me or the 'distributor'.  Most often, the root cause of the sibilance came from the destructive EQ by the distributor, meant to hide the lack of proper processing/decoding.

 

John

 

 

[John Dyson]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 

Not necessarily. Some manufacturers even specify the specific resistance requirements to ensure correct dampening of their speaker designs. Either too high a resistance, or too low a wiring resistance can affect the resulting sound to some degree .

That is definitely true.  Though, much of the time, for lower/midrange equipment,  it seems that lowest driving impedance is  best (which is probably the most common kind of specification) -- so that the back emf and effects of LF resonance don't cause peaking that wasn't considered in the design (the loading of certain LF speakers sometimes acts like a parallel tuned circuit, and there is an impedance peak -- or multiple peaks, where a high drive impedance will make the speakers have response peaks and even LF ringing!!!)

 

On the other hand, some kinds of speakers are so intricately designed that there is an ideal, non-zero source impedance...   If I designed such a speaker, I would support both a direct connection (for those with equipment that allows selecting the output impedance), and also a 'default' series resistor/impedance that would work for when a typical very low output impedance amplifer with short connecting cables might be used.   I believe that I owned some ported speakers that worked a little better with non-zero source impedance, but I didn't worry about that -- the source material wasn't really all that good anyway.

 

I WOULD almost automatically expect that very esoteric speakers would have an ideal source impedance range...   A lot of poor-people speakers like what I can afford,  simply work very well with the lowest practical impedance (which is a reason for using nice, fat cables -- avoiding adding impedance to the amplifier output.)   Some speakers are very tightly specified where there is an optimum non-zero impedance for driving them, but I don't run around in such rich circles anymore where speakers like that are common :-).

 

Maybe a very common case for intricately tuned speakers are used is in the extreme audiophile realm.   Correct impedances can help for sure, but, alas, my days of affording $50+k in toys (like my 3 deck/ 1 super high quality camcorder D9 setup, which cost WELL OVER 50k) is long long gone :-).   I'd rather give my mom a bit better retirement than to indulge much in toys like that...   Oh, it would be so nice to live in a world where I would have the money to be able to worry about speaker driving impedances again...   :-).   With those kinds of resources, then my Mom would be able to go on many more entertaining vacation trips :-).  Geesh I feel guilty that I didn't help her more!!!

 

John

[John Dyson]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

The clip with pre-emphasis was a halfway house - dulled, but not as much as the processed.

 

I did try again after the later posts here, with original and processed - this laptop has tiny sound, the bass and volume are poor; symphonic works are almost inaudible at times - but it's OK for pop. And my hearing is learning to compensate, . Loaded into Audacity, noted that the processed was some dBs down on the original - so normalised the two; set into repeat play, and instantly switch between the two versions - the more I did this the more I preferred the original ... there's a guitar filling in some nice backing towards the end; and the sound of this was too toned down in the processed - I don't like losing the sense of the individuality of the contributing sound elements.

Actually, I am sure that Nena and her recording engineer expected that the material would sound more like the decoded results than the hyper-intense, over-emphasized mess that resided directly on the CD.

 

That recording is NOT perfect, and even after perfect decoding, has some annoying artifacts -- I believe even on the original recording itself.   The decoded version is much more listenable if one has reasonable hearing in the HF range and equipment that has freq response that doesn't start rolling off at 3kHz.

 

(When there are excessive frequency response/phase anomalies in the recording, or if such anomalies are allowed to persist during a DolbyA encode/decode cycle, they become impossible to correct for.  This is specifically the problem with the 'Arrival' album from ABBA -- the only solution is to find the best version with the least generation loss so that the frequency/phase anomalies can be corrected.   As a note, I do have a very good formula that corrects many sorts of sibilance problems resulting from phase issues in the 9k/12k range.)  Once too much processing is done after the distorted frequency resp/phase, there is nothing that I can do with my current sets of procedures.

 

John

 

[GUTB]

Well, after over a year of playing around with digital some more -- DAC with an all-tube output stage, MQA-CDs through a Mytek Liberty (+ Chinese linear PSU of course), my vinyl is still superior. All of my efforts at improving digital playback help...but not in improving the gap in dynamic performance, the thing which makes my music stand out so much. Currently my digital simply consists of my CD player + the all-tube DAC (Space-Tech Lab DSD512). Oh, it claims 512 but opening it up reveals an Amenaro controller which requires a ROM flash to make that 512 work from a Windows source, something I'm not going to bother with since it's all glued on and I'm not going to power on this thing with a big bottle rectifier and a pair of KT150 big bottles while messing around with the internals). My custom built Roon+HQPlayer PC with its linear PSU, SDD isolation, 100% fanless, etc, is languishing. If I want to listen seriously the turntable setup (Triangle Arts + Chinese all-tube phono and the great Hashimoto SUT) is spun up. If I want to sit and listen while reading a book (currently studying for an exam I needed to take months ago...sigh) I'll put on a CD instead.

 

Just to be clear, I *do* enjoy my better CDs. The Chinese CDP is crap compared to my "real" DACs and when using regular CDs going to my tube DAC it's can be quite nice still. Tonal color, density, sound stage, etc, quite nice, no complaints in that area. The Mytek and MQA playback is currently servicing my PC and headphone setup. My trusty Fostex 900s are still with me for when I want to listen to high quality MQA streams off Tidal. The PC speakers are run by a nice little Cherry amp, among the best class D I've heard and good enough for my PC speakers. My Schiit Mjolnir 2 is vastly superior to the Mytek's built-in amp.

 

I haven't given up completely on digital, I just don't what to do to bring it up to the level of my record player.

[AudioDoctor]

Today has been a weird day, and its about to get weirder...

 

I agree with you GUTB. I think Digital has to be taken to a pretty extreme level to match analog. Right now, I appreciate my analog more than the digital and that is probably due to the equipment.

[sandyk]

59 minutes ago, GUTB said:

I haven't given up completely on digital, I just don't what to do to bring it up to the level of my record player.

 Perhaps part of the problem is due to your use of Vacuum tubes with their inferior S/N in a DAC,  compared to  the best of modern solid state ,which is a bit like losing a couple of Bits of low level information with high resolution (not RBCD) files ?

I do however agree for the most part, with what AudioDoctor just posted.

[fas42]

The solution is, as it's always been 🙂, is that one has to take care of the "devils in the details" side of things ... first of all, stop cycling through gear - stabilise on a certain combo,and learn where it's sensitive to its environment, how much its signature changes depending on how long it's been on, or producing sound.

 

Unless one has acquired extremely well engineered equipment, all the tiny things will matter - and one has to get a handle on precisely how the SQ alters when anything is done. Digital is miles from set and forget if one uses conventionally engineered gear - but can deliver if one takes fussiness to the highest level - a sharp, positive spike in the quality is there to be found; but it won't happen unless one takes the exercise of finding out "what matters" seriously ...

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, GUTB said:

All of my efforts at improving digital playback help...but not in improving the gap in dynamic performance, the thing which makes my music stand out so much.

 

Isn't the gap in dynamic performance due to mastering?

[fas42]

1 hour ago, lucretius said:

 

Isn't the gap in dynamic performance due to mastering?

 

No ... digital lacking subjectively strong dynamics is a distortion issue - anyone who has pushed a rig over the line knows how the sound is 'transformed', in SQ terms.

[lucretius]

38 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

No ... digital lacking subjectively strong dynamics is a distortion issue - anyone who has pushed a rig over the line knows how the sound is 'transformed', in SQ terms.

 

Since dynamics is a measurable thing, I have no idea what "subjectively strong dynamics" are.  Do you have an example of the distortion issue?

[ajay556]

ANY ONE HEARD TAPES? Its also analog and will blow away digital any day :-). 

I enjoy listening to my music on both mediums LP and CD. If anyone wondering about why CD  - because CD transport have made a huge leap in sound quality.

[Rexp]

27 minutes ago, ajay556 said:

ANY ONE HEARD TAPES? Its also analog and will blow away digital any day :-). 

I enjoy listening to my music on both mediums LP and CD. If anyone wondering about why CD  - because CD transport have made a huge leap in sound quality.

Some folks like CD, you're one of them. The last two I tried were by Audio Research and Nagra, do they get any better?