Analog: Still Better?

[sandyk]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Turns out that the 'immature' recording technology doesn't matter, ultimately - it just means that the playback side has to be on its best behaviour for these to 'work'. Which takes effort to achieve - sometimes, it's simpler to "blame the recording!" 😜

I disagree. Add to that the damage done to the quality of the original masters at the later , mixing and mastering stages as evidenced by some of the tantalisingly good corrected versions from John Dyson. It's very hard though to reverse engineer the damage done to many, when many mastering engineers used different methods although some impressive results can be obtained .

 

e.g. 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/oimvnljlx9c2p6p/School .wav?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/y5pcu42hwu2sclt/02-Bloody Well Right.wav?dl=0

Compare these with your own CD .

 I will remove the links in several hours time  .

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, hopkins said:

this topic here is analog versus digital. You cannot make abstraction of the limits/issues of digital, which are well known, and think that you can transform a digital system into an analog system.

 Who would want to, other than a blinkered vinyl person ? 😜

 For starters, you are also dismissing the high res formats such as 24/192 LPCM and DSD as a waste of time, even though some may have genuine musical content to >57kHz .

 How many vinyl recordings in your collection have much more than a top frequency response of >22kHz , and will still have that high a response after being played quite a few times? 

Yes, some vinyl half speed recordings available mainly at Hi Fi shows had HF detail to around 30kHz when new, but how many cartridges are able to do this justice, let alone the poor channel separation right across the recorded frequency spectrum ?

 Very few cartridges even have 35 dB separation, which results in the larger than life ,diffused, rarely pinpoint centre image  that so many appear to prefer

 

P.S. 

 Do they even make multi channel vinyl recordings these days ?

 I used to have a great logic controlled SQ vinyl set up until a nearby lightning strike fried the I.C.s . 

[sandyk]

15 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Agreed, most audiophiles know that its the quality of the recording/mastering that determines the SQ, obviously there are alot of snake oil salesmen that disagree. 

 Given the same attention to detail with the mastering and manufacturing of both vinyl and CD, and a high quality vinyl and Digital playback system , the digital version is not only more accurate , but technically superior, as well as audibly superior. What the guys in the Music Server section of the forum are doing is only akin to what many Vinyl addicts do with their choices of cartridge, TT,  RIAA Phono Preamp,  mechanical tweaks and cleaning rituals in a never ending quest for perfection. .

[sandyk]

11 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Going round and round trying to polish turds has led to vast amount of money wasted on digital tweaks when all that was needed was the record labels to improve the SQ of their recordings. 

We need both, as Digital is nowhere nearly as mature yet as Vinyl, which for most people has been around as long as they have.

[sandyk]

2 hours ago, EvilTed said:

Wash that foot before you put it in your mouth :)

 I suggest that you wash yours. 😜

Those measurements are pretty pathetic compared with what CD specs are.

Those figures are far worse again when used in conjunction with a typical cartridge ,which as I said is unlikely to have >35dB separation, and even then not right across the bandwidth of 20HZ to 20kHz ,

and probably in the vicinity of > + and -2.5dB which is quite audible.

Add to that Wow and Flutter from your TT as well .

Even the 90dB Line S/N  is around >30dB lower than can be attained with a good SS Preamplifier these days.

  <.1% distortion  ? ! It would severely degrade any high quality high level input such as CD,DVD-A,  analogue tape etc.

  My own DIY SS Preamplifier is <.0006%, with a Bandwidth of -3dB @ 1.5MHZ and a S/N around >30dB better.

 Even an old Magnavox MDVD50 DVD player has an SNR of  -118dB  from 10HZ to 22kHz with .006% distortion

 

No expensive 7DJ8/PCC88 etc. to replace on a regular basis either, as they lose emission.

[sandyk]

18 minutes ago, fas42 said:

the end result should be that they all "sound the same" - because their individual signatures are attenuated enough so the only thing you're aware of are the qualities of the recording.

Pull the other leg. It whistles 🤣

Not even all analogue sources sound exactly  the same ,due in part to the PSU area etc. as well as with Vinyl  where almost all cartridges sound a little different

[sandyk]

37 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Yes. Normal playback injects too many distortion characteristics - and the signature of various parts of the chain holds sway. The goal is to eliminate that happening - and the Absolute Sound results.

That is not possible with Vinyl, as Cartridges for example all have different characteristics, especially in variations of frequency response, as well as variations  in how their Phono Preamps RIAA EQ is implemented,  it's accuracy, and even the type of preamp used such as Vacuum tube, I.C or discrete semiconductors. The same applies to digital to a certain extent dependent on the type of DAC used, even the type of DAC chips used. The DSD 179x family for example, sounds noticeably different to say the Sabre ES9018 etc. as an example. Then as you are now well aware, the PSU area matters too.

[sandyk]

57 minutes ago, fas42 said:

as a simple example, wind the treble control all the way from minimum to maximum - the sound "doesn't change".

Your brain must be wired very differently from most people.

Are you an extraterrestrial ?  😵

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, EvilTed said:

Your frame of reference for high end vinyl playback is your home made phono preamp that you figure to be better than many state of the art references

That sounds rather snobbish, especially if you are using a Vacuum Tube based RIAA preamp with an inferior S/N to the best of solid state. Most DIY people also pay far greater attention to the PSU area than the majority of typical commercial deigns  , perhaps even using extremely low noise S.O.A. voltage regulation (e.g. 0.8uV RMS(10HZ to 100kHz) which is unable to be used with tubes due to the higher voltages involved. 

[sandyk]

10 hours ago, hopkins said:

This one also impressed me (also available on CD, which I ordred out of curiosity, to compare): https://www.discogs.com/Earl-Hines-Hines-Comes-In-Handy/release/5456308

 

Are you sure you can't find any older stuff ? 😉

[sandyk]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

... the soundstage is what's on the recording - it's up to the particular digital chain to lift its game, to match that of the vinyl ... 😉.

 I used to have quite a few vinyl recordings that sounded better than the later digital release, but that wasn't due to the CD format, it was due to poor quality mastering to the CD format by more than likely Mastering Engineers who didn't put the same amount of effort into it as when the Vinyl recording was mastered, or perhaps were simply inexperienced in the early days of the CD format. 

The very first CD players were also pretty poor by today's standards, and that may not have helped either with their early mastering efforts? (I had a Sony CDP101 . The Sony CDP -101 is the world's first commercially released compact disc player. The system was launched in Japan on October 1, 1982 at a list price of 168,000 yen (approx US$730). )

 

[sandyk]

10 minutes ago, Rexp said:

All CD playback sucks IMO

If ALL CD playback sucks, then it is due to the gear that you are using . 😜

Have you tried playing your CDs after being ripped to HDD/SSD in an electrically quiet PC from System Memory, using a player such as JRiver 27 into a high quality stand alone DAC, and NOT via a typical inferior USB  implementation ?

[sandyk]

36 minutes ago, Confused said:

So an open question to anyone.  What would be the expected result here if I made a "needle drop" digital copy of the subject vinyl recording and played this back via the digital side of the system?

If it was saved  at 24/96 or 24/192,which is becoming more common these days, and the digital side of your playback system was decent, then it should sound very little different to how the vinyl sounded.. This has apparently been the findings of more than a few members too.

 P.S. 

 I understand that quite a few people make a " needle drop" when a record is new, then put the record away for safe keeping to keep it in a pristine condition.

[sandyk]

4 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

SACD Version (24/88.2 .flac)

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/kzfxdna22kp7xgb/01 - Shelby Lynne - Just A Little Lovin'.flac?dl=0

[sandyk]

55 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Far superior, to what that vinyl YT clip conveys - string backing sings; depth, ambience, imaging of the parts in the mix very nicely defined; couldn't ask more from the soundstaging ... who needs vinyl? 😀

IF the title track for example, didn't have such an overblown wide soundstage and extra sibilance to her voice as many CDs of that era have, and ideally have the Dolby-A artifacts or added HF EQ removed  as John Dyson keeps reporting,

it MAY then have the potential to totally blow away the Vinyl version. 😉

[sandyk]

3 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Thing is he had to use 24/192. Many ADC's seem to need higher rates to work properly, then the mastering engineer butchers it to get to 16/44.1 which can sound bad, then they distribute it on a CD which sounds even worse. 

 

Barry Diament reports that 24/192 sounds like his microphone feed.

The recordings on CD do not normally start out in anywhere near 24/192 resolution, with many these days starting out as 24/44.1. 

High Res releases from HD Tracks etc. in 24/192 are usually sourced from Tape, with rarely much more than 30kHZ HF information due to the limitations of both the microphones and Tape medium.

 

[sandyk]

12 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Sibilance? ... What's that? - I don't have any CDs with sibilance problems ... 🤪

 Absolute Bulldust ! 🤣

Your digital setup is presently obviously incapable of the needed resolution to highlight these niggling problems just as you used to claim that Abba etc. didn't need much of that added HF EQ removed.

Kenny Rogers-The Gambler (and others) have annoying sibilance as do some from Simon and Garfunkel , for starters .

https://www.dropbox.com/s/27zix27xhm9k9g0/01 Simon %26 Garfunkel.wav?dl=0

 

BTW, how do you normally play your " sibilance free" CDs ? 😊

[sandyk]

3 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

 

 

[sandyk]

11 minutes ago, Rexp said:

24/192 is no guarantee of quality though, Linn Records changed their ADC and got much better sound:

https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/philip-hobbs-linn-records-recording-dunedin-consort

 

 Barry upgraded the clocking of his Metric Halo ULN8 to ULN-8 3D specification and from Firewire to Ethernet with markedly improved results . 

[sandyk]

14 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Comments ...?

 It sounds a little lacklustre compared with the CD version, HOWEVER, the added sibilance with her voice of the CD version isn't there.

[sandyk]

16 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Tidal version is unlistenable, suspect CD would be the same. 

 Except perhaps to Frank ? 😉

 

7 minutes ago, Teresa said:

 

 

 

Some people have sibilance naturally in their voices. My speaking and singing voice has very bad sibilance, especially when I pronounce the letter "S", it's even worse at the end of a word.

 

If a singer has natural sibilance in their voice I want that reproduced correctly, it's unnatural sibilance I don't want. If the sibilance is too strong some frequencies are emphasized more than others. Unless I see the singer live it's hard to tell if the sibilance is natural or not. If you hear no sibilance from anyone you are not reproducing the upper midrange correctly.

Teresa

Many of the Carpenters CD releases have excessive sibilance, which is evident if you compare it with some of their stuff from Quad tape . Some of Kenny Rogers tracks sound like he is spitting through false teeth, but poor mic technique may be also contributing, with poor CD mastering highlighting it .

If you were able to listen to the Simon and Garfunkel track that I posted I am sure that you would agree that they would never have become famous if they really sounded like that. 

[sandyk]

24 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Just to say, Simon and Garfunkel tracks are some of my all time favourites - this stuff is brilliant to listen to, on a capable setup.

 Did you actually listen to what I posted ? The sibilance is bloody terrible, and this was from a BluSpec CD.

IF this sounds OK to you then you have major problems with your setup and should perhaps ask your vinyl buddy how it compares with LP.

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

The sibilance is bloody terrible, and this was from a BluSpec CD

To clarify this a bit. The track sounds far worse when played locally from System Memory when using JRiver 26 which is far more revealing than the very mediocre DropBox player. JRiver is way more revealing, and of a  far higher replay quality than many other players, especially those that do not play from System Memory.

  A little wile ago I tried playing it from Dropbox again and it sounded quite dull compared with previously, but still played without obvious problems.

 I then remembered that there was a video conversion running, and tried it again after it finished. 

It had improved substantially, but was still far less revealing than with JRiver .

This suggests that some laptops etc. may be way less revealing of actual sound quality., just as stock standard Mac Minis can be as evidenced in the Uptone forum after a Linear PSU is retrofitted.

[sandyk]

31 minutes ago, fas42 said:

OK, that has natural sibilance, that which the human voice has as part of its makeup - poor replay makes this unpleasant to the ear ... a system which is in fine tune never exaggerates this; it sounds completely normal, as in, that's how it would sound if they were live in the room.

 I completely disagree. It's the other way around.

See my previous post from just after you posted this reply.

Many members find audio quality from a typical Laptop such as yours quite disappointing/lacklustre due to the necessary PSU compromises made to improve time between battery charges, which result in a masking of HF detail.

IOW, like heavy veils .  Which S/W player are you using, and does it play from System Memory ?

 

 P.S. 

 This could also help to explain why John Dyson and yourself had so many run ins about non decoded Dolby-A CDs and ABBA not sounding shrill to you.

[sandyk]

9 minutes ago, Confused said:

Whilst the above factors might be significant at a certain level, say when using the laptop as a source for a system, I would have thought that the lap top speakers themselves whould be the largest factor here?

Agreed. However, we do not know whether Frank in this case was listening to the lap top's speakers, or exporting the files.