Can digital get to vinyl sound and at what price?

[Audiohertz2]

This is specious logic. All we are saying your recordings don't sound similar. If they do, the system has too strong a signature of its own (e.g. the speakers always do a certain type of bass or stage), while if recordings sound different as you change records, guess what they sound like...the recording. You don't have to know what happened in the mastering booth - you just need to hear the EMI differently from the Decca from the Columbia etc.

For this you really need to use those for auditions, amplified female vocals, for example, won't tell you the difference.

While i do agree in whole i will add, anything can be your reference, once you understand and recognize what it is doing and why..!




Regards

 

[wil]

I have a couple records that I also can find on streaming. I can't tell them apart on my system. I have brought them to friends and done the same test on stereo that would be considered very high end. Some $300k type stuff. Again, we could not tell the difference. The point being, what impact does going from digital to vinyl have. Also, what impact does going from a possible 36x384 or higher to 16x44.1 have. And, what did the company that makes a disc do? I had a friend who gave me his CD. I explained why it sounded like crap. He went back to the studio and they noted the master did not sound like the CD. Turns out the company putting the files to CD made their own alterations. Point being, there appears to be some stepping on a file from what is mastered in the control room to what is available to stream or on a disc.

…an illustration that the interminable digital/analog discussion (when focused on format/gear/tech) is barking up the wrong tree.

The biggest factor by far, it seems clear to me, is the care, or lack of care, that’s been taken in every stage of the recording-mastering-reproduction process. It’s not about vinyl, cd, dac,turntable…

 

[AudioGod]

@Gregm It is not a feasible thing because of the (now many times referenced on this thread) circle of confusion. There is no accessible, universally available and reproducible reference point to establish what is the 'truth' in a reproduced sound from a recording. Unless you are the person in the mastering booth, at the exact time he is mastering it, it's gone. And that person is also removed from the original acoustic event (if there was one), so it was gone before it was gone even. This might sound bad, but it's actually the justification for everything we do here. Until we are streamed music directly into our brains, we get to navigate these inconsistencies and have fun.

@AudioGod The answer is the same. It feels like talking to a bot at this point, given the circularity and shallowness of your posts. If you need to be the engineer to know what accurate is (and that would only be to his own work, not the underlying music...) you can't know what accurate is. The level of irony in these posts is reaching critical level.

All I'm saying is that he's intimately familiar with the recording and the master
And if he hears on a system something completely different than what he had heard in the studio , he would know right away.
Beyond that if you're system measures well with minimum amount of distortion , it just makes sense you'll get closer to the sound of the master.

 

[Carlos269]

…an illustration that the interminable digital/analog discussion (when focused on format/gear/tech) is barking up the wrong tree.

The biggest factor by far, it seems clear to me, is the care, or lack of care, that’s been taken in every stage of the recording-mastering-reproduction process. It’s not about vinyl, cd, dac,turntable…

100% agree. The mastering process in particular is the single most dominant factor in sound quality and its dominance on the final resultant sound is paramount. The good news for the enlightened is that we can still do something about it. Remastering is the single most powerful tool in all of audio reproduction. High-End Audio systems have what I would call residual impact on the sound quality while remastering can make bad recordings sound great in extreme cases, but the real power lies in the fact that with “system-remastering” you can transform your current system, if capable, and to the one that you always wanted or wished you had. I will put it this way, audiophiles are chasing crumbs on the floor, when there’s real meat on the table!

 

[Ron Resnick]

For someone who likes building a hypothesis, build one - there is a different signal on each recording. Then, check if each recording sounds different on some systems and not on some. Make it a think piece + listening factual piece.

The question of systems homogenizing music or not is unrelated to what we are discussing here.

 

[RCanelas]

This is specious logic. All we are saying your recordings don't sound similar. If they do, the system has too strong a signature of its own (e.g. the speakers always do a certain type of bass or stage), while if recordings sound different as you change records, guess what they sound like...the recording. You don't have to know what happened in the mastering booth - you just need to hear the EMI differently from the Decca from the Columbia etc.

For this you really need to use those for auditions, amplified female vocals, for example, won't tell you the difference.

Absolutely agree. I feel it is a separate (or separable) topic from the one that prompted my reply however.

Having a low signature, full bandwidth and balanced system, that allows through the nature of the recording is part of my drive. This implies different recordings get rendered differently, because they are not overruled by an imposing voice. But I can't pretend to know what is more 'accurate'. Nor do I care, if the discussion is to be framed as was being put forth before. If that's the goal I'll be working on neural implants, not loudspeakers. At least I would have a non-zero shot at making it work for 'accuracy'.

 

[bonzo75]

The question of systems homogenizing music or not is unrelated to what we are discussing here.

No

 

[Al M.]

Absolutely agree. I feel it is a separate (or separable) topic from the one that prompted my reply however.

Yes, it is.

 

[Kingrex]

100% agree. The mastering process in particular is the single most dominant factor in sound quality and its dominance on the final resultant sound is paramount. The good news for the enlightened is that we can still do something about it. Remastering is the single most powerful tool in all of audio reproduction. High-End Audio systems make what I would call residual impact to the sound quality while remastering can make bad recordings sound great in extreme cases, but the real power lies in the fact that with “system-remastering” you can transform your current system, if capable, and to the one that you always wanted or wished you had. I will put it this way, audiophiles are chasing crumbs on the floor, when there’s real meat on the table!

I don't understand what your saying.
It sounds like your saying the Mastering or Master recording I am playing is the most important factor in playback.

Then you say we can Remaster. When I hear Remaster, I think a resissue by the label. But you go on and say System Remastering. This sounds to me like using your system to re-voice or possibly alter what the source material is with the stereo in my room.

 

[Republicoftexas69]

I don't understand what your saying.
It sounds like your saying the Mastering or Master recording I am playing is the most important factor in playback.

Then you say we can Remaster. When I hear Remaster, I think a resissue by the label. But you go on and say System Remastering. This sounds to me like using your system to re-voice or possibly alter what the source material is with the stereo in my room.

That is exactly what he is saying. You opened a Pandora’s Box now…

 

[Carlos269]

I don't understand what your saying.
It sounds like your saying the Mastering or Master recording I am playing is the most important factor in playback.

Then you say we can Remaster. When I hear Remaster, I think a resissue by the label. But you go on and say System Remastering. This sounds to me like using your system to re-voice or possibly alter what the source material is with the stereo in my room.

Let me explain, as simply as I can: as audiophiles we try different components to improve the sound of our systems. Whether they are changing the speakers, the amplifiers, the source equipment, cables, adding grounding boxes or upgrading the power delivery infrastructure. All those changes have very limited capacity, by design. The reason for that is that electrical power systems and high-fidelity/high-end audio components are designed to tight tolerances. To give you an example that you can relate to, you don’t want the power mains to deviate more than +/- 10%. In well designed and executed audio components, you don’t want the frequency response to deviate by more than 1 dB from 20Hz to 20KHz. At most you want to limit the deviation to 3dB during the audio frequency range to be a well designed and executed neutral component. So you are by definition bound by the design of each component. The problem is as you start to link each component together each connection forms a RLC filter from the source component’s output impedance, the interconnecting cables’ electrical characteristics, and the next, down the audio chain, component’s input impedance. This is why all systems sound different and different system configurations sound different. As you assemble a system you are stuck with the static frequency alterations inherent to that the system’s make-up.

As changes are made to the system’s make-up through component substitutions, the resultant frequency response of the overall system is altered. And this is why we hear a change in the sound when we make a change to the system. These changes are unpredictable, to a large degree but you can actually do the math & electrical analysis or model the system in software to predict the change if you are so inclined, and worse they are static; so you get a different sound that improves something’s in some cases at the expense of other things, in terms of sound quality. The changes brought about by these trial & error component substitutions are limited, or what I call “residual”, because as stated above, if they are well designed and executed they must be neutral and adhere to tight tolerances from their nominal specifications.

With the above in mind of the limited capacity to influence the overall sound with well designed and executed audio components, how do you make impactful changes to the overall sound of the system? How do you restore tonality or neutrality caused by the inherent string of RLC filters embedded in the system? How do you make changes to the sound of the system that don’t add noise or add static “equalizer” type shifts in frequency response?

Around 27 years ago, I noticed that two different copies of the same CD’s sounded drastically different to me in terms of sound quality. I also noticed this with LP’s of the same recordings. The differences were that the recording in all cases had been remastered, some times for the better but often for the worse. The changes that I heard in either cases where more drastic than the changes that I had managed to achieve with my amplifier, preamplifier, source components, speakers, cables substitutions that I had been making, following the Audiophile “upgrading” process.

My scientific, engineering, and intellectual curiosity got a hold of me. I then went on a 7 year deep dive into exploring and understanding the world of high-end mastering studios. What I learned from that experience and education changed my entire perspective of home audio reproduction and the audiophile pursuit.

With my gained knowledge, I assembled two of the most powerful mastering systems in the world and successfully was able to surgically change not only the sound of recordings but ultimately, with the “system-Remastering” process, the inherent sound of systems.

I will pause here for questions. More to follow if there is interest. Please reference my thread linked below for additional details:

There is a smarter way

 

[thedudeabides]

Lol
So it's like dark matter ?

That is exactly the attitude that folks here do not like. Snide / passive agressive comment about YG speakers. Post 1994. Do not know if this was your intent or not but that was my take. Either you understand that or you don't.

And I agree with others that you offer very little from a constructive perspective. Your position on sound quality is measurement based which is inconsistent with the vast majority, if not all, WBF forum members. Your arguments mean nothing.

 

[thedudeabides]

That is exactly what he is saying. You opened a Pandora’s Box now…

Ron,

In case you have not noticed, threads with this topic are, by nature, Pandora's box.

 

[Republicoftexas69]

Ron,

In case you have not noticed, threads with this topic are Pandora's box by nature.

Ron? Okay. That was humor… and yes that is why I said it.

 

[Kingrex]

Let me explain, as simply as I can: as audiophiles we try different components to improve the sound of our systems. Whether they are changing the speakers, the amplifiers, the source equipment, cables, adding grounding boxes or upgrading the power delivery infrastructure. All those changes have very limited capacity, by design. The reason for that is that electrical power systems and high-fidelity/high-end audio components are designed to tight tolerances. To give you an example that you can relate to, you don’t want the power mains to deviate more than +/- 10%. In well designed and executed audio components, you don’t want the frequency response to deviate by more than 1 dB from 20Hz to 20KHz. At most you want to limit the deviation to 3dB during the audio frequency range to be a well designed and executed neutral component. So you are by definition bound by the design of each component. The problem is as you start to link each component together each connection forms a RLC filter from the source component’s output impedance, the interconnecting cables’ electrical characteristics, and the next, down the audio chain, component’s input impedance. This is why all systems sound different and different system configurations sound different. As you assemble a system you are stuck with the static frequency alterations inherent to that the system’s make-up.

As changes are made to the system’s make-up through component substitutions, the resultant frequency response of the overall system is altered. And this is why we hear a change in the sound when we make a change to the system. These changes are unpredictable, to a large degree but you can actually do the math & electrical analysis or model the system in software to predict the change if you are so inclined, and worse they are static; so you get a different sound that improves something’s in some cases at the expense of other things, in terms of sound quality. The changes brought about by these trial & error component substitutions are limited, or what I call “residual”, because as stated above, if they are well designed and executed they must be neutral and adhere to tight tolerances from their nominal specifications.

With the above in mind of the limited capacity to influence the overall sound with well designed and executed audio components, how do you make impactful changes to the overall sound of the system? How do you restore tonality or neutrality caused by the inherent string of RLC filters embedded in the system? How do you make changes to the sound of the system that don’t add noise or add static “equalizer” type shifts in frequency response?

Around 27 years ago, I noticed that two different copies of the same CD’s sounded drastically different to me in terms of sound quality. I also noticed this with LP’s of the same recordings. The differences were that the recording in all cases had been remastered, some times for the better but often for the worse. The changes that I heard in either cases where more drastic than the changes that I had managed to achieve with my amplifier, preamplifier, source components, speakers, cables substitutions that I had been making, following the Audiophile “upgrading” process.

My scientific, engineering, and intellectual curiosity got a hold of me. I then went on a 7 year deep dive into exploring and understanding the world of high-end mastering studios. What I learned from that experience and education changed my entire perspective of home audio reproduction and the audiophile pursuit.

With my gained knowledge, I assembled two of the most powerful mastering systems in the world and successfully was able to surgically change not only the sound of recordings but ultimately, with the “system-Remastering” process, the inherent sound of systems.

I will pause here for questions. More to follow if there is interest. Please reference my thread linked below for additional details:

There is a smarter way

I looked at the link. There are 9 pages. I think I saw where you created your own "Box" of some sort to shape the signal or something to achieve a more SET/ Horn type sound from a dynamic driver system.
That discussion has its place in the other thread. Not saying the concept is not interesting. I don't agree it is a remastering of the master. But I do recognize all pieces of any audio system impact the sound. Many people approached shaping it with DSP. And with cables, power and equipment selection.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ron? Okay. That was humor… and yes that is why I said it.

Yes, I gave it a laughing emoji because I thought it was funny.

 

[Carlos269]

I looked at the link. There are 9 pages. I think I saw where you created your own "Box" of some sort to shape the signal or something to achieve a more SET/ Horn type sound from a dynamic driver system.

The remastering process allows you to achieve whatever sound you want. With the system-Remastering process your are only limited by your imagination, creativity, and abilities. With a fully configured remastering system you can do just about anything you want to the sound, in terms of sound quality.

I don't agree it is a remastering of the master.

In my case it is actually starting off with something better than the master, as I take the output from HQPLAYER before signal is run through the Remastering process implemented on my WAAR system. Starting with the master would not be as resolute as when the commercially issued or available recording is transcoded to DSD512 or DSD1024 with the filters and modulators in HQPLAYER.

But I do recognize all pieces of any audio system impact the sound.

Everything has an impact but the degree or level of impact is the difference between making component substitutions and adjusting the system’s musical presentation through the use of mastering equipment.

Many people approached shaping it with DSP. And with cables, power and equipment selection.

Again, the point is the degree of influence that the different approaches have on the resultant sound quality. Unless you write code, DSP is limited in both function and capabilities. Great things can be accomplished in the digital domain but you are limited by the headroom available, limited to “Absolute Zero”, OdB level.

 

[hopkins]

The remastering process allows you to achieve whatever sound you want. With the system-Remastering process your are only limited by your imagination, creativity, and abilities. With a fully configured remastering system you can do just about anything you want to the sound, in terms of sound quality.

In my case it is actually starting off with something better than the master, as I take the output from HQPLAYER before signal is run through the Remastering process implemented on my WAAR system. Starting with the master would not be as resolute as when the commercially issued or available recording is transcoded to DSD512 or DSD1024 with the filters and modulators in HQPLAYER.

Everything has an impact but the degree or level of impact is the difference between making component substitutions and adjusting the system’s musical presentation through the use of mastering equipment.

Again, the point is the degree of influence that the different approaches have on the resultant sound quality. Unless you write code, DSP is limited in both function and capabilities. Great things can be accomplished in the digital domain but you are limited by the headroom available, limited to “Absolute Zero”, OdB level.

If the sound of a CD is compressed, what can you do with it?

 

[Republicoftexas69]

Yes, I gave it a laughing emoji because I thought it was funny.

No I thought the @thedudeabides was calling me Ron, Ron

 

[PeterA]

As it is not my personal objective, I am not well-qualified to answer your question. Perhaps Chuck can answer.

it is on my list of possible high-end audio objectives because I believe it to be the conceptual objective of many audiophiles.

How about this: Audiophile goal #3: Try to achieve what we think or hope or guess is exactly the same as what is on the master tape or digital file?