I thought you were asking me of playing a TT through a digital correction. If you were asking about rips, I have 1 hard drive full of rips, had them for over 5 years, professionally done of many original pressings that can be played through digital. I don't like them.
Can digital get to vinyl sound and at what price?
- Thread starter ScottK
- Start date
So, your experience is that, given the same recording (for example), a well set-up analogue sourced system will sound better than a well set-up digital-based system -- assuming both systems are optimised for their respective source. Is that your point?
yes exactly, and I am not restricting the analog system only to the analog components. People seem to think if they heard an expensive TT they probably heard a good representation of an analog system, or because some set up guy visited them to adjust the cartridge.
I wouldn't use the phrase "same recording", but same piece, e,g. same beethoven symphony or sonata
To start with, comparing the same recording on vinyl to digital, level matched and all that, is NL.
Why would you compare a recording made in the analog era to one made from that oldmaster tape to digital in the digital era - or, why would you take a digitally sourced LP and compare it to a digital file? If you do either, you are compromising one of the formats.
Second, if you do take a good recording from the analog era and compare it to its digital file, and you need to level match it or listen very closely to find out which is better, then the system is crap.
I think a lot of generalizations are being attempted. Then people rebut the generalization with a specific instance which refutes the generalization. I think these topics are too recording specific or source specific to generalize about.
I personally have a general rule that I prefer to playback a recording in its native format. I like to playback an AAA on vinyl or tape. I like to play back a DDD or DAD on digital.
Is anyone arguing that playing back a digital file recording of an analog recording playback on a record player sounds better than the analog playback on the record player?
I personally have a general rule that I prefer to playback a recording in its native format. I like to playback an AAA on vinyl or tape. I like to play back a DDD or DAD on digital.
Is anyone arguing that playing back a digital file recording of an analog recording playback on a record player sounds better than the analog playback on the record player?
Given the cost and rarity of mint versions of some LPs, I think the comparison makes sense, especially for someone who already has a good digital setup.
Mosaic Records, for example, just came out with a CD box set of Bobby Hutcherson's Blue Note recordings, and they state the following:
"The sonic clarity is thrilling. Mastered from hi-res files of the original analog masters by Andreas Meyer. Thanks to current 24 bit/192 hKz technology and dramatic improvement in analog to digital converters, the sound on this set is far superior to any previous CD issues and is astonishingly close to that of audiophile vinyl."
I have the box set, but I don't have the original LPs to compare to. I can say however that the sound quality is high enough that it does not make me want for more. Perhaps I am missing out.
We are not discussing costs here, just sonics, this is WBF. I have often said till you hit a certain cost, streaming and digital is justified. There is a certain cost to get to analog, which includes the equipment and the accessories and then the records start.
Fair enough.
Going forward, I hope we will see more quality digital re-issues that will bridge the gap between analog and digital, because there is no doubt that many past digital re-issues were "botched".
As for LP playback through ADCs, I believe it is too system dependant to make any generalizations (as Ron correctly hinted to). I would certainly be curious to hear from others who have given it a try.
Last edited:
You listen to vinyl using an ADC and a DAC without RIAA equalization?
I cannot say whether "it sucks life out of the recording" but it might suck the bass out of it.
No the equalization curves are all managed using DSP. I could not find a link to the manual, but it is explained in this review:
M2Tech Joplin Analog-To-Digital Converter An amazing 384kHz/32-bit ADC designed for modern audiophiles. Review By Tom Lyle
M2Tech Joplin Analog-To-Digital Converter An amazing 384kHz/32-bit ADC designed for modern audiophiles. Review By Tom Lyle of Enjoy the Music.com
www.enjoythemusic.com
I'm not saying this is a superior way of handling things, just that there are pros and cons to each (so it may be worthwhile to keep an open mind about it).
Last edited:
Mind is open but your ears seem shut though with all this DSP and ADC
So no analog RIAA equalization but digital RIAA equalization. The article says "M2Tech says they designed the Joplin's analog stage based on the "best PGA (Programmable Gain Amplifier) available on the market", with a maximum gain of 65 dB." So you're not actually adding steps or removing steps, just doing in digital what is done with analog.
This may sound snarky but it seems like a rude thing to do to a nice analog signal.
I admire the optimism of digital believers who are devoted to the belief in the absolute transparency of A/D and D/A conversion, digital processes, processes inside the computer, and no negative effects of modems, routers, and switches on streaming files. Once you hear it, you cannot unhear it.
So no analog RIAA equalization but digital RIAA equalization. The article says "M2Tech says they designed the Joplin's analog stage based on the "best PGA (Programmable Gain Amplifier) available on the market", with a maximum gain of 65 dB." So you're not actually adding steps or removing steps, just doing in digital what is done with analog.
This may sound snarky but it seems like a rude thing to do to a nice analog signal.
By doing things in the analog domain, you are removing the analog components (pre-amplification and EQ). My only point is that you are not only "adding a digital step".
Once again, I am not claiming this is "better".
And I admire the optimism of those who believe that analog components (cables, preamps, etc...) don't degrade the signal.
Breaking news: there is no such thing as a perfect system, and perfect components.
Yeah, that's my problem too. And the technology is still in flux. Maybe I have'nt heard this years model. Still you're hoping she's well spoken but I don't see myself rolling on the carpet with this year's model. *
For those hot on the trail of that I say go for it -- enthusiasm is its own reward. I am not compelled to constant A vs D comparison because I am satisfied with what I have. Now, I'd rather compare performances than boxes.
Yes, the technology is in flux - both on the production side and on the customer side.
You've probably listened to digital without even knowing it (think MOFI...).
They are not mutually exclusive. You could also say - I'd rather be listening to music than posting on audio forums
You could also realize that access to both digital and analog releases is what offers the opportunity to listen to the greater number of performances.
I have held blind listening tests at my house using the MoFi UHQR 45-RPM super vinyl, one step UD1S 2-008, Marvin Gaye “What’s going on” to represent the current state of the art DSD-to-vinyl. I compared that to a Supersense Master cut (on lacquer) 33.3 RPM of Martin doing what’s going on, in order to represent a supposedly state of the art analogue-tape-to-vinyl (acrylic).
The sampling is too small to be indicative of anything, only 7 persons have done it, however all but one preferred the sound of the Supersense analogue-sourced disc to the DSD to analogue MoFi one-step Ultradisc and nobody hearing the MoFi disc mistook it for analogue-sourced.
Similar threads
