Can digital get to vinyl sound and at what price?

[Rexp]

In the Gryphon room at the Southern California show earlier this summer, I enjoyed the digital source as much as I enjoyed the analog source. This was a first-time experience for me.

Which digital source did you like, which music?

 

[bonzo75]

In the Gryphon room at the Southern California show earlier this summer, I enjoyed the digital source as much as I enjoyed the analog source. This was a first-time experience for me.

this can often happen due to incorrect set up of analog or the recordings used.

 

[hopkins]

This is the crux of the matter with the absolute sound concept. I like to hear the answer to your question from all those in pursuit of this goal.

I am in pursuit of that goal, and I have followed a manufacturer who is also in pursuit of that goal, using a "minimalistic" approach, using the least components in the chain. I don't think you will find a system that has so few components in the signal path (basically a resistor ) - but it only works using a digital source (toslink). The results are very interesting and surprising, but the devil is in the detail, and there are some further adjustments that need to be made (ongoing). I also think this approach will show, ultimately, that traditional measurements are not sufficient to assess the transparency of a system (because improvements below "auditability" levels are audible and very significant!).

 

[wil]

Ps That’s why it’s a hobby.

!!!

 

[wil]

The Mind: our most powerful audio component.

…and as Woody Allen said,

“My Brain, it’s my second favorite organ…”

 

[wil]

This is what forums are for, to share thoughts and opinions.

+1

 

[Rensselaer]

I’m using the same techniques and tools as Bob Ludwig, Ted Jensen, Greg Calbi, Steve Hoffman, Bernie Grundman, Bob Katz, and other mastering engineers. The recordings that you listen to have already undergone the process. Think about that for a minute.

Please excuse my ignorance but after I read your explanations of what you do with your mastering equipment in the thread "There is a smarter way", I was left with the impression you use your mastering equipment to shape the performance of your sound equipment, regardless of what commercially-obtained pre-mastered 2-channel recording you play through it. This was so you could get off of the constant equipment upgrade cycle associated with "the absolute sound"; whereas I thought that Bernie Grundman and perhaps the rest of those sound engineers listed above use mastering equipment to convert (usually) several channels of taped (digital or analogue) sound/music into the "master" that will be copied multiple times and sold as the commercial product? Would you kindly clarify?

 

[Al M.]

Why do you insist on foisting your DSP opinions on those who have no interest? Why not just enjoy your “system” .

If you constantly have to DSP recordings, in my view there is something wrong with your system.

Certainly when it comes to classical and jazz recordings, adjustments should be rarely needed. On rock and pop it might be a different story, but also there you shouldn't have to adjust all the time.

My Octave preamp has a remarkably transparent tone control, but I rarely use it. It is routinely in bypass mode. Sure, sometimes it comes in handy, for example when giving the famously anemic sounding Led Zep Physical Graffiti CD remaster some juice in the bass (I can make that CD set actually sound quite great, with good bass guitar and heavy drums). But other than with those rare exceptions, my tone control is inactive.

 

[Republicoftexas69]

Some are compelled to reinvent the wheel. It is not seeking perfection, it borders on a disorder.

 

[Carlos269]

I am in pursuit of that goal, and I have followed a manufacturer who is also in pursuit of that goal, using a "minimalistic" approach, using the least components in the chain. I don't think you will find a system that has so few components in the signal path (basically a resistor ) - but it only works using a digital source (toslink). The results are very interesting and surprising, but the devil is in the detail, and there are some further adjustments that need to be made (ongoing). I also think this approach will show, ultimately, that traditional measurements are not sufficient to assess the transparency of a system (because improvements below "auditability" levels are audible and very significant!).

Hopkins, with your very streamlined and purist system and approach, how do you discern that the sound you are hearing and listening to from your system is faithful and accurate to the recording? Or to the artists’ intent?

 

[Carlos269]

Please excuse my ignorance but after I read your explanations of what you do with your mastering equipment in the thread "There is a smarter way", I was left with the impression you use your mastering equipment to shape the performance of your sound equipment, regardless of what commercially-obtained pre-mastered 2-channel recording you play through it. This was so you could get off of the constant equipment upgrade cycle associated with "the absolute sound"; whereas I thought that Bernie Grundman and perhaps the rest of those sound engineers listed above use mastering equipment to convert (usually) several channels of taped (digital or analogue) sound/music into the "master" that will be copied multiple times and sold as the commercial product? Would you kindly clarify?

Your description of my motivation is good. What you have described above for the recording engineers is the job of the mixing engineers. Mixing engineers mix the raw tracks into the release format, in the stereo case into two channels. The Mastering Engineer takes the two channel mix from the mixing engineer and polishes it and optimizes it for cutting and release. Mastering engineers typically work in the 2-buss world of two channels and they are the last people who have an editorial input in the final mix and final sound quality of the recordings. What I do with my remastering process is similar but with a different aim, as I’m addressing the system’s presentation and not an individual recording. The techniques and tools that I use are similar but obviously implemented in a different way to address the desired changes to the system’s presentation. I hope that gives you a better understanding.

 

[Carlos269]

Some are compelled to reinvent the wheel. It is not seeking perfection, it borders on a disorder.

Some of us work in innovation, development and problem solving for a living and we don’t leave that at the door when we come home. It is in my blood to see a concept such as the audiophile process, which is terribly flawed, and think of ideas and ways to fix it, at least for myself and anyone willing to break free from the dogma. You call it a disorder, perhaps as I have never been one for blind acceptance. As I finished college I was destined to be a theoretical physicist, my destiny would change that, but in that field of study, knowledge and theories, you simply don’t accept or limit yourself. That thought process and attitude towards life has stayed with me and I’m glad that it has as it has allowed me to excel in both my professional world and with my hobbies.

 

[microstrip]

Paul does not design digital. my local friend Ted Smith does his digital designs. which are nice. they are PS Audio branded products.

We are aware of it, Paul often refers to it in the PSAudio forum. They work together, give interviews together - IMO enough to consider that Paul is not "just Paul" on digital matters. His opinions surely reflect the opinion of Ted Smith.

Paul is a well known speaker designer. and his company sells lots of different products. he likes to engage his customers personally. which i agree is admirable. but i don't see that he has any credentials as a state of the art level format comparer. none the less those who follow him take his opinions seriously. which in this case, i happen to disagree with strongly.

I was not addressing credentials, or the dubious "expert" ranking by WBF. The fact you and I disagree with him in a lot of things does not change any thing.

he is welcome to make his case.

just like Pro Audio guys, access to and time spent with top level vinyl is not a given.

Surely. BTW, as far as I remember his site spends more time on tape than vinyl - our member AdrainWu wrote an excellent series about tape machines and tape recordings in his magazine, that contains valuable information on the subject written by several knowledgeable tape aficionados.

 

[microstrip]

If you constantly have to DSP recordings, in my view there is something wrong with your system.

I think you are misunderstanding Carlos method - all his recordings are played with the same parameters. They are personnel, but IMO should be considered part of the system. The same way the dCS or the mysterious Wadax processing are.

Certainly when it comes to classical and jazz recordings, adjustments should be rarely needed. On rock and pop it might be a different story, but also there you shouldn't have to adjust all the time.

My Octave preamp has a remarkably transparent tone control, but I rarely use it. It is routinely in bypass mode. Sure, sometimes it comes in handy, for example when giving the famously anemic sounding Led Zep Physical Graffiti CD remaster some juice in the bass (I can make that CD set actually sound quite great, with good bass guitar and heavy drums). But other than with those rare exceptions, my tone control is inactive.

The fact that we accept avoiding individual fine equalization is due to our laziness, lack of time or lack of expertise. When I owned the Cello Audio Pallette I could improve most recordings individually - but it took a long time and lots of systematic listening. Recoding engineers use very different sounding speakers and studio acoustics to master recordings.

 

[microstrip]

Some of us work in innovation, development and problem solving for a living and we don’t leave that at the door when we come home. It is in my blood to see a concept such as the audiophile process, which is terribly flawed, and think of ideas and ways to fix it, at least for myself and anyone willing to break free from the dogma. (...)

Can we know how many people have broken free from the dogma with your help?

You spend more time and effort criticizing the "audiophile process" than giving details about your process, that stays nebulous for most readers.

 

[Al M.]

I think you are misunderstanding Carlos method - all his recordings are played with the same parameters. They are personnel, but IMO should be considered part of the system. The same way the dCS or the mysterious Wadax processing are.

Point taken.

The fact that we accept avoiding individual fine equalization is due to our laziness, lack of time or lack of expertise. When I owned the Cello Audio Pallette I could improve most recordings individually - but it took a long time and lots of systematic listening. Recoding engineers use very different sounding speakers and studio acoustics to master recordings.

Sure, the question is, do we want to adjust each recording to our taste, or do we want to accept the vast range of timbres that music can present itself with, depending on venue acoustics, distance to performer, mode of playing an instrument etc? Certainly, an argument can be made that even under the latter premise we may still be able to improve individual recordings, but it may be a slippery slope from there to merely adjusting to our tastes.

 

[Carlos269]

Can we know how many people have broken free from the dogma with your help?

You spend more time and effort criticizing the "audiophile process" than giving details about your process, that stays nebulous for most readers.

I have not done any installation of the remastering system for others thus far but I have been approached about if by a few interested parties.

In my “There is a smarter way” thread I share the details of what I have done with my Wisdom Audio Adrenaline Rush based system. My implementation of the “Remastering” process will certainly be different depending on their system and their needs, in terms of adjustments to the system’s presentation.

Providing further details would be misleading as what worked on my system would not necessarily be the same tools and sequenced loops that I would implement in someone else’s system.

Is there something in particular that you are after that I have not already disclosed in that thread?

 

[Carlos269]

Certainly, an argument can be made that even under the latter premise we may still be able to improve individual recordings, but it may be a slippery slope from there to merely adjusting to our tastes.

Yet every system sounds different. Every manufacturer “voices” their system differently. Then you ask yourself the philosophical question of, do you want to faithfully reproduce what’s on the recording? Or do you want to faithfully reproduce the artist’s intent?

Many on this forum roll tubes; why do you think that is? Many roll components? Others roll speakers. We are all changing something to get that sound that is in our head. It is that sound in our head that becomes our “absolute sound”.

 

[microstrip]

I have not done any installation of the remastering system for others thus far but I have been approached about if by a few interested parties.

In my “There is a smarter way” thread I share the details of what I have done with my Wisdom Audio Adrenaline Rush based system. My implementation of the “Remastering” process will certainly be different depending on their system and their needs, in terms of adjustments to the system’s presentation.

Providing further details would be misleading as what worked on my system would not necessarily be the same tools and sequenced loops that I would implement in someone else’s system.

Is there something in particular that you are after that I have not already disclosed in that thread?

I found the thread was very unclear and confusing and unfortunately you always had a perfect excuse to avoid answering the few direct questions of posters. It became a particular discussion about a "They Were All Out of Step But Jim" type system.

 

[Carlos269]

I found the thread was very unclear and confusing and unfortunately you always had a perfect excuse to avoid answering the few direct questions of posters. It became a particular discussion about a "They Were All Out of Step But Jim" type system.

I believe that the only thing that I have not answered or disclosed is the exact list of equipment that I use and how I sequence them, as that is my intellectual property. But other than that, here is your chance to ask me a direct question and let’s see if I answer it or dance around. What is your question? What are the questions that I have not answered?