Can digital get to vinyl sound and at what price?

[SoundMann]

Or perhaps 99 % of vinyl fans who dislike digital have poor digital set-ups .

You are forgetting about those of us who are particularly sensistive to digitals shortcommings.

 

[ScottK]

Most MM's do sound inferior to most MC's. There are just a handful that do not.

I owned several Grado Statement Carts that were low mass magnets. Sounded great.

 

[adrianywu]

The problem is that people conflate digital music technology with digital music implementation. When I take a live mike feed from my mixing console and do A to D, and then D to A to feed my monitoring system, there is NO noticeable difference from the original signal on A/B comparison, at least with the equipment and the format (DSD128) that we use. With PCM, even 24/192, we can hear a difference. But with DSD128, none of us in the team can hear any difference. Therefore, the actual digital conversion process is transparent. Of course, once the data is recorded, stored and playback, other factors come into play. With modern digital recordings, the ease and convenience of manipulating the signal can be a distraction, and it is often these manipulations that ruin the recording. We once attended a recording session of a classical label where they used over 100 microphones. No kidding. How the hell can anyone make a coherent sounding recording this way ? They were supposed to pick which tracks to mix back at the studio, but given the large number of combinations possible, and the problem with phase cancellations etc., it is pure madness.
There are also inherent problems with digital technology. Early Redbook digital had problems with the steep brick wall filter, which could be solved with oversampling. But one problem that remains unsolvable is the lack of resolution at low signal levels. The ears are much more sensitive in resolving detail at low SPL, but the the PCM format does not devote more bits to represent low level signals. This is probably because the format was invented by engineers with little understanding of psychoacoustics. At the lower end of the dynamic range, Redbook CD does not have nearly enough resolution to realistically reproduce a music signal. It is like watching a movie at 8 fps, where the movements become jerky because the frame speed is not high enough to fool the brain into thinking that the movement is continuous. DSD has a one bit resolution and basically just tracks the analogue waveform, which is why it sounds more like real world sound. Such is the state of the art today that if one records music to DSD with a high end professional ADC and play back on a high end DAC, I bet nobody can tell the difference between the original analogue and the digital on blind testing.

 

[SoundMann]

Adrian, I would like to be able to compare the live feed against the DSD converted feed vs the live performance itself.

 

[ScottK]

With modern digital recordings, the ease and convenience of manipulating the signal can be a distraction, and it is often these manipulations that ruin the recording.

Very much agree. That's why I don't like DSP.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

The problem is that people conflate digital music technology with digital music implementation. When I take a live mike feed from my mixing console and do A to D, and then D to A to feed my monitoring system, there is NO noticeable difference from the original signal on A/B comparison, at least with the equipment and the format (DSD128) that we use. With PCM, even 24/192, we can hear a difference. But with DSD128, none of us in the team can hear any difference. Therefore, the actual digital conversion process is transparent. Of course, once the data is recorded, stored and playback, other factors come into play. With modern digital recordings, the ease and convenience of manipulating the signal can be a distraction, and it is often these manipulations that ruin the recording. We once attended a recording session of a classical label where they used over 100 microphones. No kidding. How the hell can anyone make a coherent sounding recording this way ? They were supposed to pick which tracks to mix back at the studio, but given the large number of combinations possible, and the problem with phase cancellations etc., it is pure madness.
There are also inherent problems with digital technology. Early Redbook digital had problems with the steep brick wall filter, which could be solved with oversampling. But one problem that remains unsolvable is the lack of resolution at low signal levels. The ears are much more sensitive in resolving detail at low SPL, but the the PCM format does not devote more bits to represent low level signals. This is probably because the format was invented by engineers with little understanding of psychoacoustics. At the lower end of the dynamic range, Redbook CD does not have nearly enough resolution to realistically reproduce a music signal. It is like watching a movie at 8 fps, where the movements become jerky because the frame speed is not high enough to fool the brain into thinking that the movement is continuous. DSD has a one bit resolution and basically just tracks the analogue waveform, which is why it sounds more like real world sound. Such is the state of the art today that if one records music to DSD with a high end professional ADC and play back on a high end DAC, I bet nobody can tell the difference between the original analogue and the digital on blind testing.

i own 1000 vinyl rips to DSD128, and own the vinyl too. easy to hear what DSD128 is not able to retain. yes, there are less than perfect parts of the ADC-DAC process, of course.

but if i do a 1:1 dub with my tape deck i literally cannot tell the difference. if i do a second dub from the first one and compare it to the original, now i hear a touch of noise. but otherwise the same.

the two processes are magnitudes different in retaining the musical message. every digital conversion loses something. no exceptions.

 

[Rensselaer]

The problem is that people conflate digital music technology with digital music implementation. When I take a live mike feed from my mixing console and do A to D, and then D to A to feed my monitoring system, there is NO noticeable difference from the original signal on A/B comparison, at least with the equipment and the format (DSD128) that we use. With PCM, even 24/192, we can hear a difference. But with DSD128, none of us in the team can hear any difference. Therefore, the actual digital conversion process is transparent. Of course, once the data is recorded, stored and playback, other factors come into play. With modern digital recordings, the ease and convenience of manipulating the signal can be a distraction, and it is often these manipulations that ruin the recording. We once attended a recording session of a classical label where they used over 100 microphones. No kidding. How the hell can anyone make a coherent sounding recording this way ? They were supposed to pick which tracks to mix back at the studio, but given the large number of combinations possible, and the problem with phase cancellations etc., it is pure madness.
There are also inherent problems with digital technology. Early Redbook digital had problems with the steep brick wall filter, which could be solved with oversampling. But one problem that remains unsolvable is the lack of resolution at low signal levels. The ears are much more sensitive in resolving detail at low SPL, but the the PCM format does not devote more bits to represent low level signals. This is probably because the format was invented by engineers with little understanding of psychoacoustics. At the lower end of the dynamic range, Redbook CD does not have nearly enough resolution to realistically reproduce a music signal. It is like watching a movie at 8 fps, where the movements become jerky because the frame speed is not high enough to fool the brain into thinking that the movement is continuous. DSD has a one bit resolution and basically just tracks the analogue waveform, which is why it sounds more like real world sound. Such is the state of the art today that if one records music to DSD with a high end professional ADC and play back on a high end DAC, I bet nobody can tell the difference between the original analogue and the digital on blind testing.

Stereophile (sorry, can’t recall the issue) released with great glee that subjects of listening tests could discern the difference between high-res digital and CD level digital, however, that was possible only when comparing pure tones recorded by each because they could not discern a difference listening to actual music. My suggestion is to record pure tones AAA and DSD128 then compare those?

 

[ScottK]

they could not discern a difference listening to actual music.

And I thought it was just me? I can't tell the difference from Red BooK to HighRes PCM. I can hear a difference with 256DSD.

 

[ScottK]

 

[Mike Lavigne]

And I thought it was just me? I can't tell the difference from Red BooK to HighRes PCM. I can hear a difference with 256DSD.

my viewpoint is that i can mostly hear differences in the native files one level to another. the native file is almost always more true. and higher rez pcm or dsd is almost always better than lower rez. this was true with my MSB Select II/Extreme, and is for sure true with the Wadax Ref dac and server.

but the rub is to find the native file. i have plenty of files that are DXD 352/24,, some that are DSD256 but started out as DXD352/24, and then others that are native DSD256. native wins to my ears every time.

but there are exceptions. a few of my favorite digital files are native 16/44 recordings. but the music itself is super simple and perfectly recorded. so you can never eliminate the value of the performance and the recording.

not all dacs, servers and files are created equal. and silver discs can have any result as transports add/subtract in their own fashion.

so generally how i see it is;

performance + recording > native > higher rez > lower rez.

DSD = PCM.

to my ears, in my system, with my gear.

 

[ScottK]

my viewpoint is that i can mostly hear differences in the native files one level to another. the native file is almost always more true. and higher rez pcm or dsd is almost always better than lower rez. this was true with my MSB Select II/Extreme, and is for sure true with the Wadax Ref dac and server.

but the rub is to find the native file. i have plenty of files that are DXD 352/24,, some that are DSD256 but started out as DXD352/24, and then others that are native DSD256. native wins to my ears every time.

but there are exceptions. a few of my favorite digital files are native 16/44 recordings. but the music itself is super simple and perfectly recorded. so you can never eliminate the value of the performance and the recording.

not all dacs, servers and files are created equal. and silver discs can have any result as transports add/subtract in their own fashion.

so generally how i see it is;

performance + recording > native > higher rez > lower rez.

DSD = PCM.

to my ears, in my system, with my gear.

I am certain you are correct. The quality of your digital gear is state of the art.

 

[Carlos269]

The problem is that people conflate digital music technology with digital music implementation. When I take a live mike feed from my mixing console and do A to D, and then D to A to feed my monitoring system, there is NO noticeable difference from the original signal on A/B comparison, at least with the equipment and the format (DSD128) that we use. With PCM, even 24/192, we can hear a difference. But with DSD128, none of us in the team can hear any difference. Therefore, the actual digital conversion process is transparent. Of course, once the data is recorded, stored and playback, other factors come into play. With modern digital recordings, the ease and convenience of manipulating the signal can be a distraction, and it is often these manipulations that ruin the recording. We once attended a recording session of a classical label where they used over 100 microphones. No kidding. How the hell can anyone make a coherent sounding recording this way ? They were supposed to pick which tracks to mix back at the studio, but given the large number of combinations possible, and the problem with phase cancellations etc., it is pure madness.
There are also inherent problems with digital technology. Early Redbook digital had problems with the steep brick wall filter, which could be solved with oversampling. But one problem that remains unsolvable is the lack of resolution at low signal levels. The ears are much more sensitive in resolving detail at low SPL, but the the PCM format does not devote more bits to represent low level signals. This is probably because the format was invented by engineers with little understanding of psychoacoustics. At the lower end of the dynamic range, Redbook CD does not have nearly enough resolution to realistically reproduce a music signal. It is like watching a movie at 8 fps, where the movements become jerky because the frame speed is not high enough to fool the brain into thinking that the movement is continuous. DSD has a one bit resolution and basically just tracks the analogue waveform, which is why it sounds more like real world sound. Such is the state of the art today that if one records music to DSD with a high end professional ADC and play back on a high end DAC, I bet nobody can tell the difference between the original analogue and the digital on blind testing.

DSD128 and above is where the magic happens, but even DSD64 is magical in its sound. I was a bit surprised that after all these years my Digital Audio Denmark AX24 DSD dac is still tops when streaming DSD128 from HQPLAYER.

i own 1000 vinyl rips to DSD128, and own the vinyl too. easy to hear what DSD128 is not able to retain.

I would assume that those DSD128 captures were most likely done on a Korg MR-2000 or on a Tascam DA-3000. Try some DSD transfers with a Digital Audio Denmark AX24, Meitner DSD ADC, Grimm AD-1, dCS 905, Neve 1073DPD, Prism Sound ADA-8XR, or Genex GX8A and you may very well feel otherwise.

performance + recording > native > higher rez > lower rez.

DSD = PCM.

to my ears, in my system, with my gear.

I’m not surprised with this conclusion given that the Wadax uses an off the shelf Texas Instrument Delta-Sigma PCM dac IC chip. Give a true 1-bit chipless DSD dac a listen and see if you stil think that DSD = PCM.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

DSD = PCM.

for clarity's sake, when i use equal, i mean on the same level of performance, not that they do not sound different. they do. but the result is more a matter of native source and performance/recording than which are used. i don't have a clear preference. in my system. maybe other systems synergize better with one or the other?

and besides native files from both, i have tape transfers from both, and can enjoy either.

probably my highest fidelity digital is tape transfers to DXD 352/24......mostly because of the source quality and transfer quality, maybe not due to the format. all those factors are always at play.

 

[Carlos269]

for clarity's sake, when i use equal, i mean on the same level of performance, not that they do not sound different. they do. but the result is more a matter of native source and performance/recording than which are used. i don't have a clear preference. in my system. maybe other systems synergize better with one or the other?

and besides native files from both, i have tape transfers from both, and can enjoy either.

probably my highest fidelity digital is tape transfers to DXD 352/24......mostly because of the source quality and transfer quality, maybe not due to the format. all those factors are always at play.

Try this on your system through your Wadax, this is DSD64:

 

[DasguteOhr]

I owned several Grado Statement Carts that were low mass magnets. Sounded great.

I can think of a few more, the very expensive mc cartridges beat in terms of music and liveliness. Grace F 9, AT-ml 180cc, vpi zephyr, technics epc, b&o mm4 , old deccas and a lot more.

 

[Amir]

The problem is that people conflate digital music technology with digital music implementation. When I take a live mike feed from my mixing console and do A to D, and then D to A to feed my monitoring system, there is NO noticeable difference from the original signal on A/B comparison, at least with the equipment and the format (DSD128) that we use. Of course, once the data is recorded, stored and playback, other factors come into play. With modern digital recordings, the ease and convenience of manipulating the signal can be a distraction, and it is often these manipulations that ruin the recording.

Yes, high quality Digital (A to D then D to A) is transparent enough and the digital problem is storing data and "digital processing" can degrade the sound.

High quality PCM A to D / D to A should be as good as DSD. What PCM ADC/DAC you have used?

 

[Amir]

i own 1000 vinyl rips to DSD128, and own the vinyl too. easy to hear what DSD128 is not able to retain. yes, there are less than perfect parts of the ADC-DAC process, of course.

1- Does your DAC convert DSD128 to PCM before Digital to Analog Conversion?
2- DSD128 files should play on Computer and all computer playbacks (even wadax) have limits

 

[Amir]

I’m not surprised with this conclusion given that the Wadax uses an off the shelf Texas Instrument Delta-Sigma PCM dac IC chip. Give a true 1-bit chipless DSD dac a listen and see if you stil think that DSD = PCM.

Wadax is the best digital converter at the moment in this market and judging a dac by just considering it's IC chip means you have no valid information about DAC design.

 

[Carlos269]

Wadax is the best digital converter at the moment in this market and judging a dac by just considering it's IC chip means you have no valid information about DAC design.

Give a true 1-bit chipless DSD dac a listen and you may very well feel otherwise.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Give a true 1-bit chipless DSD dac a listen and you may very well feel otherwise.

i owned the MSB Select II for over 4 years. it kept dsd completely native. and it was chipless.

from the MSB Select II website....



the MSB was very very good at dsd. the Wadax dac is easily better.....to my ears.

with MSB you could choose standard dsd mode, or enhanced (converted to PCM), they were similar, but i kept it native.