LPs of new release music

[amirm]

Problem is this Amir. A record may very well been mastered from an analog/tape source and still be digital. Take MFSL's Rickie Lee Jones' Pirates reissue. Pirates was originally recorded digitally (if I remember correctly on the early 3M 48 kHz [as opposed to 44 kHz] machine) and mixed down to 30 ips Dolby B tape. Given the fact that tape will "warm" things up, the original digital Pirates recording must have been unlistenable. That's in contrast to RLJ's first LP that was all analog with the original UK pressing of RLJ being vastly superior to the US.

Please excuse my ignorance. That is the reason I created this thread . So in this case, we have gone from digital recoding to tape and then LP? Is that a better path than going to digital to LP? Whatever electronics that warmed up the sound of digital could be put in the path of LP. No?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Please excuse my ignorance. That is the reason I created this thread . So in this case, we have gone from digital recoding to tape and then LP? Is that a better path than going to digital to LP? Whatever electronics that warmed up the sound of digital could be put in the path of LP. No?

the goal of using the tape is the sound of the resulting CD being what the artist wanted. maybe removing the edge, or whatever. how the Lp might sound never entered the original thinking as that was an aftethought.

us Lp lovers might wish for a tape recording to begin with; but if the music is great that's somewhat secondary. there are many digitally sourced Lps that sound wonderful and if you did not know they were digitally sourced you would not readily realize it. ultimately; when comparing them to an analog sourced Lp with similar music you would hear the difference.

these issues are secondary to the musical merits.

i have found that Classical Lps that are digitally sourced are less typically noticable than pop or jazz. it might be due to the multi-tracked nature, the level of digital EQ used, or maybe even that i'm less knowledgable about how a classical instrument should sound.

 

[cjfrbw]

There are commentaries here and there on the web and blogs from studio engineers who are miffed because their final CD products sound so bad compared to what they remember from the studio mix.

I gather that when you play a studio recording on the machine that recorded it, it sounds outstanding whether it is digital or analog.

Many of the tape based digital recording machines sound quite good out of the gate. Steely Dan went from all analog to digitally mastered Soundstream based recordings after "Gaucho".

Apparently, in spite of alleged bit to bit fidelity, the "subjective" generational degeneration of digital media is not so sanguine. It seems that with editing and pressing, digital is a brittle medium and becomes increasingly glassy, edgy and etched beyond the master that created it. One could speculate on the reasons, but analog has a much more benign, if lossy, generational characteristic.

Also, when digital is actually pressed to disc, the discs often suffer from enormous amounts of jitter compared to the original masters. Again, many cite the way the pits are etched and read, along with the speed stability of transports etc. It is a strange observation that with digital transport quality has a large effect on sound of digital, even though theoretically this shouldn't be so.

Given the extended frequency response and good pulse characteristic of LP, it is one of the ironies of sound reproduction that LP may be the best way to render the high quality of a digital studio master.

There are lots of really outstanding digitally based LP's. There are also a lot of real clinkers, mostly from the 80's, that don't sound much better than crappy CD's.
The digitally based classical recordings from Philips are much sought after for their performances and sound quality. Probably the best known digitally based LP is Dire Straits "Brothers at Arms", which ironically, seems to sound better in its LP iterations than I have heard from the digital.

By the way, this is not another so called "digital vs. LP" debate so "usual suspects" please suspend the standard comments about LP colorations etc.

I can't remember the names of the studios at the moment, but there are some that render their hi-rez digital masters to LP for this very reason and recommend playback on LP's. Stereophile interviewed them a few years ago.

 

[amirm]

So seems like we are winding up with a few theories here:

1. Sampling theory tells us that reproduction of samples must occur at precisely the same time as digitization. This is likely much easier done in the studio using the same equipment which was used to digitize the content.

2. To the extent the digital source is converted back to analog and adjustments can be to match its fidelity to the original master in hand, then a better job can be done than with consumer's equipment.

3. If the recording is done at say, 96 Khz, conversion to 44.1 Khz for CD causes additional degradations and at any rate, causes additional filtering. Player's valiant attempt to filter that 44.1 Khz through various techniques can be avoided in the studio conversion to analog. This advantage goes away with delivery of original digital samples to consumer using DVD-A, SACD, or digital downloads. Sample rate conversion losses can be minimized by using multiples of 44.1 KHz in the original recording as Keith Johnson does with Reference Recordings.

Do we have any other theories?

 

[DWR]

This isn't a theory but more just a personal observation, first off I find this statement from Mike to really say a mouthful and I completely agree with it, "these issues are secondary to the musical merits." Now for my observation, although I listen to both analog and digital, when a new release be it brand new or a re-issue or re-mastering comes out I will purchase the vinyl every time over the cd if it is available on vinyl. Just like the George Harrison 40th anniversary re-issue of All Things Must Pass which is available starting today, I have my copy ordered on vinyl.

Dan

 

[MylesBAstor]

the goal of using the tape is the sound of the resulting CD being what the artist wanted. maybe removing the edge, or whatever. how the Lp might sound never entered the original thinking as that was an aftethought.

Well put with a few exceptions.

I think we luck out when artists work with a recording engineer and/or team, say a Rudy van Gelder, Wilma Cozart or Glyn Johns, that have both a good ear for the sound and how to bring out the most from the artists. Today unfortunately, it's the almighty dollar and the cost of doing a recording plus paying the artists that has contributed to the downfall of sound in our cherished recordings. Take classical music for example. Given the union rate for musicians, large scale classical recordings are increasingly costly to record (note the trend for orchestras to be self produced). So it becomes how can we do the recording the fastest eg. fix everything after the fact. Now we can add ambience after the fact, break the music down bar by bar, remove a note, add in a solo from another artists done 3000 miles away, etc and finish the recording in two days.

i have found that Classical Lps that are digitally sourced are less typically noticable than pop or jazz. it might be due to the multi-tracked nature, the level of digital EQ used, or maybe even that i'm less knowledgable about how a classical instrument should sound.

Have to disagree with you on this one old friend But, I think that digital is kinder to smaller scale or solo recordings. One of the biggest issues I have with the medium is when the music becomes increasingly complex or dynamic, esp. say in the case of large scale orchestral recordings.

 

[cjfrbw]

Amir,

I think you will get a lot of theories but not much else.

Many problems of digital were first observed from hearing, then elucidated later after the claims of perfect sound drove many audiophiles to distraction, but much is still speculative. Chalk one up for the "subjectivists".

I have never heard a digital studio master, but from rumor, played back on machines that recorded them with good symmetrical ADC/DAC, they are really good.

As I said, Steely Dan preferred the digital Soundstream process to their analog counterparts in the 80's. I suppose they could also have been swayed by the comparative "ease" of editing and equalization, but who knows.

It seems that most of the ills of digital derive from sloppy, lazy mastering and manipulation, generational brittleness, bad pressing, and the limitations of home digital playback devices, not the actual digital masters. Once breached, the loss of actual sound quality becomes insurmountable and doesn't seem to be recoverable. Analog crimes of generational manipulation tend to be more benign.

Analog reel to reel machines from rumor still have an edge in velvety smoothness and vitality, but at the studio master level, it is supposedly not that great compared to excellent digital masters, and digital masters can counter with virtues of their own in terms of clarity, dynamics etc.

Still, if I buy an LP, I would prefer an all analog path. Analog tends to demand and require, care, attention and skill, whereas it is always just a little too easy to get lazy with digital and cut corners.

 

[amirm]

Amir,

I think you will get a lot of theories but not much else.

Well, it is in my nature to think through people's observations and see if there is good science to explain it.

Many problems of digital were first observed from hearing, then elucidated later after the claims of perfect sound drove many audiophiles to distraction, but much is still speculative. Chalk one up for the "subjectivists".

Let's be clear. I am not trying to debate digital versus analog. We have plenty of food fights for that elsewhere. I am trying to investigate a specific instance: modern recordings done in digital, delivered in both LP and CD/DVD-A/SACD and digital downloads. I am trying to understand if a) improvements can be observed in analog delivery and b) if so, potential reasons for that.

I also am not trying to have a subjective vs objective analysis. On the contrary, I am accepting subjective evaluations as fact and am trying to understand intellectually why the preference is there.

I have never heard a digital studio master, but from rumor, played back on machines that recorded them with good symmetrical ADC/DAC, they are really good.

If everyone agrees with this, then we have moved pretty far in these arguments. That digital, done correctly (in this instance in the studio), can sound really good. Is there consensus on that?

It seems that most of the ills of digital derive from sloppy, lazy mastering and manipulation, generational brittleness, bad pressing, and the limitations of home digital playback devices, not the actual digital masters. Once breached, the loss of actual sound quality becomes insurmountable and doesn't seem to be recoverable. Analog crimes of generational manipulation tend to be more benign.

Well, the future is bright here for the most part. We will move away from the CD to the world of digitally delivered content. There, we can have access (if offered to us) the original digital master. We are still faced with whether we can reproduce those masters with the same characteristics as what was done in the post/studio. But perhaps there are solutions to that too.

Analog reel to reel machines from rumor still have an edge in velvety smoothness and vitality, but at the studio master level, it is supposedly not that great compared to excellent digital masters, and digital masters can counter with virtues of their own in terms of clarity, dynamics etc.

I would imagine lack of wow and flutter is also another virtue.

Still, if I buy an LP, I would prefer an all analog path. Analog tends to demand and require, care, attention and skill, whereas it is always just a little too easy to get lazy with digital and cut corners.

Are there any comparisons here of published music where it was both captured in analog and digital?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Are there any comparisons here of published music where it was both captured in analog and digital?

even better than that.

For more than 20 years, Keith O. Johnson has served as Technical Director, Recording Engineer and partner in Reference Recordings. His 100-plus recordings for the label have long been considered the standard for high fidelity, and include three GRAMMY award-winners and eight additional GRAMMY nominations.

Reference Recordings for years recorded to both 15ips tape and the Pacific Microsonics ADC at 176/24 side by side from the same mic feed. so it's easy to find CD's, HRX 176/24, Lps and even 15ips 1/4" Tape project tapes of exactly the same mic feed. when you visit we'll play a couple in each format and you can tell me what you think about it.

the CD's are very good. the HRX even better. the Lps better yet by a much larger jump, and the tape rules all......yes, even with the digital from a hi-rez digital master.

btw, if you have any questions about how these RR recordings (CD, HRX, Lp and RTR tape) were mastered just ask Paul Stubblebine, he's done all the mastering for RR for the last 20 years.

 

[hifitommy]

well, some such as jack white consistently use analog. still, digital originals will sound VERY good such as dire straits brothers in arms, cowboy junkies trinity sessions, and jennifer warnes' famous blue raincoat. i know those are no longer new but they are good examples of great sounding digital originals in vinyl release.

so yes amirm, it is preferred not to dumb down the digital stream. the preference would be to up sample to dsd or 24/96, or the dvda standard of pcm if youre going to go digital in release.

DSD sourced LPs arent necessarily preferred to sacd. in that case, i might go for the sacd but certainly dsd/LPs would be more than acceptable.

"1. The "distortions" in the early digital recording chain are masked/negated by the analog "distortions", producing a null result in some instances."

i dont think #1 there is quite accurate. i think the distortions there are quite handily passed on to the analog pressing, for instance the early denon pictures at an exhibition by fremeaux. it is truly awful, making the musical content hard to enjoy. what sound good about a good digital to vinyl transfer as opposed to its corresponding cd is that the nice clean electronics of the recording hardware is allowed to shine on the vinyl because of the lack of the distortions of the conversion process.

those early telarcs are exemplary and reveal the superiority of the vinyl over the very same recording on CD. the statement : "they were mastered at 48k" is just a bit off. the soundstream recorders were sampling at 50k not that the additional 2k made some overwhelming difference, just not a truly accurate statement. there was 'something' about those soundstream devices that was superior and i am surprised they didnt evolve.

in reference to FBR by jenny : "'mixed from original master tape'. however it was not originally recorded in tape.". it probably WAS tape, DAT i believe at 48k so the LP notes may be correct.

amirm: "Are there any comparisons here of published music where it was both captured in analog and digital?"

well, yes. perhaps still available from performance recordings-pictures at an exhibition on piano released as an LP and cd. analog LP recording, digital cd simultaneously.

[pr7lp (LP), pr7cd (CD): Boyk plays Mussorgsky 1991
Mussorgsky: "Pictures at an Exhibition"
Performer / Co-engineer / Producer / Album Notes

Unbelievably precise, his musical concept extraordinarily definite. The piano sounds as a piano should. We rank his 'Pictures at an Exhibition' among our reference recordings. —HiFi Magazin (Hungary)

Perhaps the most distinguished interpretation I've heard.... The feeling of "coming close to the vision of the composer" is strongly present. In this live recording in front of a devoted audience, the playing is powerful and full of life, yet with no loss of concentration. ... I just wish that every recording were done in the same way. —Musik & Ljudteknik (Sweden)

World's only comparison of (a) pure digital, (b) digital-from-analog, and (c) pure analog recordings, made at the same time from the same microphones; (a) and (b) on the CD, (c) on the LP. The analog master tape was the first tape made on MagnesaurusTM. From the album notes: "Interested listeners may use this double release of LP and CD to investigate some timely questions: Given an analog master tape, which medium preserves its virtues better, LP or CD? (Compare the LP with the analog half of the CD.) Does a CD sound better made from digital or analog master tape? (Compare the two versions on the CD.) And most important, which preserves the emotional impact of the music better, purely analog or purely digital recording? (Compare the LP with the digital half of the CD.)"]

copy/pasted from the performance website.

http://www.performancerecordings.com/albums.html#available

this seems to confirm the availability. i have wanted to get this for a long time, perhaps it will become my xmas present. i saw james boyk at the first stereophile show in LA in a santa monica hotel where he gave a demonstration of a steinway piano which was quite informative. i learned a lot that day.

james doesnt seem to be very commercially motivated which explains the relative obscurity of this experiment.

 

[amirm]

Reference Recordings for years recorded to both 15ips tape and the Pacific Microsonics ADC at 176/24 side by side from the same mic feed. so it's easy to find CD's, HRX 176/24, Lps and even 15ips 1/4" Tape project tapes of exactly the same mic feed. when you visit we'll play a couple in each format and you can tell me what you think about it.

That would be a great opportunity then.

btw, if you have any questions about how these RR recordings (CD, HRX, Lp and RTR tape) were mastered just ask Paul Stubblebine, he's done all the mastering for RR for the last 20 years.

What was Paul's role relative to Keith Johnson? Reason I ask is the Keith worked for me for about a year after we acquired Pacific Microsonics so I have better access to him than Paul.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

That would be a great opportunity then.

ok; when ya commin over????

What was Paul's role relative to Keith Johnson? Reason I ask is the Keith worked for me for about a year after we acquired Pacific Microsonics so I have better access to him than Paul.

Keith was the recording engineer. Paul mastered them at his studio in S.F. in the case of the the tapes he produced the tapes too.

Paul has been to Steve's room a number of times and Paul lives in the bay area. i'm sure that Steve can connect you easily. i can tell you that Paul is not confused as to his preference in terms of sonic quality....and if anyone would know about that, it would be Paul.

 

[JackD201]

Hi Amir,

If we go straight to the beginning, there's digital recording and there's digital recording. One LP that I bought with great anticipation was Ray Charle's Genius Loves Company. When I played it it sounded awful. Further investigation showed it was recorded straight into Protools. Now I'm not slamming Protools. I'm a proficient Protools user and it is still my DAW of choice for time if not quality intensive work. Anything in the signal path could have contributed to its low bitrate sounding quality from the choice of ADCs to maybe errors in DDC settings. In any case I was not expecting the grunginess found and thankfully not as often as before in essentially garage recordings like Alanis' Jagged Little Pill. The recording quality did not do justice to a Rock And Roll Hall of Famer.

On the flipside there are many Digitally recorded albums that do sound very good, even if they were recorded at "only" 16/48. As to why the LPs sound better than their CD counterparts in some cases, many point out the mastering. I'd like to go into this in a bit more detail. There is something sometimes done in digital mastering that has no equivalent in analog mastering: Normalization. While benign compared to compression over 4:1, personally I find it to be a quick fix that does disservice to the music as aside from raising the noise floor affects the amplitude relationship between musical events when the track is not played at the reference levels. Most domestic listeners play below reference levels, some above from time to time almost none at reference levels because nobody knows what that was anyway as it is unpublished in the liner notes.

All good Digital recordings have their peaks recorded below the 0dB danger mark. Unlike tape where you can hit it hard, as much as +9 depending on your tape stock and even more than that if saturation is the desired effect, going past 0dB results in nothing short of disaster. Digital recordings that do not try to increase loudness too aggressively sound, dare I say it, very analog. At the very least, they do not display the stereotypical anti-digital listener's pet peeves, granular low level information and etched attacks.

I suppose what I'm hinting at is that the work flow is different which means there are differing potentials. The greater potentials of digital unfortunately comes with greater potential for abuse. To discount the format because the majority of what we find in Borders, Costco or Walmart sounds terrible would just be wrong. To discount LPs for being noisy would also be wrong. A clean, scratch, tick and pop free LP is every bit as quiet as needed.

 

[cjfrbw]

My favorite CD's tend to be vinyl records recorded to CD that I make myself.

However, another strange observation, I really like DSD mastered CD's, even better than the one bit, noise shaped SACD playback, which bothers me for some strange reason, I can't listen to it for long periods of time. However, DSD mastered CD's sound great to me. I also like DSD mastered vinyl Lp's that I heave heard.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

My favorite CD's tend to be vinyl records recorded to CD that I make myself.

i'm not surprised about that. i never record off my tt's in any format as it will never be as good. however 4 years ago i had an event at my home where a guy did record some of my Lps to redbook. although they were not nearly as good as the Lps (much to the chagrin of my guest) they were very fine sounding and easy to listen to and likely better than a regular CD.

However, another strange observation, I really like DSD mastered CD's, even better than the one bit, noise shaped SACD playback, which bothers me for some strange reason, I can't listen to it for long periods of time. However, DSD mastered CD's sound great to me. I also like DSD mastered vinyl Lp's that I heave heard.

Carl,

not sure what SACD player that you have. DSD simply noise shapes the analog signal to 1-bit during the recording and then filters it when converting back to analog. one of the large advantages that DSD has over PCM is the minimal math applied to the analog signal. when the raw DSD file is down converted to 44/16 redbook it never had to be filtered to analog. OTOH when converting the DSD file to analog it gets filtered. not every filter sounds as good as another and some people do complain about a high frequency noise from SACD.

SACD's always sound quite a bit better than the CD in my system unless they are 44/16 sourced; which surprisingly some are. SACD has a lower noise floor, better dynamic snap (although redbook has this un-natural crispness that can be confused with precision on some systems), and much better detail.

i owned EMM Labs SACD for 4 years and then i've had the Playbacks Design for 3+ years and never have heard this 'high frequency noise' issue from SACD or had anyone i've listened with mention it. of course, it helps that Andreas Koch, the digital designer of both the EMM Labs and Playbacks was involved in the creation of the DSD format.

next time you visit Steve's place take one your SACD's that you percieve has this noise and see if you hear it on his Playbacks Design player. my bet is that you will not.

 

[cjfrbw]

Mike,

Don't think its the player. Apparently a certain group of listeners are annoyed in some ineluctable manner by 1 bit noise shaped SACD playback. I would compare it to the people who get headaches from the "rainbows" caused by color wheels on one chip DLP's, some do and some don't. It has nothing to do with super hearing, either, it is some kind of sensitivity. I can hear SACD and think, yeah, its kind of analogish, its kind of this and that but I always want to shut it off after 10 minutes. I can listen to PCM converted DSD and CD for much longer, and vinyl until I am too bleary to go on.

I think Steve favors variations of high quality PCM as well, but don't know if he has problems listening to SACD per se.

 

[Ron Party]

Carl, I haven't done extensive tests, but in the limited ones I have done I have found the same preference as you re SACD. You have posited some interesting theories. This could be a good thread unto its own, so as to keep this thread on its original course.

 

[silviajulieta]

ok.

it turns out i do have the K2HD version of Cantante Domino (Winston gave me one i forgot about). i also have the SACD and the Lp.

i just played them all, or.....track 11 of both digitals, Julsang. i played the K2HD, then the SACD, and then the K2HD again.

the K2HD is very very nice. big, bold, smooth, soaring. what's not to like?

the SACD has a much lower noise floor; which allows the soloist to actually seem like she is a person and not just a blob of a voice. the ambient clues define the space. there is texture. as the choir comes in there is a much better sense of a group of singers and not just sound. you notice a lack of distortion on the peaks compared to the K2HD.

not really even close, the SACD is easily better than the very enjoyable K2HD. it's only in direct comparison on a SOTA SACD player that the K2HD is lacking. btw; the Playbacks is the best redbook source i've yet heard, so it's not like the K2HD is less than well presented.

then we come to the Lp.

Hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!

not even in the same ballpark in any way. it wipes the floor with the digital.

real people singing. space. dynamics. did i say space? from the first note the room is pressurized with ambience. emotional. involving. glorious. tonal color and texture rich and full of detail and depth.

yes; a few pops and clicks. the mirror is slightly dirty but it's complete. the digital very nice but missing the essence in direct comparison.

when you have analog tape (particularly a famously wonderfully recorded analog tape) as a source then digital has zero shot at even competeing.

Dear Mike and friends: IMHO it is unfair to compare apples with oranges, it is unfair for the apples and unfair for the oranges. Let me to explain:

first I'm not questioning any single word of what Mike posted, I'm not questioning the Mike's system overall performance, I'm not questioning Mike's ears, I'm not questioning what digital has to shows us and I'm not questioning what the LP analog source alternative has for us.

What I'm questioning is that the near perfect with no deviation frequency response digital signal was in contest with a fully analog ( LP. ) equalized signal ( No I'm not reffering to the recording/playback RIAA equalization process. ) as a result of the Dartzeel phono stage absolutely wrong frequency response:


http://www.stereophile.com/content/dartzeel-nhb-18ns-preamplifier-measurements


in the figure 1 we can see the Dartzeel frequency response when a cartridge signal pass through it and obviously that's what Mike or any other persons can hear in the audio system.

What is what in any decent phono stage we must see in a chart like the Dartzeel we are seeing?: what we should see is an almost flat horizontal line ( in the 0.0 db horizontal line, all that 0.0db line. ) between 20hz ( the next vertical line to 10hz in that figure 1 ) and 20khz ( the next vertical line to the 10khz in that figure 1. ).

What are we seeing in that Dartzeel figure 1 chart?: certainly not a flat horizontal line but a curve!! that begin with +2.5db at 20hz and goes to +4db at 50khz ( +2db at 20khz. ), it is a total equalization where the Dartzeel is only flat between 800hz and 2khz!!!! and things are worst that " only " all these, let me explain it:

on the link's chart/diagram normally the left channel response and the right channel ( dashed curve. ) response should see like one line ( one up or below the other. ), this is the same frequency response on both channels.
What are we looking on that dartzeel diagram/chart?: two different curves that means two different frequency response in either channel!!!!!


There is no doubt IMHO that is totally unfair for the digital source. A comparison ( in this regard. ) must be oranges against oranges. Mike and friends: we are not talking here of tiny frequency deviation in a discrete frequency but a huge frequency deviation all over the frequency range the worst you can find anywhere!. It is here where the diffrences reside against a digital source or even against a different LP analog processor.


How can we compare a digital source against the Dartzeel with LP's. ?, the only way IMHO is to add/connect an external electronic equalizer in the Dartzeel with an inverse equalization curve of what is showed in that Figure 1.


So IMHO not only Mike but no one of us could/can make comparisons of any kind of source against LP's using that Dartzeel phonolinepreamp, we can't even make comparisons between different cartridges against other cartridges connected in other audio systems. I mean comparison that can tell us something that can tell us something REAL.

IMHO unfortunately there is no value what Mike posted on that comparison other that the Mike's effort/time to made the comparison..


I think that could be " healthy " that we analyze what any one of us posted in this forum in any subject and try to put things in the precise perspective for we all be in the same stage talking on the " SAME " and where not be place to any kind of confusions or false conclusions.

Yes, IMHO the digital source is a lot better that what Mike is hearing against LP and LP is not as good as Mike said it. Again: not because Mike him self but because that wrong failure Phonolinepreamp name it dartzeel. Mike maybe you can think that that phonolinepreamp wrong quality performance could be not so important because you have a dedicated room where maybe the frequency response inside it is more or less flat: well IMHO it is important because obviously with the room treatment those " distortions " were " fixed " in favor of other distortions and losted information trying to fix what comes in the audio signal for attain near flat response.

My conclusion due to the Dartzeel evidence/facts on the phono subject is that no audio system that includes the Dartzeel phono stage IMHO can't be take it ( unfortunately ) as a " reference " for analog source evaluation/listening with LPs.


Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

 

[Bruce B]

What we are seeing in that Dartzeel figure 1 chart?: certainly not a flat horizontal line but a curve!! that begin with +2.5db at 20hz and goes to +4db at 50khz ( +2db at 20khz. ), it is a total equalization where the Dartzeel is only flat between 800hz and 2khz!!!!.

Wow!! I was really surprised with the balanced vs. unbalanced response as well.

 

[silviajulieta]

Dear Bruce B: Especially when we are talking here of an audio item with a today 30K retail price! not even the " terrible " SS Strain Gauge set performs so bad or the 150.00 Bellari phono stage.

Maybe we can ask why a so bad audio item was and has a rank of Class A on STP magazyne and not only that but M.Fremer is a " proud owner ", just incredible!. Maybe this is another example of today poor status in the AHEE.

Anyway, IMHO this Dartzeel episode let us a nice/good lesson: we have to take care on what we buy because " not all that shine is Gold ".

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.