MSB Select II arrival

[Mike Lavigne]

Mike,

Can you list a few of these recordings that "were quite a few 'religious' moments of musical joy abounding"?
IMHO these 'data points' would help a lot!

Micro, i would have been very disappointed had you not asked for this. it's a sign that all is well in the neighborhood.

sitting here at work a few come to mind.

--Crosby, Stills, & Nash, 'Helplessly Hoping', 45 rpm, 4 disc Classic Records reissue.
--Peter Maag, 'Mendelssohn', A Midsummer's Night Dream', 45rpm reissue ORG Classical
--Stevie Ray Vaughan, 'Tin Pan Alley', 45rpm reissue, from the box set.
--'Hus Desforges and Muntz-Berger', 'Sonatas for Cello and Double-Bass', Mezo and Dome, Hungaroton SLPX 11413, Lp 33rpm.
--'Mostly Blues....and Some Others', Count Basie, Pablo 2310-919, Lp. 'Snooky'
--'St. Louis Blues', off of 'Come Friday', The Chris Barber Band, Jeton DTD Lp, 100.3306.

when we played 'Helplessly Hoping' we entered a separate communal dimension of musical bliss......that carried on for awhile.

the Mendelssohn was astonishing. breathtaking.

when I'm home tonight i will see if i can add a few more.

 

[Al M.]

"the vinyl just goes somewhere even the Select II cannot touch"

To which my reaction is: of course. It is technically impossible for digital to sound the same as vinyl.

Just to clarify in case someone missed the obvious. It's not because digital cannot be theoretically perfect, but because of the post-processing needed to make a vinyl record.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Just to clarify in case someone missed the obvious. It's not because digital cannot be theoretically perfect, but because of the post-processing needed to make a vinyl record.

 

[microstrip]

Micro, i would have been very disappointed had you not asked for this. it's a sign that all is well in the neighborhood. (...)

Thanks for the list and care - I must say it is also an excellent way of getting good suggestions for new music to listen later today or during the weekend!

 

[PeterA]

Just to clarify in case someone missed the obvious. It's not because digital cannot be theoretically perfect, but because of the post-processing needed to make a vinyl record.

I think I missed the obvious. Can the conversion of an analog wave form into binary bits ever be a theoretically perfect copy of that analog wave form or just an audibly close-enough approximation to be satisfying?

What I am curious about is whether or not Mike has yet had "quite a few 'religious' moments" with his new DAC? Were his guests interested in hearing the latest edition to his system?

 

[Al M.]

I think I missed the obvious. Can the conversion of an analog wave form into binary bits ever be a theoretically perfect copy of that analog wave form or just an audibly close-enough approximation to be satisfying?

If I understand the technology correctly, yes, it can be a theoretically perfect copy.

How far in principle the digital standards of the Redbook CD format or of so-called hi-res formats approach that theoretical perfection will of course be a matter of debate. All this aside from the whole other issue of imperfections in practical implementation, something that SOTA approaches to the problem like the Select II DAC strive to minimize.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I think I missed the obvious. Can the conversion of an analog wave form into binary bits ever be a theoretically perfect copy of that analog wave form or just an audibly close-enough approximation to be satisfying?

i get fully satisfied listening to digital on the MSB Select II. period. whether it's a perfect copy or not, or close enough or not, it's all there to me. and then some, and then a little bit more after that.

What I am curious about is whether or not Mike has yet had "quite a few 'religious' moments" with his new DAC?

absolutely have. but not compared Select II 'religious moments' to vinyl ones directly. obviously i have shared anecdotal comments about how i think that might play out.

Were his guests interested in hearing the latest edition to his system?

my relationship with this WBF member is pretty much based on our love for vinyl and that was the focus. he knew i had this new dac, but we never discussed it and i never brought it up. this member has a very, very, top level system and vinyl playback himself; but don't know his digital player or focus. that may sound incredible, but our focus was the music and what we wanted to hear and where it would take us.

OTOH next week i have another couple visiting me on Monday night that is all digital and currently owns MSB DAC V (and high level system) and is focused on how the Select II might be a step up.

 

[microstrip]

If I understand the technology correctly, yes, it can be a theoretically perfect copy.

IMHO it can only be an adequately perfect copy. Two theoretically perfect independent copies (implying separate converters) should result in similar digital files and this can not happen.

 

[microstrip]

Mike,

The second question , concerning burn-in - how many days of play time has your Sellect II?

 

[Al M.]

IMHO it can only be an adequately perfect copy. Two theoretically perfect independent copies (implying separate converters) should result in similar digital files and this can not happen.

As I said above, issues of practical implementation are a different thing altogether (you may have written your reply while I was still editing the post). Or perhaps I misunderstand what you are trying to say.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Mike,

The second question , concerning burn-in - how many days of play time has your Sellect II?

it has been playing continually since Thursday night, June 8th. so 14 days x 24 hours = 336 hours. since the first couple of days I've not noticed any clear step up. and those first few days were likely 'settling from the shipping' as much as burn in.

then when i inserted the RCA outputs and switched to the spendy Tara GME + the grounding that was a big change; which was a week ago.

it's likely improved from burn-in, but can't really say just how much and when it changed.

 

[Legolas]

Going back to the conversation of the Select (or any digital) v vinyl, there are those in the trade that claim vinyl has higher resolution in the middle band. A lot more resolution. And the lower dynamic range of vinyl and the higher noise level my 'aid' the ear to perceive more detail and timbre (quote from some articles by recording engineers).

I have no idea, but there seems to be something weird going on with vinyl. Why does it still compete or even surpass digital all these years later? Is it also because the stages it goes through do something to the sound (big gain stage in the phone which if often tubed) or somehow makes it sound better to us? If all recordings are now digital it makes no sense that at least HQ versions played through a DAC should not sound better. It has to be in the digital to analogue conversion, and if that is so, the conversion to vinyl at the studio end is doing a better job.

Thoughts?

 

[Al M.]

Going back to the conversation of the Select (or any digital) v vinyl, there are those in the trade that claim vinyl has higher resolution in the middle band. A lot more resolution.

It depends on the gear listened to of course, and when those statements were made. A statement that might have been true 10, 15 years ago may not hold for current SOTA digital anymore. But then, perhaps others who actually can make direct comparisons between current SOTA vinyl and SOTA digital are more qualified to comment.

And the lower dynamic range of vinyl and the higher noise level my 'aid' the ear to perceive more detail and timbre (quote from some articles by recording engineers).

That is an interesting point. I have read somewhere that certain 24-bit recordings sound timbrally flat because there is no dynamic compression applied at all. If you lower the dynamic range somewhat, so that soft passages become louder, you hear more low-level timbral detail and the recording also gains apparent vividness. Of course, in a concert of unamplified live music you have uncompressed dynamic range, but then, the human ear perceiving the music directly hears differently than a microphone 'hears' for a recording.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Going back to the conversation of the Select (or any digital) v vinyl, there are those in the trade that claim vinyl has higher resolution in the middle band. A lot more resolution. And the lower dynamic range of vinyl and the higher noise level my 'aid' the ear to perceive more detail and timbre (quote from some articles by recording engineers).

+1 on the resolution with vinyl.

I would say that vinyl has quite a bit greater levels of micro-dynamic shading and nuance than digital which are musically significant. digital has greater macro dynamics. my opinion is that how our senses judge degrees of reality are those micro-dynamic stand the hairs up things, that whole 'darwin' factor in our dna.

I have no idea, but there seems to be something weird going on with vinyl. Why does it still compete or even surpass digital all these years later? Is it also because the stages it goes through do something to the sound (big gain stage in the phone which if often tubed) or somehow makes it sound better to us? If all recordings are now digital it makes no sense that at least HQ versions played through a DAC should not sound better. It has to be in the digital to analogue conversion, and if that is so, the conversion to vinyl at the studio end is doing a better job.

Thoughts?

I fundamentally see it differently. the pure analog conversion processes are clearly kinder to the mic feed source......and more naturally continuous.....if less perfect at particular points than digital. in any case, our ears are more comfortable with how analog does this for whatever reason. the reasons really don't matter......to me.

the magical qualities of the MSB Select II is really how it matches the continuous aspect of high level analog, and also has the same effortlessness of presentation. maybe in other aspects it does not quite equal in degrees. but these areas of achievement are a first for me with digital. and while the Select II has the highest resolution I have heard from digital, it also is the most listenable and easiest on my levels of fatigue (my guess is simply less distortion). in those ways for the first time, it equals analog.

 

[bonzo75]

A statement that might have been true 10, 15 years ago may not hold for current SOTA digital anymore.

When you listen to Mike's 45s, it would have been true 45 years ago and will be true 45 years later.

 

[Priaptor]

I agree with all the above.

While I no longer listen to vinyl I think there is no question older recordings we all love when remastered are done with more care, expertise and success than on the digital side. There are some studios that truly care about the recordings in all formats and the comparisons narrow between tape v vinyl v digital. I think Torch records which is no longer releasing digital is a good example of how closely the three can get when played on the types of equipment people have here when carefully remastered on all three types of media.

Newer digital where engineers care narrows the gap but digital has less forgiveness as the DR issue IMHO is the biggest (not only) issue effecting vinyl v digital on these remastered or even original recordings. Low DR which most recordings are, are handled much better with a viny setup than with most digital.

 

[Priaptor]

When you listen to Mike's 45s, it would have been true 45 years ago and will be true 45 years later.

I think the main issue regarding that is how good vinyl is at handling low DR relative to digital especially when comparing "remastered" oldies on CD to the original 45/33 or remastered vinyl v digital. If the original had lousy DR which most did there is only so much you can do to enhance the digital copy whereas vinyl can and does still shine with low DR.

 

[microstrip]

As I said above, issues of practical implementation are a different thing altogether (you may have written your reply while I was still editing the post). Or perhaps I misunderstand what you are trying to say.

IMHO there is not such thing as a perfect theoretical copy of a tape - playing a tape is a real action with added random noise. Can I ask what is your formal definition of a "perfect theoretical copy of a tape"?

 

[bonzo75]

IMHO there is not such thing as a perfect theoretical copy of a tape - playing a tape is a real action with added random noise. Can I ask what is your formal definition of a "perfect theoretical copy of a tape"?

One that sounds same as vinyl...exists in perfect theory

 

[joaovieira]

it has been playing continually since Thursday night, June 8th. so 14 days x 24 hours = 336 hours. since the first couple of days I've not noticed any clear step up. and those first few days were likely 'settling from the shipping' as much as burn in.

then when i inserted the RCA outputs and switched to the spendy Tara GME + the grounding that was a big change; which was a week ago.

it's likely improved from burn-in, but can't really say just how much and when it changed.

I brought my Aqua Formula from Munich in May and put it to play. My desire was to have my Big7 back.

After more than 500h of direct play I am now extremely satiesfied and considering it was an upgrade.

So you are lucky that your Select II plays so nice since you started to listen to it. I almost gave up from the Formula.