MSB Select II arrival

[spiritofmusic]

"...crossing the Rubicon" re digital.
I guess since I'm guilty of a bit of hyperbole, I need to justify myself a bit.
For me, digital has had certain attributes from the start that are superior to analog, like ability to extend deeper in the bass etc etc. Ie all those things that even vinyl diehards can't deny are clearly winners in digital.
Yet the analog fans like me have always confidently maintained factors like midband density, timbral accuracy, and lower mids/upper bass texture are slam dunk wins for vinyl.
And for me, this has always held, so that despite getting on w digital more and more, esp w my current choice of cdp, and really taking to Blue58's SGM, I still felt this tactile reality of mids magic in vinyl still handily eluded even the best digital.
So for me in the last 6 months of listening to digital, after a no holds barred effort in reducing mains noise and hash w isolated pwr feed to audio room, balanced power, dedicated lines etc, my digital for the first time, and not in subtle ways, and in ways I've never heard digital even get close in, is dramatically "in the room" re this textural and tonal magic in the mids and upper bass, that my mind drifts into a real sense of ease I've only ever gotten while listening to vinyl.
Suddenly digital is doing the analog "cognitive ease" thing so much more realistically.
This is NOT a case of more detail, or other things that you get from a simply upgraded digital player, but a tonal realism and textural heft that I've ONLY ever heard from analog, and esp the best analog.
"...crossing the Rubicon" I'd say sums up my feelings about right.
However, "crossing" is the operative phrase, not "crossed".
With vinyl still comfortably ahead on palpability and jump factor, I think mainly due to music on vinyl mastered v differently than in digital especially re lack of cliff edge mastering and better timbral accuracy (confirmed by my continued diet of live unamplified), I'm pretty confident digital will always lack this last area of true realism, and vinyl will just always transcend the live illusion at home more authentically.
But in everything else, digital has shot up exponentially in my room as I've got to grips w noise and hash.

 

[FrantzM]

Hi


The issue is not that of the tool or technology used. There were some crappy recordings made during the Golden days of analog. It is the skill of the practitioner that matters. I have somewhere here on WBF referred people to the level of photography attainable with something as cheap and commonplace as a smartphone. Some artists are doing serious filmography work with iPhone, iPad and equivalent. One of the best photographer ever, Henri Cartier Bresson spent his life with a (variety) of Leica rangefinder camera but just one lens a 50 mm, granted that wasn't a cheap camera but its performance will not match any present day digital or analog camera ... Yet his pictures are the stuff of legend.

Labeling digital as cheap therefore inferior is just a shot at a technology that has proven to be in many cases superior.

It is easy, convenient or even seen as a badge of honor to shot down or sneer at digital. Witness the hand waving and sometimes hesitations here on this thread... MikeL should be congratulated for trying to get the best from the medium and he has. He has written, begrudgingly I believe ( Sorry Mike) that his analog may need to improve too .. to keep up? (My words not yours Mike and I could be wrong). That digital could, for such an analog die-hard, even suggests to bring some improvements within an already sublime system, to me, is all that I wanted to read ...
This can be unsettling for some.
Enjoy your DAC and music though it Mike !
Please continue to share your experiences with us.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Frantz, other than the dog days of early/mid 80s digital, and a PARTICULARLY bad choice of cdp in early 00s (Marantz SA-1), I've always found my digital has in many cases beaten my analog across a few key areas, and hence I've never been as Ludditely anti digital as those who's analog has always trounced their digital.
But my digital has never got to play on the hallowed analog turf of mids/upper bass tone density and texture. Until now.
And for me, this is a bit of a game changer, that maybe has been happening in a progressive evolution.
But undoubtedly the blessing in my new room of an expressive, easy acoustic, and clean pure quiet unadulterated power, is allowing aspects unheard of by me from any digital in the past, to play the analog game of real immersion.
For me, this presents a fascinating dilemma.
Push on by spending big on a final uber digital end point, maybe Lampi GG or Pacific w Super Komputer, maybe SGM with an excellent dac, T&A Dac8 or Aqua Formula (3-box Select II a BIT out of reach), or go for a definite step up on my tt and arm, and more modest streaming option that plays in same ballpark as my beloved Eera cdp.

 

[microstrip]

it's cheap and easy. not better.

which is pretty sad actually.

but there are times the music overcomes digital's limitations. and the best digital approaches can be very good. but it's not typical. again; broad brush strokes don't really work.

We could easily say the reverse - the great, more often praised recordings of analog, such as Decca's of the 60's and 70's resulted from the musical recording conditions and practices that were possible at that time and are not possible anymore. We can not imagine, for example, the effect that musicians unions regulations had on recording techniques - Gramophone had a very interesting article on it a few years ago.

I am not an expert, but considering the results, IMHO current top digital systems must be excellent, although probably they are not easy. I fully agree with you that broad brush strokes don't really work, it is why I always ask for details, such as recordings , to support a particular view.

One point is sure - in general terms the democratization of recording due to digital brought a lot of poor technical quality recordings.

 

[PeterA]

Anyone who points out advantages of 45 rpm over 33 rpm vinyl of course concedes limitations of vinyl.

Recording engineers saw these and other limitations as well, which was a main driver for the development of digital audio.

Can you not say the same about RBCD and Hi Rez? I mean, it is in part simply about more information/data inherent in the medium.

There are limitations to vinyl, of course. One is length of recording. Another is the care with which one must handle it. And there are others, but pointing out a lower resolution version is not one of them because it can be done at higher resolution in the same vinyl format. The 33 LP is for "longer play" so that one can get a whole movement on one side. In that sense, the 45rpm is limited. There is also direct to disk which can sound better at 33 than a non d2d at 45.

 

[Al M.]

Can you not say the same about RBCD and Hi Rez? I mean, it is in part simply about more information/data inherent in the medium.

There are limitations to vinyl, of course. One is length of recording. Another is the care with which one must handle it.

The question remains how much of the extra data in hi-rez, compared to RBCD, is essential to musical transparency, and how much is simply redundant.

From digital theory I assume that almost all, if not all, data needed for musical transparency are contained in Redbook CD if optimally implemented (and of course, there is no perfect implementation yet). 'Hi-res' is an unfortunate misnomer. CD *is* without a doubt a true high resolution medium with adequate implementation.

LP does have physical limitations. There is a reason for the Sheffield drum track being on one side of just 7 minutes length. The dynamic range is then encoded properly for the cartridge to track.

 

[jkeny]

The question remains how much of the extra data in hi-rez, compared to RBCD, is essential to musical transparency, and how much is simply redundant.

From digital theory I assume that almost all, if not all, data needed for musical transparency are contained in Redbook CD if optimally implemented (and of course, there is no perfect implementation yet). 'Hi-res' is an unfortunate misnomer. CD *is* without a doubt a true high resolution medium with adequate implementation.
.......

I agree with this & it seems many who reach a high level of RBCD playback seem not to have any need for high res - they are fully satisfied that RBCD delivers all that's needed

 

[Al M.]

With vinyl still comfortably ahead on palpability and jump factor, I think mainly due to music on vinyl mastered v differently than in digital especially re lack of cliff edge mastering and better timbral accuracy (confirmed by my continued diet of live unamplified), I'm pretty confident digital will always lack this last area of true realism, and vinyl will just always transcend the live illusion at home more authentically.

These are bold assertions, Marc.

You are strictly speaking for your own system and experience.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I agree with this & it seems many who reach a high level of RBCD playback seem not to have any need for high res - they are fully satisfied that RBCD delivers all that's needed

ignorance is bliss....no doubt.

when you start equivocating digital with analog and what actually accomplishes what. how deep does one look?

'needed' is a nebulous term.

btw; redbook is entirely musically satisfying. but it comes up short of others in direct comparisons. both can be true.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Al, to coin a phrase, " you're stating the bleedin' obvious!"
Of course I'm speaking from personal experience
Strangely it's repeated by many in the room when an lp is played after a half dozen cuts on cd
"Like, whoa!!! Where did THAT come from?!"
Palpable jump factor is still IMHO champion on analog
Btw, when we have objective consensus on everything in audio, get back to me, and I'll pass on stating my personal opinions and findings

 

[RogerD]

Vinyl is not clearly a head on jump factor. Play RR Pomp and Pipes,cut #4 or the Red violin soundtrack. It has and always will be playback system dependent. If system clarity is at optimum levels digital does not take a back seat on any level. All the recorded information is present,whether it is revealed fully is the question.

 

[Al M.]

Al, to coin a phrase, " you're stating the bleedin' obvious!"
Of course I'm speaking from personal experience
Strangely it's repeated by many in the room when an lp is played after a half dozen cuts on cd
"Like, whoa!!! Where did THAT come from?!"
Palpable jump factor is still IMHO champion on digital
Btw, when we have objective consensus on everything in audio, get back to me, and I'll pass on stating my personal opinions and findings
Ok?

Sure, but with the phrase "I'm pretty confident that digital will always..." you make a statement as if there is something *objectively* inherent in digital that prevents it from equalling analog on these attributes - apart from the question if it hasn't already done so in other systems.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Al, I think we agree more than we disagree.
Esp re RBCD v HiRez, and MQA
And I'm closer than ever to embracing digital as analog's at least half lost brother LOL.
And I think consensus is moving twds mastering being make or break for any format.
For me however until I hear a good number more examples of digital making me sit up and notice on dynamic swings and palpable heft over vinyl, I'll give lp the benefit of the doubt here.
But in all other regards, digital is now IMHO the equal of vinyl and occasionally superior.
Put it this way, as a party bore who took every chance to drive people to drink in my criticising cd in the dark 80s days, for me to seriously consider my last component upgrade to be digital over analog tells you how much I've done a 180.

 

[microstrip]

I agree with this & it seems many who reach a high level of RBCD playback seem not to have any need for high res - they are fully satisfied that RBCD delivers all that's needed

Really we do not need it, but most time I compare the hi-rez (DSD or PCM) sounds better. Many recordings are now carried in DXD, particularly the DSD ones that need editing - RBCD is just a distribution format. Did you try down sampling a DXD recording to RBCD and listening to both versions?

 

[Al M.]

Yes, Marc, I tend to agree that we agree more than we disagree.

While I have always been a digital guy since the early nineties, like you I have done pretty much a 180 when it comes to assessing the actual capabilities of CD, from finding it flawed but adequate for my needs (vinyl hadn't been an option for me anymore for several reasons) to "wow, that is *really* excellent!".

 

[microstrip]

(...) And I think consensus is moving twds mastering being make or break for any format. (...)

No, it is not so easy. IMHO it seems the consensus is that we just have particular cases and do not have information enough to have consensus on anything. The mastering argument was used just to explain particular cases.

 

[jkeny]

ignorance is bliss....no doubt.

when you start equivocating digital with analog and what actually accomplishes what. how deep does one look?

'needed' is a nebulous term.

btw; redbook is entirely musically satisfying. but it comes up short of others in direct comparisons. both can be true.

I use "needed" in the sense of musically & realistically satisfying
Can it be more realistic with better recording, different miking & recording techniques? Yes, I'm sure it can.
Can the exact same recording be more realistically satisfying in high-res? If this happens, I'm not so sure that it isn't a result of the playback system being different (different processing steps from D to A) rather than that there is more information needed for this realism?
But I could be wrong!

 

[spiritofmusic]

Micro, well if it's not mastering-dependent, then you've lost me.
If it truly isn't, then I'll stick up for analog having performance advantages that ensure it wins where I feel it wins.
All I know is that so many cds that are brickwalled/hot mastered in the bad bad days of the Loudness Wars and sound appalling are pretty decent and expressive on vinyl. And not just a handful of examples.
So I'll stick to mastering as the explanation, from the Golden Age engineers who could entice dynamics and sparkle in those amazing lps of yore, to today's engineers who avoid cliff edge hardness in more current vinyl compared to cd equivalents.

 

[microstrip]

Micro, well if it's not mastering-dependent, then you've lost me.
If it truly isn't, then I'll stick up for analog having performance advantages that ensure it wins where I feel it wins.
All I know is that so many cds that are brickwalled/hot mastered in the bad bad days of the Loudness Wars and sound appalling are pretty decent and expressive on vinyl. And not just a handful of examples.
So I'll stick to mastering as the explanation, from the Golden Age engineers who could entice dynamics and sparkle in those amazing lps of yore, to today's engineers who avoid cliff edge hardness in more current vinyl compared to cd equivalents.

If you listen mostly to the "bad bad days" music, for you it is the mastering that counts. As fortunately I care little about most of those CDs' my opinion is different from yours.

 

[spiritofmusic]

So Micro, you only choose to listen to good sounding recordings, or you're lucky enough that what you like to listen to, happens to sound good?