Yes, the recording is paramount. I am wondering why there are many good, but so few great recordings of string quartet (or trio, quintet) on digital. But then I remind myself that there are few great recordings of string quartet on vinyl as well. There are, however, killer examples on both media.
Multi-bit DSD versus PCM
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
Yes, the recording is paramount. I am wondering why there are many good, but so few great recordings of string quartet (or trio, quintet) on digital. But then I remind myself that there are few great recordings of string quartet on vinyl as well. There are, however, killer examples on both media.
I know the answer to this. And it's very simple. Analog technology has been around for many many years now. They have known how to make killer records forever. Even pressings from the 50's can sound outstanding. It's only been the last couple years that we have finally had ADC's that can give analog a run for its money. So 98% of all of the digital out there today whether sourced from analog tape, or digital, simply isn't up to the same standard as the highly perfected over several decade analog. So what is the real problem with today's digital? Is it DAC's like the NADAC, or is it simply because most of the selection out there was mastered using outdated inferior, digital gear?
This brings us right back to my last post where I said the future is only going to be brighter. This is because it won't be long before even the worst studios, have SOTA digital gear to work with. We have companies like ESS and AKM working on commoditizing SOTA ADC chips for even consumer grade gear. So even the guy who wants to use his laptop to make an album, will get great results.
There's so many examples of the vinyl versions of some recordings being the best they will ever be as well. 1 great example is Bob Dylan's " Times they are a changing" this is because the master tape has simply been worn out. So some of the early mono pressings of this album are the very best we will ever get. Unless of course we find a Delorean and go back to Columbia studios in 1965 with a Merging HAPI with Pyramix
. I have a vinyl rip of this uber rare version of this album made by someone with top notch gear. And it's absolutely stunning. It kills every other commercial release I've heard by a long shot. So really what Ian needs if he wants the holy grail, is a Merging HAPI ADC, combined with the Pyramix mastering software. This way he can make an outstanding vinyl rip collection that would blow away half of the commercial digital releases available. If I were him this would be a no brainer
Last edited:
Why is that a tall order? The very best vinyl rig cannot completely remove the limitations of vinyl.
Tim
Read my last post about vinyl. I know some of the vinyl guys think I'm anti vinyl, but it's simply not the case. All I'm trying to do around here is to help people understand the real problems and the real solutions. When I say I think today's digital is better. I'm referring to today's digital. That means the recording must be made with the latest SOTA digital gear, as well as the playback gear must be SOTA. Unfortunately with 98% of digital available today, this simply isn't the case. This is the real problem with today's digital.
Tim, do you think there are limitations to digital? If so, what are they? If not, then how will the next generation of digital be any better?
Sorry, first off it is 99% not 98%. And the problem isn't the quality of the gear it was recorded upon. It is the quality of the processing between recording and what gets released. If whatever version of playback you think best is 30% better than a $200 DAC (and I don't believe the difference is that large) improving playback has you on one end of a very long lever. The leverage is very much against you.
Your idea of the "real" problem is not real at all. The problem is not today's digital or today's playback or today's recording equipment.
i think the limitations of audio recording and reproduction, period, are too numerous to mention. That doesn't change the fact that digital, even rebook through the dreaded hypothetical $200 DAC, has a lower noise floor, wider dynamic range, moe accurate frequency response, better channel separation....than a turntable. And I think the "better" of last several generations of digital have been angels on the head of a pin issues. Is digital getting better. On paper, absolutely. In the imaginations of audiophiles? Always. In reality? I'd love to see all of this stuff as thoroughly tested as Harman tests speakers. We might find that for all but the most well-trained ears, even the $200 DAC is over-priced. Sadly, audiophile nervosa is nearly as pervasive in the digital realm as it is in analog.
The $150k turntable? You could put the world's best bearings, the most friction-resistant tires, and bullet-proof glass on a Model T and it still won't be a Tesla.
Tim
There's so many examples of the vinyl versions of some recordings being the best they will ever be as well. 1 great example is Bob Dylan's " Times they are a changing" this is because the master tape has simply been worn out. So some of the early mono pressings of this album are the very best we will ever get. Unless of course we find a Delorean and go back to Columbia studios in 1965 with a Merging HAPI with Pyramix
I have a vinyl rip of this uber rare version of this album made by someone with top notch gear. And it's absolutely stunning. It kills every other commercial release I've heard by a long shot. So really what Ian needs if he wants the holy grail, is a Merging HAPI ADC, combined with the Pyramix mastering software. This way he can make an outstanding vinyl rip collection that would blow away half of the commercial digital releases available. If I were him this would be a no brainer
Are you suggesting that the only way to capture an early LP pressing of Dylan is via a $140,000 turntable rec to DSD, furthermore implying any PCM copy can't be resolute enough to also "kill" the commercial release? In other words, only when vinyl is played back on an uber turntable is it capable of fully capturing tape degradation effects evident between the early pressings in comparison to later releases; DSD can capture such an event, but not PCM?
Your view is a little bit extreme. Digital has to be done right as well to get the best out of it. The cost of doing it well is getting lower as technology advances, but it still isn't cheap to build a no-comprimise digital playback system. However much much less than a turntable that's for sure.
My PCM version sounds excellent. Even better when resampled to quad DSD with HQplayer. But I can imagine if the worlds finest ADC was used to make the rip in quad DSD from Ian's Kronos limited edition turn table with black beauty tonearm, Zyx Universe Premium cartridge, and Pass XS phono stage, it would be even better. Probably close to as good as it could get without getting a Delorean and going back in time to before the master tapes wore out. All Ian is missing to make this happen at his own house is the ADC and software. I can think or worse things to spend money on. Drop in the bucket when you have that much into your sound system already if you ask me.
The problem is the ADC's used, and the digital processing that was done to the recording at the studio. The ADC's from the past were not as good as they are today. Same with all of the other digital gear and DSP in the studio's of yesteryear. We have the same problem today as well at studios that don't care about quality.
Some of the latest DSD and high resolution PCM downloads straight from the master analog tapes done with top notch ADC's and mastering software are exceptional. Far better than was possible in the past. But if digitally recorded originally on inferior gear, with inferior DSP, nothing can be done except efforts to try to mask the flaws with DSP trickery.
imagine that; when I first started sharing 16/44 rips with audiophiles, the most common comment back was that they sounded better than the commercial CD or SACD releases. This was due to using higher quality original LP pressings used for the rip, which are measurably better than most subsequent re-issues/remasters. The quality of the rip is also based on turntable quality&setup, this is very important yes, just not nearly as important as the pressing itself ... which literally dwarfs any differences between recorded digital formats.
MQA... gets you close to the master tape.. or so says Meridian.
I have heard the MQA files vs ordinary redbook and 24/96 of the same track (2L records offering them for DL)
and even UNDECODED, the MQA version sounds wonderful , I would love to hear them decoded...
I have heard the MQA files vs ordinary redbook and 24/96 of the same track (2L records offering them for DL)
and even UNDECODED, the MQA version sounds wonderful , I would love to hear them decoded...
Yeah but this is "What's best forum" isn't it?
I'm sorry but if Ian made a rip of a rare early pressing with his gear combined with the Merging Hapi/Pyramix in quad DSD and I had a choice between that and one in 16/44 done with lesser gear, which one do you think I would jump on?
I've heard good vinyl rips, and poor vinyl rips. They are not all equal. The best vinyl rips I have were made with over $100K worth of gear. And they are light years better than the mediocre rips I have.
The only benefit of MQA is it shrinks the size so less bandwidth is used when streaming. That's all it's good for. All of the hype is simply marketing because it's not better than having an actual high res PCM copy on your hard drive. And to get the very best out of it the decoding must be done inside a DAC chip, or with software like Roon/HQplayer. There's no DAC chips on the market yet with MQA decoding built in, and if there ever will be it's probably 2 years away.
HQplayer already has a filter algorithm for MQA. Here's what Jussi had to say about it:
"It is a new filter designed for playback of MQA encoded files. It of course doesn't do any decoding, but it just attempts to clean up the noise caused by MQA encoding. It is also slow roll-off and thus has very short ringing. At the moment it is a linear phase filter, but it is subject to further tuning so the properties may change."
So Roon can decode it, and HQplayer can optimize it and resample to quad DSD. That's as good as you will ever hear MQA.
Last edited:
Ah -- you an expert on that too..I wont correct your wrongs re MQA as you are always right. you will never admit that any other scheme than yours is perhaps better..maybe cos you dont listen yourself....
http://www.mqa.co.uk/
http://www.mqa.co.uk/
This isn't my scheme. Do you think I created Roon and HQplayer now? I didn't play any part at all in the development, and never claimed to.
I know about the MQA decoding and advantages because I just had a discussion with the head engineer at ESS who just had a meeting with Bob Stuart at CES about implementing the decoding into their DAC chips. He told me all about what MQA actually does, and that there's no advantage to it over having the high res copy on your hard drive.
It's cool technology for streaming purposes. But it's not as wonderful as their marketing hype makes it out to be.
Of coarse they are not equal, why would they be?
Bliz, you're knowledge of both ripping and vinyl are, IN FACT, largely imagined, AT ANY COST ... you have no actual experience, you can pretend otherwise, but despite a few rips sent your way providing license to quote uber $$$ as the main indicator of comparative quality vs "mediocre" rips ... it's truly meaningless.
The one thing about ripping, they're easily shared. The proof is in the pudding so to speak, if these rips are really as good as advertised ...
Similar threads
- Sticky
