Paul McGowan Prefers Digital

[Mike Lavigne]

Thanks for the clarification but I believe your previous posts send a very mixed message.

But I need to reiterate that this debate is all about nothing. People like what they like regardless of contrarion personal preferences. No one is changing anyone's mind.

i disagree. while forums have a low signal to noise ratio (mostly in good fun and humor), they have value.

minds change when our references get changed. forums do open our minds to new things to try, but forums don't change references. i know my perspective on many disputed issues has evolved related to info acquisition and listening. and i enjoy that process.

certainly the tenor of some threads can seem like opinions are set in concrete.

 

[PeterA]

Thanks for the clarification but I believe your previous posts send a very mixed message.

But I need to reiterate that this debate is all about nothing. People like what they like regardless of contrarion personal preferences. No one is changing anyone's mind.

My mind is slowing changing with increased exposure to better and better digital. But I agree with you in the sense that everyone has his own preferences, and that is just fine.

 

[spiritofmusic]

But Peter, it was Ron that started this thread stating he found it incredulous Paul would opt for digital. That doesn't fit the easy come easy go ethos that it's fine to come to any conclusion on preference. Ron just can't believe Paul could feel this way.

 

[NorthStar]

Some members have a strong love for their strong principles; it's good...that makes for zesty discussions. Nobody is imposing his own set of rules on anyone, zero...that'll be the day.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Well my answer can't be objective. But based solely on experience, what markers I use for critical judgment, and electrical theory.

Hypothetically what would happen if a system would be capable of reproducing all the information on a digital recording ,both DDD and AAD?
Those DDD and ADD recording were transferred from the digital and tape masters used for making the Vinyl master also. The tape master captured all information (theoretically} that the microphones could pick up at the venue and space.

Would you expect to hear great clarity of the recorded human made event. Could you hear movements of the players, their interaction with their instruments. intakes of air from the brass and woodwind players, musicians seats creaking ,turning of pages of the score ,and the physical exertion of the conductor.

This is just some of the markers of clarity I hear. But how would that translate to the faithful or near faithful reproduction of the event? Simply a level of the suspension of dis- belief.

I believe that if a wide set of markers produce realism then everything on the recording is linear revealed. You cannot have one marker false and another correct. If so the recorded event cannot sound real. It is truly the system and critical evaluation and common sense that produce
real results.

If my system matches the audio signal purity that was present in the recording process...what should I expect to hear. Clarity, realism, dynamics, immersive, projecting,and a multi dimensional presentation that is believable. Of course this is all subjective. But I do have a method to my madness.

P.S. I asked my self many years ago...How can cable makers market their cables with such delineated levels of performance? I found the answer and the level of realism and SQ improvement has been profound. Signal integrity is the most important element in a audio system.

This makes sense. I understand your thinking.

Thank you for this thoughtful answer.

 

[Al M.]

Al, could you post a 1kHz sine wave from both an LP and digital source? I'd be fascinated to see how they compare. Of course there smoothness would depend on the turntable's wow and flutter specifications, and those of other ancillary components so these examples may or may not be representative of the best of either format, but I'd be interested nonetheless.

Here for example:

Rational reasons to love vinyl | Page 14 | Headphone Reviews and Discussion - Head-Fi.org
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/rational-reasons-to-love-vinyl.772176/page-14

 

[spiritofmusic]

Gosh, that thread is even angrier than the ones on here LOL.

 

[thedudeabides]

i disagree. while forums have a low signal to noise ratio (mostly in good fun and humor), they have value.

minds change when our references get changed. forums do open our minds to new things to try, but forums don't change references. i know my perspective on many disputed issues has evolved related to info acquisition and listening. and i enjoy that process.

certainly the tenor of some threads can seem like opinions are set in concrete.

I agree Mike but given my age, my hearing, my limited retirement income and the fact that I have downsized on my speaker system (from the MBL 116's to the Joseph Audio Pulsar stand mount speaker and a REL T7i sub) to reduce the aesthetic impact of a large speaker in my living room, I've made the decision to no longer chase the proverbial upgrade rabbit. Given the parameters mentioned above, the majority of my gear (except for the Pulsar) is anywhere between five to eleven years old) and I'm fine with that.

I did decide to finally subscribe to either Tidal or Qobuz (just purchased a used Auralic Aries and an Apple I-pad) to substantially expand my music listening options, which in the end, is far more important / meaningful to me than any further major "reference" hardware expenditures.

 

[microstrip]

(...) One of my audio buddies here just mentioned to our audio group that he has made recent changes to his system so that a digital and an analog recording of the same performance now sound virtually identical through his system. I had always thought these recordings were mastered differently. I find this pretty interesting and look forward to hearing the comparison one day.

Can you give us details on this, such as identifying the recording and the system compoenents? It would be nice to have some facts to illustrate this interesting achievement.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I agree Mike but given my age, my hearing, my limited retirement income and the fact that I have downsized on my speaker system (from the MBL 116's to the Joseph Audio Pulsar stand mount speaker and a REL T7i sub) to reduce the aesthetic impact of a large speaker in my living room, I've made the decision to no longer chase the proverbial upgrade rabbit. Given the parameters mentioned above, the majority of my gear (except for the Pulsar) is anywhere between five to eleven years old) and I'm fine with that.

I did decide to finally subscribe to either Tidal or Qobuz (just purchased a used Auralic Aries and an Apple I-pad) to substantially expand my music listening options, which in the end, is far more important / meaningful to me than any further major "reference" hardware expenditures.

honestly i'm closer to your mind set than the wild crazy hifi merry-go-round rider i once was. my pursuing days are mostly behind me.

not downsizing, just happy and contented with the view from where i stand. done the all the itch scratching i wanted to. and life's needs have taken center stage ahead of the hobby. so i can relate.

but find value in the learning process even if i only get to the flirting/pondering stage now mostly on new directions. and really enjoy living vicariously through some of the ' hair on fire' members.

 

[PeterA]

Can you give us details on this, such as identifying the recording and the system compoenents? It would be nice to have some facts to illustrate this interesting achievement.

One of my audio buddies here just mentioned to our audio group that he has made recent changes to his system so that a digital and an analog recording of the same performance now sound virtually identical through his system. I had always thought these recordings were mastered differently. I find this pretty interesting and look forward to hearing the comparison one day.

Fransisco, it was actually I who wrote that. For some reason, you quote Al M. Regardless, it was our friend Ack who mentioned that to me. The recording is the Janaki Trio, on the Yarlung label. I don't know the details, but perhaps Ack is reading this and may comment. You can look up his system components on his various threads and how he has modified them. Yes, I think it is also an interesting achievement, though it is not clear to me that that was his intention or goal.

 

[bazelio]

Where is DaveyF, I'm worry that something happened...anyone knows?

DaveyF is well. He was banned from WBF, but emails privately from time to time.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Amazing that one can survive outside WBF.

 

[jazdoc]

As my better half astutely remarked “Your hobby is largely populated with middle aged guys who aren’t getting laid.”

 

[spiritofmusic]

Jazdoc, does this apply to you too?

We should run a poll.
Not the usual yawn inducing analog v digital.
But, are lp guys getting more lucky because they're sensitive to things not running right, happy to take the time to guarantee satisfaction, and are warmer and more patient (all the virtues needed to set up a tt and also work the magic elsewhere on a clinch LOL).
Or the digital guys, no nonsense, they know what they want and they want it now, very likely to keep a checklist on objective aims on a hot date. And they get it right, no argument what's best.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

now see what you've started jazdoc.......

 

[Bruce B]

Then I' must be the luckiest guy here then....

 

[ack]

Fransisco, it was actually I who wrote that. For some reason, you quote Al M. Regardless, it was our friend Ack who mentioned that to me. The recording is the Janaki Trio, on the Yarlung label. I don't know the details, but perhaps Ack is reading this and may comment. You can look up his system components on his various threads and how he has modified them. Yes, I think it is also an interesting achievement, though it is not clear to me that that was his intention or goal.

I demonstrated this to Al M months ago with the Janaki. That doesn't mean they are the best, just about equal *in here*, and both really great as you guys heard, though I still hear slight distortions and limitations with both - that will never cease. I believe we did listen to the HDCD Janaki when you were last in here. So when I said earlier in this thread that I think a system can do justice to both formats, I was speaking from personal experience again. And I am NOT going to say that I can get all recordings to sound virtually the same. And I feel the latest Vivaldi In Venice LP that I wrote recently about raises the analog bar yet again, but perhaps all it means is that it is just a better recording than the Janaki.

The Janaki renderings are not identical, but very close to each other. There are subtle differences here and there, and primarily the bass is a little fuller with analog (a Pass trait), and HDCD (e.g. the Janaki) helps elevate digital very close to analog, at least in this system. When I had the excellent Spectral 4000SV player in here, they were even closer to each other. Also keep in mind that the Alpha DAC is one promising design to start with - and every time I read TAS's short description in their annual equipment guides, I can't help but nod yes, yes, yes, yes... To be honest, I sometimes find myself overall liking the HDCD Janaki more than the LP, and this goes to show how close to each other they are in here.

To get to this point, I did use my analog as reference to modify and tune the Alpha DAC to it, while also using the 30SV preamp's dedicated DAC-input (whatever that means, but yet another true breakthrough by Keith Johnson) to smooth out some harshness in the DAC's treble, more evident with typical non-HDCD material. And as discussed under my system thread, the DAC's digital volume control affects the sound from ever-so-subtly around the optimal range I found - so that has to be set precisely to a specific value I have settled on - to making it sound wildly euphonic at max gain. On the analog side, we have talked about all the shielding, VTA/SRA, custom platter/LP interface and magnetic arm stabilization elsewhere. At the same time, I have been on a crusade for years to eliminate noise and distortions all around, especially in the analog and digital sources, as documented under my system thread and elsewhere. I launched on that effort under the belief that both technologies are fundamentally sound, and have not been proven wrong yet.

Based on what I hear in here and elsewhere, I have shredded any fears that digital cannot sound great; that's distant history.

Over the years, I have come to the conclusion that, with digital, execution is paramount and extra-ordinarily complex - from mastering and producing CDs, which is a phenomenally difficult task that requires extra-ordinary care and precision, MUCH more difficult and precise than analog - to how digital playback is designed and built. Again, I feel the problems with the various formats are in the implementation, not the theory, and they all require great precision. My only quibble with redbook is that it just cannot encode all harmonics, which have been shown with various measurements to go all the way out to 100kHz or higher.

So if we are talking about tuning a system one way or another, well, I have actually tuned all sources (even my tuner) as best as I can, in order to get great sound from all of them. But I also respect all those who choose to go one way or another, and tune to a specific technology.

PS: Next time we meet, remind me to play some of the better Chesky live tracks, and you may just be in shock how realistic they sound.

 

[PeterA]

Thanks Ack. Could you briefly describe how the two formats sound slightly different in your system using the Janaki Trio as an example. What is the sonic reason that you slightly prefer the HDCD version in your system to the 45 rpm record? What are the slight differences to which you allude in your post above? And what specific changes did you do to source component or the other to make it sound more like the other with this recording?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I demonstrated this to Al M months ago with the Janaki. That doesn't mean they are the best, just about equal *in here*, and both really great as you guys heard, though I still hear slight distortions and limitations with both - that will never cease. I believe we did listen to the HDCD Janaki when you were last in here. So when I said earlier in this thread that I think a system can do justice to both formats, I was speaking from personal experience again. And I am NOT going to say that I can get all recordings to sound virtually the same. And I feel the latest Vivaldi In Venice LP that I wrote recently about raises the analog bar yet again, but perhaps all it means is that it is just a better recording than the Janaki.

The Janaki renderings are not identical, but very close to each other. There are subtle differences here and there, and primarily the bass is a little fuller with analog (a Pass trait), and HDCD (e.g. the Janaki) helps elevate digital very close to analog, at least in this system. When I had the excellent Spectral 4000SV player in here, they were even closer to each other. Also keep in mind that the Alpha DAC is one promising design to start with - and every time I read TAS's short description in their annual equipment guides, I can't help but nod yes, yes, yes, yes... To be honest, I sometimes find myself overall liking the HDCD Janaki more than the LP, and this goes to show how close to each other they are in here.

To get to this point, I did use my analog as reference to modify and tune the Alpha DAC to it, while also using the 30SV preamp's dedicated DAC-input (whatever that means, but yet another true breakthrough by Keith Johnson) to smooth out some harshness in the DAC's treble, more evident with typical non-HDCD material. And as discussed under my system thread, the DAC's digital volume control affects the sound from ever-so-subtly around the optimal range I found - so that has to be set precisely to a specific value I have settled on - to making it sound wildly euphonic at max gain. On the analog side, we have talked about all the shielding, VTA/SRA, custom platter/LP interface and magnetic arm stabilization elsewhere. At the same time, I have been on a crusade for years to eliminate noise and distortions all around, especially in the analog and digital sources, as documented under my system thread and elsewhere. I launched on that effort under the belief that both technologies are fundamentally sound, and have not been proven wrong yet.

Based on what I hear in here and elsewhere, I have shredded any fears that digital cannot sound great; that's distant history.

Over the years, I have come to the conclusion that, with digital, execution is paramount and extra-ordinarily complex - from mastering and producing CDs, which is a phenomenally difficult task that requires extra-ordinary care and precision, MUCH more difficult and precise than analog - to how digital playback is designed and built. Again, I feel the problems with the various formats are in the implementation, not the theory, and they all require great precision. My only quibble with redbook is that it just cannot encode all harmonics, which have been shown with various measurements to go all the way out to 100kHz or higher.

So if we are talking about tuning a system one way or another, well, I have actually tuned all sources (even my tuner) as best as I can, in order to get great sound from all of them. But I also respect all those who choose to go one way or another, and tune to a specific technology.

PS: Next time we meet, remind me to play some of the better Chesky live tracks, and you may just be in shock how realistic they sound.

i have the Quad dsd download of this recording and the 45 rpm pressing. it's native format is tape and it's mastered to tape. there is also a 15ips 1/4" you can order (i don't have that). it's been awhile since i played either of these. tomorrow i'll give them a listen and comment.