You should re-read and re-listen the comments - the point is that the master of these LPs is a digital recording and MF now even says that John Atkinson considered it the best recorded sound experience he ever had. Not bad for bits ... We really need to know what DAC was used in the cutter!
I have owned the box since a few months ago - not because of the sound quality, but because I wanted to listen to Simon Rattle latest Beethoven cycle. But yes, my audiophile soul was disappointed when I found I could not download the same files used to cut the recordings.
And yes, I know that perhaps JA has no experience with the great turntables being debated at WBF...
You should re-read and re-listen the comments - the point is that the master of these LPs is a digital recording and MF now even says that John Atkinson considered it the best recorded sound experience he ever had.......
yes......but we don't know whether it's because it's digital, or in spite of the fact it's digital that JA said that. or maybe it was the mood JA was in?
the recording media is but one factor in many as to what makes a reproduced performance memorable. memorable being a subjective concept.
maybe if it was analog he would have loved it more?
and as a long time reader of JA and especially his own views of his own recordings he loves him some digital big time. and i do too so i understand.
oh and BTW, you did notice which box set Michael pulled out first?
You should re-read and re-listen the comments - the point is that the master of these LPs is a digital recording and MF now even says that John Atkinson considered it the best recorded sound experience he ever had. Not bad for bits ... We really need to know what DAC was used in the cutter!
I have owned the box since a few months ago - not because of the sound quality, but because I wanted to listen to Simon Rattle latest Beethoven cycle.
And yes, I know that perhaps JA has no experience with the great turntables being debated at WBF...
Yes, JA will be lost if 108cy and the general start discussing analog playback.
If you want to listen to Rattle perform the 9th, simply book a ticket next Feb to London, Florian Boesch will be performing the ode to joy as well.
And yes, meanwhile listen to Franz konwitschny on YouTube, his interpretations of the 3rd, 5th, 7th and 9th are brilliant, don't try buying LPs, recordings are not good. If you find a good digital version please share.
yes......but we don't know whether it's because it's digital, or in spite of the fact it's digital that JA said that. or maybe it was the mood JA was in? (...)
IMHO it does not matter. The fact is two known reviewers agreed that their best experience with large scale orchestral music was with a support that at some time was digitized. This is particularly important - it is not a light comment. Was it due to the particular playback system? IMHO it deserves some debate - I have never read such strong comment before from them.
the recording media is but one factor in many as to what makes a reproduced performance memorable. memorable being a subjective concept.
maybe if it was analog he would have loved it more?
and as a long time reader of JA and especially his own views of his own recordings he loves him some digital big time. and i do too so i understand.
oh and BTW, you did notice which box set Michael pulled out first?
Thanks - this implies that the digital signal going through a quality professional DAC converter can become one the best stereo sound experiences, even for analog lovers, if it is afterwards adequately enhanced by the typical analog processes of vinyl cutting and playback. Extremely thought provoking, but I bet people will prefer go on guessing what MF or someone else thinks about SAT tonearms ...
this implies that the digital signal going through a quality professional DAC converter can become one the best stereo sound experiences, even for analog lovers, if it is afterwards adequately enhanced by the typical analog processes of vinyl cutting and playback.
As to obtaining "one of the best stereo sound experiences": Why not purchase the digital file, decode it with a "quality DAC" and send that signal though a black box that replicates " the typical analog processes of vinyl cutting and playback". That way, you don't have to buy: the LP, the cartridge, the arm, the turntable and the phono preamp. Such a black box could exist.
As to obtaining "one of the best stereo sound experiences": Why not purchase the digital file, decode it with a "quality DAC" and send that signal though a black box that replicates " the typical analog processes of vinyl cutting and playback". That way, you don't have to buy: the LP, the cartridge, the arm, the turntable and the phono preamp. Such a black box could exist.
In this particular case just because the file is not available - the recording company (Berliner Philharmoniker) doesn't sell it. Otherwise we would be comparing it!
IMHO it does not matter. The fact is two known reviewers agreed that their best experience with large scale orchestral music was with a support that at some time was digitized. This is particularly important - it is not a light comment. Was it due to the particular playback system? IMHO it deserves some debate - I have never read such strong comment before from them.
my comments might begin by noting that i've personally had such thoughts about 'this is the best thing i've ever heard' about large scale orchestral music dozens of times. and when i consider why i felt that way i'd relate it back to any combination of reasons. it was mostly degrees of 'suspension of disbelief'. i'm not sure we know exactly what exact things cause these reactions. at least a few of these were digital recordings, but more often vinyl. as our references get moved it might take more to trigger these feelings.
really this is what we all aim for. i know this is exactly what all my own efforts have aimed for, to have that 'best ever' feeling. not sure JA saying that has any out-sized significance to me.
and when i think like that about that very special feeling about what i am hearing, it's is very serious to me. and all my efforts underline just how serious i have taken it.
note that having a 'best ever' feeling, or comment, is a different thing than any sort of proof or evidence. it is a desired and valued state of mind.
Sorry, our imagination is not relevant to the subject ...
I must say I did not see the whole video - MF musical preferences are not my interest. But If you tell me I would be thankful!
the DG 2721 001 box set that i wrote about last week which was the 62' original pressing of the Karajan Beethoven 9 Symphony's. you had mentioned the later 63' reissue pressing of that same performance.
In this particular case just because the file is not available - the recording company (Berliner Philharmoniker) doesn't sell it. Otherwise we would be comparing it!
Yes, I declined the opportunity at MikeL’s because I had many larger fish to fry. You can do only so much in a certain period of time, and I already had a lot to do.
From MikeL’s reports, and my listening with Keith at Alma, and from my listening with Keith to Keith’s system, I think MSB is something special for digital. MSB makes the digital “nasties” go away, leaving a fair and legitimate digital versus analog competition.
People here promise us that Lampizator achieves the same thing.
I think Paul McGowan is a fairly knowledgeable gent even though I don’t put much stock into anything he says. But in this case I agree with him.
As for the “digital nasties” that you mention. As you may realize, some-to-many respected types (whatever that means) already claim that digital is more revealing than analog while some-to-many other respected types (whatever that means) disagree.
That said, have you considered the possibility that many/all of these “digital nasties” might just be general playback system nasties? System nasties that a potentially more resolving format may expose under the guise of sounding more fatiguing (aka less musical) while a potentially less resolving format may mask under the guise of sounding more musical (aka less fatiguing)? In other words, might we be judging what we hear based potentially more on the effects rather than the cause(s)?
After all, if a component or format is truly more revealing, then it must be indiscriminate about what it’s revealing more of, whether it be music or distortions. And vice versa for a less revealing format.
Not saying it’s true but have you considered the possibility?
Based on your comment, "leaving a fair and legitmate digital vs analog competition" I can't help but consider the cause and effect thing again. If per chance digital is generally more revealing than analog, then I suppose the next question might be, what did MSB supposedly do to make these “digital nasties” go away and at what expense, if any?
Not to unnecessarily raise suspicions but then again I'm of the camp that we should always be suspicious of everything and everybody in this very subjective industry. Besides that, I can't help but get suspicious when analog lovers start to praise certain digital products. Just as I would if digital lovers started to praise certain analog products.
That said, have you considered the possibility that many/all of these “digital nasties” might just be general playback system nasties? System nasties that a potentially more resolving format may expose under the guise of sounding more fatiguing (aka less musical) while a potentially less resolving format may mask under the guise of sounding more musical (aka less fatiguing)? In other words, might we be judging what we hear based potentially more on the effects rather than the cause(s)?
Yes, that is my suspicion too. Not that digital is necessarily more resolving, but its often more incisive sound, and especially its extended HF response can give problems that may be masked by some analog. I mentioned it before on this thread, but an acoustician told me that he thinks digital's ruler flat HF response is its downfall in many audiophiles' rooms, which are typically on the bright and reflective side. In my own system and room, many times perceived "digititis" turned out to be really related to other components in the chain and especially to problems with room acoustics, rather than the digital itself, even though sometimes that gave problems too. In many cases, analog may be less revealing of such weaknesses.
I agree completely Al. I always recommend that people fix their room issues before they start buying more gear. It is quite often not the gear they have that is the issue but room problems and the speaker placement in that room. My advice usually ends up falling on deaf ears though.
I agree completely Al. I always recommend that people fix their room issues before they start buying more gear. It is quite often not the gear they have that is the issue but room problems and the speaker placement in that room. My advice usually ends up falling on deaf ears though.
I guess something that is deeply engrained in the audiophile psyche is to blame for that. What is sexier, a shiny new preamp or installing ceiling diffusers? I bet most audiophiles find the preamp far sexier, by many miles. Having said that, I will buy a shiny new preamp myself soon -- now that I have recently installed ceiling diffusers (to be fair, not everyone has the domestic freedom to do the latter).
I think Paul McGowan is a fairly knowledgeable gent even though I don’t put much stock into anything he says. But in this case I agree with him.
As for the “digital nasties” that you mention. As you may realize, some-to-many respected types (whatever that means) already claim that digital is more revealing than analog while some-to-many other respected types (whatever that means) disagree.
That said, have you considered the possibility that many/all of these “digital nasties” might just be general playback system nasties? System nasties that a potentially more resolving format may expose under the guise of sounding more fatiguing (aka less musical) while a potentially less resolving format may mask under the guise of sounding more musical (aka less fatiguing)? In other words, might we be judging what we hear based potentially more on the effects rather than the cause(s)?
After all, if a component or format is truly more revealing, then it must be indiscriminate about what it’s revealing more of, whether it be music or distortions. And vice versa for a less revealing format.
Not saying it’s true but have you considered the possibility?
Based on your comment, "leaving a fair and legitmate digital vs analog competition" I can't help but consider the cause and effect thing again. If per chance digital is generally more revealing than analog, then I suppose the next question might be, what did MSB supposedly do to make these “digital nasties” go away and at what expense, if any?
Not to unnecessarily raise suspicions but then again I'm of the camp that we should always be suspicious of everything and everybody in this very subjective industry. Besides that, I can't help but get suspicious when analog lovers start to praise certain digital products. Just as I would if digital lovers started to praise certain analog products.
Stenho, why is this not possible? Of course it is. Many take large steps to scrub electrical interference from their systems and benefit from much better SQ. Since digital systems rely on a chip set for conversion, electrical interference can and does have a negative effect on the quality of the audio signal.
How about the laser that reads the file? Another problem area that can be vastly improved by mitigation of electrical interference.
Digital can be very resolving and vivid in its presentation and non fatiguing If totally scrubbed and internal circuits grounded correctly.
