Reviewing the Furutec Demag

[amirm]

In this case I disagree. Remember the context. Mike claimed that digital somehow "misses" capturing all of the sound. I asked him what exactly is missed. And those vague and meaningless terms was his response. Either digital misses something audible or it doesn't. The truth of this is not halfway between anything.

Well we will have to part disagreeing then since I had no trouble understanding a few of the terms he used. And I have heard them in blind testing of digital gear so know that can happen with some digital equipment in the manner he described. For the rest, I can't expect him to be an engineer and always be as precise as you and I. If his words were all hyperbole as what I just post, then I would be with you. But right now, it is a half-way point .

I truly believe this can be resolved. But it requires intellectual honesty on everyone's part. Heck, I already proved that digital misses nothing by pointing out that a null test will show anything that was not captured. I've done such tests many times, as I already stated. Notice that Mike didn't address that, nor if he believes a null test is not positive proof.

--Ethan

Tell me more about this test. What did it do again?

 

[Ethan Winer]

Meyer/Moran again.... It's already been debunked.

Please point me to a credible debunking.

Don't tell us what 554 people heard. We could give a RA... tell us what YOU hear.

I wasn't there, so I have no opinion. But I do know that most people can't hear frequencies higher than what 44.1 KHz captures, and I also know that for most music recorded at normal levels (not -50 just to make the point), the difference between 16 and 24 bits (in a distribution medium) is not audible. I also understand that some converters sound different than others at various sample rates, giving the impression of a change due to the increased sample rate and bit depth. So it makes perfect sense to me that nobody can reliably identify a 44/16 bottleneck as Meyer & Moran tested.

You can not distinguish the difference between overtones/harmonics, distortion and artifacts on a FFT or spectrogram.

How is that related to this discussion? Amir said the frequency response change from using too few bits cannot be measured, and I showed how it can. What exactly are you arguing here?

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

Tell me more about this test. What did it do again?

You record something, then null it with the original. Whatever remains is the difference.

--Ethan

 

[Bruce B]

The harmonics added by distortion are easy to see on an FFT, which to my thinking is a good way to assess frequency response.
--Ethan

How is that related to this discussion? Amir said the frequency response change from using too few bits cannot be measured, and I showed how it can. What exactly are you arguing here?

--Ethan

You're the one that brought it up. You can't determine if the freq. response had changed because you can't determine if it's harmonics, distortion, jitter, dither or what you're looking at in a FFT.

You record something, then null it with the original. Whatever remains is the difference.
--Ethan

You're only comparing the file to a digital representation of a recording of itself. The proper way is to play the digital file as its recording with the analog signal inverted/delayed. The original can only happen once in time. It can never be repeated.

 

[Ethan Winer]

I had no trouble understanding a few of the terms he used.

Again you seem to miss my point. Let's say half of Mike's terms are acceptable. The half that I could sort of figure out were all related to frequency response, or possibly distortion. It's trivial to prove that digital captures those perfectly well. But the other half cannot be disproved because they have no meaning. So IMO it's a dodge to avoid being proven wrong. If I say telescopes don't fully capture frazits on the surface of the moon, nobody can prove me wrong because nobody knows what frazits are. That's exactly the same as claiming digital doesn't capture the "organic signature of instruments." It's a meaningless statement because it inherently relies on a meaningless term.

--Ethan

 

[Mike Lavigne]

You really want to get me started? To show you how easy it is, I just picked up the new issue of TAS and in two seconds, ran into this line on Vincent Audio PHO-8 Phonostage:

"The sonic personality of the PHO-8 leans gently to the romantic side of the spectrum."

Excuse me but this is a box. What on earth romantic means. And let's say I know what it means. But "gently leaning?"

It goes on to say "... without conveying overly hard edges or pointed sonic corners."

I could maybe accept overly hard edges but "pointed sonic corners?"

So it goes on: Soundstage is width is very good and with its relaxed character....."

What on earth is relaxed character when it comes to soundstage? What is the opposite of relaxed character?

Robert Harley does great at first in his review of Music Streamer:

"I was also impressed by the sense of depth, overall soundstage and air between instrumental images."

Then goes of the clip with this:

"Bass guitar lines seemed to lag slightly behind the beat, fostering the impression of slower tempi along with the feeling of musicians not quite as locked into the groove."

What the heck? What did he just say? I can't even picture it. Feeling of not being locked into a groove? Clearly this is a made up statement designed to sound good in words and not any kind of analytical description.

He then redeems himself by saying, "The treble had a bit of harshness, but that is to be expected at this price."
What's wrong with clear statements like this one? Why resort to non-sense star-trek terminology which sounds at first to be the correct description but at the end, translates into nothing? Phrases like "Rhythmic drive" which he uses after that above?

Paul Seydor's review of Maratnz CD player carries the theme:

"Indeed, one of its strength is the ease, grip, and aplomb with which it handles Mahler symphonies or Wagner operas..."

Help me out here. I am not into classical music but surely I should be able to understand what he just said. No? "Grip?" "Aplomb?"

To be sure, he also uses precise and proper explanation at times such as "a bit more detail and resolution...."

Why resort to poetry when we can speak precisely?

It seems that the more difficult the evaluation, the more these terms creep in. Comparing amps, sources and cables is difficult if not impossible to do. Instead of confessing that fact, random words are used which can mean anything. It is like a fortune cookie that can't be wrong since the words lack precision.

Here is more on Cable Research LAB from Neil Gader again: "... its low bass is extended and well-defined, though not as tight as it might be. A little cooler overall, its treble octaves integrate well with the rest of the frequency spectrum."
Now are in full star trek language territory. Treble octave integrating well into frequency spectrum? Tell me what that means and it how it goes with cooler treble whatever that is supposed to mean.

I read here that the person doesn't really know what could be different in cables and is frankly manufacturing terms to describe some difference imagined or otherwise. Clearly if I hear something, I can describe it more specifically than what is said here.

OK, I will stop here at page 116 .

Amir,

why did you go find some purposely vague terms when the terms i used were quite specific....

from the Absolute Sound article;

romantic side of the spectrum

gently leaning

conveying overly hard edges or pointed sonic corners

relaxed character

i would invite you to finally drive the 15-20 miles out to my house and hear vinyl as God intended it to be heard. i expect that we can go down my list and easily hear how vinyl does it better than PCM.

that trip and listening session could be easily done in much less time than it takes to listen to all those samples and write all these long answers.

i do realize that this forum is lots more fun than actually listening to music.

 

[Ethan Winer]

You're the one that brought it up. You can't determine if the freq. response had changed because you can't determine if it's harmonics, distortion, jitter, dither or what you're looking at in a FFT.

Not sure where this disconnect is coming from Bruce. You have a source. You look at the spectrum. You record that source using too few bits and look at the spectrum of the recording. Everything that changed is due to too few bits, independent of what's in the original source. Does this now make sense?

--Ethan

 

[Orb]

@orb-in the interest of learning.....

The 9Hz resonant frequency is the target resonant frequency I shoot for when setting up the tonearm/cartridge. You can calculate this based on the compliance of the cartridge and the effective mass of the tonearm. The effective mass of the tonearm is affected by the weight of the cartridge, and the tracking force, so it is not simple at all. Use too heavy a cartridge, and the resonant frequency goes down, even with the same compliance.

The arm I used had the benefit of additional weighted shims that could be added to the counterweight that was used to offset the weight of the cartridge. Even with the same VTF generated with different weight counterweights changed the sound for the better or worse. And this I verified by making a digital recording with X number of shims, setting the VTF to 3 digits of accuracy. Adding or taking away a shim, and setting the VTF to the same weight, making another digital recording, and doing an AB comparison between the two digital recordings.

Now, I know that ppl are going to say that the second playing of the same groove is going to change the sound...... when I have some time, I'll do some more recording without changing anything and we'll see if it really does, and how much of a difference subsequent plays make.

May be our turntable set-up process is flawed - and we have learned something to set up our turntables better.

Thanks Gary,
just to be clear this is to try and setup optimally the cartridge-tone arm correct?
I do not see any contradiction between us, just that ideally setting up the cartridge-tone arm should ensure that vibration and resonance are negligible at 4-15hz but will show up on measurement tools and setup correctly is near identical on a £199 TT to a £14,000 TT.
What setup can never help with is the actual mechanical resonances and vibrations that are due to the reasons I quoted from Paul Miller earlier, and here the more expensive better engineered TT-cartridge-tonearm will have very well damped higher resonances/vibrations as well that are then possibly equal to or just slightly higher than the 4-15hz ones.
While the quote was short it touches on exactly what you talk about for setting up and my points on practical mechanical effects for vibration and resonances involving all the TT.

All seasoned vinyl fans understand the need to match cartridge compliance to the arm's effective mass to avoid resonance with warped LPs, at the other extreme, subsonic groove detail...
In truth , the little beggars bend,ripple,twist and even expand and contract in response to noise (vibrations) from the body of the cartridge.

I hate using wiki as it is usually not complete with the topic it covers but want to touch on rumble that was mentioned earlier where I think some identify with low frequency resonance.
The quote shows again that this will show up in the measurements due its operation.

One way to reduce rumble is to make the turntable very heavy, so that it acts as mechanical damper or low-pass filter, but even with the best turntables a lot of rumble tends to be generated by warped records or pressing irregularities sometimes visible as ‘bobbles’ in the surface.
An important factor affecting rumble is low-frequency resonance resulting from pickup arm mass bouncing against stylus compliance.
This resonance is usually in the 10–30 Hz region, and will increase rumble as well as reducing tracking ability if not well-damped.
Good pickup arms incorporate viscous damping aimed at eliminating such resonance.

So I do not see us disagreeing, just that with some of the other discussions in this thread I wanted to expand the focus that resonance-vibration these days is much more than the general 4hz and 8-15hz that used to be the primary focus in the past and now the whole of the TT and LP are involved and shown in resonance-vibration measurements.
These then highlight resonances and vibrations cause greater problems at the higher frequencies as mentioned in previous posts.
However I must admit I do not know how that low level resonance ended up showing on the capture posted earlier as it should be much lower than anything else generated by the complete TT.

Anyway as the measurements are new to both publications, I will keep an eye out for next month and see what they review and measure - might be of interest.

Thanks
Orb

 

[amirm]

You record something, then null it with the original. Whatever remains is the difference.

--Ethan

I know what a null test is Ethan. I thought you were talking about a null test that shows digital is perfect. That is what I like to hear about.

 

[amirm]

Amir,

why did you go find some purposely vague terms when the terms i used were quite specific....

Let's be fair Mike. Some of your terms were vague too. Not nearly as bad as what I quoted but still, some were not specific enough for identification.

i would invite you to finally drive the 15-20 miles out to my house and hear vinyl as God intended it to be heard. i expect that we can go down my list and easily hear how vinyl does it better than PCM.

I will come indeed . Thank you so much for the kind offer. For now though, note that one of the reviews I quoted was about a DAC. My point regarding terminology in high-end audio review applies across the point.

that trip and listening session could be easily done in much less time than it takes to listen to all those samples and write all these long answers.

I agree nothing is like experiencing something.

i do realize that this forum is lots more fun than actually listening to music.

Precisely. As I always say, it is the hobby within the hobby!

 

[Bruce B]

Not sure where this disconnect is coming from Bruce. You have a source. You look at the spectrum. You record that source using too few bits and look at the spectrum of the recording. Everything that changed is due to too few bits, independent of what's in the original source. Does this now make sense?
--Ethan

You can not identify what is on the FFT. All you see is a line that is grayed out. You can't determine what it is, only that something is there!

 

[Ethan Winer]

I know what a null test is Ethan. I thought you were talking about a null test that shows digital is perfect. That is what I like to hear about.

I'm sure you also know that nothing is perfect. But competent digital recording can indeed capture everything that's audible. Which was my point.

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

You can not identify what is on the FFT. All you see is a line that is grayed out. You can't determine what it is, only that something is there!

Sorry, I'm getting more and more lost. If the only difference between two files is one had its bit depth reduced (no need to re-record as I implied above), how can a difference in FFT be due to anything other than the bit depth reduction?

--Ethan

 

[Bruce B]

I'm sure you also know that nothing is perfect. But competent digital recording can indeed capture everything that's audible. Which was my point.

--Ethan

You're telling us Digital is perfect in that it can perfectly capture an analog event. Now you're backtracking and saying a "competent" digital recording. What does that entail?

Sorry, I'm getting more and more lost. If the only difference between two files is one had its bit depth reduced (no need to re-record as I implied above), how can a difference in FFT be due to anything other than the bit depth reduction?
--Ethan

We've already determined that there is a difference between 2 files. That's what happens when you lower the bit-depth of one of the files. What hasn't been determined is what was the difference? Certainly not a reduction in freq. response.

 

[garylkoh]

@Orb-sorry if it sounded like I was disagreeing with you. I'm agreeing and pointing out to those who may not have experience with record players that the 8Hz (or 9Hz) resonance in the arm/cartridge combination is normal. You and I seem to be the only two on this thread on the same page

The Paul Miller article was very interesting to me. Reviewing the demagnetizer helped me learn something more about turntable set-up, and for that I thank you and others. I'll probably start a new thread somewhere else and get away from this thread. I think that listening to music far more fun than debating about squiggly lines

 

[amirm]

I'm sure you also know that nothing is perfect. But competent digital recording can indeed capture everything that's audible. Which was my point.

--Ethan

That's why I was confused that you used a null test in this context. That test will not be revealing in this situation.

 

[mep]

[

"The sonic personality of the PHO-8 leans gently to the romantic side of the spectrum." Excuse me but this is a box. What on earth romantic means. And let's say I know what it means. But "gently leaning?"

I would take the gently romantic comment to mean that the sound tends to be warm instead of on the cool side of analytical and the gently leaning comment meant it was just barely on the romantic side.

So it goes on: Soundstage is width is very good and with its relaxed character....."
What on earth is relaxed character when it comes to soundstage? What is the opposite of relaxed character?

Are you sure the relaxed character was part of the soundstage comment or was he talking about the relaxed character of the phono stage in general? When you read all of the comments about romantic and relaxed, it tells me the reviewer is trying to convey that this phono stage is easy on the ears with a warm sound and it’s not bright and edgy sounding.

Robert Harley does great at first in his review of Music Streamer:
"Bass guitar lines seemed to lag slightly behind the beat, fostering the impression of slower tempi along with the feeling of musicians not quite as locked into the groove."What the heck? What did he just say? I can't even picture it. Feeling of not being locked into a groove? Clearly this is a made up statement designed to sound good in words and not any kind of analytical description.

What Robert is saying here is that bass guitar sounded like it was being played out of time with the rest of the band. That’s what the “behind the beat” comment means-you’re not playing in time together. Ditto for the comment about being locked into the groove. That is what musicians say when they refer to a good performance where everyone is on the beat together and they are playing as one like they are reading each other’s minds and anticipating moves together. You are locked into a groove. Musician speak Amir. Behnid the beat means you are playing too slow and if you are ahead of the beat, you are playing too fast.

Here is more on Cable Research LAB from Neil Gader again: "... its low bass is extended and well-defined, though not as tight as it might be. A little cooler overall, its treble octaves integrate well with the rest of the frequency spectrum."
Now are in full star trek language territory. Treble octave integrating well into frequency spectrum? Tell me what that means and it how it goes with cooler treble whatever that is supposed to mean.

What this means to me is that the treble sounded slightly brighter than the rest of the frequency response below the treble but overall, it wasn’t enough to detract from the total sound and the treble still blended well with the bottom octaves on up to the treble.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Let's be fair Mike. Some of your terms were vague too. Not nearly as bad as what I quoted but still, some were not specific enough for identification.

these terms that might not be as clear to the casual listener are very clear to the intense vinyl listener. when i'm listening with the friends of mine who share that passion it's the way we communicate. but like anything, you know best what you do regularly.

for instance; if i wrote "tonal texture and clarity in the mid-range" instead of 'tonal texture and transparency in the mid-range" it would be more easily understood. in my terminology, clarity and transparency are interchangable, but others might be confused by the word transparency in the context i use it.

i could substitute some terms which might make it easier to understand my meanings. but again, if you actually visit and listen with me i don't anticipate that it will be difficult to point out what any of those terms mean that may currently be vague.

we can even listen to different cartridges, arms, tt's and different phono stages and see how these aspects of the music change to some degree. then we can compare master tape for another viewpoint.

the room and system is like a magnifying glass for differences between 'stuff'.

 

[Orb]

@Orb-sorry if it sounded like I was disagreeing with you. I'm agreeing and pointing out to those who may not have experience with record players that the 8Hz (or 9Hz) resonance in the arm/cartridge combination is normal. You and I seem to be the only two on this thread on the same page

The Paul Miller article was very interesting to me. Reviewing the demagnetizer helped me learn something more about turntable set-up, and for that I thank you and others. I'll probably start a new thread somewhere else and get away from this thread. I think that listening to music far more fun than debating about squiggly lines

Phew

Thanks again
Orb

 

[microstrip]

I'd say "brighter and more open sounding." Unless the track or mix already was already too bright, in which case I'd say "edgy and harsh."

I hope this double meaning shows the failure of vague imprecise wording that so many audiophiles tend to use.

--Ethan

Sorry, I think the opposite - you are suggesting using an encrypted language that it is not even absolute. When you are describing to someone the effect of acoustic treatments do you also use dBs, shelving and Q factors?