I don't know why the two are mutually exclusive - and with your strange obsession with frequency response curves, even moreso. Grab a few hands in an afternoon and get it done! swapping *input* tubes is pretty meaningless before this is taken care of.
Ron’s New System
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
Ron, this is not puzzling to me.
you go though 7 years of effort and headwind to finally get music in your room, something you've been visualizing and musing about.....a goal to reach. then, you spend a month or two messing around trying to get the system to get where you wanted it to get. sharing about it and learning how the system is interacting. and....it's finally at a nice plateau of sonic goodness where you are 'somewhere'.
and it's time to smell the roses. get your batteries recharged. just listen and enjoy. forget critical listening. forget other people's ideas and opinions.
happy that you are in this mind space. you deserve it. my days where i'm just listening and letting the flow take me, is sheer heaven. makes it all worth it.
and when it's time to take more swings at it, then go there.
Last edited:
I feel you probably are aware of what I'm about to spell out. By no means is it intended as off-site management of your personal library. Only you can determine how worthwhile the similarities are with collecting tape and vinyl during a period you recently closed the chapter on.
Buying an album on Qobuz technically means it will be resident on their servers for you to stream or download at any point. In the event their streaming and/or purchase contract with rights owner is voided. Your album will continue holding residence so you may access it at will.
For many smaller releases there is one digital mastering, one right. More popular titles can have multiples discoverable at any one point in time. All of which can disappear in moments or become less discoverable, less profitable. I cannot be sure how well this meshes with your plans for digital going forwards. Though I do feel it worthwhile to suggest considering the implications on digital only releases potential to be removed permanently from any avenue of purchase or qualitative means of listening. To enter a corporate vault or indefinite legal stasis.
Less important to discussion of your new system is continued ability for your household to enjoy these digital albums. However they are currently stored or streamed for presumably background purposes.
That sounds just fine.
Edit: Once again Mike L. posts .5 a second before me with a similar statement.
No, it’s good enough for serious listening
Ron, you state that you can’t even listen to vinyl anymore…how is what I wrote a mischaracterization of that clear statement?
My well mastered digital vinyl aren’t distinguishable because of dryness. They are because they have finer interleaved dynamics and better bass, albeit perhaps in some cases less tonal richness. When the digital goes from recording to mastering to pressing without a lot of generational deterioration, they can sound excellent.
Some of the older digital albums sound like lousy CD’s from the day, and are a good reminder why digital was in the doghouse for nearly 40 years.
Yes, at risk of losing all credibility, I listen to bit compressed digital sources for particular musics and enjoy them. I even have some stuff I have recorded from HD You Tube, and they sound surprisingly good.
What is annoying about compressed music is that even they have subtle attributes that chain improvements can reveal. I would rather hate them.
Some of the older digital albums sound like lousy CD’s from the day, and are a good reminder why digital was in the doghouse for nearly 40 years.
Yes, at risk of losing all credibility, I listen to bit compressed digital sources for particular musics and enjoy them. I even have some stuff I have recorded from HD You Tube, and they sound surprisingly good.
What is annoying about compressed music is that even they have subtle attributes that chain improvements can reveal. I would rather hate them.
Last edited:
Hi Ron,
Vidar answered my e-mail late yesterday evening about the production of Anette Askviks Liberty. The answer is of course in norwegian, so I had to google translate it, hence the somewhat strange grammar/sentences.
He gave me permission to go public with his answer.
So, here goes;
“Hello, Per.
Fun question on a Friday night...
After all, I did most of the recordings for/on Anette's "Liberty" album. It is possible that Øystein Sevåg made some arrangements in his home studio afterwards, and he mixed the album. Øystein is an extreme pedometer, and is fantastically skilled...and not least very nice and fun to work with!
My studio at the time was probably what we can call a digital studio. I did all the recordings in ProTools. I used a number of external analogue preamps, and microphones are, after all, analogue by nature...before the signals are digitized either in pre-amps or when they are converted digitally in ProTools.
I mean to believe that Øystein also mixed "in the box", i.e. in ProTools, without going the route of an analogue or digital mixer.
During the mastering by Morten Lund, the signal will probably also go through what you would call analog signal processing, before it is digitized again.
So the bottom line is that this is a digital production, but definitely with elements of analogue equipment which certainly sets its color on the result.
I think it is often forgotten in the digital/analogue discussion that the final result is influenced to an extremely large extent by the people who make decisions both on the technical side and not least on the musical side. The choices that are made "humanely" will have a much greater influence on the experience of the sound of a piece of music. As a person/technician/producer/musician, you can choose whether it should sound "analogue" or whether you want to go in a more "digital" direction in terms of sound.
As a sound designer, you are very much at the mercy of good technical equipment, skilled musicians, a good arrangement and good music to achieve the goals you set in terms of sound. There are many parameters that ultimately make up the finished result. Even the atmosphere and collaborative climate between those involved affects the result. Anette is an absolutely fantastically beautiful person, and you can both hear and experience that..??
Incidentally, I also think that some hi-fi enthusiasts would cry their brave tears if they could see some of the equipment that has been used on some reference CDs for hi-fi.. (A very general statement, that is...)
Thanks for the opportunity to talk/write/philosophize a bit about what I love; To paint pictures with sound!
All good! ??“
Vidar answered my e-mail late yesterday evening about the production of Anette Askviks Liberty. The answer is of course in norwegian, so I had to google translate it, hence the somewhat strange grammar/sentences.
He gave me permission to go public with his answer.
So, here goes;
“Hello, Per.
Fun question on a Friday night...
After all, I did most of the recordings for/on Anette's "Liberty" album. It is possible that Øystein Sevåg made some arrangements in his home studio afterwards, and he mixed the album. Øystein is an extreme pedometer, and is fantastically skilled...and not least very nice and fun to work with!
My studio at the time was probably what we can call a digital studio. I did all the recordings in ProTools. I used a number of external analogue preamps, and microphones are, after all, analogue by nature...before the signals are digitized either in pre-amps or when they are converted digitally in ProTools.
I mean to believe that Øystein also mixed "in the box", i.e. in ProTools, without going the route of an analogue or digital mixer.
During the mastering by Morten Lund, the signal will probably also go through what you would call analog signal processing, before it is digitized again.
So the bottom line is that this is a digital production, but definitely with elements of analogue equipment which certainly sets its color on the result.
I think it is often forgotten in the digital/analogue discussion that the final result is influenced to an extremely large extent by the people who make decisions both on the technical side and not least on the musical side. The choices that are made "humanely" will have a much greater influence on the experience of the sound of a piece of music. As a person/technician/producer/musician, you can choose whether it should sound "analogue" or whether you want to go in a more "digital" direction in terms of sound.
As a sound designer, you are very much at the mercy of good technical equipment, skilled musicians, a good arrangement and good music to achieve the goals you set in terms of sound. There are many parameters that ultimately make up the finished result. Even the atmosphere and collaborative climate between those involved affects the result. Anette is an absolutely fantastically beautiful person, and you can both hear and experience that..??
Incidentally, I also think that some hi-fi enthusiasts would cry their brave tears if they could see some of the equipment that has been used on some reference CDs for hi-fi.. (A very general statement, that is...)
Thanks for the opportunity to talk/write/philosophize a bit about what I love; To paint pictures with sound!
All good! ??“
I found this article last year that touches on a unique “test” I found quite interesting, and carries into a well-framed discussion on analog v digital. Based on the details, I suspect the digital dryness you hear is due to mastering technique more than non-analog processes, though both likely play a role. (Note that the article was published before public disclosure of certain digital processes in well-known, claimed non-digital vinyl releases.)
I enjoy that the results described - in a best-case scenario for each format - leave room for the reader to draw their own conclusions, as the author himself does in the article.
Vinyl versus Digital - Grimm Audio
The Dutch online magazine Alpha Audio did an unusual live stream on Sunday Feb 27th. In collaboration with Artone Studio in Haarlem, a live recording was made of singer songwriter Tim Knol, running both a completely analog (vinyl!) recording chain and a completely digital recording chain in...www.grimmaudio.com
This is very interesting. Thank you very much for posting!
I very much appreciate the author's nuanced, balanced and intellectually-honest approach.
The in studio response is interesting:
It was therefore mainly interesting to monitor the comment and body language of the people who were present in the studio listening to the playbacks. Their verdict was that the analog chain sounded more similar to the original sound (the direct microphone lines) than the digital chain.
I appreciated that observation as well, though there is a caveat to bear in mind:
First of all, no one outside a mastering studio will ever hear the quality of the lacquer. In the process of vinyl production (when pressing >10000 copies of an album), the lacquer is first converted to an intermediate negative copy, from which a ‘father’ is copied, from which various ‘mothers’ are copied, from which stampers are then made that are used in the actual pressing of the vinyl (which is also a copying process). This means there are four mechanical copies between the lacquer and the vinyl record you have at home, and with every copy some details get lost and noise is added.
But the fact is they tested based on the lacquer and seemed to find closer correlation to live based on their test parameters.
Which brings up a tangent thought, at least it my mind. The comment above seems to hint as to the potential advantage of tape. How far removed is a retail reel to reel tape from the master, and do subsequent copies in the tape chain lose detail at the same rate as lacquer generations?
Another tangent: if the negative aspects of digital capturing, mastering and transferring are cured, will we be able to effectively listen to first or second generation sources in the digital realm?
First of all, no one outside a mastering studio will ever hear the quality of the lacquer. In the process of vinyl production (when pressing >10000 copies of an album), the lacquer is first converted to an intermediate negative copy, from which a ‘father’ is copied, from which various ‘mothers’ are copied, from which stampers are then made that are used in the actual pressing of the vinyl (which is also a copying process). This means there are four mechanical copies between the lacquer and the vinyl record you have at home, and with every copy some details get lost and noise is added.
But the fact is they tested based on the lacquer and seemed to find closer correlation to live based on their test parameters.
Which brings up a tangent thought, at least it my mind. The comment above seems to hint as to the potential advantage of tape. How far removed is a retail reel to reel tape from the master, and do subsequent copies in the tape chain lose detail at the same rate as lacquer generations?
Another tangent: if the negative aspects of digital capturing, mastering and transferring are cured, will we be able to effectively listen to first or second generation sources in the digital realm?
Dear crosswind,
Thank you so much for taking the time to write to Vidar and secure a response. Great job!
This is exactly the kind of thing I would do -- and I do do! I once wrote to Pierre Marchand -- the longtime engineer of Sarah McLachlan -- to understand how his recording and mixing techniques evolved to become more digital over time.
It was very nice of Vidar to give you such a detailed and warm response.
Last edited:
Thank you, Mike. You characterized my state of mind perfectly. This is exactly how I feel.
pk_LA came over last night to hear the Pendragons for the first time. Don is coming back this evening to hear them for the fourth time.
I'm really just enjoying the heavy social aspect due to the newness of the system at this point, and also doing plenty of listening by myself.
Surely we would be happy to know more about your favorite recordings.
Considering previous references you made to your favorite recordings I must say I do not expect you to prefer digital. But I am not addressing your preferences, just your claims about digital general pseudo mischaracterization and sound attributes.
Did you read Michael Fremer opinions on this subject?
Fair enough. I have listened to loads of versions of "Night on Bare Mountain" and "Pictures at an Exhibition" and "Symphonie Fantastique" and Mozart "Jupiter Symphony 41" on Qobuz. These are my four favorite classical pieces. I'm happy to listen to them over and over and over.
I have never found on Qobuz a "Night on Bare Mountain" or a "Pictures at an Exhibition" that I find more convincing and natural sounding than The Power of the Orchestra (Chesky RC30).
Please post links from Qobuz to your favorite digital versions of these two titles and I will compare them to the Chesky.
Last edited:
I read almost everything Michael writes, although I skip over his sub-$1000 turntable reviews.
I do not know which particular Michael opinions you are referring to here. Please feel free to post links and I will read (or re-read) them.
Happy to help out. I learned a few things my self and also learned that Vidar is the nicest guy. We e-mailed back and forth a few times today and he really appreciates the audiophile community doing justice to his productions. As he wrote, you would be supprised how many of his clients who don’t even own a proper stereo system. Many of them just uses an iPhone with cheap head phones or a bluetooth speaker connected to it. Makes him feel a bit sad that all the effort he puts in his productions never really shines trough in those cases. They don’t even know how it is supposed to sound..
Ron, Have you considered posting three videos playing the same song demonstrating the sonic differences between your streaming, vinyl and tape?
First and most important it was not in any way a religious comment. my intention was about the music to be above all other universe in greatness.
even if for one moment or song
Then turn it off.
Lastly I’m very sure someone looks out for me as I’ve done soo many things to tempt fait.
Streaming, no, because I feel that iPad as streamer is totally unfair to the digital side. (Anytime I stream something off the iPad and it sounds halfway decent I feel like the Baltic 4 is doing some heavy lifting and is doing a great job for me.)
Vinyl versus tape, no, I have not thought about that, for all of the reasons I have posted before about my dim view of digitizing analog recordings.
However now that you mention it, what you are proposing does satisfy my personal basic minimum condition for the videos -- which is changing only one thing -- in this case, the source. So I think such a video comparison would be relatively valid.
I am open to doing this in the future. It is not my priority at the moment.