The official audio myth busting thread

[PeterA]

I think Blizzard has made two claims over the past few months:

1. SOTA digital is better than SOTA analog and it is the future of high end audio.
2. quad DSD is indistinguishable from the original vinyl.

These two claims can mean two very different things or the same thing. If by #1 he means that SOTA digital is a more faithful copy of the master tape than SOTA analog is, then claim #1 is essentially the same as claim #2, ie. that digital is a better copy.

However, if claim #1 means that digital sounds more real than analog, then that is a very different claim than what is in claim #2. Then we are talking about which medium better captures the original musical event. That is why I proposed a direct to disk 45 RPM recording versus a quad DSD recording, both from a live mic feed. This way, we can directly compare each format with the original performance and try to decide which sounds more real. I think this is far more interesting and the relevant issue in the analog versus digital debate.

There is little doubt in my mind that digital is better at making a copy of another recording, but that does not answer which format sounds more real, which some consider to be of primary importance.

It is difficult to remember over these past few months exactly if or whether Blizzard's claims of digital being superior to analog refer to better sounding, more real sounding or are simply better copies. Perhaps Blizzard can clarify this. It seems to my imperfect memory, that the claims have evolved over time.

 

[Blizzard]

Nor did I ever say that you claimed that . You are jumping to conclusions, as I thought you might. The myth that I want to see busted is that you have never listened to a good turntable. Your earlier post showing the last turntable that you listened to (at age 4) confirms the myth. You have no experience with SOTA analog to make the claims you make.

My listening experience really doesn't matter. A far better way to find this out rather than just take my word for it, is a panel of known golden ears. I will never make the bold claim that my hearing is better then theirs.

 

[Blizzard]

Tom, The challenge that I propose is that a good Direct to Disk vinyl 45RPM LP be directly compared to a digital master of the same performance. Which is the more faithful reproduction of the original musical event? Not, does the digital sound indistinguishable from the analog. Which sounds more like real instruments. Period. The myth is that the quad DSD is "better" than the D2D vinyl LP played back on a SOTA analog front end in a transparent system.

Since Blizzard has not owned a turntable since he was four years old, the challenge would have to take place in a system like Mike L's or David's, or Steve's. Blizzard would have to bring his own digital gear. The other caveat is that those present would actually have to know what a real instrument sounds like. That would in fact be the third myth being busted if this challenge were to ever take place.

So do you think a vinyl copy of an R2R can reproduce the event more faithfully than the R2R itself? Is there more available from the original recorded source after the lossy transfer to vinyl is preformed, than was on the original master?

 

[Blizzard]

1 and 3 sound good. I have a R2R deck we can also use for #3. #2 is not something I am convinced is doable.

If you're not convinced #2 is doable, then it will be debunked right? An R2R deck isn't required. Since we will be making SOTA digital copies of vinyl in every format resolution, those can be used for #3. All will be recorded using the exact same source.

 

[Blizzard]

I was just at a Yarlung recording session at Segerstrom here in Orange County where Bob Attiyeh recorded in all formats from tape all the way to quad DSD

Yes but for those to work for this test, we will need his R2R machine to playback the original for comparison. Then that would be a great R2R vs digital comparison. But we will be using vinyl for this test, since very few have R2R at home anyways, the results will have more impact on the majority, rather than a small handful that have R2R machines.

 

[PeterA]

So do you think a vinyl copy of an R2R can reproduce the event more faithfully than the R2R itself? Is there more available from the original recorded source after the lossy transfer to vinyl is preformed, than was on the original master?

Probably not because of the losses involved at each step. There are losses as you go to vinyl, and, IMO, there are losses as you go to digital. I realize that you claim there are no loses going to digital, but that is not my point. I do prefer master tape to digital but have not done the direct comparison on SOTA tape and SOTA quad DSD, but that is another matter.

Again, my proposed challenge does not involve an analog tape master. It is much more direct than that. It involves a direct to disk vinyl LP at 45RPM cut from the mic feed and compared to a digital recording of the same mic feed. This, IMO, would get to the heart of the question of which format sounds more real, but it would be a very difficult test to perform.

 

[Blizzard]

I think Blizzard has made two claims over the past few months:

1. SOTA digital is better than SOTA analog and it is the future of high end audio.
2. quad DSD is indistinguishable from the original vinyl.

These two claims can mean two very different things or the same thing. If by #1 he means that SOTA digital is a more faithful copy of the master tape than SOTA analog is, then claim #1 is essentially the same as claim #2, ie. that digital is a better copy.

However, if claim #1 means that digital sounds more real than analog, then that is a very different claim than what is in claim #2. Then we are talking about which medium better captures the original musical event. That is why I proposed a direct to disk 45 RPM recording versus a quad DSD recording, both from a live mic feed. This way, we can directly compare each format with the original performance and try to decide which sounds more real. I think this is far more interesting and the relevant issue in the analog versus digital debate.

There is little doubt in my mind that digital is better at making a copy of another recording, but that does not answer which format sounds more real, which some consider to be of primary importance.

It is difficult to remember over these past few months exactly if or whether Blizzard's claims of digital being superior to analog refer to better sounding, more real sounding or are simply better copies. Perhaps Blizzard can clarify this. It seems to my imperfect memory, that the claims have evolved over time.

I have said this clearly many times, but it's usually followed up very quickly with a frenzy of negativity, and the message is often missed. In order for this to be a true comparison. The same source must be used. If you try to compare vinyl, to digital that was sourced from R2R, then the results are meaningless. This is because there's special mastering involved in making the record that can subjectively change the sound. This subjective change in sound, could subjectively be preferred by the listener, where more accurate to the original source or not. This is why it's so important to make the digital copy from the vinyl instead. And if both are absolutely indistingushable from each other, that proves that making a digital copy of the mic feeds, or R2R will also be indistinguishable. How can we get better than this?

Once we know this data, we will also know that if anything else is subjectively preferred, it's only because coloration's were introduced that are more to personal tastes, than accurate reproduction of the original event.

 

[amirm]

If you're not convinced #2 is doable, then it will be debunked right?

Do you have a such device that we will be comparing to a tube amp?

An R2R deck isn't required. Since we will be making SOTA digital copies of vinyl in every format resolution, those can be used for #3. All will be recorded using the exact same source.

No one has offered their turntable for testing and hence my offer for my R2R as a stand-in.

 

[Blizzard]

Do you have a such device that we will be comparing to a tube amp?


No one has offered their turntable for testing and hence my offer for my R2R as a stand-in.

All that would be needed for test #2 is either a tube preamp, or tube DAC.

It's important to have a turntable for this, because if R2R is used, everyone with a turntable will continue to say "might be true with R2R, but vinyl is better" We have 0.00001% of audiophiles out there with R2R, but a much higher % with turntables. We can come up with a turntable and phono stage by spring I'm sure.

David Robinson already debunked this with R2R. So no point in repeating the same test. It didn't carry much weight because it was R2R.

 

[Gregadd]

Now you can see why I am against these challen.ges.
I don't see any special conditions
Just vinyl vs cd.

 

[Blizzard]

Now you can see why I am against these challen.ges.
I don't see any special conditions
Just vinyl vs cd.

If the vinyl is indistinguishable from digital, regardless of digital format, it proves that it's not necessary to have a turntable in the home for vinyl quality sound. You can have a convenient iPad GUI to toggle through a vast selection of music, without any of the cost, maintenance, inconvenience involved with vinyl, with no loss in sound quality. Simple concept if you ask me.

 

[Gregadd]

If the vinyl is indistinguishable from digital, regardless of digital format, it proves that it's not necessary to have a turntable in the home for vinyl quality sound. You can have a convenient iPad GUI to toggle through a vast selection of music, without any of the cost, maintenance, inconvenience involved with vinyl, with no loss in sound quality. Simple concept if you ask me.

I get the principal. The only reason
to enter the digital doman is to make a superior product. There is no motive to make a lateral move. Every time you convert a signal you degrade it. With digital you do it twice. Music is anologue. It is not the turntable that is unnecessary it is the digital conversion.
I can tell you exactly how this is going to play out if it goes forward which I seriously doubt

A clearly unscientific test.
Insignificant or inconclusive results.
Unscientific results used to argue uunscientific comcluaions.














.

 

[Blizzard]

I get the principal. The only reason
to enter the digital doman is to make a superior product. There is no motive to make a lateral move. Every time you convert a signal you degrade it. With digital you do it twice. Music is anologue. It is not the turntable that is unnecessary it is the digital conversion.
I can tell you exactly how this is going to play out if it goes forward which I seriously doubt

A clearly unscientific test.
Insignificant or inconclusive results.
Unscientific results used to argue uunscientific comcluaions.














.

This sounds like a pretty good reason to me:

You can have a convenient iPad GUI to toggle through a vast selection of music, without any of the cost, maintenance, inconvenience involved with vinyl, with no loss in sound quality.

You still aren't grasping the concept here. If they are indistinguishable from each other, and confirmed by a panel of golden eared vinyl buffs, what is the point of having the turntable over the digital setup at home? Yes I understand that status, nostalgia, passion for cool mechanical apparatuses, etc is a valid reason. But if the results of the test prove the sound to be indistinguishable, then people can no longer claim that they prefer vinyl because of the sound. Or that the holy grail of sound reproduction comes from vinyl. It also proves that if the vinyl can be so accurately reproduced, the same would hold true while reproducing R2R or mic feeds.

Am I speaking in english here, or what is the issue with the comprehension? It's as clear as daylight to me.

 

[Gregadd]

I heard of a needle drop long before I heard of you. I am very familiar with the concept.
I

 

[Blizzard]

I heard of a needle drop long before I heard of you. I am very familiar with the concept.
I

So are you just against the convenience of having your music collection neatly organized on a slick mobile device GUI? It this form factor a burden on your listening experience? Does it distract you from being able to enjoy the music?

Well some people would rather walk to the store 10 miles away than drive down a straight smooth paved road. Which is perfectly okay. Just don't claim you can get there faster walking

 

[Blizzard]

You guys crack me up, all this posturing and hot air
Let's compare formats, really? So one has to be identical to the other else it's worse?
The results won't be universal ok!
Watch the vid Michael posted on measurements and distortion playback, see who put their hands up and when.
The question is not what sounds identical to what, the question should be..l

1. can you enjoy music through digital playback?
2. Do you have preference in regard to sample rate?
3. Dose the sample rate really help or hinder our connection to music?
4. Can you enjoy music through vinyl playback?
5. Is your connection and enjoyment of music then reliant on format or sample rate?

Ultimate question,
Considering all factors of ownership and enjoyment of music which format do you prefer?

These are meaningful questions, the answers to which most of you will feel you know. However a mass get together to share in the process of finding out will help.

Problem! Too many members won't be there and results of your tests and questions will not be trusted and won't be universal in there results. The test won't be scientific so your wasting your time.

Solution, use my questions.

Then your results will be relevant and a useful enabling resource for forum readers trying to decide what to spend thier money on.

Oh the shock of being helpful beyond your own egotistical selfs will be rewarding and by the look of it some what novel for many here.

I just think it will be a fun educational event. And in the future, if any arguments arise on the matter, rather than arguing, a simple link to the video will be all it takes

The reason for the importance of them sounding identical, is because they will all come from the same vinyl source. If the digital can match the vinyl, it renders the sound quality advantage of vinyl so many claim to be null and void.

Of course this won't mean every digital recording on the market will sound better than the vinyl versions, but it will mean that the playback gear isn't the bottleneck. It will also mean that direct from master tape digital copies will be superior because it proves that the digital gear is 100% transparent. Which means it will be as good as having the master tape playing on a R2R in your home. And if there's a difference between the vinyl sound, and the R2R tape the vinyl is sourced from, it's due to coloration's added in the lossy process of cutting the vinyl.

 

[Blizzard]

It's a useless exercise, not be of use to anyone. The worse case of misguided academic nonsense typical of places such as these.

If you going to do it and applying the half arsed poor thought out question then you must take out all variables, namely the human!

Results would have to be measured.

Too many variables, it's not a controlled environment. Hence by suggestion of embracing this fact with my questions rather than playing boys at science, that's what this thread reads like you know.

School boys arguments with school boy solutions.

It's not useless at all. It will prove how transparent today's digital is. A huge percentage of audiophiles think that today's digital still isn't transparent. If a panel of golden eared audiophiles can't tell them apart, then this will prove these guys wrong.

The problem with everyone else comparisons is, they are comparing apples to oranges every time. Because the audio came from different sources. Same with comparing digital. This leads to a plethora of annoying misconceptions.

 

[Blizzard]

Great quote from Bob Attiyeh himself on cutting vinyl. And he was working with the best of the best, Bernie Grundman:

"Tape per se does not eliminate the need for mastering and mixing when cutting a lacquer. If one were to cut an LP from a digital source, I guess the challenges would be similar to cutting as we do from the tape itself. Natural tape compression may help with this a little bit, but we don't push our tape so hard that we run into a lot of tape compression. I prefer it to be very clean than for it to be very loud. I will admit that we cut the lacquers for Smoke & Mirrors four times before Bernie and I were satisfied with the results on the test pressings. Percussion (with all the transients) is difficult to fit neatly into vinyl grooves! But we did it and I'm very happy with our results."

So it took them 4 times to get a satisfactory result. And I imagine they just picked the best out of 4. Every pressing was likely different. Do you think it took them 4 times to make the quad DSD copy? They could have recorded the quad DSD copy 100 times, and every one would had been identical. This just proves how lossy the process is cutting vinyl, even with the best of the best processes with the best of the best in the business.

Another awesome quote from the master of recording the finest in R2R, vinyl, and digital:

"DSD is in its infancy. Analog playback from vinyl and from tape is mature. What this means is that we are listening to DSD at the very beginnings of the consumer use of the format, and we are listening to vinyl and analog tape at its pinnacle. For my phonostage I use either a Manley Steelhead or the phonostage built into the Messenger preamp by Elliot Midwood. Either are as fine as any phonostage designed in the world. When I listen to DSD I am listening to the Merging Hapi through Pyramix, or to the now legendary exaSound DAC. Merging and exaSound are superb. They are also at the start of a hopefully long trajectory in what will be the evolution of DSD playback. We should revisit this conversation in five years and again in ten years."

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?18719-Quad-dsd-on-the-Golden-Gate/page4

 

[Blizzard]

Mike some will be able to hear a difference but it will be purely academic and won't be able to be described In any meaningful way. They will use the fact they can hear a difference to bolster there own prejudices so thier conclusion will be tainted. Useless.

Others won't tell the difference.

going on most people's ability to hear things and the way we often hear what we expect to hear. How much of our hearing processing depends on what's already in our heads and is fundamentally individual rendering the results of any such test as next to useless as a device for unilateral consensus.

Again it's school boy logic, school boy science project nonsense.

Measure the audio outputs Mike, you don't need Anyone there to do that. This is the limit of your / our ability to objectively arrive at a conclusion. It's unsatisfactory I know but it's the only answer that's available right now for the question your asking.

Really people should just use my questions as they are the ones truly relevant to individual music loving audiophiles.

If 9 out of 10 vinyl loving, digital hating, subjectivists can't tell the difference, then I think it would be safe to say digital can at least match vinyl. The measurements won't matter because these guys don't care about measurements anyways. They care about what their ears tell them. Objectivists already know that digital measures much much better.

And if they are guessing which one is the actual vinyl, they will have a 1 in 7 chance to pick the right one as being vinyl. As we will have 6 digital formats and the original vinyl in the comparison.

Same goes with the tube experiment. This will prove that it doesn't matter where the tubes are in the system, before the recording, or after. SS components are capable of playing back an identical replica of the tube gear, even if the gear isn't in the system.

 

[Blizzard]

Lol,

Go for it.... why don't you all have a wip round and meet up at Rocky Mountain show to conduct the test there. Then talk about the results.

Neutral ground, one variable excluded.

A large international audience so it's more relevant.

I might even come!

The idea is solid Mike it's just the variables involved and the usefulness of the result. Vinyl guys know what it sounds like when you put on a record don't know how you would hide that.

Maybe put no record on and ask them which is vinyl from your digital samples and see if any realise non of them are vinyl.

Too noisy of an environment, and you'll need all of the gear.

If they know, then they will be able to tell then right? This will mean the digital gear/formats aren't transparent enough yet, and team digital will lose.