What You're Missing

[dallasjustice]

Hey, counselor. What's a Korg? I know the keyboards, but that can't be what you are talking about...

I don't know if he will use this exact model, but this korg recorder can record analog at twice DSD, otherwise known as DSD128. This isn't the best AtoD out there as it only costs $1,800. It should be an interesting demo.
http://www.korg.com/MR2000SBK#

 

[Bill Hart]

Whart perhaps I altered the hypothetical. I am thingking vinyl vs CD. It might be differemt if you had two recorders. Rrecorded it to analog and then converted it to digital. Such a comparison would not mean very much. Both recordings would be digital. All recordings oroginate and terminate as analog.

Ok. But wouldn't the real test be to record the same performance using the same mikes/placement/mixer/settings (already that's probably forcing a choice between analog and digital) and record one analog, one digital - then listen to them both using a high quality playback device over a very revealing system?

 

[Bill Hart]

I don't know if he will use this exact model, but this korg recorder can record analog at twice DSD, otherwise known as DSD128. This isn't the best AtoD out there as it only costs $1,800. It should be an interesting demo.
http://www.korg.com/MR2000SBK#

Got it. It is the instrument company, but they make alot of stuff. Thanks. See ya in court.

 

[Gregadd]

Ok. But wouldn't the real test be to record the same performance using the same mikes/placement/mixer/settings (already that's probably forcing a choice between analog and digital) and record one analog, one digital - then listen to them both using a high quality playback device over a very revealing system?

That is the way I would go.

But when you say "needle drop" you are suggesting a vinyl rig? Or maybe it's justt an expression.

 

[microstrip]

Gregadd

have you subjeced yourself to such an experiment: Needle-drop of high quality Vinyl gear through a High Quality (not necessarily expensive, often downright affordable by Audiophile standards) ADC? I have and it is pretty surprising how mcuh the digital preserves the "analog" medium sound ...
Else we can only conjecture. (...)

Frantz,

Perhaps it is not the case, but this type of test always suggests immediate comparison, with a few friends and done fast under great emotional stress, usually repeated with the same track many times. IMHO it suffers from disguising the best of analog - showing all the details of the musical experience in a natural way that makes it more enjoyable first time. After you listened to the best source, your mind is prepared to find the same details in the other medium - they should be there but presented in a different way. You will focus just on the details and forget the true reason we listen to music - enjoyment.

I can not understand why some people insist that simple challenges and few anecdotal references of deceived audiophiles who were victims of identifying mistakes can prove anything. They are amusing and can justify an enjoyable session between audiophiles, but nothing else.

I do not pretend that proper tests can not be carried - but the resources needed are so large that no one carries then, and we have to rely on our biased experience and that of those by some particular reasons we want to believe.

 

[FrantzM]

Microsrip

I may not post any longer in this new twist on the Digital vs analog food fight .. Not worth my time. it is clear to me that minds are already made up. I will forever be amused that "emotional stress" is involved whenever blind test is uttered .. i never knew our kind to be so emotionally delicate .. What is really at stake seems to be the refusal of changing well worn, comfortable views .. My psychological make-up allows me more flexibility: once I am proven of the contrary i espouse the new .. Simple , convenient and to me honest...

People like Bruce Brown who did rather careful needle-drops from upper tier analog gear and sources do admit that the results are sooo close ... Unless I read him wrong and would like his posting here to elucidate my potential miunderstanding .. I have personally hmade needle-drop and in the absence of originalfor lenghty comparison for all people involved in the test there were no way to separate original from copies... At least when only using our (so trusted ears).
This last posting will not change much minds ... It has already become an empty debate...

I am at this time of my life almost overwhelmed (in a positive way) by the sheer amount of music Digital Technology has put at my fingertips ... I am for exemple, courtesy of Pandora ( had a Billie Holiday station who seemed to play more Nina Simone than Billie songs so) going through my colection to see how many of her albums I had;. A lot. and my father's too on LP Philisp so I am now enjoying the ULTRA-great Nina Simone and Lord oh Lord! What an Artist and there is Bud Powell and there Is Anouar Brehem and there is Ali Akhbar Khan and I know absolutely nothing about Chinese Classical Music or of Bali's Music .. So such food fights don't push my buttons the same way. Although I must say that such helped me shape my new positions on the High End and on music reproduction in general , true but right now I see a re-hash of old clihes and the usual obfuscations using all the debating techniques and artifices ... I am not sure I will learn anything new here .. Do you?

The Music .. The Music ... (Viva, Spotify, Pandora, Rapshody and Internet Radio) I am in it enjoying myself in a sea of digits.. So much music , so little time ...

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

FrantzM

The best analog when digitized is virtually indistinguishable from the original analog which does suggest the purity accuracy and transparency of digital medium.

...

Gregadd

How can that be?
Edit: In order for that to be true both mediums would have to be perfect. That is each medium would neither add nor subtract anything.

No, only thre recording medium would have to be near perfect, ie: audibly indistinguishable from the analog source The source medium, vinyl, can be as imperfect as you like. All the needledrop comparison does is determine what difference, if any, can be heard between the vinyl itself and the digital copy of the vinyl. If the digital copy is indistinguishable from the analog, then clearly the long-standing position that digital is missing something is wrong. So is any notion that digital is adding something, like harshness or brittleness, etc. Once demonstrated, the old disagreement should be resolved once and for all. And if they are merely "virtually" indistinguishable from one another, whatever that means, then it doesn't put that the absolute to bed, but it should end the hyperbole around the differences between the two mediums that abounds in the hobby.

If digital can copy and reproduce vinyl's sound, the differences between them can only be the recordings or something added to the recordings by vinyl's playback technology.

Of course we know that even if we could bring all the parties here together in a room and demonstrate this, it would not be accepted as fact. Frantz is wise to exit the discussion early.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Ok. But wouldn't the real test be to record the same performance using the same mikes/placement/mixer/settings (already that's probably forcing a choice between analog and digital) and record one analog, one digital - then listen to them both using a high quality playback device over a very revealing system?

That would be a completely different test. That would tell you whether or not you prefer the sound of analog recording to digital recording. The test being discussed would tell you whether or not digital recording is capable of capturing everything -- all that is measureable and immeasurable -- in an analog recording. If the answer to that is yes, the audible differences between digital and analog lie in something other than the media itself, which has always been the Audiophile assumption.

But when you say "needle drop" you are suggesting a vinyl rig? Or maybe it's justt an expression.

Needledrop is an expression that means making a digital copy of a vinyl record. If it has been expanded to a broader meaning, that's news to me.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

(...) Of course we know that even if we could bring all the parties here together in a room and demonstrate this, it would not be accepted as fact. (...)
Tim

Tim,
Please remember - in 1633 Galileo Galilei was invited to go outdoor and see the Sun moving around the Earth and accept the Geocentric view. He accepted it, but is know to have said And yet it moves,

Trusty audiophiles would say , and yet it sounds different

 

[Bill Hart]

That is the way I would go.

But when you say "needle drop" you are suggesting a vinyl rig? Or maybe it's justt an expression.

Sorry for confusion, Greg.. Look at post #33. That's what i was addressing.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,
Please remember - in 1633 Galileo Galilei was invited to go outdoor and see the Sun moving around the Earth and accept the Geocentric view. He accepted it, but is know to have said And yet it moves,

Trusty audiophiles would say , and yet it sounds different

The test would be whether or not the trusty Audiophiles could hear a difference. And when they didn't, trusty Audiophiles would find reasons why the simple test, no matter how carefully conducted, was invalid. It has happened many times. Frantz is right. The conversation is pointless, because it is going nowhere.

Tim

 

[astrotoy]

So far I have done about 6000 needle drops to an ADAC (counting both sides of a record) and about 600 R2R tapes. My digital system is somewhat north of the $20K level and my Phono system in that same ballpark. My R2R is very respectable, but less than half of the $20K. I would not agree that the choices of analogue, especially for classical are more limited than digital, especially at anything greater than CD level. Since I have 15K records, including very complete collections of EMI, Decca, RCA and Mercury and many others, I have many artists who never made it to the digital era unless transferred from analogue.

Convenience is obvious, with digital the winner. However, it isn't all that simple. For me, with the scope of my collection (which I am in the process of digitizing about 10,000 titles), retrieval is not instantaneous. It is much easier than loading up a tape or putting on a record, especially if I want to clean it before playing. But it takes time for the computer to load the selected file from the so far 10 TB of data. Also the process of digitizing itself takes time - real time for a record or tape and then off line for any processing (I do click and pop removal for records). As a retiree, I find that I can digitize between 7 and 10 records a day when I am home without going crazy. However, I prefer listening through my ADAC which I cannot do while recording. I may splurge on a Berkeley Audio DAC so I can record and listen at the same time. I have done comparisons and my ADAC . (Pacific Microsonics Model Two) has beaten all other DACs that I have heard. It is also not as convenient, since it doesn't automatically change sample rates - I have to punch a couple of buttons to do that -, it is a two wire system, and it doesn't have a remote!

What about sound? If I want the very best that I have, then I play my 15ips 2 track tapes (I am a Tape Project Subscriber) - but the selection is limited - 21 releases so far and about a half dozen or so other prerecorded 15 ips 2 track tapes from other companies. For vinyl, I find that playing the digital copy which has had the clicks and pops removed is more satisfying than the original vinyl, except when the vinyl is quite pristine. Most of my collection, particularly the old EMI, Decca, Mercury and RCAs are used, so they are not pristine. I am trying to use as good a system as I can afford - in the conversion process. I am doing 192/24 for all the files with Pyramix software and Mykerinos card feeding the PM Model Two and click and pop removal with Izotope RX2 software. My vinyl system is a VPI HRX with Rim Drive, Lyra Skala cartridge and a custom Bottlehead Tube Phono Pre with variable EQ - for both RIAA and non RIAA records.

As far as digital vs analog comparisons, I have are a few Reference Recordings where I have the HRx files at 176/22, the Tape Project 15 ips 2 track, and the vinyl original RefRec release. Nojima Plays Liszt and the Arnold Overtures album. In both of these Keith Johnson used his master tape to make the 176/24 files, also using the PM Model Two. In both cases the winner was the 15 ips 2 track. I have recently bought the 4 new RefRec vinyl releases which I have not had a chance to compare with their digital versions. I also have a copy of the SACD version of Bill Evan's Waltz for Debby released by Analogue Productions. I also have the Tape Project version and the AP Vinyl release. The SACD finished third in the comparison. I also like the Chesky vinyl version of Rebecca Pidgeon's Raven album better than the SACD or 176/44 releases. My SACD is definitely not at the cost level of my other systems (Oppo BDP-95).

Larry

 

[NorthStar]

------

 

[Bill Hart]

Needledrop is an expression that means making a digital copy of a vinyl record. If it has been expanded to a broader meaning, that's news to me.

Tim

In the context of copyright law, we would refer to a 'needledrop' to mean someone cueing a store-bought recording, as opposed to copying the recording (whatever medium) and using the copy to cue the part to be played. The term applied to digital discs as well, but obviously had its roots in analog. There was a legal implication to this - whether the right of reproduction was implicated, together with the right of public performance.
Not correcting you Tim, just broadening your horizons.

 

[Bruce B]

As far as digital vs analog comparisons, I have are a few Reference Recordings where I have the HRx files at 176/22, the Tape Project 15 ips 2 track, and the vinyl original RefRec release. Nojima Plays Liszt and the Arnold Overtures album. In both of these Keith Johnson used his master tape to make the 176/24 files, also using the PM Model Two. In both cases the winner was the 15 ips 2 track. Larry

Which goes to show you that the self-proclaimed king of converters still falls short of the best analog systems. When I had the PM2, it was easily bested by other converters we had. Now we're doing all tape/vinyl archival to a Grimm AD1/Somoma system. It's the closest I've heard to the source.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

In the context of copyright law, we would refer to a 'needledrop' to mean someone cueing a store-bought recording, as opposed to copying the recording (whatever medium) and using the copy to cue the part to be played. The term applied to digital discs as well, but obviously had its roots in analog. There was a legal implication to this - whether the right of reproduction was implicated, together with the right of public performance.
Not correcting you Tim, just broadening your horizons.

Thanks, whart. I'm very familiar with that, the original use of the word "needledrop." I spent much of the 80s and early 90s in production studios, and used an awful lot of needledrop.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

There is one interesting aspect that always surfaces in these debates - although some of the audiophiles who claim any digital format better than 16/44.1 is perfect in the sense it is completely transparent, they always need to use the opinions of experts about the few state of the art existing recordings and techniques, such as DSD5.6 or 24/354 , to claim that digital is approaching the best analog.

It should be clear that I have no experience with high quality DSD5.6 or 24/354 - my opinions about these matters are based on auditions of state of the art CD reproducers, LP systems and a the Tape Project tapes played with a modified Studer A80.

Still waiting for the nominations for that list of the best CD recordings that challenge the best analog ... Although until now the few rare suggestions in the past were not exemplary recordings, they were really good music!

 

[microstrip]

Now we're doing all tape/vinyl archival to a Grimm AD1/Somoma system. It's the closest I've heard to the source.

Bruce,

Nice to know you appreciate the Grimm AD1 so much. Some time ago we had a thread about the contributions of high-end to the audio industry. It was not conclusive, as there are no clear boundaries between them. But any one wanting to see the real world can just open the Grimm page http://www.grimmaudio.com/about_us_who.htm and just look at the CV of the people in these pages, and the companies in in which they were involved.

 

[Bill Hart]

There is one interesting aspect that always surfaces in these debates - although some of the audiophiles who claim any digital format better than 16/44.1 is perfect in the sense it is completely transparent, they always need to use the opinions of experts about the few state of the art existing recordings and techniques, such as DSD5.6 or 24/354 , to claim that digital is approaching the best analog.

It should be clear that I have no experience with high quality DSD5.6 or 24/354 - my opinions about these matters are based on auditions of state of the art CD reproducers, LP systems and a the Tape Project tapes played with a modified Studer A80.

Still waiting for the nominations for that list of the best CD recordings that challenge the best analog ... Although until now the few rare suggestions in the past were not exemplary recordings, they were really good music!

I throw one out, and I'm an analog guy- the shelby lynne dusty record- although that was an analog production as i recall so that may not qualify. I heard it on CD over a big, fancy system and it sounded great. Now, in my view, that record is 'over produced' but i like the music so much (and find dusty in memphis tough sounding, although i'm waiting for the latest chad version). gotta love the team of al schmitt and phil ramone.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't think I've ever claimed digital is completely transparent. Is a good ADC good enough to make a needledrop you can't differentiate, blind, from the actual vinyl? I believe it is. I believe a good ADC can capture more of the detail the very best turntables can reproduce than good ears can reliably hear. That's not completely transparent, but if I'm right, it's good enough. I haven't tested it. I have no data to back up my belief. In that sense, I'm as subjective as anyone in this shopworn conversation. I have no data yet I believe. That's as common in this hobby as interconnects.

Tim