What You're Missing

[JackD201]

The harshness of early cds, made from masters equalized for vinyl, is the result of a poor source.

I wonder who started this myth. Pre and De-emphasis in the LP process happens after the master. Masters are ""flat" regardless of what medium they are to be reproduced in. Early CDs sounded bad for many reasons among them the pressing machines themselves.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Hello Tim

It's not the same thing IMHO. You had a Zipper on Sticky Fingers, textured and embossed covers, on Stand Up you had a caricature of the band that stood-up when it was opened, on Dark Side of The Moon you have posters and actually many had posters inside. On Ambrosia's second you had a cover that could be folded as a pyramid and many other unique and creative designs that no photo's could ever do justice to.
album
Rob

You're right on all counts, rob. There's also the way the seeds rolled right down the spine of a double album, making cleaning and listening a singular experience. But I enjoy the new paradigm as much as the old one. YMMV.

Tim

 

[audioarcher]

I think what Tim is saying is that jitter and noise are introduced when converting the performance from analog to digital? When making copies in the digital domain as long as the transfer is bit perfect there should be no difference as far as I know.

Sean

 

[Robh3606]

I'm thinking my rips aren't bit perfect and that's the problem.

http://exactaudiocopy.de/

There's also the way the seeds rolled right down the spine of a double album, making cleaning and listening a singular experience.

Well surprise surprise

Rob

 

[rbbert]

I think what Tim is saying is that jitter and noise are introduced when converting the performance from analog to digital? When making copies in the digital domain as long as the transfer is bit perfect there should be no difference as far as I know.

Sean

This agrees with my understanding.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I think what Tim is saying is that jitter and noise are introduced when converting the performance from analog to digital? When making copies in the digital domain as long as the transfer is bit perfect there should be no difference as far as I know.

Sean

That's the idea, as I understand it, though you wouldn't know it by me. I haven't heard the noise floor in years; never rises above the voices in my head, and jitter? I listen to all digital all the time, and mostly redbook. And I can listen for hours, even with headphones, without suffering from the glaring, fatiguing, sibilant digititis that seems to be killing people around here. I'm sure I've got jitter, don't we all? But if it's audible, I don't know it.

Tim

 

[treitz3]

You don't know it until it's gone....or it appears.

Tom

 

[cjfrbw]

In honor of this thread, I decided to have a "digital" night with my much neglected CDs. No ultra fancy stuff, Pioneer DVD player with firewire to Yamaha RX Z9 dacs.

Sounded fantastic, no conventional digititis. I usually put the digital signal through a Meridian digital preamp/processer which increases the digital word length to 24 and adds dither, and sounds a bit more resolving and smooth, but haven't used it in so long, I didn't want to bother hooking it up.

Can't say I have heard digital at any price that sounds significantly better. Played some SACD as well, sounded nice.

Finished it off with a vinyl-gasm and Peter Gabriel.

 

[Bill Hart]

No whole grains? I would think they would also be important.

A new topic on this subject would be interesting

Doing it now.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Originally Posted by rbbert
No whole grains? I would think they would also be important.

A new topic on this subject would be interesting

Doing it now.

http://www.metabolicprecision.com/articles-1/cutting-edge-protein-body-comp-overfeeding

 

[Bill Hart]

http://www.metabolicprecision.com/articles-1/cutting-edge-protein-body-comp-overfeeding

K, I'll check out that link. Here's the thread i created: http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?7398-Paleo&p=124484#post124484

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

You don't know it until it's gone....or it appears.

Tom

Oh, I've heard it, but it has been awhile.

Tim

 

[NorthStar]

Hello Tim

It's not the same thing IMHO. You had a Zipper on Sticky Fingers, textured and embossed covers, on Stand Up you had a caricature of the band that stood-up when it was opened, on Dark Side of The Moon you have posters and actually many had posters inside. On Ambrosia's second you had a cover that could be folded as a pyramid and many other unique and creative designs that no photo's could ever do justice to.

Rob

-----Yeah, The Rolling Stones:

* 'Sticky Fingers' with a real zipper!
* 'Their Satanic Majesties Request' with a cool 3D front art cover!

Etc., etc., etc... including Double LPs with three or four covers folding; Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, Yes, David Bowie, The Who, The Doors, ... :b

 

[NorthStar]

In honor of this thread, I decided to have a "digital" night with my much neglected CDs. No ultra fancy stuff, Pioneer DVD player with firewire to Yamaha RX Z9 dacs.

Sounded fantastic, no conventional digititis. I usually put the digital signal through a Meridian digital preamp/processer which increases the digital word length to 24 and adds dither, and sounds a bit more resolving and smooth, but haven't used it in so long, I didn't want to bother hooking it up.

Can't say I have heard digital at any price that sounds significantly better. Played some SACD as well, sounded nice.

Finished it off with a vinyl-gasm and Peter Gabriel.

-----Burr-Brown PCM-1792, but only half a Stereo DAC per channel.
{Only the Center channel has a Stereo DAC all by itself; differential mode.}

 

[cjfrbw]

Actually, I think there is one two channel dac per channel, used in some kind of complimentary mode. Each channel has its own two channel dac. Don't know if thats always better, or just there for hype.
The RX Z9 has a ton of dac chips for all the channels.

 

[NorthStar]

Actually, I think there is one two channel dac per channel, used in some kind of complimentary mode. Each channel has its own two channel dac. Don't know if thats always better, or just there for hype.
The RX Z9 has a ton of dac chips for all the channels.

-----Nope sorry I have the schematics right in front of me. :b
I'm a hard core follower of all Yamaha A/V Receivers for years and years.

In your particular case, the RX-Z9 has 6 Stereo DACS for 11 channels total.
...Meaning one DAC only per channel, except for the Center channel as I mentioned before.
100% certain! ...I can even see them from the printed digital circuit board.
{Six stereo DACs mean twelve mono DACs. ...For eleven channels in the Z9.}

What the Z9 has in big numbers though are the DSP chips; eight of them total!
Those are all 32-bit floating point designs. That is a lot of processing power!
...Four are for the Cinema DSP and Hi-Fi DSP, and the other four for YPAO (Parametric Acoustic Optimizer).

Like I said, I got the very detailed graphs plus precise pictures right in front of me as I type these words.
They are part of my extensive audio library.

Denon flagship A/V receivers used differential mode in its DACs configuration, not Yamaha.
Yamaha is putting his main energy on its own made DSP chips.

I'm big on Yamaha, Denon (Marantz), Onkyo (Integra), Pioneer Elite, Rotel, NAD, Arcam, Anthem, Emotiva, Sherwood Newcastle, ... A/V receivers, integrated amplifiers, and separate amplifiers.

* Best is four DACS per channel (Quad Differential Balanced mode). And only the best; dCS home made DACs, EMM DACs, ESS Sabre32 DACs, BB PCM-1704K (K for highest grade), BB PCM or DSD-1792 DACs, and RING DACs (Arcam and few others).

Sooory for the small 'interlude'.

________________________

It's too bad because I have a thread on A/V receivers, but no 'customers'. :b
WBF's members are into separates big time!
Very very very few have a top gun receiver as their main Cinema attraction.
A surround processor (Pre-pro) is the way to go around here.
...With separate power amplification.

 

[cjfrbw]

"This did not seem problematic to me since the RX-Z9 has a superb noise floor in all listening modes, partly attributed to careful circuit layout and implementation of the absolute best DAC's on the market - the Burr Brown DSD-1792s in differential configuration. As a side note, two channels of the PCM/DSD-1792's cost about twice as much as all of the lesser audio DAC's used in many costlier exotic processors. The good news is Yamaha spared no expense and implemented these DAC's on all channels , including the presence and subwoofer channels - and in balanced configuration! What my listening tests confirmed was the RX-Z9 was acting like a great sounding DAC for two-channel applications. If you have an older CD changer with an optical or coax output, I highly recommend using it as a transport and letting the RX-Z9 revitalize its fidelity."

From Audioholics review.

I also seem to remember the product brochure stating that there were dual dac for each channel. the RX Z9 has nine channels including sub. Maybe you are looking at 11 channels from the Z11?

Who knows, it sounds great, I will check later to find the product brochure that has a diagram that illustrates the dac's. I am not an expert on digital design, differential dacs were supposed to sound better.

The RX Z9 was Yamaha's last large AV receiver that was primarily devoted to sound quality. The later RX Z11 was more about home theater.

 

[microstrip]

I wonder who started this myth. Pre and De-emphasis in the LP process happens after the master. Masters are ""flat" regardless of what medium they are to be reproduced in. (...)

Jack,

As far as I could understand, you can have two types of masters - the tape created by the recording engineers and producers (the master tape) , and at a later stage, after you do the mastering you have the tape you deliver to the people cutting the lacquer . This was called the vinyl master, and was optimized during mastering to overcome the limitations of vinyl. Pre and de-emphasis are not part of this process. If this tape is used for the CD you get a wrong balance.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Can't say I have heard digital at any price that sounds significantly better.

I think the slope of the diminishing returns on DACs is so steep that it makes the expensive ones nearly pointless, but I wouldn't expect anyone who has invested several thousand dollars in a DAC to agree with that.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I wonder who started this myth. Pre and De-emphasis in the LP process happens after the master. Masters are ""flat" regardless of what medium they are to be reproduced in. Early CDs sounded bad for many reasons among them the pressing machines themselves.

Flat compared to what, Jack? I'm not a mastering engineer, but my understanding is that equalization is a big (the biggest?) part of the mastering process. It is also my understanding that the tapes vinyl was created from were equalized to compensate for vinyl's weaknesses. If this happened "post-mastering," what is that tape called?

Tim