Why CDs May Actually Sound Better Than Vinyl
- Thread starter Steve Williams
- Start date
- Status
A perfect system in an imperfect room will give you imperfect sound. That is a simple fact of basic acoustics. No room takes care of itself.
Room "compromises" are dealt with in the mind? Here it is again, the word compromise. And you rebuked me for it. And "dealing with in the mind" is a compromise on its own, rather than having actual uncompromised sound.
Compromise is an inescapable fact. Learn to deal with it.. Otherwise you will always be disappointed and never satisfied.
It has always baffled me that some of our members play Redbook CD exclusively, preferring the sound of Redbook CD on their digital playback systems to the sound of high-res digital formats. This could very well explain why some members prefer Redbook CD.
I don't in principle prefer the sound of Redbook CD to the sound of high-res digital formats. I prefer the almost unlimited music choices that Redbook CD provides, compared to the severely limited catalog of hi-res. I am a music lover first, and an audiophile second. I personally prefer to max out in my system the potential of CD, where all the music is found, rather than being distracted by other digital formats.
Having said that, the dCS Vivaldi or dCS Rossini on Redbook CD siginificantly beat any sound of hi-res, including Quad DSD, that I have heard so far on other digital systems. It's all about the quality of practical implementation of the theory.
Will the dCS systems sound even better on hi-res? Probably. Yet I expect that on the best systems like these the differences between CD and hi-res digital formats should shrink, compared to lesser playback systems. And on the perfect digital recording/playback system, which we do not yet have, at least theoretically the differences should largely vanish.
The differences is not between the system implementation alone, but DSD is different from PCM. Just like Analog is. Lampi is by far the best on PCM, and on DSD, and it's DSD is usually greater than the PCM. A Singapore dealer sold Lampi to a guy who turned in his Vivaldi stack, and that doesn't surprise me in the least.
I have some CDs that when ripped sound the same to me as the high res versions. Others I find that the high res sounds better, sounding smoother with more detail, separation. Not sure why other than beter transfers but the fact that a recording is in "high res" does not necessarily mean it will sound any different that the redbook addition.
Bonzo.....I presume that You will not have heard the Vivaldi running the latest V2.0 software ? Initial reports regarding the re written algorithms and additional features implemented Viz. 256 DSD, are describing a notable elevation in performance.
There were similar reports of audiophiles in HKG and Mainland China , trading in their Vivaldi stack for the Trinity . I looked ! ... couldn't find a single dCS at the local pawn shops
One guy allegedly decided to ditch his Vivaldi stack after a comparison where the Vivaldi had just warmed up for an hour in the store. That is insanity. You should never judge a digital set-up before warming up at least overnight.
Having said that, not every demo guarantees success. The first time I heard the Vivaldi stack I was distinctly unimpressed. Yet then I heard it in another system with optimized set-up -- wow.
Why is this ironic? It seems that the goal of DSD is to mimic the mic feed.
I guess we just have different experiences. This past weekend, for a second time, I directly compared the Janaki String Trio on Jarlung in both 45 rpm LP to the quad DSD digital file last weekend going through an HQPlayer and Merging +NADAC. The differences were less pronounced the first time I did this a month ago. This time, the tonearm was better adjusted, and the sonic differences were very clear. The level of resolution and realism were considerably higher with the analog. I can't explain why, but both my host and I heard much more information on the LP.
I find these listening sessions confusing, because so many on line reports I read directly oppose what I have heard in multiple settings with my own ears. I guess that is why people don't pay much attention to these anecdotal reports.
The differences in other digital are so minor. The genius of Lukasz was to use DHT, which is a well-known technology in amps (and amp technology is much more advanced and matured than digital). The level of valves used also bests the valves in some very well-known excellent amps. These are not 6922, 6950, ECC83 or 82. It is impossible to match a good 300b or 101d or PX4 or 242.
The other thing is that no dac can ever compete with the software updates happening externally. So your V2.0 quality will be surpassed by HQ Player, bughead, wtfplayer or someone else much faster and they are either free or cheap.
Noisy as a squeaking pig that !Well, in India you do get used to adulterated milk
Sorry, I've heard HQ Player, and at least in these sessions that algorithm did not rise to the level of what I heard with the same recordings on the dCS Rossini. Granted, it was quite good, but it was not even close.
Along those lines, I once read about recording a violin, and the article stated that microphone choice and position are much more important than electronics and sample rates used for the recording.
No, you misinterpret. HQP can't rise to dcs rossini. It is not a dac. It is a software that needs to combine with a dac. If you use HQP in a bad dac it won't give you good quality. My point is that you use a good dac, and use an external software on a good streamer that's upgradeable
The DAC used with HQ Player was a well regarded DAC for DSD, the NADAC. And on native Quad DSD that DAC was considerably better. So yes, I don't think the HQ player software rises to the level of the dCS algorithms.
I'm one of those members Ron. Selection aside as Al mentioned, I find computers/tablets/servers/streamers unlistenable. They sound flat and totally uninvolving with every kind recording, and yes I've heard and played with quite a few of the latest and greatest and they all exhibit the same characteristic sound when using computers for source. This isn't a digital vs analog thing, a while back I had the opportunity to compare a series of high quality original hirez recordings on tape to their hd files in two formats against a 44/16 CD-r copy. These were raw files right after the recording prior to any mastering. The hd files were dead and involving but the down sampled CD-r while barely a shadow of the tape was exceptionally good. I can't tell you wether it's the computer's hardware, OS or the playback software that kills the sound just that it's dead...
david
david
- Status
Similar threads
