As I already wrote, I used only a sound card. That's also why I suggested EMM Labs ADC to Jan.
But the absolutely same case is when you use commercial CD player to evaluate the result. Again you have mediocre DAC, mediocre transport, high jitter and HF interference. Again you do not assess CD format possibilities, but .... product.
But the absolutely same case is when you use commercial CD player to evaluate the result. Again you have mediocre DAC, mediocre transport, high jitter and HF interference. Again you do not assess CD format possibilities, but .... product.
johndiy said:
Sure, all factors skew the final result in one way or another. But as I said the difference was so large and glaring, I have a hard time believing it was actually the other way around but skewed by the nice looking equipment. Mind you, I'm not saying it was definitely as I think it was, after all it's just my (and a couple of orher people present like David Lumanauw) perception. But enough to make me very curious.
Jan Didden
janneman said:
Well, to play
's advocate, could the same be said if the source were a phone call? On a purely hypothetical basis, if 44-16 was removing information an LP preserved, an LP recorded from a 44-16 master would already be missing the information required to manifest a difference. No egg throwing please, this is on a purely theoretical level.
rdf said:
Well, to play
Darn! You're right, of course. So how about recording a CD from an LP that is well regarded, that is thought to have captured very realistically the source music? Direct-to-disc with a simple tube-amplified mike? It MUST be possible to find one! In fact, most pre-80's LPs would be candidates, no?
Jan Didden
I have a Vanguard Audiophile Recording LP of test tracks commisioned by Acoustic Research for highlighting their systems. It was digitally mastered. To me this recording sounds a little more clinical and cold that the average LP, but I don't feel I can draw a conclusion from this.
I have listened to another digitally mastered LP of a small ensemble that a friend brought around. Until I knew this, I described it as sounding good with some of the qualities of an enthusiasts recording techniques, and the quality was within the normal range for LPs.
This was not the most inspiring music I had heard, and It didn't elicit any great emotion from me. What I recall is that it did not meet my prejudicial expectations of what digital should sound like.
As I have suggested, part of the 'sound' of CDs might be attributed to the recording amps being specified too high so they are built with a new set of compromises that are also more strictly adhered to.
Now I'd like to suggest that another piece of the puzzle might be the specifying of high compliance long throw microphones and ultra low noise preamps to fit the 'digital ready' theme.
I have listened to another digitally mastered LP of a small ensemble that a friend brought around. Until I knew this, I described it as sounding good with some of the qualities of an enthusiasts recording techniques, and the quality was within the normal range for LPs.
This was not the most inspiring music I had heard, and It didn't elicit any great emotion from me. What I recall is that it did not meet my prejudicial expectations of what digital should sound like.
As I have suggested, part of the 'sound' of CDs might be attributed to the recording amps being specified too high so they are built with a new set of compromises that are also more strictly adhered to.
Now I'd like to suggest that another piece of the puzzle might be the specifying of high compliance long throw microphones and ultra low noise preamps to fit the 'digital ready' theme.
"No" umm i dont understand this guy no-yes-hello one word
replies what are you supposed to learn from that
umm complex circuitry does a lot so the sound is the same -no-
most of the distortion could have been eliminated and the
sound would be different, objectivily speaking subjectively
speaking etc
john
janneman said:
Noooooo I'm afraid. Most pre-80's vinyl was a combination of 741 op amp electronics and neolithic transistor designs with accountants in control of the pressing process, save for the few labels such as Sheffield and M&K who recorded directly to disc through tubes with analog tape as backup. Unfortunately no digital safety copies as far as I know. I don't know of any label recording live to vinyl master any more. The best opportunity that comes to mind are the Mercury Living Presence and RCA Shaded Dog re-releases of some of the great recordings of the 50's and early 60's. Both are available in SACD and top-notch vinyl pressings. Once again though the original tape (or film track) masters are a big limiting factor and there's no guarantee on the mastering. Some of these recordings were originally 3-track, leaving considerable room for mixdown variation.
Slightly out of theme
Less than an hour back I finished an over 2 hour meeting with a local audiophile, having the chance to audition probably well in excess of U$ 40,000.- of reference audio gear.
Next Friday I will, pending confirmation, carry 2 of my boxes for him to evaluate.
Only thing I can say is - and declared so as politely as I could work out - that unless I am stone deaf (a distint possibility), if I find a difference is for the worse, not the better.
Hereby I declare I will post results of his audition to my boxes, whatever the result.
Rodolfo
Less than an hour back I finished an over 2 hour meeting with a local audiophile, having the chance to audition probably well in excess of U$ 40,000.- of reference audio gear.
Next Friday I will, pending confirmation, carry 2 of my boxes for him to evaluate.
Only thing I can say is - and declared so as politely as I could work out - that unless I am stone deaf (a distint possibility), if I find a difference is for the worse, not the better.
Hereby I declare I will post results of his audition to my boxes, whatever the result.
Rodolfo
LOLmikeks said:
I think you have a point about ensuring consistency here.traderbam said:
I wonder about the efficacy of burning the two sources to ensure consistency. I can surely believe that running them through the same analogue circuitry could distort them in a similar way, and the digital process has analogue stages.
The ideal digital recording is identical. If a CD is recorded to another CD, and it is read without error, and it is transferred digitally, and the burned CD is readable so that streaming is maintained in the player with the same reliability as the original, won't it sound identical all outside factors aside? If so, then the best remedy may be to ensure that the recording equipment is competent.
In my mind, it is the A to D conversion that has the potential to make this process less transparent, and thoughts of re-digitising (A to D'ing) the CD for this test don't seen to make much sense to me.
Has anyone noticed that when you copy a tape or LP to a CD, it still sounds like the analogue source?
The A to D conversion is indeed the issue. In recording an LP to a CD the distortion of this conversion is added. So when comparing the standard CD with the CD recording of the LP you won't know how much the conversion has affected the LP recording.
To assess this impact you can make a D to A to A to D re-recording of the standard CD and then compare both CDs. If the differences are very small then one can be more confident in the main experiment.
To assess this impact you can make a D to A to A to D re-recording of the standard CD and then compare both CDs. If the differences are very small then one can be more confident in the main experiment.
lndm said:
I would expect it too, but does it to such an extend that the two are indistinguisable? That is my question.
If they are identically in sound, then what would cause the large difference that I (and also reported by many others) hear in LP replay versus the CD version. It can then only be the mixing and processing done before burning the CD master.
So, the consequence is that is is wrong to say that LP sound better than CD. The only thing we could say (and that would be an important conclusion) is that CD is transparent enough that it sound identical to an LP source, provided the mastering is done well. We could then go on to archive our dear LP's to CD with zero loss of sound quality.
Now, who wants to shoot me first
Jan Didden
Hehejanneman said:Now, who wants to shoot me first
,My experience was borne from convenience, not experimentation so conditions were not controlled. Still though, I found it informative. The tapes were most noticeable. They were a mix of FeO and CrO2 tapes, aged, and some with a little top end loss.
The recordings were made from a Pioneer CT-F750 to a Yamaha sound card.
I found the digitised recordings to be a little dry. This was the case when playing directly from my computer, and when burned and played separately. There was a feeling of a slight loss of low level detail.
The character of the analogue source (in this case a gentle warmth and roundness), seemed largely intact. I say largely as I'm not too sure it hasn't reduced slightly.
The analogue qualities are still more audible than the apparent subtle loss of detail. I do think they are different issues though and should not be mixed up.
rdf wrote:
I have noticed that pre-1970s CDs also sound great. I have a Ella F. and a Cole Porter collections on CD whose tracks were recorded in the 1950s and 1960s and, although they sound slightly rough in places, they have a certain realism about them and space around instruments and nuance of expression that is lacking in many newer recordings. On a GOOD system they sound very "new" too...which is weird when you consider you are listening to long since deceased singers. I put this down to a relatively simple recording chain and use of tubes.
This is a problem to watch out for. Recording quality of my CDs varies a lot. The CDs made during the infancy of digital are arguably the worst. If you have the Phil Collins "Hello, I must be going" CD or LP you can tell which of its tracks were analogue mastered and which were digitally mastered. (Hint: the digital ones sound grainy, brittle and compressed by comparisson).
I have noticed that pre-1970s CDs also sound great. I have a Ella F. and a Cole Porter collections on CD whose tracks were recorded in the 1950s and 1960s and, although they sound slightly rough in places, they have a certain realism about them and space around instruments and nuance of expression that is lacking in many newer recordings. On a GOOD system they sound very "new" too...which is weird when you consider you are listening to long since deceased singers. I put this down to a relatively simple recording chain and use of tubes.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.