digital masters! Where are you downloading digital masters from Richard ....
There are a number of sources. HDtracks and Blue Coast audio for a start. I have access to some unmastered files. They can be quite stunning but often unplayable in normal circumstances. They can have way more dynamic range than make for comfortable listening.
Most artists don't have the confidence to let unedited takes be heard by anyone other than the editor and the producer. There may be a wrong note somewhere. In the old days you were pretty limited on editing with a razor. The downside of the capabilities of a digital workstation is the ability to fix anything. They become Cuisinart's for music. No off pitch notes. No late entries. Change the tempo because you can. These are why digital can be bad. How much life and reality survive Auto-tune and perfect tempo? Let alone pop music's terror of quiet passages.
Most artists don't have the confidence to let unedited takes be heard by anyone other than the editor and the producer. There may be a wrong note somewhere. In the old days you were pretty limited on editing with a razor. The downside of the capabilities of a digital workstation is the ability to fix anything. They become Cuisinart's for music. No off pitch notes. No late entries. Change the tempo because you can. These are why digital can be bad. How much life and reality survive Auto-tune and perfect tempo? Let alone pop music's terror of quiet passages.
I like HDTracks a lot.... but not enough Blues tunes to download. So,I still use my 1000+ CD's of blues on a player that uses a PC HDD for the play/pickup mechanism [not sold in USA].
I use amps and a pair of everyday listening speakers with high dynamic range for clean and accurate sound. Low power amps just cant do it realistically and cleanly (not clipping). Fortunately, it just cost a small amount more money to have the ability of accurate dynamic range reproduction.... especially if you are a DIY'er.
-Richard M
Last edited:
Good morning, Columbus!
Frank, do you really think the hike of prices of vintage gear is a sheer accident? Or could it be more people have heard it, realized that it was sonically better made with inferior parts (to those we have today) and now want it?
5 years ago, you could pick up a say Marantz 1152 DC integrated amp for something like €100, and that only if it was in prime condition. Today, no way you'll get one for less than €300, and in average condition. And you'll pay another say €100-150 to refresh it and get it going properly. In the end, you will have a device which few current models can rival, not perfect of course but actually sounding better than most today costing much more than that.
A Harman/Kardon Citation XII currently goes for around $800 in the US, and they stopped making it 38 years ago. And it must be one of the ugliest amps ever made. But it's got THE sound!
I've been let down so many times by the so-called High End devices that I have lost all faith in them. I realize I am doing injustice to some folks out there who are still trying hard to push the limits, but they seem to be a dying breed, today it's all about mega cases sculptured in the wildest ways imaginable and unimaginable. Sound seems to take the back seat.
This bodes ill for analog. When compared to my Marantz 170 DC power amp, made in 1978, and refreshed last year, with admittedly practically doubled filter capacitors (up from 12,000 to 22,000 uF), far too many analog amps have a lot of explaining to do.
And that's just one example. Yamaha's CDX 993 CD player (never sold in North America for reasons unknown) had a different problem, it sounded too analog. It was nice and easy on the ear, but sacrificied detail in the process. This was cured by some tweaking, but it clearly showed that digital was capacble of excellent results.
My current NAD C565 BEE CD player is an overall shock to my system. I never liked NAD, I always thought them to be just one more me-too company, and if I had not beeing steered to it, I would have never known. It's full of BB 21xx op amps, which I generally dislike intensly as I feel they shriek at me, and it's come to the point where I can actually recognize their sound in some devices. Then I switch it on, and I am amazed. Clean, clear, full of detail, but smooth and easy going on the ear. 5 or so years ago, I had to be thinking of the Wadia class to get that kind of sound. I am not saying it equals Wadia, but I am saying it gets awful close. Factor in the price and it wins hands down, costing like 10% of the Wadia and delivering like 95% of Wadia's sound.
But, no matter how good one's digital end may be, in the end, it all comes down to the amp and the speakers. In my opinion, pitifully few people bother to work out the basics of the dynamic range, which is digital's forte. The end result is compression, because their relatively low powered amps are straining to drive their relatively inefficient speakers, which are often bad behaving, especially in the economy class.
Thus, such people never really get to hear what digital can do, much less compare digital and analog playback, as they are likely to have cheap TTs and cartridges - not a problem in itself so much as is a common mismatch between their arms and cartridges. To top it all, chaep'n'cheerful amps usually have corresponding quality phono RIAA stages.
Lastly, as Demian mentioned, the procedure of playback in digital has no checklist procedures as does analog, and a lot of people sort of miss that. It had a magic of its own they could show off to less informed friends.
This bodes ill for analog. When compared to my Marantz 170 DC power amp, made in 1978, and refreshed last year, with admittedly practically doubled filter capacitors (up from 12,000 to 22,000 uF), far too many analog amps have a lot of explaining to do.
And that's just one example. Yamaha's CDX 993 CD player (never sold in North America for reasons unknown) had a different problem, it sounded too analog. It was nice and easy on the ear, but sacrificied detail in the process. This was cured by some tweaking, but it clearly showed that digital was capacble of excellent results.
My current NAD C565 BEE CD player is an overall shock to my system. I never liked NAD, I always thought them to be just one more me-too company, and if I had not beeing steered to it, I would have never known. It's full of BB 21xx op amps, which I generally dislike intensly as I feel they shriek at me, and it's come to the point where I can actually recognize their sound in some devices. Then I switch it on, and I am amazed. Clean, clear, full of detail, but smooth and easy going on the ear. 5 or so years ago, I had to be thinking of the Wadia class to get that kind of sound. I am not saying it equals Wadia, but I am saying it gets awful close. Factor in the price and it wins hands down, costing like 10% of the Wadia and delivering like 95% of Wadia's sound.
But, no matter how good one's digital end may be, in the end, it all comes down to the amp and the speakers. In my opinion, pitifully few people bother to work out the basics of the dynamic range, which is digital's forte. The end result is compression, because their relatively low powered amps are straining to drive their relatively inefficient speakers, which are often bad behaving, especially in the economy class.
Thus, such people never really get to hear what digital can do, much less compare digital and analog playback, as they are likely to have cheap TTs and cartridges - not a problem in itself so much as is a common mismatch between their arms and cartridges. To top it all, chaep'n'cheerful amps usually have corresponding quality phono RIAA stages.
Lastly, as Demian mentioned, the procedure of playback in digital has no checklist procedures as does analog, and a lot of people sort of miss that. It had a magic of its own they could show off to less informed friends.
Ahhh ... but what is THE sound,? If only one could bottle it, the essence, and pour it over any system - to bring it to life, to make it delight ....
If no two human beings hear the same, then the answer is by default an individual one.
And that is the greatest caveat of all geeralizations, especually the one analog vs digital.
I will NOT accept being called silly by some bloated fashionista. Inclusion of an AD/DA stage in a chain, analog or otherwise, is completely transparent.
That is why most of those precious LP's you have went through at least one of such AD/DA steps since the early eighties (delay line at cutting table). You litteraly will not hear a difference. Anyways, why am I even bothering.
DIGITAL .
After much thought the only digital I dislike is CD . Increasingly I suspect it is the way it's done and nothing to do with digital .
I have enjoyed and loved BBC FM which has been their own style of digital since 1972 . This was done to reduce the cost of high quality links and to ensure the same sound in London and Scotland . The problems sorted out by Golden ear listening panels . The pumping effects at - 78 dB which is below the noise floor for most FM turners ( all I think ) as the compromise the BBC could accept .
The old Living Stereo LP's have been re-cut by Classic Records . Some criticized the new cuts as being different . A choice was made to cut the LP closer to the master-tape , modern cutting lathes allow this . What I am not sure about is that Classic use a Technics SP 10 as the drive motor to the Scully lathe . This suits slow tempo OK , wasn't good on Peter Gabriel So . Benefonte excellent . I have heard the master verses the SP10 directly . They sound mostly the same . The CD done from the same tape is unrecognizable if wanting live elements to the sound . People who say that LP is a metamorphosis are deluded . A sort of water into wine effect . No , at best the cut sounds like the same thing slightly out of focus . CD like a tribute band . I am saying mater-tape to CD or LP . Digital I am almost certain is not the main reason . Digital might sound like a slightly different microphone as the worst it should be .
I described how an old Quad 33/303 was being troubled by a supposed hum loop . Suspected was a switch-mode PSU modulating hum into the 33 . A 470 pF NPO in the aerial cable to the TV stopped it . I conclude it was a pseudo switch mode effect . The modulation frequency 600 MHz . The RF aerial amplifier problem brings the RF up nicely in level to do it's harm . A Rotel amp I tried immune . That's the point . Is it immune ? To me this might explain why people strongly prefer JFET op amps . People say a square law distortion . Yes that true if using a gain of 250 , not really true in typical use . Reality is the RF smog we live in might be reducing the performance of bipolar op amps ? My conjecture is that the JFET input isn't a diode ( gate or source ) . I expect to be told I am wrong which is fine . A triode valve can be both detector and amplifier in one , an economy measure of cheap radios thus raising doubt when JFET said to better bipolar ( do JFET's work as detectors as when triodes/pentodes) . Is this where we find that a JFET is superior to a pentode that it strongly resembles ?
Foot note to BBC FM . It is rumoured that Radio 3 will be discontinued on FM soon . I am not surprised as even for me it's output is more like a >PHD course in classical music . Recently I bought a PVR for the TV , top of the range Panasonic . To my astonishment Radio 3 is mostly better via it . I suspect it is close to the original DAB system that the BBC downgraded to fit more stations in . Where it looses to FM is slight thinness which I suspect is the FM filter circuits adding a bit of reverb effects ( sounds like ) . In my memory FM was better than this in the past . Having recently gone to a BBC R3 concert I supect this is more to do with microphones and technique rather than any change in quality ( Beethoven , Poulenc , Mahler ) . It might be that the so called Nicam has been replaced ? It would make sense to do that . Could it be what I hear via Freeview Radio is the up-link to both DAB and FM ?
After much thought the only digital I dislike is CD . Increasingly I suspect it is the way it's done and nothing to do with digital .
I have enjoyed and loved BBC FM which has been their own style of digital since 1972 . This was done to reduce the cost of high quality links and to ensure the same sound in London and Scotland . The problems sorted out by Golden ear listening panels . The pumping effects at - 78 dB which is below the noise floor for most FM turners ( all I think ) as the compromise the BBC could accept .
The old Living Stereo LP's have been re-cut by Classic Records . Some criticized the new cuts as being different . A choice was made to cut the LP closer to the master-tape , modern cutting lathes allow this . What I am not sure about is that Classic use a Technics SP 10 as the drive motor to the Scully lathe . This suits slow tempo OK , wasn't good on Peter Gabriel So . Benefonte excellent . I have heard the master verses the SP10 directly . They sound mostly the same . The CD done from the same tape is unrecognizable if wanting live elements to the sound . People who say that LP is a metamorphosis are deluded . A sort of water into wine effect . No , at best the cut sounds like the same thing slightly out of focus . CD like a tribute band . I am saying mater-tape to CD or LP . Digital I am almost certain is not the main reason . Digital might sound like a slightly different microphone as the worst it should be .
I described how an old Quad 33/303 was being troubled by a supposed hum loop . Suspected was a switch-mode PSU modulating hum into the 33 . A 470 pF NPO in the aerial cable to the TV stopped it . I conclude it was a pseudo switch mode effect . The modulation frequency 600 MHz . The RF aerial amplifier problem brings the RF up nicely in level to do it's harm . A Rotel amp I tried immune . That's the point . Is it immune ? To me this might explain why people strongly prefer JFET op amps . People say a square law distortion . Yes that true if using a gain of 250 , not really true in typical use . Reality is the RF smog we live in might be reducing the performance of bipolar op amps ? My conjecture is that the JFET input isn't a diode ( gate or source ) . I expect to be told I am wrong which is fine . A triode valve can be both detector and amplifier in one , an economy measure of cheap radios thus raising doubt when JFET said to better bipolar ( do JFET's work as detectors as when triodes/pentodes) . Is this where we find that a JFET is superior to a pentode that it strongly resembles ?
Foot note to BBC FM . It is rumoured that Radio 3 will be discontinued on FM soon . I am not surprised as even for me it's output is more like a >PHD course in classical music . Recently I bought a PVR for the TV , top of the range Panasonic . To my astonishment Radio 3 is mostly better via it . I suspect it is close to the original DAB system that the BBC downgraded to fit more stations in . Where it looses to FM is slight thinness which I suspect is the FM filter circuits adding a bit of reverb effects ( sounds like ) . In my memory FM was better than this in the past . Having recently gone to a BBC R3 concert I supect this is more to do with microphones and technique rather than any change in quality ( Beethoven , Poulenc , Mahler ) . It might be that the so called Nicam has been replaced ? It would make sense to do that . Could it be what I hear via Freeview Radio is the up-link to both DAB and FM ?
Last edited:
Second that we tried some at work, plenty of artifacts. One opera track had a very large rising noise floor starting at 22K that caused some DAC's to sound like do-do.
Last edited:
Mono!
Only your bushwa monoloque my Cherie, but I'm guessing there's some unexpected enlightenment to come , so I listen ..
coffee ..?
I was out of nappies before the advent of stereo LP´s on the market.
Here, learn View attachment audible.pdf
First of all, don't take things too literally, or too seriously.
And second, you bother for the rest of us, not for Wayne only.
As a simple example, your above note on the best of analog going through some digital circuits is what I did not know and have learnt from your post. I don't know if that means anything to you, but it means something to me. I am here mostly to learn. If I can actually contribute something useful as well, so much the better.
It's all about simple, plain, old fashoned tolerance. From your handle, you are a tube affictionado, which makes you worlds far away from me, who am an classic BJT lover. Yet, I never miss reading your posts. Why is best seen from the example above, and in general, I do NOT think of tube lovers as dinosaurs, nuts, whackos, or whatheter, I think of them as people who enjoy something I do not. The point being enjoyment.
As for Wayne, well, he can sometimes be a bit too free with words (meaning he doesn't always think through how his words might be interpreted by others), but I do not believe it was ever his intention to hurt or insult anybody.
So Vac, don't take it so hard, and by all means, do continue to post.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.