[*Scotty*]

The reason I brought this up is that with the prevalence 24/96 mastering, the chances are good that unless the album specifically claims to be all analogue from microphone to cutting lathe, the music has probably been through digital conversion,( ie A to D and then D to A), at some point even though a vinyl record is the final product.
 This makes an argument against digital technologies rather pointless as it may well nigh be an inescapable consequence of progress.
Scotty

[dlaloum]

I helped with setting up the sound for a concert just 2 weeks ago, the musician involved insisted on close miking his acoustic instrument and adding boom (mid-bass) and reverb to it...

Few and far between are the muso's who understand and value purity of sound (strangely!) - when offered a setup that provides clarity, detail and the simple amplification of the sound of the natural instrument, the choice opted for is one that adds distortion, obfuscates the timbre of the instrument and muddles the detailed sound of the strings...

With regards to recording, the idea of recording in analogue would not even occur to most muso's. Many of them have never even encountered a cassette deck let alone a reel to reel....

At the top end things may be different - but from what I see (and read in pro-music forums) - analogue is becoming more and more marginalised.
Regardless of the final distribution format (vinyl, download, cd, cassette) - the recordings are all (99.999%) made digitally.

There is good and bad in this - the older digital recordings and the ones made today on more basic gear, often have limitations that can be exposed on the better listening setups...
Recordings are mastered seperately for digital and for analogue media so there is sometimes an opportunity to grab a version that has better mastering... for many 80's recordings the better mastered versions are on vinyl... but as the recording engineers who learnt their trade in the 70's retire, I expect that the new generation of engineers will do their best work (are doing their best work) in digital.

Vinyl is therefore about access to older libraries of software rather than being about the ultimate medium...

For oldies and anachronists like us the discussion about vinyl vs digital still exists, but practically speaking, the world has moved on.

[*Scotty*]

That being said my vinyl copy of YES-Fly From Here, sounds pretty good and not particularly digital. I do like the imaging and sound quality I get from some of my older analogue records. And not just Crystal Clear and Sheffield Labs pressings.
Scotty

[neobop]

Yes, as David said, the world has moved on.  With that said, it seems to me that digital storage and playback scheme types can make a big difference in overall SQ.  When I read about jitter, error correction, averaging and all the compromises, it makes me slightly nauseated.  It not that analog tape or phono doesn't have compromises, but it's a continuous "natural" process.  Digital is like a Star Trek transporter of music.  It's chopped up in little pieces and recreated on the other side.  The problem is, Mr Spock is recreated without one of his pointy ears. 

Theoretically speaking, there aren't enough bits or a fast enough sampling rate possible, for digital to compete with continuous, and if you accept the ZYX dimensional objection, averaging and imperfect time recreation prevent that from happening.  That's why digital gets sucky at low volume and distortion goes up while info starts to drop out - just the opposite of analog.  The S/N ratio and dynamic range for digital can never be realized.  Once you go beyond 0 dB when recording, distortion gets horrendous, so engineers have to stay far away from it.  Ever notice that loud percussion is the best sound on digital and low level acoustic textures, harmonies, don't fare so well? 

In the late '80s digital recordings starting getting better.  I have quite a few records from that time and later that were made from digital.  Without exception those records sound better than the CD equivalent.  I used to compare them to "state of the art" CD players.  Although I can't make that claim today (about top notch digital playback), why is that?  I suspect it is because conversion back to analog on the storage media gives a more continuous playback and avoids the added errors of the DA home conversion.  No doubt digital has gotten much better, but.....
neo

[*Scotty*]

I suspect it is because conversion back to analog on the storage media gives a more continuous playback and avoids the added errors of the DA home conversion.

neo, I am not sure what you mean here? Is this in regards to records cut from digital masters?
Scotty

[neobop]

Scotty,
Yes, sorry if that was unclear. I think, if the AD conversion is done in the mastering studio rather than home, quality should be better.  I also think it's safe to say that a "decent" record player should do a better job portraying a continuous event with the superior AD conversion and the superior low level resolution of a record.  All the problems with digital are already dealt with.  In doing these comparisons the record would still sound digitally mastered, but not as objectionable as a CD.  Both media are subject to degradation.  Clicks and pops vs error correction or a badly scratched CD getting stuck and  sounding like a machine gun - pick your poison. 

Things are a little different now with hi-res and disc-less media, but objections remain and not just on a theoretical level.
neo

[dlaloum]

Not convinced 
Either way the end result is analogue - what we hear from the speakers is definitely analogue.

So regardless of whether it is digital or not there will always be a DA conversion.

With vinyl there are additional limitations, and encoding/decoding from RIAA....

The whole discussion about sound being "chopped up" and reconstituted fails on one major issue - there have been quite substantial repeated tests that have shown that our hearing cannot differentiate.

The issues are both mechanical /biological (what are we capable of hearing and differentiating) and psycho-acoustic (how we perceive what we hear).

Really golden eared individuals can differentiate between two devices that are both technically excellent, even when they are both totally analogue - so merely being able to tell that the devices are different (even if marginally so!) is insufficient - the golden eared individuals should consistently and statistically signigicantly be able to tell which is digital and prefer the AAA over the DDD/DDA/DAA/etc...) - this has not happened. (or at least not in situations where later improvements in digital would invalidate the earlier experiment).

The issues identified with digital are:
1) Timing / Jitter - these have been resolved over the last 10 years with the latest developments, in the early years of this century the very best Mastering ADC's got to the stage where this was a non issue. Around 2005 this started trickling to more mainstream pro and semi-pro ADC's, it has not yet become commonplace in the consumer market, although it is starting to be seen in some audiophile devices.

2) Phase and other Filtering anomalies - these are generated by the filters required at the frequency limit of the chosen digital sampling rate (ie at 22kHz for 44kHz sampling, at 48kHz for 96kHz sampling etc...). Although many valiant efforts have been made to improve these filters, ultimately the real solution has been sampling at a sufficiently high rate to move the filtering anomalies to inaudible frequencies, and provide sufficient bandwidth to use gentler (slope) filters that have fewer anomalies to reduce associated intermodulations in following gear.
Moving to 48kHz is theoretically sufficient but marginal, 96kHz is definitely sufficient.
Much like the issues with the cantilever resonance in cartridges/styli, the solution is to move it up as high as possible to leave the audible frequencies "intact" - really good cartridges shift it to the high 20kHz/low 30khz range, (Jico SAS, V15V, AT152, etc...) the very best move it to the high 40's or further (EPC100, DV Karat, etc...)
Many DAC's oversample (use double or quad internal sampling rates) to allow the use of filter at much higher frequencies, and 192kHz sampling will certainly eradicate the problem, albeit at the cost of susbtantial data storage overheads. (not to mention processing overheads)

3) Processing / CPU limitations - as the sampling rate and data rate rises, the resolution starts to strike the limitations in the processing abilities of current generation technology.
I did a series of tests about 5 years ago, which showed that at the time mainstream audiophile and consumer gear theoretically capable of 192kHz sampling rates, had fewer anomalies (and sounded better) when running at 96kHz.
Achieving 192kHz 5 years ago was pushing the chips involved right to the limits of their abilities - which is never a good idea!
Current top end mastering and audiophile gear released in the last 12 month is overcoming this - we are probably another 5 years away from it becoming more mainstream.
(Gear coming out now with 384kHz sampling ability should probably not be used at higher than 192kHz for optimum results for the same reasons!)

4) Signal to Noise and Dynamic Range limitations
This is an area where Digital is quite different to analogue, in that there are "brick walls" at either end of the signal amplitude spectrum.
Above 0db (and in many cases starting at around 0.2db) there is nothing but extremely harsh distortion - no signal at all!
Below the resolution threshold of the bit rate (-96db for 16bit) - also another brick wall.
With analogue, at the noise level (often as little as -60db) - there is more information below the noise threshold, and in most cases we can hear "through" the noise threshold.
So analogue has a seperate Signal to Noise range and Dynamic Range - assuming a noise threshold of -60db, analogue will often have audible material 10db below the noise - so Signal to noise could be 60db, while Dynamic range would be 70db!
This is further improved by the fact that 0db is NOT a brick wall - distortion and other issues start to impact as we rise above 0db, but it was common recording practice to extend the dynamic range by allowing peaks to go above 0db - +5db was not unusual.... so given a noise floor of -60db, we would have a Signal to Noise of 70db and a dynamic range of perhaps 75db.
Going back to digital, 16bit dynamic range is circa 96db, 20bit dynamic range is circa 120db, and 24bit is circa 144db - so 24bit should be easily ample to record anything that is out there! (given that our analogue systems used before the ADC in recording never get anywhere near that!)

BUT real world limitations in integrated circuits is still limiting best case signal-noise to 124db (with many consumer grade components limited to well below that).
So current real world Signal-noise/dynamic range in digital is limited to around 20.5bit resolution... (latest top of the line implementations are starting to achieve 128db this year... so a touch over 21bit resolution)

Looking at the real world limitations and capabilities, we currently have gear running at 24/96 which at its best (ie selecting appropriate pro/semi-pro/audiophile ADC's and DAC's) should be able to easily match vinyl in all audible domains...

Jitter below 10ps
Dynamic range & Signal/Noise over 124db
No measurable or audible anomalies within the 20-20kHz range

Sure - but how does it sound?
My personal take - based on my setup, gear, ADC / DAC etc... - completely identical to the input signal I am recording. In other words, to the best ability of my aural acuity and the resolving ability of my equipment, it is totally transparent.

So garbage in garbage out, and quality in quality out....

It is far more economical today to achieve this level of quality in digital than in analogue.... for between $1k and $2k you can purchase both ADC and DAC capable of the highest level of audio resolution at 24bit/96kHz. Even 5 years ago this would have cost 2 or three times as much if not more, and 15 years ago this was not possible.

Like I said, I don't believe "good" digital is a limitation any more.

bye for now

David

[*Scotty*]

I'm not sure I buy your complete argument, but okay. It still seems to me that there are so many variables in the chain that any single explanation may be an over-simplification of the actual state of affairs.
 Me, I got nuthin'. All I know is the only time I have two records that sound similar to one another is when they are recorded, mastered and cut in the same studio. Sheffield Labs and Rudy van Gelder's work spring to mind. Inconsistency from record to another or one ripped file and another is the only constant.
Scotty

[*Scotty*]

As far as DACs go I think that with at least 20.5bits of resolution the biggest limiting factor may be the point where current or voltage has to amplified enough that it is useable(ie greater than 1.5volts) before the preamp in the system. Think if we had a DAC that put out about 2 volts to begin with and had the specs of the top of the line DACs from AKM, Wolfson or Cirrus Logic for example, we might get a little further down the road.
 The dis-incentive to manufacturer to do this lies with their customers who desire to claim that their output stage design is superior to their competitions. This output stage is more parts in the signal chain and there are losses incurred with the addition of every single part you place in the signal path. The elimination of an entire gain stage and its associated parts count has to result in some kind of improvement.
Scotty

[dlaloum]

Quite! hence the appearance over the last year of digital integrated amps.... integrateds with onboard DAC....

This has of course been commonplace with receivers, but the AVR's have not been audiophile oriented for the most part, and most of them have quite shocking issues with jitter - the next generation of AVR's I would expect would resolve this issue. (it is one of the main constraints in my "lounge room" system)

I expect true audiophile AVR's should become more readily available over the next 2 years...

[neobop]

David,
"Not convinced 
Either way the end result is analogue - what we hear from the speakers is definitely analogue.

So regardless of whether it is digital or not there will always be a DA conversion.

With vinyl there are additional limitations, and encoding/decoding from RIAA....

The whole discussion about sound being "chopped up" and reconstituted fails on one major issue - there have been quite substantial repeated tests that have shown that our hearing cannot differentiate."

We are unfortunately, talking about digital recording only and not if it's a good idea to convert an analog signal to digital, then back to analog the natural waveform.  First you speak of RIAA encoding limitations, but not until much later do you mention the horrendous DACs common in home equipment.  Whether or not a digital recording sounds better on a record with studio DA conversion and a phono stage, or better with home DA conversion would depend on your equipment methinks.  What was true 20 years ago would be different today, depending on what you've got.

Your point about repeated tests that show we can't differentiate, is bullshit.  Double blind tests are near worthless objective quantification of a subjective phenomena and are only valid for gross differences.  The fact of the matter is, those tests don't duplicate the way we listen at home when our objective is to enjoy the music, not concentrate on playback differences on an unfamiliar system.  I think it's fair to say that virtually no one listens to music like they're taking a test, put on the spot, and have to choose A or B.  Often, the harder you try, the more disenfranchised you become from the "normal" listening experience.  Comparing components at home is very different.  Everything else is familiar in the system and you can relax and hear subtle differences on familiar recordings.

As far as ultimate quality attainable with digital today, I'll have to defer to others.  I haven't experienced it, but I've read many posts of those with top equipment who say the opposite of you.  I don't think it would be productive to continue that train of thought.
neo

[neobop]

So there's no misunderstanding, that last sentence about not pursuing that train of thought, I meant myself.  Please feel free to post anything you like.  I found the discussion about resolution, DACs etc. informative.  This is the future whether I approve or not.

Heard any good carts lately?  For some reason I've been thinking about the Sumiko Blackbird.  I think that cart has been in continuous production for nearly forty years.   I can't think of a better HOMC made today.  It sounds fast/clean with a boron cantilever and .3 x .7.  Cu is listed at 12 and I assume that's 10Hz.  Max VTF is 2.2g and weighs 9.6g.   I would call it accurate as opposed to romantic.  I wonder who makes these for Sumiko.  Sumiko is a holding company/importer and represents many small manufacturers.  That might have changed and they could have bought some of those small companies or started manufacturing themselves. 
neo 

[neobop]

I was expecting to get some flak about double blind testing.  I guess when someone says it's near worthless, there's not much else to say? 

I'll say this, it depends on what you're trying to test, and the methodology.  That bit about objectifying the subjective, can be a real factor.  Test conditions almost never duplicate a home listening experience.   I don't think it's hard to see that test conditions can influence the outcome despite the objective/subjective factor and testers often rig the test, sometimes unknowingly.  When you read the details of many of these tests, think about possible ways for the outcome to be reversed.

I read all the time about people saying HO cart A is nice and HO cart B is a POS.  Meanwhile cart A, their frame of reference is an Ortofon M20 FL Super and they have 450pF shunt capacitance at 47K (recommended) on their phono input.  B is some cart like an AT that wants to see 150pF and needs extended break-in, possibly resistance loading.  Surprise surprise!! They don't like B.   
Is that so different than testing a DAC with designer high capacitance analog cables? 

Because there are differences of opinion about hi-res digital resolution vs analog, I don't accept the statement that people can't tell the difference. 
neo

 

[dlaloum]

It is tricky  - to say the least!

Any two pieces of differing equipment will to some degree differ - what is the threshold of discernibility of that difference?

For some parameters it is relatively well known - THD has been well studied, as has IMD...

And then there are psych aspects - which is why the double blind exists.... and to throw more FUD at it all there is psycho-acoustics....

Just last year (or was it the year before...) I remember reading at least one professional cartridge review in a magazine that I thought was deeply flawed - the author clearly did not understand the impact of capacitive load.
So what hope has the average listener posting his review in a forum!?

All I can say is that I have put many hours (days, weeks, months) into my own testing - to satisfy my own insatiable curiosity....
And I can therefore post about my own experiences - all the while being aware of the weaknesses in my testing... both technical (equipment limitations, lack of double blind) as well as personal (I know I have a notch in my hearing.... and being almost 50, high frequency hearing may also be questionable) - still I hear differences, and work through the process of developing a test that eliminates as much as possible of the potential reasons for variation to try to identify the reason for the differences I hear.

With all its flaws, I decided a few years back, that the most efficient way of doing my own back to back comparisons was to digitally record and then be able to directly switch back and forth between two differing configurations in perfectly level matched form.
I was aware when I made that decision, that my digital gear would likely be my limiting factor (beyond my own hearing) - and therefore worked towards upgrading that end of my chain...

Over the next week I should be receiving a new (used) Mytek DAC which will complete my digital headphone based chain from ADC through to DAC with top level mastering grade equipment....
I am not sure whether it will make a difference, as the current kit is not half bad either, but my new setup will be state of the art circa 5 years ago - and according to some of the best recording engineers in the business - as transparent as it is possible to get. The bar may have shifted up a bit further over the last few years... but still it should be more than capable enough - sufficiently so to place any flaws in the recording/playback chain outside of my own threshold of audibility - and hopefully beyond the threshold of audibility of most of the population....
Which will therefore make the clips I record when testing various aspects and comparing, an order of magnitude more credible.

It also gives me the level of confidence I was aiming for before starting to digitise the Analogue collection - something I have put off several times, due to an awareness of the flawed nature of the recording chain. (and the possibility of therefore needing to rerecord 000's of records is severaly offputting!)
In the meantime - the digitising project led me to investigate cartridge differences, cartridge optimisation (loading) - and various sundry never ending areas of turntable optimisation - it is a fascinating and ongoing journey.

The same record perfectly recorded (so lets put aside the whole digital discussion), will sound different when recorded with  differing cartridges, phono stages, etc....
BUT - the really good cartridges, phono stages, turntables etc... when optimally set up, do indeed tend to sound more and more alike rather than different - the sound qualities tend to get closer to each other as they get better, rather than diverging and becoming more different.

Yes a Karat is more limited in its soundstaging capabilities than is a Stantering... and the Karat does end up sounding more dynamic that the stantering (even the best of the stanterings!)

Can one have ones cake and eat it too.... don't know yet - havn't heard enough cartridges (!  !)

As I identify the differences, I do question to what degree within the limitations of audibility, the differences can be eradicated through (very careful and very light handed) processing in the digital domain?
Some of the timbral variations I am picking up are caused by variations in amplitude at specific frequencies of less than 2db - sometimes less than 1db - a light but of EQ may be able to eliminate that difference.

Dynamics and soundstage related differences I feel are much much more difficult to tackle in processing terms, and involve a lot of risk in terms of potential audio anomalies generated by the processing  - hence my attitude to date has been to leave it well alone.

Sometime over the next couple of years I will do a series of clips from differing cartridges and post them so people can go through the same exercise I have been and see what they think.

bye for now

David

[neobop]

I have a mental picture of you sitting in your laboratory wearing headphones and a white lab coat, like an old Polk loudspeaker ad with Matthew Polk in his lab coat, except he didn't wear headphones.  I don't mean that in a demeaning way.  Polk was trying to look like a scientist, but I wonder how much chance you get to actually sit down and play a record the old fashioned way.  I know you can listen to the analog version in your lab (for want of a better term), but I suspect you get caught up in digital investigations and spend you time doing that, almost exclusively. 

Before I forget, there's a little caveat to that Golden Ears headphone thingy.  On the last page of the AC thread there's a link to an Inner Fidelity article about the challenge.  At the end people post comments.  One guy took the challenge with 20 or 30 different phones and rated them for ease of passing the tests.  They ranged from easy as pie to impossible, to paraphrase the ratings.  You might expect this sort of thing on a qualitative level, but that's not exactly the case.  Have you ever looked at frequency response graphs of headphones?  I realize cans sit right on your ears and we all hear differently and have different shaped ears and heads, but .....

Anyway, I hope that Mytec works out.  With your investigations you've contributed more to the general gestalt of phono cart parameters, than anyone.
neo



 

[*Scotty*]

Something useful might be learned if the digital recording of a particular phono cartridge was compared with the phono cartridge itself playing back the same recording that was digitized. The A/B/A comparison should be done in a system using stereo loudspeakers so that any differences in three dimensional sound-staging between the actual cartridge and the digital recording could be heard.
Scotty

[neobop]

Something useful might be learned if the digital recording of a particular phono cartridge was compared with the phono cartridge itself playing back the same recording that was digitized. The A/B/A comparison should be done in a system using stereo loudspeakers so that any differences in three dimensional sound-staging between the actual cartridge and the digital recording could be heard.
Scotty

With imaging capability comments like those of 23RS vs. Stantering, I'm sure those comparisons were done.  Some other details might be more easily revealed by "good" phones.  Maybe I assume too much.  One could hear an imaging comparison on a record years ago and use that conclusion as a factoid in ongoing investigations, most of which might have little to do with imaging.  On the other hand, I would think a cantilever resonance (more likely on a Stantering?) would affect imaging more than separation? 

That might be a bad assumption.  Separation is critical for imaging and a cantilever resonance could actually enhance it, similar to a rising high end. 

This stuff is interesting, but I wonder about the frame of reference when it comes to analog vs. digitized.  We become acclimated to the medium in which we work and ongoing comparisons stop.  A referenced conclusion like, "there have been quite substantial repeated tests that have shown that our hearing cannot differentiate"  is like hearing "perfect sound forever".   
neo

[neobop]

The most action I've seen on Vinyl Circle is digital vs. analog debates.  Proponents of either side come swooping down from parts unknown to throw in their $0.02 and make the definitive comment(s).  It usually gets nasty at some point, but hey, that's a big part of the appeal.  Everybody loves a good fight and sitting at your PC, you don't smell the bile and bullshit.   This discussion is rather civilized and I daresay illuminating, thought provoking. 

One thing playing records allows is customizing or tuning your playback.  That brings up a couple of the latest AT models to reach these shores.

The first is the AT-5V:
http://www.lpgear.com/product/AT5V.html

Now this is interesting.  5.0mV out / 360mH / 610 ohm DCR / 2.1Kohm impedance.  Specs looks like a 150MLX on steroids, but comes with tapered AL/.6 mil spherical.  Like a Denon 103?  Could be good for non height adjustable arms.  Wonder what it sounds like with an ATN150MLX ?

Gear took the generator specs of the 7V off the description.  It also has 5.0mV out.  I think it has higher inductance.  Anybody remember?  I'll see if I can find it.  The 100E is 4.5mV / 350mH / 800 DCR / 2.3K impedance.  Seems that all of these models are similar to the 150. 

Okay I found them.  The 7V is  5mV / 500mH / 650 DCR / 3.0K impedance.   Little more mellow?  Guess it would depend on stylus/cantilever resonances.  The 7V generator actually looks a little more like the 440ML OCC.  Users report 7V sound is balanced.

At the other end of the spectrum is AT ART9 MC:
http://www.lpgear.com/product/ATART9.html

Sort of like the ART 7 of nonmagnetic core fame, this has body structure derived from the 50ANV.  Output is the opposite of the ART7.  It's 0.5mV. 
The yoke is permendur.  That's 50% cobalt and 50% iron and has very high permeability when saturated.   Bet it sounds better than a Lyra Atlas.  I could have saved $9000.   
neo

[Grbluen]

What a coincidence,  I've just (not five minutes ago) ordered my first 150Mlx stylus to try out with my LS500. I'm excited, but a little bummed, because I'll have to disassemble a good grip to hear the combination. I can't wait to hear this combination!

[neobop]

Hi DonGrb,
Look at it this way.  The only round plug exotic still available (AFAIK) is the ATN20SS which is now $300.  So this is actually an economically sound move.

If you perform the surgery with the right frame of mind, relaxed and single minded, you'll be successful.  The key is no second thoughts or anxiety to shake your hand or break your concentration.   If the doorbell buzzes or the phone rings, just ignore it.  Even if it's your mother in law and you know you'll be in for some verbal abuse, let it go.   If it's the wife and you suddenly remember you forgot to pick up the kids, maybe you better put it down and do it later.

The Zen approach is what's needed.  You want to inner direct the suspension wire housing and the compliance screw to their ultimate destiny.  You can also be confident that this advise is coming from someone who broke around $500 worth of styli, including a 150MLX.
May the farce be with you,
neo