XXHighEnd

What's in a title ...
Nothing much, but now Google finds it and possibly it can set some vinyl die-hards straight who Google for it.


So this was from 2007. Wow; I estimated it was 4 or 5 years ago, but it was thus 7. I always wanted to go to this annual event again but always missed it (like seeing that it happened "yesterday"). This year I finally managed;
My idea was to see whether vinyl has caught up a bit with digital. Or say that would have been my planned expression would I have been asked my reason to attend there.

Yes, so this 2007 event was clearly before any NOS1 saw light which I only realize just now after looking up the above quote. That could explain a few things too ...

Those vinyl guys eh, are they sure they know what they are doing ? Oh boy.
So, of course I have 7 more years of (explicit) experience behind me, which can be compared to 2 years in 2007 (were it about that "explicit" experience and XXHighEnd and such).  Say something like 7000 hours of listening and comparing and how things must sound neutral and not disturbing and better and, well, everything.
And this now makes vinyl as obsolete and wrong as possible. A few observations with the notice that I listened to dozens of random turntables with cartridges (all just cleaned / rewired if necessary / calibrated because the event is about that). And of course there was the the show case turntable for when no just calibrated was around for a few minutes :

- All sounds the same and I can't stand this in the first place;
- All highs are totally smeared (run full we say in Dutch);
- It was very very tough to perceive stereo from it in the first place (don't believe me eh ? - it's just what you are used to);
- Sound is way too warm (cal this subjective to be on the safe side);
- There is this continuous white/grey (killing) flavour;
- Listened to the tweeter from close by and ohhh, NOW you know what noise is (always thought that the "inaudible" noise from LP influences the signal to some degree, but this is just plainly audible like some sea at 10 meters distance);
- Played the same albums at home afterwards and couldn't even recognize them (actually it was the way around which is why I tried them at home);

After two hours I was completely deaf of it. Didn't know where to go from bad sound. A bit hard to expain;

I always say (said) : Vinyl can't go wrong; will never be harsh and such. Well, that now too depends;
Envision the guy behind the wheel showing what a (kork) mat can do. "See ? now the harshness has gone - much more black background !". Damn, he was right. Too bad the highs were gone too. And if you compare the both situations (which happened for many turntables) then indeed even LP can sound harsh. But even without mat, after these hours I had a complete stuffed ears feeling which seemed physical (damage) to me. But more complicated :

If you are used to hearing where a voice sings and that can't happen any more (because he/she is everywhere) then that too causes "damage". You brain keeps on trying and trying but it won't happen because not there. Now *that* is tiring !
But it is just an example, because recognizing instruments is even way worse than a worst D/A converter (say the oversampling type with the wrong filtering and such). And want a surprise ? Violins. Oh yes, I sure recognized them from the home I grew up in, but you know what ? THAT is digital. All high frequency sibilance but actually that noise running through it all over (I reckoned).

After these two hours I thought to reset myself with telling myself something like "okay, this cant happen and so it won't - now relax and try to judge the possible goodies". This was not really about the latter, but about the former and how I could survive longer. That helped and in the end I was there for 5 hours. Just judging how instruments came through and focusing on how that would sound back home. Now, I'll give two examples only :

There was this track of which I thought I knew it in the first place. Fine. But there was a clear on-beat hit on some snare or maybe even lick drum and I couldn't recognize it while it should be so clear. A firm hitting with rather silence around it, so it should be obvious, but wasn't.
Back home I checked it and could hardly believe what the "reality" was ... Rest the end (not the top) of drum stick on the skin of the snare (snare on), and let it drop in "dry" fashion on the rim (dry = not bounce). That was all. Dry "ticking" (think jazz like) while at that best turntable it was a smash with deep sound which filled the room. No wonder you can't recognize it.

Of course nobody complained.

An example of different kind was some Tikaram track which showed a work out of "some" percussion element that drew fairly much to the left side (oh, so still stereo) with a decay which was nice for a gag but I couldn't tell what actually happened or what it was. It was here that I seriously thought, "okay, I don't think my "rig" can do that, ehm oops ?".
So back home I played that too and it was just a tambourine and all over normal. True, no gags showed and also true, it was less "interesting" back at home. Sadly also true is that from LP this was super distortions working out to something real strange. Doh, it even implies an emphasized stereo effect.

So did vinyl improve over these 7 years ?
No, it went 100 steps back (I tend to say a 100 times but alas).
But you know what I mean.

You vinyl guys, you should come out of your hiding shells !

Of course when I attend shows I hear vinyl all over the place just the same. Never sounds bad. But you know, you should listen to one such a rig for an hour instead of "walking by" and *then* you'll know.
Also, there is no single way I perceived this the same as 7 years ago; then I wasn't hurt or anything. It just sounded poor on aspects and that was it. Today ? it is nowhere. And I don't exaggerate a single byte. Not even a bit.

Peter

I got rid of my turntable some 7 months ago and that was after maybe 15 years of not listening to my LPs. An Oracle Alexandria (for those who remember the Oracle Delphi, the Alexandria was the "little sister") with a Grace F9e (moving magnet and still working). I have kept a few LPs to have them extracted when I will feel like it (there are some of them that were never transferred to CDs, some other CDs have a "chocked" sound (loss of treble) as opposed to their vinyl equivalents.

I still remember some albums that were sounding great on vinyl, but this was at an age where I had not already damaged my own hearing with too loud music. Remembering how the music sounded then was enough for me to decide not to listen again, just in case I would regret turning into the digital age.

At the time I bought my first CD player (Harman Kardon model 7600, bought in 1990), I was amazed by the absence of clics, pops, wow - and the bass tightness was amazing. Then I realized how easy it was now to play music (without going through all the routine of cleaning the disk with a brush, cleaning the stylus, etc...).

I was ready to abandon all for the practicality the CD was bringing and when I finally decided to extract all my CDs on a hard drive, it was clear to me that I would never go back to vinyl.

It was not a matter of being better of worse, just one of being "easy" to manage. I have given up for all those times where I was going back to the store with one or more bad pressings (hole not centered, warped record, noisy background from a too worn matrix). IIRC in those times, there was 1 out of 2 records that were somewhat badly pressed (here in Canada at least). I had enough of all this.

Compared to vinyl, I had trouble with only a few CDs and this was enough for me to turn my back on vinyl - for good.

The only thing I could say I regret is that a turntable was the most beautiful piece of art from the audio chain. Dual 1229, Garrard Zero-100, Lenco L78, JVC direct drive, Thorens TD-160 and finally the Oracle (made here, in Quebec)... All these were good at their times, even if the mechanism was not up to par with the best belt driven turntables of the time (Pierre Clément, Linn Sondek, Sota Sapphire)...

I don't have a regret from these times. I was ready to spend all the time necessary to clean and play my vinyls, but that is definitely behind me and has been for the last 15 years now.

Alain

Hey thanks for sharing Peter (and for sharing your experience too Alain). Well, I've had my turntable set up in my little basement 'studio' for a while now but haven't actually gotten around to doing any recording yet. But your post has got me motivated. I'll see if I can get myself downstairs this evening and do something. I'll then be happy to share the file(s) if anyone's interested.

Mani.

Hi,

since last year I’m digitizing LP’s which are not available on CD’S  (Jaco Pastorius and various MPS records etc.).

Peter wrote in the Forum  a couple of weeks ago that his copies of digitized LP’s sounds „suboptimal“, what I have to confirm (no cymbals, no bass, no kick drums)

Since two month I’m cleaning the LP’s  prior to digitizing with a washing machine (Gläss Vinyl Cleaner: http://www.audiodesksysteme.de/index.php?kat=10_17_15 ) and the SQ improved amazingly and I enjoy to listen to the old records again.

The washing process with the LP‘s is mandatory for a good sound!!!

Joachim

Hi Joachim, yes I have one of these too and clean all of my LPs before playing. All I have to do now is get down to serious digitizing. (But at least it hasn't taken me 7+ years to do this!)

Mani.

I'm using since 1980 the Micro Seiki MR-711 player until tody with changing cartridges and phono stages. Neither the cartrides nor the phono stages have exceeded the 600$ limit ...

There is no doubt that the sonic quality of XXHighend with NOS DAC's is by far better, in every aspect.

I look at the analogue system as a beloved oldtimer with a lot of vinyl based music that is not available anymore. It's more the the heart than the brain that is counting.

I tried a lot to digitize the music but was not satisfied with the results. There is the time aspect too - digitizing 9000 LP's would be a lot of work. I will leave the music on the medium where it belongs to.

What I can confirm too is the need of a really good cleaning - I do it with a DIY ultrasonic cleaning device.

Georg

Hi,

I do not consider myself a vinyl guy but I confess guilty of listening to LPs and enjoying it.

The urge to play records seems to come and go. When everything goes, there is fantastic flow and momentum in the music, real easy on the mind. I'm not much bothered by the surface noise ticks, dynamic compression etc etc it music first. This is so hard to achieve with digital. The biggest drawback is that it is only 30 minutes of bliss and then you have to leave your chair. I also love the aplomb it has especially on modest hifi systems. It also works wonders on mono recordings.

From a holistic viewpoint I think this natural gap in the music might be key to the LP experience. After each half you have to decide what to do: spin it again, flip it or get another disk. The ritual of selecting, sliding the disk out, get the right side up, brush clean it etc is more conscious and makes you value the listening experience more. At some stage the inconvenient and unpractical side of this all does move me in the direction of digital again until the LP tide returns.

Now I stil have to agree with Peter's statements on high end vinyl rigs and show experiences. Apparently manufacturers, reviewers and customers have decided that the LP playback sound should have "no character of its own" or be "neutral", a thing that digital does much much much much better. They've brought it to a place where it is my opinion that the essence of the medium is lost. Not that it sounds bad, but I've never been lusting for this gear after a demo knowing that my digital system at home does all it tries to achieve a 100x better.

Horses for courses thus and enjoying both for what they do now. I'm certainly not finished with my digital so we'll see what more can be extracted from the medium...

regards, Coen

Hi,

the funny/strange thing was, that I treated the new LP,s with  „LAST“, and dubbed them on a magnetic band (Studer A810) and took  them in a shelf until now.
So I used the LP one time only, and now there are clicks all over, and with the washing machine the clicks are reduced.

In other words, the „LAST“ treatment procedure in the 80ies was not for the better.

Joachim

I remember using the LAST product for all my LPs and their Stylast to clean the stylus before every play :) I also bought plastic sleeves to protect each LP from being scratched with the paper sleeve (when there was one)... :)

These where fun times and almost "spiritual" ones :)

Alain

Ha ha Alain! Totally agree. It was something like a Mass with all the parafernalia.  :)

Maxi

Hi Maxi,

True :) When we grouped to listen to music, I am sure that some friends were having fun seeing me doing all the stuff before playing music, but I also spent so much time alone listening to music, or maybe only with one or two friends at the time. It was intense sometimes ! I can hardly feel this nowadays and this may explain why I abandoned playing my music through LPs, but sometimes (seldom), I can go back to these times in my mind :)

I guess that advancing in time and having conscience of so many other things is kind of disrupting... And the time factor is one of these reasons...

Alain

Well, I managed to find a CD and LP that are definitely from the same analogue master - Dead Can Dance's 1985 album 'Spleen and Ideal'. This is definitely NOT an 'audiophile demonstration disc', but good enough for the purpose. I digitized track 8 Avatar at 16/44.1 using my PMII. The LP 16/44.1 is clearly better than the CD rip. Paul (Scroobius) was here for a short while today and he preferred the LP 16/44.1 too (both played back on XX with double-octo AP).

Virtually every LP I play back on my turntable sounds totally superb. Really. But I don't have it connected up to my main system - I play back on AKG K-1000 headphones powered by a pair of Bert's BD30-SPR amps.

When I have more time (not this week) I will try to find more CDs and LPs produced from the same master and record more 16/44.1 files. If the same differences are there, I'll have to respectfully disagree with Peter and assume he hasn't heard a really good turntable set up. Mine is not the most expensive, but I've taken an inordinate amount of time to set it up probably.

Oh, I'll try to upload the two Dead Can Dance files up onto a file sharing site. Not the best recordings or music, but just so that you can listen for yourself. Will try to do this this week sometime.

Mani.

Haha, well, then I have to respectfully disagree with your testing methods. :)
Please take the below with some grains of pepper (not salt) because I just see some fun in this and it is not to be taken as a rant.

So first you take a CD of which you seem to know that the CD isn't the best anyway, to next come to the conclusion that the LP is better than the CD rip, while it would be you stating that you won't hear a difference with any needle drop in the first place (I know, I know, you will say this from 24/192 but I hope you get the idea - what drips/droops from it is that the CD isn't the best in the first place or how else can your needle drop be better).

Next up is my own Mofi MFSL etc. (Japan) and now I don't know what is called audiophile demonstration discs these days, but it sounds superb - here. Again, I know I know, I can't compare it to the LP.

Then you use headphones. Always nice and people keep on thinking that they can perceive ALL from it, but I keep on saying that you can't hear nothing much from them. Small example : put up track 1. Now try to perceive the 6-10Hz flanger from that. Try your CD version on the main system and see whether it's there from that. Feel your woofers, you know (and if not MSFl then most probably forget that to begin with).
Also, are you going to try that with the LP with all the effort it takes, or will you believe it won't be in there anyway ? Count on the latter.
Of course you can try to feel your headphones, but that won't be necessary either I'd say.

Lastly, we should not talk about "superb" but about reality (I think we are up to that and it is *there* where the LP fails all over) - with concrete examples. This brings me to track 8 which is the best case of not knowing what is going on in the first place. IOW I would have taken another track and "complain" (for the CD version).

That's all Mani; I hope you see some fun in it too.
Peter


Edit : PS: Track 6 is 22-24Hz on the "large drum" hits.

Of course!


Easy - better ADC! I'm not sure what they used back in 1985 but it sounds pretty dull and dead to me.


Ah, I wasn't clear here. I use headphones for monitoring when I'm doing the digitizing, although I haven't actually digitized a lot as yet.

When making this comparison, I was using my main system - NOS1a 75B - Blaxius - Orelos, and this is how Paul heard things today too. No headphones anywhere!


I agree. I just thought that if I'm going to have to listen to the same track a few times, I may as well pick my favourite. Although I'm away from home right now, I've got the two tracks with me on a USB stick. I'll try to set up the file sharing sometime this week - you can then compare to your MFSL if you feel so inclined.

Anyway, I did this all with very little time. I should have a little more time next week to do things 'properly'. The real issue is finding a (well recorded) CD and LP from the same master.

Mani.

Hi Mani,
Good job!
I just bought the latest lp of Leonard Cohen and what fell out of the sleeve? A cd!
The cd and lp should be more or less identical.

Maybe I'll find the time to compare....

:rofl:

Peter, whats happening? Your laughing or crying?
Funny you spent so much time listening to vinyl!
I guess they did not use bnc-wires? ;)

I'm not surprised about anything you say, but most vinylproblems are well known. I don't think you heard vinyl at its best because it is to complex to get everything right. How to find the best combination of turntable, arm, cartridge and pre-amp? For shure not in a shop or show. You are on your own and have to experiment, try, diy and listen. It took me 20 years to get where I am now with vinyl and still room for improvement.
Funny is that the bnc-cable made a bigger difference for my phono then for my dac....
If you are in the neigbourhood feel free to come and listen but be warned it still will be vinyl!

Haha, yes, I am really smiling Gerard ! Count on that this will happen !

Best regards,
Peter

Hi,

the SQ of the previous (prior NOS1a times)  digitized  LP files changed with the „NOS1a replay“ considerable.

The last two days I made some tests with different sample rates using the  LP/CD from Dave Grusin (http://www.amazon.com/Migration-Dave-Grusin/dp/B0000001QL/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1415149201&sr=1-1&keywords=dave+grusin).

(for the cutting and transfering of the WAV- files I used AudioGate 3.02; declicking with iZotope3 – single band with a  low sensitivity at 2, and later converting WAV to Flac-files  with dbPoweramp latest rev.)

The best results/SQ  was achieved with a sample rate of 192Khz and a 24 bit depth.
There is a superb 3D room image (wall of sound) with a very smooth analogue sound without any harshness. The left/right separation is as usual.

--------------------------------
With the digital files the room image is a little bit broken/disrupted. The instruments seems to be played in different chambers (no wall of sound).
The kick drum, bass and cymbals are more pronounced  (maybe I have to adjust the subwoofers), and over a longer time the listening is a little bit exhausting compared to the LP files.

The SQ with both sources is amazing and it is difficult to decide what to prefer, and ...... the analogue source is on par, at least.

Joachim

EDIT I: this post is in contradiction to some previous statements, but the reason is that I increased the SPL at XXH from -31,5 to -27dB and the system (speakers) behaves different, and
second the system is now "in phase", which was not the case for at least a year. Nobody (who I know) was able to demonstrate with a sample when the system is "in phase" and when it is "out of phase". 
The track 3 on the ISOTEK CD is such a test now, and I'm quite sure, that a lot of our systems are "out of phase", and that is a tremendous difference.
see: http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=3039.0

I finally got around to making another needle drop. I chose Talk Talk's 'I Believe in You' from their 'Spirit of Eden' album. I have the original LP and the original CD, both from the same master (the Audacity spectra look identical). The LP is one that I bought back in 1988 when I was a student and is not really in the best of shape, so please forgive all the surface noise. (My needle drop is 1.5 to 2.0 dB louder than the CD - yeah this was the good old days before pop music on CD was compressed to death!)

I'm interested in hearing anyone's thoughts. Are LPs really inferior to CDs as Peter claims?

Here's the link (hope it works OK):

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/imypaxrbi6lznu3/AADvraa_Lyele8r4Wu0S43Uaa?dl=0

Mani.

OK, don't read when you are going to attempt yourself ...

Mani, if you want to make someone (like me) crazy, don't name your needle drop 16/44.1  I listened to that first and before half way I shut it down because I thought the rip was too poor to listen to any further.
Actually there you have your verdict.

*Because* I thought it was a bad rip I looked up my own and this is 6dB 3dB louder than that "CD" which thus must be your needle drop. your CD. :wacko: This sounded very OK to me.

Next up was your real CD rip and that is ~3dB ~6dB :wacko::wacko: softer than my own.

My own I found all right, while I found yours worse than the LP. However, I spoiled myself with my own because it played louder (but way louder because 6dB than your CD) while I thought it would be the similar level as your upcoming needle drop which I apparently already heard.

Right, now *you* are crazy because of this (text) and you caused it yourself.

Now I don't know where you got your CD from but AFAIK no Remaster exists - only a second layer SACD. That should be yours and it is not the very best. Maybe mine isn't either, but as said I spoiled myself and after 35 minutes of this I have swallowed enough A-B. Test was not fair because my mood went bad from the confusion.

Whether the LP is better than your CD ... maybe. Voices of the CD seemed squeezed (unevenly) and stereo picture is somewhat smaller. However if I shut something off because of all these ticks then it will never make it (not any more).
As said, my version did not disturb me at all but was played 6dB louder than your CD.
So I don't know ...

Peter

There's even more confusion because the "16/44.1" is softer than the other one. But for that to happen it needs to be played with HDCD decoding.
Yes, I went bananas of it. :)

Peter

Mani,

I can (or should !) also put it in another way :

At listening to the 16/44.1 I really thought nothing was wrong with it. Nice placebo ? perhaps. Until the ticks got worse and worse (2-3 minutes) - then I couldn't bear it.

At listening to the CD (with mine thus in between) I thought it wasn't the best. At that moment I already knew it was "the CD". So no placebo there.

But also :
I just tried to play the CD (mine) from track 01 - skipped that to 02 ... and there I quit the whole CD. Those "distorted" long-winding guitars are not much bearable in the first place. Ok, not here ...

Ok ?
Peter

OK...

Firstly, you should play the 16/44.1 file (what else did you want me to call it if I'm also recording the track at 24/88.2 and 24/176.4???) without HDCD engaged in XX. I have taken all HDCD processing off in the PMII, but the HDCD flag remains. Play it without HDCD in XX.

Secondly, my CD rip is from the original CD released in 1988 - CDP7469772. I have no idea where yours came from.

I think this remains a good LP vs. CD comparison - the spectra are virtually identical (see below), so we can be pretty certain they're from the same master.

In any event, I think it clearly demonstrates that LP is not obviously inferior to CD... no?

Mani

Yeah, finding something on LP and CD, taken from the same master, with little LP surface noise, and bearable to listen to is going to be difficult.

Thanks for trying Peter. I'd appreciate it if others did too and reported their findings.

For my part, from taking a few needle drops of some of my more pristine LPs, I'm pretty convinced that vinyl can sound very, very good. In fact, much better than I had anticipated. But quite frankly, I don't think vinyl is better than CD... but certainly not as bad as Peter made out in his opening post here.

Mani.

Hi Mani,

you are right!!!!,**** but that depends on the frontend, such as turntable, tonearm and system!****

CD = 100% for SQ
LP 24/96 = 99,5% for SQ

Joachim

For anyone who's interested, here's a needle drop from an 'audiophile LP'. I'd love to know what you think of the sound quality.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/7ob7w4dkvaeqzvr/Chris%20Jones%20-%20No%20Sanctuary%20Here.wav?dl=0

Edit: please use this version instead:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1x1u0d3ozvrkpci/Chris%20Jones%20-%20No%20Sanctuary%20Here%20v2.wav?dl=0

Make certain HDCD decoding is switched off in XX.

Mani.

Hey Mani,

unbelievable piece of music!!! There is a fantastic 3D image, and every instrumentalist is to localize in the ROOM. Perfect :)

Joachim

Oh, is that so ... :evil:

Hey Mani, I love you. But I am sure that by now you will believe that. Ok, about the below text I mean ...

TOTALLY WORTHLESS
And for ALL the aspects I referred to before. :yes:

One thing : with my personal previous "testing" I didn't have my NOS1a right with the impedance stuff. But, at the time I did not know that yet. And honestly, day before yesterday I played the Talk Talk again from CD and could hear I had to do the test again. Nothing came from that for lack-of-time reasons yet, but now this new one ...

Very quickly (because not much time now) and with the notice that everybody over here directed it to the trashbin (because we know the track very well) :

- No stereo (see ?);
- Strange highs (see ?)
- No bass AT ALL (see ?)
- No filling of the room anywhere while this track is famous for it.

This in brief. But additionally in more detail :
No flagiolettes to be heard (always a property of the better system).
CD shows two (dubbed) voices - LP only one.
Dead sound. Bad, poor, nothing.
Watch the very last stroke on the guitar and how LP shows "a sound" while CD shows all the strings from a guitar.

For Joachim, try the CD. I mean I wasn't heading to debunk your nice report, but try the CD.
Of course I *am* debunking Mani's claim, and not a little explicitly. But Mani, as said, you will know yourself by now.
And if not, then there's something to sort out at your side. Similar to mine with the Talk Talk experiment (or that just isn't a good example - I can't tell; but I can do that one again of course).

Hey, this shouldn't come across as bashing; merely as self-defence. Hahaha.

Best regards and feel free to counter attack my "statements" - I can point out a 100 things wrong in this,
Peter

Hey Peter, thanks for giving it a listen. I don't have the CD, could you send this track to me so I can compare?

Anyway, here's another needle drop of the track - everything exactly the same, but I'm just using another digital capture method:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1x1u0d3ozvrkpci/Chris%20Jones%20-%20No%20Sanctuary%20Here%20v2.wav?dl=0

To my ears, this is better. But I'd still like to compare to the CD if possible... and then I'll be able to reply to your comments. But for now, I don't understand the "No bass AT ALL" comments - there's loads here on both versions I've posted.

Mani.

Edit: Peter, you do have HDCD switched off, right???

Chris Jones - No Sanctuary Here

There are different releases of this song in Spotify/Amazon. One with  "castanets" and the other (LP) without.

Joachim

Mani - sure !

Downloaded v2. but ... tomorrow for a listen.
Will send you the CD version.


Joachim, both the versions I compared (LP and CD) are the same.

Regards,
Peter

Can't find any translation/explanation in the net.

Is it  "castanets" ?

Joachim

Comparison on my system between LP and CD tracks (Thank you Peter)

- No stereo (see ?); = On the LP is Stereo(listening off axis)
- Strange highs (see ?)= Nothing strange here.
- No bass AT ALL (see ?)= There is bass on the LP
- No filling of the room anywhere while this track is famous for it. = Here I can’t compete with Peters amazing sounding room


This in brief. But additionally in more detail :
No flagiolettes to be heard (always a property of the better system). = ??????
CD shows two (dubbed) voices - LP only one. = Correct, very easy to hear on the CD, on the LP most of the times  difficult to hear, but there are two dubbed voice, good to hear in the middle and end of the song.
Dead sound. Bad, poor, nothing. = ????
Watch the very last stroke on the guitar and how LP shows "a sound" while CD shows all the strings from a guitar.. = identical on both tracks

The CD produces more details, and the SPL of the LP is 6dB lower,
In absolute terms the CD track sounds better.

Joachim

Hmm, interesting; someone forgot to write an English Wikipedia page for this. Here it is in German :
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flageolettton
or for the few Dutch in here :
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flageolet_(speelwijze)

And my own description (without checking against the Wikipedia pages) :

The flagiolette is one of the most crucial phenoma to check the performance of your audio chain; the better, the better the flagiolette will be audible.
Right, that's set. :)
When, with a string instrument, the string is half pressed on to the neck (of e.g. a violin, guitar), duch that the string is damped and not will exhibit its full power, only the overtones emerge and the fundamental is not heard. The amount of hearing the fundamental depends on the amount of "touch" the string is pressed on to the neck - the more, the more the fundamental becomes audible. The technique is not difficult to apply but it needs some "sensing" (of the finger) to do it in the right amount.
For e.g. a double bass the art is alomst the other way around, and with a firmly plucked string it requires "strong mussle" in the finger to keep the string against the neck so the fundamental is heard (when intended). Because of the lower frequency (like 38Hz) of the double bass, the flagiolette is mere heard as vibrating metal (of the string) against the neck; while this effect can be applied deliberately, it is often so that it can't be avoided like with fast plucking and the precise timing needed to fully press the string against the neck with also the fastness required because the stroke of the string actually has to be preceeded by the full press of the string. When for example Brian Blomberg slaps the double bass and which he can do in fast fashion (and more strings at the time), this is almost only flagiolette playing which can not be avoided. With for example Ray Brown - who plays more slowly and does not slap but pluck - normal fundamentals can be shown easily, while now on purpose his hard plucking combined with low pressure of the finger on the string against the neck expresses a vary loud vibrating metal sound.
When the strings are stroke with a bow the very same effect can be applied, though this now is the more fragile combination of the force put on the string with the bow and the vibrating string (half) against the neck. To do this well with varying loudless (which is pressure of the bow) while always sustaining the flagiolette sound, can be called a real skill or art.

Flagiolette from a playback system can be called another dimension because it allows tones to be heard (the overtones / harmonics) which otherwise are overwhelmed by the fundamental. When the system can not render the harmonics well, again we hear the fundamental only, though softer because physically it *is* softer.


Remove the typos and put to Wikipedia.
:swoon:
Peter

Okayyy ...


Remember that all is relative and how I described this "phenomenon" earlier in this topic (IIRC);
Of course it is stereo, but it is hard to detect while the CD is as wide as can be with countless variation between left and right. This springs from one thing only : accuracy. But also see below.


If I may refer to the dubbed voice not heard, now imagine what all more is not heard. I think I am able to explain : way waaay more than a double voice. I know, this is fragile too, but again it is the detail which just lacks on the LP.
Not difficult to imagine how highs sound strange (read : completely different from what I used to plus without the variation I am used to (this latter is noyt subjective of course).


Here we have a little bit more difficult problem to explain in writing (listening is super easy);
If you, Joachim, already perceive a room-filling bass sound, then try to imagine what happens with a flat to 19Hz going speaker like mine. And Mani's of course. So once and again for Mani : feel your woofers (from both verions).
Anyway, this kind of bass - which is, mind you, just from a Spanish Guitar, is processed in some way which lowers it an octave or whatever. This production company does this with all the "Spanish Guitars" and the sound from them is always similar. One of the properties is that the lower frequencies themselves (from such a guitar) have a delay or hall between left and right, and *this* is how the room filling emerges. Happens to you (Joachim) but happens to me a 10 times better because of the low frequency separation and directivity (say well executed horns for the LF).
But totally nothing of that on the LP ...


Thank you Joachim. But the room is hardly doing this. It is the speaker. I know, because I know how this all improved with the new speaker.


This does not tell much because the LP version completely depends on the recording level Mani applied.

Thanks ...
Peter

Hi Mani,

I assume that by now you know what difference I refer to (since you have the CD version). But to extend what I already (just) said about it :

It is the co-operation between left and right which makes it a room-filling bass. With the LP version the LF come dead from the middle and all the life is out of the bass already. This, while the bass (like recorded / produced) is so super special. Nothing of that is there on the LP (v1 and btw no time for v2 today I think).

If this is combined with hardly any stereo effect to begin with then all together the LP is completely flat sounding.
All is relative again, and first it needs a recording like this to express the vast difference.

Btw, this is not only an "audiophile recording" as you expressed it, but it is played to death at all audio shows. And for a reason of course.

Regards,
Peter

Hey Peter, thanks for the CD track. In line with Joachim's response, here's what I think:

- No stereo Yes there is, if you sit centre as I always do.
- Strange highs A little more recessed and less decay, but not 'strange' to my ears
- No bass AT ALL (This was might thought before reading your post above.) This is one of the biggest differences for me. It's not the amount of bass, or the extension that I have a problem with on my needle drop, but rather the 'speed'. On the CD, the bass starts and stops so much more quickly. It provides the rhythm for the music. On the recording it is just too slow and 'woolly'.
- No filling of the room anywhere while this track is famous for it. No issues here in my room.

This in brief. But additionally in more detail :
No flagiolettes to be heard (always a property of the better system). (Again, before I read your post above.) Certainly, the CD has more micro detail than my recording. No disagreement here.
CD shows two (dubbed) voices - LP only one. The two voices are absolutely clear in the recording, but not to the extent of the CD. Probably due to the extra micro detail on the CD.
Dead sound. Bad, poor, nothing. I'm 50% with you on this.
Watch the very last stroke on the guitar and how LP shows "a sound" while CD shows all the strings from a guitar. I totally disagree with you. It's totally clear that this is the stroke of a guitar string. Clean your ears out!

And just like Joachim, I agree that the CD is better.

HOWEVER...

You might have noticed that in all my comments referred to 'my recording' and not 'the LP'. You see, I disagree with anyone who thinks that making an accurate digital recording of an LP (a 'needle drop') is trivial. I have many ADC machines here, and I can tell you that I cannot capture a 100% accurate needle drop with any of them. The PMII is totally transparent to my ears. I can compare the original LP with an AD/DA loop within the PMII and really there is no difference. However, this AD/DA loop does not require the PMII to be interfaced with anything externally. And it is here that the problem exists. In my experience capturing the AD stream on an external device 100% accurately is next to impossible. I'm not sure if it's AES/EBU, or firewire, or the PC that is at fault but a lot is lost in this process. And this is what you're hearing on my recording.

When I'm monitoring the LP during the recording process, the sound is stunning, and most of Peter's criticisms simply do not apply. When I have some time, I will compare playing the CD (on my NOS1a) vs. playing the LP, both through my monitoring system. I am pretty confident the difference will be next to nothing.

Meanwhile, I'm quite happy actually. I've found a track that I can use to make some really valid comparisons. Also, and more importantly, I know how far the recording is from the actual LP. And I can tell you that it's a similar difference between the recording and the CD. This has really motivated me to find a better way of capturing the AD stream from the PMII.

Peter, you will see!

Mani.

Mani,


Aha ... But *that* now is a new data point. So I don't recall you ever said it like this ... which of course is not much related to my findings from listening directly to LP anyway.

Otherwise I am not sure how you are going to play anything from an LP which has been high passed (~30Hz) for LP (haha) while an original master didn't undergo that high passing.

Don't you have The Wall (PF) ? it would be a nice example to point out what just can't be there on LP. Just the first track (and I have the MSFL version).
In the end this is all (or only) about the ambient information (this goes to around 20Hz). Not much different from the "room filling" I talk about.
I don't want to be right, but of course I already am when talking about this aspect alone. Maybe not fair but do notice that this is no theory only. And therefore The Wall is a good example. By heart : EL&P I also have an example from, but at this moment I forgot which (could be Tarkus).

Cheers,
Peter

Hey Peter, technically the LP is better than the CD!!! Look below. The compression on the CD is terrible. I wondered how the CD could sound so much louder than my needle drop, even though I was going reasonably high in level. And now I know. I think this might be a good example of people being impressed by artificial loudness!

And also, where's the drop off below 30Hz on the LP? There isn't any!

Mani.

Yayayaya, that is how you look at it. But I look at it somewhat differently; This is not much compressed at all, however it is limited somewhat (say the 2dB of difference you see on the DR).

Otherwise don't get hung up too much on "compression" or whatever, because almost all CDs have that. But this is a very different property than detail etc.

FYI: The other day I spent a full day on measuring interlinks (up to 5MHz) to see whether I could find even the slightest difference between an in my view good performing one (Blaxius) and a totally dull situation like "wrongly modded" NOS1a plus different IC etc. ... Nothing of course. Also not with these kind of spectragrams.

On the bass side of things ... a bit of the same story. But if you want : what do you mean "no roll off" ?
[I am not saying that this is with real merit, but still you can think  it over]
Elsewhere I tried to explain what the high pass implies. This is NOT a steep roll off on the left side of 30Hz. Now I am confident you see a difference, and it is only (merit !) to determine where this difference comes from and how real it is. Still I already told somewhere (measuring from the speaker) that depending on the recording the LF goes all the way to DC. Your speaker does that too but with huge roll off beyond say 16Hz (but starts at 19Hz).

I can say it a 1000 times ... feel your woofers. Don't tell me you are afraid of it ? I mean, you never ever responded to this, while here too this is totally clear (yes, I did). Try to learn how DC feels (not a frequency but larger "blobs"). Your spectragraph shows it (FWIW).
Of course it is not important to feel something because it is about hearing/perceiving something. BUT from what you feel you can learn to hear or perceive it with as the next step how to improve or how to easily see (feel) that things got worse without readily recognition. If you do this with this track, you would never dare to say that there's no difference (with the proove of a plot which we all might not read easily for all there is to interpret).
What you can also do is switch on your DC metering in your NOS1a and look at it. The DC shows there too. Takes a bit of learning plus interpretation of the 3x or so per second update but you can see it (I don't know about this track and how the both versions will compare).
Yes, I know, you have to be with a nice drink in your basement for it, but alas. Haha.

So no, your plots to me don't show much (just because it can be 100 times worse).
Btw, your left headroom for the needle drop is around 6dB. So twice as soft for that reason alone. Nothing wrong with that (my opinion) but the explanation for your "wondering".

All put from a different angle :
So you agree that the CD sounds better. Or maybe not any more after seeing the plots ? :swoon:. But what about your idea of the external device recording being detrimental then ? I mean, can you see it in the plots ?
That was your cigar. LOL

haha
Peter

OK, I'll try this.

But you can clearly see that the LP recording is identical in output to the CD from 10Hz upwards, i.e. there is no 30Hz high pass filter as you implied. And furthermore, the steep drop-off below 10Hz in the LP recording is a testament to how well-behaved my turntable/arm/cartridge are - little or no rumble.

If DC to 10Hz is really that important, then you have a point. Personally, I think it's the speed of the bass in the CD that makes it better, which of course is not shown by these plots.


Well, if you think 'limiting' on CDs is OK, then perhaps. But for me, it is totally, totally unnecessary - I mean, why do it?... Unless it's to have an artificial way of increasing micro details (as the RMS level is massively increased, and hence the low-level signals also).


Better than my recording, yes - there's more micro detail and the bass is tighter and faster.. Better than the LP, I'm not sure yet.


No, of course not. Interfacing to an external device probably introduces a bunch of RF reflections and noise induced jitter, which 'deaden' the sound, but which won't show up on these plots.

Overall, the plots won't tell you how something sounds. But they're great for identifying 'cheating'. In the case of the CD, having to limit at -0.5dB full scale to make it sound 'good'. Just my opinion.

Mani.

And are you sure the DC should even be there in the first place? Is it really part of the signal, or an ADC artifact? Look below at the plot from a CD rip of a 10KHz test signal.

Mani.

Oh and look here at the plot of my v2 needle drop. (By the way, no need to take a listen to this - it sounds too similar to v1.)

Why the increased DC? Same LP, turntable, phono-preamp, and ADC. Just a different digital capture method (AES into a Tascam recorder, rather than a firewire interface and PC).

I'm sure plots of my older recordings made with my previous turntable would show plenty below 20Hz, and loads of DC. Would you prefer that?

 :prankster:

Mani.

Uh-ohh ... I am afraid you drag in too much to let sound something better than it does ... ;)

First off, I said that no merits should be taken from what I said about the plots. So no need to work that out I'd say.
Secondly, I don't think I ever said that this particular album even *has* the LF output (now confuse yourself with the "merit" of what you see in the CD plot, ok ?).

Then you make the biggest mistake by thinking that no LP *requires* high passing. Of course it does. Only when nothing of LF is in there to begin with (by guarantee) it is not needed.
And the other way around of course : if nothing is in there no CD will "be better" for that reason anyway. And then again, when the LP is highpassed but the CD is taken from that same "master" then no CD is better for that reason (count 99%++ CD to be that so bad luck).

Shall we now hop over to the 40-60dB inherent noise and a nice subject how that will improve the sound ? Ok, make 70dB of that if you like. But I thought we were over that subject. I mean, that we could skip it. But when you are so persistent it is a subject. Apparently ?


That too I did not say. Not at all. But it testifies a little how moods are going to influence the subject. It's okay if I was first. :) But of course, *any* limiting is not OK; what I suggested it that in many occasions it can not be avoided (like live recordings) while additionally I can tell that it can be avoided if you're left with 24dB or whatever headroom to be always on the safe side. And *that* does not work at all (try Crime of The Century (Supertramp)).
If you are suggesting that for this CD transfer - assumed the master is the same for both LP and CD - it is total nonsense that limiting has been applied, then I agree of course. However, this is already what I assume(d) and all I say is that this is harmless in comparison with all the downsides from ... well, whatever it is I listen to for the LP version (think your external recording device etc.). Not in general, but in this situation (only a little limiting). This in itself is not a general remark, because it is related to how much worse it can be.

I think we better cut this out because it is about one thing only : how totally poor the LP version sounds.
This leads to the actual problem perhaps : that you don't agree. Or for 50% you do but I wouldn't be satisfied with that if I were you. Why ? because there is no 50% in my view. It is total rubbish - that bad. So I would make that the concern)(uhm, yours). You don't perceive it or don't want to perceive it or something I don't think of. And the biggest problem with this is that I can't see how it ever can be my fault. I mean, I just play two 16/44.1 files.
Also, I am honest like with the Talk Talk example. So it can't be that either.

I wish you had other speakers and all because in that case we could call it a day. For example if Joachim tells that this last strike sounds exactly the same on both versions then this is quite acceptable for me because of too many things different. If you tell this, something is going on and the most easy explanation is that you did not learn to hear it.
So Mani, you know (from experience) that there will be no single way that when we'd both listen to something we will disagree once it is pointed out. And yuo are for sure not the only one who can testify this. So, easy enough. But what did I say ? "when pointed out". All what might happen is that you point out your goose bumps from LP while I will not receive those for being too disturbed by other things first. So let this be subjective of some kind. And yes, you may even declare that LP the winner for it. I have no problems with that. But then the response must be something like : you are correct, CD is 100% better on all technical aspects; too bad it doesn't give me goose bumps. I for 100% sure will accept that and it would give me something to think about and something to do.

Let's start with those woofers. Don't feel a difference ? then there is no difference (say). But when you do feel a difference then start thinking about whether you heard it. Of course you already said so, but this is about the details you feel (not only stiff bass etc.) and whether you perceive that. No ? then practice with it.

Ok, never to forget, all ever in good spirit. But it gets challenging a little ... :yes:
Best regards,
Peter

Yep, happy to do that. But just a few points of clarification from my side first:


C'mon, I never said that. I said that it's clear from the plot that there's no 30Hz high pass filter applied to this particular LP, as you suggested there was (before I put up the plot). I mean, just look at the plot. Do you really see a sharp drop-off below 30Hz? I don't see it. the drop-off below 10Hz is more a feature of my turntable than anything else. Now, my LP is a Stockfisch Direct Metal Master LP. There's a ton of information on the process they use, and although they don't specifically mention it, I strongly suspect they do NOT apply a high pass filter. FWIW, my old turntable/arm/cartridge cannot play this LP at all without gross distortion.


Yes, agreed. My recording (the 16/44.1 file I posted) sounds poor in comparison to the CD.

Mani.

Please read back on what I said about this. Not that at all.

Now we agree about everything. Hahaha.

Thank you Mani,
Peter

Hi,

soooooo,

I checked this "last strike" with the "near field" monitors at my PC too,

and

I played this strike on my e-guitar.

This strike is a very light "capo" grip with a soft touch and nooo string is vibrating, and that is the sound we hear!

Joachim

Hi Joachim,

Yes, funny, because this is all "flagiolette" (in a chord now). So now you know !

Regards,
Peter

Hi Peter,

No, at that last "strike" no string is vibrating.
It is very easy to hear during the song, when the string is free for "swinging" vibrations.

see here a link on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ld6ochRUHvM
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QLPZ4KEtzw

so you see the last "strike" is not ................ .

Joachim

Hey Joachim,

Should be a misunderstanding, but I did not say that any string needs to vibrate. It is only that this is almost unavoidable for a double bass (length of the sting and thus excursion of it).
So it is the other way around (and I tried to explain that) : the string is damped by means of not pressing it to the frets (neck) etc. and/but by pressing it a little only.

Now I am not sure whether you am now telling me what flagiolette is or that wwe try to sort out symantics or that you think the strike at the end is not "flagiolette" ...
But since you showed those YouTubes (I did not listen because of no sound) you can only disagree about the latter.

But I can go somewhat further (without taking the YouTube guitar lessons ;-) :
Of course the string can still vibrate if you like because that is just a matter of pressing the string against the fret somewhat more (or less). Also, literally speaking the string always vibrates (otherwise no sound) so it is a matter of whether it vibrates against the neck or not (so I suppose you talk about that).

Why do you think a guitar has frets in the first place ?
-> Easier to play the normal fundamental because of the space under the string between the frets and not so hard pressure is needed to get that right. But press a bit less and the string vibrates against the last fret (and have a mixture of that and flagiolette) and press again less and it is flagiolette only.
And oh, no frets are needed at all for a guitar, and without exist too (for sure you will have seen bass guitars without).

So if you now again envision the double bass (the Ray Brown one) and for fun grab in Pythagoras (I dod not) and measure the length of the string up to the end of the neck (say 1m80 or so). Now look at the distance of the string to the neck (this is not equal for the whole neck, but say 3mm on average). Now pluck the string at the under side outwards (slap it inwards is also OK) for 1cm (easy to do). Next do a^2 + b^2 = c^2 and see the distance "needed" at the end of the neck. Now see whether more than 3mm is needed at the end of the neck. Yes ? then you will know that you are not able to make that even 0mm with your finger because in advance of that the string will hit the neck. Now though something else will happen because the string is more foreceful than your finger can keep is pressed again the neck and thus you damp it.
And there's the unavoidable flagiolette.

Of course it can be avoided by less hard plucking/slapping. But since it is the extra dimension of playing such instrument this is most often not done (apart from not being loud enough now).

The fact that the string can vibrate against the neck (or fret when there) is another phenomenon than the flagiolette itself. So the bass player too can play normal flagiolette without the metal sound from the string hitting the neck. Take a bow and damp the string instead of pressing it against the neck at all, and there you have it.

Something else is that a guitar player too can do this (not make the string hit the fret) and I am sure you will see that in the YouTubes. But now something else is going on because now the guitar player is suddenly allowed to play all notes not determined by the frets (they are just not used now to determine the "pre-set" notes. But now he will definitely play flagiolettes only and no hitting of the frets will be there.

Btw, this last hit from Chris Jones should be quite special to let sound right, because to me it looks quite difficult to find a nice chord for all the strings (so striking them all) where the harmonics implied all work out. Ok, this is a matter of just knowing of course.

Yeah, what a lot of text about almost nothing. But it could be worth while because Joachim, just FYI, when you visited us - the first NOS1 era, my system did not show much of flagiolettes. The NOS1-USB started to do that. And so I say it again : the better the system renders all, the better flagiolettes come forward. Even that metal of the plucking of such bass I did not perceive back then. Now it is all over. And logic, because it can't even be avoided as said, when plucking. So easy (once you know) when you don't perceive this "all over" then there's something to improve.

Lastly, back to the real subject : one of the first things I noticed with the comparison of the Chris Jones track was "no flagiolettes anywhere". I only heard that when I played the CD as the second (so this went unnoticed when playing the LP version as the first). But this is also how that last strike sounds very "different" ... obviously.
It really *is* crucial for that other dimension, because it is used all over and I am sure you recognize it from the YouTubes. So the better the system, the better these kind of (fairly infinite) variations the artist applies can be heard.

Sorry if this was all "over done", but it is just a key subject for me ...

Best regards,
Peter

Hi Peter,

Funny you mention these flagiolettes.
It looks they are exactly the things to listen for at setting the VTA (Vertical tracking angle) as described here: http://www.tnt-audio.com/sorgenti/vta_method_e.html (http://www.tnt-audio.com/sorgenti/vta_method_e.html)
That's the fun of vinyl, you can make it sound the way you like best...
And even for every individual lp. :wacko:

Hi Peter,

A)
the youtube videos makes sence with a sound only, and then you will see/hear HOW  "flagiolette" is played.

When you pluck at the guitar a free string then you hear a sound.
When you touch the string above a fret or anywhere on the fretboard  with your finger very, very soft only, you hear ....... NOTHING! (no vibrations of the string)
When you press the string  down  to two adjacent frets then you hear a sound again.

"Flagiolette" is, you touch a string above a certain fret or anywhere on the fretboard very soft only, and "during/at the same time" of the pluck to that string you LIFT the finger.

B)

This is strange and makes me wonder, because the "flagiolette" sound of the guitar is very present on both versions from Manis LP rips on my system.

Joachim

Hi again Joachim,

The big mistake is that you can only hear the sound (when the string is touched only) when your "system" is able to show it. No single YouTube is going to do that ...

This is also how you perceive the sound of that last strike from CJ the same on both versions - your system must be able to dig out all first (and the CD contains much more ot it, I tell you). And if it sounds the same to you on both versions it can only mean that it doesn't (system etc.).

Regards,
Peter

PS: Maybe it helps if I tell you I own a few guitars myself, including a bass guitar. Not double bass - that doesn't fit anywhere here. Haha.

Joachim,

Coincidentally Stanley Clarke - East River Drive - Track 08 just started playing when I finished my post above. This is all pure flagiolette only in the first 15 seconds or so and the level is almost the same as the normally pressed strings. It could be a reference for you.
Btw I said pure also because it's almost nice sines you hear. Why ? just (try to) leave out all the other harmonics (and the fundamental). So the trick is that the electric bass is fairly square for its sound - now it is not at all (normally fundamental plus all harmonics form the square).
Reoccurs many times in the track.

Peter

Hi,

This thread should/will enhance my listening experiences and so I dug into details (flagiolett)  mentioned by Peter.

Some infos at front: for “flagiolett”  the English term is “natural harmonix”

The links in Youtube are acoustically very good to follow with separate small active computer loudspeakers, such as one from Logitech, and we can hear every detail.

To get an idea how the artist plays the “natural harmonix” the link A) and B) shows very good samples.
In video B) Tommy Emmanual gives a public lesson, and watch to the end of the video the action of his thumb and index finger.
Link C) shows the “natural harmonix” on a bass guitar, if somebody is interested.

A)   Link of „natural harmonixs“ for a guitar  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZ6HKrFFM_4
B)   Tommy Emmanual lesson  link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-q-aMnYXb8
C)   and a link for a bass guitar http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHx3RVCcuuo

Happy watching and listening.

Joachim

Joachim - Great YouTubes. Thanks ...

I now watched *and* listened to them all, and I'd like to encourage people who can't decide which one to look to look at this one at least : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QLPZ4KEtzw
(the second one from your earlier post)

Now notice that I watched this one on an iPad flat a bit tiled on a (wooden) surface and while such thing is mono (spekar at the back side), I think it can express what I want to make clear for the fragility how this all operates ...

I think it is the first YouTube where the (famous for it) guy tells about how the "harmoinics ring into each other". However, while the sound is great he doesn't explain it and you won't be able to perceive that. Maybe it was also him who tells that guitarist use the flagiolettes to far more easily tune their guitar strings. This is how I like to direct you to the link from Joachim I gave above. And PC speakers may not easily do what I like to tell about it. So :

What you can beautifulle hear in that YouTube is how the same tones (call them harmonics, while the fundamental technically is not that) can "ring" into eachother; they oscillate. And the closer the flagiolette is used at the correct spot, the slower this oscillation occurs. N.b.: This is actually the "beating" again we discussed a year back or so.
When both are exactly in tune no oscillation occurs, but still the fundamental plus thus all it harmonics sounds different than the harmonic alone.

What I now like you to do is pereceive the super fragility of this and how when even the slightest is wrong, it does not work out "beautiful". Hard to explain of course, but think there's a dimension beyond what you hear from the YouTube and how it can be rendered on the better system. So of course (Joachim) you hear from the PC speakers (and 128kbs or less lousy YouTube) that the flagiolette works, but it is about the nuances and for example how they work unintendedly because the guitarist (or bass player) is so fast with his playing that the flagiolette emerges in tiny detail only. So envision, this is only a matter of just slightly wrong timing, and strike the string with the finger needed on e.g. the 12th fret (but you will have seen that many more positions exist) and because he quickly needs to go to the next tone or chord it works out briefly at the flagiolette. Matter of not being able to fully press the string against the fret, which logically can occur when letting it go to quickly while plucking the string (just too late).

I try to emphazise it again : Listen to that YouTube I gave the link from, and just dive into the beauty of the sound which IMO is not difficult because it is more beautiful than a nice lady's voice. But try to capture it like I did with the iPad with its speaker at the back side reflecting the surface it is on and your head maybe 20cm max from it. Now you are "in" the sound literally and all works together (nothing different from speakers in the room when it "works" (!).

So it is these details which come more forward with the better system, and let's say that this is just the more detailed rendering of an anomaly (when the player hasn't got his timing right).
I could also try to say that the purity of the harmonics alone (supposed one of them can be played - but see the YouTubeS because the more towards the bridge the more you incur for harmonics close to the end of the spectrum, now all those under it eliminated) ... is an exhibit of the well rendering system to begin with. Just think how pure and undistorted a sine can sound, while some distortion makes less of that. And not so many pure sines around to begin with ... but from flagiolettes, yes.

In the end it will be nothing less than logic that the better system shows the flagiolettes better. Anyway for me it is a measure, but you have to run into the possible difference one time. So just saying : that (damped ! - fingers don't leave the string fully) strike at the end of Chris Jones I most probably always heard. But maybe just over a year ago (ok, should be new speakers) I started to say "huh ?!?" because I never heard it, and today (Blaxius) it simpy blasts through the room. I am serious. Not at all with the LP version; there it is as 2 years ago, and I only hear it because I now know it is there. No need to explain *that* because we all know about the phenomenon (once you know, then ...).

So it is super fragile and therefore a very good measure.

Regards,
Peter

Hi Peter,

perfect, AND ....... WHERE is my Blaxius ordered in October? :cry:

Joachim

Joachim ... sometimes I am sure you are not reading the forum ...
If I had made it in October then you would have had everything wrong. Missed that 4 times if not more ??

But I am going to make a few today - yours too if all is right.

Peter

Hi Peter,

don't be so serious, it was a joke!!! :teasing:

Joachim

Oh ... then I better apologise !
grrr
haha - you got me there !

Best regards,
Peter

Hi Mani, very interesting.
Downloaded the CD version today for comparison.
For me the CD sounds better, its really a large difference. CD have more bass and more hight and details, more life to it.
Thank you for the download! :)

How about this?
www.youtube.com/embed/xH8I0LUjrqw (http://www.youtube.com/embed/xH8I0LUjrqw)

Gerard, you forgot an H.

Seems like an expensive advertising campain to me (scrolled a bit through it without sound).

Regards,
Peter

Yeah, sounds too good to be true, digital sounding like analog!
Wonder if it is just HighRes...
If not I'm sure you can make something like it. ;)

Hi,

since a longer time I was curious to compare the SQ  between my analogue chain with the “digital” SQ .  My turntable was not connected to the  speakers since 2011, because the location of the EMT 950 is 10 m away from the power amp. So I ordered  a pair of 10m 50Ohm “Aircom plus” coax cables  with BNC connectors and  BNC/RCA adapters 4 weeks ago and off it goes with records I have on vinyl’s and CD’s (some recordings from  the same master band).
 
The analogue chain/route is an EMT 950 turntable with a TSD 15 cartridge, Valhalla XLR/RCA cable from the EMT to a Burmester 877 MkII preamp and continuing from there with the “Aircom plus” cable to the power amp (same connection as used with the NOS1a).

This analogue SQ is incredible, at least on par with the “digital chain”. What I hear in my room is, the SQ of the analogue chain is slightly  better than ...... , and the SQ remembers me to the “digital” sound with the YFS USB Reference cable.
It’s difficult to explain, to find the right explanation/words, in comparison to the “analogue SQ” the 1$ USB cable creates noise/distortion (in my opinion).

The analogue SQ in the “toilet” is great, no big difference to SQ of the digital chain.

This topic is “Best Vinyl Rig” and To counteract Peter's reservation against LP's the “turntable vendors” out there should compare their "expensive" products with “real turntables” sometimes.
 
Joachim

Hey Joachim, there must be something in the air. I too connected my turntable to my main system over the weekend (see pic), mainly to enjoy my 50s and 60s original pressings that, for whatever reason, seem to sound so good. And just like you Joachim, I too really, really like the sound of my TT. I wouldn't go as far as saying that it is on par with the NOS1a, but I agree that there is a certain something about the sound that is very nice. Also, I really enjoyed engaging with the vinyl format again - you know, the whole rigmarole of choosing an album, placing it, giving it a clean beforehand and... then just relaxing until the whole side has finished.

My vinyl rig is far from optimally set up right now, so I've decided that I'm going to invest a bit of time and money to improve this. The first step will be to buy a SOTA phono preamp. I've opted for a Thöress Phono Enhancer, which I will place an order for later this week. I'm then hoping the designer, Reinhard Thöress, will help me get the rest of my vinyl rig optimally set up.

But one thing I am not going to do is take the NOS1a through the preamp. Instead, I will physically switch the cables to the Orelo speakers, between the NOS1a and the phono preamp, whenever I want to switch sources. It sounds a PITA, but I suspect that I won't be doing it too often, as I'll only be listening to vinyl once a week or so.


Very nice! Interestingly, a few years ago I was in the hunt for an EMT 927. I contacted one of the guys who used to work at EMT and he insisted that I should buy a 950 instead. He said it was technically a better TT and that at today's prices it was a bargain compared to the crazily priced 927. I didn't take his advice though (I didn't buy a 950 or a 927)... perhaps I should have?

Cheers, Mani.

Hi Mani,

Great/nice picture of the speakers/TT.  :)
You are ordering the Phono Enhancer with 75Ohm BNC outlets for a Blaxius cable!?   :) The sound with the BNC coax cable (pre amp to power amp) is great on my system.

A relocation of the TT is due to (air) resonances to a place near your listening position to be preferred. The tonearm is very sensitive to resonances.
Fortunately I had the chance to locate the TT in an adjacent room, but now the 10m BNC coax cable is crossing our living room and I have to repack the cable when my wife is not working always.

Joachim

Hi Mani,

these EMT's are ultimate TT machines because everything is  made inhouse and tuned for perfect interactions.  (no resonances between the different components such as tonearm, cartridge, chassis, suspension, e-motor etc.)

There are 950er on Ebay for < € 6000,00 sometimes and the Fabritius cards (http://www.fabtech.de/en_own-products_f2.html) are mandatory for audiophiles.

Joachim

Hi,

vinyl SQ beats CD rip by a “lightyear” on the “Take Five”  track from Dave  Brubeck on this CD:

http://www.amazon.com/Time-Out-Dave-Brubeck-Quartet/dp/B000002AGN/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1425061499&sr=1-1&keywords=dave+brubeck (acc. to the booklet this CD is no remastering)

The vinyl version I listened to is on this LP:

http://www.amazon.com/Dave-Brubecks-Greatest-Hits-Brubeck/dp/B003XX2P9A/ref=tmm_vnl_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=1-3&qid=1425061499

Anyone has the chance to compare?  You will be surprised what you do not hear on the CD.
---------------------------------------
If my assumption/guess will be confirmed with other LP’S then most of  the ”analogue to digital” conversions from the ”master tapes” are for the trash. At present I’m listening to the  Miles Davis vinyl “Sketches of Spain” and the vinyl SQ confirms the trend.

Details about the differences later.

Joachim

EDIT: BNC coax cables are working in an analogue chain amazingly too!

Hi Joachim,

Maybe you recall that many years ago we were testing the means of digitising Take Five. "We" = Mani and I looked in the files and listened to it. But as I recall this was not really about a comparison with the (a) CD version.
Point is : I still should have those but I can't find them.

Maybe Mani still has them, but then he must have registered thoroughly which was which version.

So, curious ...
Peter

Hey, I still have them somewhere... can try to dig them out. But I don't think I had my vinyl setup very well optimized back then. And also I will readily admit that I NEVER managed to capture the full glory of vinyl on digital. It's not the ADC that was at fault per se, but the method of capturing the ADC output onto a storage device. Everything I tried for years failed. Some of the results were good, but never anywhere near the original vinyl. Anyway, I've now given up making needle drops for a while. If I want to hear my old 50s and 60s vinyl I just play it straight. And I have to say I love the sound - maybe not as accurate as digital, but very nice nevertheless.

I agree with Joachim 100% though - my 45rpm vinyl of Time Out trounces the 1997 Mark Wilder HDCD release in SQ. But I think a lot of this is down to the awful mixing on the HDCD - the alto sax is waaay too hot. Mark did exactly the same thing on the 1997 Kind of Blue CD release with the trumpet and saxs way too hot. He sort of admitted this when the 24/192 KOB was released recently. This has a much better balance, more in line with the original vinyl.

Mani.

Let me sort of admit something :

When I was going to listen to this "Fever" track from Elvis a few days ago, I told I played Take Five in advance of it. Well, somewhere into the 2 minutes I shut it off. I didn't hear anything from what I was used to, that 4 years or so ago when comparing these "recording means" from Mani.

I must add that this track (but the Fever track no different) contained way too much of digital headroom. I didn't really sort it out, but my senses told be that it could be way over a half of lost "dynamics". So Fever track was nothing much, but Take Five was also nothing much.
And on the latter I don't recall that at all from playing it a 100 times, 4 years ago ...

Peter

Hi,

I just made the experience that during our march improving the SQ of the music we have no reference point. There is no starting point/ fall back for a comparison. We are going ahead and do not know if we are on the right track.

Listening to old records on my vinyl rig I have to say, the digital chain has to struggle very hard to catch up with the vinyl sound. The vinyl sound creates a real powerful 3D image of the soundstage, it is a wall of sound. The whole area around the speakers is “energized”, full of music, you hear the depth of the recording room.

The sound of the digital releases of the LP’s (Return To Forever, Dave Brubeck,  Elvis Presley, Chick Corea) has no energy,  is flat with a small 3D image, (with vinyl the room depth is 5m, with digital 2m only) nothing sparkles.

On the vinyl “Take five” track you hear the drums, especially the cymbals and snare drum all over as one of the major instrument beside the piano. On the CD version the drums are playing behind a big curtain, all the magic of the amazing drums is gone.
 
The SQ of the “DDD” CD’s  have a nice 3D image of the soundstage, but has not the magic of the vinyl energy and “5m thick wall of sound” image.

My opinion is:

-   The SQ of the “old” digitized LP’s is not on par with the present new digital releases in “DDD”, and years behind the original vinyl sound.
-   I’m wondering about the missing energy (with the 1$USB cable) of the “DDD” CD’s compared to vinyl. Is the omitted preamp the reason?

Now folks, fire back. :) :)

Joachim

Joachim, what is a "DDD CD?"

Hi Brian,

the recording chain is fully digital. You see this remark on the CD covers/booklets sometimes.

Joachim

Hi Joachim,

I think this is a far too simple approach;


I described this myself in the beginning of this topic, and maybe you recall that in (your) response I expected your "wall of sound" to be a positive. Later you "admitted" (??) that this was a negative and so today it apparently is still not clear. Anyway, I call this generally (because I can't know really) the opposite of accuracy.
And to maybe keep in mind : I recently described (for a 2nd or 3rd time) how "super depth" will never any more be something I fall for, because in the end it appeared to be a big disappointment.

One thing I keep on telling : The better it gets, the more "point sourced" the sound will be, which in the end for me is logic. And if then things are not right they will work out quite badly. This will come across as contradictionary but this is because several things exist of "having it right".
Easy example (for me) : When the bass is not accurate it will fill the room with "low sound" and you can call it "energize" the room. When this is to be played through a woofer which can't cope with the low frequencies, then the perception of bass gets "more". But again it went less accurate.

In the end we won't be able to compare. My system is supposed to pass on any low frequency with inaudible distortion. What would happen when I play an LP over it ? I really don't know (never tried it) but I do know that the LF won't even be in the LP's representation (LP is high passed above 30Hz or so).

Ah, BS story I guess. And I sure won't tell anyone that he shouldn't like what he likes (although it sure looks like that, haha).

Regards,
Peter

Something else is, as it seems, that you take for granted that DDD recordings are the better ones over AAD etc. I wouldn't know why ...
But it depends on the mastering engineer. So if we first assume that the later it gets in time, the more is molested for digital, then ADD should be worse than AAD and DDD should be worse than ADD.
Of course this doesn't make really sense, but my point could be : anything which was not touched much other than "just digitize it" is way way better than anything from later. The remaster sh*t and such.

So another point we could disagree over. :yes:
Peter

Christoffe,

I could not agree with you more, for me you have nailed the difference: energy, soundstage, the sense that people are in front of you playing together.

I do not believe that the problem is in the conversion of tracks from analogue to digital. If this is done well then the information is there and the qualities you list can be reproduced. What I am finding is the issue lies with how digital playback happens. Generally it is just not able to recreate the qualities of the sound that you feel are missing (me too).

This was certainly the case here several months ago before my project to "fix the PC as a music server" got going last year. I know now that there are a (high) number of areas in the PC at hardware level that cause this low energy, flat 2D sound stage presentation in digital playback. It was this lack of real energy presentation and "hash" in the music that I could just not settle to in the long term. I have simply spent too many years with the top of kit working on it to get the natural wall of sound experience you refer to. This had to be fixed or I was going to need either a new hobby or a vinyl playback replay chain (with all it many frustrations :-( ).

I had a hunch that these problems are introduced by the digital replay chain not by the ADC of the recordings. What I am listening to here now defiantly supports this. I can say that there is goodness in most digital recordings of analogue masters. Poor analogue recording or poor ADC and the digital replay is poor but if the digital replay system is able to do the re-master justice then the energy, 3D stage with depth etc is there (and in large amounts).

Where things are now.

Well bags of energy, 3d image, deep wall of sound and rhythm. All the good points of digital preserved: detail, control, bass quality, convenience.

I do not have a vinyl replay system these days but I know what happened years ago when I did back to back comparison and it is exactly what you describe. Vinyl had it for me back then. Now if I were to A B my current system with vinyl I am quite sure it would be a different conclusion.

Here at least its not the lack of a pre amp or USB cable type(although I agree these will have an affect), or the quality of the ADC that the matering happened on. Its the PC that kills the sound. And I know where and how it does it  :) Luckily I no longer feel the need for a new hobby or vinyl rig .... which is great ;)

Kind Regards.

Hi Nick,

where can I buy this PC?

Joachim

So Nick ... another one who loves the sound of vinyl eh ?

Something must be basically wrong in the first place.

But maybe we can get another 100 votes for vinyl ? I mean, nothing wrong with that and possibly this is what this topic was for. But my arguments seem to be quite different and also here and there supported with some real comparison and proof and blahblah. But you shouldn't find this strange when I try to have a SNR of 120dB after amplification while LP is already unlistenable because of the "inner groove" or whatever it's called noise, blasting through the room.

All I want to say is (and I say the same to Joachim or any of the further 98 votes coming up) : Don't try to mimic the souind of vinyl or take that as the reference, because it really is the wrong approach. It is technically worse and therefore should be worse sound wise.
That we might perceive it differently can spring from a 100 other reasons, but saying that digital is wrong while over here this is not so at all (and vinyl is plainly unlistenable though elsewhere) is too much of it. And I know Nick, that is not really what you're saying, but meanwhile you take vinyl as the reference. And that can't be so ...
Try me.

Regards,
Peter

Hi,

my opinion is based on the AAD- or ADD-CD'S I is  listened to, and the SQ of this CD's is not on par with the vinyls.

Joachim

Hi Peter,

I don't agree, because then the SQ of the $1 USB is wrong, but the SQ of this cable is very near to the vinyl sound.

Joachim

Yes clear. But it should also be clear that you like to listen to vinyl which is worse than today's digital.
You do get my message, right ?

One problem in this is, that me myself and I are saying that. So what is *that* worth ? I guess nothing much.
This is how we could start distortion figures and so much more like digital filtering. I'm afraid though it is infinitely more complex because once things start to be really "good" (as how I can judge it from my own system) the potential problems only get bigger. And Joachim, you may or may not recognize it, but you said it yourself :


So I agree with that. But maybe I am more fast on juding the real merits - at least some times (haha). So the ever again example : try Windows 7 again. Undoubtedly you will find it better and possibly because closer to vinyl. But try it for longer than a week. I don't think you will survive that, because it too clearly shows the distortion. Now vinyl ... there you don't hear the distortion because, well, that is masked by a million other distortions and you prefer it.
I will die.
But what I do is improve (or at least try to and very explicitly) on what can be improved audibly. I will NEVER chose the "least bad". But now this is because I think I already have that "fine" reference. Let's say this starts with a bass that behaves well. So what could I do this very day with a bass which does not ? Chose for what to survive it ?

This is how we become subjective.
Much more to say, but ...

You keep on doing it ...
(take vinyl als Walhalla)

But what are you REALLY saying ?
Think of it ... You are saying that the USB cable (of which 10 are being packed at this very moment) must be very wrong, because they can't resemble vinyl because our 1$ already does that.

You are turning yourself into a knot, OR you are right.
But in that case I am very wrong.

Can be ... :wacko:
Peter
:)

Joachim - different angle :

You ordered that Elvis Presley CD with the Fever track. I assume you have it by now.
And ?

Hi,

no, not arrived until today, but I have the vinyl and will listen to this song tomorrow.

Joachim

I have a fundamental issue that I just haven't been able to figure out...

I bought what was considered (and still is by many) to be the best ADC ever created. (I tried a whole bunch of more modern ADCs too, but they were all worse.) I bought and tried a number of different PC interfaces with this ADC. I have what is undoubtedly (on this forum at least) the best software player and DAC in the world.

It should have been trivial for my digital capture and playback system to totally recreate the 'inferior' sound of vinyl, and yet my needle drops ALWAYS sounded worse than the original vinyl. Peter, can you give me an explanation as to why this was the case?

Mani.

Hi,

I don't understand a word from above.  :(  :)

let me explain.

I'm a fan of the "YFS data only cable" with the wonderful timbre of all instruments and voices (I wrote it before). http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=3042.msg33998#msg33998

The $1 USB does not reproduce the timbre of the YFS, and the "vinyl" powerful 3D image of the soundstage and that "wall of sound" impression in total. But the  $1 USB cable is a good compromise between all and I can live with it.

Joachim

Hahaha, Joachimn, yes, it is clear that you don't understand much of my sprouting. But my English eh !!!
So you see, the first thing you do (in your last sentence) is emphasizing how a compromise could exist, while I just told the compromises in my book NEVER will exist.
So how can you now think that you made clear something to me. All you make clear is that you don't understand me. But ... I did not say this is your fault. My English and such ...

So about the YFS then. YES, I recognize the timble thing. Heartily agree !
Too bad that there's not a single grain of detail to be found.

So to explain again about the "compromises" ...
What I do is solve the problem (easily think of the Clairixa !) and what you do is seek the compromise.
And so we just are different.

Mind you, I obviously have better possibilities to "solve" things. But to some extent it is also about a bit of trust or something, and how what I say could be right (could be !). This is different I think from defending something which CAN NOT be right. And this is LP (yes, this was the subject). So if it works out to be the better, then something else is wrong. This is key !
And no compromises anywhere.

Let me, on the most positive side, remind you about the Blaxius and what strange guy started all that - You. Started out with random coax, and while generally for the better, there were downsides just the same. So you can just as well now see me complaining about THAT (in retrospection I mean). But of course we don't complain (I hope) because so far it worked out for the better for everyone, including you.
Ignorant me.

So when the USB cable would be a subject, then
a. you are now the only one who likes the YFS for at least a part (but it isn't the same I think);
b. you should be in :yahoo: land if you receive your Clairixa.
Should be ? nah, let's wait a bit for the judgement of others, soon. Anyway, if I am correct, this will again change the whole perception of every comparison with whatever. So different again it is and as it is over here, for the way better again. Way better.

I am only trying to get through to you with my poor English !
Best regards,
Peter

Mani, good question. And of course I never heard your original vinyl (might that have helped, but theoretically Yes).

What 100% sure does NOT help is my putting on the wrong foot (is that English ?) by sustaining for "several years" that the vinyl recordings sounded 100% the same, once recorded in 24/192. So, this is what has been my focus on (and you will know that I repeated (quoted) this numerous times), but, only recently you told that only through the monitoring (during the recording) no difference was to be heard. All I want to say with this is : my own reference regarding this has been destroyed in one blast, and all the consistency and logic I gathered throughout the years are now worthless.
No no, not that anyone is to blame for this, but just saying, since you ask the question.

So ideas :

One of them is what you suggested yourself often : the cabling etc. for the real recording (so outside of the monitor(ing) cabling) is detrimental to that recording.
Could be.
But similarly a 100 things "could be" and maybe you don't believe it yourself. So next idea :

When you flip the monitor switch (which is undoubtedly what you have been doing), you could not perceive the difference, while it actually was there. This I'd like to put my money on;

Maybe you got something of the recent sh*tload of hopelessly complete cr*p on DBT (Double Blind Testing) over at CA and echoic memories and such. Maybe you also read about the only very few (can be counted on one hand) who claim that no such thing can happen as 4-8 seconds of listening for (AB) comparison. I am one of them. And of course, and we all know, I don't even have enough on 4 days and take 5 days for minimum. Or, go back to the first post in this topic and see how I sustained 6 hours in that room, while being sure after 10 seconds already. So, just to be more sure, *OR* to get what I initially could not get.
And when I got it and was back home, I couldn't even find the tracks on the same albums - so different.
But I bet you : nothing of this would have been audible when flipping a monitor switch. I mean, "can't find the track" ? how could that be in order - for example.

To emphasize my possibly being right, in this very topic too we compared some Talk Talk. So think back ... You were quite convinced LP was the same or better. But I was not at all (and super biased) and could point out the sheer negatives. And only *then* you had to agree. How ? well, because we all agree, once things are being pointed out. Just the same as that I never had a disagreement overhere (in my room) with anyone. And that includes you, me claiming that Hires Yes "undoubtedly not being better either". But it just was, and easy to admit. I can do it, you can do it, we ALL can do it. Just because it is so easy.

Was I drifting off ?
No, because all I actually say is that utilizing a few seconds (actually it would be a fraction of a second) to compare the monitor sound with the direct one, can not work. Now I am not asking you to agree with this, but when you can't see the reality of this to some extent, then we just might as well fall back to Talk Talk etc. You said it was the same (or better) and it very well can be because you wanted it to be.

Man(i), this is all such long-winded stuff ... nobody would understand when not going through all this stupid DBT stuff over at CA. But I did. And my conclusion of it all is that what I said in the last sentence above, is most probably correct.

But it is just as well about hearing goodies (because we want to) which genuinely are there, while not wanting to hear the baddies (because we don't want to at that particular moment). This is how a deep sound stage, as I learned finally, never works out, no matter it is super "interesting". Maybe I am too honest and maybe I predict too much about how wrong it could be while in the same sentence shouting the :yahoo:'s, but someone else just makes it inconsistent for himself and next won't understand (himself or so). This is, without better explanation, how Joachim at first expresses a wall of sound to be possitive, next crawls back on it in my perception and after explicitly asking (two times as I recall !) he makes it a negative, and 4 months or whatever later is it easily used as a positive again. I asked (this afternoon) but no response ...

No Joachim, really no need to respond to it or even the slightest think that you are accused of something strange (really not !!!), but this is how it works with us humans.
What we want is what we hear.
But never ever when two of us are in the same room and the one is able to point out to the other *and* vise versa. Not that I *ever* saw it happening !

What an answer. I hope it is one. :swoon:
Peter

Hi,

keyword energy.

I never ever heard such realistic drums (cymbals and snare drums) on my system as with the vinyl version of "Take Five" from Dave Brubeck. (with a SPL of 85dB(A))


Joachim

Peter hi,

We are on the same page.

Vinyl certainly dose not have the measurement potential of Digital and particularly taking your implementation into account !

I would not throw my hat into the "vinyl camp" digital is able to deliver. However, despite the relatively poor technical performance of vinyl, there are some qualities as Joachim points out that it can portray really well and that are extremely difficult realise reliably with digital replay. Frustrating...

What I am up to here does make is possible for digital to perform in this way, there are some horribly broken processes within the PC which absolutely do create the type of sound that Joachim describes. Fix these and things really change in respect to these qualities of sound.

As I mentioned before I was getting to the point of wondering if I needed to spend less time listening to music. I am a strong believer in the ultimate potential of digital playback but the sound was just not as consistently energised and therefore engaging and what I remember with vinyl (I accept that its a long time since I regularly listened to vinyl so need to  beware "rose coloured glass"  :) )

My regard for the NOS1a and XX software could not be higher. It was looking inside my NOS1a and how right the DAC is that made me realise the problem simply had to be elsewhere. The work on the PC would have been far more difficult without such exceptional components to "listen through" into the PC.

Regards,

Nick.

Ha, ha,

my whole life is a bunch of compromises, otherwise .............. .

We both are living in different worlds, you are a perfectionist  :) ( and the result is a Blaxius and other components  :) ) and I’m a generalist ( I was a project manager in former times) and I can live with the $1 USB cable without any nightmares.  :teasing:

I'm eager to see/listen what the Clairixa is doing to the SQ in the near future.

Joachim

Hi Peter,

we had a discussion about the definition "Wall Of Sound" between the 2014-11-07 and 2014-11-12, and in the end the interpretation was clarified.

http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=3026.msg32915#msg32915
http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=3026.msg32953#msg32953
http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=3026.msg32960#msg32960


Joachim

So ... because I, that couple of days ago, could not believe what I was hearing for "bad Take Five", I invested a couple of minutes and saw all this :

I have 12 versions of it - ALL different (ok, including 3 who are live, two of those supposed to be the same but again are not (compression and more)).

I took it that Time Out is the original. At least, I'm pretty sure, that's the one that Mani used for the LP-rip-comparisons. Nice, it is the most poor one !!
It is almost mono (just not). Cymbals come from the left and otherwise most of it is from the middle. Does nothing much (to me).

The best one is from here :
http://music.mxdwn.com/2012/12/05/news/r-i-p-jazz-musician-dave-brubeck/
at least that is what I have for cover (see the large b&w picture in the beginning).
I regard this "more original" because
a. it has a "compression" of -7.5dB to what I am used to (the Time Out one is 10.5dB less, which I thus regard "unused digital headroom").
b. It is completely hard panned, all coming from the right, except for the piano (more common for those days which should be end of 50's).
I also regard this the most honest sounding, but that could be personal. All of the others annoyed on the sax. Drums sound totally real, but, with spades of added hall (not sure on that one).

Then I have one from unkown source, also at -10.5dB compared to what I regard normal, and here the cymbals come from the complete left, the piano from the complete right and the sax from ... nicely the middle. Maybe this was the best one for overall performance, but like the Time Out one, it annoys.
Notice that if it were for me, this is the exact same as the Time Out one, but messed with (5:25 min). The others of this length the same thing.

The two live ones (16:07 min) are HDCD and also not the same. One compresses more than the other, and the most compressed one has the most impressive drums (sort of logical) but it is also the manipulated one (audience is not real or whatever has happened). Anyway, there are a few more of these types with more than a sax (plus trombone ?) and they play the song twice as fast (gives me the nerves).


Conclusion ?
:wtf: ?
Peter

Hi,

yes, this is by far the best digital I heard.

On vinyl (printed by CBS in 1967 in HOLLAND) the drums are on the left, piano on the right, bass and sax in the center. The drums and the piano are more emphasised and the sax cuts in less "hot".

Joachim

The only "Time Out" album copy that I have is a hi-res 24/176.4 HDTracks download.  It sounds magnificent...I love it...one of my favourite albums.  I would be interested if someone could compare this album version to the CD versions because I can't see how it would be inferior to any vinyl.  Of course I do not know the provenance of the recording, and I do not play vinyl.

The track "Take 5" also appears on the live "Concord on a Summer Night" but is played there to a faster tempo but still sounds fine.

Attached is a pdf that may give some indication of how the musicians were located in the recording studio.

The only version I have is the stock Time Out and the SQ is not really very good. At least it is nothing like as good as the stock "Time Further Out" which is relatively very good. I think it is "Charles Matthew Hallelujah" track 3 (but I would have to check to be sure) that has some very deep bass. It sounds as though the stage is moving or something but it can very clearly be heard.

But easily the best SQ I have heard from any of the Brubeck albums is "Live at Carnegie Hall" it is a superb album. Check out "Castilian Drums" Joe Morello is on very fine form.

Paul

Yup, and that is the one I mention here :


... with the small disclaimer that if the one from The Carnegie Hall is 7 minutes (or was it 9 ?) - then I quoted my own text wrongly.
(I do this by heart now, and I'm a bit dizzy from it).
But otherwise this was the most compressed of them all (-3dB compared to my reference and thus stil better than average which would be -0dB).

Peter

Analogue warmth seems to be the Holy Grail in these digital days. But what is it, why does it hold such appeal, and how can you use it to enhance your recordings?

If you have the time to read, see:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb10/articles/analoguewarmth.htm

Take Five again.

this morning I compared the digital and analogue versions again, using this non HDCD-CD from 1995.

http://www.amazon.com/Brubeck-Dave-Greatest-Hits-Mainstream/dp/B00KJJUBSI/ref=sr_1_33?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1425373809&sr=1-33&keywords=dave+brubeck+best+of

and this LP

http://www.amazon.com/Dave-Brubeck-Brubecks-Greatest-32046/dp/B00S313CGC/ref=sr_1_27?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1425374156&sr=1-27&keywords=dave+brubeck+best+of with the identical catalog number.

The SQ of both are very near, but with a big plus for the vinyl due to the drums. Morello is hitting the cymbal on his right side very softly and the cymbal sings, an amazing timbre of a cymbal I never heard on my system before.

The SQ on the link in Peters reply 96 reproduces this "singing" of the cymbal too, but it is difficult to judge it via a PC monitor.

I found an important advice from Peter on CA, where he wrote, that he  "depressurizes" his ears prior to serious listening. The "adjusted ear pressure" makes a big difference in the acoustic perception.

Joachim

Yeah, you need to start doing such things when you get to Peter's age  :prankster:

Mani.

That's what you think.
You will only know whether it is necessary when you try it. :yes:

Hey Mani, :)

this is physics. You are flying around the world the whole year and I'm  sure that you are facing ear anomalies during every descent.

I'm older than Peter and therefore I have to adjust my  "ear pressure" after every song. Bad luck for me.

Joachim

Hi Peter,

reading Nick's comment I would say it's "highnoon" for such a PC modification (in cooperation with Nick?).

I will order such a modified PC straightaway.

Joachim


Edit: I just got the "gut feeling" that you and Nick are working on it already.

I am not near Peters age, but swimming messes with my ears quite a lot, and in a not dissimilar way to flying.  I need to leave a couple of days after a swim before I am right for serious listening.

Mwah ... : http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=3062.msg34050;topicseen#msg34050

Haha; I wanted to add earlier that this is actually not the same as flying. I mean, you will surely notice *that*. So that is two-folded : one, you will clearly be totally deaf after a nice dive and two, because of that you will try as hard as you can to get your ears back (blow nose and such).

Thus although the solution may be the same (blow nose) the lead-in is not at all. But I am fairly sure that many may benefit from just attempting to close the nose and have a firm blow until something pops and there's way more LF suddenly. You can always try ... (when the music is on or otherwise you won't even notice that it worked).

:)
Peter

For me, it is more the water in the ears and how reluctant they can be to dry out. 

Not a "firm" blow, which can cause real damage.  Hold your nostrils closed and try to blow air out through your nose *gently* until you feel your ears clear.

This can be done on descent (plane or dive), not ascent.

 :cry:  :cry:  :cry:

Ok,

so we have to wait for the Clairixa.

At present, compared to my turntable, the SQ of the old "analog source CD's" is lagging behind with the $1 USB cable (not very far), and the main question is, what have they done during the mastering with the output signals of the analog master tapes.

Another sample: ”Rocky Racoon” on the ”Beatles White Album” was recorded with a lot of cymbals, hi hat and snare **at the end of the track**, which you do not hear on the CD in that vinyl quality (curtain damping effect).

The bass on “Fever” has more body and the voice more details on the vinyl (s-tones etc.), and the bass notes on both are not very deep.

By the way, the EMT 950 is an amazing machine. In 2010 I sold a big type EMT950 and thought the remaining TT will be good enough for the future, but within a week I had to buy another one (from Switzerland)

Joachim

Aaaha, :)

LF's pops "down"  :), this is the reason for your bass fondness. :)

It's the genes, in my case I hear amazing highs, no additional bass.

Joachim

But Joachim ... just for fun and because it is not really clear to me ... Does it help you ?

Regards,
Peter

Nothing is happening here, so we have to fill the gap!

Does digital sound better than analog?

The good article is here:

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/digital-versus-analog.htm

Edit: Found on Youtube

In a nutshell, CDs chop off all the audio content above 22 kHz, while LPs roll off smoothly up to 60 kHz and beyond. Considering that the upper limit of human hearing is commonly agreed to be only 20 kHz, it is up to you to decide how much of a difference this actually makes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eC6L3_k_48

Prrrrrrt

This alone :


Peter

FYI
Human hearing is is 20-20k, yes.
20k hearing is only for babies or newborns, that too at a very loud level.
Adults can't hear beyond 15K .... I suppose most listening champs tune out by 13-14K
Maybe you can feel the music ;)
VJ