Best Vinyl Rig

[PeterSt]

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.

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 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

[PeterSt]

Peter, can you give me an explanation as to why this was the case?

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 '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.
Peter

[christoffe]

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. Yes, it's positive

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. You can hear/see with your ears the realistic position of the player in a 5m deep room.

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.  On my system the additional energy is over the whole frequency range

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

[Nick]

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

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.

[christoffe]

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 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 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

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. 

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

Joachim

[christoffe]

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.

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

[PeterSt]

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 ?
?
Peter

[christoffe]

The best one is from here :
http://music.mxdwn.com/2012/12/05/news/r-i-p-jazz-musician-dave-brubeck/

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

[acg]

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.

[Scroobius]

The only "Time Out" album copy that I have is a hi-res 24/176.4 HDTracks download

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

[PeterSt]

But easily the best SQ I have heard from any of the Brubeck albums is "Live at Carnegie Hall" it is a superb album.

Yup, and that is the one I mention here :

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).

... 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

[christoffe]

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

[christoffe]

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

[manisandher]

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.

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

Mani.

[PeterSt]

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