HiFi/Highend/Audio Gear

Thank you Joe-Trojan.

 

And no worries, no negativity felt or taken whatsoever.

 

See if you can try the following please:

 

Find a Rega (the brand) dealer at where you are. Try to locate both the vinyl and CD version of the same album, both must be original (i.e. the CD cannot be a recording of the LP/vinyl, it has to be factory original.) Ask for demo between the 2 medium at similar price level. The amps, speakers and interconnects must be the same. Adjust volume if need to reach similar output level. Rega have 4 CD players (well, actually 3, the Isis comes in either solid state or tube output stage version) and 5 turntable/tonearm (forget the RP78 as it only plays 78rpm records; and the RP1 and the RP1 Performance Pack are nearly identical, the latter is the hot-rod version of the former) so the combinations at various price range and the level of built and engineering can all be realized. I believe the difference would be more obvious than you expect. Rega is one of those brands that actually have every component of the entire playback system, analogue or digital. So matching would not be an issue and it would be a fair comparison and everything, from CD player to turntable, tonearm and cartridge are all done by the same make. I was going to suggest Linn, which would be even more obvious but they no longer make CD players (while the evergreen Linn Sondek LP-12 turntable lives on)!

 

Human hearing is most interesting. Technically, we have an audio range of 20Hz to 20000Hz. And yet our perception of sound and music goes far beyond that. If that isn't true, why would subwoofers and ribbon or even plasma tweeters be necessary and survived the tests of time? Why quantify one particular frequency when music involves the entire audio spectrum and can clearly be heard and felt, regardless of how inconceivable it seems. Let's not forget the infinite amount of accessories as well. There are plenty which solely rely on marketing fluff, there are plenty which are worst than snake oil, and there are plenty which seems child's play but actually have ample science behind them. But that's just how they really are. Same analogy as a 30yr-old visceral Countach giving way more driving pleasure than a brand-new high-tech Aventador.

Yes the difference between same release on CD and Vinyl is obvious, but some of that is due to the different processing required to cut vinyl in the first place. You can put things on CD that a needle just will not track to begin with, but I'm not asking you about that, I don't think that is a fair test.

 

I'm asking you about a blind test, actually what I meant is double blind, with a ADC and DAC to do it's thing. If there is a difference label which is vinyl, which is the digital recording. This is the most level playing field I can think of. No different mastering for the different formats, full control from the end user, no 3rd party interference, no marketing, no snakeoil, no eyes, just your ears. Yes it's a hassle, but it's fun, I'll even let you use different interconnects to save you from having to double up.

 

Yes, at high levels we can hear/sense down to maybe even as low as 15 hz or lower (?) and into the ultrasonic. I guess you'll know what is what straight away in the double blind!

 

Not having a go at you, I actually want to hear your thoughts, if there's anyone that I can actually talk to directly that has the means to do this, and with the equipment to do it on that is beyond the normal tests I do or read about from AES, it's you.

^Ok, I understand your request.

 

First off, I don't think you are having a go at me. Even if you are , no matter, we all need thick skin to have fun on Lambo Power.

 

Please correct me if I am wrong but from what I have read, your request is to record the playback of a LP onto a CD; and then play that same CD compare to the LP. So essentially, you are saying you cannot distinguish any difference between the 1st-generation recording (the original LP/vinyl) with the 2nd-generation recording (the recorded CD), correct?

 

I am not sure if the set up you described is absolutely fair. First off, basically, you need to introduce an ADC and an extra set of interconnects into the system. If we were to compare the original LP from the recording label with the original CD from the same recoding label, that would be more fair as the mastering is done by the same people & equipment. But anyway, I get your point, and to play devil's advocate, introducing an ADC & cables into the system should make things even more obvious but you simply cannot find any difference, correct?

 

To answer your question, I don't think I could boast that I will "know what is what straight away" but I am quite confident that at least 85% of the time, I would be able to distinguish the two. From personal experience and that of my fellow hobbyists, LP offers more 3-dimenionality in sound stage and imaging. Digital, somehow, just seems "flatter". You would concur that dynamic range is not a factor for digital, nor is wows and flutters (if anything else, the same wows & flutters from the turntable will be captured on the CD recording). It's that finite nth degree of "air" and "ambiance" from the vinyl that gives the digital away. By itself (the digital copy), I probably cannot tell. But in a double-blind direct A/B comparison, digital would almost always fall short on air and ambiance which results in lesser and poorer 3-dimensionality of soundstage and imaging. They just seem to "pop out" less when compared to LP.

 

If you wish to experiment, may I recommend the following. Nothing esoteric and I hope you will not have trouble finding them at your end:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Cantate-Domino-Oscar...+proprius+vinyl

 

http://www.amazon.com/Girl-Fire-Vinyl-Alic...icia+Keys+vinyl

 

http://www.amazon.com/Come-Away-Me-Norah-J...me+away+with+me

 

None of the above would break the bank and 2 out of the 3 are simple pop/jazz recordings; the other one is a choir recording at a church. Choose simple cuts with simple tunes instead of complex cuts involving multiple instruments; the more solo and less instruments the better. This would enable you to discern the differences easier. The Cantate Domino LP is especially obvious in terms of air and ambiance. Perhaps a slight bit of exaggeration but the digital version would sound like it was recorded at a smaller church with a lower ceiling. Overall, all the 2nd-gen recordings in digital would be more 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional. And perhaps one prerequisite: you would want to use good speakers capable of reproducing 20kHz and above (50kHz preferred) at the top end. This enables the difference to become quite obvious.

 

I hope that answers your question and you would be able to expriment with it yourself. Best of luck.

 

How to add to the never ending digital vs. analog argument without saying the same thing?

 

For one, it's very hard to get anywhere close to a best case scenario mastering of a recording to a digital medium and separate analog medium. There are ways of doing this, but the business of making music is a business much more than a science experiment. Many of the vinyl to CD comparisons are made under less than ideal circumstances, at least with the newer releases.

 

I don't know if it's reasonably possible to do this, but always wanted to see a multi-chain direct recording of a performance into analog tape, vinyl, and digital (hard drive or even digital tape). For those who know what direct to disc recording is (recording straight to vinyl without any cutting it from tape or digital), picture that but also add a separate feed for tape and another one for digital. Assuming we can have a "lossless" recording into each of the chains, then we would be able to compare.

 

Failing this, I'd submit doing a very simple piano only or voice only recording (or maybe both), and then re do it as needed to get your different mediums. You won't have the exact performance to compare to, but the analog vs. digital aspects should stick out.

 

But it's not just recordings, but playback equipment too. Since there's no way to really assess "equivalent" equipment, you would have to obtain the best of the best gear for this shootout. Play the digital recording through an Audio Note DAC 5 Signature or maybe a nice custom Western Electric DAC floating around out there, and start going up the top vinyl + phono setups, and tape machines.

 

In this context maybe you can get a legitimate end all be all discussion.

 

It's very difficult to do these comparisons this way. So what ends up happening is people just compare what they've heard.

 

And those who have been listening a long time, to a lot of different type of music, on elite equipment will often acknowledge the more natural sound of analog. Not everyone of course, but enough to keep these products in business. When you think about niche products and what it takes to keep them sustainable, this to me says more than anything.

 

People like the sound (and I, VCR and a few others agree).

 

On the topic of coloration (which is always supposed to be the dagger that undermines analog), how come nobody ever talks that digital colors sound too?? It's like digital and solid state are "pure, accurate", while analog and tubes are "seductive, evil, not pure". LMAO. No. Both color sound.

 

So if you're gonna color it, might as well make it sound better.

 

To go into the science a little bit, the foundation of the difference was always supposed to be centered on an analog waveform versus a digitally sampled and quantized copy of it. Now some here will post up videos trying to dismiss that. I'm not sure what to say since I haven't watched it yet.

 

But there's another argument that rarely ever gets talked about that I think is worth mentioning. In a pure analog recording (take direct to disc vinyl for instance), you take the analog input of music and vocals and cut directly onto disc. On playback you simply play back that analog output straight from the disc.

 

In a pure digital recording, you take that analog input of music and vocals and now have to encode it to digital (analog to digital conversion). On playback you have to decode back to analog (digital to analog conversion). There are very much qualitative levels of performing each ADC and DAC conversion based on hardware. And then there's the issue of having to do it all which I strongly feels "takes away" something.

 

To me, the mere fact that we live in an analog world for our aural and visual mediums suggests that this format will always have some level of advantage that can overcome supposed equipment deficiencies. If we could live in a world with digital inputs and outputs for a mixing board, then sure I guess you could have an all conquering digital sound.

 

But that's not the case, so we'll never know.

 

Another little piece of evidence to this argument that I've seen in the last few years is comparing vinyl to tape. Vinyl rigs require a phono amplifier to playback the records to meet the RIAA EQ curve (long story short: the vinyl disc limitations requires a bunch of EQing on cutting that is restored on playback). Analog tape does not require any of this EQing.

 

So how shocking was it to discover that a six figure table plus phono amplifier combination was no better than a $2000 tape machine? A bit. How did I make this comparison? By simply recording an LP to tape. I never got to hear any real master tape before, so I've yet to have my jaw really drop.

 

Again, I think there's something to the argument of minimizing additions to the sound playback chain.

 

People are wrapped up a little too much in just the software -- the hardware is just as important, if not maybe more.

 

Lastly regarding ownership of both mediums, even the most diehard analog audiophiles out there for the most part still maintain decent digital rigs (it's a much bigger # of those who own them than don't). They'll prefer their analog of course, but still enjoy listening on good digital for the convenience aspect and good overall quality. Plus the greater overall selection of music as well. I'm much pickier with the analog I spend decent money on than I used to.

 

It also reeks a little bit of an elitist attitude as well to be analog only.

 

 

 

 

 

To answer your question, I don't think I could boast that I will "know what is what straight away" but I am quite confident that at least 85% of the time, I would be able to distinguish the two. From personal experience and that of my fellow hobbyists, LP offers more 3-dimensionality in sound stage and imaging. Digital, somehow, just seems "flatter". You would concur that dynamic range is not a factor for digital, nor is wows and flutters (if anything else, the same wows & flutters from the turntable will be captured on the CD recording). It's that finite nth degree of "air" and "ambiance" from the vinyl that gives the digital away. By itself (the digital copy), I probably cannot tell. But in a double-blind direct A/B comparison, digital would almost always fall short on air and ambiance which results in lesser and poorer 3-dimensionality of soundstage and imaging. They just seem to "pop out" less when compared to LP.

 

This I think is an excellent summation of what the analog sound is all about in comparison to digital.

 

It's something I would expect an inexperienced layperson to relate to upon hearing it for him/herself.

 

An Electrical Engineering degree from MIT is not required to have a valid opinion on this topic.

VCR and Fellippe, I'm not asking your opinion, I'm asking that you actually go and do it and report back!

^And I am not giving you an opinion. I answered your question based on previous experiences. If you re-read this thread from post 1, you will notice that we are fundamentally talking in circles. You will also note that I had previously done digital recording; even tried to re-tune some to my preference. My last post should give you the answers that you seek. What I posted are not assumptions but factual findings which I encourage you to try and discover yourself. As a footnote, that are much better recorded/mastered LP's out there. The three I suggested should be easily obtainable and will not break the bank. I was going to suggest the Eagles' Hell Freezes Over live album but apparently, a new LP costs $125 on Amazon so that's not a good suggestion.

 

Anyway, if you are willing to experiment, I had given you clues on what to expect for the A/B double-blind test. If you still cannot distinguish the two, then there is little I can help or do. And you, of course, are entitled to your opinion just as much as I am entitled to mine or anyone else is to his/hers. All I ask is do not deny its existence simply because you cannot hear or believe in it. Cheers.

Perhaps different school of thoughts but tinkering and tweaking is part of the fun in hi-fi.

 

I absolutely agree!

 

you will notice that we are fundamentally talking in circles.

 

I will agree with you there

 

I will agree with you there

 

With you reloaded and firing the starting pistol...

Thanks for the conversation and in depth analysis guys. Enjoyed it. If only all my forty year old vinyl sounded as good as it did brand new.

Nothing like opening an LP and playing it for the first time.

^And I am not giving you an opinion. I answered your question based on previous experiences. If you re-read this thread from post 1, you will notice that we are fundamentally talking in circles. You will also note that I had previously done digital recording; even tried to re-tune some to my preference. My last post should give you the answers that you seek. What I posted are not assumptions but factual findings which I encourage you to try and discover yourself. As a footnote, that are much better recorded/mastered LP's out there. The three I suggested should be easily obtainable and will not break the bank. I was going to suggest the Eagles' Hell Freezes Over live album but apparently, a new LP costs $125 on Amazon so that's not a good suggestion.

 

Anyway, if you are willing to experiment, I had given you clues on what to expect for the A/B double-blind test. If you still cannot distinguish the two, then there is little I can help or do. And you, of course, are entitled to your opinion just as much as I am entitled to mine or anyone else is to his/hers. All I ask is do not deny its existence simply because you cannot hear or believe in it. Cheers.

 

Your reply was full of "it would", "I probably" etc etc, it sounds like you have not done this type of test.

 

I have experimenting about, but on the equipment I have access to I can't tell the difference because the dynamic range and noisefloor of vinyl mask any ambience gains. Yes, maybe the source material, equipment and my ears were letting the test down, but I did it. Before that I thought I could tell all sorts of differences in speaker cables and cd players, it was all in my head.

 

I'm being persistent here because I don't take what anyone says too seriously if they don't take the time out to do this type of test. I also do not have the means to throw around money just because a possible theoretical gain.

 

Mandantory car analogy: It's like arguing about track times but it's all talk until the tires meet the tarmac. You wouldn't take someone supposed lap time seriously if they didn't even time themselves on the track.

 

I'll do a double blind again at some stage with Alecia and Norah.

Your reply was full of "it would", "I probably" etc etc, it sounds like you have not done this type of test.

 

I have experimenting about, but on the equipment I have access to I can't tell the difference because the dynamic range and noisefloor of vinyl mask any ambience gains. Yes, maybe the source material, equipment and my ears were letting the test down, but I did it. Before that I thought I could tell all sorts of differences in speaker cables and cd players, it was all in my head.

 

I'm being persistent here because I don't take what anyone says too seriously if they don't take the time out to do this type of test. I also do not have the means to throw around money just because a possible theoretical gain.

 

Mandantory car analogy: It's like arguing about track times but it's all talk until the tires meet the tarmac. You wouldn't take someone supposed lap time seriously if they didn't even time themselves on the track.

 

I'll do a double blind again at some stage with Alecia and Norah.

 

This was my reply:

 

"To answer your question, I don't think I could boast that I will "know what is what straight away" but I am quite confident that at least 85% of the time, I would be able to distinguish the two. From personal experience and that of my fellow hobbyists, LP offers more 3-dimenionality in sound stage and imaging. Digital, somehow, just seems "flatter". You would concur that dynamic range is not a factor for digital, nor is wows and flutters (if anything else, the same wows & flutters from the turntable will be captured on the CD recording). It's that finite nth degree of "air" and "ambiance" from the vinyl that gives the digital away. By itself (the digital copy), I probably cannot tell. But in a double-blind direct A/B comparison, digital would almost always fall short on air and ambiance which results in lesser and poorer 3-dimensionality of soundstage and imaging. They just seem to "pop out" less when compared to LP."

 

As you can see (and note your error), my reply was not "full of 'it would' and 'I probably' etc etc..." I said I would because I gave you a figure, 85%. Can I guarantee that I can distinguish LP & CD with that exact 85%, I don't think anyone on Earth can (as it can swing both ways). Henceforth the use of "would". I had also indicated by only hearing digital itself (i.e. without the analogue comparison), I cannot tell and that too is not definitive; hence I said "I probably cannot tell." My use of "would" and "probably" was being polite as I gave digital the full benefit of the doubt. Seems like that backfired somewhat.

 

As aforesaid, go back and read this entire thread and you will know what recording and comparison experiments that I or Fellippe had done. I gave you solid examples on how to conduct an experiment and even told you what results to look for; if that to you is insufficient testament to justify my experiences on this matter; then that is your prerogative and there is nothing further I can do or care to do about it. Conversely, are you asking me to conduct this test again; this time film everything and then post it on YouTube for your authentication? I am grateful to learn that you are willing to attempt the experiment though.

 

Using the "mandatory car analogy": so Lamborghini invited an individual to view a prototype vehicle under development. Needless to say, no camera was allowed and an agreement was signed that mandates full confidentiality on details of the car. So accordingly, even if that individual told you he saw a new model from Lamborghini, you would not believe its existence simply because you have never seen or heard about it?

Looks like we have reached an impass.

With you reloaded and firing the starting pistol...

 

 

Yeah it's true - but it's all good fun eh!

 

Something that surprises me: is that you don't say closer to 100% detection rate spotting Vinyl vs CD.

 

I would have thought the flaws* in vinyl would give it away every time.

 

If that is not the case then your vinyl-playback system-performance must certainly be well beyond anything I have ever experienced that's for sure.

 

I think I need to experience your vinyl playback system!

 

 

* could be described as 'character' depending on which side of the fence you are on!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah it's true - but it's all good fun eh!

 

Something that surprises me: is that you don't say closer to 100% detection rate spotting Vinyl vs CD.

 

I would have thought the flaws* in vinyl would give it away every time.

 

If that is not the case then your vinyl-playback system-performance must certainly be well beyond anything I have ever experienced that's for sure.

 

I think I need to experience your vinyl playback system!

 

 

* could be described as 'character' depending on which side of the fence you are on!

 

LP vs. CD will always be a fun and endless debate.

 

You are being too kind on my LP playback system (at least one of them). But I can tell you the following: it was specially commissioned in the UK and there are only 4 in the world but each is slightly different. The other 3 are in the UK, South Korea and USA respectively. The one in the US is located and owned by the Library of Congress and is used for archiving.

^^

^^

THIS!

 

 

Are you able to share any more details or photos?

LP vs. CD will always be a fun and endless debate.

 

You are being too kind on my LP playback system (at least one of them). But I can tell you the following: it was specially commissioned in the UK and there are only 4 in the world but each is slightly different. The other 3 are in the UK, South Korea and USA respectively. The one in the US is located and owned by the Library of Congress and is used for archiving.

Out of pure curiosity I dove down the rabbit hole that is the LOC audio conservation website. I still came up empty as far as the equipment in question. I did read about a new 3d laser scanning system (IRENE) they have for reading and digitally copying old fragile vinyl, very cool.

 

I also managed to read a study they published along with their vinyl preservation guidelines. The study concluded that an LP that is washed in between listening sessions degrades at 10% the rate that occurs when vinyl is left with ANY dust and dirt buildup play after play. They stated that the usual "clean" number of plays, 20 (the same number rmtn brought up), can be extended to 200 with no noticeable degradation if extreme care is maintained. Makes me feel dumb considering how infrequently I have cleaned some of my old records. Makes perfect sense that running the record through a needle while even slightly dirty will cause irreparable damage. I was always told that too much cleaning and a needle adjusted either too heavy or with a sweep would damage the record and thought those were my main worries.

 

Anyway, thanks for spurring the investigation VCR and I'll throw in a third for full system disclosure. Good learning and I'll delve into their maze of a website to see what else is there. I'm going to have to stop by the Packard Campus the next time I'm in DC.

Ok, not going to give everything away here so I will show 1/3 of the turntable setup. Sorry for the crappy cel phone pic but you get the ideal that this isn't the ordinary turntable: double synchronous motors with auxiliary flywheel, user fine-tunable quartz-locked speed/frequency controls. High-mass inert multi-layer alloy platter with composite record mat. Fully adjustable suspended and spiked plinth all on a special cream slate from Scotland (due to its dampening and acoustic characteristics) which settles atop a stainless steel stand with spiked feet and internals filled with lead-shots and sand. And as all you skeptics can see, this is not a cropped photo that I downloaded from the internet.

 

Audibull, you and, of course, your father, commend my highest respect as far as hi-fi is concerned (ok, I more than tip my hat at your culinary skills too). Laser pick-up for turntables is not new. Though IRENE is a separate and far superior system, a consumer laser turntable was shown back in the early 80's. It was called the Finial Laser Turntable. It actually worked but the sound was far from hi-end.

 

Any audiophile who has a LP collection and worth his salt would have a record cleaning machine. If one amortizes it, the machine is a fraction of the cost of the LP collection. And they are built tough; I have yet to see one breaks. It's a simple contraption: essentially a turntable with a built-in vacuum cleaner! Lower-cost models require manual turning of the disc; costlier ones have built-in motors. The bristles on the brush/vacuum slots are very soft and, comparatively, will do much much less damage than the stylus on the cartridge. The are companies that sell "special LP cleaning fluids" (yes, more potential snake oil) for the wash but basically you can make you own with ease. It comes down to distilled water and isopropyl alcohol and a drop or two of Kodak photo-flo. Another fact is a LP fresh out of its sleeve is not that clean. You will be amazed on the sound improvement by washing it prior to its first virgin play. I'll stop here before being labeled as a lunatic or being asked to proof the improvement on sound pre and post washing.

Ok, not going to give everything away here so I will show 1/3 of the turntable setup. Sorry for the crappy cel phone pic but you get the ideal that this isn't the ordinary turntable: double synchronous motors with auxiliary flywheel, user fine-tunable quartz-locked speed/frequency controls. High-mass inert multi-layer alloy platter with composite record mat. Fully adjustable suspended and spiked plinth all on a special cream slate from Scotland (due to its dampening and acoustic characteristics) which settles atop a stainless steel stand with spiked feet and internals filled with lead-shots and sand. And as all you skeptics can see, this is not a cropped photo that I downloaded from the internet.

 

Audibull, you and, of course, your father, commend my highest respect as far as hi-fi is concerned (ok, I more than tip my hat at your culinary skills too). Any audiophile who has a LP collection and worth his salt would have a record cleaning machine. If one amortizes it, the machine is a fraction of the cost of the LP collection. And they are built tough; I have yet to see one breaks. It's a simple contraption: essentially a turntable will a built-in vacuum cleaner! Lower-cost models require manual turning of the disc; costlier ones have built in motors. The bristles on the brush/vacuum slots are very soft and, comparatively, will do much much less damage than the stylus on the cartridge. The are companies that sells "special LP cleaning fluids" (yes, more potential snake oil) for the wash but basically you can make you own with ease. It comes down to distilled water and isopropyl alcohol and a drop or two of Kodak photo-flo. Another fact is LP's fresh out of its sleeves are not that clean. You will be amazed on the sound improvement by washing it prior to its first virgin play. I'll stop here before being labeled as a lunatic or being asked to proof the improvement on sound pre and post washing.

Amazing looking set up. I have some old cleaning brushes (horsehair I think?) but no vacuum. I have used the distilled water but no alcohol and have never heard of using the photo-flo. My problem must have been cleaning older records that had already been damaged and then thinking the cleaning wasn't that effective. Should have been more thorough the first time and started cleaning on a routine basis.

 

I handle everything carefully and wipe things down before every use. Hopefully the super soft brush I have is soft enough that it hasn't been doing any damage. It was my dad's so I figured it would do the trick! Who knows at this point.

 

I'll look into a better cleaning setup asap. The other interesting thing I read on the conservation site was how much damage some of the liners can do. They even mentioned specifically Nagaoka polyethylene sleeves as a preference because they still fit back into the cover. Here are some of the tips including their own recipe for cleaning solution. I'm guessing the Tergitol and Photoflo both work in the same manner. All good info and now I want to replace all the old sleeves and do a thorough wash of the whole collection. I'm not a hardcore audiophile but I have an ear that picks up even the slightest bit of dirt so this excites me.

 

I've still been hard at work in the kitchen. I'll throw some pics up for you and Fortis some time soon.

Once again thanks for the guidance. I almost forgot, that picture leads one to believe that you are home. Which means you now have the ability to take photos of something else some of us have been waiting to see.

Ok, not going to give everything away here so I will show 1/3 of the turntable setup.

 

That looks extremely cool - thanks for sharing the pic & the info.

 

VCR and Fellippe, I'm not asking your opinion, I'm asking that you actually go and do it and report back!

 

I ask people all the time to go to a certain dealer or show I know to merely listen to a system, no assignments or pressure, and they rarely ever do that. I think rarely would be generous and never would be more accurate.

 

To put this into a proper LP context:

 

"Hey Asscelerator, go to Lamborghini/Ferrari/Porsche of xxxx and test drive whatever cars you want....I spoke to them and you're good to go". Asscelerator: "nah it's cool thanks, but please do a few more VBOXes according to how I say.".

 

So you can imagine I'm jumping from my seat to do this.

 

And I've been told many times to not get into these debates on online forums, and I do a good job of not getting into it, but inevitably this always happens:

 

 

Don't take it the wrong way, Joe.....I've been around this long enough to know that there will be nothing VCR or I could say that will change anyone's minds. My buddy with a shop often needs an hour or more do to this and he has actual gear, so how can we possibly do anything with just words?

 

No worries.

Alright, but why are you and VCR so reluctant to either do a double blind, or you've been there done that but are VERY ambiguous about it?? The double blind is not some test I have invented, and really you can do it whatever way you want with the same source material. I personally don't care either way if you do or don't, no one here has anything to prove and I'll take anyones word for it.

 

It was a suggestion to remove all variables from at test as human hearing is all over the shop. It's a PITA thing to get set up and do, and that is one reason I don't want to walk in to some shop I have no means to buy any of their products to begin with. The suggested test in the shop would be comparing two differently mastered sources so it's failed from the start. I could go in with a digital recorder and burn the vinyl recording to CD, then compare.

 

Neither of you guys have said here "Oh yeah I've done that and similar tests plenty of times, easy to spot the difference at CD rate, higher sample rates is a bit tougher, poor quality ADC/DAC and/or non-linear preamps are a giveaway". To be blunt, VCR made conclusions on a 5 figure interconnect stating a double blind was not necessary. I bit my tongue back then but with the pistol reload from Zack here I am.

 

Have I heard that nth degree from a pure analogue source (midi controlled analogue synth) compared to a crappy ADC/DAC at CD rate? Yes, but not when compared to an entry level pro ADC/DAC. I'm the first person to admit the equipment and/or my ears are the weak part, and that is what you and VCR are suggesting too.

 

 

Yes I've seen these debates before, the HiFi advocates always have not done double blinds. Anyway, that is my perspective on the whole thing, from one thick skinned individual to others.

 

 

 

VCR: Congrats on your unique monster rig!

Ok JT, allow me to word it in a diction that you prefer : 3D imaging and sound stage will be less from the digital copy. It is especially apparent in single vocals with simple instrumental accompaniment: shallower and narrower soundstage, less defined imagery and more 2-dimensional instead of 3-dimensional. In layman's term, the "you are there" perception is less. This is concluded from ample experiences in comparing LP's to CD's; the latter being original CD's from the manufacturer and copies made from the very same LP's to which they were compared to. I have also done the same comparison using DAT and even DVD+R and DVD-R, single and dual layer discs; the results are similar. Likewise with multi-bit upsampling or 1-bit multi-X sampling; single-ended or balanced connections; MIDI-sync'd or not. How much the difference depends on both the equipment and one's hearing. With advancement in digital technology, the gap is getting closer but it is still there; enough to be distinguished through good equipment and good hearing via direct A/B comparison (double-blinded, of course). FYI: the ADC's that I most recently used were from Apogee and Weiss. Those in the know (especially the pros) should know what I am referring to.

 

If you cannot distinguish the difference, then congratulations! You are happy at exactly where you are; so no more expenditures required for new/better equipment. You are at the end of your journey in the quest for the so-called absolute sound. That will save you plenty of money, time and frustration. Not too many people can claim that so congrats again! I am equally happy for you as I am still pursuing for mine. All you need to do now is sit back, relax and enjoy the music; perhaps even pour a glass or two.

 

 

 

And thank you for your remarks on the turntable