The best 'source' for music? Download 24 bit? Vinyl? Or ?

[Chris A]

1 minute ago, garyrc said:

it picked up something at 22 Hz at, maybe 15 dB down.  Would that be high frequency distortion?

No that's real, but the output will also probably include significant HF harmonics of the phenolic diaphragms being driven past their pistonic modes of axial vibration...just like titanium diaphragms and even beryllium diaphragms (albeit at about an octave higher frequency than titanium).   Good thing that the little sensory hairs in our cochleas stop at ~20 kHz...

[dirtmudd]

2 hours ago, Chris A said:

 

 

I'm sorry to say that this is actually a bit amusing--and scary when you think about it a bit further. 

 

I mean...the tape recorders of that era for the recording of Crime of the Century in 1974 at Ramport Studios and Trident Studios had specifications that topped out at about 20 kHz.  The high frequency stuff that is shown in that link above therefore...has to be all high frequency noise. 

 

I've also read about cutting heads that have no analog control loops, instead using digital control only (i.e., stepper motors cutting digitally stepped tracks into the vinyl itself).  The fidelity of these disc masters cut using these "cost cutting" cutter heads are not exactly what I'd consider hi-fi.  The much higher quality analog cutting heads have apparently become extremely rare/expensive--due to the prior complete shutdown in production lines of vinyl cutting lathes. 

 

So the stepper (digital) motor versions were apparently introduced to keep the costs down for these "quick buck" restart vinyl shops that have bought up old (read: worn-out) phonograph record manufacturing equipment.  You've got to see the YouTube videos of these little shops--I wouldn't pick up any dropped food off the floor...there might be pathogens resident in the grooves in their old linoleum tiles. They're actually relying on the material properties of vinyl itself to smooth out the jaggies with these "digital cutters".  It makes me shiver just to think about what this is doing to a phono stylus and attached cartridge, whether or not the stylus is actually able to track those jaggies (i.e., stepped edges in the spiral vinyl grooves introduced by the digital stepper motors).

 

Contrast all that with the cleanrooms that all optical disc plants operate at.  You could literally eat off the floors of the best facilities doing Blu-Ray--because they have to be that clean--with essentially no people inside the disc manufacturing lines themselves--they use robotic transfer lines to keep the dust out. 

 

But good luck reproducing that HF noise above 20 kHz in any case: all the Klipsch loudspeaker models that I'm aware of don't quite make 20 kHz--they all are perhaps 2-3 semitones (piano keys) lower than that frequency.  And the power bandwidth of essentially all the consumer quality preamps and amps that I've seen don't go to 60 kHz.  IIRC, they often have input HF filters to control the gain stages from above-audible-frequency oscillations (thank the lord...they're saving the hearing of our cats and dogs).

 

Chris

with the high frequency transients...how far into a room does it start dissipate ??

 

as of eating of the floor...I can't comment on what people

might.do behind closed doors...maybe you can..

[32blownhemi]

On 5/25/2017 at 6:08 AM, Schu said:

You need a quality DAC to begin with OP... preferably one with dual dac chips.

Your system is a capable one fir sure.

I want to use HD Tracks or Linn as my source. My McIntosh c2600 has a DAC. It's a 32 bit/384 KHC DSD DAC. Will this work? Is it a good one? Or? What's an example of a DAC with dual dac chips?   Thank You!   Bill

[derrickdj1]

HD Tracks is a bit pricey to HD quality.  There is a site, Murfie music that also delivers flac file at much less cost.  I have albums from both and can't tell a difference except for my wallet.

[32blownhemi]

10 minutes ago, derrickdj1 said:

HD Tracks is a bit pricey to HD quality.  There is a site, Murfie music that also delivers flac file at much less cost.  I have albums from both and can't tell a difference except for my wallet.

 

Thank You Derrick! I'll check it out tomorrow!  

[DizRotus]

3 hours ago, derrickdj1 said:

HD Tracks is a bit pricey to HD quality.  There is a site, Murfie music that also delivers flac file at much less cost.  I have albums from both and can't tell a difference except for my wallet.

 

Murfie's offerings appear to be FLAC files of CDs and vinyl.  Please direct me to offerings of high resolution lossless recordings from Murfie.  There is nothing magic about FLAC. Saving a wire recording or ripping an Edison wax cylinder to a FLAC file will not improve the SQ.  It will preserve the recording going forward.

 

I agree that CDs, and even mp3s, can sound very good under the right circumstances.  The storage advantage of compressed smaller files can be important for portability, or when digital storage was expensive.

 

Today storage is cheap.  I save files in FLAC format to have the best available recording going forward.  In the old days, if vinyl pressings of Brubeck's Time Out or Miles Davis's Kind of Blue were recorded to a SOTA cassette deck (Nakamichi, Sony, etc.) the recording would sound very good.  Nonetheless, if you could only keep one, which would you keep?  If you chose cassette then, you'd be sorry today.

 

I respect your opinions and perceptions.  Nevertheless, I'd like to have you listen to mp3 and high resolution versions of  MJ's Billie Jean played from my Pono player, with its ESS Sabre DAC, into your system.  If you didn't immediately notice a difference in dynamic range and sound quality, you'd be the first.

[avguytx]

On 8/3/2017 at 3:57 AM, derrickdj1 said:

HD Tracks is a bit pricey to HD quality.  There is a site, Murfie music that also delivers flac file at much less cost.  I have albums from both and can't tell a difference except for my wallet.

I checked out the Murfie site yesterday.  Pretty cool and will have to try some of those to  fill in the gaps of some of the artists CD's that I'm missing or would like.  I use Spotify for basic listening while working in the house but still have my 1200+ CD's ripped to FLAC files on my NAS played from the Dell PC.  Prices seem reasonable and priced based on what they think is "popular".  I'll compare their pricing to what Amazon has the actual CD priced for and go with whichever is more economical, most likely.

[derrickdj1]

On 8/3/2017 at 7:31 AM, DizRotus said:

Murfie's offerings appear to be FLAC files of CDs and vinyl.  Please direct me to offerings of high resolution lossless recordings from Murfie.  There is nothing magic about FLAC. Saving a wire recording or ripping an Edison wax cylinder to a FLAC file will not improve the SQ.  It will preserve the recording going forward.

There files are a bit smaller than the HD Tracks files in my collection.  I have some of the exact same albums from HD Track and Murfie, I can't tell a difference and since there is generally a large price difference, I use Murfie whenever possible.  The files are CD quality.  I use several sources for download for a larger variety and cost options.  I am all digital and don't own no CD's, Vinyl or RR.

 

Digital is the future and the other media will get more scarce and the price for it will increase along with shrinking options.

[dirtmudd]

http://www.soundfountain.com/amb/cd25years.html

[unclefred]

Isn't anyone using Chromecast Audio? $35 puck that streams from your device, your chosen providers. lossless. lossy, your choice.

[thebes]

20 hours ago, unclefred said:

Isn't anyone using Chromecast Audio? $35 puck that streams from your device, your chosen providers. lossless. lossy, your choice.

How about lousy.

 

Go vinyl. Analogue is your ears only real friend.

 

[unclefred]

4 hours ago, thebes said:

How about lousy.

 

Go vinyl. Analogue is your ears only real friend.

 

I hope nurse gives you your pudding before bed.

[Thaddeus Smith]

5 hours ago, thebes said:

How about lousy.

 

Go vinyl. Analogue is your ears only real friend.

 

[thebes]

I'm not sure what jitter is and I'm sure I don't know what lossy is, but I do know that zeros and ones leave teeny tiny gaps in the sound that are not natural to real music. It's fine for car radio and all, but when I listen to cd's on my Khorn system, even through a high end cd playe,r my tummy gets upset.  And since that's the largest organ on my body, I pay particular attention when it speaks to me.

 

What's a DAC? It's a  Digital to Analogue Converter.  In other words, it's taking something unnatural and changing it into something your ears can understand.

 

So I call double-Bullshit.

 

Vinyl rules and RTR ain't far behind.

[Confab]

25 minutes ago, thebes said:

I'm not sure what jitter is and I'm sure I don't know what lossy is, but I do know that zeros and ones leave teeny tiny gaps in the sound that are not natural to real music. It's fine for car radio and all, but when I listen to cd's on my Khorn system, even through a high end cd playe,r my tummy gets upset.  And since that's the largest organ on my body, I pay particular attention when it speaks to me.

 

What's a DAC? It's a  Digital to Analogue Converter.  In other words, it's taking something unnatural and changing it into something your ears can understand.

 

So I call double-Bullshit.

 

Vinyl rules and RTR ain't far behind.

Then the analogue signal hits the oldest A2D converter in the world.

https://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advice/how-ear-works

[mike stehr]

1 hour ago, thebes said:

I'm not sure what jitter is and I'm sure I don't know what lossy is, but I do know that zeros and ones leave teeny tiny gaps in the sound that are not natural to real music. It's fine for car radio and all, but when I listen to cd's on my Khorn system, even through a high end cd playe,r my tummy gets upset.  And since that's the largest organ on my body, I pay particular attention when it speaks to me.

 

What's a DAC? It's a  Digital to Analogue Converter.  In other words, it's taking something unnatural and changing it into something your ears can understand.

 

So I call double-Bullshit.

 

Vinyl rules and RTR ain't far behind.

 

I picked up a desktop PC for media use with my home stereo...found out real fast the motherboard's audio sonic signature is rather lame...

So I started searching for a outboard DAC to use. Went for a Benchmark DAC1 because I've heard one before, (and there actually affordable for a poor slob like myself) and it seems like a good product with good customer service.

 

That made the PC sound better...not like an analog record by any means, but I wasn't shooting for that. Just better sound quality.

 

I also bought the DAC1 for redbook CDs, using various CD players as transports. 

Most are junk, but I picked up a Pioneer DV-37 Elite DVD player at a thrift store a few years back. I recall the unit sounding pretty good for redbook CDs for what it was, but not really that great compared to my Marantz/Heart tubed CD player. So it went on the shelf...

 

Today I took the DV-37 and tore it down, cleaned it up, and am using the unit as a transport for the DAC1. Using a vintage Kenwood integrated, the sound seems to have a sort analog feel about it...

Hell, I like both rekerds and ceedees...

[thebes]

On 8/12/2017 at 2:23 PM, Confab said:

Then the analogue signal hits the oldest A2D converter in the world.

https://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advice/how-ear-works

Very interesting read, but IMO comparing digital recording and processing to the firing of neurons is a bit of a stretch. Indeed the author cribs on his claim a bit himself in this sentence:

 

With the hair cells, we come to the end of the audio path inside the ear. Hair cells are neurons, and the purpose of the outer hair cells is to convert the mechanical vibrations that come from their cilia into nerve signals. Such signals are binary (all or nothing), and seem to be completely decorrelated from the analogue signals to which they correspond. In other words, they're digital signals, and the inner hair cells are analogue‑to‑digital converters.

 

[Chris A]

From Floyd Toole's book Sound Reproduction: Loudspeakers and Rooms, 2008 Focal Press, ISBN: 978-0-240-52009-4:

 

Quote

19.3 NONLINEAR DISTORTION
The memory of distortions in 78 rpm recordings and early LPs is still vivid in my memory. They ranged from inaudible to intolerable, and all recordings had them. LPs and their playback devices improved, and at their best they became highly enjoyable—except for pesky inner-grove crescendos, the exciting windup of a symphony or opera that one has carefully been prepared for by the composer.

I recall testing phono cartridges as part of the effort to improve playback quality (Toole, 1972). This exercise is substantially a test of test records, which really is a test of the entire LP mastering, pressing, and playback process. I participated in the creation of a test record. It was impossible to replay from an LP the signal that was delivered to the (carefully chosen) mastering lab. When using pure tones or bands of noise, distortions were easily measured and easily audible.  They registered in whole (sometimes high) percentages much of the time, and this applied to both harmonic and intermodulation versions. Yet, when the signal was music, the experience was enjoyable. What is going on here?

Masking: conventional simultaneous masking of a smaller sound (the distortion) by a larger sound (the same musical signal that created the distortion) as is shown in Figure 19.7. Simple test signals leave the distortion products spectrally exposed so they can be measured, and sometimes enough of them are unmasked that we can hear them. The wide-bandwidth, dense spectrum of music is a much more effective masking signal, despite the fact that it is at the same time a generator of much more complex distortion products. It is also almost useless as a measurement test signal.

 

This experience related by Toole apparently conflicts with the argument that there is a "microdynamic range" inherent in heavily compressed/limited music tracks recently discussed in another thread.  If there are any microdynamics left over after mastering tracks to make them as loud as possible, the phonograph format itself has to rely on masking within the music tracks to hide the high levels of modulation distortion (which I've measured myself using REW on a test phonograph record).  Phonograph modulation distortion is inherent in the moving stylus/magnetic pickup cartridge.  It also apparently masks microdynamics in phonograph records, thus leading to opaque sounding reproduction from this format, which has been my experience when listening to phonograph records vs. any digital format.  This is the same type of distortion that PWK wrote about at length with loudspeakers.

 

Toole also didn't mention the difficulties putting the audio signal onto the record in a way that the phonograph needles won't jump out of the groove (hence the extreme RIAA EQ curve that we have in our phonograph preamplifiers), print-through of music from rotation to rotation of the spiral track, the effects of warps and "waves" on the disc, the effects of mono bass on reproduction, and the slowing inner grooves on HF performance toward the center of the disc which leads to a significant loss of HF bandwidth, and the 20+ dB higher background noise levels (and not talking about pops and ticks, etc. which is another "feature").

 

I believe the real attraction for phonograph records is purely nostalgia--as well as the large library of available titles available at low prices used.  Perhaps the anti-digital crowd (of which some has shown its face in this thread) can only like that which it can understand...and nothing else. 

 

But the economy of old phonograph records is only affordable after you amortize the cost of the extremely expensive turntables, arms, and cartridges (albeit with limited stylus life--which is not relevant to digital downloads or digital players).  These high-cost turntables/arms/cartridges are typical of that which audiophiles usually accept for their "high quality playback". 

 

It's the trip back down memory lane that seems to be the biggest drawing card to phonograph records, and there is nothing wrong with that.  But I personally wouldn't ever take a vinyl format over a lossless digital format because of the loss of transparency and fidelity inherent in the vinyl format itself--as experienced by my own measurements and listening, apparently echoed in Floyd Toole's experiences, above.

 

Chris

[JJkizak]

If you want to consistently hear digital distortion (mainly in the voices) listen to the HD FM stations. Some recordings are pristine like the Eagles, Heart, James Taylor, Joe Walsh. The Beatles revolution is almost totally awful. A gravely nasal voice is pretty well destroyed by compression on the disc and compression in the transmitter. One dude on this forum had it perfectly diagnosed---"The bits get confused on complex passages."

JJK

[Chris A]

Just now, JJkizak said:

The Beatles revolution is almost totally awful.

In my demastering of this recording, I remember having to use a significant amount of EQ to tame the extreme mastering EQ used on the original release (...and therefore all subsequent releases of this track by default...).  I believe that all issues regarding the sound of lossless digital tracks is due to poor mastering practices and culture.

 

As far as lossy digital formats (and I don't know if you were listening to any of those on HD FM), my experiences with real-life mp3s, etc. has been awful.  However, I've also experienced mp3 format applied to CD tracks (carefully and at high quality for the demonstration) and the differences were much less pronounced in terms of sound quality.  The difference: how the conversion software was used and its  settings.

 

So the bottom line that I've found: it's the people and their processes that really determine what you are hearing, not so much the formats (with the exception perhaps being the phonograph format).

 

Chris