Jump to content

Could it be worthless to spend on highend turntables?


Recommended Posts

Guest Eggcup the Dafter
1 minute ago, muon* said:

The OP needs to listen to TP1's turntable ^_^

I'd like to hear it myself!  It wouldn't win me over to vinyl again, I suspect, but one of the best.

He's in Perth though and the OP is unlikely to make the trip under his circumstances.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 443
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Interesting topic for debate........   From a very personal view, I moved from a $3k turntable to a +$30k  TT in one shot without changing anything else (even the cart).  The difference was

I don't think it was a troll type question by the OP @gumptown, but rather I feel he may have been trying to justify to himself not spending much money on a vinyl rig. In the past, I've got into more

Over the (too) many decades I have been involved with music reproduction systems (note, I did not say 'hifi' systems) I have, at different stages of my audio journey, been a subjectivist, an objectivi

Guest Eggcup the Dafter
1 minute ago, sir sanders zingmore said:

You are talking edge cases here. 
Certainly the impact even in the almost certainly non-existent worse case, would be tiny compared to the effect of speakers. 

Yes, I'm in a hole and I'm still digging... but I can certainly hear the difference between the Dragonfly Red (fast filter) and Cobalt (slow filter) with 44.1 files. They sound a lot closer to the same with MQA though so I'll put money on the filters being the main difference. Yes, it's an edge case, but a thicker edge than you might think.

I'm not sure how many speakers roll off by 4dB and 4dB again by 20 kHz these days. Any worthwhile speakers should show the difference accurately, with the same edge case caveats. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, muon* said:

The OP needs to listen to TP1's turntable ^_^

Using what speakers, or headphones?   Ones TP1 brought along?

 

Once people start arguing that digital capture "can't cut it" for making comparisons of the performance of cartridges and tone arms they may find it hard to explain why other parts of the chain of reproduction don't prevent making such comparisons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Eggcup the Dafter said:

Yes, I'm in a hole and I'm still digging... but I can certainly hear the difference between the Dragonfly Red (fast filter) and Cobalt (slow filter) with 44.1 files. They sound a lot closer to the same with MQA though so I'll put money on the filters being the main difference. Yes, it's an edge case, but a thicker edge than you might think.

I'm not sure how many speakers roll off by 4dB and 4dB again by 20 kHz these days. Any worthwhile speakers should show the difference accurately, with the same edge case caveats. 

 

Stop digging!

you can hear the difference between two different DACs - thats not relevant here as we are talking about the same DAC. 
Are you seriously arguing that the effect of the same dac on the sound of two different turntables is greater than the effect of the speakers? If so, I’m out

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Eggcup the Dafter
1 minute ago, MLXXX said:

Using what speakers, or headphones?   Ones TP1 brought along?

 

Once people start arguing that digital capture "can't cut it" for making comparisons of the performance of cartridges and tone arms they may find it hard to explain why other parts of the chain of reproduction don't prevent making such comparisons.

I'm not arguing that.

What I am arguing is that you have to make the right choices for the digital capture, and also that you have to make the digital capture while playing back at a real world volume to capture the effects of vibration and feedback on the turntable setup. Under those circumstances the test would be valid.

I don't think you are actually really arguing anything different.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Eggcup the Dafter said:

Yes, I'm in a hole and I'm still digging... but I can certainly hear the difference between the Dragonfly Red (fast filter) and Cobalt (slow filter) with 44.1 files. They sound a lot closer to the same with MQA though so I'll put money on the filters being the main difference. Yes, it's an edge case, but a thicker edge than you might think.

I'm not sure how many speakers roll off by 4dB and 4dB again by 20 kHz these days. Any worthwhile speakers should show the difference accurately, with the same edge case caveats. 

 

 

Eggcup, why bother talking about 44.1kHz when captures of phono preamplifier output can be readily be done at 96kHz?  As I've indicated, for precision recording of analogue audio we would avoid 44.1kHz these days.

 

I'd note that radio and TV digital broadcasting uses 48kHz. So typically do today's still cameras when set for video capture.   Blu-ray video discs use 48kHz for the audio tracks, or, occasionally  a higher sample rate than that, particularly for the main audio track.

Edited by MLXXX
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Eggcup the Dafter
1 minute ago, sir sanders zingmore said:

Stop digging!

you can hear the difference between two different DACs - thats not relevant here as we are talking about the same DAC. 
Are you seriously arguing that the effect of the same dac on the sound of two different turntables is greater than the effect of the speakers? If so, I’m out

You're misunderstanding me. I'll put my edge case down:

We can have a turntable that is significantly down in signal by 12kHz.
We can then use an ADC that pulls down the 12kHz signal by another 1-2 dB. I have a computer with an ADC that would do just that.

We can then use a DAC that pulls down the 12kHZ signal by another 1-2dB. I have a DAC that would do just that.

It's not the DAC - it's the combination of three different components that might get us into trouble, if we compare with the same equipment sampling a much brighter turntable. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Eggcup the Dafter
3 minutes ago, MLXXX said:

 

Eggcup, why bother talking about 44.1kHz when captures of phono preamplifier output can be readily be done at 96kHz?  As I've indicated, for precision recording of analogue audio we would avoid 44.1kHz these days.

 

I'd note that radio and TV digital broadcasting uses 48kHz. So typically do today's still cameras when set for video capture.   Blu-ray discs use 48kHz or, much less commonly,  a higher sample rate than that.

The test under concern used 44.1 samples. 
If you use 96kHz, or a more accurate ADC, the problem would of course be avoided. There may be other edge cases to watch out for of course.

48kHz may still fall into the trap as the slow filters would still cut the signal. I'd just use 192kHz myself and leave it at that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have attached links to a couple of digital files I have uploaded to google drive.  They are both full track of "High Life" from 'Jazz at the Pawnshop' .  There is a DSD128  rip from vinyl and also an original Flac version from the CD 

 

I originally ripped a few albums this way to save wear and tear on the record.  I only ripped records that were produced using  an analog process all the way through. This  shows records at their very best IMO and as close as the Digital recordings are ( almost impossible to pick using rapid switching) there is no doubting that the analog  original still gives a bit more to the listener.  Still, the  differences may be in the "too small to matter" category for some people  but not perhaps for vinyl purists.

 

1. Turntable - Pioneer Exclusive P3a , Cartridge - Lyra Etna, Phono Stage - Accuphase C-37,  ADC- Korg MR-2000S

2.  Amps Accuphase C-3850  and 2 x Accuphase A-200

3.  Digital replay -  Accuphase DP-950 SACD transport and Accuphase DC-950 DAC

4. Speakers - Magico S7

 

Downloads:

 

Flac

 

Vinyl Rip DSD128

 

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Eggcup the Dafter said:

The test under concern used 44.1 samples. 

Hi John,

 

from Archimago’s article, “The samples were all ripped with the same ADC (my Creative E-MU 0404USB) and laptop (Acer Aspire 5552-7858) using Audacity 2.0.5 at 24/96 bitdepth/samplerate.”

 

20 minutes ago, Eggcup the Dafter said:

If you use 96kHz, or a more accurate ADC, the problem would of course be avoided.

 

Whew!

 

As for your Cobalt DAC, from ASR’s review, “I don't know how they consider 6 dB droop at 20 kHz acceptable.” That’s amazingly poor design! Amir concluded, “Whoever designed the headphone amplifier in this product needs to go back to engineering school or pay attention to what the competitor is shipping. Actually he needs to do both....it fails in so many other ways that I cannot recommend it”.

 

No wonder you can hear a difference!

 

cheers

Grant

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, TP1 said:

 

I have attached links to a couple of digital files I have uploaded to google drive.  They are both full track of "High Life" from 'Jazz at the Pawnshop' .  There is a DSD128  rip from vinyl and also an original Flac version from the CD 

 

I originally ripped a few albums this way to save wear and tear on the record.  I only ripped records that were produced using  an analog process all the way through. This  shows records at their very best IMO and as close as the Digital recordings are ( almost impossible to pick using rapid switching) there is no doubting that the analog  original still gives a bit more to the listener.  Still, the  differences may be in the "too small to matter" category for some people  but not perhaps for vinyl purists.

 

1. Turntable - Pioneer Exclusive P3a , Cartridge - Lyra Etna, Phono Stage - Accuphase C-37,  ADC- Korg MR-2000S

2.  Amps Accuphase C-3850  and 2 x Accuphase A-200

3.  Digital replay -  Accuphase DP-950 SACD transport and Accuphase DC-950 DAC

4. Speakers - Magico S7

 

Downloads:

 

Flac

 

Vinyl Rip DSD128

 

How do I play the DSD file?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, muon* said:

How do I play the DSD file?

 

Preferably with a DACs that does DSD.  I guess it can be converted to PCM but I'm not sure which software would be best for that.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, TP1 said:

 

Preferably with a DACs that does DSD.  I guess it can be converted to PCM but I'm not sure which software would be best for that.

Ah OK, I have a 16bit/44.1kHz NOS player :)

 

I'll look at converting.

Edited by muon*
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, muon* said:

Ah OK, I have a 16bit/44.1kHz NOS player :)

 

I'll look at converting.

Converting is bound to destroy any differences 🙃

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TP1 said:

I have attached links to a couple of digital files I have uploaded to google drive.  They are both full track of "High Life" from 'Jazz at the Pawnshop' .  There is a DSD128  rip from vinyl and also an original Flac version from the CD 

Whilst this is probably an interesting exercise I don’t really see how it helps the OP. As I understand it he is comparing needle drops of different turntables/carts, rather than a needle drop vs the CD

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, sir sanders zingmore said:

Whilst this is probably an interesting exercise I don’t really see how it helps the OP. As I understand it he is comparing needle drops of different turntables/carts, rather than a needle drop vs the CD

 

Mmmm, that's not my understanding, Trev!  :)

 

The way I see it, the OP is relying on some random blogger who does needle drop comparisons, to confirm his decision that it's pointless to buy a better TT.

 

Andy

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, sir sanders zingmore said:

Whilst this is probably an interesting exercise I don’t really see how it helps the OP. As I understand it he is comparing needle drops of different turntables/carts, rather than a needle drop vs the CD

He can compare Tasso's TT capture to the other ones from the blogger :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, muon* said:

He can compare Tasso's TT capture to the other ones from the blogger :)

Good point. 
I assume “Tasso” is TP1?

I assume “the blogger” is Archimago?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

.

It would be possible to digitise files using different cartridges with  the same setup, thereby using the same Phono stage and ADC to minimise variables. But anything more than that will create a lot of doubt and questions  relating to cartridge loading, turntable setup and alignment, what technique was used to assure optimum VTA etc etc

 

More people than you probably think already compare digital files from vinyl and digital  on a daily basis using YouTube videos.  I have heard of purchasing decisions being made on the basis of such videos. In fact I would suggest this is the  number one method currently being used by audiophiles to compare components by digital means. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TP1 said:

More people than you probably think already compare digital files from vinyl and digital  on a daily basis using YouTube videos.  I have heard of purchasing decisions being made on the basis of such videos. In fact I would suggest this is the  number one method currently being used by audiophiles to compare components by digital means. 

How is that considered a valid approach due to youtube compression? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LHC said:

How is that considered a valid approach due to youtube compression? 

 

I am not saying it it is  valid - far from it. I was just pointing out what  happens when people try to take the easy way out to do comparisons - before they know it , the tests are removed from reality. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, TP1 said:

I have attached links to a couple of digital files I have uploaded to google drive.  They are both full track of "High Life" from 'Jazz at the Pawnshop' .  There is a DSD128  rip from vinyl and also an original Flac version from the CD 

Thanks very much, TP1. I won't have time to listen to these carefully tonight, but I can provide assistance for people wanting to convert the DSD version to PCM, and I can make some preliminary comments about differences in sound quality.

 

==================

 

The Tascam Hi-Res editor is free. It can be downloaded from https://tascam.com/us/product/hi-res_editor/download

 

It imported TP1's  dsf file and could play it.  It could also export it as PCM. I thought 96kHz a sufficient sample rate  to use tor the export, particularly given that the FLAC version happens to be at only 44.1kHz.

 

I loaded the two files into Audacity and time aligned the beginning of the vinyl capture to the digital version. I found that the vinyl capture version ran about 2 seconds slower than the FLAC version over the 7 minutes 12 seconds of the track. That represents a disparity of 2/432 = 0.46%.  In musical terms that represents a pitch disparity of 8 cents (where 100 cents is a semitone). As processed by the Tascam player converter, the audio phase of the analogue capture happens to be inverted relative to the FLAC version audio phase, but that would not normally make a noticeable difference when listening.

 

The converted dsf file reaches 0dB. The FLAC file reaches only -2.98dB. However simply amplifying the FLAC file by 2.98dB doesn't bring its average level up sufficiently to match the apparent loudness of the converted file.  This is obvious simply by visual inspection of the Audacity timeline and is borne out by listening.  So I reduced the converted file amplitude by 1.5dB to get very roughly equal loudness but it could take quite some time to come up with an accurate gain adjustment by trial and error. (In summary, I boosted the FLAC file by around 3dB and attenuated the converted file by 1.5dB, a total change of about 4.5dB.) 

 

The vinyl capture shows reduced amplitude transients compared to the FLAC version. This could be because of a fast acting limiter used for the signal sent to the cutting head, or it could be because TP1 was slightly overgenerous when setting the recording gain.  Conceivably, the Tascam converter was responsible for attenuating transients, though that doesn't strike me as likely.

 

The tonal balance is noticeably different, making amplitude matching harder to achieve. 

 

The stereo imaging is quite different, the vinyl version for my ears when wearing headphones giving a wider effect at times.

 

 

The versions are very different!

 

Edit: Later this evening, performing a speed adjustment on the vinyl capture version of + 0.46% then made it possible to alternate between the two versions on the fly when playing them using Audacity. This was very helpful for revealing differences in the sound.

 

Edited by MLXXX
Additional detail
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LHC said:

How is that considered a valid approach due to youtube compression? 

If the differences are as pronounced as with the two files TP1 provided us tonight, they should remain pronounced on YouTube. 

 

From memory, YouTube compresses stereo audio at around 128kbps, but quite efficiently.   In my experience, for audio uploaded in recent years, YouTube doesn't change the tonal balance very much, and it doesn't change the stereo imaging very much. So the marked differences in tonal balance and in stereo imaging I heard in TP1's files tonight  would survive YouTube compression, in my opinion. 

 

If I were uploading the files to YouTube I might try a speed adjustment resampling to the dsf file to make it match the playback speed and pitch of the FLAC version.  That would facilitate rapid A B switching between the two versions. ( Because of the high sample rate used for the analogue capture, a resampling would leave the audible quality intact.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, andyr said:

 

Mmmm, that's not my understanding, Trev!  :)

 

The way I see it, the OP is relying on some random blogger who does needle drop comparisons, to confirm his decision that it's pointless to buy a better TT.

 

Andy

 

Nope. I'm relying on the observation that the technical limitations of a vinyl record surpass the technical records of consumer record players. If you're only driving on gravel roads, a ferrari isn't going to be any faster than a Kia Stinger. It will be nicer and cooler, but the road is the limiting factor, not the car. I'm proposing that the black disc is the limiting factor, not the player. A consumer record player is silent over the noise floor of the record. The w&f and speed inaccuracies are insignificant in comparison to the inherent weaknesses of records (such a compromised format that a RIAA curve is needed to prevent it from falling all over itself!), tracking error, decreasing linear velocity.

 

The needle drop test of an audio researcher is just an interesting bit of supporting evidence, considering that there should be a night and day difference between the tested turntables. A few minor factors like the use of an ADC, sampling rates etc should certainly not be enough to make a night and day difference disappear. If the difference between 2 record players is so small that it's so easily dissolved with the introduction of some external input then It doesn't make me confident that it's worth the extra $27k

 

edit: the continued attempts to dismiss archimago in this thread as a "random blogger" who "just wants visitors for ad revenue" is starting to feel a lot like an ad hominem

Edited by gumptown
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, gumptown said:

 

Nope. I'm relying on the observation that the technical limitations of a vinyl record surpass the technical records of consumer record players. If you're only driving on gravel roads, a ferrari isn't going to be any faster than a Kia Stinger. It will be nicer and cooler, but the road is the limiting factor, not the car. I'm proposing that the black disc is the limiting factor, not the player. A consumer record player is silent over the noise floor of the record. The w&f and speed inaccuracies are insignificant in comparison to the inherent weaknesses of records (such a compromised format that a RIAA curve is needed to prevent it from falling all over itself!), tracking error, decreasing linear distortion.

 

The needle drop test of an audio researcher is just an interesting bit of supporting evidence, considering that there should be a night and day difference between the tested turntables. A few minor factors like the use of an ADC, sampling rates etc should certainly not be enough to make a night and day difference disappear. If the difference between 2 record players is so small that it's so easily dissolved with the introduction of some external input then It doesn't make me confident that it's worth the extra $27k

 

edit: the continued attempts to dismiss archimago in this thread as a "random blogger" who "just wants visitors for ad revenue" is starting to feel a lot like an ad hominem

I have often wondered how different types of noise/distortion/non-linearities etc interact with each other. My feeling is that you can’t just take the worst one and say that it makes all the others inaudible. I’d love it if someone who knows more about this stuff than me would chime in. 

As an example if you play a really dirty record (very high noise floor) on a turntable with terrible wow and flutter, I’d expect that you’d still hear both. Even if the wow and flutter noise was less than the noise produced by the dirty record, because they are different types of distortion, you’d still hear it. 

Edited by sir sanders zingmore
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, sir sanders zingmore said:

As an example if you play a really dirty record (very high noise floor) on a turntable with terrible wow and flutter, I’d expect that you’d still hear both. Even if the wow and flutter noise was less than the noise produced by the dirty record, because they are different types of distortion, you’d still hear it. 

The swaying and warbling from wow and flutter would tend to cut through anything!

 

However I'm not sure you can really describe wow and flutter as "noise", which ordinarily means adding random spurious sound to the signal sound.  Wow and flutter actually change the signal itself by causing its pitch and speed to vary.

 

As you say, a different type of distortion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, MLXXX said:

This could be because of a fast acting limiter used for the signal sent to the cutting head, or it could be because TP1 was slightly overgenerous when setting the recording gain. 

 

Yes - I don't think I allowed quite enough headroom in my recordings . I set the recording levels based on the meter readings but I should have allowed another 2-3db buffer.  The dynamics of the record are actually very good.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Fortunately it doesn't seem to have made too much difference to the sound. I didn't hear any obvious clipping.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Strange when playing the TP1's DSD file.

I was playing some  Chill & tropical house (as I do) with my 2 cats resting on the chairs.

Put the TP1 DSD file on and both cats jumped up and both ran towards the stereo looking around everywhere on high alert!

Edited by rocky500
  • Like 2
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, MLXXX said:

The tonal balance is noticeably different, making amplitude matching harder to achieve. 

 

The stereo imaging is quite different, the vinyl version for my ears when wearing headphones giving a wider effect at times.

 

 

Differences are significant as you have heard but they  may possibly be due to the different characteristics of the tape head reading the master the before digitisation for the CD and the those of the Lyra Etna cartridge.  I  think the ADC would play a minor role in this.  Modern  MC cartridges such as Lyra seem to consistently extract more information and produce a wider sound stage than they used to, whereas I don't think there has been the same development in tape head design .  

 

11 hours ago, MLXXX said:

I found that the vinyl capture version ran about 2 seconds slower than the FLAC version over the 7 minutes 12 seconds of the track.

 

This is interesting.  There is zero speed error on the turntable which means that there could be variations to the original master speed for the Vinyl record and for the CD.  

11 hours ago, MLXXX said:

The versions are very different!

 

Yet  they come from the same analog master recorded in the 1970's.   The differences are the  reason that some people prefer vinyl and remember that your test cannot measure information lost during the ADC process. That is a major part of the appeal of vinyl  and it is  what people hear live when listening to the record. 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I note that Proprius has released 2x and 4X DSD versions of the Album which I would expect would sound a lot closer to my recording ( but with levels properly adjusted) .    

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, TP1 said:

Yet  they come from the same analog master recorded in the 1970's. 

Presumably the master isn’t just transferred “as is” to either the record or the CD. There will be some other steps that will explain a big part of the difference. 
 

Therein lies one of the problems with comparing recordings across different media

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TP1 said:

Modern  MC cartridges such as Lyra seem to consistently extract more information and produce a wider sound stage than they used to, whereas I don't think there has been the same development in tape head design .

Each vertical segment of a recording studio multi-track tape head reads one of the tracks on the tape as it passes by . There can be a little bit of crosstalk from adjacent tracks but those adjacent channels are not necessarily left and right of the same instrument. If an engineer wanted, a shorter tape head segment per track could be designed to reduce crosstalk but that would reduce the signal to noise ratio. There is a compromise.

The different stereo imaging I heard didn't strike me as related to crosstalk leakage.  It could have been related to the different tonal balance. The impression of the changed sound  stage was not subtly different but a distinct shift.

 

I had no idea the original recording was so old! Do we have any information as to the date on which the analogue transfer to the cutting head was done and the date on which the analogue transfer to digital was done?

 

Given the 0.46% difference in speed it appears that different tape recorders may have been used to play the master tape for the cutting process as distinct from the transfer to digital process.

 

20 minutes ago, TP1 said:

Modern  MC cartridges such as Lyra seem to consistently extract more information and produce a wider sound stage than they used to,

Channel separation for cartridges has always been a bit of an issue. If modern designs of cartridges have been able to reduce crosstalk, that is obviously a good thing.   I see the Lyra Etna spec states: "Channel separation: 35 dB or better at 1 kHz".

 

(This is a separate matter to the manipulation of the blending of channels for the cutting head over certain frequency ranges that is sometimes required.) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Eggcup the Dafter said:

Yes, I'm in a hole and I'm still digging... but I can certainly hear the difference between the Dragonfly Red (fast filter) and Cobalt (slow filter) with 44.1 files. They sound a lot closer to the same with MQA though so I'll put money on the filters being the main difference. Yes, it's an edge case, but a thicker edge than you might think.

The dragonfly cobalt unfortunately has some sort of a problem in its circuit. It's got like 5 times more distortion than the Red and clips at the recommended volume, It's not too surprising that they're audibly different. Some Random Blogger did some measurements of the audioquest line

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, gumptown said:

The dragonfly cobalt unfortunately has some sort of a problem in its circuit. It's got like 5 times more distortion than the Red and clips at the recommended volume, It's not too surprising that they're audibly different. Some Random Blogger did some measurements of the audioquest line

 

Some other random blogger also found the Cobalt to be pretty much bottom of the barrel in this device class.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, MLXXX said:

Channel separation for cartridges has always been a bit of an issue.

 

I hear you  but it is the  the perceived outcome, not the spec that is important.   Crosstalk may also be present in the analog tape heads and too much can affect imaging.   On  some recordings, the digital master version does have better imaging but not in all cases based on listening.  However,  for analog sources the principal attraction to vinyl goes way beyond that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, TP1 said:

 

I note that Proprius has released 2x and 4X DSD versions of the Album which I would expect would sound a lot closer to my recording ( but with levels properly adjusted) .    

If there was a single transfer to digital made at a 4x DSD rate from an analogue master, then any derived (or "downmixed") versions, e.g. 2x DSD,  192kHz PCM,  48kHz PCM, or 44.1kHz PCM, should be indistinguishable or close to indistinguishable from that 4x DSD version to the human ear;* with the possible exception of the 44.1kHz PCM version which as discussed earlier in this thread can vary slightly in its sound depending on the shape of the anti-aliasing filtering, making it more likely a small difference might be noticed.

 

On the other hand,  your DSD recording relates to the vinyl pressing and your cartridge and has turned out to be quite different to the 44.1kHz PCM version in lossless FLAC format you provided. As mentioned previously I found differences in:

  • tonal balance  (pronounced)
  • stereo sound stage (pronounced)
  • speed (apparent if attempting an on-the-fly A B comparison).

The first two differences are sufficiently marked that they would remain audible even after an upload to YouTube.  They go to the core of the sound. (They are not akin to the minor upper octave frequency response variations that can be found with a modern DAC converting a 44.1/16 linear PCM stream to analogue.)

 

_________________

 

* A major reason SACD has withered on the vine is that the heralded "earth-shattering" revelations in sound quality proved to be elusive. Even audiophiles were not necessarily convinced there was a worthwhile improvement.

 

Edited by MLXXX
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Deleted, never mind.

 

Ah, it's the internet after all and not a science lab or classroom, so just ignore my views please :$

Edited by muon*
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I'm of the way as everything even small changes can matter.

I have found the more I have spent on my turntable setup over the years, the more enjoyment I have got as the sound has become say things like more transparent, better imaging, more realistic ...... etc.

I also do not think it is confirmation (sighted listening), it is just experience (many many hours, must be classed an expert as definitely done my 10,000 hours :)) of knowing what I like over the 30 odd years I have been in this hobby. I am the one that must hear it for myself and not really head much what others say/experience or do tests on.

 

I like plain black boxes, DYI looking things are super if it saves me money over looks any day. Substance over looks every time. I do shop on the budget totally on everything I can. But appreciate spending the money when the gains are there for me.

So I see the advantage for me spending the money on better Turntables, Tonearms, cartridges, phono stages etc.

Others can do all the tests they like or read others doing them and form their own buying habits. That's the beauty of this hobby.

Edited by rocky500
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...