Recent Mark Levinson Interview

[Andre Marc]

Go back and reread what I said Andre. The emphasis was not on the upsampled but the far more prevalent DSD converted to PCM. Go back and read the article and see where Levinson talks about why they had to do that eg. it was impossible to edit in DSD. But you didn't seem to be aware of either happening when you challenged me in another post.



Who cares???? That's not what we're talking about. But as long as you're raising that point, at least with the LPs, you can pretty easily figure out whether or not the disc is from a digital source. Go back and try and find out if an SACD is really PCM or not. Go ahead.

Hi Myles:

I understood exactly what ML was saying. However, as our own Bruce B will attest to, Levinson's comments are out of date in many ways.

I know for a fact that Mobile Fidelity does all their EQ in the analog domain then captures to DSD. I can tell you Analogue Productions
does not involve a PCM stage. There ARE currently tools for DSD editing and mastering. EQing and compressing in PCM and going back to DSD is not how the best do it.

And FYI, there are software tools that rather easily unmask PCM sourced SACDs. Levinson is not all knowing on all subjects audio. I do think he is amazingly
smart, but he paints VERY broad strokes.

Please tell me how you can tell an LP is source from a digital master without asking the mastering engineer or label?

PS:

Steve Hoffman on mastering the recent crop of Yes, Bob Dylan, etc Audio Fidelity SACDs:

"If I am working with an analog tape, I will keep it in the analog domain until the final "dump" to the digital master. This means that all my mastering "moves" (fades, EQ, balances, etc.) are done in real time, live in true analog. I try to keep the good analog sound until the very last minute."

Where it becomes murky is when they master something like the new Blade Runner soundtrack release..which was a PCM digital master.

 

[Bruce B]

As far as SACD/DSD production is concerned, his views may have been accurate 10yr. ago.
I don't know of anyone now that records in DSD and then converts to PCM for editing. If they do, they really screwed up something, or they don't have the proper tools to begin with!

 

[andromedaaudio]

I dont want to pull this thread into a cable debate but the reasons he put forth are a bit far fetched and i would like to see evidence on how much a deviation it would be 0,01 db 0,05 db ??? how much

ML s words


The Great Cable Debate
Another contentious topic is the effect of cables on the sound of an audio system. As Levinson recounts, "Let's say you put a sine wave into a preamp, and you have a cable between the preamp and power amp. At the output of the power amp, you measure the frequency response. If you change the cable between them, the measured frequency response will change slightly, which shows you that a lot of what we hear is the result of small differences in frequency response. I'm not saying that all cables are like that, but more than anyone would guess, this is what's happening.

 

[Andre Marc]

As far as SACD/DSD production is concerned, his views may have been accurate 10yr. ago.
I don't know of anyone now that records in DSD and then converts to PCM for editing. If they do, they really screwed up something, or they don't have the proper tools to begin with!

agree Bruce..his views are quaintly out of date...although he gets one thing right...DSD is super transparent.

 

[MylesBAstor]

As far as SACD/DSD production is concerned, his views may have been accurate 10yr. ago.
I don't know of anyone now that records in DSD and then converts to PCM for editing. If they do, they really screwed up something, or they don't have the proper tools to begin with!

Mark also didn't say all.

Also there's still plenty of PCM encoded discs floating around.

 

[Andre Marc]

Mark also didn't say all.

Also there's still plenty of PCM encoded discs floating around.

This is true, but since SACD is marketed squarely at the audiophile community, bum discs have
been vetted rather effectively.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Hi Myles:

I understood exactly what ML was saying. However, as our own Bruce B will attest to, Levinson's comments are out of date in many ways.

I know for a fact that Mobile Fidelity does all their EQ in the analog domain then captures to DSD. I can tell you Analogue Productions
does not involve a PCM stage. There ARE currently tools for DSD editing and mastering. EQing and compressing in PCM and going back to DSD is not how the best do it.

And FYI, there are software tools that rather easily unmask PCM sourced SACDs. Levinson is not all knowing on all subjects audio. I do think he is amazingly
smart, but he paints VERY broad strokes.

Please tell me how you can tell an LP is source from a digital master without asking the mastering engineer or label?

PS:

Steve Hoffman on mastering the recent crop of Yes, Bob Dylan, etc Audio Fidelity SACDs:

"If I am working with an analog tape, I will keep it in the analog domain until the final "dump" to the digital master. This means that all my mastering "moves" (fades, EQ, balances, etc.) are done in real time, live in true analog. I try to keep the good analog sound until the very last minute."

Where it becomes murky is when they master something like the new Blade Runner soundtrack release..which was a PCM digital master.

Because basically if they don't trumpet that the LP is from the original tapes, you can pretty much take it to the bank that it's a digital copy. Most of these new fly by night record labels are just getting cheap digital copies from the label and then taking advantage of the resurgence in analog to stuff their pockets. In fact, the only companies that one can trust that keep everything in the analog domain for LPs are AP, MM, MOFI, CR and Opus 3. I've never been able to tell where Speaker's Corner gets their tapes and exactly who does their mastering (Kevin Gray does some work for them as well as at least two other mastering engineers); I also can't say PP is really analog since it's DMM and as a result, it's essentially digital because of the preview.

What really irked me recently was Audio Fidelity putting out Bladerunner on LP from a digital copy when it's originally an analog tape. Cheapness or laziness?

 

[Andre Marc]

Because basically if they don't trumpet that the LP is from the original tapes, you can pretty much take it to the bank that it's a digital copy. Most of these new fly by night record labels are just getting cheap digital copies from the label and then taking advantage of the resurgence in analog to stuff their pockets. In fact, the only companies that one can trust that keep everything in the analog domain for LPs are AP, MM, MOFI, CR and Opus 3. I've never been able to tell where Speaker's Corner gets their tapes and exactly who does their mastering (Kevin Gray does some work for them as well as at least two other mastering engineers); I also can't say PP is really analog since it's DMM and as a result, it's essentially digital because of the preview.

That makes sense. And you are obviously way above average in knowledge consumer to say the least.

So in essence, there is vetting done in the vinyl community, as I noted that there is among the SACD crowd.
Fremer is notorious forbeing merciless when attacking sub par pressings from dubious sources.

 

[mep]

That makes sense. And you are obviously way above average in knowledge consumer to say the least.

Uh, Mr. Professional Audio Reviewer, you really need to brush up on your English. I think you meant to say that Myles is above average in consumer knowledge and not above average in knowledge consumer. I could be wrong though. Maybe Myles is above average in "knowledge consumer."

Fremer is notorious forbeing merciless when attacking sub par pressings from dubious sources.

As a professional audio reviewer, you should be merciless in not stringing two separate words together into one word. "Forbearing" is a word. "Forbeing" is not a word. It should have been "for being."

 

[Andre Marc]

Uh, Mr. Professional Audio Reviewer, you really need to brush up on your English. I think you meant to say that Myles is above average in consumer knowledge and not above average in knowledge consumer. I could be wrong though. Maybe Myles is above average in "knowledge consumer."



As a professional audio reviewer, you should be merciless in not stringing two separate words together into one word. "Forbearing" is a word. "Forbeing" is not a word. It should have been "for being."

I insist you refer to me as Professional Guru, as you anointed me. Secondly, I found the perfect product to review!
http://www.hifiplus.com/articles/guru-junior-loudspeaker/

Guru loudspeaker:

 

[Jim Treanor]

Having met Levinson when I worked at Garland Audio back in the dark ages and helped set up his HQD (Hartley-Quad-Decca) system for a demo he did for sales staff at Garland's house, I'd note that he hasn't changed in at least one respect--he remains as definite in his views as he was then. My only comment regarding his business side is that he was never comfortable with Garland carrying ARC and ML simultaneously, and the way he ultimately dealt with it had me ingesting not a little salt as I read one segment of the article.

 

[DaveyF]

Uh, Mr. Professional Audio Reviewer, you really need to brush up on your English. I think you meant to say that Myles is above average in consumer knowledge and not above average in knowledge consumer. I could be wrong though. Maybe Myles is above average in "knowledge consumer."



As a professional audio reviewer, you should be merciless in not stringing two separate words together into one word. "Forbearing" is a word. "Forbeing" is not a word. It should have been "for being."

Mep, Andre is a pro reviewer. You're now a self- anointed English teacher, LOL. Please get over yourself, it's getting old.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Having met Levinson when I worked at Garland Audio back in the dark ages and helped set up his HQD (Hartley-Quad-Decca) system for a demo he did for sales staff at Garland's house, I'd note that he hasn't changed in at least one respect--he remains as definite in his views as he was then. My only comment regarding his business side is that he was never comfortable with Garland carrying ARC and ML simultaneously, and the way he ultimately dealt with it had me ingesting not a little salt as I read one segment of the article.

Thanks for the blast from the past! I remember your guys ads (I thin it was TAS?) back in the days

 

[Lee]

While there were SACDs that were up sampled PCM, the vast majority are
not. And certainly not any of the Steve Hoffman, Gus Skinas, Mofi, or Doug Sax titles.

There are just as many $50 "audiophile" LPs cut from digital masters..even some from from 44.1. Oh, like the Beatles for instance lol.

Well said!

 

[Lee]

I have a positive story to tell about Mark. Jeremy Kipnis suggested I visit Red Rose one day and ask Mark about Super Audio. I swung by late one evening and Mark was there. He was very welcoming and said he would explain SACD and DSD to me and play some new speakers he had in. He was really entertaining and played the Red Rose recordings and went into some detail about the recording process once I mentioned I was working with Jeremy and the gang at Chesky. He urged me to buy a Sony SCD-1 and listen to some recordings myself. I think he gave me a Red Rose Sampler SACD (wish I had kept one for today's ebay). I really loved the sound I heard on the Red Rose monitors. I think Bo's tweeters can get a little bright in spots but overall the sound was quite musical. I fell in love with SACD right away and soon purchased a Sony SCD-777ES which is still my main SACD player albeit now on Sort Kones which make a difference. No I am approaching 1,000 SACDs in my collection and for the most part they generally sound wonderful and quite a number sound spectacular.

So I was quite impressed with Mark and found many of his opinions on audio to be right on the money.

 

[Andre Marc]

I have a positive story to tell about Mark. Jeremy Kipnis suggested I visit Red Rose one day and ask Mark about Super Audio. I swung by late one evening and Mark was there. He was very welcoming and said he would explain SACD and DSD to me and play some new speakers he had in. He was really entertaining and played the Red Rose recordings and went into some detail about the recording process once I mentioned I was working with Jeremy and the gang at Chesky. He urged me to buy a Sony SCD-1 and listen to some recordings myself. I think he gave me a Red Rose Sampler SACD (wish I had kept one for today's ebay). I really loved the sound I heard on the Red Rose monitors. I think Bo's tweeters can get a little bright in spots but overall the sound was quite musical. I fell in love with SACD right away and soon purchased a Sony SCD-777ES which is still my main SACD player albeit now on Sort Kones which make a difference. No I am approaching 1,000 SACDs in my collection and for the most part they generally sound wonderful and quite a number sound spectacular.

So I was quite impressed with Mark and found many of his opinions on audio to be right on the money.

I think the thread is overwhelmingly positive towards ML. I also think he is right on the money on most of this opinions.
It is quite obvious he has amazing mind. You could call him an audio renaissance man.

 

[NorthStar]

I have a positive story to tell about Mark. Jeremy Kipnis suggested I visit Red Rose one day and ask Mark about Super Audio. I swung by late one evening and Mark was there. He was very welcoming and said he would explain SACD and DSD to me and play some new speakers he had in. He was really entertaining and played the Red Rose recordings and went into some detail about the recording process once I mentioned I was working with Jeremy and the gang at Chesky. He urged me to buy a Sony SCD-1 and listen to some recordings myself. I think he gave me a Red Rose Sampler SACD (wish I had kept one for today's ebay). I really loved the sound I heard on the Red Rose monitors. I think Bo's tweeters can get a little bright in spots but overall the sound was quite musical. I fell in love with SACD right away and soon purchased a Sony SCD-777ES which is still my main SACD player albeit now on Sort Kones which make a difference. No I am approaching 1,000 SACDs in my collection and for the most part they generally sound wonderful and quite a number sound spectacular.

So I was quite impressed with Mark and found many of his opinions on audio to be right on the money.

Wow! ...Kipnis, Chesky, & Levinson. ...Some of the people I do admire.

Kal Rubinson is also big on SACD (multichannel Classical), with something like that too; over a thousand SACDs, if not more.
I'm also a SACD man (600 more or less).

...About George Cardas Lee? ...Ever met him?

 

[Jim Treanor]

Thanks for the blast from the past! I remember your guys ads (I thin it was TAS?) back in the days

Stereophile, Myles. When it was near-pocket-size.

 

[mep]

Mep, Andre is a pro reviewer. You're now a self- anointed English teacher, LOL. Please get over yourself, it's getting old.

The dynamic duo strikes again! It's not my fault if some people can't string together an intelligent sentence, specially those that call themselves "Professional Audio Reviewers." You would think that a prerequisite to being a "Professional Audio Reviewer" would be the ability to write intelligent sentences. One can only hope that whoever Andre writes for has a real professional editor. If you are a snarky person with a snarky attitude and you claim to be a professional writer and you have demonstrated that you can't write complete and proper sentences, guess what? I'm going to have a little fun at your expense when you get snarky with me.

Speaking of getting old, so is your constant love affair with your old D-70 MKII. The only thing that separates you and Mr. Acoustat with his love of all things Acoustat is that he loves to attach pictures of his love and you don't. Otherwise, there isn't much daylight between the two of you. And to think that you of all people were giving poor Mr. Acoustat a beating for loving an old speaker that has been modified to bring it up to modern day standards is pretty ironic. Your old D-70 MKII is just an old D-70 MKII. What I really thought was hilarious was another post of yours where you attributed the *great* sound of the D-70 MKII to it's tube rectifier which I have now told you on two separate occasions it doesn't have. How someone can confuse a 6550 pentode used as a series regulator with a rectifier is beyond me.

 

[NorthStar]

None much about Mark Levinson on that.