Reviewing the Furutec Demag

[JackD201]

There's a bit more than volume attenuation that goes on when shaving bits Frank. I await with bated breath.

 

[Gregadd]

Absolutely, and fully agreed. With many terms, such as those you listed, it's not difficult to understand what is meant. But the people in this discussion are audio professionals, or at least professional reviewers, so it's not a stretch IMO to expect people to use professional terms. Further, what do tonal texture, substance, organic signature, bloom, flow, and focus and precision mean? Those are so vague that they're meaningless to me. And certainly they will mean different things to different people due to the same vagueness. Same for PRaT, which are also vague. If a term means something different to every person, then I don't see how it's useful.

--Ethan

Deja vu. The question is are we confused because the term is vague or because we doubt it's validity. IME Ethan falls in the later category.

 

[fas42]

There's more work to do before we can do the digital recording and playback.

Sorry, Gary, as far as I am concerned you HAVE done the digital record and playback -- that's exactly what the A/D/A loop is!

Frank

 

[Orb]

Orb-What is the point to showing the tonearm resonances? Is someone doing research to try and improve tonearm design or is this just another finger being poked in the analog eye? I do find this interesting because I never knew about secondary tonearm resonances and I still don't know how audible they are or aren't. I wonder why at this late stage of the game this type of information is just coming out. Do you have an LP set up in your stereo system Orb?

Orb, have a look at www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?2701-Reviewing-the-Furutec-Demag/page22, post #220. In Gary's high end TT, there is just such a resonance all through the track

Frank

Hi Frank.
To begin I want to reiterate on this subject I am just like everyone else; curious and basically a learner, but been lucky to be able to mull this over for some time as there have been quite a lot of investigation articles and related opinion pieces over 16 months relating to the mechanics of analogue vinyl audio recording and playback.
I briefly mentioned-imply you do get what you pay for when it comes to vinyl playback, in terms of the damped 8-12hz it is pretty much same between cheap and expensive and should be inconsequential, but where a very good-engineered TT excels is that no other resonances-vibrations will be excessive and on cheaper setups there is no way around it happening, also wow-flutter-uncorrected speed-stability is much better for the more expensive well designed and engineered (this is important as not all expensive are great) TT/tonearm/headshell/etc when talking about resonances and vibration.

Yeah I understand what is showing, however the 8hz should be inconsequential compared to vibration-resonance of the cartridge-headshell-tonearm at higher FR.
And,I guess I am saying that what is shown in that picture (there is the primarily 4-8hz trait to focus on), does not match up with more recent measurement-analysis tools done by two seperate publications and also their perspective on parameters affecting performance and sound.
And importantly any such "8hz stylus trait" can only be applicable with cartridge-tonearm-mounting measurement, so it is classified as a tonearm resonance.

It is unfortunate that both publications are only recently able to investigate this level of information, using different tools as well (Paul Miller doing what he is best at and developing tools, while the other publication use Bruel and Kjaer accelerometer (looks like it updated to include better information this year review-measurements in the publication).
However both do say it is incredibly difficult to measure and correlate what is happening in terms of resonance and vibrations from cartridges-tonearms and affect on sound, possibly why it is more of a recent thing with greater understanding in publications.
You may find the better TT and arm manufacturers have specific hardware and software, with these probably being updated with ongoing R&D.

All I can say is most research on audibility for review measurements focused on the groove modulation/vertical-lateral/L+R and L-R, and now more recently it seems for publications the real effect of resonance.

But I think I can best answer you question about audibility and the fact the mechanical resonances/vibrations all come back to the tonearm, and can be audible.
I am providing a link to a pretty old article by a known engineer at Bruel & Kjaer, you are interested in the following section:
5. Audible Effects of Wow and Flutter, Rumble, Tone Arm Resonances etc. ; http://www.zainea.com/multidimensionalaudio.htm

Bear in mind the age of the paper (not exactly new lol), most modern turntables effectively damp the low resonances-vibrations as long as I mentioned earlier everything is correctly setup and as explained in a part of what I quoted from Paul Miller, and shown by review measurements I checked from both publications recently.
However for a complete picture ideally everything I have said in earlier posts in this thread relating to analogue LPs,etc should also be taken into consideration with this article.
And this is why it is confusing why only the 8hz is showing in that picture, on a modern TT that is really baffling.

Anyway just to summarise, what may be the primary concerns to affecting LP audio from what I have read and seen measurements for recently are; groove modulation effects outer-inner LP, L+R and L-R (cartridge-stylus performance), and tonarm resonance-vibration (peformance affected by headshell, tonearm, mounting, motor-mechanism),wow-flutter.
But I am a newbie myself so take my view on this lightly please

Thanks
Orb

 

[Ethan Winer]

if I ask a recording engineer to translate in words what is the effect of "3 dB shelving boost above 4 KHz" what would be his words?

I'd say "brighter and more open sounding." Unless the track or mix already was already too bright, in which case I'd say "edgy and harsh."

I hope this double meaning shows the failure of vague imprecise wording that so many audiophiles tend to use.

--Ethan

 

[Bruce B]

Sorry, Gary, as far as I am concerned you HAVE done the digital record and playback -- that's exactly what the A/D/A loop is!
Frank

I wouldn't consider an analog device that has it's own A-D and using another device (DAC) to get back to analog an A/D/A loop.
What you need is a standalone tape machine or even phono-pre that you can take the "same" analog signal into 2 directions, one to the pre-amp or even amp and the other into a standalone A/D/A converter. Then you can call it a legitimate test.

 

[Ethan Winer]

my fellow listeners know exactly what i am referring to when i use any of the terms on my list. in fact; i'll bet musicians would also have a pretty good idea of those terms too.

Not likely Mike. And it's easy to prove because I am certain that you yourself cannot define those terms. So please define each of these terms using industry standard terminology, or at least words that mean the same thing to everyone and leave no room for misinterpretation:

low-level detail
decay in notes
tonal texture and transparency in the mid-range
fullness and substance
organic signature of instruments
chestiness of vocals
bloom and openness
bass energy and flow
focus and precision​

The reason it's important for you to define your terms using industry standard wording is so I can prove to you that competent digital does indeed capture everything you listed. For the moment I'll assume "fullness" means frequency response, and it's trivial to prove that digital captures all of that perfectly well. But the rest is meaningless to me, and to everyone else, though I'll be glad to change my mind after I see your concise and clear definitions.

It's obvious to me you prefer that these terms cannot be defined. Once they're defined in a way that means the same thing to everyone, with no chance for misinterpretation, they can then be shot down one by one with hard proof in the form of input / output measurements. And when that happens the entire "subjectivist" house of cards falls down and stays down.

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

Ethan, if you take a digital signal and successively reduce its resolution (in bits). How would you describe the fidelity reduction at each step?

I'd call that quality graininess. But again the sound quality depends on the source. If the source were a single sustained bass note, the sound would probably be more aptly called buzzy of fuzzy.

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

Ethan thinks 16/44.1 is good enough and it sounds the same as 32/gazillion kHz.

So did 60 other audio people in 554 blind trials done over the course of one year:

The Emperor's New Sample Rate

I think we'd all do better discussing the facts and the science, rather than talk about what Ethan hears and what Ethan thinks.

--Ethan

 

[amirm]

I can help a bit here!

low-level detail
decay in notes

I consider both the same. They are simply the ability to resolve the sound as it gets faint. Or faint overtones (if audible) over louder sounds.

Indeed, I consider this one of the top subjective characterization of digital reproducing seeing how it is the low order bits which get lost first.

 

[RBFC]

Everyone, let's please remember to discuss subjects objectively without taking shots at any one individual. One of the great things about this pursuit is that there are differing points of view, from which we can sometimes learn something and expand our own knowledge base. Thanks.

Lee

 

[amirm]

I'd call that quality graininess.

There we go. You just used a layman term as others used before .

BTW it is not the only one. As you know, if you chop off the low order bits, you create harmnonic distortion. And what is a harmonic but added higher frequencies. Put the two together and the sound can become "bright." You won't be able to measure this effect on frequency response measurements because these are transient effect that help accentuate higher frequencies.

We also have the effect I mentioned above. As your noise floor/THD goes up with reduced resolution, your ability to hear low level detail is lost too. So you lose the smooth and silky aspects of music.

I could also say the sound is no longer "warm" because of the accentuated highs and gritty nature of it. I can also say it is no longer silky.

Small changes in resolution can also affect perceived ambiance. After all what is ambiance but cues of reflections in the room or reverb in the recording.

More complex is the effect on soundstage. The above can manifest itself in this form also. If I take away all reverb from a live recording, it will likely image differently.

So I personally have no trouble deciphering half the vocabulary used. To be fair though, it is also proper to dismiss the other half as just non-sense or at least non-descriptive.

As always then, the truth is half way in the middle .

But again the sound quality depends on the source. If the source were a single sustained bass note, the sound would probably be more aptly called buzzy of fuzzy.

--Ethan

Indeed. Digital impacts audio in unusually and non-consistent ways. A loud movie sound effect is not likely impacted by losing low order bits....

 

[garylkoh]

And importantly any such "8hz stylus trait" can only be applicable with cartridge-tonearm-mounting measurement, so it is classified as a tonearm resonance.

@orb-in the interest of learning.....

The 9Hz resonant frequency is the target resonant frequency I shoot for when setting up the tonearm/cartridge. You can calculate this based on the compliance of the cartridge and the effective mass of the tonearm. The effective mass of the tonearm is affected by the weight of the cartridge, and the tracking force, so it is not simple at all. Use too heavy a cartridge, and the resonant frequency goes down, even with the same compliance.

The arm I used had the benefit of additional weighted shims that could be added to the counterweight that was used to offset the weight of the cartridge. Even with the same VTF generated with different weight counterweights changed the sound for the better or worse. And this I verified by making a digital recording with X number of shims, setting the VTF to 3 digits of accuracy. Adding or taking away a shim, and setting the VTF to the same weight, making another digital recording, and doing an AB comparison between the two digital recordings.

Now, I know that ppl are going to say that the second playing of the same groove is going to change the sound...... when I have some time, I'll do some more recording without changing anything and we'll see if it really does, and how much of a difference subsequent plays make.

May be our turntable set-up process is flawed - and we have learned something to set up our turntables better.

 

[Ethan Winer]

They are simply the ability to resolve the sound as it gets faint. Or faint overtones (if audible) over louder sounds.

Okay, now define "resolve."

BTW, I am absolutely serious.

--Ethan

 

[Steve Williams]

So I personally have no trouble deciphering half the vocabulary used. To be fair though, it is also proper to dismiss the other half as just non-sense or at least non-descriptive.

so which are the descriptive terms that you dismiss as nonsense?

 

[garylkoh]

A few OT interesting bits.

Tesla determined that the resonant frequency between the surface of the earth and the ionosphere was 8Hz.
http://www.pbs.org/tesla/ll/ll_colspr.html

3Hz to 8Hz is also the resonant frequency of the surface of the earth, and the dominant resonant frequency of earthquakes. Hence, when designing a building for earthquake zones, you design for a resonant frequency from 8Hz to 33Hz.

Hence, a well set-up turntable should not skip while playing in an earthquake

 

[Ethan Winer]

There we go. You just used a layman term as others used before .

But only because I was asked directly to do so.

if you chop off the low order bits, you create harmnonic distortion. And what is a harmonic but added higher frequencies.

Exactly, and that's why distortion and added noise are much better ways to explain what happens as the bit-depth is reduced.

Put the two together and the sound can become "bright." You won't be able to measure this effect on frequency response measurements because these are transient effect that help accentuate higher frequencies.

The harmonics added by distortion are easy to see on an FFT, which to my thinking is a good way to assess frequency response.

So I personally have no trouble deciphering half the vocabulary used. To be fair though, it is also proper to dismiss the other half as just non-sense or at least non-descriptive.

Right, some of Mike's terms have a meaning universal enough to not be useless. But "organic signature?" "bloom?" "bass flow?" "focus and precision?" Those are clearly made up terms, and clearly they mean nothing. But again, I'm glad to change my mind if Mike is able to define them clearly in a way that means the same thing to everyone.

As always then, the truth is half way in the middle .

In this case I disagree. Remember the context. Mike claimed that digital somehow "misses" capturing all of the sound. I asked him what exactly is missed. And those vague and meaningless terms was his response. Either digital misses something audible or it doesn't. The truth of this is not halfway between anything.

I truly believe this can be resolved. But it requires intellectual honesty on everyone's part. Heck, I already proved that digital misses nothing by pointing out that a null test will show anything that was not captured. I've done such tests many times, as I already stated. Notice that Mike didn't address that, nor if he believes a null test is not positive proof.

--Ethan

 

[Gregadd]

There are glossarys for these terms. Unfortunately many find the authors as offensive as the terminology.

 

[Bruce B]

So did 60 other audio people in 554 blind trials done over the course of one year:

The Emperor's New Sample Rate

I think we'd all do better discussing the facts and the science, rather than talk about what Ethan hears and what Ethan thinks.

--Ethan

Geez.... Meyer/Moran again.... It's already been debunked. Don't tell us what 554 people heard. We could give a RA... tell us what YOU hear.

The harmonics added by distortion are easy to see on an FFT, which to my thinking is a good way to assess frequency response.
--Ethan

You can not distinguish the difference between overtones/harmonics, distortion and artifacts on a FFT or spectrogram.

 

[amirm]

so which are the descriptive terms that you dismiss as nonsense?

You really want to get me started? To show you how easy it is, I just picked up the new issue of TAS and in two seconds, ran into this line on Vincent Audio PHO-8 Phonostage:

"The sonic personality of the PHO-8 leans gently to the romantic side of the spectrum."

Excuse me but this is a box. What on earth romantic means. And let's say I know what it means. But "gently leaning?"

It goes on to say "... without conveying overly hard edges or pointed sonic corners."

I could maybe accept overly hard edges but "pointed sonic corners?"

So it goes on: Soundstage is width is very good and with its relaxed character....."

What on earth is relaxed character when it comes to soundstage? What is the opposite of relaxed character?

Robert Harley does great at first in his review of Music Streamer:

"I was also impressed by the sense of depth, overall soundstage and air between instrumental images."

Then goes of the clip with this:

"Bass guitar lines seemed to lag slightly behind the beat, fostering the impression of slower tempi along with the feeling of musicians not quite as locked into the groove."

What the heck? What did he just say? I can't even picture it. Feeling of not being locked into a groove? Clearly this is a made up statement designed to sound good in words and not any kind of analytical description.

He then redeems himself by saying, "The treble had a bit of harshness, but that is to be expected at this price."
What's wrong with clear statements like this one? Why resort to non-sense star-trek terminology which sounds at first to be the correct description but at the end, translates into nothing? Phrases like "Rhythmic drive" which he uses after that above?

Paul Seydor's review of Maratnz CD player carries the theme:

"Indeed, one of its strength is the ease, grip, and aplomb with which it handles Mahler symphonies or Wagner operas..."

Help me out here. I am not into classical music but surely I should be able to understand what he just said. No? "Grip?" "Aplomb?"

To be sure, he also uses precise and proper explanation at times such as "a bit more detail and resolution...."

Why resort to poetry when we can speak precisely?

It seems that the more difficult the evaluation, the more these terms creep in. Comparing amps, sources and cables is difficult if not impossible to do. Instead of confessing that fact, random words are used which can mean anything. It is like a fortune cookie that can't be wrong since the words lack precision.

Here is more on Cable Research LAB from Neil Gader again: "... its low bass is extended and well-defined, though not as tight as it might be. A little cooler overall, its treble octaves integrate well with the rest of the frequency spectrum."
Now are in full star trek language territory. Treble octave integrating well into frequency spectrum? Tell me what that means and it how it goes with cooler treble whatever that is supposed to mean.

I read here that the person doesn't really know what could be different in cables and is frankly manufacturing terms to describe some difference imagined or otherwise. Clearly if I hear something, I can describe it more specifically than what is said here.

OK, I will stop here at page 116 .