DSD to Vinyl Versus Analog Tape to Vinyl

[Gregadd]

If a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound? Of course it does. A separate and distinct sound. Can anyone produce an exact replica? Probably not. To put it bluntly the absolute sound is what was created. Not what any one person heard.
Of course you realize you made an excellent argument against your claim of accuracy and neutrality.

 

[Carlos269]

If a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound? Of course it does. A separate and distinct sound. Can anyone produce an exact replica? Probably not. To put it bluntly the absolute sound is what was created. Not what any one person heard.
Of course you realize you made an excellent argument against your claim of accuracy and neutrality.

Accuracy and neutrality in this case is based on comparing the input of an electrical device to the output, simple as that. Textbook definition.

 

[Gregadd]

Accuracy and neutrality in this case is based on comparing the input of an electrical device to the output, simple as that. Textbook definition.

Yes fidelity to the source. But are you not in the business of altering (remasterimg)the source to your liking.

 

[Carlos269]

Yes fidelity to the source. But are you not in the business of altering (remasterimg)the source to your liking.

Aren’t we all?

 

[Gregadd]

Aren’t we all?

At least you are honest about it. I can't count the times I have been called a distortion lover by those who are just following the science.

 

[andromedaaudio]

At least you are honest about it. I can't count the times I have been called a distortion lover by those who are just following the science.

Audio is not science, neither are musicians scientists
Audio is whatever you want it to be.

 

[andromedaaudio]

just following the science.

Just following the enlightend audio prophets you mean , of which the audioworld is full off .
Telling you what you should like

The most highly regarded prophets imo are those who take the " vow of silence ,"lol.
Just like in the good old days

NOS prophets

 

[Cableman]

Accuracy and neutrality in this case is based on comparing the input of an electrical device to the output, simple as that. Textbook definition.

Who cares. Enjoy the music.

 

[Gregadd]

Just following the enlightend audio prophets you mean , of which the audioworld is full off .
Telling you what you should like

The most highly regarded prophets imo are those who take the " vow of silence ,"lol.
Just like in the good old days

NOS prophets

No I was referring to the "objectivists." I suppose that you are making the counter argument.

 

[Gregadd]

I am sorry. I got us off track. Can return to the topic?

 

[AMR / iFi audio]

I would say it is very beneficial to look up to a group of people who made the mistakes, learned their lessons and are willing to share their experience with us in audio or any other field. I would say stay away from the audio evangelists, who recognise their way as the only right one. We should identify different strands and approaches and make most of all audio schools by finding our own way. In my modest opinion there is no need to divide all audio enthusiasts into objectivists and subjectivists. One can love science and while appreciating it still enjoy the distortions. Whether one listens through measurements or by ear they can both be right. It is key to follow what one enjoys the most.

 

[Atmasphere]

You know, I’m getting tired and bored with this back and forth. I’ll make you a deal, I will shut up and go play with my toys if you can show me how a component or approach is more true to the original and neutral. A few years ago John Atkinson of Stereophile measured the Weiss DAC202 dac, which I own, and he declared it the single most linear/accurate/neutral device that he had ever measured and encountered. How did the audiophile world react to the sound of the Weiss DAC202?

More true to the original? If the component is meant to do something other than amplify, if it is a form of EQ, noise removal, compression, limiting and so on, by definition it isn't true to the original and the manufacturer of that component will be the first to tell you so.

I've no idea about the Weiss- I stay well away from Stereophile. I've seen JA blow measurements out of the water, although usually he's pretty good. The Audio Precision device he used in the mid 1990's was supposed to measure with either single-ended or balanced but apparently didn't support AES48... I don't know if Audio Precision ever fixed that. DACs have been one of those things that have changed like the wind- you can pay a lot for them and a few years later can buy a new DAC on ebay for $125.00 that sounds better and measures better too. Digital was always one of those things that if done right, you really shouldn't hear a difference between one and another, yet here we are 40 years on and that's yet to happen. I regard them as a poor investment due to their ephemeral nature. Useful though, just like underwear, but you lose a lot when selling used

But to be clear, I regard a DAC as a source rather than something meant to modify, in much the same way that a turntable is a source, or a tape machine. They are fundamentally different from an EQ or reverb in that regard.

My reference has always been recordings I've made myself. I have LPs that I mastered and I set up the microphones before the tape rolled. I know how they are supposed to sound because I was there. When I started doing this, I started out trying to sort how a reference can exist, so I started with direct microphone feeds, listening to actual musicians and then listening to what the feed sounded like played through headphones and then a system. I found that everything made a difference- the mics, their placement, the mic preamps, the amps and speakers and headphones. None of it is perfect although a mic feed can be so good it can easily fool the most jaundiced audiophile- I've seen it happen and been fooled many times. When the signal goes to any form of recording or processing that spooky nature of being so real is usually lost.

So if you want to know what my goal is, I want that spooky character where you suddenly realize that someone got into your house while you are playing your stereo and is singing really well along with your stereo- and when startled- you look and no-one is there. That can happen with recorded media but its rare. When it happens it makes it all worthwhile. IME the only way to get there is to keep the signal path as clean and as simple as possible.

 

[Cableman]

I would say it is very beneficial to look up to a group of people who made the mistakes, learned their lessons and are willing to share their experience with us in audio or any other field. I would say stay away from the audio evangelists, who recognise their way as the only right one. We should identify different strands and approaches and make most of all audio schools by finding our own way. In my modest opinion there is no need to divide all audio enthusiasts into objectivists and subjectivists. One can love science and while appreciating it still enjoy the distortions. Whether one listens through measurements or by ear they can both be right. It is key to follow what one enjoys the most.

No test bed every made music

 

[Cableman]

More true to the original? If the component is meant to do something other than amplify, if it is a form of EQ, noise removal, compression, limiting and so on, by definition it isn't true to the original and the manufacturer of that component will be the first to tell you so.

I've no idea about the Weiss- I stay well away from Stereophile. I've seen JA blow measurements out of the water, although usually he's pretty good. The Audio Precision device he used in the mid 1990's was supposed to measure with either single-ended or balanced but apparently didn't support AES48... I don't know if Audio Precision ever fixed that. DACs have been one of those things that have changed like the wind- you can pay a lot for them and a few years later can buy a new DAC on ebay for $125.00 that sounds better and measures better too. Digital was always one of those things that if done right, you really shouldn't hear a difference between one and another, yet here we are 40 years on and that's yet to happen. I regard them as a poor investment due to their ephemeral nature. Useful though, just like underwear, but you lose a lot when selling used

But to be clear, I regard a DAC as a source rather than something meant to modify, in much the same way that a turntable is a source, or a tape machine. They are fundamentally different from an EQ or reverb in that regard.

My reference has always been recordings I've made myself. I have LPs that I mastered and I set up the microphones before the tape rolled. I know how they are supposed to sound because I was there. When I started doing this, I started out trying to sort how a reference can exist, so I started with direct microphone feeds, listening to actual musicians and then listening to what the feed sounded like played through headphones and then a system. I found that everything made a difference- the mics, their placement, the mic preamps, the amps and speakers and headphones. None of it is perfect although a mic feed can be so good it can easily fool the most jaundiced audiophile- I've seen it happen and been fooled many times. When the signal goes to any form of recording or processing that spooky nature of being so real is usually lost.

So if you want to know what my goal is, I want that spooky character where you suddenly realize that someone got into your house while you are playing your stereo and is singing really well along with your stereo- and when startled- you look and no-one is there. That can happen with recorded media but its rare. When it happens it makes it all worthwhile. IME the only way to get there is to keep the signal path as clean and as simple as possible.

Yup. Been there. Well explained Sir.
I’ve been ‘frightened’ by a noise in the room. Only to then realise it’s from the music Im listening to

like you I set my system by the records of the songs I personally produced and or mixed. That way I know it’s pretty darned accurate and dare I say pretty pretty good ( CSC Larry David)

 

[andromedaaudio]

I m listening to a 44.1 khz / CD recorded in the netherlands by a small local studio .
Its very good digital , with a lot of speech in it i must say it sounds very convincing , were it not that tape always softens the high freqs in a lovely natural way

 

[Gregadd]

Yup. Been there. Well explained Sir.
I’ve been ‘frightened’ by a noise in the room. Only to then realise it’s from the music Im listening to

like you I set my system by the records of the songs I personally produced and or mixed. That way I know it’s pretty darned accurate and dare I say pretty pretty good ( CSC Larry David)

I have said this before. The most frightening sound is the binaural recording of a door knock. You will jump out of your skin.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Accuracy and neutrality in this case is based on comparing the input of an electrical device to the output, simple as that. Textbook definition.

Since when does measuring the input of an electrical device and measuring the output of the device and comparing the input to the output describe the subjective sound we hear?

 

[Rensselaer]

To record sound into a Digital format one actually is recording measurements of sound at discrete points along a timeline, it is not recording the entire event in that there is unrecorded information occurring in real time between each discrete measurement, and perhaps in what is being measured as we do not know how frequencies outside of normal hearing range (so not measured, or removed with filters) contribute to the subjective listening experience.

Being able to very accurately reproduce that which was measured digitally, with absolute perfection implies that the device is doing a stellar job of performing its function. It does not in any way however stretch to imply that the musical event of which measurements were taken is being reproduced more accurately, or even as accurately as an analogue device. It is like comparing apples with oranges.

 

[tima]

Since when does measuring the input of an electrical device and measuring the output of the device and comparing the input to the output describe the subjective sound we hear?

Since Julian Hirsch, and the amps sound the same! After all, you do want low distortion don't you?

 

[rbbert]

To record sound into a Digital format one actually is recording measurements of sound at discrete points along a timeline, it is not recording the entire event in that there is unrecorded information occurring in real time between each discrete measurement, and perhaps in what is being measured as we do not know how frequencies outside of normal hearing range (so not measured, or removed with filters) contribute to the subjective listening experience.

Being able to very accurately reproduce that which was measured digitally, with absolute perfection implies that the device is doing a stellar job of performing its function. It does not in any way however stretch to imply that the musical event of which measurements were taken is being reproduced more accurately, or even as accurately as an analogue device. It is like comparing apples with oranges.

Just as theoretical as the argument proponents of digital audio make. How human auditory perception works is not well enough known to determine how much sampling (via PWM or PCM) is needed to make it indistinguishable from a purely analog recording (tape or direct-to-disc). Moreover, in both cases (a digital format or an analog format) there are technological and manufacturing considerations which prevent either type of recording (and playback) from attaining what theory might indicate is possible.