Nagra REFERENCE Preamp

[microstrip]

I can tell you that there is no comparison between Digital and Vinyl or Tape. (...)

Surely - you can't compare oranges with apples. The best digital recordings were not recorded for vinyl and will suffer when pressed in vinyl and played in this format. The best analog pressings of the past were recorded for the vinyl media and the digital you get from them nowadays comes from old tapes that needed mastering to overcome their losses.

 

[jfrech]

Makes total sense…thx. So which source have you found to be the best for downloading hi-res digital? And do you notice a meaningful improvement over streaming Quobuz?

I like Prostudio Masters and Native DSD. And yes, I don't do streaming, prefer the file on my NAS.

 

[Zeotrope]

Makes total sense…thx. So which source have you found to be the best for downloading hi-res digital? And do you notice a meaningful improvement over streaming Quobuz?

I have never streamed. I just buy the albums in high-res formats, mostly from Native DSD.

 

[Zeotrope]

Surely - you can't compare oranges with apples. The best digital recordings were not recorded for vinyl and will suffer when pressed in vinyl and played in this format. The best analog pressings of the past were recorded for the vinyl media and the digital you get from them nowadays comes from old tapes that needed mastering to overcome their losses.

Yes, I understand, but that was the question

 

[Zeotrope]

The “problem” with digital is in the A to D conversion. This is not at the level of a high end DAC, so digital will always be hindered by this fact [this came from a very highly respected recording engineer and high ranking audio component manufacturer].
Ultimately, ALL music is analog, as that’s how it’s recorded (at the mic), and it must always be analog when it’s played back (by the speakers). This means that digital tracks must be (unnecessarily) converted twice to be reproduced. These A to D and D to A conversions cannot preserve the sound perfectly.
Therefore, given an analog source of sufficiently high fidelity, it will always beat a digital source.

 

[Holmz]

The “problem” with digital is in the A to D conversion. This is not at the level of a high end DAC, so digital will always be hindered by this fact [this came from a very highly respected recording engineer and high ranking audio component manufacturer].
Ultimately, ALL music is analog, as that’s how it’s recorded (at the mic), and it must always be analog when it’s played back (by the speakers). This means that digital tracks must be (unnecessarily) converted twice to be reproduced. These A to D and D to A conversions cannot preserve the sound perfectly.
Therefore, given an analog source of sufficiently high fidelity, it will always beat a digital source.

I have a TT, and like it too… but realistically a 24/192khz recording has a lot more dynamic range and resolution than one needs in a room which is likely > 0dB.

People also claim that the 100+ dB of 16 bit digital is more than a TT, which is true.
But they also totally miss the point that in most rooms one really struggles with 50-60 dB of SNR, and most rooms are at 30-40 dB noise floor.

The amount of contribution of the source, as well as the preamp and amp(s) usually pales in comparison to what the speakers are doing.

Maybe my system is not “super bitchen” enough, but the digital and analogue sources make it difficult to tell much of a difference between them.

The premise that all analogue beats A—>D and D—>A, seems more like a religious (zealous) proclamation, than a hard and fast fact.
And the fact that there are good and not so good material on both types of media - often for the same song/track, sort of points to the mixing and engineering as being somewhat of a (the) problem.

 

[nirodha]

The “problem” with digital is in the A to D conversion. This is not at the level of a high end DAC, so digital will always be hindered by this fact [this came from a very highly respected recording engineer and high ranking audio component manufacturer].
Ultimately, ALL music is analog, as that’s how it’s recorded (at the mic), and it must always be analog when it’s played back (by the speakers). This means that digital tracks must be (unnecessarily) converted twice to be reproduced. These A to D and D to A conversions cannot preserve the sound perfectly.
Therefore, given an analog source of sufficiently high fidelity, it will always beat a digital source.

Always read post which underline truths with a pinch (or truckload) of salt.

 

[Zeotrope]

Always read post which underline truths with a pinch (or truckload) of salt.

It’s more just for myself - the underlines and bolds. Sorry if that bothers some readers.
In this post, as you indicated, these are facts and truths. So you can take it with as much salt as you desire, it won’t change the fact there is no debate about: (1) two additional conversions with digital and (2) poor quality A to D converters vs high-end D to A.

 

[microstrip]

The “problem” with digital is in the A to D conversion. This is not at the level of a high end DAC, so digital will always be hindered by this fact [this came from a very highly respected recording engineer and high ranking audio component manufacturer].

Sorry, if you want to get the support from such person you must identity him. Otherwise it is as valid as using ChatGPT. This is surely a subject where there is a lot of disagreement - I can expect that any one involved in the industry of analog source components will have such opinion.

Surely I disagree, and will be happy to debate it with you for nth time, if needed identifying my references.

Ultimately, ALL music is analog, as that’s how it’s recorded (at the mic), and it must always be analog when it’s played back (by the speakers). This means that digital tracks must be (unnecessarily) converted twice to be reproduced. These A to D and D to A conversions cannot preserve the sound perfectly.

As you don't listen to mic feeds at home, the mic signals must go through a lot of processes before being played in vinyl format. These processes are more harmful than top AD/DA conversion.

Therefore, given an analog source of sufficiently high fidelity, it will always beat a digital source.

BTW, what is the point of such claim in this excellent Nagra thread? Nagra known opinions on the subject were on tape, not on vinyl. And they addressed early digital, not current top digital.

 

[Zeotrope]

"Sorry, if you want to get the support from such person you must identity him."
This came from Rene at Nagra. Feel free to reach out, I don't think he will mind. As you likely know, he not only helps run Nagra, he has his own recording label.

"As you don't listen to mic feeds at home, the mic signals must go through a lot of processes before being played in vinyl format. These processes are more harmful than top AD/DA conversion."
I completely disagree. If you have studied the process carefully, it's easy to see that recording a sound on vinyl is about as simple a process as you can have - between the microphone diaphragm vibrating and the cutter head vibrating. Yes, there is some EQ, but it's just EQ and - crucially - all done in the analog domain.

"BTW, what is the point of such claim in this excellent Nagra thread?"
Responding to a question about whether the Ref DAC will sound better than analog.

 

[Apex0]

“with digital it's as if the performers are rushing to finish so they can go home. With analog, they are pouring their heart and soul into each track.”This statement is truly remarkable.