DSDA: a New Format for LP Fans (1 Viewer)

[Grady]

Lp's cut from DSD masters? While I'm as pro vinyl as they come this doesn't make sense. The only reason to fool with all the hassale of Lp playback is sound. Or perhaps in some cases availability. The only way an Lp cut from a DSD master will sound better than an SACD is if the SACD was poorly mastered or the SACD player is not up to par. What I mean by that is comparing a Sony 9000es to a Rockport. Is that fair?

I have a Basis/Graham/Benz and a Sony 777es. On recordings that I have on SACD and Lp ,that were analog recorded, the Lp still sounds better most of the time. There are exceptions. The Walter Beethoven Symphony #5 sounds much better on SACD than on Six Eye vinyl. The Lp is badly compressed and poorly mastered. Being squeezed on on side probably didn't help. The SACD is wonderful, almost to the point of making you think it's a different recording. The Szell recordings are terrible on Lp, on SACD their much better. But my Lp of Red Headed Stranger dusts the SACD. Regardless of your choice of software you're still at the mercy of how the music is mastered.

All things considered I still feel an analog recording, properly mastered and pressed on vinyl, cannot be better by digital. It is a hassle and costs a lot of money, but if you have the time/patience/money then Lp is still the ultimate. I'll trade some surface noise for better sound, others won't. Vinyl isn't for all, it isn't even for most, but if your willing to pay the price it's still the best.

 

[Robert Elliott]

Hey Phil,
Tell us how you really feel.
Lee,
The speakers are Klipsch Synergy Premieres - since discontinued all around with a couple of Heresys for audio only. It's not $2k thats the issue; it's 2k for tubes. I haven't listened to tubes and don't want to spend $2k for something I may hate. Just want to test the bathwater first.
I personally am debating whether to grab the Outlaw 950/770 combo (quite likely) for its exceptional value or just drop the cash and grab an Anthem powered by some Brystons (so I am looking at $3000 amps). I know I like solid state and this would primarily be for HT. I would like to sample the Heresys powered by tubes though - inexpensive tubes teamed with vinyl.
Then there is one other minor issue - my wife who feels new furniture, a new car for her, and some other items are more important than my seeking HT or audio nirvana.

 

[Bill Harada]

Okay, here's a question I posed over at HTT. Do vinyl lovers actually prefer the sound of vinyl, or are you really saying that you like the sound of analog recordings? I ask because there is a big difference in the performance of analog recording media. In that respect, the vinyl record is about the lowest form as far as analog recording performance goes.

I'm not trying to bash vinyl, but vinyl and analog should not be used interchangably just because vinyl is the media that people here are familiar with. Nakamichi used to sell cassette decks in the 70's that had stellar perfomance (better than what an LP could achieve), but no one ever says how they prefer the sound of cassettes over CDs.

I've heard commercially recorded high-speed 1/4" open reel tapes and would choose that as a reference for consumer-based analog recordings over a vinyl LP any day.

So is it vinyl or analog?

Bill

 

[Philip Hamm]

I disagree that casette can approach the quality of LP. I've had some pretty good casette decks, never anything really exceptional, but a mid 80s Nak and early 90s Sony ES with Dolby S. I've also never had really great turntable gear, but reasonable stuff, a servicable Denon with an Audio Technica cartridge. Casette can sound really good, true, at it's best. Better than most give it credit for. But as good as vinyl? I don't think so. Better s/n? Yes, better sound? No way.

And I agree open reel 1/4" sounds great, better than vinyl.

 

[Bill Harada]

Philip,

With most commercially recorded cassettes I'd have to agree with you, but that's not to say that a cassette wasn't/isn't capable of outstanding performance.

If we're talking about analog recording then a good cassette tape deck (i.e. Nakamichi 1000) had better capabilities than vinyl at recording and playing back an analog signal.

But back to my original question, are you saying that it's really the analog sound, not the vinyl sound that you like?

 

[Grady]

Bill, while a cassette sounds fine in a car there is no way it compares to open reel or Lp. At one point you may have heard a top of the line cassette deck that might have compared to a mid-fi turntable in a mid-fi system, but it isn't 1976 anymore. Over the past 25 years turntables,arms and cartridges have made tremendous advances. Information has been stored in grooves that has never been heard until now. Advancements in speakers and electronics have allowed this to be exposed. The cassette played on a high end system of today would be exposed in ways not possible in the 1970's.

Lp people like myself are analog fans first, it just so happens that the Lp is the best choice. Open reel can sound fantastic, as good or better than vinyl, but it is not really realistic as a choice. Open reel tapes haven't been made in forever, tape is fragile, the selection is small, one type of tape sounds good based on the way the machine is biased, another doesn't, etc, etc. I have heard open reel under the right conditions be the best, but those conditions are not easy to arrange. Vinyl is available in much larger quantity and approaches even the best open reel.

 

[Mattias_ka]

I'm just surprised that if you have heard these systems, particularly the Rockport (which I have too), that you feel that vinyl is limited in dynamic range. Where does the 70db number come from? Does it really reflect the dynamics that are possible with a good turntable?

I don't remember what nr but I think it was early last year that in Michael Fremer's analog corner that he wrote about why the vinyl's 70db is not correct with what you hear.

I can also post here what a member on the phonogram board with people like Michael fremer, steve hoffman, etc are on:

"My wealthy friend with the 2-box Accuphase SACD player (not to mention the

top of the range MBL transport/DA converter!) finally has his new Clearaudio

Revolution t/t up & running! Cart is a special edition (gold coil/wood body)

Sigma. Phono stage is the Herron. His preamp is a (huge!) "First Sound"

running into Halcro DM68 power amps. Speakers are a custom version of a

locally available model that I doubt anyone in the USA would know (quite

superb, actually IMHO). Cabling & mains treatment is "over-the-top" (PS

Audio P600, Ultimate Outlets on everything, vastly costly cables

throughout). T/t run-in time so far is about 20 hours.... Verdict?!?

So far he prefers VINYL!!!!!!! He's so impressed that he's already ordered

the update kit (not sure what that is exactly) to take the 'table & arm up

to the next level. Haven't heard this myself just yet, but am looking

forward to it soon! (Though he did come over recently with about $8k worth

of cables for me to "try" - wish I hadn't, 'cause now I miss them

dearly...!)"

 

[Lee Scoggins]

If we're talking about analog recording then a good cassette tape deck (i.e. Nakamichi 1000) had better capabilities than vinyl at recording and playing back an analog signal.

Bill,
Are you joking? I had a Nak 1000 and it was blown away by my turntable. Great cassette deck but no where near audiophile vinyl, even back in the 70s and 80s.
If you want to argue for better analog formats, the open reel is a much safer choice.
Lee
Philip,
DSDA is a bit odd? perhaps but "boneheaded" seems unfair. Think about it, the engineer can do the recording session in DSD, get the session in the can, go home, edit digitally (or not), and then choose which of SACD or LP (or both) formats to issue the recording in. I know from first hand experience, this would be attractive to small, indie labels which may have to choose a format.
Now between you and me, I would prefer to record both analog and digital like Chesky often does and keep LPs pure analog and digital pure digital (ideally straight DSD). But the option to do DSDA and not worry about analog masters may be attractive to some.
I can empathize with the discomfort it may cause an LP purist, however.
Lee

 

[Rachael B]

Grady, you and Phil are arguing de facto that LP's should quit being made sort'a... I think an awful lot of old music sounds best on LP because everything they did was aimed at making vinyl sound righteous, pre B.C.D. (pre, well, before CD). A.C.D. ( After CD ), started about '84...? Close enough. Many things since then sound worse on record. A good example would be DIARY OF A POP BAND. The CD could easily accomadate it's length. The record has the CD squeezed on to, two vinyl sides. The grooves are small, it just doesn't sound good, for records, not on two sides anyway. I would suggest that ever since A.C.D., recording has been geared to what will make a great sounding C.D.

Why not make records off DSD? If it makes better sounding records, why not. People will buy them. They will, won't they? They always have anyway. This could be the best records can be, maybe? On the other hand, I'd proably get the SACD. I intend to buy a DSD record if they happen? I'm curious...

 

[John Kotches]

Lee,

Yes 70dB is about all you can push out of LP -- in terms of psychoacoustics, well that's another matter entirely.

People have preferences, and vinyl isn't one of mine.

Regards,

 

[Grady]

John,

If the ambient noise level of a quiet listening room is 30 or 40 db, then 70 db dynamic range is more than adequate. If peaks of 110 db are about the most any rational person would expose themselves to, then I submit CD's theoretical superior dynamic range is moot in real world listening. You have to overcome the rooms ambient noise before you hear anything.

CD's advantage isn't in dynamics, it's in speed and pitch stability. As much as I prefer vinyl, it's for these reasons(along with no surface noise) I'd rather listen to solo piano on CD. One of the things I like about SACD is with full orchestra the instruments seen to be more precisely placed in the soundstage than they are with vinyl. SACD also allows the music to expand and decay (ie bloom) that is similar to vinyl and superior to CD. This was my main gripe with early CD, the music would decay to a point and then suddenly stop. CD has improved but not entirely closed this gap.

Grady

 

[Larry B]

John:

Since earlier you stated "They're called preferences" when referring to your own choice of CD over vinyl, I don't understand why you can't accept that some of us listen to vinyl because we prefer the way it sounds, not because of the "ritual." I respect your right to choose your medium of choice, and I don't insult you for it. Is it too much to ask for you to reciprocate?

Larry

 

[David Susilo]

Since when they don't sell reel-to-rell tape anymore? Just bought a whole bunch last month for my studio.

Try 1" reel-to-reel at 30ips on a $2000 machine with Dolby S, it will blow any $2000 turntable anyday. Don't argue, but actually try it.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

John,
I'm still not sure about this 70db number.
Where did you get it from? Was there a study done recently?
It just seems low to me, relative to the sound I hear on fine LP playback systems.
Lee

 

[Grady]

David,

What is your point? You're comparing a recording medium to a playback medium. Nobody in their right mind would compare vinyl to studio quality open reel on an absolute basis. What is the master source for the vast majority of vinyl in the first place? Or course you can still get blank tape, but unless you make your own recordings all you can do is copy CD, tape or Lp. If Classic Records started reissuing the Living Stereo Catalog in two track 15 or 30 ips open reel tape, that would be something to hear. But pre-recorded open reel has been dead for more that a quarter century.

Grady

 

[Frank_S]

Grady said, Quote:
__________________________________________________ _________
All things considered I still feel an analog recording, properly mastered and pressed on vinyl, cannot be better by
digital. It is a hassle and costs a lot of money, but if you have the time/patience/money then Lp is still the ultimate. I'll trade some surface noise for better sound, others won't. Vinyl isn't for all, it isn't even for most, but
if your willing to pay the price it's still the best.
__________________________________________________ __________
I could'nt agree more! Amen

 

[John Kotches]

Larry,

At issue earlier in this discussion was the thought that I might not have heard good LP playback.

As such, my comment was justified.

Regards,

 

[John Kotches]

Grady,

If the ambient noise is 30dB, 70dB gets you to 100dB peaks -- not that loud for a peak. Certainly loud for a continuous listening session.

Regards,

 

[Lee Scoggins]

John,
Based on my exposure to vinyl and the measured limited dynamic range number, I am starting to think that the dynamic range may not matter as much.
If LP really is 70db of range, then why does it sound so good?
In other words, this may actually be a great example of how you can't measure good sound.
Lee

 

[Lewis Besze]

If LP really is 70db of range, then why does it sound so good?

Well that's a matter of opinion not a fact,and 70db is more of max figure[for 45rpm] then a ballpark.

Measurments for accuracy,[signal] now if that's an indication of a "good" sound is entirelly is in the, ear of the beholder.