Anyone else see this?? I don't get it there very well may not be an analog master tape been recording in digital since the 80's
Rob :)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/music...gital-scandal/
Printable View
Anyone else see this?? I don't get it there very well may not be an analog master tape been recording in digital since the 80's
Rob :)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/music...gital-scandal/
The article is typical of the Washington Post; thorough, well researched, and well written. The only error I spotted came early; Michael Fremer is not "the dean of audiophile writing". He is the most prominent cheerleader for vinyl, but that's about it. I have always tried to keep any conversations with him brief. He is not a bad guy but I don't share many if any views with him, and I would not enjoy needlessly aggravating him. I do wish his frame of reference was that vinyl sounds great to him, rather than endlessly claiming it to be technically superior to digital.
As For Mobile Fidelity, the only issue I (and many other) listeners had with it was that for years and years they remixed everything they released and those remasters sounded not only very different but aesthetically (not technically) a step or two down from the original masters. As an example, Mobile's initial releases of Patricia Barber titles did the brilliant Jim Anderson's work no favors.
And as for the core issues with this dust-up, I long ago decided to just nod in agreement or refrain from comment when faced in person with the usual audiophile preference for euphonic music reproduction. An industry having to hide that it employs DSD to keep its customers does not say great things about the decisions audiophiles make.
Yep, a friend sent me the link yesterday. Interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Robh3606
I am not really a fan of MoFi. I have a few of their vinyl discs that I bought back in the '70s, but wasn't that thrilled with the Stan Ricker EQ curve. I was blown away by how good the original UHQR discs were, but couldn't afford them at the time. When they started selling CDs, I really didn't see the point.
I have mentioned this before, but for anyone who is interested in another person's opinions; in recent years as my system (both the analog and digital portions) has gotten better and better, I have found it very interesting to compare digital files, digital remasters, various pressings, etc. For the albums that I really enjoy, I have found I prefer this digital file of album A and that analog pressing of album B. Until I had a super digital front end, I generally preferred vinyl in spite of the inherent short comings. I also thought most early CDs sounded worse than the original vinyl albums. I no longer feel that those blanket statements are correct.
Widget
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducatista47
I have only met him once years ago at a trade show. We spent some time together in a side room and I was struck by how wide the gulf was between his beliefs and my own. I had thought that his public written stances may have been just that, but no, he really drinks the Kool-Aid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducatista47
I think I agree with you here when you are applauding the fun in listening rather than the quote above where you are against the desire for euphonic reproduction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducatista47
Fun and joy are always good. If a twelve foot tower of PA speakers brings you joy, right on... if a simple amp with headphones brings you joy, right on as well.
Adding to the “fun is right” stance and referencing back to my earlier comment on the wide range of sound quality found on different discs or digital streams. I have a number of copies of the Dire Straits album, Brothers in Arms. I have a very early CD that I bought in the mid-80s, a remastered CD from some point in the 90s, as well as a couple of “audiophile ” vinyl pressings of the album.
This album was originally digitally recorded so the only reasons to listen to an analog version are curiosity or your digital playback chain isn’t as good as your analog playback or your analog playback colors the sound in a pleasing way. In my system there is no longer very much difference between the analog and the original CD, however the remastered CD from the ‘90s has significantly more compression and sounds much louder and more powerful. Sometimes I prefer it and other times I don’t.
Widget
As far as I can tell, nobody complained about the digital files until the Mobile Fidelity guys told us about them.
Excellent point. Assuming the digital masters were well made and the analog transfer made well, I doubt any of us could hear the difference if they had made a 100% analog version to compare with the digital intermediary version.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don C
Widget
I am always happy when music brings joy to any listener. Perhaps I am being nostalgic about what the word audiophile means, and I realize everyone seems to have their favorite distortion when it comes to playback, but if one is going to call themselves or consider themselves an audiophile, seeking veritas of some sort vis a vis the original recording is surely implied. You might say it's all in a name. When someone tells me they want some tubes in the chain to "settle it down" or "take the sharp edges off" or similar remarks (not that it would, but that is the popular perception), telling me they want the Kodachrome not the Ektachrome version, I get it. But you're no audiophile, Bud. It's like tube mikes. They are used because the version of the music they deliver pleases someone, sounds better to them. Better and accurate are not the same words.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Widget
I said nostalgic because today the term audiophile to many means music lovers who engage in a form of idiocy, not truth seeker. Going to shows is not the fun it used to be. So many Michael Fremers, so few Todd Garfinkles.
I'm a dinosaur I still believe in Hi-Fi definitely not into euphoric sound. I want what's on the recording and I know my system is correct when every track is different. When I can hear the track to track changes or changes in the same track it's all good.
Rob :)
If you have a read of the time line below is quite revealing as to how such controversy can live inside the recording process.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_recording
Well that makes two of us anyway. So many talk that talk but rarely do they walk that walk. The maker of the World's most accurate in-ear monitors has had to offer models that add more base or enhance specific frequency ranges.Quote:
Originally Posted by Robh3606
You can count me in as a fellow dinosaur.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducatista47
For over 50 years I have gone to great lengths to try to recreate what the engineer put down on the record or CD. I've given up on trying to accurately recreate what the musician(s) created in a live space as I no longer think that is achievable, but I do want to try to hear what they intended the record to sound like.
But I do have to keep reminding myself that that is my personal goal. I regret that a number of years ago I ridiculed a fellow forum member for loving his "terribly flawed" Altec A7-500s. At the time I didn't realize how foolish it was for me to suggest there was something inherently "wrong" with them. Today I realize that if the sound makes your feet tap and your heart race, then it doesn't matter if it is a 4.5" "full-range" speaker or a 1940's theater speaker with a roller coaster frequency response plot, or anything else.
Widget
Interesting timeline!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie
Widget
Remember hi-fi stores demo-ing graphic EQs back in the day? Just look at that curve! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Robh3606
Widget
Remember Soundcraftsman Graphic Equalisers? That was back when Crown had one page advertisements for the DC300A.
Fun times.
Hi Clark,Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducatista47
This is a long post so grab a coffee.
I think taking a word like audiophile needs some sensitivity and best not to generalise too much.
A puritan on sound reproduction can still be an audiophile by definition. See below.
From a Google search blah blah 😑
What is considered an audiophile?
Audiophiles are an exceptional breed of people who are fascinated by pure audio, motivated by sound quality and addicted to audio gadgets. Audiophiles take their passion for music one step further. They're curious about how songs are recorded and the science behind how sounds are reproduced.
https://www.sony.ca/en/electronics/f...-an-audiophile
From the Oxford dictionary
audiophile
/ˈɔːdɪə(ʊ)fʌɪl/
Learn to pronounce
nounINFORMAL
a hi-fi enthusiast.
"it puts professional studio sound within the reach of the audiophile"
If l was asked was l an audiophile l would say Yes and more or less be describing one of the above definitions. I don’t see any reference to distortion in any of those definitions. Glad we got that out of the way….Lol.
On the topic of equipment let’s be pragmatic.
Sometimes when you mix up different brands of hifi equipment some components like loudspeakers might be very clinical, sterile and dry. That’s a fact. So to make it liveable and enjoyable to listen to the advice given by the hifi shop and rightfully so is try a warmer sounding amplifier or Dac. That’s common sense. Not all valve equipment has a valve sound either. Interesting. I think it’s a smart thing do. I advise on the capacitors in some loudspeaker crossover networks because if the multi way loudspeakers are clinical it can be a problem subjectively. Fact.
When people talk about this stuff it’s really a problem solving exercise. At the end of the day you have got to be able to live it. Otherwise how can you enjoy it. The human Ear is the final arbiter. It always has been and it always will be. We all interpret sounds differently too which is another topic in its own right.
Incidentally there is now a whole category of headfi with a-z of headphones types that all have their own take on sound quality and tonal balance. Some people have several sets of headphones and head amps. Why is this so? Perhaps there is no one right answer. Nothing is perfect. Apparently…Lol.
In the pro sound recording space mastering engineers often use equipment like in the link below.
https://abbeyroadinstitute.nl/blog/d...he-pultec/amp/
They love Rupert Neve equipment because it has the Neve Sound. Are they all idiots ? No they are not. That’s an industry standard. Everything the signal path runs through is going to put its footprint on the sound in someway. That’s a Fact. A Midas desk is going to sound different from an API desk. It’s how it is.
In summary if most commercial recordings weren’t given such careful treatment it’s possible you would be less satisfied with your listening experience than you are.
But why is it necessary? Technically the problem is this. As an example l used to listen to quartet at my father in laws Christmas parties and go wow 🤩. It was pretty amazing. But the problem arises when you try and record it. Yup you have to use limiters, compression and EQ on everything to fit in the capabilities of the recording process and the equipment and the acoustics. That’s a Fact. Then the recording has to be suitable to be played back through consumer audio equipment without blowing it up. That’s the role of the mastering engineer.
This is normal no matter what your listening to unless it’s a private recording. I have listened to private recordings without treatment and more often than not it’s very disappointing! The notion that a recording exists that is a pure and untouched is just nonsense.
In the end as long as your happy with what you hear that’s all that matters and that’s what the whole scene is all about. When you take a deeper dive into things there’s no mystic or ambiguity about it at all. It’s just the way things work.
Not everyone will agree with the means but that does not mean someone or everyone else is wrong.
As long as no one gets hurt that’s the important thing.
Widget, Ian, Robb... Certainly we are indeed all on the same page. My personal central concern with audio sound/quality/whatever lies with the elements in the flowchart where something can be brought closer to "what the musician created" in a live space. So I gravitate to recordists who are better at this than others and musicians who insist on/encourage/employ/collaborate with individuals and organizations who seriously share that goal. Who care about it more than others do, who feel its importance is paramount. Two names I have mentioned, Todd Garfinkle (Japan, Europe, and California) and Jim Anderson (Chicago) are the two best at it that I am aware of personally. And whatever Colin Towns was doing in the UK was certainly working for him.
I recall that when the Eagles were lining up the recording of their (Second? Third?) album they were paired with - I think it was - Glyn Johns, who insisted on not changing his ironclad use of very heavy reverb on the drums. He literally said my way or the highway, so they fired him. Johns was a much more accomplished/respected person in the industry at that point than the band was, so that took integrity and guts. They earned my respect that day. Sounding like themselves was very, very important to them at that point, and I am sure the pressure on them to do what was working for everyone else was extreme.
Hi Clark,
It’s publicised that other artists are caring about sound quality. Neal Young comes to mind.
So how do you at home validate what’s right or wrong or better or worse?
Do you agree it would take a musician who is familiar with for example the drum kit and playing style of the drummer to make further determinations? Or do you link the credentials of the recording engineer to your listening experience?
Perhaps the question to ask is it the recording, the artist or your equipment that is emotionally engaging?
The common denominators between these individuals and my experience of them comes from either personal contact with them or experience with the musicians they recorded, or both. I limited my commentary to examples I have experienced in person. If there is a common thread among them, it is that all but Jim Anderson, not sure about him, are very accomplished acoustic musicians themselves. Their combination of experiences result in extraordinary abilities to hear and listen (Which I have personally witnessed in some cases. No doubt in my mind that being a terrific musician is a leg up for a recording professional.) Todd I have known for years. The other half of my knowledge is having had experience with hearing musicians they have recorded, in intimate circumstances. Vouching for how well musicians have been recorded does depend on having personally heard the musicians, and in these instances I have done that in a series of what ended up being essentially private concerts, up close and personal. Patricia Barber's band played to an audience of four that day. The Chicago Symphony String Quartet I heard in a tiny, acoustically perfect in the round venue. I was ten feet away in an audience of less than two hundred. The "stage" was at most a low riser, less than a foot. I felt like I was sitting with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie
This is not about stuff I have read. Todd monitors his recordings and masters with Stax headphones. (He goes way back with them, having lived in Japan for a quarter Century and owning the prototype of their high end phones, which they gave to him.) A number of engineers who record symphonic music do likewise; one of the pairs of Stax SRX Mark IIIs I have purchased over the years was from a fellow who had just retired the set from such duty the day before he sold it to me. This particular model of Stax is known for being slightly bass light so you can hear deeper into the recording to reveal details not audible on more normal phones. Stax made a modern design with similar capabilities for a while; over a decade they only sold about a hundred pair but when they discontinued it the asking used price went into outer space. The takeaway here is that because speakers are the weak link in playback, if you master the recordings without worrying about their limitations in particular, a set of compromises disappears. Now that headphones and in ear monitors are coming to dominate listening, there is a logic to working this way.
Neil Young has been one of my favorite musicians since Buffalo Springfield, which I caught in a small club, against the stage. His particular idea of good sound is decidedly retro. He does very well by it so he gets no argument from me about it. If anyone has heard a Pono, by all means chime in. He prefers to record all the instruments live in one space, playing together. Only the vocals go on separately. IMO a great way to work. It so happens Todd Garfinkle records everything live in spaces he has chosen for their acoustic ambience. No overdubs, no isolation. In both instances the musicians really have to know what they are doing. Todd doesn't worry about the board because he doesn't use one. Two superb mikes via custom battery powered FET preamps into a digital recorder.
I am sure lots of musicians, most for all I know, care very much how accurately they get recorded (as opposed to the myriad who use the studio or the DAW to create their sound in the first place). I just don't personally know who they are, so I can't comment on them.
I think it stands to reason that if the artist is not engaging the rest is not going work out. It is the recording's task to capture that and move it forward to the rig. If the recording failed, again it is dead. The playback equipment can enhance the appreciation of the material, but it cannot mask the impact of a great recording of a great performance of a great piece of music. A 1930s recording can move one to tears of joy, even an mp3 of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie
That has been my experience, anyway. (High) Fidelity doesn't create emotion, it conveys it - hopefully.
An audiophile is a person who likes audio. That's all it means.
Hi Clark,
That is really interesting and thank you for explaining it.
Looking at your narrative what does the massive growth and proliferation of the headphone category mean to you?
There are numerous categories of headphones an the market. The ifi brand of electronics now have models for particular headphones with active EQ.
What is your take on that?
https://ifi-audio.com/products/zen-can-signature-mz99/
https://ifi-audio.com/products/zen-can-signature-hfm/
https://ifi-audio.com/products/pro-ican-signature/
https://ifi-audio.com/products/pro-idsd-signature/
Hi Ian,
Congratulations on reading my last explanation without being bored to tears or slumber! Allow me to address the last part first, the ifi system and products.
I read through their web pages. They certainly prove that audiophile marketing has not changed in decades. A great design seldom if ever requires super expensive components (parts), but those parts will not improve the performance of a less than clever design. Employing silk in dielectrics, if I read that right, is a sure sign that the company is sales driven above all else (including above reason). Trust your ears if you get to hear the gear, but trust nothing they say or claim. Most of their pricy components address issues that would never be audible and many of the capabilities they brag about are worthless.
My main thought is why EQ is needed for headphones? I know many headphone fans collect them like baseball cards and might want to tweak their responses to bring then into line with their general preference. I assume you would not be into collecting cans just to have a variety, so no worry there. You want them to sound the way you want them to; so why bother with phones that don’t? I confess I am not a fan of having different speakers for different kinds of music, and that caries over into personal listening too. Now if you have major anomalies in your hearing, especially between ears, I could see wanting EQ for that. My bottom line on this is that you usually don't need a special, expensive amp just for driving dynamic headphones. For AV use I use a cheap Dayton (Parts Express) amp with a dedicated TI chip for the headphone jack. I admit the Sony I use with it is very efficient, but the 150mw chip is LOUD. The audio goodness is in the quality of the headphone, not the amp. Most amps today have very low disortion. I would try something much less extravagant and pricy first before investigating gear like this.
Which brings us to the state of our present personal listening landscape. For those less experienced than yourself – this is a speaker site after all - I will start with an overview of the gear available before moving on to what I think it all means, this personal listening thing.
There are actually only a few basic technologies in use despite the bazillion products being offered. They are Dynamic, Planar, and Electrostatic. The dynamic technology is well developed and mature. Balanced armature in ear drivers, for instance, may be a unique mechanical system but are still dynamic drivers. If you want a very accurate but still very pleasing dynamic phone, listen to the Sennheiser 800S. While Sennheiser may have a “house sound” in general, this phone is just plain truthful. The original 800 was quite flawed, having a hot treble response, but the “S” tweak completely addressed it. It is not laid back; it sounds crisp and, well, dynamic, but not the least bit harsh. Let’s just say you should sit down before you hear it. It is not cheap at $1800 but is cheaper than buying a collection of cans to try and match its performance for less. (Or EQ units to try to equal it, which for technical reasons will not get you there.) You can pay a lot more for a dynamic phone, believe it or not, but the thing to note is that it is moving towards the basic cost of a quality electrostatic phone. More on that later.
The planar (pronounced Plah-NAR) technology is a variation of driving a mechanical diaphragm that has the electrical driving element built into a mechanical diaphragm directly. It results in a heavy moving element. The result is very robust bass response but loss of finesse with other frequencies. It is simply not as high fidelity as the best dynamic or electrostatic units. If too much bass is not enough, go for it.
The Electrostatic drive system has only one disadvantage: cost. It is possible to find a lower, perhaps not reasonable but lower priced headphone using this system, but the amplification requirements to obtain the stratospheric performance you will be after are very pricy. The phones are very hard to drive; it is not just about power but also wildly varying capacitance and other issues. No company will be able to build an inexpensive amp for this. So why bother? The drive results in that elusive goal, an ideal driven element ideally driven. The moving element is practically weightless and is driven evenly across the entire face; further the drive is both push and pull and the system is fully balanced. The diaphragm is never free to rebound or drift, always moving in precise sync with a powerful electric field which is mimicking the music with unearthly precision. Among other qualities, this is also the fastest audio reproduction developed so far, absolutely incredible rendering of transients. If they ever figure out how to record a piano, this just might do it justice. It can keep up with any foreseeable microphone technology.
Digression Over “Looking at your narrative what does the massive growth and proliferation of the headphone category mean to you?”
Personally, liberation. The main effect of it is facilitation of “Personal Listening” and its doppelganger phenomenon, “Private Listening”. Every change it has brought improves the ways I want to listen to music in the first place. Both where you listen to music and what you want to listen to there have been put entirely in your hands as an individual. That the full spectrum of audio quality is now available anywhere, anytime is as wonderful as how streaming has made most music as universally available as the opportunity to consume it.
But the best part of the development for me is how it is changing music. Personal and private apply to both the listeners and the musicians. Content wise, more personal thoughts, ideas, emotions, and moods are making it into our ears. They know these things can and will be heard in private. Of equal importance, the musical expression can now be more subtle, which increases the range of expression possible in recording.
Tough to say this on a speaker site, but the frankly higher fidelity available with personal listening makes this possible. Headphones and especially the best in ear monitors, playing in the predictable and controlled environment of our ears instead of our rooms, are like scalpels. By comparison speakers are chainsaws.
All this is made possible and happening because of that “massive growth and proliferation of the headphone category”, and I am so grateful for it. I have too small a mind to foresee all the other things that will result from great sounding music being available to anyone, anywhere, anytime, but it has to be good.
Final Notes on Hardware Since headphones and in ear monitors have so much more bang for the buck (an unfortunate term from thermonuclear weapons, I know), some good news is that a fortune is not required to get great sound quality. One thing they have in common with the audiophile trade is that much (nearly all) of it is overpriced and underperforming due to the way the business works. Headphones also usually suffer from a bling factor, which of course adds nothing to the sound quality. Luckily it is not difficult in most places to get a demo listen to the gear. There is a lot of it out there, as compared to expensive stereo installations. Listening to recordings you know is infinitely more instructive than reading ads. In that respect it is like the rest of the audio business. What is different is the ease of getting that demo. Chances are good that your friends – or your kids’ friends – are wearing something you can try out. They will be eager to show it off.
This highlights another of the best results of this “massive growth and proliferation”. This gear has MULTIPLIED the number of current audio enthusiasts. What’s new is they are wearing it. One fact of audio life bears mention here. The very best headphones will not lend themselves to walking around outside listening. Their size and (in most cases) power requirements are not readily portable. For this in ear monitors are the ticket. Choose carefully and there will be no sound quality penalty.
I do have a specific recommendation for in ear monitors. While there are electrostatic models available, so far this has not been a good fit or at least has not demonstrated superior results in my limited experience. On the other hand, the best company in this arena is Etymotic. Now owned by a parent audio technology corporation, Lucid, Etymotic came from hearing research and builds professional equipment for that industry as well as doing its own work. Its owner has also purchased Westone, another venerable legit concern not founded by audiophiles.
Etymotic has always used a scientific system to rate the quality of audio equipment. It yields a percentage of accuracy re: the source. Their best in ear monitors are something like 96+% accurate. They comment that the only thing ever measuring better was electrostatic (meaning Stax) headphones. They use truth in advertising, something else different about them in the audio field. They make a variety of monitors, mostly of balanced armature construction. Their “Flat response” category contains both the ER4SR and the ER3SE. The ER4SR is their flagship and is $300. The World’s best under $2400. The ER3SE is like my older hf5. $149. Sounds about as good and is very, very efficient. Something like an IPod Touch will drive it way louder than you would ever want to. Most audiophile brands cost several or more times as much as these. They are outstanding bargains. https://www.etymotic.com/flat-response-earphones/
With headphones, the traditional brands around before the current market explosion can offer good value. Sony, Yamaha, Sennheiser, Beyer. You know, the brands you trust for audio. I definitely like Sony, best audio company in the World IMO. They all make cheapies too, but their good stuff IS good. The Japanese Audio-Technica has some very nice sounding stuff but most of it is very cheaply constructed - fragile in the end. No experience with their very high end, if they have one. If you like Pro gear Fostex might be your game. In electrostatics, hard to beat Stax unless you have 50K for the top Sennheiser.
I should list what I use myself to reveal any resulting possible bias on my part. I think I have largely avoided it, but here goes.
Dynamic Headphones - Sony MDR-1R for music and home theater, Sony MDR-ZX600 for my computer "speakers" (This is a DJ model from Best Buy, nothing fancy)
In Ear - the aforementioned Etymotic hf5. I have two identical pairs. I much favor the new two flange seals over the three flange pieces, or third party foam seals like Comply. I have used tham all. Seals determine bass response, almost completely. They are also responsible for isolation from the outside environment. Etymotic supplies replacable filters to keep dirt, moisture, and ear wax out of the drivers.
Electrostatic phones - Stax SR007 Mk II. The amp is a custom no holds barred build of a KGSS solid state design. It was the personal amp of Birgir Gudjonsson, the World expert on Stax gear of anyone not working for the company. I have some other Stax phones and gear, but that is my main music player. If anyone wants to know what this all means, I could explain it.
I currently use Amazon Music HD to stream. For portable streaming, an Apple 2019 iPod Touch. Sadly discontinued. This Spring Apple discontinued all iPod products and - the bastards - all support. The 2019 was the latest and the last.
For streaming at home I use a laptop via USB into a Cambridge DacMagic Plus.
Hi Clark,
That’s a juicy post mate.
I got half way and my brain had a overload.
I will re read shortly.
Ian
It occurs to me that since certain expensive audio brands do sometimes appeal to you, I know of one involved in headphone DAC/amps that is the real deal. The head of this outfit came to AXPONA a few times but got too busy to go these days. He is in Canada and has designed DAC chips, filters, and other gear. He seemed to be the leader in designing filters for DACS. When I saw him he brought a selection of DACs with and without headphone amps built in. This was in 2014 and these days their website is nothing like a sales site or catalog because they are in the process of getting a dealer network together, but it does have some information. This page should get you up to speed about this man's capabilities. (Whoever they use for their web designer aparently is not a great proofreader. Is it a Herus or a Hemrus?) Hopefully he still makes products that might be of interest to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie
https://www.resonessencelabs.com/herus
I mention all this because he is a World expert and his products are great. My friend Dave bought one of his DAC/Amps. He ended up selling it because it was too accurate for him. Like when you had your Lavry. The DAC/amps went from about $500US to (if memory serves) several thousand. He also had a full line of stand alone DACs. No bling, no BS to drive sales. Just solid science. I hope Resonessence Labs still offers products like this. I imagine finding them used might be challenging, but I have never tried.
Hi Clark thank you for such a comprehensive set of posts on all things headfi.
I plan to read over your posts carefully when l have time on the weekend.
As it turns out l have a pair of mid priced Audio Technica headphone and a pair of Grady’s which l love - hate. I also have one of the tiny portable ifi head amps.
I confess to never getting too far into headfi but that could change.
You have influenced me to swap from Tidal to Qobuz this week. I am much happier with Qobuz. The menu system and the streaming is much better imho. I am using a Lumin D2 streamer into a Parasound JC2 and an A2+ power amp. It’s just normal hifi and it’s cool. My next step is a report from an acoustic consultant and some improvements to my listening studio space.
I agree it’s all about the recording. As l write this post l am listening to Clapton’s solo lockdown sessions titled The Lady in the Balcony. It’s a new hi res recording. My view point is that hi res belongs to modern hi res recording files. Attempting to re master an old digital or analogue recording and call it hi res simply doesn’t work out. The effect l hear is amplification of all the impurities due to the resolution of the hi res format. You can’t make a silk purse out of a sours ear as they say.
...that it appears Resonessence Labs went out of business some time ago. That explains the lack of information on the internet.
Another good thing about personal listening is the WAF not entering into it. How do the Audio-Technica's sound?
Dave is a paid tester for Qobuz and thinks highly of it. I am happy with Amazon for now. The quality seems as good as whatever they are given to work with file wise. Since I listen to a lot of newer music the quality often kicks ass. Their library is a great fit for me. A lot of the best music I have no service carries, but I have purchased extensively from those labels (like Provocateur and MA) so that is fine. I have learned to avoid 90s and 2000s remasters because they are compressed to death.
I can’t prove certainty on the compression other than the following logic.
In a digital recording the limitation is you can’t exceed 0 db or you get digital clipping. So they limit the maximum record peaks to 0 db or a bit below. The noise floor below 0 db is very good and better than an analogue tape recording.
In an analogue tape recording the opposite is true. The peak level can exceed 0db if tape saturation is acceptable. However the noise floor is the real limitation.
So re recording an analogue recording from original master tape or duplicates (for preservation purposes) the dynamic range of the digital re master is limited by the allowable noise floor of the analogue recording and the 0 db limit of the digital re recording. As you indicate is sounds compressed. Not in every case but no doubt in a number of older mastered recordings. This is probably due to compression being applied to improve the signal to noise ratio of the transfer. Of course the consumer only looks at the gold label on the packaging that says digitally mastered.
So it’s perhaps better to find a reissued analogue recording of the same tune or the same event.
I personally use two different phono cartridges. One for my AAA vinyl collection and one for everything else. They are a Keiseki Purple Heart and a Ortofon Quintet Black. I swap them with two individual arm wands on the VPI 10 inch JMW 10-3D. https://elusivedisc.com/vpi-jmw-10-3d-tonearm-armwand
While controversy surrounds hifi in either vinyl analogue equipment and digital source equipment the vinyl play back equipment is less prone to mis informed and false beliefs due to the RIAA playback requirements. No one can fib. It’s not like the old wives tales that about subjective virtues of one DA converter over another. I think it’s either Naim or Linn that are now remotely updating the FPGA’s in their equipment in the middle of the night every time the Geek in these organisations thinks he has found a better sound! Or is it every time they think their customers need a brand loyalty trigger. As they say be careful what you wish for with this kind of expensive hifi equipment.
I believe this is what triggered this thread, no? Many thousands (millions?) of people thought they were buying an analogue reissue of a record but that great sound they experienced was in fact a digital rip of the original analogue source, then used to create new analogue pressings. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, other than the lack of transparency, but your comment does bring us full circle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie
Please, l prefer that you don’t quote a single sentence of my posts and use it out of the context of my fully established reasoning.
I wasn’t referring to Mobile Fidelity. l was referring to hi resolution digital streaming of older analogue recordings which is a different thing.
That is an A to D process.
We digressed to headfi in view of Clark’s earlier posts. So l don’t think l’ve gone full circle at all. I personally don’t have a problem with Mobile Fidelity.
What l reasoned was an originally digitally recorded piece music would sound better on hi resolution digital streaming playback such as the 24/96 standard.
That is a D to D process.
Most modern popular recordings are in fact digitally recorded and then mastered for Cd release or any of the various streaming platforms. So in theory a 24/96 re master of the original digital recording should sound very good.
But if l wanted to stream an older music like the Eagles first Album or Fleetwood Mac and listen to some Peter Green tunes they would be an A to D process and it would not necessarily sound as good as a D to D recording.
In the case of Mobile Fidelity l have not read any evidence to exactly what they did in the digital domain to their vinyl recordings. If in fact they took an analogue recording and did a digital transfer and then digital to analogue transfer then ot looks like this.
An A to D process then an D to A process.
What you don’t know is what mother they use or what 2 inch master tape they use on particular recordings unless it’s stated on that pressing.
I personally think an original analogue vinyl recording through a very good cartridge and turntable wins hands down. The caveat being it had to be a good recording!
I was having a discussion with a fellow audio fan last week and i referred to myself as a practical audiophile. That defines me as someone who loves music on decent equipment that sounds good to me and maybe most people. I dont beleive in outageously expensive devices which make claims which cant even be measured. And differences so slight as to require scientific equipment to reveal are not likely to be heard by me or most people.
I've spend 40 years building, testing, using and deciding on gear to play back a variety of music. Some well recorded some not. Good artist and mediocre. And even today the advixe i give to anyone interested in stereos is to listen to a lot and buy what peaks your interest.
I still think my 4411 monitors are perfect and remain my favorite.
Apologies for that, however I did reread your post (#27) and don't see anything that would have lead me to believe it was only and specifically about high resolution digital streaming.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie
I would respectfully say MAY, not would. Every time an engineer puts his/her hands on an original recording there's a chance they will put their stamp on it with changes, even if it's the original engineer (even unconsciously). Most of what I hear that has been reissued, remastered, whatever, and released on 24/96 doesn't sound as good as the original 16/44, if the original had the proper attention paid to it whether originally analogue or digital source.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie
Agree that it should, but often don't. Have you listened to an Adele 24/96 stream? Awful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie
Agree with not necessarily, but it COULD sound as good or better. Especially with some of today's higher quality d>a converters that can really extract resolution from 16/44 recordings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie
This appears to be exactly what's happened based on the Post article and subsequent YouTube video with the engineers saying that's what they're doing. Again, I have no issue with it other than lack of transparency.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie
Mobile Fidelity says these albums are sourced from the original Master Tapes. That's their thing. The engineers confirmed it in their video.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie
I wouldn't argue this point at all, it's a personal preference. My personal preference would be for a first generation tape of an analogue recording at 30ips. Failing that, or for a digital recording, digital playback.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie
Hi Rusty,
I agree and this is what makes fine stereo sound reproduction such an interesting past time.
While worthy of a thread on its own the impact of psychoacoustics cannot be underestimated on what we think we hear or don’t hear.
Once you throw these factors into the mix (sorry) it’s hardly surprising some people resort to snake oil remedies. Green felt tip pens for colouring the mains power pins green, zen stones and cones to keep your speaker leads off the floor are among the more amusing things l have seen over the years.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoacoustics
This is where Clark’s desire for Headphones has the advantage. I confess to preferring sound coming from outside my head!
Not to out done l recently engaged an expert acoustic consultant to assess my new listening room for the purpose of critical listening. No it wasn’t cheap. Following an exchange of some information he completed a modal analysis and specified a range of acoustic treatments. He made the comment my large 4345 loudspeakers were very cool! I have implemented some of the treatments over the weekend by improvisation and the difference in the listening experience is positive. Musical instruments are easier to identify and the overall listening experience is more enjoyable!
It will be interesting to see how l fair with different recording qualities?
Attached is a measurement l performed of the before treatment status to confirm the modal analysis.
Don’t ask me what it all means? But apparently the reverberation time is too long and there are some problem room modes.
I remember reading an article regarding possible formats that were being considered for use in the upcoming manufacture of the "digital compact disc". Under consideration at the time, but unfortunately for the consumer dropped due to its higher cost vs. (is it 44.1K, 16 bit?), was an early variation of DSD. It is state of the art DSD that MoFi uses in their process.
The adoption of the lesser Fi format, which in general can achieve great reproduced sound when the mastering engineers know what they are doing, do it the best they can, and the end to end process includes the best efforts, care and skills of all those involved, had DSD been the format of choice there would have been very little reason to complain about the sound reproduced using that technology. It really is that good.
Both Sony developments. The corporation has also been responsible for pretty much every new amplifier class since the Williamson, possibly excepting Nelson Pass's explorations. While Sony did not first market Class D, they invented it. The CD was a joint venture of Sony and Philips; the European giant did the hardware (the player) but the software was all Sony.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor_Electron
Sony's commercial success now rests with game systems, creating and distributing films, and vast holdings of intellectual property. But the history remains. It is a multinational outfit; the Sonoma system and hardware for recording DSD was developed by Americans.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_recording
If you look at the time line in this link Denon were the forerunners and Sony commercialised the recorders.
I personally prefer Denon as a hifi brand over Sony. Denon is a more conservative brand but they know their market. Sony has a habit of ditching technology like the Betamax and mini disk. They jump on an idea and you buy into it and they leave you up shit creek. They are big in television cameras.