Adveser Messages: 434 Registered: July 2009 Location: USA
Illuminati (1st Degree)
I gotta record some of my modifications to CD technology that makes it sound far more analogue without destroying or losing the hi-f info, I think that would be the only way to explain why I think Digital is better. I have ruthlessly followed guidelines as to how to make a flat, uncolored sound which sounds pretty much the same as a good 20-Bit+ master of a recording. Personally I think it is foolish if you have the equipment to handle 24-bit not to upconvert it. I think a lot of audiophiles are scarred to go that way because they are not that confident in their ability to maintain a balanced sound and believe the engineers responsible for the recording
I don't think it is fair to compare 16-bits to Vinyl. I think comparing 16-bits to cassette is more accurate.
When I say Hi frequency, I'm talking above 17Khz, I don't hear anything but tracking noise masking anything that high when I listen to vinyl. That is no huge loss and frankly isn't even an issue on the majority of recordings. But it ain't the cat or the amp doing this, it's the way they were mastered.
AudioFred Messages: 377 Registered: May 2009 Location: Houston
Illuminati (1st Degree)
I did an A/B vinyl/digital comparions recently, using a musican friend as the judge. I like to use musicians instead of audiophiles because they know what it's supposed to sound like and they don't have all the audiosnob biases.
We started Van Morrison's Moondance CD on the player and paused it at two seconds. Then I cued the Moondance record on the turntable, and I unpaused the CD a moment after the music started on the turntable. This enabled me to A/B switch between the two using the amplifier's remote, with both playing at almost the exact spot in the music.
For those who are unfamiliar with this CD and record, the CD is well recorded, with little compression and no freaky equalization applied (as is the case with most recently released CD's). The record is an 180g reissue cut from the original analog master tapes. So both represent the state of the art as it existed before mastering engineers began to f*^k it all up in the 1990's with compresion and equalization.
The differences between the two were immediately apparent and were not subtle. While the CD is very well recorded, there's a siblant edge to Morrison's voice that you don't recognize until you compare it with the vinly. And while both have very good bass, the midbbass on the vinyl is more pronounced, creating a very nice sounding effect on my system.
In both cases a Krell integrated amp was used with Selah Audio line arrays. The CD player is a Cambridge Audio Azur 840C. The turntable is a VPI Classic with a Dynavector X20 cartridge and a Sutherland battery powered phono preamp. The gain on the Sutherland was adjusted to match the gain from the CD player.
For sound quality I have to go with CDs of course but there's the nostalgia factor that can't be over looked and it's very a very powerful trigger in the brain. I have an old turn table that I keep hooked up because there are some recordings I just can't bring myself to listen to on CD. Simon and Garfunkel's Bookends is one of them. The recording just does not sound right to me without that very faint hiss.
Posting Rules
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Get a T-Shirt!
