Does digital audio work like digital images...ie more bits for highend?

Hi Barry,

I have been using a Benchmark ADC1. You are quite right in that my opinion is purely based on my experience with hardware I have used. So I do concede that there is an emormous variance in equipment capability. I would very much like to hear 192 ADC at it's theoretical "best" (I don't really know where the ADC1 fits into the scheme of things). But then there is the problem of 192 playback as well. Perhaps that is even more of a problem unless the DAC is of the same sort of quality as the original ADC. That said, I have a selection of some recordings remastered by Bernie Grundman - with simultaneous ADC at 44.1 Khz and 192 Khz. I also have the LP versions cut from the very same analogue source (35mm film), again at the same sessions. The LP still beats the 192 Khz version noticeably and the CD version is quite another step back down again.

 

I have had similar experiences. I would say this is a common pattern in terms of decreasing sound quality: Reel >> LP or DSD >> 24/192 >> 24/96 >> 24/48 >> HDCD >> CD

 

Yes, agreed, though I would probably be putting any of the current audiophile crop of 45 RPM pressings (ie Acoustech, Grundman mastering, etc) at an equal footing with reel. Unless we are talking super esoteric stuff like Tape Project, etc.

 

Hi JonP,

What is it you are recording with the Benchmark?
Are you using microphones? If so, what mics?
And have you tried recording the same thing to analog?

What are you using to play back the digital material (like the Grundman masterings you mentioned or your own recordings)?
How was the 192 stored (on a DVD-A, etc.)?
What sort of cable fed the Benchmark?

Sorry for all the questions. There are so many variables.
Still, analog is continuous and digital, no matter what the sample rate, is not. At 192, I find the trade-offs of each format reach parity (for my ears, with my current converter/clocking).

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

Hi JonP,

Personally, I would never put reel in front of disk. The best analog I've heard, far and away was directly cut to lacquer disk. No tape at any speed or width -that I've heard- can come close.

(And DSD... well, its "silent scream" -good as the Meitner is and it really is- is not for me.)

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

Even 1" 2 track? http://www.atrservice.com/products/item_details.php?item_id=72&dept_id=3

 

Now are you talking first gen tape vs direct to disk cutting?

I have always just guessed that say a record cut from a 1/2" tape would be better than a 2nd Gen of that tape. But I have wondered if say direct to disc cutting is higher fidelity than tape itself. I guess the trade off would be any artifacts that occur during the direct cutting.

How big was that white stripes tape again? Wasn't that oversized?

 

Barry,

Have you heard the Tape Project reels on a good deck? I was very impressed with the sound quality, especially on the Tim DeParavicini modded deck. Possibly the best playback source I have heard outside of a master tape.

 

Hi Barry,

At this stage the Benchmark has been used for high quality vinyl transcriptions to the digital domain. I am more concerned at this point in time in getting archive quality in terms of ADC rather than playback. My thinking being that the important thing is to get the best possible digital transcription since that becomes more or less cast in stone as an archive, whereas you can improve playback at any point in time in the future by simply buying better gear.

I use the Benchmark with unbalanced input. As you might know, you can still use the XLR input unbalanced, since the input is coming from a phono pre-amp. Output is via the BNC connector for which an adapter is provided for running to a standard coax input. I'm not putting anything onto silver disc at this point - the files are PCM files on a hard drive.

But I have to be honest. If I were making a recording using mics for instance, I think I would get a lot more out of moving them 6 inches to another spot than I would using a state of the art converter worth many thousands of dollars versus something even like a high end soundcard. Truly, I do.

But I am all ears. If oneday I hear an ADC-DAC process that is transparent to the original analogue source, I'll be the first to admit it. And I am happy to hear anything at any price.

 

Ha. Yes! And having been in the recording studio once myself listening to session tape playback in the twilight of the classical recording analogue days, you simply forget about the technology. It no longer matters - it is all about the music and nothing else. As it should be.

 

Hi Robert,

For my ears, yes.

Tape will allow things a direct cut won't, namely editing.
But for sonics, I don't even hear a contest.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

Hi Lee,

I'm familiar with the Tape Project and the folks behind it. I'm also aware of the high quality of their work.

And, over the years, I've heard a couple of analog reel master tapes. (;-})
I know what the medium is capable of and it can be quite wonderful.

But when comparing a mic feed to a reel -any reel of any width/speed- vs. a disk, the latter (to my ears) wins every time and by a country mile.
Of course you can't edit a lacquer recording but when sonics are the only concern, it gets my vote every time.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

Hi JonP,

I would agree that mic selection and placement makes the biggest difference of all. But that does not negate the effects of the mic cables, mic preamps, A-D (and its clocking), recording software and storage medium.

What I don't understand is, if you haven't made mic-based recordings both digitally and via analog and compared both of these, how do you know which you prefer? I can see that one might have a preference based on recordings they have heard, which were made by others. But without access to the original (either the source of a transfer or having stood at the mic positions at the actual performance), how can one judge what "accurate" is?

Now, I understand one who has attended many live performances does know what real music sounds like and can therefore make a pretty good assessment of how well a recording medium is doing. But there are so many variables and ultimately, to take that assessment beyond "pretty good", something more direct is required. That's my take on it anyway.

As I said in my first response, it could well be that even under the best circumstances, you will still prefer analog. I can fully understand the musical reasons why this could be the case.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

Funny that all those that think they know something better that serious test and don't think Nyquist is right, why cannot they show this is test? Unless you really show this in a test, I don't believe in you.

 

Numeric representations have a place for sure. It is important to remember however, that they are abstract constructs and as such, will necessarily miss some of the reality. If this is not recognized from the start and kept in mind throughout, it is easy to get fooled into confusing the map and the territory (to borrow from Korzybski).

It would be like analyzing MRIs and CAT scans and pulse rates and pupil dialation and confusing the results with the experience of making love. ("Was it good for you dear?" "Hold on, let me check my EEG and I'll let you know.")

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

Thank you Barry! There have been many threads on this forum about digital theory etc. that left my head spinning but you have explained it such that even I can understand some of it.

And I nominate this post as one of the best, and funniest, ever on this forum.

 

Great metaphor, Barry.

 

At the very least, this gets my vote for post of the decade!

 

Thanks Barry for the feedback.

 

I think you have that backwards... the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem is correct, it's reality that's broken...

 

Hey can you tell this to the people in charge of our economy?

 

Hi Barry,

A highly visual analogy to be sure. But, beyond its application to numeric representation, isn't it a pretty good example of what all recorded sound is? It is an attempt to let our brains revisit a real event, or with multitrack and sythensized music, visit a created recorded event. In this way, formats are all catscans and MRI's.

It is, to borrow your example, all romance from afar and imagined interaction. As much as I enjoy sound from my stereo, it is always not the real thing.

What motivates me to comment on this is, aside from your (and the majorit of others') continued respect for others, I keep sensing a kind of superiority by some format advocates who seem to be saying, "My favorite format of choice is more 'real' than yours". One way I keep myself in continual check from taking this attitude is my own sense that I'm always experiencing a facsimile.

I was in Bratislava one chilly evening last Fall, and I rounded a curve while walking to a trolley stop and came upon a live string quartet playing Shostakovich, from a shop, with its front opened up like a garage. I can enjoy many recordings, analog and digital, but there's nothing like that event. It was a chance. I literally thanked God that night that my son, wife and I were able to chance upon it and have a movement's worth of bliss (our trolley came).

Your analogy reminded me that no matter how good the reproduction, it is just that and not the event.

If I'm misusing your analogy or otherwise taking the thread off track, I apologize. But, it did make me think.

 

This is a really good point. Nothing matches a live performance although we can come close. As good as a violin recorded in 24/176 sounds, I miss the additional detail and sweetness of hearing that violin live. It is also amazing to witness the fluid and fast bow movements of a live violin performance. The visual adds to the performance and the sound is only an approximation.

 

Hi kevinsinnott,

I'm not sure if you misread what I was saying or have simply raised another interesting point.

I am talking about numeric measurements of audio gear and how these change qualities into quantities. I am talking about substituting an abstract logical construct for direct experience. (Even with reproduced music, the listening experience is one of qualities.)

To the point you raised, I would agree (assuming I read you correctly) that reproduction of a recording is once removed (at best) from the direct encounter with the performance. But I don't think anyone is confusing the recording and the performance the way some confuse numeric quantifications (the map) with the experience of reproduced music (the territory).

As to what format sounds more "real", this is audio, particularly audio on the Internet. As five people, get six answers. ;-}

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com