I've had good luck in this regard with my current music server/network player/DAC configuration in my rig.
Not by chance. I have strived to get both my vinyl and digital to sound right to me. They may not be exactly the same, but are very close.
Then again, I like vinyl, but am not one that thinks it is necessarily the end all for good sound. Some do and I doubt they will ever be satisfied with digital no matter how good. |
"I would argue that you just dont have the quality of software with cd's (or sacds) in comparison to (original) vinyl. No machine can make great sound out of questionable source material.'
On an absolute scale perhaps, however not all vinyl recordings are equally good nor are all CD recordings equally bad. in fact, some vinyl recordings are pretty bad and some CD recordings are pretty good.
So on a case by case basis at least, which is what really matters, CD quality can sound better than similar vinyl, especially if well mastered or remastered. |
"But if you want to bring your toys here and have a Muralboy vs. Vinylfeil shootout you'll be embarrassed.
Stomped, crushed, and whipped."
That might depend more on who greases the palms of the judges best more than anything!
How much does this job pay? I might be interested! |
"Someone please direct me to a digital device that can convey the air and natural tone of massed strings that one hears live and is only approached by vinyl?"
I agree that is one of the toughest things to get really well done with Redbook CD digital.
The reference standard for this I've heard is DCS Puccini on a very high end tube system running Magico Mini's.
An all mbl system running mbl 111s in a large showroom was also up there.
My rig does it well enough now to hold my interest. Getting to that while not mucking up the rest was not easy! |
The DCS gear uses a proprietary and quite sophisticated and well executed programmable DAC architecture (the "Ring" DAC).
I have not studied the exact algorithm used, but I believe the DCS DAC architecture in general to be absolute SOTA in regards to its precision digital signal processing capabilities for this application (high end sound) and is the thing that puts DCS in its own league in regards to being able to do massed strings and such in a manner comparable to vinyl/analog.
I say that based on my own professional experience with very high end digital image processing and knowing what it takes to squeeze the nth degree of accurate detail out of digitally encoded signals in general (plus having listened to a lot of music and audio gear over the years).
The $300 (used) mhdt Constantine DAC that I currently favor in my rig is at the opposite end of the spectrum in terms of design approach as I understand it, but is also of very high quality, I believe.
It does a fairly straight up A to D conversion using no filtering or other digital signal processing in the equation.
The results are quite good I would say in comparison to the much more expensive DCS.
I would estimate that the DCS squeezes that last bit of enjoyable detail out in the case of massed strings, similar to good vinyl, but for way higher cost.
Practically, for me, the difference is a non issue. What I have is 100% listenable with ALL kinds of music, not just the elusive massed strings. What the DCS does is fill in that last minute but detectable bit of harmonic detail reliably in a manner that vinyl lovers will appreciate.
If I did not compare my digital to other high quality rigs, or even the best vinyl in my own rig, I would probably not even know or care what I might be missing.
I take my medication for audiophilia every day. It helps me appreciate what I have and helps keep more money in my pocket as well! |
MM,
Yes, I've seen that review and have both Constantine and Paradisea DACs. I can easily concur with the reviewer's opinions.
I have two systems and have tried both DACs in each.
I like the Constantine in my main rig which already has a tube preamp and the Paradisea in my otherwise all SS family room 2 channel A/V system.
I'm finding one tube device per signal path to be a good thing in my case. |
One area where my experience with the mhdt DACs differs a bit from the reviewers is that I believe the COnstantine to have better high and low end frequency extension and better dynamics overall than the Paradisea. The Constantine's bass may come across as leaner overall though but is spot on in my main rig.
Tube rolling does make a very significant difference though with the Paradisea and I have only tried two different tubes to-date.
Also I find the Constantine is dead quiet.
I have some background hiss with the Paradisea, but you have to put your ear right up to the speaker with the volume well up to be able to even hear it, no worse certainly that what you would expect from most decent if not the absolute best phono rigs. |
Tubegroover,
Glad to hear that! |
Not that my rig is SOTA, but having heard many SOTA setups, I think that practically it competes well, and I am challenged to hear any practical difference between my digital and vinyl (other than surface noise with vinyl).
I have things tuned so that my digital and vinyl sound most similar using the Constantine on my main rig, and the Paradisea on my 2 channel A/V system.
The important thing is to have a good reference standard to go by. If you have good vinyl as a reference standard, then I find the digital can be practically tuned to come very close. However, there may be more involved than just swapping on digital player for another. You have to really pay attention to all teh possibilites that determine the resulting sound. Not easy....
I am big on air, sound stage, and imaging and my system does very well in this regard with both digital and vinyl. |
I think with vinyl, there is no imposed limit to dynamic range imposed by the format as there is with Redbook CD. So it is possible for vinyl to achieve greater dynamic range in theory.
But in practice, most records are not recorded and produced in a manner that stretches those limits, though some do.
One of the reasons is that it takes a very good turntable setup to be able to track a record produced with very large dynamics accurately without mistracking or distortion creeping in.
Ironically, a lot of teh early Telarc digitally recorded lps were designed to demonstrate the dynamic range capabilities of the new digital recording technology. I recall most turntables, even decent ones, that most people owned could not track those well. They helped up the ante in terms of what one might expect out a good phono rig in terms of dynamics.
In practice, wither vinyl or CD can hold the edge in regards to dynamics on a case by case, recording to recording basis, despite the fact that a really good phono rig and a really good recording together tehse days might be able to set the bar. |
One other point I would put out there is that I find the better CD recordings out there do not leave me wanting in any regard relating to dynamics, so the real limits of the format are not of any real consequence, at least for me. |
Where the 16 bits available in CD Redbook format to capture dynamics probably does fall a tad short in comparison to the best analog, is in the area of microdynamics, in other words, the deficiency is in how well small differences in waveform magnitude is represented, not the largest ones, which is what determines dynamic range.
This is why bowed strings and other instruments capable of producing extended duration complex yet subtle harmonics that do not vary much in magnitude, like massed strings, are perhaps the hardest thing to get 100% correct with CDs. |
I also think the DCS ring dac architecture is SOTA in its ability to fill in those microdynamics in an ear friendly manner (though it is still just an estimate of what is missing) as a result of its highly randomized dithering capabilities.
Other well executed DACs like the mhdt's at various price points are extremely close however. USe of the tube out stage in the tubed mhdt DACs can help also by applying an ear friendly very high frequency low pass filter, as does a lot of gear out there, either via tubes or other approaches. |
One last point. Remember that our ability to hear the highest audible recorded frequencies lessens as we age. Most people, including myself in that category, can no longer hear the very high frequencies that we are talking about where these subtle differences occur.
So for many older golden eared audiophiles, this last degree of detail that might not be there with CD redbook is a non-issue and everything can be 100% golden.
Your dog may be able to hear such things and care but we golden eared audiophiles will never know.....
FWIW, my dog sits and listens to music with me often and seems to enjoy it. I can see his ears twitch and move in accordance with what is playing, so I know that he at least gets it in general! |
I was not aware there is a spec dynamic range limit for vinyl?
If there is, it is quite old and hence not surprising if newer CD redbook specs surpass it.
Seems to me though that in practice the only limit for vinyl dynamic range is how much modulation can be represented in the grooves and practically how well any record player might be able to track it.
Most record players from the golden age of vinyl were not particularly excellent trackers like more modern tables that ironically came about mostly late in the game and as the tide of digital started to appear on the horizon. So practically if you wanted to sell lots of records, the dynamic range had to be limited in order for people to practically be able to play the record.
Of course there was a small niche for audiophile recordings even back then that raised the general bar, but again this became more of a specialty niche for recordings way before digital ever reared its revolutionary head. |
"It is too bad that the technology of the playback of the time wasn't in step with the engineering and quality of pressings, especially in the 50's when the LP was in its infancy."
That is a fact.
Hifi and stereo recordings were a big deal in marketing terms back in teh 50's and perhaps even early 60's and the quality of many early recordings reflect that.
Then, the usual economic realities and true mass marketing set in. Meanwhile the playback equipment continued to improve to fill the needs of those in the minority who cared about ultimate sound quality.
I look at the bright side. I can afford my quest for good sound much better today than I could back then and so I am blessed. Those old vinyl hifi recordings and CD remasters of old stuff that never really sounded so great back then all sounds better than ever to me these days.
I really do not see much to complain about in this area these days. We have the best of both worlds available at our fingertips. |
"Then again maybe its them ole ears, eh Mapman? I hear ya:)"
No doubt years of training ones ears listening to different things makes a big difference, even if the ability to discern the higher frequencies one could hear as a youth goes mostly down the tubes. |
"My real excitement about this whole experience is that really decent digital playback has seemingly arrived at a reasonable price point. "
Glad to hear that.
Also glad to know I am not totally whacked when I make whacky claims like good digital does not have to cost a fortune. |
