Concert halls or our houses are not anechoic chambers. Noise is everywhere. Even our ears make their own noises. In nature there is no absolute silence. All instruments produce intermodulation, noise and jitter, none can create a perfect sound. It's just a matter of "how much" is "too much". If you can't hear it, why obsess about it?
That's the best thing that the Hi End Audio industry has to sell countless absurd things at an unjustifiable extremely high prices. Can anyone realy think that the Oracle V1.5 HR Ultra Wide speaker cables costs $53,000.00 and really are good enough for that price? www.thecableco.com/Product/Oracle-V1-5-HR-Ultra-Wide
can you explain me what this cable will change (with electric and electronic laws) when you have Cap resistor and coil for passive crossover in you re speaker ?!!
What you all need is cables created in a quantum tunnel, formed in zero-g space near a black hole. Only then can you truly experience audio the way it was meant to.
+o0Donuts0o LMAO! :P At least something to this effect is what some complete audio *nuts* would have you believe!... Oh, and don't forget that the "quantum tunnel" cables also have to be kept at or near absolute zero using liquid nitrogen around the cable at all times for the treble to be completely "open and airy"! LOL!... Oh, and of course these magic cables have to cost upwards of a million dollars per meter, otherwise they simply *couldn't* be as good as they could be! LMFAO!
Haha! Yeah, I agree, to a certain extent, but there is a limit before the price of "high-end" audio cables just gets exorbitantly high for no real useful reason, and the performance doesn't really get any better... I try to use cables that are right at the best curve of the price/performance ratio, especially since (I will admit that) I don't have the absolute best equipment in the world, just good enough for me, (and the best my budget will allow)... Anyway, I was just being sarcastic there above, as was the oODonutsOo guy, I'm pretty sure!
actually, any bandlimited signal can be perfectly reconstructed using digital sampling. digital audio has been improving for decades but even at its beginning its specs were approaching the limits of human perceptibility
The problem is that all digital formats and vinyl records are far from the original analog master tapes. Too much processing in any case. Maybe this information would be interesting for you: tapeproject.com/ I recommend start with, Why Tape? And www.theverge.com/2015/10/5/9409563/reel-to-reel-tape-retro-audio-trend
@@cinequadom tape is very good, perhaps the best thing that we have short of digital audio. i would argue that the time based errors of digital audio are less perceivable than those from even the best tape machines, and far below the limits of human perception digital audio is almost perfect, its errors mostly pop up in situations requiring processing of digital audio. for instance, nonlinear digital processing can not be properly bandlimited, and therefore will produce aliased harmonics which cannot be eliminated (only reduced), but surely jitter from digital systems is less than the wow and flutter from even the best tape machines
High end is a relative term, it does not mean perfect. It just means it's at the higher end of the quality curve. If you want true high end, hire a band, and hope they don't make a mistake.
I am not seeking for a “perfect or pure sound”, since that is impossible in audio. The point is about the current formats that are not true Hi-Fi. Hi End is a whole made of several parts and if only one part is poor or bad the sound of the whole system is poor or bad. The poor or bad part is the software - sources of music - not the hardware or equipment: No one with common sense can say that listening to music with scratches, clicks and pops can be a true HI End Audio reproduction, even with the best equipment in the world. It is important to note that these noises are only on the vinyl format. It not in the original analog master tapes, not in the other formats and of course not in live performances, so what the term High Fidelity means, is not for the anachronistic vinyl because scratches, clicks and pops are faithful to nothing, unless if the audience is allowed to eat potato chips in concerts. The Compact Disc with 16 bits has around four times less information than the master tapes, the vinyl and the 24 bits DVD-Audio, SACD and most Hi-Rez files. There is no a CD player, regardless the price, that can include the information that was not recorded originally. Obviously with such limitation cannot be a true Hi End Audio and it reproduction is less natural and emotive than the analog formats because the complexity of the conversions analog to digital and again to analog. Take in mind also that the two modern and superior 24 bit formats, DVD Audio and SACD are disappeared and for something would be. The digital HiRez formats are “analog-like”, their slogan. That automatically confirms the superiority of analog sound which is the reference. But how much “analog-like” are those files? Nobody knows because there is no standard or measure to determine that. More subjective and ambiguous cannot be this “analog-like” term. Therefore, the current formats are limited, corrupted and away from the original master analog tapes that are far from perfection, but unquestionably superior to vinyl and digital. A true Hi End format at least, must be a replica of those masters and so far only the high quality Reel to Reel (R2R) direct copies at 2 track and 15 IPS can be extremely close to them and of course with an authentic 100% pure analog sound. Because I own some original master tapes and a few back-up copies, I know the huge sound difference between them and any other format. More information about the “new” R2R format in tapeproject.com/ I recommend starting with “Why Tape?” These are two paragraphs of the first answer: “Most people have not had the experience of hearing studio master tapes. Many formats have been introduced with the promise of bringing master tape sound into the home listening room. Yeah, right. We don’t expect that this tape project will replace any of your other favorite formats, so we see no need to dwell on the drawbacks of any other format. Suffice it to say that we don’t offer an “analog-like” listening experience. We are offering a chance to have in your own listening room an actual analog listening experience as close to the original master tape as practical.” I recommend reading all, including the IEC EQ, the 1-1/2 generation copies, about the prices of the tapes and of course, the entire page and site. And this is very interesting also: www.theverge.com/2015/10/5/9409563/reel-to-reel-tape-retro-audio-trend This is an abstract: “Like string theory, audiophile subculture is complex and defined by unresolved questions. Is an insanely expensive cable really better than an outrageously expensive cable? Do tube amps trump solid-state amps? Horn, electrostatic, or ribbon hybrid speakers? What about Kind of Blue - mono or stereo? Each position can be defended or attacked with various specs, waveform graphs, and double blind listening tests. One question, however, has been resolved: tape or vinyl? Even the most dubious critics find no ambiguity here. The verdict: tape sounds better than vinyl. What makes tape such a smart choice? For starters, it has greater dynamic range than vinyl, with extraordinary sound at the frequency extremes: the treble and bass. Next, consider the amount of signal processing that each medium requires. Vinyl: a lot. Tape: very little. Signal processing is the enemy of hi-fidelity. The less studio voodoo the master tape (MT) is subjected to, the better. It helps to understand how vinyl and tape albums are manufactured. To make a record, the MT signal must be compressed to match the dynamic limits of vinyl. Some of the highs and lows are slashed in the bargain. All the other audio tricks needed to shoehorn a signal into those tiny grooves compromises the signal even more. Dubbing 1/4-inch tapes is a much simpler task. With no need to squeeze or tweak the original signal, it can be transferred from the MT relatively unscathed. Then there’s the dicey issue of playback. With turntables, all sorts of mechanical foibles - rumble, skips, speed stability, inner groove distortion, etcetera - can further degrade the signal. In contrast, R2R is an exercise in simplicity. The only moving part at the point of signal retrieval is the tape, which travels in a straight line across a stationary playback head. Efficiency equals fidelity. Vinyl fans may scoff at The Tape Project’s steep prices, but when licensing fees, production time (3.5 hours per album), and materials ($150 just for the blank tape) are factored into the equation, $450 seems almost reasonable to hear Lee Morgan’s trumpet riffs on The Sidewinder just as recording engineer Rudy Van Gelder heard them over half a century ago in his New Jersey studio. Incidentally, a Lee Morgan trumpet riff on tape doesn’t just sound better than a Lee Morgan trumpet riff on vinyl. It sounds better than a Lee Morgan trumpet riff on any audio format: CD, SACD, Pure Audio Blu-Ray, even Neil Young’s crazy 24-bit/192 kHZ hi-res files that take forever to download. The company catalog includes 27 other albums (now are more and coming other titles on the way). Some audio critics claim this is the highest fidelity ever captured on 1/4-inch tape. That may be so, considering that each album is a first-generation copy dubbed in real time, at a leisurely 30 ips, directly from the original master tape. There is no mixing or remastering involved. In essence, this is the master tape. It doesn’t get any better than this. Better is live at Carnegie Hall.” You can find lot information about the “new” R2R format on Google. By other way, the so-called Hi End Audio is only for very rich people, not for audiophiles. They want to own the most expensive things in the world that we the most people cannot reach and that is their real pleasure, not music. Logically, they are not true music lovers and they do not even have enough time to listen to it. The parameters of High Fidelity were established in the 60's and there have been very few innovations since then, there is only currently higher quality in components or parts such as resistors, capacitors, oxygen-free conductors and so on and so forth, and the digital sound is the last but it has not even been able to overcome the commercial analogue open reel tapes with Dolby-B already extinct. So, the most expensive audio gear is not better than many components of the second half of last century. Many ultra high priced equipment has inferior sound than others much less expensive, that have a preponderant role in the history of Audio But even with the best equipment of the world (not the most expensive), you or anyone will hear even more pronounced the annoying noises on vinyl and the less natural and emotive sound of digital formats. I own a really good audio system that has an affordable price thanks to my knowledge of audio. Some of the gear I bought is second hand but in excellent condition and there are very good things with a cost that is very reasonable. Thanks for your comment.
@@cinequadom, I agree with most everything you said. And even most live performances have unwanted background noise, someone always makes some sort of noise. And I don't know the best way to explain it but something is definately lost in the a/d-d/a conversion, not neccisarily measureable but definately percieved when listening. Almost like the air between the sound is replaced with vacume. I think tape at the master tape level is probably the best storage medium so far but not convienient for most. My point about High End is it just means it's at one end of spectrum. I think what some of the people spend is ridiculous, and many of them lose sight of what the music is saying and just listen to the "sound". But I guess if you have the money and want to spend it on that, great. I have a system that is better than most, tho FAR, FAR from the ridculously exspensive. Lots of stuff picked up used etc. Also based on my knowlege of sound, not how much it cost. $ doesn't mean best sound. Most equipment works on a diminishing return curve. At the low end some money spent makes a big difference but very quickley your return for your dollar drops sharply. Thanks
I agree about digital being artificial. It is 'facsimile' of the original recording and, in reproduction, subject to jitter and limited resolution - this depletes music. Maybe we should try applying this example :- we can order prints of the great masterworks from the museums that have the rights - Van gogh, Picasso, Turner etc. - i might consider myself lucky - extremely lucky - if it has the same effect/feel/visual resonance that the original work has. Not listening to live but reproduced music itself has sacrifice embedded in it, the question is how much of the sacrifice? The most popular formats of the day (LP, CD, mp3) have moved away from the music that was recorded/mixed/mastered. High end audio manufacturers claims of sophisticated materials, circuit designs, master craftsmanship and occult level research of audio engineering always contradict one and the other. We don't really know who is right or wrong, who has the right approach - if supposedly one has seemingly the correct approach - the end product might be accused of not sounding musical enough. We, the consumers, are at the mercy of opinions of few publications and journals and the grand, seductive ideas of designers. Much like we are in the case of art/film/gastronomic critic and curator circles of the world who regularly fail to achieve synthesis in opinion and rather claim to not be authorities but those who want to tell people about what they heard/ate/saw/ read.
+Alfonso Viladoms Thank you for accepting what is almost a rant. Thank you for sharing your rich experience with audio. Also, could you elaborate on your opinion on how the Martin Logan CLS is among the most beautiful speakers? or rather if they, in your opinion, are 'superior' to other electrostatic designs (like, of course, Quad ESLs) ?
+WhipRunner About that the CLSs are the most beautiful speakers in the world is just my opinion. Almost all other speakers are boxes, some really ugly; a few others are horns, etc. The CLSs seem as a pair of modern sculptures; well that is what I think. Here is the link of a brochure of them: www.martinlogan.com/pdf/brochures/brochure_cls_ii.pdf A friend of mine had a Quad ELS-63 and I prefer the CLSs especially in the bass region, stronger and deeper. The natural and transparent bass of these speakers is impressive without a “boomy or boxy" sound, but it is necessary a perfect position of the panels between the back and lateral walls to have the best results. I also like that the CLSs don’t have a crossover like the other Quad models, the curvilinear panels have an excellent dispersion and there is not a fabric on the front that somehow blocks the transducers. Sorry I did not listen to other electrostatic speakers. Thanks for your comments and best regards.
Some very good points. As I have said in other places many of the pops and hisses and especially the intermittent ones that reoccur were not present when you had a new album or a well cared for LP. I'm talking about when records were the dominant medium for sound conduction/reproduction. Many of the newer remasters on CD show more respect for the original source and do sound better and in some cases warmer. Warmth and saturation of mids continues to be a problem with digital recording - new recordings or digital transfers of analogue tape. It would have been better if CDs were introduced more slowly and vinyl improved upon at the same time. I do agree that a "perfect" experience is never possible but we should do our best to obtain the best equipment we can. Also you don't have true stereo unless you are standing in the sweet spot and headphones can give the illusion of stereo but even with open air cans you still have too much separation from the two speakers to have a true stereo impresion... However when you have a great set up it sounds amazing...
ipsurvivor I own about 900 LPs and only a couple of audiophile expensive albums with a few clicks and pops. The best and cleaner vinyls I have been purchased in the 80’s and are from Japan and Germany. I own also an excellent audio system with a great turntable, arm and MC cartridge. Somewhere here, answering to other people is the description of my equipment. I like to hear the music through my pure electrostatic panels. I do not like headphones. The XRCD is the best digital format that I heard until now but inferior to analog sound. Absolutely better than anything else, are the original and back-up professional copies I own, in the reel tape format that I have. My friends swear that the musicians are “there” in my listening room.
I've felt my soul shivering to the dark, booming rock of "Queen II" on a muffled old cassette in a bus on the highway at 6 AM, watching the first light of dawn. I went to ecstasy watching a live orchestra making the whole hall rattle with a shattering performance of Holst's Planets on a Tuesday night. I drifted off to some sublime musical land with Boards of Canada's "Geogaddi" on my cheap MP3 player in a crowded bus on the way to college. I've explored new musical galaxies with Com Truise's "In Decay" playing off an USB stick on my (rented) car radio as I drove up the hills under red skies at dusk. Emotions are not in the music, much less on the audio format. Emotions are inside us. Every format has its charm, every experience has its worth; and when you can get the good out of every experience, there's no room for frustration. When the *music* is "high end", the noise and the distortion are secondary; heck, they can even become part of the enjoyment. So here's to all the high end music in the world, and all our shitty low end gear. Cheers!
+Fernie Canto Hear hear! Amen. I too have been ENJOYING music my whole life since my first memories with my family and friends in every situation that life has to offer. Every genre of music reminds me of certain life events, history, time, and most importantly, PEOPLE! Whether it was on my broken free earbuds I found and used for several years, the horrible rigged system I had in my $500 first car (that was the best time ever), to my current nice system in my new car... it is ALL NICE and can't live without it!
My audio system consists in: A beautiful pair of Martin Logan CLS IIz pure electrostatic panels, two improved ASL “Hurricane” monoblocks in triode operation, an Audio Research SP9 Mk III with a famous and remarkable phono stage, an especial and limited edition VPI/Denon DP-75 turntable with DD High Torque Motor without cogging, split heavy platter with the Achromat on it, has a very heavy sandwiched plinth (steel, aluminum, lead and wood) over four springs that are in a wood base with spikes and with a total weight of 60 pounds; includes a GST 801 Lustre dynamic “magnetic” arm and a special limited edition Denon DL-103SA MC cartridge and other things like a MHZS CD88KE CD player that has the famous Burr-Brown PCM1794 DAC chipset but also very important, a Reel to Reel Technics RS 1506 almost professional recorder/player. I own some original master tapes and back-up copies (half track, 15 ips), more on 1/4 track at 7.5 ips, some of them with Dolby B (Noise Reduction System), almost a thousand LP Jazz records and less than 300 CDs and of course a VPI 16.5 vinyl washing machine and the appropriate cleaning fluids and brushes.
+Alfonso Viladoms Puse en un comentario de que lo que Ud. dice es Exacto. Unas dos veces me pasó de escuchar música y que la batería sonara como en vivo así como voces, núnca el tema completo.
Alfonso, you are a wise man, but trust me, digital high resolution formats come very close to the perfect sound. The real problem is quality of production these days.
lets create new technology, an alternative route to measure audio directly to digital... More efficient ways of registering data... I believe that rethinking the system from scratch is necessary... How about mimic nature...
Thank You Alfonso I agree with your Observations on music. I met a man 40 years ago who gave me insight on what a good sound system should sound like, This is what he said. When you go listen to a live performance then Go home and play it on your system If it sounds like the concert this is all you need in a system. Too many WACK JOBS are making money selling over the top expensive systems that Musicians NEVER intended their music to be listened on. I Love Music and seeing it live is the best. I saw and listened to Julien Bream, Igor Stravinsky perform The Firebird ballet, Sonny and Terry, Andre Segovia The Rolling Stones, John Lennon and his wife in Toronto, Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison many times, Janis Joplin, Canned Heat, The Grateful Dead Etc. Now I am enjoying the bird songs in the Morning and day in Northern Thailand. The Birds are the best by far and they give free concerts. My Instrument is a Nikon and my Photos are silent. Your System is as good as you need, Anything more is a waste of money.
True high end audio does not exists. Personal preference in audio does exist. If you listen to a 20000 dollar speaker and a 500 dollar speaker the one you choose to fit your musical tastes needs is the high end for you. Sorry people the only true to life recording is an true analog source recorded on true analog equipment. No way around it no matter what you say or want to say. Noise is part of life. If it's present in the recording. True every device adds noise but digital devices add artificial noises not natural to life. I love my cds and records and listen to both. But I listen to lps anytime I get a chance.
rbeez2004 Your comment is not new for me. Some others wrote basically the same thing. You can read about it here. Anyway I am going to repeat some of the things I answered before. I own an excellent HI FI system and details about it are somewhere here. Scratches, clicks and pops are inherent of the vinyl format and are not present in the original analog master tapes. The invention of the CD format was primordially to eliminate those annoying noises. Noise is not part of music. For instance, all professional recording studios over the world are isolated from external noise. In a concert hall with classical music, the audience tries to stay as quiet as is possible during performance and if someone coughs, she or he feels very badly. Neither, you can go into the hall when the performance was started. It is not allowed to talk, sing, tap your feet or clap your hands. Now if I go to a classical performance, I would like to listen only the music and I do not concentrate to hear the rustle of clothing or the breath of the musicians or if someone makes some noise changing the score page. I read somewhere about that the American audiophiles listen through their audio systems these non-musical noises and are very happy if these are present, thinking that the equipment has better detail and therefore is better. If you are that kind of audiophile, is easy to understand why you enjoy noise with the music, even in the not scratched digital formats.
THE EVOLUTION OF GREAT SOUND.....XRCD! XRCD allows the listener to hear what the producer and artist intended... the sound of the original master tape!
I own almost all the Blue Note Audio Wave’s XRCDs and their sound is the best I ever heard on the CD format, but I also own the old original same titles in vinyl and except for the scratches, clicks and pops the sound is more natural and emotive. Thanks for your comment.
Duh. Bloomin' obvious mate. I can suggest your opinion is dogmatalog, or nuttalog. By your definition your definition has noise and jitter...errors of perception and judgement and corrupted by misunderstanding of language as not an exact science, neither is understanding. This week I'm not going to discuss feelings or soul as you name them seemingly having clear definitions in your mind...and imagining that just talking into a silly movie camera and mic you are somehow communicating and influencing you are lost on the Ark dear sir. But you are also not transmitting clearly...I apologise for such personal remarks but your presentation is a logical fallacy, and well sorry it ain't happening. On the other hand...if you like listening to pleasing sounds in wonderful settings, try an example of hi end hi fi like this family setting: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-OAxP1vxL8Rw.html Please I am sure you will continue to chase perfection of understanding whilst simply failing to achieve anything close to this in your own presentations. Never the less...bon chance my dear. Funny that you continue to chase the very thing you seek to correct. Human spirit at work.
JingoLoBa57, I never understand what you were trying to say and the equipment in the video does not sound very good. Anyway, this is more about of what I am saying also for Syd Barret: I am not seeking for a “perfect or pure sound”, since that is impossible in audio. The point is about the current formats that are not true Hi End. Hi-End Audio is a whole made of several parts and if only one part is poor or bad the sound of the whole system is poor or bad. No one with common sense can say that listening to music with scratches, clicks and pops can be a true HI End Audio reproduction, even with the best equipment in the world. It is important to note that these noises are only on the vinyl. It not in the original analog master tapes, not in the other formats and of course not in live performances, so what the term High Fidelity means, is not for vinyl because scratches, clicks and pops are faithful to nothing, unless if the audience was allowed to eat potato chips in the concerts. The Compact Disc with 16 bits has around four times less information than the master tapes, the vinyl and the 24 bits SACD, DVD-Audio and most Hi-Rez files. There is no a CD player, regardless the price, that can include the information that was not recorded originally. Obviously with such limitation cannot be a true Hi End format. But the Compact Disc's superiority to Vinyl in a number of sonic parameters are precision, outer detail, speed stability, dynamic range, channel separation which means better soundstage, up to 80 minutes of continuous recorded music, no noise floor, scratches, clicks and pops; no mistracking, no record wear, no friction and harm of the laser beam to the disc and no wear of it, no pre or post echoes, no coloration by acoustic reflections and vibrations, easy to handle, play, clean and store; and without the necessity of adjustments on the pick-up system. Unfortunately, it also subtracts those aspects of the sound which are the vital essence of music; ie convey of individuality and emotions. That is why Digital is more intellectually than emotionally satisfying. This is especially true for those who are very familiar with excellent analog sound. Now, if the Compact Disc would be better in ALL parameters the noisy, impractical and anachronistic Vinyl had disappeared more than 30 years ago as the audio cassette, but Vinyl is very alive with increasing sales year by year worldwide and this is because the analog format can convey ALL the emotion and “soul” of music and many people prefer it even with pops and clicks*, than the clean but less emotive sound of the digital formats. *(For me, only one single click and/or pop is enough to say than the vinyl is not HI End Audio). Now take in mind that who disappeared were the two modern and superior 24 bit formats, DVD Audio and SACD. So, something is wrong with digital audio. The new Hi-Rez formats are “analog-like”, their slogan. That automatically confirms the superiority of analog sound which is the reference. But how much “analog-like” are those files? Nobody knows because there is no standard or measure to determine that. More subjective and ambiguous cannot be this “analog-like” term. Therefore, the current formats are limited, corrupted and away from the original master analog tapes that are far from perfection, but unquestionably superior to vinyl and digital. A true Hi End format at least, must be a replica of those masters and so far only the high quality Reel to Reel tapes can be extremely close to them and of course with an authentic 100% pure analog sound. Because I own some original master tapes and a few back-up copies, I know the huge difference between them and any other format. By the way, the so-called Hi End Audio is only for very rich people, not for audiophiles. They want to own the most expensive things in the world that most people cannot reach and that is their real pleasure. For logic, they are not true music lovers. More information about the “new” R2R format in tapeproject.com/ I recommend starting with “Why Tape?” And www.theverge.com/2015/10/5/9409563/reel-to-reel-tape-retro-audio-trend www.chartattack.com/news/2016/01/21/after-the-vinyl-and-cassette-revolutions-is-reel-to-reel-next/ www.analogarts.net/ horchhouse.com/project-r2r/ www.gearnews.com/revox-new-r2r-tape-machine-set-arrive-next-year/ www.metv.com/stories/move-over-vinyl-reel-to-reel-tape-is-on-the-comeback And the remarkable piece of engendering the Studer A820 in their three versions: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--lcYBHA6zLY.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jtidyF3X1ns.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-HuJ9yNFVIFM.html
High End refers to PRICE. High Fidelity refers to the sound quality. Jitter is not inherent to Digital file based music. It is in the transmission medium of Streaming files. Playing a CD in a CD Player does not experience Jitter because it is not transmitted. The transmission Reading and Converting does not have to be synchronized in the way that series transmitted data does. Further, serial transmission of data has been going on for a very extended period of time. They are Error Detection and Error Correction down to the point where you can be assured of Bit-For-Bit perfection on the receiving end. In modern Streaming Players, there are way to reduce Jitter to nearly nothing. Next, what matters is the music and how it effects you, not the technical aspects behind it.
It's a shame you have convinced yourself that digital audio sounds artificial. The reality is that no other capture and replay system in existence can match or better the performance of a well designed digital PCM system. This is usually influenced by a misunderstanding of how digital audio works. That data in between samples is lost, or that there is a stair-step like effect on the captured audio as popularly used in visual aids. The biggest idea that most can't wrap their heads around is, how can a digital system possibly reproduce clean sound when it only has 2-3 samples per cycle at high frequencies? It must sound artificial. In fact this was solved by Nyquist and proved by Shannon over 60 years ago and if you look at the output of a DAC at high frequencies, you will see a smooth analog sine wave with vanishingly low distortion and noise that no analog system can compete with. It's not even a fair game. Jitter is also so low these days with even moderately well designed systems that you're just playing into a fantasy. Do either digital or analog recordings sounds like nature? No, a 2 channel system is unable to realistically emulate a volumetric space as you would hear in nature. That is a limitation of the recording and playback methods and has nothing to do with the actual storage of the audio. Again, it's a shame you and many others have convinced yourselves that digital is somehow compromised, when you are actually sitting on the most accurate and consistent audio storage/playback system in existence.
+dwindeyer Many people say that the sound of PCM is artificial and also TEAC agrees. The new Teac NT-503 DAC has a PCM to DSD converter because the last has better, more analogical sound: www.teac.com/product/nt-503/
Yea, I can record any turntable with a laptop and play it back to the 100K idiot and he will never know the difference. Fact. But hey, each to his own.
I would agree that many Recordings are Flawed .Some to the point of being unlistenable. But i have been to so many live Concerts with bad sound that the Controlled enviroment of a Recording studio seems a way better place for musical joy to unfold . Vinyl Can be supremely Quiet, to the point of having a pitch black background. You will never hear this with cheap phono stages and Dirty Vinyl.This is the Point of having a High-end audio System: To bring you Closer to the music.
Hi. I own a special edition VPI/Denon DP-75 Direct Drive High Torque turntable with a Lustre GST-801 tonearm and a special and limited edition Denon 103SA MC cartridge. Also I have a VPI Scout belt driven turntable and a VPI 16.5 record cleaning machine, using enzymatic and other cleaning fluids. My preamplifier is an Audio Research SP9 Mk III with a highly praised phono stage. I am from the vinyl era with more than 900 albums including some new “audiophile” records. Only a few old records pressed in Japan and Germany are quite clean, but all the rest has more or less clicks, pops and scratches. This additional annoying and abnormal noise that is not present in the original master tapes is intrinsically into the grooves of vinyl records and because of that, I made this video and say that vinyl is the “Anoiselog” (noisy) format. With more than 900 records I have excellent studio and live recordings. And I would like to hear them in the original master tapes without the vinyl noise. But that is a very special placer of the sound engineers like Rudy Van Gelder for instance. Thanks for your comment and best regards. Alfonso
I hate to agree, but ANYTHING recorded is not natural sound! PERIOD! ;-) HOWEVER, the best digital format can give us a fantastic copy of the original sound. And finally, the greatest limitation is our own listening apparatus, our ears, chest and belly! In other words, there will never be a perfect combination! It is all about perception, nothing more and nothing less. Million $ systems are just as good as your ears! High-End is an excuse to charge more... ;-)
OF COURSE high-end audio exists! What is meant by 'high-end' is better quality equipment, so one can achieve better quality sonics. A pair of floorstanding Magneplanar or Martin-Logan speakers are going to sound MUCH better than a pair of inexpensive, cheap bookshelf speakers. Ditto regarding your equipment or source material. I think the most important point one can make though, is that system synergy is important, and often hard to predict, and that a 'point of diminished returns' is reached where no matter what you spend, or what you buy is not going to sound better, because of our hearing limitations!
As I said many times, Hi-End is a whole made of several parts and if only one part is poor or bad the sound of the whole system is poor and/or bad. Even if you own the best audio system of the world, listen to music with scratches, clicks and pops cannot be a Hi End performance. Considers that those annoying noises are present only in the vinyl format, they are not in the original master tapes and either in live music performances. Listen to a clean digital source that cannot convey the full emotion of the music as the vinyl and analog open reel tapes, cannot be a real Hi End reproduction either. You can own a Ferrari but if it is filled with gasoline of bad quality or even contaminated with some portion of water, the car is Hi End but the performance not. The reel to reel tape with hi quality half track copies at 15 ips that comes from the original analog master tapes is the only format that until today can deserve the name of Hi End Audio. Maybe these sites would be interesting for you: tapeproject.com/ I recommend starting with Why Tape? www.theverge.com/2015/10/5/9409563/reel-to-reel-tape-retro-audio-trend www.chartattack.com/news/2016/01/21/after-the-vinyl-and-cassette-revolutions-is-reel-to-reel-next/ www.analogarts.net/ www.metv.com/stories/move-over-vinyl-reel-to-reel-tape-is-on-the-comeback And the remarkable piece of engineering the Studer A820 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--lcYBHA6zLY.html
I think your are absolutely right, but the consequence would be, never hear to not-live-music again. In my case that would mean, there were no more music in my live, because where i live, it is hard to find live-music. So i live with this compromiss. The best music i know (and i mean that seariously) is to go in the woods and listen to the music of nature, thats the most beautiful sounds on earth. After that, in my opinion comes CDs. Vinyl is great, too.
I live in a place that only eventually I can listen good live jazz. Thanks to the invention of the recorded music I enjoy as much as is possible, the great musicians like John Coltrane, Lee Morgan, Horace Silver, Charles Mingus, etc. When someone have a good audio system, it is possible to discover many beautiful things that are in those recordings and also the bad things like the annoying noise from vinyl and no emotion with the digital sound. I know that Laser Disc and Reel to Reel tape were superior formats, without many of the flaws than those of these days that are also excessively expensive. My critic is because it is possible to make much better recorded music at affordable prices. Thanks for your comment.
But nowadays with femtosecond clocks like in the DACs from MSB, jitter is pretty much a thing of the past. It is not noticeable by the human ear I'm pretty sure. www.msbtech.com/products/femto.php?Page=dacSelect And now with most USB DACs being Async, it's not that big of an issue.
Thanks for giving to me the site of MSB Technology, because some people wrote here that jitter in these days is not an issue even on cheap commercial players and DACs, since there is no standard specification of this anomaly to make comparisons. “Quite reduced jitter“, “insignificant”, “almost eliminated” and ambiguities like that, are used by manufacturers and no one knows exactly concerned. MBS emphasizes the importance of jitter reduction using very precisely and expensive quartz clocks and is important also, that jitter has a different value in the low frequency region than in the high frequency region. Jitter is very complex and MBS confirms that there is not a type of measurement common that all engineers agree. Anyway, players and DACs can have a great reduction in jitter but as I know, only on the reproduction stage, but cannot reduce jitter that comes already recorded. The XRCD format has a huge reduction in the mastering process using rubidium clocks which are even much more accurate than the best quartz clocks: www.elusivedisc.com/xrcd24digprocess.pdf www.elusivedisc.com/xrcdinfo.asp A real huge reduction of jitter must be not only in the reproduction stage but also in the mastering process. Many people say that XRCD at 16 bits sounds better than SACD at 24 bits, because this has not such reduction on jitter in the digital master tapes. But we can guess that the XRCD digital masters at 24 bits sound better than the XRCD at 16 bits and the original analog master tapes sound even better without any conversion, than that the digital masters. The true is that digital and vinyl formats are far from the original analog master tapes and far also for a really Hi-Fi or Hi End audio reproduction.
Time based errors in nature are caused by variances in gas density and composition, causing very muc impedance like phenomenon with the phase shift, distortion and temporal shift usually associated. "Jitter" does exist in nature too and there is no perfect sound. When it comes to digital vs analog, the moment the discussion goes to "infinite waveform" or "sound is analog", we know that the person has no formal training, does not use science as the basis for their theories and most of all; does not understand how digital audio works. It is not like analog, we have to throw away our "analog brain" and start to think more in abstracts. I've done this since the 80s, have formal education as sound engineer and electronics. I still do not understand digital sound like i do analog. Analog is intuitive, digital is anything but. Just understanding why the "stairstep waveform" we so often see is wrong takes quite a bit of understanding. Trust is the key here, just trust what science says about it and find your way to get the sound you need. I warn you, it might lead one to admit they like distortion and non linear response. Nothing wrong with that, just as long as it is not called "real, natural" or any of such nonsense.
I'm not the least frustrated listening to recorded music... I can listen for hours upon hours without listener's fatigue. But I've found that possible only with tube equipment regardless of the original source of the music... I'm never frustrated and I have an extensive classical and jazz library. Tubes let some air into the music and noticeably expand the soundstage where it sounds far more relaxed and alive. I recommend that people start looking into affordable Hybrid Tube Amps and experience the difference from all solid state amps themselves. I say this as a professional musician.
I still have an Audio Research D200 Solid State amplifier with Multiple-Emitter Transistors or METs. These devices have the rugged, high-heat, high-current capability of single emitter bipolar transistors (which can have a rougher, harder sonic character), but they also have a natural sweetness and musicality often associated with MOSFET transistors (which can be more fragile and prone to failure). In short, the METs deliver the best of both worlds. This power amplifier also does not produce any listening fatigue, but later I found a pair of ASL “Hurricane” 200 watts monoblocks, 100 W in triode mode that I am using, to be a perfect match for my Martin Logan CLS IIz pure electrostatic panels. With these amps, the bass power and deepness is incredible for this kind of speakers. I am really glad with my audio system but not with the current formats. Thanks for your comment.
I still prefer reel to reel to any other format. However, I'm still recording with an AFM audio capable Sony Betacam deck. It records analogue audio better than any hi-res digital formats, and no audible analogue noise. AFM was similar to the technology used in FM audio for VHS / S-VHS. The helical scan implementation meant an effective tape speed of >1000 inches per second, and Betacam uses 1/2 inch metal tape. I made a few studio recordings on Betacam SP, and it was as good as any recording on any Studer or Revox 1/2 inch reel to reel. I have thousands of tapes bought from a studio, and a number of these decks, and paid very little for them. They were the last advancement of analogue tape before tape went digital. That was an advancement for digital video, but when PCM audio was invented, as you say, the sound is not natural, no matter what the resolution. I have enjoyed listening to a Sony SCD-1 however. This was the nearest I got to analogue in a digital format.
Despite digital jitter and analog noise most people could still perceive the music therein. And our brain is pretty impressive in filtering out both jitter and noise in our perception in order to enjoy the music. I listen to both CD and vinyl plus anything in between mp3, aac, flac, so on. In case I don't have the music in my preferred format I could still enjoy the music. Its how the brain adapts. Similar thing happens in entertainment. Watch a horror movie at cinema or on laptop computer it still delivers the horror although in varying degree. Its how the brain adapts. Remember when we were young we mostly cared less where the music came from be it from radio, tv, hifi or live band. Its because younger brain adapts easily, forgives most imperfection and just focus to the music. Stop listening to music for few weeks or months until your body aches to listen to your favourite song. Too much of a good thing is not good for the body. When you start to listen again I think you won't care much what format it came from.
High-End Audio exists, maybe not in the form of accurate audio reproduction but in the form of High-Priced use of exotic materials and labor intensive manufacturing. You don't buy a 6000$ ROLEX watch for it's accurate time keeping when a 30$ Digital CASIO is far more accurate, do you?
+Constantine Spook Yes you are right; Hi-End Audio as Rolex watches are for rich people, not for authentic music lovers and that is why is easy to sell to those people for thousands of dollars, anachronistic turntables that reproduces annoying noises with the music. Thanks for your comment.
Having a good sound system need MORE than money .... people buy Silver wire to reduce the ''resistance'' between amp and speaker ... but they don t know that they need a crossover for each driver ( they dont know what is a crossover!!!) ..so buy something without knowledge ( or FAKE knowledge) will just make you lose money !! silver wire are useles !! even the driver have it own resistance/capacitance/inductance !!
I ear so many stupid /false comment in school ( Electronic) in audio ... like a RCA cable (a wire) that is able to double the power of you re system ..... after some test.. it was just a RCA cable with it s own resistance/capacitance/inductance ! so WHY you will paid 1k$ for 3 feet of cable in copper ???? ha because the compagnie tell you some non-sense shit ! ?
Would you choose a class A , AB or D for power amp ? few people know whats the diffrence ! ... I have a Technics 110w rms class AB power amp and on the face plate is writtten "New Class A'' what it mean !! ...nothing but some people still think it's a class A amplifier ...what is impossible for the spec and shématic that amp have
High End Audio does exist. I was at the Hi End in Munich just last week and it was Very Hi End indeed. I agree that Hi Fidelity does not exist. Vinyl is closest due to it's analog nature and music instruments and voice make analog waves. But vinyl has a high noise floor and this make CD or digital formats shine. The only real Hi Fi is a live performance.
ANoiseLog Vinyl and DiJitter are far from the original analog master tapes. A format as a replica of those tapes, is not as a live performance but very much better indeed and truly Hi End. Maybe in Munich you listened to the sound of high quality Reel to Reel tapes. Here is some information about: tapeproject.com/ www.chartattack.com/news/2016/01/21/after-the-vinyl-and-cassette-revolutions-is-reel-to-reel-next/ www.analogarts.net/ www.theverge.com/2015/10/5/9409563/reel-to-reel-tape-retro-audio-trend
Analog Master Tapes used by many recording studio's in the past, still have a higher noise floor than CD's and other digital formats that have 0 noise floor. Heard an awesome of Reel to Reel and Vinyl records played on some very expensive equipment. I have all three formats and enjoy them all. Still they are all illusions of the real thing; some better than others.
I own a Technics RS 1506 almost professional Reel to Reel tape deck. Commercial ¼ pre recorded tapes at 7.5 IPS without Dolby B noise reduction system has audible hiss, but those half track at 15 IPS even without Dolby not. In The Tape Project site I recommend to read “Why Tape?” which has detailed information about that. I am a Jazz fan and thanks to recorded music; I can listen to John Coltrane, Lee Morgan, Horace Silver, Dave Brubeck and many, many other Jazz giants that otherwise was impossible to me and most people to hear to them alive and as well as all the other great musicians of classical music, pop, rock, etc. and even we can hear their recordings as many times as we want, which is impossible in live performances. Also many of them have electronic amplification, many times bad equalization and if you do no sit in a good place, the listening is not too good also. Sit on front of your good audio system alone, could be better than many live performances. A demanding audiophile as me, the current formats do not qualify for Hi End, except the Reel to Reel high quality half track direct copies at 15 IPS.
A true Hi End format at least, must be a replica the original analog master analog tapes that are not perfect either, but unquestionably superior to vinyl and digital that are far from them. So, only the “new” high quality Reel to Reel (R2R) direct copies at 2 track and 15 IPS can be extremely close to them. More information about the “new” R2R format in tapeproject.com/ I recommend starting with “Why Tape?” These are two paragraphs of the first answer: “Most people have not had the experience of hearing studio master tapes. Many formats have been introduced with the promise of bringing master tape sound into the home listening room. Yeah, right. We don’t expect that this tape project will replace any of your other favorite formats, so we see no need to dwell on the drawbacks of any other format. Suffice it to say that we don’t offer an “analog-like” listening experience. We are offering a chance to have in your own listening room an actual analog listening experience as close to the original master tape as practical.” I recommend reading all, including the IEC EQ, the 1-1/2 generation copies, about the prices of the tapes and of course, the entire page and site. www.theverge.com/2015/10/5/9409563/reel-to-reel-tape-retro-audio-trend This is an abstract: “Like string theory, audiophile subculture is complex and defined by unresolved questions. Is an insanely expensive cable really better than an outrageously expensive cable? Do tube amps trump solid-state amps? Horn, electrostatic, or ribbon hybrid speakers? What about Kind of Blue - mono or stereo? Each position can be defended or attacked with various specs, waveform graphs, and double blind listening tests. One question, however, has been resolved: tape or vinyl? Even the most dubious critics find no ambiguity here. The verdict: tape sounds better than vinyl. What makes tape such a smart choice? For starters, it has greater dynamic range than vinyl, with extraordinary sound at the frequency extremes: the treble and bass. Next, consider the amount of signal processing that each medium requires. Vinyl: a lot. Tape: very little. Signal processing is the enemy of hi-fidelity. The less studio voodoo the master tape (MT) is subjected to, the better. It helps to understand how vinyl and tape albums are manufactured. To make a record, the MT signal must be compressed to match the dynamic limits of vinyl. Some of the highs and lows are slashed in the bargain. All the other audio tricks needed to shoehorn a signal into those tiny grooves compromises the signal even more. Dubbing 1/4-inch tapes is a much simpler task. With no need to squeeze or tweak the original signal, it can be transferred from the MT relatively unscathed. Then there’s the dicey issue of playback. With turntables, all sorts of mechanical foibles - rumble, skips, speed stability, inner groove distortion, etcetera - can further degrade the signal. In contrast, R2R is an exercise in simplicity. The only moving part at the point of signal retrieval is the tape, which travels in a straight line across a stationary playback head. Efficiency equals fidelity. The Tape Project, which peddles legacy albums ranging from Sonny Rollins’ Saxophone Colossus to The London Philharmonic’s Arnold Overtures. The company catalog includes 27 other albums, with more on the way. Some audio critics claim this is the highest fidelity ever captured on 1/4-inch tape. That may be so, considering that each album is a first-generation copy dubbed in real time, at a leisurely 30 ips, directly from the original master tape. There is no mixing or remastering involved. In essence, this is the master tape. It doesn’t get any better than this. Better is live at Carnegie Hall. Vinyl fans may scoff at The Tape Project’s steep prices, but when licensing fees, production time (3.5 hours per album), and materials ($150 just for the blank tape) are factored into the equation, $450 seems almost reasonable to hear Lee Morgan’s trumpet riffs on The Sidewinder just as recording engineer Rudy Van Gelder heard them over half a century ago in his New Jersey studio. Incidentally, a Lee Morgan trumpet riff on tape doesn’t just sound better than a Lee Morgan trumpet riff on vinyl. It sounds better than a Lee Morgan trumpet riff on any audio format: CD, SACD, Pure Audio Blu-Ray, even Neil Young’s crazy 24-bit/192 kHZ hi-res files that take forever to download.” More sites about R2R www.chartattack.com/news/2016/01/21/after-the-vinyl-and-cassette-revolutions-is-reel-to-reel-next/ horchhouse.com/project-r2r/ www.gearnews.com/revox-new-r2r-tape-machine-set-arrive-next-year/ (Interesting that the price of the R2R Revox player it could be less than a medium priced "Hi End" turntable, cartridge and a phono preamplifier or a HQ CD reproducer). www.metv.com/stories/move-over-vinyl-reel-to-reel-tape-is-on-the-comeback And the remarkable piece of engineering the Studer A820 in their three versions: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--lcYBHA6zLY.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jtidyF3X1ns.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-HuJ9yNFVIFM.html Unfortunately right now the tapes are very expensive with a few titles and I hope that this reborn and improved format grow enough to down the prices. So, Hi End or H Fi exists only with this high quality R2R format, with the others not.
I am sorry if that bothers you. In my country this does not matter and nobody thinks that that is agresive, it is only indicative. Thanks for your comment.
So, your idea of high end audio is fumbling around with winding master tapes costing an average of 500 dollars a pop on a reel 2 reel machine --GOT IT!
One's critical hearing and contentment level with what they're hearing count for something too. Science rocks, but there are still many who still marvel and love listening to their 'imperfect formats' with great gear!
"High-end audio" is a bit of a scam but that doesn't mean you can't keep seeking better ways to reproduce sound in a space, but it's all subjective. I have listened to and owned quite a few "audiophile" grade vintage systems, including McIntosh, B&O, 60's 3-piece Marantz, Polk SDA-1s ,etc, but I probably listen to music more often through headphones and not even expensive ones. Logitech X12, Sennheiser, Klipsch Ones, Marleys, Harman-Kardon BTs, Bose Soundsport (currently), whatever is within reach. As long as I can hear the music clearly with good bass and midrange, that's what matters. Interesting point about digital music jitter/time-based sampling but no - jitter doesn't matter aa great deal. Displacement of air (motion of speaker cone) is still a analog process that adequately can recreates original sound well enough. If this wasn't the case, how could noise cancellation actually work?
Thank you...you are correct,all the high priced goods amp the noise as well.you can hide a lot with high priced tube amps,but in the end,I'm not impressed.as long as ac and dc moves you will have noise.any moving components make and enable noise,so call it what it is,high priced junk.....
High End audio is defined as the maximum effort to reproduce sound, not perfect sound. If perfection was achieved then there would be no need for new products on the market. Your argument should be "PERFECT SOUND REPRODUCTION DOES NOT EXIST!!!" which is hardly news to anyone except for the mooks that liked this video.
Nel San I never spoke of perfection in any way. I do not understand why other people like you think my review is about imperfect sound. Nothing like that! Scratches, pops and clicks are not present in the original master tapes. And digital sound has time base errors known as jitter. Something that is not present in Nature, among other artifacts that are not in the analog sound. In the past there was two analog formats with many defects also, but superior to those available now. Those formats were the Reel to Reel Tape and the Laser Disc. I own a few original analog master tapes and other few back-up profesional copies. Is easy to hear a huge difference between them and the digital and vinyl discs. Maybe for the Mooks who defend unreal Hi End sound should be interesting to see what is doing The Project Tape: tapeproject.com/
You should then change your title to "I don't like certain types of recorded music" and not say high end audio does not exist. I agree with some of your arguments, but to say high end audio does not exist is inflammatory and a disservice to those who strive to bridge the seemingly impossible gap between live and recorded music. If you have seen people like George Marino at Sterling sound innovate in their labs then you will see that many of your statements are unfounded.
Nel San As I said many times, Hi End must be a whole thing. If one of the parts of the system is bad, all the system is bad. It is ridiculous to spend thousands of dollars in a “Hi End” turntable, arm, cartridge and a phono preamp just to listen dirty music from vinyl records. The annoying noises from those discs cannot be real Hi End Audio. It is just a matter of common sense. Now if Sterling Sound and others are making efforts to create better digital sound, it is because something is wrong. The most extended format in the world is the 16 bit Compact Disc. Everyone knows that this format with four times less information is limited and the superior 24 bits formats have no too many titles. If some of your favorite records are only in CD format, even with the best reproducer you will hear a limited sound compared to any 24 bit format or original analog master tapes. As I said: limited sound cannot be Hi End. Again is a matter of common sense. Now, you need to have a real good turntable, a remarkable CD/SACD player, a great USB DAC to listen almost all the formats. If you compare a SACD with the same title in CD and the first is superior, then this is not Hi End and if a DSD file is better than the SACD, then this is also not Hi End, because you will not like to listen to the other inferior sound formats. And maybe an almost clean vinyl record with a few pops and clicks could sound even better that any of the others. So, what is really Hi End Audio? For me and I think for many others, is the sound that the source is a replica or quite very close to the original analog master tapes. Until now is the Reel to Reel tape format with back-up professional copies or those from the Tape Project that have that characteristic. I found that only with this very limited format the term Hi End Audio deserves that name. With the other formats, the sound is so poor than cannot be Hi End.
With your clarification I see that we are talking about slightly different things. Yes it is silly to spend large amounts of money on equipment for a difference in sound that is inaudible to the human ear especially when the audio format does not support it. I'm saying that the technology can fill in the gaps inherent to the medium and can color the music to your taste. yes it is expensive and sometimes foolish but art can sometimes be that way. The Ampex ATR-102 with a preview head played through some studio monitors and a dust free room are all you need for the perfect sound. But considering that there is only one of those and no record company will sell their master tapes we will just have to do the best we can with some high end audio
Nel San First of all, I don’t think that there is a perfect sound. But for me, the analog sound in high quality magnetic tape is better than the digital sound in any format. I think also, that it is possible to make an optical analog disc of the same size as the CD, quite close to the original master tapes, based in the same technology of the Laser Disc. That is with an FM carrier and even without the drawbacks of the magnetic tape. The cost of production of those mini Laser Audio discs will be the same as the CDs and also the reproducers can be made at affordable prices and that would be real Hi End Audio. The only thing is that an audio company or a few of them can start a project like this and I am sure that thousands of vinyl lovers and even many digital sound enthusiasts would be very glad with an analog format like that. More information about the laser Disc: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaserDisc
No, that is not the point. I am not seeking for a “perfect or pure sound”, since that is impossible in audio. The point is about the current formats that are not true Hi End or Hi Fi. Hi End is a whole made of several parts and if only one part is poor or bad the sound of the whole system is poor or bad. The poor or bad part is the software - sources of music - not the hardware - equipment -. No one with common sense can say that listening to music with scratches, clicks and pops can be a true HI End Audio reproduction, even with the best equipment in the world. It is important to note that these noises are only on the vinyl format. It not in the original analog master tapes, not in the other formats and of course not in live performances, so what the term High Fidelity means, is not for the anachronistic vinyl because scratches, clicks and pops are faithful to nothing, unless if the audience was allowed to eat potato chips in concerts. The Compact Disc with 16 bits has around four times less information than the master tapes, the vinyl and the 24 bits SACD, DVD-Audio and most Hi-Rez files. There is no a CD player, regardless the price, that can include the information that was not recorded originally. Obviously with such limitation cannot be a true Hi End format. Take in mind also that the two modern and superior 24 bit formats, DVD Audio and SACD are disappeared and for something would be. The new Hi-Rez formats are “analog-like”, their slogan. That automatically confirms the superiority of analog sound which is the reference. But how much “analog-like” are those files? Nobody knows because there is no standard or measure to determine that. More subjective and ambiguous cannot be this “analog-like” term. Therefore, the current formats are limited, corrupted and away from the original master analog tapes that are far from perfection, but unquestionably superior to vinyl and digital. A true Hi End format at least, must be a replica of the original analog master analog tapes that are not perfect either, but unquestionably superior to vinyl and digital that are far from them. So, only the “new” high quality Reel to Reel (R2R) direct copies at 2 track and 15 IPS can be extremely close to them and of course with an authentic 100% pure analog sound. Because I own some original master tapes and a few back-up copies, I know the huge sound difference between them and any other format. By the way, the so-called Hi End Audio is only for very rich people, not for audiophiles. They want to own the most expensive things in the world that most people cannot reach and that is their real pleasure, not the music. By logic, they are not true music lovers and even they have not enough time to listen to it. More information about the “new” R2R format in tapeproject.com/ I recommend starting with “Why Tape?” These are two paragraphs of the first answer: “Most people have not had the experience of hearing studio master tapes. Many formats have been introduced with the promise of bringing master tape sound into the home listening room. Yeah, right. We don’t expect that this tape project will replace any of your other favorite formats, so we see no need to dwell on the drawbacks of any other format. Suffice it to say that we don’t offer an “analog-like” listening experience. We are offering a chance to have in your own listening room an actual analog listening experience as close to the original master tape as practical.” I recommend reading all, including the IEC EQ, the 1-1/2 generation copies, about the prices of the tapes and of course, the entire page and site. www.theverge.com/2015/10/5/9409563/reel-to-reel-tape-retro-audio-trend This is an abstract: “Like string theory, audiophile subculture is complex and defined by unresolved questions. Is an insanely expensive cable really better than an outrageously expensive cable? Do tube amps trump solid-state amps? Horn, electrostatic, or ribbon hybrid speakers? What about Kind of Blue - mono or stereo? Each position can be defended or attacked with various specs, waveform graphs, and double blind listening tests. One question, however, has been resolved: tape or vinyl? Even the most dubious critics find no ambiguity here. The verdict: tape sounds better than vinyl. What makes tape such a smart choice? For starters, it has greater dynamic range than vinyl, with extraordinary sound at the frequency extremes: the treble and bass. Next, consider the amount of signal processing that each medium requires. Vinyl: a lot. Tape: very little. Signal processing is the enemy of hi-fidelity. The less studio voodoo the master tape (MT) is subjected to, the better. It helps to understand how vinyl and tape albums are manufactured. To make a record, the MT signal must be compressed to match the dynamic limits of vinyl. Some of the highs and lows are slashed in the bargain. All the other audio tricks needed to shoehorn a signal into those tiny grooves compromises the signal even more. Dubbing 1/4-inch tapes is a much simpler task. With no need to squeeze or tweak the original signal, it can be transferred from the MT relatively unscathed. Then there’s the dicey issue of playback. With turntables, all sorts of mechanical foibles - rumble, skips, speed stability, inner groove distortion, surface noise, etcetera - can further degrade the signal. In contrast, R2R is an exercise in simplicity. The only moving part at the point of signal retrieval is the tape, which travels in a straight line across a stationary playback head. Efficiency equals fidelity. Vinyl fans may scoff at The Tape Project’s steep prices, but when licensing fees, production time (3.5 hours per album), and materials ($150 just for the blank tape) are factored into the equation, $450 seems almost reasonable to hear Lee Morgan’s trumpet riffs on The Sidewinder just as recording engineer Rudy Van Gelder heard them over half a century ago in his New Jersey studio. Incidentally, a Lee Morgan trumpet riff on tape doesn’t just sound better than a Lee Morgan trumpet riff on vinyl. It sounds better than a Lee Morgan trumpet riff on any audio format: CD, SACD, Pure Audio Blu-Ray, even Neil Young’s crazy 24-bit/192 kHZ hi-res files that take forever to download. The company catalog includes 27 other albums, with more on the way. Some audio critics claim this is the highest fidelity ever captured on 1/4-inch tape. That may be so, considering that each album is a first-generation copy dubbed in real time, at a leisurely 30 ips, directly from the original master tape. There is no mixing or remastering involved. In essence, this is the master tape. It doesn’t get any better than this. Better is live at Carnegie Hall.” More sites about R2R: www.chartattack.com/news/2016/01/21/after-the-vinyl-and-cassette-revolutions-is-reel-to-reel-next/ horchhouse.com/project-r2r/ www.gearnews.com/revox-new-r2r-tape-machine-set-arrive-next-year/ (Interesting that the price of the R2R Revox player it could be less than a medium priced "Hi End" turntable, cartridge and a phono preamplifier or a HQ CD reproducer). www.metv.com/stories/move-over-vinyl-reel-to-reel-tape-is-on-the-comeback And the remarkable piece of engineering the Studer A820 in their three versions: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--lcYBHA6zLY.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jtidyF3X1ns.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-HuJ9yNFVIFM.html So, Hi End or H Fi exists only with this high quality R2R format, with the others not! Unfortunately right now the HQ tapes are very expensive with a few titles and I hope that this reborn and improved format grow enough to down the prices. Thanks for your comment.
Alfonso Viladoms Even though you made this two years ago, I feel compelled to comment on this. I have been around R2R a lot over the course of my career, and while I agree with you that it is far superior to vinyl, I have to take issue with you about your comments regarding digital. For one thing, the CD format using 16 bits that equates to 96dB of dynamic range is not 4 times less than tape. I worked on professional tape recorders and about the best dynamic range they can provide is around 75bB. So tape provides about 100 times LESS dynamic range than the CD. Also the CD has much lower distortion than tape especially at the higher levels of music. About the jitter in digital, it has been eliminated through buffering and reclocking and in any case is much less audible than the speed variations accompanying tape or vinyl. I really can’t understand why you have so much distain for good digital sound. Please explain. But do try to be briefer than this post of yours. Thanks
No he tenido la suerte de Escuchar una Cinta Maestra por lo tanto, no se como suena directamente y amplificada con lo mejor. Tube un Pasacinta ( caro ) y con Cintas de Crome a 15 Ps. . Suena muy bien pero no es tomada de la Maestra !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Go figure that the bands you listen to on tower 20G speakers?..use Vox amplifiers in live performances!..ok Marshall amps for you youngins. They never line up Klipschorns or Infinity..
You're mistaking 'hi-end' with 'perfection'. What does not exist is perfection, because vinyl, digital and audio tapes are all compromised in their own specific ways. Hi-end exists, it means 'state of the art'. However I admit I'm one of the majority who feels he can live with the compromises of digital audio far easier than I can live with the compromises of vinyl records and analogue tapes.
I never used the word perfection because I am not seeking for a “perfect sound”, since that is impossible. No one with common sense can say that listening to music with scratches, clicks and pops can be a true HI End audio reproduction, even with the best equipment in the world. It is important to note that these noises are only on the vinyl format. It not in the original analog master tapes that are not perfect either, not in the other formats and of course not in live performances, so what the term High Fidelity means, is not for the anachronistic vinyl because scratches, clicks and pops are faithful to nothing. The Compact Disc has four times less information than the master tapes, the vinyl and the 24 bits SACD and DVD-Audio. There is no a CD player, regardless the price, that can include the information that was not recorded originally. Obviously with such limitation, cannot be a true Hi End format. Now DVD-Audio and SACD are dead and gone and for something will be. The new digital high resolution formats are “analog-like”. That automatically confirms the superiority of analog sound which is the reference. But how much “analog-like” are those files? Nobody knows because there is no standard or measure to determine that. More subjective and ambiguous cannot be this “analog-like” term. So, current formats are limited and corrupt and far from the original master tapes that are far from perfection but indisputably superior to vinyl and digital. A true Hi End format must be a replica of those masters and so far only the high quality reel to reel tapes can be like them in practical terms or if you prefer in technical terms, extremely close to them and of course with an authentic 100% pure analog sound. Because I own some original master tapes and a few back-up copies, I know the huge difference between them and any other format. More information about this in tapeproject.com/ I recommend starting with “Why Tape?” And www.theverge.com/2015/10/5/9409563/reel-to-reel-tape-retro-audio-trend
All the systems are suffering for Jitter. not only digital. Digital has the less amount than analogue systems. There is not room for arguing this. Human hears have also huge limitations. They are not capable to listen to the digital quantization. They are also natural mechanical low pass filters that helps do not listen to these extremely small details (as far as you are claiming to be able to listen to micro volts differences! But you should scientifically demonstrate this.) In other words: your explanation in this video is full of technical /scientific and in certain case even good sense lacks (not offense is wanted on this sentece).
+TORMY VAN COOL Analog jitter is a small variation in the rotation of motors of turntables, tape recorders, etc. and in the past had the name of “wow and flutter” and is measured in percentage: 1%, 0.01%, etc. Digital jitter is a time base error in the sine wave that has a stepped figure and it cannot be measured. You never find in the digital players specifications of 1% or 0.01% of jitter. The specification is of special circuitry with high precision clocks to reduce jitter to some degree, but nobody knows how much. Good sense is that if the Compact Disc would be better than vinyl, 30 years ago this anachronistic format had disappeared as the audio cassette and also the superior 24 bit SACD and DVD-A formats that are now dead. Instead, sales of LPs, turntables, cartridges, etc. are increasing every year and this is because the vinyl can convey the full emotion and soul of the music, but unfortunately with clicks and pops that are present even in new discs. For me a true Hi-End format would be a replica of the original analog master tapes. Maybe would be interesting for you this link: tapeproject.com/ thanks for your participation.
well records are not perfect but for me my hi end turntable plays very quiet but not perfect but close enough that 99 percent of the time i hear no background noise even in quiet musical passages but you are basically right in your presentation ty
I've heard some audio through some great gear and it sounded great and where there is i'm guessing a lot of snake oil in the audiophile community, excellent equipment can be art and great sound.
No system is perfect, no source is perfect. The most perfect and thus exhilarating sound, (closest to live) I ever heard came from a United Home Audio reel to reel deck. Funny how a technology from the 1960s is still the best, albeit highly modified. Those who have more money than brains can chase the dragon to achieved a supposed music nirvana. Me, I have a modest system that moves me and invokes emotion.
+roguemodel You are right. I own a Technics RS 1506 reel to reel deck and some original master tapes and back-up copies of 2 tracks and 15 IPS and the sound is immeasurably superior to vinyl and digital. Even commercial tapes of 4 tracks at 7.5 IPS with and without Dolby-B are better than those current formats. Unfortunately the absurd 4 track system that needs to flip the tape to hear the second side, when was possible to hear the whole album in only one at 2 tracks to make more easy handling and the advent of the audio cassette killed this promising format. Otherwise in these days an authentic audiophile Hi End format would be as the recordings of the Tape Project but at an affordable price: tapeproject.com/ Because of all this I decided to make this video. Best regards
Jitter errors are no different than amplitude errors or noise. If small enough, they are not audible. If you sample a sine wave with jitter, equivalent errors can be modeled as amplitude errors. Double blind ABX testing can quickly determine the threshold of audibility of jitter. You can do it yourself and see what level you can hear. Every thing has errors. What matters is the size of the error. If it is below the threshold of perception, what you have is indistinguishable from perfection.
+Dana Olson As I know, jitter affects the listening in many ways and is not audible like one type of distortion. I read this on “Effects of Jitter in Audio” www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/jitter2_e.html
If I go to see a live artist,playing an acoustic guitar, and singing, He or she will have some imperfections in the voice, the guitar will have imperfections in the tuning, there will be noise from other people in the room, the room will have effects on the acoustics, your ears are not perfect, does this mean music does not exist!!
Music and sound exists, Hi-End Audio not because the current formats do not qualify for that. I do not seek perfection or pure sound because that is impossible. In your example of live music you don't listen to scratches, clicks and pops, only if are allowed the audience to eat potato chips during the performance. Those annoying noises only are present in the anachronistic vinyl, not in the other formats and of course not in real life. On the other hand the Compact Disc with only 16 bits has four times less information than the original master tapes, vinyl and the 24-bit formats like DVD-Audio and SACD, which incidentally are gone and for something would be. There is no a CD player, regardless the price, that may include the information that was not originally recorded on those discs. They also have other anomalies such as jitter, which distorts the sound wave producing a less natural sound and they cannot convey the full emotion of music, as in the analog formats. Obviously with such limitations cannot be a real Hi End format. A true Hi-End format must be a REPLICA of the original analog master tapes that are neither perfect, but AnoiseLog and DiJitter are far away from them. Maybe this links could be interesting for you: www.theverge.com/2015/10/5/9409563/reel-to-reel-tape-retro-audio-trend tapeproject.com/ www.chartattack.com/news/2016/01/21/after-the-vinyl-and-cassette-revolutions-is-reel-to-reel-next/ www.analogarts.net/ www.metv.com/stories/move-over-vinyl-reel-to-reel-tape-is-on-the-comeback
HDCD is a format that comes from 20-bit master tapes, but is reduced to 16 so that can be played on standard CD players. And since I know, the production of those discs was stopping eleven years ago.
I am sorry but I do not understand what you wrote. But if is what I presume, this is the answer: Some formats with master tapes of 20 or 24 bit like HDCD or XRCD are converted to 16 bits, because is the only way to be reproduced in CD players.
Boy Are You WRONG.... I'm a Broadcast Engineer / An Audio-Tech and have been using Broadcast and Pro-Gear since the early 1970's..... The Limitations of your EARS is far more LIMITING than Pro Digital Gear.... I can PROVE it to you with reference Microphones, PC Monitors and Pro-Grade JBL Speakers.... Period.....
Hi End is a whole made of several parts and if only one part is poor or bad the sound of the whole system is poor or bad. The poor or bad part is the software - sources of music - not the hardware: Microphones, PC Monitors, Pro-Grade JBL Speakers, etcetera. No one with common sense can say that listening to music with scratches, clicks and pops can be a true HI End Audio reproduction, even with the best equipment in the world. It is important to note that these noises are only on the vinyl format. It not in the original analog master tapes, not in the other formats and of course not in live performances, so what the term High Fidelity means, is not for the anachronistic vinyl because scratches, clicks and pops are faithful to nothing, unless if the audience was allowed to eat potato chips in concerts. The Compact Disc with 16 bits has around four times less information than the master tapes, the vinyl and the 24 bits SACD, DVD-Audio and most Hi-Rez files. There is no a CD player, regardless the price, that can include the information that was not recorded originally. Obviously with such limitation cannot be a true Hi End format. Take in mind also that the two modern and superior 24 bit formats, DVD Audio and SACD are disappeared and for something would be. The new Hi-Rez formats are “analog-like”, their slogan. That automatically confirms the superiority of analog sound which is the reference. But how much “analog-like” are those files? Nobody knows because there is no standard or measure to determine that. More subjective and ambiguous cannot be this “analog-like” term. Therefore, the current formats are limited, corrupted and away from the original master analog tapes that are far from perfection, but unquestionably superior to vinyl and digital. A true Hi End format at least, must be a replica of the original analog master analog tapes that are not perfect either, but unquestionably superior to vinyl and digital that are far from them. So, only the “new” high quality Reel to Reel (R2R) direct copies at 2 track and 15 IPS can be extremely close to them and of course with an authentic 100% pure analog sound. More information about the “new” R2R format in tapeproject.com/ I recommend starting with “Why Tape?” These are two paragraphs of the first answer: “Most people have not had the experience of hearing studio master tapes. Many formats have been introduced with the promise of bringing master tape sound into the home listening room. Yeah, right. We don’t expect that this tape project will replace any of your other favorite formats, so we see no need to dwell on the drawbacks of any other format. Suffice it to say that we don’t offer an “analog-like” listening experience. We are offering a chance to have in your own listening room an actual analog listening experience as close to the original master tape as practical.” I recommend reading all, including the IEC EQ, the 1-1/2 generation copies, about the prices of the tapes and of course, the entire page and site. www.theverge.com/2015/10/5/9409563/reel-to-reel-tape-retro-audio-trend This is an abstract: “Like string theory, audiophile subculture is complex and defined by unresolved questions. Is an insanely expensive cable really better than an outrageously expensive cable? Do tube amps trump solid-state amps? Horn, electrostatic, or ribbon hybrid speakers? What about Kind of Blue - mono or stereo? Each position can be defended or attacked with various specs, waveform graphs, and double blind listening tests. One question, however, has been resolved: tape or vinyl? Even the most dubious critics find no ambiguity here. The verdict: tape sounds better than vinyl. What makes tape such a smart choice? For starters, it has greater dynamic range than vinyl, with extraordinary sound at the frequency extremes: the treble and bass. Next, consider the amount of signal processing that each medium requires. Vinyl: a lot. Tape: very little. Signal processing is the enemy of hi-fidelity. The less studio voodoo the master tape (MT) is subjected to, the better. It helps to understand how vinyl and tape albums are manufactured. To make a record, the MT signal must be compressed to match the dynamic limits of vinyl. Some of the highs and lows are slashed in the bargain. All the other audio tricks needed to shoehorn a signal into those tiny grooves compromises the signal even more. Dubbing 1/4-inch tapes is a much simpler task. With no need to squeeze or tweak the original signal, it can be transferred from the MT relatively unscathed. Then there’s the dicey issue of playback. With turntables, all sorts of mechanical foibles - rumble, skips, speed stability, inner groove distortion, etcetera - can further degrade the signal. In contrast, R2R is an exercise in simplicity. The only moving part at the point of signal retrieval is the tape, which travels in a straight line across a stationary playback head. Efficiency equals fidelity. Vinyl fans may scoff at The Tape Project’s steep prices, but when licensing fees, production time (3.5 hours per album), and materials ($150 just for the blank tape) are factored into the equation, $450 seems almost reasonable to hear Lee Morgan’s trumpet riffs on The Sidewinder just as recording engineer Rudy Van Gelder heard them over half a century ago in his New Jersey studio. Incidentally, a Lee Morgan trumpet riff on tape doesn’t just sound better than a Lee Morgan trumpet riff on vinyl. It sounds better than a Lee Morgan trumpet riff on any audio format: CD, SACD, Pure Audio Blu-Ray, even Neil Young’s crazy 24-bit/192 kHZ hi-res files that take forever to download. The company catalog includes 27 other albums, with more on the way. Some audio critics claim this is the highest fidelity ever captured on 1/4-inch tape. That may be so, considering that each album is a first-generation copy dubbed in real time, at a leisurely 30 ips, directly from the original master tape. There is no mixing or remastering involved. In essence, this is the master tape. It doesn’t get any better than this. Better is live at Carnegie Hall.” More sites about R2R www.chartattack.com/news/2016/01/21/after-the-vinyl-and-cassette-revolutions-is-reel-to-reel-next/ horchhouse.com/project-r2r/ www.gearnews.com/revox-new-r2r-tape-machine-set-arrive-next-year/ (Interesting that the price of the R2R Revox player it could be less than a medium priced "Hi End" turntable, cartridge and a phono preamplifier or a HQ CD reproducer). www.metv.com/stories/move-over-vinyl-reel-to-reel-tape-is-on-the-comeback And the remarkable piece of engineering the Studer A820 in their three versions that you should know: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--lcYBHA6zLY.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jtidyF3X1ns.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-HuJ9yNFVIFM.html
High-End Audio does not exist - that is real. 1st all Audio Systems make a Sound (that means that the Audio System is making a wrong Wave with wrong Phases) 2nd No recording System don't have a Noise (also the Digitalnoise is a Quantizations failure in the LSB bits [this is the failure during recorde]) 3rd You don't have the Perfect listening room (think about the Bass - a 80Hz Bass have a Wavelength from Lamda=343,2 m/s @20°C / 80= 4,29m - do you site exact at 1/4 or 3/4 of this distance?) [there you have the highest Positive/Negative Wave Length]. All what you hear is imagination! (like listen to the gras grow). There is no Speaker exist in this world that have a Total Linear Conversation in all angles! Jitter means Phase Noise in all Spectrum.
You are even much more critic than me. First, as I said several times, I think that the so-called Hi End Audio is only for very rich people, not for audiophiles. They want to own the most expensive things in the world that most people cannot reach and that is their real pleasure, not music. Logically, they are not true music lovers and they do not even have enough time to listen to it. Now I think that is possible enjoy to recorded music in a good system but without annoying noises as vinyl and more, let´s say, natural sound than of the digital sound. My pure electrostatic panels do not project sound to the lateral walls, floor and ceiling and the back wall reinforces the low frequencies to a reasonable intensity enough for acoustic Jazz music. Those panels are not good for Rock music that makes your stomach vibrates with the electric bass instruments. Well, I like this definition: “There are two kinds of audiophiles, those who listen to music through their equipments and those, much more, who listen to their equipments through the music”
Regardless of all the debates and technically driven content of such debates........some setups make Audio sound better...Period! Whether music quality or music format quality should be classed in a specific category - high end etc......well.....I can only agree its down to the recording/mixing of the material and final source being used - Vinyls, CD, DVD, Blue-ray, Digital files etc i say - spend your hard earned money anyway you like , u earned it, buy and upgrade, experiment have fun, be competitive ....but never loose sight of the end goal.........the enjoyment of Music/Audio.
"Digital audio cannot convey the emotion of music"...i've got to lend this guy my Vitus SCD-025 Mk2 cd player, Vitus SIA-025 amp, Jorma Prime cables and a few XRCD24's & DXD cd's, and see if he still feels the same way ;)
First of all, this is why I like good Headphones and Sound Systems : ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-PFRzcZz1_6s.html Mr. Alfonso, I can definitely say that I can see what you are meaning to say. Saying that there is no such thing as "High End" because there's jitter, pop, imperfections and scratches and because anoiselog and dijitter are defective, limited and corrupted. Nothing is Perfect on anything. If something is Perfect it will most likely be near the real "Perfect" but it will neither become perfect or surpass perfect. Reminds me of a quote I heard from the past. It was talking about something to where in our world Earth. There is no such thing as "PERFECT". There is nothing you can call "Perfect" Nothing.. In anything i.e. no Perfect Headphones, No perfect sound systems, no perfect car, no perfect pen, no perfect drink, no perfect T-shirt, no perfect Computer components and many more. Simply because... If One person implies or "Say" that something is "PERFECT". That would basically mean that the "Perfect" something is "already perfect". Meaning it cannot be upgraded any more, it cannot advance to its technology/design because its "Perfect". Something called Perfect would mean that its technology ends there it can't be anymore better. But in this world there is no such thing as "Perfect". In any products or even i.e. girlfriend or Wife. There is always something else or someone else better. So why do people still use the word "PERFECT" even though there is no such thing as "Perfect"? The word Perfect is simply a word use to describe something or someone that is better for its own purpose. Or atleast near "perfect" but neither will reach and or surpass "perfection" e.g. for items the "Perfect" under 200 US dollar headphones would be something like a Fostex TR50P But is it Perfect? Nope cause there is even a better Headphone above it e.g. The Perfect under 400 US Dollar headphones would be something like a HiFi Man HE 400-i Again is it perfect yes for someone but there is always something else better such as the 50,000 USD Sennheiser Headphones. Same for say a Girlfriend or a Wife, for someone... they can find a certain beauty or woman beautiful or "Perfect" only to them or to many. But there is always a better wife or woman that you just haven't met. But as the saying goes "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". say Wife A is Perfect. But there is always Wife B that is more Perfect than Wife A.. but then there's Wife C that is more perfect than Wife A and B. etc. Nothing is real "Perfect". It does not exist. For "HIGH END AUDIO". its the same. There is no such thing as High End Audio as you mentioned because of the reasons you listed. With High End = Being "Perfect" Audio. Just like how people use "Perfect" even though there is no such thing as "Perfect". High End Audio is used the same way for Audio equipment/systems. The word "High End Audio" Systems is simply to determine which of the Audio systems produces a better quality sound over the other. But even if you have the best and the most expensive audio system, it will still not produce the best sound cause it will always have imperfections. Be it imperfections from the audio system itself or imperfections from the record your playing in that same audio system. I don't dwell much with Audio Systems but I am a big Nut when it comes to Headphones. I own: Sony MDR V7506 : £85 price Beyerdynamics DT770 250ohms : £109 Fostex T50RP 50 ohms : £115 price Fidelio X2 from Philips: £169.99 HiFi Man HE 400i : £369 and tested someone's Fostex TH100X on an Audiophile meet up.($400USD on Massdrop) and other headphones like the DT 990's 880's, Audio Technica M50X's, AKG K7XX and many more. And a number of external Dac's and Amplifiers. All of them.... Literally were called "High Res" and "High-End" Headphones. Thats because they can all produce a really good sound quality compared to non studio monitor headphones. I tested all of them and they are really good. Normally the higher the price will usually mean better sound quality output but at the same time some headphones like the planar T50RP's from Fostex can produce a very good quality audio with a good amp even though the headphones are cheaper (from the past Planar Headphones are very expensive) they are also harder to drive unless you have good amplifiers.. Again as I mentioned they all produce good high quality audio on the Headphone's realm. But even though they are all good Headphones and are all High Res, I can definitely discern that one Headphone is better than the other vice versa. And usually the higher end (high end = more expensive) Headphones produce a much better quality sound than the high end but cheaper headphones. High End audio equipment = higher price = produces better sound quality both from songs in a computer or from a vinyl. But that can also depend on how good the record your playing is. As well as how well you try to get rid of jitter's, pops, interference etc. Although even if you have the best of the best audio equipment, there will always be imperfections to whatever your listening to. Even that $50,000 USD Sennheiser Headphones a.k.a Orpheus that I can only Dream about using even once.... It is the highest end of the highest end that can produce a very good quality sound. But even so, it will still have imperfections that cannot be easily distinguished as they will try to make it a "perfect" headphone that produces the "perfect sound quality" and at the same time muffle the imperfections. Still with the imperfections, it surely is damn well much better than the other headphones around. But ye, There is no such thing as High End Audio it does not exist. If someone implies high end Audio or High res audio equipment, it is more of like a word to discern the best audio equipment you can currently get that can produce better sound quality than the other's. As mentioned above. Its just like the word "Perfect". There is no such thing as Perfect. If something is Perfect then that thing cannot be upgraded, modified, or changed anymore because why do it when its already "100% Perfect". Its technology basically is ends there and can never move forward any more if you call it "Perfect". Good example was when I got my Fidelio's X2's from Philips... When I first got my T50RP from Fostex, combined with Lake People G109 amp from Massdrop ($400 usd). I was blown away. It beaten my existing headphones out of the water. I fell inlove.... I was like These are the perfect headphones! and the price alone for a planar base headphone is even more epic! Then I heard the Fostex THX00..... completely destroys the T50RP. True the THX00 cost more but it literally produces a better sound quality than my T50RP. Thats before I end up buying a HiFi Man HE 400i. My brain said's Fuck you to me. It was even much better again even more expensive at the same time. Its like my brain had self reset and adjusted to the HiFi Man HE 400i after listening for 2 weeks it really showed that it was way better than the existing headphones I owned and the one's that I tested. Is it the perfect headphone? to me yes! But that is probably until I end up listening to a single track with the 50k USD Sennheiser Orpheus, that will totally mind fuck my brain and ear again. Its like buying to cupcakes. You eat cupcake A and you are like "I am in heaven I love this cupcake A". And suddenly when you tried Cupcake B and you are like "holy moly" and continued eating Cupcake B and completely stopped and disregard Cupcake A's existence... That's how I see it at least. In regards to having a very expensive "high end" audio system, and then playing a very bad dirty quality record on it... Thats a massive No. That is like buying a Ferrari Sports Car and then just use it to shop every Sunday. If you buy a Ferrari, it should be utilized as what it was made for, i.e. race in the race tracks nearby. Same for high end audio systems and headphones, spend that much money on them and better make sure that you play high quality records on them, still there is nothing perfect, there will always be imperfections both in High end audio systems and high quality records. Specially when you own and play music on high end audio systems and headphones, it can literally pick up badly recorded music... ^This is too long but ye Thanks if someone read it :P For closing, All I can say is. If you ever get an audio system and or a headphone that suits your need and is good enough for you. Stick with it, spending more buying the new stuff that can be mostly "marketing" is just a waste of money. ^I learned that the hard way with Computer's and Computer components. Marketing is the Devil!
+eroOtoko1 I never used the word prefect or perfection. Nobody can say that listen to music with scratches, clicks and pops can be a true Hi End Audio reproduction and those annoying noises are exclusively in the anachronistic vinyl. They are not in the original analog master tapes that are far from perfection also, and are not in the other formats. The Compact Disc has 4 times less information than the master tapes, and the 24 bits SACD and DVD-Audio. There is no a CD player that can include the information that was not recorded originally. Now DVD-Audio and SACD are dead and gone, so something is wrong with digital audio and maybe for that, many people prefer the analog sound. The point is that the current formats are far from the original master tapes. A true Hi End source must be a replica of those and until now, the high quality reel to reel tapes can approach that condition. Maybe would be interesting for you this page: tapeproject.com/ I recommend starting with “Why Tape?” Thanks for your comments and best regards.
I just wonder, BASED ON WHAT [and I expect some technical knowledge about how a CD is/can recorded using all technological advancement (and copy 1:1) an LP] Alfonso Viladoms cannot undestand the a very high bit rate of an CD can and it will copy all the hiss and warmth of an LP? Better for him to try TO LEARN about how a CD can record absolutely all the noises naturally created (or not created) during recoding of an LPs... (be it warm) due to the way the CD works..
+tedy tedy r The Compact Disc has four times less information than the original master tapes, the vinyl and the 24 bits SACD and DVD-Audio. There is no a CD player, regardless the price, that can include the information that was not recorded originally. Obviously with such limitation, cannot be a true Hi End format.
I agree wth you Mr. Viladoms, at least in principle, that "high-end" audio does not exist. Perhaps vinyl is indeed "purer" in audio quality than digital but, if we discussing the most accurate reproduction of recorded audio then, today's consumer electronics is arguably and subjectively superior. I simply do not hear "clicks," "pops" and "hissing" in my digital music...only absolutely beauty that indeed transports me to other times and places! As Mr. Larson has previously well articulated, digital "jitter" has at the very least, become inaudible to most of us. Today, better sourcing of digital recordings, more affordable DACs (crutial) and audio componentry now greatly compliment today's listening experience thus, 'fooling' (if you will) one's ears and mind into believing great digital audio can be experienced. I am well into my 60's and I grew up during the periods of the 60s and 70s when "33rpm" and "45rpm" vinyl discs were prolific. Thanks to good friend's dad long ago passed, I learned to listen to great music in vinyl and I prefer digital audio. No, "high-end" audio does not exist, only better delivery to one's ears of the original recording. Semantics....? Best wishes and Happy listening to all!
Thanks Lupe for your comments. Because I bought many years ago a prosumer Technics RS 1506 Reel to Reel recording machine and I own some original professional tapes and a few back-up copies, all in 2 tracks and 15 inches per second (IPS), I can hear the huge difference between these and the music from vinyl and digital formats. First, the open reel professional tapes does not have scratches, clicks and pops and very, very low hiss, much greater dynamic range than vinyl, absolute accurate traced of the tracks and immune to resonances and vibrations. It is pure analog sound without the issues of the conversion to digital. The commercial tapes of 4 tracks and 7.5 IPS are without scratches, clicks and pops but yes with higher hiss, reduced dynamic range and an absurd way of recording on four narrow tracks two sides A & B as on vinyl. Unnecessary because it is possible to put the whole recording in just one side of the tape and with much better sound at 2 tracks and easier to handle. These complications and the advent of the audio cassette much easier to handle, less expensive and perfect for car-audio were the killers of R2R the most promising format for a real HI Fi reproduction. Now some audio companies are trying a reborn of R2R with very high quality copies in two tracks and at 15 ips and those are like replicas of the original analog master tapes. Unfortunately there is a shortage of titles and expensive as the new recording machines. So Hi End Audio is only for very rich people, not for audiophiles. Meanwhile we are hearing not a really Hi End Audio reproduction, some like you without the annoying noises of vinyl and others with clicks and pops but with a more natural sound with the full convey of the emotion of music. I think there is not a theme of semantics. As I said many times, Hi-End Audio is a whole made of several parts and if only one part is poor or bad the sound of the whole system is poor or bad. In this case the bad part are the current formats. Well, happy listening of recorded music, to all of us, as much as we can until now. I include some information about R2R: First the great piece of engineering, the Studer 820: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--lcYBHA6zLY.html And these other sites: tapeproject.com/ I recommend starting with Why Tape? www.theverge.com/2015/10/5/9409563/reel-to-reel-tape-retro-audio-trend www.chartattack.com/news/2016/01/21/after-the-vinyl-and-cassette-revolutions-is-reel-to-reel-next/ www.analogarts.net/ www.metv.com/stories/move-over-vinyl-reel-to-reel-tape-is-on-the-comeback
That was awesome. You have credibility because you are obviously a music lover AND you like good equipment...that's a nice turntable in the background. But I do disagree somewhat... high end audio does exist relative to bad audio. Live music will always be the benchmark and relative to that, yes...high end audio does not exist.
Only 1.6% of people tested can correctly pick 6 out of 6 songs in the uncompressed WAV file format versus a compressed 320 kbps and 128 kbps file when all three three are juxtaposed for their comparison: and with no time limit for the test. 4.5% can pick 5/6 songs correctly.
couldnt agree more,,,its like being in theather listenin orchestar,,,,and then go home and listen it on wav,or flac format,,,no mather what quality of digital format,what mics,plugins,equipment,,,there is no emotion,,,i played a lot of time on acusstic instruments,,,really beautifull songs ,,,and people cried like river flows,,,,, merry xmas by the way,,great video
High End music doesn't exist if you use a cheap turntable like it could be seen behind you(VPI) probably with cheap MM pick up like Blue Perl or something like that. H-End doesn't exist if you use a cheap CD player and listening to music in this kinda room you are in. My condolences for you and your attitude.
The Scout is my second turntable and I am not using it now. But tell me please if the $185,000.00 Clear Audio Statement turntable with their Clearaudio Goldfinger Statement Phono Cartridge totally eliminates the scratches, pops and clicks from the vinyl records? I am sure that those will be more notable and “pleasant”: Deeper pops with more slam, clicks perfectly focused and scratches with more detail and resolution. Great! Best regards
1. High end audio does exist if you know what makes music emotional and evolving. 2. Digital has its limitations but has evolved dramaticaly. 3.Turntables are the way to music bliss, but you need to invest a ''high end'' ammount of money to match todays dacs. 4.Listening to music with shity equipement and loving it is only a romantic fact, we all have felt it before but hadn't known high end audio. Listening the same music with a high end audio system is an entirely differed experience, plus your ears dont hurt. 5.In a good audio system, not ultra expencive, even mp3 can sound decent.
+vagomaniac As I said many times, Hi-End is a whole made of several parts and if only one part is poor or bad the sound of the whole system is poor and/or bad. Listen to music with the annoying scratches, clicks and pops cannot be a Hi-End or Hi-Fi reproduction, even with the best equipment.. Now if the Compact Disc would be better than vinyl, 30 years ago this format had disappeared as the Audio Cassette, even the 24 bit DVD-Audio and SACD are dead. Instead the sales of vinyl records, turntables, cartridges, etc. are increasing year by year worldwide and this is because the analog format can convey the full emotion and soul of music and many people prefer it even with pops and clicks, than the clean and cold sound of digital formats. As better is the equipment, the flaws of the actual formats are more evident. For me a true Hi-End format must be a replica of the original analog master tapes and the current formats are far from that. Maybe this link could be interesting for you: tapeproject.com/
I agree with Sorin below. When attending live music, there is all kinds of ambient noise. People coughing, fans blowing, musicians moving instruments about. When a musician plays the flute you never hear the pure sound of the flute, but also the noise of the breath being blown across pipe. Same with a plucked Double Bass or Harpsichord - you can hear the pluck. Digital which seemingly has absolute quiet in places doesn't seem quite right to me and can actually make me a little edgy at times. :)
Thanks for your comment. Nobody hears scratches, clicks, pops and rumble in a live concert. This is the point, the additional noise present in vinyl records. By other way, recording studios are insulated of outside noise. Engineers try to reduce all the noise that is not intrinsic in the expression of music and definitely wanted to eliminate the annoying noise of vinyl records, that is the principal reason of the invention of CD format. Best regards.
It's funny, but I've heard records without pops, clicks and scratches. They left me with goose bumps. I've also heard classic music played through cheap single driver speakers that was very pleasant.
I can not totally disagree with your premise but the term "High End" is just the highest level of what is currently available. A high end car from the 1950's can not compete with a high end car of today but it was the best they could do with the available technology. "Perfect" audio reproduction is an impossibility, just enjoy the pursuit.
+David Williams Even if you own the best audio system of the world, listen to music with scratches, clicks and pops cannot be a Hi End performance. Considers that those annoying noises are present only in the vinyl format, they are not in the original master tapes which are also not "perfect". Listen to a clean digital source that cannot convey the full emotion of the music as the vinyl and analog master tapes, cannot be a Hi End performance either. You can own a Ferrari but if it is filled with gasoline of bad quality or even contaminated with some portion of water, the car is Hi End but the performance not. To me because I listen to them, direct magnetic tape copies at 15 ips and 2 tracks from the original analog master tapes, is the only format that until today can deserve the name of Hi End Audio. Maybe would be interesting to you, this site: tapeproject.com/ Thanks for your comment and best regards.
Get a job. A real job that you must sweat to perform. You will understand life and not the non-sense of this kind of knowledge/Nonsense. Crazy stuff made by crazy audiophiles.
I am a electronic engineer. And become so because I love music and building audio equipment. I play records and cd. When your CD does not sound good. Then you have a poor source (recording) or your DAC is poor performing. I do second that the source is very important. Equipment is also very important. The way people enjoy music is very personal. So emotion can be caused by text of a song memories that go with th music or a good reproduction from your equipment. So what I say nothing wrong with a good cd recording, nothing wrong with good vinyl most important enjoy music. And I would advise to you buy a nice 24bit dac on ebay improve your set for cd.
Have you considered or tried loss-less audio formats. The problem your having with Cd's is the compression and bit rate. With loss-less formats there is minimal if any compression and the bit-rate can go as high as necessary to accurately reproduce the entire audible frequency range and then some. If you can find loss-less audio files taken from the master recording, then, the only limitation is the system and the environment,(room acoustics). You will need a decent computer and a fast and accurate DAC . My philosophy is to put as little equipment as possible between the original recording and my ears, giving less chance for colouration of the music. Therefore I run my DAC straight into class A amplifiers, with decent interconnects, then straight to a set of Martin Logans through a pretty hefty set of bi-amped speaker wires. Not sure of your music tastes but a on good copy of say Diana Krall, off the top of my head, you can literally hear the saliva in her mouth when she moves her lips. It's really like sitting in the studio critiquing the final mix. If it still doesn't sound good it's the engineers fault for mixing wrong and even that can be objective. Hope this helps. I agree with all the flaws you mentioned but i think you may be surprised at how far dijitter audio has come. ;)
A friend of mine will come soon to my home with his high quality lap-top, Hi-Res audio files (some of them that I have in vinyl and reel tape formats to make a comparison) and his last generation digital to analog converter. Anyway here is more of what I think about the digital sound. The XRCD format has 16 bit like any CD, but comes from a 24 bit special cared tape that has a remarkable reduction of jitter in every stage of the recording process. The difference in favor of the XRCD against the CD of the same analog recording is quite notable. Obviously the 24 bit master tape with four times more information than the XRCD would sound better and the original analog tapes without jitter and other digital artifacts must sound even much better. Now if you want to translate for instance a book in English to Spanish some things are going to change and if this book in Spanish is translated again by other person to English, there will be a quite different text than the original. Digital and analog are different languages. The conversion of analog to digital and then to analog again it never will be exact and I think this is the main problem. Anyway, listening and compare the Hi-Res files with my analog reel tapes and vinyl records, I am sure it will be very interesting. Thanks for your comment and best regards
The best and brightest audio engineers developed CDs in consortiums of interested parties seeking the theoretical limits of human audio perception, and the digital encoding provided sufficient information across the 20-20,000 range known to be the boundaries of normal ear capabilites and beyond. Encoding and decoding back to analogue, where electrical waveforms are again sent through speaker wires to generate the nearest thing to perfect reproduction, without corruption or deterioration, pretty much either occurs perfectly, or not at all, where error correction algorithms and buffers work to overcome defects with no audible aftereffects, unlike pops, hiss, scratches, rumble, etc. from vinyl. There is no more digital zeros and ones somehow appearing in the sounds themselves, than there are Aurora Borealis lights hovering over magnetic tapes as they play. Direct analog disappeared as soon as Edison moved past wax cylinders being gouged by needles attached to diaphragms in the ends of gigantic room-sized horns, circa 1895. Every format is imperfect, but each technological development overall (poor recording quality aside) has diminished the perceptible distinctions to where modern audio can trick the best ears. It just can't convince the obstinate.
Let´s see some facts: Compact Disc's superiority to Vinyl in a number of sonic parameters are precision, outer detail, speed stability, dynamic range, channel separation which means better soundstage, up to 80 minutes of continuous music, no noise floor, scratches, clicks and pops; no record wear, no harm of the laser to the disc, no coloration by acoustic reflections and vibrations, easy to handle, play, clean and store; and without the necessity of adjustments on the pick-up system. Unfortunately, it also subtracts those aspects of the sound which are the vital essence of music; ie convey of individuality and emotions. That is why Digital is more intellectually than emotionally satisfying. This is especially true for those who are very familiar with excellent analog sound. Now, if Digital would be better in ALL parameters the noisy, impractical and anachronistic Vinyl had disappeared more than 35 years ago, but it is very alive with increasing sales year by year worldwide and this is because the analog format can convey ALL the emotion of music and many people prefer it even with pops and clicks, than the clean but less emotive sound of the digital formats. The Compact Disc, the most extended in the world, with 16 bits has around four times less information than the master tapes, the vinyl and the 24 bits SACD, DVD-Audio and most HiRez files. There is no a CD player, regardless the price, that can include the information that was not recorded originally. Obviously with such limitation cannot be a true Hi End Audio and it reproduction is less natural and emotive than the analog formats. Also the two superior 24 bit DVD Audio and SACD are disappeared and for something would be. The digital HiRez formats are “analog-like”, their slogan. That automatically confirms the superiority of analog sound which is the reference. But how much “analog-like” are those files? Nobody knows because there is no standard or measure to determine that. More subjective and ambiguous cannot be this “analog-like” term. A sound engineer told me this several years ago: “Digital and Analog Audio are two different languages. For instance, if you give a book in English even to the best translator to make it in Spanish and after that, give this version to other great translator to make it in English, you will find that this book is different to the original with changes in words, grammar and even concepts. The conversion of analog to digital introduces several changes and anomalies that cannot be totally eliminated in the digital to analog reconstruction.” Interesting is that the most recent format is the old “new” Reel to Reel or R2R of high quality, recorded almost directly from the original analog master tapes, which are not perfect also, at two tracks and a high speed of 15 ips. These are almost identical copies to the originals and of course with an authentic analog sound. As many things in audio the old technologies are better than the new ones. Here are some sites about R2R: tapeproject.com/why-tape/ The entire site: tapeproject.com/ www.theverge.com/2015/10/5/9409563/reel-to-reel-tape-retro-audio-trend jazztimes.com/reviews/audio-files/reel-to-reel-audiophile/ maramachines.com/machines/ hometheaterhifi.com/editorial/reel-reel-recorders-resurgence/ theaudiophileman.com/metaxas-sins-reel-tape-recorder-news/ robbreport.com/gear/audio/the-most-expensive-music-in-the-world-is-recorded-mediums-not-expect-eg17-2745182/ The remarkable piece of engineering the Studer A820 in their three versions: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--lcYBHA6zLY.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jtidyF3X1ns.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-HuJ9yNFVIFM.html And other titles in Elusive Disc: audiophile.elusivedisc.com/search?p=KK&srid=S2-2DFWP&lbc=elusivedisc&ts=custom&pw=reel%20to%20reel&uid=77233113&isort=score&view=grid&w=Reel%20To%20Reel%20Tape&rk=2
Sorry for late comment, but this popped up in my RU-vid stream now and I just have to address a couple of things. The problem I have with your "problems" is that 1. A loudspeaker induces much more distortion than any other part of a system. I see you have high end electrostats, so less problems, but still loudspeakers introduce the most distortion etc in the whole sound chain. 2. You have tube amps. If you don't like distortion, you should throw them far away (or sell them) and buy some good solid-state amps. You might feel that they sound better, and I'm sure for you they do, but the three things tube amps do are looking extremely cool, produce heat and affect the sound. To quote someone else on this: "There is nothing in audio electronics that cannot be done better with solid-state devices than vacuum tubes…. Yes, there exists some very nice tube equipment, but the solid-state stuff is better, cheaper, and more reliable."
I still have an Audio Research D200 Solid State amplifier that was connected before to my electrostatic panels. I found somewhere that the ASL “Hurricanes” are probably the best match for my speakers, so I bought them used in excellent condition and believe me, with these the bass are more strong and deep and are less brilliant than the ARC, I think because the very low impedance of the panels. This amplifier in conventional speakers sounds great and very well balanced. But on my panels the “Hurricanes” sound more natural, balanced and perfect for acoustic Jazz music that is my favorite. I do not change my monoblocks for any others. Thanks for your comment.
Just a question. How many high-end turntables have you tested that sounds like you describe? If the matter recalls on the source, like you said, on a vinyl that is exposed to scratches or misusing of cartridges and nails because of a bad callibration, why you deny the terminology of High-End? High End exists. When the quality is bigger, the noise and jitter gets more exposed and totally nude. But with mean, the sinergy and the research of the right pieces of gear, along side with a good game of cables, that noises reduces dramatically and the music takes all the scene. It´s not a deal of spending some big bunch of bucks. It´s about research and criteria. And I totally agreed with you that Music is the star of the cast, wherever you listen to it, but preferably on vinyl and trying to avoid some disgusting digital and chessed formats. My respects. Just an opinion...
+menysec Obviously in every turntable the scratches, clicks and pops are present. I own a special edition VPI/Denon DP-75 mounted in a very heavy plinth, about 30 pounds over a spring suspension that is in a wood base with spikes too. The total weight of my turntable is about 60 pounds. My floor is of concrete and there is no feedback in even at loud levels. This model has a direct drive high torque motor, a heavy plate and I place on it an Achromat. The arm is a Lustre GST 801 and is in sound like the Linn Ittok. The cartridge (MC) is a special edition Denon 103SA (only 2,000 pieces) and competes with others that cost 3 or 4 times more. This device is properly adjusted in overhang using an excellent protractor and the weight using for more accuracy the Shure gauge. For anti skating force, I use a blank disc and the Hi Fi News test record and both also for azimuth. The Lustre arm has a fine height adjustment, so is easy to play different thick records with accuracy. I also have a VPI HW 16.5 record cleaning and I use enzymatic fluid with a brush with fine bristles and for dry cleaning on the vinyl, a fiber carbon brush. After hearing many phono cables, an Audio Quest Emerald is the one that give me the natural, neutral and detailed sound I like and makes synergy with the others. My preamp is an Audio Research SP9 III with a remarkable and famous phono stage. I own almost a thousand vinyl albums and many of them at the time that vinyl was recycled on new records with inherent noises from factory. The rest of my equipment is a pair of an improved ASL “Hurricane” 200 watt tube monoblocks in triode (100 watts) operation, and a pair of martin Logan CLS ZII pure electrostatic panels. For digital a MHZS CD player that has the famous CS4398 digital to analog converter and a Technics 1506 open reel tape almost professional recorder. All the other cables are made by me using four nines pure silver conductors from Duelund and DH Labs. A good rack and spikes under the equipment and other things like an AC line conditioner, etc. My friends swear that the musicians are “there” in my listening room, but that illusion is broken when a “click or pop” appears on the music. Only a few original and buck-up professional copies in reel tape format that I have, deserve the name of Hi End Audio and also they are not perfect but definitely superior to the current formats. Thanks for your comments and best regards.
Jitter is inherent in oversampling aka high speed digital systems with digital filters. They are actually obsolete, in this day and age and prevail only due to their low cost, not to mention they are fundamentally flawed if the filter is programmed linear phase (the whole point of the method). They are cheaper than true linear n-bit current weighing devices. Although they can can pull off 124dB of silence, where as CWD cant do much more than 17.5bit at 192khz via a 20bit device, Its important to remember following for context: 1. Reel to Reel is the benchmark medium. It wasnt much better than 72dB = 14bit. Did I say 14bit? 24 bit+ is only desirable for processing, its overkill but due to the nature of floating point arithmetic, that needed to be doubled to compete wit integer in terms of precision. double float is 53bit whilst double int is 64bit, go figure. Marketing, sale, numbers. 2. We can hear 20dB into/below noise in the most sensitive region of hearing, this is because noise is usually an averaged measurement, which is why older mediums might measure bad but sound not that bad afterall. Welcome to capitalism. For recording and playback of effects in studio via 17bit CWDs are more than enough, as was the case in the old tape/sampler days leading upto 1997, which was the last time a sampler had CWD, due to the ever increasing needless obsession with bit depth. For transmission 17bit+ is desirable to maintain the artists products, so that its delivered and heard as intended. Theres very little playback equipment can do enhance the signal. Do not fall for it. Its up to artists and engineers to ensure quality recording. In an age where recording technology is widely accessible to non professionals and quality ever increasingly rare, good luck with that. The stark realization that only music issued on LP before 1987 is worthy of titl hifi, with the year 2000 at a push if one researches how it was recorded (i,e, reel to reel straight into HDCD, which do exist but in smaller numbers).
A few years ago an audio engineer told me this: “If you have a book in English and you give it to the best translator to write it in Spanish and then give it to another real good translator to make it again in English and compare it with the original version, you will find many changes in words, grammar and even concepts. Vinyl and digital are two completely different languages that will have several changes, missed things and other added that were not in the original analog source, after the conversion Analog to Digital and then to Analog again. He said: It is impossible to have an identical analog sound than the original, after the digital conversions”. For instance, a back-up copy of an original analog master tape is accurate because it is made with exactly the same language. I think also that the digital formats have too much processing and in my opinion in audio as simple is the thing, it is better. I think you saw these links but anyway I include them again: tapeproject.com/ I recommend starting with “Why Tape?” These are two paragraphs of the first answer: “Most people have not had the experience of hearing studio master tapes. Many formats have been introduced with the promise of bringing master tape sound into the home listening room. Yeah, right. We don’t expect that this tape project will replace any of your other favorite formats, so we see no need to dwell on the drawbacks of any other format. Suffice it to say that we don’t offer an “analog-like” listening experience. We are offering a chance to have in your own listening room an actual analog listening experience as close to the original master tape as practical.” I recommend reading all, including the IEC EQ, the 1-1/2 generation copies, about the prices of the tapes and of course, the entire page and site. I do not know what is the signal-to-noise ratio of the IEC EQ is, but the tape project people say it's better than Dolby B and DBX and I think also these noise reduction systems have also to much processing. This link is very interesting: www.theverge.com/2015/10/5/9409563/reel-to-reel-tape-retro-audio-trend This is an abstract: “Like string theory, audiophile subculture is complex and defined by unresolved questions. Is an insanely expensive cable really better than an outrageously expensive cable? Do tube amps trump solid-state amps? Horn, electrostatic, or ribbon hybrid speakers? What about Kind of Blue - mono or stereo? Each position can be defended or attacked with various specs, waveform graphs, and double blind listening tests. One question, however, has been resolved: tape or vinyl? Even the most dubious critics find no ambiguity here. The verdict: tape sounds better than vinyl. What makes tape such a smart choice? For starters, it has greater dynamic range than vinyl, with extraordinary sound at the frequency extremes: the treble and bass. Next, consider the amount of signal processing that each medium requires. Vinyl: a lot. Tape: very little. Signal processing is the enemy of hi-fidelity. The less studio voodoo the master tape (MT) is subjected to, the better. It helps to understand how vinyl and tape albums are manufactured. To make a record, the MT signal must be compressed to match the dynamic limits of vinyl. Some of the highs and lows are slashed in the bargain. All the other audio tricks needed to shoehorn a signal into those tiny grooves compromises the signal even more. Dubbing 1/4-inch tapes is a much simpler task. With no need to squeeze or tweak the original signal, it can be transferred from the MT relatively unscathed. Then there’s the dicey issue of playback. With turntables, all sorts of mechanical foibles - rumble, skips, speed stability, inner groove distortion, etcetera - can further degrade the signal. In contrast, R2R is an exercise in simplicity. The only moving part at the point of signal retrieval is the tape, which travels in a straight line across a stationary playback head. Efficiency equals fidelity. Vinyl fans may scoff at The Tape Project’s steep prices, but when licensing fees, production time (3.5 hours per album), and materials ($150 just for the blank tape) are factored into the equation, $450 seems almost reasonable to hear Lee Morgan’s trumpet riffs on The Sidewinder just as recording engineer Rudy Van Gelder heard them over half a century ago in his New Jersey studio. Incidentally, a Lee Morgan trumpet riff on tape doesn’t just sound better than a Lee Morgan trumpet riff on vinyl. It sounds better than a Lee Morgan trumpet riff on any audio format: CD, SACD, Pure Audio Blu-Ray, even Neil Young’s crazy 24-bit/192 kHZ hi-res files that take forever to download. The company catalog includes 27 other albums, with more on the way. Some audio critics claim this is the highest fidelity ever captured on 1/4-inch tape. That may be so, considering that each album is a first-generation copy dubbed in real time, at a leisurely 30 ips, directly from the original master tape. There is no mixing or remastering involved. In essence, this is the master tape. It doesn’t get any better than this. Better is live at Carnegie Hall.” More sites about R2R www.chartattack.com/news/2016/01/21/after-the-vinyl-and-cassette-revolutions-is-reel-to-reel-next/ www.horchhouse.com/home-1-1-2-1-1-1-1-1-2-1 www.gearnews.com/revox-new-r2r-tape-machine-set-arrive-next-year/ (Interesting that the price of the R2R Revox player it could be less than a medium priced "Hi End" turntable, cartridge and a phono preamplifier or a HQ CD reproducer). www.metv.com/stories/move-over-vinyl-reel-to-reel-tape-is-on-the-comeback And the remarkable piece of engineering the Studer A820 in their three versions: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--lcYBHA6zLY.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jtidyF3X1ns.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-HuJ9yNFVIFM.html
I'm just gonna agree. Anoiselog and Dijitter. Those are the choices. I guess I'm forced into dijitter. Thanks for new coined terms I'll be using likely for a long time.
Thankfully human hearing is limited enough that your complaints about digital audio are invalid. So long as timing is quantized in such a way that the human ear cannot perceive the difference in frequency created by jitter, jitter is not relevant. If we are making audio for dogs, then we can talk about trying to reduce jitter. I also reject the claim that time in nature is not quantized. That is difficult, if not impossible to prove. However, if we are correct about the brain being a very complex computer than it is almost certainly true that our experience of the external (and indeed internal) world is quantized in some way. As far as we know a computing device will always be in a finite number of states. It therefore cannot work on an infinite range of data which is what would be required for the potentially infinite range of inputs to matter. Everything that is firmly established in audio science says that you are mistaken about jitter. Where sound science has nothing to say we move into the realm of quantum physics and neuroscience. Do you understand either of those things to a degree which permits you to make claims about them which run counter to what is commonly held by experts? In all probability there are less than 10,000 people in the world who do. I would be unsurprised ot learn that it was less than 1000. Of course I pulled those numbers out of an orifice, but whatever you want to say the number pales in comparison to the population of the internet.
Hi End manufacturers agree that jitter is a major flaw to be reduced as much as possible, because it cannot be deleted. Any audio aficionado knows that as the reduction is higher, the better the sound. But not only is important jitter reduction on digital players and DACs, but maybe even more in the digital recording process. JVC invented the XRCD format in which jitter is reduced at maximum, step by step on a 24 bits mastering tape. After that, it is converted (reduced) to 16 bits, to be played in any conventional CD player: www.elusivedisc.com/xrcd24digprocess.pdf Obviously the digital master tape with four times more information, sounds better than their little children, the 16 bits discs and the original ANALOG master tape without any type of conversion, sounds even better than her digital 24 bits daughter. Most people have not had the experience of hearing studio master tapes. Many formats have been introduced with the promise of bringing master tape sound into the home listening room. That is not true, I know this because I own a Technics RS 1506 almost professional tape deck, some original master tapes and back-up copies and the sound is highly superior even at first hearing, over to any other existing format. More information on: tapeproject.com/why-tape/ I recommend to start with “Why Tape?
High End Audio EXIST ... it's a terme to describe a soud system tha is able to play the lowest sound(7hz for some or 16hz) and the highest one with a flat respond ... thats it
Everything is relative. I see your logic, but my definition of "High End Audio" is the best reproduction of recorded music that is available for the money I have to spend. Recording of music will certainly never be perfect. Aside from all of that, the idea that we emit the same signal from two different sources is a problem to begin with. No where in nature does this occur. So if you are a black and white person then I agree...but we can only work with what we have.
I am not seeking for a “perfect or pure sound”, since that is impossible in audio. I am not a black and white person. The point is about the current formats that are not true Hi End. Hi-End Audio is a whole made of several parts and if only one part is poor or bad the sound of the whole system is poor or bad. No one with common sense can say that listening to music with scratches, clicks and pops can be a true HI End Audio reproduction, even with the best equipment in the world. It is important to note that these noises are only on the vinyl format. It not in the original analog master tapes, not in the other formats and of course not in live performances, so what the term High Fidelity means, is not for the anachronistic vinyl because scratches, clicks and pops are faithful to nothing, unless if the audience was allowed to eat potato chips in a concert. The Compact Disc has around four times less information than the master tapes, the vinyl and the 24 bits SACD, DVD-Audio and most Hi-Rez files. There is no a CD player, regardless the price, that can include the information that was not recorded originally. Obviously with such limitation cannot be a true Hi End format. But the Compact Disc's superiority to Vinyl in a number of sonic parameters are precision, outer detail, speed stability, dynamic range, channel separation which means better soundstage, up to 80 minutes of continuous recorded music, no noise floor, scratches, clicks and pops; no record wear, no harm of the laser to the disc, no coloration by acoustic reflections and vibrations, easy to handle, play, clean and store; and without the necessity of adjustments on the pick-up system. Unfortunately, it also subtracts those aspects of the sound which are the vital essence of music; ie convey of individuality and emotions. That is why Digital is more intellectually than emotionally satisfying. This is especially true for those who are very familiar with excellent analog sound. Now, if the Compact Disc would be better in ALL parameters the noisy, impractical and anachronistic Vinyl had disappeared more than 30 years ago, but it is very alive with increasing sales year by year worldwide and this is because the analog format can convey ALL the emotion and “soul” of music and many people prefer it even with pops and clicks*, than the clean but less emotive sound of the digital formats. *For me, only one single click and/or pop is enough to say than the vinyl is not HI End Audio. Now take in mind that those who disappeared were the two modern and “superior” 24 bit formats, DVD Audio and SACD. So, something is wrong with digital audio. The new Hi-Rez formats are “analog-like”, their slogan. That automatically confirms the superiority of analog sound which is the reference. But how much “analog-like” are those files? Nobody knows because there is no standard or measure to determine that. More subjective and ambiguous cannot be this “analog-like” term. Therefore, the current formats are limited, corrupted and away from the original master analog tapes that are far from perfection, but unquestionably superior to vinyl and digital. A true Hi End format at least, must be a replica of those masters and so far only the high quality Reel to Reel tapes can be extremely close to them and of course with an authentic 100% pure analog sound. Because I own some original master tapes and a few back-up copies, I know the huge difference between them and any other format. By the way, the so called Hi End Audio is only for very rich persons not, for audiophiles. Those want to have the most expensive things in the world that most people cannot reach. They even not are true lovers of music. More information about The “new” R2R format in tapeproject.com/ I recommend starting with “Why Tape?” And www.theverge.com/2015/10/5/9409563/reel-to-reel-tape-retro-audio-trend www.chartattack.com/news/2016/01/21/after-the-vinyl-and-cassette-revolutions-is-reel-to-reel-next/ www.analogarts.net/ horchhouse.com/project-r2r/ www.gearnews.com/revox-new-r2r-tape-machine-set-arrive-next-year/ www.metv.com/stories/move-over-vinyl-reel-to-reel-tape-is-on-the-comeback And the remarkable piece of engendering the Studer A820 in their three versions: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--lcYBHA6zLY.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jtidyF3X1ns.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-HuJ9yNFVIFM.html
It's scary. I am an audiophile. I look like Alfonzo, I have a drumset in my music room which I play to recordings and I agree with him. It's a trade off that you don't get with love music.
Yes, frustrating, but I love my little humble system just the same. life is not perfect. Listening to music, for me, is a fun form of meditation. I consider "myself" to be the weakest link in the audio chain. The better I focus, the better it sounds. try not get hung up on "perfect" it takes the fun out of it. Thanks for the video and have fun!
The great thing is the invention of recording sound, more than a century ago. My critic is about the obscene extremely high cost of the so called Hi-End Audio that is quite limited especially in their source formats. Enjoying recorded music with not expensive audio gear is really great and clever. Best regards
With all due respect, you are missing the point here. People dont buy $15,000 audio systems to listen to music. They buy $15,000 audio systems to show how much better they are than the other guys in their gated neighborhoods...
+ColoradoStreaming Yes, I think that more and more people do what you are exposing. Now to have a expensive turntable and buy vinyl records means to be in a higher status. Before was with a new car, etc. Thanks for your comment.
So....care to offer any substitutions or options? Kinda hard to get performers to play in your listening room all the time. Especially the dead ones. Maybe just use MP3 for convenience?
Maybe these sites can help: tapeproject.com/ I recommend starting with “Why Tape?” These are two paragraphs of the first answer: “Most people have not had the experience of hearing studio master tapes. Many formats have been introduced with the promise of bringing master tape sound into the home listening room. Yeah, right. We don’t expect that this tape project will replace any of your other favorite formats, so we see no need to dwell on the drawbacks of any other format. Suffice it to say that we don’t offer an “analog-like” listening experience. We are offering a chance to have in your own listening room an actual analog listening experience as close to the original master tape as practical.” I recommend reading all, including the IEC EQ, the 1-1/2 generation copies, about the prices of the tapes and of course, the entire page and site. www.theverge.com/2015/10/5/9409563/reel-to-reel-tape-retro-audio-trend This is an abstract: “Like string theory, audiophile subculture is complex and defined by unresolved questions. Is an insanely expensive cable really better than an outrageously expensive cable? Do tube amps trump solid-state amps? Horn, electrostatic, or ribbon hybrid speakers? What about Kind of Blue - mono or stereo? Each position can be defended or attacked with various specs, waveform graphs, and double blind listening tests. One question, however, has been resolved: tape or vinyl? Even the most dubious critics find no ambiguity here. The verdict: tape sounds better than vinyl. What makes tape such a smart choice? For starters, it has greater dynamic range than vinyl, with extraordinary sound at the frequency extremes: the treble and bass. Next, consider the amount of signal processing that each medium requires. Vinyl: a lot. Tape: very little. Signal processing is the enemy of hi-fidelity. The less studio voodoo the master tape (MT) is subjected to, the better. It helps to understand how vinyl and tape albums are manufactured. To make a record, the MT signal must be compressed to match the dynamic limits of vinyl. Some of the highs and lows are slashed in the bargain. All the other audio tricks needed to shoehorn a signal into those tiny grooves compromises the signal even more. Dubbing 1/4-inch tapes is a much simpler task. With no need to squeeze or tweak the original signal, it can be transferred from the MT relatively unscathed. Then there’s the dicey issue of playback. With turntables, all sorts of mechanical foibles - rumble, skips, speed stability, inner groove distortion, etcetera - can further degrade the signal. In contrast, R2R is an exercise in simplicity. The only moving part at the point of signal retrieval is the tape, which travels in a straight line across a stationary playback head. Efficiency equals fidelity. Vinyl fans may scoff at The Tape Project’s steep prices, but when licensing fees, production time (3.5 hours per album), and materials ($150 just for the blank tape) are factored into the equation, $450 seems almost reasonable to hear Lee Morgan’s trumpet riffs on The Sidewinder just as recording engineer Rudy Van Gelder heard them over half a century ago in his New Jersey studio. Incidentally, a Lee Morgan trumpet riff on tape doesn’t just sound better than a Lee Morgan trumpet riff on vinyl. It sounds better than a Lee Morgan trumpet riff on any audio format: CD, SACD, Pure Audio Blu-Ray, even Neil Young’s crazy 24-bit/192 kHZ hi-res files that take forever to download. The company catalog includes 27 other albums, with more on the way. Some audio critics claim this is the highest fidelity ever captured on 1/4-inch tape. That may be so, considering that each album is a first-generation copy dubbed in real time, at a leisurely 30 ips, directly from the original master tape. There is no mixing or remastering involved. In essence, this is the master tape. It doesn’t get any better than this. Better is live at Carnegie Hall.” More sites about R2R www.chartattack.com/news/2016/01/21/after-the-vinyl-and-cassette-revolutions-is-reel-to-reel-next/ www.horchhouse.com/home-1-1-2-1-1-1-1-1-2-1 www.gearnews.com/revox-new-r2r-tape-machine-set-arrive-next-year/ (Interesting that the price of the R2R Revox player it could be less than a medium priced "Hi End" turntable, cartridge and a phono preamplifier or a HQ CD reproducer). www.metv.com/stories/move-over-vinyl-reel-to-reel-tape-is-on-the-comeback And the remarkable piece of engineering the Studer A820 in their three versions: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--lcYBHA6zLY.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jtidyF3X1ns.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-HuJ9yNFVIFM.html
Well I was going to write you off as a quack, but after listening to your whole explanation, I will say I strongly disagree with the analog side of your description. High End Audio is High quality music reproduction, and most do not find the noise from records to be a big issue as you do. Granted Ticks and pops can be annoying, but I have thousands of records and I rarely here a tick or pop from my records. Of course I only buy mint records, but to say it does not exist is not true. I will agree with you on digital, it does not have the musicality and emotional connection to the music as analog does. Digital is simply limited and in my opinion always will, as it will always be a sample and not a true reproduction of the original wave form. imagine painting a picture one with brush strokes like that of analog and one of dots representing digital. You will never get a picture painted with dots to looks like one made with brush strokes. Sure it may fool you but will never be a true recreation of the original wave form. Analog is King and we still have not reached the limits of what we can pull out of a analog record. But to say high end audio does not exist, explain that to all my hundreds of customers who absolutely love their music systems, and call me to tell me about the latest record they have discovered and how wonderful it sounds.
Thanks for your comment. If you have thousands of vinyl records without ticks and pops, tell us where you found them. More or less annoying scratches, ticks and pops are indissoluble part of the vinyl records. This is a fact and many people all over the world know that. Please see all the defects of this format including non virgin vinyl, orange peel and others in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramophone_record. It is not necessary to read all the text from the beginning. You can start in “Vinyl quality” Thanks again and best regards
This philosophy has become obsolete after DSD and MQA showed up, though even SACD and hi-res formats still represent a reference lelel, if you listen then on great gear. Every single piece of the system does matter! ...somehow analog tape records missed here, that currently user in MQA refinery. Better liste once than read thrice!
+Sergey Bikov Jitter is one of the main issues of digital sound. Far as I know, Hi-Res files get jitter over the long haul (sometimes thousands of miles) that you receive on your computer from the store. Also the rotation of the hard disc, voltage variations, the non high grade circuitry of the PC and the USB or HDMI cable gets jitter also. Something I learned is that reduction of jitter is very important. I own several XRCDs that play in any commercial or high quality CD reproducer. Their sound is similar but not identical to the vinyl and much better than conventional CDs. This is because jitter is reduced at the maximum in every step of the process to make the digital master tape at 24 bit, even using hyper sine regulators in each machine: www.elusivedisc.com/xrcdinfo.asp www.elusivedisc.com/xrcd24digprocess.pdf Some people say that these digital discs are even better than SACD that has not such jitter reduction in the mastering process. DSD files in the best cases come from the 24/96 digital master tapes originally for SACD and without a big jitter reduction as XRCD. I don't know how many titles are in the MQA format born in 2014, I think only a few until today and is very difficult that this format grow. Also the Hi-Res files does not have a standard and for this reason is an endless story great for keeping audiophiles dissatisfied to sell more and more files with higher resolutions and DACs capable of playing them and / or with new improvements like the Asahi Kasei chipsets with “velvet sound” or the possibility to convert PCM to DSD files, all to give a promise of an increasingly “almost analog sound” www.teac.com/product/nt-503/ So, DACs (almost all at this time) without these upgrades and the capability to reproduce the highest resolution files, regardless of price, are now outdated. And I'm sure that always Hi-Res files and DACs will never give a completely analog sound even if possible, because then the business would end, but vinyl is purely* Analog and can play on any old or new turntable regardless the price, but with some or many clicks, pops and / or scratches. And that's the trap! * Even worse it is that many new LPs come from digital master tapes such as those of Sony Records and many others from CDs. If the LPs are not from the original analog master tapes, then we have the worst of both worlds. Thanks for your comment.
then, small and ordinary audio systems dont even have the slightest chance??!! your explanations dont at all justify that hi end audio dont exist... Just like when you say that binary information cannot convey the emotion!! total nonesense. The emotions are imbedded in the lines of the music and in the composition. If we follow your logic, neither can an MC do so. Then i did have intense emotions with both CD and LP, how do you explain that? I think you are just making a theory for the sake of it. I say, for having heard, that you can make a good sound system, in a good room, sound even better than most concerts!! I dont represent any audio make here, it's just that it does exist, like hires images, like making better food at home than at restaurants, like a painting, which has only two dimensions and is as far can be of reality, can stir you up. I can give many more metaphores, but you do get the point i guess. It exists, just as the equipment exists, and the tens of thousands of people that buy them are not all stupid fools..
As I said many times, Hi-End is a whole made of several parts and if only one part is poor or bad the sound of the whole system is poor or bad. No one with common sense can say that listening to music with scratches, clicks and pops can be a true HI End audio reproduction, even with the best equipment in the world. It is important to keep in mind that these noises are only in the vinyl format. It not in the original analog master tapes, not in the other formats and of course not in live performances, so what the term High Fidelity means, is not for the anachronistic vinyl because scratches, clicks and pops are faithful to nothing. Unless if the audience was allowed to eat potato chips at concerts. Digital's superiority to Vinyl in a number of sonic parameters are precision, outer detail, speed stability, dynamic range, channel separation which means better soundstage, up to 74 minutes of continuous music, no noise floor, no record wear, no harm of the laser to the disc, no coloration by acoustic reflections and vibrations, easy to handle, play, clean and store; and without the necessity of adjustments on the pick-up system. Unfortunately, it also subtracts those aspects of the sound which are the vital essence of music; ie convey of individuality and emotions. That is why Digital is more intellectually than emotionally satisfying. This is especially true for those who are very familiar with EXCELLENT analog sound. Now, if Digital would be better in ALL parameters the noisy, impractical and anachronistic Vinyl had disappeared 30 years ago, but it is still alive with increasing sales, year by year worldwide and this is because the analog format can convey all the emotion and “soul” of music and many people prefer it even with pops and clicks, than the clean but cold sound of the digital formats. Now take in mind that those who disappeared were the two modern and “superior” 24 bit formats, DVD Audio and SACD. So, something is wrong with digital audio. Digital and vinyl formats are not Hi End, the theme of my video, because their sound is far away from the original analog master tapes that are not perfect either but indisputably superior. The only format that deserves the name of Hi End or Hi Fi is the open reel to reel with low noise tapes at two tracks and running at 15 inches per second, because those are almost replicas of the original analog masters. More information on: tapeproject.com/ www.theverge.com/2015/10/5/9409563/reel-to-reel-tape-retro-audio-trend www.chartattack.com/news/2016/01/21/after-the-vinyl-and-cassette-revolutions-is-reel-to-reel-next/ www.analogarts.net/ www.metv.com/stories/move-over-vinyl-reel-to-reel-tape-is-on-the-comeback
For your consideration. . . There is no such thing as absolutely pure source material. Every piece of equipment used to capture sound, no matter how expensive or refined introduces distortion of one sort or another. Even live music is corrupted by the introduction of unintended sounds like echos, breathing, talking, and all kinds of background noise that can never be completely eliminated. So what this guy is saying is, of course, true. I don't believe anyone ever made the claim of perfection in sound reproduction and if that is his definition of "high end" I feel sorry for him. In the sound engineering industry, "high end" can only be defined as "extremely low" levels of distortion as measured by listener fatigue and listener enjoyment. If the producers of source material and designers of reproduction equipment deliver quality sound sufficient to give you goose bumps or bring a smile to your face then they have done their job and delivered sufficiently "high end" sound, therefore, it actually does exist.
+TheRjjrjjr I am not looking for perfection or pure sound. The point is that current formats (vinyl and digital) are far from the original analog master tapes, which are not perfect either but without scratches, clicks and pops (that are only present in vinyl) and convey the full emotion of the music. Maybe this link would be interesting for you: tapeproject.com/
Your right. neither format is perfect... I prefer vinyl personally, maybe cos I was brought up listening to it and I like the aesthetic n interaction u get with it. Thanks for this vid, made me feel better about the cheap antiquated audio gear I use. You have probably saved me hundreds of pounds on trying to get a better sound that I might not achieve anyway lol, all the best.
i agree for the most part on your statement about highend audio as a whole but i highly disagree that digital medium cannot convey feelings and emotions, just because you have a deep personal attachment to vinyl and romantizicing the flaws that it has, everything exist in this realm, therefore its still part of our universe and laws, and everything is flawed anyway right? Like your mind, body and senses, everything is attached to our emotions, actions and thoughts. Are you with me? maybe not, but that is the point. Have fun with Your music journey!
+Michael H (Freakazoid777) I am not having a deep personal attachment to vinyl and romanticizing the flaws that it has. Scratches, clicks and pops always have bothered me obsessively. I was, like everyone, very happy with the advent of CD and I started to buy my favorite titles in that format until I discovered that the sound is artificial and do not convey the full emotion of music as vinyl. Now if the Compact Disc would be better than vinyl, 30 years ago this format has been disappeared as the Audio Cassette, even the 24 bit DVD-Audio and SACD are dead now and there must be. Instead the sales of vinyl records, turntables, cartridges, etc. are increasing year by year worldwide and I do not think this is for romanticism; this is because it has better sound and many prefer it even with pops and clicks. Because I own an excellent reel to reel recorder, several commercial tapes and especially some professional and back-up copies, and the sound of them is also clean and far superior to vinyl and digital formats, I decided to make this video. Maybe could be interesting for you this link: tapeproject.com/ Thanks for your comments and best regards.
Digital audio does have its issues, but it is the way forward. It does not degrade over time like analogue. The key is the conversion from analogue to digital, and then back to analogue when you want to listen. Modern dacs can have very, very low noise and no jitter. Check Chord Electronics, I believe you will appreciate the work they are doing.
I agree that there are limits to the storage of sound waves. I think many would say that the sound of the music on a pair of 2.99 earbuds may be worse than some 75.00 headphones. There is a law of diminishing returns that applies to music as well as many other subjects.
Alfonso - you are correct to some extent - however it is not just the source - there is 'corruption' of the signal thru out the signal processing chain - from room acoustics, recording microphones, recording media, transcription, amplification, speakers etc. The point of audio from the 'audiophile' or enthusiast perspective is to try to replicate a live musical event as realistically as possible - acknowledging that it is impossible to actually reproduce the event! So, that said - in my opinion some equipment (and combination of equipment) do a better job of reproducing the event than other. As you 'upgrade' components in the audio chain you can come closer to realizing the original event. You will soon reach a point of diminishing returns - where a greater investment in equipment yields you very little return in said reproduction. At this point you are truly in the land of 'high end' audio.
Please see the description of my audio system. When I seat in front of it and close my eyes, I feel that the musicians are there in my listening room. Of course that is an illusion that breaks when the scratches, clicks and pops of my LPs appear. And with digital, the sound is less natural, less alive and cannot convey the whole emotion of the music. The best experience that I have in terms of that illusion is with a few original master tapes that I own and some other back-up copies.
High End refers to the price, not only in audio. The closest I ever heard real live sounds was a French Jadis system, but only people like Macron can afford😊
Please see the description of my audio system, which is not really expensive and with it, I can feel in my listening room that the musicians are there in almost a live performance. Of course that is an illusion; an illusion that breaks when scratches, clicks and pops appears. With digital, the sound is less natural, less alive and cannot convey the whole emotion of the music, the magic goes out but with my treasured half track and 15 IPS reel to reel tapes, the illusion is even much more vivid and nothing disturbs Item.
It's reaching to come to this conclusion. And just plain incorrect. Duplicating a live performance is the aim, though imperfect High end does it closely enough, rest assured.
Hi End is a whole made of several parts and if only one part is poor or bad the sound of the whole system is poor or bad. The poor or bad part is the software - sources of music - not the hardware. No one with common sense can say that listening to music with scratches, clicks and pops can be a true HI End Audio reproduction, even with the best equipment in the world. It is important to note that these noises are only on the vinyl format. It not in the original analog master tapes, not in the other formats and of course not in live performances, so what the term High Fidelity means, is not for the anachronistic vinyl because scratches, clicks and pops are faithful to nothing, unless if the audience was allowed to eat potato chips in concerts. The Compact Disc with 16 bits has around four times less information than the master tapes, the vinyl and the 24 bits SACD, DVD-Audio and most Hi-Rez files. There is no a CD player, regardless the price, that can include the information that was not recorded originally. Obviously with such limitation cannot be a true Hi End format. Take in mind also that the two modern and superior 24 bit formats, DVD Audio and SACD are disappeared and for something would be. The new Hi-Rez formats are “analog-like”, their slogan. That automatically confirms the superiority of analog sound which is the reference. But how much “analog-like” are those files? Nobody knows because there is no standard or measure to determine that. More subjective and ambiguous cannot be this “analog-like” term. Therefore, the current formats are limited, corrupted and away from the original master analog tapes that are far from perfection, but unquestionably superior to vinyl and digital. A true Hi End format at least, must be a replica of those masters and so far only the high quality Reel to Reel (R2R) direct copies at 2 track and 15 IPS can be extremely close to them and of course with an authentic 100% pure analog sound. Because I own some original master tapes and a few back-up copies, I know the huge sound difference between them and any other format. By the way, the so-called Hi End Audio is only for very rich people, not for audiophiles. They want to own the most expensive things in the world that most people cannot reach and that is their real pleasure, not the music. By logic, they are not true music lovers and even they have not enough time to listen to it. More information about the “new” R2R format in tapeproject.com/ I recommend starting with “Why Tape?” These are two paragraphs of the first answer: “Most people have not had the experience of hearing studio master tapes. Many formats have been introduced with the promise of bringing master tape sound into the home listening room. Yeah, right. We don’t expect that this tape project will replace any of your other favorite formats, so we see no need to dwell on the drawbacks of any other format. Suffice it to say that we don’t offer an “analog-like” listening experience. We are offering a chance to have in your own listening room an actual analog listening experience as close to the original master tape as practical.” I recommend reading all, including the IEC EQ, the 1-1/2 generation copies, about the prices of the tapes and of course, the entire page and site. www.theverge.com/2015/10/5/9409563/reel-to-reel-tape-retro-audio-trend This is an abstract: “Like string theory, audiophile subculture is complex and defined by unresolved questions. Is an insanely expensive cable really better than an outrageously expensive cable? Do tube amps trump solid-state amps? Horn, electrostatic, or ribbon hybrid speakers? What about Kind of Blue - mono or stereo? Each position can be defended or attacked with various specs, waveform graphs, and double blind listening tests. One question, however, has been resolved: tape or vinyl? Even the most dubious critics find no ambiguity here. The verdict: tape sounds better than vinyl. What makes tape such a smart choice? For starters, it has greater dynamic range than vinyl, with extraordinary sound at the frequency extremes: the treble and bass. Next, consider the amount of signal processing that each medium requires. Vinyl: a lot. Tape: very little. Signal processing is the enemy of hi-fidelity. The less studio voodoo the master tape (MT) is subjected to, the better. It helps to understand how vinyl and tape albums are manufactured. To make a record, the MT signal must be compressed to match the dynamic limits of vinyl. Some of the highs and lows are slashed in the bargain. All the other audio tricks needed to shoehorn a signal into those tiny grooves compromises the signal even more. Dubbing 1/4-inch tapes is a much simpler task. With no need to squeeze or tweak the original signal, it can be transferred from the MT relatively unscathed. Then there’s the dicey issue of playback. With turntables, all sorts of mechanical foibles - rumble, skips, speed stability, inner groove distortion, etcetera - can further degrade the signal. In contrast, R2R is an exercise in simplicity. The only moving part at the point of signal retrieval is the tape, which travels in a straight line across a stationary playback head. Efficiency equals fidelity. The Tape Project, which peddles legacy albums ranging from Sonny Rollins’ Saxophone Colossus to The London Philharmonic’s Arnold Overtures. The company catalog includes 27 other albums, with more on the way. Some audio critics claim this is the highest fidelity ever captured on 1/4-inch tape. That may be so, considering that each album is a first-generation copy dubbed in real time, at a leisurely 30 ips, directly from the original master tape. There is no mixing or remastering involved. In essence, this is the master tape. It doesn’t get any better than this. Better is live at Carnegie Hall. Vinyl fans may scoff at The Tape Project’s steep prices, but when licensing fees, production time (3.5 hours per album), and materials ($150 just for the blank tape) are factored into the equation, $450 seems almost reasonable to hear Lee Morgan’s trumpet riffs on The Sidewinder just as recording engineer Rudy Van Gelder heard them over half a century ago in his New Jersey studio. Incidentally, a Lee Morgan trumpet riff on tape doesn’t just sound better than a Lee Morgan trumpet riff on vinyl. It sounds better than a Lee Morgan trumpet riff on any audio format: CD, SACD, Pure Audio Blu-Ray, even Neil Young’s crazy 24-bit/192 kHZ hi-res files that take forever to download.” And more sites about R2R www.chartattack.com/news/2016/01/21/after-the-vinyl-and-cassette-revolutions-is-reel-to-reel-next/ horchhouse.com/project-r2r/ www.gearnews.com/revox-new-r2r-tape-machine-set-arrive-next-year/ (Interesting that the price of the R2R Revox player it could be less than a medium priced "Hi End" turntable, cartridge and a phono preamplifier or a HQ CD reproducer). www.metv.com/stories/move-over-vinyl-reel-to-reel-tape-is-on-the-comeback And the remarkable piece of engineering the Studer A820 in their three versions: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--lcYBHA6zLY.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jtidyF3X1ns.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-HuJ9yNFVIFM.html Unfortunately right now the tapes are very expensive with a few titles and I hope that this reborn and improved format grow enough to down the prices.
You should try digital music with a dac (digital to analog converter). Sounds just as natural or even more natural than vinyl, since vinyl adds noice and all sorts of prolems. But i made the same mistake myself, and listened to digital music in binary for many years :(
The new DACs are more and more analog than before or more “analog-like” and those are their slogans. That automatically confirms the superiority of analog sound which is the reference. But how much “analog” are those DACs? Nobody knows because there is no standard or measure to determine that. More subjective and ambiguous cannot be this “more analog” term. Yes, vinyl has many flaws and the worst is the annoying surface noises, but it is not the only source of analog sound. Because those vinyl flaws, now some audio companies are trying to reborn the Reel to Reel or R2R format with direct copies from the Master tapes at 2 tracks and 15 IPS, which is until now the best format and the only one that deserves the Hi End Audio qualifier. More information about the “new” R2R format in tapeproject.com/ I recommend starting with “Why Tape?” These are two paragraphs of the first answer: “Most people have not had the experience of hearing studio master tapes. Many formats have been introduced with the promise of bringing master tape sound into the home listening room. Yeah, right. We don’t expect that this tape project will replace any of your other favorite formats, so we see no need to dwell on the drawbacks of any other format. Suffice it to say that we don’t offer an “analog-like” listening experience. We are offering a chance to have in your own listening room an actual analog listening experience as close to the original master tape as practical.” I recommend reading all, including the IEC EQ, the 1-1/2 generation copies, about the prices of the tapes and of course, the entire page and site. www.theverge.com/2015/10/5/9409563/reel-to-reel-tape-retro-audio-trend This is an abstract: “Like string theory, audiophile subculture is complex and defined by unresolved questions. Is an insanely expensive cable really better than an outrageously expensive cable? Do tube amps trump solid-state amps? Horn, electrostatic, or ribbon hybrid speakers? What about Kind of Blue - mono or stereo? Each position can be defended or attacked with various specs, waveform graphs, and double blind listening tests. One question, however, has been resolved: tape or vinyl? Even the most dubious critics find no ambiguity here. The verdict: tape sounds better than vinyl. What makes tape such a smart choice? For starters, it has greater dynamic range than vinyl, with extraordinary sound at the frequency extremes: the treble and bass. Next, consider the amount of signal processing that each medium requires. Vinyl: a lot. Tape: very little. Signal processing is the enemy of hi-fidelity. The less studio voodoo the master tape (MT) is subjected to, the better. It helps to understand how vinyl and tape albums are manufactured. To make a record, the MT signal must be compressed to match the dynamic limits of vinyl. Some of the highs and lows are slashed in the bargain. All the other audio tricks needed to shoehorn a signal into those tiny grooves compromises the signal even more. Dubbing 1/4-inch tapes is a much simpler task. With no need to squeeze or tweak the original signal, it can be transferred from the MT relatively unscathed. Then there’s the dicey issue of playback. With turntables, all sorts of mechanical foibles - rumble, skips, speed stability, inner groove distortion, etcetera - can further degrade the signal. In contrast, R2R is an exercise in simplicity. The only moving part at the point of signal retrieval is the tape, which travels in a straight line across a stationary playback head. Efficiency equals fidelity. The Tape Project, which peddles legacy albums ranging from Sonny Rollins’ Saxophone Colossus to The London Philharmonic’s Arnold Overtures. The company catalog includes 27 other albums, with more on the way. Some audio critics claim this is the highest fidelity ever captured on 1/4-inch tape. That may be so, considering that each album is a first-generation copy dubbed in real time, at a leisurely 30 ips, directly from the original master tape. There is no mixing or remastering involved. In essence, this is the master tape. It doesn’t get any better than this. Better is live at Carnegie Hall. Vinyl fans may scoff at The Tape Project’s steep prices, but when licensing fees, production time (3.5 hours per album), and materials ($150 just for the blank tape) are factored into the equation, $450 seems almost reasonable to hear Lee Morgan’s trumpet riffs on The Sidewinder just as recording engineer Rudy Van Gelder heard them over half a century ago in his New Jersey studio. Incidentally, a Lee Morgan trumpet riff on tape doesn’t just sound better than a Lee Morgan trumpet riff on vinyl. It sounds better than a Lee Morgan trumpet riff on any audio format: CD, SACD, Pure Audio Blu-Ray, even Neil Young’s crazy 24-bit/192 kHZ hi-res files that take forever to download.” And more sites about R2R www.chartattack.com/news/2016/01/21/after-the-vinyl-and-cassette-revolutions-is-reel-to-reel-next/ www.horchhouse.com/home-1-1-2-1-1-1-1-1-2-1 www.metv.com/stories/move-over-vinyl-reel-to-reel-tape-is-on-the-comeback And the remarkable piece of engineering the Studer A820 in their three versions: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--lcYBHA6zLY.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jtidyF3X1ns.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-HuJ9yNFVIFM.html Unfortunately right now the tapes are very expensive but more and more titles are appearing and prices will be more affordable in the future. I think that this format is growing more and more and soon will see new machines in the market at reasonable prices. www.unitedhomeproducts.com/the_uha_phase1_tape_deck.htm US$6,500.00 is less expensive than many “Hi End” turntables and / or cartridges or even phono preamplifiers and step-up-transformers. Here more models of this company (and more expensive): www.unitedhomeproducts.com/prices_and_features.htm
