[Currawong]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Camper /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes. I've heard and can tell the difference between a ripped lp and a cd release of the same material. Vinyl has much richer sound. Can you get a redbook cd or digital file to sound as good as it's vinyl counterpart?

I have the problem of "digititis" annoying the hell out of me. Specifically the sound of instruments such as piano and violins sounding artificial, with a hardness to the edge of the notes that is just unnatural. The DAC I have now, an Audio-gd Reference 1, seems to be free of this. Their cheaper DACs use the same DA, though fewer multiples of them, and don't have the fancy DSP, making them a good candidate if you're seeking as I was, but don't want to spend as much. Other than those, I'm curious myself about NOS DACs (funnily enough, oversampling can be switched off in the Ref 1, which I'll have to try sometime) and the Buffalo DAC and it's Sabre 32 DA chip, which has gained a similar reputation for sounding "natural".

Incidentally, a mate of mine, who's a hi-fi, though not head-fi nut just bought the "Berkeley DAC" and reckons it sounds natural in the same manner I was describing the Reference 1. It's $5k though. Also, I gather someone will take a Nakamich Dragon DAC to CanJam. It was the reason I ended up getting the Reference 1 (because it has the same DA and a good design). Whatever rig it's hooked into is worth having a listening with, if anyone's going.

 

[BobMcN]

You may want to try an NOS dac (non-oversampling). The circuit is far sompler and many people consider it as close as you can get to vinyl using a DAC. They're not expensive either.

Bob

 

[curbfeeler]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Camper /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have no vinyl. All my music is cd/download. I use a NOS tube dac but it doesn't have the richness of sound vinyl gives. I have listened to vinyl ripped and listened to the same material on cd. Ripped vinyl sounds better than cd. Am I to accept that I have invested in inferior sound for the last 25 years?

I have heard the difference between vinyl recorded at 16/44 and 24/96.
So the short answer is that redbook CD is unable to capture the quality of vinyl.
An acquaintance reports that he gets closest to the sound of vinyl when using the Korg M1000 DSD, or 1-bit, recorder.
One of the most convincingly realistic reproductions of a musical event that I have heard is 24/176, I recall. It was a master recording by Peter McGrath played from a portable hard-disk-equipped digital recorder through Wilson Maxx 3 loudspeakers and ARC electronics.
I wouldn’t call your investment in CD a bust. I find that playing CD tracks that were first ripped to FLAC onto a music server through a Squeezebox Duet and Benchmark DAC1 Pre most enjoyable and compelling.
But vinyl does sound more realistic and involving than CD 16/44.
Digital recordings must be very high in resolution to come close to vinyl.
One cannot retrieve information discarded by low resolution digital recording techniques. Loss of information when attempting to retrieve information from an optical disc exacerbates matters.

 

[n3rdling]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Currawong /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have the problem of "digititis" annoying the hell out of me. Specifically the sound of instruments such as piano and violins sounding artificial, with a hardness to the edge of the notes that is just unnatural. The DAC I have now, an Audio-gd Reference 1, seems to be free of this. Their cheaper DACs use the same DA, though fewer multiples of them, and don't have the fancy DSP, making them a good candidate if you're seeking as I was, but don't want to spend as much. Other than those, I'm curious myself about NOS DACs (funnily enough, oversampling can be switched off in the Ref 1, which I'll have to try sometime) and the Buffalo DAC and it's Sabre 32 DA chip, which has gained a similar reputation for sounding "natural". Incidentally, a mate of mine, who's a hi-fi, though not head-fi nut just bought the "Berkeley DAC" and reckons it sounds natural in the same manner I was describing the Reference 1. It's $5k though. Also, I gather someone will take a Nakamich Dragon DAC to CanJam. It was the reason I ended up getting the Reference 1 (because it has the same DA and a good design). Whatever rig it's hooked into is worth having a listening with, if anyone's going.

I'm going, and one of my main goals is to hear the Nakamichi (if it's there) and the Buffalo for sure...one of these will probably end up being my new source. Should be fun

 

[memepool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hybris /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have a NOS dac and it does achieve a very "natural" effect to the sound, making it sound less of a digital source. This is of course due to some coloration of the sound so a NOS dac won't give you 100% true sound - but it sure does sound good, and less fatiguing.

Not sure that follows. You seem to be suggesting "natural" and "true sound" are not necessarily equivalent? which they are usually assumed to be in these arguments...

With repsect to NOS DACs you could also argue the opposite, ie. removing the brickwall filtering which usually makes the upper registers sound harsh, is at the cost of getting more measurable distortion at very high frequencies, which according to Nyquist's theorem isn't meant to be audible anyway....

Either way you have a different kind, arguably worse distortion than you commonly get from analogue sources.

That said a straight digital copy of a record or tape usually sounds near enough the same as the source to fool most people. It's only when you start processing the sound to "clean it up" or "improve" it that you can rob the original of what makes it sound the way it does. So as is often stated a lot of the difference is in the hands of the mastering engineer.

Best thing is therefore to buy a turntable or tape player, if you want analogue sound, and record it yourself to a CD or fileserver, if you want convenience....

 

[bradmorris1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif Don't bother with a tube buffer. I'm still not entirely sure what the point is (assuming they have one) and don't see any reason to add another component to the audio chain.

I disagree. I have a EE BBA and it makes a world of difference. The variable gain allows you to dial in the amount of tube warmth you like. It does begin to converge with vinyl.

 

[Stephen Murphy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by curbfeeler /img/forum/go_quote.gif But vinyl does sound more realistic and involving than CD 16/44.

I agree.

I enjoy cds a lot but their 16-bit resolution is weak. It is truly a shame that cd is locked into a late 1970s digital spec. (HDCD can sound better with its 20 bits when done right.)

Those that think vinyl is about tube warmth and dirt scratches don't really understand what resolution is about.

 

[darkdork]

I'm probably going to get flamed to hell and back for making this suggestion, but you may want to try a Playstation SCPH-1001 as your redbook source... I listen to quite a bit of vinyl, and sometimes I prefer the sound of Playstation to vinyl.

They're like $30 on ebay. It can't hurt to try one out. There's reviews on 6moons that claim that this player is the most analog-sounding CD player they have heard.

 

[drumstick]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Currawong /img/forum/go_quote.gif Incidentally, a mate of mine, who's a hi-fi, though not head-fi nut just bought the "Berkeley DAC" and reckons it sounds natural in the same manner I was describing the Reference 1.

Any chance of comparing your REF1 with his Berkeley DAC?