[Redcarmoose]

Here’s a footnote regarding “voicing” amplifiers and what does it mean in general terms to actual amp designer:

“Voicing
July 21, 2012
by Paul McGowan
Yesterday I happened to mention how we use certain elements to "voice" a circuit and that sparked a few questions. What does voicing an amplifier mean?
Actually it's a really good question because one would think you'd want to make everything as neutral and true to the music as humanely possible. And, in fact, you would - but then reality gets in the way.
Let's make a couple of broad generalizations first: most digital sources are relatively thin and bright while most turntable sources are slow and fat. I know these are gross generalizations but when it comes to music, I don't really have any other terms - and when you're starting to design a digital circuit relative to a phono stage, you have to think differently about each. Perhaps for this post accept the terms as at least relevant to the discussion.
Also accept that different devices have different sonic characteristics as do different circuit topologies. Tubes and FET's are generally warmer, softer and slightly big sounding, while most bipolar devices and topologies based on them are somewhat the opposite.
So imagine all these elements as having different flavors and different textures and you as a master chef. You want to cook a world class meal and that involves combining all the various tastes and elements together to compliment each other and produce something remarkable.
This is what voicing is all about. It's probably a mistake when designing a circuit to pair a thin and bright sounding CD player front end with a similar sounding bipolar backend circuit - you'd be better off pairing it up with a warmer and softer sounding FET circuit, for example.
I know this isn't very scientific but then, neither is music and the art of reproducing it in a way that reaches down to your core and resonates with your soul.
That takes a master chef.”

I can do that as well: What standardization in playing the guitar? You think Julian Bream recordings sound the same as Jimi Hendrix recordings? Hang on, let me link to a definitive book on playing the guitar ...!

Of course, that's all nonsense because you didn't state that guitar playing was standardized. The only difference between this analogy and our discourse is that you have not REPEATEDLY asked me to note that you're NOT talking about the standardization of guitar performance!!!

I did NOT claim or imply that mixing is standardizied, in fact I implied the exact opposite. I also did NOT claim that all studio monitoring chains/environments sound the same, and in fact elsewhere, I've repeatedly stated the opposite, so why quote Toole at me? What I actually stated was "virtually all studios record using ruler flat ADCs, there is effectively a standardization that is "flat" at the recording level but again this is a flat frequency response, NOT flat frequency content!". Notice the part I've highlighted, "at the recording level", IE. NOT at the performance level, mixing level, mastering level, monitoring or any other level, at the recording level!!

How many times do I have to repeat and explain that I was talking about frequency response not frequency content?

Oh good, let's play that game again: Your saying all guitarists sound the same? ... In fact, I have heard differences between amps AND I even gave two actual examples of where I've heard differences (guitar amps and amps used with certain IEMs) and additionally, I've heard other differences, differences due to IMD in response to ultrasonic signals and distortion in both audiophile tube amp and microphone tube pre-amps.

I've already said what I'm saying. How many times do I have to repeat it? Any competently made amp should be indistinguishable from any other, given the obvious conditions. I'm basing this on the reliable evidence, not just my personal experience.


1. Not really, although it depends on exactly what you mean by "basic set criteria".
2. Apparently we do have to have an argument because there aren't just "subtle differences in characteristics and nuances between dozens of popular pro mics" the differences can sometimes be very significant and not subtle at all. However, if you're deliberately distorting your reproduction then maybe all the differences do sound subtle to you and maybe some of those differences that really are subtle disappear altogether!

For example, let's say I record an instrument and add a subtle amount of tube distortion to it (with a tube mic, a tube pre-amp or tube emulation software) and then I record another instrument without that subtle tube distortion. Now along you come and bathe both of them in liberal amounts of tube distortion from your tube amp, that artistic difference I've lovingly created is going to be significantly more subtle or very likely, completely inaudible! How do you get more "emotional connection" to what I have lovingly created by obliterating it?

You don't seem to realize that the arguments you're using actually up support my assertions and refute your own!

I haven't heard or measured your system so there's no way to know for sure. We can only make guesses based on what you've stated/argued, on the fact that many audiophiles have very poor performing systems relative to how much they've spent on them and based on comparison with my own and other professional listening/monitoring environments I've experienced, that have been measured.

Transformers, capacitors and wires do not change the sound, they're not even operating with sound, they're operating with electricity. Therefore we have a few further questions:
1. Do they change the electrical current passing through them? Yes.
2. Does this change the actual sound that will be produced? Not unless it's broken or inappropriate for the task. For example, a single 10kOhm resistor will produce electrical noise around the -136dB level. Noise at that level is way below the noise floor of the speakers that do actually make the sound and so they will not be able to reproduce it.
3. Even if the distortion/noise is high enough to be actually be present in the reproduced sound, does it go beyond that threshold by enough to actually be audible. If it does, then by definition it is not appropriate for the task (and/or it's broken).

1. Chasing high fidelity is the very definition of an audiophile isn't it? Does the fact we can't achieve perfect audible fidelity, except in digital audio (and amps), mean we shouldn't chase any amount of high fidelity?

2. Not getting into a "pissing contest" would be a very wise move (even though you've started to!), for two reasons: Firstly, an "appeal to authority" is an unacceptable argument in a science forum and Secondly, you'd loose that "pissing contest" anyway, by a large margin!!

1. And you wouldn't be able to find 10 random members of the Flat Earth Society who would settle on your "uncompromised" approach that the Earth is a sphere. Does that mean the Earth is flat?

2. No one is saying otherwise. Although I personally try to take my personal preferences out of the equation and instead appreciate the preferences of the artists who created the recordings.

By and large they did go the way of the Dodo bird! What percentage of consumer audio amps in the world do you think are tube amps? I'd bet it's a lot less than 1% these days.

Not just that industry but several, the audiophile DAC industry, the audiophile cable industry and various other audiophile industries, wasn't there even an audiophile green marker pen industry at one point? However, they're all relatively very tiny industries with one thing in common, the word "audiophile" before them! The fact that these tiny audiophile industries are in conflict with the science and with all the other branches of the same industries (the pro-audio industries for example) should AT LEAST give you pause for consideration!

G

I think Paul McGowan has a valid point.

After spending a lifetime with vinyl I totally agree the turntable source is slow and fat and the digital source is fast and bright. I have spent the last 10 years attempting to replicate the vinyl sound with digital and firmly believe there is a difference. People can say Paul is just marketing his products but to me he is right on the mark. There is an intrinsic difference to vinyl. Funny too, as when I started in SS about 12 years ago vinyl was dragged around as the worst thing ever. Now that it has had a profound resurgence, the format gets slightly more respect again here. But it's safe to say Paul has had a successful career at whatever he is doing. Thus many here are going to judge him but never heard his products, that any success must be from some style of trickery or misleading. haha


The fact that digital to analogue converters set an idea as to flat also is suspect in my eyes. Who is to say what flat is? Are all methods of ADC the same? No, there are variations of tone. It may be slight, and truthfully I'm not even sure if they are audible, but there is differences. The RIAA equalization curve of a phono stage somehow is very different than a DAC. I would like to believe that some day we will be able to make the two totally equal, but so far they are two different worlds. Obviously some are going to point out that the phono stage has flaws and digital is fully pristine............I beg to argue that fact. Some how people (in Sound Science) will resist to fully embrace the fact that the phono sound has its intrinsic attributes here............it's nothing new, I have seen it here for 12 years. The fact that it's not the same as digital and maybe never will be fully understood.

Also what are about the masters before modern ADC, are they all wrong suffering from profound ineptness?

 

[bigshot]

You sure have a lot of unsupported conclusions and misconceptions packed in a tight space there! I'd offer some corrections, but you don't seem to be open to that.

 

[Redcarmoose]

You sure have a lot of unsupported conclusions and misconceptions packed in a tight space there! I'd offer some corrections, but you don't seem to be open to that.

Thank-you!

 

[old tech]

I think Paul McGowan has a valid point.

After spending a lifetime with vinyl I totally agree the turntable source is slow and fat and the digital source is fast and bright. I have spent the last 10 years attempting to replicate the vinyl sound with digital and firmly believe there is a difference. People can say Paul is just marketing his products but to me he is right on the mark. There is an intrinsic difference to vinyl. Funny too, as when I started in SS about 12 years ago vinyl was dragged around as the worst thing ever. Now that it has had a profound resurgence, the format gets slightly more respect again here. But it's safe to say Paul has had a successful career at whatever he is doing. Thus many here are going to judge him but never heard his products, that any success must be from some style of trickery or misleading. haha


The fact that digital to analogue converters set an idea as to flat also is suspect in my eyes. Who is to say what flat is? Are all methods of ADC the same? No, there are variations of tone. It may be slight, and truthfully I'm not even sure if they are audible, but there is differences. The RIAA equalization curve of a phono stage somehow is very different than a DAC. I would like to believe that some day we will be able to make the two totally equal, but so far they are two different worlds. Obviously some are going to point out that the phono stage has flaws and digital is fully pristine............I beg to argue that fact. Some how people (in Sound Science) will resist to fully embrace the fact that the phono sound has its intrinsic attributes here............it's nothing new, I have seen it here for 12 years. The fact that it's not the same as digital and maybe never will be fully understood.

Also what are about the masters before modern ADC, are they all wrong suffering from profound ineptness?

Not sure if I wanted or indeed thought it useful to respond to your claims here.

So what does fast or slow mean - are you suggesting both vinyl and digital cannot play at the correct speed of the recording? As for digital being bright and vinyl fat? I have many digital recordings that are not bright, and the ones that are reflect the brightness of the recording or decisions made by the producer. There is nothing intrinsic about digital which makes a recording bright. However, as the high end does not roll off like vinyl, and hence greater accuracy, someone more used to the vinyl "darker" sound may conclude it is bright whereas that is the actual sound of the recording.

And just because you haven't been able to replicate the vinyl sound digitally, doesn't mean it can't be easily done, as countless others have done so. I did so some 20 odd years ago using 16/44 and then checking with double blind tests against the donor turntable (I'm willing to bet you haven't done the objective test to rule out your biases).

The comparison between a cartridge and an ADC/DAC is equally absurd. You are comparing a transducer which involves a change in energy state (from mechanical movement to electro-magnetic) with all the losses and inaccuracies entailed when moving from one form of energy to another to a process that does not change energy state, all electronic. So you make a claim while ignoring all objective measurements of accuracy. And don't get me started with RIAA stages and how that effects phase and fidelity. Instead, Paul continues to make unsubstantiated claims which goes against audio science and objective measurements. As Ethan says, Paul confuses individual subjective preferences with objective reality.

As for Paul, no doubt he has technical expertise but he has on several occasions gilded the lily to cater for audiophile myths and misconceptions. One glaring example, and there are many, was his unscientific claim that null testing is flawed, so a completely nulled signal doesn't mean there are no differences. Ethan Winer took issue with that blatantly snake oil claim by challenging him to a debate on either his or Ethan's You Tube channel. Over thee years has passed and Paul still hasn't responded, despite many pushing him to accept the challenge.

 

[Redcarmoose]

What is funny about your post is Ethan Winer IS saying amps sound different. Which helps my argument!

But measurements (he says) will show them (the amps) to be different, where Paul says even if they measure the same they (the amps) could sound different because we can’t measure everything.

The reason Paul is saying the Null Tester doesn’t measure everything is because the Null Tester doesn’t measure EMI. As an example of just one thing that is the Null Tester doesn’t test for, there could be others.

That’s fairly simple really? Paul feels there are EMI forces that are not seen in the Null Test. What does that have to do with anything we are focusing on here? Well.........probably the main point that SS believes EVERYTHING is measurable, when I argue everything is not measurable. Simple.

Ethan Winer

Paul included Null Testers in the complete range of power regeneration devices/filters........so he is familiar with building them. That guy acts like he invented the Null Tester, when it’s a common tool? Paul didn’t answer the guy because he (the guy) is ridiculous.

 

[Davesrose]

My main preferred headphone setup has a headphone amp that can switch from SS to tube. The rest of the components are all digital and what would be "transparent" flat within all auditory ranges. The amp and headphone transducers/speakers are enough of a sound difference for me that I don't worry about "best" source format. I started enjoying CDs when I was a kid that could start affording them via Columbia House and having a portable CD player and Sony headphones. Getting an audiophile TT was something that happened after. I invested in one and also an expensive SACD player (back when Sony had it proprietary to not having digital output). Recently I saw members here agree with the main point that I think is most important: how the actual performance effects you. An example for me is that I like Neville Marriner's interpretation of Mozart's Requiem...so I enjoy my CD (or mp3 I encoded from). I also picked up a Harnoncourt SACD when I got the player. If I analyzed the imaging, soundstage, overall harmonics....I could pick out technical advantages of it vs the other's analog source. However, the music didn't move me as much. So ultimately, it's about aesthetic. I might find a particular song on cassette tape (with jarring wow and flutter with reduced FR) more engaging than some other song that's technically amazing in reproduction. This is similar to what my main profession has been: the visual arts. Visual artists often are in conflict about trying to distribute their original work of art vs what the consumer gets (this has happened for hundreds of years in which painters had a hard time trying to get a facsimile of their painting transferred to an engraved reproduction).

Also, when it comes to vinyl: I did invest in a TT in order to get used records, and I was also able to inherit records from my grandparents. I did find some rock music from the 60s and 70s sounded better compared to their early masters on CD. What I don't understand is new albums on vinyl. So my local Target is always reducing its selection of blu-rays/UHD discs....but has been increasing the number of new vinyl records for $30. The only new vinyl I've bought are ones with easter eggs (such as holograms). Especially now that a streaming service like Apple is offering streaming lossless for thousands of songs, it's making vinyl even more of a niche premium. I'm not sure how much of it is the cool factor of having a large album with cover art vs inherent distortions from an album that's now invariably going to be from a source that's digital.

 

[Redcarmoose]

My main preferred headphone setup has a headphone amp that can switch from SS to tube. The rest of the components are all digital and what would be "transparent" flat within all auditory ranges. The amp and headphone transducers/speakers are enough of a sound difference for me that I don't worry about "best" source format. I started enjoying CDs when I was a kid that could start affording them via Columbia House and having a portable CD player and Sony headphones. Getting an audiophile TT was something that happened after. I invested in one and also an expensive SACD player (back when Sony had it proprietary to not having digital output). Recently I saw members here agree with the main point that I think is most important: how the actual performance effects you. An example for me is that I like Neville Marriner's interpretation of Mozart's Requiem...so I enjoy my CD (or mp3 I encoded from). I also picked up a Harnoncourt SACD when I got the player. If I analyzed the imaging, soundstage, overall harmonics....I could pick out technical advantages of it vs the other's analog source. However, the music didn't move me as much. So ultimately, it's about aesthetic. I might find a particular song on cassette tape (with jarring wow and flutter with reduced FR) more engaging than some other song that's technically amazing in reproduction. This is similar to what my main profession has been: the visual arts. Visual artists often are in conflict about trying to distribute their original work of art vs what the consumer gets (this has happened for hundreds of years in which painters had a hard time trying to get a facsimile of their painting transferred to an engraved reproduction).

Also, when it comes to vinyl: I did invest in a TT in order to get used records, and I was also able to inherit records from my grandparents. I did find some rock music from the 60s and 70s sounded better compared to their early masters on CD. What I don't understand is new albums on vinyl. So my local Target is always reducing its selection of blu-rays/UHD discs....but has been increasing the number of new vinyl records for $30. The only new vinyl I've bought are ones with easter eggs (such as holograms). Especially now that a streaming service like Apple is offering streaming lossless for thousands of songs, it's making vinyl even more of a niche premium. I'm not sure how much of it is the cool factor of having a large album with cover art vs inherent distortions from an album that's now invariably going to be from a source that's digital.

The first CDs were made from the masters that they used for vinyl are basically wrong. As the RIAA equalization curve of the masters was only for vinyl. That’s why the early 1980s CDs were so bad. Later they took master tapes and did a re-engineering for CD which is way better. I started collecting records in 1975 when that’s all there was. In fact the medium of the Long Play started a whole new way of performance. Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin made and wrote albums to hold music which by design showcased their talent in a new 33.3 way. The albums were only supposed to be so long, and maybe the mood would be lost with CD extras put on the end. The two sides of the album held a sequence which needed variations which was a new thing in comparison to 45s. 45s were actually the thing before the LP was promoted.

You talk about an emotional connection to vinyl and I agree. In fact it’s subjective but maybe real none the less. What I have done is sold most of my vinyl as I moved out of the country. I thought I would at some point save my entire collection, but in the end I saved a fraction of it. In turn I’ve made it my mission to try and make digital like vinyl. This was pretty much achieved by getting amps and DACs which added the most warmth possible. At times hi-res was used but all and all it’s a complete signal chain to achieve. Meaning it’s the file, the DAC, the amplifier process along with a host of post processing (not EQ) which takes place in the digital domain to try and add back what has been left out of the digital files. Finally the transducers complete the goal. DSEE HX, DSD Remastering and the DC Phase Linearizer help bring stuff in line. But still it’s not exactly vinyl? But I’m ok with that as zero surface noise and other “artifacts” of vinyl playback are avoided.

In many ways I’m lazy to use digital, but it is what it is. But it really does relate to how well you connect with the music. How emotional you can be. At least they have been able to get good EQ now on many of the older (vinyl only) recording that predate CD. The only thing I miss is there are millions of albums that never made the transition over to digital. Some may say they were not worth the transfer, but they are unique none the less. So who says to have them digitally is important, they were humanities way of expressing itself in music, but only remained in vinyl?

 

[old tech]

Another myth ^ the RIAA is cut into the lacquer master, it is not on the tape.

 

[Davesrose]

The first CDs were made from the masters that they used for vinyl are basically wrong. As the RIAA equalization curve of the masters was only for vinyl.

I don't think distribution has worked that way. So I'm more familiar with video production on a professional level. Movie studios have particular master files that they then give a copy to whatever group is going to make a master for home distribution. Right now, the best consumer format that's being distributed is 4K Dolby Vision color grading and 3D audio (be it Dolby Atmos or DTS:X). Most commonly, the studio has already done a film restoration in 4K HDR (especially since they started restoring in that format quite a few years ago)....then they either have an internal group that does the mastering for blu-ray disc and digital streaming, or they contract out to another company to do the home distribution.

The same was true for CDs. RIAA has always been a filter applied just for vinyl distribution/mastering. I would think the limitations I found with early CDs had more to do with engineers on early equipment trying to filter out hiss or given preliminary limitions. It could also be like early DVDs and blu-rays vs later ones: in which there's improvements with both source materials and the process of making a master for distribution (and video disc is harder because it requires more compression).

 

[bigshot]

Wake me up when we have someone we can talk with about something at least a little bit related to science and tested facts. I honestly don't care about people's emotional attachment to vinyl.

 

[gregorio]

[1] What is funny about your post is Ethan Winer IS saying amps sound different. Which helps my argument!

[2] But measurements (he says) will show them (the amps) to be different, where Paul says even if they measure the same they (the amps) could sound different because we can’t measure everything.

[3] The reason Paul is saying the Null Tester doesn’t measure everything is because the Null Tester doesn’t measure EMI. As an example of just one thing that is the Null Tester doesn’t test for, there could be others.

[4] That’s fairly simple really? Paul feels there are EMI forces that are not seen in the Null Test. What does that have to do with anything we are focusing on here? Well.........probably the main point that SS believes EVERYTHING is measurable, when I argue everything is not measurable. Simple.

[5] Paul included Null Testers in the complete range of power regeneration devices/filters........so he is familiar with building them. That guy acts like he invented the Null Tester, when it’s a common tool? [5a] Paul didn’t answer the guy because he (the guy) is ridiculous.

1. Your argument with who, yourself? I and others have clearly outlined when amps can sound different.

2. Digital audio is itself a measurement, the measurement of amplitude over time, so if we can't measure it, we can't record it or obviously reproduce it! So what are you listening to?

3. I'll tell you what really is FUNNY: I posted that everyone has the right to believe 1+1=3 but of course they would be wrong, under the assumption that's an extremely obvious case because no one actually believes 1+1=3. And yet not only is Paul effectively making that claim but you and presumably some others are actually agreeing and defending it, Now that's FUNNY! Admittedly, we're actually talking about a slightly different equation, 1-1=0, but is there anyone over the age of about 5 who thinks 1+1=2 but 1-1 does not equal 0 (except apparently Paul and those defending him)?

4. It's not just fairly simple, it's about as simple as it gets, there are not many things simpler than 1-1=0 ! Does Paul really only have the mathematical knowledge of a four year old or do you think he's counting on the fact that many of the audiophiles to whom he's selling don't realise that a null test is effectively just 1-1=0 ? I'm presuming you don't think that 1-1 equals something other that zero and therefore that you're simply ignorant that's what a null test effectively is? Let's take a waveform signal, make a perfect copy of it but invert the copy and then sum them both together. So at the point that the original would have a value of +50, the inverted copy would have a value of -50, at the point it would have a value of -1, the inverted copy would have a value of +1 and so on throughout the waveform. What is the sum of +50-50, of -1+1 or indeed of any 2 values at every point between the original and the inverted copy? It's always exactly zero of course, a perfect "null". What happens if we take our original signal, pass it though say a DAC (or an amp, cable or anything) then invert that signal and sum it with the original? Exactly the same of course, if the original is say +1 at a point and the signal passed through the DAC is -1 then the result is of course zero and if the result of the whole signal is zero (a null) then both signals must obviously be identical. Hopefully it's obvious, that if the DAC does change the signal in ANY WAY WHATSOVER then at a point where the original is say -1, the inverted DAC copy would be say 1.0001 and if we sum these together, obviously we wouldn't get zero, we'd get 0.0001, the difference between them. It doesn't matter what caused the difference; frequency, phase, amplitude, EMI, a unicorn stamping it's foot on Venus or anything else! If it makes ANY difference to one of the waveforms, a null test will exactly quantify the difference!

5. Ethan did in fact build/invent a hardware null tester but that's irrelevant, null testing has been around at least since the 1940's, it is a common test/tool and the basic principle of which is about as simple as it gets.
5a. Just so we're clear, are you arguing that the statement 1-1=0 is ridiculous? Paul didn't answer the question because obviously he'd have to get into what a null test actually is, and then come up with something to effectively prove that 1-1 does not equal 0. Better to avoid that one don't you think, even for gullible audiophiles?

G

 

[gregorio]

Another myth ^ the RIAA is cut into the lacquer master, it is not on the tape.

All that time and effort to invent such a pretty fiction and you wipe it out in one sentence with a simple fact. Killjoy!

[1] In turn I’ve made it my mission to try and make digital like vinyl. [2] This was pretty much achieved by getting amps and DACs which added the most warmth possible.

1. You've done what?!
2. What, you found amps and DACs that added rumble, wow and flutter, clicks, pops and crackles, in addition to relatively huge frequency inaccuracies? Mind telling us what they are, so we can avoid them!

At times hi-res was used but all and all it’s a complete signal chain to achieve. Meaning it’s the file, the DAC, the amplifier process along with a host of post processing (not EQ) which takes place in the digital domain to try and add back what has been left out of the digital files.

Why didn't you just get a cheap vinyl plugin to add whatever amount of crackles, clicks, pops, wow/flutter and freq inaccuracies that you want? Then you could just use cheap accurate DACs and Amps, instead of incorrectly functioning DACs and Amps that presumably cost more!

[1] DSEE HX, DSD Remastering and the DC Phase Linearizer help bring stuff in line. [1a] But I’m ok with that as zero surface noise and other “artifacts” of vinyl playback are avoided.

1. I thought you said it was your mission to make digital like vinyl, so why are you helping to bring "stuff in line" with digital and away from vinyl.
1a. What makes vinyl sound like vinyl is "surface noise and other artifacts of vinyl playback", getting rid of those (and other analogue artifacts) is why digital was invented in the first place and why it sounds different. In other words, if you get rid of the surface noise and other artifacts of vinyl, what you're left with is identical to digital! So how exactly is that fulfilling your mission?

In many ways I’m lazy to use digital, but it is what it is. But it really does relate to how well you connect with the music. How emotional you can be.

True but personally, I find that adding clicks/pops, crackles, rumble, wow and flutter and other frequency inaccuracies during playback doesn't improve my connection with the music, it does the opposite, but that's just me. However, the added click/pops, surface noise and all the other vinyl artifacts can certainly affect "how emotional I can be", for example, they can significantly affect my emotion of annoyance!

G

 

[Redcarmoose]

A) The fact that digital to analogue converters set an idea as to flat also is suspect.

B) Are all methods of ADC the same?

C) The RIAA equalization curve of a phono stage somehow is very different than a DAC.

D) I would like to believe that some day we will be able to make the two totally equal, but so far they are two different worlds.

E) Obviously some are going to point out that the phono stage has flaws and digital is fully pristine............I beg to argue that fact.

F) Some how people (in Sound Science) will resist to fully embrace the fact that the phono sound has its intrinsic attributes here............it's nothing new, I have seen it here for 12 years.

G) Also what are about the masters before modern ADC, are they all wrong suffering from profound ineptness?

You avoided all of the most important questions that were actually directed directly at you?

Most importantly:

Who is to say what flat is?

I think Paul McGowan has a valid point.

After spending a lifetime with vinyl I totally agree the turntable source is slow and fat and the digital source is fast and bright. I have spent the last 10 years attempting to replicate the vinyl sound with digital and firmly believe there is a difference. People can say Paul is just marketing his products but to me he is right on the mark. There is an intrinsic difference to vinyl. Funny too, as when I started in SS about 12 years ago vinyl was dragged around as the worst thing ever. Now that it has had a profound resurgence, the format gets slightly more respect again here. But it's safe to say Paul has had a successful career at whatever he is doing. Thus many here are going to judge him but never heard his products, that any success must be from some style of trickery or misleading. haha


The fact that digital to analogue converters set an idea as to flat also is suspect in my eyes. Who is to say what flat is? Are all methods of ADC the same? No, there are variations of tone. It may be slight, and truthfully I'm not even sure if they are audible, but there is differences. The RIAA equalization curve of a phono stage somehow is very different than a DAC. I would like to believe that some day we will be able to make the two totally equal, but so far they are two different worlds. Obviously some are going to point out that the phono stage has flaws and digital is fully pristine............I beg to argue that fact. Some how people (in Sound Science) will resist to fully embrace the fact that the phono sound has its intrinsic attributes here............it's nothing new, I have seen it here for 12 years. The fact that it's not the same as digital and maybe never will be fully understood.

Also what are about the masters before modern ADC, are they all wrong suffering from profound ineptness?

All that time and effort to invent such a pretty fiction and you wipe it out in one sentence with a simple fact. Killjoy!


1. You've done what?!
2. What, you found amps and DACs that added rumble, wow and flutter, clicks, pops and crackles, in addition to relatively huge frequency inaccuracies? Mind telling us what they are, so we can avoid them!

Why didn't you just get a cheap vinyl plugin to add whatever amount of crackles, clicks, pops, wow/flutter and freq inaccuracies that you want? Then you could just use cheap accurate DACs and Amps, instead of incorrectly functioning DACs and Amps that presumably cost more!

1. I thought you said it was your mission to make digital like vinyl, so why are you helping to bring "stuff in line" with digital and away from vinyl.
1a. What makes vinyl sound like vinyl is "surface noise and other artifacts of vinyl playback", getting rid of those (and other analogue artifacts) is why digital was invented in the first place and why it sounds different. In other words, if you get rid of the surface noise and other artifacts of vinyl, what you're left with is identical to digital! So how exactly is that fulfilling your mission?



True but personally, I find that adding clicks/pops, crackles, rumble, wow and flutter and other frequency inaccuracies during playback doesn't improve my connection with the music, it does the opposite, but that's just me. However, the added click/pops, surface noise and all the other vinyl artifacts can certainly affect "how emotional I can be", for example, they can significantly affect my emotion of annoyance!

G

 

[bigshot]

"Flat" is a balanced frequency response where no frequency band is louder or quieter relative to the original signal than any other. It isn't a description of how music sounds to your ear. It's a simple calibration. You run tones at a known level and balance the output to match. It isn't subjective.

When stuff like this gets misstated and corrected over and over and it keeps getting misstated, it's time to realize that certain people just aren't the best source of information. I really don't know why Sound Science seems so attractive to barnacles. You'd think they would rather chat in la la land with people who don't point out their errors so much.

 

[castleofargh]

@Redcarmoose
Some albums will not follow some standards. Depending on the period, the standards, techniques, media and even musical trends have changed.
Now that we have that absolutely obvious information, what to do with it?

Not much. We’ll still like what we like. But assuming that you will ever care about fidelity(if not what was the point of all this crap about fidelity and measurements?), you’re presented with 2 main options:
-You try to follow one standard, then you'll come closer to getting a fair level of fidelity for albums that followed said standard. And if you wish to adapt to some other standard, maybe enough documentation about both can facilitate the switch(some measurements might help a good deal).
-Or you can make your own patchwork of ”colored” playback gears, and chances are that you’re close to no standard whatsoever.


Captain obvious has something to say about vinyls. If you want that sound, use vinyls as is or record the output in digital and play that.

In term of FR, headphones do initially pull us away from a goal of perceived flat response(and that’s clearly a bad thing overall). Going toward flat is doable, but harder to figure out than with speakers.