[The Jester]

Even if there ever is a reference system assembled by experts and A/B tested against live sound, once that system is given to others, along with say a transparent 16 band equaliser to play their favourite music through, how many would still have all the EQ sliders at 0db ?
Short of winning the Lottery i’m at the end of the “HiFi” hobby and more than happy with old recordings on vinyl and everything else via digital,
I’m looking forward to Rob’s results with the new ADC and hopefully any studios or recording companies using it will give it due credit ..
@rob ... need to design a little logo like the old DDD on CD’s or SQ on Sony’s surround sound LP’s so we know what we are buying ?

 

[thePhones]

As far as I know Vinyl has a technical limit as to how far you can compress the dynamic range. Digital does not have this limit, you can go higher than 0db ,which then clips and creates distortion, but you can still play that file, with vinyl you can not do that. So that may be a reason why some vinyls still sound better, even when mastered digitally, because they can not go down the loudness road that much.

 

[Kentajalli]

As far as I know Vinyl has a technical limit as to how far you can compress the dynamic range. Digital does not have this limit, you can go higher than 0db ,which then clips and creates distortion, but you can still play that file, with vinyl you can not do that. So that may be a reason why some vinyls still sound better, even when mastered digitally, because they can not go down the loudness road that much.

actually , it is the other way round.
Digital has absolute max and min levels. Digital is very unforgiving about any level past 0dB level.
it produces a nasty distortion.
Analog mild overloads (above 0dB level) produce mild distortions, at first a compression , as levels get higher it becomes an audible distortion.
this is why on tape recorders VU meters, we had a red range marked +3dB, +5dB etc.
momentary overload peaks were used all the time.
But not on digital! no no ..
It is said that Tube amplifier 's watts are bigger!
it is partly due to Tube amplifier's ability to be pushed into overload and not produce a nasty distortion (compared to solid state) , so a say 20W tube amplifier can go louder than an average 20W solid state amp, which starts to distort way before it reaches rated output.
Tube amplifier overload distortions are there, they are just not as nasty to the ear.
But this is all academic, digital is superior as a medium to Vinyl LP's.

 

[JohnA1]

@RobWatts

Rob, have you ever experimented with 'interaural crosstalk' DSP
I'd be very interested in your opinion, as in my experience it can open up the soundstage like nothing else

I've got a Carver C9, marketed at the time as 'Sonic Hologram Generator'
It only has line in and line out. From Bob Carver's explanation, it injects some of other channel, out of phase with some delay, so that the left ear won't hear what is only meant for the right ear and vice versa. I cringe even writing this.
Carver C9 is not made of the most transparent electronics, but I have it hooked up via the tape loop because many stereo recordings become spookily 3-D. Not as much as good surround recordings, but soundstage doubles sometimes on the horizontal axis

Do you think this effect (just on the sweet spot) is purely an undesirable artefact, or is there something in the idea?

 

[Rob Watts]

Somewhat amusing - cross-feed on headphones is supposed to make headphones sound more like loudspeakers, but the Carver, if perfectly implemented, attempts to make loudspeakers sound like headphones! I don't think that's a good idea - I much prefer cross-feed on headphones. Also, using out of phase signals is dangerous - I don't want or like, that phasey all around false sound.

 

[JohnA1]

Yes, it does look like the opposite of headphone crossfeed.
You sometimes get a very wide soundstage, occassionally instruments appear to your right, some echoes even come from behind!

 

[Kentajalli]

Yes, it does look like the opposite of headphone crossfeed.
You sometimes get a very wide soundstage, occassionally instruments appear to your right, some echoes even come from behind!

If you are interested in that, Neutron media player (android or ios) has a similar DSP called "surround" - it is customizable to some degree.
At its min. settings it can be useful on some recordings.

 

[JohnA1]

I think the question is whether such surround effect is realistic or not, i.e. was the guitar leaping to your right meant to be there in the original recording.
Rob has been experimenting with soundstage changes quite a lot, so I thought it would be interesting to have his take on the subject.
There are loads more types of surround-type illusions, some of them patented, but this particular one intrigues me.

 

[analogmusic]

Thanks for your response and explanations of some of the tech spec facts I asked about Rob. I did not ask them out of any malice ,but as always simply out of curiosity.

But what about ALL the other questions I asked?????

I am quite certain I am not the only one here ,yearning for some good news!
Or is there no News?

Regarding the SNR for Bartok and TT2 I just quoted the numbers mentioned in the just published comparison review over at headphonics.
And whether Bartok can drive Susvara to my satisfaction or not I don´t have a clue yet.

Sloppy of me, to quote without fact-checking yes.
Mea culpa.

But I do know that Dave on its own can NOT drive Susvara with some of the non compressed classical masterfile material I mainly tend to listen to.


And I still don´t understand, if as you say you could "easily improve noise levels "why would that also have to involve increased distortion?
How can 355 dB "down under details" be resolved with 127dB SNR?

As far as whether convenience or SQ rule for me, suffice to say: I would not have not been dragging along both my Qutest and Mscaler and BNC cabling and two headphone amps and two quite good headphones on all of my recent years long term 5-6 months spells in Asia until Corona hit if convenience had been my main preference.
Last year I came back to Europe this week.

Until I hear something better,either from you, or the competition, Mscaler rules for me.

I have to paraphrase Simon and Garfunkel :"Mama don´ t, Mama don´t take my Kodachrome away"

Or more frankly, please don´t make the Mscaler redundant ,just add more of its magic even if it takes adding even more boxes and cables!

Talking Linn, my ancient Linn Sondek LP12 is still working after more than 40 years and can still challenge some of the digital competition too!
But my Hugo 1 sits idle except for an occasional YT music video via headphones.
And now over to those other questions, please.
Cheers CC

Do you ever stop to think before you ask questions or post anything?

 

[analogmusic]

I'll take a stab at this. Please recognise that my comments are offered entirely in good faith in an effort to expand the conversation. I completely recognise that this is my subjective opinion; an anecdote, and is therefore relatively worthless, but here goes: I abandoned vinyl twenty years ago to pursue the digital dream. Twenty years later I'm living with the MScaler and DAVE (WAVE cables) and digital has never sounded better. I'm fully on board with Rob's vision, and have been for some years now - where he goes with digital, I'm going to follow. Now, I never sold my record collection, and out of curiosity, thought I'd give them a spin. Which was a huge mistake because I was absolutely floored by what I heard: after 20 years absence, I heard *MUSIC* again. Wide open soundstages, air, depth, transients, dynamics, presence etc. It was all there. And then some. That was two years ago. In that time, my critical listening has shifted from 100% digital to 95% vinyl/5% digital. My head scratching conclusion during this period is that the critical information Rob is striving to recreate in his digital reconstruction is already present in the vinyl (and of course tapes) and that whatever weaknesses vinyl has (noise/clicks/pops/wow/flutter etc) are significantly outweighed by that gain.

It has to be said that if you want to hear vinyl at it's best, you need all analogue recordings. Modern pressings, which very often use digital mastering lose the magic (they throw away the critical micro timing information). This significantly reduces choice, if sound quality is a goal. If a recording was made digitally then listen to the digital version. But if it was recorded in analogue, go vinyl

I have a completely different experience

Since the Hugo 1 I largely stopped listening to Vinyl, and well, I don't miss it at all.

 

[iDesign]

Somewhat amusing - cross-feed on headphones is supposed to make headphones sound more like loudspeakers, but the Carver, if perfectly implemented, attempts to make loudspeakers sound like headphones! I don't think that's a good idea - I much prefer cross-feed on headphones. Also, using out of phase signals is dangerous - I don't want or like, that phasey all around false sound.

Interesting. Which crossed mode do you prefer on the DAVE?

 

[Rob Watts]

My personal settings on cross-feed depends; for headphones I always set it to the maximum; but my office system (HMS and Dave) with Dave driving small loudspeakers I set it to 1, or the minimum, as the speakers are a little too wide apart. In both cases, perception of depth improves, and I get the ideal width perspective, equivalent to sitting centre 10th row in front of an orchestra.

 

[DjBobby]

My personal settings on cross-feed depends; for headphones I always set it to the maximum; but my office system (HMS and Dave) with Dave driving small loudspeakers I set it to 1, or the minimum, as the speakers are a little too wide apart. In both cases, perception of depth improves, and I get the ideal width perspective, equivalent to sitting centre 10th row in front of an orchestra.

The part about the headphones is perfectly clear. Just trying to understand the part about the speakers correctly. If your speakers are, as you say, too wide apart and you are setting a cross-feed to minimum, how does is lead to the ideal width perspective? Wouldn't you need much more cross-feed to make the speakers virtually closer?

 

[Rob Watts]

The speakers are not so far apart from ideal, so only need a small amount of cross-feed for the bulk of the recordings I play.

 

[Vyyy]

My personal settings on cross-feed depends; for headphones I always set it to the maximum; but my office system (HMS and Dave) with Dave driving small loudspeakers I set it to 1, or the minimum, as the speakers are a little too wide apart. In both cases, perception of depth improves, and I get the ideal width perspective, equivalent to sitting centre 10th row in front of an orchestra.

Hi Rob, can we know what exactly these little speakers are at your office? Maybe i can copy-paste myself. Thanks.