bbosler

on second thought, just delete my last post and this one. All of them if you wish. I am not "out of my league here" as you stated nor will I stand to be dismissed as if some sort of uneducated, pedantic idiot. I have an extensive electronics background , a degree in the same, having taught digital electronics and worked in the field for over 40 years so even though you have the utmost faith in digital processing, my background says otherwise. You can run your site as you see fit and since you have decided condescension and derision is ok, I want no part of it. I'm sure you will be glad to see me go since nobody wants to deal with those out of their league. please delete my account, I don't see any way to do that on this end. good day

You keep saying "the recording," and "in the recording" but what is that really? It is a bunch of numbers in a digital file that represent an analog signal. How can you determine what comes out of your DAC as analog is an accurate reproduction of what is encoded in those numbers? The only thing you can do is assume if it sounds better it did a better job, because you don't know what those numbers are supposed to sound like. You can say this processing sounds better to me than that one, but you can't confidently say the one that sounds better is more accurate. Yet you, somehow, without knowing what those numbers really represent, know that your processing results in a more accurate reproduction of the recording those numbers represent, even though there is no consensus about which of the myriad of filters and processing options is the best. . That's not splitting hairs or being pedantic, that's not focusing on minor details, that is the heart of the matter. So feel free to dismiss me again if it makes you feel better. I know I'm wasting my time because you have such faith in the power of digital processing. On the other hand, having spent extensive time with all sorts of high end DACs, PCM to DSD processors and filtering in software like HQP and hardware like DCS and Chord and others, upsamplers, oversamplers,and all of that.....my experience is that the more you process, the further you get from the truth. Obviously, our experiences differ. oh, and not all DACs upsample

No. It removes things like nonlinearities and artifacts not present in the recording. Reading the Bartok review and how the DCS DAC processes the data prompts me to revisit this. I have to wholeheartedly disagree with your statement that the data is not changed. I said it was, you said “no” “A digital filter uses a digital processor to perform numerical calculations on sampled values of the signal. The processor may be a general-purpose computer such as a PC, or a specialised DSP (Digital Signal Processor) chip.” https://123.physics.ucdavis.edu/week_5_files/filters/digital_filter.pdf You can believe that these calculations that change the data make for better sound just like I can believe dragging a needle through a plastic groove makes it sound better, but you can’t deny that the filters change the data. And since it is changed, you can’t say with certainty that what results is more accurate to the source any more than I can. Look through the filter explanations in the HQP manual where he discusses the pros and cons of the different filters. How every version has some issue and how some of the artifacts are more audible than others, why some filters are better suited for this or that because the undesired side effects are less in one situation than another. If the digital filter corrects for one thing while introducing something else it really isn't more accurate, it just makes it sound better AND different people choose different filters based on what that individual thinks sounds the best.

My initial reaction is to fire back, but our fearless leader admonished us to stay away from starting a fight over what is subjective, so I will not take the bait. Nice try though. completely agree, but physical media of all types is expensive. A BluRay to get a True HD Atmos files isn't cheap either, but vs streaming, buying vinyl is certainly not the cost effective option. Used vinyl is where it gets stupid. Some rich guy pays a stupid price because he wants it and money is no object, and everyone else thinks that establishes what they are worth and we see a bunch of copies posted for the same stupid price, and they just sit there

no, I get the point, especially about room correction. You can definitely show with measurements that the frequency response picked up by the microphone in your room is closer to the spectrum coming unaltered from the DAC, but you must admit every change you make to the data to make it that way also changes it in unintended ways. Otherwise we wouldn't have something like 1,000,000 different filter and upsampling combinations in HQplayer. Your "more accurate" in frequency response might be my unacceptable phase shift or ringing. Your "more accurate" that you think sounds best might do something to the sound that I can't abide. So is it really more accurate? so around and around we go Drat! I just got fired for goofing off at work... oh well, more time to listen to records 😀

I see your point, but you are also mixing 2 concepts We have no way of knowing what the source (the musicians making the sound) sounded like, so you are distorting (changing) the data in a way that you have decided makes it more accurate. Yes, some of that can be backed up with measurements, but it ultimately means changing it in a way that pleases your brain. Nothing wrong with that, but I'm not buying into the idea that doing so somehow makes it "accurate." My take is, you are convinced what you are hearing is more accurate because it please your brain. In my case, I am also doing what I am doing because it pleases my brain without thinking it is somehow more accurate. However... if what I hear from my system sounds to me more natural as in, an acoustic guitar recording played back on my system sounds to me more like I think the guitar should sound than it does through your digital system, is my system not more "accurate?" At least to me? BTW I actually have a job I have been ignoring so I better get to that, at least for now.

so are you saying you can take a digital file, put it through a PCM to DSD conversion, apply dithering and filters as in HQP , apply convolution, and whatever else is being done to the file...... and are still "accurate to the source" ?? If so, we simply have different definitions for accurate

agreed, some like Blue Note definitely do make the AAA claim, but for the Atlantic series they say something about using the master tapes but do not say AAA, so I assume there is a digital step

"accuracy during playback?" I apologize because this will sound snarky.... but are you kidding me? this not just upsampling.... Conversion to DSD is not just upsampling. If it was simple upsampling why do we get ongoing updates of the PS Audio way of doing it, APEX upgrades for the DCS way, and firmware updates from others. . .The various DAC chips and the DCS ring circuits act on the data in various ways that they hope sound the best. If it was just upsampling why have the PPPG crowd been going at this so fervently with ongoing updates to the algorithm? If the digital way is so accurate why does a USB or ethernet cable change the sound in the profound ways that many claim? If digital playback is so accurate why does changing the streaming hardware that is supposedly delivering the exact same data so profoundly changing the sound as many claim? Various DAC chips and R2R DACs change the signal in various ways.. Putting the data through various digital filters in the DAC changes the data. It has to or there is no point in doing it. Applying convolution changes the data. Running it through HQP to apply dithering and filters changes the data. What is being done to the data by all these digital methods during playback is not accurate to the source either. Any change to the data or the signal is distortion. What you are doing to the data is not just upsampling to push down the noise floor .. So while I readily admit my choices are a matter of preference, what I really find curious is how many on the digital team (not all) take such a condescending tone when schooling the vinyl team about how distorted it is, yet have no issue glorifying all the extreme measures they go through to manipulate (distort) the data in the digital playback chain. How they hold their nose when talking about vinyl distortion yet celebrate digital distortion. And I'll leave it at that. Thanks for the exchange. I said I preferred it. I never claimed it was more accurate. I never said it was better. I don't appreciate being told I am dishonest.

They don't really "have to," but some do. BTW the One Step process has to do with how the discs are pressed and nothing to do with how the files are handled. . MoFi never actually claimed the process was all analog, but the way they marketed it led you to believe it was. That's where the "scandal" came in. I don't recall reading that anybody changed their mind about how they sounded, they were just angry that they got duped. If I'm wrong about that somebody please point me to the correction. I think you are a bit out of the loop when comes to the current AAA releases. You are correct about new music being recorded today having a digital step, or many digital steps, but there are reputable companies releasing AAA vinyl by going back to the master tapes of older recordings that were produced before digital recording existed. Blue Note being one example.. Either that or we are being blatantly lied to and the vinyl industry insiders like Michael Fremer are being seriously duped. if interested you can google "aaa vinyl releases" and as far as "accurate" is concerned, I really don't care. All I care about is how it sounds... Like you alluded to, accuracy is not the goal, never was. Almost all recordings now and in the past are/were massaged with EQ, compression, etc to make them sound better, so when did we start being concerned about accuracy? Remember the early days of digital when everyone was focused on bit perfect 16/44.1 playback? Remember the HdTracks scandal when we found out some of their 24/96 files were actually just GASP !!!! upsampled ? Now, for most, the focus is about taking the digital file and massaging it to make it sound better. Some of the most highly regarded DACs like DCS and EMM convert PCM to DSD and then back to analog. Many have a variety of digital filters built in to tailor the sound to one's liking and highly regarded programs like HQplayer do it for you in software. Then add in convolution for corrections for your room, and accuracy is really out the window . So regarding vinyl cut from digital files.....which you said " by any objective standard, it can’t be more accurate to the source than the actual source"... ...... If taking the digital file, converting it to analog to cut a groove in plastic that I can drag a needle through sounds good to me, it seems to me the end result is no different than all of the digital manipulations going on in your world to make the digital files sound good to you, because all of what you are doing isn't accurate to the actual source either. I have absolutely no problem with whatever you or anyone does to the file to make it sound good,, but I don't agree when you say vinyl is less accurate than digital when all of these manipulations are being done on both sides of the fence.... I guess it boils down to which inaccuracies we prefer because neither of us is listening to the source.

Most everything released pre 1980 or so is AAA. With over 22,000,000 pre 1980 records for sale on Discogs there's not much problem finding one. There is actually a large amount of AAA vinyl being reissued these days too. Blue note has released 100's of titles this way and Atlantic is going through their catalog. just to name a few... Some is digitally processed at some point though. As for digital recordings, objectively yes, but these same people may have (many like me definitely have) much more invested (time and money) into optimizing everything beyond the needle than they do in their digital rigs, so it makes sense what they hear is "better." And this is indisputable; ........ you can't clean the seeds out of your weed and roll a joint on a CD case like you can a gatefold album cover. which will definitely increase your dynamic range. Well, I can't actually confirm that, but that's what a friend told me

I am not bringing this up to debate which is superior. My intention is to merely clear up some misconceptions. Well maintained records played back on a quality system do not have "excessive pops, ticks, and surface noise." A record like this is either a defective pressing which does happen, or it has been abused. It is not the norm. I have about 4000 records and for the vast majority; pops and ticks are few and far between. Avoiding vinyl because it occasionally happens is the equivalent of avoiding the symphony because someone occasionally coughs or sneezes. With the volume way up you can hear some surface noise between songs, but on a quality system it is so much lower than the level of the music it never intrudes. To use the previous analogy, no more intrusive than people rustling in their seats between movements at the symphony. On my system at normal volumes on most records you can't even hear it. The speed instability causing the piano vibrato is a symptom of either a poor turntable or a record pressed off center. The former is alleviated by using a quality table. The latter unfortunately does sometimes happen. From a practical standpoint, dealing with setting up a turntable along with the inevitable wear on the cartridge, and maintaining the records can make vinyl playback more complicated than playing a digital file. However, "excessive pops, ticks, and surface noise" are not reasons to avoid vinyl because the problem simply does not exist. On the other hand, plopping a record on a turntable seems pretty simple compared to the extreme measures some here are going to with clocks, multiple reclockers, multiple external power supplies, super routers, supercomputers, esoteric cables, upsampling programs, and the like to play back digital files. Now back to our regularly scheduled program.

right, Pure Vinyl runs natively on Mac OS, but I don't think he's updated the software in something like 10 years so it won't run on any of the M series or on the last 4-5 releases of the older intel versions of software. You have to get something like a 2014 Mini and put a really old OS on it. but they are cheap and it does work. If I were you I would stick with what you've got and if he ever updates it then give it a go.

I used Pure Vinyl software to do the RIAA which was actually very good. If you have an old Mac Mini it is a cheap experiment. Currently won't work with newer Apple operating systems https://www.channld.com/purevinyl/

now you've really opened a can of worms. Wheaties is processed crap with salt and corn syrup, I'm a Heritage Flakes guy...