Pure Vinyl Club

  • Content count

    40
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Pure Vinyl Club

  • Rank
    Freshman Member
  1. Monetarily Questionable Agency aka MQA? I did not have the opportunity to read the entire topic, perhaps this information was already discussed here ... I apologize if I repeat, but I found this information interesting: "If you've wondered why 6moons hasn't yet formally covered MQA, you might have also wondered why not more hardware companies have signed up by now. After all, Dolby was massively embraced very quickly. Consider this information from an industry insider. Given three signed NDA, their contributions here are by necessity most generalized and terse to remain within bounds. Still, there's enough to spot a trend or attitude. "At the beginning we were informed about the fees for each product and the need for good administration. So we began what grew into a very serious amount in R&D and labor fees over two years to incorporate it. Not only was the MQA module of interest but our entire product range would be modified for the occasion. Once we received the definitive contract however, we discovered grave imbalances. Key points were that administration of MQA would include our entire dealer network and that they could penalize any error on our side (stating the incorrect amount of MQA modules sold) with an unlimited amount whilst for any errors on their end, we could maximally recoup 100 in our currency. On the technical side, we requested their decoder to develop proper unit-to-unit QC protocols as we have always done on our end. They only promised a few test tones. Those are insufficient to measure distortion, bandwidth, impulse response, linearity and noise to mention just a few. They seem to be very afraid to divulge more about their algorithm to us, their intended business partners. If we can't properly test our MQA-enabled product, how can we be confident to ship it around the world? Based on our listening tests, MQA can do well for cheaper converters. As converter quality increases, the need for MQA becomes less to eventually disappear. If your own DAC for example has perfect impulse response, MQA will only work 50% because now it needs to just correct on the recording end. Now the unfolding process is implemented simply to avoid copying and to create the profit model; not because it actually does anything. Had we seen the definitive contract upfront, we would never have wasted such a huge amount of money!"To rewind a tad, all business is about profit. That's the nature of the beast. Nobody goes into business to work for free or give stuff away. However, when business involves collaboration with other commercial entities, it's common sense to expect balanced contracts which are mutually beneficial to all parties concerned. This certainly doesn't prevent mercenary or one-sided tactics. However, if indications to that effect exist, why volunteer to give such enterprises exposure in these pages? Based on the above and similar reluctance to support the format elsewhere, MQA at this stage does not appear to be a good thing for the small boutique firms which make up the core of our sector. Hence we should refrain from further editorials on the matter until this situation changes. And don't expect widespread coverage on this. Anyone who is appraised of all the details to talk full shop and the kitchen sink has been contractually silenced by binding non-disclosure agreements. The best measure of change here should be the quickness and breadth whereby MQA appears in high-end digital hardware by more and more brands ... or not." http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatures/mqa/1.html
  2. Ok, I applied a steep filter of 30Hz and added a "brickwall" to all 16 / 44.1 files. I used this software: Here is the result of DR measurement:
  3. Here are screenshots of DR states from LP rip The Crusaders - Images (1978, USA). The whole process: from recording without RIAA (RAW) and to converting (SRC) to CD format): 1. The Crusaders - Images (1978, USA) (Raw) 2. The RIAA curve is applied and cut into separate tracks 3. Gain Output Levels (software): Side A - 3.39dB and Side B - 3.84dB 4. Gain Output Levels (software): separately each track 5. Conversion (SRC) of tracks to the quality of CD (16/44.1)
  4. Under the means for synchronization, everyone who works in professional studios usually means only clock. Not a DAC, not an ADC, but only a clock (internal in interfaces or external Master Clock). And nothing more. I hope that you will not wipe your feet about this great man (Andrea Bocelli): Andrea Bocelli Closer to Home | Antelope Audio My good friends have this in the studio: TAS 180: Esoteric G-ORb Rubidium Master Clock Generator | The Absolute Sound
  5. Yes, the Atomic reference oscillator is not a clock, but only a frequency generator (10MHz). It just gives more precision (accurancy) for the master clock (Isochrone Trinity).
  6. Antelope Audio Pure2: Burr-Brown (TI) A/D converter PCM4222 (High-Performance, Two-Channel, 24-Bit, from 8kHz to 216kHz Sampling Multi-Bit Delta-Sigma Analog-to-Digital Converter)
  7. It all depends on what kind of synchronization tools you use when registering an analog signal in digital domain and then reconstructing it (playing it back in an analog way). If you use a standard clock (quartz oscillator, possibly with the exception of the Grimm Audio CC1), then you can not completely solve the jitter problems even at a frequency of 44.1kHz. And a bigger problem will be when you use 96 or 192kHz. We use for recording in the studio Antelope Audio Audiophile 10M (10 MHz Rubidium Atomic Reference Generator, Frequency Accurancy better than 0.03 PPB (parts per BILLION)) and therefore we have no problems, even when we record on the frequency 192kHz.
  8. "In fact, this is a popular picture with a chart showing ANALOG (signal from the best microphone), as a reference standard. And the loss (or lack of loss, as they represent -))), in the case of DSD) in the temporal domain of the impulse response and energy when trying to register and then reconstruct this signal with the help of various digital standards (48, 96,192 and DSD)."
  9. Jud, I actually wrote with irony about this "popular" picture. Look again at the picture - there the peak of the DSD is even higher than the peak ANALOG ;-))
  10. Here you are slightly incorrectly pointing to vinyl, although in fact here it is said about ANALOG (that is what a best microphone can register). Vinyl will never be able to repeat this result without loss - too much interference will occur in the way of the LP creation process. And even more distortion will be when trying to play LP on your TT. In fact, this is a popular picture with a chart showing ANALOG (signal from the best microphone), as a reference standard. And the loss (or lack of loss, as they represent -))), in the case of DSD) in the temporal domain of the impulse response and energy when trying to register and then reconstruct this signal with the help of various digital standards (48, 96,192 and DSD).
  11. Here you are slightly incorrectly pointing to vinyl, although in fact here it is said about ANALOG (that is what a best microphone can register). Vinyl will never be able to repeat this result without loss - too much interference will occur in the way of the LP creation process. And even more distortion will be when trying to play LP on your TT. In fact, this is a popular picture with a chart showing ANALOG (signal from the best microphone), as a reference standard. And the loss (or lack of loss, as they represent -))), in the case of DSD) in the temporal domain of the impulse response and energy when trying to register and then reconstruct this signal with the help of various digital standards (48, 96,192 and DSD).
  12. It seems, this whole thing has also just degenerated into yet another "CD vs. vinyl" religious war. You always accuse me of opposing vinyl and digital. Show me a place in my two articles and comments, where I praise LP and disparage DIGITAL. All just the opposite. There is no TT in any of my sound systems. And I do not have any of my LPs, none at all! And never will be! TT, on which I make rips with LP is in the studio and it is integrated into professional equipment. And even in the studio, I never hear an "analog" sound from the LP, only DIGITAL. Because the phono preamp that I use for recording does not have a RIAA curve corrector. Only the "flat" XLR output and RIAA are superimposed in the digital domain. I always hear from the LP only a digital sound and I really like what I hear. This is the essence of this project - to make the most effective TT and with the help of high-class professional equipment to make the most effective LP rip. And that's all! Farewell to LP! Put it on the shelf in the old closet and forget how terrible a dream, all those inconveniences and problems with LP. Just this! It is the high quality of the DIGITAL equipment and software that has allowed to achieve very good results. Now you can write down everything that is on LP, with great reserve, absolutely all the information. And yes, I really like high fidelity when listening to music. In the studio, I listen to professional monitors. But at home I do not have any tube amplifiers. Only active pro monitors of different sizes (4", 5", 6", 8"). And my main setup is the Grimm Audio LS-1, which many consider the most high fidelity system in the world.
  13. This article is specifically written in a clear, easy form, which would be 90% of the readers on the CA, which are not interested in all this higher mathematics and who just want to know what they need for good listening to your favorite music. It was not meant for technological discussion. And only a small passage contains some technical information and is the cause of all this disagreement and criticism (due to misunderstanding or unwillingness to understand that in fact the article is written about something else). Maybe it's my fault, because I do not know good English and I use Google translator. Quotation from an interview with Art Dudley was used precisely because it is directly related to the material of this article. And it is to this passage. Or is Art Dudley not good enough to quote? To make it clear what exactly Art Dudley wanted to say, and in the context of which he said this, I provide a larger excerpt from this interview. Sorry, but the interview is only in Polish and I again have to use Google translator: "Wojciech Pacuła: What are then the greatest sins of modern audio? Art Dudley: In my opinion the two sins are the worst: 1) We wrangled down, with every movement, by those who point to this or that element of design or construction, and say, "It does not matter." I have one answer for them: "Bullshit, EVERYTHING is important!" We hear, however, again and again. Manufacturers claim that it does not matter what material performed amplifier housing. From engineers to remasteringiem who think it does not matter that the board LP was incised with digital tape (or using a digital delay). From the people, by which high resolution is not important, because the Nyquist frequency for CD 44.1 kHz is sufficient. The latter is particularly problematic when we realize that the Nyquist frequency does not apply to work and reconstruction filters decymacyjnych composite signal. Indeed, the two samples may be used to describe a single frequency, but do not provide a sufficient density of the samples to describe the speed with which the signal increases or decreases - and this is a key distinction between the music and mere sound." High Fidelity
  14. "The first cartridge with integrated RF shielding, the Clearaudio Goldfinger Statement MC phono cartridge is designed to play on the world's finest analog systems and reproduce the music on the greatest recordings ever made with unstinting clarity, liveliness, dynamics, realism, and responsiveness. Featuring 12 perfectly matched and symmetrical magnets – an unprecedented achievement – surrounding its coils. The Product of the Year Award-winning Goldfinger Statement allows systems to reach the long-unattainable dynamic range of 100dB." https://www.musicdirect.com/store/clearaudio-goldfinger-statement-mc-cartridge
  15. Hi, sdolezalek It doesn't affect the precision at all. Or any other *individual* frequency (taken by itself) that can be reproduced with that sample rate. What is important is that the time relationships *between* different frequencies is better preserved by using a higher sample rate. But not the precision of reproducing any single frequency. And yes, by the way, I, too, I can not hear 16kHz