Jump to content

tuga

Wammer
  • Posts

    9,345
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

tuga last won the day on January 11

tuga had the most liked content!

Reputation

2,321 Excellent

About tuga

  • Rank
    . . .
    Veteran Wammer

Personal Info

  • Location
    Oxfordshire, UK
  • Real Name
    Ric

Wigwam Info

  • Digital Source 1
    Mac mini / HQPlayer
  • Digital Source 2
    microRendu / NAA
  • DAC
    RME ADI2 DAC @DSD256
  • Integrated Amp
    Bespoke transistor
  • My Speakers
    Stirling LS3/6
  • Headphones
    NAD VISO HP50
  • Trade Status
    I am not in the Hi-Fi trade

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Tonal quality is part of the recording. A good source is the one which will best reproduce the recording. There can be enhanced tonal quality (usually the result of low order harmonic distortion) and damaged tonality (usually the result of uneven frequency response). Digital has (potentially) far more resolution than vinyl. It's a lot more accurate. I recommend this 2 page piece by Jim Lesurf titled Good Resolution which compares vinyl and CD: http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/HFN/goodresolutions/page1.html http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/HFN/goodresolutions/page2.html
  2. Lossless means that once decompressed the resulting file will be exactly the same as the original file before it was compressed. One can convert a WAV to FLAC, that FLAC to AIFF, the AIFF to ALAC and the ALAC to WAV and this last file will be bit-identical to the original one.
  3. You can add analogue effects in digital audio too. Some plugins emulate the sound of the most famous analogue studio gear.
  4. Let it be clear that I don't doubt for a second that vinyl sounds better to some people. There's a Portuguese forum dedicated to analogue full of mostly old farts in love with old receivers and turntables to prove it.
  5. You're the one who brought up the old technologies? So, do you? Surely it must be more organic than Bluray, it's analogue.
  6. Which neurologist? What have you been smoking? By the way, vinyl is also not continuous, the needle is jumping from molecule to molecule...
  7. You are confused. First of all, it's vinyl that's the primitive technology, not the measuring instruments. Secondly your brain has no way of telling if a sound is analogue or digital, it only recognises different types of distortion. Do you still watch VHS tapes?
  8. If you press a vinyl record from a digital file it will sound like vinyl, if you digitalise a vinyl record the CD or file will sound like vinyl. Which one do you think will sound more like the mic feed or the master tape: vinyl or digital? Vinyl('s shortcomings), or the use of vintage analogue mics, mic-pres and desks may sound good or make the listening experience more stimulating to some people and/or in certain particular cases but it isn't because it's more "organic" (wth), that is an absolute confabulation. Perhaps because recorded music cannot sound like the real thing and some euphonic distortions enhance the experience? In any case it has nothing to do with organic or nature or anything of the sort. I didn't read the blog entry you posting after reading the absurd excerpt that Camverton quoted... Some people like vinyl others digital. Let's keep it at that and not make up fantastic absurdities to make ourselves feel good about it. I truly recommend that you read something more informative and factually correct on this subject: Analogue Warmth - The Sound Of Tubes, Tape & Transformers https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/analogue-warmth
  9. It is an unquestionable fact that digital recording has the potential to be far more accurate than analogue recording. But which one sounds better is matter of preference; in other words, it depends on who you ask. It often depends on the listener's age and his favourite genres.
  10. P.S. I am hardly known for my hard core subjectiveness or my hate for measurements and scientific evidence.
  11. Multiples sources refer to that "little bit of shash in the digits" as potentially capable of increasing jitter levels and generating intermodulation distortion which may be audible (in the form of "glare"). (I am having a déjà vu moment, haven't we discussed this before?)
  12. The point is that more processing = more (potential) noise "travelling allong" with the signal.
  13. tuga

    Sound proofing

    Will you be using double-board for the ceiling? Also perhaps try an acoustic membrane on top of the ceiling boards? Something like this: http://www.soundservice.co.uk/TecsoundT50.html http://www.soundservice.co.uk/acoustic_membrane.html We had privacy issues in a medical centre between consulting rooms and ended up using one of them, can't recall which as I am not involved with the spec'ing.
  14. I agree that lossless makes sense for those using portable devices where storage size matters, not so convinced about keeping a duplicate library but I'm sure it's manageable. I also use XLD to convert my FLAC and ALAC downloads to AIFF. When I ripped my CD library I chose AIFF for classical and ALAC for everything else, but since HQPlayer plays FLAC but not ALAC I later converted everything to AIFF. I find that this is easier done on iTunes, one only has to select all files, convert to the new format then delete since the GUI will not deselect the originals.
  15. The Total DAC was a DIY design turned commercial, a bit like the Lampizator. It's creator was famous in some French audiophile circles for his straight bass horns: http://vincent.brient.free.fr/bass_horn.htm
×
×
  • Create New...