Klimax LP12 Vs NGKDSM

[pirov]

Difficult to put a finger on why, but for whatever reason, I prefer the sound of vinyl in my Exakt Urika II NGKDSM system. Time and again, when doing the A/B (e.g. with Beck's superbly recorded Morning Phase @akamatsu) I've found myself thinking listening to the DS version 'it can't get much better than this', only to find the LP somehow more satisfying.

Having said that, the otherwise excellent Morning Phase LP has a very annoying (pressing?) defect – a kind of farting/rasping noise – right at the climax of 'Waking Light' at the end of side 2 (several copies tried, all the same). So the DS is clearly better in not suffering from such problems!

 

[13th Duke of Wymbourne]

Whether the analog distortions are less egregious than the digital counterparts, or whether we're just more used to them, I'm not sure. Given our ears have evolved to spatially locate sounds as a sensory apparatus, it makes sense that we would be particularly sensitive to timing errors, which are more of an issue with digital.

Is timing more of an issue for digital compared to vinyl?
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2017/06/musings-measurement-thoughts-on-vinyl.html#more

 

[llatpoh]

Is timing more of an issue for digital compared to vinyl?
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2017/06/musings-measurement-thoughts-on-vinyl.html#more

That article is basically a hit job against vinyl, it's based on false premises and misconceptions. The debate about wow & flutter was settled decades ago when it was found the human ear cannot detect a change in pitch on a constant test tone below .2%. S/N ratio is mostly irrelevant when you take into consideration an average noise floor in a room around 60db to 70db, not to mention that loudness is always manipulated in recordings or else volume would need to be constantly adjusted for music to be listenable.

 

[13th Duke of Wymbourne]

Read more carefully, Archimago likes vinyl but has no illusions as to its imperfections. I agree.
As I wrote in post #9 is there some magic that vinyl can reproduce that digital can't or do we prefer vinyl for what it adds? I don't know the answer but my money is on the latter. Does it matter if you like what you're hearing? Not for me, but for some I think they feel what they like must be inherently/objectively better because they like it. And that is OK too, but you can't make that argument using untruths. I agree with you that vinyl wow & flutter is probably irrelevant - but digital is not worse!
As to irrelevancies, what about distortion in vinyl playback? It is so high that no one measures it (except HFN+RR publish distortion measurements in cartridge reviews where it is usually 1% below 1kHz and up to 10% at 10kHz)! That we are comparing vinyl and digital playback as being so close in quality must mean that our hearing is really tolerant of these imperfections.
I have a sneaking suspicion that accurate, neutral sound is actually boring and we all like a little seasoning.

 

[mskaye]

That article is basically a hit job against vinyl, it's based on false premises and misconceptions. The debate about wow & flutter was settled decades ago when it was found the human ear cannot detect a change in pitch on a constant test tone below .2%. S/N ratio is mostly irrelevant when you take into consideration an average noise floor in a room around 60db to 70db, not to mention that loudness is always manipulated in recordings or else volume would need to be constantly adjusted for music to be listenable.

And as always it is a comparison of MEASUREMENTS, not of listening to music. Empirical data vs. emotions.

 

[13th Duke of Wymbourne]

That is fine and correct. Measurements do not seem to correlate with subjective experiences so let's all agree not to use them to bolster subjective findings while ignoring when they don't.
And don't get me started on the emotion route because that leads to un-sighted listening tests to determine if people really hear differences or are prejudiced by what they see/know. And no-one really wants that (though I would love reviewers to have to do periodic un-sighted listening accreditation so we know who to believe).

In the end all we really know is 'Morning Phase' is a really good album!
(I hope Akamatsu didn't hurt himself straddling the fence )

 

[13th Duke of Wymbourne]

I'm going to break my own rule before I exit stage-left and that is how can vinyl imaging be so good when cross-talk is pretty limited compared to digital? Now this is only a theory I've seen proposed in a couple of places but I like it: it is known in audio literature that loudspeakers do not image the same across frequencies. If a recording is made with a low frequency sound panned to be halfway between center and left and then the same settings are used for a high frequency signal that image will appear further to the left (I don't know the root cause for this, whether it is how we hear or whether it is a limitation of 2-channel stereo or a combination of the two). Most stereo cartridges have cross talk that degrades with increasing frequency so as the speaker makes the image spread for higher frequencies, the cartridge compensates with less channel separation. So, images that contain high and low frequencies together will be tighter. Again, only a theory but a real takeaway is that we only get about 30dB of channel isolation from vinyl compared to 80+dB from digital so it seems 30dB, maybe much less at high frequencies, is good enough for enjoyment. Just like high distortion and wow are fine too,

 

[JBC]

Is timing more of an issue for digital compared to vinyl?
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2017/06/musings-measurement-thoughts-on-vinyl.html#more

Issues of jitter, pre-ringing and phase effects of cut-off filters have absolutely been issues with digital that I would argue are still being resolved.

The fact that many high-end DAC's offer the option of multiple filters, so users can effectively choose their own 'flavour' of sound is telling. It could mean that our current measurements don't tell the whole story, it could mean that (on a related note) the issues aren't completely sorted yet, or it could mean that people will subjectively choose what they like best in their own systems.

 

[akamatsu]

Yesterday afternoon, I listened to an album streamed on Qobuz 16/44. I listened to the same album on LP last night. It was a much more musical experience on LP. There was simply more musical information present. Everything sounded more complete, with more access to what was happening in the studio. Thinking about Beck's "Morning Phase," I find his recordings on digital to be very good. Also, it was presented in 24/96, while playing the LP through a Urika 2 would be 24/192. Well I can't hear a difference between 96 and 192. Hence the fence straddling. So which is better, DS or LP12? As always, it depends.

 

[llatpoh]

Yesterday afternoon, I listened to an album streamed on Qobuz 16/44. I listened to the same album on LP last night. It was a much more musical experience on LP. There was simply more musical information present. Everything sounded more complete, with more access to what was happening in the studio. Thinking about Beck's "Morning Phase," I find his recordings on digital to be very good. Also, it was presented in 24/96, while playing the LP through a Urika 2 would be 24/192. Well I can't hear a difference between 96 and 192. Hence the fence straddling. So which is better, DS or LP12? As always, it depends.

It can be safely assumed that the master is (almost) always different for the LP version, so conclusions from direct comparisons, while valid and useful, should be assessed within this context.

Urika II could have done anywhere from 16/44.1 to 32/768 if Linn wanted to, but it's likely not going to make a difference in and of itself. I'm sure they must have had many good reasons to standarize on 24/192 for the A/D conversion, more flexibility of choice with digital filters being the obvious one, but SQ wise the sampling rate and word length will not matter much (if at all) if the source does not change.

 

[akamatsu]

It can be safely assumed that the master is (almost) always different for the LP version, so conclusions from direct comparisons, while valid and useful, should be assessed within this context.

Urika II could have done anywhere from 16/44.1 to 32/768 if Linn wanted to, but it's likely not going to make a difference in and of itself. I'm sure they must have had many good reasons to standarize on 24/192 for the A/D conversion, more flexibility of choice with digital filters being the obvious one, but SQ wise the sampling rate and word length will not matter much (if at all) if the source does not change.

Next up for a comparison will be Neil Diamond "Hot August Night." I'm thinking the LP will be all analogue, and it's available on Qobuz 24/192.

 

[ThomasOK]

It can be safely assumed that the master is (almost) always different for the LP version, so conclusions from direct comparisons, while valid and useful, should be assessed within this context.

Urika II could have done anywhere from 16/44.1 to 32/768 if Linn wanted to, but it's likely not going to make a difference in and of itself. I'm sure they must have had many good reasons to standarize on 24/192 for the A/D conversion, more flexibility of choice with digital filters being the obvious one, but SQ wise the sampling rate and word length will not matter much (if at all) if the source does not change.

The Urika II talks to the rest of the system through ExaktLink. ExaktLink is 24/192. Hence they would have to resample to 24/192 if they used any other sampling. There are also likely more options to choose from in terms of ADC chips that output 24/192.

 

[13th Duke of Wymbourne]

Issues of jitter, pre-ringing and phase effects of cut-off filters have absolutely been issues with digital that I would argue are still being resolved.

Jitter is a non-issue IMHO. Filter phase response and pre-ringing is interesting and have become USPs for various companies from Chord using as much pre-ringing as possible (to be closer to the 'ideal' Nyquist/Shannon theory) to those making non-oversampling DACs that have no ringing at all with, I suppose, the minimum phase filter crowd (Meridian, Ayre etc) in the middle. These days DAC chips have a range of filter responses built in and many manufacturers make those available. I have no experience with them but reading reviews of DACs with multiple options there will be a preference (no reviewer worth his salt is going to say he can't hear a difference between two things) but not huge differences reported. I don't know what Linn do - I'd expect they would provide the user only their choice.

Also, it was presented in 24/96, while playing the LP through a Urika 2 would be 24/192. Well I can't hear a difference between 96 and 192. Hence the fence straddling. So which is better, DS or LP12? As always, it depends.

Don't confuse the Urika 2 sampling rate with that of the original file (I think some of the tracks on Morning Phase were recorded at 48kHz). If that original 24/96 file you streamed from Qobuz was the same one used to cut the vinyl it passed through the cutting/laquer stage - plating - father - mother - stamper - playback stages before being digitized by Urika. It is amazing that after all that processing for vinyl that the two are in any way comparable, and I'm always amazed at how good vinyl sounds when you know what goes into the production. And, as Llatpoh noted, the mastering for vinyl will be different from the digital release - different EQ, some compression (analog, not brickwall) and mono bass.

The Urika II talks to the rest of the system through ExaktLink. ExaktLink is 24/192. Hence they would have to resample to 24/192 if they used any other sampling. There are also likely more options to choose from in terms of ADC chips that output 24/192.

Something to note is that ADC chips sample the signal in the same way whether they output 24/96 or 24/192. They sample at low resolution at much higher frequencies and then decimate down to produce longer word lengths at lower clock frequencies. The advantage of 192kHz is that the number looks bigger but it does allow content through for those who can hear above 40kHz. A potential downside is actually a loss of SNR operating at 192kHz because the extra processing on the ADC chip can raise the noise floor slightly (not a big deal). The big downside of 192kHz is that it makes down stream DSP much tougher and expensive as DSP chips have to work twice as fast. I don't know what sampling frequency Linn use for their digital cross-overs/Exakt/Space Optimization - maybe they down-sample to 96kHz for that processing.

 

[sktn77a]

Not new, but worth a read.

https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

 

[13th Duke of Wymbourne]

Wow, it will take me a while to read through that but I'll give it
on the Linn technical scale.

 

[Bianchennero]

When I fitted organik in my DS the dealer told me: new Klimax organik is very good because the quality is close to klimax LP top configuration.
What does it mean? LP is over DS?
I can say nothing because I do not know LPs.

 

[llatpoh]

What does it mean? LP is over DS?

With a comfortable margin, yes.

 

[akamatsu]

Next up for a comparison will be Neil Diamond "Hot August Night." I'm thinking the LP will be all analogue, and it's available on Qobuz 24/192.

Yesterday, I listened to the album on Qobuz. That's as far as I got. It was a very musical experience. If you like Neil, you owe it to yourself to check out the 40th anniversary edition of this album. It's hard to imagine that he was only 31 years old at the time.

 

[quinn_t]

Yesterday, I listened to the album on Qobuz. That's as far as I got. It was a very musical experience. If you like Neil, you owe it to yourself to check out the 40th anniversary edition of this album. It's hard to imagine that he was only 31 years old at the time.

Neil Diamond "Hot August Night." is an excellent album, he has a good voice.

 

[13th Duke of Wymbourne]

The cover looks like he is playing air-bagpipes