The limitations of digitising

[Hanuman]

I went through an enlightening exercise last week. I digitised three sets of 7 tracks of various genres using a different cartridge for each set. The purpose was to play these into a friend's system for comparative purposes without taking my turntable and phono stage over. For digitising I have the balanced output of my EAR324 permanently wired to the balanced inputs of a Digidesign 002, using Pro Tools as the recording platform.

The cartridges were, in turn, a Koetsu Rosewood Signature (Paratrace diamond from Expert Stylus), Ortofon MC30 Super II (Stock) & Denon DL-103 (Paratrace diamond and sapphire cantilever from Expert Stylus). Levels were matched using the HFN test record - Side 2, Track 1 set to -6dB. Recording was at 48/24, chosen to match the best available output of his G5 Mac. After capture in Pro Tools the dual-mono files were combined in Bias Peak LE 6 and saved as AIFFs. That was the extent of post-processing. The replay was from iTunes 10 via optical to a Musical Fidelity XDac V3. Apart from the files I took the records over to compare directly to his replay, from a Rega P25 / RB700 / Sumiko Blackbird.

The comparisons were interesting but it soon became apparent that the "live" playback of the records thrashed comprehensively any of the digital versions. It wasn't too subtle - the soundstage was flattened and a lot of impact and general excitement was missing-in-action. I've heard his entire front end including phono stage on my system and I know I wouldn't choose it over mine, as nice as it does sound.

A bit of a lesson in the (lack of) transparency of digital recording.

[dlaloum]

Perhaps,

But it may also be demonstrating the limitations of the particular digital systems in use!

I really wanted a Lavry AD11 ADC for my digitising - but the cost of entry was too high.

I compromised on the e-Mu 1616m - and am just getting to know it (installed only a week ago).
I was dissatisfied with my M-Audio Audiophile 2496.... but was putting up with it and then the inputs went belly up.

There is apparently a substantial difference between the majority and the very best ADC's - and much of the difference at the ADC level (ie not talking about the quality of the incoming analogue circuits! - which are also an issue...) seems to be down to digital clocking circuits.

I don't know the clocking specs on the Digi002... my impression is that its strengths are in the analogue mixdown area rather than the ADC area. (perhaps a sign of its age?) - And an external clock may actually improve transparency substantially. (such results have often been reported with various ADC when running on a high accuracy clock)

The Lavry, Mytek and Benchmark ADC's were all on my drool list... but common sense and budgets interfered!

Out the other end -the DAC is just as critical and has the same type of issues - clock and clock and clock.
I also assume that you were using uncompressed AIFF...

The other thing to look out for with the involvement of any digital is shielding, filtering and noise removal.... There are always nasty RF level things going on with digital circuits (like current receivers, computers, digital players... not to mention control circuits used in otherwise analogue devices!).

These can leak across to nearby cables or other nearby boxes, they can also pollute the ground (and use the ground to transfer to other devices). There are a host of tweaks available in the digital arena to help with these types of issues...

You've spent a substantial amount of money, time and effort on the analogue side of your system - a fair comparison would require similar efforts on the digital side!
No point comparing a Rolls-Royce to a Lada... or a Chev.

I am only just coming back to vinyl after many years of exclusively digital time.... I made the observation years ago that Vinyl was capable of sound quality equal to digital (or vice versa) but that getting vinyl sounding that good required a lot more effort, and was more expensive - at the time I initially made that observation I was selling Audio gear - and had Revox and Quad gear at hand - my primary benchmark listening was done on Revox TT (with Shure cartridge as I recall... V15), Revox CD player and Quad speakers (amp and phono stage varied - I recall using Revox, Quad, Pioneer, Marantz - this was mid 80's).
I thought that as a rule of thumb at the time it cost about twice as much for an analogue piece of gear to match the digital.
And that at the top end (over $2500 for TT or CD Player) the differences were almost always mastering rather than playback device!

Which is not to invalidate your experience - just saying that it is not an indication of either genre or playback/recording system as a whole.

I was just reading the interviews of Stan Ricker on the Cardas website - and a lot of his best Vinyl (he masters/has mastered some of the very best out there) was recorded from Digital.

He also frequently uses a digital master tape as an intermediary step in 2/3 speed mastering of Vinyl.

So there is a high likelihood that some of your favourite analogue records have been through some form of digital processing!

I think what you have in the analogue arena is a bit of a sports car - whereas what you are comparing it with is a bit of a truck. And comparing the handling of one to the other is somewhat apples and oranges!

bye for now

David

[flavio81]

Very interesting, Hanuman. I think it's just a matter of trying a better ADC and maybe DAC too.

[Hanuman]

Perhaps,

But it may also be demonstrating the limitations of the particular digital systems in use!

Very interesting, Hanuman. I think it's just a matter of trying a better ADC and maybe DAC too.

Oh, I totally agree with what you both say and your points, David, regarding the relative disparity between my analogue and digital sides are well made. I think my real surprise was that the losses were so manifest considering that neither the Digi nor XDac are toys by any stretch. I'm not in the least troubled by the outcome though. I don't have much motivation to make perfect digital copies of my records although it would have been nice for this particular test.

[Hanuman]

So there is a high likelihood that some of your favourite analogue records have been through some form of digital processing!

Yes indeed, remembering also that prior to the CD launch many LPs were cut from digital tapes and had "Digital" proudly stamped on the cover. Shock, Horror! Some of these still sound really good.

[SteveM]

Are you sure the OS (Mac or Win?) isn't downgrading the playback bit-rate/resolution? Why not record at 24/96?
I agree with the other comments, I'm not familiar with the digidesign but it appears to be an all-in-one DAW, maybe a dedicated ADC would give better results, after all you don't play your records thru a 7.1 AV receiver.
(gosh darn, nobody gave me a Mytek for xmas )

[Hanuman]

Are you sure the OS (Mac or Win?) isn't downgrading the playback bit-rate/resolution? Why not record at 24/96?

Fairly sure. The settings for bit-perfect transmission from iTunes are well documented. 48/24 is the limitation of the Power Mac G5 that was used for replay.

I agree with the other comments, I'm not familiar with the digidesign but it appears to be an all-in-one DAW, maybe a dedicated ADC would give better results, after all you don't play your records thru a 7.1 AV receiver.

I don't quite agree with the logic there. Just because it's a comprehensively equipped toolbox doesn't necessarily mean that the tools are second rate. In any case mine is a 002 Rack which lacks the control surface so it essentially is a dedicated digital interface. I don't think the Digi is that compromised, to be honest. It was a mid-range professional interface and always got good marks for sound quality in pro mag reviews. I doubt that the current model (Digidesign 003) is much improved apart from features and cosmetics. However, this thread has certainly got me thinking about the options for upgrading the ADC, to, say, Benchmark ADC-1 or Metric Halo ULN-2 class. I would still want to use the 002 as a dongle for Pro Tools and so would pass the S/PDIF from ADC to Digi002. Any opinions on this idea?

[Whitneyville]

The Mac G-6 is the recommended platform for music/video now. It's alot more expensive (double at least) but it can support 96.1/32 audio recording with the proper input card and software, and "process it" in nearly "real-time".
It is plainly difficult to digitize analogue audio well . But as I do with old movies, what is possible in the digital world, is just impossible otherwise. My old poor quality "acid rock" LP's sound so much better than new after "working" on them, there is no comparison, and the master tapes are all either gone or sitting in a basement closet deteriorating in the great-nieces'/nephew's house. 99.9% of the artists didn't make it thru the '80's alive, and the "record companies" have all disappeared. I've seen four make it to CD's and they sound like someone took really beat-up LP's and just transferred them to CD with a $25 USB pre-amp and didn't even clean the LP's. I returned them. My LP's sounded better than the "commercial" CD's. Working from a real master tape, there is no reason a CD couldn't "eat" LP reproduction alive, except for lazy, lousy recording "engineers" of today, who believe "louder is better". My mid-30's 78's "half-speed mastered" to audio tape, and very lightly "processed" sound better than most 50's era CD's (Dean Martin, Tony Bennett, Al Martino, Gogi Grant, Frank Sinatra, etc.) on the market. Thankfully, I have 99% of these on original vinyl's, many in "mint+" condition from my estate sales crawling. I have "old Blue Eyes" on BlueBird and Columbia 78's, just post WWII. The REAL recording engineers of that era had the "78 format" just about figured out by then. Some of them are pretty hard to tell they're 78's. They're on "quiet" acetate records, and somebody KNEW what they were doing in the production process.

[SteveM]

I don't quite agree with the logic there.

For sure my analogy to an AV receiver is a gross exaggeration, and as I said I'm not familiar with your Digidesign.

.....this thread has certainly got me thinking about the options for upgrading the ADC, to, say, Benchmark ADC-1 or Metric Halo ULN-2 class.

Yet, just 2 days ago;

I don't have much motivation to make perfect digital copies of my records.....

Been there, done that - don't you hate when that happens!

[Hanuman]

.....this thread has certainly got me thinking about the options for upgrading the ADC, to, say, Benchmark ADC-1 or Metric Halo ULN-2 class.

Yet, just 2 days ago;

I don't have much motivation to make perfect digital copies of my records.....

Been there, done that - don't you hate when that happens!

Ha ha ha ... well picked up! Some of us are just incorrigible! When you start to get that itch ...

[Hanuman]

(gosh darn, nobody gave me a Mytek for xmas )

That Stereo96 does look pretty good, especially since it doesn't have the unnecessary (for me) USB or Firewire interface.

[dlaloum]

Hi Hanuman

I went through the exercise of reading every ADC review, creating a spreadsheet, ranking the different models etc... etc....

end result was:

Lavry, Mytek in 1st place
Benchmark and Metric Halo in 2nd

In terms of my rankings

1. Lavry AD10/11 and Mytek Stereo192
2. Benchmark ADC1, Mytek Stereo96, MetricHalo ULN/LIO series
3. e-Mu 1820m/1616m, RME, a bunch of others - most of the pro/semipro recording gear
4. Most of the domestic home studio recording gear
5. Most (good) soundcards
6. Motherboard audio and basic or game oriented soundcards

There is another factor that could tilt things - if you are that way inclined, Metric Halo have implemented Digital RIAA as an onboard DSP option in their ULN/LIO series - and it is getting good reviews from users - audiophile ones.

I ended up with the e-Mu 1616m primarily because it was under $300 - and I could not justify the step up to the Mytek Stereo96 (which is the best Value for Money option in the next category up... you can get it for under $700) - and my existing ADC went belly up unexpectedly so I needed an immediate fix. In the longer term a Lavry or Mytek may be in my future... (as I gaze into the crystal ball...)

All the other category 1 & 2 options are over $1000

Best place to get opinions on this gear tends to be pro studio users - people who are recording live every day.... this is the wrong forum really.

You have a LOT more options in terms of DAC's than ADC's. And system balancing (which really means using components as equalisers!) - comes heavily into people's decisions.

There are some excellent DAC's coming out of China now at great prices (eg: Audio-Gd) - plus there is a host of other competitors from all nations. - Again there is a lot to be said for the pro gear that the Studio users use to monitor the recordings they have made... using some of the above ADC's. (eg Lavry and Mytek's matching DAC's)


In any case I was THAT "-" close to getting a Mytek Stereo96 ADC....

bye for now

David

[Hanuman]

Thanks David, that's very useful advice.

Richard

[Hanuman]

There is another factor that could tilt things - if you are that way inclined, Metric Halo have implemented Digital RIAA as an onboard DSP option in their ULN/LIO series - and it is getting good reviews from users - audiophile ones.

My feeling on this is that I would be tempted to do digital RIAA (as a post process in software) if raw capture enables more accurate & less instrusive noise-reduction, specifically click & crackle removal. I wonder if anyone's done some objective testing on this. Otherwise it would be a bit of a pain, with the need to re-patch to a non-RIAA pre-amp, which I don't have.