Tascam DA 3000 Recorder

[phunge]

JA says he cannot hear a difference between the vinyl and the digital copy:

I tried a variety of sample rates with these LP rips: 44.1kHz was very good, but didn't capture the essence of the original LPs' sounds; 96kHz was better; but there was no doubt that with a 192kHz sample rate I could not distinguish between the LP and the digital rip. And believe me, I tried. I A/B'd the two versions until blood came out of my ears and I was heartily sick of this music I hadn't heard for, in some cases, decades. When, in An Oxford Elegy, John Westbrook declaimed "Come, let me read the oft-read tale again . . ." for what must have been the tenth time, I felt like screaming "No! Don't read it again!"

With the 192kHz rips, the LP's surface noise floated free of the music in a manner similar to how it does with analog playback, making it easier to ignore it. At 44.1kHz, the surface noise was integrated into the music, increasing its annoyance. While 24/192 rips are profligate with hard-disk space—the 22-minute Vaughan Williams is a 1.5GB AIFF file—this was the only way to go with the QA-9.

This device definitely has my attention! you are right -- it is not cheap -- it is about twice the cost of my vinyl setup

[House de Kris]

Seriously, I'm not trying to be agrumentative here, or just merely a jerk, but I thought these comments were interesting...

Originally Posted by phunge

1. The recordings will never be as good as the actual vinyl
3. Recording albums takes a long time -- unlike ripping a cd it has to be done in real time. For best results, you should mute your speakers because the analog equipment is microphonic.
5. The pops and clicks are part of the analog experience, but are quite unwelcome in the digital versions

I know what you mean about the microphonic nature of analog. I never have speakers on, or even headphones, when I record vinyl for just that reason. But, you state at the first that your recordings don't sound like actual vinyl. I'm assuming you have your speakers on when listening to vinyl, so if your digitizing process has them off to avoid the microphonics, it is little wonder that the digital copy would sound different then the real deal. Perhaps you should make a recording with the speakers on, and cranked to a rather high level to capture the real sound of vinyl being played? Maybe you've already tired this, just wondering.

I wonder why pops and clicks are not welcome in the digital versions? In my case, I use pops and ticks as a way of evaluating my digital transfers. There is little in recorded music that has the fast transients that vinyl defects have. If I can get the recorded pops to sound like the real deal, then I know the music will be recorded the best I can.

[o0OBillO0o]

Originally Posted by House de Kris

Seriously, I'm not trying to be agrumentative here, or just merely a jerk, but I thought these comments were interesting...



I know what you mean about the microphonic nature of analog. I never have speakers on, or even headphones, when I record vinyl for just that reason. But, you state at the first that your recordings don't sound like actual vinyl. I'm assuming you have your speakers on when listening to vinyl, so if your digitizing process has them off to avoid the microphonics, it is little wonder that the digital copy would sound different then the real deal. Perhaps you should make a recording with the speakers on, and cranked to a rather high level to capture the real sound of vinyl being played? Maybe you've already tired this, just wondering.

I wonder why pops and clicks are not welcome in the digital versions? In my case, I use pops and ticks as a way of evaluating my digital transfers. There is little in recorded music that has the fast transients that vinyl defects have. If I can get the recorded pops to sound like the real deal, then I know the music will be recorded the best I can.

I think I understand, the sound's mechanical energy providing some level of euphonic or pleasing to the ear distortion. Would like to see if you could confirm this hypothesis.

Now, pops & ticks in the digital domain are a no-no because they can clip the input signal of an analog to digital converter (ADC). Read more about digital clipping. Clipping (audio) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[phunge]

To my ears, based on my experience comparing the live vinyl to the digitized file I feel that something is lost in the process. Not 100% scientific, but with the volumes matched by ear I was able to pick out the live vinyl from the recorded version which did not sound as good (some one else switching the sources so I could not see what was playing). The differences were subtle, and without a direct a/b comparison maybe it would not matter so much. This is what makes me interested in the ayre ADC based on JAs review maybe the recording really can be indistinguishable from the real thing.

I did not try recording with and without the speakers playing, that is a good suggestion and maybe that would make a difference -- I was just going off advice I was given to mute the speakers for best results.

[cmarin]

Below is a link to a very interesting "positive feedback" article that compared the quality of an analog Master tape played on a Nagra tape player; an LP pressed from the same master; a mobile fidelity CD-R burned from the same master tape; a 24/192 PCM file from the same master tape; and a DSD file from the same master tape.

The qualitative impressions from a panel of listeners were recorded. Although opinions varied on the merits of the various sources, there was fairly unanimous consensus that the tape machine provided the best sound reproduction by far.

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue75/krakow_94.htm

[o0OBillO0o]

Originally Posted by cmarin

Below is a link to a very interesting "positive feedback" article that compared the quality of an analog Master tape played on a Nagra tape player; an LP pressed from the same master; a mobile fidelity CD-R burned from the same master tape; a 24/192 PCM file from the same master tape; and a DSD file from the same master tape. The qualitative impressions from a panel of listeners were recorded. Although opinions varied on the merits of the various sources, there was fairly unanimous consensus that the tape machine provided the best sound reproduction by far. http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue75/krakow_94.htm

The link kept causing the AA app to crash. Finally opened in a browser to read.

Good work by all those involved, I am sure they walked away with new perspectives or confirmed their bias.

I am sure if I was present, that I would feel something good about audio. Would be nice to see a numeric difference in addition to the professional judgement. Its also too bad that tape is something that is not in supply.

Thank you for sharing.

Sent from my iPad using A.Aficionado

[House de Kris]

Originally Posted by o0OBillO0o

I think I understand, the sound's mechanical energy providing some level of euphonic or pleasing to the ear distortion. Would like to see if you could confirm this hypothesis.

I had done the experiment of playing music, and making sounds in general, in the room as I recorded the output digitally long ago. The results are that I could easily identify what the noises were. I tried to recreate this experiment last night to have some hard data in hand, but my current turntable (Revox B795) does not allow resting the stylus on the vinyl without it rotating. Even if I pull the plug from the wall while playing a disc, the cartridge is immediately lifted. DARN!

Originally Posted by o0OBillO0o

Now, pops & ticks in the digital domain are a no-no because they can clip the input signal of an analog to digital converter (ADC). Read more about digital clipping. Clipping (audio) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know a little about clipping, but your comments really confuse me. If the pops & ticks are in the digital domain, how can they clip the input signal to the ADC? It would have to be a pop & tick in the analog domain to clip the input of the ADC, right? If you're suggesting we must get rid of all pop & ticks in the analog domain before digitizing, then I don't think we'll ever be able to do that. In which case, I guess there's no reason to digitize vinyl then?

At any rate, not all pops & ticks result in clipping the ADC. I'd even say very few do. I guess all I was asking of phunge is if ticks and pops are part of the analog experience, why would they be unwelcome in the digital experience (if the intent is for the digital copy to sound like the analog copy)?

[o0OBillO0o]

A pop on a record results in a big signal analog or digital. Sometimes it can clip the signal. When the signal goes into the digital domain it can create digital clipping, which sounds much worse.

The pops and clicks when played on a record arent as bad sounds as they do when recorded digitally.

The rest I can't explain, but see here
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quant...nal_processing)

[House de Kris]

Originally Posted by o0OBillO0o

A pop on a record results in a big signal analog or digital. Sometimes it can clip the signal. When the signal goes into the digital domain it can create digital clipping, which sounds much worse.

The pops and clicks when played on a record arent as bad sounds as they do when recorded digitally.

The rest I can't explain, but see here
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quant...nal_processing)

Thanks for taking the time to try to explain this to me. I confess, I went to the Wiki link, saw the length, didn't see anything that stuck out as being related, and didn't read the whole thing. I think I'm just too thick to get the point you're trying to share with me.

Does that quantiziation Wiki page have anything to do with your comment that pops and clicks sound bad when digitally recorded? That just seems a bit odd to me, on the surface. Does digital recording have a rising top end, thus making the ticks and pops more noticable? I thought this DA-3000 had a pretty flat frequency response.

Anyway, I didn't want to derail this thread from the DA-3000 itself. I wonder if Tascam would do a trade-in of my DA-30mkII. Probably only give me twenty bucks for it... I still like this DA-3000, just on paper alone.

[o0OBillO0o]

Heard this the other day- "I'll rather have an Digital copy of the master. Cutting records involves severe filtering, reducing LF to mono, RIAA curve filtering, limiting dynamics and HF not to exceed highest cutting speeds and so on. Playback is yet another complex matter although a wel built turntable/tonearm/cartridge combi can do miracles given what has been done to the signal during cutting and pressing. A part of the audiophile community is more sensitive to digital artifacts (mainly temporal problems) while others are more sensitive to analogue artifacts."

Is much of this fact or a case by base basis?