Purifi Class D

6 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Need to be careful about generalizing, though.  I prefer vinyl playback *for specific recordings*.  I've never yet heard a digital mastering that quite captures all the magic of Pinball Wizard from my 50+ year old LP of The Who's Tommy.  Same with a couple of tracks from the LP of Steely Dan's Gaucho.  (The latter case in particular seems strange to me - I may just not have run across the right digital mastering yet.)  And there are many of my old LPs that aren't carried on the streaming service I favor, and that I'm not going to go to the trouble and expense of obtaining new digital versions for even if they exist.  So there's plenty of use for my turntable yet.

 

However, for most recordings I'll take digital.

Ooh I wish you hadn't said the last bit! But a Like anyway ;-)

16 hours ago, mocenigo said:

No. Some recordings have never been transferred properly to digital. They sound great on the old LPs printed from the analog masters, but the transfers are crap. There are, sadly, a few. It may be because the remastering technician could only work on copies of copies of the original master, or because the master tape deteriorated, who knows. But there are specific recordings where the vinyl discs are superior to all digital copies made so far, and when the last vinyl disc will have deteriorated as well, good sounding copies of that particular recording will exist no more.

All one has to do is make a high quality capture of that 'brilliant' vinyl disc - these days that's not so hard, and then it's available, "forever" ... unless you believe that magic is imparted at the actual moment of the vinyl tracing the groove, in some mysterious way 🙂; and is lost when you merely reproduce a needledrop ...

Bad transfers, needledrops, totally crappified tracks are the measure of a competent system - an ambitious but sub-par rig will make them sound like a mess, unlistenable ... there's a deep satisfaction in evolving a setup to the point that a previously "impossible!" track becomes engaging - because the listener is now able to hear the music, rather than being distracted by the playback artifacts.

16 hours ago, mocenigo said:

 

Solti’s ring almost met that fate.

 

Harry Belafonte’s Carnegie Hall concert apparently met it (I trust here a friend that could compare several transfers, Corona restrictions prevented me from being there.)

I have good versions, and very poor versions of some recordings - the latter is the one that tells me the story, of how good the playback actually is  ...

4 hours ago, Iving said:

 

All of the improvements I've achieved in my digital system have been about taming the banshee. Then adding body. But mainly taming the banshee. 

Taming the banshee is the story, indeed ... I go back to the 80's, when I first achieved digital playback snapping into shape. Which made me aware of how terrible all the hundreds of CD rigs I came across since were ... it's taken decades for the industry to agonisingly slowly move forward, working out how to get rid of the sludge in the SQ.

Quote

I don't think I'm chasing a vinyl phantom/template. I'm not into valves or anything like that.

 

The improvements I do make are satisfying of themselves. Which means that digits can beguile my ears.

 

I have a good DAC. I think the digits problem is mostly to do with electrical noise tbh. Jitter - that too I guess!

Yeah, it's noise ... trouble is, it's pernicious - it gets in via the tiniest weak spot, and ruins the show. Which is why you have to work so hard on it.

11 hours ago, barrows said:

I would propose, that most folks who prefer vinyl playback, tend to do so because of, rather than in spite of vinyl's rather significant shortcomings/artifacts.  Whereas digital artifacts, even at magnitudes of lower levels, are often quite objectionable.  I have a witnessed a couple of times, dedicated vinyl listeners, unable to distinguish between the digital playback of a needle drop (using a moderately priced ADC, like an Apogee element) and the vinyl record playing on the same system.

And, these days, we have affordable digital systems which are entirely listenable, true to timbre, highly detailed, and without objectionable artifacts (I am not suggesting that all current digital systems are this way though, just that one need not spend 5 figures for an excellent DAC).

 

 

Nope, folks who have both a turntable and a digital player will prefer the vinyl version over the digital version when it sounds better. Good recordings sound similar played either way. By not having an analogue source you are missing out big time, particulary if you like older analogue recordings from the likes of John Coltrane etc. 

11 hours ago, PYP said:

Well, so far I have avoided bloodletting, but the rest applies.  I think your statement was true five years ago or so, but I disagree in the here and now.   Bruno is one of the designers who has changed the digital landscape and not just in amplifiers (his Tambaqui DAC is truly great).  The basic Purifi "engine" is extremely low noise/distortion at a great price.   I assume that the various Purifi iterations sound different because of different input sections used and one needs to find one that suites your setup and tastes.   

 

One well-respected reviewer mentioned that he listens to vinyl and digital for different experiences and that makes sense to me.  The "what's best" approach to audio is silly unless it is "what's best to my ears and mood."  

 

I was never a collector of fine vinyl, so there was no reason to keep my turntable after digital became the dominant recording medium.  But I can understand the equation is different for collectors, especially the folks who have long enjoyed their classical collection.  Or folks for whom digital, even what others think of as great digital, does not agree with their ears.  

Which well respected reviewer are you referring to? 

41 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Which well respected reviewer are you referring to? 

Steve Guttenberg:  

8 hours ago, fas42 said:

All one has to do is make a high quality capture of that 'brilliant' vinyl disc - these days that's not so hard, and then it's available, "forever" ... unless you believe that magic is imparted at the actual moment of the vinyl tracing the groove, in some mysterious way 🙂; and is lost when you merely reproduce a needledrop ...

Well, you know, there are a few around, supposedly high quality captures of that vinyl disc. They are crappy.

3 hours ago, Rexp said:

older analogue recordings from the likes of John Coltrane etc.

3 hours ago, John Hughes said:

For sure a first pressing of say Miles Davis from 1960 in great condition will probably blow away any digital version, because the master tapes today have degraded significantly (and the tape player is probably not ideal or adjusted/tuned correctly either in most case). 

I've heard more valve era records than I could afford to buy as I have traded commercially for some years. It's a particular kind of experience playing these discs inc. DECCA wb sxl etc even on mediocre decks (the ones I use for cleaning records - you can easily hear the difference). I can't say I've done systematic comparisons with digital equivalents. But many congruent digital non-classical issues sound dire - Loudness if nothing else. So bad that it's easy to attribute to the master not the digital playback system. What I'm really wanting to say tho' is that no matter my experiences - the market has an opinion of its own. To acquire a respectable collection of these records now, and buy the deck fitting for their enjoyment,  you'd have to be pretty seriously wealthy. Probably there's also a longevity argument in play for long term investment. 

4 minutes ago, Iving said:

 

 

I've heard more valve era records than I could afford to buy as I have traded commercially for some years. It's a particular kind of experience playing these discs inc. DECCA wb sxl etc even on mediocre decks (the ones I use for cleaning records - you can easily hear the difference). I can't say I've done systematic comparisons with digital equivalents. But many congruent digital non-classical issues sound dire - Loudness if nothing else. So bad that it's easy to attribute to the master not the digital system. What I'm really saying tho' is that no matter what I say - the market has an opinion of its own. To acquire a respectable collection of these records now, and buy the deck fitting for their enjoyment,  you'd have to be pretty seriously wealthy. Probably there's also a longevity argument in play for long term investment. 

Yes, I have hundreds of irreplaceable records pressed in that era.  Ribbon mics, judicious use of tube compressors, tube recording gear, and engineers that actually understood music :)  Those are the gems, and too few people have heard what analog performance was capable of and what those records can do. But that's the past.   RCA original Dynagroove, Mercury Living Presence, CBS Six Eyes :) Sigh. 

2 minutes ago, John Hughes said:

Yes, I have hundreds of irreplaceable records pressed in that era.  Ribbon mics, judicious use of tube compressors, tube recording gear, and engineers that actually understood music :)  Those are the gems, and too few people have heard what analog performance was capable of and what those records can do. But that's the past.   RCA original Dynagroove, Mercury Living Presence, CBS Six Eyes :) Sigh. 

But exactly! This is part of the argument for an analogue front end. Playing them now is most certainly not the past. It's the present. And future!

3 hours ago, John Hughes said:

I've had top end vinyl systems (5 figures and up

 

I have also done a fair amount of ADC of tape masters and vinyl

 

I have some high resolution digital conversions I made of2nd and 3rd generation master tapes and my favorite vinyl taken when my analog rig was at peak performance.  I have been comparing them with high resolution digital versions that I have for the same albums.  With my carefully built and tuned digital rig, I find I prefer the high resolution remasters to the vinyl rips I have.  The qualities of the vinyl may be a bit more open in the midrange, but the high rez remasters are clearly superior in bass and treble and detail.

With respect, a Linn Klimax LP12 starts at twice the point that 5 figures begins! More to the point I've never understood ADC of vinyl records for any purpose.

3 hours ago, John Hughes said:

I simply don't understand the clamor for modern vinyl when most is not analog

Absolutely agree. It's completely barmy.

3 hours ago, John Hughes said:

just as physical isolation is critical to great analog, electrical isolation and filtration is required to get the best out of digital.

Absolutely agree in my experience

6 hours ago, PYP said:

Steve Guttenberg:  

 

Recently Steve seems to be 'coming out' as a more pro analogue guy, saying that analogue sounds more realistic than digital, so his rave digital reviews need to be judged accordingly. 

2 hours ago, Rexp said:

Recently Steve seems to be 'coming out' as a more pro analogue guy, saying that analogue sounds more realistic than digital, so his rave digital reviews need to be judged accordingly. 

I liked this particular review because it seemed balanced to me, but I don't look for affirmation of listening formats or particular gear in reviews I read. I'm just curious about what people hear, what they value and how they express themselves.  

Most reviews talk about how the gear sounds (of course), which is the opposite of what I'm interested in, which is whether I can connect to the music easily and whether the gear facilitates exploring music that I don't otherwise listen to.  If digital can get me there, especially streaming music, that is ideal (for me) since there is so much music available to sample.  I couldn't explore different genres, music played on instruments I haven't heard in person (say, theorbo), different interpretations of the same music, etc., without a streaming service.   Not trying to convince anyone else...

6 hours ago, John Hughes said:

Yes, I have hundreds of irreplaceable records pressed in that era.  Ribbon mics, judicious use of tube compressors, tube recording gear, and engineers that actually understood music :)  Those are the gems

So here, what you are actually saying is that you like the sound of lots of distortion/noise added to the music: tube gear of that era certainly added lots of distortion, same with ribbon mics, etc.  There is nothing wrong with that per se, but it is not actually high fidelity to the music.  And yes, I have heard many vinyl records from the late 50s and 60s.  In fact it is very likely that a clever digital recording engineer, today, could emulate that sound for you in their recordings using DSP.

19 minutes ago, barrows said:

So here, what you are actually saying is that you like the sound of lots of distortion/noise added to the music: tube gear of that era certainly added lots of distortion, same with ribbon mics, etc.  There is nothing wrong with that per se, but it is not actually high fidelity to the music.  And yes, I have heard many vinyl records from the late 50s and 60s.  In fact it is very likely that a clever digital recording engineer, today, could emulate that sound for you in their recordings using DSP.

14 hours ago, mocenigo said:

 

Well, you know, there are a few around, supposedly high quality captures of that vinyl disc. They are crappy.

"Supposedly high quality captures" equals "crappy" ?? There's something a little bit wrong here ... hmmm, what do you think it could be? 🙂

7 hours ago, barrows said:

So here, what you are actually saying is that you like the sound of lots of distortion/noise added to the music: tube gear of that era certainly added lots of distortion, same with ribbon mics, etc.  There is nothing wrong with that per se, but it is not actually high fidelity to the music.  And yes, I have heard many vinyl records from the late 50s and 60s.  In fact it is very likely that a clever digital recording engineer, today, could emulate that sound for you in their recordings using DSP.

It's easy to see what people like about valve era recordings - on good digital playback the "honeyness" of those recordings is quite something; I sometimes say, you can smell the valves through the speakers, 😉.

To me it's high fidelity - the music still comes through 100% clean; and, it evokes that era so strongly - the sense of confidence and surety, about everything.

DSP could do it, but the engineer would really have to know what he was doing - the awfulness of Amy Winehouse tracks where they try to mimic old style recordings makes me cringe every time I hear them - unless you do it properly, don't bother !!

8 hours ago, barrows said:

So here, what you are actually saying is that you like the sound of lots of distortion/noise added to the music: tube gear of that era certainly added lots of distortion, same with ribbon mics, etc.  There is nothing wrong with that per se, but it is not actually high fidelity to the music.  And yes, I have heard many vinyl records from the late 50s and 60s.  In fact it is very likely that a clever digital recording engineer, today, could emulate that sound for you in their recordings using DSP.

I disagree.  Today and back in the 'golden age' the recording and editing process is a series of decisions and compromises as to what distortions and EQ the engineer has to navigate to serve the musical intent.   The result of that process guided by the recording engineers of the time working within the limitations of their equipment made decisions that I think resulted in some of the best representations of music I've heard.  Quite a lot of that was a very heavy hand in editing, including compression used in the service of the music.  The solid state equipment that followed the tube equipment really sucked in the 70s (IMHO) and recording engineers changed their vision of how music should sound according to the limitations that presented. Some of that was the odd order harmonics that gear added to the sound. It took decades for the technology to catch up.  And early digital recordings were mostly dreadful too. Today we are finally in a different world, where I believe that the technology used in the studio stewarded by the best engineers can serve the music as well.  But finding recordings of major artists that get to that level remains a challenge :)

6 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

"Supposedly high quality captures" equals "crappy" ?? There's something a little bit wrong here ... hmmm, what do you think it could be? 🙂

Well, the guys that did the transfers list their equipment. Great turntable, pickup, arm, ADC, cleanup software… but it sounds bad: noisy, without treble, no dynamics…

The recording ... ?

14 minutes ago, fas42 said:

The recording ... ?

Not sure. Maybe the record. In the Harry Belafonte Carnegie Hall Concert case a friend has a very good sounding record. So maybe the folks that did the transfer had a worse record, either the pressing or it was badly worn out.

Speaking of that specific Belafonte LP, I had an interesting session at the Sydney audio club meeting many, many years ago. A supposedly pretty decent vinyl rig was set up, and played the copy that someone had ... God, it was awful!! The vinyl tracking distortion was atrocious - for me, it was, unlistenable ... yet other members around me were listening with a rapt expression on their faces ...

And every now and again someone claims I'm against audiophiles - oh dear, 😆.