mark
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by mark on Apr 7, 2021 18:20:44 GMT -5
Another thing I like about the updated Puffin software is a new stylus use timer -- keeping track of how many hours you have on that needle!
I used to use a simple mechanical counter, and every time I played both sides of an album I'd punch it.
I'd keep track of stylus use time by multiplying the number of counts times 45 minutes, which as everyone knows is exactly the length of the average album, more or less.
Except, I was always forgetting to punch the time, or worse, not recalling if I'd punched it or not.
The new software automatically keeps track of the time the needle is on the record, and flashes it for you upon each startup -- very handy!
I appreciate the maker of this device is sufficiently dedicated to keep updating the software, and providing it at a reasonable cost, namely, free! Don't get that sort of attention from every vendor.
|
|
|
Post by drvinyl on Apr 11, 2021 20:29:00 GMT -5
The Analog Magik Record is a very complete way to set up your Arm Cartridge ,Its not only has Azimuth, but Anti-skating, tracking weight, resonance ,loading, vibration etc. I feel that anytime you change the analog into digital you are distancing yourself from the main purpose of record playing.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Apr 14, 2021 9:27:28 GMT -5
I feel that anytime you change the analog into digital you are distancing yourself from the main purpose of record playing. Many if not most vinyl reissues are cut from DIGITAL source files. Labels very rarely release original analog tapes because of their fragility. There are exceptions of course. But, Led Zeppelin and Beatles remasters all used digital source files to cut the vinyl. Virtually 100% of all Music produced in this century is digitally recorded (e.g. ProTools) and mastered. There are too many links in the chain between the original recording and the final master release to be dogmatic about analog vs digital at this point. I will also state that A/D and D/A converters (i.e. DACs) have long ago surpassed human acuity. The full article is worth a read.
|
|
|
Post by larrys on Apr 14, 2021 10:12:46 GMT -5
"Many if not most vinyl reissues are cut from DIGITAL source files."
Different question. That doesn't at all address whether the vinyl version of that digitally-remastered music sounds better or worse than the the CD or other all digital format. Perhaps the fewer digital processes the better. And let's also keep in mind that the mechanisms that bring that music to our ears (e.g., speakers or head/earphones), as well as the integrative mechanisms in our brains, use analog processes.
|
|
|
Post by sailor on Apr 14, 2021 13:21:59 GMT -5
I completely agree with Larry. Analog systems(Turntables, tonearms, cartridges, etc) are more difficult to set up and tweak to get the maximum performance out of than digital systems, and one has to spend quite a bit more on the analog system to get top performance. That said they have different sound signatures. Apples and oranges. My personal feeling is that a clean LP on a good rig will sound more natural than digital. Adding a digital stage to the analog system just does not make sense. The Puffin is a great tool when used as a setup tool. There are lots of ways to set up a tonearm and a cartridge. If you have patience and some skill I think following Peter Ledermann guides at: How to vidswill go a long way in getting you started and you will learn some things.
|
|
mark
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by mark on Apr 14, 2021 14:00:35 GMT -5
Ok, here's a thought experiment.
Some great classic album has been digitally remastered for re release, producing a new digital file.
I listen directly to that exact file, just as it left the processing lab, with my hi fi system, using a quality DAC.
Next, the manufacturer transfers that same digital file to a brand new LP for sale, via another DAC to convert it to analog.
Then, for comparison, I listen to that new LP on my fully analog system -- same system as above but no DAC.
Under these circumstances the only way the LP could sound better than the original digital file would be if the DAC used to make the LP were significantly better than my DAC. If on the other hand the two DACs were of identical quality, then at best the LP could sound as good as the digital format.
Further, listening to the remastered digital file directly with my DAC eliminates an additional digital to analog transfer required to make the LP, which can't in itself be expected to improve the sound much either.
Its hard to imagine how transferring the music from a digital file to an LP could improve the sound, although granted it might sound different, and preferable to some.
On the other hand, if you have the original LP recording that was completely recorded and mastered in analog, then I can easily imagine it would sound better than some digital remastered version. Assuming the LP was in good condition and all.
This is why I mainly search for original LPs made prior to the "digital revolution!"
|
|
|
Post by sailor on Apr 14, 2021 14:06:54 GMT -5
I agree and this is why i feel most remastered LP falls short on expectations and with most of these costing close to $50 these days I think looking for a mint original would be a better way to go
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Apr 14, 2021 14:22:06 GMT -5
More fodder to chew on. Analogue Hearts, Digital Minds by Michael UwinsInnovations in audio are invariably met with mixed responses and this was never more evident than during the early 1980s, when the compact disc was first heralded as the successor to vinyl. Further developments have enabled music to be captured with increased sampling rates and resolutions, meaning that digital systems are now capable of reproducing at least in theory, audio of a quality that surpasses any of their predecessors. Despite this, the ‘digital versus analogue’ debate is one that shows no sign of abating, continuing today in journals, music magazines, hi-fi periodicals and other forums. Over the past thirty years I have purchased, borrowed, recorded and enjoyed many records on vinyl, reluctantly making the transition to digital in the 1990s. After first training as an audio engineer and now currently lecturing in the subject, I both have participated (and watched from the side-lines) in many such debates and whilst the theory and the science clearly suggest that the compact disc version of an album should be superior, I still find myself favouring the sound of my old (and rather worn) vinyl. This article describes my attempt to find out why my head is at odds with my heart, by discovering if and how perceptions of audio fidelity are influenced by factors other than what is coming out of the speakers.
|
|
tad
New Member
Posts: 25
|
Post by tad on Apr 14, 2021 14:41:24 GMT -5
+1 Larry
|
|
|
Post by larrys on Apr 14, 2021 17:25:28 GMT -5
In far too many of these arguments "good" is equated to "accurate". I listen to music (and my systems) for pleasure, with my ears. Those particular sensors can only evaluate accuracy under very prescribed circumstances, which seldom obtain when I'm listening to a recording. In fact, they even vary when I go to a concert, depending on where I sit. So, until my speakers and ears are replaced by my eyes and a spectrum analyzer, my musical enjoyment will be determined by which medium sounds better (best) to me.
|
|
mark
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by mark on Apr 18, 2021 11:03:56 GMT -5
Well, as Duke Ellington put it, if it sounds good it is good!
My preference is to start with as objectively accurate as possible -- flat wide response, no suck out bass frequency oddities, lowest possible distortion even at high output, low reverberation, etc, and then go from there using my ears as my guide.
|
|
|
Post by larrys on Apr 18, 2021 14:24:04 GMT -5
Well, as Duke Ellington put it, if it sounds good it is good! My preference is to start with as objectively accurate as possible -- flat wide response, no suck out bass frequency oddities, lowest possible distortion even at high output, low reverberation, etc, and then go from there using my ears as my guide. Given the flat frequency response and low distortion of digital sources when compared with analog sources, your source has to be digital by the criteria you enumerate.
|
|
mark
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by mark on Apr 19, 2021 7:14:00 GMT -5
Not at all -- I do have a streaming digital connection and a CD player, recently acquired, but I mostly listen to vinyl. Although in fairness, the phono cartridge goes to a Puffin preamp which goes to a DEQX device, so digital technology is involved! I think vinyl can have excellent frequency response and distortion characteristics, within limits, and when carefully set up.
|
|
|
Post by larrys on Apr 19, 2021 7:26:08 GMT -5
Not at all -- I do have a streaming digital connection and a CD player, recently acquired, but I mostly listen to vinyl. Although in fairness, the phono cartridge goes to a Puffin preamp which goes to a DEQX device, so digital technology is involved! I think vinyl can have excellent frequency response and distortion characteristics, within limits, and when carefully set up. Then you will have to define "start with objectively accurate as possible" in different terms than you have used. If you are using a phono cartridge and running it through the Puffin to change it's response, how can that be a more objectively accurate starting point than a digital source with a flatter response to begin with?
|
|
mark
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by mark on Apr 19, 2021 11:26:49 GMT -5
Not sure I follow you -- I start by adjusting every part of the sound system from cartridge to speaker to make overall response as objectively accurate (flat, least phase problems, no bass suck outs, reasonable reverberation etc) as possible. Then I use my ears to make further adjustments to make it sound good to me. I've learned, for example, that I like a couple of dB increase in bass below 200 Hz, and extended flat response up to 20kHz, as opposed to using some sort of house curve. Same process for digital sources.
|
|