Don’t real audiophiles own their own media?

[nicoff]

I recently digitized my collection of 45rpm LPs. I tried using the ADC in my computer for the task. Supposedly it was good for high resolution but at first try I immediately decided that it had too many extraneous noises and the noise floor was too high.

So I did some research and purchased an ADC device (less than $500) that is commonly used by musicians making their own music. Using this ADC device, I digitized all my 45rpm LPs at 24/96 and created my own digitized copy with track names, album art, etc. I added the album to my server and it shows as one of the versions available in my Roon library. When listening to the digitized version and to the actual LP, I personally cannot tell a difference between the two. I can now play my entire 45rpm LP albums without having to get up from my chair. Moreover, I have asked other folks to try it out to see if they can tell a difference (one of them a good amateur musician with excellent hearing who says that he knows what to listen for) and they all believe that they are actually listening to the LP. The digitized version captured all of the noises inherent in the reproduction of the LP which so many of us are familiar with (both the euphonic noises and the ugly ones).

By the way, in the process of looking for suitable ADC, I learned that many professional musicians use the RME ADI-2 PRO FS R to make their own recordings and for playback. This device actually is both a ADC and a DAC and costs less than $2k.

 

[rbbert]

I'm pretty sure 24/96 files aren't the only digital files being upsampled to 24/192. I will take a 16/44.1 file that was actually cut from the master tape back in the day when major labels were converting their master tapes to digital over some "hi-rez" files that are nothing more than upsampled versions of the 16/44.1 file that have had all of the life sucked out of them.

Most audio editor programs have a frequency spectrum view that allows one to determine the (minimum) digital resolution of the native recording. This does require a bit of training and experience, and usually does not easily allow one to tell if (for example) a 24/96 file was originally recorded at 24/192. I have a lot (thousands) of high res files; it's very unusual for me to find a 16/44.1 file upsampled, but not at all unusual to find 24/48 upsampled, and occasionally 24/96 upsampled. Caveat: I don't bother to get "hi-res" files that are known to be 16/44.1 masters, i.e., most albums recorded between 1985-2000, and there are certainly some of those around.

 

[Kingrex]

Back on page 2 the idea of owning the media was a little blended into the idea of are you listening to the gear, or the media. I liked the distinction of gearophile and audiophile. I do see people I consider gearophile. They play awful recorded media because its suppose to reveal what your system is capable of. Then there are more the audiophiles (IMO) who are seeking the best form of media of great musical pieces. To be played back on equipment capable of revealing the truly great quality of the recording and masterimg.
Then there are people who are more just music lovers who can listen to anything and be overjoyed, simply because its their favorite album.

By considering it as above, I can see where an Audiophile needs to own some amount of music. Because in my definition, they are looking for some of the best, pristine versions of their favorite music. I would venture to say an Audiophile will have multiple copies of their favorite album, and be able to tell you how they differ. Even the all digital audiophile will have some DSD or high resolution downloads of their favorite music. They won't stop at pure steaming, knowing their favorite album has been done better.

 

[Kingrex]

I recently digitized my collection of 45rpm LPs. I tried using the ADC in my computer for the task. Supposedly it was good for high resolution but at first try I immediately decided that it had too many extraneous noises and the noise floor was too high.

So I did some research and purchased an ADC device (less than $500) that is commonly used by musicians making their own music. Using this ADC device, I digitized all my 45rpm LPs at 48/96 and created my own digitized copy with track names, album art, etc. I added the album to my server and it shows as one of the versions available in my Roon library. When listening to the digitized version and to the actual LP, I personally cannot tell a difference between the two. I can now play my entire 45rpm LP albums without having to get up from my chair. Moreover, I have asked other folks to try it out to see if they can tell a difference (one of them a good amateur musician with excellent hearing who says that he knows what to listen for) and they all believe that they are actually listening to the LP. The digitized version captured all of the noises inherent in the reproduction of the LP which so many of us are familiar with (both the euphonic noises and the ugly ones).

By the way, in the process of looking for suitable ADC, I learned that many professional musicians use the RME ADI-2 PRO FS R to make their own recordings and for playback. This device actually is both a ADC and a DAC and costs less than $2k.

OMG. And the gloves are off!!!!!!!

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I recently digitized my collection of 45rpm LPs. I tried using the ADC in my computer for the task. Supposedly it was good for high resolution but at first try I immediately decided that it had too many extraneous noises and the noise floor was too high.

So I did some research and purchased an ADC device (less than $500) that is commonly used by musicians making their own music. Using this ADC device, I digitized all my 45rpm LPs at 24/96 and created my own digitized copy with track names, album art, etc. I added the album to my server and it shows as one of the versions available in my Roon library. When listening to the digitized version and to the actual LP, I personally cannot tell a difference between the two. I can now play my entire 45rpm LP albums without having to get up from my chair. Moreover, I have asked other folks to try it out to see if they can tell a difference (one of them a good amateur musician with excellent hearing who says that he knows what to listen for) and they all believe that they are actually listening to the LP. The digitized version captured all of the noises inherent in the reproduction of the LP which so many of us are familiar with (both the euphonic noises and the ugly ones).

By the way, in the process of looking for suitable ADC, I learned that many professional musicians use the RME ADI-2 PRO FS R to make their own recordings and for playback. This device actually is both a ADC and a DAC and costs less than $2k.

seriously?

i have almost 1000 2xdsd vinyl rips, including many of my 45rpm records.

these were done with a Tascam DA-3000 and a Merging Technology NADAC, and a turntable. arm and cartridge the same as mine at that time.

zero of those rips get even close to my vinyl. it's trivial to hear the difference. i personally don't do rips because i have zero need to do it. i prefer hearing everything as native as possible. but i do enjoy these 2xdsd rips. they are very fine sounding....for digital.

i have invested much time and effort to optimize my vinyl and my digital. no stone left unturned with either. but who can know the details of anyone else's efforts. so any result is possible.

 

[nicoff]

seriously?

i have almost 1000 2xdsd vinyl rips, including many of my 45rpm records.

these were done with a Tascam DA-3000 and a Merging Technology NADAC, and a turntable. arm and cartridge the same as mine at that time.

zero of those rips get even close to my vinyl. it's trivial to hear the difference. i personally don't do rips because i have zero need to do it. i prefer hearing everything as native as possible. but i do enjoy these 2xdsd rips. they are very fine sounding....for digital.

i have invested much time and effort to optimize my vinyl and my digital. no stone left unturned with either. but who can know the details of anyone else's efforts. so any result is possible.

Seriously. I only did my 45rpm LPs because I felt those were the best sounding LPs in my collection and would allow me to better compare the sound using the exact same system. During the comparison, I played back the digital version in the original format that I recorded it (24/96). However, under normal listening I can now convert the digital signal to 512DSD (8xDSD), and then add FIR and correction filters to enhance the playback in my room (I use HQPlayer). I have reached the point where I no longer have an interest in investing on my analog system. I find my digital equally satisfying and certainly much more convenient. About 98% of my LP collection is available via streaming and the remaining albums (in my view) are not worth the effort of digitizing (not to mention that I can still play those LPs if I wanted to!). Maybe if I had invested as much time and money in a system as yours I would feel differently, but I also realize that it all comes to down to preferences. I respect that.

 

[Kingrex]

About 98% of my LP collection is available via streaming and the remaining albums (in my view) are not worth the effort of digitizing (not to mention that I can still play those LPs if I wanted to!). Maybe if I had invested as much time and money in a system as yours I would feel differently, but I also realize that it all comes to down to preferences. I respect that.

Do you find the LP you digitized sound the same, better or worse than what you can stream?

 

[nicoff]

Do you find the LP you digitized sound the same, better or worse than what you can stream?

Technically speaking I am streaming the digital copy from my hard drive. To me, that streamed file sounds the same as the LP.

Now, if your question is whether streaming from a music service (Tidal, Qobuz, etc.) sound the same to the LP, the answer is no. They sound different. That does not mean better or worse, just different. On the digitized analog, for example, you hear the needle on the record, the clicks, the surface noise. On the streamed file, on the other hand, there is a totally black background and you can hear the hiss from the master tape. They just sound different.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

i think we all hear what we hear. and find our happy place.

but vinyl and files ripped from vinyl are not equivalent when both are optimized.

all other circumstances have random results. who knows what is causing what. so we should be cautious applying value to the info.

just my 2 cents.

 

[BlueFox]

While I do not now have a turn table, I suspect the main difference between playing vinyl versus files ripped from vinyl is that over time the vinyl will deteriorate from being played while the ripped files will always sound the same. Of course I will never go back to vinyl to verify that hypothesis.

 

[kzhtoo]

Oh no, I’m not a real audiophile. Bummer. [emoji3525]

In my defense, I still have about 100 CDs from my youth in a box somewhere in the garage. Do they still count?

 

[kzhtoo]

I just remember I do own 2 turntables. [emoji57]

 

[Calvin]

I would like to thank all of you that took part in seriously answering the question.

The question was,

I’m for owning my own media. IMO this is part and parcel of being a real audiophile. What about you?

My mind wasn’t changed by the thread. “I’m for owning my own media. IMO this is part and parcel of being a real audiophile.”

As I see it, the answer revolves around the proper definition of an Audiophile and a Music Lover. Sound quality (SQ) matters more so to Audiophiles than Music Lovers. The SQ of streaming is not at the same level as owned media. So, Audiophiles own their own media – as SQ is one of their central focuses.

As I see it, the answer was more fully realized in multiple parts:

First, Gregm briefly defined the difference between an Audiophile and a Music Lover saying,

... Music & audio hobbyists are concerned about reproducing the recorded musical session in their homes.

Music lovers enjoy listening to the piece of music while pure audiophiles appreciate the reproduction SQ.

Second, Mike masterfully demonstrated (post 122) and explained (post 134) the differences between SQ in streaming and owning media. While his whole post should be seriously read and re-read as a tutorial on Streaming SQ, in summary he stated,

So yes, quality matters, provenance of the recording version you are listening to really matters. Everything matters. And this is why audiophiles seeking the best of their favorite albums do their homework and buy media.

After this Randy stressed the importance of SQ and being an Audiophile stating,

I put forth the proposition that to an audiophile quality in the music does indeed matter.

Be it refining our gear, be it finding a better version of our favorite music, whichever form of media one chooses to use to listen, quality in the music is what makes us tick. ...

To me this is what being an audiophile means.

And Kingrex summarizes,

I can see where an Audiophile needs to own some amount of music. Because in my definition, they are looking for some of the best, pristine versions of their favorite music.

Do you remember Coke in a bottle? To me that will always be the real Coke. Some here can remember when Coca-Cola changed their recipe. That was bad - real bad. The new stuff isn’t as good – and never will be.

While it can still be immensely enjoyed, streaming ain’t the real thing. Audiophiles own and desire to listen to the real thing. For them owning media is part and parcel of what it means to be an Audiophile.

Thanks again to all who sincerely participated.

 

[Shadowfax]

Good thread and overall discussion. I picked up many good points but do not stream anything more than Pandora thru my 2 OPPOs for background music.

I listen to about 2TB of digital files on my high end Office System while working

PC > JRiver > Firestone Fubar II Dac fed by AudioQuest Cinamon USB > Lepai 20X20 > Dynaudio 42s

 

[Randy Myers]

Excellent post Calvin and I do 100% agree. Listening and enjoying music is part and parcel but listening at better quality is the goal, the pinnacle of what we strive for.

 

[Calvin]

Good thread and overall discussion. I picked up many good points but do not stream anything more than Pandora thru my 2 OPPOs for background music.

I listen to about 2TB of digital files on my high end Office System while working

PC > JRiver > Firestone Fubar II Dac fed by AudioQuest Cinamon USB > Lepai 20X20 > Dynaudio 42s

I still stream from my Aurender N100 and even rip files on my ACS10 as well. It's fine for causal listening.

 

[Randy Myers]

I listen to my portable and headphones quite a bit. It is wonderful... not as good as listening to one of my 45 RPM albums, but it is as good as I could imagine ever having portable listening . Being into audio does not exclude other listening in my view... but for me it does require at least a certain level .

 

[Mike Lavigne]

While I do not now have a turn table, I suspect the main difference between playing vinyl versus files ripped from vinyl is that over time the vinyl will deteriorate from being played while the ripped files will always sound the same. Of course I will never go back to vinyl to verify that hypothesis.

no. absolutely wrong on all counts. period.

 

[still-one]

no. absolutely wrong on all counts. period.

No, unperiod! both your tapes and vinyl do deteriorate over time.. Regarding the quality of rips versus vinyl I want no part of that debate.

 

[Randy Myers]

both your tapes and vinyl do deteriorate over time..

True, however this can be minimized with proper care. There is no reason to think that my vinyl (I have no experience with tape so can't comment there) will not last past my lifetime and probably my grand children's also, if properly cared for.

I believe that it is possible to wear out an album, but man, you have to play that sucker an awful lot... I don't think anyone will actual wear an album out if properly cared for unless it is listened to daily (multiple times a day ).