In reply, may I be a bit picky?

On Jan 25, 2008 3:35 PM, Jon Noring <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Clark wrote:
> > Just to add some accelerant -- I've never (yet) heard an LP or a CD made
> > from 78s that portrays the range and beauty of the originals as I play
> them
> > on my own system. (One of my special tricks: application of high-end
> audio
> > technology and practices.)
> I've heard this from several 78 collector friends I've known,
> including one who I regard as a true audiophile.
> ......................
> I will assert that we cannot tell any difference between playing
> back a 78 live, and playing back a digital rendition of it from the
> same playback system, if:
> 1) the AD and DA steps are professional grade, 96k/24-bit or better
>   sampling, and
> 2) we do not post process the raw digital transfer -- we keep it raw
>   and untouched per the original.

CJ Maybe!

> This is why I highly value very high quality transfers and
> digitization, and that such raw transfers are archived with no
> post-processing of any kind. That is, the focus for archival purposes
> should be on getting the absolute best transfer, and very high grade
> digitization, and do not do any audio cleanup/restoration -- store it
> "raw."

CJ Totally agree.

> This does not mean the raw transfers should never be "cleaned up" by
> those interested in doing so. But we should never throw away the raw
> transfers (so long as they are properly done).

CJ Should also make them available for people who want the Entire Sound.

> It would be interesting to maybe setup a blind A/B comparison to
> verify my assertion.

CJ No need for "blind" -- we're honest folk, with ourselves especially.

> Get several "audiophile" and 78 collectors
> together to see if they can tell the difference between:
> A: 78 playback --> pre-amp --> amplifier --> speakers
> B: 78 playback --> pre-amp --> AD --> DA --> amplifier --> speakers

CJ If I may say, "the literature" is full of that stuff, wherein no group
(as a group) has been found to detect any differences. Hence, CD, MP3, etc.

> Provided of course the AD/DA is done at 96k/24-bit sampling using
> the highest professional grade equipment, and all other equipment
> remain the same. If so, I assert the blind test will show no
> discernable difference, and if this is indeed the case, then simply
> putting a digital storage step between the AD and DA steps will not
> change the "calculus" since the storage does not alter the bits one
> iota provided storage is lossless.

CJ No such thing as "lossless", sorry.

> Now maybe I have put too much faith in high grade AD/DA equipment.
> Let's run the test and find out! Anyone with golden ears willing to
> take part in such a comparison test?

CJ Ubetcha!

> Jon Noring
> (p.s., since I know someone will ask why 44.1k/16-bit is not sufficient.
> What we really need to do is to accurately represent the noise in the
> recording, especially impulse type noise, and this does require a
> higher sampling rate and bit depth to get a fairly good representation
> of the noise. The analog side of the AD clearly has to be pretty
> accurate on impulse type noise. I'll let Erik and others common on
> this since I know little about the real world of state-of-the-art AD
> converters.

CJ Recently it has developed that 44/16 can be made to sound far, far better
than almost anyone has heard, better than anyone had any right to expect.
This, from an avowed and early foe of CD as-it-was-known-then.