| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Analog Playback» The mystery of Koetsu Onyx Cartridges. (53 posts, 3 pages)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 3 of 3 (53 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2 3
10-16-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
manisandher
London
Posts 156
Joined on 09-05-2008

Post #: 41
Post ID: 17166
Reply to: 17161
My order of preference...
fiogf49gjkf0d
1) Romy's file
2) Mark's 2nd file
3) Marks' 1st file

I agree with Romy's comments. Especially that his file sounds a lot more resolving - the "very fine micro-dynamics" that Romy talked about. I strongy suspect this is down to his ADC (having owned the same machine myself until very recently). Good as the Tascam might be, it doesn't sound like it can match the Model Two.

Comparing your 2nd file with your 1st Mark, it seems pretty obvious that the Tascam's attenuators, when used, are having some sort of HF filtering effect on the sound. Not at all unpleasant, but the sound becomes a bit more 'samey' with less differentiation between textures. Transients seem to suffer also, becoming more 'rounded' in the process. The pre helps, but maybe you're then coming up to the limits of the Tascam's capabilites...?

But all three files are very, very listenable... and a testament to how good vinyl can sound when done well. And to me, Romy's file doesn't sound at all 'barbaric'. Ever so slightly 'edgy' maybe, but not barbaric. In any event, I like it a lot and would be quite happy if I could get my very modest vinyl rig up to this calibre.

One thing I'd like to know from Romy though. Mark mentions that his recordings do not quite match the original vinyl. How do your 24/88.2 recordings sound vs. the original vinyl? I'm asking because I'd like to know how closely I'm hearing your vinyl rig.

Mani.
10-16-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,540
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 42
Post ID: 17167
Reply to: 17166
A few comments about Mani post.
fiogf49gjkf0d

 manisandher wrote:
I strongy suspect this is down to his ADC (having owned the same machine myself until very recently). Good as the Tascam might be, it doesn't sound like it can match the Model Two.

This is the subject that I was thinking about to but I have no realistic answer to it. Pacific is very good A/D converter but I have no point of reference how it different from Tascam. If I knew the sound of Tascam then I would be able to extrapolate the sonic differences. I had Tascam machine a few years back but at that time I was trying to engage it as CD transport. The unit if I remember correctly had D/A and A/D on-board but I did not try to use them. So, the contribution of A/D is a absolutely not know.  Pacific might be very good and much better then Tascam in numerous aspects but those aspect might not be the specific aspects that make the differences between those specific files. I am very sure that the difference between the converters is there – how to factor-in the difference I have no knowledge.

 manisandher wrote:
And to me, Romy's file doesn't sound at all 'barbaric'. Ever so slightly 'edgy' maybe, but not barbaric.

Well, my definition of 'barbaric' might not be your definition of 'barbaric'. I am know to attribute to worlds the meaning that I would like them to be and according to my current intention or even mood. You Brits will not understand it as to understand it you need to hear a lot of Yiddish in childhood. Anyhow, when I said 'barbaric' in this case I mend the wild and unpredictable character. In the Mark’s file the instruments and the instrumental groups sounded to my ears very luxury but subdued. In my file the each note was presented as it was showing off and the difference between the individual notes, would it be dynamic of tonal was much more highlighted.

 manisandher wrote:
One thing I'd like to know from Romy though. Mark mentions that his recordings do not quite match the original vinyl. How do your 24/88.2 recordings sound vs. the original vinyl?

I was not able to make a digital transfer the sound identical to LP playing direct. The file that made is technically compromised as it used the cable before A/D that I do not approve but I have no spare cables.

 manisandher wrote:
  I'm asking because I'd like to know how closely I'm hearing your vinyl rig.

Do you have Macondo and Milqs? :-)

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
10-16-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
manisandher
London
Posts 156
Joined on 09-05-2008

Post #: 43
Post ID: 17169
Reply to: 17167
Very far from Macondo and Milqs
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Romy the Cat wrote:

 manisandher wrote:
  I'm asking because I'd like to know how closely I'm hearing your vinyl rig.

Do you have Macondo and Milqs? :-)

Not yet!

But I'm wondering how close the sound I'm currently getting from your digital file would be to the sound I'd get, were you to fly your whole vinyl rig (from cartridge to phono stage) over to my place. Of course, my electrostatics and transistor amp would sound totally different from your Macondo and Milqs... though my Berning SET and AKG headphones might sound closer. (Incidentally, I have 'One Hundred Years of Solitude' sitting right in front of me on my desk - really ought to make the effort to read it. It's my wife's favourite book ever also.)

I suppose what I'm really wondering is how far the sound of my current very, very modest vinyl setup is to your vinyl setup. I mean, I can just about live with my current vinyl setup... but yours, I'd be very, very happy with, I think... based on the file you posted. I just wondered if I could use your digital file as a benchmark were I to audition a few new vinyl rigs.

Mani.

10-16-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,540
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 44
Post ID: 17171
Reply to: 17155
In response to request for more my transfers.
fiogf49gjkf0d

 Romy the Cat wrote:

Below is the very same fragment from the very same LP (also not original but re-issue).  The file is 88/24, FLAC compression.

 http://www.mediafire.com/?bpgxdbru87fkx8x
 

This morning I received requests to upload the entire Firebird and to follow it up with more of my LP transfers. Well, I do not have a whole Firebird as it is not the work that I care too much. I made this digital read specifically for the Koetsu incident.

However, I might make it available a transfer of enter movements of the music that I like. Hey, how about everyone would make a digital transfer of a piece that they like and make it available?

The caT


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
10-16-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
mem916
San Diego, CA
Posts 52
Joined on 10-14-2011

Post #: 45
Post ID: 17172
Reply to: 17171
Mediafire limits
fiogf49gjkf0d
Unfortunately mediafire wants money for the ability to upload large files (over 200mb). 
10-16-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,540
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 46
Post ID: 17173
Reply to: 17172
It is irrelevant.
fiogf49gjkf0d
 mem916 wrote:
Unfortunately mediafire wants money for the ability to upload large files (over 200mb). 
That was why I proposed to use a single movement not a whole thing.

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
10-16-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
mem916
San Diego, CA
Posts 52
Joined on 10-14-2011

Post #: 47
Post ID: 17174
Reply to: 17172
Firebird sample at 24/88.2
fiogf49gjkf0d


OK, I finally have my sample re-recorded in a format matching your file.  Details are the same as before.  (I set the Tascam inputs to "bypass" and used the Callisto to attenuate the signal.  Levels are the same.)  The only change is as I was swapping cables around I noticed how disgusting the connectors on the Dominus RCA looked and decided to clean them.  The Tascam recorded at 176.4 and I cut it down to 88.2. 

http://www.mediafire.com/?3yf335okxc88san


I will use this file to compare directly to your 88.2 file on my tascam after my headache goes away and give a report on what differences I hear.

Enjoy!

Mark
10-16-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,540
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 48
Post ID: 17175
Reply to: 17174
What is the purpose of this exercise?
fiogf49gjkf0d
 mem916 wrote:


OK, I finally have my sample re-recorded in a format matching your file.  Details are the same as before.  (I set the Tascam inputs to "bypass" and used the Callisto to attenuate the signal.  Levels are the same.)  The only change is as I was swapping cables around I noticed how disgusting the connectors on the Dominus RCA looked and decided to clean them.  The Tascam recorded at 176.4 and I cut it down to 88.2. 

http://www.mediafire.com/?3yf335okxc88san


I will use this file to compare directly to your 88.2 file on my tascam after my headache goes away and give a report on what differences I hear.

Enjoy!

Mark

Mark, I do not think it is really necessary to continue this exercise in context of Koetsu thread. We are not perusing any abstract “better” digital transfer and the whole purpose of your initial file was to demonstrate that Koetsu might deliver fine sound. Your very first file did demonstrate it. I do not see any purpose trying to detect difference between 88K and 96K file. When I play you file I did it in natural 96K, so for my purpose it was sufficient. BTW, I would like to note that you still posted not the raw file buy the result of down-conversion from 175 to 88 – wish is a big “no-no” in my books… I am not looking to buy Koetsu but your original  file allready did show that Koetsu might do fine job.


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
10-16-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
mem916
San Diego, CA
Posts 52
Joined on 10-14-2011

Post #: 49
Post ID: 17176
Reply to: 17175
Ahh. your part is done then
fiogf49gjkf0d
Hi Romy,

I miss-understood.  I did not realize you were able to play my file in "natural 96K".  Since I am not able to play your file in "natural 88.2" I needed to make another recording before I can really compare yours to mine since my CD player upsamples at 4x48K and I am concerned about artifacts possibly introduced when going from 88.2 to 192.  I cannot turn this upsampling off with my CD player.

As for downsampling from 176.4 to 88.2 it is a very simple operation (throw away every other sample).  I do not see why this should be a problem.  downsampling from 196 to 88.2 is not a simple operation so I would not do that (for the same reason I cannot be confident of playing your 88.2 on my upsampling CD player.

There is no need for you to download my latest file as I don't see any reason to compare 88.2 to 96 either.

I am not looking to buy an Ortophon or a Micro Seiki either but am still curious to know for sure how your file compares to mine.  I want to be sure the differences I hear are not due to my cd player introducing issues in your file that it does not introduce in my file.  Also out of curiosity I want to see if my hunch is correct about it introducing any differences (which I can do by comparing my 88.2 file to my 96 file). 

Best Regards,

Mark

 Romy the Cat wrote:
 mem916 wrote:


OK, I finally have my sample re-recorded in a format matching your file.  Details are the same as before.  (I set the Tascam inputs to "bypass" and used the Callisto to attenuate the signal.  Levels are the same.)  The only change is as I was swapping cables around I noticed how disgusting the connectors on the Dominus RCA looked and decided to clean them.  The Tascam recorded at 176.4 and I cut it down to 88.2. 

http://www.mediafire.com/?3yf335okxc88san


I will use this file to compare directly to your 88.2 file on my tascam after my headache goes away and give a report on what differences I hear.

Enjoy!

Mark

Mark, I do not think it is really necessary to continue this exercise in context of Koetsu thread. We are not perusing any abstract “better” digital transfer and the whole purpose of your initial file was to demonstrate that Koetsu might deliver fine sound. Your very first file did demonstrate it. I do not see any purpose trying to detect difference between 88K and 96K file. When I play you file I did it in natural 96K, so for my purpose it was sufficient. BTW, I would like to note that you still posted not the raw file buy the result of down-conversion from 175 to 88 – wish is a big “no-no” in my books… I am not looking to buy Koetsu but your original  file allready did show that Koetsu might do fine job.
10-16-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,540
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 50
Post ID: 17177
Reply to: 17176
Digital is good up a point, at least in my hands.
fiogf49gjkf0d
 mem916 wrote:
I miss-understood.  I did not realize you were able to play my file in "natural 96K".  Since I am not able to play your file in "natural 88.2" I needed to make another recording before I can really compare yours to mine since my CD player upsamples at 4x48K and I am concerned about artifacts possibly introduced when going from 88.2 to 192.  I cannot turn this upsampling off with my CD player.

Yes, I can play and can record everything. However, I do not have in my A/D that I used the 48X recording modes configured in the way how I would like them to be. It is not difficult to do but I would like do not do it as I against the 48K clock and with no one use it. So, naturally I would like do not breed the 48X file.
 mem916 wrote:
As for downsampling from 176.4 to 88.2 it is a very simple operation (throw away every other sample). 
It is correct only theoretically. In practice I never was able to change sample rate twice with destroying Sound, remind you that Pacific is the best rate converter the I ever see and it still does not it trouble-free. If you read my site more thenj you will learn that I advocate digital hygiene: is a file was ever DSP touched after conversion then it is not the file but a digital surrogate.
 manisandher wrote:
Mark mentions that his recordings do not quite match the original vinyl. How do your 24/88.2 recordings sound vs. the original vinyl?

Mani, not I can answer your question more accurately. I just spend 2 hours trying to record “my file”, or the fragment of LP that I very much like. I made 4 different transfers and not of them, even remotely sounded like playing the LP direct. In fact it hurt my ego a bit as I thought that it shall be closer. Nope it was not. Interesting that I use not very good LP and digital still was not able to handle it. Perhaps I need better converter, or better interface card or better recording program… I do not know. Thankfully I record mostly FM where my level digital can do very fine job. With LP it looks like it does not. T was the very same finding the I had before when I was trying to do tape and LP transfer. Perhaps I need to go 4X but I do not think that it will make deference.

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
10-16-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
mem916
San Diego, CA
Posts 52
Joined on 10-14-2011

Post #: 51
Post ID: 17178
Reply to: 17177
More things for me to explore...
fiogf49gjkf0d
Hmmm...  Now I have something else to play with.  Next time I am set up to record I will make yet another pass at firebird with the Tascam set to 88.2 so I can see if I can hear any degradation in my downsamped 88.2 file.  I wonder if some converters try to do more than they should when going from 176.4 to 88.2?  I suppose if someone were very serious they could dig into this and use a program to compare the result with the source to see if it simply skips ever other sample like I think it should, or if it is messing around with the data in the resulting samples.

I can understand not liking the 48K clock if you are interested in making CDs but it sounds like you have other reasons too.  I will have to poke around on your site and look for your notes on 48K.  (I just like the round numbers. Smile)

 Romy the Cat wrote:


Yes, I can play and can record everything. However, I do not have in my A/D that I used the 48X recording modes configured in the way how I would like them to be. It is not difficult to do but I would like do not do it as I against the 48K clock and with no one use it. So, naturally I would like do not breed the 48X file.
 mem916 wrote:
As for downsampling from 176.4 to 88.2 it is a very simple operation (throw away every other sample). 
It is correct only theoretically. In practice I never was able to change sample rate twice with destroying Sound, remind you that Pacific is the best rate converter the I ever see and it still does not it trouble-free. If you read my site more thenj you will learn that I advocate digital hygiene: is a file was ever DSP touched after conversion then it is not the file but a digital surrogate.


 

The Cat
10-17-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
mem916
San Diego, CA
Posts 52
Joined on 10-14-2011

Post #: 52
Post ID: 17179
Reply to: 17178
Hmmm
fiogf49gjkf0d
I think I've worn myself out. 

I was able to determine that my CD player does damage the 88.2 when it upsamples to 192.  However comparing the two 88.2 files yours does seem to have more impact, more speed in the attack of the drums for instance.  Unfortunately it also sounds harsher to me than my 88.2 file.  That harshness detracts from the experience too much for my taste and spoils the illusion that I am listen to live music in a hall.  They are both really good though and I like them both, just prefer mine. 

The vinyl is a lot better than any of the files (either the 88.2's or my previous 96). 

Mark
12-04-2015 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
mem916
San Diego, CA
Posts 52
Joined on 10-14-2011

Post #: 53
Post ID: 22289
Reply to: 17179
I upgraded to the diamond cantilever version
fiogf49gjkf0d
Well so my Coralstone reached the ripe old age of 4.5 years and something over 2500 hrs this fall so I thought it was probably time to rebuild it.  Then I got to thinking about the diamond cantilever option (which can be added to the rebuild at a much higher cost).  Finally settled on buying a brand new cartridge with the diamond cantilever which arrived this week.   I don't think any comparison between a new Koetsu and one with a bunch of hours on it that realistically should have been rebuilt at least a year ago is all that useful.  But here goes anyway.

The new one Coralstone measures 5.5 dB louder on a 1000 Hz test tone than the old one.  Based on my memory at least some of that increase is due to some change in the cartridge as I don't recall ever setting my volume so low when listening to this particular record (Firebird again).

After making sure I had the same levels set I did a back to back listening comparison between the two and what stood out was that individual notes seem much more "distinct" with the new cartridge. The "blattiness" of the horns was more pronounced. The sense of the recording space and the low level echoes from various instruments were more apparent. Overall the recording sounded more natural and much closer to the experience of hearing a live symphony in the concert hall.

I made two sample recordings at 24/192.  I did normalize the recording of the old cartridge to match the new one (had to adjust by 1.2 dB or so).  They can be downloaded here:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2ceYgRGBXdbTVBoeWViYnpLSGc

If anyone is interested in listening to the differences. 

Note:  I haven't broken in the new one, and haven't even gotten serious about adjusting VTA or azimuth yet.
Page 3 of 3 (53 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2 3
Home Page  |  Last 24Hours  | Search  |  SiteMap  | Questions or Problems | Copyright Note
The content of all messages within the Forums Copyright © by authors of the posts