Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site

In the Forum: Analog Playback
In the Thread: The mystery of Koetsu Onyx Cartridges.
Post Subject: Ahh. your part is done thenPosted by mem916 on: 10/16/2011
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,


 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.

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.



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.

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site