I brought today my Lavry’s AD122 MKII processor and decided to conduct excrement feeding the ADC with “live” feed from FM broadcast and outputting it directly into my Bidat DAC: WHRB 95.3 FM  8:00 pm San Francisco Symphony orchestra “IN CONCERT” with Michael Tilson Thomas conducting:

Adams: My Father Knew Charles Ives (world premiere)
Stravinsky: Violin Concerto in D; Hilary Hahn, violin
Tchaikovsky: Suite No. 3 in G, Op. 55

I think something is very wrong in here, as the result that I get is too bad to be considered juts unsuccessful. The digital feed is very noise, compressed (probably because of noise) and with huge lost on tonal nuances (probably because of noise). I did use the crappiest balanced cables that I have and the cheapest Monter made digital cable but even with all of this the result is way more horrible then I would expect form the “peripherals”. Something is wrong, as I do not believe that such a world-class level DA converter might perform at such a primitive level. I need to edict he myself what I am doing wrong. It turned out that it will not be juts plug and play….

The caT

Bud wrote:

In that vein..... the only CD's that I have found to be worthy of using, to copy audio to, are made, or resold, by TDK as the Music CD-R (not CD-RW). The important point here is the moderate green cast to the plastic. This reduces the backscatter and probably jitter also. Side by side comparison to the clear or yellow will convince you very quickly.

jtavan wrote:

This might be an overly-obvious suggestion, but have you checked (with an audio editor program) that you're using most of the available recording range? That is, are peaks on the signal up near the maximum level possible given your recording depth? If not, you need to adjust the input sensitivity of the ADC to match the output level of your tuner. This gain matching is critical to getting a decent recording - you're just throwing away bits if your peaks aren't NEAR digimax.

Rgs,
Romy

I have found the problem and was able to resolve the noise quandary.

The Lavry ADC has balance analog input and the Sansui has single-ended output. I use my PAD’s Dominus cable with an RCA to XLR adapter. The adaptor was made by BAT and I used it for another project to have in it the 12dB voltage devider. I opened it up, re-soldered the contacts and reassembled the adapter. I did not mean to use it eventually but for sake of tests I thought to use an adapter should be OK. Here is the catch: the BAT adapter is not grounded by default as it has a Teflon separation between the RCA source and XLR load. Since I do not do anything balanced for years I kind of never cared that an inch of the space inside of the adapter was not shielded and that there was no direct contact between the grounds of the components and the shields of the XLR adapter. In the case when the adapter not juts route the pins but also convert grounds from XLR to RCA the proper grounding become an issues but I stupidly did not use the third pin and continues treat it as a single ended-pair where the twist is enough most of the time …. Also, the Larvy ADC is stunningly sensitive at it’s inputs and require very heavily shielded cables, according to the Larvy application engineers. I end up with buying another cheap temporary adapters form pro shop, explicitly ground them and drop the POD cable as they are essentially not shielded. When the nose is gone… I think I would need to find a pair of XLR-RCA quarto-shielded patches for future…

So, what was then… As before, I connected the tuner into the Lavry ADC and the ADC directly into the Bidat…

In short, it was quite remarkable and frankly speaking I DID NOT ANTICIPATE that it might be so good.  The preamp was deed by FM-direct and FM-ADC-DAC run. I’m so || close to declare that the result is absolutely identical, no mater how unrealistic it might sound. Ironically the sound is virtually identical although I use the crapy cables and without final tuning of ADC (it runs now 16/44). Interesting that the result is virtually identical while I DO NOT USE the entire dynamic range of the Lavry ADC.  In order to have the identical volumes from tuner and DAC I can use only the ADC input adjustments and of course no DAC ether ADC has any volume advisement at digital domain. So, I have very good (identical!!!) result without even using a full ADC’s range. (At the loudest picks the ADC show –12dB) I mean… running it a full dynamic range, take care about the cables   and fine more suitable “modus operandi” for the ADC should give a even better (!)  result?  Hey, and I do appreciate what is going on even right now!

Frankly speaking it kind of irrational. The direct analog feed vs the feed coming via DAC-and ADC and practically no worsening of sound! I remember in my youth I records a lot of reel-to-reel and I never was able to make the original tape hiss and the hiss coming form a copy to have the absolutely identical harmonics, it always was very slightly off. Here, the FM nose if absolutely the same form the FM feed and via the digital feed. I mean I flip the preamp freed with a remote control and there is NO EVENT IN SOUND, no event at all!!!!

Anyhow, I’m so pleased that I am VERY strongly consider not to try the Lavry DAC now…

One more question that I would sadly be asking… IF THAT RESULT IS AVAILABLE then why we have our digital so much more horrible then our analog? Anyhow, I need to open an audiophile freak show in my listening room… :-)

In a series note, I would like to look at it more and see at the result deeper. So far, at the level of “the sounds” everything looks very-very attractive

Rgs,
The caT

jtavan wrote:

I'm really pleased to hear that your results were so good. This is what I expected should be possible, but I admit to being surprised that it worked so well just at 44.1/16. Wish I could afford the Lavry ADC - that sounds like a winner.

I am also very much surprised with the result. Regarding the Lavry ADC… I was paying MUCH less then I was expecting and if you wish I might probably to do one more for you. Contact me privately is you are interested.

jtavan wrote:

Just for kicks, maybe you should try plugging your vinyl rig into it and record some nice records at 96kHz/24bit - see how close the playback is to the big setup.

Yes, this would be defiantly the next step, but I will go there when I finalize the cables and few other things… I would be VERY interesting to try.

jtavan wrote:

I've often considered recording my library of favorite vinyl to digital, so I can play them back at will for guests, without vinyl wear. Lots of work, though.

If it would be possible with IDENTICAL quality then I would be very appealing, although I did not target to do LP archiving…. The Lavry ADC stays and soon or later I would defiantly try it…

The
Purring caT

Another question for you the digital savvy people: what software I would need to mange my FM recording. Here are the requirements that I have - the software should:

1) Grabs the digital stream from my sound card and load it to hard drive in windows uncompressed format (any other format would be better?)
2) Alloy me to name, sort, group the files, add the custom annotations, search, move across the drives and permit to crate my own hierarchy of the files clustering.
3) To edit the windows uncompressed format, I would need just cutting the tails and heads, nothing else.
4) Play the windows uncompressed format, permitting no proceeding; no DSP, no mixing, no sampling conversion and no anything like this. It is very critical that the software before dispatching the bytes to the sound card would not do any pre-proceeding
5) Should have a graphic interface that would present the current playing position within the entire file and also allow advancing the playing within the file.
6) Create the new windows uncompressed file form the fractions of another files.

Can anyone suggest anything?

The caT

This weekend I decide to take my FM where it should be. I ran ~125” and installed a dipole on the roof of my building and serviced my tuner. The result was as expected but there was something unexpected. Along with all normal benefits of better antenna the tuner begun to produced HF slightly better and yielded slightly more dynamic (I have no idea why!!!). Now running the tuner direct vs the AD-DA produce very-very-very slightly different result. I can’t characterize it as a compression but rather very-very minuet flattening of sound. The effect indescribably minute and it is absolutely undetectable blindly. If I 10 times switch between the analog and the digitalized feeds than probably 3-4 times I might that “something happens”, although to identify those change would be very difficult only by the “flattening” or compression. Still the difference, if it does exist now with the boundaries of this affect I might attribute to the crappy cables and the lover then necessary recording level of the ADC input. Another problem is that my Bidat perhaps dose not handle the quality of the digital stream? Or perhaps what I am beginning to feeling is the way in which digital should sound on my playback? I do not know the answers but I will continue to collect the observations. The “cable up” the system and trying to got for a full recoding dynamic range should be next step. Then I put the PC, lynx and the file into the game…

The caT

You were bidding too eh? I think Romy will be keeping quiet about hot kit in future ...

Actually, while you guys are here, are there any plans to shut down analogue broadcasting in your neck of the woods? Might want to hang on to those records...

cheers

cv

Antonio J. wrote:

What will you do with the second TU-X1? Are you planning to do some modifications on it? I was about bidding for it while it was very affordable, but once it started to get more and more expensive and I noticed it was you.... I decided my TU-919 is very good too ;-)

I have mine that I been using dally and if something goes wrong with it I would like do not be left without theTU-X1 as I do not know anyone who would be able to fix them. Yes, I got another one purely for the sake of having another perfectly operation unit, boxed and sitting in my storage. It is not an expansive greedy intention but in my mind it is fully justifiable. I will not wiling to peruse any other FM source (I do not thing else better would be ever build) and I would like to be certain that I will be supplied to the rest of my life with sound quality that the TU-X1 offers.

Also, Antonio, believe me or not but I do feel that I peaty much stole it. You see if we have in audio any relation between the prices we pay and the sonic reimbursement the we get out of audio then looking as the prices we ordinary pay for some other sources ($5K for transports + $10K for DAC, $10-20K for TT + $3K for cartridge) I sincerely believe that TU-X1 should cost somewhere near $22K-$25K. In fact, in addition that the TU-X1 offers the sonic result better or similar then a $25K source also the TU-X1 is much more fruitful source then CD or LP as a tuner offers much more culturally richer and more device programming. (Of course in the cities when there are available good FM classical stations… and here is where Boston rules!)

So, looking at all of it I figured out the an nice l back-up TU-X1 would not heart… Now, the fan part is that if I keep my blabbering mouse shut then I would get it even cheaper as I unknowingly was bidding in there against another reader of this site…

The caT

I haven't listened to the TU-X1, but I can swear that my TU-919 is a better source than my Bidat or my vinyl rig in terms of creating an atmosphere of music. Here we only have two decent stations, one for classical which from time to time broadcasts concerts by the Orchestre de la Suisse Romande, Concertgebow and also from our local Auditorium. Really enjoyable, yesterday they broadcasted some piano pieces by Fanny Mendelssohn and my wife and I were astonished for the wonderful music it was. The other station is good for jazz and modern music. All the rest are pure crap for program and for sound quality. I wish we had more classical program stations over here.

I thought to buy an affordable TU-X1 just for the sake to see if this can be any better, but I suspect that your TU-X1 and the TU-919 must be members of the same family and make music quite similarly.
I agree that if things were priced for their performance, then these tuners should cost way way more, we're lucky that from time to time some can be found. Have you listened to other Sansui tuners? I wonder if the more affordable and simpler models like the TU-9900 or TU-717 can be doing things this same way. I feel tempted to get a TU-9900 just for the sake to try it and know.

If you ever get tired to have the TU-X1 stored, let me know, but remember that I know how much you paid hahahaha ;-)

Best regards,

Antonio

Allo Antonio,

I think for the UK it's 2012. Also, hHere in London the only classical station worth listening to if you ask me is BBC Radio 3. So a TU-X1 and Lavry would be something of an enormous investment all things considered. I'm fairly sure we'll see a decline in quality on analogue anyway in the run up.

It did make me consider trying to build a tuner that was "hardwired" to Radio 3, should be possible to achieve something spectacularly good...

i'm curious as to whether the Lavry and PC etc will resolve Romy's issues with DSP or at least, achieving a transparent delay for bass horns. But that's another thread...

cheers

cv wrote:

I think for the UK it's 2012. Also, hHere in London the only classical station worth listening to if you ask me is BBC Radio 3. So a TU-X1 and Lavry would be something of an enormous investment all things considered. I'm fairly sure we'll see a decline in quality on analogue anyway in the run up. It did make me consider trying to build a tuner that was "hardwired" to Radio 3, should be possible to achieve something spectacularly good... i'm curious as to whether the Lavry and PC etc will resolve Romy's issues with DSP or at least, achieving a transparent delay for bass horns. But that's another thread...

I’m very surprised that London has such a challenged FM live. I was under impression, perhaps faulty impression that in Europe it should quite a few first class classical FM radio stations. Not to mention that the entire size of Europe probably might be coved by one transmitter… :-) . I do not know how you guy be we are very lucky in here as beside the local FM classic stations we have a number of syndicated broadcast across the country. I’m pretty sure that the largest metropolitan cities in US have the same luxury as we have here in Boston. BTW, I have to tell you that with this 1X tuner the quality even the AM broadcasts is very surprisingly high. I never heard such a good AM from anywhere and I never thought is might be good!!! With Am you should be definably be abler to cache the entire Old World.

Rgs,
The Cat

Allo fellas,

Yes, it is strange. There are a number of decent venues for large scale classical, the Barbican, Royal Festival Hall, opera at the Coliseum etc, but as far as I can tell, on FM, it's Radio 3 and Classic FM, the latter playing cheesy snippets of, well, cheesy music when I've heard it.

Must confess, I've never really bothered to see what's on AM. I will investigate further with a cheap radio and discount any sound quality issues assuming that the mighty sansui will resolve them...

cheers

cv wrote:

Must confess, I've never really bothered to see what's on AM. I will investigate further with a cheap radio and discount any sound quality issues assuming that the mighty sansui will resolve them...

Rgs,
Romy the Cat