Hi, Max.

When you say “WAV file X burned on CD-R” then the question would be what was the source of those files? If you have a row source with some kind of A/D and if you intend to stay with 44 then 44/20 is OK format, do not stay with for 16 Bit. However, if source for your files are other ripped CDs then it is more complicated because it is severely compromised from beginning. 

My transport (CEC-TL0) reads better quality then my CD-ROM. (The CD-ROM is selected among 22 of it’s competitors – do not ask me how it happed – it did happed). So, on the scale of quality I would put this hierarchy with the best atop:

1) Direct feed, A/D writing WAV files and then to play them
2) CD readers (from TL0)
3) WAV file burned from other CD
4) CD played directly from CD reader

Anyhow, if you have an abstract 16/44 file, regardless of the source, then what would be an optimum configuration to do it? I think the fist thing you need to decide how much hassles are you wiling to endure to play 16Bit files. Lynx AES 16 is fine and there are a number of other good external DACs out there but …it is still 16Bit! I presume that nowadays it would be possible to find a good 16Bit on-board DAC. I really do not know what it out there and I did not make my own research in the subject. I went for “big” external DAC because the  “comfort” was not my objective. So, in my case it is a dedicated DAW with Lynx interface, externals DAC, grounds, ugly playing software and so on… I defiantly would NOT go for it is I use the ripped CD  16-bit CDs as a source….

So, after I successfully failed to say anything meaningful to your first question let go for the second one…

I do not know anything about any other lossless formats, I used only WAVs. I would refer you to Lynx manual (or to the manual of any other card you might pick). BTW, Lynx has very friendly and very knowledgeable support team and they are very nice on a phone… Lynx has also the same class card only with built-in premium DACs on it. They claimed that the DACs as very good but I personally do not know if it is correct. Ironically the card with DACs cost the same as a digital interface with no processing on the card.

Hence, generally I do not know what to answer. I had very limited exposure to the subject (well documented with this site). Still, even my extremely limited exposure was 2 years back and it is a LOT on digital world. I heard that nowadays even the head-held devices or laptops with premium audio cards could do good 16bit. I heard that some people use even consumer sound card or pro-video processing machines and get good 16Bit of them

Max, perhaps I wrong but I do not remember you as a me-like-psycho who has interest in “abstract” audio. I hardly feel that juts ripping CDs and play then from DAW would require anything “special”. At least it was my experience… General rule that I would follow is making DAW as “complex” in term of quality and extendibility as your CD playback… I think it would make sense…

Max Shatsky wrote:

You say that the digital read from your transport is better than the multiple reads of CD-Rom with EAC software? Thats interesting!!!

Well, tell me dive you data and you make your own concussions.  I read CDs with CEC TL0 with is not just a CD transport but it something really self-defined (if it is not broken) and this transport way more capable than any other transport that I have seen. Properly operating TL0  (with a proper fat DAC, as TL0 is “lean”) dose something as much as could be pushed out of “red book”.

Now the CD-Rom. There are very controversial rumors about the quietly of CD-Roms and CD copies. I have countless examples, with all imaginable technologies and none of them I find satisfying (except POD CD-Roms 10 years ago). Result is varying and quite unpredictably. A few years ago I decided to build high fidelity duplication with objective to get identical copy. I had a dedicated machine and I went to local Micro Center and bought I beeline it was 22 (!) external CD-Roms, DVD-Roms, Writers and etc… (I told them that I will return all of them except one and they were OK with it). Then I attached 4 of those external CD-Roms to my PC and loaded them with the blank CD that I use (MF’s UltraDisk). The EAC software has an option when it tries to read and to record CD and it builds up the list of preferred hardware for the given CD. I marked the CD-Rom that EAC recognized as the best and moved to another batch of 4 CD-Roms. Doing it again and again, and then running the test with the winners I was able to find one CR-ROMs that EAC recognized as the absolutely the best CD-ROM for the given PC, given disk, given PS, given EAC settings and …  whatever else. I returned the rest of the CD-Roms to the store and keep using the “best accepted”. The recordings that I’m getting on it are very much better then the recordings I was able to make by any other means but still they are not as good as I would like to.  So, another day I asked myself the very same question – will that CD-Rom read CD better then TL0. I read CD via EAC to file and played it. TL0 clearly was way more superior. Then I played the CD-Rom directly to DAC, many DACs,  with different cables, interfaces and so on… nothing was able to defeat TL0… Actually the difference is not minor…. If you find yourself in Boston I will be happy to demonstrate it.

Max Shatsky wrote:

It means that it is better to read once in a 'good' way than ten times to read garbage and average it. So, all those hi-end CD players that use CD-ROM (or DVD-rom) as a transport just extract the same garbage multiple times. I guess the reason is that a noise that come from CD and particular CD-ROM is not random. If it mistakenly reads 0 as 1 it may continue to do so due to its physical characteristics.  Otherwise, multiple reads should work at least as good as your CEC transport. Such things do not happen to CD-data due to a significant space allocated for error-correction. Sure, who needs error correction for CD-audio, it only creates a market for expensive cd-transports.

I relay can’t rational on the subject. I have no idea why digital works when it works and I hardly have seen anyone who has. Of souse there are many people who know digital but all of them contradict each other and they have little understanding of relation between digital knots and bolt and Sound. At least I completely blind in the rationalization of digital reasons…

Max Shatsky wrote:

Somehow I don't beleive that a high quality DAC can be implemented in computer enviroment.

Perhaps you are correct, I do not know…

Max Shatsky wrote:

I don't think you are privileged to call yourself a 'psycho', since you are a rational person and have very well defined goals and thats the oposite from the 'psycho'. 'Abstract Audio' - you mean an Audio you can't hear? What you do is very practical audio (and I've heard your Audio result), and those on AA forum - they do Abstract Audio (afterall these are the same acronyms AA).

I disagree but this would be a subject for a different thread…

Max Shatsky wrote:

Anyway, I'll try to use my Creative digital out, if it gives fair results, then I'll upgrade to Lynx. Now I'm going to shop for a good DAC ..

Hyperborean wrote:

Am I going nuts or all these posts around digital recording just crazy? Digital is not even near that point to consider it as a recording medium, specially at home. There is only one way to do it right - analog! Seems like you Roma can do it right (financially), get an AMPEX (r70) or STUDER (A80?) tube machine (no need to upgrade in the future). Peace of mind is guaranteed then.

Hyperborean wrote:

Well, I'm not convinced.

Well, I do not think that you would see anywhere at my site trying to convince anybody. The only person I do try to convince is myself, and I might assure you that so far it was quite difficult task.

Hyperborean wrote:

First things first. Yes I don't know specifics of FM recording, but what I know in general about recording is enough for me to conclude that sound processed threw converters A-D and back D-A is going to be ... well, processed. I'm talking about fundamental differences between analog and digital recording here.

Actually, Hyperborean, if you read my site, the multiple posts then you might come across to my comment that for me the definition of success of digital recording playback is to play my tuner loaded directly to amps and then inject the A/D and D/A to the signals and see no change in sound. Be advised that FM is dynamically compressed and frequency challenged and it look like it would not be too hard. However, FM has mind-boggling space and imaging that is VERY difficult to handle.  

Hyperborean wrote:

Second, we're not talking about direct to disk or direct feed from mic to tape or to digital recorder here, are we? So it is safe for me to assume (without learning about "benefits" of FM  broadcasting) that there are a lot of stuff between mic in front of musicians and recorder in your home. So, why even talk about dynamic range when you're using SE tube amps.

I am sorry, I do not follow what you are saying….

Hyperborean wrote:

Now, the idea is wonderful never the less. I'm thinking to try that with my AKAI tape decks now, but I don't have a good tuner yet. But maybe I missed the point all along, it's just the thought of digital recording is making me shiver, seriously. You of course, can do what you please, but I still disagree. I strongly believe in the shorter signal path possible, that's all.

It is all depends if you have in Minneapolis a good station that Broadcast good music and good sound. Shell you do then if I were in your place then I would go unquestionable good digital. Stop by at your local pro shop and borrow over weekend for $100 Lavry A/D and D/A – it will give you an idea what digital is able of.

Hyperborean wrote:

I'm talking about fundamental differences between analog and digital recording here.

Hyperborean wrote:

Second, we're not talking about direct to disk or direct feed from mic to tape or to digital recorder here, are we?

Hyperborean wrote:

So, why even talk about dynamic range when you're using SE tube amps. Now, the idea is wonderful never the less.

During the last month I become extremely pleased with the technical aspect of my FM reception and recordings. Since I render my “super Schwarz” project:

http://www.GoodSoundClub.com/TreeItem.aspx?PostID=9997

I made an number of configuration changes starting from routing my antenna signal and ending my digital mixing, including the change of the recording procedures. As the result the quality of FM reception and the quality I get of my FM recording  improved and now even want I recorded 6 months back I can easily do better, quality -wise and program-wise. That is very cool and the only apology that I have in all of it that I did not start to experiment with all of it at the level I do it now only 13 year earlier, when I move in Boston.

Juts to give an idea of what is going o… Here is a fragment from today’s glorious performance of BSO… The fragment has slightly less brilliance and slightly more noise than the ordinal file and it was resaved in 32 bit WAV format (originally recorded in 64 bit). It is Rohde & Schwarz EU-6201 into Lavry AD122 at 88/24 (100meg) + the marvelously sounding today BSO. Pay attention how the celebrated opening of the Bruckner 7 works in THIS case surprisingly-well with the Boston’s Symphony Hall.

http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?yztteoziqno

Here is 3 more files that were recorded today, yesterday and in the beginning of the week. All of them FM with Schwarz and Lavry, each file is 88/24 and around 100Meg. They are compressed and it is well heard but they LIVE and they in my view more alive than anything else.

http://www.mediafire.com/?agaelw7mmoy

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

http://www.mediafire.com/?dm1mljybnxt

scooter wrote:

What does this mean for Mr. TU-X1?

Actually it has nothing do with TU-X1. If I record with TU-X1 I will have virtually the same result. The TU-X1 is bounded to Pacific A/D converter and Schwarz is bounded to Lavry. Schwarz and Lavry running on all time and I remote desktop my PC with recorder to record the programs that I like. Schwarz has advantage over TU-X1 that it does not require any RF attenuation – it would be difficult to do from PC. Schwarz also much less sensitive to the precision of antenna positioning – it is also default to do from PC… Another thing is that I feel that it is easy to run Lavry all time then Pacific. Pacific has A/D and D/A and run hot. I was trying to disconnect Pacific’s D/A section but in the end decided do not do it.

So, my use of Rohde & Schwarz the last few weeks is not a retirement of TU-X1 or my feeling that it underperform. If I fine the ways to rotate antenna, and tune on and off different tuner or A/D processors from my PC then I will permanently tune TU-X1 to one station and Schwarz to another station.

There is some consideration however. I can’t feed from one antenna two tuners without losing 3-4db. I need those dBs… I also do not know at this point how to position antenna very precisely without listing the signal (I can’t do it via remote desktop) as to measure modulation strength is not too indicative…

What could you better?!

Got home today.  Shut down the Schwarz and played what it fished today. It was the live play of Orion String Quartet

http://www.orionquartet.com/

That what I call “kind play” and kind sound. Here is a fragment of “Italian Serenade” by Hugo Wolf.  As uselessly, 88K, 24bit, slightly screwed sound as it was converted to WAV file.

http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?jm5yyqfmmz5