I will say that the vinyl had more weight in the bass but was not quite as tight. A am going to spare you the audiophile talk, covering the frequency spectrum from bottom to top. But I was not prepared for the what I heard when running a comparison test of the first track (Tutu) compared to the vinyl.
Audirvana plus same output how to#
Miles knew when and how to compliment beautifully all the other playing on the album. I liked the funky arrangements and the synths. I liked the sound of the MQA version of Tutu very much. Miles was coming through with great clarity and the overall sound seemed balanced and transparent. It definitely sounded like a quality record. A quick listen told me that the remastered recording was well done. It was beautifully presented in quality record selves. We shall see.Īmazon was out of stock, but finally may 180 gram vinyl copy of Tutu arrived.
The vinyl version of Tutu may hsve too much of a handicap to overcome. If there is any inherent advantage here it would probably be on the digital side.
Audirvana plus same output pro#
My digital source was my downloaded MQA file of Tutu, running on my MacBook Pro laptop through Audirvana Plus (which is state-of-the-art for computer music players). On the digital side I used an A udioQuest DragonFly Red DAC which is an excellent DAC, but certainly not state-of-the-art.
I chose the $100 Audio Technica AT-LP60 belt driven turntable, which sounds very good for the money. I decided for this comparison test to use reasonably priced equipment that people just getting started in vinyl might have. Are we to employ just high end equipment in our comparison test? The critical conversion from digital back to analog sound is handled by the DAC and thus the quality of the DAC is important. On the digital side, there are expensive DAC’s which are often more capable than the cheaper ones. The question is how much we may want to spend or can afford to spend on our components. What about playback equipment? A five-figure turntable, tonearm, phono cartridge will extract much more of the recorded sound from the grooves than a typical record playback system. But downstream it is! This is how we listen to much of our recordings these days. We will be listening downstream from all of this. MQA has processed the original recording with its own proprietary digital format. It was an vinyl, digitally recorded, album. This is true for vinyl records which were released after 1980 as well. Albums released before 1980 by labels such as Mercury Living Presence and RCA Living Stereo are clearly superior sonically than any of the early CD’s. Most albums, vinyl or otherwise, have been digitally recorded from the beginning of the 80’s onward. There are some inherent problems with any comparison of this nature. Which version would be the best sonically? Why not do a direct comparison? But I am afraid that temptation got the better of me. The vinyl would cost $16 more that the MQA file. I really did not need another copy of Tutu. Not long after purchasing Tutu I discovered that Amazon was now offering a remastered 180 gram deluxe vinyl version of Tutu. i wanted to have a copy with the high quality sound and was not disappointed with this MQA version. I very much like the music and the sound of the album. He won a Grammy for his performance on this album. The music may seem a little dated now by some, with its use of various synthesizers, but Mile’s horn will probably never be dated. But like many of Mile’s albums it was a trendsetter. A combination of Fusion Jazz and Funk, some critics dismissed it at first.
It was the last major album recorded by Miles Davis. The album is called Tutu, named after Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa. It was actually an MQA file that I downloaded from Onkyo Music. I recently purchased a very fine album of historical and musical significance.
0 kommentar(er)
