McIntosh’s Use of Opamps

[Masterlu]

Originally Posted by dkorbal

I appreciate all the input from everyone but my intent was not to start another debate between digital and analog. My confusion that lead to my questions was most accurately addresses by Tom aka W9TR. There is a lot of great equipment today (including tubes) that uses opamps, delta sigma, R2R, discrete etc etc so how can a manufacturer make such a statement AND more so, what is a user such as myself suppose to make of it.

I am trying to walk a line between ss and tubes. I understand each individual here has their own experiences which has lead to their preferences. I appreciate each of you speaking up for your preferences which helps me learn.

As many of you have pointed out about the MEM220 my eyes (and ears ) were wide open when I purchased it. I knew it’s short comings but still chose to put it into my system. After reading many of the reply’s here it may be time to revisit that decision. The good thing is I can experiment with and without it and decide for myself.

Does anybody know if using the “bypass” feature in the MEM220 defeat the signal from being digitally reprocessed? The manual states while in bypass mode “Crossover Settings made in the Setup Mode are still active and effecting the MEN220 Audio Signal Outputs”. I read this to mean digital processing is still going on. Can anyone confirm?

Ivan, I think we both would agree a 25k device doesn’t make sense in my system but what about a CR-1?

Thanks again for everyone’s input and I’ll keep you posted on my findings.

Doug… unfortunately a CR-1 would only help you integrate your sub(s) better. The MEN220 would need to be completely removed to bypass it completely.

[miatadan]

Originally Posted by Formerly YB-2

You are very wrong. The great majority of vinyl is still analog. Thankfully.

Yes, almost all of my vinyl is analog. For 98% of my vinyl the source is analog ( reel to reel tape ). If recording starts in digital, then I purchase it in CD, otherwise stay with analog.

Dan

[Charles]

Originally Posted by miatadan

Yes, almost all of my vinyl is analog. For 98% of my vinyl the source is analog ( reel to reel tape ). If recording starts in digital, then I purchase it in CD, otherwise stay with analog.

Dan

This thread is about the use of opamps with the Baltic 3 and other tube very simple but beautifully built DAC's.

However, I must respond. First I stated that all vinyl began as digital. This was an error. Obviously vinyl before the age of digital could not include a digital step.

From about 1958 to when I was into medical practice in about 1982-83 I lived with vinyl. I was heavily into the high end. In addition to an excellent turntable and arm I always owned Tandberg's most recent reel to reel. I felt that it made recordings indistinguishable from the original allowing me to preserve my records in pristine condition.

I took meticulous care of my records. I can tell you from personal experience that the vinyl quality was inconsistent. I always had to deal with inexplicable record noise that for me was very annoying. There was almost never a record whose vinyl quality wasn't lousy. This had nothing to do with the master tapes or quality of the recording. It was poor quality vinyl.

The first CD player I bought in about 1984 was the MCD7000. It was the first CD player I heard that I liked. Since then there has obviously been a renaissance in vinyl that I have not participated in and have zero interest in.

Vinyl IMO is an extremely flawed medium. Records wear and no matter how you take care of them develop noise over time. I experience this and owned a Nachimechi Dragon in order to record the record immediately and then preserve it in pristine condition. I bought my father a very expensive Nachimechi so he could do the same.

These cassette decks made recordings indistinguishable from their vinyl masters. If I could get just one play without pops, scratch, and noise I was home. This continued into the 1990's when I felt the digital was finally in the ballpark of vinyl.

There is no question that vinyl produces an excellent sound. I have never said otherwise. Obviously vintage vinyl could never be digital. I thought everybody knew this when I made my statement that has touched a nerve.

I was referring to the recent Mobile Fidelity fiasco. Perhaps I have missed a discussion of this on AA. I am surprised there hasn't been one. If I had paid 500 dollars for a vinyl recording guaranteed free of digital corruption only to discover it contained a digital step or actually began as digital I would be quite upset.

Now this has zero to do with the sound quality of these records. I have heard and believe they are truly excellent and better than digital recordings. I agree with Porsche and Freddie that a superb vinyl recording may suit your taste in sound significantly better that the best digital version.

My problem with paying 500 dollars for a record is that you really have no way of knowing it contains no digital step, short of visiting the factory, and then that may not be sufficient.

I have it on good authority that almost all modern vinyl either begins as digital or has a digital step. Again this has zero to do with sound quality but the veracity of the seller.

Here is this quote from Robert Harley Editor of TAS: "A fresh scandal has cropped up in the contentious little world of high-end audio—and it’s cropped up in a place you wouldn’t expect. Turns out that Mobile Fidelity, the world-famous company that has long claimed to source its celebrated LP reissues from verified “original masters,” has actually been using digital copies of those original mastertapes rather than the tapes themselves (or first-gen copies) to master its One-Step LPs. Where record lovers thought they were buying all-analog vinyl (“AAA,” to use the old SPARS code), they were actually being sold digitally duplicated and mastered recordings (“ADA”)—and at premium prices. To make matters worse, it appears the digital wool wasn’t just pulled over the eyes of One-Step buyers; MoFi has been doing this very same thing (or something like it) on many of its “Original Master” releases for better than a decade."

RH has no axe to grind and neither do I. I will continue to believe that virtually all modern vinyl contains a digital step or begins as digital, because of what I have been told by informed sources. I really don't care. Neither should you unless you have been lied to, and there are a lot of folks that have been lied to.

I apologize for high jacking this thread. I had hoped that Freddie's, Porsche's, Pete's and others' comments enough to soothe the wounded feelings over my comments. But I felt I needed to respond.

Best

Charles

[W9TR]

One thing we tend to forget is that R2R is also a flawed medium. At the time, in its heyday, tape was certainly better than anything else available. Compared to modern digital recording techniques it is very flawed. So MFSL used the most appropriate technology available at the time and got skewered for it. Not because it was a bad choice, but because they lied.

I mention this in the context of ‘op-amps’ sound bad part of this thread. Maybe they did in 1975 but now they offer excellent fidelity and beautiful musicality.

[PeterMusic]

Originally Posted by W9TR

One thing we tend to forget is that R2R is also a flawed medium. At the time, in its heyday, tape was certainly better than anything else available. Compared to modern digital recording techniques it is very flawed. So MFSL used the most appropriate technology available at the time and got skewered for it. Not because it was a bad choice, but because they lied.

I mention this in the context of ‘op-amps’ sound bad part of this thread. Maybe they did in 1975 but now they offer excellent fidelity and beautiful musicality.

All media are flawed in one way or another, and digital has some clear advantages over analog. But OTOH, all technologies impart a certain sound, and there is no doubt that many audiophiles prefer like characteristics that are imparted by analog and/or dislike certain characteristics imparted by digital.

On the specifics of R2R, one interesting phenomena over the past several years is a significant number of recording artists/engineers adding tape into their process.

[FreddieFerric]

No wounded feelings here Charles. I just wanted to point out a disagreement with your original statement.

I apologize to the OP that this thread has ranged so far afield. As far as MOFI is concerned, I liken it to finding out that your spouse/significant O has been cheating on you (OK, maybe a bit strong, but you get the idea). Some may forgive that transgression, but can you ever really trust them again? For me the answer is no and that's why I'm finished with MOFI.

And now it appears they are facing a couple of Class Action suits over their lies. We'll see if the results bring them to penury.

Whatever happens I do fear there will be less transparency in the vinyl remastering business rather than more and we'll have MOFI to thank for that as well.

[W9TR]

Originally Posted by PeterMusic

All media are flawed in one way or another, and digital has some clear advantages over analog. But OTOH, all technologies impart a certain sound, and there is no doubt that many audiophiles prefer like characteristics that are imparted by analog and/or dislike certain characteristics imparted by digital.

On the specifics of R2R, one interesting phenomena over the past several years is a significant number of recording artists/engineers adding tape into their process.

Very true! Tape has modulation noise, a signal-dependent noise that gives body to some vocals. It also has a soft overload characteristic that engineers and producers have used to good sonic effect for decades.

[dkorbal]

So I’ve been lamenting over the last few weeks whether to remove the men220 from the system and see how it sounds. It wouldn’t be so bad but I just got everything rearranged and put back together after a few weeks of a mess that the wife didn’t appreciate. If I do this I have a few questions that maybe someone or a few can answer.

Currently in my 2 channel listening the subs are feed from the mem220 XLR “low out”. If I remove the mem220 is it better to feed the subs from the mc601 or c2700 preamp? My research including a couple threads here seem to yield arguments both ways. My thought is if I’m trying to maintain that tube sound I’m better off taking the signal from the c2700.

If I use the c2700 preamp signal should I use the XLR Output 2 since the Output 1 would be going to the Mc601? Opposed to the RCA Output 1 which would cause am issues since I’m running RCA to the subs from my video receiver for movies.

I’m sure I would need to recalibrate everything again. I know I can take the “Try it every way and see how it sounds “ but I really don’t want a mess for another month. More so to ear about it.

[Masterlu]

Originally Posted by dkorbal

So I’ve been lamenting over the last few weeks whether to remove the men220 from the system and see how it sounds. It wouldn’t be so bad but I just got everything rearranged and put back together after a few weeks of a mess that the wife didn’t appreciate. If I do this I have a few questions that maybe someone or a few can answer.

Currently in my 2 channel listening the subs are feed from the mem220 XLR “low out”. If I remove the mem220 is it better to feed the subs from the mc601 or c2700 preamp? My research including a couple threads here seem to yield arguments both ways. My thought is if I’m trying to maintain that tube sound I’m better off taking the signal from the c2700.

If I use the c2700 preamp signal should I use the XLR Output 2 since the Output 1 would be going to the Mc601? Opposed to the RCA Output 1 which would cause am issues since I’m running RCA to the subs from my video receiver for movies.

I’m sure I would need to recalibrate everything again. I know I can take the “Try it every way and see how it sounds “ but I really don’t want a mess for another month. More so to ear about it.

Feed the subs from your c2700 off the XLR output 2.

[dkorbal]

Thanks Ivan.