DC Five vs. Six and more

[eCo]

I've been using DC Five now since it came out and am very happy with it. I've read about the new features in Six, but don't see a compelling reason to upgrade. Could some users out there with some experience with both please comment? I also think DC-Five users should only have to upgrade for $59.

I'm using a Echo Audio Gina sound card with breakout box and bringing in a signal from my Rega P3 turntable, Audio Technica OC9ML/II cartridge & Adcom GFP-555 preamp. Most of my albums are near-mint to mint, so I usually only have to manually edit out the occasional pop. When I do have to resort to the noise reduction filter, I typically make three passes at hi, med, and lo size settings. I also use the Five to simulate stereo for monaural piano recordings. Some day I'll spring for a new mic.

I have had a rare problem with the system freezing, particulary when I record continuously for a long period of time. I'm running Win2K on an Athlon 2000 (tbird) and Asus K7M266 (AMD northbridge, Via southbridge). I suspect this may be a PCI latency issue, and since cutting the Gina card and video (nVidia G2) latency from 184 and 255 respectively to 128 (using a freeware utility called LtcyCfg.exe), I haven't had the problem. Since it froze only rarely, I need to run like this a few more hours to be sure, however.

Lastly, I wonder if anyone has gone for Tracer-Tek's new flat recording concept? Seems to me you could simply buy the test album and digitally line out any system from that. I'm not sure why you'd need to change out the hardware first (e.g. pre-amps without RIAA filters).

Well I didn't intend to write an entire treatise, but there it is. I'm sure this will fire up the clamoring hordes of posters here to new heights of gregariousness.

Regards,
eCo

[Craig Maier]

The benefit to flat phono recording is that you are avoiding the analog process of countouring the frequency and phase response of the amplifier. That means that the component variations like the resistor and capacitor time constants are out of the equation so to speak, since they are later introduced in the digital domain which is much more precise. Also, since the total dynamic swing of the amplification system is reduced with flat recording, the intermodulation distortion will be reduced producing a cleaner final product.

[DougMac]

It May be a Toss Up for You

eCo,

I'm not sure you'd see much difference between DC5 and DC6, given you're working with clean originals to begin with. I think the new EZ Clean filter is powerful and if you were doing a lot of restoration of less than mint recordings, it could give you excellent results in a lot less time.

I've been doing TracerTek's flat recording method for a while now. I hunted down and purchased a Terratec card that has a built in flat phono pre-amp. I bought it because I mainly restore 78's and wanted to apply the correct EQ. Most folks have heard 78's that have been RIAA compensated, it's amazing how much difference proper EQ makes.

I also did some tests by recording LP's flat and applying the RIAA in the parametric equalizer. I was using an NAD pre-amp with a well regarded, but decidedly warm phono section. I've played back the results for family and friends and they always think the flat version is much cleaner with more detail, but "drier" sounding.

I just bought a Judy Collins CD with the cut "Someday Soon", which I had on LP. I recorded it through the NAD, then through the Sound Card pre-amp flat and applyed RIAA EQ in DC. The NAD version sounded closer to the CD cut, with the "flat to RIAA" version brighter (accentuated highs) and thinner (not as much bass). I then created another EQ curve to apply that brings it closer to the CD sound. It's not a very scientific method, but it does improve the results. With that filter applyed, it sounds much better than the NAD pre-amped version. Of course, your equipment will have a big influence on what works for you, but I'd say the flat route is the way to go.

Doug