No more ridiculous than most new (non ultra budget) hi-fi these days. Similar to many up market DACS and this has to do A to D and D to A as well as processing the clicks.
Missan (and anyone else who has both ClickRepair and either the SC-1 or SC-2) tough question but can you quantify how much better? Sorry to be a pain but for some of us $2-$3k USD is quite a bit of cash and although I do have disposable income I'd appreciate knowing how much better the SugarCube is than Click Repair. Especially as I can test out ClickRepair for myself (will be doing so shortly the moment I have a free evening) but there's not going to be anywhere in in NZ I'll be able to hear the Sugar Cube to compare it for myself.
But you can take one or both of the two original audio samples I’ve made available and process it through your software and then compare my SC-2 repaired files with your own. Another contributor to the thread on page 5 has done exactly that.
As I stated earlier in the thread, I use ClickRepair RT and it works brilliant. I purposely went out to buy a few really beat up test records to see how good it was and the results were fantastic. I was originally looking to buy a SC-1 but once I missed the Pre sale offers it was out my price range, hence trying ClickRepair RT and all for a lot less.
Thanks to the OP for starting things rolling here. I came in a bit late to the Crowd Funding campaign so locked in a slightly higher price $1750 or $1799 for the SC-2. Living in the UK, I didn't have a chance to hear these in shows but listened to the samples and videos on Analog Planet and read up as much as I could. The main draw for me was the easy method of digitising my LPs (with track splitting and meta data - which I understand is yet to be finalised for production, but I have faith) with the click and pop removal a huge bonus, especially as all accounts at the time praised the transparency of the results. The ability to bypass the unit (save for some extraneous cabling) when wanting pure LP replay was also appealing. I don't have my unit yet as was not in the Beta pool but hopefully will get one this side of Christmas. Obviously implementation is everything but I think they have crammed some pretty good components in there for the ADC/DAC processes. From the Indiegogo page: Production version layout complete utilizing AKM 5397 high resolution ADC and ESS Saber DAC. Critical analog signals routed to utilize shortest possible signal path and careful grounding strategy to ensure quiet operation. The AKM chip is their current top of the range, which was also a plus. Premium A/D converters I can't play flac files on my work computer but am looking forward to hearing the OPs Doors files this evening. Thanks again for taking the time.
Stated more clearly, I'm looking for a better idea regarding how well metadata is assigned to each rip. Something like, I ripped 50 albums (mostly 70's classic rock and pop) and the SC-2 assigned the correct metadata to 80% of all the files. I had to manual correct the remaining 20%. Also, how well does the system handle gapless? Based upon the testimonials, seems to me the click repair process works well enough for me. The unanswered part is how easy is it to make digital files and organize them into albums with proper metadata, album art, etc..
This product sounds heaven-sent and I'm thinking of taking the plunge. Was reading a passage in another forum that confused me though: All that said, the click processing works extremely well, although changing the level of processing seems to have little effect. To my ears, there is little to no difference in the sound whether in bypass, A-D-A but no click removal, or click removal modes. Even on the worst LPs I threw at it, about 95% of the clicks and pops were inaudible. The downside of this is that surface noise is a lot easier to hear. Sweetvinyl says they may eventually release a surface noise processing feature, but this might not be a free upgrade because of the complexity and effort required to develop it. So what's the difference between clicks and pops and surface noise? I thought that was the definition of surface noise: clicks, ticks and pops.
Yes. I've had one in my phono signal path for decades. Setting the sensitivity to 10, as shown in the pic, would be dumb. But set properly (4-6) it does a superb job of removing clicks and pops without harming the music. You can always hit the "Invert" button to hear only what's being removed. Jeff ps. Vinyl "purists" can stop reading now (but are probably already off somewhere heaving after reading the above)... I've also got a Pioneer RG-1 dynamic range expander in the signal path as well. Great unit. Nothing but positive effect on the music when set properly. Insert it after the SAE so that it won't be increasing the dynamics of the clicks and pops beforehand. Together they won't get you to CD quality bliss, but like hand grenades and atom bombs, close is good enough in this case.
They're two completely different things. Surface noise is the rumbling drone you occasionally hear on some LPs. This device does not remove surface noise and the absence of all ticks, pops, and crackling makes it much easier to identify and hear.
It's my understanding that in the final, non beta version you will be able to record directly to a NAS or desktop.
First off, thanks to DigMyGroove for what is really a very fair assessment of the SC-2. I received my beta unit two days ago and have been putting it through its paces ever since. Let me say I love music. If it's well recorded and mastered, I don't care what format it's in. I'm also not new to the audio game having cut my teeth back in the 70's. I've embraced each new format while never leaving vinyl or analog. You never forget your first love, right? As with many of you, I have records that range from pristine to absolute ****e. For example I've kept my oldest sister's 1964 release of Meet The Beatles mostly because it reminds me of her. But the album was played to death and not taken care of at all. I think there is a mark from someone putting a drink on it back in the day and the album has ton's of noise, but still sounds pretty good down deep. I also have a copy of Cannonball Adderley's In The Land of Hi-Fi which is more than well worn but I haven't replaced because similar copies in better condition go for more than I'm willing to spend. I have many other albums that show their age and my testing wasn't limited to these two examples. Some people feel noise on an LP is fine. And that's cool. But it's always driven me nuts. Maybe that's one of the reasons I embraced digital even when it really sucked. So the SugarCube solution really piqued my interest when I heard about it a year ago. And when the Indigogo campaign launched I jumped in. I was encouraged by the few sparse “first listen” reviews that appeared but knew I could very well be disappointed. I'm here to tell you that I am not. I will concur with others here that say there is almost imperceptible audio differences when listening to the processed versus bypassed sound. I challenge anyone with an open mind to say differently once they've heard it. Has it made The Beatles or Cannonball albums brand new? Nope. Has the SC-2 made them immensely more pleasure to listen to while still delivering all the goodness of the original recordings? Hell yes. And on albums with far less damage? Pretty much pristine. If noise bothers you, look into the SugarCube. As for the recording capability, I love this and when it's fully functional I will use to rip all those albums that aren't yet available, or never will be available digitally and enjoy the crap out of the on my DAP when I travel. I now have the best of both worlds and for me, the music future looks bright!
So here's a before and after copy of the first 3 minutes of "Stella by Starlight" from my pretty beat up copy of Miles Davis' My Funny Valentine album. I found this album in the used record bin for $3 and has been cleaned with enzyme cleaner and rinsed, which usually does a great job. A lot of the clicks and pops remain, however. I sent a copy of this album to @DigMyGroove so he could do a before and after with the Sugarcube. He will post his versions separately. My uncorrected file is a straight 24/96 vinyl rip from my Fern & Roby TT to my Gold Note PH-10 phono preamp to the analog input of my PS Audio Nuwave phono converter which converts analog signal to digital with 24/96 to my Mac Mini on which I run Vinyl Studio to rip the album sides, split tracks, get demographic info and ultimately save as a digital FLAC file. No de-click or de-hiss/de-rumble. It sounds like a lot of work, but it's pretty easy once you do it a few times. The after file is using the default declick settings with VS with otherwise the same parameters. The purpose of this is to get a feel for how good a job VS does declicking a pretty rough track compared to the Sugarcube. Here's the uncorrected file: Dropbox - 03 - Stella By Starlight.flac Here's the corrected file: Dropbox - 03 - Stella By Starlight-corrected.flac I had previously taken one of the uncorrected files posted by @DigMyGroove and run it through VS and compared to his corrected file. Then I found the Sugarcube declick to be more natural sounding without discernible artifact. Not so the case with the VS declick, while very good, which left a faint distortion in quiet sections that the Sugarcube didn't. This artifact is much less discernible with louder passages. The corrected Sugarcube file sounded more like unmolested clean vinyl. This comparison is more of the same, I think. VS does a very good, but not perfect, job of cleaning up the clicks. To my ear the artifact is pretty tough to discern on anything but the quiet passages. I'm looking forward to how @DigMyGroove's files sound on the same record!
I have an ELP Laser Turntable. I wonder what the Sugar Cube would do to the noise that the lasers pickup on my ELP if the record has dust on it.
Agree, that's why I got the SC1. I wrote in early September in another thread, "I have a number of treasured LPs that are juuust noisy enough to keep me from enjoying. Now? Wow! So, it's been about 3 months and I am still very happy with what the unit is doing. I have a lot of records, some more pristine than others. A few I love, but are just a little (or worse) too noisy to enjoy. That problem is gone. I use the SC1 simply. I leave it out of the loop and if a record I put on bugs me a little, I put it in the signal path, usually at a low 2-3 setting, and - problem over. If it's too expensive or not I won't argue. The time saving and ease make it a must-have for me. Tony
And here is the counterpart test, the exact same copy of the record, the complete track Stella By Starlight recorded by the Sugarcube SC-2, both original and repaired versions. The Sugarcube SC-2 was set to it's default level 5 position at the halfway mark. The turntable is a circa 1979 Kenwood KD-5070 direct drive, the cartridge an Audio Technica AT33EV, the phono stage a Vincent Pho-8. The interconnects are the Kenwood's hard soldered out to the Pho-8, then connected to the SC-2 with Morrow MA-2. Here's the uncorrected file: Dropbox - MD_Stella_Original Audio.flac Here's the corrected file: Dropbox - MD_Stella_Sc-2 Repaired.flac
I would think it would remove the noise just as it does with an analog table. It's dealing with what comes through the wires, not how the sound is being picked up of the records
Well after listening to @DigMyGroove's files, I get the same impression of my previous listening to before and after de-clicking. The Sugarcube does an excellent job of declicking without discernible artifact, unlike Vinyl Studio which leaves a slight underlying distortion behind heard mainly on quiet passages. It really is amazing. I can't comment as to whether or not the SC is otherwise transparent. Only those with the unit can say if it colors the sound at all. I would suspect not, having read their reviews. I'm tempted to get one myself based on how well it functions. I would only ask those with the 'cube whether there is significant degradation in sound quality in the rips from the ADC. Again, I don't think there is since I find the ripped file very very good. My rips using my PS Audio Nuwave Phono Converter are very close to the original vinyl. I know the ADC is excellent on the PSA unit in that I can stream the digitized file into my DAC and can't tell a difference between that and the original analog signal. I can barely tell a difference when listening to rips compared to the source vinyl while taking care to volume match. Honestly, the difference in SQ between vinyl and digital playback might boil down to the brand of USB cable I use between the NPC and my Mac Mini (Nordost Blue Heaven USB) and/or the Wireworld Starlight 8 ethernet cable between my Mac and PS Audio Directstream DAC. Who knows? All I know is that I prefer the original vinyl. Slightly. My suspicion is that the same holds true for ripped files with the Sugarcube SC-2 in that it is very difficult to perfectly reproduce analog that is indistinguishable from the original. There are just too many factors that can alter the original sound. Like I said, I'm very tempted by the Sugarcube SC-2!
I really want this, may have to ask Santa. Or ask Music Direct to up my credit limit from $1500 to $2000, lol.
FYI. I recently sent the following question to sweetvinyl: Super intriguing product. How does the SC-2 handle gapless songs? i.e. second side of Abbey Road or any live albums? I received the following response: This is one of the harder problems with track splitting – but if the album is popular – like Abbey Road – and we have responses from the fingerprinting system and the metadata indicates song length – we know about where the track split should be. This will be one of the more important features that you will see improve as the product software develops – our firmware is updated automatically so as we improve our algorithm we will be able handle this. I am skeptical about the software side of the SC-2 but am really looking to rip my LPs with the least amount of effort. Want to downsize my life. This looks to me like THE solution, give or take some of the shortcomings I'm sure exist in the system (including gapless).
