The Owner’s Manual for the 9600 is fully fifty pages long. Okay, the print is big and there are plenty of helpful diagrams to speed along the learning process. So, it’s not fifty pages of small print. But for the individual who almost always flings the owner’s manual into an obscure place the moment he sees it, not knowing where to start is an intimidating thing. For the uninitiated such as myself, the recording process appeared so foreign that I didn’t know if I’d ever be able to make a compilation disc with it. As it turned out, I was able to proceed in stages; making crude LP to CD copies at first, then quickly progressing to fade-ins, fade-outs and level adjustments. I can’t say that one needs to do a lot more than be able to make those basic adjustments in order to record a really fine compilation disc. Then again, this machine so far outstripped my abilities to use it that I shouldn’t really make assumptions regarding the capabilities of others. I know when I’m outclassed.

In actuality, the Alesis can do much more than I will ever fully utilize; things wasted in the hands of an amateur such as myself. It’s hard to know where to start. But let’s talk anyway.

Editing comes in two general modes, what I call: permanent and non-permanent edits. The non-permanent edits are those referred to above. Fades and level adjustments can be made over and over as none of the actual digital information is destroyed in making those moves. Permanent edits, on the other hand, are dsp modifications to the actual digital data stream, and once they are implemented, the original digital data is either permanently changed or destroyed… there’s no going back. For example, cutting out a dead spot to shorten the time between cuts is permanent. There are other edits that are equally permanent, though I must admit to not using them… I’m chicken. The thought of making a mistake that I can’t fix has been enough to keep me away from certain edits and corrections. I’ll leave that to the pros. But if you can get past the paranoia, there’s very little that can’t be done to the digital bitstream by the Alesis if you know what you are doing. Which may be the reason why so many professionals have used the machine with wonderful results. I can basically guarantee that some of the CDs in your collection were mastered on a 9600. So, you’ve already heard this machine without even knowing it.

The first thing the prospective user needs to know about the 9600 is that it utilizes an internal hard drive as a reservoir for the raw unedited music. That’s where the music goes first. It’s on the hard drive that all edits take place and it’s what makes the 9600 so flexible. Each collection of songs on the hard drive is called a file, and the unit has the capability of creating 99 files. The real limitation arising from the use of a hard drive for music storage is the size of the hard drive itself. In the case of the standard 9600 a 40 gb hard drive is used. Which, by today’s computer standards isn’t very large. The real issue, therefore, is the amount of recording time one has based on the size of the hard drive. The time metric also depends on the resolution level at which the music is committed to the hard drive. At the lowest level of resolution (16/44) times upward of 50 hours can be stored for editing. An increase in recording resolution to 24/88 drops recording time to around 17 hours. At 24/96 it drops even more. Of course, instead of filling the hard drive up, one can burn the material onto a CD and then delete that material from the hard drive, thereby freeing up more space. Though I haven’t gone there, word has it that hitting the zero time mark, or getting too close to it, can result in loss of everything on the hard drive - a bad thing.

Lastly, with the Alesis one can record a "super CD" of information recorded for playback at a true 24/96. That’s Hi-Rez by anyone’s definition, but there is a large drawback; it records the information in a format that can only be used by computers (or another Alesis). Which, of course, severely limits the use and utility of such a recording if you want to share it with others. I would have greatly preferred the ability to use the DVD-A format as some machines are starting to use today. 24/96 is the norm there and most audiophiles have some means by which to playback DVD-A, even if it’s merely through a DVD player.

I did most of my LP to CD (LPCDR) recording at the 24 bit, 88.2 sampling frequency. It has always been my understanding that while 24 bits are good for low noise specifications (even when later downsampled), that a 88.2 kHz sampling rate was superior to a 96 kHz sampling rate due to the math involved; 88.2 being a clean multiple of the 44.1 standard with 96 being an uneven multiple of the same. Made sense to me. So that’s the way I made most of my recordings, not really challenging the reasoning of the so-called experts other than a few test recordings that were inconclusive. Then I started to think (ouch). What are computers best at? Pure number calculations. Why should downsampling from 96 kHz to 44.1 kHz be all that difficult for a computer? Do they really need multiples of two to sound best? I think not! Take a hand held calculator and divide 96 by 44.1. Did it have to stop and think about the answer? Nope, the answer came out immediately. Yes, it used some decimal points and the answer is an approximation, but by only three ten millionths… Think you can hear a few ten millionths? I’ve now experimented further, and I think I like the 96 kHz sampling frequency over the 88.2. That I can hear, or at least I think I can.

I’ve never owned a piece of audio equipment so complicated. As raw to this as I am, there was still nothing that couldn’t be accomplished after reading the manual or sending an e-mail directly to Alesis. A few things aren’t covered in the manual. When I couldn’t figure out what to do by reading the book, a short e-mail to Alesis explaining my dilemma resulted in a prompt response from a real human being. There were a few times when I dug a digital hole that I felt couldn’t have been my fault, and oftentimes I’m quick to conclude that my frustration is the result of a flaw in the component I’m working with. In the case of the 9600, however, as complicated as it was, the machine was never wrong. It never tripped up, never made a mistake. Having so many functions available via a few key buttons is in some ways mind boggling - and yet everything associated with the Alesis worked exactly as advertised - exactly! I’m very impressed.

Even with a machine as complete as the Alesis, there were things I could do as an audiophile in order to maximize its performance. Getting the most out of any component starts with the AC, and as such, a check of AC polarity was first on my "tweaking checklist." The chassis to ground potential with the AC plug oriented normally resulted in a voltage reading of 4.2 volts compared to ground. With the polarity of the plug reversed I got a voltage reading of 4.09 volts. That’s a small difference in voltage, insignificant enough that under most conditions I wouldn’t worry about it. (When the readings are so close, it usually indicates that there are more than two transformers inside; one wired right and one wired wrong.) I reversed it anyway, though listening tests revealed little or no difference between either polarity. When writing an article about an important product, everything must be right… even the little things.

My second move to optimize sound was to choose the right power cord as well as the right power line conditioner. The choice of a power cord was a pretty easy one - the LessLoss. From there I chose the APC S15 UPS power line conditioner. With each of its 12 powered outlets being isolated from the others, I knew the Alesis would be getting clean power and that the Alesis would not be contaminating other componentry.*

Vibrations are always a concern with components having moving parts. There are as many ways of handling vibrations as there are opinions on the subject. My approach was a combination of chassis damping as well as chassis grounding. Under the 9600 I installed a Bright Star Audio Little Rock, a means of mass loading the unit while creating a chassis to mechanical ground diode effect, i.e., air induced vibrations impacting the player being sunk into the Bright Star. On top of the 9600 I placed six Walker Audio chassis weights. These weights on top of the 9600 served to not only mass load the chassis but their weight also served to couple the 9600 to the Bright Star base. Between the Walker weights and the actual chassis top of the 9600, I placed little round sponges so as not to scratch or mark the player.

In order to monitor the music going to the Alesis while recording, I hooked up the output of the phono stage to the preamp I was using (a Wyetech Jade or Herron ). Then, from the tape out of the preamp I ran an interconnect back to the Alesis as an analog "in." Interconnects used were either from RWA or Skywire. I played with the idea of running the phono output directly to the Alesis and bypassing the preamp tape out all together. One less set of interconnects to color the sound and I could monitor my signal via the headphone jack on the Alesis. It wasn’t worth it. First of all, my headphones stunk, and secondly, going directly from the phono to the recorder resulted in a weird low level whirring sound that I could not eliminate. Why the whirring was present when going direct, but absent when going first to the preamp and then to the recorder I have not figured out. But it’s not because the preamp was acting as some sort of buffer between the phono and the Alesis. The "tape out" is a direct connect that goes through no buffering or amplification; not even a volume pot. I know that this has happened to other audiophiles making LP to CD recordings; so I’m not alone in this regard. I’ll work on this…

Before going into the sound of the Alesis, I want to explain why the machine is a valuable reviewing tool. This is where the value of the hard drive comes to the fore and starts making a lot of sense. In the phono cartridge survey that I’m presently working on, the Alesis was invaluable. During the process of auditioning the four new cartridges I was able to make recordings of each under different loading conditions and alignments. Going back and forth with the recorded materials allowed me to compare a cartridge loaded at 100 Ohms vs. 47,000 Ohms in a matter of seconds. By making recordings with the Alesis of the various cartridges I was also able to compare the sounds of the different carts with the push of the >| button on a remote. I could compare A to B almost instantaneously.

I know what you are thinking. I know, because I’ve thought the same myself. How can one compare and make fine determinations of analog sound via a (comparatively) low rez digital playback system? Interestingly, while some of the finer aspects of analog playback are indeed obscured by digitizing it and then playing it back, the essence of a cartridge’s performance is maintained and comes through with shocking clarity. Same for phono stages, tonearms, tables etc. Listen for it, and you’ll hear it… especially if you heard it before it was dedicated to the digits. Actually, I believe that I can hear much, much more from a digitized recording of an LP now than when I was dedicating the same materials to my reel-to-reel years ago. The digital recording process is sufficiently revealing that I, and a small group of friends, are able to record LPs played on our respective "analog rigs", send them to each other and be able to critique the performance of cartridges, phono sections, arms and tables. And the comments are generally dead on critically.**

I wish that I could tell you that music dedicated to the hard drive of the Alesis Masterlink 9600 was indistinguishable from the original. It would be even better if I could say that a CD made from the hard drive of the Alesis was indistinguishable from the analog original - but I can’t. I can’t say it for digital to digital recordings or analog to digital recordings as there always seems to be a small difference created by the insertion of the 9600; be it digital or analog.

The finest duplicate recordings I could make were from CDs to hard drive, then back to CD. Musical compilations made from CDs were nearly perfect with the 9600 when I used premium CD blanks for the final product. For this purpose, my favorite blanks are a "black" blank from Memorex and a gold blank from PNY. These things are getting harder and harder to find, but the effort to get them is definitely worth it. Digital to digital copies were very true to the originals, less some space and air around the instruments. But it was minor, very minor.

Using the analog to digital converters to make CDs from LP was a little more challenging. For some reason, some LPs that sounded great from the table did not sound so great after rendered to the hard drive. If that wasn’t confounding enough, there were occasions when LPs that sounded congested or muffled when listening to them directly, came off the hard drive sounding better than before. I fear that the reasons for this phenomena will not reveal themselves easily and that only time and attention to detail will establish a pattern from which a conclusion can be drawn. But it’s fun trying to guess how an LP will sound once committed to digital and burned as a CD.

As a whole, LPs to CDs lose some of their organic qualities. Textures are subtly reduced and with some recordings the air in the lower mids and upper bass will dry up some, while leaving the deep bass untouched. I have observed this latter quality (the drying) in LPCDRs made by machines other than the Alesis, so it seems to be something pandemic to the process… but not always.

With the Alesis, the very rhythm of a recording comes through very well, as do small details. Tempos and relationships to scale are basically undisturbed by the D to A process although front to back clarity can in some instances be compressed to varying degrees. But, again, the remarkable thing about making an LPCDR is how much can be revealed and understood regarding the original recording. Enough information is saved, stored and refunded that the mind seems more than capable of filling in the blanks after the process is complete to make for a super enjoyable listening experience.

A note of caution is in order. Do not, I repeat, DO NOT engage the record button on the Alesis while your preamp’s selector switch is on CD, or whatever position you use on the selector switch to play back music off of the Alesis. To do so will mean a high level feedback whine that could be damaging to your system if the volume is up very high. So far I haven’t broken anything, though it has nearly sent me through the roof on a few occasions where I made that very mistake with the volume control set relatively high.

So, there you have it; my experience with the Alesis. What I would like to do is make available to readers copies of the LPCDRs that I’ve made of cartridges, phono sections, alignments, tonearms, etc. The problem that I run into is of the music. I assume that most of the music I listen to is copyrighted, and while I use the music that I do for experimental and demonstration purposes, would that be a violation of copyright? I don’t know. If any of you do, I’d like to hear from you.