Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 51 to 64 of 64
  1. #51
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    727
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    So why compare if emotion is going to be the standard instead of science? I also wonder if two channel vinyl lovers have heard enough multichannel hi rez audio to make a real comparison, or are they bound emotionally to the vinyl disc. I suspect the latter is the case most of the time, and no matter how good multichannel digital audio gets, they will hold on their discs. .
    Good question! Better to simply enjoy what you love than worry about comparisons.

    This two channel vinyl lover has not heard enough multichannel high rez audio but much of what he's heard so far is very good. I can't compare at this point because I haven't heard enough. It's a little spotty but then again, so was the LP. Some were good, some not so good.

    Yes, I will hold onto my LP's. Quite honestly, it is my fervent hope that sometime in the future I hold onto them because of either nostalgia or their value on the secondary market, not because their sound is superior. I think those days are coming and, in fact, they may already be here waiting for me to make the leap into multichannel.

  2. #52
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    884
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    Paul bergman writes on that as well -- get the book.

    This guy is using a pretyt low grade turntable in the Rega P3 and still gets pretty decent results. It would be nice if he used a listenable turntable arm and cart -- but I guess we all have budgets.
    http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/...CDformats2.php

    Also is there a reason to be dredging up uear old threads -- my last post here was in 2004? Do you have to go this far back just to "try" and be righht about something? Get a life people -- who really cares -- if you value music over gear then some stuff is only available on vinyl and regardless to whether something si 2db more of something or less if you want to hear the album you need to have both formats.
    Is this a dig against my TT? Well, it is quiet, has low wow and flutter (inaudible to me), a very fine tone arm, and Rega has an excellent reputation. So does my Grace F9E cartridge. Just ask Hifitommy.

    Now, about the reply: blame the software for the site, as when I looked at the browse list for the threads, the thread came up bold as having a new reply and your old post came up as the last! So I read it and replied. I didn't notice the date, not something I usually look for.
    "Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
    ------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.

  3. #53
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by musicoverall
    Good question! Better to simply enjoy what you love than worry about comparisons.
    This is smart, especially since any comparison made between the two HAS to be done on a scientific basis, not just emotion

    This two channel vinyl lover has not heard enough multichannel high rez audio but much of what he's heard so far is very good. I can't compare at this point because I haven't heard enough. It's a little spotty but then again, so was the LP. Some were good, some not so good.
    I have a VERY strong suspicion that this is true for most two channel folks. However I feel that many two channel folks have such a strong emotional tie to their collections, that even considering digital is too much for them. I think because of this tie, they would rather critisize digital, rather than actually listening to it(I mean very good examples of it) and coming to a NON emotional conclusion. I have heard analog recording, and digital ones that have moved me. It has always been on a recording by recording basis, not format wide. I am of the opinion that two channel folks love the distortions the format creates, rather than loving the format itself. A good SACD recording has all the benefits of both formats wrap up in one. It sounds pretty close to very quiet analog, without all of the drawbacks of both digital and analog.



    Yes, I will hold onto my LP's. Quite honestly, it is my fervent hope that sometime in the future I hold onto them because of either nostalgia or their value on the secondary market, not because their sound is superior. I think those days are coming and, in fact, they may already be here waiting for me to make the leap into multichannel.
    This is the most rational statement from a two channel guy I have ever read on this forum. Genius!
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  4. #54
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    727
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    A good SACD recording has all the benefits of both formats wrap up in one. It sounds pretty close to very quiet analog, without all of the drawbacks of both digital and analog.
    !
    I do own and play SACD's - just not of the multichannel variety. Reason? Only two speakers! I have already made plans to move into multichannel but have to wait until finances permit. I've heard enough to believe that when it's done properly, it's outstanding. I agree that SACD is phenomenal. HF's sound much more natural and not rolled off like they do on vinyl. They have the smoothness of vinyl and the extension of RBCD. Hard not to like 'em! I think most people thought that eventually digital would be done right and therefore overtake vinyl.

    As for being "rational", while I appreciate your comment, I must point out to folks such as Pat D and FLZapped that Sir Terrence was commenting on a single post of mine, not describing me as rational overall.

  5. #55
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Pat D
    Is this a dig against my TT? Well, it is quiet, has low wow and flutter (inaudible to me), a very fine tone arm, and Rega has an excellent reputation. So does my Grace F9E cartridge. Just ask Hifitommy.

    Now, about the reply: blame the software for the site, as when I looked at the browse list for the threads, the thread came up bold as having a new reply and your old post came up as the last! So I read it and replied. I didn't notice the date, not something I usually look for.
    Well why would I make a dig at your turntable since I do not pay a helluva lot of attention to other people's system -- you don;t have it listed in your sig line and that's usually as far as I go.

    And incidentally my NAD is a Rega turntable and even LOWER than the P3. Good for the money yes -- great tables they ain't.

  6. #56
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    I think its rather easy to stack analog up to the lowest end of digital audio, but how does it stand up again DVD-A or SACD. Both of them have noise floors that LP cannot even come close to. Both have dynamic range far in excess to LP, and both have frequency extension much greater than LP. Even with SACD relatively high noise floor above 20
    khz(a result of using noise shaping) it still exceeds LP by a fairly wide margin.

    It looks like when the CD exceeded the performance of LP he minimized it, and where LP could compare, he emphasized that. That is not what I would call objective. The bottom line is this, if you took a recording that was prepared directly for CD using good recording and mastering equipment, and high quality D/A stages, the LP simply could not keep up with CD. I would seriously question the quality of his sources.

    Well I would question his turntable as a source with Rega -- I have one btw but it happens to have a differnet name on the badge but it's a middle of the road turntable maker in the big scheme of things. The article is comparing CD to LP and it makes no excuses for it.

    You want to bring in DVD-A and SACD that is something else but then enters the discussion on what you can ACTUALLY hear. I have not been convinced by a single SACD disc I've heard and I have yet to hear DVD-A because no one here has one set-up. The big two chains in my Province carry at best 50 titles (and this is a very very generous number. I'll wait till they can convince me it sounds good. After listening to some digital amplifiers that have been hyped to the hilt I am suspicious of another plot to remove people from their cash to have something cool.

    UHF covers the issues such as dithering but I can't type up the entire chapter. I think ti is balanced as they are not totally for ONE of the two. If it's about the music you need both -- if it's about the gear then do whatever you want. And if it's about the argument then you'll have people who will stroke your ego -- see PatD. I could really care less -- Turntables have such a high pain the ass factor that I don't blame anyone who buiys a 300 disc mega changer (I did) and I enjoy it too. OTOH turntables can be fun tweakery for those so inclined. And if some misguided, in your eyes, indivuals enjoy listening to vinyl more becuase they subjectively hear more bass smoother treble and more dynamics then oh my the skies are going to fall...NOT.

    I have both a DAC and turntable upgrade in my future...and if SACD ever shows me it sounds right then I will be in line for one of those -- but so far the music offerred isn't compelling me to make the leap. I'd probably have to buy a revceiver to run the surround and that alone would destroy "for me" any gain int he source.

  7. #57
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    Well I would question his turntable as a source with Rega -- I have one btw but it happens to have a differnet name on the badge but it's a middle of the road turntable maker in the big scheme of things. The article is comparing CD to LP and it makes no excuses for it.
    As I have said earlier, it is easy to compare LP to CD, it would be much more difficult to compare good DVD-A amd SACD to LP, especially SACD.

    You want to bring in DVD-A and SACD that is something else but then enters the discussion on what you can ACTUALLY hear.
    I am not sure what you mean by this. Are you referring to high frequency extension? That would be irelevant, its what you can hear right in the primary frequencies we can hear in that I am referring to. SACD has all of the clarity, low noise of digital, but the feel and sound of analog.


    I have not been convinced by a single SACD disc I've heard and I have yet to hear DVD-A because no one here has one set-up. The big two chains in my Province carry at best 50 titles (and this is a very very generous number. I'll wait till they can convince me it sounds good.
    I am not sure that most vinyl lover can be convinced. I don't think you guys really want to be. Your emotional tie to that vinyl disc may tough to overcome. There is too much good SACD out there for you not to have been convinced.

    UHF covers the issues such as dithering but I can't type up the entire chapter. I think ti is balanced as they are not totally for ONE of the two.
    Dither is not necesary with SACD, and I think that is why it tends to sound better to me than DVD-A. Dither is a band aid, and IMO it tends to cloud and de-focus the sound. In many cases its not necessary at all, the noise from the microphones, and mixer ought to be random enough to eliminate the need for dither. Tony Faulkner advocates not using dither during downconversions and his work sounds excellent.


    If it's about the music you need both -- if it's about the gear then do whatever you want. And if it's about the argument then you'll have people who will stroke your ego -- see PatD. I could really care less -- Turntables have such a high pain the ass factor that I don't blame anyone who buiys a 300 disc mega changer (I did) and I enjoy it too. OTOH turntables can be fun tweakery for those so inclined. And if some misguided, in your eyes, indivuals enjoy listening to vinyl more becuase they subjectively hear more bass smoother treble and more dynamics then oh my the skies are going to fall...NOT.
    Actually I don't think they are misguided at all. What I think is that they are so attached to the format/disc, that it keeps them from making any subjective opinion period.

    Turntables are a pain in the ass, so is maintaining vinyl.

    Different strokes for different folks!


    I have both a DAC and turntable upgrade in my future...and if SACD ever shows me it sounds right then I will be in line for one of those -- but so far the music offerred isn't compelling me to make the leap. I'd probably have to buy a revceiver to run the surround and that alone would destroy "for me" any gain int he source.
    Can't understand why in the heck you would invest in another DAC, but to each his own. If you think receiver will destroy any improvement SACD would make, then I am sorry that you are not well informed. SACD bypasses all the receivers internal DAC's, bass and treble controls, delay, and any other circuitry in the chain. As pure as you can get, so how can it destroy any gain in the source? Please enlighten me.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  8. #58
    Forum Regular risabet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    So why compare if emotion is going to be the standard instead of science? I also wonder if two channel vinyl lovers have heard enough multichannel hi rez audio to make a real comparison, or are they bound emotionally to the vinyl disc. I suspect the latter is the case most of the time, and no matter how good multichannel digital audio gets, they will hold on their discs. .
    I haven't heard enough multi to make a valid comparison in my own system. What I have heard, at good dealers through good systems is that both SACD and DVD-Audio are both "better" sounding (more like analog) than RBCD. The emotion you refer to is towards the music IMO, not towards the delivery system. I'd love to ditch the big 12" albums, record cleanig machine, freakin' expensive cartridges, fussy TT's, etc, for a simple little disc. Emotional atttachment to vinyl indeed!

    Linn LP-12 (Origin Live Advanced PS w/DC Motor) Benz "ACE" medium output*TAD-150*Tube Audio Design TAD-1000 monoblocs*Parasound CD-P 1000*NAD 4020A Tuner*Velodyne F-1000 Subwoofer*Toshiba SD-4700 DVD*Motorola DTP-5100 HD converter*Pioneer PDP-4300*Martin-Logan Clarity*Audioquest cables and interconnects* Panamax 5100 power conditioner

  9. #59
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    I grew up on CD and have no attachment to retaining vinyl - they're big take up too much space and are a pain -- but they sound better on good systems -- which rules out most systems I've heard. I have owned the top end Pioneer Elite Receiver and I own a basic one still - bypassing the DAC of the revceiver isn't the only problem with receiver's sound -- unless you worship the DBT Gods in which case all amps sound perfect.

    Thanks there are a vast number of people who came and saw and heard SACD -- I heard the big Demo done by the brass at sony on a complete Martin Logan Bryston system with acoustic treatments decked out to the nines -- the store was CLOSED fot the event. It was neat -- didn;t sound remotely like a live event -- sorry but instruments at the symphony simply DO NOT sound like that from the rear. It may be cool and fascinating and one may even like it -- but IMO it's another gimmick -- and the person who started this thread who argues with me all the time on this AGREES. SACD is a sorry excuse for a surround medium more channels done badly isn't better than two done well no matter how you wish to slice it. But it makes no never mind to me -- if you like it better that is great and if most people like it better that is great -- after all for years they;ve been putting those Hall, Rock, Church, Dance DSp modes on receivers and so people must like listening to the Beatles in Church mode and Beethoven in Dance mode...give the people what they want. iPods and church DSP in a big colourful box with a remote that can control your cofee maker.

    I make no judjements because I've bought into this stuff myself -- but I recognize it for what it is -- gimmicky toys not BETTER advances to music reproduction just because Sony says so. After all CD is perfect sound forever.

  10. #60
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    I grew up on CD and have no attachment to retaining vinyl - they're big take up too much space and are a pain -- but they sound better on good systems -- which rules out most systems I've heard. I have owned the top end Pioneer Elite Receiver and I own a basic one still - bypassing the DAC of the revceiver isn't the only problem with receiver's sound -- unless you worship the DBT Gods in which case all amps sound perfect.
    Oh brother, here's RGA on yet another one-size-fits all soapbox ready-fire-aim tirade.

    Vinyl is one of those classic cases where you cannot speak to the medium without knowing something about the individual recordings. Are you saying that "they sound better on good systems" ALWAYS? Given the extreme variation that exists between recordings and even between individual pressings, I can point to plenty of examples where the vinyl sounds like crap and the best turntable rig in the world won't save it. And just as easily, I can point to examples of vinyl that sound better than every digital version that's come along.

    Who gives a crap about that Pioneer Elite receiver you owned? That thing was a Pro Logic unit, with no DD or DTS decoding, no discrete 5.1 sources, and primitive bass management at best. And that Marantz that you currently use still had only two-speakers hooked up to it the last time I checked (and didn't you buy that thing basically to serve as a headphone amp?). Yeah, that makes you a multichannel expert.

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    Thanks there are a vast number of people who came and saw and heard SACD -- I heard the big Demo done by the brass at sony on a complete Martin Logan Bryston system with acoustic treatments decked out to the nines -- the store was CLOSED fot the event. It was neat -- didn;t sound remotely like a live event -- sorry but instruments at the symphony simply DO NOT sound like that from the rear.
    And what location were you sitting in during this demo, how were the speakers arranged (in the ITU reference arrangement or some position designed to diffuse the surround effect with movies?), and were those speakers used in the demo all identical? Doesn't matter who's setting the thing up, you need to know for yourself whether the multichannel setup was done properly. Judging by this and your past posts, you still haven't figured that out yet.

    And I was at a symphony hall just a few weeks ago, and the music didn't sound like the whole thing was limited to the front soundstage either. You go into a live venue, you experience sound in three-dimensions -- behind you, and all around you. No two-channel system I've ever heard can adequately mimic that kind of experience.

    And with whatever recording you hear, the perspective will vary depending on whether the engineer wants to put you onto the stage with the conductor, in the middle of the symphony hall, or whatever location is desired on the recording. Chesky's 2/4/6 disc of Swing Live is recorded from the perspective of a seat in the middle of small jazz club in NYC. As good as the two-channel mix is on that disc, the multichannel version conveys the tightness of that space and the crowd perspective in a way that the two-channel version is simply incapable of.

    I just got the 5.1 DVD-A of Telarc's 1999 re-recording of the 1812 Overture and the liner notes specifically indicate that the recording perspective of that recording is with the orchestra at an arc in front of you (much like the conductor's position at the podium). Given that you've never conducted a symphony orchestra, you wouldn't know squat about what the live event is supposed to sound like from that location.

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    It may be cool and fascinating and one may even like it -- but IMO it's another gimmick -- and the person who started this thread who argues with me all the time on this AGREES. SACD is a sorry excuse for a surround medium more channels done badly isn't better than two done well no matter how you wish to slice it.
    SACD's a "sorry excuse for a surround medium"? So, I guess that makes it even sorrier as a two-channel carrier, right? And if SACD's a "sorry excuse" what does that make the CD? Are you attacking multichannel or are you attacking the medium or are you just firing in all directions without a clue as to what you're aiming at?

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    But it makes no never mind to me -- if you like it better that is great and if most people like it better that is great -- after all for years they;ve been putting those Hall, Rock, Church, Dance DSp modes on receivers and so people must like listening to the Beatles in Church mode and Beethoven in Dance mode...give the people what they want. iPods and church DSP in a big colourful box with a remote that can control your cofee maker.
    Another false argument. Discrete 5.1 done properly is NOTHING like the gimmicky DSP modes that you're alluding to. If you think that 5.1 is no better than DSP modes, then you frankly have no clue what you're talking about. And why don't you tell us about the last 5.1 setup that you've actually done yourself?

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    I make no judjements because I've bought into this stuff myself -- but I recognize it for what it is -- gimmicky toys not BETTER advances to music reproduction just because Sony says so. After all CD is perfect sound forever.
    This whole post is all about "judjgements" and your adherence to two-channel, and willingness to distort the merits of multichannel to suit that preference.
    Last edited by Woochifer; 07-26-2005 at 10:25 AM.

  11. #61
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    884
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    Well why would I make a dig at your turntable since I do not pay a helluva lot of attention to other people's system -- you don;t have it listed in your sig line and that's usually as far as I go.

    And incidentally my NAD is a Rega turntable and even LOWER than the P3. Good for the money yes -- great tables they ain't.
    How would you know?
    "Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
    ------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.

  12. #62
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer
    Oh brother, here's RGA on yet another one-size-fits all soapbox ready-fire-aim tirade.

    Vinyl is one of those classic cases where you cannot speak to the medium without knowing something about the individual recordings. Are you saying that "they sound better on good systems" ALWAYS?
    I stopped reading your post here -- I'm tired of the straw man. We have discussed this in the past and you know very well that isn't what i said or for that matter even imply.

  13. #63
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Pat D
    How would you know?
    Well NAD doesn't hide the fact that they contract through REGA. And the other point is that I've heard the P3 with their arm and their top cart. Soundhounds is the Biggest Rega Dealer in North America. They're not bad -- good for the money -- but they carry a lot better.

  14. #64
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    I stopped reading your post here -- I'm tired of the straw man. We have discussed this in the past and you know very well that isn't what i said or for that matter even imply.
    Hardly a strawman at all. Your views on vinyl have shifted more than the San Andreas fault, so how's anyone to know what your current stance is?

    If you don't like your posts on SACD and multichannel called out for the gross distortions and exaggerations that they contain, then I suppose it was wise for you to stop reading. Too bad, now it'll be just a matter of time before more erroneous posts on this topic pop up.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Vinyl is still KING
    By DMK in forum Analog Room
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 05-09-2007, 05:32 PM
  2. Where do I buy new vinyl?
    By Arc45 in forum Rave Recordings
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-21-2004, 08:08 PM
  3. Buckingham Nicks (a vinyl review)
    By 3-LockBox in forum Rave Recordings
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-15-2003, 06:18 AM
  4. dead rooms
    By kevin66 in forum General Audio
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12-10-2003, 05:54 AM
  5. Another web source for rare vinyl
    By tentoze in forum Rave Recordings
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-27-2003, 11:23 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •