Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 126
  1. #51
    Forum Regular Chas Underhay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    151

    Greetings Feanor

    I'm sure that SACD is a fine format. My only scepticism is based upon the mass market's willingness to welcome it sufficiently for it to be viable for the music industry to produce it long term.

    At one time, there was the 78 record only, the music buying public had no alternative. (I know that reel to reel tape existed but to my knowledge pre-recorded tapes were not generally availability.)

    Round about the 1950s, the LP was introduced, this appealed to the public as it had the advantage of holding, probably, 5 times the ammount of music on the same sized record. The industry made it easy for the public to accept the LP by producing record players (for better or for worse) that played all speeds and had a flip over stylus, one side for their old 78s and one side for their new LPs. The LP along with its little brother, the single, continued unchallenged as the only carrier for pre-recorded music untill the mid 1970s.

    As you rightly say, one problem with vinyl is portability and this gave rise to the highly popular compact cassette tape (forget the fasle start for the now long defunct 8 track tape). At the time this was considered to be wonderful, the mass market, at last, had a truly portable format and also you could record your favorite records to play in your car, marvelous.

    When CD emerged in the mid 1980s, vinyl was still the main music carrier but it did not take long for the mass market to totally adopt CD. Don't forget though, that the mass market were not using good quality turntables, they simply compared cheap and nasty CD players with their existing, equally cheap and nasty record players and with the added convenience, CD won, big time. By 1990 the LP seemed to be as good as dead.

    Compact cassette continued on, partly as portable CD players (in car etc) weren't available and obviously, you could not then record onto CD. (Remember though, the false starts at that time for DAT and digital compact cassette.)

    With the advent of CDR compact cassette died, this effectively gave the complete mass music market to CD.

    The other format which emerged at around that time, was DVD video, ok I know it was probably originally intended for films but it lends itself perfectly to live performances of anything from rock gigs to opera, and it could be argued that, for example, being able to watch Freddie Mercury strut around between your speakers beats just listening to Queen, no matter what the format, and that is a big advantage for many people over CD.

    Vinyl still has a small but re-growing following, this is based partly budding DJs and partly old hands with substancial existing vinyl collections who still buy new vinyl when available.

    I realise that SACD players also play CD and that the CD layer of an SACD should play in a CD player but the question I ask is, does SACD offer sufficient advantage over CD to a sufficient number of people for it to sell in sufficient numbers to survive?

    It will be good if it does and then I'll buy an SACD player as well, because I never thought CD had high enough resolution to reproduce a full orchestra but I'll be using it as well as my turntable, not in stead of, even if SACD is better. The reason? already got about 2000 LPs from Purcell to U2, many of which belong to Her Indoors.

  2. #52
    DMK
    DMK is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    332
    Quote Originally Posted by Chas Underhay
    .

    I realise that SACD players also play CD and that the CD layer of an SACD should play in a CD player but the question I ask is, does SACD offer sufficient advantage over CD to a sufficient number of people for it to sell in sufficient numbers to survive?

    .
    The bigger question is - will the mass market perceive SACD to offer sufficient advantage over CD? I doubt it. The mass market is what drove CD to take over the market when it clearly is inferior to vinyl. The mass market isn't concerned with subtleties of sound, or creating the live experience in their homes. They are concerned with convenience, such as not having to clean the discs and having shuffle play and the ability to skip tracks easily and; they are concerned with portability. Those things already exist with RBCD and the added depth, dimension, accuracy and resolution of SACD will be lost on them. It will also be lost on that segment of the audiophile community that doesn't pay attention to sonic differences except to assume they are imagined. They only read specs to tell them what sounds good and, for them, RBCD is enough. SACD's only prayer is that it has the ability to play in multichannels and it can be copy protected.

    The mass market already turned its back on THE high resolution medium - vinyl. It's funny because I find that people STILL compare a clean CD played on a decent player to a beat to crap LP played on the equivalent of a Sears Close-N-Play and then proclaim CD to be superior. I've yet to find the person that has a state of the art system in both analog and digital that believes CD to be superior... or even halfway to state of the art. Those who choose not to maximize the ability of vinyl by way of their equipment often prefer CD but I take their opinion with several kilos of salt. How could they know which is better if they don't seek the truth? But since you're fairly new here, it may surprise you that lack of knowledge doesn't stop many of our regular posters from having an opinion. Thankfully, most of them don't spend much time at the Analog Room.

  3. #53
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    There are a couple of things here

    Quote Originally Posted by DMK
    The bigger question is - will the mass market perceive SACD to offer sufficient advantage over CD? I doubt it.
    ...
    The mass market already turned its back on THE high resolution medium - vinyl. It's funny because I find that people STILL compare a clean CD played on a decent player to a beat to crap LP played on the equivalent of a Sears Close-N-Play and then proclaim CD to be superior. ...
    Most of the mass market are happy with 96 bps MP3, so I too doubt that most will care about superiority of SACD to CD. But some will, so perhaps enough will by hybrid SACDs that recording companies will spend the extra to produce most new "CDs" this way. I'm not prophesying, but I think SACD has a good chance.

    Yes, you guessed it. My vinyl playback isn't even half way to state of the art, and as a consequence of that, maybe, I don't consistently hear the superiority of vinyl over CD. Or maybe it's my aged ears, though I was listening years before CD was conceived. I don't proclaim that CD is better (other than in the obvious ways), just that I don't hear enough of the advantage of vinyl for it to matter to me.

    No, I don't care about the truth enough on the vinyl vs. CD issue to spend $1000+ just to find out. However my $200 Sony CE775 is enough to convince me that SACDs -- in general -- sound better than CDs.

  4. #54
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Roscoe IL
    Posts
    210

    Feanor, get that Euro rig going

    Didn't you have a French tt that needed a minor repair? If you have any LP's that are in good enough shape to appreciate, you should be able to hear at least some of what we vinyl nuts rave about. You might need to spend $100 or so to get a decent cartridge but it might be worth it. If your album collection is too beat up, it may not be worth your while. Scratched LP's will sound like crap even if you have a 50k rig. I admit that it would cost several thousand dollars to match my turntable, cartridge, tonearm and phono stage if you bought all new. I spent $1800 (plus a few 100 more on NOS vintage tubes) or so used so it isn't cheap to put together a fine analog system. I have no regrets as the sound is very rewarding. You can appreciate it for much less but $500 might be about the bare minimum to get good results.
    Anyway, since it appears that most of the world is perfectly happy with RBCD, then if SACD is here to stay, it may just fill a niche market as audiophile grade vinyl does. It appears that the average home stereo or average listener does not pay enough attention to the details of music to make a difference. It has been pointed out numerous times that even RBCD is capable of sounding perfectly acceptable and maybe even perfect in every way. The recording process seems to miss the boat all too often for whatever reason, probably due to cost and a general acceptance no matter what they turn out. How much better SACD is than very well made RBCD, I don't know as I have not heard it yet but the unfortunate thing in my mind is that not enough buyers care enough to get the message to the CD makers to get it right all the time. It must not be cost effective for them to do so
    but this is a sorry excuse if you ask me.
    I still like the approach that recording companies took 30 years ago and for that matter all the way back to the beginning of recording. They did their absolute best to produce a quality product (in most cases) and were only limited by the technology of the day which seems to have found near perfection to occur as far back as the 40's or 50's for master tapes and they figured out how to perfectly transfer to vinyl somewhere in the 60's and 70's. When they achieve this with RBCD, SACD or any media, whatever it is should be here to stay. If not one of these two, then probably some even better digital medium will drive them both into obsoletion. At least in the same sense as vinyl is obsolete, not gone, just obsolete. Joe average won't care and will buy it no matter what so it's up to kooks like us to ask them to do it right and JA will just tag along for the ride.
    Bill

  5. #55
    Forum Regular Chas Underhay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    151

    Damage limitation?

    Scratched LP's will sound like crap even if you have a 50k rig. I admit that it would cost several thousand dollars to match my turntable, cartridge, tonearm and phono stage if you bought all new. I spent $1800 (plus a few 100 more on NOS vintage tubes) or so used so it isn't cheap to put together a fine analog system. I have no regrets as the sound is very rewarding. You can appreciate it for much less but $500 might be about the bare minimum to get good results.

    I don't disagree but decent equipment can help minimise surface noise and minor scratches

    Her Indoors treated me to an Ortofon Kontrapunct b for Christmas and this really does help, I have got LPs from the dim and distant past, many of which have been played on equipment that should have been handed in to the nearest police station.

    After installing the new cartridge and playing some good LPs I was feeling very pleased with what Santa had brought. I eventually dug out one of my knackered but at one time favorite ones; Super Session, Al Kooper, Steve Stills etc c 1970, remember it? and guess what, it was nothing like as knackered as it sounded the last time I played it and that wasn't that long ago. It was as like the stylus riding on virgin vinyl that my lesser cartridges had never touched before.

    Whilst, I agree nothing can totally eliminate damage and wear, this cartridge has given my collection a new lease of life.

    To me the argument for vinyl vs digital is more fundamental than just sound quality, I grew up with vinyl and many of my LPs are part of my life history. I will not stop playing them no matter what present or future technology brings.

  6. #56
    Forum Regular Chas Underhay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    151

    Typo Error

    Quote Originally Posted by Chas Underhay
    Scratched LP's will sound like crap even if you have a 50k rig. I admit that it would cost several thousand dollars to match my turntable, cartridge, tonearm and phono stage if you bought all new. I spent $1800 (plus a few 100 more on NOS vintage tubes) or so used so it isn't cheap to put together a fine analog system. I have no regrets as the sound is very rewarding. You can appreciate it for much less but $500 might be about the bare minimum to get good results.
    Sorry the first para of my previous posting was intended to be a quotation from the posting by jbanglefish

  7. #57
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Roscoe IL
    Posts
    210

    I agree

    You can minimize surface noise to some degree but I guess I'm talking about severely abused LP's that are just unlistenable for me and I have a few of them. For some reason, my cartridge is able to bring out more music and hide more noise than others that I have used before and as you say, I'm able to enjoy some that before, I could not. Maybe it's because it's a low output MC or maybe it's because the stylus is a line contact type and reaches farther into the groove, I don't know. The part about reaching farther down into the groove is a definate improvement and I've said more than once that I hear more from my vinyl than ever before. This is good.
    Santa was very good to you. The Kontrapunkt b is certainly a fine present. I don't think I have the Al Kooper LP that you are talking about but have at least some of his work, haven't heard it in quite some time. Of course I have Stills on many LP's in various groups, just don't remember this one.
    Bill

  8. #58
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    If I didn't know you guys were serious about this topic it would be laughable. If anyone thinks that vinyl sounds better than SACD, they need a VERY strong drink. Human ears love distortion. That is why there is vinyl and stereo. Both distort the recorded signal profoundly. I do not know any vinyl setup with a linear flat frequency response to 20khz. I do not know of any vinyl setup that is free of noise,distortion, wow and flutter. Even the big buck TT have measured noise and wow and flutter. This is as bad as digital jitter.

    Vinyl will alway be around as long as delusional people exist(DJ's excluded as they have a reason to buy vinyl, and sound quality is not an issue). Different strokes for different folks I always say.
    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

  9. #59
    DMK
    DMK is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    332

    Troll of the Year Award goes to...

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    If I didn't know you guys were serious about this topic it would be laughable. If anyone thinks that vinyl sounds better than SACD, they need a VERY strong drink. Human ears love distortion. That is why there is vinyl and stereo. Both distort the recorded signal profoundly. I do not know any vinyl setup with a linear flat frequency response to 20khz. I do not know of any vinyl setup that is free of noise,distortion, wow and flutter. Even the big buck TT have measured noise and wow and flutter. This is as bad as digital jitter.

    Vinyl will alway be around as long as delusional people exist(DJ's excluded as they have a reason to buy vinyl, and sound quality is not an issue). Different strokes for different folks I always say.
    Sir Terrence the Terrible!!!! To post such garbage on the Analog Room site elevates you to this prestigious award! Well done, sir! Now that you've had your fun, it's ok to go back to your distorted CD's and enjoy! No need to stop back by again - you've certainly put us in our place and we have been duly humbled by your measurements which as we know ALWAYS correlate to better sound... hahahahahaha... oops, I mean er... yes, indeed! Bye now!

  10. #60
    DMK
    DMK is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    332
    Quote Originally Posted by Chas Underhay
    Scratched LP's will sound like crap even if you have a 50k rig. I admit that it would cost several thousand dollars to match my turntable, cartridge, tonearm and phono stage if you bought all new. I spent $1800 (plus a few 100 more on NOS vintage tubes) or so used so it isn't cheap to put together a fine analog system. I have no regrets as the sound is very rewarding. You can appreciate it for much less but $500 might be about the bare minimum to get good results.

    I don't disagree but decent equipment can help minimise surface noise and minor scratches

    Her Indoors treated me to an Ortofon Kontrapunct b for Christmas and this really does help, I have got LPs from the dim and distant past, many of which have been played on equipment that should have been handed in to the nearest police station.

    After installing the new cartridge and playing some good LPs I was feeling very pleased with what Santa had brought. I eventually dug out one of my knackered but at one time favorite ones; Super Session, Al Kooper, Steve Stills etc c 1970, remember it? and guess what, it was nothing like as knackered as it sounded the last time I played it and that wasn't that long ago. It was as like the stylus riding on virgin vinyl that my lesser cartridges had never touched before.

    Whilst, I agree nothing can totally eliminate damage and wear, this cartridge has given my collection a new lease of life.

    To me the argument for vinyl vs digital is more fundamental than just sound quality, I grew up with vinyl and many of my LPs are part of my life history. I will not stop playing them no matter what present or future technology brings.
    I just bought myself a Kontrapunkt B a few months ago to replace a Benz Glider and it was one of those times where the couple of hundred bucks extra was repaid several-fold. It's a great cartridge. Too bad I had to buy it myself! And your correct, surface noise is minimized while detail is maximized. I've heard great cartridges before but they always cost upwards of twice the B. I'm a very happy camper.

  11. #61
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by DMK
    Sir Terrence the Terrible!!!! To post such garbage on the Analog Room site elevates you to this prestigious award! Well done, sir! Now that you've had your fun, it's ok to go back to your distorted CD's and enjoy! No need to stop back by again - you've certainly put us in our place and we have been duly humbled by your measurements which as we know ALWAYS correlate to better sound... hahahahahaha... oops, I mean er... yes, indeed! Bye now!
    Well, before you spout off on Terrence, you really should know that he's one of the few people on this board who knows what original studio masters sound like, and how transparent the various formats are to the original source. The problem with using vinyl records as the basis for an argument about perceived flaws that are format based, is that nobody except somebody who works in a studio environment with access to studio masters or board feeds knows what a source is supposed to sound like.

    You're welcome to extol a preference for vinyl, but that doesn't mean that it's necessarily a representation of what the full potential of a specific recording is. Granted, there are plenty of vinyl records in my collection that sound better than their CD counterparts, but is that more a reflection of superior vinyl mastering technique and flawed CD transferring, than something inherently format based? Based on my comparisons between the 96/24 PCM discs that I own (which were carefully transferred by Bernie Grundman, and often supervised by the original production team) and the vinyl versions of those particular albums, I've yet to find a vinyl version that's audibly superior to the high res PCM disc. So, that would indicate that there is some other variable that's not entirely format based.

  12. #62
    Forum Regular hifitommy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    sylmar, ca. in beautiful so cal earthquake country
    Posts
    1,442

    vinyl vs digital

    being familiar with master tapes doesnt qualify one to be a jerk. or maybe in this case it does. i am familiar with live music, and vinyl reproduction gives me more of the cues that suggest the real thing than does rbcd.

    you can blab on about the ear loving distortions all you want, its meaning less, just as the remixmastering (TM) just for vinyl only or whichever format youre trying to put down at the moment, is.

    fyi, tonite i put on the NEW al green vinyl i just received, and it sounds closed in. some remixmastering (TM) job! i am considering sending it back, and i LIKE the music! it just sounds like it were recorded in a closet.

    it sounds less good than the tori amos but the tori music isnt that good imho. maybe i have to listen more to that. suzanne vega does a lot more for me.

    sacd is good but the jury is still out whether or not its better than vinyl. with more original dsd recordings, we will find out. the reissues dont prove it yet.
    ...regards...tr

  13. #63
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer
    Well, before you spout off on Terrence, you really should know that he's one of the few people on this board who knows what original studio masters sound like, and how transparent the various formats are to the original source. The problem with using vinyl records as the basis for an argument about perceived flaws that are format based, is that nobody except somebody who works in a studio environment with access to studio masters or board feeds knows what a source is supposed to sound like.

    You're welcome to extol a preference for vinyl, but that doesn't mean that it's necessarily a representation of what the full potential of a specific recording is. Granted, there are plenty of vinyl records in my collection that sound better than their CD counterparts, but is that more a reflection of superior vinyl mastering technique and flawed CD transferring, than something inherently format based? Based on my comparisons between the 96/24 PCM discs that I own (which were carefully transferred by Bernie Grundman, and often supervised by the original production team) and the vinyl versions of those particular albums, I've yet to find a vinyl version that's audibly superior to the high res PCM disc. So, that would indicate that there is some other variable that's not entirely format based.
    I don't think we have reached the "full potential of a specific recording" and even if we have, the best don't come close enough to the real thing. I'm not too familiar with high resolution digital at this point, having heard only a few, so I can't say what is superior and what isn't. But I'm going to parrot Hifitommy's point that even if Sir Terrence has a lot of experience with master tapes (and how do you know this, anyway?), that doesn't qualify him to go "Skeptic" on us. The human ears love distortion? These two don't! These two love whatever format gets them closest to the sound of live music. So far, that's vinyl. Perhaps SACD will beat vinyl - I guess we'll find out.

  14. #64
    Forum Regular Chas Underhay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    151

    Thumbs down Super Session etc

    Quote Originally Posted by jbangelfish
    I don't think I have the Al Kooper LP that you are talking about but have at least some of his work, haven't heard it in quite some time. Of course I have Stills on many LP's in various groups, just don't remember this one.
    Bill
    Hi Bill

    Super Session was recorded in 1968 and it's on the CBS lable. It features Mike Bloomfield with Al Kooper on side 1 and Steve Stills with Al Kooper on side 2. It contains blues classics such as Alberts Shuffle and Really plus a few other good non-blues tracks.

    Reference to this album was made, both in the opening speech and the sleeve notes on:- The Live Adventures of Mike Bloomfield and Al Kooper, recorded in September 1968, also on CBS.

    "Sir Terrance" should realise that no matter how good SACD players might be, there are a lot of people out there with substancial collections of historic music on vinyl who try to get "best possible" (within sensible reason) out of it.

    So in closing, I would suggest that if the above two classic albums are not yet available on SACD. then it's "off with his head" and he wouldn't be the first cavalier that went that way.

    All the best

    Chas

  15. #65
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Roscoe IL
    Posts
    210

    Just the guy we've been looking for

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    If I didn't know you guys were serious about this topic it would be laughable. If anyone thinks that vinyl sounds better than SACD, they need a VERY strong drink. Human ears love distortion. That is why there is vinyl and stereo. Both distort the recorded signal profoundly. I do not know any vinyl setup with a linear flat frequency response to 20khz. I do not know of any vinyl setup that is free of noise,distortion, wow and flutter. Even the big buck TT have measured noise and wow and flutter. This is as bad as digital jitter.

    Vinyl will alway be around as long as delusional people exist(DJ's excluded as they have a reason to buy vinyl, and sound quality is not an issue). Different strokes for different folks I always say.
    Sir Terrence:
    In what capacity are you involved in the recording process? Are you responsible for any of the bad CD's in my collection? If so, I would have fired you and anyone else who was involved in the process. OTOH, if you were solely involved in making any of the ones that are very good, then I have the utmost respect for you.
    Yes, there is w&f with a turntable but I can't hear it on any of the rigs that I have owned. I've always wondered at what point it becomes audible. CD players seem to run very steadily without audible distortion from jitter or w&f or whatever you'd like to call it. The problem with many CD's is the distortion of the natural sound of instruments which occurs all too often. When it's done right, it's as good as anything and the clean background is pleasant.
    SACD seems to be doing a better job for whatever reason. If you are in any way responsible, thanks. But, if you are responsible for the distortions that we have all heard and fail to get it right, shame on you.
    Bill

  16. #66
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Roscoe IL
    Posts
    210

    Tommy

    Quote Originally Posted by hifitommy
    being familiar with master tapes doesnt qualify one to be a jerk. or maybe in this case it does. i am familiar with live music, and vinyl reproduction gives me more of the cues that suggest the real thing than does rbcd.

    you can blab on about the ear loving distortions all you want, its meaning less, just as the remixmastering (TM) just for vinyl only or whichever format youre trying to put down at the moment, is.

    fyi, tonite i put on the NEW al green vinyl i just received, and it sounds closed in. some remixmastering (TM) job! i am considering sending it back, and i LIKE the music! it just sounds like it were recorded in a closet.

    it sounds less good than the tori amos but the tori music isnt that good imho. maybe i have to listen more to that. suzanne vega does a lot more for me.

    sacd is good but the jury is still out whether or not its better than vinyl. with more original dsd recordings, we will find out. the reissues dont prove it yet.
    I know someone who often has access to master tapes and when he can't listen to them, he listens to vinyl. I guess that distortion that he gets from it sounds the most like the master tapes, go figure. It's been pointed out here and at AA that when a CD has an audible hiss, often, it will be a better quality recording than one with a dead silent background. It appears that CD will often clean up a recording and miss some of the music along with it. I have found the same.
    Sorry, it seems you don't care for the Tori Amos vinyl as much as I thought you might. I played it for my jazz loving buddy and he didn't care much for it either. He at least thought that it was a great recording and I do too. I enjoy almost all of the music on it and think her piano skills are outstanding. It's different but I do enjoy it.
    It does seem that some new vinyl is not as good as most old vinyl, goes back to the same old thing, engineering, paying attention to detail or whatever. I posted earlier about a 180 gram "Tea For The Tillerman" (Universal, digital master) that just doesn't sound right. Over 30 bucks, had to wait for it and was disappointed. Even the hole is drilled off center. If I want to hear this LP, I now play my original which is over 30 years old and still sounds great.
    I hope we're not heading into an era where nobody cares to make recordings sound as good as they did 40 years ago. It is quite evident that a great deal of effort went into the making of vinyl recordings (not always) and they seemed to take great pride in producing the best product that they were able to. This all too often does not seem to be the case any more. The ironic thing to me is that in the 60's and 70's very few people had a stereo that was good enough to even appreciate what was being produced. Now, a much higher percentage of people own better quality equipment and the quality of recordings seems to be significantly lower (often, not always).
    Bill

  17. #67
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    Yes, I would like to upgrade my vinyl rig

    Quote Originally Posted by jbangelfish
    Didn't you have a French tt that needed a minor repair? If you have any LP's that are in good enough shape to appreciate, you should be able to hear at least some of what we vinyl nuts rave about ... Bill
    Actually, it's not my ERA TT that's the problem. It's my Grace 707 tonearm that needs a new cartridge pin connector plus a new cartridge -- not sure what cartridge, though, on a budget of US$150 or so.

    I hope to get around to these things because my smalll vinyl collection is in very good shape, in fact.

  18. #68
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Roscoe IL
    Posts
    210

    Hey Feanor

    I don't know about replacing a pin, sounds like a tech job. You might ask the question over on Audio Asylum. Tommy or some others should be able to put you onto the best cartridge in your price range. I think AT makes some decent ones around $100 or a little over. Let us know when you get it going and what you think. I believe the Grace arm is a pretty good one.
    Bill

  19. #69
    Forum Regular Chas Underhay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    151

    Nice to get further confirmation!

    Quote Originally Posted by DMK
    I just bought myself a Kontrapunkt B a few months ago to replace a Benz Glider and it was one of those times where the couple of hundred bucks extra was repaid several-fold. It's a great cartridge. Too bad I had to buy it myself! And your correct, surface noise is minimized while detail is maximized. I've heard great cartridges before but they always cost upwards of twice the B. I'm a very happy camper.
    Hi DMK

    It's nice to know that I am not just imagining it.

    Don't know what it's like in your neck of the woods but in the UK it's very difficult to audition this type kit, SACD players yes (if you are that way inclined), but here, you have to try to do your homework then take the plunge and hope for the best.

    Oh and by the way, don't be too put out by having to pay for yours yourself, I had to spend even more in a jewlers shop by way of compensation but that's life.

    All the best

    Chas

  20. #70
    Forum Regular Chas Underhay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    151

    Good on yer!

    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    Actually, it's not my ERA TT that's the problem. It's my Grace 707 tonearm that needs a new cartridge pin connector plus a new cartridge -- not sure what cartridge, though, on a budget of US$150 or so.

    I hope to get around to these things because my smalll vinyl collection is in very good shape, in fact.
    Good man Feanor

    Can't help you much on the cartridge pin, I'm sure others over your side of the pond can but I would add that once you are up and running again, you should be able enhance your vinyl collection very, very cheaply.

    All the best

    Chas

  21. #71
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by rb122
    I don't think we have reached the "full potential of a specific recording" and even if we have, the best don't come close enough to the real thing. I'm not too familiar with high resolution digital at this point, having heard only a few, so I can't say what is superior and what isn't. But I'm going to parrot Hifitommy's point that even if Sir Terrence has a lot of experience with master tapes (and how do you know this, anyway?), that doesn't qualify him to go "Skeptic" on us. The human ears love distortion? These two don't! These two love whatever format gets them closest to the sound of live music. So far, that's vinyl. Perhaps SACD will beat vinyl - I guess we'll find out.
    [QUOTE]being familiar with master tapes doesnt qualify one to be a jerk. or maybe in this case it does. i am familiar with live music, and vinyl reproduction gives me more of the cues that suggest the real thing than does rbcd.[\QUOTE]

    Its okay if you call me a jerk, it wouldn't be the first time on these boards this has happened. Nobody likes someone else to challenge a format that one has grown to really like. I understand that completely. But let's be realistic, even with a mega buck TT and the best pressing and mastereing, the format has inherent problems that cannot be overcome with even the best of these things. Working with vinyl is much like working with video tape. Once you play it once, the deterioration and degredation begins and its down hill from there. Expensive cartridges and cleaners are no help at all. Any medium where the reproduction device touches the media is prone to this. That is just reality.

    Chas, just because what is on vinyl is not on SACD means nothing. When talking audio sound QUALITY rules not media QUANTITY. Sometimes the best possible is not good enough.

    RB,

    It matters none the least to me whether you believe what I do for living is true. I just don't care. It is a fact that some humans(and I repeat again, lovers of vinyl records and stereo sound are amoung these humans)love distortion. If you like any of these two, you LOVE distortion, whether it be the distortion of the spatial cues, or distortion of the signal. Some humans really love the roll off characterstics of the vinyl medium, and whenever a full frequency recording is presented to them, they find it bright sounding. We get used to what we like, flaws and all.
    I have never been a big fan of redbook CD, however I am a HUGE fan of multichannel DVD-A AND SACD because they come the closest to recreating a live event. Two channel vinyl(or CD) fail meserably in this area because by shear fomat design they misplace spatial cues, and have problems with handling the harmonics of cymbal crashes(which have huge amounts of energy to 40khz) and percussive transients of drums, piano's chimes and glocks. Anytime a format rolls off the highest frequencies, it will have a horrible time with the leading edge of transients.

    On two occasions in the last year I have had the opportunity to compare the outputs of DVD-A, SACD, the mixing desk versus the live performer simultaneously using a ABX comparorator(switching device). 90% of the time I couldn't tell which was which. Try that with the vinyl format and it won't even be close.

    In my twenty years of recording audio I have gotten the chance to compare my master tapes to first vinyl pressing, and the first lot of the duplication process of the CD's. The vinyl record sounded fine between 50hz and 4khz. But below and above that it betrayed itself. The CD sound fine until about 7khz, and then I noticed a closing in, and loss of air. Neither IMO were good for high frequency harmonics of some instruments which makes them both not in the same class as DVD-A and SACD whose response can extend to 50khz and above. So I say in the words of Chas"off with THEIR heads!"

    RB, if you are REALLY interested in hearing what is closer to the live performance then vinyl should not be your medium of choice. If you are interested in keeping a vast library of vinyl discs in rotation, that's a different story. But if you HONESTLY BELIEVE the vinyl two channel format is the most accurate representation of a live event, you are just fooling yourself. Its really easy to dismiss and relegate the truth as "GARBAGE on an analog forum",

    I would also in the future take a good look at the reproduction chain of your system(especially speakers and room acoustics), because sometimes the software is not the problem, the hardware is. Alot of vinyl lovers tend to spend copious amounts of money on there system(which is a small part of the reproduction equation) and spend no money on the acoustics of the room(which is a HUGE part of the reproduction chain). I am not trying to offend anyone, but trying to inject a little reality into this vinyl lovefest.
    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

  22. #72
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    162
    [QUOTE=jbangelfish]
    Yes, there is w&f with a turntable but I can't hear it on any of the rigs that I have owned. I've always wondered at what point it becomes audible. /QUOTE]

    I've found that audibility isn't the issue with those that cite specifications when arguing digital over analog, particularly those people who do so on this board. They seem to believe that if it's measurable, it must be some distortion causing byproduct. I feel that if something isn't audible, it's a non-issue.

    The best test for wow and flutter is sustained piano notes. I have heard these notes change pitch on cheap Sony and Pioneer turntables but never on my VPI. As a result, it's a non-issue but measurement hounds do enjoy bringing it up anyway. I wonder which cheap turntable they used to listen to... and how dirty their records were? Granted, there are inherent problems with vinyl playback. However, most of them can be mitigated through proper gear and meticulous record cleaning and most of them pale in comparison to the distortions I hear in CD's. As Sir Terrence said, to each his own. I prefer the sound of live music. When I don't have that, I resort to the next best thing which is vinyl. SACD may change my mind on that.

  23. #73
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    162
    [QUOTE=Sir Terrence the Terrible]
    being familiar with master tapes doesnt qualify one to be a jerk. or maybe in this case it does. i am familiar with live music, and vinyl reproduction gives me more of the cues that suggest the real thing than does rbcd.[\QUOTE]


    RB,

    It matters none the least to me whether you believe what I do for living is true. I just don't care. It is a fact that some humans(and I repeat again, lovers of vinyl records and stereo sound are amoung these humans)love distortion. If you like any of these two, you LOVE distortion, whether it be the distortion of the spatial cues, or distortion of the signal. Some humans really love the roll off characterstics of the vinyl medium, and whenever a full frequency recording is presented to them, they find it bright sounding. We get used to what we like, flaws and all.
    I have never been a big fan of redbook CD, however I am a HUGE fan of multichannel DVD-A AND SACD because they come the closest to recreating a live event. Two channel vinyl(or CD) fail meserably in this area because by shear fomat design they misplace spatial cues, and have problems with handling the harmonics of cymbal crashes(which have huge amounts of energy to 40khz) and percussive transients of drums, piano's chimes and glocks. Anytime a format rolls off the highest frequencies, it will have a horrible time with the leading edge of transients.

    On two occasions in the last year I have had the opportunity to compare the outputs of DVD-A, SACD, the mixing desk versus the live performer simultaneously using a ABX comparorator(switching device). 90% of the time I couldn't tell which was which. Try that with the vinyl format and it won't even be close.

    In my twenty years of recording audio I have gotten the chance to compare my master tapes to first vinyl pressing, and the first lot of the duplication process of the CD's. The vinyl record sounded fine between 50hz and 4khz. But below and above that it betrayed itself. The CD sound fine until about 7khz, and then I noticed a closing in, and loss of air. Neither IMO were good for high frequency harmonics of some instruments which makes them both not in the same class as DVD-A and SACD whose response can extend to 50khz and above. So I say in the words of Chas"off with THEIR heads!"

    RB, if you are REALLY interested in hearing what is closer to the live performance then vinyl should not be your medium of choice. If you are interested in keeping a vast library of vinyl discs in rotation, that's a different story. But if you HONESTLY BELIEVE the vinyl two channel format is the most accurate representation of a live event, you are just fooling yourself. Its really easy to dismiss and relegate the truth as "GARBAGE on an analog forum",

    I would also in the future take a good look at the reproduction chain of your system(especially speakers and room acoustics), because sometimes the software is not the problem, the hardware is. Alot of vinyl lovers tend to spend copious amounts of money on there system(which is a small part of the reproduction equation) and spend no money on the acoustics of the room(which is a HUGE part of the reproduction chain). I am not trying to offend anyone, but trying to inject a little reality into this vinyl lovefest.
    Actually, it doesn't matter to me if you are who you say you are or if you aren't. It also doesn't matter to me if I believe you or not. I'm not saying I didn't, in all honesty. But there seems to be a bit of truth bending on A/R about people's resumes and such. That was never really the point, however. The point is you can challenge us if you must but we were simply responding in kind.

    I've posted here recently on this very thread that I have no real experience with SACD or DVD-A so I can't comment. My comparisons are solely between vinyl, redbook CD and the music I hear and/or perform almost nightly - at least it SEEMS nightly. I'm considering taking some time off from performing. I need the rest! Anyway, the only direct comparisons I've been able to do is vinyl against redbook CD. I've also stated that the problems I associate with rbcd may very well be NOT inherent in the medium. When I compare the two, I'm comparing the final product against the final product which is the LP vs the CD and not the mechanics. At least 95% of the time, the vinyl is musically satisfying and the CD is not. I don't find CD's "bright" all the time - in fact, I find their biggest problems to be in the lower treble/upper midrange and the problems are largely of tonal imbalance. If that's the recording/mastering, fine. It still makes for a poor sounding product whereas the corresponding LP is excellent. I don't argue mediums because my issue is sound, not analog over digital.

    I did not "get used to" what I prefer. On the contrary, I grew up with CD's. My music career postdated the vinyl era. My parents had old beat up records and a cheesy system and I assumed that's what vinyl sounded like. I also knew as I grew older that CD's just sounded flat and "unreal". But I learned to deal with them as a fact of life -that live music and reproduced music were totally different worlds.

    When I first heard vinyl done properly about 8 or so years ago, I was floored! I was not prepared for recorded sound to be so real! If I had a bias, it was decidedly against vinyl. I bought a rig and started my LP collection. Some of them are nasty sounding if they have surface noise or are recorded poorly but the vast majority of them sound proper to my ears. I have gotten "used to" them because they sound most like what I hear when I'm on stage or in the audience (I'm a semi-professional jazz guitarist - good enough to make a little money and not piss off the pianist but not good enough or brave enough to go fully pro).

    I may be "fooling" myself but that's what reproduced sound is all about - fooling yourself into believing the musicians and the listener aren't separated by wires, wood and knobs but are together in the same room. As I've said, multichannel SACD or DVD-A may be the ultimate answer but I've little experience with high resolution digital and virtually NO experience with multichannel. I'm only comparing vinyl with rbcd. And I just recently coughed up money for a new system and NOW you're telling me I need new stuff?

    P.S My system is VPI HW-19 jr/Graham Robin/Benz ACE; Rega Planet (original); Coincident Partial Eclipse; Manley Stingray; My total investment was about $5000. I've begun reading about room acoustics and am a little while away from deciding what I want to do there but will eventually do something.

  24. #74
    Forum Regular soundhd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10
    Not unless the record companies re-release all the vinyl titles in a SACD format.............and the CD titles as well..............but I doubt very much if that will happen...........so vinyl on...................

  25. #75
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by jbangelfish
    Sir Terrence:
    In what capacity are you involved in the recording process? Are you responsible for any of the bad CD's in my collection? If so, I would have fired you and anyone else who was involved in the process. OTOH, if you were solely involved in making any of the ones that are very good, then I have the utmost respect for you.
    Yes, there is w&f with a turntable but I can't hear it on any of the rigs that I have owned. I've always wondered at what point it becomes audible. CD players seem to run very steadily without audible distortion from jitter or w&f or whatever you'd like to call it. The problem with many CD's is the distortion of the natural sound of instruments which occurs all too often. When it's done right, it's as good as anything and the clean background is pleasant.
    SACD seems to be doing a better job for whatever reason. If you are in any way responsible, thanks. But, if you are responsible for the distortions that we have all heard and fail to get it right, shame on you.
    Bill
    Bill,

    I am involved in the recording/mixing stage, and occasionally master my own stuff if the budget doesn't allow me to go to my favorite mastering house. Am I responsible for some of the bad recording in your collection? I don't know since I have no access to your collection. As of lately I have been doing mostly live recording of classical music, and film scores for movie soundtracks. I would like not to think that I turn out bad work, but ones hearing capabilities, and Idea of good sound is so subjective that I could not know. You have heard the old adage that one persons floor is another ceiling? That applies to audio one hundred fold. I have had producers who thought I mixed bad sound, only to find out that the digital to analog conversion(D/A dacs) was being done by cheap chips. I have had other engineers make comments about my work only to find that THEIR dsp processing was dropping bits while mastering.

    About 95% of the complaints I have received about the sound of CD's doesn't lie in the software itself, but in the reproduction chain. 100% of the complaints lie within either the speakers, cheap DAC chips, or poor room acoustics. The problem is that listeners would prefer to blame the engineer rather than their own equipment which is the problem most of the time. Not that there are not bad mixes(there are more than I want to admit) but they are not always the culprit.

    As far as w&f in turntables it would have to be pretty severe to be audible. Unless you have perfect pitch like I was born with. It can also be hidden by room acoustics if there is insufficient absorbtion or diffusion within the room. Speakers that have very steep crossovers slopes can hide it(since the crossover can ring and take away phase integrity)
    The point I am trying to make is that the software is not always to blame, but it is the easiest thing to do rather than looking at our equipment or room.
    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

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast

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. Buckingham Nicks (a vinyl review)
    By 3-LockBox in forum Rave Recordings
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-15-2003, 06:18 AM
  3. sacd superior to rbcd
    By hifitommy in forum Digital Domain & Computer Audio
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 12-07-2003, 11:00 AM
  4. SACD & DVD-Audio
    By John Beresford in forum Digital Domain & Computer Audio
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 12-01-2003, 10:24 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
  •