Will SACD make vinyl obsolete?

[rb122]

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.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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.

[rb122]

[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.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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.

Good, because this eleminates any distractions from the topic at hand. Since I have no desire to impress anyone, bending my resume is unnecessary.

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.

I would have a problem with this comparison because mastering for CD is different than mastering for vinyl. That would make any comparison unfair. I however commend you on your honesty regarding your understanding, and your experience(or lack of)of each format. Most people here would not admit to not having experience just for the chance to argue.

. 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.

Then my argument would be that the mixing and mastering was aimed at turning out a superior vinyl sound, and not digital. There is absolute nothing in the sampling process that alters tonal balance in the range you describe, unless a low sample rate(and bit rate) was used. If MP3 or minidisc was used as the recording device(as most non budgeted recording uses) then the CD will sound like crap compared to the vinyl product. There are so many specifics not included in your post(like recording equipment, bit rate and sampling used, setup, insturmentation, etc) that it is just impossible to track down any deficiency that can occur in the digital product.

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.

I think you assesment of CD sound is way to general. Some discs sound flat and unreal. The better sounding ones are the total opposite of that.

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? .

Please accept my most humblest of apologies about this ;>) Sometimes you don't have to fool yourself. Sometimes the recording is is soo good it can fool ya. I would suggest to you to hear a VERY good demo of multichannel SACD or DVD-A on some good equipment in a room with tight controls on the acoustics. I think it would go along way in helping you to understand(not necessarily except) my opinion.


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.[/QUOTE]

[DMK]

\QUOTE]

. 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.

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. .[/QUOTE]

It's true that once you play vinyl, the deterioration and degradation begins. Perhaps in about 20 years, it may start to become audible if cleaned thoroughly and regularly. I own LP's that were made in the 1950's that sound fantastic - little noise and no distortion. Now THAT is what I call reality!

Since you listed frequencies and problems with vinyl and RBCD, I found your comments interesting and asked a few recording engineers I know about them. Since we really didn't know what you mean by "fine" and "betrayed itself", we had to make some assumptions, which may be inaccurate.

One RE pretty much agreed with what you said. He couldn't recall the specific frequencies but said your numbers seemed about right with his recollection. Suffice it to say that he's touting high rez digital with a vengeance!

One said RBCD is all that's required and that DVD-A and SACD was only necessary for their multichannel capabilities. He did concede that that capability would absolutely make it sound better than CD and LP, however. But as for two channel audio, his main comment was that if we are not utilizing all that redbook has to offer, what's the fuss about high rez? It should be no better than the best RBCD can do. LOVE those idealists!

The third said that if your LP's only sounded "fine" to 50 hz and to 4 khz, there was a severe problem somewhere in the chain. He's recorded LP's that sounded "fine" much deeper than 50 hz and "miles higher" (his words) than 4 khz. He's firmly in neither the digital nor analog camp and does well in both formats.

Again, we're not sure what you mean by "fine" and we may be misreading you so we'd appreciate a little more clarity if you'd be so kind. But so far what this tells me is that there is no absolute agreement on what is good sound. You have your opinions and so do I. But I'm no more in need of a strong drink than you are!

Actually, a strong drink sounds pretty good since it's freakin' 5 below zero out here! Mine's Highland Park single malt straight up. Cheers!

[hifitommy]

[QUOTE=Sir Terrence the Terrible][QUOTE]

STtT,

sorry for the insult, but your off hand attitude about vinyl was a bit condescending. you know, its all about the music. I am enthusiastic about sacd and am supporting it with my buying power. i am really trying to increase my inventory of pure dsd recordings to have a broader base of comparison.

the reissues have proven to be a good application of dsd technology and yield some of the same attributes of analog at its best contrasted with rbcd which rarely produces this effect. its unfortunate that many of the original analog tapes from decades ago are deteriorated due to poor storage and handling. even worse-the LOST or destroyed ones.

i dont have vinyl so elevated in status as to be blind to other improvements going on. with rbcd, i wanted it to be better, it just wasnt . dsd makes WAY more sense and listening has proved out a lot of the promise.

mega buck TTs DO make a difference but to be honest, it doesnt take MEGA bucks. a larger budget can make for a VERY nice sounding result. of course tonearms and cartridges are included in this reference. you obviously havent embraced analog and therefore dont have the knowledge and experience to comment about that particular subject.

a friend of mine had nicely optimized his rbcd setup and was quite resistant to upgrading the vinyl rig. long story short-a sota saphirre/mmt arm combo came into his possession and he nearly STOPPED listening to digital. and he also resisted sacd. he has since passed away so i never got to prove out its viability to him. i ASSURE you, i would have.

another factor of the vinyl process is the low cost of the software. MUCH used product is available in good shape and new product as well. and if you buy a couple of $1 vinyls that are in rotten condition or not music you like, you can throw it away. not so with those $15 digital mistakes.

record cleaners (machines etc) can make a large diff, i use the sink for now. i will get a vpi rcm sometime soon. the cleaning chemicals will wait, but the mechanical device is worth the outlay.

theres something DIRECT about the vinyl storage method. even different sounding cartridges (and they ALL sound different) sound right. more right than the rbcd medium, sacd has yet to prove out here. i am hopeful that it does. then all recordings will be available that way and prices will come down.

degradation. no doubt there is some each time ANY disc is played. it is not known what damage is done each replay digitally. perhaps minuscule properly done, the same can be said for vinyl. the records and stylus must be CLEAN, the cartridge/stylus in excellent shape. tonearm friction should be as low as humanly possible.

the fact that vinyl itself is pliable and not rigid as some other record materials were is a real benefit. it is said that its not the surface but just below it that is played on vinyl. think surface tension. all in all, 100 year old technology does a DAMN nice job.

information retrieval is handily accomplished by a relatively low high end tt. i was fortunate enough to get the same effect from a low end sacdp. and its rbcd perf is exemplary. its not always that way. a LOT of money can be expended getting ACCEPTABLE sound from rbcd.

spatial cue distortion. microphones hear differently than human ears do. they do so ruthlessly. we can concentrate on one part of the event, the mics hear it all. same with vision. imaging captured by the mics is addictive. this is the pinpoint imaging not available to anyone except the conductor of an orchestra.

i have to differ with you about the top octaves of vinyl reproduction, the airiness and similarity to what i have heard live exists in the vinyl medium.

so youre a pro, we all have our preferences, opinions, and biases, you included.

[DMK]

[QUOTE=hifitommy
so youre a pro, we all have our preferences, opinions, and biases, you included.[/QUOTE]


That sums up my post above. Even RE's don't agree on the final sound. Of the three I spoke to, one said rbcd was the ultimate, one favored vinyl and one favored DSD. It's all a matter of your preferences, biases and opinions. They all admitted that the multichannel capability of SACD and DVD-A would turn the tide in high rez digital's favor, however. But they all also said that with the preponderance of shoddy recording and mastering in the world today, multi channel would largely be a sonic mess. And for two channel, they all disagree with one another on which produces the best sound. I don't doubt Sir Terrence's experiences and that he heard what he did but I particularly don't doubt the RE's I spoke with since one is a personal friend and the other two are friends of friends. Since we all hear differently, etc etc and so on....

I meant to ask the vinyl guy about 45 RPM because NO two channel medium portrays the Bill Evans disc in a more real way than vinyl. None. If high rez can better it in multi channel, I'm on board. We'll see.

Record cleaners don't make a difference??? Perhaps to someone who has never used one! I've restored more crappy sounding LP's to good sounding ones with record cleaning than I've heard good sounding CD's - and by a WIDE margin!

Turntable rigs also make big differences. I've owned several, from my former Basis 2500 with Graham 2.0 and Benz Reference to the cheap Technics my sons now use to my last crappy table, an old Sony. Some of them aren't notably different sounding from each other (the high end from another high end, low end from another low end, etc) but comparing different levels of rigs would possibly be an ear opener for Sir Terrence.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

[QUOTE]=DMK][QUOTE=hifitommy
so youre a pro, we all have our preferences, opinions, and biases, you included.[/QUOTE]

I may have some personal biases that I act out on my system, but my clients usually cannot afford by biases or preferences in the studio, so I don't have any in that respect.

That sums up my post above. Even RE's don't agree on the final sound. .

Well, according to the stat's taken at surround 2003, RE generally DO agree about what constitutes good sound. What they don't always agree on is how to get there.

Of the three I spoke to, one said rbcd was the ultimate, one favored vinyl and one favored DSD.

Unfortunatly when you look at the consensus of a larger group, neither vinyl nor rbcd appear on the radar screen amoung the 500+ RE at the surround 2003 conference. Amoung those polled where at least 60-80 grammy award winning RE. Also, it seems that SACD is favored by 60% of those polled.

It's all a matter of your preferences, biases and opinions. They all admitted that the multichannel capability of SACD and DVD-A would turn the tide in high rez digital's favor, however.

With RE, its not a matter of THEIR preference. Its a matter of the clients preference. I have had no clients in the last 3-4 years come into the studio requesting a two channel mix. They are now aggressively requesting 5.1 channel mixes. For compatibility sake, they are asking for optimized mix downs of the 5.1 audio to two channel.

But they all also said that with the preponderance of shoddy recording and mastering in the world today, multi channel would largely be a sonic mess.

Now here is where I would take issue with all of them. These guys(or women) are acting like bad recording and mastering began with multichannel audio. Bad recording and mastering has been around as long as vinyl itself. Way back when, only Mercury, and Phillips were turning out decent recordings. The only way to REALLY enjoy Mercury's recordings was via three channel reel to reel, because cutting techniques were way less than perfect, as were the materials they used. It was only just before the introduction of the CD that recording on vinyl turned out pretty good.

During the quad era, bad recording and mastering was rampant. Which, aside from the lack of compatibility between formats lead to the demise of this format. So I think that it is slightly misleading to think that recording or mastering will make a mess of multichannel now. The real mess comes from the manufacturers who under pressure from the major studios didn't make the digital connections(coaxial) available to the consumer because of fear of digital to digital copying. This rendered bass management, and delay for time alignment(which is essential for optimizing 5.1) usless. This however is no fault of the individual RE.

There are some bad mixes out there, but there always was whether it was vinyl, CD or mutichannel as the release format.

And for two channel, they all disagree with one another on which produces the best sound. I don't doubt Sir Terrence's experiences and that he heard what he did but I particularly don't doubt the RE's I spoke with since one is a personal friend and the other two are friends of friends. Since we all hear differently, etc etc and so on.....

I personally do not think you will get a consensus for two channel delivery anymore. Two channel as a sole release format is dead. The results of two years worth of inquiries at surround 2002-2003, AES the last three years, and at too many conferences in the last three to four years to mention confirm that. Any two channel mixes created these days will be mixdowns from original 5.1 mixes. Based on inquires almost everyone is recording, mixing, mastering, and archiving in 5.1 channel 24/96khz. Downsampling, and downmixing occurs from there.

Record cleaners don't make a difference??? Perhaps to someone who has never used one! I've restored more crappy sounding LP's to good sounding ones with record cleaning than I've heard good sounding CD's - and by a WIDE margin! .....

I have used vinyl cleaners. They cannot RESTORE(which denotes making them back to new status). They can make them more playable, and listenable than before, but you cannot restore any medium where the pickup touches the medium itself. Once the deterioration occurs, the damage is permanent. The best one can do is lessen the audiblilty of the damage, which isn't always possible.

I would suggest that you haven't really heard enough really good CD's, because they are out there.

Turntable rigs also make big differences. I've owned several, from my former Basis 2500 with Graham 2.0 and Benz Reference to the cheap Technics my sons now use to my last crappy table, an old Sony. Some of them aren't notably different sounding from each other (the high end from another high end, low end from another low end, etc) but comparing different levels of rigs would possibly be an ear opener for Sir Terrence.

Just so you understand, my assumptions don't come from pure, ignorant lack of experience . I used to own a custom built Rockport Sirus III about 4 years ago(had to eat beans and rice for a month!), which at the time was considered to be the best TT ever made. But even this rig only equalled my Wadia transport, and D/A converter with a well done PCM mix and it cost about 60g's more than my Wadia setup. So I am VERY familar with good turntables, and how different tone arms and cartridges can make them sound. However, it takes a 75g high end TT to equal a 15k high end digital setup. And setup for the TT was MUCH more difficult. Most people do not even own a TT that cost 10g's let alone a 75g one.

After reading some of the posts here, I really appreciate the effort some of you guys put into getting good sound from vinyl. I also find it rather refreshing to see folks willing to spend for quality, as opposed to the "do it on the cheap" that I find in my favorite forum(hometheater). I can fully understand your aprehension regarding multichannel if you base it on the average cheap" hometheater in a box" representation. But there is a whole world out there of high quality 5.1 equipment out there that is able to "wow" even the most ardent audiohile. I was one of them. I think to draw from a few experience(rather bad one I can guess) and make a conclusion on those experiences does multichannel a disservice. If you take some time to really seek out a good demo, I think your minds would be changed. I don't expect anyone here to give up their vinyl(you guys probably have as large a collection of vinyl as I have of DVD-V, DVD-A 's and SACD disc's) but at least you have a better understanding(and representation) than a poor HTIB as an example of VERY good 5.1 audio

p.s. Any measureable deviation from flat that is measured in cables, makes this cable not read for prime time, and not allowed on my mixes or in my system.

[DMK]

I have no doubt that SACD was favored by 60% of the RE's. I'm surprised it wasn't a higher percentage. We're never going back to vinyl because it isn't convenient and most people concerned with sound quality aren't taken in by RBCD.

None of the three RE's said that there hasn't been foul sounding recordings in the past. There have been plenty and they all agree. However, they feel, as do I, that the CD era has more than its share with the concern for getting the product out with a minimum of cost and fuss. With the large collection I own from both the LP era and the CD era, I find that indisputable... at least if roughly 4000 CD's and 4000 LP's is any indication. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but it's a lot of circumstancial evidence!

I have to disagree that "it was just before the introduction of the CD that vinyl recording turned out pretty good". Overall, that was at least among the worst, if not THE worst, years for sonics in vinyl, at least in my experience.

Thinking that multichannel as a format is somehow going to solve the problems with recorded sound seems a bit of a naive stance for an RE. Bad recordings are bad in two channel or four or 5.1. There isn't much concern for good quality recordings now (excluding the RE's - they'd all KILL me if I didn't qualify that statement!) - what makes you think that will change with the advent of multichannel? In spite of that, I'm cautiously excited about multichannel audio. I'm looking forward to auditioning it and I'm saving my pennies.

Your suggestion that I haven't heard enough good sounding CD's is accurate. As I mentioned, I own roughly 4000 and I have no complaint with about 300 of them (SWAG). Yes, they are out there - just not enough of them, at least not in the music I listen to which is mostly jazz, with rock, blues and classical thrown in. Perhaps rap and country produce the best sounding CD's. If so, I'm afraid I'll never hear them.

I'd eat a years worth of rice and beans to own a Rockport Sirius. I'd have killer sound in my house but the foul air would mean I wouldn't be able to show it off!

Again, I'm not anti-multichannel. I think it's the old audiophile guard that rejects it out of hand and even those folks are slowly becoming interested. Lastly, as much as I ***** about the sound of CD's, I continue to buy them because if I didn't, things such as Peter Brotzmann's "Funny Rat" would pass me by... and THAT can't happen under ANY circumstances!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I have no doubt that SACD was favored by 60% of the RE's. I'm surprised it wasn't a higher percentage. We're never going back to vinyl because it isn't convenient and most people concerned with sound quality aren't taken in by RBCD.

It probably would have been more if it wasn't for guys like myself. I have no favorite between these two formats. They are both excellent to me, and I enjoy working with them both. There are a large crowd of folks that DO like RBCD. They are usually the ones that use external D/A conversion rather than the CD players internal converters.(I am amoung this crowd) I think one of the biggest problems with RBCD has more to do with the hardware than with the software(though as I said earliers, its easier to blame the recording than to be honest about our equipment.) You will only get as much quality in terms of DAC as it takes to meet a price point.

None of the three RE's said that there hasn't been foul sounding recordings in the past. There have been plenty and they all agree. However, they feel, as do I, that the CD era has more than its share with the concern for getting the product out with a minimum of cost and fuss.

With pop music and some jazz music this was the case. With classical music, alot more care went into getting good sound, though sometimes bad microphone position, wrong microphones, once again bad DAC, too much gain, not enough gain often betrayed the means to the end. But rather than just generalizing, I would have to say it highly depended on the label.

With the large collection I own from both the LP era and the CD era, I find that indisputable... at least if roughly 4000 CD's and 4000 LP's is any indication. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but it's a lot of circumstancial evidence!.

I would say that if you had that many bad sounding CD's, I would check my equipment, or the acoustics of my room.

I have to disagree that "it was just before the introduction of the CD that vinyl recording turned out pretty good". Overall, that was at least among the worst, if not THE worst, years for sonics in vinyl, at least in my experience.

I was referring to the recording of the smaller niche labels, not the big congloms. Mobile fidelity, and Telarc were producing some of the best sounding classical music LP I have every heard.

Thinking that multichannel as a format is somehow going to solve the problems with recorded sound seems a bit of a naive stance for an RE. Bad recordings are bad in two channel or four or 5.1. There isn't much concern for good quality recordings now (excluding the RE's - they'd all KILL me if I didn't qualify that statement!) - what makes you think that will change with the advent of multichannel?.

It has changed. With two channels you can hide alot of things in the mix. You can gate out errors, compress without to much penalty, and mix so much into a small funnel and coverup things. With high rez 5.1 there is no where to hide. A bad sound sticks out like a sore thumb because everything is so spread out. Limiting, and gating if not carefully done is very audible. Editing and any other post DSP processing is also very audible if not done well. According to some of the comments from RE and surround 2003 DVD-A and SACD has made RE take a look at the way the record from the top, all the way down.

I'd eat a years worth of rice and beans to own a Rockport Sirius. I'd have killer sound in my house but the foul air would mean I wouldn't be able to show it off!

Now this is were it pays to be a latin man, I was born to consume beans and rice without the residual effects of their digestion. Now milk is a problem though. OMG is the Rockport one serious piece of equipment. I had to crate it up and put in storage for a while until I build my new mixing/screening room. There is just no place to put it in my temporary digs.

[jbangelfish]

Nice of you to come down to earth for a moment. You seem to have a very good understanding of what you speak of and that's always good. Hopefully, you have some understanding of what the vinyl crowd complains about with so many poor CD's in their collections. As we move up to SACD, it appears that people are much happier with the sound and even of their RBCD on SACD players. At least something seems to be going in the right direction. I only hope that they won't forget about all of us who use two channel systems to enjoy our music and just produce crap for us so we will someday be forced to move into 5.1 if we want any new music.
Many of us have several thousand LP's and are not likely to ever get rid of them because it would be impossible to replace them with something else. Most of us have found when we bought CD remakes of old vinyl that they were absolutely terrible. It doesn't really matter to us whose fault it is, it just makes for a bad experience and leaves a bad taste in one's mouth, or ears. This is not always the case and some have been redone very well but they seem few and far between.
My only experience with 5.1 has been the typical system that nearly everyone seems to have in their home today for watching movies. For some reason, most of these people seem to think that as long as they can shake the walls with a subwoofer and some semblance of music comes from the speakers, that they have a fine audio system. Many of them have never heard vinyl or have never heard a decent stereo system, period. For these folks who are apparently the majority of the world, their 1k or 2k HT system is all they will ever need and are perfectly happy. Fine for them.
On the other hand, I don't doubt that what you say about a quality 5.1 system which plays music that was made for it should be able to sound excellent. I just can't throw out all of my old music and start over and neither can most of us here. There are people over an Audio Asylum who have 10,000 or even 20,000 LP's. I don't think they will go for this either. If money is no object, then they can have both and buy new 5.1 music but I don't anticipate it for myself. I'm really quite satisfied with what two channel does for me when it's done well and I have enough recorded music to last me for the rest of my life. Still, I buy more. Must be a disease.
Anyway, thanks for dropping in and please don't forget about us old audiophiles who plan to enjoy two channel music forever. Get your friends to make some good recordings for us and we'll be happy, quiet, and you'll find us listening to music.
Bill

[Beckman]

Anyway, thanks for dropping in and please don't forget about us old audiophiles who plan to enjoy two channel music forever. Get your friends to make some good recordings for us and we'll be happy, quiet, and you'll find us listening to music.
Bill

Well put! Its the music that matters, not how many speakers you have or how much money you have invested in stereo equipment.

[DMK]

I don't think anyone is suggesting we sell off all our vinyl - and if anyone on this site does, PLEASE contact me BEFORE you list it to the general public! .

I think multichannel is the future of audio, good, bad or indifferent. I think it could be a good thing and, if so, that's the format we will buy our NEW music in. That doesn't deny the validity of our current collection.

In the future, I will still be hitting the used vinyl racks and will likely be able to pick up 15-20 "new" LP's with the same money I'll have to spend on one 5.1 SACD. Thank goodness most vinyl has excellent sound!

[Chas Underhay]

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.

I do beg to differ old boy but to most of us, this means everything. We either listen the music of our choice on whatever format it happens to be on (for better of for worse), listen to whatever the music business sees fit provide, at it's own convenience or sit there in bloody silence.

I suppose there may be those whose percieved cullinary standards are so high that they would starve themselves to death simply because the available cuisine was not perfect, not this bugger, I'll either shoot something or drag it out of the water before I go hungry.

Now, I'm off to listen to some cool records acompanied by a warn English beer or three.

Chas