A marriage of cd and analog technology? [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : A marriage of cd and analog technology?



phileserver39
08-24-2010, 03:06 PM
Hi AR. I have had an idea for a while but have thought that it was too simplistic and must be missing something fundamental in nature. I would appreciate your input...

The laser is a very precise instrument- it is used to accurately read the 0's and 1's on a compact disc which is spinning at high speed. Analog rules because it there is no need to sample or "dumb down" the signal to 0's and 1's. Why not marry the two technologies?

After all, the problem with analog lay with the quality of the needle, cartridge, tone arm, platter, etc. Any physical contact between the needle and record, for instance, will ensure that the next time the record is played, it will not sound EXACTLY the same.

If we could use lasers to read an analog format I think that we could get the best of both worlds. Your thoughts?

tube fan
08-24-2010, 03:11 PM
Great idea, but it might be hard to invent a laser cartridge.

JoeE SP9
08-24-2010, 03:25 PM
It's been done. Full review at the link below. It's $21,000.

http://hometheaterreview.com/the-finial-laser-turntable-reviewed/

phileserver39
08-24-2010, 03:29 PM
Great idea, but it might be hard to invent a laser cartridge.
I think that you wouldn't have to make a cartridge. Why not have the "housing" for the laser lay within a bridge like structure over the spinning analog disc?

phileserver39
08-24-2010, 03:41 PM
Thanks for that link. I would imagine, though, that in much the same way that a top of the line CD player from 1990 has not only come down in price but has also drastically superior in quality, that this type of technology would have done the same.

TheHills44060
08-24-2010, 04:17 PM
ELP Laser Turntable. There used to be ads for in the back of steroephile all the time.

http://www.audioturntable.com/purchase/index.html

Mr Peabody
08-24-2010, 04:39 PM
I knew it had been tried, thanks for the link JoeE, you'd think if it was cost effective they might have tried to market it again with the increase in popularity of vinyl. I don't think it would ever be mainstream because it still wouldn't be as convenient as CD or downloading.

Smokey
08-24-2010, 06:31 PM
After all, the problem with analog lay with the quality of the needle, cartridge, tone arm, platter, etc.

You forgot to mention lower dynamics also :)

Even if lasor is used instead of cartridge, the low dynamics which is inherit to vinyl still can not be over come.

Mr Peabody
08-24-2010, 06:53 PM
I really think "dynamic range" is over emphasized. I sometimes wonder if the lower dynamic is part of what people like about vinyl. And, if it was a big deal it should stick out like a sore thumb on mp3 but people don't seem to mind. DR is something that sticks out on a meter and some of us can pick up on it easily enough by listening, however, when comparing CD to vinyl I just don't think it's that big of an issue by just listening. Me personally, I don't think it's a big deal with vinyl but it took me a long time to get used to listening to mp3 on portable devices and I refuse to listen on better equipment. Sometimes I'll make an exception plugging into the car system, it's horrible on home systems, the compression annoys me.

Another consideration and could be why the expense, reading analog with a laser I believe would require it to be converted to digital and back to analog again. The more conversions the more chance of problems.

RGA
08-24-2010, 08:46 PM
Dynamic range is not a problem witha good turntable rig. Good is not necessarily the same as expensive. CD and Vinyl theoretical advantages are secondary to the quality of the recordings and the playback devices to get the information off the disc.

In a strange way you could argue that Laserdisc is an analog video format while its replacements are digital. And interestingly enough some Laserdisc folks argued the video quality of LD over DVD. I have to say I liked a number of the LD movies over the early DVDs I purchased - particularly Jaws which seemed to have better overall lighting and contrast to the DVD version - both players were Pioneers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laserdisc

Smokey
08-24-2010, 08:49 PM
"dynamic range" is something that sticks out on a meter and some of us can pick up on it easily enough by listening, however, when comparing CD to vinyl I just don't think it's that big of an issue by just listening.

I think we need go back in history a bit as to bring shortcomings of analog more into focus.

I don't know if you remember when CD was introduced or not, but there was alot negative comments on its sonic quality that was not much better than vinyl. The best example of that would be the first Led Zepplin albums release on CDs. There was alot of complain that CD sound was flat, compressed and lifeless. Believe me, I had a CD of Physical Graffiti.

Later we found out that record company was using the same master that was used for vinyl pressing for CD also. And CD sound worse since it magnified the shortcomings of master tapes that had low dynamics and limited frequency response. It was only when Jimmy Page himself supervise the whole CD remastering that truly made vinyl a medium fidelity as compare with CD. Thus vinyl free fall :)

bfalls
08-25-2010, 05:42 AM
I worked for CBS tape facility during the first Laserdisc revolution. You remember the ones in the cartridges you loaded into the player so you didn't touch the disc. I remember they were very unstable and skipped frequently.

We started replicating discs in our, new at the time, facility in Carollton Ga. We did use the same masters used for tape at the time. The high-end of the frequency range on the masters in general was limited because at the 40X speed we recorded at was very close to the bias frequency. When the two peaks aligned it would cause a "beat frequency" anomaly on the tape. I'm not sure, but I believe frequency response was -4db at 20Khz. I believe the dynamic range on cassette was limited to 60db, compared to the 100+db possible seen now.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
08-25-2010, 07:59 AM
I think we need go back in history a bit as to bring shortcomings of analog more into focus.

I don't know if you remember when CD was introduced or not, but there was alot negative comments on its sonic quality that was not much better than vinyl. The best example of that would be the first Led Zepplin albums release on CDs. There was alot of complain that CD sound was flat, compressed and lifeless. Believe me, I had a CD of Physical Graffiti.

Later we found out that record company was using the same master that was used for vinyl pressing for CD also. And CD sound worse since it magnified the shortcomings of master tapes that had low dynamics and limited frequency response. It was only when Jimmy Page himself supervise the whole CD remastering that truly made vinyl a medium fidelity as compare with CD. Thus vinyl free fall :)

This problem persisted for years after the CD was introduced. CD really had a bad start in comparison to SACD and DVD-A. Ringing brickwall anti-aliasing filters, poor mixing, poor mastering, recycled analog masters, and the beat goes on. By the 90's, things were dramatically improving, and by the end of the decade, CD truly found its stride.

If you have a Blu ray player, you can already hear digital and analog combined. 2L has two recordings using the DXD recording process, and it sounds very much like analog, but with surround sound added to the equation.

The DXD recording format is much like analog in that it is sampling so frequently so much information, it is almost continuous like analog. It sounds like excellent analog, but it beats the hell out of analogs specs. If you have the equipment to hear the raw DXD data stream, it will blow your mind. Even if it is downconverted to 24/192khz, it still sounds analog(depending on your equipment), and still trashes the specs of analog.

DXD is truly the best of the analog sound in digital form.

Smoke, the CD was introduced in 1983 to the public.

RGA
08-25-2010, 08:51 AM
I think one of the biggest reasons for analog support was the mishandling of CD and the slogans of Perfect Sound forever. You didn't need perfect listening pitch to tell you that a good turntable systems beat the ever loving crap out of CD and their terrible players for more than a decade. Audiophiles who owned good rigs were not convinced and a decade later many still were not convinced. And when a new digital format comes out with "this is much better than CD...." you can't really blame the vinylphiles for being highly skeptical. I auditioned SACD at a "special event" with the top Sony player and a surround set-up with Martin Logan and top of the line Bryston and heard a live SACD disc and could hear a guitar behind my head - it was interesting but completely fake and artificial sounding to me. Plus it required a HUGE outlay of cash because now you had to buy 5-6 loudspeakers instead of two to get that artificial sound. They put on a few other discs - Hotel California particularly stunk up the joint on SACD and a few less than memorable classical pieces.

So I like many decided that SACD was another perfect sound forever gimmick - not being able to copy them - ahh I surmised that this was the main reason it was brought out - charge $30 instead of $12.99 and you can't make a copy of it. Protects the industry and artists more than being about good sound quality. Then I started to read reviews of people who had $5-$10,000 SACD machines - audiophiles with excellent ears who were also reviewers preferring the sound of certain CD players and their technologies over their own SACD machines. And those CD players are still beaten by Vinyl despite the specs when it comes down to sound. Euphony, distortion, noise whatever it still "sounds more natural" provided that the turntable is up to the task. Most are not and I agree with UHF magazine that noted that turntables start to move away at over $2500. So i am not in the camp that says a $500 turntable beats $5,000 CD players - they don't. I had one and it doesn't beat my CD player (It was a NAD 533 which is a Rega P2 clone made by Rega for NAD).

That said the DXD/DSD at CES is something else - the problem is that no average person can go and demo this anywhere and where do you buy the software - online and unhear and untried? That's a lot to ask of people who were not convinced by CD or SACD.

And contrary to pupular belief there are many makers still trying to make turntables better and are working to make the LPs better but obviously there is less time and effort here but if there were who knows how much better it could have become - maybe there would be a Super Audio 45 today!!

Audiophiles and DJs kept vinyl going and it has seen a steady rise in sales the last 5 years doubling the previous year's sales each year. Overall sales are pitiful compared to CD but it has never left. Interestingly some artists came out with Vinyl only albums with downloadable MP3 versions for owners. In a sense vinyl is a better protection against copying because to copy a vinyl requires real time copying and the gear to get it to sound good will be pricey.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
08-25-2010, 09:03 AM
That said the DXD/DSD at CES is something else - the problem is that no average person can go and demo this anywhere and where do you buy the software - online and unhear and untried? That's a lot to ask of people who were not convinced by CD or SACD.

You really do not need to hear the raw DXD stream to appreciate the quality it has. 2L has done several recordings using this technology and has downconverted them(losslessly) to 24/192khz PCM for release on Blu ray. The discs can be purchased on Amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/2L-NORDIC-AUDIOPHILE-REFERENCE-RECORD/dp/B0025ZITT2

You can also find some of these recordings on SACD as well.

RGA
08-25-2010, 09:17 AM
You really do not need to hear the raw DXD stream to appreciate the quality it has. 2L has done several recordings using this technology and has downconverted them(losslessly) to 24/192khz PCM for release on Blu ray. The discs can be purchased on Amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/2L-NORDIC-AUDIOPHILE-REFERENCE-RECORD/dp/B0025ZITT2

You can also find some of these recordings on SACD as well.

I have an order going out today for a bunch of music and can order this 2l: the Nordic Sound BluRay but my machine does not play SACD. The disc shows the SACD symbol at the bottom left. So can a PS3 without SACD play a blu-ray with SACD logo and will it take advantage of the 24/192khz PCM?

I would prefer music with a comparable. For instance I have Dark Side of the Moon on vinyl and CD - it makes more sense to have the same album on all the formats to compare them.

RGA
08-25-2010, 09:21 AM
No I see that it says Compact disc on the liner notes that tells you the song listings. So it should work for CD encoding. LOL - there are too many freaking formats!!

Sir Terrence the Terrible
08-25-2010, 09:44 AM
I have an order going out today for a bunch of music and can order this 2l: the Nordic Sound BluRay but my machine does not play SACD. The disc shows the SACD symbol at the bottom left. So can a PS3 without SACD play a blu-ray with SACD logo and will it take advantage of the 24/192khz PCM?

In the case you will find a SACD copy and a PCM copy as well.


I would prefer music with a comparable. For instance I have Dark Side of the Moon on vinyl and CD - it makes more sense to have the same album on all the formats to compare them.

Agreed. But just like any high resolution format, everything starts with Classical music(it benefit more from it than any other genre of music), and then works its way outward to other genre's of music. Neil Diamond is also on the Blu ray format, and from what I have gathered, other artists are headed to the format as well.

basite
08-25-2010, 10:14 AM
You forgot to mention lower dynamics also :)

Even if lasor is used instead of cartridge, the low dynamics which is inherit to vinyl still can not be over come.


bullocks. true, a cd has a dynamic range of what is it, 120 db, and vinyl "only" 84 db. True, you only forgot to mention that not a single recording comes even close to such numbers. The highest dynamic range I found in a recording was like, 30-40db, and that was exceptional, every single pop, and most other popular genres don't even have audible dynamic range, everything is compressed. And recordings that do have some dynamic range, are still well under 50 db...

CD performs better in numbers, nothing more.

RGA
08-25-2010, 10:50 AM
basite

we're a numbers culture whether you can see or hear the results. Cameras with 10 mega pixels are not necessarily better than 3 mega pixels because it always comes down to the quality of the Lens. A great lens and 3.2 mega pixels is better than a crappy lens and 20 megapixels. But the number is better. Wow and flutter on my turntable is inaudible. The numbers won't be as good as my CD player's spec - but there is no question which sounds better. There was question which sounds better when I was using a Rega P2 clone however. Like a camera it comes down to the "quality" of the device spinning the disc or taking the pictures and less about the numbers.

RGA
08-25-2010, 10:59 AM
In the case you will find a SACD copy and a PCM copy as well.



Agreed. But just like any high resolution format, everything starts with Classical music(it benefit more from it than any other genre of music), and then works its way outward to other genre's of music. Neil Diamond is also on the Blu ray format, and from what I have gathered, other artists are headed to the format as well.

I have another problem here. The PS3 does not have audio outputs. It has HDMI which my amp does not accept. I've had receivers in the past (top iof the line Pioneer Elite and now a Marantz) and musically they're horrible. Arggh.

basite
08-25-2010, 11:03 AM
basite

we're a numbers culture whether you can see or hear the results. Cameras with 10 mega pixels are not necessarily better than 3 mega pixels because it always comes down to the quality of the Lens. A great lens and 3.2 mega pixels is better than a crappy lens and 20 megapixels. But the number is better. Wow and flutter on my turntable is inaudible. The numbers won't be as good as my CD player's spec - but there is no question which sounds better. There was question which sounds better when I was using a Rega P2 clone however. Like a camera it comes down to the "quality" of the device spinning the disc or taking the pictures and less about the numbers.


very true also,

but then we give numbers:

the brick wall at 20 khz, and 20 hz for example with cd's, while vinyl goes far below 20 hz, and very far above 20khz, without problems. I know, the first reaction you'll get from people is that you can't hear those, I could argue about that, while you cannot hear the 30 db extra dynamic range, which isn't used.

RGA
08-25-2010, 11:20 AM
very true also,

but then we give numbers:

the brick wall at 20 khz, and 20 hz for example with cd's, while vinyl goes far below 20 hz, and very far above 20khz, without problems. I know, the first reaction you'll get from people is that you can't hear those, I could argue about that, while you cannot hear the 30 db extra dynamic range, which isn't used.

And it may also be why the best CD players that I have heard don't used any Brickwall filters and actually let more of the disc get to the preamp. And what do you know these CD players tend to always be described as more analog sounding, more real, etc etc. However, they don't look as nice on the graph. Again do we want to be a slave to the numbers or our ears? I prefer being a slave to the ears since that is what I use to listen. I am listening to such a CD player right now and my other player is so unbelievably horrible in comparison. To me that is also key when evaluating any gear. How much better does one thing sound over another. Like the other thread in the analog forum - CD players also tend to sound a lot more similar to each other than they ought to. Going from a $500 TT to a $2,000 TT it is a massive striking very noticable difference. Going from a $700 Arcam Alpha 7 to an over $2k Alpha 9 not much difference. Too subtle and no one will pass a DBT kind of subtle. For 4 times the money it should be a wow strimking kind of improvement not a "I need to have it in my house for 2 months to know for sure" kind of improvement.

phileserver39
08-25-2010, 04:03 PM
You really do not need to hear the raw DXD stream to appreciate the quality it has. 2L has done several recordings using this technology and has downconverted them(losslessly) to 24/192khz PCM for release on Blu ray. The discs can be purchased on Amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/2L-NORDIC-AUDIOPHILE-REFERENCE-RECORD/dp/B0025ZITT2

You can also find some of these recordings on SACD as well.

Hello Sir Terrance! If I may ask, is there a difference in DSD or DXD from SACD or DVD-Audio? I have a Pioneer DVD player which plays both hi-def formats. Thanks!

Mr Peabody
08-25-2010, 05:15 PM
RGA, I know what you are trying to say but there is a noticeable difference between the Alpha 7 & 9, I'd bet money any one could hear it in a DBT.

There are a couple of different approaches to 5 channel music, one being what you hear from Flaming Lips, Porcupine Tree or BT, where they intentionally use the 5 channels creatively for effect but there are also very good 5 channel recordings such as a Blu Ray Jazz sampler where the channels are used mostly for ambience. From the listing at Bluray.com it appears to be a growing selection of Blu music.

The thing about having a wide frequency response it allows for harmonics.

Smokey
08-25-2010, 06:40 PM
The highest dynamic range I found in a recording was like, 30-40db, and that was exceptional, every single pop, and most other popular genres don't even have audible dynamic range, everything is compressed.

I can't argue with you there as it seem compression problem have gotten worse. But that still does not win argument as to superiority of vinyl over CD. If a CD remastering is done right, vinyl can not touch it in terms of dynamic, noise and frequecy response.

David Bowie CDs from Rykodisc is good example of how wondefrul CD sound is when remastering is done right.

Mr Peabody
08-25-2010, 07:25 PM
Smokey, CDP's frequency response are 20-20khz, a phono cartridge frequency response can go much wider. Here's a couple examples and they aren't even the extreme; http://www.soundhifi.com/denon%20phono%20cartridges.html

JoeE SP9
08-25-2010, 08:06 PM
I was poking around (looking for something else) and found this nice shot of the Finial ELP-1 Laser LPplayer


http://i615.photobucket.com/albums/tt231/JoeESP9/elp1.jpg

Smokey
08-26-2010, 07:56 PM
Smokey, CDP's frequency response are 20-20khz, a phono cartridge frequency response can go much wider. Here's a couple examples and they aren't even the extreme; http://www.soundhifi.com/denon%20phono%20cartridges.html

Impressing numbers, but as I said in my first post, you are limited by vinyl itself.

Frequecy response of typical vinyl is probably around 50-15 khz. Most signal above and below those limits is likely to be noise (rumble and hum below 50-60Hz. Clicks, pops, hiss and harmonics above 15,000kHz). And also as an added bonus, you will lose high frequecy response gradually as groove move inward due to speed velocity change.

basite
08-27-2010, 04:17 AM
I can't argue with you there as it seem compression problem have gotten worse. But that still does not win argument as to superiority of vinyl over CD. If a CD remastering is done right, vinyl can not touch it in terms of dynamic, noise and frequecy response.

David Bowie CDs from Rykodisc is good example of how wondefrul CD sound is when remastering is done right.


ture, there can be some noise on vinyl, although good quality vinyl, and good quality TT's and cart's are waaay quieter than other vinyl.

and on remastering: well, that's what they do with remastering, they make it sound different/better, including "more dynamics" (sometimes, exaggerated dynamics, actually). and then they put it on cd, and they also remaster it for a cd, if they were to remaster it, and do it properly and then put it on well pressed vinyl, it is just as dynamic sounding as the cd. Just less harsh, more natural, and fuller.

Mr Peabody
08-27-2010, 02:14 PM
Smokey, do you have a reference for LP's high frequency averaging 15khz? I've never heard that before and 15khz is about the limit for FM and LP's to my ears far surpass FM.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
08-27-2010, 02:30 PM
Hello Sir Terrance! If I may ask, is there a difference in DSD or DXD from SACD or DVD-Audio? I have a Pioneer DVD player which plays both hi-def formats. Thanks!

DSD is the raw stream which is the basis for SACD. DXD is the highest recording resolution every acheived, and can be losslessly transferred to SACD and DVD-A. With DVD-A, you can only use two channels of 24/192khz, and 5.1 channels at 24/96khz. With DSD(and therefore SACD) you can use all 5.1 channels. With the Blu ray format you can use 5.1 channels of 24/192khz, and 7.1 channels of 24/96khz PCM audio.

The pioneer unfortunately turns the DSD stream into PCM so that bass management can be used. This degrades the audio a bit - which is audible when compared to a player that can process the raw DSD stream.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
08-27-2010, 02:40 PM
And it may also be why the best CD players that I have heard don't used any Brickwall filters and actually let more of the disc get to the preamp. And what do you know these CD players tend to always be described as more analog sounding, more real, etc etc. However, they don't look as nice on the graph. Again do we want to be a slave to the numbers or our ears? I prefer being a slave to the ears since that is what I use to listen. I am listening to such a CD player right now and my other player is so unbelievably horrible in comparison. To me that is also key when evaluating any gear. How much better does one thing sound over another. Like the other thread in the analog forum - CD players also tend to sound a lot more similar to each other than they ought to. Going from a $500 TT to a $2,000 TT it is a massive striking very noticable difference. Going from a $700 Arcam Alpha 7 to an over $2k Alpha 9 not much difference. Too subtle and no one will pass a DBT kind of subtle. For 4 times the money it should be a wow strimking kind of improvement not a "I need to have it in my house for 2 months to know for sure" kind of improvement.

Brickwall filters went by the wayside in the middle 90's. With oversampling being used at both recording and playback, there is no need for them anymore. Plus, prefiltering already happens during the recording process via the digital recorders anti alising filters, so a filterless CD player will probably sound no better than an oversampling one.


the brick wall at 20 khz, and 20 hz for example with cd's, while vinyl goes far below 20 hz, and very far above 20khz, without problems

Vinyl does not go below 20hz, as there is no way a stylus would stay in the groove at that frequency. The CD format does not have brickwall filters at 20hz, it is at 5hz. Vinyl barely goes above 20khz, and probably peaks at somewhere around 25khz, of which the difference between 22.5khz of CD, and 25khz of vinyl represents about a single note on a scale.

Woochifer
08-27-2010, 03:55 PM
Hi AR. I have had an idea for a while but have thought that it was too simplistic and must be missing something fundamental in nature. I would appreciate your input...

The laser is a very precise instrument- it is used to accurately read the 0's and 1's on a compact disc which is spinning at high speed. Analog rules because it there is no need to sample or "dumb down" the signal to 0's and 1's. Why not marry the two technologies?

After all, the problem with analog lay with the quality of the needle, cartridge, tone arm, platter, etc. Any physical contact between the needle and record, for instance, will ensure that the next time the record is played, it will not sound EXACTLY the same.

If we could use lasers to read an analog format I think that we could get the best of both worlds. Your thoughts?

Been there, done that. Early on in the development of the CD format, there were plenty of discussions about whether the CD would be an analog optical format, similar to the Laserdisc format, which already used an analog FM audio carrier.

As others have mentioned, there are already laser turntables that play LPs.

Mr Peabody
08-27-2010, 03:59 PM
I don't know if it is technically "brick wall" filtering but current CDP's absolutely still have filtering. My player is a current model and I actually can choose between two different filter slopes. I really believe this filtering is how manufacturers are able to achieve certain sound characteristics they like for their unit to have.

Woochifer
08-27-2010, 04:34 PM
I think one of the biggest reasons for analog support was the mishandling of CD and the slogans of Perfect Sound forever. You didn't need perfect listening pitch to tell you that a good turntable systems beat the ever loving crap out of CD and their terrible players for more than a decade.

I see that you've gone back to the wild broad brushed generalizations. Basically, my view has been unchanged -- there are so many variables to account for, particularly with vinyl playback, that it's ridiculous to makes these generalizations. You have to scrutinize the turntable setup, the condition of the stylus, the tonal characteristics of the cartridge, the mastering and press quality of the LP itself, the preamp stepup, etc.

Vinyl playback has a huge range of sound quality that you're totally discounting here. When I made the mistake of switching the cartridge on my turntable to a Sumiko Black Pearl, I was hard pressed to find an LP playback that I preferred to the CD. Now that I bit the bullet and went back to the Ortofon OM30 (upwards of $250+), my vinyl sounds great and preferable to the CD playback in MANY but not ALL cases.

With CDs, you have much higher sound quality at the low end. That's just undeniable. I lived through the era of portable record changers, and all-in-one systems with the droptop BSR and Garrard spindle spinners. Play one of those systems and tell me how superior the LP sounds with a straight face. No low end CD player sounds as bad as a low end record player, and the low end is coming back with a vengeance with the flood of USB turntables now on the market (also bringing the return of fixed head cartridges, spherical stylii, nonadjustable counterweights and tracking force -- what's next? the return of the penny taped to the headshell to keep the records from skipping?).


Audiophiles who owned good rigs were not convinced and a decade later many still were not convinced. And when a new digital format comes out with "this is much better than CD...." you can't really blame the vinylphiles for being highly skeptical. I auditioned SACD at a "special event" with the top Sony player and a surround set-up with Martin Logan and top of the line Bryston and heard a live SACD disc and could hear a guitar behind my head - it was interesting but completely fake and artificial sounding to me. Plus it required a HUGE outlay of cash because now you had to buy 5-6 loudspeakers instead of two to get that artificial sound. They put on a few other discs - Hotel California particularly stunk up the joint on SACD and a few less than memorable classical pieces.

So, you're discounting an entire approach to audio on the basis on one audio demonstration?

Just with my own modest surround setup, I can play an SACD from SF Symphony's Mahler series and get a more representative playback of the audience experience inside Davies Symphony Hall than the two-channel playback can. It's all dependent on the mix, and having sat in many different locations within Davies Hall, I can pick out exactly what "position" within the hall that the 5.1 mix is aiming to reproduce. The two-channel mixes don't even come close to that -- yes, they sound quite good and if you're unfamiliar with Davies Hall's acoustics, you might even think it sounds better, depending on your biases. But, because I know how the orchestra actually sounds inside the hall, to me the two-channel mixes are more of a caricature of the live experience than an accurate reproduction of it.


So I like many decided that SACD was another perfect sound forever gimmick - not being able to copy them - ahh I surmised that this was the main reason it was brought out - charge $30 instead of $12.99 and you can't make a copy of it. Protects the industry and artists more than being about good sound quality.

If both the SF Symphony and London Symphony are continuing to issue 5.1 SACDs natively recorded in DSD on their own record labels, how's it not about sound quality? Anyone who wants to copy the disc, can simply rip the CD layer. Or is this news to you, that SACDs are typically hybrid discs that are playable on regular CD players?

I've never seen a $30 SACD with a $13 CD equivalent. Please point out an example.


And contrary to pupular belief there are many makers still trying to make turntables better and are working to make the LPs better but obviously there is less time and effort here but if there were who knows how much better it could have become - maybe there would be a Super Audio 45 today!!

And in case you haven't noticed, the price for a typical new LP is over $20. The state of the art in vinyl often comes down to the skill of the lathe cutter and the quality control steps used in the mastering and pressing processes.

Bob Ludwig, generally considered one of the top LP mastering engineers in the business, has consistently stated over the years that you have to tweak with the LP to get it to sound right. But, he also says that under no circumstances will you ever get an LP playback to sound transparent to original source. Keep in mind that this is someone whose work I have a great deal of respect for, and in many cases, the LPs that he mastered subjectively sound much better than the CDs (for example, the LPs he mastered for Rush). By comparison, he has stated that high res digital (he prefers 192/24 PCM) can sound indistinguishable from the original master.


Audiophiles and DJs kept vinyl going and it has seen a steady rise in sales the last 5 years doubling the previous year's sales each year. Overall sales are pitiful compared to CD but it has never left.

It never left, but that doesn't mean that it will ever amount to anything other than a niche. The only reason why sales are now coming back is because more titles are getting reissued. You still barely get any new releases coming out on vinyl. And all of these LPs are getting released because the record companies turned the LP into a low volume, high margin, limited release product that can cost upwards of $30 each (in contrast to those $30 SACDs you talk about, I have seen $30 LPs).


Interestingly some artists came out with Vinyl only albums with downloadable MP3 versions for owners. In a sense vinyl is a better protection against copying because to copy a vinyl requires real time copying and the gear to get it to sound good will be pricey.

Weren't you just chastising the SACD for its copy protection, yet here you are praising the LP for being more difficult to copy?

Geoffcin
08-27-2010, 04:44 PM
Going from a $700 Arcam Alpha 7 to an over $2k Alpha 9 not much difference. Too subtle and no one will pass a DBT kind of subtle. For 4 times the money it should be a wow strimking kind of improvement not a "I need to have it in my house for 2 months to know for sure" kind of improvement.

Bwahhh!! I assume that you chose this analogy because you know I use an Alpha 9. They haven't made this player in nearly a decade so perhaps your a bit behind the times as far as digital tech eh?

FWIW; The Alpha 9 is one of the first of the oversampling players. The technology they use was derived from the much more expensive dCS ring dac. The difference being that dCS manufactures their dac using fully discrete components, where Arcam uses the same topology in a IC form. Basically the ring dac converts jitter to white noise which is much less noticeable. (at least to me) The difference between it and the Alpha 7 was pretty obvious to me because of this. However, BOTH player using a state-of-the-art recording like the XRCD of Diana Krall will change your mind about how good a CD can be.

http://www.elusivedisc.com/prodinfo.asp?number=VERSXR018

I only have a few of these XRCD's but every one played though my CD player sound better than ANY vinyl recording I've ever heard, and that includes 200gram pressings played on a reference quality system.

Even as good as my player is, I had a chance to hear the Meridian 800 when I bought my Arcam Alpha 9. (2001) This player really impressed me and I would say that at the time it was the absolute pinnacle of playback performance.

Since that time I've chased DVD-Audio with little success, and had an abortive go at SACD. Hopefully the next format will see them re-engineer the recordings to take advantage of the fidelity of the format.

Mr Peabody
08-27-2010, 05:16 PM
Smokey, take a look at this, I found it very interesting and supports what i said earlier about not hearing LP's lack of dynamic range compared to CD. I also would like to state I am not a hardliner for either format.
http://www.audioholics.com/education/audio-formats-technology/dynamic-comparison-of-lps-vs-cds-part-4/dynamic-comparison-of-lps-vs-cds-part-4-page-2

Sir T & Smokey, this clearly shows LP goes beyond 25khz
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eC6L3_k_48

As I stated I use both CD and LP, and not hard line on either side but LP as a format isn't as handicap as you want to make it out to be.

RGA
08-27-2010, 05:56 PM
Woochifer

I'm not going point by point because I don't have time to reply to everyone so I will do my best quicky from what I can remember

1) we are in agreement that at the low end CD player are generally better - depends on the units but I would agree.

2) I have heard SACD several times but the main audition with surround was set-up by professionals. If they can't do it the average audiophile has no hope. My issue has never really been the spatial effects of SACD but timbre and tone. I don't buy the sound of basic instruments and voices - the immersive factor may have just stunk on the disc they showed and maybe vastly better - I give that since this is true of movie soundtracks - some sound better than others. It was still a SS system and perhaps with other gear it would be better but very few places bother to demo it anymore since there is rumbling that is in its death throws - it is pretty tough for high end dealers to continue with it. Soundhounds may be the only one in my area still supporting it.

3) no one here is selling SACD anymore from what I can tell but A&B sound did and their SACD titles were considerably more expensive than their CD counterparts. That may have changed but 4 years ago that was the case. A&B went out of business. I saw no SACD titles at Best Buy or Future Shop today. The Sony store here doesn't sell a single machine that is SACD capable. All of this was not the case 3-4 years ago.

4) you are right - LP is generally more expensive but the prices are coming down - several popular titles are under $20 including the likes of Lady Gaga or Jackson Browne mentioned above.

5) I am happy to give SACD another try - I have had 4 long auditions and I didn't like any of them. Regardless of the music played. With it seemingly on life support I didn't see the need to seek it out yet again. I need more popular titles to come through than classical. If I hear it sound better than the same title I have or it is music that I like that I can't get on the other formats I would buy it - but as you point out it also carries the Redbook encoding which makes it less of a need to spend a massive amount of money on a processor/5 channel power amplifier 5 loudspeakers or more to get SACD when I don't like the sound of receivers just for 2 channel vocals. I suppose I could look at the top Arcam rigs but those are probably in the $4,000 range and I still need speakers. This is a huge undertaking.

6) with number 5 said I have a plan to get back into home theater. And that plan will include SACD. At that point with more of my own "control" over what the gear will actually be I will be able to better judge it. Listening to a few set-ups that dealers - professionals or not - and manufacturers set-up still doesn't leave the control with me. And I am pretty picky about which speakers get used. In all the set-ups I hear the speakers I would not find acceptable in 2 channel so not sounding good with 5 of them hardly helped matters!

RGA
08-27-2010, 06:11 PM
Geoffcin

I had no idea you owned Arcam of any kind.

I used them as an example frequently because I almost bought a 7 and a 9 - I liked the CD 6 over the 7 and 8 back in the day. I use example frequently because Arcam had a clever modular upgrade approach where the same transport was used and you could upgrade essentially the processing unit - but at high costs relative to the expense of the chips used. I was not attacking them - pretty much everyone else did the same thing including Cambridge Audio. Basically the DAC magic back then used better DAC than what is in the CD 6 though the DiscMagic transport is the same. They could have charged $100 and put the same DAC in there and it would have been a helluva CD player - but no you had to spend $700 to buy the external DAC with the extra $5.00 worth of Chipset. UHF did a review of all this back in the day.

I don't know why people think I am anti-technology or anti-CD. I am reviewing a CD player for heaven sake - talk about dead technology and it doesn't play SACD and it doesn't upsample. It's sounds excellent. I just think LP gets a bum rap. I have albums on LP you can't get on any other format and the sound is outstanding. I have an LP rig that several LP 12 owners have dumped for it. Some of those LP12 owners on AA made more direct comparisons. I believe the vinyl is really good once you're in the LP12 kind of class. So I am not a vinyl guy in the sense that anything will do - I had the Duals and Regas of the world. It takes a fair bit of expense IMO to get vinyl to the point where the nasties of vinyl dissapear. Inner groove distortion, bass wobbles, HF spittiness. Lower end decks that get away from that tend to have anaemic bass and sound leaner and CD like. Which is probably not a bad compromise. The Project decks sound tight and fast and are quite inexpensive but they don't really represent what vinyl can do. A popular MM cartirdge is the Shure M97xE and I owned it. But really it's completely outclassed by better MM and MC carts.

Most of the best rooms at CES all ran vinyl - but the cost of playback as Woochifer alluded to is out of the realm of affordability for most of us on this board. I can get pretty good digital for $1,000 and less but I am not sure I can find a good vinyl spinner for that and maybe not under $2k when the cart and arm are factored in. And that's assuming a good phone stage. You're probably into the $4k and up range to really start having Vinyl pull away. UHF argued at least $2500 just for the table a while back and they may not be far off.

Woochifer
08-27-2010, 07:07 PM
2) I have heard SACD several times but the main audition with surround was set-up by professionals. If they can't do it the average audiophile has no hope. My issue has never really been the spatial effects of SACD but timbre and tone. I don't buy the sound of basic instruments and voices - the immersive factor may have just stunk on the disc they showed and maybe vastly better - I give that since this is true of movie soundtracks - some sound better than others. It was still a SS system and perhaps with other gear it would be better but very few places bother to demo it anymore since there is rumbling that is in its death throws - it is pretty tough for high end dealers to continue with it. Soundhounds may be the only one in my area still supporting it.

But, on the flip side to this (and this is probably more a comment on multichannel than SACD specifically), a good 5.1 mix can actually liberate the instruments and voices from a highly processed and compressed stereo mix. The Concord Jazz SACD releases reveal a huge amount of detail simply because the 5.1 mixes eliminated the excessive processing that accompanied the original two-channel mixes and by spreading the instrumentation into the surrounds, each of the instruments sound much better defined.

The positioning of the speakers is absolutely critical for multichannel music. Because of how a lot of movie soundtracks are mixed, you can get away with improperly positioned surrounds in those cases. But, with anything mixed with spatial cues in the surrounds (which includes almost all 5.1 music and many newer 5.1 movies), you have to be as deliberate with the positioning as you would with a two-channel setup.


3) no one here is selling SACD anymore from what I can tell but A&B sound did and their SACD titles were considerably more expensive than their CD counterparts. That may have changed but 4 years ago that was the case. A&B went out of business. I saw no SACD titles at Best Buy or Future Shop today. The Sony store here doesn't sell a single machine that is SACD capable. All of this was not the case 3-4 years ago.

The reason I still keep a SACD player in my system is because I have a collection of SACDs, and the SF Symphony's Mahler series (all done in DSD and 5.1 SACD) is one of my most essential listenings. There are still a fair amount of classical titles that come out in SACD, and the London Symphony also continues to support the format on its label.

If you're not already invested, then it migth not be worthwhile unless you have some essential titles that you want in SACD. And I say the same thing to people who are thinking about getting into vinyl.


4) you are right - LP is generally more expensive but the prices are coming down - several popular titles are under $20 including the likes of Lady Gaga or Jackson Browne mentioned above.

But, then you also have some titles that go for $30 or more. I saw a Pink Floyd LP tagged for $40 a while back. To me that's ridiculous, but if people are willing to bone up that much money, then I guess it's justified by the demand.


5) I am happy to give SACD another try - I have had 4 long auditions and I didn't like any of them. Regardless of the music played. With it seemingly on life support I didn't see the need to seek it out yet again. I need more popular titles to come through than classical. If I hear it sound better than the same title I have or it is music that I like that I can't get on the other formats I would buy it - but as you point out it also carries the Redbook encoding which makes it less of a need to spend a massive amount of money on a processor/5 channel power amplifier 5 loudspeakers or more to get SACD when I don't like the sound of receivers just for 2 channel vocals. I suppose I could look at the top Arcam rigs but those are probably in the $4,000 range and I still need speakers. This is a huge undertaking.

But, you see I'm coming at it from the perspective that 5.1 music (no matter the format) can convey spatial cues that no two-channel playback can match. If one of the objectives with an audio system is to represent a live performance, 5.1 music conveys specific attributes of the live performance far more convincingly than a two-channel system will. It doesn't take a massively expensive system to do this. Unfortunately, you don't have a lot of new releases coming out, until maybe Blu-ray begins to pick up the slack.

Woochifer
08-27-2010, 07:17 PM
I can't argue with you there as it seem compression problem have gotten worse. But that still does not win argument as to superiority of vinyl over CD. If a CD remastering is done right, vinyl can not touch it in terms of dynamic, noise and frequecy response.

David Bowie CDs from Rykodisc is good example of how wondefrul CD sound is when remastering is done right.

In my experience, the quality of the playback might be as simple as the choice of playback rig used during the mastering process. After doing a bunch of listenings and comparisons with Mobile Fidelity's SACD and LP releases versus other versions for specific titles, I just get the impression that they get their releases to sound so good simply because they use a highly customized reel-to-reel player during the transfer process. Their analog chain purportedly measures flat all the way up to 100 kHz, and every component in that analog sequence is custom built. They like to tout the gold substrate on the discs and how they do the bitmapping, but to me, differences in digital equipment pale in comparison to differences in the analog domain.

Comparing the SACD and CD layers, I notice a slight difference, but even the CD layer on Mobile Fidelity's Gershwin release subjectively sounds better than the 96/24 PCM version that I have from Classic Records.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
08-27-2010, 08:30 PM
Smokey, take a look at this, I found it very interesting and supports what i said earlier about not hearing LP's lack of dynamic range compared to CD. I also would like to state I am not a hardliner for either format.
http://www.audioholics.com/education/audio-formats-technology/dynamic-comparison-of-lps-vs-cds-part-4/dynamic-comparison-of-lps-vs-cds-part-4-page-2

Sir T & Smokey, this clearly shows LP goes beyond 25khz
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eC6L3_k_48

As I stated I use both CD and LP, and not hard line on either side but LP as a format isn't as handicap as you want to make it out to be.

Does it really matter if you cannot hear beyond 12khz? Secondly how many LP have such a wide frequency response...hell I can find one that does, but can I randomly pick an LP and it will have signals above 25khz? That is the question to me..I always knew that LP had a wider frequency response up top, that was never the issue.

Most of what he picked up on the analyzer wouldn't be audible anyway, as there was not that much output above 25khz. If we could hear that high, the signals would have to be as strong on top as they were near the bottom of the range. It was clearly not that close, and there wasn't THAT much output up there.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
08-27-2010, 08:38 PM
Bob Ludwig, generally considered one of the top LP mastering engineers in the business, has consistently stated over the years that you have to tweak with the LP to get it to sound right. But, he also says that under no circumstances will you ever get an LP playback to sound transparent to original source. Keep in mind that this is someone whose work I have a great deal of respect for, and in many cases, the LPs that he mastered subjectively sound much better than the CDs (for example, the LPs he mastered for Rush). By comparison, he has stated that high res digital (he prefers 192/24 PCM) can sound indistinguishable from the original master.

Bernie Grundman said exactly the same thing. When I posted that in the analog forum, I was shouted down, and Grundman experience was quite frankly discounted by folks that seemed to know more than he does. Ludwig, Grundman, Ainley, and Elliot Schneiner have all said this, but apparently the armchair listener know more than these guys do. :rolleyes:

Mr Peabody
08-27-2010, 09:56 PM
RGA, must you always go to extremes? I have a very competent CDP, my Rega Planar 3 and cartridge is able to hold it's own against it. They sound different but I enjoy listening to both. The point being is you can pick up a P3 and cart for less than $2500.00 and it sounds high end enough to fully demonstrate the strengths of vinyl. Frenchmon recently started running an entry Music Hall and that was enough he could tell the difference from mass market tables like Technics. You make it sound like some one either has to have $2500.00 or greater, or forget vinyl. When Frenchmon heard my rig he could also hear how mine was quieter. So my conclusion would be that turntables are no different than any other component in the way you have different levels with different abilities. So you measure what table you need by what system you have or plan to have. Actually, it was a mere P2 that put my jaw on the floor from the Pioneer rig I previously had. It was a huge improvement.

Smokey
08-28-2010, 01:43 AM
Smokey, do you have a reference for LP's high frequency averaging 15khz?

I think if you look at RIAA Curve de-equalization, it might give clearer picture of vinyl frequency response.

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/images/stories/april-2008/vinyl-vs-cd-riaa-curve-de-emphasis.gif

As you can see high frequecy are attenuated at 6 db/per octave (double frequency), and at 19khz there is 20 dB attenuation which mean any usable bandwidth will be below 19 khz. And if you count wear, dust, dirt, inner groove distortion, misalignment, etc.., your high frequecy response will be much lower than 19khz.


Does it really matter if you cannot hear beyond 12khz? Secondly how many LP have such a wide frequency response...hell I can find one that does, but can I randomly pick an LP and it will have signals above 25khz?

With RIAA frequecy response being between 20-20kz, wouldn't anything above 20khz contain all noise due to attenuation?

Mr Peabody
08-28-2010, 05:57 AM
Bernie Grundman said exactly the same thing. When I posted that in the analog forum, I was shouted down, and Grundman experience was quite frankly discounted by folks that seemed to know more than he does. Ludwig, Grundman, Ainley, and Elliot Schneiner have all said this, but apparently the armchair listener know more than these guys do. :rolleyes:

Some "armchair listeners" may not have more knowledge but they know what they prefer. Knowing a professional prefers digital isn't going to make some one else go digital when they prefer vinyl. Presenting the information is all one can do.

Mr Peabody
08-28-2010, 06:59 AM
Does it really matter if you cannot hear beyond 12khz? Secondly how many LP have such a wide frequency response...hell I can find one that does, but can I randomly pick an LP and it will have signals above 25khz? That is the question to me..I always knew that LP had a wider frequency response up top, that was never the issue.

This is a very dismissive attitude and statement when presented with the facts, much like an "arm chaire listener" might do. Both CD and LP go beyond 12khz thankfully, so one's hearing range is irrelevant.

What was the issue? I first thought "dynamic range" until you said in reply to, "the brick wall at 20 khz, and 20 hz for example with cd's, while vinyl goes far below 20 hz, and very far above 20khz, without problems

Sir T, "Vinyl does not go below 20hz, as there is no way a stylus would stay in the groove at that frequency. The CD format does not have brickwall filters at 20hz, it is at 5hz. Vinyl barely goes above 20khz, and probably peaks at somewhere around 25khz, of which the difference between 22.5khz of CD, and 25khz of vinyl represents about a single note on a scale."

At which point I became curious and found the bit of information I posted. You, are welcome to do with it what you will but you shouldn't be so judgmental of how others take your information without first cleaning off your own stoop.

For the record Mobile Fidelity's vinyl prssing of 1812 Overture is said to extend from 8hz to 50khz. Probably not typical but I guess the range is there if one wanted to use it. A lot like CD would certainly sound better if it wasn't so compressed and record levels maxed out.

Most of what he picked up on the analyzer wouldn't be audible anyway, as there was not that much output above 25khz. If we could hear that high, the signals would have to be as strong on top as they were near the bottom of the range. It was clearly not that close, and there wasn't THAT much output up there.

That's open to interpretation I suppose and it's true our hearing is certainly limited but from what I understand the wide frequency response is necessary for harmonics. I don't know how much value you personally place on harmonics but from a training seminar I attended with JBL/Harmon Kardon they presented a convincing case.

Geoffcin
08-28-2010, 08:30 AM
Geoffcin

I had no idea you owned Arcam of any kind.

I find this difficult to believe. My CD player has been in my signature since I joined the AR forums. To say you've never read my signature after all the responses to my posts you've made over the years means you have some form of optical or memory problem, or possibly both.



I don't know why people think I am anti-technology or anti-CD. I am reviewing a CD player for heaven sake.

Not only does the combined body of your posts lead anyone with even the slightest ability to read come to the conclusion that you are most assuredly anti-CD, but your recent post in THIS thread points to your inability to differentiate between a good, and a better CD player. Do your readers a favor and do NOT review things you are obviously not qualified for.

pixelthis
08-28-2010, 08:36 AM
Hello Sir Terrance! If I may ask, is there a difference in DSD or DXD from SACD or DVD-Audio? I have a Pioneer DVD player which plays both hi-def formats. Thanks!

SACD uses DSD(direct stream digital). Don't worry about DVD audio, its practically dead.
So is SACD , although DSD might be kept as an archiving format, and SACD is still very
popular in Europe, I am told.
Also, a lot of the early "problems" with CD couldn't be heard by a GERMAN SHEPARD,
and were mainly the worry of neurotic audiophiles and their fanciful imaginations , most
loved the format, hence the HIROSHIMA like way it treated records, which now are a niche
market.
ALSO DSD is kinda analog, as it uses ones and zeros to recreate a sine wave.
One controversy about DSD is the noise it creates, which is pushed up into the inaudible range.
Not that any of this matters, tech based on BLUE laser, maybe the BLU format itself,
is the perfect medium for music, both two and multichannel, and is the future.
ALL THE REST OF THIS, including the CD, will be coming soon to an attic near you.
Which is why I wont waste any more money on them, much as I love SACD, BLU
is the future. Blu and downloads.:1:

pixelthis
08-28-2010, 08:43 AM
But I think the subject got off the beam with the talk of that ridiculous laser record
player.
I think the OP is talking about an analog medium based on a laser, a direct reading of
an analog signal, no translation of the signal to digital.
PIONEER was talking about a reel to reel high q analog device a few years ago, but it
disappeared.
But you think with the way neurotic audiophiles worship at the feet of all things analog,
paying as much as five k for a SET tube design from 1934, that someone would have seen the market potential for such a thing.:1:

Sir Terrence the Terrible
08-28-2010, 08:47 AM
Some "armchair listeners" may not have more knowledge but they know what they prefer. Knowing a professional prefers digital isn't going to make some one else go digital when they prefer vinyl. Presenting the information is all one can do.

I didn't make the comment out of a preference frame, I made it out of an accuracy claim. As I have said many a time, some people like their food plain so they can taste the food, and some folks like to doctor the food up.

Mr Peabody
08-28-2010, 09:50 AM
Not only does the combined body of your posts lead anyone with even the slightest ability to read come to the conclusion that you are most assuredly anti-CD, but your recent post in THIS thread points to your inability to differentiate between a good, and a better CD player. Do your readers a favor and do NOT review things you are obviously not qualified for.

You make a good point, i don't know how much credit I could put into a review done by some one claiming not much difference between an Alpha 7 and 9. When those players were new to the market my Kenwood 3300 which retailed about $895.00 bit the dust and could not be repaired, couldn't get parts. So I wandered into the store and listened to the 7, the salesman gave no pitch, just helped me demo the gear, I asked to hear the 8 then the
9. I heard a difference between each model and although I had never spent that type of money on gear before ordered a 9 because I heard that much improvement over the 7 I originally was going to get.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
08-28-2010, 10:08 AM
That's open to interpretation I suppose and it's true our hearing is certainly limited but from what I understand the wide frequency response is necessary for harmonics. I don't know how much value you personally place on harmonics but from a training seminar I attended with JBL/Harmon Kardon they presented a convincing case.

No, look at the meter, it is not open to interpretation. Above 20khz, the meter sat at just the point above baseline of the measuring device, which means it would not be heard, it would be masked (precedence effect) by the louder signals below 20khz.

If you have actually read my post, I value harmonics, timbre and textures in music very highly. But I also know that most folks couldn't hear the harmonics if they tried. From my experience there is a value in keeping unheard ultra sonic signals intact, even if the listener cannot really hear them.

JoeE SP9
08-28-2010, 12:33 PM
But I think the subject got off the beam with the talk of that ridiculous laser record
player.
I think the OP is talking about an analog medium based on a laser, a direct reading of
an analog signal, no translation of the signal to digital.
PIONEER was talking about a reel to reel high q analog device a few years ago, but it
disappeared.
But you think with the way neurotic audiophiles worship at the feet of all things analog,
paying as much as five k for a SET tube design from 1934, that someone would have seen the market potential for such a thing.:1:

The Finial, now ELP TT is totally analog. There is no digital conversion. Excerpt from ELP's site.


http://www.elpj.com/images/arrow.gif True Analog Playback
The laser beam travels to the wall of the groove and back. The reflection angle is transferred to the audio signal, meaning that the LT maintains analog sound through the entire process, without any digitization. As a result, the LT cannot differentiate between an audio signal or dirt on the record. To keep your records clean, we recommend a record vacuum cleaner (see our Accessories page (http://www.elpj.com/purchase/accessories.html)).

Geoffcin
08-28-2010, 01:02 PM
I heard a difference between each model and although I had never spent that type of money on gear before ordered a 9 because I heard that much improvement over the 7 I originally was going to get.

Amazing too, when you consider that the Alpha 7 was the go-to easy sale for audio dealers because it really showed how much better a quality CD player sounded compared to consumer grade.

My epiphany came with the Alpha 9 when the sales rep put in a HDCD sampler and it was like someone cranked up the dynamics by a magnitude. Admittedly the sampler was designed to show off this feature, but it just crushed the dynamics of the 7 and the poor outclassed Cambridge Audio player they had also set up.

RGA
08-29-2010, 07:57 AM
I find this difficult to believe. My CD player has been in my signature since I joined the AR forums. To say you've never read my signature after all the responses to my posts you've made over the years means you have some form of optical or memory problem, or possibly both.

Yes i may have read it but I don't remember the thousands of forum posters on here and what they all own unless they call attention to it.



Not only does the combined body of your posts lead anyone with even the slightest ability to read come to the conclusion that you are most assuredly anti-CD, but your recent post in THIS thread points to your inability to differentiate between a good, and a better CD player. Do your readers a favor and do NOT review things you are obviously not qualified for.

If you think any of the Arcam CD players represent any sort of wonderful statement on Redbook reproduction then you clearly need reviewers like me to set you straight. I never said the 9 wasn't better than the 7SE. The lot of them were mid-fi - and yes so is the CD6. This is all medicore stuff.

Geoffcin
08-29-2010, 09:14 AM
Yes i may have read it but I don't remember the thousands of forum posters on here and what they all own unless they call attention to it .

So you agree, you LIED when you said you never read it. Typical of you to admit to the face on lie and then try to say it really doesn't matter.




If you think any of the Arcam CD players represent any sort of wonderful statement on Redbook reproduction then you clearly need reviewers like me to set you straight. I never said the 9 wasn't better than the 7SE. The lot of them were mid-fi - and yes so is the CD6. This is all medicore stuff.

HAA!!:dita: When my player was purchased you were still in short pants. Back then it smoked the competition right up to players that we're twice it's price. I know I auditioned many of them in the $2k-$4k range. I really haven't seen much of an advance in redbook playback since, with the possible exception of adjustable oversampling.

The fact that you THINK you know anything about mid/low/hi-fi after reading some of your pompous statements really doesn't surprise me. What does surprise me is that anyone would take anything you say as having ANY meaning at all after reading some of your clearly clueless remarks. :out:

But please, continue to "set me straight" I always get a kick out of it when you do! :lol:

RGA
08-29-2010, 11:05 AM
So you agree, you LIED when you said you never read it. Typical of you to admit to the face on lie and then try to say it really doesn't matter.

I didn't say I read it I say I may have but didn't remember it. What I can say is that when I made the comments about Arcam I did not know that you owned it and it was not directed at you. I owned Arcam for several years and was a familiar with the line which is why I brought them up. It's not my fault you get verly defensive with your gear. If I was still in the mid-fi Arcam realm I might be defensive too.



Back then it smoked the competition right up to players that we're twice it's price. I know I auditioned many of them in the $2k-$4k range. I really haven't seen much of an advance in redbook playback since, with the possible exception of adjustable oversampling.


Yes you're funny. The I bought the best player its class and it beat everything at double the price and there is nothing better since kind of guy. The Alpha 9 was mid-fi is mid-fi and has never been anything other than mid-fi.

And the reason you can't hear what better CD players are capable of is because of your system.



The fact that you THINK you know anything about mid/low/hi-fi after reading some of your pompous statements really doesn't surprise me. What does surprise me is that anyone would take anything you say as having ANY meaning at all after reading some of your clearly clueless remarks. :out:

But please, continue to "set me straight" I always get a kick out of it when you do! :lol:


One day you'll audition something good. I have heard pieces in your system enough tio know that you need to get off your couch and listen to better gear. Come back to me when you do.

Geoffcin
08-29-2010, 11:40 AM
I didn't say I read it I say I may have but didn't remember it. What I can say is that when I made the comments about Arcam I did not know that you owned it and it was not directed at you. I owned Arcam for several years and was a familiar with the line which is why I brought them up. It's not my fault you get verly defensive with your gear. If I was still in the mid-fi Arcam realm I might be defensive too.

No, what YOU said was that you couldn't tell the difference between an Alpha 7, or an Alpha 9, even after months of auditioning. I find that quite sad for someone who claims to be a "reviewer". I don't mean it surprises me though, as your clearly not interested in accuracy. (or could even recognize it!)




One day you'll audition something good. I have heard pieces in your system enough tio know that you need to get off your couch and listen to better gear. Come back to me when you do.

Luckily I don't have to go out to listen to good gear. I have my choice of three quality systems right here. (four if you count the PC rig! ) You do have one point though; I had really wanted to get down to Lyric to hear the new Magnepan 1.7's. If they are as good as everyone has been telling me I might have to add them into one of my systems!

Geoffcin
08-29-2010, 12:00 PM
Yes you're funny. The I bought the best player its class and it beat everything at double the price and there is nothing better since kind of guy. The Alpha 9 was mid-fi is mid-fi and has never been anything other than mid-fi.


First off; I never said there wasn't better, even back when I bought it nearly a decade ago. I said it was MY choice in the 2-4k range. Did you actually even READ my post? To me the Meridian was the state-of-the-art at that time. Several others that I didn't audition were obviously out of the Alpha 9 league, including the dCS players.

Just for a refresher, Kalman Rubinson reviewed this player for Stereophile back in '99 when it was new. Of course you were still breast feeding back then, but perhaps you might want to read this before you dismiss the player as "mid-fi"

Quote;

"The Alpha 9...is a breakthrough in sub-$2000 CD players. The performance of this 24/96 player with 16/44.1 discs withstood direct comparisons to players/DACs costing several times as much, and made small potatoes of the differences. I was particularly impressed with the bass extension, detail, and power, which will be quite welcome in almost all systems. Beyond that, its broad soundstage was truly thrilling with large and small ensembles, with superb resolution of the music's inner voices. I would be hard-pressed to justify buying a more expensive CD (-only) player. "

Full review;

http://www.stereophile.com/cdplayers/199arcam/

Mr Peabody
08-29-2010, 12:09 PM
RGA, you may be meaning to poke a jab at Geoffcin but if any one is paying attention you are off base on the Alpha 9. It sold for $1600.00 to $1700.00 and beat many players costing more than that. It's not mid-fi at all, the 9 would easily give some one a taste of high end digital playback. From what you used in your signature you have never owned a CD playback as good as the Alpha 9.

RGA
08-29-2010, 12:17 PM
No, what YOU said was that you couldn't tell the difference between an Alpha 7, or an Alpha 9, even after months of auditioning. I find that quite sad for someone who claims to be a "reviewer". I don't mean it surprises me though, as your clearly not interested in accuracy. (or could even recognize it!)

If I said that then I miss wrote - please link where I did and I shall pay closer attention to what I write next time. If you think there is a vast difference then you would agree that you would pass a Blind level matched session correct? How much would you like to wager on it?



Luckily I don't have to go out to listen to good gear. I have my choice of three quality systems right here. (four if you count the PC rig! ) You do have one point though; I had really wanted to get down to Lyric to hear the new Magnepan 1.7's. If they are as good as everyone has been telling me I might have to add them into one of my systems!

Magneapan? yeah okay.

RGA
08-29-2010, 12:37 PM
First off; I never said there wasn't better, even back when I bought it nearly a decade ago. I said it was MY choice in the 2-4k range. Did you actually even READ my post?

You said this "Back then it smoked the competition right up to players that we're twice it's price. I know I auditioned many of them in the $2k-$4k range.

I didn't miss read it. Now you say it is "my choice" hmm. Sounds to me you're just another "mine is the best because that's all I could afford. Remember I may be a fan boy but the stuff I talk most about is not what I actually own. And that's the difference being objective about a piece of gear and saying it's the best CD player because I have it and so you will have to spend what 3 times more to get something better since you say twice as expensive will be "smoked". Puhleeze.



To me the Meridian was the state-of-the-art at that time. Several others that I didn't audition were obviously out of the Alpha 9 league, including the dCS players.

I was never convinced by Meridian then or now. My dealer carries current some pretty upper scale Meridian - and it's good - certainly better than Arcam but it's not that great. Lots of people were not in the Meridan camp then or now. I would take the Arcam stuff on a bang for buck for digital over Meridian in a heartbeat. Don't equate money with being better. Some very expensive stuff is not all that good. Big name and design blather hype and sexy looks doesn't make it so. I hear a $30,000 Linn CD player that was bolted to the floor get anhialated by a $3,500 tube cd player. Really wasn't close. That Linn was long gone never to return and they still carry the tube cd players. It is no contest. $26,500 saved to boot.



Just for a refresher, Kalman Rubinson reviewed this player for Stereophile back in '99 when it was new. Of course you were still breast feeding back then, but perhaps you might want to read this before you dismiss the player as "mid-fi"

Yes I had young quality hearing back then unlike the geezers who need endless bright ssshshshshy treble to have any sort of treble.

And the breasts I was sucking on were models and strippers. Sorry buddy but the Alpha series was the same time frame as the Cambridge 6 series and that was mid to late 1990's. Back in those days I didn't know what good sound truly was all about. That is probably true (I did buy the CD 6) - I also actually thought the likes of B&W, Paradigm, Bryston, Magnepan, Cambridge Audio and Arcam was hi-fi - LOL - yes those were the days of ingnorance. Some people actually go out and listen to real audio reproduction.




"The Alpha 9...is a breakthrough in sub-$2000 CD players. The performance of this 24/96 player with 16/44.1 discs withstood direct comparisons to players/DACs costing several times as much, and made small potatoes of the differences. I was particularly impressed with the bass extension, detail, and power, which will be quite welcome in almost all systems. Beyond that, its broad soundstage was truly thrilling with large and small ensembles, with superb resolution of the music's inner voices. I would be hard-pressed to justify buying a more expensive CD (-only) player. "

That's funny. Yes I bought the Arcam Delta 290 based on Stereophile raves too so I can't blame you for that. But then I went and auditioned some "REAL" products and figured out that I have better ears than most of them. Got rid of the Arcam for something far superior. I suggest you do the same and audition something good.

Geoffcin
08-29-2010, 01:14 PM
If I said that then I miss wrote - please link where I did and I shall pay closer attention to what I write next time.
Actually it was a refreshing to glimpse past the normal babel that you post so please, DON'T stop posting what you really hear.

If you think there is a vast difference then you would agree that you would pass a Blind level matched session correct? How much would you like to wager on it?
I would wager with you but it wouldn't be fair for you to loose $$$ with your small salary. Call me when you can actually afford to bet real money and we'll play.

RGA
08-29-2010, 01:17 PM
RGA, you may be meaning to poke a jab at Geoffcin but if any one is paying attention you are off base on the Alpha 9. It sold for $1600.00 to $1700.00 and beat many players costing more than that. It's not mid-fi at all, the 9 would easily give some one a taste of high end digital playback. From what you used in your signature you have never owned a CD playback as good as the Alpha 9.

The fact that something beats something else at a higher price doesn't mean much when the reviewers who say it are being vague. What specifically have they auditioned and what specific model do they claim it beats? Of course the Alpha 9 will sound better than some CD players at more money - big deal - so did the Arcam Delta 290 I owned. The 290 was about half the price of my Pioneer Receiver and the Delta 290 sounded FAR FAR better. So what. The Pioneer was a pile of garbage. Beating a pile of garbage is one thing beating serious audio focussed amps is entirely different. And there were $2k Denon and Sony CD players back then.

The Arcam Delta 290 that Stereophile reviewed they raved about just like they raved about the alpha cd players - the amp was the only class B amp remotely in that price range back then. The Sugdens (any of them at the time) destroyed the Arcam. Stereophile however would not review any of them because they didn't have enough dealers or they just never heard of them. For YEARS they recommended the Arcam as the best in class. Then John Marks finally reviewed an A21a and they gave it a paragraph blurb and he liked it. Then on a forum he said to me that it was to him the best SS amp in its class on sound. Yes the Sugden needs HE speakers but that's not the issue the issue is pure sound. So you have Stereophile recommending an amp that people might think is best in class and when they finally review the A21a which was selling during the entire Delta 290 production run and they said gee the A21a is actually the better amp. That goes to listening experience and something may be the "best you ever heard" but if you have not heard stuff that is "stiff competition" then it doesn't mean anything.

It always comes down to experience. When I first began on forums I was a HUGE fan of B&W and Bryston and that's what I was going to buy. And I compared it to lots of other stuff and it always held up quite well - but that's because the lots of other stuff was pretty much exactly the same or similar enough. I think I shifted to Classe and YBA and Sugden and then I shifted partly to Martin Logan (except the mismatch) and to PMC and then Reference 3a. Something is best until something else moves you off the stance and that can only come with experiencial listening.

The guys who get on my case seem to be the "I've owned my panel for 25 years and I have never heard a better speaker" - to that I say what have you actually heard in the form of boxes. "Nothing - it's a box it can't be good" I swear this was a comment I heard from a guy at Soundhounds. This maggie owner is in a shop selling multi-thousand dollar speakers ANY of which blow his speakers to the weeds and he doesn't even bother to listen- not even for 1 minute because he just "knows" it can't be good.

No reviewer can hear it all - the fact that a reviewer says - this is better than CD players or amps at double the price that depends on what he heard. And 3 issues later he may hear an amp at half the price that he likes better.

I reviewed the Grant Fidelity Rita at $4200 at the time which I thought was a very nice sounding amplifier (and it still is) for the money with great build quality. I give it a very nice review. Then GF sends me PM 150 monoblock amps that sell for $1600 (now) which with a decent $1200-$1500 preamp would be easily the way to go(it was with my Rotel).

So for less money I heard something that is quite a bit better than the Rita. Both of these sound better than amps I have heard at "double the price" too. So what? I would buy a Rita over a $7000.00 McIntosh I heard. And I would buy the PM 150 over the Rita or the McIntosh too(I am being specific). But that doesn't mean that some other amps don't paste the GF and Shengya's either. I would buy the PM 150 and Rotel over more expensive Bryston, Sim Audio, MF, Classe amps as well.

Regarding CD players:

What I own and what I have heard are not the same thing. I chose to invest $5,000 into the turntable plus a record cleaning machine. I was reviewing CD players so I felt that before I jump into CD I will simply review a few of them until something comes in that impresses me enough to keep. My dealer has a wide array of turntables and I feel that it is far easier to hear the greater leaps and bounds in vinyl. When you upgrade a $50 cart to a $300 cart you will hear a HUGE difference assuming the table is even remotely competent and a Technics 1200 is that. But if you go from a $600CD player to an $850 CD player that difference is not necessarily even audible and if it is it won't be earth shakingly better. That same $250 yields far more improvement with turntables.

The Grant Fidelity CD player I reviewed sounds far better than the Alpha 9 and the build quality isn't even comparable - the Alpha 9 is a toy. Sure both are better than the CD 6. But so what? I can still recognize which sounds better whether I own the player or not. I keep it because it is interesting to have a reference of what was considered "entrey level high end" in the mid/late 90s to hear how much better new players truly are. The GF is a tube cd player and the one I am reviewing now is a tube cd player. Both of them easily outperform the likes of the CD 6 and any of the Arcams. The GF's are worth the money for the transports alone. i give that praise to it not because I own it because I don't. It just is that well built. I wish the Audio Note gear was that well built - it isn't up to that level either.

And if the Shengya CD player is as good as the the PM 150 then the Arcam will be relegated to laughing stock status. The PM 150 embarasses th elikes of the Delta 290. And I would not be surprised if it did the same thing to their digital. $750 http://grantfidelity.com/site/Sheng_ya_CD-17

Geoffcin
08-29-2010, 02:00 PM
You said this "[B] Sounds to me you're just another "mine is the best because that's all I could afford. Remember I may be a fan boy but the stuff I talk most about is not what I actually own. And that's the difference being objective about a piece of gear and saying it's the best CD player because I have it and so you will have to spend what 3 times more to get something better since you say twice as expensive will be "smoked". Puhleeze.

Well, I'll admit it. In 2001 I didn't want to spend more that a couple large on a CD player. I've always had an idea to try to get 90%-95% of the absolute best performance at the best price. You really do have to pay that extra magnitude if you want to get the best-or-nothing. That being said, I auditioned several CD players and heard many more and the Alpha 9 was my choice.



I was never convinced by Meridian then or now. My dealer carries current some pretty upper scale Meridian - and it's good - certainly better than Arcam but it's not that great. Lots of people were not in the Meridan camp then or now. I would take the Arcam stuff on a bang for buck for digital over Meridian in a heartbeat. Don't equate money with being better. Some very expensive stuff is not all that good. Big name and design blather hype and sexy looks doesn't make it so. I hear a $30,000 Linn CD player that was bolted to the floor get anhialated by a $3,500 tube cd player. Really wasn't close. That Linn was long gone never to return and they still carry the tube cd players. It is no contest. $26,500 saved to boot.

I'm sure Meridian didn't need you either. Back then or now. I'm not sure what "upper scale" Meridian means, but the 800 that I heard pretty much set the mark for playback in my book. Didn't matter the price, that was "state-of-the-art in my book. Possibly not anymore with the latest codecs, but back in 2000 nothing I heard was better.





Yes I had young quality hearing back then unlike the geezers who need endless bright ssshshshshy treble to have any sort of treble.

Wow, ssshshshshy eh? Perhaps your readers need to know what you think about the "over 30 crowd" after a statement like this?




And the breasts I was sucking on were models and strippers.

No girlfriends or boyfriends eh? Figures.




Sorry buddy but the Alpha series was the same time frame as the Cambridge 6 series and that was mid to late 1990's. Back in those days I didn't know what good sound truly was all about. That is probably true (I did buy the CD 6) - I also actually thought the likes of B&W, Paradigm, Bryston, Magnepan, Cambridge Audio and Arcam was hi-fi - LOL - yes those were the days of ingnorance. Some people actually go out and listen to real audio reproduction.

First off; I'm not your "buddy" Call me that again and I'll be forced to edit you posts. Something I've NEVER done before.

Second; You've managed to diss some of the best gear out there in just one paragraph. Paradigm makes some EXCELLENT speakers. Their top of the line rivals the best dynamic speakers made anywhere, and at a great price! I would take an old 80's vintage B&W Matrix over your floppy woofered speakers on any day of the week! Bryston makes some of the best built amps in the world. Magnepan is owned by more audiophiles than ANY other quality speaker. For decades! Cambridge Audio and Arcam battle to this day for the best value in HiFi, and even though I chose Arcam for my CD player, Cambridge makes some GREAT gear too that I would be proud to own.





That's funny. Yes I bought the Arcam Delta 290 based on Stereophile raves too so I can't blame you for that. But then I went and auditioned some "REAL" products and figured out that I have better ears than most of them. Got rid of the Arcam for something far superior. I suggest you do the same and audition something good.

This is one of the big difference between you and me; I never tell anyone to get rid of their gear. I might tell you that I think there's better out there, but I would never say to go audition REAL products as if yours wasn't. Very poor form, especially for a "reviewer" [sic]

RGA
08-29-2010, 02:51 PM
It's actually not poor form. Some reviewers and magazines may like the "La -La everything is just Perfect" Ed Wood voiceover but I value good audio reproduction over being diplomatic. And I am not the only one who calls it like they hear it. UHF has been quite successful at calling a dog a dog when they hear it. They still don't get Arcam for some of the comments they made - nor do they get sent Paradigm speakers.

And Stereophile gave less than flattering reviews to Bryston and Hi-Fi Choice gave their integrated three stars out of five which is shockingly low for them. UHF was less than thrilled with some of their models as well - and UHF is Canadian so no home town niceness there.

Maybe you should read stuff that doesn't just say - everything is perfect and it all comes down to your taste. After all if that was true you would own a $50 CD player. Clearly $50 CD replay is "junk" compared to an $1800 Alpha 9. And let's not mince words by "softening" the commentary to possibly imply that the $50 CD replay is better than it is - it's rubbish and it should be called rubbish. Just as a NAD CD replay is not Meridian it should not remotely be implied that it is in that league because it flat out isn't just as the OTO is not remotely in league with a Jinro or a big LAMM, Cary, Wavelength, Einstein. I may like it but I am not deluded into thinking because that is what I paid that it is "the end of the line" or a perfect amplifying device.

The fact that review outlets water down the commentary (not necessarily the writers but the editors) is why we have so much mid-fi stuff being heralded as "High End" And I don't even like the term High End - I would rather use a different term that doesn't simply seem to go by price. The Cambridge Audio CD 6 was referred to as "entry level" "High End" and that monicker is B.S. It implies that it is in some sort of league with the big boys and it isn't. It is better than a Sony mega changer - and some mediocre dull sounding stuff - but that doesn't mean it does a credible job of portraying the musical event whether it has an established brand behind it or not is meaningless.

"Magnepan is owned by more audiophiles than ANY other quality speaker. For decades!"

Bose is the number one selling speaker manufacturer out there. That only confirms that lots of people don't have good ears. So what?

More people own a Ford Focus than own a Ferrari or a Bentley. A Ferrari is better and less people own it. Just because most people own mid priced stuff doesn't mean that has any bearing on what the "actual" great stuff "REALLY" is.

Geoffcin
08-29-2010, 03:57 PM
It's actually not poor form. Some reviewers and magazines may like the "La -La everything is just Perfect" Ed Wood voiceover but I value good audio reproduction over being diplomatic. And I am not the only one who calls it like they hear it. UHF has been quite successful at calling a dog a dog when they hear it. They still don't get Arcam for some of the comments they made - nor do they get sent Paradigm speakers.

And Stereophile gave less than flattering reviews to Bryston and Hi-Fi Choice gave their integrated three stars out of five which is shockingly low for them. UHF was less than thrilled with some of their models as well - and UHF is Canadian so no home town niceness there.

Maybe you should read stuff that doesn't just say - everything is perfect and it all comes down to your taste. After all if that was true you would own a $50 CD player. Clearly $50 CD replay is "junk" compared to an $1800 Alpha 9. And let's not mince words by "softening" the commentary to possibly imply that the $50 CD replay is better than it is - it's rubbish and it should be called rubbish. Just as a NAD CD replay is not Meridian it should not remotely be implied that it is in that league because it flat out isn't just as the OTO is not remotely in league with a Jinro or a big LAMM, Cary, Wavelength, Einstein. I may like it but I am not deluded into thinking because that is what I paid that it is "the end of the line" or a perfect amplifying device.

The fact that review outlets water down the commentary (not necessarily the writers but the editors) is why we have so much mid-fi stuff being heralded as "High End" And I don't even like the term High End - I would rather use a different term that doesn't simply seem to go by price. The Cambridge Audio CD 6 was referred to as "entry level" "High End" and that monicker is B.S. It implies that it is in some sort of league with the big boys and it isn't. It is better than a Sony mega changer - and some mediocre dull sounding stuff - but that doesn't mean it does a credible job of portraying the musical event whether it has an established brand behind it or not is meaningless.

"Magnepan is owned by more audiophiles than ANY other quality speaker. For decades!"

Bose is the number one selling speaker manufacturer out there. That only confirms that lots of people don't have good ears. So what?

More people own a Ford Focus than own a Ferrari or a Bentley. A Ferrari is better and less people own it. Just because most people own mid priced stuff doesn't mean that has any bearing on what the "actual" great stuff "REALLY" is.

And your gods gift to the reviewing word? Telling it "like it is" when nobody else will. Calling Paradigms dogs are we? That would make the killer Bryston 14b SST that I heard crap and what, NAD gets the flush now too? I would take their M2 amp over ANYTHING you've called "Great". And your even implying that Magnepan the "BOSE" of Hifi?! Wait till I post this to the MUG bb!!!

Oh your in way over your head now. Best to give up when you, well....best too just give up before you run out of feet for your mouth.

The Jinro hmmm... it's is the copper AN eh? I was wondering when you would get AN into the thread. (I just won $10 thanks!!!) it's nice in a euphonic way, but if you want to hear a pretty amp I would suggest you bid on this one;

http://cgi.ebay.com/Shindo-Montille-Amplifier-Pristine-/200510603243?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2eaf5cffeb

Of course it's not a Lamm, but you'll never be able to afford one of those anyway, best not even listen.

Really this is getting tiresome. Enjoy your "reviewing" but don't give up your day job. As a matter of fact I would get quite used to it if I were you.








,

RGA
08-30-2010, 08:57 AM
Amazing too, when you consider that the Alpha 7 was the go-to easy sale for audio dealers because it really showed how much better a quality CD player sounded compared to consumer grade.

My epiphany came with the Alpha 9 when the sales rep put in a HDCD sampler and it was like someone cranked up the dynamics by a magnitude.

That is a recording capability that gives an advantage to any CD player with HDCD encoding. So yes an HDCD played on HDCD capable CD player will be better than a player without it in an apples to apples comparison (from the same maker using the same transport). I did not audition the Alpha 9 with any HDCD encoded music which would obviously sound a lot better than the 7. Although level matching is important with HDCD.

RGA
08-30-2010, 09:34 AM
And your gods gift to the reviewing word? Telling it "like it is" when nobody else will.

Yes if you read what I said instead of inventing strawmen - I said that UHF gave Arcam a bad review and Arcam no longer sends them gear - they were telling it like it is - so how is that me and nobody else will? Strawman. UHF has given poor reviews to Castle loudspeakers and Bryston off the top of my head. Are they afraid that owners will be upset - too freaking bad - they called it like they heard it. Hi-Fi Choice also gave poor reviews to Bryston - and so did a recent Stereophile. In the la-la world of everything is great it's surprising that nobody stops and thinks - gee that's THREE magazines that have been luke warm to not really liking Bryston amps. But if I say it - oh that's just one guy's opinion and it's JUST RGA being dogmatic on tubes or SET. No it's quite a lot of reviewers who have heard quite a lot of gear coming to the same conclusions.



Calling Paradigms dogs are we?

Really where did I say that? Another invented argument.




That would make the killer Bryston 14b SST that I heard crap and what, NAD gets the flush now too? I would take their M2 amp over ANYTHING you've called "Great".


Yes YOU would because you don't actually audition anything. So of course YOU would say it sounds better than "ANYTHING" I call great because you judge all stereo gear because you don't like the personality of the person you're debating with. That's quite hilarious.



And your even implying that Magnepan the "BOSE" of Hifi?! Wait till I post this to the MUG bb!!!

No that is your reading of it. The point was that high sales is not indicative of anything. Bose sells more that doesn't mean better. Magnepan may sell well in the U.S that does not mean anything. The best of the best sells in far smaller numbers not greater numbers because the elite stuff in virtually any consumer product is expensive. Cars, watches, stereos, jewelry, clothes, televisions, etc. The fact that most people can only afford $500 -$2,000 speakers doesn't mean much. The 1.6 was in my top 3 under $2k as well so it really doesn't mean a whole lot.



Oh your in way over your head now. Best to give up when you, well....best too just give up before you run out of feet for your mouth.

Of course it's not a Lamm, but you'll never be able to afford one of those anyway, best not even listen.

I am not sure what affordability has to do with anything perhaps you can explain that to me. I don't see $20,000 amplifiers and speakers in your system? Nor is this an indicator of quality hearing. Being rich doesn't mean you have taste, or better ears. Perhaps you believe it is so.

What a joke. It's off topic if anyone other than Geofcin posts it - why not delete all your own off topic posts?

Geoffcin
08-30-2010, 11:04 AM
Yes if you read what I said instead of inventing strawmen - .

LOL!!! Strawmen eh? What form of medical Marijuana have you been smoking! You did JUST write this didn't you;



I also actually thought the likes of B&W, Paradigm, Bryston, Magnepan, Cambridge Audio and Arcam was hi-fi - LOL - yes those were the days of ingnorance. Some people actually go out and listen to real audio reproduction. .

Or beauties like this one;



"Magnepan is owned by more audiophiles than ANY other quality speaker. For decades!"
(and) Bose is the number one selling speaker manufacturer out there. That only confirms that lots of people don't have good ears. So what?


The implications of a statment like this are clear and obvious.

I could go on and on with quoting some of your more "corlorful" statements, but the whole thing has grown old. People have seen the real you, and there's no way that you can redirect your statements when it was quite clear what you meant when you posted them.

In any case, despite all of the fun I've had it's time to end this off topic excursion. This line is officially closed.

Mr Peabody
08-30-2010, 06:15 PM
I'd like to know which Bryston amps got bad reviews. Stereophile liked the big monoblocks.

RGA
08-31-2010, 10:14 AM
I'd like to know which Bryston amps got bad reviews. Stereophile liked the big monoblocks.

Fremer's review of the 7B SST2 in Stereophile
UHF's review of the 3B or 4B but I believe it was the 3B
Hi-Fi Choice review of the 100 integrated.


This is what Fremer had to say

Against the Parasound Halo JC 1s
The Parasounds couldn't have sounded more different. Their bass was deeper, tighter, and better controlled, yet not overdamped, so that textures were fully resolved, and rhythm'n'pacing were far more nimble. Image specificity was greater, and dimensionality was more fully expressed. Transients were faster and more effervescent while being free of artificial etch. Reverb was expressed as genuine depth where appropriate, dropping way down in level into the noise floor before dissipating. Images leapt from the speakers and floated more freely in a huge three-dimensional space—but most noticeable, and almost immediately, was the delicacy, resolution, and coherence of the reverb's decay.

Neither pair of Brystons matched the Parasounds' low-level resolution and microdynamic delicacy. With the much nimbler, more holographic-sounding Parasounds there was more musical information to consider and more musical pleasure to be had. Detractors might say the Halos' top end was brash, but I counter that that was the fault of the recordings, not the amps, which had a sweet top end despite all their resolution and transparency.

Conclusion
If I owned a pair of Bryston 7B SST2s, I'd make sure to find out whether they contained the old or new transformers. The improvement produced by the new transformers was significant.

Nonetheless, even the improved version, while sounding pleasant enough—and particularly rich in the midrange—couldn't get my Wilson Audio MAXX 3 speakers to live up to their sonic potential, despite having enough power to do so. It's not a matter of cost—the similarly priced Parasounds did so with ease.

But while the better of the two pairs of Bryston monoblocks always sounded pleasant, they rarely sounded exciting. The original pair elicited this conclusion: "I listened happily to the pair of them for a month, concentrating on the many things they did well. But their presentation was sort of like tofu: nourishing, but in need of spicing up to be truly tasty. Replacing the darTZeel NHB-18NS preamplifier with Musical Fidelity's all-tube Primo added needed texture and dimensionality. The Audio Valve Sunilda phono preamp added interest. Changes of cable produced useful results. But overall, the Brystons' presentation lacked the microdynamics I was used to from the Musical Fidelity Titan."

While the second pair of 7B SST2s was clearly an improvement over the first, that conclusion stands. In my experience, it is hard to beat a lot of good, clean power, and the Bryston 7B SST2 offers that, plus ultra-low distortion, in a superbly built, reliable package at a very reasonable price. But before buying a pair, listen to the competition.
http://www.stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/bryston_7b_sstsup2sup_monoblock_power_amplifier/index4.html

Here is the problem - microdynamics and it has always been a problem for me with every system I have tried Bryston in. I have to crank it up to make certain cues out. Where they and many other SS amps fall down is on transients and decays. SS does a fine job of getting the initial sound but not the edges of notes and so I hear an up front crisp clear strike and it sounds hacked off. It simply doesn't have the resolution with simple instruments (one vocal one guitar) and I use that kind of music before I bother with full scale orchestra. Yes separation is all fine and good and re-creating high volume level orchestra is all fine and nice but if you can't simply get the timbre and tone, transietn attack and decay of one guy playing one guitar then nothing else it brings to the table can be worthwhile because it certainly isn't getting that right with 20 instruments - it's just spacing it all out. With 20 instruments though it's far harder to hear the attack and decay of each instrument because there are so many playing all at the same time so the weakness goes unnoticed. But since most music is not played at 120db and has 110 piece orchestras - most music is of the small scale single voice with a backing band of 4 to 5 instruments it is here that most systems fall down. A small tube system will get the instruments and vocals better but may have trouble with the spatial cues at higher levels and jumble them up in the center more. But that compromise IMO is easily the better one because if the violin and cello sound "real" whether they are well spaced is less important since we were not at the event or the recording studio and the spatial cues are not a known entity. The sound of a violin or a piano however is. Microdynamics are critical (all dynamics are critical) and it's what few systems do well.

I'm not saying put all your stock into Fremer but his comments are not dissimilar to the others over the years from UHF or Hi-Fi Choice or what I and numerous other forum posters hear. Having said all that I would still consider them for my home theater set-up down the line. Why? Because they sound a lot like most SS amps of this stripe and they have a great warranty and support. For music replay not my cup of tea but for home theater where cues are less experientially known and big slam bang effects it is impressive. Also safe to buy used because you can flip them easily.

pixelthis
08-31-2010, 10:54 AM
The Finial, now ELP TT is totally analog. There is no digital conversion. Excerpt from ELP's site.


http://www.elpj.com/images/arrow.gif True Analog Playback
The laser beam travels to the wall of the groove and back. The reflection angle is transferred to the audio signal, meaning that the LT maintains analog sound through the entire process, without any digitization. As a result, the LT cannot differentiate between an audio signal or dirt on the record. To keep your records clean, we recommend a record vacuum cleaner (see our Accessories page (http://www.elpj.com/purchase/accessories.html)).

DOUBT THAT, and even if thats the case, whats the point? Just a ridiculously
expensive needle, IMHO.
like using the Starship Enterprise to go to the store for a slurpee .:1:

Geoffcin
08-31-2010, 11:09 AM
The business would not be the same without him. He certainly has opinions on gear, but most of them I don't agree with. I remember he famously threw a tantrum because JA wasn't going to give a very expensive tube ($250k!) amp a class "A" rating after JA had found that it missed all of it's stated measuments by a LARGE margin, had a huge amount of distortion at anything more than just a few watts, and had an output impedence so high that it would swing the speakers +/- 10dB! Mikey just LOVED it though!! Sure, he's into excitment. Amps that are dead flat with no ringing or overshoot and with enough damping to control his puppies leave him feeling flat. Doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

RGA
08-31-2010, 01:03 PM
Strictly speaking I don't agree with Fremer or UHF or Hi-fi Choice all the time either (rarely in most cases). Fremer is a big power SS fanboy however so coming from a SS guy criticism means more perhaps than if I or tube supporters critique the stuff. The manufacturer generally gets a choice of who does the review so ....

JoeE SP9
08-31-2010, 01:28 PM
DOUBT THAT, and even if thats the case, whats the point? Just a ridiculously
expensive needle, IMHO.
like using the Starship Enterprise to go to the store for a slurpee .:1:

The point is, as usual you don't know what you're talking about. I guess all that electronics training didn't teach you how to read.

The real point is, it's something your narrow minded attitude has no knowledge of. That's true of many things.

Geoffcin
08-31-2010, 01:55 PM
Strictly speaking I don't agree with Fremer or UHF or Hi-fi Choice all the time either (rarely in most cases). Fremer is a big power SS fanboy however so coming from a SS guy criticism means more perhaps than if I or tube supporters critique the stuff. The manufacturer generally gets a choice of who does the review so ....

Mikey is one of the best reviewers in the business. It's always a pleasure to read what he writes, even if I don't agree with all of it. He's also an analog-is-always-best guy too. The guy lives for vinyl! That's OK with me too.

Here's the review of the monster Wavac I alluded to earlier;

http://stereophile.com/tubepoweramps/704wavac/index5.html

I'm giving Mikey a pass on this one. I think big ticket items can put stars in peoples eyes. And even if they don't live up to the hype it's hard to escape the feeling of using something that only a few will ever have a chance to.

theaudiohobby
08-31-2010, 01:56 PM
This is what Fremer had to say

But while the better of the two pairs of Bryston monoblocks always sounded pleasant, they rarely sounded exciting. The original pair elicited this conclusion: "I listened happily to the pair of them for a month, concentrating on the many things they did well. But their presentation was sort of like tofu: nourishing, but in need of spicing up to be truly tasty. Replacing the darTZeel NHB-18NS preamplifier with Musical Fidelity's all-tube Primo added needed texture and dimensionality. The Audio Valve Sunilda phono preamp added interest. Changes of cable produced useful results. But overall, the Brystons' presentation lacked the microdynamics I was used to from the Musical Fidelity Titan."

While the second pair of 7B SST2s was clearly an improvement over the first, that conclusion stands. In my experience, it is hard to beat a lot of good, clean power, and the Bryston 7B SST2 offers that, plus ultra-low distortion, in a superbly built, reliable package at a very reasonable price. But before buying a pair, listen to the competition.
http://www.stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/bryston_7b_sstsup2sup_monoblock_power_amplifier/index4.html

I'm not saying put all your stock into Fremer but his comments are not dissimilar to the others over the years from UHF or Hi-Fi Choice or what I and numerous other forum posters hear. Having said all that I would still consider them for my home theater set-up down the line..
A counterpoint to Micheal Fremer review by Larry Greenfield (http://www.stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/108bry/index1.html)


The 28B-SST's reproduction of HUGE dynamic contrasts in synthesizer recordings was accompanied by an ability to reveal emotionally evocative musical details ... Come to think of it, the 28B-SST is just the right amplifier to capture the raw power, passion, sonorities, and subtle inner details of Golijov's Azul, should a recording of the work ever be released. I can't wait.
Larry Greenfield felt the 28B-SST did not lack microdynamics, who to believe, Micheal Fremer (7B-SST) or Larry Greenfield(28B-SST)? :smilewinkgrin:

theaudiohobby
08-31-2010, 02:00 PM
Strictly speaking I don't agree with Fremer or UHF or Hi-fi Choice all the time either (rarely in most cases). Fremer is a big power SS fanboy however so coming from a SS guy criticism means more perhaps than if I or tube supporters critique the stuff. The manufacturer generally gets a choice of who does the review so ....Errr....in Stereophile's case, that's not correct.

RGA
08-31-2010, 03:32 PM
Errr....in Stereophile's case, that's not correct.

Well let's just say that if the manufacturer doesn't like who is reviewing the product they don't have to have the product shipped. This is also why you see certain reviewers at magazines including Stereophile review a lot of the same products as ones they already own or have reviewed in the past. The Stereophile reviewer who owns Paradigm gets paradigm, the one who likes SETs or panels gets SETs or panels. Whatever their claims it is fairly obvious who is getting what kind of gear. But it may be just coincidence.

RGA
08-31-2010, 03:38 PM
Larry Greenfield felt the 28B-SST did not lack microdynamics, who to believe, Micheal Fremer (7B-SST) or Larry Greenfield(28B-SST)? :smilewinkgrin:

Yes I suppose it would be a good idea to listen to them and make the call.

pixelthis
09-01-2010, 01:24 PM
The point is, as usual you don't know what you're talking about. I guess all that electronics training didn't teach you how to read.

The real point is, it's something your narrow minded attitude has no knowledge of. That's true of many things.

I know exactly what I AM TALKING ABOUT.
You need a computer to read the in formation the laser is giving you off of the grooves,
at some point you will lose the analog in the signal, waste of time, basically.
BESIDES thats not what the op was talking about, IMHO, he was talking about a
totally analog audio system , brand new, from the ground up, not an attempted refurb
on something that is obsolete.
SOMETHING WHERE a recording head directly records analog to a surface with very little noise or processing, and its read the same way, something without the inherent
shortcomings of records.
Been a surprize to me that with all of its resources that the electronics industry hasn't
tried this, would certainly be a market for it, I know I would go for one .
As for closed minded, look in the mirror.:1:

JoeE SP9
09-02-2010, 04:34 PM
Let me try this again. The Finial now ELPJ Laser TT is completely analog. There is no digital anything in the signal path. I suggest you read one of the White papers about the design.

Check this link directly to the manufacturer.
http://www.elpj.com/about/

As I said "You don't know what you're talking about". Plus, the OP was talking about LP playback not recording.

The ELPJ laser turntable has three models available (with noise reduction and vacuum cleaning attachments extra):<SUP id=cite_ref-elp_1-0 class=reference>[2] (http://forums.audioreview.com/#cite_note-elp-1)</SUP>

LT-1LRC - US$12,000 - 33, 45 - 7", 10", 12"
LT-1XRC - US$15,300 - 33, 45, 78 - 7", 10", 12"
LT-2XRC - US$16,400 - 33, 45, 78 - 7", 8", 9", 10", 11", 12"The laser pickup uses five beams—one on each channel to track the sides of the groove, one on each channel to pick up the sound (just below the tracking beams), and a fifth to track the surface of the record and keep the pickup at a constant height, which allows for record thickness and warping.
The lasers focus on a section of the groove above the level where a conventional stylus will have traveled, and below the typical depth of surface scratches, giving the possibility of like-new reproduction even from worn or scratched records.
The pickup output is analogue (http://forums.audioreview.com/wiki/Analog_electronics): the signal path is never digitized (http://forums.audioreview.com/wiki/Digitized).
Using a laser pickup eliminates many problems associated with physical styli: record wear, horizontal tracking angle error, turntable rumble (http://forums.audioreview.com/wiki/Rumble_measurement), leveling adjustment inaccuracies, inner groove distortion, channel-balance error, stereo crosstalk (http://forums.audioreview.com/wiki/Crosstalk), anti-skating compensation, acoustic feedback (http://forums.audioreview.com/wiki/Acoustic_feedback), skipping, locked-groove problems, problems tracking warped, cracked, or eccentric records and cartridge hum pickup.
The laser turntable is extraordinarily sensitive to record cleanliness and will play exactly what it sees—a speck of dirt is treated as if it were part of the record surface.
When an LP is inserted into the tray drawer and the drawer closed, the turntable reads the surface of the LP, displaying the number of tracks. Users can then program which tracks to play, or repeat, much as a CD player operates.
The laser diode (http://forums.audioreview.com/wiki/Laser_diode) has a typical life of 10,000 hours of use, compared to the 500 hours of playback recommended for a diamond stylus or 50 hours for a sapphire one.
Versions of the ELPJ laser turntable will play back analogue disc records at any speed from 30 to 90 RPM (+/- 0.1 RPM) and of any size from 7 to 12 inches (180 to 300 mm).
The record must be black; coloured, transparent or translucent records cannot be played<SUP id=cite_ref-2 class=reference>[3] (http://forums.audioreview.com/#cite_note-2)</SUP>.
ELP state that they had sold 1300 units by 2007<SUP id=cite_ref-elp_1-1 class=reference>[2] (http://forums.audioreview.com/#cite_note-elp-1)</SUP>

Mr Peabody
09-02-2010, 05:16 PM
I could never afford one of those but sure would like to hear one.

Geoffcin
09-02-2010, 05:32 PM
I could never afford one of those but sure would like to hear one.

I heard one at the HE2005 show. They even had a demo disk that was broken and taped together that played without a hitch! The whole thing looked like a silly waste of effort to me though. Vinyl is a flawed dead-end technology, why even bother?

Mr Peabody
09-02-2010, 05:51 PM
I heard one at the HE2005 show. They even had a demo disk that was broken and taped together that played without a hitch! The whole thing looked like a silly was of effort to me though. Vinyl is a flawed dead-end technology, why even bother?

I guess because as flawed and dead end as it is, it remains the benchmark that digital is still trying to achieve.

Geoffcin
09-02-2010, 06:24 PM
Just calling it like I see it!
At the HE2005 the best playback to me was DVD-Audio played through the Meridian multi-playerhttp://www.qualityaudiovideo.com/CEPRO_Meridian_800.jpg
on 3 Swiss made Piega C8 speakershttp://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/piega8.jpgdriven by monoblock Innersound amps. http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_12_2/images/innersound-i-power-750-amplifier-front-main.jpg


FWIW; I consider all disk tech up to and including BlueRay flawed and outdated. 10 years from now almost everything we hear or look at will all be stored digitally on a server. BlueRay might live on as some sort of archival format, but a fully digital world is just right around the corner.

Mr Peabody
09-02-2010, 06:48 PM
I'm with you on Meridian, I haven't heard them in some years since they were dropped by our local dealer but I thought they sounded very good.

I don't know about right around the corner, if so, some of us will go screaming and crying :)

Geoffcin
09-02-2010, 07:08 PM
I don't know about right around the corner, if so, some of us will go screaming and crying :)

I guess it takes about a generation to get it out of the system, but if you look how fast DVD wiped out VHS, or how fast digital cameras overtook film cameras then you have some idea what's coming for audio. If I could download all my favorite artists in 24/192 or 24/96 then I would never ever play another disk....EVER!

We're not there yet, but even 5 years from now we'll be looking at a good percentage of people using only downloaded music. The days of disks are numbered!!

theaudiohobby
09-02-2010, 08:27 PM
I guess because as flawed and dead end as it is, it remains the benchmark that digital is still trying to achieve.Sure, in the same way that electric trains have miserably failed to capture the romanticism of steam locomotives :wink5: but on all performance fronts, the steam loco has been totally and completely surpassed. ;)

JoeE SP9
09-02-2010, 09:46 PM
I heard one at the HE2005 show. They even had a demo disk that was broken and taped together that played without a hitch! The whole thing looked like a silly waste of effort to me though. Vinyl is a flawed dead-end technology, why even bother?

Because I have 3500 LP's and HDD storage is just not reliable enough for me. I always have all my data backed up. That's because I know from experience that HDD's fail, usually with no warning. When there is solid state storage in multi terabyte size I may rethink this. Even then an EMP will destroy the data. A large EMP is the byproduct of a nuclear explosion so I suppose I shouldn't worry about data loss as I'll be dead anyway.

Geoffcin
09-03-2010, 02:37 AM
Even then an EMP will destroy the data. A large EMP is the byproduct of a nuclear explosion so I suppose I shouldn't worry about data loss as I'll be dead anyway.

HAHAHA!! Of course that windup Victrola will still work so there will be music after the "end of days"!

pixelthis
09-03-2010, 11:11 AM
Because I have 3500 LP's and HDD storage is just not reliable enough for me. I always have all my data backed up. That's because I know from experience that HDD's fail, usually with no warning. When there is solid state storage in multi terabyte size I may rethink this. Even then an EMP will destroy the data. A large EMP is the byproduct of a nuclear explosion so I suppose I shouldn't worry about data loss as I'll be dead anyway.

PROBABLY not, you will just wish you were dead.
A Faraday CAGE (microwave oven) will protect anything inside, of course then you will
have to find a power source.
I HAVE HEARD of survivalist types putting their cell and ipods in their microwaves,
guess they never figured what a nuke would do to a cell net.:1:

Mr Peabody
09-03-2010, 04:30 PM
Sure, in the same way that electric trains have miserably failed to capture the romanticism of steam locomotives :wink5: but on all performance fronts, the steam loco has been totally and completely surpassed. ;)

This goes without saying but what an amazingly inaccurate analogy.

theaudiohobby
09-03-2010, 07:56 PM
This goes without saying but what an amazingly inaccurate analogy.Leave the analogy aside, what's the elusive benchmark that vinyl has set, it's certainly not technical performance of any kind because by any objective measure it has been totally and completely surpassed by digital in every way.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
09-03-2010, 08:00 PM
I guess it takes about a generation to get it out of the system, but if you look how fast DVD wiped out VHS, or how fast digital cameras overtook film cameras then you have some idea what's coming for audio. If I could download all my favorite artists in 24/192 or 24/96 then I would never ever play another disk....EVER!

If a record company executive read this, he would be trembling in his boots big time. The record companies make a small fraction on downloads than they make on physical disc, and they don't even want to deal with a world that is financially smaller than it is now.


We're not there yet, but even 5 years from now we'll be looking at a good percentage of people using only downloaded music. The days of disks are numbered!!

I have heard this all before, but I don't think it is going to happen. I just got my latest NDP report, and music downloads(and Itunes specifically) have been seeing a downward trend in sales of late. As a matter of fact rental downloads and digital sales are all heading south, and have been for a couple of quarters. Also the Google/Verizon deal has put quite a dent in the net neutrality push, so nobody seems to know where internet commerce is truly headed. If other internet concerns and telecoms start making deals like Google and Verizon have, then I don't think there is going to be a real clear pathway for digital downloading, as everyone is going to be protecting their turf, while their turf is actually eroding away. Secondly both the telecom's and cable companies are not spending the necessary investment money to speed the internet up as a whole, and without that component, digital downloads is headed for a very slow and rocky way.

I think five years is far too soon for a all digital download world, and I think it is farther off than most would be willing to admit. I have 6TB of raid storage now for when the day comes, but I think it will come when it comes, but not within some of the rosy predictions I have been seeing.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
09-03-2010, 08:04 PM
Leave the analogy aside, what's the elusive benchmark that vinyl has set, it's certainly not technical performance of any kind because by any objective measure it has been totally and completely surpassed by digital in every way.

While I agree with what you are saying, I admit vinyl does some good things with music, especially when the mastering and cutting is in the hands of folks like Doug Sax and Bernie Grundman. However, even they admit those very things that it does well, are also the very things that do not make the medium very accurate when compared to the master tapes. This is an area where CD does well, and Blu ray disc absolutely excels.

Smokey
09-03-2010, 08:30 PM
Sure, in the same way that electric trains have miserably failed to capture the romanticism of steam locomotives :wink5: but on all performance fronts, the steam loco has been totally and completely surpassed. ;)

Wow, what an accurate description. Excellent post :thumbsup:

E-Stat
09-03-2010, 08:34 PM
The record companies make a small fraction on downloads than they make on physical disc...
Curious observation. Taking a quick look at a random mix of new and old releases over at Amazon, I find the MP3 "album" (as in downloadable version) is usually the same price or more expensive than the CD. Hmmm. No media cost. No media production cost. No packaging cost. No cost of carrying inventory. Instead, just cheap fixed cost storage on a server. Making less money? They whine about everything.

Just as some low volume books are only produced on demand to save the costs associated with mass production, some albums are only available as downloads. That reality, on the other hand, makes perfect sense.

rw

RGA
09-03-2010, 10:58 PM
I thought I'd throw this out there - the president of Naxos was recently interviewed - talks about CD the new formats etc etc.

http://www.stereophile.com/news/klaus_heymann_of_naxos/

Feanor
09-04-2010, 05:12 AM
I thought I'd throw this out there - the president of Naxos was recently interviewed - talks about CD the new formats etc etc.

http://www.stereophile.com/news/klaus_heymann_of_naxos/
Thanks, RGA. That was very interesting, and I learned a couple of things, e.g. Naxos to distribute Warner Classics, and Naxos radio which I'd somehow missed.

To quote Klaus Heymann, "The classical market has now probably shrunk to the core collector. There are very few titles that will sell huge quantities like in the past." Too bad but doesn't bother me much at this point; there is still more classical choice than ever -- and it's (virtually) all on CD (or SACD).

As for classical downloads increasing slowly, this isn't surprising to me. First, few classical listeners, (the "core" Heymann speaks of), are interested in complete albums, or at least complete, multi-track, composition, not single "songs". There is little saving buying a complete album for download and, secondly, not much reason to so so at all if the rez is only 320 kpbs.

Personally I would download vs. CD but I'm loath to pay almost full price for 320 kbps. ArkivMusic for example, now sells many albums, (notably Naxos), for download but only at 320 kbps, albeit at a small saving over the physical CD. Not good enough for me, but that will change when I can get FLAC downloads for the price of the lower rez.

theaudiohobby
09-04-2010, 05:25 AM
While I agree with what you are saying, I admit vinyl does some good things with music, especially when the mastering and cutting is in the hands of folks like Doug Sax and Bernie Grundman. However, even they admit those very things that it does well, are also the very things that do not make the medium very accurate when compared to the master tapes. This is an area where CD does well, and Blu ray disc absolutely excels.There, you said it :14:, should we seek progress by emulating vinyl distortion :14: :idea: Reminds me of the Orient Express so beautifully captured in certain period movies. Oh so romantic but absolutely and completely outclassed by modern bullet trains when the raison d'etre of trains is considered. :15:

theaudiohobby
09-04-2010, 05:31 AM
Hi Feanor,

I believe you meant to say that core classical music collectors are not interested in single song downloads but in complete albums/compositions , correct? I know I am not interested in single songs at least as far as classical music is concerned.

theaudiohobby
09-04-2010, 05:59 AM
Wow, what an accurate description. Excellent post :thumbsup:
Thanks:14:

E-Stat
09-04-2010, 06:52 AM
Personally I would download vs. CD but I'm loath to pay almost full price for 320 kbps. ArkivMusic for example, now sells many albums, (notably Naxos), for download but only at 320 kbps, albeit at a small saving over the physical CD.
Agree. I've never purchased a low resolution download of anything. Amazon has given me two free "songs" which were used for content for which I later purchased the CD. Heymann says "I don't think the future of the industry will be entirely downloads, as we had thought maybe three years ago," Hey Klaus - d'ya think its because we don't want to download lossy crap?

Perhaps the situation will change when buyers don't have to choose between convenience and quality. In fact, it may well be that for releases which are only available as a CD, a 24/96 download would provide better quality.

rw

mlsstl
09-04-2010, 07:20 AM
Curious observation. Taking a quick look at a random mix of new and old releases over at Amazon, I find the MP3 "album" (as in downloadable version) is usually the same price or more expensive than the CD. Hmmm. No media cost. No media production cost. No packaging cost. No cost of carrying inventory. Instead, just cheap fixed cost storage on a server. Making less money? They whine about everything.

You're right, record companies whine about everything. But so do farmers, politicians, unions and pretty much everyone else in the universe. Look at the teachers in Milwaukee who are fighting tooth and nail to keep a Viagra benefit in their health plan while the school district is in a financial crisis. Now THAT is a first class mealy mouthed whine!

TTT is right in the sense that downloads are not as profitable because it has heavily swung the market from whole album purchases back to singles. In a fashion, that's pretty much the same spot the record business was in during the 1950s and prior. Not many people like going back in time to their old pay scale. Once the bar has been raised, no one I know likes seeing it lowered.

Since the record company revenue stream is dominated by popular music, it really doesn't matter too much that classical, jazz and some other genres are still album dominated. They don't produce the needed volume.

The point is that the way people buy music is changing (again) and that endangers the record companies' financial model.

Whines are a guaranteed byproduct.

Mr Peabody
09-04-2010, 07:20 AM
It's interesting that if digital is so great no one wants to associate their gear with that term "digital", I've yet to see some one advertise, "our player sounds so digital", but you always see the ultimate compliment, "this player sounds analog, or, more like analog". No wonder I feel vinyl is sort of a benchmark. And, at this point vinyl is still 100% of the original signal where digital, well, is not.

E-Stat
09-04-2010, 07:34 AM
TTT is right in the sense that downloads are not as profitable because it has heavily swung the market from whole album purchases back to singles.
Ok. It is not downloading per se, but the sale of singles. That is no way changes the favorable economics of downloadable albums vs. physical media.

rw

Feanor
09-04-2010, 07:40 AM
Hi Feanor,

I believe you meant to say that core classical music collectors are not interested in single song downloads but in complete albums/compositions , correct? I know I am not interested in single songs at least as far as classical music is concerned.
Indeed!

Feanor
09-04-2010, 07:47 AM
Ok. It is not downloading per se, but the sale of singles. That is no way changes the favorable economics of downloadable albums vs. physical media.

rw
Absolutely!!! A buck a song is gouge by any accounting when you consider the cost of physical production, distribution incl. middleman markups, and inventory. Vs. physical CD, price of a download ought to be 20% at worst, say $1 a song or $2 an ablum or similar math.

And the producers are perplexed about so much piracy? Not really: it's for public show and feeding to the polititians.

I would sure as heck buy many more albums at $2.50 or even $5.00 than CD price, and I'll bet I'm not along. It's call "demand flexability".

E-Stat
09-04-2010, 08:04 AM
A buck a song is gouge by any accounting when you consider the cost of physical production, distribution incl. middleman markups, and inventory.
Or, conversely, the price of unbundled singles should be higher recognizing that the fixed costs of musical production are now shouldered by the reduced revenue of cherry picked content. Leverage the quantity discount model. Buy one for $2 or all ten for $8.

rw

mlsstl
09-04-2010, 09:55 AM
Ok. It is not downloading per se, but the sale of singles. That is no way changes the favorable economics of downloadable albums vs. physical media.
rw

I think you're still being a bit hard on the boys.

I just checked Amazon for the new Tom Petty "Mojo" album. The CD is $13 (possibly plus shipping) versus $10 for the download version.

CD duplication prices for small quantities are in the $1 to $1.50 range (with packaging) so the price differential between CD and download doesn't seem unreasonable.

The problem from a business economics standpoint is you can't focus on just the unit production cost of the product. There are enormous fixed expenses Warner, for example, had $1,118,000,000 in administrative and marketing expenses in 2009 that were independent of artist and other unit production costs. All in all, there is some, but not a lot of difference in the cost of distributing music physically or digitally. You're looking at a differential of perhaps 10% or so.

However, if a company is used to getting $10 or $15 when a buyer wanted one or two songs and had to buy an album but is now getting $1 or $2 for the download of the specific songs, that ripples all the way through the company.

Hence, as noted before, that's a big change and is going to require some dramatic restructuring - layoffs, downsizing, loss of marginal acts, etc, etc.

There is no surprise whining is involved.

E-Stat
09-04-2010, 10:16 AM
I just checked Amazon for the new Tom Petty "Mojo" album. The CD is $13 (possibly plus shipping) versus $10 for the download version.
And when you look at other examples, you find the opposite situation. Like for Brad Paisley here (http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_kk_1?rh=i%3Apopular%2Ck%3Abrad+paisley&keywords=brad+paisley&ie=UTF8&qid=1283623904). For three of his albums, the MP3 download is more expensive.


CD duplication prices for small quantities are in the $1 to $1.50 range (with packaging) so the price differential between CD and download doesn't seem unreasonable.
Which makes zero sense that the downloads would ever be more expensive.


However, if a company is used to getting $10 or $15 when a buyer wanted one or two songs and had to buy an album but is now getting $1 or $2 for the download of the specific songs, that ripples all the way through the company.
Agreed. I'm comparing apples with apples with album examples.

rw

Mr Peabody
09-04-2010, 10:34 AM
I wonder if it comes out close in the end, some consumers may not be willing to pay $13.00 to get one or two songs where they might go ahead and buy the two tracks at $1 a piece. Maybe the singles will add up. Also, a recent band, I'm thinking Siliva, did a heavy cover of Wham's Careless Whisper that was available on mp3 but I don't think has ever appeared on an album yet, it may in the future though, who knows. Many artists and the record companies do have to think about the garbage they release now, Pop and Country has been notorious about releasing albums with only a track or two worth listening to.

mlsstl
09-04-2010, 10:43 AM
I wonder if it comes out close in the end, some consumers may not be willing to pay $13.00 to get one or two songs where they might go ahead and buy the two tracks at $1 a piece. Maybe the singles will add up.

That's not been the history so far. If you look at Warner's annual report, 2009 revenues (the last full year available) are down over $300 million from 2008. That's not chicken feed. The download market may be growing, but it certainly isn't replacing gross revenue.

This is one of those "sea changes" that an entire industry is going to have to come to grips with. That is certainly going to involve changes they don't like and will certainly include aspects that we, as customers, won't like either.

mlsstl
09-04-2010, 10:51 AM
And when you look at other examples, you find the opposite situation. Like for Brad Paisley here (http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_kk_1?rh=i%3Apopular%2Ck%3Abrad+paisley&keywords=brad+paisley&ie=UTF8&qid=1283623904). For three of his albums, the MP3 download is more expensive.

Which makes zero sense that the downloads would ever be more expensive.

rw

You keep focusing on the unit cost of a very inexpensive physical product, but that's only a minor part of the total expense picture.

Municipal water supply systems offer an interesting analogy. With increased societal emphasis on saving water, many communities have gone to great lengths to reduce their water consumption. Many consumers are only seeing their water bills increase.

Why? It's not the cost of the water. It is the cost of the physical facilities and pipes, electricity to run it, payroll for manpower and maintenance costs. None of these expenses reduce if water consumption goes down. As such rates go up as people use less.

In the music industry, you have falling revenues as consumer buying habits change. It is not surprising that the pricing model is in a state of flux as record companies try to keep up revenue to the extent they can. They are trying to balance that against consumer resistance over pricing.

It is not surprising that some artists (or their label) may be experimenting to see if they can extract a premium for the convenience of a fast download (immediate gratification.)

As noted in the post to Mr. Peabody, these changes affect everybody even when they may not appear to make sense on the surface.

Feanor
09-04-2010, 11:01 AM
Or, conversely, the price of unbundled singles should be higher recognizing that the fixed costs of musical production are now shouldered by the reduced revenue of cherry picked content. Leverage the quantity discount model. Buy one for $2 or all ten for $8.

rw
Eight bucks is still too high. However thinking about, I suspect is that the record companies aren't prepared yet to write off their physical distribution channels. That is, the direct selling price must not undercut the retail selling price otherwise the retailers won't carry the merchandize.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
09-04-2010, 11:02 AM
Curious observation. Taking a quick look at a random mix of new and old releases over at Amazon, I find the MP3 "album" (as in downloadable version) is usually the same price or more expensive than the CD. Hmmm. No media cost. No media production cost. No packaging cost. No cost of carrying inventory. Instead, just cheap fixed cost storage on a server. Making less money? They whine about everything.

Just as some low volume books are only produced on demand to save the costs associated with mass production, some albums are only available as downloads. That reality, on the other hand, makes perfect sense.

rw

It seems to me that both consumers and record company executives whine about everything, I don't think either is less guilty of that.

Remember, that is what Amazon charges, not what they give to the record company. The record company would rather you purchase the CD, that is where they get their money from. Amazon charges whatever they want for the MP3 album, but what rights they pay for that are fixed. Some folks think that just a little file on a server is cheap storage, but the reality is, it ain't so.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
09-04-2010, 11:03 AM
That's not been the history so far. If you look at Warner's annual report, 2009 revenues (the last full year available) are down over $300 million from 2008. That's not chicken feed. The download market may be growing, but it certainly isn't replacing gross revenue.

This is one of those "sea changes" that an entire industry is going to have to come to grips with. That is certainly going to involve changes they don't like and will certainly include aspects that we, as customers, won't like either.

Bingo!!!

Sir Terrence the Terrible
09-04-2010, 11:17 AM
You keep focusing on the unit cost of a very inexpensive physical product, but that's only a minor part of the total expense picture.

Municipal water supply systems offer an interesting analogy. With increased societal emphasis on saving water, many communities have gone to great lengths to reduce their water consumption. Many consumers are only seeing their water bills increase.

Why? It's not the cost of the water. It is the cost of the physical facilities and pipes, electricity to run it, payroll for manpower and maintenance costs. None of these expenses reduce if water consumption goes down. As such rates go up as people use less.

In the music industry, you have falling revenues as consumer buying habits change. It is not surprising that the pricing model is in a state of flux as record companies try to keep up revenue to the extent they can. They are trying to balance that against consumer resistance over pricing.

It is not surprising that some artists (or their label) may be experimenting to see if they can extract a premium for the convenience of a fast download (immediate gratification.)

As noted in the post to Mr. Peabody, these changes affect everybody even when they may not appear to make sense on the surface.

Bingo again!!!

Sir Terrence the Terrible
09-04-2010, 11:24 AM
And, at this point vinyl is still 100% of the original signal where digital, well, is not.

This statement clearly shows that you have absolutely no understanding of digital audio whatsoever. What comment would you make if what was on the vinyl was digitally recorded?

Sir Terrence the Terrible
09-04-2010, 11:39 AM
There, you said it :14:, should we seek progress by emulating vinyl distortion :14: :idea: Reminds me of the Orient Express so beautifully captured in certain period movies. Oh so romantic but absolutely and completely outclassed by modern bullet trains when the raison d'etre of trains is considered. :15:

First, I just want to remind you that you are preaching to the choir.

I also want to add that a really good lathe cutter like Doug Sax, can create a master disc surprisingly low in distortion. Now what happens in the replication process is another story, and that goes double for reproduction in the home.

RGA
09-04-2010, 12:31 PM
Feanor

Well I would think downloading would be greener, no? I mean CD's were never had much of a keep sake factor with the puny art work and take out a magnifying glass to read the tiny ass print. So if you're going to simply load the CD into a machine like the Soolos/hard drive system then you may as well bypass the CD all together if you can get a lossless perfect copy of the CD.

If you have not seen Soolos I highly recommend you fiddle around with it. You can certainly do something similar with a laptop and hard drive for far less money but the touch screen interface is very very nice. Though it is also very expensive - but the Chinese will make a knockoff that will be 1/10th the price and probably a lot better sooner or later.

I am the owner of a 300 disc mega changer and owned a 100 disc changer many years back and an 18 disc 3 magazine stack machine from Pioneer. There is sound quality and ease of use to weigh but I feel ease of use wins out. I mean if you connect a very good DA converter to a Sony 300 disc changer you will get better sound than a lot of or even most one box cd players. Or it will be "close enough" that the functionality and ease of use outweigh the sonics.

My 300 disc changer with the Grant Fidelity Dac 9 at $250 sounds a lot better than my $800 Cambridge Audio player for a combined $500. And that's a cheap do it all DAC/tube preamp so there is no reason it can't be even better with a much better DAC.

With Soolos you are taking the trashy transport of the 300 disc changer out of the picture not to mention you can probably put 25,000 CDs into the machine - it really boils down to your hard drive space.

Terry at Soundhounds has probably 20,000 LPs and maybe approaching that in CD. You simply insert the disc wait a couple minutes - not long and it's in the hard drive - it automatically saves it no button clicking - it knows what to do. you can have it set to genres, or alphabetical etc. You can't remember the name of the artists just type the first couple of letters and it will find it by artist or album title. push the screen where the cd is and it opens up and you can play all or the song.

If you have a large music collection and you want to let a friend listen to something he said it could take him half an hour to find the the album. With Soolos it becomes seconds. In the second room they have an apple iMac hard drive or whatever it's called and the only thing it is used for is music storage. It's very small - and you can do the same thing with a laptop and itunes or whatever other program you like. They had it connected to an Ayre DAC and this sounded easily better than the cd players in the general price range and some above it.

Hard drives are stupid cheap. Future Shop was selling a 640gb hard drive for $99 and this is the USB powered tiny Free Agent Go drives with the 5 year warranty. The argument over losing data is not relevant since you could buy 3 such hard drives using two as double back-ups for your music collection. They also sell 1TB drives that are the same size for $140.

The thing is while sound is important for many of us there is a factor to consider that even if I prefer one format over another if the other brings an improvement in user friendliness on the magnitude of 100 times then it's something to look at.

I think a big argument against it comes from owners who have a LOT of cash invested in a given technology. If you own 20,000 CDs (or LPS for that matter) that you paid full retail price for it's very hard to move on when it means you have to admit that the new technology is better.

I certainly don't want to be hanging onto things for sentiment or because I spent X dollars and refuse to admit that times they are a changing.

Certainly vinyl is worth it because there is just such a huge amount of music on no other format - especially in the electronica rare classical and pop singles catalog but if you are not invested in the music or have an established collection it may not be worth the investment/space/time involved. And if you don't live in an area where you can get good used and cheap vinyl then it's completely not worth it. I pick up stuff for a buck or two so the money that goes to the table is offset by the music prices. A lot of it you can get free if you ask friends if they want to dump their collections. But then storage becomes a huge issue. With the buying power of most people diminishing - the dad working and buying a big huge house and 2 cars and putting all his kids through college to today where far more highly educated people have huge debt at 25 and can barely afford a one bedroom apartment with no kids, one used clunker and with the wife/girlfirend also better educated and in huge debt where are they going to put 5000 records or be able to play them at any reasonable volume? Most of the young educated folk who can afford more came from wealthier parents who could afford to pay their university tuition and buy them their cars and cell phone plans. Money stays with money.

Then the music industry and movie industry wonder why these poor university trained people download and thus steal music on Bittorent they have no money. Even in Canada the buying power in my profession, teaching is 50% of what it was in 1985. So we're more educated, and it costs far more to become a teacher today needing at least 5 and 1/2 years of university in British Columbia than it did in 1985 which required a one year program and yet we make 50% of what we did in 1985 (and it's still far better than in the United States where a friend made a whole $21,000 a year in California). I don't how far $21,000 goes in California maybe things are cheap!

The Soolos systems reduce space, reduce materials and if you want the cover art you can probably print the screen and get a huge picture of the musician's booklets. And if you have ten friend's you can buy one album between you - my teacher friend would have to, and then you can load that disc into ten soolos machines. Pool your money together to buy the album.

mlsstl
09-04-2010, 01:10 PM
re: teachers salaries (and it's still far better than in the United States where a friend made a whole $21,000 a year in California)....

Your friend needs to look around a bit. The US Bureau of Labor & Statistics reports the average K-12 teacher salary in the US is $47,000 not counting benefits. The average is over $52,000 if you just look at secondary schools. Including benefits increases those income numbers by 25% to 35%.

According to a recent Manhattan Institute study of teacher salaries, public school teachers are paid 11 percent more than the average professional worker. On an hourly wage basis, they earn more than accountants, medical scientists, architects and civil engineers.

In fact, it has been widely reported in the press lately that the average publicly employed worker in the US now earns about double the average private sector income when total compensation is included.

See, everyone whines!

theaudiohobby
09-04-2010, 03:53 PM
And, at this point vinyl is still 100% of the original signal where digital, well, is not. :nonod: As a matter of fact, it isn't, not even close.


It's interesting that if digital is so great no one wants to associate their gear with that term "digital", I've yet to see some one advertise, "our player sounds so digital", but you always see the ultimate compliment, "this player sounds analog, or, more like analog". voila! :), romanticism

Feanor
09-04-2010, 04:29 PM
Feanor

Well I would think downloading would be greener, no? I mean CD's were never had much of a keep sake factor with the puny art work and take out a magnifying glass to read the tiny ass print.
....
You're preaching to the converted, of course, RGA.

I listen almost exclusively to computer files nowaday. I have a dedicated XP computer that I use to read mostly FLAC or ALAC but also MP3 files for a gigabit LAN-connected Windows Home Server machine. You can see a high-level diagram of this under my signature.

I don't have a really huge collection; only about 700 classical and another 200 or so albums (listened to mostly by other family members). These are mostly ripped CDs. All this occupies about 700 MB and I have another terabyte or so available on the WHS.

I use Foobar2000 as my player and it is higly flexible. I can find any piece in a few seconds by sorting the whole collection in any of a number of sequences. And I can create new, custom sort sequences easily.

Here's a pic of the Foobar interface set up the way I like it. Note the sort sequence here happens to be genre, then composer, then album.
...

Smokey
09-04-2010, 08:34 PM
And, at this point vinyl is still 100% of the original signal where digital, well, is not.

You apparently forgot a stumbling block in vinyl chain call RIAA equalization where signal is attenuated at the pressing (lows are atteunated and highs are boosted), and then de-equalized by phono preamp (lows are boosted and highs are atteunated). If anything, the tolerations in these EQ processes take away signal originallity.

Mr Peabody
09-04-2010, 08:44 PM
You apparently forgot a stumbling block in vinyl chain call RIAA equalization where signal is attenuated at the pressing (lows are atteunated and highs are boosted), and then de-equalized by phono preamp (lows are boosted and highs are atteunated). If anything, the tolerations in these EQ processes take away signal originallity.

But it doesn't take away bits. And I'd think the engineers had mastering the LP under control..

theaudiohobby
09-04-2010, 10:21 PM
But it doesn't take away bits. And I'd think the engineers had mastering the LP under control..There is more to linearity than bits, vinyl is inherently lossy compared to digital and there is not much engineers can do about it, vinyl is not even in the race if high resolution digital is considered. RIAA compensation highlights some of the inherent limitations of the medium such as its decreased linearity at the frequency extremes.

theaudiohobby
09-04-2010, 10:23 PM
If anything, the tolerations in these EQ processes take away signal originallity. Exactly!:6:

mlsstl
09-05-2010, 04:35 AM
The RIAA equalization curve has an emphasis/deemphasis range of 40 dB over the 20 to 20,000 Hz range to which it applies. That's a very big range that must be dealt with; this gives lots of opportunities for significant errors in both disc creation and playback.

I've heard LPs that sound wonderful, LPs that sound terrible and many that are merely mediocre. Same thing with CDs. Sometimes it is easy to forget the storage format is far less important than the care that is used in making and copying the music for distribution.

RGA
09-05-2010, 01:19 PM
Your friend needs to look around a bit. The US Bureau of Labor & Statistics reports the average K-12 teacher salary in the US is $47,000 not counting benefits. The average is over $52,000 if you just look at secondary schools. Including benefits increases those income numbers by 25% to 35%.

According to a recent Manhattan Institute study of teacher salaries, public school teachers are paid 11 percent more than the average professional worker. On an hourly wage basis, they earn more than accountants, medical scientists, architects and civil engineers.

In fact, it has been widely reported in the press lately that the average publicly employed worker in the US now earns about double the average private sector income when total compensation is included.

See, everyone whines!

Thanks - I did not mention that this was a Kindergarten teacher and this was 5 years ago. Another person noted that the salary can be decent once you've held the job for 10 years. The average teacher salary is generally high because a large portion of the teacher workforce is older and have been doing it for many years. The starting salaries I saw were all in the low $30,000 range with a couple of exception states that have a veyr high cost of living - and Alaska.

The benefits are less impressive from a Canadian Perspective since we all get free medical, teacher or not, homeless person or not.

But it is certainly nice to see that salaries are rising - it's difficult to tell a kid to value education is their teacher is being paid less than a janitor (which was the case in one U.S. State a few years back).

Interestingly, in the States they often pay teachers for their extra-curricular programs as some sort of bonus. They do not do this in Canada. So it is quite possible that if you run the after school soccer club and the newspaper and chess club etc you could make a fair bit of cash. Personally, I see no problem with that approach because I never really understood why teachers were "expected to volunteer" (which is a funny way to volunteer since it's kind of forced) to run after school sports programs while Jimmy's lawyer, banker, engineer, doctor, whatever mom or dad could just as easily "volunteer" for such programs (some do as well). Some schools don't always have a staff that really have the knowledge or ability in a given extra-curricualr activity - or the money. I am seeing more of that community thing going which is nice - hope it keeps improving.

Feanor
09-05-2010, 04:13 PM
Your friend needs to look around a bit. The US Bureau of Labor & Statistics reports the average K-12 teacher salary in the US is $47,000 not counting benefits. The average is over $52,000 if you just look at secondary schools. Including benefits increases those income numbers by 25% to 35%.

According to a recent Manhattan Institute study of teacher salaries, public school teachers are paid 11 percent more than the average professional worker. On an hourly wage basis, they earn more than accountants, medical scientists, architects and civil engineers.

In fact, it has been widely reported in the press lately that the average publicly employed worker in the US now earns about double the average private sector income when total compensation is included.

See, everyone whines!
I can't attest to the situation of teachers in particular, either in US or Canada. However both North American countries are in an historic interval of secular decline. This is nothing new: it has been going on for 30 years though it has accelerated in the last decade. This tend is disproportionately experienced by working class, including technical/professionals, (or call 'em "middle class" if you like). It is caused by globalization plus the end of abundant natural resources, (e.g. oil), from domestic sources, especialy in the US.

However I believe the public sector workers, many of whom are unionized, have been to some extent protected from these trends by contracts or public sector policies that gear salaries and benefits to inflation. This is not the case in the private sector. E.g. in my job as a systems analyst, I received the same nominal salary from 2000 until my retirement this year. Not only did I take a de facto 25% pay cut based on my base salary in that period, I also ceased to received bonuses that I had earned early on. This was no fault of mine other than that as a near-retirement worker I no longer received "plum" assignments, (because it was inportant to "bring along" younger workers).

mlsstl
09-05-2010, 04:47 PM
I should note that, many years ago, I taught school for a couple of years so I'm quite familiar with the profession. My starting salary was $7,100. But that was another life.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
09-06-2010, 08:57 AM
But it doesn't take away bits. And I'd think the engineers had mastering the LP under control..

It is still an art only a few have mastered. Regardless if it takes away bits or not, getting things exactly right is a tedious processes where there is plenty of room to make mistakes.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
09-06-2010, 09:06 AM
Well I would think downloading would be greener, no? I mean CD's were never had much of a keep sake factor with the puny art work and take out a magnifying glass to read the tiny ass print. So if you're going to simply load the CD into a machine like the Soolos/hard drive system then you may as well bypass the CD all together if you can get a lossless perfect copy of the CD.

This is a pretty common myth, but downloading is not greener than physical product. Even when you take into consideration the manufacturering of the disc itself, transportation to both the warehouse and store, the physical disc is more green than the download. With Apple Itunes, it takes 17 computers to complete an Itunes download. With Amazon it takes 21 computers to complete the same task. Even with the new low heat, and managed electricity usage of the newer blade servers, downloads are extreme power consumers.

Feanor
09-06-2010, 11:38 AM
This is a pretty common myth, but downloading is not greener than physical product. Even when you take into consideration the manufacturering of the disc itself, transportation to both the warehouse and store, the physical disc is more green than the download. With Apple Itunes, it takes 17 computers to complete an Itunes download. With Amazon it takes 21 computers to complete the same task. Even with the new low heat, and managed electricity usage of the newer blade servers, downloads are extreme power consumers.
These statements are invalid in their implication -- I say after careful consideration and 40 years in the IT business. For one thing the number of computers, while possibly true if you trace the full path of a dowload, conveys a wrong notion. So yes, maybe it takes 21 computers to support a download from Amazon: it takes the same 21 computers to support millions downloads.

E-Stat
09-07-2010, 06:43 AM
it takes the same 21 computers to support a million downloads.
Absolutely. As I observed that charging more for downloading an album is not related to their cost.

rw

Geoffcin
09-07-2010, 07:33 AM
Absolutely. As I observed that charging more for downloading an album is not related to their cost.

rw

This is nothing new for the recording industry. I remember them charging more for CD's when they were first introduced with the excuse used that CD's cost more to produce. They kept the premium in force long after CD's became incredibly cheap to produce. When the big scandle about this lie led to a class action lawsuit they trotted out their big-time lawers and eventually won. Basically on the grounds that they can charge what they want for any format and there's nothing that anyone else can say about it.

E-Stat
09-07-2010, 09:08 AM
This is nothing new for the recording industry.
I have no problem with the industry pricing intellectual property any way they wish. It is just disingenuous for anyone to think that the infrastructure for downloading is more expensive than what is required to produce, distribute, and stock physical media. Especially with the assertion that such consumes less energy in the supply chain. Even paper is extremely expensive to handle and distribute. Which is why the overwhelmingly preferential method for fund transfers and distribution of all sorts of documents is now using electronic means (which is my area of expertise).

rw

Geoffcin
09-07-2010, 09:47 AM
I have no problem with the industry pricing intellectual property any way they wish. It is just disingenuous for anyone to think that the infrastructure for downloading is more expensive than what is required to produce, distribute, and stock physical media. Especially with the assertion that such consumes less energy in the supply chain. Even paper is extremely expensive to handle and distribute. Which is why the overwhelmingly preferential method for fund transfers and distribution of all sorts of documents is now using electronic means (which is my area of expertise).

rw

Hey, bold faced outright lies worked for them before, did you think they wouldn't try it again? Wait till you see what they have planned for the future!

mlsstl
09-07-2010, 11:50 AM
Hey, bold faced outright lies worked for them before, did you think they wouldn't try it again? Wait till you see what they have planned for the future!
I can't say I've heard anyone outside this forum claim anything extraordinary concerning higher infrastructure costs for downloading vs physical product distribution.

However, as I noted in a post a few days ago, far too much attention is paid to the unit production cost which is frankly only a very small portion of the equation, whether one is talking physical media or download.

The big question for the music corporations is how do they amortize all of those fixed costs that are present whether they sell 10,000 albums or ten million?

There has always been the problem of generally not knowing in advance which albums are going to be big sellers and which are going to be losers. Now they have the added dynamic of losing album sales to singles. In many ways the industry is in the process of reverting, at least partially, to a pre-1960s state.

I'm just thankful I'm not in the recording industry. It's a lot easier to keep one's serenity watching from the sidelines versus having to depend on it for my livelihood.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
09-07-2010, 01:18 PM
I can't say I've heard anyone outside this forum claim anything extraordinary concerning higher infrastructure costs for downloading vs physical product distribution.

However, as I noted in a post a few days ago, far too much attention is paid to the unit production cost which is frankly only a very small portion of the equation, whether one is talking physical media or download.

The big question for the music corporations is how do they amortize all of those fixed costs that are present whether they sell 10,000 albums or ten million?

There has always been the problem of generally not knowing in advance which albums are going to be big sellers and which are going to be losers. Now they have the added dynamic of losing album sales to singles. In many ways the industry is in the process of reverting, at least partially, to a pre-1960s state.

I'm just thankful I'm not in the recording industry. It's a lot easier to keep one's serenity watching from the sidelines versus having to depend on it for my livelihood.

I have to agree with you here. Another thing that trips me out is so many claimed to be so informed on this issue, but don't really have a clue of all what goes into a single download in terms of cost.

8 studios, Amazon and Itunes all furnish their costs to produce or host a product, and a third party concludes that overall costs for producing a disc was cheaper. Amazon and Apple don't dispute the conclusion, but folks here that do not work for any of the parties, are not privy to the information submitted, say their expertise tells them something different. Excuse me if I listen to the folks that actually did the work, rather than those who sit behind keyboards and assume they are correct.

It is no secret that Apple is not making a dime on Itunes, and neither is Amazon on theirs.

E-Stat
09-07-2010, 02:08 PM
It is no secret that Apple is not making a dime on Itunes, and neither is Amazon on theirs.
Solely because the music companies have chosen to price their licenses that way. Such has nothing to do with the real costs behind the delivery method.

rw

Sir Terrence the Terrible
09-07-2010, 02:10 PM
Solely because the music companies have chosen to price their licenses that way. Such has nothing to do with the real costs behind the delivery method.

rw

You don't know this for sure do you? The corps director of the Renegades(of which I am affiliated with) is charge of the operations of ITunes, and he has a different answer than you do.

E-Stat
09-07-2010, 02:22 PM
I can't say I've heard anyone outside this forum claim anything extraordinary concerning higher infrastructure costs for downloading vs physical product distribution.
Yet, you'll find higher prices for album downloads than CDs on Amazon. Does that make sense from a strictly cost-of-goods question? Clearly, such pricing is driven by the whim of the music companies who license the content, not by a linear markup method.

I agree with you that the problem they have brought on themselves is making everything available as a single. Now they don't know how to handle the monster they created. :)

rw

E-Stat
09-07-2010, 02:27 PM
You don't know this for sure do you? The corps director of the Renegades(of which I am affiliated with) is charge of the operations of ITunes, and he has a different answer than you do.
By all means, tell us how the music industry is somehow different for delivering data than the rest of the world. I wasn't aware that iTunes ever produced, delivered and stocked CDs using identical album licensing. I am, however, aware of how a multi-billion dollar software provider views the issue having worked for them. And, are you aware that Microsoft charges extra if your want physical media from preloaded systems? Why do you think that is the case? Why do you think Blu Ray Live exists? Why do the makers of players choose to deliver firmware updates via downloads rather than sending free CDs? The answers are all related.

rw

Feanor
09-07-2010, 03:28 PM
You don't know this for sure do you? The corps director of the Renegades(of which I am affiliated with) is charge of the operations of ITunes, and he has a different answer than you do.
Categorically it is cheaper to distribute data via download rather than physical CD. It all began around whether download was "greener" than hardcopy:; it is, period. The whole "21 computers" thing is a red herring. Dealers' profits are another matter because they depend on many more things than just the data distribution.

It reminds me of the time quite a few years ago when a poller for the Canadian Bankers Association asked me how much more I would be willing to pay to perform my account transactions online. I had the presence of mind to tell her nothing. The online cost is less than .05% of cost of the same transaction in front of a teller, and a gread deal less than 10% (don't remember the exact number) of what it is at an ATM.

mlsstl
09-07-2010, 03:41 PM
Yet, you'll find higher prices for album downloads than CDs on Amazon. Does that make sense from a strictly cost-of-goods question? Clearly, such pricing is driven by the whim of the music companies who license the content, not by a linear markup method.

I agree with you that the problem they have brought on themselves is making everything available as a single. Now they don't know how to handle the monster they created. :)
rw
That catch is the music industry - like many others - has never operated on a "linear markup" basis.

I also seriously doubt their pricing is done on the basis of whims. I suspect their respective managements put a lot of thought into the pricing model options available to them. That doesn't mean their conclusions are going to be obvious to those of us on the outside any more than I have a good grasp why my local supermarket picks one item for a loss leader and inflates the markup of another.

It is also not surprising that different record companies reach different conclusions as to what they think will work best for their particular situation. Again, the same thing happens when you compare local supermarket "A" to local supermarket "B".

Overall, I personally can't complain too much about the music industry. I've got a lot of good music in my collection that brings me a lot of joy.

E-Stat
09-07-2010, 07:09 PM
That catch is the music industry - like many others - has never operated on a "linear markup" basis.
Exactly. Pricing has nothing to do with the intrinsic costs of delivering digital media - which is my point.


I also seriously doubt their pricing is done on the basis of whims. I suspect their respective managements put a lot of thought into the pricing model options available to them.
Sure. Some downloadable albums are cheaper than the physical media while others are more expensive. They are either overstocked on inventory - or don't want to produce what they don't have to.


I've got a lot of good music in my collection that brings me a lot of joy.
As do I.

rw

Sir Terrence the Terrible
09-09-2010, 10:11 AM
Exactly. Pricing has nothing to do with the intrinsic costs of delivering digital media - which is my point.

That cost IS factored in to the cost of the download, the rest is a "what the market will bare" pricing. But considering that Apple makes no more than 2-3 cents per download in profit(I know this for sure), and licensing is only half the cost of the download(I also know this for sure) the delivery costs certainly are not insignificant, but vary over time according to my friend at Apple. So while that is your point, it is not as clear cut as you are trying to make it.

E-Stat
09-09-2010, 02:33 PM
That cost IS factored in to the cost of the download, the rest is a "what the market will bare" pricing.
Downloading costs are insignificant as compared to the licensing cost - which is what determines what the market will bear (no nudity involved). Otherwise, there would be a consistent difference between the price of an album download and shipping media - which there is most certainly not. Sometimes they are the same. Sometimes the download is more expensive and sometimes the media is more expensive. So much for that argument! The network and server costs for downloads are the same regardless of who or what is downloaded. That would be like saying that UPS charges more to ship a package containing a Beyonce CD rather than one by Slim Whitman. I see you avoided answering my questions having obvious answers. No matter as we already know.


and licensing is only half the cost of the download(I also know this for sure)
Of course we believe you. Except for anyone in the computer industry. :)

rw

Feanor
09-09-2010, 05:55 PM
That cost IS factored in to the cost of the download, the rest is a "what the market will bare" pricing. But considering that Apple makes no more than 2-3 cents per download in profit(I know this for sure), and licensing is only half the cost of the download(I also know this for sure) the delivery costs certainly are not insignificant, but vary over time according to my friend at Apple. So while that is your point, it is not as clear cut as you are trying to make it.
$.99 per song; licensing $.50; profit $.03. You're suggesting Apple infrastructure cost is $.46 per download? It's certainly not the variable cost and I very much doubt that it is high as that even including the amortized fixed costs. (If it is, the Apple board should fire Jobs and the whole IT department right now.)

E-Stat
09-09-2010, 06:21 PM
(If it is, the Apple board should fire Jobs and the whole IT department right now.)
Maybe they're just f---ing clueless. Along with Samsung since they are wasting so much money providing downloadable firmware upgrades when they could be sending me CDs instead.

rw

Sir Terrence the Terrible
09-10-2010, 10:19 AM
$.99 per song; licensing $.50; profit $.03. You're suggesting Apple infrastructure cost is $.46 per download? It's certainly not the variable cost and I very much doubt that it is high as that even including the amortized fixed costs. (If it is, the Apple board should fire Jobs and the whole IT department right now.)

You can doubt all you want, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I trust the word from the horses mouth more than anyone around here...really.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
09-10-2010, 10:20 AM
Downloading costs are insignificant as compared to the licensing cost - which is what determines what the market will bear (no nudity involved). Otherwise, there would be a consistent difference between the price of an album download and shipping media - which there is most certainly not. Sometimes they are the same. Sometimes the download is more expensive and sometimes the media is more expensive. So much for that argument! The network and server costs for downloads are the same regardless of who or what is downloaded. That would be like saying that UPS charges more to ship a package containing a Beyonce CD rather than one by Slim Whitman. I see you avoided answering my questions having obvious answers. No matter as we already know.


Of course we believe you. Except for anyone in the computer industry. :)

rw

Sorry, but your expert opnion is not supported by the information I was given, and since you don't know everyone in the computer industry, your last comment is irrelevant.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
09-10-2010, 10:22 AM
Maybe they're just f---ing clueless. Along with Samsung since they are wasting so much money providing downloadable firmware upgrades when they could be sending me CDs instead.

rw

Samsung firmware upgrades are not subject to liscensing agreement with the music companies, so your whole statement is apples and oranges.

E-Stat
09-10-2010, 10:28 AM
Samsung firmware upgrades are not subject to liscensing agreement with the music companies, so your whole statement is apples and oranges.
Then you are arguing a different point than I. Perhaps I need to restate my point:

Downloading digital content is less expensive than delivering physical media.

You seem to be hung up on music industry conventions. I refer to the cost of data delivery, irrespective of content. Variations in pricing and profitability for downloading music is SOLELY due to licensing and marketing considerations - not upon the largely fixed costs of delivering content via a download vs. physical media.

rw

mlsstl
09-10-2010, 11:01 AM
Just a reminder that, despite the apparent precision of arithmetic, the loss or profit shown by an accounting department at the behest of management can be rather arbitrary, particularly in the entertainment industry.

I think I've used this example previously in another thread, but in 1983 James Garner sued Universal Studios for $16 million over their accounting practices in connection with his TV show "The Rockford Files." They had not paid royalties, claiming the show had lost money. The trial brought some rather imaginative accounting practices to light. The suit was settled for an undisclosed amount in 1989.

And don't forget the $600 toilet seats and $700 hammers that were courtesy of Pentagon accounting practices.

Short of getting a good look at the books, I'd be cautious about any declaration of profit or loss on the subject.

E-Stat
09-10-2010, 11:22 AM
Short of getting a good look at the books, I'd be cautious about any declaration of profit or loss on the subject.
The point that Feanor and I am making is independent of intellectual property pricing strategies and any number of things thrown into the G&A pile contributing to net profit. :)

rw

Woochifer
09-10-2010, 07:52 PM
Downloading costs are insignificant as compared to the licensing cost - which is what determines what the market will bear (no nudity involved). Otherwise, there would be a consistent difference between the price of an album download and shipping media - which there is most certainly not. Sometimes they are the same. Sometimes the download is more expensive and sometimes the media is more expensive. So much for that argument! The network and server costs for downloads are the same regardless of who or what is downloaded. That would be like saying that UPS charges more to ship a package containing a Beyonce CD rather than one by Slim Whitman. I see you avoided answering my questions having obvious answers. No matter as we already know.


Of course we believe you. Except for anyone in the computer industry. :)

rw

In other words, you don't any facts of your own to offer up.

According to this estimate, Apple's operating costs for the iTunes store is somewhere around $1 billion/year. And the article further states that the consensus estimate on Apple's gross margins on music purchases is somewhere around 10%.

http://www.asymco.com/2010/09/09/it-takes-nearly-1-billionyr-to-run-itunes/

Feanor
09-11-2010, 05:10 AM
In other words, you don't any facts of your own to offer up.

According to this estimate, Apple's operating costs for the iTunes store is somewhere around $1 billion/year. And the article further states that the consensus estimate on Apple's gross margins on music purchases is somewhere around 10%.

http://www.asymco.com/2010/09/09/it-takes-nearly-1-billionyr-to-run-itunes/
Wooch , the article tends to support E-Stats arguement (and mine) that download costs, that is, the cost per unit of download infrastructure is very low relative to physical CD distribution.

For a start, consider the 10% gross margin cost for music. "Gross margin" means the difference between the cost of goods, in this case the price paid to the music industry, and the selling price, in this case $.99. This difference, then, is about 10 cents. (On the face of it, this directly contradicts Sir TtT's assertion that the licensing cost is only "half" the selling price, but let's carry on.)

So the cost of physical download as well as all admin and marketing costs, plus the "2-3 cent profit" alleged by Sir TtT, has to come out of the 10 cents. Ergo the physical download cost is something much less than $.08. I will never believe that the cost of producing a distributing a phyiscal CD is less than 8 cents.

Furthermore the article asserts that that Apple is making much more money an applications that it sells for only $.29, and that gross margin is 30% or about 8 cents. In this case the 8 cents has to cover marketing, admin, and profit as well as download infrastructure. The download cost has to be much less than 8 cents per unit, and the download cost for apps has to be close that of music files.

E-Stat
09-11-2010, 05:36 AM
And the article further states that the consensus estimate on Apple's gross margins on music purchases is somewhere around 10%.
Exactly my point. Using their guesses, the "cost of goods" is 90%! That is where their profit margin would be.


In other words, you don't any facts of your own to offer up.
Neither does your source when it comes to the real question concerning cost of delivery.

"I’m not an expert on the cost of operating data centers but $ 1billion a year seems like a lot. I would love to see an analysis of how this could be allocated."

Seems like a lot? As opposed to what it would be required to ship 18 MILLION CDs per day? Why do you think that virtually every financial institution pushes electronic delivery of statements, etc? The answer should be obvious.

rw