Are records really better than CD's?

[StevenSurprenant]

Many years ago I used to own an ADC Accutrac turntable with an Audio Technica cartridge. This fed a pair of Phase Linear III speakers through a 80 watt digital display JVC receiver. For this time in audio history (1976), this system was extraordinary, in appearance, functionality, and audio presentation. The speakers, being dipole, created an image around the speakers akin to what many dipole planer people today love. Regretfully, I sold the system, but memories of the sound remain in my mind to this day, which leads to the point of this post.

Since the world has gone digital, many people still hang onto the idea that analog, i.e. records, remain superior. Well, I'm not so sure. My memories of my old system is that every record sounded very good. The balance of the sound from the lowest to the highest frequencies sounded natural, and every recording was clear. The only real downside, in comparison to today, was a lack of soundstage depth. I assume that was due to having 10 drivers on each channel that were not phased aligned. Well, that's what I remember.

CD's, while technically superior to records, provide sound quality from the best sound I've heard to ear bleeding noise. In addition, some CD's lack the transparency that I remember so well. On the other hand, Cd's create a sense of depth to almost every recording. What concerns me are the bad CD's. As I said, I've never had a bad sounding record. I realize that my memories of the old system could be jaded. I was at a different time in my audio development and what I remember might not be accurate in reference to what I know today.

Curiosity got the best of me and I recently began looking into turntables. The pickings seem mighty slim. My old turntable was fully automatic with remote control. As for the sound, I couldn't find fault with it. It was my first decent turntable. Feedback was a non-issue and you could beat on it with almost no sound being heard through the speakers. My next turntable, after this one, was the complete opposite. It had an anti-resonant base and a carbon fiber tone arm, but I was constantly fighting feedback and I didn't dare touch it while it was playing or the the speakers would thump. One of the main differences between the old and the new was that the old had a floating turntable base, the new didn't.

With that said, It's been a while, but I've heard turntables running in some of the stores and never thought one way or the other about them. The sound didn't jump out at me as superior in any way. I do remember some sounding warm and pleasant, but unnatural. It could have been the system they were in. Moving on...

It occurred to me that it might be the recording rather than the medium that made one sound better, or worse. I went on utube and listened to people playing the same music, first on CD and then on record. Sometimes the CD sounded better and sometimes the record did. I even read that there were two different mixes, one for CD and one for vinyl. The CD version would be more compressed, hence the record would sound better over a decent system. I also realize that some of the utube comparisons could be biased due to inferior turntables and cartridges. I will add this, Most of the CD's that I own which are copies of the records I've owned sound terrible, to the point of being unlistenable on a quality system. This is the main reason for my interest in records,. I loved my record collection and would like to hear it again, sounding right...

So...

The question I'm asking all of you is... Am I barking up the wrong tree and are my expectations unrealistic.

Moving on to turntables...

Unlike some people, I believe that an automatic turntable doesn't have to degrade the sound in relation to a manual turntable, that's pure hokum. I would think that people who design turntables put more thought in building a better manual turntable to please the audiophiles and I think audiophiles over analyze the technology. It makes sense that the simpler the system is the less chance that the sound will be influenced by added features and I'm definitely not saying they are technically wrong, but there is a point beyond audibility, i.e. a 100lb platter does not sound better than a 50lb platter. Well, that's just my opinion. Admittedly, I am extremely ignorant about turntables.

From this point on, understand that my preference is an automatic turntable for a number of reasons. Manual turntables are really cool, but they are not for me.

Looking at present day turntable offerings (lower priced), I see Audio Technica, Denon, Pro-ject, Technics, Music Hall, and Rega have similar offerings in automatic turntables. I'm sure there are others... None of these have floating bases, but that may be a moot point.

Does anyone have any opinions of these brands? ...other options?

[Hyfi]

I have been kicking myself in the but since the late 80s when I sold off all my albums and bought my first CDP. Before I did that, I recorded to cassette many of them. I think that many of my cassette recordings of albums sound better than the CD it was replaced with.

I think the way I can describe it for me is the "emotion" you get from an analog recording vs a digital one. Similar to why seeing a color picture of the same exact spot captured in one of Ansel Adams Black & White photos is lacking all the original emotion that draws you into the picture. In color, the same shot is just another color photo.

[recoveryone]

This issue can go either way depending on ones view or preference of warmth or clarity. Vinyl has that history of warmth and depth, but CD's are only second to Hi res recordings in clarity and I am one for clarity. I like hearing fingers running along an acoustic guitar or standing bass, hearing the singer voice have slight pitch changes.

[JoeE SP9]

I guess I'm a hair shirt audiophile. None of the TT's I've ever had or were interested in have been automatics.

A large heavy platter takes advantage of the flywheel effect. It has less wow and flutter and greater speed stability than a lower mass (lighter) one. However, there is more to it than the weight of the platter.

Suspended or lack of are two differing schools of TT design. Thorens, Michell and Linn (for example) make very good suspended TT's. VPI, Clearaudio and Project make very good non suspended TT's. Each type has it's proponents and detractors. You have to decide for yourself which is for you, preferably after auditioning both types.

As for the sound quality. It's the recording and the care used in transferring it to the medium. I have great sounding vinyl and I have bad sounding vinyl. The same applies to CD's.

As far as the sound of a TT jumping out, if it does that would be a TT I don't want. Just as speakers that jump out are not the ones you want, a TT is much the same.

For type (belt or DD) I'm a belt drive person. I've owned a VPI TT since the late 80's. It started out as a HW-19Jr. Over the years it's been brought to higher than HW-19 specs with new platter, bearing, motor and SDS speed control. The original Audioquest tonearm has been replaced with a rewired Rega with new weight, stub, wiring and VTA adjuster. I've been nothing but satisfied with it. Needless to say I recommend VPI as a quality product that has superb manufacturer support.

JM may chime in about his Rega TT. His history with Rega in many ways mirrors mine with VPI and I'm certain he's just as enthusiastic.

Frankly I don't think much of current Denon, Technics or Audio Tecknica TT's. Music Hall and ProJect IMO are worth a look.

Lastly, I want to thank all of you who sold or got rid of your LP's when "perfect sound forever" came out. You helped me to acquire a boat load of LP's at fire sale prices.:biggrin5:

[E-Stat]

Since the world has gone digital, many people still hang onto the idea that analog, i.e. records, remain superior.
It is unfair to lump all the myriad digital formats together. Redbook vs. analog is a mixed bag. Each has its advantages. Since digital is essentially a connect-the-dots picture, its just a matter of getting enough dots to sufficiently fool the senses. Its a shame the industry doesn't release ALL content in 24/192 (or better).


Unlike some people, I believe that an automatic turntable doesn't have to degrade the sound in relation to a manual turntable, that's pure hokum.
I begin at the other end of the chain. With the cartridge. The Transducer. My experience for the past forty years - along with working at a hi-fi shop and having access to hearing a wide range of models with my reviewer friends is that moving coil cartridges are ultimately superior to moving magnet designs. The next question becomes: how can a given cartridge realize its ultimate performance level. Now the discussion is about tonearms. I've gone through quite a few over the years, some of which were optimized for high compliance cartridges while others were designed for lower compliance cartridges.

It is here where I've never experienced an automatic turntable that had a sufficiently good tonearm. Like Joe, I favor belt drive designs and have used an Ariston RD-11s (cousin to Linn Sondek LP-12) for the past forty years. I also have a VPI Scout which now lives in the main system.


From this point on, understand that my preference is an automatic turntable for a number of reasons. Manual turntables are really cool, but they are not for me.
While they can stop at end of record, one still has to change each and every record. The *luxury* of not having to cue the arm at EOD doesn't provide enough of a lure to me to greatly sacrifice performance.

I live in a dual universe - both my music systems use manual turntables and computer based digital playback systems that can be controlled by an iPhone.

[Poultrygeist]

I bought this Technics SL-1300 automatic new in 1978 and at the time it cost more than the SL-1200 manual. I love the convience of an automatic and don't think I would listen to vinyl as much if I had to use a manual table. The memo-repeat function is terrific for the 45 LP's that play through so quickly.

http://gallery.audioreview.com/data/audio/500/medium/P4150007.JPG

[02audionoob]

For those who want an automatic turntable, I'd probably recommend a refurbished Dual 1229 or similar from someone like fixmydual.com . I have one. In the world of new automatics, there's the Denon DP-300F, which I think is fine. There are also the old Technics models, like my SL-7 linear tracker and the SL-1300 mentioned above.

As for brands like Pro-Ject, Music Hall and Rega...I have owned a Music Hall MMF-5. I currently own a Pro-Ject Debut III and a Rega P5. All are fine turntables. They work well and sound great. With my P5 and Benz wood LO MC cartridge, I hear sound quality that I couldn't match with digital until I sucked it up and spent a grand on a CD player...a model that was marked down from $2,400 as a demo/closeout.

But I'm not a digital skeptic. That story about digital being connect-the-dots or stair-stepped or business like that...not hardly. Unless maybe you're referring to lossey files. Redbook and lossless are reconstructed audio that captures everything below 22k Hz...not snapshots. And despite being a devotee of my record collection, it's because LPs are what I have. I chose to never start my collection over. It remains majority analog, as my CD count never overtook my LP count.

Anyway, like I said...to anyone who wants an automatic turntable I'd recommend refurbished older ones. For those who can tolerate manual operation, Rega, Pro-Ject and Music Hall can be quite good...as can SOTA, VPI, Well Tempered and other quality manufacturers.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7008/6582384393_6590c99330_z.jpg

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6221/6855696720_05cd640f1e_z.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7123/7594051882_0bb73e96a7_z.jpg

[RGA]

The merits of the technology aside - I personally go with what happens when the play button is pushed and try to keep apples to apples - 2 channel to 2 channel.

Since SACD has crappy selection it doesn't matter if it's better - I'd rather compare formats where there are close to 200,000 albums available on both - not 7,000 or less.

The high end community clearly clearly clearly CLEARLY sides with vinyl replay over CD. And by community I mean the manufacturers and most audiophiles willing to put up with the pain in the ass vinyl replay system.

At the recent California Audio show with my 24/192khz mastered HD discs playing in top flight expensive CD players - I listened was impressed. Then another fellow put on a very old Chet recording on vinyl and it destroyed my disc. Don't get me wrong, technically this is an impressive CD - plenty of rooms inquired to get it. It's a 30 minute test disc followed by the Four Seasons.

Personally out of my collection - my vinyls tend to be superior even with electronic music - the DJ's kept vinyl going.

CD sounds "cleaner" in terms of no surface noise, pops, clicks and so it's not all roses for vinyl. Turntables tend to cost a lot more before they sound good. For instance, if I kept my Rega P2 clone (NAD 533) then I frankly would have stuck with CD (applies to the P3 too). They're not good enough IME to make the hassle worthwhile. I also didn't want to screw around with the old, albeit, famous models.

As for suspended versus not - it depends on how good a job they do of it. And IME either way the more you pay the better they get. That's actually a "good" thing about turntables, arms and carts is that you do actually hear the difference readily. Not so much with digital. Suspended designs are easily impacted by foot falls - if your floors are made of wood they're not the way to go. You have to buy some sort of wall mount - pain.

PS: Tape sounded better again at CAS but selection is so poor that it's basically a toy to use to impress friends how good tape is.

Hi res Digital may be the way ahead but the popular market decides - not the niche - and they're not interested in quality - they're interested in storing a billion songs into a device the size of a credit card played through $1 headphones. And the recording engineers (and/or) their handlers (marketing departments) aren't interested in producing quality recordings - just loud ones. In which case the format playing it back is irrelevant.

[Poultrygeist]

There are still more SACD titles available especially in jazz and classical to keep me buying them for the rest of my life.

IMO the convenience of CD/SACD trumps any sonic advantages of vinyl. I have a record washing machine that is such a PITA to use that I don't. I'm impatient to hear music and the ritualistic extended foreplay of cleaning and handling do nothing for me. My DIY needs are satisfied in other ways but I believe many do crave the hands-on and visual seduction that vinyl offers.

[Poultrygeist]

I spend more time looking at this Dual than playing it.

http://gallery.audioreview.com/data/audio/500/medium/P6270024.JPG

[E-Stat]

That story about digital being connect-the-dots or stair-stepped or business like that...not hardly.
Perhaps you're not aware that Redbook uses 1.411,200 *dots* (bits) per second to reconstruct the analog waveforms. It works pretty well except for the very top and at lower levels where the word size shrinks and the number of available dots goes down.

That's why higher resolution formats like DSD64, DSD128, 24/96, 24/192 and DXD more closely duplicate the mic feed. More dots, er bits!

[StevenSurprenant]

Thanks everyone. I appreciate your feedback, however, I'm still confused. With that said...

I've been listening online to comparisons between vinyl and CD's and I think I have a handle on it. It all depends on the quality of the recorded material and that ultimately determines which one sounds better.

It doesn't stop there...

Assuming that a CD and a record are equal as to the quality of the recording, then the quality of the playback equipment determines which one is better.

If someone believes that their records usually sounds better, improving their digital front end might close the gap and perhaps surpass the record.... Or the other way around!

Does that sound about right to you guys?

[JohnMichael]

Thanks everyone. I appreciate your feedback, however, I'm still confused. With that said...

I've been listening online to comparisons between vinyl and CD's and I think I have a handle on it. It all depends on the quality of the recorded material and that ultimately determines which one sounds better.

Does that sound about right to you guys?


How does one compare cd's and vinyl online? I would think that would be far removed from listening directly to a system with cd player and turntable?

I grew up listening to vinyl so I may be accused of favoring it over digital. Vinyl has always sounded good to me and my first cd player was horrific. Today I have a heavily modded Rega Planar 2 which sounds very good and I own tha Marantz SA 8001 which at one time was a Stereophile Class A component.

In my modest but decent system I have to say that vinyl to my ears has better imaging, soundstaging and ambiance. Neither sounds like music being performed live but vinyl has more a natural sound, more three dimensional not just in soundstage but with individual vocalists and instruments.

I prefer vinyl but I have to admit that unless I have time to sit and enjoy I toss in a cd and do things around the place. I sit and listen to vinyl and visualize the band or orchestra. I find it easier to immerse myself in the music with vinyl than I do with cd's.

[02audionoob]

Perhaps you're not aware that Redbook uses 1.411,200 *dots* (bits) per second to reconstruct the analog waveforms. It works pretty well except for the very top and at lower levels where the word size shrinks and the number of available dots goes down.

That's why higher resolution formats like DSD64, DSD128, 24/96, 24/192 and DXD more closely duplicate the mic feed. More dots, er bits!

Yes...technically speaking, I'll concede that point.

[StevenSurprenant]

How does one compare cd's and vinyl online? I would think that would be far removed from listening directly to a system with cd player and turntable?

No doubt it lacks something, but for most the examples I listened to, the differences were very apparent. Keep in mind that the utube posters would play the record and then the CD of the same recording, so it was more of a comparison rather than straight out listening. Besides I listened to it with Grado headphones.

You might question the fidelity over utube, but listen to this: Rega P3-24 Dave Brubeck's Take Five - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMxQyv2QMsM&feature=related)

This makes me want to get a Rega P3 and the Brubeck Take Five album... Sound like this would be worth buying into vinyl!

BTW, I also realize that some of the turntables and cartridges in these video's were not that good. In most of the comparisons, the CD's sounded harsh, but clear, compared to the records and the records sounded dull. I took many of the comparisons with a grain of salt because I remember records sounding much better.

Anyway, the next step is to listen to live.

Addendum - I went to Amazon and listened to the mp3 of Brubeck's song and it sounded anemic in comparison to the link I provided above, with a much greater difference than I normally associate between CD and mp3. For now I will assume that the Rega's rendition is better than a normal CD. I've also heard of people recording records onto CD's and the results sound more like the record rather than a store bought CD. That makes sense to me since I was listening to a digital copy of the Rega's output.

[frenchmon]

It's hard to explain but for me vinyl just has a smoothness that I have not heard from Many digital players...records sound more natural toned than CD's but a very good CDP Can give you a more analog sound....the Marantz Reference CDP are very good at sounding like vinyl. In order to get the digital edge off of a CD, you have to get a very good CDP in my opinion..and that can cost more than a good TT. I grew up with records so for me there is much fun in taking out the record, running a brush across the record, and needle, dropping the arm and sitting back and reading the cover...and then getting up to turn over the record...And then looking forward to the next record to do it all over again....much fun.

[StevenSurprenant]

I grew up with records so for me there is much fun in taking out the record, running a brush across the record, and needle, dropping the arm and sitting back and reading the cover...and then getting up to turn over the record...And then looking forward to the next record to do it all over again....much fun.

I completely understand this!

I didn't have a large collection (back in the day), but I loved everything I had. I cherished every one of them and treated them like a new born baby. I didn't have a pop or scratch on any of them, but eventually, all of them were ruined because I lent them out.

I remember getting off of work, placing a record on the platter, and sitting back in awe with what I heard.

[frenchmon]

I completely understand this!

I didn't have a large collection (back in the day), but I loved everything I had. I cherished every one of them and treated them like a new born baby. I didn't have a pop or scratch on any of them, but eventually, all of them were ruined because I lent them out.

I remember getting off of work, placing a record on the platter, and sitting back in awe with what I heard.

Its all part of the Vinyl experience....I can enjoy records in a way I can never enjoy digital. The cohesiveness of the sound that can never be had with CD, and the natural tone and musicality you would have to pay twice as much for a CDP to get what a good vinyl rig can do in my opinion. But there are trade offs...with CD you can FF or reverse skip or whatever....you cant do that with records without getting out your easy chair. I got rid of my records in the 80's at the advent of CD's. I bought into all the hype back then and continued all the way up to about 2 or 3 years ago. Yes I had not heard vinyl for years until my wife surprised me with a TT. The moment I set it up, and dropped that needle my ears could hear the difference in vinyl and digital. I had made a full 360.

[JohnMichael]

Wow this record is better than cd's.The vinyl is very quiet and the music is beautiful.

[3db]

Records verses CD.. the debate continues on :)

From a pure technical standpoint, the CD format is a better format clobbering vinyl in both dynamic range and lack of background noise. However, that does not mean that every CD will out perform vinyl. Matter of fact, many vinyl recordings will clobber its CD counterpart. It all depends on the recording engineer behind the scenes. I have examples in my collection where vinyl clobbers its CD counterpart of the same recording and visa versa. Its not a black and white win for either medium.

The one thing that vinyl has going for it over CD is a sense involvement with the music. The ritual cleaning of teh record before every play, the lowering/raising of the tone arm, flipping the vinyl over and being able to read the line notes without a magnifying glass all adds to the fun and involvemnt of playing vinyl. I hope both formats stay around as both have their strengths.

[frenchmon]

Wow this record is better than cd's.The vinyl is very quiet and the music is beautiful.

That recording is in the top 50 best vinyl recordings...its worth the money....but I have a lot of records that are better than CD's.

[JohnMichael]

That recording is in the top 50 best vinyl recordings...its worth the money....but I have a lot of records that are better than CD's.


My friend I would love a link to that list.

[frenchmon]

My friend I would love a link to that list.

JM...I dont have a list I only read it here.


Adagio D'Albinoni (http://www.soundstagedirect.com/gary-karr-adagio-dalbinoni-180-gram-vinyl-lp-45rpm.shtml)

Could be marketing spin..but its a outstanding recording.

[frenchmon]

Records verses CD.. the debate continues on :)

From a pure technical standpoint, the CD format is a better format clobbering vinyl in both dynamic range and lack of background noise. However, that does not mean that every CD will out perform vinyl. Matter of fact, many vinyl recordings will clobber its CD counterpart. It all depends on the recording engineer behind the scenes. I have examples in my collection where vinyl clobbers its CD counterpart of the same recording and visa versa. Its not a black and white win for either medium.

The one thing that vinyl has going for it over CD is a sense involvement with the music. The ritual cleaning of teh record before every play, the lowering/raising of the tone arm, flipping the vinyl over and being able to read the line notes without a magnifying glass all adds to the fun and involvemnt of playing vinyl. I hope both formats stay around as both have their strengths.

I have listened to lots of CD's as well as SACD's, and I have yet to hear either that has better musicality than a good vinyl pressing on a good rig.

[RGA]

There are still more SACD titles available especially in jazz and classical to keep me buying them for the rest of my life.

IMO the convenience of CD/SACD trumps any sonic advantages of vinyl. I have a record washing machine that is such a PITA to use that I don't. I'm impatient to hear music and the ritualistic extended foreplay of cleaning and handling do nothing for me. My DIY needs are satisfied in other ways but I believe many do crave the hands-on and visual seduction that vinyl offers.

You should only have to clean a vinyl once - once it's clean and you store it in a lint free half decent sleeve it should not need to go through a disc cleaner again.

If you are lucky you live near a quality shop selling second hand vinyl that has cleaned all the records for you.

I have a VPI and I rarely need to use - never when I buy it from Fascinating Rythms in Nanaimo (incidentally the store Diana Krall shops at to buy her vinyls (yes Diana listens to Vinyl mainly).

And there are some makers of top end vinyl rigs who claim their machines will dig through the gunk and play well whether it's clean or not.

I use the VPI for brand new records and for stuff I pick up at the recycling center.

As for static - simply put a bounce dryer sheet between every third to fifth vinyl (not touching the vinyl but just between albums) and you never have to fiddle with zero stat guns or the like.

Bounce sheets are dirt cheap.

I'd love to go to hi-res but unfortunately 99.5% of my music collection isn't available on those formats. My feeling is that within 5 years NOBODY will sell a machine that can play a SACD and no one will be releasing any content on that format.

[StevenSurprenant]

I've been listening to what you folks had to say with great interest and so I decided to give it a try. I bought a vintage Denon turntable (automatic, of course - sorry about that). It comes with a Shure V15 cartridge, but I don't know which version. It should be here this week.

In addition, I moved my DIY stereo speakers to the living room and replaced the Magnepans (which were my mains) with them. That was a step in the right direction... However, when playing CD's, they sounded murky (hazy) running through my Yamaha receiver so I used the line out of the receiver to install my Trends TA 10.1 digital amp for the mains. It was a big jump in transparency. As it turns out, the Yamaha makes a pretty good preamp. I also needed to use the phono preamp in the receiver for the turntable so it all works out. The downside is that now I don't want to use the amp section of my receiver and so I am looking at outboard amps for that. Dang!

Anyway, assuming that all goes well, I understand that there is an upgrade path, i.e. cartridge and/or stylus and preamp. I'll see which cartridge I get before going any further.

I'll let you know how it works out.

[3db]

I have listened to lots of CD's as well as SACD's, and I have yet to hear either that has better musicality than a good vinyl pressing on a good rig.

I have heard both and they exist on both.

[Poultrygeist]

I try not to clean my records but once and that's the problem. I live with two dogs, two cats and two birds where something's always floating in the air. Sadly there's no room in my rack for the dust cover.

pets > audio

[StevenSurprenant]

For those who want an automatic turntable, I'd probably recommend...

What's your take on the Denon DP-61F?

Microprocessor controlled
Contact less servo tonearm
Q-damping method
Low mass arm tube
Thick, precision machined platter for superb acoustic characteristics

Specifications
Drive: servo controlled direct drive
Wow and flutter: below 0.008% WRMS
S/N ratio: over 82dB
Platter: 300mm aluminium die-cast
Motor: AC servo motor
Brake: electronic
Arm type: dynamic balance
Weight: 11kg

There's not much information on this, but here is one persons thoughts: AudiogoN Forums: Review: Denon DP-61F Turntable (http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?ranlg&1035699479&read&keyw&zzdenon=dp-61f)

[02audionoob]

What's your take on the Denon DP-61F?


The Denon direct-drive turntables were impressive and would be nice to have. If anything goes wrong with the electronics, I suspect it would be toast, but perhaps the risk of that is low. This reminds me I also like the JVC turntables, like the QL-Y7. Do you have an opportunity to buy a DP-61F?

[StevenSurprenant]

The Denon direct-drive turntables were impressive and would be nice to have. If anything goes wrong with the electronics, I suspect it would be toast, but perhaps the risk of that is low. This reminds me I also like the JVC turntables, like the QL-Y7. Do you have an opportunity to buy a DP-61F?


I already have, it should be here Thursday.

I understood about the electronics, but did it anyway. I kind of wanted another Accutrac like I had, but couldn't find one in the condition that I wanted. It spec'd out well too. I was considering the Denon DP-300F like you mentioned. It seems that it is a decent table for the money and close to the same performance as entry level offerings of several better brands. Spec wise it wasn't nearly as good as the DP-61F. In any case, I wanted at least a semi automatic and this fit the bill.

I also figure, hopefully correctly, that I can improve the sound with perhaps a MC cartridge and a decent preamp.

Any suggestions on a record cleaner?

[StevenSurprenant]

I just thought this might be of interest to someone...

How To Get The Most From Vinyl Records - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQDsNY7j4Tg&feature=related)

[Poultrygeist]

I've played around lately with a couple of ancient AR TT ( remember those? ). Not the most sophisticated but indestructible. Any table is repairable. Speed controls on vintage tables are often the first thing to need attention but are easily fixed with contact cleaner.

I visited a guy in Charlotte who collects Rek O Kut turntables. He must have a dozen or so. Some look like museum pieces and are evidently highly collectable.

[3db]

sounds like a plug for direct drive turntables. Yet, every high end table i ever saw, read about in reviews is belt drive. I wonder why that is.

I think the whole arguement of belt drive verses direct drive is moot and that the tone arm/cartridge is the most critical part. Some old school dinosaurs even poo poo the new tables from Rega, Music Hall, and ProJect without ever hearing them. I find it halarious becuase the carbon fibre tonearms on those newer turntables will blow the Technic stalk arm completely out of the water. Just sayin.

[Poultrygeist]

AR and Rek O Kut were belt drive tables.

[StevenSurprenant]

I am probably putting my foot in my mouth, but I think 3dB is correct about belt versus direct drive.

Technically and theoretically, anything you do to isolate the platter from noise and vibration can only improve the TT. Most belt drives still have the motor connected to the plinth and the platter is connected to the plinth so, even in this case, the concept is not perfect. Besides, many direct drive turn tables have a noise level of greater than 80dB, so I don't think direct versus belt is an issue.

The tone arm is another matter and, not knowing better, I think which one is better is a matter of synergy with the cartridge compliance.

PHONO Cartridge Compliance, Tonearm Mass, System Resonance, Loading of MC and MM Capacitance, RIAA Characteristic (http://www.soundfountain.com/amb/ttcartridge.html)

A heavy object needs a strong spring. Likewise heavy arms are only suitable for cartridges with a sturdy cantilever. In other words: a cartridge with a low compliance figure needs a heavy arm in order to obtain a fundamental resonance in the region of 8 to 12 Hz.
A lightweight arm needs to be matched with a supple spring, in other words a very compliant spring which is the cantilever of a high-compliance cartridge.


After that, it's a matter of matching the correct preamp with the cartridge. This is also covered in the link above.

As for manual versus automatic, I assume that an automatic has added mass to the tone arm assembly, so that is a compliance issue and can be adjusted for with the correct choice in cartridges.

As for which "improvement matters the most, I'm guessing that it's the cartridge followed by the tone arm, but the best cartridge may not be the best if the tone arm compliance is incorrect for it. After that, I think the preamp is the next step and the same thing applies, like the tome arm/cartridge, the preamp has to be correct for the cartridge in use. I'm guessing here!

All this sounds logical (to me), but as JohnMichael posted, changing his motor improved the sound of his belt driven table, which I wouldn't think would be that important. I have no reason to dispute him, so that leaves me wondering.

[nobody]

Interesting thread with a couple things popping up I don't always see when the whole CD vs. vinyl debate rears its head. First, as a fan of automatic turntables, glad to see I am not alone. Manual is fine if you sit in a chair and listen all the time. But if you;'re someone who plays records while doing 100 other things and when napping nearby or anything less focused sometimes, having something that at least shuts off at the end is really nice. Auto-start is also nice for other people to operate without being afraid they are going to drop the needle or whatever. Merits of sound quality aside, for me at least some automation is close to a must-have in a turntable.

Also glad to see people being pretty level headed that yes, CD and digital will always measure better and some will prefer the sound. But, that doesn't mean vinyl can't sound great as well or that an individual won't prefer both the sound and the experience of vinyl while others may prefer the digital experience.

And for me, that's key. I have tried a few different tables, even a couple manual belt-drive types and in the end I have come back to something that provides the experience I really want out of vinyl. I like the retro aesthetic of a vintage table, and I like the automation of some older tables, and I like the ability to play 78s, even stacking them from time to time. So for me, the choice was limited to vintage tables with Dual being the most common culprit as it was the only one that let me do all of the above. I've ended up with a 1009SK, completely refurbished and I'm quite happy and can't say I have any urge to try anything else right now.

For me, what is best is about more than sound quality and when people pretend their decisions are all about sound and nothing else, I find it a bit disingenuous. We all have a variety of preferences that play into how we ultimately most enjoy music. Some people weigh other things more heavily than others. I think my feeling on this is why I found this thread interesting because while sound quality was discussed, people seem willing to admit there are other reasons as well as to why they choose what they choose to listen with.

Are record better than CDs? For me yes, absolutely. But, it is because I enjoy the total experience and not because of any sort of absolutist position on the sound or one format over the other.

[Poultrygeist]

I thought my old SL-1300/Shure m97ex sounded pretty decent with the CJ PV but it improved by leaps and bounds when I replaced the CJ with a Jolida JD9, The JD9 tube phono preamp was such a giant upgrade it started me buying vinyl again. I'd rather have a great phono preamp with an average table than a great table with an average phono preamp.

My next upgrade will be to replace the Shure m97xe with a Denon DL103D MC which is said to be a good match for the Technics medium mass arm.

[StevenSurprenant]

nobody - I curious about the JICO SAS stylus you use on your Shure. Bottom line, does it improve the sound and is it worth the investment (in your estimation)?

Thanks.

[JohnMichael]

You can hear the difference from the old motor compared to the new. I recorded two records to cd to listen in the car and after the motor change I recorded some tracks from both to hear the difference.

The old motor was loosely mounted with an O ring to minimize vibration transfer. Of course since the motor was able to move speed variations happened. The new rigid mounted motor was tuned electronically to reduce the motor's vibration. Now that Rega has minimized vibrations and speed stability the sound has improved. I took it a step further and bought the Rega power supply upgrade. I am not sure of this but it looks to me that the PSU is powered by a walwart that first converts the AC to DC. Then the unit converts back to AC for the motor and the speed control. I think the regenerated AC is much cleaner than straight from an outlet. Better speed stability, less vibrations and cleaner power have improved the sound of my table.

Belt drive vs direct drive is an interesting debate. In a belt drive table the belt does not transfer vibrations to the platter. A direct drive has the platter sitting directly on the motor's shaft. I think it would be easier to design a low vibration belt ttable than a direct drive table.

An interesting comment I read once is that a turntable's performance is more limited by internal vibration than external vibrations. The writer moved his table to another room and found little improvement. After reducing the vibrations and upgrading subplatter and bearing I am a believer in lower internal vibrations.

[StevenSurprenant]

John -

Do you think that the new motor affects the tone arm or the platter more? I just wonder because they are all connected to the plinth and it seems to me that since the tone arm has less mass that it would be the one most affected.

[JohnMichael]

One of the audio mags used to publish a great graph where you could look up your tonearm's effective mass and the weight of your cartridge. Next you would look for the compliance rating of your cartridge and you could see the frequency of the combination. I would use that scale whenever I was shopping for a new cartridge.

The arms geometry is also important. As I have posted before my Grado tracks really well in the Rega RB 250 after I switched to a lowered counterweight. This was when I had a Grado Red and when I heard the improvements I realized I finally heard the Grado magic. Of course the Sonata Statement is tracking well but even more magic to the sound.

[StevenSurprenant]

John -

Something like this?

Rega | Tonearm Mounting Distance and Alignment Information | Vinyl Engine (http://www.vinylengine.com/tonearm_database.php?make=Rega&mdl=&sort=2&eflo=&efhi=&ascdesc=ASC&mdlo=&mdhi=&ohlo=&ohhi=&search=search&amlo=&amhi=&cw=&mp=)

And this?

Vinyl Engine - Tonearm Alignment Calculator Pro (http://www.vinylengine.com/tonearm_alignment_calculator_pro.php?arm1=230mm+p/s&l1=ps&a1lv=230&a1=la&oh1v=&oa1v=&arm2=Lofgren+A&l2=ps&a2lv=&a2=la&oh2v=&oa2v=&arm3=Lofgren+B&l3=ps&a3lv=&a3=lb&oh3v=&oa3v=&arm4=Stevenson&l4=ps&a4lv=&a4=st&oh4v=&oa4v=&og=iec1&ogv=&ig=iec&igv=&cal=y&submit=calculate)

[JohnMichael]

John -

Do you think that the new motor affects the tone arm or the platter more? I just wonder because they are all connected to the plinth and it seems to me that since the tone arm has less mass that it would be the one most affected.


The Rega uses a light composite plinth that disperses energy quickly so I do not know if vibrations influence the tonearm. The platter is glass on top of a machined metal subplatter which sits on top of a ceramic bearing. The combined mass of the glass platter and the machined metal subplatter should be resilient to any remaining vibrations from the motor.

[JohnMichael]

John -

Something like this?

Rega | Tonearm Mounting Distance and Alignment Information | Vinyl Engine (http://www.vinylengine.com/tonearm_database.php?make=Rega&mdl=&sort=2&eflo=&efhi=&ascdesc=ASC&mdlo=&mdhi=&ohlo=&ohhi=&search=search&amlo=&amhi=&cw=&mp=)

And this?

Vinyl Engine - Tonearm Alignment Calculator Pro (http://www.vinylengine.com/tonearm_alignment_calculator_pro.php?arm1=230mm+p/s&l1=ps&a1lv=230&a1=la&oh1v=&oa1v=&arm2=Lofgren+A&l2=ps&a2lv=&a2=la&oh2v=&oa2v=&arm3=Lofgren+B&l3=ps&a3lv=&a3=lb&oh3v=&oa3v=&arm4=Stevenson&l4=ps&a4lv=&a4=st&oh4v=&oa4v=&og=iec1&ogv=&ig=iec&igv=&cal=y&submit=calculate)


No. It was a simple graph that had, if I remember correctly, vertical axis for tonearm mass, horizontal axis for cartridge mass and the diagonal would show suggested compliance for the ideal range. You first had to know the tonearms mass and the guide you posted would help with that but the graph I am thinking of is so simple. I think it might have appeared in Hi Fidelity. I will try to find it when I am home with my computer.

[nobody]

Bottom line is I think the stylus is worth it, especially if you already have a cart in good shape. That statement assumes that the cart is a good match in the first place for your table. I think for under $200 if you've already got a body, you're getting a really good mm cart.

I bought the Shure V15xMR with its original stylus when they were still readily available at or below list price and used it until I had my one and only stylus accident one night. I should say if anyone is looking to replicate that original sound, I don't think the Jico does that. It has a sound of it's own. It is bolder and brighter than the original. The bass of the original is what I liked about that sound and the Jico retains a solid foundation, but it is not of the same character exactly as what I recall with the original. I think the Jico has a more detailed midrange that is more spacious and the high end is not rolled off like on the original. Now, it has been many years since I directly listened to the original and memory is a funny thing. But I do still have CDs burned when I was using the original and I believe this assessment holds up, at least in my setup.

So the Jico stylus to me is a bit of a mixed bag, but I enjoy it in the end. It does not sound like the orioginal so if you want that sound you're out of luck. However, it does really pull out a lot of midrange detail while having a flatter response up top. Bass is still strong and good, just seems to loose a bit of the character the original had for me, but I don't see it as necessarily a weakness of the cart, it is just a difference. And this could really be as much a factor of the bass being more prominent with the original due to a rolled off top end. Hard to say. But I think the cart with the Jico stylus provides a great balance of being detailed up top while still having a good relatively smooth overall balance and strong bass.

Tracking wise, I am remembering back a way, and I was using it on another table (which really colors all these comments). But I'd say they were in the same ballpark. I'm having good luck tracking without a lot of stylus force. I would say the brushes are very different with the old sure brush affecting tracking force much more than the Jico brush.

I think that's about all I can think of on it.

[JohnMichael]

This is similar to what I am trying to find. Total mass is the tonearm's effective mass plus the weight of the cartridge.

The below diagram illustrates the relationship between cartridge compliance, tonearm mass and the resulting resonance frequency:

[StevenSurprenant]

This is similar to what I am trying to find. Total mass is the tonearm's effective mass plus the weight of the cartridge.

The below diagram illustrates the relationship between cartridge compliance, tonearm mass and the resulting resonance frequency:

Perhaps this?

Resonance Frequency (http://www.resfreq.com/resonancecalculator.html)

[JohnMichael]

Perhaps this?

Resonance Frequency (http://www.resfreq.com/resonancecalculator.html)



What I liked about the graph I am looking for is the visual range of the frequncies involved. You have a band of acceptable range which gives you some wiggle room in choosing a cartridge. Similar to the one I posted you can have good tracking if the tonearm/cartridge and compliance fall within the dotted space.

[02audionoob]

I already have, it should be here Thursday.

I understood about the electronics, but did it anyway. I kind of wanted another Accutrac like I had, but couldn't find one in the condition that I wanted. It spec'd out well too. I was considering the Denon DP-300F like you mentioned. It seems that it is a decent table for the money and close to the same performance as entry level offerings of several better brands. Spec wise it wasn't nearly as good as the DP-61F. In any case, I wanted at least a semi automatic and this fit the bill.

I also figure, hopefully correctly, that I can improve the sound with perhaps a MC cartridge and a decent preamp.

Any suggestions on a record cleaner?

The VPI 16.5 is one of the best values in record cleaning machines, if that's what you're after. I clean my records with a mini shop vac.

Bob cleans a record - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTxUju-l5PM)

[StevenSurprenant]

The VPI looks great and I've only heard good about machines like this, but it's a little too much for me.

However, the shop vac seems like a good idea. I've looked around and there are a number of clever ways of cleaning records from, using a waterpic, compressed air, wood glue, and washing them in the sink with a sponge (which is what I used to do).

Thanks

[3db]

The VPI looks great and I've only heard good about machines like this, but it's a little too much for me.

However, the shop vac seems like a good idea. I've looked around and there are a number of clever ways of cleaning records from, using a waterpic, compressed air, wood glue, and washing them in the sink with a sponge (which is what I used to do).

Thanks

A few people at Audioholics looked into this and quite liked the results;

Vinyl Record Cleaner and Washing System | Spin Clean Record Washing System (http://www.spincleanrecordwasher.com/)

This my turntable which I'm totally enamoured with.
http://www.garyanderson.co.nz/img/p/129-156-thickbox.jpg

[StevenSurprenant]

Bottom line is I think the stylus is worth it, especially if you already have a cart in good shape. That statement assumes that the cart is a good match in the first place for your table. I think for under $200 if you've already got a body, you're getting a really good mm cart.

Thanks, I really appreciate the depth you went into describing the stylus.

[02audionoob]

There is also a clever record cleaning machine at KAB ELECTRO ACOUSTICS (http://www.kabusa.com) . It works like a Nitty Gritty, but with your household vacuum cleaner.

[StevenSurprenant]

This my turntable which I'm totally enamoured with.

I love the looks of turntables like this, simple but elegant. Your tone arm and platter are very cool!

[3db]

I love the looks of turntables like this, simple but elegant. Your tone arm and platter are very cool!

Thanks. The acrylic platter eliminates almost all static.

[frenchmon]

nice table 3db....what cart and phono amp are you using?

[3db]

nice table 3db....what cart and phono amp are you using?

Thanks. I'm using the built in phono amp of my home theater receiver, a Yamaha RX-V1800. I'm using an Ortofon 2M Red which is what is supplied here in Canada. I understand that the US models use a different cartridge.

[StevenSurprenant]

I've had a couple of days to listen to my new (used) turntable and I have to say that I'm a convert. I didn't realize what I had been missing. It's wonderful. Granted, I've only had DAC's in the thousand dollar range, but digital never sounded this good to me. I would never have believed anyone if they told me it was this good.

[StevenSurprenant]

I did a little searching on the subject matter and it seems that for the most part people are polarized on this issue. I didn't realize this. Some take the line that digital is better in all aspects while others believe that vinyl is, but there is also a general consensus for many that say it depends on the quality of the recording whether it be digital or vinyl.

I'm not sure whether the all digital only people make this claim of superiority for all CD players or whether they are making reference to state of the art digital playback equipment. I do find it interesting that many reviews of higher end digital systems are said to sound more analog.

As for vinyl affectionados, there seems to be no end to ways of improving the vinyl experience through equipment upgrades as if there is something wrong with analog.

For the remaining group that believe it depends on the quality of the recording, I believe they are standing on the strongest foundation just from the fact of the garbage in garbage out principal. Part of this line of reasoning is due to the fact (as I understand it) that recording engineers use a great deal of compression on CD's, but not so much on vinyl. Back in the 70's I only had one record that was compressed and that was done so they could fit more songs onto the record (K-TEL). To me, and in comparison to all the other records in my collection, it sounded lifeless (bland), so I think they may be correct.

As you know I bought a turntable because the CD copies of my old favorite records were a shadow of what I remember vinyl to sound like and I wanted to reclaim what I had lost. Most of the CD copies were unlistenable. The life was sucked out of them and they hurt my ears.

Up to the point prior to getting the turntable, I had/have CD's that I thought were fantastic sounding and many that were not. For the ones that were not, my biggest complaint was that they hurt my ears to listen to them. Then sounded strident. In the past, I had purchased outboard DAC's (up to $1,000) to improve this condition, but while there were some improvements, the stridency remained. I assume that even though I failed, there are DAC's that could have made the difference, but I was tired at throwing money at this problem.

Fast forward to today...

Keeping in mind that my equipment is different than in the past, I bought a number of records for my turntable. Some of them were the same ones I had back in the day. Surprisingly, many don't sound the way I remember them, not as clear. The jury is still out on this, but I have to say that the cartridge I am using is probably 25 years old and that may be the cause, a new one is in the mail.

With that said...

There is one record that really stands out, but it is much newer than than the 70's records and that album is Willie Nelson “Always On My Mind”. I also have the CD. In a nutshell, the record is much better than the CD in every way imaginable. I will attempt to describe the differences in terms of why the vinyl is better.

First of all, there is more space around the instruments and voices so it is much easier to hear everything in the soundstage. Everything at the back of the (virtual) stage is more defined. All the instruments sound more real in a way that digital has only hinted at. Strings are more vibrant. Comparing strings on this record to the way they sound on the CD is like comparing a really good piano to the synthesized sounds of a decent keyboard. Voices, in comparison, sound more natural. I could go on, but even though I've listened to the CD hundreds of times, I could never have imagined what I hear from the record. It's night and day. Ultimately, there is still room for improvement, mostly concerning clarity in terms of live sound.

I used to think that my best CD recordings were better than any record I had heard, especially the soundstage. Now, it's the other way around. This record under review is the best sound that I've heard in my home. In no way am I saying that this is better than CD's on state of the art digital equipment (I don't know), but from a budget standpoint, this vinyl has taken the top spot.

Musing on this issue...

Technically, CD's are vastly superior to vinyl. I've listened to some very good systems with state of the art digital front ends and there is no comparison to what passes as digital front ends in most homes. So what I've come to believe is that a decent turntable with a very good recording is ultimately superior to a very good recording on a CD played back through an average CD player and even lower priced DAC's.

Until actually tested in a direct comparison, I will assume for now, that the very best analog system is equal to the very best digital system. From the standpoint of an average consumer with affordable gear, and assuming equal quality in recordings, I have to think that vinyl is superior.

Well, that's it...

[frenchmon]

Thanks. I'm using the built in phono amp of my home theater receiver, a Yamaha RX-V1800. I'm using an Ortofon 2M Red which is what is supplied here in Canada. I understand that the US models use a different cartridge.

I have a Red as well.....I also have the 2M Black.

[frenchmon]

I've had a couple of days to listen to my new (used) turntable and I have to say that I'm a convert. I didn't realize what I had been missing. It's wonderful. Granted, I've only had DAC's in the thousand dollar range, but digital never sounded this good to me. I would never have believed anyone if they told me it was this good.

Hahahaha! Told ya. With digital you get lots of digital noise but you don't realize it. Vinyl may give you some pops and clicks and you may get some noise from your phono amp, but generally vinyl has a lower noise floor so you can hear lots of low end resolution and detail that's not as clear with digital due to the higher noisie floor unless you spend googobs of loot on a very good player with good DAC's. Vinyl is more natural in its sound and presentation. I find vinyl to be more romantic as well.

[frenchmon]

There are many CDP that sound like analog.....look at some of the high dollar Marantz Reference players...they have a cult like following for that reaons....one day I may join them. You have discovered the argument of Digi versus vinyl.....to my ears vinyl wins.....its more natural sounding.

[Glen B]

I have and enjoy both CDs/SACDs and vinyl. There are good and bad examples of both mediums. To my ears, many of the CD reissues sound inferior to their vinyl counterpart. I also have some cherished LPs that have never been reissued on CD, so vinyl is not going away. BTW, I own a Marantz SA-11S2 SACD player, and yes it is very analog-like.

[JohnMichael]

There are many CDP that sound like analog.....look at some of the high dollar Marantz Reference players...they have a cult like following for that reaons....one day I may join them. You have discovered the argument of Digi versus vinyl.....to my ears vinyl wins.....its more natural sounding.



Even the Marantz SA8001 has an analog like quality. Switching from the ttable to the SA8001 is not a shock to the ears. I wonder if the SA8004 is even better in this regard.

[Poultrygeist]

I have a Marantz SA8004 and it has more tube warmth than the tubed player it replaced. Not a spec of dreaded "digitalis" to my ears.

[3db]

I wonder what this digital noise sounds like..

[frenchmon]

I wonder what this digital noise sounds like..

What I mean by digital noise is the hard edges, and lack of emotion that many of the mediocre players have. They seem to be sterile and cold, and lack any feeling in the play back. And what I mean by high noise floor or high sound floor is the point where the smallest sounds weakest sounds in the music can not be heard. The low level detail is lost and you find yourself turning up the volume to hear it. That system may have a high sound floor. Most times its due to mediocre parts and wire inside the players, and very complicated designs that degrade a signal. It could be a result of the weakest link in your system, but I find some of the cheaper CDP's have a high sound floor more so that a mediocre turntable and cartridge.

[3db]

What I mean by digital noise is the hard edges, and lack of emotion that many of the mediocre players have. They seem to be sterile and cold, and lack any feeling in the play back. And what I mean by high noise floor or high sound floor is the point where the smallest sounds weakest sounds in the music can not be heard. The low level detail is lost and you find yourself turning up the volume to hear it. That system may have a high sound floor. Most times its due to mediocre parts and wire inside the players, and very complicated designs that degrade a signal. It could be a result of the weakest link in your system, but I find some of the cheaper CDP's have a high sound floor more so that a mediocre turntable and cartridge.

What you are talking about falls more into the production realm of things. I have CDs that will completely blow away its vinyl counterpart in terms of dynamics where the smallest of sound can be heard clear as day and the music doesn't sound cold and sterile. I also have vinyl that does the same to CDs . IHO, I think the format war boils down to the recording engineer and not the format its recorded on. :)

[JohnMichael]

One of the early vinyl vs. digital debates was how much quicker a phono cartridge responds to the signal than the digital converters. I think the dynamics between notes is better presented by vinyl than digital.

[StevenSurprenant]

IHO, I think the format war boils down to the recording engineer and not the format its recorded on. :)

That's really a shame that it's that way. What I don't understand is if CD's and vinyl come from the same master source, why don't they sound the same?

Where the record excelled, the very best CD I have didn't come close. For instance, for the first time since owning a CD player, cymbals sounded real, but this was from the vinyl. Up to this point I had thought that my speakers and/or equipment was not up to the task, but apparently vinyl proved that wrong. It seems that CD players smear the signal. I assume that a better CD player would overcome this.

The record players that most people owned prior to CD's paled in comparison to a good turntable and cartridge. Perhaps the average CD player is comparable to the average record player of the past, which explains why, in comparison, vinyl can sound much better today. I know CD's, on a highend player, can sound much better than what I experience at home, but the cost of these highend players is exorbitantly greater than what it cost for a decent TT/cartridge.


I think the dynamics between notes is better presented by vinyl than digital.

Perhaps this is what I hear as smearing? Maybe vinyl is better at reproducing the leading and trailing edges of the signal too?

I also noticed, on the record, that drums sounded more real and were better defined in the sound stage. The other thing that was extremely apparent was that piano strings would decay slowly like a real piano.

I have to admit that many years ago I heard a couple of good systems that produced a soundstage so real that I felt I could walk onto the stage and in between the players. This was from CD's. I never experienced this at home. One system had taken this too far, IMO, and the separation was too great. It was kind of odd because while everyone in the recording were playing the same song, it didn't congeal together. It was as if you had five people doing their own thing.

[frenchmon]

What you are talking about falls more into the production realm of things. I have CDs that will completely blow away its vinyl counterpart in terms of dynamics where the smallest of sound can be heard clear as day and the music doesn't sound cold and sterile. I also have vinyl that does the same to CDs . IHO, I think the format war boils down to the recording engineer and not the format its recorded on. :)

There is no argument from me concerning digital. CD's can give you a better and higher dynamic and it can give you lower amounts of distortion due to the fact that vinyl play back seems to start to ware on the vinyl. CD also has that digital sound thats hard and edgy. I have never heard a CD, and I have been in this game for a long time, sound as natural than vinyl. Analog and Digital sounds are two different sounds. The dynamic that CD has does not mean a more pleasant presentation. Even in bad recordings of both formats, CD retains that digital sound and vinyl retains that smooth natural sound. Instruments come across as more natural and real where as not so as much with digital.

[frenchmon]

That's really a shame that it's that way. What I don't understand is if CD's and vinyl come from the same master source, why don't they sound the same?

Where the record excelled, the very best CD I have didn't come close. For instance, for the first time since owning a CD player, cymbals sounded real, but this was from the vinyl. Up to this point I had thought that my speakers and/or equipment was not up to the task, but apparently vinyl proved that wrong. It seems that CD players smear the signal. I assume that a better CD player would overcome this.

The record players that most people owned prior to CD's paled in comparison to a good turntable and cartridge. Perhaps the average CD player is comparable to the average record player of the past, which explains why, in comparison, vinyl can sound much better today. I know CD's, on a highend player, can sound much better than what I experience at home, but the cost of these highend players is exorbitantly greater than what it cost for a decent TT/cartridge.



Perhaps this is what I hear as smearing? Maybe vinyl is better at reproducing the leading and trailing edges of the signal too?

I also noticed, on the record, that drums sounded more real and were better defined in the sound stage. The other thing that was extremely apparent was that piano strings would decay slowly like a real piano.

I have to admit that many years ago I heard a couple of good systems that produced a soundstage so real that I felt I could walk onto the stage and in between the players. This was from CD's. I never experienced this at home. One system had taken this too far, IMO, and the separation was too great. It was kind of odd because while everyone in the recording were playing the same song, it didn't congeal together. It was as if you had five people doing their own thing.

The reason vinyl and digital is different and sounds different is due to they way they are recorded.

analog is considered to be physical or the real thing due to the physical touch of the wave signal with nothing of the signal is lost. digital on the other hand the signal being a digital signal is stored as numbers and is a abstract of the original sound...this has drop outs of bits during recording.

[StevenSurprenant]

The reason vinyl and digital is different and sounds different is due to they way they are recorded.

Vinyl is considered to be physical or the real thing due to the physical touch of the wave signal with nothing of the signal is lost. digital on the other hand the signal being a digital signal is stored as numbers and is a abstract of the original sound...this has drop outs of bits during recording.

That makes sense because digital interpolates the values between digital words (16 bits) and fills in the gaps. I don't know enough about this to understand it fully except to say that it's possible for the DAC to get it wrong to some degree. Due to the sampling rate, as the frequency increases, I have to assume there is a greater chance for errors to occur, whereas, as you said, vinyl is continuous.

It also occurs to me that since digital playback can be improved with better DAC's and better algorithms used in the conversion process that an average CD player is a compromise due to the cost factor.

All I know for sure is that with the equipment I have, the vinyl sounds more real by a good margin and it is not subtle.

[E-Stat]

That makes sense because digital interpolates the values between digital words (16 bits) and fills in the gaps.
Don't get locked into the notion that there is inherently any limitation to word size or sample rate with digital recordings. The arbitrary Redbook CD standard, yes. I agree that 16 bits is not sufficient to fully render the musical experience, but higher resolutions do exist - if not widely available.


It also occurs to me that since digital playback can be improved with better DAC's and better algorithms used in the conversion process that an average CD player is a compromise due to the cost factor.
There I'll agree. Don't forget that the analog output stage of a CDP or DAC is as important as the quality of a phono preamp. Most inexpensive CD players use inexpensive op amps that are not as linear as discrete devices.

[StevenSurprenant]

You're absolutely correct. Of course I was referring to 16 bit.

Another thing that crosses my mind is that the eye has a persistence factor of about 30 frames a second. It wouldn't surprise me if the ear has something similar. Once the sample rate exceeds that then we've reached the needed limit. Of course, as the word size increases, the distance between words that the DAC has to interpolate becomes more accurate. Maybe 24/96 in the magic number?

As for op amps versus discrete circuitry, I trust that you are correct about that too.

[3db]

Has anyone picked up both the CD version and the vinyl version of Tom Petty's "MOJO" album released two years ago. Both are stunning achievements of what can be done on either format. Problem is, people often blame the CD format and not the player for sounding poor.

[StevenSurprenant]

FYI, I just installed my new Audio Technica AT-120E cartridge in my turntable and I have to tell you that you folks saying that vinyl sounds more natural are understating the facts big time.

I have never heard my system sound like this, everything I lost from the 70's is back and much more. I can't believe how much information is missing from CD's. I couldn't stop laughing from the joy of it. Granted, my digital is not very good, but compared to vinyl, it's midfi, at best.

Anyway, I'm happy now and want to thank everyone for the discussion.

Maybe someday, I'll look into upgrading my digital, but I have to get over my excitement about rediscovering vinyl.

Thanks

[E-Stat]

Granted, my digital is not very good, but compared to vinyl, it's midfi, at best.
Honestly, I don't entirely share your overall assessment of digital vs. vinyl and discovered that you use an Oppo DV-980H. Coincidentally. I have a similar vintage DV-971H used as a DVD player in a spare bedroom. Since I play it through an old 27" CRT based TV, I never really thought about its audio quality.

Just for grins, I connected it to the garage system in lieu of the Touch network player. I see what you mean. While not offensive, it is not nearly as good sounding as the $300 Touch. Even more so as compared to the Audio Research DAC7. Muffled at the top with less resolution across the range. You're likely getting much better high frequency response from your vinyl rig.

[StevenSurprenant]

I've had a Marantz 63SE CD Player amongst numerous other CD and DVD players, but nothing to write home about. I've had a CAL Audio Labs tube DAC and an Aragon DAC with HDCD, plus I've had a Genesis Digital Lens. I've also used a heavily modified Behringer digital crossover as a DAC and the latest addition was my Emotiva digital pre amp as a DAC. I should also mention that my Yamaha receiver also has a DAC which I've tried.

So you see, it's not like I didn't try.

I do have to say that the Oppo (digital out) going through the Emotiva was very clear.

I've owned B&W (lower model), Quad ESL's, and System Audio speakers, and others, not so nice. I've used Mark Levinson for power and tried several others, also owned other amps.

It's odd that I began with a decent pair of speakers and decent turntable going through a JVC receiver (back in the 70's), progressed through electrostatics and amps that weighed more than my girlfriend and now I'm back to a little amp that fits in my pocket and another decent turntable feeding home made speakers. Go figure?

I realize that it doesn't make sense to you. It doesn't make sense to me, but there it is. If it was a marginal change I would say so, but it's much more, even profound, if I'm allowed to say that.

I'm not saying that it's the best I've ever heard, that would be a lie, but for a system that cost me about $1,500 it's amazing. The speakers cost me about $1,000 in parts (including box and crossovers) and I got most of those parts for a big discount. Retail on the parts would have been about $2,000 (just the drivers) not counting the crossovers and material for the boxes. I didn't skimp of the crossover parts either, it's good stuff. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that my speakers are fairly decent. They are about 91db efficient so my little Trends amp drives them very well in the room they are in. By the way, the Trends amp reviewed very well. The only other thing in the signal path is the ART Phono Plus preamp which seems to be very transparent. I got lucky on this since I don't know one from another.

It's a simple system with a short signal path. I haven't messed with fancy speaker wire yet, but I am using a solid silver interconnect between the ART and the Trends.

Prior to this I was running the Oppo through the Emotiva to the Trends, so the system hasn't been radically altered. BTW, the analog out on my Oppo is poor quality, it needs to be connected digitally, and I agree with your assessment of it if you had used analog out.

Just a thought, but it always seemed to me that my DIY speakers were actually clearer sounding than my quads, but I thought my Quads had better tonal qualities for voices. Perhaps it's the equipment which was different for both systems.

Anyway, as it now stands (for me), vinyl rules, but when I get the time and drive I'm going to look into better digital systems.

I had another opportunity to play back another vinyl of which I have the CD and I still prefer the vinyl. I loved the music on both but the CD hurt my ears so much that I had to play it at a low volume. The record still has a certain amount of shrillness to it, but nowhere near what the CD has. Besides, I could hear a great deal more detail on the vinyl.

[frenchmon]

FYI, I just installed my new Audio Technica AT-120E cartridge in my turntable and I have to tell you that you folks saying that vinyl sounds more natural are understating the facts big time.

I have never heard my system sound like this, everything I lost from the 70's is back and much more. I can't believe how much information is missing from CD's. I couldn't stop laughing from the joy of it. Granted, my digital is not very good, but compared to vinyl, it's midfi, at best.

Anyway, I'm happy now and want to thank everyone for the discussion.

Maybe someday, I'll look into upgrading my digital, but I have to get over my excitement about rediscovering vinyl.

Thanks

Sounds like you are on your way to becoming a vinyl junkie like a few of us...welcome to the good side.:14:

[frenchmon]

I've had a Marantz 63SE CD Player amongst numerous other CD and DVD players, but nothing to write home about. I've had a CAL Audio Labs tube DAC and an Aragon DAC with HDCD, plus I've had a Genesis Digital Lens. I've also used a heavily modified Behringer digital crossover as a DAC and the latest addition was my Emotiva digital pre amp as a DAC. I should also mention that my Yamaha receiver also has a DAC which I've tried.

So you see, it's not like I didn't try.

I do have to say that the Oppo (digital out) going through the Emotiva was very clear.

I've owned B&W (lower model), Quad ESL's, and System Audio speakers, and others, not so nice. I've used Mark Levinson for power and tried several others, also owned other amps.

It's odd that I began with a decent pair of speakers and decent turntable going through a JVC receiver (back in the 70's), progressed through electrostatics and amps that weighed more than my girlfriend and now I'm back to a little amp that fits in my pocket and another decent turntable feeding home made speakers. Go figure?

I realize that it doesn't make sense to you. It doesn't make sense to me, but there it is. If it was a marginal change I would say so, but it's much more, even profound, if I'm allowed to say that.

I'm not saying that it's the best I've ever heard, that would be a lie, but for a system that cost me about $1,500 it's amazing. The speakers cost me about $1,000 in parts (including box and crossovers) and I got most of those parts for a big discount. Retail on the parts would have been about $2,000 (just the drivers) not counting the crossovers and material for the boxes. I didn't skimp of the crossover parts either, it's good stuff. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that my speakers are fairly decent. They are about 91db efficient so my little Trends amp drives them very well in the room they are in. By the way, the Trends amp reviewed very well. The only other thing in the signal path is the ART Phono Plus preamp which seems to be very transparent. I got lucky on this since I don't know one from another.

It's a simple system with a short signal path. I haven't messed with fancy speaker wire yet, but I am using a solid silver interconnect between the ART and the Trends.

Prior to this I was running the Oppo through the Emotiva to the Trends, so the system hasn't been radically altered. BTW, the analog out on my Oppo is poor quality, it needs to be connected digitally, and I agree with your assessment of it if you had used analog out.

Just a thought, but it always seemed to me that my DIY speakers were actually clearer sounding than my quads, but I thought my Quads had better tonal qualities for voices. Perhaps it's the equipment which was different for both systems.

Anyway, as it now stands (for me), vinyl rules, but when I get the time and drive I'm going to look into better digital systems.

I had another opportunity to play back another vinyl of which I have the CD and I still prefer the vinyl. I loved the music on both but the CD hurt my ears so much that I had to play it at a low volume. The record still has a certain amount of shrillness to it, but nowhere near what the CD has. Besides, I could hear a great deal more detail on the vinyl.

I've got a CDP that retailed for $1500, and it has a huge and very nice external power supply.... Its not about being the most detailed...has no digital edge to music and limited and very low digital noise, has a slight warmer tubed like tone. Its really a muiscal player and its very good. And I have a $1300 TT with a $700 Cart. The digital while very, very good, the sound from the TT will best it in my opinion. The TT play back has to do with the way vinyl sounds. I like it more. Its smoother, flows better, drums, horns guitars etc all sound more natural, low level detail and clarity is better and the cohesiveness of the overall sound , depth, and staging is greater in my opinion. Also, I think I have a greater ear for the vinyl because I grew up with records and a record player due to my dad playing records all the time, so I had a very early exposure to vinyl play back while I was still in diapers. I abandoned vinyl at the advent of CD's. Sold all my albums and TT's and got a CDP and used it for years until about 3 years ago. I then rediscovered vinyl again after my wife gifted me a mmf-2.1 and after the needle hit the record for the first time again after about 20 years, I could immediately hear the difference in vinyl playback which was unlike CD playback. It was like I had found something I had lost years ago. I often wonder would I feel the same way about vinyl if I was born in the CD generation.

[StevenSurprenant]

The TT play back has to do with the way vinyl sounds. I like it more. Its smoother, flows better, drums, horns guitars etc all sound more natural, low level detail and clarity is better and the cohesiveness of the overall sound , depth, and staging is greater in my opinion......

after the needle hit the record for the first time again after about 20 years, I could immediately hear the difference in vinyl playback which was unlike CD playback. It was like I had found something I had lost years ago. I often wonder would I feel the same way about vinyl if I was born in the CD generation.


I agree with how vinyl sounds. The increase in low level detail that I'm hearing is amazing and really makes the instruments sound more real and depth and staging are as you said, better. It also sounds more dynamic. Someone here mentioned that already. Hands down, better all the way around. I realize that I sound overly zealous about this, but for the first time since the 70's, music is vibrant again.

I'm not saying that vinyl is perfect, but for me, with my digital equipment, digital sounds dull in comparison.

With the new cartridge, I hear even more detail than I remember from the past, so I'd say that my present analog system is better than what I had back in the day. The new cartridge is a little bright, but I understand that after about 50 hours it quiets down a little.

I think that I made all the wrong choices for my digital front end because I've heard digital sound very good too, but not at home. The best soundstaging and clarity I've heard was with digital, but that happened with only a few systems. However, there is one difference between the best I've heard and what my TT sounds like and that is vinyl sounds more vibrant with more micro details. Perhaps saying it sounds more natural is a good way of describing it.

I did try to convert the output of the TT into digital through a Behringer digital equalizer at 24/96, but it didn't sound very good .
No surprise there because many people have stated that analog input into that unit wasn't very good, and they were right.

To be fair, my excitement is in relation to my digital gear and not in comparison to the best digital I've heard, so what I say has to be taken with a grain of salt.

I've learned a lesson here because people support both sides of this discussion. While the improvements I've experienced is extreme, it might not have been so had I had a better digital front end, so I understand why some might think I've gone over the top with this.

As for the younger generation, I've heard some of them say that digital is far superior, but I question what they are comparing it to?

E-Stat mentioned that he questions my assessment and I fully understand. I love stats and I imagine that his system is to die for. I would be almost ashamed to let him listen to my system considering what he has.

The other thing is that I can only imagine that your analog is much better than mine as are many others, and that makes me want to get on the audio roller coaster again, but as for now, I'm enjoying my new found rediscovery.

Thanks for sharing your views with me.

BTW, you might want to try "Caverna Magica" on vinyl. It sounds very good.

[E-Stat]

I'm not saying that vinyl is perfect, but for me, with my digital equipment, digital sounds dull in comparison.
Call me an optimist, but I continue to point out that what you object to is merely an arbitrary application of digital - the lame Redbook standard. Better exists, but the music industry keeps us from enjoying it.


IE-Stat mentioned that he questions my assessment and I fully understand. I love stats and I imagine that his system is to die for. I would be almost ashamed to let him listen to my system considering what he has.
Don't get me wrong. I merely observe that the villain is not digital per se, but the specific application and even with Redbook recordings, there are players that to these ears come pretty darn close to the best analog. HP listens to his EMM players as much or more than the $150,000 Clearaudio Statement. At least when I visit. With no apologies.


IBTW, you might want to try "Caverna Magica" on vinyl. It sounds very good.
I will most certainly have to agree with you as that is one of my favorites. There is one thing, however, that one must do when listening to this music: turn out the lights!

[StevenSurprenant]

E-Stat, I'm sure you're right about all that, but if good digital costs that much than it is out of the reach of people with an average income and so is of no value. What I'd rather see is a digital front end that is relatively low cost, something most people could afford, and something that equals, if not surpasses what I hear on vinyl.

From my point of view, digital may be technically superior, but if what most people own (can afford) is not giving the best that digital has to offer and a low cost vinyl system outperforms it, then it is not better. In other words, what most people end up with is the equivalent of record players of the seventies compared to a good turntable.

What under $500 comes close to an EMM player? Or what is closer for under $1,000? There's many CD players out there, but what's the real deal priced affordably? You get the picture.

[E-Stat]

E-Stat, I'm sure you're right about all that, but if good digital costs that much than it is out of the reach of people with an average income and so is of no value. What I'd rather see is a digital front end that is relatively low cost, something most people could afford, and something that equals, if not surpasses what I hear on vinyl.
Using a 25k EMM Labs XD-S1 player is no more required than using the $150k Clearaudio Statement along with the $15k Goldfinger cartridge. Although there will always be at any relative level, tradeoffs with either format. Aside: The Statement is an incredible piece of mechanical engineering. Have you ever seen one in the flesh? This 800 lb turntable is a combination of precision instrument and Nautilus weight machine. It uses magnetic drive and the positively MASSIVE lower platter is mounted in a gimballed structure supported by a series of weights. Consequently, the platter assembly can pivot in any direction. Just a nudge of your finger gently rocks the entire assembly. And it uses the ultimate development of Lou Souther's Tri-Quartz linear arm (I use the original from 1984 on my VPI Scout). Hearing some 45 RPM Classic Records releases with this gentle giant out to Scaena 1.4s using spectacular components in between provides quite the musical experience.

Click here for images (https://www.google.com/search?q=clearaudio+statement+images&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=VnQ&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=hrldUKWtL8Ts2QXfmoHACg&ved=0CCAQsAQ&biw=1920&bih=953)


What under $500 comes close to an EMM player?
The same number that under $500 vinyl rigs come close to the Clearaudio.


Or what is closer for under $1,000? There's many CD players out there, but what's the real deal priced affordably?

I think in today's market you can find reasonably priced digital gear that doesn't have to apologize. Given the ongoing transition to computer based server systems, it seems that most are not players, but DACs. I find that the modest Squeezebox Touch Network player sounds pretty darn good when supplemented with a linear power supply. I have two sets that run under $500 for the both. One is played through its internal DAC in the garage system, while the other feeds a better sounding Audio Research DAC7 in the upstairs system. Naturally, my arrangement also requires a computer as transport, but you could always use one of your existing players for that. While I cannot vouch for it, many folks have praised the Schiit Bifrost DAC which is also at the $400-$500 level. I'm now convinced that faster spinning rust works better than shiny plastic when it comes to transports. Not to mention convenience and far easier access to your library. :)

I also have renewed appreciation for the quality of mobile audio having just purchased some Shure SE535 in ear monitors. You complain about lack of detail with digital systems. My iPhone 4S playing lossless content through the 535s provides all sorts of detail. I was listening to them late last night and marveling at some nuances in a couple of recordings that I had never been aware of before. Not to mention varying textures in the bass region.

[StevenSurprenant]

Thank you!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Ralph, thanks for restoring some balance in this syrupy vinyl pat fest. I was getting diabetes just reading all of this.

Vinyl lovers choose the disc because of its euphoric qualities, and some sort of physical romance with it. That is it. There are no inherent performance advantages over digital, especially Hi resolution digital. Some have gotten quite accustom to the distortions that vinyl introduces, and find it quite pleasing. That is all there is to it. Performances advantage....Inherent performance advantages...I don't think so.

[E-Stat]

Ralph, thanks for restoring some balance in this syrupy vinyl pat fest. I was getting diabetes just reading all of this.
No problemo. While I'm just an old boomer f*rt who grew up spinning records, I hope folks understand that I'm in no way attached to the required ceremony of cleaning the record and stylus before every play. It's just that such is necessary. to get the best results. I would love nothing more than to find ALL my music magically converted to high resolution (24/88 or better) digital. And not crippled by the old world limitation of having to spin a disc. I like to think that my assessments are entirely based upon objective qualitative observations of recorded music vs. the live unamplified reality.


Vinyl lovers choose the disc because of its euphoric qualities, and some sort of physical romance with it. That is it. There are no inherent performance advantages over digital, especially Hi resolution digital.
For the most part I agree, but the unfortunate reality is that the overwhelming majority of the music catalog is available in no better than the limited Redbook standard. Yes, Redbook has some advantages over vinyl and arguably, I spend far more time listening to it. On the other hand, there are a few areas where the best vinyl trumps the Redbook standard. Low level resolution. Top octave response. Choose your set of compromises.

As for hi-rez, the challenge is that its availability is incredibly limited - when compared with the enormity of available music content. You won't find anyone more than I who truly wishes that the music industry would provide hi-rez capability to more than 2% of the catalog!


Some have gotten quite accustom to the distortions that vinyl introduces, and find it quite pleasing. That is all there is to it. Performances advantage....Inherent performance advantages...I don't think so.
It's all about tradeoffs. I find it a crime that so much valuable musical content from the last three decades has been forever compromised by the Redbook standard - entirely dictated by computer storage technology standards of the 80s.

Long live high resolution digital - when it actually gets here for the lion's share of the content that people buy! I may be old, but I as a computer guy, I am a technologist - this evening I was spending time in my neighbor's driveway while listening to the garage system and love nothing more than to control the content using my iPhone via Wi-Fi connectivity. He and his teenage daughter were washing her car so I selected a playlist of her music.

I get it.

[StevenSurprenant]

E-Stat

I don't have the background of either of you folks and so I can't comment on hi-rez very much except to comment on my very brief experience with HDCD and SACD. I thought, depending on the quality of the recording, that it was an improvement over standard CD's. As I said, my exposure was very limited. However, neither sounded as good as vinyl (at it's best), colored or not. With that said...

Show me one system that isn't colored. I have never heard two speakers sound alike and since the whole purpose of owning a sound system is to reproduce what we hear in real life, how can any claim be made that vinyl is colored when everything we reproduce sound with is colored.

I would imagine that everyone on this board has a different system and that all these systems sound completely different. Sir T mixes on a system that is also different than any one of us has. I would imagine that his monitors don't sound like your stats, so it would be a complete surprise if what he hears in his studio would be what you hear in your home.

The point is that being colored is the name of the game. I have never heard anything in audio that compares to live in all it's fullness. There was one system that was very close, but then I only listened to one song on one CD on it that the store owner provided. That particular recording excelled at soundstaging and was very impressive.

I once listened to a group of musicians playing Canon in D and I was within 3 feet of them. It brought tears to my eyes and I couldn't speak without my voice breaking up. No stereo has ever effected me to that degree. I don't care if you're running stats, horns, line arrays, or the very best dynamic speakers that money can buy, nothing can replace live in that context.

Another time I was listening to Avalon speakers running with state of the art Spectral gear and sat there thinking how real it sounded. That was until my friend stood between the speakers and began mimicking the song and I immediately understood how lacking the system was. You should try that.

Don't get me wrong, I love audio... For what it is and don't fret over what it is not. We can be very pleased with how our systems sound, but, unless we delude ourselves, we cannot rightfully claim accuracy. What that leaves us with is a facsimile that we find pleasing. I can't tell you how many times I've thought, "that sounds real", as I'm sure you've also thought, but does it really?

Sir T's remark, "Vinyl lovers choose the disc because of its euphoric qualities, and some sort of physical romance with it. That is it.", implies that your friends 600 pound turntable is less accurate than his CD player. Do you agree with this?

I concur that higher word sizes and bit rates should sound better and at some point put vinyl to shame, but that's not living in the real world that most people have access to, nor is it supported by recording companies that mass produce what we find in the stores.

So, if I wanted to buy a system that is totally accurate, which speaker would I buy, which amp and preamp, and which digital front end would I look for? The problem is they all sound different, so tell me which ones are not colored.

The bottom line is this...

knowing that everything is colored, don't you think that it makes sense to get what sounds good and don't worry so much about accuracy?

I can understand Sir T's position in this because digital is his life and he has access to the very best, plus I also think there's a strong possibility that he has gotten used to digital and so it sounds more natural to him.

I don't think my vinyl sounds more real than digital, but the bass is better defined, the treble is better defined, soundstaging is better defined, well... everything is. I know you said that a good digital front end can sound as good, but after throwing thousands of dollars at it, I give up. Besides, I've heard better digital (in the stores) than I have ever heard at home, but I've never heard a digital system sound "over all" as good as vinyl does now.

One last thing...

As you know, I love stats, but I've heard many people say they don't like anything dipole. Why is that? This is more of a rhetorical question.

The only reason for this last question is because people have said that dipoles are less dynamic and they had some concern for the reflected waveform from the rear disrupting the signal from the front, causing peaks and dips. Thus they claim dipoles are less accurate. I don't see it that way, but the fact is I love the effect, accurate or not. But the real question is, are they correct? I think many box speakers sound like a box which many dipole owners can readily hear. I remember A-B ing a pair of Thiel speakers next to a pair of Magnepan's and the box sound of the Thiel was almost too much to bear.



Thanks!

[E-Stat]

I concur that higher word sizes and bit rates should sound better and at some point put vinyl to shame, but that's not living in the real world that most people have access to, nor is it supported by recording companies that mass produce what we find in the stores.
Indeed, the music industry has failed us in not universally adopting better standards.


knowing that everything is colored, don't you think that it makes sense to get what sounds good and don't worry so much about accuracy?
Absolutely. The problem is that apparently you have a poor digital source relative to analog.


I don't think my vinyl sounds more real than digital, but the bass is better defined, the treble is better defined, soundstaging is better defined, well... everything is.
I really couldn't disagree more with respect to my system - except for the top end response where analog still reigns over Redbook.

I use a $3500 turntable/arm/cartridge combination that sounds pretty good, but cannot duplicate the first octave response of my similarly priced digital playback. The Telarc 1812 sounds pretty impressive, but the analog gear simply cannot deliver the same impact of the digital. The opening two seconds of the Avatar soundtrack is beyond vinyl's low end capability. As is the ASO recording of The Firebird, a recording in which I played a minor role in the recording. Rihanna's Hard Feat, Jeezy contains some incredible first octave bass. You feel the weight of the bass hanging in the air as you hear its complex texture. Vinyl simply can't do that in my experience. Not on HP's $500k system, either.


I know you said that a good digital front end can sound as good, but after throwing thousands of dollars at it, I give up. Besides, I've heard better digital (in the stores) than I have ever heard at home, but I've never heard a digital system sound "over all" as good as vinyl does now.
Sorry to hear about your bad experience. I get phenomenal results with a Squeezebox Touch player using an Audio Research DAC7.


One last thing...

As you know, I love stats, but I've heard many people say they don't like anything dipole. Why is that?
Who are they? How familiar are they with the sound of live, unamplified music? What exactly is their reason? I won't try to speculate as to what they think they're missing. The very best sounding systems in my experience are not *impressive* sounding from an audio cowboy perspective. If what they seek is boom, sizzle and punch they most certainly won't find it. The sound is simply natural and live.

[StevenSurprenant]

Who are they? How familiar are they with the sound of live, unamplified music? What exactly is their reason? I won't try to speculate as to what they think they're missing. The very best sounding systems in my experience are not *impressive* sounding from an audio cowboy perspective. If what they seek is boom, sizzle and punch they most certainly won't find it. They simply sound natural and live.

I've heard this many times over the years and I always take it with a grain of salt. People are always arguing over one thing or another. I've even had one fellow say that my Quads sounded almost as good as his Bose, so beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

My system doesn't go to the lowest octave of bass but what's there is sweet. Some day I'll get around to adding a sub. The bass I'm getting from vinyl is better than what my digital can do... (with my system)

You can be sure that I'll be researching digital. Maybe someday?

Thanks again.

[E-Stat]

The bass I'm getting from vinyl is better than what my digital can do... (with my system)
That suggests to me that your digital source needs a stiffer power supply. Impactful bass requires joules. Which is one reason why I use an aftermarket linear supply with the Touch player. Not only does it clean up the top, but it provides more authority at the bottom.

The Emotiva DAC has only four small power supply caps:

Interior pic (http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/6459/xda1interior1.jpg)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

would imagine that everyone on this board has a different system and that all these systems sound completely different. Sir T mixes on a system that is also different than any one of us has. I would imagine that his monitors don't sound like your stats, so it would be a complete surprise if what he hears in his studio would be what you hear in your home.

One can have a different presentation, but no less quality from that presentation. My Dunlavy system's presentation is very different than my ATC system. However sound quality wise, they are equal in every way. The system in my signature has all of its front speakers built into a Baffle wall(no rear reflections), and has a completely different presentation than my Thiel CS-3.7 multichannel system. Sound QUALITY wise, both are very good. Presentation difference does not necessarily mean less sound quality....just a different presentation.


I concur that higher word sizes and bit rates should sound better and at some point put vinyl to shame, but that's not living in the real world that most people have access to, nor is it supported by recording companies that mass produce what we find in the stores.

Those stores are disappearing faster than we can breath. Based on that, you need to look elsewhere to find the Easter egg. If you like Classical or Jazz, there are a dozen or so download sites that have quite a bit of 24/88.2 and 24/96khz downloads of those gene. This my friend is the new real world. Gone is most of the brick and motar stores you speak about, and hello to downloading of music. I have 10 terabytes of high resolution music on my music server. The distribution of music is rapidly changing, and during this transition, you have to look for the quality nuggets - they are not going to fall into your lap.


Sir T's remark, "Vinyl lovers choose the disc because of its euphoric qualities, and some sort of physical romance with it. That is it.", implies that your friends 600 pound turntable is less accurate than his CD player. Do you agree with this?

The weight of the turntable is absolutely irrelevant in this case. How do you make this statement without even knowing what kind of CD player I own? Assumptions are not better than facts.

The very nature of a needle touching a vinyl record introduces distortion. It is the same with the cassette and any other media where something touches something else. When you compare the original analog tape with the first vinyl pressing and the QC CD, the CD wins because it does not add anything like the vinyl record does. With vinyl all of these wonderful sonic qualities come out that were not apart of the original master. More midrange bloom, exaggerated separation, the softening of transients are just some of the things you hear when you actually have something to compare vinyl to. Audiophiles do not like neutral sound, or they would not pick vinyl as their listening choice. They enjoy the "euphoric" coloration it imparts, and that is what vinyl folks are looking for - not boring neutral sound quality.

[StevenSurprenant]

One can have a different presentation, but no less quality from that presentation.....just a different presentation.

Comparing a live performance to a playback system, there is only one presentation that is closer to being there. I suppose that you could argue that one system gets closer one way and another system gets closer another way. However, I don't disagree with you that different presentations can be very good. I like dipoles and speakers with a tall vertical waveform such as line arrays. I suppose that how the music gets presented isn't important to me as long as the image is disassociated with the actual speakers.


Those stores are disappearing faster than we can breath....

No doubt, and I've been to some of these sites selling Hi-Rez files, but for the most part, it's not the kind of music I prefer. Jazz and classical are low on my list of desirable recordings. Below that is RAP and much mainstream pop music of today, I do have an interest in New Age, but a little goes a long way. I do love vocals, but much of what is available on these better formats is not to my liking. For instance, Diana Krall, a real favorite of many, just doesn't do it for me. Truthfully I can't put my finger on what I like and what I do really like can come from many different genres. Usually it will be only one song from the mix.


The weight of the turntable is absolutely irrelevant in this case. How do you make this statement without even knowing what kind of CD player I own? Assumptions are not better than facts.

I was implying that it was a state of the art turntable without equal. I don't know anything about your CD player and never alluded to it. I assume you have much better equipment than a simple CD player.


The very nature of a needle touching a vinyl record introduces distortion. ...

Everything has distortion. Your microphones, your speakers, your electronics, you name it and it has it. You can even say that speaker presentation that we referred to above can be considered a form of distortion, although it is not normally referred to in such a way. The fact is that if you compare two different speakers with different presentations and they are both equal in sound quality, what would you call the effect that makes them sound different? For sure, I wouldn't call it accuracy.


Audiophiles do not like neutral sound, or they would not pick vinyl as their listening choice. They enjoy the "euphoric" coloration it imparts, and that is what vinyl folks are looking for - not boring neutral sound quality.

It's an odd thing... When I listen to live music, it's not a boring neutral sound. It's vibrant and tactile. CD's, at least the ones, I've had do not convey that vibrancy of being live whereas vinyl does get closer. Keep in mind that I've not heard all the CD players so I cannot say that it's not capable of being vibrant or that Hi-Rez recordings are better or worse than vinyl. I assume that Hi-Rez will (or does) close the gap and exceed vinyl in every way.

I have to be frank with you about my conclusions about CD players. Most mainstream CD players were meant to replace peoples record players and average stereos. It does this very well and the improvement has been tremendous. They are not a replacement for a higher end audio system with vinyl. This in no way implies that the higher end CD players aren't vinyls equal in one way or another. I am not making a blanket statement that vinyl is without equal, but average CD players do not surpass a decent turntable system.


...More midrange bloom, exaggerated separation, the softening of transients ...

I don't find any of this to be true. When I play my favorite CD and record of the same recording, they sound almost alike. Where they differ is that I hear more detail, less blurring, and sound closer to what I've heard live which, I believe, is a product of having more detail.. So far this has held true for all copies that I have in both formats. I assume that eventually, I will find, in some cases, the opposite to be true since others have had that experience.

It all boils down to this... Vinyl is not perfect, digital is not perfect, electronics are not perfect, audio transducers are not perfect, the recording process is not perfect, and our hearing is not perfect (or the same). Throw in all the abnormalities of room reflections and what you have is a cornucopia of imperfections that distort, in one way or another, what we hear. Why argue which one is more imperfect? Perhaps in the future, audio systems will improve to a point as to make the best of today sound like a gramophone in comparison.

People used to argue the same way over video and standard definition and then HD came along and blew it away, but it isn't stopping there. Higher definition formats are in the making and 3D transcends it all. Still, technology marches on to improve the state of the art of today.

Hi-rez audio formats are a step in the right direction, but it is only a step, which brings us a little closer to live. It cannot be considered the final solution to bridge the gap between live versus recorded.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Comparing a live performance to a playback system, there is only one presentation that is closer to being there. I suppose that you could argue that one system gets closer one way and another system gets closer another way. However, I don't disagree with you that different presentations can be very good. I like dipoles and speakers with a tall vertical waveform such as line arrays. I suppose that how the music gets presented isn't important to me as long as the image is disassociated with the actual speakers.

If jazz and classical is not high on your list, then throw out your live performance comparison. These are the only two genres that do not require a P.A system in a acoustical environment. Also if you are using a live comparison, then where you sit in the venue determines your live perspective. In any auditorium, where you sit determines your acoustical perspective, and not all halls or performance spaces are the same.


No doubt, and I've been to some of these sites selling Hi-Rez files, but for the most part, it's not the kind of music I prefer. Jazz and classical are low on my list of desirable recordings. Below that is RAP and much mainstream pop music of today, I do have an interest in New Age, but a little goes a long way. I do love vocals, but much of what is available on these better formats is not to my liking. For instance, Diana Krall, a real favorite of many, just doesn't do it for me. Truthfully I can't put my finger on what I like and what I do really like can come from many different genres. Usually it will be only one song from the mix.

If you don't know what you like, then how can you search for quality sources of anything? Jazz and Classical are the most supported genres of high resolution audio, so you are essential searching for a needle in a hay stack, with filter applied to that search even further.


I was implying that it was a state of the art turntable without equal. I don't know anything about your CD player and never alluded to it. I assume you have much better equipment than a simple CD player.

A state of the art turntable is not without equal when the medium itself is already compromised in terms of accuracy and transparency. That is a fact, and if you choose to ignore that, then your opinion is already compromised.


Everything has distortion. Your microphones, your speakers, your electronics, you name it and it has it. You can even say that speaker presentation that we referred to above can be considered a form of distortion, although it is not normally referred to in such a way. The fact is that if you compare two different speakers with different presentations and they are both equal in sound quality, what would you call the effect that makes them sound different? For sure, I wouldn't call it accuracy.

If you would call it accuracy, then your comments on vinyl are official negated. The best mastering and pressing engineers I know have stated that vinyl is the least accurate playback system there is, even though it is probably the most euphoric and pleasing format.



It's an odd thing... When I listen to live music, it's not a boring neutral sound. It's vibrant and tactile. CD's, at least the ones, I've had do not convey that vibrancy of being live whereas vinyl does get closer. Keep in mind that I've not heard all the CD players so I cannot say that it's not capable of being vibrant or that Hi-Rez recordings are better or worse than vinyl. I assume that Hi-Rez will (or does) close the gap and exceed vinyl in every way.

Then all one can conclude is you don't have a very good digital playback system.


I have to be frank with you about my conclusions about CD players. Most mainstream CD players were meant to replace peoples record players and average stereos. It does this very well and the improvement has been tremendous. They are not a replacement for a higher end audio system with vinyl. This in no way implies that the higher end CD players aren't vinyls equal in one way or another. I am not making a blanket statement that vinyl is without equal, but average CD players do not surpass a decent turntable system.

You continually mention CD over and over again, and that is hardly the best digital presentation you can compare against vinyl.




I don't find any of this to be true. When I play my favorite CD and record of the same recording, they sound almost alike. Where they differ is that I hear more detail, less blurring, and sound closer to what I've heard live which, I believe, is a product of having more detail.. So far this has held true for all copies that I have in both formats. I assume that eventually, I will find, in some cases, the opposite to be true since others have had that experience.

If you don't have a high quality digital source, then your comparison is already flawed.


It all boils down to this... Vinyl is not perfect, digital is not perfect, electronics are not perfect, audio transducers are not perfect, the recording process is not perfect, and our hearing is not perfect (or the same). Throw in all the abnormalities of room reflections and what you have is a cornucopia of imperfections that distort, in one way or another, what we hear. Why argue which one is more imperfect? Perhaps in the future, audio systems will improve to a point as to make the best of today sound like a gramophone in comparison.

I can just see your skirming right now, you are now reaching for points that discredit everything, and that shows the weakness of your prevous points. Not one thing in the statement degates the fact that vinyl is a imperfect medium for accuracy and neutrality. The room could be perfect, and it would still expose the coloration of the vinyl format as a playback system.


People used to argue the same way over video and standard definition and then HD came along and blew it away, but it isn't stopping there. Higher definition formats are in the making and 3D transcends it all. Still, technology marches on to improve the state of the art of today.

Hi-rez audio formats are a step in the right direction, but it is only a step, which brings us a little closer to live. It cannot be considered the final solution to bridge the gap between live versus recorded.

How could you even make the last statement without any experience with high resolution audio? 24/96khz and 24/192khz audio far more than bridges any gap, most believe that is an overkill for the human ears - and yet it is out there.

I would rather have formats that exceed the capabilites of my ear in terms of frequency, transparency, and resolution, than one that sugar and spices it to death.

[StevenSurprenant]

"skirming" - what does that mean?

How many times must I say this... Vinyl is not perfect, digital is not perfect.

Analog is a technology past it's prime and digital will supplant it entirely at some point in the future, but it's not going to be today, not with redbook as the standard for the average consumer.


Copied from another site...

...a digital recording is not capturing the complete sound wave. It is approximating it with a series of steps. Some sounds that have very quick transitions, such as a drum beat or a trumpet's tone, will be distorted because they change too quickly for the sample rate....

...A vinyl record has a groove carved into it that mirrors the original sound's waveform. This means that no information is lost....

...This means that the waveforms from a vinyl recording can be much more accurate, and that can be heard in the richness of the sound...

...CD quality audio does not do a very good job of replicating the original signal. The main ways to improve the quality of a digital recording are to increase the sampling rate and to increase the accuracy of the sampling...


That is the crux of the problem, CD's and MP3's are what is being fed to the public. - As E-Stat has mentioned more than once.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

"skirming" - what does that mean?

It is a slang word for a person who tries to equalize something that is not really equal. You do that a lot my friend.


How many times must I say this... Vinyl is not perfect, digital is not perfect.

This is skirming. You are trying to equalize something by pointing out something obvious. Sure neither is perfect, but vinyl is far LESS perfect than even the CD. Doug Sax, Bob Katz, Bernie Grundman, Bob Ludwig, Wilma Cozart Fine and Steve Hoffman have all gone on the record(no pun intended) as saying so. Bob Ludwig stated that if you wanted accuracy and trueness to the original master, don't listen to vinyl. I have heard it for myself when doing a concert project for my church that Doug Sax mastered and cut the vinyl on. I HAVE ACTUALLY MADE THE COMPARISON, so my opinion is not made in a vaccum like yours is. Wilma Fine stated it this way - "Yes my husbands says the CD sample rate is too low, but the CD's are closer to the masters than the LP is. She was speaking of the living presence collection.


Analog is a technology past it's prime and digital will supplant it entirely at some point in the future, but it's not going to be today, not with redbook as the standard for the average consumer.

The Redbook standard is in decline, and has been for years. Even high end CD players no longer conform to the standard, as they are upconverting and upsamping the audio. CD sales have been dropping by 6-10% year over year every since 2003. Audiophiles have moved on to high resolution disc or downloads, and the general public towards MP3.


Copied from another site...


.a digital recording is not capturing the complete sound wave. It is approximating it with a series of steps. Some sounds that have very quick transitions, such as a drum beat or a trumpet's tone, will be distorted because they change too quickly for the sample rate....

...A vinyl record has a groove carved into it that mirrors the original sound's waveform. This means that no information is lost....

...This means that the waveforms from a vinyl recording can be much more accurate, and that can be heard in the richness of the sound...

...CD quality audio does not do a very good job of replicating the original signal. The main ways to improve the quality of a digital recording are to increase the sampling rate and to increase the accuracy of the sampling...

Whoever wrote this does not have a great understanding of PCM audio. The reconstruction filter combines the individual samples into a singular waveform so that it conforms to the orignal waveform. It is much like a interlaced video being processed into a progressive video format. Each interlaced field is combined to create a single field of video information. Both processes are invisible to the ears and eyes. CD does an excellent job of replicating the original until it gets to 10khz.Above that is where CD has its problems. How much above 10khz can you hear Steve?

At least the person who wrote this comment got the last sentence right, even if he failed on all the rest.


That is the crux of the problem, CD's and MP3's are what is being fed to the public. - As E-Stat has mentioned more than once.

Let's bring a little context to Ralph's comments. He is referring to the kind of music HE LIKES. He does not like classical or jazz, and aside from that, there is not much to choose from in high resolution. If you like classical and jazz, there is a ton of high resolution music out there for the picking. I have a 10 terabyte raid drive full of high resolution music, and another one on the way into my system.

Nobody is being fed anything, it is what you seek out. Seek and ye shall find. If you don't seek, you will find nothing. If you want high resolution music of your liking, you can probably find it these days. HDtracks has Jazz, rock, electronic classical, country and bluegrass, gospel, hip hop and rap, and quite a few subgenre's of the Blues. They have New age, R&B, pop, raggae, soundtracks, and world music. You have to look for them Steve, it is not going to drop in your lap.

[StevenSurprenant]

I can't hear anything above 16k. That was true 30 years ago and it's true today. From what people say, I imagine that will change in my later years, for the worse. However, my hearing is quite good. For instance, I can hear a floor fan upstairs sitting on thick carpeting and padding from downstairs as long as the rest of the house is quiet. Another example is when I was listening to a live band, I could focus on the reflections coming from the walls of the room which were distinct from the source. I'm extremely sensitive to bass and cannot stand bass that is excessive, even a little.

Also, I am glaringly aware when the balance is off between fundamental frequencies and it's harmonics. For instance, my systems doesn't go down to 20Hz so when a note is played that goes below the threshold of my speakers, I can hear the harmonics, but not the fundamental. It stands out like a sore thumb. This is also true for the rest of the frequency range if there are humps or dips in the output. Of course there is a limit to my ability to detect these abnormalities. It becomes harder to detect when the change is gradual over an extended range, which in cases like this, it takes extended listening to finally say that it just doesn't sound right. I assume that all I said is normal for people interested in highend audio and I don't see this (ability?) as anything but normal..

I don't use tone controls or equalizers. I own some, but with quality speakers it's usually a DB up here or a DB down there, not worth dealing with in most cases.

When I was creating the crossover for my speakers I had one speaker set up about 16 feet away and about 5 foot from a side wall. I was amazed that the sound came distinctly from between the speaker and the wall. I realized that what was causing this was I was hearing the speaker and the reflection from the wall causing the image to come from between them. It occurred to me that this could be a good thing or a bad thing. Bad from the viewpoint that this strong reflection had to be tamed or good because, if set up correctly, could make the soundstage appear wider and outside the speakers. I suppose that you could call that presentation. BTW, I use Newform ribbons that seem to have a high dispersion pattern down to 1,000Hz. This also means that my SEAS woofer is nowhere near the point where it beams and perhaps it too has wide dispersion. I'm guessing on this last part.

The point of this monolog is to point out that I am not a passive listener. I imagine that very few people here are. I don't like smiley faces on EQ's and don't care much for lower quality speakers mostly because they have sloppy bass or the bass is accentuated to make people think they go lower than they do. I'm mostly a midrange guy who would rather have very little bass rather than have poor bass. The highs are second on my list in importance.

Back to CD's (redbook)...

One of my favorite recordings is “Starry Night” by Julio Iglesias which I have on CD and Vinyl. Tonally, they are identical on both mediums. Admittedly, they use a little too much reverb, but I can live with that. What's different between the CD and the vinyl is that the vinyl presents much more detail than the CD version plus the highs are extended on vinyl. When I say extended what I mean is that the highs are there on both formats, but on the vinyl I can hear the cymbals shimmering in the background, but on the CD all I can hear is the tink of the stick hitting it. This effect pretty much applies to the entire frequency range which is why I say CD's sound dull in comparison. The bass or midbass is not accentuated as you implied, it is the same on both formats. The only real difference is the amount of detail present and separation of instruments in the soundstage. I would assume that my choice in phono cartridges and preamp has something to do with that. Because of this detail, everything sounds more real.

Look, I don't always understand why things are as they are, I can only report what I hear. I use a Trends TA 10.1 modified amp putting out about 5 watts and that completely blows away my previously owned Mark Levinson class A amp costing $4,000 in terms of sound quality. It doesn't make any sense, nor would I imagine that the T-amp specs out nearly as well as the ML. Maybe it's a synergy thing? Here is one area where I think digital exceeds analog, but I'm sure that many people would disagree with me on this, at least with their system. Also I'm sure there is better than my T-amp, but at nowhere near the price range.

Skirming...

I don't equalize CD's and vinyl, they are not equal. With the digital equipment I have and have owned, vinyl wipes the floor with digital. With the right digital equipment I might change my mind and would love it if I could. Records are a pain in the butt, but well worth it for the increase in sound quality. Of course we're speaking about redbook versus vinyl.

As for these people you mentioned, I don't have a clue who they are. Also, there is a great difference between recordings whether on CD or vinyl. Perhaps Doug is not so adept at creating vinyl or the process he used wasn't up to the task. You keep comparing things to the masters, but you should be comparing it to live. I have also heard that analog tape masters are far superior to vinyl or digital at any resolution.

As I mentioned earlier, my experience is that CD and vinyl sound the same, the only difference is that redbook lacks the detail of vinyl and digital sounds very harsh when there is a lot of high frequency content.

As for running a music server and high rez files, that's not for me. I might listen to a record/song or two every day, or not, and it is much simpler for me to throw in a CD or record than turn on my computer and navigate through my files to find what I want. I can see the draw of a music server if I had a huge number of recordings or listened to a great deal more music.

Besides, my computer is an overclocked i7 system which pulls about 300 watts average, plus I use dual monitors that add to that. My stereo uses less than 25 watts total. Why would I want to use nearly 400 watts to do what I can do with 25 watts?

You can talk till your blue in the face, but if you came to my house, I wouldn't let you in. That's a joke. But if you did hear what I hear, you would be out of your mind to think that digital is better.

You say CD's are more truthful to the master, but why do CD's lack the detail I hear on vinyl? Why does digital sound harsh? I'm sure you will blame that on my equipment and you might be right, but in the end, if a modest priced turntable sounds much better than a modest priced CD player, where is the advantage of digital. I spent about $400 on my turntable/cartridge/preamp and why do I have to spend thousands on a digital front end just to equal that and more to exceed it?

Forget about Hi-Rez, we're comparing redbook with vinyl.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I can't hear anything above 16k. That was true 30 years ago and it's true today. From what people say, I imagine that will change in my later years, for the worse. However, my hearing is quite good. For instance, I can hear a floor fan upstairs sitting on thick carpeting and padding from downstairs as long as the rest of the house is quiet. Another example is when I was listening to a live band, I could focus on the reflections coming from the walls of the room which were distinct from the source. I'm extremely sensitive to bass and cannot stand bass that is excessive, even a little.

Also, I am glaringly aware when the balance is off between fundamental frequencies and it's harmonics. For instance, my systems doesn't go down to 20Hz so when a note is played that goes below the threshold of my speakers, I can hear the harmonics, but not the fundamental. It stands out like a sore thumb. This is also true for the rest of the frequency range if there are humps or dips in the output. Of course there is a limit to my ability to detect these abnormalities. It becomes harder to detect when the change is gradual over an extended range, which in cases like this, it takes extended listening to finally say that it just doesn't sound right. I assume that all I said is normal for people interested in highend audio and I don't see this (ability?) as anything but normal..

I don't use tone controls or equalizers. I own some, but with quality speakers it's usually a DB up here or a DB down there, not worth dealing with in most cases.

When I was creating the crossover for my speakers I had one speaker set up about 16 feet away and about 5 foot from a side wall. I was amazed that the sound came distinctly from between the speaker and the wall. I realized that what was causing this was I was hearing the speaker and the reflection from the wall causing the image to come from between them. It occurred to me that this could be a good thing or a bad thing. Bad from the viewpoint that this strong reflection had to be tamed or good because, if set up correctly, could make the soundstage appear wider and outside the speakers. I suppose that you could call that presentation. BTW, I use Newform ribbons that seem to have a high dispersion pattern down to 1,000Hz. This also means that my SEAS woofer is nowhere near the point where it beams and perhaps it too has wide dispersion. I'm guessing on this last part.

The point of this monolog is to point out that I am not a passive listener. I imagine that very few people here are. I don't like smiley faces on EQ's and don't care much for lower quality speakers mostly because they have sloppy bass or the bass is accentuated to make people think they go lower than they do. I'm mostly a midrange guy who would rather have very little bass rather than have poor bass. The highs are second on my list in importance.

Back to CD's (redbook)...

One of my favorite recordings is “Starry Night” by Julio Iglesias which I have on CD and Vinyl. Tonally, they are identical on both mediums. Admittedly, they use a little too much reverb, but I can live with that. What's different between the CD and the vinyl is that the vinyl presents much more detail than the CD version plus the highs are extended on vinyl. When I say extended what I mean is that the highs are there on both formats, but on the vinyl I can hear the cymbals shimmering in the background, but on the CD all I can hear is the tink of the stick hitting it. This effect pretty much applies to the entire frequency range which is why I say CD's sound dull in comparison. The bass or midbass is not accentuated as you implied, it is the same on both formats. The only real difference is the amount of detail present and separation of instruments in the soundstage. I would assume that my choice in phono cartridges and preamp has something to do with that. Because of this detail, everything sounds more real.

Look, I don't always understand why things are as they are, I can only report what I hear. I use a Trends TA 10.1 modified amp putting out about 5 watts and that completely blows away my previously owned Mark Levinson class A amp costing $4,000 in terms of sound quality. It doesn't make any sense, nor would I imagine that the T-amp specs out nearly as well as the ML. Maybe it's a synergy thing? Here is one area where I think digital exceeds analog, but I'm sure that many people would disagree with me on this, at least with their system. Also I'm sure there is better than my T-amp, but at nowhere near the price range.

Skirming...

I don't equalize CD's and vinyl, they are not equal. With the digital equipment I have and have owned, vinyl wipes the floor with digital. With the right digital equipment I might change my mind and would love it if I could. Records are a pain in the butt, but well worth it for the increase in sound quality. Of course we're speaking about redbook versus vinyl.

As for these people you mentioned, I don't have a clue who they are. Also, there is a great difference between recordings whether on CD or vinyl. Perhaps Doug is not so adept at creating vinyl or the process he used wasn't up to the task. You keep comparing things to the masters, but you should be comparing it to live. I have also heard that analog tape masters are far superior to vinyl or digital at any resolution.

As I mentioned earlier, my experience is that CD and vinyl sound the same, the only difference is that redbook lacks the detail of vinyl and digital sounds very harsh when there is a lot of high frequency content.

As for running a music server and high rez files, that's not for me. I might listen to a record/song or two every day, or not, and it is much simpler for me to throw in a CD or record than turn on my computer and navigate through my files to find what I want. I can see the draw of a music server if I had a huge number of recordings or listened to a great deal more music.

Besides, my computer is an overclocked i7 system which pulls about 300 watts average, plus I use dual monitors that add to that. My stereo uses less than 25 watts total. Why would I want to use nearly 400 watts to do what I can do with 25 watts?

You can talk till your blue in the face, but if you came to my house, I wouldn't let you in. That's a joke. But if you did hear what I hear, you would be out of your mind to think that digital is better.

You say CD's are more truthful to the master, but why do CD's lack the detail I hear on vinyl? Why does digital sound harsh? I'm sure you will blame that on my equipment and you might be right, but in the end, if a modest priced turntable sounds much better than a modest priced CD player, where is the advantage of digital. I spent about $400 on my turntable/cartridge/preamp and why do I have to spend thousands on a digital front end just to equal that and more to exceed it?

Forget about Hi-Rez, we're comparing redbook with vinyl.

So, in saying all of this, you are admitting that your digital playback gear is weaker than your vinyl playback gear, or your ears love the distortion of vinyl, and hate the lack thereof from digital. You are also dismissing Hi-rez because of your lack of experience and exposure to it. You cannot realize the advantage of digital without experience the best of it - so you perspective is pretty narrow in evaluating it even on a fundamental level.

Those of us who have actively pursued Hi-Rez digital whether through downloads or disc know your comments are naive, narrow-minded, and very short of objective fact. I say you need to further explore and expose yourself to Hi-Rez before you make proclamations about any vinyl to digital comparison - subjective or not.

As far as the mastering engineers I mention, the fact that you don't know them if very telling. Those guys represent the best of the best in terms of mastering for both digital(at all levels), and analog(most exclusively vinyl). They happen to be some of the best vinyl lathe cutting master makers in the business. All are Grammy award winners at that.

[StevenSurprenant]

So, in saying all of this, you are admitting that your digital playback gear is weaker than your vinyl playback gear, or your ears love the distortion of vinyl, and hate the lack thereof from digital. You are also dismissing Hi-rez because of your lack of experience and exposure to it. You cannot realize the advantage of digital without experience the best of it - so you perspective is pretty narrow in evaluating it even on a fundamental level.

Those of us who have actively pursued Hi-Rez digital whether through downloads or disc know your comments are naive, narrow-minded, and very short of objective fact. I say you need to further explore and expose yourself to Hi-Rez before you make proclamations about any vinyl to digital comparison - subjective or not.

As far as the mastering engineers I mention, the fact that you don't know them if very telling. Those guys represent the best of the best in terms of mastering for both digital(at all levels), and analog(most exclusively vinyl). They happen to be some of the best vinyl lathe cutting master makers in the business. All are Grammy award winners at that.

I give up, you win (in your mind). I guess now I should inform the millions of people who migrated over to vinyl that they're wrong and should moth ball their systems because some guy on audioreview says so. Let's see how that goes...

Since I've known you, you've bragged about your job and how you outperform all your peers, about what you own, and about who you know. All of this means nothing and the fact that you have to brag to people that you have done these things and know these people indicates that something is lacking in your life. When these people start mentioning that they know you then perhaps I'll be a little impressed. My experience with braggarts is that they are under achievers who think more of themselves than others think of them. Well that's what I think you are about and I'm not being mean. It's an honest evaluation.

You keep implying that digital is always better than analog and you know that isn't true. As for Hi-rez, when it hits the mainstream with music I enjoy, I'll jump on the bandwagon, but till then, there's a lot more vinyl in my future.

While I'm being honest and open, I'll tell you one more thing. Most of the CD's that I own are crap, in terms of sound quality, and many of the older records I have procured too. Movies have the background effects turned up so loud that you can't understand the dialog half the time. I couldn't count the number of people who have said the same thing. I've mentioned this to you before and your reply was that you know what you're doing and that I should be happy with what I get. Bull hockey!

If this is the best the industry has to offer than perhaps it's time to rethink this whole thing and maybe even get rid of some of the shakers and movers in the industry.

You've called my comments naive and narrow minded, but have you ever listened to yourself. You make a blanket statement that all vinyl systems have bloated bass and are distorted. How can you say that? Have you listened to all turntables? I have refrained for the sake of preventing arguments from commenting every time you screw up. I know that you're somewhat of a Prima Donna and can't stand people who disagree with you.

We've tried to converse before and it always ends up this way, so what's the point?.

[RGA]

StenSuprenant

I don't think you've read SirT the right way. Engineers, no offense, tend to discuss things in technical terms as either black and white. Sir T is correct that as a technology Hi resolution digital is superior to both Vinyl and CD in terms of recordings. The source disc/download is superior - period.

The CD is arguably superior to vinyl as well as he notes the CD is closer to the master tape than the same recording on vinyl. CD was and is a technically superior format. CD failed with audiophiles out of the gate due to lousy machines and lousy recordings and early reports complained of horribly bright and just plain crappy sounding treble. Many of those early players were if I remember right 14 bit units.

Vinyl was generally quite superior in the treble. And let's face it - if something sounds a bit bright - no matter what else it may do - blacker blacks, lower noise, less distortion, better bass more dynamics whatever - if the treble is at all "off" then it becomes fatiguing dredge even if in EVERY other aspect of sound CD is better - treble is THE most important thing to be able to listen for long periods - if it is slightly off or bright then many audiophiles will turn it off. CD was not great in the treble. I am 38 and I still hear to 17khz.

Hi Resolution fixes what ailed the CD. Indeed very good CD players from Audio Note ails a lot of what ailed CD which is why they're so popular with vinyl philes - And having Guy Adams(Voyd References fame - now heads HP computer industrial design - so he knows math and computers) help design the CD players is perhaps why they sound better than every other CD player I've tried.

I think the thing most audiophiles with large music collections are guilty of is wanting to hold onto what we have. Nothing wrong with this of course. If you have 20,000 records you are going to invest in playing them back the best you possibly can. And you WILL get amazing sound quality out of them.

Hi Res is simply better technology and can result in better sound. As is the case when engineers record to DSD or CD and then to vinyl. This proves the technology.

Unfortunately when the engineer hat comes off and you leave the laboratory then one must enter the real world of practical results. And that world is that very often Album ABC sounds better on vinyl than CD and is not recorded and/or available on DSD. Yes album XYZ was recorded on DSD/SACD, CD, and vinyl and the DSD is deemed better. Now list all the albums available where this has been done. How long is the list? Did we get past one hand or two? Theory versus practical real world availability.

I take my albums I have at home and I say okay I have Madonna Immaculate collection on Vinyl, CD, and a few 45 singles from said album. The 45's trounce the other two, then LP then CD. I go through much of my collection where I have the CD and vinyl versions. And it's something like 95% in favour of LP and the 5% is made up of used vinyl albums that are problem discs (warped or someone ran a bad needle on it or they're newer digital made LPs where the CD is no worse sounding and therefore I give it a win because the CD is cheaper than the vinyl.

CD is technically superior but the results are simply difficult to ignore. Where CD seems to win is newer albums which can sound outstanding.

Hi Res is a different thing. I was less impressed with SACD because again CD played on Audio Note's CD players of the same album sounded considerably better - more dynamics more body more sound than the same albums on SACD - I tried about 7 albums from rock to jazz to classical. 5 channel Hotel California was frankly awful. However, this is playback not technology of the disc - the disc is substantially better - the playback of those early machines like early CD may have just sucked. I mainly used the Sony ES something or other which was about $5000 when it came out. It's CD player section was atrocious so perhaps it just wasn't very good.

Fast forward to today and the conversation over SACD is largely moot since Sony is rumbling to cease production of transports and recordings it means the death of SACD. The future is DSD downloaded music. Even if SACD survives I am in the camp of the download.

You buy a few 1tb hard drives (I have two) and you load them up with music. You run a laptop to your big screen TV - already do this to watch videos.

Get yourself some sort of 24/96 or 24/192 or 32/384 DAC and you have hi res music.

And here's the nifty thing - unlike most audiophile equipment Hi Res is "good" at low cost. You can spend $10,000 on a DCS debussy or $2,500 for an Ayre QB9 but you can also spend $500 on a Halide or less for an Arcam Rdac or even just $169 for an Audio Engine Audioengine D1 - Audioengineusa.com (http://audioengineusa.com/Store/Audioengine-D1#.UGkek1HpXF0)

To me $169 is a pretty decent gamble - people spend more on tendercups to lift CD players off the shelf than this device which, while likely not the best showing of the technology, can likely show enough to let you know what DSD is capable of. And hey it's a headphone amp to boot.

I am looking into these DACs myself but I am behind the curve and I suspect turntable audiophiles are somewhat afraid/leery of getting computers into the mix.

Plus computers tend to be out of date the moment you buy them so there is a fear that whatever you buy will be a P.O.S. in 3 months. Then what do you actually "need?" A server or a DAC.

What about the bits - 24/96 or 24/192 as minimum. Then there are some selling chips that are 32/384 which has no to very few actual music you can play and the machines that have the chip that can do it don't have connections that can send information to that level (as my limited understanding of my reading of one review indicates.)

Then some units are 24/192 via S/PDIF but only 24/96 via the USB. It's been advised on several sites that you should always use the S/PDIF input on the DAC which means you need a USB to S/PDIF connector.

Frankly for many people this becomes white noise of gobbldygook and I just want to stick the CD in the drawer and push play - simple.

Nevertheless - I am looking into them and I am not in the DCS Debussey price range - I want to start with something fairly inexpensive from a company that has a track record.

So I am currently looking at the Benchmark DAC1 HDR DAC1 HDR | Benchmark Media (http://www.benchmarkmedia.com/dac/dac1-hdr) and Wyred4Sound W4S DAC-2 (DAC2) - DACs - DAC 2, ESS Sabre DAC, High Definition Amplifiers, Asynchronous, Sonos modificaitons, Stereo Pre Amp (http://www.wyred4sound.com/webapps/p/74030/117839/457975)

[StevenSurprenant]

RGA, Nicely put! Thanks.

I am not arguing whether Hi-Res is superior to vinyl. That has never been my contention. It's always been about redbook CD on average CD players versus vinyl. If I were to put this in a Venn diagram that would exclude Hi-Rez and higher end CD players.

The reason this argument goes awry is that we're not comparing apples to apples and it's impossible to keep him focused.

The "Starry Night" album by Julio Iglesias that I mentioned sounds tonally identical on CD and vinyl. Even the soundstage is the same, but the difference is the amount of micro detail and harmonics which goes a long way in making the music more vibrant and creates a secondary effect of separating things in the soundstage. BTW, this album and others where I have both the CD and the vinyl is one of the reasons I think Sir T is wrong about bloated Mid bass and distortion. Besides, I don't think that all phono cartridges sound the same or that they all have bloated mid bass. I would then assume that the record was recorded that way, in which case, it's the engineers fault and not the playback equipment. His comments on this show a strong bias against all vinyl which doesn't support his position.

I reserve the right to criticize bluebook CD's from the stand point of what I hear on average CD players. If he bought a CD player under, let's say under $200, I don't think Sir T could truthfully say that it sounds better than vinyl on a good system.

At some point in the future when Hi-Rez digital becomes the standard and average playback systems are very good, then I won't have a leg to stand on, in which case I will wholeheartedly support his position, but for now, that's exceeding the breadth of the argument.

With that said...

I already have a DAC and player that supports 24/192 (but not FLAC files), but no software. I've looked at what's available in Hi-Rez, but nothing has caught my interest. I figure that if I keep looking that someday I will find something I like.

One of the problems I have is that I don't want to use a computer to play back these files. I guess that I'm old school and want to hold the vinyl or disk in my hand. Besides, knowing computers like I do, you could loose your entire collection in a heartbeat due to disk failure. Considering the cost of some of these Hi-Rez files, I wouldn't go this route unless I were to invest in a substantial backup system which adds to the cost of going Hi-Rez. That's just me...

With that said...

I have no doubt that Hi-Rez digital is the best format available and when the day comes that it is readily available with music I enjoy, I'll pack away my vinyl and take Sir T out for a beer.

I had the same argument with my photography teacher who insisted that digital would never replace film. I was on the side of digital, but he was correct from the viewpoint of using large film formats, such as 4X5, and scalability. Digital hasn't stood still and resolution keeps climbing. At some point, film will be nothing more than footnote. The same applies to vinyl. In either case, it's just not going to happen today.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

The reason this argument goes awry is that we're not comparing apples to apples and it's impossible to keep him focused.

If you are going to compare apples with apples, then your comparison of vinyl versus CD would be impossible.Both formats are mastered differently, both operate differently, and both have format based routines that if not implemented properly will result if poor performance. Apples to apples comparison would be two different carts on the same tonearm. Apples to apples would be the comparison between the same recording on CD and SACD, or DVD-A and CD.

This tells me you don't know exactly what the focus is.




The "Starry Night" album by Julio Iglesias that I mentioned sounds tonally identical on CD and vinyl. Even the soundstage is the same, but the difference is the amount of micro detail and harmonics which goes a long way in making the music more vibrant and creates a secondary effect of separating things in the soundstage.

All this tells me is that your vinyl setup has more resolution than your digital gear. Secondly you don't know if identical masters were used for both, so you comparison is fraught with problems, which profoundly biases your opinion.




BTW, this album and others where I have both the CD and the vinyl is one of the reasons I think Sir T is wrong about bloated Mid bass and distortion. Besides, I don't think that all phono cartridges sound the same or that they all have bloated mid bass. I would then assume that the record was recorded that way, in which case, it's the engineers fault and not the playback equipment. His comments on this show a strong bias against all vinyl which doesn't support his position.

Steve, without a direct comparison(the original master) how do you know which format is presenting exactly what the engineer wanted you to hear? You don't, you are using your subjective opinion.

I want to put this another way. Have you ever compared a 35mm master tape with a QC CD master, and a master pressing of vinyl all at once? I have in Doug Sax's studio with his custom made turntable and one of the most neutral sounding carts I have ever heard. As good as the vinyl sounded, it did not sound like my my 35mm master. The CD was a lot closer to what I heard from my master. Unlike you, I happen to have very high quality digital gear(my pre-amp in my signature processor everything at 48/354.2 or 384khz sample rate) so my perspective on digital is not gimped or based on midfi digital gear.

I would like to point out to you some excerpts from this great NPR discussion I was pointed to on another website.

DANKOSKY: So, first of all, I'll ask you, Scott: vinyl or CD?

(SOUNDBITE OF LAUGHTER)

METCALFE: I enjoy both formats, but my preference is definitely CD.

DANKOSKY: Now, why CD?

METCALFE: Well, I think it has a lot to do with the fact that I'm primarily a recording engineer, as far as working with music. And it's - the closer thing to what I'm sending into the recorder is very much what I'm getting back out. With analog formats, although the sound can be very pleasing in certain styles, it's definitely imparting its own sound on it. And I think, to an extent, it's that sound that some people are really drawn to. But it's nice as an engineer to have the confidence of knowing that what I'm putting into - in most cases these days, the computer - is pretty close to what I'm going to get out.

DANKOSKY: Sean Olive, I have to ask you. I think I know your answer, but vinyl or CD?

OLIVE: Definitely CD.

DANKOSKY: Yeah? So tell me why.

OLIVE: Well, I mean, I grew up listening to records up until about '85, when the CD was already out. And I was involved in testing loudspeakers up at the National Research Council in Canada. And we were testing cartridges at that time, and it was quite apparent that the amount of distortion coming out of these devices was very high compared to CD. So what we found was that vinyl was a limiting factor in our ability to do accurate and reliable listening tests on loudspeakers, and we had to find a more reliable and more accurate medium.

Why Vinyl Sounds Better Than CD, Or Not : NPR (http://www.npr.org/2012/02/10/146697658/why-vinyl-sounds-better-than-cd-or-not)

So reason why I made my statement about vinyl is based on my experience comparing the master to the CD or vinyl. It is the sound characteristic of the format that is so appealing to audiophiles. Audiophiles do not like neutrality or accuracy, or they would not have a preference towards vinyl OR tube amplifiers and preamplifiers(or at least quite a few of them). The very things that vinyl lovers like about vinyl, they dislike about CD. CD do not have a sound 'characteristic", what you record is what you get. CD does not enhance or highlight anything unless that is the intentions of the engineer. That is not the case with vinyl.

So, if you like salt and pepper on your audio, then by all means listen to vinyl through tube based equipment. If you want accuracy and neutrality, then the CD is your bag. I have seven grammy award winning mastering engineers that support this.

When you get a chance to listen to a master tape, and the formats the music was released on, come back and talk to me. We can then discuss this BS about keeping focus.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I give up, you win (in your mind). I guess now I should inform the millions of people who migrated over to vinyl that they're wrong and should moth ball their systems because some guy on audioreview says so. Let's see how that goes...

Oh cut the bull$hit drama! There is no indication whatsoever that millions have migrated over to vinyl. Turntable sales do not support that notion PERIOD.


Since I've known you, you've bragged about your job and how you outperform all your peers, about what you own, and about who you know. All of this means nothing and the fact that you have to brag to people that you have done these things and know these people indicates that something is lacking in your life. When these people start mentioning that they know you then perhaps I'll be a little impressed. My experience with braggarts is that they are under achievers who think more of themselves than others think of them. Well that's what I think you are about and I'm not being mean. It's an honest evaluation.

And here is my assessment of you as well. When you fall down on a technical basis, you start immediately attacking the person personally - even when you don't know jack $hit about them. Deflection is a weakness that people with weak minds often fall back on. I don't brag about anything, I share my experience - much like you try to do. There is nothing lacking in my life(see the deflection) but there is something definitely lacking in your technical education on things audio.


You keep implying that digital is always better than analog and you know that isn't true. As for Hi-rez, when it hits the mainstream with music I enjoy, I'll jump on the bandwagon, but till then, there's a lot more vinyl in my future.

I said nothing about digital always being better than analog, I said digital is better than vinyl. I love the sound of a recording made on 35mm magnetic tape, and have a few of them transferred to high resolution digital in my collection.


While I'm being honest and open, I'll tell you one more thing. Most of the CD's that I own are crap, in terms of sound quality, and many of the older records I have procured too. Movies have the background effects turned up so loud that you can't understand the dialog half the time. I couldn't count the number of people who have said the same thing. I've mentioned this to you before and your reply was that you know what you're doing and that I should be happy with what I get. Bull hockey!

Obviously if there was a balance problem between the dialog and the effects, we would have notice this not only on the dubbing stage, and for Disney, the smaller mixing studio that we create our special made for hometheater mixes. As I have explained to you before, none of my system have this issue or ever have. So if you are having this trouble(and all those who agree with you) room resonances, improper alignment and calibration, or the use of non traditional speakers are probably the problem, not the software.


If this is the best the industry has to offer than perhaps it's time to rethink this whole thing and maybe even get rid of some of the shakers and movers in the industry.

Or maybe your ears and sound system. It is a weakness to always blame something else other than your equipment, room, or your ears. You have probably never really heard how good movie soundtracks can sound if there is a weakness in any or all of these areas.


You've called my comments naive and narrow minded, but have you ever listened to yourself. You make a blanket statement that all vinyl systems have bloated bass and are distorted. How can you say that? Have you listened to all turntables? I have refrained for the sake of preventing arguments from commenting every time you screw up. I know that you're somewhat of a Prima Donna and can't stand people who disagree with you.

Reading comprehension apparently is not your strong suit. I made no mention of vinyl systems because there is no such thing. I never made any mention to anyone specific system. It is a known fact that vinyl has built in distortions, and when you compared it to the master tape(something you have not done) these distortions are very audible. Read Scott's comments above. The vinyl record does not have the accuracy or transparency of the original master tape PERIOD.


We've tried to converse before and it always ends up this way, so what's the point?.

Steve, it ends up this way because you are technically challenged which makes you default to your subjective personal opinion - which is not fact. You blame the software for issues when the problem really lies in your system, your room acoustics, or your ears. 5 grammy award winning mastering engineers say vinyl is not accurate, and Steve dismisses this without any engineering(let alone mastering engineering) experience. You have never compared a master tape to any reproduction format, and yet you think you have enough information to make a comparison that folks here should pay attention to. By now you should know that I am not going to let misinformation, or a shorted sighted uneducated statement or opinion pass.

My strong and profound suggestion to you is to better educate yourself techically before you post This way you don't have to get your panties in a knot when somebody swats your words down like fly's.

In the future, let's leave the personal comments of one character to those who actually know the person. They don't belong in a audio discussion.

[StevenSurprenant]

Apples to apples are the 2 formats available to the average consumer within a respectable price range, so apples to apples applies.

I would like to add one more thing and then I'll let it drop. I never understood war and could never figure how the leaders of this planet who were intelligent people could ever allow it to happen. Nothing they ever fought about was worth the death of their own people and the people of other nations. After meeting Sir T, I now understand the mentality that can drive otherwise peaceful people into barbarism. It's really sad that is part of human nature. I never understood this about humanity...until now, so in that sense, I guess that I was naive. I don't expect you to have an inkling of what I speaking about.

FYI, I blocked all posts from you since our posts are unproductive and blemishes a decent audio site. I just thought you might want to know this. I get tired of your B.S. and your crying if you don't get your way. Also, I only looked at the first sentence of your last two posts and saw where this was going. There was no point to read any further.

When I look back at all the other people and their posts, I see a community of like minded people discussing their common interest in the best of spirits. Sometimes they clash, but never with malice. They support each other and help when they can. I've been the recipient of that help from time to time and it was greatly appreciated. You, on the other hand, are fine unless people disagree with you in which case you become psychotic.

Most of the time we have to listen to you rant about how great you are, how hard you work, how your peers are incompetent compared to yourself, how your equipment is the best that money can buy, and about all these people that you know. My guess is that if we asked your peers, they would tell a different story. If we asked these people you keep name dropping, they would probably not know who you are.

Let me tell you something about human nature and that is we all think we work hard, do a good job and many times a better job then our peers. The choices that we all make in life makes sense to ourselves even in the face of conflicting opinions. However, what most people don't do is degrade others to to benefit themselves, as you do. I don't think you have any idea what I'm speaking of, do you?

We've gone back and forth on this issue about vinyl and yet you have never heard my system. So when you finally decided that I was right (with my system), you called my digital equipment crap.
That's fine, I can't argue that point, but a decent person would have said that I wasn't getting everything that digital had to offer and a better player would even the score between vinyl. Do you see what I'm implying about your personality?

Indirectly you have also besmirched the names of all the manufacturers of all the gear I have owned, such as, Marantz, Genesis, California Audio Labs, Aragon, Emotiva, and a plethora of other players in the game. I wonder how they would feel about you saying that their gear is crap?

So, if it makes you feel better about yourself to besmirch me, please feel free to do so at my expense, it's expected from you. I won't be reading it.

[StevenSurprenant]

RGA, I did download some Hi-Rez from 2L. They do sound clear and they were free. Interesting...

Most of the ones I downloaded were FLAC 24/192. I also downloaded one file that was WAV 24/352.

Thanks again for your input. I'm going to try and find some Hi-Rez files that I enjoy.

[E-Stat]

I am looking into these DACs myself but I am behind the curve and I suspect turntable audiophiles are somewhat afraid/leery of getting computers into the mix.

Plus computers tend to be out of date the moment you buy them so there is a fear that whatever you buy will be a P.O.S. in 3 months. Then what do you actually "need?" A server or a DAC.
Having recently switched my digital playback over completely to a server based solution, I shared your confusion over the myriad of tweaks required for dedicated computer music operation. I'd rather not have to hollow out the OS kernel and worry about arcane things like ASIO, DRC and Wasapi.

Which is why I like the Squeezebox Touch server concept. There is no need for a dedicated stripped down computer. I use a two year old Dell desktop that is my daily work computer. My FLAC library is located there along with the Squeezebox server software. Even when both Touches are running independent streams, Resource Monitor reports that the sum of all SB related processes consumes about 0.4% of CPU power.

Connecting the Touch players is quite simple. I run one via CAT6 cabling to the router and the other, via the wi-fi network. While the players offer full UI capability, I usually use a separate app that runs on my iPhone that can control either - or link the two players together with the same stream.

Easy and convenient. I do recommend buying a linear supply for the Touch units though. They really do improve resolution and reduce noise. The internal DAC is pretty decent and that's what I use in the vintage garage system driving the Acoustats. Upstairs the player drives an Audio Research DAC7.

Oh, and each system still has a pretty nice turntable to play the rest of my library. :)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Apples to apples are the 2 formats available to the average consumer within a respectable price range, so apples to apples applies.

Well so is High Rez, so why not throw that in there as well.


I would like to add one more thing and then I'll let it drop. I never understood war and could never figure how the leaders of this planet who were intelligent people could ever allow it to happen. Nothing they ever fought about was worth the death of their own people and the people of other nations. After meeting Sir T, I now understand the mentality that can drive otherwise peaceful people into barbarism. It's really sad that is part of human nature. I never understood this about humanity...until now, so in that sense, I guess that I was naive. I don't expect you to have an inkling of what I speaking about.

Thanks for making my point about you Steven . Whenever you fall short technically, you resort to disparaging a person character - something you don't know jack$hit about.

By the way idiot, you have never met me.


FYI, I blocked all posts from you since our posts are unproductive and blemishes a decent audio site. I just thought you might want to know this. I get tired of your B.S. and your crying if you don't get your way. Also, I only looked at the first sentence of your last two posts and saw where this was going. There was no point to read any further.

Good, block them all. Stay as ignorant as hell as you always have been. Nothing lost, and certainly nothing gained - you are still as stupid as the first post I read of yours.


When I look back at all the other people and their posts, I see a community of like minded people discussing their common interest in the best of spirits. Sometimes they clash, but never with malice. They support each other and help when they can. I've been the recipient of that help from time to time and it was greatly appreciated. You, on the other hand, are fine unless people disagree with you in which case you become psychotic.

Well, you should have said that you wanted a sheeple country club when you got here, and then I would have steered you elsewhere.


Most of the time we have to listen to you rant about how great you are, how hard you work, how your peers are incompetent compared to yourself, how your equipment is the best that money can buy, and about all these people that you know. My guess is that if we asked your peers, they would tell a different story. If we asked these people you keep name dropping, they would probably not know who you are.

You keep solidifying my point about you. When you get to the end of your knowledge(which does not take very long) you start personal attacks. Next you will spit blood, your head will turn 360 degrees, and that little pea brain of your will spill out of your nose.


Let me tell you something about human nature and that is we all think we work hard, do a good job and many times a better job then our peers. The choices that we all make in life makes sense to ourselves even in the face of conflicting opinions. However, what most people don't do is degrade others to to benefit themselves, as you do. I don't think you have any idea what I'm speaking of, do you?

I don't think you know what you are talking about, which would be par for the course for you.


We've gone back and forth on this issue about vinyl and yet you have never heard my system. So when you finally decided that I was right (with my system), you called my digital equipment crap.
That's fine, I can't argue that point, but a decent person would have said that I wasn't getting everything that digital had to offer and a better player would even the score between vinyl. Do you see what I'm implying about your personality?

Who cares what you think about my personality. You are just another stupid guy on audioreview who does not like his"long years of listening experience(which does not mean a lot)" challenged. I have been here since 1995. How many of your kind have I experience since then. Too many to count.


Indirectly you have also besmirched the names of all the manufacturers of all the gear I have owned, such as, Marantz, Genesis, California Audio Labs, Aragon, Emotiva, and a plethora of other players in the game. I wonder how they would feel about you saying that their gear is crap?

So, if it makes you feel better about yourself to besmirch me, please feel free to do so at my expense, it's expected from you. I won't be reading it.

Good, go back to sticking your head up your own bum - it is the only thing you have been really good at on these boards.

[StevenSurprenant]

I know this thread has been going for a while and for some it has exceeded the point of being interesting, but I think it's too soon to close the book on this.

I think the strongest argument is that vinyl and digital is sometimes mastered differently so one version might be preferable over another. The other argument is that vinyl has a bloated mid bass and perhaps even distortion that some people prefer. This is not what I hear. Tonally, they sound the same, there seems to be no emphasis at any frequency. Of course, records can sound different on different turntables. The difference I hear is the amount of micro detail is greater on vinyl, hence bringing the sound closer to live. This difference is not subtle. The best way to describe the difference is to ring a bell and then ring it again with your finger touching it.

Considering that myself and an ever increasing number of people are switching back to vinyl, the most important question is what are we hearing that we don't hear from digital, of perhaps it's what we hear on digital that is sending us back to analog. I don't support the idea that vinyl sounds warmer, otherwise all we would have to do is turn up the bass a little. Some people claim that they like vinyl because it lacks the digital harshness of CD's. I can agree with this too.

The other argument is that our digital playback equipment is subpar. Considering that some really good CD players sound much better than what many of us own, there is probably some truth to this.

Another thing that is very important which seems to be glossed over is that our own audio systems have varying degrees of resolution, which can account for how much change we hear from different sources. I would think that the difference between vinyl and analog would be less on a lower resolution system, assuming that the quality of the analog and digital front ends were the same.

At this point I would like to interject an observation which I have noticed. When I cut a CD to my hard drive on my computer, it sounds much better through headphones than it does from a stand alone CD player going to headphones. In fact, I might go so far as to say that it may sound better (or the same) than vinyl. BTW, I use Grado headphones.

The only thing to do at this point is to pursue this computer aspect.

Note: If running music from the computer makes all the difference than my displeasure with digital has always been the the myriad of digital equipment I've owned and heard.

I'll update my results for those interested...

Thanks again for all those who attributed to this thread.

[Happy Camper]

I suspect the quality of the DAC output design has a lot to do with digital sound. The better the output implementation, the more fine resolution is exposed. I'm also noticing amps have some bearing on the fullness of sound and directional ques. I have also experienced the ripped CD sounding better than the same CD played on the same computer's spinner.

I do think there is a bias on both sides and those bias are what keeps the war alive. I've heard vinyl rips and I do believe they are mid bass flush compared to the same CD. As to the accuracy between the two, technology says digital is the more proficient When CDs first hit the market, I was smiling with all the perceived detail. After living with it a bit, I became sensitive to the harshness of the format. So I bought an outboard DAC with a tube output which much improved to my tastes. The years have improved DAC's output circuitry and minimal filtering have put digital sound closer to real. IMO

I've also noticed headphones are a sonic microscope that's getting better. Synergy is important when trying to set up a balanced system. I've seen people put a K701 on a SS amp with a digital source. Talk about some serious solid state sound. Throw a tube in the mix and things start to sound more vinyl. So is vinyl or digital colored? Does digital brittleness come from the format or DAC quality? Synergy means mixing component strengths/weaknesses to minimize combined influences to the listener's satisfaction. The digital generation has no experience with vinyl or tubes and it intimidates them. Also, they have been taught that digital is a much superior technology. The syrupy vinyl sound has a place in attenuating the harsher solid state sound or solid state micro details improve the tube dullness. Either way, it's matching the strengths/weaknesses to meet the listener's pleasure.

The thing I suspect has some influence is what gear was used when recording and mixing the material. The pre-70s was mostly tube gear. Transistors became the industry practice well into the 90s and today it's mostly chip. Finding the best combination of components to let each era sound good is a daunting task. Unfortunately, we don't have access to all these toys to formulate a strength/weakness chart. We have to trust the professional gearslinger to do our job and put together some systems that present as much information as possible. The less experienced doesn't understand why a sound can be different with just one link change. Theoretically, they should all sound the same.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I think the strongest argument is that vinyl and digital is sometimes mastered differently so one version might be preferable over another. The other argument is that vinyl has a bloated mid bass and perhaps even distortion that some people prefer. This is not what I hear. Tonally, they sound the same, there seems to be no emphasis at any frequency. Of course, records can sound different on different turntables. The difference I hear is the amount of micro detail is greater on vinyl, hence bringing the sound closer to live.

So my question here is what is the reference one uses to define which has more detail, or which is highlighting detail in a different way(i.e just a different presentation of the same thing)? In any listening test there has to be a reference standard that the others have to be compared to. Without that reference, the listening test become nothing more than a equipment review, as the software becomes second hat to the hardware. When I read that vinyl sounds tonally identical to a CD, or somebody states they sound the same, it is readily apparent based on my experience the master was optimized for the vinyl, not the CD. When there is a master optimized for each format, they will not sound identical because the sonic characteristic of each format is quite different.



This difference is not subtle. The best way to describe the difference is to ring a bell and then ring it again with your finger touching it. I think the strongest argument is that vinyl and digital is sometimes mastered differently so one version might be preferable over another.[/quote]

This comment is another indication that the master was created for vinyl, and transferred to CD as an afterthought. If the masters was optimized for both formats, differences in clarity would not exist even in the face of tonal differences based on the sonic characteristics(or lack of) of each format.



The other argument is that vinyl has a bloated mid bass and perhaps even distortion that some people prefer. This is not what I hear.

How does this listener know what kinds of distortions to listen for without a reference to a master. You have to have a master transparent and neutral source that comparisons can be made from to legitimize any listening test. Another question would be does the listener actually know what sonic distortion is, whether it is pleasing or not? The next observation is that the listeners comprehension skills are lacking here. It was my observation based on several comparisons of my own material that the first vinyl pressing when compared to the master tape had bloated or overly ripe bass. This was based on a master that was optimized specifically for vinyl. That observation would not cover any vinyl that I have heard without a reference comparison, that would be illogical - and the very thing I criticize this listener about. My observations where very specific, but just happens to line up with a long line of mastering engineers who are experts at cutting vinyl discs, and mastering CD's for replication.



Tonally, they sound the same, there seems to be no emphasis at any frequency. Of course, records can sound different on different turntables. The difference I hear is the amount of micro detail is greater on vinyl, hence bringing the sound closer to live. This difference is not subtle. The best way to describe the difference is to ring a bell and then ring it again with your finger touching it.

This observation points to two things. Either the digital playback side has insufficient resolution, or the master for the CD was really optimized for the vinyl format.

How does one ascertain frequency differences without looking at each waveform. Our ears certainly are not very accurate in the frequency domain, that is for sure. If they were, everyone would have perfect pitch. Also how can both formats be tonally and frequency wise alike, and yet one delivers more detail than the other? Something is amiss here.

The problem that I have with these homegrown listening test that have absolutely no protocols aside from cueing a disc, or putting a needle on a disc. Was each source volume matched within .5db? No mention of that which means it was not done. The source that is played back the loudest will have the most perceived detail, and that is a fact. The listening test were sighted, which automatically introduces biases that a double blind test would not.

It is one thing to use a listening test to convince oneself. It is another to come to a public forum and try and convince people that their listening test confirm that one is better than the other.

And by the way, vinyl is an analog format, so they cannot be listed separately.

[E-Stat]

A little read for the listening expert who posted this
A *little* read indeed.

"There is currently no text in this page"

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

A *little* read indeed.

"There is currently no text in this page"

I found it again, but it won't allow me to link to it. Google Myths vinyl, and the link pops up.

Thanks for pointing that out. It wasn't a little read, it was no read. LOLOLOL

[E-Stat]

I found it again, but it won't allow me to link to it. Google Myths vinyl, and the link pops up.
Sorry, but most all those explanations are sophomoric at best and many are simply incorrect. Which doesn't affect my perspective regarding the mixed bag of virtues when one compares CD vs. vinyl.

They would argue that you are simply imagining things when you conclude that you can hear the difference between Redbook and DXD. :)

[frenchmon]

Here is an interesting little rant...and in the comments section MICHAEL FREMER even chimes in on the guy....



Why vinyl and cassettes should stay dead and hipster analog revivalism should join them | Digital Trends (http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/stop-romanticizing-the-analog-age/)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Here is an interesting little rant...and in the comments section MICHAEL FREMER even chimes in on the guy....



Why vinyl and cassettes should stay dead and hipster analog revivalism should join them | Digital Trends (http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/stop-romanticizing-the-analog-age/)

Did you notice this comment from a mastering engineer?

I'm a mastering engineer, so I likely have a bit more experience that most posters here. I just finished the masters for Cashing in on Christmas volume IV on Black Hole Records, which comes as a package on vinyl and CD. Because of the limitations of vinyl, two completely different masters are made. The CD is actually much closer to the files the bands send.

The underlined has been my experience, and the experience of many mastering engineers as well.

[frenchmon]

But is it more musical? and to my ears, records just sound more natural.

[E-Stat]

The CD is actually much closer to the files the bands send
The files? Clearly, that was not an analog recording.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

The files? Clearly, that was not an analog recording.

When you have specifically tweaked masters for each format, then the source is irrelevant.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

But is it more musical? and to my ears, records just sound more natural.

More musical is strictly a subjective determination, as is what is considered natural.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Sorry, but most all those explanations are sophomoric at best and many are simply incorrect. Which doesn't affect my perspective regarding the mixed bag of virtues when one compares CD vs. vinyl.

This is a pretty generalized statement. Can you identify what is incorrect. I know the entire fact sheet cannot be dismissed.


They would argue that you are simply imagining things when you conclude that you can hear the difference between Redbook and DXD. :)

Your projecting here.

[E-Stat]

When you have specifically tweaked masters for each format, then the source is irrelevant.
Unless of course you've already lost resolution that cannot be recovered after the fact.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Unless of course you've already lost resolution that cannot be recovered after the fact.

The mastering process does not cause a loss in resolution. It may change what is there, but there is nothing in the process if done well that results in a loss of resolution.

[E-Stat]

The mastering process does not cause a loss in resolution. It may change what is there, but there is nothing in the process if done well that results in a loss of resolution.
So tell us details of the resolution of the recording made by that no name label. And cite where you discovered that information.

Best of luck to you.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

So tell us details of the resolution of the recording made by that no name label. And cite where you discovered that information.

Best of luck to you.

In twisting this around, can you detail the points in the link that are wrong. And can YOU site an instance where the mastering process reduced the resolution on either the vinyl or the CD?

[StevenSurprenant]

Vinyl Mastering

1) Does vinyl intrinsically require a superior master than CD?
2) How many different ways can a CD master differ from a vinyl master?
3) How do you know if a vinyl master is audibly superior than the CD master?
4) Is less compressed music always of a superior quality?
5) Some known examples: Vinyl releases with a different master than the CD
6) Some known counterexamples: Vinyl releases with same/similar hypercompressed master as on CD
7) Vinyl releases suspected of being of different masters than the CD
8) Vinyl releases suspected of being the same master as the CD

Vinyl Mastering - Hydrogenaudio Knowledgebase (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Vinyl_Mastering#How_many_different _ways_can_a_CD_master_differ_from_a_vinyl_master.3 F)

[E-Stat]

In twisting this around, can you detail the points in the link that are wrong.
You are speculating in the absence of information.

[E-Stat]

This is a pretty generalized statement. Can you identify what is incorrect.
Regarding repeated vinyl play, the "authoritative" answer is simply:

"This is believed to be a temporary effect and goes away after approx. 10 minutes. "

Experience free speculation as believed by exactly whom?

"No evidence exists of a record that is shown to be played back with absolutely no pops or clicks whatsoever."

That they know of. Give me a break.

"there is simply no scientific evidence that frequencies beyond the 22 kHz limit of CD audio are audible to any known group of people, or that such frequencies affect anyone's perception of the audible range."

Too funny. You agree, right? :)

"Under no legitimate circumstances will the dynamic range of vinyl ever exceed the dynamic range of CD, under any frequency, "

Except of course at the very top.

"Bent styli cause azimuth and alignment errors which may be audible. In extreme cases they can cause record damage. "

Yes. Myth?

"Well built direct drives have speed and rumble tolerances as good or better than well built belt drives. "

While that may be true about *tolerances*, it completely avoids all questions of audibility due to far more relevant factors. Shallow, non-experiential conclusion based upon simple metrics.


You're projecting here
What I'm *projecting* is the collective belief of those you find there.

"There's no point to distributing music in 24 bit/192 kHz". (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=93853)

"192kHz digital music files offer no benefits...

Sampling rates over 48kHz are irrelevant to high fidelity audio data...

here 24 bit audio is as useless as 192kHz sampling"...

Obviously, they think you're wasting your time. :)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Regarding repeated vinyl play, the "authoritative" answer is simply:

"This is believed to be a temporary effect and goes away after approx. 10 minutes. "

Experience free speculation as believed by exactly whom?

"No evidence exists of a record that is shown to be played back with absolutely no pops or clicks whatsoever."

That they know of. Give me a break.


Can you name a record that plays back with zero pops and clicks?


"there is simply no scientific evidence that frequencies beyond the 22 kHz limit of CD audio are audible to any known group of people, or that such frequencies affect anyone's perception of the audible range."

Too funny. You agree, right? :)

Yes and No. Yes I agree to the audibility of ultrasonic frequencies, but that misses the point entirely. Removing in audible effects of the reconstruction filters is one of the purposes. The other is capture the smaller interaural time differences that occur at higher sampling rates. It improves imaging.


Under no legitimate circumstances will the dynamic range of vinyl ever exceed the dynamic range of CD, under any frequency, [/i]"

Except of course at the very top.

Yes, beyond the red book standard of 22.5khz. You are right. Within the Rebook standard, the article is correct.


"Bent styli cause azimuth and alignment errors which may be audible. In extreme cases they can cause record damage. "

Yes. Myth?

"Well built direct drives have speed and rumble tolerances as good or better than well built belt drives. "

While that may be true about *tolerances*, it completely avoids all questions of audibility due to far more relevant factors. Shallow, non-experiential conclusion based upon simple metrics.

But correct though...



What I'm *projecting* is the collective belief of those you find there.

I believe the word "some" should be in place of those.


"There's no point to distributing music in 24 bit/192 kHz". (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=93853)

"192kHz digital music files offer no benefits...

Sampling rates over 48kHz are irrelevant to high fidelity audio data...

here 24 bit audio is as useless as 192kHz sampling"...

Obviously, they think you're wasting your time. :)

There is always going to be two sides to everything right? I have seen all of this before, I visit that site quite often. There arguments are based on high frequency audibility, not better imaging or avoiding the effects of reconstruction filters.

[E-Stat]

Can you name a record that plays back with zero pops and clicks?
A record? I have plenty. Friends have plenty. You aren't in touch with the vinyl world who uses RCMs and doesn't replay a disc in a short period of time.


Yes, beyond the red book standard of 22.5khz. You are right. Within the Rebook standard, the article is correct.
I guess if phase errors aren't important to you, then you are correct. Redbook top end sucks.


But correct though...
Perhaps you care about largely meaningless metrics. We who listen to music really don't.


There is always going to be two sides to everything right? .
And some is quite funny!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

A record? I have plenty. Friends have plenty. You aren't in touch with the vinyl world who uses RCMs and doesn't replay a disc in a short period of time.

You are right, I have no interest in vinyl.



I guess if phase errors aren't important to you, then you are correct. Redbook top end sucks.

I think we were discussing dynamic range, not phase errors. There is a difference you know.


Perhaps you care about largely meaningless metrics. We who listen to music really don't.

Whether you think it is meaningless or not, it is correct and you cannot deny that.



And some is quite funny!

Agreed.

[E-Stat]

I think we were discussing dynamic range, not phase errors. There is a difference you know.
Yeah, who cares about fidelity?


IWhether you think it is meaningless or not, it is correct and you cannot deny that.
And crappy pro amps have the same distortion specs as far more musical ones. Who gives a crap about those metrics? Do you really think a Technics SL1200 is the equivalent of a Clearaudio Statement? Are you serious?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Yeah, who cares about fidelity?

We weren't discussing fidelity(which is a subjective metric), but dynamic range. It helps to keep the mud out of fresh water.



And crappy pro amps have the same distortion specs as far more musical ones. Who gives a crap about those metrics? Do you really think a Technics SL1200 is the equivalent of a Clearaudio Statement? Are you serious?

Putting words in peoples mouth is a sign of a weakness in your comments. Read and comprehend the words I post, not what you think I should post.

[E-Stat]

We weren't discussing fidelity(which is a subjective metric), but dynamic range. It helps to keep the mud out of fresh water.
Fine. More dynamic range of a rolled off signal full of phase errors. If that's what you fond more musical, then more power to you!

I'll repeat the question you dodged. Do you really think a Technics SL1200 (the only direct drive available) is even remotely in the same class as a Clearaudio Reference? By all means, do state your point about direct drives if you think they are wonderful. We're talking about the real world.

Do two metrics drive your assessment of the quality of a source?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Fine. More dynamic range of a rolled off signal full of phase errors. If that's what you fond more musical, then more power to you!

More mud. I guess this is a weakness.

Let's flip it then. Vinyl does not do bass very well below 50hz. It is no match for CD at that ffrequency and below, so lets trade poison okay. Both formats have compromises and different areas of their spectrum. There is no way you can treat the 1812 overture the same way on vinyl as you can on CD.


I'll repeat the question you dodged. Do you really think a Technics SL1200 (the only direct drive available) is even remotely in the same class as a Clearaudio Reference? By all means, do state your point about direct drives if you think they are wonderful. We're talking about the real world.

I don't give a flying.....well I hope you get the point. This is irrelevant to me. It is not as much the playback system as it is the format itself, and its characteristics.


Do two metrics drive your assessment of the quality of a source?

No, but fortunately there are more than two metrics in this case.

[E-Stat]

More mud. I guess this is a weakness....No, but fortunately there are more than two metrics in this case.
I see. You've quietly moved away from defending Hydrogen Audio's brilliant assertion that only speed and rumble tolerances determine turntable performance. :)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I see. You've quietly moved away from defending Hydrogen Audio's brilliant assertion that only speed and rumble tolerances determine turntable performance. :)

I can't quietly move away from something I have never said or done. Don't know what you are drinking, or what drugs you are taking...but you are imagining things.

[E-Stat]

I can't quietly move away from something I have never said or done.
Only too happy to refresh your memory. You began by suggesting we read the *fact sheet* (what a joke) in this post:

"Vinyl myths" (http://forums.audioreview.com/388133-post114.html)

I respond that most of the opinions there were sophomoric at best. You ask to point out the obvious flaws (of which there were many)

My analysis (http://forums.audioreview.com/388323-post129.html)

When I later observe that the two metrics of rumble and speed control are largely meaningless, your reply was:

"Whether you think it is meaningless or not, it is correct and you cannot deny that. "

Fine. I'll let you worry about all the metrics for which the differences have little bearing on overall sound quality. Which has nothing at all to do with myths. :)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Only too happy to refresh your memory. You began by suggesting we read the *fact sheet* (what a joke) in this post:

"Vinyl myths" (http://forums.audioreview.com/388133-post114.html)

I respond that most of the opinions there were sophomoric at best. You ask to point out the obvious flaws (of which there were many)

My analysis (http://forums.audioreview.com/388323-post129.html)

When I later observe that the two metrics of rumble and speed control are largely meaningless, your reply was:

"Whether you think it is meaningless or not, it is correct and you cannot deny that. "

Fine. I'll let you worry about all the metrics for which the differences have little bearing on overall sound quality. Which has nothing at all to do with myths. :)

You have stated YOUR OPINION, and that is great. Of all those myths(it was a page of them) you picked out one point and tried to use that to discount the whole page. I am not buying that. Whether you think something is important or meaningless is a matter of subjective opinion, and that does not interest me one bit in the context of this discussion.

[E-Stat]

you picked out one point and tried to use that to discount the whole page
I picked out six (actually seven since two are redundant) of ten. I agree with the first one. The others are insignificant.


Whether you think something is important or meaningless is a matter of subjective opinion, and that does not interest me one bit in the context of this discussion.
So you really think that anyone on the planet really thinks a Technics SL1200 is equivalent in performance to a Clearaudio Reference?

Too funny.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I picked out six (actually seven since two are redundant) of ten. I agree with the first one. The others are insignificant.


So you really think that anyone on the planet really thinks a Technics SL1200 is equivalent in performance to a Clearaudio Reference?

Too funny.

This is minutia Ralph. Sorry, but I have no time to argue meaningless points with you. Been there, done that, and over it.

[E-Stat]

This is minutia Ralph.
So it was 7 out of 10, not 1. Just minutia for those who have trouble counting their fingers. :)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

So it was 7 out of 10, not 1. Just minutia for those who have trouble counting their fingers. :)

Ralph, I didn't know you had this problem.....Good for you for sharing this news with all of us.

[E-Stat]

Ralph, I didn't know you had this problem....
Sorry, it's one of my foibles.

For those like yourself who struggle understanding the difference between 1 and 7, I feel the need to assist.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Sorry, it's one of my foibles.

For those like yourself who struggle understanding the difference between 1 and 7, I feel the need to assist.

I assure you I have done very well in my life without your input. So output this $hit it to somebody else.

[E-Stat]

I assure you I have done very well in my life without your input.
Bad memory AND grumpy today. Must not have had a good weekend.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Bad memory AND grumpy today. Must not have had a good weekend.


Majoring in minors because you have run out of talking points. You must be having a bad life.....

[E-Stat]

You must be having a bad life.....
Wow, what's up the Mr Negativity thing?

But thanks for asking because I had a great weekend. Listened to more of my new 24/96 music, closed the pool, wife and I had a nice 10k walk and took a long spin in her new Boxster.

Life's good here. :)