I Own A Turntable, Therefore I Am Better Than You

[E-Stat]

Nevertheless I know that Hi-rez is better than RBCD because of 24/88.2 tracks I have downloaded from HDTracks: I've compared the hi-rez downloads with CD rips which demonstrated the point.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if every CD offering was also available as a 24/88 download? That is the biggest-bang-for-your-buck improvement over Redbook and would likely benefit most every recording's fidelity. The music industry could re-sell the entire catalog with far lower distribution costs due to the elimination of having to create, inventory and distribute hard media.

[Feanor]

Wouldn't it be wonderful if every CD offering was also available as a 24/88 download? That is the biggest-bang-for-your-buck improvement over Redbook and would likely benefit most every recording's fidelity. The music industry could re-sell the entire catalog with far lower distribution costs due to the elimination of having to create, inventory and distribute hard media.

For clarity I should have stated, "I've compared the hi-rez downloads with CD rips of the same recording which demonstrated the point.

Yes, it would be great, and I would spring the dough for quite a few of my generally well-recorded CDs. But as we know, to the music companies hi-rez is a niche market after-thought.

[E-Stat]

But as we know, to the music companies hi-rez is a niche market after-thought.

Yes, they blundered into creating it as such.

[Smokey]

That's simply the RIAA de-emphasis curve. Understand that the signal is boosted initially by an identically inverse curve. Which does not support Smokey's rather simplistic claim.

RIAA emphasis and de-emphasis curve standard was created to work with audible range of 20-20k hz window, not harmonics that can go beyound 20 khz. Enhnace RIAA curve (red) was suggested later on to address that issue, but it was never standardized.

The top octave is where vinyl can be superior in harmonic integrity to Redbook.

That would be true if it wasn't for excessive noise (S/N ratio) associated with LP. I download alot of hi-bit MP3 from internet (Usenet) and can tell right away if source is vinyl. And I let you guess what gives it away

[E-Stat]

RIAA emphasis and de-emphasis curve standard was created to work with audible range of 20-20k hz window, not harmonics that can go beyound 20 khz. Enhnace RIAA curve (red) was suggested later on to address that issue, but it was never standardized.

And? How many MC cartridges with significant output above 20k have you heard? Is theory your only guide?

That would be true if it wasn't for excessive noise (S/N ratio) associated with LP. I download alot of hi-bit MP3 from internet (Usenet) and can tell right away if source is vinyl. And I let you guess what gives it away

Let's hear it for all the folks who record into MP3 with their crappy changers!

[RGA]

All the turntables in my town that had USB to computer for recording purposes were all sold at Radio Shack for around $129.99 to $199. Turntable, arm, and cartridge and USB to computer.

Yes a CD player is better or hi res recording is easily going to beat recordings made from this device.

What I want answered is why a top of the line Chord, Emm Labs, Audio Note, Electrocompaniet, Sony, Wadia, Linn, Marantz, TEAC, all suck against comparable turntables in every dealer show and home use that I have tried. It can't just be coincidence.

I am currently heading to computer based audio - it's just such a large field from devices like the Halide which seem to be getting raves Halide Design | Profile

I am considering something like the Eastern Electric Mini Max Dac plus MMpreIntro

And of course there is Ayre which I quite enjoyed at Soundhounds - liked it much more than the more expensive Linn.

[Smokey]

And? How many MC cartridges with significant output above 20k have you heard?

The cartridge alone can not addres the issue of ultrahi frequency (or lack of) with vinyl. The surface noise (friction) and RIAA demphasis filtering are the main culprit that effect those frequecy.

If you look at CD, the same propblem exist concerning harmonics frequency. Redbook have brick filtering at at around 22khz that pretty much filter anything above those frequency. But higher resolution formats move the filtering higher determine by sampling rate. There must be a brick-wall filter at less than 1/2 of the sampling rate, which mean 20kHz for 44.1, 22kHz for 48, and 45kHz for 96, and 95kHz for 192 sampliong rate.

[E-Stat]

The cartridge alone can not addres the issue of ultrahi frequency (or lack of) with vinyl. The surface noise (friction) and RIAA demphasis filtering are the main culprit that effect those frequecy.

I just love the ramblings of non-experiential theorists! Obviously, the answer to my question is: zero.

If you look at CD, the same propblem exist concerning harmonics frequency. Redbook have brick filtering ...

There is no brickwall filtering on phono stages. MC cartridges and phono stages have significant output an octave higher.

[3db]

I just love the ramblings of non-experiential theorists! Obviously, the answer to my question is: zero..

Smokey has a very valid point Estat in that the RIAA emphasys deemphasys plays a role in the frequency response of analog systems. Even if the cartridge goes well beyond 20KHz, the next link in the chain is the RIAA emphasys deemphasys which does limit frequency response.

[E-Stat]

Even if the cartridge goes well beyond 20KHz, the next link in the chain is the RIAA emphasys deemphasys which does limit frequency response.

The RIAA de-emphasis is a curve, not a digital styled brickwall filter. Look again at Smokey's graph. Since the curves are complementary, as much boost (out to 50k!) exists as is the subsequent cut.

I'll ask the same question of you that I asked of him to which his lack of response indicates "no". Have you actually auditioned any MC cartridges - all of which have significant output above 20k? Are you also basing your opinion entirely upon theory?

The first MC cartridge I used was an Ortofon SL-15E purchased back in '75. Followed by a range of others by Denon, Accuphase, Shinon and Dynavector. I use the last two in both my turntables today and have heard other makes in systems used by reviewer friends. The Clearaudio Statement and Goldfinger cartridge certainly make a nice combo!

The top octave is clearly an area where the best analog is superior to the limited Redbook standard.

[3db]

The RIAA de-emphasis is a curve, not a digital styled brickwall filter. Look again at Smokey's graph. Since the curves are complementary, as much boost (out to 50k!) exists as is the subsequent cut.

I'll ask the same question of you that I asked of him to which his lack of response indicates "no". Have you actually auditioned any MC cartridges - all of which have significant output above 20k? Are you also basing your opinion entirely upon theory?

The first MC cartridge I used was an Ortofon SL-15E purchased back in '75. Followed by a range of others by Denon, Accuphase, Shinon and Dynavector. I use the last two in both my turntables today and have heard other makes in systems used by reviewer friends. The Clearaudio Statement and Goldfinger cartridge certainly make a nice combo!

The top octave is clearly an area where the best analog is superior to the limited Redbook standard.

My answer to your question is no and it is based on theory. You are correct that they are curves and not brick wall filtering but the brickwall filters are necessary to remove aliasing affects from the sampling that takes place. Be careful of the cartridge specs. I looked up the Orotofon and I've seen 10Hz to 40/50Khz but they didn't include a frequency deviation. The spec was imcomplete. Perhaps you have a better source.

Whether or not its clearly superior is a moot point as hearing is subjective. I've heard recordings on both formats that were stellar; Tom Petty's MOJO springs to mind. Factor in the that us middle aged guys carry our own brick wall filter between 13K to 15K makes the subtle effects of extended frequency inaudable.

[E-Stat]

Factor in the that us middle aged guys carry our own brick wall filter between 13K to 15K makes the subtle effects of extended frequency inaudable.

Your conclusion is incorrect for a couple of reasons:

1. Most brickwall filters are not completely phase coherent and introduce audible artifacts at lower frequencies. Which is why much higher sampling rates are audibly better.

2. Not all perception of music is "heard". There have been studies that have proven that humans do respond to supersonic content, even if it isn't directly "heard" as such.

In any event, my opinion is based upon theory and specifications, but far more heavily weighted by more than thirty five years of direct experience using much better than average gear. Not to mention being able to hear the SOTA stuff found at Sea Cliff from time to time. I really wish everyone could share that experience.

I listen to both CDs and records because that is where my music lives. Each format has its advantages and disadvantages Since most of my library since the 80s is CD based, I listen more often through a server based digital solution in both music systems. Neither am I one who particularly enjoys the pomp and circumstance of cleaning and playing a record. I do it because I have to.

[3db]

Your conclusion is incorrect for a couple of reasons:

1. Most brickwall filters are not completely phase coherent and introduce audible artifacts at lower frequencies. Which is why much higher sampling rates are audibly better.

I have also seen studies where people could not tell the difference between CD and higher rez formats such as SACD. I also wouldn't put a whole lot of faith on studies on unheard sound in the high frequency range as making a difference. I would really question the methodolgy behind such studies. Bass, I can understand as you can feel it. High frequencies, not a chance.


I listen to both formats as well as my music is spread across these. Nothing wrong with liking a ritual.

[E-Stat]

I have also seen studies where people could not tell the difference between CD and higher rez formats such as SACD.

I've seen some pretty funny ones using ridiculous assumptions. Take E Brad Meyer's test ior the Boston Audio Society where he takes a crappy Pioneer player and inserts a "simulated Redbook processor" in the middle. There was lots of discussion on that years ago here. The only valid test is what engineers like Sir T have done before: compare mic feeds directly using various formats. Convoluted kiss-your-elbow-using-crappy-gear tests merely explore the limitations of the *test*. BTW, Tony Lauck is an engineer who went to college with Meyer.

I also wouldn't put a whole lot of faith on studies on unheard sound in the high frequency range as making a difference.

Fortunately, I don't have to rely on other's experience or use my *imagination* in order to draw my conclusions.

I would really question the methodolgy behind such studies.

Without first having any understanding whatsoever as to what it is. Talk about expectation bias!

Bass, I can understand as you can feel it. High frequencies, not a chance.

My experience is certainly quite different from yours in multiple respects.

[3db]

I've seen some pretty funny ones using ridiculous assumptions. Take E Brad Meyer's test ior the Boston Audio Society where he takes a crappy Pioneer player and inserts a "simulated Redbook processor" in the middle. There was lots of discussion on that years ago here. The only valid test is what engineers like Sir T have done before: compare mic feeds directly using various formats. Convoluted kiss-your-elbow-using-crappy-gear tests merely explore the limitations of the *test*. BTW, Tony Lauck is an engineer who went to college with Meyer.


Fortunately, I don't have to rely on other's experience or use my *imagination* in order to draw my conclusions.


Without first having any understanding whatsoever as to what it is. Talk about expectation bias!


My experience is certainly quite different from yours in multiple respects.

So we agree to disagree. No sense flogging this dead horse.

[E-Stat]

So we agree to disagree. No sense flogging this dead horse.

I think we ascertained that a few years ago. Remember this discourse? I was searching for something else recently and revisited the entire thread.

I really enjoyed your humor. And for whatever reason, you never took the online DBT I referenced (and took myself) or told us about it since it is you who values them so highly.

[3db]

I think we ascertained that a few years ago. Remember this discourse? I was searching for something else recently and revisited the entire thread.

I really enjoyed your humor. And for whatever reason, you never took the online DBT I referenced (and took myself) or told us about it since it is you who values them so highly.

It hope you aren't being sarcastic when you say sense of humor. That would be derogatory.

[E-Stat]

It hope you aren't being sarcastic when you say sense of humor. That would be derogatory.

Surely you were being facetious with responses like this:

"The theory without getting overly technical is that a metal's electrons are easily ripped from their orbits around the nucleus. The easier the electrons are pulled from their orbit, the better a conductor that material makes and the less energy required to make that happen. The distance between the nucleus and orbit of the electrons is what determines how easy/hard it is to break the free electrons from their orbit.The greater that distance, the less potential is required to strip the electrons from their nucleus. Its simply an energy state relationship unlike the phono cartridge example you've supplied. "

I thoroughly enjoyed your Captain Meteorite explanation.

edit: BTW, I never spoke of phono cartridges.

[Smokey]

1. Most brickwall filters are not completely phase coherent and introduce audible artifacts at lower frequencies. Which is why much higher sampling rates are audibly better.

But higher sampling rate also use brick filtering due to reason 3db mentioned

Higher sampling rate sound better mainly due its harmonics frequency (above 20khz) being intact and not filtered out.

2. Not all perception of music is "heard". There have been studies that have proven that humans do respond to supersonic content, even if it isn't directly "heard" as such.

That is true, in a sort of way. Supersoinc frequency (which probably can not be heard) are integral part of signal which shape its [lower] fundamental frequecy. Music signal is very complex and its complexity is due to having supersonic higher harmonic frequency which dictat how the signal look. If you remove those supersonic ftrequecy, you also change the shape of its fundamental frequency (which can be heard).

That is why higher sampling rate formats are more true to the original recording than Redbook CD. Vinyl doesn't even come close due to having more shortcomings than CD.

[E-Stat]

But higher sampling rate also use brick filtering due to reason 3db mentioned

Why would they? That makes no sense. Let's revisit the reason behind the use of brickwall filters in the Redbook world. With PCM systems, you must filter 100% of all content above the Nyquist frequency for that system. Which is half the sample rate which is 22050 in this case. So the transition band from full output (20k) to ZERO output (22k) is only 2k wide. You have to fully suppress ALL signal in 2k otherwise what remains is interpreted as 100% distortion.

In the case of 24/192, the Nyquist frequency is 96k and the transition band is 76k wide - 38 times greater than that of the Redbook case. Why on earth would anyone use a brickwall filter when a more gradual one with less phase shift would work perfectly well?

Higher sampling rate sound better mainly due its harmonics frequency (above 20khz) being intact and not filtered out.

That is part of it and refutes 3db's assertion that the musical experience does not involve the perception of supersonic frequencies.

That is true, in a sort of way. Supersoinc frequency (which probably can not be heard) are integral part of signal which shape its [lower] fundamental frequecy. Music signal is very complex and its complexity is due to having supersonic higher harmonic frequency which dictat how the signal look. If you remove those supersonic ftrequecy, you also change the shape of its fundamental frequency (which can be heard).

3db, are you getting this?

Vinyl doesn't even come close due to having more shortcomings than CD.

Except of course at the top where the deleterious effects of the brickwall filter and severe bandwidth limiting don't exist in the analog world.

[Feanor]

...
Except of course at the top {frequencies} where the deleterious effects of the brickwall filter and severe bandwidth limiting don't exist in the analog world.

Except of course that physical limitations of the vinyl medium and cartridge suspensions render the top frequencies hypothetical.

[E-Stat]

Except of course that physical limitations of the vinyl medium and cartridge suspensions render the top frequencies hypothetical.

Hypothetical only to those whose exposure is entirely hypothetical.

Do you remember the CD-4 quadraphonic recordings of the 70s? While that format failed commercial success, it demonstrated the HF capability of the vinyl medium. If you recall, the back channels rode on a carrier at supersonic frequencies.

[Feanor]

Hypothetical only to those whose exposure is entirely hypothetical.

Do you remember the CD-4 quadraphonic recordings of the 70s? While that format failed commercial success, it demonstrated the HF capability of the vinyl medium. If you recall, the back channels rode on a carrier at supersonic frequencies.

BTW, I'll remind you that own exposure isn't entirely hypothetical. I used a phono system for a dozen years before CD was even invented, and listened to LP and CD side by side for another decade after that

Yes, I remember the hoopla about Quadraphonic. One of the criticisms of the Quad was that the supersonic groves were very subject to rapid wear.

[E-Stat]

BTW, I'll remind you that own exposure isn't entirely hypothetical. I used a phono system for a dozen years before CD was even invented, and listened to LP and CD side by side for another decade after that

Just curious. Which moving coil cartridge(s) did you use on what arm(s)?

YOne of the criticisms of the Quad was that the supersonic groves were very subject to rapid wear.

The supersonic grooves. Yes, they were.

Which fostered the development of the so-called Shibata stylus shape. The basic Pickerings and Shures of that day were pretty crude.

[JohnMichael]

Suspensions have improved in modern cartridges through continued engineering. Ortofon is one company that is still looking for new elastomers to improve their cartridges.

I would like to hear the Rega Apheta moving coil. It has neither foam dampers nor a suspension wire. When you set tracking force a visual check is needed to ensure the coils are centered in the generating system.