I Own A Turntable, Therefore I Am Better Than You

Love it

I Own A Turntable, Therefore I Am Better Than You

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

Love it

I Own A Turntable, Therefore I Am Better Than You

---

Turntable as small phallus compensation. :16:

Tubes too, I guess :shocked:

http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/thetubestore_2222_120356537

Is that what we really sound like to the rest of the A/V world? Hmm, I figured we were a bit more subtle than that.

That was fun. Of course I feel much the same way about owning a turntable. No compressed formats for me.

I love it!

Quote:

---

You can leave your “dope new albums” in the back of your aging economy car, because I know the difference between an album and a CD.

---

Priceless!

I own a turntable because I'm getting older and its too difficult to read the liner notes of CDs

Quote:

---

I do not harbor lossy audio in my home. I own a turntable.

---

compression is introduced into the recording at the mic, so all audio formats suffer, its just that some do so more than others. when comparing vinyl to cd, the amount of compression is determined by the mastering\engineering and not the physical media.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dingus

compression is introduced into the recording at the mic, so all audio formats suffer, its just that some do so more than others. when comparing vinyl to cd, the amount of compression is determined by the mastering\engineering and not the physical media.

---

That is incorrect. The dynamic range of a CD is far greater than its vinyl counterpart because of the physical limitations of vinyl. However, other than classical music and maybe jazz, the remaining genres on CD suffer from the commerical loudness wars and thus reduces the amount of dynamic range available.

"I’d love to tell you about them, but then they would become instantly passé and detestable."


Now I'm going to spend my day wondering which Rave Rec contributor leads a double life penning hipster miniblogs for the Campus Socialite...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3db

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dingus

compression is introduced into the recording at the mic, so all audio formats suffer, its just that some do so more than others. when comparing vinyl to cd, the amount of compression is determined by the mastering\engineering and not the physical media.

---

That is incorrect. The dynamic range of a CD is far greater than its vinyl counterpart because of the physical limitations of vinyl. However, other than classical music and maybe jazz, the remaining genres on CD suffer from the commerical loudness wars and thus reduces the amount of dynamic range available.

---

i was talking about compression...

cd does have more bandwidth than vinyl, but that is not the same thing as dynamic range, which is also dependent on the mastering\engineering. because of its wider bandwidth cd has the ability for wider dynamic range over vinyl, but afaik the vinyl format is capable of retaining a recording without introducing further compression.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dingus

i was talking about compression...

cd does have more bandwidth than vinyl, but that is not the same thing as dynamic range, which is also dependent on the mastering\engineering. because of its wider bandwidth cd has the ability for wider dynamic range over vinyl, but afaik the vinyl format is capable of retaining a recording without introducing further compression.

---

CD has that benefit as well, that benefit is not exclusive to vinyl. Each choice has its subjective pluses and minuses. After listening to my master tapes, and comparing it to a vinyl pressing and CD, I felt the CD sounded more like my master than the vinyl did. After being able to do this kind of comparison on my stuff, and other folks stuff as well, I have come to the conclusion that Vinyl may be pleasing to the ear, but it is not accurate to the source. Since vinyl affectionados have no real comparison, they rely solely on how it sounds to the ear.

Now to be clear, I am not thrilled about the Redbook CD format. As it stands, it does not have enough resolution to fully represent instruments with ultra high frequency harmonics. Vinyl does. However as we go up in sample rate(and out of the Redbook spec) that difference is completely erased. By the time we get to 24/192khz, then vinyl sounds more colored that digital.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

Now to be clear, I am not thrilled about the Redbook CD format. As it stands, it does not have enough resolution to fully represent instruments with ultra high frequency harmonics. Vinyl does.

---

I don't know Sir TT, but that might be giving vinyl too much credit :)

Notwithstanding the fact that high frequency harmonics (which have low enegry) are probably buried in the groove due to excessive LP surface noise, the builtin RIAA low pass filter circuitry also take another wack at those harmonics by attenuating and filtering them out.

http://www.stereophile.com/images/ar...409KH_Fig3.jpg

I own 3 turntables so I guess I am 3 times better........... :D
But according to many because I also cassettes and laser discs I am not as smart as I think......... :D

Smokey - please source the link of graphs.

It would also help if we had real world comparisons.

For instance when I compare I try where possible to list the comparison. So for example:

Madonna Immaculate Collection song "Vogue" on LP versus the same on the CD via CA CD6 versus NAD 533/Rega 250 Arm Shure M97xE or AN TT2/Arm3/IQ 3.

This way when the CD wins or the vinyl wins you have some idea as to what was compared and you can somewhat crosscheck back and say I get why you came to that opinion because I heard the same or similar combo and agree that the CD or the LP was clearly better.

I never quite understand the arguments over these technologies. If I have 100 albums recorded on CD and LP and 50 albums sound better on CD and 50 sound better on vinyl then I need both to get the best out of the recorded music.

I personally have found that replay is an important factor via the turntable and the phono stage. They're more finicky and big name or prices doesn't necessarily mean good. CD replay is less substantial in playback quality in comparison to vinyl replay.

Changing a $70 cart to $100 cart was a massive improvement - going from a $400 CD player to a $700 CD player isn't nearly as noticeable and not likely to pass a DBT - with the carts you would.

The info is fairly important because plenty of people own a $100 Fisher or Sony turntable with a misaligned cart and then proclaim vinyl to suck. That is considerably different than using a Voyd Reference and Helius arm with an Io Gold cartridge and S4 step up transformer. I tried plenty of the Duals and used cheapies of the world as well as project and Regas and Oracles and Linns and the classic 124. I wasn't convinced by any of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dingus

i was talking about compression...

cd does have more bandwidth than vinyl, but that is not the same thing as dynamic range, which is also dependent on the mastering\engineering. because of its wider bandwidth cd has the ability for wider dynamic range over vinyl, but afaik the vinyl format is capable of retaining a recording without introducing further compression.

---

Dynamic range of CDs is far greater than that of vinyl. Its a non arguement. However, you are correct that the recording engineer ultimately determines how much of that range is used. In classical music, a recording on CD will wipe the floor of its vinyl counterpart in dynamic range. The differences in loudness between the loudest and quitest part is far greater than it is on vinyl.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

Smokey - please source the link of graphs.

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3db

The differences in loudness between the loudest and quitest part is far greater than it is on vinyl.

---

Some of that is "false" dynamic range at the bottom end of the scale. The Redbook standard 16 bit word length is insufficient to render the lowest level signals without going deaf (losing detail). The challenge is that you don't get 16 bit resolution at the lowest levels because not all of the bits are firing. Even in the presence of surface noise, however, you can hear detail on analog at lower levels where below a certain threshold, 16/44 ignores it.

As Sir T pointed out, that is solved with when one improves the word length to 24 or greater. Higher sampling rate solves the HF extension limitation.

From what I've been reading... 60db tops is what one gets out of vinyl...and for bass its much lower than that almost half...



Audioholics Home Theater Forums - View Single Post - Dynamic range of vinyl

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3db

From what I've been reading... 60db tops is what one gets out of vinyl...and for bass its much lower than that almost half...

---

You forgot the qualifier "prior to noise reduction" which occurred in what - the 60s? Your *poster* provided the answer as 75 db. As for bass and "groove touching", that is addressed by shorter play lengths as found in 12" 45 RPM recordings. I have about a dozen of those and the bass response is much better.

Unfortunately, there are precious few commercial recordings on any format that even approach that level. :)

Redbook's theoretical dynamic range occurs only at the highest modulation levels. When the level drops, so do the number of bits. Just as the S/N ratio drops in an analog system when the input level is reduced. Which is one of the reasons why higher resolution formats sound more like the live mic feed. Redbook at its best sounds a bit sterile at the top and goes deaf at the lowest levels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

You forgot the qualifier "prior to noise reduction" which occurred in what - the 60s? Your *poster* provided the answer as 75 db. As for bass and "groove touching", that is addressed by shorter play lengths as found in 12" 45 RPM recordings. I have about a dozen of those and the bass response is much better.

Unfortunately, there are precious few commercial recordings on any format that even approach that level. :)

.

---

Metric's latest album came out on vinyl as well as CD and I managed to scoop it up on a double 45rpm set. Not that it has 75db of range ...Its just my first album of that ilk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3db

Metric's latest album came out on vinyl as well as CD and I managed to scoop it up on a double 45rpm set.

---

Well, now you can compare them directly yourself. What are the turntable-arm-phono pre/CD playback systems used for each?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3db

Not that it has 75db of range ...

---

Understood. Since most of Synthetica will most likely be sold as lossy downloads, the mix was made for those formats. Just as cassettes dumbed down the quality of vinyl mixes years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3db

Its just my first album of that ilk.

---

I acquired mine twenty years ago!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

As Sir T pointed out, that is solved with when one improves the word length to 24 or greater. Higher sampling rate solves the HF extension limitation.

---

But then you enter the real world problem (instead of just technology arguments) that barely anything is available to actually listen to at high res/

190,000+ albums on CD and close or more than that on vinyl and less than 7000 SACDs and less again on other high res formats. I said it at CAS - master tape sounded the best but there's no music - so as great as it sounds IMO the point is moot. You could go an subscribe to the tape project - they make 12 tapes a year and you get to have any 8 that you want - the price is $3000 for 8 albums (as was described to me). And one of those is pretentious drivel in Patricia Barber so I am already down to choosing 8 out of 11.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

But then you enter the real world problem (instead of just technology arguments) that barely anything is available to actually listen to at high res/

---

Which is why I never bought a SACD player. It just wasn't worth the money required to buy a unit that would provide equivalent Redbook performance along with providing the capability to play a tiny minority of high resolution recordings in my library.

The music industry correctly assumed that most folks think CD is "perfect sound forever", so there was little need to roll out a new format across the board. Then they shot themselves in the foot with the copy protection schemes on the few high rez formats that preclude server based playback.

Despite the fact that I'm an old boomer who grew up having to spin one record at a time, I'm all about server based music. Consequently, I will never invest in dead end shiny disc-only formats for music - nor will the current generation. Yes, I own two turntables and spin my early library contents on a regular basis. I'd rather make selections, however, with an iPhone based remote to the music server. .

I really wish I could buy the music of my choice on a better sounding format.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

Which is why I never bought a SACD player. It just wasn't worth the money required to buy a unit that would provide equivalent Redbook performance along with providing the capability to play a tiny minority of high resolution recordings in my library.

The music industry correctly assumed that most folks think CD is "perfect sound forever", so there was little need to roll out a new format across the board. Then they shot themselves in the foot with the copy protection schemes on the few high rez formats that preclude server based playback.

Despite the fact that I'm an old boomer who grew up having to spin one record at a time, I'm all about server based music. Consequently, I will never invest in dead end shiny disc-only formats for music - nor will the current generation. Yes, I own two turntables and spin my early library contents on a regular basis. I'd rather make selections, however, with an iPhone based remote to the music server. .

I really wish I could buy the music of my choice on a better sounding format.

---

As a classical music listener I have a better selection on SACD format than is relevant to a lot of people. I have an SACD player but it is just not capable of extracting any more resolution from the SACD layer than the CD layer of hybrid discs. Possibly adequate SACD players seem to start at $1000 which is a lot money to me.

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. Unfortunately there is a much smaller selection than even that for SACD -- and they are are 2 channel only.

Yes, copy protection sucks. It's an interference with "fair use", IMO, but then the digital world is unprecedented and other people have a different idea.

BTW, I can listen to SACD multichannel with my HT system but that system doesn't extract the highest resolution either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feanor

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feanor

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

---

Yes, they blundered into creating it as such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

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.

http://www.stereophile.com/images/ar...409KH_Fig6.jpg

Quote:

---

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 :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smokey

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smokey

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!

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smokey

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smokey

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3db

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3db

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3db

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. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3db

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3db

I would really question the methodolgy behind such studies.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3db

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

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. :)