 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
83.84.177.139
In Reply to: Re: M. Fremer on "Digital disaster", suggestion to Stereophile posted by Jim Tavegia on November 13, 2005 at 05:45:03:
was NOT that vinyl is crap and you all better sell your records a.s.a.p., but was that people like Fremer go to great lengths in criticizing digital, but never go and do the same for vinyl. Or did he?Vinyl is full of technical compromises and trade-offs, otherwise you would not be able to listen to a single record. Lateral tracking error, VTA and skating force are just the tip of the iceberg. A series of articles about the technical aspects of vinyl would be quite educative, for all parties involved.
I don't think that vinyl survival is due to folks like Fremer. People with large collections will keep them simply because it's too expensive to replace it by CD and too much trouble to record everything to CD. The new kids in town, our own kids that is, think vinyl is funny and nice to look at but then go and download more tracks to their ipod.
Some years ago, when CD recording was not available or extremely expensive, I seriously thought of recording all my records to Mini Disc and then sell them. I decided not to do that and buy a Gyrodec instead, because vinyl playback and related gear has something Mini Disc hasn't. Call it nostalgia.
Faith in audio : I don't believe for one second that rigs like Fremer's are seriously retrieving more information from the LP than less expensive ones. Why should I? Because he tells me so?
E. Geddes' first chapter of his book contains a passage that fully applies here : "Just who or what is one to trust when the nature of audio stuff is fundamentally subjective. There is no guarantee that one author's subjective opinion is any better than another author's or that one expert's opinion is any better than another."
Unless Fremer & Co. are able to back up their opinion on solid non-subjective evidence, it's not more than opinion. My opinion is different, who decides which one's right (or wrong) ?
Klaus
Follow Ups:
The question of digital vs. vinyl, as the principal recorded music medium, has already been decided by the marketplace -- digital won. So there's no point in talking further about it.What Fremer did -- and deserves credit for doing -- is to argue strenuously against the "perfect sound forever" mantra that accompanied the release of digital into the consumer marketplace in the mid-to-late 1980s. I do think he is to be commended for pointing out the relative strength of vinyl, especially as compared to digital in the first 10 years of its life. Consequently, enthusiaists kept their record collections and people continued to work on improving all aspects of vinyl playback -- turntables, cartridges, tonearms and phonostages. That's a good thing, because there's lots of material on vinyl that is not available in any digital medium. I feel confident in saying that today, some 20 years after the advent of consumer digital, vinyl playback is better than it ever has been. Lots of people deserve credit for that, and Mike Fremer is one of them.
Going forward, I have no idea what the future will bring. Hi-rez digital formats, (SACD) sound clearly superior to RBCD to me. But there seems to be a question as to whether there will be enough 'indie' software to keep the format alive and to keep manufacturers building players. RBCD is a mess, made worse by the after-the-fact efforts of record companies to build in some sort of digital copy protection (SACD has copy protection designed in). I can certainly envision a future where the mainstream recorded format continues to be RBCD -- with all of its problems -- and where there is no hi-res digital. In that event, it seems entirely possible to me that vinyl may end up being the "audiophile" format of choice. Obviously, the huge amount of "legacy" software and the small stream of new releases is sufficient to support the hardware side of vinyl.
So, if that's where we end up, the Fremer and others will have done us all a service by keeping vinyl alive.
As far as the technical arguments go, the distortions that exist in vinyl playback by and large don't exist in RBCD playback; but RBCD playback introduces new distortions. The question is which set is more objectionable to your ears.
My own experience, at the sub-$1000 price point suggests that, in certain ways vinyl is superior. When I revived my vinyl setup, I dragged out from storage a 1980s vintage Dual turntable, bought a new stylus for the vintage Audio Technica MM cartridge that was installed and bought the original Lehman Black Cube phonostage. In comparison to my Stereophile "Class B" Ultech CD player, on certain types of recordings, in particular acoustic piano, the vinyl won hands down.
How many people read Stereophile? Or, in other terms, how many people have ever read stuff written by Fremer? 100,000? 200,000? A million? If I recall correctly there are something like 650,000,000 CD players out there. Many of these owners have ditched their LPs, many even don't have any LPs at all, most of them have never heard of Fremer.That put aside, yes I think that vinyl playback can be improved, but not the mdeium itself. Without all the compromises that had to be made the stereo record would not exist. Period.
However, in order to improve vinyl playback you'd have to use the arms available, CAD, computer simulation, prototyping, perceptional studies, do you think that a manufacturer that produces a niche product for a niche market has means and money to do that?
Klaus
You think the improvement in turntables and arms in the last 25 years is just a lucky accident -- the old "1 million monkeys + 1 million typewriters= "War and Peace" concept?Regarding the scope of Fremer (or Stereophile's) audience, I suggest that you research the concept of "opinion leader." Then you'll understand. Not that I'm claiming he did it single-handedly.
Please name those manufacturers that use modern tools like the ones I've mentioned.Of course I would expect that modern turntables/tonearms are engineered using modern materials and manufacturing techniques. However it still remains to be seen whether modern stuff is really improved over the not so modern stuff. Without any objective quantification you can't know. Subjective listening is no means to establish that a real improvement has been made, IMO of course.
Klaus
"What Fremer did -- and deserves credit for doing -- is to argue strenuously against the "perfect sound forever" mantra that accompanied the release of digital into the consumer marketplace in the mid-to-late 1980s."I find it ironic that reviewers such as Pohlmann, Ranada and others of their ilk bought into C.D. as "perfect sound forever", and now apparently agree that SACD sounds superior. Makes me wonder how they define "perfect". I guess the new mantra should be "SACD, better than perfect sound forever." Further ironic that Fremer argued that C.D. did not sound "perfect", and the imperfections that he has been discussing for the past twenty years are now the very same imperfections that Pohlmann, Ranada, et al., claim SACD clean up. Rather the criticize Fremer, how about lobbing some grenades in the general direction of Pohlmann, et al. for failing to hear what Fremer heard. But then the advocates of perfect sound forever do not seem to talk about this matter very much anymore.
> "I find it ironic that reviewers such as Pohlmann, Ranada and others of their ilk bought into C.D. as "perfect sound forever". . ." <Got any references?
"Perfect sound forever" was an advertising gimmick. That doesn't change the fact the 16/44 digital is a far superior medium than vinyl--it's quite irrelevant to that issue.
I should also point out that the newer formats are capable of multi-channel reproduction, not just stereo, which shoots your comparison in the foot.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
" should also point out that the newer formats are capable of multi-channel reproduction, not just stereo, which shoots your comparison in the foot."Their praise of SACD and DVD Audio's sound relative to compact disc have, to date, been less about the multichannel capability than the the quality of the sound they reproduce. Comments such as less bright, more solid sounding, etc. Multi-channel capability does not cause those artifacts. Perhaps I will review some issues this evening and provide you examples of what I am referring to. Stay tuned.
I keep my old issues of Stereophile. I do not keep my old issues of Stereo Review, or Audio. I have read Pohlmann for about twenty one years, since he wrote his column for Audio. I have read Ranada for approximately the same time, since he wrote for High Fidelity. Ranada departed High Fidelity (or did it depart him?) when it went belly up. He then moved to Stereo Review. Pohlmann also moved to Stereo Review, I presume for a more lucrative offer.Prior to SACD and DVD Audio, both these gentlemen were digital stalwarts. I never recall reading anything negative from either of them relative to digital prior to the development of SACD and DVD Audio. When their respctive magazines published letters from people complaining of perceived "brightness" in digital, Pohlmann's response was invariably that the listener was used to listening to vinyl, and that what listener perceived as "brightness" was actually accuracy, that their ears had been accustomed to vinyl's RIAA curve rolling, or softening, the higher frequencies. Of course, they never addressed comments by people like Neil Young or Branford Marsalis who prefer vinyl. I suspect that they may know a little about what live music sounds like. Easier to respond to the reader, I guess. But I digress.
I do not recall ever reading a negative comment about digital from either of them in all the years they have been trumpeting the system. And I have read every compact disc player review and every column they have written in the last twenty years for the aforementioned magazines. I agree that "perfect sound forever" was a marketing ploy, but these two critics are presumably educated and experienced audio journalists. Their job is to report the facts, which, I presume, includes debunking marketing hyperbole. Over the years they certainly showed no reluctance in debunking marketing hyperbole relative to cables. On the other hand, they never did so with compact disc players.
At the same time, Fremer was talking about the sonic problems of digital, which not a few recording professionals and musicians were also discussing. Fast forward to SACD and DVD Audio. For the first time Pohlmann and Ranada criticize compact discs players reproduction of music. For the first time I read from them that it is not beyond reproach. Fremer did not need to wait for the development of SACD and DVD Audio in order to arrive at the same conclusions. That Pohlmann and Ranada apparently did makes them either shills, demontrates an inability to hear, or demonstrates a lack of ability to provide any critical analysis. Given their obvious intelligence and experience, I choose number one.
Cite chapter and verse? I am afraid I cannot. I find I have no need (Or thought I had no need) to retain my monthly copies of Stereo Review, High Fidelity, Sound and Vision, and Audio. I used to. But I ran out of space. Perhaps you can point me to one critical comment Pohlmann and Ranada made relative to digital prior to the advent of SACD or DVD Audio? Only "perfect" is without errors. Applying a little logic learned in college, if there are no errors, it must be perfect. If these two heard errors, and they failed to report the errors, then they are dishonest. I must assume that because they did not report any errors, they therefore did not hear any errors. Which they now admittedly hear, because they now discuss them.
And I would point out that Fremer has been very complimentary of those latter formats. Which, given these writer's respective histories, actually means something to me.
a
I have kept some of my old copies of Stereo Review and also High Fidelity and Audio.But here is an article by Julian Hirsch from July 1983, and while they were enormously impressed by the performance of the 11 CD players, I don't see the hyperbole you attribute to them. On the last page he did remark that what you get from an analogue tape reissued on a CD is essentially the sound of that master tape.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
"On the last page he did remark that what you get from an analogue tape reissued on a CD is essentially the sound of that master tape."And this is my point. Did they mimick the words "perfect sound forever." Probably not. I did not mean to infer they did. Only that they bought into the marketing hype, as reflected in the quote you provided.
I submit that describing the sound without any criticisms, concluding that it sounds essentially like the master tape, is essentially the same thing as saying that it is perfect. If that is the case, then how can SACD and DVD Audio sound any better than red book c.d., which sounds like the master tape? Presumably, reproduction of the master tape is the goal of any audio media, which, according to Hirsh in your comment, and Pohlmann and Ranada for all these subsequent years, red book compact discs accomplish.
Did compact discs all of a sudden stop sounding like the master tapes with the advent of SACD and DVD Audio? Do SACD and DVD Audio somehow sound better than the master tapes? If so, then they are not accurate, and rather than gushing over the new formats, perhaps Pohlmann and Ranada should inform us they are not accurate. Why does now the medium which used to sound like the master tapes now not sound like the master tapes? Why does it all of a sudden have sonic attributes that it did not have before, which are now less than perfect, at least according to their ears? Did this non-perfection suddenly appear?
Or was it always there, they simply being incapable, or unwilling, to recognize it. Either way, their reliability is called into question. My question stands: Point me to one single critism made by Pohlmann, Ranada, et al. of red book compact disc players before SACD and DVD Audio. Because they certainly have made them, faint as they may be, after SACD and DVD Audio. And, while this is pure conjecture on my part, I detected a little relunctance on their part of their admissions that SACD and DVD Audio sound significantly better than red book c.d.
Where do they attribute this to using the new format for stereo recordings? Just because a reviewer happens to think that a reissue in one of the new formats sounds better does not prove that the using the new format is the reason. Perhaps a tweaked version in the CD format would sound just as good.Individual recordings may sound better in one or the other format for any number of reasons, just as some LPs sound better than the CD reissues, and sometimes the CD reissue sounds better.
The big difference is that DVD-A and SACD can be used for discreet multi-channel reproduction, not just stereo.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
s
"Some years ago, when CD recording was not available or extremely expensive, I seriously thought of recording all my records to Mini Disc and then sell them. I decided not to do that and buy a Gyrodec instead, because vinyl playback and related gear has something Mini Disc hasn't. Call it nostalgia."No Klaus, call it sound quality. If it consistently sounds more correct then at least as far as human hearing goes, it is more correct!
When (if) digital sounds better than cd (or whatever digital format) then I will be glad to dump my over 700 lps but until then I continue to listen to Lp as my preferred format (for the record I have a Michell Gyrodec SEMkII with rega RB300 arm and Dynavector 17D2MkII cartridge).
I don't know if vinyl sounds correct and CD not, to me both formats are ok. I suppose that the only way to know which one is genuinely correct is to try test signals and analyze the output. However, I don't think that a format where some percent of distortion are generated during playback can be called correct.
Klaus
show me where a properly set up vinyl playback system generates several percent distortion? I think you are wrong about that.
You should read the relevant technical papers, there is distortion (both harmonic and IM) due to VTA/SRA, lateral tracking error, skating force, stylus shape, groove deformation (and others I'm not thinking of right now), none of which can be made disappear. Then you have mechanical resonances in the cantilever, inhomogenities in the magnetic field, lost of groove contact on heavily modulated passages, etc. etc.I can't remember the exact figures, but in the worst case it sums up to something between 5 and 8%, well above the threshold of audibility. And you don't optimize all parameters for each single record, do you? I yet have to encounter the audiophile who sets the null points correct for each single record he is playing. And even he he did, it ain't zero distortion.
If you want LP without all of the above, use an ELP.
Klaus
So then let's talk worst case digital, Klaus. Jitter in the hundreds of nanoseconds, high distortion from poor implementation of the output stage. Mistracking lasers! Poor error correction. Last time I checked a mistracking cd player was totally unlistenable. Distortion of 100%?5%-8% is worst case so what about best case?? Less then 1%? Probably. That is like saying box speakers are bad because the worst case is the white van specials that blow up if you put in more than 10 watts.
Try comparing the best of the breed and you will find a different picture.
If you want to transcribe that worst case digital to analog, you mount your cartridge without any alignment tool, same for VTA, set antiskating to zero (or maximum), VTF according to the phase of the moon etc.Even in a top notch system which has been set up with great care you have several percent of distortion because you can't get rid of tracking error, except for the null points, you don't know the exact amount of VMA (vertical modulation angle), so you can't set VTA exactly, you can't compensate skating force to 100% except for the null points, and you don't simply know how well designed the cartridge is. You still have the trackability thing.
The lowest max. value for tracking distortion for my arm is above 1%. And that value is valid only for records of 58 mm inner recorded groove diameter. Setting the cartridge for different groove diameters will induce a rotation of the cart around its horizontal axis on warps, and warps are everywhere, so azimuth goes down the drain.
I don't bother setting VTA for every record, adds another 2-3 %.A correctly built top notch digital system has none of these problems. Error correction will correct errors to 100%, jitter will be below audible values. There's nothing to set or mount or align.
Also vinyl knowns jitter, but it's cartridge dependent, so you don't know whether or not it's there.
Klaus
The simple truth is Klaus the errors in digital, while seemingly smaller in magnitude, in terms of our ear/brains abilities to discern them are more severe than previously thought. This is because they are in no way naturally consonant and therefore not easily masked by the brain.Your problem is, as in all discussions, that you ignore the most important element in the listening chain, the listener. What is relevant is not the amount of distortion but the amount that your brain actually detects. Your ear/brain (well maybe yours does) does not measure distortion like an oscilloscope. It is a complex pattern recognition machine. It also makes its own distortions. If the patterns of distortion mimic those made by the ear/brain then they are likely to be masked. If they don't then they will surely be noticed...even down to ridiculously low levels.
You see since the turntable is essentially an analog mechanical device with the types of sounds similar to what humans evolved with and they are likely more easily masked. Digital is unknown in evolution and as a result any distortions are also not known and therefore not masked as they do not follow a natural pattern. Our brains love to notice unusual patterns. It is a survival technique. In this case it reveals digital nasties. Digital distortions are particularly agressive on the hearing.BTW, I have mounted a cartridge without an alignment too before. It is surprising how good the human eye can be at getting close to right. The sound wasn't bad at all. Did it improve with proper alignment, sure but not dramatically.
"A correctly built top notch digital system has none of these problems. Error correction will correct errors to 100%, jitter will be below audible values. There's nothing to set or mount or align." Jitter and linearity are always a problem Klaus. It has been shown that their effects can be detected at very low levels (much lower than previously thought). Again the reason is evolution and what the listener is sensitive to.
Obviously, if many people who are serious about high performance vinyl and cd (most are serious about both like me) find vinyl superior then either we are all delusional or there the vinyl is better inspite of its worse "measurements" and digital is doing something wrong inspite of its superior measurements. My best arguments relate to the listener because that is the final arbiter of sound quality, is it not? Don't underestimate psychoacoustics in understanding why people find things like tube amps and vinyl to be more transparent and like real music when the "measurements" suggest otherwise.
Unlike the CD, the LP has nothing to prove. An LP can sound great in spite of its faults. Excellent technical specs aside, we're all aware that PCM digital has had the reputation of failing to "deliver the musical goods." Just listen to the dramatic improvements in A/D and D/A conversion over the past several years--that alone attests to the shortcomings.I agree that we don't see as much criticism of LP's faults as we do of CD's in high-end audio discussion. However, do you think we would see improvements of the same magnitude in the LP format if we harped those faults? I don't see that happening, so perhaps that's the reason.
-Anthony
Lets not get too nostalgic over vinyl. Lets remember some of the screw ups of the good old days. The Linear tracking tone arm craze, which the tables used motors to drag the tonearm across the record. Many of the fine examples of direct drive turntables. Sure some of the great DD turntables were nice, but the majority were junk. How about the fact that many of the mid priced tables came with tone arms too short to get proper cartridge alignment, and lets not talk about the bearings on those same arms. Oh and cartridges. Many of the early high output moving coils were so bright and grainy that you wouldnt be able to tell it apart from a first generation cd player. Then lets talk about all the record care products that were supposed to protect your collection. Most of them being harmful to record and cartridge in the long run. Products like Last for instance, which destroyed several of my records. The good old days of vinyl could be very treacherous.I no longer spin records. The reason being is that I couldnt justify the large sum of money I had tied up into analog reproduction, and the fact that a good portion of my record collection was music that no longer interetested me. Secondly, it was very difficult to balance the ssytem to both mediums. When the system sounded good with an analog front end, the digital side suffered. And when the digital excelled, the analog was tough to listen too. Only in the very end did I find a balancing point.
Before anyone thinks the Analog system was second arate, let me list it. Teres Audio tunrtable. With Bubinga wood lead shot laoded vase, SE motor and battery pack option. Eminent Technology 2.5 arm, Dynavector 17DII cartridge, and Audible Illusions 3A with gold phono board. Without a doubt the finest table I have owned.
When it comes down to it, I find CD to be satisfying. And the fact that new music is not available on vinyl at a reasonable price. Also teh fact that it becomes time consuming to put analog on cd for the car. But as far as it sounds, the Sony 555 that has been modified by Tube Research Labs is excellent at playing music. It meets the needs at my house, and I see no need to replace it with any other format. I listen to 16 bit redbook most of the time, but the funny thing is that SACD is not alot better after the mods. So I don't see a reason to buy a bunch of them.
Regards
Mister Pig
I'm even more amazed that CDs don't sound better than they do. For THIS, we waited all that time?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
