 
|
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 |
149.142.103.56
Happened to check it out at a newstand on my way into work. Worth checking out, he addresses a lot of the "issues" that pop up on this board when newbies -- who have been sold the whole "vinyl crushes digital" bullshit -- start in on the whole thing.Might want to look out for it.
Follow Ups:
nt
There. That should help to get at least page 2 at the right ratio of 1:1.Tom
nt
Tom
. . . to start another tiresome vinyl vs. digital debate. But I find that merely criticizing the "vinyl crushes digital" orthodoxy really seems to raise the hackles of certain inmates. Perhaps they have so much time, money, and pride invested in that orthodoxy, that they take it personally.And in truth, I *did* enjoy Fremer's piece. Sure, he ends with the whole "loving vinyl is painful, but worth it" disclaimer, but in truth, I wish MORE people would read something like that before diving into the deep end of the vinyl pool for reasons audiophile. (Yuck, it pains me to even type that word.)
About once a month, some vinyl newbie writes in and says, "Hey, I just spent $5K on a new vinyl rig, and it's not perfect! What gives?!?" And then various people pipe in, saying try different VTA, different cart loading, different this, different that, when the most honest answer might simply be, "You made a bad decision."
music. I find I enjoy my music via vinyl day after day after day. So - sue me. I have my CD "moments" but they are fewer and fewer as time goes by. Hey - great idea for a song titleI really wish there were a more convenient way to move my soul. There ain't! Unless it's analog tape. Talk about hgassle
"Man is the only animal that blushes - or needs to" Mark Twain
You mean they are not?If so I'll stick with my $629 MMF-5 Music Hall turntable, it's close enough to perfect for me.
Happy listening,
Teresa
Five grand on a table or on anything else hi-fi IS ungodly. But with care and time and research, it can truly be money well spent. I know tables like mine (Basis 2500) are not "in" right now on this forum and elsewhere, but they'll never be "out". They sound great on most every record of a fairly diverse and fairly large collection, you never think about them, they don't break down, etc. Ironically, it is one of the things that makes it possible for me to relive the joys of childhood musical discovery and pleasure, the price of admission notwithstanding. Go figure.
regards,
P
If someone has the wherewithall to spend that amount of money on a brand new "hobby" then they deserve what they get. Sort of like someone that plunks down $25,000 (or more) on a brand new bass boat and then finds out they don't like fishing. Most of us worked our way up to the level of analog sound we can justify spending money on and usually we are quite (or very) happy with each new upgrade.As for making a "bad decision", that's not really fair to those people that knowingly and understandably bought the same system and love it. The overzealous newby has no background to suddenly declare that their system sucks. Maybe they are dissapointed, but they got what they deserved, thus the gist of my subject line.
Do not try to protect those that jump into dark waters without first knowing what the hell is down there. Could be a pointed rock, or could be the most refreshing plunge they've had in years. Most of us tend to first test those waters before plunging into that pool of pleasure. (How's that for a rediculous and unrelated analogy?)
Tom
OT"the pool of pleasure" made me think of this gal I saw the other night at the pool hall here in Tempe.AZ.Place called Six-Shooters(or "Sex Shooters" as some might call it due to the fine ladies that frequent there)...She was playing pool and she looked like a "pleasure" to meet(sans her boyfriend with her)...err, ahh never mind...different kind of pool altogether.But the pointy rock in the water...hurts to think about that one...may give this big boy nightmares tonight ;-(
Got your analogy to a T.
Cheers,
MattB.
Seems as though those pleasure pools always have a boyfriend, which makes you wonder how did THEY meet? Kinda like the great deals on fantastic stereo equipment posted on AudiogoN that are sold as soon as they come up. I dated a pointed rock once and glad I got out of it with only a slight scratch.But that's way off thread and totally unrelated to the original post, which was something about music and stereo equipment and some guy that gets paid to talk about it posted by someone that seemed very concerned about some people that buy things that are talked about by people that may or may not be paid to talk about it and then the people that buy the things that are talked about by those people are disappointed that they bought the things that were talked about. Or something.
Tom
about analog (Gee!) of which the point is a stylus of some geometry or another and is made of hard rock, which if the individual uses it and prefers, would (wood?) enable him to play hard rock, or another genre, like Sun Ra, and then to come on this board, which he wooden if he didn't play with analog, and state opinions as facts, when fact is, it's only his opinion, and that be the facts.Or something else entirely. But, suddenly I'm tired...
axolotl
Or do you even own a stereo? Why not post your rig?Also, it's curious how you didn't end your original post with the "loving vinyl is painful, but worth it" quote.
Though I do prefer vinyl as a general rule, I still listen to and enjoy cd's. Those of us who are regulars on AA enjoy music , not trolling.
I don't post my system to the Asylum because (1) I think it's dorky to do so, (2) my system changes too frequently, (3) most of my stuff is DIY, (4) the people who frequent VA have seen photos of my rig too many times already.But since you ask:
Russco Cuemaster in custom plinth
Rewired/modded NOS Decca London unipivot tonearm
Shure M97xE cartridge
Modded Hagerman Bugle phono stage with DIY regulated power supplyFeel free to criticize the rig; it would be the typical next step. But I've heard many other excellent systems (Dr Edgar, Steve Schell, Eric Overman) and comparing digital to vinyl never convinced me that "vinyl kills digital". I have come to the correct and logical conclusion that people who claim "vinyl kills digital" have sentimental attachments to the medium and are intellectually incapable of separating their emotions from their ears. I won't name names, but several responses in this thread absolutely EPITOMIZE the intellectual vacuity of people who claim that "vinyl kills digital." The reason I pointed out the Fremer article in the first place is because I found it a relatively honest assessment from somebody who does prefer vinyl.
Do I personally prefer vinyl, or digital? As far as I am concerned, horses for courses.
I've never posted any criticism of anyone's rig, and I've rarely seen it here on AA. Perhaps you're thinking of General, where that crap happens way too often. (I like your tt setup, actually-it's very cool)The only reason I asked about your gear was to (hopefully) exclude you from that wonderful group that posts vinyl criticism, but doesn't own a tt. Okay, it's one person-Guy. And I see he's had his ass kicked off the board for another couple of weeks. So we're down to zero.
I'm not sure why you think it's dorkey to post your system. Many of us are diy guys, and it's fun seeing what others have cooked up.
Your initial post came off, apparently unintentionally, as a bit heavy handed and trolly, and biased entirely towards the digital medium. That, combined with the lack of equipment knowledge (tt in particular), may have set some people off.
I listen to both digital (RBCD) and lp, and enjoy both,though I swing heavily towards the vinyl end of the spectrum. Some here wouldn't listen to a CD to save their souls (ok, once again, one person-Teresa) but most will go either way in the right circumstance.
As you say-horses for courses.
Your statement "Feel free to criticize the rig; it would be the typical next step" says it all, really.
Even if you wanted to criticize my rig, it's far from being the only basis for comparison.Again, you seem to have difficulty forming a coherent argument.
On the last page of the article, Fremer describes the problems with digital, and that digital was sold to the public by "fixing the evidence to fit the policy", i.e., perfect playback, and he also states that "To my ears, for whatever reasons, and despite all of analog's problems, even an inexpensive turntable and phono preamp can offer a level of musical satisfaction that no digital music format can match or even approach".Hmmm, Sounds like Mikey likes it (vinyl).
. . . as the VA "vinyl crushes digital" crowd.At least Fremer has the excuse that his livelihood depends on pimping vinyl.
do you? It ain't about "pimping". It's about the music! Dammit!
"Man is the only animal that blushes - or needs to" Mark Twain
Vinyl not only crushes CD.
SACD crushes CD.
DVD-Audio crushes CD.
Even the lowly cassette crushes CD.CD is a total fraud, has been from day one.
It has gotten better over the years from a smelly stinky turd to a hard crusted one. CD does not play music.
CDs are not allowed in my home, ever!
Happy listening to music on a real format,
Teresa
I have a couple of precorded cassettes that blow away the same titles on CD.
"Man is the only animal that blushes - or needs to" Mark Twain
You admit you have a crappy CD player. My offer still stands. If you are in the SF Bay Area, stop by and hear CDs on a good player. It cost the same as my vinyl system (about $3K), and on many CDs it sounds as good as or better than many, if not most vinyl recordings. The highs are smooth and natural, with violins and trumpets sonding very realistic.Joe
how old are you, and did you by chance sell off your vinyl collection when CD's made their splash? There is much, much music on vinyl that won't see the light of day on CD. Better to buy a table and set it up right than to miss out on all THAT. Or if you do have one, just to enjoy it, and leave all this sh*t alone.
. . . and subsequently regretted each sale, which is why I no longer sell my LPs, no matter how embarrassing.
oops, i meant to say that digital blows. never mind. didn't mean to start anything. :-)
~Slainte,
The OMalley
Darn trouble maker ...
.
~Slainte,
The OMalley
.....CD's are convenient and don't really take alot of "care" to last a long time. I enjoy listening to CD's when I want to listen to music that I can't find on vinyl. Alot of my CD's sound great and I get just as much enjoyment from them as Vinyl.Vinyl is very labor intensive..if one wants to extract the most information from the grooves, one must expend a considerable amount of effort. I do like the "musicality" of Vinyl over digital but the gradual signal degradation that occurs as the stylus travels toward the inner groove is a major drawback.
I for one am grateful that Fremer as out there getting the word out to the public about the musical benefits of Vinyl. What Vinyl shows us is that those of us who embrace the medium are obviously music lovers first but sometimes we get so caught up in the minutiea of the whole TT vs. TT, cartridges, belt drive VS. idler drive...ETC which most assuredly leads to loathing and contempt that does nothing but erode the strides that have been made to keep vinyl alive.
I'll get off my soapbox now.
~kenster
Folks are missing the point. The issue is not digital versus analog.
Your initial post implied that Fremer's column was touting the superiority of digital over analog. That is simply not the case and you must know that. I suspect you simply want to stir up the pointless debate.-Wendell
I have to agree.Fremer ended his column noting a fondness for the
ipod as being an equally cool invention like the turntable.
Excuse me but is an ipod not digital.I don"t think analog vs digital
was at all the point.He dislikes CD not to be confused with digital.Duane Upshaw
HenryA 12-gauge shotgun is the ultimate arbiter of disputes - G. Gordon Liddy
It was a troll. Tightwad is having a party.
When we're sitting at home playing music, it's what we, as individuals, prefer, that matters. If you like CD's , listen to CD's. If it's vinyl or tapes, play 'em , who cares what anybody else thinks? It's subjective, what we like the best is superior, right? I prefer vinyl, but I don't mind that others like CD's better - that leaves more vinyl for the rest of us ;-)
of vinyl is it's greatest advantage IMO. The fact that the signal begins as a physical motion gives a presence and impact that can't be matched without. I think there is a connection with the physical nature of instruments (nearly all produce sound by physical stimulus), but that's my armchair science. Whether that aspect is important to someone will be a matter of preference.Dave
Yes, I have heard speculation that the analog, electromechanical nature of vinyl allows the signal to better withstand the amplification process and drive speakers, which are themselves electromechanical devices.
I see no way that a laser is able to read or reproduce a signal nearly as well as a mechanical contact point (stylus). My ears agree with my brain. Furthermore, if you look at a digital signal, it is all squared off and missing loads of info. Why would anyone want to do this to an otherwise nearly perfect (analog) signal only to convert it back to analog anyway? The only reason is that it is very cheap to do so.
Bill
> > I see no way that a laser is able to read or reproduce a signal nearly as well as a mechanical contact point (stylus).Clue: low mass. Incidentally, laser does not necessarily equate to digital, as laser disc video and the ELP laser turntable illustrate.
> > My ears agree with my brain.
And with your eyes.
> > Furthermore, if you look at a digital signal, it is all squared off and missing loads of info.
Poppycock. Get familiar with Nyquist-Shannon.
> > Why would anyone want to do this to an otherwise nearly perfect (analog) signal only to convert it back to analog anyway?
Lossless copying. Convenience. Reproducibility. Things like that.
Do you actually believe that shit?
Bill
Copying anything to Digital requires conversion from a musical waveform to a mathematical equalization in the Base 2 system (1’s and 0’s) and it is only an approximation. Then it has to be covered back to Analog so it can be heard with human ears.I consider copying anything to Digital as a crime against music, pure and simple.
Analog is music, Digital is mathematics and I prefer music,
Teresa
> Copying anything to Digital requires conversion from a musical waveform to a
> mathematical equalization in the Base 2 system (1’s and 0’s) and it is only an approximation.
> Then it has to be covered back to Analog so it can be heard with human ears.All stereo systems and record players are "only" approximations. Digital provides a more accurate approximation than vinyl. A digital copy of an original master will sound more like the original master than a vinyl copy.
Better luck next time,
John Elison
analog uses waveform ALWAYS.
digital cuts any waveform into samples. Now do you know what 'sample' means?analog copies/reproduces waveforms whereas digital samples/approximates those waveforms.
What's the matter with you?
This is logic 101 that you refuse to get.
You say if tubies like distortion then they should admit that. If you like synthetic music then you should admit that.
I'll go first: I like tube distortion and analog waveforms. I like digitized and syntheticly reproduced analog waveforms to a lesser extent ... out of neccessity.
~Slainte,
The OMalley
Analog gets one the closest to the sound of the original master tape or microphone feed.Analog is music, Digital is mathematics, I prefer music!
Happy listening,
Teresa
I knew you'd be in this mess somewhere.
Bill
Then connect "accurate" with "reproduction" and you'll discover that digital provides a more accurate reproduction than does vinyl.
I asked what it means to you. You and your wacky friend never answer any questions. You just spout some crap, quote some crap and state all as facts. I don't really give a rats ass. I'm done with this. If you can't appreciate vinyl for what it is, you should probably not hang out here so much. This is the vinyl forum, for a reason. Most of us, I believe, appreciate vinyl more than we appreciate cd because it is friendlier to our ears and the most accurate recording media that we have ready access to.
Bill
> > Please define accurateNot until you or Teresa understand and address Nyquist-Shannon. Otherwise, it's like trying to explain evolution to a Pentacostal creationist.
And analog is the best at capturing how actualy REAL ACOUSTIC INSTRUMENTS sound in a REAL ACOUSTICAL SPACE .I don't care how things are supposed to work, they either work or they do not work. Low resolution Digital does not work for me. I find 24 Bit 96kHz and 192kHz PCM able to capture many of analogs attributes but not all of them.
Analog still reins supreme!
Analog is music, Digital is mathematics, I prefer music!Happy listening,
Teresa
This argument based on Nyquist-Shannon Theory as applied to a completely artificial construct (digital-domain) that few even begin to know about or understand borders on shear lunacy!
"In practice, neither of the two statements of the sampling theorem described above can be completely satisfied, and neither can the reconstruction formula be precisely implemented. The reconstruction process which involves the sinc-functions can be described as ideal. It cannot be realized in practice since it implies that each sample contributes to the reconstructed signal at almost all time points. Instead some type of approximations of the sinc-functions which are truncated to limited intervals have to be used. The error which corresponds to the sinc-function approximation is referred to as interpolation error. Furthermore, in practice the sampled signal can never be exactly bandlimited. This means that even if an ideal reconstruction could be made, the reconstructed signal would not be exactly the sampled signal."Dave
You have correctly identified the primary problem in any reproduction medium as one of implementation. Several other people in this thread have done so as well. Nyquist-Shannon, however, still disproves the ridiculous notion of digital music having "holes".So beyond the information theoretics, perhaps we can start talking about empirical measures of accuracy such as distortion, signal-to-noise ratios, etc.
has limited relevance, really. Not no relevance, but recognizing the limits of the relevance is important I think. Comparing signal to noise ratios might make very impressive numbers and it is easy to equate that with "superiority", but what was the signal to noise ratio at the last concert YOU went to?Dave
The signal to noise ratio at the last concert I went to as certainly lower than on the latest record by that band. But that's beside the point here. The point is, if we would record that concert, would analog or digital technology reproduce that recording better? Both technologies as they exist today involve losses.Of course, you might be implying that you don't care about a few errors as long as the music is great. In which case I would be inclined to agree with you.
.
.
-----------------
I'm not the one claiming superiority for either medium.
My full-spectrum frequency modulated optical analog disc a is theoretically superior medium. But even it couldn't possibly be PERFECT!Until a medium stores and renders a recording as naturally as a record utilizing proper playback, it will remain the #1 choice of critical listeners.
so quit suggesting that your motives are higher science. Or anything else really. You are no more qualified than anyone else here to pass judgement on the way it *really* is, and your opinion is no more accurate or valid than anyone else's.Dave
I don't really care what the theory states. Music is for listening and my ears tell me otherwise. I consider the cd to be a flawed media and it is highly unlikely that I will ever change my mind.
It has nothing to do with a preference, my being stubborn, nostalgia or any other ridiculous accusations. It only has to do with what I have heard comparing vinyl to cd. I don't really care what Fremer or anyone else has said. When they agree with me (and Fremer does) of course, I'm more likely to listen but in the final analysis, it comes down to what I think for myself from my own experiences and what I've heard with my own ears.
Bill
before I bought that awful Sony CDP-101, I listened to Audiophile Cassettes I had a collection of over 100 including many MFSLs, In Sync Labs, Advent Process CR/70's, Sound Ideas, etc. most recorded in real time on either Chrome or Metal tape.I sold my Nakamichi and all my cassettes to get the $900.00 for the CDP-101, which I pre-ordered, as I believed Sony's Perfect Sound Forever ads. I was one of the first persons in the USA to have CD and it was the worst mistake I ever made in my life. I didn't want to restart my Cassette Collection and buy a new Nakamichi as there were not enough Classical Audiophile Cassettes and Audiophile Cassettes were expensive up $17.99 each. I thought about going back to Reel to Reel as Barclay-Crocker's prices was better 6.95 - 10.95 but I collected NOTHING for over one year.
Reading the Absolute Sound I decided to give LPs another chance and it was the best decision I ever made.
So LPs were really only discovered by me about 18 years ago because CDs sucked so badly and my other options: Audiophile Cassette and Reel to Reel were sinking fast.
I have owned all formats except for Elcassette and I can say that the only thing that can beat LP sonically is a well made Reel to Reel tape.
Happy listening,
Teresa
...that measures audio gear with instruments to determine how good it sounds?
to "Are you one of these guys" etc.
. . . who can't make a coherent argument for or against a technological medium?
Hard to argue with someone who answers questions with questions.
> > Do you actually believe that shit?Do you fondle your mom with the fingers that typed this?
I'm old, my mother is dead. Yer sick. I love music. Piss off.
Bill
.
. . . and it ain't roses.Got a link?
cuz you just dropped a load of bullshit.
Bill
. . . an explanation or link describing why "the analog, electromechanical nature of vinyl allows the signal to better withstand the amplification process and drive speakers," and all I get is a personal insult?Tsk tsk.
I don't read much of the crap that is written. If I want to know what music sounds like, I listen to it.
Bill
A roundtable on Absolute Sound sometime last year, don't have chapter and verse, and this is unprovable speculation except that it was forwarded by a well known studio engineer.
He's good about answering e-mails.
Tom
Sure, vinyl has drawbacks. The software is relatively delicate, the hardware needs replaced on a regular basis.
You can pull a CD out of the shrinkwrap and play it, but you should clean every LP before playing.
But it still comes down to mastering. Poorly-mastered recordings sound like crap, good ones sound great. The medium is irrelevant.
If you like rock 'n' roll and country music that was recorded between the mid-1950's and late 1970's, you should stick with vinyl but not because the LP is inherently superior to the CD. You should stick with vinyl because most CD releases of music from that era are poorly mastered.
But that doesn't mean that the CD is no good, only that the mastering is no good.
I think if you like to listen to a lot of really demanding (and newly recorded) orchestral music, you probably will be happier with a decent CD player than a turntable.
_______________________________
Just an Infinite Rider on the Big Dogma
I have had a bit of an arm's race in my own system between digital and vinyl, sometimes I almost think that digital maybe as good or better than vinyl. When I added some foil suprtweeters with SET amplifier, vinyl surged forward again and is clearly superior as a listening medium in my system., no doubt.
I don't like vinyl because I think it is superior to digital. I found a record recently mastered with the loathed Sony 1630 PCM mastering system. It was sonically perfect, with no identifiable sonic flaws that i could discern, except maybe the slightest dryness in the upper registers. If I hadn't known the source, you could have fooled me that it was analog. It sounded like it used tubed mikes for recording.
I just think that vinyl is the best delivery medium for whatever mastering process has been used. Digital's greatest crime is that it made sound engineers lazy, sloppy and mendacious. One of digital's greatest lies is that what you get in the home is identical to what the mastering process created, because it is all the same bitz.
I think vinyl is still your best shot in the home of approaching something related to the master tape, and most of the time, I think that analog suffers less from generational degeneration and production processes than digital.
In the article, he argues that vinyl is not a perfect medium. That's all. There are flaws. And reel-to-reel is potentially much superior to vinyl. For example, Fremer suggests that while the outer groove area of the LP can have sound quality that comes extremely close to the master tape, the inner groove area, which moves much slower than the outer groove area, sounds clearly inferior to the master tape. Reel-to-reel has no such problem.CDs have problems too. At the end of the article, Fremer suggests that he'd rather have the compromises required of vinyl than those of compact discs. Overall, he prefers the sound of records. So, I can only think that Tightwad sees what he wants to see. The verdict that Tightwad states is not the one that Fremer does.
Yes, i would have to say with the exception of reel to reel, which is no doubt potentially superior to a lot of vinyl, but it is a lot easier to get a hold of records than reel to reels. Records are more inconvenient than CDs or digital, but worth it. Reel to Reel may just be too incomvenient to make it worth the ride over vinyl.
But, it DOES crush digital, but we're most often talking CDs, and vinyl DOES crush CDs, all other things being equal. On the other hand, it's not solely the fault of being digital. After all, we hear great improvements in LPs sourced from digital over same CDs. Why? Well, producing CDs forces some information to be thrown away. I have yet to hear a CD which is an improvement over the same LP, if the LP was done properly. The LP often improves upon the CD, even if originally digital. SACD captures the flow of the music better, but still doesn't meet the musicality of the LP. Are there flaws in LP playback? Sure. As there are with the playback of CDs. Which process leaves the music most intact? THAT's the main thing.Jeff
I have digital recordings on vinyl that are excellent and I don't quite understand how they are able to pull it off but I accept them for their excellence. I don't have to understand how it was accomplished.
I have no CD's that are better than their vinyl counterpart whether new or old. One possible exception is Audioslave's first LP which seems no better on vinyl than cd. It is a well made cd and not especially well made on vinyl. Not the fault of the vinyl however. Since it happens to be the only possible case that I have of such a situation, I will gladly stick with vinyl.
Bill
The original material, whether digital or analog, only ends up sounding superior on vinyl if it sounds good to begin with. The Mobile Fidelity reissue of Aimee Mann's "Bachelor No.2" is only marginally better than the CD. Most of the improvement in the vinyl edition is that it has more soundstage depth and perhaps a bit more delicacy. It's not a wholesale improvement and not worth it, to my ears, if you already have the CD. There might even be more bite to the CD, and in that area, the CD might be better. The CD is more compressed, and with a long-term listen, it's more fatiguing. Either way, it's murky recording and not great. It's certainly not an album I'd used to demo my system either way.
> > I have digital recordings on vinyl that are excellent and I don't quite understand how they are able to pull it off[.]Perhaps you know nothing about the digitization of sound. Here's a link that might help.
I think ultimately nothing more than another " Beauty is in the eye of the beholder " thing.The Process oriented personality types (like myself and most of you) who are into personal involvement, puttering, overcoming challenges (and in my case diversion from my tawdry existence ;-)
as well as various Luddites, Anarchists, and particularly those stricken with OCD, are invariably going to find Vinyl Wonderful.The primarily goal oriented listener types, who simply want the music to emanate from the loudspeakers with the least expenditure of time, effort and complication, would be absolutely driven to distraction by the Vinyl/ Analog approach.
Then the adherents of each approach, are going to tend to perceive everything in the context of their own viewpoint" A man See's what he wants to see, and disregards the rest" the more egocentric and or delusional they are, the more convinced they will become that indeed their position is THE correct one (or perhaps even shared by the Creator ;-)
If we weren't such a bunch of indolent, non committal couch slugs, we'd doubtless have a serious Analog vs. Digital (Shiite vs. Sunni) thing going on by now ;-)
Regards Fred
> > Which process leaves the music most intact?From the standpoint of transferring the largest amount of signal content while introducing the least amount of distortion and noise, it is obvious that digital does.
"> > Which process leaves the music most intact?
From the standpoint of transferring the largest amount of signal content while introducing the least amount of distortion and noise, it is obvious that digital does."That's NOT the case if you use your ears. There are certain measurements that can make CDs measure well, but given the best CD and best LP, the LP will sound closer to the master tape. We don't have a consumer playback system that allows higher resolution currently than LPs, aside from reel-to-reel tape. Even SACD does not sound as close to the best LP. By the way, if you haven't heard the 45rpm records such as the jazz reissues from Acoustic Sounds, you haven't heard the capability of vinyl.
I can attest to that. On a recent tour to RTI we visited their mastering facilities where all reissues from Classic are mastered. We got to audition some reel-to-reel masters, and besides the sonic goosebumps of listening to the most real-sounding recordings ever, I got a good mental picture of the room acoustics.I got Dave Brubeck's "Time Out" 45 rpm Classic reissue on that trip, and when I finally got to play it, those very same acoustics and overall punch and liveness crept into my listening room. I could swear I had the quartet right in front of me (well, almost). Ergo, to do any better than these 45rpm reissues, you'd have to steal the master tape. It is really that good.
_________________________________May the Tracking Force be with you!
I used to own my own mastering company (Aesthetic Audio) and I can tell you that Vinyl done correctly is the closed I've heard to a 2 Track master tape.Also Direct to Disc Vinyl according to Stan Ricker is superior to analog or digital tape especially in transient response. Meaning NO format on earth has more resolution than 45-RPM Direct to Disc.
SACD and DVD-Audio can come close to Vinyl in resolution, CD just doesn't cut it and personally I abhor the sound quality of all CDs including the "audiophile" ones!
Happy listening,
Teresa
A posting a few months back by a prominent producer of records said quite explicitly that CDs and SACDs sound more nearly like the master tapes then vinyl. However, he preferred listening to the vinyl. He concluded he preferred the added distortions (i.e. greater inaccuracies) on vinyl, even though it sounded less like the original master tape than the digital recordings. I can certainly make CD-Rs that I am willing to bet you cannot distinguish from the original vinyl on MY cd player.Joe
You said "I can certainly make CD-Rs that I am willing to bet you cannot distinguish from the original vinyl on MY cd player.You would loose that bet, as I could tell every single time when my SACD player was accidentally playing the CD layer instead of the SACD layer by the dreadful sound coming from my system within a matter of one minute!
The producer you mentioned was Kavi Alexander of Waterlily Acoustics and he has to be careful what he says, as his recordings did not sell very well on Vinyl and he must sell CDs. Is he going to tell the truth that CDs suck and destroy his business, I think not!
But at least he admits he prefers Vinyl for listening.
Happy listening,
Teresa
it was not Kavi Alexander who made the post. but a very freuqent poster on the HiRez Asylum. Do a search. Once again, you admit to having a crappy CD player. You do not have a high quality, CD-only player. The bet was with MY CD player, not yours. And my system, with Vandersteen %s and ARC/Plinius electronics is highly revealing. I do have a high-quality CD player, and I find that the CD layer on some SACDs played through my CD player (an Ayre CX-7e) is as good as if not better than the SACD layer on my SACD player. To be sure, my SACD player is a lower level Sony ES model, but I have compared it to some very high-end models. and it does a fine job. Regardless, youy have not heard CD-Rs properly made from vinly AND played back with a really high quality CD player such as mine, so you you don't know what you are talking about. There's really no point in talking about this anymore, as your mind appears to be made up. But you should ever be making a journey down I 80 to the Bay Area, and want to make a detour over to Santa Cruz, I'd be happy to show you how fine CDs can sound.Incidentally, I can make CD-Rs of vinyl that sound virtually identical to the original, showing that CDs have all the resolution that vinyl has. But if I use the same process on an SACD, the CD-R does not sound quite as good as the SACD, proving the expected result that SACDs have higher resolution than CDs (and vinyl).
Joe
the audiophile LP version had more resolution! You need a new turntable or maybe re-adjustment of VTA or VTF. Both are very important in getting the most out of the grooves.I had two high-end SACD players retailing for $1,500 and $1,695 each (Sony 9000ES and Xindak SCD-2). Before getting into SACD I had the Audio Alchemy Digital Drive System II CD Transport and the Adcom GDA-700 HDCD/DA converter connected with coaxial cable, total retail $1,800.
If LP in your system DOES NOT have higher resolution than SACD or DVD-Audio at 192kHz you have something wrong with either the turntable or phono pre-amp. If I CD-R can copy your LPs perfectly I do not want to listen to LPs at you home as they are somehow restricted in resolution.
Work on your LP playback great rewards awaits you!
Teresa
Mass produced CDs are produced by an entirely different process that CDRs. I've also heard digitally recorded and mastered LPs that are light years better than their CD counterparts. What's the explanation? Dunno. Perhaps it all lies in the stamping process.
"Man is the only animal that blushes - or needs to" Mark Twain
nt
I'm not really sure when that is going to happen. Check out the link below for my last answer to this question.
nt
I prefer vinyl and it can sound better than a master tape once in a while or good, most of the time, or bad. I wouldn't say it sounds closer than something else. Everything sounds different. I am always amazed at how difference a reference cd from mastering is from the manufactured one because there is so little quality control in glass mastering machines.I love 45 rpm vinyl. Historically, that was the speed it was meant to be. But stan ricker says a lot of things, i wouldn't take them as gospel.
I've never heard of this, has it been done commercially? I have many 33rpm D2D's and would love to hear a 45 if I could get my hands on one.Dave
Laurindo Almeida's 'Virtuoso Guitar' on Crystal Clear. A reference recording if there ever was one...and you get funky white vinyl as a bonus.
Look out for a Charlie Byrd record on Crystal Clear records. It's a 45rpm D2D and it is KILLER.
IBSmiester
Open Your Ears....
Keep searching eBay they will pop up.Happy listening,
Teresa
This sounds interesting, and not only because The Analog Man says it.A lot of nonsensical wars begin over the claim that vinyl, in any form and on any kind of gear, yields a "better" sound than that of CDs every time, which in reality may, and may not, be the case. There are LPs out there that will put their CD counterparts to shame, and LPs that can sound dull, compressed and lifeless when compared to their digital versions. What does this or that format "better" is subject to a myriad of variables - the recording itself, the mastering, the quality of analog vs.digital components on your setup, etc... what all this really comes down to is a matter of PREFERENCE. You can get equally great sound from both sources if you know how. I could easily settle down with digital and not having to put up with the infamous analog quirks anymore... but then music for me would be missing half the fun, and the sound I get from vinyl is -for my ears- well worth all the fuss.
Once you discover the mellow sound of vinyl and the incredible dynamics it can provide, temptation is hard to resist. It's like a damn drug, you just keep craving for more no matter how hard you try to fight it. Maybe it's not all-around "better" compared to digital, but definitely can be more enjoyable, and that's something you can't quantify on any measure to determine its "betterness", for it's quite a personal thing.
I still wish my TT had an auto return feature, though.
_________________________________May the Tracking Force be with you!
I no longer subscribe to Stereophile, if someone can please answer the following question for me I would much appreciate it.From the article "There are LPs out there that will put their CD counterparts to shame, and LPs that can sound dull, compressed and lifeless when compared to their digital versions."
Now my question: Which LPs sound dull, compressed and lifeless compared to their digital versions?
I would like to avoid those as an LP that cannot sound as good as a crummy CD has really got to be a real stinker. Did he give the titles of these terrible LPs that sounded worse than CD.Shocking I didn't think anything could sound worse than a CD, I need to avoid these LPs at all costs.
Thanks in advance,
Teresa
Glad you asked Teresa.Actually, Mr. Fremer didn't write that up. I did.
Over the last two decades I've found LPs at all quality levels, some great, some okay, some so-so, and some, um, simply awful, that may not look like it but certainly sound like it.
A recent experience I had was with a bunch of Everest releases made in the 70s (I presume) that I snapped at a record store in LA. Couple of bucks each, so I had little to lose anyway. Well to make a long story short, not only the vinyl is noise-a-rama galore, but the sound quality... trust me when I say I've heard better sound from an AM radio. And you couldn't tell neither from looking at the LP alone, it just looked nice like many others I've got over the years. Quite a surprise, albeit unfortunately not a good one.
Bottom line: If you're looking for Everest releases, stick to the 50s and 60s originals (if you can find/afford them) or to the new Classic reissues. Thought I should share that.
_________________________________May the Tracking Force be with you!
You are right they sound atrocious. I understand the originals were actually good. But I stick with the DCC and Classic reissues of the Everest recordings.Other labels I avoid: Columbia Classical, Vox unless it's the original purple label, Mercury Wing, Mace, Murray Hill, and a bunch of others I can't think of until I see them. There are some real stinker pressings out there.
Happy listening,
Teresa
Very nicely put.
Well said.Like most things on this planet, there's no black and white finality or always-conclusive breakdown.
J.
He points out the problems with vinyl playback very well. It is amazing that we can get high resolution sound out of the technology, but we do.I never saw where he said anything about the BS of vinyl crushing CD. I thought the conclusion was that he preferred vinyl. Maybe I have to read it again, but I don't think so. You must have been speed reading at the news stand. Buy a copy and reread it. Good article.
> > I never saw where he said anything about the BS of vinyl crushing CD.I never claimed he did. Carefully reread my post.
I don't want to carefully reread your post. It wasn't particularly coherent and definately not that profound.
> > I don't want to carefully reread your post. It wasn't particularly coherent and definately not that profound.Given how sloppily you read my post the first time through, you aren't qualified to judge its coherency or profundity.
I think the fact that he owns a $90K vinyl rig might give his preference away immediately, iff not sooner!
... and sold it to him at or near the cost of manufacture, which is a fraction of the $90K.This adds to Mikey's self-perception that he is "the man" of high end vinyl playback, because then he can say "Well in my experience with my $90K 'table ..." and few will defy his opinion.
It has been done by others in the past, too, with other top of the line 'tables in that price range ... :)
The good news is that 2 years from now, he can sell it at 50 points and still make tens of thousands of dollars. I'd say more, but then it might get moved to critics.
Jack
And :Tell us exactly what fraction of $90K it is.
And, in no particular order,
--- how you can know about Mikey's self-perceptions, that's pretty tricky....
--- what particular opinions he defends with the sole evidence of owning a $90K table,
--- and finally ---- who comes near to MF as having invested more time & effort in the realm of analog vinyl playback, and therefore is more eligible to be considered 'the man' of your contest.Your post is absolutely ridiculous.
Just one opinion, but, with 15+ continuous years as the sole editorial voice of analog Lp playback .... Fremer is well-enough ensconced as the 'man' that he certainly never needs to say it.
Even more ridiculous is the contention that he would try to defend an opinion on the basis of an expensive chunk of hardware.
And he does neither .
J.D.
In previous posts, I've given Fremer credit as due to his fighting the good analogue fight during the 'dark days' of digital.However, his self-perceptions are obvious-his e-mails to Salvatore and Romy the Cat, not to mention the posts here at Critics, show someone with a huge ego, and, frankly, with anger issues bordering on the psychotic. I guess that lessens my perception of him as a human being, and therefore as a critic that I pay attention to.
Owning a 90,000.00 tt, no matter what the real cost, only adds to my negative perception. Even if I could easily afford such a thing, I would be embarrassed. Wouldn't you? If not, I apologize.
vaya con dios
"Tell us exactly what fraction of $90K it is."Manufacturing is typically 5:1 ratio. This is well known, Econ 151 stuff. As Fred J mentions below, "I don't believe Jack mentioned any exact price, but it is common knowledge that these days any ambitious / hungry manufacturer is going to do just about anything for a possibility of currying favor with the leading Audio Hacks, think about the legions of Validation challenged
Audiophool Sheeple who would be a living bundle of anxiety at the prospect of sourcing anything not validated (In the recommended Components List, or approved by or especially used Fremer etc.)" I'd bet that if truth were told, the ratio would be much higher on a $90K turntable."--- how you can know about Mikey's self-perceptions, that's pretty tricky.... "
I've encountered him at CES shows for over 20 years. I've talked to him and have a good idea of the man's self percetion. If you had some first hand experience like this, perhaps you would understand.
" --- what particular opinions he defends with the sole evidence of owning a $90K table,"
None yet, but the pattern has existed with other products such as the Boulder preamp.
" and finally ---- who comes near to MF as having invested more time & effort in the realm of analog vinyl playback, and therefore is more eligible to be considered 'the man' of your contest."
I didn't make a contest, (in fact, did I ever mention the word "contest"?) but fine ... that's easy. I know of at least a handful of guys who have invested more time, effort, and money than Mr, Fremer ever dreamed of on vinyl playback. These guys have hearing, too. Peter Evans is one. Alon Wolf is another. (Both from the Bay Area). Then there is Kirk Hammond from Palm Beach. It's likely that these guys may be unknown to you as they may be outside of your circle ...
Others who did the hard work for saving vinyl playback? Garth Leerer, Chad Kassem, Harry Weisfield, Bruce Thigpen, & Andy Payor to name a few who contributed through either distribution (as in Garth's case), software production when everyone else was making CD's (Kassem), or through manufacturing tables back when there were only a handful of guys doing it, (As in Harry's Bruce, and Andy's case). These are the guys who put their money at risk to make vinyl playback products when everyone else was selling their vinyl. (Not to exclude the guys who were manufacturing phono stages, when everyone else sold line stages only)
I know your style, JD. You'll discount this and everyone mentioned above.
That's fine with me ... I have serious doubts that you and I would see eye to eye on anything.
I can live with that. :)
Jack
.
/
Name dropping? Well, you asked for names, I gave them to you. If you ran in those circles, you'd know that one of the men mentioned is the only living heir to the Coca Cola Company. (He may be worth a penny or two). You'd know that George Harris built him a 32 Ford coupe identical to Bobby Timmon's (ZZ Top) ford Coupe, except the colors are different. (This one is blueish purple). Or, you'd know that one of the men owns a Testarossa and a 930 turbo, along with a Tube Research GT-800 Platinum ($160K retail). Or that the other man owns all 3 Rockport tables, 2 pairs of TRL GT-400's ($85K each retail) and has a new 911 GT3. (Hint: These men have money and spend it ... a lot of it on audio)Just because you don't know these men, doesn't mean that they don't exist. It means that you don't know them because you don't run in those circles. It is possible that my first hand experience gives me a little more authority on the subject than you.
Here's a helpful and equitable analogy: I had a conversation with inmate "Garth" over in the Outside Asylum around 2 weeks ago about the current rules of Formula One. While I used to be a Formula Ford certified driver, he actually drove, both sponsored and privateer, a Formula Ford race car. I may have a little idea how the racing game is played, (They don't give away FF certification) but certainly I am not more of an authority on the topic than Garth ... a man who has actually been there and done it, first hand.
Ah Hell. I don't expect any of this to change your mindset ... I have a strong grasp of where you are, your experiences to date, and your inability to acknowledge that you may be incorrect. (Not only by previous direct encounters, but also by reading your posts).
My intentions weren't to prove you wrong, or show your level, but when you make rude remarks like that above in the subject line, well, you leave me little choice.
I'd be happy to leave this where it lays ...
Be well,
Jack
It's obvious that alot of rich men piss away tons of money on expensive toys that are easily bettered by products that sell for a fraction of their price!
What table sells for a fraction of the cost of a Walker or Sirius 1 or 2 that betters them?What cartridge betters the Koetsu Rosewood Signature Platinum at a fraction of the price?
Or how about an amp that betters the Tube Research Labs GT-800 (photo showing only one mono block. The chassis with two transformer covers in the rear is a tube regulated power supply)
Give me descript examples of better, less expensive tables, amp and cartridges which are known to out perform my examples, above.
The clock is ticking ... this one should be fun!
Jack
Although I was not specifically refering to the system mentioned in your post, I nontheless believe that one could likely do better for less.I believe that the best part of this system is the Avalons. IMO, they are the very best dynamic loudspeakers available.
I have not heard the Tube Research Labs GT-800. But I have heard nearly every amp made to the present date. That being, I have never heard a better amp than the Accuphase A-series.
Accuphase, IMO, also makes the best cd players, preamp's and tuners regardless of price or implementation.
As far as turntables go, there are several Micro-Seiki's that run circles around the overbuilt, overpriced (but good) turntables that you mentioned.
Is the Koetsu Rosewood Signature Platinum better than the Onix Signature? How about the world beating Accuphase AC-1?
A fraction of the price you say? OK. The Soundsmith-B&O MMC-1 or 2 will give the Rosewood a run for it's money, and you won't even need the MC amplification stage to boot.
Now, is his system really better than a system comprised of an Accuphase C-2800 + C-17, A-60(x2), DP-100/DC-101, T-1000, Micro-Seiki SX-8000, MAX tonearm and an Accuphase AC-1 utilizing his Avalon Eidelon Diamonds?
You may be VERY surprised!
The more I read this post of yours, the more spectacularly, howlingly funny it is.Alright, now I get it --- it was facetious, right.... -- you were doing a send-up of a status-impaired, hopelessly money-centric, middle-aged clown, right ? ....
" Hint: These men have money and spend it ... a lot of it on audio "
All that's irrelevant, Jack. Here's the problem.
Your original post dissed Fremer up & down, without basis or evidence, and you're finding you can't defend it.
I happened to call you on it.So -- you tell us about race cars, cola heirs, largely avoid the issue,
and blow smoke up my ass about " I have a strong grasp of where you are, your experiences to date " ... ??You are One Seriously Pompous Windbag, Jack, but don't believe me.
I say let the reader decide.
I think it's safe to say they're probably getting a Strong Grasp on it.J.D.
/
becomes you.Jack is a Gentleman, a man of integrity. I've read most all of his posts, as well as corresponding with him, as I value his experience based opinion a great deal, he's been doing this for as long as some Inmates have been alive.
I've known or know of a few of the folks Jack mentions, as well as mutual aquaintences, I've yet to ever even see or feel the least
hint of deceptiveness or bullshit coming from Jack.I certainly have my own foibles, lapses and inconsistencies, but I'm downright uncanny at reading between the lines.
You have Jack all wrong.
Regards Fred
/
me, for one.Sometimes I pick a fight for the excercise. People say it is because I am Irish ... Know what I mean Micky?
[thought about not sending this but then thought "fuck it"]
~Slainte,
The OMalley
"[thought about not sending this but then thought "fuck it"]"You're Irish ... don't fight it. :)
Jack
Do you have inside knowledge on the deal? I realize he received a "reviewer discount" but he has not come out and said what he paid for it so how can you make the claim of "fraction of the cost"?
You also know the cost of manufacture of the Caliburn?
I don't believe Jack mentioned any exact price, but it is common knowledge that these days any ambitious / hungry manufacturer is going to do just about anything for a possibility of currying favor with the leading Audio Hacks, think about the legions of Validation challenged
Audiophool Sheeple who would be a living bundle of anxiety at the prospect of sourcing anything not validated (In the recommended Components List, or approved by or especially used Fremer etc.)I would think someone manufacturing a $90K Turntable would
more or less live or die by this bullshit, it's a safe bet no one
fully rational is going to buy something like that based on it's actual sonic virtues.
" ... but it is common knowledge that these days any ambitious / hungry manufacturer is going to do just about anything for a possibility of currying favor with the leading Audio Hacks, think about the legions of Validation challenged
Audiophool Sheeple who would be a living bundle of anxiety at the prospect of sourcing anything not validated (In the recommended Components List, or approved by or especially used Fremer etc.)"You pretty much nailed it, Fred.
I also know that retailed products are made on a 5/1 ratio, however, I believe that ratio may be much higher on turntables over the $15K range.
Jack
Yeah, it seems to be mostly about bragging rights, at those prices.
But who knows, maybe a $90,000 rig sounds 10 times better than a $9,000 one, or 100 times better than $900. Folks like me will never get to hear that type of equipment anyway, so I'll keep listening to my 50 year old rim drive ;-).
One of the biggest fallacies on high end audio is the bogus attempt to turn the level of fidelity and musical satisfaction into something accountable. Can a $90K TT sound ten times better than a $9K one, and 100 times better than a $900 one? Better, most likely for sure (there's something to be said for exotic components). But ten times more or twenty? Who are we to say that? Perhaps you'd be happier with the sound of a $9k rig than that of a $90k one, and you couldn't chalk it up to price. I can personally say I like best the sound of my Sennheiser HD600s to that of the Stax electrostatics, which I've tested and retail for about 50 times the Senn's price. So, we'll be better off if we stop treating our level of musical joy and satisfaction as something accountable and directly related to price, as if it were.
_________________________________May the Tracking Force be with you!
I'm with you Bro, I'm so broke I can't even pay attention ;-)I haven't heard the aforementioned particular exercise in conspicuous consumption / wretched excess, however I have attended
several C.E.S have friends who are high end dealers and manufacturers
and I firmly believe this machine and those of it's ilk are the absolute extreme end of the diminishing returns scale, the turntable equivalent of Ken Lays $15K Guest Bathroom Gold filigreed Shitcan.I'm delighted to be living in a wide open, free Society where we're free to build, sell or own incredibly crass stuff like this.
Regards FredJ
I loved it! I try to tell myself (and everyone else) that the two formats are simply two different animals, but then how do I explain that 99% of my listening on "The big system" is vinyl?Although I have a bagillion CDs, I own (of course) far more LPs so my choices are wider with the vinyl format. Yet, you can't deny CDs ARE more convenient and although some LPs are available, the only way to listen to anything new is buy digitally...there's no getting away from that argument without lying your a** off.
One thing Mikey didn't mention, unless I missed reading it, is the sound of a CDP mistracking! I can live with a lot more noise than most people...I need to hear the music that was laid down! But I can't live with BRRRRRP! BRRRRRP! BRRRRRP! BRRRRRP! The lovely sound a player sends through my speakers is exponentially worse than any snap, crackle, or pop!
If I had more money, I'd soon be broke...but I'd have more LP's!
You need to reread the article. Your conclusion was not the intent of Michael's article.-Wendell
the idea that Mike Fremer just likes the sound of LPs better than CDs when he listens to the same recording on both formats.I hate to say it because I'll hurt CD lover's feelings, but there's no doubt whatsoever the above statement is on the mark! And all of us at Vinyl AA know it...so when we meet a CD advocate we can all say, naneenanee!
But remember too that if you never get to listen to another LP, CDs DO sound pretty good! Just never listen to another LP!
If I had more money, I'd soon be broke...but I'd have more LP's!
Just re-reading the last couple of sentences should do it.
.
It doesn´t seem like it is based om empirical data...
> > It doesn´t seem like it is based o[n] empirical data...Neither is Fremer's conclusion.
People have been trying, and failing, to use empirical data to decide between CD and vinyl ever since the introduction of the medium.
You may correct me if you want, but when you state that "my conclusion is my own", it sounds like you´re making the conclusion that the writer is trying to "...address a lot of the "issues" that pop up on this board when newbies -- who have been sold the whole "vinyl crushes digital" bullshit -- start in on the whole thing." Aparently he isn´t.
Fremer's article talks about surface noise, bad pressings, alignment issues, inconsistency between record thicknesses, why 200g pressings don't always sound best, etc.These are the sorts of niggling issues that invariably come up when a person from the digital realm goes whole hog into vinyl because he was sold the lie that "vinyl crushes digital".
If Vinyl doesn't work out for them the only other logical choices would be SACD or DVD-Audio not back to CD that they dislike!Teresa
Is your opinion, it is nothing else. You keep stating it as it is fact.Dave
> > Is your opinion, it is nothing else. You keep stating it as it is fact.My claim, which is that vinyl does NOT crush digital, is far more conservative than the lie that vinyl crushes digital.
.
HenryA 12-gauge shotgun is the ultimate arbiter of disputes - G. Gordon Liddy
I guess syntax is as subjective as sonic reproduction.
... my question.
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 ]
