|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
71.29.109.1
In Reply to: An enlightened view of Vintage posted by DavidLD on February 23, 2007 at 04:37:15:
I confess to being a type 2. Modern electronics with modified 70's speakers.I tried the type 1 approach for a while, but couldn't get to where I wanted to be.
I dropped LP's about 13 years ago and concentrated on CD's. I have a friend who was formerly the Chief Engineer at Capitol Records. His opinion is that CD's are simply more accurate. LP's may sound good, but they do not carry the information as accurately. He ought to know, he put it there.
Follow Ups:
I just don't understand. LP's sound good according to you, but less "accurate"--your Capitol man says. What do you mean? Digital stuff is more "accurate" but by the same token, less endearing, less euphonic, and less musical. Simple.
Your own word: Euphonic. Pleasing, but not necessarily accurate colorations.I dispute the idea digital is less musical. Besides, you're using the term musical to describe music.
His point was that the limitations of the cutting heads limit the amplitude of the highs and playback capability limits the lows. So the master tapes used for LP's are rolled off on both ends. The result might be pleasing and euphonic, but it's less accurate.
I still have to get to the core of this issue. Your friend's comment is interesting but at the same time vague.If you start perusing this topic, you start finding even more questions than answers. Phono cutting technology is capable of a 7hz-25hz range...so I cannot see what you are basing your comment about "limiting of the highs", and since there are phono cartridges on the market capable of sub 20hz reproduction- the playback comment also doesn't make much sense.
Now...on the part of the mastering engineer sometimes there will be cut on high frequencies to cut down on sibilince...but this is done on something specific such as a cymbal crash(s)...it is not a high filter put on the entire record side to counteract 12 seconds out of 20 minutes. Also...cutting a record is a highly skilled activity and there was a lot of mediocre lp mastering engineers over the years...so I can understand where someone might believe that all CD's are more "accurate" than LP's.
From a practical standpoint CD's make much more sense than LP's. For the average person the fidelity is adequete (and they are quite good- I prefer LP's by a longshot- but I do not take them as gospel like some LP people do), there is no playback wear (ie-stylus having to be changed) easy to store, etc. From a manufacturing standpoint they also make more sense, as they are cheaper to make, and cost less to ship and store.
But practical does not always mean the "best". All of my practical comments can be applied to MP3's vs CD's.
LP playback takes a lot of commitment from the user...and I understand that most people don't have the time, space, or money to listen to LP's.
But on the other hand I take offense at people "shitting" on vinyl when their entire experience was years ago with a Dual 1019 with a Shure M91 cart, or some mid-fi DD table from 1979 with a $20 audio technica cart.
Call me a snob...but I started out in this hobby with a 1985 Panasonic table, moved on to a Thorens TD-160 with a Shure V15III, and now have a VPI HW19 with a Sumiko Blackbird...and have heard my system come leaps and bounds every step of the way. My speakers and amps have shot up as well...and every system change keeps showing the limitations of the 16 bit digital format. CD's sound LOUD and that is perceived by many as having more fidelity...and I still have yet to hear an album that was recorded on analog TAPE sound better on CD than LP.
Had a second thought on this. With a CD it's quite easy to record a series of test tones and have them play back to within +/- 0.5 dB at the line out on the player. Getting a record that's even remotely close to that is nearly impossible if measured at the phono preamp's line out. I know that's not the whole story, but it is part of it.
The cutting issue is not the frequency response of the cutter head, it's the amplitude limitations at high frequencies caused by the power input needed to cut those cymbal crashes. Since the RIAA equalization significantly increases the recorded levels.Again, on the bass end, it's not frequency response, (cartridges respond to record warps)it's the amplitude limitations of what can be recorded and tracked. While it was an extreme case, do you recall the recording of the 1812 Overture with the huge canon shots back in the late 70's? The groove spacing was opened up dramatically to fit this groove onto the LP. Very few cartridges could track it, and the few that could were all ultra-high compliance MM models. To a lesser extent, bass is generally cut back on loud passages to allow tracking with average quality equipment. This also gets into the issue of the compliance of the very expensive MC cartridges. My information is admittedly out of date, but last time I looked, most MC carts had only moderate compliance.
You are talking about the Telarc 1812. I have the record and my Sure M97xe/Grace 707/LP12 tracks it with no problem.
So did my Shure M95HE in a modified Dual 1229. An ADC XLM and a Pickering XV-4500 did also, but none of my AT's would, and none of my Ortofons.
I'm not suprised about any of the cartridges listed that did track it. I'm suprised that the AT's would not. I sold the Precept line and the MM cartridges tracked fine (at the maximum recommended tracking force of 1.5 grams).
"LP playback takes a lot of commitment from the user...and I understand that most people don't have the time, space, or money to listen to LP's."Listen to yourself. Making a big deal out of spinning a little wax on the pick.
hey big man....why don't you let us know your whole vinyl regime and how easy it is??? I would love to know. Let us all know...since it comes so easy to you.
What's a vinyl regime? A record player? I've had one of those since I was 10 years old, 48 years or so ago. No big deal.
Clearly he meant regimen.. and the point, that LPs are more work than Digital software is valid.
"that LPs are more work than Digital software is valid."Well yeah, record players don't have remotes but they're not that much more work, it's not liking walking over and dropping the needle on the record is that strenous an effort.
"Why so smug?"
So thinking record players are no big deal is smugness now, eh?
"Well yeah, record players don't have remotes but they're not that much more work, it's not liking walking over and dropping the needle on the record is that strenous an effort."C'Mon now. Templates, arm setup, cart. alignment, cleaning.. versus pretty much dropping in and hitting play.
You're just being contrary.
"C'Mon now. Templates, arm setup, cart. alignment, cleaning.."Most of that was done years ago. I seldom clean records and dust on the needle is removed with the flick of a finger.
If one intends to simply use LPs, as opposed to being a finicky fussbudget, it's easy enough. Zillions of people did it for decades.
..let's just call it "different strokes" and call it a day.
now you defined the term. But, frequency extension doesn't necessarily translate to creating a sense of real music. I would love nothing more than to spend under $750 to 1k and come out with digital better than my ancient Linn setup.
Waxing philosophical for a moment, I've thought for a long time that the key difference between CD and LP is the lack of euphonic coloration in the digital.Pretty much, the laser scans the track, the electronics read the 1's and 0's and they get converted into an analog waveform. There really is no chance for colorations to creep in-at least not to the degree that they can in phono. To be sure, there can be digital artifacts in the analog signal, and like any analog stage, there can be subtle colorations added by the line amplifier (or not so subtle colorations added by the designer in an attempt to differentiate his product).
But phono is a different breed of cat altogether. It's basically a mechanical system with a little electro-magnetic transducer that's mechanically coupled to it. It's loaded with places for resonances to occur. No mechanical system of any size is resonance free up to 20 kHz! So the whole system is full of damped (hopefully)resonances and a host of things that can generate spurious noise (bearings, belt flutter, record surface noise, motor noise, etc) Further, we expect the stylus to faithfully follow a groove molded into a plastic disk. And if we follow back in the process, the molds were made from masters cut on a recording lathe, which is another mechanical system full of damped resonances and spurious noise sources. Lots and lots of places for all those resonances to add subtle little colorations, and just enough low level noise and delayed signals (due to resonances in the record itself) to add the sense of ambience which is totally lacking in CD's.
To continue, I think a lot of the art of setting up a phono system is the selection of a turntable, arm and cartridge that have the most favorable set of colorations for your system, your room, and your taste. How would you ever expect the clinically accurate CD to compete?
How indeed! The answer for me was to build my system around the CD player and to introduce my subtle colorations downstream. Once I had found a CD player whose analog stage suited me, of course. They do vary quite a bit, some deliberately tweaked by the designer, some through ineptness and cost cutting. What the CD lacks, however, is the sense of ambience. The sound comes out of a black digital silence and it adds none of the artificial reverberation that LP's have.
The artificial reverberation is largely from the stylus pushing off against the groove and from acoustical feedback. The stylus pushing off against the groove wall sends compression waves across the record where they reflect from the edge and travel back to the stylus, where they are picked up as a delayed signal. You can see this for yourself by simply changing from a felt mat to a Sorbothane mat. The sound is deader and lacks a certain "life" with the Sorbothane. Years ago, there was a Canadian mat sold called the "Platter Matter" (AKA, the Dumpa mat-bad name!) Their literature had lots of nice oscilloscope photos showing the ringing that occurs in an undamped LP from the act of playing the record. There is also the component of reverberation from the sound from the speakers impinging on the record and causing it to vibrate. Again, the more the mat damps the record, the less the effect. And all this is added to the original material on the master tapes. CD's do not suffer (benefit?) from either effect.
so you use which component (Advents modded, Onkyo amp, or ?) to color your picture?I do agree with the good digital player aurally painting a perfect pic in very black silent space analogy.
My current favorite is a pair of modded Advents on 16" stands, an NAD C320BEE integrated amp, Rotel RCD-971 CD player, and an Onkyo T-4087 tuner. 32' cables of 12 gauge, fine strand "rope lay" SoundKing ($0.39/ft), and 12" custom made interconnects (25 pF).I alternate the Advents and NAD with my modded JBL L-110's (sealed cabinets, Advent Legacy woofer, low DCR inductor on woofer)and the Onkyo Integra A-8190 integrated. The rest is the same.
The Advents are smoother, more accurate, and go lower in the bass by 1/3 octave. They have a more natural sound and a more distant perspective. But the JBL's are more forward, more punchy, and more lively and sometimes I like that for a while, but always end up going back to the Advents.
I have two pair of Advents and occasionally go to Double Advents (stacked vertically), but with the mods, the Doubles are not as good as they were in stock form. I have considered rewiring the rear switch to allow going from stock to modded crossovers to optimize the Doubles, but I live in a multi-unit condo and the bass can be obtrusive.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: