|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
218.186.11.2
I just got through catching up on Stereophile and read Fremer's article about the Kuzma XL table (which I own so my bias is now upfront). I can live with his review as his review just fine but I really don't like the idea that he uses CDR's that he's recorded from his table (Continuum) and the Kuzma and then plays these to people who then judge the quality of the tables. It seems to me that this introduces an additional interaction effect that Fremer doesn't seem to appreciate -- that is, there may be differential effects attributable to the interaction of the various TT's and the CDR recording process. Given that he talks about one table having apparent versus genuine detail I'm not really convinced that he's used a proper comparison approach.Is there a view out there about this type of review comparison (using TT's recorded onto CDR and then judging the table's quality based on the CDR)? It seems that this is not a very good way to compare tables or judge a given table's efficacy.
Follow Ups:
And yes .... I do feel better (Thank You Very Much). And, who gives a flying leap at a donut what some sainted ragmag bozo does? Or even said individual's reviews. Y'all can argue up and down, back and forth (sh*t, even side to side). About testing, eval, and CDR's made from the Rockolaspaceport.Does anyone even listen to music via their turntables anymore? Between the endless cleaning bullsh*t, and co-inkydinky complaints about vinyl not being fully automagic. I'm beginning to think the thread (of life/vinyl/analog music) is being lost.
Either one has a turntable and supporting system, that lets them enjoy music. Or they do not. And digital has absolutely NOTHING to do with that. Never has (no laugh required). Never will. The continued propagation of this Fremer stank serves noone. And most certainly not the music.
I don't really know whether or not I enjoy music, on my rig more than others (though I have my suspicions). But I can say for me, it is not about the ephemera, the minutiae, the balderdash, or any/all of the recurring Steeriopile nonsene. Nor is it for me about comparing, ranking, or competing topologies/designs [as if by magic such will bring me any closer to the groove (though it may get me purdier equipment to go with my lighter wallet)].
I say find, buy, build, or borrow a turntable that lets YOU, the Vinyl Asylum inmate, enjoy music. Get YOU some records (not CDR's Danke Schoen), add some liquid refreshment (or a spotta tea). And let the analog waveform caress your heart, while you flow down the river analog, to musicville. All else is caca/doodoo :-)
would be manufacturers designing and building turntables. That render well in CDR format. And in turn Mikey saying he likes it [turntable under review (via CDR)]. And then we all end up back in Julian Hirschville, circa 1972 (staring/salivating at oscilloscope screen shots/captures).Homey don't play that game. Music via vinyl can have a transcendent quality that defies quantification/qualification. And can even be borne of the most rudimentary player/system [contrary to many of the tenets of some of the mainstream press (new/fancy/complex/expensive/exotic/revised)].
And while yes, certainly it can take a little time, effort, patience, and work. To get the analog cornucopia to spill the sweet notes. I can't see giving up before hearing the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards rendition of Coronet Carillon, and being washed over by the burnished glow.
> What were we talking about again? :-)Music! And how it sounds exactly the same on CD-R as it sounds on vinyl.
the whole point of LP over CD is that CD misses a lot of the detail so it is absurb to compare TTs and LPs via CD. I could not believe he was doing this when he started it a few years ago.
You obviously have never heard a digital copy of a vinyl LP made from your own turntable, especially using an Alesis Masterlink. I don't think you'll find any missing details.
> > I don't think you'll find any missing details.Of course you won't find them. That's what "missing" means! ;-)
From John Elisons CD's, it is entirely valid to get a comparative impression of cartridges and tables from CDs, whether or not the sound is identical, it is good enough to tell significant differences and the vinyl CDs sound great
but I would prefer a substantially higher rez recording. We live in an era where side by side comparisons are just about extinct.
All things being equal, it should work. If the copies are good enough, one should be able to hear the differences. This assumes setting up for a comparison as if you are going to listen to the equipment directly, and copying to CD instead and listening afterwards. It should be even easier comparing, 'cause all you have to do is switch CDs in the player. I'm not sure I would do it that way, but I can see where it could work. You could listen on headphones if you want to rule out room accoustics. ( opinions are like ***holes-everybody has one, right? )
I have used CD-Rs to evalute a number of things such as phono stages, tube rolling in phono stages, TT mats, TT supports, TT cover up or down or off, etc. They can be extremely effective for this, as the CD-Rs I make are virtually indistinguishable from the original vinyl when played back on a top-rate CDP; the latter is very important for this.However, I am intercomparing different things in my system, changing only one thing at a time. I have found that acoustic feedback can be extremely important. You cannot eliminate it if your TT is subject to the sound coming from the speakers. Period. You can reduce it to near-inaudibility, but if your speakers are playing at volumes typical of most listening sessions, a careful comparison of CD-Rs made with the speakers on and off can be instructive. So, the "sound" of a TT can depend on its sensitivity to acoustic feedback plus the acoustic environment in which it is situated, which depends on the volume of the sound coming from the speakers, the support stand for the TT, and even the arm and cartridge sensitivity to acoustic feedback. There is no way you can really know what a TT will sound like in your room or how TTs will compare in your room without listening to them there. Different TTs will sound different from one another in different ways in different acoustic environments. That said, I'm sure that CD-Rs of different TTs can reveal some different characteristics of different TTs, but I think they can only serve as a guide.
Incidentally, one might think that the ideal set-up would be to completely acoustically isolate a TT from the sound produced by the speakers. I knew someone who had his TT in another room in order to do this. However, some people have argued that part of the charm of vinyl sound is provided by the acoustic feedback, giving the sound an extra "something" - perhaps warmth. It is instructive to hear CD-Rs made with the speakers on and off, as I said above.
How many Stereophile's readers will notice the basic flaw of this testing (i.e. that reviewers listened to their CD player/CD-R interaction, not turntable)? Who cares, as long as advertisers pay hefty sums. Money is not comming from magazine circullation anyways.Using CD-Rs to fine tune one's turntable (i.e. making recording before and after) is handy, using it to compare different equipment is plainly wrong in my opinion.
I am an enthusiastic user or CD burner, but it has it's severe limitations.
Just my $0.02
If not then it would seem to me that the idea is flawed. One is not hearing the TT, but a representation of the TT based on the performance of the source. The source may range from vastly inferior to vastly superior.
Consider how a cheap TT might sound if a cdr of its performance were played back over a state of the art CDP. I would think that the SOTA cdp might make the cheap TT sound much better than it actually does. In the same way a cheap cdp or dvd player might make the sound of a high quality TT sound much more worse than it really is.
IMO this has about as much validity as hearing a component in an audio showroom and thinking it will sound the same in your system at home which is made up of different components than the showroom system. There are too many variables at play in each of these practices for an accurate outcome.
Life has lots of trials and lots of music to help us through them.
A state of the art CD/DVD player should not change the sound of the cdr at all, if anything, it will be more revealing of the turntable.
If both cdr's are played on the same equipment, all is equal.I would think, if using same cartridge, same wire in tonearms, same cable up to the recorder in each turntable, and comparing each with same Lp, this should all be equal.
What would the variables be?
is that to audition a piece of equipment,you need to listen to it.Im this case you would be listening to the cdp,not the TT.
enjoy,
mark
If there's a reason to review a CDP, then there must be a difference between them. This may help or hurt any given recording of a TT.On the other hand, CDR's of TT's can give you a good idea of what different rigs sound like, and that's a plus since most of us won't be able to audition multiple tables in a practical way.
and it was remarkable.At a Stereophile show, I walked in ad sat at the back. The most incredible recording of Roy Orbison was playing. I asked if the turntable was playing then looked over and saw the LaLuce platter spinning but the arm was raised. I said to my friend "I bet it's a CDR from the Rockport." It sounded like the Rockport had been described. I did not know Fremer was in the room. Moments later he got up from the front row, collected his Rockport CDR and left.
...of one of his rockport cd-r's, and it *is* amazing.while the cd-r comparison may not be perfect, it is a great way to understand differences between setups. we all know that switching up analog front-ends take a while, and during that time our memory of what really happened may fade. the cd-r preserves the experience and then allows one who is so inclined to do a/b comparisons any time they wish.
will it sound exactly like vinyl? not quite (though close). will the cdp be a factor? of course.
will all the analog sources face the same treatment during both recording and playback? absolutely.
that if the change is so subtle as to be forgotten whether there is a difference or not then why even bother with the change.If I had a CDR and was troubleshooting an issue I would use the CDR approach. If you working out an issue I guess this makes sense but changing out the entire rig? For a change so subtle as to be not noticed except through such tiny investigation?
Are we talking about the return ratio on what large amount of $$$? If the difference is that small then what is the 'worth' of that difference. To the extreme devotion to perfection I lose my case, and I know that. But for me, a real world user, I would rather see bigger changes that are 'noticeable.'
...is that there is a large difference between a system that gets it 98% right and 99% right. that is where the magic is -- in that last level of detail. it's the difference between me thinking, "hey, this sounds great" and *feeling* emotionally connected to the music.of course, costs can rise exponentially and the value of that is completely subjective. is it worth it? only an individual can answer that for him/herself.
for what it's worth, i have often found that most people perceive "different" as "better" (initially). these kinds of changes come on strong, but they are not necessarily supplying long-term satisfaction. as i've moved "up" in audio pursuits, most changes have been subtle, but they are quite significant in long-term refinement.
the one point your argument misses is how to handle comparisons made over a long-term period.
one can agree with you and, say, study analog source A...then in a matter of hours (or the next day) replace it with source B. however, what happens when you want to compare source N with source A? what if 6 months or 2 years has elapsed?
you are assuming that one is always comparing to the item immediately prior. it gets more complex when you add more than 2 components in the mix and increase the time.
also, while i would never "review" a component by CDR, i *would* find something like the following valuable:
if some mythical person owned every company's flagship cartridge and offered to play a few tracks from several records with each cartridge on the same arm/table and record all cartridges onto on CDR, then i could get a *relative* sense of the differences between the cartridges.would this indicate exactly how a cartridge would perform on a different table/arm/room/etc? no. but it might help understand the differences before making an investment.
if some mythical person owned every company's flagship cartridge and
offered to play a few tracks from several records with each cartridge on
the same arm/table and record all cartridges onto on CDR, then i could get
a *relative* sense of the differences between the cartridges.I agree with you and that would be a valuable comparison. So would we all chip in? ;-) There should be a cartridge 'institution' like the RIAA. a dotORG. The table should be one single table and arm for all time, as you indicate. I think I know just the person we can hire to do all the burning.
...fremer did send his CDR of the rockport around for free for a while, which was cool.at one point, i made a cd where i recorded an original & reissue of a 1950s jazz album and sent that around. i mixed up the tracks and didn't tell folks which was which until later.
I'm using a friend's Tascam CDR lately, but for a different reason. I used to make cassette tapes to give to friends, not dubs of LPs, but compilations from various sources. LP, CD. tape, etc.I suppose that a CDR can help with evaluation of equipment--but I have a different goal, which is to share music with people I love. I give 'em to friends. I worked for three radio stations and eight record stores, and putting songs together is something I was learning to do........
Radio stations, mainly, don't work that way anymore. And I suppose that a CDR can help an individual choose among a number of pieces of equipment. But I don't see you commenting about audio gear. I look at your posts on account of the software you have to share. I'll take more records over a better system, anyday. Don't even know--or care about--your system, but your records, yeow!
i just think that the equipment is secondary. when i'm not focusing on the music, there's something wrong. i guess i'm just happy that my system got to a point where it disappeared.you should post more of your records, too! sounds like you probably have some great selections. i love getting inspiration of new things to try, or a nudge to play something i haven't thought about in a while.
sharing CDRs is a *very* cool thing! i've made a few CDRs for folks who wanted music that was not available on CD -- and just for kicks i made 2 versions using different cartridges. these were not 'audiophiles', but they could hear a difference.
Only 'cuz I make a LOT of cd's from LP's...I'm also a bit of a tweaker when it comes to my TT.Whenever I make a noteworthy tweak and I REALLY want to hear what going on, I yank out the HHB 850 standalone cd recorder + a Mitsui Gold Audio Master blank and make a recording.
Typically, its MUCH easier to hear changes through a CDP than your TT.
To me, here's the reason: the output from your CDP is much stronger, typically, than from the phono preamp. because of this, its easier to crank up the signal and really listen deep into the recording.
My guess is Fremer has gear WAY better than mine and this happens better for him.
On a side note, I have a CD burned from a BPT modded Alesis Masterlink. Its the most incredible cd i own, and the owner of BPT sends it out with every purchase from him.
If you guys don't have the BPT demo disc, you are missing out.
matt
sort of like judging the taste of chocolate cake by freeze drying it then filming someone eating it.
you may kiss the dick ring.
nt
A few years ago John Elison was kind enough to send me CDRs of various cartridges playing the same records. That made it possible for me to compare recordings made by a Dynavector XV-1, Shure V15VxMR and AT OC9ML/II.While I don't for a minute think that it was a complete comparison and that I heard "everything" that those cartridges had to offer, it was enough that I was able to judge differences in sound between them.
To base the review of a TT on CDR comparisons doesn't seem right however as it is the subtlest of details that makes the difference.
I don't think CDR recordings capture the "soul" of the device very well.
--
Al G
Born To Tinker!
> I don't think CDR recordings capture the "soul" of the device very well.You are probably quite correct! I don't think the Masterlink was ever designed to capture the "soul" of anything. It is designed to capture electrical signals with utmost accuracy and it seems to copy musical waveforms in a way that is audibly transparent to the original.
...it seems to copy musical waveforms in a way that is audibly transparent to the original.His original review from 2002 is available at SP's website. More recently, he commented on a BPT modified unit in the February 2006 issue. He made compilations from both the stock and modified units and compared them. Fremer prefered the recording from the modified unit. He then sent the compilations to another owner and mastering engineer, Peter McGrath for comment. Without knowing which was which, McGrath correctly identified the recording sourced from the modified unit as sounding "warmer, less edgy, more analog-like."
It seems that transparency can be improved upon.
Mine is as transparent as can be. If you don't hear the slightest difference between the recording and the source, then transparency can not be improved upon.It is quite possible that the BPT modified unit was intended to sound "warm" rather than accurate.
of replacing all the electrolytic caps with more linear ones, adding polystyrene bypass caps to the digital power supply, shielding the interior and wiring with copper foil and ERS cloth, adding a separate power supply for the analog section, replacing circuit board mounted jacks with chassis mounted WBTs, etc. :)
You seem to be inferring that all the mods would make for an accurate sound rather than a warm sound. Based on your description of the mods, I would tend to agree. However, that means you have to disregard the review claiming a "warm" sound as an erroneous review.Take your pick. All I know is that my Masterlink is extremely accurate.
In my experience, the use of more linear capacitors, separation of power supplies for digital and analog sections (as also found in my GamuT CD-1) and the addition of multiple anti-RFI strategies to an audio component results in a less bright, less edgy, smoother sound. I would consider that more faithful.Live music never sounds "clinical" to me.
That I don't think it would be ethical for a reviewer to judge a piece of equipment from a CDR recording.Another point to be made is that a turntable needs to be judged on it's interaction with the room it is playing in and how it deals with the acoustic vibrations contained in that room, something that cannot be done while playing a CDR recorded from a deck that is physically somewhere else.
Thanks again for the CDRs you gave me a few years ago. I learned a lot.
--
Al G
Born To Tinker!
anything else is double talk. drunken gibberish, actually.But, to each his own. ;-)
At 10:15 am on a Tuesday morning I am somewhat sober and trying not to speak in gibberish but...I don't see how a reviewer could possibly review a piece of equipment by only hearing a recording of the gear! That 'aint right!
Lemme pop a couple of vicodin and have a shot of Ezra Brooks and I'll get back to ya!
--
Al G
Born To Tinker!
I could kind of see how a reviewer could do that. I could also see how he would lose control of the car trying to tie his shoe while going 80 mph over the Commodore Barry bridge.How many Vicodin do you have? Mom did teach you to share didn't she?
Henry
We'll make a party out of it.
> That I don't think it would be ethical for a reviewer to judge a piece of equipment from a CDR recording.That's interesting! I'm not sure exactly how ethics come into play here since the only way to judge any piece of audio equipment is with a recording of some type.
> Another point to be made is that a turntable needs to be judged on it's interaction with the room it is
> playing in and how it deals with the acoustic vibrations contained in that room, something that cannot
> be done while playing a CDR recorded from a deck that is physically somewhere else.It really depends on how you make the recording. If you record with speakers off then you don't capture the room interaction, but if you record with speakers on, you capture any acoustic feedback that occurs.
On the other hand, I think there might be advantages to removing the room from the equation, especially for a review. No one has the same room; therefore, do I want to know how my turntable sounds in someone elses room? Or, do I simply want to know how the turntable sounds on its own merrits?
Quite frankly, I do not like acoustic feedback and because of that, I listen to vinyl via CD-R recordings almost exclusively. However, to each his own!
> Thanks again for the CDRs you gave me a few years ago. I learned a lot.
You're entirely welcome!
"That's interesting! I'm not sure exactly how ethics come into play here since the only way to judge any piece of audio equipment is with a recording of some type." . . . played on that table of course!Not with a recording of a recording, however.
Henry
I think Fremer is using an excellent method for comparison. From what I've heard, Fremer uses an Alesis ML-9600 Masterlink. I'm guessing he probably uses Masterlink's 24/96 high-resolution digital capability, which allows digital copies onto ordinary CD-Rs for long-term storage.Based on my experience with the Masterlink, I find that it copies the sound of my turntable so accurately that there is no audible difference between the digital copy and the real thing. It has ruler flat frequency response, linear phase response, and virtually no distortion to speak of. I've used the Masterlink myself to do cartridge comparisons and it works perfectly in that role.
Best regards,
John Elison
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: