sfogg
-
Posts
4029 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by sfogg
-
-
"There seemed to be alot of gain added to the recording. Reynolds can play."
Yes, he can. If you haven't heard it check out the double CD of 'Live at Luther College' as well.
Shawn
P.S. The above CDs are *stunning* in L7, most would swear it was discrete multi-channel.
-
"Music, ESPECIALLY from LPs, is 2 channel only (forget quad LPs for
now)and often sounds pretty poor when played back through 5.1."Yes, that is why I stopped using my analog rig.
Shawn
-
511Bs are for 1" throats. The same horn with the proper throat for the 288 is the 511E. They are rare and hard to find though.
803Bs
Shawn
will be very large horns. 300hz cutoff with an 80x40 dispersion
pattern. I used my 288s on 805Bs. Same dispersion but smaller with a
500hz cutoff. They are fun horns, they have a big sound to them. -
If you like the cartridge there is really no reason to swap it out.
The spec I saw on the Stanton said it was 2.5mv of output. If you
wanted it to be louder you would want a cartridge with more output then
that. Some Grados for example are rated for 5mv of output. If the specs
are accurate the Grado would be 6dB louder.The other option is a higher gain phono stage. With that you have the possibility of more noise though too.
Shawn -
I have used the288-8k, very nice drivers. Make sure you use them with a 1.4" horn. If you are using them in a three way Cornscala push the tweeter crossover up high. I crossed at 8k to JBL 2404s and that worked out well.
Shawn
-
"Thus far, Dave Matthews hasn't invited me to any of their recording sessions, and I am not holding my breath!"
You should check out his BluRay with Tim Reynolds at Radio City Music hall in a full surround system.
Shawn
-
Dave,
"I do not consider NAB (for tape) or RIAA and compression (for records) to be "artifacts." They are simple facts of the medium."
RIAA is part of the format, and where some of the phase shift comes from.
But adding expansion on playback has nothing to do with it. It is a limitation of the format you are working around.(Question for the thread...) How many others in this thread with vinyl rigs are using dynamic expansion on playback?
"I define artifacts as audible deficeincies of the medium that cannot be corrected but can be heard by a listener."
We have different definitions of artifacts. To me an artifact is something that one needs to correct if they can or live with if they can't. Vinyl has both, that some of the artifacts are pleasing to listeners is why some prefer vinyl over other playback mediums.
"do not agree that any format at its leading edge will not sound the same to all but an insignificant number of audio savants who could also probably hear the difference in two Stradivari, one with gut from one animal and the other with gut from a sibling animal on a different diet. "
You are in the minority that think there is no audible difference between CD and vinyl.
Shawn -
Dave,
"I was just talking analog, period. "
Kind of a broad thing to talk about since this discussion was about vinyl vs. CD. Not all analog is the same, compare a dictation tape against R2R for example. Just like not all digital is the same 8 bit at 22kHz sampling rate is very different then 16bit at 44.1kHz.
" I use DBX to correct the compression of vinyl (and tape as well) just like all record users use RIAA to correct the EQ. Doing so with a first class LP eliminates all noise and compression from them, at least all that I can hear (though I may be deaf).
I cannot say that you might not hear some "vinyl" artifact that I do not, but I can say I don't care as long as I don't. "
Why use the DBX to correct the compression of vinyl (and tape) if you don't hear any artifacts of vinyl playback?
If you hear the compression of vinyl, and use the DBX to try and deal with that, then you agree with the statement that vinyl and CD playback don't sound the same.
Shawn -
Assuming you are using a phono input on the Yamaha then it is just from the difference in gain of the phono stage and the output of your cartridge.
Shawn
-
"However, it makes no sense to me for you to state premise B if premise A is false."
Very simple, vinyl playback will add its own sound to the playback. As you have found well done digital is transparent.
So you take a master and put it on vinyl and on CD. The vinyl adds it own sound, CD doesn't. Therefor vinyl and CD sound different on playback even from the same master.
You then take the vinyl playback and put it through a A/D-D/A chain. The digital chain is passing through the sound of vinyl. Compare the vinyl playback vs. the vinyl through A/D-D/A and they will sound the same.
"If Canyonman and I can achieve these results it follows that the "pros" are missing something when their release material doesn't measure up."
You are talking tape, I'm talking vinyl.
Shawn -
Dave,
"I do not understand your first premise."
What I meant was if you took a master and put it on vinyl and also used the same master to make a CD then compared the resulting vinyl to the CD they would not sound the same.
"While I agree with your last sentence (I've blind A/B'd such with qualified listeners with 100% unable to tell the difference)"
Glad you have tried that, it is an interesting experiment. It has been done numerous times with results that echo yours.Shawn
-
"Are you saying they are some sort of aberration in vinyl that's not in digital?"
There are several. Don mentioned the channel seperation. There is also a phase shift between channels (which varies by frequency as I recall) that introduces sort of like a crude low level form of interaural cross cancelation, this is part of where vinyls depth/imaging/soundstaging comes from. The phase response isn't all that linear either and FR varies with cartridges/phono stages.
Mechanical resonances can almost act like low levels of added reverb. Almost always bass on vinyl is corrolated/mono (either mixed that way or the mic layout results in it being recorded that way) for better tracking of the cartridge. For the most part this practice has carried straight over to digital as well but it doesn't need to be this way. The high end and low end are typically not as extended as digital, noise floor is higher.
Vinyl has its own sound.
Shawn -
Nope, I sold my vinyl rig awhile back.
Shawn
-
The CD sounds flat in comparison because it doesn't have the phase differences introduced between L/R that is part and parcel of vinyl playback.
Shawn
-
"Properly done, there should be no difference in a first class LP of a string quartet and a version in digital format. "
That won't be the case.
Where
Shawn
you could have no difference is recording the vinyl playback to digital
and then comparing that against the vinyl. Or putting an A/D-D/A chain
in the vinyl playback vs. not there at all. -
The discussion on dynamics was from the quote you posted. That discussion was really about the differences in mixes.
There
Shawn
are other factors having to do with the sound of vinyl too. The phase
difference between L/R is what gives the depth/ambience to vinyl for
example. -
Pete,
"but I have always been able to get a better sound (in my opinion) from
analog. I have tried several cd players and several
turntables/preamp/cartridge combinations. "Enjoy it then. Vinyl has its own sound that is enjoyable and many like. It also appeals to the hands on aspect in changing cartridges, phono pre-amps, alignment...etc...etc... that lets one tune the sound in more to their tastes. Digital basically lacks that hands on aspect to dialing it all in.
Shawn
-
"When a vinyl master is cut from a master tape, compression (or gain
riding) is always used because even 30 year old 8 track master tapes
posess more dynamic range than the vinyl can take. Unless the CD is
being intentionally mastered for max loudness, less stereo bus
compression will be used."But
that is the point, on a lot of CDs they are mixed for max loudness.
Where on the vinyl they basically know the systems that is going to
still be playing back vinyl are going to be quality systems. It may be
mixed differently there.Its kind of like difference
Shawn
between soundtracks on LD and DVD. DVD technically has better sound
quality then anything LD could do. However there are a number of movies
out there that the LD soundtrack simply blows away the same movie on
DVD. Sometimes even with the LD being 2 channel Dolby Surround vs.
multi-channel on the DVD. The reason for this was LD was a niche market
and only in good systems. Soundtracks were mastered for that. DVD is
the everyman format and on some movies were mixed/mastered taking that
into consideration too. -
"but I still HEAR a difference when I compare cables. "
Try comparing them blindfolded when you don't know what you are listening too.
The problem the cable club has with this is that everything somebody does this they fail to be able to hear any differences in the cables except in the extreme cases of cables having very wacky RLC values.
Shawn
-
Don,
"However, whoever in the audio press that wrote that a vinyl version of a Roy Orbison recording has "wider dynamics" than the CD version isn't going to get any respect from me. Besides the fact that there is no such thing as "wider dynamics", a CD has about twice the dynamic range of vinyl, 96 dB vs 50 dB."
How can't a recording have wider dynamics? Take one recording then put it through a dynamic compressor and compare it to the original. The original has what some might call wider dynamics.
CD of course has the potential for greater dynamic range. But if the vinyl and the CD are from different mixes (which they probably are....) then as far as which has the wider dynamic range for that album then all bets are off. Too many people automatically assume differences in sound are just due to the delivery format without considering the very real potential differences in mixes.Shawn
-
Dave,
"I understand what you said, but I didn't get your point.
Certainly an LP is analog all they way. However, it is still several layers of abstraction from the trumpet. A digital recording of a trumpet is also an abstraction layer."
I think we basically agree.
An analog recording of a trumpet is just one way of representing parts of the original. It is not the same thing as the original trumpet.
A digital recording of a trumpet is just another way of representing parts of the original. It is not the same thing as the original trumpet.
A trumpet isn't analog or digital, it is a trumpet.Shawn
-
"I don't do the digital/analog debate as it's dumb (ever hear a digital trumpet? It all starts out analog and arrives as analog)"
Analog is a representation of what the trumpet plays, it is not the same thing.
That is the very definition of analog.
Shawn -
Last time I talked to GP (years ago) they were only making the heavier type diaphragms for the 902s. The voice coil on them is larger so it can handle more heat/power.
Shawn
-
Altec with the lighter A type diaphragm in it.
Shawn
Why is my digital outperforming my analog?
in 2-Channel Home Audio
Posted
Dave,
"I've found that poor performance on Dolby PLII from stereo LP is limited to poorly mixed records where phase has been seriously fouled up. "
That was not my experience, vinyl was consistently less stable and didn't 'opened up' as well as the digital version when using surround. The poor phase performance and lower channel separation likely played a role in this. Actually I'm sure phase had a fair amount to do with it as if I turned off the auto azimuth correction in the processor it got worse.
"DPLII is the first cicuit I've found that does the job equal to the Hafler passive. "
Yes, PLII does do a nice job. Have your heard Lexicon's Logic 7 or Meridian's Trifield? Those are both very good too.
Shawn