ChrisK Posted May 30, 2002 Share Posted May 30, 2002 Finally brought my Turntable home from the dealer last night. Here are the specs: Clearaudio Champion Level 1 with - RB 250 ST w/Clearaudio mods - "Six Stream" internal wiring and cable - Benz Micro Ace MC cart (lowest output) - Dust Cover I've been using a MMF 2.1 as a loaner for the last 4 weeks. Interesting sidebar - Had some friends over Memorial Weekend for a BBQ. One of the husbands noticed the turntable in my rack and commented, "I haven't seen one of those in use for awhile. I asked him to sit down and take a listen. Put Patricia Barber's "Modern Cool" in both the CDP and on the TT. Then cued up "Light My Fire" on both. Played the CD version for a minute (He commented on how nice it sounded.), then switched to the TT for 30 sec., then back to the CD again before finishing on the TT. His jaw dropped. He said "It's like you took a blanket off the speakers when you switched to the turntable. Oh really? We continued this for a while with a couple of other records I have on CD. Same reaction. Mind you this was a $200 TT compared to a $1,000 CDP. Last night after hooking up my Clearaudio and doing the same comparison, it was a case of OH MY GAWD! How can you go back to CD after hearing this? I think a recent interview with Neil Young put it best, "A CD is a reconstruction of the sound. It's not even a clone. It's more like a toy or a robot, just a sting of ones and zeros, whereas analog recording is a true reflection, like a pool or a mirror. Imagine telling Picasso, 'That's a nice painting; now we're going to fax it to the public.' There's no doubt in my mind that this is why the industry is failing." Chris ------------------ 2 channel Klipsch Cornwalls (1978) Velodyne HGS10 Sub Cary CAD 300SEI amp (WE 300B's, various NOS 6SN7's) Arcam Alpha MCD cd player Accuphase T-101 Tuner Clearaudio Champion TT Rega RB300 arm (quint wire) Benz MicroAce Cartridge EAR Phono Stage HT Klipsch KG2.5 (front & rear) Klipsch KV2 (center) Klipsch SW12 (sub) Marantz SR7000 receiver Toshiba DTS DVD JVC SVHS VCR Sony Hi8 VCRs> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted May 30, 2002 Share Posted May 30, 2002 Interesting story concerning the vinyl. I have tried that same test with people many, many times and in almost every single case, have met with the same awe and complete surprise at how different the two presentations are. Good analog has a sense of ease and naturalness, as well as RESOLUTION that digital does not embrace. Granted, you need to have your analog rig set up properly, but the difference is not subtle. Of course, a poor TT and cartridge setup with a bad phono stage can sound as pedestrian as a French organ grinder with a monkey in Central Park. Still, good analog beats good digital 99% of the time. Unfortunately, most have not taken care of their turntables or cartridges, not to mention the mediocre phono stages. Still.... The difference between good analog and digital is almost akin to the difference between tubes and solid state amplification. No, the sounds are not the same, but the relative nature is pretty intact here. Yet, it is quite nice to have a good digital rig and the ease and convienence is highly addictive. And digital HAS come a long way. But you have to HEAR good analog again to know this difference. And once you do, it is hard to give it up and go back with the same attitude. Neil Young has been one of the main proponents of keeping analog alive as he has kept LPs flowing as well. Ditto for the Indie/college music sector - they kept vinyl alive and well in the 80s-90s. That is a really interesting quote by Young. Sounds like you have a great setup now. The EAR phono preamp is a nice one as well. kh ------------------ Phono Linn LP-12 Vahalla / Linn Basic Plus / Sumiko Blue Point CD Player Rega Planet Preamp Cary Audio SLP-70 w/Phono Modified Amplifier Welborne Labs 2A3 Moondog Monoblocks Cable DIYCable Superlative / Twisted Cross Connect Speaker 1977 Klipsch Cornwall I w/Alnico & Type B Crossover system one online / alternate components / Asylum Listing f>s> This message has been edited by mobile homeless on 05-30-2002 at 10:16 AM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxg Posted May 30, 2002 Share Posted May 30, 2002 Welcome back Kelly!!! Been awful quiet around here lately - hopefully this is a sign of a resurection of the board. CJK - congrats on the TT. Had exactly the same experience deming the TT verses the CD with my father. You should have seen his face when we switched over to the vinyl - he thought I was fooling him. The amazing thing was that he had the same reaction switching from SACD to vinyl. This was a real disappointment to me - I have spent a lot on SACD disks (70 of them). Anyway I have had my TT (a humble Pro-ject) for about 2 months and never, repeat never, listen to either CD or SACD except when doing comparisons for friends. Actually I cant listen to SACD anymore - I sold the player and the disks are next! ------------------ My System: http://aca.gr/pop_maxg.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted May 30, 2002 Share Posted May 30, 2002 Well, one thing seems to be evident; ALL SACD players are not created equal. Of course, this comes as no surprise really. Listening to the average DVD machine under $1000 in two channel mode brings pain to my ears. Dropping $500 on a SACD player might better be spent down the line when the format matures are evolves. For a long time, certain publications spouted that all CD players sounded the same as bits were bits. There are still quite a few that still feel the same about this. Many of those same crew would think analog is alive as the Algoasaurus... These fiends need to sell more of their records and start convincing others of the same ilk to do likewise. All Things Must Pass.... kh ------------------ Phono Linn LP-12 Vahalla / Linn Basic Plus / Sumiko Blue Point CD Player Rega Planet Preamp Cary Audio SLP-70 w/Phono Modified Amplifier Welborne Labs 2A3 Moondog Monoblocks Cable DIYCable Superlative / Twisted Cross Connect Speaker 1977 Klipsch Cornwall I w/Alnico & Type B Crossover system one online / alternate components / Asylum Listing f>s> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Songer Posted May 30, 2002 Share Posted May 30, 2002 I have given up even trying to defend the many virtues of vinyl for the most part. But Sunday I was invited to a party where the host was showing off his new $65,000 home theatre. He put on a 5.1 mix of something (Eagles maybe?) and it sounded so bad it made me sick. I asked him where the turtable was (in a joking manner) and he said "you're not one of those idiots who've deluded himself to think that vinyl is better than digital are you?" After I told him his system sounded like **** the conversation was over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted May 30, 2002 Share Posted May 30, 2002 I have never heard more of an assault on all things musical then the average person's Home Theater system anchored by mediocre solid state. Indeed, these are some of the worst sounding systems I have ever heard music wise; yet the owners, who have often spent very large amounts of money, seem to think otherwise. With Cannon blasts and explosions as references, there are smiles to be had everywhere. What can you say? I usually just say, "Man, it sounds great" and let it go at that. How can you start? Where do you start? I have not heard a 5.1 system that I thought kept the music intact yet. Sure, they have exhibited impressive features, but when you get down to the ability to draw you in late at night...or to convey the emotion behind the music with the essence and soul (as well as tone)...well, it's just not there, at least as far as my experience. You have to almost adjust the way you listen in this instance. The patrons of these kinds of systems are a hard sell as well. And when it comes right down to it, they are just as happy with their system as I am my approach. kh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hetmann Posted May 30, 2002 Share Posted May 30, 2002 While I can't add much to the vinyl debate, I can second that my HT setup isn't great for music. I have a big Denon receiver and all Klipsch speakers (various models of KG). Love it for movies, but usually want to get up and do something else when listening to music. "Live" setting is best, but still not as engaging as a great 2-channel setup. I do have an old turntable put away in it's box. Fairly nice heavy Kenwood (concrete with big heavy metal platter) of mid 70's vintage with a strobe etc. How would you guys approach determining if it is worth keeping and using or scrapping. I have some old favorites on vinyl I haven't heard in years. ------------------ Klipschorns and Moondogs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike stehr Posted May 30, 2002 Share Posted May 30, 2002 Home Theater is like a Boom Stereo for the home. (Though I am going to watch the Harry Potter DVD... But it's in two channel!!!) Oh well, shoot me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted May 30, 2002 Share Posted May 30, 2002 Hetmann I'm very familiar with that table. I had the one two models up with the black lacquer finish. It's actually a pretty decent rig for the money. Why not fire her up and see what shes got? Mike Would you believe that's what I just got done doing with my kids? Sounded pretty darn good on my wimpy 2-channel tube rig Deanf>s> Cary AE-25f>s>SuperAmpf>s> - Sonic Frontiers Line 1 - Sony DVP-S9000ES - Klipsch RF7's SVS 20-39 CS Plus - Samson S1000 - HSU Research elec. crossover - MIT/Monsters f>s> Inside every small problem is a large problem struggling to get outf>c>s>-- 2nd Law of Blissful Ignorancef>s>c> This message has been edited by deang on 05-30-2002 at 11:00 PM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted May 30, 2002 Share Posted May 30, 2002 Harry Potter???? Lord... kh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted May 30, 2002 Share Posted May 30, 2002 Kelly, I feel the recent generation DACs are very good. Until recently, I would have never even remotely considered a Sony machine. When you get some time I would pleased if you would read the review I wrote for the Sony DVP-S9000ES at the Asylum. I copied the post to this site here You might also find the following three threads interesting (they are short). http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/hirez/messages/76576.html http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/hirez/messages/75315.html http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/hirez/messages/70968.html ------------------ Deanf>s> Cary AE-25f>s>SuperAmpf>s> - Sonic Frontiers Line 1 - Sony DVP-S9000ES - Klipsch RF7's SVS 20-39 CS Plus - Samson S1000 - HSU Research elec. crossover - MIT/Monsters f>s> Inside every small problem is a large problem struggling to get outf>c>s>-- 2nd Law of Blissful Ignorancef>s>c> This message has been edited by deang on 05-31-2002 at 01:36 AM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted May 31, 2002 Share Posted May 31, 2002 Sometime in the late '70's when CD's were first being introduced, a music therapist in old folks homes somewhere in the NW (I believe) by the name of Diamond wrote an article for Stereo Review. It was the first questioning of "perfect sound forever" I ever read. What Diamond noticed was that the oldsters did not react the same to the CD's, even though it was the same music, that they had to analog. They did not quiet down and listen, and seemed bored. As the guy had no bone to pick nor horse in the technological race, he kicked up quite a storm. The debate raged for a few months, but the "analog is dead, get over it" crowd eventually shouted it down and this debate pretty much disappeared for the next 10 years or so. However, as more music lovers and audiophiles experienced the same phenomenon, often kicking and screaming, it has re-emerged. As I've said elsewhere in the forum, I do not believe it is the nature of digital itself that is at fault. My own location digital recordings, mastered in 44.1/16, are as satisfying to my ears as my vinyl. However, only a handful of commercially released CD's out of a couple of hundred I own get even close. I've put together a few rules I think worthy of debate and experiment to see if you agree. 1. A cheap turntable (properly set up and in good condition) will sound MUCH better than a cheap CD player. >'nuf said...just try it. 2. A 500.00 computer/soundcard will sound better than a 500.00 CD player. >A Terratec or better (Card Deluxe is perhaps the best) soundcard in refurb 300mhz or better computer (less than 200) will provide CD playback equal to or better than a dedicated CD player at twice the price. Further, ripping CD's to WAV files (without transcoding!) is far more convenient than handling CD's. 3. Something happens in the commercail chain to what probably started out as a really fine recording. >Actually, probably a number of things. I don't know what...I just know that my own 16/44.1 recordings made with a 1000.00 DAT deck sound better than their studio-produced discs. 4. It isn't just vinyl, 78's and reel-to-reel recordings also sound better than the majority of CD's. >In either medium, thier is a sense of space, and open, airy MUSICALITY that seems to be absent from most CD's. Anyway, there you have it. I've had people react exactly as all you have described above, including to 78 rpm material. This phenomenon is real. It is not imagined. I do not care where good music comes from, as long as it does. It took me 20 years to finally become convinced of these things...but if you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Dave ------------------ David A. Mallett Average system component age: 30 years. Performance: 21rst Century Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted May 31, 2002 Share Posted May 31, 2002 Sorry... In the post above, grandiose statement 2., I meant to say "...soundcard in refurb 300mhz or better computer (less than 200.00 from many sources on the net)..." ------------------ David A. Mallett Average system component age: 30 years. Performance: 21rst Century Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted May 31, 2002 Share Posted May 31, 2002 Generally either agree or have no evidence to disagree with mdeneen on this. However, regardless of the numbers, separation on an LP can appear to be near absolute. Revolver is an example. Ping-Ping if I ever heard it. Same holds true for Firesign Theatre LP's and many others. Heck, I get startling sounds from BEHIND me with FT at times using nothing but the old Hafler passive DynaQuad unit. One approach to testing your theory would be to record a CD to a top-end reel to reel. You'd have analog, and then could apply the other tweaks. "The truth is out there" I certainly agree there is nothing wrong with digital in theory, and often point out that we had 100 years to perfect analog but only a couple of decades with digital. Dave ------------------ David A. Mallett Average system component age: 30 years. Performance: 21rst Century Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clipped and Shorn Posted May 31, 2002 Share Posted May 31, 2002 I am an avid LP collector, however, my main motivation is that I can get a lot of bang for the buck at local thrift stores where I can find 50 LPs at a time in mint condition for less than $0.50 each. Most of the mint ones are classical box sets. However I do find other jazz and interesting things as well. Personally I think the trade off between the sound of CDs and LPs kind of balances itself out, what with the occasional surface noise on LPs due to various states of imperfection (age, dust, slight abrasions, etc.) and the relatively clean sound of CDs and their convenience. I particularly like CDs for the convenience of obtaining whole sets of obscure material (old 78s, or even old cylinders, say) reissued onto CD, the ability to use the remote especially for looping while transcribing at the piano, and when new material is only available on CDs. I like LPs for the very reasons mdeneen has outlined and often get into the nostalgic state of enjoying vintage 50s LPs (Sauter-Finegan orchestra not reissued on CD etc. or original Dexter Gordon Blue Notes) with the tubes glowing. I have slowed down enough to embrace the ritual of cleaning the LPs, cleaning the stylus, and lifting the arm when the side is over, etc. My point is that all of the available media has its use, 78s, cassettes, CDs, 10" LPs, 12" LPs,....maybe not 8-track tapes .... I did an album of original music in '86, recorded on 1" tape, analog, Ampex,16 track, Neuman microphones, Steinway Grand, etc. When we got to mixing it was advised that in addition to listening to the mix on the great studio monitors that we also check the mix on a cheap boombox and other low end systems because that is how many would be hearing it. Years later I would hear reports about how customers enjoyed the music on their car radio tape decks. I think this point has something to do with mdeneen's comments above. Among my collector friends who collect obscure latin music and jazz there seems to be general agreement that the more you improve your sound system the worse these old records sound. Again there should even be a switch on the preamp for "dumbing down" the sound of certain LPs and 78s. All of this is to say that the Audiophile hobby starts to diverge from the music listening/studying hobby at certain points and the more expensive the sound system the fewer things you can enjoy on it compared to the whole gamut of what is out there in the history of recorded music. Thus, the guy with that 1 Million dollar system maybe has two special LPs he can listen to, and that might just be some special audiophile potboiler recording....I am just exaggerating to be silly,...so don't read me the riot act.....I just like to extrapolate to the absurd....it is my nature..... .,....like the special diet plan I am selling. A special nutritional powder. The more weight you want to loose the more it cost, and the less powder in the box....If you want to disappear, it cost an infinite amount, and I sell you nothing..... -Amwayed and Shakleed ------------------ Cornwalls currently upgrading to all tube components Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted May 31, 2002 Share Posted May 31, 2002 Dave >>What Diamond noticed was that the oldsters did not react the same to the CD's, even though it was the same music, that they had to analog. They did not quiet down and listen, and seemed bored.<< Considering just how bad PCM sounded during that time frame -- this should not surprise us. It wasnt just our imaginations, it sounded very bad. PCM is not a loss-less technology like vinyl, and it has taken PCM 20 years to become listenable.f>s> >>sound-card in refurbished 200mhz or better computer (less than 200) will provide CD playback equal to or better than a dedicated CD player at twice the price. Further, ripping CD's to WAV files (without transcoding!) is far more convenient than handling CD's.<< To rip CDs to WAV files still entails handling CDs. Also, WAV files are still just 0s and 1s and I fail to see how this process gives you more than what you started with. That is, you start with a certain amount of binary information and you end with the same amount of binary information. I guess I dont fully understand. On another note, how does this process compare to a player at 2 times the price? I would be really interested in more detail regarding the equipment, software, and exact process you undertake to achieve the results you describe (Im not always the brightest light in the chandelier). What do you mean by "transcoding".f>s> mdeneen >>I have no doubt the reports above are true. Which is to say, most LPs sound better than most CDs on most systemsthe most common proposition is that "digital is just ones and zeros which lack a certain soul, and LPs are the REAL music represented in an analog wave and this more soulful<< The reasoning is that PCM doesnt really translate or utilize ALL of the information available from the source. Evidently, it would take more binary information than CD can store in order to accurately represent all of the analog information. There is considerable compression. At least, this is my understanding.f>s> >>LPs of the Golden Era - say the 50s and 60s - were generally made from much simpler micing techniques than CDs made today. So, for instance, a nice jazz ensemble recorded in '56 might have used 5 or 6 mics simply placed and recorded direct to the master tape. Mixing would then be a rather simple task. Today, that same recording would use 25 mics, a digital console, massive over dubbing, and very complicated mixing including having musicians play the parts at different times, in different studios and on different media, which get assembled later.<< I think this would also apply to recordings made through most of the 70s. I think your latter statement regarding the complexity of more recent recording methods along with the inherent limitations of the PCM process, worked together to account for the shear awfulness of most CDs over the last 20 years. The learning curve for Recording Engineers must have also been immense. Simply to many changes in the process at one time. What I believe however, is that advancements in the technology utilized by the studios coupled with more extensive experience has led to some very good current PCM recordings. I have purchased many of the new 20 bit (and more) remasters of discs originally released in the early 80s and they are a substantial improvement. A few are inferior remixes but they have almost no discernible grain.f>s> >>The LP technology, compared to CD technology has a) less dynamic range narrower frequency response c) higher noise level d) less channel separation and e) an inability to remain stable in some of the modern playback environments. I cant imagine a table trying to track accurately in my listening room with my playback habits. Higher than normal SPLs and the powerful pressure waves from my sub would present a virtual nightmare to any table and arm combination. You can only isolate so much. >>and LP is very comparable in this regard to today's "FM Stereo Broadcast" specificationsYesterday, C&S reports to me how "wonderful" his McIntosh MR65 tuner has been sounding compared to his various other sources of LP, 78 and so on. And I start thinking, "Hmmmm, yes, my MR-71 sounds very nice too." He goes on to ask, "Why is that?"<< Dont forget about all the strange things FM stations do to those signals. We know they boost the lows and highs considerably.f>s> >>what might account for our LP preference is this: Just the right FR balance, not too much "stereo effect" (closer to mono), This would make it similar to today's FM. Also, since the sessions were generally miced in a more natural way, and since there was a distinct lack of processing on the boards, a more inherently "natural" sound on the master tape. A better recording to start with.<< I think the emphasis should be on the word "balanced". Not in how it relates to imaging, sound-staging, or separation but simply in the sense of how the top and bottom of the frequency spectrum relate to each other.f>s> >>Many CDs are gimmicked up. Why? Because they can.<< I think for the longest time they sounded the way they did was because they were mixed to sound good on boom-boxes, and not high-end, accurate stereo systems.f>s> >>What really happens when you try to record up to 20KHz - and you end up with a lot of "sizzle" on the recording that is generally TOTALLY missing from LPs?<< I dont anything happens when you try to record up to 20KHz. Ive been playing around with a test disc and SPL meter recently, I found out that I cannot hear anything above 15KHz. The 15KHz test tone is non-existent to my ears. So the fact that CDs can really go to 20KHz is inconsequential as far as my hearing is concerned. However, the older CD releases still sound quite hot on top. I think they were boosting the levels between 8 and 12KHz to enhance playback on systems not capable of accurate reproduction.f>s> >>And, in real performances filtered out of the air by the woman's flowered hat in front of you..<< Yes, this woman is everywhere. I hate that women in the hat.f>s> >>if you have tone controls on your preamp, try playing a CD, and shaping it more like an FM broadcast. Cut the bass a bit starting at 50Hz. Cut the highs starting at 10 or 12KHz. Blend the two channels back together a bit to get less "stereo separation." Does it sound closer to the LP?<< I would be simply amazed if an FM broadcast even goes to 12KHz. I say if one likes the older music - just stick with vinyl. If one likes much of the newer stuff (early 90's and forward), just go ahead and stay with CD because it has gotten so much better that it has pretty much closed the gap, and then of course there is SACD. Between the new PCM releases, reissues of slightly older material redone with 20 bit and more, SACD, and the quality of sound I'm hearing from the new DACs -- the temptation to go back to vinyl just isn't there for me anymore.f>s> This message has been edited by deang on 05-31-2002 at 02:13 PM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boa12 Posted May 31, 2002 Share Posted May 31, 2002 md, i think it's relative. a 16bit cd or even a dts 96/24 dvd could be considered very lossy compared to the meridian lossless packaging, dvd-audio format. guess it's a matter of whether what is lost in the compression really matters or not. ------------------ My Home Systems Page Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisK Posted May 31, 2002 Author Share Posted May 31, 2002 MD - You brought up some excellent points. I could easily agrue with either side on this issue. (analog/digital) It's just that I've experienced the diferences now. I have to say, from what I've heard so far, analog sounds more like a accurate reproduction of a musical performance than does digital. That being said, just like there is a market for "... an artist who had taken great color photographs of the area's charm and then ran them through a PhotoShop watercolor filter and printed them out on watercolor paper...", there's nothing wrong with liking digital sound better. In fact, my wife's grandfather was a semi-famous artist who would paint 4'x5' photo negatives and then develop them for sale. They looked great. Were they accurate reproductions of the original subjects? Of course not. They were never supposed to be. I guess for me, it just comes back to an accurate as possible reproduction of a musical performance. I think it's the grooves. Isn't digital, by definition, finite? Whereas analog is not? Thanks, Chris ------------------ 2 channel Klipsch Cornwalls (1978) Cary CAD 300SEI amp (WE 300B's, various NOS 6SN7's) Arcam Alpha MCD cd player Accuphase T-101 Tuner Clearaudio Champion TT Rega RB250 ST arm (Six Stream wire and cable) Benz MicroAce Cartridge EAR Phono Stage HT Klipsch KG2.5 (front & rear) Klipsch KV2 (center) Klipsch SW12 (sub) Marantz SR7000 receiver Toshiba DTS DVD JVC SVHS VCR Sony Hi8 VCRs> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted May 31, 2002 Share Posted May 31, 2002 Deang: Amazing how much gets lost in email..either that or just how badly I write! >To rip CDs to WAV files still entails handling CDs. Not sure what you are commenting on here. If there is a point here, it's that you can put your CD's away and don't have to handle them. >Also, WAV files are still just 0s and 1s and I fail to see how this process gives you more than what you started with. That is, you start with a certain amount of binary information and you end with the same amount of binary information. I guess I dont fully understand. Perhaps I didn't explain well. You have EXACTLY what you started with, nothing more. See below for more on this. > On another note, how does this process compare to a player at 2 times the price? I would be really interested in more detail regarding the equipment, software, and exact process you undertake to achieve the results you describe (Im not always the brightest light in the chandelier). Your mileage may vary. What I am suggesting is that when you by, say, a Card Deluxe at 500.00, you are getting much more than if you have to buy a case, power supply, transport, etc. made by a high-end audio outfit. The Card Deluxe was compared directly to a 15,000.00 Levinson DAC in (believe it or not), $tereophile. It is my opinion that you can build a better sounding CD player using a computer at much less cost than buying a dedicated CD player. >That do you mean by "transcoding". Simplistically, re-wording of a sound file. I only use programs that change only the file type, not the information, and bypass the soundcard entirely. Dithering from 24/96 to 16/44.1 would be an example of transcoding. Right now I am using CDEx, which is free and really very nice. As to the rest addressed mdeneen, I've problems with some of your logic. However, I can dodge that as it was not addressed to me:-> However...if your levels are high enough to affect a turntable on a proper pedestal (with at least a 150 lbs. or so of gravel in it) your hearing is probably at risk. Be careful...no fun being an audiophile with bad ears. Dave ------------------ David A. Mallett Average system component age: 30 years. Performance: 21rst Century Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clipped and Shorn Posted June 1, 2002 Share Posted June 1, 2002 Physiologically speaking, can human ears really even detect the difference between a wave form produced by a stylus bouncing around in some grooves and a Fourier-like digital synthesis of that same wave source, when human eyes, for example, cannot even sort out 16 still photos a second (silent speed in old projectors) without thinking they have seen "motion" that appears to be identical to real-life motion? Considering how quickly human perceptions form unalterable gestalt closures on limited sensory information, I rather doubt we can decipher the differences between waves produced digitally and analogistically. It is something else that accounts for these preferences between CDs and Vinyl, something else we think we are hearing. It is not the interface between the basic physics and the basic physiology that we are preceiving, that is indecipherable, IMHO. -101ed and 102ed ------------------ Cornwalls currently upgrading to all tube components Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.