philipbarrett Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 I can't agree that vinyl and analog tape is superior in any way to properly done digital. There is no superior or inferior just different. One person is thrilled to find digital because they no longer have to listen to the noise & degradation of analog. Another is prepared to overlook the obvious limitations of analog and finds digital reproduction fatiguing. In 1985 you were prepared to overlook some horrific mastering mistakes and crude digital signal chains because the advantages outweighed the drawbacks to your mind. Others would not agree but nobody is wrong. Imagine how we used to feel, listening to our recordings for months only to get the released album home and hear so much of what we knew to be there was missing? But I also remember looking in a CD store with a producer one lunchtime and finding a release of a famous musical he'd produced. "Pretty scary" he mused, "the master tapes are in my house!" Also, I said above let's be sure and compare apples to apples, 192K/24bit digital playback is a long way from 44.1K/16bit. As is an old cassette mix tape from a good LP on a well made turntable. Before you get too smug about your lack of degradation over time with digital, that only applies if you're playing back from a hard drive based system. With a CD player you're dealing with microscopic physical data and laser alignments. I've seen error correction go through the roof as both players and discs age or get dirty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bracurrie Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 Have you had the opportunity to compare these to the Audioquest Dragonfly, and how does the latter compare? Thanks. No I haven't. However Pure Music would work with Dragonfly as the audio engine that does the heavy lifting where Dragonfly is the DAC at the end. The Focusrite audio interface is a 2 in 4 out ADC/DAC to handle analog inputs plus 4 output channels to drive my biamped speaker system. It was selected for its low cost and simple operation to see if the computer driven all digital front end was doable and what it sounded like. IMHO it sounds fantastic. There probably is an audio interface ADC/DAC out there that might be better, but I am focused on the problem of finding a Mac AudioUnit Audio processing plug-in that takes biquad calculations for the creation of EQ filters. I'll bet Dragonfly is a great device by the reviews I have read. The trick is to avoid sloppy audio engines like the one in ITunes and it doesn't do that. BTW the Van Alstine DAC sounded great when I used it direct to drive my Forte IIs. Its the DAC to preamp to the digital DSP for crossover and EQ to amps path that sounds inferior IMO to the all digital front end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bracurrie Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 I can't agree that vinyl and analog tape is superior in any way to properly done digital. There is no superior or inferior just different. One person is thrilled to find digital because they no longer have to listen to the noise & degradation of analog. Another is prepared to overlook the obvious limitations of analog and finds digital reproduction fatiguing. In 1985 you were prepared to overlook some horrific mastering mistakes and crude digital signal chains because the advantages outweighed the drawbacks to your mind. Others would not agree but nobody is wrong. Imagine how we used to feel, listening to our recordings for months only to get the released album home and hear so much of what we knew to be there was missing? But I also remember looking in a CD store with a producer one lunchtime and finding a release of a famous musical he'd produced. "Pretty scary" he mused, "the master tapes are in my house!" Also, I said above let's be sure and compare apples to apples, 192K/24bit digital playback is a long way from 44.1K/16bit. As is an old cassette mix tape from a good LP on a well made turntable. Before you get too smug about your lack of degradation over time with digital, that only applies if you're playing back from a hard drive based system. With a CD player you're dealing with microscopic physical data and laser alignments. I've seen error correction go through the roof as both players and discs age or get dirty. Richard, would you say that CD data is of a sample rate high enough in quality to be acceptable? Assuming you get a complete rip.Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artto Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 I think a number of factors have contributed to the decline of the hifi industry. Most of which can be laid at their's and the record label's own doors. 1) Volume, volume, volume, and no I'm not talking about turning it up! The good mid-level manufacturers cannibalized their own brands to bring down price points and shift more units, this coincided perfectly with the rise of the big box retailers. In turn this eliminated the specialty high street stores and turned an educational and aspirational experience which hopefully led to a lifetime of sales into a on-off high pressure transaction. This business model is now failing under the weight of online retailing and I would hazard to guess that the large majority of systems are now sold without ever being heard or seen. 2) Pear Cables; OK I've singled them out but they are a perfect symptom to describe where the industry has gone. A consumer can see the value in amplifiers, speakers and players but then to be told that unless they spend another $1,000 on cables their system will not sound it's best will have even the most interested prospect running to Costco. Then there's little wood blocks and carpet insulators... 3) Music as background; we've come full circle, popular music started out as a disposable medium (which is why no one ever thought about rights), it became a more long-term product in the late 60s until the early 80s (I know there are exceptions but before pointing them out Google "Billboard #1 hits, 1973") but is once again relegated to disposability. To most modern listeners it's background, they like the hit and then move onto the next one. Although your typical Stereophile reader probably buys music to listen to their system, most consumers buy a system to listen to their music. Without compelling music the sale is lost. 4) Audio Quality (1); speaking as a pro-audio mixer it stinks! I know I'm preaching to the choir but everyday I hear "hit" records with actual identifiable problems, stuff that would have not made it past the cutting lathe when I started. This is in addition to the multiband compression that ensures everything sounds louder than everything else on every playback medium except a decent stereo system. So why own a decent stereo system at all? 5) Audio Quality (2); we have a generation of producers and engineers who have grown up never hearing a good playback system. Many in my industry get all grumpy old man about this (most of us came into the business through an interest in home systems) but I can't blame the newcomers. With the demise of the local hifi store where are they supposed to be exposed to anything beyond a Bose Lifestyle or ear buds. Combine that with marketers (and Jimmy Iovine who's made some of the worst sounding records known to man) who've convinced them that the truly atrocious Beats headphones are the ultimate in fidelity monitoring. 6) Audio Quality (3); the demise of the big studio. Big studios had big control rooms, they had to, they had big consoles and big tape machines to fit in there. Consequently they had big studio monitors which were used for most of the recording process alongside the veritable Auratone for a quick reference. In the 80s large systems were starting to be augmented by desktop monitors (the infamous Yamaha NS-10) which engineers felt gave a better reference to the increasingly poorer quality home systems people were using. Fast forward to today, most of the big studios are gone as are their fantastic monitoring systems. Music today is mixed on smaller reference monitors that are incapable of the big open soundscapes of the JBLs, Tannoys, Uries, Eastlakes and such and therefore produce music uniquely tailored to sound good on them. 7) A brief and unique moment in time; The early gramophone really took off when it became portable as the new found freedom of the automobile combined perfectly with a wind-up suitcase player and a handfull of 78s. For the first time in history music required no musicians and it was portable. Serious home stereo didn't really come into being until the 1950s and event then were highly expensive, targeted at a small segment of the community and outsold by a hundred and one brands of cheap semi-portable record players. Like popular music, the 60s and 70s were the heyday of the home hifi (no coincidence that my 3rd point is at the same time period) but by the early 80s and the Sony Walkman it started going portable again. CD Walkmans alleviated the problems of creating your own cassettes and gave you a better quality medium that could be used on all your systems. The iPod was inevitable and like the HMV player of the 20s the return to portable (albeit with your entire music collection on board) was complete. I have news for you, the heyday is not coming back. People are too attuned to listening to what they want, where they want, when they want. 8) Competition; Back in the hifi glory days it was music, music, music. Video games were a gleam in a BASIC programmers eye, TV was 4 channels without anyway of saving or time shifting, sports fandom as a lifestyle did not exist, casual dining as a way of life had yet to appear, the list goes on. People have many more entertainment options to spend their money on and music is now just one of those options. The dollars are there but spread much thinner. So there you go. My very personal opinion and blinkered view from the inside. I agree. BBC's Fawlty Towers: Hotel Owner Sybil Fawlty: "And turn down that racket!!" Her husband Basil Fawlty (John Cleese) "WHAT?! You want me to turn down Brahm's Third Racket?!" The reality is, "Audio" is a very personal thing. It's probably a good that high-end audio (and "Luxury" audio - whatever the hell that is) are going to the grave and everything is moving towards portable personal audio which seems to me was the original ultimate objective of recorded sound anyway so you could play it anywhere anytime, anything you wanted to. Quite honestly I know the day is soon coming where my dedicated acoustically tuned listen room with all its high-end components will be have to be given up for headphones connected to whatever and a vibrator chair for a subwoofer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boxx Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 I can't agree that vinyl and analog tape is superior in any way to properly done digital. There is no superior or inferior just different. One person is thrilled to find digital because they no longer have to listen to the noise & degradation of analog. Another is prepared to overlook the obvious limitations of analog and finds digital reproduction fatiguing. In 1985 you were prepared to overlook some horrific mastering mistakes and crude digital signal chains because the advantages outweighed the drawbacks to your mind. Others would not agree but nobody is wrong. Imagine how we used to feel, listening to our recordings for months only to get the released album home and hear so much of what we knew to be there was missing? But I also remember looking in a CD store with a producer one lunchtime and finding a release of a famous musical he'd produced. "Pretty scary" he mused, "the master tapes are in my house!" Also, I said above let's be sure and compare apples to apples, 192K/24bit digital playback is a long way from 44.1K/16bit. As is an old cassette mix tape from a good LP on a well made turntable. Before you get too smug about your lack of degradation over time with digital, that only applies if you're playing back from a hard drive based system. With a CD player you're dealing with microscopic physical data and laser alignments. I've seen error correction go through the roof as both players and discs age or get dirty. Very well said.... [Y] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 With a CD player you're dealing with microscopic physical data and laser alignments. I've seen error correction go through the roof as both players and discs age or get dirty. CD player laser alignment is no big issue with a player in good shape. DVDs hold at least 5 times the information as a CD the same physical size and they have no inherent problems with tracking. The only CDs that have problems with ageing are the ones that are burned on a computer - commercially produced discs are stamped and have an indefinite life. Dirty discs can be cleaned or polished and brought back to new condition, as far as reproduction is concerned. Remember I'm comparing CDs to vinyl records that are very delicate, and scratches on an LP cannot be polished so as to make them inaudible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 Richard, would you say that CD data is of a sample rate high enough in quality to be acceptable? Assuming you get a complete rip. If the CD is carefully recorded and mastered it is quite acceptable. Is it as technically as perfect as the 96/24 studio equipment? Of course not, it is a consumer format, not a professional format, but on most home/autosound systems you probably couldn't hear the difference. But we Klipschheads do not have average home systems so higher resolution digital formats could be audibly "better" for us with some types of music. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bracurrie Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 But we Klipschheads do not have average home systems so higher resolution digital formats could be audibly "better" for us with some types of music. Indeed, I find myself selecting the best recordings to listen to most often. Even then the over produced studio music while high in quality are lifeless and that really shows with an accurate repro system. Some of the best blend of performance and quality seem to be the big band recordings of the late 50s and early 60s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Lindsey Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 The other problem with analog sources is degradation. Any time a record is played the stylus damages the grooves. Certain stylus profiles and careful setup of the tone arm will minimize the damage, but it still occurs every time a record is played. I can't tell you how many times I've heard this over the years, and am still waiting to experience it myself. I have numerous albums that were purchased in the mid 70's, and have been played hundreds of times on 4 or 5 different tables, different arms and different cartridges. I can honestly say they still sound amazing on my 50 plus year old table and 27 year old tonearm. Most of them better than anything I've ever heard from redbook CD and SACD. Now I have some very good recordings on DVD-Audio that compare, as well as BlueRay, but I have yet to hear anything on redbook CD that has ever impressed or moved me. Yeah it's crisp, and sure it's clean, but it has never sucked me in and just made me want to sit down in the sweet spot and listen to it. Great recorded vinyl, however, does that to me. Just one mans differing opinion. :-) Regardless of the medium, enjoy the music... Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dmitry Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Seems to me that Roy Acuff had it right when he said the best cut is the first. I think it was Talleyrand who, when tutoring young diplomats, advised them never to act upon their first instinct, because usually the first instinct is the most honest one... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 The other problem with analog sources is degradation. Any time a record is played the stylus damages the grooves. Certain stylus profiles and careful setup of the tone arm will minimize the damage, but it still occurs every time a record is played. I can't tell you how many times I've heard this over the years, and am still waiting to experience it myself. I have numerous albums that were purchased in the mid 70's, and have been played hundreds of times on 4 or 5 different tables, different arms and different cartridges. I can honestly say they still sound amazing on my 50 plus year old table and 27 year old tonearm. Most of them better than anything I've ever heard from redbook CD and SACD. Now I have some very good recordings on DVD-Audio that compare, as well as BlueRay, but I have yet to hear anything on redbook CD that has ever impressed or moved me. Yeah it's crisp, and sure it's clean, but it has never sucked me in and just made me want to sit down in the sweet spot and listen to it. Great recorded vinyl, however, does that to me. Just one mans differing opinion. :-) Regardless of the medium, enjoy the music... Mike Mike, You haven't experienced it because its not true in any real world serious LP users situation... the level that a properly setup or even mildly improperly setup cartridge/arm setup lays down on a LP is very small...the type of degradation they are referencing is in the land of old $15 record players that children used years ago. Us serious LP listeners do not use setups like that and are very careful with our music collection. Heck I spent a good percentage of 3 days setting up my latest cartridge/arm/table setup... I think playing the record actually improves it's sound! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipbarrett Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 I think playing the record actually improves it's sound! My father who is a huge collector of classical album (25,000 and counting) claims that to be true. If often plays new (to him) purchases through a couple of times to "clean out the grooves." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 Philip's point about cables and other add-ons is particularly well taken as evidenced by the latest catalog I just received from Mapleshade Records. Even my wife, while looking through it and coming across things like trestles to raise cables off the carpet to prevent supposed sonic degradation, looked at me and said "this guy has to be joking!" I wonder how much of that kind of stuff is sold these days. You think the cable risers are a joke if you have not seen a Mapleshade Stem to Stern rebuilt and modified Scott you would really choke up some Java .... I've re-rebuilt about 20 of them so far... The actual passive preamp modification is neat and ultra simple....I don't care for its sonic attributes (takes the Scott out of the Scott).. The big issue is the total false advertisment of Stem to Stern rebuilt.....if I didn't know the technician involved I'd think he was a "un-named local technician" [] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 You haven't experienced it because its not true in any real world serious LP users situation... the level that a properly setup or even mildly improperly setup cartridge/arm setup lays down on a LP is very small...the type of degradation they are referencing is in the land of old $15 record players that children used years ago. Us serious LP listeners do not use setups like that and are very careful with our music collection. Heck I spent a good percentage of 3 days setting up my latest cartridge/arm/table setup... I think playing the record actually improves it's sound! Hogwash. When I played records years ago I was very careful to set everything up properly and keep the records and stylus squeaky clean, ultimately to no avail. No matter what I did the records got noisier the more they were played. The noisier they got, the less I enjoyed them. Vinyl is not the most stable polymer out there and will eventually degrade over time. Maybe then you will think the sound improves even more. Enjoy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 I think playing the record actually improves it's sound! My father who is a huge collector of classical album (25,000 and counting) claims that to be true. If often plays new (to him) purchases through a couple of times to "clean out the grooves." I'm doing it to some recent LP's purchases right now.... it's very true! I'd be surprised with a properly setup rig a 100 plays has enough degradation to be measurable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boxx Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 The other problem with analog sources is degradation. Any time a record is played the stylus damages the grooves. Certain stylus profiles and careful setup of the tone arm will minimize the damage, but it still occurs every time a record is played. I can't tell you how many times I've heard this over the years, and am still waiting to experience it myself. I have numerous albums that were purchased in the mid 70's, and have been played hundreds of times on 4 or 5 different tables, different arms and different cartridges. I can honestly say they still sound amazing on my 50 plus year old table and 27 year old tonearm. Most of them better than anything I've ever heard from redbook CD and SACD. Now I have some very good recordings on DVD-Audio that compare, as well as BlueRay, but I have yet to hear anything on redbook CD that has ever impressed or moved me. Yeah it's crisp, and sure it's clean, but it has never sucked me in and just made me want to sit down in the sweet spot and listen to it. Great recorded vinyl, however, does that to me. Just one mans differing opinion. :-) Regardless of the medium, enjoy the music... Mike Mike, You haven't experienced it because its not true in any real world serious LP users situation... the level that a properly setup or even mildly improperly setup cartridge/arm setup lays down on a LP is very small...the type of degradation they are referencing is in the land of old $15 record players that children used years ago. Us serious LP listeners do not use setups like that and are very careful with our music collection. Heck I spent a good percentage of 3 days setting up my latest cartridge/arm/table setup... I think playing the record actually improves it's sound! With most of my favorite lp's, I record them to tape (reel to reel). In many case the result is better than the lp recording. I do this also with cd's. The play back, imo, is superior than the original cd recording. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 With most of my favorite lp's, I record them to tape (reel to reel). In many case the result is better than the lp recording. I do this also with cd's. The play back, imo, is superior than the original cd recording. So then, according to what you say, a recording is better than the original performance. That is a ridiculous assertion. With most of my favorite lp's, I record them to tape (reel to reel). In many case the result is better sounds different than the lp recording, but I prefer it anyway. I do this also with cd's. The play back is superior different than the original cd recording and I prefer it. Erroneous statements corrected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dmitry Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 With most of my favorite lp's, I record them to tape (reel to reel). In many case the result is better than the lp recording. I do this also with cd's. The play back, imo, is superior than the original cd recording. Yep. I know the feeling. Photo of the Mona Lisa I took at the Louvre with my phone camera looks a heckofalot better than the original. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boxx Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 With most of my favorite lp's, I record them to tape (reel to reel). In many case the result is better than the lp recording. I do this also with cd's. The play back, imo, is superior than the original cd recording. So then, according to what you say, a recording is better than the original performance. That is a ridiculous assertion. With most of my favorite lp's, I record them to tape (reel to reel). In many case the result is better sounds different than the lp recording, but I prefer it anyway. I do this also with cd's. The play back is superior different than the original cd recording and I prefer it. Erroneous statements corrected. Response: So then, according to what you say, a recording is better than the original performance. That is a ridiculous assertion. That is what you think I said. What I hear, coming through (in most cases) my gear, sounds (and feels) better. Technically, the specs on the digital recordings would make on think it is far superior in sound reproduction, but what I hear in most cases is less than what one would expect. I don't see my opinion as being a "ridiculous assertion." Secondly: With most of my favorite lp's, I record them to tape (reel to reel). In many case the result is better sounds different than the lp recording, but I prefer it anyway. I do this also with cd's. The play back is superior different than the original cd recording and I prefer it. I stand behind my original statement and I'll steal Dave's quote on his page. "If it sounds good, it IS good!" ( Duke Ellington). Additionally, my opinion is that it results in better and superior quality when played back on my gear. I would like to think that my gear makes it possible for some pretty accurate recordings to be auditioned. Also, I think it is pretty clear that all of this is based upon my opinion. Your editing of my post is somewhat over-the-line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boxx Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 With most of my favorite lp's, I record them to tape (reel to reel). In many case the result is better than the lp recording. I do this also with cd's. The play back, imo, is superior than the original cd recording. Yep. I know the feeling. Photo of the Mona Lisa I took at the Louvre with my phone camera looks a heckofalot better than the original. Bravo.... 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.