Deang Posted September 21, 2002 Share Posted September 21, 2002 Yeah, I agree. I mean, if one does mostly Rock and Metal, there ain't much to lose as far as musical information goes. If you pick up an electric guitar and pluck a note -- you get single tone. That's it. There is very little harmonic information there. Pick up an acoustic guitar and you get a totally different effect. The note actually rings, with lots of sustain. Even things like Elton John, Yes, and the like, used synthesizers for the strings. It's all electronically synthesized (is that the correct spealling - it doesn't look right). I don't think either medium is perfect. Back in the 70's I actually had a pretty nice vinyl rig. I was doing the moving coil bit, and it did sound very good. I will freely admit that CD for the most part over the last 20 year has sucked. It certainly didn't deliver -- and I was duped, along with most audiophiles. However, I think the medium is finally delivering some musicality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted September 21, 2002 Share Posted September 21, 2002 The LP versus CD debate .... I have something intersting to add. I'm a pretty Avid Springsteen fan and when he released is new Album "The Rising" I went to Best Buy and picked up the CD listened to it for a day or 2 and thought to myself I bet this would really sound great on Vinyl. Well I gave a call to my local record store and asked if it was available and LP. It was !! they had it there for me 2 day's later. Well you know what...I can't tell a bit of difference between the 2 medium's this to me just confirms that CD has come a long way ! The problem is that most of the music I love is from the 70s and 80s and the CD's suck !! So this is why a prefer LP's they just sound better for the music I listen too. I'll tell you one thing for sure if a remastered CD is released of a Band I like you can bet I'll be in line buying it. Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted September 21, 2002 Share Posted September 21, 2002 Totally agree. I have the same problem to a large extent. I graduated in '77, and much of what I like is at least 30 years old. You are right about the remasters too. They are much better than the original CD releases. What amazes me is that it took the recording engineers 20 years to figure out how to record decent sounding CD material. Or is it closer to the truth that the recording equipment has finally caught up to the CD? Probably a little of both going on here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyKubicki Posted September 21, 2002 Author Share Posted September 21, 2002 Dean, it's funny you mention the 5 year warranty. My first CD player (about 10 years ago) was a Nakamichi. My friend who owns an audio store sold it to me then and did an A/B with a Denon, and the Nak blew it away. I bought it, and after about 5 years, it started skipping. Then I bought a Marantz 63 SE. Exactly 5 years later, that started skipping. What is it with 5 years!!?? Yes, the Adcom is smaller...sold to me by the same store. He knew the efficiency of Klipsch and said I didn't need anything stronger. The preamp is SS and it is good quality. You can find it hear . But I will now add to my system a Scott 222D I just purchased, which is in the hands of Craig as we speak. Sony 555 ES? Not on their web site...not a good source of Sony info...none on eBay either Craig, I'm with you as to a lot of my favorite's are also from the same era. But a lot are coming out with remasters...some of the original vinyl was bad as well...Yes on Atlantic, poor quality. ELP, also poor quality. I remember thinking that the beginning of Tarkus was mistracking (vinyl) and was surprized when I bought the CD that it must have been in the tape, cause it's right there in the CD as well! ------------------ Andy 78 Khorns w/ALK (20' apart!) Audire Difet 3 Preamp Adcom GFA 535 II NAD 4130 Tuner Marantz CD 63SE Pioneer DV 434s>c> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted September 21, 2002 Share Posted September 21, 2002 Well, the Sony 555ES is discontinued as well. Sony presented these players to expose the high-end community to SACD. The 555ES and 9000ES audio sections are similiar (but not identical). Crutchfield also has some 555's left. You are going to love the Scott. I'm excited for you. Looks like you have to buy the 9000, or have Mallet coach you through the Super Duper Hi Rez PC CD player (which actually sounds pretty cool) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyKubicki Posted September 21, 2002 Author Share Posted September 21, 2002 Thanks Dean, I don't know about the PC thing for the audio system, but eventually for my recording needs. I just can't see having a PC next to my audio equipment. ------------------ Andy 78 Khorns w/ALK (20' apart!) Audire Difet 3 Preamp Adcom GFA 535 II NAD 4130 Tuner Marantz CD 63SE Pioneer DV 434s>c> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted September 21, 2002 Share Posted September 21, 2002 That's the problem I have with it too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted September 21, 2002 Share Posted September 21, 2002 "What amazes me is that it took the recording engineers 20 years to figure out how to record decent sounding CD material." I have a theory about that. After the mic preamp good digital sound procedures have NOTHING in common with analog. What you had to start with was a bunch of analog engineers suddenly trying to produce in a completely alien medium. After all, it took them a 100 years to "perfect" analog, then suddenly all the rules changed. Not surprising it took them 20 years to unlearn and relearn. As to the audio server, I keep it on the opposite side of my center Cornwall, not so much for asthetics as that I was getting some resonant ringing through my turntable with it near. OTOH, I've heard NONE of the much feared PC noise at any volume level, including full blast with no signal. Dave ------------------ David A. Mallett Come taste muh' Klipsch! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manuel Delaflor Posted September 21, 2002 Share Posted September 21, 2002 The only way I have found to vastly improve the sound of CD's (using any CD player) is with this little marvel: ADE24 Do a search over the Internet, specially on Usenet and see the reviews and user's opinions. The ADE24 can make the sound more convincing. The highs become clearer and less harsh, the mids acquire new life and some details that were some how lost or sounded "fuzzy" become more transparent. Even the bass becomes more natural and convincing. One have to listen to it to believe it, it is a wonderful and yet cheap product. Highly recomended. This message has been edited by Manuel on 09-21-2002 at 08:17 PM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyKubicki Posted September 21, 2002 Author Share Posted September 21, 2002 Well, Manuel, this throws another curve. What are you using this with? I also wonder, if SACD really is better, then will the ADE24 make as noticable difference on that. Seems to me, this would be a good idea as a cheap "fix it" for the player I have now....hmmmmm ------------------ Andy 78 Khorns w/ALK (20' apart!) Audire Difet 3 Preamp Adcom GFA 535 II NAD 4130 Tuner Marantz CD 63SE Pioneer DV 434s>c> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted September 21, 2002 Share Posted September 21, 2002 $200? Count me in. I'm a sucker for an affordable magic box. Honestly, there is no quick fix for a badly recorded CD. I think the 9000ES on it's own is grain free, smooth, without edge or harness -- in short, a very musical piece. The SACD's that I own are outstanding (as long as they are not recorded by Sony - go figure). Don't forget, garbage in, garbage out. It still comes down to what you start out with. No box is a magic bullet for cheap op-amps and other weak parts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willjam Posted September 21, 2002 Share Posted September 21, 2002 As a owner of both a SACD -- 222ES and a Rega Planar 3. I find that I enjoy both. My SACD IMOP is the best CD player I have ever owned. Both of these machines are recent acquisitions. I still have close to 300 LPs and have started a collection of SACDs. I think each have thier merits. But I must say SACD will blow you away with the proper setup. ------------------ Bill J. My Music System Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted September 22, 2002 Share Posted September 22, 2002 I heard the 222 is a good sounding machine, it just doesn't have quite the build quality of the 333, 555, or 9000. Do you have Roger Water's "In the Flesh"? That SACD is killer. I just can't imagine any LP standing up to that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lynnm Posted September 22, 2002 Share Posted September 22, 2002 I sit here typing this as I listen to an overproduced 1962 recording of Gracie Fields singing Three Coins in a Fountain - background chorus and all with strings to puke for! Notwithstanding the BS backup Gracie sounds Glorious What I have learned over time is that within reasonable limits the media format is not nearly as important as the quality of the performance and the quality of the recording . I could ***** and whine all day about the arrangements on that LP,(they aren't actually all that bad but they at times get in the way of Gracie's performance). My point is that as much as I love my LP's - I have to say that although on average good LP's sound superior to most CD's ... I have also discovered that really good CD's are equal to and sometimes better than LP's. Current technology allows for CD's to sound as good or better than anything that has ever been pressed to vinyl. This is demonstrated by various CD's that are released from time to time that when played back through a decent system cause fanatic audiophiles to spend umpety-eleven dollars on a new CD player or amp etc. I am now listening to a Stevie Ray Vaughn LP,(Couldn't Stand The Weather) - I put Gracie to bed - and aside from Stevie's performance - I cannot get enough but I have a CD that features the same performance and cannot bear to listen it because it errrr ummm sounds like hello. I can only assume that the difference lies in the mastering/rerecording process. On the other hand I have some CD's that blow me away because they sound so real. They are not anything technologically special- they are simply glorious to listen to. I must therefore conclude that the quality of the original performance establishes the potential sound quality of a recording but beyond that the quality of the recording/remastering process establishes the actual sound available for reproduction. Given the equipment and technology currently available as compared to what was available as long as 50 years ago it would be reasonable to expect that today's average recording would be better than the best of those produced back then. The reality is that the Best of today's recordings are the equal of and frequently exceed the best of the pre CD recordings but the average run of CD recordings are grossly inferior to LP's. I must assume therefore that the majority of today's recordings are equalised to sound good on ghetto blasters,personal stereos and mini-Hi-Fi's which generally sacrifice accuracy in favour of BOOMING bass and insanely powerful upper midrange. Chapter 2 to follow... ------------------ It is meet to recall that the Great Green Heron rarely flies upside down in the moonlight - (Foo Ling ca.1900) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyKubicki Posted September 22, 2002 Author Share Posted September 22, 2002 My point is that as much as I love my LP's - I have to say that although on average good LP's sound superior to most CD's ... I have also discovered that really good CD's are equal to and sometimes better than LP's. Yes yes yes...though I have not heard my vinyl in years, something has been telling me that what you have said here must be true. In addition, some people can filter vinyl's surface noise mentally, I cannot. Also, are you speaking here of redbook CDs os SACD? If you meant redbook, then how will you experience SACD which is supposed to be an even better technology. I must therefore conclude that the quality of the original performance establishes the potential sound quality of a recording but beyond that the quality of the recording/remastering process establishes the actual sound available for reproduction One other factor that has not been mentioned is the studio's choice of equipment as paired with the job, in other words, what type of mic was selected for a vocal, or to record a piano etc. What other equipment was selected to do the job. It all boils down to the care and devotion of the audio engineers to the task of optimum recording. When CDs first came out, I'm sure all record companies were just in a rush to get everything digitized as quickily as possible, with minimal attention to quality. This was a business decision to try and meet the (our) growing demand to get our favorite groups to CD as quickly as possible. Over the years, much of this has been accomplished, and because we have made it known that the quality sucks, they started remastering, many times under the supervision of the original artists. So this was a combination of a (re)learning process for the engineers while under pressure to get the job done ASAP. This is why I am reluctant to invest in a TT, and would rather focus on a good SACD...though I must admit, there is still a bit of curiosity about vinyl and I might someday find the parts I need to get my B&O back to spinning condition. But my main source (as I see things now) will be the SACD player. ------------------ Andy 78 Khorns w/ALK (20' apart!) Coming soon: Scott 222D Audire Difet 3 Preamp Adcom GFA 535 II NAD 4130 Tuner Marantz CD 63SE Pioneer DV 434s>c> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted September 22, 2002 Share Posted September 22, 2002 Rather than argue that one medium is better than another, what about the COST? I suspect most on the list would not argue that you can get superior LP sound for a lot less than either CD or SACD. Then there is the music...I can get 10 to 20 LP's for the cost of a SACD (assuming there was any material I wanted on SACD, and there is precious little). Further, I cannot even begin to guess the number of titles available on LP that simply aren't, and will never, be available on another medium. I'm still buying 20 LP's for every CD. There are only a few new releases that interest me enough to pay the price, especially when I can experiment with stuff I'd never have paid the full LP price for 20 years ago for 50 cents or a dollar. Granted, there is that issue of of surface noise. Can't say it isn't there, but if the music is truly transcendental I only notice if the needle leaves the groove. Very similar to audience coughs and paper rustle in a concert. It's a little like having bees live in your head...but, there they are! (Firesign Theatre, "I Think We're All Bozos on this Bus"). Dave ------------------ David A. Mallett Come taste muh' Klipsch! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnorv Posted September 22, 2002 Share Posted September 22, 2002 OK, I am willing to bite. Just pulled out my Sony belt drive, SME III, Grace cartridge (10 years old). Does not seem to do much for me. I am willing to throw some money into a cratridge, any suggestions. My 777ES does a much better job at rendering music from old CD's, not to mention how good SACD's sound. I primaraly like old Jazz (Migus, Coltrane, Hawkins, etc). Unfortunately, the Winton brothers don't show up on LP's. J Norvell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manuel Delaflor Posted September 22, 2002 Share Posted September 22, 2002 AndyKub, To my knowledge it only works with CD's not SACD. Im using it to improve the sound of my old Sony CDPC315 (which uses 1 bit pulse D/A) and I just love it. Check on Audioasylum for comments on the unit. Deang, I think you will fall in love with the ADE, give it a try! Reading on Audioasylum I noted that, apparently, no one has given back an ADE once they have listened a CD through it. I understand perfectly why... This message has been edited by Manuel on 09-22-2002 at 08:28 PM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted September 22, 2002 Share Posted September 22, 2002 btw, one of the first such devices designed to improve digital in the analog domain was actually a tube buffer stage made by Musical Fidelity called the X-10D. It was said to remove some harshness and edge to the CD signal when inserted between the player and preamp. I only heard it in one system but it did aid more average CD players. My friend continued to use it with is Tjoeb 99 player but I believe finally nixed the device once he went with the Wright 2A3 / WLA-12 pre / CW system. But with average digital of the kind most have, the little tube buffer stage did a good job. I just dont find them necessary once you have a tube system or better player. Of course, this is different than the approach above although they both do provide a buffer between the player and the preamp. kh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyKubicki Posted September 22, 2002 Author Share Posted September 22, 2002 Dave, you are correct. There are some titles that may never be available, and if I want to listen to these, I will have to have a TT. I overlooked that aspect. As to cost, I'm sure SACDs will come down in price eventually. Manuel, Kelly, I would love to see the output signal on a scope of a good player compared to the output of an average player with an ADE... ------------------ Andy 78 Khorns w/ALK (20' apart!) Coming soon: Scott 222D Audire Difet 3 Preamp Adcom GFA 535 II NAD 4130 Tuner Marantz CD 63SE Pioneer DV 434s>c> 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.