Guest Anonymous Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 Max, I really think what you are missing is TUBES, or TUBE. There is definatly a difference in the air around the instruments, deeper sounstage, better mor natural decay, with a REAL tubestaqge done properly. I am on a hell of a journey for the ultimate in digital eh digivinyl, cause I do not have the room for a TT/Albums/cleaning machine ect, and my wife would KILL ME. She is being unbelievably good with my current obsession, I think I would be putting her over the proverbial hump if I went vinyl now, or in near future. I wish you could be listening to that SACD on any one of my many players. IMHO you would swere it was vinyl, and would not have any other thoughts, other than enjoying the music. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minn_male42 Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 "New technolgy isn't better just because we haven't figured out how to measure its flaws yet." and that means what? and if there aren't flaws? could you suggest any tests to discover this "flaws"? how about suggesting what the flaws are.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben. Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 ---------------- On 11/29/2004 11:15:49 PM minn_male42 wrote: "New technolgy isn't better just because we haven't figured out how to measure its flaws yet." and that means what? and if there aren't flaws? could you suggest any tests to discover this "flaws"? how about suggesting what the flaws are....---------------- Settle down, Russ. You prefer ones and zeros, and I obviously prefer actual waveforms. No need to get your slide rule out of joint. As to your question, if you honestly think that any form of music reproduction is wihtout flaws, than I really don't know what to say. I'm glad you have a perfect system. Maybe it's just my cheap digital player. Perhaps my speakers aren't "digital ready". So many people with good ears and reasonably expressive minds have proclaimed their strong prefence for analog reproduction. Including a vast number of musicians, I might add. The numbers on digital amp salesmen? Those I don't have, but I could guess. Read recording industry publications. You'll see quote after quote that express a dissapointment that it's just not practical to deal with analog waveforms. Good digital (am I really saying this?) is darn good, and close to real. When I heard the original Otari Radar system through a Euphonix desk that Dave Fridmann was Beta testing, I was really floored. Everybody in the room (including a handful of Grammy winners) agreed that the 2-inch tape sounded better. More accurate? The question didn't come up. People who deal with music just deal with the music. The question of quality is much more important. The prevailing sentiment in much of the musically creative world is that it's going to be reduced to digital anyhow, so why spend exponentially more time and money dealing with real waveforms? They've got kids to feed, too. Pro Tools is just that, a tool. It just happens to a tool that isn't all that useful for making music sound more like music, but it sure does help make records in a practical way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Disc Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 Smilin, If it's sounding so darned good, why are you upgrading it already and buying an even MORE expensive unit? I thought you were perfectly happy with it? Now all of a sudden it needs to get upgraded and yet another unit is en route to your place. What gives? - No Disc ---------------- On 11/29/2004 11:14:59 PM smilin wrote: Max, I really think what you are missing is TUBES, or TUBE. There is definatly a difference in the air around the instruments, deeper sounstage, better mor natural decay, with a REAL tubestaqge done properly. I am on a hell of a journey for the ultimate in digital eh digivinyl, cause I do not have the room for a TT/Albums/cleaning machine ect, and my wife would KILL ME. She is being unbelievably good with my current obsession, I think I would be putting her over the proverbial hump if I went vinyl now, or in near future. I wish you could be listening to that SACD on any one of my many players. IMHO you would swere it was vinyl, and would not have any other thoughts, other than enjoying the music. ---------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 ---------------- On 11/30/2004 12:15:29 AM No Disc wrote: Smilin, If it's sounding so darned good, why are you upgrading it already and buying an even MORE expensive unit? I thought you were perfectly happy with it? Now all of a sudden it needs to get upgraded and yet another unit is en route to your place. What gives? - No Disc You have my #'s, call me if you like, I don't bite, I am having fun. It costs you nada to listen, learn, have fun enjoy. Hell, we may even like each other Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Landau Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 Steve, Your digital front end will NEVER sound like analog. Try to compare your digital rig to a turntable that costs the same amount of $ that you'll finally understand that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 ---------------- On 11/30/2004 12:33:18 AM Guy Landau wrote: Steve, Your digital front end will NEVER sound like analog. Try to compare your digital rig to a turntable that costs the same amount of $ that you'll finally understand that. ---------------- Guy, I am glad you Know this, especially with your wonderful digital that you use You really should hear this stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Landau Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 ---------------- On 11/30/2004 12:38:11 AM smilin wrote: Guy, I am glad you Know this, especially with your wonderful digital that you use You really should hear this stuff. ---------------- My wonderful digital that I use was bought after I realized that same thing. I've spent a lot of money on that stuff and had owned and listened to a lot of top $$$ players. I chose "cheap" ($2k retail) digital because no matter how much I've spent on it, it never managed to sound like analog and that's a fact. Last week, I've compared a fully modified SCD-1 to a CEC/Weiss combo and the CEC/Weiss sounded way better playing redbook CD's than the SCD-1 sounded playing sacd's. Later, I've switched to a very nice turntable (that cost about the same), to that system, and didn't even want to switch back to digital. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 ---------------- On 11/30/2004 1:02:30 AM Guy Landau wrote: ---------------- On 11/30/2004 12:38:11 AM smilin wrote: Guy, I am glad you Know this, especially with your wonderful digital that you use http://forums.klipsch.com/idealbb/images/smilies/2.gif"> http://forums.klipsch.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif"> You really should hear this stuff. http://forums.klipsch.com/idealbb/images/smilies/9.gif"> ---------------- My wonderful digital that I use was bought after I realized that same thing. I've spent a lot of money on that stuff and had owned and listened to a lot of top $$$ players. I chose "cheap" ($2k retail) digital because no matter how much I've spent on it, it never managed to sound like analog and that's a fact. Last week, I've compared a fully modified SCD-1 to a CEC/Weiss combo and the CEC/Weiss sounded way better playing redbook CD's than the SCD-1 sounded playing sacd's. Later, I've switched to a very nice turntable (that cost about the same), to that system, and didn't even want to switch back to digital. ---------------- Guy, you have an open invitation. BTW find a store with the Reimyo player, listen, and than tell me what you think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Disc Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 On one hand I understand Steve's situation. He has already decieded that Vinyl is not for him, either becuase of the reasons he gave or just does not have the patience to get the best from Vinyl. So he has elected to get the best from what digital has to offer. I have no problem with that at all. When everthing is said and done, Steve will have the best of what digital has to offer, I don't doubt that. He will not have however, the best of what is possible in a front end system. I personally feel Steve's Journey might end with a bull blown Dan Wright Sony unit, but time will tell. - No Disc ---------------- On 11/30/2004 12:38:11 AM smilin wrote: Guy, I am glad you Know this, especially with your wonderful digital that you use You really should hear this stuff. ---------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dodger Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 When you take voices, some instruments you will have overtones (frequencies) that do not fit the 0,1,2, Thus they may be lost. Analogue allows for all frequencies and overtones to come through. Yes, there is a higher noise floor. Compression is coming through on CDs. For the possibility of a large dynamic range, few are utilizing it. Volumes are all the same little differences between loud and quiet passages. Each CD tries to match the volume levels of other CDs. So the fullness of vinyl can be explained by the technology. Compression on Rock CDs is a fact. On non-rock it also is apparent. As Emeril says "it's not rocket science." dodger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwinr Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 I think SACD is improving all the time, as engineers and producers get round the advantages of the new recording format. But so too are CD's. Recent CD purchases have stunned me with the recording quality. Vinyl is still my favourite, but I'm now spending more time listening to silver discs - around 30% now. That'd be right too, the music industry finally sorts CD, just before they axe it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxg Posted November 30, 2004 Author Share Posted November 30, 2004 Just to clarify what I was listening to. I was listening to the 2 channel SACD layer of the Sony disc in question. In fact there is no CD layer on that disk, nor a multi-channel layer. It is also worth pointing out that I am not doing comparisons with the best of the best vinyl as that would be misleading. Just to explain that statement. Vinyl is as variable in quality as any other medium - possibly more so. I think we have all heard dreadful recordings from the late 70's and early 80's and some of us have heard either new - re-recordings of classics (so called audiophile recordings) and originals from the late 50's and early 60's. In my experience a well done new release of a 60's stereo recording is about as good as it gets. With this in mind all comparisons are done with what I would regard as "middle of the road" vinyl. In other words - probably the best source for actually listening to music. I say this as it is neither so bad that listening is agony and not so good that you spend the time listening to the recording rather than the music. It is in this respect that SACD is somewhat lacking to my ear - and not to any other. Simply listening to the music is less involving and less rewarding. Last night I wrote the initial post whilst listening. After completion of the writing I switched to vinyl - a Philips recording of Gershiwn's Rhapsody in Blue and then a Festival recording of L'Arlesienne. These are perfect examples of middle of the road recordings. I totally forgot about testing and got lost in the music - SACD got left at the sidelines. I think that says something.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Mandaville Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 The same thing is happening.....again. I have learned that I like 3 channels to two alone, but that doesn't mean I can apply that preference to everyone else. It is not possible to say, "I have listened to both, and I thus now know which is better." That statement CAN be made and is 100% valid, IMO, on an individual basis only. I have a friend, near 80 years old now, who has been extremely seriously involved with hi-end audio since it began. He has been devoted to vinyl playback for decades, and told me he couldn't stand CD technology for the majority of time we have had it. That has changed. He had been one of the reviewers for Sony's flagshipe SACD player when it first came out, and told me that he was utterly floored; that indeed in many ways it bettered his very expensive TT and phono stage -- AND did so without the added background distractions of ticks, pops, hiss, etc. The amount of equipment this person has reviewed, listened to, and owned is mind boggling. His favorite amplifier is also a 45 SET, and his preamp is solid state. Tell him that is system is subsequently compromised because of a little careful use of sand and see what happens! What is best for one person, regardless of how much experience, may not be the case for someone else -- and that person is not at all wrong, incorrect, or ignorant because of perhaps not sharing the same opinion. Erik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxg Posted November 30, 2004 Author Share Posted November 30, 2004 Erik, Whilst I agree with what you are saying I am not fully sure why you are saying it. Did I not make it perfectly clear that this was entirely my personal opinion / observations to date? As there are people on this forum who prefer CD over vinyl the fact I prefer vinyl over SACD (to date) should surely be viewed as my own take on the matter. To go a bit further - I think all the opinions expressed thus far are clearly personal opinions, and of course, it is worth stressing that any and all my experiments, limited as they are in methodology, are only applied to classcial music anyway. I have no idea how Rock, for example, compares between SACD, CD and vinyl - it is just not my thing. It is in the nature of the subject that others will think me mad for my choice or for anyone elses choice. In turn people will cite how close they feel one medium or other is to the reality of the experience (listening to a live event) in THEIR opinion. Whilst I am as keen as anyone to control some of the statements of "fact" on this board I would hate it to restrict people's ability to comment on strongly held personal beliefs and experiences to date, even if, at times, they come across with a little too much zeal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minn_male42 Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 I think that we all have different concepts of what "live" music is to us. To me - live music is very dynamic, involving without any added artifacts. When I listen to vinyl, I hear artifacts, I hear compression, and I am hearing a recording. The dynamics of a live performance are not there - I've been to way toooooo many live performances for my ears to be tricked into believing that anything recorded on vinyl with it's limited dynamic range as well as it's limited frequency response is "live". And SACD is not perfect - I never said it was. But the examples that I've heard are definitely more dynamic and without the artifacts that are present even on the best vinyl systems out there. Again - the above is my impression only. YMMV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dodger Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 I have to agree with EdwinR. CDs have vastly improved. Now we are changing technology again. Somehow at this point to ME changes are coming only because of change. As a 2 channel dinosaur, I see the changes in HT, promedia and am at the point of truly wondering when it will end. How many speakers for surround, how many channels ? We switched from Mono to Stereo, which had some drawbacks and some dog ugly sounding Stereo "Re-Issues." Then we had the quad phase. Then we went to CD and a good number of people sold off or threw out their vinyl. We spent our money to build CD collections close to our LP collections. We were enticed that CDs would last forever, there would be so much dynamic range on CDs. We also had mini-CDs. For viewing we had Beta, VHS, Laserdisc, now DVD. But what to put on the DVDs to get people to spend more. Now we're seeing the swell of a wave of another technology. Just because we can. I see a move back to some vinyl. You can't download vinyl. You can't file share. The Industry doesn't know which way to go. At some point the Industry is either going to have to fully re-embrace 2 Channel or let it die completely. People pay for a good high end system. The Industry loses sales because of the sites like the old Napster. But by changing, money is made up. Sony is a mainstay owner of CD companies. They also sell equipment and license various modes of technology. They have also come back with a Turntable line. It makes one slighty dizzy and empties wallets. All in the name of a hobby, a pursuit of true sound. Next we'll mortgage our houses to pay for "the best." At some point the consumers will have to say that this is enough My humble rant and opinions. dodger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben. Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 ---------------- On 11/30/2004 9:25:18 AM minn_male42 wrote: I think that we all have different concepts of what "live" music is to us. To me - live music is very dynamic, involving without any added artifacts. When I listen to vinyl, I hear artifacts, I hear compression, and I am hearing a recording. The dynamics of a live performance are not there - I've been to way toooooo many live performances for my ears to be tricked into believing that anything recorded on vinyl with it's limited dynamic range as well as it's limited frequency response is "live". And SACD is not perfect - I never said it was. But the examples that I've heard are definitely more dynamic and without the artifacts that are present even on the best vinyl systems out there. Again - the above is my impression only. YMMV ---------------- OK, you have your preference. That's great. Just don't try to refute vinyl's viability as a format with criticisms of its specifications. Dynamic range? What's the noise floor in your listening room? Frequency response? Believe me, my analog rig has better frequency response than your or my speakers. Again, I'm not trying to bag on your preferences or anyone elses. I think we've all pretty much covered that ground before here. Just don't resort to sophomoric and erroneus arguments against my preference, and we'll get on just fine. Reasoned and factual arguments I can handle. Then I just bury my head in the sand and proclaim my joy in anachronism. I do own a pretty outdated system, you know. (Other than my TT ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryC Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 ---------------- On 11/30/2004 9:25:18 AM minn_male42 wrote: I think that we all have different concepts of what "live" music is to us. To me - live music is very dynamic, involving without any added artifacts. When I listen to vinyl, I hear artifacts, I hear compression, and I am hearing a recording. The dynamics of a live performance are not there - I've been to way toooooo many live performances for my ears to be tricked into believing that anything recorded on vinyl with it's limited dynamic range as well as it's limited frequency response is "live". And SACD is not perfect - I never said it was. But the examples that I've heard are definitely more dynamic and without the artifacts that are present even on the best vinyl systems out there. Again - the above is my impression only. YMMV ---------------- Minn, For the record, I too have listened to lots of live music all classical and unamplified, at big-hall symphony and choral concerts and, in an organization I belong to, very small groups and soloists from only 1 to 3 rows back. I also played the violin at a much younger age, which probably gives me an edge in listening to that instrument. On my system, I simply don't hear artifacts and compression on vinyl that aren't also present on many CDs. Some CDs' sound has been absolutely shredded by the deconstruction-reconstruction digital process. In addition, CDs for me have a certain ultimate, indefinable wall between the original and their reproduction at home. Oh, I do think that some things like the human voice and bass transients seem to be more accurately reproduced by digital while to me many string and wind instruments are more realistically done done up close by analog vinyl. I'm not sure what you're thinking of in the way of artifacts -- some can listen through clicks and pops and some can't stand them, for instance. I think that top-notch LP equipment can minimize both the ticks and separate them better from the music. But I certainly had a long agonizing search for CD equipment that didn't have a lot of graininess, lack of life, and a hollow dead space in place of spacious, real-world silence around the notes. And, it definitely cost more than my current, superior vinyl setup. Incidentally, I thought your discussion of i-links was interesting. All my equipment is analog except for a two-box CD player which has a specific clock-link connection between the transport and DAC to bring jitter to a near absolute minimum. Larry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minn_male42 Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 ---------------- On 11/30/2004 10:04:25 AM larryclare wrote: I'm not sure what you're thinking of in the way of artifacts -- some can listen through clicks and pops and some can't stand them, for instance..... ---------------- You're right - I can't stand clicks and pops. I can't think of anything more annoying than a click or pop interrupting the music. Everytime there is a click or pop, it reminds me that I'm listening to a recording (and one that has sounds on it that were not present in the original recording session) Again, I'm not trying to bag on your preferences or anyone elses. I think we've all pretty much covered that ground before here. Just don't resort to sophomoric and erroneus arguments against my preference, and we'll get on just fine Clicks and pops on vinyl recordings are hardly "sophomoric and erroneus" arguments. It's just added noise to the system and detracts from the illusion that you are listening to a "live" performance. Frequency response? Believe me, my analog rig has better frequency response than your or my speakers. Good for you! For someone who claims they are not trying to "bag on my preferences", you are sure doing a good job of it. I have said more than once - these are simply my opinions. I have no problems with your preferences - I was just trying to state my position. We could argue all day about frequency response and dynamics - but I do know for a fact that there isn't a turntable in the world that will give me the dynamic range that is present on the SACD multichannel version of the 1812 overture from telarc. That is one extreme example, but it does show what I am mean when I say dynamic range. 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.