Thread: Analog and Vinyl: no longer the benchmark

Fantastic Mike! So will you be selling the MBL 101s off as demos by then? I better start saving for this trip.

Originally Posted by Mike

Absolutely!

interesting thread, particularly to see the perspective here on the analogue / digital issue which is primarily technical. i have a somewhat different thought process... an audio system is simply a vehicle to experience art, therefore, any evaluation of technologies should probably have that as part of an overall framework. to make an evaluation of analogue vs digital audio, it is interesting to me to use visual arts as a parallel.

take painting: impressionist paintings are perhaps the lowest resolution form of painting when looked at up close, however, when you start to step back from the course brush strokes and take in the painting as a whole it is quite beautiful and the resolution is meaningless. such paintings sell for in excess of $100m. modern art has much higher resolution and detail but is not accurate in terms of presenting a scene which a person can actually see. these painting can also sell for huge sums. on the other hand, the great masters painted high resolution and realistic scenes. these paintings sell for comparatively paltry sums (vermeer excepted). taken to the extreme, very high resolution and realistic paintings can be bought at the mall for $50.

the point here is that in the art world, at least, resolution and realism are irrelevant. what matters is the (emotional) impact the work has on the viewer... sure, one can look at a painting and evaluate its resolution and realism but it is the experience which creates the value.

i am not saying that such a framework can resolves the issue... only that one goal in assembling a system is to focus on delivering a pleasing and enjoyable art experience rather than a perfect technical one. at some point spending increasingly large sums chasing that elusive "perfect" system, either digital or analog, becomes pointless in achieving this particular goal... especially if it means you have to eat cat food in old age while listening to music ;-)

there is also something to be learned from the photography version of the analog / digital debate, but i will save that for another post.

as always, YMMV... if one's enjoyment from this hobby is also technical (an aspect which i also enjoy and appreciate) then the calculus here is somewhat different.

Originally Posted by AJR

I am really enjoying this thread. Proper banter but very interesting. Is good that no-one has resorted to personal attacks. Keep it going!

Your momma wears army boots... just had to get in a personal attack ...

I agree with the Harbeth thread where someone says inferior vinyl is less offensive than inferior digital. My vinyl is inferior but sweet and nice to listen to. Before I had my digital tuned it told you turn it down pretty quick. Each small change I made for the better allowed me to turn it up more and more. I can now take my preamp through all 23 steps on the attenuator. For the most part 9 to 19 is real nice. I just don't need it loud.

So I have a question, why has so much of this thread become about dynamic range. It's like that is the only measure of music. Does dynamic range equal tone. I believe it has something to do with it, but I don't believe it makes it. I honestly don't know what makes it. What I do know is focusing on improving the power supply od my server and reducing the amount of processes my server was doing there by decreasing noise in the overall system brought out large improvements in tone. Not only tone but decay. As the music got more clear and the tone and Decay increased, instruments sounded more like an actual instrument.

Back to dynamic range. I might say that too much dynamic range would be an issue for me. I don't have a remote and would find it troublesome having to get up to constantly adjust the volume to increase the sound at low passages or turn it down at high passages. To some degree there needs to be a compression of the dynamic range so that we can sit in our seat and enjoy the music without having it disappear or become overly loud. I assume most music was mastered with quite a bit of compression so listeners could e joy it in their cars. People may be going to Mikes to shoot out dynamic range. I am more interested in what sounds like music.

Having said that, I'm my system, I have found that digital can sound very very musical. Because of it's ease of use and access to so much content I enjoy I will continue to focus on that.

Originally Posted by nc42acc

Fantastic Mike! So will you be selling the MBL 101s off as demos by then? I better start saving for this trip.

We can work something out I’m sure.

I’ll have many more goodies by then. Stay tuned. Next up: big ass amps!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No D'Agostino please. To overplayed everywhere. Would be interesting to hear something SS push a 89DB speaker.

Originally Posted by Mike

We can work something out I’m sure.

I’ll have many more goodies by then. Stay tuned. Next up: big ass amps!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Kingrex

No D'Agostino please. To overplayed everywhere. Would be interesting to hear something SS push a 89DB speaker.

Nope. The bloated lower midrange bothers me. I guess I’m the only one who worries about brand longevity too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For me, it comes down to which is more musically engaging in a given system. Even so, many variables can affect the outcome, with the biggest offenders being less-than-optimum system (or tt or digital) set-up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Kingrex

I might say that too much dynamic range would be an issue for me.

What concert halls do you visit with regularity? It might have importance depending on musical tastes and also demands for fidelity, exactly as stated by Stereophiles founder. Based on my exposure (no not literally) to thousands of audiophiles, that's all over the map.
You never said which of your tracks you were intimately familiar with that you brought to MLs to listen to and had you hearing vinyl better than digital. That is crucial.

Originally Posted by Kingrex

Back to dynamic range. I might say that too much dynamic range would be an issue for me. I don't have a remote and would find it troublesome having to get up to constantly adjust the volume to increase the sound at low passages or turn it down at high passages. To some degree there needs to be a compression of the dynamic range so that we can sit in our seat and enjoy the music without having it disappear or become overly loud.

The more dynamic range the better. It's exciting.

Originally Posted by aKnyght

interesting thread, particularly to see the perspective here on the analogue / digital issue which is primarily technical. i have a somewhat different thought process... an audio system is simply a vehicle to experience art, therefore, any evaluation of technologies should probably have that as part of an overall framework. to make an evaluation of analogue vs digital audio, it is interesting to me to use visual arts as a parallel.

take painting: impressionist paintings are perhaps the lowest resolution form of painting when looked at up close, however, when you start to step back from the course brush strokes and take in the painting as a whole it is quite beautiful and the resolution is meaningless. such paintings sell for in excess of $100m. modern art has much higher resolution and detail but is not accurate in terms of presenting a scene which a person can actually see. these painting can also sell for huge sums. on the other hand, the great masters painted high resolution and realistic scenes. these paintings sell for comparatively paltry sums (vermeer excepted). taken to the extreme, very high resolution and realistic paintings can be bought at the mall for $50.

the point here is that in the art world, at least, resolution and realism are irrelevant. what matters is the (emotional) impact the work has on the viewer... sure, one can look at a painting and evaluate its resolution and realism but it is the experience which creates the value.

i am not saying that such a framework can resolves the issue... only that one goal in assembling a system is to focus on delivering a pleasing and enjoyable art experience rather than a perfect technical one. at some point spending increasingly large sums chasing that elusive "perfect" system, either digital or analog, becomes pointless in achieving this particular goal... especially if it means you have to eat cat food in old age while listening to music ;-)

there is also something to be learned from the photography version of the analog / digital debate, but i will save that for another post.

as always, YMMV... if one's enjoyment from this hobby is also technical (an aspect which i also enjoy and appreciate) then the calculus here is somewhat different.

For me personally, emotional experience goes hand in hand with realism and resolution. I have never emotionally enjoyed my Beethoven string quartet recordings as much as now, with my system producing a realistic tone and fine, delicate resolution of detail from bowing transients and wooden resonances.

Also, resolution entails clear separation of simultaneous musical lines, which enables enhanced intellectual understanding. The latter can greatly elevate emotional involvement in music, at least for me.

Originally Posted by a.wayne

Still waiting for the list , these recordings with no compression are nameless ... ?

You sound almost worried now.
But you have no worries. You will simply bring the highest dynamic range, widest frequency response, etc, etc, needle in groove 19th century tech pieces of plastic you have. Electric canon shots for all we care. I will bring the digital dynamic range, frequency response, etc, etc tracks, the p-p mic, etc.
All will see and hear firsthand the objective metrics superiority of 19th vs 21st century tech, now won't we? No need to check DR databases in vain.

cheers,

AJ

Originally Posted by Al M.

For me personally, emotional experience goes hand in hand with realism and resolution. I have never emotionally enjoyed my Beethoven string quartet recordings as much as now, with my system producing a realistic tone and fine, delicate resolution of detail from bowing transients and wooden resonances.

Also, resolution entails clear separation of simultaneous musical lines, which enables enhanced intellectual understanding. The latter can greatly elevate emotional involvement in music, at least for me.

could not agree more -- resolution and realism are very highly correlated with a great listening experience, just not perfectly correlated. at some point chasing the perfect technical experience becomes and end in itself and does not serve the art experience... sometimes we can lose track of the forest.

by way of a, perhaps, extreme example: i don't think i have had or will ever have a more thrilling and audio experience than i did many years ago at the age of 18 riding around in my car listening to music on the 8-track player. certainly a low-fi system in a high noise floor environment... but, damn, that just might be as good as it gets!

Originally Posted by aKnyght

could not agree more -- resolution and realism are very highly correlated with a great listening experience, just not perfectly correlated. at some point chasing the perfect technical experience becomes and end in itself and does not serve the art experience...

That's why I made it very clear day 1, mere preferences were not being discussed, only objective metrics. Folks can prefer 8 track if they wish.
Silly to argue about preference. Now claimed objective metrics for said preference....

Originally Posted by aKnyght

many years ago at the age of 18 riding around in my car listening to music on the 8-track player. certainly a low-fi system in a high noise floor environment... but, damn, that just might be as good as it gets!

Exactly!! The total subjective experience goes far beyond sound>ears, "just listening", etc, etc. Many more sensory factors involved.

I had a pro come to my house, evaluate my TT and set it up. It's better but no dramatic change. He said it's a decent system. It is performing to it's price point. If I want to step it up, he suggested upgrading the table first with something in the $5k range. That is for a table alone. He is not offering to sell anything, just stating that is where I need to go next to get more from what I have. That $5k does not include the arm, cartridge, and phono stage. Of course brands are a subjective choice, yet any belt drive needs to be pretty decent to surpass what I have. He did suggest some old direct drive for less. The biggest detractor with my table, in his opinion is the Rega motor. Having sold them and others for years, he feels they lack jump and life. The motor that is. That's his opinion. I had tried to get a Road Runner but they don't make it anymore.


Anyhow, I feel a little vindicated in my comments on what sort of performance I get from a $7k vinyl setup compared to a $9k digital setup. I am getting very itchy not having my digital at the moment. I miss the musicallity of the digital. Maybe I will get it working this weekend. I bought a HDPlex internal voltage regular PS and it takes a 6 pin molex. I have to do some soldering. Can't wait to get it up and running again.

So circling back around, my vinyl is pleasant, polite and sweet. Non fatiguing and a little warm,. My digital has far better frequency extension, a lot more clarity and resolution, more dynamics and musically engaging. Instruments are much more real and details are easy to hear making it more relaxing. I don't have to strain to hear what is going on.

This is me speaking out my butt, however I feel I am getting digital performance in the range of the Clear Audio Innovation table with a DS Audio Master 1 optical cartridge. That was a setup I listened to that very much mimics what I hear from my digital playback. Maybe it can be done for a little less, but I have heard quite a few system and I'm pretty confident I get a very musical and realistic level of performance. I have spent a lot more time than most people tuning it, listening to experts and implementing their suggestions. You don't just throw pieces together and get what I have. A lot of thought has gone into everything from the power out of my panel to the BIOS setting In my computer. I still stand behind the belief that digital done right can be amazing and surpass Vinyl in the $10k to $20k range. It has to be correct or it will shut you down, but it can be done. That is still my belief based upon what I have heard.

Originally Posted by Kingrex

I still stand behind the belief that digital done right can be amazing and surpass Vinyl in the $10k to $20k range. It has to be correct or it will shut you down, but it can be done. That is still my belief based upon what I have heard.

And I still agree with you. Vinyl can be absolutely amazing, but only at a great expense. Then you have frequency extension, correctness of tone, dynamics, precision, clarity, you name it. And it still depends on the quality of pressing which is not always what it should be.

These days you'll get great sound much easier from digital.

...to continue the train of thought from my earlier post (#202) exploring analog vs digital audio using analogies from the visual arts, there are some pretty close parallels in photography. the take away points for me are:

1. both digital and analog photography can yield astoundingly good results.

2. for very good work, it is very hard or impossible to distinguish between the two.
3. for poor work, it is easier to distinguish between the two.

4. good digital is relatively easy / good analog is very, very, very hard.

5. the very best analog photography can be materially better than the very best digital. however, the technical skill, experience and proficiency required to achieve this is at a quite high level. [one caveat: really good analog photography has become inordinately harder given the disappearance of many films and other materials, especially, kodachrome!!]

obviously, there is more detail and nuance here, but from reading this thread it seems there is a very similar dynamic in audio... it is just too hard and expensive to get really good analog; thus, the path of least resistance is digital.

Originally Posted by aKnyght

....good digital is relatively easy / good analog is very, very, very hard...

....it is just too hard and expensive to get really good analog; thus, the path of least resistance is digital.

Agreed.

Having never heard a vinyl playback rig - no matter how expensive - performing at it's full potential - in hundreds of high end audio systems, whether owned by audiophiles, reviewers or dealers, I have always privately wondered why the owner persists.

In most every instance (assuming basics such as location & mechanical set-up are good), about an hour's worth or so of adjustment & listening could easily address most of the issues, and take it to a much higher level.

All too often, a huge waste of money, because the potential is never reached.

IMO, of course.

Also, I'm NOT saying that there aren't some vinyl playback rigs that sound awesome, performing to their full potential. I simply have never encountered one in the hundreds of occasions listed above.

In those cases, digital done right makes more sense. Again, IMO.

Originally Posted by Jim Smith

Agreed.

Having never heard a vinyl playback rig - no matter how expensive - performing at it's full potential - in hundreds of high end audio systems, whether owned by audiophiles, reviewers or dealers, I have always privately wondered why the owner persists.

In most every instance (assuming basics such as location & mechanical set-up are good), about an hour's worth or so of adjustment & listening could easily address most of the issues, and take it to a much higher level.

All too often, a huge waste of money, because the potential is never reached.

IMO, of course.

Also, I'm NOT saying that there aren't some vinyl playback rigs that sound awesome, performing to their full potential. I simply have never encountered one in the hundreds of occasions listed above.

In those cases, digital done right makes more sense. Again, IMO.

I guess I am lucky and have heard well set-up vinyl rigs. But it took the owners tons of time and many trials to get there. I agree, if the set-up is just slightly off, you lose so much of the potential that's there.

Vinyl done right is a PITA. BTW, in my opinion computer audio is too. I have observed far too much drama in that area to be enticed in any way, at least for now. Hence me sticking with great playback of physical CD.

At best I could imagine going with an expensive high quality plug-and-play option like a Baetis server. But even then you still have to get the external storage right. Putting my money elsewhere in my system without any doubt gave me the bigger bang for the buck, up to this point. No 'hi res' will do you any good if you have too many weaknesses in your system to even take advantage of it (if you even really need it, that is -- CD already *is* high resolution).

Originally Posted by AJ Soundfield

All will see and hear firsthand the objective metrics superiority of 19th vs 21st century tech, now won't we? No need to check DR databases in vain.

cheers,

AJ

AJ, is the technology really two centuries apart? A quick wikipedia search shows the following. Seems more like half a century, not two centuries.

Wiki: "The phonograph disc record was the primary medium used for music reproduction throughout the 20th century. It had co-existed with the phonograph cylinder from the late 1880s and had effectively superseded it by around 1912."

Timeline[edit]

• October 3, 1938: British telephone engineer Alec Harley Reeves files at the French Patent Office the first patent describing the technique known today as Pulse-code modulation (PCM). Later, Reeves files also in the USA on November 22, 1939. ^[1][2] It was first proposed as a telephony technology.^[3]
• 1943: Bell Telephone Laboratories develops the first PCM-based digital scrambled speech transmission system, SIGSALY,^[4] in response to German interception of military telephone traffic during World War II. The twelve transmission points were retired after the war.
• 1957: Max Mathews of Bell develops the process to digitally record sound on a computer.
• 1967: The first monaural PCM recorder was developed by NHK's research facilities in Japan.^[3] The 30 kHz 12-bit device used a compander (similar to DBX Noise Reduction) to extend the dynamic range, and stored the signals on a video tape recorder.
• 1969: NHK expands the PCM recorder's capabilities to 2-channel stereo and 32 kHz 13-bit resolution. ^[3]
• 1970: American inventor James Russell patents the first digital-to-optical recording and playback system, ^[5]which would later lead to the Compact Disc.
• January 1971: Using NHK'S PCM recording system, engineers at Denon record the first commercial digital recordings, Something by Steve Marcus and The World Of Stomu Yamashita by Stomu Yamashta. ^[3]
• 1972: Denon unveils the first 8-channel digital recorder, the DN-023R, which uses 47.25 kHz 13-bit PCM resolution and 4-head open reel broadcast video tape recorder.^[3] The first recording with this new system is the Smetana Quartet performing Mozart's String Quartets K.458 and K.421, recorded in Tokyo April 24–26. Several other digitally recorded LPs follow.
• 1975: University of Utah professor Thomas Stockham develops a PCM digital audio recorder of his own design, using computer tape drives as the storage system. He founds the company Soundstream to offer it commercially.

Originally Posted by Al M.

And I still agree with you. Vinyl can be absolutely amazing, but only at a great expense. Then you have frequency extension, correctness of tone, dynamics, precision, clarity, you name it. And it still depends on the quality of pressing which is not always what it should be.

These days you'll get great sound much easier from digital.

My opinion is that you'll get good sound much easier from digital, but not great sound. Great sound requires much more work from both digital and vinyl. These adjectives are subjective and relative, and they are based in large part on one's exposure to other systems and to the real thing.

Originally Posted by aKnyght

...to continue the train of thought from my earlier post (#202) exploring analog vs digital audio using analogies from the visual arts, there are some pretty close parallels in photography. the take away points for me are:

1. both digital and analog photography can yield astoundingly good results.

2. for very good work, it is very hard or impossible to distinguish between the two.
3. for poor work, it is easier to distinguish between the two.

4. good digital is relatively easy / good analog is very, very, very hard.

5. the very best analog photography can be materially better than the very best digital. however, the technical skill, experience and proficiency required to achieve this is at a quite high level. [one caveat: really good analog photography has become inordinately harder given the disappearance of many films and other materials, especially, kodachrome!!]

obviously, there is more detail and nuance here, but from reading this thread it seems there is a very similar dynamic in audio... it is just too hard and expensive to get really good analog; thus, the path of least resistance is digital.

+1

To be fair I have not put the amount of time and effort into my vinyl as I have digital. I have not fully explored all ways to isolate the table and or the phono preamp. I have not explored as many power cables and or interconnects and or tone arm cables. I really have done nothing as far as experimenting with cartridge. Most of the experimenting I did with digital only cost me a hundred or so dollars a pop. The Windows Server 2016 software was $98 on eBay. The audiophile optimizer was $140. Rune was something like $300 for the year. I think the hq player was another $140. That's a lot different than a minimum of $1,200 for a cartridge. Or the expense that phono cables can go to. It allowed me to play more and tune the digital setup. Bios adjustments were all free.

I'm not sure why anyone would say digital can't be Musical. What I am experiencing has incredible musicality. It far exceeded any expectations I had in my system. One of the big drivers for having vinyl was the belief that vinyl was the only way to have good music. Once my server clicked into its own, I realized that was a large fallacy in my belief system. That Epiphany in my belief system is one of the driving reasons for my posting on form such as this. I want others to know incredibly musical sound can come from a very functional and easy to use front end. I want people to know there are huge catalogs of music available online that can be played with very engaging and satisfying results. Spending heaps of money and time trying to find good records isn't necessary. If it's a piece of what you like about vinyl then you should continue doing it. I like to drop in a record store here and there. When I walk out I usually have a couple discs, but it is very rare that any of them are of audiophile-quality. I am really only finding them in the $45, 180 gram pressings. Even then I still have to wash them when I before use and continue to maintain them every time I touch them. But that is a whole nother subject. My only point is digital is incredibly engaging, musical and in my opinion one of the best sources out there. Take into account its ease-of-use and cost to operate and it pretty much stands as the best source to have.

Umm, I never heard Mike’s.

I was not hired to set up their TTs.

I heard Peter’s and made some suggestions. I understand his vinyl playback is extraordinary these days.

FWIW - They should NEVER be touched until the system is voiced to the room first. Otherwise they are not likely to be properly evaluated and adjusted


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Jim Smith

Umm, I never heard Mike’s.

I was not hired to set up their TTs.

I heard Peter’s and made some suggestions. I understand his vinyl playback is extraordinary these days.

FWIW - They should NEVER be touched until the system is voiced to the room first. Otherwise they are not likely to be properly evaluated and adjusted


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hi Jim,

At the time, I had my old SME Model 10A with V arm and AirTight PC-1 cartridge. You asked me to make sure alignment was correct before you came to visit, and then after you voiced the system to my room, we adjusted VTA only. You used your own digital source and music for the voicing. Back then, I did not adjust VTA for different records. You set the VTA by listening and I left it alone after that and enjoyed my system.

About a year later, I bought my SME Model 30/12A with V-12 arm and AirTight Supreme cartridge. In the month long process of setting up that new vinyl source and directly comparing it to my old one (tables first, arms second, cartridges last) I learned a lot about how very slight adjustments effect the sound. Because the system was more revealing after you left, I was able to better hear the affects of fine tuning the cartridge/arm. I now adjust VTA for different records, as you know.

In my opinion, and in those who have heard my system, adjusting arm height is audible and matters. In that sense, if one hears an LP for which I have not adjusted the arm slightly up or down, then there is a good chance that one is not hearing that LP at its best in my system. In other words, my vinyl playback rig is not performing at its full potential if I do not make slight arm height adjustments for different records.

I agree with you that a vinyl rig should not be fine tuned until the listening seat and speakers are in their proper locations (voiced to the room). The problem is that this necessitates a digital source be used for the room voicing procedure. I did not have one of those when you came.

Originally Posted by Jim Smith

I heard Peter’s and made some suggestions. I understand his vinyl playback is extraordinary these days.

It is!

And the VTA adjustments that Peter describes do make a significant difference.

Of what I was talking about...

Unacceptable for a $50 album.

Originally Posted by PeterA

Hi Jim,

At the time, I had my old SME Model 10A with V arm and AirTight PC-1 cartridge.

As I recall, that was about 9 years ago!

And Mike, part of the PITA that has keep me from considering getting back into vinyl again. I used to love it back in the day, but that was long before digital... now, without a record collection to fall back on, it makes no sense whatsoever...

Originally Posted by Jim Smith

As I recall, that was about 9 years ago!

Jim, you came up to Boston on April 4th, 2011. I got my new turntable one year later. It seems like just a short while ago. How time flies. Getting back to this thread discussion, I don't remember that we actually compared the analog to digital, but the latter is your benchmark for system voicing. However, I think during your visit that you made the comment that no digital will sound as good as the top analog, or something like that. But that was years ago. Digital has improved a lot in that time.

In the systems I hear regularly up here, I still prefer analog as my benchmark, though digital in a couple of systems has come a long way. I know two systems pretty well that have both. I prefer the analog in those systems, but the owners may have a different opinion. In one particular system, getting the room worked out and the speakers and listener in better positions, the digital lost its signature hardness and glare. It sounds much better and more natural now. As Jim has long said, set up is vital to "getting better sound."

That darn album has blown more tweeters in my car stereo than I can remember.

Originally Posted by Mike

Of what I was talking about...

Unacceptable for a $50 album.

I don't have on the fly vta. Have to adjust a grub screw. I find it takes the blob out of bass and makes it more even and clean. I am going to hit the local Orileys auto parts store and get a set of feeler gauges. That should allow me to repeat my VTA settings.
It was enlightining to watch a pro set up my table. The biggest take away was the way he looked down the cantliever off the reflection on the smarttractor. I was trying to look strait down it. I was off a little. He set it to UNI Din. It's nice, but I sure miss my server. I am sending it back to have it upgraded to the Mojo latest and greatest. Also talking with Ben about a DAC. I like analog as I have some nice Art Pepper, Dave Brubeck and other album, I just have not committed to all the cost and effort to get better vinyl. That's just me. I am thinking perfect one, then think about other options. Tima on Audionirvana stated he was not messing with Digital as he has his Vinyl and Tape dialed in. It seems he feels getting distracted by another medium would maybe take the whole system down. I can see his thinking. To many options and you stop working towards perfection and only focus on keeping it all going. For me, I am getting close with digital. Just a little more to go. Maybe then I can circle back to Vinyl. I don't think tape is in my cards. Tapes themselves are too much, and I don't know I can get any albums I like. I don't listen to listen, I listen because I enjoy the music I am playing.

Originally Posted by Al M.

It is!

And the VTA adjustments that Peter describes do make a significant difference.

Originally Posted by PeterA

My opinion is that you'll get good sound much easier from digital, but not great sound. Great sound requires much more work from both digital and vinyl. These adjectives are subjective and relative, and they are based in large part on one's exposure to other systems and to the real thing.

That's the paradox. Vinyl sounds zero like the real thing, unless the "real thing" reference is the vinyl (a distinct possibility!). The real thing doesn't have surface noise, clicks, pops, wow and flutter, rumble, groove distortions, limited dynamic range, poor deep bass, degradation each play, tracking issues, etc, etc.
Zero serious research (>19th century) into perceptual recreation (and there is a lot of that going on outside the audiophile echo chamber) of the real thing involves anything remotely like vinyl. Statements of such would illicit howls of laughter as mentioned by Holt.
Biggest issue as you note might be lack of exposure to outside the chamber systems, like this http://www.onhifi.com/features/20010615.htm
Heck, some of these issues has been know since the 1930s Bell Labs (yes, that Bell Labs that gave us Nyquist et al).
I think it really comes down to dichotomy Holt very aptly describes.

JA: Do you still feel the high-end audio industry has lost its way in the manner you described 15 years ago?

JGH: Not in the same manner; there's no hope now. Audio actually used to have a goal: perfect reproduction of the sound of real music performed in a real space. That was found difficult to achieve, and it was abandoned when most music lovers, who almost never heard anything except amplified music anyway, forgot what "the real thing" had sounded like. Today, "good" sound is whatever one likes. As Art Dudley so succinctly said [in his January 2004 "Listening," see "Letters," p.9], fidelity is irrelevant to music.
Since the only measure of sound quality is that the listener likes it, that has pretty well put an end to audio advancement, because different people rarely agree about sound quality. Abandoning the acoustical-instrument standard, and the mindless acceptance of voodoo science, were not parts of my original vision.

Originally Posted by a.wayne

Not saying its not a bad copy , but mistracking and a worn cartridge will do this also ..

Possibly, but other albums would likely exhibit the same behavior. This sounds like a bad pressing x 4.

I’m not saying one is better than the other, Lord knows Digital has its own demons. But $50 noisy pressings that are also punched off center drive me nuts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by AJ Soundfield

... Vinyl sounds zero like the real thing, unless the "real thing" reference is the vinyl (a distinct possibility!)....

That is simply absurd. If playing a vinyl record sounded nothing like ("zero" like) the real thing, then we would not be able to tell that we were listening to a recording of a piano being played, let alone the type of piano, or that it was a Beethoven sonata and not some dog barking. And yet, many people listen to good vinyl systems and think to themselves "wow", this is amazing. Do they think they are listening to a popcorn machine or something, or are they hearing something even more alien?

How could Mike sell any turntables to anyone if vinyl actually sounded zero like the real thing? He could sell them coffee machines which also sound nothing like real instruments and voices. For an objective, fact-based, measurement verification kind of guy, you are not being very accurate with your statements.

Originally Posted by PeterA

That is simply absurd.

So you and others can't tell the difference between a vinyl record and a live symphony? Wow.
A live symphony to your and other ears, have surface noise, clicks, pops, wow and flutter, rumble, groove distortions, limited dynamic range, poor deep bass, degradation each play, tracking issues, etc, etc?
Which orchestra is this?

Originally Posted by PeterA

And yet, many people listen to good vinyl systems and think to themselves "wow", this is amazing.

How many are comparing against the real thing? Please state the source of your numbers and the conditions of the comparison, thanks.

Originally Posted by PeterA

How could Mike sell any turntables to anyone if vinyl actually sounded zero like the real thing?

Because a very few people actually like hearing the sound of a turntable. Simple preference that type archaic stereophony .

I sometimes wonder if the recent "resurgence" of vinyl hasn't lead to some misapprehension.

https://www.statista.com/chart/7699/...united-states/

According to Nielsen’s 2017 year-end music report, LPs accounted for no more (but also no less) than 8.5 percent of album sales in the United States. When accounting for streaming and downloads of single tracks, that number drops to 2.5 percent of total music consumption

Originally Posted by AJ Soundfield

So you and others can't tell the difference between a vinyl record and a live symphony? Wow.
A live symphony to your and other ears, have surface noise, clicks, pops, wow and flutter, rumble, groove distortions, limited dynamic range, poor deep bass, degradation each play, tracking issues, etc, etc?
Which orchestra is this?


How many are comparing against the real thing? Please state the source of your numbers and the conditions of the comparison, thanks.

No, of course reproduced music, either analog or digital, does not sound EXACTLY like a live symphony. Where did I write that I could not tell the difference?I'm objecting to your statement that vinyl sounds "ZERO" like the real thing. That would mean that we could not even recognize that we are listening to the reproduction of a piano, for instance, instead of a violin, or motorcycle, or loud noise. Zero means zero. That is why I think your statement is absurd.



I can tell the difference, and vinyl is flawed. That is not the same as saying it is zero like the real thing. We can argue just how much it is like the real thing, but that would not be fun. You are saying "zero". I am saying it sounds similar in many ways, but certainly not the same. In other words, more than "zero". That you even think I wrote that I can't tell the difference is also absurd.

The four people in my Boston area audio group all listen to live symphonic music on a regular basis. They don't think their systems sound identical to the real thing. Perhaps not even that close. However, they certainly don't think vinyl sounds "zero" like the real thing. I happen to think vinyl on these systems sounds more like the real thing than does their digital. I don't own a digital source. So how many? I don't know. All four of the guys in my audio group listen and compare to the real thing. That means 100% of our small group. And some friends who are not in our group also listen to the real thing. They too think that my vinyl system sounds something like the real music they hear. They recognize piano, violin, a female voice. If it was zero, they would never know what the recording is trying to represent.

Does a moving image on a TV look "zero" like the real thing?

Originally Posted by PeterA

I happen to think vinyl on these systems sounds more like the real thing than does their digital.

Interesting. Is the comparison done as I stated earlier for validity, vinyl>dual out phono pre>direct through 1 input of preamp, then also through an ADA loop>2 input of pre, level matched and then instantaneously compared? So every bit of sound, even clicks, pops, surface noise, crosstalk, everything is coming through real time and heard?
If not, please say how this vinyl vs digital comparison is being done, thanks.

Originally Posted by PeterA

All four of the guys in my audio group listen and compare to the real thing.

Yes, that is a pretty small sample size. Any members of BAS?

Originally Posted by a.wayne

vinyl Has more than enough dynamics

That is an opinion free of objective facts and easily falsified. Dynamic range is a measured metric, not an opinion.

Originally Posted by a.wayne

Again there is nothing about vinyl LP which limits its ability to reproduce audio at the "highest level"

Another opinion. Seeing a trend....
If the "highest level" is noise, clicks, pops, wow and flutter, rumble, crosstalk, groove distortions, limited dynamic range, poor deep bass archaic stereo, sure.