Why no turntable?

[CPP]

The Rega RP8 is a pretty awesome table, and I caught it on a great close out price. Also on TAS grade A list. I prefer MM cartridges and the 2M Black is Ortofon's top of the line MM cartridge... the SimAudio is economical (ok pretty cheap) but Mike called it "crazy good", which I tend to agree. Even at retail those three come in at under $5k, like $4200-$4300. Add record cleaning machine... cleaning supplies and you are about $5k.

I don't have high end " stuff", but I really enjoy the sound that comes from my Lumin, my little vinyl rig, the Classic VPI ( the first one) my Chinook and my amp and pre. Headphones or speakers its a joy to just listen to music and not have to count the $$$ signs. But I tell ya, I've heard Mikes system at his home and I would be in total heaven with that. Maybe one day, maybe one day.

[Randy Myers]

You got a nice system Chris! Way beyond intro level in my view.

I know I will never be able to afford the level of gear that Mike has, so I don't worry about it .... but if I ever win the lottery Mike, I am coming to see ya ....

[Phishphan]

I’ve contributed my opinion to this before.. but now under quarantine I’m thinking I should look into building out that aspect of my set up. I think it would be a good 30k to get a analog rig/phono pre to compete with the digital side. If the market rebounds, and we get people back buying MBS (mortgage backed securities) I’ll think about it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Randy Myers]

It is more important to get something that you are happy with than feeling you have to spend as much as your "other side". I will eventually get a better phone stage, but I am totally happy with the RP8!

[Kingrex]

I use to mess with internal hardware and software mods under the guidance of Alrainbow. I actually had a pretty darn nice sounding setup. But honestly, it comes no where near the performance of my Mojo server.

I now have an STST Motus II TT with a Hana ML cartridge. Allnic H1201 phono preamp.
I have the Mojo Audio Mystique V3 DAC and the Deja Vu server with his latest Root Ram Linus Software.

Similar to Randy, on first blush many album sound similar. Then some are quite different. In particular a Qobuz Paul Simon is way better than the vinyl that is too thin and fragile. But I pulled out a Ray Charles and the horns, vocals and piano are so much more alive on the vinyl.
The new reissue vinyl is stunning for its quiet, dynamics and realism on either source. Sometimes I flip between the 2 and I just cant tell which is vinyl or digital. They are that close.

[UltraFast69]

You would not need a turntable if you are not aware how the source of recording plays an important factor.

IMO having a turntable play digital mastered recordings does not make sense in most cases unless your digital is inferior and needs some work, besides these cartridges are not cheap and need to be dedicated to the very best analog recordings, ones you can’t simply stream!

It’s no doubt a financial and time commitment to bring the best out of vinyl, which in the end can be called a hobby.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Randy Myers]

The more I listen great albums sound great but crappy albums sound rather crappy.... with my digital even crap sounds ok... that is really the difference. From here on I will only be investing in top notch albums.

The Rega emphasizes this even more showing how bad recordings/pressings are bad and great recording/pressings are great.

[W9TR]

I’ve been comparing a lot of my vinyl to its digital counterparts. All I can say is that I’m glad I have a good vinyl rig in addition to my digital one. The versions are sometimes very different and I never know which will sound best. I don’t have a lot of duplicates though as I’ve always had a vinyl rig and didn’t re-buy my vinyl library in CD form.

[Kingrex]

Im gonna change my position. Assume I have the best of the best vinyl of something, and the best of the best digital file. Not even the same album. Just I found a great copy of something.

I have not found a digital file that has the same level of natural purity and tone as vinyl has. This is especially true with vocals and unamplified instruments. Digital excels at pop, rap and rock. Digital just can't do what vinyl does on classical, jazz and chicks with guitar music. The vinyl is more accurate and harmonically complete. It has a more realistic recreation of being there.

This is a comparison between 2 sources, both about $13k. Digital maybe more like 11k. The big jump was getting a "real" TT. A $3k table is not the same as a $10k table. When you leave Project, Rega and step up, the world changes for vinyl. Those tables are not the same game.

When I played in the $6k vinyl to $11K digital, the digital was many times better on all source material and genre. The higher level table vaults ahead of the digital on the above noted genre. I just can't get digital to bridge the gap with my best files in rhe hard drive via HQ player. Its close on some. Digital is very very good. It's just a tad behind a really good piece of vinyl.

[Mike]

Im gonna change my position. Assume I have the best of the best vinyl of something, and the best of the best digital file. Not even the same album. Just I found a great copy of something.

I have not found a digital file that has the same level of natural purity and tone as vinyl has. This is especially true with vocals and unamplified instruments. Digital excels at pop, rap and rock. Digital just can't do what vinyl does on classical, jazz and chicks with guitar music. The vinyl is more accurate and harmonically complete. It has a more realistic recreation of being there.

This is a comparison between 2 sources, both about $13k. Digital maybe more like 11k. The big jump was getting a "real" TT. A $3k table is not the same as a $10k table. When you leave Project, Rega and step up, the world changes for vinyl. Those tables are not the same game.

When I played in the $6k vinyl to $11K digital, the digital was many times better on all source material and genre. The higher level table vaults ahead of the digital on the above noted genre. I just can't get digital to bridge the gap with my best files in rhe hard drive via HQ player. Its close on some. Digital is very very good. It's just a tad behind a really good piece of vinyl.

Well said, and also notice the 3D a great vinyl setup can bring. Compare on an album like Ben Webster meets Oscar Peterson. The digital file (24/192) cut from the same master sounds very different from the vinyl pressing (right from the tapes).

And I agree with you whole heartedly on tone and harmonics.

Since I started this thread, it has put a huge smile on my face every day to read wonderful posts like yours and Randy’s, among others. The whole point of my OP was that we can and should enjoy both. Isn’t that what the hobby is all about?

It’s not unlike modern sports cars that have different driving modes. Isn’t it a lot more fun to have options rather than just one “mode”?

Not to start a controversy, but I will bet once you discover your great vinyl rig, you will enjoy your system and your music even more.

[Al M.]

Im gonna change my position. Assume I have the best of the best vinyl of something, and the best of the best digital file. Not even the same album. Just I found a great copy of something.

I have not found a digital file that has the same level of natural purity and tone as vinyl has. This is especially true with vocals and unamplified instruments. Digital excels at pop, rap and rock. Digital just can't do what vinyl does on classical, jazz and chicks with guitar music. The vinyl is more accurate and harmonically complete. It has a more realistic recreation of being there.

This is a comparison between 2 sources, both about $13k. Digital maybe more like 11k. The big jump was getting a "real" TT. A $3k table is not the same as a $10k table. When you leave Project, Rega and step up, the world changes for vinyl. Those tables are not the same game.

When I played in the $6k vinyl to $11K digital, the digital was many times better on all source material and genre. The higher level table vaults ahead of the digital on the above noted genre. I just can't get digital to bridge the gap with my best files in rhe hard drive via HQ player. Its close on some. Digital is very very good. It's just a tad behind a really good piece of vinyl.

Sorry to disagree with your changed position. I regularly hear top vinyl playback in my friends' systems, in the range of $ 50-80 K for the vinyl rig (incl. phono stage). While vinyl can sound truly wonderful, I do not hear the increase in natural purity and tone, as well as harmonic completeness, over my digital of about $ 6.5 K total (see signature) that you do. Vocals, acoustic guitar? You're kidding me, digital excels on that with the right recordings.

I do notice that it is very hard to get file playback to sound as natural as physical CD, which is what I am playing at home (with excellent connection between CD transport and DAC; the AES/EBU cable costs as much, or almost as much, respectively, as either of them).

***

PS: Just saw your post, Mike. No, also in terms of 3D presentation, digital can truly excel. The palpable presence of the performers in my living room can be shocking from CD (I truly wish you could hear that in my room!!), as can be being transported to another venue. I have not yet heard better from vinyl.

[CPP]

Well said, and also notice the 3D a great vinyl setup can bring. Compare on an album like Ben Webster meets Oscar Peterson. The digital file (24/192) cut from the same master sounds very different from the vinyl pressing (right from the tapes).

And I agree with you whole heartedly on tone and harmonics.

Since I started this thread, it has put a huge smile on my face every day to read wonderful posts like yours and Randy’s, among others. The whole point of my OP was that we can and should enjoy both. Isn’t that what the hobby is all about?

It’s not unlike modern sports cars that have different driving modes. Isn’t it a lot more fun to have options rather than just one “mode”?

Not to start a controversy, but I will bet once you discover your great vinyl rig, you will enjoy your system and your music even more.

And it doesn't have to cost a small fortune to enjoy the music. Just a balanced system working in sync with each other and a good record and there you go.

[mep]

Sorry to disagree with your changed position. I regularly hear top vinyl playback in my friends' systems, in the range of $ 50-80 K for the vinyl rig (incl. phono stage). While vinyl can sound truly wonderful, I do not hear the increase in natural purity and tone, as well as harmonic completeness over my digital of about $ 6.5 K total (see signature) that you do. Vocals, acoustic guitar? You're kidding me, digital excels on that with the right recordings.

I do notice that it is very hard to get file playback to sound as natural as physical CD, which is what I am playing at home (with excellent connection between CD transport and DAC; the AES/EBU cable costs as much, or almost as much, respectively, as either of them).

***

PS: Just saw your post, Mike. No, also in terms of 3D presentation, digital can truly excel. The palpable presence of the performers in my living room can be shocking from CD (I wish you could hear that in my room!!), as can be being transported to another venue. I have not yet heard better from vinyl.

Which of your Boston friends has $80k tied up in just their analog gear? You are seriously delusional about the difference in sound between great analog and $6.5k worth of digital gear. You also have a hyper inflated opinion about your system being a world beater. I’m pretty sure that ACK, Ian, and PeterA would agree that your system is what it is, but it’s not a world beater. I recommend you get your hearing checked if you have truly heard very expensive analog setups and you think your rig is taking on all comers.

[Al M.]

Which of your Boston friends has $80k tied up in just their analog gear? You are seriously delusional about the difference in sound between great analog and $6.5k worth of digital gear. You also have a hyper inflated opinion about your system being a world beater. I’m pretty sure that ACK, Ian, and PeterA would agree that your system is what it is, but it’s not a world beater. I recommend you get your hearing checked if you have truly heard very expensive analog setups and you think your rig is taking on all comers.

That's a funny comment. I never said that my system is a world beater, there are better ones out there, for sure, and I have repeatedly and explicitly said so, if not here (since the issue did not come up) then elsewhere. Even though it does many things extraordinarily well, I am well aware of my system's shortcomings. By the way, Ian has the same digital set-up as I do, so I can hear it in his system too. Ack has the same DAC, so I can hear it in his system as well.

[aKnyght]

Im gonna change my position...

This is a comparison between 2 sources, both about $13k. Digital maybe more like 11k. The big jump was getting a "real" TT. A $3k table is not the same as a $10k table. When you leave Project, Rega and step up, the world changes for vinyl. Those tables are not the same game.

When I played in the $6k vinyl to $11K digital, the digital was many times better on all source material and genre. The higher level table vaults ahead of the digital on the above noted genre....

thanks for this post -- very useful information and another great data point.

at this point, the holdback on an analog source is in deciding what level to play at... in generic terms, i want to aim to be somewhere in the general area where the cost versus performance curve starts to flatten out.

curious as to which turntables fall into the "real" category where analog can vault ahead of ~$10k digital?

all opinions here are welcome and useful - thanks.

[AJ Soundfield]

Digital just can't do what vinyl does on classical

Occasionally I feel sorry for 19th century tech luddites and their broken systems, but it quickly passes as it is they who have to suffer through them, not I.
FYI, digital was created largely as a response to the severe limitations of analog for...classical music.
Of course audiophiles (stereophiles really) in bubble world are never exposed to tech like this https://web.archive.org/web/20180521...s/20010615.htm or real time ADA of said vinyl, but if/when it happens, it's all rather amusing.
Hope you are staying safe enjoying music.

cheers,

AJ

[AJ Soundfield]

I recommend you get your hearing checked if you have truly heard very expensive analog setups and you think your rig is taking on all comers.

Yes, none as grounded in reality and possessing superb hearing as the vinyl at the Villages crowd.

[Kuoppis]

Im gonna change my position. Assume I have the best of the best vinyl of something, and the best of the best digital file. Not even the same album. Just I found a great copy of something.

I have not found a digital file that has the same level of natural purity and tone as vinyl has. This is especially true with vocals and unamplified instruments. Digital excels at pop, rap and rock. Digital just can't do what vinyl does on classical, jazz and chicks with guitar music. The vinyl is more accurate and harmonically complete. It has a more realistic recreation of being there.

This is a comparison between 2 sources, both about $13k. Digital maybe more like 11k. The big jump was getting a "real" TT. A $3k table is not the same as a $10k table. When you leave Project, Rega and step up, the world changes for vinyl. Those tables are not the same game.

When I played in the $6k vinyl to $11K digital, the digital was many times better on all source material and genre. The higher level table vaults ahead of the digital on the above noted genre. I just can't get digital to bridge the gap with my best files in rhe hard drive via HQ player. Its close on some. Digital is very very good. It's just a tad behind a really good piece of vinyl.

Thanks for sharing, good observations.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Randy Myers]

Im gonna change my position. Assume I have the best of the best vinyl of something, and the best of the best digital file. Not even the same album. Just I found a great copy of something.

I have not found a digital file that has the same level of natural purity and tone as vinyl has. This is especially true with vocals and unamplified instruments. Digital excels at pop, rap and rock. Digital just can't do what vinyl does on classical, jazz and chicks with guitar music. The vinyl is more accurate and harmonically complete. It has a more realistic recreation of being there.

This is a comparison between 2 sources, both about $13k. Digital maybe more like 11k. The big jump was getting a "real" TT. A $3k table is not the same as a $10k table. When you leave Project, Rega and step up, the world changes for vinyl. Those tables are not the same game.

When I played in the $6k vinyl to $11K digital, the digital was many times better on all source material and genre. The higher level table vaults ahead of the digital on the above noted genre. I just can't get digital to bridge the gap with my best files in the hard drive via HQ player. Its close on some. Digital is very very good. It's just a tad behind a really good piece of vinyl.

I am very sure you are right, however we all do what we can do, and get the best we can get. I am equally sure that a $10,000 phono stage would sound much better than my little SimAudio , but it is what I have now and it sounds good.

Also, I am really enjoying my $3000 table!

[Al M.]

Occasionally I feel sorry for 19th century tech luddites and their broken systems, but it quickly passes as it is they who have to suffer through them, not I.
FYI, digital was created largely as a response to the severe limitations of analog for...classical music.
Of course audiophiles (stereophiles really) in bubble world are never exposed to tech like this https://web.archive.org/web/20180521...s/20010615.htm or real time ADA of said vinyl, but if/when it happens, it's all rather amusing.
Hope you are staying safe enjoying music.

cheers,

AJ

You may exaggerate in the opposite direction. I can hardly call top level vinyl playback "broken", since on great recordings / pressings it compares favorably with great digital. Also, until a few years ago I did prefer top analog myself in terms of absolute sound quality (even though I am a digital-only guy) since I thought digital, and CD in particular, simply could not do some things right that vinyl did well, such as saxophone, solo violin or orchestral massed strings. Now, with recent advances in digital, I am not sure if there is anything that vinyl in principle does better; every time recently where I thought there might be, new experiences called this into doubt. I keep having to think harder and harder when trying to find some superiority of vinyl (and I think Mike's idea that analog gives a better 3D presentation simply doesn't hold up; I wish he could hear CD playback in my system).

As for dynamics: Top level vinyl can sound incredibly dynamic on most material. On orchestral music dynamics usually are somewhat less on 33 rpm records, even though there are exceptions, but orchestral music on 45 rpm can sound outrageously dynamic as well.

Top vinyl playback can indeed be wonderful, and it may even be that my audiophile friends hear some things differently when it comes to analog vs. digital while we listen to the same set-up. That's fine, everyone has their own perceptions, and we all hear things differently in general. Even when sitting next to one another in a concert hall for a live performance of classical music, no kidding.

And yes, sometimes the LP of an analog recording is simply better than the digital, but that has little to do with the medium itself, and more with the quality of the mastering. And conversely, sometimes the digital is just better than the analog LP, no doubt.

[AJ Soundfield]

You may exaggerate in the opposite direction.

Glad you got it.
However, the message remains.
Btw, I believe audiophiles when they say vinyl is the limits of their systems and thus preferred.
As an oft attendee (not lately!) of live classical/orchestral (10 min drive) and having heard many a vinyl system, my skepticism have been allayed.

cheers,

AJ

[Al M.]

Another thing, and perhaps part of the endurance of a vinyl "myth", is that there seems to linger an idea that the digital process somehow loses information.

Even though I am a digital only guy myself (at least when it comes to my own system; I enjoy vinyl elsewhere), and thus perhaps a bit more open and less prejudiced regarding the matter, it took me quite a long time before I was able to sufficiently understand digital theory. Only after quite intense immersion in the subject, including asking technical questions on forums, it finally clicked and I "got" it.

For someone more biased it might be even harder to grasp the notion that digital indeed fully captures the audio signal. An impediment was of course also that until recent years the audible implementation lagged too far behind the theory and the math, which always had been sound.

[Mike]

When you convert Analog to Digital and back to Analog, something is lost since decisions and trade offs have to be made regarding bit and sample rates, among other reasons. Also, there wouldn’t be varying degrees of ADC’s and DAC’s, a $99 unit on each end would suffice, but we know there are better quality ADC’s and DAC’s. When you stay in the analog domain throughout the chain, the sound is more pure IMO. That being said, modern digital recordings throw a monkey wrench in things, as does the constant improvement in ADC’s, DAC’s, higher bit and sampling rates and also, storage capabilities and formats.

That being said, let’s get back to the topic at hand.

Here is a turntable I’m jonesing for...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mike Lavigne]

i think if you spend much time playing 'big' music in a 'big' system it is easy to very consistently hear vinyl easily sort out detail and maintain cohesion on peaks.......compared to the relative slight congestion of digital. this is particularly true of the little flairs and nuance when the sound stage is very active. and these details have more definition and energy with vinyl. they have tonal shading missing with digital. there is air and weight with vinyl. the vinyl media has information headroom that the better vinyl playback systems can reveal.

i listen 65%-70% digital in my system; mostly classical and high rez, lots of full orchestral at realistic SPL's. i really enjoy it. that said, it has it's relative limitations. and these things that are easy to hear when you push the media to it's limits, exist at all levels of digital and all types of music. they are just not as simple to pick out unless you get the music under stress. but our senses can tell these differences 'all the time' with any music even though our minds might not fully connect about it.

i'm a format junkie and have invested in the very top level of digital. i've pushed it as far as you can go. it's fantastic. it absolutely 'good enough' and needs nothing to be fully satisfying. but it is what it is. listen to an hour of digital in my system, then let loose with an hour of vinyl on my 3 tt's and it's another level. and none of my 3 tt set-ups individually are as expensive as my digital set-up.

i'm not spouting facts; i'm just saying it's how things sound to me in my system with the commitments i've made to musical truth.

and i did not even mention tape.

[Kuoppis]

When you convert Analog to Digital and back to Analog, something is lost since decisions and trade offs have to be made regarding bit and sample rates, among other reasons. Also, there wouldn’t be varying degrees of ADC’s and DAC’s, a $99 unit on each end would suffice, but we know there are better quality ADC’s and DAC’s. When you stay in the analog domain throughout the chain, the sound is more pure IMO. That being said, modern digital recordings throw a monkey wrench in things, as does the constant improvement in ADC’s, DAC’s, higher bit and sampling rates and also, storage capabilities and formats.

That being said, let’s get back to the topic at hand.

Here is a turntable I’m jonesing for...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

22 Kg platter, 27 Kg base, 80 Kg total. That turntable is substantial .


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[BlueFox]

When you convert Analog to Digital and back to Analog, something is lost since decisions and trade offs have to be made regarding bit and sample rates, among other reasons. Also, there wouldn’t be varying degrees of ADC’s and DAC’s, a $99 unit on each end would suffice, but we know there are better quality ADC’s and DAC’s. When you stay in the analog domain throughout the chain, the sound is more pure IMO. That being said, modern digital recordings throw a monkey wrench in things, as does the constant improvement in ADC’s, DAC’s, higher bit and sampling rates and also, storage capabilities and formats.

That being said, let’s get back to the topic at hand.

Here is a turntable I’m jonesing for...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why do so many turntable pictures have two arms? Is one cartridge needed for one type of music, and the other for another type of music?

[XV-1]

Why do so many turntable pictures have two arms? Is one cartridge needed for one type of music, and the other for another type of music?

Yes, variety is the spice of life

[Mike]

Why do so many turntable pictures have two arms? Is one cartridge needed for one type of music, and the other for another type of music?

Often, Stereo and mono carts or variety. Some carts are amazing for classical, jazz, rock, whatever. But for me, it’s stereo and mono carts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BlueFox]

Thanks Mike. Mono never occurred to me.

[Mike]

Thanks Mike. Mono never occurred to me.

Bud, when you hear a mono record with a proper mono cartridge, the difference is profound. The soundstage literally doubles in width. My old jazz records like the mono cart!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mike]

https://www.analogplanet.com/content...-19-advisory-0


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Al M.]

When you convert Analog to Digital and back to Analog, something is lost since decisions and trade offs have to be made regarding bit and sample rates, among other reasons. Also, there wouldn’t be varying degrees of ADC’s and DAC’s, a $99 unit on each end would suffice, but we know there are better quality ADC’s and DAC’s. When you stay in the analog domain throughout the chain, the sound is more pure IMO. That being said, modern digital recordings throw a monkey wrench in things, as does the constant improvement in ADC’s, DAC’s, higher bit and sampling rates and also, storage capabilities and formats.

That being said, let’s get back to the topic at hand.

Here is a turntable I’m jonesing for...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course, practical implementation is always lagging behind theory, which is what I also alluded to in my previous post. Because of limits of practical implementation a $ 99 ADC or DAC will not be good enough.

I might have been more explicit in this, but I was talking about digital theory, and even with just the Nyquist sampling rate you don't lose information in the audible range -- if practical implementation were theoretically perfect (which it isn't, even though it's getting better and better).

Digital skeptics maintain that even the theory is wrong, that you lose information in the audible range no matter what, even if practical implementation were perfect. But that is not true.

***

Regarding practical implementation vinyl of course also has its limits, not just on the component level, but also on the LP "software" side itself. While the best LP pressings can sound stellar, there are many mediocre pressings that will never sound great and at best will sound "good", even on the most fantastic turntable. Please let's not pretend that on a great vinyl rig everything sounds amazing. It doesn't. Just like on a great digital rig not everything sounds amazing.

[BlueFox]

Bud, when you hear a mono record with a proper mono cartridge, the difference is profound. The soundstage literally doubles in width. My old jazz records like the mono cart!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I read someplace originally ‘stereo’ mono was three channel. I bet that does sound awesome.

[UltraFast69]

When you convert Analog to Digital and back to Analog, something is lost since decisions and trade offs have to be made regarding bit and sample rates, among other reasons. Also, there wouldn’t be varying degrees of ADC’s and DAC’s, a $99 unit on each end would suffice, but we know there are better quality ADC’s and DAC’s. When you stay in the analog domain throughout the chain, the sound is more pure IMO. That being said, modern digital recordings throw a monkey wrench in things, as does the constant improvement in ADC’s, DAC’s, higher bit and sampling rates and also, storage capabilities and formats.

That being said, let’s get back to the topic at hand.

Here is a turntable I’m jonesing for...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is killer!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[UltraFast69]

I did not add a turntable cause I thought it would compete against digital - I simply wanted another source.

It doesn’t have to be about price, I’m not sold on price, meaning if your maximizing the level your playing on there is nothing wrong with that. This will tell you where you need to go to obtain higher levels of sound as Rex just pointed out from his efforts.

In terms of playback, Lavigne taught me when you select the right recording and play it native to its source, it should be very clear the difference between vinyl and digital and like MEP indicated if you can’t hear this then it’s your hearing or a bad setup no matter the cost, and they do exist, sad as it may be.

I enjoy both analog and digital very much, cost be damned!







Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[a.wayne]

Nail dragging big CD’s can be a great thing ....!

[Al M.]

i think if you spend much time playing 'big' music in a 'big' system it is easy to very consistently hear vinyl easily sort out detail and maintain cohesion on peaks.......compared to the relative slight congestion of digital. this is particularly true of the little flairs and nuance when the sound stage is very active. and these details have more definition and energy with vinyl. they have tonal shading missing with digital. there is air and weight with vinyl. the vinyl media has information headroom that the better vinyl playback systems can reveal.

Except that on 'big' music all this can be explained by a limited dynamic headroom on LP. Lower level events at peaks or outside of them are simply made more audible due to dynamic compression because they are relatively louder. It then is an artifact.

One time I heard a large orchestral piece on an LP and was flabbergasted by all the detail and tone. I then ordered the CD of the same recording and it was FAR more dynamic than the LP (while other orchestral LPs on the system I heard this recording on were considerably more dynamic than this one). The dynamics on the CD were killer and a thrill, but at the same time I was disappointed that I heard so much less timbral detail, tone and energy in the softer passages. But these were really much softer than on the LP.

It was very obvious that on the LP the extra vividness and tonal life in the soft passages was simply a result of these passages being much louder than on the CD due to highly evident dynamic compression, thus the result of an artifact. Overall, due to its much better dynamics, the CD sounded much more realistic.

While the severe dynamic compression on this LP particularly highlighted the artifact, it will be present to some extent also on less dynamically compressed LPs of 'big' music. Dynamics on LP are best on smaller scale music, where they can be truly explosive without having to conquer a huge overall dynamic range.

[Dre_J]

Except that on 'big' music all this can be explained by a limited dynamic headroom on LP. Lower level events at peaks or outside of them are simply made more audible due to dynamic compression because they are relatively louder. It then is an artifact.

One time I heard a large orchestral piece on an LP and was flabbergasted by all the detail and tone. I then ordered the CD of the same recording and it was FAR more dynamic than the LP (while other orchestral LPs on the system I heard this recording on were considerably more dynamic than this one). The dynamics on the CD were killer and a thrill, but at the same time I was disappointed that I heard so much less timbral detail, tone and energy in the softer passages. But these were really much softer than on the LP.

It was very obvious that on the LP the extra vividness and tonal life in the soft passages was simply a result of these passages being much louder than on the CD due to highly evident dynamic compression, thus the result of an artifact. Overall, due to its much better dynamics, the CD sounded much more realistic.

While the severe dynamic compression on this LP particularly highlighted the artifact, it will be present to some extent also on less dynamically compressed LPs of 'big' music. Dynamics on LP are best on smaller scale music, where they can be truly explosive without having to conquer a huge overall dynamic range.

What LP?
What CD?

Some more information would be helpful for those reading.

[Al M.]

What LP?
What CD?

Some more information would be helpful for those reading.

Sure, Mahler Symphony #3 with LA Phil/Mehta.

LP:

https://www.discogs.com/Mahler-Zubin...elease/3770626

CD:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00000423D/

[Dre_J]

Sure, Mahler Symphony #3 with LA Phil/Mehta.

LP:

https://www.discogs.com/Mahler-Zubin...elease/3770626

CD:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00000423D/

preferred track/movement?

[Al M.]

preferred track/movement?

The comparison was on the first movement.

[Dre_J]

The comparison was on the first movement.

Thanks.

Same system (preamp, amp, speakers) after the source components?

[Al M.]

Thanks.

Same system (preamp, amp, speakers) after the source components?

You're welcome. Different systems, but it doesn't matter. The differences in dynamic range/compression were far too great as to be able to be explained by system differences. The system where I heard the LP on can sound very dynamic.

[Dre_J]

Different systems, but it doesn't matter. The differences in dynamic range/compression were far too great as to be able to be explained by system differences.

I am not challenging your observation. I wasn't there.

In general, system dynamics matter. I have, and can, demonstrate that with music played back using the same media with different electronics as well as a setup situation you mentioned (everything different).

Unfortunately, I can't find the LP (any version of it) in my sorted albums. I'll need to check the unsorted stacks another time. I did find the file in 16-bit 44.1 kHz and 24-bit 176 kHz. So, I'll play one of them later.

Regarding your initial comment, are you saying that this particular one time case with the Mahler LP/CD yields a difference vs. saying that this is always the case no matter the LP/CD?

If the former, I could possibly understand. If it's the later, I have observed different outcomes that depends on a few variables. Experience tells me it is usually up to the process of how the track was transferred to the medium(s).

[a.wayne]

Except that on 'big' music all this can be explained by a limited dynamic headroom on LP. Lower level events at peaks or outside of them are simply made more audible due to dynamic compression because they are relatively louder. It then is an artifact.

One time I heard a large orchestral piece on an LP and was flabbergasted by all the detail and tone. I then ordered the CD of the same recording and it was FAR more dynamic than the LP (while other orchestral LPs on the system I heard this recording on were considerably more dynamic than this one). The dynamics on the CD were killer and a thrill, but at the same time I was disappointed that I heard so much less timbral detail, tone and energy in the softer passages. But these were really much softer than on the LP.

It was very obvious that on the LP the extra vividness and tonal life in the soft passages was simply a result of these passages being much louder than on the CD due to highly evident dynamic compression, thus the result of an artifact. Overall, due to its much better dynamics, the CD sounded much more realistic.

While the severe dynamic compression on this LP particularly highlighted the artifact, it will be present to some extent also on less dynamically compressed LPs of 'big' music. Dynamics on LP are best on smaller scale music, where they can be truly explosive without having to conquer a huge overall dynamic range.

Hahahah..! Limited dynamic headroom on LP , you need to get out more Al ...

[a.wayne]

I am not challenging your observation. I wasn't there.

In general, system dynamics matter. I have, and can, demonstrate that with music played back using the same media with different electronics as well as a setup situation you mentioned (everything different).

Unfortunately, I can't find the LP (any version of it) in my sorted albums. I'll need to check the unsorted stacks another time. I did find the file in 16-bit 44.1 kHz and 24-bit 176 kHz. So, I'll play one of them later.

Regarding your initial comment, are you saying that this particular one time case with the Mahler LP/CD yields a difference vs. saying that this is always the case no matter the LP/CD?

If the former, I could possibly understand. If it's the later, I have observed different outcomes that depends on a few variables. Experience tells me it is usually up to the process of how the track was transferred to the medium(s).

Agree ..!

BTW under powered systems tend to sound better with digital playback than analog , Al need to provide us with a bit more details on what he is listening to..



Regards

[Mike Lavigne]

Except that on 'big' music all this can be explained by a limited dynamic headroom on LP. Lower level events at peaks or outside of them are simply made more audible due to dynamic compression because they are relatively louder. It then is an artifact.

One time I heard a large orchestral piece on an LP and was flabbergasted by all the detail and tone. I then ordered the CD of the same recording and it was FAR more dynamic than the LP (while other orchestral LPs on the system I heard this recording on were considerably more dynamic than this one). The dynamics on the CD were killer and a thrill, but at the same time I was disappointed that I heard so much less timbral detail, tone and energy in the softer passages. But these were really much softer than on the LP.

It was very obvious that on the LP the extra vividness and tonal life in the soft passages was simply a result of these passages being much louder than on the CD due to highly evident dynamic compression, thus the result of an artifact. Overall, due to its much better dynamics, the CD sounded much more realistic.

While the severe dynamic compression on this LP particularly highlighted the artifact, it will be present to some extent also on less dynamically compressed LPs of 'big' music. Dynamics on LP are best on smaller scale music, where they can be truly explosive without having to conquer a huge overall dynamic range.

compressed Lp's on 'big music'?

'some' golden era pressings were restricted in bass extension based on playback gear from that era. but recent re-issues have no such restriction. and i have plenty of direct to disc older pressings that are super alive.

try and tell a visitor to my room that my Lp's are compressed. it will cause a chuckle or five. they are degrees of magnitude more alive and extended than the digital.

honestly your rationalizations are delusional. your reaches are not how things are. but after reading years of your perspectives i have no illusions they might change. it's pointless for me to bother.

yet i agree with you that digital is fantastic. yet it's not vinyl.

[AJ Soundfield]

yet i agree with you that digital is fantastic. yet it's not vinyl.

Unless one does a valid comparison, which audiophiles seemingly will never understand no matter how many times its explained. Then digital is vinyl.
Comparing a CD, SACD, download, etc, etc "digital" file vs a particular vinyl record of purportedly the same recording, is totally invalid for "vinyl vs digital". It's simply "a" digital file version, vs "a" vinyl record.
For the umpteeenth time, a valid comparison of "vinyl" vs "digital", would be a real time ADA of vinyl playback, compared vs itself (I get it, this is beyond audiophile understanding). https://www.audioshark.org/showthrea...l=1#post249207
I've done this with audiophiles and apparently was way preceded by folks like John Atkinson, etc. according to an attendee who was present for both.
The results were predictable. Not to mention very amusing for attendees, at least mine.
As you found way back Mike, when an actual valid comparison is performed, results vary from invalid ones.
Now that doesn't mean that a vinyl LP of a particular recording can't sound "better" than a "digital" release of said recording and vice versa.
I've heard plenty of both. I own vinyl that, to my ears, is just that. And digital as well. This is all pertaining to archaic stereo as well, which is a joke vs real soundfields.

cheers,

AJ

[Al M.]

I am not challenging your observation. I wasn't there.

In general, system dynamics matter. I have, and can, demonstrate that with music played back using the same media with different electronics as well as a setup situation you mentioned (everything different).

Unfortunately, I can't find the LP (any version of it) in my sorted albums. I'll need to check the unsorted stacks another time. I did find the file in 16-bit 44.1 kHz and 24-bit 176 kHz. So, I'll play one of them later.

Regarding your initial comment, are you saying that this particular one time case with the Mahler LP/CD yields a difference vs. saying that this is always the case no matter the LP/CD?

If the former, I could possibly understand. If it's the later, I have observed different outcomes that depends on a few variables. Experience tells me it is usually up to the process of how the track was transferred to the medium(s).

As I explained, the differences in dynamics were so huge that they simply cannot be explained by differences in system dynamics, and that the other system also can sound very dynamic. And I have heard other orchestral LPs on that system with a much wider dynamic range. I used this example because it particularly highlighted the issue, as I explained in my post:

.
While the severe dynamic compression on this LP particularly highlighted the artifact, it will be present to some extent also on less dynamically compressed LPs of 'big' music. Dynamics on LP are best on smaller scale music, where they can be truly explosive without having to conquer a huge overall dynamic range.

So no, the LP/CD comparison does not always yield this result. This was a particularly drastic example that I used to try to explain an artifact which to a much lesser degree may very well also be present on other LPs of 'big' orchestral music, and which would explain the extra 'detail' and 'fullness' heard on LP.

Just like other music, orchestral music can sound dynamically explosive on LP, but then mostly on 45 rpm pressings. For example the Reference Recordings Symphonie Fantastique is incredibly, stunningly dynamic on great vinyl playback. But it still does not have the huge absolute dynamic range of that Mahler 3 recording. If you would try to put that dynamic range on LP, the soft passages would probably compete with some surface noise.

It is also no coincidence that the Sheffield drum track is on a 45 rpm LP, on one side of only 7 minutes length. You could not get those incredible dynamics from LP on a 33 rpm pressing of 20 minutes length with much less wide groves.

You could, however, easily get such dynamics on a standard CD, as for example can be heard on the famous 7 minute drum solo "Freedom Rider" by Art Blakey, on a CD of more than 70 minutes length (Complete Blue Note Recordings, volume 1960-62, CD 3 of 4 CD box set).

[Al M.]

compressed Lp's on 'big music'?

'some' golden era pressings were restricted in bass extension based on playback gear from that era. but recent re-issues have no such restriction. and i have plenty of direct to disc older pressings that are super alive.

try and tell a visitor to my room that my Lp's are compressed. it will cause a chuckle or five. they are degrees of magnitude more alive and extended than the digital.

honestly your rationalizations are delusional. your reaches are not how things are. but after reading years of your perspectives i have no illusions they might change. it's pointless for me to bother.

yet i agree with you that digital is fantastic. yet it's not vinyl.

Mike, the answer to your post is found in my previous one.

As for my perspectives, an attentive reader may have noticed that they are nuanced and try to be fair.

I was never not critical of digital. As I have explained, also recently on this thread, in terms of absolute sound quality I preferred LP until a few years ago because I thought digital could not do certain things quite right, for example saxophone, solo violin or orchestral massed strings. I had clearly and repeatedly expressed my opinion at the time, while I was also at that time a digital only guy myself, thus refraining from defending my 'favorite' medium no matter what. With recent advances in digital though my perspective has changed. Nonetheless, I have also clearly said in one of my recent posts that practical implementation of digital was lagging behind the, mathematically correct, theory. In addition I have clearly implied that practical implementation still is not perfect, thus still lags behind theory.

Furthermore, I have clearly and repeatedly defended LP against naysayers, also on this thread, as should be obvious to an attentive reader. Yet things like the Sheffield drum track being on a side of just 7 minutes of a 45 rpm LP for a clear reason cannot simply be argued away. The dynamics of standard 33 rpm LP do have limits.

I am neither a knee jerk defender of digital, nor am I a knee jerk defender of vinyl playback. I keep an open mind and observe facts and experiences as I perceive them. Based on that, my opinions have evolved over the years and keep being nuanced and open to further adjustments. However, I have a hard time with defenses of either medium that are unrealistic. I do not subscribe to digital myths (Perfect Sound Forever) nor do I have patience for romanticizing myths around vinyl, which can also be found here.