Analog and Vinyl: no longer the benchmark

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jim Smith said:
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.
Click to expand...

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).
 
AJ Soundfield said:
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
Click to expand...

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 It had co-existed with the phonograph cylinder from the late 1880s and had effectively superseded it by around 1912."

[h=2]Timeline[edit][/h]
  • 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. [SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP] It was first proposed as a telephony technology.[SUP][3][/SUP]
  • 1943: Bell Telephone Laboratories develops the first PCM-based digital scrambled speech transmission system, SIGSALY,[SUP][4][/SUP] 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.[SUP][3][/SUP] 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. [SUP][3][/SUP]
  • 1970: American inventor James Russell patents the first digital-to-optical recording and playback system, [SUP][5][/SUP]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. [SUP][3][/SUP]
  • 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.[SUP][3][/SUP] 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.
 
Al M. said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
aKnyght said:
...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.
Click to expand...

+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.
 
aKnyght said:
…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.
Click to expand...

Even to appreciate the most impressionist painting, given the age, i already need glasses. :cool:
And they have to be clean... :D


Al M. said:
The more dynamic range the better. It's exciting.
Click to expand...

I agree and I will go further: if we are trying to improve our systems but don´t know exactly what looking for, i say we should always go for the best dynamic range and the most extreme frequency response. To me, that´s the way.
 
Jim Smith said:
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.
Click to expand...

You set up both PeterA and Mike's systems.

Do think their vinyl playback rigs aren't performing up to their full potential?
 
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
 
Jim Smith said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
VTA does make a big difference , did i mention its a PITA ..!


Jim is correct, but regardless if using digital and or analog , speakers has to be voiced to the room, reflections controlled , then one can hear ..


Regards
 
Of what I was talking about...

Unacceptable for a $50 album.

8bf081b26aad79aa5f36135f0863637f.png


53ddf5eca19e4c4138d357d496aa2990.png
 
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...
 
Jim Smith said:
As I recall, that was about 9 years ago!
Click to expand...

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."
 
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.
Al M. said:
It is!

And the VTA adjustments that Peter describes do make a significant difference.
Click to expand...
 
PeterA said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
 
a.wayne said:
Not saying its not a bad copy , but mistracking and a worn cartridge will do this also ..
Click to expand...

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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top