Why no turntable?

Mike said:
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...

6f3b73030b55a63498e288526e3a80d3.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


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.
 
Mike said:
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
Click to expand...

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

6f3b73030b55a63498e288526e3a80d3.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It is killer!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
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
 
Mike Lavigne said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Al M. said:
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.
Click to expand...

What LP?
What CD?

Some more information would be helpful for those reading.
 
Dre_J said:
Thanks.

Same system (preamp, amp, speakers) after the source components?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Al M. said:
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.
Click to expand...

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).
 
Al M. said:
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.
Click to expand...

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


:)
 
Dre_J said:
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).
Click to expand...


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
 
Al M. said:
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.
Click to expand...

compressed Lp's on 'big music'?:rolleyes:

'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 Lavigne said:
yet i agree with you that digital is fantastic. yet it's not vinyl.
Click to expand...
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/showthread.php?t=15082&page=2&p=249207&viewfull=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
 
Dre_J said:
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).
Click to expand...

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:

Al M. said:
.
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.
Click to expand...

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).
 
Mike Lavigne said:
compressed Lp's on 'big music'?:rolleyes:

'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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top