Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Steve Hoffman's Voodoo
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Steve Hoffman's Voodoo - Page 2

post #16 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by cujobob View Post
As mentioned, if a crackle is in a recording, a good system SHOULD have that crackle. Why is this even being discussed?
Maybe because the crackle is not in the recording. Perhaps I'm confused by what is being discussed here, but the crackle that you're hearing is often not in the recording itself. Rather, it is surface noise on the LP that cheap carts and phone stages will pick up and emphasize, but will never be heard on a better set up. I guess I agree with Tom Hankins on this one; having heard those same differences myself. In fact, it's pretty much irrefutable - anyone can hear the difference.
post #17 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wmcmanus View Post
I don't think this is a crazy statement at all. There is no doubt at all that a great vinyl playback system will take out most of the pops and ticks.
Wayne, Have you had the same results with digital as youve moved up in quality players? Can a higher grade clock, multiple DACs, and better transport cut through some of the noise thats being talked about? I'm thinking there is a good chance they will. Dont know for sure though. But vinyl without a doubt quality=quiet.
post #18 of 69
The issue with this disc is simply some midrange scratching type sounds on the recording, which are very different from physical anomalies associated with vinyl playback. I fail to see how a high end audio system can magically identify one part of a recording as unwanted, whilst preserving the rest. This is such a clear cut issue, it's amazing that it's even open for discussion.
post #19 of 69
So individual batches of CDs are all immune to having physical anomalies that certain batches of LPs sometimes have? I'm not debating wether this is the case with the Doors CD. i do know some digital is alot quieter than others, just like some vinyl setups are more quiet than others.
post #20 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom hankins View Post
Well color me an extremist. but i have records that have surface noise, pops and crackles that have been there since day one. And as i moved up the latter to higher end Cartridges and phonostages. Magic, no more noise and even more resolving and detailed at the same time. I think when they say a cartridge is capable of digging deep, this is what they are talking about. Only cost me $2-3K for the cartridge to find out.
No idea about CDs though. cant dig through noise on the shiny silver stuff.
The last time I recorded a playback of digital silence from a physical CD played back on a bog-standard 1980s CD player (Cost to me $30, new cost ~ $250) the background noise was at ~ -95db. Perhaps you can provide a similar silent inter-track recording from an LP that manages this

probably not , but I do not want to get into an LP v CD debate, my point is that we are susceptible to convincing ourselves that somehow some magical process is happening that has no basis in reality.

If you really believe that your better carts really do lessen surface noise try this. Record a short segment from a poor(but clean) LP using your good cart then put a mediocre cart back in and repeat the process. taking care to calibrate the recording level for both set-ups using a test LP.

Identify the pops in the mediocre-cart recording and then find the same places in the good-cart recording then see if they really are lessened in amplitude or duration ?
post #21 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick_charles View Post
The last time I recorded a playback of digital silence from a physical CD played back on a bog-standard 1980s CD player (Cost to me $30, new cost ~ $250) the background noise was at ~ -95db. Perhaps you can provide a similar silent inter-track recording from an LP that manages this

probably not , but I do not want to get into an LP v CD debate, my point is that we are susceptible to convincing ourselves that somehow some magical process is happening that has no basis in reality.

If you really believe that your better carts really do lessen surface noise try this. Record a short segment from a poor(but clean) LP using your good cart then put a mediocre cart back in and repeat the process. taking care to calibrate the recording level for both set-ups using a test LP.

Identify the pops in the mediocre-cart recording and then find the same places in the good-cart recording then see if they really are lessened in amplitude or duration ?
Really nothing to debate. i concede noise floor to CD. But high end cartridges do dig through pops, hiss, crackles and produce more detail while lowering the noise floor of vinyl. This is fact not wishful thinking. I've compared this with same records on different tables at my house. I own four. I've also compared my records being played on my table to needle drops of the same record with a lesser cartridge by same company. Quieter with the higher end cartridge than the needle drops . Also more texure weight and detail. My thoughts are based solely in reality. Sorry to say, so is my wallet. My dynavector XV-1s will have to wait at least until spring.
post #22 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedalhead View Post
The issue with this disc is simply some midrange scratching type sounds on the recording, which are very different from physical anomalies associated with vinyl playback. I fail to see how a high end audio system can magically identify one part of a recording as unwanted, whilst preserving the rest. This is such a clear cut issue, it's amazing that it's even open for discussion.
Especially in THIS subforum
post #23 of 69
That Doors CD could become a valuable and rare test CD. Take it around to high end systems at RMAF and similar shows. Then evaluate and criticize the systems based on how well they reproduce the crackle.
post #24 of 69
Is it a certain track, or is it through out the whole CD?
post #25 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom hankins View Post
Wayne, Have you had the same results with digital as youve moved up in quality players? Can a higher grade clock, multiple DACs, and better transport cut through some of the noise thats being talked about? I'm thinking there is a good chance they will. Dont know for sure though. But vinyl without a doubt quality=quiet.
Tom, I agree with you 100% as to quality=quiet in a vinyl rig. Anyone who doesn't think so either hasn't done the listening comparisons or is a complete dufus.

As for higher quality digital playback reducing noise, I can't really say because I don't listen for noise as such. But what I can tell you is that the music sure does sound better on a higher quality player. Of course, there are people who will disagree with that as well and argue that source means nothing in the digital realm.
post #26 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wmcmanus View Post
Tom, I agree with you 100% as to quality=quiet in a vinyl rig. Anyone who doesn't think so either hasn't done the listening comparisons or is a complete dufus.

As for higher quality digital playback reducing noise, I can't really say because I don't listen for noise as such. But what I can tell you is that the music sure does sound better on a higher quality player. Of course, there are people who will disagree with that as well and argue that source means nothing in the digital realm.
I've got the Doors remaster box set, Might give that LP a spin tonight. Listened to a couple of them but prefer the original pressings. have a great weekend!
post #27 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom hankins View Post
Is it a certain track, or is it through out the whole CD?
It's in a couple of places on "Roadhouse Blues"
post #28 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedalhead View Post
It's in a couple of places on "Roadhouse Blues"

Thanks
post #29 of 69
I think some of you are missing the point. All you are reading is the last sentence. There is no debate that better cartridges will get more groove contact. I think we can all agree that this leads to less susceptibility to playing and emphasizing surface noise.

The problem is with everything said before that last sentence. What is this nonsense with "magical midrange"? Based on what is said, he is saying that the midrange will mask the crackle by being over-emphasized. How is this high fidelity? Why is this garbage being spewed by one of the most respected people in music mixing/mastering? If it is in the recording, it should be played. When it is not, it is of lesser resolution. Period.

The part that really cracks me up is the part when he said that in the studio, the crackle is not audible. The monitors used in most good studios are designed to be as neutral as possible. That is why they are called monitors. His magical midrange and neutral monitors does not jive at all, and in fact, the imperfections should be all the more apparent on studio monitors.

I am quite frankly shocked that this does not get any more negative press. Some of the statements said are just plain ignorant and rather uncharacteristic of a professional.
post #30 of 69
He did say to people to take the disc to a high end hi-fi shop and try it on different systems. See for yourself if what he said is true. It could be true that high quality speaker systems with certain audiophile characteristics could mask the particular crackle sound.

It doesn't make sense that a high quality and resolving speaker system would mask something like that when it's audible on lesser equipment and on headphones. But there's a lot in audio that doesn't always make sense at first blush. There could be a unique psychoacoustic thing going on with particular systems.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Steve Hoffman's Voodoo