why bother with all this $$$ equipment? - Page 3

The issue I've had with vinyl has been that it's more expensive and more difficult to get the best sound out of it.

I'm not saying whether a great analog or digital system sounds better than the other. I'll let the rest of you debate that. What I will say is putting together an analog rig is much more of a chore. It is also much more expensive. For around $1k you can get an excellent CDP/SACD player. It's hard to rival that with a $1k turntable setup (table, arm, cart, phono preamp). Or even several multiples of it. Tonearm and cartridge setup is hardly a simple task. Then you have to make sure the records are in pristine and clean condition. A poorly set up turntable sounds like poop. Ticks and pops are annoying.


With a CD or SACD you open up the jewel case, insert the CD and press play to enjoy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mossback 

...claiming any sort of knowledge about how digital actually performs in the real world compared to vinyl (at the highest level for both), without ever listening to the higher levels of vinyl is wrong and inviting challenge.

 

OTOH; if you stick to scientific arguements and measurement proof and don't venture into claims of listening; i will not take the time to dispute whatever you might write. claim that i am self-delusional, claim that machines know better, claim that you are king of the world......no problem. just make it clear you don't have experience listening to top level vinyl so readers can make their own judgements based on your logic and experience.
 

 

do you have any experience of controlled listening to that level of phono playback that "clearly leaves digital behind" thru a studio quality hi rez digital ADC/DAC inserted inline without you having to peek?

What the OP not understand is that a CD or a vinyl record is only as good as the master it was copied from, with most analogue recordings made before the 90s, one of the best and the most popular 1/2 track tape machines, Studer A820, has a spec of 40Hz - 22kHz running at a speed of 30 ips, and a signal to noise ratio of 75dB with crosstalk of 55dB at 1kHz at best, not to mention all the added the distortions during the cutting/mould making and pressing process. Now if the vinyl record was mastered from a digital recording in the 90s, they are usually mastered at 16bit/44.1kHz, which is exactly the same as a red book CD standard, and a digital copy is 100% identical to its original, whereas an analogue copy of a digital recording will always have some kind of distortion and noise added, no matter how small. Therefore, technically speaking, vinyl records can never be as good as CDs, it'd be like saying a photocopy of a picture is better than the original.

As Uncle Erik mentioned, SACDs are better than CDs (providing the mastering was done at 24bit/48kHz or better), and probably have the best of both worlds, analogue kind of sound resolution with no loss of quality with a near identical quality to the original, and an impressive spec of 20Hz - 50kHz, 120 dB signal to noise ratio and a sample resolution of 2.8224 MHz.

Lots of people like the sound of vinyl records, I can totally understand that, but that doesn't mean they are technically better. It's like how someone can prefer the look of a grainy black and white photo taken with a film camera, but that doesn't mean it looks more similar to the actually scenery than a 28 megapixels digital image of it. 

You know, when a musician performs on-stage or even in the studio, do they use 'absolutely-the-best-gear' when recording?  You know, like the quality of the cables of their microphone to the recording medium to the power lines and the sound dampening.  I think that we like to think that 100% top of the line equipment is used but the reality is that there are likely compromises abound. I've been to so many live shows where I go because I love the artist but I KNOW the quality of the speaker setup and accoustics is just way sub par. 

OK, so while all that may be true, I can answer that I spend what I do because I really enjoy the chase.  It's really fun to hear new gear and how much it colors or doesn't color the sound that I know and love, tweaking things here and there to eke out every last detail.  These are the things that take a lot of time and money to find and enjoy.  I know at the end of the day there's music I really enjoy on speakers and music that I really enjoy on an intimate headphone rig.

As much as I love vinyl I've not yet made the plunge into high-end vinyl ~ my experiences so far with my CD player have been nothing short of fantastic though!

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcx 

 

do you have any experience of controlled listening to that level of phono playback that "clearly leaves digital behind" thru a studio quality hi rez digital ADC/DAC inserted inline without you having to peek?

 

i've done blind testing; both by myself and in groups. whatever truths they might reveal are more about the actual test proceedure than about actual differences in gear/format/media etc. i've done enough of these tests to never do one again. anyone who wants to read my posts on various forums can read all about those occurences.

so the answer to your question is yes.

as my post to Mr. Green says; i respect that a particular group of people will doubt anything without scientific proof that is acceptable to them. and i have no interest in debating all that. i would just invite those 'objectivists' to visit my room and just listen. my DAC is recognized as state-of-the-art. i love it. but 10 seconds listening to my Rockport turntable humbles it. i've had many digital objectivists enter my room confident that digital would be competive; none have left still feeling that way.

i'll debate listening perceptions, but not viewpoints on scientific format capability or human perception challenges.

i like to listen.

As for speakers vs headphones, music or sound in the real world do not come in stereo for a start, so stereo speakers systems do not represent a soundstage remotely like the real thing. Since most commercially available music is mixed with stereo monitors, I suppose one can say music generally sound better with speakers. But with binaural recordings, one can get a sound stage very similar to real life listening with just stereo headphones.

Who knows, with the increasing popularity of portable audio players, maybe binaural recordings will become more popular in the future, in fact there is an iPhone game that can create binaural audio in real time by processing sound using HRTF already. 

But what does that prove? It just proves that you prefer the analogue sound character, which I can accept, doesn't mean vinyl records are technically more superior, just like how a lot of people prefer the warm sound of a vintage tube amplifier, doesn't mean they are accurate. On this rare occasion, I totally agree with Mr. Green. 
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mossback 

i've done blind testing; both by myself and in groups. whatever truths they might reveal are more about the actual test proceedure than about actual differences in gear/format/media etc. i've done enough of these tests to never do one again. anyone who wants to read my posts on various forums can read all about those occurences.

 

so the answer to your question is yes.

 

as my post to Mr. Green says; i respect that a particular group of people will doubt anything without scientific proof that is acceptable to them. and i have no interest in debating all that. i would just invite those 'objectivists' to visit my room and just listen. my DAC is recognized as state-of-the-art. i love it. but 10 seconds listening to my Rockport turntable humbles it. i've had many digital objectivists enter my room confident that digital would be competive; none have left still feeling that way.

 

i'll debate listening perceptions, but not viewpoints on scientific format capability or human perception challenges.

 

i like to listen.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danz03 

But what does that prove? It just proves that you prefer the analogue sound character, which I can accept, doesn't mean vinyl records are technically more superior, just like how a lot of people prefer the warm sound of a vintage tube amplifier, doesn't mean they are accurate. In this rare occasion, I totally agree with Mr. Green. 
 

 

prove??? who needs proof? i trust my ears.

at some time in the future you may be exposed to truely high end vinyl. after that your need to justify your current objective beliefs will cease. references are like that. until you hear something beyond your experience it's hard to imagine it.

until then, enjoy your perspective.

I grew up listening to high end hi-fi systems, turntables, compact and reel to reel tape decks to CDs, SACDs and digital monitoring systems; I have made recordings, mastered from analogue, digital multi-tracks and DAWs, and have cut lacquer masters at the Abbey Road Studio in London, so I'd like to think I know a few things about the shortcomings of analogue and vinyl records. There is nothing wrong in you saying that you prefer the sound character, or even think that vinyl records sound better and superior to CDs, but you just cannot say that vinyl records are technically superior to CDs, it's just fundamentally wrong.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mossback 

prove??? who needs proof? i trust my ears.

 

at some time in the future you may be exposed to truely high end vinyl. after that your need to justify your current objective beliefs will cease. references are like that. until you hear something beyond your experience it's hard to imagine it.

 

until then, enjoy your perspective.

 

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mossback 

prove??? who needs proof? i trust my ears.

 

at some time in the future you may be exposed to truely high end vinyl. after that your need to justify your current objective beliefs will cease. references are like that. until you hear something beyond your experience it's hard to imagine it.

 

until then, enjoy your perspective.

 

 

 

No one will be able to hear vinyl like your placebo fueled perception. :)

Proof, pffft, who needs proof, I say anyone accused of a crime is guilty, GUILTY I TELL YOU!!!!! :P

meh, vinyl is for old people.

I don't know if that's true, many young people and DJs are really into vinyls, they do have a nice warm sound character that many people prefer.  
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Satellite_6 

meh, vinyl is for old people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by visualguy 

 

I find well-mastered CDs to sound as good as well-mastered SACDs. Many SACDs have a well-mastered Redbook layer with a sound quality which is indistinguishable from the SACD layer.

 

It's not so much the medium- it's the recording.  This has been discussed here before- very often studios will remix/master for the different formats.  You need to make sure you are comparing apples to apples and the only way of doing this is (read next quote):

Vinyl can sure sound nice, but if you listen to selected tracks, the inconvenience is a nightmare (to me). I grew up carefully setting down a stylus in the right groove,

and I'd never have the patience for that anymore. Of course, now people don't even want to deal with CDs, so that even makes me a dinosaur.

Before I make any comment I'd just like to ask people to consider what Mkubota1 has suggested:

Isn't what you guys are discussing simply a medium?

This hobby of music, to an extreme, is simply like an art.  We buy equipment, change settings, and listen till our ears fall out.  However as users we are relatively passive unlike a sport, our opinions and enjoyment is what we do aside from reading about it and setting up equipment.

But similar to something like Archery there are traditional strung wooden bows and there are composite technological offerings.  Can both hit the target with correct practice? I don't think anyone would doubt a traditional bow user can hit a standard target just as state of the art bow.

That being said if we do a little comparision:

Vinyl: is similar to traditional art of recording

CD/SACD: is similar to technological offering of digitization

Vinyl: is Analog in nature and eliminates one piece in the chain of a "recording" -> "ears".  That is one inevitable advantage. There are plenty more but comparatively something like infinite sample rate to the

CD/SACD: Digital equivalent of 48khz/96khz/192khz sample rates the latter can be said to be high enough that infinite of analog is not longer important.

Problem here is Music is heard by ears, ears are objective to sound but the brain's perception is, by nature, subjective.  A sound meter or measuring equipment is simply data, people's ears are not microphones.

That is why Mossback's comments are completely valid, his vinyl setup is beautiful and very enjoyable to the human ear, the empirical proof is his friends and himself.  You cannot prove how beautiful a painting is, you can say how "exact" the strokes are, the thickness the resolution but you cannot use technical data to measure its beauty.

Does Vinyl potentially beat digital media in performance? No, it does have infinite sample rate which is limited by the tool used to make grooves.  CD and further SACD were made to have higher bit resolution and better potential (and easier) recording for the artists.

Does CD have lots of potential? Yes,

But does the professional recording industry get lazy with the ease of digital mastering? Yes (As a relatively young adult I am disgusted by the laziness of the industry  recording new talent in sub par fidelity)

Does digitized music increase make our lives easier when listening to music? Absolutely

Would some people prefer to get a hand-written card over an e-mail? Then why would not some people go to the effort of making "hand written" Vinyl recordings sound their very best with thousand dollar wooden cartridges over using a digitized CD.

This is an interesting thread, but I think discussion is better than counter arguing.  There isn't much value in arguing about a question which is rhetorically answered.  Cheers, I still am curious on what Mr Mossback's setup sounds like

What potential? Vinyl is a dead end format. Why? As an analogue format, it is not nearly as good as reel-to-reel tapes, the sound quality degrades with each and every play (tapes too but with much less degradation), and the SQ is also not consistent throughout the whole disc, with the beginning of a 12" LP having twice the resolution as the end.

The professional industry did not get lazy with the ease of digital mastering, in fact the early digital recording and mastering system like the U-matic system is much harder to use than analogue tapes, the main reason they used it is that a digital copy of the original is 100% identical. Unlike CDs, tapes and vinyl records can never sound identical to the master, there will always be some added distortion during copying or the manufacturing process.

Like I said many times before, it's fine to say you think analogue sounds better, but it is fundamentally wrong to say vinyl records are technically more superior. In fact for analogue lovers, all you need to do to get that analogue sound is to record a CD with a reel-to reel tape and you will get that analogue sound playing it back, so why go through the trouble of actually getting a turntable system at all, where the sound quality would be limited by the physical defects of the disc itself?  

Quote:

Originally Posted by D-Boy 

 

Does CD have lots of potential? Yes,

But does the professional recording industry get lazy with the ease of digital mastering? Yes (As a relatively young adult I am disgusted by the laziness of the industry  recording new talent in sub par fidelity)

Does digitized music increase make our lives easier when listening to music? Absolutely

 

Would some people prefer to get a hand-written card over an e-mail? Then why would not some people go to the effort of making "hand written" Vinyl recordings sound their very best with thousand dollar wooden cartridges over using a digitized CD.

 

This is an interesting thread, but I think discussion is better than counter arguing.  There isn't much value in arguing about a question which is rhetorically answered.  Cheers, I still am curious on what Mr Mossback's setup sounds like