[sander99]

Never have been able to fit a ... RtoR in my pocket...or my backpack.

 

[Hooster]

The most notable differences are:
1. The width and, above all, the DEPTH of soundtage. RBCD is flat, LP is 3D - rivaling most of what the surround can provide.
Admitedly, this DOES get affected by the actual equipment used - the most hidden and hard to break "nut" in this case is the phono stage preamplifier - where only a handful selection from creme de la creme will actually do the real justice to this recording, which is so exceptional in every way of the meaning. And I do, regretfully, realize most people will never get to hear it at its best. Sad, but - true.
2. Initial transients - it is possible to extract the initial stroke - either by stick or hand, whatever various percussion instruments have been played with - BEFORE the "aftermath resonance" or sound of the percussion as we know it from most recordings is actually heard. These tiny, barely audible "sneak peek previews" are completely absent from the Rykodisc CD release(s) ( and it can't possibly be much different on Reference Recordings' own RR-12CD ) - yet they create an atmosphere that definitely is always present in live music and is missing in the vast majority of even good analog recordings; none of the RBCDs can recreate this kind of "lifelike liveliness".
3. When cymbals etc are concerned, you can be certain a guy with an old beat up but still functional Revox R2R will beat you in an audition towards making a demo recording showcasing various cymbal models/ranges from any manufacturer - IF you stick with digital recording limited to RBCD only. This particular recording by Keith Johnson is perhaps one of the best analog tape masters ever made - and record mastering by sadly late Doug Sax is also no slouch either.
The detail in high frequencies has to be heard to be believed - no words can prepare one for what will follow once a superb stylus etc hits the groove of this record.

Bravo!!! Thank you for that. I wish I had the time, space, money and wherewithal to put together a good analog playback system. Sadly I don't and I use digital for convenience. Thank you for your educated post.

 

[hakunamakaka]

It explains a lot why for so many people TT setup does not impress them as phono preamp is overlooked in most cases, being it integrated in TT or as an extra output from sound cards. When you think of it, it’s the unit that receives the sound read from the vinyl. My friend is struggling to get something close of what I have at home even having better TT, speakers, but using integrated preamp

 

[491838]

What is your opinion on decay when it comes to headphones? I see that discussed a lot even by reviewers that I trust but I think it's one of those terms that doesn't really mean anything if both people discussing it aren't hearing the same thing.

To play devil's advocate, I would probably describe it as a sort of softness (lack of grain/harshness) in the mids and treble that's related to "detail" but having heard the LCD-2F and the HD800 with oratory's profiles I'm starting to see what's actually happening. The LCD-2 like my ER4 IEMs has softer sounding treble but they both also have holes in the treble or a more relaxed sounding treble, even with EQ (the LCD-2 doesn't really recover all the way up to neutral with oratory's profile in the treble). Listening to the HD800 with the oratory profile is quite confusing. The HD800 has a very similar tonal balance to the Harman/oratory EQ-ed LCD-2 but the treble sounds a bit sharper, more similar to a speaker. That sense of decay isn't really there (where is it?) because the HD800 has zero holes in the treble (but it has that 6K peak that can be 95-99% removed with EQ) presumably but is it more detailed than the LCD-2? Very confusing indeed. What's evidently clear is that the clarity of the HD800 is superior at least in part due to the more balanced tuning in the treble and mids but perhaps the thick pads on the LCD-2 contribute to its specific warmth and lack of clarity. However, these two headphones render detail quite differently as far as I can tell and I'm not entirely sure this is due to FR differences.

 

[Hooster]

It explains a lot why for so many people TT setup does not impress them as phono preamp is overlooked in most cases, being it integrated in TT or as an extra output from sound cards. When you think of it, it’s the unit that receives the sound read from the vinyl. My friend is struggling to get something close of what I have at home even having better TT, speakers, but using integrated preamp

TT setup is an art and a good phono preamp is an essential ingredient. So is a good turntable set up correctly, tonearm and cartridge and that all has to play well together of course.

 

[bigshot]

Seems like TT/Cart/Phono Preamps have significantly progressed since I owned them

Actually there hasn't been a lot of progress. Most of the technical advances came about in the 70s when LPs were at their zenith. Since then, they have been a tiny niche market and development dollars have moved on to digital. There's a disproportionately high number of expensive turntables and carts now, but that is because LPs are marketed to the high end audiophile market. But it's basically old wine in new bottles. LPs are LPs. If anything, pressings are worse now than in the past, because there are fewer pressing facilities and it is difficult to maintain quality without the economics of scale.

LPs are capable of very good sound quality if all the stars are aligned. But it can't stand up to the aural perfection of CDs.

 

[bigshot]

It explains a lot why for so many people TT setup does not impress them as phono preamp is overlooked in most cases, being it integrated in TT or as an extra output from sound cards.

Back in the 70s, output from phono cartridges were pretty consistent. One phono pre-amp was pretty much the same as any other. But now, boutique audiophile carts have output that is all over the map. They deliberately use out of spec output so you have to buy their own branded pre-amp (at a ridiculously inflated price). I ran into this on an Ortofon moving coil cartridge. I had a moving coil pre, but when I got the cartridge home, I found that Ortofon requires a higher boost than any other brand. I hate it when companies do stuff like that. The stereo store wouldn't take the cartridge back in exchange since I had opened it, so I was forced to buy the dumb Ortofon pre. I haven't bought another Ortofon product since. Too bad because that cart tracked really well. I find that tracking is more of an issue than anything else with carts.

 

[Davesrose]

I live in an area with lots of RF interference. I have used various phono pre-amps for my setups and they have all sounded great....but many just pick up radio stations where I am now. However, my higher end theater receiver now still has a phono input: and I do find it best. I can directly input my TT's output with ground, and no outside noise. I have a record cleaner and all that, but am still not sold that vinyl is an end all be all source.

 

[bigshot]

When I was a kid, my dad was a ham radio operator. I had to make sure I had my stereo off when he broadcast, or it would come through at ear blasting volumes! He instructed the whole family that if the neighbors asked, we didn't know where those radio signals were coming from. Happy father's day in heaven, dad! I'll never squeal on ya!

 

[hakunamakaka]

I live in an area with lots of RF interference. I have used various phono pre-amps for my setups and they have all sounded great....but many just pick up radio stations where I am now. However, my higher end theater receiver now still has a phono input: and I do find it best. I can directly input my TT's output with ground, and no outside noise. I have a record cleaner and all that, but am still not sold that vinyl is an end all be all source.

My vinyl journey started end eded up on budget when I bought old thorens 160 TT, yaqin ms23b phono preamp and adam t5v active studio monitors. All costing around 600$, once I've set things up and played my first records I was disappointed, loud, bold sound with vinyl audio noise(clicks, pops throughout the record). Than I thought this chinese ms23b preamp is no good, swapped it with mixer which had phono input, similar results with a little bit cleaner sound..after that my TT setup was simply collecting dust for a while when one day I thought maybe, as this turntable is old, it's cartridge and stylus are simply worn out, ordered new cartridge/stylus Ortofon VMS 20E Mk II for 60$, still similar results. I simply started to moan in one of the forums that there is no point in TT, SQ is lacking even though I could get it louder using mixers phono input, One member though offered me to send my phono pre-amp to him to take a look and I did. I didn't care of my TT setup anymore, but surprisingly I've received my unit after a month and he didn't even charged me at all.... I saw a new 3rd tube socked in unit and stock tubes removed and packed aside, he wrote me to order gold lionex tubes and then connect my modded preamp to TT.

Once I did it, it wasn't the same sound system anymore..I Don't get this experience via my digital, my TOTL CIEM's or my HP

 

[James-uk]

I’m currently using tidal for steaming music, but I’m considering moving to Apple music. Is it fair to say that Apple Music, which is encoded at 256 aac, is audibly transparent?

 

[castleofargh]

I used analog record as the starting point for judging any ditalization process for a simple reason : It is AVAILABLE.

What is the point of even discussing digital audio if you already decided that your reference would be the sound of an analog recording and playback system?
If we can't agree on the reference that should be used, the easy fix is to consider running a given recording and playback system for a few generations of signal in a loop.

At some point we'd clearly be able to hear what everybody already knows. That tapes have generation loss bad enough that a lot of efforts and money(when possible) was put into using as few generations as possible in the making of a track. That vinyl is really a poor medium even compared to tape. And that digital sampling and analog reconstruction tend to offer the highest fidelity out of the pack. If we were to run that several times, nobody would need measurements to reach a conclusion on fidelity.

And, regardless of all the analog record failings and defects, a perfect digital replica should add or distract NOTHING from what can be played back with a state of the art analog record playback equipment.

In the same sentence you want to disregard analog issues with fidelity but demand perfection from digital... Can we try something a tiny bit less partial?
Also nobody expects practical perfection as nobody can make it happen. But in term of fidelity, I worry about transducers more than I can ever worry about ADC, digital formats and DACs. Not because of some philosophy but because that's where the weak link really is and will probably remain for some time.

The argument about sensing with more than our ears is irrelevant and so is the argument that we're still learning and still have some things to discover in the human body. If you consciously notice something, then you do, no matter why or how. If you play a tone in the audible range, I will react to it when reaching a given level and this can be easily tested and controlled. Making it a fact that I'm noticing that signal at that listening level. Same thing with a light in my face. Same thing with wind or infrared light on my skin. The moment something in me gets stimulated enough for me to notice, I can consistently demonstrate that I'm factually noticing it. So why is it so hard to do the same for ultrasounds if they make an easily noticeable difference? If all the audiophiles claiming to hear the difference really could, it should be trivial to demonstrate the evident impact of ultrasounds and hires on listeners. But instead we have a handful of controversial studies suggesting that our brain might pick up on the difference, but no correlating sense from the listener. And some showing that if we blast really loud ultrasounds right on the skin or on the eyeball, then people can notice. And at last we have the fact that children can perceive ultrasounds at freqs near the audible range. That's pretty much all the outstanding evidence in favor of humans perceiving ultrasounds.
We could find 20 new organs sensitive to ultrasounds that wouldn't change how people keep failing to demonstrate their ability to tell anything about the ultrasonic content in music when in a controlled test. The facts are demonstrated by those tests, not by fringe philosophy of sound, and optimism.

As to what we could have achieved if we had stubbornly persisted in developing turntables and tapes, well they would still be impracticable, would still probably have higher generational loss than digital sampling+analog reconstruction, would still probably have lower fidelity(or similar but I can't imagine doing better), would probably cost more than digital equivalent. And from what you say, unless there was a radical change in some of the techs used, it might still require a lot of efforts and know how to set things right(meaning uncertainty in term of the actual fidelity). I don't find the prospect as appealing as you do.

Here is the only argument I have in favor of old analog techs beyond having them as collectibles or nostalgic reminders: old albums were made on and for the gears of their time, so I can agree with the desire to play those "the way they were intended to be played". I would still argue that we could play it that way once and make a good digital copy of it to actually use for the rest of our lives. but I have no issue with someone who simply enjoys using an analog setup and finds pleasure in the sort of ritual that goes with it.
I will never have anything against people who enjoy using their turntable and maybe some old amp with 5% or more of THD. But that's completely different from the nonsensical game where we pretend that low fidelity is in fact high fidelity because we happen to like the low fidelity better.

Anyway I've lost hope that we'll be able to agree on those stuff. you keep thinking that I'm missing important aspects of the problem or only looking at what I want to see, and I keep thinking that you rely on axioms that were irrevocably proved wrong decades ago. Looks like an impasse.

 

[GearMe]

But in term of fidelity, I worry about transducers more than I can ever worry about ADC, digital formats and DACs. Not because of some philosophy but because that's where the weak link really is and will probably remain for some time.

Yep!

TBH...that's another reason for digital playback instead of TT/Cartridge. It removes an unnecessary transducer with setup/maintenance issues from the playback chain not to mention the physical media being 'transduced' with the whole record care/cleaning/anti-stat thing...UGH!!!

 

[491838]

I’m currently using tidal for steaming music, but I’m considering moving to Apple music. Is it fair to say that Apple Music, which is encoded at 256 aac, is audibly transparent?

If those were encoded from a lossless master. But some of these lossless services have special masters in some cases that aren't as loud/compressed as even the CD releases.

I wanted to switch to Spotify at one point but I couldn't trust that they used lossless sources for their 320K encodes.

Edit: Also, I EQ so it actually is better to use lossless in that case.

 

[hakunamakaka]

Yep!

TBH...that's another reason for digital playback instead of TT/Cartridge. It removes an unnecessary transducer with setup/maintenance issues from the playback chain not to mention the physical media being 'transduced' with the whole record care/cleaning/anti-stat thing...UGH!!!

Yes it takes more care, but you can achieve amazing sq with TT even being on budget. There are so many releases till this day that comes out only on LP’s and all you have left with is to hope that someone will soon rip it and upload track on youtube. As well a lot of 1950-1980 LP releases consists of so much music which doesn’t have digital copies, you a left with no choice unless you are a member of closed community like what.cd was in the past. Listen to Victor Kiswell, some of Gilles Peterson mix releases and you will see how much of the music is still left to be found from that era A real music geek would blow your mind with sounds that are present only in LP or ripped into his hard drive