[old tech]

Well isn't Steve Hoffman known in particular to engineer for old LP titles? I don't know how much of that is his experience just with analog or having a vested interest to be "anti-digital".

There might be an argument that the capabilities of LP are closer to old master tapes: IE larger magnetic tapes had some better capabilities, but still can't approach the capabilities of our current digital audio standards (in terms of frequency range and dynamic range). We know that either tape or LPs have more frequency roll off. I have collected some older used records thinking they may have been better mastered then some digital masterings, but I can't believe there would be any LP person would think vinyl exceed the capabilities of digital: it's just if there's a subjective preference of its colorization (and what I can think of current popularity of new LPs being made from digital sources).

I'm sure audio mastering has changed just as much as my experience with photography/digital video. The earliest digital cameras couldn't produce the resolving power or dynamic range of 35mm film. The first spec that I found digital to be better than analog was a better noise floor (IE being able to take photos in low light and high ISO). Film has been a good archive medium: quite a few older movies have been color graded and mastered for 4K HDR now. It's also interesting to see how TV productions have been transfered to a digital medium: IE Star Trek original series, which their special effects shots didn't hold up and all those shots redone in 3D. STNG, though, was sourced with ILM, who had a process of filming VFX passes on larger film stock (just as movies were in the 80s: filming VFX on large film stocks to hold up to optical printing). To meet the time constraints, those film negatives were scanned to video and edited in standard definition...but CBS could go back and rescan all film elements to do a digital master (where especially with VFX, you can add as many layers as you want, copy, distribute any number of times and stay bit perfect). I think it's great that we now have smaller cameras that are able to have a higher resolving power and dynamic range than film did. One huge comparison would be watching Top Gun in 4K: where you can see the limitations they had at the time: they were using a film format that had low resolving power, but were smaller for being able to attach to aerial photography. Now you can watch the sequel, Maverick, in 4K (trailer until release later this year) and just see how much sharper and better the image is. Now that production values are so great with current movies, I have noticed that cinephiles can be critical about other things: such as color grading or choice of aspect ratios....factors that are personal choices.

Though when speaking of studio masters, this is also reminding me of film restoration. For quite a few years now, studios have scanned 35mm sources in 4K resolution and 70mm sources in 8K. They have painstakingly color graded each shot, taken out any specks are marks in the negative etc....to make a pristine digital copy that looks better than anything someone would see in a multiplex that had run that original screening for how many cycles. When they are done, the have the digital master that gets saved and will be handed to channels for home distribution and such. They also make a new analog film master as well, just in case the software is no longer supported, and current film stocks can be archived for over 100 years.

Yeah, I get all that. The issue here is not the mastering but reproducing a copy of a tape...

 

[old tech]

Peekaboo ...

He's back!

 

[analogsurviver]

Well, I will be only sporadically checking that things don't deteriorate ( or advance, depending on point of view ... ) to the point this group reaches the conclusion mp3s with 32kHz sampling and 96 kbps is enough for music - or that RBCD can replicate decent vinyl.

Despite our differences, I am glad that most ( did not check much the period of my absence ) if not all are still rambling with no end. Even the one(s) I am not supposed to name.

Wish everyone speedy recovery from the covideration - and some live music event(s) in reasonably near future.

 

[stonesfan129]

I wonder what kind of digital equipment they are playing things through where it doesn't sound transparent the way his LPs do.

 

[analogsurviver]

I wonder what kind of digital equipment they are playing things through where it doesn't sound transparent the way his LPs do.

The real question is the other way around - what kind of digital equipment has the performance which is capable of covering all the bandwidth of the best analog without introducing any objectionable quantization noise.

I know of exactly ONE documented and from third party verified "soundcard", ADC/DAC, audio interface, recorder - or whatever you want to call that digital device - that is good enough. It is the RME ADI2 PRO FS - which, within its specs
https://www.rme-audio.de/adi-2-pro-fs.html
includes ALL the nitty gritty measurements most other manufacturers hide like a snake does its feet - and all of these tough measurements have been confirmed by Archimago.
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2018/09/measurements-rme-adi-2-pro-fs-adc.html
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2018/10/measurements-rme-adi-2-pro-fs-as-dac.html

RME ADI2 started its life as PCM only capable unit, IIRC back in 2016. Since I am a DSD guy, I did not pay any attention to it because of that. But, it was (and still is ... ) a work in progress; somewhere along the line, firmware upgrade added native DSD capability; those claiming jitter does not matter will get a slap in the face of their digital life ... - because later production runs added suffix "FS", meaning the addition of femto clock - AGAIN, well documented by measurements, which more than just pass the criteria required by this thread. And, again, verified by Archimago .

My present standard equipment is Korg MR-1 and MR-1000 portable DSD recorders. Both in stock and modified version - as the analog input to the ADC and analog output from the ADC are iffy - at best - and if I want to stay polite about it. My modified MR-1000 is broadly equivalent/comparable to Tascam DA-3000 - and both make AUDIBLE mincemeat out of stock MR-1000. Both MR-1000 and DA-3000 use exactly the same "digititis" ( aka ADC chipset - and, IIRC, also the DAC chipset ) - and both start with a steep rise in quatization noise at 55 kHz or so, regardless if in PCM or DSD mode. Things can get REALLY bad at around 80 kHz ... - and, in order to keep this DIGITAL ultrasonic garbage as low as possible, this is the answer WHY do I insist - doggedly so - recording with peaks just a smidge below 0dBFS in DSD mode.
Korg MR series has, additionally, something I cherish and call "sharp curve safety exit ". These machines CAN survive recording levels up to 5-6 dB ABOVE 0dBFS when recording in DSD - and can also play back these hot recordings WITHOUT any audible protest - unlike most other digital gear, where 0dBFS is the SHARP end of the world. Tascam DA-3000 included - it breaks to pieces if the tiniest fraction of a dB over 0dBFS is exceeded, just like a view trough the perfectly clear glass window ( anything below 0dBFS) - and the same view, if somebody throws a rock and shatters that glass ( anything exceeding 0dBFS)...
Korg Audiogate software can both transcode DSD to PCM, as well adjust for levels. That, sadly, involves unavoidable going from DSD to PCM and back to DSD, if the levels of the original ( mostly live ... ) recordings peaked above 0dBFS ( but not more than +6dBFS; most usually, it is a dB or two, as musicians during rehearsals, where and when I try to set the recording level , are usually playing somewhat reserved. I do try to allow for a reasonable headroom, but sometimes a rather timid rehearsal turns into fireworks concert - particularly if it is the first time recording that artist(s). An educated guesstimate is the best that can be done under such circumstances. Or, one can play it safe, record with ample overload margin, but then suffer the quantization noise increase and, after the levels have been "normalized" via DSD>PCM normalization >DSD, the loss of native DSD recording ). It is, also sadly, limited to the highest sampling frequency Korg devices support, that is to say 192/24 for PCM and DSD128.

All the above can explain WHY I have been waiting for a digital device capable of maintaining at least 100 dB S/N across its ENTIRE bandwidth - up to the very highest frequency it can present at its output, that is to say half the frequency of its highest sampling frequency.
For RME ADI2 PRO FS, that means clean output up to 384 kHz.
For those who doggedly insist that CD is all it will ever take for "perfect" sound reproduction, RME provided yet another, even hardest slap in digital face - the filtering in the highest resolution, that is to say PCM 756kHz . The frequency response is LESS linear than in PCM384 ... - BECAUSE, they realized much better sonics are available without having to resort to brick wall filtering (used in all lower sampling frequency settings for PCM ) - and used far less steep output filtering for the highest level of quality possible and available at reasonable price today.

Because of all the above, I decided to record quite a few analog record playback equipment to PCM 96/24 - as it is the highest sampling that still maintains high S/N up to the highest frequency present at the output of my CURRENT digital equipment. And, in addition, decided to make these recordings on the STOCK version of the Korg MR-1000 - in order to allow others to repeat under the same conditions. Think of it like my version of Courage The Cowardly Dog saying :



... - except replace "love" for "sound science" .

But, make no mistake - it does not sound as good as PCM 192/24, let alone DSD128. When REALLY fast analog is in question, I will definitely use DSD128 - WITHOUT any output filtering, signal to noise above 20 kHz be damned...

Needless to say, I am saving up for the RME... (Black Edition - sporting even further rafinements, mostly in analog parts of the machine ) - AND moving parts free portable khomputer to use it with, which more than doubles the investment required. Any laptop with a fan and enough processing power to support DSD256 recording will try to impersonate Private Tornado once called upon to do so - and, since I almost always record on location, in the same acoustic space as the musicians themselves, that is unacceptable.

Houg !

 

[bigshot]

Most all modern DACs and digital players are audibly transparent. LPs clearly aren't. That is self evident.

 

[castleofargh]

The real question is the other way around - what kind of digital equipment has the performance which is capable of covering all the bandwidth of the best analog without introducing any objectionable quantization noise.

I know of exactly ONE documented and from third party verified "soundcard", ADC/DAC, audio interface, recorder - or whatever you want to call that digital device - that is good enough. It is the RME ADI2 PRO FS - which, within its specs
https://www.rme-audio.de/adi-2-pro-fs.html
includes ALL the nitty gritty measurements most other manufacturers hide like a snake does its feet - and all of these tough measurements have been confirmed by Archimago.
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2018/09/measurements-rme-adi-2-pro-fs-adc.html
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2018/10/measurements-rme-adi-2-pro-fs-as-dac.html

RME ADI2 started its life as PCM only capable unit, IIRC back in 2016. Since I am a DSD guy, I did not pay any attention to it because of that. But, it was (and still is ... ) a work in progress; somewhere along the line, firmware upgrade added native DSD capability; those claiming jitter does not matter will get a slap in the face of their digital life ... - because later production runs added suffix "FS", meaning the addition of femto clock - AGAIN, well documented by measurements, which more than just pass the criteria required by this thread. And, again, verified by Archimago .

My present standard equipment is Korg MR-1 and MR-1000 portable DSD recorders. Both in stock and modified version - as the analog input to the ADC and analog output from the ADC are iffy - at best - and if I want to stay polite about it. My modified MR-1000 is broadly equivalent/comparable to Tascam DA-3000 - and both make AUDIBLE mincemeat out of stock MR-1000. Both MR-1000 and DA-3000 use exactly the same "digititis" ( aka ADC chipset - and, IIRC, also the DAC chipset ) - and both start with a steep rise in quatization noise at 55 kHz or so, regardless if in PCM or DSD mode. Things can get REALLY bad at around 80 kHz ... - and, in order to keep this DIGITAL ultrasonic garbage as low as possible, this is the answer WHY do I insist - doggedly so - recording with peaks just a smidge below 0dBFS in DSD mode.
Korg MR series has, additionally, something I cherish and call "steep curve safety exit ". These machines CAN survive recording levels up to 5-6 dB ABOVE 0dBFS when recording in DSD - and can also play back these hot recordings WITHOUT any audible protest - unlike most other digital gear, where 0dBFS is the SHARP end of the world. Tascam DA-3000 included - it breaks to pieces if the tiniest fraction of a dB over 0dBFS is exceeded, just like a view trough the perfectly clear glass window ( anything below 0dBFS) - and the same view, if somebody throws a rock and shatters that glass ( anything exceeding 0dBFS)...
Korg Audiogate software can both transcode DSD to PCM, as well adjust for levels. That, sadly, involves unavoidable going from DSD to PCM and back, if the levels of the original ( mostly live ... ) recordings peaked above 0dBFS. It is, also sadly, limited to the highest sampling frequency Korg devices support, that is to say 192/24 for PCM and DSD128.

All the above can explain WHY I have been waiting for a digital device capable of maintaining at least 100 dB S/N across its ENTIRE bandwidth - up to the very highest ferequency it can present at its output, that is to say half the frequency of its highest sampling frequency.
For RME ADI2 PRO FS, that means clean output up to 384 kHz.
For those who doggedly insist that CD is all it will ever take for "perfect" sound reproduction, RME provided yet another, even hardest slap in digital face - the filtering in the highest resolution, that is to say PCM 756kHz . The frequency response is LESS linear than in PCM384 ... - BECAUSE, they realized much better sonics are available without having to resort to brick wall filtering (used in all lower sampling frequency settings for PCM ) - and used far less steep output filtering for the highest level of quality possible and available at reasonable price today.

Because of all the above, I decided to record quite a few analog record playback equipment to PCM 96/24 - as it is the highest sampling that still maintains high S/N up to the highest frequency present at the output of my CURRENT equipment. And, in addition, decided to make this recordings on the STOCK version of the Korg MR-1000 - in order to allow others to repeat under the same conditions. Think of it like my version of Courage The Cowardly Dog saying :



... - except replace "love" for "sound science" .

But, make no mistake - it does not sound as good as PCM 192/24 or even DSD128. When REALLY fast analog is in question, I will definitely use DSD128 - WITHOUT any output filtering, signal to noise above 20 kHz be damned...

Needless to say, I am saving up for the RME... (Black Edition - sporting even further rafinements, mostly in analog parts of the machine ) - AND moving parts free portable khomputer to use it with, which more than doubles the investment required. Any laptop with a fan and enough processing power to support DSD256 recording will try to impersonate Private Tornado once called upon to do so - and, since I almost always record on location, in the same acoustic space as musicians themselves, that is unacceptable.

Houg !

Sorry but once again all I read is motivated by a rational that directly conflicts with itself and/or my understanding of waves, fidelity, and human hearing.

-You need femto clock in digital encoding/decoding but disregard the comparatively humongous timing errors introduced by any analog recording/playback setup.

-You want 100dB of SNR on digital rigs but disregard the comparatively humongous noise level introduced by any analog recording/playback setup.

-A vinyl has ultrasonic content, I can agree with you on that even if I don't agree that we should care. But what's the fidelity of that content? You know it's super bad. Even within the audible range you can't afford to put too much high amplitude high frequency signal on a vinyl. So what happens when we bring in even shorter waves for ultrasonic content? The mechanical nightmare just becomes bigger. Yet you keep considering that as the reference we can only hope to try and match with digital. Even as a joke it's bad.

-Last but not least, and what is to me a profound misunderstanding on your part about waves and human perception. Your idea, tell me if I explain it wrong, that the music needs all the frequency content from the instruments to sound like the original music. Including the ultrasonic content that a human ear isn't equipped to register.
I cannot wrap my head around that notion. I get that if an instrument does 2kHz, 4kHz and 8kHz waves at the same time at audible amplitudes, arbitrarily removing 8kHz will alter how I perceive that sound and would be a bad thing to do. But I do not understand how that reasoning can extend to frequencies a human ear fails to perceive?
You're presenting a device you consider fine because it will handle frequencies almost 20 times the accepted frequency limit of human hearing. And I'm fairly confident that if a device went higher, you'd rather have that. Almost 20 times the human frequency limit, to draw a bad but the only rhetorical parallel I can think of with frequencies, that's like arguing that a picture looks better if it sends back all of the UV range and a little bit of Xray from the scene initially captured. Do you need to have UV coming out of your pictures and monitor screens to feel like it's a quality reproduction? Do you need 300kHz signal coming out of your DAC to feel like it's quality sound? Seems like such an unnecessary things to insist on.

 

[bigshot]

LPs have a very wide bandwidth for noise. Just not signal.

 

[analogsurviver]

Most all modern DACs and digital players are audibly transparent. LPs clearly aren't. That is self evident.

I would like you to - finally - start understanding what it is all about.

I have never stated that analog record is - audibly transparent. In a way, under certain, VERY hard to satisfy conditions, it might even achieve all the required criteria.

In sharp contrast to the digital, the very same analog record ( not only pressing, but the VERY SAME record; limited editions , like most direct to disk, have serial numbers either printed or hand written into specially for this purpose alloted space ) most definitely CAN - and usually DOES - sound markedly different on different analog playback setups. And the range of what sound quality can analog playback rig extract from the disk is, unfortunately, mind boggling. The extremes can be both VERY INFERIOR - but also VERY SUPERIOR - to what a top notch RBCD>HiRez PCM>DSD version of the same recording can do.

I will state only this; I have YET to hear any digital recording of analog vinyl record that is completely indistingushable from the vinyl played "live". I agree that the best digital equipment available today is enough for enjoying ( most of ) the music ; but it is not yet 1:1 facsimile of what is presented at its analog input.

The above is also true for the live microphone feed ; but, there is absolutely no way for the musicians to play the same music EXACTLY the same, time and time again, at the whim/flick of the finger by engineer/audiophile - for the purpose of various comparisons, A/Bs, etc - just not possible.

The second best option is using analog master tape as the source. Hard to come by, expensive like hell.
( Recently, Slovenian group Mascara Quartet has issued CD, LP and 1st generation from master tape Reel to Reel of their latest fully analog recording release - Barco Negro. Prices:

CD 15 eur

LP 25 eur (sold out )
,

R2R ( for price/availability, best contact them at their website www.mascara.si )


The third best option is analog vinyl record. The least expensive of the three - but still, MUCH more expensive than the digital. Infinitely more accesible to public at large than the previous two options.

I get it what is your goal - providing listeners with the least expensive equipment that satisfies certain quality criteria - and, for that , I DO RESPECT YOU.

Trouble is, I do not agree the level you find sufficient is good enough.
And, like any experienced enough and clever employee knows how to ask his/her boss for leave,
( Employee: Boss, can I take an unexpected leave due to ( whatever plausible & important ) for 15 days ? Boss: Well, if you asked for 10 or maybe max 12 days, OK, but 15..., no , too much ...
Employee: Oh, great - 10 days will do just nicely !
( when all that he/she really wanted to get for sure was 7 days + 2 days travel in both directions ))

I HAVE TO ASK FOR MORE OF THE DIFFERENCE THAN ACTUALLY REQUIRED.

Believe me, I am MORE inclined against making audiophiles to pay exorbitant prices than you are ... - but certain lowest standard has to be met. Even if that "research" is costly as hell; in due time lessons learned and clever rationalization can bring down the prices considerably.

But, even that is CONSIDERABLY above say $500 surround receiver level. I do agree that they can sound phenomenally good for the money; just not good enough to do really well recorded music full justice.

You would not believe your own ears what REALLY good analog record playback can do. If I wrote here just what it all takes to reach that level, there would be an massive uproar on this thread - with you probably leading the charge. And each of the gang contributing by singling out one of the requirements, citing untold amount of references from the past that "it cannot possibly be true".

Well, NONE of the single "unnecessary spendings" can - all by itself - bring an overall audible improvement.

But, ALL of them, used IN CONCERT - definitely CAN.
Leave any single one out and you've done - nothing ...

Once the goal has been achieved, it is possible to make rationalizations and cost cutting - but only to the point where it still provides most of the essence of the "no holds barred" "prototypes".

 

[bigshot]

Analog is not audibly transparent. CD is. I don't know what could be better for a format to be than transparent. If you want to slather on euphonious distortion, speed fluctuations, surface noise and godawful inner groove distortion, you can do that by means of a DSP and precisely control it. If you've got a playback format that is better than human ears can hear, there is absolutely no reason to go backwards to inferior sound quality, particularly if the format is as clunky, delicate and inconvenient as vinyl is.

I HAVE good LP playback. I own over 25,000 records, including some of the best pressings ever made. And I have three turntables with a variety of cartridges, both MC and MM, LP and 78. I know exactly what good vinyl playback is capable of. But the capability of the CD format is better. It's self evident even without a blind test. Everyone knows that, my 80 year old mom knew that, the only people who don't are fetishistic audiophools who don't listen with their ears.

Your chatty, rambling posts may be convincing in your head, but they don't sound the same to other people I'm afraid. You're playing for an audience of one.

EDIT: Oh, I forgot to mention... This is not your personal thread. You've been invited several times to create your own thread for your theories and speculation, but you haven't done it. I'll invite you again to do that. This thread is intended to discuss the original post, which is one of the best articles ever posted to this group. It isn't fair to jump into the limelight and try to make it your personal soapbox. It's operated quite well in your absence.

 

[colonelkernel8]

Blah blah blah

I will state only this; I have YET to hear any digital recording of analog vinyl record that is completely indistingushable from the vinyl played "live". I agree that the best digital equipment available today is enough for enjoying ( most of ) the music ; but it is not yet 1:1 facsimile of what is presented at its analog input.

The above is also true for the live microphone feed ; but, there is absolutely no way for the musicians to play the same music EXACTLY the same, time and time again, at the whim/flick of the finger by engineer/audiophile - for the purpose of various comparisons, A/Bs, etc - just not possible.

The second best option is using analog master tape as the source. Hard to come by, expensive like hell.
( Recently, Slovenian group Mascara Quartet has issued CD, LP and 1st generation from master tape Reel to Reel of their latest fully analog recording release - Barco Negro. Prices:

The third best option is analog vinyl record. The least expensive of the three - but still, MUCH more expensive than the digital. Infinitely more accesible to public at large than the previous two options.

I get it what is your goal - providing listeners with the least expensive equipment that satisfies certain quality criteria - and, for that , I DO RESPECT YOU.

blah blah blah blah blah

This is how transparent CD/digital is: I could digitally record the output of the worlds highest quality record player playing the finest vinyl pressing in the world and master it for a CD. Then, after level matching I could play back both the CD and the worlds highest quality record player through the same amplifier and speaker (of your choice) and you would never, and I truly mean never, be able to tell the difference.

 

[bigshot]

^ I've actually done this. Maybe not the world's best turntable, but a damn good one.

Higher levels of noise, higher levels of distortion, high end roll off, and higher levels of speed fluctuation aren't better than a noise floor beneath the threshold of hearing, negligible distortion, a frequency response that goes beyond the range of human hearing, and rock solid timing. It's self-evident that LPs are inferior to CDs.

 

[hakunamakaka]

^ I've actually done this. Maybe not the world's best turntable, but a damn good one.

Higher levels of noise, higher levels of distortion, high end roll off, and higher levels of speed fluctuation aren't better than a noise floor beneath the threshold of hearing, negligible distortion, a frequency response that goes beyond the range of human hearing, and rock solid timing. It's self-evident that LPs are inferior to CDs.

I do not have CD's, they simply do not contain such music that I'm in to, but regards digital/streamed music, my turntable setup beats it by a large margin and all I do have is old thorens TT with a budget ortofon cartridge. One of my favorite female vocalists Gal Costa, sounds bold and more meshed together when I play her via my macbook, switch it to TT and sound simply opens up, you can feel the distance of her voice, guitar notes travels beautifully, notes have fullness, air and that slow decay which sounds so good with such music. Might be that my macbook DAC is simply not up to pair with the pre-amp which has been modded by les carpenter himself

You can hate, but I can tell that vinyls are not going away, though I'm not stating that digital music can't be technically superior. The main thing for folks like me is the music that has been mastered and released on LP's, even new releases from bands like khruangbin, it's just made for my TT rig

 

[GearMe]

I do not have CD's, they simply do not contain such music that I'm in to, but regards digital/streamed music, my turntable setup beats it by a large margin and all I do have is old thorens TT with a budget ortofon cartridge. One of my favorite female vocalists Gal Costa, sounds bold and more meshed together when I play her via my macbook, switch it to TT and sound simply opens up, you can feel the distance of her voice, guitar notes travels beautifully, notes have fullness, air and that slow decay which sounds so good with such music. Might be that my macbook DAC is simply not up to pair with the pre-amp which has been modded by les carpenter himself

You can hate, but I can tell that vinyls are not going away, though I'm not stating that digital music can't be technically superior. The main thing for folks like me is the music that has been mastered and released on LP's, even new releases from bands like khruangbin, it's just made for my TT rig

Glad you love your TT setup!

I had Thorens TTs back in the day with some excellent tonearms and MC cartridges playing through a very nice 2 channel setup; impressive sound for a TT setup.

Gotta say I don't miss the TT experience and feel that the overall sound quality of my digital setup is higher, it's significantly less expensive, and much less hassle -- especially with the advent of digital media players / pc software (playlists, shuffle, search, not cleaning/flipping record or changing CD, etc).

It's great that we can each enjoy our personal audio experience in a manner that best suits us...

 

[hakunamakaka]

Glad you love your TT setup!

I had Thorens TTs back in the day with some excellent tonearms and MC cartridges playing through a very nice 2 channel setup; impressive sound for a TT setup.

Gotta say I don't miss the TT experience and feel that the overall sound quality of my digital setup is higher, it's significantly less expensive, and much less hassle -- especially with the advent of digital media players / pc software (playlists, shuffle, search, not cleaning/flipping record or changing CD, etc).

It's great that we can each enjoy our personal audio experience in a manner that best suits us...

I listen maybe 80% of digital and the rest on TT. TT is more for special occasions, but if tuned right it can sound amazing on it’s own way. I wish I could show what difference it makes on my home setup against digital. You are put in a 3 dimensional space between 2 bookshelf speakers. The biggest downside is that Vinyl has to be mastered properly, maybe third of my collection is done poorly, another third ok and the rest is spectacular, which blows my friends off the sofa. What I came across as well is that in many cases vinyl lovers have a good taste in music