[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsaliga /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think you, on the other hand, believe the specs are pretty much everything where SQ is concerned if I am any fair judge of your posts. I have never once seen you discuss the importance of mastering on SQ and where you think that might fit into the grand scheme of things, for example. But I have not read everything you have said on the subject. Feel free to elaborate if you wish.

I think some specs are important and that some are rather less so, jitter for instance I feel to be an utterly unimportant spec since it is so low on all commercial kit anyway. If CD players had milliseconds of jitter the I would care more about the dfifferences.

Also specs are only useful at a certain level of granularity, for instance I would not make the choice between two CDPs based on one having a SNR of 100db and the other a SNR of 110db, differences at this level are utterly meaningless - even though this example represents a more than doubling of noise levels. Similarly I do not think FR beyond 20K is at all relevant in the real world, or dynamic range of greater than 96db neccessary in 99% of cases though I would like FRs to be flat to 20K.

But sometimes specs do tell us important things, like the fact that the Rega I used to own has speed variations of close to 1% , this is clearly going to impact on sustained tones.

 

[baneat]

That's so cool! It's like a JPEG vs a picture taken with a professional film camera, right? No jaggies. Does that mean to say that if there was a vinyl of a sine wave there would actually be a sine wave printed into the vinyl? cool!

 

[ffrr]

Quote:

Originally Posted by some uniformed poster "logically compentent mastering engineers must exist right? NAH

that is one of the most ignorant things I have ever read, anywhere.

There are many, many great mastering engineers... id suggest stepping outside of the bubble of ignorance you live in.

Doug Sax, Paul Stubblebine, Micheal Romanowski, ... legends.

 

[jp11801]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ffrr /img/forum/go_quote.gif that is one of the most ignorant things I have ever read, anywhere. There are many, many great mastering engineers... id suggest stepping outside of the bubble of ignorance you live in. Doug Sax, Paul Stubblebine, Micheal Romanowski, ... legends.

Having been to Paul's studio in SF while he and Michael were working on the Tape Projects master of Waltz for Debby all I can say is those two guys are amazing.

 

[Sherwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ffrr /img/forum/go_quote.gif ... id suggest stepping outside of the bubble of ignorance you live in.

You might also consider stepping outside of the bubble of self-seriousness you live in.

 

[jsaliga]

These are among the best recordings I own.

In the back row:

Bill Evans - Everybody Digs Bill Evans (Analogue Productions 45 RPM 180g Vinyl Reissue)
Johnny Hodges, Soloist, Billy Strayhorn, and the Orchestra (Speakers Corner 180g Vinyl)
Sonny Rollins - Saxophone Colossus (Analogue Productions 180g Vinyl)
Dinah Washington - Dinah Washington Sings Fats Waller (Mercury Records Vintage Original Vinyl Pressing)
Judy Garland - Judy (Capital Records Vintage Original Vinyl Pressing)
Pearl Bailey - The One and Only Pearl Bailey Sings (Mercury Records Vintage Original Vinyl Pressing)

In the middle row:

Bill Frisell - Gone, Just Like a Train (CD Audio)
Jascha Heifetz - Beethoven / Mendelssohn Violin Concertos (RCA Living Stero Hybrid SACD)
Patricia Barber - Night Club (Mobile Fidelity Hybrid SACD)
Oscar Peterson - The Sound of the Trio (Verve Master Edition CD)

In the front row, all on 1/4" four-track stereo tape:

Beethoven Symphony Nos. 4 and 5 - Bruno Walter/Columbia Symphony
Miles Davis - Kind of Blue
Beethoven Symphony No. 9 - Bruno Walter/Columbia Symphony
Henry Mancini - The Pink Panther (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack)

A few notes are in order. These are just a few of what I consider my best sounding recordings...period. I have about 2,600 CDs, a few hundred SACDs, 1,600 vinyl LPs, and about 200 1/4" stereo tapes and overall I am very happy with what I have. Sure, there are some disappointments such as the RVG remasters of the Blue Note catalog on CD, and I have a small number of records that most certainly have issues but they are quite rare and dear to me so I keep them. I have so far had the fewest issues with tape, but I have not bought enough for it to be a problem I suppose. But so far I have only had about 3 bad ones.

In some cases, such as Kind of Blue and Saxophone Colossus, I have them in numerous masterings on multiple media. It should also be noted that the Dinah Washington and Pearl Bailey albums have never been issued on CD. No biggie if you don't care for their music. Pretty important if you do. You might be able to find some of this music on compilation CDs, but it is doubtful that you will find all of these tracks presented in their original order with the original cover art and liner notes. The Judy Garland album has been issued on CD but the original Capitol Records vinyl sounds better to my ears. Also note that the vintage records shown here are not beat to death examples that I dug out of someone's basement. These are all museum-grade LPs and play perfectly with no pops, clicks, or noise. I could have bought the Pink Panther soundtrack on CD since there is a CD called Ultimate Pink Panther. But that disc is a compilation of select tracks from a number of the Panther films. I found a sealed original vinyl pressing on eBay and was bidding on it until it hit $50, when I found this tape, also on eBay, for $7.

With all that said, you can try to suffocate me under a mountain of specs if you want. But none of that really matters to me. Knowing that CD specs out a little better doesn't make my great vinyl and stereo tapes sound any less spectacular. In some cases the records and tapes sound better because they are either closer to the original source than the CD or they were, in the case of the Bill Evans album, mastered by an engineer who did a better job of it than his counterpart did on the CD.

But it is not about formats for me, it's about music. I can't imagine cutting myself off from music that I love over something so inconsequential as the recording media. But to each his own.

--Jerome

 

[memepool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ffrr /img/forum/go_quote.gif that is one of the most ignorant things I have ever read, anywhere.

well you know when you are having a debate with someone right? and you say something that's so obviously wrong in order to get a reaction? I believe it's called a rhetorical device. There is some more info here Rhetoric - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrBenway I've never heard the classic Garrard, but I did hear several Thorens tables that I thought sounded really great. I'd be curious to know if you think how these would compare to a modern Linn or equivalent. Also, do you think there is anything to be gained by shelling out for one of the really ludicrously expensive tables like, say, the Rockport? I'm always pretty skepical of what I read in the reviews of equipment like that. I do believe that good equipment is almost always expensive, and I'd love to have a Linn, but are the nosebleed-expensive tables demonstrably better than mid-priced stuff like that?

Linn isn't really considered state of the art these days anymore although obviousy their decks are still very highly regarded. The market has changed and become a boutique for expensive objet, in many respects rather than a mass music carrier, so designs no longer need to be as domestically acceptable and understated like the erstwhile Sondek.

There is a technological basis also, insofar as the benefits of the suspended subchassis design, are now often considered outweighed by the difficulty of set-up, inherent tendency to colouration and the fact that top of the line modern tonearms like the SME V prefer a less bouncy support. Lots of manufactuers like Germany's Clearaudio therefore make huge mass loaded constuctions in their top of the line decks which are as much sculpture as hi-fi.

I havn't really heard anything that ridiculously expensive but obviously a large part of the cost is the craftmanship involved in creating such behemouths. The same kind of isolation I am sure can be obtained by siting a high end deck like a Michell Orbe, Avid Acutus or SME on a solid floor or shelf made of an equally inert substance like granite or marble.

The Rockport is a slightly different proposition in that it includes a lot of pretty advanced technology like direct drive and an air bearing linear tonearm which would need to be maintained and supported by the manufacturer in order to stay in tip top condition. Goldmund make a similar cost no object machine.

If you want a direct drive though a common or garden Technics SL1200 fully modded with an SME tonearm and KABUSA power supply, plus all the special feet etc wouldn't set you back anywhere near this much and would take a lot of beating sonically. In my experience Turntables, unlike CD players do get much better the more you spend but I can't comment over 5-10,000USD as I don't know anyone who has anything that expensive to compare.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsaliga These are among the best recordings I own.

Nice. Getting into the old reel to reels I see.

I'm jealous of your Kind Of Blue, which usually goes for a small fortune, however I do have a Pearl Bailey reel. I didn't think much of Rudy Van Gelder's recent CD efforts either.

My current favourite is Ike & Tina Turner In Person which is a late '60s live recording and one of the best I've ever hear on any format. It's just been re-released on vinyl actually but I don't think it ever made it to CD.

 

[ffrr]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sherwood /img/forum/go_quote.gif You might also consider stepping outside of the bubble of self-seriousness you live in.

I only go by what I know of this place thus far..id think it incapable of sarcasm or "rhetorical devices"

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ffrr /img/forum/go_quote.gif I only go by what I know of this place thus far..id think it incapable of sarcasm or "rhetorical devices"

Oh dear !. This forum is populated by a large number of well educated and/or well-read and/or just plain smart folks who do understand subtext and argumentation devices perfectly well.

People here frequently put forward positions that are somewhat extreme or even stereotypical or ad absurdum extensions of their actual world views, it often makes for more entertaining debate. True it can get a bit silly sometimes , but as long as it stays good natured.....

 

[mark_h]

Is digital better than film?

Bought some great vinyl today but man was it expensive!

 

[TimJo]

I have been staying out of this debate because I think it is meaningless on many levels.

My only post in this thread (prior to this one) took the opinion that what really matters is the quality of the mastering, regardless of the format. I still hold to this belief, even after reading everyone's posts evangelizing the strengths and weaknesses of the various playback technologies. I think Jerome understands this as well, as he describes in the following post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsaliga /img/forum/go_quote.gif I just finished listening to a wonderful vinyl re-issue of Everybody Digs Bill Evans from Analogue Productions on a pair of 45 RPM 180 gram LPs, mastered by Kevin Gray and Steve Hoffman at Acoustech Mastering. It is easily the best sounding release of this title that I own, and that includes two different CD releases and a vinyl reissue. Does it mean that I think vinyl sounds better than CDs? Of course not, it means that this release of this specific title on vinyl sounds better than anything else I own. Which is of some relief for me, since I paid $100 for it. As has already been said, the sound quality you enjoy is largely determined by the source session recordings and the master -- not the format. I have CD, SACD, vinyl, and 1/4" stereo tape recordings that blow my mind where sound quality is concerned -- but none of that leads me to believe that one is inherently better than another. They all have their strengths and weakness. --Jerome

The one thing I would add to the discussion is that the playback device used to listen to any recording is obviously critical in determining whether or not placing judgment on it's sound quality is even relevant or valid. This is one of the reasons why the vinyl versus CD argument is kinda pointless.

If you are going to compare the same recording played back on a turntable versus a CD player, what models do you use in order to make it a fair comparison? In my house, the vinyl playback will always have the edge, because that's where I sunk my money. I have what was considered a very good CD player at the turn of the century (a Linn Genki) but it still cost less than the retail price of just my cartridge alone. By the time you add the cost of my cartridge, turntable (plus upgrades), and my phono preamp together, I ended up spending at least three times more for my vinyl system than my CD player. So is it fair to compare the sound of vinyl versus CD's on my system? I don't know...

Along these same lines, I will relay this story. I just bought the latest archive release from Neil Young. It came with both a CD (encoded with the HDCD format) and a DVD-A version. Neil was a big proponent of the DVD-A format because of it's better specs (although he has now moved on to Blu-Ray with it's 24/192 playback capabilities).

Anyway, I now finally had the chance to listen to the exact same recording on both CD and DVD-A and was ready to be blown away with the superiority of DVD-A. I loaded the CD into the Linn (which is an HDCD playback device) and the DVD-A into my iMac outputting 24/96 to my Apogee Duet. I sat on the couch and switched back and forth between the two. I'm sorry to report, I preferred the HDCD version in terms of dynamics and soundstage. How could this be? 24/96 is supposed to sound better than 16/44.1 - that's what the specs say, and all of the DVD evangelists around the globe preach it's benefits. Well, sad to say, the electronics in my Linn deck sound way better than the electronics in my iMac/Duet - hands down - no comparison. This just highlights the issue that playback quality is still highly dependent on the playback device, regardless of what the specs say. Is a Blu-Ray disc with it's amazing 24/192 stream going to sound better than a CD? Maybe, but doubtful if it's being played through a PS3 (Neil's recommended player) versus the same HDCD on my Linn. When Neil's Archive's are finally released, I'll be buying the CD version, because I think it will sound the best, given my system.

In my opinion, what it boils down to is the quality of the recording and the care that the mastering engineer put into reproducing that sound when transferring it to the playback media, regardless of what it is, vinyl or CD. Then it is up to the listener to decide how much time, effort, and money to invest into playing it back on a decent system. I think based on the popularity of iTunes and iPods, most listeners have decided to put liitle effort into playback quality...

 

[memepool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by baneat /img/forum/go_quote.gif Does that mean to say that if there was a vinyl of a sine wave there would actually be a sine wave printed into the vinyl? cool!

yep. If you look closely at the grooves on a passage with particularly deep base, like on a Reggae or a Drum and Base EP for instance, you can see them wiggling like crazy.
This is one of the main reasons why DJ's stuck with vinyl in the first place, because you can actually see the music as it happens.
So to a trained eye it's obvious when a breakdown is coming in the track and you know how long it is and when you need to mix into something else without necessarily having ever heard the music before.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mark_h /img/forum/go_quote.gif Is digital better than film?

Irrelevant and a somewhat misleading analogy as well, Audio has a temporal component still images do not. Audio bandwidth is measured in KHZ, the visual frequencies are in the THZ range ,the wavlengths in the visual spectrum are measured in nm, while a 20Khz sound has a wavelength of .678 inches the speed of sound and speed of light are massively different and CCD and ADC devices sample rather differently, sound is generally detected by the ears while visual frequencies are generally detected by the eyes. The capablities of each of these pairs of sense organs are somewhat different

But apart from that, who cares that was not the question in the first place.

 

[robm321]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsaliga /img/forum/go_quote.gif What I am arguing is that nothing that you or robm321 have said here is important. In any event I think you guys are in a "can't see the forest for the trees" mode of argument, and the debate is full of logical fallacies because of it. --Jerome

I think you're the one who can't seem to see well from your elevated soap box. Your condescending attitude towards what others have to say pisses me off. The whole argument of which format is superior in general is a logical falacy - your comments included. That's why I enjoy these threads but don't take them too seriously unlike yourself aparently.

What makes your opinion more important? Please elaborate...

I am very good friends with someone who owns a high end dealership in the bay area and have been for years now. He has always called me in to listen to the latest equipment whether it be budget or incredibly expensive - mostly in the speaker world before I dove into headphones.

All brands flow through his shop, and I've heard more set ups than I can remember. And consistantly I choose vinyl over the best CD players, tubes over solid state for the most part. It isn't because it's warm and fuzzy. It's because it sounds more true to life for me. That's my experience and specs don't matter to me - the end result does. Those that feel differently are not wrong - they just have a different opinion.

That being said, I don't tell anyone that what they say isn't important. If someone wants to argue specs, or is new to high end audio, their opinion is just as important as mine or anyone elses.

 

[earwicker7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Publius /img/forum/go_quote.gif A decent and well setup vinyl rig playing properly cleaned, mint records will still have numerous pops and ticks.

Not at all true. A properly cleaned, mint record (from a good pressing) that is (and this is the important part) hit with a good anti-static device (ie, the Furutech) will often have no more than a couple of pops and ticks on a whole side.

A lot of noise on records is due to crappy pressings. There is always going to be a little bit of background noise on LPs, but on a good table it's going to be minimal and not even noticeable except between songs or in extremely quiet passages (because of this, I do prefer classical on CD, but everything else shines on vinyl). Pops and ticks are due to static and scratches; scratches can't be dealt with, but static can be virtually eliminated.