The vinyl illusion ?

[Haselsh1]

People's tastes differ, is what it comes down to. I couldn't stand any of the CD players I auditioned when they first came out, even the 'best buys' and 'highly recommended' models; they all sounded too bright and harsh. Then I heard and liked a Meridian CD player (which at the time I couldn't afford), so I knew that digital could sound good*, at a price. Meantime I continued to listen to vinyl, eventually buying an Arcam Alpha CD player which was 'good enough' until I could afford a Meridian.

There are no absolutes here; no objective 'best' that we should all be reaching for. If you prefer vinyl to digital, or vice-versa, you're right. Ditto valves vs solid state, ditto conventional speakers vs electrostatics.

* ie, it had a sound I could live with.

Yep, after the Cambridge Audio CD2 I bought a Meridian two box CD player.

[Haselsh1]

Yes, once again I agree with Martin.

If a CD based system like mine is preferable to a vinyl based system also like mine then the CD based system is better but only to my ears. Listening to Floyd's DSOTM earlier today it was obvious that the CD system sounded highly superior to the vinyl system on the same music. Playing vinyl I listened to the album and then thought I would just play the best bits on CD. The sad fact is though that the CD system was so relaxed and laid back I just played the whole bloody thing all over again.
I can't even say that any aspect of the vinyl is markedly better than the CD. It simply isn't. I shall spend some time this week resetting the arm/cart... again...! I shall then listen to some Brand X on original analogue vinyl and see how things turn out for me.

I want this to work out, I really do. Honestly

[Spectral Morn]

Did they really 'destroy' it or was it just that you preferred the sound from the TT?

I mean there is nowt wrong with a bit of hyperbole but it can get misleading. The other thing you have to bear in mind is that a system can be optimised for vinyl or digital replay. This is again due to the various colourations or 'character' of pre-amps, amps and loudspeakers, not to mention the interconnects and speaker cables. Consequently you can have a system that sounds quite poor with digital whereas with the right combination of TT/arm/cart it will sound fantastic.

Put the same digital source in a different system, and now it sounds much improved.

Box swapping and swappers like me generally get maligned but it does mean you get to hear this sort of anomaly happen quite often.

Yes destroyed, I don't use words like that unless I mean to. Better instrument separation, soundstaging, air, detail retrieval etc all the usual words. The Marantz possibly had slightly better bass, regarding weight but mid and treble + those other aspects were better. The system worked well on both. I optimised everything back then, much more anal about things. Not saying I still don't, but not to the degree I did back then.

As I say others mileage and experiences vary, and I am happy with that and I worked in an Audio Shop and had many things back in my system over weekends and holidays trying stuff out, and in the shop so my experience was very broad, anything not Linn, Naim, both valve and solid state, British, European and some American kit as well.

[Haselsh1]

Yes destroyed, I don't use words like that unless I mean to. Better instrument separation, soundstaging, air, detail retrieval etc all the usual words. The Marantz possibly had slightly better bass, regarding weight but mid and treble + those other aspects were better. The system worked well on both. I optimised everything back then, much more anal about things. As I say others mileage and experiences vary.

Yeah, these are things I have found with my CD system versus vinyl. Better imaging, stronger more forceful bass, much better air and sparkle, and a generally higher quality sound to my ears of course.

I truly like the concept of the turntable and all of the shite that goes with it but I mean, it just pisses me off; again, thirty four years later.

Will I ever bloody learn...???

[Macca]

You see for me one component or system to 'destroy' another then one of them has to be absolutely terrible. Unlistenable.

Mind I was never very keen on Marantz cd players...

[Spectral Morn]

You see for me one component or system to 'destroy' another then one of them has to be absolutely terrible. Unlistenable.

Mind I was never very keen on Marantz cd players...

I know you don't like them, to my ear they were at the time the best I could afford and I preferred them to Sony, Cambridge, Micromega, Deltec, YBA, Nackamichi, etc.

Music on the Marantz was enjoyable, still is, until you did a direct comparison my vinyl playback was superior. Others may have disagreed, but of those who heard my system back then.... well, none did.

[Jimbo]

I prefer electronic music through valves and indeed recently bought the Kraftwek 3D on vinyl and it sounds great through valves. Of course when they were first composing it was all in the analogue domain anyway and as we all know analogue electronic music sounds better than digital synth stuff.

[Haselsh1]

I prefer electronic music through valves and indeed recently bought the Kraftwek 3D on vinyl and it sounds great through valves. Of course when they were first composing it was all in the analogue domain anyway and as we all know analogue electronic music sounds better than digital synth stuff.

Touche mate

[RothwellAudio]

Yeah. That gets me when I hear something like 'best suited to small ensemble and choral' or 'more tailored towards heavy rock'.
Good Hi-Fi should be exactly that. Capable of reproducing all types of sound equally well.

Yes, that's true, but some systems sound great at low volumes but can't really play loud. That's ok for string quartets and the like but isn't likely to satisfy heavy rock fans. In that case I think it's fair to say a system is good for certain types of music but not others.

The reason I brought that up is to indicate that the right kind of distortion, in the right amounts, can subjectively improve the sound.

Again, I'd say it depends on the type of music you're listening to. A single instrument can sound somehow enhanced by some distortion (I'm not talking about gross clipping here) and two or three instruments playing very sparsely can appear to benefit from some distortion too, but when a lot of instruments are playing very busy music it all falls apart and the distortion is revealed as the pernicious thing it really is.

I think 'The closest approach to the original sound' as a catch phrase is very good but as a philosophy it is utter bollocks. The music I mainly listen to has no original sound to it, it comes from a mixing desk which can be changed a million times.

Yes, there might not be an original sound to reproduce in the same way as reproducing an acoustic instrument, but the finished recording becomes the thing which needs to be reproduced and is in effect "the original sound".

People's tastes differ, is what it comes down to...
There are no absolutes here; no objective 'best' that we should all be reaching for...

That is the opposite of hi-fi as I understand it. The "absolute" is the recording which we are trying to reproduce. The idea that the recording could be reproduced any number of different ways according to taste is not one I subscribe to. However, I will concede that, given that perfection is impossible to achieve, it's personal choice which determines which compromises are easiest to live with.

[struth]

Depends on what it was meant to be reproduced on though. older music on 78s then on dansettes. Now some is for ipods etc. So in a way there is a lot of possibles depending on various intentions