+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 47 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 463

Thread: The vinyl illusion ?

  1. #21
    Join Date: Mar 2014

    Location: KY - Scotland

    Posts: 5,465
    I'm Mike.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by walpurgis View Post
    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.
    Maybe so, but does it exist

  2. #22
    Join Date: Apr 2012

    Location: N E Kent

    Posts: 51,624
    I'm Geoff.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mikeyb View Post
    Maybe so, but does it exist
    I own such a system.
    It is impossible for anything digital to sound analogue, because it isn't analogue!

  3. #23
    Join Date: Aug 2009

    Location: Staffordshire, England

    Posts: 37,784
    I'm Martin.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arkless Electronics View Post
    As you would expect, I disagree with all of that....

    If Self said that (and I have all his books and most of his magazine articles but don't recall it) it would have been as a piss take as he is a "low distortion uber alles" designer. To add a control for 2nd harmonic distortion is actually easy but you won't find it on anything I make!

    I guess the area I disagree most strongly on is that a hi fi system should be tailored to an individuals preferences... even by adding distortion etc! Ideally. all hi fi systems should sound identical. If they are distortionless and nether add nor remove anything from the source, ie a perfect hi fi system, then it is obvious that they will all sound the same.... obviously this would need them all to be used in rooms of ideal acoustics but it's something to aim for.

    The whole idea of "tuning" a hi fi to have a particular sound is anathema to the very concept of hi fi, as I've said many times before. "The closest approach to the original; sound" as Quad famously said in their ads, is what we should be after and I don't even take anyone seriously who says they like/prefer a distorted or coloured sound, nor should anyone else. If that is "to be allowed" then just go ahead and add a graphic EQ, a fuzz box to spice up those metal records, maybe a reverb unit to make other stuff sound "more spacious", a flanger maybe? to make "space rock" sound more "spaced out"?

    If 3 amplifiers have a genuine claim to being the 3 most perfect in current production then it should be pretty much impossible to tell them apart. Think about it. If non of them distorts anything or adds or takes away anything from the signal fed to them they will sound identical
    I think that, not for the first time, you have got the wrong end of the stick with my post. Self did say that but the reason he said it was he was making the same point that you are - you can add distortion to taste but you shouldn't want to!

    The reason I brought that up is to indicate that the right kind of distortion, in the right amounts, can subjectively improve the sound. And most enthusiasts are interested only in the sound they can subjectively perceive, not what makes it sound that way. They don't care a jot that it is not strictly high fidelity to the recording. However most would balk at the idea of an amp with user-variable distortion. That's a bridge too far. But hide the distortion in the format, and no problemo.
    Current Lash Up:

    TEAC VRDS 701T > Sony TAE1000ESD > Krell KSA50S > JM Labs Focal Electra 926.

  4. #24
    Join Date: Dec 2008

    Location: East Riding of Yorkshire these days

    Posts: 4,779
    I'm Shaun.

    Default

    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. A synth can be made to sound however you want it to as can most recorded electronic music. OK I guess for an acoustic quartet but Jesus...! That really does not float my boat but rather sinks it.

    Each to their own of course


  5. #25
    Join Date: Dec 2008

    Location: East Riding of Yorkshire these days

    Posts: 4,779
    I'm Shaun.

    Default

    I know, there are going to be people out there who say why have a valve pre/power if you only listen to electronic music but I just prefer the 'classic' valve sound to the 'classic' transistor sound.

  6. #26
    Join Date: Nov 2008

    Location: North Down /Northern Ireland/ UK

    Posts: 19,484
    I'm Neil.

    Default

    My early turntable was a Voyd Valdi, Rega RB300, and a Goldring Eroica and that was through an Audio Innovations Series 500, EAR Head step Up, and Pro Ac super tablets. The CD was a Marantz CD94 mk2. The turntable destroyed the CD94 so a £550 TT + £100 arm + £100 cart destroyed an £800 CD player and every other high end CD player, DAC I tried. The system I still have bar the Valdi (should not have sold that ) When I got my Oracle Delphi MK4 + SME 309, VDH MC10 and then ET 2 tonearm they still destroyed the Marantz and every other high end CD player, Transport + DAC I tried.

    So while I accept others mileage as reflecting their experience it isn't mine, and the Marantz still is a very good CD player.

    Back in the day I recall Ariston Q decks, Revolver, and other semi budget TTs knocking cheap CD players out as well.
    Regards Neil

  7. #27
    Join Date: Apr 2012

    Location: N E Kent

    Posts: 51,624
    I'm Geoff.

    Default

    I have valves and solid state. I find neither better than the other. I like both.
    It is impossible for anything digital to sound analogue, because it isn't analogue!

  8. #28
    Join Date: May 2009

    Location: gone away

    Posts: 4,870
    I'm joe.

    Default

    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.

  9. #29
    Join Date: Aug 2009

    Location: Staffordshire, England

    Posts: 37,784
    I'm Martin.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dalek Supreme D L View Post
    . The turntable destroyed the CD94 so a £550 TT + £100 arm + £100 cart destroyed an £800 CD player and every other high end CD player, DAC I tried. The system I still have bar the Valdi (should not have sold that ) When I got my Oracle Delphi MK4 + SME 309, VDH MC10 and then ET 2 tonearm they still destroyed the Marantz and every other high end CD player, Transport + DAC I tried.

    .
    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.
    Current Lash Up:

    TEAC VRDS 701T > Sony TAE1000ESD > Krell KSA50S > JM Labs Focal Electra 926.

  10. #30
    Join Date: Dec 2008

    Location: East Riding of Yorkshire these days

    Posts: 4,779
    I'm Shaun.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by walpurgis View Post
    I have valves and solid state. I find neither better than the other. I like both.
    Ah Geoff, I didn't say better, I just said I prefer.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 47 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •