The vinyl illusion ?

[cre009]

One feature of vinyl replay which is both a strength and a weakness is the sound is tweakable and can vary quite a bit between different decks. I have a lot of decks as a hobby and one thing I have noticed is that I have a preferred sound that can take a fair bit of adjustment to find. One aspect of the hobby is to swap arms and cartridges to try to find that sound. Quite often cartridges that work well on one deck can become fatiguing to listen to on another deck. I have been in the situation on more than one occasion where I have installed a cartridge which sounded great to begin with probably due to expectation bias but after several sessions I no longer found the sound satisfying. In my case I currently have 3 decks which I am very happy with and no desire to tweak so if in doubt I can use those for comparing.

[mikeyb]

I agree with Jez and Macca, my vinyl setup cost 1000's more than my digital setup and being honest the digital side runs it very close, but.... I still prefer my vinyl side and play more LPs than rips or streams.

But I couldn't live without either.

[Joe]

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.

[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.

[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

[Haselsh1]

OK some bastard shoot me ferchristssake. I have just listened to that bloody album again

Vinyl has been reset. VTA was OK but tracking force has been increased from 2.5g to 2.65g.

Vinyl DSOTM has the most amazing stereo presence that completely engulfs the room especially the lower clock chime on 'Time' and also the really low frequencies on 'On The Run'. The sound is richer and considerably fuller all round with this completely amazing presence.

CD, way more treble information with an amazing amount of 'air' and 'sparkle'. Thinner sound experience all round and not quite as satisfying. With this in mind I prefer my vinyl sound. However, the treble on the TT is heavy and leaden with no real 'sparkle' or precision.

I think I am going to have to lift the arse end of the tonearm and see what effect that has on the sound. I have found in the past that it has improved things.

Looks as though I am going to have to play that bloody album again

[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.