The vinyl illusion ? [Archive] - The Art of Sound Forum

Haselsh1

18-09-2017, 07:47

mikeyb

18-09-2017, 08:34

Well everyone in my family, ages ranging from 8 to 79 will say that they prefer Vinyl to listen to [emoji4]

And as for you going wrong, how so? Surely only you know what's right for you?

As for a pain in the arse, well that's what my wife thinks of me, but she loves me to bits, I must be vinyl [emoji23]

Jimbo

18-09-2017, 08:42

No point thinking how vinyl was in the past, it's now that matters. If the vinyl experience is not a good one then why stick with it? You have a good alternative with digital systems now that can now compete with vinyl sonically.

Vinyl is not an illusion as my experience was in reverse to yours. I thought vinyl was a thing of the past and lived with digital for years before going back. Vinyl can still sound magnificent and for me edges digital for a musical realistic experience. Digital still sounds err digital although the gap is closing and indeed the best sounds more analogue.

I think if you have both enjoy the benefits they can bring to your musical experience and don't get hung up on illusions. Live in the now and choose which sounds best to you.

narabdela

18-09-2017, 08:43

Someone please let me know where I am going wrong.

I don't think you are tbh.

I'll now don my crash helmet and get behind the couch. :sofa:

struth

18-09-2017, 08:48

You can never totally discount expectation bias is my advice, being in a similar position although for different reasons. There can be differences although as Jim says, if both are set up well it is fractional. I do miss turning those records though;)

Pharos

18-09-2017, 08:49

I both sympathise and empathise with your position.

My view is that even with thousands spent on vinyl replay, it is such a limited medium, and illustrably so in many objectively verifiable ways, it is nowhere near good digital sound.

Psychology provides insight into what is going on in our minds when we eulogise vinyl, and, for most of us, we were young and it formed a part of our development and formation - imprinting.

It also was the case that in the main vinyl period there was much development occurring which did improve SQ, and this also coincided with a renaissance in the art itself.

We are very much integrators of our I/P for survival reasons, and this makes it very difficult to fully isolate any one factor and evaluate it objectively, and so we are vulnerable to association and transference.

Look at the way that, particularly music and also smell, are virtual indexes of past experience.

I romanticise vinyl, and, 45 years later, I swear that if I sniff my DSOTM too closely I get stoned.

We also tend to be creatures of habit, and as one ages, the ability or motivation to 'keep up' places great demands on us; you can see many examples of people 'falling by the wayside' as they age.

The enclosed art with a record also is more accessible and is more plentiful, and we may also be entranced by a beautiful record deck, it is more tangible than the abstract nature of digital. I am considering an Alphason for my Linn, (the latter of which I am not keen on).

Spectral Morn

18-09-2017, 10:09

agk

18-09-2017, 10:13

Personally I spent years and a whole load of bunce trying to get digital to sound analogue only to finally realise that the only thing that sounds analogue is analogue.

Jimbo

18-09-2017, 10:27

Personally I spent years and a whole load of bunce trying to get digital to sound analogue only to finally realise that the only thing that sounds analogue is analogue.

That's how it is and I don't think the two will ever sound the same. There is is still a cold disconnected feel to digital, it lacks soul and our brains are still not tricked into thinking we are listening to something that sounds real. I believe digital has come a long way but it is not there yet.

ovlov854

18-09-2017, 11:29

That's how it is and I don't think the two will ever sound the same. There is is still a cold disconnected feel to digital, it lacks soul and our brains are still not tricked into thinking we are listening to something that sounds real. I believe digital has come a long way but it is not there yet.

Amen to that. Totally agree. I think that one has to spend eye-watering amounts of cash on digital and it still falls way short of even a half decent T/T

Haselsh1

18-09-2017, 11:34

I don't think you are tbh.

I'll now don my crash helmet and get behind the couch. :sofa:

LOL - I was wondering if I may be starting WWIII just by posting this thread.

tapid

18-09-2017, 11:36

Yes, I think the word natural ( organic ) come to mind with the blackstuff.Enjoy.

Haselsh1

18-09-2017, 11:38

What are your issues with vinyl Shaun ? Without knowing exactly its hard to comment.

Jesus Neil I truly wish I knew. It could just be grumpy old bastard mode today and tomorrow I'll be off with the bloody fairies again and love vinyl but I don't think so. I have just listened to DSOTM twice for Christ's sake, first on new reissue vinyl and then on CD, the hybrid SACD layer. To me, the CD was absolute bliss and just so chilled out and relaxing. I am trying to convince myself that vinyl is way better, I just can't.

Spectral Morn

18-09-2017, 11:51

Jesus Neil I truly wish I knew. It could just be grumpy old bastard mode today and tomorrow I'll be off with the bloody fairies again and love vinyl but I don't think so. I have just listened to DSOTM twice for Christ's sake, first on new reissue vinyl and then on CD, the hybrid SACD layer. To me, the CD was absolute bliss and just so chilled out and relaxing. I am trying to convince myself that vinyl is way better, I just can't.

Fair enough.

I think for many its surface noise or that early pressings are better etc, and for me it was surface noise, but it no longer is as my AMG Giro and Air Tight cart put the music first, dig deep and produce a wonderful experience. Now I have great digital gear as well, but so far vinyl still has the edge for me.

Arkless Electronics

18-09-2017, 12:08

Amen to that. Totally agree. I think that one has to spend eye-watering amounts of cash on digital and it still falls way short of even a half decent T/T

I couldn't disagree more strongly!! It takes thousands (at new prices) for a vinyl playing front end to even equal the cheapest CD player and always has! And that's coming from someone who manufactures phono stages.... Ultimately vinyl can match or better digital, but not for anywhere near the same price. That's what killed off (originally) vinyl and cassette etc... even the cheapest, nastiest, £79 new Matsui CD player will beat any analogue source costing less than around £1500. The nature of Red Book CD assures this. It will give uncoloured flat response from 4Hz - 20KHz, with no background noise and <0.01% distortion, no mistracking etc even from a cheap player. To me, the differences between cheap digital and very expensive digital are very small indeed. The difference between any two vinyl front ends, even at £2K+, is vastly greater than the difference between a £300 red book CD player and £3000 one, which will sound so similar that only extended listening will reveal slightly greater "space" and more "organic" sound from the £3K one. Now try comparing a £300 vinyl front end with a £3K one:eek:

Another point is that unless you are buying old pressings from before the early '80's, digital has probably been used in the production of the vinyl record, whether at the recording, mixing , mastering or re-mastering stages.

cre009

18-09-2017, 12:16

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.

Macca

18-09-2017, 12:33

I couldn't disagree more strongly!! It takes thousands (at new prices) for a vinyl playing front end to even equal the cheapest CD player and always has! And that's coming from someone who manufactures phono stages.... Ultimately vinyl can match or better digital, but not for anywhere near the same price. That's what killed off (originally) vinyl and cassette etc... even the cheapest, nastiest, £79 new Matsui CD player will beat any analogue source costing less than around £1500. The nature of Red Book CD assures this. It will give uncoloured flat response from 4Hz - 20KHz, with no background noise and <0.01% distortion, no mistracking etc even from a cheap player. To me, the differences between cheap digital and very expensive digital are very small indeed. The difference between any two vinyl front ends, even at £2K+, is vastly greater than the difference between a £300 red book CD player and £3000 one, which will sound so similar that only extended listening will reveal slightly greater "space" and more "organic" sound from the £3K one. Now try comparing a £300 vinyl front end with a £3K one:eek:

Another point is that unless you are buying old pressings from before the early '80's, digital has probably been used in the production of the vinyl record, whether at the recording, mixing , mastering or re-mastering stages.

Yes digital wins on paper, there is really no contest. In practice, this does not always happen. The reasons for that are varied and in some cases complex. For example I have noticed that with budget cd players there can be a very flat, 2D soundstage presentation. If this this is important to you (and it isn't for some) then a budget vinyl system (say a grand's worth new, including phono stage) will do it a lot better.

However given you can pick up high end cd players now for half that cost or less the point is relatively moot.

Another issue is the voicing of cd players and DACS. Modern budget players tend to be engineered to sound smooth at the expense of everything else. No doubt to complement the less than stellar amplification and speakers they are going to be paired with. Compared to this even budget vinyl replay is going to sound a lot more 'lively'.

Finally there is no way a replay system with no distortion can compete with one that chucks out a couple of percent of 2nd harmonic. This gives the sound that little bit of extra life and 'crunch' and adds to that 'performers playing live' feel that so many people look for, even from studio recordings that are made up of dozens of individually recorded performances strapped together.

2nd harmonic is a funny thing, indeed celebrated amplifier designer Douglas Self suggested the idea of an amplifier with a control to allow the user to vary the amount of 2nd harmonic applied to the signal. Although I don't think any such amp was ever built.

In Shaun's case where he is listening to electronic music with no instruments recorded in an acoustic I can see why he prefers digital for this, as there is no 'illusion of a live performance' to recreate and all the extra distortion does subjectively is to dirty the tone.

mikeyb

18-09-2017, 12:57

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.

Arkless Electronics

18-09-2017, 13:13

Yes digital wins on paper, there is really no contest. In practice, this does not always happen. The reasons for that are varied and in some cases complex. For example I have noticed that with budget cd players there can be a very flat, 2D soundstage presentation. If this this is important to you (and it isn't for some) then a budget vinyl system (say a grand's worth new, including phono stage) will do it a lot better.

However given you can pick up high end cd players now for half that cost or less the point is relatively moot.

Another issue is the voicing of cd players and DACS. Modern budget players tend to be engineered to sound smooth at the expense of everything else. No doubt to complement the less than stellar amplification and speakers they are going to be paired with. Compared to this even budget vinyl replay is going to sound a lot more 'lively'.

Finally there is no way a replay system with no distortion can compete with one that chucks out a couple of percent of 2nd harmonic. This gives the sound that little bit of extra life and 'crunch' and adds to that 'performers playing live' feel that so many people look for, even from studio recordings that are made up of dozens of individually recorded performances strapped together.

2nd harmonic is a funny thing, indeed celebrated amplifier designer Douglas Self suggested the idea of an amplifier with a control to allow the user to vary the amount of 2nd harmonic applied to the signal. Although I don't think any such amp was ever built.

In Shaun's case where he is listening to electronic music with no instruments recorded in an acoustic I can see why he prefers digital for this, as there is no 'illusion of a live performance' to recreate and all the extra distortion does subjectively is to dirty the tone.

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!:eek: 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;)

walpurgis

18-09-2017, 13:20

mikeyb

18-09-2017, 13:21

walpurgis

18-09-2017, 13:26

Maybe so, but does it exist [emoji6]

I own such a system.

Macca

18-09-2017, 13:34

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!:eek: 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.

Haselsh1

18-09-2017, 13:51

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

;)

Haselsh1

18-09-2017, 13:56

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.

Spectral Morn

18-09-2017, 14:03

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 :doh:) 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.

walpurgis

18-09-2017, 14:04

I have valves and solid state. I find neither better than the other. I like both.

Joe

18-09-2017, 14:33

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.

Macca

18-09-2017, 14:48

. 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 :doh:) 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.

Haselsh1

18-09-2017, 14:54

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.

Haselsh1

18-09-2017, 14:55

Haselsh1

18-09-2017, 15:05

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

18-09-2017, 15:05

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

18-09-2017, 15:10

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

18-09-2017, 15:12

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

18-09-2017, 15:21

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

18-09-2017, 15:30

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

18-09-2017, 16:21

RothwellAudio

18-09-2017, 16:25

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

18-09-2017, 16:29

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

Haselsh1

18-09-2017, 16:30

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

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 :doh:

struth

18-09-2017, 16:31

One of the advantages of digital. Very little faff

Haselsh1

18-09-2017, 16:36

One of the advantages of digital. Very little faff

Love it...!

:eyebrows:

Haselsh1

18-09-2017, 16:38

One of the advantages of digital. Very little faff

I think I may take up coppicing, it's just as old and bloody antiquated. Then again, up here there's a nice little niche in folk singers.

Arkless Electronics

18-09-2017, 16:43

If it's a spherical stylus DL103 then there's your likely culprit in terms of HF sparkle and precision...IMHO:)

The Dynavector phono stage is a good unit and the nearest rival to the Arkless 640P in SQ according to several of my customers. About 50:50 for preferance for the Arkless or the Dynavector.... of course the Dynavector is 3 times the price of the Arkless 640P:eyebrows: "Other phono stages are available":D

Haselsh1

18-09-2017, 16:46

If it's a spherical stylus DL103 then there's your likely culprit in terms of HF sparkle and precision...IMHO:)

Thanks Jez I had thought about that. My older Benz Micro Silver had a much brighter presentation but then it sounded more like CD.

Arkless Electronics

18-09-2017, 16:58

Thanks Jez I had thought about that. My older Benz Micro Silver had a much brighter presentation but then it sounded more like CD.

More accurate! As I said earlier, the closer we get to perfect sound, the more alike things should sound.

Macca

18-09-2017, 17:03

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 agree but that is not the sort of distortion I'm talking about. If it was then nothing would sound good on vinyl except girl with guitar. The inherent distortions of vinyl replay actually subjectively enhance the sound pretty much regardless of how complex the recording is. You're talking about the distortion that some manufacturers use to get what I call 'fake hi-fi'. That is, it sounds good, breathtaking even, with very clean, sparse recordings and harsh and hard with anything else. Then the recordings get blamed. 'Cloth eared engineers' and so on. Ludicrous but it is endemic now.

Was reading on another forum just yesterday where a bloke had just installed some new £8K interconnects and although some recordings were now 'mind blowing' his original pressing of 'Electric Ladyland' had been rendered 'unlistenable'. Something gone badly wrong there on more than one level.

walpurgis

18-09-2017, 17:07

If it's a spherical stylus DL103 then there's your likely culprit in terms of HF sparkle and precision...IMHO:)

That's what I found. The DL-103R is better though.

Haselsh1

18-09-2017, 17:08

Was reading on another forum just yesterday where a bloke had just installed some new £8K interconnects and although some recordings were now 'mind blowing' his original pressing of 'Electric Ladyland' had been rendered 'unlistenable'. Something gone badly wrong there on more than one level.

Yeah, maybe Hendrix should've played a Moog modular

:rolleyes:

Arkless Electronics

18-09-2017, 17:08

I agree but that is not the sort of distortion I'm talking about. If it was then nothing would sound good on vinyl except girl with guitar. The inherent distortions of vinyl replay actually subjectively enhance the sound pretty much regardless of how complex the recording is. Your talking about the distortion that some manufacturers use to get what I call 'fake hi-fi'. That is, it sounds good, breathtaking even, with very clean, sparse recordings and harsh and hard with anything else. Then the recordings get blamed. 'Cloth eared engineers' and so on. Ludicrous but it is endemic now.

Was reading on another forum just yesterday where a bloke had just installed some new £8K interconnects and although some recordings were now 'mind blowing' his original pressing of 'Electric Ladyland' had been rendered 'unlistenable'. Something gone badly wrong there on more than one level.

He must have an excellent imagination! I bet his hi fi dealer was just about to shut.... but he had a glance out of the window and saw him coming:D

Haselsh1

18-09-2017, 17:09

He must have an excellent imagination! I bet his hi fi dealer was just about to shut.... but he had a glance out of the window and saw him coming:D

:lol:

Macca

18-09-2017, 17:18

Not imagination, just a load of weird stuff in the interconnects. Get the distortion up, enhance those leading edges, everything you play now sounds 'live'.

This benefits some recordings, kills others. Shit that was what the whole 'flat earth' thing was all about, now they are doing it with cables. All that R&D they do isn't to improve the transparency of their cables. it is to give them their own sound. You won't sell cables at that price if they are just transparent, as no-one would hear the difference between them and some 20 quid efforts.

Arkless Electronics

18-09-2017, 17:22

karma67

18-09-2017, 17:23

oh yes there is!:lol:

Arkless Electronics

18-09-2017, 17:27

oh yes there is!:lol:

You should start a thread about this... :eek::stalks:

walpurgis

18-09-2017, 17:43

magiccarpetride

18-09-2017, 17:53

Back in the mid sixties we always had a Dansette Tempo in the house and loads of 7" vinyl singles to listen to so I guess a love of vinyl was inevitable. Around 1973 my Mom bought me an ITT stereo with a BSR autochanger and I had a few albums mainly by Roxy Music. In 1977 I had a huge motorcycle smash, spent five months in hospital and two year away from work. Just after that period I bought my first 'real' hi-fi system which was a Garrard GT35 turntable, Trio 40 Wpc amplifier and Goodmans RB20 loudspeakers. After a year, the amplifier was changed to a Naim 42/110 combination and then, a short while later I bought a Logic DM101. In 1983 my dreams came true and I bought my first ever CD player, a Yamaha CDX1. Around 1988 I bought a Cambridge Audio CD2. At this point I basically scrapped my vinyl LP collection only keeping around 100 of my more precious discs.

Moving on to 1997 I got the feeling that vinyl was probably not that bad after all and bought an Alphason Sonata with an Alphason HR100S MCS tonearm and an Ortofon Kontrapunkt a cartridge with an appropriate phono stage. Obviously I started to buy lots of vinyl to replace what I once had.

During 2005 - 2012 my financial position crashed and I was living in a very bad situation so everything was sold to keep the baying wolves from the door. Now though, thanks to my current partner Sue and her love of music and vinyl, I am back where I want to be; almost ! I still have a problem with vinyl. I am almost convinced now that I am suffering from the 'vinyl illusion'. It appears to me that the whole vinyl scene is one of mental expectation and the thought of vinyl playing actually being a lot better than the reality. The memory of playing vinyl records is an illusion created by our minds and the reality falls way short of this illusion. It is a glorious thing to play a vinyl record on a really nice turntable/arm/cart, flipping the sides over each time and just engulfing ones self in this beauty. The truth though is that it is nothing more that a pain in the arse full of old junk technology ?

Someone please let me know where I am going wrong.

Back in February this year my wife asked me what do I want for my birthday. A nice Fender Telecaster immediately came to mind, but then I thought "I already have several beautiful guitars, why pollute the household with yet another exorbitantly expensive guitar that probably won't get much playtime anyway?"

So my second thought was "turntable?" But I immediately said "nah!"; turntables are such hassle, plus they are antiquated tech, and sound inferior to good digital hi fi.

But the little worm kept burrowing in my head, so I started slowly eyeing some turntables. Entry level Rega was selling for cheap at my local furniture store, so my first thought was "let's get Rega." But then I started reading some 'opinions' online, and started hearing a lot of praise for a moving coil cartridge Denon DL-103. So I decided to build my analogue front-end starting with DL-103, and work my way backwards. So I ordered the cartridge.

The first thing I learned once I started reading about DL-103 was that entry level turntables, the likes of Rega and Project (their entry level models), just won't cut it for DL-103. I then moved on to considering Technics SL1200; however, those beasts were rare, and if they came on the market for sale, were in a battered shape and the asking price was around $1,000.

One day, at the local record store, I saw the paper ad for Thorens 165. Called the guy and explained that I have DL-103; turned out he was running a turntable shop, and knew a boatload about all things analogue. He told me that this Thorens model is not precise enough for DL-103. He also told me to forget about Technics, as these are not nearly as good for such precise cartridge.

So I asked him to suggest me an appropriate turntable, and he said he had a pretty good match in mind. I went to his store, and he showed me the modded Systemdek IIX, with acrylic platter, fitted with modded Rega RB300 tonearm (rewired, plus some other mods). He fitted my DL-103, and supplied me with his hand made SUT into MM phono stage.

I took the turntable home, and installed it. To tell the truth, I was expecting it to sound way inferior to my digital front end. But lo and behold, it just blew the digital out of the water! Compared to digital, my analogue front end breathes fire!

The next thing I did on my 'born again analogue' journey is get me a nice RCM. After washing my records, vacuuming them, rinsing with distilled water and vacuuming again, the whole new world of shiny music opened for me. Now when I switch back to digital, I'm missing the ferocity, the 'molten lava' sound that my vinyl playback is giving me.

But for me, the most critical part of enjoying the vinyl playback is careful, thorough washing and vacuuming the LPs. Without that step, vinyl can sound pale and lifeless compared to good digital.

magiccarpetride

18-09-2017, 18:02

One of the advantages of digital. Very little faff

Depends. I know my way around Linux, so I can spend days faffing about the thread priorities and many other configuration details of my digital transport. Many of those changes modify the way my digital front end sounds, so there is much more faffing in the digital realm. Think of it as similar to how you can spend days messing with Photoshop effects and applying them to your photos. It's basically going down the rabbit hole.

Much less opportunity for such hard core faffing in the land of turntables.

paulf-2007

18-09-2017, 18:03

Macca

18-09-2017, 18:19

But there is no difference... :sofa:

Edit: anyone else getting this thing where you post something and it asks you if you want to leave the page, so you say yes, it then takes about 20 seconds for your post to appear... twice!

Well there is but comparatively it is a teeny tiny one. But if you wanted to make an interconnect that quite obviously changes the sound, maybe with little boxes full of bits half way along, or maybe not, then you could. And they do.

Marco

18-09-2017, 19:45

That's how it is and I don't think the two will ever sound the same. There is is still a cold disconnected feel to digital, it lacks soul and our brains are still not tricked into thinking we are listening to something that sounds real.

Lol - this subject keeps coming up again and again [and again]... Jim, you've heard my T/T at NEBO, which at the time you said was one of the best sounds you've ever heard from vinyl, and I can assure you (as indeed Macca will confirm, as he's heard both in my system), my CD player sounds very similar.

Not the *same*, but so close, as I've said before, that when lying back listening to music, I often forget whether it's a record playing or a CD (based on the former being a pristine vinyl pressing with very low surface noise). I certainly wouldn't be able to do that if CD inherently "lacks soul".

The fact is, it doesn't. It simply necessitates the use of the right digital equipment, in order to release its full potential - and that full potential, in my experience, ably allows it to compete favourably with any turntable. Note, however, I'm not saying that it betters it.

And yes, there will always be differences between digital and analogue, but not the huge discrepancies some claim, which exist simply because either the digital or analogue source equipment being used isn't capable of revealing the full potential of the partnering music software. When that's NOT the case, the real differences are small.

It's *that* simple, folks! :)

Marco.

magiccarpetride

18-09-2017, 20:47

Some remastered vinyl is crap, I have an original abbey road, a bit noisy so I bought a new one and the original beats the new one hands down, not in the same league. Btw I'm not a Beatles fan, only like abbey road.

I have the exact same experience with Abbey Road -- the 2012 180 gram remastered LP sounds dull and lifeless compared to the original LP.

But (and it's a BIG but!), the old DIDN'T sound superior to the new one before I washed and vacuumed it in my RCM. That's a very important (I'd say a vital step) when comparing analogue to digital -- is the LP cleaned and vacuumed or not?

Spectral Morn

18-09-2017, 21:15

Many modern pressing are taken from digital not the original analogue master tapes.....

magiccarpetride

18-09-2017, 21:26

Many modern pressing are taken from digital not the original analogue master tapes.....

True. I have a double LP "Past Masters" by the Beatles that was issued in November 1988. It was cut from the digital master, and it sounds totally shite. Just bloody awful.

struth

18-09-2017, 21:27

Got an original and a remaster too quite like both

Marco

19-09-2017, 07:01

Macca

19-09-2017, 07:30

Original Beatles albums (stereo or mono) always sound best, closely followed by expertly produced reissues, remastered using the original tapes, such as those from 2012. To ensure that the sonic characteristics of the original tapes are faithfully captured, that process *must* be conducted in the analogue domain, from start to finish.
.

Not possible though because when you come to cut your vinyl record the signal is converted to digital for the cutter head. This is really the killer for those who believe that analogue has some sort of intrinsic 'purity'. Any pressing dated later than 1979 is digital, as are quite a few from before that date.

Haselsh1

19-09-2017, 07:47

Yeah, done all of the record cleaning with a Moth RCM so that can be removed from the equation. It has no bearing on this thread I'm afraid and I also have a very old pressing of DSOTM that is not overly knackered but I wouldn't really want to play the whole thing. This pressing dates back to around 1979.

I am going to have another sesh at some point today but the weather is superb this morning and the Harley is calling from afar.

I may try out some old classics like The Climax Blues Band, original pressing and Brand X Moroccan Roll just to see if age really does make a difference because there is no way these two albums are digital anything.

I'll be back ;)

Pharos

19-09-2017, 07:55

We could question whether or not the vinyl medium's deficiencies serve to mask inherent unpleasantness in poor recordings which digital allows to be heard, it is possible.

I have never really considered any Beatles stuff to be of very good audio quality, it was for me the song writing which mattered.

Macca

19-09-2017, 07:59

Marco

19-09-2017, 08:11

Not possible though because when you come to cut your vinyl record the signal is converted to digital for the cutter head.

Not so, for the true purist. See here: http://www.vinylgourmet.com/en/music/1107-the-doors-the-doors-2lp-45rpm-200-gram-vinyl-doug-sax-bruce-botnick-analogue-productions-qrp-2012-usa.html

...noting in particular this bit :

"Analogue Productions and Quality Record Pressings are proud to announce that these six studio LP titles — The Doors, Strange Days, Waiting For The Sun, Soft Parade, Morrison Hotel and L.A. Woman — are featured on 200-gram vinyl, pressed at 45 rpm. All were cut from the original analog masters by Doug Sax, with the exception of The Doors, which was made from the best analog tape copy.

A truly authentic reissue project, the masters were recorded on tube equipment, and the tape machine used for the transfer of these releases is a tube machine, [B]as is the cutting system...".

And it's no coincidence that the above Doors 45rpm box-set is amongst the finest sounding collection of records I own :)

Marco.

Haselsh1

19-09-2017, 08:34

I think that there is something going on here regarding analogue and digital and how they perform with respect to cutting heads. I have been into photography for 48 years now and until recently spent many years scanning analogue negatives with an Epson V700 scanner so that it resulted in a digital file. Even though these are now in the digital domain they hold such amazing 'analogue' quality it is hard to understand how. These digital files portray all of the depth and tonal quality of the original negative and still produce stunning quality prints but now on the most amazing cotton fibre watercolour papers. OK, so they are scanned at 24 bit colour and then in my case converted to monochrome later but at least I can now use ultra high quality 'art' papers to print them on.

My point is, with this in mind, why should audio not behave in the same way...?

Stratmangler

19-09-2017, 08:59

S8SKbxxsjOY&t=189s

Haselsh1

19-09-2017, 09:10

Brilliant ! Loved the video. Many thanks for that.

:thumbsup:

Marco

19-09-2017, 09:15

Indeed, so Martin needs to update his hi-fi 'facts folder' accordingly ;)

Marco.

Macca

19-09-2017, 11:17

Indeed, so Martin needs to update his hi-fi 'facts folder' accordingly ;)

Marco.

I thought when I wrote that that someone was bound to come back with some obscure place where they still use an analogue cutting lathe. It isn't in any way related to the point I was making.

Shaun - digital video and photography has zero connection with digital sound. Two entirely different things.

Marco

19-09-2017, 11:29

I thought when I wrote that that someone was bound to come back with some obscure place where they still use an analogue cutting lathe. It isn't in any way related to the point I was making.

Doesn't matter. It shows that it *can* still be done (and indeed is) by those seeking to make vinyl records, mastered and produced fully in the analogue domain. That makes what I was saying earlier (which you 'corrected' me on), entirely valid! :)

And btw, there are quite a few of these "obscure places" around if you know where to look... ;)

Marco.

Arkless Electronics

19-09-2017, 11:29

I don't think 'masking' is the right word. More like it draws your attention away from any deficiencies. Not that there are that many 'poor recordings', in fact there are hardly any. Problems with poor recordings are down to poor (or fake) hi fi equipment. Or a badly set up TT.

Massively disagree. There are loads of awful recordings! There are not that many truly superb ones on the other hand.

Oh and I would expect most cutting lathes to be analogue. Not that I'm going to google it. Most are simply ones from back in the day, refurbished and put back into use. I was just reading in "Pro Sound News" a week ago about the refurbishment of a Neumann lathe found in decent condition somewhere like Nairobi and taken back to London.

Marco

19-09-2017, 11:47

Massively disagree. There are loads of awful recordings! There are not that many truly superb ones on the other hand.

I would also agree. Dunno where Martin's coming from there.

Look at all the 'brickwalled to buggery', CDs there are, from the 'loudness wars', for starters - all of which sound DIRE! When on the other hand, as you say, there are no where near as many truly great recordings around, either on vinyl or CD.

The majority of what's out there, aside from the dire shite, is simply 'good enough', but not in any way exceptional.

Oh and I would expect most cutting lathes to be analogue. Not that I'm going to google it. Most are simply ones from back in the day, refurbished and put back into use. I was just reading in "Pro Sound News" a week ago about the refurbishment of a Neumann lathe found in decent condition somewhere like Nairobi and taken back to London.

Good point :)

Marco.

Macca

19-09-2017, 12:07

No you are both wrong, there are not hundreds of analogue lathes around, there have not been since the 1970s. Possibly an idea to do some reading up on the subject rather than just believing what you want to believe. Never understood why people do that.

Also there is a difference between recording and mastering. You can have an excellent recording and ruin it with compression in mastering. 'Brickwalling' is something completely different and relates to the cut off frequency of CD.

Marco

19-09-2017, 12:22

No you are both wrong, there are not hundreds of analogue lathes around, there have not been since the 1970s. Possibly an idea to do some reading up on the subject rather than just believing what you want to believe. Never understood why people do that.

I didn't say that there were hundreds of them around [you're putting words into my mouth, as I didn't state a figure], simply that there are obviously more than you think, some of which, as Jez says, will be ones left over from 'back in the day', and used by studios and people who wish to produce the highest quality all-analogue recordings.

If you look around, you'll find quite a few specialist labels producing vinyl records in that way. Outside of the mainstream, it's certainly not that obscure.

Also there is a difference between recording and mastering. You can have an excellent recording and ruin it with compression in mastering. 'Brickwalling' is something completely different and relates to the cut off frequency of CD.

That's irrelevant to the point I'm making - a bad recording is a BAD recording, no matter the reason! And there are plenty of them around. Try buying your average 'chart CD', these days, for starters, or anything commercially produced for the masses, and see what it sounds like :spew:

Marco.

JohnMcC

19-09-2017, 12:28

I've been following this thread with great interest because it reflects my own experience so closely (this is mostly about classical music btw). For me there's a sort of hierarchy of listening. Most of the time a really great performance will transcend the medium. For instance, I have a recording from 1930 of Madeleine Grey singing the Songs of the Auvergne (and Ravel's "Chansons Hebraique", accompanied by Ravel himself) which I will take over any other recording of that work. It was transferred from old, scratchy 78s onto a World Record Club LP sometime in the 1960s without any real cleaning up; the backing Band on the Canteloube is a Parisian pick-up orchestra that sounds as if they've spent the afternoon on the piss; the singing is not always pitch-perfect and the tempi are faster than we're used to today. But the performance, the listening experience, is just perfect . . . for me.

That's the top - when the medium just doesn't impinge on the experience. Then there's listening to vinyl - for me it's more involving because it requires more commitment. I can pause any digital recording at any point, and the listening experience might be marred, but the music will pick up exactly where it stopped. If I have to interrupt a vinyl session it is much more annoying - to the extent that I ask for no domestic disturbance unless a real emergency occurs. Having invested the time and effort in finding, buying, cleaning and then playing (carefully handling everything) an old vinyl LP, I will listen to less than perfect performances with enjoyment.

Not quite so with digital. For me if it's digital it should sound great every time - quality of performance and all. My ears suffered with the first decade of CDs - all that shoutiness, all those careless transfers to silver disc. So I'm much pickier with CDs particularly than with vinyl. Vinyl's not a con, or a fad, or on its way out, because - in my opinion, and given copies of the same excellent performance on either vinyl, CD or high res download, the vinyl seems to give me simply a better experience.

montesquieu

19-09-2017, 12:28

2nd harmonic is a funny thing, indeed celebrated amplifier designer Douglas Self suggested the idea of an amplifier with a control to allow the user to vary the amount of 2nd harmonic applied to the signal. Although I don't think any such amp was ever built.

If you read some of the stuff written by Jason Lim, creator of NuForce and now boss of NuPrime (he kept the high-end stuff when he sold off NuForce), he openly admits to manipulating second harmonic in his power amps in a bid to make Class D sound more appealing ... and succeeds in my view.

I'm still very much a valve amp fan and wouldn't swap my big Radford for any solid state amp I've ever heard, but I can see the day when Class D will finally get there - the task is for electronics designers (working with acousticians and psychologists) to gain bit more understanding of what actually appeals to the ear in a valve amp, and modelling it.

This is not unrelated to the vinyl-CD discussion. I have a pretty nice digital setup that I enjoy. For whatever reason (possibly because I have four times as many records as CDs) I listen to vinyl probably four times as much, and many evenings don't even switch the digital rig on. In fact to counter this tendency, sometimes I deliberately only play CD - leaving the lid firmly on the turntable - just to make sure I have a bit of diversity in my listening, going for new recordings rather than my old favorites.

Digital can be great but I think vinyl is almost always more enjoyable, not necessarily always for reasons of sound, but in its tactile qualities which encourage better engagement with the programme material. Also a 20-25 minute 'side' is a just the right length for the human attention span to focus without a break - it can be hard in a domestic environment to keep unbroken listening concentration for a whole CD of 60 or even 80 minutes (it's far easier at a concert where there are other cues to keep the energy up for continuous engagement). These factors far from being unimportant are core to the listening experience.

Macca

19-09-2017, 12:30

I didn't say that there were hundreds of them around [you're putting words into my mouth, as I didn't state a figure], simply that there are obviously more than you think, some of which, as Jez says, will be ones left over from 'back in the day', and used by studios and people who wish to produce the highest quality all-analogue recordings.

If you look around, you'll find quite few specialist labels producing vinyl records in that way. Outside of the mainstream, it's certainly not that obscure.

That's irrelevant to the point I'm making - a bad recording is a BAD recording, no matter the reason! And there are plenty of them around. Try buying your average 'chart CD', these days, for starters, or anything commercially produced for the masses, and see what it sounds like :spew:

Marco.

Fair enough you did not say 'hundreds', don't know where I got that from.

But you are still confusing mastering with recording. Those chart cds are very well recorded. They then have the dynamic range flattened in mastering, making them sound awful on a decent system. I've challenged people before when this subject has come up to actually name a poor recording so we all know what they are talking about. No-one ever does.

I'll grant you that good or bad recording is relative, compared to say some Opus 3 or Sheffield Labs recording you might argue that a mainstream rock release sounds poor. But that is comparative. I want to know what these recordings are that are so bad they are unplayable, because I don't believe they exist. (BTW bootlegs or something your mate's band recorded in the garage on a Sanyo ghetto blaster don't count).

Marco

19-09-2017, 12:44

No worries. Ok then, simply substitute 'poor recordings' with 'shit sounding CDs', as it's only the FINAL RESULT [what you hear] that matters, and there are plenty of the latter around, which are shown up for what they are by any decent system! :)

I also don't believe that some of these recordings were that great to start with, even before they arrived at the mastering stage, certainly in comparison with how things were once done, and the sheer attention to detail and care taken by dedicated and experienced sound engineers, back in the day when only the best was considered as good enough.

That's one of the reasons, equipment aside, why some older recordings (think here from the 50s and 60s) often sound as good as they do.

Marco.

Stratmangler

19-09-2017, 12:44

I thought when I wrote that that someone was bound to come back with some obscure place where they still use an analogue cutting lathe. It isn't in any way related to the point I was making

That wasn't the reason I dug out and dropped the video.
I was fascinated that record cutting had incorporated computer control over cutting depth and pitch.
The two head tape machines were fairly rare, and there's no free lunch with them -they need someone extremely capable to keep the machine calibrated and up to snuff. To make sure those playback heads are exactly azimuth aligned is a headache in itself.

Now go to the more common scenario, where there's only one playback head.
You send the initial playback to the cutting computer, and you need to use a delay line to feed the signal to the cutter head.
You're not going to use an analogue delay, because of the degenerative issues they have.
An analogue delay is also incapable of producing a delay signal at a precisely timed interval
Chuck in a digital delay line, and you have the input replicated in the delay, only at the required delay interval. Because the A to D, and D to A are covered in the one box, you're feeding analogue signal in, and getting analogue signal out, which is what you need to drive the cutter head.

Move on to what's the common situation today, and the cutting computer works directly with 24/96000 files and a midi synced control system - no further delay required, and the cutter head being fed from a mixing console's ADC.

Marco

19-09-2017, 12:54

I've been following this thread with great interest because it reflects my own experience so closely (this is mostly about classical music btw). For me there's a sort of hierarchy of listening. Most of the time a really great performance will transcend the medium. For instance, I have a recording from 1930 of Madeleine Grey singing the Songs of the Auvergne (and Ravel's "Chansons Hebraique", accompanied by Ravel himself) which I will take over any other recording of that work. It was transferred from old, scratchy 78s onto a World Record Club LP sometime in the 1960s without any real cleaning up; the backing Band on the Canteloube is a Parisian pick-up orchestra that sounds as if they've spent the afternoon on the piss; the singing is not always pitch-perfect and the tempi are faster than we're used to today. But the performance, the listening experience, is just perfect . . . for me. That's the top - when the medium just doesn't impinge on the experience. Then there's listening to vinyl - for me it's more involving because it requires more commitment. I can pause any digital recording at any point, and the listening experience might be marred, but the music will pick up exactly where it stopped. If I have to interrupt a vinyl session it is much more annoying - to the extent that I ask for no domestic disturbance unless a real emergency occurs. Having invested the time and effort in finding, buying, cleaning and then playing (carefully handling everything) an old vinyl LP, I will listen to less than perfect performances with enjoyment. Not quite so with digital. For me if it's digital it should sound great every time - quality of performance and all. My ears suffered with the first decade of CDs - all that shoutiness, all those careless transfers to silver disc. So I'm much pickier with CDs particularly than with vinyl. Vinyl's not a con, or a fad, or on its way out, because - in my opinion, and given copies of the same excellent performance on either vinyl, CD or high res download, the vinyl seems to give me simply a better experience.

Could we have that again, please John, this time with paragraphs? It makes it *so* much easier to read, otherwise the tendency will simply be for folks to by-pass what you've written :)

Marco.

Arkless Electronics

19-09-2017, 13:08

The last time I read any article on the subject was a few years ago (other than that Neumann in Nairobi) but the situation was that many of the old lathes and pressing equipment had been scrapped and that there was a frantic effort being made to track down remaining lathes and presses, refurbish them, and put them back to use to accommodate the renewed popularity of vinyl. Much of it was being found in odd places and there was a lot in Eastern Europe, including several facilities still able to cut and press vinyl records. Much of this kit was well past sell by date and results could be variable... Rumble from worn bearings in the lathe was even reported!

A cutter head is like a giant MC cartridge in reverse and is driven by an analogue signal from a power amplifier. I can well imagine that digital add ons for controlling the position of the cutter head etc will have been added. The continued growth of vinyl may well by now mean that new lathes and presses are being built, but I fail to see how anything but driving the coils of the cutter head from a power amplifier would make any sense. I can see that it is certainly possible that said power amps could be driven by a "digital pre-amp" and DAC from the digital master recording, and that the RIAA EQ could be applied digitally in this "digital pre-amp", but the signal from the DAC would still be analogue to the power amps, which then drive the cutting head.

If "everything I thought I knew about disc cutting" has been supplanted by some new digital technique I've never heard of in the last few years then I will stand corrected...

anthonyTD

19-09-2017, 13:19

:)
The last time I read any article on the subject was a few years ago (other than that Neumann in Nairobi) but the situation was that many of the old lathes and pressing equipment had been scrapped and that there was a frantic effort being made to track down remaining lathes and presses, refurbish them, and put them back to use to accommodate the renewed popularity of vinyl. Much of it was being found in odd places and there was a lot in Eastern Europe, including several facilities still able to cut and press vinyl records. Much of this kit was well past sell by date and results could be variable... Rumble from worn bearings in the lathe was even reported!

A cutter head is like a giant MC cartridge in reverse and is driven by an analogue signal from a power amplifier. I can well imagine that digital add ons for controlling the position of the cutter head etc will have been added. The continued growth of vinyl may well by now mean that new lathes and presses are being built, but I fail to see how anything but driving the coils of the cutter head from a power amplifier would make any sense. I can see that it is certainly possible that said power amps could be driven by a "digital pre-amp" and DAC from the digital master recording, and that the RIAA EQ could be applied digitally in this "digital pre-amp", but the signal from the DAC would still be analogue to the power amps, which then drive the cutting head.

If "everything I thought I knew about disc cutting" has been supplanted by some new digital technique I've never heard of in the last few years then I will stand corrected...

struth

19-09-2017, 13:21

the new warm tone record press

https://www.wired.com/2017/02/warm-tone-record-press-hand-drawn-records/

RothwellAudio

19-09-2017, 14:19

The continued growth of vinyl may well by now mean that new lathes and presses are being built, but I fail to see how anything but driving the coils of the cutter head from a power amplifier would make any sense. I can see that it is certainly possible that said power amps could be driven by a "digital pre-amp" and DAC from the digital master recording, and that the RIAA EQ could be applied digitally in this "digital pre-amp", but the signal from the DAC would still be analogue to the power amps, which then drive the cutting head.

If "everything I thought I knew about disc cutting" has been supplanted by some new digital technique I've never heard of in the last few years then I will stand corrected...

I think that's the point Macca was making - the signal may have been an analogue recording initially, and it may be an analogue signal that drives the lathe, but there's an A/D conversion required to get the signal into the lathe's "digital pre-amp" and then a D/A conversion required to drive the lathe's power amps.

Here's an episode of How It's Made showing a cutting lathe and the digital bit involved
https://youtu.be/wqJ0ouQScM8?t=223
Of course, there must be all-analogue lathes in use too.

Arkless Electronics

19-09-2017, 14:41

I think that's the point Macca was making - the signal may have been an analogue recording initially, and it may be an analogue signal that drives the lathe, but there's an A/D conversion required to get the signal into the lathe's "digital pre-amp" and then a D/A conversion required to drive the lathe's power amps.

Here's an episode of How It's Made showing a cutting lathe and the digital bit involved
https://youtu.be/wqJ0ouQScM8?t=223
Of course, there must be all-analogue lathes in use too.

So if we want all analogue recordings today we need to get our R2R's down to the local folk club/choral society/buskers night with some good quality microphones and get used to "Pete and Steve cover some Dylan tracks" rather than big name artists...:D (I have done this BTW and have some good recordings from it).

I would have thought it likely that many of the audiophile record companies will still be using all analogue.. even mainly valved, but this is a small proportion of the music available and not always to ones tastes...

walpurgis

19-09-2017, 14:58

So if we want all analogue recordings today we need to get our R2R's down to the local folk club/choral society/buskers night with some good quality microphones and get used to "Pete and Steve cover some Dylan tracks" rather than big name artists...:D (I have done this BTW and have some good recordings from it).

What were you carrying. A Uher or Nagra? :)

Macca

19-09-2017, 15:06

I think that's the point Macca was making - the signal may have been an analogue recording initially, and it may be an analogue signal that drives the lathe, but there's an A/D conversion required to get the signal into the lathe's "digital pre-amp" and then a D/A conversion required to drive the lathe's power amps.

Here's an episode of How It's Made showing a cutting lathe and the digital bit involved
https://youtu.be/wqJ0ouQScM8?t=223
Of course, there must be all-analogue lathes in use too.

Yes, that was my point.

I do recall reading not so long ago about a completely new method of cutting records that is a lot less messy than a lathe and far more accurate. Can't recall the details but it was similar to 3D printing. Digital conversion was still required, though.

Haselsh1

19-09-2017, 15:08

I have an apparently all analogue vinyl LP by a band named Ondatropica which is one of Will Holland or Quantic's offshoots. Can't comment on it as it is still sealed ;)

Macca

19-09-2017, 15:19

I have a 1967 pressing of Aretha Live in Paris. Older than me, that would have been cut on an analogue lathe so as pure as the driven snow. Also my pressing of Led Zep II is from '71, as free from digital sin as the Virgin Mary. Must have a few others as well.

Is there anything about the sound of these records that makes them stand out from their soiled and sullied digital-lathed brethren? The heretical answer is a no.

I shall now return to my catechism. Amen.

walpurgis

19-09-2017, 15:27

I have an Edison wax phonograph cylinder of Caruso, cut in 1907, but unfortunately it is a digitally remastered version. Says so on the tin! :eek:

Arkless Electronics

19-09-2017, 16:13

What were you carrying. A Uher or Nagra? :)

Lugging a ReVox PR99 MkIII (15 ips half track) and all other kit from the boot of then girlfriends car... Rode and AKG condenser mics and Yamaha mixing desk;)

Arkless Electronics

19-09-2017, 16:14

I have an Edison wax phonograph cylinder of Caruso, cut in 1907, but unfortunately it is a digitally remastered version. Says so on the tin! :eek:

Ah but craftsmen had to carve each 0 and 1 with a chisel in them days...:lol:

Stratmangler

19-09-2017, 16:50

that would have been cut on an analogue lathe

They all are ....

Macca

19-09-2017, 17:00

You know what I mean. A lathe that does not use a digital delay line then.

Stratmangler

19-09-2017, 17:02

You know what I mean. A lathe that does not use a digital delay line then.

It'll have been pre computer control too :)

Macca

19-09-2017, 17:07

Pre computer anything. 1967 was almost pre solid-state anything.

paulf-2007

19-09-2017, 17:08

Stratmangler

19-09-2017, 17:11

Pre computer anything. 1967 was almost pre solid-state anything.

Bullshit on both counts.

Macca

19-09-2017, 17:28

Bullshit on both counts.

I said almost. What was computerised in a recording studio in 1967? What was transistorised?

Arkless Electronics

19-09-2017, 17:31

I said almost. What was computerised in a recording studio in 1967? What was transistorised?

Lots of stuff was transistorised by 1967. The vast majority of new stuff at the time was for a start...

walpurgis

19-09-2017, 17:44

you are allowed to play anything other than dsotm:)

I agree. There are limits! :D

Macca

19-09-2017, 17:46

Fair enough. I thought transistorised consoles didn' t take hold until the 1970s.
I'm surprised you could even buy one in 1967.

Stratmangler

19-09-2017, 17:55

I said almost. What was computerised in a recording studio in 1967? What was transistorised?

...and no mention of recording studio earlier.
Seeing as you just mentioned the studio, transistor power amps from Crown have been around since the early 60s.
So have Neve Electronics.
Quad released the 33/303 in 1967.

Computers hadn't hit the studio back then.

struth

19-09-2017, 18:06

Electronic and Musical Industries' first transistorised console

This console was produced by Electronic and Musical Industries Research Laboratories, Hayes, to a design brief submitted by the engineers at the company's studios in London NW8. The requirement was for a transistorized ("solid state") 24 channel to 8-track mixing console to replace the tube mixers which had been in use at the studios since the early 1960s. A specification for the console was drafted in December 1967, and a prototype was delivered in the fall of 1968 and installed in Studio 2 in December. In time then to record The Beatles last album, the eponymous Abbey Road in July 1969.

Pharos

19-09-2017, 22:36

When I stated "masking", I meant it in a more general way (obscuring), not specifically as in one sound masking another as in audio usage.

Wasn't "Let it Be" the last Beatles album?

Stratmangler

20-09-2017, 04:23

Wasn't "Let it Be" the last Beatles album?

Depends on how you look at it.
It wasn't the last album The Beatles worked on and recorded - that was Abbey Road.

Marco

20-09-2017, 07:14

Lots of stuff was transistorised by 1967. The vast majority of new stuff at the time was for a start...

Indeed, I believe that they were in common use from the early 60s. Folks (as ever) were all too keen to embrace the (then) new technology, particularly EEs, when valves became more unreliable, as production quality took a nosedive in the late 60s.

I'm reliably informed that transistors were heralded as the new 'sonic saviour', signalling an end to the 'faff' of using tubes, simplifying the design of audio circuits accordingly. I'm told, however, that some of the early SS amps sounded truly dire, until the technology matured enough and was properly understood by engineers, in order to make the most out of it.

In terms of the effect of the above on recording studios [the initial transition from valve to transistor equipment], I firmly believe that some of the awful sounding, dull as ditchwater recordings on vinyl, from the early 70s, were as a result of sound engineers and technicians still getting to grips with the new equipment - and in some cases failing miserably!

Marco.

struth

20-09-2017, 07:45

Depends on how you look at it.
It wasn't the last album The Beatles worked on and recorded - that was Abbey Road.

Yup. It was released after abbey but recorded before

Macca

20-09-2017, 07:52

...and no mention of recording studio earlier.
Seeing as you just mentioned the studio, transistor power amps from Crown have been around since the early 60s.
So have Neve Electronics.
Quad released the 33/303 in 1967.
U
Computers hadn't hit the studio back then.

Yes I meant there were no computers in the whole world back in 1967, I really am that stupid...

Stratmangler

20-09-2017, 08:18

Yes I meant there were no computers in the whole world back in 1967, I really am that stupid...

I failed my mind reading exams at school .....
I don't make any attempt whatsoever to make sense of imprecise and inarticulate posts ......

Stratmangler

20-09-2017, 08:54

In terms of the effect of the above on recording studios [the initial transition from valve to transistor equipment], I firmly believe that some of the awful sounding, dull as ditchwater recordings on vinyl, from the early 70s, were as a result of sound engineers and technicians still getting to grips with the new equipment - and in some cases failing miserably!

There are all sorts of mastering problems that can be attributed directly to the monitoring speakers used, and recordings that are overly bright because the monitors were dull in the high frequencies.
Likewise with monitors that are "brightly lit",and the recording being dull.

Recreational drugs don't do much for one's critical faculties either :eyebrows:

Cas

20-09-2017, 09:04

I think someone here may find this of interest regarding computer history between 1960 - 1980

https://www.computerhope.com/history/196080.htm

Joe

20-09-2017, 09:18

I

In terms of the effect of the above on recording studios [the initial transition from valve to transistor equipment], I firmly believe that some of the awful sounding, dull as ditchwater recordings on vinyl, from the early 70s, were as a result of sound engineers and technicians still getting to grips with the new equipment - and in some cases failing miserably!

Marco.

Well, without knowing which studios were using/getting to grips with 'new' equipment, or still using old equipment, it's impossible to ascribe causes and effects. The vast majority of my LP buying was, roughly speaking, between 1968 and 1980. I wouldn't say I noticed a decline in sound quality over that period, but then I was mostly listening via cheap-as-chips record players. I can only think of a handful downright poor recordings (in terms of sound quality rather than artistic merit) that I bought during that period.

Marco

20-09-2017, 09:41

Well, without knowing which studios were using/getting to grips with 'new' equipment, or still using old equipment, it's impossible to ascribe causes and effects.

Indeed. However, I'm simply expressing my opinion, and what in certain instances I believe was the case (based on some research into the matter), not stating facts.

The vast majority of my LP buying was, roughly speaking, between 1968 and 1980. I wouldn't say I noticed a decline in sound quality over that period, but then I was mostly listening via cheap-as-chips record players.

Then, by your own admission, because of that fact, you'll have been in no real position to judge sound quality! ;)

A more accurate assessment would be to judge (using your current T/T and system) how one of your LPs from, say, 1968 (or before), compares in that respect with one from, say, 1972/3, and how either of those recordings compares with those you've bought on vinyl recently.

I'm not attempting to arrive at any definitive conclusions here; simply stating that, IMO (and experience), the recording/sound quality of rock and pop music on vinyl, in some cases, took a considerable nosedive during the early to mid 70s, until studios had properly got to grips with the use of transistor technology, and when said technology itself had matured and improved accordingly.

I believe that's one of the reasons, for example. why Andre (ex-member of this forum) always said that much of his treasured prog-rock music sounded shit!

Marco.

Arkless Electronics

20-09-2017, 12:03

Indeed, I believe that they were in common use from the early 60s. Folks (as ever) were all too keen to embrace the (then) new technology, particularly EEs, when valves became more unreliable, as production quality took a nosedive in the late 60s.

I'm reliably informed that transistors were heralded as the new 'sonic saviour', signalling an end to the 'faff' of using tubes, simplifying the design of audio circuits accordingly. I'm told, however, that some of the early SS amps sounded truly dire, until the technology matured enough and was properly understood by engineers, in order to make the most out of it.

In terms of the effect of the above on recording studios [the initial transition from valve to transistor equipment], I firmly believe that some of the awful sounding, dull as ditchwater recordings on vinyl, from the early 70s, were as a result of sound engineers and technicians still getting to grips with the new equipment - and in some cases failing miserably!

Marco.

They were in common use by the early sixties but mainly in transistor radios. Transistors were very expensive at that time and things which had no need for portability tended to remain valved for a few more years.

The limitations of very early transistors were well understood by EE's and in more demanding applications the best virtues of both were exploited in hybrids for a long time. An example is that Marconi Instruments signal generator I recently got. It was built in 1968 but still all valved other than the regulated supply for the valve heaters. now the reason for this is largely that it was still a damn good instrument and they had production lines and supply chain set up to build them.... The salient point being that they came out about 1960. No new products from them used valves by then and in fact some all transistor items of test gear were introduced by them in the early to mid sixties. TV sets were hybrid for a long time and well into the mid seventies!

They did not simplify the design of amplifiers and there was no issue with valves becoming unreliable.

It was generally early transistor power amps that sounded dire and this did not carry over to other things such as mixing desks so no there was no period of getting used to transistor technology as such and no period when recordings suddenly went bad due to transistors. Late sixties transistor mixing desks would have worked exactly the same in use as a valve one.

Initially and in fact for quite a few years valve power amps would still have been used to drive the cutter head as there were no transistor ones available of sufficient power and reliability. I would guestimate most cutter head power amps would be valves until around 1972 ish.

Barry

20-09-2017, 12:31

Apropos amplifiers used to drive cutter heads. I believe these have to be high power designs (500W or more), so it is quite likely valves were used for quite some time before transistors were able to take over that role.

I had to environmentally test some microwave designs of mine that would be be used in jet fighters. The Bruel and Kjaer vibration tables were powered by enormous valve amplifiers, employing a dozen or so KT66 valves.

struth

20-09-2017, 12:36

Most tvs of time were hybrid too, but not all. signal stages were often transistors.

Arkless Electronics

20-09-2017, 12:46

Stratmangler

20-09-2017, 13:09

bit's

:eek:

https://proofreadanywhere.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/plural.jpg

RothwellAudio

20-09-2017, 13:53

I'm not attempting to arrive at any definitive conclusions here; simply stating that, IMO (and experience), the recording/sound quality of rock and pop music on vinyl, in some cases, took a considerable nosedive during the early to mid 70s, until studios had properly got to grips with the use of transistor technology, and when said technology itself had matured and improved accordingly.
I think we need to consider not only the technology used - valve or transistor - but also the way the music industry was changing in the late sixties and early seventies, and how fast it was changing. Recording equipment was expensive and studios tended to be a large-scale investment and they were manned by "boffins". Recording sessions tended to be brief with most of the work done live in the studio in only a few takes. As the pop industry grew and the technology of the day - transistors and printed circuit boards - made recording equipment more affordable, many smaller independent studios started to spring up. As more tape tracks became available it was more and more common to overdub instruments instead of recording a whole band playing together. The whole way of doing things was evolving and musicians rather than boffins were running studios. Sometimes I'm sure they didn't really know what they were doing, and sometimes they were just learning or evolving. Ascribing any change in sound quality between say 1968 and 1972 to valve/transistor changes would be to overlook the rapid changes that were occurring in all parts of the recording/music industry. Consider the changes from 1965 to 1975 - what a difference in just one decade!

Arkless Electronics

20-09-2017, 13:58

I think we need to consider not only the technology used - valve or transistor - but also the way the music industry was changing in the late sixties and early seventies, and how fast it was changing. Recording equipment was expensive and studios tended to be a large-scale investment and they were manned by "boffins". Recording sessions tended to be brief with most of the work done live in the studio in only a few takes. As the pop industry grew and the technology of the day - transistors and printed circuit boards - made recording equipment more affordable, many smaller independent studios started to spring up. As more tape tracks became available it was more and more common to overdub instruments instead of recording a whole band playing together. The whole way of doing things was evolving and musicians rather than boffins were running studios. Sometimes I'm sure they didn't really know what they were doing, and sometimes they were just learning or evolving. Ascribing any change in sound quality between say 1968 and 1972 to valve/transistor changes would be to overlook the rapid changes that were occurring in all parts of the recording/music industry. Consider the changes from 1965 to 1975 - what a difference in just one decade!

Good post!:)

Marco

20-09-2017, 15:59

No probs with the rest of your post, Jez, as I accept what you've said, however...

It was generally early transistor power amps that sounded dire and this did not carry over to other things such as mixing desks so no there was no period of getting used to transistor technology as such and no period when recordings suddenly went bad due to transistors.

I'm not so sure. Certainly, to my ears, some of the vinyl recordings produced during the period in question sounded dire [much worse than those from earlier years], so there must've been a reason for that, which of course is up for debate.

In my view, it's partly to do with what Andrew has said (and yes he makes some good points), and also partly due to the 'transistor factor', or rather that the (then) 'defunct' valve mixing desks, etc, were actually still sonically superior to their new transistor counterparts - that was until transistor technology improved, and digital came in, both of which helped to level the playing field.

It still doesn't change the fact though, that some of the finest sounding recordings I own, on vinyl, are from the days when valves were used in studios, along with tape machines, and when "boffins" [read as experienced technicians] were responsible for the sound, not musicians - and I don't consider that as a coincidence! ;)

Marco.

magiccarpetride

20-09-2017, 16:04

Lol - this subject keeps coming up again and again [and again]... Jim, you've heard my T/T at NEBO, which at the time you said was one of the best sounds you've ever heard from vinyl, and I can assure you (as indeed Macca will confirm, as he's heard both in my system), my CD player sounds very similar.

Not the *same*, but so close, as I've said before, that when lying back listening to music, I often forget whether it's a record playing or a CD (based on the former being a pristine vinyl pressing with very low surface noise). I certainly wouldn't be able to do that if CD inherently "lacks soul".

The fact is, it doesn't. It simply necessitates the use of the right digital equipment, in order to release its full potential - and that full potential, in my experience, ably allows it to compete favourably with any turntable. Note, however, I'm not saying that it betters it.

And yes, there will always be differences between digital and analogue, but not the huge discrepancies some claim, which exist simply because either the digital or analogue source equipment being used isn't capable of revealing the full potential of the partnering music software. When that's NOT the case, the real differences are small.

It's *that* simple, folks! :)

Marco.

I find it hard to believe that you cannot tell, even when lying back, whether it's a CD playing or it's a vinyl record playing. I'm not saying that it is easy to differentiate between the two formats because one is superior to another, but it's a simple fact that digital sounds different than analogue. And the difference may not be attributable to the difference in the quality of the playback equipment, but simply to the difference in which digital format gets mastered from the way analogue mastering goes. I can always tell which is which, without even passing a judgment as to which may sound more desirable.

walpurgis

20-09-2017, 16:31

it's a simple fact that digital sounds different than analogue

Not really. Not on my system. They both sound rather alike, i.e., very good indeed.

Arkless Electronics

20-09-2017, 17:14

No probs with the rest of your post, Jez, as I accept what you've said, however...

I'm not so sure. Certainly, to my ears, some of the vinyl recordings produced during the period in question sounded dire [much worse than those from earlier years], so there must've been a reason for that, which of course is up for debate.

In my view, it's partly to do with what Andrew has said (and yes he makes some good points), and also partly due to the 'transistor factor', or rather that the (then) 'defunct' valve mixing desks, etc, were actually still sonically superior to their new transistor counterparts - that was until transistor technology improved, and digital came in, both of which helped to level the playing field.

It still doesn't change the fact though, that some of the finest sounding recordings I own, on vinyl, are from the days when valves were used in studios, along with tape machines, and when "boffins" [read as experienced technicians] were responsible for the sound, not musicians - and I don't consider that as a coincidence! ;)

Marco.

I think it's almost entirely to do with what Andrew said, plus new studio effects becoming available and some people not being able to resist over doing it with all the effects and over dubbing. I don't think the switch to transistors made any difference at all. We're talking top quality pro gear here which would have been balanced and used many input and output transformers (to make it balanced or unbalanced and for impedance matching) whether it was transistorised or valved. The colouration of those transformers would be the main characteristic of equipment of the time and would have swamped tiny differences between the sound of SS or valves in the equipment.

Even today recording engineers etc choose particular pieces of studio gear (mainly mics and mic pres) because they like the colouration they have and regard this as part of the creative process... NOT something to be copied on the replay side!

Marco

20-09-2017, 17:16

I find it hard to believe that you cannot tell, even when lying back, whether it's a CD playing or it's a vinyl record playing. I'm not saying that it is easy to differentiate between the two formats because one is superior to another, but it's a simple fact that digital sounds different than analogue. And the difference may not be attributable to the difference in the quality of the playback equipment, but simply to the difference in which digital format gets mastered from the way analogue mastering goes. I can always tell which is which, without even passing a judgment as to which may sound more desirable.

Well, Alex, we've been here before, and I've already explained myself in detail. I'm certainly not lying, and I'm also with Geoff on this.

In my experience, when both your digital and vinyl sources impose little of their own sonic signature on the music, you simply get to hear more of the music, and therefore *that* is what you're concentrating on and enjoying, not whether it's been digitally recorded or otherwise.

I'm not saying that there aren't differences between both (there are, unquestionably), simply that the best analogue or digital equipment 'dials out' those differences, and just focuses your ears on the music.

Honestly, I'd be very confident in blind-testing you here, in that respect, and how afterwards, having listened to both CD and vinyl in my system, you'd come to the same conclusion as me :)

Marco.

Marco

20-09-2017, 17:19

I think it's almost entirely to do with what Andrew said, plus new studio effects becoming available and some people not being able to resist over doing it with all the effects and over dubbing. I don't think the switch to transistors made any difference at all. We're talking top quality pro gear here which would have been balanced and used many input and output transformers (to make it balanced or unbalanced and for impedance matching) whether it was transistorised or valved. The colouration of those transformers would be the main characteristic of equipment of the time and would have swamped tiny differences between the sound of SS or valves in the equipment.

Even today recording engineers etc choose particular pieces of studio gear (mainly mics and mic pres) because they like the colouration they have and regard this as part of the creative process... NOT something to be copied on the replay side!

Well, I'm afraid on that I fundamentally disagree, so probably best leave it there, to avoid a pointless circular argument. What I do know for sure is which recordings I've got on vinyl sound the most believable and lifelike, and most predate 1960! ;)

Marco.

montesquieu

20-09-2017, 17:23

Not really. Not on my system. They both sound rather alike, i.e., very good indeed.

Mine too. In a blind test I might well struggle.

Arkless Electronics

20-09-2017, 17:27

Well, I'm afraid on that I fundamentally disagree, so probably best leave it there, to avoid a pointless circular argument. What I do know for sure is which recordings I've got on vinyl sound the most believable and lifelike, and most predate 1960 ;)

Marco.

Little to do with valves and everything to do with being recorded live, without effects units and over dubs to wreck the sound and with "the sound" being obtained from choice of recording acoustics, mic placement etc.

Marco

20-09-2017, 17:53

Little to do with valves and everything to do with being recorded live, without effects units and over dubs to wreck the sound and with "the sound" being obtained from choice of recording acoustics, mic placement etc.

I agree that's a significant part of it, but so is the likes of tube-driven Telefunken U47 microphones, which unquestionably have a unique sound, and one which in my opinion captures the natural detail/tone of instruments, and the warmth and richness of the human voice, like no other.

DoZfM8nBrJw

Marco.

Arkless Electronics

20-09-2017, 17:59

magiccarpetride

20-09-2017, 18:06

Well, Alex, we've been here before, and I've already explained myself in detail. I'm certainly not lying, and also I'm with Geoff on this.

In my experience, when both your digital and vinyl sources impose little of their own sonic signature on the music, you simply get to hear more of the music, and therefore *that* is what you're concentrating on and enjoying, not whether it's been digitally recorded or otherwise.

Honestly, I'd be very confident in blind-testing you here, in that respect, and afterwards, having listened to both CD and vinyl, in my system, you'd come to the same conclusion as me :)

Marco.

Sounds intriguing, Marco. I wish I was near you to take you on the bet, as I'd really like to experience what you're having ;)

On my system, digital sounds pronouncedly different from vinyl. Of course, I am referring to the vinyl that was cut from the analogue tape. Indeed, if I play a recent FLAC that was recorded, mixed, and mastered digitally, and then I play a vinyl copy that was cut from that same digital source, then yes, I'd have trouble easily hearing much differences between the two formats. But if I am to play, say, Stan Gets/Charlie Bird original 1962 pressing of "Jazz Samba", and then play the same material on the CD, the sonic differences are easily detectable. I attribute those differences mostly to the different approach to mastering.

Even two digital formats (Red Book 16/44 compared to hi rez 24/96 FLAC) sound noticeably different. And this is when I'm playing these two formats side-by-side on my system. All else being equal, the mastering plays a huge role in the sonic signature.

So if that's the case with different digital dithering, how much more pronounced the changes are in the world of vinyl sounds shouldn't be that hard to fathom.

Unless, of course, one is listening with their intellect instead of with their ears...

But maybe on your system those differences disappear? That would be a magic trick I'd like to hear!

P.S. I can bring my battered old copy of Jazz Samba, you provide the CD/FLAC.

Marco

20-09-2017, 18:12

Valve mics, including the u47, are still widely used today and in fact much more so than any other type.... that didn't really change much when mixing desks went over to transistors. I have a modern Rode valve mic myself.

Yes, they're widely used today in studios where quality comes first, not exactly universally. More importantly, in terms of the point I'm making, they significantly influence the sound of recordings [in a very musically beneficial way] - more so than any solid-state microphone ever produced.

Next, we'll tackle the similar sonic benefits of the best valve mixing desks! ;)

Marco.

Stratmangler

20-09-2017, 18:16

Yes, they're widely used today in studios where quality comes first, not exactly universally. More importantly, in terms of the point I'm making, they significantly influence the sound of recordings produced [in a very musically beneficial way] - more so than any solid-state microphone ever produced.

Next, we'll tackle the similar sonic benefits of the best valve mixing desks! ;)

Marco.

Shure SM57 is the sound of rock.

magiccarpetride

20-09-2017, 18:21

Shure SM57 is the sound of rock.

I was never able to capture that sound of rock in my studio using Shure SM57. So I sold it at a marginal profit.

Marco

20-09-2017, 18:21

Shure SM57 is the sound of rock.

Yeah sure, that's also undoubtedly been influential, but in a different way. I still think that, properly used and implemented, the U47's the king :)

Marco.

Stratmangler

20-09-2017, 18:48

I was never able to capture that sound of rock in my studio using Shure SM57. So I sold it at a marginal profit.

What were you running it into?

magiccarpetride

20-09-2017, 19:22

What were you running it into?

Tascam 4 channel audio cassette recording studio.

Stratmangler

20-09-2017, 19:32

Tascam 4 channel audio cassette recording studio.

The Tascam stuff is usually pretty clean sounding.
XLR input?

Barry

20-09-2017, 19:45

I agree that's a significant part of it, but so is the likes of tube-driven Telefunken U47 microphones, which unquestionably have a unique sound, and one which in my opinion captures the natural detail/tone of instruments, and the warmth and richness of the human voice, like no other.

DoZfM8nBrJw

Marco.

But is it as good as the original?

7-84WhqZdx0

It would seem Telefunken are now making modern replicas of other vintage and highly regarded valve microphones such as the AKG C12 and C24.

magiccarpetride

20-09-2017, 19:48

The Tascam stuff is usually pretty clean sounding.
XLR input?

Yeah. I probably didn't know how to mic it properly... So I switched to condenser microphones, which pick up subtle details much more readily.

Arkless Electronics

20-09-2017, 20:42

But is it as good as the original?

7-84WhqZdx0

It would seem Telefunken are now making modern replicas of other vintage and highly regarded valve microphones such as the AKG C12 and C24.

Check out the Neumann "Hitler" mics. Early hi fi condenser mics with built in valve etc.

Back in the day Telefunken re-badged all sorts of other German studio equipment and AFAIK the Telefunken was a Neumann. I could be wrong on that though of course...

Marco

21-09-2017, 07:47

But is it as good as the original?

7-84WhqZdx0

It would seem Telefunken are now making modern replicas of other vintage and highly regarded valve microphones such as the AKG C12 and C24.

Not sure what that video was designed to illustrate, with both mics being used together in such close proximity? :hmm:

But yes, a proper comparison between old and new would be most interesting.

Marco.

Pharos

21-09-2017, 09:51

From Stratmangler;
"I don't make any attempt whatsoever to make sense of imprecise and inarticulate posts ......"

This really is a problem for me with most spoken English now, especially on media, and I argue that it is not because I am grumpy or old.

It follows that any communication medium has, if progress is desired, to be high resolution in order to clearly define and deal with relevant 'leading edge' factors which are desired to be improved on.

Media are packed with clichés, poor grammar, unanswered questions, interruptions, poor enunciation, and many other flaws, all of which serve to dilute of obscure any clear understanding, and so sabotage even grasping the problems, let alone progress.

This lack of clarity can be very revealing of the thought processes themselves, but it is often very hard work to unscramble, and surely a fundamental politeness to those with whom we are trying to communicate, is to present a view or argument coherently and clearly.

Haselsh1

21-09-2017, 10:31

all of which serve to dilute of obscure

I think that what you are attempting to say is 'or' obscure

Barry

21-09-2017, 10:38

Not sure what that video was designed to illustrate, with both mics being used together in such close proximity? :hmm:

But yes, a proper comparison between old and new would be most interesting.

Marco.

What is not to understand. Two mikes placed as close together as possible (obviously they can't both occupy the same space) and fed with the same 'signal' (the singer's voice). The video then switches back and forth between each microphone.

I thought I could hear a very small difference; preferring the Neumann U47 as being slightly sweeter, but as time went on and with a change from male to female singer, I became unsure of my preference. Not sure if the fidelity of the speaker in my laptop is sufficient to demonstrate any difference.

Marco

21-09-2017, 10:52

What is not to understand. Two mikes placed as close together as possible (obviously they can't both occupy the same space) and fed with the same 'signal' (the singer's voice). The video then switches back and forth between each microphone.

But surely by being placed so closely together, the one not being sung into is still picking up the singers voice regardless, thereby tainting it with its own sonic signature? I'm sure it would be sufficiently sensitive.

The test would've been better, and the results more valid, had the respective microphones been placed further apart, so that neither could interfere with the other.

Marco.

Stratmangler

21-09-2017, 10:55

What is not to understand. Two mikes placed as close together as possible (obviously they can't both occupy the same space) and fed with the same 'signal' (the singer's voice). The video then switches back and forth between each microphone.

I thought I could hear a very small difference; preferring the Neumann U47 as being slightly sweeter, but as time went on and with a change from male to female singer, I became unsure of my preference. Not sure if the fidelity of the speaker in my laptop is sufficient to demonstrate any difference.

I had a listen over headphones, and couldn't hear any difference when the mics were switched.
I'm not sure that the lossy audio compression Youtube uses leaves enough information to make any kind of value judgement.
From the video it sounds that it's mission accomplished with the new microphone.

Stratmangler

21-09-2017, 11:00

But surely by being placed so closely together, the one not being sung into is still picking up the singers voice regardless, thereby tainting it with its own sonic signature?

The test would've been better, and the results more valid, had the respective microphones been placed further apart, so that neither had interfered with the other.

Marco.

They were both being sung into for the duration of the piece.
The mic switching was done in post production. They'll have just switched between the two channels that were recorded on.

Marco

21-09-2017, 11:08

Fair enough, but I still don't think that was the ideal way to have conducted the test.

Marco.

Stratmangler

21-09-2017, 11:12

They managed to eliminate the biggest variable - the singer, and the way they sang the part.

Marco

21-09-2017, 11:19

Yes, but the fact that both mics were being sung into at the one time means that they would've BOTH influenced the sound of the singers voice to some extent, regardless of how they were supposedly 'separated out' in post production.

It would've been better had both mics been set up in the same room, but on separate stands, sufficiently far apart from each other to eliminate any possible 'sonic cross-contamination', with the singer singing into one, then moving over and singing into the other.

Marco.

Macca

21-09-2017, 11:46

Why would there be cross contamination, they would have to be sending their pick up to different recording devices for the comparison to work? Unless you are saying that just having one mic next to another will have an effect on what they pick up but I'm not clear how this would happen.

agk

21-09-2017, 11:56

This discussion is proceeding far too long and sensibly.

VINYL ROCKS!

:fingers:

Stratmangler

21-09-2017, 12:02

What sonic cross contamination?

There's no physical connection between the mics. They're separated by a couple of millimetres.
The mics are in their own shock mounts, and connected to their own stands.

The reason why they have the mics in just a single vertical plane is to remove any issues that might be caused by mic placement - move the setup a foot to the left and things will sound different.
Place one mic next to the other and it's likely to sound different because of where it's sited in the room.
On top of that, no matter how hard you try, you'll never get the same output level because you'll never get the singer to be the same distance from the mic.
This way the mics have the singer equidistant from them (so pick up the same volume vocal), and pick up sound reflections from as near the same place in the room as it's possible to.

The microphone will work just as well, and give the same result in either orientation.

RothwellAudio

21-09-2017, 12:16

But surely by being placed so closely together, the one not being sung into is still picking up the singers voice regardless, thereby tainting it with its own sonic signature?... The test would've been better, and the results more valid, had the respective microphones been placed further apart, so that neither could interfere with the other.
I don't understand. How would the two mics interfere with each other?

Fair enough, but I still don't think that was the ideal way to have conducted the test.
That's the way I compare microphones.

Yes, but the fact that both mics were being sung into at the one time means that they would've BOTH influenced the sound of the singers voice to some extent, regardless of how they were supposedly 'separated out' in post production.
:scratch:

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying the (unused) mic will produce reflections? Or cast an acoustic shadow?
Two microphones picking up the same sound and recorded on two different tracks of a multitrack recorder is a standard technique for mic comparisons.

Marco

21-09-2017, 12:40

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying the (unused) mic will produce reflections? Or cast an acoustic shadow?

Pretty much, yes. Also consider the vibration angle, and how microphones are designed to work! Just because one of the ones in the video is apparently sitting there 'doing nothing', in such close proximity to the other, when it's being sung into, doesn't mean that it is ;)

Marco.

Stratmangler

21-09-2017, 12:42

Pretty much, yes. Also consider the vibration angle, and how microphones are designed to work! Just because one of the ones in the video is apparently sitting there 'doing nothing', in such close proximity to the other, when it's being sung into, doesn't mean that it is ;)

Marco.

At no point is one microphone sat doing nothing.

Marco

21-09-2017, 12:44

Yes I know, but set up as shown on the video, one microphone will undoubtedly will be having some sort of influence on the other, as I've outlined. For me, there is no doubt about that.

It's simply wishful thinking to consider otherwise!

Marco.

Stratmangler

21-09-2017, 12:53

Well what you propose as a valid test is a non flyer.
You set 2 identical mics up in different places in a room, and they will undoubtedly sound different. They'll pick up different sound reflections, and that's before anyone opens their mouth to sing.

Marco

21-09-2017, 12:57

Hey, I guess at the end of the day you have to chose your compromises. Maybe try it in an anechoic chamber instead?

Marco.

Haselsh1

21-09-2017, 13:04

Right then. Yes, he's back again...!

Just had a vinyl session listening to Mr Scruff's 'Friendly Bacteria' album and it sounded bloody amazing after all of the other stuff. Really deep low bass with crisp clear high frequencies and a real sense of precision all round. Yes I know, it is almost certainly digital, it is almost certainly Pro Tooled to death with frequency enhancers and aural exciters galore but it sounds bloody fantastic. So, I reckon my biggest problem was with an album that dated from 1973.

The Mr Scruff stuff is mainly composed of vinyl DJ's, drum loops and loads of samples so with that in mind, how do you explain 'The Closest Approach to the Original Sound' as stated by Quad...?

I have two particular favourite tracks on this album and those are Where Am I and Come Find Me.

Brilliant album.

Stratmangler

21-09-2017, 13:09

Have you ever been in an anechoic chamber?
I have, years ago, for a hearing test, just before starting a course of chemotherapy.
It's quite an odd experience, hearing a sound without any reverberation.

Marco

21-09-2017, 13:18

It would nullify the effect of the room though, and thus simply showcase the inherent sonic characteristics of both mics, within of course the constraints of such an environment.

It would be interesting to see though, which one would come out of it best.

Marco.

Stratmangler

21-09-2017, 13:24

It would be an OK test if recordings are generally made in anechoic chambers, and that's where it falls down.
Usually they're made in a good sounding room ....

Arkless Electronics

21-09-2017, 13:33

RothwellAudio

21-09-2017, 13:34

Just had a vinyl session listening to Mr Scruff's 'Friendly Bacteria' album and it sounded bloody amazing after all of the other stuff. Really deep low bass with crisp clear high frequencies and a real sense of precision all round. Yes I know, it is almost certainly digital, it is almost certainly Pro Tooled to death with frequency enhancers and aural exciters galore but it sounds bloody fantastic. So, I reckon my biggest problem was with an album that dated from 1973.

The Mr Scruff stuff is mainly composed of vinyl DJ's, drum loops and loads of samples so with that in mind, how do you explain 'The Closest Approach to the Original Sound' as stated by Quad...?
Perhaps Quad should have said "the closest approach to the finished master tape" rather than "...the original sound". But I agree entirely, making something that sounds good is more important than making something that is accurate - at least to me.

It would nullify the effect of the room though, and thus simply showcase the inherent sonic characteristics of both mics, within of course the constraints of such an environment.

One problem with that approach is that the mics wouldn't pick up any off-axis sound. It's the off-axis response of a mic that sorts the men from the boys. A good on-axis response is fairly easy to achieve but then a mic is used in the real world a poor off-axis response can ruin things.

RothwellAudio

21-09-2017, 13:35

The most accurate reproduction of what's on the recording. Every time this subject is raised people come up with the "but how can you know what was on the recording anyway" and "if it was an electronic instrument did it have a sound in the first place" type arguments and I reject these arguments completely personally.

Absolutely.

struth

21-09-2017, 13:36

I reject your rejection

Arkless Electronics

21-09-2017, 13:42

Perhaps Quad should have said "the closest approach to the finished master tape" rather than "...the original sound". But I agree entirely, making something that sounds good is more important than making something that is accurate - at least to me.

One problem with that approach is that the mics wouldn't pick up any off-axis sound. It's the off-axis response of a mic that sorts the men from the boys. A good on-axis response is fairly easy to achieve but then a mic is used in the real world a poor off-axis response can ruin things.

I'm quite the opposite on that one! It must be accurate above all else. I'd pack this in immediately if I ever had thoughts of making stuff sound "nice". The "niceness" should come from the accurate reproduction of the original sound, allowing an open window into the performance. One should therefore be enjoying the performance itself and not the "version of the performance" delivered by a coloured system.

Arkless Electronics

21-09-2017, 13:43

I reject your rejection

Fine. I'm not willing to discuss it anyway!

Stratmangler

21-09-2017, 13:45

Fine. I'm not willing to discuss it anyway!

But you just have .....

Macca

21-09-2017, 14:00

I'd pack this in immediately if I ever had thoughts of making stuff sound "nice". The "niceness" should come from the accurate reproduction of the original sound,.

Not if you have been conditioned through years of Audiopholia to believe that the 'nice sound' is made by the equipment.

It is all cart before horse nowadays. Trust the recording. It was made by people who knew what they were doing and they made it with one purpose: To sound really good when played back in someone's home. The only thing your replay equipment can do is bollocks that up to a greater or lesser degree.

struth

21-09-2017, 14:10

A good study was done a number of years ago now, and came down on side of quality .

http://seanolive.blogspot.co.uk/2010/06/some-new-evidence-that-generation-y.html

Macca

21-09-2017, 14:31

A good study was done a number of years ago now, and came down on side of quality .

http://seanolive.blogspot.co.uk/2010/06/some-new-evidence-that-generation-y.html

That wasn't a test of the quality of the recording though. Just a test of the preference for lossy or lossless format.

Haselsh1

21-09-2017, 14:48

But I agree entirely, making something that sounds good is more important than making something that is accurate - at least to me.

Totally agree with you. If it doesn't give me an immediately emotional response then as far as I am concerned it is not worth the money.

struth

21-09-2017, 14:57

That wasn't a test of the quality of the recording though. Just a test of the preference for lossy or lossless format.

and of accurate speakers v inaccurate ones. accurate won

RothwellAudio

21-09-2017, 15:36

I'm quite the opposite on that one! It must be accurate above all else. I'd pack this in immediately if I ever had thoughts of making stuff sound "nice". The "niceness" should come from the accurate reproduction of the original sound, allowing an open window into the performance. One should therefore be enjoying the performance itself and not the "version of the performance" delivered by a coloured system.
I think you may have misunderstood me - I wasn't advocating nice rather than accurate playback equipment, I was advocating making nice recordings rather than accurate recordings (whatever they may be). Imagine Us And Them from DSOTM without the repeats on "Us...us...us...us...". It's a totally artificial tape effect, but it sounds great (to me). Can you imagine what reaction some "purist" in the recording studio would get if (s)he insisted that the band look for a long tunnel to give precisely the right length of echo to match the song's tempo and record that instead of using tape echo?
Of course, those are artistic judgements. When the recording is finished and it's time to play it back in the home, then I want accuracy.

Macca

21-09-2017, 15:52

I think you may have misunderstood me - I wasn't advocating nice rather than accurate playback equipment, I was advocating making nice recordings rather than accurate recordings (whatever they may be). .

I think for some an accurate recording is the event played live and recorded with a stereo pair. That seems to be the sort of quality of recording that audiophiles want, but so many recordings are not made that way, or anything like that way. To take your example you just couldn't make DSOTM like that.

So all this business about a quality recording letting us hear the natural sound of instruments in the natural acoustic can only ever apply to a certain sub-set of recordings. On a quality replay system they will sound very real indeed compared to a rock band album where only the drums and vocals have been recorded in an acoustic. Does that make the rock recording a poor recording? Not to me but some would say otherwise.

Pharos

21-09-2017, 16:59

I apologise for typos - shadow over keys caused by arms, and also conjunctivitis.

From Jez;
"I'm quite the opposite on that one! It must be accurate above all else. I'd pack this in immediately if I ever had thoughts of making stuff sound "nice". The "niceness" should come from the accurate reproduction of the original sound, allowing an open window into the performance. One should therefore be enjoying the performance itself and not the "version of the performance" delivered by a coloured system. "

I completely agree, the replay system should replicate the recorded waveform, but as a correlate in air pressure variation in the replay room.

Making a recording sound nice, perhaps by euphonic coloration, whatever its source, may provide the comfort of a familiar sound, but it will ultimately serve to obscure the reality of the recording, and thus inevitably the reality of the art itself to some extent.

Comfort zones are readily seen in all of life, but ultimately they limit the ability to address realities, and so limit personal perception and development. Perceiving reality is a vital factor in any achievement or endeavour.

I am still battling with new speakers which are daily giving me shocks with insight into music I thought I knew well, and it is discomforting, but after years of improving my system, I have found increasingly as it gets better, that I find more audible faults on well known recordings; with each improvement more appear.

The DSOTM repetition is an artistic choice, and that is beyond the scope of a Hi-Fi reproduction quality critique.

magiccarpetride

21-09-2017, 17:12

From Jez;
"I'm quite the opposite on that one! It must be accurate above all else. I'd pack this in immediately if I ever had thoughts of making stuff sound "nice". The "niceness" should come from the accurate reproduction of the original sound, allowing an open window into the performance. One should therefore be enjoying the performance itself and not the "version of the performance" delivered by a coloured system. "

I completely agree, the replay system should replicate the recorded waveform, but as a correlate in air pressure variation in the replay room.

Making a recording sound nice, perhaps by euphonic coloration, whatever its source, may provide the comfort of a familiar sound, but it will ultimately serve to obscure the reality of the recording, and thus inevitably the reality of the art itself to some extent.

Comfort zones are readily seen in all of life, but ultimately they limit the ability to address realities, and so limit personal perception and development. Perceiving reality is a vital factor in any achievement or endeavour.

I am still battling with new speakers which are daily giving me shocks with insight into music I thought I knew well, and it is discomforting, but after years of improving my system, I have found increasingly as it gets better, that I find more audible faults on well known recordings; with each improvement more appear.

The DSOTM repetition is an artistic choice, and that is beyond the scope of a Hi-Fi reproduction quality critique.

I enjoy good photography, and I never expect from it to present me with a faithful representation of what can be seen with a naked eye. The art of photography lies exactly in avoiding the accuracy that is part and parcel of our sensory perception, as evolved over hundreds of millions of years in this crazy game of survival and adaptation.

Same goes for sound reproduction. I expect my stereo system to editorialize on the raw signal recorded during performance. If I record myself playing, the recorded playback is always a major sonic disappointment. It never sounds even close to how I hear it while I'm playing (or how I hear other people play their instruments).

It is for that reason that we hire trained sound engineers/mastering engineers -- we want them to embellish the raw recorded sound, to make it more seductive to the listeners. A good turntable is yet another step in editorializing the performance, in making it even more seductive. This is similar to applying various filters and other effects to photos being edited in Photoshop, or in Instagram etc.

struth

21-09-2017, 17:27

Quite. I want to enjoy my listening. If someone takes the rough edges off in studio it's called proper audio hiding and if it's taken off at my end it called coloured. I think some folk are determined to wear their hairshirts

Marco

21-09-2017, 18:12

I'm quite the opposite on that one! It must be accurate above all else. I'd pack this in immediately if I ever had thoughts of making stuff sound "nice". The "niceness" should come from the accurate reproduction of the original sound, allowing an open window into the performance. One should therefore be enjoying the performance itself and not the "version of the performance" delivered by a coloured system.

I completely agree! You nail it with the bit in bold; it's called HIGH-FIDELITY.

Think about it: if you attempt to 'niceify' something you think needs 'niceifying', what happens when you do the same thing to something that's already 'nice'? ;)

Answer: the equipment responsible applies that 'niceification' to *every* recording you've got, whether it needs it or not... Not exactly ideal, is it??

Marco.

paulf-2007

21-09-2017, 18:23

I'm losing the will to live, accurate to what? Oh no I'm not getting into this

magiccarpetride

21-09-2017, 18:26

I completely agree! You nail it with the bit in bold; it's called HIGH-FIDELITY.

Think about it: if you attempt to 'niceify' something you think needs 'niceifying', what happens when you do the same thing to something that's already 'nice'? ;)

Marco.

So people who apply EQ adjustments to various tracks they're listening to are actually raping this pristine notion of high-fidelity?

Or, people who fail to do appropriate sound treatment/speaker positioning in their listening room are guilty of disrespecting high-fidelity?

Marco

21-09-2017, 18:35

So people who apply EQ adjustments to various tracks they're listening to are actually raping this pristine notion of high-fidelity?

Of course, *but* if you prefer the end result, ultimately it doesn't matter, as the whole point of owning a hi-fi system is to enjoy how it sounds.

Personally, however, I've never felt the need to bastardise things in that way (as my system is uber-revealing, but also easy to listen to and relax with), but hey, each to his or her own.

Or, people who fail to do appropriate sound treatment/speaker positioning in their listening room are guilty of disrespecting high-fidelity?

Not "disrespecting"; simply not doing the job properly. At the end of the day, you'll only ever get out of something what you put into it - and that mantra applies to many things in life, not just hi-fi!

Marco.

Macca

21-09-2017, 18:55

I'm losing the will to live, accurate to what? Oh no I'm not getting into this

Accurate to the instructions on the medium. Which whatever it is are the same. Instructions to the amplifier to vary voltage over time. Which as pointed out already creates waveforms in the air. Which is the music. So the winner is whoever can get those waveforms to match the instructions on the medium the closest by mucking about with all the stuff in-between.

And that includes the room, so rooms and room treatment count too.

Jimbo

21-09-2017, 19:02

None of us has a system that sounds the same. We have all put together systems we feel sound good to us so that means none of them can be accurate apart to our own sensibilities. Even if we all had exactly the same equipment they would all sound different depending on room acoustics which have a massive influence on the sound.

If it is a given that we all have systems we enjoy then wether we like it or not that is the determining factor on how sound will be delivered from vinyl or digital. None can be accurate or neutral because they will all sound different depending on the equipment, speakers and room etc however the record, CD or digital file will be absolute. This will be the only factor that would be a constant reference for anyone's system.

If I could take a CD or piece of vinyl round to everyone's system on AOS it would sound different in every case because of the reasons I gave above. Therefore how is anyone's system neutral or accurate or uncoloured. They will all produce a different experience of the same recording.

Therefore ultimately the most important thing is to put together a system using whichever music source you think sounds the best and that will be right because that is the sound you like not what some technical windbag tells you!

magiccarpetride

21-09-2017, 19:15

Of course, *but* if you prefer the end result, ultimately it doesn't matter, as the whole point of owning a hi-fi system is to enjoy how it sounds.

Personally, however, I've never felt the need to bastardise things in that way (as my system is uber-revealing, but also easy to listen to and relax with), but hey, each to his or her own.

Not "disrespecting"; simply not doing the job properly. At the end of the day, you'll only ever get out of something what you put into it - and that mantra applies to many things in life, not just hi-fi!

Marco.

Yeah, I sometimes find myself 'cheating' by arranging my speakers in a way that achieves certain 'effect' that is not actually on the recording itself. For example, I like the weight, the 'whomp' and the slam of the drum kit (especially when listening to Tony Williams with Miles Davis), so I prefer to push my speakers a bit closer to the room corners. That arrangement is giving me more of the 'larger than life' imaging of the drum kit. Certainly not high-fidelity, and not how Teo Macero originally envisioned Tony's drums should be presented, but more akin to applying filters to some of my Instagram photos.

Problem?

Marco

21-09-2017, 19:37

None of us has a system that sounds the same. We have all put together systems we feel sound good to us so that means none of them can be accurate apart to our own sensibilities.

Absolutely. However, for me, it's an attitude thing...

There's a big difference between striving to 'accurately' reproduce the original sound (i.e. that's the goal you've set out to achieve), and arrive at the (undeniably correct) situation you've outlined, i.e: "If it is a given that we all have systems we enjoy then wether we like it or not that is the determining factor on how sound will be delivered from vinyl or digital [the key text being in bold], and having the attitude of simply creating a system that 'sounds nice', or makes the music you like listening to 'sound nice'.

And I guarantee you, that if the person adopting the former attitude has good ears and knows what he or she is doing, then the system belonging to him or her will more likely be capable of reproducing the original sound more faithfully, then the person who's only goal is to create a 'nice sound'! ;)

I trust you can appreciate the difference?

Marco.

Marco

21-09-2017, 19:51

Yeah, I sometimes find myself 'cheating' by arranging my speakers in a way that achieves certain 'effect' that is not actually on the recording itself. For example, I like the weight, the 'whomp' and the slam of the drum kit (especially when listening to Tony Williams with Miles Davis), so I prefer to push my speakers a bit closer to the room corners. That arrangement is giving me more of the 'larger than life' imaging of the drum kit. Certainly not high-fidelity, and not how Teo Macero originally envisioned Tony's drums should be presented, but more akin to applying filters to some of my Instagram photos.

Problem?

No, because if that's what you like and have strived to achieve, then your system is fulfilling its primary purpose.

However, in terms of the bit in bold, also consider that because you don't know exactly what *should* be on the recording itself, the speakers supposedly being in the 'correct' position (as determined by your audiophile sensibilities), actually might not be allowing that to happen [due to the unique behaviour of the room], and so you "cheating" with the positioning has inadvertently allowed your speakers to reproduce the drum kit more faithfully...

The fact is, you simply don't know how the drum kit in question originally sounded, so how can you know how much "whomp" it should have? ;)

Marco.

Jimbo

21-09-2017, 19:58

Marco

21-09-2017, 20:26

I agree, some folk just want a 'nice' sounding system however in terms of putting together a system that is accurate or plays a recording faithfully as it was intended to be heard then although that may be a goal it is one that is very difficult to achieve.

Yup, but it can be achieved by taking a slightly different approach... I don't necessarily strive to accurately 'recreate the original sound', because as you correctly say, none of us knows what that was, including me.

What I do instead, is strive for my system to (as far as possible) accurately reproduce the sound of real instruments and voices, as dictated by my own ears and judgement, and crucially from my experience of listening to live (un-amplified) examples of such, whilst attending various music performances over the years.

That experience allows me to judge how things are supposed to sound, and therefore acts as the benchmark I use to 'tune' the musical presentation of my system, via judicious component, cable and speaker selection.

For me, therefore, it doesn't really matter whether I've succeeded in accurately recreating the original sound, as long as to my ears, my system has succeeded in faithfully recreating the sound of a piano, or the sound of a drum or guitar, so that it sounds convincingly like such, and not merely a poor facsimile. *That* is what hi-fi is about, and in that respect, the fact is some things aren't meant to sound 'nice'...

I can also say with some conviction, it's a process that works very well indeed, if you get it right! :)

Marco.

Pharos

21-09-2017, 21:49

If we choose a system which sounds 'nice' at the expense of accuracy, we necessarily are veering away from the recording and hence the original artistic intention.

Mixers and masterers need to be able to hear what is actually on the recording, not a coloured, albeit perhaps a pleasant sounding facsimile, which would of course be applied equally to all replaying.

Artistic variations and different recordings will be maximally different when the reproduction system changes the sound minimally, because it is superimposing as near to nothing as possible, onto the original recording.

There is nothing wrong with the alterations discussed with pictures, because that is part of an artistic intention, but that should not be applied to forensic pictures used for investigation.

magiccarpetride

21-09-2017, 22:21

No, because if that's what you like and have strived to achieve, then your system is fulfilling its primary purpose.

However, in terms of the bit in bold, also consider that because you don't know exactly what *should* be on the recording itself, the speakers supposedly being in the 'correct' position (as determined by your audiophile sensibilities), actually might not be allowing that to happen [due to the unique behaviour of the room], and so you "cheating" with the positioning has inadvertently allowed your speakers to reproduce the drum kit more faithfully...

The fact is, you simply don't know how the drum kit in question originally sounded, so how can you know how much "whomp" it should have? ;)

Marco.

That's a good observation. Truly, I have no idea how Teo Macero wanted Tony's drums to sound.

I do, however, know how a drum kit sounds -- I have one in my studio! And I know that I'm cheating with my speaker placement because I'm making Tony's drums sound 'larger than life'! (which may indeed be how Teo wanted them to sound in the first place!)

Marco

21-09-2017, 22:23

Well there you go then, so worry not! ;)

Marco.

magiccarpetride

21-09-2017, 22:25

I agree, some folk just want a 'nice' sounding system however in terms of putting together a system that is accurate or plays a recording faithfully as it was intended to be heard then although that may be a goal it is one that is very difficult to achieve. We ultimately don't know what the artist heard when they recorded the music and nor do we know what the sound engineers heard when they recorded and mixed the music. Our system can really only at best play a version of the recording we feel is accurate?

My system easily distinguishes between we'll recorded and engineered recordings and poor ones. It does not make bad recordings sound nice, they still sound awful. However well mastered material sounds fabulous, not simply nice. I feel then I have a system that at least has some accuracy in presentation and resolution in that it can determine the good from the bad?

Most importantly it plays music in a way I feel sounds right and gives me pleasure.

That dilemma would be similar to the dilemma regarding under what light to put a painting? We really don't know what was the light under which the artist was originally making their painting, so we can only guess or approximate what would be the most optimal lighting for displaying that canvas. And as we all know, any canvas tends to change its overall presentation depending on the light under which it is displayed. That is no trivial matter, and many quality museums and art galleries invest a lot of time and money into making sure that each mounted exhibition is presented under the appropriate lighting.

Same considerations apply to listening to music on our home stereos.

walpurgis

21-09-2017, 22:36

I've said this before. I value transparency. Each component in my system is (usually) chosen for this above specs and colourations, etc. If something is transparent, then surely the perceived greater level of information presented equates to a more accurate system?

I have a fair selection of equipment to use, but each item has generally been chosen for the transparency it offers. Fortunately, I have assembled a Hi-Fi that also sounds remarkably good and pleasant in the process.

Basically, I dislike unduly warm or comfortable or safe sounding gear. 'Natural' and revealing are the way to go in my view. And by revealing, I don't mean an upward tilt in response towards the top. That is just nasty.

Revealing in my opinion, means offering more of what is in the recording and that is what transparency does.

Jimbo

22-09-2017, 05:50

I too have always valued transparency as a measure for evaluating equipment, indeed it was this aspect that first drew me towards Hifi, that see through window to the performance and music. I read the other day a nice analogy regarding vinyl and digital that captured my thoughts exactly but funnily enough reflects on transparency. The reviewer always thought that many digital components were like a sheet of glass between the listener and the music unlike the analogue experience which put you just there.

The other day I was in Worcester town centre and there were a group of Asian musicians playing some street music on drums and clarinets and a few other Indian instruments. The sound was visceral, loud and almost painful. Now this was outside so there were no room reflections and yet the sound was so immediate and dynamic and powerful. I thought as I heard it I would like a recording of this and wondered how it would come across on my system and as I really listened to the sound I realised no system I have ever heard could play music or sound like the live experience.

paulf-2007

22-09-2017, 07:42

Yup, but it can be achieved by taking a slightly different approach... I don't necessarily strive to accurately 'recreate the original sound', because as you correctly say, none of us knows what that was, including me.

What I do instead, is strive for my system to (as far as possible) accurately reproduce the sound of real instruments and voices, as dictated by my own ears and judgement, and crucially from my experience of listening to live (un-amplified) examples of such, whilst attending various music performances over the years.

That experience allows me to judge how things are supposed to sound, and therefore acts as the benchmark I use to 'tune' the musical presentation of my system, via judicious component, cable and speaker selection.

For me, therefore, it doesn't really matter whether I've succeeded in accurately recreating the original sound, as long as to my ears, my system has succeeded in faithfully recreating the sound of a piano, or the sound of a drum or guitar, so that it sounds convincingly like such, and not merely a poor facsimile. *That* is what hi-fi is about, and in that respect, the fact is some things aren't meant to sound 'nice'...

I can also say with some conviction, it's a process that works very well indeed, if you get it right! :)

Marco.what he said +1

paulf-2007

22-09-2017, 07:45

That's a good observation. Truly, I have no idea how Teo Macero wanted Tony's drums to sound.

I do, however, know how a drum kit sounds -- I have one in my studio! And I know that I'm cheating with my speaker placement because I'm making Tony's drums sound 'larger than life'! (which may indeed be how Teo wanted them to sound in the first place!)
Not all drum kits sound the same, my preference would be Ludwig. Even two drum kits of the same make won't sound the same when the drummer tunes his skins to his own liking.
All you know is how you like a drum kit to sound.

Marco

22-09-2017, 07:52

You're absolutely right, Jim. I've been in the same position myself many times. However, as far as what we're currently discussing, the key bit is here:

The sound was visceral, loud and almost painful. Now this was outside so there were no room reflections and yet the sound was so immediate and dynamic and powerful.

So in terms of 'voicing' your system, as we all do inadvertently or otherwise, through component/cable and speaker selection, would you (or anyone here) seek to 'niceify' the above, by using a graphic EQ or some form of tone control, or say, use a 'warmer' pair of speakers, simply to make that sound 'nicer' to listen to?

In effect, would you actively seek to tame that 'almost painfulness' you mention?

For me, if the answer is 'yes' [and I suspect it isn't for you], then you're NOT a genuine hi-fi enthusiast. Sorry, but that's the truth. All you're doing is buying a bunch of boxes, to create a false sound that's pleasing to your ears - and that's fine, as it's your money, but it's not hi-fi :nono:

Yes of course, no hi-fi system on the planet is capable of fully replicating that 'live sound', as you describe, but you *can* create a convincing snapshot of it, if you actively seek NOT to make things sound 'nice', when they're not supposed to! ;)

Big horn speakers have their faults, as do all speakers (and some horns can be horrendously coloured), but one of the things the best ones positively excel at, is the visceral and powerful dynamics you mention.

In comparison with other speakers, especially the most conventional ones, they have an almost unfettered dynamic headroom, which allows them to reproduce the 'shock factor', immediacy, and almost 'painful' sound of real instruments, such as clarinets and trumpets, violins, etc. Making all other speakers, to my ears, sound rounded-off and soft - and in that respect, quite frankly, broken.

That's one of the reasons why I use big Tannoys, as their horn-loaded tweeters succeed in producing some of what those big horn speakers do so well, in terms of dynamic alacrity, along with creating that 'visceral power' and physicality, which transforms mere recordings (providing they possess the required resolution) into faithful snapshots of 'live' musical events.

So yes, you'll never fully recreate the immediacy, intensity and sheer dynamic clout of that 'live sound', but if you try hard and use the right gear, you can get close! :)

Marco.

Jimbo

22-09-2017, 08:05

Totally agree with your thoughts there Marco, spot on! I am like you definitely in the camp of trying to voice my system to sound as close to a realistic representation of the music/ recording as possible. Sometimes music can sound uncomfortable , loud and even shouty but that is how real stuff sounds live.
:cool:

Firebottle

22-09-2017, 08:16

What's this with 'illusion'?

No such illusion here as far as I'm concerned, just stonkingly good reproduction with a front seat into the music.
Recent tweaks have upped the enjoyment even more which is brilliant.

I am a believer that every component in the chain has to be at least bordering on the excellent end of the scale.

Transparency, as in hearing and feeling the emotion..... got it :D

It's open house if anyone wants a demo ..............

Marco

22-09-2017, 08:23

What's this with 'illusion'?

No such illusion here as far as I'm concerned, just stonkingly good reproduction with a front seat into the music.
Recent tweaks have upped the enjoyment even more which is brilliant.

I am a believer that every component in the chain has to be at least bordering on the excellent end of the scale.

Transparency, as in hearing and feeling the emotion..... got it :D

Lol... I think we'd all say the same thing about our systems, Alan, but it doesn't mean that what we're hearing, in reality, is anything but simply an illusion of 'real', albeit it a thoroughly convincing one (to us) ;)

Marco.

Pharos

22-09-2017, 08:27

jandl100

22-09-2017, 08:30

Lol... I think we'd all say the same thing about our systems, Alan, but it doesn't mean that what we're hearing, in reality, is anything but simply an illusion of 'real', albeit it a thoroughly convincing one (to us) ;)

Marco.

Exactly.
The reality is that we all tune our systems to match as closely as possible our (often evolving) individual preferences.

Jimbo

22-09-2017, 08:38

It seems to me James that you want your system to not have a voice.

The use of the word voice, often started by speaker manufacturers surely is an allusion to the fact that neutrality is an ideal which cannot be attained, and so the particular form of errors or distortions are chosen because they are more pleasurable or less offensive than others.

Au contraire mon ami! I try to voice my system to play music as I would like to hear which is as close to a realistic representation as possible but this does not mean I don't want to voice my system . Inevitably we all have to do that as you will have to agree whatever we do is only an approximation of the real thing?

Marco

22-09-2017, 08:39

Exactly.
The reality is that we all tune our systems to match as closely as possible our (often evolving) individual preferences.

Indeed, Jerry, although my preferences (read as 'goals') for my system, have remained the same since day one, and which are as I've outlined. Now that I've achieved those goals, with my current system, the equipment will remain the same, thus so will my preferences...

Your preferences may indeed evolve, simply because your system frequently does, as is the want of a champion box-swapper! ;)

Marco.

Marco

22-09-2017, 08:41

Au contraire mon ami! I try to voice my system to play music as I would like to hear which is as close to a realistic representation as possible but this does not mean I don't want to voice my system.

Of course... You 'voice' your system to make instruments and voices sound as real (as possible), to your ears, as indeed I do.

Marco.

jandl100

22-09-2017, 08:44

Hmm.
I've heard many high end systems at private residences and at Shows, as have most of us I am sure.

None of them sound the same as any other. None.
We all have different goals and also music types that we want to reproduce, and I maintain that those goals are subjective no matter how much we want to kid ourselves that we have emulated 'reality'.
'Reality' is a movable feast anyway!

struth

22-09-2017, 09:14

Just bung some music on and don't fret about it.:)

Marco

22-09-2017, 09:23

Hmm.
I've heard many high end systems at private residences and at Shows, as have most of us I am sure.

I agree, and I don't see anyone here saying any different.

We all have different goals and also music types that we want to reproduce, and I maintain that those goals are subjective no matter how much we want to kid ourselves that we have emulated 'reality'.

But as long as we've "emulated reality", to our ears, based on our judgement criteria, then that's all that matters! :)

Marco.

RothwellAudio

22-09-2017, 11:04

Just bung some music on and don't fret about it.:)
I agree. I wonder how some folks ever get any pleasure from their music when they're always obsessing about minutiae.

Just to clarify what I was trying to say earlier, I believe that any amount of mucking about in the studio to create a "nice" sound is perfectly valid - and there's usually a hell of a lot of mucking about done on most recordings. That's part of the the creative process.
However, once the recording is finished and handed over to the consumer for replay the mucking about should stop. Ok, a bit of fine tweaking is acceptable, but trying to continue the studio's or artist's creative mucking about is taking it too far.
I suppose I was trying to say that recording is one thing - replaying the finished article is another.

Marco

22-09-2017, 11:23

However, once the recording is finished and handed over to the consumer for replay the mucking about should stop. Ok, a bit of fine tweaking is acceptable, but trying to continue the studio's or artist's creative mucking about is taking it too far.

Exactly! :thumbsup:

And if you do that, then don't call yourself a hi-fi enthusiast; merely a sound-effects engineer ;)

Marco.

struth

22-09-2017, 11:54

oops, ive got a tone control turned up one notch :stalks: ashame mode :D

Barry

22-09-2017, 12:21

r
oops, ive got a tone control turned up one notch :stalks: ashame mode :D

Nothing wrong with that Grant, assuming it is not a permanent arrangement. I have a few LPs for which a small (no more than 1dB) tilt in the response can help 'correct' either a 'thick' or 'thin'-sounding recording. But 99.9% of the time tone controls are switched out of the circuit.

This thread has been fascinating as it has only proven that we all have different expectations from our systems, and since no single system can accurately replicate all aspects of a performance we have different priorities. For me I favour transparency, neutrality, leading edge attack, focus, imaging and good sound-staging over say dynamics and 'gut wrenching' bass and volume.

Suum cuique

Marco

22-09-2017, 12:21

oops, ive got a tone control turned up one notch :stalks: ashame mode :D

Stand in the corner, boy, and prepare that rather pump (but strangely alluring) bum of yours for spanking! :spank::spank: :D

Marco,

Marco

22-09-2017, 12:24

For me I favour transparency, neutrality, leading edge attack, focus, imaging and good sound-staging over say dynamics and 'gut wrenching' bass and volume.

I value all those things too, and indeed my system delivers them, but for some forms of music, in order to reproduce them faithfully (and realistically), you need some gut-wrenching bass and volume, daddy-o! ;)

:hairmetal::hairmetal::fingers::fingers:

Marco.

struth

22-09-2017, 12:53

Nothing wrong with that Gant, assuming it is not a permanent arrangement. I have a few LPs for which a small (no more than 1dB) tilt in the response can help 'correct' either a 'thick' or 'thin'-sounding recording. But 99.9% of the time tone controls are switched out of the circuit.

GANT?

This thread has been fascinating as it has only proven that we all have different expectations from our systems, and since no single system can accurately replicate all aspects of a performance we have different priorities. For me I favour transparency, neutrality, leading edge attack, focus, imaging and good sound-staging over say dynamics and 'gut wrenching' bass and volume.

Suum cuique

Stand in the corner, boy, and prepare that rather pump (but strangely alluring) bum of yours for spanking! :spank::spank: :D

Marco,

PUMP?

t'will be a gant pump if any spanking goes on

Marco

22-09-2017, 13:13

Haha - missed out the 'l'... :eyebrows:

Marco.

Barry

22-09-2017, 15:31

Sorry - missed out the "r". :o

struth

22-09-2017, 15:43

:D got both of you :ner:

Barry

22-09-2017, 15:49

And there I was supporting you and you quibble over a 'typo'. :rolleyes:

struth

22-09-2017, 15:56

And there I was supporting you and you quibble over a 'typo'. :rolleyes:

was only good fun.... ive regularly been called worse. :)

Barry

22-09-2017, 16:02

No problem "Stuth". :D

struth

22-09-2017, 16:02

No problem "Stuth". :D

cheers harry

Barry

22-09-2017, 16:08

Looks like this thread has run its course.

magiccarpetride

22-09-2017, 19:27

Not all drum kits sound the same, my preference would be Ludwig. Even two drum kits of the same make won't sound the same when the drummer tunes his skins to his own liking.
All you know is how you like a drum kit to sound.

Right. Even the same drum kit played by the same drummer won't sound the same depending on what the drummer had for lunch that day.

Marco

22-09-2017, 19:37

Yeah, beanz means more 'bass'... :eyebrows:

Marco.

Pharos

22-09-2017, 21:19

There remains the fundamental contradiction between seeking objectivity with a system, and seeking a sound which is pleasurable by avoiding very revealing components. Often very good components may serve to reveal that others are poor.

This of course produces discomfort in the listener who may resort to many strategies to alleviate this discomfort, one of which may be to replace the revealing bit with another one which is not so much so, and think of this as synergy.

The positive approach is to search for other equipment which the revealing bit shows is a better performer.

Marco

23-09-2017, 07:07

Indeed. The key point is to avoid simply 'papering over the cracks', and instead FIX the CRACKS.

Or, put another way... Avoid applying a 'bandage' to a problem, and instead FIX THE PROBLEM itself... In effect, always address the SOURCE of the problem, directly (if possible), not merely the symptoms.

Any other approach, quite simply, will NEVER CURE the problem!

Marco.

paulf-2007

23-09-2017, 09:00

As expected this thread has gone from vinyl to the rest of the set up creating the "illusion " so cd and streaming will be no different.

Haselsh1

23-09-2017, 11:13

Exactly.
The reality is that we all tune our systems to match as closely as possible our (often evolving) individual preferences.

Totally agree 100%

Haselsh1

23-09-2017, 11:16

I try to voice my system to play music as I would like to hear which is as close to a realistic representation

I do not even attempt to make my system 'realistic' as any hi-fi system is only ever going to be a 'representation' and therefore a facsimile of the real thing.

Marco

23-09-2017, 12:21

Yes, but some undoubtedly make music sound more 'real' than others! ;)

If you don't at least have that goal in mind, in the first place, then why own proper hi-fi [the key words here] system? At this point, I would remind folks of the definition of 'High-Fidelity':

"The reproduction of sound with little distortion, giving a result very similar to the original".

I think some of you have somewhat 'lost focus' on why we do (or should be doing) what we do!

Marco.

Macca

23-09-2017, 12:56

I do not even attempt to make my system 'realistic' as any hi-fi system is only ever going to be a 'representation' and therefore a facsimile of the real thing.

A lot of recordings are not 'the real thing' to begin with. The goal is fidelity to the recording, not to the band playing live since they probably were not playing live on the recording.

You can get a hi-fi that would be indistinguishable from 'the real thing'? Yes. it would cost a few bob and the speakers especially would need to be very good. But you could replicate a jazz quartet or string quartet playing live, assuming the recording didn't miss much. System hidden behind a curtain, you could be fooled. It has been done by QUAD before.

Claiming there is no point in striving for accuracy so you might as well have colouration in the sound is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Jimbo

23-09-2017, 13:21

I do not even attempt to make my system 'realistic' as any hi-fi system is only ever going to be a 'representation' and therefore a facsimile of the real thing.

So you don't want to make your system as realistic as possible? I thought this was the whole idea of an audiophile hifi set up, the goal being to make vocals, instruments and music sound as realistic as possible.

Just a representation of a vocal, instrument etc is not really what I would be after. I want to be convinced I am listening to a real instrument, that is the benchmark!

Marco

23-09-2017, 13:21

Claiming there is no point in striving for accuracy so you might as well have colouration in the sound is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

My point precisely... If that's your mindset, then pack in hi-fi and buy your gear now on from Asda - and save yourself a lot of money!

The goal is fidelity to the recording, not to the band playing live since they probably were not playing live on the recording.

Yup, but chances are, if you set out with that goal (and achieve it as closely as possible), then your system will also be capable of making a piano sound like a piano, and a guitar, a guitar, as a worthy by-product! The reverse also applies... ;)

Marco.

struth

23-09-2017, 14:15

My point precisely... If that's your mindset, then pack in hi-fi and buy your gear now on from Asda - and save yourself a lot of money!

Yup, but chances are, if you set out with that goal (and achieve it as closely as possible), then your system will also be capable of making a piano sound like a piano, and a guitar, a guitar, as a worthy by-product! The reverse also applies... ;)

Marco.

Think I might :D

RothwellAudio

23-09-2017, 14:43

A lot of recordings are not 'the real thing' to begin with. The goal is fidelity to the recording, not to the band playing live since they probably were not playing live on the recording.

You can get a hi-fi that would be indistinguishable from 'the real thing'? Yes. it would cost a few bob and the speakers especially would need to be very good. But you could replicate a jazz quartet or string quartet playing live, assuming the recording didn't miss much. System hidden behind a curtain, you could be fooled. It has been done by QUAD before.

Claiming there is no point in striving for accuracy so you might as well have colouration in the sound is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Yes, I agree. A lot of audiophiles seem to have a naive belief that what they're listening to was performed in the studio as live and captured by a pair of microphones acting like the ears of an observer in front of the band. That may be the case for (some?) classical music, but very very unlikely for anything else.