View Full Version : Valuable Singles
A mate brought me over these singles as he wants them cleaned before he sells them:
https://i.ibb.co/w7s4bzN/singles.jpg (https://ibb.co/KDwWQrj)
Stiff Little Fingers - Suspect Device -signed by all four band members
Joy Division - Transmission (FAC 13)
Sex Pistols - Anarchy In The UK - two of them, on different labels, don't know what that's all about.
I had a look at the values and now I'm scared to touch them. Or even look at them.
Lol - have you got a professional record cleaner? If not, you'll do more harm than good!
Marco.
Of course I do, why else would he bring them to me to be cleaned?
I thought you'd have sold it, as I thought you no longer owned a turntable, or did I get that wrong?
Marco.
No still got it, and three turntables.
Ah ok... Do you use them much? Last time I was down I got your Techy (with the Nagaoka cart), IMO, sounding better than any digital source of yours I've heard, so it deserves to be used:)
Marco.
No not used it in about a year or more. The Sony XB790QS with DCB1 and Krell just blew it away, no contest really. You never heard that set-up. That's when I stopped bothering with vinyl. Although I'm keeping one of my SL1200s just because I can.
Now I have state-of-the art DAC but I think my speakers might have an issue and of my two Krells the one I prefer is on the blink, as is the Sony CD player.
Now I have state-of-the art DAC but I think my speakers might have an issue and of my two Krells the one I prefer is on the blink, as is the Sony CD player.
Their job is done - vinyl is dead :(
No not used it in about a year or more. The Sony XB790QS with DCB1 and Krell just blew it away, no contest really. You never heard that set-up. That's when I stopped bothering with vinyl. Although I'm keeping one of my SL1200s just because I can.
Now I have state-of-the art DAC but I think my speakers might have an issue and of my two Krells the one I prefer is on the blink, as is the Sony CD player.
Fair enough, but next time I'm there I'd like to set up whatever you consider is your best Techy, with an MM cartridge I'll bring with me [nothing expensive] pre-mounted in a headshell to Stevenson alignment [which will suit your arm], and see how it does against your current digital reference.
Would you be up for that - do you still have a phono stage?:)
Marco.
Their job is done - vinyl is dead :(
:laugh::laugh:
Erm..... :no:
One of the best sounds Martin's ever heard was from a vinyl source;)
Marco.
Fair enough, but next time I'm there I'd like to set up your remaining Techy, with an MM cartridge I'll bring with me [nothing expensive], and see how it does against your current digital reference.
Would you be up for that - do you still have a phono stage?:)
Marco.
I only have the phono stages in my integrated amps, or the one in my Philips Black Tulip pre-amp, But that's at Alan's right now. No longer got any interest in vinyl, I'm only keeping the records and one TT for sentimental reasons. If I ever need the money it will all get sold. Having that perfect digital fronted set-up changed my perspective, even if it was only for a couple of months before components started playing up, there's no going back for me.
:laugh::laugh:
Erm..... :no:
One of the best sounds Martin's ever heard was from a vinyl source;)
Marco.
yes vinyl can sound very good when all the winds are blowing in the right direction and the stars align but it is just too variable in consistency and too expensive to justify. And now I can't unhear the things it does wrong compared to digital.
Sure, but it's not about going back... Use what you like now. I'd just like the opportunity to prove a point to the most diehard digital fanboy I know!!:lol::ner:;)
What would you do if what you subsequently heard was better than your current digital reference? Just humour me lol, and say that's what happened. Would you acknowledge it, or simply succumb to the effects of cognitive dissonance?:D
Marco.
yes vinyl can sound very good when all the winds are blowing in the right direction and the stars align but it is just too variable in consistency and too expensive to justify. And now I can't unhear the things it does wrong compared to digital.
Sorry, I disagree with most of that. The first bit doesn't apply in my system, as [once properly set up] my T/T sounds consistently good, day after day, month after month, with no 'star alignment' or 'wind' needed!;)
So what did you hear that was 'wrong' with the sound that day at NEBO (from my T/T and the partnering phono stage), which you wet your pants over, compared with digital?
Nail it for me, and we'll debate it, and I'll outline what I hear that's wrong with digital:)
Marco.
Sure, but it's not about going back... Use what you like now. I'd just like the opportunity to prove a point to the most diehard digital fanboy I know!!:lol::ner:;)
What would you do if what you subsequently heard was better than your current digital reference? Just humour me lol, and say that's what happened. Would you acknowledge it or simply succumb to the effects of cognitive dissonance?:D
Marco.
That's hard to say because I have a problem with my main system right now which I just can't work out what it is.
But when I had the Sony XB790 - DCB1 - Krell 50S - JM Lab set up that was better than almost anything I have ever heard, and consistently better, on every recording. That system was my dream sound which I never thought I would realise, or even could be realised.
In fact it literally was my dream sound as it was the same sound I heard in a dream in which I bought a big Marantz 1980s amp from someone at work. Was well pissed off when I woke up. Actually getting that sound for real felt like a dream. Just one of those cases where all the equipment stars align. If I knew why - from a technical pov - I could replicate it. But I don't.
But now the Sony is broke, the Krell is broke and I think there might be a problem with the speakers. So we can't really do a comparison to that old system now. But if we could I'm very confident that vinyl would lose. That set up was the closest I've been to studio control room sort of sound. And since that's my benchmark there's no way vinyl is going to beat that. For me, anyway. I appreciate that others are chasing a different sound.
Ok, fair enough, plus I'm sorry you've been having problems with your system. Hope you can both resolve them soon and rediscover that 'perfect' sound you liked:)
However, are you saying that you couldn't have lived with that sound you heard at NEBO, from vinyl, because of what you'd be able to hear was 'wrong'?
The reality is, as we've discussed before, in order to hear what vinyl can *really* do, you need to spend big bucks on a turntable/arm and cartridge combo [and most importantly phono stage] - not only that, but fundamentally *know* how to set it up properly and get the most from it all.
You simply can't do it on the cheap or without the patience and know-how [largely borne from experience] of how to maximise its potential.
The other thing too, which is VITAL, in being able to hear vinyl at its best, is having pristine condition records, new or used, and the willingness to occasionally invest in top-notch audiophile pressings, the best of which elevate the experience to another level.
Too many vinyl enthusiasts, in my experience, perfectly willing to spend multiple thousands of pounds on the hardware, are too mean to spend serious money, when necessary, on the all-important SOFTWARE!;)
Quite simply, you'll NEVER hear vinyl at its best, if all your collection (or most of it) consists of played to death old records from your youth, or charity shop (second-hand) specials...:exactly:
Marco.
Firebottle
19-09-2020, 12:39
An excellent phono stage is vital to hearing vinyl at its best IMO. Having some top notch phono stages on the rack gives a real appreciation of what can be achieved.
Hurry up and get the Krell down to me and I'll get it fixed, then Marco and I can show you what you are missing.
Ok, fair enough, plus I'm sorry you've been having problems with your system. Hope you can both resolve them soon and rediscover that 'perfect' sound you liked:)
However, are you saying that you couldn't have lived with that sound you heard at NEBO, from vinyl, because of what you'd be able to hear was 'wrong'?
The reality is, as we've discussed before, in order to hear what vinyl can *really* do, you need to spend big bucks on a turntable/arm and cartridge combo [and most importantly phono stage] - not only that, but fundamentally *know* how to set it up properly and get the most from it all.
You simply can't do it on the cheap or without the patience and know-how [largely borne from experience] of how to maximise its potential.
The other thing too, which is VITAL, in being able to hear vinyl at its best, is having pristine condition records, new or used, and the willingness to occasionally invest in top-notch audiophile pressings, the best of which elevate the experience to another level.
Too many vinyl enthusiasts, in my experience, perfectly willing to spend multiple thousands of pounds on the hardware, are too mean to spend serious money, when necessary, on the all-important SOFTWARE!;)
Quite simply, you'll NEVER hear vinyl at its best, if all your collection (or most of it) consists of played to death old records from your youth, or charity shop (second-hand) specials...:exactly:
Marco.
Well that's the whole thing in a nutshell isn't it? Stylus, arm, turntable, cleaning machine, the expensive pressings, get the set up spot on, and so on. All I want to do is listen to some music!
Buy the cd, slot it in, press play, that's it. And the cd is the closest you'll get to the master-tape or file, way more so than even the fanciest audiophile pressing. If the equipment used can't exploit that, it's not the medium's fault.
People who think vinyl is 'The Reference' forget (or are too young to remember) that before digital arrived, reel to reel was 'The Reference'. It's never been vinyl. It's only in the last ten years or so when you've had numbnuts like Fremer talking it up that enthusiast have got that idea into their heads.
When we had that phono stage bake-off in Penkridge, couple of years back now, the stages I most liked were the solid state ones as they sounded closest to what I was after - That was very much a minority view amongst the assembled who mostly preferred the valve stages - but to me they were quite far removed from the studio sound. We aren't all after the same thing and I think that is what the 'valves n vinyl mafia' forget when they are incredulous about people preferring solid state and digital.
I had two grand's worth of turntable set up. A cleaning machine and a quality valve phonostage and *for me* it still did not come close to a 20 year old cd player I got for fifty quid *into the right system.* And then when I realised I was spending money on the vinyl system trying to get it closer to the CD player, I had a bit of an epiphany and just replaced all my favourite albums on CD instead. Cheaper and less hassle and it sounds a lot more like it does in the studio when they are mixing.
If you don't like coconut you're never going to like a Bounty Bar no matter how good they make it. :)
Lol... The only bit I really disagree with is this:
And the cd is the closest you'll get to the master-tape or file, way more so than even the fanciest audiophile pressing.
Perhaps, but whilst also superimposing a 'digital signature' onto the sound... NO form of audio replay equipment is 100% neutral or without 'character'. That's a fact, even if it may not be measurable... If it's not measurable, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist; simply that we haven't yet discovered how to measure it!
I can easily hear [and readily identify] the sonic signature that the digital recording or playback process imposes on the sound of any analogue recording.
Therefore I'd contend, if the recording has been made using an all-analogue process (as many superb pieces of music were, pre-1970s), then the closest sound to the master-tape will be achieved by replaying it on a reel-to-reel tape recorder, or vinyl.
You certainly won't hear it, by fucking it up with a data conversion process into the digital domain;)
Marco.
Lol... The only bit I really disagree with is this:
Perhaps, but whilst also superimposing a 'digital signature' onto the sound... No form of audio replay equipment is 100% neutral or without 'character'. That's a fact, even if it isn't measurable...;)
And I'd contend, if the recording has been made using an all-analogue process (as many superb pieces of music were, pre-1970s),then the closest sound to the master-tape will be achieved by replaying it on a reel-to-reel tape recorder, or vinyl.
Marco.
See I don't agree that there is such a thing as a 'digital signature', at least not inherent in the medium. Obviously the digital playback equipment will have a signature to an extent, that's unavoidable. Digital encodes the waveform perfectly, tape and vinyl don't. If you listen to an analogue recording on CD then you get character from the playback equipment (true of any medium) but it will still be an exact copy of the master tape that you are starting with. Any added character beyond that is from the R2R machine they used to make the digital copy.
When you look at what they have to do to produce a vinyl record from the master tape (or file mostly these days) you can see that it inherently strays some distance away from being an exact copy. Regardless of whether or not it was an analogue recording.
When the character of each different recording you play dominates the sound over the character of the replay equipment that's when you know you are close to accuracy - now don't get me wrong, you can get that with vinyl too, but at a level of expense and hassle that I don't really want, not when there's an easier, cheaper option.
See I don't agree that there is such a thing as a 'digital signature', at least not inherent in the medium.
Yes, but you can't hear the medium itself without involving the use of the necessary replay equipment - and *that* is what generates the 'signature'.
Obviously the digital playback equipment will have a signature to an extent, that's unavoidable.
Exactly! As I've just said, you can't hear any digitally recorded music without the use of the associated playback equipment. That's my point (and the leveller) - and in that respect, I can hear the resulting 'signature' that ANY CD player, or streaming system, playing a digital music file, imbues onto the sound.
Digital encodes the waveform perfectly, tape and vinyl don't.
Yet it didn't stop some of the finest music recordings ever produced from happening, made in an all-analogue and valve domain, from mike to desk and onto tape. Quite simply, the best of those recordings, sonically BLOW AWAY anything produced in modern times since - and I could easily demonstrate it!;)
Therefore, that strongly suggests to me that not only is digital not 'perfect'/'neutral', 'accurate' (ultimately where it matters most, in terms of what the human ear hears), or whatever other term you wish to use to portray its supposed superiority, but that something else is happening in the overall process, which is REAL (and a genuine part of the musical information, not coloration), but that isn't being accounted for in the judgement process.
However, that's a discussion for another day...
When the character of each different recording you play dominates the sound over the character of the replay equipment that's when you know you are close to accuracy...
As you say, if your vinyl set-up is good enough, then you can easily achieve the above, but I can tell you that most of that is down to experience and know-how, than money! :trust:
now don't get me wrong, you can get that with vinyl too, but at a level of expense and hassle that I don't really want, not when there's an easier, cheaper option.
Yes, but it'll always sound like digital, and every piece of music played will intrinsically be 'tainted' accordingly. Yes, that also occurs with vinyl, so the reality is that you simply have to 'suck your favourite flavour', as I'm afraid any notion that one or the other is 'perfect', or 100% faithful to anything, when part of a music replay system, is totally misguided. You simply have to choose your compromises.
Plus, and this is another thing, if when vinyl is done at its absolute best [and I've already mentioned what that constitutes as], there was a significant (and notable) difference in the accuracy of the resulting music signal (i.e. the sound that you end up listening to), then it would ably reveal itself when ripping vinyl onto CD (or creating a digital file from a vinyl recording).
And any time I've done that, aside from some occasional slight surface noise, which is inevitable even with the cleanest and best condition records, it's almost impossible to tell one from the other [or crucially also a commercially produced CD of the same music] - indeed, I've blindfolded myself and also friends (and Del) and asked them to identify the original recording from the rip (or said commercial CD). All so far have struggled, and therefore inevitably get it wrong!:eyebrows:
Quite simply, that happens because the sounds/recordings replayed are sonically near-indistinguishable.
So, if in the final analysis [i.e. the sound that we actually hear through our speakers] there is little (almost nothing) to sonically separate two identical pieces of music, recorded respectively in either the digital or analogue domain, then how can vinyl intrinsically be so inferior or less 'accurate' than digital - because ultimately in the circumstances I've just described you'd hear it, wouldn't you?
Think about that....:)
Marco.
Plus, and this is another thing, if when vinyl is done at its absolute best [and I've already mentioned what that constitutes as], there was a significant (and notable) difference in the accuracy of the resulting music signal (i.e. the sound that you end up listening to), then it would ably reveal itself when ripping vinyl onto CD (or creating a digital file from a vinyl recording).
And any time I've done that, aside from some occasional slight surface noise, which is inevitable even with the cleanest and best condition records, it's almost impossible to tell one from the other - indeed, I've blindfolded myself and also friends (and Del) and asked them to identify the original recording from the rip, and all so far have struggled, and therefore inevitably get it wrong!:eyebrows:
Quite simply, that happens because both sounds/recordings are near-indistinguishable.
So, if in the final analysis [i.e. the sound that we actually hear through our speakers] there is little (almost nothing) to separate the two, sonically, then how can vinyl intrinsically be so inferior or less 'accurate' - because ultimately in the circumstances I've just described you'd hear it, wouldn't you?
Think about that....:)
Marco.
This last bit about copying your vinyl doesn't make sense to your argument. You have the recording on vinyl, with all the inherent flaws, you say you copy it to a CD and then play the CD and they are virtually indistinguishable.
All this shows is that a digital recording is 100% accurate to the source and that it adds nothing of its own to the sound. Of course it sounds like the vinyl, it's a perfect copy of it! But the vinyl LP you are starting with is far from a perfect copy of the master tape
Consider:
basic noise floor of -70dB (A-weighted) if we’re lucky – stylus scraping along a groove in plastic, vinyl has finite grain size
pops and clicks: scratches and dust
electrical hum and noise: cartridge produces a tiny signal, and high gain pre-amplification is needed
rumble: bearings, motor
warped records cause various problems
stylus wear
stylus contamination: dust, dirt, vinyl particles
stylus misalignment – may vary as arm moves across record
record wear – the Decca test disc for measuring cartridge frequency response was specified for only 5 plays for the tracks with frequencies above 10 kHz!
record contamination: dust, dirt, vinyl particles
fundamental limitations in linearity of vinyl cutting/replay system
diameter loss: speed of groove decreases throughout LP, increasing noise and distortion and reducing upper frequency response
pre-echo: adjacent groove modulation
microphony: sound from speakers feeds back into the pickup
Channel separation: varies with frequency and typically only 20-30 dB at maximum
Record may be pressed towards end of life of the stamper, resulting in increased levels of various distortions
compression (raises the quietest sections in volume to make them audible above the background noise, reduces the loudest sections to economise on groove spacing)
de-essing (reduce treble response for high amplitude, high frequency sounds)
mixing stereo bass to mono (otherwise the needle jumps out of the groove)
off-centre pressing
motor speed, belt, etc.
RIAA record and/or playback curves are often only approximate
cumulative effect of factors above causes imprecise frequency response (arbitrary processing when mastering, diameter loss, etc.)
None of which means it won't 'sound good' but it is going to be some distance away from playing the master tape on an RTR. Whereas the CD has none of those drawbacks. Not a one. And you wouldn't be able to distinguish it from the master tape playing, the same as you can't with your vinyl to CD copy.
This last bit about copying your vinyl doesn't make sense to your argument. You have the recording on vinyl, with all the inherent flaws, you say you copy it to a CD and then play the CD and they are virtually indistinguishable.
All this shows is that a digital recording is 100% accurate to the source and that it adds nothing of its own to the sound. Of course it sounds like the vinyl, it's a perfect copy of it! But the vinyl LP you are starting with is far from a perfect copy of the master tape
You missed the bit about the vinyl rip sounding near-identical to a commercially produced digital recording of the same music!!;)
And THAT is the reality. If you don't believe me, I'll let you hear it yourself next time you're up. I've got loads of albums that were released on both vinyl and CD, and own both. If anything, the vinyl rip is often better than the digital original, simply because one can take more care optimising the recording process (with levels, etc)....
Consider:
basic noise floor of -70dB (A-weighted) if we’re lucky – stylus scraping along a groove in plastic, vinyl has finite grain size
pops and clicks: scratches and dust
electrical hum and noise: cartridge produces a tiny signal, and high gain pre-amplification is needed
rumble: bearings, motor
warped records cause various problems
stylus wear
stylus contamination: dust, dirt, vinyl particles
stylus misalignment – may vary as arm moves across record
record wear – the Decca test disc for measuring cartridge frequency response was specified for only 5 plays for the tracks with frequencies above 10 kHz!
record contamination: dust, dirt, vinyl particles
fundamental limitations in linearity of vinyl cutting/replay system
diameter loss: speed of groove decreases throughout LP, increasing noise and distortion and reducing upper frequency response
pre-echo: adjacent groove modulation
microphony: sound from speakers feeds back into the pickup
Channel separation: varies with frequency and typically only 20-30 dB at maximum
Record may be pressed towards end of life of the stamper, resulting in increased levels of various distortions
compression (raises the quietest sections in volume to make them audible above the background noise, reduces the loudest sections to economise on groove spacing)
de-essing (reduce treble response for high amplitude, high frequency sounds)
mixing stereo bass to mono (otherwise the needle jumps out of the groove)
off-centre pressing
motor speed, belt, etc.
RIAA record and/or playback curves are often only approximate
cumulative effect of factors above causes imprecise frequency response (arbitrary processing when mastering, diameter loss, etc.)
Yes, but you're missing the point... All of that means HEE-HAW, if ultimately it doesn't translate into a significantly audible difference - and if your vinyl set-up is good enough, it doesn't. That's my point!:)
That's the problem with fixating too much on measurements, many of which in the real world are largely meaningless, because the final arbiter is a human pair of ears, not a piece of test equipment.
Quite simply, if all of what you've stated *really nattered*, in the final analysis, then a commercially produced digital recording, of any piece of music, would automatically sound better than ANY vinyl rip of the same, wouldn't it, with all the flaws of vinyl (as you've indisputably outlined) readily apparent and therefore easily heard?
Yet that's not what happens if the T/T (and set up thereof) is good enough, together with the vinyl ripped being in pristine condition...
You need to get your head round that notion, and the reason you're struggling is because (and I don't mean this in a bad way) you've neither owned a T/T good enough to level the playing field in that way, nor have any (or much) experience of ripping vinyl to digital.
Marco.
martin as long as YOU are happy who gives a monkeys toss what you listen to music on/through.:cool:
Of course, and that applies to all of us! But that's not the argument:)
My point is that many of the *indisputable* technical limitations of vinyl, compared with digital, in the final analysis, when assessed within a replay (hi-fi) system, not in terms of playing 'Top Trumps' with specs or measurements, aren't audibly apparent, given a high-quality T/T, optimally set up, playing pristine condition vinyl.
And here's the thing: how many believers in 'digital superiority' have *truly* experienced the latter in their system, and therefore heard vinyl at its best?;)
Marco.
martin as long as YOU are happy who gives a monkeys toss what you listen to music on/through.:cool:
Well this is it isn't it? Marco brought up the subject of accuracy, and there's no question of which is the more accurate. And accurate can only be defined by measurement.
I have many albums (at least 50) on both vinyl and cd, I think there is two were I prefer the vinyl version. That's preference, a completely different thing from accuracy.
You don't get to decide what you prefer, you don't decide you prefer plain chocolate digestives to the milk chocolate ones, you just do. You can't decide whether or not to be attracted to a women, you can't decide to be happy or sad, and so on. You can't decide what you like, It's already determined for you.
The confusion comes when people associate what they prefer with what is more technically accurate. That's not how it works. You can prefer the less accurate, the worse measuring, and so on, and there won't be a thing you can do about it. It just sounds better to you. But that it doesn't follow that just because it sounds better to you then it must be the more accurate and it doesn't mean everyone else is also going to prefer it just because you do.
I don't know why some people struggle with that but they do. So you get 'You must never have heard a top=flight vinyl system'. Well I have. Many of them. Many times. Overall I don't prefer it to its top flight digital counterpart. That's not my choice or decision, just how it is.
Marco brought up the subject of accuracy, and there's no question of which is the more accurate.
...on paper;)
The real question is, how much of that superior accuracy ON PAPER translates into *notably audible* sonic superiority, given a turntable of requisite quality, optimally set up, playing pristine (well-produced) vinyl, when assessed by the human ear, in the context of a hi-fi system?
I could demonstrate that there's very little - and ultimately that's all that matters!
It makes sense too, when you think about it. When have you ever heard a top-flight vinyl system, assembled by someone who knows what they're doing, being trounced [as suggested should happen by the disparity in 'measurements prowess' between both formats], simply by a 'competent' digital one?
And of course if only measurements mattered, then you wouldn't need anything more than 'competent', would you...?
And accurate can only be defined by measurement.
Yes, but only by knowing *exactly what* to measure with the correct apparatus, otherwise much could be missed, which is one of the reasons why I believe there is so little disparity in the digital recordings I make from vinyl, versus commercially produced digital ones.
Either the claimed superior accuracy of digital (on paper) is being hobbled by the equipment needed to reproduce the music, or there's something else going on that as yet hasn't been considered.
And I think, if you scroll back, you'll find that it was you who initiated the discussion on 'accuracy', by describing your reasons for preferring digital to vinyl. If you'd simply said 'I just like how it sounds better', then I'd have said nothing, as that can't be argued against, but that's not what happened!:ner:;)
Marco.
The confusion comes when people associate what they prefer with what is more technically accurate. That's not how it works. You can prefer the less accurate, the worse measuring, and so on, and there won't be a thing you can do about it. It just sounds better to you. But that it doesn't follow that just because it sounds better to you then it must be the more accurate and it doesn't mean everyone else is also going to prefer it just because you do.
I don't know why some people struggle with that but they do. So you get 'You must never have heard a top=flight vinyl system'. Well I have. Many of them. Many times. Overall I don't prefer it to its top flight digital counterpart. That's not my choice or decision, just how it is.
You're completely missing the point here, and obviously haven't either read or understood what I've written, as little of the above formed part of my argument.
In terms of the bit in bold, my point was that if you've never OWNED (not simply heard) and lived with a T/T that 'levels the playing field' in the way I've described, and crucially digitised music with it, and gained considerable experience with both over many years, then you'll struggle to grasp the significance of the results.
Many people have tasted great pizza, over the years, but only those who've successfully made their own from scratch, and which is as good as any restaurant can produce, can fully appreciate *exactly why* that is!;)
I trust you appreciate the analogy?
Marco.
Pigmy Pony
19-09-2020, 18:29
Yes, but only by knowing *exactly what* to measure with the correct apparatus, otherwise much could be missed, which is one of the reasons why I believe there is so little disparity in the digital recordings I make from vinyl, versus commercially produced digital ones.
Marco.
I've followed this debate with interest, though the term "unstoppable force meets an immovable object" comes to mind for some reason :)
I personally prefer what i hear when I play my records, but as I have no technical nouse whatsoever, and even less patience, coupled with many less-than-pristine records which are not audiophile jobbies, I cannot explain why I prefer my vinyl. I just do.
Reason I've highlighted part of Marco's post is that it reads to me like spending fortunes on t/t, arm, cartridge, audiophile pressings, coupled with painstaking set up, can produce vinyl rips virtually indistinguishable from a shop-bought CD. Have I got that right, or am I missing something?
StingRay
19-09-2020, 19:29
The problem with cds is the compression or I should say the over compression that is used on many pop/rock albums in the last 20 years. But then a lot of early digital conversions of analogue recordings were not done well.
Hi Steve,
I've followed this debate with interest, though the term "unstoppable force meets an immovable object" comes to mind for some reason :)
Lol - that's what happens when someone with a rather rigid, deeply-ingrained, belief system (and set of biases) is faced with considering something that challenges their veracity, by someone determined to make them do so!:D;)
Reason I've highlighted part of Marco's post is that it reads to me like spending fortunes on t/t, arm, cartridge, audiophile pressings, coupled with painstaking set up, can produce vinyl rips virtually indistinguishable from a shop-bought CD. Have I got that right, or am I missing something?
Yes, that's not really what it's about.
What it's about is that it takes a considerable financial investment [to pay for the necessary engineering], but more importantly, a LOT of experience/know-how, to get a turntable (and with it vinyl replay) to sound [note not measure] as 'accurate' as digital, by allowing it to overcome its technical limitations in comparison, in such a way as when you listen, you can't hear them.
Too many turntables sound like turntables, but in a bad way [in that you're left under no illusion that you're listening to a rock tracing grooves on a piece of plastic], because you can easily hear their limitations, due to a myriad of mechanical interactions that haven't been properly addressed or optimised, and as such the whole aspect of their performance is sub-optimal and distorted.
The best turntables simply don't 'sound' like turntables: they sound like 'digital done well' [quiet, clear, unfailingly speed/pitch-stable, sonically rock-solid and 'un-flustered', and exhibit very low-levels of audible distortion or coloration], but yet still retain all the best attributes of vinyl [including its inherent addictive musicality].
Essentially therefore, the best turntables, playing mint well-produced vinyl, aren't an audible 'victim' of their technical limitations - they simply showcase the music contained in the record grooves - and so unless you look up and see a platter spinning round, you could just as easily be listening to a very good CD player.
Hopefully that makes some sort of sense? And coincidentally, that's also why the best CD players don't sound 'digital' [in a bad way]!;)
Marco.
The problem with cds is the compression or I should say the over compression that is used on many pop/rock albums in the last 20 years. But then a lot of early digital conversions of analogue recordings were not done well.
Very true, Ray, and it's also why, back in the day, if you can remember when CDs were marked as 'AAD', 'ADD' or 'DDD', and if the recording process was good, often the 'AAD' discs sounded best!
I'm afraid I wasn't one of those who 'revelled in the wonderfully clear sound' of the 'DDD'-produced CD of 'Brothers in Arms', when it was first introduced, and instead could readily hear what it lacked (was wrong) with how it sounded, in comparison with that of the best 'AAD'-produced discs.
There's a lot more to realistic sounding voices and instruments than 'forensic clarity'!;)
Marco.
I missed this earlier:
An excellent phono stage is vital to hearing vinyl at its best IMO. Having some top notch phono stages on the rack gives a real appreciation of what can be achieved.
Hurry up and get the Krell down to me and I'll get it fixed, then Marco and I can show you what you are missing.
Spot on, Alan. So much music is lost from a good turntable by a poor (or not of a similarly high-standard) phono stage. Essentially, for top-notch vinyl replay, your phono stage should cost as much, and/or be as good as your preamp!
It's such a small and delicate signal being amplified, so great care must be taken to maintain its integrity. Furthermore, too many people get the hierarchy incorrect between a tonearm and cartridge, wrongly believing that the latter has the most important influence on the sound, when actually it's the other way round!
Quite simply, you'll never make a great cartridge sound great, when strapped to a poor or mediocre arm. However, you can make a good cartridge sound sublime, when strapped to a top-notch arm. I've taken that principle to extremes in my system, by using a £100 MM cartridge in a £2300 tonearm - jeez even the headshell costs three times as much as the cartridge!:D
But it sounds absolutely sublime, simply because the cartridge in question is intrinsically well-designed and being given every chance to shine - and that's also why a quality phono stage is mandatory for hearing vinyl replay at its best!:)
Marco.
Hi Steve,
Lol - that's what happens when someone with a rather rigid, deeply-ingrained, belief system (and set biases) is faced with considering something that challenges their veracity, by someone determined to make them do so!:D;)
Yes, that's not really what it's about.
What it's about is that it takes a considerable financial investment [to pay for the necessary engineering], but more importantly, a LOT of experience/know-how, to get a turntable (and with it vinyl replay) to sound [note not measure] as 'accurate' as digital, by allowing it to overcome its technical limitations in comparison, in such a way as when you listen, you can't hear them.
Too many turntables sound like turntables, but in a bad way [you're left under no illusion that you're listening to a rock tracing grooves on a piece of plastic], because you can easily hear their limitations, due to a myriad of mechanical interactions that haven't been properly addressed or optimised, and as such the whole aspect of their performance is sub-optimal and distorted.
The best turntables simply don't 'sound' like turntables: they sound like 'digital done well' [quiet, clear, unfailingly speed/pitch-stable, sonically rock-solid and 'un-flustered', and exhibit very low-levels of audible distortion or coloration], but yet still retain all the best attributes of vinyl [and its inherent addictive musicality].
Essentially therefore, the best turntables, playing mint well-produced vinyl, aren't an audible victim of their technical limitations - they simply showcase the music contained in the record grooves - and so unless you look up and see a platter spinning round, you could just as easily be listening to a very good CD player.
Hopefully that makes some sort of sense? And coincidentally, that's also why the best CD players don't sound 'digital' [in a bad way]!;)
Marco.
Did that make sense, Steve, or did I just waste half an hour of my life tying that out for the (dubious) good of my health?:ner:;)
Marco [hates it when folks don't acknowledge his (very carefully) written and considered replies].
Sex Pistols - Anarchy In The UK - two of them, on different labels, don't know what that's all about.
Isn't the EMI the expensive one as there was only a short print run before EMI booted them out, and the other the A&M issued that followed?
The best turntables simply don't 'sound' like turntables: they sound like 'digital done well' [quiet, clear, unfailingly speed/pitch-stable, sonically rock-solid and 'un-flustered', and exhibit very low-levels of audible distortion or coloration], but yet still retain all the best attributes of vinyl [and its inherent addictive musicality].
Essentially therefore, the best turntables, playing mint well-produced vinyl, aren't an audible victim of their technical limitations - they simply showcase the music contained in the record grooves - and so unless you look up and see a platter spinning round, you could just as easily be listening to a very good CD player.
.
I don't disagree with this, and I agree your point that done well the differences between the two are small enough to be pretty much irrelevant, at least in terms of just enjoying the music. But it does go back to the reason why I ditched vinyl, which is that I was improving my vinyl replay system to try to sound like CD - so the logical solution was to drop the vinyl system altogether and just use CD.
Agree with Alan that the phonostage is a big part of it.
Don't agree that early CDs of analogue recordings were poor transfers. I and many others actively seek out the early transfers because compared to the re-masters that came later, they have higher dynamic range. Tony L who runs PFM for e.g - and he owns a record store so you'd think he'd have the experience to know.
There are exceptions to that of course.
I've yet to see anyone give a specific example of an early CD transfer that was done badly even though the claim is made quite a lot. I do have at least one that is (subjectively) not as good as the vinyl, why that is I don't know. It isn't hard to record a tape to digital.
It was all Jerry's fault to begin with, he loaned me a passive pre-amp to try and that absolutely changed my mind about digital.
I don't disagree with this, and I agree your point that done well the differences between the two are small enough to be pretty much irrelevant, at least in terms of just enjoying the music. But it does go back to the reason why I ditched vinyl, which is that I was improving my vinyl replay system to try to sound like CD - so the logical solution was to drop the vinyl system altogether and just use CD.
Brilliant - I'm glad we're now on the same page!:)
In terms of the bit in bold, that's *exactly* where I am with my T/T, and why I can happily switch back and forth from CD to vinyl and not feel 'short changed' either time.
*BUT* you simply can't get there on the cheap, or more importantly, without the necessary patience and experience to eke out maximum performance from your respective purchases.
In terms of cost, I'd reckon that a minimum spend of £3-4k on a T/T, tonearm and cartridge, and around £2k on a phono stage, is what's necessary to genuinely enter the world of 'vinyl done well', and that presumes the ownership of a professional record cleaner, as you will NEVER hear vinyl at its best playing worn or dirty records, or badly produced ones either, which many were during the 70s!
Therefore, a significant investment is also required on the SOFTWARE side, as much as on the hardware side.
Lastly, given you agree that done well the sonic differences between CD and vinyl are rendered as irrelevant, you have to wonder then why that's so, considering the disparity in their measured technical spec, which if looked at literally would scare off any hi-fi enthusiast, who didn't know better, from buying a turntable!!;)
For me, it simply proves the point I've always made that many measurements in audio, whilst important to consider, simply don't matter in the *real world* (i.e. in the final analysis in terms of what your ears hear) - and ultimately that's got to be what matters MOST!:exactly:
Marco.
Pigmy Pony
20-09-2020, 08:44
Did that make sense, Steve, or did I just waste half an hour of my life tying that out for the (dubious) good of my health?:ner:;)
Marco [hates it when folks don't acknowledge his (very carefully) written and considered replies].
:D I read your essay a couple of hours ago, but hadn't replied yet as I knew you'd still be in your kip! It makes sense of course, as did your previous posts. I thought I may have misunderstood something, turns out I hadn't :)
I get it that many people will not be getting the best from their vinyl due to poor set up, ill-thought out hierarchy (deck>arm>cartridge) and skimping on phono stage. So do you think my four grand deck might benefit from something better than my £120 Chinese jobbie? :D Only kidding, I'll be addressing that just as soon as funds permit :) Thing is I'm blessed with cloth ears, sausage fingers, and finite patience, so until someone with golden ears and a couple of of spare phono stages comes along to show me what I'm missing, I'll just carry on enjoying it in all its flawed glory ;)
No I don't think I was missing your point, but it looked a bit like you was missing Macca's, which to me looked like he's found a sound (CD source) that he really likes but without all the faff and expense of vinyl. Simple as that :ner:
No I don't think I was missing your point, but it looked a bit like you was missing Macca's, which to me looked like he's found a sound (CD source) that he really likes but without all the faff and expense of vinyl. Simple as that :ner:
No, not at all. I totally got where he was coming from and it makes perfect sense. But what's happened in reality is that he simply never managed to get his T/T to sound as good as his CDP, not that CD is inherently superior to vinyl, in terms of what matters most, as we've just discussed!
I was debating the point that I don't buy the notion that vinyl is inferior sonically because of its technical limitations, and I've proved the point.
However, I do think that, with respect, Martin worries too much sometimes about measurements/specs and places a little too much importance on them when making his buying decisions and also when forming his conclusions on audio, where instead I feel he'd benefit more by just 'going with the flow'.
But hey, none of us are perfect, especially you!:lol::D;)
Marco.
Therefore, a significant investment is also required on the SOFTWARE side, as much as on the hardware side.
Lastly, given you agree that done well the sonic differences between CD and vinyl are rendered as irrelevant, you have to wonder then why that's so, considering the disparity in their measured technical spec, which if looked at literally would scare off any hi-fi enthusiast, who didn't know better, from buying a turntable!!;)
.
Our hearing is not that great, that's why. Although some of the aspects are audible, off-centre or warped pressings for example with that wow you get on piano notes. That was also the point I was making about consistency. Not consistency in the set up of the deck, which isn't an issue unless you are using a poorly-designed one, but consistency in the quality of the LP records themselves.
The claim you made that I took exception to was that vinyl is more accurate to analogue recordings. That was what got us into the technical side of things. Whatever justified claims can be made about vinyl, it being more accurate as a format is not one of them, for all the reasons I listed. Okay so you say you can spend £5K on a set up and at that point most of those problems become irrelevant in practical terms. I don't disagree. But it's £5K! The cost- reward ratio of that does not add up for me.
Pigmy Pony
20-09-2020, 10:20
But hey, none of us are perfect, especially you!:lol::D;)
Marco.
I never thought I was perfect, I just gave in to popular opinion :D
Our hearing is not that great, that's why.
Lol - speak for yourself! As you well know, almost every aspect of my system has been very carefully chosen and assembled on an 'ears only' basis, with almost no consideration for measurements, yet I've somehow managed to assemble a system that's, erm, 'none too shabby'...
How have I managed to do that then if my hearing isn't any good?;)
And that's been my subjectivist approach for the last 30 years, with every system I've owned, and which (although not perfect) has always sounded fab. How often, if ever, have you seen me complaining about problems or expressing dissatisfaction with my system? And yet, with respect, unfortunately you're never happy for long before *something* sets you back. And it goes round in loop.
Coincidence? I dunno...
No, I get what you mean about hearing... But I also mean what I mean. Measurements are largely for EEs to fret over, not enthusiasts/end-users, who, IMO, should focus most on 'does it sound any good to me', feck what the measurements say.
Although some of the aspects are audible, off-centre or warped pressings for example with that wow you get on piano notes. That was also the point I was making about consistency. Not consistency in the set up of the deck, which isn't an issue unless you are using a poorly-designed one, but consistency in the quality of the LP records themselves.
Sure, but TBH, in a collection of nearly 5000 records, I could count in one hand how many I own that are warped or off-centre, simply because I'm *extremely fussy* about the condition of the ones I buy, new or second-hand. If it's new and arrives in less than perfect condition, it gets sent back for a replacement or refund, and when I buy used records, they're *scrupulously examined* for scratches, warps and everything else, before I buy them, so as a result I have very few 'duds'.
Therefore, what you're describing is a non-issue for me, and also for others if they're careful of what they're buying:)
The claim you made that I took exception to was that vinyl is more accurate to analogue recordings. That was what got us into the technical side of things.
Yes but I think you misunderstood the point I was making. What I meant was that you'll hear an all-analogue recording more 'accurately' (as in retain the desirable traits of the analogue sound) if it's replayed on an analogue source.
For example, if said recording has been released both on vinyl and CD, then I contend that the vinyl would be more faithful to the original (analogue) sound, than the CD, simply because as soon as you digitise an analogue recording, you lose (to a certain degree) some of the characteristics of the analogue sound, and subsequently imbue it with a 'digital signature'.
That's the reason why, back in the day, 'AAD' produced CDs sounded markedly different from 'DDD' ones. Or at least to my ears they did.
That's what I meant, and I again I could demonstrate it. The same of course happens the other way round... If it's an all-digital recording, then I want the CD or the music file. The vinyl version wouldn't interest me, unless that was the only format the piece of music I wanted had been released on, as it would almost certainly sound worse (or no better) than its digital counterpart.
Do you see where I'm coming from? Basically, if a recording starts off its life as digital, then keep it digital, and vice versa. For me, that's how you get the best/most 'accurate' sound, i.e. what's likely most faithful to the sound that left the studio. It's certainly what my ears and experience tell me.
Whatever justified claims can be made about vinyl, it being more accurate as a format is not one of them, for all the reasons I listed. Okay so you say you can spend £5K on a set up and at that point most of those problems become irrelevant in practical terms. I don't disagree. But it's £5K! The cost- reward ratio of that does not add up for me.
Fair enough, that's your prerogative, but is that vinyl's fault?:D No, of course not!
The fact (and the whole point) is that the format is *capable* of doing what we've discussed, if enough time and effort, and yes money, is devoted to the cause. It would be a different matter if regardless of how much you spent, or how fastidious you were in setting things up, vinyl still couldn't eradicate said problems to the degree where they become irrelevant - then it WOULD intrinsically be sonically inferior to digital, but clearly that's not the case!:cool:
Marco.
I never thought I was perfect, I just gave in to popular opinion...
Haha - and may I also say how well you hide any notion that you're perfect, and so leave it in no doubt that you're not!:D
Ya knows I lurves ya, though...:eyebrows:
Marco.
And that's been my approach for the last 30 years, with every system I've owned, which has always sounded fab. And how often, if ever, have you seen me complaining about problems or dissatisfaction with my system? And yet, with respect, you're never happy for long before *something* happens to set you back...
Coincidence? I dunno.
Just been unlucky with some second-hand equipment going faulty, that's all. I've never chucked large amounts of money at hi-fi like you have. My thing is all about achieving a top sound for the least amount of expenditure. And I managed that once, and that entire system only cost me £1500. So I'll get there again. :)
Sure, but TBH, in a collection of nearly 5000 records, I could count in one hand how many I own that are warped or off-centre, simply because I'm *extremely fussy* about the condition of any records I buy, new or second-hand. If it's new and arrives in less than perfect condition, it gets sent back for a replacement or refund, and when I buy used records, they're *scrupulously scrutinised* for scratches, warps and everything else, before I buy them, so as a result I have very few 'duds'.
Therefore, what you're describing is a non-issue for me, and also for others if they're careful of what they're buying
I bet you have quite a few that are off centre, not really noticeable with some music though, but they will be. No way to avoid that, pretty much impossible to check for when buying, and it is a common issue. Again this is all just additional hassle that is not for me. Chasing down the best pressings, sending stuff back because it is warped or damaged or off-centre, paying serious money for just one album. I'm done with all that. The CD just works perfectly every time.
Okay so I don't consider them as precious artefacts like I do with my vinyl records, there's no emotional value in them for me. But for practical purpose of just playing music with no hassle or aggravation to get in the way the CD works better for me. Plenty of people go a step further and have streaming from a service. No physical media, not even a hard drive full of music files. They don't seem to think they are missing out on much and they're probably right.
Yes but I think you misunderstood the point I was making. What I meant was that you'll hear an all-analogue recording more 'accurately' (as in retain the desirable traits of the analogue sound) better if it's replayed on an analogue source.
No I didn't. All a recording is is a variation of voltage over time. It's a waveform, frequency vs amplitude. There's no 'digitisation process' you are just transferring that waveform from one format to another with no loss. So with an analogue recording the closest you will get to playing the master tape of that is to play a digital copy of it as that will be an exact copy. The vinyl version is not an exact copy. This may be largely academic for practical purposes but it's still a fact. And unless your LP of the analogue recording was pressed before 1980 odds are that the signal was already 'digitised' when the record was cut.
I could sneak into your house and stick an AD-DA conversion in after your phono stage and you'd never notice. I could probably put a few in. That's how transparent it is. The whole 'analogue purity' thing is just a myth.
Pigmy Pony
20-09-2020, 15:44
Haha - and may I also say how well you hide any notion that you're perfect, and so leave it in no doubt that you're not!:D
Ya knows I lurves ya, though...:eyebrows:
Marco.
Please, no public displays of affection, I thought we'd agreed on that after that y'know, incident...
Seriously, it's a lonely business, having a brain the size of a planet, and playing dumb just so other folk don't feel intimidated is bloody hard work. I think perhaps I overdo it sometimes though :(
We're in agreement then apart from this bit:
[No I didn't. All a recording is is a variation of voltage over time. It's a waveform, frequency vs amplitude. There's no 'digitisation process' you are just transferring that waveform from one format to another with no loss. So with an analogue recording the closest you will get to playing the master tape of that is to play a digital copy of it as that will be an exact copy. The vinyl version is not an exact copy. This may be largely academic for practical purposes but it's still a fact. And unless your LP of the analogue recording was pressed before 1980 odds are that the signal was already 'digitised' when the record was cut.
Sorry, I get where you're coming from, but that's not what my ears tell me.
How come then, as I stated, back in the day when CDs were marked as either 'AAD', 'ADD' or 'DDD', to denote which part of the recording process took place in the analogue or digital domain, 'AAD' discs always sounded markedly different to their 'DDD' counterparts, and (for me) always in the same way regardless of the type of music or how it had been recorded: with the latter sounding tonally brighter, thinner and lacking in the important desirable traits I associate with analogue sound.
In essence therefore, the intrinsic sonic signatures of analogue and digital respectively, ALWAYS shone through regardless, and therefore accordingly altered the sound of the recording.
Have you never done that comparison yourself, back when CDs were marked that way, and heard the difference? If so, and you didn't, then we'll simply have to agree to disagree, because I believe that there's more going on than you think, or that to date has been measured in that area.
I've still got 'AAD' marked CDs from the 80s and 90s, and trust me, they have a sound all of their own, and which is markedly different to commercial CDs produced today, which are 'DDD' by default.
I could sneak into your house and stick an AD-DA conversion in after your phono stage and you'd never notice. I could probably put a few in. That's how transparent it is. The whole 'analogue purity' thing is just a myth.
In your opinion maybe, not mine. What you suggest may work initially, as I'd have no reason to suspect that anything was wrong, but much like many things/changes [say cables or whatever] I've assessed in my system in the past, over a period of time, your ears eventually tell you when something is wrong/doesn't sound right, and it usually corresponds with a disinterest in listening to music...
That's when I'd investigate and discover what had happened! And given how hypersensitive I am to the subtlest of perceived sonic degradation in my system, I suspect it wouldn't take long before that investigative process began!;)
Marco.
So what have you done with the Sex Pistol records? Put them in boiling water and re-fashioned them into flower pots?
Oh, and btw in terms of this:
Just been unlucky with some second-hand equipment going faulty, that's all. I've never chucked large amounts of money at hi-fi like you have. My thing is all about achieving a top sound for the least amount of expenditure. And I managed that once, and that entire system only cost me £1500. So I'll get there again. :)
No worries, and that's cool. But I'm sure you'd also agree that there are loads of folk who've spent FAR more money than I have on countless different systems over the years, but haven't really got anywhere and are largely still dissatisfied, yet continue on a never-ending box-swapping journey, which unless they're very lucky indeed, will be fruitless and end in disappointment.
I've watched in happen on forums for years... It's one of the reasons why the classifieds sections are the most popular!!:D
Why? Because people like that may know what they want (are striving for), but unfortunately have no real clue exactly HOW to achieve it, so they end up going round and round in circles, on a continual spending spree. They never learn their lessons and simply keep making the same mistakes. That's not me.
Generally I do something once and get it right, simply because I research things properly, and most importantly have total faith in my senses and gut instincts (no matter what 'the science' says) - and rarely do they let me down!;)
Marco.
We're in agreement then apart from this bit:
Sorry, I get where you're coming from, but that's not what my ears tell me.
How come then, as I stated, back in the day when CDs were marked as either 'AAD', 'ADD' or 'DDD', to denote which part of the recording process took place in the analogue or digital domain, 'AAD' discs always sounded markedly different to their 'DDD' counterparts, and (for me) always in the same way regardless of the type of music or how it had been recorded: with the latter sounding tonally brighter, thinner and lacking in the important desirable traits I associate with analogue sound.
In essence therefore, the intrinsic sonic signatures of analogue and digital respectively, ALWAYS shone through regardless, and therefore accordingly altered the sound of the recording.
Have you never done that comparison yourself, back when CDs were marked that way, and heard the difference? If so, and you didn't, then we'll simply have to agree to disagree, because I believe that there's more going on than you think, or that to date has been measured in that area.
I've still got 'AAD' marked CDs from the 80s and 90s, and trust me, they have a sound all of their own, and which is markedly different to commercial CDs produced today, which are 'DDD' by default.
In your opinion maybe, not mine. What you suggest may work initially, as I'd have no reason to suspect that anything was wrong, but much like many things/changes [say cables or whatever] I've assessed in my system in the past, over a period of time, your ears eventually tell you when something is wrong/doesn't sound right, and it usually corresponds with a disinterest in listening to music...
That's when I'd investigate and discover what had happened! And given how hypersensitive I am to the subtlest of perceived sonic degradation in my system, I suspect it wouldn't take long before that investigative process began!;)
Marco.
AAD will sound different to DDD because one is recorded on tape and the other on a computer. Although the one that is recorded on computer may have tracks that were recorded on analogue.
The reason almost everything is DDD these days is because recording and mastering in analogue is rare.
I've got plenty of the old AAD CDs from the 1980s, I disagree that they have some sort of intrinsic 'signature' beyond the original recording - there's no reason why they should. One difference to a lot of modern recordings and re-masterings is that the dynamic range will likely be noticeably higher. So they might sound a little thin if not played at sufficient SPL.
I agree that you might hear the AD-DA loop in your system if there was some degradation as a result. My point was that there wouldn't be any degradation for you to hear. Not just my opinion, it's been tested more than once.
I've got plenty of the old AAD CDs from the 1980s, I disagree that they have some sort of intrinsic 'signature' beyond the original recording - there's no reason why they should.
Well, on that we'll simply have to agree to disagree. I've already outlined a reason why they *could*, and I don't believe it's impossible.
I agree that you might hear the AD-DA loop in your system if there was some degradation as a result. My point was that there wouldn't be any degradation for you to hear. Not just my opinion, it's been tested more than once.
But that doesn't make it universally a fact, simply a fact in the circumstances in which it was tested. Based on my experience and intimate knowledge of how my system sounds, plus hearing acuity, I'd be confident that I'd identify some degradation, even if it wasn't instantly.
Marco.
Mikeandvan
20-09-2020, 18:59
So what about the records?:lol: Think the Sex pistols is a french issue and not worth much, 1st UK edition had plain black cover according to discogs.
So what about the records?:lol: Think the Sex pistols is a french issue and not worth much, 1st UK edition had plain black cover according to discogs.
Well I've cleaned them and he's had them back. Think he's hoping to get about £350 for the four of them. No idea if he will. He's generally overly-optimistic about these things and I've not checked the prices myself.
Mikeandvan
20-09-2020, 20:30
Well I've cleaned them and he's had them back. Think he's hoping to get about £350 for the four of them. No idea if he will. He's generally overly-optimistic about these things and I've not checked the prices myself.
Not sure about the other issue of Anarchy with the lightning on the back cover, as ever condition is everything, best sell on Ebay.
Question: is a 'French letter' more valuable than a French pressing?
Marco.
Pigmy Pony
21-09-2020, 18:40
I believe "God Save the Queen" can be worth silly money, and I have a copy. Unfortunately the wrong one, worth a fiver :(
I find it somewhat ironic that 'punk' singles are now fetching "silly money". :rolleyes:
I find it somewhat ironic that 'punk' singles are now fetching "silly money". :rolleyes:
Ever get the feeling you've been cheated? :D
Ever get the feeling you've been cheated? :D
No, I never owned any. It just that the idea of collectors paying "silly money" for supposedly rare 7" singles is somewhat divergent from what the punk movement was all about. Their ethos was nihilistic, anti-establishment and their output ephemeral. They would laugh at people using expensive audio gear - to them the family radiogram was perfectly good enough.
Pigmy Pony
22-09-2020, 06:39
No, I never owned any. It just that the idea of collectors paying "silly money" for supposedly rare 7" singles is somewhat divergent from what the punk movement was all about. Their ethos was nihilistic, anti-establishment and their output ephemeral. They would laugh at people using expensive audio gear - to them the family radiogram was perfectly good enough.
Methinks Macca's comment went right over your head :D (Ok Martin I got it) though I agree there is an irony to it. All I can think is that there are people out there with money to burn, who used to be punks themselves. And the punk "movement" was a relatively short and well defined period in music history. With a strong image. Also the records may have become rare (not too many made, and those that were quickly became landfill).
Not sure what happened with "God Save The Queen though, as it did pretty well back in 1977, may even have made number one, I really can't remember. I think it's just the original A&M pressing, maybe that has become rare. One sold on Ebay for eleven grand a few years ago.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.