Thanks much for the barrage of logical fallacies. Good job! 🤗 Streaming by most accounts is inferior in sound quality to plain old vanilla CD. But I’m sure you like the convenience, right? Which would make your streaming argument just another strawman argument. 😬 Also, I am not really interested in PROOF of anything, only EVIDENCE. It’s a subjective hobby. Get over it. You sound like Juror #3 in 12 Angry Men, You can’t prove it! 😡
How much do you need to spend to get digital to rival analog?
I have heard some very high end digital front ends and although they do sound very good, I never get the satisfaction that I do when i listen to analog regardless if its a"coloration" or whatever. I will listen to high end digital, and then I soon get bored, as if it just does not have the magic That I experience with a well set up analog system. So how much do I need to spend to say, " get a sound that at least equals or betters a 3K Turntable?
Showing 11 responses by geoffkait
Looking back, even BEFORE the Loudness Wars started, vinyl generally has higher dynamic range than its CD brethren. No bout a doubt it. You only need to look 👀 at the Dynamic Range Database to appreciate that. The other big advantage of vinyl, at least potentially, is frequency extension. I’d opine it’s extremely difficult to excavate the intricate data that is contained on CDs for a variety of reasons I’ve covered before many times. It’s a shadow of itself, or what it should be. For CDs, without a whole lot of effort, Air, Sweetness and fullness of bass are usually sub par. Even then..... |
I’ve said this before, gentle readers, but I’ll say it again. By the time the signal gets out of the transport and goes to the DAC it’s TOO LATE. The damage has already been done! And it can never recover. Sadly, the Reed Solomon Error Correction Codes are NOT TOO GOOD for scattered CD laser light 💡 interference, seismic vibration interference, vibration produced by the CD transport and the self-inflicted vibration and flutter of the CD itself whilst spinning. 💿 |
On cassettes that are “digitally remastered” it seems that many of the sonic ills present on the CD are gone. Why is that? The cassette version is more lush, is more open sounding, more natural sounding, has more air, greater resolution and greater dynamic range. Why? It’s because the CD is more compressed and because of the limitations of CD playback I’ve been describing lo these past many months. You want some examples? OK, Kind of Blue, Country Joe and the Fish on Vanguard and AC/DC’s If You Want Blood You’ve Got It. Check it out! |
I wiz listening to some NOS early Beatles cassettes - the ones you never see anymore, blue with no barcode - yesterday on my SONY Professional portable cassette player. You simply cannot hear dynamic range like that on any Beatles CD - especially the recent spate of reissues that came out on the last few years. It’s great to hear the opening Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band the way it’s SUPPOSED to sound. Same for the White Album on early cassette. |
It was almost 18 years ago that Michael Fremer, you know, of Stereophile Magazine’s Analog Corner fame, declared that of the top five best sounding systems at the Big Show in Vegas that that year, four were digital. Hel-loo! Only one vinyl rig, the Walker/ Kharma room, made the top five. I’m not hot doggin ya! 🌭 |
tzh21y OP I am not an anti digital guy. The truth is that I have never heard any digital that involves me with the music. Everytime I hear a good digital system, I am at first impressed, but after a half hour or so, I want to listen to records >>>>Bingo! With two simple inexpensive tricks almost any CD player can beat the most expensive analog rig. Scout’s honor! ✌️ |