Dear Solman989: ++++++ " that I heard what vinyl was really about: it was the smoothest, most organic, and 3d sound that ever came out of my speakers. I had never heard anything quite like it. All of the digital I had, no matter how high the resolution, did not really come close to approaching that type of sound. " +++++
I agree, the digital can't approach that type of sound. IMHO : Why can't approach it?, because analog/LP is totally faulty.
The analog signal is heavily manipulated, let see it:
when recorded and to be cutted ( LP. ) the signal must be equalized according to the RIAA standard and this means and equalization that goes from 20hz to 20khz +,- 20dbs!!!!!!!this deemphasis means added distortions, phase chnages, non-linear anomalies, added noise, additional stages where the signal have to pass through.
Then the signal is trasfered to vinyl with all imperfections where does not exist a perfect cutting system, here there is several kind of signal loses: certainly what is in the recording was not what was recorded before all that proccess.
When we want to hear the LP in our audio system that analog signal must be recovery through the phono stage for we can attain a flat frequency response ( just like exist ( with out RIAA eq. ) in a digital medium. ) so inside the phono stage that signal pass again for an additional RIAA eq. ( this time an inverse eq. ) with all the heavy degradation: distortions, phase problems, added noise, colorations, etc, etc, etc.
Inside that phono stage the very low output signal must be amplified ( sometimes 10K times!!! ) to a level where the preamp can handle it as it handle in "; natural"; way the digital signal that has a lot higher output level. Through the high gain proccess the signal pass through 3-5 additional stages that continue degrading the signal continue adding more distortions ( of every kind ), nothing of this happen with the digital medium. That very low output signal characteristic makes that the signal be extremely sensitive to be degraded by everykind of " pollulation " ( electrical/magnetic. ) where the higher digital output signal is a lot less suceptible of that kind of degradations.
All those is what happen to an electronics level now we have to add the worst of all the signal manipulation:
a cartridge to " read " the recorded information, a cartridge is a rudimentary " instrument " for say the least. Cartridge designers make some kind of " magic "/tremendous efforts for the cartridge can makes its critical/titanic job.
A cartridge is an " unstable " tool, everything affect its performance: kind of cantilever and cantilever build material, stylus shape and with which kind of quality was builded, room temperature, kind and quality of cartridge suspension, cartridge motor design, cartridge body resonances, cartridge ridiculous pin connectors, etc, etc, each part of the cartridge degraded the original signal with out exception.
After that the cartridge must be mounted in a tonearm for it can ride the LP and one of the first challenges that the signal has to deal with are the " stupid " tonearm wire connectors to the cartridge and then the in ternal tonearm wire and the the additional IC between the tonearm and the phono stage. In all those links the signal continue degrading, this does not happen in the digital alternative: so no signal degradation.
But the worst for the " end " ( sometimes I think the analog medium is: endless of problems. ):
now the stylus tip hit the LP grooves and at microscopic level that stylus tip start a heavy fight against the grooves/its compliance and tracking habilities to stay in the grooves to be in touch always and this happen almost never ( especialy with low compliance cartridges as the LOMC ones. ). The stylus tip is " jumping " generating distortions and harmonic distortions. All this " fight " is transmited through the cartridge body to the tonearm which start to resonate ( adding distorions, non.linear anomalies, atc, atc. ) according those cartridge self resonances and according the cartridge compliance/tonearm effective mass.
But all the information captured by the cartrdige has not only a doses of tracking distortions becuase non-perfect cartridge tracking habilities but distortions because the stylus tip never coincide with the grooves never coincide on how the grooves were cutted!!!!! not even in a linear tracking tonearms.
Why is that? for several reasons: the LPs comes all with waves that preclude a perfect alignement trhough all the LP tracks. There is no perfect tonearm/cartridge set up it doesw not matters which geometry alignment we choose: Baerwald, Lofgren, Stevenson, etc, etc, in all them there is tracking errors for a pivoted tonearm and that tracking errors means added distortions in the signal path. Btw and talking of set up there is no perfect cartridge set up_ VTA/SRA/azymuth, overhang/etc, load impedance, load capacitance, etc, etc. All these parameters all the playback time are changing because all the LP imperfections including different LP weights, excentricity LP " center " hole.
Don't forget the TT speed unaccuracies, speed unstability, rumble, wow&fluter, platter resonances, TT bearing ones, tonearm/TT mount board feedback and of course system SPL feedback that affect every analog rig.
I can go on and on and on with all the " thousands " degradation links where the analog signal must pass but as an example I think is enough.
Gentlemans, IMHO it is a " miracle " that we all after all those kind of degradations we still can enjoy the analog sounds!
+++++ " it was the smoothest, most organic, and 3d sound that ever came out of my speakers... " +++++
these and other adjectives that we audiophiles used to use when refereing to LP quality performance experiences does not comes in the recording in the original recording , those " characteristics " are a result of the heavy degradation that suffer the analog signal, degradation that does not exist in the digital alternative so that's why both mediums sounds different. Of course that digital has its own trade-offs, well I prefer it: is truer to the recording.
That we like it the analog alternative does not confirms and does not means in any sense that is right, IMHO is wrong almost dead wrong.
I prefer digital HR for music sound reproduction at home because I 'm nearest to the original sound that passed through the recording microphones with lower " artefacts " than in the analog domain.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Dover: No, I don't listen only bass. Fortunately my system bass is IMHO first rate and realy permit to enjoy the whole music frequency range in a way that maybe you can't even dream.
Yes, it is a complete " fluke ", a stunning fluke/surprise. I respect your opinion but IMHO you can't have an opinion till you can hear it. A " nice and different " experience I can say.
Anyway, other than distortions level what makes a system difference are not only our each one priorities but our each knowledge level and skills to achieve with success our each one targets.
Because your posts here and elsewhere I'm sure that your ignorance level is different from mine, your place in the audio learning curve is not the same that mine.
regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Lowrider57: I'm a music lover and I still enjoy my analog set up but I'm not talking of what we like or dislike but more what is " right " against what is " wrong ".
IMHO we can't cover up the sun one " one finger ", we have to understand what happen in each one of our analog rigs during playback and IMHO what happen there is that those " " hundreds " links where the signal must pass degrade distort colored the cartridge signal where in de digital medium does not happen in that huge way.
The analog LP medium IMHO is not only imperfect ( nothing is perfect not even digital. ) but extremely faulty during playback.
Anyway, like all of you I'm still enjoy it.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Atmasphere: +++++ " I would invite you to spend some time with a mastering lathe sometime. It may change your opinion. " ++++
thank's, I will take this seriously and next time I can be on USA I let you know. I know that could be a learning experience additional to meet you.
+++++ " There are those that say its a miracle that the LP system works, but its not a miracle, its simple engineering and an understanding of the nuances. " +++++
I know the enginnering that is inside the playback links on analog ( LP ) systems and what I posted was mainly what happen during LP playback where I can't read in your post nothing against my post.
Ralph, there is no way for no cartridge for no LP analog system that can " read/track " exactly all the grooves in the recording with no exception.
Forget all the " problems " during LP playback I posted and think for a moment how you or any one could gives " support " or speak of " superiority " to the LP playback when in this medium we can't even READ WITH ACCURACY WITH PRECISION ANY SINGLE GROOVE IN ANY LP!!!!!!!!!!
The LP playback medium IMHO is heavely faulty it does not matters that we like it or not. IMHO we can't " shout " the " superiority " of the analog over digital and in specific 24/176.8 recordings.
Ralph and any one of you: please test for two-three weeks the digital medium with out listening analog LP in between and then after those weeks return to analog and share your experiences about.
Gentlemans, I still enjoy the LP alternative as all of you but this is not the subject but what is happening down there.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Atmasphere: +++++ " have you experienced a change of heart? " +++++
no, I did not but I'm not talking on that subject but to understand why:
+++++ we can't even READ WITH ACCURACY WITH PRECISION ANY SINGLE GROOVE IN ANY LP +++++
IMHO it's not a generalization. In a pivoted tonearm through all the LP tracks/grooves exist a tracking error but at two points and at this points does not exist that error at these two points the stylus tip in a pivoted tonearm is tangential to the groove and can " mimic " but this is only in theory because at those single points you can read that groove " if and only if " the VTA/SRA/overhang is perfect and the LP is absolutely flat with out no tiny waves, additional the stylus shape must me a exactly " copy " of the cutting head!
So now, please let me know in which recordings with which analog rig kind of set up we can read those only two points/grooves where does not exist the tracking error.
That I like the LP alternative and that I supported and support it can't means that I understand too that's a non-accurate medium and that's why persons like you work to hard trying to lower trying to help to those medium self imperfections. Do you think that if I don't like it the LP alternative I took my time with my PhonoLinepream or the tonearm design?
As you I try always to lower the analog medium distortion floor, this is the best we can do or " invent " a better medium.
You know I respect you because of your care and effort in your electronic designs in favor of the analog medium where you already have high success even that you choosed tube technology that in some ways does not fulfil my " priorities " and where you " elevated " what in some ways ( too ) are probably that technology limits.
The enemy against we have to " fight " in audio has a name: DISTOrTIONS/ACCURACY, every kind.
All what surrounded my main audio system targets is to lower the system's distortions all over each one auudio links in the audio chain and each time I achieve " some where " lower distortions/accuracy the rewards are immediate and worth all the effort.
As a medium for designers the analog medium is exciting because there is a lot of " land " to work about ( distotions/accuracy ) to improve the quality performance level.
I don't know which are the tube electronics limits but I know that on SS technology there are many " books " to write as in cartridges, tonearms and TTs.
Digital is diferent and more " perfect " and today in continuos development and grow up as technology. We " mere mortals " can do or can change nothing on digital technology it self where we can do " somethings " is on the analog design on digital audio items that's IMHO its Aqila's heel.
I'm with both mediums and as some of you I enjoy both. I agree that both have advantages and disadvantages and in strict point of view I prefer the HR digital trade offs.
I don't know for other people but for me the music foundation belongs to the bass low bass and here the LP alternative can't even dream what the digital can do even the redbook is better than the LP compared to live music at 3-4 meters from the source.
Both mediums can't performs the same/alike because are diferent with diferent distortion/accuracy levels.
My " excercise " in this thread is try to understand the LP playback " problems " that surround it and try to say that that hypotetic analog/LP superiority is only that: hypotetic but not real. Digital has its own merits and we have to recognize even if we don't like the digital medium.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Atmasphere: About that bass subject I made it a lot of test and compared those tests against live music in real venue " sitting/staying " at 3-4 meters from the source.
Main difference between digital and LP seems to me that reside in the time decay of the bass notes/harmonics where IMHO excist some kind of " overhang " in the LP performance where the digital it is not only more profound but sharper/solid/fast, less " obtrusive " and more natural/real with better definition.
Way before I understand the overall bass subject and before may subwoofers came to my system its performance in that frquency range was very good and I like it ( my speakers can go down to 16hz almost flat. ), I like the " organic signature " that came from my system: the floor and glass in the windows shaked and I was " proudly " about till I learned that that " shaked " was charged with a lot a lot of distortions that were what in reality shaked my room ( when deep bass in the LP playback. ).
Then my task was and is to lower those bass distortions and when subs came to my system I really knew that that " shaked " was heavy charged of distortions. Of course through the years I made several things to lower whole system distortions but when you lower the bass ones the quality level performance in any audio system improves a lot by a wide margin.
Today and with SPLs around 105dbs my room does not shake but I can feel the deepest bass on the recording when that recording ask for. The differences when we achieve the right bass range are just stunning and IMHO the LP can't compete against digital, not a wide margin but IMHO digital has an advantage down there.
As you and I already posted both formats have its own trade-offs. I like it both.
For me the bass range is perhaps the most critical to attain SOTA performance in any audio system. IMHO as goos a system bass quality performance as good the system overall performance.
Everything is important through the music frequency range but bass along the other frequency extreme put the frame/setting where the whole music will shine.
My experiences through many years and many tests brought me to that opinion.
++++ " Now understand that I listen to a lot of lathe cuts- it is from that perspective that I write this. " ++++
Course I understand it and that's why our opinion's differences. As I told you I would like to have those experiences.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Lacee: +++++ " If vinyl replay has more distortions, then they are of the pleasing variety... " ++++
I have no doubt about and agree with you because that's what happen.
IMHO the main problem is that many of us are totally accustomed to those wrong but " pleasing " distortions in the same way many of you are biased and accustomed to tube electronics.
Nothing wrong with that but my point and main subject is that on playback the digital alternative is truer to the recording with a lot less distortions ( every kind. ). That we like it or not is a different matter.
This was posted for other person in other thread:
+++ " that we do have a long term acoustic memory of a sort - as well as a bias - sometimes so much so that it makes an unbiased hearing of something different very difficult, " ++++
In the same way that exist people that only listen to digital as there are people that only hear LPs and obviously like you an me whom hear both alternatives.
If you make an invitation to a " digital person " to listen LPs he still will prefer digital in the same way the other side around but if we take out our bias and only compare what we listen through both alternatives ( both with a set up that fulfill each one alternative needs. ) with what are our live event experiences ( better if those experiences were near field. ) we will know for sure which is really more near that live event experiences/performances and that IMHO is digital.
Lacee, I'm not against LPs experience/alternative it's only that I like to analize what happen down there through playback and all those added distortions during playback does not makes it a better alternative than digital.
I posted twice that both alternatives have its own trade-offs, there is nothing perfect.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Lacee: +++++ " I feel is the problem with digital, is that it sanitizes too much of the natural distortions that are a part of everyday life,which includes the instruments themselves ,the room, the recording chain etc. " +++++
+++++ " When you start to eliminate these natural occuring distortions at the time of the recording ... " ++++
Sanitize????, well IMHO you are only speculating. Where do you learn/read/inform about? why sanitize those " natural distortions "? it does on purpose?
at the recording stage the microphone say at 1m. from the sound source takes the sound/music generated at high SPL mainly direct sound with all its distortions if any and for a digital is to easy to conform ceros and ones (0,1. ) all those information that is more complicated for analog because of the magnetic print out that's not perfect, the analog signal is a lot more complicated that the ceros and ones. IMHO there is no single sound that can escape to the microphone that can escape to the digital recording.
All those " natural distortions " that you and your friend like on analog playback does not existed during recording almost all were generated during playback. Lp playback is a " misery " and has not " natural distortions ".
Analog LP is a non-accuarte medium and you, me and no one else can do nothing about but only try to lower system distortions during playback at home.
Natural accuracy is perhaps the " name of the game " and digital is accurate. It is obvious that we don't like accuracy and that's why we like analog LP, tubes, fancy cables, BD TTs, and the like.Btw, I prefer the Esoteric K series to the Scarlatti, way better.
Anyway, I think I will follow enjoying both alternatives. Why not????
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear lacee: I love analog but I realy like digital too.
Now, one " thing " is the redbook where its limitation reside on those limited 16bits but a HR digital as DVDA has 24bits: this is not over or up sampling but REAL bits/music in the same way than analog, I repeat not over or up sampling. First than all we have to understand what means DVDA native non-limits.
In the other side the K series by Esoteric came with 32bits DACs and this is something to hear!!!
My point is still the same: to understand what happen down there during playback in either alternative and IMHO to say that analog LP are a superior medium is ( again ) IMHO an absolute misunderstood on the whole playback subject in a home audio system.
IMHO your posts, that I respect, are " wrong " right from start because what you are " speculating " is not what realy happen during LP playback or : Do you think that during LP playback what is in the recording is what you are listening in your system with out those severe and several degradation stages where the analog signal muist pass?
I can't to go on talking on the same if we can't understand what is really happening how the signal is heavely " touched " my the analog rig.
What you hear are all those LP playback distortions and not what is in the recording. Those playback added distortions never existed in the recording process. All what you are saying happen because those non-existen distortions I repeat: NON EXISTEN DISTORTIONS COLORATIONS DURIN THE RECORDING AND CERTAINLY NEVER IN A LIVE EVENT°!!!!!!!!
Got it?
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Lacee: ++++ " I don't hear the distortions you refer to in my vinyl rig nor in my friends vinyl rig.
I am not aware of added distortions that interfere with the music, or that add harmonious colourations pleasing to my ears and the ears of others who have listened to my system or his.
" +++++
well if you and your friends can't hear all those added distortions developed through more than 20 playback different stages that contribute to the signal degradation then is useless to continue about because IMHO and with all respect or all of you are " deaf " or simple: you can't understand what happen in each of those different 20 stages in the anlog rig during playback .
+++++ " I have heard a lot of noisy distortions on lesser vinyl gear, perhaps this is what you are more familiar with. " ++++
could be. Btw, I'm " familiar " with each link in your analog rig ( including the Steelhead. ).
+++++ " Somehow the well recorded lp's played thru good vinyl systems despite all the distortions you attribute to them " +++++
I don't attribute nothing those are facts I'm not speculating or invented nothing: facts, only that.
+++++ " Why are the best digital systems always touted as "analog like"? " +++++
by ignorance.
+++++ " Distortions are everywhere,except perhaps in your perfect digital world. " +++++
I never say that, so don't put " words in my mouth ". I was very specific: both alternatives have its own TRADE-OFFS !!!
Lacee, for my part I think is enough and as I posted twice: I will go to enjoy both alternayives. Bye!
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Lacee: IMHO you simple lost my/the point. We are talking of different " things ".
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Atmasphere: You are talking of recording process and I'm talking of LP pkayback process: two different subjects.
I have not experience on the recording process, I'm ignorant down there and I have no reason to have doubts on what are your experiences in the same way I have no doubts on what Mapman posted in the same subject and where his experiences are not exactly as yours.
I can continue this dialogue with you or any other member if we can concentrate in the LP. playback process. Till today no one post nothing against what I posted in that specific subject. I can be wrong on what I posted and as always I'm willing to learn willing to low my ignorance level.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Atmasphere: Got it and yes I own some test pressing samples that normally is not what any customer get.
Truer to the recording, this is my point. Which alternative is truer to the recording: digital or LP analog?
what mean I?:
an even comparison IMHO must be do it on the natural field of each alternative, this is ( for example. ). playback a DVDA against not an analog master tape but against the digital master tape and then the LP playback against the analog master tape. Don't you think?, apples against apples.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Atmasphere: +++++ " Raul was suggesting that the sound of the LP is distorted compared to an analog tape and that is not the case.... " +++++
IMHO this statement coming from you makes no sense to me, maybe I'm wrong.
So are you saying that what is in this link of what I posted is free of distortions?:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1340176293&openflup&45&4#45
and that is only part of the whole " distortions " created through the LP playback process, artifacts as you said it.
I think that subjectivity is not always enough to make judgements, I think you are a person technical oriented and through this thread dialogue I can read almost only your subjectivity in the subject.
IMHO you have all the skills and tools to make a great favor to the audio community if you take " the bull by its horns " making an objective analysis through measures of those LP playback generated distortions starting when the RIAA is generated in the recording process and compare it against that master tape before the RIAA eq. and in the other side makind the same at digital level not only with a CD but more specific with a DVDA ( 24/192 ). In both cases using the best hardaware and in both cases fulfilling each alternative needs.
What we hear on both mediums is not my point/subject but what in reality is appening " down there ".
I like both mediums but that's is not the point.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Chadeffect: +++++ " But the software used to master and record with is much more sophisticated, clever and transparent now. " +++++
between other things software on digital medium is a tremendous " advantage or disadvantage " ( depend how it's used. ). Digital is a computer like and today exist a lot of software/plug-inns for the digital producers can choose what ever they want be the kind of performance of any recording, they can inclusive make that a digital source sounds exactly as a LP and many producers made it.
That kind of manipulation but in different way can do it on the analog side too and that's what recording enggeners did and do it.
As you and as I posted in this thread both alternatives: digital and analog, have its own trade-offs.
My point is which one in its own medium is truer to the recording more accurate and not which one likes me more. I like both.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear all: I forgot. Main advantage on those recording manipulations is that in the digital alternative everything happen in the digital dominium: ceros and ones, that permits that the audio signal stay " untouchable " with out phase shifts, distortions, noise and the like that in the analog alternative are added through those recording manipulations.
With out touch the recording signal IMHO in the digital dominium/alternative there is almost nothing you can't do it leaving the recording signal " untouchable ".
Today exist designs ( Phono stages. ) for LP playback that everything " happen " in the digital dominium including the RIAA eq. where this RIAA eq. has no single frequency deviation and distortions as happen in all analog alternatives.
IMHO we can't close our eyes against the digital technology and its several advantages inclusive to help analog.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Mapman: I can't see how we can apply Synthesis to create something new when IMHO the analog alternative ( as I posted in my very first post ) is wrong and full of " anomalies ".
As I posted too, all that software/plug-inns that exist and that is used in the digital recording process has no sense to me: why " copy " something that's wrong by " definition " ?, yes the only reason is because people ask for it, we are hooked by the analog even that's absolutely non-accurate and non-neutral.
Many of us even thing and support that the R2R ( master tapes. ) are de " eden " of the analog and this IMHO is non true and only a myth created not only because our ignorance but for commercial reasons: AHEE corruption !.
IMHO any single open reel machine ( and I say any. ) has several failures. Yes, it is the best analog source but imperfect too, especially against digital one:
some normal specs on digital recording systems gives us numbers like these:
- flat frequency response from DC!!!, -THD lower than 0.004%, - signal to noise 93db RMS unweighted, - dynamic range 93db RMS unweighted, - wow and flutter: unmeasurable!! and I can go on and on.
No one R2R not only can even that can't even dream about.
And exist other analog problems: "" digitization of the audio signal ( ceros and ones. ) virtually eliminates the traditional analog recording problems, such as: background noise, tape hiss, distortion,wow and flutter, limited dynamic range and generation loss.
Since numbers rhater than analog representations are stored in the tape, digital recordings are immune from effects such as printtrhough, tape noise, etc. Audio reconstructed from the numbers are virtually identical to the original. Furthermore, copies of digital recordings are absolutely indistinuishable from the original recording since a copy is an identical set of numbers. """"
And remember that the R2R generate odds harmonics.
IMHO analog is a faulty medium where till today I can't understand ( bevcause my ignorance level. ) where exist any single advantage over digital, I can't understand for sure why I like it other that because I'm accustom to heard/hear it.
A 24/192 digital source as a DVDA is almost perfect and remember that today we have players that use 32bits DACs and recording machines at 32/64 with over 350khz sampling.
IMHO today non-exist a battle between analog vs digital as years ago, today that battle gone because IMHO there is no contest by the analog medium even R2R.
Any one can test almost all what I affirm in this post:
take a direct to dic LP recording like the Shefield Labs: Dave Grusin-- Diyscovered Again.
When this LP was sold out Shefield prssed a " new " LP that came from the analog tape recorded during the direct to disc session.
You don't have to believe in nothing I posted:
hear both LPs and you will know immediatly which one came from the analog tape which one came from the direct disc recording. The differences are not subtle but substantials.
In other direct to disc recordings by M&K happéned the same and you be aware of similar experiences.
The best analog tape (R2R ) IMHO: IS NO ANALOG TAPE, not only as a recording tool but as a playback source.
Can I be wrong?, vertainly but I need and I woul like to learn from some of you why I'm wrong.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
certainly. The Shefield LP title is: Discovered Again.. Sorry for the typos.
R. |
Dear Chadeffect: Agree with you. Now, live music has that character and transparency with a natural accuracy.
IMHO that character you are talking about is an intrinsic music characteristic : or what is in the recording came just from the start with that " character " or not and in this case the added distortions generated through the recording and playback process has nothing to do/see with that music original " character ". Those added distortions ( mainly on analog. ) are signal modifications signal degradations.
The whole subject could be why a heavely faulty analog alternative likes all of us so much? and my " point " here is only that we can understand not only what is happening down " there " but why I affirm analog is a heavely faulty alternative.
Today digital is with out single doubt truer to the recording than analog. I'm with both alternatives but this is not the subject.
The subject is that many of us claim the superiority of the analog alternative and IMHO and trhough all what I posted that affirmation is absolutely untrue, that we like it does not means is a superior medium because I repeat: it is not and we have to know why it is not.
Today several audiophiles are " crazy " about R2R and these persons that in the past owned several TT and cartridges now have several R2R machines because they think is the " eden/panacea " and it is not: it is a way faulty medium with lower quality performance level that the digital alternative. As I posted, any one of us with that Shefield direct to disc recording ( Dave Grusin ) and the sample recording that came from the analog master tape can " live " on playback the huge differences huge differences because the LP that came from the R2R tape has distortions generated on the analog tape that the DTD LP has not because the signal does not passed trhough any single analog tape during the recording process, this is a fact not something that what we like.
Here is the same: why we like a faulty medium over a truer/accurate medium as digital?
Yes, we like all the analog make-up and nothing wrong with that. Insist why? other that because we are accustomed to. Are we all wrong?, could be.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Chadeffect: Thinking on " loud voice " there is something that maybe has more influence in why people do not like digital when they love analog, let me explain:
years ago when CD started the CDP were really " bad " and in our each one audio system we can easily aware of all the drawbacks of that digital technology. Those early and " primitive " DACs were part of the problem ( not the digital technology ".
The resolution of our systems were high and the CDs can't hide no one of its problems.
What happened through the years: digital technology ( DACs ) started to improve year after year, even today is almost month after month,. Today we have DACs on CDP with an incredible 32 bits on resolution with very high sampling too.
What's my take down here: that many of our audio systems has lower resolution against the today top digital technology and to really appreciate what today ( and in the future. ) digital can shows us we need better audio electronic designs wirth better : dynamic range, lower a lot lower distortions of every kind, wide flat frequency response, lower noise floor, lower crosstalk, faster response, etc , etc. All these could means that today the problem is not the digital technology but our each one system that was supersede by the digital technology.
We ( almost all ) live in an anachronism when we are using tube electronics ( IMHO an " arcaic " technology with no single advantage for digital. Please this is only an example and I don't want to open a window here, my words are with all respect to tube lovers and tube designers. ) that per se is a heavy limitation for today really high resolution: tubes can't cope with the today digital specs, even SS designs must improve about because several of them can't cope/mate with the digital advances.
Gentlemans, please think on that.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Peterayer: Yes, I'm still on that tonearm design, in fact is almost finished.
As I posted I'm in love with LPs but that fact does not means that I recognize the digital superiority and that I like digital medium too.
Truer to the recording is the name of the game and in this regards digital is way way nearer than analog.
What I want to know is why when the LPs/analog is so heavely faulty I like it so much as you like it too.
I'm not married with any hardware/software: I'm married with the music!!!!.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Taudio: I'm not a digital expert/designer but fortunatelly I have the electronics that have the capacity to shows the best of LP/analog and the best of digital where I " discovery " that superiority. Btw, , one of those electronic items ( PhonoLinePreamplifier. ) is our self design/build and there are a few music lover friends that own it and that can attest about its quality performance: unique for say the least. You can read about on my virtual system.
I think, as I posted, that for really " fall in count " that digital superiority we not only have to be unbiased to any alternative other than MUSIC but to own the right resolution audio system that can have the capacity to shows the digital reality.
As I posted IMHO the today digital status supersede our systems capacity. The source is a lot better than some of our each one audio systems.
IMHO I think that designers have to improve their designs thinking on what digital has to offer and not only on the " arcaic " LPs.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Tdaudio: Please read what I posted in this thread to know which digital source I'm talking about.
About my audio system you can go to my Agon virtual system where you can find out all the answers for your questions.
About my Phonolinepreamp I can give you email of owners that can attest not what I'm saying but what they think of its quality performance level.
What I can say about: nothing that you can heard on your today system or that you experienced in your system.
In the other side: what or which is your position/opinion on that whole subject and why?
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Chadeffect: The high end audio items design job is directly related with sales.
Why some electronics are not ready to today digital technology?: because almost all those designs are for the analog technology that does not ask superior/higher hardware characteristics.
Is something like the phono stages that for many years were and are designed to cope LOMCs but not to fulfil the MM/MI alternative needs too.
Many LOMC lovers that tested the MM/MI alternative stay hoocked with the LOMCs and do not like to much the MM/MI alternative: why? because their phono stages can fulfil the MM/MI asking needs so they never had/have the opportunity to hear what the MM/MI can really shows to them. So, IMHO all their judgement and diminished opinions on the MM/MI alternative are faulty/heavely un-true.
At one side all those people have everything with the specific needs/set-up demanded by the LOMC cartridges and when in that same system tested a MM/MI cartridge the hardware is non-adecuate to fulfil the cartridge demands as load impedance/capacitance and inside electronic design for the MM/MI alternative.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Can't fulfil the MM/MI asking needs.
Sorry for the typo.
R. |
Dear Atmasphere: I did not mentiones ( inharmonic distortion. ) because I was ignorant of it.
Look, I appreciated your posts, thank's for that but in the whole subject I'm done.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Lacee: ++++ " The music is very derivitive, the playing can be great, but the recordings are so altered, how can you tell if they are any good? " ++++
agree and agree almost with your whole post, good.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Tdaudio: I posted here this:
+++++ " take a direct to dic LP recording like the Shefield Labs: Dave Grusin-- Discovery Again.
When this LP was sold out Shefield prssed a " new " LP that came from the analog tape recorded during the direct to disc session.
You don't have to believe in nothing I posted:
hear both LPs and you will know immediatly which one came from the analog tape which one came from the direct disc recording. The differences are not subtle but substantials.
In other direct to disc recordings by M&K happéned the same and you be aware of similar experiences. " +++++
I own several D2D recordings, IMHO the best ones came from Sheffiel Labs and M&K labels and you could find out somewhere through ebay and even on Agon LP ads, worth to experienced.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Tdaudio: From M&K try to find out: Flamenco Fever, Earl " Fhata " Hines, For Duke and if you can Vol. 1 and Vol. 2 of Organ works. All these recordings are outstanding.
Thank's to encourage me.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
