Jay,
Passion is the lifeblood of analog devotees. The spectrum of variation is much smaller for all levels of digital, but a much larger galaxy of variations and options is what fuels analog passion. You don't have to be a tweaker like ricevs to have fun with analog. Simply trying a few TT/arms/cartridges is plenty enough fun. At one time I had 3 turntables in my room at once--Win Labs direct drive, Win belt drive, Goldmund Studio. I transferred my arm/cartridge combo to each TT, adjusted the TT springs if needed, and listened. Another time I did this with 2 turntables concurrently--Linn Valhalla, Goldmund. Of course the volume levels were the same with the same cartridge. This way I zeroed in on the sonic character of each TT. Yes--daveyf is right about the importance of the TT. But the real personality of the whole system is mostly about the cartridge. Do your own testing with your Kronos, but also with the cheap Rega RP10, and various modestly priced cartridges to find out for yourself. Regardless of various strongly held opinions based on others' experiences, it is YOUR experience that most matters to you.
This is a fun learning process you will want to do for your own benefit, but also to properly advise clients. Right now, you have the experience to tell someone who complains about lack of bass that he shouldn't spend big bucks on wires, electronics, cable elevators, stands, daunting room treatments and construction, but he should first ditch the mini monitor speaker with its 4" midrange/bass driver and get a larger speaker. If he has the Lyra Atlas SL cartridge and says the system is too sterile and he wants romantic sound, the first thing to tell him is get a Koetsu or Miyabi cartridge, or a much cheaper Hana cartridge. A good analog diagnostician will know what different TT's do, what arms do, what cartridges do. Then you can get fancy and try different tonearm interconnects, different screws for cartridges in the headshell. Brass screws have a more mellow sound than steel screws.
You are a power guy and love to lift heavy weights and do work on cars which all require strength. How are you with delicate cartridge mounting? How quickly can you thread a needle? You need good eyes and patient fine dexterity. Top cartridge manufacturers employ tiny women with these skills. Maybe your wife is best to help you with these tasks. Maybe even your daughter.
|
I want to second a couple of Vibers suggestions. I know this is late, but on the burnout issue I couldn’t agree more. Whether its Classical, Jazz, Pop, country, world music or virtually any artistic music, diversity and just turning off the “audiophile mind” and enjoying the music will bring you right back to loving it! Ron’s roon radio is another good choice.
Regarding cartridges, at Axpona, there were at least 5 rooms using the Hana Umami Red cartridge. $4000. Every one of those rooms sounded very good or better. I have even heard it on a Kronos; absolutely stunning! So that would be my lightly informed opinion.
Also, I suggest ignoring the posters who are really not trying to be constructive or supportive. If your YouTube site or this thread isn’t their thing, they should just move on. I happen to really enjoy living your journey vicariously. Yes, sometimes I disagree but what sentient beings wouldn’t. Keep up the great and fun work!
|
IME, the Kronos and its arm are a fairly easy match up to a number of good cartridges. The combo is one of the easier tables to dial in and also to match up synergistically with a number of cartridge options.
Jay may want to determine if he wants a more resolved sound, or a warmer and slightly less resolved sound first, as this will drive cartridge selection. With the beryllium tweeters in his speakers, ( as some of you know, I am not much of a fan of these) perhaps introducing a little warmth into the system may be good. OTOH, I see that OZ did not hear brightness with the digital set up ( a good thing), however, this may not be the case if the cartridge leads to the analytical side of things..
|
@jays_audio_lab you might take a look at this thread regarding tonearms.
I personally don't know anything about tonearm designs but have heard many and can say tonearms definitely play a big part in the sound quality of ant tt.
|
What's the order of importance here?
Turntable
Tonearm
Cartridge.
Please chime in!
|
Many high end analog devotees and manufacturers believe the order of importance is in exactly that order, turntable, tonearm, and then cartridge. There have been tests run to demonstrate that, i.e. mounting a less expensive cartridge on a more costly table/arm compared to a more expensive cartridge on a less costly table/arm and the first setup easily outperforms the second. Some put more emphasis on the cartridge and believe it has the most significant impact since it's a transducer, converting mechanical movement into an electrical signal. Any cartridge depends on the integrity of the table and arm though in order to reach its potential.
It's likely there will be some debate on the relative importance of each piece of the vinyl playback system. Could become similar to the ongoing cable debate, or belief that in digital bits are bits and identical bits can't sound different, etc.
|
I suggest you sell the tt as fast as you can.
|
Well without the correct speed accuracy then the arm or cartridge will not make a difference. I prefer tables with DC motors vs ac I can hear better pitch and definition with these types of tables. Think Kuzma Stabi R as an example. Then the next piece of the puzzle is the arm for rigidity and control. These are my thoughts since you asked
|
IMO, the order that you posted is exactly correct..1) the table 2) the arm and 3) the cartridge...in that order. The phono cable may even come ahead of the cartridge.
As rsf507 points out, the speed accuracy is of primary importance. Getting the best signal to noise ratio is also up there, which means the bearing of the table is of paramount importance. The lower the noise floor the better.
|
The TT is absolutely the central component of any analog setup.
IME, upgrading from my very good Myajima Shalabi cartridge to a Lyra Atlas SL was, by far, the greatest improvement ever.
And the upgrade in tonearm to a Triplanar SE was huge but not like the cartridge.
Congratulation on taking the plunge into analog.
I have heard great sound from advanced digital source systems.
But, for me, digital is an intellectual experience. Whereas, analog is truly emotional.
When I listen to my TT rig, I feel it in my gut-the center of emotions.
Hope you have a similar experience.
Cheers
|
Jay,
Everything is important in the TT/arm/cartridge chain. But the details matter. I have had several turntables that were very different in tonal balance and other qualities, and it seemed that no cartridge would sound like what I wanted on a bad TT like the SOTA Sapphire. On the other hand, my Linn Valhalla and Goldmund Studio were much closer and both excellent, so the cartridge was more important in the overall sound quality.
Re: tonearms, on my Goldmund, I much preferred the more neutral sound of the Alphason arm over the Goldmund T3B straight line tracking arm. On my Linn Valhalla TT, I did more trials with different cartridges and different arms. I found that cartridge differences far exceeded arm differences, mainly due to the different tonal and spatial differences. Cartridge differences were quantitatively similar to speaker differences. It was like the big difference between a clarinet and oboe vs the more subtle difference between 2 clarinets.
Despite the generic pronouncements in manufacturer promotions, there is very little written on actual specifics. A good analysis would go like this. Take the entry level Linn Majik, middle level Akurate, top level Klimax TT's. Outwardly, they have similar design, look the same, but vary in materials mainly, but also in power supply quality. Add the Majik, Akurate, Klimax arms, then the Majik, Akurate, Klimax cartridges. There are 27 possible combinations of all these. The Majik cartridge is a moving magnet type, whereas the Akurate and Klimax cartridges are moving coils. All of the moving magnet types were vastly inferior in resolution/clarity to all moving coils I owned. The Majik TT is probably still an excellent TT, better than my much older Valhalla TT which was still fine. I challenge anyone to step up and say that he has heard all 27 combinations (in their own system and not at a biased Linn dealer) and claim that the still excellent Majik TT plus the top moving coil Klimax cartridge sounds worse than the Klimax TT with a grossly inferior moving magnet cartridge. I don't accept anyone parroting official Linn dogma about their hierarchy. Do the listening yourself, and report honestly. Don't merely say that one is better than another. A romantic Koetsu cartridge will certainly perform its "best" on the Klimax or other top TT, but what does "best" mean? More romantic, or more precise and less romantic?
All that said, I believe you are on the right track with the Kronos TT. From the review of the Kronos Pro in Mono and Stereo, the Kronos makes cartridge differences more dramatic than any other TT the reviewer owned, even the far more expensive Tech Das and Clearaudio Statement TT's. I recommend you spend good money on the top Lyra Atlas cartridge and settle in for now. Along with your top Boulder phono preamp, you will probably prove the superiority of that top analog system to your MSB and server digital system in nearly every way. Later, you can try other top cartridges like the Ortofon MC Anna Diamond, whose differences vs Lyra will be maximally revealed. And try the much cheaper Rega Apheta 3, with Oz's approval for cartridge/arm compatibility. The much more expensive Rega Aphelion cartridge is of similar design to the Apheta 3, and may be better or worse.
I love the Kronos design of the 2 platters rotating in opposite directions to cancel out vibrations. The Mono and Stereo reviewer particularly noted the strength of the Kronos in bass, so this TT may suit you best. But think about the lightweight Rega system, which Fremer thought noteworthy for midrange/HF clarity. Poorly understood is the effect of high mass/low mass and different materials in favoring different frequencies. Perhaps Rega is more revealing in higher freq, while Kronos is best for bass and still great full range.
So there is no easy, glib answer to the question of which component is most important. Nobody has done all the listening I suggested, and even if they did, they have not reported their findings.
|
@viber6 You may not have done the ’AB’ that you suggest, listing to the Linn Majik with a top flite moving coil vs. the Linn Klimax with a moving magnet. However, i have actually done this ’AB’...and once again the Klimax sounds a lot better to my ears than the Majik model. Probably due to these factors...1) the moving magnet cartridge really was not that bad of a cartridge ( it was an AT design). 2) the speed accuracy was easily heard with the Radikal D power supply vs. the simple Majik power supply and 3) the arm on the Klimax ( the Ekos SE..an arm i am not particularly fond of ) was easily superior sounding to the old Jelco sourced arm on the Majik. ( I have not done this ’AB’ with the newer Krane arm). 4) the cartridge on the Majik arm..a Linn Kandid, was not really a great match for the Majik arm.
So, in this example, the Linn hierarchy was very easily heard to be correct, even though i know you would like that not to be the case.
|
OK, but in what specific ways did the Klimax TT + Majik cartridge sound "better" than Majik TT + Klimax cartridge? Did you listen at home, or a Linn dealer or a friend’s home? I have been fooled by listening anywhere except in my very familiar system at home. I can understand that a dramatically inferior TT + inferior tonearm using a detailed cartridge would sound worse than a superior TT + superior tonearm with a less detailed but reasonably decent cartridge. That’s kinda like 2 good factors against 1.
Regarding my experience with the bad SOTA Sapphire TT vs Linn Valhalla with my same great Alphason arm + Denon 305 moving coil cartridge, the SOTA was so muddy like a leaden elephant, that in this case I agree with Linn’s and your hierarchy. With my excellent Linn Valhalla vs Goldmund Studio TT’s, the reverse was true--detail on the Linn was slightly inferior to the Goldmund by X, using the same Alphason arm and Denon cartridge, but with other cartridges, the Linn + Alphason was far inferior by 100X to Linn + Alphason + the most detailed Denon 305 cartridge.
Another experience I told you about in the past, was that when my Denon 305 was younger, the Linn or the Goldmund TT’s with Alphason arm sounded 100X more detailed than my CD player on the same recording. But years later, when the Denon aged, the CD player was far more detailed. And yet, the aged Denon still plays music decently, so I haven’t been desperate to swap in my refurbished Denon. But the young vs old cartridge is like the life changing difference between the athlete before and after he fractures his hip.
The post by mglik above is most informative--
"IME, upgrading from my very good Myajima Shalabi cartridge to a Lyra Atlas SL was, by far, the greatest improvement ever."
So I conclude that sometimes the Linn hierarchy is correct, and other times the cartridge is most important. As far as Jay is concerned, he is getting the best of everything, as he usually does, so this debate doesn’t really matter. Still, I am questioning whether the Kronos TT + arm + euphonic Koetsu cartridge will bring the detail of his SOTA digital system, but I am very confident that the Kronos + arm + SOTA Lyra Atlas SL cartridge will blow away the digital system in nearly every sonic parameter. So I change my mind, and now advise Jay to get the very best cartridge. The increased cost of the Lyra Atlas SL over cheaper Lyra models will be amply revealed by the SOTA Kronos TT + arm. I also speculate that a $5K difference in cartridge cost will yield greater benefits than the $30K cost of the SOTA Taiko Extreme server.
Jay, I’ve following you for 5 years, and I have never before been as excited about your findings on your new vinyl endeavor. I predict this will be life changing for you. I can even imagine your daughter doing her own YT channel for kids on the glories of vinyl as she delicately does the setups.
|
Well folks, the time has arrived to unveil the most important and special component I’ve owned: THE G.O.A.T.
This is the one component that has transformed everything about my system. It has ZERO RIVALS in its path and it completely DEMOLISHES ANYTHING ELSE I’ve owned.
This is NEXT LEVEL and I’m very happy to bring it to you all
|
Fantastic, more food for thought, Jay. Back to the source components as most critical. First, the purity of the recording. Then the preamp, which the Boulder 3010 seems to offer the BEST clarity/transparency. The 3010 seems to be the closest to the holy grail ideal of a straight wire with gain. If there is more distortion in the early stages, then the perfect power amp will just amplify the garbage. So I predict that the 3010 + your other amps will be better than the 2110 with the Boulder amp. But if the other amp is quite euphonic and subtracts lots of detail (Constellation, Luxman, D'agostino, Pass), maybe not. But with fairly neutral amps like the small Gryphon, Simaudio, the 3010 will be better than 2110 and Boulder amp.
All this will be even more eye-opening with your Kronos TT with especially the Lyra Atlas SL as likely the finest source for at least clarity/resolution. Your system is at the highest level where each change results in even more dramatic improvements. This is why I changed my mind and recommended you spend the extra money on the finest cartridge you can find. If you feel that the $140K is well worth the money for the improvements from the 3010, then much less money spent on the best cartridge will be worth it. You will probably sell the 2110 preamp, which will give you plenty of cash to get a buffet of great cartridges which you will appreciate, plus get a great LP collection.
Looking forward to your next video on more insights about the differences between the 2110 and 3010 preamps. Well done!
|
Most interesting at the highest level will be Boulder 3010 + 2160 vs 2110 + 3060. All are highest quality neutral/revealing components. As I understand the Boulder line, the 3060 has more power into class A than does the 2160. But how close does the 2160 come to the 3060 amp at lower power where both would be fully in class A? Assuming that the preamp is THE most important, I predict that 3010 + 2160 will be superior to 2110 + 3060 at low power, probably also at high power, for at least resolution/transparency, maybe even at high power full dynamics. Maybe even the 3010 + affordable 1160 will beat the 2110 + 3060.
|
Lots of scenarios but they are just scenario...
I'm not sure I'll ever break the seal on the 2160 boulder. This 2160 was ordered in 220v which makes it that more special since the 3160 is also 220v... It would certainly be an apples to apples comparison.
|
Boulder 3060 & Boulder 3010
As many of you all know by now, I’ve been through a TON of equipment. I started this with power amps then went through preamps, DACs, speakers and cables. Thousands of hours and backache from all the heavy lifting and of course, i drove a ton of miles to chase the components that became available to me.
With that said, I’ve had the pleasure to own so much and although i did encounter special components along the way, i kept pushing boundaries. Every night I went to bed thinking 🤔 - how can I raise the bar???
A few times, i thought i had nowhere else to go but down. I went to shows to explore new possibilities and see if there was something that could spark my interest and i failed.
Fast forward to 2022 - I acquire the 3060 Boulder amplifier. From the beginning, this amp and I didn’t quite shake hands until i strapped its sibling behind it; the 2110 Preamp.
I spent countless hours fine tuning these 2 components with cables , stands, power conditioners until i got them to sound AMAZING. This was no easy feat because fine tuning is essential in any well-designed system and can be extremely painful.
Then i get an email... The Boulder 3010 is available to me and it took me gutting what remained of my disposable income to bring the 3010 into my home. What followed were the most important changes I’ve heard in my system: cristal clear presentation, resolution, no limitations of ANY KIND.
As i sit here tonight, listening to these 2 components I realize that my past simply a taste of what the real thing sounds like.
There has NEVER EVER been anything like these two components in my room. They are sitting on the throne while every other component I’ve owned is kneeling at their feet.
This is the end. My gut tells me there is nothing above these two. I’m complete and i can say with 1000% certainty that they are THE BEST I’ve ever owned. No ifs, no maybe’s, no beating around the bush. I’m being 100% clear without stuttering.
Boulder 3060 & 3010 - Jay’s Audio Lab top components.
|
So as much as you love this system and as close as it gets you to live music you must love live music? . How often do you attend live music?. Also what live music do you enjoy most, small jazz clubs, blues or classical? . Or is it safe to say that you enjoy the system better than live music and if that’s the case why strive for getting close to live when you can enjoy a great system even more. I just find it interesting that many audiophiles say they and trying to get the sound of live music when many prefer their system more than being there.
|
Congrats again Jay. High praise considering all that has entered and exited your room. I would be afraid to hear it.
|
Jay, thanks for your significant and enlightening post. I've wanted to hear Boulder for some time now, mostly because of you. Maybe someday that'll happen. -I can only vaguely dream what your system sounds like now. It must be a bit of heaven.
|
Thanks guys. The system is mind-blowing in every regard. Once you hear the 3,000 series amp and preamp together, you'd need a brain transplant to forget what it sounds like.
The most beautiful aspect of this system is FINALLY i don't have to crank up the volume to get every single attribute delivered to me. These 2 can be the Batman & Robin going forward. I can put any speaker you can think of and make it sing. No power limits, no lack of anything. If the system is doing something you don't like, it's the music you are listening to.
I am enamored with what I am hearing. I have just ordered the final transparent opus cables to round out the system and create the first transparent opus loom ever in my room.
The Kronos turntable will be compared to my select 2 through these 2 components and we will DEFINITELY hear which source really performs better than which (depending on the record of course).
|
That’s great - glad to hear the Boulders are so good. In all these 400 pages it’s rare that you’ve ever been so determinative like that - they must really be special
|
Does that mean no Gryphon Commander and Apex Monos?
|
@kren0006
I wish you all could hear this in person...bring your music, push play and sit down. It is that experience you can't forget. I actually don't even feel like comparing any electronics anymore because the sound is astonishingly good.
|
Apex will still happen...
|
Jay,
Eagerly awaiting the Kronos vs Taiko/MSB comparison. But you will need the same recording in both vinyl and digital formats to make this an apples/apples meaningful comparison. Do you have a few of these paired recordings? Otherwise it would be an apples/oranges comparison.
The basic disadvantage of all digital systems is the tandem A/D and D/A conversions. As you have learned, especially with the 3010, is that all other preamps have electronic colorations. The same applies to tandem A/D and D/A electronics. Sure, digital has the elegance of storing numbers instead of complicated analog waveforms. Does the storage advantage outweigh the lack of purity from the tandem electronic stages? You'll find out.
Even though I have praised the detail of some digital, with some recordings sounding very natural, I admit there is some artificiality which sounds electronic. So I may criticize euphonic cartridges like Koetsu and many others I have had, but there is that analog ease. This ease is not the euphonic warmth or rounding off the edges, but it is the smooth character of live, unamplified instruments, which have superb detail AND ease.
It is good that you don't have to crank up the volume to be satisfied with the 3010 in the chain. So now you can reconsider a bypass test with the 3010. At low levels of 20-60 dB, I believe that using the 3010 will still add the slightest smidgen of electronic coloration, compared to eliminating it from the chain. NO electronic stage is perfectly transparent, although the 3010 comes the closest. Here is where there is a reasonable tradeoff for you. If the 3010 is 99.9% transparent, that is good enough so that the extra dynamics it provides for loud music is worth it. But all other preamps have been only 90-95% transparent, so the extra dynamics from those preamps come with a significant drawback of warm/fuzzy colorations.
A long time ago, I had this epiphany of transparency by eliminating the line stage, so I know the way you are feeling now, with the most transparent line stage--the 3010. The first 20 years of my audiophile life was using a phono preamp for my analog. In those days, preamps were for phono. Nobody talked about a line stage without a phono stage. Of course, the main reason for the amplification in the phono stage was for the RIAA EQ, plus the huge 60-70 dB gain required for low output moving coil cartridges. I found I had plenty of gain from the phono stage, so all I needed was a volume control, which I use in my Rane EQ. Those folks like mrdecibel who have dynamic speakers like horns do best with passive attenuators. My father mainly listened to his FM tuner with its volume control, and didn't need any line stage because he had plenty of gain and dynamics for his Altec horn speaker. You may have plenty of gain from your Boulder phono stage. The next frontier for you to explore is whether a top quality passive attenuator has better transparency than the 3010. Mrdecibel said there is no line stage that approaches the purity of his passive attenuator, but of course he never tried anything like the 3010.
|
The basic disadvantage of all digital systems is the tandem A/D and D/A conversions. As you have learned, especially with the 3010, is that all other preamps have electronic colorations. The same applies to tandem A/D and D/A electronics. Sure, digital has the elegance of storing numbers instead of complicated analog waveforms. Does the storage advantage outweigh the lack of purity from the tandem electronic stages? You’ll find out.
As opposed to the tandem process of scratching an analog waveform for two channels into a single scratch on a metal disk, then stamping than metal disk with scratches representing stereo waveforms onto plastic and the trying to subsequently read that single scratch with a piece of shaped rock so that you get two channels out ... Oh while the scratching is bumping up and down a bit and while you have variable lateral forces, etc.
|
Before you start comparing, know that phono cartridges generally take at least 20 hours to break in from new. Maybe more. And you can’t leave analog in repeat overnight, so it takes some time. But don’t get crazy listening to everyone here. You’re doing what you tell people not to do. You hired an analog expert. Follow what he tells you until you get your bearings.
|
deludedaudiophile,
You are absolutely correct. Vinyl has lots of disadvantages as you enumerate. Analog tape avoids lots of vinyl's mechanical problems, but tape as a physical medium still has its own problems. Despite these problems, A/D and D/A converters and digital jitter create unique sonic colorations. Analog enthusiasts accuse digital of having digititis, which mainly refers to high freq artifacts, but I have found these electronic colorations throughout the entire freq range. One would think that bass freq would be easier to avoid these problems because of fewer numbers, but people have found digital problems even in the bass.
As an MD (applied scientist) and former mathematician, I respect your technical perspective. As a "mathlete" I was solidly in the technical camp. When I became a doctor, I did have difficulty at first understanding and accepting clinical principles, which often merely described observations without a satisfactory technical explanation. The technical explanations are still as backward and elementary as a child learning to add and subtract. But we have to learn to accept certain clinical facts even if we only have a rudimentary understanding of them. So it goes with integration of subjective and objective truths in high end audio.
|
Analog tape has many issues mechanical, and due to the non-linear nature of the magnetic material, wear, tape head non-linearity, etc. which is just what I could scrape together in a few minutes of research. In the big scheme of things, digital has far far less issues, and jitter is simply not an issue today. Not at all. Analog enthusiasts often have no idea how their system is truly performing because they think their ears are measurement devices. They have bright rooms, bright speakers, dark analog setups, etc. When they start using digital, it simply reveals the flaws in their system that they have covered up with band-aids over the years.
People who "find flaws" in digital, are not people who understand digital, who don't understand the basic premise of measurement techniques and why while not perfect, they perfectly refute so many of their claims. However, it is easier to blame digital, than to accept that their perfect systems are far from perfect. Then what do they do? Fix the system? Nope, lets add more band-aids like tubes to our digital equipment.
As an MD, you of all people should know that an observation is just not, it is not a conclusion. Causation does not equal correlation. When someone says they need antibiotics, you don't blindly prescribe them (I hope). You do specific test, observational, culture, etc. to verify the claim and to rule out other potential causes for the discomfort. And yet here you are, in audio, accepting single point anecdotal evidence without insisting on the detailed analysis and evaluation as to the underlying cause. This is not a "camp" issue. Current measurement techniques are quite obviously more than adequate to reveal the transparency or more than adequate transparency of current digital solutions, they certainly far far exceed any analog format in terms of transparency whether any of the ballywick of claims by others such as frequency response, signal to noise ratio, distortion, etc. as well as all the other poorly understood excuses about things like settling, ringing, etc. that stems from a lack of understanding of the underlying fundamental math. Presented with a litany of convenient, but incorrect excuses, backed by people such as yourself, who while educated, clearly don't accept the veracity of the measurements or understand them, they reach for and grip those excuses rather than accept the real issues, the recording is not very good, and their system is not as good as they think, a hard pill given the spend often involved.
Subjective truths are only truths if obtained by objective methods. Again, as an MD, surely you appreciate the absolute insistence on double blind testing in the medical field or do you think that is just an inconvenience when the reporting on the effectiveness of these drugs under test may often be subjective, just like audio? It Why would you set a much lower bar in audio when all the same potentials for influenced reporting (likely more) exist?
|
In audio experience, the gear, tape,turntable,or dac are less important and impactful than their embedding in the three working dimensions, which like the three musketeers are four really : electrical, mechanical, acoustical, and psycho-neuro-acoustical...
And neuro-acoustic /acoustic is a peculiar field describing and trying to understand sound experience and music experience, there truth is neither objective nor subjective, it is more an ONGOING CORRELATION experimental process that goes deeper and deeper in the mysteries of music experience and perception...
This is the reason why, comparing analog or digital complementary mathematical tools and opposing them is superficial, compared to the righfully embeddings methods...Is a tape and a dac and a turntable sound different? yes they may sound different for multiple reasons for sure...BUT....
All these discussion about gear are born more from engineering marketing and consumerism more than from neuro-acoustic and acoustic science or from concrete experience...
An audio system, become when playing an individualized unique system because of the complex characteristics of his multidimensional four embeddings...It is no more only a blueprint electronical designed abstract and standard ideal device... it play in some concrete conditions for someone...
No turntable, or dac, or tape, is experienced in the same way ever, by so different conditions and different owners...
The acoustic laws stay the same for sure, but no small acoustic room is the same, add to that all others embeddings specificities and then discussing about advantages of dac, turntables, and tapes, in the absolute or from our own limited experience or with only their measures characteristics is illusory to a great extent...
We hear and interpret acoustic phenomena that are TRANSLATED by the acoustic of our own room and the neuro-acoustic properties of our own head, way more than what come from a tape, a dac, and a turntable, so different they can be...Their differences is dwarved by the 4 embeddings working dimensions ...
People are used to buy gear, not used to experiment with the 4 embeddings dimensions... Thats is the reason behind all these useless discussion about analog or digital differences... Minute one compared to any single one of the 4 embeddings impactful dimensions...Imagine now the impact of the 4 embeddings together compared to a change from a tape to a dac?
It is my experience...
If someone is not wrong, arguing about a dac, or a tape, or a turntable this does not means he is right at the end...
😁😊
|
WC,
I remember when the entrance of the Gryphon Mephisto was a huge deal for you, so based upon your comments, the 3000 series must be truly impressive.
"My gut tells me there is nothing above these two."
Well, there are the 3050 monos :-)
Dave
|
Man I'll have to mortgage the house for those...it's nuts at this level... I have an acquaintance who owns the 3050s and he brought the CH m1.1 monos and those only lasted 2 days in his room... Not even close to the 3050s.
He also owned soulution 701 monos and Gryphon Mephisto monos...
|
@jays_audio_lab
"I actually don't even feel like comparing any electronics anymore because the sound is astonishingly good." Well it is surely a fact now you've got a new reference that sounds like, no pun intended, it'll be very hard to beat. -I don't claim to have exactly what you have, but lately my system is so dialed in that I don't want to change anything (though I keep researching anyway!). I'm really enjoying that now.
|
Yeah that's where I am at...
Anyhow, changes are coming and the Taiko extreme will be going up for sale this week.
|
So it sounds like the Taiko Extreme was beat by the Aurender N30 SA.
I'm sure that the Taiko will sell quickly. Lots of buyers waiting on delivery of new product right now.
|
Actually that's not the case. It has to do with the fact that I might be changing direction. I can't say much right now.
|
Jay,
I wouldn't buy anything digital until you do the vinyl/digital A/B, properly, with vinyl and digital versions of the same recording. If the Koetsu on the Kronos sounds rolled off in HF vs the Taiko/MSB, don't dismiss the vinyl until you get a revealing cartridge like the Lyra Atlas or Ortofon MC Anna Diamond. From what I know about your tastes, you will LOVE vinyl even with a euphonic cartridge, and LOVE vinyl with a revealing cartridge that will beat digital in every way.
Vinyl even with its noise and other worse specs than digital, is more detailed and natural than digital.
|
Digital and vinyl versions are mastered differently. They can't be compared.
|
If we take the premise that source first is of primary importance in our systems, it would seem that the order for that would be 1) master tapes, 2) vinyl..and the best vinyl recordings via either the ‘One step’ process or Direct to Disc recordings and lastly 3) Digital..
|
That should be the case...Oz might bring his reel to reel so we can compare too.... This will get interesting 🤔
|
deludedaudiophile,
I respect and understand objective measurements AND my cruder ears. My ears cannot diagnose what electronic distortions are present, but standard measurements cannot pick up some of the things that the crude human ear picks up. Going back to early solid state amps of the 60's, THD measurements and flat freq response were the only thing that mattered. Golden ear types were scorned, but they heard unpleasant things not revealed by low THD. The technicians opened their minds and came up with TIM (transient intermodulation) distortion measurements. More data has since been collected, but the technicians still cannot correlate specs with the sound of an amp used in a complete audio system.
Do you actually have auditory experience comparing the sound of different preamps, amps, cartridges, interconnect and speaker cables, power cords? Or are you like the popular Mark Davis in the 70's Boston Audio Society who insisted that all amps with flat freq response and the exact same volume level sound the same?Most audiophiles who listen carefully know this is completely false.
Outside of hifi audio, I speak here as an accomplished violinist who has played internationally in all types of classical ensembles, played 100's of old master Italian violins, listened in worldwide concert halls from many seats closer and more distant, made recordings using ear-selected mikes and mike preamps. It is well established that despite all the scientific advances in understanding chemical analyses of varnish, dimensions and plate topographic thickness of violins, NOBODY today can make a violin whose sound approaches the brilliance and kaleidoscopic tone quality of 300 year old violins. Today's technicians are clueless about what makes a great sounding violin.
Respect both the art of subjective listening AND the science of measurement which are complementary. A great doctor is one who has the necessary clinical judgment to correlate subjective clinical info with objective test measurements. For example, when evaluating a man with fatigue, serum testosterone (T) is an important thing to measure. But T receptor function is not measurable, so in order to decide whether any measured level of T is significant, the best way is to assess the clinical symptoms which integrate the limited measurement of serum T with unknown T receptor function, and possibly other hormone and nutritional effects that interact. Too many MD's have a limited understanding of the numerous factors that go into the best assessment, just as there are many pure technical audio pros who don't understand sound as heard and experienced by the practitioner, the musician.
|
I compared vinyl and digital formats of the same recording in a few ways. One, I used 80's recordings of digital on an LP and the CD. In several of these recordings, the CD was veiled in the entire freq range compared to the same recording on LP, played on my Goldmund Studio TT + Alphason arm + bright Denon 305 cartridge. When my Denon aged, it lost clarity, and then the CD was more detailed, especially in HF.
Second, I have a 1961 RCA analog original recording which I compared to the AAD CD of the same recording. Also, several Columbia (now Sony) 1959 to 1965 recordings compared to the AAD versions. Same findings as the previous paragraph.
Third, I had an 80's LP recording of the Haydn Military Symphony no. 100. Side A was mastered from the analog tape, and side B was from the digital tape. I did this A/B when my Denon cartridge was young and detailed. This time, both recordings, played on my same TT/arm/cartridge and phono stage, were much closer in overall sound than on my other test with the LP vs CD. The salient differences were in the HF. The digital showed the typical early digititis of brittle artificial bright HF and seemed more brilliant, but it was unnatural. The analog was smoother, more lifelike with more layers of depth to this orchestra piece. But it was somewhat of a tradeoff as to which version someone would prefer. Digital was brighter and more upfront, but more hifi character.
The digital measurement specs were probably better than the analog. But it was early digital, with many improvements in naturalness to come. Has digital matured to now compete with great analog?
|
@viber6 Great post. There are indeed a number of variables that seem to be misunderstood, or entirely not contemplated, by technical audio pros when it comes to the sound and experience of the musician. Musicians tend to have a certain sound in their head along with striving to get that sound from their instruments. The better ones, IME, are able to well reproduce that with regards to the instruments they pick.
|
Jay,
When Oz does the Kronos setup at his place, you can also first go to his place and A/B the reel-to-reel tapes with your Kronos. His tube (?) phono stage will not be anywhere near as revealing as your Boulder 2108 phono stage, so the Kronos will be at a handicap. Maybe you can bring your 2108 which is probably not too heavy, so you and he could compare with that, in his system. Then you can bring it all to your place, before you get the TT stand. It will be interesting to see the effect of the stand on the whole TT system. Since the Kronos has the ingenious double platters which cancel vibrations, I won't be surprised if the stand makes almost no difference.
|
The stand will make a difference on the phonostage and the Stromtank I'll be using for the phono and turntable...
|
@deludedaudiophile
"Digital and vinyl versions are mastered differently. They can't be compared."
Absolutely they should be compared - at least, from the standpoint of whether one would prefer vinyl or digital (or both). All variables are important - the differing equipment, the media, the mastering, etc. Perhaps someone will prefer digital, because they prefer the way it's mastered, regardless of the other variables. Another person might not be particular about the mastering, but would base their preference on how digital sounds vs analog. Everyone's different.
Dave
|
My experience with tape has really impressed upon me how far vinyl and particularly digital has still to go! I suspect once Jay hears a great tape player ( I’m talking of Studer A820 level-and I’m not sure that Oz has anything like that??) then he will most likely be a bit gob smacked, I know i was!
|
to my very limited knowledge and experience
listening to an Album is like walking on the beach.
listening to digital is like watching a movie about walking on the beach. You never get to be in it. But you get closer and closer to feeling you are
|
