@prof + 1
Very similar to my story, but at least 'Prof' was smart enough to keep his vinyl records. I was so stupid to fall for the 'perfect sound' hype and sold my records around 1988 and entirely switched to cd's. With hindsight it wasn't just cognitive dissonance, because cd's really did sound better to me at the time. My Japanese mid-fi DD turntable + Denon DL-160 cartridge was - to use the OP's phrase - crushed by a Nakamichi OMS-3 cd player.
Fast forward some 10 years when I first heard a top level analog rig and couldn't believe what I heard. This epiphany opened the flood gates and I jumped back into vinyl with a Clearaudio Master Solution + Unify arm + vdHul Frog MC into a Krell KRC HR preamp with Reference phono board. Not exactly top level, but still good enough to ignite an obsessive period of vinyl collecting, mostly classical and jazz record in original pressings of the '50's and '60's. The Krell KPS-20i cd player I had at the time was on 'stand by' most of the time.
Fast forward another 15 years (with the record collection more or less hitting saturation point) I started going down the rabbit hole of analog upgrading, acquiring various turntables, tonearms and cartridges as well as really getting into VTA, azimuth, SRA, etc. I soon discovered how much further there was still to go, despite my aging ears (I'm 58 now).
Comparing digital to analog is apples & oranges, but to me it seems there's a definite performance plateau for digital, while analog seems infinite. No matter how much you rotate those digits, it's still 16bit. If anything, the latest generation cd players that I have heard sound more manipulated and processed than earlier ones (like that Krell I fondly remember), despite the higher 'resolution'. I briefly owned an Esoteric K-05x, which to my ears falls into that category.
So if you are accustomed to that 'processed' sound, I can imagine you feel it 'crushes' your vinyl rig. But you have to realize that the DL-103 is a rather crude device that sets you on the wrong foot about what vinyl can do. So please don't give up. Start with a better cartridge and get someone to install it properly. You won't know what hits you. No, actually you will. Instantly.
|
@chrisoshea,
With this 'logic' one should probably not buy used records either. One never known how it has been handled, how often it was played and with what stylus, does one? Glad it isn't my logic, or else I wouldn't have any records.......
It has been said before, but bears repeating: what cartridges do you think those vintage records from the '50's and'60's were played with? We are debating on this forum whether sapphire is an acceptable cantilever material, but back in the day most people used a sapphire stylus! When the sound deteriorated it was worn and you simply flipped the stylus over to wear out the opposite one........
Yet most of these records have survived such crude devices, except in obvious cases of mishandling which are easy enough to see. The best of these are still considered the benchmark for sonic quality and many of them are worth more to collectors than the MC cartridges discussed here.
So why should you be so 'sensitive' about the condition of previously owned modern cartridges with a sophisticated diamond stylus?
|
@geoffkait
Interesting observation. Not just cd players seem to be aiming at a more processed sound, recent cd reissues apparently go in the same direction. From an audiophile point of view this is indeed not good. All this manipulation of the datastream seems to squash dynamics, probably the only real advantage digital has over analog.
Why? Perhaps because most people enjoy music through mediocre media systems and/or earplugs. Just as most record companies compressed their vinyl records to accomodate those cute little gramophones that were used in most households. Thankfully at least some audiophile companies like Decca, Mercury, (early) RCA, Blue Note e.a. were aiming higher and used as little compression as they could get away with. One of the reasons why these venerable records are still considered as a benchmark.
Which begs the question: will we ever see an audiophile collector's market for cd first issues and pressings?
|
@geoffkait
'The future is here!'
Well, there you go. I don't waste much time going through used cd bins, because most of what you see is mid price and budget price reissue crap. For example, where I live you hardly ever see full price first edition Decca cd's. Perhaps because they cost a small fortune when they were released and dealers give the same for them as those cheap reissues, which is next to nothing.
This makes me think about those cute little Japanese mini LP sleeve cd's, which seem to appreciate in value the moment they are deleted. In CD wonderland, those are the best investments you can make. And sonically they are usually miles ahead of the US and EU pressings, even when they use the same masterings. To be honest I have no explanation for this. Do you?
|
@geoffkait
'Less wobbling equals less jitter'
It's true that Japanese cd's are better centered than most others. This is easy enough to see with the 'open' transport bay of my Bow cd player. Perhaps the player needs less error correction, because the laser has an easier job reading the disc. I remember reading once that error correction requires bit capacity. Is this what you mean?
So perhaps with eccentric discs 'more error correction equals less resolution', which might explain why Japanese cd's generally sound better. This definitely concurs with my own experience, even before the introduction of SHM material.
IMHO the Japanese must be applauded for single handedly creating an entirely separate world of truly collectable cd's. These mini LP sleeve cd's have superior sound quality as well as meticulous recreation of the original vinyl release artwork. Great stuff!
|
@rauliruegas
I think I agree with much of what you’re trying to say, but your distinction between ’sound’ and ’music’ is not very helpful. Music is organized sound waves, there’s really no way around this.
What you could say is this: recorded music (whether analog or digital makes no difference) will always be absolutely crushed by live music. There’s a fundamental divide here that apparently cannot be bridged.
We’ve all heard street musicians and you can always tell even from a distance if they play live or not. It doesn’t matter if they play acoustically or with the aid of amplification. If it’s played on the spot, you will recognize it immediately. Especially in cases where musicians play live on top of a pre-recorded tape you can easily hear the fundamental difference between them both. Live music has a different ’gestalt’.
I’ve always wondered if this ’gestalt’ is already lost when the microphone picks up those airwaves. That would make the analog versus digital debate rather moot, because the essence was already lost before hitting the record button. But I have never heard a mastertape in a controlled studio environment, so I might be very wrong about this.
Perhaps the essence of live music does get captured on the mastertape, but gets lost somewhere downstream in the playback process? If this is the case the characteristics of the used ’sound carriers’ (analog tape, cassette, LP, digital tape, CD, SACD, streaming, etc.) become more important. What sound carrier and audio playback system are most capable of approaching that essence? Here opinions are all over the map, which suggests one thing: it’s all subjective. Which goes a long way to explain all those tired ’debates’ about analog versus digital, MC versus MM, CD versus SACD, tubes versus solid state, class A versus class D, horns versus dipoles, etc, etc, etc.......
It seems to me that no recording and/or playback technology is capable of capturing/reproducing the ’whole beast’. I’ve never had the same unmistakable awareness of hearing live with any audio system as I always do when I hear a street musician. Even playing through a crappy amp and loudspeaker and even from a wider distance without any visual contact. You just ’know’.
|
@rauliruegas
I tried my best to follow your reasoning, but had a hard time catching its essence. It's no help that I don't know what AHEE means. It almost sounds like a conspiracy to hide the audio truth from us. The X-files of the high end? Surely you are joking?
High end audio is a business like any other, subject to technological innovations as much as to fashions and trends. It's not always easy to tell which is which, because a solid frame of reference is missing and objective journalism is mostly lacking. Basically we're left to our own devices. Discussions on forums like this are our best shot at getting some useful information that can help us educate ourselves.
My own preference is still very much with analog. But I'm not in an analog bubble, so last year I decided to purchase a well regarded current model cd player to hear if much had happened in digital in the last 10 years or so. I previously owned Krell KPS 20i and Metronome T2i Signature players, which were well regarded players in their time. I enjoyed listening to them both, but always preferred my analog rig.
So in came an Esoteric K-05x. Way down from their top level of course, but still equipped with the latest generation processor and filter technology. I really wanted the Esoteric to shine, but it didn't appeal to me at all. I just couldn't shake the feeling I was listening to highly manipulated sound and not music. But many people think this is a great player, so what do I know?
Perhaps your distinction between 'sound lovers' and 'music lovers' does make some sense after all. But what is 'sound' to one person may well be 'music' to the next and vice versa. It's all subjective!
|
@rauliruegas
Thanks for explaining AHEE. My guess wasn't too far off, was it?
Do I understand you correctly when you imply that systems optimized for digital will also make analog sound better? Are you saying this because a digital source is supposedly more neutral than analog? I'm not so sure about this. Digital audio devices have to work with a limited number of processor options, so to a certain extend the sonic result has already been decided for you. Perhaps this is why most cd players have the same sonic 'imprint', but this doesn't necessarily mean it's 'neutral'.
With analog there are many more aspects that can be influenced by the listener. I assume we're all familiar with the unexpected magical 'click' when suddenly you hit on a perfect arm/cartridge synergy. For me this is one of the reasons analog audio is so much more fun. There's more 'editorial space' to influence the sonic characteristics to suit your musical tastes.
@fleschler
I agree that live music often sounds terrible due to bad acoustics, too high SPL's or any number of reasons. This is exactly why I implied there's no solid frame of reference. The 'gestalt' of live music is instantly recognizable for better or worse. This could be called the 'Absolute Sound', but that doesn't necessarily mean it always sounds absolutely great.
|
The distinction between 'sound lovers' and 'music lovers' is totally artificial and not helpful at all. We can assume that the main reason for getting involved in this audio community is an interest in music. If not why bother? The other reason would be the personal discovery that the enjoyment of music increases with better sound quality. This affliction puts us in the peculiar minority group called audiophiles. I'm sure you're all aware that most people who love music (musicians included) couldn't care less about sound quality. But it's highly unlikely that people with an interest in sound quality couldn't care less about music. They'd get themselves another hobby if they didn't.
Suspension of disbelief can be a powerful experience and everyone on this forum is chasing that illusion. You can have alot of fun in the process, but going down this rabbit hole does kinda make you loose track of what it's really about. The difference between Audio Nirvana and Audio Nervosa is keeping in mind why you're in this game. 'It's the music, stupid'......
This is not an easy pursuit and after a while many disillusioned veteran audiophiles seek redemption, attempting to find their way back to the music and the emotional response it once triggered. Some may feel that their meticulously built system is the 'elephant in the room' (often literally so), standing between them and the music. They might feel betrayed and decide to downgrade or even loose interest in music completely.
The persistent audio illusionist (that means us) might decide to keep changing around the components of the system or even maintain several systems at once with different strenghts for various types of music. Because they realize there's no such thing as 'one size fits all' in audio. This would only fuel more illusions, would it not? Digital illusion, analog illusion, tube illusion, horn illusion, dipole illusion, MC illusion, the list is endless and so are the debates.
Perhaps, but nature likes diversity, so why not take a cue from life? I'm sure the audio industry would be delighted.....
|
