What is the “World’s Best Cartridge”?

@mijostyn can you list some current mode phono stages?

@rsf507 , Sure. You have the BMC MCCI which @lewm owns, the Sutherland Loco and Little Loco, The CH Precision that Michael Fremer uses and the Channel D Seta L Plus and Lino C 3.0. I have the Seta L Plus. I chose it because it can operate in either current or voltage mode, it has a battery power supply and it has both flat and RIAA corrected outputs. It's design aesthetic is also pleasing to me. It is a very simple, straight forward unit without a lot of unnecessary options and switches. Less is More!  It is also beautifully made. The electronics are all first class and it uses surface mount technology. All the script and logos are laser engraved into the metal. Digital RIAA correction has theoretical benefits aside from the utmost accuracy. It can also correct any curve you can think of. There must be 20 or more options.

why do i even come to Audiogon? sillyness. i am talking about 30 years of analog based Lps and what is the reference for those? they were all tape sourced.

and any digital transfer involved, started with tape. i have no interest in this discussion.

i’m a big believer in digital and have a huge commitment to it. love it. i’m sure i’m more invested than anyone on this forum in digital, by far. but.....my Studers kill it if we are talking making music. digital is accurate at particular points, analog is complete. complete wins hands down. every time.

i listen to digital for access to new music and for ease of use. listen to digital 60-70% of the time. but ultimate performance does not involve digital.....in any step.

@mikelavigne I appreciate all your responses think they are spot on. Your integrity is above reproach. Please keep us informed of your listening regarding your cartridges.

Thanks @mijostyn for the list of current mode phono stages. A quick search showed the Seta L20 mk2. Anyone hear this unit?

Dear @mikelavigne : " why do i even come to Audiogon? sillyness. "

 

Even that maybe the issue is that Agon forums are a little different specially vs the other where you are happy with and that issue is that here not all is about " applauses and praises " as there, even that in this thread twice I applause the DaVa new item because any new product ( no matters what. ) always is welcomed in the audio community.

 

What you posted tell me that is way dissapointed for you posting in Agon but in reality there is the other side of that bad experiences in this thread. Which could be that good side? that some of us like to go a little deeper not only in subjective terms but with objectivity too.

Everything in the life has that side or exist its duality: woman-men, good-bad, nigth-day, fast-lower, up-down and so on and on.

 

Here some us showed you and other gentlemans the other side the side that no audio item owner likes to " hear " but that’s part of that audio item always.

 

So you don’t have to to have that kind of feelings and ask Darius for the cartridge specs. All in these forum and in all internet forums want to know about. So and as always your help and advise is welcomed for the audio community every where.

Btw, Through the good recorded D2D LPs any one ( including you. ) can listen all the damage any R2R recorder makes with its quality sound degradation.

""" i am talking about 30 years of analog based Lps and what is the reference for those? they were all tape sourced. """

That statement says what all we experienced and through those years experienced that analog alternative almost all of we are havy biased 100% in favor of it .

You said, digital is " incomplete " but with no objective/facts that could confirm it and I know you can’t do it but not only you but no one can do it and if there is a gentleman that thinks it can do it then is Welcomed because each single day is a learning day.

In the other side you neither say the facts that makes analog complete but I invite you to think in two proccess from where all LPs came: Recording and Playback.

In both proccess the MUSIC signal that microphones pick-up pass through " thousands " of degradations steps till we can listen the sound through our speakers and what in reality are we all listening? a Complete experience as you said? certainly NOT but a huge degradaded signal. Where Digital is almost a direct signal sound due that both proccess are almost with out degradations, it’s a Complete experience at least against analog LPs that are " incomplete ". Don't you think?

 

R.

Does anyone here remember analog cell phones? Terrible is an understatement.

There are things you can do in the digital world that are impossible to do in the analog world. Incomplete? Are you kidding me? Human brains are not near that fast. A computer can entirely remove the "pop" from a scratch and fill it in with a small section of the previous several milliseconds and you can not hear where the defect was. If I record a record digitally, scratches and all and synchronized the two, the copy and the real thing. Nobody will be able to reliably identify which version they are listening too. Nobody. 

@rsf507  , Darn, forgot to mention this one. The Seta L20 is a very rare bird. It costs $60,000. It certainly is by a long distance the quietest phono stage in existence. Otherwise, it is the very same circuit used in the Seta L Plus and should sound very much the same. It is also a very large heavy unit. I would love to hear one. But, it is probably safer that I don't:-) I would have a hard time explaining that one to the wife. A $10,000 cartridge was hard enough. I was lucky to get the motorcycle buy her.  

@mijostyn I heard demos of the Sweetwater units with the designers and while they are excellent units, you could absolutely hear the cleaned version’s veil over the original.

A computer can entirely remove the "pop" from a scratch and fill it in with a small section of the previous several milliseconds and you can not hear where the defect was.

@noromance , totally different ballgame. The pop removal is done before the RIAA filter is applied. The filter slurs the pop waveform making it twice as long in time. Taking it out after RIAA is applied leaves a bigger hole. The Channel D pop filter also fills in the gap with a duplicate of the preceding millisecond of waveform. All this is done in the digital world and is not noticeable. It also is removing just the big pops not the little stuff. It's sensitivity is adjustable. It can also be turned on and off on the fly. I seriously doubt any of us could reliably identify when the filter is on, I can't. Remember, this is not a stand alone piece of equipment. It is only a software program. It only requires a phono stage with a flat output. Granted, there are not many of them. I can not imagine a phono stage of higher quality than the Channel D Seta L Plus. I bought one for a reason and it was not cheap either, $10K. There are certainly more expensive units but excepting Channel D's Seta L20 at $60K there are no other more expensive units that interest me at all and this is after a decade of research. The CH Precision is a large overly complicated unit that requires an outboard power supply to function at at it's best. That is nuts to me. There is no better power supply than batteries. The unit disconnects itself from the wall in operation. Less is also more. When it comes to phono stages a lot more. 

So if digital is now perfect and battery supplies are perfect, who needs the world’s best cartridge? (Sarcasm intended.)

The Lino 3.3 was highly recommended as a phono stage that could stand up to any. I currently use a full function Atma-Sphere MP-1. This is a two box unit with a separate ps. I believe it was designed from its outset as a vinyl playback machine.

Half of its many tubes are the phono stage. I got lucky and scored 8 mil spec Mullard 12AT7s. Very rare and spectacular sounding.

I also save having to use another pricey IC and rack space for an outboard phono stage.

But the Lino seems like it may be something very special?

@rauliruegas @mikelavigne 

-Look, these are some specs of the Studer A820 that confirms in some ways what you posted and I said here:

tape speed deviation: +,- 0.2% - tape slip: +,- 01% . Speed stability here is even more critical issue than in a TT because is the recorder and the information used to cut the LPs.

W&F is +,- 0.03 % at 30" and 0.04% at 15" speeds.

Frequency response +,- 2db ( that’s a swing of 4dbs ! ! ) at 30ips from 40hz to 22khz and at 15ips 30hz-20khz ( really limited frequency response. ) and obviously that at +,- 1db deviation FR is even worst.

FWIW Dept.:

You need to spend some time with these machines to really understand them, and having done that I can tell you that if you spend the time really setting them up correctly they easily surpass the published specs. Just for the record though you're never going to see a variation of 4dB in FR!! Heck, you're hard pressed to get anywhere near that even with a cassette deck. If you spend time with the record and playback calibration, they can easily be well within 0.5dB between record and playback.

So put another way the specs you see represent a nominal machine, not one that is properly calibrated, and certainly not one that has been tricked out by one of several gurus of tape machines (that anyone who really wants to know how good they can get) who are known to service them. Put another way, Raul, Mike's machines are tricked out, having lower noise, lower distortion wider bandwidth and certainly far greater speed stability than the original stock specs suggest.

So, Raul, what Mike is hearing and what you are suggesting he is hearing are two really different things. IMO you need to acknowledge that.

 

The way this conversation has turned reminds me of a photography forum I used to frequent.  There were a number of really high-end commercial photographers that would participate in the forum and provide a ton of valuable information.  

Unfortunately, there were a few "know-it-alls" that would discount their experience and make baseless claims without having any actual experience that supported them. 

One by one the best contributors left, and once they did, many of the entry level pros and experienced hobbyists left as well.  The forum at one point would typically have about 50 active discussion threads.  I just looked this morning and there are 3.  The blind can't lead the blind.

The quantor ''all'' is not a name with reference, Its function is to express

generality. The question can only be answered with refrence to the number

of carts each person owns. Aka with ''numerical quantifier '' . ,So ''the best

of my 4 samples IS'...'. Or (Raul)  ''the best of my 100 samples Is''. But to know which of ''all 'ever produced'' which  ''all'' as universal quantifier mply is silly question. 

is 

The Hell it’s a silly question.

@mikelavigne Mike has told us about the DaVa and Etsuro Gold cartridges and why he values them above all others he has tried. If I value liveliness, I buy the DaVa. If I value refinement, I buy Etsuro.

@atmasphere Ralph has done the public service of giving us insight into Raul’s error, instead of taking the easy way out.

@lewm Lew has contributed staid common sense informed by expertise.

@mulveling, the noted Koetsu connoisseur, corrects misunderstandings about Koetsu.

@mglik tells us why he likes the Grado Epoch with Quads.

To name just five.

As long as we have real experts addressing real issues of interest to them, no thread is silly. We can just thank goodness that they (experts) bother.

 

A predictable outcome for a thread entitled as it is. Among the very few who can purchase the most expensive cartridges, there will still be the same phenomenon we see in lower end contests: people advocate for what they know about. I have eight cartridges in the 3-5k range. I'm happy to push them as being worthy of consideration, but to do so involves considerations of the system they get plugged into, and it all becomes rather meaningless.

If I could afford an SS strain gauge, a DS Audio optical, or an AT tip-sensing cartridge, I'm sure I would learn about the deficiencies of my other components! Since I cannot, I must make do with what I have, and honestly, I'm not disappointed in any way. I know now that my ears cannot hear the refinements that some claim. So I know what is the best cartridge in my world. And really, can anyone say they know what is best in anyone else's world?

Shure V15 - the best cartridges of all time?

"Moving coil fans must be gritting their teeth at the audacious title that suggests the V15 might be the best cartridge series of all time.

Sure, there are more expensive cartridges, and moving coil fans are often steadfast in their views that moving magnet just will not cut it.

But the Shure V15, in terms of its popularity, affordability, cult status and brilliant (affordable) sound is right up there.

A related example might be calling the Technics SL-1200 one of the best turntables of all time – not the highest end turntable, by any means, but a solid piece of machinery that combines excellent sound with affordability."

 

 

I wonder what serious broadcasters use these days now that Shure have stopped cartridge production?

http://best-turntables.com/shure-v15-series-explained/

Dear @atmasphere ​@mikelavigne : I think that you that are an experienced gentleman are losting the overall R2 subject and seen not the forest but only one tree.

 

Look, when I posted on the Studer behavior I started my post saying :

 

"" There are several problems with R2R units.....""

 

Specs are only a " tree ", print-out, speed stability, quality of the magnetic tape, magnetic lost its characteristics over time and tapes could develops ( even from new. ) " drops ", it needs eq., adds noise to the signal and more important what’s recorded on the tape are not zeros and ones that are totally immunes to all those R2R drawbacks for analog signal along that studio digital recorder has different design oriented for digital.

 

In the other side and talking of that specs " tree " in those old times the Studer R2R mike owns were not designed for home use by audiophiles but to be used by recording studios and Studer was not the only R2R with the quality levels for that kind of job because were deep quality competition with true challenges for every R2R manufacture. So the specs Studer gaves to the recording studios were the best they achieved on those times to competes against other manufacturer machines. That was the overall context on that Studer issue.

Ralph, I appreciated that this time you posted with a good attitude and not trying to hit me and that’s why I give my answer.

Probably those mike’s Studer performs a little better but even that is not a today reference and cant compete in any room/system with what I posted: reference is the digital medium other than live MUSIC.

 

I gave evidences about as the D2D LP recordings against the same LP recorded in the same session trhough R2R: nigth and day difference and we have to remember the " today " MoFi controversy in his one step recordings.

 

Not even you can be against those kind of evidences and I know you are not.

Obviously that stupid audiophiles are around all the audio world.

 

Btw, look the Nakamichi 1000 ZXL review and its measured specs ( I still own the 700 ZXL, way similar quality performance. ), really nice for a vintage cassette tape deck:

 

http://www.hifi-classic.net/review/nakamichi-1000zxl-321.html

I would like to read the Studer Mike’s measurements.

R.

Dear @terry9  : " into Raul’s error.."

 

that was a stupid " statement " just to hit some one. Bad for you.

 

Do you know which was/is the main difference between Newton and you? No, it's not that , it's only common sense.

 

Enjoy your self.

 

R.

Dear @mglik  : " But the Lino seems like it may be something very special? "

That's for sure and especially because you already own that  Atlas SL but it will does a good job with your Grado too and at his asking price could be a " bargain " for its high quality level performance.

 

It could be a different experience for you due what you own today.

 

R.

 

@rauliruegas "that was a stupid " statement " just to hit some one"

Sorry, I forgot that you are the only one allowed to mention someone else’s error.

 

Dear @dogberry  : " And really, can anyone say they know what is best in anyone else's world? "

 

No one can because is something personal/subjective. What we all can is to give opinions/advise on some diffderent audio items in other audiophile room/system as alternatives bt at the end the system owner has the privilege to goes with its own decision.

R.

t9, nothing but more bs coming from your cs. Futile and useless. Pity.

@mglik  : I suggested too that own other tonearm as an alternative. Maybe here too you could find out a nice and new experiences with.

R.

Exactly, @rauliruegas , we cannot impose our experience on others. Having read a lot of your input in other threads, I respect your experience, and I'm grateful to read about it. Even so, all of the wonderful things you and I have heard from cartridges of so many kinds might not work for others, We may offer a guiding light, but we cannot lead anyone else safely to harbour.

Dear @dogberry  : Sorry that in some way or the other some of my posts " showed " that I want " lead " and that's not exactly my whole attitude but perhaps only the " way " I post but not my " meaning ".

Btw, the ones that know said these talking of Studer:

 

" 

Studer is a Swiss manufacturer of professional audio equipment, founded in Zurich in 1948 by Willi Studer. It is known primarily for the design and manufacture of analog tape recorders and mixing consoles. Studer also produce other technology solutions, such as telephony management systems and radio broadcast studio equipment. Studer originated the consumer brand Revox, but sold the group to private investors in 1990.

Studer's analog tape recorders are widely considered to be the best in world by Audio engineers due to their excellent reliability and sound quality. The company has built a variety of two-track recorder models throughout its history for stereo recording and mixing.  ""

 

R.

 

It seems my effort at being emollient backfired. I'll bow out.

In the other side and talking of that specs " tree " in those old times the Studer R2R mike owns were not designed for home use by audiophiles but to be used by recording studios and Studer was not the only R2R with the quality levels for that kind of job because were deep quality competition with true challenges for every R2R manufacture. So the specs Studer gaves to the recording studios were the best they achieved on those times to competes against other manufacturer machines. That was the overall context on that Studer issue.

Ralph, I appreciated that this time you posted with a good attitude and not trying to hit me and that’s why I give my answer.

Probably those mike’s Studer performs a little better but even that is not a today reference and cant compete in any room/system with what I posted: reference is the digital medium other than live MUSIC.

@mikelavigne 

@rauliruegas I get all that you are saying about tape degradation. But your comment in the last paragraph really isn't correct. If you spent some time recording live with such equipment you would know why- they can be so beguiling that you can be easily fooled into thinking that what you are hearing on the headphones is real as opposed to a recording. Yes, they are that good.

A direct lathe cut is even better as it is lower noise and wider bandwidth.

But for the most part, regular audiophiles in the trenches never get to hear what such equipment is really all about and how real the recordings they make actually sound. In the studio, if the engineer is careful, the big difference between digital, tape and the mastering lathe is cost, not sound. Again if you doubt this, I advise spending some time around such equipment to get to know the ropes. FWIW I've managed recording studios since the mid 1970s.

 

Dear @atmasphere  : My knowledge level on the recording proccess is really poor, so I can't technically understand some issues you posted.

I remember that when I posted that a difference  in digital recording for the better was that bass range can be recorded stereo due that digital has no limitation as analog that always needs the bass range mono  and you posted that even that it could be that way normally digital comes in mono too due that the cost goes to high and in the other side engeeners are a little lazy to do it in the rigth way.

I know for your posts that you are a little biased/oriented through  LP instead digital. Obviously that you have your reasons but even that and even my recording knowledge about still it's not clear for me you last paragraph:

"" the big difference between digital, tape and the mastering lathe is cost, not sound.  ""

 

Ok, what if cost no object? still no quality differences between tape/analog and digital?

If we take the frequency ranges in the bass range it's clear an advantage of digital recording against analog and is something that any one can be aware through playback in our home system.

 

Now, I don't posted that the Studer is a bs of machine but that from some time now ( last around 10 years. ) it's not any more the quality reference due the huge digital improvements.

I still own several Telarc LPs that were recorded at the end of the 70's and early 80's. All were recorded with the PCM Soundstream ( pediestran if you like ) digital recorder and if you listen to some of those Telar's you be aware of its very high quality performance and after all those years those zeros and ones stay exactly the same and unaltered.

Next I paste what the Telarc engeeners explained on each LP about digital recording and the Soundstream specs. In my point of view and inside all my knowledge limitations those words are still in " good shape " and not only that but improved everything against those 16 bits to today PCM 32/384 or 4X DSD.

Analog can't compete against it and I don't have and even do not read yet any real/true evidence in favor of analog/tape vs digital: even human been has in the deep/internal ear an ADC because it's in digital way how the whole brain assimilates every kind of sound:

 

 

I repeat, cost no object because the issue is more important to define one s and for ever that digital today is the reference. It's not only your opinion, other audiophiles opinions or my opinion because it's not a matter of who is rith or wrong but where is the true.

 

What says your common sense? that the apple does not comes down the tree by gravity effects?

 

The overall subject could be controversial, what's not controversial is the reality behind those vintage analog recorder machines.

 

R.

@atmasphere : You was in recording studios from the 70’s and maybe you knew or meet J.Renner or S.Ricker both were involved in almost all the Telarc digital LP recordings, the former as the sound engineering and Stan at the mastering job.

A few years ago FIM label made a re-issue of the 1812 where were as advisors S.Ricker and J.Blloomenthal. This one member of the Telar recording team as digital recording and editing job along that Jules was the co-designer of the Soundstream digital recorder.

Obviously that I would like to know what all those elarc team members think about the analog tape vs digital recorders.

Btw, even that the FIM re-issue comes in a 200grs. vinyl ( I think the original came in 120grs. vinyl. )  and that was mastered trhough an " ultra high definition 32-bit mastering and with D.Sax as mastering engineer differences in between the original LP and the re-issue is way difficult to really say: here is better than there, at least in my room/system. The original 1812 LP is part of my whole evaluation/comparison proccess tests so I really know it as the fingers of my hands. The comparison sessions tells me that the Telarc original recording team were truly excellent.

If you don’t own both LPs try to buy it and listen to it, a fun and good experience. I'm sure that the experience could be a challenge even for the most demanding audiophiles as @mikelavigne  and ceratinly a full challenge for any room/system speacially for the cartridges/tonearms.

 

Anyway, what I still can’t get on your statement:

"" big difference between digital, tape ........ is cost, not sound. ""

Yes, my poor knowledge level but how comes that if the digital signal recorded is immutable to all the tape drawbacks and compared vs an analog recorded signal that is affected/degraded for each one of those drawbacks differences is " not sound ", how comes?

 

R.

 

 

 

Yes, I've met Stan. He was very nice, liked our room and Canto General which I played for him.

If you think digital is 'immutable' think again- why do people endlessly talk about which site has the better file to stream, which CD is the better version, the different sound of DACs and so on. Stan and I both sought out when mastering LPs the digital source file that lacked the DSP for the digital release because the DSP messed up the result- you could make a better sounding LP without it.

 

I remember that when I posted that a difference  in digital recording for the better was that bass range can be recorded stereo due that digital has no limitation as analog that always needs the bass range mono  and you posted that even that it could be that way normally digital comes in mono too due that the cost goes to high and in the other side engeeners are a little lazy to do it in the rigth way.

I missed this earlier.

@rauliruegas Emphasis added. This is a common myth. Tape is analog and does not need any mono bass. The reason it can show up on LP is to save time but you don't need to do that if you simply spend time with the project and look into ways to prevent out-of-phase bass from knocking the stylus out of the groove.

There's a number of ways to do that: rest set the groove depth to be deeper, perhaps cut the passage or project about 1dB lower- that doesn't sound like much but 3dB doubles the amount of modulation in the groove so 1dB less modulation can have an enormous effect!.

FWIW where this is really a problem if you are in a hurry to master the LP is below 80Hz- in most rooms its of no consequence. At that frequency the bass note is 14 feet long, and it takes several iterations of the bass note for the ear to know what the bass note is- by that time, the bass in most rooms is entirely ambient so mono bass is inaudible. Subwoofers take advantage of this fact all the time. At any rate the processor that does the mono bass is a passive device. Our processor (which we found we never used) would mono the bass only for a few milliseconds.

So when you are commenting about these things, its best to be informed- keep this in mind with future posts.

 

Forgive me for being late to the party but such a topic is too enticing to ignore!

It’s very interesting reading about new components & people’s experiences with them. Field coil pickups especially - so many ways down our rabbit hole.

I would just like to add that I’m a fan of velocity generators over displacement types as RIAA decoding is as important to my vinyl collection as anything else.

The Grail from Van den Hul is also a widely recognized transimpedance phono stage that should be mentioned. I’m a big fan of these types of phono stages when properly used.

The Koetsu Vermilion uses different coil internals compared to their other models. With roughly 1/2 the resistance/impedance there is more current available.

Not to question or doubt any other comments - Alnico magnet Dynavector pickups (DRT XV-1s) & transimpedance phono stages are why I treasure my records!

 

@atmasphere : Well I don’t remember exactly your words on the miono bass but I will look to my files and if I find out I will post. I think too that even has to be with the inverse RIAA eq.. Ican't remember

 

Anyway, the main issue is that LP comes with mono bass and today I can’t remember your exactly words on it but sooner or latter I will find out.

Normally I don’t post something/issue just at random . To much threads and posts many of us read day after day.

 

R.

Dear @mikelavigne : I was reading word by word of my posts referenced to you and in no one I posted nothing against or qquestioning you what you like it because it’s a personal opinion your opinion of what YOU like and no one can question it.

Even my first post was a " congratulations " for the two new cartridges for the OP and even that I questioned rhe DaVa cartridge and explained the why’s ( btw, a DaVa owner posted that the SS power supply is better and that opinion goes against your friend that said tubes ps is better. ) about I gave its welcome to our high end community. I’m still looking else where for its specs with no luck yet. It’s weird that even Agoners in this thread not cared about especially with a " new kid of the ... ".

I questioned the DS 45K eq. that seems a to high price added to the 15K very good cartridge design.

The controversy with the Studer is that a controversy where some are in favor and others not at all.

Then you posted:

 

" but ultimate performance does not involve digital.....in any step. "

 

That’s a radical opinion and obviously that exist other audiophiles as me that disagree with and this is a controversy too: some people in agreenment and some not at all.

 

Yes I know that you have not that kind of controversies in wbf but only " congraulations " and " thank’s " by your self. Well a different forum.

 

Even your radical statement, these are some statements posted by you all related to digital it self and in front to analog/LP:

 

""" there is an analog grainless liquidity, yet also a fine textural and timbral detail, that is ’un-digital-like’. it’s really quiet, yet the ambience in recordings that possess it is vinyl like. redbook files are really fine.

 

 

and has an overall top to bottom balance and completeness that i value highly.

 

 

Trio Arnold doing a 96/24 Beethoven TrIo (Op.9) on Quboz:

musically this really touches me and is alive, harmonically and timbrally rich, and so sonorous. it’s light on it’s feet, and yet powerful and propulsive, and just the right tension. it radiates energy. intimate and immersive.

 

 

i am stunned at how digital in my room sounds, how great redbook files i’ve heard for 30 years have now come alive.

 

 

Wadax Reference dac and Reference server my experience is ’like’ vinyl. i get no sense that i’m not listening to good vinyl. i can listen all day to the Wadax without any listening fatigue, and melt into the musical experience.

 

 

A/B directly with good pressings where there is a gap between the 2. the vinyl is still more compelling and complete. """

 

I never read any where better praise to the CD/red book that what you stated here and I have the last 10 years or more posting the same about ( with out premium equipment as yours but a truly humble one. ) and like in this thread telling why digital is today reference and loss-less signal information media that means " complete ". All analog sources are and lost signal information and this means are " incomplete ". Yes, objective point of view.

 

But even you already used the complete word for digital in one of your posted statements.

 

This kind of controversies are the ones that helps all of us to improve to learn for the better and the best way for each one of us growing up always. So, thank’s to you for that, it does not matters what.

 

R.

Btw, we can read: " like vinyl ", l" like vinyl ", " like...., etc, etc. and digital certainly it's not as vinyl but way different media that tells us that digital always and today is not " like vinyl " but it's " LIKE DIGITAL " and some of us like it. It can't be other way  !.

 

R.

any illusions about digital transfers and analog gets dispelled here by Bernie Grundman, listen to 1:17--1:25.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DArqAgLO5s

Dear @mijostyn : " Incomplete? Are you kidding me? "

No, it’s not kidding you and this kind of " mix-up " comes when we have an objective " opinion " in front of a subjective " opinion ". It can’t " married " /blended in good " shape " .

Almost all audiophiles are " biased " ( for whatever reasons ) in different levels to some kind of " path ". Normally are biased with what we are accustomed to listen almost just from when we born and several of us over our life , some way or the other, were listening to analog sources/live Music not digital.

 

Digital is an " intruder " in our analog audio world. Is something that in some ways even " disturbs " us at different levels and here in this thread we are confirming some of all those.

Why an "intruse " or better yet. Why we don’t accept in full digital? Well I think that this is the result of all what we read just when CD begans through the magazines as Stereoppphile, TAS and the like where reviewers as M.Fremer, J.Atkinson, R,Harley, J.valin, REG, etc, etc , " satanize " the digital alternative all over the last 40 years and when a human been is reading/looking/be spoke trhough magazines/forums/recording manufacturers/audio item manufacturers too and the like that digital is way WRONG and we " listen " that 24 hours a day for 40 years that " simple " FACT is part of our audio life and it’s " sticked " deep in our brain conscious or inconscious. Remember you the Athena label LP recordings? well all those very good recordings ( I own it. ) came with a red rounded seal with a cross line in the back cover where we can read: digital. So digital was " forbidden " .

Existed a very well " orchestrate " paid campaingn against digital. Nothing comes by free.

 

All those people that made it that way" dirty " job about and that still are doing it today, maybe thinking were doing a favor for the audiophiles, the only real fact is that all them are the culprit that the true high end could not growing-up faster in quality and quantity.

The pity issue in all those is that almost all of us were and are followers of them and were satisfied with that " status quo " doing nothing for the audio/MUSIC world.

 

You posted too:

 

" Nothing at this date is more accurate than a 24/192 file in a home system. Why not DSD? None of the modern four channel digital processors I know of operate in DSD, always PCM. The digital program I use to play files converts DSD to PCM for playback and storage.

No analog tape machine can compete for accuracy with a 24/192 file. This says nothing about perceived sound quality. I intentionally juggle the frequency response curve to suit my own taste, intentionally inaccurate.

What Mike’s Studers are, are very cool machines, mechanical artwork. They are antiques ""

 

Well don’t say that to Fremer and all those gentlemans including atmasphe that always has " something " to tell why " why not digital or why is not so good ".

Complete and incomplete? that’s the @mikelavigne road " bifurcation " but from his point of view it not only yet tell us what’s " compldete " and what’s " incomplete ", I mean what really means both words: what is he trying to says or explain with? and I think that Mike is not really sure about because trhough his statements he said digital is incomplete but at the same time he posted that digital " completeness " characteristic : his words not mines.

He said that listen daily more or less 70% of digital recordings and is curious because I listen daily 70% to LPs/analog.

Big difference and I think that when he has a dialogue on a digita vs analog with other persons he can’t try to be " unbiased " one way or the other. In his case through analog heavy bias.

 

I told several times: I like to listen MUSIC through my LPs but this fact does not impedes to talk with a non-biased analog " instint ".

MUSIC develops always some kind of " emotions " in all of us but here I’m not talking about " those emotions " or what we like it but which is the " complete " alternative and which the " incomplete " alternative and WHY.

What B.Grundman said is something we all know and knew by several years but solves nothing on the matters.

Almost always we audiophiles are biased for " what we like " because that’s what the AHEE teached to us. That’s why today still exist tube electronics, SUTs, , etc, and the like and the audiophiles that still do not learned follow sticked " there ". Nothing wrong with me, any one of us makes our self choices but again that kind of market behavior makes more damage that good thing to our audio world.

 

R.

honestly; this stuff is not that complicated. but it does require commitment and effort.

acquire great digital and analog sources, and great original/native media, then a great room and system to listen.

listen and see what you prefer.

don’t tell me about opinions other than you listened and this is what you heard. the other stuff matters to try and explain it. but the other stuff does not make the case. listening makes the case.

we don't all have to agree on what we hear. but it's about that.

“acquire great digital and analog sources, and great original/native media, then a great room and system to listen.”

Exactly! Thank you @mikelavigne for keeping it short and to the point. 

Dear @mikelavigne   : "" 

this stuff is not that complicated. but it does require commitment and effort.

acquire great digital and analog sources, and great original/native media, then a great room and system to listen.

listen and see what you prefer.  ""

 

Sure is not complicated and agree that require commitment and effort and I can't tell you that I did and still doing just that.

I don't give you other opinions but mine just from the dialogue began. My post to mijo was only to make an explanation about that " kidding " and all the other statements came from me and that's my opinion and the issue here is not about preferences because my preference is MUSIC always.

Yes, we don't have all to agree an especially on what we hear. Mike it's really hard to be un-biased with this kind of discussions and that's why I try to understand you and that's why I poste what I posted twice to mijos.

 

Btw, rigth now that I mentioned I will listen to those Athena LP recordings that I do not in the last 4-5 years or maybe more.

 

Nothing like the MUSIC enjoyment. So enjoy it.

 

R.

 

 

In my own world objectivity leads to the best subjective results. The problem with strict analog paths is that every step degrades the end result. But, once the music is in numbers no further degradation occurs until the last analog step. Computers do not hear distortion, they only hear ones and zeros and at a speed the human brain can not comprehend. This does not take into account the difficulties and limitations imposed by such processes as dragging a rock through a trench. 

It takes extreme objectivity to set up speakers in a room with appropriate acoustic adjustments to make a system perform near it's best. But to get all the way there requires digital signal processing or extreme luck. In my own experience that would be twice in hundreds of systems.

You can not get to the absolute sound by throwing a lot of money at a system. 

@rauliruegas , of course it is about the music. I listen to vinyl and continue to improve my vinyl playback because at least 1/2 of the music I love is planted there. Sometimes the digital transcriptions do not fair well because of poor mastering. As I think you were trying to suggest, predetermined bias contaminates the issue, the result of intentional misdirection by marketing and the unintentional misdirection by biased reviewers. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Analog can't compete against it and I don't have and even do not read yet any real/true evidence in favor of analog/tape vs digital:

@rauliruegas @mikelavigne 

Raul, you seem to be missing something here. Clearly, analog has been competing 'against it' for a very long time.

You don't have to know anything technical to understand this statement! All you have to know is that tape is still being made for analog recorders, that used quality analog recorders command prodigious prices, that new titles are being issued on reel to reel tape and what people say about the tapes and their machines.

If analog could not compete quite simply we wouldn't be having this conversation! Instead it would simply be gone and no further talk about it other than historical context.

It really is that simple.

@atmasphere  : Just as I posted: you are here againand I can see that you dig/rummage each single word in my posts but : do you know what?

 

Analog can't compete with digital for one simple reason: both are way different mediums under recording and playback proccess: WAY WAY DIFFERENT. 

The only point where both coincide is that both mediums makes some kind of " sound " but that's all.  Even that digital is recorded in a tape what's in that tape is way way different: the digital signal is " immune " to all tape drawbacks where the analog is heavy degraded in that recording proccess and if we go to the playback proccess we can confirm that just can't compete: WAY WAY DIFFERENT proccess .

You have a confusion/mix-up between " oranges and bananas ".

 

Please do it a favor your self and stop to dig/rummage my  posts, obviously that you can following and is up to you,

 

R.

 

 

In my own world objectivity leads to the best subjective results. The problem with strict analog paths is that every step degrades the end result.

@mijostyn

watch the video. Bernie agrees with you about every step degrading. so best to master as direct as possible. which in no way favors digital.

But, once the music is in numbers no further degradation occurs until the last analog step.

Bernie feels every digital step also degrades things compared to the original native source format. any manipulation degrades. digital plug in tools degrade. some recordings need fixing, and some artists want particular results that might not deliver the best sound to all listeners. so digital manipulation is done for a variety of reasons.

but what might Bernie Grundman know that you don’t know? we all might have our own opinion about that.

personally, my own opinion is that i love to listen to digital, especially native great digital recordings. with great performances. not mucked with. i hear what Bernie hears. i prefer analog when done right, but feel digital can be exceptional when done simply, or a mess on some level when processed.

music is wonderful, and recordings can tell us that if we let them. or we can strangle the music too.

Dear @mikelavigne : " Bernie feels every digital step also degrades things compared to the original.........."

" He feels " and that what’s means? other than a " feeling ".

 

" any manipulation degrades. digital plug in tools degrade. some recordings need fixing, and some artists want particular results that might not deliver the best sound to all listeners. "

well, you need to add: " any manipulation to an analog signal ..." and that kind of manipulations as " some artist want particular results... " could be a signal degradation because the artist WANTS it, the " degradation " is made in PURPOSE and not at " random and certainly not developed by digital enviroment domain.

Digital plug-in are " transparent " for the digital signal . If you want to change in anyway the digital signal you can do it through a DAW ( Digital Audio Workstation ) that makes the job in the digital domain and everyting is transparent for the digital signal we want to be modified, an example could be equalization of the original signal and that eq. proccess works totally in the digital domain. Digital can makes " MAGIC " that you or any one can detect or be aware of it, it’s that transparent.

You have to think that all the very special effects in any movie picture is mading through computers that works in the digital domain but when you seen in the movie theather you detect nothing about and the same for the sound.

But what if Bernie not just " feel " but can prove the digital signal degradation?

Well in that hipotethical scenario we can ask: in a normal analog or digital recording proccess how many steps the signal microphones pick.up must pass in either proccess? and in the playback proccess. How many degradation steps in either native domain ?

Any sound detected by our whole body ( not only ears ) is transmited by electric impulses in digital way for the brain can function as a transducer, I already posted in this thread about our ADC,

 

Again, I’m not talking on what I " prefer " but what is wrong, rigth or in between.

You insist in what " we like, what each one prefers " and this is not the whole issue.

I don’t know if you are " subjectivity " by convenience because what we like is a personal an unique privilege where no one can touch us. I hope you don’t but I can’t see yet signs of objectivity through your posts in this thread.

 

Btw, "" but feel digital can be exceptional when done simply, or a mess on some level when processed. ""

Could be but not because digital per sé but because that " proccessed " was a choice by recording/producer gentlemans " mistakes ": they are the culprit not because digital. That " mess " it happens too with analog because those " mistakes " made it by those gentlemans or by the artist.

 

R.

 

 

 

I have terrific sounding recordings in both digital and analogue format, so I am not taking sides.  But, the notion that digital is so deleterious that it is unlistenable is ridiculous.  On a Chesky test CD/Jazz sampler, they have a music recording which has been converted between digital and analogue 100 times; listen for yourself to see how much progressive damage has been done by digital encoding and decoding.

Amazing.

We used to have digiphobes in the 80's, now we have analphobes.

This is supposed to be a thread about cartridges and it gets invaded by some wags who seem to have got lost - there is a digital forum for you guys.

If any of you actually understood nyquist/digital theory, you would know that digital is only a little bit out ALL of the time. I'll give you a clue - try building a DA converter not using sine x/x in the calculations to eliminate truncation errors that occur on almost EVERY calculation.

It was the 3M contract to store the US census data on tape long before Sony etc that gave rise to digital storage - given the rapidly increasing population and additional data the US government were running out of space and needed to derive a system that could up the storage capacity using analogue tape. The 3M mathematicians built the mathematical logic that was used for red book CD.

The funny thing is by the time Sony/Philips launched red book CD they were all dead, and no-one at 3M realised the significance of their old patents. Its in the maths.

End of story.

By the way I have a few recordings of some of my audiophile wankwank records on DSD, and funnily enough even playing through a $40k digital front end using DSD direct, my TT extracts more information. What can I derive from this - nothing, zilch. Too many variables to reach a conclusion.

The only thing I can say conclusively is that on large scale classical music, with a top analogue system I am engaged, with a top digital system I often fall asleep.

Make of that what you will.

 

 

@lewm any idea as to why the best mono cartridges are but a fraction of the cost to a high end stereo cartridge? Isn’t the design principle generally the same?

@goofyfoot 

You might be amused to know that Decca, in the 1950's, before stereo became common, often recorded in stereo but released in mono because they thought they would have to pay the musicians double if the musicians knew they were being recorded in stereo.