I believe that a cartridge and a speaker, by far, contribute the most to SQ.
The two transducers in a system.
I bit the bulllet and bought a Lyra Atlas SL for $13K for my Woodsong Garrard 301 with Triplanar SE arm. I use a full function Atma-Sphere MP-1 preamp. My $60K front end. It is certainly, by far, the best I have owned. I read so many comments exclaiming that Lyra as among the best. I had to wait 6 months to get it. But the improvement over my excellent $3K Mayijima Shilabi was spectacular-putting it mildly.
I recently heard a demo of much more pricy system using a $25K cartridge. Seemed to be the most expensive cartridge made. Don’t recall the name.
For sure, the amount of detail was something I never heard. To hear a timpani sound like the real thing was incredible. And so much more!
This got me thinking of what could be possible with a different kind of cartridge than a moving coil. That is, a moving iron.
I have heard so much about the late Decca London Reference. A MI and a very different take from a MC. Could it be better? The World’s Best? No longer made.
However Grado has been making MI cartridges for decades. Even though they hold the patent for the MC. Recently, Grado came out with their assault on “The World’s Best”. At least their best effort. At $12K the Epoch 3. I bought one and have been using it now for about two weeks replacing my Lyra. There is no question that the Atlas SL is a fabulous cartridge. But the Epoch is even better. Overall, it’s SQ is the closest to real I have heard. To begin, putting the stylus down on the run in grove there is dead silence. As well as the groves between cuts. This silence is indicative of the purity of the music content. Everything I have read about it is true. IME, the comment of one reviewer, “The World’s Best”, may be true.
@mijostyn FWIW dept.: I don't attack anyone on this site as a person, I respond to correct false narrative or provide additional information. I use simple logic to do it, not personal attacks (personal attacks violate the forum rules). If I don't respond to misinformation, misinformation will be what exists instead. I've used that technique with everyone on this site and a very few seem to take it personally (apparently for reasons well outside my control)- most of whom have have gotten banned without any help from me.
I don't have a battle with analog or digital either. If you recall, Raul said (paraphrasing) that 'analog couldn't compete' but all you have to do is to walk into a record store to know that isn't true- if it were true they wouldn't sell LPs! That seems pretty simply logic to me and nothing to get upset about.
@clearthink, I owned a Revox A77 for a decade and we had a Studer at the shop I worked with down in Miami. We recorded chamber concerts with it and used it for demonstrating big systems including the HQD system. Mr Grundman's opinion is dead wrong. Everyone is entitled to be dead wrong on occasion. There is no accounting for bias.
For me it is not a battle between analog and digital. The fact of the matter is we all listen in analog. Digital sounds pretty awful, screeching would be the best description. Analog is always the end game. But, digital can also be used to make analog sound better with less noise, distortion and phase/time incoherence. Digital can also be used to crossover speakers more accurately and correct amplitude errors. All these things are impossible to do in the analog world without imposing significant errors.
Back to the DaVa. It is not a cartridge I would buy sight unseen and unheard. IMHE cartridges made by cottage industry manufacturers have quality issues and their very existence is tenuous at best. I have no difficulty buying an Ortofon MC Diamond sight unseen and unheard because I am very comfortable with the manufacturer and technology behind it. Also IMHE, products that stand out sonically at first listen are usually in error somewhere. It is the products that do not stand out sonically at first listen that are usually accurate and additional listening will bear that out.
Dear @mikelavigne : " i used the word silly to express..."
If it's silly then who cares to follows posting? obviously you cared.
" about the original question. "
Well, in my first post I posted my opini'on and here pasted:
""" Congratulations for those both new cartridges you own.
Your question could be controversial because any cartridge quality performance levels depends on with what kind of quality analog rig ( inlcuding phono stage. ) is surrounded and depends too of each cartridge owner skills for its accurated overall set up.
Cartridges as yours or coming from VDH or Ortofon or Koetsu or the Etsuro or, or, or,... are the best for its owners but at the top cartridge models in reality I agree with @mattmiller : no best but a little different. Every one of us have our own and very specifics targets and priorities with MUSIC/sound reproduction.
Btw, maybe both of your cartridge could be best " serv " by a different tonearm and obviously a different better phonolinepreamp. At both sides you will experience better SQ with both cartridges that the one you are experienced rigth now. ""
Contrary to you and even that through your posts exist contradictions I never posted that's that contradiction is " silly " or any other agressive adjective but the other way around because I care of what you say and asked you 3 times to explain your words used for analog/LP and digital: complete and incomplete respectively.
Now and for the four time you are refusing to give us your answer to us. You are still refusing about even that even the gentlemans that like to " applaud " want to know.
I really hope and wait for your explanation of those words used as characteristic by analog/LP and digital MUSIC reproduction alternatives in a home audio system.
Mike, that is the real issue not any more the thread question.
Now, I appreciated that instead to stay in " dead silent " status quo at least tell us that you don't want to explain about . That's it. Remember that Those were your " words " not mines and from there came almost the next thread posts till now.
R.
You posted something contrary of what you are asking me:
" fair enough, my source is second hand feedback from other users. "
Another second hand comment:
" he says the DaVa Reference is looking those level in the eye (at 1/3rd to 1/6th the price) and he is very impressed...."
Look:
"
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 "
but before that you posted that streaming " digital completeness ". How could that happened to you?
and I'm not telling that that is " silly ". Why should I?
tell us about your opinion about the best cartridge.
He cant. He spent over 10 years trying to convince everyone that MM's were as good as the best MC's, but apparently after an epiphany has recently concluded that nothing can touch his favourite LOMC.
I figured out he had no idea after he started making erroneous comments on rare cartidges I actually own. Example being the Dynavector Karat nova 13D - at first he tried to claim a Karat Nova 17D was actually a 13D, then after I explained the difference and serial number nomenclature, he got another ( second hand ) one.
But the apex of lunacy arrived when he advertised a "real" Dynavector Karat Nova 13D here on audiogon with the cartridge mounted in the unique headshell upside down - (1st video below ) Furthermore it appeared to have a non original cantilever - Frankenstein ( 2nd video ). This from someone who claims to be an expert.
"To make comments lacking the experience to back them up is absurd"
i used the word silly to express the same thought.
listen to the gear, tell us what you hear. or know you will not be taken seriously. do the work. i acquired the cartridges, listened, and said what i heard about the original question. expressed my listening opinion.
tell us about your opinion about the best cartridge.
Dear @lewm : " was more interesting than this banter about digital vs analog. ",
obviopusly that that is for you but everything were said/posted on the issue thread with no single doubt to add nothing about.
In the other side your " banter " subject is interesting for some other gentlemans but you when they posted about and that " banter " really started when ML posted on that complete " analog/LP " characteristic vs the incomplete digital version, that was what he stated here and latter on he posted something as " digital at any single step is a reference ". Along all those he posted in other thread that in his system streaming listened experience he touted the " completness " of digital and he named what he was enjoying that time.
Controversial point of views and that’s why I asked to know what means his " complete " against " incomplete " mediums characteristics but he never gaves us an explanation that I think because he does not wanted to does.
For me, everything is clear from 10 years now on that regards, good that for you is not interesting subject. Btw, normally when I talk of analog I’m reffering mainly to the LP alternative.
Apparently you or you'd not have responded. Based on other's responses others apparently do too.
Mike Lavigne brougth BG here thinking that in some way those comments could supports the Mike point of view and was an unfortunated " kind of support " because did not helps for him.
There is an alternative explanation as well 😁
I recommend if you can, get one of the more respected Reel to Reel tape machines (like a Studer) get it properly refurbished and see for yourself. To make comments lacking the experience to back them up is absurd.
Even the fruitless discussion of "what is the best cartridge" was more interesting than this banter about digital vs analog. None of the protagonists is ever going to be dissuaded from his or her point of view, so best to live and let live. However, it's interesting to me that digital is taken as "lossless". The Holy Grail of digital is certainly lossless-ness, but digital by its very nature can only approach lossless-ness. Modern hi-rez digital streaming certainly gets very close to that goal or closer than ever before in the history of digital music and perhaps has already exceeded in its lossless-ness our capacity to sense "loss". At least for some of us. Meantime, analog is lossless by its nature but nevertheless "loses" something due to distortion producing aspects of its methods.
Not even analized the whole context/scenario but: Good, now we have posts with the rigth answers that proved and solved the lost-less information digital technology issue ones and for ever. ! Thank's for that, really useful for every one of us.
@dover do it a favor and don't make that " great " effort to hit me because you just can't your brain is not good enough for and then you will down in a depression. Is up to you.
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.
Indeed, and many musicians, famous and not so famous, who still prefer to record in analogue would be gone as well.
There are numerous who split their recording - for example use digital for vocals, but analogue for instrumentation.
from many years now all financial transactions in the world including corporation as Wall Street used and are using DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY
That seems a bit myopic - don't you know many "financial transactions" are completed through hawala compared to Wall Street or indeed the black money market where goods and services are used for financial transfers.
Dear @solypsa : Only to relate that digital is everywhere. Same wit medical instruments or robotics.
Btw, @clearthink certainly that mijos can or not in agreement with me and has his personal answer but his statement on Bernie I understand was in specific under that " feeling " that B. mentioned that as I said before at the end means only that just a " feeling " that solve nothing. Yes, in this thread context B. is wrong and what we were discussing is not about " feelling " but clear and precise evidences in favor of digital medium.
What BG said was a comment in that non-formal meeting thinking " loud " and maybe under the thread context the answer or comment by BG could be different.
Mike Lavigne brougth BG here thinking that in some way those comments could supports the Mike point of view and was an unfortunated " kind of support " because did not helps for him.
Your ironic statement is something " stupid " for say the least, don’t you think?:
" Wow that is remarkable you know more than Bernie Grundman you must be in great demand by the record companies...."
@rauliruegasyou have made a comparison of dsp for visual and dsp for audio as if they correlate directly in terms of their perceptibility. Do you know this to be the case? ( earlier you mentioned not being very familiar with audio recording, so it caused me to wonder.)
mijostyn"My answer is simple. Bernie is wrong, dead wrong."
Wow that is remarkable you know more than Bernie Grundman you must be in great demand by the record companies it's amazing you can keep your professional medical, legal, and engineering practices open with such demand for your knowledge please tell us again what analog tape decks you're using I forgot.
Dear @mijostyn : I agree with you and not only to " applaud " you but because we are talking in the same " tunned channel ". Btw, check the @larryi post, interesting.
@rauliruegasI'm guessing you didn't read my last post without rancor. Here it is again:
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.
Dear @mikelavigne : " we don’t all have to agree on what we hear. but it’s about that. "
The dialogue about digital/analog started in this thread when you posted that your MUSIC recorded reference is a R2R Studer recorder and I posted that from some years to now the MUSIC reference is the digital alternative.
I and other gentlemans posted an explained why is digital the reference beeen a lost-less signal information.
You brougth here the Bernie " feelings " and your own opinion about that’s not under any question because that’s not the main matters/subject but the reference and why.
Please think for a moment what I will try to explain but before that, @dover if you don’t like this thread is your privilege not to read it but it’s our privilege to post what we are posting and you can’t come here to tell us what or not what to do: period. :
from many years now all financial transactions in the world including corporation as Wall Street used and are using DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY and through the years that technology showed it works for any financial world corporation. Thank’s to that digital/computer technology the financial world works fantastic and billions of transactions are made it by lower time than a sg. with no error. LOST-LESS signal information.
Your car works under digital/computer technology, your cell phone, all world communications of any kind, Hospital and Medical centers works trusting in digital tools and items, Militar world Industry works thank’s to digital/computers, Awero Space Industry works thank’s to digital, automotive industry inside its robotic machines works thank’s to digital, your streaming listen sessions are los-less digital with no " mistakes " and you and your organism works/ with no errors by digital and you and we are alive thank’s to that " technology ".
What you prefer is only an " accident " as is what any of us prefer but not Bernie or any one can prove that digital lost signal information and due to that lost-less characteristic is the recorder MUSIC reference not the Studer’s no matters what. It’s a trusty technology not like the cartridge riding a LP through a pivoted tonearm where all is full of un-accuracies and every time losting information even the cartridge can’t pick-up the 100% of the recorded signal information in those LP grooves and what I say 100%? I think that not even the 80%.
Analog/LP main characteristic is that’s a non-accurated medium when digital is totally/100% accurated. Mike, you can be sure that your overall tonearm/cartridge/TT set up is not 100% accurated no matters what, the tonearm/cartridge alignment and set up parameters are totally non-accurated due that's a mechanical alternative down there. Analog is full of problems/nigthmare and even that I like it but this " I like it " is not the SUBJECT.
Subjectivity has no " place " with because the issue is totally OBJECTIVE.
There is no-return and the best of this new King is forth-coming yet.
Mike, take a look to Sony and if you want about audio you can go the Apogee site it’s interesting for every one of us:
@mikelavigne, My answer is simple. Bernie is wrong, dead wrong. Done in 24/192 or above transformations are transparent. The system I use operates in 64 bit floating point so volume does not matter at all. 24/192 recordings of the turntable are indistinguishable from the original unless there is a scratch then the recording sounds better because the scratch is gone. It was removed prior to RIAA correction when its duration is shortest. The "hole" is filled in with a duplicate of the prior millisecond or so of music. Nobody would ever know where there was a scratch.
As @rauliruegassuggests, you can use any audio tool to make things worse. The beauty of digital signal processing is that if used correctly deficiencies in any system (includes the room) can usually be resolved resulting in a dramatic improvement in sound quality. But there are limitations and acoustics have to be managed so that digital corrections are minimal particularly in the bass region or one can rapidly run out of amplifier power.
There is no system than could not benefit from digital signal processing. Processors are running so fast now that there is virtually no down side unless you are the type that insists on everything remaining analog, the horse and buggy crowd.
@doverHa-Ha, that's because musicians only think about money. I believe Remington was the first to record in stereo. I'm thinking it was the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra in the 1940's. But I really have to wonder if they're done well or if it just sounds like panning, or the piano in one speaker and everyone else in the other, etc... In many respects, early stereo was a gimmick before it became an art in and of itself. I've got the $1,500.00 EMT mono cartridge on my radar but I need to upgrade my tonearm first. For me, a devoted mono table is financially doable.
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.
@lewmany 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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,
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 !.
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.
@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.
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!
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.
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.
@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?
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.
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.
@rauliruegasI 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.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
