Dear Dgarretson: Nothing yet about the DTi?, thank's.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Who needs a MM cartridge type when we have MC?
Dear Fleib: You was right when posted that with the Monster Alpha Genesis 1000 any action to " improve " it trhough changes in cantilever/stilus was not an improvement but the other way around. The cartridge very high quality performance level belongs to its original design that change for the bad with a re-tipping. We are in the last self design tonearm refinements and I have mounted two last prototypes and last week I mounted, fine tunned and tested again the Genesis 1000 and my first words were: WOW WOW WOW !!!! Was so high that " expression " that I gave a call to my friend that own a ZYX Universe ( same designer for the Genesis 1000 and the ZYX Universe. ) he bought this year and yesterday we mounted the Universe for a " fast comparison " ( 6 hours. ). Both cartridges mounted in similar tonearms, everything the same. It's not surprising that cartridges sounds more alike than different with some trade-offs on each side and if I have to choose in between probably I will go for the Genesis 1000 for its " better " tonal balance. The distortion levels in both cartridges are really low and the sound reflect that with a dynamic level that almost no one MM/MI I heard can compete ( maybe the Astatic 2500 ). If any one of you can put the hands on the Genesis 1000 in original status please do it, is very good experience and IMHO an additional confirmation of what J.Carr years ago posted here when he said LOMC has lower distoritons than MM/MI designs. In those times my take was the other way around, maybe for the excitement of the new ( for me ) discovery of the MM/MI alternative but today with more calm and more overall experience I can say that LOMC still has the node with out diminish the MM/MI alternative. Regards and enjoy the music, R |
It is 8:49 AM and the moderators have once again marked me as safe. I do not expect much but please tell when this gets posted. Finally got around to mounting my A & R Cambridge with the Jico SAS 1. My first reaction playing 'Aja' was that no other cartridge has ever sounded so much like an SACD. Followed by "The Best of Diana Krall'; Same reaction. However, Wilco's 'Summerteeth' and a few others recordings did sound more like analog. Sounding like an SACD is not really a criticism, they are noted for their amazing reproduction of string instruments like piano and guitar. I love my multichannel SACDs, the 2 channel ones not so much. Just posting to see if I am still a pariah. John John |
Fleib, I have a Hi-Fi News test record with horizontal and vertical resonance tracks that may be helpful moving forward. Thus far I set up by ear, running out the front and rear counterweights while holding VTF constant and adding just enough effective vertical mass to reduce audible distortions. Too much mass and sound deadens and soundstage collapses, similar to over-damping effect. In all honesty, adding horizontal mass doesn't much alter performance. With respect to an optimal range of horizontal effective mass, it seems like Bruce Thigpen of ET came to a similar conclusion. ET(which is a result of some rather sophisticated mathematical modeling) targets horizontal effective mass around 35gm-- about as low as can be obtained in a linear arm. On the other hand, at an audio show Franc Kuzma mentioned to me that a 100gm lateral mass is "no big deal." The lighter-than-stock custom carbon fiber air sled on my Trans-Fi was partly conceived to off-set the addition of front and rear counterweights. The tonearm's horizontal mass is the sum of all moving parts. I think it's neat that, unlike every other tonearm extant, the vertical mass of this one can be varied without changing horizontal mass, or vice versa. Mark Kelly/Quiddity posted elsewhere that he was working on a front counterweight, but had issues with resonance anomalies that occurred when the weight was positioned at a nodal point along the arm wand. In my arm I've attempted to prevent this by hanging the counterweights on separate cantilevers detached from the headshell. Of course, by plugging the headshell directly into the pivot bearing there is no "wand" to resonate per se, other than the headshell itself. Absent a wand, this provides an opportunity to hear the resonant behavior of the headshell itself. |
Dear friends: As time goes on the FR MCX-5 improved to very high quality performance levels. IMHO you have to live this FR experience. Btw, beats in very easy way my Denon DS1 and many other top LOMC ones and certainly several of our beloved vintage MM/MI cartridges, highly recomended. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dgarretson, Cool looking arm, like someone gone berserk with an custom erector set. In the horiz plane it doesn't matter whether it's technically eff mass or not. You obviously have the right approach, but minimizing horiz weight might not always be right solution. *Horizontal resonance is typically between 12-16hz, vertical 5-7Hz.* www.trans-fi.com/terminatortonearm.htm Now we're talking resultant resonance and the former seems high while the latter is low. Cart cu isn't specified and this is even more confusing. Normally weight is increased to raise eff mass and decrease res frequency. Do you use a test record(s)? Perhaps another approach might be helpful. You could try to optimize the vert res frequency 8 - 12Hz, then add or subtract weight horiz to max performance. Regards, |
Dgarretson, *The lateral/horizontal effective/inertial mass of a linear tonearm is the same as its weight on a scale. Depending on choice of wand and air sled this runs from 35gm-100gm in my set-up.* Come again? The air sled is part of the horiz eff mass? I would guess PSI conversion + eff mass of the arm. Now I'll have to take a look and see what you're talking about. You realize of course that weight and mass are two different things. Gram/ounce vs newton. Effective mass is the same as moment of inertia or the resistance to change angular velocity around an axis. The calculation is different for a parallel motion. Guess I'll have to see what that's about too. It doesn't make sense to me that the weight of the arm + sled = eff mass. Regards, |
Fleib, I gave the DLS1 a good run at 30R and 100R and need to return to it once more at 20R. This is straight into a modified AtmaSphere MP-1 with at least 75db gain. The DLS1 acquitted itself with honor, however as you suggest the ART7 is much more forgiving. At an initial 100R there is fine detail, holographic imaging, and tremendous jump factor. In a different league from DLS1. The lateral/horizontal effective/inertial mass of a linear tonearm is the same as its weight on a scale. Depending on choice of wand and air sled this runs from 35gm-100gm in my set-up. Thanks for your empirical approach to measuring vertical inertial mass. I'm mostly an empirical guy. I'll try that and add calculated inertial mass with counterweights placed at optimal distances from pivot as determined by ear. |
Dgarretson, Art 7 surpassing the DL-S1 isn't at all surprising to me. The DL is a nice natural sounding cart as long as your phono pre gets along with it. I keep reading about people having to load it 20 - 3o ohms. It tends to interact badly with phono stages. 0.15mV, 30 ohms to start out with can be a problem if your load effectively cuts the output in half. The Art7 on the other hand also has very low output, but R is 12 ohms and 8uH should be less problematic. Of course it has all the other stuff that AT is famous for, boron/LC etc. You know that eff mass and weight are different? I don't know how that 45g figure was derived, and of course linear vs pivoting can't be directly compared, but to estimate the vert eff mass of a straight arm, first remove the counterweight and cart then weigh the front on a platform scale with a nonmagnetic platform. Prop up the platform so it's close to the level of the pivot. This gets you very close on a straight pivoting arm. I think it would be the same for vert eff mass on yours. Regards, |
Fleib, I'll run through calculations of optimal vertical mass as I mount the next few cartridges on the wand. So far I've been placing the front and rear the weights by ear. The wand can be pretty much anything from almost massless to massive-- one or two negligible 6"x 1/8" alum cantilevers(3" rear projection + 3" front projection), one or two rear counterweights @10gm, one or two or no front counterweights @5gm, and a std. headshell that plugged directly into the pivot has minimal inertial mass relative to placement at the end of a conventional pivot arm. I've tried it with as little as 35gm horizontal mass and as much as 100gm-- approximating the range of horizontal effective mass from ET to Kuzma airline. So far less horizontal mass sounds better in all instances. This does not hold true for vertical mass. I mounted an Audio Technica ART7 today to an Ortofon LH6000 magnesium headshell. After several hours it's clear that ART7 surpasses DLS1. |
Dgarretson, That's interesting. Lateral cu and eff mass are largely ignored in consideration of arm/cart matching, whether in SQ or resultant resonant frequency and trackability, but they certainly effect performance. Most of my experience is with pivoted arms, and eff lateral mass has different implications in a linear arm. Nevertheless, tracking is 3 dimensional, and I think the discrepancy between 45g and _? might be problematic. What is the range of vert eff mass you're talking about, any calculations? Even with the variable mass scheme, is 45g preferable to lower horiz mass? Regards, |
Dear Dover, Raul and all, First time poster here, delurking to enquire further about explorations with so called DJ cartridges. I've often wondered if this particular breed may contain some gems, but have always been put off trying due their typically high recommended tracking forces. Dover, you state your favourite is the Tonar Baktrak with a new spherical stylus from the Expert Stylus Co. It strikes me that the Expert spherical tip - being less complex to produce than the other audiophile approved shapes - is not the magic ingredient here, and perhaps not your reason for the Expert Stylus job? Did you specify a more compliant suspension or different cantilever material? What tracking force are you using? Are any of the discussions about the Tonar among the EMT fanatics in English? This ilk of cartridges are ostensibly a gift to audiophilia if their promise holds true, being cheap, widely available and current manufacture. Please enlighten us. |
Fleib, I agree that it is preferable to minimize the horizontal mass of a linear tonearm, considering that in all cases this mass is greater than that of a pivot arm. Nevertheless, since I have not yet tried any very low-compliance cartridges with Trans-Fi, I'm leaving open the possibility that increased horizontal mass may make sense for some cartridges. IIRC Poul Ladegaard, the inventor of the concept linear arm that spawned Trans-Fi, mathematically modeled that horizontal force operating on the cartridge cantilever on a linear arm of up to 300gm is still minute relative to a pivot arm of typical off-set and overhang. So in theory at least, there should be no damage done by experimenting with more horizontal mass. The ability to separate the adjustment of vertical effective mass from horizontal mass has been helpful. While holding VTF constant I can hear significant changes in performance as the front and rear counterweights are spun out from the pivot point. Stubborn tracking and sibilance problems that cannot be eliminated by adjusting VTF can be resolved by varying vertical effective mass. The stock Trans-Fi short wand sounds good with all of the medium- and high- compliance cartridges I have tried. However, the variable- mass arm broadens the sonic palette of each cartridge and deals with the occasional seemingly intractable tracking problem. |
Dgarretson, *A single arm for cartridges of all compliances.* 45g horiz eff mass can be increased. Why would you want to? I've heard the theory that increasing horiz eff mass can be beneficial, but this is extreme. Many carts are less compliant vert than horiz, so results would be very arm specific. Isn't there a list of carts that work well with the arm? Regards, |
Comparisons between cartridges has become easier on Terminator with a DIY pivot with integral SME-style receptacle for standard headshells. http://cgim.audiogon.com/i/vs/i/f/1376645610.jpg The wand has dual front and rear counterweights for continuously adjustable vertical effective mass. Total horizontal mass of arm, cradle, and carbon fiber sled is 45gm, and can be increased by weighting the air sled. Tonearm wiring bypasses the SME junction to the cartridge pins, eliminating several solder joints and electrical contacts. A single arm for cartridges of all compliances. |
Stltrains *Hello all this may have been discussed and I missed it. On a at 155 or 160, now that replacement stylus has dryed up would a 440mla be a good alternative. I just picked up a tk10ml advertised with 100 hours. Haven't received it yet and no doubt replacements are none is there an alternative?* The ATN440MLa with a tapered aluminum cantilever wont give you the same performance as the original stylus on either of those 2. All 3 of those carts have the same motor and the 440 is greatly improved with either vintage stylus. The AT23 through 25 have, I believe a stylus that fits the TK10. These have a .2 x .7 elliptical and are also hard to find. The ML tip lasts a long time, but when the time comes it's probably better to have a new micro put on the existing cantilever. Someone posted recently that Stereoneedles is out of stock on all those old ones with beryllium cantilevers. Regards, |
Raul, Yes, I have my eyes open for especially a Nelson Pass design. (I did not know he made one under the "Threshold" brand name. I know about the Pass Labs one.) They don't come up often and are expensive. I am trying to keep my investment "modest", but since such devices usually hold value, I could rationalize the expense. |
Hello Professor and many thanks for your experience and knowledge of at stylus. Can i ask if you may have experimented with other than original replacement. Like i have with the 155 /160 combo. I guess im wondering if all micro lines are alike. As ive repeated the 155/160 is my favorite as the sound is so vividly real to me. I was surprised that stereoneedles had 160 replacements still available. Mike |
Dear Stltrains: Congratulations for your TK10ML. We can't see that cartridge often on ebay in that good condition. I saw that auction and at the same time was a second one for another TK10ML. I don't know which one you bought/win but seems to me that one of them was the MK2 version. Normally in the the MK2 cartridge samples you can read " MICROLINE " in the cartridge body lateral sides. Yes, we will wait with expectations your experiences with that TK10ML. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Raul, Now I have the resistors in stock to test the DTi and will do so shortly. Lew, Based on a conversation I had with a guy who tried both Marchand and Pass Labs active crossovers, I would lean toward Pass Labs. However it's difficult to be certain, as Marchand can be tweaked with improved parts. BTW I very much like the SSG silver micas. I've used these in a Zobel and as small bypass to coupling caps in electronics. |
Raul, I know a few guys who do as you do. Some of them use a single Russian-made SSG type silver mica capacitor at the input of their amplifiers, value chosen for 6db/octave hi-pass filter at whatever frequency. Some very critical guys say that the SSGs are essentially totally transparent. The problem I am running into is that the Bevs were designed to go down to 100Hz or 80Hz with a very steep active hi-pass filter (18db/octave). It's hard to mimic that with the passive approach and without a large insertion loss. If I were to use a first-order filter, then I would need to start rolling off at 200Hz or even higher; I'd hate to attenuate the Bevs in that frequency range, because they are so good. So, I am "stuck" with an active crossover. (Marchand actually makes a passive crossover that generates a 24db/octave slope. I am curious about that one.) Right now I am mostly contemplating external active crossovers, altho I never met an active crossover I could really love. |
Regards, Stltrains: Mike, might take a look HERE for reference, any of group "K" or "L" will work with the 120 through 160 family of carts, as will the ATN440MLa. Carts ending with "OCC", such as Stoney's ML180 OCC require a different fitment. Peace, |
Hello all this may have been discussed and I missed it. On a at 155 or 160, now that replacement stylus has dryed up would a 440mla be a good alternative. I just picked up a tk10ml advertised with 100 hours. Haven't received it yet and no doubt replacements are none is there an alternative? Thanks for any thoughts Mike |
Dear Lewm: You are right, crossover and proper integration is the name of the game. In my audio system set up I'm not using an external crossover, what I did is that inside the Levinson monoblocks ( main speakers. ) I only change the input cap value and in the Velodyne's I'm using its own internal crossover that I could think you can improve in the SW. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Dgarretson: Good to know that you own the ART 7. Like 3 months ago I was tempted to pull the triger for the ART 7. I own all the AT ART cartridges and other LOMC from AT and Signet and are good performers. I did not buy it because I have to many vintage LOMC cartridges to test and the ones I already tested are excellent performers that IMHO beats today top cartridges. Maybe that latest AT design can be something really especial but you are the one that can confirm it. Your experiences are welcomed and if outperform the DLS1 then you have " something " on hand. Good listening. regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Revisiting the DLS1 psyched me up enough to order an Audio Technica ART7. This has a non-permeable MC core and low output similar to the DLS1 and FR7. The ART7 spec looks very close to last year's AT50ANV, except for lighter weight and a "newly developed LPC (Liquid Crystal Polymer) for wound coil frame providing high-strength and high-vibration absorption." AT-ART7 Model Air-core MC type Playback frequency range 15 ~ 50,000 Hz Output voltage 0.12mV (1kHz, 5cm/sec.) Channel separation 30dB (1kHz) Output Balance 0.5dB (1kHz) Needle pressure 1.6 ~ 2.0g (1.8g standard) Coil impedance 12Ω (1kHz) DC resistance 12Ω Load resistance 100Ω or more (head amplifier is connected) Coil inductance 8μH (1kHz) A static compliance 35 × 10-6cm/dyne Dynamic compliance 10 × 10-6cm/dyne (100Hz) Needle tip shape Special line contact Cantilever φ0.26mm solid boron Vertical tracking angle 23 ° External dimensions H17.3 × W17.0 × D25.6mm Mass 8.5g Released: November 16, 2012 http://www.audio-technica.co.jp/atj/show_model.php?modelId=2260 |
Dear Dgarretson: The MC 201 is a more older design coming from 1980-1981 sharing some of the FR7 model design characteristics. I owned but I can't graded today. It's price in those times was around 350.00. Btw, yes the Denon DLS1 is very good performer, there are very good reasons why is Denon top of the line design. regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Storyboy: IMHO the experiences trhough those vintage MM/MI/LOMC/HOMC cartridges confirm your statement and I know is shared by other audiophiles. Regarding cartridges those " old " manufacturers/designers really had a very hard task due to the limitations of the audio items those cartridges must be surrounded. The cartridge design must be really great to performs " decent " and today with our better audio systems those old gems shines as never before and outperform even top today cartridge designs for the same reason. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear friends: I think that the rightness on the music reproduction in the FR MCX-5 is that the cartridge not only gives you " more " information but more important is the way that music information is reproduced, that sonority I talked about. The MCX-5 does something in superlative way that I can't remember in any other cartridge at the MCX-5 level of quality and that " something is: the precise " weight " on the instrument music reproduction and more important the precise weight on each note inside that music instrument. You can detect it in the reproduction of an acoustic guitar or a violin or piano or any other instrument or even blend of instruments because the cartridge has a very high abilitie to separate " sounds " as no other cartridge I heard. Is that precise and defined weight what gives the cartridge quality performance its rightness and sonority telling you that you are hearing the " real thing ". Both characteristics are in intimate relationship: weight and sonority, that gives a " tremendous " ryhtmum to what we are listening. What you heard trhough the FR MCX-5, even if it's not your prefered kind of music, moves you inmediatly and makes to forget about the audio hardware and makes that your whole body be enjoying the music emotions deeply. I know that many of us already had experiences like that but IMHO never at this level of greatness. As more I listen through this cartridge as more I'm aware of those analog reproduction last boundaries I'm looking for. Btw, talking of weight the FR MCX-5 weight is: 6.2 grs. and as I said with a humble looking. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Any experience or thoughts on the performance level of Fidelity Research MC-201? There is a stock of NOS examples available: http://www.ebay.com/itm/FIDELITY-RESEARCH-MC-201-Stereo-Phono-Cartridge-Vintage-New-In-Box-/271246008816?pt=US_DJ_Turntable_Parts_Accs&hash=item3f2785a1f0 Its low output is intriguing. I recently remounted my .15mv Denon DLS1, now loaded at 30R as recommended by John Elison on AA. A very satisfying ride. |
I agree in principle that a top quality pair of two-way monitors plus a pair of subwoofers of similar high quality can compete with any other way of obtaining one's own absolute sound. Each way of getting there has it's own set of problems. With the monitor plus sub approach, the problem is the quality and type of the crossover network and the integration between monitor and sub. I am wrestling with that right now as regards how to get the most out of the Beveridge 2SWs. The crossover electronics built into the 2SW chassis are subpar by modern standards. |
Dear friends: After so wonderful vintage MM/MI cartridge experiences common sense told me that " maybe " vintage LOMC cartridges could be a real gems because in those old times and due to audio items eletronics limitations the cartridge design/voicing must be just " superb " to performs to make signs those old audio systems. So, a few months ago I started to buy vintage LOMC cartridges and I can say that that common sense was right. I already reported on two-three of those vintage LOMC and today is the turn of one of those LOMC gems, the Fidelity Research MCX-5. It looks really humble and you can expect a surprise down there but it does not performs as its look. This FR MCX-5 apperaed in 1985 and maybe was one of the latest FR top of the line cartridges under the FR name. Its design is different from the FR7 models ( that I own. ). I always admire FR for its cartridges ( not their " terrible " tonearms. ) even the Ikeda ones that I own too. Cartridge output: 0.2mv, fr: 10hz to 40khz, VTF: 1.4gr to 1.8grs ( I used 1.6grs. ) separation: 20db, compliance 9cu ( this is the spec but performs as a way high compliance. ), stylus: 0.3 x 0.7. I mounted in the AT 1503 in our self design headshell and tested trhough an Entré SUT at 3 ohms position with a positive VTA/SRA. Main characteristic of the MCX-5 is its sonority ( not an audio coloration. ) as the sonority that has any acoustic instrument. When we play a guyitar, violin or piano we hear that sonority as a whole coming from " inside " the instrument. Top to bottom I have no single objection, the cartridge performs great with no high frequency overshot that's normal in LOMC cartridges. It is very easy on the ears because fulfill the music real live characteristics. That sonority I'm talking about gives the impression of endless dynamics with a " precision " in the natural color tone and agresiveness of the real thing. The cartridge shows you the " power of the music ", power that only can live it on live events, an efortless power. No stress with this cartridge. Great tracker over the Telarc 1812 but the last cannon shot. One first time I experienced with any cartridge is the performance of the carrillon in that 1812 overture. This passage is very dificult, dificult to the cartridge performance can tell you each different sound on those hundred bells. With the MCX-5 I'm aware on bell sounds ( very clear and precise in tone. ) that with I never imagine were in the grooves. This is a fenomenal achievement for any cartridge at any standards. Yes, it's better than almost all our beloved top MM/MI ones and its big FR7 brothers and the best of all is that when you heard through the FR MCX-5 you don't miss any single characteristic why we are in love with those MM/MI vintage cartridges. Don't ask, if you see it on the net: just buy it!!!! Regards and enjoy thye music, R. |
Dear Lewm: Well, at least on design the Vittora are way different from the Raidho: horns vs planar/moving coil Raidho design. You can't choose more different speaker designs. Now, in the next two weeks I will more near the Raidho spekaers because I will following helping my friend with the integration of those Rel subs he already bought. With out 100% of sure I think that the C 1.1 integrated with those self powered subs can fulfill any room dimension needs. Better than those horns?, could be but not you not any one can tell about till first hand experience with both speaker system in the same room set up. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
The Raidho's are a viable alternative for a wealthy audiophile who lives in an apartment with limited listening space. They do compete on some level with any other fine speaker, but for me, given a large listening room, there are at least a few other speakers I still prefer. I even was more thrilled with those Volti Audio Vittora speakers I also heard at the CAF. The Raidho's might become fatiguing over the long haul. 32/192 and 32/384 quoted resolution for digital audio reminds me of the horsepower race in automobile marketing or the Watts race in transistor amplifier marketing or the pixel count on digital TV screens. It's specious. There is very little if any source material that achieves such high resolution. The software is always the limiting factor. |
Dear Dgarretson: Yes, could be controversial but what it's not in audio. I see digital source as an alternative ( as I see the MM/MI laternative to the LOMC one and lately the HOMC alternative. ) where IMHO today we can't any more close our " eyes/ears " with out real foundations. An alternative is precsicely that an " alternative " that lives and competes at the same time with other alternatives. Firts than all I compare the digital alternative against live music reference taking in count several live music characteristics and between them that live music has very low distortion levels and very low unaccuracies and other characteristics like: its agresiveness, don't warm sound, dynamics, impact, its natural color and tune, etc, etc. When I compare digital vs analog I do it against that kind of parameters and maybe more important that all those is that I always try to have a non-biased mind/attitude in those comparisons. I try to be objective it does not matters if that kind of attitude and facts/results goes against what " I like ". None of those sources: analog and digital are perfect but IMHO the analog " suffer " of higher imperfections. That we like it more one source against the other is not important and certainly not the main subject. +++++ " that the consensus of OEM exhibitors is not convinced of the superiority of digital-- unless perhaps vinyl is simply more fun or more profitable in the selling. " +++++ well, as Lewm said: there is the AHEE evil that as almost alwys does not tell us the true but only " his true " to make busine$$$$$. Hey, the AHEE was whom teach ed us that on cartridges the only valid option was LOMC and today we all know that was an AHEE false statement and the same happened with SUTs against high gain active PS or tube against ss and several other audio areas. Please share those lates digital experiences you will have. About the Raidho speakers could be that with some electronics could perform a tad brittle but I can't say for sure. I like a lot these Raidho speakers that unfortunately for some of us has a very high price. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Raul wrote: "Today 32/192 or 32/384 latest DACs digital technology inside any decent digital player outperforms analog LP." This is a pretty controversial statement-- particularly the notion that "any decent" player can get you there relative to TOTL analog. I'm in process of upgrading my Buffalo IIISE dual-mono ESS Sabre DAC to hi-res, and will post what comes from that. RBCD through ESS Sabre DAC with a custom buffered transformer output stage gets within "shouting distance" of vinyl, but not quite there. Based on observations of increased vinyl in top rooms at regional and national audio shows, I think it's fair to conclude that the consensus of OEM exhibitors is not convinced of the superiority of digital-- unless perhaps vinyl is simply more fun or more profitable in the selling. BTW I've heard both Raidho models at several shows. It's a very exciting and clean presentation, if perhaps a tad brittle with some electronics. |
Acman3, I´ve been having fun since early 1970´s with my analog stuff. And my turntable is getting better all the time. Glad you still prefer the analog, er... I nearly thought you had finally gone mad with this nonsense numerical perfection fuss. Relieved, and don´t forget to play your c-cassettes ! |
Dear Harold-not-the-barrel: +++++ " It has always been dull and compressed and lacks the dynamics that music in real life is. " +++++ well, analog neither has " the dynamics that music in real life is ". Today 32/192 or 32/384 lates DACs digital technology inside any decent digital player outperforms analog LP. That we like more the distortions/colorations and non-accurate analog sound does not means latest digital experience is wrong as you said: " just pseudo science and still the biggest lie in audio. " You can read sveral posts in this thread and other where I and other persons explain why what you posted is a misunderstood for say the least. In the other side I don't read in your post any single/reason/foundation that support your statements. Could you elaborate on that? Regards and enjoy the music, R. |