Turntable got absolutely crushed by CD

Dear @fleschler : I prefer too the 10 row for the same you like. My nearfield experiences were an " open eyes " to say the least and the greattest learning lessons in all my audio life.

So: am I throw away my LPs and analog rig?, certainly not. Because all what I posted here the anlog experiences are " appealing " when the audio system is truer/nearest to the recording.. I enjoy the analog experiences.The only system audio link that I always try to avoid is any single tube in the cartridge signal ( even that I used for many years tube electronics. ), full SS electronics is IMHO the rigth way to go till appears something better to honor the LIVE MUSIC.

I know a very well regarded cartridge designer that marketed and co-designed an all SS phono stage and knowing this gentleman I understand why.

That same gentleman was whom told me in  the cartridge MM extremely long thread that LOMC cartridges were lower in distortions than the very good MM alternative.

But in those " old times " I was really motivitaded/exited for my new MM/MI cartridge re-discovery and I said that MM was better.

Years latter I learned and he was totally rigth LOMC is way superior to the MM/MI alternative and there are several reasons about but this will be for some other thread. 

R.

@rauliruegas 
I tried my best to follow your reasoning, but had a hard time catching its essence. It's no help that I don't know what AHEE means. It almost sounds like a conspiracy to hide the audio truth from us. The X-files of the high end? Surely you are joking?

High end audio is a business like any other, subject to technological innovations as much as to fashions and trends. It's not always easy to tell which is which, because a solid frame of reference is missing and objective journalism is mostly lacking. Basically we're left to our own devices. Discussions on forums like this are our best shot at getting some useful information that can help us educate ourselves.

My own preference is still very much with analog. But I'm not in an analog bubble, so last year I decided to purchase a well regarded current model cd player to hear if much had happened in digital in the last 10 years or so. I previously owned Krell KPS 20i and Metronome T2i Signature players, which were well regarded players in their time. I enjoyed listening to them both, but always preferred my analog rig.

So in came an Esoteric K-05x. Way down from their top level of course, but still equipped with the latest generation processor and filter technology. I really wanted the Esoteric to shine, but it didn't appeal to me at all. I just couldn't shake the feeling I was listening to highly manipulated sound and not music. But many people think this is a great player, so what do I know?

Perhaps your distinction between 'sound lovers' and 'music lovers' does make some sense after all. But what is 'sound' to one person may well be 'music' to the next and vice versa. It's all subjective!

Edgewear, that's your diplomatic way of putting it, but there are clearly two distinct camps here; "sound lovers" and music lovers.

Live music can sound terrible as it usually does when it is played loud in small acoustic spaces, too amplified or in too live or dead rooms.  The acoustics where music is played is extremely important to the quality of the sound.  Recordings are often superior to live performances because they are engineered to capture the sound better.  As a part time recorder of an orchestra, chamber group and choirs and with 78s, LPs, CDs and RR tape, I hear all types of sounds from all types of venues.  I consider them all valid for music enjoyment.  If not, I don't listen.  I've heard great performances in terrible acoustics and on poor sounding recordings.  But when I hear a mediocre performance in great acoustics, I want to run away but with recordings, I just toss them.  

Dear @edgewear: AHEE: Audio High End Establishment.

Now, normally our room/audio systems are " optimized " to listen the analog alternative not for the digital one.

So when we want to listen seriously to the digital alternative we must to make changes in our room/system because its overall performance is way different.

We can think that in an analog rig digital will performs marvelous but other important issue is that when we listen to digital we WANT that performs with the same analog characteristics. No way about both alternatives are way way different. Digital is a lot more demanding that analog.

When your room/system is optimased for digital then analog always will performs better than ever. ! ! ! 


Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

@rauliruegas 
Thanks for explaining AHEE. My guess wasn't too far off, was it?

Do I understand you correctly when you imply that systems optimized for digital will also make analog sound better? Are you saying this because a digital source is supposedly more neutral than analog? I'm not so sure about this. Digital audio devices have to work with a limited number of processor options, so to a certain extend the sonic result has already been decided for you. Perhaps this is why most cd players have the same sonic 'imprint', but this doesn't necessarily mean it's 'neutral'.

With analog there are many more aspects that can be influenced by the listener. I assume we're all familiar with the unexpected magical 'click' when suddenly you hit on a perfect arm/cartridge synergy. For me this is one of the reasons analog audio is so much more fun. There's more 'editorial space' to influence the sonic characteristics  to suit your musical tastes.

@fleschler 
I agree that live music often sounds terrible due to bad acoustics, too high SPL's or any number of reasons. This is exactly why I implied there's no solid frame of reference. The 'gestalt' of live music is instantly recognizable for better or worse. This could be called the 'Absolute Sound', but that doesn't necessarily mean it always sounds absolutely great. 

Dear @edgewear: Your guess was rigth-on.

If for " neutral " you mean: lower noise levels, lower overall signal degradation, lower overall distortions, way better bass range management, etc, etc, the it’s because is more " neutral ".

Yes, we have more " fun " with analog but that’s not of what I’m talking about as it’s not:
"" the sonic characteristics to suit your musical tastes. """

Each one of us " musical tastes " are not directly in relationship with the room/system target: truer to the recording.
Where when the performance of the room/system is " truer to the recording " always will suit our musical tastes.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

I keep waiting to this thread to die but it won't. The undeniable truth IMHO is that there is more SQ deviation with vinyl than digital. There is also more variation as to proper set-up and overall deck quality with vinyl and vinyl playback gear than CD's and CDP's. The best vinyl pressings on a great and properly set-up vinyl rig will eclipse any CD on any CDP for those that appreciate the attributes of vinyl. Yes, lots of variables apply as to software, hardware, and variation of we humans who value various audio qualities. Vinyl is ultimately more rewarding for those of who value the sonic qualities of good vinyl and who are willing to work for it. To quote Timothy Olyphant in "The Girl Next Door", "the juice [is] worth the squeeze!". 

As to performances, there are LPs and CDs which do not duplicate them or have equally good mastering/sound.   My Marston CDs of vocalists and pianists are not available on LP and often extremely rare originals (78s, Pathes, Edisons, etc).  They sound wonderful on high end equipment.  They don't necessarily need the analog equivalent to extract the best sound possible.  

As to high end sound, I have many LPs and CDs, where both were good remasterings, yet the LP is slightly better than the CD.  Then again, I have so many mediocre LPs due to inferior mastering or pressing where the CD kills the LP.  Until I purchased my EAR Acute CD player, I didn't enjoy CDs.  Now CDs are on an equally enjoyable footing as my analog gear.  I wouldn't want to live without both.

There was a very interesting study done many years ago. It was a professional study done by psychologists and following established procedures to minimize anything that might influence the outcome. There were for example no questions about which is better or why. People sat and listened to some music. Different kinds of music. The questions that were asked were directed at the music. Its been so long now I forget but they were asked questions along the lines of have you heard this before, would you be interested in buying it, do you feel more or less inclined to listen to more of this music in the future, that kind of thing. 

They had an assistant bringing the questionnaire hand it to them from behind, eliminating any chance the subjects might see an expression or mannerism and be influenced in their answers. Not that they could have done much, even the assistants had no idea what was going on. All they knew was light goes off you go in hand this over take it back, wash, rinse repeat. Easily the most comprehensively objective, scientifically and statistically sound study I have ever seen or heard about.

The music they heard was played three different ways, all carefully matched to volume, frequency response, everything possible to eliminate all but the two parameters being studied. In the first method it was turntable and tube amp. In the second it was CD and tube amp. In the third it was CD and SS amp. 

While I said 1st, 2nd and 3rd they weren't always in that order. People might get tired after a while. That might influence results. So the order was randomized.

Now even though this is to the best of my knowledge clearly the definitive study on the subject, since nobody was asked which one sounds better we can't come to that conclusion. What they did show however and by a statistically large margin is people enjoy and want to buy music more when it is played on turntables with tubes. There was a clear ranking with turntable/tube first, CD tube second, CD SS dead last.

At the conclusion of the study the poor assistant who had been hearing all this for weeks asked what in the world was going on? Why? Because she couldn't figure it out. But over time she had come to dread the time when it would be the one awful sounding one.

That would be, just so you know, the CD and solid state.

Without actually reading the study how could anyone conclude it was biased?If course CD players generally sounded pretty harsh back in the day so there's that.

As if professional 😬 psychologists know what things affect the sound. Heck, even audiophiles don’t know all of the varibles. That’s why I say negative results of any (rpt any) audio test cannot be generalized or used as evidence, much less proof. Best to just throw those tests out. Test procedures need to be very thorough and checked by someone who knows what he’s doing. Ditto test results. Just like the big boys do. Good luck, as Bob Dylan says on the trailing wax of all of his albums. 

Any specifics on what turntables, cd players and amps were used, which specific recordings? Those details could affect the outcome pretty significantly and I’d hate to have to throw away my cd player and solid state amp.

I can understand that if the gear was not very good, turntable and tubes would be the way to go, but I don’t think that a lower quality tube amp would satisfy most audiophiles more than a good quality solid state amp in the long run. Cd player vs turntable? I don’t think we need to go there again.

Cd player vs turntable? I don’t think we need to go there again.

??
Is that not how this thread started??

😎😎

Ooops, good catch!

Is that not how this thread started??

Yes it is. We’ve got 10 pages of posts accumulated over almost two months. Do we need to start over again, or have our positions on that been pretty well aired? I don’t want to stifle debate, though. Feel free to tell us what your opinion is on the topic. Mine is both can sound very good and very bad. Listen to whatever brings you enjoyment.

"Well, I had owned over 8000 Classical LPs..."

Goodness you owned over 2600 pounds of (just) classical records?  If stored correctly that would take 266 feet of storage space - almost a football field in length.  Or stacked eight rows high would still be a storage area  33 ft wide.  And that is just your classical discs.

I thought you lived in an apartment, Elizabeth?

Edgewear, that’s your diplomatic way of putting it, but there are clearly two distinct camps here; "sound lovers" and music lovers.

I disagree.

There’s no such clear distinction IMO.

First, everyone is here due to some level of interest in or devotion to the technology portion of sound reproduction. That’s why you or anyone else is on a site devoted to discussions of the technology.

And the degree that one focuses on the technology part, or the "sound" of a system, won’t vary in some hard edged way among members: there will be a spectrum, a continuum, not some obvious divide. In fact, I’d say for many if not most of us, we will go through swings even individually - some periods were our attention is mainly on the music (maybe once we hit some period of either fatigue with vetting new gear, or we've reached some level of satisfaction), and some periods where we are back concentrating on the technology.


And we always care about the sound to some degree, at least when it comes to our high end systems...that’s why we are here!

Whenever someone says "there are music lovers and then there are sound lovers" you can bet they put themselves in the "music lovers" camp. It’s a sort of self-re-assurance one is in the more pious of the two camps because, really "it’s all about the music," right? :)

I've continued to purchase many (obscure) vinyl albums from the glory days of analog recording and I am so often gobsmacked by the sound!It can be utterly glorious, in a unique way that I often don't get from my digital source.  It exhibits the texture, body, spaciousness and richness that makes my heart melt.   Digital is still great, but it seems I now sometimes have a need that can sometimes only be met by a great vinyl album.

I just received Yes "Going for the One " remastered CD for my birthday, I popped it in my Marantz SA-10 and it slayed the record. There are a lot of high frequencies in the record that were very shrill and piercing. One reason must be it has an off center spundle hole which I think exasperates the problem. I heard this recording as I never have heard it before in full pinpoint clarity. Maybe down the road I will find the same record in a bargain bin and try it again. 

Dear @prof 1 :  IMHO there is a wide distance between sound lovers and MUSIC lovers and for the adjectives you used to explain sound characteristics in your last post for me you are not a MUSIC lover but a sound lover and nothing wron with that. That's what you like but please read this link:

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/turntable-got-absolutely-crushed-by-cd/post?postid=1684132#16...

Btw, @millercarbon  perhaps you need to read it too.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

If you are listening to say , Bach. there is a lot wrong with that !Rock matters not .

@rauliruegas

Dear @prof 1 : IMHO there is a wide distance between sound lovers and MUSIC lovers and for the adjectives you used to explain sound characteristics in your last post for me you are not a MUSIC lover

What rubbish. You don’t know me. There’s nothing wrong of course with loving sound quality - again if YOU didn’t care at all about sound quality YOU wouldn’t be on a site like this. We all care about sound quality here.

But the idea that I’m not a music lover is flat out ignorance on your part. Gee...I only grew up with a mother who was a piano teacher, a father who was a music teacher and jazz musician, our house had several pianos, drums, synthesizers, saxes, trombones, clarinets, guitars and more and we all played music. I played since I was young, played in bands for many years, and have had a voracious musical appetite my whole life, and I’ve continued to search for and order CDs and LPs from all over the world, especially when I get obsessed with a certain type of music.

So, please, don’t go telling me what I like or don’t like. It’s judgemental snobs like you that give audiophiles a bad name.

Hence it’s worth a repeat of my previous comment:

Prof: "Whenever someone says "there are music lovers and then there are sound lovers" you can bet they put themselves in the "music lovers" camp. It’s a sort of self-re-assurance one is in the more pious of the two camps because, really "it’s all about the music," right? :)"

Prof.

You stated above real words about what made your heart sing.  Raul show his hand again and again with his distortion, anti tube and even digital is the real thing stuff.

When a person grows up playing in bands and orchestras, they have real advantage of knowing what real music sounds like and feels like.  Most people just listen to what they like or told to like.

So it is nice that you brought the heart felt aspect into the equation.  The only question is how many people caught it or care.

Enjoy the ride
Tom

Thanks tomwh.

It’s funny that raulirugas shows his hand with his last sentence " enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS."


A sentiment that could only come from someone invested in the SOUND of a system. Most people could happily listen to music through systems with the type of distortions raulirugas woud likely decry, because they are focused on the music, without worrying about the teeniest distortions. Only someone really in to SOUND would have motivation to go on diatribes or evangelize about certain types of equipment, distortion profiles etc.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that ;-) But that’s the problem of being all judgemental and trying to separate people in to camps, and "other" them (when it’s all much more diverse and complex than these simplistic divisions). In a place like this anyone who claims "YOU are interested in sound, I am interested in music" is casting the first stone.


As I said, all of us here care about the sound of our systems. (How music sounds via our system). And plenty of us can still enjoy music in other situations as well. I often listen to music right out of my iphone speakers (it’s often the most convenient way depending on what I’m doing) and I get musical joy from that too.

Whatever floats your boat! Their is no Right or Wrong. Both formats can work well depending on the Recording and the Room/Gear Setup.

Personally i like a well setup Digital Player, the matter of convenience and the ability to browse through hundreds of files with out the snap crackle and pops.

Just dont have the time to become a dishwasher and clean my records all day long.

I think its good to keep both a Turntable and a DAC. Which ever is your priority on playback should deserve more of your funds. 

As to LP shelf space, approximately 80 LPs fit into one foot of shelf space.  Hence, 8000 LPs should fit into 100 lineal feet of shelf space.  I should know.  I currently have 25,000 LPs in my listening/storage room and 5,000 LPs in my storage shed to be sorted, heard or discarded (sold or given away).  Now, 78 rpm records take up much more space if in albums rather than sleeves.  Also, boxed sets can be bulkier, such as for operas.  

100 lineal feet of shelf space in a six shelf high storage shelving cabinet is only about 17 feet long, not 266 feet or even an integer by 6 shelves.   Just one wall for most collectors.

Again, in my very wide types of music in my collection, the recording and mastering are paramount to enjoying the sound quality of the performance.  First comes the performance, then the sound quality.  In my audio systems, I can greatly enjoy the sound of even early electric 78s from 1925, mono and stereo LP recordings and digital recordings.  Records, tapes and CDs can all sound great or mediocre, depending on the recording engineer and in the modern recording era, the mastering engineer.  I get the same thrill from a great sounding CD that I get from a great sounding LP and RR tape.

The more LPs or CDs one has the worse the sound. Ironic, ain’t it? It’s ironic because the most enthusiastic hard core audiophiles are destined to have bad sound. It is their fate. 😳

Dear @prof 1 :: Good that first of all you are a music lover.

"  spaciousness and richness that makes my heart melt... "

those kind of adjectives ( that are " audiophiles " adjectives. ) no one can find out in a live music event seated at near field  (1m-2m- ) at true live SPLs.

""" A sentiment that could only come from someone invested in the SOUND of a system ..."""

My dear @prof  all music lovers and sound lovers invested in the SOUND system.
I started that way and still I am enjoying the SOUND of my system. 

Things are that in the past I was truly a sound lover even that at the same time I was and I'm a music lover.
Trhough the last years I made my self a question:  where are " seated " the microphones that pick up the recording sessions ? and I found out that are at " near field " position.
So, I had several opportunities to listen big symphonic and band orchestras and instruments alone at true " near field " position and trhough those experiences I learned that what we listen at home systems is only an " illusion " that is far away of the sound of music at near field position.

From those nearfield experiences and my audiophile experiences in my and many many different home audio systems I changed my main audio room/system target that always was focus in quality levels of my system.

Today my main target is not that spaciousness/richness or other sound lovers adjectives but to stay truer to the recording that for me means leave all my room/system generated/developed distortions/ everykind and  everywhere at minimum.
That puts me " truer to the recording " and nearer to the near field live music. Yes I know I'm far away from here but that is my target.
When an audio  room/system is truer to the recording always is achiving the best quality level performance and always we will like what we are listening on it.

@tomwh , I'm not against tubes per se but because always goes against my target ( for many years I was using tube electronics till I learned. ), it's the worst link in any audio system. Tubes not only goes against MUSIC but against quality SOUND levels: no matters what.

I like the analog experience but digital is way way ahead my more distance that what we analog lovers like to think.


Btw, in the February Stereophile magazyne from 46 choosed R2D4 ONLY 13 are full analog. This is less than 29%, go figure ! !.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

@tomwh , do you know why almost all the big symphonic orchestras Directors and players of almost any kind of instruments ( even those in jazz quartes or rock music. ) that made that work for " all their lifes " are almost " deaf "?, because were exposed all those years to very high SPLs that's the way " sounds " the live MUSIC at near field position where they were seated or stand up.

I respect every instrument player opinions but I understand the why's of their opinions. Did you?

and 4 of those analog recordings came from MF/AD that are not exactly " honest " about but both must deffend what their mouth talks.

R.

those kind of adjectives ( that are " audiophiles " adjectives. ) no one can find out in a live music event seated at near field (1m-2m- ) at true live SPLs.

@rauliruegas


Nonsense.

And something of a red herring as well.

First, when I hear live un-amplified voices and instruments, one of the first words that come to mind is how rich the sound is.  (As I've expressed many times on this forum).  Whether I'm playing an instrument myself, or listening to someone else.

Secondly, when I attend the symphony, I tend to prefer closer seating and I ABSOLUTELY perceive both the richness of the instruments - richer in terms of fullness, presence and timbrel complexity than typical reproduced sound - and spacious as all get out.  No consumer system I've ever heard can even come close to the spacious scale of a live orchestra.

Today my main target is not that spaciousness/richness or other sound lovers adjectives but to stay truer to the recording that for me means leave all my room/system generated/developed distortions/ everykind and everywhere at minimum.
That puts me " truer to the recording " and nearer to the near field live music. Yes I know I'm far away from here but that is my target.

And those are all "audiophile" targets.  You are no more "purer" in your persuit of music than anyone else here.  So please don't throw stones in glass houses.

My dear @prof  all music lovers and sound lovers invested in the SOUND system.I started that way and still I am enjoying the SOUND of my system.

Right...therefore the division you (and some others) make between "sound lovers" and "music lovers" is bogus.  One can enjoy both aspects - in fact they are obviously interlinked, given it's sound that we are responding too.

If music were only about the notes being played and not the specific characteristics of the sound as well, chosen by the musician, then musicians and audiences wouldn't care if a piece were played on a Stradivarius or a plastic violin from Toys R Us.  Bass players, guitarist et all wouldn't put all the care they do in to the particular tone and sound they are going for.

Not everyone appreciates or cares about the sound as much as the notes, but musicians do, and it's makes total sense that music lovers could as well.   So, again, it just doesn't follow that if someone describes some appreciate for the sonic aspects of the music they have listened to (whether it's the tone of the instruments, or the tone as pleasingly reproduced on the sound system), that they are therefore as you are trying to claim "NOT MUSIC lovers."

That's absurd.
Look, you have had your own audiophile journey and have come to a set of criteria that please you.  That's great, fine.  Just don't use your own desires to be judgemental about others, naively putting them in another box as not being a music lover.   That is silly, untrue, egotistic and needlessly divisive.

Dear @prof 1 : """  I tend to prefer closer seating... """

at one two m.? because this is near field I'm talking about.

Yes, for you " that's absurd "" or """ silly "" and I respect your opinion. Btw, I'm not making any " judgmental " of you, I don't care about.

Facts are only that: facts. Got it? and know don't tell me just that is absurd or what ever you think. Tell me with facts why I'm wrong but before this tell me the distance to the live music source you are seated and next time bring with you a Radio Shack SPL meter and post here what you measured at your seated position.

R.

Hey Prof

You took the time to write a nice comprehensive reply to a silly post.  You have the patience of a saint.  Subjective vs Objective are never given any attention.  Absolutes are given in a reality I am not a part of.

The reality is you write from a real life experiences in live music, plus sitting in the right spot(could not resist).  I guess you can sit in the right spot all your life but never hear the music.  It is like the guy singing in the shower with the pitch so far off it changed notes.  He is still happy as hell, he can not hear it.

I guess musicians are just not suppose to bring their ears to party.  Only people who sit in a certain row.  The bassoon playing right next to you does not count.  

Well it is nice to see someone else who really cares about how real music sounds and feels.  

Enjoy the ride
Tom

geoffkait No, no, no. Some high end audiophile systems bring out the finest qualities of sound from all sources, including the worst sources. Sure, I’ve trashed many recordings LP, 78 and CD based on really poor sound quality. Now, my system is so good that it elevates the sound of once were mediocre recordings/masterings.

An example is last weeks review in Positive Feedback Magazine of a phono stage where the reviewer extols the virtues of the TimeLife Angel/EMI classical recordings box sets, available at $1 to $3 per LP. When I purchased 9 sets for $9 30+ years ago, my system stunk compared to now despite the Acoustat 2&2s driven by Dynaco IIIs, a VPI 19-4 and SME IV, Dynavector Karat. Those LPs sounded generally compressed and bright, lacking bsss and dynamics. Well, yes, those LPs were not necessarily from master tapes but the vinyl was quiet. Today, on my superior equipment with all the tweaks for isolation of equipment, electrical/cabling superiority and acoustic room superiority, those same LPs can have very good sound, eminently listenable. The Walton/Shostokovich LP is really good. Sure, I’d rather have the EMI originals but at 25 cents per LP cost, they were a bargain that I didn’t recognize until 30 years later when I played them again on the recommendation of a reviewer.

@rauliruegas

Dear @prof 1 : """ I tend to prefer closer seating... """
at one two m.? because this is near field I’m talking about.

As I said: your claim is nonsense, and a red herring.

First, yes when I’m playing an instrument - acoustic guitar, drums, piano, sax - I’m rather close to it and know what it sounds like (very rich).

Second, your demand that I bring a sound meter and measure distances when I attend a concert and report back to you is, aside from being truly bizarre, beside the point.

YOU tried to tell me from one post of mine containing some sonic description that I was NOT a music lover. Instead of admitting you can’t know such thing about me, and how rash a judgement that is in any case, you have been trying to double down on it. You do this by implying that my use of "rich and spacious" indicate only audiophile (hence "non-music-related/non-music-lover) concerns.

And for some reason you think that referencing mic placements makes your point. That’s a red herring. (And you are also misleading on that as well; for orchestral recordings, for instance, mics have often been put further than 2M away, and often include distance mics to capture the ambience of the hall that the audience would hear at the concert).


The point is whether appreciating the "richness, scale or spaciousness" of the sound is inconsistent with appreciating the music, and being a music lover. It obviously is not. No matter where microphones may be placed to record a performance, it’s true that the sound I experience from my seats is, to my ears, rich, of grand scale, spacious etc. (And generally speaking, those are the qualities engineers are trying to reproduce, even if artificially, when recording orchestras, to greater or lesser success).

Simply acknowledging those sonic qualities of music, be it a live or reproduced performance,  DOES NOT entail, as you would have it, that one is not a music lover.

Again: Don’t mix up your own journey and own criteria as being THE criteria that separates a "music lover" from a "sound lover." People are different, and much more complex and nuanced than that, and we can enjoy all aspects of listening to music, from the performance, to how it sounds, to noting how it sounds through different components and systems. They are not mutually exclusive.


Sorry, but this tendency among some audiophiles to judge others as "not being in to the MUSIC like I am" is tiresome, and deserves to be shoved back up from whence it was pulled.

I also have performing and listening experience to live music.  I sing and perform with a 50+ orchestra in Los Angeles.  I've reviewed classical music for the UCLA Daily Bruin from row 10 as rows 1 and 2 had a bright, forward sound that I didn't like.  I swapped seats with concertgoers-they wanted to be up front and I wanted the best sound.

fleschler
geoffkait No, no, no. Some high end audiophile systems bring out the finest qualities of sound from all sources, including the worst sources. Sure, I’ve trashed many recordings LP, 78 and CD based on really poor sound quality. Now, my system is so good that it elevates the sound of once were mediocre recordings/masterings.

>>>>Just as I feared. My comments were completely misunderstood. What I am saying is the more media of any and all types one has in his house the worse the sound becomes, regardless of which media you’re playing at the time. My comments have nothing to do with favoring one media over another. It kind of aimed in you, actually, I admit, since I knew you have a ton of LPs and CDs. It’s the sort of thing, unless someone points it out, you think everything’s OK, even as you accumulate more and more. Trust me, everything is not (rpt not) OK. 😬

By the way, the musician argument no longer works on me ever since I had the displeasure of listening to the very expensive system of the first oboist of the National Symphony. Maybe it’s too loud in the orchestra pit or something. Yes, I know, musicians have perfect pitch. Yada, yada

The Classic1 paired with a Soundsmith Carmen was very uninspiring IME. It was mechanically noisy and didn't have any notable strenghts aside from the bass as mentioned by the OP. It couldn't produce that vinyl "magic." I moved onto a comparably priced table (cartridge too) and have been much happier. 

As for analog defeating digital, I've found that requires a very good record, preamp cart and turntable - no weak links. 

Dear @prof 1 : You but not really " read " because this is my first sentence I posted to you:

"""  Good that first of all you are a music lover. """

Second, you just does not read because like @fleschler  I normally seat at around 10 row.

Near field experiences is exactly that: experiences  and is what the micro pick up and I'm talking of recording in general not specific to classical venues that even here I own recordings with no ambience mics but only two and even one at near field position and in solo piano even inside the piano.
If you own some of the 3 blibd mice recordings you will read and see the mics diagram position that are almost inside eaxch instrument and with no ambience mics. The home audio system experience is an " illusion " and take that word literally.

One thing is what flesher says why he listen normally at 10 row like me and other different thing what the mics pick up..

Yes seated at 10 row things are way different and I already explained on my posts.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

rauliruegas,

""" Good that first of all you are a music lover. """

I'm sorry, I did in fact miss that first sentence.  Glad we are agreed there :)

Yes, it's well known that home stereo reproduction is an illusion.  All sound reproduction is a compromise of one sort or another, so we all pick our own via the criteria that means the most to us. 

I'm glad you have found a goal for your own journey.

The distinction between 'sound lovers' and 'music lovers' is totally artificial and not helpful at all. We can assume that the main reason for getting involved in this audio community is an interest in music. If not why bother? The other reason would be the personal discovery that the enjoyment of music increases with better sound quality. This affliction puts us in the peculiar minority group called audiophiles. I'm sure you're all aware that most people who love music (musicians included) couldn't care less about sound quality. But it's highly unlikely that people with an interest in sound quality couldn't care less about music. They'd get themselves another hobby if they didn't.

Suspension of disbelief can be a powerful experience and everyone on this forum is chasing that illusion. You can have alot of fun in the process, but going down this rabbit hole does kinda make you loose track of what it's really about. The difference between Audio Nirvana and Audio Nervosa is keeping in mind why you're in this game. 'It's the music, stupid'......

This is not an easy pursuit and after a while many disillusioned veteran audiophiles seek redemption, attempting to find their way back to the music and the emotional response it once triggered. Some may feel that their meticulously built system is the 'elephant in the room' (often literally so), standing between them and the music. They might feel betrayed and decide to downgrade or even loose interest in music completely. 

The persistent audio illusionist (that means us) might decide to keep changing around the components of the system or even maintain several systems at once with different strenghts for various types of music. Because they realize there's no such thing as 'one size fits all' in audio. This would only fuel more illusions, would it not? Digital illusion, analog illusion, tube illusion, horn illusion, dipole illusion, MC illusion, the list is endless and so are the debates.

Perhaps, but nature likes diversity, so why not take a cue from life? I'm sure the audio industry would be delighted.....

edgewear,
Perceptive and well put!

Yes, it’s chasing the dragon to some degree. A lot depends on one’s objectives and where one decides to get off the merry go round. When the early settlers moved West a lot of them decided the hardships weren’t worth it and decided to settle in the Midwest. 😛

I know I'm about a year late on this thread, but only recently have I had an experience to contribute. 

I've been all digital for over 30 years. I decided to buy an entry level turntable just to plug it in the system to see how it would compare. I bought a used Shinola Runwell table and mounted an Ortofon 2M black cartridge on it. I hooked it to my preamp with Cardas Clear interconnects. 

Results? Clicks and pops and surface noise. But the musical reproduction was shockingly close to my $35K digital CD rig. For 10% the cost. 

Now I am unclear how to proceed toward better sound. I do have a great SACD player, and Yes, SACD is slightly better than state-of-the-art CD, to my ears.
I am limited in the titles I own in both vinyl and SACD, so an investment in software is a given, no matter which way I choose.

So, can I get better sound investing into a high res digital system? Aurender comes to mind, doing digital downloads. Or $35K into a vinyl system? Turntable, arm, cartridge, and phono preamp.

Imgoodwithtools,

We are familiar with both sides of this coin.

It is possible to get digital to sound like the best analog but it really matters what your setup is. We have heard a few really amazing digital setups, the T+A SD 3100/Innous Statement or the Light Harmonic Davinci are like really top of the line analog front ends that will beat most CD players.

We just picked up a turntable that has completely blown us away, so much that we are going to be importing this table, it is called the Onkk Cue, we are running our Cue right now with a $1k arm and a $3k cart and the sound is absolutely amazing.

Right now in our shop the Onkk is even more electrifying than our best digital front ends, the issue with analog is that so many front ends are difficult to use or to setup.

With your digital it depends on what you are using and how it is setup, it may be easy to improve your digital by changing cables, or by adding a server if your CD player can be used as a dac. 

Dave and Troy
Audio Doctor NJ

As far as CD digital goes, I have a Berkeley Audio Design Reference 3 DAC fed by a PS Audio Directstream transport through a Synergistic Research Galileo AES/EBU cable. I have a T+A PDP 3000 HV for SACD play. The Berkeley rig surpasses the T+A for CD, IMO.

If I was to pursue high res downloads, one option would be to consider an Aurender product to feed my Berkeley DAC.

Imgood we have tested many Dacs running DSD or upconverted PCM  and the difference is huge. 

Try running a high ned USB cable into the T+A and run DSD 512 and you might just find that the T+A  will sound better as a dac then the Berkley. 

The Berkley will only do 192k  and when you run a high end dac at DSD 512 you start getting a very analog like presentation.

Try to get a demo of an Innous Statement  running DSD 128 into the T_A and you would be amazed at the level of improvement.

That is one reason why we are not in love with the Aurender products, many dacs go from good to amazing at higher sampling rates.

Roon allows software up-conversion so you can take a 16bit CD quality file and reprocess it to DSD or to high res.

Dave and Troy
Audio Doctor NJ