|
yes; that is the same one.
same codes and product numbers as mine.
i know it's limited, but exactly how many i cannot say. so i cannot exactly answer your question other than the record i have and i am recommending is the same as what is for sale at Acoustic Sounds. |
Thanks,
I just heard it on youtube and, holy smokes, it sounds good even there. That would not cut it, as far as I am concerned, but I actually like the music.
In short, thanks for recommendation. I am buying it right now.
|
mikelavigne
a cassette tape is 1/4" tape, 4 track, and auto reversing, running at 1 and 7/8th ips. ’4-track’
means 4 tracks on a 1/4" tape. those tracks are tiny, and the sound,
while nice on a good cassette, is nothing to write home about. If you're talking about the Phillips Compact Cassette you're mistaken. It uses 1/8-inch tape. And as a rule, the best cassette decks weren't auto reverse - most of the auto-reversing decks couldn't maintain alignment in two directions.
... 1/4", 15 ips tape on a high quality RTR deck is superior to even the
very best vinyl, when the source tape for the transfer is pristine, and
the transfer is well done. tape is better. vinyl is not equal ...
That's been my experience. |
Whoa, Nellie!! Do you mean to tell me they get that kind of sound quality out of a 1/8” tape?! That’s unbelievable! More dynamic than records, fuller bodied than CDs. Cassettes. They’re real and they’re spectacular! 🤗 Next up, how small can something be and still be considered audiophile grade? |
Dear @mikelavigne Thank's for the explanation, now it makes sense to me.
I don't own that tape sourced all analog LP but in my over 6K+ LPs I own several ones with top quality performance.
One of them is the MoFi title " The Power and the Majesty ". This one is a recording made it by the MoFi founder and engineering him self. It's extraordinary from the view of its quality level sound. Tape recorder was totally custom made, master laquers by Stan Ricker from the 30ips master tapes. This LP comes from 1978.
Now you and any one needs to listen ( is a must to. ) the digital recorded ( 24/96 ) LPs made it by WindMusic label.I own the titles Paramita and Mystical Scent. Last time I seen Paramita sealed LP on ebay was sold for over 500.00.
Well, in these as in other digital recordings I own nothing of what you posted about that digital is missing " something " happens with in my analog rig and set up that's first rate including my Phonolinepreamp.
Exist other digital recording LPs that comes from " old " times and the ones mastered by Stan Ricker and others are just at the top along the tape sourced LPs.
Labels I can mention: Telarc ( I own over 50 LPs. ) ones but not all only some of them, Delos are excellent recordings ( Telarc and Delos used Soundstream digital recorder and mastering by Stan Ricker. ), some Denon whom designed and builded its own digital recorder and Chandos label too.
In those times was an " euphoria " for the digital LPs and several labels but almost all digital recordings in reality sound auwful/terrible like the ones from Teldec or Deca or DG or Philips or Varese Sarabande, Chalfont, etc, etc.
The digital well recorded are truly good and makes any decent room/systems shines. Unfortunatelly even in the same label not all titles are good, example: in Telarc the third and fifth piano Beethoven concertos ( R. Serkin. ) are way different in sound quality level where one of them is just lifeless, the recordings were made with two years difference in between.
Before digital Telarc made a D2D recording that is to bad. As fact even the D2D recordings not all are really first rated but the ones that are are just the " glory ".
Anyway, Mike thank's again for your time and answers and yes:
"
the music comes first. "
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R. |
I think Mike just had a mine burp but cleeds is correct cassettes are 1/8"
There were auto reversing cassette decks but alignment certainly would have been a problem in rather inexpensive transports. I believe it was even a problem in decks that were not auto reversing. Dad worked on reel to reel machines but would not touch a cassette deck. |
my bad on the cassette tape width. my memory is what it is.
i lived through that time period and had plenty of cassettes. they were remarkably good for what they were, especially for in car listening. 8-track was a better system technically on the tape side of things, but did not get the attention to detail and development of cassette.
you could have a nice sounding cassette based system. and tape is analog and has that going for it.
but nothing like vinyl, or real ’big boy’ RTR. |
I do so dislike making categorical remarks but generally speaking cassettes from the mid 80s through the 90s, the evolved cassettes as it were, have greater dynamic range than many records and certainly greater than many CDs from about 2000 on, you know, because of the Loudness Wars. Tape is a natural medium. It breathes. It’s cut from the same cloth as the master tape. Width of the medium probably isn’t a guarantee of SQ, the digital spiral Width on a CD is only nanoscale. 😬
|
Reel to reel original master tape is still the highest quality source for most of the world's back catalogue. Elvis, Beatles, Dylan, Eagles, Pink Floyd etc. Basically almost everything between 1945 and 1990 was recorded on reel to reel tape.
Even digital recording was initially done on tape until they realised how fragile digital recordings were when put on tape.
It is still those original tape masters that are used whenever albums are to be reissued whether in standard resolution or high resolution, vinyl or Cd.
As far as I'm aware there is still no way to improve upon the sound quality of the actual tape although remixes and re-edits are certainly possible.
It therefore stands to reason that all downloads, CDs, vinyl records will be a subsequent downgrade.
Just how much of a downgrade each one is, is the question.
|
Well except for all those tapes lost in the UMG fire, and the ones that have been degraded so likely the best is a copy of a master. I think I saw a 30ips remark above. Generally 30ips is useless as there is no bass response left on the tape. 15 is the best trade-off between bass and treble extension and mechanical stability and averaging out surface errors. 7.5 is better for deep bass. To clear up a misconception though, tape is very much not "perfect" and can impart its own sound even just variances in alignment from recording and playback, especially when you get into bass frequencies. Just some graphs for those not familiar with tape realities: http://www.endino.com/graphs/These next graphs look really good, but I expect there was some smoothing in the responses: https://www.tapeheads.net/showthread.php?t=20460
One interesting thing to note is the high frequency compression at 7.5ips if you push beyond 0db at relatively audible frequencies, and at >10KHz at 15ips. That can tone down high frequency peaks which can be pleasant and contribute to a "warm" sound. Interesting article by Richard Hess on tape degradation and preservation. It's from 2008, so some comments |
"...greater dynamic range than many records and certainly greater than many CDs from about 2000 on, you know, because of the Loudness Wars." What exactly are loudness wars? |
A combination of compression and making the quieter parts louder so that the dynamic range of the recording is compressed. It sounds loud on the radio and CD. It started with records in the 70s-80s, but really continued with CD, because records are limited in their average volume, more volume = wider tracks = less songs per side. CD of course does not have that limitation.
|
Just received my brand new sealed J. Geils Band Full House live cassette. Digitally remastered. The best of both worlds? Hugely dynamic, low noise and much more analog sounding than CD. The digitally remastered Stones on Virgin and Zeppelin on Atlantic, by Ludwig and Page/Marino respectively, on cassette will raise some eyebrows. 😲 For all you Kind of Blue freaks out there check out the digitally remastered cassette on Columbia.
|
Dear @roberttdid , friends: The Telarc digital recording LP ( 1979 ) of 1812 Overture states that the recording goes from 6hz and up and I would like to know that in all analog recordings if tape recorders ( R2R ) can takes 6hz bass frequency, if can be recorded there because for digital is no problem down to 0.
Btw, the Soundstream digital recorder used on sevral labels had a 90db of dynamic range unweigthed.
The 1812 recording is really good and not only for its great bass range with a definition, accuracy and rigthness quality no analog recording can touch it but all the score: that Carillon is an EXPERIENCE to listen it as the triangle or the tambourine. Exist a today reissue made it by the FIM label. Both LPs are something to listen as many other Telarcs titles: Carmen, Mahler Titan, Pictures at an exibition and many more and are easy to buy it all.
There is at least one digital recording by Delos title that we have to have: Beethoven Piano Sonatas with the female player Carol Rosenberger in a
Bösendorfer Imperial Concert Grand instrument.|
From Denon PCM I remember Brahms Piano works with a female player: Annerose Schmidt.
I forgot in my last post to mention the digital LPs by M&K, they named Digital Master Series and I own all that are classical MUSIC with the Philharmonia Hungarica.
Now to really appreciate the very high quality levels of digital well recorded LPs we need an accurated ( not analhytical. ), high resoulition and low whole distortions room/system and the best down there are SS electronics especially in the phonolinepreamp unit with active high gain stages( tubes can’t do it. Sorry for this. ). I give you an example in my system of that accuracy levels: the RIAA eq. deviation in my unit was measured 0.012 db, it’s an all analog, fully discrete and four layer boards design, fully balanced input to output and totally dual mono unit. Not even today top Dartzeel or other top designs can outperforms it. No, my system is not at the same level than the Mike one but it’s good enough for my MUSIC needs.
Other issue with digital LP and D2D is that we need a very good cartridge with high self tracking abilities to capture/pick-up not only " all " recorded information but in accurated/non-distorted way ( especially at inner grooves and several high recorded velocities on those LPs. ) and that cartridge must be very well matched to its tonearm.
The LP digital experience is better that what any of you coulñd think, you only need to try it.
Even those digital LPs bougth it second hand ( mint. ) are splendorous. Recomended if you have the adequated room/system because those LPs are achallenge to any room/system.
Other issue is that with many of the D2D LPs the digital ones must be listened at higher SPL that the one we are accustom to.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
|
Dear friends: Any one knows if we can record a 6hz frequency in a any R2R tape recorder? I know that in the Studer A-820 even at 30ips we can't do it.
Thank’s in advance. Appreciated.
R.
|
That Telarc 1812 was famous for its sound. Cannons and all of that. At the same time, I heard that performance itself was not that great. For some reason, I have never heard it.
I also think there were two recordings of 1812 on Telarc. One "original" which became famous and then when digital came about one in digital that was to be more impressive except that the report I read preferred the original one. I forgot why. Maybe even snobbery.
Did I mix something up? I am writing from memory.
All in all, is it worth buying Telarc 1812 and which one?
|
Hi, never mind no R2R can do it. Btw, the 820 has very poor spec performance: at 30ips its frequency response is only from 40hz to 22khz with a swing deviation of 4db. and its noise level is around 73db. The very old digital recorder Soundstream is way way better: there is no contest in between. ATR machines have a littlebetter specs but nothing to " die for ".
I know that as almost always specs can't tell the whole history but a good part of that history. Along that is the eq. need it ( NAB/IEC/CIIR ) like the vinyl RIAA.
Btw, @atmasphere you always say that vinyl frequency response recorded information goes around 50khz ( at least is what I remember you posted in other threads. ), if you please this is a question: from where came LP recorded frequencies over 28khz when tape recorders can't handled? D2D can do it but tape recorded sourced analog LPs?. I know that I have a high ignorance levels in the analog LP recording process and I would like to learn a little about. Thank's and appreciated.
Today ADC/DACs are extremely good even that several audiophiles vote for the analog machines.
Mike was very specific on what is missing through digital, my experiences as the ones from cleeds and other gentlemans are different but I don't own a R2R unit but analog and digital LPs and CDP/analog rig.
Seems to me that objectivity is inclined by digital when subjectivity for audiophiles go a little inclined for analog. Good that exist both alternatives with one of both in full development: the best time is coming for digital technology not only in audio but in several other world items.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R. |
|
Dear @djones51 : Thank’s for the very good links. Here one posted by @cleeds in other thread: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM Problem with LP audiophiles is that are severely biased with the " nice " developed distortions/colorations and with the true missed recorded signal that never can be recovered. Many of them are only sound lovers but not real MUSIC lovers as they think are. They always speak of that " warmth, swetness, nuances " and the like adjectives that just do not exist in a near field live MUSIC that is the position where recording microphones are. Several times I already explained step by step facts that impede the cartridge stylus tip can pick up all the recorded information and in the other side explained all the distortions developed at each single link in the LP playback process that’s is a nigthmare for say the least. I explained all what happens at microscopic levels between the stylus tip ridding the grooves but almost all are " deaf " not even try to understand it " things "/facts that are just common sense. No they insist that digital is the experience that is missing a lot of information and developing distortions they do not like. I tell those audiophiles that they need to listen a trumpet player seated at 2-3m. from him or with a piano player seated nearfield where the players been playing at live event SPL and then they will learn that MUSIC is all but warmth or sweet or the like: MUSIC has natural agresivenees, natural brigthness, dynamic power, even strident, with full rythm, wake up every kind of feeelings/emotions, , etc, etc. What in true are missing those fake MUSIC lovers with digital? they are missing all the LP developed huge distortions ( read: warmth, swetness, etc, etc. ) and listening the recorded information they missed with the LP playback process. Well, all of them are accustomed for 20-40 years to listen those " nice distortions ", they brain tells that if in digital does not exist those " nice distortions " then is wrong. Bass range is the MUSIC foundation and no LP analog bass can compare with the digital true bass kind of sound. MUSIC is and means accuracy ( not analythical. ), its notes has an accurate " order " as it has too its harmonics. LP experience is totally non-accurated it can’t be accurated when in all pivoted tonearms exist a tracking error that precludes per sé accuracy about and the inverse RIAA eq. can’t mimic the RIAA eq. from the recording process but not only that becaiuse in a CD there is no RIAA and the recording and playback processses are accurate. In digital does not exist the skipping of the stylus tip during grooves tracking. Coming back to the bass frequency range, the better this range the better the overall listening experiences and analog can’t compete with digital in this sole characteristic. Even with digital recorded LPs we can listen the difference in the bass range and its superiority over the non-digital recorded LPs. Years ago I was exactly as all them till I had my first near field live MUSIC event, I learned from that very first time and followed learning attending to more nearfield seated live events.. I’m not biased to digital I’m biased to the MUSIC and listen MUSIC through LPs or digital alternative. We don’t need scientific studies to understand the digital/analog differences in favor of digital, what we need is just common sense in an open non-biased brain/attitude. Easy. Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. I forgot on that bass range this thread I started several years ago:
https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/do-you-think-you-need-a-subwoofer/post?postid=310058#310058
|
@raul
My first nearfield live music event was years ago when I played trumpet. Now I just fool around with a mountain dulcimer. |
Live events and a live instrument is one kind of experience; a cd or a vinyl are other experiences....Is it necessary to preach with engineering numbers the sacred truth of the digital gospel? Is it realist to ask a cd, a vinyl, or a files or a tape, to reproduce the lived event totally? Each one will do his job with his own means and biases....
For me I accept the differences, and I live with them for what they are , a world in itself, not reducible, with his positives and negatives....
I listen to an organ opus of Bach right now, it will be different with a cd, a files, a vinyl, or with Tidal, with various tape recorder, or in a church live on a particular organ.... Why debating about the "truth" ? There is no truth here, except the particular advantages of each experiences.... My grain of salt.... :)
Electronical components and materials and mediums are not sounds, and sounds are not music, they lack the consciousness living the musical experience that will interpret these sounds, recreating them in the mind-body in the form of a synesthesic complexes of gestures, movements, emotions, ideas and perceptions....
Music is the relation between sounds and these synesthesic complexes....Music is not the faithfulness to an alleged " objective truth" about the reproduction of sound....
Too many concrete factors are also implicated to debate that seriously....Never mind the electronic components used, vinyl or tape or cd etc, their embeddings plays the more fundamental role in the final listening experience... Not one audio system sound the same....Is it then possible to decide the "truth" in the abstract, with only engineering numbers to take the decision? Asking the question is the answering.... :)
A final note: Someone can decide for himself, with his own system, be it very refined, but at the end his testimony is an interesting fact with which we can partake or not.... But this is a relative truth not an absolute truth....Mikelavigne for example has spoken about his own experience and his particular audio system in his particular house, and this gives matter to think...But anyone of us live with other system, other houses, and other tastes, and other past experiences etc....
|
I own close to 15,000 records, and I currently use three turntables. I also have an SACD player and a music server. If I was a record producer, and I wanted the best sound, and money was absolutely no object, I would record in digital. That’s how good the current state of the art is. |
mahgister
Live events and a live instrument is one kind of experience; a cd or a vinyl are other experiences....Is it necessary to preach with engineering numbers the sacred truth of the digital gospel? Is it realist to ask a cd, a vinyl, or a files or a tape, to reproduce the lived event totally? Each one will do his job with his own means and biases.... >>>>>While a great many audiophiles consider live acoustic music to be the sine qua non of sound quality and that “live music“ should be the absolute yardstick for measuring our home systems’ performance I believe that’s a logical fallacy. For one thing all venues where live music is performed sound different. Even one’s location at a venue sounds different from others. So how can they ever be an ideal sound? There can’t. Second, we should be striving to reproduce whatever was Encoded on the CD or Record or tape. Live music is a red herring. |
Live music is a red herring. This is also my opinion....Reduction of music experiences to only lived events is too drastic for me....All recorded musics materials and various kind of lived events are different experiences... How to compare Ray Charles living presence in real time to a files? It is impossible... But how to ask to a files or a tape the same thing that a lived event only can give? Where is the yardstick to compare cd, vinyl, tape, outdoor concert event, indoor concert event, in good acoustical space or in bad acoustical space, and my first love girl playing piano in his own house beside me? What is a lived event, where is my location in this event? Which event? By who? Only count a lived event in an ideal acoustical studio or theater? In a word i love Bach coming from any room, files, players, or planet, even coming from the tape of geoffkait, it will be a hell of a lifetime lived event.... :) |
Dear @mahgister : """ How to compare Ray Charles living presence in real time to a files?
It is impossible.. """
Well that’s not exactly the target when some of us speak about nearfield live MUSIC but that through these kind of live events experiences we at least can know the MUSIC and instruments true sound.
We can’t mimic in any room/system but we can take it as a " reference ".
My target is not to mimic what as you said is impossible, my target is to listen my system nearer to the recording having that nearfield live MUSIC experiences and that’s all.
If I’m listening LPs I want of achieve the best quality performance levels I can and the same is with digital.
Something that helps me about is to mantain every kind of room/system developed distortions at minimum.
In home system mimic live MUSIC is out of question.
""" Not one audio system sound the same....Is it then possible to decide the "truth" in the abstract, with only engineering numbers to take the decision? """
Numbers say a lot and additional are each one first hand experiences with their own systems and through other systems. So we can make a comparison of different mediums with facts/numbers and those experiences. The mos controversial/debatible parameter in that kind of comparison is that subjectivity that is different for different audiophiles.
As some other gentlemans in this and other thread as one of the latest posts by @psag I know for sure that exist a superiority level in digital against LP analog alternative but this kind of knowledge does not preclude the fact that I listen and enjoy the LP experiences.
I said in other post that the best for digital is forthcoming in contrast the LP technology is just finished because can’t really grow up as technology it can’t be improved. What we can improve is our system but the analog alternative per sé years ago arrived to its top limit.
We don’t have nothing really new on LP technology even the best is doing is returning to old LP developments as D2D recordings or one step recordings or things like that because fundamental principles in the recording process or playback one as cartridges or tonearms or TT are exactly the same as 20-30 year ago. The only thing that really changed in analog are its very high item prices year after year .
We analog lovers do not like those facts and we are not willing to accept it but at the end like it or not that’s the reality that’s the true and are not " numbers ".
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R. |
I said in other post that the best for digital is forthcoming in contrast the LP technology
I certainly can agree with you on that.... And i understand that real event can gives the flavor of real instruments for sure if that is your point you are right....Mimicking perfectly being impossible.... Regards to you.... |
Yes, we need at leasst that as reference does not matters we can't achieve it at home or really nearest to.
Several of the newcomers to ( digital gentlemans. ) LP/analog alternative are impressed by those " warmth and swetness " colorations that they do not experienced before in their digital alternative and the ones that are impressed with is because they had not yet the opportunity to listen the truw live sound of instruments/MUSIC.
R. |
Sweetness and warmth and air. Yes, let’s call them colorations. 🤗
|
Dear @mahister and friends : @mikelavigne posted in this thread:
" with digital there are degrees of things missing, that are not missing from the vinyl and tape. period. "
"" objectively the things digital misses are the tonal and timbrel completeness of musical parts, the focused dynamic power of the music, and the inner musical pace and flow. the data density of analog is much higher. the continuous-ness and tonal density are better. the ability to separate musical parts and retain air and dynamic shading is better.....""
""" a horn at full tilt, a drum whack.......
digital simply cannot muster the information at peaks. cannot do it. on paper it is suppose to be better. your engineering prof said it’s better. our friendly local goofball physicist said it’s better. but they were wrong."
and I posted to him that I have no single doubt that that’s what he is listening through his great and unique room/ system. He supports the LP alternative over digital one even that he accepts that digital experiences are really good " today " but can’t even the LP experiences.
I’m between those gentlemans that he said " were wrong " because we know about the digital superior technology and the why’s about.
The Mike’s premises statements foundation is different from my premises and taking in count his premises he is rigth as other LP lovers that like him supports it over digital.
In one of those statements he used the word : " objectively " but his whole statements has no real objectivity foundation but full subjectivity coming from our accustomed brain to listen LP sound for all our audio life and I said " our " because I was biased that way with full of subjectivity. From there came the premises and foundation to our opinions that supports LP alternative.
Other than numbers exist facts/objectivity that no one can denie and through those facts is where we can understand which medium is superior to the other one.
Lert me explain some of those facts from my point of view where certainly there is the possibility that I can be wrong, anyway here it’s:
- in analog LP the signal information is recorded in a tape recorder where no matters what it’s a faulty audio item starting by the tape it self that really can’t record the 100% of the signal due to its magnetic type of function and materials used to build it. Next the signal is contaminated by the tape recorder noise and woow&flutter levels along the tape recorder inaccuracies in its speed and speed stability that does not has.
So at this recording step the original signal is missing information and adding distortions/colorations along the tape added eq. needed as NAB. In digital the tape recorder can’t touch the 0,1s. The signal does not changes.
- through the cutting lathe process the signal is added with more contamination/degradation with the RIAA eq. and does not exist perfect cutting lathes machines where the cut head really cuts the 100% of that already contaminated signaL COMING from the tape recorder. Additional that DD motor in the cutthing machine is not perfect either about speed accuracy and speed stability ( just like our DD TTs. ) that affects that original signal.
All those does not happens with digital recording.
- Follows the pressing/stamped LPs non perfect process where the signal following losting information and adding distortions and not only that because the first stamped ( say. ) 50 LPs sounds different to the last 50 LPs stamped where the last ones were with higher signal recorded degradation.
All those does not happens in digital and not only does not happens but each CD is and original item, is the master always ! !
- Then comes the whole LP playback whole process where that delicated original MUSIC signal follows adding distortions and losting signal recorded information and even continuity in that signal:
- first losting and added mis-information to the signal starts with the cartridge transducer through its cantilever/stylus tip where this mechanic item is whom needs to pick-up the recorded and degraded signal that comes in the LP surface grooves.
The cartridge task to track grooves is just monumental one for say the least and impossible for any cartridge to pick-up all the degraded signal that comes in those grooves modulations and it can’t do it for several reasons like: non flat LP surface that always comes with waves at microscopic levels and many times we can see those waves, off-center LPs that per sé introduce additional noise to the signal, due to those LP surface waves the VTA and VTF and even azymuth is changing in continue way and these impedes the perfect ridding of the stylus tip missing information and adding more distortions.
Things don’t stop here with the cartridge tracking because when the stylus tip is tracking other than the groove modulations exist friction between the stylus tip and the vinyl surface and we can’t avoid here the Newton’s law this friction and grooves modulations makes that the cantilever/cartridge takes those additional " modulations/movements as MUSIC signal when were not MUSIC signal but added distortions/colorations, the cantilever can’t know if those movements comes from MUSIC signal or the developed tracking additional movements just transmitted it.
Along these we have several sources of those cartridge traking movements that the cantilever takes it as additional modulations that are only more signal degradation: feedback comes from the LP it self, from cartridge body, from headshell, from tonearm arm wand , from tonearm bearing, fromTT arm board, etc, etc.
But before the signal can touch the headshell/tonearm wires during the ridding of the grooves and deppending of the recorded velocities and other imperfections in the LP and cartridge that stylus tip is with some continuty skipping/loosing the LP surface touch and here are signal losted information too ( this happens at microscopic levels. ).
Things not ends with the cartridge here because the information that can be losted during tracking depends of different reasons as: self cartridge tracking abilities level to can follows those grooves modulations all over the LP surface because that cartridge ability is way important as the cartridge approachs the inner grooves.
Last but not least important is that the cartridge be perfectly matched with the tonearm and that the tonearm be a good design but is not enough with that because almost all pivoted tonearm has a tracking error that per sé develops tracking added distortions.
This sole pivot tonearm tracking error impédes/precludes that the stylus tip can really follows exactly the groove modulations.
As we can see we really lost a lot of signal recorded information and added a lot of noises, distortions, colorations to what we are listening.
Additional there is no perfect geometry alignment set up between the cartridge and tonearm and this means lost signal and signal degradation.
- Now, that cartridge signal must be travel through the headshell/tonearm terrible cartridge output pins and the wire connectors and solder joints that only here make a signal degradation, then the signal follows through the internal tonearm wire that in the best of the cases goes all down to the phono stage input connectors.
Well through all those wires/cables/input-output connectors/solder joints we are losting information and adding more distortions.
When the tonearm wire does not goes directly to the phono stage we need additional IC cables and follows ......what we already know.
- the signal goes to the phono stage circuit boards that if the unit is well designed and is a SS electronic alternative with active high gain will have at least 2 gain stages sometimes 3 to amplify the very low cartridge signal level that sometimes and depending how low is the cartridge signal that phono stage needs to amplify that signal aroun 8K times.
So a good phono stage design is a real challenge for any designer ( we need here: high gain, low noise levels and low distortions levels. ) but it’s not only the signal amplification the main phono stage matters but for the signal can recover it original frequency response and for that the signal in the phone stage must pass for very high signal degradation and losting more information with the inverse RIAA eq. stage where always exist a frequency deviation that can't mimic the RIAA curve that comes in the LP surface grooves.
From the cartridge to inside the phono stage process and due to the very low signal levels the signal it self is exposed to internal and external contamination that we are surrounded: EMI, RF, vibrations from the speakers or floor and many more.
- Ok from the phono stage the signal has to go to a line preamp looking for an additional gain stage before can be handled by the system amplifier. Even this additional gain stage exist in the few phonolinepreamps that are integrated: phono stage + line preamp that does not needs those additional IC cables.
There are many other degradation sources to the recorded signal in analog but I think that with all those is more than enough to understand why digital today is a true superior medium because nothing of all those happens in digital but that the signal must pass through an ADC and a DAC before we can listen in the speakers.
Even there are CDP with control volume that can be connected directly to the amplifiers.
All those are not numbers ( but can be put on numbers but analog lover will not like what they can see trhough numbers of all that signal losting and added distortions. It’s better don’t ask about. ) and are with out any subjectivity mind but only FACTS no one can deny it.
So it’s not my opinion it’s what really happens.
All those means that I’m against the Mike’s opinion?, NO I already tell him and posted here: he listen what he posted because his premises are just different as the foundation for that opinion. Tha’s all.
Now if one of the several analog lovers ( like me ) wants to insist in the LP superiority then I invite any one that share with us the facts for his opinion, with or without numbers but facts not a subjective opinion.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
|
Try to replicate anything that looks like a square wave on vinyl, especially at anything close to high amplitude... it's not pretty. Music isn't square waves, but that gives an idea of bandwidth/timing/phase accuracy. There is far more "information" in a high-res digital recording than is possible on vinyl. One could make an argument for increased bandwidth in vinyl vs. CD, but one you go high-res or at least high sample rate with appropriate bandwidth, i.e. 24/96 or 24/192, that does away.
|
Robert, play this all analog record on a very high quality turntable...... https://store.acousticsounds.com/d/125556?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIzfa9h_Cl6gIVEhLnCh0oigBLEAYYAyABEgI-EPD_BwE .......then provide a link to a digital recording that can do an acoustic piano or horn in a similar way.....as good or better. then let’s talk. or come on over and bring the digital file of your choice (or point me to one i can acquire) and we can listen together. btw; i do this often for others who have your perspective. i keep trying to listen to a square wave and it won’t play. damn. |
|
In this debate there is so much factors implicated that it is impossible to solve the question for me once and for all, except theoretically with all the engineering facts about the higher noise level all along the chain in the analog processing or by listening analog and hearing his alleged superiority on a very refine Hi-Fi system....
In a word, i value all the very interesting informations in the last post of rauliruegas and if i think about it i think that he is right....BUT i trust the impressions of mikelavigne, the testimonies of his friends, and his long time dedication on his very refined audio system.... THEN....
I cannot have my own opinion at all.....I can only give their right to these 2 gentlemen and to each his own....
Interesting thread for sure..... My regards to all.... |
Certainly a CD player that’s on an isolation stand will outperform one that’s not. Same for a turntable. Can we at least start there? Yes, I know what some of you are thinking - streaming circumvents the CD player! But streaming has even more variables itself, judging by people’s comments, sometimes it sounds good, sometimes it doesn’t. Even in the case of streaming, isolating the DAC must improve performance, no?
How can you have a competition unless there’s a level playing field? Hel-loo! As I have mentioned at least twice on these fora disengaging the Reed Solomon error codes on the CD transport can be successfully done IF the problems inherent in CD transports can be significantly reduced or eliminated. Then it’s a whole new ballgame, folks. I’m not hot dogging you. 🌭 I have heard the future. That’s because I’m from the future.
Good luck to everybody. - Bob Dylan |
Unfortunately Mr. Pebbles, there is no round hole, for your square peg in this topic. Try to find another topic to troll with your off-topic obsessions.
Mike, I will try to take you up on that offer to come listen after this whole Covid thing dies down which unfortunately looks like it won't be any time soon. I may even bring my own digital source. I would be interested in your thoughts compared to your reference unit.
|
Some may prefer vinyl but it can’t hold the information that a digital file can it’s impossible. If a square wave won’t play then something is wrong. No such thing as " all analog".
i completely understand your reluctance to allow actual listening to intrude on your nice neat world view. it does require a bit of effort. |
Robberrttddidd is a pseudo scientist. He is the very definition of one. Notice he doesn’t debate the subject, apparently he would rather pretend to have all the answers and call names.
Wasn’t it Niels Bohr who said never think you have all the answers?
An ordinary man has no means of deliverance. |
Dear @mahgister and friends : """
In this debate there is so much factors implicated that it is impossible to solve the question for me once and for all, except theoretically with all the engineering facts about the higher noise level all along the chain in the analog processing or by listening analog and hearing his alleged superiority on a very refine Hi-Fi system... """
In reality here it's not a debate what exist is a misunderstood by almost all of us:
if we read the @mikelavigne posts all those speak not about facts but what he listened ( yes, it's a fact but only means what he like it and can't prove nothing but what he likes/prefers it. ) and how his brain is reacting to the LP kind of sound where the premise inside the brain is biased of what he is accustomed to for almost all his audio life.
His subjective posts says digital is " missing " something and that can't performs as good as the LPs and he is rigth: IT CAN'T PERFORMS NEAR THE LP QUALITY LEVELS because not only both mediums are way way different but because the recorded information in the LPs is way different to the recorded information in CDs.
Due to that: why digital should be to performs near LPs for we can be satisfied with? there is no single reason for that could happens NEVER in the life.
Facts, true facts explained in different ways in this thread and attest ( no matters what Mike listen it or lprefers. ) that that missing digital information that Mike is talking in reality is the other way around by a wide margin . That Mike and other LP lovers disagree with is important for them but not for the main subject/issue here where we are talking of what is happenning in true/reality.
The facts says with out single doubt ( coming from everywhere whom can questioning about. ) that digital alternative not only is not missing subjective signal information but that digital is truer to the recording than LP alternative.
Digital not only has more true MUSIC recorded signal ( because is missing almost nothing. ) but the MUSIC signal is really " clean " with out all the huge/high dirty signal full of distortions/colorations that facts dictates are developed during the recording and playback process in all LPs and that no one can't avoid it does not matters the room/system qualirty levels. Digital does not develops that high distortions and missing true information that always happens in the LP alternative.
We can't compare orange with apples, are different.
Cd has no warmth or sweet or peace king of sound because nerafield live MUSIC has not either.
CD has the natural agresiveness, brigthness, power, even sometimes hars/stridency and the like that has the live MUSIC.
So why want we that CD sounds in different way only because we are accustomed to the wrong high colored/distorted LP experiences?, again this never can happens ever an I'm an analog lover.
So where is the debate? it just can't exist.
The facts can't bechanged by subjectivity and from this subjective premise as foundation Mike is talking about: no single fact.
His last post he invites to listen that LP and compare against CD: There is no way to compare it.
The foundation of the facts are not subjective but are the ones that proves that digital is truer to the recording. That we prefers LP sound means only that but can't prove the LP superior alternative because those facts impedes that can be true/real.
Now and for all LP lovers that support what Mike posted, please give us a single fact why the objective facts are wrong and a single fact why the subjective " ilussion " is rigth.
R.
|
@roberttdid Mike, I will try to take you up on that offer to come listen after this whole Covid thing dies down which unfortunately looks like it won’t be any time soon. I may even bring my own digital source. I would be interested in your thoughts compared to your reference unit. i would enjoy it if you can. anytime, i’m in the Seattle area. and you would be welcome to bring your own digital source....happy to compare it to the MSB Select II <-> Extreme server. |
completely understand your reluctance to allow actual listening to intrude on your nice neat world view. it does require a bit of effort. I'm nowhere near Seattle but I would be more than happy to listen in a controlled blind test and see the preference of all involved. It might be vinyl but it still doesn't change reality. You should now understand that the terms ‘analog’ and ‘digital’ are based on idealisations. Real systems and signals will show a mixture of analog (smooth continuous) and digital (quantised) properties. Although it's often convenient to assume a signal/system is one thing or the other, this mixed behaviour is an unavoidable consequence of the way the world works. My nice neat world view is kind of messy. |
I'm nowhere near Seattle but I would be more than happy to listen in a controlled blind test and see the preference of all involved. It might be vinyl but it still doesn't change reality.
simply tell us the hardware and media to be played. we can all judge for ourselves in our own way. i have less than zero interest in a discussion of DBT. |
Oh well, wouldn't want to intrude on your nice neat world view. |
Who on Earth still has nice neat world view? Can I get into your world, please? Mine is kind of crappy these days. |
It's not a nice neat world Mike, it is having access to all the pieces along the way and knowing what comes out the other end, and knowing what is there and what is missing. It's having had access to the people making music and listening to what comes out and their comments. 24/192 digital in it's pure form, has far more "information" than is possible by any measure on 15ips tape, and way more than vinyl. When you strip away what happens in mixing and mastering and just look at what the format is capable of, 24/192 digital is unmatched, and 24/96 is not too far behind for practical purposes. Vinyl definitely colors what passes through, and even tape will create colorations. Digital is pure, it's detailed, its busy, everything is there ... and maybe that is too raw for most people. Musicians say it sounds truest to what they hear coming from the instrument, but they don't say it sounds the most pleasant. Throw in the cross-talk of vinyl and you have some other interesting psycho-acoustic effects unmatched by other formats. Strangely enough, a really low noise floor (white noise), may even be a detriment. As Raul alluded, the at some level quantized aspect our auditory system coupled with its non-linear nature means that signal detection can be improved in some instances by adding noise. It's called Stochastic Resonance. I have absolutely no doubt that high-res digital carries significantly more information than vinyl or analog tape. I have no doubt on a macro level that it is more true to the original sound. What I have doubts about it whether digital/high-res digital is optimized for getting information into the brain mikelavigne1,557 posts06-29-2020 3:45pm
Some may prefer vinyl but it can’t hold the information that a digital
file can it’s impossible. If a square wave won’t play then something is
wrong. No such thing as " all analog".
i completely
understand your reluctance to allow actual listening to intrude on your
nice neat world view. it does require a bit of effort. |
@geoffkait, Has anyone every told you that you project (In the psychological sense), an awful lot? I don’t think I have seen one post from you that indicated you had any significant knowledge in any area important to audio. Pretty much most posts are blathering about CD players, and perhaps vibration, no matter what the topic and whether that was relevant. geoffkait23,012 posts06-29-2020 4:00pmRobberrttddidd is a pseudo scientist. He is the very definition of one. Notice he doesn’t debate the subject, apparently he would rather pretend to have all the answers and call names.
Wasn’t it Niels Bohr who said never think you have all the answers?
An ordinary man has no means of deliverance. |
"Pretty much most posts are blathering about CD players, and perhaps vibration..." What about wire directionality? |
Musicians say it sounds truest to what they hear coming from the instrument...... it’s been multi-decades since ’musicians’ had any idea about anything other than digital. ’a’ musician......maybe one in a thousand. one in a hundred working pro audio guys. and even those guys very rarely have a clue about high end vinyl. so the opinions of that group about this is just not relevant to me. |
Leland Sklar, one of the most-recorded electric bassists in history (James Taylor, Jackson Browne, Carole King, Phil Collins, Toto, many soundtracks) posts a video on YouTube every day. They are filmed in an upstairs bedroom of his very nice 2-story house in Pasadena (not a low-income neighborhood), showing him playing along with recordings of songs he is the bassist on. Leland is VERY particular about the sound of his basses and amp/speaker stage/recording rigs. In todays video, the speakers in the room are shown, and they are little Bose sound bar types. Ay carumba! Lots of musicians I know listen to music on their computer’s speakers, car stereo (people in Southern California spend a LOT of time in their cars), or even a boombox. When I recorded with Evan Johns (look him up, he was quite a character) in Atlanta (his Moontan album), before work on each song commenced he played the musicians his solo acoustic demo tape of the song, recorded and played back on a boombox! Just like other non-audiophiles, most musicians don’t expect LP’s, CD’s, tapes, and streamed music to sound anywhere close to that of live music. They are viewed as separate events, the attempt to narrow the gap not of particular interest to them. I know: weird, right? ;-) |
roberttdid OP
@geoffkait, Has anyone every told you that you project (In the psychological sense), an awful lot? I don’t think I have seen one post from you that indicated you had any significant knowledge in any area important to audio. Pretty much most posts are blathering about CD players, and perhaps vibration, no matter what the topic and whether that was relevant. geoffkait23,012 posts06-29-2020 4:00pmRobberrttddidd is a pseudo scientist. He is the very definition of one. Notice he doesn’t debate the subject, apparently he would rather pretend to have all the answers and call names.
Wasn’t it Niels Bohr who said never think you have all the answers?
An ordinary man has no means of deliverance. >>>>As I said, robberrttddidd is excellent at name calling, poor at actual debate. Well, what do expect from Mr. Smarty Pants? 👖The new pseudo scientist, same as the old pseudo scientist. Pseudo psychologist, too. Anyone who makes the statement in the OP that high end tape and high end digital sound the same has most likely been listening to a great many mediocre systems, they oft sound very generic, rather poor and boring and similar. It’s due to lack of real quality. It’s what separates the advanced audiophile from the average clutz. The average clutz is plug and play and bits is bits. Fair enough? |
