Vinyl / High qual analog tape / High-res digital -- One of these is not like the other

https://www.musicradar.com/news/tech/10-things-we-dont-miss-about-old-studios
@rauliruegas 
https://youtu.be/v0bMI2JB-vY

https://www.vox.com/2014/4/19/5626058/vinyls-great-but-its-not-better-than-cds

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

"...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?

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

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.

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. 😬

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 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.  

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

mikelavigne,

Is the record you linked above the same as this...

https://store.acousticsounds.com/d/125556?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIpZn49saZ6gIVB4_ICh0EeQRZEAYYASABEgJjyvD_...


I know it is the same album, but I wonder if you know anything about pressings. The one on Discogs is "limited to 1000" and this one does not mention anything. Significant? Insignificant?

Thanks in advance.

@rauliruegas

to be clear;

---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. even direct to disc vinyl does not measure up to the very best of this tape.

but what has changed is that the vinyl in my system has moved up so far now that the degrees of pristine for the source tape, and quality of the transfer, are simply higher to maintain that margin. so fewer of my tapes hold up as clearly better.

but.......the best tapes are on another level.

so vinyl does not equal tape.

and it takes a huge commitment to vinyl to get it to this point. so for most people tape is still the easiest access to the very best sound. unless you have a ’daddy’ vinyl set-up. then.........getting better tape than vinyl is harder than before.

i don’t personally know about that Wind Music Lp, Paramiter.

my opinion is that there are many modern digital recordings which have ended up as very good sounding Lps. and i buy quite a few of them and enjoy them. but......there is nothing like tape sourced or direct to disc Lps. so if i have a choice, i’m staying analog, but i’m happy to buy great music on vinyl that happens to be digitally recorded. the music comes first.

here is a tape sourced Lp i highly recommend that was recorded in 2015. it was recorded on a 24 track Studer A80, mixed on an analog mixing board to 2 track analog on a Studer 810. and then mastered to vinyl on an Ampex ATR-102.

https://www.discogs.com/Ferit-Odman-Dameronia-With-Strings/release/7850724

try and find a digital recording that can match the dynamics on this record, the tone of the horn, the authority of the piano. i know i cannot.

really wonderful. that is what we have from the golden age of vinyl. we should all appreciate those analog sourced records. they are precious.

@mikelavigne : Yes, zero relevance in the thread due to that recorder type. I missed it, my mistake. However at its level has its own relevance and meaning.

In the other issue then only the half inch tape beats top LPs.
Yes, I’m aware of the tape heads eq. but I don’t imagine the LP superior quality performance against R"R when almost every one every where talks of the tape supeiority over the LPs. That I remember only D.Sax and you recognise the LP superior medium. So, I’m surprised about due all the limitations or real obstacles LP medium has during playback to pick-up all the recorded information in those LP grooves when the R2R is way direct with almost no " obstacles " during playback that permits to listen more recorded information than the one coming from LP playback that you know is losted in this LP process.

That’s ok with me at the end most of the time I listen to LPs and I’m satisfied with.

Please your opinion is way important on those digital recorded LPs by Wind Music label as that Paramita title. Can play in the same league that top recorded LPs?.
I ask for Wind Music label because every single step in the recording process been really tookit with extreme care, knowledge and engineering skills on that whole process.

R.

@rauliruegas

"" 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.....""

It’s not easy to disagree with some gentleman with your kind of " pedigree " but I have good objective and subjective reasons to disagree with you ( not in all. ) and in other threads I posted about. This link speaks about:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/40319018?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

this one is pretty easy.

"one signal was sent to an analog cassette tape (Nakamichi MR3)......"

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.

every one of my Lp’s is better than 1/4" 2 track running at 7 and 1/2 ips. those tracks are twice the width of the 4-track, and it’s running 4x the speed and much more robust and solid sounding.

my tapes are all 1/4" 2 track, 15 ips (8x the speed of the cassette). a cassette deck weighs 10-15 pounds, and mechanically is a lightweight. my master recorders weigh 200 pounds, and are the most solid audio devices ever built. and the sound quality is relative to the weight difference.

this ’study’ has zero relevancy to the subject of this thread. this cassette player used is a competent playback machine for home use, but has no place representing SOTA analog playback performance.

@rauliruegas

Mike I don’t know if I’m missing something on your statement so please tell me if it’s that way:

Your statement really " disturb " me in the way we can read it because for me you are in reality telling that the vinyl experiences is better than tape.
Let me explain about:

in the recorded tape normally does not exist the RIAA eq. that one way or the other makes a signal heavy degradation in the vinyl pressed LPs and in the recorded tape the bass range comes in stereo and in the LPs comes in mono. Additional the recorded tape during system playback does not pass through ( again. ) that inverse eq. RIAA as all the LPs.

Those tape recorder characteristics makes a huge differences. So, common sense to me says the tape recorder is an inferior medium than the LP because even with all those signal twice RIAA eq. degradation and mono bass even the tape recorder experiences.
Again what am I missing here. Is it an absolute misunderstanding to your statement?

tape heads have EQ in the same sense RIAA works for vinyl playback. it is a method to optimize the magnetic tape technology and the music frequency spectrum. playback gets adjusted to bring it into musical coherency. so both analog technologies have that in common. in fact; most phono stages can double as tape repro outputs with a different EQ to select. My King Cello is like that.

i completely agree that tape has the lower distortion potential, greater data density and can be better than the best vinyl. but to be clearly on another level than vinyl, 1/4", 15 ips needs to be almost perfect. when you get into this question, the line between these two formats is blurred, depending on the quality of each in your particular system. 13 years ago when i got into tape, almost every one of the tapes i acquired were clearly better than my vinyl; maybe 80-90%. some by a long way. since then, my vinyl has steadily improved, but my tape is similar as then. now i would guess that 60% of my tapes are better than my vinyl, and maybe only the top 20% are a lots better. but my vinyl is quite a bit better now. really a long way better.

understand that my tape collection widely varies in quality as many are grey market master dubs of unknown provenance. and the perfection of the transfers varies with the source and the method used. so my experience is not as much a refection on the format difference as the access to perfect dubbing and source perfection differences. none of my tapes are poor, but my vinyl is so good that an average tape might only be equal or less to a great pressing.

but i do have 8000+ records to choose from and 250 tapes. so there are thousands of absolutely fantastic records to choose from. statistically a big advantage.

the exception to this is 1/2" tape, 15ips, or 30 ips. here no matter what vinyl does, it cannot get there. there is a gap from all other media to 1/2" (or wider) tape. it’s crazy good.

A 15 ips copy of a master tape is an incredible thing to hear. I do not think any turntable could match it. 

Dear @mikelavigne  : Obviouisly that I trust in what you listen and what you like or diaslike in your room/syste. You builded to listen the way you want it, is a very personal overall choice. 

I always like to read your posts and I try to analize it and my last post is part of the analisis of what you said.



"" 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.....""

It's not easy to disagree with some gentleman with your kind of " pedigree " but I have good objective and subjective reasons to disagree with you ( not in all. ) and in other threads I posted about. This link speaks about:


https://www.jstor.org/stable/40319018?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

down there we can read:


""" "This paper reports the results of a study that investigated listener perception and preferences for analog and digital recordings. Recordings were produced during concerts of three ensembles (mixed choir, string orchestra, and wind ensemble) and solo piano. Master tapes were recorded in the same concert hall using identical microphones and mixed to both digital audio tape and to analog tape using Dolby B noise reduction. Experimental excerpts were presented in digital and analog formats with a switching device that enabled listeners to alternate between the synchronized versions during the entirety of each excerpt. MANOVA and subsequent analyses indicated that digital presentations were rated higher in quality than the analog presentations (p <.001). Listeners demonstrated a greater difference in preference between digital and analog versions for wind band and piano concert examples than for choir and string orchestra examples. ................................................................................................................................................................................


Vinyl pressings are not a precise replication of the audio wave recorded in the master """



In other side you said:

"the current crop of direct-to-disc Lp offerings are untouchable by digital, as well as the few done to tape and offered as tape to the public. "

I can think that you have the Paramita LP digital recording ( 24/96. ) by Wind Music label.
Which opinion do you have on this specific LP quality performance levels against any non-digital recorded LPs?

Appreciated. Thank's.


R.

Dear @mikelavigne : I’m a little late in this thread, anyway:

"" so for me and my system.......i’d say that the best vinyl sounds really the same as tape. when you play the best pressings, including 45rpm and direct to disc on vinyl, then play tape, it’s doing the same things. ""

Mike I don’t know if I’m missing something on your statement so please tell me if it’s that way:

Your statement really " disturb " me in the way we can read it because for me you are in reality telling that the vinyl experiences is better than tape.
Let me explain about:

in the recorded tape normally does not exist the RIAA eq. that one way or the other makes a signal heavy degradation in the vinyl pressed LPs and in the recorded tape the bass range comes in stereo and in the LPs comes in mono. Additional the recorded tape during system playback does not pass through ( again. ) that inverse eq. RIAA as all the LPs.

Those tape recorder characteristics makes a huge differences. So, common sense to me says the tape recorder is an inferior medium than the LP because even with all those signal twice RIAA eq. degradation and mono bass even the tape recorder experiences.
Again what am I missing here. Is it an absolute misunderstanding to your statement?

Thank’s in advance and your answer appreciated.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

What is an audiophile in concrete day to day experience?

I was coming back home today.... I was in a hurry to listen my music....I opened up the system and I listen my favorite music (Bach organ and some jazz) lost in the music.... BUT I was slightly semi consciously annoyed, without  my normal enjoyment and awareness of the sound, I was a bit disappointed by my system but the music was great....Suddenly after some hours, I discover why?

9 of my 10 Schuman modified generators and 3 modified lamps were off....To open up my system I must open up 8 switches, and sometimes I forgot some....The sound makes me coming back to my sense after sometime....


I open them up, and WOW, like a miracle the sound was enlightened with the music this time....


For those who think that all tweaks are placebo effects, dont count in them my Schumann Generators…. :)

If only. 

Looscannon, I’m speechless

Hi G, Regarding Rumours in one month, I might pull out the SACD if I wanted to relax and not have to hassle with the vinyl.  But I would probably reach for the vinyl, thinking there would be more musical engagement.

Hi M, Regarding my vinly pressing: its the 33 rpm version, and its analog sourced, and sounds amazing. Sorry you got stuck with a digital record.

mikelavigne,

"what did you learn from those moments?"

Ha! I don't really know to be honest, other than its fascinating to read about such scenarios. 

I mean I'd love to try something like the Harman blind speaker test, but yeah, there would be a considerable amount of trepidation beforehand. 

Putting yourself and your preconceptions to a public test must be daunting for anyone. It's hardly surprising that reviewers persistently shy away from such tests. 

However in their case, it's not really an excuse as it's their job. Something they signed up for and something they get paid for.

So yeah, it was good of you to do it, and share the results.

It was pretty brave having him over given his reputation and you can’t win all hearts.

the time he came for the meeting related in his comments, i never invited him or knew he was coming. we had already locked horns by that time and so his viewpoints were expected. he came with an agenda. big surprise.

some years prior to that, i had invited him over. but at that time he was not a listener, he was a techie who liked writing about hifi. trying to fix what he saw was wrong with audiophiles. so he arrived to listen, stayed 15 minutes, and left. he cared nothing about listening. he cared about being the smartest guy in the room.

some things never change. and i fully admit he is a smart guy.

For what it is worth Mike, I am not terribly "welcome" on the ASR website as I far too often called out the errors in either Amir's measurements and/or conclusions based on his measurements. It was pretty brave having him over given his reputation and you can't win all hearts.  I find him pig-headed, and rare to admit his errors, but not dishonest, and his feelings about your system, while perhaps tainted by bias, may have very well been honest. We all have different likes.


The reason why, with rare exception I choose to be anonymous online, is working in an industry that crosses technical and creative boundaries in an era of cancel culture, I can't afford to "piss-off" someone who may be a revenue stream for people that count on me, simply due to a difference of opinion, not to mention I have had colleagues cyber stalked purely because of those opinions, and we are not talking political/cultural opinions, we are talking purely about technical opinions and personal preferences.

My perspective on the differences come from being very close to the creation, and being true to what is being created, or at least the ability to be accurate. My feeling is if you have accuracy, you can always tune for preference, but you can't go the other way.

When someone describes his system in words, they’re still just words. Words mean different things to different people. Highly resolved, transparent, Low noise floor, holographic soundstage, they’re just words. Words tend to lose their meaning, especially audiophile words. Most of them are way overused. As of you know what a system sounds like by someone’s description of it. You won’t know what a system sounds like until you are actually there. “My system sounds fabulous” seems to the war cry of the audiophile.

"Everyone seems to know what a system sounds like just by the photos. Interesting."

Who is "everyone"? Nobody here claimed such knowledge.

mikelavigne did say how his system sounds, but that is not based on pictures only. I said I would be willing to bet it is good, mahgister expects it to be really good, roberttdid found a link where someone did not think it is as good.

Everyone seems to know what a system sounds like just by the photos. Interesting.

The resolving power of a system in a good room is only that, a microscope.... This dont means that we will like the sound....This means that it will be more easy to ears some minute differences.... :) even if we dont like his tonality or imaging or etc....

With the photo it is easy to guess that the mikelavigne system is at least more resolving that your system and mine....For the S.Q. on all count this is another story....I must go now, I wish to you and glupson the best..... My best to all....

Glupson I understand your point.... But my point concern the possibility to solve the dilemma once and for all of us with the complex conditions implicated and the refine resolving system that none of us can afford...

For your point I said like you just said myself all the times that differences in scale price/S.Q. ratio makes impossible to claim victory for one or the other camp for the reason you just alluded to...I will not even mention the complex conditions that are implicated...


In the beginning the only thing I said was that probably mikelavigne is right about the vinyl and tape superiority... But in the usual normal day for all of us digital is very good and the way to go for me....


My 24 bucks dac rightly embedded sound better than half of the turntables on earth probably.... :) But probably sound bad or less natural compared to a turntable of a high level in a high level system in a high level room....This is the thing suggested by the experience of mikelavigne...It is not the gospel for sure but an interesting testimony...

Everyone seems to know what a system sounds like just by the photos. Interesting. 

"Even if not all people like mikelavigne system..."

I'd gamble and bet it is not a bad one.

"...most system dont have the resolving power to be a fair judge,"

I feel that "cheaper" systems may actually reveal the differences more than ultra-expensive (and consequently not crappier) ones can.

$300 turntable vs. $300 CD player difference may be more pronounced than $100 000 CD (combination of all those clocks etc.) player vs. $100 000 turntable. I have never heard that kind of turntable, but I have heard cheap ones. CD players seem better to me.

Even if not all people like mikelavigne system, I think it is largely resolving enough for most people to decide for themselves the difference between vinyl and digital...

Like he said and I think the same, in most case we enjoy digital  all of us, and never mind, most system dont have the resolving power to be a fair judge, without speaking about all the other synchronisations and sources problems to compare...

We can enjoy music on any medium, this is wise words, they will not end this debate tough, that for me is futile and unessential, because too much factors are at play for an experience to be convincing, except in exceptional case with a top audio system like the system of mikelavigne...

The key problem in audio, exceeding all the others, is how to embed any systems, mechanically, electrically, and acoustically....All the rest is arguing without final answers and even with no possible final answers in some case.... 

Grow up, pea brain. 

geoffkait,

"...I didn’t see that coming."

Help is on the way 🧐.

Gee, I didn’t see that coming. It’s endless drivel.

geoffkait,

"Yes, I know what you’re thinking: what about this? What about that?"

Wrong again. I was thinking how Michael Green and you are very similar in your unrelenting convictions.

By the way, asking what about this or that is how the world progressed. Well, there has to be balance in the Universe. Me for exploration and learning, you for solidified three topics. Cavemen unite!

Now, to be fair, you do learn. If that is what copying my ideas and words could be called. If you could only do it sooner than a month after I post it, you would earn straight Cs.

glupson

"The sound of a very good well-tuned system can be expected to change week to week and day to day and hour to hour sometimes for any number of reasons."

Michael Green has entered the building.

‘Fraid not globular, son of glub, MG and I are polar opposites on most things. Yes, I know what you’re thinking: what about this? What about that? Endless drivel. 5400 and counting of drivel. No offense.

As an aside, I think you were quite brave on taking that controlled cable (or was it messing with your mind?) challenge. Especially with the results posted online.

brave.....or stupid and naive. that was 13 years ago.....but Amir drug it up to get under my skin. i’ve made myself vulnerable to ner’do-wells that way.

when you have a 20 year posting history using your real name, being open about the highs and lows of your experiences, with 25,000 posts over 5 forums, there are going to be stumbles. no one held a gun to my head and made me hit send on any of those posts. i asked for it.

what did you learn from those moments?

under 50 by a ways but wish it was more, haha.....sigh

Rough and Rowdy ways is on Quboz. 

A far more civil discussion than most. It can happen. 
I’d be curious to know the age and sex of most posters. I suspect most here are males over fifty or sixty. I’m over sixty. 
As you might have guessed: I‘d bet the hearing of many here is limited. (my dog whistle app tells me my high end hearing is going)

Does hearing, gear, the source or does the room matter? Yes. It’s all interconnected and those who proffer to enjoy the music may be the most sage. Good for those of you that can hear and chase the nuance. Great fun!

Is my room and gear like mikelavigne’s ( love your set up and I’m scheming on something similar that won’t get me divorced so in other words forgetaboutit) or millercarbon‘s, er no.

Do I love music and listen many hours a day. Y E S. Do I read, listen and tweak. Yes. Do discussions like this inspire. Yes? Do I have a soft spot for the likes of “ that casette guy” (pocket protector too?) geoffkait? Sure!