Turntable got absolutely crushed by CD

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.