psag,
If you were to listen to it again, in a month let's say, which one do you think you would pull out?
If you were to listen to it again, in a month let's say, which one do you think you would pull out?
Vinyl / High qual analog tape / High-res digital -- One of these is not like the other
One common theme I read on forums here and elsewhere is the view by many that there is a pecking order in quality:
Top - High Quality Analog TapeNext - VinylBottom - Digital
I will go out on a limb and say that most, probably approaching almost all those making the claim have never heard a really good analog tape machine and high resolution digital side by side, and have certainly never heard what comes out the other end when it goes to vinyl, i.e. heard the tape/file that went to the cutter, then compared that to the resultant record?
High quality analog tape and high quality digital sound very similar. Add a bit of hiss (noise) to digital, and it would be very difficult to tell which is which. It is not digital, especially high resolution digital that is the outlier, it is vinyl. It is different from the other two. Perhaps if more people actually experienced this, they would have a different approach to analog/vinyl?
This post has nothing to do with personal taste. If you prefer vinyl, then stick with it and enjoy it. There are reasons why the analog processing that occurs in the vinyl "process" can result in a sound that pleases someone. However, knowledge is good, and if you are set in your ways, you may be preventing the next leap.
Top - High Quality Analog TapeNext - VinylBottom - Digital
I will go out on a limb and say that most, probably approaching almost all those making the claim have never heard a really good analog tape machine and high resolution digital side by side, and have certainly never heard what comes out the other end when it goes to vinyl, i.e. heard the tape/file that went to the cutter, then compared that to the resultant record?
High quality analog tape and high quality digital sound very similar. Add a bit of hiss (noise) to digital, and it would be very difficult to tell which is which. It is not digital, especially high resolution digital that is the outlier, it is vinyl. It is different from the other two. Perhaps if more people actually experienced this, they would have a different approach to analog/vinyl?
This post has nothing to do with personal taste. If you prefer vinyl, then stick with it and enjoy it. There are reasons why the analog processing that occurs in the vinyl "process" can result in a sound that pleases someone. However, knowledge is good, and if you are set in your ways, you may be preventing the next leap.
- ...
- 269 posts total
I just compared Fleetwood Mac Rumours on audiophile vinyl (Pallas pressing) versus SACD. I used an EMM SACD player and ARC Reference level preamplification. The SACD had better and clearer highs (guitar fills mostly). The vinyl had a denser and more satisfying vocals and mids. Ultimately it was a draw.sorry to break it you, but the Pallus 45 rpm pressing of Rumours sucks. i have 2 copies of it. the bass is fat and lacks articulation, and the sound is congested and life less. my guess is the 45 is digitally sourced. not surprised the SACD is better, as i recall i also prefer the CD. i love Rumours, one of my favorite recordings. so 10 years ago i went on a mission to find an original pressing; which after buying 10 early pressings i finally found an original, and it’s awesome. most of the early pressings are ’decent’. they did sell like 25 million copies of Rumours in the 70’s so there are lots of them out there. i also have a 15ips 1/4" early generation RTR master dub of Rumours which is even better than the original pressing. typically a 45rpm reissue of a vintage rock album is on the same level but a little different than a good original pressing. but in this case the 45 is not very good at all. it is still great music, and the 45rpm format and vinyl gear will bring some positives, but it’s way down the list of best ways to hear this. |
Somewhere out there Mike, there is a guy called George who would say your amplifiers are crap because they don’t double in power output when you 1/2 the speaker impedance :-) ... and no I am not the one saying that and I don’t agree with him. everyone has a right to their own opinion, even george. if i listened to measurements, then he might have a point, but i use my amplifiers for music reproduction. Fremer and i will muddle through with our flawed amplifiers. we both could choose to own any amplifier out there, and we both have the ones we prefer. here is a link to a post that George might like (or not like); https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/dartzeel-nhb-468-mono-blocks-in-my-system.29522/page-3#post-648874 |
+1 Mike Lavigne In short--vinyl sounds more natural. Digital sounds truncated. But it sure is convenient and I listen to digital more than vinyl. My system has 2 cd players including a Spectral SDR 4000SV and two universal players. On the vinyl side, I have a VPI HRX rim drive with 3d arm and numerous cartridges (I mainly use Lyra Atlas ). Although I do not have Mike's raw materials, I can tell the difference between vinyl and digital on my system a vast majority of the time. That being said--the Spectral is a remarkable cd player. |
- 269 posts total