2. analog
  3. 1161719631

Analog experiment

Hi everyone. Some of you will remember my post from a couple weeks back about trying out vinyl. My dealer setup that old AR for me and I listened to it for a while and then listened to the same records on a new Pro-Ject RM 6 SB with a Sumiko Blue Point #2 cartridge. I liked the Pro-Ject better so I took it home for an audition in my system.

I borrowed some basically new LPs from my dealer's collection. Most of them are the 180 gm. "audiophile grade" limited editions. I got U2 War, Eagles Hell Freezes Over, John Lee Hooker, Pink Floyd DSOTM and REM Document. I was familiar with all these and own the CD counterpart of each album for direct comparisons.

I carefully setup the turntable making sure it was level. My dealer has been selling turntables for decades so I trust the other adjustments. I used the C42 to level-match the outputs of my Sony C333ES SACD player and the Pro-Ject, again for fair direct comparisons.

I listened to each album on its own on the turntable and then I went back and played the Sony in parallel. I switched between the two sources from my listening chair. In this case, I would keep the turntable 40 seconds ahead of the Sony so every 40 seconds I could hear the exact same passage in digital form. Hearing memory is short so I kept the interval short. I also made longer comparisons to be sure of my thoughts.

The bottom line is that the Pro-Ject didn't sound any better than my Sony. They had exactly the same tonality and soundstaging. On DSOFTM in SACD, the Sony was virtually indistinguishable from the turntable. I couldn't believe it. This is the first time I can't hear a reliable difference between two different components.

With other records, the turntable seemed to have a slightly more extended and weightier bottom end. But then the Sony had slightly better definition so it was a wash. After these tests, I see no reason for me to go with vinyl. You think maybe the phono stage in my C42 isn't good enough? Or maybe the turntable should be a better one? Well then, I am even less interested in vinyl if that is the case. The Sony costs about $350 these days.

I am sure some of you will be upset with my decision but I have to say I was excited to try it out and I kept my outlook totally unbiased. I loved the looks of the Pro-Ject and my dealer has an awesome collection of vinyl for sale at really good prices so I wanted to tap into that. But I don't see any reason to do that now. Oh well!

Arthur
aball
aball OP
2,018 posts
 
I don't think any of my LPs today were standard pressings - I assume that means they came out before CDs were invented, no?

Well I would enjoy both but to be honest, I already have two sources I prefer - the Sony and my Audio Aero Prima Mk2. The Prima is quite different and is basically what I think analog guys call the "digital" player. I don't see that as a negative - I love its detail and rhythm and pace which beat both the Pro-Ject and Sony hands down. Yet it doesn't have the flat and lifeless sound I have heard from some megabuck CD players but rather has emotion and impact. I have heard better than the Prima but I am satisfied with it.

I just wanted to give analog an honest try to see what I thought of it. If I have to find special pressings to get the analog sound, I might as well stick with finding special CDs to get the best digital sound. SACD version of DSOTM was really awesome today. I had forgotten how good SACD can sound. It really was just like the vinyl in this setup - minus the crackle and pop. :)

Arthur
rockvirgo
587 posts
 
Thanks for the interesting update to your original old AR turntable post. Happy to hear you reached a sensible conclusion in the som,etimes worrisome world of hi-fi. But to be fair, it sounds like you tested the software as much as the equipment - meaning it's not surprising the high signal to noise selections you used in your evaluation sounded great either way. One day try the test again with much simpler (solo opera singer with piano accompaniment) or impossibly complex (free fusion hard blowing jazz) orchestrations. No knock to your taste at all, those are great records, just every now and then I run across a cut that doesn't make any musical sense at all. It's those difficult ones that sometimes reveal musicality in the equipment, moreso than the usual, familiar, ear candy ones.
stefanl
296 posts
 
You know I found that when Lp's were sounding like Cd's and you couldn't tell the difference it was because my turntable set-up was incorrect.Usually too much tracking weight and not spot-on,and the VTA was out as well.I also agree with much of what Jyprez said about whether the recording is true analogue or not and you have yet to convince me of the 180gram pressing in reality.Van Den Hul(Cartridge maker) himself says that recordings were made better in the 60's and Decca engineers in those days knew that vinyl above 160 grams in weight starts to become problematic for good audio.
gregm
3,410 posts
 
Aball sez:
You think maybe the phono stage in my C42 isn't good enough? Or maybe the turntable should be a better one? Well then, I am even less interested in vinyl if that is the case.
I understand that. That's exactly the problem many people have with vinyl -- basically a financial-practical combination problem. OTOH, the sonic result trying analogue on the fly wasn't bad, as you note.

I loved the looks of the Pro-Ject and my dealer has an awesome collection of vinyl for sale at really good prices so I wanted to tap into that.
In your case that would be the only reason (the music) to go into vinyl. OTOH, in order to have a better sonic result than you experienced, you need to tackle 3.5 crucial parametres:
1) Correct TT+arm+cartridge combination
2) Correct SET-UP of the above
3) Correct matching between TT output and phono input
Later: 3.5) A good phono: i.e. exotic or diy or very expensive anyway you look at it.

Most of us never achieve 3 and few of us can afford 3.5; we all battle with 2 (which isn't rocket science, fortunately).
So, you're probably OK as you are:)
rnm4
308 posts
 
I don't think 40 second intervals are even close to long enough to acclimate your ears to what you are hearing, and allow you to appreciate the differences that matter. Your strategy was extremely artificial, and your head cannot have been into the music at all -- just the sound. Your brain will also under such circumstances attempt to normalize what it receives.

I had friends over the other night, and we listened to a bunch of music -- several songs from a given LP or CD at a time -- in a casual, talk-over-it-if-you-like-kind-of-way. People seemed a helluva lot more inclined to talk over the CDs than the LP. They even talked about how good the CDs sounded. But they shut up (more anyway) and listened to the music when the LPs played. Not a scientific test, by any means (but then neither was yours). But I find this typical.
More to discover