CA Readers Are, "clueless, equally bitter and uninformed"

[Jud]

I have a harman-kardon T60 belt drive from 30 years ago with a $3-400 ortofon cartridge (10 years ago) that never sounded as good as my cheap ass digital rig does now. While not totl (although the table was at the top of hk's lineup at the time) the problem is more with the medium. Every time you play a vinyl album, it sounds worse than the time before. Accordingly, of all my vinyl (600 albums or so) my favorites sound the worst. When I got the new cart, my intent was to start listening to vinyl again. That lasted a couple days. Between the surface noise and the pita factor of getting up to flip the record every 23 minutes, (unless it was a Todd Rundgren album, which meant 29-30 minutes with the concomitantly quicker wear-out factor) I don't think it will ever come out of storage again. And I've heard some modern vinyl rigs belonging to friends and at shows(hard to judge) in the $5-20k range that sound no better. Since I will never be able to afford even the bottom of that range, I'm decidedly out. Maybe I can list my table and LPs on hipster-bay and make some $. Hmmmm.

 

Possible that my rig is not good enough to hear it (Pro-Ject RPM 1.3, Dynavector 10x5), but there are only a handful of my thousand or so LPs (none new) I've ever worn out, and that occurred when I didn't have a high end system. Some of this stuff has definitely been played several hundred times, like parts of Tommy, which I bought when it first came out in 1969, but still sounds fine. I don't have a vacuum cleaning machine, just a carbon fiber brush, and I used to treat my records with LAST when that was around. But that's it.

[wgscott]

 

Ahh, the memories.

[gmgraves]

I have a harman-kardon T60 belt drive from 30 years ago with a $3-400 ortofon cartridge (10 years ago) that never sounded as good as my cheap ass digital rig does now. While not totl (although the table was at the top of hk's lineup at the time) the problem is more with the medium. Every time you play a vinyl album, it sounds worse than the time before. Accordingly, of all my vinyl (600 albums or so) my favorites sound the worst. When I got the new cart, my intent was to start listening to vinyl again. That lasted a couple days. Between the surface noise and the pita factor of getting up to flip the record every 23 minutes, (unless it was a Todd Rundgren album, which meant 29-30 minutes with the concomitantly quicker wear-out factor) I don't think it will ever come out of storage again. And I've heard some modern vinyl rigs belonging to friends and at shows(hard to judge) in the $5-20k range that sound no better. Since I will never be able to afford even the bottom of that range, I'm decidedly out. Maybe I can list my table and LPs on hipster-bay and make some $. Hmmmm.

 

i

 

It's a bit of a paradox. Digital easily outstrips medium priced vinyl sound quality. There is no comparison. But really first rate vinyl equipment can bury most everything (except, perhaps a half-track, 15 inch-per-second master tape on a really good tape machine with first class electronics). What I mean by first rate record playing equipment is something like a Walker Proscenium record player:

 

https://walkeraudio.com/proscenium-black-diamond-v/

 

A Clearaudio Goldfinger Statement Phono Cartridge

 

clearaudio electronic GmbH - Goldfinger Statement, The ultimate dream

 

And some kind of super Phono preamp like the Allnic

 

H3000V Phono Stage | Allnic Audio Labs.

 

This is the kind of equipment that people like Michael Fremer listen to records on. And these are just examples. Clearaudio makes a reference turntable that is even more expensive than the Walker, it is called The Statement. And there are other tables in this category as well.

 

clearaudio electronic GmbH - Statement, Discover another dimension of music reproduction, Features

 

When you get to this level of performance, the vinyl listening experience is a whole 'nuther thing entirely. I've heard an earlier incarnation of the Walker Proscenium turntable, with some hand-made Japanese MC super cartridge and a some megabuck phono preamp and I couldn't believe that records had that much information on them, or that any system could actually retrieve it. I realize that 95% of the population can't get within a country mile of that kind of vinyl performance, but most of us shouldn't even really try to sweat the fact. Besides, many great vinyl performances have excellent CD and SACD and Hi-res downloads available which can get the rest of us close to the sound of the mega-buck record-playing systems without us having to spend the mega-bucks. But just because inexpensive vinyl playback equipment can't retrieve that kind of performance from records, doesn't mean that it's not there. Believe me, it is.

[Gary]

Much as I love a good Dean Martin record, Dino has left us. For better or worse, we are still here, and the music of our times - with the exception of an occasional novelty - is recorded in PCM. I don't see how a PCM transfer to vinyl can exceed the quality of PCM decoded by a good DAC. While I don't believe that the sound quality of vinyl will exceed that of well-recorded digital played back over a good system, I think that vinyl may capture more accurately what engineers and artists of the "analogue era" had in mind when recording, mixing, and mastering the music of their day. So if you predominantly listen to the music of yesteryear, then vinyl may be the way to go. I won't be joining you.

 

I think that Fremmer was wrong for using the tone that he did.

[sandyk]

But really first rate vinyl equipment can bury most everything (except, perhaps a half-track, 15 inch-per-second master tape on a really good tape machine with first class electronics). What I mean by first rate record playing equipment is something like a Walker Proscenium record player:

 

Really ? Do they use cartridges with much better than the typical 40 -45dB maximum channel separation which is essential for pin point imaging, or extract very LF from the recording in Stereo which wasn't recorded due to the necessary compromises with vinyl records ? The lower the channel separation, the broader the central image in particular becomes.

One of the major advantages that people like Barry D. have noted is the improvement at LF from 24/192 and the fact that it does have a degree of localisation information which even a single subwoofer instead of a subwoofer for each channel would damage.

[InfernoSTi]

I realize that 95% of the population can't get within a country mile of that kind of vinyl performance. .... But just because inexpensive vinyl playback equipment can't retrieve that kind of performance from records, doesn't mean that it's not there. Believe me, it is.

 

So for a $140,000 front end, I can better my CA setup? How many audiophiles have that BEFORE speakers, amp, etc? It isn't 5%, George...you and I both know that.

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/only-3%25-us-population-can-afford-high-end-audio-21652/

 

You posted on the only 3% of the population can afford high end audio thread...and what percentage of them are audiophiles? And that was for $150,000 total system, not just for the front end. This is not what the hipsters and kids are listening to...nor is it what 99.5% of the audiophiles are listening to...nor is it reasonable to argue that because a $140,000 front end sounds sublime that the medium as a whole is therefore better.

 

But I know your point is that if this is what folks are listening to, then yeah, it probably sounds great! I'll just take my very humble low fi setup and keep spinning the (silver) disk NAS.

[weirdo12]

I think that Fremer was wrong for using the tone that he did.

 

It's rather unfortunate that if that was the first time they met (if that's the case) as I would have expected that they'd have gotten along quite well.

 

I really like the work Chris has done but spare me with using the the Neilsen Sound Scan stuff to support an argument. Fremer has asked pressing plants for production numbers to support his claims. I acknowledge production does not = sales.

 

Neither gentlemen disagree on the fact that the source materiel is critical to great sound reproduction.

[toddrhodes]

So for a $140,000 front end, I can better my CA setup? How many audiophiles have that BEFORE speakers, amp, etc? It isn't 5%, George...you and I both know that.

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/only-3%25-us-population-can-afford-high-end-audio-21652/

 

You posted on the only 3% of the population can afford high end audio thread...and what percentage of them are audiophiles? And that was for $150,000 total system, not just for the front end. This is not what the hipsters and kids are listening to...nor is it what 99.5% of the audiophiles are listening to...nor is it reasonable to argue that because a $140,000 front end sounds sublime that the medium as a whole is therefore better.

 

But I know your point is that if this is what folks are listening to, then yeah, it probably sounds great! I'll just take my very humble low fi setup and keep spinning the (silver) disk NAS.

 

For that coin less the cost of a Fusion Hybrid, one could have a dCS Vivaldi and methinks the gap would be significantly narrower, if not completely rendering the analog alternative moot. I didn't get to hear one vs a high end table, but what I heard out of the Vivaldi was something almost indescribable. I've never before heard such pinpoint accuracy, soundstage depth, presentation, it was out of this world.

[YashN]

I was going to say that your resolution posts are off-topic, but when I looked that the thread topic I realised it fits perfectly.

 

Here's a turntable playing a tortilla for you, Don:

 

[Allan F]

This is the kind of equipment that people like Michael Fremer listen to records on. And these are just examples. Clearaudio makes a reference turntable that is even more expensive than the Walker, it is called The Statement. And there are other tables in this category as well.

 

FWIW, George, according to Stereophile's April 'Recommended Components' issue, Fremer's Continuum Caliburn turntable with arm and stand now lists for $200,000, the same price as his Wilson Alexandria XLF speakers. Cartridge and speaker cables are not included. (No, Priaptor, this post is not motivated by jealousy or envy; it is merely intended to be informational. )

[weirdo12]

My iphone 6 + with a 10 cent dac chip and Westone quad driver iem's sounds better than vinyl .Sorry chief,those are the facts.

 

Did you mean to say they sound different and you are a fan of the digital version not the vinyl? Seriously the iPhone 6 is your go to digital playback reference that beats what - your Crosely suitcase all in one? There's nothing wrong with championing digital audio but wow. Any time I hear the term better I cringe.

[Allan F]

Things have obviously changed in recent years with huge advancements in the quality of digital sound reproduction. However, IMO, at the beginning of the CD era, most players and remastered CDs couldn't remotely hold a candle to the sound of vinyl played on any reasonably priced turntable, e.g. Dual, Gerrard, Technics, etc. The harsh edgy sound of most early CD players and CDs was often akin to massaging your ear drums with ice picks.

 

It is not by coincidence that current reviews of good DACs, more often than not, include favourable comparisons to analog.

[esldude]

Did you mean to say they sound different and you are a fan of the digital version not the vinyl? Seriously the iPhone 6 is your go to digital playback reference that beats what - your Crosely suitcase all in one? There's nothing wrong with championing digital audio but wow. Any time I hear the term better I cringe.

 

A 2004 iPod was good enough for Wilson to demo his Sophia's with it in public at the CES.

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/wilson-sophia-ces-demo-apple-ipod-source-18443/

 

I bet an iPhone 6 is a better source than an 11 year old iPod.

[firedog]

As far as clicks and pops and wear out, Fremer claims that with a very good setup and cleaning the record properly before every play, he basically avoids clicks and pops entirely, and that even his older albums have lost nothing or next to nothing in SQ. I've never had that kind of setup, so I'm just passing along the info.

[Superdad]

I have 4,000+ LPs, collected over 40 years. Lots of great stuff in there that has either never be digitally remastered or the digital remasterings suck. Sadly, I don't take the time to spin much of it anymore.

 

But something funny that I want to remark on is this: I have a number of 24/96 vinyl rips (origins unknown, but music very familiar--Nina Simone, Billy Holiday, King Crimson, and Duke Ellington) that were well done. And they are GREAT for judging if small digital changes (s/w, PS, USB cable, versions of my REGEN, digital filters, whatever) are better or worse. On a few of them it is not even the instruments or vocals that I key in on--it is the studio/club ambience and surface noise of the vinyl that almost instantly tells me if what I changed is better or worse. (And even after moving on to not-vinyl-rips my choices hold up.)

 

I think those decades of listening to LPs, adjusting tracking angle and VTF by ear, and just absorbing what the "sound" and immediacy of a needle in the groove feels like, has engrained it into my ear/brain.

[Norton]

It's a bit of a paradox. Digital easily outstrips medium priced vinyl sound quality. There is no comparison. .

 

I can't agree with this. I have been listening to both vinyl and digital pretty much daily for 2 decades. My vinyl front end is less than £5k worth and based on what I've heard so far in comparison with my own digital system, I doubt that any current £5k digital front end could better it, let alone "easily outstrip" it. I love digital too and products such as Hugo, HQP and native DSD downloads certainly close the gap, but the gap is still there and in vinyl's favour.

 

Unlike some other posters, particularly so in this thread, I only post opinions on equipment based on what I hear in my own current system. The poster who used the example of his iPhone to arrogantly dismiss all vinyl listening based on what he heard 40 years ago in someone else's system quite literally justifies Michael Fremer's assertion of "uninformed" comment on this site. Avoiding the extremes of price range, I'd pay much more attention and respect to a forum member who has spent similar sums on both digital and vinyl front ends and is prepared to say that digital easily outstrips vinyl.

[4est]

As I see things, this is it in a nut shell. Sadly, it has given many the impression that having the gear is the system, when in fact it us the set-up that makes or breaks it. One mistake is all it takes to go from great to mid fi. Just sayin...

It's very easy to put together an bad sounding vinyl system. It's very easy (these days) to put together a good sounding digital system. However, I suspect that even many audiophiles don't realize the greatness that digital is capable of when an effort is made to optimize the front end - present company excluded, of course.

[Backwell]

I agree with your comments entirely , I listen to vinyl and digital , and as far as cost goes my analogue front end has cost more than the digital . When I do the maths the analogue cost was twice as much as the digital . I am from the analogue age , being in my mid fifties , but get huge pleasure from both sources . In the end , people should not go around picking fights about the merits of one format over another , chill out and just enjoy the music ! Peace and Love , as Ritchie always says ...

[Jimmypowder]

I can't agree with this. I have been listening to both vinyl and digital pretty much daily for 2 decades. My vinyl front end is less than £5k worth and based on what I've heard so far in comparison with my own digital system, I doubt that any current £5k digital front end could better it, let alone "easily outstrip" it. I love digital too and products such as Hugo, HQP and native DSD downloads certainly close the gap, but the gap is still there and in vinyl's favour.

 

Unlike some other posters, particularly so in this thread, I only post opinions on equipment based on what I hear in my own current system. The poster who used the example of his iPhone to arrogantly dismiss all vinyl listening based on what he heard 40 years ago in someone else's system quite literally justifies Michael Fremer's assertion of "uninformed" comment on this site. Avoiding the extremes of price range, I'd pay much more attention and respect to a forum member who has spent similar sums on both digital and vinyl front ends and is prepared to say that digital easily outstrips vinyl.

 

If you read some of my other posts you would know I've heard current vinyl setups just 2 years ago . They stink compared to a digital setup with a good dac ,etc. Were they

20-50 k setups? No . So read all the posts before you proclaim someone arrogant .

 

I'm sure I will hear some vinyl setups next week in California ? . It's always possible I may end up at a music moguls house as my in-laws are music executives and know quite a few famous artists .

 

I'll let you know if my opinion changes . I'm sure some of these folks have 50k vinyl setups .

[Jimmypowder]

Did you mean to say they sound different and you are a fan of the digital version not the vinyl? Seriously the iPhone 6 is your go to digital playback reference that beats what - your Crosely suitcase all in one? There's nothing wrong with championing digital audio but wow. Any time I hear the term better I cringe.

 

Resolution is better . There you go ,particularly with a iPhone connected via CCK to a high quality dac .

 

Better then any vinyl setup I've heard . But like I said I've never heard a 50 -100k vinyl setup

Maybe next week . Hopefully it's better then the 5-10 k setups I've heard .

 

I would characterize the vinyl setups I've heard as dull sounding and not dynamic .

 

And every guy in their 50's and 60's thought their vinyl system was killer . Even my wife

who never listens to music that intently said they stunk compared to our dac based systems.

[Norton]

If you read some of my other posts you would know I've heard current vinyl setups just 2 years ago . They stink compared to a digital setup with a good dac ,etc. Were they

20-50 k setups? No . So read all the posts before you proclaim someone arrogant .

 

I'm sure I will hear some vinyl setups next week in California ? . It's always possible I may end up at a music moguls house as my in-laws are music executives and know quite a few famous artists .

 

I'll let you know if my opinion changes . I'm sure some of these folks have 50k vinyl setups .

 

But you are dismissing vinyl systems of the price most of us can afford having never owned a turntable or listened to one in your own system. Am I right?

[Jimmypowder]

But you are dismissing vinyl systems of the price most of us can afford having never owned a turntable or listened to one in your own system. Am I right?

 

I do not have a current vinyl setup . I did decades ago .

 

I will go out to Cali with an open mind and listen again .Right now based on my listening tests,

I have no interest in purchasing a vinyl setup.

[Jud]

I do not have a current vinyl setup . I did decades ago .

 

I will go out to Cali with an open mind and listen again .

 

I think you might be surprised. I've got a vinyl setup that cost about the same as my DAC (and since the DAC was part DIY, that means a non-DIY DAC of the same approximate quality would likely be quite a bit more expensive than my vinyl setup): Pro-Ject RPM 1.3 and Dynavector 10x5. Let's take Steely Dan's Gaucho as an example of a well recorded album. My old LP sounds great. I ripped the 24/96 DVD-A, and it sounded lifeless and flat. I was really disappointed. I then did a DSD rip of an SACD, and that is about on par with the LP from a listening pleasure standpoint. I've since had similar experiences with Tommy (playing the original LP that I've had since 1969), Quadrophenia, and Miles Davis' Amandla.

 

Now I'm no particular vinyl fanboy. At an audio show I attended a couple of years ago, there were no-holds-barred systems running from computers, and no-holds-barred systems running from vinyl, and I thought the top end digital systems bested the vinyl. (Of course shows are notoriously difficult places to get equipment to sound good, but everyone has the same mountain to scale there.) But for whatever reasons, the numbers used when saying one medium automatically and always trumps the other don't square with my real world listening experiences.

[orgel]

Ahh, the memories.

 

You left out one of my favorites:

 

 

--David

[pawel8]

I doubt if you can listen with an opened mind.