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

[tranz]

I haven't Miggy . But if I hit some music moguls place while I'm in L.A. I might. If I do

I will write down every piece of equipment and my listening impressions.

 

My in -laws are music execs ,pretty much know everyone in the music industry along with many

famous artists .

 

Not necessary. Just for shits and giggles bring an album of music you love to a local audio store and listen on their 100K rig. If you like it, great. If not, also great. It is just preference in the end.

[miguelito]

I find it ironic in the extreme that when it comes to all the tiresome obj/subj debates on this site, subjectivists always end up saying "How dare you tell me what I hear or don't hear," but when it comes to analog/digital, the vinyl brigade (and I'd wager that there is a rather large overlap between the two groups) always ends up saying, in essence, "You're wrong, you obviously haven't heard a good enough setup." I never thought I'd say this, but, how dare you try to tell me that I'm wrong? You don't know what I can hear. Trust your ears, (but not yours, or yours).

Actually, I'm pretty comfortable telling you that if you haven't listened to a vinyl system of more than, say, $10k, then you don't know what is possible.

[BobSherman]

That's a very good point.

 

But there is more that just one's ears in the equation. When one says they heard a good system, what does that actually mean? A Dual 1229 and a Shure M44 or a Linn and Koetsu rosewood long body? There is a profound difference believe me.

[gmgraves]

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. )

 

 

Thanks for backing-up what I said, Alan. Yes, that level of equipment is something we mortals will likely never experience (much like being able to drive a $60-million 1962 Ferrari GTO!). But unless you do get to experience that level of playback, you'll never know how great a good LP CAN sound. The problem is, so few LPs are THAT good. I have thousands of Classical and Jazz LPs, and I've got to say that if I'm truly honest with myself, less than 10% sound decent enough to even bother to play - and they didn't sound all that great when I bought them! I remember in the 1970's and 1980's I wouldn't buy an Angel LP if I could possibly find the same title and artist on the EMI "His Master's Voice" pressing from England (often sold here with the gold "Odeon" sticker glued over the picture of Nipper looking into the gramophone horn). I don't know what Capitol Records did to the cutting masters that EMI in England sent them, but most Angel pressings were pale shadows of their EMI counterparts. I would also look for British pressings (done by Decca, usually) of Vox/Turnabout records too. The American pressed ones were a cacophony of underfill, poor quality vinyl and generally sloppy production methods. The British pressed versions were generally pristine. When Vox/Turnabout was bought and everything was re-released on CD, I for one rejoiced. Finally I could get decent sounding copies of my favorite titles. Some of these titles were magnificently recorded (like the Dallas Symphony recording of Copland's "Billy the Kid" and "Rodeo" which were recorded using two ribbon mikes in an X-Y stereo pair and NO mixer.) Some were recorded by the legendary team of Marc Aubort and Joanna Nickernz (including the landmark VoxBox set of all of Ravel's works for orchestra with Skrowacjewski and the Minnesota Orchestra. I bought set after set of these records and could never find a decent one. I had to wait 'till the set came out on CD before I found a really good one.)

[gmgraves]

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.

 

Alan, I never said that records were better than the best digital, I'm just saying that if you heard the very best vinyl on the very best playback equipment, your jaw would likely drop!

[Jud]

Actually, I'm pretty comfortable telling you that if you haven't listened to a vinyl system of more than, say, $10k, then you don't know what is possible.

 

I have, but I also find good sound in much less expensive systems (vinyl and digital).

[gmgraves]

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.

 

 

You're overthinking this. That 5% is 5% of the audiophiles in this world who still listen to records. I would think that would have been obvious when I said 5% of the population I was referring to the 5% of the population who would even CARE.

[senorx]

Actually, I'm pretty comfortable telling you that if you haven't listened to a vinyl system of more than, say, $10k, then you don't know what is possible.

 

Did you not read post 87 in this thread, or are you just being purposefully obtuse? You are all pretty comfortable telling others what you think they know or don't know. You don't know shit about me or what I know or don't know, and do not presume otherwise.

[senorx]

I have, but I also find good sound in much less expensive systems (vinyl and digital).

 

Sorry Jud, I think he was referring to me.

[gmgraves]

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.

 

That has been my point all along. There is tons of great music out there that has never been and never will be released on CD. Vinyl records are merely another source of music to be used when required to get at the music. Even if it's just to transfer them to digital. And even if many older performances are re-released digitally, generally speaking, the old analog masters are nowhere near in as good a shape as they were when the original vinyl was cut from them. Case in point: I have an HDTracks 24/96 release of Villa-Lobos' "Little Train or the Ciapira" with Eugene Goosens and the London Philharmonic recorded by Bert Whyte and originally released on Everest Records. The LP sounds great and the performance is very good as well (Bert Whyte was a purist and recorded using a single stereo pair). The HDTracks 24/96 sounds horrible! it has huge drop-outs, some distortion, and most unforgivable of all; terrible flutter! When I complained to HDTracks that the title was unacceptable, they promised to give me a 15% discount on my next order. Needless to say, there hasn't been a next order!

[gmgraves]

I can't agree with this.

 

You are entitled....

[Pepsican]

That's easy to answer: 100% ;-)

 

Count me out then. No vinyl.

[BobSherman]

Thanks for backing-up what I said, Alan. Yes, that level of equipment is something we mortals will likely never experience (much like being able to drive a $60-million 1962 Ferrari GTO!). But unless you do get to experience that level of playback, you'll never know how great a good LP CAN sound. The problem is, so few LPs are THAT good. I have thousands of Classical and Jazz LPs, and I've got to say that if I'm truly honest with myself, less than 10% sound decent enough to even bother to play - and they didn't sound all that great when I bought them! I remember in the 1970's and 1980's I wouldn't buy an Angel LP if I could possibly find the same title and artist on the EMI "His Master's Voice" pressing from England (often sold here with the gold "Odeon" sticker glued over the picture of Nipper looking into the gramophone horn). I don't know what Capitol Records did to the cutting masters that EMI in England sent them, but most Angel pressings were pale shadows of their EMI counterparts. I would also look for British pressings (done by Decca, usually) of Vox/Turnabout records too. The American pressed ones were a cacophony of underfill, poor quality vinyl and generally sloppy production methods. The British pressed versions were generally pristine. When Vox/Turnabout was bought and everything was re-released on CD, I for one rejoiced. Finally I could get decent sounding copies of my favorite titles. Some of these titles were magnificently recorded (like the Dallas Symphony recording of Copland's "Billy the Kid" and "Rodeo" which were recorded using two ribbon mikes in an X-Y stereo pair and NO mixer.) Some were recorded by the legendary team of Marc Aubort and Joanna Nickernz (including the landmark VoxBox set of all of Ravel's works for orchestra with Skrowacjewski and the Minnesota Orchestra. I bought set after set of these records and could never find a decent one. I had to wait 'till the set came out on CD before I found a really good one.)

 

Your experiences with the British pressings mirrors mine, they were always much better. It was often a chore to find good versions of some LPs.

[Allan F]

As I just wrote on another thread ... the inconvenience actually changes the way "we" listen to music; and if listening to music is the whole experience rather than just the actual sound then perhaps vinyl DOES sound better because of that.

 

OTOH, I know a number of people who say that vinyl sounds better despite the inconvenience and their clear preference for digital in that regard.

[BobSherman]

I have, but I also find good sound in much less expensive systems (vinyl and digital).

 

I agree the prices that are being thrown around are way over exaggerated. Many many moons ago I had a TD160, Supex 900 on a Grace 707 that was a great sounding front end.

 

Same hold true for digital.The IDSD Mini or Aune S16 are very nice digital fronts ends for not allot of cash, and there are many more out there.

[Daudio]

... if I could possibly find the same title and artist on the EMI "His Master's Voice" pressing from England (often sold here with the gold "Odeon" sticker glued over the picture of Nipper looking into the gramophone horn)

 

+1

 

I also liked the Argo - L'oiseau-Lyre LP's !

 

 

 

P.S. SandyK is 'Alex', not 'Allan'

[Superdad]

…. All of that stuff was recorded on analog and the original releases were on LP. Some have been transferred to CD and even to hi-res, but not all of it. I have some CD reissues of analog material that sound far better than the original vinyl (mostly JVC XRCDs) but most don't sound as good. Why not? Several reasons. Indifferently mastered is sometimes the answer, but mostly it's because the old analog tapes have deteriorated to the point that nothing can be done to them to make them as good as they were when the original LPs were mastered from them back in the day.

 

I concur!

 

And there are some beloved LPs in my collection that I have had to hunt down and buy 3-5 different CD (or higher) remasterings of to find one that comes close to conveying the music as dynamically and lifelike as the original pressing.

 

I'd do some vinyl ripping, but I don't have the time and I am holding out to either buy or build a really great ADC before I invest that time.

 

--Alex C.

[miguelito]

Did you not read post 87 in this thread, or are you just being purposefully obtuse? You are all pretty comfortable telling others what you think they know or don't know. You don't know shit about me or what I know or don't know, and do not presume otherwise.

All I'm saying is it is not possible to take an opinion on something you haven't tried seriously. If someone tells me that vinyl sounds awful and are basing that opinion on listening to a Technicks SL1200 on an Onkyo receiver I will tell them we are not talking about the same thing. Makes sense?

[NOMBEDES]

Wow. This thread reminds me of the good old days. (Lamp Cord v. Nordost/Kimber) (Vinyl v. CD (etc)) (Copper v. Silver)

 

Anyway, I was having a tasty martini at WildFish in Newport Beach during the time of the great Fremer-Conniker debate. I don't think I missed much.

 

The Newport show had outstanding systems with both vinyl and with digital. What a great show, I found the Newport show hotel rooms to be better "sounding" than the rooms at other shows. I highly recommend the venue.

 

The only problem I have with Computer Audio is the fact that a computer is involved. Remember when W4Sound DACs were inoperable for an extended period (months) because of a OS upgrade? Once we take the computer OUT of Computer Audio, we will all be better off.

 

Now as far as Ms. Jenner is concerned, when you all find out you were punked by the truly evil Kardashians (spit), there will be a world-wide shortage of the large size cartons of Egg Beaters. Because the entire internet will have egg on the collective blog face!!

 

 

 

PS. I did learn that Kimber Cable has nothing to do with the Kimber .45Cal Pistol. Although the Kimber Cable rep. DOES live in fear that someone will send their firearm in to him for repair thereby triggering obscure paragraphs of the Patriot Act.

[StephenJK]

Please be smart enough to know vinyl audio quality is not as good , generally speaking , as digital .

 

Resolution from digital recordings is fixed by the scanning frequency. Resolution of LP's is infinite.

[beerandmusic]

Once we take the computer OUT of Computer Audio, we will all be better off.

 

That will never happen...

Media players, PCs, macs, etc are all computers by definition of having a processor and an operating system.

The computer is what makes digital convenient...

[sandyk]

Alan, I never said that records were better than the best digital, I'm just saying that if you heard the very best vinyl on the very best playback equipment, your jaw would likely drop!

George

My name isn't Alan, although you keep calling me that.

 

I'm just saying that if you heard the very best digital on the very best playback equipment, your jaw would likely drop too !

 

The technical specifications for 24/192 and the latest DSD are infinitely better than that of vinyl in the areas of S/N, channel separation and dynamic range, as well as the frequency response area where some digital recordings have as low as 5HZ recorded, and genuine musical content to at least 57kHz.

Neither does digital have frequency response level variations in a well designed playback system, whereas vinyl relies on equalisation that is rarely within a dB or so right across the range. It depends on the % accuracy of the capacitors and resistors used etc. to recover the correct playback equalisation. Many vinyl recordings were also created with differing EQ standards. How many even know what the recording EQ used was with some older recordings, and whether the EQ they are using is correct for the particular recording ?

If 24/192 and DSD doesn't shit all over vinyl with it's mechanical resonances, wow and flutter etc. it's because the recording and mastering engineers aren't using the new digital mediums to their full capability, mainly due to their mastering methods. (mixing, EQ and compression) IF digital had been around as long as Vinyl recording, you would also find the playback area far more mature and advanced too. We haven't quite got there yet, as we learn more and more about digital playback as evidenced by recent research by John Swenson and others. How many members are listening to digital via USB, where further improvements are happening rapidly due to John Swenson's Regen etc.? Digital Audio is still in it's infancy when compared with Vinyl !

It would be interesting to hear a comparison between one of Barry Diament's 24/192 recordings and the same microphone feed used to create a vinyl recording using standard vinyl recording methods.

 

Alex

[REShaman]

The only problem I have with Computer Audio is the fact that a computer is involved. Remember when W4Sound DACs were inoperable for an extended period (months) because of a OS upgrade? Once we take the computer OUT of Computer Audio, we will all be better off.

NOMBEDES

 

For the record, not ALL W4S Dacs were inoperable, if you recall, the W4S Dac2 DSDse was spared as it did not require an ASIO driver to operate after Apple's OSX at the time broke the driver the W4S Dac2 required.

 

Sorry for the OT. I now return you to resumption of the "clueless, equally bitter, and uninformed" (smile).

 

Enjoy the music,

Richard

[NOMBEDES]

Originally Posted by NOMBEDES

Once we take the computer OUT of Computer Audio, we will all be better off.

 

 

 

That will never happen...

Media players, PCs, macs, etc are all computers by definition of having a processor and an operating system.

The computer is what makes digital convenient...[/quote

 

 

 

Yes. Yes. Understand.

 

 

By computers I am referring to the naughty bits which don't work. Plug and play. No software to be updated by the user. No Ammara no Audirvana no J River.

 

You turn it on, it works........unlike today.

 

 

[NOMBEDES]

For the record, not ALL W4S Dacs were inoperable, if you recall, the W4S Dac2 DSDse was spared as it did not require an ASIO driver to operate after Apple's OSX at the time broke the driver the W4S Dac2 required.

 

Sorry for the OT. I now return you to resumption of the "clueless, equally bitter, and uninformed" (smile).

 

Enjoy the music,

Richard

 

 

Yes. Yes. Understand. We have discussed this in the past.

 

My point is that MY W4Sound DAC did not work, and that is the ONLY DAC I care about. Hence, my Jihad to remove all computer type gas-pains from Computer Audio.