HQP vs. Vinyl Reassessment

[jhwalker]

I think this gets to Jud's point about different people being sensitive to different aspects of playback. I was always really annoyed by flutter, wow, and surface noise (not to mention the overall fussiness inherent in vinyl care and maintenance, nor the existential despair I experienced as a result of the continual deterioration of my favorite LP's despite my best efforts). So the advent of the Red Book CD, as mediocre as it may have been initially, seemed like a godsend. As time went by, I became more aware of the deficiencies of early CD's and players — especially once there were much better-sounding CD's and players to compare them to — but the shortcomings were never sufficient to draw me back into the vinyl realm.

 

Right now, I think I have a digital front end that sounds darned good (but could still be improved on, of course). And folks mention "convenience" as if it's a side issue, but for me the ability to bop around my library (which now includes Tidal's library) at will while sitting on my arse, or to queue up, say, half a dozen versions of "Skylark" in a matter of seconds, contributes to my listening pleasure in a way that's simply not possible with vinyl.

 

So different strokes, horses for courses, etc.

 

--David

 

+1 - could be my story

[CR250]

I'm not angry in the least and I have owned very high end vinyl components, vinyl done right indeed. But I just got tried of listening to a media that most everyone admits you have to learn to "listen past" all it's very audible defects. Kind of like a bad tasting medicine I guess. We got past all that 30 some years ago, I wonder how long some will insist on staying locked to the 1950s? What other technology hasn't brought you any improvements since a 17" B&W TV was king? Do you think your grandchildren will be carrying their TT to the new outpost on Mars? Vinyl had it's day, I was listening to it when probably a lot telling me I don't know "vinyl done right" weren't born. I sold it all cause there was a much better path.

What does surprise me is did any of you look at the name of this site? You must be hanging out here looking to find out how to get into a medium where you don't have to

"listen pass its defects" to enjoy it. LOL Don't worry, we'll help you, welcome to the future, welcome to the world of The Computer Audiophile.

 

Read your post again. I, I, I, I.... 8 I's in one paragraph. It's not about you. This isn't the first thread where you take your personal opinion, push it off as fact and try and shove it down everyone’s throat. (For their own good, of course.).

[Sal1950]

Read your post again. I, I, I, I.... 8 I's in one paragraph. It's not about you. This isn't the first thread where you take your personal opinion, push it off as fact and try and shove it down everyone’s throat. (For their own good, of course.).

Well of course it's for your own good, like taking you to school. I'm tryin to learn you things I already know.

[Rexp]

There seem to be 3 categories of folks posting on this thread worth listening to:

 

1. Use digital and vinyl sources- Like both and select medium based on the mastering of an album.

 

2. Use both digital and vinyl sources- Prefer/play vinyl over digital.

 

3. Use both digital and vinyl sources- Prefer/play digital over vinyl.

 

I'd like to ask those in category 3, where do you source your music from as I find the majority of digital mastering poor?

[kennyb123]

I'm not angry in the least and I have owned very high end vinyl components, vinyl done right indeed. But I just got tried of listening to a media that most everyone admits you have to learn to "listen past" all it's very audible defects. Kind of like a bad tasting medicine I guess. We got past all that 30 some years ago

 

So your frame of reference for high end vinyl is what you heard 30 years ago?

 

Arms, tables and cartridges have advanced considerably since then.

[LostHighway]

Well of course it's for your own good, like taking you to school. I'm tryin to learn you things I already know.

 

I wish I could believe that there was a tongue firmly planted in cheek there but the available evidence suggests otherwise.

[Sal1950]

So your frame of reference for high end vinyl is what you heard 30 years ago?

 

Where did you get that information, you can't make this stuff up as you go along.

[CR250]

Well of course it's for your own good, like taking you to school. I'm tryin to learn you things I already know.

 

You don't know enough about audio to take me to school. But I'm pretty sure you would beat me in a competitive eating contest.

[kumakuma]

You don't know enough about audio to take me to school. But I'm pretty sure you would beat me in a competitive eating contest.

 

This is an audio forum. Please limit your insults to a person's system, hearing, or taste in music.

[zackthedog]

There seem to be 3 categories of folks posting on this thread worth listening to:

 

1. Use digital and vinyl sources- Like both and select medium based on the mastering of an album.

 

2. Use both digital and vinyl sources- Prefer/play vinyl over digital.

 

3. Use both digital and vinyl sources- Prefer/play digital over vinyl.

 

I'd like to ask those in category 3, where do you source your music from as I find the majority of digital mastering poor?

 

I rip CDs or download CD-quality FLAC files. In terms of recording quality, it's a crap shoot. The smaller classical labels can be very mixed in terms of digital sound quality. (The big labels don't interest me much, the same stuff over and over! How many Brahms violin concertos do I need?) I try to listen to samples before I buy, to determine whether the recording is going to be acceptable. I just got a set of Tanayev chamber music featuring Alexander Deljavan, one of my current favorites, and it's perfectly lovely--a clear and vivid recording. The Raff quartets I referred to, OTHO, are encased in that sort of opaque digital amber that is all too common. And some of the orchestral recordings are nearly impenetrable. I find that the HQ Player/Cubox NAA arrangement helps quite a bit in removing the worst of the digital glare, especially with the application of various upsampling filters. And the irDAC, whatever else it does or doesn't do, lends musicality to even the the most challenged recordings.

 

In terms of jazz and big band music, my other interest, there seems to be a lot more care invested in remastering. I'll take Mosaic's Artie Shaw box any day over the old Bluebird LPs. So many of the "classic" recordings were slapped on LP from decades-old tape dubs. It's a real pleasure when someone goes back to the original masters, or even decent 78 copies, and does a fresh job on them. There are also some classical re-issue labels that dig up the master tapes and do a beautiful job of digitizing them.

 

I also frequent a number of blogs that share old LP rips. Some of these people do a terrific job.

[Rexp]

I rip CDs or download CD-quality FLAC files. In terms of recording quality, it's a crap shoot. The smaller classical labels can be very mixed in terms of digital sound quality. (The big labels don't interest me much, the same stuff over and over! How many Brahms violin concertos do I need?) I try to listen to samples before I buy, to determine whether the recording is going to be acceptable. I just got a set of Tanayev chamber music featuring Alexander Deljavan, one of my current favorites, and it's perfectly lovely--a clear and vivid recording. The Raff quartets I referred to, OTHO, are encased in that sort of opaque digital amber that is all too common. And some of the orchestral recordings are nearly impenetrable. I find that the HQ Player/Cubox NAA arrangement helps quite a bit in removing the worst of the digital glare, especially with the application of various upsampling filters. And the irDAC, whatever else it does or doesn't do, lends musicality to even the the most challenged recordings.

 

In terms of jazz and big band music, my other interest, there seems to be a lot more care invested in remastering. I'll take Mosaic's Artie Shaw box any day over the old Bluebird LPs. So many of the "classic" recordings were slapped on LP from decades-old tape dubs. It's a real pleasure when someone goes back to the original masters, or even decent 78 copies, and does a fresh job on them. There are also some classical re-issue labels that dig up the master tapes and do a beautiful job of digitizing them.

 

I also frequent a number of blogs that share old LP rips. Some of these people do a terrific job.

Appreciate the feedback, I'll check out that Artie Shaw set, thanks

[zackthedog]

Appreciate the feedback, I'll check out that Artie Shaw set, thanks

 

Mosaic does wonderful remasterings of LP and 78 jazz. All their big band issues are terrific. Another wonderful set is the Eddie Condon CBS recordings, if you like that sort of thing. Those middle-aged guys could play like crazy.

[Jud]

Mosaic does wonderful remasterings of LP and 78 jazz. All their big band issues are terrific. Another wonderful set is the Eddie Condon CBS recordings, if you like that sort of thing. Those middle-aged guys could play like crazy.

 

Have a Louis Armstrong set that's also terrific.

[firedog]

I think this gets to Jud's point about different people being sensitive to different aspects of playback. I was always really annoyed by flutter, wow, and surface noise (not to mention the overall fussiness inherent in vinyl care and maintenance, nor the existential despair I experienced as a result of the continual deterioration of my favorite LP's despite my best efforts). So the advent of the Red Book CD, as mediocre as it may have been initially, seemed like a godsend. As time went by, I became more aware of the deficiencies of early CD's and players — especially once there were much better-sounding CD's and players to compare them to — but the shortcomings were never sufficient to draw me back into the vinyl realm.

 

Right now, I think I have a digital front end that sounds darned good (but could still be improved on, of course). And folks mention "convenience" as if it's a side issue, but for me the ability to bop around my library (which now includes Tidal's library) at will while sitting on my arse, or to queue up, say, half a dozen versions of "Skylark" in a matter of seconds, contributes to my listening pleasure in a way that's simply not possible with vinyl.

 

So different strokes, horses for courses, etc.

 

--David

 

+1 Could have written that one myself.

[CR250]

This is an audio forum. Please limit your insults to a person's system, hearing, or taste in music.

 

 

Taste in music but not taste in food? If my post is factually correct, is it still an insult?

[zackthedog]

Okay, I just did a little test for myself.

 

My vinyl setup is a stock Rega Planar 3, Benz Micro cartirdge and a heavily-modified SuperIt tube phono stage. It's not bad, pretty clean and sweet, about $2000 worth of equipment. My digital setup is Mac Mini with HQ Player, Cubox-i NAA and AZrcam irDAC. Again, about $2000 worth.

 

 

I pulled out an pretty clean old Mercury LP of Howard Hanson conducting Douglas Moore's THE PAGEANT OF P. T. BARNUM, one of my favorite recordings, and compared it to a ripped Mercury CD of the same performance upsampled to 192 via HQ Player.

 

I am willing to bet a significant sum that 9 out of 10 people would have pegged the digital as vinyl and vice-versa. The digital was warm, smooth and 3-dimensional, with a deep sound stage and wide separation. The vinyl was thin, flat, too bright and scrunched into the middle.

 

Now, I have some lovely vinyl, but in this case the digital version, properly played, is far more involving and attractive.

[esldude]

Okay, I just did a little test for myself.

 

My vinyl setup is a stock Rega Planar 3, Benz Micro cartirdge and a heavily-modified SuperIt tube phono stage. It's not bad, pretty clean and sweet, about $2000 worth of equipment. My digital setup is Mac Mini with HQ Player, Cubox-i NAA and AZrcam irDAC. Again, about $2000 worth.

 

 

I pulled out an pretty clean old Mercury LP of Howard Hanson conducting Douglas Moore's THE PAGEANT OF P. T. BARNUM, one of my favorite recordings, and compared it to a ripped Mercury CD of the same performance upsampled to 192 via HQ Player.

 

I am willing to bet a significant sum that 9 out of 10 people would have pegged the digital as vinyl and vice-versa. The digital was warm, smooth and 3-dimensional, with a deep sound stage and wide separation. The vinyl was thin, flat, too bright and scrunched into the middle.

 

Now, I have some lovely vinyl, but in this case the digital version, properly played, is far more involving and attractive.

 

Well, somehow, we can no longer give proper credence to your claims until you specify your competitive eating abilities. Such is the state of things.

 

I was fortunate to have some of the old original Mercury LPs. I also had several of the original run of those when they only did mono. The Mercury CD's in general are a treasure due to the careful rendering to CD by Wilma Cozart Fine. Though I actually am not familiar with the one you have written about. To me it reinforces the idea with careful mixing, minimal processing and mastering that CD has the ability to let us hear what the original tapes sounded like. Better than LP in the Mercury's from that period of time.

 

And for what it is worth as a footnote, when I had the Mercury LP's I mostly listened on a Rega 3 with MC cartridge and a SOTA head amp. The SOTA was a beautiful piece of gear and cleverly designed by John Curl. Ran off of rechargeable batteries for cleanest lowest hum power supply. I found one at Jim Smith's store in need of new batteries, then found the correct replacement batteries at a HAM show at the Huntsville Space and Rocket center.

 

[Rexp]

Okay, I just did a little test for myself.

 

My vinyl setup is a stock Rega Planar 3, Benz Micro cartirdge and a heavily-modified SuperIt tube phono stage. It's not bad, pretty clean and sweet, about $2000 worth of equipment. My digital setup is Mac Mini with HQ Player, Cubox-i NAA and AZrcam irDAC. Again, about $2000 worth.

 

 

I pulled out an pretty clean old Mercury LP of Howard Hanson conducting Douglas Moore's THE PAGEANT OF P. T. BARNUM, one of my favorite recordings, and compared it to a ripped Mercury CD of the same performance upsampled to 192 via HQ Player.

 

I am willing to bet a significant sum that 9 out of 10 people would have pegged the digital as vinyl and vice-versa. The digital was warm, smooth and 3-dimensional, with a deep sound stage and wide separation. The vinyl was thin, flat, too bright and scrunched into the middle.

 

Now, I have some lovely vinyl, but in this case the digital version, properly played, is far more involving and attractive.

Nice comparison, what did you use to rip the CD and how is DAC connected please?

[zackthedog]

Nice comparison, what did you use to rip the CD and how is DAC connected please?

 

I used Max. The IrDAC is connected to the Cubox running HQ Player's NAA image. The Cubox and the Mac Mini are connected via an old Airport that I use as a dedicated "network".

 

I was thinking that I recalled the LP sounding much better--it was my first acquaintance with the piece back in the late 70's. Then I remembered that back then I was listening to a Philips "Mercury Gold" reissue, which sounded much better than this original Mercury I picked up a while ago. I don't think I still have the re-issued version, which is a pity because I'd like to compare that one to the CD rip.

[esldude]

I used Max. The IrDAC is connected to the Cubox running HQ Player's NAA image. The Cubox and the Mac Mini are connected via an old Airport that I use as a dedicated "network".

 

I was thinking that I recalled the LP sounding much better--it was my first acquaintance with the piece back in the late 70's. Then I remembered that back then I was listening to a Philips "Mercury Gold" reissue, which sounded much better than this original Mercury I picked up a while ago. I don't think I still have the re-issued version, which is a pity because I'd like to compare that one to the CD rip.

 

I had a couple of those Philips Mercury Gold re-issues. Those I had were relatively terrible vs the original Mercury. Is it possible your Mercury copy was used with some terrible piece of gear which harmed the grooves? I know, it is something you can't know. The Philips re-issues were a big step down at least those I heard. And I got lucky in that the Mercury's I had were from someone who played them just a few times before recording to reel tape. They then didn't get played. Yet the CDs were better still.

[Rexp]

I used Max. The IrDAC is connected to the Cubox running HQ Player's NAA image. .

Being a bit thick, is this via USB?

[Sal1950]

The ultimate in analog sound, direct to cylinder recording with no distortion causing electronics or cables in the chain to harden the sound. Just put on a blank cylinder, turn the crank and play into the horn. Return the "needle" to the beginning and turn the crank once more. Wal-la, a perfect recreation of the original analog wave front. All else is gaslight.

 

Thomas Paine is said to have said ” To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.” LOL

[Miska]

For ripping vinyl to digital, this one is pretty good for doing it at DSD128:

Product: DA-3000 | TASCAM

[davide256]

Okay, I just did a little test for myself.

 

My vinyl setup is a stock Rega Planar 3, Benz Micro cartirdge and a heavily-modified SuperIt tube phono stage. It's not bad, pretty clean and sweet, about $2000 worth of equipment. My digital setup is Mac Mini with HQ Player, Cubox-i NAA and AZrcam irDAC. Again, about $2000 worth.

 

 

I pulled out an pretty clean old Mercury LP of Howard Hanson conducting Douglas Moore's THE PAGEANT OF P. T. BARNUM, one of my favorite recordings, and compared it to a ripped Mercury CD of the same performance upsampled to 192 via HQ Player.

 

I am willing to bet a significant sum that 9 out of 10 people would have pegged the digital as vinyl and vice-versa. The digital was warm, smooth and 3-dimensional, with a deep sound stage and wide separation. The vinyl was thin, flat, too bright and scrunched into the middle.

 

Now, I have some lovely vinyl, but in this case the digital version, properly played, is far more involving and attractive.

 

If that record sounds thin, its a problem with cartridge/phono pre compatibility. Overall the old Mercuries are lovely with occasional funkiness in the deep bass

[davide256]

I still find analog vs digital like someone swapping your full calorie soda for a diet drink... your enjoyment gets less, the more you drink. I'm hopeful that FPGA DAC's

are an answer as I believe the problem is the DAC technology and not the recordings after 1995.