Jump to content
IGNORED

Vinyl v Digital: The Thirty-Five Year Con


Recommended Posts

I have not listened to a vinyl record since I was told that CDs promised "perfect sound forever."

 

Shortly thereafter, perhaps not coincidentally, I more or less stopped listening to recorded music.

 

Last night, I listened to vinyl LPs on a friend's modest headphone setup for the first time in 35 years.

 

To say I was thunderstruck is an understatement.

 

Only a week or so ago, after much research and effort and expense, did I finally cobble together a digital system that approaches the swing, the punch, the effortless musicality I heard on his modest pile of gear playing circa 1960s LPs.

 

What a con Redbook has been.

Link to comment
This is what's known as "throwing the baby out with the bath water". The problem is not digital (red book or better), it's the mastering and production that's the problem. As a sometimes recording engineer, I record in digital exclusively, and I can tell you that no analog recording, either new or 50 years old, can come anywhere near the quality of competent digital recoding. However that doesn't mean that the CD made from that digital master will sound anything like that master. I agree that most CDs sound terrible. Why this is so is not clear. It may be indifference on the part of the producers and engineers, or perhaps we have several generations of young people who grew up listening to terrible sounding MP3s. But I must say that while many vinyl records sound far superior to their digital remastering (the Classic Recods release of Stravinsky's The Firebird comes to mind. The vinyl sounds magnificent, the CD sounds terrible by comparison. Here's the interesting thing - they were both mastered by the same person - the original producer, Wilma Cozert Fine!). But, on the other hand, I have a JVC XRCD (red book) of Prokofiev's Lt. Kiji, on RCA Victor, recorded in the late 1950's. I also have the same recording on both original release vinyl, and RCA/BMG SACD. Neither the vinyl nor the SACD can hold a candle to the red book JVC XRCD release of the same recording. It sounds spectacularly good! So don't judge all CDs by the fact that many are indifferently recorded, mastered or manufactured.

 

Well, yes, point well taken. But those who say that Redbook is "good enough" and that high res is some kind of gimmick are...well, just wrong.

 

One of the LPs we listened to had never before been played. Interestingly, it was a Telarc pressing of a Telarc/Soundstream Redbook recording of Beethoven's G Major piano concerto (Rudolph Serkin, Seiji Ozawa, Boston Symphony Orchestra). It was clear from the liner notes that great care had gone into the production of this recording: It went on at length about the equipment used, assurances that this, that, and the other thing (it listed those things) were not in the signal path, so there was no dynamic compression, etc. Then went on to extol the superiority of digital recording over analogue.

 

In other words, a pristine copy of a hard core audiophile effort, circa 1981.

 

And how did it sound?

 

Like a Redbook CD.

 

The life that I heard in those other recordings was just gone. Sure, it was well produced. The balance was great. The soundstage was there. The performance was marvelous...but the recording itself was dead. I just didn't care.

Link to comment
I understand where you are coming from. I've run vinyl alongside digital for 20 years now. At no time have I ever heard digital has surpassed vinyl for SQ. However, if I had given up on vinyl years ago, I imagine I would be happy with my digital system. It's only when I revisit vinyl after a digital interlude that the former's superiority become immediately apparent, so I'm not surprised by your experience.

 

However, I think you are being a little hard on CD. These days, with current kit, CD actually sounds rather good to me, even those from 20-30 years ago. I also agree with George that some JVC XRCD discs are about as good digital replay as I have heard. I don't know if there is anything I this, but I tend to rate most highly CDs that are transfers of classic analogue recordings. Now the novelty has worn off, it's actually hi res/DSD that I'm least impressed with.

 

The Redbook CD format is convenient, for sure. But I feel like it's also been a conspiracy of mediocrity.

Link to comment
In some ways, I agree. And I think what the previous commenter is very true. On the other hand, in many ways digital audio has been a blessing, especially for classical music lovers. In minutes can download the complete chamber recordings of Eduard Franck, in lovely sound, at a very reasonable price--something that never would have been possible in the LP era, with the cost of pressings, covers, distribution and what all. Who's Eduard Franck? Well, that's sort of the point. :-) And many of the small labels (like Cedille) make very adventurous and beautiful recordings available at the touch of a button. For collectors, the wealth of carefully remastered historical recordings also is a boon. I have a modest digital setup and it's not bad-sounding at all--quite good, in fact. I think a lot of people spend time with expensive tweaks, whereas I've always found that fundamentally musical equipment sounds pretty good on its own. Anyway, I've had very little desire to return to the LP era.

 

That said, I remember getting an emotional thrill from analogue that I don't always get from digital, so you may have a point. Perhaps we're settling for less, I don't know. I do know that for many of us with large collections crossing many genres, it would be impossible to go back.

 

Well yes good high res downloads are amazing and convenient. I'm just marveling at what an effort it's been to get digital to sound as "alive" as good vinyl.

 

I think I'm there now. Really since I went from Benchmark to Exogal, then swapped the Exogal external power supply with Uptone's JS-2, then swapped my Belkin USB for WireWorld.

 

But...just.

Link to comment
It is quite easy to think from some anecdotal listening to different recorded media formats or systems that you have found the "truth". In fact, playback media vary, systems vary, etc. So, be careful of what grandiose conclusions you might jump to. However, you are, of course, entitled to believe what you wish.

 

I have been around long enough to have been LP-centric, then CD-centric, each medium for many decades. Thousands of them line the walls of my listening room. But, they have all been gathering dust for years. The same goes for all of my closest audiophile friends, all of us with very costly and prestigious systems. None of us play vinyl anymore. Few of us even play CDs anymore, except occasionally. Some of us have sold very costly vinyl front ends and even the entirety of of our LP collections with no desire whatsoever to look back.

 

We are perhaps fortunate in being interested in classical music primarily. For all of us, it has been hi rez SACD, BD and hi rez downloads that have totally supplanted LP and CD in our listening preferences based on sound quality. The recording availability and comparative sound quality in hi rez has simply sold itself to all of us to the exclusion of older media. And, for some of us, the shift has gone further into strong preference for multichannel rather than plain old stereo recordings. I personally listen to little else.

 

But, enjoy yourself with vinyl, if that is what floats your boat.

 

 

You've misunderstood me. I'm not going back to vinyl. I'm happy with what I've cobbled together on the digital front. Does it surpass vinyl? Until yesterday I would have assumed the answer to be self-evident. Now I'd say, "probably."

 

But what a journey to get there. And using components that were not available just two or three years ago.

 

I'm just astounded by how good vinyl sounds. And how much more engaging it seems, at least to me, than Redbook.

 

But we've moved on from Redbook now.

That's a good thing.

 

Really that's all I'm saying.

Link to comment
I always find it interesting the amount of hyperbole that is used in the argument for viny

 

Please note that I did not say it's been a conspiracy of mediocrity. I said I feel like it's been a conspiracy of mediocrity.

 

There's a difference.

 

And I'm not arguing for vinyl. I'm pissing on Redbook.

 

There's another difference.

Link to comment
There's nothing really wrong with Redbook.

Ignoring any differences in the masters supplied for the different pressings, LP's have a very special sound of their own.

Notice I didn't say better, I said different. The numbers don't lie and in every measurable sense Redbook is superior. Many distortion products can be pleasing to the ear. Also the LP's masking of the inner detail compared to CD from a equal source, can make the more detailed CD sound harsh.

There are many other issues at play here of which we could write a book but beware, all that is different may not be better, only a bit easier on the ear. Don't get fooled by the hyperbole.

 

That "inner detail" thing is what gets me: With Redbook, it just isn't there.

 

But so much of this depends on the kind of music you listen to.

 

If you're listening to anything but acoustical music, that "inner detail" is a synthetic construct of so many variables, you don't really have a reference point by which to judge the fidelity of the recording.

 

And if you're listening to solo vocalists, intimate jazz ensembles, acoustic guitar, there's just not nearly as much "inner detail" to be reproduced in the first place as you'll find in, say, a Mahler symphony.

 

I want to hear the inner detail in the quadruple fortissimos in the Mahler 5. I've listened to dozens of Redbook recordings, and when the orchestration gets really dense, invariably they offer little more than an opaque wall of noise.

 

24/XX, however, is another matter.

 

[An aside: I'm amused by high-end audio folks who sell their wares using recordings of intimate little jazz ensembles. The slap of a plucked bass string: "Ooooh, so real." Then I hand them a DSD file of Ivan Fischer's Mahler 5 and suddenly their pile of gear sounds like a glorified Panasonic boom box. But I digress.]

 

 

 

I

Link to comment
I will digress with you...

 

Do you think that the inability of a system to follow complex and loud music is a function of the bit rate and depth or the playback system. I would think that it is the later unless you think that the detail is just not there in the first place.

 

In my own system changes made in the front end using the same RedBook pieces have led to improvements in instrument placement and definition in large orchestral pieces and also massed choral arrangements, which can also be challenging. I think that my single driver speakers hold me back now on big pieces. I feel that RedBook is under-rated.

 

PS. Having said this when I purchase a download I do opt for 24/196 when available:-)

 

What I'm suggesting is that, with Redbook, the detail is not there in the first place.

 

In the case of Mahler 5, I'm comparing apples-to-apples, listening to Redbook files and comparing them them to, for example, the Ivan Fischer DSD (Nicely produced, inertly performed, but that's yet another digression) on the same equipment.

 

You only need to listen to the first 45 seconds or so to hear what I mean. There is no Redbook recording that conveys the textures and layers of the first crashing ffff that are evident in either a live performance or a competent high res recording.

 

None that I've ever heard anyway.

 

Again, this is listening with the same equipment, thus removing that variable.

Link to comment
How do the versions on vinyl compare?

 

Have not heard Mahler on vinyl, certainly not since I was a kid, anyway. I assume the recording engineers are forced to compress dynamics to keep the LP grooves within conventional stylus tracking parameters.

 

My point was not to argue that the LP is some kind of audio nirvana. Just that, all things being equal, it seems to be a helluva lot more engaging than Redbook.

 

High res is a different beast. But, even here, my guess is that the very best vinyl still holds its own.

Link to comment
I've engaged in this debate more times than I care to remember and this will be my last word in support of Redbook/digital in this thread.

Go back to my post # 23 and read the link for some of the things being subtracted/altered in the creation of a vinyl master. Here it is again anyway.

Mixing for Vinyl: Don't Fall for These Traps • Resoundsound

I still listen to vinyl LP's often though they now exist as ripped files on my hard drive. Lots of them sound beautiful just like the original LP playback but. Many nights I will load a mix of digital and vinyl albums in the que and sit back for a listen. When a vinyl file starts and out of the pitch black silence I hear the needle hit the leadin groove, the rush of surface noise beings. I hear the inevitable rice krispies snap, crackle, pop, and all the other various audible weaknesses of the vinyl playback technology reveal themselves. You can't deny them, they exist even if you have a $300,000 TT and $15K cartridge. They are easily audible and measurable. I then think back to these many debates and wonder, where's the beef, it's no contest. YMMV :)

 

Of course, in this scenario, you've turned an analogue file into a digital file, preserving all the bad stuff (dynamic compression, surface noise) and, and arguably, losing the good stuff (flawless timing due to continuous signal).

 

But I take your point. And, again, I'm not arguing against high res (which are, presumably, your rips) but against RedBook.

 

I'll say it again: When it comes to acoustical music, to my ears RedBook is DeadBook.

Link to comment
Late to the party here as usual for me on any technical X vs. Y thread.

 

But here's my 2 cents:

 

I really get why some people prefer the sound of vinyl to most digital. I guess the entire vinyl process just ends up adding something to the signal that sounds pleasing to many ears, as does e.g. tube gear.

 

That said, let me add a heretic sentence here: I'd rather listen even to a well done MP3 256 file than to any vinyl. Why is that? Simply because I listen to the music and not the "sound", and I personally find the inevitable background noise of even the best vinyl very distracting. And I'm not even talking about the eventually unavoidable "cracks" (on my 150 or so vinyl albums, sometimes my inner ear was cringing already in anticipation of a crack that I knew was about to come).

 

But probably that's why my Avatar is Musicophile and not Audiophile.

 

I'll keep my vinyl albums safely stored in the basement and will probably never dig them out again.

 

The luxury of a large digital library plus redbook streaming (which sounds really quite pleasing to my ears) is something I wouldn't even have dreamt of 5-10 years ago.

 

And, while my gear is far from high-end (the entire system is just below $10K), I'm very pleased with what I'm hearing.

 

So vinyl lovers out there, get your tar and feathers!

 

I have a sizeable Fürtwangler collection. I love listening to (many of) his performances. Needless to say, the audio quality is hardly state-of-the-art. That's ok.

 

I enjoy streaming great (and not-so-great) performances off YouTube. That's fine, too.

 

What I'm taking issue with is the marketing propaganda that hypnotized so many of us into thinking that RedBook digital was a net SQ improvement over vinyl. I'm just registering my astonishment at what I think is the self-evident sophistry of that conclusion.

 

No more, no less.

Link to comment
Did you compare two versions of the same recording?

 

In other words, a rip of the Channel Classics CD of this recording to the DSD version of the same recording? I've got both the Redbook and 24/192 versions and I'm not hearing that big of a difference between the two.

 

The Redbook version certainly doesn't "blow chunks" (borrowing your words from another post).

 

I believe I edited that out. You're right: RedBook does not "blow chunks." That was hyperbolic of me.

 

As for your question, funny you should ask.

 

Haven't done it for Mahler but I have for DG's latest Boston Symphony/Shostakovich. In the 24/96 file I heard the distinct characteristic of Boston Symphony Hall's acoustic environment. In the RedBook version I didn't.

 

You say you don't hear "that big of a difference between the two" but "that big of a difference" is in the ear of the beholder.

 

Almost all of my adult listening has taken place in live environments. I probably average 20 live performances a year. So, in a sense, my ears have been ruined by too much exposure to live acoustical performance.

 

But we've now veered from the original point of this thread which was Redbook vs vinyl.

 

Ok, one last digression.

 

I'm not claiming I can detect any SQ difference with kHz over 44.1. Maybe I can, but I haven't really tried to find out. I can see, maybe 96 kHz bringing benefit. I'm somewhat skeptical above that.

 

But 24-bit (or whatever it is in practice)? To my ears, no question about the advantage of greater bit depth.

Link to comment
The thing I always come back to is there are some great 16/44 digital recordings on vinyl so 16/44 was never the problem.

 

The problems are:

1. Digital playback technology has, until recently, been not fit for purpose. So I agree 'perfect sound for ever' was a con.

 

2. Many digital recordings and remasterings are unlistenable, so you need both vinyl and digital.

 

Could you give me an example of a great 16/44 recording of large ensemble acoustical music? I'll try to get it this week and give it a listen.

Link to comment
It only makes sense if you buy recordings not music. For millions of tunes you get the recording you're given, there is no choice of re-master.

 

In this respect, whilst not wanting to argue, you are not really commenting for the majority, I get this is an audiophile forum, but the point of a truly great system is to play everything brilliantly.

 

Recordings after the late 80s will have progressively been recorded digitally before transfer to vinyl. I spent a long time in that 'business' - in the 90s- and know the procedures well.

 

Everything I do now is 24/48 broadcast standard but that's only because it is an industry requirement, not due to any preference of mine.

 

Redbook sounds amazing on the right kit, it just does. The problem is there are not nearly enough optimised digital systems out there for people to hear its potential - ask the few that have managed to optimise USB properly or those who have moved to AOIP.

 

Even if higher bit depth is marginally better, Redbook still sounds fab on these digital rigs.

 

I should add that it's easier to make an awful digital recording/master, than it is an analogue one, because in the main analogue master tape tends to makes everything sound beautiful - and digital as we are now finally learning is extremely fragile.

 

Note that, the Nagra D digital recorder also made stunning Redbook recordings.

 

Most of today's music is 'in the box' with most of/all of the production process being computerised.

 

Just my 2p

 

;-)

 

Assuming that's true, you're reinforcing my point. All that effort, just to get RedBook to sound better than vinyl. If, indeed, that is possible.

 

I should add, again, that it also comes down to your choice of music. Something that sounds "amazing" for pop or rock or jazz may well sound just blech when it comes to Brahms' German Requiem.

 

At the Chicago show, the Goldmund guy was showing off his $100k plus pile with RedBook. It's amazing, he said.

 

What was he playing? Light jazz.

 

Phhhhhht.

Link to comment
I not so sure others will read what I posted that way. As in you can't legitimately slate Redbook just becuase you can't get it to work for you.

 

A lot of effort went into setting up my Linn LP12, Zeta Arm and Ortofon Jubilee, which is duly trounced by my current digital setup.

 

Re: digital replay, you posted on the JCAT/Intona thread "expecting no difference" and have been asked by Elberoth if you have tried it. I try not to comment on anything that I do not have direct experience of.

 

We ought to leave it there now so that we don't fall out, you're probably a decent fella - it's fine to have differing opinions, it makes the world go round.

 

To summarise: I completely respect your right to prefer high res and vinyl, but it's not really cool to blanket 'piss on Redbook'.

 

The AOIP/Rednet guys are currently doing cartwheels with the results they are getting.

 

;-)

 

I feel like I'm in an echo chamber here.

 

Again, what kind of music are you listening to on RedBook?

 

RedBook appears to be fine for pop, rock, electronic music of any kind, jazz.

 

But classical? Sorry, no. Not to my ears, anyway.

 

If the Goldmund guy couldn't get it to work with $100k worth of equipment (in my opinion, not his), well, what does it take?

 

I think one big problem here is that the vast majority of my listening has been to live performances of large ensemble acoustical music. So my standards are higher than RedBook...

 

....ONLY WHEN IT COMES TO LARGE ENSEMBLE ACOUSTICAL MUSIC.

 

Sorry to shout but that nuance seems to get lost.

 

As for the Intona, I'm not sure what point you're making: I own an Intona. I have no ground loop problem. I don't hear any difference there.

Link to comment
Perhaps you are in an echo chamber, since this is the same sort of snippy dismissal you used when in another thread I posted that I heard no difference between Audirvana in stand-alone vs. iTunes-integrated mode. If you think in terms of these rigid clichés, don't act so surprised when you don't get universal agreement.

 

Would you kindly post said "snippy dismissal." I have idea what you're talking about.

 

I should add, I don't seek, nor expect, "universal agreement." But I do like to make certain we understand each other's parameters of discussion, else how can we make sense of what anyone is saying?

 

Also, just to confirm...you find my claim that the sq demands of Mahler are greater than those of, say, a Led Zeppelin album to be invalid?

 

I didn't even realize that assertion was controversial.

Link to comment
Music is music, even some of the better produced pop tunes have 100 or more channels in the mix and only the best systems can expose all of these sub-parts. I understand that large orchestras have big dynamic range but Redbook's range is already massive.

 

I listen to whatever music takes my fancy, not really any one particular genre, have circa 18,000 to choose from, covering just about all of the key genres.

 

I don't think it's the case that any specific type of music can be deemed as 'Redbook incompatible', in fact that concept actually sounds a bit daft if I think of it for too long.

 

If you have the Intona, i would highly recommend powering it with a split lead using an LPS and even better, see if you can lift the USB ground after handshake - that was a huge SQ step up for me.

 

Anyway, we were meant to be leaving it there.

 

;-)

 

I'll buy that. Obviously, you have much more experience than I do, and I'm willing to defer to that.

 

I haven't experience it myself but I have no real basis upon which to say it's impossible.

 

As for Intona, could you parse that out a bit more for an audio equipment dummy?

 

A split lead, meaning a split UPS...with the power side connected to an LPS?

 

Ok I think I'm with you there...

 

But when you say "see if you can lift the USB ground after handshake" you lost me...

 

Could you break that down a bit?

Link to comment
Freudian slip? http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f11-software/audirvana-plus-itunes-integrated-mode-vs-straight-audirvana-29631/#post576135

 

 

 

That is often the case with religious zealots.

 

Instead of Mahler vs. Led Zeppelin, why don't we take a more sensible example.

 

I have 3 versions of this. The one in the middle sounds by far the best, but of the three, it alone is redbook. Why? Because factors like the personality of the conductor and the orchestra have more to do with impact than redbook vs. higher res.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]28741[/ATTACH]

 

So in this case your assertion isn't so obviously correct that it was beyond being controversial.

 

Ok for the life of me, I did not intend that to be snippy, and I'm sorry if it came off that way. Truly.

 

I've felt that a missing element in SQ discussions is the type of music to which people are inclined to listen. So my inquiry was nothing but an attempt to gather additional data with regard to your response re: iTunes vs Audirvana. There are plenty of things that make no difference to me (jitterbug, for example, and, so far, Intona), but other things do, and I'm always looking to separate the real from the placebo.

 

Now I see you're a Berlioz fan. I have those recordings, too. The Colin Davis performance is criminally dull. The Abbado performance is better...but now we're no longer talking SQ but musicality. That's fine.

 

But if we're talking pure musicality, allow me to direct your attention to the 1973 Ozawa BSO Fantastique and the 1958 (I think) Munch BSO Fantastique.

 

No one plays Berlioz like the BSO. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, the BSO is the only orchestra to have bespoke bells used specifically and only for Symphonie Fantastique (other orchestra use chimes or God know's what).

 

By the way, if the performance itself is all that matters, permit me to recommend this 1955 kinescope of Munch conducting the BSO in Harvard's Sanders Theatre.

 

Warning: This performance has destroyed all other performances of the Fantastique for me. After experiencing this, every other performance has seemed limp, pallid. (Except for Ozawa's BSO recording. It's not as nuts--nothing is--but it's still satisfying)

 

Check out this link to the last movement. Go to 6:30. Watch Munch literally whip himself, and his players, into a frenzy.

 

And, my God, those woodwinds...

 

Link to comment
Ok, I will check those out (but maybe not via youtube!). Thanks for the recs.

 

 

The CSO/Solti version is redbook. If redbook is such an atrocious con, then it would not be possible for it to sound good. (If a high res version becomes available, I would immediately purchase it, just on the chance it could sound even better).

 

Well the only place I've found that kinescope is on YouTube. As far as kinescopes go, it's top-drawer. I don't know that I've seen a clearer one.

 

The Ozawa/BSO recording is DG...but it's pretty darn good. Qobuz, I think, offers a high res transfer of the original analogue master.

 

Otherwise the RedBook transfer is quite decent.

 

As for "atrocious con"....I would argue that "perfect sound forever" was, indeed, a con. But I reserve modifiers like "atrocious" for acts that truly merit such a description, like the Holocaust.

Link to comment
I'm not sure if anything is available yet that does this so I had to DIY it.

 

I soldered a tiny DIP switch across the (cut) ground wire of my own made USB lead (I always remove the 5v rail also).

 

Then after USB handshaking the DIP switch can be set to off, thus breaking the ground link.

 

I have a large hunch that most of USB's troubles lie with 'nasties' travelling through the ground.

 

John Swenson advises to check the current across the ground, by the points either side of the DIP switch just to make sure there isn't a high current leakage that might cause trouble with the DAC, mine measured an inconsequential voltage, so was fine.

 

A few others here have tried this and much favour USB ground lift.

 

I understand, if that all sounds a bit of a hassle... maybe someone will solve the ground issue in a product soon.

 

That's very helpful, actually. I think I can follow that...

Link to comment
No one plays Berlioz like any orchestra. At least, decent orchestra. This is the beauty of classical music performances – you do not need to limit your expectations before encountering every one which is new for you. Bespoke bells? Even if you use field artillery in 1812 Overture or industrial drop hammer in Finale of Mahler 6th it will not made your performance any better by itself. I have Munch/BSO recording from both 1954 and 1962. Do not aware about recording from 1958 (?). And, I still remember one of my very first recordings of Fantastique, which was late 60s recording of Munch with Budapest Symphony on LP many years ago. I like these, still they do not divert my interest from all other excellent renditions.

 

Ehhhh...sorta true, sorta not. While I think it is pointless to rank orchestras, and doubly pointless to rank orchestras of the caliber of Berlin, Boston, Chicago, Concertgebouw, Vienna, there are many "decent" orchestras that just don't compare to those in the top tier.

 

That said, it doesn't mean the top tier performances will actually be any "better"--eg, more exciting, more compelling. (When I lived in LA, I found performances by the USC student orchestra sometimes more compelling than those of the LA Philharmonic)

 

THAT said, historically, the Boston Symphony's sound was characterized by an almost febrile intensity--a mixture of the Hall and ensemble traditions routed in Monteaux, Koussevitsky, and Munch--that was at once distinctive and seemed to lend itself particularly well to the music of Berlioz. I'm not the only one who considered the BSO of not-too-long-ago to have been the world's greatest French orchestra. (Levine nudged things in a slightly more Germanic direction. Nelsons continues the trend.)

 

As for the bells, I could not disagree with you more emphatically. But, as they say, that's what makes a market.

Link to comment
That's why I put 'sound' good.

 

Obviously you can't un-master or re-record something via playback but my system genuinely never throws anything at me that I want to turn off in terms of unpleasant presentation / fatigue, subject material is another thing and is of course down to taste.

 

Again: "If your system doesn't make every recording, 'sound' great to listen to, there is work to be done on your system"... building such a system is supposed to be the whole point of this hobby - finding great recordings isn't listening to music, it is finding great recordings.

 

;-)

 

Really? A crap recording isn't still crap on your system? How can that be?

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...