Jump to content
IGNORED

Vinyl v Digital: The Thirty-Five Year Con


Recommended Posts

After 30+ years of auditioning gear, reading reviews and attending shows I offer the following rule

 

degree of expertise in what constitutes better sound is inversely proportional to dependency on technical measurements.

 

Put another way... the art of music isn't a number. The science of measuring what matters is always behind what we can observe empirically.

 

I don't read reviews, but for the rest of it, I think we're saying the same thing.

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!

Link to comment

I'm a digital guy. I found vinyl to have too much distortion. However, I do find most digital sound to be a bit harsh and off. According to Rob Watts, designer of Chord DACs, he thinks the main distortions in digital nowadays is noise floor modulation and insufficient tap length which leads to digital harshness and poor timing of transients (and timbral inaccuracy) respectively. (There are other distortions he talked about but I think they're better addressed in most modern digital DACs). I personally suspect the former (noise floor modulation) is why people prefer vinyl. I'm happy with my Chord DACs as they seem to address both.

Link to comment
I just searched my "Forums" Text Edit file and discovered I answered this for you in great detail on 03-15-2016 in post 132 in Poll: Where are you along the cable divide?. Perhaps you might want to start a text file of your online posts?

 

Currently, I only have one disc treated with CD stoplight, Antill: Corroboree on Classic Records 24/96 DVD which I bought used and it was already treated.

 

Remember I had to sell all my physical formats and the equipment to play them on to keep from being homeless. This time around well made audiophile recordings sound good enough for me as is, so I haven't tried CD stoplight on them.

 

 

For those who don't know what we're discussiing.

green pen sacd

Yes, I remember your response but it never changed the fact that the that the article highlights the highly unreliable your (and many others) unscientific sighted reviews can be. The green pen fiasco was all over the audiophile media with rave reviews of the positive effects from coating a CD's edge. Now just a bit of humor in the face of reality and a embarrassment that the golden ears are hoping to be forgotten.

 

Sal,

 

Norton just posted a good explanation of some of those parameters in another thread: The end of digital audio.? Post 97

With do respect to Norton, there's absolutely nothing supportable in his claims. The are simply his opinions (of which he's entitled) but just as prone to error as your audible claims of the CD Stoplight.

"The gullibility of audiophiles is what astonishes me the most, even after all these years. How is it possible, how did it ever happen, that they trust fairy-tale purveyors and mystic gurus more than reliable sources of scientific information?"

Peter Aczel - The Audio Critic

nomqa.webp.aa713f2bb9e304522011cdb2d2ca907d.webp  R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press.

 

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 :)

"The gullibility of audiophiles is what astonishes me the most, even after all these years. How is it possible, how did it ever happen, that they trust fairy-tale purveyors and mystic gurus more than reliable sources of scientific information?"

Peter Aczel - The Audio Critic

nomqa.webp.aa713f2bb9e304522011cdb2d2ca907d.webp  R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press.

 

Link to comment
John Curl says: we can only measure a small percent of what we hear.

Either John or you got that a bit backwards. We can only not measure a very small percent of what we hear. And that's debatable.

And we can't measure any of what the golden ears imagine (the magic dust) thru expectation bias and the the rest.

Wonder why that is? ;)

"The gullibility of audiophiles is what astonishes me the most, even after all these years. How is it possible, how did it ever happen, that they trust fairy-tale purveyors and mystic gurus more than reliable sources of scientific information?"

Peter Aczel - The Audio Critic

nomqa.webp.aa713f2bb9e304522011cdb2d2ca907d.webp  R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press.

 

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
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.

 

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).

Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby
Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley
Through the middle of my skull

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
Yes, but what about the stuff you can't measure like timbre and resolution? Are we supposed to pretend they don't exist just because you haven't figured out a way to measure them yet? That's way too subjective for me. I need to consider all of the factors, not just the ones that are easy to talk about so I look smart in an internet chat room.

 

As far as Redbook itself goes, I clearly remember the entire industry screaming for a better digital format. There were a few exceptions, but the opinions on this were almost unanimous. What happened? Redbook has gotten better over the years, but not enough to make it a completely different and better sounding format that makes high res not necessary.

 

Hold-on, there Matey! Your question was: "What are you measuring that leads you to that conclusion (that Redbook was better than vinyl)?" That was the question I was answering. The things I mentioned were the things that the industry is measuring that tells them that the MEDIUM of Redbook CD is better than the MEDIUM of the vinyl LP. The stuff you "can't measure" is what makes some LPs sound astounding while some Redbook CDs sound simply awful. The incompetence, indifference and improper recording venues, coupled with poor mastering and/or playback equipment on the part of either medium notwithstanding, Redbook CD at it's best is technically way better than vinyl at it's best. That's my only point.

 

And by the way, I have thousands of LPs. I didn't dump mine when CD came out like many audiophiles did because I realized that a good portion of my collection would never be represented on CD. I also have thousands of Redbook CDs and a growing collection of downloaded Hi-Res files as well as a growing collection of SACD and Blu-Ray music-only discs. Also, a portion of my "ripped" music was ripped from 78s, which, due to the convenience of the computer and the availability of programs like 'Audacity' which are available either for free or very inexpensively, I can now listen to without side-breaks. Another advantage is that I get to listen to these timeless performances without actually having to physically OWN the those heavy, fragile, and bulky 78 RPM albums any longer!

George

Link to comment
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.

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.

Link to comment
Also, a portion of my "ripped" music was ripped from 78s, which, due to the convenience of the computer and the availability of programs like 'Audacity' which are available either for free or very inexpensively, I can now listen to without side-breaks. Another advantage is that I get to listen to these timeless performances without actually having to physically OWN the those heavy, fragile, and bulky 78 RPM albums any longer!

 

For shame George, you know that 78s are the purest of the pure analog recordings, only surpassed by the Edison cylinder.

You have committed the most mortal of sins in ripping them to digital. They can only be played and their full glory realized on a fully mechanical crank phono with wooden horn for warmth. I can't imagine how they must sound now with that beautifully smooth analog waveform having been chopped up into that nasty staircased digital crud. :(

"The gullibility of audiophiles is what astonishes me the most, even after all these years. How is it possible, how did it ever happen, that they trust fairy-tale purveyors and mystic gurus more than reliable sources of scientific information?"

Peter Aczel - The Audio Critic

nomqa.webp.aa713f2bb9e304522011cdb2d2ca907d.webp  R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press.

 

Link to comment

I started with LPs and tape in the mid-60s. I started with CDs sometime in the mid-late 80s. I gave up on LPs in the early 90s.

 

I still remember the problems of playing real world LPs. Three examples where the music content was great but the Lps were lousy.

 

- We had the "Solid Gold" LP of the very best Glenn Miller tracks. Wow and flutter was so bad that listening to that LP made me queasy. The CD issue didn't have those problems and was heaven to listen to.

 

- The Grumiaux/Galliera Beethoven Violin Concerto performance is my very favorite. The LP had a lovely warm sound but surface noise and (to a lesser extent) tape hiss were very intrusive. The effective dynamic range was minimal. The CD is much better.

 

- I read a rave review of a Stern/Istomic/Rose recording of the Beethoven Archduke Trio and bought the LP. Alas, it had a bad flaw in the pressing that threww the stylus out of the track. I returned the LP and got a replacement. It had the same flaw. When that recording appeared on CD, I bought a copy that played perfectly. I was finally able to enjoy that wonderful performance.

 

I replaced almost all my favorite LPs with CD equivalents. None of the CDs has been inferior to the LPs. That included golden age Mercurys, RCA Living Stereos, Deccas and EMIs.

 

There may be some audiophile LPs that sound better than the CD equivalents. I didn't find them for performances of music that interested me.

Link to comment

This is a great post!

 

Exactly... there are 100s of 1000s of 16/44 masters pressed onto vinyl. That's why this thread doesn't make any sense to me.

 

It is digital mastering and poorly optimised playback of 16/44 that has not been up to scratch until recently... digital systems are very fragile and thus must be optimised.

 

 

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.

Source:

*Aurender N100 (no internal disk : LAN optically isolated via FMC with *LPS) > DIY 5cm USB link (5v rail removed / ground lift switch - split for *LPS) > Intona Industrial (injected *LPS / internally shielded with copper tape) > DIY 5cm USB link (5v rail removed / ground lift switch) > W4S Recovery (*LPS) > DIY 2cm USB adaptor (5v rail removed / ground lift switch) > *Auralic VEGA (EXACT : balanced)

 

Control:

*Jeff Rowland CAPRI S2 (balanced)

 

Playback:

2 x Revel B15a subs (balanced) > ATC SCM 50 ASL (balanced - 80Hz HPF from subs)

 

Misc:

*Via Power Inspired AG1500 AC Regenerator

LPS: 3 x Swagman Lab Audiophile Signature Edition (W4S, Intona & FMC)

Storage: QNAP TS-253Pro 2x 3Tb, 8Gb RAM

Cables: DIY heavy gauge solid silver (balanced)

Mains: dedicated distribution board with 5 x 2 socket ring mains, all mains cables: Mark Grant Black Series DSP 2.5 Dual Screen

Link to comment
For those who don't know what we're discussing.

green pen sacd

Yes, I remember your response but it never changed the fact that the that the article highlights the highly unreliable your (and many others) unscientific sighted reviews can be. The green pen fiasco was all over the audiophile media with rave reviews of the positive effects from coating a CD's edge. Now just a bit of humor in the face of reality and a embarrassment that the golden ears are hoping to be forgotten..

 

What fiasco? What embarrassment? There is controversy by some naysayers, most who have never tried CD Stoplight.

 

Actually, the CD Stoplight green pen works and improves everything I said I does. From my article you posted The Greening of SACDs, (gulp) CDs and other digital madness

 

"The first thing I did was play one of my favorite SACDs: Virgil Thomson's The River and The Plow That Broke the Plains - Leopold Stokowski conducting The Symphony of the Air. Then I removed the SACD, treated it with CD Stoplight and waited the required 5 minutes for the ink to dry and put it back in the player. Right away I noticed a considerable increase in volume! Once I lowered the volume to a level comparable to the before treatment level I also noticed the bass was warmer, the performing space was "airier", the outline of the instruments seemed more defined and the dynamic attacks were sharper. It appears to smooth out the sound, increase ambiance and make percussive attacks more exciting. All this from a green ink ring around the outside of the disc, amazing!
"

 

Also the SHM-SACDs and other Japanese green discs, I've heard sound excellent.

 

After rereading my article, I think I will try CD Stoplight again. It is a shame I had to sell all my physical formats and the equipment to play them on to keep from being homeless. But now that my finances are better I have repurchased most of my favorites as well as new discoveries. I didn't purchase CD Stoplight again after starting my new collection, however it is still being sold all over the internet. My reason for not trying it again is it is a pain to apply, as I described in the same article:

 

"Warning, applying CD Stoplight can sometimes be a royal pain. Make sure the disc is clean and if it has a smooth edge the ink goes on quite well. But not all discs have smooth edges, both CDs and SACDs are basically sandwiches and sometimes the bottom edge does not line up exactly with the top edge and when they do line up correctly sometimes they have rough edges making them had to coat with ink, requiring multiple treatments. When you start treating one of these problem discs you will start cursing both me and AudioPrism, I know I did, that is until I played the disc, it was worth the trouble! Also make sure you have a couple of wet paper towels and a couple of CD cloths to clean up messes and boo-boos. You will have plenty of both! If ink goes where it does not belong it comes off easy with water, that is before it dries."

 

With do respect to Norton, there's absolutely nothing supportable in his claims. The are simply his opinions (of which he's entitled) but just as prone to error as your audible claims of the CD Stoplight.

 

His are not claims but listening experiences, subjectivists seldom make claims. We also say each person must listen for themselves. However, my listening experiences are very similar to his, thus why I linked this post. There are no errors in either of our listening experiences.

 

Either John or you got that a bit backwards. We can only not measure a very small percent of what we hear. And that's debatable.

And we can't measure any of what the golden ears imagine (the magic dust) thru expectation bias and the the rest.

Wonder why that is? ;)

 

No, I believe John Curl is correct! We can only measure a very small percent of what we hear. And that small percent includes the most crudest of parameters such as frequency response, dynamic range, signal to noise ratio and dynamic range. The stuff that makes music enjoyable still cannot be measured, such as lack of listener fatigue, smoothness, imaging, timbre accuracy, and at least a dozen other music parameters we still have no way to measure.

 

Why do only objectivists bring up magic dust? Subjectivists accept music the way it sounds and aims to obtain the most accurate and pleasing equipment and recordings within their budget. Wonder why that is? ;)

I have dementia. I save all my posts in a text file I call Forums.  I do a search in that file to find out what I said or did in the past.

 

I still love music.

 

Teresa

Link to comment
... there are 100s of 1000s of 16/44 masters pressed onto vinyl. That's why this thread doesn't make any sense to me...

 

It makes sense to me as when I collected LPs I only bought analog LPs. Some of my best sounding ones are the PURE ANALOG LPs Reference Recordings released in the 1980s and 1990s.

 

There are millions of pure analog LPs. All the LPs pressed up until the 1970's are analog. And most of the modern audiophile remaster labels keep the signal path pure analog if the original master is analog. Some labels such as Simply Vinyl and a few others who don't demand the original analog master are often sent a digital file. Anyway there are way more analog LPs than digital and digitally remastered analog. And even some of those digitally remastered LPs are from 24 bit PCM or DSD, the new Rolling Stones 180 gram LPs come to mind as they are from the same DSD master files as the SACDs are. Hope this helps. :)

I have dementia. I save all my posts in a text file I call Forums.  I do a search in that file to find out what I said or did in the past.

 

I still love music.

 

Teresa

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.

 

Back in the day they were a big problem to me. I didn't like any LP from a 16/44.1kHz master or any digitally remastered analog recordings at 16/44.1kHz. In 1978-1979 the only digital LPs I liked were the 16/50kHz Soundstream one's from Telarc. I tried 16/50kHz Soundstream from other labels and they sounded too digital, in a bad way. Still the PURE ANALOG Reference Recordings LPs blew away the 16/50kHz Telarc LPs, especially in the midrange and high frequencies. And Reference Recordings bass while just as deep was much warmer.

 

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.

 

I agree with both statements. For me, it was not until just two years ago that I have been able to listen to 16/44.1kHz without listener fatigue setting in.

 

I no longer have vinyl, however my solution is buying audiophile recordings as they as a group sound more natural to me and unlike the major labels actually have dynamic range. Besides 24 bit PCM and DSD downloads I also have many SACDs, Blu-rays and 24/96kHz DVDs. And now that I am able to listen to CD and 16/44.1kHz PCM and I have some uncompressed 16/44.1kHz wav music files and CDs that are not yet available in high resolution.

I have dementia. I save all my posts in a text file I call Forums.  I do a search in that file to find out what I said or did in the past.

 

I still love music.

 

Teresa

Link to comment
What fiasco? What embarrassment? There is controversy by some naysayers, most who have never tried CD Stoplight.

 

Actually, the CD Stoplight green pen works and improves everything I said I does. From my article you posted The Greening of SACDs, (gulp) CDs and other digital madness

"

Also the SHM-SACDs and other Japanese green discs, I've heard sound excellent.

 

After rereading my article, I think I will try CD Stoplight again. It is a shame I had to sell all my physical formats and the equipment to play them on to keep from being homeless. But now that my finances are better I have repurchased most of my favorites as well as new discoveries. I didn't purchase CD Stoplight again after starting my new collection, however it is still being sold all over the internet. My reason for not trying it again is it is a pain to apply, as I described in the same article:

 

That's just absolutely ridiculous. LOL

But I got to hand it to you. You got to be about the only magic dust pusher to have the nerve to make that claim in public for 20 years or so. Good news is you'll only be coning folks out of $25 for a green magic marker, and giving them dirty inky fingers. Stand by your guns ma'am, no matter how silly they make you look. :)

"The gullibility of audiophiles is what astonishes me the most, even after all these years. How is it possible, how did it ever happen, that they trust fairy-tale purveyors and mystic gurus more than reliable sources of scientific information?"

Peter Aczel - The Audio Critic

nomqa.webp.aa713f2bb9e304522011cdb2d2ca907d.webp  R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press.

 

Link to comment
That's just absolutely ridiculous. LOL

But I got to hand it to you. You got to be about the only magic dust pusher to have the nerve to make that claim in public for 20 years or so. Good news is you'll only be coning folks out of $25 for a green magic marker, and giving them dirty inky fingers. Stand by your guns ma'am, no matter how silly they make you look. :)

 

Nothing ridiculous about it and I only recommend things that actually improve sound quality, which CD Stoplight does. It is your naysaying that is silly and frankly offensive.

 

Did you read that despite the application process that I will be buying the CD Stoplight green pen again? I would not be buying it if it didn't work.

 

I never use or push magic dust, and many others have heard the improved sound quality of its use.

 

"The improvement was astonishing!" - Dick Olsher, Stereophile, March, 1990.

 

"The cost per disc of this tweak is almost zero … it offers a big bang for the buck and can be confidently recommended." - John Atkinson, Stereophile July, 1995.

I have dementia. I save all my posts in a text file I call Forums.  I do a search in that file to find out what I said or did in the past.

 

I still love music.

 

Teresa

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

I recently added a TT to my setup to see what the fuss was about, and added as Ortofon 2M black cart to do it justice along with a good phono then promptly went out and bought some 180g vinyl to test with.

 

Sure the TT sounds nice and all but IMHO my MSB dac leaves it for dead, same everything else, just differing sources.

 

20160820_113250_resized.jpg

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

 

;-)

 

 

 

It makes sense to me as when I collected LPs I only bought analog LPs. Some of my best sounding ones are the PURE ANALOG LPs Reference Recordings released in the 1980s and 1990s.

 

There are millions of pure analog LPs. All the LPs pressed up until the 1970's are analog. And most of the modern audiophile remaster labels keep the signal path pure analog if the original master is analog. Some labels such as Simply Vinyl and a few others who don't demand the original analog master are often sent a digital file. Anyway there are way more analog LPs than digital and digitally remastered analog. And even some of those digitally remastered LPs are from 24 bit PCM or DSD, the new Rolling Stones 180 gram LPs come to mind as they are from the same DSD master files as the SACDs are. Hope this helps. :)

Source:

*Aurender N100 (no internal disk : LAN optically isolated via FMC with *LPS) > DIY 5cm USB link (5v rail removed / ground lift switch - split for *LPS) > Intona Industrial (injected *LPS / internally shielded with copper tape) > DIY 5cm USB link (5v rail removed / ground lift switch) > W4S Recovery (*LPS) > DIY 2cm USB adaptor (5v rail removed / ground lift switch) > *Auralic VEGA (EXACT : balanced)

 

Control:

*Jeff Rowland CAPRI S2 (balanced)

 

Playback:

2 x Revel B15a subs (balanced) > ATC SCM 50 ASL (balanced - 80Hz HPF from subs)

 

Misc:

*Via Power Inspired AG1500 AC Regenerator

LPS: 3 x Swagman Lab Audiophile Signature Edition (W4S, Intona & FMC)

Storage: QNAP TS-253Pro 2x 3Tb, 8Gb RAM

Cables: DIY heavy gauge solid silver (balanced)

Mains: dedicated distribution board with 5 x 2 socket ring mains, all mains cables: Mark Grant Black Series DSP 2.5 Dual Screen

Link to comment
I recently added a TT to my setup to see what the fuss was about, and added as Ortofon 2M black cart to do it justice along with a good phono then promptly went out and bought some 180g vinyl to test with.

 

Sure the TT sounds nice and all but IMHO my MSB dac leaves it for dead, same everything else, just differing sources.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]28737[/ATTACH]

I remember buying a Bryston amp years ago and then being chagrined that a

stock Hafler DH200 bought off EBay sounded better. Moving magnets just don't

cut it for LP playback and Ortofons patent design while great for midrange color

lacks the clarity and high frequency "sparkle" capability of a moving coil

Regards,

Dave

 

Audio system

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...