Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 3 May 2005 00:06:03 GMT, Jocelyn Major
wrote:
May i put some experience I had yesterday. I just bought on Ebay a
Denon
DP-47F turntable with a grado black cartridge. I installed it on my
Mcintosh MA-6100 Integrated Amp.Next thing I did was to compare the
denon turntable with my Naim CD5i cd player (I paid it 1800$
Canadian).
I was lucky to have keep all my LP. I stop using my old Pioneer
PL-530
because I had to much work and it was broken anyway. It was more
convenient to use the cd player (I don't have to clean the cd
everytime
I want to use them or flip them over like a LP). Now I have lot of
time
(I got a back injury), It will be months before I go back to work.
So
the first thing I did was to put a LP of Wynston Marsalis on the
denon
and the same album on my naim cd player. And It was jaw droping. On
the
cd I can pinpoint on the wall where are the performer but with the
LP as
was able to pinpoint in the room where they where. Winston Marsalis
was
about 3-4 feet in front on the wall while the orchestra was about 20
feet behind the wall. I tried several other lp with their cd
original
copies and it was always at the advantage of the Turntable. I just
find
out that the cd win for the convenience but the turntable was the
big
winner for the realism. And that difference was with a Denon
Turntable
that was worth around 400$ when new. If I can get that kind of
realism
with a Denon I wonder what will it be with a Linn or an Oracle that
where supposed to be the best turntables available? I always think
that
the cd where better because I could'nt hear a difference between a
cd
and my Old Pioneer. Man I was wrong.: I could'nt hear a difference
because my Pioneer turntable was'nt good enoufh to show a
difference,
If (like myself I use to do) you think that cd are better than LP
get
yourself a GOOD turntable and you to you will see the "LIGHT" :-)
You do need to realise that your preference for vinyl is simply that
-
a personal preference.
As are *all* preferences including your preference for CDs.
Contrary to urban myth, it has very little to
do with the quality of your vinyl replay gear - once above the most
basic level, the quality is limited by the *vinyl*, not the TT, arm
or
cart.
Complete nonsense. The same record played on better vinyl equipment
will sound better all the way up to SOTA gear. The quality of vinyl
playback has a great deal to do with the quality of the gear used. Many
people when exposed to better vinyl playback are completely surprised
by the vast improvements and often come to understand the preference
for vinyl playback back numerous hard core audiophiles hold.
I also have a good quality vinyl rig, see my page on
http://www.lurcher.org/ukra/
The whole system cost around 20 grand, the vinyl rig cost around 5
times as much as the CD player, and the whole system is carefully set
up in a pretty good room. Vinyl is certainly capable of portraying
the
(somewhat artificial) depth effects you mention, but the solidity of
the sound, the low-level detail, and the general 'realism' of the
recording is *much* superior on CD, even when using classic
direct-cut
LPs from companies such as Crystal Clear and Sheffield Labs.
Furthermore, when a simply-miked recording of a 'live' performance is
played on CD, the depth and ambience is much more natural than
anything I've heard on vinyl. This is not merely *my* opinion, it's
shared by all who've heard my system.
Funny how that works. It's just the opposite on my system. Well such
are the nature of anecdotes.
To me, this is entirely logical, given the *vast* technical
superiority of CD in every measure known to affect fidelity to the
source. It also works for LPs transcribed to CD-R, where all that
phasey LP 'magic' is retained by the CD. Hence, it stands to reason
that all the real quality of the master tape will also be captured
more accurately by CD.
--
And yet many of the best mastering engineers disagree with your
conclusion. Oh well, they must not know what they are talking about.
Scott Wheeler