Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default LP still better than Digital?

I can hear the howls of derision now from certain parties who post here
regularly. I'm out of my mind. There can just be no other explanation for it!

OK. Tonight I go to an audio acquaintance's home to try to solve a puzzle.
This guy has a damn good system. His speakers are fairly new Wilson Sasha's.
His amps are Nelson Pass XS-150 monoblocks and his pre-amp is an Classe
CP-700. His front end is a Marantz SA-11S2 SACD/CD player. Recently he
bought a Weiss dac202U digital to analog converter connected via Firewire to
a MacBook Pro running Amarra.

Several moths ago, his father-in-law passed away leaving him a considerable
classical record collection. Our friend had no record player but his Classe
preamp did come with a phono preamp option. Not really being all that
interested in records, but being nonetheless curious about the record
collection he'd inherited, he purchased a Music Hall MMF5.1 turntable
ensemble for around $900 complete with arm and "Music Hall" branded MM
cartridge (which I suspect is really a British Goldring).

The dilemma is this. Right along, Our Friend has been purchasing
High-Resolution downloads of things that interested him from HDTracks.
Recently he bought the Antal Dorati/London Symphony 24/176.4 download of The
music of Borodin and Rimsky Korsakov. Using his Mac and Amarra to stream the
recording to his Weiss DAC, he was very impressed with the purchase until he
found that his father-in-law had a copy of the original issue from 1961 on
Mercury Living Presence LP. Just for the hell of it, he decided to give the
LP a spin on his $1000 turntable rig. Expecting to laugh it off the
turntable, he was startled to find that the LP sounded better than the HD
download through his $7000 DAC!. That's when he called me. Turns out that I
have both the mid-'90's CD transferred by Wilma Fine, the record's original
producer as well as the later remastered SACD of the same title. I suggested
that I bring them over as well as some equipment. I showed up over there this
evening with both silver-disc versions of the Mercury disc as well as my test
SACD/CD, a Shure test record, a copy of the BMC SACD of "The Reiner Sound"
and a Classic Records 33.3 RPM reissue of same, and a HP400D RMS voltmeter.
The first thing I did was make as sure that we used the controlled outputs of
the SACD section of the Marantz player, the volume controlled outputs of the
Weiss, for both the CD and the Firewire feed from the Mac to insure that the
record, the SACD, the CD and the HD feed were all level matched exactly (at
least to the test signals).

I told my host, that most likely, what he was hearing as "sounding better"
was simply because the LP was louder than the HD feed and my set-up procedure
should eliminate that. Then we listened to the HD feed all the way through,
then he put on the 50-year old record and after I made sure the volume was
the same, we listened to that. There was no doubt about it. a 50 year-old LP
on a $900 record player was much more musical, imaged better, had much better
sheen to the strings, etc. The record was just much more relaxing to listen
to. Even our host's wife agreed as did another buddy we'd invited. Next we
compared the CD layer of the Reiner disc (through the Weiss) to the Classics
reissue LP, and again, the LP was just much nicer to listen to. It sounded
more real, had better string tone, and threw a wider and deeper soundstage,
etc..

All who listened this evening, agreed that a relatively cheap record player
TROUNCED a $7000 highly touted 'state-of-the-art' DAC.

I admit that this isn't very scientific and there's plenty of room for slip
between the audio quality of the various "versions" of these two venerable
analog "classics" , but at the very least it shows that we shouldn't be too
quick to pronounce the death of vinyl yet... even OLD vinyl. There's still a
lot of musical enjoyment to had there.
  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Robert Peirce Robert Peirce is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 140
Default LP still better than Digital?

In article ,
Audio Empire wrote:
All who listened this evening, agreed that a relatively cheap record player
TROUNCED a $7000 highly touted 'state-of-the-art' DAC.


I'd be interested in knowing how a digital transfer of the LP fared
playing through the same DAC. The problem, of course is getting a
perfect transfer. However, if it actually is first rate and the DAC is
as well, it ought to sound the same. If it does, then the other
transfers are sub-par. If this transfer is sub-par then the problem
might be how the transfer was made or how it is played back. In other
words, I don't doubt the LP sounded better but there are too many
variables to decide why.

I have transferred a number of LPs to 192/24 using Pure Vinyl and a
firewire DAC. I can also play the LP through the DAC without digitizing
it. When I do this the LP sounds the same as the transfer.

Frankly, I am not a critical listener. I just want it to sound right,
although probably not perfect. Consequently, I am not trying to say
anything is necessarily the ultimate that is possible. I am just trying
to remove as many variables as I can. It is possible the LP played
through the DAC sounds worse than it would have played through my Classe
pre-amp, but that would have been the pre-amp not the LP.

  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected] nabob33@hotmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default LP still better than Digital?

On Saturday, June 16, 2012 10:31:54 AM UTC-4, Audio Empire wrote:
I can hear the howls of derision now from certain parties who post here
regularly. I'm out of my mind. There can just be no other explanation for it!


Actually, what you'll hear is a big yawn. Cuz we've heard it all
before, too many times.

snip

The first thing I did was make as sure that we used the controlled outputs of
the SACD section of the Marantz player, the volume controlled outputs of the
Weiss, for both the CD and the Firewire feed from the Mac to insure that the
record, the SACD, the CD and the HD feed were all level matched exactly (at
least to the test signals).


Which, alas, doesn't mean anything, esp. given that you're comparing
an analog recording to digital ones, all three of which have been
mastered differently.

I told my host, that most likely, what he was hearing as "sounding better"
was simply because the LP was louder than the HD feed and my set-up procedure
should eliminate that.


That's one possibility (and you didn't really fix it), but there are
at least two others that are as important or more so:

1) It is well known that LP reproduction involves audible levels of
distortion that are often heard as euphonic. Your description of the
sound is quite common, so this was almost certainly a factor.

2) As I said, you are listening to three different masters. Even if
she tried to make an identical recording, Wilma Fine was not a
calibrated test instrument. Her hearing wasn't same, her tastes and
sonic preferences weren't the same, and she would certainly have been
expected to take advantage of what digital recording offered her. Even
if the only difference was in the levels of compression used, that
would be enough to make one sound better than the other (and the more
compressed one sound louder, most probably, your efforts at
level-matching notwithstanding)/

I admit that this isn't very scientific and there's plenty of room for slip
between the audio quality of the various "versions" of these two venerable
analog "classics" , but at the very least it shows that we shouldn't be too
quick to pronounce the death of vinyl yet... even OLD vinyl. There's still a
lot of musical enjoyment to had there.


Just as you say. I didn't mean to tweak you for being unscientific
above, so much as to point out that it's impossible to be fully
scientific given what you're trying to do. Of course vinyl can sound
wonderful, for a variety of reasons. I'm glad your friend got to find
that out.

bob
  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default LP still better than Digital?

On Sat Jun 16 14:31:54 2012 Audio Empire wrote:

I admit that this isn't very scientific and there's plenty of room for slip
between the audio quality of the various "versions" of these two venerable
analog "classics" , but at the very least it shows that we shouldn't be too
quick to pronounce the death of vinyl yet... even OLD vinyl. There's still a
lot of musical enjoyment to had there.


My bet is that the LP grooves are sending uncorellated noise to both
channels, giving an impression of spaciousness and even depth that is
artificial but quite enjoyable. The higher freq noise would also give
a "sheen" to the strings. I noticed several times that when I listened
to an FM broadcast with a lot of noise surrounding the music (due to
reception) the music had this imaging quality, as if the brain is
trying to listen around the noise and fills in some details. Anyway,
with uncorellated noise the two channels have a maximum difference
from each other, which may have a psychoacoustic effect similar to
sonic holography, or at least providing an artificial ambience behind
the music signal.

Gary Eickmeier

  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Bill Taylor[_3_] Bill Taylor[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default LP still better than Digital?

On 16 Jun 2012 14:31:54 GMT, Audio Empire
wrote:

I can hear the howls of derision now from certain parties who post here
regularly. I'm out of my mind. There can just be no other explanation for it!

OK. Tonight I go to an audio acquaintance's home to try to solve a puzzle.
This guy has a damn good system. His speakers are fairly new Wilson Sasha's.
His amps are Nelson Pass XS-150 monoblocks and his pre-amp is an Classe
CP-700. His front end is a Marantz SA-11S2 SACD/CD player. Recently he
bought a Weiss dac202U digital to analog converter connected via Firewire to
a MacBook Pro running Amarra.

Several moths ago, his father-in-law passed away leaving him a considerable
classical record collection. Our friend had no record player but his Classe
preamp did come with a phono preamp option. Not really being all that
interested in records, but being nonetheless curious about the record
collection he'd inherited, he purchased a Music Hall MMF5.1 turntable
ensemble for around $900 complete with arm and "Music Hall" branded MM
cartridge (which I suspect is really a British Goldring).

The dilemma is this. Right along, Our Friend has been purchasing
High-Resolution downloads of things that interested him from HDTracks.
Recently he bought the Antal Dorati/London Symphony 24/176.4 download of The
music of Borodin and Rimsky Korsakov. Using his Mac and Amarra to stream the
recording to his Weiss DAC, he was very impressed with the purchase until he
found that his father-in-law had a copy of the original issue from 1961 on
Mercury Living Presence LP. Just for the hell of it, he decided to give the
LP a spin on his $1000 turntable rig. Expecting to laugh it off the
turntable, he was startled to find that the LP sounded better than the HD
download through his $7000 DAC!. That's when he called me. Turns out that I
have both the mid-'90's CD transferred by Wilma Fine, the record's original
producer as well as the later remastered SACD of the same title. I suggested
that I bring them over as well as some equipment. I showed up over there this
evening with both silver-disc versions of the Mercury disc as well as my test
SACD/CD, a Shure test record, a copy of the BMC SACD of "The Reiner Sound"
and a Classic Records 33.3 RPM reissue of same, and a HP400D RMS voltmeter.
The first thing I did was make as sure that we used the controlled outputs of
the SACD section of the Marantz player, the volume controlled outputs of the
Weiss, for both the CD and the Firewire feed from the Mac to insure that the
record, the SACD, the CD and the HD feed were all level matched exactly (at
least to the test signals).

I told my host, that most likely, what he was hearing as "sounding better"
was simply because the LP was louder than the HD feed and my set-up procedure
should eliminate that. Then we listened to the HD feed all the way through,
then he put on the 50-year old record and after I made sure the volume was
the same, we listened to that. There was no doubt about it. a 50 year-old LP
on a $900 record player was much more musical, imaged better, had much better
sheen to the strings, etc. The record was just much more relaxing to listen
to. Even our host's wife agreed as did another buddy we'd invited. Next we
compared the CD layer of the Reiner disc (through the Weiss) to the Classics
reissue LP, and again, the LP was just much nicer to listen to. It sounded
more real, had better string tone, and threw a wider and deeper soundstage,
etc..

All who listened this evening, agreed that a relatively cheap record player
TROUNCED a $7000 highly touted 'state-of-the-art' DAC.

I admit that this isn't very scientific and there's plenty of room for slip
between the audio quality of the various "versions" of these two venerable
analog "classics" , but at the very least it shows that we shouldn't be too
quick to pronounce the death of vinyl yet... even OLD vinyl. There's still a
lot of musical enjoyment to had there.


The Mercury CD transfers were notoriously bad, so using them as
samples doesn't prove anything about the relative merits of LP v. CD.
All the indications are that the HD files are upsampled copies of the
CDs with their transfer faults.

See http://mercury.lacyway.com/ CD reissues for some detail about the
transfer issues.


  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default LP still better than Digital?

On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 13:42:09 -0700, wrote
(in article ):

On Saturday, June 16, 2012 10:31:54 AM UTC-4, Audio Empire wrote:
I can hear the howls of derision now from certain parties who post here
regularly. I'm out of my mind. There can just be no other explanation for
it!


Actually, what you'll hear is a big yawn. Cuz we've heard it all
before, too many times.


There are some who post here regularly who have so much invested in LP being
inferior to EVERYTHING, that those are the folks from whom I expected (and
still expect) the howls of derision.

snip

The first thing I did was make as sure that we used the controlled outputs
of
the SACD section of the Marantz player, the volume controlled outputs of
the
Weiss, for both the CD and the Firewire feed from the Mac to insure that
the
record, the SACD, the CD and the HD feed were all level matched exactly (at
least to the test signals).


Which, alas, doesn't mean anything, esp. given that you're comparing
an analog recording to digital ones, all three of which have been
mastered differently.

I told my host, that most likely, what he was hearing as "sounding better"
was simply because the LP was louder than the HD feed and my set-up
procedure
should eliminate that.


That's one possibility (and you didn't really fix it), but there are
at least two others that are as important or more so:

1) It is well known that LP reproduction involves audible levels of
distortion that are often heard as euphonic. Your description of the
sound is quite common, so this was almost certainly a factor.

2) As I said, you are listening to three different masters. Even if
she tried to make an identical recording, Wilma Fine was not a
calibrated test instrument. Her hearing wasn't same, her tastes and
sonic preferences weren't the same, and she would certainly have been
expected to take advantage of what digital recording offered her. Even
if the only difference was in the levels of compression used, that
would be enough to make one sound better than the other (and the more
compressed one sound louder, most probably, your efforts at
level-matching notwithstanding)/

I admit that this isn't very scientific and there's plenty of room for slip
between the audio quality of the various "versions" of these two venerable
analog "classics" , but at the very least it shows that we shouldn't be too
quick to pronounce the death of vinyl yet... even OLD vinyl. There's still
a
lot of musical enjoyment to had there.


Just as you say. I didn't mean to tweak you for being unscientific
above, so much as to point out that it's impossible to be fully
scientific given what you're trying to do. Of course vinyl can sound
wonderful, for a variety of reasons. I'm glad your friend got to find
that out.


Kinda the point. Thanks for your comments. I agree with you 100%
  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default LP still better than Digital?

On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 13:44:28 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article ):

On Sat Jun 16 14:31:54 2012 Audio Empire wrote:

I admit that this isn't very scientific and there's plenty of room for slip
between the audio quality of the various "versions" of these two venerable
analog "classics" , but at the very least it shows that we shouldn't be too
quick to pronounce the death of vinyl yet... even OLD vinyl. There's still a
lot of musical enjoyment to had there.


My bet is that the LP grooves are sending uncorellated noise to both
channels, giving an impression of spaciousness and even depth that is
artificial but quite enjoyable. The higher freq noise would also give
a "sheen" to the strings. I noticed several times that when I listened
to an FM broadcast with a lot of noise surrounding the music (due to
reception) the music had this imaging quality, as if the brain is
trying to listen around the noise and fills in some details. Anyway,
with uncorellated noise the two channels have a maximum difference
from each other, which may have a psychoacoustic effect similar to
sonic holography, or at least providing an artificial ambience behind
the music signal.

Gary Eickmeier


Possible. I guess. Whatever the reason, there's still a lot of listening
pleasure in those old grooves for any rational music listener.
  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default LP still better than Digital?

On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 13:17:22 -0700, Robert Peirce wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Audio Empire wrote:
All who listened this evening, agreed that a relatively cheap record player
TROUNCED a $7000 highly touted 'state-of-the-art' DAC.


I'd be interested in knowing how a digital transfer of the LP fared
playing through the same DAC. The problem, of course is getting a
perfect transfer. However, if it actually is first rate and the DAC is
as well, it ought to sound the same. If it does, then the other
transfers are sub-par. If this transfer is sub-par then the problem
might be how the transfer was made or how it is played back. In other
words, I don't doubt the LP sounded better but there are too many
variables to decide why.


Oh, I absolutely agree. But it's nice to know that there is still a lot of
pleasure in records for many people.

I have transferred a number of LPs to 192/24 using Pure Vinyl and a
firewire DAC. I can also play the LP through the DAC without digitizing
it. When I do this the LP sounds the same as the transfer.

Frankly, I am not a critical listener. I just want it to sound right,
although probably not perfect. Consequently, I am not trying to say
anything is necessarily the ultimate that is possible. I am just trying
to remove as many variables as I can. It is possible the LP played
through the DAC sounds worse than it would have played through my Classe
pre-amp, but that would have been the pre-amp not the LP.


I get you.



  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger[_4_] Arny Krueger[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 854
Default LP still better than Digital?

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...

I can hear the howls of derision now from certain parties who post here
regularly. I'm out of my mind. There can just be no other explanation for
it!


You're not out of your mind, you're just too biased.

OK. Tonight I go to an audio acquaintance's home to try to solve a puzzle.
This guy has a damn good system. His speakers are fairly new Wilson
Sasha's.
His amps are Nelson Pass XS-150 monoblocks and his pre-amp is an Classe
CP-700. His front end is a Marantz SA-11S2 SACD/CD player. Recently he
bought a Weiss dac202U digital to analog converter connected via Firewire
to
a MacBook Pro running Amarra.


Somebody clearly has money to burn. If he has spent as much time doing
reliable listening tests as he has obviously put into sighted evaluations,
his system would no doubt be very different.

Several moths ago, his father-in-law passed away leaving him a
considerable
classical record collection. Our friend had no record player but his
Classe
preamp did come with a phono preamp option. Not really being all that
interested in records, but being nonetheless curious about the record
collection he'd inherited, he purchased a Music Hall MMF5.1 turntable
ensemble for around $900 complete with arm and "Music Hall" branded MM
cartridge (which I suspect is really a British Goldring).


Doesn't even sound like the best stuff or even anything close.

The dilemma is this. Right along, Our Friend has been purchasing
High-Resolution downloads of things that interested him from HDTracks.
Recently he bought the Antal Dorati/London Symphony 24/176.4 download of
The
music of Borodin and Rimsky Korsakov. Using his Mac and Amarra to stream
the
recording to his Weiss DAC, he was very impressed with the purchase until
he
found that his father-in-law had a copy of the original issue from 1961 on
Mercury Living Presence LP. Just for the hell of it, he decided to give
the
LP a spin on his $1000 turntable rig. Expecting to laugh it off the
turntable, he was startled to find that the LP sounded better than the HD
download through his $7000 DAC!.


The myth that is hidden in this anecdote is the idea that human preferences,
which Science knows to be very capricious, has nothing to do with the
outcome, and that the perception of better sound described therein was
actually a reliable objective truth.



  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Jenn[_2_] Jenn[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,752
Default LP still better than Digital?

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...


Several moths ago, his father-in-law passed away leaving him a
considerable
classical record collection. Our friend had no record player but his
Classe
preamp did come with a phono preamp option. Not really being all that
interested in records, but being nonetheless curious about the record
collection he'd inherited, he purchased a Music Hall MMF5.1 turntable
ensemble for around $900 complete with arm and "Music Hall" branded MM
cartridge (which I suspect is really a British Goldring).


Doesn't even sound like the best stuff or even anything close.


I believe that that's part of his point.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger[_4_] Arny Krueger[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 854
Default LP still better than Digital?

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...


Several moths ago, his father-in-law passed away leaving him a
considerable
classical record collection. Our friend had no record player but his
Classe
preamp did come with a phono preamp option. Not really being all that
interested in records, but being nonetheless curious about the record
collection he'd inherited, he purchased a Music Hall MMF5.1 turntable
ensemble for around $900 complete with arm and "Music Hall" branded MM
cartridge (which I suspect is really a British Goldring).


Doesn't even sound like the best stuff or even anything close.


I believe that that's part of his point.


His alleged point seems to be confusing personal preference with some kind
of technological difference.

  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default LP still better than Digital?

On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 05:50:12 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...

I can hear the howls of derision now from certain parties who post here
regularly. I'm out of my mind. There can just be no other explanation for
it!


You're not out of your mind, you're just too biased.


Pot, kettle, black!

OK. Tonight I go to an audio acquaintance's home to try to solve a puzzle.
This guy has a damn good system. His speakers are fairly new Wilson
Sasha's.
His amps are Nelson Pass XS-150 monoblocks and his pre-amp is an Classe
CP-700. His front end is a Marantz SA-11S2 SACD/CD player. Recently he
bought a Weiss dac202U digital to analog converter connected via Firewire
to
a MacBook Pro running Amarra.


Somebody clearly has money to burn. If he has spent as much time doing
reliable listening tests as he has obviously put into sighted evaluations,
his system would no doubt be very different.


Maybe, maybe not. This is all good stuff, now I agree with you, that there is
no need to spend this level of money to get this level of performance,
however, there's no doubt that the money he spent got him very decent
sound. The amp/preamp ensemble is clean, the speakers are very good, the
source components are excellent. Even the realitively inexpensive turntable
does a better than average job.

I wouldn't have bought that stuff. There is no need, but then bling doesn't
matter to me as much as sheer performance does. .

Several moths ago, his father-in-law passed away leaving him a
considerable
classical record collection. Our friend had no record player but his
Classe
preamp did come with a phono preamp option. Not really being all that
interested in records, but being nonetheless curious about the record
collection he'd inherited, he purchased a Music Hall MMF5.1 turntable
ensemble for around $900 complete with arm and "Music Hall" branded MM
cartridge (which I suspect is really a British Goldring).


Doesn't even sound like the best stuff or even anything close.


I think that's the point. "An under $1K phono rig "outperforms" a $7K DAC -
one of the darlings of the high-end set."

The dilemma is this. Right along, Our Friend has been purchasing
High-Resolution downloads of things that interested him from HDTracks.
Recently he bought the Antal Dorati/London Symphony 24/176.4 download of
The
music of Borodin and Rimsky Korsakov. Using his Mac and Amarra to stream
the
recording to his Weiss DAC, he was very impressed with the purchase until
he
found that his father-in-law had a copy of the original issue from 1961 on
Mercury Living Presence LP. Just for the hell of it, he decided to give
the
LP a spin on his $1000 turntable rig. Expecting to laugh it off the
turntable, he was startled to find that the LP sounded better than the HD
download through his $7000 DAC!.


The myth that is hidden in this anecdote is the idea that human preferences,
which Science knows to be very capricious, has nothing to do with the
outcome, and that the perception of better sound described therein was
actually a reliable objective truth.


The truth hidden in the myth of this anecdote is that if people think that
the LP sounds superior to digital, then it does. The reason might be, as
someone else suggested that the CDs were substandard transfers of the
masters, and even though I don't believe that (I have all of the Mercury CDs
that interest me and for the most part, Ms. Fine did a splendid job), it
might have some merit. The audio hobby is about personal enjoyment of music
more than it about absolutes. We can tell someone that cables and
interconnects all sound the exactly the same, but if he believes otherwise,
then what of it? Sure, I think it's criminal that companies like Nordost and
Crystal are selling interconnects that cost multiple thousands of dollars and
perform no differently than a pair of throw-away interconnect cables costing
pennies, but if someone thinks that their many thousands of dollars
investment in cables and interconnects has improved the sound of their stereo
systems, who am I (or you, for that matter) to tell them they've been ripped
off. If they can afford that kind of bling, the I say let them have at it!

BTW, the stereo system owner in this anecdote called me last night to tell me
that he'd spent one of the best audio weekends of his life. After I left,
Friday, he dug into his FIL's record collection looking for treasures and
thoroughly enjoyed his voyage of discovery. I say, good on him!
  #15   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
KH KH is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 137
Default LP still better than Digital?

On 6/18/2012 4:44 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 05:50:32 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in ):

"Audio wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 13:42:09 -0700, wrote
(in ):

On Saturday, June 16, 2012 10:31:54 AM UTC-4, Audio Empire wrote:
I can hear the howls of derision now from certain parties who post here
regularly. I'm out of my mind. There can just be no other explanation
for
it!

Actually, what you'll hear is a big yawn. Cuz we've heard it all
before, too many times.

There are some who post here regularly who have so much invested in LP
being
inferior to EVERYTHING, that those are the folks from whom I expected (and
still expect) the howls of derision.


Trust me, my investment in digital audio or just audio seriously pales
compared to the aforementioned investment in equipment with highly
questionable price/performance.

If I'm prejudiced against what he has, he must be 100 times+ more prejudiced
against what I have.


Who said I was talking about you?


Ahem, I should have thought that to be self-evident...though maybe not
confined to him :-)


Besides, no one is talking about the
equipment here, the mention of which is just background


Speak for yourself. I'm coveting those Sashas no matter what you say.
Never met a Watt/Puppy that didn't sound hollow in the mids to me, but
the Sasha changed that. Over twice the price of my demo Sophias however,
so...

- to set the stage,
as it were. The "howls of derision" would come from the premise and the
conclusion, that even a modest LP rig can outperform a $7000 - and highly
touted - DAC.


I don't think the modest LP rig can outperform a good digital 'rig' in
any objective, measurable sense. Doesn't mean you don't enjoy the sound
of the LP rig more though, which is what counts.

Keith



  #16   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default LP still better than Digital?

On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 19:30:02 -0700, KH wrote
(in article ):

On 6/18/2012 4:44 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 05:50:32 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in ):

"Audio wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 13:42:09 -0700, wrote
(in ):

On Saturday, June 16, 2012 10:31:54 AM UTC-4, Audio Empire wrote:
I can hear the howls of derision now from certain parties who post here
regularly. I'm out of my mind. There can just be no other explanation
for
it!

Actually, what you'll hear is a big yawn. Cuz we've heard it all
before, too many times.

There are some who post here regularly who have so much invested in LP
being
inferior to EVERYTHING, that those are the folks from whom I expected (and
still expect) the howls of derision.

Trust me, my investment in digital audio or just audio seriously pales
compared to the aforementioned investment in equipment with highly
questionable price/performance.

If I'm prejudiced against what he has, he must be 100 times+ more
prejudiced
against what I have.


Who said I was talking about you?


Ahem, I should have thought that to be self-evident...though maybe not
confined to him :-)


It's still an presumption on Arny's part. 8^)


Besides, no one is talking about the
equipment here, the mention of which is just background


Speak for yourself. I'm coveting those Sashas no matter what you say.


I understand. They are very good (although different, I don't think that they
are any better than my Martin-Logans). I could happily live with either.


Never met a Watt/Puppy that didn't sound hollow in the mids to me, but
the Sasha changed that. Over twice the price of my demo Sophias however,
so...


What I thought ruined the Watt/Puppy was the Wow. Every time I went to my
local Wilson emporium, I had to ask them to turn the Wow off. Sure, it filled
in the low bass, but at the expense of the rest of the presentation.

- to set the stage,
as it were. The "howls of derision" would come from the premise and the
conclusion, that even a modest LP rig can outperform a $7000 - and highly
touted - DAC.


I don't think the modest LP rig can outperform a good digital 'rig' in
any objective, measurable sense. Doesn't mean you don't enjoy the sound
of the LP rig more though, which is what counts.


My point precisely. It's the results that count.
  #17   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected] outsor@city-net.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 122
Default LP still better than Digital?

Each time this topic has another life cycle I go again to a test to settle
it.

Having its origin in this group a digital copy was made from an lp. A
blind test was done to see if which was playing at any given time could be
determined beyond guessing alone. It could not. Whatever was on the lp
was captured in the digital to the degree source could not be determined.

So when we see an lp and a digital recording compared in the present case
we must first conclude based on the previous test, that something in the
content was altered in going from lp to digital. The tests are different
of course. In the previous test it made no matter which was preferred
because if no difference could be spotted it was a mute question. If in
the current test differences so large as to evoke preferences are heard our
conclusion about change in content is also warrented.

In the first test "better" was the same. In the current test it was
different but has next to no relevance on the question of "better" because
we must conclude the content is different. The "better" is the original
content not the medium.

  #18   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default LP still better than Digital?

On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:42:48 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...


Several moths ago, his father-in-law passed away leaving him a
considerable
classical record collection. Our friend had no record player but his
Classe
preamp did come with a phono preamp option. Not really being all that
interested in records, but being nonetheless curious about the record
collection he'd inherited, he purchased a Music Hall MMF5.1 turntable
ensemble for around $900 complete with arm and "Music Hall" branded MM
cartridge (which I suspect is really a British Goldring).

Doesn't even sound like the best stuff or even anything close.


I believe that that's part of his point.


His alleged point seems to be confusing personal preference with some kind
of technological difference.


Wrong, again, Arny. It's your prejudice against vinyl that showing here, not
mine.

My point was to show several things: Sounding great and being accurate can be
two different things. And while there can be no doubt that digital done right
is certainly technically superior to analog in every way (I look at it this
way. When you switch between the state-of-the-art mike feed and the digital
recording itself, and cannot hear ANY difference, then the recording format,
while possibly still not perfect, is certainly better than the microphone one
is recording, and better than that you cannot get), it doesn't mean that
commercially sold digital recordings, whether Red Book or some high-end
format like DSD or 24/192 will necessarily sound better than the vinyl
release that came first. Any other agenda that you might ascribe to my
anecdote, is purely of your own making.
  #19   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default LP still better than Digital?

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:22:17 -0700, wrote
(in article ):

Each time this topic has another life cycle I go again to a test to settle
it.

Having its origin in this group a digital copy was made from an lp. A
blind test was done to see if which was playing at any given time could be
determined beyond guessing alone. It could not. Whatever was on the lp
was captured in the digital to the degree source could not be determined.


Yes, that mirrors both my experience and my expectations as well. Now, If
it's so easy to do this right, and if it was so easy for me to take my Dolby
'A', 1/2 track, 15 ips analog master tapes and copy them to DAT and finally
to Red Book CD and have the DATs and the CDs made from the DATs sound EXACTLY
like the analog masters, then why would it be so difficult for record
companies with unlimited resources to take their vault masters and make a
decent CD from them? But it certainly seems to be that difficult when they
can't even make a CD sound as good as the LP, never mind the master tapes!

So when we see an lp and a digital recording compared in the present case
we must first conclude based on the previous test, that something in the
content was altered in going from lp to digital.


I suspect that the original vault masters weren't used, but instead, the CDs
and other digital copies of the analog originals was made from a
multigenerational copy - perhaps in many cases even an LP cutting master full
of cutting moves not appropriate to making digital copies. It must be
something along those lines because the process couldn't be simpler: Thread
up the master tape, rewind it, set the level into digital recorder so as not
to overmodulate, hit record, on the digital machine, then hit play on the
analog master. What could be easier?

The tests are different
of course. In the previous test it made no matter which was preferred
because if no difference could be spotted it was a mute question. If in
the current test differences so large as to evoke preferences are heard our
conclusion about change in content is also warrented.

In the first test "better" was the same. In the current test it was
different but has next to no relevance on the question of "better" because
we must conclude the content is different. The "better" is the original
content not the medium.


Of course in my anecdote, we have no idea which of the copies sounded the
most like the masters since we don't have the masters (originals) to compare
to. I can only hope that the LP is a closer approximation to the master than
are either the HiRez copies, the Red Book CD, or the SACD, because they
definitely sound less like "real music" to all concerned.


  #21   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default LP still better than Digital?

On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 18:11:00 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:22:17 -0700, wrote
(in article ):


In the first test "better" was the same. In the current test it was
different but has next to no relevance on the question of "better"
because
we must conclude the content is different. The "better" is the original
content not the medium.


Of course in my anecdote, we have no idea which of the copies sounded the
most like the masters since we don't have the masters (originals) to
compare
to. I can only hope that the LP is a closer approximation to the master
than
are either the HiRez copies, the Red Book CD, or the SACD, because they
definitely sound less like "real music" to all concerned.


My suggestion would be to make a digital copy of the CD - any CD - and mix
it with some uncorrelated noise, maybe even some blank groove noise ( a
silent track if you can find one) and see if the "magic" of the LP comes
through. The artifacts of LP reproduction are the only difference between
the two media (aside from bass reproduction), and I predict that they must
constitute the reason for all this discussion.

Gary Eickmeier


No, that's not the only difference. LPs are EQ'd differently than CD
production (if done right). Besides this test has been done and it is
definitely NOT the reason these LPS and digital copies sound so different.
  #22   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Peter Wieck Peter Wieck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,418
Default LP still better than Digital?

On Saturday, June 16, 2012 10:31:54 AM UTC-4, Audio Empire wrote:
I can hear the howls of derision now from certain parties who post here=

=20
regularly. I'm out of my mind. There can just be no other explanation for=

it!

Mpfffff.

I will accept "sounds different" and I will even accept "sounds better" as =
long as you add "to the two of you". Hey. That is why there are many flavor=
s of ice-cream, and why stuff like Nutella or Bovril or SenSen still exists=
.. De gustibus non est disputandum.=20

As to trouncing a $7,000 DAC, that is to be expected rather than to be a su=
rprise. Given that after the first $150 or so the remainder is eyewash, smo=
ke and mirrors one will be inevitably disappointed with any results out of =
such a box assuming an honest listener is giving an honest opinion both rar=
e commodities.=20

On the other hand, many here, including this person, still maintains a viny=
l system or systems. And still takes pleasure in it. Along with tape, casse=
tte, CDs, OTA tuner and HD tuner. And take pleasure in all of them. Which i=
s better is a function of many things several of which are not rational.=20

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

  #23   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default LP still better than Digital?

On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 16:23:31 -0700, Peter Wieck wrote
(in article ):

On Saturday, June 16, 2012 10:31:54 AM UTC-4, Audio Empire wrote:
I can hear the howls of derision now from certain parties who post here=

=20
regularly. I'm out of my mind. There can just be no other explanation for=

it!

Mpfffff.

I will accept "sounds different" and I will even accept "sounds better" as =
long as you add "to the two of you". Hey. That is why there are many flavor=
s of ice-cream, and why stuff like Nutella or Bovril or SenSen still exists=
. De gustibus non est disputandum.=20

As to trouncing a $7,000 DAC, that is to be expected rather than to be a su=
rprise. Given that after the first $150 or so the remainder is eyewash, smo=
ke and mirrors one will be inevitably disappointed with any results out of =
such a box assuming an honest listener is giving an honest opinion both rar=
e commodities.=20

On the other hand, many here, including this person, still maintains a viny=
l system or systems. And still takes pleasure in it. Along with tape, casse=
tte, CDs, OTA tuner and HD tuner. And take pleasure in all of them. Which i=
s better is a function of many things several of which are not rational.=20

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA


When one source of a performance sounds constricted, compressed and strained
with a harsh top end and/or flabby bass and the same performance from another
source is NONE of those things, but is, instead clean, with no OBVIOUS
constriction or compression with a silky sounding top end and good taut bass
with good extension, then that second presentation sounds better and more
musical than the first. It's really that simple.

There are lots of reasons why that might be so, and none of them really have
anything to do with digital vs analog, per se. It has to do with the quality
of the source material which, in these cases, would be so-called master
tapes, which might not be microphone masters at all (and in fact probably
aren't). But are rather third or fourth generation copies and might even be
LP mastering copies that have been eq'd and compressed (with all the bass
summed to the left channel) with LP cutting in mind. It also may be because
these later CD transfers were indifferently mastered by people who don't
really care what they sound like ("...this stuff is fifty-plus years old. Who
cares about the sound?"). You never know.

I have all of the RCA Red Seals remastered by BMG to SACD. I figured they
ought to sound great because they are SACD. I bought the whole catalogue
(some 60 discs) while they were available. They certainly sounded OK, and
when they didn't come up to expectations, I put it down to master tape
deterioration. Well, then JVC started to send me some of their Red Book XRCDs
of many of these same titles. I was flabbergasted at how much better these
JVC XRCDs sounded than the same performances on SACD! It was hard to believe
that both came from the same master tape! The difference was, apparently,
that JVC had access to the microphone masters of some of these recordings and
they REALLY carefully made their Red Book CDs from those. The SACDs - well,
who knows?

Also, and I'm not saying this to be unkind, anyone who thinks that all DACs
sound alike (as you seem to be saying) haven't really listened to different
DACs in double-blind sessions. They do not sound the same. They may sound
superficially similar, but they differ in the details. Things like soundstage
presentation, depth, separation of instruments in the orchestral sound field
and high frequency distortion are all over the place from DAC to DAC. These
things are readily heard in a controlled DBT by anyone who cares to listen
carefully. Sure I've run into people who have sat-in on DAC DBTs and have
sworn that they cannot hear these things, but it's been my experience that
such listeners have come into these tests with a chip already firmly in place
on their shoulder and something to prove in their hearts. Take away what you
will from that.

Audio_Empire

  #24   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Paul D. Spiegel Paul D. Spiegel is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default LP still better than Digital?

I mostly agree with Audio_Engine. While it's fun to debate formats it is
also a little silly. I have LP's that sound great and I have LP's that
are sound awful. I have CD's that sound wonderful and others that are
nearly unlistenable. There are many variables that make generalizations
difficult.

The August 2012 _Absolute_Sound_ has a nice article by Robert Harley on
the audio production chain that can result in a lovely or dreadful digital
recording. Quite interesting.

The LP is a remarkable technical achievement that still can make excellent
music. It is almost incredible that it works as well as it does by
dragging a little needle through a spiral groove. I am not throwing my
records away anytime soon and you can still pick up great tunes at the
swap meet for very little $$.

So after my caveat about generalizations I will offer my opinion of the
relative merits of the available recorded media with my own playback
equipment:

SACD - The best sound is from the format didn't quite catch on. Expensive.
I will only purchase my very favorites or when available at close-out
prices. I have about 30 SACD's.

LP - A clean quiet disc of a good recording is next best. I have built a
collection of 2000+ over the years and am still adding to it via swap meet
and yard sale. Many are delightful historical objects to own. I can't
bring myself to buy new discs at $25 though.

CD - Digital recording and playback has come a long ways in the last 15
years or so. There is a universe of available music at reasonable prices.
My collection is at about 1500 discs. Still below a good recording on a
clean LP, IMHO, but capable of providing an enjoyable and moving musical
experience.

MP3 - Can't beat the convenience and the ultimate in portability. At best
sounds washed out to me, somewhat like a cassette.

I don't have any experience with the high bit/sample rate digital
recordings yet. I imagine that they can sound very good and perhaps rival
SACD. Of course, they are subject to the quality of the analog to digital
chain as described in Mr. Harley's article.

Paul
South Pasadena, CA

  #25   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default LP still better than Digital?

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 04:36:42 -0700, Paul D. Spiegel wrote
(in article ):

I mostly agree with Audio_Engine. While it's fun to debate formats it is
also a little silly. I have LP's that sound great and I have LP's that
are sound awful. I have CD's that sound wonderful and others that are
nearly unlistenable. There are many variables that make generalizations
difficult.

The August 2012 _Absolute_Sound_ has a nice article by Robert Harley on
the audio production chain that can result in a lovely or dreadful digital
recording. Quite interesting.

The LP is a remarkable technical achievement that still can make excellent
music. It is almost incredible that it works as well as it does by
dragging a little needle through a spiral groove. I am not throwing my
records away anytime soon and you can still pick up great tunes at the
swap meet for very little $$.

So after my caveat about generalizations I will offer my opinion of the
relative merits of the available recorded media with my own playback
equipment:

SACD - The best sound is from the format didn't quite catch on. Expensive.
I will only purchase my very favorites or when available at close-out
prices. I have about 30 SACD's.


I have hundreds of SACDs, and I have to say that they are as variable as any
other commercial format. I have great-sounding SACDs and I have mediocre
sounding SACDs.

LP - A clean quiet disc of a good recording is next best. I have built a
collection of 2000+ over the years and am still adding to it via swap meet
and yard sale. Many are delightful historical objects to own. I can't
bring myself to buy new discs at $25 though.


I too have over 2000 LPs. Like anything else they run the gamut from dreadful
to truly magical. At their best, it's hard to imagine anything being better.

CD - Digital recording and playback has come a long ways in the last 15
years or so. There is a universe of available music at reasonable prices.
My collection is at about 1500 discs. Still below a good recording on a
clean LP, IMHO, but capable of providing an enjoyable and moving musical
experience.


This is not my experience. My experience tells me that a CD, done right, is
about as close to perfect as one could want. I have some JVC XRCD titles of
both (British) Decca and especially RCA victor Red Seal titles that sound so
great that they make the same titles, mastered by BMG to SACD, sound truly
wretched by comparison.

MP3 - Can't beat the convenience and the ultimate in portability. At best
sounds washed out to me, somewhat like a cassette.


MP3 is OK for background music and Internet Radio, but that's pretty much
all. I can't stand to listen to listen to it on headphones and by the time
that you kick-up the data rate so that MP3s are listenable on headphones, you
might as well switch to FLAC or Apple Lossless Compression (ALC) because
there is no longer that big of a difference between the size of the files!

I don't have any experience with the high bit/sample rate digital
recordings yet. I imagine that they can sound very good and perhaps rival
SACD. Of course, they are subject to the quality of the analog to digital
chain as described in Mr. Harley's article.


I record in DSD, which is the SACD format. Unfortunately, I can't make SACD
recordings from those DSD files because the disc format is NOT straight DSD.
It involves special formating as well as some lossless compression (I've been
told). IOW, burning a DSD file to a blank DVD does not an SACD yield and SACD
authoring software is NOT reasonable ($5K for the cheapest app I've seen).
However, I do have software called "Audiogate" that will allow a DSD file to
be "translated" into Linear PCM and from that I can make everything from a
24-bit/192 KHz DVD-Audio Disc down to an MP3. Mostly I make 24/192 DVDs
(using Discwelder Bronze) and Red Book (16/44.1) CDs (using Audacity) for
myself and for clients. Of course, I've experimented with other formats and
varying bit-rates. Here is what I have found: 24-bits sounds noticeably
cleaner than does 16-bit, however, there is no advantage whatsoever to
sampling-rates above 48KHz. I can compare 24-bit discs made at 88.2KHz,
96KHz, 176.4KHz, and 192 KHz and NOBODY can tell the difference in the same
material laid-down in different data rates in a DBT. This is the easiest kind
of DBT to facilitate. Merely burn a DVD-A with the same cut burned at the
different sampling rates and in random order, slap the disc on a player that
will play DVD-A and run it through either the player's internal DAC, or use a
good external DAC, and let the disc play. Then let the listeners decide which
is which. They can't. In fact several people that I have run this test for
have questioned whether or not I actually recorded the sample cut in various
sampling rates and suggested that they were all the same. I had to take the
masking tape off of the player's vacuum fluorescent display on the player
and SHOW them that the cuts were made at 48, 88.2, 96, 176,.4 and 192 KHz!

As for digital's accuracy, as I said before, when the recording sounds
EXACTLY like the mike feed when the monitor headphones are switched between
the mike and the recording (on a digital recorder with read-after-write
capability such as the Marantz PMD671), that's about as accurate as it gets.
It means that, for all intents and purposes, the recording chain (from the
microphone-on, anyway) is as totally transparent as it needs to be.


Paul
South Pasadena, CA




  #26   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default LP still better than Digital?

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:08:42 -0700, ScottW wrote
(in article ):

On Jun 26, 4:36=A0am, "Paul D. Spiegel" wrote:

LP - A clean quiet disc of a good recording is next best. =A0I have built=

a
collection of 2000+ over the years and am still adding to it via swap mee=

t
and yard sale. =A0Many are delightful historical objects to own. =A0I can=

't
bring myself to buy new discs at $25 though.


Out of a hundred or so used records I've found maybe one or two that
are clean and quiet. People who dump their collections at the yard
sales, swap meets, and thrift stores don't appear to generally be
people who ever knew or cared to bother with proper care of
vinyl....and still more played their old vinyl on BSR groove grinders
that no amount of cleaning can overcome.


That is unfortunately true. I've been to estate sales where some elderly gent
has passed away, and found well cared-for LP collections, but at flea
markets, garage sales, and yard sales, you'd be damn lucky to find anything
worth buying (although I did find a perfect unopened copy of
Rimsky-Korsakov's "Tale of the Tsar Sultan" and "Russian Easter Overture" on
London once for $1!).

IME there is far more clean and quiet bang for the buck in a Classic
records or Analogue Productions reissue than all the swap meets in
SoCal.


Can't argue with that!
  #27   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Dick Pierce[_2_] Dick Pierce[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 151
Default LP still better than Digital?

Audio Empire wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:08:42 -0700, ScottW wrote
Out of a hundred or so used records I've found maybe one or two that
are clean and quiet. People who dump their collections at the yard
sales, swap meets, and thrift stores don't appear to generally be
people who ever knew or cared to bother with proper care of
vinyl....and still more played their old vinyl on BSR groove grinders
that no amount of cleaning can overcome.


That is unfortunately true. I've been to estate sales where some elderly gent
has passed away, and found well cared-for LP collections, but at flea
markets, garage sales, and yard sales, you'd be damn lucky to find anything
worth buying (although I did find a perfect unopened copy of
Rimsky-Korsakov's "Tale of the Tsar Sultan" and "Russian Easter Overture" on
London once for $1!).


Or the time I went to our local dump and found a large box
containing 18 volumes of the Deutsche Grammophon Beethoven
Bicentennial Collection maybe 60 LPs altogether. Each one
unopened, unplayed, no mildew, each and every one in
absolutely pristine, new condition. Oh, the box was the original
shipping carton, as well. A week later, I went back and
managed to grab maybe 1/4 of the Telefunken Bach Cantata
collection, many of which were still in their shrinkrap.

The whole mess, someone was throwing away.

--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+

  #28   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default LP still better than Digital?

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 16:33:42 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:08:42 -0700, ScottW wrote
Out of a hundred or so used records I've found maybe one or two that
are clean and quiet. People who dump their collections at the yard
sales, swap meets, and thrift stores don't appear to generally be
people who ever knew or cared to bother with proper care of
vinyl....and still more played their old vinyl on BSR groove grinders
that no amount of cleaning can overcome.


That is unfortunately true. I've been to estate sales where some elderly
gent
has passed away, and found well cared-for LP collections, but at flea
markets, garage sales, and yard sales, you'd be damn lucky to find anything
worth buying (although I did find a perfect unopened copy of
Rimsky-Korsakov's "Tale of the Tsar Sultan" and "Russian Easter Overture"
on
London once for $1!).


Or the time I went to our local dump and found a large box
containing 18 volumes of the Deutsche Grammophon Beethoven
Bicentennial Collection maybe 60 LPs altogether. Each one
unopened, unplayed, no mildew, each and every one in
absolutely pristine, new condition. Oh, the box was the original
shipping carton, as well. A week later, I went back and
managed to grab maybe 1/4 of the Telefunken Bach Cantata
collection, many of which were still in their shrinkrap.

The whole mess, someone was throwing away.



I'd say you were very, very lucky, Dick. How did you manage to stumble on
them?
  #29   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default LP still better than Digital?

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:12:50 -0700, ScottW wrote
(in article ):

On Jun 26, 3:53=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

MP3 is OK for background music and Internet Radio, but that's pretty much
all. I can't stand to listen to listen to it on headphones and by the tim=

e
that you kick-up the data rate so that MP3s are listenable on headphones,=

you
might as well switch to FLAC or Apple Lossless Compression (ALC) because
there is no longer that big of a difference between the size of the files=

!

Have you tried variable bit rate? I've just been using Windows Media
player variable bit rate and highest quality. Sounds pretty good to
me though I haven't paid much attention to file size. I'd use
lossless but my old Sansa clip doesn't supports it.

ScottW


No, I haven't. I use Apple Lossless for ripping discs for portable use on my
iPod Touch, and don't need compression for anything else except Internet
radio, and of course, I have no control over what the individual radio
stations do.
  #30   Report Post  
Stager Stager is offline
Junior Member
 
Posts: 6
Default

[quote=... and of course, I have no control over what the individual radio
stations do.[/QUOTE]

That ain't necessarily so.

I use a DBX 118 dynamic range enhancer at about a 1:1.4 expansion ratio between my Mac MR-71 and preamp.

The music, what little decent music is still going over the air, gets back some of the life the stations squeezed out of it.
Not a perfect fix, by any means, but without it the music is lifeless. I wouldn't be without it.

MS

Last edited by Stager : August 13th 12 at 04:26 AM
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
digital photography vs. digital audio [email protected] Pro Audio 31 May 10th 07 02:27 PM
Mac Pro digital output Look for a set of speakers with digital input Maya Pro Audio 0 November 12th 06 08:26 AM
digital recodring equiptment (Sony TCD-D8, SBM-1, Core Sound mics and digital I/O cable) - ends tomorrow SC Miata Marketplace 0 February 8th 04 05:40 AM
FA: digital recodring equiptment (Sony TCD-D8, SBM-1, Core Sound mics and digital I/O cable) SC Miata Marketplace 0 February 2nd 04 12:40 AM
Connections between digital mixer and a digital recorder? psongman Pro Audio 7 October 17th 03 06:38 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:05 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"