Why every music lover needs to buy a turntable - discuss.

I would hardly call it an "uniformed" attack. Everything I said is based on the truth. You don't own a turntable. I didn't make any "gross exaggerations" either. I don't need to "reposition" the opposition's case because they have clearly elucidated their position. We have people who are so anti-analog they have a mantra that says "Not one snap or pop will be tolerated."

Tim, you need to join an old geezer's debate team because you clearly live to argue. Hopefully you will join an old geezers with bad memories debate team so every time you trot out your old, tired arguments the other old geezers will think they are hearing it for the first time and will be in awe of your perceptions of reality.

Listening to one of my favourite Prog Rock albums on vinyl right now. The distortion is almost orgasmic!

Johnny Vinyl said:

Listening to one of my favourite Prog Rock albums on vinyl right now. The distortion is almost orgasmic!

Click to expand...

Yeah, but their digital orgasm is better John.

mep said:

I would hardly call it an "uniformed" attack. Everything I said is based on the truth. You don't own a turntable. I didn't make any "gross exaggerations" either. I don't need to "reposition" the opposition's case because they have clearly elucidated their position. We have people who are so anti-analog they have a mantra that says "Not one snap or pop will be tolerated."

Tim, you need to join an old geezer's debate team because you clearly live to argue. Hopefully you will join an old geezers with bad memories debate team so every time you trot out your old, tired arguments the other old geezers will think they are hearing it for the first time and will be in awe of your perceptions of reality.

Click to expand...

Well, even though you never stop the argument without the last word yourself, Mark, I don't think you should join that debate team with me. Your skills are too weak:

People who don't own vinyl rigs or who own crappy old vinyl rigs will continue to...

Click to expand...

You just made my points again, thanks. As a reminder, they are not about snaps or pops or even vinyl, really. They are about a style of interaction that is personal, dismissive, insulting and insubstantial. I really have nothing left to say that wouldn't take me way outside of the WBF rules of engagement, so I am really done. Though I suspect you'll take another shot.

Tim

mep said:

Yeah, but their digital orgasm is better John.

Click to expand...

The problem defined: Tom throws numbers out there and then obfuscates when asked where these figures came from. The reason why: these numbers come from 50-60 year old papers (yes I have the same JAES papers here) where they used crappy conical styli (that needed a quarter on top to track), tone arms that resonated like a Shake Weight and tables that were simply bad platforms. Using this info and offering it up as gospel is like me taking a biology research paper from the early '50s to justify that DNA is just junk material in the cell. Not to mention crappy test records. (Yes some turned out to be miscut leading to erroneous conclusions again.) Not to mention there's no mention of cartridge alignment nor breaking the distortions down into lateral and vertical modulations (vertical numbers given the system used for stereo LPs are far, far less important than lateral). Not to mention there's no mention of the "geometry" chosen when or if they even did when aligning the cartridge. So is anyone surprised by the numbers the author's obtained?

Jump ahead 20 years to the seminal Maeier and Risch article in Audio magazine where they show the importance of SRA vs VTA in reducing record distortions. Again no mention of azimuth treatment (though that may be of limited usefulness given at best they were using a hyper-elliptical profile) and we're still stuck on conical styli. But again the numbers are reduced a minimum factor of five times less than Tom claims (one can also see the effect of SRA on distortion in the Eminent Technology owners manual).

Jump ahead 30 more years and we're using cartridges that are less resonant and fine line contact profiles. Arms employ exotic, non-resonant materials, world's better bearings, exhibit vanishingly low levels of resonance (and rather than multiple peaks - have one resonant peak) and the best of which are either 12-inch (as compared to 9-inches) or linear tracking. Tables whose immunity to the outside environments pushes the limits. All of which leads to improved groove tracing-read the amount of time that the stylus (aka less cartridge jitter) stays in intimate contact with the record groove-and again resulting in much reduced distortion.

So again how do you set your cartridge up Tom?

I think in defense of Tim he has made it abundantly clear that his preference for digitial is purely that...a preference. He has not dissed vinyl, but he does ask questions when his preferred media is challenged. That, to me, is fair game. He may have said this or that, like we all have said this or that, but I've never read where he says that his preferred format is superior. Much like I do in my posts, he leaves preference to the user and accepts it.

When you have intelligent, strong-willed and witty people discussing an issue, the temptation to get in the last word is strong.......no one wins or loses, no one (least of all me) cares who does, but I enjoy the repartee. . So please, carry on!

MylesBAstor said:

Again, when was the last time you had an analog system? I just love when people make judgements based on erroneous or dated information. Once again, the real issue was always and is much less currently, playback, not the mastering step. So this makes your whole argument moot. ...

Click to expand...

I see. Finding yourself unable to explain how D2D results in fewer steps from the lathe to vinyl, you try to drag a red herring across the path. What you're asking is irrelevant. The production steps haven't changed in 30 years.

MylesBAstor said:

Inquiring minds want to know when was the last time you compared either a master or safety copy of a recording with its vinyl counterpart?

Click to expand...

You're not inquiring, you're trying to discredit my knowledge. The last time was 1983, Genesis - Genesis, the first pressing in NZ had an overcut in the first track. No-one believed me, I ended up showing it to the mastering engineer at Polygram. He had the copy master because he made the bin masters for the cassette duplicators. (Vinyl was cut and pressed at EMI.) Although I was apparently the only one in the country to complain, they eventually re-cut it. (They applied a roll-off below 60 Hz, which was a shame because the bass was one of the stand-out parts of the record. Not especially deep, nothing below 40 Hz, but a beautiful sound. It's one record I was glad to get on CD.)

MylesBAstor said:

As for digital degradation, have to disagree. See the article I wrote years ago for TAS on how the same 1630 tape done by Bernie Grundman sent to two different CD manufacturing plants (one in the US and one in Canada) sounded totally different.

Click to expand...

I recall it being discussed on Gabe Weiner's list some years back. The consensus was that the differences went away when a jitter-resistant DAC was used.

Unfortunately people oversimplify very interesting things making these debates frivolous and sometimes even childish. Preference is one of these things. We all know about Tim preference, and as he has not been able to state anything of intrinsic value to support it coming from his experience, IMHO its weight in an audiophile debate is low. Bruce B, Jack, Myles, Mike Lavigne, Michael Fremer and Gary have repeatedly presented arguments on the analog versus digital debate, giving very direct indications about the systems, recordings and their experience - for an audiophile community these collective findings expressed along many years in many places are enough to express much more than an individual preference, and am I happy that in most aspects I agree with them. We should remember that the ultimate test of the quality of sound reproduction is carried by the expression of preferences, properly formulated and analyzed.

Debating the classical distortions and noise, reducing them to single figures, and vinyl manufacturing details does not add any thing new or real illumination to this debate, except forcing us to realize that the people making digital equipments and recordings still have a lot to learn. And until they manage to overcome their inability with digital equipment, making it adequate to the purposes of stereo sound reproduction using current high-end equipment and rooms, people who prefer the analog will go on claiming its superiority for the purpose of their own listening. We should remember that our opinions are about implementations and recordings - it is what we listen to.

garylkoh said:

My OP was that two different mix/masters are being delivered by the record label. (Un)fortunately, the more dynamic mix seems to be being put on vinyl and unavailable on digital - which leads me to believe (erroneously as the case may seem) that if you are a music lover, you need to buy a turntable.

Click to expand...

I get that, Gary. And apologize for my part in your thread's derailment. There really only a few people on this board who are the living embodiment of the hilarious batman and robin cartoon below. My weakness is not hard to admit: I find it almost impossible not to slap back.

Tim

garylkoh said:

Why do we care who wins and who loses? Its classic Transactional Analysis - I'm OK, you're not OK - is a game that people play. I enjoy vinyl with its inherent distortion (improving over the years). I also enjoy digital with it's necessary noise shaping (also improving over the years).

My OP was that two different mix/masters are being delivered by the record label. (Un)fortunately, the more dynamic mix seems to be being put on vinyl and unavailable on digital - which leads me to believe (erroneously as the case may seem) that if you are a music lover, you need to buy a turntable.

Click to expand...

Maybe not a good example as the album was done and delivered well before CD was a thought, but the UK Harvest of DSOTM and the immense bass-line delivered on TIME has yet to be duplicated with the same heft on any digital format I've heard.

mep said:

Yeah, but their digital orgasm is better John.

Click to expand...

Well, at least it's quieter

jazdoc said:

Well, at least it's quieter

Click to expand...

In that context quiet is not a plus. Noise equals emotion.

Digital vs. analog LP....Digital vs. Reel to Reel.
The question should be perhaps... which format vs. real live music.

Personally, I couldn't give a hoot what the format is...so long as it sounds more like 'live' music to me. To start falling back on measurements ( which BTW begs the question..what are we actually measuring, and are we measuring EVERYTHING that the human ear is able to hear- and the brain then decode??? ) as a reason why a particular format is in one's "opinion" superior ( which BTW is all it ever is) is NOT a solid argument IMO.

This thread somehow reminds me of the time recently when a "supposed" a'phile insisted that the system he was hearing ( which included a digital front end and an analog front end) was better sounding than any "live" music that he had heard...

Let's get back to listening to music guys

jazdoc said:

Well, at least it's quieter

Click to expand...

compared to vinyl playback there's less foreplay with digital, which gives rise to the theory digital orgasms are also less intense

My next orgasm will be all analog.

jazdoc said:

Well, at least it's quieter

Click to expand...

And not as messy!

Johnny Vinyl said:

My next orgasm will be all analog.

Click to expand...

Vinyl guys use more fluids!

I think Gary, whart and myself were brothers in a past life

Mep, I have no such fantasies of converting anyone. I think I lack that televangelist charisma. LOL

I've been trying to get Keith, my first cousin, best bud and business partner to go vinyl forever. He has the same access to the gear as I do, he certainly can afford it but he won't budge. He's got a CD collection so eclectic it could make many weep.

BUT

Whenever he's here or at Jims and the needle hits the record his face is priceless. The reason he refuses to get into vinyl is that he knows that if he does he's gonna need to move just so he can store his LPs. LOL!

In any case, I've been building up a pile for him. About 100 of his favorites. I call it his starter kit. It has its own box and everything. Whenever you're ready Keith! Hehehehehehe!