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

rbbert

Well-Known Member
Dec 12, 2010
3,820
239
1,000
Reno, NV
Actually, most of that list is from the digital era, and most of them do sound better in digital (which may be SACD or hires PCM, though, as some are available that way).
 

Shaffer

New Member
Nov 2, 2012
583
3
0
NYS
Actually, most of that list is from the digital era, and most of them do sound better in digital (which may be SACD or hires PCM, though, as some are available that way).

Have you heard, say, the latest pressing of Graceland. I'm sure you haven't. OMG is it amazing. Digitally recorded or not, I've yet to hear a better version. YMMV
 

rbbert

Well-Known Member
Dec 12, 2010
3,820
239
1,000
Reno, NV
I'm only likely to hear stuff I like, and I don't care enough about Graceland to search out anything since the original CD. But I'm quite familiar with (for instance) Brothers in Arms and Alison Krause Live, and there aren't any LP's that come close to the SACD's (the MFSL for BIA, or even the original Vertigo CD, not the idiotic 2005 SACD).
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
I'm sorry you don't like it, Tim, but vinyl does sound better. I have a number of those same recordings on both formats, some as multiple pressings.

Edit: I took a look at your profile in hopes of seeing your system. Had to Google most of it. No disrespect meant, is it some sort of a head-fi-like desk setup?


I have a headphone system and I have a pair of active monitors. They're not the best anymore, but they're very good and I'd put them up against the most high-end systems from 60 cycles up. Bottom end? Nope.

Vinyl sounds different, Felix. I"m glad you enjoy it.

Tim
 

Shaffer

New Member
Nov 2, 2012
583
3
0
NYS
I have a headphone system and I have a pair of active monitors. They're not the best anymore, but they're very good and I'd put them up against the most high-end systems from 60 cycles up. Bottom end? Nope.

Vinyl sounds different, Felix. I"m glad you enjoy it.

Tim

So you do have a head-fi-type kid system. There's no need to be condescending. I wasn't just born yesterday and my system doesn't fit on a desk. In all truth, I don't even see how you have the audio setup that allows you to discuss this. You see me jumping into threads that deal with topics beyond my realm of experience and expertise? Let's at least try to stay realistic.
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
Actually, most of that list is from the digital era, and most of them do sound better in digital (which may be SACD or hires PCM, though, as some are available that way).

This is correct.

When you start with digital masters and you make vinyl, all you can do is degrade the signal. it is impossible not to. It doesn't matter how good your table or your system is, you still have to go down a couple of analog generations to get to the first pressing. Is it audible? I don't know. But anybody who understands squat about recording and reproducing analog audio knows there is no advantage there. It can't get better. It can only degrade the signal. Now, when it's all said and done, vinyl has a sound of it's own. If you like it, excellent. Enjoy. Better? In any way that has any meaning beyond your opinion and those who agree with you? Nope. You disagree? You think it's "better," not just preferred? Tell me how that master got better in the process of making a record. Provide some supporting data. Argue like a grownup.

Tim
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
So you do have a head-fi-type kid system. There's no need to be condescending. I wasn't just born yesterday and my system doesn't fit on a desk. In all truth, I don't even see how you have the audio setup that allows you to discuss this. You see me jumping into threads that deal with topics beyond my realm of experience and expertise? Let's at least try to stay realistic.

I have no idea what you mean by a headfi type kid system. I have two systems - a headphone rig and a speaker rig. My active speakers consist of 6.5" mid bass drivers and 1" silk dome tweeters, active crossovers, and separate amplifiers for each channel - 250 watts for each mid bass driver, 75 watts for each tweeter. If I had a pair of Kef LS50s and two 325 watt mono blocks, would you consider that a headfi-type kid system?

And I'm not being condescending. Vinyl does sound different and I am glad you enjoy it.

Tim
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
This is correct.

When you start with digital masters and you make vinyl, all you can do is degrade the signal. it is impossible not to. It doesn't matter how good your table or your system is, you still have to go down a couple of analog generations to get to the first pressing. Is it audible? I don't know. But anybody who understands squat about recording and reproducing analog audio knows there is no advantage there. It can't get better. It can only degrade the signal. Now, when it's all said and done, vinyl has a sound of it's own. If you like it, excellent. Enjoy. Better? In any way that has any meaning beyond your opinion and those who agree with you? Nope. You disagree? You think it's "better," not just preferred? Tell me how that master got better in the process of making a record. Provide some supporting data. Argue like a grownup.

Tim

And it's not possible to degrade the digital copy? Did you read Barry Diament's comments?

As one of the first engineers to master for CD, my opinion was always that digital was a step down from vinyl in terms of capturing the sound of the source. In fact, I said so (shyly at the time) at a very early meeting of the AES in New York when I sat on a panel of mastering engineers. Mine was the only voice in the room that said anything other than high praise for CD and digital. (It took over 20 years before I heard digital that I felt could challenge vinyl and that was only with the very few converters that could *truly* do 4x rates properly-- and only at the 4x rates, not less.)

Regarding supposedly identical CDs sounding different, there are a number of things at play. First , you mention two mastering houses. As soon as two different engineers are brought into the equation, I would withdraw any and all bets. Now, let's talk about the same engineer in all instances: I have said, since the first CD I mastered in January of 1983, that pressed CDs made at different plants (often on different lines at the same plant) all sound different from each other and that *none* sounds indistinguishable from the master from which it was made.

In my experience, this is still just as true today (though some plants make CDs that differ from the master to a much lesser degree than others do). It is true when the disc is played in any transport or player in my experience. Interestingly, when the different sounding discs are properly extracted to a computer hard drive (in a raw PCM format, such as .aif or .wav), the sonic differences go away and they now *do* sound indistinguishable from the master used to make them.
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
And it's not possible to degrade the digital copy? Did you read Barry Diament's comments?

As one of the first engineers to master for CD, my opinion was always that digital was a step down from vinyl in terms of capturing the sound of the source. In fact, I said so (shyly at the time) at a very early meeting of the AES in New York when I sat on a panel of mastering engineers. Mine was the only voice in the room that said anything other than high praise for CD and digital. (It took over 20 years before I heard digital that I felt could challenge vinyl and that was only with the very few converters that could *truly* do 4x rates properly-- and only at the 4x rates, not less.)

Regarding supposedly identical CDs sounding different, there are a number of things at play. First , you mention two mastering houses. As soon as two different engineers are brought into the equation, I would withdraw any and all bets. Now, let's talk about the same engineer in all instances: I have said, since the first CD I mastered in January of 1983, that pressed CDs made at different plants (often on different lines at the same plant) all sound different from each other and that *none* sounds indistinguishable from the master from which it was made.

In my experience, this is still just as true today (though some plants make CDs that differ from the master to a much lesser degree than others do). It is true when the disc is played in any transport or player in my experience. Interestingly, when the different sounding discs are properly extracted to a computer hard drive (in a raw PCM format, such as .aif or .wav), the sonic differences go away and they now *do* sound indistinguishable from the master used to make them.

Of course it is possible to degrade a digital copy, But that's not the point and neither is Barry's opinion. The point is that if you start with a digital master, it cannot get better on it's way to vinyl. The additional analog generations can only add noise and distortion and lose signal. There's no way to deny that and stay rooted in reality, therefore, vinyl, from the same digital master, cannot be "better" than digital. You can like it better, and I sincerely wish you all the pleasure you get from that. But generations of analog do not lose noise and distortion and gain bandwidth. It doesn't happen. To argue that it does is absurd. And that is what Shaffer was doing. Even if my system was the toy tabletop audio he'd like to believe it is, it wouldn't change that.

Tim
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
Of course it is possible to degrade a digital copy, But that's not the point and neither is Barry's opinion. The point is that if you start with a digital master, it cannot get better on it's way to vinyl. The additional analog generations can only add noise and distortion and lose signal. There's no way to deny that and stay rooted in reality, therefore, vinyl, from the same digital master, cannot be "better" than digital. You can like it better, and I sincerely wish you all the pleasure you get from that. But generations of analog do not lose noise and distortion and gain bandwidth. It doesn't happen. To argue that it does is absurd. And that is what Shaffer was doing. Even if my system was the toy tabletop audio he'd like to believe it is, it wouldn't change that.

Tim

Of course it can. You can talk about the electronics, filters, etc used in digital playback. Stuff that ain't in the signal path with analog. People gotta stop using analog measurements to evaluate digital playback. NO different than when solid-state amplifier came out.

And what are all the additional "analog generations?" There's one. They go directly from the digital copy to lacquer. Where's the extra generations? (Oh and perhaps you oughta then listen to a mastering engineer who knows what their doing like Paul Stubblebine or Bruce here do analog tape transfers; I doubt too many here/hear the difference.)

And don't wish me about liking it better. I don't listen to digital put on vinyl except in rare circumstances.
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
Of course it can. You can talk about the electronics, filters, etc used in digital playback. Stuff that ain't in the signal path with analog. People gotta stop using analog measurements to evaluate digital playback. NO different than when solid-state amplifier came out.

And what are all the additional "analog generations?" There's one. They go directly from the digital copy to lacquer. Where's the extra generations?

And don't wish me about liking it better. I don't listen to digital put on vinyl except in rare circumstances.

You got a lot of lacquers in your house, miles? It's never one. It's very rarely just two. And the argument of analog degradation through generations vs digital is not the point, and it's not one you could possibly win. This one is very simple: somebody said a digital master got "better" on its way to vinyl. I said that can't happen. The rest of the argument has been him taking uninformed shots at my listening experience and you changing the subject. Same as it ever was.

Tim
 

JackD201

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
12,308
1,425
1,820
Manila, Philippines
Yes it can happen. It all depends on how you define or what you consider better. If you hold the iron clad belief that the master must not be altered at all, then it can never be better only worse even if subjectively you or anybody else likes it more. Why stop at the master anyway? If you have an LP the source IS the LP. If you have the CD, the source IS the CD. Try and be faithful to that if you must in terms of strict dogma. You and I will never have the master unless we own it. Masters aren't really the holy grail. They are the archive from which releases for various forms are derived. That is what RE-mastering is for. Again while I respect your convictions Tim, I do not operate rigidly within the fidelity for fidelity's sake framework. I'm a consumer not an archivist.
 

rbbert

Well-Known Member
Dec 12, 2010
3,820
239
1,000
Reno, NV
The fact is that as Jack says the product offered to the consumer, whether CD, SACD, etc. or LP or even tape, is changed from the "master", and quite possibly in different ways for each format. So it is certainly possible that the path to LP results in better sound than the path to CD, regardless of the format of the original recording; it's also possible for the path to CD to result in better sound than the path to LP, and examples have already been given for each of those possibilities, which was really Gary's original premise for this thread.
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
Why? So you can tell me how much better thy vinyl sounds? I grow weary of this game...

Tunnel of Love - Bruce Springsteen
Brothers in Arms - Dire Straits
Blue Country Heart - Jorma Kaukonen
This Time - Dwight Yoakam
Alison Kraus and Union Station Live
It's Too Late To Stop Now - Van Morrison
Gershwin's World - Herbie Hancock
Pergolesi: Stabat Mater -- Andres Scholl, Barbara Bonney, Christophe Rousett and Les Talens Lyriques
Car Wheels on a Gravel Road - Lucinda Williams
Joshua Judges Roth - Lyle Lovett
Bare Bones - Madeline Peroux
Red = Luck - Patty Larkin
Graceland - Paul Simon
The List - Rosanne Cash
Just a Little Lovin' Shelby Lynn
Annunciation - The Subdudes.
Astral Weeks Live at the Hollywood Bowl - Van Morrison
Avalon Sunset - Van Morrison

Tim

No, Tim, just to know if I should expect to learn something new. Unfortunately most of the few recordings I know from your list are digital masters, not analog ones, and Graceland is one of my usual examples of great vinyl. :) Anyway I will try to listen to the unknown ones - a good way to listen to different music. Thanks.
 

Don Hills

Well-Known Member
Jun 20, 2013
366
1
323
Wellington, New Zealand
...
And what are all the additional "analog generations?" There's one. ...

There's 5 minimum, sometimes 7.

1: Tape to lacquer
2: Lacquer to matrix
3: Matrix to mother
4: Mother to stamper
5: Stamper to vinyl
If a large release is anticipated, copy mothers are made from some of the stampers before they are used.
5: Stamper to copy mother
6: Copy mother to stamper
7: Stamper to vinyl

Degradation occurs at each step.
 

mep

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
9,481
17
0
We have descended into yet another analog/digital food fight. This was all predictable, but I don't think it was what Gary had in mind when he started this thread. The thing is, we are damn good at these fights now because we have had so much practice. The only problem is that the analog guys have the better side of the argument so we always win. :p
 

puroagave

Member Sponsor
Sep 29, 2011
1,345
45
970
We have descended into yet another analog/digital food fight. This was all predictable, but I don't think it was what Gary had in mind when he started this thread. The thing is, we are damn good at these fights now because we have had so much practice. The only problem is that the analog guys have the better side of the argument so we always win. :p

or the bitching and moaning about Becks latest release from the digital-only camp - priceless! the tables have turned, for once they now know what it feels like to be a 2nd class citizen. I clearly recall the dearth of new vinyl releases during the '90s, the LPs that did appear were compressed and poorly made from what seemed like melted down bic pens (as MF would put it) the RBCD versions were often way better. ironically its the pop/rock vinyl LPs from the '90s that are now hard to find and fetch a lot of dough.
 

garylkoh

WBF Technical Expert (Speakers & Audio Equipment)
Sep 6, 2010
5,599
225
1,190
Seattle, WA
www.genesisloudspeakers.com
Yes, let's not descend into another analog/digital food fight. I'm more concerned about different mix/masters being foisted upon us in the quest for more profit.....

Take the Michael Jackson Thriller download from Acoustic Sounds (Super HiRez) as an example. The DSD download is $24.98 and the 24/96 FLAC is $17.98. The dynamic range of the DSD is far greater than the FLAC. It's a trivial task using AudioGate to convert from DSD to 24/176.4 - which HD Tracks sells for $24.98 as well.

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=michael+jackson&album=thriller

Are we being taken for a ride? Is Acoustic Sounds doing this to promote the DSD format by intentionally selling a compressed FLAC version?
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing