Of course not. No one would make the investment in cash and maintenance that analog requires unless they preferred it.
Given that the end result is exactly the same, we'll never know who's right and we're all just "postulating."
Tim
The Miracle of Analog Sound
- Thread starter mep
- Start date
Of course not. No one would make the investment in cash and maintenance that analog requires unless they preferred it.
Given that the end result is exactly the same, we'll never know who's right and we're all just "postulating."
Tim
I am a contrarian on this set up mania. I suppose it gives hobbyists something to do and exorcises their anal retentive demons.
It was demonstrated some time ago that vinyl has a built in error envelop that cannot be transcended beyond a certain point by greater precision in the set up. The only thing you accomplish by messing with the set up beyond a certain point is you wind up in a different part of the error envelope, you do not transcend it.
Vinyl is an electromechanical medium. Most successful efforts to make it sound better have to do with generating a bit less noise and a more pleasing electromechanical character i.e. high mass turntable creates a better illusion of Stygian depth to the performance, silkier high frequency playback, etc. etc. rather than actual technical improvements in information recovery. To me, this is consistent with making a musical medium just more musical. It also allows a variety of playback options with the electromechanical devices that can enhance playback pleasure in a kind of mystical and inexplicable variety of experiences.
I used to own a Sony XL55 pro cartridge from the late 70's. I rest assured that newer cartridges have not had any kind of major arithmetic or geometric improvement in playback quality. Cartridges just mostly wear out and age, and newer models are epiphanized for sales purposes.
I am not interested in arguing with anybody about it, it certainly will bring out the torches and pitchforks from those in love with their protractors, azimuth adjusters, linear trackers, and new "game changing" cartridges and turntables, and updated audio bling. I present it as I stated, a contrarian point of view.
Does it make me love vinyl less? Not a chance.
It was demonstrated some time ago that vinyl has a built in error envelop that cannot be transcended beyond a certain point by greater precision in the set up. The only thing you accomplish by messing with the set up beyond a certain point is you wind up in a different part of the error envelope, you do not transcend it.
Vinyl is an electromechanical medium. Most successful efforts to make it sound better have to do with generating a bit less noise and a more pleasing electromechanical character i.e. high mass turntable creates a better illusion of Stygian depth to the performance, silkier high frequency playback, etc. etc. rather than actual technical improvements in information recovery. To me, this is consistent with making a musical medium just more musical. It also allows a variety of playback options with the electromechanical devices that can enhance playback pleasure in a kind of mystical and inexplicable variety of experiences.
I used to own a Sony XL55 pro cartridge from the late 70's. I rest assured that newer cartridges have not had any kind of major arithmetic or geometric improvement in playback quality. Cartridges just mostly wear out and age, and newer models are epiphanized for sales purposes.
I am not interested in arguing with anybody about it, it certainly will bring out the torches and pitchforks from those in love with their protractors, azimuth adjusters, linear trackers, and new "game changing" cartridges and turntables, and updated audio bling. I present it as I stated, a contrarian point of view.
Does it make me love vinyl less? Not a chance.
Well said Doc. You made a bunch of really good points and I agree with all of them. I think that most if not all of us would agree that if we thought digital sounded better than our analog systems, we would all be mainly listening to digital vice analog.
Agreed. Keywords being "thought" and "lovers." Think what you think. Love what you will; I will not question your love; I won't even argue against analog. Tell me what you love is better than what I love in pseudo-scientific Audioenglese and I'll ask for evidence (not even proof!), other than your love, and I will argue against your presumption.
And that's where I've always found the analog proponents arguments fell apart from day 1.
Tim
Carl-I have to admit that lately a few of your posts have surprised me and this is certainly one of them. I find it odd that you would think that a system that relies on proper geometry is somehow immune to painstaking care in setup in order to extract the maximum amount of information that is available.
While we can all agree that pivoted tonearms have a small degree of error as they trace the grooves from outer to inner and that 12” arms further minimize this small error, I don’t hold this issue in the same category as not optimally setting up the arm and cartridge for maximum performance. Would you like a four wheel alignment on your expensive car performed by a mechanic that only cared if he got it close to being correct or would you rather have a master mechanic perform your alignment optimally?
Well, that would be a first because you argue against analog every chance you get. You are arguing against people who own both formats and judge for themselves on a regular basis vice someone who doesn’t own a functioning analog source and has no idea how it would sound in their system if they did. To me, that makes your points less valid because you have no personal reference of analog to judge from.
Your memories of analog in your system are so old that you don’t even have a clue as to what cartridge you used to listen to. Contrast that with people who are trying to keep up with analog and digital advancements and listen to both regularly and make informed decisions on how each format sounds. Who was president that last time you had a turntable in your system?
The last I checked, automobiles weren't part of a stereo system
The analogy holds my friend. Think about it.
Tim,
Could you write the official WBF list of pseudo-scientific Audioenglese terms? I (and perhaps others) could try to avoid them when answering your posts.
No need for a guide, micro. They're quite easy to recognize in contex. Vague. Beyond singular definition. Almost always used to imply some kind of objective superiority where ant real evidence is absent. It would be pointless to name them Out of context, because they can be as simple as "resolving" or as obtuse as ou can imagine.
Tim
Tim
It's amazing how quickly this descended into an analog vs digital debate. The question is do you have access to a SOTA rig? Good luck coming to a consensus on what that is. Whether we have gotten all from analog (phono) is unrelated to digital.
The question is two fold. Have you personally extracted all that is in the grove? Has the audiophile group as a whole produced equipment capable of recovering everything in the grove? Providing the answer to the second question is yes, the prospect of losing it somewhere down the line is significant,
After listening to the Walker tt and Airtight Supreme cartridge I would opine that anything not extracted from the grove was irrelevant.
Of course the problem remains; you often don't know what's missing until you discover it.
The question is two fold. Have you personally extracted all that is in the grove? Has the audiophile group as a whole produced equipment capable of recovering everything in the grove? Providing the answer to the second question is yes, the prospect of losing it somewhere down the line is significant,
After listening to the Walker tt and Airtight Supreme cartridge I would opine that anything not extracted from the grove was irrelevant.
Of course the problem remains; you often don't know what's missing until you discover it.
Color me shocked. It often seems like this in here.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/19280
Doesn't matter if you don't accept that listening trumps any measurement. Ergo, you don't need to listen to spout an opinion.
Until we can hold the cartridge absolutely motionless over the groove, we'll still keep improving analog playback!
Myles- if you do not mind another tortured car reference:
Formula one racing has test equipment that would make NASA blush. Not only is the car optimized for driver and course conditions pre-race, they get real time analysis over the cars telemetry. Despite all of that high tech gear, when the driver says the car is loose in turn 4, it's loose in turn 4.
The car analogy is often taken as a point of reference to prove that human do better than measurements. In car racing the driver has to interface with the machine. His or Her subjective input even if incorrect is important for the way she/he drives the car. What she/he feels rightly or wrongly has a direct impact on how the whole system (driver + car) performs. Thus is it important for the driver to feel well (rightly or wrongly) about the car. Still one has to wonder why Formula 1 team invest so much in measuring gear ...
It seems like a lost case. I cannot begin to understand how we continue to believe that our ears cannot be fooled when all of us can be (and many of us have been) fooled on a consistent and repetitive basis.
Oh Well!! Time to go back lurking on the issue
It seems like a lost case. I cannot begin to understand how we continue to believe that our ears cannot be fooled when all of us can be (and many of us have been) fooled on a consistent and repetitive basis.
Oh Well!! Time to go back lurking on the issue
I'm about to let out the analog lover's dirtiest secret. It's the condition and quality of the LP. For most people that knock analog, it's because the measurements back up to what most have likely heard, substandard LPs that have suffered groove wear, are dirty, have nicks or even scratches. The eye opener is experiencing a pristine LP where surface noise is extremely low and there are no ticks and pops. Up the ante to virgin vinyl and the increased dynamic range of 45rpm over 33 1/3rd and things get even more interesting.
Let's face it. Analog isn't for everyone even if one had a collection of LPs like those above. There are so many factors that one needs to get right and the flip side is that there are so many things that start out wrong and could go wrong in the mechanical, electrical and electro-mechanical aspects of the chain. Even set up just right, set up tends to drift over time. Set up is also non constant because LP thicknesses differ. In other words it requires a high level of involvement. I'm 42. I made my first recording of a mixed tape from LP to cassette 32 years ago. I remember my brother teaching me how to clean the records and set levels for each cut by reading the VU meters before punching REC/PLAY. The next lesson was for me to figure out if I would or wouldn't use Dolby NR. I was made cognizant of the differences between pressings and what to listen for as early as then. This holds true to this day.
When one gets a taste of a really good LP however, it could be a trigger to get even more of that experience. I can't blame folks for not wanting the hassle of the effort and expense of getting the really good software. I am that way with Tape. I know it is better than LP potential vs potential but I haven't pulled the trigger because I worry about what would happen if my machine broke and I do find the cost of Tape very high.
I suppose my LP rig could be considered SOTA or close to it. The same could be said of my CDP and SACD rigs or my Server/DAC too for that matter. Not the pinnacle perhaps, but the best I can afford. What I will say is that I've applied equal effort on both analog and digital fronts. There was a time when my gain matching on the analog front was not optimized and the CD was consistently better. I dealt with that and now LP is consistently better. I guess what I'm saying is that things aren't set in stone at least in my case. I don't want it to be a horse race. I don't want one medium to be the winner. I want to be the winner. I want to be able to enjoy both equally without having to make too many mental adjustments either way.
I could live on digital alone. I'm just glad I don't have to.
Let's face it. Analog isn't for everyone even if one had a collection of LPs like those above. There are so many factors that one needs to get right and the flip side is that there are so many things that start out wrong and could go wrong in the mechanical, electrical and electro-mechanical aspects of the chain. Even set up just right, set up tends to drift over time. Set up is also non constant because LP thicknesses differ. In other words it requires a high level of involvement. I'm 42. I made my first recording of a mixed tape from LP to cassette 32 years ago. I remember my brother teaching me how to clean the records and set levels for each cut by reading the VU meters before punching REC/PLAY. The next lesson was for me to figure out if I would or wouldn't use Dolby NR. I was made cognizant of the differences between pressings and what to listen for as early as then. This holds true to this day.
When one gets a taste of a really good LP however, it could be a trigger to get even more of that experience. I can't blame folks for not wanting the hassle of the effort and expense of getting the really good software. I am that way with Tape. I know it is better than LP potential vs potential but I haven't pulled the trigger because I worry about what would happen if my machine broke and I do find the cost of Tape very high.
I suppose my LP rig could be considered SOTA or close to it. The same could be said of my CDP and SACD rigs or my Server/DAC too for that matter. Not the pinnacle perhaps, but the best I can afford. What I will say is that I've applied equal effort on both analog and digital fronts. There was a time when my gain matching on the analog front was not optimized and the CD was consistently better. I dealt with that and now LP is consistently better. I guess what I'm saying is that things aren't set in stone at least in my case. I don't want it to be a horse race. I don't want one medium to be the winner. I want to be the winner. I want to be able to enjoy both equally without having to make too many mental adjustments either way.
I could live on digital alone. I'm just glad I don't have to.
You missed the point. Just like the driver the ear is the final arbiter. The mechanics can ignore the driver. Then they can listen to the sound of screeching tires and and twisting metal as it slams into the wall,
The ear hears what it hears. You can't change the ear. You have to change the stimulus.
The ear hears what it hears. You can't change the ear. You have to change the stimulus.
Frantz-Here is my question, and it's not soley directed to you. Bruce talked about fooling people and Gary talked about fooling people and other people have talked about fooling other people, but how many people have been fooled in their own home over their own system playing material they know well? I think it would be less likely to happen than under show conditions in an unfamiliar room with unfamiliar gear playing unfamiliar music.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |