Pretty good read. Not sure what I think of it but it was nice to see a fresh perspective .
Has there been measurements of SOTA vs average analog rig using digital methodology like he is using?Also interesting since wasn't using anything near SOTA analog rig for the tests.
I said "not sure what I think of it." That is not a free pass . It was a long read and I skimmed it. When I have a chance, I will dig into it more.Amir, I'm surprised you of all people are giving a free pass to Christine Tham's methodology.
I'll have to dig up the dog house video so you know what it is really like to be there.
Any article that is published which details why analog is superior to digital is by its very nature an excellent article and should be taken as gospel by all who read it. Failure to do so will result in the continued torture of listening to digital while deluding yourself that it really sounds good. You need to unplug yourself from the digital matrix Nemo and come back to the real world and experience the highest sound quality yet devised which is analog.
Another Audiophile (with an intentional captial A) myth. It, like so many myths, is based only in part on reality.We all listen in analogue.
Wow ! What a interesting post to a 9 year old thread !To me, SO much of the vinyl mythologizing is based on a historical revisionism of the format's lineage itself...where: it has (now) been cultivated to be looked-upon as some sort of esoteric, "LUXURY" item (*ignorant* of all the tech aspects it never was able to do right to begin with) some people feel the need to convince themselves is better for THAT reason.
For nearly four decades, the LP was *merely* the cheapest/mass-produced medium to manufacture and sell commercial music on. There was never anything technologically "superior" about it...not in: 1956, 1966, 1976, or 1986. The proof of that is; not by comparing (endless) remasters made 40-50 years later (which, ironically, the dynamic weaknesses of records do a good job of HIDING any of the signal degradation and flaws "master" tapes from unknown generations may now be wraught with)...BUT: to go back and look at what the primary (analog) competitor to records was when the source material was new. REEL TO REEL TAPE.
Reel to reel tape was/is the ONLY audio format ever descended from "the studio" to be adopted to consumer use. It was the first publicly available in two-channel ("Binaural") in 1953 (at the time: a Magnecord PT-6 transport fitted to a Magnecord BN-62 dual-channel preamplifier) and, it had a consumer library of stereo recordings already by 1956 (while the Westrex 45/45 stereo cutting lathe was still mired in development). Now, for most of the heyday of RTR (EXcluding: the mail order Columbia House utter junk of the late-'70s/early-'80s duped at 160ips from cassette masters): pre-recorded RTR "albums" were priced between $6.95 (for a 3 3/4ips Pop/Rock album on acetate base formula tape)...to: $8.95 (for a 7 1/2ips "best seller" album on better quality polyester formula tape)...to: $12.95 (during the Discrete/Quad era)...to: $29.95 (for a multiple-reel-set, 7 1/2ips recording of complete Opera titles). Contrast this, with: how records (generally) ran priced from $3.98 to $10 throughout the same period (as well as factoring in: the most entry-level decent turntable was an $85 A.R. "XA"; fitted-with the first-generation Shure V15 or a Stanton 681 of its day...while: a decent three-head/three-motor RTR *started* at $500). The differing attitude during that time (vs. what today's audio "intelligentsia" has become), though, was that even though the expense factor ostracized what had always been acknowledged (then) as the BETTER reproduction component...nobody was declaring cassette (or 8-track cartridge) to have anywhere near the sound quality standards RTR was known -and accepted- for having (in the pre-digital era). [While oppositely thesedays, for example, the vinyl crowd pooh-pooh's tape by having a ridiculous -but telling!- penchant for; either: daring to *even* suggest that their cassette decks were in the same league as 7 1/2 - 15ips, 1/4" recordings(!)...or, that: their unfamiliarity with tape's maintenance "learning curve", for them, is reason to discredit it (which would be like calling a Porsche a pile of junk because one couldn't drive a stick shift!)].
It, honestly, seems as-if the "sound quality" arguments for vinyl have this common thread involving people not liking loudness or treble(!). Why is that and how could it ever be interpreted as approaching "accurate" sound(?). Again, however, when one has had the experience of hearing (multiple) comparisons of two different analog formats against each other INSTEAD OF ONE VS. DIGITAL (using well-preserved examples played on thoroughly overhauled equipment)...even the most budget version of reel to reel tape during its '60s heyday (quarter-track stereo: though no less than played back at 7 1/2ips) BEAT THE LP COUNTERPART hands down(!). After all: for what the corresponding technologies were capable of at the time, it should have(!). When there was a dedicated quality control applied to the process: the tapes were made from, at worst, a third generation safety of the master itself. I'd wager my money on THAT being a damnsight closer to what was "intended" than what the intermediary, RIAA-squashed sub-copy was able to replicate. Case in point: the 1960s RCA reels never had "Dynagroove" encoded onto them; nor did the late-'60s/early-'70s Warner/Elektra/Atlantic and (a majority of) the A&M reels have the right channel phase-inverted with the HAECO "compatible stereo" affect (so, obviously, the dubbing source was different than what the records were pressed from). [Another] case in point: one of the most famous bad-sounding albums of all-time is the Capitol (stereo) version of The Beatles' SECOND ALBUM. The ONLY remotely-pleasing (to the point-of the material becoming a whole new revelation upon hearing) transfer of this album is: a 7 1/2ips reel to reel copy Ampex reissued/"remastered" in 1970. It even surpasses the source Capitol used for the 2004 CD in their giftbox collection (something which the vinyl-centric bootlegging crowd has even picked up on!).
I just cannot stand records having that characteristic boxy, mid-bass "hollowness" spread between L and R as well as; how the end-of-side track is ALWAYS left sounding like sludge being squeezed through a soup can(!). I recognized this immediately at a very early age (when listening between a reel to reel and a LP of the same recording). As soon as the initial "Golden Age" of Hi-Fi had worn off and passed-into becoming dominated by imported Solid State crass-consumer goods, the blunt truth of history was that most (domestic U.S.) pressings of records were garbage anyhow; save for: Monarch in L.A. (the reason A&M product held out sounding better for so long); Deutsche-Grammophon in Germany; and JVC in Japan. The only logical upside to record hunting, at this moment, would be: if one is trying to find an ORIGINAL pressing from when the *source* would be guaranteed closer to NEW (which, to me, makes A LOT more sense than banking-on a crapshoot of: 40+ year-old material artificially "brightened up" to not sound so worn and $50 for off-centered spindles on wax scuffed-up in a dodgy Eastern Europe warehouse).
To me, SO much of the vinyl mythologizing is based on a historical revisionism of the format's lineage itself...where: it has (now) been cultivated to be looked-upon as some sort of esoteric, "LUXURY" item (*ignorant* of all the tech aspects it never was able to do right to begin with) some people feel the need to convince themselves is better for THAT reason.
For nearly four decades, the LP was *merely* the cheapest/mass-produced medium to manufacture and sell commercial music on. There was never anything technologically "superior" about it...not in: 1956, 1966, 1976, or 1986. The proof of that is; not by comparing (endless) remasters made 40-50 years later (which, ironically, the dynamic weaknesses of records do a good job of HIDING any of the signal degradation and flaws "master" tapes from unknown generations may now be wraught with)...BUT: to go back and look at what the primary (analog) competitor to records was when the source material was new. REEL TO REEL TAPE.
Reel to reel tape was/is the ONLY audio format ever descended from "the studio" to be adopted to consumer use. It was the first publicly available in two-channel ("Binaural") in 1953 (at the time: a Magnecord PT-6 transport fitted to a Magnecord BN-62 dual-channel preamplifier) and, it had a consumer library of stereo recordings already by 1956 (while the Westrex 45/45 stereo cutting lathe was still mired in development). Now, for most of the heyday of RTR (EXcluding: the mail order Columbia House utter junk of the late-'70s/early-'80s duped at 160ips from cassette masters): pre-recorded RTR "albums" were priced between $6.95 (for a 3 3/4ips Pop/Rock album on acetate base formula tape)...to: $8.95 (for a 7 1/2ips "best seller" album on better quality polyester formula tape)...to: $12.95 (during the Discrete/Quad era)...to: $29.95 (for a multiple-reel-set, 7 1/2ips recording of complete Opera titles). Contrast this, with: how records (generally) ran priced from $3.98 to $10 throughout the same period (as well as factoring in: the most entry-level decent turntable was an $85 A.R. "XA"; fitted-with the first-generation Shure V15 or a Stanton 681 of its day...while: a decent three-head/three-motor RTR *started* at $500). The differing attitude during that time (vs. what today's audio "intelligentsia" has become), though, was that even though the expense factor ostracized what had always been acknowledged (then) as the BETTER reproduction component...nobody was declaring cassette (or 8-track cartridge) to have anywhere near the sound quality standards RTR was known -and accepted- for having (in the pre-digital era). [While oppositely thesedays, for example, the vinyl crowd pooh-pooh's tape by having a ridiculous -but telling!- penchant for; either: daring to *even* suggest that their cassette decks were in the same league as 7 1/2 - 15ips, 1/4" recordings(!)...or, that: their unfamiliarity with tape's maintenance "learning curve", for them, is reason to discredit it (which would be like calling a Porsche a pile of junk because one couldn't drive a stick shift!)].
It, honestly, seems as-if the "sound quality" arguments for vinyl have this common thread involving people not liking loudness or treble(!). Why is that and how could it ever be interpreted as approaching "accurate" sound(?). Again, however, when one has had the experience of hearing (multiple) comparisons of two different analog formats against each other INSTEAD OF ONE VS. DIGITAL (using well-preserved examples played on thoroughly overhauled equipment)...even the most budget version of reel to reel tape during its '60s heyday (quarter-track stereo: though no less than played back at 7 1/2ips) BEAT THE LP COUNTERPART hands down(!). After all: for what the corresponding technologies were capable of at the time, it should have(!). When there was a dedicated quality control applied to the process: the tapes were made from, at worst, a third generation safety of the master itself. I'd wager my money on THAT being a damnsight closer to what was "intended" than what the intermediary, RIAA-squashed sub-copy was able to replicate. Case in point: the 1960s RCA reels never had "Dynagroove" encoded onto them; nor did the late-'60s/early-'70s Warner/Elektra/Atlantic and (a majority of) the A&M reels have the right channel phase-inverted with the HAECO "compatible stereo" affect (so, obviously, the dubbing source was different than what the records were pressed from). [Another] case in point: one of the most famous bad-sounding albums of all-time is the Capitol (stereo) version of The Beatles' SECOND ALBUM. The ONLY remotely-pleasing (to the point-of the material becoming a whole new revelation upon hearing) transfer of this album is: a 7 1/2ips reel to reel copy Ampex reissued/"remastered" in 1970. It even surpasses the source Capitol used for the 2004 CD in their giftbox collection (something which the vinyl-centric bootlegging crowd has even picked up on!).
I just cannot stand records having that characteristic boxy, mid-bass "hollowness" spread between L and R as well as; how the end-of-side track is ALWAYS left sounding like sludge being squeezed through a soup can(!). I recognized this immediately at a very early age (when listening between a reel to reel and a LP of the same recording). As soon as the initial "Golden Age" of Hi-Fi had worn off and passed-into becoming dominated by imported Solid State crass-consumer goods, the blunt truth of history was that most (domestic U.S.) pressings of records were garbage anyhow; save for: Monarch in L.A. (the reason A&M product held out sounding better for so long); Deutsche-Grammophon in Germany; and JVC in Japan. The only logical upside to record hunting, at this moment, would be: if one is trying to find an ORIGINAL pressing from when the *source* would be guaranteed closer to NEW (which, to me, makes A LOT more sense than banking-on a crapshoot of: 40+ year-old material artificially "brightened up" to not sound so worn and $50 for off-centered spindles on wax scuffed-up in a dodgy Eastern Europe warehouse).
Wow ! What a interesting post to a 9 year old thread !
Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |