How do you know what you want from your audio system?

[Al M.]

Thanks for sharing your journey with me!

IMO, you have to take two things into account:

1) Transformers > tubes.
The quality of the transformers and the topology used are way more important than the tubes. For example, GM70 tubes can make up to 32 watts in class A1, if you use them at 8 watts (or even 16 or 20w), driven with the same tube (or another very robust driver tube), they'll sound different and much more nuanced.
Same with transformers, if you put the GM70 (or 845, 211, any high power tube amp) with custom made transformers of the highest quality (Tribute or Monolith with finement cores or Slagle transformers with silver wire), the sound quality will be much better than any lower power tube (45, 2a3, 300b, etc) cap coupled or using mediocre quality transformers.

2) Digital sources have improved tremendously.
You need to do yourself a favor and listen to the top models from Rockna and Bricasti. Even some studio DACs sound very colorful, like the Burl B2. Good DAC > mediocre analog (and good analog > good DAC).

Of course I want to know more music and listen to older productions of different genres, but that's something acquired with time and with pleasure in the meantime, not a chore. In 10 years I may have a music collection that will justify a good turntable, now I don't have it.

Also, the ne plus ultra turntable setups, even used "vintage" equipment, is extremely expensive. A proper true high end phono stage, custom made for the cartridge, like the Vinylsavor D3A costs like 15k euros on it's most basic form. I'm not saying expensive=good, there's plenty of ridiculously priced mid-fi out there, but the truly good stuff that is a clear cut above is always very expensive.
A used Micro Seiki RX-5000 turntable is around 10k eur (and is not even a top of the line model)...you get the point, there's no reason for me to buy a GOOD analog setup until my music collection justifies it.

I wouldn't spent a single cent on a mid-fi (sound wise, not just price wise) analog setup.
I know that the good analog setups sound better than good digital, but those cost a huge amount of money and I prefer to wait a bit more, now I don't have the need for one.

TL;DR: good analog is better than good digital, but good digital is great. I'll buy an analog setup once I not only have the funds, but can justify one with a broader music collection.

Indeed, digital has improved tremendously, and optimal set-up is important and not easy to achieve. Most digital is sub-optimal, in my view.

I have a digital-only system, but have heard great vinyl in others' systems many, many times over, and I very much enjoy it. However, even with that experience I am not interested in getting a great vinyl set-up which, as you say, is very expensive, and pure analog source material is limited. I am also not convinced anymore that I am missing much by not investing in vinyl. A few years ago, I would have said yes, not so sure at this point. Great digital, well set up, is just so good these days.

 

[Lagonda]

Great observation. Audio forums are ideally chat rooms for hobbyists who share ideas, experiences, and different points of view. In this sense they are quite different from Industry magazines supported by advertising with editorial control. However these days, some forums look increasingly like some magazines.

So true, and so sad !

 

[Republicoftexas69]

So true, and so sad !

Some look like battle grounds where you are attacked on a daily basis. 2 in particular.

 

[marmota]

Indeed, digital has improved tremendously, and optimal set-up is important and not easy to achieve. Most digital is sub-optimal, in my view.

I have a digital-only system, but have heard great vinyl in others' systems many, many times over, and I very much enjoy it. However, even with that experience I am not interested in getting a great vinyl set-up which, as you say, is very expensive, and pure analog source material is limited. I am also not convinced anymore that I am missing much by not investing in vinyl. A few years ago, I would have said yes, not so sure at this point. Great digital, well set up, is just so good these days.

True. When I listened to a good sounding DAC, I just enjoyed music and didn't think about anything else. Sure, a setup with the AS2000, top tier tonearm + cartridge + custom tube phono stage playing a 100% analog recorded and mastered, first press pristine record would sound much better side by side...but the good digital is great on it's own.

 

[Rensselaer]

Thanks for sharing your journey with me!

IMO, you have to take two things into account:

1) Transformers > tubes.
The quality of the transformers and the topology used are way more important than the tubes. For example, GM70 tubes can make up to 32 watts in class A1, if you use them at 8 watts (or even 16 or 20w), driven with the same tube (or another very robust driver tube), they'll sound different and much more nuanced.
Same with transformers, if you put the GM70 (or 845, 211, any high power tube amp) with custom made transformers of the highest quality (Tribute or Monolith with finement cores or Slagle transformers with silver wire), the sound quality will be much better than any lower power tube (45, 2a3, 300b, etc) cap coupled or using mediocre quality transformers.

2) Digital sources have improved tremendously.
You need to do yourself a favor and listen to the top models from Rockna and Bricasti. Even some studio DACs sound very colorful, like the Burl B2. Good DAC > mediocre analog (and good analog > good DAC).

Of course I want to know more music and listen to older productions of different genres, but that's something acquired with time and with pleasure in the meantime, not a chore. In 10 years I may have a music collection that will justify a good turntable, now I don't have it.

Also, the ne plus ultra turntable setups, even used "vintage" equipment, is extremely expensive. A proper true high end phono stage, custom made for the cartridge, like the Vinylsavor D3A costs like 15k euros on it's most basic form. I'm not saying expensive=good, there's plenty of ridiculously priced mid-fi out there, but the truly good stuff that is a clear cut above is always very expensive.
A used Micro Seiki RX-5000 turntable is around 10k eur (and is not even a top of the line model)...you get the point, there's no reason for me to buy a GOOD analog setup until my music collection justifies it.

I wouldn't spent a single cent on a mid-fi (sound wise, not just price wise) analog setup.
I know that the good analog setups sound better than good digital, but those cost a huge amount of money and I prefer to wait a bit more, now I don't have the need for one.

TL;DR: good analog is better than good digital, but good digital is great. I'll buy an analog setup once I not only have the funds, but can justify one with a broader music collection.

Yes, I know about high quality transformers making a great deal of difference (my Ypsilon phono stage is known for using transformers in it’s RIAA decoding as opposed to capacitors.

I recognise that some people absolutely love their digital playback, but not me. Digital seems unreal to me, but analogue isn’t the same as live either. Let me illustrate the difference with an analogy.

To me, Analogue is like a well-executed oil-painting of a landscape, whereas digital would be the same landscape done with acrylics.

Both paintings remind one of a scene in nature, neither the same as real life or even a photograph, however the oil painting if hung in my lounge would relax me whereas the acrylic painting of the very same landscape would make me very uncomfortable.

 

[marmota]

Yes, I know about high quality transformers making a great deal of difference (my Ypsilon phono stage is known for using transformers in it’s RIAA decoding as opposed to capacitors, and my Ayon SET amp uses very large transformers as well).

I recognise that some people absolutely love their digital playback, but not me. Digital seems unreal to me, but analogue isn’t the same as live either. Let me illustrate with an analogy.

To me, Analogue is like a well-executed oil-painting of a landscape, whereas digital would be the same landscape done with acrylics.

Both paintings remind one of a scene in nature, neither as real as a photograph, however the oil painting if hung in my lounge would relax me whereas the acrylic would make me very uncomfortable.

There's no such a thing as a digital or analog sound. Analog setups sound vastly different among each other, and dacs too.

I understand the analogy but I do not agree, unless we are talking about mid fi.

 

[Rensselaer]

There's no such a thing as a digital or analog sound. Analog setups sound vastly different among each other, and dacs too.

I understand the analogy but I do not agree, unless we are talking about mid fi.

Sorry marmota, I can not agree. I will accept that there are people who can not discern a difference that is quite apparent to others however.

 

[bonzo75]

Of course I want to know more music and listen to older productions of different genres, but that's something acquired with time and with pleasure in the meantime, not a chore. In 10 years I may have a music collection that will justify a good turntable, now I don't have it.

Best approach - collate good LPs over time and get a reasonably priced analog set up.

 

[Another Johnson]

I made peace with CDs and SACDs a long time ago. My system presents them well. My analog set up still wins many comparos. Linn LP12/Ekos SE/Lyra Etna Lambda, ARC Ref phono 3, vs Levinson 5101 and Marantz SA-KI Ruby.
Streaming is a different story, but I have finally sorted it out. It took a lot of work to get my isp to address their own shortcomings. My streaming is now quite listenable, with my best setup being Qobuz via Roon Nucleus to dCS Rossini. This set up is often a legitimate competitor in comparos. My experience is that both digital and analog have their place. I finally “get it.”

 

[Al M.]

Sorry marmota, I can not agree. I will accept that there are people who can not discern a difference that is quite apparent to others however.

I don't agree with the analogy either. It seems you have limited experience with current great digital that is well set up. And again, I do know what great analog can sound like, I have heard it many, many times and enjoy it.

I do agree that a lot of digital indeed sounds artificial as you describe. That holds particularly for streaming digital, which is hard to get right -- even though it can be done. I very much dislike the synthetic, 'plasticky' sound quality of streaming that is not optimized.

 

[wil]

Sorry marmota, I can not agree. I will accept that there are people who can not discern a difference that is quite apparent to others however.

Limited experience mixed with entrenched attitude = Condescension.

 

[marmota]

Sorry marmota, I can not agree. I will accept that there are people who can not discern a difference that is quite apparent to others however.

Don't get me wrong, there's very thin, lifeless sounding digital out there, and very thick, smooth, warm sounding analog. But saying all digital is acrylics and all analog is oil painting is a very broad generalization IMO.

There's plenty of shrill, thin sounding analog setups out there, just read threads here and you'll see them mentioned a lot.
Same with DACs, I've heard a NOS tubed DACs sound extremely thick, without detail and overly smooth.

I would say that true high end gear is like an oil painting, and mid-fi is like acrylics.

Btw, we are not in 1980 anymore, take advantage of this enormous time leap and go to your local dealer and listen to some good DACs and compare them with an entry level analog setup. You might be surprised.

 

[marmota]

Best approach - collate good LPs over time and get a reasonably priced analog set up.

No such a thing as reasonably priced and good analog setup IMO, unless you understand 30-40k eur for phono+tonearm+cartridge+turntable (even second hand prices) as reasonably cheap.

To clarify, I do not see lightweight turntables, DC motors with negative feedback, and 12a_7 family tubes non LCR/LR phono stages as true high end tho, I'm sure one can have a mid fi analog setup for less than 10k, but not my cup of tea tbh.

 

[Al M.]

Limited experience mixed with entrenched attitude = Condescension.

I almost wanted to go there, but I don't object in the least that you actually did .

 

[Argonaut]

Marmota, I am worried about something you point out in your number 1 point;

I find myself in slightly more trepidation of those 10 foot sub woofer drivers in point 3 … Der Ring des Nibelungen must sound truly Epic

 

[marmota]

I find myself in slightly more trepidation of those 10 foot sub woofer drivers in point 3 … Der Ring des Nibelungen must sound truly Epic

Lol realized now it says 10 foot and not 10 inches, good catch!
Gotta pay more attention next time, being used to the metric system and writing in inches/feet is very confusing lmao

 

[Ron Resnick]

do not read stereophile and TAS . . .

This condemns with a bomb, when you should be making this point, if at all, with a rifle.

Art Dudley's reviews were informative, comparative (critically important in my personal view) and educational. Herb Reichert's, Andre Jennings', Michael Fremer's, Don Saltzman's and Kalman Rubinson's -- to name just a few great reviewers purely off the top of my head -- reviews are informative, comparative and educational.

 

[PeterA]

This condemns with a bomb, when you should be making this point, if at all, with a rifle.

Art Dudley's reviews were informative, comparative (critically important in my personal view) and educational. Herb Reichert's, Andre Jennings', Michael Fremer's, Don Saltzman's and Kalman Rubinson's -- to name just a few great reviewers purely off the top of my head -- reviews are informative, comparative and educational.

Ron, in your list of reviewers, you overlook our very own WBF member Tima. His reviews in positive feedback are excellent. He describes the product, and he describes what he hears using music examples. They do not sound like ad copy from the manufacturer. His Lamm reviews are particularly good.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Reviews are Just noise

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ron, in your list of reviewers, you overlook our very own WBF member Tima. His reviews in positive feedback are excellent.

You are assuming that I overlooked Tim.

Amir referred only to "stereophile and TAS and 6moon." I am not familiar with 6moon, so I responded with good reviewers only from Stereophile and TAS.

For this reason, as well as the reason that I wrote that I listed these reviewers "purely off the top of my head," I would have thought it was obvious that this was not in any way an exhaustive list, and that I did not intend to slight anybody by omitting him/her from this list.

I think Tim writes informative, comparative and educational reviews, as well. The way Tim infuses his reviews with his knowledge of music and musicology is unique and especially valuable.