Interesting Piece on the Dynamic Range of Vinyl vs. CD

RogerD

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2010
3,478
122
63
BiggestLittleCity
#41
But doesn’t this just beg the question “sufficient” for what?

I am sure commercial, for-profit, recording industry companies come to a different conclusion on the cost/benefit analysis of different levels of sound quality than many of us here would conclude. Sound quality sufficient for them to sell CDs and downloads profitably may be a very different sound quality than what us perfectionists here find “sufficient.”
I think the problem Ron is you have never heard great digital and I’m not surprised at that...but it does exist. For me it’s pretty much bits is bits...
 
Jul 2, 2018
40
1
8
#42
From experience I can say that electrical interference of all kinds has a large effect on the dynamic range of digital recordings...only there’s no or almost no mechanical problems associated with digital reproduction. A heck of a lot easier to mitigate and far less costly.
I personally could care less about which is better. I think it boils down to the amount invested in and bias. I think the difference between the two when optimized is that minimal.
The 'electrical interference' is very interesting to look at on a spectogram. I often see 50 or 60Hz (usually one or the other). Most often, the hum isn't bad enough that harmonics are created. Also, there is often a 9600, 19200 or 28000 (or other) band through the spectogram. In addition, there is a high density of distortion in the 9kHz to 10kHz range, and I guess that it is DolbyA distortion... The HF band electrical noise is most likely from a digital control system (old style serial interface -- way before ethernet/usb/fire wire/etc.)
The electrical interference issue is similar, whether digital distribution or vinyl.

Also, regarding tape restoration -- a recording engineer that I know (and work with a lot) is an expert at tape restoration (the reason for his involvement in the DolbyA project along with personal interest.) The restoration is a major discipline and not simple. There is a lot of researched info on the subject -- AES papers also. I would post some of the papers, but I don't want to divulge the name of my project partner. (That is, because I am often a 'bull in a china shop', and don't want to associate anyone else's name with my antics.)

I have often wondered if the electrical noise might slightly influence my DolbyA compatible decoding, but I think that most of the influence is in the aural realm (listening itself, human auditory system), and not so much disrupting the DA decoding.
With vinyl, the LF band is much wider and more dense because of rumble. In many cases, undecoded DolbyA material manifests as a darkening of the 12kHz to 20kHz and beyond noise background. That doesn't always happen -- it all depends on if a tape recorded output is encoded, rather than raw audio. The tape hiss is amplified by about 15dB when encoding, and of course brought back down when decoding.

So -- there are NUMEROUS noise sources -- esp on older recordings. Newer recordings should have most of the noise under control.

John
 

RogerD

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2010
3,478
122
63
BiggestLittleCity
#43
The 'electrical interference' is very interesting to look at on a spectogram. I often see 50 or 60Hz (usually one or the other). Most often, the hum isn't bad enough that harmonics are created. Also, there is often a 9600, 19200 or 28000 (or other) band through the spectogram. In addition, there is a high density of distortion in the 9kHz to 10kHz range, and I guess that it is DolbyA distortion... The HF band electrical noise is most likely from a digital control system (old style serial interface -- way before ethernet/usb/fire wire/etc.)
The electrical interference issue is similar, whether digital distribution or vinyl.

Also, regarding tape restoration -- a recording engineer that I know (and work with a lot) is an expert at tape restoration (the reason for his involvement in the DolbyA project along with personal interest.) The restoration is a major discipline and not simple. There is a lot of researched info on the subject -- AES papers also. I would post some of the papers, but I don't want to divulge the name of my project partner. (That is, because I am often a 'bull in a china shop', and don't want to associate anyone else's name with my antics.)

I have often wondered if the electrical noise might slightly influence my DolbyA compatible decoding, but I think that most of the influence is in the aural realm (listening itself, human auditory system), and not so much disrupting the DA decoding.
With vinyl, the LF band is much wider and more dense because of rumble. In many cases, undecoded DolbyA material manifests as a darkening of the 12kHz to 20kHz and beyond noise background. That doesn't always happen -- it all depends on if a tape recorded output is encoded, rather than raw audio. The tape hiss is amplified by about 15dB when encoding, and of course brought back down when decoding.

So -- there are NUMEROUS noise sources -- esp on older recordings. Newer recordings should have most of the noise under control.

John
John, I think the bottleneck is on the playback side, always has been.
 
Jul 2, 2018
40
1
8
#44
as far dynamic range of vinyl, you have no idea.

my recent experience with active isolation with linear power supplies under the whole signal path added 30% in peak energy (based on the peak wattage readout of my amps) and much greater focus to my vinyl.

my point is that throwing out any sort of label on the dynamic range of vinyl as a format has to consider what sort of optimization is required to see what it can do. it's a mechanical feedback format. that feedback will always smear/blunt peak information and reduce dynamic range. eliminate or greatly reduce that factor and it's a new ballgame.
All one has to do is to look at a spectogram of signals from vinyl -- the rumble noise says much of the problem. The other distortions become mostly obvious -- the problem are partially the limitation of the equipment used to try to sense the information on the disk -- some of the problem is the natural bending/distortion/heating of the disk (yes, there is significant heating at the contact point between the disk and needle.) Also, there is VERY OFTEN a 50-70Hz high pass filter (to get rid of the worst LF) on vinyl productions, and sometimes either a bit of HF restriction or an HF limiter for frequencies above 10kHz. These are all to work around the limitations of most cartridges/needle combinations and the groove size at low frequencies (get as much material on a disk as needed.)
Vinyl DEFINITELY has less dynamic range than digital (16bits doesn't mean that the smallest detectable signal is 1 LSB, and the distortion has very little to do with the resolution also.) If a frequency much above 20kHz is detectable or usable, it will be further and further buried in noise and distortion -- much akin to film resolution vs. digital video resolution (the resolution numbers are not directly comparable.)

Vinyl is usable and can sound very good -- but relative to non-compressed (in the sense of data reduction) digital, it is pretty much a notch or two less quality. Is the loss of quality WRT vinyl audible? On good equipment, just barely. On cheap equipment, it is best to digital, and in expensive equipment -- it is also best to go digital, unless you have lots of vinyl that you like to listen to.

It is NOT a religious argument -- just cold/hard engineering facts that digital CAN reliably provide more detail and more accuracy than vinyl.

Is it okay to like vinyl? Sure. Is it okay to dislike even properly mastered digital? Sure. However, it would be wrong to make an assertion that technically anything done correctly at 44.k/16bits is audibly (or technically) inferior to vinyl -- assuming EXACTLY the same mastering & material.
 
May 30, 2010
15,495
708
113
Portugal
#45
as far dynamic range of vinyl, you have no idea.

my recent experience with active isolation with linear power supplies under the whole signal path added 30% in peak energy (based on the peak wattage readout of my amps) and much greater focus to my vinyl..
Mike, can you explain this claim in more detail?

my point is that throwing out any sort of label on the dynamic range of vinyl as a format has to consider what sort of optimization is required to see what it can do. it's a mechanical feedback format. that feedback will always smear/blunt peak information and reduce dynamic range. eliminate or greatly reduce that factor and it's a new ballgame.
What do you mean by "it's a mechanical feedback format." Just that vinyl playback is affected by mechanical feedback coming from the speakers? Or that the energy released during the vinyl playback is released and part of it can come back, delayed in time?
 
Jul 2, 2018
40
1
8
#46
John, I think the bottleneck is on the playback side, always has been.
There is definitely a problem with accurately detecting the signal on vinyl. But cutting the master (forget what it is called) is electronically and mechanically a heroic effort. The feedback systems for positioning the cutter and the vast amount of power to be able to create the high frequencies is quite impressive.
I think that there are limitations on both sides, but I would agree that MOST of the time, the consumers equipment is the biggest limitation. Also, the specifications needed to support the normal case of consumer equipment does limit the parameters of vinyl production. (Groove size at LF and the tracking ability at HF.)

John
 
Jul 2, 2018
40
1
8
#47
Mike, can you explain this claim in more detail?



What do you mean by "it's a mechanical feedback format." Just that vinyl playback is affected by mechanical feedback coming from the speakers? Or that the energy released during the vinyl playback is released and part of it can come back, delayed in time?
WRT feedback... First, the feedback used in cutting the master is meant to be a mechanism to more accuratly position the cutter head and cutting needle. Feedbac isn't just the 'howl' in audio PA applications. Feedback is also a tool that helps all sorts of electronic (and also mechanical) designs.

The problem with constructive (most often negative) feedback is that it is imperfect, and time delays in the loop cause a myriad of problems (including potentially overshoot.) The feedback used on the equipment that cuts the master is necessarily pretty significant, because the mass of the cutter is pretty large, and the HF signals are pretty fast.
So, to move a large mass very quickly and accuratly is difficult to do without sensing the position and correcting the error in the positioning. This 'correction' is part of the feedback loop.
 
Last edited:

Ron Resnick

Site Co-Owner, Administrator
Jan 25, 2015
6,662
1,057
113
Beverly Hills, CA
#48
. . .

Vinyl is usable and can sound very good -- but relative to non-compressed (in the sense of data reduction) digital, it is pretty much a notch or two less quality. Is the loss of quality WRT vinyl audible? On good equipment, just barely. On cheap equipment, it is best to digital, and in expensive equipment -- it is also best to go digital, unless you have lots of vinyl that you like to listen to.

. . .

. . . it would be wrong to make an assertion that technically anything done correctly at 44.k/16bits is audibly (or technically) inferior to vinyl -- assuming EXACTLY the same mastering & material.
Oh boy! Here we go again! :rolleyes:

I am not arguing technically, but, certainly to my ears, it definitely is not the case that vinyl is audibly inferior to 44.1k/16bit digital.
 
Jul 2, 2018
40
1
8
#49
Oh boy! Here we go again! :rolleyes:

I am not arguing technically, but, certainly to my ears, it definitely is not the case that vinyl is audibly inferior to 44.1k/16bit digital.
Then, I agree with you about what you think... I will NEVER contest your (or anyone's) perception. If someone would claim that they like a Victrola over a 45rpm record, but think that 192k/24bits is in between per their perception, then I'll agree with that also (but be confused about it.) On a pure technical accuracy -- I can talk about that. I don't know how anyone's hearing works and will never claim that I do.

John
 
Likes: Ron Resnick

RogerD

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2010
3,478
122
63
BiggestLittleCity
#50
Oh boy! Here we go again! :rolleyes:

I am not arguing technically, but, certainly to my ears, it definitely is not the case that vinyl is audibly inferior to 44.1k/16bit digital.
Mike L is always improving his vinyl through careful thought,experimentation and listening.
I do the same to my system which right now I focus on Digital.
What effects digital is entirely different than vinyl except on the production side. They have one thing in common and that is the accepted and proven methods of electrical power and how it affects the recording process.
It’s too bad that this determining factor has hardly ever filtered down to the high level consumer and especially when it effects a digital signal. When optimized the difference between 44.1 and higher is minimal. Also multi box Dacs are not the solution. The solution is in what corrupts the digital signal and on the recording side maybe by good electrical engineering the problem was solved long ago...
 
May 30, 2010
15,495
708
113
Portugal
#51
WRT feedback... First, the feedback used in cutting the master is meant to be a mechanism to more accuratly position the cutter head and cutting needle. Feedbac isn't just the 'howl' in audio PA applications. Feedback is also a tool that helps all sorts of electronic (and also mechanical) designs.

The problem with constructive (most often negative) feedback is that it is imperfect, and time delays in the loop cause a myriad of problems (including potentially overshoot.) The feedback used on the equipment that cuts the master is necessarily pretty significant, because the mass of the cutter is pretty large, and the HF signals are pretty fast.
So, to move a large mass very quickly and accuratly is difficult to do without sensing the position and correcting the error in the positioning. This 'correction' is part of the feedback loop.
As far as I could understand Mike was addressing only the playback process.

BTW although cutters usually use feedback, I remember that Ralph Karsten developed at OTL cutter that was feedback free. https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/atma-sphere-cutting-lathe.7730/post-134148 - it also explains the feedback issue.
 
Jul 2, 2018
40
1
8
#52
There is an endemic problem on the production side WRT digital between approx late 1960s through early 1990's... That is, because of the historical processes of backing up tape from analog to analog, and then analog to digital, an important step in digital production has been skipped. This step is something that costs money, and the distributors are notorious cheapskates. Now, my description might be detailed, but worthwhile to read. I'll try to organize it so that it doesn't become a contorted mess...
History before digital... Copy DolbyA analog tape to analog tape... Just copy the tape.
History when digital came in: Copy DolbyA analog tape to digital tape... Just copy the tape.

Now, in this digital world, we simply do the appropriate mastering, the produce the digital copy. This mastering is done in the digital domain, and 'converting to analog->DolbyA decode->convert back to digital' has a problem... It takes time, and beancounters don't like spending time -- especially on re-issues.

So, what is the effect? Well, without doing a DolbyA decode we end up with a generally harsh sounding recording, too much high end (not really -- it is the compression associated with DolbyA partially flattening the spectrum.) How do we fix the problem CHEAPLY? Do an EQ of between -3dB or -6dB at 9kHz (Q=0.707 is usually used.)

How does the digital result sound? Still not exactly the same as vinyl... Doesn't sound super-bad, but is not super-good either. The EQ helps a lot, but doesn't fix the compression (which is hard to detect because it is between -20dB and -40dB, only 10dB or 15dB range, and 30msec-60msec release time for the HF bands.)

So -- some number of recordings made between late 1960s and early 1990's, when digital versions are distributed, the material has not been properly decoded. The historical vinyl creation process has OPTIONALLY included DolbyA decoding, but less often digital recordings got DolbyA decoding (however, I have found at least one copy of undecoded vinyl.)

----
I have some demos online, in the middle right now producing some decoded (well 60second snippets) of Brasil'66 and Herb Alpert examples. I already have 99Red Balloons and some ABBA online right now. These examples are before/after decoding and comparing the DHNRDS decoder along with an actual DolbyA (by virtue of properly decoded CDs and vinyl releases.)

Tried to keep the demos a sane length -- I want the IP owners to make more money -- not subvert them... (I don't want the stuff to be expensive either -- but I am just rambling like I usually do.)

Here are some examples, with Brasil'66 and Herb Alpert decoding examples to come (might notice the great lack of hiss in these, because most releases that I have heard are hissy -- probably compressed and not decoded both... Really bad.)

Note that my decoding examples are NOT perfect because consumer recordings don't have DolbyA reference tones. I did the best that I could without tones. Brasil'66 and Herb Alpert examples are coming in about 1-1.5Hrs -- I am in the midst of decoding them with the highest quality that I can do. (I am NOT mastering them -- so the results will be very raw.)

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/mduka8faqv1nva7/AAATBBBRIFDht8pVsDN5Dv7Aa?dl=0
 
Jul 2, 2018
40
1
8
#53
As far as I could understand Mike was addressing only the playback process.

BTW although cutters usually use feedback, I remember that Ralph Karsten developed at OTL cutter that was feedback free. https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/atma-sphere-cutting-lathe.7730/post-134148 - it also explains the feedback issue.
Good -- if they can do a good job without feedback -- that is a GOOD thing. With all of the mass and the high speed necessary, that would be a pretty tricky and overshoot-prone control system...
 

Gregadd

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
6,606
54
48
Metro DC
#54
With respect to dynamic range of vinyl you might wsnt to speak to Ralph owner of Atma-Sphere.

Ob the subject of Rumble have you heard air bearing or magnetic bearing turntables?
 
Jul 2, 2018
40
1
8
#55
With respect to dynamic range of vinyl you might wsnt to speak to Ralph owner of Atma-Sphere.

Ob the subject of Rumble have you heard air bearing or magnetic bearing turntables?
Spend lots of money -- or just get the best possible quality (that hearing can perceive) without heroic measures using current technology? Note that I saw the rumble directly on a digital spectogram -- it is easy for digital.

It would be interesting to actually measure the rumble for any high tech/expensive turntable. Geesh, the cutting lathe probably has measurable rumble. A lot of times, the audiophile stuff is much more 'pristine' that the stuff being used to create recordings. All worried about using high tech op-amps... Do you know what historically has been used in audio equipment? I seem to remember LF413 or somesuch in Dolby SR units (I have schematics stashed somewhere -- I'm moving.)

Listen to the decoding examples -- I just got Herb Alpert/Brasil'66 done. Even though I didn't master the material, the decoding is superior to what was done for any vinyl in the past -- or anything else -- (unless they used a nonDolbyA tape to produce the vinyl.)

It is ALL in the mastering WRT the differences (other than the limitations of vinyl...) Again, I am speaking of technical differences, not how someone might perceive the sound -- everyone is different and has a different emotional investment.

John
 
Jul 2, 2018
40
1
8
#56
PS -- I mistakenly uploaded the wrong file -- will have to take it down in 1Hr -- it is a full quality copy of 'With a little help from my friends..' Didn't mean to make a mistake -- might as well take advantage just to show the damage that mp3 causes -- the flac is pretty good. It will disappear in a short while (taking advantage of a mistake.)
 

RogerD

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2010
3,478
122
63
BiggestLittleCity
#57
John,
So these cheap bean counter recording companies include all the majors ie RCA,Columbia,Capitol,Verve,A&M,DG,London,EMI,Philips,Angel...
How about all the Japanese transfers?
Just Wondering
 
Jul 2, 2018
40
1
8
#58
All of the big ones -- for re-issues are cheap cheap cheap... I don't know enough about recent releases of new material, but since it is all digital, probably it is all done correctly.

For Japanese -- I found something very interesting. It seems like they have a higher probability of not DolbyA decoding their disks. They often sound fairly bright, but that is at least 50% undecoded DolbyA (that is for OLD recordings.) ABBA Gold and More ABBA Gold from Japan 1992/1993 are egregious that they didn't even do enough EQ -- SUPER bright sounding -- all that DolbyA compression.

I prefer Japanese and European disks (CDs), I like the Japanese because of the DolbyA leaks. (There must be a cultural thing about liking bright recordings.) The European disks that I have tend to have a bit less compression (sometimes the best mastering is the least mastering -- IMO.)

My biggest collection is ABBA -- believe me, I have listened so much that they are irritating, but they make REALLY, REALLY good test material. I used to like ABBA -- not so much right now.

Anyway, my ABBA collection is interesting because I have so many disks that I could probably gather statistics on CD mastering (and I have one group of vinyl rips from them.) I found that the mastering IS different from distributor to distributor, but Polar and Polydor tend to be similar if not the same. Some number of the ABBA disks are EQed DolbyA (instead of decoded.) It is difficult to tell because often they do a bit of additional compression after EQ -- really screws things up if I want to decode it. I probably have 50-100 ABBA disks (all on computer storage, the CDs are now in a storage facility. A few were downloads.)

Very interestingly -- my vinyl rip of ABBA RingRing has incorrect EQ and sounds like h*ll. This is one case where the Polar CD is much better (of course, my DHNRDS decoder is better than all of the above :)). At least IMO, and the opinion of my recording engineer friends.

Sometimes mastering is REALLY needed. I found that sometimes they'll over hype the higher frequencies to compensate for the subsequent processing/media. This can cause problems with CDs. I like to do a -1.5dB@20kHz/Q=0.500 and sometimes -1.5dB@12kHz/Q=1.0. That REALLY helps control the hype, and if a CD was made, the results would be more sane (along with the true DolbyA decoding.)

My examples have an 'inbetween' amount of EQ -- still a little hot, but I am NOT a mastering engineer, and more often than not I screw things up royally.

John
 

Mike Lavigne

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 25, 2010
7,768
915
113
#59
Mike, can you explain this claim in more detail?
sure. my dart 458 mono block amplifiers have front readouts for continuous and peak watt output. i have a few reference vinyl pressings where i keep the numeric volume on my dart preamp at a particular setting, and various musical peaks on these cuts will hit consistent peak watt outputs. when i switched from the passive NVS platform to the Tana active under the NVS (plus under the dart pre) there was an increase in the peak watt output about 10%, but when i had the Tana active platform under the dart pre, both mono blocks and the NVS.........peak output climbed 30%. it climbed because the peak was not blunted to a lower peak output by feedback noise, it stayed linear and complete.

you can easily hear the increase in dynamics, overall energy, and even volume everywhere, but you can see the data on the peaks. it jumps right out and pokes you in the nose. i was not expecting the degree of effect.

What do you mean by "it's a mechanical feedback format." Just that vinyl playback is affected by mechanical feedback coming from the speakers? Or that the energy released during the vinyl playback is released and part of it can come back, delayed in time?
what i mean is that every piece of gear in the signal path is reflecting feedback back to the stylus in the groove and smearing peaks. everything sings along with the music......unless you have a means to really eliminate that feedback.

with vinyl resonance control is everything. since the stylus in the groove tells you about everything vibrating.....and the better your overall system the more it tells you.

and......you don't recognize that there is distortion until you hear it eliminated. then it's 'ah...ha'

and so it's not possible to approach judging the format objectively unless you can eliminate feedback in every piece of gear. i'm not claiming the Tana active is perfect, but it's the best we have now to see how this actually works.

will my experience apply to all situations? i'd guess that any fairly high level vinyl playback with a solid floor and rack system would have a similar result using all-Tana under the signal path. but it's just a guess. so far i'm the only one crazy enough to try it.
 
Last edited:
Likes: RogerD
Jul 2, 2018
40
1
8
#60
s
and......you don't recognize that there is distortion until you hear it eliminated. then it's 'ah...ha'

.
I might not agree with all of your statements (all of us make mistakes -- you and me included, it is just a matter of being human.) However, your statement above about recognizing defects is SOOO TRUE. When I work on the audio processing software --normally released audio material sometimes has egregious problems. The reason why the released material is so disappointing is that a lot of work has gone into the productions, and then the last bits of the audio processing (I am speaking of the final 'tune up' sometimes called mastering, and the delivery medium) mangles the material worse than it might originally have been. Small amounts of correction is good -- when the mastering becomes another "artist project", that is often very destructive.


If one drops the veil of the time domain smearing of electro-mechanical devices, compression (which actually DOES smear the sound), and even too much EQ -- the experience can be eye-opening.

When listening to 'closer-to-studio' sound, rather than the processed, compressed, mangled sound , it is so very eye opening. I have gotten used to the velvet backgrounds, non-busy sound, no hyped middle-highs and highs... Just mostly cleear music with a velvet background. IMO, the most unpleasant defect -- impossible to fix -- of much material between the late 1960's through early 1990's is the garbling of vocal sibilance.

Every little resonance (even if it is corrected), every little excess EQ, every bit of 'tweaking' -- all based upon the after-artist judgment and also needing to work around limitations of electro-mechanical devices -- all of these tend destructive. The relative arrival time distortions (to the ears/processed by the brain) accumulate. One low Q filter might only cause a minor frequency response change -- start adding high Q values, peaky responses, gain control (creating modulation sidebands) -- all of these changes start causing confused timing. This all SMEARS the sound. Eventually this screwing around (which happens everywhere from the studio to inside the home) can cause the material to loose any time coherency . Then worrying about time delays here or there after the damage has occured is only a second order fix. I respect what happens in the studio, and even limited post processing to fix botches -- but that is it. We just don't get pristine material. Direct to disk or careful/non-manipulated digital tape -- those are good. Too often there are too many fingers in the pie.

A LITTLE BIT of processing and tweaking is often needed -- but it doesn't seem like that is all that happens -- it *seems* that someone too often does too much.

When hearing the more original sound -- I get spoiled. Too often the sound of normal releases is grainy, compressed, squashed and/or smeary. Sometimes released material has all of these defects.

One more point -- I have also learned (really confounding as an analog EE/DSP/real-time and operating systems developer with lots of experience) -- it is how much 'twisting' of the sound happens even with a little bit of the wrong filtering in the audio signal. it doesn't take very much lowpass or shelving filtering (and parametric EQ can be a real problem with Q too high) -- to really twist the sound in the wrong way (the phasing, stereo image, subtle timing/arrival time issues, etc.) There is some kind of human auditory system vs. filtering that does more damage than one might intutively guess. Anything with a Q of 1 or above should be done very carefully, and to keep the same sound -- but maybe tweak the tonal balance, usually something at Q of 0.707 or less causes the least problems where Q approx 0.50 or less are absolutely best (if you can get by with it.) Even Q==0.707 can twist the sound. (I don't have a better word for it -- probably a relative arrival time issue.)

If (like me) one has to listen to the same segment of a song perhaps 20 times within maybe 10 minutes to find an audio problem -- these (described above) forms of damage become apparent. And I don't have 'golden ears', but rather have to work hard at the tedious comparison between various processing options, original material, etc.


John
 

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. A place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss existing and new audio products, music servers, music streamers and computer audio, digital to audio convertors (DACS), turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel to reel, speakers, headphones, tube amplifiers 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