Too Late For Analog?

[mep]

... and to avoid loss due to repeated mechanical wear. And if you listen blind, you will find they are indistinguishable. Blind tests have already been done in this regard, so you will be breaking no new ground here.

And here is another bogus statement. If you find that a digital recording made from an analog recording is "indistinguishable" from the analog recording, then you have proven that blind listening tests render the poor bastard performing the test aurally blind. A digital copy of an analog source is never going to sound exactly the same-not with today's digital hardware. It might sound good to your ears, but to say it will be exactly the same stretches reality like the rest of your posts on this thread.

I am still amazed that you said you have tubes in your system. I wonder how many and where. The facts clearly show that SS is superior in measurements to tubes just like your beloved digital and therefore since you are a facts oriented guy, why in the world would you own that silly old tube technology?

 

[Ron Party]

Um.......OK. Stick your head in the sand. I'm out of this thread. For those interested, I just posted a link to a video which, amongst other things, touches on the absolute need for blind tests. I will try to find the link which shows the results of blind listening tests confirming my alleged *bogus* statement.

 

[apanton1952]

I'm with astrotoy, if the output stirs your emotions then you are heading in the right direction.

Different formats may result in different emotional responses or even shades of them, but it's analogous to hearing different artist's rendition of the same songs.

Which is better?

Any outcomes can probably only be opinions as we all have our own unique ears and how can someone else hear with your ears?
When all tests and comparisons are concluded the ear decides.

 

[nsgarch]

And here is another bogus statement. If you find that a digital recording made from an analog recording is "indistinguishable" from the analog recording, then you have proven that blind listening tests render the poor bastard performing the test aurally blind. A digital copy of an analog source is never going to sound exactly the same-not with today's digital hardware. It might sound good to your ears, but to say it will be exactly the same stretches reality like the rest of your posts on this thread.

I am still amazed that you said you have tubes in your system. I wonder how many and where. The facts clearly show that SS is superior in measurements to tubes just like your beloved digital and therefore since you are a facts oriented guy, why in the world would you own that silly old tube technology?

Now, now MEP. Your response sounds just a bit over-generalized, and so do Ron's remarks too. So much of the performance of either format is waaaaaay out of our (the consumer's) hands. Nevermind our expensive and/or fussed-over playback equipment, the naked truth is the people entrusted with the recording and manufacturing process are often NOT striving for excellence.

I have done a couple of "format shootouts" assembling half dozen or more different recordings in their vinyl, cassette, R2R, and CD formats. Obviously, the original masters were analog ("digital" LP's weren't invited ;--) however, the blind listening results were never consistent! No one format excelled across the recordings. Even cassette came out on top once I recall! The inconsistent results were not just between different recordings, but sometimes even between different tracks on the same recording! That should tell you something.

I will make a generalization of my own, though not about the individual formats, but to say that I think care in the recording -- production end of things has gone way down since the introduction of the CD. With analog, attention to detail was almost essential, or you got noticably bad results. In digital, it seem possible to "wing it" and most people won't notice. A perfect example (among many) is the fact that few in the recording industry seem to be concerned with maintaining absolute polarity anymore. Back in the days of analog mixers, you pretty much had to maintain absolute polarity or stuff just wouldn't MIX. And many vinyl devotees are even critical of today's $30+ 200gm vinyl pressings, saying they don't measure up to the quality of the original, record-store pressing.

Another interesting aspect of this debate ties into the tube/ss debate. I once had someone assert that because digital is so "inferior", it would sound harsh/glary/edgy whether played back on tube equipment or solid state equipment -- their reasoning being that most of the precious micro detail had already been lost in the A/D recording process. Another bogus myth . . . . .

Here's what I think FWIW: First of all, does everyone remember the UNIVAC? In those days there was no way to store digital information except on (BIG reels of) tape -- an essentially analog medium! I believe that when you want to store/manipulate/retrieve data using a medium that is not native to the data itself (i.e. a violin can only produce analog data) then you are going to need to spend a LOT of money and effort to maintain an undetectable facimile.

So, assuming a product was carefully recorded and manufactured (regardless of format) great musical re-production in the analog domain will require (only) great physical and mechanical refinement (bearings, heads, motors, magnets, speed accuracy) and proper setup. Whereas, if you want to "do analog using digital" the refinement has to be almost 100% in the digital (processing) technology: the "language" used to get from one domain to the other. And therein lies the dividing line -- digital technology costs more than mechanical technology (you can still get the best top of the line Corvette for under $250K ;--)

If, like most consumers of high-end audio, one's dollars have to be spent with care, and you want your digital playback to be "as good" as your analog playback, figure a cost ratio of roughly 15:1 With a cost threshold starting at $30K for the digital, and $2K for the analog.

Then you can begin the debate.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Now, now MEP. Your response sounds just a bit over-generalized, and so do Ron's remarks too. So much of the performance of either format is waaaaaay out of our (the consumer's) hands. Nevermind our expensive and/or fussed-over playback equipment, the naked truth is the people entrusted with the recording and manufacturing process are often NOT striving for excellence.

I have done a couple of "format shootouts" assembling half dozen or more different recordings in their vinyl, cassette, R2R, and CD formats. Obviously, the original masters were analog ("digital" LP's weren't invited ;--) however, the blind listening results were never consistent! No one format excelled across the recordings. Even cassette came out on top once I recall! The inconsistent results were not just between different recordings, but sometimes even between different tracks on the same recording! That should tell you something.

I will make a generalization of my own, though not about the individual formats, but to say that I think care in the recording -- production end of things has gone way down since the introduction of the CD. With analog, attention to detail was almost essential, or you got noticably bad results. In digital, it seem possible to "wing it" and most people won't notice. A perfect example (among many) is the fact that few in the recording industry seem to be concerned with maintaining absolute polarity anymore. Back in the days of analog mixers, you pretty much had to maintain absolute polarity or stuff just wouldn't MIX. And many vinyl devotees are even critical of today's $30+ 200gm vinyl pressings, saying they don't measure up to the quality of the original, record-store pressing.

Another interesting aspect of this debate ties into the tube/ss debate. I once had someone assert that because digital is so "inferior", it would sound harsh/glary/edgy whether played back on tube equipment or solid state equipment -- their reasoning being that most of the precious micro detail had already been lost in the A/D recording process. Another bogus myth . . . . .

Here's what I think FWIW: First of all, does everyone remember the UNIVAC? In those days there was no way to store digital information except on (BIG reels of) tape -- an essentially analog medium! I believe that when you want to store/manipulate/retrieve data using a medium that is not native to the data itself (i.e. a violin can only produce analog data) then you are going to need to spend a LOT of money and effort to maintain an undetectable facimile.

So, assuming a product was carefully recorded and manufactured (regardless of format) great musical re-production in the analog domain will require (only) great physical and mechanical refinement (bearings, heads, motors, magnets, speed accuracy) and proper setup. Whereas, if you want to "do analog using digital" the refinement has to be almost 100% in the digital (processing) technology: the "language" used to get from one domain to the other. And therein lies the dividing line -- digital technology costs more than mechanical technology (you can still get the best top of the line Corvette for under $250K ;--)

If, like most consumers of high-end audio, one's dollars have to be spent with care, and you want your digital playback to be "as good" as your analog playback, figure a cost ratio of roughly 15:1 With a cost threshold starting at $30K for the digital, and $2K for the analog.

Then you can begin the debate.

Neil-Permit one comment

I think you overgeneralize about phase. Every good engineer that does audiophile recordings that I know checks for absolute phase (been there and seen them check). Now the problem is that we know that there are recordings with mixed phases and then what do you do?

 

[nsgarch]

Neil-Permit one comment I think you overgeneralize about phase. Every good engineer that does audiophile recordings that I know checks for absolute phase (been there and seen them check). Now the problem is that we know that there are recordings with mixed phases and then what do you do?

C'mon Myles. Both statements can't be true? Only a small percent of LP's, and a miniscule percent of CD's are "audiophile". Naturally, the better class of audiophile engineers you hang out with check for absolute phase, and of course(?) they insist on maintining it throughout the process. So no issue there. On the other hand, digital recording has allowed the majority of product to go "out the door" without such care in production. It's easy to tell on a decent system with a phase inverting preamp. My experience with CD's, just off the top of my head, is that about 25% are phase accurate, another 20% or less are reversed (so not a total disaster) and the rest are so mixed they sound equally terrible no matter how you set the phase on playback ;--)) The funny thing is you would think the carefully produced stuff would be found mostly on classical or jazz recording, but there seems to be no pattern; though studio digital recordings (in any genre) seem to be consistently phase incoherent ;--)

I recommend Clark Johnsen's "Wood Effect" if you never read it.

 

[MylesBAstor]

C'mon Myles. Both statements can't be true? Only a small percent of LP's, and a miniscule percent of CD's are "audiophile". Naturally, the better class of audiophile engineers you hang out with check for absolute phase, and of course(?) they insist on maintining it throughout the process. So no issue there. On the other hand, digital recording has allowed the majority of product to go "out the door" without such care in production. It's easy to tell on a decent system with a phase inverting preamp. My experience with CD's, just off the top of my head, is that about 25% are phase accurate, another 20% or less are reversed (so not a total disaster) and the rest are so mixed they sound equally terrible no matter how you set the phase on playback ;--)) The funny thing is you would think the carefully produced stuff would be found mostly on classical or jazz recording, but there seems to be no pattern; though studio digital recordings (in any genre) seem to be consistently phase incoherent ;--)

I recommend Clark Johnsen's "Wood Effect" if you never read it.

Read Clark's book many years ago and it still adorns my audio shelf Probably have a first issue!

In my old magazine, Lars Fredell published a list of recording phases of different labels. Some have argued with some of his picks but that's what Lars found. His list can be found at:

http://www.silentrunningaudio.com/AbsolutePhaseChart.PDF

I can't speak to CDs because I really haven't listened to them in years

 

[nsgarch]

I can't speak to Cd's because I really haven't listened to them in years

Something I'll now keep in mind when reading your posts ;--)) You are certainly entitled to your preferences; however, if by "years" you mean since before +/-- 1995 you might want to check in again (or not ;--) I choose vinyl when I have a choice of recorded format; I even choose vinyl over other analog formats. However, I would never deny myself the experience of a wonderful piece of new music, or a stunning new performance, just because it was only available on CD or DVD.

Digital/analog parity has actually arrived, but it requires hardware beyond the financial capacity of all but a few corporate Masters of the Universe (most of whom hate music anyway, as best I can tell.) My personal affection for analog doesn't even come from its (up 'til now) unique sonic attributes. It is because:
1. Certain content that I cherish, won't be digitally remastered anytime soon, if ever.
2. My human vision lacks a zoom function for reading CD liner notes, if they are even available. Those and cover art are part of the experience for me -- no different than a program at a live performance.

 

[The Smokester]

A digital recording can sound like anything you want - including an exact and audibly indistinguiashable reproduction of the sound of a vinyl recording, including all the noise, distortion, clicks, pops etc.

Ron, Interesting debate...Do you have, can you give an accessible (to a mortal) example of two front ends--one digital and one analogue--where both are at the high end of the state-of-the-art for sound reproduction and where a demonstration of this can be done? The reason I ask is because my next exploration into audio will be hi-rez digital and I would like to know what the buy-in will be to compete with my TT.

 

[Steve Williams]

Ron, Interesting debate...Do you have, can you give an accessible (to a mortal) example of two front ends--one digital and one analogue--where both are at the high end of the state-of-the-art for sound reproduction and where a demonstration of this can be done? The reason I ask is because my next exploration into audio will be hi-rez digital and I would like to know what the buy-in will be to compete with my TT.

also interested but my bet is that Ron is already using what he feels is the answer to your question

 

[MylesBAstor]

Something I'll now keep in mind when reading your posts ;--)) You are certainly entitled to your preferences; however, if by "years" you mean since before +/-- 1995 you might want to check in again (or not ;--) I choose vinyl when I have a choice of recorded format; I even choose vinyl over other analog formats. However, I would never deny myself the experience of a wonderful piece of new music, or a stunning new performance, just because it was only available on CD or DVD.

Digital/analog parity has actually arrived, but it requires hardware beyond the financial capacity of all but a few corporate Masters of the Universe (most of whom hate music anyway, as best I can tell.) My personal affection for analog doesn't even come from its (up 'til now) unique sonic attributes. It is because:
1. Certain content that I cherish, won't be digitally remastered anytime soon, if ever.
2. My human vision lacks a zoom function for reading CD liner notes, if they are even available. Those and cover art are part of the experience for me -- no different than a program at a live performance.

I guess new is "relative." If it's from the '50s or '60s and you haven't heard it, then it's new. Such is the case with my exploring the jazz horizons with the excellent 45 rpm jazz releases from Analogue Productions, Music Matters Jazz and ORG!

As far as new "new" music goes, there's not a whole hell of a lot that really shivers my timbers

And I guess, I still haven't heard a digital playback system, including I'm sure some of those that you refer to, that come close to vinyl or analog tape. But then again, you know that Digital has improved in some ways, but not in others. There are still some things that my old Altis DAC can do that the new equipment won't. But certainly digital is more listenable but I can never sit back and pretend that I'm listening to real music like I can with analog. Just my 2 cents.

 

[kach22i]

My thought is records are bountiful. The drawback to me is the ridiculous price of a vinyl front end. Playback Designs is a ridiculous $15k. You can pay that for a Koetsu. They sad thing is of course that the Koetsu is not a ripoff. It delivers. OTOH I can kick ass with a $15k digital front end.

My vinyl and CD play back are about equal in sonic terms.

The list price on the McIntosh CD player ($2,750) and 10 times that of my older turntable complete with tonearm.

The modifications and investments (cartridge/interconnects) I've done to my TT have quadrupled the initial investment. However it is still less than half of the CD player.

The TT allows for more upgrades by the end user, for example how where in your accounting do you put the record cleaning machine?

At this time of parity it is up to the quality of the source material and the care taken in the recording process which matters most in my system.

My vinyl system is equal or better to my digital system for half the price is all I'm saying.

 

[Gregadd]

I never thought I would be the one to defend digital. Generally accepted as the best redbook CD Player is The Playback Designs at $15k It dethroned the Meitner at $10K. I'm using a 10 year old dvd player that cost me $200. It is without a doubt a digital front end is substantially less expensive than a vinyl front end. You can drop $15k on a Koetsu. Moreover many CD players can be used without a preamp.
Just as we kept discovering exactly how much info was in the record groove, there is music in those digits. We have to keep trying to extract it.
Which is better digital or vinyl? That debate will rage on forever. All I know is everytime someone says vinyl is better they have to issue more and more qualifiers.

 

[MylesBAstor]

i never thought i would be the one to defend digital. Generally accepted as the best redbook cd player is the playback designs at $15k it dethroned the meitner at $10k. I'm using a 10 year old dvd player that cost me $200. It is without a doubt a digital front end is substantially less expensive than a vinyl front end. You can drop $15k on a koetsu. Moreover many cd players can be used without a preamp.
Just as we kept discovering exactly how much info was in the record groove, there is music in those digits. We have to keep trying to extract it.
Which is better digital or vinyl? That debate will rage on forever. All i know is everytime someone says vinyl is better they have to issue more and more qualifiers.

lol....

 

[The Smokester]

also interested but my bet is that Ron is already using what he feels is the answer to your question

Ok. What is it?

 

[hifitommy]

with your level of equipment, at least a rega 3 would be appropriate. sources of new vinyl with both new and not so new music are readily accessible. buying used mandates a good method of cleaning records before play and just an audioquest type brush isnt adequate. there is a fine silt like deposit on many used records that won't come off with just a carbon fiber brush.

sources: acoustic sounds, elusive disc and soundstage direct among others

https://mail.google.com

http://store.acousticsounds.com/

http://www.elusivedisc.com/

for good used:

http://recordsbymail.com/

search the archives in audioasylum.com, audiokarma.org or audiocircle.com, or http://www.audiocircle.com. you will find more than you need. some methods can be very affordable and others costly.

buying used can be quite rewarding as some acquisitions will be revelatory and may or may not need deep cleaning. but the dollar records can expose you to a very wide selection on the cheap. if one is what you really like but noisy, then you look for a better copy, perhaps on ebay or one of the sources i suggested.

ultimately, you are likely to find vinyl more believable in terms of true sound accuracy than rbcd and realize that the so called limitations are just pat answers parroted by those that find cd to be adequate. as you know, cd CAN sound pretty good, even excellent BUT when compared to an equivalent LP playback system, the palpability and veracity of the vinyl sound is more than convincing.

 

[Gregadd]

I requested this comment from member of this forum:

Dear Phelonious Ponk:





1 -************* Not so much amiss as missing -- wow, flutter, compression, crosstalk, inner groove distortion.******



2 -++++++We think vinyl is sloppy and distorted, and that the well-mastered Redbook CD is superior. You do not agree. That's the subjective part: Our opinion against yours. The objective part? We win, hands down. ++++++



3 -*******would be relevant if the sampling errors were significant, or even audible, during those very quiet passages, but they're not. I do a lot of my listening on very good headphone systems. *******



4 - +++++++The low noise floor is not the only thing I prefer about digital. It isn't even the thing I like best about digital. Lower linear distortion, better dynamic range, flatter frequency response, better channel separation, clarity, control, consistency, endurance...there are a lot of virtues, and lots of flaws in vinyl, ++++++



5 -++++++++++++++++I have no qualms accepting that indeed it could be that analog is superior but so far it has not been proven , not in listening tests where the best of digital is so transparent as to food people that are die-hard analog fans once the knowledge removed +++++++



6 -*******I have a hard time believing that the compromises and distortions of vinyl don't mask much more detail than they reveal, relative to digital, but if there is greater detail there, it should be measurable, we shouldn't have to wax poetic about it. It should be easy to show in lower noise, lower distortion, wider, flatter frequency response, faster transient response, etc. ******



7 -+++++++All Im saying is that digital's compromises are much less audible.++++++++



8 .******all wow, flutter, inner groove distortion, RIAA equalization effects, surface noise, compression etc. *******







These are some quotes over your posts in this thread, I take it because are really interesting.



At least two times you speak about the same parameters ( 1- and 2- quotes. ). Inner groove distortion?: this is easy “ eliminated “ with a decent tonearm/cartridge rig and its right set up, you just can’t hear it. It does not meant disappear but you can’t hear it in the same manner you can’t hear ( quote: 3- ) the digital sampling errors that are there. So the inner groove distortion is no valid argument.



Compression: I don’t know what you mean about in reference to analog quality performance. In the digital source ( CD. ) you know that the signal compression is part of the digital medium: frequency range is limited to 22.1khz. So the compression is no valid argument either.



Surface noise: which scientific ( measures. ) evidence do you have that states that LP surface noise could modified the quality performance and in what way and how we perceive those signal modifications/alterations?. I think here too this subject is no valid argument.



RIAA equalizations effects: where are those scientific studies/measurements that explain in precise way those effects and the influence in the quality performance and its relationship of what we are hearing?



In quote 2- you say “ the objective part, we win “. You speak of be objective and measures/scientific believer but don’t show nothing about: not in favor of digital and certainly not against analog to prove what you are speaking of. Franz ( quote 5- ) and other digital advocates speak almost in the same way than you but no one of them ( just like you ) don’t show/give any scientific/measures that prove or that put some light on what all of you are speaking of. All your opinions are 100% subjective even that you want that we believe you are objectivist people that certainly in this thread you prove did not.



In the quote 7- what you say is only a opinion with out precise foundation/facts/data. I have to say here that the frequency range limitation ( 22.1khz ) certainly is clearly audible like no any analog “ error/distortion “.



In the quote 6- you say “ I have hard time believing that the compromise and distortions…. “ , you “ believe “ but you don’t have any objective evidence that prove what you say: you still are in the subjective side like all the digital advocates in this thread.



In the quote 1-: “Not so much amiss as missing “ , again you have no precise facts/data where explain what you say.





I’m a firm science believer and I’m not against digital, even I accept with “ affection “. Till today I don’t know any scientific audio study ( even a psycoaudio study )that explain in direct relationship what we heard and what an audio system measures and how these measurements affect and in what precise way what we heard, not on digital and certainly not with analog items.



I know that science can/could give us all the precise explanations that each one of us are looking for but that task is really hard to do due to its great complexity and so many factors that are involve, even to determine all the factors that has to be take in count is very complex and hard to achieve it!! So, we can’t sin of “ objectivist “ because we don’t have the answers “ at hand “ yet. The only thing you can do is what you all already do it: speak, speak and bla, bla, bla, like all your posts in this thread, nothing wrong with that but that does not prove nothing at all.





So IMHO you can’t prove in an objective way the digital “ superiority “ or the analog inferiority, no one in this thread can prove it today.







I would like to share some analog item data/information about specs that does not explain per se what we are hearing but that tell us that analog does not measures very “ poor “ for be a great playback medium:



We can’t do nothing about recording process, it is what it is and we “ mere mortals “ have no control about: period, I will talk about playback analog source:







Cartridge: Technics EPC-P100CMK4, a vintage MM phono cartridge designed and build in 1984 ( I own it along other 100+ MC/MM/MI cartridges. ) that I’m running today. Well the frequency response of this “ bay “ is: 5 Hz to 120,000 Hz and is flat from 20 Hz to 20 Khz and I mean “ dead “ flat: I have the test ( chart/diagram that comes with the cartridge. ) showing no deviation in that frequency range.



Empire 4000/DIII: another vintage MM cartridge with a frequency response: 5 Hz to 50,000 Hz. Btw, both MM cartridges with a channel separation over 35dbs.



You could think that 35db is a small spec against digital one but that does not matters because you or any one can detect any difference between 35db or 70db. There are scientific studies that prove that the human brain needs ( ideally ) 20db on this spec and can’t discern above 40db.



But if you want a greater number in this spec then we have the Allaerts MC 2 Finish ( LOMC cartridge ) that has: 70db !!! with a frequency range that goes from 3 Hz to 100 Khz.



All these cartridges has a THD% lower than 0.1% ( just inaudible. ).



I don’t know you but IMHO those measured cartridge specs are pretty decent where you can see there is no frequency range limitations like in CD’s.



Of course that the analog rig needs a phonolinepreamp, here are some specs on the SS unit I have today in my audio system:





- RIAA eq. deviation from 20 Hz to 20 Khz: 0.015 db !!!!!!!
Frequency range to: 0.01 Hz to 1,5 MHz. !!!!!
Clean gain: Adjustable to 100 db
Signal to noise ratio: better than 82 dbA in MC stage refered to 0.5mv. and according the standard/norm/rule: EIA/CEA-490-A , the same spec for MM but reffered to 5.0mv and 110db at 1 V ( unity gain ) in line stage. ( Both channels .)
Slew rate: 300 V/mseg.
Common mode rej.: 130db. !!!!!
Distortion: 0.0002% !!!!!!
Dynamic range: 131db.!!!!!
Crosstalk: better than 140db.!!!!!
Input overload: MC: 15 mVrms @ 1 kHz (High-gain), 30 mVrms @ 1 kHz (Low-gain)

MM: 300 mVrms @ 1 kHz.

No-odds harmonics: the third harmonic is 96 db below the main and the fifth harmonic is 44 db below the third!!.





PP, what do you have on hand about. I appreciate if you can share/show us.





+++++ I do a lot of my listening on very good headphone systems. ******* +++++++, this is what you states in your quote 3- and this makes me ask what are you hearing? And how we heard/hear/perceive the music?:





The music was “ made “ to live-it, like paint or sculpture the music is one of the “ belle arts “. It is not only fundamental notes and harmonics, the music is a “ whole meaning “ that affect all human senses. We don’t hear/heard music through our ears/brain only we hear/heard music through all our body.



When we attend to a classic music “ concert “ ( or any other live event. ) and we are hearing the close climax on Pictures at an Exhibition or in the Firebird or Ravel Bolero we not only hear/heard the music we feel it we feel how the bass music content “ pressure “ our body/skin and how those music transients go inside all our senses we see how the timbale player is hitting the instrument and we vibrate along the instrument sound. The music was made to “ live it “. The music wake up memories, feelings, emotions through the music contact/touch with all or body and there is no way IMHO that that can happen through headphones, at least not in complete whole shape.



So what are you hearing?, IMHO many things but MUSIC in the wide MUSIC meaning word. There are a lot of things/subjects to support analog against digital but that will be some other time.



I respect what you are hearing and respect what you like it because is you who has to live with ( not me ) but that does not means that what you are hearing is right and certainly that what you heard through digital source is superior to analog source because it is not and you know what?: you can’t prove it, period.





Btw, PP we don’t have to own a SOTA analog rig to “ live “ and enjoy MUSIC but even in a SOTA digital CD we can’t “ live “ MUSIC and through headphones is out of question. I can prove word by word everything I posted here.



Can you or any other digital advocate prove all what you all are saying?, yes?: ok: just prove it!!!! showing us.



Regards and enjoy the music,

Raul.

 

[FrantzM]

Gregg

A stage phono or otherwise that claims 131 dB of dynamic range is misleading .. There is NO WAY until the sun freezes that this can be ...
Now about things like Crosstalk ... If you use two mono stages the crosstalk isolation is essentially infinite... BUT and that is the big "BUT" the crosstalk inherent to the LP medium is the limit, even if you were using mono preamps , monoblocks for each channel, complete connected to their own individual battery driven battery power source, Crosstalk would remain less than 35 dB this is what the best cartridge can do ... I will be generous and grant you 40 dB of crosstalk ... This is a limitation of the LP medium , Tape does much better 50 dB and any CD player worth its grain of salt does 70 dB .. a decent but nothing to brag .. 80 dB and over are quite common... Objectively that is an area of superiority.. 30 dB more is overwhelming it is the equivalent of losing a championship NBA game by ... more than 70 points. That still does not mean that CD is superior to analog .. For Crosstalk however, an objective, repeatably measurable parameter, CD is.
The dynamic range of LP is at best 75 dB ( I know, I know, I am overly generous) and for R2R let's say 80 dB.. Compare that to something like CD, the lowest in the hierarchy of DIgital method worth its High End creds ... 96 dB .. Let’s not get to 24 /96 because then we hit the physical barrier … 144 dB … So compression-wise … Again advantage Digital.. I will repeat that these does not mean that Digital is superior to analog but for this parameter it is ..
Frequency Response. The CD is indeed limited to 22.1 KHz … It is however flat up to that .. but I am digressing … 24/96 goes up to 48 KHz flat and something like HRx to 88 KHz flat meaning plus or minus o.5 dB … Let’s not talk about extreme implementation fo PCM Digital such as that of Ralph Ballman ‘s Behold which works at 768 KHz .. Theoretically thus able to resolve 384 KHz of Audio bandwidth ..flat … It is important to remark that a tweeter, ANY tweeter can theoretically reproduce 20 Hz … down 200 dB maybe but it most are capable of that … Same with an LP could hypothetically have up to 384 KHz but it would be certainly cut down by the RIAA filter IOW there is no such information in an LP, if such information was available in the music it would however be captured by the 768 Kb/s PCM .. I think DSD would take care of it with its even higher sampling. I am not a fan of DSD but I digress…
I could go parameters by parameters and it would be that the better Digital is superior in these measurements respects to Analog. I must however repeat my position that our present set of measurements does not seem to always correlate with what we hear. I am reminded of the Transient Intermodulation Distortion which wasn’t a measured parameter back in the early 70’s when SS amps sounded bad but measured great .. We are past that SS continue to sound better and measure great too, e.g your SS phono stage. We still need to find better ways to correlate what we measure with what we hear. In my recent experience however, I have found the better digital to be more satisfying than the best analog… I am making sure of not using our Audiophile clichés and hyperboles .. Something we do consistently when we say that the Digital medium XYZ was “not even close” .. or that it was “night and day” when in truth they are very, very close and in many instances a digital copy of analog media is indistinguishable from the original …
The future is right there in front of us .. and it is digital We can live in nostalgia or embrace it .. Part of us has already done so anyway however much we are claiming the contrary … We use this board don’t we? .. it is entirely based on digital technology.
There could be more to say, I’ll stop here.. . for now …

 

[Gregadd]

I have viewed a detailed spec sheet of this preamp and it is impressive. I am reluctant to name it since it is not my intent to give free promotions. Raul is a rare bird being staunchly pro vinyl and anti tube. I think he refers to tubes as "equalizers." Nevertheless if you looked at the spec sheet of his preamp no one could call him subjective or anti measurement. flat frequency response and low distortion is very important to him.
Yes the future is digital. Fortunately there are probably more than a billion records out there.Turntables and preamps are easy to make. If you search around you can still find someone to break out the old Victrola and play some 78's for you.

 

[silviajulieta]

Dear Franz: ++++++ " A stage phono or otherwise that claims 131 dB of dynamic range is misleading .. There is NO WAY until the sun freezes that this can be ...
Now about things like Crosstalk ..." ++++++

certainly this is not the place to analyze about but suficient is to say that every single spec/measure on that Phonolinepreamp was made under audio official world standards through laboratory environment. The item not only measures great but sounds just great too.

The objective of what I posted ( thank you Gregadd. ) about analog/digital and specs on cartridges and analog rig was and is because some gentlemans in that thread, including you, were speaking and trying to diminish the analog/LP alternative because its high " distortions " and poor measures/specs but no one of you posted information that support what you are talking about and how those specs have impact on what we are hearing.

Specs/measures per se means nothing about quality performance till we have a scientific studies that makes a correlation between what we heard with what the audio item measures and you like me knows that till today those scientific studies don't exist, at least I don't know it.

Our brain can't discern over 40db on crosstalk so what advantage represents that an audio source measure 80db or 110db and how we perceive/hear this " advantage " on over 40db on crosstalk? and this only crosstalk factor ( like you point out ) does not means digital is superior.

As I posted somewhere the " Aquiles heel " on Redbook is the 16/44.2 sampling choosed and the oversampling technics help but does not solve the problem.

I'm not against digital I'm with music and that's why I heard and have hundreds of CDs/DVDA/SACD/DVDV at home. I can enjoy CDs, acctually I did/do, but I have to recognize that the LP alternative IMHO is overall a superior medium than CD to the full music enjoyment.

Now if we go to other digital alternative like DVA at 24/176.8 things change dramatically for digital where both alternative ( analog/digital ) are almost even and where IMHO we music lovers can fully enjoy the music. Unfortunatelly that digital format disappear but I hope that in the near future we can have a " new " fully sampling digital format.

Like Gregadd I don't have any doubt that in the future digital will be the " name " of our beloved MUSIC art .

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.