Could it be worthless to spend on highend turntables?

[muon*]

54 minutes ago, Grant Slack said:

And what is the path to actually forming an evidence-based opinion on the subject, @muon*?

 

That’ll straighten out the ‘circle work’...

 

cheers

Grant

I thought you understood science and the scientific method, yet you need to ask

 

Edit: for this it would be very very difficult as it would need to be done real time, not this recorded BS...... and comparing a table would mean same arm cart and phono stage, and comparing an arm would need to be same table cart and phono stage...near impossible as arm and cart matching would likely be out.

 

So many variables it would be very difficult, and to satisfy scientific rigor so much more difficult....unless sloppy science is your thing.

Edited May 10, 2021 by muon*

[cheekyboy]

11 minutes ago, TP1 said:

 

 However additional weight can cause other issues for TT not designed for it.  Pioneer Exclusive used heavy platters with most of the weight balanced around the circumference   to amplify the effect.

 

Yeah, I don't know how much mass was involved in the SS and aluminium platter mat, but I doubt it would have been much and probably had no impact once the platter was up to speed. The platter alone on my turntable weighs 10kg and I think that is the lightest in their range, but once that it is up to speed, I don't think it would take much to keep it spinning accurately, given the precision of the bearing.

 

Cheers,

 

Keith

[sir sanders zingmore]

51 minutes ago, TP1 said:

 

I don't think so.   The test is shockingly poor on so many levels. Consider this

 

1. Turntables were NOT compared in that test.  What was compared were the turntable/ tonearm/ cartridge /phono stage combinations which were all different.  If you want to compare turntables, you MUST use identical cartridges, phono stages and tonearms .  Make no mistake, the combination of arm, cartridge, and phono stage will make a far greater impact on the sound than the actual turntable itself.  That is without getting in to questionable digital transfer using the most basic ADC's which have no place in a hifi test.   

 

2. I have zero faith that  any of the turntables were set up correctly.  In these tests you must specify which VTF was  used, the equipment used to measure the VTF, the VTA used and how it was set. For example, was this method used ( Its only way to be dead sure and eliminate variables) https://www.analogplanet.com/content/how-use-usb-digital-microscope-set-92-degree-stylus-rake-angle-sra

 

3. Roksan is not an expensive high end turntable .  It was pointless selecting it as it is not representative at the high end. It would be useful for comparison against Technics as a belt drive vs direct drive thing but the digital processing would preserve the bass and dynamics of the direct drive  but not so much the finer nuances that some belt drive turntables are famous for. A better test would be the Technics SL1200 against a Technics SP10 Mk3 

 

4. The so called  Needle Drop test is so badly flawed  I can only conclude Archamado doesn't have a clue about vinyl record reproduction.  He  has demonstrated more knowledge of the subject matter in some other blog posts.  but this one is a big miss.   If  people want comfort that their cheap turntables are are the best that can be had, good luck to them. But if they want knowledge on how the turntables actually perform against each other, look elsewhere. 

Interesting that completely messing up the setup on so many fronts would:

a) not make the TTs sound completely busted and,

b) sound exactly the same as each other. 
 

 

[andyr]

1 hour ago, TP1 said:

I don't think so.   The test is shockingly poor on so many levels. Consider this

 

1. Turntables were NOT compared in that test.  What was compared were the turntable/ tonearm/ cartridge /phono stage combinations which were all different.  If you want to compare turntables, you MUST use identical cartridges, phono stages and tonearms .  Make no mistake, the combination of arm, cartridge, and phono stage will make a far greater impact on the sound than the actual turntable itself.  That is without getting in to questionable digital transfer using the most basic ADC's which have no place in a hifi test.   

 

2. I have zero faith that  any of the turntables were set up correctly.  In these tests you must specify which VTF was  used, the equipment used to measure the VTF, the VTA used and how it was set. For example, was this method used ( Its only way to be dead sure and eliminate variables) https://www.analogplanet.com/content/how-use-usb-digital-microscope-set-92-degree-stylus-rake-angle-sra

 

3. Roksan is not an expensive high end turntable .  It was pointless selecting it as it is not representative at the high end. It would be useful for comparison against Technics as a belt drive vs direct drive thing but the digital processing would preserve the bass and dynamics of the direct drive  but not so much the finer nuances that some belt drive turntables are famous for. A better test would be the Technics SL1200 against a Technics SP10 Mk3 

 

4. The so called  Needle Drop test is so badly flawed  I can only conclude Archamado doesn't have a clue about vinyl record reproduction.  He  has demonstrated more knowledge of the subject matter in some other blog posts.  but this one is a big miss.   If  people want comfort that their cheap turntables are are the best that can be had, good luck to them. But if they want knowledge on how the turntables actually perform against each other, look elsewhere. 

 

Wow!  Talk about chopping the legs out from under the OP, TP1!!  

 

FWIW ... I totally agree with everything you said.    As, I suspect, most - if not all - of the vinyl-oriented people here.

 

(But I suspect the OP & Grant Slack don't!   )

 

Andy

 

[Grant Slack]

7 hours ago, muon* said:

I thought you understood science and the scientific method, yet you need to ask

 

Edit: for this it would be very very difficult as it would need to be done real time, and comparing a table would mean same arm cart and phono stage, and comparing an arm would need to be same table cart and phono stage...near impossible as arm and cart matching would likely be out.

 

So many variables it would be very difficult, and to satisfy scientific rigor so much more difficult.

Cool. So in that case, and knowing that sighted listening is so unreliable as a means to learn anything much about sound waves, how is one supposed to form an opinion that an expensive turntable’s sound waves are worth even one dollar of that vast sum over a competent modest  turntable?

 

You see, I have been quite scientific all along. For it is a correctly scientific approach to gather whatever best information is available, whether perfect or imperfect, form a working hypothesis from the information, and then run with that hypothesis until better information arrives and disproves it. To do anything else is the epitome of anti-science: where one runs with whatever fanciful, wishful opinion one wishes were true, and sticks with it doggedly until the contradictory evidence and method of obtaining it is 100% perfect.

 

So, I ask again, given what you said above, how would you suggest anyone go about gathering evidence to justify that the sound waves are any better with a vastly more expensive turntable, if they want to make a purchase decision in the short term? And, if you can’t suggest anything realistic, then shouldn’t they buy the cheaper one?

 

Cheers,

Grant.

Edited May 10, 2021 by Grant Slack

[TP1]

25 minutes ago, sir sanders zingmore said:

Interesting that completely messing up the setup on so many fronts would:

a) not make the TTs sound completely busted and,

b) sound exactly the same as each other. 
 

 

 

Indeed.   And  there was one moving coil cartridge ( crowd favourite) being compared to 2 moving magnet cartridges.

[sir sanders zingmore]

9 minutes ago, TP1 said:

 

Indeed.   And  there was one moving coil cartridge ( crowd favourite) being compared to 2 moving magnet cartridges.

Remarkable. 
We have started by arguing that the differences between TTs was rendered inaudible because they were converted to digital by the same device. 
Now the theory is that differences were hidden because the setup of the TTs was messed up (wtf does a random blogger know about setting up a TT, right?). And on top of that there’s no way you’d hear any difference because they weren’t using identical tone arms and carts. 
 

 

Edited May 10, 2021 by sir sanders zingmore

[Grant Slack]

19 minutes ago, sir sanders zingmore said:

Remarkable.... 
Now the theory is that differences were hidden because the setup of the TTs was messed up (wtf does a random blogger know about setting up a TT, right?).

Remarkable, yes. But not unpredictable! (Paragraph 2)

 

cheers

Grant

[TP1]

 

T

45 minutes ago, Grant Slack said:

Cool. So in that case, and knowing that are sighted listening is so unreliable as a means to learn anything much about sound waves, how is one supposed to form an opinion that an expensive turntable’s sound waves are worth even one dollar of that vast sum over a competent modest  turntable?

 

 

Do you mean in a manner  other than by  listening to it with their own cartridge?   Once you use familiar peripherals I don't find it difficult to discern the differences between turntables.   Knowing how every tiny mechanical factor  including all aspects of turntable geometry,  placement and cables  can affect the sound, I wouldn't  trust digitised recordings  at all.  Not to mention the questionable digital transfer processes used and the fact that some information will always be lost in the process. 

 

I am curious to know whether you think that digital files which are captured from the output of CD players  or music servers could also be used as means of  examining  whether expensive digital gear is worth it.  For example comparing  the output of a MicroRendu  to say a Lumin X1?

Edited May 10, 2021 by TP1

[TP1]

27 minutes ago, sir sanders zingmore said:

Remarkable. 
We have started by arguing that the differences between TTs was rendered inaudible because they were converted to digital by the same device. 
Now the theory is that differences were hidden because the setup of the TTs was messed up (wtf does a random blogger know about setting up a TT, right?). And on top of that there’s no way you’d hear any difference because they weren’t using identical tone arms and carts. 
 

 

 

I  find problems every time I look at the way the test was done.   

[Zed Zed]

On 06/05/2021 at 11:22 PM, Grant Slack said:

 

Hi Rocky,

 

thanks for the great story of your personal audio journey, I love it!  

 

It brought to mind John Atkinson’s journey story, very much the same story, if you substitute your Emotiva speakers with his Quad 405 amp in the 1970s. However, JA misinterprets his story as a lesson in how DBT can’t detect differences in the sound waves, and sighted listening can, which is a mistake. What sighted listening does is create experiences, other than what is in the sound waves, from non-sonic factors that become dominant. We can enjoy the heck out of such experiences, and the brain is hard-wired to tell us it is coming from the external environment, the sound waves, but that is the great illusion of life. The mind as meaning-maker, the mind as illusion engine. In ancient times it was a survival mechanism, but when modern life affords us the luxury of hedonism, we can use it to our advantage as pleasure-seekers.

 

Please take another look at the paradigm I presented on Wednesday, and see where your journey story fits. IMHO you were once DBT-based, and moved to Personal-based in search of maximum pleasure. IMHO your rejection of DBT data about actual sound waves in your decision process means you are Personal/imaginative in my paradigm.

 

cheers

Grant

 

Over the (too) many decades I have been involved with music reproduction systems (note, I did not say 'hifi' systems) I have, at different stages of my audio journey, been a subjectivist, an objectivist, a keen follower of DBT, a worshipper of measurements, a buyer of hugely expensive hardware, a buyer of far more modestly priced hardware, and so on and on.

 

One day, I came across a very simple test which seemed to work amazingly well for me, and required no special equipment, or training, yet seemed to deliver a very accurate appraisal of whether my system at the time was 'fantastic', 'great', 'poor', 'OK' or somewhere in between them all. It goes like this: when I am listening, do I want to "play one more song"?  Just one more. Then one more still. And one more. Do I find it difficult to get up and leave the music?  If I do, then my system is "fantastic". If, OTOH, I feel fatigued or just want to take a break, then something is wrong. Gradually, I evolved my setup over time so that I now find it very, very hard to get up and leave the music. I can listen 'objectively' and am aware of things like Pace, Rhythm and Timing (PRaT) and Attack, Decay, Sustain and Release (ADSaR) and so on, but if one is listening for those things, one is not listening to the music any more. My method allows me to ignore everything but the music itself, which, for me, is the whole purpose of spending all this money in the first place. This may not be very 'scientific' and may not be for everyone, but it works well for me.

 

On the subject of sighted experiences, the internet is full of optical (and, to a much lesser extent, aural) illusions which can very easily convince you that green is red, big is small, stationary is moving and so on. These illusions readily demonstrate how easily the brain is 'tricked' by external stimuli and how it will use its experiences to 'make sense' of what the eyes are seeing. I have never met anyone who either thinks the red ball is actually green or who disbelieves the notion that their eyes are 'deceiving them'. Yet many of these same people seem to find it next to impossible to believe that their brain/mind might also deceive them so casually when it comes to aural stimuli.

 

One other factor which I find is massively influential (for me) in how my system 'sounds' is my mood or my state of mind. If I am upbeat, relaxed and happy, I put on Alison Krauss singing, let's say, 'A Living Prayer' and I am transported to heaven. If I am tired, or stressed or have just had a sh11tty day, and I turn to Alison to elevate my mood, sometimes I find her beautiful voice has become a little 'hard', or 'strained' or some other negative descriptor. Same turntable, same amplifier, same speakers, same room. Same listener, same ears. So I have zero doubt that there are other factors at work than simply sound waves.

 

My take on all this is, if you are really enjoying what you hear, and you find it hard to get up and leave the music, then you are golden. Forget which DAC or cartridge or wires etc etc you are using. You have arrived at your destination.

 

Just my $0.02.

 

 

[MLXXX]

On 05/05/2021 at 12:44 AM, Eggcup the Dafter said:

If you're setting yourself up as an objectivist, why are you going anywhere near vinyl anyway?

I think the above (tongue-in-cheek) post refers to a well known elephant in the room.

 

Based on objective criteria, vinyl is an outmoded medium. The OP is quite correct in noting that the vinyl disc itself is a very weak link in the chain of reproduction. It needs to be read by dragging a stylus along a physical groove. The distortion this produces is complex and impossible to eliminate. (See for example LP distortion mechanisms.)

 

And yet a loyal group of audiophiles swear by and love their vinyl.

 

So I would answer the OP's question in the following way, with one view for those with an objectivist viewpoint and one for those adhering to the viewpoint of the traditional audiophile in love with vinyl:-

 

1. For an objectivist audiophile seeking a medium that will merely pass on the music intact, or nearly intact, then digital (CDs, high quality streaming, etc) will be the preferred source of music. If for some reason such an audiophile has a collection of vinyl discs with music on them that cannot readily be obtained in a digital form, or perhaps visitors fond of bringing along LPs to play, then it may be worthwhile for that audiophile to acquire or retain a fairly basic turntable, tone arm, cartridge and phono pre-amplifier. It would be pointless (or worthless) to spend thousands on upgrading such a setup.

 

2. For an audiophile in love with vinyl, then the following sorts of activities:

• levelling the turntable to within a fraction of a degree
• isolating the turntable from mechanical vibration using a special support
• exploring adjustments to playing weight, anti-skating, and vertical and horizontal alignment
• using a massive platter driven by a motor accurate to so many parts per million in speed
• acquiring a cartridge with reportedly outstanding frequency response and channel separation
• experimenting with home made preamplifiers (as @catman has reported doing in his "analog musings" thread on this forum)
• experimenting with different cables from the cartridge to the preamp
• exploiting different ways of cleaning the disc prior to and during play,

will typically give satisfaction (and perhaps, at times, frustration), and may audibly improve the sound over a basic setup. It will often be difficult to establish objectively in a live manner that the sound is audibly different after a change (say a change in the stylus), unless there are two initially identical setups that can be rapidly switched between. Although it would be possible to record the analogue output of a phono pre-amplifier to assist in later A B comparisons of a turntable setup, this technique is typically strongly resisted, on the basis that ADCs and DACs are not nearly good enough. This deprecating or dim view of the state of digital technology is a cornerstone of vinyl audiophile lore. Without it, it would be impossible, or at least highly problematic, to argue that vinyl is a superior medium over digital for the dissemination of music.  So in practice we are typically left with sighted listening, often with significant delays in switching between different setups being compared.

 

In the above circumstances we will have very little hard evidence to indicate whether it is "worthwhile" to upgrade to a high end system.  However decades old audiophile vinyl lore holds that it is definitely worthwhile to upgrade!

 

So if a vinyl audiophile associates with other vinyl audiophiles, sooner or later he or she may feel peer pressure to upgrade to a high end turntable system.  There will likely be approval from other vinyl audiophiles that the upgrade has been done. And in sighted  listening in a group, the improvement in sound will typically be dramatic, underscoring the truth of vinyl audiophile lore, and putting smiles on faces!  And so the exercise may indeed appear to all present to have been worthwhile.  And it may even appear to vindicate a belief that analogue sound is superior to what a digital medium could provide.  [Please excuse me if the use of the word "lore" causes offence. I simply mean a traditional belief that is considered self-evidently true, without any need of objective evidence to underpin it; such as in this case measurements of the fidelity of reproduced audio waveforms, or results of blind listening tests.]

 

 

 

So there is it is, two very different answers, for two different groups of people!

 

It won't be hard to guess that I align myself with the first group; and it appears likely to me that the OP would also.   On the other hand, it is clear that many contributors to this thread would very decidedly align themselves with the second group. 

 

And so at the end of the day I really think we are left with two answers to the OP's question, not one. 

Edited May 10, 2021 by MLXXX

[andyr]

Wow!  

 

8 hours ago, MLXXX said:

 

It won't be hard to guess that I align myself with the first group;

 

 

You're not wrong there!  

 

IMO, the fact that you regard the following sorts of activities:

 

8 hours ago, MLXXX said:

 

• levelling the turntable to within a fraction of a degree
• isolating the turntable from mechanical vibration using a special support
• exploring adjustments to playing weight, anti-skating, and vertical and horizontal alignment
• using a massive platter driven by a motor accurate to so many parts per million in speed
• acquiring a cartridge with reportedly outstanding frequency response and channel separation
• experimenting with home made preamplifiers (as @catman has reported doing in his "analog musings" thread on this forum)
• experimenting with different cables from the cartridge to the preamp
• exploiting different ways of cleaning the disc prior to and during play,

 

 

as the reason why vinyl-lovers love vinyl ... exposes the fact that you just don't understand the concept of listening to vinyl.

 

TT setup, LP cleaning etc are, to me, overwhelming reasons to give vinyl up!  But I still persist with it - despite my dislike of all the factors you list.  Why?  Quite simple ... I get my reward when I hear the music coming from my spkrs!  I don't get this to the same extent when I listen to a CD (and streaming is not yet part of my armoury).  And this is despite my system being digital at its heart - ie. having a DSP unit to provide the active crossovers I need for my spkrs, and room correction.

 

Andy

 

[rocky500]

That's quite a bleak outlook MLXXX you have formed for yourself of vinyl playback.

 

I gave my young Nephew a Denon DP1200 turntable with ortofon om20 cart and simple nad or rega phonostage & a bunch of records many years ago.

He loves it. Always comments he likes the sound more than his digital playback.

I doubt he does any of that in your list.

Could be just the tactile nature of vinyl playback that draws him in, But I don't think it really matters as anyway it has got him listening to more music and enjoying this hobby more. I count that as huge plus.

That reminds me, I should check on his cartridge as it may be a little worn now.

You mention Catman, He loves his vinyl (as you can tell from his posts), again it seems a big plus for him in enjoying this hobby.

Edited May 11, 2021 by rocky500

[MLXXX]

1 hour ago, andyr said:

TT setup, LP cleaning etc are, to me, overwhelming reasons to give vinyl up!  But I still persist with it - despite my dislike of all the factors you list.  Why?  Quite simple ... I get my reward when I hear the music coming from my spkrs! 

Yes, the justification would primarily be the perceived sound quality of vinyl, and for many the setting up and maintenance would not be particularly welcome.  However there would be still be satisfaction in the knowledge that one's kit was actually properly set up and maintained.

[rocky500]

I was just thinking if I where new to this hobby and sat down with MLXXX, then sat down with someone like Michael Fremer, (trying to think of who loves vinyl, could substitute others) I would get 2 widely totally different opinions on vinyl playback.

 

Who is right.

I would say both are as it is a personal opinion formed over the years for themselves.

[MLXXX]

52 minutes ago, rocky500 said:

I gave my young Nephew a Denon DP1200 turntable with ortofon om20 cart and simple nad or rega phonostage & a bunch of records many years ago.

He loves it. Always comments he likes the sound more than his digital playback.

It is remarkable that vinyl has enjoyed such a marked resurgence with young people in recent years.

 

I grew up with vinyl, and remember my excitement leading up to trying out an upmarket cartridge I had purchased, fitted to a precision tone arm I had carefully adjusted.  I was perplexed when I was not presented with the pristine sound quality I had been hoping for. I was also perplexed (and not a little disappointed) when first trying out 24/96 stereo and comparing it with the supposedly obviously inferior sound of  CD quality stereo, but that's a different debate.

[MLXXX]

16 hours ago, Zed Zed said:

One other factor which I find is massively influential (for me) in how my system 'sounds' is my mood or my state of mind. If I am upbeat, relaxed and happy, I put on Alison Krauss singing, let's say, 'A Living Prayer' and I am transported to heaven. If I am tired, or stressed or have just had a sh11tty day, and I turn to Alison to elevate my mood, sometimes I find her beautiful voice has become a little 'hard', or 'strained' or some other negative descriptor. Same turntable, same amplifier, same speakers, same room. Same listener, same ears. So I have zero doubt that there are other factors at work than simply sound waves.

Absolutely!

 

One application of this is how courageous it is to opine on how "Freddy's" system sounded last weekend compared with how "Maria's" sounds this weekend, be this with either a digital or vinyl source. How highly we must regard our human abilities if we think that we can hold an aural memory in our heads for an entire week, and call up and replicate the same listening mood now that we had a week ago.  For a truly chalk and cheese difference, we might perhaps venture an opinion.  But for a small perceived difference in overall  apparent sound quality?  Most unwise, I would suggest. 

 

Edit: In contrast to the above,  I will gladly audition different speakers in a showroom, where they can be switched between quickly for immediate comparison. 

Edited May 11, 2021 by MLXXX

[TP1]

22 hours ago, MLXXX said:

For an objectivist audiophile seeking a medium that will merely pass on the music intact

 

Everybody thinks they are  principally objective. - you are not unique , except for wanting to audition analog sounds using  an abstract digital method. That is anything but a purist  approach.  

 

22 hours ago, MLXXX said:

For an audiophile in love with vinyl, then the following sorts of activities:

• levelling the turntable to within a fraction of a degree
• isolating the turntable from mechanical vibration using a special support
• exploring adjustments to playing weight, anti-skating, and vertical and horizontal alignment

 

 

 

As President Kennedy said :

 

“We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone,  ...

 

And because we are are capable people who don't get put off easily and don't understand  the attraction to be glued in one's seat in front of  an LCD screen. 

    

 

22 hours ago, MLXXX said:

And so at the end of the day I really think we are left with two answers to the OP's question, not one. 

 

There are always purchasing decisions to be made but it is an insult to anyones intelligence to suggest that the "test" referred to could be used to answer the OP question.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 11, 2021 by TP1

[TP1]

12 hours ago, rocky500 said:

I would say both are as it is a personal opinion formed over the years for themselves.

 

The cold hard reality  is that both formats have strengths over the other. IMO,  some  digital recordings these days sound better than vinyl pressings  which I think can lose a little bit during the analog mastering process.  (I know others may not agree particularly on the issue of timbre and tonality )

 

Where vinyl still cant be touched by digital is where the original recording was in analog and the record was well mastered.  If people want proof , they just need to hear it for themselves.

 

 

[MLXXX]

34 minutes ago, TP1 said:

Where vinyl still cant be touched by digital is where the original recording was in analog and the record was well mastered.  If people want proof , they just need to hear it for themselves.

 

 

What do you mean by "the original recording was in analog? :-

 

1. Do you mean cases where the cutting head received its signal from a live microphone mix? (I guess you'd need to capture the live microphone mix digitally at the same time as cutting the master disc, if you wanted to perform  a comparison of technologies and "prove that vinyl can't be touched".)
    
2. Or, do you mean cases where analogue technology was used to make a recording on a studio tape recorder and then at a later time that studio analogue recording was disseminated via vinyl pressings?  (I guess in such instances you'd need to create a digital version from the studio recorder analogue output, if you wished to make a comparison.)

[Cloth Ears]

9 hours ago, TP1 said:

Where vinyl still cant be touched by digital is where the original recording was in analog and the record was well mastered.  If people want proof , they just need to hear it for themselves.

 

Still not convinced that a format that has to be mastered differently for inside tracks on an LP (compares to the outside tracks) is a good format. Analog is the only way to listen (obviously), but vinyl is one of the worst ways to carry it. And throwing money at is doesn't necessarily make it better, just more expensive.

But I still have some LPs and a TT - the covers are better and the sound, when well mastered, is good if not full range...

[Grant Slack]

8 hours ago, MLXXX said:

What do you mean by "the original recording was in analog”?

 

Hi MLXXX

 

In the case where the master is an analog tape, it would be difficult to dispute that an unedited digital rip from that tape, by the studio, would preserve the sound of that original recording far better than a good-as-it-gets vinyl transfer, with all the remastering and imperfect copying involved in a vinyl transfer.

 

Studio engineers who have actually done this (produced a digital rip and a premium vinyl LP from the same analog master tape) have confirmed it. To paraphrase: “The digital file, now that’s the sound I was hearing in the studio. The vinyl: it’s perfectly enjoyable, but it’s not the sound the engineers made.”

 

If you want that sound the engineers made, the actual recorded artwork, there is only one way to get it. And this is not opinion, or my personal bias: it is fact.

 

Not that we have gone off topic or anything!  

 

cheers

Grant

[rocky500]

38 minutes ago, Grant Slack said:

 

Hi MLXXX

 

In the case where the master is an analog tape, it would be difficult to dispute that an unedited digital rip from that tape, by the studio, would preserve the sound of that original recording far better than a good-as-it-gets vinyl transfer, with all the remastering and imperfect copying involved in a vinyl transfer.

 

Studio engineers who have actually done this (produced a digital rip and a premium vinyl LP from the same analog master tape) have confirmed it. To paraphrase: “The digital file, now that’s the sound I was hearing in the studio. The vinyl: it’s perfectly enjoyable, but it’s not the sound the engineers made.”

 

If you want that sound the engineers made, the actual recorded artwork, there is only one way to get it. And this is not opinion, or my personal bias: it is fact.

 

Not that we have gone off topic or anything!  

 

cheers

Grant

 

This could be another reason of why people prefer vinyl.

It might bypass all the sound engineers who love compression, who alter the original quite a bit to add their touch on it to then put it on CD's etc. While the LP is left alone some.

Just a quick google of saw this from an Audio engineer discussing adding just a little compression.

 

 

 

Edited May 12, 2021 by rocky500

[rocky500]

Just saw the add for the dangerous music system for Engineers.

 

This was part of the blurb.

"Today's audio landscape is fraught with formats. Radio, Vinyl, Streaming, Downloads, Club Mixes. Played back on disparate systems: laptops, phones, earbuds, PAs, cars- and they all sound different. How will your megahit land? Will the ballad resonate? Does the anthem deliver body blows? Get your mix to translate emotively everywhere."

So you would think their mixes are not really targeted for the audiophiles system when they are doing their thing.

While the LP may be void of this?