Insights on vinyl
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: Tech Talk
Forum Description: Discuss musical instruments, equipment, hi-fi, speakers, vinyl, gadgets,etc.
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=29503
Printed Date: November 25 2024 at 02:24
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Insights on vinyl
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Subject: Insights on vinyl
Date Posted: October 06 2006 at 16:14
|
First of all: This is not intended to be one of the "CD vs. Vinyl" threads ... there are already plenty of those. I found this interesting article: http://www.mastersonaudio.com/audio/20030101.htm - http://www.mastersonaudio.com/audio/20030101.htm In a way it summarizes what I think about vinyl ... I recently re-discovered it, I like the sound very much. I'm a scientifically minded person (An "objectivist" according to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audiophile - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audiophile ) and I'm sure that digital recording technology is vastly superior to analog ... if not at CD level, then on SACD/DVD-Audio level. But at the same time I can listen to vinyl and really enjoy the experience. I guess it's a combination of appreciating the cover art, watching the disc rotate on the turntable, and pure nostalgia.  So what's your opinion - do you still listen to vinyl, and if so: how does it compare to listening to digital sources? ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to: 
|
Replies:
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: October 07 2006 at 03:25
| Yes, i still listen to vynil and "if not at CD level, then on SACD/DVD-Audio level" unfortunatly it doesn't changes things much. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 07 2006 at 03:40
|
In the wikipedia article I linked to they describe two types of audiophiles: Subjectivists and Objectivists. Among the objectivists there are many who accept CD/SACD/DVD-Audio as audiophile sources ... and fact is that people are unable to tell the sources apart in listening tests. So while I accept your opinion, it would be nice if you also accepted mine. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Eetu Pellonpaa
Date Posted: October 07 2006 at 03:45
Why do you often spell vinyl like that?
|
oliverstoned wrote:Posted By: N Ellingworth
Date Posted: October 07 2006 at 05:16
|
I listen to and enjoy music as both vinyl and CD, to be honest in my opinion there is very little difference between the two other than the nostalgia of listenning to a vinyl LP. Yet to listen to an SACD or DVD-A because I don't have the appropriate player or a 5.1 speaker setup, despite the fact that I own an SACD album ( Moody Blues - Days of Future Past) and a DVD-A album (Porcupine Tree - Stupid Dream) .  |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 07 2006 at 05:23
|
^ you can listen to DVD-Audio on the computer with a budget 5.1 system, all it takes are $50 for a good Creative sound card (Audigy), a built in DVD drive and a set of speakers (decent quality speakers are available for $80). I use this setup to listen to music frequently ... it's nowhere near a reall hi-fi system, but it allows you to listen to the surround sound 5.1 mixes on the DVD-A, and of course you can use it to watch movies - if you also attach a TV set, or even better: put the computer in the living room and use a LCD-TV instead of the computer screen. But coming back to vinyl: I agree about the nostalgia, and that aspect is even more obvious in my room where the huge computer/LCD/5.1 speakers/cables etc. technical overkill is juxtaposed with the simple turntable + amp + speakers of my hi-fi (well, actually kind of "mid-fi") system. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: N Ellingworth
Date Posted: October 07 2006 at 05:27
|
Actually I did just finish building a new computer and I'm already thinking about adding a decent sound card, but unfortunately I've not got enough room for a 5.1 speaker set up. |
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: October 09 2006 at 05:12
| There's a notable difference in soundquality between the CD versions and the original LP versions of many albums in my library. Needless to say, I prefer vinyl records because of that. But for compatibility and, in particular, portability, the CD is far superior. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 09 2006 at 06:15
|
^ would you say that for *any* album? There are some really bad CD versions which were created in the 80s - the article that I quoted explains that. I have some of those, and the sound quality is indeed quite poor - but the remasters are awesome!
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: bsurmano
Date Posted: October 09 2006 at 16:14
|
I'm enjoying in listening to the vinyls, now even more than in my youth (let's say 40 years ago!); moreover I'm still regularly buying records (LPs) of my favourite bands and I'm especially delighted with first pressing examples being in a mint or near mint condition. I absolutely agree that it is a matter of nostalgia, cover art or even the opening of a gatefold sleeve, but most and above all it is this unique warm, reach and full analog sound that makes my ears feel pleasant. ------------- 'Sundown,yellow moon, I replay the past I know every scene by heart, they all went by so fast..... Either I'm too sensitive or else I'm gettin' soft.' Bob Dylan |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: October 09 2006 at 16:15
|
Most remasters features a un natural overbumped sound.
But you need neutral and transparent equipment to hear that. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 09 2006 at 16:20
|
unnatural ... what if - like the article says - some original pressings were flawed?
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Eetu Pellonpaa
Date Posted: October 10 2006 at 02:56
^Maybe flawed sound might sometimes sound better that correct sound?  For example some weird mixings of early 70's sound fun, like early BUDGIE albums: the drums and bass are mixed very high, and the guitar is and amplified acoustic guitar treaded with fuzz, buzzing quiet in the background.  Also early GENESIS albums with several layers of acoustic guitar sound unclean, but cool in my opinion.
|
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: October 10 2006 at 08:14
| For sure it's mostly about preferences. But saying that there's no way of saying one is more natural or better than the other! |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 10 2006 at 08:48
|
The article contains some interesting infos on that question too (how accurate the original pressings were).
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Neil
Date Posted: October 10 2006 at 08:58
|
There was definitely a habit of over emphasising some aspects of the mix when CD first came in. The ability to get much clearer and higher levels of high (and very low) frequency sound often drove sound engineers to turn these up and produce some very unnatural sounding mixes. Couple that with the fact that there were some poor quality CD pressings around back then and you can see why some duff CDs are about.
There were also a lot of older recordings re-released on CD and the CD quality really showed up the shortcomings of the original master tapes. Subsequent digital processing methods have allowed re-mastered originals to sound much better. ------------- When people get lost in thought it's often because it's unfamiliar territory. |
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: October 10 2006 at 09:58
|
You are not imagining things, Mike, i have made many comparisons with vinyl and cd though found it depends on the recording, many vinyl copies sound better than their cd counterparts and vice versa - there is no generalisation, for example i had a copy of Rick Wakeman's "6 wives of Henry VIII", and found the cd version much clearer, crisper than the vinyl, the difference is between wet or dry, exciting or average. recording quality matters a lot to me, a good record is spoiled by poor sound quality or poor playback equipment. i compared many early records of Buddy Hollly and the Beatles, the vinyl wins hands down! many remasters sound amazingly clear, such as the "Free" series of remasters, which i found much better than the vinyl copies, but a poor cd recording will remain poor whatever you play it on, so it also depends which hi fi units you are using, a top flight record deck can out perform cd, but it all depends.....!!! these days i get newly issued recordings on cd, hoping they've got it right! as for longevity, i have many old vinyl lp's which have never shown any signs of wear if used correctly - another story!!
-------------  Prog Archives Tour Van 
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: October 17 2006 at 03:14
|
^Indeed, there are some bands to whom vinyl is the natural environment; hearing the Beatles, the Stones, Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin (especially DSOTM and Led Zep II) on vinyl is like hearing the music for the first time - every time!
It also depends on the pressing, of course - the first presses are so full of detail you'd swear the band was in the room with you. The FP of "Rubber Soul", for example, is simply incredible, thanks to the solid, thick vinyl and, of course, relatively unworn stampers. I recently managed to upgrade all of my 1970s Genesis vinyl to first press by finally tracking down a genuine FP of "Foxtrot" - and even though it sounds compressed in the last few minutes (due to packing all that music onto a side), the rest is much, much better than the awful CDs. Comparing the CD of Foxtrot to the FP makes me realise why so many people think that the production is awful - it isn't, it's the terrible mastering job - which may have something to do with what HeavyFreight is saying. However, the 24-bit remastered CD of "Script for a Jester's Tear" is sonic perfection and blows the (horrible, thin, 1980s) vinyl away! Some remastering has practically made new records, though - DSOTM is a classic example. The FP sounds raw - like a Rock band in full swing, albeit with incredible production techniques. Later pressings (presumably either remastered or compressed through cheap vinyl) sound more homogenous and syrupy. The more recent re-masters sound even more syrupy and above all, digital. That's not necessarily bad, just very different to the original! ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 17 2006 at 03:28
|
^ what about the new vinyl pressings of DSOTM? As far as I know they're 180gr vinyl and DMM (Direct Metal Mastering) ... I'll definitely buy one of them and compare it to the CD versions.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: October 17 2006 at 08:01
I'm not so sure - I haven't heard any of the newer pressings, mainly because I was put off DMMs by the 3 Metallica issues (KEA, RTL and MOP were released as limited edition DMMs). I read an article on DMM, and can concur that the overall sound lacks depth, although there is plenty of clarity because the top gets a boost from the process. I found the sound too brittle for my taste - but maybe they've improved the process since. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the comparison(s - you say CD versions = does that mean you have more than one CD version to compare it to?). Here's a great link to a quality forum post on how records are made, for the curious; http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=44239 This link touches on some of the issues with DMM; http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/archive/index.php/t-68559.html - the real vinylphiles will appreciate the videos  ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 17 2006 at 08:15
|
^ Currently I only have the "standard" CD release - I'm looking for the remaster on Ebay.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: October 21 2006 at 13:40
|
the Steve Hoffmann site is really fascinating, Mark - though i didn't know lp's could be "horny"
------------- Prog Archives Tour Van
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: October 21 2006 at 18:16
|
I'm just surprised that "Metal Master" and "Metal Mother" aren't in the archives ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: October 22 2006 at 17:52
|
My vinyl of Machine Head sounds infinitely better than any CD version including the annniversary remaster/remix.
The guitar just sounds meatier somehow... |
Posted By: Jim Garten
Date Posted: October 23 2006 at 07:28
|
If there are any fans of Ted Nugent out there (who are willing to admit to being one), you'll be familiar with the appalling mix on the original vinyl issue of "Double Live Gonzo"; somehow, on the CD version, they actually managed to make it worse - imagine a hand held mike, covered in 4 layers of sport socks, connected to a 1970s Phillips portable cassette player and held up to the PA...
Now apparently, 30 years on, they've got round to remastering the original tapes - has anyone heard this version, and has it made any improvement whatsoever? ------------- 
Jon Lord 1941 - 2012 |
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: October 23 2006 at 14:44
Same thing with my vinyl of Red by KC. |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: October 23 2006 at 18:05
I always thought that DLG was recorded in mono....it is that bad a recording....so flat and one dimensional. |
Posted By: Jim Garten
Date Posted: October 24 2006 at 07:39
True - it's a real shame, as (embarrassing gonzoid stage banter aside) Ted Nugent is on seriously good form on that album & it's his only live album featuring Derek St Holmes (David St Hubbins...?? ) on vocals/rhythm guitar.
-------------
Jon Lord 1941 - 2012 |
Posted By: Neil
Date Posted: October 24 2006 at 08:37
Patron saint of quality footwear ------------- When people get lost in thought it's often because it's unfamiliar territory. |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: October 25 2006 at 02:20
Indeed, Tony and Phileas...like most records (not to say all), especially in the "rock" field, considering how they are altered and bumped on CD format... |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 25 2006 at 02:48
|
^ no objection, but also consider this example: Miles Davis - Kind of Blue Most (old) people who are really used to listening to the vinyl version don't like the remastered CD at all - they say it feels unnatural. As it turns out the original pressings were flawed - the tapes were running a bit too slow and as a result the songs are slower and off-key (nearly one half tone). I think the example simply shows that the adaptability of the human brain sometimes works for us, but sometimes also against us. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: October 25 2006 at 02:53
| Maybe there was a speed problem, but obviously it was more natural cause analog, despite the fact that some care has been take for the CD remaster (they used the vintage tube mix tables to obtain the same sound). But it was counting without numeric flaws! I confirm: "Kind of blue" remaster is not a very bad CD, but it's a CD: harsh. The trumpet is indeed a good test cause it's hard to reproduce (in digital). |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 25 2006 at 02:59
|
^ Sorry, but even if it may be hard to reproduce most people will say that it still sounds like a trumpet (and not a distorted one). So while the instrument may be a good "benchmark" for detecting digital sampling artefacts, listening tests will (and have) been inconclusive. And isn't a trumpet by definition a harsh instrument? It has a harsh signal (sawtooth)! ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: October 25 2006 at 03:20
|
On vynil, it sounds as natural as it sounds for true, and Mile's trumpet is not harsh at all on "Kind of blue".
On CD, it's harsh and bright (in a pejorative way). Same for the saxo, which breaks the ears on the CD, etc... Without talking about limited dynamic, image, quickness, lack of mateer...all that played through top-level CD setup! |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: October 25 2006 at 03:47
|
Here's one experience that CD can never beat:
The first Faust album was released on clear vinyl that was specially cut so that it would appear to rotate a quarter of a turn, slow down, then rotate backwards. Another great area of vinyl that CD is trying oh-so-hard to mimic with the 24k Gold CDs, is audiophile pressings. I picked up an audiophile "Hotel California" for the relatvely bargain price of £10 at the weekend. The difference in sound is amazing - but that's because the engineers responsible for the pressing had access to the master tapes, and cut a new master disk after re-engineering the sound using technologies that are as close as possible to the originals, ie tube amps and small monitors. I say amazing, because it's so noticeable, dynamic and clear - but it's possible that I've been conditioned by the original, as I still prefer the warmer sound. There was a series of half-speed remasters released by Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs in the late 1970s-early 1980s which I'm still trying to get examples of - these are supposed to blow standard vinyl pressings out of the water - even pukka Beatles albums. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 25 2006 at 04:35
|
^ are you referring to the 180gr re-issue of Hotel California - or is there another version? In my local store there are some 180gr reissues of classic albums (Hotel California, Dark Side of the Moon, LZ IV etc) priced at about €20, and some releases marked "audiophile" which average at €40.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: October 25 2006 at 08:06
Another example showing vynil's superiority! |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: October 25 2006 at 08:45
There are all sorts of versions - the MSFL original is the one to get, as it was recorded at half speed, so has greater dynamic depth. It was also recorded on very high quality vinyl that is less susceptible to dust and minor scratching - the weight is almost immaterial if the vinyl is rubbish - and the sound is reputed to be far better than CD. The one I got is a digitally remastered "Audiophile" pressing, and like most true audiophile pressings, not much is made of the weight - it doesn't feel as heavy as some of the 180g pressings I own. However, I'm going to be checking out some of these after the next paycheck; http://store.acousticsounds.com/browse_detail.cfm?Title_ID=11484§ion=vinyl http://store.acousticsounds.com/browse_detail.cfm?Title_ID=8027§ion= ...but maybe not this one; http://store.acousticsounds.com/browse_detail.cfm?Title_ID=35156§ion=vinyl ...I've already got this, and it's a killer; http://store.acousticsounds.com/browse_detail.cfm?Title_ID=12590§ion=none  ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 25 2006 at 08:59
|
Being the scientist that I am I still don't think that these audiophile pressings really *contain* substantially more of the original signal than a properly mastered CD would. Heavyfreight posted a very interesting article about the quantising effect of vinyls ... makes much sense to me. But at the same time I do own some vinyls which - to my ears - sound better than the CD version. My opinion: I simply prefer the mix on the vinyl, or in other words: I don't like the mix of the CD version. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Neil
Date Posted: October 25 2006 at 09:09
Same here. It's not the medium that makes the difference, it's the mix. A lot of albums were remixed for CD and in some cases the mix was not as pleasing as the original vinyl mix. ------------- When people get lost in thought it's often because it's unfamiliar territory. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 25 2006 at 09:24
I think that for these vinyl reissues the engineers give the audiophiles exactly what they want to hear ... the odd thing is that this would change the original signal, something which audiophiles don't (or at least: should not) want. I thought that mastering should be about recording the original signal with as little changes as possible, not to make it sound warmer (read: add harmonic distortion). The best reasons for me to buy vinyl remain: nostalgia + cover art/vinyl art (picture discs, colored/transparent vinyls). ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: October 25 2006 at 09:51
|
Talking about changing the original signal, most, if not all "rock" Cds(and many jazz records as well) are so over-bumped that the atrocious low is unintelligible to the point that you can't ear the bass line, so there's no comparison in term of fidelity between this and the original vynil. You can talk about a so-called warmth, i refer to extreme coldness, dryness, a edgy, lifeless and boring sound that break the ears until 5 minutes. But now you can serve me your mathematical formulas and theories to prove your point. The listening experience is something else.
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 25 2006 at 09:55
^ I certainly won't use formulas to prove any point that is about subjective listening experience. I would only challenge some specific statements like "you can't hear the bass" - I can hear it on CDs, so while I know what you mean I would carefully speculate that you have a tendency to exaggerate.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: October 25 2006 at 10:03
|
If the difference between a vague buzzing and a deep powerful and clear bassline is not so important, OK so. The low is far more articulate, quick, dry and deep on vynil than on CD. If (very rare)good Cds records manage to have decent "soft" highs (without comparison in term of tone and informations with the vynil), these Cds all have a problem with the low which is very thin on the old release and overbumped on most recent versions. However, these overbumped releases goes well with Mr everybody mediocre system. They are done for it. Thats why i should cut my sub when i'm listening to thse kinds of CDs, whereas it works wonderful with my sub on a well- balanced classical or jazz Cd. So it proves the problem is on the (overbumped)CD . |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 25 2006 at 10:14
I sure hope so ... I'd loose my interest in music as soon as I need ultra expensive gear to listen to it. And I pity those who think that you can only enjoy music on audiophile equipment - you're free to pursue that course, I steer clear. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: October 25 2006 at 10:34
|
I've never pretend that you can't apreciate music through
mediocre equipement. There's always better but as soon as you've heard something good, it's very hard to go backward. I don't talk about ultra expensive gear, you can already judge the difference between records on a good 1000€ system. |
Posted By: N Ellingworth
Date Posted: October 25 2006 at 10:46
|
I wouldn't touch audiophile equipment with a barge pole it all seems to be made of fairy dust. I can understand the reasons behind keeping each part separate as it makes it easier to figure out which bit is faulty and you don't have to replace everything at once but spending over £500 on a hi-fi seems pointless to me. I wonder how audiophiles feel about the equipment musicians use to make music? Take electric guitars for example: the wire inside them is copper, the jack socket is usually nickel, most of the effects used are digital, and the amps are mostly very low-tech and transistor based (bar the top of the line valve amps) often with built in digital effects.
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: October 25 2006 at 10:57
|
You talk about current artists (digital).
Actually, jazz and classical recording studios are far more tidy with sound than rick studios. If it seems pointless to you to spent much on equipment, it's just because you haven't heard it. My system is around 10000€ and should be soon around 15000€ and it blows what you can hear in studio. It's like a hard drug because it's so good! |
Posted By: Neil
Date Posted: October 25 2006 at 11:05
|
Oliver,
Could you tell me what exactly an audiophile is looking for. I've read the last few posts of yours on this topic and you seem to be arguing against yourself over some points. Then you mention a sub woofer, surely that isn't audiophile kit. Sub woofers can give an interesting sound and add depth but they certainly aren't faithful to the original recording. You also make completely unjustified comments both about vinyl and CD. You talk about the dynamic range of vinyl; well the main advantages of CD are the enhanced dynamic range and lack of noise. Everyone in audio understands that 16 bit CD has more dynamic range than the best possible vinyl, that's just simple physics.
I'm just curious to know what it is you are looking for.
Neil.
------------- When people get lost in thought it's often because it's unfamiliar territory. |
Posted By: Neil
Date Posted: October 25 2006 at 11:08
Again I don't understand what you mean here. Surely the recording that you are listening to was mixed in a recording studio and the sound that was heard in the studio was the sound that the band and the engineer wanted to hear. How can your system sound "better than studio". If it doesn't sound the same as the artist intended then you aren't listening to the original sound. You may well prefer the sound that you get but it isn't necessarily better. ------------- When people get lost in thought it's often because it's unfamiliar territory. |
Posted By: N Ellingworth
Date Posted: October 25 2006 at 12:37
I have heard high end hi-fi systems the difference was marginal at best, of course I will remain open minded about this, if I hear a £10000 system that is far higher quality than my £300 system I'll admit it, but I would never buy it as I'm happy with what I've got and I'd rather spend the money on more music to listen to. |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: October 25 2006 at 13:44
|
If the difference was marginal, it was simply not a good system. Price means nothing. A 1 000 000 dollars system can be bad, less good than a 1000 dollars well composed one.
Without talking about the source, here are the conditions for a system to work, WHATEVER THE PRICE: -ALL the elements must be good and musical. If all your system is good except your preamp i.e, the whole wil be bad. That's what's tricky. Price means NOTHING. There are good and bad things in all price ranges. -Tubes in wide-band, or bi amp with tubes in the highs. So, if you must have only one amp, it must be tube. There are some nice solid-state which work decently in the highs, but no comparison with a good valve one. -Good cables, proportioned to the elements (Interconnects+power cables)(bad ones downgrade) -Separated power lines direct to the home counter. -A minimum of good power filters (bad ones downgrade) -A minimum of cancelling device under each element. -Several essential tips such as: power phase respect, horizontality for turning machines (Cd player/turntable). Few audiophiles apply all the points, many systems are: Digital + solidstate, no power optimization and no vibration treatment most of the time. And the guys believe that they will compensate their system's flaws with acoustic treatment. This said, the speaker's position in the room is essential as well. As you see, it's quite complex (and simple at the same time)and it's virtually impossible to do well in the esoteric world of Hifi, if you don't have a solid background. I had the chance to meet a very "big" audiophile, one of the biggest in France, his experience is the result of 35 years of research. A few words about his setup: -CD : The biggest Mark Levinson Setup, about 45 000 € (drive + convertor of course) -Turntable : Constantly changing, still in research. -Tuner: Marantz 10B -Tapedeck: Nakamichi 1000zxl Gold -Preamp: Mark Levinson 32 Reference, the best ever. Bi-amplification: -Low: Two mono blocks Goldmund 9.4 -Highs: Constantly changing, always tube: two mono blocks Conrad Jonhson, Antique sound lab, Graaf... -Speakers: Genesis (a brand created by the "Infinity" conceptor). A blend of electrodynamic speakers for low, and rubon tweaters in the highs (the best for highs). Cables: "Transparent cables" for Interconnects (something like 80 000€ for the whole), "Nordost" in power cables (3000€ each cable), "Transparent cables" power isolators, "Richard Grey" filters. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 25 2006 at 13:56
3000€ power cables ... 'nuff said! (But they surely look impressive )------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: N Ellingworth
Date Posted: October 25 2006 at 14:03
|
How can a power cable cost
3000€? What is is made of? even if it's gold it should cost that much. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 25 2006 at 14:04
|
^ it comes with its own power supply and glows in the dark. (no joke)
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: N Ellingworth
Date Posted: October 25 2006 at 14:06
|
I've got a USB cable like that cost me about £7 |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: October 26 2006 at 03:32
|
When you use digital kit, the difference a cable can make is minimal compared to analogue kit, which is hit hard by impedence.
It strikes me that a powered connection must somehow be active - and therefore must reprocess the signal somehow. Wouldn't that alter the sound? The sound from a high-end mixing desk like http://www.cowshedstudio.com/new_pics/control%20room%20med.jpg - this or http://abtech.org/img/equipment/scorp.jpg - this through high-end studio amps like http://www.shorefirerecording.com/images/DC300a.JPG - this and http://i23.ebayimg.com/01/i/08/07/54/bc_1.JPG - this with top-end studio monitors like http://www.proaudioeurope.com/images/products/monitors/ATC_new/ATC300A.jpg - this being fed by the master tape coming from a 2" reel cannot be matched by any Hi-Fi - unless you also had access to the master tape and a suitable player like http://tradingpost.sweet**ter.com/images/200512142120280.MCI%20JH16-24.jpg - this ; ...I speak from experience...
/edit - you may need to edit the last link - the forum nanny censor software changes SWEET WATER to sweet**ter!! I wonder what it does to http://www.newtonnewtonflags.com/flags_banners_images/club-sport-flag-sc**thorpe-avfc.jpg - Sc**thorpe? /edit - ah...
Better not live http://www.f**king.at/f**king/eOrt1.htm - here then... (you may need to edit the urls a little...)
------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: progismylife
Date Posted: October 26 2006 at 06:01
| I would listen to vinyl but I don't have a record player so all those Rush albums just look cool. |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: October 26 2006 at 06:10
|
Nothing in studio can match the top level system i described up. About top level power cables, her's one: Shunyata Research Anaconda Helix 
" •• Patented 6x6 Helix geometry • Braided by hand • 13 conductors • 8 gauge aggregate • Cryogenic CDA-101 pure copper • Shunyata Venom AC & IEC -- Silver plated, cryogenically treated • 8 Flexible 1.0" diameter - 6ft/1.8 m length • Patented FeSi-1000 -- Noise reduction compound (VX only) Years ago, the Anaconda was used only as an in house world reference power cord for testing and experimentation, but like any good secret, word got out, demand started and a legend was born. The Anaconda Helix Series power cords continue the tradition. Despite their expense and complexity to produce and their matching higher retail price, the Anaconda Helix's continue to be one of the most demanded and discussed power cords in Shunyata Research's entire line. Countless studios, from Pink Floyd's Astoria to James Guthrie, from Sony to Rick Rubin, have purchased the Anacondas in bunches. If only the best will do, it's no longer a "secret" that the Anaconda Helix power cords are the real thing." 
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: October 26 2006 at 06:12
You should look for a Rega Planer 3 turntable with a "Elyss" or "Super Elyss" cartridge. |
Posted By: progismylife
Date Posted: October 26 2006 at 06:14
What would be a good place to start looking?
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: October 26 2006 at 06:17
There are some cheap cables which work great as well (in a related system), such as the nice english brand QED. QED Qunex1, modulation cable Price: 35€ Neutral and musical
Technical explanations Conductor Section (mm2) 4 x 0.21 Conductor Material 99.999% OFC Screening Material Aluminium Mylar Conductor Dielectric Low Density Polyethylene Loop Resistance (Ohm/m) 0.0152 Parallel Capacitance (pF/m) 109.2 Loop Inductance (µH/m) 0.76 Dissipation Factor (@10Khz) 0.0009 Overall Size (mm) 11.0 x 5.3 |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: October 26 2006 at 06:21
Depends if you want new or second hand. As it's an english product, i would buy it new, it must not be expensive. If you want second hand, search into Hifi dedicated websites. I would recommend a whole english budget sytem along: Nad or Rotel Cd + amp, Mission louspeakers and QED cables. |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: October 26 2006 at 06:23
Have a look at their website BTW: http://www.rega.co.uk/html/p3.htm - http://www.rega.co.uk/html/p3.htm |
Posted By: progismylife
Date Posted: October 26 2006 at 06:28
|
Thanks for the input. |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: October 26 2006 at 06:40
| That's a pleasure! |
Posted By: progismylife
Date Posted: October 26 2006 at 06:43
|
One more question, how much do good (doesn't matter if it is used) record players cost? |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: October 26 2006 at 08:05
Well, I suppose a studio isn't intended to sound the same as a HiFi - it's supposed to be entirely accurate. Accurate isn't always the most pleasing, as it shows every little flaw in the arrangement - as it is supposed to. If your setup was "better", then studios would use that - sound engineers always demand the very best in studios, and, since no record player can possibly match the master tape, I maintain that the studio kit is better for the purpose it is used for - which is listening to recorded music accurately. Your system is only as good as the source, and the master tape is the ultimate source. There simply is no better, as once it's mastered and trasferred to a laquer, some alterations are inevitable. Then, when a mother is made from the laquer, more sound is lost - especially if the mother requires "de-horning". Finally, a stamper is made from the mother, and that stamper is worn down by the process of stamping copies of the vinyl record - stampers are usually good for around 500-1000 copies. So already, the sound has degraded from the master, and it hasn't reached your turntable yet. Play the vinyl 5 times, and I know of engineers whose ears are so sensitive that they can tell the difference. Be a bit careless about taking the record from the dust jacket, and the sound degrades. So it's just not possible for your system to sound better than a top-end studio. Sorry! ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 26 2006 at 08:12
|
^ Don't you know that an audiophile (read: esoteric) Hi-Fi system can magically restore the audio quality? It's just sooooooooooo unbelievably good! ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: October 26 2006 at 09:32
|
It may be true about the master tape source, but talking about all the rest of the system, it's not! You will never find such a level of optimization in studio, BI AMP with tube amps in the highs (which are more ACCURATE in the highs with more informations than any solid state -and they don't use the best solidstate in studio-), you will never find Genesis speakers in studio, you will not find a complete "Transparent cables" top level line, etc... Genesis Speakers 1.1 ( $165,000 per speaker) 
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: October 26 2006 at 09:41
|
The "Rockport technology sirius III" turntable compete with the master sources in term of performance without talking of musicality. 
A direct concert through a Marantz 10B tube tuner (1968) is probably the most emotional and lively sonic experience you can have. 
Talking about mastertape, the Studer A80 stays a reference. 
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: October 26 2006 at 09:43
There's no rule. It goes from 1€ to 100€, depending on many factors, including rarity. |
Posted By: progismylife
Date Posted: October 26 2006 at 13:24
|
Do you know how much that is in pounds? I am still not used to the Pound to Euro conversion, heck I am still not used to the dollar to pound conversion. |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: October 26 2006 at 13:30
|
Thursday, October 26, 2006
1 British Pound = 1.49171 Euro 1 Euro (EUR) = 0.67037 British Pound (GBP) Actually, vynil price is extremely fluctuating from almost nothing to highly expensive, depends to where/ whom you buy it. No rule really. |
Posted By: progismylife
Date Posted: October 26 2006 at 14:56
| I will soon (like as soon as I get money) buy a record player. |
Posted By: Neil
Date Posted: October 26 2006 at 16:31
Hey, I used to repair and line up those on a regular basis. Excellent transport, let down slightly by the amplifiers. The Telefunken M15 had better audio electronics but slightly worse tape handling. I wouldn't call the A80 a reference as such; it was a very common good quality studio machine for broadcast studios back in the day before digital editing and playout.
Now the A800 24 track version running at 30 ips was a recording studio standard.
 I have lined a pair of those up before (gives 46 tracks because you use one off each machine to time sync) with 46 tracks of Dolby A noise reduction. Takes ages to adjust as there are about 15 audio adjustments for each track. It requires 2 reels of 2" tape to record 46 tracks, and a synchroniser to lock the transports together (electronically). Then we got a Sony 3348 24 bit 48 track digital recorder.
 Used 1/2" tape to give 48 tracks and didn't need two whole racks of Dolby cards, or a synchroniser or hours of audio line up. The harmonic distortion was miniscule compared to the old analogue tape and the noise level was as low as the measuring kit could measure. Funnily enough the A800s didn't last very long after that. ------------- When people get lost in thought it's often because it's unfamiliar territory. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 27 2006 at 02:41
You might have misunderstood him though ... he did not ask for records, but for a record player. I think that a new good one averages at €500 ... although I must say that I'm quite happy with my lo-fi player (Dual, €100). ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: October 27 2006 at 03:15
|
Thanks to correct me Mike, i read too fast.
-->Progismylife I would be interested to know the exact price in England for the Rega 3 New. Indeed it must be around 500€, which is very cheap. England is the land of Grey and Pink affordable Hifi. |
Posted By: progismylife
Date Posted: October 27 2006 at 07:24
| From the website its under 500 pounds, but i don't know how much that is in Euros or the exact price. But that's new apparently. |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: October 27 2006 at 07:52
| Thanks for the precision. |
Posted By: progismylife
Date Posted: October 27 2006 at 09:08
| So is there any way to clean up old vinyls? |
Posted By: Neil
Date Posted: October 27 2006 at 09:13
Depends what you mean. You can get cleaning fluid and soft brushes to get the dust or other muck out of the grooves and ensure that the stylus can track better. If you mean repair bad scratches or damage then I would say not. Once the grooves are damaged then information has ben lost (and added) and you cannot recover it.
You can de-click recordings of vinyl by using a digital editing package but even the best versions of these remove other sounds from the recording and alter it for the worse. ------------- When people get lost in thought it's often because it's unfamiliar territory. |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: October 27 2006 at 10:06
|
Indeed,there's no way to repair a damaged groove. There are a LOT of products, solutions, machines on the market to clean. Here are some advices: MAIN TIPS FOR KEEPING AND CLEANING VYNILS First, a tool to use each time you play your record, is the felt brush, like the one pictured below. It's much better than the cloth cause it doesn't loose it hairs. This kind of brush removes both dust and static electricity. There's no specific brand, but the one provided with the "Metanac" (see further, and picture below) is good. TO CLEAN THE VYNILS: There are many products. The "Metanac" is a good and efficient product that you simply apply directly on the record with the felt brush. Another way is to do his own cleaning liquid, proceeding as follow: -1/3 90°c alcohol -2/3 distilled water -A few drops of neutral soap (without detergent, very important). You have to wash your records with that liquid, using a soft matter to softly rub, or throwing the liquid on the vynil using a kind of water gun. Then there's the drying issue, which is to find a way to remove water without adding hairs by rubbing with a cloth. Then, for the cartridge keeping, there are two things: -Cartridge demagnetizer (any brand, make a search on the net). You have to do it from times to times. -Cartidge stylus cleaner liquid (any brand, make a search on the net). You have to do it from times to times. Here are the main products to start, considering that there are many products, solutions for it. There are even sophisticated and expensive record cleaner machines. Metanac record cleaning product with its felt brush: 
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: October 27 2006 at 16:38
|
A lot of collector friends of mine recommend the Moth.
Obviously only worth it if you're the sort of collector who goes for audiophile and first pressings. http://www.britishaudio.co.uk/rcm.htm ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: October 30 2006 at 07:50
|
Top level turntable brand: VPI VPI HRX 
To reviewers and manufacturers around the world the HR-X is known for it's natural reproduction of scale and sweep. two of the things that make us feel like we are listening to live music. With world class detail, low noise, pace, and timing, the HR-X will bring the concert hall into your home. Best of all it does this with no fiddling, tweaking, or constant resetting. The HR-X features a triple laminated chassis (Acrylic-Aluminum-Acrylic), integral air suspension (which rejects up to 98% of acoustic feedback) and an inverted main bearing incorporating a hardened steel ball running on a Teflon/Delrin composite. HRX Turntable Shown with optional 30 pound super platter An outer periphery record clamp centers on the platter, not the record, to provide vacuum-like hold down without the problems inherent in a vacuum system. The drive system uses two low-powered 24-pole motors driving a 12-pound flywheel, the flywheel spins at 300 RPM and has 62 times the inertia of a 25 pound platter. The drive system and the periphery clamp result in wow, flutter, and rumble that are all below measurability providing the most stable sound ever heard from a turntable. The included JMW 12.6 is bolted to the aluminum portion of the chassis with a double base mounting, providing the ultimate in rigidity and adjustability. The SDS power supply (included) rounds out the package and provides a pure AC signal to the drive system. The HR-X, including the JMW 12.6 tonearm and SDS power supply, has an MSRP of US$10,000. NEW ITEMS AVAILABLE FOR HR-X: 30 pound super platter (+$2000.00) Nordost Valhalla wiring for the arm and junction box (+$300.00) Balanced output junction box (+$150.00) |
Posted By: Eetu Pellonpaa
Date Posted: October 30 2006 at 07:56
I just wash them carefully with warm water (not hot!), and dry them with a cloth.
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: October 30 2006 at 08:22
|
The problem with non-distilled water is that it may let some chalky depositing and cloth may let some hairs. So, better use distilled water and a powerful fan to dry. |
Posted By: tdreamer
Date Posted: October 30 2006 at 12:39
Looks nice but way out of my Budget.. |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: October 30 2006 at 14:39
|
That should be better for your budget: Rega planar 3 
|