Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 168
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I did not watch the whole video but does he mention Analog playback at all? I watched the first few minutes and then skimmed through it.   Once a certain price point is reached I think analo

I dunno about that.  Probably depends on the price bracket.  Buying new under $1k you are probably quite accurate:  dacs/streamers/computers in this price range can be surprisingly capable, and unless

Analog or digital aside, user experience is 50% of the game I think and everyone has different thoughts on what’s important to them.   For me given my listening sessions are few and far betw

1 minute ago, aussievintage said:

Time to close the thread... 

 +1

Thank god it wasn't just me.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, jeromelang said:

Erasing the player's memory and using the technique of accessing to the track directly without leaving track memory imprint is specific for each brand/model

Wonderful! Thanks for your contribution and extensive write-up. 

 

Yes, clearing a disc-player's memory does reap rewards on close listening. As you say, solo piano becomes fuller and less clangy. I must say I'm not as worried about static etc as you are, but everything makes a small difference in my experience.

 

Thanks again. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Peter-E said:

 

Of course if I was rich I would buy higher quality. But would I hear that quality is my point.
 

 

The only answer to that, Peter, is ... you need to spend time listening to other Adelaidian SNA members' systems.  (Take along the source material you are used to listening to.)  :)

 

I believe you would  notice differences - as the difference between system A and system B is not just how well they deliver HFs.

 

Andy

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites


5 hours ago, MattyW said:

After all it's all about the enjoyment of music.

You can enjoy music on an AM radio. Don't need to be an Audiophiliac.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Peter-E said:

Of course if I was rich I would buy higher quality. But would I hear that quality is my point.

Regardless of your ear quality and frequency extremes.

If you can hear, you can hear the difference relative to your limitation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Wimbo said:

You can enjoy music on an AM radio. Don't need to be an Audiophiliac.

My understanding is that someone being an audiophile is more to do with the enjoyment of music than any system requirements. So an audiophile could very well listen primarily through an AM radio,  or even a clock radio for that matter. ;)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites


On 2/2/2020 at 8:50 PM, awayward said:

 My experience is the opposite, I think you need to spend more on analogue to match modern day digital of the same SQ.

Agreed, listen to the latest edition of the Esoteric K-07SX at 7k rrp. I've never heard a vinyl setup as good at the price, but that's not saying it doesn't exist.

I keep an open mind, not like some on these forums. Modern digital is exciting, and the good thing is, it's becoming cheaper and cheaper.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, was_a said:

Wonderful! Thanks for your contribution and extensive write-up. 

 

Yes, clearing a disc-player's memory does reap rewards on close listening. As you say, solo piano becomes fuller and less clangy. I must say I'm not as worried about static etc as you are, but everything makes a small difference in my experience.

 

Thanks again. 

should also consider time-aligned speakers to hear piano properly reproduced...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of people are talking about the "experience" of analog.

 

There's a similar thing with analogue photography, the feeling is different. Even if you completely disregard the look of film vs digital, the feeling of making a picture with only light, glass, and a fully mechanical machine is something special. You take your time more, you notice things you wouldn't have otherwise, you feel more connected, and each frame feels special. 

 

The only difference between hifi analog and photography analog is that shooting film is so much cheaper than listening to vinyl ?, otherwise I'd definitely get into it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites


30 minutes ago, maximus said:

Agreed, listen to the latest edition of the Esoteric K-07SX at 7k rrp. I've never heard a vinyl setup as good at the price, but that's not saying it doesn't exist.

I keep an open mind, not like some on these forums. Modern digital is exciting, and the good thing is, it's becoming cheaper and cheaper.

What vinyl setup's have you directly compared?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Igor Nadj said:

A lot of people are talking about the "experience" of analog.

 

There's a similar thing with analogue photography, the feeling is different. Even if you completely disregard the look of film vs digital, the feeling of making a picture with only light, glass, and a fully mechanical machine is something special. You take your time more, you notice things you wouldn't have otherwise, you feel more connected, and each frame feels special. 

 

The only difference between hifi analog and photography analog is that shooting film is so much cheaper than listening to vinyl ?, otherwise I'd definitely get into it.

You rise an interesting point. The critical point of the OP video is that human hearing is frequency band limited, i.e. we generally can't hear sonic frequencies above 22kHz or there about. Even for those who argue for ultrasonic frequencies, it has to end at some point on the frequency scale. It is solely due to the existence of this band limit that allows us to apply Nyquist's sampling theorem to enables digital recording and play-back in analogue, as explained nicely in the video. 

 

Similarly we have a band limit in our vision as well - i.e. human can only 'see' light frequencies within the visible light range (think colour of the rainbow). Therefore in principle we can also apply Nyquist's sampling theorem to digital photography as well. Yet, a quick search of Nyquist and digital photography seems to focus mainly on pixels resolution, which is a different thing. Interesting difference between digital applied to audio and vision. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kelossus said:

What vinyl setup's have you directly compared?

They weren't comparisons, just individual systems people own and in audio stores, Rega, Technics, Project, Clear audio etc...the Esoteric was so much more dynamic and detailed, it seemed to handle  rhythms with real authority, very foot tapping and engaging. Just my taste and opinion.   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites


  • 1 month later...

Research I find interesting and often applicable is this. 

 

Red cars sound sportier and big bulldozers sound louder.  See Internoise publications. 

 

This has been proven under controlled testing where each coloured car has the same audio and so do each of the bulldozers. 

 

A case of either preconception or primal hard wiring impacting perception.

 

I have also had to respond to community complaints of this nature as a professional. Eg blue ships vs red ones, rusty ships vs freshly painted ones, red road noise barriers vs green ones etc... Apparently the noise levels are higher for some even when they are not. 

 

I would love to have the funding to research this in the audio world. 

 

As an acoustics professional grounded in engineering the real psychological aspects of perception have led me to philosophical questions about whether audio, sound or noise is what we measure or perceive?

 

Probably perception for audio as the experience is everything and the financier is the beneficiary. 

 

For community complaints and tax payer funded solutions it is a harder to spend money on perception, although good and negative perception have measurable value which could be used in economic decision making. 

Edited by DrSK
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...

For a decade or two this topic has been thrashed to death, but hey, I'll weigh in...

Bear in mind that I have a bachelor of applied science and a sparky's trade followed up by studies in industrial electronics, so the "science" side of things should skew my preferences. I've built my own tube amps and speakers in the past, and cabled up one of Australia's top 5 recording studios...

 

My system is pretty lowly by the standards of most here: Martin Logan Electromotion ESL (the bottom of the range of their statics), Nakamichi CA5 PA5 pre power (100w with about 5w in Class A, Nelson Pass Stasis technology).  Sources are an Audiolab 8000CDE with outboard power supply and a Garrard 401 with modified thrust bearing in a Corian and Brushbox plinth running "The Wand" unipivot tonearm and an alloy bodied DL103r cartridge.

The CD player replaced my old Arcam Alpha 5 and was a bit of a revelation for me in clarity, cleaning up soundstage and the bottom end response.

I find the experience of playing records a pain in the butt.  Short playing time, scratches, cleaning, fragile handling etc etc.

That said, my vinyl front end utterly slays the Audiolab if the LP's are in good condition.  Recent examples are the Propellerheads "Decksanddrumsandrockandroll", the Buena Vista Social Club, Caro Emerald "Deleted Scenes fro the Cutting Room Floor", Rodger Waters "Amused to Death".

In every case, despite the inconvenience, there is no comparison, the LP replay is drastically superior and more "real" sounding in instances where acoustic instruments have been used.

Maybe if I threw 3k at a transport and DAC that'd change, I honestly don't know.  I'm enjoying both formats, but if I want the best sound with the gear I have and I have the recording in both formats, despite the inconvenience, I'll play the LP.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, FR DRew said:

For a decade or two this topic has been thrashed to death, but hey, I'll weigh in...

Bear in mind that I have a bachelor of applied science and a sparky's trade followed up by studies in industrial electronics, so the "science" side of things should skew my preferences. I've built my own tube amps and speakers in the past, and cabled up one of Australia's top 5 recording studios...

 

My system is pretty lowly by the standards of most here: Martin Logan Electromotion ESL (the bottom of the range of their statics), Nakamichi CA5 PA5 pre power (100w with about 5w in Class A, Nelson Pass Stasis technology).  Sources are an Audiolab 8000CDE with outboard power supply and a Garrard 401 with modified thrust bearing in a Corian and Brushbox plinth running "The Wand" unipivot tonearm and an alloy bodied DL103r cartridge.

The CD player replaced my old Arcam Alpha 5 and was a bit of a revelation for me in clarity, cleaning up soundstage and the bottom end response.

I find the experience of playing records a pain in the butt.  Short playing time, scratches, cleaning, fragile handling etc etc.

That said, my vinyl front end utterly slays the Audiolab if the LP's are in good condition.  Recent examples are the Propellerheads "Decksanddrumsandrockandroll", the Buena Vista Social Club, Caro Emerald "Deleted Scenes fro the Cutting Room Floor", Rodger Waters "Amused to Death".

In every case, despite the inconvenience, there is no comparison, the LP replay is drastically superior and more "real" sounding in instances where acoustic instruments have been used.

Maybe if I threw 3k at a transport and DAC that'd change, I honestly don't know.  I'm enjoying both formats, but if I want the best sound with the gear I have and I have the recording in both formats, despite the inconvenience, I'll play the LP.

The difficulty with these comparisons is that they are usually not about differences in format. Rather, they are mostly about differences in mastering. 
 

I reckon if you made a digital recording of say, your “Amused to Death” record, you’d have all the benefit without the inconvenience (apart from the one-off inconvenience of making the recording itself). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Before the lock down in Melbourne i went to pickup some cds this guy was selling.

He had an old Cambridge Audio CD3 cd player that was built around 1989?

It was the closest digital iv'e heard that resembles analogue sound.

My next player if i can find one!

 

Edited by Guest
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fordute said:

Before the lock down in Melbourne i went to pickup some cds this guy was selling.

He had an old Cambridge Audio CD3 cd player that was built around 1989?

It was the closest digital iv'e heard that resembles analogue sound.

My next player if i can find one!

 

A lot to like!

Good power supply

Philip's CDM1 MKII transport, arguably the best Philips made.

4X Philips TDA1541A DAC chips in parallel

:thumb:

 

Edit: CA was a different company back then with better builds.

Edited by muon*
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sir sanders zingmore said:

The difficulty with these comparisons is that they are usually not about differences in format. Rather, they are mostly about differences in mastering. 
 

I reckon if you made a digital recording of say, your “Amused to Death” record, you’d have all the benefit without the inconvenience (apart from the one-off inconvenience of making the recording itself). 

That being the case, lets concentrate on the Propellerheads album.  Born digital, not remixed or remastered as far as I'm aware (and given that 99.9% of the sales are on digital format, why would they throttle it back when it's the primary medium).  The LP still blows it away.

Of course, if the studio is going to take a bucketload more effort with the LP release, then I suppose that's also a good reason to opt for vinyl...

 

Funny how when digital is claimed to be better, that's because it's supposedly a superior format, but whenever LP is claimed to be better that's apparently down to difference in mastering...

John Elison was certainly (painfully repetitively) of the view that a digital recording of LP playback would have all of the psychoacoustic good qualities that LP brings.

I just want to listen to music and enjoy the experience.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, FR DRew said:

That being the case, lets concentrate on the Propellerheads album.  Born digital, not remixed or remastered as far as I'm aware (and given that 99.9% of the sales are on digital format, why would they throttle it back when it's the primary medium).  The LP still blows it away.

Of course, if the studio is going to take a bucketload more effort with the LP release, then I suppose that's also a good reason to opt for vinyl...

 

Funny how when digital is claimed to be better, that's because it's supposedly a superior format, but whenever LP is claimed to be better that's apparently down to difference in mastering...

John Elison was certainly (painfully repetitively) of the view that a digital recording of LP playback would have all of the psychoacoustic good qualities that LP brings.

I just want to listen to music and enjoy the experience.

Instead of questioning why something might be throttled or arguing about digital vs analog "claims", or taking issue with reviewers, just try the simple experiment.

 

Choose any album which sounds better to you on vinyl, record it and see whether that recording still sounds better than the digital release.

 

As an anecdotal data point, my previous system had a digital crossover. This meant that everything I played was converted from analog to digital and back again. What I heard was that the vinyl that sounded better prior to having this system still sounded better (and conversely, the vinyl that sounded worse - yes it does happen - still sounded worse)

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, FR DRew said:

Of course, if the studio is going to take a bucketload more effort with the LP release, then I suppose that's also a good reason to opt for vinyl...

I think "a bucketload more effort with the LP release" rarely happens if ever at all.

What seemingly happens more often than not is loudness compression is applied to digital releases and not to vinyl.

26 minutes ago, FR DRew said:

I just want to listen to music and enjoy the experience.

Well not quite true, because you're posting about digital vs vinyl here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Satanica said:

I think "a bucketload more effort with the LP release" rarely happens if ever at all.

What seemingly happens more often than not is loudness compression is applied to digital releases and not to vinyl.

That would imply a bucketload more effort goes into the digital release - albeit the wrong kind of effort ?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sir sanders zingmore said:

Instead of questioning why something might be throttled or arguing about digital vs analog "claims", or taking issue with reviewers, just try the simple experiment.

 

Choose any album which sounds better to you on vinyl, record it and see whether that recording still sounds better than the digital release.

 

As an anecdotal data point, my previous system had a digital crossover. This meant that everything I played was converted from analog to digital and back again. What I heard was that the vinyl that sounded better prior to having this system still sounded better (and conversely, the vinyl that sounded worse - yes it does happen - still sounded worse)

Capturing a record being played back on a record player captures the nuances of that mechanical analogue playback, so you are comparing vinyl playback to essentially what is vinyl playback.

 

Edit: I have done it and it sounds better in near every case from my limited data set compared to the CD releases. One I found the same...

Edited by muon*
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, muon* said:

Capturing a record being played back on a record player captures the nuances of that mechanical analogue playback, so you are comparing vinyl playback to essentially what is vinyl playback.

 

Edit: I have done it and it sounds better in near every case from my limited data set compared to the CD releases. One I found the same...

That's (kind of) my point although as you correctly point out I neglected the other stuff that goes into vinyl playback.

 

My point remains (at least I think it does), that if digital is capable of capturing the nuances of the vinyl recording itself and its playback mechanism then we shouldn't point at digital as being an inferior technology for music reproduction. 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, sir sanders zingmore said:

That's (kind of) my point although as you correctly point out I neglected the other stuff that goes into vinyl playback.

 

My point remains (at least I think it does), that if digital is capable of capturing the nuances of the vinyl recording itself and its playback mechanism then we shouldn't point at digital as being an inferior technology for music reproduction. 

 

 

I don't, but even though I do CD's now i still recognize that I like the sound of good analogue playback a bit more when both are done to my liking.

 

I see them as both capable of very good sound.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 04/02/2020 at 9:31 PM, LHC said:

" i.e. we generally can't hear sonic frequencies above 22kHz or there about."

A person who can hear anywhere near 22kHz must have a dog as a close relative.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was 40 and started in this hobby I could just faintly hear a 21kHz test tone through average headphones, now I'm down to 15 - 16kHz.

 

I wasn't much of a party or concert goer, only occasionally.....didn't even own a stereo myself until when i started this hobby. The old chalk/blackboard or knife - fork/plate sounds were torture most of my life and I'd throw my hands up to cover my ears every time, not as annoying these days.

Edited by muon*
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Yamaha_man said:

For me my analog front end still eats my digital although my digital is  nothing to be sneezed at and very convenient.

And rumour has it, about to get even better ?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/07/2020 at 7:35 PM, muon* said:

When I was 40 and started in this hobby I could just faintly hear a 21kHz test tone through average headphones, now I'm down to 15 - 16kHz.

 

I wasn't much of a party or concert goer, only occasionally.....didn't even own a stereo myself until when i started this hobby. The old chalk/blackboard or knife - fork/plate sounds were torture most of my life and I'd throw my hands up to cover my ears every time, not as annoying these days.

I don't believe you.

But don't feel bad its not important.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, LHC said:

You seem to have an obsession with bat ?

Don’t get any ideas,  I just admire there hearing capabilities, that’s it nothing else :D   And no, I’ve never had the on a plate.......   not that i know of!   :)

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/07/2020 at 7:04 PM, Colin Rutter said:

A person who can hear anywhere near 22kHz must have a dog as a close relative.

Funny you should post that...

I remember as a very very young tacker maybe as a  2/3yo our friends who lived a street away from my parents in West Footdescray they had bought a TV (black and white and very tiny screen, I had to  lay on their carpet three feet away to get an idea of what was going on!)...that was a real rarity back then in those days (have no kids so buy a TV!  :) )

Anyways my parents had a long standing invitation to come around on a Sunday afternoon to watch TV...I was absolutely wrapped TV!!!...all I can remember any of us watching was a 1/2 hour submarine show where the intro showed a periscope rising and breaking the water above and Disneyland! Yes!  And some films one in particular I still can remember in parts but I was too young to make much sense of...but have never been able to track down anywhere...

(black and white movie seen in 1954 sometime...three kids walking around a large tree trunk, one boy/two young girls and one of the girls tricks the other girl by calling her from behind the tree into going the wrong way and presumably getting lost! I was stunned why would she do that Moma?!? Moma?!? why?!?! why?!? huh?!? Why moma?!? Moma never had a short answer and always came out with a long winded East European explanation about good and evil and how it always seemed to involve God and the Angels, 12 Apostles. and also about going to Church on Sundays regularly...r-e-g-u-l-a-r-l-y!!!..an explanation which was still ongoing by the time we all reached home...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz :) ) good luck with tracking that one down! Whirlpool movie threads anyone! :) )

Anyhoo on our weekly trips to the neighbours house and TV I some how came to realize that when the neighbours where home the TV was on and vice versa...and the TV being on produced a very high pitch noise that I could hear in the air above their house...I could hear it or not hear it at least a house away from the neighbours...I would tell my parents with great certainty and delight that their friends were home and the TV was on because I could hear it...don't be silly johnnee, we vill check virst do see if dey are hom!..No moma, tatee I can hear the TV...can you hear it?!? I always got a disappointing blank stare and a negative shake of the head back in return. When I got a few moma/tatee they are not home and i can't hear the TV confirmed and right...they started to believe me...demon child! :)  Maybe I was a foundling lost just like the children in that film?!? Maybe they were not my parents?!? Maybe I was a wolf child from East Europe that they secretly adopted and smuggled into Australia , who knows?!?

Wait a minute...Stop, now, what's that sound, Everybody look what's going down, Stop, children, what's that sound, Everybody look what's going down...

 

Edited by BLAH BLAH
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Colin Rutter said:

I don't believe you.

But don't feel bad its not important.

Of course you don't.

 

I couldn't feel bad about it as It's not my issue.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BLAH BLAH said:

Funny you should post that...

I remember as a very very young tacker maybe as a  2/3yo our friends who lived a street away from my parents in West Footdescray they had bought a TV (black and white and very tiny screen, I had to  lay on their carpet three feet away to get an idea of what was going on!)...that was a real rarity back then in those days (have no kids so buy a TV!  :) )

Anyways my parents had a long standing invitation to come around on a Sunday afternoon to watch TV...I was absolutely wrapped TV!!!...all I can remember any of us watching was a 1/2 hour submarine show where the intro showed a periscope rising and breaking the water above and Disneyland! Yes!  And some films one in particular I still can remember in parts but I was too young to make much sense of...but have never been able to track down anywhere...

(black and white movie seen in 1954 sometime...three kids walking around a large tree trunk, one boy/two young girls and one of the girls tricks the other girl by calling her from behind the tree into going the wrong way and presumably getting lost! I was stunned why would she do that Moma?!? Moma?!? why?!?! why?!? huh?!? Why moma?!? Moma never had a short answer and always came out with a long winded East European explanation about good and evil and how it always seemed to involve God and the Angels, 12 Apostles. and also about going to Church on Sundays regularly...r-e-g-u-l-a-r-l-y!!!..an explanation which was still ongoing by the time we all reached home...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz :) ) good luck with tracking that one down! Whirlpool movie threads anyone! :) )

Anyhoo on our weekly trips to the neighbours house and TV I some how came to realize that when the neighbours where home the TV was on and vice versa...and the TV being on produced a very high pitch noise that I could hear in the air above their house...I could hear it or not hear it at least a house away from the neighbours...I would tell my parents with great certainty and delight that their friends were home and the TV was on because I could hear it...don't be silly johnnee, we vill check virst do see if dey are hom!..No moma, tatee I can hear the TV...can you hear it?!? I always got a disappointing blank stare and a negative shake of the head back in return. When I got a few moma/tatee they are not home and i can't hear the TV confirmed and right...they started to believe me...demon child! :)  Maybe I was a foundling lost just like the children in that film?!? Maybe they were not my parents?!? Maybe I was a wolf child from East Europe that they secretly adopted and smuggled into Australia , who knows?!?

Wait a minute...Stop, now, what's that sound, Everybody look what's going down, Stop, children, what's that sound, Everybody look what's going down...

 

Children can hear pitches up around 16-18khz maybe 20khz in exceptional cases

By the time we are 40, 12 to 14khz would be very good hearing if no industrial hearing loss has occured..

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...