Hello,

With all the loudness and mastering fuss, I'm considerin buying Records instead of CDs.

If I were to buy a budget Turntable (maybe 100-200$ for the whole kit) in order to digitize the record, how bad would the loss of quality be compared to a 1500$ record player? Or rather, I know it would be worse, but would the "damage" done still be less than the effect of overmastering CDs and such?

Is this a good plan?

Thanks for the help.

I can't speak for all possible turntables, but my experience suggests there is a big difference between a really cheap turntable ($100-300) and one that is slightly more expensive ($500-600). Back in the 1990's when I largely abandoned LP's for CD's my turntable broke and I wanted to replace it with something cheap so I bought a Sony from Circuit City for about $100. It had difficulty playing any record that was even slightly warped and the sound was poor. I replaced it with an entry level Denon turntable & Grado cartridge ($350) and the improvement was significant.

Just my 2 cents, but if you are going to bother to get into vinyl, it really pays to make a reasonable investment in your turntable/tonearm/cartridge. You don't have to spend a fortune (and I wouldn't recommend it to start with) to get good sound. But those super cheap turntables usually won't show off the potential of vinyl.
Good luck with whatever you decide.

This is a tough question, because you're comparing apples and oranges-- the distortions of cheap turntables vs. the "distortions" of badly mastered CDs. You probably need to do some listening for yourself to decide how much difference a better turntable makes to you.

If you decide to go the budget route, however, I would strongly urge you to consider the Technics SL-BD20, upgraded with a better p-mount cartridge from somebody like Audio-Technica. This will run you something like $200, and, IMO, can hold its own with the entry-level offerings ($300-500) of the audiophile-approved brands. (By hold its own, I mean that it is better at some things and worse at others, and the tradeoffs don't immediately recommend against it.)

The biggest difference is in the cartridge IMO.

Hello,

With all the loudness and mastering fuss, I'm considerin buying Records instead of CDs.

If I were to buy a budget Turntable (maybe 100-200$ for the whole kit) in order to digitize the record, how bad would the loss of quality be compared to a 1500$ record player? Or rather, I know it would be worse, but would the "damage" done still be less than the effect of overmastering CDs and such?

Is this a good plan?

Thanks for the help.



Absolute "lousy plan", there is no such thing as a good complete TT set-up for $100-200, at that price point stick with digital.

I will say this with absolute certianty...anybody that claims you can you can accomplish this, has NEVER heard a good, let alone a great analog front end.

I picked up a used Rega P1 on Audiogon for $245 shipped, and added a Glass platter, and a Rega Bias cartridge, and have been quite impressed with the sound. Even after hours of listening, I am already enjoying this more than CD's. Total cost was around $410. Now I just have to find a way to keep the static off the records. Even after using a brush, it comes right back.

twitch54,
What price range would I have to go into in your opinion to get a noticeable improvement?

Klankey, To start with I have no clue as to what your present system consists of, but putting a cheap analog front end in to 'digitize' music as a alternative to CD's makes no sense. If you have a collection of analog already you could possibly make a case for it, but if your thinking about getting into vinyl then do so for what IT IS !

With regards to a budget to START, a min of $500 might get you in the door, myself I would try and push it between $500-1000.

You'll need:

TT (assumes it comes with tonearm)
cabling(if not with TT)
cartridge
phono-preamp(assumes you do not have one)
Cleaning supplies

If you are willing to buy used then the above is doable in and around $500, the more 'new' pieces you add into the equation the the price goes up !!

You might want to consider looking into the Stanton line of turntables which are discounted quite heavily and provide you with digitial outs.

You might want to consider looking into the Stanton line of turntables which are discounted quite heavily and provide you with digitial outs.


Chu, the fact that he mention that he was thinking about "starting to buy LP's instead of CD's" just dosen't make sense as I stated before.

The only real use for that Stanton player you mention is for someone with alot of LP's lying around that just wants to digitally archive them. As an analog only front end it is certifiable junk !

I'll take a look at them. TTs with digital out, seems like an oxymoron, LOL

twitch. I understand what you're saying, don't get me wrong, If I listen to records in my room, I'll certainly listen on TTs. But if I'm on the go, or in a different room, it would be nice to have them in digital form, to stream. (ie flac or so)

I hear you twitch, but it's hard to figure out what people's commitments will be, especially once they realize there's a certain amount of record prep, software, and all that. I've seen plenty of people with all the drive in the world, and then after a short while, it just fizzes out. And he did state he's looking to buy vinyl and digitize it, hence the Stanton, might make life easier with a more modest financial hit plus he doesn't have to worry about a phono preamp. He's only looking to drop a couple of hundred. As to whether the analog you'd get out is junk, well, that's debateable. Who knows, maybe being in Bavaria, he's looking to digitize David Hasselhoff :D Under no circumstances would I consider the ION brand though. That's really cheesy looking.

about 3 yrs ago i bought a used akai direct drive tt for $12:eek: from a local thrift:eek: store. even came w a a.t. cartridge. it sounds just great!

and i am loving it!:D

actually, i was looking for something a little cheaper:eek: but i just couldnt find a thing!

Let's not forget that vinyl records are highly compressed. They have to be just to keep the stylus from jumping the groove.

I think the only musical genre where you will find high levels of dynamic range compression on digital recordings is current rock and pop. Those aren't on vinyl anyway. If you buy digital remasters of old recordings, you aren't likely to get any more compression than the originals had. I think your plan takes a step backward rather than forward.

Let's not forget that vinyl records are highly compressed. They have to be just to keep the stylus from jumping the groove.

Not necessarily true. Any alterations made for RIAA curves to keep the stylus in the groove are reversed as long as the phonostage RIAA equalization is built correctly. There are also plenty of albums being released that don't compress the "musical portion" of the signal or limit it (BTW, compression is not the same thing as RIAA curves). These albums are released on multiple LPs instead of a single LP, so that the grooves can be spread out further.

I think the only musical genre where you will find high levels of dynamic range compression on digital recordings is current rock and pop. Those aren't on vinyl anyway.

This isn't true. There are a lot of alternate masters released of modern rock albums on LP that lack all of the over-compression and loudness war issues. Two right off the bat that are phenomenal compared to their crappy CD counterparts are RHCP "Stadium Arcadium" and the latest White Stripes album "Icky Thump." The list is too long to name them all...

If you buy digital remasters of old recordings, you aren't likely to get any more compression than the originals had. I think your plan takes a step backward rather than forward.

Also not true, there are quite a few remasters that are horrendous. The list is too long to name every one, but you can start by checking out some Hendrix remasters and Rush remasters. I can play you the LP versions of some of these albums against the CDs and it will knock your socks off...

Let's not forget that vinyl records are highly compressed. They have to be just to keep the stylus from jumping the groove.

Not necessarily true.
Yes, necessarily true. This has nothing to do with RIAA equalization. All vinyl records are compressed because the dynamic range of vinyl records is lower than that of the analog tapes from which they are made.

CDs, by contrast, don't have to be compressed, although far too many are--sometimes even more than was necessary to accommodate the limitations of vinyl.

The used market will take you a long way when it comes to TT. I recently bought a Rega Planar 2 for $200 w/ glass platter and RB250 arm. Then I added a Michell Technoweight, AT440MLa cart, and I am now in the process of getting the cardas rewire. So far I have put in $450 into it and it sounds a lot better than anything you buy new at the same price. Try to find a used P3 on audiogon as sometimes they will pop up for around $400.

Yes, necessarily true. This has nothing to do with RIAA equalization. All vinyl records are compressed because the dynamic range of vinyl records is lower than that of the analog tapes from which they are made.


If done right, vinyl can have really big dynamic range. I have trouble to find any CD that have clearly larger dynamic range. Of course there are many, but not as many one could guess IMO.

If done right, vinyl can have really big dynamic range.
LOL. Direct-to-disk aside, vinyl can't have a dynamic range much above 70 dB. Laws o' physics, man. And needless to say, very few approach that maximum.

Post deleted. Smarten up guys...

The misinterpreted ambiguities in my response to FMV have been corrected.

I stick by my statement that what he said is "not necessarily true..."

I'm also sorry Kysersose if I broke any rules in that deleted post. :(

LOL. Direct-to-disk aside, vinyl can't have a dynamic range much above 70 dB. Laws o' physics, man. And needless to say, very few approach that maximum.


First, the best vinyls have 75 db or even more in dynamic range.
Secondly, what recording have a dynamic range of 70db? Non what I know of. So maybe you could show me a couple of recording with huge dynamic range?

Secondly, what recording have a dynamic range of 70db? Non what I know of. So maybe you could show me a couple of recording with huge dynamic range?

Yep, that was my exact point which went misinterpreted. There are some recordings of that caliber and beyond, which is why I said, "not necessarily," instead of just, "not true..."

First, the best vinyls have 75 db or even more in dynamic range.
If by best, you mean D2Ds and 45-rpm LPs, then yeah. (And how many of those are there?) But it would take heroic efforts to squeeze 75 dB out of a conventional platter.

Secondly, what recording have a dynamic range of 70db?
Analog master tape can go to 85 dB or so. 24-bit digital even higher. Recording engineers seem to think they need that headroom. Are you saying they're wrong?

If by best, you mean D2Ds and 45-rpm LPs, then yeah. (And how many of those are there?) But it would take heroic efforts to squeeze 75 dB out of a conventional platter.


And HOW do you know this? I know people that have cut vinyl and with the best vinyl and cut right, thay had a s/n on 85db, not in the entire frequenzy spectrum, but the most crucial. So, HOW do you know this?


Analog master tape can go to 85 dB or so. 24-bit digital even higher. Recording engineers seem to think they need that headroom. Are you saying they're wrong?


They can need it for the noisefloor, but I say again, where do you have any music that use even close to 70 db dynamic range?
Really good, old, pop/rock can have 15-20, Jazz, maybe 25-30db and some few classic recordings have up to 40db.
So, can you show me those albums?

mcnarus, did you have some albums with a dynamic range over 40-50 db?

we were getting pretty far afield of the original post, and I decided to let this drop. But since you asked, I should clarify that I was talking about master tapes, not commercial releases. If the dynamic range of a master tape is high enough, it will have to be compressed to fit on an LP. And of course there are plenty of master tapes out there, from both the analog and digital eras, that exceed whatever LP can do (and 70 dB is being very generous to the LP).

That make no sense at all. It must ONLY be compressed if the music on the original master have a dynamic range that surpass the vinyl formats dynamic range. And you state here that there is a lot of mastertapes that have a bigger dynamic range than vinyls 70+ db range. So could you list some of them? Because you must know some, how can you otherwise state such a thing?

Well, I'll admit that my information, like your misinformation, is second-hand. So no, I cannot name specific master tapes with dynamic range that high. But I have read the comments of a number of recording engineers who cheered the arrival of CD precisely because it gave them the bandwidth that LPs lacked. Can't imagine they'd care if they didn't need that bandwidth. Here's one (http://georgegraham.com/compress.html).

My information is NOT misinfromation. You maybe should READ a little more before you say things?

Lets say we have a recordning that have a HUGE dynamic range of 70db.
To listen to that one at home we need to play it so loud that the lowest sound is over the 30-35(even 40 sometimes) db background noise that we have. So let's say we play it so the lowest sound is playbacked at 50db. Then the loudest sound, 70db more, would be at 120 db! Not so fun to listen to that huge difference.

So, PLEASE, where is the music with 70db or more dynamic range? I can give you a hint, the classic 1812 on Telarc CD (1998) have a crest factor of 27 db. Are you saying that this classic have low dynamic range?

I can give one more hint, if you listen to a song and the average soundlevel you have is 80db. With a crest of 27db, you will sometimes hit 107db. If you listen to a song with 70db crest, and the average soundlevel is 80db, you will sometimes hit 150db. Do that sound like something that would be;
*great to listen to?
*something that are on many mastertapes, like you said?

Ah, crest factor is not the same as dynamic range. Perhaps that is the source of your confusion.

It is.

Crest factor measure the difference between the average ratio and the peak. "The crest factor or peak-to-average ratio (PAR)". It is the best way to measure dyanmics IMO.

Opinion noted. But it's not dynamic range, which is peak-to-minimum, not peak-to-average.

Not necessarily true. Any alterations made for RIAA curves to keep the stylus in the groove are reversed as long as the phonostage RIAA equalization is built correctly. There are also plenty of albums being released that don't compress the "musical portion" of the signal or limit it (BTW, compression is not the same thing as RIAA curves). These albums are released on multiple LPs instead of a single LP, so that the grooves can be spread out further.

Ok, sea lawyer. Then I'll correct it to say that almost every singe vinyl record ever made has significant dynamic range compression.



This isn't true. There are a lot of alternate masters released of modern rock albums on LP that lack all of the over-compression and loudness war issues. Two right off the bat that are phenomenal compared to their crappy CD counterparts are RHCP "Stadium Arcadium" and the latest White Stripes album "Icky Thump." The list is too long to name them all...

What isn't true? What I said or what you apparently think I said? I was talking about dynamic range compression on digital not vinyl.



Also not true, there are quite a few remasters that are horrendous. The list is too long to name every one, but you can start by checking out some Hendrix remasters and Rush remasters. I can play you the LP versions of some of these albums against the CDs and it will knock your socks off...

What I said was "If you buy digital remasters of old recordings, you aren't likely to get any more compression than the originals had." I wasn't making a qualitative statement about good or bad recordings. I was saying that it would be unusual to find a digital remaster with more compression than the original vinyl had. Do you know of some that do? I sure don't.

I don't know why I have to continually defend what I say to people who don't read what I said and argue against something I didn't say.

Ok, sea lawyer. Then I'll correct it to say that almost every singe vinyl record ever made has significant dynamic range compression.

Nope, not necessarily to the musical portion of the signal... As has already been discussed by NIN, the musical portion of the signal normally, in practice falls clearly below the dynamic range of vinyl. You end up compressing the non-music overhead. There might be a handful of recordings out there that need more dynamic range, but from what people have posted around here before (so-called objectivists), not many at all.

What isn't true? What I said or what you apparently think I said? I was talking about dynamic range compression on digital not vinyl.

You said:
I think the only musical genre where you will find high levels of dynamic range compression on digital recordings is current rock and pop. Those aren't on vinyl anyway.

Those genres are available on vinyl without over-compression and in large numbers as well... Also, many remasters being rereleased on CD suffer from the over-compression "loudness war" issues as well. I named a few as examples in that previous post.


What I said was "If you buy digital remasters of old recordings, you aren't likely to get any more compression than the originals had." I wasn't making a qualitative statement about good or bad recordings. I was saying that it would be unusual to find a digital remaster with more compression than the original vinyl had. Do you know of some that do? I sure don't.

What you said wasn't true. I listed two examples off the top of my head where the compression on the CD remasters are very significant compared to vinyl releases past and present...

I don't know why I have to continually defend what I say to people who don't read what I said and argue against something I didn't say.

I'm only correcting what you were saying because it is incorrectly framing the vinyl situation. Personally, I would love it if I could get every album on a high resolution format such as lossless Blu-Ray eventually, or if they would clean up the "loudness war" issues with CDs and I could get the same quality of mastering as I can get on vinyl for all my albums. I like vinyl, but only because it gives me multiple masters of the same albums and albums that haven't been molested by the "loudness wars." I don't think it is inherently better as a format.

You don't have to defend yourself... If what you said was unclear and there is room for alternate interpretations, you will end up getting a response from people who don't agree with either your point or the ambiguity. Likewise, sometimes people will misunderstand your point. Nothing personal... But there is a good reason why some of us are using vinyl nowadays, and it isn't because we think it is a better media or format! :(

Opinion noted. But it's not dynamic range, which is peak-to-minimum, not peak-to-average.


Sorry, you cannot measure that way.
If we use the way you are saying, this song
http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/4747/anotherremmy7.jpg

Would be, according to you. EXTREMLY dynamic because it use the full 96 db range of the CD. Do you agree it is EXTREMLY dynamic?

OK, we've already determined that you do not know the difference between "dynamic range" and "crest factor." Now you've demonstrated that you do not understand the difference between "dynamic range" and "dynamic." That track may or may not sound "dynamic." It has almost no dynamic range, however.

OK, we've already determined that you do not know the difference between "dynamic range" and "crest factor." Now you've demonstrated that you do not understand the difference between "dynamic range" and "dynamic." That track may or may not sound "dynamic." It has almost no dynamic range, however.


We have determined that you don't know what you are talking about, that i correct. Please, I'm still waiting for "all the music" that have over 70 db dynamic range :D

OK, we've already determined that you do not know the difference between "colgate range" and "crest factor."


I figured it out............. if everybody would use Crest toothpaste instead of Colgate we would all have better smiles and be better able to keep the Thread "on track" !

Sorry, you cannot measure that way.
If we use the way you are saying, this song
http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/4747/anotherremmy7.jpg

Would be, according to you. EXTREMLY dynamic because it use the full 96 db range of the CD. Do you agree it is EXTREMLY dynamic?
It may very well use the full 96 dB. I know the flat-topness of the graph annoys you, but let us not put the likes of Judas Priest and RHCP into the category of groups or performers known for the subtlety of their performances where only vinyl, because it must be babied, can capture the soft nuances while allowing the crescendos to reach their natural levels. These performances are intended to be loud. Bleedingly loud. Heard at levels that literally deafen the ability of the listener to pick up any momentary soft sounds because the ear has not had sufficient time to recover. Heard at sustained levels that if in a workplace would cause OSHA to come running in because hearing protection was not provided. Heard while consuming mass quantities of legal and illegal substances, often in tandem. These are hardly performances that have a nominal level as one would hear at a classical performance in a venue with an audience that is raucous.

To the thread topic. I bought a Rega P1 with the included Ortofon cartridge for $350.00 and it sounds great.

By the way, it comes highly recommended by various reviewers. Search for it and it's reviews on the net.

Please, I'm still waiting for "all the music" that have over 70 db dynamic range
Well, just to shut you up:

Beethoven, Symphony No. 5, 1st movement
Vienna Philharmonic, Kleiber conducting

Dynamic range: 85 dB
Crest factor: 12 dB

I'll bet the original LP's dynamic range was around 50. That's a fair bit of compression.

And just for the record, I didn't have to go searching; this was the very first track I measured.

I got mine for £10, its 30 years old, but its quality!

Well, just to shut you up:

Beethoven, Symphony No. 5, 1st movement
Vienna Philharmonic, Kleiber conducting

Dynamic range: 85 dB
Crest factor: 12 dB

I'll bet the original LP's dynamic range was around 50. That's a fair bit of compression.

And just for the record, I didn't have to go searching; this was the very first track I measured.


A crest factor of 12db? :D
That is EASY to bet, most of my vinyls do it, easy.
How did you measure the dynamic range?

So come on, there was so many record with dynamic range over what vinyl can do, where are they? Where are all the pop/rock/Jazz/Blues records with the "huge" dynamic range vinyl cannot do? :cool:

A crest factor of 12db? :D
That is EASY to bet, most of my vinyls do it, easy.
How did you measure the dynamic range?

So come on, there was so many record with dynamic range over what vinyl can do, where are they? Where are all the pop/rock/Jazz/Blues records with the "huge" dynamic range vinyl cannot do? :cool:

Not to mention, if the signal is being taken from a CD, the original signal might have had smaller dynamic range and consequently the signal would be increased to fill up the extra headroom on the CD...

So taking the signal from the CD and analyzing it, in order to come to a conclusion about the dynamic range, will only reveal how the original signal is altered to fill the CD format, not the nature of the original recorded signal itself...

IF there was music information that one should hear at -85db, one had to listen to it over the backgroundnoise, so over 40db. So with the highest dynamic on the album one would have 125 db in the room. With a 86db speaker one need an EXTREM amplifier that could pull it off.

i like 2 listen 2 the music, personally!

A crest factor of 12db?
That is EASY to bet, most of my vinyls do it, easy.

Yeah, so measure some and share the results with us (if you know how). You'd be surprised.

Yeah, so measure some and share the results with us (if you know how). You'd be surprised.


Muddy Waters - My Home is in the delta (Classic records 180 gram)
Peak: -3,6 dB
RMS: 30,2 dB
Crest: 26,6 dB :cool:

Still waiting for ALL the albums that have over 70 db dynamic range :rolleyes:
Funny, I have compared around 200 records for the past 1,5 years, how many have you compared?

Muddy Waters - My Home is in the delta (Classic records 180 gram)
Peak: -3,6 dB
RMS: 30,2 dB
Crest: 26,6 dB
And the dynamic range? How did you measure this? Full bandwidth?

Your original claim was that there were no recordings with dynamic range above 70 dB. I supplied one. I could supply more, but frankly, you aren't worth my time. I've got my doubts about your Muddy Waters measurement, but that's neither here nor there, since the argument was never about crest factors. Unless you've got something other than childish taunts left in you, I'm out of this conversation.

Not to mention, if the signal is being taken from a CD, the original signal might have had smaller dynamic range and consequently the signal would be increased to fill up the extra headroom on the CD...

So taking the signal from the CD and analyzing it, in order to come to a conclusion about the dynamic range, will only reveal how the original signal is altered to fill the CD format, not the nature of the original recorded signal itself...

1) If you mean the original had to be expanded, that's very unlikely. Back in the old days, before CD's, DBX had a product that allowed one to 'expand' the signal on the thinking that there was inherent compression on vinyl in order to fit the performance or songs on the record. This was user adjustable and a judicious choice of settings was generally pleasing. Agressive choices were found to result in a breathing or pumping effects. 'Course, that was less an issue if the playing time was short.

2) The same can be said of tape, DAT, vinyl, or whatever.

And the dynamic range? How did you measure this? Full bandwidth?

Your original claim was that there were no recordings with dynamic range above 70 dB. I supplied one. I could supply more, but frankly, you aren't worth my time. I've got my doubts about your Muddy Waters measurement, but that's neither here nor there, since the argument was never about crest factors. Unless you've got something other than childish taunts left in you, I'm out of this conversation.

You did NOT supplied one. You SAID but there is NO proof of it. You could make it up or you measured noise at the CD formats limits, nothing else. You are still not proving ANYTHING, other than you have not a clue what you talk about.
How many albums have you compared closely between the CD and the vinyl?

Maybe the way the results work out depends upon the genre of music, don't you think NIN?

Maybe the way the results work out depends upon the genre of music, don't you think NIN?


Yes, of course but I don't like comments that are lies like:

"All vinyl records are compressed because the dynamic range of vinyl records is lower than that of the analog tapes from which they are made.

LOL. Direct-to-disk aside, vinyl can't have a dynamic range much above 70 dB. Laws o' physics, man. And needless to say, very few approach that maximum."

This is just comments from someone that have not a clue what he is talking about. ALL vinyls are compressed is BS, pardon the language. Just see the the stuff Steve and Kevin do now on the Warner and blue note series. Transfering the analog tapes without ANY compression to the vinyl.

Off course there ARE CDs that have a more dynamic range than the compressed vinyl, just like there are CDs that are more compressed than the vinyl. I do find it had to find any real records with a useful dynamic range that are over 70 db.

I checkout the Beethoven, Symphony No. 5, 1st movement Vienna Philharmonic, Kleiber conducting little, and the lowest sound is around -52db and that is the last 1,5 seconds of the track. There is around 5 seconds in the track that are at -48db, but most of the track is around -24db, at best.
Dynamic track, but FAR from 70db dynamic range

I looked at the song Country road from James Taylors album Sweet baby james on vinyl, and first 5-6 seconds on the left channel have around -35db, and most of the time it has -18 to -24db. Really dynamic for a pop song from 1970.

Some parts of the White stripes song Effect and cause, is at -45db! :eek:

Some parts of the White stripes song Effect and cause, is at -45db! :eek:

I feel your frustration NIN, and I applaud your tackling the misinformation, it is especially laudable in light of the fact that English isn't your primary language.

The commas instead of decimal points in the numbers gave it away... :D

30,2 vs. 30.2 (etc)...

Yes, of course but I don't like comments that are lies like:

"All vinyl records are compressed because the dynamic range of vinyl records is lower than that of the analog tapes from which they are made.

LOL. Direct-to-disk aside, vinyl can't have a dynamic range much above 70 dB. Laws o' physics, man. And needless to say, very few approach that maximum."

This is just comments from someone that have not a clue what he is talking about. ALL vinyls are compressed is BS, pardon the language. Just see the the stuff Steve and Kevin do now on the Warner and blue note series. Transfering the analog tapes without ANY compression to the vinyl.

Off course there ARE CDs that have a more dynamic range than the compressed vinyl, just like there are CDs that are more compressed than the vinyl. I do find it had to find any real records with a useful dynamic range that are over 70 db.
Well, as mediums go NIN, we both know the potential for CD is greater as well as that the medium has been abused terribly. Awful examples abound, some of which you've illustrated. To use the word "All" is probably not the right choice. To me I didn't take it as 100% just as when my kid used to tell me that "All" the girls in HS were putting out. I know what he meant. Yes, I know we should say what we mean but that's not how we all do it in our daily lives.
As to the comment of vinyl having less dynamic range than the analog tapes they were made from, I can't comment. There's certainly a small but vocal contingent of people who look to buy analog tapes (reel-to-reel) of the master (copies in some cases) who say it's an improvement over the vinyl issues. Now, if the tapes were recorded at high speeds, I can certainly see situations where the dynamic range of the vinyl is less than the master. That's a consequence of the length that has to be fit on vinyl. So, I wouldn't call the comment a lie but it's not without merit either. Unless we can access both the tape and the resultant vinyl product for a signficant number of releases, it's kind of hard to support a position that's 100% either way. If you don't like the word ALL, the is it more than 50%, less, or what?

As to Steve & Kevin transferring without any compression, how are you able to confirm this? With all due respect, Hoffman's been caught in his share of mischaracterizations.

With respect to musical performances, much of the music you appear to favor has a much louder average level if heard at concert level. That is largely in direct contrast to classical works. The former places such demands upon the ear that it is not able to respond/recover sufficiently in order to realize an increased dynamic range. And even in those scenarios where it might, the ambient noise level at a RHCP performance is signficantly above that in a theater.

Maybe a large part of the problem when it comes to CD's has to do with just the sheer proliferation of them. So many more recordings being sold now than in the 60's or 70's. I kind of look at as analogous to the expansion of teams in sports. The more teams you have, say in baseball, the less quality pitchers you've got to fill the rosters. Same with auto mechanics, doctors, and what not. So, maybe the same holds true for recording engineers. There are more positions to fill and they're just being filled with less qualified people. I'd imagine the same holds true for the folks at the top too.

Well, as mediums go NIN, we both know the potential for CD is greater as well as that the medium has been abused terribly. Awful examples abound, some of which you've illustrated. To use the word "All" is probably not the right choice. To me I didn't take it as 100% just as when my kid used to tell me that "All" the girls in HS were putting out. I know what he meant. Yes, I know we should say what we mean but that's not how we all do it in our daily lives.


I understand that but when a anti vinyl guy, with very little knowledge about the medium, say stuff like that, I will not give any free pass.



As to the comment of vinyl having less dynamic range than the analog tapes they were made from, I can't comment. There's certainly a small but vocal contingent of people who look to buy analog tapes (reel-to-reel) of the master (copies in some cases) who say it's an improvement over the vinyl issues.


It can be an improvement or it is not an improvement. The problem is that 80% of all people have a big problem with saying "my stuff is worse than yours" or "I did buy it but it was a vast of money". We can all see people on this forum that defends their purchase to the death.




Now, if the tapes were recorded at high speeds, I can certainly see situations where the dynamic range of the vinyl is less than the master. That's a consequence of the length that has to be fit on vinyl. So, I wouldn't call the comment a lie but it's not without merit either.


Its a lie. If he had used SOME, it would be correct. But ALL is not correct and it is a lie. "ALL politician lies ALL the time" vs "Some politician lies sometimes" Hope you see the difference.



As to Steve & Kevin transferring without any compression, how are you able to confirm this? With all due respect, Hoffman's been caught in his share of mischaracterizations.


He is about 467% more trust wordy than you. So, I trust him when he say that. One can also measure, like I have done, from the vinyl later on. For example, I could not find any CD version of James Taylors Sweet baby james that had bigger dynamic range than the new LP.




With respect to musical performances, much of the music you appear to favor has a much louder average level if heard at concert level.


I saw Hawks Scarface in my local cinema and later I saw De Palma Scarface on DVD with the latest Pioneer plasma and the blacks was much better than the Scarface at the cinema. So we should worsen the blacks on the DVD so it look as the cinema experience.
Same "good" comparison as you did.

If he's 467% more trustworthy, does that apply to his theft of master tapes? The Grover Huffman alias? Sweet Baby James is a nice tune but I never looked at it as a symphonic production.

I saw Hawks Scarface in my local cinema and later I saw De Palma Scarface on DVD with the latest Pioneer plasma and the blacks was much better than the Scarface at the cinema. So we should worsen the blacks on the DVD so it look as the cinema experience.
Same "good" comparison as you did.
Stick to the musical performance and measure some dB levels. Then consider how the ear responds to changes when saturated with loud levels.

If he's 467% more trustworthy, does that apply to his theft of master tapes? The Grover Huffman alias? Sweet Baby James is a nice tune but I never looked at it as a symphonic production.


Yes, he is much more trust wordy than you, a alias on a forum twisting and making up all kind of stuff to suit your beliefs, rather than to have a meaningful debate.



Stick to the musical performance and measure some dB levels. Then consider how the ear responds to changes when saturated with loud levels.



So you think we should fix the black level on the DVD?

so, klanky, what did you learn from these 3 pages of postings?

I'm not the one with the alias buddy and none of what I said was made up. Ask around. You want to have a meaningful debate without the data or proof to back up what Hoffman says.

I think you should calibrate your monitor. If you don't like the DVD, sell it.

I think Chu gai Opened up a can of worms

I think Chu gai Opened up a can of worms

Let me guess. The off-topic is going off the off-topic? :rolleyes:

Well, if you didn't put me on ignore Gherkin after PM'img me your version of a misunderstood Checker's speech, you'd see.

I understand that but when a anti vinyl guy, with very little knowledge about the medium, say stuff like that, I will not give any free pass.
Just for the record, I collect vinyl--specifically 50s-60s jazz. But that doesn't prevent me from looking at the medium's limitations objectively.

I'm not the one with the alias buddy and none of what I said was made up. Ask around. You want to have a meaningful debate without the data or proof to back up what Hoffman says.

I think you should calibrate your monitor. If you don't like the DVD, sell it.


Keep on spreading lies, it make your persona much better. Now Hoffman is 567% more trust wordy than you. :cool:

Just for the record, I collect vinyl--specifically 50s-60s jazz. But that doesn't prevent me from looking at the medium's limitations objectively.


I am objective, you are not. You say things that are not correct, what is objective about that? :confused:

So enumerate the lies :D

NIN, you did a good job. Anyone who reads the thread will see that the important questions you posed went unanswered, and in some cases were completely avoided and/or intentionally derailed because your points were correct... I agree, you are the objective one, albeit rightfully frustrated as well.

Not that the Gherkin can list the questions that went unanswered.

NIN, you did a good job. Anyone who reads the thread will see that the important questions you posed went unanswered, and in some cases were completely avoided and/or intentionally derailed because your points were correct... I agree, you are the objective one, albeit rightfully frustrated as well.


Yes, it is really funny. Of course I'm not right always, but I try to be as objective and correct as I can. It is much better for the debate and to raise the average knowledge here. Some people are not intrested in that, they only want to "win", even if the truth get distorted.

Yes, it is really funny. Of course I'm not right always, but I try to be as objective and correct as I can. It is much better for the debate and to raise the average knowledge here. Some people are not intrested in that, they only want to "win", even if the truth get distorted.

Yep. My hat's off to you. :cool:

Speaking of being objective... I'm testing some other speakers to see how they compare to my W/P8s.

First on the list (coming later this week), the Salon2. :D

Second on the list, the Magico Mini. :D:D

I would test some ATCs and such as well, but the speakers have to look at least a little presentable in my HT...

I was going to Get that jensen record player it's either that or the Luxman DirectDrive TT at Saint vincent De pail Has a crtridge but no stylus (stylus can be bought seperate from cartridge)