or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports › Just got into Vinyl and boy am I happy!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Just got into Vinyl and boy am I happy! - Page 3

post #61 of 245
It is a very good analogy, actually. Like the Model T, the turntable is an interesting and entertaining anachronism. Also like the Model T, it has been utterly outclassed in actual performance by newer technologies.
post #62 of 245
Doesn't vinyl have a wider frequency range? CD being limited to 20Hz-20kHz?
post #63 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian81 View Post

Doesn't vinyl have a wider frequency range? CD being limited to 20Hz-20kHz?

The high frequency response of an LP can exceed 20kHz on the first play, but drops very rapidly after that, reaching 8kHz after 80 plays. The lowest practical frequency response is 30Hz, because everthing below that is dominated by mechanical rumble. By comparison, the CD retains its full 20Hz to 20kHz range indefinitely.
post #64 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian81 View Post

Doesn't vinyl have a wider frequency range? CD being limited to 20Hz-20kHz?

Seems so, according to gramophone record frequency response, but after a few playings this often is not the case anymore.

SACD has wider frequency response and does not suffer from FR degradation due to playing. Same goes for DVD-A.
post #65 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by PULLIAMM View Post

CD players, on the other hand, were a huge, revolutionary leap forward in sound quality.)

This is just your opinion. At the time the CD was released it was heavily critised by many for it's overall less satisfying sound.
post #66 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by PULLIAMM View Post

Thre are people out there who collect, restore, and drive antique cars such as the Model T. In that sense the Model T is not obsolete, though not even the greatest enthusiast would argue that it outperforms modern cars. In that same sense, one could say that turntables are not obsolete.
(Turntables evolved gradually from Edison's original design. CD players, on the other hand, were a huge, revolutionary leap forward in sound quality.)

Oh, man, you are a 40 min plane ride away and you refuse to come collect your $1000. But you'll still keep on with this argument without enough experience to back it up.

Come on... we can photograph and document all the wiring and methodology and post it here on the site.

As for this post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by PULLIAMM View Post

It is subjective because nobody can prove whether or not you hear what you claim to hear. It is par for the course for people to lie (even to themselves) when money is at stake. I don't bet at all, but if I did it would only be on things that are 100% objectively provable.

Do I have to remind you again what you said about cd being perfect. I already quoted you several times. You are now changing your argument. You didn't say that one was better than the other, you said that a cd recording of vinyl is indistinguishable. That is not subjective if you get to blindfold me and do all the switching and I can tell you which is which. That is proveable. Nothing else in the system will change and no equalizers in the system. Just a straight shot turntable to preamp to amp to speakers with an Alesis Masterlink hanging off the chain. Preamps have no equalization or bass/treble controls of any kind. The only argument you could have would be level matching and you can get that as close as possible. The Alesis is a straight digital input/output. Besides, how would I know which source is a shade louder or softer anyway? That would make it more difficult for me, not easier.

All you have to do is come collect your $1000. I told you I'd even pay for the plane up front. You don't even have to stay, you can easily fly in the morning and out in the evening.

We'll record some vinyl, level match, we'll change nothing in the setup and switch back and forth between inputs. Hey, you might even learn something.
post #67 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by PULLIAMM View Post

The high frequency response of an LP can exceed 20kHz on the first play, but drops very rapidly after that, reaching 8kHz after 80 plays. The lowest practical frequency response is 30Hz, because everthing below that is dominated by mechanical rumble. By comparison, the CD retains its full 20Hz to 20kHz range indefinitely.

This is a poor argument for a couple of reasons. First, in music and instruments, there isn't a whole lot of audible material up in that range. Second, the higher you get in frequency, the less of the recorded material gets actually played in a digital recording. As the frequency increases the ratio of waveform to samples goes down because the frequency of the sound wave has increased while the frequency of samples has stayed the same. The higher you get, the more of the actual wave form gets thrown away by digital. Therefore, the higher in frequency you get, the lower the quality of digital. This is offset somewhat by the fact that as you go up in frequency, your ear becomes less sensitive, and that increases with age. This makes the argument that mid range frequencies are more important to creating a recording that can closely mimic an actual recorded event.
post #68 of 245
Keep your money and your plane ticket. You can easily do the experiment on your own, so there would be no point in me wasting my time coming there. Also, having nothing at stake will keep you more honest. Be sure to report your results here, once you find out how wrong you are.
post #69 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrypt View Post

As the frequency increases the ratio of waveform to samples goes down because the frequency of the sound wave has increased while the frequency of samples has stayed the same. The higher you get, the more of the actual wave form gets thrown away by digital.

Congratulations, you just earned an F- in digital recording/playback theory. You obviously have no understanding of how it works. The sampling theorem proves that there is zero loss of information at all frequencies up to half the sampling frequency (hence up to 22kHz for CD.) Absolutely nothing gets "thrown away" by digital below this frequency.
post #70 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by PULLIAMM View Post

Keep your money and your plane ticket. You can easily do the experiment on your own, so there would be no point in me wasting my time coming there. Also, having nothing at stake will keep you more honest. Be sure to report your results here, once you find out how wrong you are.

I'm here to prove it with nothing but my ears. Man up and quit changing your arguments around. Wouldn't it be nice if you learned something new about audio in the process?
post #71 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrypt View Post

I'm here to prove it with nothing but my ears. Man up and quit changing your arguments around. Wouldn't it be nice if you learned something new about audio in the process?

You are the one who has something new to learn about audio. Try studying how sampling works, for starters.
post #72 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrypt View Post

I'm here to prove it with nothing but my ears. Man up and quit changing your arguments around. Wouldn't it be nice if you learned something new about audio in the process?

You might find this feature as useful as I do.
post #73 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by PULLIAMM View Post

You are the one who has something new to learn about audio. Try studying how sampling works, for starters.

Don't start a rude pissing match just because you got your bluff called. I invited you to my home for an honest listening and evaluation session.

I'll even take you over to a friends room and we can do the experiment on B&W 801's. I know you think B&W's are perfectly flat, you said so here . I'm trying to give you every benefit of the doubt and the opportunity to setup the experiment however you want to create some real discussion because I've already done this experiment. I'm confident I can discern the difference as you outlined in your original posts. Obviously you aren't as confident. You've not addressed why I could or could not do as I say, you've just changed the subject from a specific test to a "which is better" argument. We've had plenty of those on this board.

If you want to back off from those statements, that is fine but I will not stoop to this petty name calling which proves nothing.
post #74 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by allsop4now View Post

SACD has wider frequency response and does not suffer from FR degradation due to playing. Same goes for DVD-A.

Yeah, I very much enjoy high-resolution digital.
post #75 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonColeman View Post

You just invited yourself into an otherwise fun conversation and started with your usual confrontational pleasantries...

Well said. I don't know why he even posted in a thread entitled:

Just got into Vinyl and boy am I happy!
post #76 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesJ View Post

After all, why miss that segment of the audience who still prefer the vinyl?

It's not a segment of the audience that still prefers vinyl. This is, by and large, a whole new segment who are experiencing vinyl for the first time or experiencing it again after not listening to vinyl for a couple of decades.

And one need only look at recent posts in this particular section of the forum to realize that it's more than simple curiosity that's driving this resurgence.

The most active threads in here are these that are about TTs and vinyl.
post #77 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrypt View Post

because I've already done this experiment.

You could have said that a long time back. It would have saved a lot of arguing. (Of course, if you really have tried the experiment, then you must know that I am right.)
post #78 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by PULLIAMM View Post

You could have said that a long time back. It would have saved a lot of arguing. (Of course, if you really have tried the experiment, then you must know that I am right.)

Could we re-visit the part where you declined his bet? I found that part the most interesting in your exchange with him.
post #79 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by SD_GR View Post

Could we re-visit the part where you declined his bet? I found that part the most interesting in your exchange with him.

I have never made a single bet in my entire life. In the unlikely event that I were ever to start, it would certainly not be with someone who throws around $1000 (plus plane tickets) as though he can afford to lose it. That is more than two weeks salary for me. I might bet a dollar or a beer.
post #80 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by PULLIAMM View Post

I have never made a single bet in my entire life. In the unlikely event that I were ever to start, it would certainly not be with someone who throws around $1000 (plus plane tickets) as though he can afford to lose it. That is more than two weeks salary for me. I might bet a dollar or a beer.

OK you know what? All kidding aside, all audio philosophy differences aside, I absolutely respect that answer.
post #81 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by PULLIAMM View Post

I might bet a dollar or a beer.

What kind of beer?
post #82 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post

What kind of beer?

If we cannot agree on audio it might not be easy to agree on beer...
post #83 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by classic77 View Post

This is just your opinion. At the time the CD was released it was heavily critised by many for it's overall less satisfying sound.

That's for sure. Many - maybe even the majority - of the early CD's that were recorded from the master analog tapes sounded terrible in comparison. They were flat and muggy sounding (along with the added hiss).
post #84 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post

What kind of beer?

A dollar may get you an Edelweiss these days.

(Do they even still make that gawdawful swill?)
post #85 of 245
Guinness only in this house. And I guarantee I can pick it out in a DBT. At least the first few.

Quote:


That's for sure. Many - maybe even the majority - of the early CD's that were recorded from the master analog tapes sounded terrible in comparison. They were flat and muggy sounding (along with the added hiss).

Indeed. Anyone who immediately switched over upon hearing that sonic drek has rather different sonic priorities than I.
post #86 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by SD_GR View Post

OK you know what? All kidding aside, all audio philosophy differences aside, I absolutely respect that answer.

Well if he thinks he's absolutely right, wouldn't this be an investment? It's not a gamble at all if he only stands to make $1000, with 100% probability. Maybe he's not so sure anymore? Sounds like a cop out to me.

Anyway I still don't believe that copying a Vinyl to a CD is a fair test because of the extra A/D conversion process the CD would be put under. Not to mention the quality of the TT and catridge compared to the CD player, how could you say that they are of equal quality?
post #87 of 245
was researched by David Hayes who published his study in "Popular Music and Society. The full article can be found here: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...9/ai_n16129786

A reading of it may shed more light on the matter and perhaps give some insight into why any of us have varying degrees of interest in this medium.
post #88 of 245
Quote:


Anyway I still don't believe that copying a Vinyl to a CD is a fair test because of the extra A/D conversion process the CD would be put under.

The purpose of that particular test or experiment, classic77, is to illustrate that that it's not a matter of one being 'analog' and one digital that is responsible for the differences. The mastering that's done when going to vinyl is entirely different than when going to CD. Further, the nature of vinyl playback itself imposes a sonic character or euphonics if you will that simply doesn't exist with CD. Making a CD copy of vinyl allows one to capture all of that with the benefit that the CD will never degrade with multiple playings. OTOH, each playing of vinyl eats away at the vinyl. Like erosion. Now, that doesn't mean that my CD copy will sound the same as yours, or Harry's, or Jack's. We all use different turntables, arms, cartridges, phono cords (it's the capacitance), etc. that uniquely change things. It does mean though that Jack's CD copy on his turtanble setup will sound remarkably similar to his vinyl. That's it.
post #89 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

The purpose of that particular test or experiment, classic77, is to illustrate that that it's not a matter of one being 'analog' and one digital that is responsible for the differences.

Yeah when did i say it was?

Once again I ask this to everyone are all analog to digitial conversions/convertors equal? How much of the sound quality is degraded? None or some? If none or some, then with which convertor?

Anyway practically it's the end product that we will be buying and using. Not many would seriously buy LP's to copy to CD's. Assuming we could compare the best mastered 'CD version' of an album to the best mastered 'LP version' of an album, then we could compare two things that consumers might practically use. Even though most CD's are never mastered to their full potential (not sure about LP's) at least we could compare what each format is totally capable of.
post #90 of 245
Quote:


Yeah when did i say it was?

OK.

Quote:


Once again I ask this to everyone are all analog to digitial conversions/convertors equal? How much of the sound quality is degraded? None or some? If none or some, then with which convertor?

Them's mighty encompassing questions! As a personal preference, I think you're generally better off keeping signal in the digital domain for as long as you can but I'm willing to do otherwise if it improves my flexibility. This may though, depend upon the player what with bass management and all that.

1) Of course not.

2) Maybe less than you think. You could, if you wanted to, buy a bunch of converters and daisy chain them going from optical to coax for a while. A number of years ago, Tom Nousaine did just that. After adjusting for overall level imbalances, IOW normalizing everything, people were not able to differentiate with any degree of reliability. Tom's got a website and his email is there. Ask him for the details. I think he wrote it up in Stereo Review.

3) You can always find turds. You can always find converters that output hotter or colder than others. The trick is that to evaluate this, you've got to level match. If you're not willing to do that then you'll never know if the differences were the level differences or something else.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports › Just got into Vinyl and boy am I happy!