UKC

Today has been a digital meltdown day in the Goucho household.

A new Bluetooth cinema system decided it's software didn't want to work with either the TV or the set top box. Broadband decided to only work intermittently and both laptops and Mac spent the day crashing.

Even my normally bomb proof iPod was playing up.

So I left Mrs Goucho and number one son to try and sort it - after hurling copious amounts of abuse - and went to listen to some good old fashioned analogue.

My hi-fi is about 20 years old, and whilst it does have a cd player, I mainly listen to vinyl on it.

In its entire history it has never missed a beat, I just turn it on, drop the stylus and beautiful rich analogue music wraps around me in a way digital just can't.

And I don't need to constantly update the bloody software every day either, or worry about it crashing or catching a virus.

Or maybe I'm just showing my age.

In reply to Goucho:

To be fair I have a CD player 31 years old and not skipped a beat.

In reply to Orgsm:


I think the older stuff was both better built and more reliable - possibly because it has less complex and proven technology in it?

In reply to Goucho:

My hifi amp packed in earlier this year.

So much for analogue

In reply to Goucho:

Nothing to do with analogue vs digital imo, that's the power of ritual: you perform a little ceremony each time you put a record on. :O)

Also smell. Vinyl records have a subtle smell and nothing makes an emotional connection, especially a nostalgic one, like a particular smell.

In reply to deepsoup:


My vinyl replay beats my CD replay on every level - dynamics, soundstage, depth, transparency, timing and clarity.


Can't disagree with you on this.

In reply to Goucho:
Hmm. I was looking at buying a turntable today!

In reply to Goucho:

Maybe. But then again all are at least partially functions of your state of mind - you make yourself more receptive to the experience of listening by performing a satisfying little putting-on-some-music ritual. Digital gives you the music, but not the special little magic dance you do to make the music happen.

But there's no point me trying to convince you of that - it's exactly analogous to the alternative medicine 'placebo -vs- "it really works!"' argument, and over the course of umpteen endless threads on the subject here I've never seen anyone change their mind about that one.

In reply to deepsoup:


My opinion is actually far more objective and open minded than you might think - and I've had an ongoing love affair with the iPod since the first one?

If I recall correctly, sonically, there is a technical and scientific argument in favour of the superiority of vinyl as a medium - it retains more of the recording process at both the Mhz and Khz ends of the sound spectrum than CD.

And whilst an average cd replay system will often sound more dynamic than an averge vinyl replay system, when you start to make comparisons with higher end systems, vinyl has significant advantages over CD.

In reply to Goucho:

To each their own. In my system, CD matches vinyl; playing another digital source (apple lossless files from an iPod) beats them both.

T.

In reply to Pursued by a bear:



What turntable you using?

In reply to Orgsm:

A Pink Triangle, with a custom-built power supply, a Linn Ittok arm and a Goldring 1042 moving magnet cartridge. So not the very highest of high end, but by no means shabby.

T.

In reply to Goucho:

Oh vinyl, vinyl, vinyl... ffs, it's a record player!

In reply to jon:


Yours might be!

In reply to jon:

There are definitely better uses for vinyl, I challenge anyone to disagree:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=vinyl+catsuit&cr=countryUK|countryGB&...

In reply to EddInaBox:

There are definitely better uses for vinyl, I challenge anyone to disagree:

Definitely superior, they've got twin turn tables!

In reply to Orgsm:

What turntable you using?

youtube.com/watch?v=dSINO6MKtco&

In reply to Pursued by a bear:



Nothing wrong with the Ittok arm, I've got it teamed with a Troika cartridge, Quad amp and pre-amp and electrostatic speakers.

In reply to FactorXXX:



I have that on a LP in my loft and also a copy on my iPod.

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

Very nice too. Quad electrostatics were never for me, but I can see why others like them a lot.

T.

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

Another electrostatic fan.

I've got Martin Logan SL3's at the back of my system.

In reply to Goucho:

Very nice!

I was just thinking that the music setup I enjoyed the most was the old skool boombox in the living room of the climbing house I shared in Nottingham in the early 80s. Always on full volume, distorting, chewing tapes. It was with us in the background after the pub or club, or for our parties, or dragged down to Trent Bridge or that wall over the Lake on the Uni campus for training. Proper hi-fi (not).

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:



Even better, the old mono box record players covered in that wonderful anaglypta fabric where you could stack about ten 45's to play automatically one after the other.

In reply to deepsoup:



There's an easy way to answer this question, and it must have been done - the blind listen test. My intuition is that the human audition system simply isn't sensitive enough to distinguish the differences, but some simply research could prove it either way. Let's see what google has to say...

In reply to Goucho:


I finally got round to reconnecting my turntable yesterday, and was immediately struck by how much I liked the sound, much more so than CDs.

In reply to Goucho:

Got it!

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=17620

The study concludes that sound quality is not the sole defining factor and that listener preferences are profoundly influenced by other, non-auditory attributes and that such factors are as much a part of the vinyl experience as the music etched into the grooves.

Unfortunately the paper is isn't free.

This one shows listeners preferring digital:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40319018?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

So a very quick search of the literature points towards the "vinyl sounds better" perception as being a consequence of cognitive bias rather than anything real.

In reply to Goucho:

My shed contains my Systemdek turntable, Nytech 252 amp, plus other bits and my full vinyl collection. Only equipment I have changed from new are the speakers (old ones blew). It all keeps on happily trundling round without a hitch, can't beat it.

In reply to Goucho:

The turntable I bought second hand in 1983 recently packed in. I was bloody livid. Let's hope it's replacement isn't so badly behaved.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

how true...., Simple is always better its not about analoug vs digital.

I build recording studios for a living...

when we get a vinyl fan we always get them to listen to three things. 1, CD 2, Vinyl, and 3, CD with added second harmonic distortion and low frequency noise. The result is always that they can't tell the vinyl from the CD with added distortion. so in my view the CD is how the music should sound but some people prefer the "vinyl "sound" i

The other question i'm always asked is what cable do you use for speakers in studios. Non of this fan boy gold connectors for the pros..., we use heavy duty mains cable for speaker cable.. it's all about cross sectional area of the cable.

In reply to james wardle:

Can't say fairer than that!

In reply to Goucho:
I inherited my brother's mono record player which I took away to uni with me in '78. Not a Dansette, but looked like one. Still had a threppeny bit which my bro had sellotaped onto the head of the tone arm to give more bass.
I'd seen Van Halen supporting Black Sabbath in Brum before I left, and my first purchase in Nottingham was Van Halen 1, which sounded (and still sounds) mighty fine!

In reply to james wardle:

>The other question i'm always asked is what cable do you use for speakers in studios. Non of this fan boy gold connectors for the pros..., we use heavy duty mains cable for speaker cable.. it's all about cross sectional area of the cable.

One thing that I find interesting about the OFC cable brigade is their ability to hear differences. Yes they have bought the expensive cable, but as it was expensive they got 3m for the left and 4m for the right speaker. Phase? Whats that then? Or they go for equal lengths, then coil up the spare. Inductance? Reactive loads? Never mind.

Look to speaker placement. You'll get more reward from correct placement, than from OFC cable and posh connectors.

In reply to dread-i:


Within reason, unequal speaker cable lengths don't have any effect, do they?

In reply to james wardle:

Of course it's all subjective, and I can only comment on my own preference.

For me the defining difference between analogue and digital is the 'warmth' I get when listening to vinyl.

My 20+ year old system is

Michell Orb turntable with QC power supply and ISO/Hera phono stage, SME V arm with Ortofon MCK 500 cartridge.

CD is a Krell KPS 20i

Michell Argo Pre-Amp, 4 Michell Alecto monoblocks bi-amping a pair of Martin Logan SL3's

All interconnects and speaker cables are XLO Reference 4.

It all sits on Mana tables and sound frames.

With the turntable playing, I listen to music, with the CD playing, I listen to Hi-Fi - but that's probably just me?

In reply to Rob Parsons:

>Within reason, unequal speaker cable lengths don't have any effect, do they?
Only if you're striving for perfection, by buying expensive cable and connectors.
Why pursue perfection one area and not in all areas?

If a person can hear the difference in connector types, as some claim, the difference in resistance, inductance and capacitance from that extra 1m will be much more measurable. As you're not driving a static load, like a light bulb, the electrical properties will affect different frequencies, at different volumes or stages of the cones stroke.

When people start aiming for perfection, there are a lot of devils in those details.

In reply to dread-i:



Good cable matters - as James Wardle notes above - but it doesn't have to be expensive.

But, assuming that we're using good cable (and not doorbell wire, for example), I still wonder if there's any *measurable* effect in the output in the case where different lengths are used for each channel. Seems like something which should be provable or not via objective testing.

In reply to Goucho:

This might be of interest

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/nov/29/lost-in-music-the-world-of-obs...

In reply to Orgsm:


Thanks, and yes, it is ultimately silly and most folk are kidding themselves they can actually hear the difference once you reach a certain point. But then again, so is a Yosemite big wall rack to climb a V Diff at Stanage

In reply to Orgsm:


That must have been one of the first CD players - almost anything newer would be a considerable improvement sound wise. Are you still using it? CD players like the original Marantz CD63 were very well built and mine lasted a very long time despite considerable abuse.

Despite all the gushing about vinyl on here, my first real 'hifi' was CD based and I have never missed the sound of LPs that I had before on my parents player. Every now and again some rarity that I had before (usually on really rubbish cassette tape) is transferred to CD and gets bought, but would, of course, be available on vinyl straight away.

In reply to Goucho:


It's pretty impressive to complete a VD lugging all that ironmongery though. And the clanking. And swearing.

In reply to Goucho:

The Tab at the top of my browser page has shortened 'Digital v Analogue' to 'Digital v Anal...'
How very apt...

In reply to Orgsm:

Older CD players seem to have been built with much better quality transports than more recent ones ...

When you ponder it, it seems remarkable that CD players work as well as they do: reliably reading optical discs in real time seems like a pretty good achievement. In my own case, I got sick of CD players which couldn't manage that, and which randomly skipped and jumped every now and again. That's what started me on the road of ripping my complete collection (losslessly, in the case of CDs) to hard disc, and playing stuff directly from there - which is how I listen to music now.

That works great and I wouldn't go back - however, it has definitely changed my 'listening experience.' As alluded to in some previous posts, the 'theatre' of carefully selecting an album, and then either dropping the stylus, or pressing the start button, is now gone. In some ways now, it's *too* easy to listen!

A remark on the original post: the use of bluetooth is mentioned. I see no reason ever to use any kind of wireless interfaces, unless you have a real need for the thing in question to be mobile. Cables are always going to be better/simpler/more reliable.

In reply to deepsoup:


Things like depth and clarity and soundstage and dynamics etc, 'could' be down to his analogue hi-fi being of better quality than his digital media I guess, though.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

>Good cable matters - as James Wardle notes above - but it doesn't have to be expensive.
Agreed.

>, I still wonder if there's any *measurable* effect in the output in the case where different lengths are used for each channel. Seems like something which should be provable or not via objective testing.

You can measure it with a multimeter. The resistance is different, which in turn affects the inductance and inductance affects frequency response. But because the load, the speaker, is such a complex system from an electrical and mechanical perspective, objective measurements are harder to understand. They vary with frequency and volume.

As I said earlier, you will get more bang for your buck paying attention to speaker placement, than from fiddling with wires.

In reply to Rob Parsons

Well not really as cables are going to increase the length of the signal degradation path are they not?

In reply to dread-i:


Very true.

Having very tall electrostatic speakers, they have to be placed 8' out from the rear wall. Anything less and reflected standing waves bounce back through the diaphragm and the sound is awful. However on the plus side I don't have to worry the same about boundary walls because of the way the electrostatics project the sound

In reply to SouthernSteve:


I'm not sure they would be an improvement, DACs weren't exactly new then and I'm not sure the quality of the components used has measurably improved since then. But that's all mute as my hearing 31 years on is not the same as it was.

In reply to FactorXXX:

But you can get fully digital placebo addicts as well. A friend used to take me to a hifi shop for demo in gullibility. These guys were selling a cd edge honing and lacquering machine. As everyone knows, sometimes the player gets some bits wrong through scattering at the cd edge, which can best be prevented by a layer of green nail polish. The best bit was the salesperson claiming that this would also improve digital images....

When I bought my first proper hifi setup the shop gave me some large diameter copper cable for the speakers, and implored me to plug it in with the print on the sheath facing the amplifier. I can just about buy that a massive difference in length (not a meter or so) in speaker cable length may cause an audible effect, but direction in a copper cable?

Idiocy aside, of course the next series up from the stuff I ended up buying did sound better, but not thousands of pounds better (if I had upgraded CD player, amp and speakers).

Biggest difference probably came from the better DA converter, which probably contributed only a small fraction to the overall price. The rest (separate transformers for each stereo channel already in the CD player, etc...) is of course much more cost intensive, but will contribute much less to the better sound.

CB

In reply to Orgsm:


No - since we are exclusively talking about *digital* signals in this context.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Cool.

But to nit-pick everso slightly:


That sounds a little bit dismissive though. If a person finds listening to music on vinyl more satisfying than listening to the same music on a digital medium, whether it's a consequence of cognitive bias or not the difference is real. It's a very subjective thing.

Actually, "cognitive bias" also sounds slightly pejorative. I think for many people it's just intrinsically more satisfying to put on a record, which heightens their appreciation of the music a bit more. "Cognitive bias" sounds like it's somehow a mistake to put oneself in a more receptive frame of mind and therefore enjoy the music a little bit more, if you see what I mean.

In reply to Timmd:

True. Which is why I was hedging my bets slightly with that "maybe" at the start of the post. ;O)

In reply to deepsoup:


Actually, my CD player should in theory provide superior sound reproduction to my turntable set up - it certainly cost more - and whilst the sound is very very good indeed, it has a somewhat clinical feel - it seems more about 'hi-fi' than music - if I'm making any sense???

In reply to Goucho:


See James Wardle's post above: you're missing that 'added second harmonic distortion and low frequency noise' which your brain has grown to prefer. Or something like that.

But there's no single correct way here: if you like it, it's good!

In reply to Goucho:

Yep. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. :O)

In reply to Goucho:



IMO the most important issue is the recording. Even if you go with vinyl it is pretty much impossible to get exclusively analogue recordings. Somewhere between the microphone to the vinyl, almost any recording will have been digital at some if not all points of the processing, so you are relying on the producer´s DACs even if you play the end product on your turntable.

Many studio CDs sound "too clinical" to my ears, and would have benefited from recording in a proper venue (I am specifically talking about classical music here, especially vocal works). Quite possibly the noise and inevitable distortions one gets from analogue playback mimic or compensate this to some extent, but I would rather have this "warmer" sound encoded to start with and then reproduced as precisely as possible.

Even then, if you take the same CD to a hifi shop and play it through the same amp/speaker combination using different CD players, differences will be striking. My favourite test piece is a recording of Bach´s motettes where I was present at the recording (in a church rather than a studio) and hence know exactly how the choir, continuo, and box organ are supposed to sound.

CB

In reply to Orgsm:


I am - or rather, my ears are - convinced that newer DACs are rather better than some older ones or, to be exact, that the DAC in my Musical Fidelity Clic (2012 or 2013) is better than the one in my Linn Ikemi CD player (2001 ish).

Only just, but just enough.

T.

In reply to Orgsm:

I got a new ARCAM DAC a couple of years ago and I was very impressed with the difference. My 2000 CD was definitely better than my 1986 CD player, but I am not paying the biggest bucks.

In reply to dread-i:

Assuming the speed of light in the cable is what it is in RF cables (~2/3 c), then 1m would give a delay of 1/2e8, or 5ns.

I think you'd be doing pretty well to be able to determine a phase offset of 5ns...

In terms of audio phase or delay, that's 1.65micron (5ns * 330m/s). I don't think I have my speakers set up with quite that accuracy...

In reply to Pursued by a bear:


Yes. Better interpolation, more bits, better linearity, lower noise, etc.

But, even given the same DAC chip, there are improvements to be made in the surrounding circuitry; low phase noise clock*, better power supply decoupling, better output coupling, better digital/analogue isolation. etc. That's where 'audiophile' stuff can spend the money, and provide tangible benefits.

* unless you've come to like the LF noise James mentions...

On the other hand, I'm currently listening to MediaMonkey running on a cheap 'all-in-one' PC, streaming from my NAS to its cheap headphone socket, and thence to a Kensington SX2000 flat panel speaker (£5, unopened, from a charity shop). It's not bad...

In reply to deepsoup:


It is. What I'm saying though, and the quick search supports this, is that people misattribute the cause of their satisfaction. It doesn't make the subjective satisfaction and preference any less real, but the reasons people give for this satisfaction are false (although they genuinely believe in them).


It is. The kind of mistake we all make, all the time. It's just how the human brain works.

In reply to Goucho:
I would like to make 2 points here.
1. I got into music in the days of records - vinyl- and despite using good equipment after lots of plays of a favourite album the quality deteriorated - the mechanical wear on the plastic was the cause. This doesn't happen with digital.
2. Hearing 'Teenage Kicks' on a poor AM broadcast of the John Peel show excited me beyond the quality of the signal. Good music will shine through poor recording/delivery. Listen to that rather than the sound quality.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

But we rarely attribute the cause, we just say it sounds better. The cause doesn't really matter does it, it just does, and if the only difference is one is vinyl and the other CD, then that's it. Vinyl never sounded different whether I dropped the needle or a friend did, no bias there.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Indeed. I did say I was nit-picking slightly..


My point was merely this

>..., but the reasons people give for this satisfaction are false (although they genuinely believe in them).

And I can't really argue with this.


Here, however, I can carry on nit-picking. ;O)

Not a mistake. As the software engineers say: it's not a fault, it's a feature.
We experience the perception of our senses differently according to our emotional state and our state of mind but that is no more a mistake than it's a mistake that we see the world without a bloody great big blind spot in our field of view. (The design of the eye that creates the blind spot - that I'll grant you: mistake.)

In reply to Jon Stewart:



I've subjected myself to a number of A/B blind listening tests during numerous kit upgrades, and I can not only tell the difference between vinyl and CD, I can go into reasonably objective detail too - yes, I know it's sad - and why I prefer vinyl.

I will however add the caveat that I am talking about reasonably high end replay systems.

So I'm not sure how you attribute cognitive bias unilaterally to how we actually do hear things?

In reply to Orgsm:


The whole point is that there are lots of other parts of the experience that differ, and the research shows that when you take them away, the vinyl no longer sounds better. The preference according to the research is created by non-auditory cues.

Slightly less scientific, but still compelling, was the sound engineer's anecdotal evidence about recreating the 'vinyl sound' and the associated preference with a bit of distortion.

In reply to Goucho:


Because when it's been tested scientifically, that's what the results showed. Although I'm sure your double-blind trials were absolutely rigorous and allowed no cognitive bias to sneak in...

In reply to Jon Stewart:


And how exactly do you test scientifically how something sounds to an individual ?

In reply to Jon Stewart:


How can there be cognitive bias when you don't know what source you're listening too, because it's hidden behind a blackout curtain - wonder if the scientific tests were conducted following this kind of A/B listening test criteria?

In reply to Orgsm:


It's a science called psychophysics. You can't measure *how* something sounds, but you identify things you can measure such as reported subjective preference, and see what conditions lead to different measures. A lot of very interesting (and true!) things about human perception have been found out this way. Fascinating stuff, to me anyway.

In reply to Goucho:

There are millions of ways that cognitive bias can sneak into an experiment: people spend a lot of time designing experiments to ensure that their reviewers can't catch them out. The first thing is that the set-up needs to be double-blind, i.e. both the experimenter and the subject/listener have to be blind to what the condition is (e.g. CD or vinyl). If your experimenter and subject are both the same person, your study's going to be ripped apart at peer review!

Having an interest in psychophysics and human perception, something like a subjective preference for vinyl over CD is a classic window into how we interpret our senses. The wonderful thing about perception is that even the things we trust most are illusions - nothing in perception is what it seems.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


My blind listening tests were conducted by someone else - Absolute Sounds at the Bristol Hi-Fi Show to be precise. I arrived in the room and was only aware of the amplification and speakers. A variety of various vinyl and CD sources were then played over an hour session, all of them conceiled behind a curtain the full width of the room and using a wide variety of music.

Granted by this stage of my hi-fi journey I was reasonably knowledgeable and already had a good system and looking to upgrade.

In reply to Goucho:

It does sound like a pretty good experiment! There are loads of ways that subjective preference can be generated, e.g. by sounding more like something else that's lodged in your memory and perceptual system that's associated with something you like. What sets off the neurons firing to say "I like this" might have more to it than what meets the eye/ear. Granted, this is a bit different to the cognitive bias thing, more to do with the experience we bring to bear on perception.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


I've no doubt. But at that time, my aim was actually to upgrade my cd player - which ironically I still did

In reply to Goucho:

Nostalgic ramblings on vinyl records by Mark and Lard

youtube.com/watch?v=cBkIqocn-JY&

In reply to Goucho:

Let me try an rephrase the audiophile argument in a way that all of us here can appreciate:

1) Vinyl = trad
2) CD = sport
3) Lossy compressed digital e.g. MP3 = bouldering

Some may argue for the benefits of each of them, but under neath it all we know trad (ahem) vinyl is king.

In reply to Goucho:


It's simpler than that. Good engineering costs money.

Early CD players were expensive, and the people who bought them expected a certain level of build quality and longevity. My dad bought an early one that was all milled aluminium and blue-white electroluminescent displays. It still works perfectly.

Once the electronics became cheap enough then it became possible to make cheap players by cutting corners and making everything out of plastic, which is what practically all the manufacturers did.

In reply to james wardle:





Interesting. I have for a long time speculated that this could be the case but never got round to testing the theory out (or been in a position to) .
I use the 15 amp cooker cable too.

In reply to james wardle:


Good to hear you say this, because I think there has been a lot of romantic twaddle talked about vinyl. I had an old Thorens/NAD/A&R Cambridge stylus set up (i.e. state of the art in the early 1970s), and a pristine record collection but the truth was that many of the recordings were deeply flawed/imperfect - not just with terrible record noise and background noise (bad recording) but also harmonic distortion. It was quite rare to find a record (typically Deutsche Grammophon) that would be able to cope with the full dynamic range of a full orchestra and choir. A case in point was the classic 5-star EMI recording of Beethoven's Missa Solemnis with the New Philharmonic conducted by Klemperer.

I don't know how they do it now with the latest digital projectors (updated in my superb local Ritz cinema about 18 months to 2 years ago) but I have never heard such high quality sound in any cinema, for range, depth, richness and lack of distortion. And I used to be involved in the 6-track stereo recordings of some movies that had 70mm projection prints for the west end. The truth is that digital is quite cruel in its 'transparency' and every flaw will be heard exactly as if you're sitting in a concert hall.

In reply to gethin_allen:

That's a joy though- you can now buy a far better (used I'd suggest) one!

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

The current vinyl revival is primarily based on rock music. Plenty of classic rock albums from the 1960s and 1970s are currently being reissued on vinyl at £20 or so a time, but the vast majority of new classical recordings are issued on CD or as digital downloads, where the quiet passages will not be disturbed by random clicks and pops. Very little classical music is currently being issued on vinyl.

In reply to John2:

The random pops and clicks thing is what steered me away from vinyl some years back. I have several LPs that appear to have been recorded by Golden Wonder and printed on crisp packets and no amount of cleaning will fully remove this.

That said, I love the interaction you have with an LP and, especially, the size of the covers. There's a lot of space for good artwork on an LP cover and CDs and digital have brought an end to this, which is a shame. But even so I don't buy LPs any more and these days when I buy a CD the first thing I do is rip it to FLAC and Apple lossless and listen to those.

I shan't be getting rid of either my turntable set up or my LPs and I do still listen to some of them, but these days the best sound comes from pressing buttons rather than putting a disc of any kind in or on something. In my opinion, of course.

T.

In reply to Pursued by a bear:





Have to agree with everything above. There was something special about scanning the lyrics and, in some cases, almost having to explore the sleeve (I had a Santana live album that require laying out three pieces on the floor to get the full effect) On the other hand, the whole business of looking after the records (if you were bothered about such things) was a chore.

In reply to Goucho:
I think the love of vinyl and vinyl replay in my case is , has been alluded to by others , a lot about the objects themselves or as Gordon so eloquently put it the "romantic twaddle " factor , as well as the music. I ve owned three turntables and still have two of them . I traded the first to get the second and wish I still had it . I ve had several CD players including a couple of high end ones and had no connection to any of them , each of them was either sold or traded in to get the next one , probably because I was bored . (It occurs to me that being obsessed with climbing for most of my twenties and thirties curtailed a lot of this unneccasry spending on "stuff" bar the odd bit of hi if and the odd sports car) . The one I still have , a mid range arcam I kept because the trade in was so low I intended to give it to my brother but never got around to it . The last meridian transport / dac , broke down out of warranty and I gave It to a work colleague who was going to fix it for me but he "went bush" in South America and has not been seen for some years .
Likewise the records themselves have an emotional connection far beyond the quality of noise coming out of the speakers , as has been said already, getting them out of the sleeve ,carefully putting them on the turntable , gently lowering the stylus onto the vinyl , sitting back with a glass of wine or "something" and taking time to sit and listen . I have done a couple of blind tests and always preferred vinyl , including a £300 rega turntable against a hi end French CD player ,the make of which I can't even remember , that I was thinking of buying probably because it was French and looked cool.
I suppose I get a pleasure out of owning the turntables over and above the noise they make , a bit like owning more than one car or motorbike , I have them because I enjoy owning them and require no further justification . The bloke who owns a pub just up the road from here has an immense collection of Toby jugs which to me are hideous and a bit scary , but I m sure physics couldn't measure how little what I think matters to him .
I also think a lot of twaddle is talked about vinyl replay, high end cables etc, but if I want to spend my money on it , well, that's my buisness , wether it sounds better to anybody else is irrelevant . If I enjoy and owning it and think it sounds better or even just like the way it looks that's enough. I bid on a Michel gyro deck on eBay last year , probably some way off my "best" turntable /arm/ cartridge , because I always thought they looked cool and fancied one for my future man cave.

In reply to Goucho:


Not exactly, it's more that CD, as a digital storage medium, records a discretely sampled representation of the sound rather than a continuously sampled (analogue one).

However, CD sound is sampled at 48,000 times per second, so I would seriously doubt the claims of anyone who said that they could hear a difference under controlled conditions. I(t's far more likely to be the a placebo effect brought on by the emotional connection people tend to have with vinyl.

It is analogous ( pardon the pun ) to the audiophiles who spend thousands on speaker cable and then were unable to tell the difference under blind, controlled conditions between their expensive interconnects and a wire coathanger.

In reply to planetmarshall:


Minor correction: actually 44.1 kHz.

In reply to mike123:


My Michell Orb is basically a souped up Gyrodec - heavier platter, upgraded motor and electronics - and combined with the Iso/Hera phono stage, SME V arm and Ortofon 500 cartridge it gives a sublime sound.

I looked at a number of turntables including Linn LP12 Lingo, Pink Triangle, Voyd Reference, and a Townsend Rock which had the best bass I've ever heard. All had pros and cons but the Orb was the most balanced across a wide range of music IMHO.

My Krell CD player cost more than my turntable set up - $9k in 1995, and is very good - even better when the pre-amp is bypassed.

The best way I can describe my point is that when I play a CD, I sit back and listen to how wonderful my system sounds.

However, when I put vinyl on my turntable, I sit back and listen to how wonderful the music sounds.

Of course I have to disclose at this point that I am still a recovering audiofile addict

In reply to planetmarshall:


Don't be too harsh. Audiophilia is an illness just like alcoholism and drug addiction

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I have to disagree with you here, Gordon, and agree strongly with Goucho. I have both CD and record player equipment in both the UK and the US, and I frequently compare vinyl and CD's directly. The equipment I have in the UK is more modern (by 25 years) than the equipment in the US but it is much inferior - in fact I am amazed by how poor it is compared with the much older equipment. In the UK, I can not really tell the difference between the vinyl and CD, but on my equipment in the US the difference is huge - the vinyl records sound vastly better. My house in the US is made of wood, and for some reason music (both instruments and recordings) sounds to my ears much better in a wooden house than a brick or stone one. I have many of the same recordings on both vinyl and CD, across the spectrum from classical to jazz to blues to rock, so the comparisons are direct and played through the same amplifier and speakers. My teenage children and friends were always amazed at the difference in sound quality. I would say the vinyl sounds ten times better, apart from some irritating dust and scratch noises. I find it a special audio treat to listen to a vinyl recording compared with the CD equivalent.

Another thing I have noticed, though, is that (if my vinyl collection, which dates back to the '60's is anything to go by) the vinyl technology seemed to reach its peak in about the mid '70's. After that the record companies reduced the thickness of the vinyl and the records became inferior and quite often warped, which produces some horrible distortion.

Incidentlly, I do not find anything romantic about putting on a vinyl record - it' a pain in the neck. In the US the automatic play device on my record deck is broken, so I have to manually place the pick-up arm.

In reply to John Stainforth:


That's a really good point John.

A good example is Joni Mitchell. Compare Hejira (76) to Don Jauns Reckless Daughter (77). Both recorded at A&M Studios, both using more or less the same musicians - Larry Calton, Jaco Pastorious etc.

On CD they both have the same quality of sound and production, but on vinyl, the sound is much thinner and grainier on Don Juans, and is also dynamically more compressed.

So I think what we're saying is, that not all vinyl is created equal?

In reply to Goucho:


For sure. But then not all CD's are created equal either. The crux is the quality and artistry of the production, mastering, and/or re-mastering.

In reply to Goucho:

Another point: I have quite a strong aversion to background record noise, and hate having to filter it out too drastically because it degrades the overall sound quality. This compared with the original loss of richness of the analogue signal (now I think a virtually negligible problem) is surely the worse of two evils? It's the exact equivalent of dust and scratches on a photograph (analogue or digital). I say this as someone who spent quite a few years in the film industry working on soundtracks and removing background noise – when neck mikes were nothing like as good as they now are. Background traffic noise was always a problem. Once one had got the track as clean as possible (this meant putting blank spacing between each word, and sometimes syllables, a really time-consuming job that required one to work to a 96th of a second). Then, because sound is transparent, behind the dialogue tracks one would lay 'atmos' tracks to put a more acceptable background noise behind everything including the gaps. If the scene was out of doors this might for example be birdsong, wind, church bells, etc (all on different tracks). Indoors: distant music, voices, laughter, clocks ticking or chiming, and/or a kind of general 'atmos' (I think we called them 'buzz tracks') that was less objectionable than the original. Compromises all round, in other words.

Anyhow. Clean, clear sound is a joy to me.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:



With a good vinyl recording and a good turturntable Gordon, background noise isn't much of an issue - I get hardly any on my system.

But if it's a trade off against the inherent mid-range 'brightness' of most digital sources - still noticeable even on a £50k Mark Levinson Dac/Transport combo played through a £60k Audio Note valve amp - then I'll take it.

Clean and clear is great, but not when it becomes clinical and characterless.

In reply to Rob Parsons:


A major point is that because digital sound is so cruelly 'clinical' it demands really high quality recording to start with. This, fortunately, is now possible with the incredible advances that have been made with microphones. That said, with classical music, a single stereo mike in exactly the right position in a superb soundproof recording studio with good natural acoustics will probably produce the best master track. Then, of course, with modern microphone technology, just about every instrument, I imagine, will be recorded separately, and laid off on separate tracks in order to be able to boost/enhance/change the quality of any particular element ...

In reply to Goucho:


Indeed. That was my point (and why I dredged up a very out-of-date film industry example, dating from the pre-digital era).

Again, I have heard some very good sound tracks on some recent movies (and lots of bad ones - arguably, the overall standard is not as high as it used to be.)

In reply to Goucho:

Can someone explain what they mean by romantic attachment to Vinyl? I've heard it a few times in this thread and wonder what you mean by this?

In reply to Orgsm:


A rough synonym for 'idealised' or 'sentimental'. Cp. romantic love with e.g. lust, or real, long-term love etc.

In reply to Orgsm:


It's used by digital aficionados to discredit the opinions of vinyl aficionados by infering that those who prefer the sound of vinyl only do so because of what an LP represents as part of their rose tinted memories, not because of how it actually sounds.

Meridian - who only make digital products (very good ones it has to be said) - used to trot it out at hi-fi shows the minute anyone mentioned turntables or valve Amps

In reply to Goucho:


An absolutely incredible example of old-fashioned (film) sound editing that I was talking about, where it has all been cleaned up quite drastically, but it is not clinical: the scene with Jack and Grady in the Gold Ballroom bar in The Shining. It wasn't even shot on a sound stage, but in a big storage shed - they'd run out of big stages at Elstree! The background sound behind the dialogue was really bad but just look, I mean listen, to how Dino di Campo (the dialogue editor) cleaned it up, and Win Ryder reconstructed the whole thing. All the sounds of the glass going on to the desk, the chinking of the ice in the glass etc, were post-synched by the incredible 'footsteps' lady (very sadly, I can't remember her name) in the dubbing theatre - she was quite literally the best in London, the only person who could have done it that well and that convincingly. An unsung genius!

youtube.com/watch?v=HJVVGzEbJC0&

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

But surely doesn't that mean or imply past tense, and it's hardly past tense if you're listening to it?

In reply to Orgsm:

No, romantic love can be timeless, e.g to an ideal, a place etc., but I think seldom to a person.

In reply to Orgsm:

Of course, romantic and classical music are two other examples.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


And how is Vinyl an ideal and timeless in this context?

In reply to Orgsm:


Er ... ask all those on this thread who are still proclaiming its wonders in 2015, when it's about as out-of-date a technology as cathode-ray tube colour telly.

In reply to Orgsm:

... which, p.s., did horrible things to our eyes and brains ...

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

'with classical music, a single stereo mike in exactly the right position in a superb soundproof recording studio with good natural acoustics will probably produce the best master track. Then, of course, with modern microphone technology, just about every instrument, I imagine, will be recorded separately, and laid off on separate tracks in order to be able to boost/enhance/change the quality of any particular element'

Many of the most highly regarded classical recordings were made using the Blumlein pair technique, in which two precisely angled microphones recorded both the direct sound of the orchestra and the ambient information bouncing off the walls.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blumlein_Pair

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


You need to sit and listen to vinyl on a proper high end system Gordon, and then you'll see - honest

In reply to Goucho:

Well, my old system is/was quite high end. Speakers weren't the greatest (JBL), but with good headphones, it was pretty incredible ... but with the problems I've already mentioned. Everything I talked about above re film sound tracks was completely analogue too.

In reply to Goucho:

And then there was all the hassle. All the cleaning of the stylus and the records. I even had this cleaning arm which moved across with the stylus arm with a little brush and a wad of felt and a tank that you filled with distilled water ... Then there was the perennial problem of warped records that John's mentioned.

In reply to Siward:


Unfortunately it packed in while I was unemployed so didn't fancy dropping cash on a stereo. In the end I bought a denon avc-2800 circa 2004 I think for £30. It's worth £30 but it's not that good and it's a massive beast (8 channels at 85 wpc if I can find 4 pairs of speakers).

In reply to Goucho:

I've got an American pressing of DJ'sRD, and I have to say for the most part I prefer the sound of the LP (I've got a Rega RP10, a pretty good modern turntable). Joni Mitchell's voice is thinner and more screechy on a CD ripped to a PC and played through a DAC. But when Jaco Pastorius' bass enters in Overture, the LP can't compete with the depth and impact of the CD.

In reply to John2:


As much as I love Joni Mitchell, there are times when her vocals in the higher register do get a bit 'glassy' irrespective of how good the system is.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


That's an integral part of the 'hair shirt' ritual - just like a Japanese tea party

In reply to Goucho:

It was a revelation to me when I tried a passive pre-amp in my home system. I listened to Blue, and her voice was not screechy at all - within 10 seconds I knew that I had to buy the pre-amp.

In reply to John2:


Pre-amp makes a big difference across the board - even helps with consistently badly produced Jethro Tull albums - though Oasis is a lost cause beyond a 10 quid tranny radio.

In reply to John2:



Thanks for this. I imagine it's still used a lot. I imagine that a lot of the excellent Naxos bargain-price classical recordings were done that way.

In reply to Goucho:

When I changed my preamp a few years back I was surprised just how much of a difference it made. I changed my power amp this year. I have been surprised once again.

It wasn't as if the older stuff was bad, far from it, but newer amplification based on new circuit designs has knocked the older stuff into a cocked hat.

T.

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

Wouldn't the parallel construction of mains cable make it liable to pick up extraneous external signals? I'd have thought a well-constructed coaxial cable would be better because it's shielded.

In reply to Goucho:


I have an early (series 1?) Elite rock, Excalibur arm and dynavector 10x5 and as you say, it has incredible bass. I would however argue that it's actually very balanced, more so than my Marantz CD63, and makes listening to music an almost religious experience.

In reply to graeme jackson:


It is a superb piece of kit. The one I heard had an Excaliber arm but with a Koetsu cartridge. It was superb on heavy rock, but not quite as good on lighter classical and female vocalists - but that could have been down to the cartridge?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Absolutely. Just listen to the rather old Mercury recordings of Dvorak`s cello concerto with Janos Starker. However, the conductor has to know how to play for the mike rather than an audience, but not all do.

CB

In reply to Pursued by a bear:




Ooh! My amps are 25 year old Musical Fidelity. Any suggestions what new stuff would supplant them?

In reply to Rob Davies:


Possibly but I can't say I've noticed. I gather it's the 'chunkiness' of the cable that has the biggest effect. I also think that, when it comes to cable, the law of diminishing returns kicks in quite quickly.

In reply to Goucho:

One more thought. Have you tried 96kHz or 192kHz digital downloads? The only piece of music I possess in two digital formats is a 92kHz download of Keith Jarret's Cologne concert, and it makes the CD sound very poor.

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

Well the obvious answer is, if you like your current Musical Fidelity amps, to have a look at some of their newer amplification. Something from their M6 series or, if you're feeling flush, the M8 or NuVista series. Have a listen and see whether you're still a fan. If you're anywhere near Bristol there's an annual HiFi show in February that will let you listen to many things, though you'll be one of a crowd rather than able to have a serious listen to things.

Otherwise it depends on your budget, your tastes, the rest of your system, your house and your ears. Naim amplification has many fans; Quad too. I use Linn amplification (which is what got replaced) and (quite old) speakers. Though I'm very happy with my setup I shan't try and persuade you that it's better than anything else and the one true path; it's up to you to find your own.

Other than that it'll be a case of popping into your local dealers and seeing if you can book a slot to listen to their suggestions. Good luck!

T.

I'm sure someone's said it but of course by the time you can afford a stereo where you can hear the difference, you can no longer hear the difference (especially if you listen to lots of music).



Toby

In reply to Toby_W:




I said something similar about wine on another forum : by the time I can afford Cheval Blanc & Yquem my tastebuds won't find them any better than a 5 euros bottle of Vin de Pays !

Getting back on subject, I wonder what is the point of splashing out 10 grand on a system just to listen to a vocalist accompanied by a few instruments ? Perhaps decent orchestral recordings will do such a system justice when many individual instruments will stand out rather than being just part of the whole sound.

In reply to Pyreneenemec:

The way I try to explain it is this. Imagine your favourite band/artist/ symphony orchestra/kazoo-playing dog are doing their thing.

No hifi is like listening to them from a grest distance, or through a tube. A good hifi will make you think that at least you're in the same room as them, somewhere near the back. A better hifi will make you think that you're at the front of the crowd. A hifi that's better still will make you think that you're at the front, in the middle and that whoever's playing is on really good form and you can every note and every nuance. And a really good hifi will, if you listen with your eyes closed, either make you think that whoever's playing is in the room with you or make you forget that you're in a house and transport you directly to wherever the music is being played. And even with music you know well, at each step you'll hear things you've never heard before.

Now; we all have favourite bits of music, pieces that mean something to us or which regularly make us feel like the hairs on bits of our body (arms, for me) are standing on end. Play those by all means; but the test of a good system is if you can play some music you usually don't appreciate - country and western is good for this - and make you hear it in a different way that goes beyond your prejudice (I still dislike intensely country and western music but at least now I can appreciate why for some people it does the same thing as, say, the last eight or nine minutes of Mike Oldfield's Ommadawn, or Dunkirk from the performance of The Snowgoose on Camel's A Live Record does for me).

So that the 'why' for me. Your view may differ, naturally.

T.

In reply to Pyreneenemec:


A good system will enhance any type of music (with the exception of Black Lace, One Direction & Ollie Murs obviously).

I've just been listening to a 1960's Decca vinyl of Julie London singing Cry Me a River. It's so beautiful its enough to make an old fart weep.

In reply to Pursued by a bear:





Nail on head. Superbly put

I got into Mary Chapin Carpenter via a hi-fi demo when I was upgrading. The guy at Absolute Sounds put 'What you Didn't Say' on, and it sent a shiver down my spine.

A great system releases not just every bit of musicianship, but also the emotion in the music too.

In reply to Pursued by a bear:


>.

>........................................ So that the 'why' for me. Your view may differ, naturally.


You don't mind being put in your place when it is done so eloquently.

In reply to Pursued by a bear:


I like this - I mostly can't stand C+W either, but many moons ago I listened to some on HUGE electrostatic speakers (can't remember the make but driven by a big old tube amp....) in a very high-end shop (no, I didn't buy anything!) and it was just great. Exactly as if it was live (IMHO).

In reply to John2:


I've not actually, so I'll take a look.

In reply to John2:

I've never (knowingly) listened to a 'hi-res' recording but, from the signal processing point of view, it makes no sense as the final format to listen to: human hearing stops at about 20kHz, so Nyquist tells us that any digitization above about 40 kHz is a waste of time (as well as storage space.) (Of course, such digitization - as well as additional bits per sample - might well have a place in the recording -> producing -> mastering chain.)

You also can't make a valid comparison between a 96kHz download and the CD version unless you are entirely sure that the mastering of both was done in *exactly* the same way.

All that is *not* to attempt to deny your own experience, by the way. Indeed, it leads in similar directions to the entire analogue/digital debate itself.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Except it not a straight sine wave is it?

Overlay 20khz, 17khz, 13khz, 11khz, 7khz , 5khz signals, then sample that at 40khz and 192khz and then take the DAC signal processing decay and see how the results compare to the original source signals. I'd rather listen to a reproduction that's closer the the original analogue, even if you claim we can't tell the difference, as its most likely to reproduce a faithful copy in our brains.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Nyquist says you won't pick up frequencies above 20 kHz without aliasing if you sample at 40 kHz, but does it also say that the fidelity of a 20 kHz signal is recorded just as faithfully if you sample at 40.1 kHz as if you sample at much higher frequencies? Fourier says it does, I guess.

In reply to Orgsm:

The only part of a not-straight sine wave 20 kHz signal you would hear would be the straight sine-wave part of it. Or 14 kHz in my case.

In reply to Orgsm:


My claim is that the final analogue output would (or rather could - depending on the quality of the DAC involved) be identical. That's what the Nyquist theorem (which certainly isn't limited to pure sine waves) is all about.

E.g. from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem

"If a function x(t) contains no frequencies higher than B hertz, it is completely determined by giving its ordinates at a series of points spaced 1/(2B) seconds apart.

A sufficient sample-rate is therefore 2B samples/second, or anything larger. Equivalently, for a given sample rate fs, perfect reconstruction is guaranteed possible for a bandlimit B < fs/2."

In reply to Rob Parsons:

But essentially we're talking about the sampling frequency. Regrettably, each separate note within a complex piece of music does not start exactly 1/48000th of a second after the previous one - there are tiny differences in starting times, more of which will be captured with a higher sampling frequency. I'm assuming you haven't listened to any high-res downloads?

In reply to John2:

That's *literally* what we're talking about.


What's happening is that an electrical signal is created by the microphones (or electric instruments); that signal is digitised in the recording process; that digital signal is then recreated to an electrical one by your DAC; that final analogue signal is what you then hear (via your amp and speakers.)

You can argue about the quality of the implementation, but you can't argue against the mathematics: if there are signals up to 22 kHz in the input electrical signal, then they'll be faithfully recreatable in the output signal if a normal CD sampling rate is used. And, to repeat, it's generally accepted that human hearing isn't capable of sounds above 20 kHz. (Of course, other species - bats, for example - don't suffer the same limitation. But they use different audio gear when they're relaxing ...)


As I mentioned in my previous post, I haven't; I'd be curious to. But any listening tests *must* be done blind; and they *must* be done comparing like with like: it's no good saying that a *particular* 96/24 (or 192/24, or 384/48, or - where do you stop?) version sounds better than a *particular* CD version of the same thing.

None of this is news though; here's some more scepticism about it: https://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

In reply to Pursued by a bear:

I remember listening to vinyl played on my Ariston RD40, through my Arcam amp & speakers*, and, with certain live recordings, if I closed my eyes to listen, I found that when I opened them, I was no longer sitting upright; something about the constructed sound field confused my sense of spatial awareness, it was so involving, and so real. At the risk of getting the piss taken, one such record was Genesis' 'Seconds Out'...

I don't remember experiencing this with CDs. But maybe I've succumbed to the convenience, and no longer sit carefully at the centre of the soundstage, just have it playing in the background...

I keep meaning to rewire the arm and get a new cartridge and fir it up again. The fireplace has a bloody great concrete slab which would make a great mounting...

* I bought the turntable before the Arcam, and used it with a crappy amp and speakers; it had the same effect even then.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Well it's not because the DACs don't perfectly reconstruct and a higher sampling rate reduces the approximation error. Can see why you missed this point in your post, easy to overlook.

In reply to Orgsm:


I don't understand your post. What does 'it's not' refer to?

In reply to John2:

The difference in "feel" between analogue and digital playback is nothing to to with the sampling rate during recording, and the resulting binning of start times for notes. The human ear and auditory processing in the brain cannot physiologically distinguish start times for given notes in the tens of µs range (while the auditory system of bats and other echolocating animals may).

Anyway, even if we could spot these timing differences, any such sampling errors will already have been made during the original recording and processing, which will have almost certainly have been digital.

The information loss in sampling will therefore be incurred whether that information is subsequently encoded on a vinyl record or a digital CD.

The main issue is that the analogue signals produced by the DACs in your CD player may not be as good as the signals produced by the DACs used in the studio.

CB

In reply to Goucho:

I wish all you people would stop now - I'm browsing hi-fi and getting further and further down the 'sort by price' listing

In reply to steveriley:


I thought I was cured, but I've just arranged a home demo this weekend of an Audio Research Reference 5SE valve pre amp - Mrs Goucho is not going to be happy.

In reply to Rob Parsons:
Nyquist says that to sample without aliasing the sampling frequency must be twice the max frequency. This does not account for alot of other factors and as one of my DSP lectures put it when I was at uni "Nyquists says twice the max F but in the real world don£t ever do that. Use at least 10 times."

This theory is applied to sampling a signal. Not any DSP or how your DAC recreates a signal which is what you're talking about. There is a difference between sampling and recreating a sampled signal.

In reply to Goucho:

I suggest you console her with the fact that it's less than half the price of the Reference 10.

In reply to deepsoup:


That's probably a factor, but I'm sceptical about how much influence it has. I've got a none too shabby CD setup and it plays music very well indeed, but my vinyl setup sounds better. Plenty of other people have sat in front of it and had the same experience, and they don't take part in the ritual - I put the records on.

I wouldn't generalise my experience into 'vinyl is always better than CD' but I'm pretty sure the converse isn't true either - CD is not always (or even often, IMHO) better than vinyl.

I think there's a tendency to denigrate vinyl because it's old technology; but the idea that CD is newer and therefore better doesn't stand up to listening tests. I've heard CD sounding great at hi-fi shows and shops, but often heard vinyl sounding better - and while the owner indulges in the pleasant Ritual of the Record, I sit there getting impatient.


Agreed. The smell of decaying paper and cardboard is very attractive. Probably why second hand bookshops smell so good.

In reply to james wardle:

Now that's interesting. Years ago, I approached my dealer (such an appropriate word...) about improving sound quality on a tight budget. He suggested replacing my flat cable with stuff that's as thick as a hosepipe and contains four copper wires that are almost thick enough to qualify as bars. I thought there was no way it could make a difference, but it was sale or return so I gave it a go. There was a *big* difference, so I happily coughed up for the (pretty cheap) hosepipe.

In reply to cb294:


Absolutely.

>Even if you go with vinyl it is pretty much impossible to get exclusively analogue recordings.

Pretty much but not quite! I have two recordings from an all analogue recording chain. This is one of them:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Die-Rohre-Tube-VINYL-Various/dp/B0000517B3

Mics, mixing desk, amps, cutting head - all valve-driven. The sound quality is just stunning. I once had the amusing experience of playing this for a seasoned hi-fi buff and literally watching his jaw drop If this sort of music floats your boat, or you're interested in outstanding production quality, I highly recommend it.


I found the same thing the first time I bought a CD player. I auditioned three, didn't expect to be able to tell the difference, and hoped to walk away with the pretty one. The pretty one sounded boring, the techy-looking one sounded awful, and the super-bland looking one sounded great.

A thought on cognitive bias: surely it can be attributed to those who prefer CD just as much as it can to those who prefer vinyl? Hands up, I have a definite predisposition towards vinyl. I love the look of record players and I like to see that top quality engineering on view. Perhaps someone with a love of digital technology, or a belief that newer is better, would have a similar predisposition towards CD.

In reply to ByEek:

Great stuff. Also see this Gene Pitney classic for conclusive proof that vinyl is better than CD:

youtube.com/watch?v=Q8Ssc2urhVA&

In reply to mike123:


I must be in the minority, because I find it a pain in the behind most of the time.


An Audio Aero, by any chance?

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/equipment/0902/audioaerocapitolen.htm

Heard one in a shop once and sounded phenomenal. I prefer vinyl, but this easily stood alongside vinyl for sound quality, IMHO. I realise some people will view this as evidence that the Audio Aero is not a very good CD player :-D


I've got one and love the look of it. Gets lots of admiring comments, too.

In reply to Tony Naylor:

Thanks, that analog recording looks great! Unfortunately, since a few years I don´t have a record player anymore, although I kept all my records and may at some point buy one again.

CB

In reply to itsThere:



Yes. Clearly you need a competent DAC which uses a satisfactory reconstruction filter.

But assuming you have that, then the only signals which should be lost in the entire 44.1 kHz digitization/reconstruction process are those above about 22 kHz - which no human can hear anyway.

What technical reason did your DSP lecturer give for the 'ten times' claim?

In reply to Rob Parsons:
Cant remember, experiance he said. Thinking about it though if you sample a 2KHz signal at 4KHz and change the phase, the amplitude would be reduced.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

I'm guessing that if the reconstruction filter is digital, the filter itself needs to be run at a decent oversample rate otherwise its own output aliases would be a problem. By oversampling at a high enough rate, subsequent aliases can be dealt with in the analogue domain.

In reply to Rob Parsons:


For info: one such study is reported here: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195

I haven't got access to the full report, but the abstract more-or-less describes the conclusions.

This general article is also worth a read: http://archimago.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/musings-what-is-value-of-high.html

In reply to Goucho:

Well this is a slightly awkward and possibly contradictory post to my OP.

I'm into the second day of a home demo of an Audio Research Reference 5SE valve pre amp, and the results are very worrying.

Whilst it has improved the sound of my turntable set up quite noticeably, the improvement it has made to my Krell cd player, is nothing short of stunning.

Now granted it is a £13k pre amp (although the one I'm testing is a mint second hand one) so I did expect good results, but as well as improving dynamics, transparency, soundstage etc, it has given the sound from cd a glorious rich 'analogue warmth' - no doubt the valves are making their presence felt here - but without any coloration, and the extra detail coming out if the music is far more noticeable.

On a series of A/B tests across a variety of music, I hate to admit it, but with this AR pre amp, my cd is sounding better than my turntable???

Looks like I might have to sell a car and get a Goldmund Reference turntable to get the vinyl back in the game, and possibly replace my hair shirt???

I'm now off to the kitchen to see if we've got the ingredients to make a humble pie just in case?

In reply to Goucho:

Well I'm very jealous of your Audio Research pre-amp. Their products don't just sound fantastic, they also look brilliant.

Looking at your description of your system, your turntable looks pretty good. If it were my system I'd be inclined to consider upgrading the phono stage - as you've discovered, the amplification of the low-level signals makes a huge difference to the overall sound.

In reply to Goucho:

So basically the crux is that exceptional audio equipment gives a nice colour to a good source.

In reply to Goucho:
Just a wee upgrade to the vinyl replay ?
http://www.peakhifi.co.uk/cgi-bin/ecom.cgi?Command=ListProducts&db_scid=29
http://hifilounge.co.uk/koetsu-cartridges

In reply to mike123:



I heard an SME (I think it was a 30 - not sure of the cartridge tho) at a hi-fi show via a pair of Jeff Rowland monoblocks and Wilson Watt Puppy speakers. It was quite impressive