• If you ever spot Spam (either in the forums, or received via forum direct message) please use the Report button at the bottom of each post to make sure a Moderator can handle it quickly. Thanks for your help in keeping things running smoothly!

in reality......

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the What HiFi community: the world's leading independent guide to buying and owning hi-fi and home entertainment products.

manicm

Well-known member
May 1, 2008
603
70
18,970
MajorFubar said:
Andrewjvt said:
But ive been listening to sample tracks and parts of songs and dont know if its the mastering or the quality but its sounds very very good
Indeed...I'm very much open minded on this one. It's a new technology I don't fully understand, and once again, trying to weed-out the fiction from the facts is a challenge. The bloke who developed BitPerfect for Macs wrote what seemed to be a very good article on his website about DSD, full of superlatives about why it's the second coming and why PCM is so yesterday. But in the next breath he also witters on about why hi-res PCM audio downloads like 24/96 and 24/192 are so revolutionary and amazing, and I know enough about digital audio to know that's balderdash.
You know enough about digital audio, yet by your own admission you don't know much about DSD. Are you professionally involved in digital audio?
 

nopiano

Well-known member
Feb 15, 2009
288
176
19,070
Thompsonuxb said:
Do turntables really sound any different or better compared to CDplayers?

In a 'blind test' do you honestly believe a TT/vinyl would sound better or different than the same track on CD if the crackle and pop was included?

Forget the DR table as it is rubbish and tells you nothing as to what a track sounds like under real world conditions.

I still believe CD trumps vinyl but have not compared a modern deck/vinyl pressing with a cdplayer.
One or two replies have touched on the fact that LP replay has added distortion or greater noise that brings warmth, or at least seems to. There is definitely a type of 'vinyl roar' even on clamped or vacuumed discs that seems to be an ambience creating artefact - out of phase with the music, possibly? CD can sound a bit sterile and clinical by contrast, and that was clearly more so so when first released, especially from the Sony and Hitachi brigade, while Philips and Marantz had softer-sounding 14 bit chips.

Hearing upper-end modern devices, as I did last week (TechDas Air Force 3 turntable and Audio Research CD6) though not in the same recordings, the ambience retrieval on LP seemed very persuasive, but still suffered some unwelcome bumps and thuds. The CD was wonderful too. I'd want both, but then I'm greedy, and at home I use the turntable for my 60's to 70's mostly analogue recordings, and my CD player mostly for later digital recordings, with a few earlier remastered ones for good measure. So, for me it is horses for courses - I don't see them as interchangeable, and would be reluctant to spend £18+ a time for new LPs, even though that's less than mine were - allowing for inflation.
 

BigH

New member
Dec 29, 2012
97
0
0
nopiano said:
Thompsonuxb said:
Do turntables really sound any different or better compared to CDplayers?

In a 'blind test' do you honestly believe a TT/vinyl would sound better or different than the same track on CD if the crackle and pop was included?

Forget the DR table as it is rubbish and tells you nothing as to what a track sounds like under real world conditions.

I still believe CD trumps vinyl but have not compared a modern deck/vinyl pressing with a cdplayer.
One or two replies have touched on the fact that LP replay has added distortion or greater noise that brings warmth, or at least seems to. There is definitely a type of 'vinyl roar' even on clamped or vacuumed discs that seems to be an ambience creating artefact - out of phase with the music, possibly? CD can sound a bit sterile and clinical by contrast, and that was clearly more so so when first released, especially from the Sony and Hitachi brigade, while Philips and Marantz had softer-sounding 14 bit chips.

Hearing upper-end modern devices, as I did last week (TechDas Air Force 3 turntable and Audio Research CD6) though not in the same recordings, the ambience retrieval on LP seemed very persuasive, but still suffered some unwelcome bumps and thuds. The CD was wonderful too. I'd want both, but then I'm greedy, and at home I use the turntable for my 60's to 70's mostly analogue recordings, and my CD player mostly for later digital recordings, with a few earlier remastered ones for good measure. So, for me it is horses for courses - I don't see them as interchangeable, and would be reluctant to spend £18+ a time for new LPs, even though that's less than mine were - allowing for inflation.
Some high end cdps use tubes/valves presumably to add warmth (distortion) to the sound. So high end turntables are trying to get a purer sound by less distortion and cdp seem to be adding it.

I generally agree about 70s albums which most of mine are and I also agree about the prices. Some digital remasters are getting better, I was listening to the 40 anniversary edition of Aqualung it did sound much better than the previous remasters but then it been completely remixed. Pink Floyd recent remasters seem pretty good, the 2010 SACD remasters of Bob Dylan and meant to be the best ones. Miles Davis KOB they seem to have finally got it right. So some hope for the digital listeners.
 

Al ears

Moderator
David@FrankHarvey said:
Al ears said:
David@FrankHarvey said:
bigfish786 said:
Both can be brilliant.

Whats the problem? If you don't like vinyl, don't buy it.

Same goes for CDs.
Points have to be argued. Forums are never that simple!
Only if you're a 'my format is better than your format' sort of chap apparently.
Lucky most of us use both formats then :)
Both? I use at least three. :)
 

TomSawyer

New member
Apr 17, 2016
3
0
0
Given this has gone to over 100 posts already, I've probably missed the boat. But isn't this like comparing an Aston Martin DB6 to a DB9 or a proper mini to a BMW mini. The newer is technically superior but there are subjective and/or emotional aspects that make the older preferable to some that makes them prepared to live with their shortcomings.

LPs can run CDs pretty close in my experience but I don't have many LPs that don't make some noise they shouldn't - I listened to 6 Jam albums yesterday from In The City to The Gift and there was plenty of noise in the quiet sections. For all the reasons others have mentioned - like the quality of the production/engineering of the recording and the equipment each format is played on in a specific case - an LP might be better than a CD but the opposite is just as likely, probably more so.

Other will probably disagree, but to my mind, if you have an emotional connection to LPs, you know it already, and if you don't it just seems like unecessary complication and expense buying into a second format if you're content with the one you have.
 

BigH

New member
Dec 29, 2012
97
0
0
DomCheetham said:
I watched a video on YouTube, it explained that 16bits with dither has a 120db's s/n. A good cassette tape can get 6bits. It basicaly hiss, a CD at 44100hz can perfectly recreate the all the music.

A vinyl cannot sound better than a CD, Its not physically possible.
Is that a joke?
 

davedotco

New member
Apr 24, 2013
20
0
0
TomSawyer said:
Given this has gone to over 100 posts already, I've probably missed the boat. But isn't this like comparing an Aston Martin DB6 to a DB9 or a proper mini to a BMW mini. The newer is technically superior but there are subjective and/or emotional aspects that make the older preferable to some that makes them prepared to live with their shortcomings.

LPs can run CDs pretty close in my experience but I don't have many LPs that don't make some noise they shouldn't - I listened to 6 Jam albums yesterday from In The City to The Gift and there was plenty of noise in the quiet sections. For all the reasons others have mentioned - like the quality of the production/engineering of the recording and the equipment each format is played on in a specific case - an LP might be better than a CD but the opposite is just as likely, probably more so.

Other will probably disagree, but to my mind, if you have an emotional connection to LPs, you know it already, and if you don't it just seems like unecessary complication and expense buying into a second format if you're content with the one you have.
Just for your own amusement, I urge you to try your vinyl on a really good player (in a compedent dealers perhaps) to see how such a player handles the noise.

In my experience a good player does two things, firstly, it reduces noise of all kinds, primarily due to better mechanical construction and consequent reduction in microphony and resonance and secondly because it somehow separates the noise from the music in such a way that it no longer interferes with the listening. It is still there (to a degree) but it no longer matters as it is no longer bound up with the music.
 

TrevC

Well-known member
Jun 12, 2013
326
135
19,070
davedotco said:
TomSawyer said:
Given this has gone to over 100 posts already, I've probably missed the boat. But isn't this like comparing an Aston Martin DB6 to a DB9 or a proper mini to a BMW mini. The newer is technically superior but there are subjective and/or emotional aspects that make the older preferable to some that makes them prepared to live with their shortcomings.

LPs can run CDs pretty close in my experience but I don't have many LPs that don't make some noise they shouldn't - I listened to 6 Jam albums yesterday from In The City to The Gift and there was plenty of noise in the quiet sections. For all the reasons others have mentioned - like the quality of the production/engineering of the recording and the equipment each format is played on in a specific case - an LP might be better than a CD but the opposite is just as likely, probably more so.

Other will probably disagree, but to my mind, if you have an emotional connection to LPs, you know it already, and if you don't it just seems like unecessary complication and expense buying into a second format if you're content with the one you have.
Just for your own amusement, I urge you to try your vinyl on a really good player (in a compedent dealers perhaps) to see how such a player handles the noise.

In my experience a good player does two things, firstly, it reduces noise of all kinds, primarily due to better mechanical construction and consequent reduction in microphony and resonance and secondly because it somehow separates the noise from the music in such a way that it no longer interferes with the listening. It is still there (to a degree) but it no longer matters as it is no longer bound up with the music.
It's the microphony thing that made me reject direct drive turntables in the 70s. They can be made to feed back at pretty low volumes making the music sound muddy, whereas a good suspended deck like the TD150 i currently use is far better in that regard. I also think a cartridge that can't track the inner groove well is not worthy of serious consideration even if it does sound nice at the beginning of a side. This for me means a high compliance cartridge like a V15 in a low mass arm.
 

davedotco

New member
Apr 24, 2013
20
0
0
Very 'old school'.

There are many ways of making vinyl work well for you, just as there are many ways of getting it hopelessly wrong.

It's wierd, tracing distortion (as long as it is not too severe) barely bothers me, but low frequency microphony drives me mad.
 

TomSawyer

New member
Apr 17, 2016
3
0
0
davedotco said:
Just for your own amusement, I urge you to try your vinyl on a really good player (in a compedent dealers perhaps) to see how such a player handles the noise.

In my experience a good player does two things, firstly, it reduces noise of all kinds, primarily due to better mechanical construction and consequent reduction in microphony and resonance and secondly because it somehow separates the noise from the music in such a way that it no longer interferes with the listening. It is still there (to a degree) but it no longer matters as it is no longer bound up with the music.
Sounds expensive. My turntable and digital source were about the same price (£1200-1500) so when I compare my analogue and digital they are at least economically equivalent. To raise the performance of the TT noticibly, I suspect I'd have to spend many times as much and once the improvement is experienced, it can't be unexperienced.

So unless I'm in the market, I tend to avoid such things as it can transform your existing listening pleasure into dissatisfaction!
 

davedotco

New member
Apr 24, 2013
20
0
0
As someone who became used to vinyl replay of a very high standard a downgrade to something more affordable was out of the question, as you say it can not be 'unexperienced'.

That said, the way top players handle record noise is interesting, gives an idea of what is possible.
 

manicm

Well-known member
May 1, 2008
603
70
18,970
TrevC said:
It's the microphony thing that made me reject direct drive turntables in the 70s. They can be made to feed back at pretty low volumes making the music sound muddy, whereas a good suspended deck like the TD150 i currently use is far better in that regard. I also think a cartridge that can't track the inner groove well is not worthy of serious consideration even if it does sound nice at the beginning of a side. This for me means a high compliance cartridge like a V15 in a low mass arm.
Those must have been badly designed direct-drive turntables then. Our Technics from the early eighties had no such issue. A badly designed turntable is just that, regardless of drive type.
 

davedotco

New member
Apr 24, 2013
20
0
0
I found the early/mid 70s technics models to be some of the worst offenders in this respect.

The SL120 was one of the biggest culprits as I recall, it's famous offspring little better in my experience. Pioneer and Denon models were pretty poor too.

The problem was so widespread that there were 'serious' discussions (in the industry as a whole) of the practicality of siting the player in another room, with the phono leads passed through the wall to the amplifier. I knew someone who did that, but fortunately it did not catch on.
 

TrevC

Well-known member
Jun 12, 2013
326
135
19,070
manicm said:
TrevC said:
It's the microphony thing that made me reject direct drive turntables in the 70s. They can be made to feed back at pretty low volumes making the music sound muddy, whereas a good suspended deck like the TD150 i currently use is far better in that regard. I also think a cartridge that can't track the inner groove well is not worthy of serious consideration even if it does sound nice at the beginning of a side. This for me means a high compliance cartridge like a V15 in a low mass arm.
Those must have been badly designed direct-drive turntables then. Our Technics from the early eighties had no such issue. A badly designed turntable is just that, regardless of drive type.
It's the lack of suspension that makes it feed back, so it applies to all non-suspended decks regardless of make. If you can mount the deck on a firm base away from the speakers it isn't such an issue.
 

BigH

New member
Dec 29, 2012
97
0
0
TrevC said:
manicm said:
TrevC said:
It's the microphony thing that made me reject direct drive turntables in the 70s. They can be made to feed back at pretty low volumes making the music sound muddy, whereas a good suspended deck like the TD150 i currently use is far better in that regard. I also think a cartridge that can't track the inner groove well is not worthy of serious consideration even if it does sound nice at the beginning of a side. This for me means a high compliance cartridge like a V15 in a low mass arm.
Those must have been badly designed direct-drive turntables then. Our Technics from the early eighties had no such issue. A badly designed turntable is just that, regardless of drive type.
It's the lack of suspension that makes it feed back, so it applies to all non-suspended decks regardless of make. If you can mount the deck on a firm base away from the speakers it isn't such an issue.
The plinths on those Technics were not good, lightweight, transmit noise easily, just tap one with your finger nail. So yes poorly designed. The thin lightweight platter did not help either.
 

TomSawyer

New member
Apr 17, 2016
3
0
0
When I owned a Technics TT in the 90s, I found closing the lid while playing gave a touch more headroom before it fed-back - which I needed back then given the volume levels *wacko*
 

davedotco

New member
Apr 24, 2013
20
0
0
TomSawyer said:
When I owned a Technics TT in the 90s, I found closing the lid while playing gave a touch more headroom before it fed-back - which I needed back then given the volume levels *wacko*
Back in the day when I owned and ran a pro-sound company I would occasionally get requests from a dj to provide some serious wattage for an oversize event.

I quickly learned to supply equipment with a sharp bass filter cutting in at around 60hz, otherwise with the dj tables being used and the power and level available from the system, feedback would be invitable.
 

Al ears

Moderator
davedotco said:
I found the early/mid 70s technics models to be some of the worst offenders in this respect.

The SL120 was one of the biggest culprits as I recall, it's famous offspring little better in my experience. Pioneer and Denon models were pretty poor too.

The problem was so widespread that there were 'serious' discussions (in the industry as a whole) of the practicality of siting the player in another room, with the phono leads passed through the wall to the amplifier. I knew someone who did that, but fortunately it did not catch on.
I wonder why? :)
 

Erocia

New member
Jan 29, 2016
2
0
0
It's an absolute myth that vinyl is better than cd, compact discs superior dynamic range will leave vinyl for dead (the best in recorded music history). Vinyl is the sound of distortion,which totally colours the sound especially the bass.
And yes I have heard an high end set up, I owned an linn for several years.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts