The quality from LPs is ludicrous
- Thread starter Nic P
- Start date
pure sound
Trade: manufacturer/distributor
Back in the early 90's I used to participate regularly on level matched, blind listening panels for HiFi Choice. We'd regularly get to listen to groups of CD Players and there were often obvious differences between them. Some did seem to have subjectively quieter, less 'grungy' backgrounds than others which usually enhanced the experience of listening to those particular models. What was interesting was that when those models were subsequently measured by Paul Miller it generally became quite apparent why the subjective preference had arisen. They measured better with regard to low level noise & rf susceptibility amongst other attributes. I remember in particular one player which stood out in the group in which it featured on a couple of occasions. That was a Sony CDP715E. They (Sony) seemed to have arrived at a particularly well performing digital filter and DAC combination which gave the darkest, quietest background even when introduced against much more expensive Transport/Dac combinations as it occasionally was. A couple of years ago I came across one of those machines & bought it. It was satisfying to hear that it still had that same capability. I remember talking to the Sony UK spokesman at the time who was annoyed when just as that family of players was becoming well regarded, Sony replaced the range with a new line-up featuring new chipsets that weren't as good and any market advantage they temporarily had was lost. But that was the way Japanese manufacturers worked. Product life-cycles were very short.
That particular machine could be repeatedly identified (under blind conditions) amongst its rivals. The reason was simple. It was better.
sq225917
Bit of this, bit of that
People are generally weak, they don't like having their opinions and beliefs questioned, so they seek 'support' for their own preferences in something unshakable- like specs. They feel the need to justify their choice on some technical basis, as if it gives more veracity to their choice. It's the flip side to someone like Serge, who has no preference and just goes on specs.
adamdea
You are not a sound quality evaluation device
Whilst I'm with you on this most of the way and as regards a lot of what is said by quite a lot of vinylistas.....
I think it is a good idea to bear in mind the perceptive point made by GTM in post 371 that sometimes vinylistas explain what they like about vinyl in terms which do not in fact relate directly to measurable qualities. He points out that sometimes people (maybe "we") reply to them as though they had said or even meant "lower noise floor" when actually they said and meant something different.
Dave Thomas' post is a case in mind
"Dynamic contrast, sound stage, flow are all better than on the CD version of a recording.......
However I do hear more ambience, instrument placement and get more enjoyment from the LP."
Now DT hasn't said that channel separation is greater- which it doubtless isn't.
It may eg be that the greater sense of space is caused by spuriae, but he never said otherwise.
Exactly !! He doesn't once state having made any measurements, he isn't correlating what he heard to measurement and attempting to use such as an answer to why he perceives what he does. He purely stated a 100% perceptual experience but was met with a "you are wrong" and "you're not allowed to say that" type response from a person who only see's things in terms of measurements.
It's a classic case of mis-communication. The two sides are not talking the same language. Even if a supposedly technical term such as "dynamic contrast" is used it shouldn't be assumed that the person stating it is using it in the narrow technical definition we understand. Technical terminology gets used in every day life all the time and is very often not used in strictly the correct way, but we don't start arguments over their use as mostly we understand they are being used unkowingly incorrectly or at least more broadly. In other words we cut people slack for not being the geeks/technically knowledgeable anal retentives we may be
Mescalito
pfm Member
Exactly !! He doesn't once state having made any measurements, he isn't correlating what he heard to measurement and attempting to use such as an answer to why he perceives what he does. He purely stated a 100% perceptual experience but was met with a "you are wrong" and "you're not allowed to say that" type response from a person who only see's things in terms of measurements.
It's a classic case of mis-communication. The two sides are not talking the same language. Even if a supposedly technical term such as "dynamic contrast" is used it shouldn't be assumed that the person stating it is using it in the narrow technical definition we understand. Technical terminology gets used in every day life all the time and is very often not used in strictly the correct way, but we don't start arguments over their use as mostly we understand they are being used unkowingly incorrectly or at least more broadly. In other words we cut people slack for not being the geeks/technically knowledgeable anal retentives we may be
You are of course correct. The problem is that hi fi is a technical subject. What comes out of the speakers is not. So anybody with a scientific/mathematical/technical training or education, when discussing a technical subject and coming across technical words & phrases will understand them in terms of their precise technical meaning.
The problem is that many people conflate what hi fi produces with what hi fi does.
Chris
adamdea
You are not a sound quality evaluation device
Your point is a very good one.Exactly !! He doesn't once state having made any measurements, he isn't correlating what he heard to measurement and attempting to use such as an answer to why he perceives what he does. He purely stated a 100% perceptual experience but was met with a "you are wrong" and "you're not allowed to say that" type response from a person who only see's things in terms of measurements.
It's a classic case of mis-communication. The two sides are not talking the same language. Even if a supposedly technical term such as "dynamic contrast" is used it shouldn't be assumed that the person stating it is using it in the narrow technical definition we understand. Technical terminology gets used in every day life all the time and is very often not used in strictly the correct way, but we don't start arguments over their use as mostly we understand they are being used unkowingly incorrectly or at least more broadly. In other words we cut people slack for not being the geeks/technically knowledgeable anal retentives we may be
This brings me to a hobbyhorse of mine- the way that on a web forum the rules of discourse are not clear. There is a range of formality and technicality in language and each of us probably has a different range in different contexts and areas. Some people are very pedantic about grammar but hopelessly inept about technical subjects. Some of us are equally nit-picking or or equally loose in every context, but others may vary enormously.
A lot of adults find it difficult to understand that kids can write perfectly conventional English essays and perfectly incomprehensible (to adults) text messages.
In everyday life we sometimes get the context wrong, and some people get it wrong more or less the whole time, but by and large most of us can assess in real life whether the person speaking to us is making a serious point, or using language technically.
We might also gauge whether it would be appropriate to pick someone up on technical inaccuracies, or socially inept. Equally I think it is fair to say that in real life we might think twice before submitting our views in an open forum on economics hosted by a think tank unless we are very sure of our ground.
So whilst the issue might arguably be about whether to cut other people slack, it is sometimes one of being perhaps a little bit cautious about spouting off ill-considered half-baked clap trap while the grownups are talking.
dave thomas
pfm Member
Oh great, fully baked, grownup one, please forgive my sin of having the temerity to sully the sacred tablet of your devotion.
I have not heard the sound of the scriptures and so must submit to my penance.
I will prostrate myself at the digital shrine having crawled there in my claptrap shirt, lash me with your coaxial as I make my pilgrimage.
mea culpa, mea culpa
mea maxima culpa
May the DACs be with you.
I have not heard the sound of the scriptures and so must submit to my penance.
I will prostrate myself at the digital shrine having crawled there in my claptrap shirt, lash me with your coaxial as I make my pilgrimage.
mea culpa, mea culpa
mea maxima culpa
May the DACs be with you.
sonddek
Trade: SUPATRAC
I think recent events have illustrated very well that there is absolutely no need for deference towards those who claim to be literate in the dismal art of economics.
I don't know much about economics/audio, but I know what I like.
As I said in the OP, the sound of a top flight vinyl replay system (such as my friend's) is truly fantastic. Like a Radio 3 live transmission through a top tuner/aerial it is so good that it is impossible to believe the mantra that "you are just enjoying colourations". However the facts seem to point to the quality of the source material as the major reason they sound so great. It is difficult not to believe that there isn't some technical reason why analogue is superior. However as a scientist I reluctantly believe that digital is the superior recording and replay technology. Also top flight vinyl replay equipment is seriously expensive, and warped and noisy LPs are a pain in the arse .... so digital is cheaper and much more user friendly. I wouldn't sell my Roksan EVER, but the "analogue is inherently better" view I fear is wrong.
One of the reasons Sue and I are clinging on the CDs rather than moving totally to Computer Audio is that CD recordings of vinyl are pretty easy, but putting digitized LPs properly into a Computer Audio world is really hard.
Nic P
One of the reasons Sue and I are clinging on the CDs rather than moving totally to Computer Audio is that CD recordings of vinyl are pretty easy, but putting digitized LPs properly into a Computer Audio world is really hard.
Nic P
adamdea
You are not a sound quality evaluation device
The moment I finished that post I thought: although it was intended as a joke, it actually makes me sound like a complete ****
westsea
Retirement present
http://youtu.be/7fJmmDkvQyc or youtube Flanders and Swan - A song of Reproduction
dave thomas
pfm Member
A gracious response, glad you did not take offence at my daft parody.
There is no doubt that record players are imperfect in as much as all of them add something of themselves and the way they are sited to their sound. All that varies from assembly to assembly is what is actually added. Most of what is added is pleasant sounding, feedback is like adding reverb, component resonance may add a dynamic impression and PRAT enhancement. Signal correlated noise gives the impression of extra ambience.
The high HF distortion of pickup cartridges is inaudible (5% distortion is common but the second harmonic of, say,15kHz is 30kHz, so inaudible).
The only thing I can think of which always makes the sound worse is speed instability.
It seems to me completely fair for somebody to say they prefer the sound of their record player to their CD player. If they prefer it, it -is- better to them. If that is the grounds on which one chooses to define "better" then fair enough.
The high HF distortion of pickup cartridges is inaudible (5% distortion is common but the second harmonic of, say,15kHz is 30kHz, so inaudible).
The only thing I can think of which always makes the sound worse is speed instability.
It seems to me completely fair for somebody to say they prefer the sound of their record player to their CD player. If they prefer it, it -is- better to them. If that is the grounds on which one chooses to define "better" then fair enough.
Chops54
pfm Member
A better turntable doesn't help against cracks and hiss. Neither does it compensate for the speed (tone)variations caused by the fact that any LP is distorted to some extend.