Bernie Grundman tells it like it is----great video---lots to unpack

[andromedaaudio]

What surprised me is that B Grundman prefers 1/4 tape over 1/2 inch.

I have 1 tape of analogue productions , but i reckon its the best commercial tape i have .
Hugh Masekela ( Ultra tape .)
Dynamic wise unsurpassed , noise level close to " 0"

I thought about buying may be a 1/2 inch M15 A but i ll probably skip that

 

[Iving]

In the OP video, digital draws a short straw, and I wonder whether the tide is turning. Not so much vinyl resurgence per se, but the way that people who like to own vinyl records will think about them.

- Scraping digits off plastic mechanically is nonsense - why not just send digits (whether DSD or stepped derivatives) to a DAC.

- Some analogue tapes are in great condition. Others less so. DSD is not necessarily a bad Archive medium given all the alternatives. Archiving needs to be done now: https://www.richardhess.com/tape/history/HESS_Tape_Degradation_ARSC_Journal_39-2.pdf



- The vinyl resurgence beginning 2007 was, and still is, a gravy train. Some demand couldn't care less the provenance of what they buy. Some buyers extol DSD based on subjective SQ (although cognitive dissonance/expectation bias likely in play). Many vinyl record enthusiasts value AAA and began buying MFSL LPs in the late 1970s.

- MoFi's DSD vinyl records date to as early as 2007 according to some reports. As demand for alternative titles burgeoned, the likelihood of analogue tapes in good condition must have diminished rapidly.

- Why did MoFi continue to market DSD vinyl without declaring (dissimulating regarding) its provenance? If it sounds better (according to Jim Davis) why not promote DSD?

- Could pronouncing DSD have diluted interest in MoFi vinyl and provoked interest in digital products - where the premium for scarcity and collectability could not have been justified?

- Are newer/younger vinyl enthusiasts now beginning to appreciate provenance more? Such that AAA vinyl will once again be appreciated, and DSD or other digital vinyl scorned for what it is?

- In forthcoming years, will there be an injection of buyer cash into the vintage vinyl market at the expense of the modern vinyl gravy train?

- We know that most vinyl records are worth little. But the spread of value of vinyl records will increase further yet? Vinyl records have always performed as an investment better than money in the bank - and we can expect further dividends.

- That said, any serious collector needs a plan. Not just for the foundations of their dwellings - but for the relief of their indifferent beneficiaries.

 

[ddk]

But as we can't ignore that the bits of CD's have been stored in computers, we must consider that the process of making the physic disk and spinning it adds something to the bits that makes them musical. Or we simply enjoy the jitter induced distortions of some CD transport / DAC /player systems ...

You should watch the entire video Grundman does explain why digital files specially hirez don’t sound natural, yes “natural”; nothing to do with enjoying jitter. Ambience or lack of in digital which I’ve mentioned regularly is another cause of unnatural sound. Something that’s stripped away by many audiophile power cords and very important for natural reality during playback. There’s also a clear understanding right at the start of the video among everyone that important objective decisions on sound quality are achieved by listening and using one’s ears and no other reliable comprehensive measurement method exists.

david

 

[bonzo75]

You should watch the entire video Grundman does explain why digital files specially hirez don’t sound natural, yes “natural”; nothing to do with enjoying jitter. Ambience or lack of in digital which I’ve mentioned regularly is another cause of unnatural sound. Something that’s stripped away by many audiophile power cords and very important for natural reality during playback. There’s also a clear understanding right at the start of the video among everyone that important objective decisions on sound quality are achieved by listening and using one’s ears and no other reliable comprehensive measurement method exists.

david

Seriously that video is making a mockery of these guys who defended MoFi sound, and also those who couldn’t hear the goodness of the originals and tried to argue why modern recordings are good. Not only does the panel provide insights into the difficulties in producing quality recordings in the modem era, it Is quite obvious to them originals sound better. Personally I think all those who say modern recordings are better than originals should be banned as audiophiles not because they cannot hear, it is because they like to report on discussions without even trying to

 

[ddk]

Seriously that video is making a mockery of these guys who defended MoFi sound, and also those who couldn’t hear the goodness of the originals and tried to argue why modern recordings are good. Not only does the panel provide insights into the difficulties in producing quality recordings in the modem era, it Is quite obvious to them originals sound better. Personally I think all those who say modern recordings are better than originals should be banned as audiophiles not because they cannot hear, it is because they like to report on discussions without even trying to

Well, not everyone can hear nor understand the nuances of what was discussed! Don’t forget that to some in this forum natural sound is an elitist anti-social justice term or as expressed by another member it doesn’t even exist in audio. I’m not inclined to give ignorance a pass here .

david

 

[dminches]

Seriously that video is making a mockery of these guys who defended MoFi sound, and also those who couldn’t hear the goodness of the originals and tried to argue why modern recordings are good. Not only does the panel provide insights into the difficulties in producing quality recordings in the modem era, it Is quite obvious to them originals sound better. Personally I think all those who say modern recordings are better than originals should be banned as audiophiles not because they cannot hear, it is because they like to report on discussions without even trying to

Ked, when you say “modern recordings” do you mean music recorded today or do you mean reissues or remasterings of recordings from years past?

 

[andromedaaudio]

Natural sound /elitist is a emblem which a certain group has put on itself on this forum , a joke afaik

As long as certain members of this group :

Cannot differentiate HPL ( a non resonant housing material ) as have a much better decay of tone as compared to mdf / multiplex .
Prefer a Paper bass unit to anything else .
Advice to put a Soulution pre amp into a signal path .
Think highly of JBL Horns etc etc
Have no respect for FR response curves / measurements

This battle will continue

 

[bonzo75]

Ked, when you say “modern recordings” do you mean music recorded today or do you mean reissues or remasterings of recordings from years past?

for classical both. I haven’t heard good modern classical LPs anywhere close to the old. As we are discussing this video it is all explained in it why though they don’t restrict themselves to classical

 

[microstrip]

You should watch the entire video Grundman does explain why digital files specially hirez don’t sound natural, yes “natural”; nothing to do with enjoying jitter. Ambience or lack of in digital which I’ve mentioned regularly is another cause of unnatural sound. Something that’s stripped away by many audiophile power cords and very important for natural reality during playback. There’s also a clear understanding right at the start of the video among everyone that important objective decisions on sound quality are achieved by listening and using one’s ears and no other reliable comprehensive measurement method exists.

david

Bernie Grundman is know for his speech against digital since long - nothing new in his argumentation - as referred by another poster he used these same arguments about redbook digital long ago and seems to ignore that digital has improved a lot since those days. I respect his work and expertise, but a lot of mastering engineers I equally respect and whose recordings I prefer say the opposite - I will weight their expertise and ears a lot more than his old claims.

Considering the reliability of ears I will just smile thinking that the reliable golden ears of audiophiles have been deceived for more than ten years and now with knowledge of the fact many people become experts. IMHO ears complement measurements, but in order to be considered reliable need considerable care and expertise.

Stereo has place for many preferences, yours and mine surely included.

 

[ddk]

Bernie Grundman is know for his speech against digital since long - nothing new in his argumentation - as referred by another poster he used these same arguments about redbook digital long ago and seems to ignore that digital has improved a lot since those days. I respect his work and expertise, but a lot of mastering engineers I equally respect and whose recordings I prefer say the opposite - I will weight their expertise and ears a lot more than his old claims.

I’m trying to understand what you’re disagreeing with, is it natural sound, loss of ambience in manipulated mastering or both?

Considering the reliability of ears I will just smile thinking that the reliable golden ears of audiophiles have been deceived for more than ten years and now with knowledge of the fact many people become experts. IMHO ears complement measurements, but in order to be considered reliable need considerable care and expertise.

Yes, expertise and experience are very important.

Stereo has place for many preferences, yours and mine surely included.

No argument about personal preferences but that wasn’t a part of the discussion.

david

 

[microstrip]

Well, not everyone can hear nor understand the nuances of what was discussed! Don’t forget that to some in this forum natural sound is an elitist anti-social justice term or as expressed by another member it doesn’t even exist in audio. I’m not inclined to give ignorance a pass here .

david

Misrepresenting other people views and victimization is just a way of avoiding proper debates. In fact I think that what you call "natural sound" is just what many people, including audio scholars, call a "preference". It would be great to explain, debate and understand it, but as far as I can see it the main visible points of this preference is Lamm electronics , vintage and avoiding some particulars. Unfortunately the essence of Lamm electronics, the knowledge on the earing model developed by Vladimir Lamm seems now lost and "approved" vintage is only accessible in extremely small quantities and not easily accessible. Hard to go on.

 

[ddk]

Misrepresenting other people views and victimization is just a way of avoiding proper debates.

That’s exactly what has happened to natural in this forum, it’s been mischaracterized and various labels attached to those who have a preference for it. Not to mention comments like it’s a cult or “Natural TM”! IMO this is sign of their ignorance of the subject.

In fact I think that what you call "natural sound" is just what many people, including audio scholars, call a "preference".

Since I don’t know about your audio scholars I can’t comment on what they think. In my case “natural sound” is a reference and a quality my preference for it doesn’t change it as a standard that designers, scholars, audiophiles, etc. judge sound by and aspire to.

It would be great to explain, debate and understand it, but as far as I can see it the main visible points of this preference is Lamm electronics , vintage and avoiding some particulars. Unfortunately the essence of Lamm electronics, the knowledge on the earing model developed by Vladimir Lamm seems now lost and "approved" vintage is only accessible in extremely small quantities and not easily accessible. Hard to go on.

Then you’ve either missed or ignored many of my comments on natural sound. Lamm and certain approved vintage as you put it is a gateway to natural sound, never said it’s the only one. In fact we’ve discussed alternatives in the past that didn’t include any vintage components.

Edit- There should be another clarification here regarding limited quantities of and accessibility of what you call approved vintage. Many of the vintage items I discussed in the past having natural sound like SME tonearms, vintage cartridges, Garrards and Thorens tables were made in tens of thousands easily found on the net and price wise they're accessible to many more than what modern high end costs today.

david

 

[PeterA]

Bernie Grundman is know for his speech against digital since long - nothing new in his argumentation - as referred by another poster he used these same arguments about redbook digital long ago and seems to ignore that digital has improved a lot since those days. I respect his work and expertise, but a lot of mastering engineers I equally respect and whose recordings I prefer say the opposite - I will weight their expertise and ears a lot more than his old claims.

Considering the reliability of ears I will just smile thinking that the reliable golden ears of audiophiles have been deceived for more than ten years and now with knowledge of the fact many people become experts. IMHO ears complement measurements, but in order to be considered reliable need considerable care and expertise.

Stereo has place for many preferences, yours and mine surely included.

Fransisco, you keep mentioning those golden ears who were deceived. Who are they and how and when were they deceived?

 

[tima]

for classical both. I haven’t heard good modern classical LPs anywhere close to the old. As we are discussing this video it is all explained in it why though they don’t restrict themselves to classical

I agree that originals are preferred and sound better more often than not.

While classical reissues typically lose information from the original, I am still grateful to have them versus not when originals in decent condition are rare or v high cost. Classic Records (Hobson) are mostly (all?) made from master tape. Many titles I & others would not own if those did not exist. Such as one of yr favs, Reiner Scheherazade.

 

[bonzo75]

I agree that originals are preferred and sound better more often than not.

While classical reissues typically lose information from the original, I am still grateful to have them versus not when originals in decent condition are rare or v high cost. Classic Records (Hobson) are mostly (all?) made from master tape. Many titles I & others would not own if those did not exist. Such as one Reiner Scheherazade.

I agree with that. That’s a different point from saying as time has moved on things have improved including recordings. Only someone not wanting to learn about old records will make such a statement. Not saying people should care it is fine if they don’t want to, but then don’t get into discussions while wanting to stay ignorant. The things that have going totally downhill are recordings and tubes

 

[dminches]

I agree that originals are preferred and sound better more often than not.

While classical reissues typically lose information from the original, I am still grateful to have them versus not when originals in decent condition are rare or v high cost. Classic Records (Hobson) are mostly (all?) made from master tape. Many titles I & others would not own if those did not exist. Such as one of yr favs, Reiner Scheherazade.

I know nothing about classical recordings.

Regarding re-issue of classical music, what’s the impediment for getting them to sound as good, or almost as good, as the originals? It is all about the mastering engineer? I assume many of the master tapes are still available?

 

[tima]

In my case “natural sound” is a reference and a quality my preference for it doesn’t change it as a standard that designers, scholars, audiophiles, etc. judge sound by and aspire to.

It was the norm for earlier times. Then audiophilia turned inward, making itself into it's own reference with self absorption of attributes unique to stereo reproduction. Only in relation to that would the 'natural' adjective be needed to set the contrast with a-natural or non-natural.

 

[bonzo75]

I know nothing about classical recordings.

Regarding re-issue of classical music, what’s the impediment for getting them to sound as good, or almost as good, as the originals? It is all about the mastering engineer? I assume many of the master tapes are still available?

the panel explains the difficulty. If you listen to it you will get why it was done well before and why it is difficult to today for both new recordings and for re using a master

 

[tima]

The things that have going totally downhill are recordings and tubes

The urgency for quality was somewhat lost with the ramp-down from WWII, circa late 1950s through 1960s and the rise of the transistor. Hundreds of thousands were made, but unlike the 3012 tonearm, they have a limited lifespan. Russia was not as quick to modernize their military and kept up manufacture of higher quality milspec tubes longer than the West. Eg., 6h30-dr.

 

[microstrip]

That’s exactly what has happened to natural in this forum, it’s been mischaracterized and various labels attached to those who have a preference for it. Not to mention comments like it’s a cult or “Natural TM”! IMO this is sign of their ignorance of the subject.

Unfortunately the very few who have a preference for "Natural Sound TM" never were able to address it using a language that could be understood by audiophiles. What do you expect?

Since I don’t know about your audio scholars I can’t comment on what they think. In my case “natural sound” is a reference and a quality my preference for it doesn’t change it as a standard that designers, scholars, audiophiles, etc. judge sound by and aspire to.

Well, there are many known audio scholars who have contributed to understanding of stereo, writing great articles and books. As well as tens of designers with known work and known preferences.

Then you’ve either missed or ignored many of my comments on natural sound. Lamm and certain approved vintage as you put it is a gateway to natural sound, never said it’s the only one. In fact we’ve discussed alternatives in the past that didn’t include any vintage components.

The point is that Lamm is known current gear and many people have access or experience with it. Much more interesting to address than your approved vintage electronics, that very few know about.

Edit- There should be another clarification here regarding limited quantities of and accessibility of what you call approved vintage. Many of the vintage items I discussed in the past having natural sound like SME tonearms, vintage cartridges, Garrards and Thorens tables were made in tens of thousands easily found on the net and price wise they're accessible to many more than what modern high end costs today.

david

Yes, the SMEs and turntables are easy to find and cheap. But I was considering electronics.