Nothing about any of this is required it's choices and preferences. And, his point wasn't over-top like some of the other comparative statements.
Can digital get to vinyl sound and at what price?
- Thread starter ScottK
- Start date
Nothing about any of this is required it's choices and preferences. And, his point wasn't over-top like some of the other comparative statements.
I would love to hear some honest, personal insights but don't expect many responses. Too risky to admit in a public forum.
Last edited:
I believe I said a RP6 with FONO preamp is mundain. A hot rodded RP6 with groove tracer platter and weigbt, motor remote mounted and a Denon 103R Midas, Herbies step up Allnic H1201 is pleasant. Its good. It occasionally bettered my digital with a good record. But it was obvious it was just Ok vinyl. Ok vinyl is not gods gift to analog. Its just ok. Pleasant. It left me realizing I was falling very short and wanting more. Especially when I would go to a friend's house and hear something such as a Linn, going through an audio research ref phono preamp. It was obvious my vinyl setup was nothing special. And no I don't think on any source material on that setup would have surpassed my friends Esoteric CD player going through an esoteric DAC.
The STST Mtous II $7500 with a $3500 Vertere tone arm, $3500 Aidas Durawood cartridge, $3700 channel D preamp is pretty darn good. This setup can play a good record very well and best my digital, even when I have a very good digital file..
All TT have been on a poor rack on a floor with a stiff bounce. I need to invest a couple thousand into a stand for the TT. And don't forget, I have a couple thousand invested into a record washing system.
At this level, my best records are better than my best digital. But I still have a lot of digital that are great digital recordings and play better than the vinyl versions I have.
Yeah keep misinforming folks they need to spend thousands on a turntable to beat digital, LOL. As you're an Industry Player I guess that should come as no surprise.
Over the past decade, there has been mics in the $500-$900 range that has replaced those mics and those were not used on everything either. Not that those museum pieces really cost that much when they were new either. A lot of those, you went to a studio and tracked there then produced the album later, but now there is a lot of alternative solutions that the only rental traffic studios get is production gear rentals because digital plugins that simulate them do not sound the same or don't work the same. That is why a lot of studios went out of business.
It sounds like they brought the track they previously digitized, then Eq the low end out with a plugin EQ a little and then ran it into a limiter plugin. If they used real analog EQ/processing and get this sound, then its their DA/AD conversion because the AAvid Protools hardware has that same annoying edgy when pushed and slightly shallow sound as well. One thing they have to do when they increase loudness past a certain point in the recording, is to slope the low end and narrow bandwidth and this is unavoidable. What is bad is they purposely ruin the recording to make it louder, and "cleaner" .
I've heard good digital and bad digital. But the issue is with this digital remastered song is setting the bar too high for overall loudness and ruining the low end vibe the recording had.
That is what caused it in the beginning, because the digital signal captured with a 5V ADC is not the same scaling when it is converted back to analog with a 1.5V DAC. So the 0dbVU signal that gets captured gets reproduced at a lower signal level, somewhere -5db. Since the sound scale is not linear like the DAC, the captured -10dBVu capture signal would be transposed somewhere -20dbVU on the 1.5V DAC.
The electronics industry that invested into digital audio didn't maintain or establish signal level standards in the beginning between all of them and a lot of what they came up with for mainstream reproduction is not good quality and as a result, the publishers altered their standards so their recording would sound good on these inferior circuits. Problem is, they should have made 2 different digital media versions because not everyone uses cheap 1.5V DACs.
For years they kept a lot of details about this away from the public and especially the home recording sector that crashed commercial studios. That is why you will hear musicians' albums they published be not as loud and why the ones that are loud have the same issues when you make something louder artificially out of scale.
I really don't understand the logic around buying a turn table system for thousands of dollars when a decent setup doesn't cost that much in the first place. What has been limiting over the years has been good cartridge choices.
In what way do you consider Kingrex to be an industry player with a stake in the analog vs digital issue?
A slippery post ...
Best I can tell Kingrex sells (sold?) consulting and electrical services to audiophiles who want to improve the sound of their systems. Certainly seems like a legitimate product to me. His consulting work was featured in a Stereophile review which he did pro bono -- a type of advertising. That puts him in the industry. He may have recently stopped that service, but check with him.
Im not sure what counts as "a stake in the analog vs digital issue" but he has ~100+ posts in this thread alone. Not as many as your ~200+ posts in this thread. I suppose if you value your time, that's a stake.
But that's my point, Tim. He is consulting on electrical services. What does this have to do with the price of turntables, which he doesn't sell and thus has no stake in?
So it falls in the category of "informed opinion". But it is a little off topic. I have witness people mixing in commercial environments before because I was a maintenance tech for a few studios at one time in my life. I also used to repair consumer electronics, and was an Onkyo and Sony service tech decades ago. So I have a certain technical view on things the average consumer doesn't. But I try not to boast as an expert. Just more informed about certain things.
But back on topic. I have heard mixes in digital studios that sound like LP recordings. The problem is they are not formatted to the end digital format so you have to turn it up all the way if you print a pre-master to a CD. What the person who owns the publishing on the example should have done is audition different mastering engineers with a sample of it because I have heard their "loud and clean" done tastefully enough to were the depth change in the mix is not so obvious. The tonality change is still there because of the physics involved. But digital transport systems like spdif/madi/adat/aes/dante/avb don't care about signal parameters and doesn't require alteration for loudness. Its seems is when its printed into a file format digital audio has certain physical properties with signal.
Interesting , wasn't aware of the voltage difference myself ..
Well to make it louder you Squash the DR and on under powered systems it does sound better ..
After some thought the biggest Culprit for really bad music during the CD early era has to go to the Akai S1000 and all the midi demonic stuff of the era ..!
Totally killed all music quality and artistry ..
Never heard a released CD sound anything like the studio mix or master, ever ..!
Its why i always favored a copy from the raw mix. It was similar for LP’s too , the acetate raw copy from the master was the one to have ...
Cooks and recipes i guess
Similar threads
