Great article on "Analogue Warmth"

[DaveC]

IME, the best I've heard is RtR tape but for me, it costs far too much for the tape nevermind the limited material available. I've also heard TTs that are better than the best digital I've heard but I'm too young to have a LP collection and I'm not going to start now, the money involved is far too much to obtain a TT setup that will beat the best digital + a decent collection of vinyl to play on it. So for me I'll be looking for the best value in digital although I do prefer analog.

As far as the warmth thing, people usually go for a system they feel has the right amount or they will go for a system that is the most accurate possible, the real definition of high fidelity.... not a whole lot of middle ground here ime. Although some folks do change from preferring "warmth" (distortion) to preferring high fidelity, this usually requires actually hearing a high fidelity system that is not also harsh. Very few to no people go from preferring high fidelity to preferring distortion, so I'd say these preferences are mostly learned and if the person has enough experience with "good" high fidelity systems than that is what they will prefer. The preference for warmth is simply acclimation, imo... and the reason I feel this is true is because warmth masks fine detail, detail that can create a stronger connection to the music and a stronger emotional reaction in the listener.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,

We must remember that a few of those were brave enough to make this statement when everyone, including me, were embarking in the first poorly sounding CD digital players and CD recordings, claiming we had reached perfect sound forever. Most probably they were so traumatized by those early days that today they can not accept digital in any way!

I was thinking of the few here, who were making that claim last year. Cassette is, after all, analog. So it must be better, regardless of data.

Tim

 

[Al M.]

I was thinking of the few here, who were making that claim last year. Cassette is, after all, analog. So it must be better, regardless of data.

Tim

Cassette better? Now that's insane.

 

[Blizzard]

Still 5 ears to wait? I had got the idea you had promised it for 2016! Lazy engineers ...

5 years before analog slaughtering digital is mainstream and available in $500 DAC's

 

[Blizzard]

my analog has improved more than the digital from that time has. the gap is now wider, not narrower.

the difference between great redbook and dsd256 is much less than the different levels of analog. which you would only know about if you spent the time listening to it.

digital is wonderful in it's own right. it does not need to better or even equal analog. it's only when uninformed folks try to denigrate or marginalize the attributes of analog that we get into this stuff.

As we have discussed in the past, you don't have the gear at your disposal to make apples to apples comparisons.

 

[Audiophile Bill]

analogue is improving in its manafacture as its becoming viable again plus it adds a marketing 'cool' factor.

Genuine question: do you think the younger generation are buying TTs because they like a big plastic disc rotating round and round in their bedroom or that they are drawn to the sound quality versus their iPod?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

As we have discussed in the past, you don't have the gear at your disposal to make apples to apples comparisons.

no doubt.

one of us is missing gear to answer this question.

 

[Blizzard]

Genuine question: do you think the younger generation are buying TTs because they like a big plastic disc rotating round and round in their bedroom or that they are drawn to the sound quality versus their iPod?

It's really just a FAD. If there weren't companies marketing it to the younger generation, it would be highly unlikely these younger guys would be seeking it out. Not a bad thing though, it helps open the minds up for some so they know there's sound quality available beyond the ipod and lossy compression.

 

[Al M.]

no doubt.

one of us is missing gear to answer this question.

Hehe

 

[Blizzard]

no doubt.

one of us is missing gear to answer this question.

Both of us are. As discussed before. This is the required gear.


1- very good sounding Analogue master tape
1- High end R2R machine
1- Merging HAPI or Horus with premium ADC board.
1- Merging Pyramix workstation with all required high end cables etc.
1- High end, and highly revealing audio system that has an analog input
1- SOTA DAC designed for utmost transparency, and lack of coloration.(IE Merging NADAC)

Use the Hapi or Horus combined with the Pyramix workstation to clone the master tape in DSD 256. Do blind A/B comparisons of the R2R playing the original master, to the DAC playing back the DSD 256 "clone" of the R2R master.

Let us know the results.


Which boxes can you check on the list?

Let me add that Jan Eric Persson of Opus 3 records (a man who has 40 years of experience making some of the finest R2R recordings ever) had all the above boxes checked when he claimed not being able to tell the difference. And this is with master tapes he made his self and has been listening to for 40 years!

Perhaps your experience is greater, please explain how?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Cassette better? Now that's insane.

Yep.

Tim

 

[Audiophile Bill]

thanks for asking lol
i am not young(36lol and lol back) but i suspect it to be a pire/media induced bleak indictment of thier own percived notions and limits of being or being seen to be indivisual.

sorry thats not the answer i presume you wanted but i implore you to give it some thought all the same

I did not want any specific answer but was curious as to what you thought. Don't forget this generation have only been accustomed to highly compressed material on their iPod, so an LP through a stereo system might be first exposure to something half decent.

 

[FrantzM]

i refer my respected friend to my post regarding johnny hodges.. what am i missing? how is my life with music reproduced throught the digital realm inferiour to one thats enjoyed through a anlogue source. given my reference is live un amplified music how indeed can i be missing anything if i feel compleat musical joy for my humble TAD.

it is not my intent to lampoon my learned friends but i have grave concerns about what it is you are trying to disect

You expressed my sentiments ... Thanks .. Too often there is the undertone of condescension once a preference to digital is stated.

 

[Audiophile Bill]

no dont you forget most modern popular music is dynamicly compressed to a point that makes this whole thread a joke.

Yes but most people on this thread aren't listening to modern "popular music"

 

[Blizzard]

Both of us are. As discussed before. This is the required gear.


1- very good sounding Analogue master tape
1- High end R2R machine
1- Merging HAPI or Horus with premium ADC board.
1- Merging Pyramix workstation with all required high end cables etc.
1- High end, and highly revealing audio system that has an analog input
1- SOTA DAC designed for utmost transparency, and lack of coloration.(IE Merging NADAC)

Use the Hapi or Horus combined with the Pyramix workstation to clone the master tape in DSD 256. Do blind A/B comparisons of the R2R playing the original master, to the DAC playing back the DSD 256 "clone" of the R2R master.

Let us know the results.


Which boxes can you check on the list?

Let me add that Jan Eric Persson of Opus 3 records (a man who has 40 years of experience making some of the finest R2R recordings ever) had all the above boxes checked when he claimed not being able to tell the difference. And this is with master tapes he made his self and has been listening to for 40 years!

Perhaps your experience is greater, please explain how?

Great article on Jan's recordings by the same SOS guy:


http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/mar15/articles/opus3-analoguemasters.htm


Even better article on Positive Feedback:

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue63/opus3.htm


Do you have any of Jan's tapes in your collection Mike?

 

[Detlof]

redundant(*) more than tiring ... that said, I don't think it's a coincidence that (at least in my audiophile world) better vinyl/analog products today sound more "digital" (in the best sense of that term) than ever; while the same can be said w/digital sounding more like better "analog".

(*)given the same mix, in theory, they should sound identical.

Only too true to my ears. In fact I suspect, the folks at Techdas voiced the AFO to sound more like good digitial and in fact it does. On the other hand, ripped redbook fed through "the Beast" and then through a MSB Diamond Dac, connected with I2S more often than not will let you forget that you are listening to "numbers".

'

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Great article on Jan's recordings by the same SOS guys:

the SOS guys are not my source for audio truth.

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/mar15/articles/opus3-analoguemasters.htm


Even better article on Positive Feedback:

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue63/opus3.htm


Do you have any of Jan's tapes in your collection Mike?

yes. a few.

and digital versions of many as well as many Lp pressings.

all of which reinforce my views.

when you actually listen to high level analog we can go from there. you simply do not know what you are talking about. you are just guessing about how things are.

 

[Audiophile Bill]

Great article on Jan's recordings by the same SOS guys:


http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/mar15/articles/opus3-analoguemasters.htm


Even better article on Positive Feedback:

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue63/opus3.htm


Do you have any of Jan's tapes in your collection Mike?

I am confused by your test, Blizz. Surely the elephant in the room here is that the many wonderful historical recordings from some of greatest ever musicians were recorded and mastered and only available in analogue formats. Many have been re-released in red book but sound average. The labels will never release a master tape dsd 256 version.

 

[Fiddle Faddle]

Cassette better? Now that's insane.

I'll come out and say though, that as an analogue consumer format, some companies really did produce some pretty amazing stuff considering. No, it obviously does not compete with open reel, but I actually prefer, for example, the cassettes made by Telarc in the early 90s (the ones made on their new at the time duplicator using TDK SA tape) compared to the corresponding Telarc CDs of the era. It's only been in recent years when those Telarc recordings were remastered to SACD that they markedly improved on the cassettes to my ears. Mind you, these days you could take the 16 bit, 50 KHz source material and make a significantly better sounding CD than they did 25 years ago thanks mainly to improvements in resampling algorithms and manufacture / production, but still, those cassettes were amazing for the time, especially in an era where most of us were reeling from how bad CD sounded.

Even EMI, DG and Decca in their final cassette years produced some very nice material.

 

[Audiophile Bill]

nor am i right now but just how do you think stan getz and the oscar peterson trio will be pushed into mp3? oh and if you know anything you will know digital transfer was the saviour of old recordings not their down fall. so yes time moves and thank the lord for digital else all those movies AND music WE old buggers like would be dust.

sorry if that comes across strong i like your posts in the main so pls dont hold it aganst me lol and lol the spelling

plus pls refer to your origianl question when reading this.. thank you

I don't hold any opinion against you. I am a big fan of digital - I am not on a tirade against it whatsoever. It is just that many of my favourite classical vinyl sounds rubbish on the red book equivalent.