How much does it bother you to see people arguing on the forum. Analogists and digitalists and subcategories.

[mtemur]

It is not an ultimate speaker but a high value speaker - I would say similar to Tannoy gold or so, which also has a colour but is good value. And needs a lot of space otherwise sounds constrained. Art Dudley actually loved it for rock too, I never tried rock on it.

I agree, it’s a high value speaker and Tannoy gold monitor is a good example of a speaker with strong character.

A better value than Devores are their ancestors, Dynaco A25 or A35 to be precise. Very similar drivers and similar sound. Both are from Seas. I prefer Scan-Speak drivers over Seas BTW.

 

[Al M.]

It’s pretty simple for me.

— I’m happy with how my digital setup sounds on good recordings. And it keeps getting better.

— Giving up the fantastic access to music available through streaming would feel stifling to me. And hunting down good records is not a sub hobby I want draining time from music listening (among other things!)

I’m sure a vinyl centric approach can be deeply satisfying.

Very similar here:

-- I’m happy with how my digital setup sounds now. I used to prefer vinyl until a few years ago in terms of sound. Now that my digital, system and room acoustics have greatly improved, in general I do not miss anything anymore relative to the sound of vinyl. The additional cost factor of a high-quality vinyl setup and recordings does not justify the benefit for me on a quite finite number of recordings.

-- Vinyl would be too limiting for me. On digital I can access a large amount of modern music and of modern performances that are not available on vinyl -- unless in some cases on *digital* vinyl, which defeats the purpose for me and does not interest me at all.

-- I can comfortably listen through clicks and pops and general background noise when listening to vinyl on other systems, but on my own system all this would drive me crazy. Modern cleaning methods address these problems better than had been possible in the past, but not entirely.

-- A vinyl centric approach can be deeply satisfying for others, which is great. I wish all the enjoyment to them.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

i think vinyl is more forgiving of acoustics, as it does not walk as narrow an edge. which conversely allows digital to be a better tool for serious room tuning of the finer points, assuming your digital is refined. a system can be perfectly good for vinyl but digital is still not optimal. but finding that perfect point for digital then pushes your vinyl higher too (but maybe not quite as much). a high tide raises all ships.

i don't subscribe to Ked's idea of system optimized for either digital or vinyl at all, other than degrees of work involved. but there is some difference in how rooms work with each and the consequences.

@Al M. i can see how someone might have a variable view of digital verses vinyl based on the state of their room tune. great digital needs more.

and there may be a threshold of room acoustics and system development below which these factors are not yet evident.

and some digital is not as room acoustic sensitive as other digital.

just my 2 cents, YMMV.

 

[bonzo75]

Very similar here:

-- I’m happy with how my digital setup sounds now. I used to prefer vinyl until a few years ago in terms of sound. Now that my digital, system and room acoustics have greatly improved, in general I do not miss anything anymore relative to the sound of vinyl.

great going to the two of you. Sorry if we ignored this claim many times before but here is an acknowledgment

https://images.app.goo.gl/kCrX9mTMf7TK2HRh6

 

[bonzo75]

i think vinyl is more forgiving of acoustics, as it does not walk as narrow an edge. which conversely allows digital to be a better tool for serious room tuning of the finer points, assuming your digital is refined. a system can be perfectly good for vinyl but digital is still not optimal. but finding that perfect point for digital then pushes your vinyl higher too (but maybe not quite as much). a high tide raises all ships.

i don't subscribe to Ked's idea of system optimized for either digital or vinyl at all, other than degrees of work involved. but there is some difference in how rooms work with each and the consequences.

This is not exactly depicting what I said. Micro had this thing that system could be optimized for either digital or vinyl, which in his typical way he said could be equal if you optimize one to digital and another to vinyl

What I have said is that the evaluation (and therefore set up) will differ based on what format you use. To me, using digital is like using poor quality LPs. If you use good quality vinyl recordings, your evaluation and judgement of a system will differ from using poor quality recordings. With vinyl, there is much more naturalness, soundstage, ambience, etc on the records - and you want to let that through. With digital (like wiith poor LPs) you have to make the system do much more in bass, stage etc that you effectively end up adding a constant system character to make those recordings palatable. With good recordings, you want the system to get more out of the way.

You might notice many "shortcomings" if you add digital to a system that was sounding great with nice vinyl. Similarly, you might notice shortcomings if you add good vinyl recordings in a system optimized for digital. Some systems might sound good with both.

Separately to the above, there is obviously the gain match of the components, do digital + pre + power might have a drive and flow to the cartridge, phono etc chain. Which is why sometimes there is more energy from digital than from analog in certain system, as the analog match is not great.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

This is not exactly depicting what I said. Micro had this thing that system could be optimized for either digital or vinyl, which in his typical way he said could be equal if you optimize one to digital and another to vinyl

What I have said is that the evaluation (and therefore set up) will differ based on what format you use. To me, using digital is like using poor quality LPs. If you use good quality vinyl recordings, your evaluation and judgement of a system will differ from using poor quality recordings. With vinyl, there is much more naturalness, soundstage, ambience, etc on the records - and you want to let that through. With digital (like wiith poor LPs) you have to make the system do much more in bass, stage etc that you effectively end up adding a constant system character to make those recordings palatable. With good recordings, you want the system to get more out of the way.

You might notice many "shortcomings" if you add digital to a system that was sounding great with nice vinyl. Similarly, you might notice shortcomings if you add good vinyl recordings in a system optimized for digital. Some systems might sound good with both.

Separately to the above, there is obviously the gain match of the components, do digital + pre + power might have a drive and flow to the cartridge, phono etc chain. Which is why sometimes there is more energy from digital than from analog in certain system, as the analog match is not great.

i view sources as sources. whether digital, vinyl or tape. and the idea that optimizing bass articulation is format distinctive is not right to me. if a source or media requires that sort of tuning, that's a wrong road to go down. fix the source first if you are going to rely on it for guidance. which drove my digital source selection as it did.

if my system uses amplification in the bass that is less than linear, or lacks control of the speaker, then maybe that results in a different approach. but i'm guessing your references for this are not those situations.

i can play my best vinyl or tape or digital and it's all flowing and agile. going toward the same goal.

my comments in the previous post have to do with the best tools to tune a system. agree that the best vinyl has the most information, but the performance is also forgiving in the sense that the highest performance has more leeway than the digital. so a less demanding precise tool.

 

[bonzo75]

i view sources as sources. whether digital, vinyl or tape. and the idea that optimizing bass articulation is format distinctive is not right to me. if a source or media requires that sort of tuning, that's a wrong road to go down. fix the source first if you are going to rely on it for guidance. which drove my digital source selection as it did.

if my system uses amplification in the bass that is less than linear, or lacks control of the speaker, then maybe that results in a different approach. but i'm guessing your references for this are not those situations.

i can play my best vinyl or tape or digital and it's all flowing and agile. going toward the same goal.

my comments in the previous post have to do with the best tools to tune a system. agree that the best vinyl has the most information, but the performance is also forgiving in the sense that the highest performance has more leeway than the digital. so a less demanding precise tool.

Would you agree your set up would differ if you use poor recordings vs great recordings?

To me, digital is not so good recordings. If we differ on that fine.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Digital can have great recordings although its rare
Tape can have fantastic recordings but also rare.
Most great music is recorded/ mixed ... mediocre.
commercially fabricated to sound good in a car home whatever.

Big artists big $$

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Would you agree your set up would differ if you use poor recordings vs great recordings?

sure. why would i use less than great vinyl recordings to check set-up?

if i were to use poor vinyl recordings, or multi-mic'd messes, then no truth would be revealed. the recording does not possess it to tell it.

To me, digital is not so good recordings. If we differ on that fine.

not claiming that digital get's to the level of the best vinyl. but for many reasons vinyl is not as effective a tool. first of all, for the finer questions vinyl is too involving. hard to stay on the actual question with vinyl. connects too much. then the sheer volume of cuts and such is not doable in serious large scale efforts. over and over again. tuning a large scale system takes months and hundreds of hours. not real world with only vinyl.

lastly digital is unforgiving. every little thing is heard. with vinyl you hear changes, but not as much better or worse. just slightly different. it gets confusing. and with many sessions not practical.

the proof for me is that i could get more out of my vinyl using great digital as a tool, than using vinyl. it took me further.

added note; quick system set-up with vinyl might be effective. but the quality and precision of a longer term set-up process would likely not be equal. i agree that vinyl references are more nuanced....as in cartridge set-up. but trying to judge wall treatments in various places, solving spot distortion artifacts, or judging large system precise bass tuning digital is better. vinyl to verify.

 

[Al M.]

i think vinyl is more forgiving of acoustics, as it does not walk as narrow an edge. which conversely allows digital to be a better tool for serious room tuning of the finer points, assuming your digital is refined. a system can be perfectly good for vinyl but digital is still not optimal. but finding that perfect point for digital then pushes your vinyl higher too (but maybe not quite as much). a high tide raises all ships.

i don't subscribe to Ked's idea of system optimized for either digital or vinyl at all, other than degrees of work involved. but there is some difference in how rooms work with each and the consequences.

@Al M. i can see how someone might have a variable view of digital verses vinyl based on the state of their room tune. great digital needs more.

and there may be a threshold of room acoustics and system development below which these factors are not yet evident.

and some digital is not as room acoustic sensitive as other digital.

just my 2 cents, YMMV.

Agreed, Mike.

Digital is more unforgiving. Many instances where I thought my system suffered from "digititis" (hardness, harshness) turned out to be just bad room acoustics.

In addition, a less than optimal presentation of digital in stereotypical ways rests prominently on even just moderate weaknesses in electronics and speakers. A system must be optimized in every way.

I was very surprised how much of a difference a great audiophile power cord (ZenWave Audio) instead of a standard cord made on my power amp in terms of believably silky presentation of orchestral massed violins vs a harder, flatter, stereotypically "digital" presentation of those strings. Granted, great power cords also on the DAC and preamp added to the improvements, but the first, and biggest, step forward was achieved on the *power amp*, of all components (where I performed the first power cord change).

My new speakers contributed to another large leap forward, presumably because of better tweeters, but also because of a better midrange.

The final result of all the changes in system, room and set-up is that on great recordings my digital can now reproduce orchestral violins with a natural silkiness and sweetness (if the music played warrants it) that well compares with what I have heard from great vinyl. This was completely unexpected to me; I did not assume that digital, and Redbook CD no less, could do this.

You obviously have, with great care, optimized your system and room acoustics for all sources (and I agree, better acoustics raise also vinyl to even greater heights). You thus have come to your personal conclusions based on a solid foundation of work.

My strong suspicion, however, is that the complaints of many about digital are based on a lack of optimization for the source, and thus stand on a far less firm foundation with respect to what could be possible in their systems and rooms.

 

[Holmz]

Jez we cannot even stick to the topic of arguments.

We just collectively revert right back to digital vs LPs, and maybe tape.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Agreed, Mike.

Digital is more unforgiving. Many instances where I thought my system suffered from "digititis" (hardness, harshness) turned out to be just bad room acoustics.

In addition, a less than optimal presentation of digital in stereotypical ways rests prominently on even just moderate weaknesses in electronics and speakers. A system must be optimized in every way.

I was very surprised how much of a difference a great audiophile power cord (ZenWave Audio) instead of a standard cord made on my power amp in terms of believably silky presentation of orchestral massed violins vs a harder, flatter, stereotypically "digital" presentation of those strings. Granted, great power cords also on the DAC and preamp added to the improvements, but the first, and biggest, step forward was achieved on the *power amp*, of all components (where I performed the first power cord change).

My new speakers contributed to another large leap forward, presumably because of better tweeters, but also because of a better midrange.

The final result of all the changes in system, room and set-up is that on great recordings my digital can now reproduce orchestral violins with a natural silkiness and sweetness (if the music played warrants it) that well compares with what I have heard from great vinyl. This was completely unexpected to me; I did not assume that digital, and Redbook CD no less, could do this.

You obviously have, with great care, optimized your system and room acoustics for all sources (and I agree, better acoustics raise also vinyl to even greater heights). You thus have come to your personal conclusions based on a solid foundation of work.

My strong suspicion, however, is that the complaints of many about digital are based on a lack of optimization for the source, and thus stand on a far less firm foundation with respect to what could be possible in their systems and rooms.

that sounds about right, Al. and what i hear. congrats on breaking the code and finding great digital.

 

[Al M.]

that sounds about right, Al. and what i hear. congrats on breaking the code and finding great digital.

Thanks, Mike!

 

[AudioHR]

I agree, it’s a high value speaker and Tannoy gold monitor is a good example of a speaker with strong character.

A better value than Devores are their ancestors, Dynaco A25 or A35 to be precise. Very similar drivers and similar sound. Both are from Seas. I prefer Scan-Speak drivers over Seas BTW.

So your point is? Kind of an out of left field dump on a high value speaker. No speaker is perfect and proper component selection is relevant with any system. What amplification makes your speakers sound really good?

The Dynaco A25 and A35, a Devore ancestors as you call them, were a a good value as were the large Advent speaker. The Devores are definitely more refined in my opinion so I fail to see the comparison.

 

[Rensselaer]

On digital I can access a large amount of modern music and of modern performances that are not available on vinyl --

Al, although not the correct thread for this, IMHO your comment above is the best argument bar none for investing in a digitally-based system.

 

[mtemur]

So your point is? Kind of an out of left field dump on a high value speaker. No speaker is perfect and proper component selection is relevant with any system. What amplification makes your speakers sound really good?

The Dynaco A25 and A35, a Devore ancestors as you call them, were a a good value as were the large Advent speaker. The Devores are definitely more refined in my opinion so I fail to see the comparison.

Devores offer high value considering latest high end speaker prices but offer less refinement over around $200 Dynaco A 35s because they (Devores) reflect a strong character. I know it very well cause I own them (O/96). This is also the conclusion of 6-7 friends of mine who owned Devores (O/96). On the other hand I didn’t buy but used Dynaco A 35 as well as large Advents but it’s another topic to discuss.

Another thing cementing high value of Devores is that they don’t require expensive amplification. Actually they’re better with budget amps and cables. Ex: lower model Line Magnetic amps and Belden 9497 and 8402. That’s my opinion YMMV.

 

[bonzo75]

Devores offer high value considering latest high end speaker prices but offer less refinement over around $200 Dynaco A 35s because they (Devores) reflect a strong character. I know it very well cause I own them (O/96). This is also the conclusion of 6-7 friends of mine who owned Devores (O/96). On the other hand I didn’t buy but used Dynaco A 35 as well as large Advents but it’s another topic to discuss.

Another thing cementing high value of Devores is that they don’t require expensive amplification. Actually they’re better with budget amps and cables. Ex: lower model Line Magnetic amps and Belden 9497 and 8402. That’s my opinion YMMV.

What amps are you and your friends using

 

[mtemur]

What amps are you and your friends using

- Kondo Overture
- Kondo Ongaku special edition
- Kondo Ongaku with M7 Heritage pre
- Kondo Melius with M7 Hertage pre
- Kondo Melius with M7 pre (old)
- Kondo Kaguras with G-1000 pre
- Komuro 212 SET mono amps and custom pre
- Komuro 845 push pull mono amps and Kondo G-1000 pre
- NAF 845 SE
- Another NAF 845 SE
- I heard it with various tube and solid state amps like Cary, Wavac etc at dealer’s place. The friends I listed above actually owned O/96.
I thought 6 or 7 but it was more than I thought. Devore O/96 was usually used as a secondary speaker. Anyway I don’t want to direct the topic to sideways continuing about this. I hope Devores doing magic for owners.

 

[Al M.]

Al, although not the correct thread for this, IMHO your comment above is the best argument bar none for investing in a digitally-based system.

When I started to do that almost 35 years ago I realized I had no choice in that respect, given my musical interests. At the same time I was very happy about the quiet background of the medium as well, which was crucial to me personally. Soon, however, I also became aware of the sonic limitations of digital back then. Yet I resigned myself to them because of the access to music. I was never an uncritical digital fanboy who was convinced, or pretended, that everything was just fine in digital land (and as is probably obvious, I am still a harsh critic of suboptimally implemented digital).

Only later, bit by bit, did I realize that the hard limits of digital weren't so hard after all, until I arrived at a state of affairs as I describe in #190, a few posts above. I am still surprised at the result (with, as I mentioned before, convincing reproduction of tenor sax being another one of several more examples), even though perhaps I should not be as much, given my now much better understanding of digital theory than in earlier times. It was always just the implementation that had been lacking.

I had caught powerful glimpses of the potential of digital elsewhere earlier, but I had not arrived at what I have with my own more moderately priced digital and system until recently. I am not pretending that further improvements cannot be had either, even within my budget.

 

[Rensselaer]

When I started to do that almost 35 years ago I realized I had no choice in that respect, given my musical interests. At the same time I was very happy about the quiet background of the medium as well, which was crucial to me personally. Soon, however, I also became aware of the sonic limitations of digital back then. Yet I resigned myself to them because of the access to music. I was never an uncritical digital fanboy who was convinced, or pretended, that everything was just fine in digital land (and as is probably obvious, I am still a harsh critic of suboptimally implemented digital).

Only later, bit by bit, did I realize that the hard limits of digital weren't so hard after all, until I arrived at a state of affairs as I describe in #190, a few posts above. I am still surprised at the result (with, as I mentioned before, convincing reproduction of tenor sax being another one of several more examples), even though perhaps I should not be as much, given my now much better understanding of digital theory than in earlier times. It was always just the implementation that had been lacking.

I had caught powerful glimpses of the potential of digital elsewhere earlier, but I had not arrived at what I have with my own more moderately priced digital and system until recently. I am not pretending that further improvements cannot be had either, even within my budget.

My phonograph records are well maintained and rarely do I hear a click or pop so noise not an issue for me.

I appreciate the convenience of CDs but prefer the sound of analogue. In fact, digital, to me, has less emotion, and sounds a bit etched/sharp (not everyone hears the same).

My LP playback rig is pretty good. My nephew has let me know he wants to inherit my gear and records, but, because he is too young to have any familiarity with records made during the golden age of vinyl (my music), I suggested he go streaming instead.