MSB Select II arrival

[spiritofmusic]

I'm not using the word "haze" literally
More as a euphemism for that slight euphonic warmth and minor imprecision of soundstage.
Just how I hear it.
For you guys who have all that's great about analog w none of the minor shortcomings, I salute you, and am pretty envious.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Al, I know full well how excellently engineered the SME 30/12 is.
No argument from me there.

 

[bonzo75]

Yes, lesser analog can sound hazy and imprecise, compared to great digital. That is also why I am in disbelief when some people say that even a cheaper turntable set-up is better than most digital. Perhaps they have some extreme aural sensitivities to perceived digital artifacts.

While it is clear that great analog can be absolutely outstanding, I think that in the lower price ranges very good sound can more easily be had with digital.

No that's because in analog the set up matters. Often the very good analog set ups by those setting it up for the last 20 years sounds way better than some new guy who bought latest craze and has been setting it up himself.

 

[microstrip]

I'm not using the word "haze" literally (...)

Al, I know full well how excellently engineered the SME 30/12 is.
No argument from me there.

I can understand the reaction of people who own or have experience with the SME30's - "haze" is not a word I would associate with them.

 

[spiritofmusic]

I think the curse of definitions arguing at cross purposes strikes again.
I'm pretty much to blame for dropping ambiguous terms into things that can be interpreted wildly differently.
Maybe I'm one of the few vinyl-philes out there who has actively embraced digital, has tried to find an interesting balance in my system.
Maybe I'm biased a bit more twds digital's strengths coming off my prev tt, Michell Orbe/SME V, which had a tendency to be a bit wooly and imprecise v my cdp at the time, Emm Labs CDSA SE.
I made a vow then to get a more torquey, linear, start-stop type sound in my analog, w'out sacrificing what I've always found extra special about analog v digital.
Once I achieved that, my Emm cdp fell somewhat back, and I then chose my current Eera cdp to re establish more natural warmth and tonal discrimination into my digital.
And now I do feel I have a certain convergence btwn analog and digital.
I really can't comment if a cost no object analog front end would render my last few posts as irrelevant.
In the basis of my TW demo, and the fact I didn't buy it, maybe, but maybe not too.

 

[microstrip]

No that's because in analog the set up matters. Often the very good analog set ups by those setting it up for the last 20 years sounds way better than some new guy who bought latest craze and has been setting it up himself.

Surely. But often a significant part of the analog set up is just folklore.

 

[PeterA]

I'm not using the word "haze" literally
More as a euphemism for that slight euphonic warmth and minor imprecision of soundstage.
Just how I hear it.
For you guys who have all that's great about analog w none of the minor shortcomings, I salute you, and am pretty envious.

Marc, with respect, I am only critical of your gross generalization about what you refer to as "haze" as an intrinsic quality of analog. Regardless of how you define it, I am suggesting that it is not a universal trait in vinyl playback. You suggested that Al look at his own system for some faults when you disagreed about his observations with regard to flow, liquidity and continuousness. You, he, and I all use live unamplifed music as one of our references. Yes, we do hear things differently. My point is that we acknowledge the inherent flaws of the imperfect vinyl medium, but they can be overcome for the most part, or at least acceptable, with good design and execution. And it does not have much to do with price.

Mike will perhaps address this in a future post, but despite the fact that he seems extremely satisfied with his analog, he is looking to improve his digital. Perhaps it is for exposure to more music and hearing it at the highest level, who knows. I suspect, and you have implied with some of your previous posts, that your analog does not fully satisfy you. Perhaps that is one reason you are also seriously into digital. Both formats can be satisfying, no doubt. If you experience "haze" with your vinyl playback based in part on your recent exposure to live music, perhaps you should also investigate your vinyl playback chain. It sounds system dependent to me rather than format related.

Mike, I apologize for my role in taking this thread off topic again. I look forward to your response to my rambling post above about what drives your interest in digital and the analog/digital/live reference questions.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Peter, it appears there were some issues keeping my Straingauge cart/energiser in cold storage over a year in the midst of my move/audio room construct.
This has been sorted, w the closed in, un transparent presentation abolished on recent initial reinstall.
I'm actually holding off more lp listening until my Straingauge energiser bespoke psu gets fitted, the cart install gets optimised, and I can top off the whole analog install on the Stacore Adv platform.
With the impvt I'm already getting compared to a few months ago when I was a bit perturbed, the further impvts are likely to be wholly positive.
I guess my perspective on analog may well be v different from the majority of lp guys who view digital as the spawn of Satan, and I'll keep my pro digital vinylphile dichotomy going, even if it's only me that has it.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Marc, with respect, I am only critical of your gross generalization about what you refer to as "haze" as an intrinsic quality of analog. Regardless of how you define it, I am suggesting that it is not a universal trait in vinyl playback. You suggested that Al look at his own system for some faults when you disagreed about his observations with regard to flow, liquidity and continuousness. You, he, and I all use live unamplifed music as one of our references. Yes, we do hear things differently. My point is that we acknowledge the inherent flaws of the imperfect vinyl medium, but they can be overcome for the most part, or at least acceptable, with good design and execution. And it does not have much to do with price.

Mike will perhaps address this in a future post, but despite the fact that he seems extremely satisfied with his analog, he is looking to improve his digital. Perhaps it is for exposure to more music and hearing it at the highest level, who knows. I suspect, and you have implied with some of your previous posts, that your analog does not fully satisfy you. Perhaps that is one reason you are also seriously into digital. Both formats can be satisfying, no doubt. If you experience "haze" with your vinyl playback based in part on your recent exposure to live music, perhaps you should also investigate your vinyl playback chain. It sounds system dependent to me rather than format related.

Mike, I apologize for my role in taking this thread off topic again. I look forward to your response to my rambling post above about what drives your interest in digital and the analog/digital/live reference questions.

defining what we are pursuing is relevant, I think. we are (I am at least) trying to find digital that touches our soul like our analog. or maybe is compelling and enriching in some way like analog.

and so Marc brings up the question of whether there is an overlay of haze or 'something' to analog as a format. I'd say no; in fact I've always held that whatever the noise floor of analog is, we seem to hear into it a long way and get ambience and musical nuance.

sometimes black is just black. it's nothing. some digital gives us that sort of feeling. we should get some sort of sense of space and ourselves relative to the room or players. in the pitch dark when I'm in a room and get close to a door or wall I can tell by how the air changes. that's kind of what I get from analog, and what the MSB Select II also get's too.

between tracks with better vinyl the sense of space collapses and then gets reestablished when the new cut starts. but when it's different movements from the same live recording that sense of room does not collapse. I suppose on degrees less refined and higher noise vinyl playback those intervals might be seen as haze and not content.

we can find lots of pressings where there is noise, or poor masterings, or simply noisy vinyl systems for whatever reason. so these things are part of the whole vinyl picture. but the better systems and majority of pressings are not that way in my experience.

 

[spiritofmusic]

I'm obviously being caught out for my "poor" choice of word in "haze".
I guess what I meant by this term is a slight imprecision or lack of absolute imperfections compared to the best digital.
I agree w Mike that noise flr is NOT the issue here, there is more of a "bottleneck" w digital (apologies if this is ANOTHER poor choice of words LOL).
So I have no issues w analog's ability to trawl the depths when it comes to microdetail, shimmer, fade to black, and absolute black.
I guess I mean digital in many cases having a kind of greater precision in soundfield, imaging, absolute bass, which at least gives the impression of less "waviness" (shall I pick another "inappropriate" term?).
Now, this is obviously my experience and my evolution, I found excellent digital that rivalled and in many ways superior to my analog for a decade, and these were my conclusions.
When I found an analog front end that traded my old low torque belt drive imperfections for rim drive stability and uber bass torqueyness, w a linear tracking air arm that got the start-stop aspect of live (and more digital-like) more spot on, I found I really enjoyed my lps more, was aware of less of a "waviness" sonic thumbprint, and seemingly addressed those issues I was finding digital was more satisfying and authentic on for a decade.
So, just my experience, and I do feel deep down good analog has to do so much more to counteract mechanical disadvantages like speed stability, tangential issues, eccentricity, cart setup, compared to digital.
Maybe if I owned Peter's SME 30, Mike's NVS, Tang's Kronos, I'd have not much to say here.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I'm obviously being caught out for my "poor" choice of word in "haze".
I guess what I meant by this term is a slight imprecision or lack of absolute imperfections compared to the best digital.
I agree w Mike that noise flr is NOT the issue here, there is more of a "bottleneck" w digital (apologies if this is ANOTHER poor choice of words LOL).
So I have no issues w analog's ability to trawl the depths when it comes to microdetail, shimmer, fade to black, and absolute black.
I guess I mean digital in many cases having a kind of greater precision in soundfield, imaging, absolute bass, which at least gives the impression of less "waviness" (shall I pick another "inappropriate" term?).
Now, this is obviously my experience and my evolution, I found excellent digital that rivalled and in many ways superior to my analog for a decade, and these were my conclusions.
When I found an analog front end that traded my old low torque belt drive imperfections for rim drive stability and uber bass torqueyness, w a linear tracking air arm that got the start-stop aspect of live (and more digital-like) more spot on, I found I really enjoyed my lps more, was aware of less of a "waviness" sonic thumbprint, and seemingly addressed those issues I was finding digital was more satisfying and authentic on for a decade.
So, just my experience, and I do feel deep down good analog has to do so much more to counteract mechanical disadvantages like speed stability, tangential issues, eccentricity, cart setup, compared to digital.
Maybe if I owned Peter's SME 30, Mike's NVS, Tang's Kronos, I'd have not much to say here.

to me vinyl noise is non musical. whoosh, whoosh....shhhhhhh, or something like rotational variance consistent from pressing to pressing. and that sort of actual non musical noise is not typically heard in vinyl I listen to anywhere. but I've certainly heard it. the other thing we sometimes hear is non linearity's related to speed. but thats pitch related and not noise.

Marc; I suspect your vinyl is just fine, and we are not talking here about any issue other than maybe a difference between your perception of the noise floor of your digital and your vinyl, and you assigning a term to describe it.

and maybe if you chose 5 Lps you like and their digital counterparts and actually try to identify noise floors and 'haze' you might feel differently after that focused investigation.

 

[Al M.]

Fortunately my digital based system does not suffer from "digititis" since the Forsell days ... And since long we could assemble systems not suffering from this disease, although accepting compromises is other areas.

Do you suffer from "digititis" when you listen to good digital sourced LPs?

IMHO most of the time "digititis" is created by interaction between system parts, the same way we can have horrible "analoguitis".

I agree, system and room.

Five years ago I thought my system, even though I liked many aspects of its sound, had a substantial case of digititis. Among other possible descriptions, I had the impression that sometimes the system was 'shouting' at me.

Turns out, acoustic room treatment (ASC) got rid of about 80 % of the perceived 'digititis' -- it wasn't mainly the digital. Granted, the subsequent switch from a 20 year old Wadia 12 DAC to a Berkeley Alpha 2 DAC yielded some further reduction of digititis, but it was not as large.

Further substantial improvements in removal of perceived 'digititis' came from supplementing my amps with external BorderPatrol power supplies. Electronic noise generated by the internal power supplies was a culprit of some remaining perceived 'digital harshness' -- but again it had not been the digital itself.

Another substantial reduction of 'digital artifacts' and 'synthetic sound' came from replacing my old Monster Sigma 2000 interconnects with ZenWave Audio D4 interconnects. Once more it was not the digital rig's fault.

So if someone listens to a system, has a case of 'digititis' and automatically blames it on the digital, I'd say, hold on, not so fast -- how certain are you that the digital is to blame, rather than other things?

 

[PeterA]

to me vinyl noise is non musical. whoosh, whoosh....shhhhhhh, or something like rotational variance consistent from pressing to pressing. and that sort of actual non musical noise is not typically heard in vinyl I listen to anywhere. but I've certainly heard it. the other thing we sometimes hear is non linearity's related to speed. but thats pitch related and not noise.

Marc; I suspect your vinyl is just fine, and we are not talking here about any issue other than maybe a difference between your perception of the noise floor of your digital and your vinyl, and you assigning a term to describe it.

and maybe if you chose 5 Lps you like and their digital counterparts and actually try to identify noise floors and 'haze' you might feel differently after that focused investigation.

I agree. Marc's comments seem to me to be more emblematic of his experience with his own system rather than a trait of the vinyl medium itself or in general.

 

[PeterA]

I agree, system and room.

Five years ago I thought my system, even though I liked many aspects of its sound, had a substantial case of digititis. Among other possible descriptions, I had the impression that sometimes the system was 'shouting' at me.

Turns out, acoustic room treatment (ASC) got rid of about 80 % of the perceived 'digititis' -- it wasn't mainly the digital. Granted, the subsequent switch from a 20 year old Wadia 12 DAC to a Berkeley Alpha 2 DAC yielded some further reduction of digititis, but it was not as large.

Further substantial improvements in removal of perceived 'digititis' came from supplementing my amps with external BorderPatrol power supplies. Electronic noise generated by the internal power supplies was a culprit of some remaining perceived 'digital harshness' -- but again it had not been the digital itself.

Another substantial reduction of 'digital artifacts' and 'synthetic sound' came from replacing my old Monster Sigma 2000 interconnects with ZenWave Audio D4 interconnects. Once more it was not the digital rig's fault.

So if someone listens to a system, has a case of 'digititis' and automatically blames it on the digital, I'd say, hold on, not so fast -- how certain are you that the digital is to blame, rather than other things?

That's interesting, Al. I don't doubt that this is exactly as you experienced. However, what about a system in which one has both analog and digital sources, as Mike, Madfloyd and many others have? In some of these cases, after I have directly compared both sources to each other, it turns out not to be the room at all, but something inherent in older examples of the DACs I've heard. This brings me back to that "unease" or tension that I had associated with digital. I just could not relax. Call it what you will. The good news is that it is largely gone in the better DACs that I have heard recently. I think the technology has made great strides recently as evidenced by all the glowing reports of devices like the Vivaldi, Lampi and MSB, all products that people have described as sounding similar to analog or of not have typical digital artifacts. I owned two digital players in the past and they had these artifacts, so I got rid of them and switched full time to vinyl. Digital is better now. The gap has certainly narrowed in my experience.

 

[Al M.]

That's interesting, Al. I don't doubt that this is exactly as you experienced. However, what about a system in which one has both analog and digital sources, as Mike, Madfloyd and many others have? In some of these cases, after I have directly compared both sources to each other, it turns out not to be the room at all, but something inherent in older examples of the DACs I've heard. This brings me back to that "unease" or tension that I had associated with digital. I just could not relax. Call it what you will. The good news is that it is largely gone in the better DACs that I have heard recently. I think the technology has made great strides recently as evidenced by all the glowing reports of devices like the Vivaldi, Lampi and MSB, all products that people have described as sounding similar to analog or of not have typical digital artifacts. I owned two digital players in the past and they had these artifacts, so I got rid of them and switched full time to vinyl. Digital is better now. The gap has certainly narrowed in my experience.

Certainly, Peter. As I outlined, there was digititis in my system that was real, as I discovered upon switching from a 20 year old Wadia 12 DAC to the Berkeley Alpha 2 DAC (that unit isn't entirely free from digital artifacts either, as I recently discovered in comparison with the Yggdrasil DAC). Yet the real digititis still accounted for a rather minor portion of all the perceived 'digititis', which mostly came from issues that were not related to the digital itself.

 

[sbo6]

Quote Originally Posted by spiritofmusic - "But certainly, analog has some haze and waviness compared to digital that a digital fan would class as imprecision."

Marc, I can't agree with this generalization of analog. Perhaps it is what some hear on some systems.

Agreed, the same way many analoguephiles generalize when they describe digital as sounding harsh or brittle..

 

[morricab]

I agree, system and room.

Five years ago I thought my system, even though I liked many aspects of its sound, had a substantial case of digititis. Among other possible descriptions, I had the impression that sometimes the system was 'shouting' at me.

Turns out, acoustic room treatment (ASC) got rid of about 80 % of the perceived 'digititis' -- it wasn't mainly the digital. Granted, the subsequent switch from a 20 year old Wadia 12 DAC to a Berkeley Alpha 2 DAC yielded some further reduction of digititis, but it was not as large.

Further substantial improvements in removal of perceived 'digititis' came from supplementing my amps with external BorderPatrol power supplies. Electronic noise generated by the internal power supplies was a culprit of some remaining perceived 'digital harshness' -- but again it had not been the digital itself.

Another substantial reduction of 'digital artifacts' and 'synthetic sound' came from replacing my old Monster Sigma 2000 interconnects with ZenWave Audio D4 interconnects. Once more it was not the digital rig's fault.

So if someone listens to a system, has a case of 'digititis' and automatically blames it on the digital, I'd say, hold on, not so fast -- how certain are you that the digital is to blame, rather than other things?

Wait! You changed the DAC but it was not the digital's fault...

 

[Al M.]

Wait! You changed the DAC but it was not the digital's fault...

Read again, please.

 

[morricab]

I agree. Marc's comments seem to me to be more emblematic of his experience with his own system rather than a trait of the vinyl medium itself or in general.

Agree. It seems that whatever his perceived "haze" or now "imprecision" was could likely be blamed on his own TT setup. To be fair, I have measured a lot of turntables with my Allnic "Speednic" and seen that many are running at the wrong speed and many will fluctuate speed while playing a record. That is one of the reasons I love the Yamaha GT-2000 I have so much is that the speed is ultrastable, even under playing conditions (you can measure with Speednic while playing a real record and watch needle drag in actoin on some TTs). A guy came to my place and said that my TT was the first he had heard with speed stability comparable to digital and that this was particularly noticeable with piano recordings where speed fluctuations are very obvious during sustains. As a result I get rock solid images and sharp outlines (recording dependent of course) for imaging.

 

[morricab]

Read again, please.

No need, I read it and once was enough...