Ron’s New System

[Ron Resnick]

---

Yes

Yes, original digital vinyl often sound much better run through modern digital processes and remasters. The bar is set so low to begin with.

Yes, this is an anomaly for me. Generally (a rebuttal presumption) I prefer digital recordings to be played back over digital.

 

[sbo6]

Fair enough!

Impex are amazing. Although it's been played to death, the Getz/Gilberto One Step remaster is simply breathtaking. Talk about being in the room.

 

[sbo6]

Rock reissues are seldom as good as originals

IME that's changing, finally there are some VG remasters coming out and available.

REM, Boston, Blood Sweat & Tears, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Joe Jackson, Joe Walsh, Fleetwood Mac (and many others) remasters are much better than the originals. I'd be happy to provide details, I have a ROON list for digital that's better than bits and of the one's I've researched and bought (mostly jazz and rock); I'd say I have about an 85% success rate. ;-)

 

[PeterA]

Thank you. Things are very different now than they were in that video.

I posted a bunch of video stuff on Vimeo when I was trying to be open-minded about video recordings of audio systems.

Ron, do you want to share what you are doing these days with your system? Any changes or additions? It might get this system thread back on track.

 

[PeterA]

IME that's changing, finally there are some VG remasters coming out and available.

REM, Boston, Blood Sweat & Tears, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Joe Jackson, Joe Walsh, Fleetwood Mac (and many others) remasters are much better than the originals. I'd be happy to provide details, I have a ROON list for digital that's better than bits and of the one's I've researched and bought (mostly jazz and rock); I'd say I have about an 85% success rate. ;-)

I would say the real test is to listen to the various versions played on a specific system, and analog versus digital. Some systems lend themselves to how remasters generally sound, others do not. I find it hard to generalize without including the system context. In my system, I almost always prefer original vinyl. The new 180 g thick vinyl used for most remasters seems overdamped and dull, so remastering enhances the sound and they just sound different. Some people may prefer them on some systems or all systems.

EDIT: When I owned my old Magico system, I bought a lot of reissues, both classical and jazz and some popular music. When I heard these on my new system, they sounded a bit lifeless compared to my original vinyl pressings, so I’ve been on a hunt since to replace them with original pressings. Original pressings basically sound more alive, less dull on my new system.

There are some theories floating around that the audiophile thick vinyl remastered reissues are used at shows with the new gear for demonstrations because the sound is a bit enhanced and you hear details that pop in what is perhaps a less than quiet or ideal listening environment.

When I used to attend shows a decade ago, I would go with some nicely recorded original pressings of complex music. I found them to be more revealing of system quality.

 

[Another Johnson]

I’ve listened to a range of Diana Krall albums this afternoon.

The voice, however limited, is very easy on the ears AND in nearly every track, she is with me in the room. I’d rather have her here than, say, Patricia Barber.

 

[bonzo75]

Interesting! See Kedar, I actually do have ears attached to my head, and they work.

Why did you use MJ as a reference in the first place to judge your ears?

It is never the ability to hear. It is what recordings/type of music and recordings are used to judge.

Using pop from non vinyl era, for example, will not help you in setting up a good analog system, in which case it won’t sound like a good system.

 

[Audiohertz2]

Its great when setup wisdom and experience speak ....!

 

[bonzo75]

Its great when setup wisdom and experience speak ....!

99% of the systems I heard were set up by people like you, who though US classical concerts were amplified.

 

[Kingrex]

@bonzo75
Why do you say speaker setup has to be done with a record? What if your digital only.

 

[Alrainbow]

Ron do You like david benoit?
just an example I think almost all of his music on vinyl is digital.
I’m all in on analog as the medium we should have as a reference point
But things get muddy on playback mediums via source.
I can’t say why but magic happens on format transfers.
I have some analog vinyl and tape sourced from digital and they are amazing as is.

 

[Alrainbow]

Its great when setup wisdom and experience speak ....!

Yea it’s also rare to have someone listen lol.

 

[Alrainbow]

@bonzo75
Why do you say speaker setup has to be done with a record? What if your digital only.

It’s his view not all people use this.
I for one use digital tracks to set up speakers.
it’s much easier to click then play vinyl
Test lp s.
but we all need special vinyl to set up a table / cart or most do. Heck even with all the set up stuff I have it comes down to paying attention to the sound quality in the end.

 

[Another Johnson]

What’s not to like?

 

[Alrainbow]

Actually the opposite, some of the best remasters in my experience are Impex, the more recent Mofi and Analogue Productions, 45RPM usually better than 33.3. They are all limited production runs and quite expensive, typically over $100.

However, there are many other remasters, digital and analog. It's a coin toss, some better, some worse.

Correct me if I am wrong but a 33 lp has a different sound then a 45 does from same master same production. Analog productions is an example. I think it’s relative to the groove size used

 

[Alrainbow]

IME that's changing, finally there are some VG remasters coming out and available.

REM, Boston, Blood Sweat & Tears, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Joe Jackson, Joe Walsh, Fleetwood Mac (and many others) remasters are much better than the originals. I'd be happy to provide details, I have a ROON list for digital that's better than bits and of the one's I've researched and bought (mostly jazz and rock); I'd say I have about an 85% success rate. ;-)

Love your music choices

 

[sbo6]

Correct me if I am wrong but a 33 lp has a different sound then a 45 does from same master same production. Analog productions is an example. I think it’s relative to the groove size used

I'm not sure if it's the groove size, certainly may be, but I believe it's the speed the data is cut and played back allowing for better resolution, if you will. Akin to 7.5 versus 15 ips tape.

 

[sbo6]

View attachment 140427
What’s not to like?

Wow, I didn't realize Ray Brown and Stanley Turrentine played on this. Thanks.

 

[PeterA]

I'm not sure if it's the groove size, certainly may be, but I believe it's the speed the data is cut and played back allowing for better resolution, if you will. Akin to 7.5 versus 15 ips tape.

A 45 RPM groove is longer. It holds more information. I have some 45 RPM reissues that sound pretty good and seem to have greater resolution, but they have the dreaded thicker new formulation vinyl so there are trade-offs. Others who know more about it may be able to explain more about why they sound different. They do not always sound better in my experience.

 

[Alrainbow]

A while back at a show I think it was the owner of sound smith , did a vinyl playback presentation. he has some great ideas but I’m not so sure they all add up to me.
one thing he brought up was groove size and do we really get all the information layed in the grooves.
of course in part it was his sales pitch of cactus needles on a cart but !!
there is a lot going on dragging a needle on vinyl.
a 45 spaces are wider if they want them to be
meaning more dynamics and info
but this still isn’t all
it may allow for less compression if they want it.
I own one album in 3 analog formats all from analog productions
33 /45 and tape.
the hope album.
in just comparing vinyl they do sound very different to me.
it facilitates to me what one is correct to the master tape sound.
Oddly the 33 I like more seems more high frequency clarity.