The source is in the speaker!

[MylesBAstor]

There are a couple of them, actually, and I've listed the tables before. I don't remember what they are. I don't know what the carts are. I know one of these guys is very into it and the other is pretty OCD. Have they made choices you'd consider good enough? I have no idea and couldn't care less. They've made careful choices and they love their vinyl, that I'm sure of.

And really, that's not what this is about. I'm not saying vinyl sounds bad. It isn't my preference but nobody but me should care about that. I am saying that vinyl has a sound of its own, and at least a part of that sound is native to the process of creating and playing the vinyl. Is anyone here actually arguing with that? Really?

Tim

So would you base the best that a car can handle the road upon a Lada or a Beamer, Ferrari, etc? No difference for audio.

 

[MylesBAstor]

For those who want to read a little more about this system: http://www.linn.co.uk/systems/see-the-range/klimax

BTW, I do NOT think for a second that Linn is planning on weakening their analog ( read LP12) sales by delving more into the digital realm. Instead, as mep pointed out, they are looking for new business ( mep would probably call them "converts" ). I see NOTHING wrong with bringing a little new blood into the audiophile realm. If this is what it takes, I say more power to them.

I don't disagree with your sentiments but put yourself in the place of someone who isn't very knowledgable about audio. What in that video would make you want to call for more info? Or would you just scratch your head and walk away? Sometimes ads just get too esoteric and miss their mark.

 

[DaveyF]

Myles, I think maybe you are coming from a perspective that isn't typical of the customer whom Linn is trying to attract. I can easily see why a simplified approach to audio that results in "supposedly" better sound, would have a great appeal to the less knowledgable. One of the things that I have heard( and I'm sure you have too) over the many many years I have been in this hobby, is that there is too much clutter/complexity created by all the gear that a typical a'phile collects (uses?). Remember that many newbies ( never mind their better halves) are put off by the number of individual pieces that are required for the typical high-end system.
We(the more experienced a'phile) may not see the value to this approach, BUT I can, and do, see where Linn (and before them Meridian) is coming from.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Myles, I think maybe you are coming from a perspective that isn't typical of the customer whom Linn is trying to attract. I can easily see why a simplified approach to audio that results in "supposedly" better sound, would have a great appeal to the less knowledgable. One of the things that I have heard( and I'm sure you have too) over the many many years I have been in this hobby, is that there is too much clutter/complexity created by all the gear that a typical a'phile collects (uses?). Remember that many newbies ( never mind their better halves) are put off by the number of individual pieces that are required for the typical high-end system.
We(the more experienced a'phile) may not see the value to this approach, BUT I can, and do, see where Linn (and before them Meridian) is coming from.

Again I don't disagree with anything you're saying but I don't see this video attracting them.

BTW we can say the same about speakers too. That's something that I tried to point out when Magico came out with their small mini speaker too.

What do I know anyway? Mongo just pawn in game of life!

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim-If you listed the tables before, I can't remember them. And nobody is saying that your friends LP setups aren't "good enough" because we have no idea what they are. When someone makes bold statements based on something they personally don't own and don't listen to at home, it's only natural that we would like to know what systems you are basing your judgements on. I think if the reverse was true and I told you I hate digital even though I didn't own any method of digital playback but a friend of mine did and I thought it was highly colored and it wasn't my cup of tea, you just might want to know what the hell digital playback system I was listening to.

We have our differences, Mark. This one is about as fundamental as it gets -- that vinyl has a sonic signature that is from the medium, not the recording? I don't consider that a bold statement. I don't think it requires evidence beyond the process through which vinyl is made and the measurements that can be taken (never mind those not yet invented). I think it's obvious, self-evident, undeniable. And YMMV, but you're going to have to ignore an awful lot of reality to get there. What turntables I have and have not heard is not even relevant.

Tim

 

[esldude]

Sometimes I can't help but think you are arguing specifications and not sound quality. There are so many fractures in the digital community that it's not funny. Some swear by RBCD and have built their entire systems around RBCD. Others poo-poo RBCD and think there is more to be heard with more bits and higher sampling rates much to the chagrin of the RBCD lovers. Then there is the PCM vs DSD wars where some people line up on the side of specifications and not what their ears tell them. And I'm sure that some of those ears that prefer PCM over DSD don't even listen to DSD and have no capability to play it back. Why do I prefer DSD over PCM? Because it sounds more like analog. What does analog sound like? More like real music played by real musicians playing real instruments (IMO). I prefer DSD over PCM for the same reason that I prefer analog to PCM.

I'm with Tim on this. I hate the phrase more like analog. Digital can record analog cleanly, the reverse isn't true. Analog has a sound plain and simple. If DSD sounds more like analog, as in more like turntables, then it too must have a sound. If you mean it sounds nicer, smoother, well a different story of course. But considering how transparent PCM can be, I would be suspicious of DSD having a sound of its own.

 

[puroagave]

Sometimes I can't help but think you are arguing specifications and not sound quality. There are so many fractures in the digital community that it's not funny. Some swear by RBCD and have built their entire systems around RBCD. Others poo-poo RBCD and think there is more to be heard with more bits and higher sampling rates much to the chagrin of the RBCD lovers. Then there is the PCM vs DSD wars where some people line up on the side of specifications and not what their ears tell them. And I'm sure that some of those ears that prefer PCM over DSD don't even listen to DSD and have no capability to play it back. Why do I prefer DSD over PCM? Because it sounds more like analog. What does analog sound like? More like real music played by real musicians playing real instruments (IMO). I prefer DSD over PCM for the same reason that I prefer analog to PCM.

exactly. this is not aimed at Tim per say but the protagonist of all things digital that keep citing science and technical specs. In that case an '80s vintage CDP should be good enough because todays RBCD players measure no better, and why go hi-res when its scientifically proven we don't need more than 16 bits for 'accurate' audio reproduction. Mark, you said it before and it bears repeating that unless you have a decent LP rig along side your digital rig in your own system, can one make meaningful subjective comparisons that carry any weight with this crowd (WBF).

 

[puroagave]

Myles, I think maybe you are coming from a perspective that isn't typical of the customer whom Linn is trying to attract. I can easily see why a simplified approach to audio that results in "supposedly" better sound, would have a great appeal to the less knowledgable. One of the things that I have heard( and I'm sure you have too) over the many many years I have been in this hobby, is that there is too much clutter/complexity created by all the gear that a typical a'phile collects (uses?). Remember that many newbies ( never mind their better halves) are put off by the number of individual pieces that are required for the typical high-end system.
We(the more experienced a'phile) may not see the value to this approach, BUT I can, and do, see where Linn (and before them Meridian) is coming from.

the Exakt is a flagship product for Linn do you think they gave a 2nd thought as to whether the analog purist would care if their LPs were digitized for compatibility sake? I got a weird look from a Meridian rep when I questioned the authenticity of digitizing my LPs so it would be compatible within their active/DSP scheme. the guy looked at me like "you still listen to records?" this was 20-yrs ago!

 

[DaveyF]

the Exakt is a flagship product for Linn do you think they gave a 2nd thought as to whether the analog purist would care if their LPs were digitized for compatibility sake? I got a weird look from a Meridian rep when I questioned the authenticity of digitizing my LPs so it would be compatible within their active/DSP scheme. the guy looked at me like "you still listen to records?" this was 20-yrs ago!

Rob, I don't think that Linn were that concerned about the analog purist ( and BTW, I count myself as one) when they came out with the Exakt. I think Linn realized( or believed, as so many others did) a while back that the analog purist(s) are a shrinking group. Although I also believe that they know that the analog purist(s) is where their most loyal customers lie.
Like many high-end companies, I think Linn has a couple of different divisions. One committed to analog and the LP12( and 'sharpening' that design as much as possible)- and the other to digital and possibly HT.
Also, I don't really believe that too many analog purists care about transferring their LP's to digital, I know that I don't.
To comment on the digital vs. analog debate, personally I am not aware of any digital ( and I certainly have NOT heard any) that can compete against good analog (vinyl) or even more so- reel to reel, in the illusion to "live" reproduction.

 

[mep]

We have our differences, Mark. This one is about as fundamental as it gets -- that vinyl has a sonic signature that is from the medium, not the recording? I don't consider that a bold statement. I don't think it requires evidence beyond the process through which vinyl is made and the measurements that can be taken (never mind those not yet invented). I think it's obvious, self-evident, undeniable. And YMMV, but you're going to have to ignore an awful lot of reality to get there. What turntables I have and have not heard is not even relevant.

Tim

So you are arguing based on specs I see. Of course what table/arm/cartridge you are listening to is relevant. You think that based on specs that all LPs will sound the same regardless of what they are being played on and it's simply not true.

 

[mep]

I'm with Tim on this. I hate the phrase more like analog. Digital can record analog cleanly, the reverse isn't true. Analog has a sound plain and simple. If DSD sounds more like analog, as in more like turntables, then it too must have a sound. If you mean it sounds nicer, smoother, well a different story of course. But considering how transparent PCM can be, I would be suspicious of DSD having a sound of its own.

Perhaps you should listen to some really good DSD recordings at home and report back your findings. It beats the hell out of assumptions.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

So you are arguing based on specs I see. Of course what table/arm/cartridge you are listening to is relevant. You think that based on specs that all LPs will sound the same regardless of what they are being played on and it's simply not true.

I didn't say any of that. Yes, I think that measurements are relevant to the discussion, but I also think vinyl has a characteristic sound. Is there variation from rig to rig? Of course. But regardless, it has a sonic character that differentiates it from digital, and from tape. Forget about what might or might not be creating that sound for a moment. Assume that it is retrieval of more information from the recording if you must. Do you hear it?

Tim

 

[mep]

I didn't say any of that. Yes, I think that measurements are relevant to the discussion, but I also think vinyl has a characteristic sound. Is there variation from rig to rig? Of course. But regardless, it has a sonic character that differentiates it from digital, and from tape. Forget about what might or might not be creating that sound for a moment. Assume that it is retrieval of more information from the recording if you must. Do you hear it?

Tim

I don't want to derail Davey's thread so I'm off this discussion here.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I don't want to derail Davey's thread so I'm off this discussion here.

Fair enough. You're welcome to answer the defining question in one of the other threads that are running down this rusty old track. Or not.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

A sound often described by its proponents as, among other things, a sense of spaciousness. Not sure I completely agree with that description, but I can hear what they're talking about and understand how they got there. In spite of hearing it, I still firmly believe that it is added by the media, not native to the recording.
(...)
I didn't say any of that. Yes, I think that measurements are relevant to the discussion, but I also think vinyl has a characteristic sound. Is there variation from rig to rig? Of course. But regardless, it has a sonic character that differentiates it from digital, and from tape. Forget about what might or might not be creating that sound for a moment. Assume that it is retrieval of more information from the recording if you must. Do you hear it?
Tim

Tim,

We can not separate your two comments. Vinyl has a sound characteristic - the ticks, the vinyl induced artifacts and its limitations. Happily top playing systems minimize the subjective perception of these problems. But the main question was that you considered that the spaciousness of vinyl is an added artifact - but IMHO no, it is part of the recording and once the artifacts are very low you perceive it clearly as unique and different in each recording. Now that digital systems are much better and more resolving many people feel will feel surprised when they find it again in CDs or HiRez recordings.

"Detailed sounding" is not just perceiving all the low sounding instruments, the way sounds grow and decrease, bees and the noise of underground or trucks in recordings. IMHO is also naturally perceiving it first time - the wow factor. And here great vinyl in great playback systems sometimes wins by a considerable margin.

Michael Fremer said something similar (but not addressing vinyl) in the Wavac 833 review we debated in another thread : Pete Seeger can be heard tapping his foot at the right of the stage during "Guantanamera." I've heard those foot-taps for decades, but through the SH-833s, for the first time I could hear—and clearly—that Seeger was accentuating the third beat in each bar. I could also make out how far the vibration spread across the floorboard before dissipating.


We can not forget that the playback of all types of media has been improving in the last years - many old audio stereotypes are not valid anymore.

 

[mep]

Tim,


Michael Fremer said something similar (but not addressing vinyl) in the Wavac 833 review we debated in another thread : Pete Seeger can be heard tapping his foot at the right of the stage during "Guantanamera." I've heard those foot-taps for decades, but through the SH-833s, for the first time I could hear—and clearly—that Seeger was accentuating the third beat in each bar. I could also make out how far the vibration spread across the floorboard before dissipating.


We can not forget that the playback of all types of media has been improving in the last years - many old audio stereotypes are not valid anymore.

But unfortunately, they are all still alive and well.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

But unfortunately, they are all still alive and well.

You can say that again.

Micro, this --

But the main question was that you considered that the spaciousness of vinyl is an added artifact

That was not a question. It is an opinion. When you are listening on a good vinyl rig that is well set-up, and the pops and artifacts you mention above are reduced to a minimum, this "spaciousness" is still there. Don't you agree? We can disagree on it's cause and its value, but it's there, yes? Vinyl does have a sound? It's not a trick question.

Tim

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

Tim,

We can not separate your two comments. Vinyl has a sound characteristic - the ticks, the vinyl induced artifacts and its limitations. Happily top playing systems minimize the subjective perception of these problems. But the main question was that you considered that the spaciousness of vinyl is an added artifact - but IMHO no, it is part of the recording and once the artifacts are very low you perceive it clearly as unique and different in each recording. Now that digital systems are much better and more resolving many people feel will feel surprised when they find it again in CDs or HiRez recordings.

"Detailed sounding" is not just perceiving all the low sounding instruments, the way sounds grow and decrease, bees and the noise of underground or trucks in recordings. IMHO is also naturally perceiving it first time - the wow factor. And here great vinyl in great playback systems sometimes wins by a considerable margin.

Michael Fremer said something similar (but not addressing vinyl) in the Wavac 833 review we debated in another thread : Pete Seeger can be heard tapping his foot at the right of the stage during "Guantanamera." I've heard those foot-taps for decades, but through the SH-833s, for the first time I could hear—and clearly—that Seeger was accentuating the third beat in each bar. I could also make out how far the vibration spread across the floorboard before dissipating.


We can not forget that the playback of all types of media has been improving in the last years - many old audio stereotypes are not valid anymore.

In feet or inches? Sorry Micro....I think that's a stretch.

 

[mep]

You can say that again.

Micro, this --



That was not a question. It is an opinion. When you are listening on a good vinyl rig that is well set-up, and the pops and artifacts you mention above are reduced to a minimum, this "spaciousness" is still there. Don't you agree? We can disagree on it's cause and its value, but it's there, yes? Vinyl does have a sound? It's not a trick question.

Tim

All recordings sound different one from another so there is no set amount of spaciousness on every LP you play due to colorations. You only hear spaciousness if it was part of the original recording. I for one don't believe that LPs tack on artificial spaciousness. What LPs do allow you to hear quite clearly are the added studio effects such as reverb. Again, every recording sounds different which stands in stark contrast to consistent colorations that you will hear no matter what the recording.

Again, whether you realize it or not, you are arguing based on specifications and not personal experience. Having a friend with a turntable/arm/cartridge combo that you can't remember doesn't count for experience in having a good quality LP system at home and listening to it regularly. That would be experience that would serve as a reference for your point of view. For now, you are starting to remind me of another member here who keeps posting the same things over and over and over and over again.

 

[DaveyF]

In feet or inches? Sorry Micro....I think that's a stretch.

+1