Or not? Appreciate the thoughts!
Mike, explain to me how an analog Lp has the ability to produce more bandwidth than digital. Given the RIAA curve required to make the lower freq listenable. What am I missing ?
Who cares?
(2) scroll toward the bottom of the first page.....
https://www.stereophile.com/content/hdcd-keith-johnson-pflash-pflaumer-michael-ritter
Who cares?
Great question, Caesar.
I disagree with some posters here. A system that can competently play classical, including large scale orchestral, does NOT necessarily play rock well. The reason is that rock has extraordinary demands on rhythmic drive. If rhythm is slightly less well served in classical this is easily obvious only on the rhythmically most demanding material, on rock a somewhat lesser rhythmic performance can be lethal. Rhythm is at the forefront all the time.
In my view, many high end systems perform badly on rhythm, to the extent that a car radio sounds better in terms of 'headbanging' rhythmic drive. It's embarrassing, really. On the other hand, my current system fortunately leaves any car radio in the dust when it comes to rhythm and timing.
It has not always been this way. Early digital was not great on rhythm, and reviewers like Ken Kessler rightfully observed at the time that "digital can't rock". My first digital rig that really could rock was my fifth one, with the Berkeley Alpha DAC 2. Before that I rarely played rock on my system, only jazz was passable. But even the Berkeley DAC is vastly bettered in rhythmic performance by my current Schiit Yggdrasil Analog 2 DAC. That DAC is a rhythmic animal, and one of the best rhythmic performers that I have ever heard, regardless if analog or digital (it also beats some high priced digital gear in that respect). The rhythmic prowess is not limited to pure visceral drive, it extends to subtleties. Of course, there are also differences in rhythmic performance of turntables, and there have been discussions about this on WBF as well.
But it's not just the source. Other components play a role, including speaker support. Switching to the high quality Sound Anchors Signature stands for my monitors made a significant difference, and in my room the rhythmic performance of my subwoofers would suffer without the support of ASC SubTraps. Also, without the corner tube traps proper rhythm & timing gets lost in my room, so dramatically diminished is it. Obviously, bass performance of amplification components is important as well.
Resolution, nuance and power reserves on other material are NOT a guarantee of great rhythm and performance on rock. They are, to some extent, different things.
That's old stuff, out of date.
I find home theatre multichannel playing rock far more exciting and engaging than crazy high end extremely transparent and revealing system. Try Linkin Park with the best system in this forum. It would be like using a Rolls Phantom for track day. Also agree with Bozo...I mean Bonzo that a more forgiving sort of round off highs with more pronounced mid to low down suit rock much better.
People who have heard my system have said it does jazz, rock and classical well. However, I have Kal's sensibility.Who cares?
Exactly. A good stereo plays both equally well.
there are orchestral recordings that demand strong rhythmic performance, agree that it's not as frequently significant as it is with Rock. but when that is demanded, the need is profound and it's a separator for system's aspiring for full orchestral capability.
there are orchestral recordings where my CS Port belt drive is best with it's ultra refinement, space and detail, but others where the NVS dd or the Saskia idler are much more appropriate with the bolder, and more energetic and propulsive capabilities to optimize the musical content.
it comes down to your expectations for large orchestral.
![]() | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator | ![]() | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator | ![]() | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |