Varese/Gryphon/XVX impressions

[Mike Lavigne]

I have a different opinion. I have owned a TechDas AF1 plus with a Graham Phantoma at a period I also owned an EMT 927/SME 3012R. IMO the TechDas was the best turntable I owned, much closer to the performance of the Studer A80 playing tapes than the EMT. I got it from a friend who owned also a Continuum Caliburn and I listened to both side by side several times in comparison, including with the SAT turntable. IMO , all ranked very high in quality. There are so large differences in sound quality between top vinyl that choice is mainly a question of listener preference, not which is the "best". But the TechDas /Graham was extremely resolving and neutral - easily the best vinyl system I owned.

I have now listened several times in separate sessions to the dCS Varese with D'Agostino's Relentless and XVX. When playing top digital recordings, IMO it is at a different level from all else I have listened in stereo - an immediate absence of artifacts that can disorienting - where are they gone?

'poof',

absence of artifacts verses realism of vinyl....3 years ago. not every tt set-up relates the realism of better vinyl pressings equally. but the better tt's all do a pretty good job.

 

[microstrip]

'poof',

absence of artifacts verses realism of vinyl....3 years ago. not every tt set-up relates the realism of vinyl equally. but the better one's all do a pretty good job.

I am used to this line of preference - considering our favorite artifacts as realism, because they were masterly recorded, we got used to them and enjoy them.

We have different perspectives on stereo reproduction since long, no problem. BTW, I have not changed my opinion because of the dCS Varese - in general I have preferred digital format to vinyl for a long time - surely some particular recordings can reverse it. I am happy because I find the dCS Varese a significant step in sound quality that I appreciate, not because of feeding vendettas.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I am used to this line of preference - considering our favorite artifacts as realism, because they were masterly recorded, we got used to them and enjoy them.

they could be masterly recorded because the format is more capable and complete. which is as true now as it was then. OTOH it's not as clean as the best digital. nor does it need to be. it's an experiential thing.

over time there have been changes to the typical. artists are different, recording processes are different, and the knowledge base is reduced. but the tools are better now, and the results can be as good or better when the motivation is sufficient. but there is not the commercial momentum today we had 40-70 years ago for pure analog. glad i have 8k-10k pre-80's vinyl on my shelves.

We have different perspectives on stereo reproduction since long, no problem. BTW, I have not changed my opinion because of the dCS Varese - in general I have preferred digital format to vinyl for a long time - surely some particular recordings can reverse it.

yes; nothing new about that.

I am happy because I find the dCS Varese a significant step in sound quality that I appreciate, not because of feeding vendettas.

i am honestly happy that we both have found digital we love. we don't need to agree on the vinyl part.

 

[bonzo75]

in general I have preferred digital format to vinyl for a long time - surely some particular recordings can reverse it.

That we figured for a long time based on your posts

 

[exupgh12]

Thank you for sharing your experience and some photos @JiminGa
Your friend has a beautiful room and a system.

 

[microstrip]

they could be masterly recorded because the format is more capable and complete. which is as true now as it was then. OTOH it's not as clean as the best digital. nor does it need to be. it's an experiential thing

Vinyl handles less information than digital. Vinyl is less transparent than digital. How can it be more "complete" (BTW, an ambiguous and meaningless subjective general qualifier) ? I suggest you read from known recording engineers (old and new generation) how they handled the limitations of it with fabulous recording tricks to make it enjoyable.
BTW, the keyword is "information".

over time there have been changes to the typical. artists are different, recording processes are different, and the knowledge base is reduced. but the tools are better now, and the results can be as good or better when the motivation is sufficient. but there is not the commercial momentum today we had 40-70 years ago for pure analog. glad i have 8k-10k pre-80's vinyl on my shelves.

I feel happy that you still live in the commercial momentum of 40-70 years ago and specially that you enjoy what you have - it is the objective of the hobby. But it is not what is being addressed.

yes; nothing new about that.

i am honestly happy that we both have found digital we love. we don't need to agree on the vinyl part.

We just disagree on your need to rank and debate formats according to your perception of "realism" in your system as being "reality". And surely on many objective and technical facts.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

We just disagree

very true.

 

[Al M.]

they could be masterly recorded because the format is more capable and complete. which is as true now as it was then. OTOH it's not as clean as the best digital. nor does it need to be. it's an experiential thing.

May I ask what you mean with "complete"?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

May I ask what you mean with "complete"?

to be fair to this thread and subject matter, let's not take this any further here. the OP brought up vinyl, so it was not me who started it.

here is a WBF search for vinyl is more complete'. 7 pages of posts.......of which quite a few of them are mine (especially back a ways) or responses to my posts and i get into it but just not here. or open a thread about it and i will follow up.

 

[bonzo75]

May I ask what you mean with "complete"?

Sounding one whole instead of bits of pieces loosely sewn together