Do you agree with Keith Johnson who claims the LP's dynamic range is >120dB? (maybe 130?). BTW, I agree with your statement plus noise; in fact, surface noise can be much lower than a great phono stage...
What improvements have we seen in high end audio in the last 25 years?
- Thread starter caesar
- Start date
Do you agree with Keith Johnson who claims the LP's dynamic range is >120dB? (maybe 130?). BTW, I agree with your statement plus noise; in fact, surface noise can be much lower than a great phono stage...
You know, 120db does not sound all that crazy. The issues with dynamic range on an LP have to do with how well the playback works. IOW the limitation is the cartridge and arm, so long as you have a good recording to work with.
When we first got our machine going (Scully lathe, Westerex 3D cutterhead with Atma-Sphere modified M-60s for use with the cutterhead), the noise floor was what really killed me. You are correct- they are quieter than the quietest phono section.
When we first got our machine going (Scully lathe, Westerex 3D cutterhead with Atma-Sphere modified M-60s for use with the cutterhead), the noise floor was what really killed me. You are correct- they are quieter than the quietest phono section.
The SME 30/12 is an interesting inclusion here, Alan. The 30/12 is derived from earlier models. It seems that the original Model 30 had trickle-down technology into the Model 20 and then the Model 10. Same with the original V arm to the 309 and to the IV. However, the Model 30/12 is an evolution of the Model 20/12 and 30/2, which came first, as the V-12 arm is of the 312S and V arms.
I agree. However, that is not enough to guarantee staying power for more than a year or two. In a few years these hipsters are going to be wondering where they screwed up more; getting tattoos all over their arms, or buying a turntable.
I agree. However, that is not enough to guarantee staying power for more than a year or two. In a few years these hipsters are going to be wondering where they screwed up more; getting tattoos all over their arms, or buying a turntable.
So you're saying sales rising (and we know that the figures are understated) for eight straight years is a fluke?
Myles, I don't think we're that far apart. LPs will certainly be here for a while, but on a transient rather than glacial timeframe. Not sure I recall MEP's definition of digital couch potato, but I think I've authored some of the chapters in the "couch potato" manual including such classics as "How to drool in your shoe and not be noticed" or the ever popular "How many times can can one listen to a tonearm play the lead-out grooves of an LP without being hospitalized for brain damage?"
No, I am saying it is going to peak, probably soon, and start declining. One mistake people make is they think everyone likes what they like. It doesn't work that way. I suspect most people just want to listen to music, not screw with it. Convenience is certainly one of the big things over the last 25 years. Now we getting excellent sound from DACS, and even more convenience from music servers. That is where the growth is. Not in a format that gives the opposite
Actually, if you are really down with the crowd, compact cassette is the thing to go for. LP is beginning to have a negative connotation, because it's all Urban Outfitters wannabes and 'are you still doing that Grizzly Adams impression?' hipsters past their Best Before date.
But you have no evidence to back your assertations other than a gut feeling. So the sales of LPs could also continue rising or even increase further to meet worldwide demand. Not to mention the fact that pretty much all pressing plants are currently working overtime to meet demand with even more presses slated to come on line. And we might finally see that all the sales figures are really understated by a factor of 10.
Also if convenience were that important, LPs would have totally died and gone to heaven 35 years ago. Actually there's nothing more convenient for most people than to just slap an LP on the turntable and put the arm down. No it's servers and computer audio that's not convenient. No average Joe without a PHD in Technogeekology has the time or wants to take the time to learn how to load their CD collection on a music server. Computer audio is 100 steps behind with no normal person wanting to go though the trials and travails of working with unwieldy software and computers. No, analog hasn't and continues to be a thorn in the side of digital protagonists. Now those are facts that fly in the face of your argument.
Last edited:
Respectfully Myles, I don't think you quite understood where I'm coming from here. I have no problem whatsoever with the sound of R2R. I know how good R2R can sound (I briefly had a Tim de Para modified Revox G36, and regretted giving it back almost as much as I would have regretted the car-sized lump of money I needed to spend to keep it in my presence). I know that among a subset of enthusiasts it remains a powerful alternative to digital systems, and I know that whenever a R2R is played it attracts the attention of audiophiles like moths to a flame, although I suspect in this case R2R has the same 'precious ancient artefact' status as say a pair of stacked Quad 57s (it invites people to ponder where it all went wrong, but doesn't invite many of them to invest where it all went right).
The reason I call this a 'zombie' format is because there is no new R2R hardware manufacture, that RMG International is now the only maker of new tape, and that the availability of recordings on R2R is extremely limited. This situation gets all the worse outside of the US, where the Tape Project has little or no traction. The existence of re-engineered R2R players is excellent, but functionally immaterial, especially if we consider the OP's original statement.
R2R's 'reanimated' status is different to the situation surrounding LP. Vinyl has its new time in the sun because of the increased availability of new LPs, alongside 'preloved' albums sold in everything from yard sales to second-hand record stores. That made it more than just a retro movement, and gives vinyl a place on the shelves of a new generation of record collectors and enthusiasts. That they have a choice of new and second-hand turntables on to play that music helps rebuild LP's presence among the collector market. Contrast this with R2R. There's no significant market for second-hand prerecorded tapes (unless you go very specialist indeed), there's almost no new tape, no new recordings that even begin to be affordable for a putative collector, and no new hardware.
And finally, when it comes to the 'crotchety old farts' thing, we have enough trouble convincing people that there's life beyond Spotify at this time. Recommending people actually 'buy' their music borders on Old Fart territory now. Promoting a format that to most people went out with Dynasty-grade shoulder pads would cement the view that we are just a bunch of crotchety old farts revelling in past glories and steadfastly refusing to move with the times.
Even though R2R looks really cool and sounds really good.
Last edited:
Just a couple of minor points.
1. RMG is not the only tape producer. ATR services also produces high quality tape that many are actually switching over to.
2. There are now five companies releasing tape on your side of the pond including Opus 3, Analog-Audio, Hemiolia Records, Quinton and Fone. So that brings the number of companies producing tapes now to close to 15. Thing is, that number has been steadily increasing to the point that even a US record dealer, Elusive Disc, now lists tapes for sale on their website. It certainly caught their eye.
As far as shoulder pads go, new isn't always necessarily better. See Coke.
Or for that matter retro jerseys. Who would have thought these guys would have made a fortune selling football, etc. jerseys for $400 and up?
Last edited:
+1
Alan, your points are well taken....which is why I have made a decision to stay away from R2R and concentrate primarily on vinyl. Even though I believe that the R2R source is "superior" to vinyl ( although that could be debated); the amount of software available for R2R just doesn't seem to make sense...to me.
Sorry to be the party spoiler here re: speaker technology and new materials used. While I have no doubt that the best of today's speakers will be significantly better than the best ones 25 years ago, it is not improvements across the board. I have 23 year old Ensemble Reference minimonitors (albeit modified in crossover caps, internal cabling and tweeter) and have heard in comparison Magico S1 floor-standing speakers (at 12.5 K same price range as my speakers, inflation-adjusted). The only thing that the Magico did very well was the low treble, which appeared more resolved and detailed than the one of my speakers -- yet I would say that this relatively more prominent lower treble just gives a different perspective on what you might hear live, depending on acoustic setting, and the more receded lower treble of my speakers conforms more with my average live experience of unamplified music. Other than that, the Ensembles blow them away completely, especially at higher SPL, 85 dB and up (monitored by SPL meter). At 90 dB, where my speakers still perform flawlessly (actually they do so up to just above 95 dB in my room), the congestion with the Magico S1s was extremely severe and they didn't even play in a large room (smaller than mine), and on an amp with plenty juice, Spectral DMA 260 -- awesome amp by the way, I tried it at home. Moreover, there WAS severe box coloration. It was an unpleasant hollow coloration, perhaps a sound signature of the aluminum chassis used. With my minimonitors, on the stands I use, there is NO wooden box coloration, an advantage of them being small, next to being rigidly built. Obviously bass is not an issue either, given that they are run in parallel with REL subwoofers.
Certainly, I expect higher grade Magicos to perform much better. I would especially be curious about their minimonitors, the Mini or the Q1.
Certainly, I expect higher grade Magicos to perform much better. I would especially be curious about their minimonitors, the Mini or the Q1.
Last edited:
I would say the same thing about available music on hi-rez vs. plain old CD.
BTW, I am thouroughly impressed by what CD can do through my Berkeley Alpha DAC2, much more than I had anticipated. I certainly haven't yet encountered the 'ceiling' of resolution that Myles is taking about, a ceiling that some time ago I also had thought existed at much lower resolution than I hear now from CD, with my new DAC and other system improvements. Every old CD that I listen to is a new revelation after the addition of the new BorderPatrol external power supplies for the amps. So much more spatial, ambience and timbral information than before. So far the CD medium has effortless 'grown' with the improvements in my system, and I see no reason for this not to continue.
I look at R2R differently than most and I'm talking mostly Ampex and Studer(tube),probably some of the best circuits evey designed and the ones I upgrade are dual mono and point to point. They can sound glorious when updated with modern components. When you get right down to it I think speaker technology has improved. I still think electronics for all the money spent is diminishing returns if you compare apples to apples. This is my experience and I use gear designed in the 1950's,60's,70's,90's and later. Someday a electronics designer will incorporate a dedicated ground for EMI mitigation to earth ground and then you will have a noiseless system,which is far more important then finding ways to squeeze some distortion lower which is already low enough for great sound.
Unless the High End looks in different directions I really don't see any real major progress being made. IMHO
Unless the High End looks in different directions I really don't see any real major progress being made. IMHO
Similar threads
- Locked