Even early (stellaDAT) digital recordings I made the off-tape monitor sound was very much closer to the sound of the microphone feed I was comparing it to than the Revox B77 reel-to-reel recorder I used before, as I wrote in an earlier post.
The Revox is much more accurate than any LP system can possibly be.
I love my record players and enjoy playing my LPs, because of my involvement in record player design and recording I know they are not accurate, but I don't have a problem with that at all, I just enjoy listening.
I have no problem with acknowledging the fact that LP replay is a considerable compromise compared to reel-to-reel tape but rejoice in the fortunate happenstance that is still sounds lovely.
Reel-to reel tape is not as accurate as a StellaDAT, but the change to the sound is euphonic and really nice. I had a friend who thought a CD recorded onto a tape recorder sounded nicer than the original.
I had the both the A-77 & B-77, stock units were good but nothing special and yes at its best R2R tape is better than lp, more natural. Its the accuracy part as it relates to CD vs analog vinyl sound which remains undefined. Are you saying that CD playback is more natural and realistic than high end vinyl playback as compared to reality?
Its the accuracy part as it relates to CD vs analog vinyl sound which remains undefined. Are you saying that CD playback is more natural and realistic than high end vinyl playback as compared to reality?
so tell me what is 'revolutionary' about digital since 2001.
it's still PCM and dsd (or multiples of such). and many claim higher rez of those formats are not better. and the best PCM dacs use chips designed prior to 2001. I had the same digital player (which was at or near SOTA) from 2005 thru late last summer. 9 years. with dsd it was and is still up there.
the truth is that there is little new in digital.
OTOH there are many many big dollar tt's, arms, phono stages and cartridges being built with better and better performance with increasing momentum since 2001.
Several have already beat me to it apparently!
See all above, not to mention the convenience of formats like FLAC, the computer <-> music server revolution including remote access and "audiophile" music apps like Rune and JRiver which can integrate DSP. And 2xDSD. And new and improved/higher bit count DAC chips. And high quality Audiophile USB connectivity interfaces. And the proliferation of I2S external out. And commonality of HW/SW upsampling. And ...
How about analog? What in 15 years has been revolutionary to the rod cantilevering a weight and a rock in a groove spun via the motor and pulley on a chunk of material that (hopefully) controls resonance? There's nothing new, just evolutionary changes to an old technology because of a niche high - end audiophile market driving high margin sales. To be clear - I think vinyl can sound great, but it's a been there done that technology getting tweaked for those with big wallets...
I had the both the A-77 & B-77, stock units were good but nothing special and yes at its best R2R tape is better than lp, more natural. Its the accuracy part as it relates to CD vs analog vinyl sound which remains undefined. Are you saying that CD playback is more natural and realistic than high end vinyl playback as compared to reality?
No, though it almost certainly is, since LP is not an especially high-fidelity, in the literal sense of the English, medium but does sound lovely by fortunate happenstance, IME.
I am saying digital recording is more faithful to the original than reel-to-reel tape and I have done both and know this by comparing the input to the recorder (the microphone feed) to the recorder output. Also reel-to-reel tape is more faithful to the original than an LP could possibly be for reasons which have been well known for decades.
Whether this lack of faithfulness makes it sound more natural to some people is a matter for them to decide.
I had the both the A-77 & B-77, stock units were good but nothing special and yes at its best R2R tape is better than lp, more natural. Its the accuracy part as it relates to CD vs analog vinyl sound which remains undefined. Are you saying that CD playback is more natural and realistic than high end vinyl playback as compared to reality?
This is at the heart of the matter. The question is often asked and rarely answered. I have also asked how different the direct mic feed played through the studio monitors sounds from the live performance in the next room. That question also remains unanswered.
This whole thread seems to be a discussion about:
1. how accurate a copy the digital file is to the original recording, and
2. whether or not analog playback through a system sounds like real music
These are two different discussions and perhaps that is why we seem to keep going around in circles. When discussing #1, digital guys defend theories and write that analog lovers like distortions but that is fine if they prefer that sound. When discussing #2, analog guys contend that vinyl sounds more real and describe things like tone, naturalness and live music. They acknowledge that digital is improving, but that it still does not sound as real to them.
This is at the heart of the matter. The question is often asked and rarely answered. I have also asked how different the direct mic feed played through the studio monitors sounds from the live performance in the next room. That question also remains unanswered.
This whole thread seems to be a discussion about:
1. how accurate a copy the digital file is to the original recording, and
2. whether or not analog playback through a system sounds like real music
These are two different discussions and perhaps that is why we seem to keep going around in circles. When discussing #1, digital guys defend theories and write that analog lovers like distortions but that is fine if they prefer that sound. When discussing #2, analog guys contend that vinyl sounds more real and describe things like tone, naturalness and live music. They acknowledge that digital is improving, but that it still does not sound as real to them.
This is at the heart of the matter. The question is often asked and rarely answered. I have also asked how different the direct mic feed played through the studio monitors sounds from the live performance in the next room. That question also remains unanswered.
This whole thread seems to be a discussion about:
1. how accurate a copy the digital file is to the original recording, and
2. whether or not analog playback through a system sounds like real music
These are two different discussions and perhaps that is why we seem to keep going around in circles. When discussing #1, digital guys defend theories and write that analog lovers like distortions but that is fine if they prefer that sound. When discussing #2, analog guys contend that vinyl sounds more real and describe things like tone, naturalness and live music. They acknowledge that digital is improving, but that it still does not sound as real to them.
I don't. I know that analog has its technical shortcomings and its own colorations, but if it sounds more real to me, and it does in many cases, I would not use the term 'distortion'.
When discussing #2, analog guys contend that vinyl sounds more real and describe things like tone, naturalness and live music.
I do as well when comparing to most digital playback, and I am a digital guy. Yet I would add one caveat here: while you and I and others do reference the sound that we hear to live music (regardless of the question if it sounds like the original recording, because this we cannot answer), I bet that there are just as many who prefer analog because they 'like it better', not because it sounds more real to them.
They acknowledge that digital is improving, but that it still does not sound as real to them.
In most cases, that is how I see it too. Yet I thought the dCS Rossini sounded very real and natural, comparable with great analog playback, and you seemed to think so as well, as you describe it here:
How about analog? What in 15 years has been revolutionary to the rod cantilevered via a weight and a rock in a groove spun via the motor and pulley on a chunk of material that (hopefully) controls resonance? There's nothing new, just evolutionary changes to an old technology because of a niche high - end audiophile market driving high margin sales. To be clear - I think vinyl can sound great, but it's a been there done that technology getting tweaked for those with big wallets...
The sound quality of some phono stages have improved but as far as tt/arm/cartridges I haven't heard anything new even in the top end that surpasses the best of the 60's. By the 70's the vinyl tech had peaked, aside from a few very high end tt's nothing major happened after that. If anything we're playing catchup today with vinyl to what was, starting with the recordings! That side of the industry is gone and the little that remains is mostly struggling with mediocrity as are the vinyl plants. The motor that you mentioned, that industry is also gone, the turntable manufacturers have to contend with the inadequacies of dc motors in belt and idler designs. Without adequate infrastructure I don't see any forthcoming advances in vinyl tech either...
This is at the heart of the matter. The question is often asked and rarely answered. I have also asked how different the direct mic feed played through the studio monitors sounds from the live performance in the next room. That question also remains unanswered.
This whole thread seems to be a discussion about:
1. how accurate a copy the digital file is to the original recording, and
2. whether or not analog playback through a system sounds like real music
These are two different discussions and perhaps that is why we seem to keep going around in circles. When discussing #1, digital guys defend theories and write that analog lovers like distortions but that is fine if they prefer that sound. When discussing #2, analog guys contend that vinyl sounds more real and describe things like tone, naturalness and live music. They acknowledge that digital is improving, but that it still does not sound as real to them.
As a point of clarification I see people are alluding to comments I made about the TechDas vs the AS and the EMT 927 as sounding better than my TechDas AF1 (which I love BTW). The reality is that the AS as best David knows has only 2 in existence. It was mesmerizing to my ears as was the EMT 927 with the same arm and cartridge. From this please do not infer that the AF1 is any slouch as it is far from that. As David also pointed out he also had 2 Micro Seikei TT's set up which I also did not hear.
This is at the heart of the matter. The question is often asked and rarely answered. I have also asked how different the direct mic feed played through the studio monitors sounds from the live performance in the next room. That question also remains unanswered.
This whole thread seems to be a discussion about:
1. how accurate a copy the digital file is to the original recording, and.
2. whether or not analog playback through a system sounds like real music
These are two different discussions and perhaps that is why we seem to keep going around in circles. When discussing #1, digital guys defend theories and write that analog lovers like distortions but that is fine if they prefer that sound. When discussing #2, analog guys contend that vinyl sounds more real and describe things like tone, naturalness and live music. They acknowledge that digital is improving, but that it still does not sound as real to them.
As a point of clarification I see people are alluding to comments I made about the TechDas vs the AS and the EMT 927 as sounding better than my TechDas AF1 (which I love BTW). The reality is that the AS as best David knows has only 2 in existence. It was mesmerizing to my ears as was the EMT 927 with the same arm and cartridge. From this please do not infer that the AF1 is any slouch as it is far from that. As David also pointed out he also had 2 Micro Seikei TT's set up which I also did not hear.
I love TS too. I have heard it many times at shows, at DDk's and it totally transformed the system at Steve's. in fact if I go down vinyl I will fix my upper limit at AF3 (famous last words)
I am disappointed, and a bit surprised, that some people on this forum refer to "digital guys" and "analog guys".
I would think that such guys are a small minority of "extremist" audiophiles, surely?
I enjoy both, and have used both for decades as do most of the other audiophiles of my aquaintance. I have fabulous sounding and gash LPs. I have fabulous and gash sounding CDs. In fact the worst CDs tend to be recent remastered ones, not early ones which usually rejoiced in and exploited CDs dynamic range, something new to home listening at the time.
My preferred recordings tend to be those made with a simple microphone layout, which tend to be earlier, whether CD or LP.
As a point of clarification I see people are alluding to comments I made about the TechDas vs the AS and the EMT 927 as sounding better than my TechDas AF1 (which I love BTW). The reality is that the AS as best David knows has only 2 in existence. It was mesmerizing to my ears as was the EMT 927 with the same arm and cartridge. From this please do not infer that the AF1 is any slouch as it is far from that. As David also pointed out he also had 2 Micro Seikei TT's set up which I also did not hear.
Nor have I... I did however pointed out that ddk's ""old" TTS challenge and for some surpass what is today's o-called SOTA thus the question beg an answer how fast has LP been progressing ? in the past 15 years compared to digital. I understand loving a medium but this is an extreme love.
Today people are going for those old TTs; the EMT, MicroSeiki, Technics, Garrard, Luxman, Goldmund, Thorens .. I don't see people going back to the "great" DACs of yore, perhaps not yet .
