New TT - I hate it

cmy330go

marly421 wrote: »

so just give it up already. Wasting $300 or a $1000 an a turntable is like trying to remarry or ex wife or husband...did that already, stupid to try again.

And 99% of the people are not able to hear the difference of a $90 DVD/CD player and a $1000 one either. Believe baby's believe.

Another strong opinion from someone who obviously has no clue.:rolleyes:

cmy330go

madmax wrote: »

And here is the proof you have not listened to a really good vinyl/tube setup. (not giving you a hard time or anything).

Awhile back I replaced my tube preamp with a really good SS one. As I sat there listening I was totally uninvolved staring off into the distance. After a few minutes I realized this sound meant nothing to me so I started analyzing what was going on. Does it sound worse than it did? No, it was actually a little cleaner sounding. Was anything missing? Not that I could detect. Was the tonal balance different in some way? Certainly didn't hear anything different.

So what was going on? Still don't know. It sounded as good as ever. Maybe I just knew there were no tubes there? Not likely, I was pretty excited about the preamp. It was quite classy looking and VERY solidly built. I really expected it to perform flawlessly, which it did except for this.

No emotion. It was clear.
madmax

Thank you Chuck! Well said.

I'm not trying to piss Cathy off, but I find it virtually impossible to believe that she has TRULY heard a good vinyl rig.

I have never had a single person (audiophile or not) listen to vinyl on my rig and suggest that it was inferior to CD. They are almost always blown away by how sweet it sounds.

I guess ultimately what I'm trying to say is if someone has given both formats a truly fair chance, and decide that digital is the route for them.....fine. But I have never heard a single person describe a known good vinyl rig the way Cathy has.

heiney9

Sona wrote: »

Is clarity the same as detail? I think I'd like more clarity without excessive detail, so I wonder just how much they go hand in hand. When is distortion good? That may sound like a dumb question, but I've been thinking about it a lot lately. I've become sensitized to it, but I don't always like what I hear when it's gone. Is distortion really the province of vinyl? Sona

Distortion is a big part of the analog signal. You have odd harmonic distortion and even harmonic distortion. Any odd harmonics will sound unnatural and will be easliy detected by critical listeners and in some cases is waht causes listener fatigue. Even harmonic (by order) distortion gives tubes and vinyl that very laid back sound some feel it adds to the "emotional" impact of the music being played. You can go too far both ways. Poor digital reproduction can sound very analytical and detatched from the actual music, sort of like a colorless painting. Whereas poor analog can sound distorted, laid back, fuzzy and hazy when being played sort of like a blurriy colored painting.

The key for both mediums is to meet somewhere in the middle. Very good digital can sound very laid back and non-analytical but still have a clarity, immediacy and impact that is missing from analog. Conversely analog can have some of the clarity, dynamics and immediacy provided by digital when it's done right.

1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th. 5th, and so on, etc. order harmonics play a very large part in the texture of an instrument and are what gives each instrument it's unique sound add too much of the wrong kind and it sounds like ****. Add to little of the right kind same result.

There is room for both analog and digital. Personally as I've said before I prefer a great digital front end because it doesn't have hardly if any at all of the pitfalls of the typical digital characteristics.

But in the end it's really all about the RECORDING. If it's not on the recording to begin with you'll never find it. There are so many (a majority) of popular recordings that simply sound awful because of the way they were recorded and mastered. I think one may find more poor digital transfers than poor analog recordings.

When digital is done correctly it sounds absolutely fantastic.

H9

hearingimpared

marly421 wrote: »

so just give it up already. Wasting $300 or a $1000 an a turntable is like trying to remarry or ex wife or husband...did that already, stupid to try again.

And 99% of the people are not able to hear the difference of a $90 DVD/CD player and a $1000 one either. Believe baby's believe.

ROTFLMAO!!! LOL!!!

Um . . . . yeah.:rolleyes:

You should see an ENT specialist also known as an Otologist. You have some serious ear problems.

hearingimpared

heiney9 wrote: »

When digital is done correctly it sounds absolutely fantastic.

H9

I totally agree. :cool:

I've heard it and it is very involving. . .the problem was the price tag! not that a TT/tonearm/cartrige combo is any cheaper. So I am right back to the beginning of this debate. WAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

heiney9

hearingimpared wrote: »

I totally agree. :cool:

I've heard it and it is very involving. . .the problem was the price tag! not that a TT/tonearm/cartrige combo is any cheaper. So I am right back to the beginning of this debate. WAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

My statement also includes the recording/mastering/transfer as well. That is a huge part of why digital in some cases sounds so awful. I really believe that; because listening to properly transfered analog masters or properly recorded digital recordings really makes a huge difference.

2 prime examples off the top of my head

Talking Heads- Stop Making Sense. is a superb tranfer from analog
Eric Clapton- Unplugged is a superb all digital recording.

The 2nd metnion there is something I've always wondered about. Anyone own the vinyl version of EC-Unplugged? How does it sound? Better yet if it sounds so good on vinyl why is that? It was a straight all digital recording and then mastered to vinyl. Kinda seems totally the opposite of what all the die hard analog folks are trying to argue.

For it to be true analog it should have been recorded using analog equipment and then transfered to vinyl. Makes me wonder.

madmax

I have a KISS live unplugged LP. It sounds so rough it becomes a joy to listen too. They are playing everything unplugged and with their style, it just plain don't sound pretty. I love it.
madmax

reeltrouble1

shack wrote: »

Ted, it appears we have uncovered another Anti HI-FI Audio Insurgent...

waaaaaaaaaa, well without them how would the rest of us ever get set straight about things, I do feel some empathy for the tone deaf.:rolleyes::D

I would love to see just one of them at the Fest, Fisher Price against, oh who knows what jewels you might find just laying around. Come to think of it, its really not my bag.

RT1

reeltrouble1

I bet some of you 1/0 guys are into digital searches as well.

RT1

cfrizz

The main thing with me is I don't ascribe emotion to a machine. Not to a record player, cd player, dvd player etc! THEY ARE JUST MACHINES! A means to an end.

It's about the music, which at it's best should tell a story. If the story is moving, I will be moved emotionally. I don't care if it's played on a radio, tv, record, cd, dvd, tape video. I will be moved.

Examples, The finale of the Sound Of Music. As the music of Climb Every Mountain builds & swells, I get emotional, because that music means the Von Trapp family got out of **** Germany to eventually the beautiful freedom of Vermont in these United States! It's what this country is all about. I have this album on record, tape, cd, & dvd. It gets to me everytime because what that music represents.

Whenever I hear Eric Clapton's Tears In Heaven, I am moved to tears because that music represents his pain, suffering & loss. I hear it on the radio, I have on cd & dvd. The reaction is the same no matter the format.

It's the reason why I don't like jazz like The Pawnshop. It doesn't tell a story, it doesn't move me, its just a bunch of random music with no rhyme or reason.

If it's not in the music, no machine can put it there!

I will buy the best machine that I can afford to get all the details, & clarity that is in the music, but I been there & done that with records for years. It was an imperfect, high maintenance system with questionable clarity when it was in it's hey day, & regardless how many thousands of dollars spent on the machines ultimately it is still an imperfect, high maintenance system with questionable clarity.

CD's give me the clarity I demand, the ease of use & maintenance, and get all the emotion that I can handle from the MUSIC! Which is how it should be.

cmy330go wrote: »

Thank you Chuck! Well said.

I'm not trying to piss Cathy off, but I find it virtually impossible to believe that she has TRULY heard a good vinyl rig.

I have never had a single person (audiophile or not) listen to vinyl on my rig and suggest that it was inferior to CD. They are almost always blown away by how sweet it sounds.

I guess ultimately what I'm trying to say is if someone has given both formats a truly fair chance, and decide that digital is the route for them.....fine. But I have never heard a single person describe a known good vinyl rig the way Cathy has.

madmax

Things have changed since 1976. None of the equipment I would ever consider has been around for more than a few years. This is a new age. Time to make a change. Try new things. Get out of those old grooves and into some new ones. (end of slogan list)

heiney9

cfrizz wrote: »

The main thing with me is I don't ascribe emotion to a machine. Not to a record player, cd player, dvd player etc! THEY ARE JUST MACHINES! A means to an end.

It's about the music, which at it's best should tell a story. If the story is moving, I will be moved emotionally. I don't care if it's played on a radio, tv, record, cd, dvd, tape video. I will be moved.

Cathy, you and I are in agreement for the most part in this thread. But I have to say if I heard a favorite piece of music of mine thru my TV speakers vs. my SDA's, I'd have to say I'd get more of an emotional high from the big rig rather than the TV speakers.

For me it's a combination of many things to get that "high" off the music and or muscians. I can listen to tin can sounding Led Zep boots all day long and be moved by what I hear. But if I knew said exact same recording was in better fidelity I'd seek that out and get the same "high". What I'm trying to say no so eloquently is sometimes it is just about the music for me, but most times it's how good it sounds as well as the music.

hearingimpared

heiney9 wrote: »

My statement also includes the recording/mastering/transfer as well. That is a huge part of why digital in some cases sounds so awful. I really believe that; because listening to properly transfered analog masters or properly recorded digital recordings really makes a huge difference.

2 prime examples off the top of my head

Talking Heads- Stop Making Sense. is a superb tranfer from analog
Eric Clapton- Unplugged is a superb all digital recording.

The 2nd metnion there is something I've always wondered about. Anyone own the vinyl version of EC-Unplugged? How does it sound? Better yet if it sounds so good on vinyl why is that? It was a straight all digital recording and then mastered to vinyl. Kinda seems totally the opposite of what all the die hard analog folks are trying to argue.

For it to be true analog it should have been recorded using analog equipment and then transfered to vinyl. Makes me wonder.

I'm not so sure. I've lots of digital recordings on vinyl that sound incredible. . .Telarc recordings for instance. . . heck Dire Staits BIA. Done well, the sound is wonderful. However here is an instance of very well recorded material put to vinyl that sounds dry and anticeptic. The Rolling Stones new release of "Let It Bleed" it is done in the DSD format that SACDs are. It sounds like an SACD to me. . .that 's not to say it doesn't sound good, it just doesn't sound like an "analog" recording. Most of the Telarc recordings I have, really sound like excellent analog recordings.

mhardy6647

Things have changed since 1976. None of the equipment I would ever consider has been around for more than a few years. This is a new age. Time to make a change. Try new things. Get out of those old grooves and into some new ones. (end of slogan list)

Unfortunately, two of the best turntable decks ever made were in production long before 1976...





This thread has provided considerable entertainment... pray, continue.

heiney9

hearingimpared wrote: »

I'm not so sure. I've lots of digital recordings on vinyl that sound incredible. . .Telarc recordings for instance. . . heck Dire Staits BIA. Done well, the sound is wonderful. However here is an instance of very well recorded material put to vinyl that sounds dry and anticeptic. The Rolling Stones new release of "Let It Bleed" it is done in the DSD format that SACDs are. It sounds like an SACD to me. . .that 's not to say it doesn't sound good, it just doesn't sound like an "analog" recording. Most of the Telarc recordings I have, really sound like excellent analog recordings.

So that begs the question if it's really the process of recording/mastering the music or the actual method used analog vs. digital. Obviously those RS releases are of analog origin so did some producer/engineer screw with them to try and make them sound better and in the end ruin them?

Telarc are excellent recordings but correct me if I'm wrong they are solely recorded using digital methods from start to finish. So again that goes back to the question above. I think this thread has demonstrated that there are great and not so great recordings utilizing both methods, so in the end the process not the method that determines what sounds good and not so good.

H9

madmax

I'm more of this faith...

hearingimpared

cfrizz wrote: »

The main thing with me is I don't ascribe emotion to a machine. Not to a record player, cd player, dvd player etc! THEY ARE JUST MACHINES! A means to an end.

It's about the music, which at it's best should tell a story. If the story is moving, I will be moved emotionally. I don't care if it's played on a radio, tv, record, cd, dvd, tape video. I will be moved.

This is basically what I said some posts ago. . . the music, the music, the music. . .

However there is one thing here that I don't think I've made clear to you that you aren't considering either. You can have the exact same piece of music let's say Tchaikovsky's 1812 OVerture (mainly because we can all agree that is an emotional recording) performed by two different orchestras and if the performance is poor then the awesome music looses it's emotional punch. I've experienced that and as Brock said about the LZ boots.

That being said, the playback on my turntable of most musical pieces is more involving emotionally to me. As I said before it has more pizazzzz than the dry, anticeptic redbook recordings.

Perhaps you could also see why the redbook of DSOTM pales in comparison to the SACD version. I can tell you I get a similar involvement with both the analog and SACD versions of this recording. . . the redbook CDs that I have of this are a disgrace to the excellance of the engineering.

I can't believe your perception of Jazz at the Pawnshop. All the songs tell a story and they are performed exquisitely. Perhaps you just don't like that genre or perhaps because you heard it on SACD rather than on an analog front end and you weren't moved. No digital version of JATP moves me like the LP does. . .they just don't convey the absolute liveness of that recording.

madmax

Cathy, let me explain this as it was explained to me over 20 years ago when I wanted to play with records my cousin used to own. "There are little people living in there so don't touch them or the little people will die".
madmax

reeltrouble1

cfrizz wrote: »

THEY ARE JUST MACHINES! no machine can put it there! I will buy the best machine.

Whats left to say except:

Welcome to the Machine............:eek:

RT1

hearingimpared

madmax wrote: »

I'm more of this faith...

I love it when the marketing department of a $20,000 turntable features the tonearm I use. . . I must have heard something right when I decided to purchase the SME V.

madmax

It IS the coolest looking arm on the planet. (not to mention one of the better sounding ones).
madmax

hearingimpared

heiney9 wrote: »

So that begs the question if it's really the process of recording/mastering the music or the actual method used analog vs. digital. Obviously those RS releases are of analog origin so did some producer/engineer screw with them to try and make them sound better and in the end ruin them?

Telarc are excellent recordings but correct me if I'm wrong they are solely recorded using digital methods from start to finish. So again that goes back to the question above. I think this thread has demonstrated that there are great and not so great recordings utilizing both methods, so in the end the process not the method that determines what sounds good and not so good.

H9

Here's an example of the source. Madmax sent me a CDR of a recording. It was the LP of Traffic's "Low Spark of High Heeled Boy". Now lets forget about the all the work done to make the record and use the record as the only source an analog source.

Madmax recorded this record through his Manley Steelhead and then his tubed preamp and burned the CDR.

I played this title song several times and was totally sucked up into the recording. When I played it for the other six Polkies here yesterday, they were blow away.

Here we have a CD being played via an Oppo transport and Timbre DAC from a record . . . it sounds completely analog and wonderful!!!

BTW thanks again Chuck!

EDIT: Now I need to dig up the LP and A/B it to this outstanding CDR.

hearingimpared

madmax wrote: »

It IS the coolest looking arm on the planet. (not to mention one of the better sounding ones).
madmax

I'm sending it into SME to have it brought up to date. . . new bearing, new silver wiring, new armtube damping, etc. . . the only down side to this is that this process is very expensive not to mention time consuming.

BTW I AM NOT spending another $500 to have them repaint it in gold lettering. . .they could not assure me that it would improve the sound so forget that.

madmax

Mine is all dusty. I wonder how much they charge for dusting? I'm torn about how to wipe it off.
madmax

Edit: On the recording, it went from the Steelhead directly into the CD recorder. No preamp.

heiney9

madmax wrote: »

Mine is all dusty. I wonder how much they charge for dusting? I'm torn about how to wipe it off.
madmax

Purse your lips together, inhale and blow, being careful no to spittle all over the delicate parts :eek:

H9

reeltrouble1

Well, the Steelhead is really a pre No?

RT1

heiney9

madmax wrote: »

madmax

Edit: On the recording, it went from the Steelhead directly into the CD recorder. No preamp.

I'm not going to get all technical here but unless you have a studio quality A/D converter you are really at the mercy of the internal ADC and from what I've seen they are only average in most stand alone cd recorders. So the high end analog rig thru a high end phono pre into a marginal ADC (compared to thre rest of the gear) seems to be a bit perplexing to me and then to rave about the transfer.

Those stand alone CD recorders certainly are nifty but certainly not on par with the rest of the equipment. The weak link so to speak.

heiney9

All the same caveats apply for going from analog to digital. Superb PS regulation, class A input stage, jitter reduction, etc, etc. That's all I'm refering to. Just throwing it out there.

hearingimpared

madmax wrote: »

Mine is all dusty. I wonder how much they charge for dusting? I'm torn about how to wipe it off.
madmax

Edit: On the recording, it went from the Steelhead directly into the CD recorder. No preamp.

I thought you would've needed a preamp for the tape loop switching, well there goes my logic.

I use long wooded q-tips to dust mine off. I've also used a drop of Windex on stubborn spots but not directly on the tonearm finish. . . I placed some on the swab. When I first took it out of storage it was quite dirty and seemed a little oxidized but now it looks new. You just have to be very patient when doing it.

cfrizz

Chuck, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!:D

Ted, Let me try to explain. I have an old tape of the Bee Gees hits. One of my favorite songs is I've Got To Get A Message To You. I played this for years on my 17 yr old Onkyo tape deck that is in my signature. Is it hissy? Absolutely.

A few years back I got the Bee Gees The Record. Beautifully remastered. It sounded wonderful on my old Rotel RCD 855 & Denon 3802. Then I got my 205wpc Parasound amp, & this was one of the first songs I played with it.

I DAMN NEAR FAINTED! For the first time ever I heard as clear as a bell someone striking what sounds like a triangle or it may just be a cymbal. I was so startled because I NEVER heard it before.

I went back & played my tape, it was there, but it was so muffled that it's no wonder that I missed it. It certainly wasn't muffled on THIS particular cd, I just couldn't distinguish it with just my receiver pushing my speakers.

I recently downloaded the complete version of the song off of their Number Ones album. It is clear that they took an old copy from an old copy to put in this album. Because while the triangle/cymbal is there is is again muddled & indistinct. It's kinda hard to tell what instrument is playing it.

My point? 3 different versions/sources, 3 different results. The music was always there, but depending on who was doing what with the source, I got 3 different results.

My current machines allow me to hear the differences, but the triangle/cymbal strikes were always there!

reeltrouble1 wrote: »

Whats left to say except:

Welcome to the Machine............:eek:

RT1

madmax wrote:

Cathy, let me explain this as it was explained to me over 20 years ago when I wanted to play with records my cousin used to own. "There are little people living in there so don't touch them or the little people will die". madmax