Who plays vinyl records here? What have you bought lately? (1 Viewer)

[RichP]

No "conversion" perhaps, but it requires manipulation of the signal for certain. Are you intimating that everything that is recorded to a 15ips tape in a recording studio is captured perfectly on an LP?

 

[Lee Scoggins]

"I said it was not and data has been provided in this thread that supports that."

You have not presented any evidence suggests that the LP has less resolution than hirez PCM. I have shared expert opinions on the matter.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

"Are you intimating that everything that is recorded to a 15ips tape in a recording studio is captured perfectly on an LP?"

It's close enough to not matter in my experience. Substantially all the music content gets embedded in those grooves.

 

[RichP]

LPs do not I repeat do not carry much if any audio frequencies > 12kHz, and none at all > 16Khz. That is a fact (you know, objective) that can be verified by anyone with a turntable and a frequency spectrum plotter. That alone defines them as non "hi-rez."

Moreover, anyone that understands how LPs actually work, also understands that bass frequencies must be attenuated to prevent stylus jumping and other nasty artifacts. Add to that, inner groove distortion and the fact that physical placement of tracks on an LP affects their relative sound quality and you've more than proven the point.

There are a dozen other verifiable reasons why your statement is wrong. If you choose to overlook them, then you are simply another vinyl apologist

 

[RichP]

Wow. I think that pretty much says it all right there. A vinyl apologist for sure.

Enjoy!

 

[Phil A]

Lee, as noted I've had people over here with modern converters and a friend who worked at a high end shop and owned it originally and there were other more modern things available to compare. It not only held its own it was clearly better. There are other old DACs as well I've heard that can really put many modern things to shame (e.g. I have another friend who has a Goldmund that ain't cheap and probably 10 yrs. old or close to that or even a bit more and still smokes most things out there - he used to work in the audio business too). I agree that any sampling and conversion is not going to be a perfect process. There are problems in the analog domain as well from tape wow and flutter and other things as well. As are ears are analog (at least currently), we eventually need an analog signal. As with any medium there are things that are done well and other things that aren't. I have CDs that sound great and others that quite frankly suck sonically.

Vinyl can sound as good or better in some ways that hi-rez stuff but the medium does have some limitations. It's not going to compete when it comes to surface noise or dynamic range. It can show more natural timbres of voices and instruments and very accurate soundstaging. The problem is that most phono preamps that the avg. person here is listening thru is in a device designed primarilty for HT use or a rec'r of sort where the product was gotten to market at a price point. As I noted in my previous post it is extremely helpful rather than make a general comment to know what someone is listening on and how they come to their conclusions. I've heard all levels of vinyl playback equipment. I've heard some stuff that sounded really great. I still would not personally own it. I have friends who have good to really great vinyl playback and while they play it sometimes, it tends to be more idle than other media. There are more ltd. vinyl releases of new stuff and the better sounding ones are usually done by audiophile labels and are not cheap. Most of them have the older mat'l they want and so it is rare that they pick up that much used vinyl either. I still have some LDs and some sound better than the DVD counterparts but don't look as good. I'll play them sometimes but only a small fraction of DVD playback time.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

"LPs do not I repeat do not carry much if any audio frequencies > 12kHz, and none at all > 16Khz. That is a fact (you know, objective) that can be verified by anyone with a turntable and a frequency spectrum plotter. That alone defines them as non "hi-rez.""

That is simply false Rich. You clearly don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

"Vinyl can sound as good or better in some ways that hi-rez stuff but the medium does have some limitations. It's not going to compete when it comes to surface noise or dynamic range."

Surface noise for sure but I'm not sure about dynamics. LPs do dynamics and dynamic range quite well. According to Ludwig they can extend up to 50khz.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

From Ludwig:

"It is customary to believe that the CD is superior to the LP in terms of bandwidth, but this is not the case. The CD is limited to 22,000 cycles, whereas the LP is able to reproduce frequencies up to 50,000 cycles, which in the PCM world equals a sampling rate at 100 kHz. The bottom line is that LPs mastered with DMM still sound really good."

Link: http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_bob_ludwig/

 

[Lee Scoggins]

More thoughts on analog versus digital:

http://www.stereophile.com/news/10279/index.html

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Another comparison:

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/...DsDynamics.php

 

[Kevin C Brown]

Lps and turntables don't carry/convery much info above 12kHz or 16khz? Hmmm... Someone should tell that to all the reviewers from Stereo Review, High Fidelity, Audio and the other publications who actually measured turntable/cartridge/phono preamp performance in the 70's and 80's where they routinely got response out to beyond 20kHz!

 

[Phil A]

There's no doubt that dynamics are different from dynamic range. I indicated dynamic range. Lee, nothing at all personal but it seems as if you either miss the point often or stretch things to make the facts fit. I do listen to a variety of music. To listen to something like classical at what I would term realistic levels can often leave something to be desired with the very low volume recorded passages. I also noted that I think there can be great sound from LPs. I enjoyed LPs when I had them. As to facts you may wish to look at. What often also gets overlooked besides the wear on the records is the wear on the stylus and the life of the cartridge. Yes CD players have lasers or transports that can go bad or wear or get misaligned. A turntable is also a transport that can wear. I won't get back into vinyl for a variety of reasons among them the proper storage and care (and I freely admit to being a mildly neurotic audiophile) and the fact that the media does degrade over each play to some degree. In the old days when I'd buy a MoFi, I'd record it on the 1st or 2nd play on cassette (often in the latter days with dBX). I still have those cassettes and one also must remember with analog tape of any kind those too don't get better with age (neither do I but that's a better post in a Geritol forum) So this notion of analog being absolutely superior to anything digital in all cases (or vice versa) gets a bit silly.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramophone_record

"
The frequency response of vinyl records may be degraded by frequent playback if the cartridge is set to track too heavily, or the stylus is not compliant enough to trace the high frequency grooves accurately, or the cartridge/tonearm is not properly aligned. The RIAA has suggested the following acceptable losses: down to 20 kHz after one play, 18 kHz after three plays, 17 kHz after five, 16 kHz after eight, 14 kHz after fifteen, 13 kHz after twenty five, 10 kHz after thirty five, and 8 kHz after eighty plays. While this degradation is possible if the record is played on improperly set up equipment, many collectors of LPs report excellent sound quality on LPs played many more times when using care and high quality equipment.

Gramophone sound suffers from rumble, low-frequency (below about 30 Hz) mechanical noise generated by the motor bearings and picked up by the stylus. Equipment of modest quality is relatively unaffected by these issues, as the amplifier and speaker will not reproduce such low frequencies, but high-fidelity turntable assemblies need careful design to minimise audible rumble.

Room vibrations will also be picked up if the pedestal - turntable - pickup arm - stylus system is not well damped.

Tonearm skating forces and other perturbations are also picked up by the stylus. This is a form of frequency multiplexing as the "control signal" (restoring force) used to keep the stylus in the groove is carried by the same mechanism as the sound itself. Subsonic frequencies below about 20 Hz in the audio signal are dominated by tracking effects, which is one form of unwanted rumble ("tracking noise") and merges with audible frequencies in the deep bass range up to about 100 Hz. High fidelity sound equipment can reproduce tracking noise and rumble. During a quiet passage, woofer speaker cones can sometimes be seen to vibrate with the subsonic tracking of the stylus, at frequencies as low as about 0.5 Hz (the frequency at which a 33-1/3 rpm record turns on the turntable).

At high audible frequencies, hiss is generated as the stylus rubs against the vinyl, and from dirt and dust on the vinyl.


Columbia and RCA's competition extended to equipment. Some turntables included spindle size adapters, but other turntables required snap-in inserts like this one to adapt RCA's larger 45 rpm spindle size to the smaller spindle size available on nearly all turntables.

[edit] Equalization
Due to recording mastering and manufacturing limitations, both high and low frequencies were removed from the first recorded signals by various formulae. With low frequencies, the stylus must swing a long way from side to side, requiring the groove to be wide, taking up more space and limiting the playing time of the record. At high frequencies noise is significant. These problems can be compensated for by using equalization to an agreed standard. This simply means reducing the amplitude at low-frequencies, thus reducing the groove width required, and increasing the amplitude at high frequencies. The playback equipment boosts bass and cuts treble in a complementary way. The result should be that the sound is perceived to be without change, thus more music will fit the record, and noise is reduced.

The agreed standard has been RIAA equalization since 1952, implemented in 1955. Prior to that, especially from 1940, some 100 formulae were used by the record manufacturers."

 

[Lee Scoggins]

"Someone should tell that to all the reviewers from Stereo Review, High Fidelity, Audio and the other publications who actually measured turntable/cartridge/phono preamp performance in the 70's and 80's where they routinely got response out to beyond 20kHz!"

Exactly Kevin. Again, many prominent engineers feel the dynamic range extends all the way to 50khz. That's 28,000 more than 16/44.

Phil raises a point about wear but many experts think degradation only sets in after many dozens of plays. I don't put a lot of stock in RIAA based on their past performance.

 

[Phil A]

Here's another detailed piece from a co. that does mastering for major labels:

http://www.recordtech.com/prodsounds.htm

"
THE following was written to aid engineers and producers who wish to release vinyl records. It is especially important for those who may be well versed in recording, but have not released vinyl records before. The paper is mainly about "pop" music , but the principles apply to all others. It was written to explain a complicated transformation in as simple terms as possible. To some it may seem very technical, to technical types it will seem simplistic. It was written for the "middle ground".


PRODUCING GREAT SOUNDING PHONOGRAPH RECORDS
(or Why Records Don’t Always Sound Like the Master Tape)

BY: KEVIN GRAY 5/3/97

The phonograph record is a marvelous medium for storing and reproducing sound. With frequency response from 7 Hz to 25kHz and over 75 dB dynamic range possible, it is capable of startling realism. Its ability to convey a sense of space, that is width and depth of sound stage, with a degree of openness and airiness, is unrivaled by anything but the most esoteric digital systems. "

 

[Phil A]

Lee, this is just an FYI. To those who have been around high end audio to a significant degree, it's a pretty well known fact that the DAC I noted will blow many modern DACs out of the water in every aspect. Lucky for me I had a friend in high end audio and for a 5 yr. period I did virtually all his deliveries/installs with him (and have seen many things) and it was largely high end 2-channel and not an extreme rarity to see a six figure 2-channel system and $50+k was very common. Micromega also did OEM stuff for others that were even more expensive than its brand and the noted DAC probably is significantly the same as something else that likely retailed for perhaps double its $3k list or more. They were a French co. that stopped distribution in the US and were never a big household name here. I might have the date wrong by a few yrs. I found this ad in Audiogon and it took a whole day for someone to grab it the ad has a link to a picture incl. the bottom which has a spike in the chassis near the power supply and the small DAC is not light either. The other one you might want to check out is:

http://cls.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls....onv&1174360057

there are not many things I've heard in the category of the above - I don't care how new it is.

http://cls.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls....onv&1174960074

Micromega DUO Pro hard to find high end dac
Asking $600.00 SOLD
New Retail -
Condition 7/10
Days/Views 1 / 423
Ship cost Plus shipping
Ship from 12 lbs from 18951
Ship to Worldwide
Included Box, Manual

About Seller Brian2a3 (3)
(send email) (view feedback) (other items)

Pay Terms Money Order, Personal Check, PayPal


Description
A hard to find and well regarded Micromega DUO.pro. DAC. Not sure of exact cost, but sold for somewhere in the $3000.00 range when new in the late 90s. Being listed as a 7 for age and a few small edge dings, but overall very clean and presents itself well. Features 1 bit, 256X oversampling, 3 sampling rates - 32, 44, 48, a Record section (no idea what that is and manual is not much help), a Listen section with Coax and Balanced outputs and 2 Coax and 2 Optical Inputs, and a digital Phase switch. It works great with no known issues "

Link to Picture of MicroMega - http://www2.enter.net/photoalbum/dat...962/105347.jpg

 

[Lee Scoggins]

"Lee, this is just an FYI. To those who have been around high end audio to a significant degree, it's a pretty well known fact that the DAC I noted will blow many modern DACs out of the water in every aspect."

Phil, you are obviously proud of your MicroMega and it was a leader in the 90s but I have heard it a lot and it is not up to the same standard as a good modern DAC. There have been simply too many advances in chip design, jitter reduction since 1992. Fortunately the prices have dropped. An $1,100 Benchmark DAC1 will best it in sound based on my listening.

 

[Phil A]

Lee - I hate to inform you, I've heard the DAC you noted on a system that I knew enough about to draw meaningful conclusions. It is a very nice DAC but next to the MicroMega it is no comparison IMO. From what I've heard it is very over rated. You seem to continually make shooting from hip statements. Have you heard the MicroMega DuoPro? Heard the Goldmund I noted above? Heard a top of the line Levinson DAC or even their newer $6.7k CD player? Any time you're in my area feel free to bring it for a comparison. I saw a post the other day on one of the forums about someone who preferred a $500-600 Musica Hall CD player over the Benchmark. It does not surprise me based on my listening. I'm a big fan of outboard DACs. As with anything there needs to be system synergy and a good transport to match. FYI, I've also owned a Modwright XA-777ES (Absolute Truth Mod) which is also extremely well regarded for CD playback. I had the Micromega in my system (with a Proceed PMDT as a transport) at the same and I like aspects of both. There were a bit different but certainly in the same league. When I sold the Proceed the XA-777ES and the various other transports I had did not work as well with the Micromega. I had a friend over at one point after I had the player modded and he was more blown away by the CD playback on a hybrid disc with the Proceed and the MicroMega vs. the SACD playback on the modded player (not that high frequencies sounded better on the CD layer vs. smoother on SACD).

As hi-rez releases were at a crawl, I ended up selling the modded XA-777ES (while there was still demand) and have a Marantz DV9600 universal I use as a transport. Have you heard a Modwright Absolute Truth Mod? Technology for analog output stages has not vastly changed in recent years. I've helped deliver and set up $20k list CD players in a variety of systems. I've set up and delivered all kinds of stuff incl. to a home with $85k list Dynaudio speakers and a variety of high end transports (e.g Accuphase, Levinson, Musical Fidelity) sitting int he same system. The specs for CD have not changed either of recent times. Many of the problems can be transport related. I know several people who have extensively played with playback from a computer hard drive to eliminate some of those issues (not that the inside of the computer can't induce noise either).

My main point is that you seem to shoot from the hip. That's why on previous posts I noted it would be much more helpful to know what you've listened to on what components. Everyone has different tastes and that is fine. It would be a very boring world with one flavor of ice cream. However to make statements w/o experience and w/o factual back-up that one flavor is better than another is silly in my opinion. It's perfectly OK to prefer one thing over another. Someone might like B&Ws, Vandersteens, Thiels, Magnepans, or you pick the brand and not like other things in comparison. If I (hypothetically) make a statement that Magnepan 1.6s are better than Thiel 2.4s or Vandersteen 2Cs and then someone finds out I've never heard the latter two (and let's not forget paired with specific components), I'm going to look mighty foolish and I shouldn't complain if someone politely tells me I'm full of it as I would be.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

"It is a very nice DAC but next to the MicroMega it is no comparison IMO. From what I've heard it is very over rated. You seem to continually make shooting from hip statements."

Nothing from the hip at all: I am basing my comments on listening tests with a variety of DACs. You said your DAC was a 1992 design earlier. If the chips are that old, there is no way it sounds as good as a recent Benchmark-just too much technology has happened. The Benchmark is a very good deal for the money. I would advise caution: these days I find there can be little correlation between $ and sound since new chips are relatively affordable and each generation brings sonic benefits.

I suspect the Micromega is doing something you like sonically and perhaps you don't hear that exact characteristic in other DACs. It's hard to tell without knowing more about the listening tests you did. What electronics and speakers and cables did you use?

In my listening I used Maggie speakers and Avalon Eidolons. We compared very good state of the art Theta Digital Gen 8 DACs to the Benchmark and preferred Benchmark DAC1. Heck, even the new Rega Apollo is impressive versus the Theta flagships.

We seem to have an honest disagreement here which is fine, but don't claim I am shooting from the hip. I'm a very, very knowledgeable audiophile and tons of profession engineering and producing credentials. I just call them as I seee them.

Also, you really must not being hearing good SACD. The extra sampling rate of DSD insures much cleaner highs than anything redbook is capable of.

Recently I had a format shootout at a fellow audiophile's house. He has ARC reference gear: PH7 phono, CD7, Ref 3, Ref 210 monoblocks driving Maggie 20.1s. In order of preference level matched we found we like LP slightly better than SACD which we found better than CD. And the new CD7 player from Audio Research is superb. You just can't beat the extra resolution available in DSD form or LP form. Our SACD player was a Dan Wright modified 999ES which we find better than Dan's new 9100ES units.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

I might add a few more comments:

1. Jitter has mostly been solved since around 2000 in high end gear in terms of playback (not so much in terms of recording imho).
2. Internal DACs have gotten much better in terms of overall measured performance and musicality.
3. Output stages has gotten much better.
4. Power supply regulation has gotten much better.

Those are at least four areas where modern CD players have strengthened.