He obviously disagrees, I would never re-buy a Stones album but from what I have observed I would probably prefer it that way. No right, no wrong, just personal preference. This line of discussion has nowhere to go.
Possibly we could start discussing how to add frequency dependent compression, etc. to the average consumer pre-amp rather than simple tone controls. The Double Joe Meek Blowtorch is born.
Girl drummers are cool.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOg116b5veg
Female Drummer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLAnBCDJlN4
On the topic of frequency dependent compression, the digital ones I have tried usually make things sound worse to me. Sometimes good as a band-aid though for a bad recording that can't be sent back for re-mix.
Nothing wrong if you like it to sound like you have sheets over your speakers.
That's better front end stuff than I have. What topology are you leaning toward for the phono pre?
Actually John, I think you are pulling my leg here. I can't imagine you designing an 'opamp' for +/-9V supply. I think that circuit had an IC opamp in it. My guess, for that time, would be uA702 or uA709. Or even LM110.
Nah, must have been the '709.
Right?
Jan
Last edited:
Thanks for your pointless input...
Your second paragraph is probably one of the most inaccurate inane comments on DIY Audio for the whole of 2016, well done...
How many are in the digital camp though, just because you say analogue is better it does not make it true... It is your and a few others beliefs that's all.
I am not sure I would completely agree, but that wasn't my point.
From the first paragraph of the article:
Carl Sagan wrote of arguments from authority:
One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority." ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else.
Okay, understood, but from the perspective budging opinion if those who disagree even a little, it probably didn't help at all to make the original reference to experts on your side of the argument. The other side has its experts too, and arguments about who's experts are more expert rarely cause one side in an argument to give in, accept defeat, and change their opinions.
To further complicate what often tends to happen, the original reference may have even made things a little worse, since it and what have followed have generated more negative responses than supportive ones. The effect of that is those who disagree become even more convinced they are right. That's what most of the research seems to show anyway.
Finally, when experts are used in the pursuit of resolving disputes in real world situations such as jury trials, they have to explain what they believe and why to a jury. It can never suffice just to mention the expert's names and leave it at that. Since no particular links to sites quoting specific claims made by one expert or the other have been provided here, there is not much to go on. And even in instances such as jury trials, experts are only used to help convince a neutral jury, not the other side in the dispute.
Only once have I not been able to peg a digital source. So do I let you guys convince me I'm not hearing what I'm hearing? I've worked around Sean Olive for example: I don't think he can identify an analog source or cares too even try because he is an employee of Harman Inc (like I was) and does what Harman needs done, and that isn't analog anymore. When I have down to earth conversations with Phd's like him the answer I get as to my preference for analog is basically "I have studied this and the masses are fine with digital" Well, why is Chad Kassem rolling in dough?
Last edited:
The problem of taking firm sides is that it includes too muc relativity. When discussing either digital or analogue, we tend to include the lot, even if we know that far too many products on either side is in fact lacking, or is all too often simply not too good at all. Yet, we will argue no end is product X better sounding from other competing products, thus admitting that not all X or Y are good enough to be compared even among their respective groups, let alone as standard for them.
Somebody mentione the mastering of "Brothers in arms": I own a copy of it, and as a fan of Dire Straits I listened to it very carefully indeed and frankly, I enjoyed it. This could lead me to conclude that digital sounds better than older pure analog, but that's not really so. While that is a true achievement from somebody who obviously knows his beans and then some, unfortunately most other CD releases are nowhere near that level of expertise, and are in fact downright shoddy in many cases. Just as many analog work had been in their day.
So, to me, the question is not was it done in digital or analog, but did the man doing it know his beans and was willing to walk the whole mile or not. Both can sound wonderful in the hands of a true master, and both can be botched no end.
Somebody mentione the mastering of "Brothers in arms": I own a copy of it, and as a fan of Dire Straits I listened to it very carefully indeed and frankly, I enjoyed it. This could lead me to conclude that digital sounds better than older pure analog, but that's not really so. While that is a true achievement from somebody who obviously knows his beans and then some, unfortunately most other CD releases are nowhere near that level of expertise, and are in fact downright shoddy in many cases. Just as many analog work had been in their day.
So, to me, the question is not was it done in digital or analog, but did the man doing it know his beans and was willing to walk the whole mile or not. Both can sound wonderful in the hands of a true master, and both can be botched no end.
If the PhD's referred to "the masses," would you not agree the vast majority are currently fine with their cell phones and earbuds?
It also seems like the billions of dollars going into digital every year make for more dough in that industry as compared to the vinyl industry. I don't mean to be flippant, but some people put a lot of money into sports figure trading cards. What evidence do we have to show that significant numbers of the people who are going to vinyl are doing because they are discerning listeners and not more so simply because they think it's more cool, or more exclusive?
Not 100% sure. My 25 year old hybrid op-amps* currently have nothing wrong with them so any improvements are firmly in the 'because I can'. I have some boards for a balanced MM stage (the Equal Opportunity that was published in Linear Audio) but as soon as I get my miniDSP running then I can go to flat pre and do RIAA in the DSP.
The mono rig I am building around an old Kenwood KD-550 also needs considering and may need its own pre. I know, what sicko has a turntable just for Mono!
But all this is slow time as there are bits of the system that DO have problems that need addressing.
*DPA 50S phono. They designed their own hybrid op-amps. Didn't review well with the Linn crowd as 'no PRAT' so were unloved. I got mine for $15 just needing a new PSU. There is a certain delight with getting a real bargain. But like 99% of phono stages out there it's suboptimal for the AT MM.
Some good points there. Made me wonder how many of the people who invest in high quality phonograph components also invest in high quality DACs so they have some more or less on par means of comparison. We have seen a little evidence lately in a separate thread that DACs and headphone amps built into computers may be advertised as Hi-Def, yet in some cases perhaps only marginally suited to CD quality once the numbers are carefully examined.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.