And how pray do these vibrations get to the cartridge ? lossy sprung hinges, Rubber feet all act to reduce vibration getting into the plinth.
I'm not saying that they they do but a piece of acrylic freely sitting on top of the base seems far more likely to vibrate than any other structural piece of the machine.
I guess I could cover mine in dynomat, and bolt it down to the base every time I put on a record.
Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk
I guess I could cover mine in dynomat, and bolt it down to the base every time I put on a record.
Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk
Hello,
Well, does this hyphothesis also explain why analogue tape is still prepared to digital recordings (by some)?
Nope.
My personal hyphothesis is that many analogue recordings were done with by far less manipulation, processing, compression etc., which seem almost unavoidable in modern digital recordings and which turn most if not all commercially released music into the musical equivalent of a Mc Donalds Big Mac.
So older recordings are often preferred. Some early CD recordings done on modified Sony Gear are spectacular and are much preferable to more recent "High Resolution" recordings.
I rather doubt it, as this hypothesis is as (obviously) false as the "people like distortion" hypothesis to explain preference for tubes (which can offer very low distortion) etc.
More benefit may be achieved by actually modeling the cross-talk in LP Pickups, which has already been done but ultimately also proved a dead-end.
I suspect the Audio Arts would be better served if we simply ditched the attempts to "explain away" preferences for supposedly inferior technologies as "preference for distortion" and instead consider if there are other distinguishing characteristics and the degree of impact of the source material.
In this case we might learn things that actually improve things.
So far any attempts to model either tubes or vinyl by introducing aspects of their presumed "flaws" over supposedly superior systems into such systems have spectacularly failed.
While this is not a formal ABX test, nor blind, if any of these systems that add noises, distortions or specific cross-talk wold be runaway sellers to people who want their music sound better, but all have disappeared faster than they appeared, suggesting that fundamental concept is simply false.
Best regards, Sir S
Well, does this hyphothesis also explain why analogue tape is still prepared to digital recordings (by some)?
Nope.
My personal hyphothesis is that many analogue recordings were done with by far less manipulation, processing, compression etc., which seem almost unavoidable in modern digital recordings and which turn most if not all commercially released music into the musical equivalent of a Mc Donalds Big Mac.
So older recordings are often preferred. Some early CD recordings done on modified Sony Gear are spectacular and are much preferable to more recent "High Resolution" recordings.
I rather doubt it, as this hypothesis is as (obviously) false as the "people like distortion" hypothesis to explain preference for tubes (which can offer very low distortion) etc.
More benefit may be achieved by actually modeling the cross-talk in LP Pickups, which has already been done but ultimately also proved a dead-end.
I suspect the Audio Arts would be better served if we simply ditched the attempts to "explain away" preferences for supposedly inferior technologies as "preference for distortion" and instead consider if there are other distinguishing characteristics and the degree of impact of the source material.
In this case we might learn things that actually improve things.
So far any attempts to model either tubes or vinyl by introducing aspects of their presumed "flaws" over supposedly superior systems into such systems have spectacularly failed.
While this is not a formal ABX test, nor blind, if any of these systems that add noises, distortions or specific cross-talk wold be runaway sellers to people who want their music sound better, but all have disappeared faster than they appeared, suggesting that fundamental concept is simply false.
Best regards, Sir S
You make my point for me, well. The Chef makes what he thinks is perfectly seasoned food, but what if I prefer it slightly different. I'm paying for the experience at the end of the day. I can choose to eat it as he intended, or season it as befits my palette, neither one is more right or wrong than the other, not unless you assign a greater worth to one person's opinion than another's. And that's a different argument altogether.
So you are admitting that you only have a passing interest in 'high fidelity' but want to build a synergistic collection of components that give you the 'experience' you want. As long as you enjoy the music and admit that your preference is not accurate to source no one minds. But "right" and "better" are not words you should use.
I enjoy listening to vinyl for my own reasons, but I would never claim the SQ was better than a file off my server. The total experience is something different.
it does but for the sake of the current discussion (vinyl preferences amongst some) I would consider it to be a measure of transparency. For any parameter related to fidelity digital beats LP hands down.
Enjoyment, experience, anticipation, they are things that make vinyl enjoyable for many. For those who have kept every record they have bought can bring back a lot of teenage memories
Enjoyment, experience, anticipation, they are things that make vinyl enjoyable for many. For those who have kept every record they have bought can bring back a lot of teenage memories
Why? What's so great about transparency in sound? And isn't that really a visual term?
That seems pedantic, I know, but IMO has a lot to do with the topic.
I believe transparent is widely used in audio, especially when testing the insertion of a unit into the chain. If you can't hear whether it is in or out then it is transparent.
Whether this is good or not of course depends on outlook. I would like to get to the point where my system in its natural state does not add any audible nasties. I want the ability to muck about with FR at will, but with the ability to return to a known neutral/transparent (delete as appropriate) state. That was the original goal of Hifi after all. And I accept that my speakers will limit my ability to hit that goal.
my Vinyl front end is as neutral as I can afford to make it at the moment. It adds as little as possible so its not markedly different in tonal balance from a CD. I love listening to it, but digital recordings are superior.
I'll defend anyone's preference, I just dont like the use of 'better' when 'prefer' is the correct word.
There has been plenty of blind tests where the results would disagree with you. Even if you believe that your ears can detect things down below room noise it is a valid goal to try and make a system as neutral as possible. Nothing added, nothing taken away. That is High fidelity. It's also valid to admit one likes distortion and wibbly frequency repsonse and build something that floats your boat. You should just admit that. To borrow a phrase from SY 'undefeatable tone controls' are not my thing.
Don't forget, in a blind test, forum users couldn't tell between an interconnect and a potato!
Don't forget, in a blind test, forum users couldn't tell between an interconnect and a potato!
This would be a difficult test for speakers.
You have your own definition of "better". And it's not an unusual one. But it is a preference, don't fool yourself into thinking it's not.
A lot of people like vinyl because they think it sounds better. One could argue that "more pleasing" is a more accurate term, but it's all preference. Most people do not have a preference for technically accurate sound. Others (many here) find it a goal in itself.
There is a lot to like about the sound of vinyl, with some very good thoughts on this thread about why the preference. But it's all preference.
Whatever the source is already has tone control applied to it. I do like distortion, it is a large part of rock music, and I have built a system that suits my tastes. You can compare the sound from you're speakers to the waveform of the CD as much as you like, but it still won't be what the engineer heard through their headphones. Why is it wrong for me to like the way my system sounds? Would you listen to yours if it was 100% neutral and sounded terrible to you?
Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk
Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk
IME with neutral systems, that's not likely to happen.
I think good digital recordings are wonderful, and neutral. I still enjoy the sound of vinyl, mostly.
Which I admitted to.
So in Pano world there is no measure of better and all the work of Toole, Olive, Geddes et al is a waste? The fact that I think an amplifier with flat frequency response is better than one with FR variations is not a contentious point normally.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.