All digital starts as analog. Think about that and you will have your answer.
I have thought about, and I have done my own informal tests. But, you were talking about Kevin Gray and what was demonstrated in his mastering room. You didn't say if he piped in direct analog from a live session going on in his attached recording studio while you were there.
Also, it probably isn't going to help get anyone to change their minds based on your ear-witness testimony of what you heard at Kevin's. It usually is good for starting an argument, but not good for settling much. If you want people to change their minds, my guess is you will probably have to try something different.
Also, it probably isn't going to help get anyone to change their minds based on your ear-witness testimony of what you heard at Kevin's. It usually is good for starting an argument, but not good for settling much. If you want people to change their minds, my guess is you will probably have to try something different.
Kevin doesn't do tracking, only mastering. It's so easy to hear in a good system. You don't need a direct live source. You just need to know recordings and what they can do from different masterings and different systems.
With any digital source the soundstage is narrow. Depth is essentially lost. Topend isn't as extended. How do I know these things? For soundstage an instrument in analog is panned say 15 degrees to the left. In Redbook digital it is more like 10 degrees, in MP3 it's like 5 degrees or so. (BTW this is exactially how I nailed one of Mooly's little blind tests. It wasn't hard and it's documnted in this website). For depth, on a track like George Benson's live cover of On Broadway you can hear him moving away from the mic at times? In digital that is basically lost. As for topend extension with a good recording and a good set speakers the high frequencies can sound like they are eminating a foot higher than the tweeter. With digital I've never heard more than a few inches.
With any digital source the soundstage is narrow. Depth is essentially lost. Topend isn't as extended. How do I know these things? For soundstage an instrument in analog is panned say 15 degrees to the left. In Redbook digital it is more like 10 degrees, in MP3 it's like 5 degrees or so. (BTW this is exactially how I nailed one of Mooly's little blind tests. It wasn't hard and it's documnted in this website). For depth, on a track like George Benson's live cover of On Broadway you can hear him moving away from the mic at times? In digital that is basically lost. As for topend extension with a good recording and a good set speakers the high frequencies can sound like they are eminating a foot higher than the tweeter. With digital I've never heard more than a few inches.
Last edited:
Did you make the digital source from playing back the phono album, or how were the sources made? What data converters were used for recording and playback? Internal/external clocking?
Not necessarily. Many synths start digital - and often stay digital as far as the recording is concerned, only dac process is for listening.
I have heard that song on radio, cd, lp, 45, 12inch single through my life in so many settings/systems. Why would it matter clock rates and such? Heck I even made Kevin Gray play the 12 inch single in his mastering system once. It would be like listing every time I ate a cheese burger. After a while you just know something because of varied repetition.
Last edited:
Clock rates or sources? For int/ext sources, it's mostly jitter differences. For rates, its frequency "extension."
Also, when you hear music on the radio, for a quite a long time it's been extensively digitally processed. That's done in part to make it sound loud, and to give each radio station it's unique characteristic sound. At least, processors are sold with claims that's what they do. Overview — Orban
With so many processing possibilities, over the years it's likely you heard many different versions of a particular song, almost as if they had been mastered differently. Or maybe exactly as if they had been mastered differently.
Yes, it is only a Linn Sondek, a turntable that I have used mostly, since 1974 when I got my first unit. I have always gone back to a Linn, after listening through several other turntables. Have I heard better? Yes, but they were all too expensive, by ten's of thousands of dollars, like the Continiuum used at the Constellation exhibit that I heard at RMAC along with a very fancy set of electronics that is also outside my buying range.
However, after I lost my Linn turntables in the 1991 firestorm, I had to wait several years before I had a chance at another one, and I have been happy ever since. Perhaps you can show me what is wrong with a Linn Sondek turntable? Any measurements? What do you recommend and why?
However, after I lost my Linn turntables in the 1991 firestorm, I had to wait several years before I had a chance at another one, and I have been happy ever since. Perhaps you can show me what is wrong with a Linn Sondek turntable? Any measurements? What do you recommend and why?
Based on the work being done in the analog source forum on actually improving vinyl replay the SP10 Mk3 is the best. If you record a 3150Hz test tone then Scott can analyse it for you and give you a proper health check on how well it's doing. You get free cart resonance check out of it 
.
.
All analog ends digital. If not earlier, then in the PCM of your auditory nerve.
I personally do not like SP10 type turntables, but perhaps they measure well. Still, the Linn should measure adequately, even though it is not servoed. My problems with turntables, have been: Low inertia, high Q turntable platter resonance, using velocity servos rather than phase lock servos, rumble (in very old turntables), and perhaps turntable main bearings.
I prefer high inertia platters, even though it causes slow start-up, it just fixes small but nasty flutter sources. I love the Linn felt mat that pulls much of the surface charge to the bottom side of the record, and reduces noise, and I love platters that go 'dink' rather than 'ding' when I knock them with my finger.
Actually, I certainly could use a better tone arm. The Linn arm, (not its best) is marginal. I know this from experience.
I certainly had a good chance to change my turntable to something else over the decades. For example, I did all my cartridge testing back in the 70's with a Microsieki (sp) turntable that had an integrated arm and a removable headshell. It was so much easier to measure with.
After I lost my Linn(s) in a firestorm, I was given an Ariston (sp) English turntable with an SME arm, and I did not like it. Enid Lumley sold me her reference Mapleknoll air bearing turntable that was highly tweaked, and really did sound better than the Linn, BUT it was almost impossible to keep in adjustment, and it ruined records when it would drift out of wack. Enid could always get it working properly again, but I could not do it properly, so I gave it, as well as the Ariston (sp) away to friends and got a Linn when I got the chance to buy a used one. I'm fussy about what I listen through.
I prefer high inertia platters, even though it causes slow start-up, it just fixes small but nasty flutter sources. I love the Linn felt mat that pulls much of the surface charge to the bottom side of the record, and reduces noise, and I love platters that go 'dink' rather than 'ding' when I knock them with my finger.
Actually, I certainly could use a better tone arm. The Linn arm, (not its best) is marginal. I know this from experience.
I certainly had a good chance to change my turntable to something else over the decades. For example, I did all my cartridge testing back in the 70's with a Microsieki (sp) turntable that had an integrated arm and a removable headshell. It was so much easier to measure with.
After I lost my Linn(s) in a firestorm, I was given an Ariston (sp) English turntable with an SME arm, and I did not like it. Enid Lumley sold me her reference Mapleknoll air bearing turntable that was highly tweaked, and really did sound better than the Linn, BUT it was almost impossible to keep in adjustment, and it ruined records when it would drift out of wack. Enid could always get it working properly again, but I could not do it properly, so I gave it, as well as the Ariston (sp) away to friends and got a Linn when I got the chance to buy a used one. I'm fussy about what I listen through.
Hi John,
Its always sad to hear how much you lost in the fire. Certainly Linn makes very good turntables. So does Thorens. Great basic turntables. I just moved from my TD-125 MKII to another Thorens table, the TD-126KMII. I have a MKIII around here somewhere if I can find it. Both of these tables were rebuilt using some Linn parts by a Linn technician of high standing. Love them even more now. My new 540 MKII Ortofon cartridge (it's been in storage, brand new) sounds amazing. You should really try the Ortofon Black (current cartridge). These are great because they have user replaceable stylus' and high output. No more MC stages or transformers to worry about.
Turntable arms seem to be on the list for replacements, but no one ever gives the factory arm it's due. The Linn tech after setting up my tables indicated that there wasn't anything wrong with the factory Thorens arms, and the low mass one was very good. Plus a perfect match to the 540 MKII. It would seem that you could find happiness with either a Linn or Thorens turntable as long as they were both set up properly. Mine hail from the mid 70's, but they are running fine, and last time I looked, the rules of physics haven't changed since then. I'd love to try some upper model Linn and Thorens tables.
-Chris
Its always sad to hear how much you lost in the fire. Certainly Linn makes very good turntables. So does Thorens. Great basic turntables. I just moved from my TD-125 MKII to another Thorens table, the TD-126KMII. I have a MKIII around here somewhere if I can find it. Both of these tables were rebuilt using some Linn parts by a Linn technician of high standing. Love them even more now. My new 540 MKII Ortofon cartridge (it's been in storage, brand new) sounds amazing. You should really try the Ortofon Black (current cartridge). These are great because they have user replaceable stylus' and high output. No more MC stages or transformers to worry about.
Turntable arms seem to be on the list for replacements, but no one ever gives the factory arm it's due. The Linn tech after setting up my tables indicated that there wasn't anything wrong with the factory Thorens arms, and the low mass one was very good. Plus a perfect match to the 540 MKII. It would seem that you could find happiness with either a Linn or Thorens turntable as long as they were both set up properly. Mine hail from the mid 70's, but they are running fine, and last time I looked, the rules of physics haven't changed since then. I'd love to try some upper model Linn and Thorens tables.
-Chris
For all the bantering about quantum this versus quantum that, y'all realize what "quantum" means?
The matter we interact with is all discrete steps, insofar as we know. They just happen to be really really really really close together for the system sizes we tend to observe.
In any case it's really a meaningless distinction beyond the actual methods involved, which incorporates everything from room/mic/etc on through the end. To look at it outside of its whole is silly.
Back in the '60's Thorens was very high on the list for quality turntables. I bought a Thorens TD150 then, instead of its competitor, the AR turntable, because the AR had a relatively low inertia platter. I used it for about 7 years. In fact, I still own a TD150 today, but I don't use it for anything anymore. It just does not match up to the Linn.
Or perhaps realize that a lot of newer recordings are pressed to vinyl from a digital process? So yes, give it a break. If you like vinyl playback, that's great, but stop imitating Don Quixote, which if you need a reminder, was a satire. (At least in a more contemporary usage of "tilting at windmills")
How about just treating a piece of music, whether vinyl/tape/cd/internet stream/etc by its own merit and enjoyment? We can find more than enough examples of good/bad in each of these mediums, whether brought through a full analog recording/mastering process or a full digital recording/mastering process. Full stop.
(At least in a more contemporary usage of "tilting at windmills")How about just treating a piece of music, whether vinyl/tape/cd/internet stream/etc by its own merit and enjoyment? We can find more than enough examples of good/bad in each of these mediums, whether brought through a full analog recording/mastering process or a full digital recording/mastering process. Full stop.
Last edited:
Hi John,
The newer Thorens turntables (as in the 70's) were substantially improved in every way. Having used a TD-125 MKII for decades, the TD-126 MKII out performs it. Added bonus is that it picks the arm up at the end of a record for you. I find that a helpful feature.
I should mention that these Thorens arms use magnetic anti-skating and optical arm position sensing. That means there isn't anything but the bearings and tone arm wires contacting the tonearm. That is an upgrade over the standard tonearm. See if you can find one of these, should be cheap. Have a Linn tech set it up. I'll give you details of what was done by email if you want.
-Chris
The newer Thorens turntables (as in the 70's) were substantially improved in every way. Having used a TD-125 MKII for decades, the TD-126 MKII out performs it. Added bonus is that it picks the arm up at the end of a record for you. I find that a helpful feature.
I should mention that these Thorens arms use magnetic anti-skating and optical arm position sensing. That means there isn't anything but the bearings and tone arm wires contacting the tonearm. That is an upgrade over the standard tonearm. See if you can find one of these, should be cheap. Have a Linn tech set it up. I'll give you details of what was done by email if you want.
-Chris
- Status
- Not open for further replies.