Depends on yr gear
record 96khz/24 bit and sample down on the computer to 16/44
high quality low jitter DA from a good LP almost always sounds better than the commercial CD but indeed not better than the LP unless... too many variables
CDP are at their end of life
To really think you need a good CD player puts you in the "old fashioned" yesteryear class, which is fine, but you will loose from any good analogue gear
to make a good cd copy from a LP you need
more than hobbyist measures. a PC or mac "perfect" audiocard wont do it
all recording studios have non mainstream high-end line conditioners and most have balanced >3Kwatt transformers, dedicated masterclocks and so on
you cannot escape a dedicated low jitter DA with "perfect" stable pws which even recording studio's would like to use
dont sample down and play the recording at 96/24 ( assuming good choices in hardware) and you wont hear a difference from the LP
Last edited:
Once upon a time there was CoolEdit by Syntrillium software which was indeed cool. It grew up and was purchased by Adobe who renamed it Audition. I use 3.0
Now for my ignorance. What is an ADDA 12ch ?
G²
But for most people the Corolla is a vastly superior vehicle. Where do you put the groceries or a DATE in a formula 1 car?
So when you get these incredible LPs, what do they use to make multiple stampers? Are they using analog tapes or digital ones? What hardware is used to do this?
I have a real hard time believing the analog squiggle disc can outperform a good digital system. I've heard plenty of poor digital recordings but it only takes one good one to vindicate the medium and I HAVE heard some excellent ones.
G²
Last edited:
Digital gives me the jitters .....🙂
In answering the OP, If one thinks 16/44.1 sounds better than analog, they need a better system. Digital IMO is not yet there sonically, but wins hands down with the convenience.
Honestly if one is really serious about hi-fi , you should have both ........
In answering the OP, If one thinks 16/44.1 sounds better than analog, they need a better system. Digital IMO is not yet there sonically, but wins hands down with the convenience.
Honestly if one is really serious about hi-fi , you should have both ........
Like a.wayne I would have both. That way you can use the formula 1 car to attract the date (and you should get a good selection, some can even drive them) and then slip on over to the Corolla to take her to the movies.
For most people an iPod is preferable to a stereo set-up...
Most of my really incredible LP's are Direct to Disk and I like them even better at 45 RPM. I doubt that you've ever heard one, otherwise you wouldn't have bothered making some of your comments.
You may have a hard time believing a lot of things, especially if you have no actual experience or anything to compare it to.
I have, and under fairly controlled conditions done comparisons on a couple of systems that are acknowledged (internationally) to be among the best in the World.
The LP play-back system and the Digital system were not merely "good," but were actually composed of up-to-date, SOTA equipment possessing the ability to extract every bit of information possible at this time.
The CDs were very good, SACD even better and yet LP's sounded better yet.
To go a bit further before concluding, Reel to Reel Master Tapes (The Tape Project) were the best sounding of all. Note that several of the selections were of the same recording on the different formats.
Best Regards,
TerryO
Best LP's
I started salivating when the record services website indicated a (dead) link to a company that was promising to reissue Mercury Living Presence "CR Fine" LP's, the ones I wiped the highs off with my Mother's 5 gram cartridge record player. Those were recorded in 1956 with archaic Ampex equipment. There is something better??? Please start a thread under music called "modern state of the art LP's" or something, and quote exactly what you are talking about. 33 1/3 rpm, 45 rpm, I can handle it, maybe there is a reason to start applying for jobs again to make some real money. Don't play music or video on this wimpy computer, don't want an I-pod, so U-tube links are no help, I'm afraid.
I hear new classical stuff on the WUOL FM broadcast, but who knows what they actually sound like. And most "new" music on WFPK leaves me cold, although I liked "jet" from australia and "corine bailey", Nora Jones, and that black cherry something lady.
I started salivating when the record services website indicated a (dead) link to a company that was promising to reissue Mercury Living Presence "CR Fine" LP's, the ones I wiped the highs off with my Mother's 5 gram cartridge record player. Those were recorded in 1956 with archaic Ampex equipment. There is something better??? Please start a thread under music called "modern state of the art LP's" or something, and quote exactly what you are talking about. 33 1/3 rpm, 45 rpm, I can handle it, maybe there is a reason to start applying for jobs again to make some real money. Don't play music or video on this wimpy computer, don't want an I-pod, so U-tube links are no help, I'm afraid.
I hear new classical stuff on the WUOL FM broadcast, but who knows what they actually sound like. And most "new" music on WFPK leaves me cold, although I liked "jet" from australia and "corine bailey", Nora Jones, and that black cherry something lady.
Last edited:
I had one direct to disk pressing in my collection before I sold the lot. My turntable couldn't play it without distortion on the loudest parts. I also had some 45rpm discs - they did indeed sound more dynamic than 33s. So obviously standard LP is flawed by the adoption of a too low rpm, right? If not, how could 45s sound so much better?
If your TT was incapable of tracking the LP, then I wouldn't blame the record. It's true that 45 RPM has the potential of sounding better, just as 30ips tapes have the potential of sounding better than 15ips tapes.
The length of the recording had a lot to do with the speed that they were produced at. I might add that 78 rpm records, in good shape, can sound extremely good, even in mono.
Perhaps that's why it's sad that digital recordings haven't surpassed LPs at 33 & 1/3 yet, dispite having nearly 30 years to do it!
It's getting close, but unfortunately, we're not there yet.
Best Regards,
TerryO
Quite so - I'm not blaming the record - the TT was relatively cheap in the realms of high-end.
My experience (admittedly based on a relatively cheap TT, but this makes it apples-apples) is that happened on the music I listen to (a lot of solo piano) with my first CD player (a Philips CD160) which was, at the time, slightly cheaper than my TT. Considerably cheaper if the phono pre is taken into account.
Actually I own a dozen or so 'direct to disc' LPs including the grand daddy Lincoln Mayorga's 'Missing Linc' volume 1 and those were the only LPs I kept when we moved and the rest went to the Goodwill. They're nice but no match for digital. Perhaps you think the Shure V15 type V wasn't good enough in the Dual 721 but I never heard anything exceed its performance. I also had a V15 type III (eh), type IV (better), Pickerings, Stantons, Empires, Grados and a B&O SP12. I worked in a high end stereo store so I got to use them for extended trials. The variations in cartridges varied from garbage to excellent so when I hear you guys asking for an inexpensive cartridge I can only think, ain't no such thing. Even the best isn't good enough.
The Ortofon moving coil cartridges were supposed to be better but whatever you do, its STILL an LP with all its MANY MANY shortcomings some of which CANNOT be corrected regardless of how much money you throw at it. As I said before, never once was I convinced a sound was 'real' when coming form an LP - or an analog open reel tape machine with/without Dolby processing. Things can be 'nice' or 'pleasant' but will never convince anyone it's 'real'. Decks were by Sony, Teac, Crown, Revox, Akai, Tandberg and Ampex. External Dolby processors by Advent and Sony.
When I got that first CD (called DAD at the beginning) co-workers asked me how good it was. I told them you had to get stoned to IMAGINE an LP that good. I stand by that evaluation.
G²
Last edited:
Cheers. I remember CoolEdit from way back when just didn't know it had been renamed. Not surprising as I seem to remember CoolEdit being Windows and I'm on a Mac.
Thats meant to say that my external AD/DA convertor converts 12 mono channels of analogue audio to digital and vice versa simultaneously (I think the technical term is 'fully duplex').
It's an Echo Audio AudioFire12 btw.
Agree Terry , I have a few myself .
Question, regarding the master tapes , (tape projects) wasn't there a group getting into similar with supposedly more "affordable" tapes ?
Actually , the bass and dynamics are better at 33 and the highs at 45 rpm
LOL... Stratus ....a clue ? ..........................................
Agree Terry , I have a few myself .
Question, regarding the master tapes , (tape projects) wasn't there a group getting into similar with supposedly more "affordable" tapes ?
Actually , the bass and dynamics are better at 33 and the highs at 45 rpm
LOL... Stratus ....a clue ? ..........................................
Well I've been stoned 2 times in my life, the last time in '73. The second time I was listening to the stereo and it REALLY sounded good - because my wits weren't sufficiently about me to know better. You don't need chemical 'enhancers' to appreciate a good CD. I'll grant you I'd prefer more bits and a higher sample rate but if it's done correctly, it can be pretty amazing as it is. I prefer London/Decca, Telarc and DG but there are always exceptions on any label.
I wouldn't buy a pre-recorded tape. There is more alignment variation on tape than there is on LPs. Too much fiddling for too little reward.
G²
Last edited:
Agree Terry , I have a few myself .
Question, regarding the master tapes , (tape projects) wasn't there a group getting into similar with supposedly more "affordable" tapes ?
Actually , the bass and dynamics are better at 33 and the highs at 45 rpm
LOL... Stratus ....a clue ? ..........................................
Hi,
At the price of "The Tape Project" offerings, as good as they are, puts them out of reach for most. A more modest price, even at the sacrifice of some of the high quality aspects (engraved reels, etc.) would be welcome. I know several members of our audio club are Tape Project subscribers that own, and use, sometimes several studio style tape decks with custom electronics in their listening rooms. I have a Revox myself, an excellent deck in itself, but nowhere near what they have. :^(
Dan Schmalle (Doc Bottlehead) mentioned to me that the largest share of their tapes are sold to Audio Manufacturers that desire the highest quality source material for their demo rooms at Audio Shows like CES.
As regards, 45 vs. 33, I've always felt that 45 was better at either extreme. The bass has a longer groove path to move within, making it slightly easier for the stylus to negotiate, while the higher treble may have some of the same advantages, although frankly I don't see a lot favoring one over the other.
This is just what I think, and I may be mistaken (for the first time? 😀).
Best Regards,
TerryO
Last edited:
****, Wikipedia say direct to disc LP's were a late seventies phenomenon that didn't catch on. Also by no-name groups with limited following. Mobile Fidelity reissues was probably more tuned to my tastes, I had a couple of those and cherish them. I was so poor in those days I couldn't afford mass produced "Tusk" at $12. Every time I got a raise, my rent went up three times as much, and the food, and the gas. Then I got pulled into the Army in 80, no time to do anything, and nothing to spend money on in the middle of Kansas that involved culture. I took up playing "Pictures at an Exhibition" and "Moonlight Sonata movement 3" for myself; at least sheet music was available in Manhattan near the college.
Thank for the tip on the Shure Era V, after 31 years it is time to do something, even if just a new needle on the Shure Era IV.
Last edited:
I've heard the Tape Project tapes several times and most say they are darn good. Are they so expensive because of the real time duplication?
FWIW, most commercial R2R tapes were high speed copies and not all that great (ditto cassettes). I remember the days when Columbia House offered LP, cassette, 8 track and reel-to-reel. Talk about format wars!
FWIW, most commercial R2R tapes were high speed copies and not all that great (ditto cassettes). I remember the days when Columbia House offered LP, cassette, 8 track and reel-to-reel. Talk about format wars!
Hi Mike,
The Tape Project tapes are usually remastered, then duplicated as you mentioned, in real time to insure the best quality. They have a serial number which, IIRC, is engraved on the reel along with their engraved design. Finally they have a custom box for the reel with booklet, etc., included. It's all very nice, but it does cost money.
The sound is superb, I just wish I could afford it.
Best Regards,
Terry
The 8-track was my first venture into DIY. I was secretly playing my father's brand new player and it ate the tape, so I took it apart.
It never played again.
It never played again.
A solid clue to why you have such high regard to vinyl.
I'd rather listen to a good CD player than that too.
dave
- Status
- Not open for further replies.