If it wasnt mentioned before, be aware of remastered digital vs the original pressings on vinyl and similarly done on CDs of that era as well. 99% of the time remastered stuff sounds worse. They usually just crank up the level and compress it to the point of digital clipping along with some bass and treble boost. There are only a handful of remasters done properly that weren't done with a big fisted approach to obtaining a louder sounding product. A better reference from Dire Straights is Sultans of Swing IMO.
The OPs reference of recordings is also suspect and questionable as a yardstick of performance. Dire Straights Brothers in Arms is a decent recording but it was recorded fully digital on first gen equipment, so no analog recording of this album ever existed. It sounds overhyped in treble and bass, likely to highlight the lower noise of digital and promote the CD format. Many CD players came with this album so customers had something to play. This was when CDs costed 30 bucks a piece.
The other issue is the cartridge. You need a very good MC cart with Microline or Shibata stylus profile to get the most out of the record. A decent turntable is a must with a good stable drive system, at minimum direct drive ie Technics SL1200 or equivalent. Also a good preamp with adjustable cartridge load and gain setting. The only decent MM cartridge I've ever come across is the AT 150MLX, but its NLA and the original stylus with Boron cantilever is also NLA.
The OPs reference of recordings is also suspect and questionable as a yardstick of performance. Dire Straights Brothers in Arms is a decent recording but it was recorded fully digital on first gen equipment, so no analog recording of this album ever existed. It sounds overhyped in treble and bass, likely to highlight the lower noise of digital and promote the CD format. Many CD players came with this album so customers had something to play. This was when CDs costed 30 bucks a piece.
The other issue is the cartridge. You need a very good MC cart with Microline or Shibata stylus profile to get the most out of the record. A decent turntable is a must with a good stable drive system, at minimum direct drive ie Technics SL1200 or equivalent. Also a good preamp with adjustable cartridge load and gain setting. The only decent MM cartridge I've ever come across is the AT 150MLX, but its NLA and the original stylus with Boron cantilever is also NLA.
Last edited:
I'd concentrate on the preamp and cartridge. That TCC preamp just has a handful of transistors, so it's likely to belong in the "better than nothing" category of preamps, have poor channel separation, high noise and distortion, and poor RIAA response. Apparently people enjoy modding it, but I'd just keep the box and put something better inside. I found a preamp board that closely resembled the Hagerman Bugle on ebay for about $40 (Audiowind A-300), but I still haven't tested it. (Found it on Amazon just now with different op-amps, but not on ebay.) The real Bugle offered impressive performance; bare boards are $40 or a complete preamp is $200. https://hagerman-audio-labs.myshopify.com/collections/all
Don't know what your cartridge is, but there were some good value carts (in the hundred dollar range) from Shure or Audio-Technica, last time I checked. I've also occasionally found deals on unpopular old stock cartridges on ebay, but that's risky since critical rubbery bits in the stylus assembly may change with age (stiffen or turn to goo or crumble).
Don't know what your cartridge is, but there were some good value carts (in the hundred dollar range) from Shure or Audio-Technica, last time I checked. I've also occasionally found deals on unpopular old stock cartridges on ebay, but that's risky since critical rubbery bits in the stylus assembly may change with age (stiffen or turn to goo or crumble).
The main cloud storage options are encrypted. Mega Upload is quite strong, using AES algorithm and with an optional separate 344 bit encryption key that you can use on top. I work on many confidential government engineering projects, and cloud storage is exceptionally secure. Dumb employees clicking on virus laden emails are the bigger security threat.
I'd hardly call uploading to a public forum as 'private or secure'.
I'm aware of the file size constraints. Cloud storage is more than up to the task. Seriously, just make a free mega upload account and throw some files up. It will literally only takes 5 minutes. You'll find yourself using it for years to come. Thank me later
I know, I recorded some stuff too. 2 vinyls, 4 sides, recorded 2 twice each, to use the different phono pre amps to compare and to take a video, all with fancy lighting to boot. It was a relaxing and productive way to spend an evening. And that was with learning the set up process for the first time, so once I'm familiar, I could easily be 2x more efficient.
I'm not asking you to spend any more money, or are you required to re-record everything... or anything for that matter. I'm sure your old recordings are more than adequate.
I certainly can't hear anything until you upload something, or point me to a link that demonstrates the sound of a TonyEE certified hi-fi setup. Sure, I can find any old file myself, but if you don't select it for me, then you can always deny that it doesn't meet a true analogue hi-fi standard of quality. If you can point to something and confirm that it meets that threshold, then I can listen to it as well.
Don't get what? "mass produced entertainment electronics" is not a binary standard of quality. It is a sliding scale, with many shades of gray (and dollars) inbetween. You then assert that everyone else on this forum agrees with you? Since when can you adjudicate who can and can't use a forum, and to merely learn about the topic. Just because I currently disagree with you (due to a lack of evidence), then it's just lazy to dismiss it and say 'i'm wasting my time because i don't get it'.
But that's the problem. Subjectiveness is just a substitute for objective facts and evidence. And subjective experience is fallible to ones biased opinion and beliefs. Sure, you can say 'everyone can have a different opinion, therefore opinions can't be wrong'... But I'm not asking for opinions, i'm seeking repeatable facts. Please guys, don't conflate subjective experience with objective reality.
Then your hearing is likely to be worse than mine then... I don't see how that helps you.
Do a sine wave test on your hi-fi then, and factually state what you can or can't hear. Having me guess everything without strict controlled measurement is a recipe for wasting thousands of dollars.
Sounds more like an excuse. If you're that worried, cut out a 10 second sample then. For the purpose of this thread, it would be considered fair use. But I really think you're just bitter than you've spent money on it, and out of spite, you just want me to spend (waste) money too. Sorry, but that's not going to happen lol.
Funny that... as per specs, and to my ear... 99% of digital and CDs that I've heard generally sound better than vinyl, and by just about every metric to boot. Also, if you'd bothered to read the thread, you would have found that it's already been mentioned a few times.
Repeatable facts? That is literally impossible with vinyl as the very act of playback degrades the media. And the next playback will also have a different level of cleanliness, and there may be a different compliance of your cartridge’s suspension because it’s a little warmer or cooler in your room, there could be a truck driving by making vibrations, etc., etc., etc… it is a wildly imperfect format. Repeatability is never a strength of analog, and it is likely digital’s greatest strength.
But in defense of subjective preference, I submit that your specific taste in music is not mine, nor any other’s on the forum. This is in no way saying that it is bad nor good. It merely is. I’m sure there are some who would not enjoy at all listening to what you think is wonderful, and vise-versa. This is subjective preference, and it is very much valid.
So no, I did not conflate subjective preference with your “objective reality” and made a very distinct point (by labeling it as an “ineffable subjective quality”) in my post to make that clear.
Obviously I mean repeatable results within a reasonable tolerance. I'm not going to pull a 'gotcha' move with a deviation of 0.1% or something ridiculous. If the reproduction of sound is noticeably different, even to my 'duffed' hearing, then it should be easily measurable and repeatable, even with analogue. But if the deviation of repeatability is far outside an easily audible tolerance, then it obviously fails that criteria.
I don't see what music taste has anything to do with this. Of course it is subjective, which is exactly why it has no weight of influence when talking about the technical performance of a given format. I'm not going to say 'x' format is better than 'y' because it has media released by my favourite artists or genres. It's completely irrelevant. I couldn't care less about peoples taste in music. I'm only concerned with the formats ability to recreate sounds. That's literally the machines one and only purpose.
The concept of “ineffable subjective quality” is complete nonsense to this topic. I couldn't give a stuff about intangible reasons why someone likes vinyl, how vinyl makes them feel, and to the point of spending thousands to experience those feelings. But you're right, some things can't yet be measured... like how gullible one is.
I see you selectively quoted from my post (no.136 of this thread)...& I've boldened & underlined the important bit for you that you appear to have not read/understood...
QUOTE:-
I don't know I didn't read the whole report as it was an aside in another medical report.....
I know my hearing can register the limits in terms of low dB, let alone high frequency of a full UK NHS test done properly in a sound proof room in the specialist dept at the hospital..& that was done in the past few years...& I've got at least 10 years on you in terms of age...
I'm not uploading my purchased Hi-res stuff from Naim or Linn or any of my other stuff...I don't think they would like it from a legal perspective.....plenty of places you can purchase it from on the web like I did though!
The human senses differ in terms resolution, range, quality, sensitivity etc from one person to the next.....therefore I don't expect you, now, with your "duff" hearing (as you admit) to be able to appreciate what I can hear.
END QUOTE
You now state:- "Then your hearing is likely to be worse than mine then... I don't see how that helps you."
You "think" my hearing is worse than yours, & yet I can clearly hear the difference between 44.1kHz 16 bit & 44.1kHz 24 bit FLAC files of the same songs...& the even clearer difference between 44.1kHz 16bit & 192kHz 24bit versions of the same songs.....all FLAC files from the record studio & played on the same network player/speakers etc. that I have....then you should be able to hear the difference......
If you can't hear the difference then that leaves only two explanations:-
1. your hearing is worse than mine.
2. your system is rubbish.
@HiFi Dave No, those not the only two explanations. There can well be others.
Please clarify...
In the example that I gave (my system & music) which is the same system is used, all played on the same network player/amp/speakers, all files are FLAC from the same record label/studio playing 44.1kHz 16 bit & 44.1kHz 24 bit FLAC files of the same songs...& 44.1kHz 16bit & 192kHz 24bit versions of the same songs.
Virtually all other variables have been eliminated other than the bit depth & sampling frequency of the songs.
& I can tell the difference between the "CD res" & the "higher res".....& there is a slight difference going from 44.1kHz 16bit to the 24bit version ..but more of a difference when you jump to the 192kHz sampling..
humbug earlier in the thread was stating his hearing is not as good as he hoped...I said I know mine is good (having been fully tested in proper dept/sound proof room as I stated) & stated my age.....then he stated:- "Then your hearing is likely to be worse than mine then.."...purely based on the fact that I'm older than he is...
He's just making unfounded personal assumptions with wide brush strokes. regardless on the facts that I have personally experienced...
If he were to stand in front of my hi-fi system & I were to do a blind test on him with the music (all as per the example above)...either he will hear the difference or he won't & that would all be down to his hearing.
Yeah, I did read the thread. Vinyl done right with good gear can provide a superior listening experience to 44.1k/16bit pcm on CD. You probably think I'm from the sticks and haven't worked in music production before. You also likely don't know the experience i have with 80s recording gear in general. Google "Sony 3324" and indulge yourself with info. What do you think was used to make many of those later 80s + recordings? These were rather crude machines that needed alot of finesse to get the best from. A later spec Studer 24 track 2 inch analog machine blew pretty much anything out of the water in terms of fidelity, even with worn misaligned heads. The early 80s spawned the best analog recording gear in history, but digital was still in its infancy back then. When you cram that carefully done analog master through a primitive 80s A to D, it would have been polluted with a bunch of (acceptable) digital errors that were permitted to slip through, mostly unnoticed by amateur ears and mid fi systems.
Speaking from a musical standpoint, if you take a good MC cart along with supporting gear and play back a typical well kept analog recorded/mastered vinyl album, it will most likely blow your typical DDD produced CDs clean out of the water. Some Chesky Labs, Telarc and Sheffield direct to disc was the possible exception, but for the most part, digital didnt catch up until way later. By the 90s most stuff fell victim to the loudness wars, so all the progress made in digital was overshadowed by awful clipping and compression. You can compare technical specs between analog and digital recording gear all day and say digital measures superior, but when you let the esr judge the difference, its rather clear what sounds more like music between the two.
Okay. But what does that imply? That digital is better, period? Or could it mean what others have said, that decent-enough digital reproduction is low cost so we have all heard it. OTOH great vinyl reproduction is expensive and complicated, so not nearly as many people have had a chance to hear it? IME its more the latter. However, I doubt I would have believed it if I had not heard it for myself.
For me the "better sound" has the following criteria:
No fatigue at normal listening level
No disturbing pops and clicks
The latter is mostly dependent of the playback system, and not of the disc conditions. On a good system you can hear the pops, but your attention is not distracted from the music. The level of pops appear to be much lower (or hardly noticable) on a good system, even from the same LP.True. Yet optical cartridges can make good MC sound obsolete.
https://www.stereophile.com/content...-cartridge-emia-lundahl-koetsu-sculpture-step
This is a very good comment, and helps explain the conundrum… great vinyl requires massive time, attention to detail, knowledge in setup, and very careful selection of hardware to sound amazing. It’s a serious pain, and is fraught with dead ends, poor equipment (that is “supposed” to be good), and can require large outlays of money. There isn’t a “cheap” solution that sounds good although you don’t need to take out a second mortgage either.
There are, however, plenty of poor to bad sounding turntables in the world yet by comparison, there are few actually bad sounding digital playback devices…
As I also mentioned..its how good the mastering/recording was done at the time.
If the studio mastering/recording is done properly & say onto studio master analogue tape or a Sheffield Labs direct to disc (as I previously mentioned), & then a proper heavyweight vinyl pressing is made...thats going to be good for about 20bit or 24bit to 90 to 96kHz in terms of "digital" info.....Converting the analogue studio master (or the purchased heavyweight vinyl) to a digital file will cause some "corruption" (I use the term in the extreme to cover all possibilities of losses in the chain.) However that file will be better than 16bit 44.1kHz CD resolution files...
If the studio mastering/recording is done properly & say onto digital this time...then a purchasable digital downloadable FLAC/WAV file from the studio file of upto say 24bit 192kHz will be "perfect" with no losses/corruption in the chain.
Last edited:
Well, it's an obvious answer and I had hoped not to have to lay it all out for you. The reasons will not be only two.
Look, for example, at HRTF. We all have different Head Related Transfer Functions that can easily be seen with a glance at one of the online HRTF databases. Do you think that these people with noticeably different HRTFs hear the world in the same way? I can assure you (thru experience) that they do not. Is one HRTF "better" than another? Maybe, maybe not. How would you know? And that's just the effects of head, torso and outer ears. Nothing in the HRTF shows the vast differences caused by middle and inner ear. And what about hearing problems that are caused by damage or illness? If I have a 10dB loss circa 6 kHz in my left ear and you have a 12 dB loss circa 4 kHz in your right ear, whose hearing is better? Would you hear things that I don't? Would I hear things that you don't? Of course.
And then there is the matter of training, either habitual or forced. I have often heard things that others don't, but that does not mean that my hearing is better, just that I am used to listening for certain things. If I point out those things to someone who didn't notice them, they usually hear them too. So it isn't a matter of "better" hearing, it can be a matter of what you listen for, or that is important to you. I didn't notice many things until they were pointed out to me.
Bottom line. There are many more reasons why someone might - or might not - hear or notice audio sensations. It's not just the binary of "worse hearing" or "crap system". But of course those could also be the reasons, just not the only reasons.
I'll definitely give you that. Optical vinyl pickup technology is pretty amazing. Frankly, I would have thought it would be possible to do mainstream many years ago for reasonable amount of money. There are so many benefits to this.
I've dealt with so much junk back in the 80s that was considered high end at the time. Its all been outpaced by modern digital with very few exceptions. I have a soft spot for the TDA1541 based dac. Though it wasn't perfect by any means, it just sounded right with red book CD in a musical sense, specifically with piano and percussion. My RME ADI pro 2 FSR dac blows it away, but at 2k$ it should.
For many years we've had middle of the row, row M seats... shifted one seat to the left from the middle of the row so we can watch the pianist's hands for piano concertos.
My stereo, any stereo, any multi channel recording, no matter what the resolution, number of channels, care of the engineer... etc... will NEVER sound like the real sound of a live orchestra. Heck, just sit down with some bluegrass or jazz artists, even a garage rock band, and listen to that.... Your stereo will NEVER sound like that. The dynamics, the dynamic range, the imaging, the real soundstage, etc... it's the real thing, even if the rock guitarist is playing through his amp/cabs. The drum kit... forget it... it tooks me eons to get my stereo to do justice to the crash cymbal. Yet, a 16 year old in the garage, given some practice and talent can use that drum kit in astounding ways, with acoustic power and frequency range that no megabuck audio system can approach.
So with audio reproduction, it comes down then to what is the most pleasant reproduction of recorded music.
Some people don't care much, they are happy with ear buds and Bose. They are not audiophiles.
Then you get the ASR crowd. They are NOT audiophiles, they don't listen.
Then you get the rest of us, a small subset of the population, as audiophiles we listen and care about music reproduction.
Then you got this forum... eh eh eh... I owe it some serious upgrades to my system that have not broken the bank... Thanks to Nelson for sharing his ideas and for You Know Who for humoring me and building and fixing stuff for me. And the humor that this group tends to display.... I mean, Hoff to break in amps? Yikes. ;-)
Some of us have realized that a bit of 2nd order distortion sounds good. Ole! Even if the ASR crowd, their noses tied to their audio spectrum analyzer, claims it's not correct. pfffft...
Analog LPs, recorded and processed in AAA, as well as high resolution recordings in either ADD or DDD ( somewhere after the 00's) sound really good and pleasant. I still think AAA sounds the "warmest" and the least fatiguing reproduction. Ticks and pops can be handled via a proper cleaning and care of the media and turntable, and besides, they are tied to the speaker whereas the music floats in the soundstage. Just like a cough in the audience can be localized while the orchestra fills a 120 degree panorama in front of you.
Besides, I really like the way LPs sound through a tube preamp and my Aleph amps.
Last edited: