The gullible people are out there, and the so-called inventors of these magical devices are hopefully praying that their bait will catch some fish.
Pretty much a lot of products these days are suspicious inventions to keep the cashflow going - from the consumer's wallet to the bank of the holy grail.
Coming up with something "new" and "innovative" has always been a strong tool in keeping capitolism alive.
Pretty much a lot of products these days are suspicious inventions to keep the cashflow going - from the consumer's wallet to the bank of the holy grail.
Coming up with something "new" and "innovative" has always been a strong tool in keeping capitolism alive.
IMHO, it should be the only legal tool.
I've kinda architected my system out of the possibility of playing records. USB, I2S or BT as the only inputs. There's a 12 bit analog in which sounds fine with my voice and my guitar through a little Behringer mixer. I'd go BT.
Why? Main reason is I can locate the TT anywhere in the room, with the 'ol "look ma- no wires" advantage. I could build a brick alter for it, well out of the space between or anywhere near the speakers.
I have to believe as BT advances, it'll have all the bits / transparency anyone could ask for. I have the "bits" to do it in BT 4; some little transmitter I bought that accepts line level input, verified connects to my Zoudio amps. I also have a stand alone RIAA preamp; not the Olson / Radios shack kind, one with op-amps and +/- regulated power supplies.
One day I'll get around to cementing half A to B. By the time that happens, I'd believe someone else will have a product for doing exactly this on the market. I'd bet it'd sell.
Connecting your turntable via bluetooth would make you a very, very naughty boy, though 😛
@ariendj
@jjasniew
Yes, connecting a turntable, which is primarily analog, to bluetooth, is going from analog to digital.
That is, you know, a fact.
For some kind of "convenience", it may be, but it goes against keeping the analog signal throughout the system.
Alas, it's the "new way" of things - convenience, no wires, to hell with purity of analog sound.
Just process it to death and take what's left.
@jjasniew
Yes, connecting a turntable, which is primarily analog, to bluetooth, is going from analog to digital.
That is, you know, a fact.
For some kind of "convenience", it may be, but it goes against keeping the analog signal throughout the system.
Alas, it's the "new way" of things - convenience, no wires, to hell with purity of analog sound.
Just process it to death and take what's left.
To tell us that you are offended by the way we enjoy our hobby yes. We are not trying to convert you or tell you you are wrong and yet you want to strongly tell us we are wrong. Curious approach if you don't mind me saying.
That is just hilarious. You really are offended by the 21st century. I'm amazed you actually use the internet.
There's no denying that.
There never was any purity of analog sound to begin with. Like anything in the material world, it is all imperfect. Now in the digital domain, we leave the material world and enter a place where it's all just pure applied mathematics. You can do stuff that would be completely impossible otherwise. Johnson noise begone!
Yup, I see how you could put it that way. To me, it's more the challenge of taking a wrong and calculating a negative version of wrong so I can sum them and have them cancel out. Two wrongs make a right, if you invert one of the wrongs.
Also, 'processing to death' implies that there was something that was alive in the first place. It's all just cold technology. Volts, amps, bits n bytes. All deader than a hammer.
You could ask me what am I even doing here, playing records in 2023, and you'd be right. I'm playing a vinyl collection of music that, for the most part, I have access to in digital form. Why should I even bother?
It's a mix of antiquarianism and a desire to learn about signal processing. I just want to find out how far I can make this old stuff go. Not being ale to make a playlist or easily skip a track when listening to a record also has its charms - it's an anti ADHD measure, if you will.
TL;DR: I'm not denying your rational arguments. It's just that I have accepted that my persuit is completely irrational from the start and I'm fine with that 🙂
Last edited:
Wired or otherwise, nobody ever heard of a reproduction to match live unamplified performance. Analog reproduction was simply good enough while purity was never truly achieved.
[IMHO]
What is surprising for me is that the technology of a turntable is objectively antidiluvian and to obtain a result I do not say the same, but at least remotely comparable to that of a digital source it takes mountains of money.
Not are this enough, because it takes mountains of manual skills, skill, knowledge of the functioning of a nail with a microscopic shape cut symmetrically in a special way to adhere perfectly not to one, but to two jagged opposing incisions that crawls in a stereo groove, micrometer geometric adjustments, a heavy solid place with an accurate horizontal adjustment through a leveling bubble, and a lot of time to complete a setup which is not "straight" at all.
Of which, however, you will never have the certainty of its correctness, because you may have made a "small" mistake somewhere and never knowing it and accepting the sound that comes out of it hoping that you (or someone for you) did everything correct.
Obviously I'm not talking about relatively cheap turntables whose setup lasts 10 minutes and whose result is proportionally doubtful, otherwise there is no match at all.
Frankly, the above is not at all a technological deployment, I attended the Polytechnic of my city for two years because I wanted (but I didn't have the opportunity) to graduate in mechanical engineering, so I love Mechanics!
From that view it appears just as an exaggerated technological deployment that makes no sense from the point of view of technological progress it seems so archaic, in my opinion, in any type of context, but someone still likes and I respect it deeply, because these things are about to have fun,
And I don't see how and why it should be preferred to the "digital" a priori and without listening to it before.
The current digital has nothing to do with what has yet been not known because demonized 44 years ago.
And then, one more, if one does compare prices to obtain a result at the State of the Art with a turntable what appears to be all to be aimed at a financial elite.
Using the freedom to choose to make mistakes alone is the only thing that teaches you something in life, but you can also do the right thing having everyone against.
At the same sound performance, the State of the Art of a digital source is much more democratic than of an analog source when their prices are evaluated.
If you want to reduce that gap you have to spend also a lot of money with "analogic", why don't we talk about this?
The sacred word here is not analogic, it is fun!
[/IMHO]
What is surprising for me is that the technology of a turntable is objectively antidiluvian and to obtain a result I do not say the same, but at least remotely comparable to that of a digital source it takes mountains of money.
Not are this enough, because it takes mountains of manual skills, skill, knowledge of the functioning of a nail with a microscopic shape cut symmetrically in a special way to adhere perfectly not to one, but to two jagged opposing incisions that crawls in a stereo groove, micrometer geometric adjustments, a heavy solid place with an accurate horizontal adjustment through a leveling bubble, and a lot of time to complete a setup which is not "straight" at all.
Of which, however, you will never have the certainty of its correctness, because you may have made a "small" mistake somewhere and never knowing it and accepting the sound that comes out of it hoping that you (or someone for you) did everything correct.
Obviously I'm not talking about relatively cheap turntables whose setup lasts 10 minutes and whose result is proportionally doubtful, otherwise there is no match at all.
Frankly, the above is not at all a technological deployment, I attended the Polytechnic of my city for two years because I wanted (but I didn't have the opportunity) to graduate in mechanical engineering, so I love Mechanics!
From that view it appears just as an exaggerated technological deployment that makes no sense from the point of view of technological progress it seems so archaic, in my opinion, in any type of context, but someone still likes and I respect it deeply, because these things are about to have fun,
And I don't see how and why it should be preferred to the "digital" a priori and without listening to it before.
The current digital has nothing to do with what has yet been not known because demonized 44 years ago.
And then, one more, if one does compare prices to obtain a result at the State of the Art with a turntable what appears to be all to be aimed at a financial elite.
Using the freedom to choose to make mistakes alone is the only thing that teaches you something in life, but you can also do the right thing having everyone against.
At the same sound performance, the State of the Art of a digital source is much more democratic than of an analog source when their prices are evaluated.
If you want to reduce that gap you have to spend also a lot of money with "analogic", why don't we talk about this?
The sacred word here is not analogic, it is fun!
[/IMHO]
Funny self serving lies. I never once said you were wrong. I just answered points you brought up, one by one, explaining why I disagree with each point that was raised in response to the non answers to my original question: what does sitting a DAC next to speaker do for a turntable or a tuner.
You're the one who's so offended at my answers to people saying I should convert my analog signals to digital and then convert them back to analog so the speakers can play them, you're now claiming I'm offended.
I'm amused by your stance that considering so many exhortions to convert things first to digital and then back to analog is moot, as is the suggestion that adding parts into the signal chain lowers distortion.
Moot.
@MITsound
billshurv and I have had lots of interactions where we have argued and disagreed to some extent or other. Despite that I think he is a good guy far more than a bad guy. I would invite him into my home, or out for a beer.
For the most part however in this case I agree with you, MITsound, more than I agree with Bill in principle on the digital issue. In particular, I would never route my phono through a digital system. The main reason I have the phono in the first place is to compare the best of analog (or close to it) to the best I know how to do with digital. The phono system cost a whole lot more, and, yes, it sounds clearly better than any digital heard here so far. Yet, I am trying to figure out how to help make digital sound better, not just look better in FFTs, etc.
BTW, don't think you are bad guy either. Probably both of you are good guys as people go, but with rather different viewpoints, preferences and or choices. Like I said, no way my phono is not staying completely analog from one end to the other. Yet, I see the appeal of tweaking FR and having other fun with digital as part of the hobby. 🙂
billshurv and I have had lots of interactions where we have argued and disagreed to some extent or other. Despite that I think he is a good guy far more than a bad guy. I would invite him into my home, or out for a beer.
For the most part however in this case I agree with you, MITsound, more than I agree with Bill in principle on the digital issue. In particular, I would never route my phono through a digital system. The main reason I have the phono in the first place is to compare the best of analog (or close to it) to the best I know how to do with digital. The phono system cost a whole lot more, and, yes, it sounds clearly better than any digital heard here so far. Yet, I am trying to figure out how to help make digital sound better, not just look better in FFTs, etc.
BTW, don't think you are bad guy either. Probably both of you are good guys as people go, but with rather different viewpoints, preferences and or choices. Like I said, no way my phono is not staying completely analog from one end to the other. Yet, I see the appeal of tweaking FR and having other fun with digital as part of the hobby. 🙂
billsherv likes to argue.
That's why I added him to my lovely Ignore List.
I can't be bothered.
I find Billshurv insightful and thought provoking, but that doesn't mean I'll just accept his opinions and erroneous statements without responding to them.
Especially when he and others answer questions I never posed, lol.
I'm surprised about the generalization that adding parts must always add distortion. There are enough examples where this is not the case, otherwise we'd all be using nothing but passive attenuators before our power amps.
Case in point: In Self's Small Signal Audio Design, third edition, chapter 9, he clearly demonstrates how adding two opamp stages can lower overall noise in a phono preamp. "Cartridge Load Synthesis for Lower Noise" is the relevant part. He replaced the 47k load resistor with a 1 megaohm resistor that he drives with an inverted signal at the bottom end. The net result is an effective loading of 47k and 1.3dB less noise with two more opamps. In this case: More parts = less noise.
In my setup I just use a 2.2 megaohm resistor, forgo the two opamps and undo the peaking response with an EQ filter. The actual loading of the MM coil does not seem to have any effect on tracking.
Another thing I just don't get is the desire to keep things either "purely analog" or "purely digital". Your signal is not influenced by some arbitrary feeling of purity. It's either distorted or it's not. You don't get any extra points for purity, simplicity or elegance.
Case in point: In Self's Small Signal Audio Design, third edition, chapter 9, he clearly demonstrates how adding two opamp stages can lower overall noise in a phono preamp. "Cartridge Load Synthesis for Lower Noise" is the relevant part. He replaced the 47k load resistor with a 1 megaohm resistor that he drives with an inverted signal at the bottom end. The net result is an effective loading of 47k and 1.3dB less noise with two more opamps. In this case: More parts = less noise.
In my setup I just use a 2.2 megaohm resistor, forgo the two opamps and undo the peaking response with an EQ filter. The actual loading of the MM coil does not seem to have any effect on tracking.
Another thing I just don't get is the desire to keep things either "purely analog" or "purely digital". Your signal is not influenced by some arbitrary feeling of purity. It's either distorted or it's not. You don't get any extra points for purity, simplicity or elegance.
@ariendj
You can agree that we, as humans, hear only in analog, right?
Sound is transmitted through the air in analog.
So by staying as close to original sounds, we attempt to insure that that sound is as "pure" and unaffected through a system as possible.
That's always the way "high fidelity" was described.
And people were satisfied... for decades.
In fact, the 1970's and 1980's are described as the peak of audio technology, the "Golden Age" in other words.
Yes, there were some "flaws", as is anything man-made, since man himself isn't prefect either.
But those flaws were at their lowest during that era.
Yet, regarding analog, today's products lack the same build quality and design individuality, IMO they're boring, like clones, as all hell and shabby.
You can agree that we, as humans, hear only in analog, right?
Sound is transmitted through the air in analog.
So by staying as close to original sounds, we attempt to insure that that sound is as "pure" and unaffected through a system as possible.
That's always the way "high fidelity" was described.
And people were satisfied... for decades.
In fact, the 1970's and 1980's are described as the peak of audio technology, the "Golden Age" in other words.
Yes, there were some "flaws", as is anything man-made, since man himself isn't prefect either.
But those flaws were at their lowest during that era.
Yet, regarding analog, today's products lack the same build quality and design individuality, IMO they're boring, like clones, as all hell and shabby.
Yes, there was always budget systems catering to the low-income masses.
In 1975 my "budget" system was a Panasonic higher end (70w) receiver, a Dual 1229 turntable/Shure V15/3 cartridge, and Advent speakers... along with a Sony reel-to-reel, Panasonic cassette and Koss headphones.
In 1975 my "budget" system was a Panasonic higher end (70w) receiver, a Dual 1229 turntable/Shure V15/3 cartridge, and Advent speakers... along with a Sony reel-to-reel, Panasonic cassette and Koss headphones.
Much of the music recorded in the last 10 to 15 years was recorded directly into the digital domain, and it went through several opamps to get there. Some of what gets called "music" today is even generated in the digital domain. I might be guilty of some of this nonsense myself, as anyone with a computer and a DAW can call themselves a "music producer" and grab their 15 minutes of fame on YouTube. Maybe a few percent of this is stuff actually good.
At this point I still drop a record on the Technics turntable that I bought new in the early 80's and listen to it through a vacuum tube system of my own design.
My 70 year old ears are failing due to the progression of Meniere's Disease, so I finally finished my "wall of sound" organization system so the next step is to squeeze all of this into a hard drive while I can still hear it. My next system will be a PC feeding a tube amp, or maybe a PC feeding a SE mosfet amp of my own design if I can get it to work right without blowing too many more $10 mosfets.
In the late 60's my swap meet find Garrard SL-72B fed a DIY transistor based phono stage, which fed a pair of severely modified Stromberg Carlson 75 watt PA amps from the 1950's into some DIY speakers. This setup also doubled as my guitar amp. Loud, yes. Seriously HiFi, maybe not so much, but to a high school kid it ROCKED!
In the 70's the SL-72B got swapped for an SL-95, and later a Zero-100 and the receiver was a solid state Fisher 500TX, as I ran the repair shop in am Olson Electronics store and got dead stuff cheap and fixed it.
After leaving Olson Electronics for a 41 year career at Motorola in 1972, a bunch of like minded Motorola techs cloned every SWTPC Tiger ever made except the Tigersaurus. That stuff got scrapped for Carver and Phase Linear gear and the Technics TT when the cat attacked the Zero-100 in the early 80's killing it dead. The SS stuff went into the closet when I started building tube amps again in the 90's.
Attachments
Who said that, particularly in such absolute terms?
Exactly. Running a clean analog signal through an ADC, DSP, then a DAC can add various types of distortion and or noise that you may or may not be familiar with. Best not to assume what a data converter can do to a signal is no different from what an analog preamp or power amp can do.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.