That’s intellectual supposition, which is belied by the human perception of a significant number of human music listeners. You could make the logical argument that since the signal transfer metrics dictate a perceptually transparent signal path, listeners, necessarily, can not actually perceive what they claim to perceive. Such an argument, however, misses the point that a transparent signal path, while logical in and of itself, may be insufficient to delivering the most realistic human perception of music within the context of practical home music playback systems. Human listening experience is what drives that suspicion.
WOW!!!!
You copypasted about half of:
just to pad and fill up an answer which is otherwise devoid of content.
Congratulations on the special effort.
Looks like a interesting book, maybe I'll add a copy to my library. Meanwhile, is that really all you have left, casting nonsensical (and false) accusations of, what, plagiarism? You certainly do give up a fight easily, and I was hoping for a better effort. At least, I now know not to hope.WOW!!!!
You copypasted about half of:
just to pad and fill up an answer which is otherwise devoid of content.
Congratulations on the special effort.
I invite anybody (IF they have some idle time to waste that is) to extract any meaning of the rigmarole written in post #121 🙂
Useful tip: no real need to spend $$$$ on Oxford´s Dictionary of Philosophy just to find "important sounding" words to pad up empty posts, there are free general purpose tables for that, just pick one word from each column.
You can go back and forth many times, changing paths, to build IMPRESSIVE Nobel Prize level phrases.
This is a simple Business Report 3 column example, post #121 seems to have used an extended version.
Of course:
Useful tip: no real need to spend $$$$ on Oxford´s Dictionary of Philosophy just to find "important sounding" words to pad up empty posts, there are free general purpose tables for that, just pick one word from each column.
You can go back and forth many times, changing paths, to build IMPRESSIVE Nobel Prize level phrases.
This is a simple Business Report 3 column example, post #121 seems to have used an extended version.
Of course:
I invite anybody (IF they have some idle time to waste that is) to extract any meaning of the rigmarole written in post #121 🙂
Useful tip: no real need to spend $$$$ on Oxford´s Dictionary of Philosophy just to find "important sounding" words to pad up empty posts, there are free general purpose tables for that, just pick one word from each column.
You can go back and forth many times, changing paths, to build IMPRESSIVE Nobel Prize level phrases.
This is a simple Business Report 3 column example, post #121 seems to have used an extended version.
Of course:
Can’t you give it a rest? Sheesh.
Why not? There are several suggestions in the thread about how to build a phono amplifier with the desired characteristics and line level signals can be converted to phono level signals with an inverse RIAA network - besides, the thread starter gave up on digital line level sources.
Who asked you?
I am literally answering an invitation/challenge in the post immediately above.
Would have written nothing otherwise:
That was a quick reaction to your prior, ad hominem accusation of my merely copying from a book. I realized after my quick response that things had devolved in to ad hominem attacks going both ways. Which is why I didn't continue responding, and simply exited further 'discussion'. It was no longer productive for anyone.
There are two types of people in the world: those who can use data correctly ......
Seriously, you need to go look at the numbers. The Beatles (alone) had sold 500M records before '72. Now, tell me how many digitally mastered vinyl records have been sold?
Back on topic, "lush" remains whatever the writer (or reader) wants it to mean.
Now, it excludes "sounding like cheap transistor cross over distortion", "nasty DACs", peaky metal speaker drivers, and lousy power supplies but there's nothing saying what it is.
Bandwidth limited single ended console with pressed paper speakers? Or FM direct broadcast into PP 2A3 and 100db+ VOT? Or an all Quad setup with Linn Sondek or Thorens with SME 3012? But with Ortofon SPU or Shure V15? Or reel to reel into a Sugden and LS3s?
Despite all the "we all know" claims in this thread I'd wager bugger all have heard any of the above, never mind be able to explain why they sound different.
(No, I never heard the direct FM broad cast from Boston. But I have a pretty good understanding of what it didn't sound like. And why)
Hundreds of millions. Every re-issue is a digital remaster. Every new release is digitally mastered. Sure there are many old records still collecting dust on people's shelves, but personally, if I wanted a Beatles record, I'd buy the reissue because it sounds better.
As you said, there are two types of people in the world - those who can use data (digital) correctly and those who think "digital" means a compressed to crap, loud normalized signal with no dynamic range on a CD @ 16 bit 44.1kHz - a bitrate developed because a UMatic video tape could store 1 hour of audio at 44.1kHz/16 bit.
"The famous compact disc 44.1 kHz sampling rate was based on a best-fit calculation for PAL and monochrome NTSC video's horizontal line period and rate and U-matic's luminance bandwidth. On playback, the PCM adapter converted the light and dark regions back into bits. Glass masters for audio CDs were made via laser from the PCM-1600's digital output to a photoresist- or dye-polymer-coated disc. This method was common until the mid-1990s."
Any music created in the last twenty years has been done digitally, the first "DDD" CD I had was from 1988.
Even my DJ mixer that I bought 10 years ago is 24 bit digital, the only analog circuitry being the analog input/output AKA ADCs and DACs.
Don't get me wrong - I love analog and tubes, but I'm honestly surprised nobody has developed a digital cartridge yet. 2 wires for power, 2 wires for signal, ADC in the cartridge, S/PDIF / optical output from turntable.
This Reddit post is an interesting read, too:
Of course there's this, too! LMAO
https://www.washingtonpost.com/music/2022/08/05/mofi-records-analog-digital-scandal/
How about a pencil tube with 1:0.5 interstage as an effects box?
One could parallel its secundair with a potentiometer for alternative loads..
One could parallel its secundair with a potentiometer for alternative loads..
Not every new release is digitally mastered. Most are, but not all. Anyway, it's completely off topic.
You must be young. My couple thousand LPs from the 1950s, '60s and '70s are all pre-digital. Unfortunately, a lot of my jazz records are OJC and post-1985 Blue Note.
What I've heard of today's LPs sound overly compressed (dynamics compression/limiting). I guess they're mastered along the lines of CDs from the Loudness Wars (Bob Katz phrase).
Perhaps a fancy 180g pressing, done well. But I have lots of both pre-digital and digitally remastered LPs, and generally speaking, if the pre-digital pressing was good enough, I find the pre-digital pressings can sound a lot better. A major problem with analog was that getting a high quality result was expensive and time-consuming. I'll definitely agree that digital audio processing has made it much easier, quicker and cheaper to achieve a high quality result, even in regard to LP production. I don't think one can make a blanket 'LPs from digital remasters sound better' kind of statement. There is so much more to making a good sounding LP than what medium the master is made on.
BTW, I want to clarify that I am not one of those vinyl purists. My main music source is digital (RPi w/ Boss DAC and Moode) and my hi-fi is now all solid state (Nooooo!!!!). I have about 3000 LPs collected since I was a little boy, 20 years before the digital changeover. I was buying lots of records all through the 1970s. Lately I built an ESP P-06 opamp RIAA preamp and I'm loving it! For shame... My motivation for having a vinyl playback setup is to not let all that time and energy go to waste, and spinning old LPs is just fun. It's such a pleasant surprise when it sounds good, but that's very dependent on the particular pressing. Many were terrible back in the 1970s.
I bought one of those ca. Y2K Blue Note LPs with the free CD inside. It was immediately apparent that the LP and the CD were from the same master (digital, very likely) and that they both sound overly dynamics-compressed/limited, to an artificial degree. Too bad. I'd much rather have the original Blue Note pressing, even one of the Liberty Records ones from the 1970s.
PS - "Vogue" and Madonna LPs were from the period (the 1980s) when LP pressings were just awful. They churned them out as cheap as they could make 'em. Comparing one of those ghastly pressings to a contemporary 24-bit digital file version is just not a fair comparison. Now, a 1970s Deutsche Grammophon pressing? Or a 1970s/80s ECM pressing? Those were good. I wish I still had my LP of "Bright Size Life" (Pat Metheny with Jaco Pastorius)...
Last edited:
I'l clarify: 99% of vinyl records pressed today are mastered digitally, and a new Beatles record will sound better than an original for a similar price. If you want to go out and pay thousands for a mint original recording, go for it.
And of course most 80's records sounded like crap - they were trying to kill the format and PVC (crude oil) was expensive.
Of course it still is, but people are willing to pay 50$ for an album now. Hell, John Coltrain Blue Train is 73$! https://www.amazon.ca/Blue-Train-Vinyl-John-Coltrane/dp/B0B7NM35GP
The other problem with digital for me is the encoding. I don't know of any free hi res audio services that have any music I like, and you can't download a 24 bit 96 kHz lossless version. Hospital Records will sell you a .WAV file but it's 44/16...
I find most times the vinyl sounds better because of the mastering. If you mastered a CD as if it was a record, it would also sound better - loudness wars be damned!
There's a repress of Immaculate Collection I considered getting but no money for that now.
And of course most 80's records sounded like crap - they were trying to kill the format and PVC (crude oil) was expensive.
Of course it still is, but people are willing to pay 50$ for an album now. Hell, John Coltrain Blue Train is 73$! https://www.amazon.ca/Blue-Train-Vinyl-John-Coltrane/dp/B0B7NM35GP
The other problem with digital for me is the encoding. I don't know of any free hi res audio services that have any music I like, and you can't download a 24 bit 96 kHz lossless version. Hospital Records will sell you a .WAV file but it's 44/16...
I find most times the vinyl sounds better because of the mastering. If you mastered a CD as if it was a record, it would also sound better - loudness wars be damned!
There's a repress of Immaculate Collection I considered getting but no money for that now.