[KnowTalent]

I suppose a turntable would be inappropriate in the larger room and likewise a CD player in the studio? Maybe a CD would be a little hard to take near-field.   

I've heard some awesome large systems driven by a turntable. Hard to imagine getting the same quality performance from a regular CD. You think you're playing to the strengths of the respective formats? Apples in one room and kumquats in the other. I'm not throwing out my CD stuff, but I don't agree with your characterization of the quality of the respective formats. I really don't care what the theoretical dynamic range and S/N is.
neo

the more I step back and look at such debates the more I question whether it's more about the individuals perception and what preferences evolve from such.  Even when 'debating" someone having access to both formats...the struggle to identify a measurable and universally agreed upon "what is better" or "what is more natural" becomes so highly subjective we are doomed to roll the rock up hill for all eternity?

does anyone claim that ALL vinyl...from mastering/recording format to playback system is superior to ALL digital?
I have heard some vinyl, moreso in my youth, but have spent the majority of my time listening to digital and when I hear someone like MF come out and claim a simple Rega P1 with commensurately priced needle and phono amp are superior to ALL digital I think the guy comes off as a loon.  I spent enough time listening to the new Marantz TT and while I found it enjoyable it didn't begin to provoke any response where I thought "my gawd, this absolutely kills digital"
Some may say I just need more time to develop an appreciation and while I can appreciate the logic behind that suggestion I also think that rationale reinforces the fact that preference and "familiarity" weigh far more on our perception(s) of what is "better", "more natural", superlative, superlative, superlative....

So I agree it's not apples to apples yet I think the factors that color our perceptions are what are at odds.

[doctorcilantro]

It's a mindset. And most likely it applies to every facet of these individuals lives. 

The funny thing about MF, is he raved about digital RIAA w/ PureVinyl (what I do).

These sweeping statements are so over the top, you better dive out of the way of the ego-train. Why even have the debate? Why not dig into what pressings/issues sound good, compare them, not the formats, but actual recordings?

[neobop]

the more I step back and look at such debates the more I question whether it's more about the individuals perception and what preferences evolve from such.  Even when 'debating" someone having access to both formats...the struggle to identify a measurable and universally agreed upon "what is better" or "what is more natural" becomes so highly subjective we are doomed to roll the rock up hill for all eternity?

does anyone claim that ALL vinyl...from mastering/recording format to playback system is superior to ALL digital?
I have heard some vinyl, moreso in my youth, but have spent the majority of my time listening to digital and when I hear someone like MF come out and claim a simple Rega P1 with commensurately priced needle and phono amp are superior to ALL digital I think the guy comes off as a loon.  I spent enough time listening to the new Marantz TT and while I found it enjoyable it didn't begin to provoke any response where I thought "my gawd, this absolutely kills digital"
Some may say I just need more time to develop an appreciation and while I can appreciate the logic behind that suggestion I also think that rationale reinforces the fact that preference and "familiarity" weigh far more on our perception(s) of what is "better", "more natural", superlative, superlative, superlative....

So I agree it's not apples to apples yet I think the factors that color our perceptions are what are at odds.

I'm not debating. I'm stating my opinion. That opinion is based on my experiences listening, not on specs or what someone else thinks. Your experiences are obviously quite different from mine. But I think there's a lot more to it than factors that color our perceptions.

When CDs first came out in the '80s, they were unlistenable on "good" stereos. That might have been due largely to the fact that there was nothing much to put in that little drawer, but I think if you got your hands on a Sony 101 (I think it was), you might find it lacking. There have been dramatic improvements since then in both the hardware and software. Whether or not you think these improvements make the CD format competitive on a state of the art system, is beyond the realm of experience for most of us. I know my system(s) are not in that league and I no longer hear systems that might be considered as such. The greater the system resolution, the more differences are revealed. We are comparing apples to apples in one important respect. Both are an attempt to recreate a musical event.

Someone like Michael Fremer has experience with, and access to equipment that most of us don't. Maybe he hears in analogue, clues that make it more real sounding than any CD achieves on any level. Perhaps those same clues apply to an entry level turntable. His perceptions are probably colored by experiences with all kinds of killer equipment, but that opinion doesn't make him a loon. It means he has a preference for what he finds more satisfying, just as I do. So take our opinions with a grain of salt and do as you please. No one ever said that ALL vinyl is superior than ALL digital. Don't be silly. Anyway, seems that redbook CD is becoming obsolete, qualitatively. Digital does keep getting better.....
neo

[KnowTalent]

I'm not debating. I'm stating my opinion. That opinion is based on my experiences listening, not on specs or what someone else thinks. Your experiences are obviously quite different from mine. But I think there's a lot more to it than factors that color our perceptions.

When CDs first came out in the '80s, they were unlistenable on "good" stereos. That might have been due largely to the fact that there was nothing much to put in that little drawer, but I think if you got your hands on a Sony 101 (I think it was), you might find it lacking. There have been dramatic improvements since then in both the hardware and software. Whether or not you think these improvements make the CD format competitive on a state of the art system, is beyond the realm of experience for most of us. I know my system(s) are not in that league and I no longer hear systems that might be considered as such. The greater the system resolution, the more differences are revealed. We are comparing apples to apples in one important respect. Both are an attempt to recreate a musical event.

Someone like Michael Fremer has experience with, and access to equipment that most of us don't. Maybe he hears in analogue, clues that make it more real sounding than any CD achieves on any level. Perhaps those same clues apply to an entry level turntable. His perceptions are probably colored by experiences with all kinds of killer equipment, but that opinion doesn't make him a loon. It means he has a preference for what he finds more satisfying, just as I do. So take our opinions with a grain of salt and do as you please. No one ever said that ALL vinyl is superior than ALL digital. Don't be silly. Anyway, seems that redbook CD is becoming obsolete, qualitatively. Digital does keep getting better.....
neo

Once redbook dies I seriously doubt there will be a revival ten to twenty years following such as we are witnessing with vinyl.   

[*Scotty*]

Here is the funny thing about Micheal Fremer's approach to digital, it's not good enough to listen to or consider reference quality but he records the sound of the multi-thousand dollar phono cartridges he reviews onto a CD-R. 
  He has a recorded library of the different phono-cartridges playing his reference discs whose fidelity is good enough that he can recognize which cartridge he listening to by the sound alone. That is pretty good faithfulness to the source and this is 16/44 we are talking about. Does anybody see the dichotomy here.
Scotty

[ricmon]

So I agree it's not apples to apples yet I think the factors that color our perceptions are what are at odds.

As I watch this thread grows I dared not jump in......what's the point.  But I must strongly disagree with this statement.  At the DC Audiofest I heard this setup and was finally convinced by what I heard.  That there is digital that as a vinylfool, that I had found a digital set up I could listen to endlessly.  I never thought that until then!

In an upstairs corner I found Dwight Maxwell of Grapevine Audio  showing off some impressive chip amps. (see insert) Those are Gary Gill’s speakers. Dwight explained that he had spent a lot of time and a lot work on the power supply and is finally very happy with it. After all, what is an amp but a fancy power supply?



 He was also running a prototype DAC that seemed to be working well in no way held the system back. Looking forward to the new DAC as a commercial product.

Ric
 

[jimdgoulding]

Here is the funny thing about Micheal Fremer's approach to digital, it's not good enough to listen to or consider reference quality but he records the sound of the multi-thousand dollar phono cartridges he reviews onto a CD-R. 
  He has a recorded library of the different phono-cartridges playing his reference discs whose fidelity is good enough that he can recognize which cartridge he listening to by the sound alone. That is pretty good faithfulness to the source and this is 16/44 we are talking about. Does anybody see the dichotomy here.
Scotty

I'm just speculating here but perhaps the library is for comparative and analytical reasons.  For work, in other words, rather than pleasure.

[*Scotty*]

Jim I would certainly agree that he probably uses these recordings as analytical tool. But if the argument is that the resolution of 16bit CDs  is so poor that you can't get close enough to the sound of the original master to bother with listening to music then the premise is false. I will certainly agree that sometimes something goes horribly wrong when the master is down-sampled to 16bits and a CD pressing is done. Judging by the number times artists have heard the CD version of their master recording and have been so dissatisfied with the end product that they had it redone tells us something. The potential for severe losses between the 24bit or analogue tape master and the final CD we get to purchase looms large. It makes you wonder just how far away the sound is of many of our CDs from that of the master used to make them.
I am looking forward to the day that a 24/96 medium that has music that I want listen to is in wide distribution.
Till then its vinyl and wave-files from flash memory for me.
Scotty

[neobop]

Jim I would certainly agree that he probably uses these recordings as analytical tool. But if the argument is that the resolution of 16bit CDs  is so poor that you can't get close enough to the sound of the original master to bother with listening to music then the premise is false. I will certainly agree that sometimes something goes horribly wrong when the master is down-sampled to 16bits and a CD pressing is done. Judging by the number times artists have heard the CD version of their master recording and have been so dissatisfied with the end product that they had it redone tells us something. The potential for severe losses between the 24bit or analogue tape master and the final CD we get to purchase looms large. It makes you wonder just how far away the sound is of many of our CDs from that of the master used to make them.
I am looking forward to the day that a 24/96 medium that has music that I want listen to is in wide distribution.
Till then its vinyl and wave-files from flash memory for me.
Scotty

Hi,
How do you find the wave-files, in a comparative sense?

I don't think your argument about Fremer's CD tool, holds up. I think your premise is misstated and you make assumptions that are not given. I suspect Jim has the right idea. Just because the CD can remind him of certain performance aspects of particular carts, does not necessarily mean that the CD can be used as a reference unto itself. Therefore, the CD could be useful as a tool and still fall far short of giving a satisfying performance.

For the record, I don't know Fremer or agree with everything he says.
neo

[*Scotty*]

The wave-files are ripped from the CD via EAC in secure mode and played back from a dedicated net-book using the LINUX  OS. They are always more liquid in texture with a better sense of flow. They also produce a more holographic sound-stage with better focus,improved depth layering and a bigger reproduced size of the space the recording took place in. In the case of studio recordings where artificial sound-spaces are created they are usually circumambient and you are transported to another location where the performers are playing. Vinyl will also do this trick but less frequently owing to the vintage of the recordings I usually listen to. Vinyl playback in my system has a blacker background than digital replay. After 30 seconds or so of listening to digital you forget about the difference in the background. It's a little like you have pay no attention to what that man behind the curtain is doing and just listen to the music.
I have to confess that I am not that big a fan Fremer's reviews. I remember when Stereophile measured the frequency response of the cartridges they reviewed as well as the resonant frequency of the arm/cartridge combination. Channel separation was also measured as well as the THD the cartridge had when playing back standard test tones. All of these measured parameters affected what you heard if you decided to purchase the cartridge. Nowadays all you get is buckets full of prose about how wonderful the latest multi-thousand dollar cartridge sounds. No one is checking to see if the emperor has any clothes on. When Anthony H. Cordesman was writing for Stereophile you had a balance of his subjective impressions and accurate measurements of the critical parameters of phono-cartridge performance that impacted tonearm/cartridge compatibility and a good idea of whether it would work in your tonearm and suit your listening tastes.
That was my curmudgeonly rant in support of the good old days.
Scotty

[Letitroll98]

The wave-files are ripped from the CD via EAC in secure mode and played back from a dedicated net-book using the LINUX  OS. They are always more liquid in texture with a better sense of flow. They also produce a more holographic sound-stage with better focus,improved depth layering and a bigger reproduced size of the space the recording took place in. In the case of studio recordings where artificial sound-spaces are created they are usually circumambient and you are transported to another location where the performers are playing. Vinyl will also do this trick but less frequently owing to the vintage of the recordings I usually listen to. Vinyl playback in my system has a blacker background than digital replay. After 30 seconds or so of listening to digital you forget about the difference in the background. It's a little like you have pay no attention to what that man behind the curtain is doing and just listen to the music.

Very interesting post.  It states exactly what I think the differences between CD and Vinyl are, texture, flow, and soundstage.  And the WAV's are ripped from CD, not some hi-rez source?  To me computer based music systems may be both the way of the future and digital's answer to vinyl's superior playback.  But having no experience with hi-rez digital or computer based music past Itunes on my Ipod, I don't know where to start out.  Do you rip at 44.1khz or upsample?  What type of DAC to you run the Linux net book thru?  All very intriguing for us digital dyslexics.   

[werd]

Hello lelitroll ^^^^^^

All hirez does is give you a better analogue wave form at its output. With that hirez output it amounts to the same as hi frequency output. This means low digital noise. Digital noise or high freq hash is what's been cd's fault since day one. Hirez does not mean low jitter or any other kind of design flaw either so its not  guaranteed to sound great. I know i sound like a broken record here but i think MF is correct with his comments comparing the both.

Just rip at 44.1 khz, to get good hirez it needs to be recorded or remastered that way.

[jsaliga]

Very interesting post.

Yes it is, since none of the conclusions flow from the premises given. 

--Jerome

[turkey]

Here is the funny thing about Micheal Fremer's approach to digital, it's not good enough to listen to or consider reference quality but he records the sound of the multi-thousand dollar phono cartridges he reviews onto a CD-R. 
  He has a recorded library of the different phono-cartridges playing his reference discs whose fidelity is good enough that he can recognize which cartridge he listening to by the sound alone. That is pretty good faithfulness to the source and this is 16/44 we are talking about. Does anybody see the dichotomy here.
Scotty

I've exchanged e-mail with him a couple of times, and he's a different person when he's talking about things other than analog vs. digital, vinyl, etc.

What I figure is that he's made a reputation for himself as Mr. Vinyl, and that's what he's selling and why he has a column in Stereopile. He has to keep actively marketing and selling himself as Mr. Vinyl, and has to keep himself a bit notorious too.

[turkey]

I have to confess that I am not that big a fan Fremer's reviews. I remember when Stereophile measured the frequency response of the cartridges they reviewed as well as the resonant frequency of the arm/cartridge combination. Channel separation was also measured as well as the THD the cartridge had when playing back standard test tones. All of these measured parameters

They don't measure wires either. I wonder what that tells us?

[Minn Mark]

        I think that would be a great day when the world could declare that there is no audible difference between analog and digital playback.

I think it would be a great day when, no matter the medium or playback, there's no audible difference between the playback and original (live in the room) performance.

M

[jimdgoulding]

I think it would be a great day when, no matter the medium or playback, there's no audible difference between the playback and original (live in the room) performance.

M

I think that is achievable with today's technology on some recordings but think it depends on more than simply our front ends.   

[turkey]

I think it would be a great day when, no matter the medium or playback, there's no audible difference between the playback and original (live in the room) performance.

Binaural recordings can come pretty close to this, but they do require headphones and many people don't want that.

I somehow doubt that we will soon reach the point where live and recorded are indistinguishable for the typical home system, but I think it's quite possible to reach the point where it's sometimes possible to forget that this isn't a live performance. I've heard various systems that, with some recordings, can do this now. Yes, if you concentrate you can often pick out things that aren't right, but if you just relax and listen to the music as a whole it can be very convincing.