[TheChairGuy]

Ha - this is a play on a highly contentious topic I raised a few weeks ago called 'All CD Players sound the same.  All CD Players sound the same?'  In it, a member claimed I was being a bit too severe in my statements, and that how would I feel if someone made a topic called 'All turntables sound the same.  All turntables sound the same?

So, here it is.  Was is member 'rajacat' that offered that dare, perhaps 

So, I offer this statement and categorically deny it as being anywhere near true.  All turntables sound different due to a plethora of mechanaical and electrical realities that exist in spinning ye' old disc. To whit:

1.  Cartridge/arm interaction.  Too much weight, too little weight, too much compliance, too little compliance

2.  Thorough vinyl cleaning

3.  Differences in stylus construction, diamond quality, and tip shape

4.  Belt, direct or rim drive - quartz lock, servo drive, 33, 45, 78 rpm's

5.  Gimbal, unipivot, tangenital...9", 10", 12" arms

6.  Physical isolation, and as much as you can afford, is needed

7.  Capacitance and impedance loading

8.  Moving magnets, irons, coils, strain gauge cartridges

9.  RIAA equalization and 36db+ amplification; outboard phono, phono section in your pre-amp, step-up and or transformer.  Each wire length adds capacitance which you have to figure back into the vinyl equation with most/many cartridges

10.  Stylus wear

11.  Arm geometry: VTA (vertical tracking angle), VTF (vertical tracking force), azimuth, platter levelling

12.  Suspended, non-suspended, high mass, or low mass decks

Whew  Ya'll get the idea...I may have even missed some.  But, you get the idea.  There are simply too many variables for any turntable to sound the same.

Once you dial in the vast majority of the above as well as they were engineered to, you wil have a superior playback device to the CD player.  You wil never achieve natural treble reproduction with a CD player - that fact alone disqualifies it from succeeding as a high quality music format.  Certainly, it is more convenient....but beyond that it has very little sonially to offer as a high quality playback medium. 

DVD-A is a truly meaningful advance in digital recording and playback technology - so please don't paint me as some anti-digital person.  I'm pro music.....and, quite unhappily I might add.....the old turntable, with all it's many fatiguing facets of performance needing maximization excells as a high quality, high resolution format.  It's only close digital competitor is DVD-A today.

So, in summary:

* Every turntable sounds different

* Once set up properly and at least average component pieces used, it will safely trounce any CD player for all it's musical qualities

* So, spend as little as possible on either format to find acceptable sound.  But, if reproducing music accurately and finding musical bliss  is your goal....spend more on your turntable setup and less on your CD playback.

If you've never owned a turntable or at least listened intently to one or several over time - please refrain from commenting here.  You won't possibly know what your missing and would have no basis to comment or cajole here.  Please don't ask me to re-clarify my position or parrot back mine, please state your own position and where I may be in error.

Now, let's have fun with this and let's not let it get contentious.  If you differ with me, please make rationale, consistent and solid points why either CD players sound different or in some way sound superior to vinyl.

John / TCG



 

[eric the red]

'If you differ with me, please make rationale, consistent and solid points why either CD players sound different or in some way sound superior to vinyl."

I could have sworn that I read something along those lines here recently
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=37280.0

[BobM]

I can make one keen observation that I believe most will agree with and that applies to all music reproduced by a system, regardless of the kind of source you are using (CD, DVD, SACD, vinyl, tape):

- the quality of the playback absolutely depends on the quality and type of mastering done on the recordinig itself.

As an extension of this, I think it is immediately obvious that a CD mastered better than a record has the potential to sound better. Yes, the vinyl does have an inherent flow and fluidity to it that can be missing on a CD, but "musically" and "emotionally" the CD can trounce vinyl on occasion.

Now the corrolary to this is, if the mastering for both mediums are the same, the record will sound better to most ears, given reasonably decent components are used in the comparison and they are set up correctly.

Comments? Disagreements?
Bob

[anubisgrau]

yes they all sound the same except for linn sondek who has a bloathed, warm bass that makes it unlistenable in any neutral system.

[woodsyi]

Hell all my stuff is beginning to sound alike.  I bet I can put in a boom box and still sound good in my room.  The trick is treating your room.  After deploying 3 diffusers, 18 absorbers of varying size and thickness and acoustic ceiling tiles, they all sound good to me.     Or is it the stash of fine Scotch that I put in the room? 

[BobRex]

I can make one keen observation that I believe most will agree with and that applies to all music reproduced by a system, regardless of the kind of source you are using (CD, DVD, SACD, vinyl, tape):

- the quality of the playback absolutely depends on the quality and type of mastering done on the recordinig itself.

As an extension of this, I think it is immediately obvious that a CD mastered better than a record has the potential to sound better. Yes, the vinyl does have an inherent flow and fluidity to it that can be missing on a CD, but "musically" and "emotionally" the CD can trounce vinyl on occasion.

Now the corrolary to this is, if the mastering for both mediums are the same, the record will sound better to most ears, given reasonably decent components are used in the comparison and they are set up correctly.

Comments? Disagreements?
Bob

Quality of playback = mastering quality:  I think you can consider this a given.  Although a bad recording will still sound different on each medium.

CD mastered better than a record - it can happen.  I can think of a few that I have on both mediums where the CD is better than the lp - most of the Norrington Beethovens and Oldfield's Tubular Bells II come readily to mind.

Many years ago I did a test with a Telarc cd and lp.  The recording was the Copeland Fanfare / Rodeo.  The test was done in my store (I didn't own it, but I was one of the major employees), the table was a VPIHW19 with an ET arm and a Talisman cart.  The CD was a Revox (if memory serves.)  The rest of the system was a VTL Ultimate, I think a Threshold amp, and Mirage M1s.  I level matched as best I could at 1kHz. The test subject was a Berkeley trained, practicing musician, who was my wife's boss at the time.  I synchronized the recording and switched between them.  My question wasn't which sounds better, but rather "which sounds more like live music?"  He picked the lp.  This is a case where the recording is identical, the mastering is probably as identical as it can get given the different mediums.  So I'm willing to confirm and agree with your corrolary.

[lcrim]

Yes, there are too many variables for all turntables to sound the same.  I also agree w/ Bob in that the media is ultimately the one limiting factor but having said that I am still finding more musical information as my sources improve.  This has been the latest area of improvement for me and while I tend to prefer vinyl, as PC audio has matured in my systems, the quality achievable from Redbook has gotten quite nice.  Yeah, most early CD's in general are crap but there are a lot, mostly recently that are better than decent.  The surface on some Lp's I have is less than pristene but the content can't ever be replaced.  Miles is not making any new ones.

[TheChairGuy]

Totally agreed here, Bob.

A heavy handed or otherwise inept sound engineer can butcher any recording in any format at any time.

If anything, the inherently higher signal-to-noise ratio and dynamic range of CD should, theoretically, allow for a less heavy hand (less compression, equalization et al) at the control board.  I doubt a whole crop of mixing engineers are inherently less knowledgeable than their counterparts of years ago that did nothing but mix masters to vinyl (or, reel-to-reel) 

If that not be the case I can only conclude that it's something more aground here....that CD is a considerably flawed recording and playback source at the start of the whole process.  Further, spending inordinate amount of dough on the last 50% (playback) can never override the sins of the first 50% (recording).

So, spend as little as you can only CD playback (for each, that is a different level of course), but if you are seeking out the real high resolution choice - spend it on a turntable-based front end.  Insofar as digital playback is concerned, if convenience is tantamount to enjoying your system, invest in DVD-A as it is a meaningful advance over CD 
 
All turntables sound different due to the reasons above - and it surely is painful to dial in all or most of the variables - but, once done, you will have a superior source of music with treble response that will instantly remind you what's been missing with your CD-based system is nothing that you can control with any amount of tweeking, or money thrown at it.

I can make one keen observation that I believe most will agree with and that applies to all music reproduced by a system, regardless of the kind of source you are using (CD, DVD, SACD, vinyl, tape):

- the quality of the playback absolutely depends on the quality and type of mastering done on the recordinig itself.

As an extension of this, I think it is immediately obvious that a CD mastered better than a record has the potential to sound better. Yes, the vinyl does have an inherent flow and fluidity to it that can be missing on a CD, but "musically" and "emotionally" the CD can trounce vinyl on occasion.

Now the corrolary to this is, if the mastering for both mediums are the same, the record will sound better to most ears, given reasonably decent components are used in the comparison and they are set up correctly.

Comments? Disagreements?
Bob

[TheChairGuy]

Along with woodsyi's statement that alcohol is the best elixir of all for CD ills, it should also be noted that as we all age (men, in particular) lose hearing prowess and a good bit of that loss is in the upper registers.  No matter how well you treat your auditory canal, it happens - it's called the aging process.

So, over time, CD may not sound as poor relative to vinyl.  Mix aging with a little vino or scotch, throw in some whiniing and screaming kids or grandchildren in the mix and, oola!!, you have a great music source in CD 

[woodsyi]

I recently got 1000 CDs ripped for me and I am in the process of copying the data into my NAS which is taking a freaking long time.  It's like the early days of photoshop when you set the filter and went to sleep.    Anyway, since the digital front end was occupied, I have been playing around with my TTs.  It so happens that I just received a new Ruby3 cart replacing the used Ruby 2 I had.  I am currently sorting through a lot of LPs to decide which ones to keep.  I am running 2 TTs to keep the flow of LPs going.  One is suspended model (Oracle Delphi V, SME IV, Koetsu RW Sig, Art Audio Vinyl One) and the other has no inherent suspension but it sits on Onix MSP-1 magnetic platform. (Basis 1400, Incognito wired Rega 250, Ruby 3, Modwright SWLP)  There is not a lot of difference.   

[TheChairGuy]

woodsyi, we already established your affair with Ms. Dewars...so, of course, there is no difference in your turntable systems 

[gooberdude]

I'll take a shot at one heading posted by BobM that the recording quality matters a whole lot.    For several years i would have agreed with you - ever since jumping into this hobby it was apparent that some recordings were lackluster.

Well, over the last year i've acoustically treated my room and bought a nice amp and souped up my sources a bit...now i can't tell a bad recording from a good recording...they all sound amazing.  If my aunt betty, who smokes 3 packs of unfiltered Charleston's every day, was in my L/R singin' 'Amazing Grace' she'd sound good....its just like that.

most (or at least i think i am!) is the diff between source components and their medium.    

I, as well as others, have probably been in the upgrade rut of only listening to a select # of albums in my collection, since those sounded the best.   What i've found out recently is that it was my set-up, my room and my sources which sounded bad...not the recording.

Now, i can tell a diff between recordings, no doubt.  but even the ones i thought sounded bad, don't.    Recently i waxed poetic about Ipod sound because i had not heard it in my system lately and was surprised by the performance.  even 320mps AAC encoded music files sound great, and i've hated compression for years.

just goes to show that a lot of this is subjective i guess!


of course i agree that all TT's sound difft.    or do i want to state that mine sounds the best?   jk.

matt

[rollo]

woodsyi, we already established your affair with Ms. Dewars...so, of course, there is no difference in your turntable systems 

  He said I believe " there is little difference" and I agree. Even Harry W. of VPI states that his HRX table offers only a small degree of better sound than the Scout. If you want to spend the extra go ahead but  he does not recommend it. Harry is sincere with this statement, so take it for what it is worth. He actually says spend the extra money on a better cart. which he does not sell. Refreshing .

 rollo

[lcrim]

If you view the turntable and tonearm as simply mechanical devices for putting the cartridge into contact with the record even then I think that the differences are pretty large.
The differences between cartridges are dramatic and phono sections play a large role as well.  But to me anyway, the speed accuracy of the turntable and the ability of the tonearm to track the record with the cartridge is the essence of the issue.  Both of these things vary from TT to TT hugely.

[Scotty]

About 7years ago I switched from a Denon DP1100 direct drive with a pivoted arm to
a Maplenoll Ariadne air-bearing TT which also has an air-bearing tangental tracking tonearm. This made a huge improvement in how my record collection sounded,
even though the cartridge and phono-stage remained the same. I then spent the next three years experimenting off and on to achieve the same tonal and timbral
 accuracy that CD replay has in my system. I was also trying to acquire the same bass extension that CD's have. I succeeded in the tonal/timbral accuracy dept.
and the bass is close, but highly recording dependent. Neither records or most phono-stages are flat to DC and this means there is always a phase shift problem
in the bass below 30 to 40Hz. This problem,coupled with the standard practice of rolling off the bass below 50Hz to add more time on a record side means that most of the time I won't have the same bass extension from my vinyl as I get from CD's. The only thing I have noticed recently, is that my favorite records which have the most playing time on them have noticeably less high frequency extension and a diminished leading edge attack on transients.
I was blaming my phono-stage as the culprit, until I put on some recordings of the same vintage but with less playing time on them. I had forgotten about the fact that everytime you play a record, you machine off some of the high frequency information in the grooves. This means that over time,dependent of the vinyl formulation,tracking force,tracking error, and stylus profile, the life-like attack and high frequency extension that I know and love is going to go away.  I like my vinyl, but I am not purchasing new recordings in this medium.
I do scour the used record bins in my local half price bookstore for old jazz
and classical recording and have found a few gems this way.
Scotty

[lazydays]

Ha - this is a play on a highly contentious topic I raised a few weeks ago called 'All CD Players sound the same.  All CD Players sound the same?'  In it, a member claimed I was being a bit too severe in my statements, and that how would I feel if someone made a topic called 'All turntables sound the same.  All turntables sound the same?

So, here it is.  Was is member 'rajacat' that offered that dare, perhaps 

So, I offer this statement and categorically deny it as being anywhere near true.  All turntables sound different due to a plethora of mechanaical and electrical realities that exist in spinning ye' old disc. To whit:

1.  Cartridge/arm interaction.  Too much weight, too little weight, too much compliance, too little compliance

2.  Thorough vinyl cleaning

3.  Differences in stylus construction, diamond quality, and tip shape

4.  Belt, direct or rim drive - quartz lock, servo drive, 33, 45, 78 rpm's

5.  Gimbal, unipivot, tangenital...9", 10", 12" arms

6.  Physical isolation, and as much as you can afford, is needed

7.  Capacitance and impedance loading

8.  Moving magnets, irons, coils, strain gauge cartridges

9.  RIAA equalization and 36db+ amplification; outboard phono, phono section in your pre-amp, step-up and or transformer.  Each wire length adds capacitance which you have to figure back into the vinyl equation with most/many cartridges

10.  Stylus wear

11.  Arm geometry: VTA (vertical tracking angle), VTF (vertical tracking force), azimuth, platter levelling

12.  Suspended, non-suspended, high mass, or low mass decks

Whew  Ya'll get the idea...I may have even missed some.  But, you get the idea.  There are simply too many variables for any turntable to sound the same.

Once you dial in the vast majority of the above as well as they were engineered to, you wil have a superior playback device to the CD player.  You wil never achieve natural treble reproduction with a CD player - that fact alone disqualifies it from succeeding as a high quality music format.  Certainly, it is more convenient....but beyond that it has very little sonially to offer as a high quality playback medium. 

DVD-A is a truly meaningful advance in digital recording and playback technology - so please don't paint me as some anti-digital person.  I'm pro music.....and, quite unhappily I might add.....the old turntable, with all it's many fatiguing facets of performance needing maximization excells as a high quality, high resolution format.  It's only close digital competitor is DVD-A today.

So, in summary:

* Every turntable sounds different

* Once set up properly and at least average component pieces used, it will safely trounce any CD player for all it's musical qualities

* So, spend as little as possible on either format to find acceptable sound.  But, if reproducing music accurately and finding musical bliss  is your goal....spend more on your turntable setup and less on your CD playback.

If you've never owned a turntable or at least listened intently to one or several over time - please refrain from commenting here.  You won't possibly know what your missing and would have no basis to comment or cajole here.  Please don't ask me to re-clarify my position or parrot back mine, please state your own position and where I may be in error.

Now, let's have fun with this and let's not let it get contentious.  If you differ with me, please make rationale, consistent and solid points why either CD players sound different or in some way sound superior to vinyl.

John / TCG

well my downstairs system uses a Marantz 8260, and a Jolida CD100a for digital music. I use a "Final Tool" for a turntable with a Grado cartridge. Needless to say the T.T. is better than the two CD players (SACD or whatever), but I just took delivery of a new Yamaha DVD-A player as well as a small LCD monitor. This setup will replace the Jolida, and the Marantz will also do redbook via a DAC from the digital outputs. I didn't buy it to replace the SACD player, but to complement it. It seemed that everytime I went SACD shopping I always found DVD-A disc that I wanted to hear. I never gave the slightest thought to a digital unit ever sounding better than my analog unit, and don't expect it to.
more on this new adventure later
gary

 

[lazydays]

'If you differ with me, please make rationale, consistent and solid points why either CD players sound different or in some way sound superior to vinyl."

I could have sworn that I read something along those lines here recently
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=37280.0

well first off my Jolida sounds different than anyother CD player I've owned in the past.
The tubed output stage is what makes it different. The Marantz sounds much different than the other two Sonys I own playing SACD's. Yet my Cal Delta (upstairs system) sounds closer to the Jolida than any others I've heard. I'm thinking that it's got something to do with "upsampleing" in the DAC it feeds into. The same CD played back thru the Sony setting right below it is edgy and seems compressed. And once again boring when compared to my turntable.
gary

[TheChairGuy]

I think I now slather my system with enough tubes in it to bear with CD sound...in fact, it's even decent sometimes.  Coloration is a good thing with CD, I think 

Analog/vinyl has never needed tubes...so I bought a SS preamp with multiple loading options as a standalone preamp for my vinyl rig recently.

[Wind Chaser]

Do all turntables sound the same?  That's a good question. 

I doubt many people just upgrade their TT and keep the same cartridge, tone arm, and phono stage.  I've been through plenty of TT's over the years, but each one had a different arm and cartridge.  I tried three different arms on my Oracle using the same cartridge and each arm sounded vastly different.

Magnepan Uni-pivot - utter crap, Grace made twice the arm for half the price
Syrinx PU 3 - pretty good but but definitely not in the same class as the Alphason
Alphason HR-100S - the best I've ever heard, very clean and very focused

[WEEZ]

TCG,

As your original post point out..there are many variables. The 'table/arm/cartridge is in itself a 'system'. So you've got a 'system' within your 'system'. 

And no, they don't all sound alike. Just varying degrees of good.

WEEZ