Leonard Smalls Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 [quote name='gelfin' timestamp='1355088146' post='1893934'] For everyone's info the top spec turntable from Linn the LP12 now costs in the region of £20k [/quote] £20k if you buy all the factory upgrades such as the Keel sub-chassis, Trampolin base-board, Lingo/Radikal power supplies etc. But in terms of vinyl reproduction only die-hard Sondek-ers would dispute that you can do much, much better than that for a fraction of the cost. Frinstance, you can buy one of the best TTs in the world (in my opinion!) for £8k, the Platine Verdier: Or if you really want to push the boat out (short of buying a Rockport at £70k), you can spend the same as a full-spec LP12 on the next TT up from mine, complete with parallel-tracking tonearm: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulWarning Posted December 10, 2012 Author Share Posted December 10, 2012 (edited) [quote name='molan' timestamp='1355105913' post='1894200'] Strangely no - I've never even heard of the RIAA, let alone any curve they've been on! Given that I have no idea about how CD compression then it should be fairly obvious that I'm no technical acronym expert Maybe if I rephrase - to my ears a lot of CD's sound harsher and less natural than their vinyl counterparts. Some CD's seem to 'jump' out at you when you first hear them but, to me, can become wearing with repeated listening. Just felt to me like this could be a 'compression thing' as that's what I thought a typical side-effect of a compressed mix was [/quote] This compression thing is confusing, there's 2 types, the compression the studio puts on the recording to make it sound louder as described on post 14 and the compression used to make a digital file smaller, is that right? CD's and vinyl will have the first one but not the second one. How does vinyl stand up against CD's on modern digital studio compressed recordings? Edited December 10, 2012 by PaulWarning Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Yes, there are different meanings for compression in this discussion. But if we ignore everything done to the audio signal up to the point of committing to vinyl, then there is still the RIAA 'distortion' required for the vinyl whereas nothing is required for the CD. I'm not commenting on whether this is a good or bad thing, just pointing out that vinyl is not as 'pure' as many people might think. Debates about which medium is 'best' are as pointless as debates about 'best' songs because such things are a matter of personal preference, so there can be no absolute right or wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulWarning Posted December 10, 2012 Author Share Posted December 10, 2012 [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1355133624' post='1894354'] Debates about which medium is 'best' are as pointless as debates about 'best' songs because such things are a matter of personal preference, so there can be no absolute right or wrong. [/quote] or which is the best bass, this is absolutely true, but it gives us something to chat about Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Fair point. It's interesting to chat about our various opinions, but I think it's more useful if those opinions are not based on false premises. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShergoldSnickers Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1355133624' post='1894354'] Yes, there are different meanings for compression in this discussion. But if we ignore everything done to the audio signal up to the point of committing to vinyl, then there is still the RIAA 'distortion' required for the vinyl whereas nothing is required for the CD. I'm not commenting on whether this is a good or bad thing, just pointing out that vinyl is not as 'pure' as many people might think. Debates about which medium is 'best' are as pointless as debates about 'best' songs because such things are a matter of personal preference, so there can be no absolute right or wrong. [/quote] The RIAA curve is similar in a way - different purpose granted - to the classic Dolby B equalisation used to help lessen tape hiss. Both introduce a frequency curve modification that is removed by applying the opposite on playback. If correctly done, there is no perceivable distortion. The critical word is 'if'. Having heard a top-end streaming device playing 24 bit 96kHz 'studio master' quality recordings, I have to say that it looks like the future for quality hi-fi. Given that so much depends on how each individual perceives and expects to perceive sound, I agree that the debate is pointless in absolute terms. Still fun though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Yes, good point about Dolby - I'd forgotten about that. I agree such debates can be fun, but only if there's a sense of perspective. Interesting that the general consensus on here seems to be that £20k mains leads are snake oil but £20k turntables are not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
51m0n Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Cant believe we are already back to this. CD, at 16bit 44.1KHz is a technically superior medium than vinyl in every single way measurable (those being useful frequency response, and dynamic range). The noise floor on vinyl is far far higher than that on CD, the frequency rnage on vinyl is limited by a myriad factors to do with the very physical nature of vinyl cutting. CD is not 'lossy' sampling is not losing information, and converting back from digital to analogue does not leave 'steps' wher the samples were in the wave form. If you prefer the sound of vinyl on your system, great lucky youi. If you are comparing CD to vinyl, then for goodness sake compare apples to apples, it must be the same version (right down to mastering) of both albums. If you dont like the CD then fine, its your CD player, or your ears just prefer the sound as a result of the inherent flaws in vinyl vs those in CD. Almost any complaint against CD should be aimed at mastering for volume if its aCd released in post '95. For any CD pre '90 then you have to understand a bit more about the recording process pre-digital: digital multitrack was around in major studios from the early 80's by the way (infamous Sony machines), so a lot of those favourite albums on vinyl were in fact tracked digitally even back then. A lot of tracking around this time was doen with a pure analogue tape mindset, and the gernal belief was that you needed to get as hot as you could without an 'over' - exceeding 0dBfs - which sounded like arse. In fact this often meant that recordists were pushing the analogue input side on their digital kit to hard, and it sounded harsh as a result - not the analogue to digital conversion, the analogue input, important difference. Its now understood that the whole point of the increased headroom (particularly at 24bit, where everyone who means business is recording anyway) means you should be allowing yourself at least 6dB and more like 12dB opf headroom [i]over the higherst peak level[/i] when tracking, which means you AD input is competely unstressed, and the soudn of the result is fantastic quality. But back in the day everyone (and I mean absolutely everyone) was pushing analogue tape hard and bright to get tape compression (level compression is a GOOD THING not a bad thing, analogue or digital, lossy data compression is a BAD THING, lossless data compression is a GOOD THING - lets just get that clarified) and to combat tape his (if you track to bright you turn down top end on mix time and hiss with it). If you take that same ethos and apply it to pure digital recording though you just end up with harsh sounding CDs, and less harsh sounding vinyl (due to the final mastering process being a little different to vinyl). ANyone noticed how music as late as 80's pop has no sub in it? Production/mastering for cassette tape, little radios and vinyl all caused that. 70's funk has pants all low end either. Nothing much below 80Hz (check out PFunk records on vinyl if you dont believe me) - now listen to a Daptones CD. And they are lauded over as a pure analogue production house revelling in the sound of vintage, yet on CD and vinyl they tend to have more low end than the real stuff they emulate. CD is the better medium technically, but as we all know there are a myriad ways of screwing the pooch on these things. If you have vinyl you prefer the sound of enjoy it, if you have CDs you prefer the sound of, enjoy them. Once you get to 96Khz 24bit lossless recordings (tracked that way , not upsampled later) with decent and thoughtful mastering, in a great room acoustically (all you people claiming a is better than b are listening in an acoustically treated space to make these judgements aren't you?) - it sounds pretty incredible, and the vinyl purists woudl do well to attempt a truly objective listen to it compared to anything else at all. [quote name='gelfin' timestamp='1355088418' post='1893943'] Not all. Metropolis Studios in London often cut direct to acetate live from the recording studio. [/quote] They have a huge list of digital kit, will track to any of the main DAWS, mix from any of them blah blah blah. If you want to you can go there and limit the effectiveness of your recording by tracking direct to stereo vinyl, they will be happy to lighten your wallet for the privelege Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_Stu Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1355137722' post='1894423']Interesting that the general consensus on here seems to be that £20k mains leads are snake oil but £20k turntables are not.[/quote] I got into hi-fi when I won a pair of Celestion speakers in a Loaded competition next came the sand filled speaker mounts, then a new amp, then a CD deck, then another CD deck, then a CD-R deck & somewhere in the middle the Castle speakers. Long about that time (in a southern ZZ Top drawl) there was a turntable that was available in very small quantities that had it's plinth - a HUGE plinth, made of reclaimed oak from a sunken Dutch galleon, it was - IIRC - around £50k. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
51m0n Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 (edited) IMO anyone running a hifi worth more than £5000 in an untreated room is delusional.... Hell £2000 Edited December 10, 2012 by 51m0n Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_Stu Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 (edited) [quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1355158248' post='1894777'] IMO anyone running a hifi worth more than £5000 in an untreated room is delusional.... Hell £2000 [/quote] When I bought it, and if I'd not had any discounts? Around £3.5k, now? Lucky to get about half that - my cassette deck goes for about £15 on Ebay as of late. As a mate of mine said years ago "your wires cost more than my whole hi-fi". Yes, the room is set up to an extent, not clinical. But I don't go to gigs & start fixing acoustic tiles to the wall either. Just do the best - within reason - with what's available & realistic at the time. You don't have to go the whole hog to make appreciable differences anyway; here's three for those who don't already............ "speakers on purpose made stands, not on shelves" "position speakers so that the tweeter (assuming it's tweeter at the top of the speaker) is as close to ear height as possible" "don't put your speakers in the corner of the room" Edited December 10, 2012 by Big_Stu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Smalls Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1355137722' post='1894423'] Interesting that the general consensus on here seems to be that £20k mains leads are snake oil but £20k turntables are not. [/quote] £20k is an enormous amount for a turntable, though there's a lot of pride of ownwership to be had if you like that sort of thing, and can afford it. A Clearaudio Master Reference is a thing of beauty - even Lara Croft had one And it will make vinyl sound as good as it possible could. However, in terms of bang per buck it would only be a tiny bit better than a £3k turntable (like mine), which is much a higher percentage better than a £300 one... As for mains leads, so long as it can pass the appropriate current, any old one will do. After all, there's miles of non-foo cable getting the electricity to your house, so what difference can a stupidly expensive one that's been hand-rolled on the thighs of Brazilian virgins make? As far as I'm concerned, this also applies to all hifi cables - all they have to be is electrically sufficient and not too high in terms of capacitance, inductance and to a lesser extent, resistance (unless you have a Naim amp, but that's another story...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
51m0n Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1355158756' post='1894788'] When I bought it, and if I'd not had any discounts? Around £3.5k, now? Lucky to get about half that - my cassette deck goes for about £15 on Ebay as of late. As a mate of mine said years ago "your wires cost more than my whole hi-fi". Yes, the room is set up to an extent, not clinical. But I don't go to gigs & start fixing acoustic tiles to the wall either. Just do the best - within reason - with what's available & realistic at the time. You don't have to go the whole hog to make appreciable differences anyway; here's three for those who don't already............ "speakers on purpose made stands, not on shelves" "position speakers so that the tweeter (assuming it's tweeter at the top of the speaker) is as close to ear height as possible" "don't put your speakers in the corner of the room" [/quote] Different thing entirely, you dont own the room in which you are playing (unless you are the proprieter of the Dog and Duck, in which case the bitter is off). Not one of the things you have stated has any great affect on the room. Purpose made stands use mass to prevent energy being lost moving them around, allowing bass speakers to move more (because the speaker cab moves less). Coupling to the floor directly is a bad plan though (unless your floow is solid concrete, and even then). Doesnt change the room characteristics at all. Tweeter at ear height is a vain attempt to get the highest sounds to have the shortest path to the ear, but unless you do something to deal with early reflections from the side walls your sense of stereo is going to be thoroughly messed up by the room you are in. Again no change to the room. How close to the boundaries the speakers are can have some affect on the amount of low end you push into the room (since low end is omnidirectional), however in most rooms, room nodes will do more to wreck the balance of low end in any one place than speaker position. £3500? Spend less than a grand on simple acoustic improvements - some DIY will help keep the cost down - (caveat, if the room is a really bad shape and size it could cost more) and it will make more difference than spending 35 grand on the kit you have. You cant begin to make objective comments on audio or audio systems from speakers when the room you are in is completely untreated. The room will be responsible for more damage to the sound than anything else. If you move 2 feet one way or another the sound will change dramatically, and your ability to hear stereo well is completely at the mercy of those nasty early reflections. The decay of the room will not be flat casuing energy build up in some areas of the spectrum through time versus others, no amount of EQ or anything other than sorting out the problem can fix that. I'd love for you to be able to hear your hifi in a great room, but I'm afraid you probably never will. Edited December 10, 2012 by 51m0n Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_Stu Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 [quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1355162169' post='1894863']I'd love for you to be able to hear your hifi in a great room, but I'm afraid you probably never will.[/quote] I already have, it was the home of a pensioner who lived alone with his cat; it was his purpose built hi-fi room, he wanted to hear what improvements he would get instead of a brand set up before looking around. Me? I live in the real world with a family I live with, in a normal home that I don't spend hours sat in a sweet spot just listening to stuff for hours on end. I was writing suggestions for the benefit of the average forumeer who maybe uses an all-in-one system, if you just want to show off what you have or what you know stick it in your signature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
51m0n Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Real world? £3500 worth of hifi, and here I am trying to help you get you to make it sound that much better than it does now without an investment in the tens of thousands. The whole point of doing this work on a space is the mythical 'sweet spot' becomes huge in comparison to an untreated room. So everyone can hear it. The suggestion that you can do something that can look perfectly reasonable in the context of a living room (albeit a largish one) and thoroughly improve the sound you currently get from your expensive stereo was intended to help you out. Sorry if it hit a nerve.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowdowner Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Surely it's all about listening? My current speakers are the result of listening to different ones at different price points - the ones somewhere in the 'middle' of the range of those I tried seemed the best compromise between cost and quality, but even without fiddling with the room, the difference was big enough to warrant the price (about £3K). Similarly with the CD and amp. I was lucky enough to be given a turntable that my father was finding increasingly difficult to use due to infirmity, but was a good few thousands worth. It runs rings round the (very good) CD player I bought to listen to my existing CD collection but which had to then at least hold its head up high compared to the stunning deck. Pretty much regardless of room, it's easy (for me) to tell the difference between a thousand pound's worth of gear and ten thousand pounds worth of gear. Whether it's personally 'worth it' to you is a question only you can answer, but the difference is very clear. I don't have the luxury to move the room around to suit though, but the positioning is pretty good anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Smalls Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 I've tried a few room treatment options such as bass traps and absorbtion panels.Because of the room it is - very old with sound absorbing lime plaster walls, no 2 walls parallel, ceiling not parallel to floor and broken up by beams - it made very little difference, in fact a heavy sofa and curtains was all that was needed. In a lot of cases it's worthwhile, and cost effective, to try digital room correction like [url=http://www.bd-audio.co.uk/room-correction.html]THIS[/url]. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spoombung Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 You can make[quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1355139992' post='1894457'] Cant believe we are already back to this. CD, at 16bit 44.1KHz is a technically superior medium than vinyl in every single way measurable (those being useful frequency response, and dynamic range). The noise floor on vinyl is far far higher than that on CD, the frequency rnage on vinyl is limited by a myriad factors to do with the very physical nature of vinyl cutting. CD is not 'lossy' sampling is not losing information, and converting back from digital to analogue does not leave 'steps' wher the samples were in the wave form. If you prefer the sound of vinyl on your system, great lucky youi. If you are comparing CD to vinyl, then for goodness sake compare apples to apples, it must be the same version (right down to mastering) of both albums. If you dont like the CD then fine, its your CD player, or your ears just prefer the sound as a result of the inherent flaws in vinyl vs those in CD. Almost any complaint against CD should be aimed at mastering for volume if its aCd released in post '95. For any CD pre '90 then you have to understand a bit more about the recording process pre-digital: digital multitrack was around in major studios from the early 80's by the way (infamous Sony machines), so a lot of those favourite albums on vinyl were in fact tracked digitally even back then. A lot of tracking around this time was doen with a pure analogue tape mindset, and the gernal belief was that you needed to get as hot as you could without an 'over' - exceeding 0dBfs - which sounded like arse. In fact this often meant that recordists were pushing the analogue input side on their digital kit to hard, and it sounded harsh as a result - not the analogue to digital conversion, the analogue input, important difference. Its now understood that the whole point of the increased headroom (particularly at 24bit, where everyone who means business is recording anyway) means you should be allowing yourself at least 6dB and more like 12dB opf headroom [i]over the higherst peak level[/i] when tracking, which means you AD input is competely unstressed, and the soudn of the result is fantastic quality. But back in the day everyone (and I mean absolutely everyone) was pushing analogue tape hard and bright to get tape compression (level compression is a GOOD THING not a bad thing, analogue or digital, lossy data compression is a BAD THING, lossless data compression is a GOOD THING - lets just get that clarified) and to combat tape his (if you track to bright you turn down top end on mix time and hiss with it). If you take that same ethos and apply it to pure digital recording though you just end up with harsh sounding CDs, and less harsh sounding vinyl (due to the final mastering process being a little different to vinyl). ANyone noticed how music as late as 80's pop has no sub in it? Production/mastering for cassette tape, little radios and vinyl all caused that. 70's funk has pants all low end either. Nothing much below 80Hz (check out PFunk records on vinyl if you dont believe me) - now listen to a Daptones CD. And they are lauded over as a pure analogue production house revelling in the sound of vintage, yet on CD and vinyl they tend to have more low end than the real stuff they emulate. CD is the better medium technically, but as we all know there are a myriad ways of screwing the pooch on these things. If you have vinyl you prefer the sound of enjoy it, if you have CDs you prefer the sound of, enjoy them. Once you get to 96Khz 24bit lossless recordings (tracked that way , not upsampled later) with decent and thoughtful mastering, in a great room acoustically (all you people claiming a is better than b are listening in an acoustically treated space to make these judgements aren't you?) - it sounds pretty incredible, and the vinyl purists woudl do well to attempt a truly objective listen to it compared to anything else at all. They have a huge list of digital kit, will track to any of the main DAWS, mix from any of them blah blah blah. If you want to you can go there and limit the effectiveness of your recording by tracking direct to stereo vinyl, they will be happy to lighten your wallet for the privelege [/quote][quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1355139992' post='1894457'] Cant believe we are already back to this. CD, at 16bit 44.1KHz is a technically superior medium than vinyl in every single way measurable (those being useful frequency response, and dynamic range). The noise floor on vinyl is far far higher than that on CD, the frequency rnage on vinyl is limited by a myriad factors to do with the very physical nature of vinyl cutting. CD is not 'lossy' sampling is not losing information, and converting back from digital to analogue does not leave 'steps' wher the samples were in the wave form. If you prefer the sound of vinyl on your system, great lucky youi. If you are comparing CD to vinyl, then for goodness sake compare apples to apples, it must be the same version (right down to mastering) of both albums. If you dont like the CD then fine, its your CD player, or your ears just prefer the sound as a result of the inherent flaws in vinyl vs those in CD. Almost any complaint against CD should be aimed at mastering for volume if its aCd released in post '95. For any CD pre '90 then you have to understand a bit more about the recording process pre-digital: digital multitrack was around in major studios from the early 80's by the way (infamous Sony machines), so a lot of those favourite albums on vinyl were in fact tracked digitally even back then. A lot of tracking around this time was doen with a pure analogue tape mindset, and the gernal belief was that you needed to get as hot as you could without an 'over' - exceeding 0dBfs - which sounded like arse. In fact this often meant that recordists were pushing the analogue input side on their digital kit to hard, and it sounded harsh as a result - not the analogue to digital conversion, the analogue input, important difference. Its now understood that the whole point of the increased headroom (particularly at 24bit, where everyone who means business is recording anyway) means you should be allowing yourself at least 6dB and more like 12dB opf headroom [i]over the higherst peak level[/i] when tracking, which means you AD input is competely unstressed, and the soudn of the result is fantastic quality. But back in the day everyone (and I mean absolutely everyone) was pushing analogue tape hard and bright to get tape compression (level compression is a GOOD THING not a bad thing, analogue or digital, lossy data compression is a BAD THING, lossless data compression is a GOOD THING - lets just get that clarified) and to combat tape his (if you track to bright you turn down top end on mix time and hiss with it). If you take that same ethos and apply it to pure digital recording though you just end up with harsh sounding CDs, and less harsh sounding vinyl (due to the final mastering process being a little different to vinyl). ANyone noticed how music as late as 80's pop has no sub in it? Production/mastering for cassette tape, little radios and vinyl all caused that. 70's funk has pants all low end either. Nothing much below 80Hz (check out PFunk records on vinyl if you dont believe me) - now listen to a Daptones CD. And they are lauded over as a pure analogue production house revelling in the sound of vintage, yet on CD and vinyl they tend to have more low end than the real stuff they emulate. CD is the better medium technically, but as we all know there are a myriad ways of screwing the pooch on these things. If you have vinyl you prefer the sound of enjoy it, if you have CDs you prefer the sound of, enjoy them. Once you get to 96Khz 24bit lossless recordings (tracked that way , not upsampled later) with decent and thoughtful mastering, in a great room acoustically (all you people claiming a is better than b are listening in an acoustically treated space to make these judgements aren't you?) - it sounds pretty incredible, and the vinyl purists woudl do well to attempt a truly objective listen to it compared to anything else at all. They have a huge list of digital kit, will track to any of the main DAWS, mix from any of them blah blah blah. If you want to you can go there and limit the effectiveness of your recording by tracking direct to stereo vinyl, they will be happy to lighten your wallet for the privelege [/quote] Very good accurate, historical points about the difference between recording for an analogue release compared to a digital one - and how you can mess up the sound of a CD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_Stu Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 (edited) [quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1355182540' post='1895251'] Real world? £3500 worth of hifi, and here I am trying to help you get you to make it sound that much better than it does now without an investment in the tens of thousands.[/quote] You've missed a few points, which I tried to make obvious but failed. It was £3.5k way back when, it would be a fraction of that now, time marches on with all technology but is vinyl, now that it's available in super-heavyweight, now counted as technology - or is it still & always will be "old"? Is it worth the outlay to keep up with the Joneses, the [i]experts[/i] or the sales pitches? Nor do I have any intention of investing "tens of thousands" or even one thousand in making it "sound better". There is much to be valued in being happy with what you have, being aware of it's flaws but having overall satisfaction. I don't let it possess me or more valuably, compromise the appearance of our home. A mate of mine has a full Linn & Naim system that at full whack could have cost as much as a small house; but he still has it in his living room, with a wife, three kids & a dog. Damn him all the way to hell but he also has soft-furnishing AND a three piece suite in the SAME room! Like him I listen to music for enjoyment, not to get a slide-rule out to find it's flaws. Edited December 11, 2012 by Big_Stu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
51m0n Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Leonard Smalls' timestamp='1355213478' post='1895336'] I've tried a few room treatment options such as bass traps and absorbtion panels.Because of the room it is - very old with sound absorbing lime plaster walls, no 2 walls parallel, ceiling not parallel to floor and broken up by beams - it made very little difference, in fact a heavy sofa and curtains was all that was needed. In a lot of cases it's worthwhile, and cost effective, to try digital room correction like [url="http://www.bd-audio.co.uk/room-correction.html"]THIS[/url]. [/quote] With all due respect I think if it didnt make a fairly large and measurable difference in terms of stereo imaging and size of the listening area, tightness of the bass, room decay etc then either you didnt do it right, you didnt do it enough or you didnt address problems that can only be shown up by using some simple measurement software to allow you to target the problem nodes more specifically. Have a read [url="http://www.irishacoustics.com/index.php/acoustics/measuring-room-acoustics/"]here[/url] for some very well put together info on room measurement. There is also the chance that your room dimensions make certain modes very extreme and render the room pretty much untreatable (ok it can be treated but doing so takes up significant resopurce and can use up a lot of the rooms space), this tends to happen with smaller rooms with dimensions that are multiples of each other. You can get a good idea of the theoretical room nodes by using the calculator [url="http://www.bobgolds.com/Mode/RoomModes.htm"]here[/url] or if you like visual displays and have java then [url="http://www.hunecke.de/en/calculators/room-eigenmodes.html"]this one[/url] is really nice. Either way it suggests a room not suitable for seriously enjoying expensive hi-fi as much as it can be, so this suggests you likely to be wasting your time spending huge amounts of money on hifi in a room that cant do it justice. As for DSP signal processing, it cant fix the room, its a myth. No EQ can make a room suddenly better, without dramatically negatively affecting the playback of the source. If you cut out certain frequencies and all their multiples completely so as not to excite a room node then you cut that frequency off completely in the playback. If you turn it up a bit to hear it some, then you are back with the room ringing. Room issues are as much about time domain as frequency, the only way to prevent this is to either remove the signal completely or to attempt to play signal out of phase with the previous signal to dampen the room after the original signal has stopped. Whatever that device is doing it is manipulating the source drastically in an effort to cover up room defficiencies, which is directly distorting the source. Which is the opposite of hifi. Thats why these devices are not used in mastering suites and control rooms anywhere. If you want to get really deep into this stuff a great place to start (as ever with acoustics and studios) is the BBC:- http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/archive/pdffiles/architectural-acoustics/bbc_guideacousticpractice.pdf [quote name='lowdowner' timestamp='1355211958' post='1895328'] Surely it's all about listening? My current speakers are the result of listening to different ones at different price points - the ones somewhere in the 'middle' of the range of those I tried seemed the best compromise between cost and quality, but even without fiddling with the room, the difference was big enough to warrant the price (about £3K). Similarly with the CD and amp. I was lucky enough to be given a turntable that my father was finding increasingly difficult to use due to infirmity, but was a good few thousands worth. It runs rings round the (very good) CD player I bought to listen to my existing CD collection but which had to then at least hold its head up high compared to the stunning deck. Pretty much regardless of room, it's easy (for me) to tell the difference between a thousand pound's worth of gear and ten thousand pounds worth of gear. Whether it's personally 'worth it' to you is a question only you can answer, but the difference is very clear. I don't have the luxury to move the room around to suit though, but the positioning is pretty good anyway. [/quote] Yes. Exactly its [i]all [/i]about listening. However good a £10,000 system, or part of a system sounds is directly related to the quality of the room you are listening in. The result you hear is a combination of every aspect of the signal chain, be it vinyl (needle cartridge, tone arm, deck, phono stage, cable, preamp, cable, amp, cable, crossover, cable, drivers, [i]air[/i] [i]in room[/i], ear) or digital (CD transport, laser, DAC, cable, preamp, cable, amp, cable, crossover, drivers, [i]air[/i] [i]in room[/i], ear). Hifi 'buffs' worry about frequency response off their decks and speakers of plus or minus say 6dB, of distortion in the 0.01% THD realm. Well an average room will have [i]peaks and nulls in the listening position of easily 30dB[/i]. No amount of getting a nicer component in the system can fix that at all. If you want to hear the truth, which is what hifi is all about, then you must attempt to fix the room. Otherwise its just not going to make the difference you would like. Put it another way, spend n thousand pounds on a new component and that may increase your listening pleasure from a certain spot n%, spend the right amount of time and resource (you did spend time choosing what to buy didn't you?) on the acoustics and you will get a far bigger difference in most cases to the sound, [i]everywhere in your room[/i]. I would rather listen to a reasonable £500 hifi in a great room than a £5000 stereo in a completely untreated room. But its all IMO and personal to each of us, I'm not interested in brushed aluminium, flashy mechanisms and exotic wood cabinets, I only care abou tthe sound that hits my ears. If you like buying great kit then knock yourself out, its cool we can all coexist completely peacefully here. Just try and avoid making sweeping statements about how system A must be so much better than system B if you spend your time listening in a completely untreated space. Harsh in that space (due to the early reflections bouncing around for instance) may in fact be smooth and accurate in a better space. You can't tell. Because you are listening in a massively compromised acoustic environment. You may like system A more in that space, but it isn't necessarily the system thats better in fact, just the system in that poor space works better because it is less accurate. Which is a comment on the poor space, not the quality of system B. Edited December 11, 2012 by 51m0n Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
51m0n Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 [quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1355221249' post='1895441'] You've missed a few points, which I tried to make obvious but failed. It was £3.5k way back when, it would be a fraction of that now, time marches on with all technology but is vinyl, now that it's available in super-heavyweight, now counted as technology - or is it still & always will be "old"? Is it worth the outlay to keep up with the Joneses, the [i]experts[/i] or the sales pitches? Nor do I have any intention of investing "tens of thousands" or even one thousand in making it "sound better". There is much to be valued in being happy with what you have, being aware of it's flaws but having overall satisfaction. I don't let it possess me or more valuably, compromise the appearance of our home. A mate of mine has a full Linn & Naim system that at full whack could have cost as much as a small house; but he still has it in his living room, with a wife, three kids & a dog. Damn him all the way to hell but he also has soft-furnishing AND a three piece suite in the SAME room! Like him I listen to music for enjoyment, not to get a slide-rule out to find it's flaws. [/quote] I certainly missed something here Look, £3500 whenever is serious outlay on hifi. Good on you, glad you love music that much. I live with a family too, I dont go around measuring stuff with a slide rule (I like a bit of software now and then), I do believe in making the most of what you have. I like the idea of making the music sound better as much as the next person. I dont believe that electronics of any quality can make up for a poor room, since the way the air interacts within the space makes a bigger difference to the sound than the quality of the components in that space over a relatively low value (less than £3500 IMO). I have furnishings in the living room, with the stereo in, kids in, double bass in, etc etc. Not an issue, All I have said here is make judgements when you are in a great space, if you intend to extol the virtues of a particular system. So to clarify, if you are going to critique a system you can only critique the system if you are in a space good enough to make objective observations. Otherwise you are as likely pointing out flaws in the space as the system. I haven't said that vinyl sounds worse than CD in my space (I nolonger have a deck as it goes, although I regularly listen to a very nice deck at a friends house, and prefer his Rega CD on anything seriously well produced and mastered), I have said that CD is technically a more capable system than vinyl in terms of THD, frequency response (where it counts) and dynamic range. In order to discuss the relative merits of the two techologies it is only reasonable if you take the issue of the room acoustics out of the equation. And that means means that pretty much any claim that "vinyl sounds better in my gaff on my rig" is open to question unless the room has been sorted out. Thats all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_Stu Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 My post, which I stand by, was based on many people visiting the various homes that my hi-fi has been in and receiving comments along the lines of "wish I could have something that sounds as good as that". My usual response is always "What have you got now?", usually the answer to that means that they're not going to get what they ask for cheaply, which usually means it's not going to happen soon in the same way as all GAS is. I've then always proffered any one or all of my 3 suggestions. Never once have I had anyone say that they didn't think the small outlay wasn't worth the difference they heard. (I gave them credit as intelligent people that it wasn't always, in every case, psychosomatic). You views may vary which is fair enough, but I speak from my own personal experience. As I've said many times; I take all posts on this or any other forum as having an unseen but constantly there "IMHO" enclosed within each post - unless it's a quote of sorts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
51m0n Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 [quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1355224451' post='1895479'] My post, which I stand by, was based on many people visiting the various homes that my hi-fi has been in and receiving comments along the lines of "wish I could have something that sounds as good as that". My usual response is always "What have you got now?", usually the answer to that means that they're not going to get what they ask for cheaply, which usually means it's not going to happen soon in the same way as all GAS is. I've then always proffered any one or all of my 3 suggestions. Never once have I had anyone say that they didn't think the small outlay wasn't worth the difference they heard. (I gave them credit as intelligent people that it wasn't always, in every case, psychosomatic). You views may vary which is fair enough, but I speak from my own personal experience. As I've said many times; I take all posts on this or any other forum as having an unseen but constantly there "IMHO" enclosed within each post - unless it's a quote of sorts. [/quote] Understood mate . Its all pretty subjective at that point (mate over asking how to achieve similar sounding system) I agree, and you're not wrong about any of the suggestions you are making, I'm not suggesting you are, they will all help, moving the speakers relative to the walls will tend to get different frequencies gaining a boost from the reflection off the back wall, decent stands will improve the speaker efficiency in the bass, pointing the tweeters at the ears will improve the top end since higher frequencies tend to be more directional. All I meant by my post is although they are all tried and tested ways to optimise a hifi, none of them directly address the room acoustic. Which may well be beyond what a lot of people are willing to attempt I understand that. I've always said that a decent amp is easier to get than decent speakers, and really full range speakers are likely to be big, and great ones are more often than not transmission lines IME. Love the way that speaker design will produce deep deep bass quietly. The trouble comes with finding a set of them that arent massively hyped in the low end to show off what they can do. If I had a lottery win I would be stacking a set of PMCs against some B&W diamond series to see which was my preference Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EliasMooseblaster Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 The conversation above between Big_Stu and 51m0n covers most of the technical detail that's needed to settle this argument. But there is one other key point about the difference: It depends when the album was recorded. Or rather, what was used to record it in the first place. If the album was recorded on analogue equipment, then everything the mics picked up was squeezed through the mixing desk and written onto that magnetic master tape. Nothing was "lost" in the chain. A little would have been lost in the process of pressing to vinyl, but not much. If this album was later reissued onto CD, the music would have been digitised, so more information would have been lost. By digitising music, you have discretise your previously continuous waveforms into 0s and 1s. As 51m0n points out, if you go for the highest sampling and bitrate, you can get such a close approximation to that waveform that the human ear can no longer resolve the difference. However, most CDs are sampled at 44.1 KHz, rather than 96 KHz (I think that's still true...?), and as such your ear can pick up on a subtle difference between the analogue (vinyl) and digitised (CD) versions. [i]Conversely[/i] - [i]and this is the important difference[/i] - if the album was recorded on digital equipment, you gain absolutely bugger all by pressing it onto vinyl. So most vinyl albums from the '90s, where the recording was increasingly done on computers and digital mixers, will not sound any better on vinyl than they will on CD. The extra information 'in between' the discretised points on the waveform was never recorded in the first place, and so there's nothing to 'fill in' those gaps when you convert it back to analogue. In short: there is a reason why my father's vinyl copy of [i]Dark Side of the Moon[/i] sounds better than my CD copy, which I think is quite an early re-issue, possibly pre-remastering and sounds a bit harsh and sterile. On the other hand, I'd probably be wasting my money investing in a vinyl copy of [i]Pulse[/i], as it likely won't sound any better than my CD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skol303 Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Didn't we have this same debate not so long ago? (there's a joke here about a stuck record...). Or is this that same debate that's been resurrected, zombie style? I personally love vinyl. I've got boxes of the stuff, much to Mrs Skol's occasional annoyance. But I don't love it because it sounds better - I love it because of the ritual involved in playing it, which brings back fond memories of the exact same ritual playing records in my youth. So for me it's got nothing to do with audio quality, and everything to do with nostalgia. Audiophile mates of mine always say that your amp, speakers, room conditions, etc, have a much bigger impact on the sound than whether it's been recorded on CD or vinyl anyway (as discussed already in this thread). The rest is just voodoo and fairy dust Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.