Which is more accurate: digital or vinyl?

Interesting.

Full analog, it seems, should capture harmonic structure much better than digital with ZERO interpolation, where digital can capture dynamic range and low background noise (can't toss a needle out of the record groove!).

But, it's hard to find true 24 bit digital from stem to stern on true digital equipment...and the end CD. Most 16-bit stuff is tape remastered to digital so the tape is obviously better than the CD...by far (listen to a record using the same master tape!). 24-bit not so bad to my ears but rare to find.

Hfisher3380, I love your stereo rack. I wanted one but went with the Sanus Euro instead. I admit to being tight with the dollar. :) I am glad you found my response funny. These days we need all the cheer we can get.
Cheers.

Wow Rok - what a funny response...in an ignorant kind of way...

This is a no brainer. Vinyl is more accurate! It picks up and lets you hear all the noise, distortion, clicks, pops, and rumble that CDs never let you hear. Vinyl also gets rid of that ear shattering dynamic range.

.

***Which is more accurate: digital or vinyl?****

Good question.
Fun question.
Misplaced question?

My vinyl front end sounds more musical and is more satisfying than my digital set up. The answer to this question is a personal one each of us has to make. My advice is to be an artist as you set up your front end. Digital or vinyl. That is...set it up with passion and follow what pleases you. Most of don't have unlimited financial resources and their are extremely musical systems to be created at all prices levels irregardless of format. This will sound weird but instinctively it comes to me as being true. The sound of plastic, ie vinyl, imparts a beautiful tone to the music recorded onto it. Because materials have to do with resonances and real instruments are materials vibrating, i believe it to have a inherent sonic advantage because of this and possible downfall if pops and ticks drive you crazy. For the most part and i know they're are always exceptions, vinyl sounds just a little bit more "human" to me than does digital. Therefore in a democratic audiophile world i would vote that vinyl is "more accurate". I might be wrong about this but this is where my journey has led me thus far.

Cheers...

To me, "more accurate" and "better sounding" are the same thing.

In both cases, the best analogue I've heard still beats the best digital I've heard - although the gap is narrowing year by year.

Vinyl has presence, you are there, something digital needs to improve on.

Great post by Jallen. Kudos on that one.

Once the original signal goes to the mic, accuracy is lost, engineer twiddling on the eq also departs from accuracy. So the question should be..... what screws up the signal less, digital or analog. The high rez digital I have heard recently equalled the best analog I have heard and exceed lesser analog by a good margin. The best is the one which uses the best mic and has the least recording engineer editoralizing. Both digital and analog can be great, but will the engineer allow it?....jallen

When asked about the LP, Rudy Van Gelder, who gained fame for recording: Miles Davis, Thelonious Monk, Sonny Rollins, Joe Henderson, Grant Green, Wayne Shorter, John Coltrane, and many others on Blue Note, replied, "Good riddance". That tells me something.

Terry9 says:

"Were it true that ultrasonic distortion was inaudible, SACD would be no improvement on CD, which is not observed. Therefore, I stand by the assertion that total distortion is what is important, until it is proved otherwise."

Actually, on various hybrid CD/SACDs from Telarc and Mobile Fidelity, so the recording is the same, this is exactly what I have observed. I still have very good hearing, and on a moderately high-end system (Revel Salon 2s) I can't hear any improvement with the SACD layer over the CD layer. Not a bit.

I suppose there will be those that say my SACD player isn't good enough (Sony 5400ES), or that I'm not a good listener, or whatever, but if there is a difference it is very subtle.

I think a lot of CDs don't sound very good because they weren't mastered very well. I think a lot of SACDs sound better than CDs because they were mastered well. But I've never heard an SACD that sounds better than the best CDs I own.

I have downloaded a few high-res files, but I can't directly compare them to CD, because I don't have CD versions. But the high-res stuff are all purist recordings, so naturally they sound good.

Is analog better than any digital format? Better for recording than 24/192? 30ips 1/2 inch tape is pretty good, but can it compete with a noise floor at least 20db lower? Or no wow and flutter at all. If I were trying to make the world's best recording I'd start with digital.

Let me settle this once and for all. Since there is no such thing as a "nuance meter", and a computer and a vinyl LP can both reproduce something that is beyond any meter's ability to measure; lets call it a draw.

In regard to the harmonics, we are all in agreement. When we listen to music, high frequencies affect low frequencies, and the question of harmonics is really "moot".

I also agree on frequencies above the "audible" range. We hear, or sense with our entire body.

My point was, that the computer, which is digital; reproduced the LP as good as any TT I've ever heard, as a matter of fact it was identical. When comparing the CD to the LP, there are many possibilities and variables. This was an early CD, and I hear they've gotten better.

01-31-12: Orpheus10
In addition, harmonics are always presented as a lower frequency affecting a higher frequency, but never how higher frequencies affect lower frequencies. I'm saying these higher, inaudible frequencies affect lower frequencies. Can anyone shed light on that.

I'm not sure I understand the question. The character of what we hear is a function of the combination of fundamental frequencies, harmonics, and broadband spectral components that are present at any given time.

As Learsfool and I stated, seemingly credible studies have indicated that frequencies that are significantly above 20 kHz can be sensed under some circumstances, particularly if lower frequencies are simultaneously present.

02-01-12: Orpheus10
When CD's came out, I bought them to hear the same music I had on LP, only better. One CD in particular was inferior to the LP, it lacked "nuance"; and as jazz lovers know "nuance" is everything.

I down loaded this LP to my computer, and on playback all the "nuance" was there; complete with record noise. What do you make of that?

Orpheus, an obvious question: What makes you assume that the CD and the LP were mastered identically?

Frogman, thanks very much the kind comment in your post of 1-26.

Regards,
-- Al

FWIW, I didn't read it as though digital was limited to CD.

Which is more accurate, digital or vinyl; was the question. Although the question implied CD, it was not implicitly stated. Computers operate in the digital realm.

While the CD was inferior to the LP, when the LP was transferred to the "digital" realm of the computer; the analog playback came back completely intact including "nuance" and record noise; therefore, one has to ask "Which digital are you referring to?"

While "harmonics" are unrelated to the subject, they are very much related to what we hear as audiophiles.

My new stance on this subject is totally unscientific, because "high end" audiophiles hear things that go beyond any instruments ability to measure. When CD's came out, I bought them to hear the same music I had on LP, only better. One CD in particular was inferior to the LP, it lacked "nuance"; and as jazz lovers know "nuance" is everything.

I down loaded this LP to my computer, and on playback all the "nuance" was there; complete with record noise. What do you make of that?

Please pardon me while I abuse the analogy to extrapolate enough to put the ladder on shaky ground; one might presume that the more rungs that are actually there, the less the brain has to work at filling in the missing rungs, even if one is scaling the ladder blind folded.

Oops, I think I may have fallen off the high end, and into the deep fertilizer. :-)

In addition, harmonics are always presented as a lower frequency affecting a higher frequency, but never how higher frequencies affect lower frequencies. I'm saying these higher, inaudible frequencies affect lower frequencies. Can anyone shed light on that.

No, you're absolutely correct.

When I got my FCC license, I thought I knew everything; working with scopes, frequency meters, etc. There was nothing I couldn't measure; and then I got into high end audio. That was when I discovered those dumb "audiophiles" who didn't even know ohm's law, could hear things that I couldn't measure.

First of all, an audiophile has very good hearing. Once upon a time I said if two amps measure the same, they sound the same; of course you know I was wrong, and so it is with harmonics, we can hear in between the rungs.

Orpheus10, are you suggesting that the brain can somehow fill in the mathematical missing rungs (gaps) of the harmonic ladder? If so, it does seem somewhat plausible. If not, then what? Please accept my apologies if I'm going too off topic here.

Learsfool, it has to be "harmonics". People only think of harmonics going up the ladder, but I reason that if they go up the ladder, they have to come down the ladder as well.

I'm well aware of this phenomena. In a test I could not hear over 17,000Hz, but I can perceive at least to 20 KHz; which is why I have a tweeter that goes that high.

I can tell the difference when someone has a tweeter that only goes to 18 KHz, but I can't quite explain it.

The human hearing system, meaning the ear combined with the brain's perceptions, is still not fully understood. It is definitely more sophisticated than any machine yet made. To name just one example that affects the audio world, it has been proven by research that the brain does indeed perceive frequencies above 20,000Hz, even though supposedly the ear cannot hear them. This phenomena has not been explained. However, it is my understanding that the vast majority of designers of digital audio equipment still routinely process out all frequencies above that, on the theory that we can't hear them.

Terry9, vinyl doesn't deliver the degree of consistancy needed for the measurements you're talking about, and you must have consistency for any scientific comparison. Unfortunately, digital and vinyl are apples and oranges; consequently the only comparison that can be made is subjective.

Orpheus10, I don't think that a 'scope is the best way to investigate this.

I can clearly hear differences between waveforms that look identical on a scope, such as small differences in IM distortion. The resolution is simply not there. That may be because a scope's display is painted on a phosphor-coated screen, and it cannot react very fast. Only specialized phosphors are likely to react faster than 1KHz, much less 20 KHz. Knowing this, the scope's manufacturer is likely to have embedded averaging routines, so that one does not observe an event, but an average of events. Therefore, the question reduces to the temporal resolution of the instrument's display, as distinct from it's electronic frequency response to periodic waveforms repeated over thousands or millions of cycles. Alternately, specialized electronics "freezing" the action would work - but not a garden variety scope. Not being an expert, I may have got this part wrong - if so, please correct me.

I also note that consistency is a poor substitute for accuracy.

Second, digital representations of waveforms near the Nyquist criterion (half the sampling frequency) are aperiodic, except over several waves. To see this, consider a 20KHz sine wave being sampled at 44KHz. It is sampled, on average, at a rate of 44,000/20,000 = 2.2 times per wave. Since the wave evolves over a period of 2pi, the distance between two samples is 2pi/2.2 ~ 2.856. Without loss of generality, assume that the first sample is taken at point 0, the second at 2.856, the third at 5.712, etc. Then

Point Sin
0 0
2.8 .28
5.7 -.54
8.6 .76
11.4 -.99
14.3 .99
17.1 -.99
20 .91
22.8 -.76
25.7 .54
28.6 -.28
31.4 0

Which then repeats.

A linear interpolation of these points is the best a digital algorithm can do, unless it makes assumptions about the character and frequency of the waves. That linear interpolation results in asymmetrical triangular waveforms with peaks ranging from an absolute minimum of .28 to an absolute maximum of .99. The result is a waveform periodic over 5 of the original 20KHz waves, or 4KHz. Thus a 20KHz signal is rendered into a highly complex waveform which waxes and wanes over a 4KHz period. Furthermore, the waveform must be triangular and asymmetric, with attendant beats, unless heroic processing is invoked. And even if it is, that 20KHz tone must wax and wane over a 12dB range.

Clearly the effect worsens as one approaches the Nyquist frequency. The brick wall filters which prevent signals higher than Nyquist also impose their own distortions and phase shifts at lower frequencies, but that is another matter.

Finally, thank you Learsfool, for supporting my point about different types of distortion, especially those which have yet to be characterized. I think you may have said it better.

I was responding to the fact that I'm a technician, and the question is not "audiophillic" if there is such a word; but technical.

As a technician, I rely on my ears as opposed to measurements when we are in the "audiophile domain", and as an "audiophile" I'm sure you know what I mean. Nothing can measure subtle nuances.

Yes, Unsound, I realize that Orpheus 10 was responding to Terry9. That in no way invalidates what I said, however. In this particular context, I mainly wanted to make the point that far too many audiophiles rely on measurements instead of their ears, especially when "distortions" are in question.

Sorry, clicked too soon. I think Orpheus10's remark was in response to Terry9's post.

Learsfool, I find the ticks and pops much more objectionable.

Unsound and Orpheus - one can measure "distortion" all one wants. The problem is, some types of "distortion" are much more musically harmful than others. There is admittedly more "distortion" in analog, however the distortions of digital are much more musically objectionable because of the frequencies at which they occur, and for other reasons. So the measured amount is beside the point, really. IMO, too many audiophiles get hung up on measuring instead of training and using their ears to tell them what sounds more like the real thing.

Orpheous10, brings up a good point.
In practice rather than in theroy, how much distortion is produced in typical vinyl rigs?

This is a technical question, and it can be answered with an accurate oscilloscope. Simply compare the two wave forms on a double trace scope. I would wager "digital" because of the consistency of reproduction.

Almarg and Terry9, thank you for a fabulous exchange; extremely informative and a model of civility. Very impressive.

Hi Terry,

I agree with your aside concerning filtering, but, would you not agree that every capacitor introduces distortion? And that therefore we should be concerned with physical measurements rather than idealizations?

Absolutely. The various non-idealities of low pass filters, in both the recording and playback parts of the chain (anti-aliasing and reconstruction filters, respectively) are a major issue in digital audio.

I also agree that the spectral components are all above 20KHz. Would you not agree that this creates a very rich ultrasonic environment? And further, that this is mainly generated from harmonies in a fairly narrow 4 octave range, suggesting that the ultrasonics are also clustered? I note that different frequencies "beat" against each other; e.g. 33KHz and 34KHz signals beat to form their difference, or 1 KHz. Further, these beats will be related to the fundamentals in no simple respect, producing distortions which have not been characterized.

Agreed. In fact, arguably the most important reason for low pass filtering the d/a output is to eliminate (or at least greatly attenuate) beat frequencies that would otherwise arise as a result of non-linearities downstream in the system (and perhaps to some extent in our hearing mechanisms as well).

Were it true that ultrasonic distortion was inaudible, SACD would be no improvement on CD, which is not observed. Therefore, I stand by the assertion that total distortion is what is important, until it is proved otherwise.

As indicated in this Wikipedia writeup:

Because of the nature of sigma-delta converters, one cannot make a direct technical comparison between DSD and PCM. DSD's frequency response can be as high as 100 kHz, but frequencies that high compete with high levels of ultrasonic quantization noise.[36] With appropriate low-pass filtering, a frequency response of 50 kHz can be achieved along with a dynamic range of 120 dB.[2] This is about the same resolution as PCM audio with a bit depth of 20 bits and a sampling frequency of 96 kHz.

So although comparison between the parameters of the two formats is not straightforward or precise, it would seem clear that the performance of DSD is, at least potentially, superior to that of redbook cd in terms of dynamic range, and also in terms of providing greater margin relative to the Nyquist rate. That increased margin can be expected, at least potentially, to lessen the side-effects of anti-aliasing and reconstruction filters that may occur at audible frequencies, just as it can for hi rez PCM, relative to redbook PCM.

In summary, I think that our positions are similar in a lot of respects, but we agree to disagree on the need for a sample rate that approaches the one you have advocated. My thanks to you, also, for a stimulating and mutually respectful discussion.

Regards,
-- Al

Hello Al.

Thank you for your expert and thoughtful response. I find myself agreeing with your premises while disagreeing with your conclusions.

I agree with your aside concerning filtering, but, would you not agree that every capacitor introduces distortion? And that therefore we should be concerned with physical measurements rather than idealizations? I hope that this does not misrepresent your point.

I also agree that the spectral components are all above 20KHz. Would you not agree that this creates a very rich ultrasonic environment? And further, that this is mainly generated from harmonies in a fairly narrow 4 octave range, suggesting that the ultrasonics are also clustered? I note that different frequencies "beat" against each other; e.g. 33KHz and 34KHz signals beat to form their difference, or 1 KHz. Further, these beats will be related to the fundamentals in no simple respect, producing distortions which have not been characterized. If they were especially irritating, only a small audio component would be required to render digitally processed signals unpleasant. Which is what some of us observe.

Were it true that ultrasonic distortion was inaudible, SACD would be no improvement on CD, which is not observed. Therefore, I stand by the assertion that total distortion is what is important, until it is proved otherwise.

Having said that, I agree with your (implicit) point that another useful simulation would use linear interpolation between subsequent sample points. Then it would be an empirical question of which method better approximated the physical effects, and whether the ear responded as the approximation would lead us to expect. A Ph.D. dissertation there.

Your point about a periodic waveform of infinite duration is absolutely correct. I was restricting myself to waveforms which are physically possible. Since physical possibility precludes the use of the Shannon Sampling Theorem to justify reasoning, I stand by my assertion.

I also suspect that many will disagree with me, for whatever reason. I respect your reasons, but nevertheless must disagree.

Thank you for an enjoyable and enlightening discussion. Respectfully,

Terry

Hi Terry,

Rather than getting into a lot of esoteric mathematics that would be necessary to provide a quantitative perspective on all of this, I’ll just make a couple of additional qualitative points. I suspect that following your rebuttal we'll then, as you say, have to agree to disagree.

I agree that the low pass filtering/analog reconstruction process cannot be done to absolute perfection. However, consider the spectral components that distinguish an audio frequency sine wave from that sine wave as sampled at 44.1 kHz. The spectral components that distinguish those two waveforms are all at ultrasonic and RF frequencies, and as such are essentially inaudible to us. (The reason I say “essentially” is that, as you may be aware, some seemingly credible studies have suggested that we may be somehow able to sense the presence of frequencies up to perhaps as high as 100 kHz if they are accompanied by frequencies that are within the nominal 20 kHz range of our hearing). Consider especially the spectral components corresponding to the transition times between steps. Those are at radio frequencies!

Yet in referring to them as “distortion,” and citing that “distortion” as the basis for defining the threshold of sample rate acceptability, your analysis implicitly assigns audible significance to ALL of these ultrasonic and RF spectral components, little or no differently than if they were some low order distortion components lying well below 20 kHz. It also implicitly assigns audible significance to these ultrasonic and RF spectral components that is no different than if during the analog reconstruction process no filtering were applied to them at all.

Second, consider the hypothetical situation where an infinitely long sample record is available, with each sample having infinite resolution (i.e., zero quantization noise). The rationale behind your contention that 250 samples per cycle are necessary to achieve 5% distortion would seem to be no less applicable to that situation than it is to real world digital scenarios, despite the fact that (as I think you would agree) only a little more than 2 samples per cycle are necessary in that hypothetical situation.

The bottom line, IMO and with respect , is that I doubt your contention that a sample rate of more than 100x the Nyquist rate is necessary to achieve reasonable (although still high!) levels of distortion would be likely to receive widespread support even among the most ardent vinyl advocates, or at least those among them who have sufficient technical background to comprehend the issues.

Regards,
-- Al

all digital recordings are made using analog mikes - so unless there is A/D converter that can do it 100% identical as mikes picks it up - then all analag recordings will be better (as long as there is no digital involved in the process) - which was true in vinyl days....
kind of same as photography - kodachrome was always better than digital....

Hello Al.

Thanks for the note, but I find the arguments unconvincing. While it is easy to speak of step functions being "smoothed out", it is imprecise. To make the statement precise, the smoothed function must be measured from real devices rather than theoretical, if for no other reason that every RC filter introduces its own distortion. Once an empirical function is obtained with adequate precision, it may be possible to fit the curve analytically, or, at worst, as an approximation using some technique such as cubic splines. Then, when an expression for the smoothed function is obtained, the analysis can be re-run, and an amended error figure derived. In the absence of such a Herculean effort, which should, of course, be borne by those who market the technology, I think that we are entitled to simplify the problem as I have done (see below).

Furthermore, I hold little hope that this effort will much reduce the distortion figure. Perhaps this is why we have not seen it reported. I alluded to the problem in my previous post - the smoothed curve will lag the sine except at the peak and trough. Hence the smoothed curve will closely approximate another smooth function, albeit one with two higher frequency distortion components, both of which will be some function of frequency. That other smooth function will not be a sine, having a (relative) hollow on the left edge and a bulge on the right. The RMS error, being referenced to a true sine function, will remain high.

As for your riposte, that a 176 Hz tone would be 5% distorted, that is not implausible to me. I find even the mid-range on CD's to be unclear compared to analogue (Linn Unidisk source into electrostatics). You are absolutely right to make the calculation and challenge me on it, but I have already made that calculation and found it plausible, so I suppose we must agree to disagree on that point.

If you would like to proceed as I suggest in the first paragraph, and achieve a better approximation, I applaud your devotion to science. And I will modify my opinions with a dose of humble pie if you prove me wrong.

Thanks for engaging.

Terry

Hi Terry,

It seems to me that the flaw in that analysis, as my previous post intimated might be the case, is that it does not take into account low pass filtering that is applied in the d/a process to smooth out the stepped character of the sampled waveform.

Essentially, your distortion percentage is incorporating ultrasonic spectral components that represent sampling artifacts (as opposed to distorted musical information), which ultimately get filtered out.

Another way to look at it is that were your claim true, then for redbook cd an audio frequency of 44100/250 = 176 Hz would be distorted by 5% when it is played back, and higher frequencies would be distorted by a far greater percentage than that. Clearly the cd medium, while far from perfect, does better than that!

Regards,
-- Al

Hello Almarg.

Reciprocating your respect, truly, I wouldn't expect you to have encountered it before.

I bought a UNIX box in 1999 to do simulation research with Maple (the pro math package). Then I found that, sadly, the journals don't like results which don't parrot the mainstream "wisdom". So I did recreational things like investigating this. In any case, it's unpublished, so you'll have to do it yourself.

The algorithm is quite simple: set the number N of samples per waveform, calculate the step functions appropriately, and calculate the difference squared between that and a sine wave. Divide by the area under the sine. That gives you RMS distortion.

Let N increase. At about N=250 you will see the distortion falling towards 5%.

Oversampling does not help much. Unless the original signal is also processed this way, you merely end up with a curve that more closely approximates a distorted sine.

Regards,
Terry

01-24-12: Terry9
A sine wave must be sampled 250 times to achieve 5% RMS distortion or less ...

With all due respect, as someone who has taken several advanced courses dealing with digital sampling theory, and has designed digital circuits implementing FFT's and other digital signal processing functions, I have never before encountered such a statement.

Are you sure you are not confusing sampling with quantization? Are you sure you are taking into account the low pass filtering or other techniques that are used to reconstruct the analog waveform during the d/a conversion process?

In any event, can you provide some supporting documentation or rationale for that claim?

Regards,
-- Al

Analogue. Do the mathematics:

By the Fourier Theorem, we must only consider sine waves. A sine wave must be sampled 250 times to achieve 5% RMS distortion or less (the bear is when they cross zero, if I remember my simulations correctly). Undamaged adults can hear to 20KHz. Therefore a signal must be sampled at 250 x 20,000 = 5MHz to achieve less than 5% distortion throughout the accepted bandwidth.

And I will shriek if I hear Shannon's Information Theorem (mis) quoted again. That theorem requires a continuous Fourier Transform - i.e. has been infinitely repeating since minus infinity, through the present, and on into plus infinity, whereupon the samples may be reassembled to give good results. But the universe is only 13,000,000,000 years old - a long way from infinity (infinitely long way, actually).

So digital will rival a Revox A77 when sampling frequency exceeds 5MHz. As for rivalling a Studer ... no way.

My friend you think I am talking about the Rega Cartridge?
You had better go back and read my posts and pay attention and then don't regurgitate what I've said and try and take the credit.

When I talk about a high resolution vinyl playback chain, I never said mine was.
Go back and read carefully.
I stated my friend's system, and so I am not bragging about how good my cartridge is or how much gold it contains.

There's lots of gold in them thar Siltech cables of his also, and if we are talking dollars to donuts his interconnect and speaker wires alone cost more than your system.

I repeat, I am not talking about my set up.Never bragged about my system.

You, however, seem to feel that my system can't give me any resolution, and that only you have found the "secret" recipe for success.
So I will have to go on the defensive.

Well, the secret isn't so much in the components as it is in the context of how those components are implimented.

Nowhere in your posts have I seen reference to what type of room treatment that you use, what type of power cords you use,if you use dedicated lines,balanced power,power conditioning etc.

I do.
If we need to get into a P fight about spending money on gear,my focus shifted away from mega buck components and into the realm of power and room conditioning.
My power cords cost over ten grand , if that impresses you.It doesn't impress me.
If I could have gotten the same results and spent less, believe me I would have.

My friend with the mega buck system didn't just call it a day when he bought the components.He spent large on power products.
He showed me the way.This was new territory for me 8 years ago.Before this all I focused on was speakers, amps, cd players and turntables, sound familiar?

I couldn't achieve his level of resolution because I didn't have the bucks to buy the gear that he has.
But I could afford the ancilliaries that so far you either have neglected to mention or just plain neglect when it comes to your search for the truth.

High resolution systems don't need the most expensive coil on the block to be high resolution system.
And I might add that you perhaps have never heard how good your system is if you neglect the power and the room.

In other words you only think you are nailing it.

You are therefore spot on when you state that you only get it right with a few recordings and on a few days.

It's because you are compromising the gear you have,and crippling it if you aren't doing any upgrading in the power cord, room or even fuse department.

The best MC you can buy isn't giving you what it's really capable of , no matter how much you fool with it.

What phono stage are you using?Do you have ablity to dial in the capacitance and load the cartridge for optimum performance?

I can do that with my Steelhead, even though I don't because I use a MM.
And don't slight a MM, they have virtues of their own, go read about them.No hot rising top end,as some coils have.
I"ll have to read up about your cartridge, but just for a reality check,all coils and cartridges have a sound and impart a sound to the music.

Again, they are not neutral, nothing is.
And when it comes to cartridges you can only like or dislike what they do to a recording.
It's just personal preference.
There's no clear cut winner.
Some are better than others, but so far I've never read about the ideal cartridge yet.
It's all about tradeoffs.

If you tweak your cartridge/system and tailor it's sound to suit what YOU think is a decent recording, (and judging from the recordings you state as reference,you haven't heard much), you are making a mistake that a novice makes.

Years ago when I started out and before you ever came upon this hobby, people only had analog as a source.

For most of us we bought Linn Lp12 TT, or after that I bought the Oracle and fitted it with an ET Two linear tracking air bearing arm and back then a nice Dynavector Ruby coil.

Then along came digital, and we (myself and my friends)spent a lot of time trying to make it sound as pleasant as when we spun vinyl.

But it didn't.So we started to re-configure our systems and in so doing, lost the magic that we had.

In the early years , getting both mediums to sound as good as the other was impossible.
Getting one to sound good, ruined the other.
You almost needed two systems.

So for most of us , vinyl still ruled and the perfect sound wasn't what they said it was.

Today things are different.Digital has gotten very good.
My friend and I both prefer his SME system, but the full blown Scarlatti isn't too shabby either, and in some areas outperforms the vinyl.
No, I am not talking about the absence of snaps and crackles.

He hardly has any and I hardly have any.
If people talk about the inferior sound of vinyl and the noise, then they haven't listened to a proper set up.
And I can get that with my set up, and using the Planar 9, the Exact 2 cartridge and the Manley Steel head phono.

I have no more noise than my friend has, whose cartridge alone is worth more than my entire vinyl set up as mentioned.

So the point is,your cartridge, or anybody's isn't perfect.

There's no perfect vinyl or digital set up, mine, yours or my friends,that is absolutely true to the recording.
Everyone of them is colouring the sound, no matter what you think or how perfect you think you have it.
The hard cruel fact is you are no closer to the truth than any of the rest of us.Perhaps further from it if you seek to compromise your system to only a select few frequencies and recordings, which your list illustrate are mostly studio created altered reality type recordings.

I am closer now than I was before, thanks to my friend.
He has shown me that no matter how good or expensive the gear is, it can be compromised if you don't sweat the details.
I can easily tell on my system as I can on his, the studio gimmicks on most of todays recordings, that are absent on the old jazz mono recordings from the late 50's early 60's.
Which tells me I am going in the right direction.Closer to reality not further from it.
The lines are cleanly drawn betwen the two, and I ,unlike you, do not wish to alter the reality of those recordings.
I want to hear differences, and I have a system that can do this, (more now than it did before), the same as my friends expensive system does.Score one for the cheap little MM.

My friend IS closer than I am, and you are somewhere in between,and unlike you I won't say your system is lacking anything although you think mine is lacking. I will say that you perhaps have some decent gear, but may lack a bit of experience as to how to get the most out of it.

The lesson I've learned thru the decades in this hobby is that there is no substitute for the truth, and that if the truth means hearing the tape hiss from a recording because it's on the recording, then that's better than hidding it.
Because to hide the tape hiss or try to make a sonic bandaid and cover it up somehow with euphonic colourations, isn't striving for the truth.
That's running away from it.
If you are missing the hiss, then what else are you missing?
My guess is the decay and trail of the music, especially on cymbals.
If hiss is on the recording but yoiur system isn't capable of retrieving it or you've done something to hide it because you find it detracts from the music, you've also just lost some of the music.You've lost detail.The hiss is a detail,and take it away you take away subtle decay and any other frequencies that ride in the frequencies of the hiss you find so offensive.
Point- it's not just hiss you are removing.
Or, if you aren't hearing the hiss thru your system(when it's there on someonelse's)you aren't hearing other parts of the music either.

And going back to preaching again, when mediocrity becomes the norm and something to adulate,then all the stuff that is truly good has no importance.

When you allow the slow learners to advance with the smart ones, you aren't doing either any favours.
If no one fails,it rewards the slackers and does nothing to encourage them or those who excelled to excell any further.

The playing field eventually is levelled and the score is average at best.
In other words,more in the lower middle, few or none at the top.

When you kill off the top audio gear and find nothing but fault because it is so good at revealing the truth and distinguishing between good and bad, you breed mediocrity.

It's evident,some don't want this type of brutal reality.

They would rather tinker with it, and try to render all recordings to sound nice than live with the reality that no two recordings will ever sound the same, nor should they.

Some are just poorly recorded.But that doesn't mean that they aren't fun to listen to.
If you like the music you'll like the flaws,and learn to appreciate the better recordings because you have a system that can do that.Not a system that makes everything sound the same, or a system that was voiced around one type of medium(vinyl/digital).

Vertigo has at times in his posts taken my statements out of context and twisted them around to make it appear that my ideas were his ideas all along, which of course they aren't.

I never once stated my aim was to strive for a system where the flaws are masked.And I've stated my system is able to distinguish between good and poorly recorded material.
I've assembled a system that is resolving and not fatiguing, and it sounds good all the time and on all music, good recordings or bad.It tells the truth.It doesn't hide from it.Or try to alter it and make it all sound the same.
I've stated all along I revel in the distinction between good bad and poor recordings, and strive for a system that has the resolution and detail to make this possible.How did Vertigo not get this?Why did he distort my statements?
How did he come to the conclusions that he did?
How could he know how good my system is, let alone my friend's, and is he really that dillusional to think that he has a system that has all the answers?
If he hasn't adressed room issues and power treatment I am certain he isn't even close yet to where his gear could take him.
My friend will tell you, he hasn't even gotten there yet.

I want the truth, Vertigo wants to colour it to his liking, both in his music reproduction system and in his posts.

Lacee, You've almost got it. Re read my posts and then i think everything will finally crystallize.

You seem to think there is an objective truth about what is the constitution of "a good recording". In the final analysis every recording and every playback of a recording is a interpretation or rendition of "the truth". If you seek to actually mimic reality you need to use live instruments as your litmus test and then manipulate the flaws/inherent limitations of recordings into something else to turn out something that sounds absolutely real but if you choose to do THIS you will find you walk a razors edge of fine tuning, so much so that only a few recordings can be made to sound practically real. If this isn't your goal... one, by DEFAULT is making everything sound generally better but nothing close to real. You have to leave the shore of generalizations in order to reach the shore of practically real. And i mean this not at a class C level but at a Class AAA level. None of this will really mean anything to you or applies to you when you are using only a Exact 2 cart.

Vertigo, I don't know how much clearer I can be.
I think you are starting to get it, as you are repeating things in your post that I first stated.

No I don't use the Fidelity Research,my vinyl set up is a modest Rega P-9, Exact 2, into a Manley Steelhead.

Not my most ambitious Vinyl set up.
In the past I owned the LP12 with the FR arm and cart, An Oracle Delphi versions 1, 2, with an EMT air bearing arm, then a Sota with SME V arm, then VPI SCout, and now the Rega.

My friend's vinyl system is my reference for what a great vinyl system is capable of-SME 30/12, Clear Audio Strad cart, Audio Research Ref phono stage and AR 40 Anniver pre amp,all top flight Siltech cables and all top flight power cords and conditioning.

It was on this system that I clearly could discerne how much more there was to hear on a vinyl recording than what most of us think is as good as it gets.

I can never tweak my gear enough to even come close to this type of resolution, and clarity.
It clearly ditinguishes between great and less great recordings,and his digital Scarlatti gear is a great vinyl/digital comparison.

But I digress,my whole point all along has been that the more resolution, the better, and that the more resolution you have the easier it is to distinguish between the wheat and the chaff.

And in this case you don't have to use one limited amount of "reference' recordings" that you've read about somewhere to prove the point.
It's there on all recordings.
There are great recordings that folks know about( and are bored with aka P.Barber)and some recordings from lesser known groups and labels that can astonish you with their realism.Check out Fidelio,I have several of Rene's recordings and they are very well done, yet not many outside of a small community know about them.Art Duddley does ,but just recently.

But I wouldn't voice my system to them.
A well set up system doesn't need to be voiced to any small set of recordings.

Or to any one type of music.

If it does sound best with one type of music, then that is not for me.
But there are folks out there who listen to string ensembles exclusively and seek out systems that compliment this one style and no harm in that.

I like several female vocalists and Cassandra Wilson and Liz Wright come to mind.Ive seen Diana Krall in a small venue at the beginning of her career, and I also like a young woman by the name of Anne Bisson(Fidelio again)but I wouldn't voice a system around any of them, as good as they are.

Talk about diverse vocal timbres.
Who would you choose to voice your system around?

If you tip the scales in favour of one and voice your system accordingly, you'll do a disservice to all the others.

Poor Norah Jones might get left out in the cold.

The more resolve you have when the system is properly set up, the more you can tell the difference between recordings and vocalists.Or so you should.If they all sound the same then the system is not accurate,it's painting everything with the same brush.
Everyone sounds like Pat Barber.

I have a few old 6 eyes and old Columbis of jazz in mono from the 50's & 60's that can run circles around most of all the "reference" recordings that get all the press.ONe of my faves is the Louis Armstrong plays WC Handy- original pressing, mono.
I believe it's now been re-issued, It's a great primer on how they used to get it right, that somehow has been forgotten.

And yet I never would think about setting my system up around this lp as good as it is.It is only one example of how diverse the music and recordings are and I like the diversity.

Which is what I find so strange about your approach.

When all the components are set up optimally, when care is taken with where and on what the gear is seated and the power to the gear is addressed, as is the room itself, then there's no need to fine tune it so that a few "reference" recordings sound great.

They will,and so will the lesser well recorded material, and you will like everything you play, yet be able to hear quality differences and recording techniques that lesser systems aren't capable of.

If the kick drum in a vintage recording is not as deep as your reference recording is,why alter it ?
Or on the other hand why fatten out all the sound because the kick on your reference is fuller than the old mono disc recorded the kick?

Why try and alter what was the original sonic truth and super impose another set of "reference" sonics to it?

Isn't it better to be able to hear the differnce?

In a highly resolving system everything will not sound the same, as I keep saying, you won't have a collection of all C grade material.
You will have A grade, B grade, C grade, and even F grade.

And you'll love them all for what they are.Because they are what they are and haven't been altered to sound like some "reference" disc.

Most folks never attain this type of resolution or are reluctant to do so because they fear this will render a great majority of their music unlistenable.

It is the complete opposite ,and completely opposite to setting up a system that is optimized to only make a few recordings sound great, aka P. Barber recordings.

A system that is set up properly and that consists of gear that doesn't impose a sonic signature or has sonic limitations,will sound great on any music that is played back through it.Hence no need to voice the system around lite jazz or the squeals of P.Barber.

I play all types of music and so does my friend.
Neither of us voiced our systems to a specific type of music or to any specific discs.
Both play back everything we feed them.
Classical or rock,Holst's Planets from Fidelio, or vintage Zimmerman from Columbia.
Again this is what I expect from an audio system.
No curtailment at the frequency extremes and great clarity .
Both of our systems accomplish this.

His just plays back better than mine.

And so it should.

Many quality recordings are Digitally recorded, mixed and then mastered. So, when making a Vinyl of the performance, I can't but doubt that the Vinyl could be better as there must be a D/A conversion to make the Vinyl master?? So what additional information is in the Vinyl verses the CD?

RE**Why would you use the Nora Jones lp as a benchmark?***

Because it is received in the general audio community as a well recorded album. Because it is very quiet. Because it contains uncongested music which makes it easier to focus on how minute changes are manifesting themselves. This is not a 200gm / 120 gm issue. I don't discriminate against thinner records and nothing i said implied that. This is one record i like to go back to amongst others...like...

Police synchronicity "every breathe you take" or " king of pain" 125g
Dire straits "sultans of swing" 125g
Fleetwood mac rumours "dreams" 125g
Bob dylan good as i been to you "canadee i o" "jim jones" "sittin on top of the world" 125g
Nirvana bleach "about a girl" "love buzz" "negative creep"130g
Glenn Gould the goldberg variations 125g
Miles davis kind of blue 200g reissue

RE***I wouldn't, and as such I don't adjust the sound of my system to enhance one lp over the other.***

I know...as i said in my previous post... where your system is at present, probably homogenizes more than you would like to think? and yet at the same time don't you swear, as a musician, by how important it is to render timbres correctly and don't you swear by how important it is for you to have high resolution in order to really enjoy music? I feel like your statements contradict each other, like you are talking out of both sides of your mouth?

You probably are not. I think the way to reconcile this is to understand when you use the word "resolution" and "timbre" and when i use those same words, ultimately they mean different things to each of us based on our reference point, which are...our systems. We understand those terms in the degrees in which we are able to present them (and have heard them in our systems) without flaw... compared to live instruments. So with that said...This is why when i say there are moments that things sound real, you kinda have to scoff at that? But in my world that has been my goal and i have used a few select recordings, 125g or not, as a reference to strive for the attainment of that goal. I would argue, you don't have that same goal to the same degree that i pursue it, but if you chose to, i submit that your experience would be the same as mine. That is...if you tweaked to the point of trying to make at least some of your lps sound REAL you would automatically be going down the road of alienating others since the task of making ALL YOUR LPS sound real AT THE SAME TIME is going to be impossible and unrealistic you therefore have to by default try and make some sound real.

Which is a more realistic goal? Making a few lps sound real or all your lps sound real? I would say the former, though still a challenge, is a more realistic goal than the latter.

In order for YOU to attain the KIND and LEVEL of timbrel fidelity and resolution (which you so strongly champion)that I HAVE of a marine band harmonica (for example), i argue you NECESSARILY will HAVE TO alienate other recordings AS A CONSEQUENCE of the pursuit of perfection. There is no other way around it. The ALTERNATIVE is to make all recordings sound pretty ok or excellent but then it could never be said ANY have perfect timbre.

It seems the difference between me and you is, you don't strive for actual perfect timbrel fidelity at any cost rather you settle for goal of timbres that appeal to a broad number of lp's or cd's. My goal is to take anything in my collection that i think has the chance of sounding real and pushing THOSE to the limit! As i understand it, in order to go for extreme timbres, i NEED to focus on those viable candidates since they are my best hope for achieving that goal.(this is my logic) As i pursued this goal i noticed the closer i got to real with these candidates, the further left behind other non candidate lps were left as a by product of this process. It is my understanding then based on personal experience that if one seeks THIS goal (the goal of making SOMETHING sound real)... alienating other lps will be a automatic "necessary evil" But if one never tries to make SOMETHING sound real they will by default be making a degree of "general compromise".

I mention the norah jones lp for the sake of simplifying the discussion but there are quite a few i use and then from there i go and listen anywhere in the collection.

RE***What do you do if one cd is brighter than the other?
Go out and swap cables and amps etc for each disc?

I wouldn't go down that road.
And yet some folks do.****

The answer depends on how faithfully you want to render timbres?(timbres and resolution are inseparable)

The point i've been trying to make and actually you are helping me make it...is...that if you want 100 out of a 100 type quality of timbres, Yes, in fact, you might have to change amps and cables for each cd/lp but if you want 75 out of a 100 type quality timbres, no, you don't. Just spin any record or any cd and you're ok.

Just as a backdrop to the discussion, remember midfi system's distinguish between "good" and "bad" recordings, just as state of the art systems do. Even low fi can. So, just because one is discerning between good and bad timbres or good and bad recordings or hearing warts and all it doesn't necessarily follow that one is not dabbling to some degree in mediocrity since mediocrity between systems will be a relative term.

One persons "impeccable" timbres, is not another persons "impeccable" timbres.

RE***I wouldn't go down that road.
And yet some folks do.***

The folks who DO are striving for the goals of a certain type and degree of timbrel fidelity. They are striving for the kind of timbrel fidelity and resolution of degrees that you do not strive for and it is at this point that i find it ironic.

It's ironic you won't go down that road but say things like:

"When you know that nothing sounds the same, why try to make it all sound the same?

To do so is just mediocrity.

No more great sounding lps or cds just a lot of OK sounding ones."

It seems you are guilty of what you despise/condemn since you won't strive for perfect timbres if it means only doing so for some recorded music. Therefore by default in reality, though you'll disagree, most of your lps and cds play in a general sort of way.

RE***That's how it works for me.
I am not trying to improve just the best performances, but when they sound even better then I know that the less well recorded music will also be improved.

One is not at the expense of the other as you seem to imply.

The greater the resolve, the greater the resolve on good and poor recordings in all formats.****

Yes and no. There are some things of a general nature, of which it can be said "one is not at the expense of the other" but in some things, like the finest of nuances and subtleties "one IS in fact at the expense of others"

For example...If you want your system's forte (what it's going to excel at) to be classical music and there are speakers more suited for rock and some more suited for classical aren't you forced to choose one type of speaker over another if you want to achieve your goal? or can you get a rock speaker and still have your system's forte be classical?

So, too if you don't want to compromise in ANY AREA AT ALL in regards to timbres you will have to sacrifice some recordings for others in order to flesh out those last few nuances/attributes that complete somethings timbrel envelope to the destruction of others or as i have said before you do in fact have a compromised system (at least in the sense that i define "compromised system")and are catering to watered down timbres that appeal to a larger section of your lp's.

Are you still using the Fidelity Research FR-1 MK3 ?

At what level does this cart reproduce timbres and resolution? Does it compromise them or not/to what degree if any? Where does it fit in the hierarchy of other cartridges out there in this regard? Is it "midfi "no compromise"" or "hi end mediocrity"? and how does your answer to those questions relate to how we both understand the words we use like...resolution and timbre and to the degree to which we can have meaningful/effective communication about those terms?

.

Why would you use the Nora Jones lp as a benchmark?

I wouldn't, and as such I don't adjust the sound of my system to enhance one lp over the other.
Even if one lp is 200 gram and the other is the thinnest oil embargo vinyl.I listen to them as they are.
I may prefer the sound of one over the other but I wouldn't try to adjust my system to lessen the difference.

You are dumbing down one for the sake of the other.
That's where I'm different.
I don't have a template or benchmark disc that I try to make all my cds and lps emulateby manipulating individual aspects of the system.
You would never have time to enjoy any music but would be in a constant state of adjustment.
I don't see any pleasure in that.
I know some folks who adjust the cartridge parameters for individual lps.
This can work, but what do you do with cd's?

What do you do if one cd is brighter than the other?
Go out and swap cables and amps etc for each disc?

I wouldn't go down that road.
And yet some folks do.

What happens when you find out it was the speakers that were at fault, and the new speakers make the bass shy system tweaked for more bass to now be bass heavy?
And the reference lp is no longer the reference you thought it was with the new speakers?
Nora Jones now sounds like Tom Jones, or worse yet they both sound the same!.

I do have what I consider well recorded lps, and cd's.

But I don't reconfigure or voice my system to any one or two particular cd's or lp's.

What I have noticed when I upgraded power cords for example, was that all my recordings were improved, not just the well recorded ones.

That's how it works for me.
I am not trying to improve just the best performances, but when they sound even better then I know that the less well recorded music will also be improved.

One is not at the expense of the other as you seem to imply.

The greater the resolve, the greater the resolve on good and poor recordings in all formats.

This is why I can't come to terms with your reasoning.
Perhaps I am not making myself clear enough.

I don't tweak my system to make the poor recordings sound great,that would alter the performance of the good ones and skew them in a direction not pleasant to the ears.

The only thing greater resolution does for me is to make me appreciate the great recordings even more, not dislike the lesser recordings.

What happens is that the differences between fair and great recordings is more discernable, which is as it should be, at least to me.

All music wasn't created equal and wasn't recorded equal, so it shouldn't be made to sound equal by a hifi system.

You can't see the forest for the trees is quite apt,so is being able to see that the forest isn't comprised of just one variety of tree.

If there are several varieties of trees I want to see them all, the tall, the short, the crooked and the straight.I want to be able to differentiate between the deciduous and the coniferous.

This is the performance I expect from my hifi system.

When you know that nothing sounds the same, why try to make it all sound the same?

To do so is just mediocrity.

No more great sounding lps or cds just a lot of OK sounding ones.