"Maybe they are all retired and listening to digital like Raul now."
What an ugly thing to say. ;)
Who needs a MM cartridge type when we have MC?
well, it was not a joke actually, in the end of 256 page of this wonderful thread we lost 97% of the contributors and the author of the thread turned digital. It’s a nighmare, but i hope it’s no the end. BTW if someone will wake me up in the middle of the night and ask which MC cartridges Nandric has and who recomended them to him i can recall all of them, because he keep repeating them all in every 3 posts :) I even bought some of them. |
Dear chackster, you begin to look like the Mexican oracle. You seem to even know better which MC cartridges I own then I myself. I first mentioned my recent 5 and and last my carts of ''the month''. That is to say for 11 months of the year. Those are mentioned in two of my contributions. So you exgaggerate when you say ''he keep repeating them all in every 3 post''. BTW I own about 40 MC and also about 40 MM carts. Do you really know them all? For my MC carts I got advice from Dertonarm and Syntax . Those are two persons. All the rest I have sellected by my self. That is what I meant by my statement that with MC carts I was on my own. I think that you ar also ''on your own'' in search for new carts. I certainly undertand your search because I deed the same. BTW my latest is the Phoenix S which is recently produced so obviously new. |
Dear chakster, my story about Marie Antoinette who advised her people to eat cookies instead of bread reminded me about saturation. Everybody can at present buy more bread than he needs. There are of course different kinds and gradations by saturation but it is obvious that this thread as well its ''subject'' (aka carts) may have reached saturation bondaries. You as novice may mourn about this ''natural process'' but anyway you are aware of this ''state of affairs'' as you wrote in your last post. For the ''older members'' however your implicite criteria do not apply. That is why many left this thread or even the whole forum. There is also this ''owners change'' by A'gon with introduction of a new kind of inquisition called ''moderators'' which further weakened members motivtion. Those who are still members are motivated by comradery and friendship rather than by the forum as such. |
@harold-not-the-barrel Raul, again about your sold Dynavector Karat Nova 13D... was it really the large wooden body or was it a "weaker" sample. Additionally, how would you compare it against the Dynavector Karat 17D(s) ? The Karat carts are very special designs, I´m interested in purchasing... Let me add my 50 cent... Predecessor of the Karat and Karat Nova was Dynavector DV-30C with AIR-COIL (also headshell integrated design) with straight Boron cantilever and German Parabolic nude stylus tip. It was LOMC (0.18mV) with the same frequency response as the Karat Nova 13D. The Dynavector DV-30C was the ultimate state of the art cartridge. The combination of the poly acetal non-ferrous armature and the above mentioned cantilever and stylus assembly gives the DV-30c the previously inconceivable sound quality. Dynavector 30 series cartridges feature the very attractive headshell integrated as one piece. The headshell was designed for the ease of fixing to almost all conventional sme type tonearms in addition to careful treatment of multi resonance problems in the headshell. The effective length and the azimuth angle of the cartridge can be adjusted +/- 3mm and +/- 5 degrees. Dynavector DV-505 bi-axis, inertia controlled, dynamic balance type tonearm is recommended by the manufacturer. This low output DV-30c must be extremely rare as i have never seen one over the years, but i saw at least 5 samples of Karat 13D/17D this year. As i said earlier i have only HOMC version of this DV-30 series. I was very impressed by the sound of my DV-30A from 1978-1981. Here is another fresh picture (taken yesterday) of alluminum cantilever and Shibata Type III stylus of my DV30a: https://scontent-amt2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/22365609_1902924109725747_622425272253141477_n.jpg?oh=... But it’s High Output MC (1.8mV). The secret lies in the micro proportions of the coil. A coil frame of mere 1,8mm square contains over 400 turns of ultra-thin 11-micron meter wire wound at 90 degrees to one other. The micron precision gives the high output type MC cartridges an output voltage of 1,8mV. I think the uber rare LOMC version of DV-30 must be better with its Boron cantilever and Paroc diamong, it must be close to Karat Nova if you will look at the specs. I think i already posted Van Den Hul's summary regarding DV-30 series earlier in this thread (he has retipped some of them). |
Interesting, Chakster. The great vendor, probably initially from Russian hills, no other than our (in)famous Victor Simakov had one for sale here at A´gon a few years back: https://www.google.fi/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&u... Funny coincidence, my Grace F-14 Ruby is from him, also a few years back... |
Oh, yes. If you know Victor aka "grgaudio" then you may noticed that his "70 hrs of use" or normally "200 hrs of use" along with info like "i got it from japanese reviewer" has nothing to do with reality as he stated the same for all his cartridges and seems like all those japanese sellers on yahoo are the reviewers, it’s pretty funny. I didn’t noticed he sold one, anyway, some of the carts (gladly not all) purchaced from him collapsed in the next hours much faster that buyer can expect. And after inspection at much more trustworthly SoundSmith we get the conclusion that the stylus is worn out, so the stated 200hrs was a myth. It’s a real story about Sony XL55 cart purchaced by me for my flatmate several years ago from grgaudio. No response from him since that day even when i bought another good cartrige from one of his "secret account" on ebay and tried to communicate, very strange. When the price is too low, and the deal is not on ebay, we must think twice. The last one re-tipped by Van Den Hul was 1600 euro on good Italian source, but it was HOMC version 30B, not even the LOMC 30C |
Raul, Now I see you wasn´t happy with the original headshell that comes with the cart. It´s actually an aluminium frame for the cart to adjust on certain arms and probably source of colorations or even distortions. I fully agree, it´s no good. My sample has that too and I just removed it as seen here https://www.filepicker.io/api/file/BYPcZInyT0iQzdx14uyl/convert?rotate=exif Mine is a peculiar one as it has no DV logo on its body, it looks like a Karat Nova but is it really ? Is it a counterfeit ? Whatever the case, it´s an excellent performer and actually my finest sounding LOMC, balanced and very nuanced, and very smooth yet so dynamic. |
Chakster, when you see and hold that metal frame around the Karat Nova 13D you will understand. As for headshells´ resonances as such, I have no idea. A decent headshell does not resonate, right ? Actually I bought three reasonably priced MM carts from our Russian fellow and none of them had any kind of issues, they came with no original papers nor boxes though. However, his claimed low hours use I didn´t take so seriously really. Funny guy, but I won´t spend my money in his rare "gems" again, how reasonably priced and tempting they could be :) |
harold, I'm not an engineer but as I understand such things, everything resonates once an appropriate stimulus is applied. The question is, is that resonance at a frequency that is detrimental to the desired purpose? I've read several references that the desired resonance of a turntable "system" is around 2-3 Hz, low enough so that it does not interfere with music playback. So a "decent headshell" would be one which does not produce sympathetic resonances within the frequency range of your playback system. |
Chakster, There many reasons people enter into participation on a thread, and just as many why they drop out. It would take a thread of its own to explain why, but the only constant is change, so cut everyone some slack. I participate in the Jazz thread mainly to learn, but seem to post less now. Do I love Jazz any less? I love it more everyday, but I just don't seem to get around to writing about it. I listen instead of writing. Here we did seem to hit a period where we were just circling and questions were answered by pointing back to the pages of cartridges we had already discussed. I would like your opinion of the cartridges we said were good, which you had a different take on, when you have some time. |
Dear @frogman : """ One cannot have both the live music experience (as you claim to have) and recorded music as the ultimate reference. You assume that a recording is an accurate representation of the original event. """ Recorded music never is not even close to the " ultimate reference " against live music that’s the ultimate reference. I’m not comparing it in any way. All what I post or posted in this and other forums is about audio home system experiences. "" suggesting that it should apply to all listeners and you invalidate (ridicule) others’ system goals. """ I think a misunderstood by your part ( please re-read the begining of your last post. ) because I always states and stated which is my main target: stay truer to the recording. I don’t invalidate other listeners targets in any way. In the other side because I was speaking of the home listening experiences I took that warmth in the audiophile home system terms/scenario. MUSIC as poetry, sculpture or paint is a true and real ART and this kind of art is a deep expression of the composers with additional expression of the players. All of those diferent kind of ART wake up different type of feelings and emotions on each single human been and normally those feelings/emotions are singular/unique to each person. That’s the ART’s power/beauty. MUSIC as an art has the " legacy " that it does not matters the MUSIC source ( a walkman, $$$ home system, car radio or live. ) always wake up some kind of feelings/emotions in each one of us. Now, each orchestra director has its own interpretation of what was the composer whole expressions in the score and this director will try to shows us that self interpretation additional to what is the self orchestra individual players expressions. All these is extremily and really the deepest subjectivity that in an orchestra with 80 players no one can detect the individual expressions. Even if any one of us attend in two concecutive days to listen the same score we will find out differences on both performances. Even if instead of an orchestra we are listening to a single player: horn, piano or whatever instrument two concecutives player presentations are different and we can detect it. Anyway, that warmth/expression is intrinsical on what pick up the venue recording microphones and what you said is that analog preservs it and is almost losted by digital or at least analog reflects better way. How is that? can you explain it other than that " I like it more.." ? I´m not a player as you are but at least one day by week I attend to listen live MUSIC and I do this for several years now. I respect to all players and I can learn on each one of them when we are talking of live MUSIC but when we are talking of the audio home room/system experiences you and me are at almost the same level and I have respect for you too as an audiophile. Well now I will wait for your answer on my questions, we can learn from you. Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
Dear @chakster @harold-not-the-barrel : Whom tell you I'm in digital now. That's a misunderstood because I'm listening analog and digital. Btw, I don't have the time yet to test several cartridges ( MM/MC ) I own and that no one " touched " in this thread, even some of them I had and do not have the time to listen for the first time. Testing cartridges to evaluate them is really time consuming and I just have not any more. I hope that time to time I can do that to report it here. Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
Well explained, Pryso. Of course resonances are born during play, so the question is how to reduce them or even get away from. So I would add that a well damped arm reduces resonances and in the best case the whole TT system kinda drains them away not allowing to reflect back to a cartridge. For example, the SME III is a very well damped arm w/ headshell´s very tight fit to arm tube, teak ribbons inside arm tube, fluid damping and even those not hyper tight bearings, this arm does drain resonances away very effectivily IME. Excellent Acman ! I almost knew you have the Ultra 500 too. After 400, it´s hard to resist trying, isn´t it :) |
Acman, I had an Ultra 400 when it was new and current. Loved it. I'd had the Shure V15 V-MR too, considered state-of-amazing at the time — but as soon as I tried the Grace F9E, I never used the V15 again. I had the IV as well, and considered both those Shures musically lifeless. Then I got the Ultra 400; it was very special, and if you have a stylus but no body, it's worth the effort. Alas my time with it was short, only 3-4 hours. It began to slide across the record. I checked the stylus with a loupe, expecting to see a little clot of fluff, but it was clean — and it was coming out of the cantilever! Only the bare tip protruded, most of the shank was above the cantilever, and it was bottoming-out on the record. An adhesive failure. I knew I could push it back down, and a tiny dab of epoxy on top would probably fix it in place. But it was late at night, and this was a daytime job for sure, needing bright light and mind, and steady hand. First thing in the morning... Unfortunately I didn't tell my wife. She usually began our day by starting the coffee, and the music. She put a record on, and the cartridge just slid across to the middle of the label with a sandpaper sound. The stylus was gone. I tried to find it, if it had stayed on the turntable there was a chance, but the spinning platter flung it who knows where. A factory defect. I hadn't used it enough even to clean it, so no fluids or even a brush ever touched it. My wife blamed herself, and wouldn't accept my assurances she was guiltless — and if you've ever broken a cantilever you know the awful feeling. If only I'd alerted her... If you have a stylus and get a body, you'll be glad you did. You might also examine your stylus — it's possibly only mine lacked glue, but more likely it was a defective batch. Odds are probably that yours was not in that batch, but still — just a tiny dab of epoxy... |
Dear @frogman : """
what does "understanding" have to do with any of this. Is it not about what we hear and what we feel when we listen to recorded music? I know very well what I hear and feel when I hear analog vs digital. """ yes, all is about what we hear and feel but when we are listening MUSIC in a home audio system we can't be as a " robot " that just listen with out ask our slf nothing with out know why we are listening what we are listening and with out ask our self how to improve the listening experiences. To improve those listening experiences we have to " understand " what is happening down there because if we do not know why we are listening " something " how can we improve it, don't yo think? I don't think that you or any one else that's in home audio system and when started this hobby bougth and builded his first system and after that he never made any single changes/tweacks or up-grade steps . What moves each one of us to look for up-grades? how can we now what needs an up-grade/date in our system if we do not understand what and why is happening? Subwoofers are not used inside a symphonic orchestra with Mahler scores but even with a more " simple " scores self powered subwoofers are a must in any home audio system that have passive loudspeakers. Subwoofers are a necessity in a home audio system as is not to listen to unipivot tonearms or all metal build tonearmsor tubes or.... or.... or...I don't know you but I learned the why's about when I understand its really weak role in what I listening day by day trhotugh many years in my home system. If your target or other people target is just listening then we don't need to think on up-grade/dates in our system. How you or your friends or the ones that disagree witn me about today importance on digital alternative can disagree with out follow that 3 months test listening exclusively to digital? Some of you said that already heard digital but only for a 2-3 hours and not each single day, this kind of experiences is prove of nothing. We can't " desintoxicate " our brain in only a few hours when we have 20-30-40+ years accustomed to the analog experience ! ! ! We just can't, it does not happens that way. Well, I hope you can understand my take and why I post here and elsewhere what I post. Every thing has a reason if we work to find out. Nothing comes by free in audio, evry day we have to learn but to learn we have to be willing to do it. Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
@rauliruegas Yeras ago I explain it in wide way and I don't have the time to get back again.The JVC X-1 MK2 is different and at the front of the stylus holder statest is for 4-channels, even the stylus holder is different and larger than the normal one.You don't own the JVC X-1 MK2, sorry. Enough. Finally i can spread the light on that 4 Channel stylus you have mentioned. Now everyone can look at this picture to make sure that cantilever is different from the serial model, because it's much thicker in diameter and there is no tension wire on the tail (different from the serial models for X-1, X-2 and X-1II with X-1IIe). BTW on this picture someone trying to put together non compatible stylus and generator. The stylus is for X-1II (X-2) series and the (big) size of the clear plastic is similar to X-1II replacement combo, but the generator is just regular JVC X-1 (aka Victor X-1). The most interesting is the 4 Channel stylus/cantilever which is unique, i think it is not a serial model, but just a sample. And you have (had) the same sample, but with the right generator? Now we see what's the difference, but since the cartridge designed strictly for 4 Channels records i'm not sure it is better for 2 Channel (Stereo) records. Maybe this is the reason why JVC Victor serial models are different, they are made for normal Stereo records. |
Raul, this was written in response to your previous to last post directed at me. I will briefly address your most recent post at the end. ************************ Dear Raul, There is an expression often used by orchestral musicians: "No one is fired for having a bad tone". A bit of an exaggeration to be sure since a good tone is something that is expected of all players, but it makes a very important point. The point is that in the world of music making there are aspects of a player's ability that are far more important than sound or tone which is how in the audio world these matters are usually discussed. The aspects of a player's musical abilities, and hence personality, that I refer to fall mainly in the categories of timing, rhythmic feel and expression. I bring this up because I am not quite sure how to address your request to explain beyond what I wrote previously why it is that I and most musicians feel that analog GENERALLY does a better job than digital of capturing/reproducing music and that it is not simply that we "like it better". Well, we do like it better. We like it better because to our ears it sounds more like live music; or, at least, what we feel are the most important elements of music as stated above. As I said in my previous post I feel that in these discussions/debates the focus is usually and almost entirely on "the sound": tone, frequency response and absence or presence of noise, and little or no commentary about rhythm and expression...the things that are most important in music. I am a musician and audiophile not an engineer and my understanding and ability to explain why I hear what I hear in technical terms will be limited at best. Bottom line: while I always like to know, I really don't care that much because I know what I hear and if I don't know why this doesn't cause me to doubt what I hear. I can and will try, however, to surmise based on that limited technical understanding and extrapolate that to what I do know applies to the basics of music making. Apologies to all not interested in this sort of thing for the length of this post. First, I would like to point out that I have been an audiophile about as long as I have been a professional musician, and have always felt that there exist many parallels between what audiophiles go through and experience in assembling and tweaking a sound system and what musicians go through with their equipment. If ever there was a good way to make the argument for resonance/isolation tweaking of audio components it is seeing what players go through when optimizing their instruments. iow, if these things matter with a musical instrument, is it any surprise that they would matter with the equipment that reproduces the sound of musical instruments? In general, these tweaks to instruments offer very subtle but important changes to the way an instrument sounds and, even more importantly, feels to the player. Would you believe that gold (or silver) plating the small brass screw that secures the neck of a saxophone to the body of the instrument makes a difference(s) that the player can feel? Or a simple small rubber band around the very end of a flute foot-joint? And these are just two small examples; never mind the much bigger and well documented effects of the use of different materials in the construction of the instruments. I bring this up only to point out the kind of incredibly subtle changes in sound and feeling that players are dealing with. Likewise, in the area of expression; the way musicians interact in an ensemble or turn a phrase when playing solo. As I tried to explain previously this is the area where analog consistently does a better job than digital of capturing the musicians' intent. Why? As I said, I can only surmise based on the little I know about the technology and what I think is simple logic. It is extremely difficult to explain just how fine a level of expressive detail is what distinguishes, for instance, a player's tendency to play ever so slightly behind the beat which is what produces a relaxed feeling and a tendency to play more on the front side of the beat which gives the playing a more rhythmically aggressive feeling; and this is just "scratching the surface" (pun intended). Now, consider that within a single short musical phrase a player may, for expressive purposes, "play" with the rhythm and at some point within that single phrase lay back and ever so slightly play behind the beat, only to then play ahead of the beat for just an instant. This is just one example of many of the kind of expressive detail that digital seems to blur. Why? Again, I can only surmise, but it is very real. The way I understand digital technology is that the process assigns a series of ones and zeros to the music present at a specific and discreet point in time. Then it "guesses" at and synthesizes what the information that connects that discreet point in time to the next point in time and it's corresponding series of ones and zeros might be. Knowing what an incredibly fine level of detail is present in the process of music making, it is no surprise to my simple mind that a technology that has to chop up the flow and expressive nuance of music and then reconstruct it using a synthesized "musical glue" should produce a recreation that often sounds less emotionally involving as it is often described by listeners. Another good example of how digital tends to distort musicians' musical intent to a greater degree than analog: Consider a symphonic score in which the principal clarinet has to play a unison line with the first chair violin. The two players are physically separated by a good distance. One of the things that excellent players strive for in a situation like this is to create a blend of the two very different sounds that becomes a new sound or tonal color; this is what a good composer intends and is what players call "getting inside each others' sound". In live and a good analog recording that feeling of blend is palpable. With digital it is often portrayed as two discreet sounds; the blend, the human element is diminished. This is may be a reason for the tendency of digital recordings to have a greater degree of tonal sameness than analog recordings. Which brings me to a comment that you made that is not correct. All those subtle and not so subtle colors created by musicians and which give individual players and ensembles personality and individuality are diminished. You suggested that in an orchestra individual players'personality is not heard. This is not true at all. There is much room for individual expression and personality within the confines dictated by the score and the conductor's musical vision. Again, it's all a matter of degree and points to how these subjects are usually discussed in terms that are way too broad. There is much more nuance at play than is usually considered. This musical nuance is what analog consistently does better. And, btw, the differences between the two technologies are are plainly heard, and sometimes more so, during direct playback of master recordings in either the control rooms of studios or remote recording locations. So, the argument that many listeners' digital playback equipment is not up to snuff does not hold water as concerns this debate. Analog simply preserves more of the magic* that is such a great ingredient of good music making. As before, you made a comment in your post recent post that I think may explain our disagreement and fundamentally different approaches to all this: **** when we are listening MUSIC in a home audio system we can't be as a " robot " that just listen with out ask our slf nothing with out know why we are listening what we are listening and with out ask our self how to improve the listening experiences. **** Exactly the problem. In my opinion, being a "robot" is precisely the opposite of what you describe. Being a robot is to not be able to listen to music and it's beauty and emotion without always also thinking about the technical aspects of its reproduction. I'll make you a deal; a gentleman's agreement. At home I will listen to music only on CDs for three months (your prescribed length of time) and you promise to listen to music for three months without once concerning yourself with the technical and trying "understand" why things sound the way they do. We'll compare notes in three months time. I predict that at the end of that period you will love music far more and I will be....I shudder to think what. Just kidding... Regards. Sent from my iPad |
Dear frogman, I learned much from logician since Frege. He first exlained that the simple grammar of the ''S is P'' form contains 4 different logical forms. Consider for our contex the quantifier ''all'' in the ''S'' place. The most people see this ''S'' place as the place where a name belongs. But ''all'', ''some'', ''most'', etc. are not names. We the Serbians would like to kill all Croats and other way round. We assume that like an particular object all Croats have the same property ; the bad one. This make no sense because there are no two persons in the world who are identical (aka ''the same'') To say whatever about ''all Croats'' the necessary condition is to know them all individualy. As a kind of ''opposition'' in relation to ''universal quantifier'' (''all'') there is the so called ''numerical quantifier''. Say: ''there are exactly 40 person in this class''. We in Europe have problems with refugee. There is political division between those who want ''all refugee to get asylum'' and those who ask the question ''how many can we bear?'' The curious thing is that no single politician in Europe has mentioned any number. At last ''digital versus analog''. Digital must have ''nummerical values'' analog has ''universal values''. Like the generative capability of language to produce ''endless numbers of sentences with limited numbers of words'' the musicians are capable to produce ''endless'' variations in musical expression. Numerical limitation would kill creative expression. |
Post removed |
Dear Raul, At the bottom of p. 255, I asked you to describe the components in your digital front end. I have skimmed your posts since then, on this page (256), and I do not see a response to that direct question. I doubt that you are being secretive; most likely you simply overlooked my question. But I really am curious. Please let us know. Thanks. Most of us live in the gray area. Raul lives in the black or the white. Makes it simple. |
Dear @lewm : I read it and with all respect that you know I have for you: it's unimportant, you only need a today decent CD/SACD player. Obviously that when you can listen QUAD dsd it's just fenomenal. I think that the important issue is to make that 3 months tests with digital, in a row. Till we can do that test it's is impossible to " understand " my points about because you need a " frame " for we can talk in the same subject with similar listening experiences. Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
Dear @frogman : Than's for your wide answer, appreciated. I'm still " reading " it because I think we are not alking of truly different things but more how each one of us " understand " the home and the live MUSIC experiences. It's good that over your posts was in your last one when you refered to rhythm for the first time and if you re-read my first post to you I refered to as a main MUSIC characteristic. It's not only me, I think that some audiophiles knows the main importance of rhythm or not have it in our listening experiences. Anyway, I will give you my overall take on your post. Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONs, R. |
@lewm : I don't have opportunity to listen this recording but it's on what I'm refering to about top digital experiences: http://store.acousticsounds.com/d/115913/Ilya_Itin_Debussy-Preludes_Book_1-DSD_Quad_Rate_112MHz256fs... Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
Thanks, Raul. I am sure that is a GREAT recording..... of music that does not interest me. This is not to say I do not like classical music. This is only to say that Debussy leaves me cold. However, I will look more into this Quad DSD thing. What one-box players decode that format? (I also own an Oppo BDP105.) |
Dear @frogman : """
Then it "guesses" """, well we have to think that it's not the same to work with 16 bits than with 24 or 32 bits that makes that " " guessing " almost not existing and we have to think that today algorihtmics as so advanced as are the anti-aliasing filters and of course the advanced oversampling thecnics. The today ADC/DAC devices are extremely more advanced and fastest with the latest digital technology than just 3 years ago and still developing each single day. As I pointed out before the digital music reproduction is in continuous improvements just like the cell phones or computers. It's not static like analog that's so limited and we can't change this facts and that continuous improvements is not only on the digital domain but with the players it self and the transport units. Each " day " are better transports and reading lassers and the like. Digital still has some kind of signal loosing?, yes nothing is perfect in audio but the LP/analog recording/playback has higher loosing of the original signal pick it up by the microphones.: the first major and I mean MAJOR signal lost in analog is in the bass range where even that the signal comes in stereo and in this way is digital recorded in analog the bass is recorded/changed to mono because the LP technology limitations when in a home system the bass range is where belongs the MUSIC not at midrange as some audiophiles could think. The second heavy analog/lp lost/degradation is the RIAA equalization hard process that generates a curve with eq. from - 18db to + 18db. This is not a simple say: " the RIAA eq. ", NO it's a heavy degradation to the original signal and that the in a digital process does not happens. Another problem with analog are the really higher noise levels that are generated not only during playback but at the whole recording process ( no, you can't think that the R2R where is recorded the signal is a perfect no noise device because it's not. In reality has high noise levels ( against digital recordedrs. ) and limited frequency range and this frequency range is not flat. ). A digital CD is always an aoriginal master, all the copies of those CDs are original masters not a copy of other copies that puts a heavy degradation at each step. You can attest this in analog very easy: but any test pressing of a LP and compare it vs the normal/comercial LP and you will hear the differences in detriment of the signal in the normal LPs. I know this because I have some different test pressings of my LPs. So, when of one LP are pressing 1K samples and you compare ( even with no test pressing. ) the first copy with the 1|,000 you will note the differences ! ! and this is what almost all likes. ! ! ! But things don't stop there because during playback that analog degraded signal must pass for the second RIAA equalization in inverse mode with an additional issue:there are not equalization process ( any ) with out no deviations and think that during the recording process the RIAA deviation was +,- 0.15db. This is the figure we have but we dont know with out a chart where in the equalization RIAA curve are those +,- deviations. Why is important to know it?, because the inverse RIAA equalization deviation in the phono stage even if is the same: +,- 0.15db just can't mimic the recorded process RIAA deviations discrete points/frequencies. It's suppose that the inverse RIAA in the phono stage is to mimic the de-emphasis RIAA eq. in the recording to have a even/flat signal: to recovery the signal and this just never happens and means more lost information. But the " worst " at last ( and maybe not the worst and maybe not at last because the analog road is almost endless tortuoso one. Full of degradations at each single step. ). What happens with that arcaic cartridge stylus tip/cantilever when hits/touch the LP grooves: well it trys to follow with true fidelity the grooves modulations and this never happens because the tonearms ( pivoted ones the LT has other important problems too. ) has inherent tracking error ( we can't nothing about. ) that impedes to mimic the grooves but what sense the cartridge transducer?, the cantilever/stylus movements that came with a true lost of the already degraded signal with additional " signal " ( that's not in the recording. ) generated by the self cantilever vibrations generated for the stylus/tip friction with the vinyl. I can follow explain itloosing steps that happens with analog and not in digital technology. That for you and your friends and almost all analog lovers is what you like is not under analyzis but only that you can think again where is that " expression " in analog that according with you almost disappears in digital today/native recordings/playback. Do you really think that that " expression " is untouchable or was untouchable by all those degradation steps in analog when that " expression " is inherent in the recorded signal? For me has no sense to think in that way and I know it's it can't happens that way. In the other side: """ and you promise to listen to music for three months without once concerning yourself with the technical and trying "understand" why things sound the way they do. """ frogman, that does not happens every time I listen a CD or LP. When you really in a true way learned that " understanding " then you are " there " and you have almost never to think in that again but just enjoy what you are listening: MUSIC AS BETTER THAN EVER BEFORE ! ! Sooner or latter some of us will learn but other never will do because so very high ignorance levels in the fundamental subjects. Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
Dear Raul, Thank you for your comments. No to nit-pick. but for a significant discussion to take place it seems to me each other's position should be made as clear as possible. To that end I must correct a couple of things that you continue to write that are not, in fact, representative of my position as I have explained it: **** that " expression" in analog that according with you almost disappears in digital today/native recordings/playback. **** I have never said that and have always taken care to write that analog is "GENERALLY, not always" heard to sound closer to the sound of live music because of the REDUCED amount of musically expressive detail in digital as compared to analog. NOT, that it "almost disappears" in digital. I think that this goes to my earlier comment that all this is a matter of degree and that we tend to not discuss (hear) these things at a nuanced enough level and too broadly instead. My other "complaint" is that you continue to suggest that I and other musicians prefer ("GENERALLY") the sound of analog simply because we "like it better"; as if there necessarily were some kind of flaw in that preference. Again, we like it better because our ears tell us that it sounds closer to the sound of live than digital GENERALLY does. I will put it another way: to my ears the best analog reproduction always sounds better than the best digital. This, I think, makes a good segue to the more generic issues in our disagreement and a further attempt to explain my position. You wrote: **** well we have to think that it's not the same to work with 16 bits than with 24 or 32 bits that makes that " " guessing " almost not existing **** "Almost". Exactly! Almost is not good enough when it comes to approximating the continuous, uninterrupted flow of music which is so vital for the reproduction of the expression in music. And btw: **** Do you really think that that " expression " is untouchable or was untouchable by all those degradation steps in analog when that " expression " is inherent in the recorded signal? **** Of course not; but as I tried to explain previously what constitutes expression in music is MOSTLY things related to timing not things related to (as I said previously) things related to frequency response and noise. The "guessing" that digital still has to do is what interrupts the feeling of natural flow in music. Subtle, yes. Unimportant? Absolutely not. Analog is the natural state of music (sound); digital, no matter how sophisticated, is an approximation of this natural state. All this, again, why I contend that there is a problem with speaking about all this in terms of frequency response, timbre (tone) and noise almost exclusively. Speaking of frequency response, and one example of the danger in being too locked in with this type of criteria as the arbiter of what is "better": **** in a home system the bass range is where belongs the MUSIC not at midrange as some audiophiles could think. **** Not entirely sure what that means. I'll be the first to agree that good bass response is very important in music reproduction, but that idea ("as some audiophiles could think") came about as an expression of the idea that the frequency range of the response of most musical instruments falls squarely in the range generally referred to as "midrange". "Music", its flow/expression is present in a performance or reproduction of a performance that contains NO bass information other than ambient information; and even in the absence of ambient information the music would shine through. Lowest note on the instrument, 261hz. No music? I hope we can agree that there is plenty: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w6HEn0Zu5tI With respect, and I mean that sincerely, you seem to justify your position on this subject because the sophistication and great advances in digital technology somehow make it seem implausible that an "arcane" technology such as analog could possibly be in any way superior. I prefer to let my ears decide and my ears tell me that it is...in the ways that, to me, define musicality. I am comfortable with that. Regards. |
Raul, with all due respect, I find your recent comments dumfounding. How could you have spent so much time, and expense, over the past nearly 10 years in exploring analog playback when you believe digital is so superior/more accurate? When you express such strong preferential feelings I can't believe they are based upon discoveries made in just the past few months. Meaning I'm doubtful that digital reproduction advanced so far within that recent, brief timeframe. And frogman, I'll use your attached video link to vent a big frustration. I found it to be a terrible visual experience, distracting from any merits in the music. Constant camera movement and jump cutting have become popular I know but that doesn't mean I like it. It creates too much distraction. Pax. |
A different approach to Bach, a modern way... and with bass https://youtu.be/JJTFpUNoAbU Enjoy the performance : ^) |
pryso, I don’t disagree about the camera work. You know, I don’t even pay attention to the video; and didn’t even look at it when I first found it on the Tube. Fact is, and to add insult to injury, if you look closely he isn’t even playing in that video; it was recorded in a studio. Some of my favorite music for solo flute (to make the point) by one of my favorite flautists; good enough for me. Just think of the over the top camera work like you would occasional ticks and pops on a record....who cares. Try this; I hope you like peacocks 😉: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q0p4-lXb9QQ |
Harold, yes, I've enjoyed that since Tull's album "Stand Up" was released in 1969. frogman, that was much more enjoyable. An interesting point about his lip-syncing the earlier video, sometimes a large space like an abandoned warehouse can provide nice ambience with long reverb. So I wonder if they even tried that, or were they just looking for a visual counterpoint? And while this is off-topic in the MM post, my irritation with excessive camera movement and jump cutting started with movies, not music videos. But my frustration holds for both venues. |
As for Jethro Tull, not necessarely off-topic... look at the picture ; ^) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-nJCyoYwiQ |
Dear @frogman : """ because of the REDUCED amount of musically expressive detail in digital as compared to analog. """ where it comes that " musically expressive " characteristic?, certainly it comes in what the recording microphones pick-up. Now, in LP analog recordings and as I already pointed out exist no " guessing " but something even worst: exist true losted information that can’t be recovered in any way and that lost is really significant and through that lost gone an important part of that music musicallity that in digital happens in lower way. Btw, forgeret on that " almost " that in reality is not happening any more. To analize that we have to go in deep on thechnical/mathematics explanation. in the past the sampling rate was 44.2khz and today PCM sampling thousands of thousands times each second and in DSD even millions of times each second. there is no land to " guessing " and all that follows a " patron " / series where mathemathics is infalible because gives certainnity. In the other side timing is not a stand alone characteristics because per sé could not explain the whole subject that when you put in perspective along frequency response everything has a real meaning. Frequency response always is in there and we can’t diminish it in any way because are those frequencies and overtones/harmonics what makes that those SPL vibrations been converted in music by our brain. Musicallity and expression is fundamental part of that and in analog we lost a lot of information that was pick-up by the microphones. Analog process can’t recovery that information in any way and I want to tell you that what I posted before about the analog losting information was not all the steps of analog losting information as you know there are other important losting information sources that are unique to analog but not in digital that’s a more simple recording/playback medium. Do you know that our ears/brain has a sophisticated ADC?, please read: https://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advice/how-ear-works you can read there: """ With the hair cells, we come to the end of the audio path inside the ear. Hair cells are neurons, and the purpose of the outer hair cells is to convert the mechanical vibrations that come from their cilia into nerve signals. Such signals are binary (all or nothing), and seem to be completely decorrelated from the analogue signals to which they correspond. In other words, they’re digital signals, and the inner hair cells are analogue‑to‑digital converters. """ Has a meaning in the whole subject?, well maybe different meaning for each one of us but is interesting to know about. About my statement that in a HOME SYSTEM music belong at the bass range the meaning was not explained and that’s why you posted that you tube link. Here I go: the heavy music degradation in any room/system resides in how well that room/system handle the bass range and as better your bass range as better the music listen in home experiences. Something that almost does not happens in live events where the music halls are really big and where are builded taking in count everything including the bass range resonances. Bass frequencies develops harmonics and if the bass is " wrong "/distorted the harmonics too and will colored almost all the frequency range. When the bass is rigth ( at home. ) the midrange shines as never before as the high frequencies too. That’s why is so important and critical to use a good pair of self powered subwoofers in any passive speakers. Obviously that all we know that there are instruments that just never goes in the bass range as the flute you name it but this was not my idea. When I speak of self powered subwoofers it’s not only the idea to have a pair of subs where we connect a pair of amplifiers we have somewhere. What I’m meaning is that the amplifiers been designed in specific to match the woofers needs, this is the main target for the subs really can helps to any passive speakers system. I know that you prefer analog over digital as many many audiophiles but that fact does not means is better than digital at home. Like you I like what I listen through my thousands of LPs even if the analog is an inferior medium at home experiences. I don’t know where digital will follows to growing up, what I know is that nothing stop it in benefit of us: MUSIC LOVERS. Digital is everywhere daily in our life, even today exist movie films that was filmed with an Ipod ! ! ! and when you see that picture you can’t believe or imagine that was made it through an Ipod. Again, to make that our system really shines with the LP analog experience we need that the set-up/fine tunning system be made it using digital medium. Period. In this regards digital is a useful tool even if you never use it day by day. Fine tune any system with digital and that system will performs as better than ever, no exception. Try it ! Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
Dear Raul, We seem to be going around in circles. I simply don't agree with your premise. Both analog and digital have their respective strengths and their respective weaknesses. For me, digital's weaknesses do more harm to the music than analog's weaknesses. Simple as that. "Tuning" of analog playback to sound more like digital strikes me as backwards if the goal in system building is to preserve the music beyond simply its "sound". Regards. |
I found a DODO and its incoming. pretty excited to be honest. NEW Rare Technics EPS-P100ED4 Replacement Needle for EPC-P100CMK4http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/NEW-Technics-EPS-P100ED4-Replacement-Needle-for-EPC-P100CMK4-F-S/263116461755?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2057872.m2749.l2649 As nice as the VDH re-tip of my EPC-P100Cmk4 is, it never had the speed and neutrality of the original. Looking forward to hearing the SL1000Mk3D as intended. cheers |
Dear @downunder : Very good finding. You will makes those comparison tests with the original vs de vdH re-tipped one. I hope everything be ok. with the original replacement but if not you vdh can fine tunning it. Please come back here to share that comparison. Good luck. regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
Dear chakster, Even defective styli can be used to learn. If you cut the tension wire at the end of the stylus tube and losen 3 small srews you can get the whole ''generator'' out. That is to say cantilever, magnet , the rubber ring and tension wire. Then you will see what is involved by restoring the whole in the reverse. |
Dear @harold-not-the-barrel : Sorry for the delay. The 13D VTF range is 1.5grs-1.8grs. If I remebered I use it at the middle of that VTF range. In theory this makes that coils be centered in better way that at the range extremes. In the other side I never like a VTF set-up in the low VTF range, my mind is more " calm " over that inferior VTF range. The possibility of any microscopic mistracking can happens more easy at 1.5 than at 1.6grs. A mistracking that can damage the LP grooves. Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |