I have to admit that I do have a TT, but at least it doesn't piddle on the carpet like the 4-legged ones do.True dat!
I have to admit that I do have a TT, but at least it doesn't piddle on the carpet like the 4-legged ones do.True dat!
Ok, friend.[to Newman] You are one of the kingpins my friend and you prove it on a regular basis. Your denial is blatant and blinded you! How many people have to tell you the same thing?
Rude and condescending with a heightened sense of superiority. 99% of what you say is just ignored by me and Sal, holy smokes he's left on Ignore.
A science-based forum never has to be rude and if you pay attention a majority of the people on this site are not, BUT you are.
Some people are brutally honest while others are honestly brutal, you are the latter not the former.
...This thread is a perfect example of a few individuals that express their dislike of others, that disagree with their opinions....
The Sultan1 has a bit more resonant bass.There are many posts here claiming LP playback is garbage. That some have higher standards and cannot tolerate vinyl. Care to take a test? Can you pick out the inferior vinyl? I did a thing, I prepared 4 flac files, 2 for each 30 second song clip at 24-96 resolution, with perceived loudness normalization through Audacity. All MFSL mastering, one is a needle drop and one is a sample of the SACD version. I myself can't pick it out, even knowing which is which. I doubt anyone can, but perhaps some of you are trained listeners and can do it.
Song clips can be downloaded here:
Dropbox
www.dropbox.com
Let me know if you can hear a difference. Is this a valid test? I was browsing the Are Measurements Everything? thread and was blown away by the McGurk effect. I guess my ears can't be trusted, as my turntable is very beautiful, especially while spinning, which no doubt influences my perceived sound quality. I claimed I could hear a difference between an LP and the SACD of the same master, but unsighted I'm not so sure now. I would classify the sound quality of the vinyl here as transparent and high fidelity.
Some here want all subjectivity gone. If it's allowed when appropriate then that's about right and real, since for many it's all they can provide. The most useful measurement tool I have is my cell phone though, actually all I need to measure loudness. And set the speed of the turntable motor. Well I have a multimeter that I don't use too. Anyways no expensive analyzer.Umm, I would put it more like this: subjectivity will not be allowed to pass as objectivity. Instead, it will be called. Is that utopian? Or is it just getting real? Calling a myth a myth: utopian? Or just realism?
Yes it takes some getting used to, that level of scrutiny. Not everyone is a trained scientist so are not prepared for this level of rigor. Not used to applying it towards audio reproduction though. Used to be more about party time when the music's playing, not so technical.You mean that rationality is expected here? I assume that's not problematic for you?
Okay, I need to think about this some more, try to delineate the myths from facts. Used to be so much fun talking about gear acquisition, and shopping for stuff, finding the right dealer. Mine was very slick, seemed very knowledgeable and experienced and reputable, oh so friendly. Most info in those days came from the dealer themselves and audio publications, everything subjective.Yes, but not by propagating myths. Surely you can see the issue with that sort of 'fun'?
Would love to see this kind of study, in search of the best value turntable on the market. But at around $1000 I'm loving the Technics SL-100C. Max out the cart with a nice AT with ML tip and you got quite outstanding playback.A funny thing has come to my attention on that point. Whenever I see a rare but sincere controlled listening test comparison of a roughly-$1000 turntable vs many times that price, a null result is obtained. This has made me ponder on how far one could take that test to the extreme with a cheap TT.
It could very well be a myth that big dollars on turntables are well spent on sound quality.
Okay I'll check it out. Watched parts of his lecture on YT so yeah, am certainly open to better sound quality reproduction in my system.For sure. That's why I think Toole did the community a great service in working through the principles of getting great sound quality in 'real world' listening spaces, including shared-purpose rooms. If you don't have his books yet, I commend you to do so.
As I mentioned in my very first post at the beginning of this thread;The question for this thread is, can you explain the vinyl renaissance?
That just means that the commercial powers of manipulation and influence are being more ruthlessly applied than we originally anticipated. Big Money found a way to extract money from pockets in bigger lumps, so the machine started churning. People tend to think that they are more resistant to external influence and manipulation than they really are. "Sure, marketing works on them, but not on me." Yeah, sure.
Beware deniers with good-sounding argumentation who happen to say what you would rather be true.
And they seem to dismiss all the psychology that draws (generally the younger crowd) to wanting LPs.
It could very well be a myth that big dollars on turntables are well spent on sound quality.
Okay, here are a couple of examples of controlled experiments.Would love to see this kind of study, in search of the best value turntable on the market.
I've been advocating for more money on the turntable than some want to spend. There should be a price point where things work. That may have come down in the decades since I last bought a turntable: new manufacturing techniques and materials are available, and turntable design must have progressed a little in that time as well.A funny thing has come to my attention on that point. Whenever I see a rare but sincere controlled listening test comparison of a roughly-$1000 turntable vs many times that price, a null result is obtained. This has made me ponder on how far one could take that test to the extreme with a cheap TT.
It could very well be a myth that big dollars on turntables are well spent on sound quality.
I'm pretty sure the profit margins and advertising costs have increased, and production must be at a lower level. We'll need stricter standards today in a lot of systems where bass levels have increased, and designers will have to work harder to approach digital playback standards. I reckon that $1000 you quoted before may be closer to the mark in practice.Okay, here are a couple of examples of controlled experiments.
This one showed no overall preference between two turntables with at least 10x price difference.
This one showed an overall preference, but perhaps surprising to vinyl spenders.
Note that a $78 1961 turntable inflates to $800 today. So, if there has been any progress at all in turntable value engineering, a turntable with similar sound quality today should cost no more than, what, $600?
I believe this is incorrect. This is how you see those who have different choices. However, they are not what you think they are - deniers, that is. Pretty much I have have seen none of that in this thread. Note, that I did not say "disagree with you". You seem to be upset at their choices, and are pretty unable to let it go, which is the reason that I dared to bring the word "pathology" in to this. I beg of you, accept that someone can make a difference choice. I also beg you, to not look at them as ignorant deniers. Very few of those here.Just consider that one of the two protagonists is smoothly aligned with the findings of audio science, and the other is hotly misaligned with audio science respecters like Amir, Toole, and JJ, including jousting sessions on ASR with all of them. And not on the margins of their expertise, either.
This is an example of the kind of Vinyl users in this forum and thread. Me, for example; my turntable is not a super high value one. Why? Because I understand all of the above. I prefer those that are DD or least have digital speed control. And I spent most of my money where it matters. On the cart. None that silly "turntable-arm-cart" synergy stuff!Okay, here are a couple of examples of controlled experiments.
This one showed no overall preference between two turntables with at least 10x price difference.
This one showed an overall preference, but perhaps surprising to vinyl spenders.
Note that a $78 1961 turntable inflates to $800 today. So, if there has been any progress at all in turntable value engineering, a turntable with similar sound quality today should cost no more than, what, $600?
And neither one of them capable of reproducing anything near the sound of a master recording.Okay, here are a couple of examples of controlled experiments.
This one showed no overall preference between two turntables with at least 10x price difference.
This one showed an overall preference, but perhaps surprising to vinyl spenders.
Note that a $78 1961 turntable inflates to $800 today. So, if there has been any progress at all in turntable value engineering, a turntable with similar sound quality today should cost no more than, what, $600?
You do a great job of fence riding while pissing on the facts of High Fidelity Home Music Reproduction.Oh, and about this
Even better is to beware members who regularly misrepresent another member as a “denier” (or anti-science etc.). I have never “denied” any established facts about vinyl or digital. That’s why Newman can never actually point to my denying any such thing. What I have “denied” are certain people’s opinions. Newman has a habit of mixing up opinion with fact, unfortunately. Which is one reason why this thread continues.
And still, as is your modus operandi, not a single fact to back up your claim. You know: some data point like an actual quote from me showing I have denied any facts or science?Ok, now we have the denier who denies being a denier. A new category in the annals of anti-science.
and the other is hotly misaligned with audio science respecters like Amir, Toole, and JJ,
including jousting sessions on ASR with all of them. And not on the margins of their expertise, either.
Someone who thinks that it is an 'appeal to authority error' to make reference to what an actual content expert says in their area of expertise.
And why? Just because he doesn't want it to be true. And why doesn't he want it to be true? Because it doesn't match his sighted listening experiences!!!
Ok - what is it then?
Again, it's like people wearing blue don't even read what people wearing green write.
I'd say rather that 'they' think 'all the psychology' is central to the vinyl renaissance.
There's a lot of fun poking photos, but this remains the best and most truthful
It closely represents the very worst of the High End Believer world.
View attachment 387639
You do a great job of fence riding
while pissing on the facts of High Fidelity Home Music Reproduction.
Encouraging anyone to spend .10 cents on vinyl before he's exhausted his budget on modern SOTA 2 and multich reproduction is just short of extortion, right up there with the promoting cables ..
And much the same can be said about folks who get obsessed over any aspect of audio reproduction, like plunging big wads of money and effort into a full-blown Atmos system.