The Search for The Perfect Sound

[AudioSceptic]

don't let the price fool you, i had those expensive MC's (Denon and Shure mainly), and they are not better, they are just more prone to distortion, more expensive (also because you can't replace the needle) and way more fragile. The AT is fairly neutral and when calibrated right, as good as it gets. The VM540ML is slightly better than the AT-VM95 series, but also a lot more expensive. I don't feel the need to change mine. Shure also was very good (long my workhorse) but NLA.

Gotcha. I'll be trying one when the time comes.

The very first had issues with the ad/da conversion, but soon that was largely solved in the better devices. But even today you still got crappy dac's in cheap devices. But luckely you also got absolute transparent ones in the same priceclass as proven on this site.

Yes, but once we get above say, 90 dB SINAD, how audible is that in practice when so much distortion is added further down the chain, especially by the speakers? Does higher distortion mask lower, or does it simply add together?

 

[DSJR]

I know that you take any opportunity for a bit of Linn-bashing but surely they deserve credit for making the TT a more important part of the chain, in turn leading many others to make competing players, some probably better, and some a lot more expensive? Was there anything else around in 1972 that was obviously better?

But anyway, this is about the idea of "perfect sound" on the record, and how audible it's likely to be on *any* equipment.

Sir, I'm flummoxed that I have to justify everything I say, but here goes. I now have the means of looking back over my fifty plus year career before retirement, the key good systems I've heard (one of them an active Linn-Naim-Isobarik active system with original bolt-up Naim amps and 70s cables which *loved* the room they were set up in and another beloved one a dear friend had, a much-loved Quad system with '57 speakers which were so good if not played loudly) and many concerts I attended at the RAH and Festival Hall which allied better to the Quad rig which helped pull me back to some kind of neutrality as the years went on...

I am however, grateful for a lot as regards Linn - the 'tune dem' which works for me with ANY source and system, the preference for single-pair speaker dems and also the general hierarchy ideal in a vinyl based system (which my current Rega 3 experiences are questioning hard, as 'we' took it for granted that a humble Rega 3/RB300 was nowhere near as 'good' as the *back then post 1980* highly coloured Scottish alternative with massy tonearm, that offered added-in swing and 'tunefulness' that is highly entertaining and foot-tapping, but in the end, was - at the time - way off truthful accuracy, where this Rega does so much to get it far more 'right' if knowledge of the master recording is known, even if it 'sounds' more 'bland or straight-laced' to an average listener, as it doesn't try to make vinyl sound 'better' than it really is! I'm not in the slightest suggesting that LP12 owners should ditch them and return to a Rega or whatever, but to be aware of what their turntable and pickup is actually doing if the sound is notably different to many/most digital sources. Nicer possibly, but not necessarily 'better'

I feel I've learned a heck of a lot over the last half century as regards fidelity to the source, which in our case in recorded music is basically what the mastering engineer wants us to hear and now feel my career in the 80s diverged from the ideal in the quest for something 'better' than the vinyl and most playback systems then offered. I do feel that audiophiles, not knowing what the recorded/mastered reality actually is, often want an exaggerated rendition in their quest for 'better/perfect sound.' Maybe ASR posters wouldn't want that and so many here wouldn't give 'vinyl' houseroom these days?

To those reading not from the UK, I humbly apologise for the stuff above. The European market and especially the US one, had totally different priorities as to what makes for a good or better sound. The new generations of speakers coming along and tested by Amir and Erin, have tended to level things up a bit I feel and different preferences of old tend to be more room size and available budget perhaps?

My case today is, thank heavens for digital and CD issues, the mid period ones not usually mangled in terms of the loudness wars. I appreciate that some CD masterings are also a bit off, but there seems to be so many that are fine...

 

[AudioSceptic]

Sir, I'm flummoxed that I have to justify everything I say, but here goes. I now have the means of looking back over my fifty plus year career before retirement, the key good systems I've heard (one of them an active Linn-Naim-Isobarik active system with original bolt-up Naim amps and 70s cables which *loved* the room they were set up in and another beloved one a dear friend had, a much-loved Quad system with '57 speakers which were so good if not played loudly) and many concerts I attended at the RAH and Festival Hall which allied better to the Quad rig which helped pull me back to some kind of neutrality as the years went on...

I am however, grateful for a lot as regards Linn - the 'tune dem' which works for me with ANY source and system, the preference for single-pair speaker dems and also the general hierarchy ideal in a vinyl based system (which my current Rega 3 experiences are questioning hard, as 'we' took it for granted that a humble Rega 3/RB300 was nowhere near as 'good' as the *back then post 1980* highly coloured Scottish alternative with massy tonearm, that offered added-in swing and 'tunefulness' that is highly entertaining and foot-tapping, but in the end, was - at the time - way off truthful accuracy, where this Rega does so much to get it far more 'right' if knowledge of the master recording is known, even if it 'sounds' more 'bland or straight-laced' to an average listener, as it doesn't try to make vinyl sound 'better' than it really is! I'm not in the slightest suggesting that LP12 owners should ditch them and return to a Rega or whatever, but to be aware of what their turntable and pickup is actually doing if the sound is notably different to many/most digital sources. Nicer possibly, but not necessarily 'better'

I feel I've learned a heck of a lot over the last half century as regards fidelity to the source, which in our case in recorded music is basically what the mastering engineer wants us to hear and now feel my career in the 80s diverged from the ideal in the quest for something 'better' than the vinyl and most playback systems then offered. I do feel that audiophiles, not knowing what the recorded/mastered reality actually is, often want an exaggerated rendition in their quest for 'better/perfect sound.' Maybe ASR posters wouldn't want that and so many here wouldn't give 'vinyl' houseroom these days?

To those reading not from the UK, I humbly apologise for the stuff above. The European market and especially the US one, had totally different priorities as to what makes for a good or better sound. The new generations of speakers coming along and tested by Amir and Erin, have tended to level things up a bit I feel and different preferences of old tend to be more room size and available budget perhaps?

My case today is, thank heavens for digital and CD issues, the mid period ones not usually mangled in terms of the loudness wars. I appreciate that some CD masterings are also a bit off, but there seems to be so many that are fine...

I'm so sorry to cause you to be flummoxed! You had no need to justify anything; I was just commenting on your reference to Linn (not so notorious outside the UK, as you say.)

I agree about the Planar 3: a simple but subtle design that got the basics right and made us wonder if TTs actually needed the complication of a floating subchassis or some other isolation system other than well-chosen feet, in turn needing at least occasional maintenance/tune-ups. BTW wasn't the difference between the P2 and P3 much greater than what you would expect?

 

[DSJR]

I'm so sorry to cause you to be flummoxed! You had no need to justify anything; I was just commenting on your reference to Linn (not so notorious outside the UK, as you say.)

I agree about the Planar 3: a simple but subtle design that got the basics right and made us wonder if TTs actually needed the complication of a floating subchassis or some other isolation system other than well-chosen feet, in turn needing at least occasional maintenance/tune-ups. BTW wasn't the difference between the P2 and P3 much greater than what you would expect?

With a clean slate but with today's experience, I'd have a Thorens TD150mk2 or AR XB1 with original arm, sort the bearing thrust pad in the Thorens case at least, as I believe most are worn out now (a 1mm ptfe disc eased into the bearing well 'sorted' my TD160 which has a more resonant pressed sub-chassis which sadly has a subjective effect (I'm drifting again)). I'd fit an AT540 or previous 740 (new versions have fixings from above) and maybe a rubbery mat change to taste and sit back and enjoy the thing, albeit with regular belt changes and a platter push to aid starting. The Technics I mentioned is superb too along with a select few others from the mid 70s, but there's something of an 'interaction' with the suspended designs I still like which is nothing whatever to do with 'sound quality.'

The Planar 2 and 3 had plinth differences I recall, as well as the 3 having a thicker therefore heavier glass platter. The mats used to be two thicknesses as well at one time, a thicker felt/wool on the 2 to go with the thinner glass. At the time of my thick-plinth (with edge chamfer) 3-2000 sample, the 2-2000 had an MDF platter with silver painted on the slightly chamfered edge ('aluminised' apparently ). This latter didn't last long and again, *modern* Regas are rather better finished than before and the tonearms better than ever in the fine details

I say the hobby has all but left me and here I am, banging on about turntables which are the ultimate 'hobby-art' of music reproduction I think. I do apologise to all for thread drift and needless stuff that may or may not apply to thread topics.

 

[Robin L]

I've just caught up with Ep 241 of The Next Track <https://www.thenexttrack.com/>, in which they talk to Geoff Edgers about the vinyl revival and the idea of "perfect" analogue sound <https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts...ive/2022/perfect-sound-quality-vinyl-records/>. Although pressing quality has always varied, can there really be such an audible difference, greater than the difference between TTs/arms/cartridges, for example, and can any of it sound better than digital (done right, of course)? Is this all delusional or is there something here to think about?

If LP sounds different than the digital file it came from, then it's distorting. And these days 99.9% of the LPs made have a digital step somewhere in the recording/mastering chain. The better the LP replay, the more it sounds like digital replay. For me the biggest "tells" of LP playback are all the speed variations, particularly off-center records and peak-warp wow. There are complex solutions to these issues, but most of the time people play records with mechanically simple pivoted arms. The other is IGD which can be reduced but never eliminated. So, I'd say the concept of LPs having "perfect analog sound" or even approaching such an imaginary goal to be delusional.

 

[kemmler3D]

can any of it sound better than digital (done right, of course

No...

Is this all delusional or is there something here to think about?

Think about it... Most modern studio gear is digital. In 2026 it's unusual to use tape and analog mixers to make a recording in any genre. Even Mofi famously got caught using DSD for their "analog" mastering process.

If the original is digital then by definition the "best sounding" version is digital, unless you go off on a tangent and argue that "best" actually requires some kind of distortion.

Unless you have an analog format that can reproduce 48 or 96Khz sounds with a noise floor at -144dB digital has nothing to worry about...

 

[dualazmak]

- Summary of my motivations reviving vinyl TT (turntable) in DSP-based multichannel time-aligned multi-SP-driver multi-amplifier fully active stereo audio setup: #758 (on my project thread), #1,262(remote thread).

 

[Robin L]

Should recordings even involve any processing at all? If you really follow the strict accuracy argument all the way to the end, the logical conclusion would be that everything should be recorded totally dry. No compression, no reverb, no processing of any kind. Anything that changes the signal could be called coloration, and by that logic it’s a deviation from the original sound.
But taken to that extreme, every recording would end up sounding dry and kinda lifeless. Even people who care a lot about objective measurments usually still listen to recordings where at least some processing was used somewhere along the way.
So that raises a real question. If absolute purity is the goal, where exactly do you draw the line between faithful reproduction and the normal production choices that make a recording sound natural in the first place? At some point the signal has already been shaped, so the idea of perfectly untouched audio starts getting a little murky.

A recording of acoustic music made in an acoustically appropriate environment will not sound "dry", I've made a lot of recordings of that type, usually with Neumanns in an ORTF configuration. They did not sound dry. I think the "Absolute Sound" concept applies to these recordings, sans any processing save maximizing the levels for replay.

As regards pop productions or others that involve loads of signal processing, there's no "There" there, save the standard of playback on the same speakers in the same studio where the recording was made.

 

[dualazmak]

A recording of acoustic music made in an acoustically appropriate environment will not sound "dry", ....

I fully agree with you!
A typical recent example was shared here by @yavormoskov.
Passacaglia - George Frideric Handel / Alexander Motovilov (reimagined)

 

[Robin L]

I fully agree with you!
A typical recent example was shared here by @yavormoskov.

A favorite example of a simple, unprocessed recording. No compression, two B & K 4003 microphones into a digital recorder, 1987. The volume of the lute is low, there is some residual noise, very low-level and probably from the microphones. Sonically, the opposite of "dry":

 

[Wolf11Man]

When we still used Vinyl in parallel to the CD, we found out that a very slight (pink) noise, in a very silent environment, changed the subjective perception of the room. When the noise was disabeled, the room felt somehow "colder", more "sterile". It was more of a chance experience we had while experimenting with analog active crossovers.
At that time, the reality of vinyl was not brand new, perfect pressings, but used, normal quality records, which had quite some background noise. It was well audible between songs.
For me, it explained most of the mystical world of analog sound. So the much lower S/N ratio and some distorion may be the simple explanation for all the analog hype. It may have some similarities to tube amp sound.
I must confess, one of my best sounding (subjective!) CD players has a tube output stage, which makes it sound better than played digitally, through external DACs.

 

[Waxx]

I also did record morrocon folk like that, but with Schoeps CMC6 cardioid microphones in x/y config and a nagra tape machine as recorder. An oud (a arabic lute) and a raita (hobo like flute) player where playing in a old barn, 10 songs all recorded in two takes, the interuption was to change the tape that was full. The only thing i had to do with those raw recording was digitise it (at that time with Pro Tools), edit the songs to seperate tracks and do some minor eq. That recording was sold in Morroco on cassette tape and cd 25 years ago and even came on national radio i heared. I don't have a copy myself as i was only the hired sound engineer.

But for that kind of recording to be successfull you need very good musicians who are able to balance themselves and get the right tone from start. Most musicians are not like that. Those i recorded where street musicians in Oudja (Morroco) for over 50 years, playing everyday on the local market squares for money. It was also probally the first time they saw a microphone from close...

 

[Robin L]

But for that kind of recording to be successfull you need very good musicians who are able to balance themselves and get the right tone from start. Most musicians are not like that. Those i recorded where street musicians in Oudja (Morroco) for over 50 years, playing everyday on the local market squares for money. It was also probally the first time they saw a microphone from close...

I recorded a lot of professional Classical music performers, many playing "Early Music", along with amateur groups and student demos. It was a living, sort of, and I took whatever gigs I could. And you're right—" . . . for that kind of recording to be successful you need very good musicians who are able to balance themselves and get the right tone from start."

But for these types of recordings to be really successful one requires an acoustically friendly venue where the performers are comfortable. I had the experience of recording Boccherini Guitar quintets with a group preparing to make a recording for Harmonia Mundi. The first performance was in a big-ish church with a fair level of hall reverb. Move the microphones closer to the performers and you get a good balance between direct and reflected sound. A few hours later, they perform in a venue where the ceilings are only nine feet high, the room is narrow and long, the acoustics are very dry and the lights over the performing platform are making the instruments go out of tune. Hopeless in all regards. Yes, that one sounds "dry", not to mention out of tune.

The CDs came out fine, FWIW.

 

[ivayvr]

The idea that "perfect analogue sound is better than digital" is similar to the claim that steam engine is superior to IC engine or to the electric motor.
More or less, another edition of hogwash.

 

[JeffS7444]

How does a phono preamp simplify azimuth adjustment? Isn't that purely geometric?

Quoting the manual:

25d. AZIMUTH

The Azimuth control can show the separation the Left and Right channels have from each other. The Ultimate Analogue Test LP and the Ortofon Test LP both have very good azimuth tracks: one channel has 1kHz signal and the other channel is silent. Try to get these values as high and as balanced as possible.

Possible Settings:
Off (default)
On

Suspect it's comparable to the "Fozgometer" device, but that item sells for 400 USD.

 

[DSJR]

When we still used Vinyl in parallel to the CD, we found out that a very slight (pink) noise, in a very silent environment, changed the subjective perception of the room. When the noise was disabeled, the room felt somehow "colder", more "sterile". It was more of a chance experience we had while experimenting with analog active crossovers.
At that time, the reality of vinyl was not brand new, perfect pressings, but used, normal quality records, which had quite some background noise. It was well audible between songs.
For me, it explained most of the mystical world of analog sound. So the much lower S/N ratio and some distorion may be the simple explanation for all the analog hype. It may have some similarities to tube amp sound.
I must confess, one of my best sounding (subjective!) CD players has a tube output stage, which makes it sound better than played digitally, through external DACs.

This 'noise in the distant background' aspect was discussed in the 1970s I remember

 

[Leporello]

I know that you take any opportunity for a bit of Linn-bashing but surely they deserve credit for making the TT a more important part of the chain, in turn leading many others to make competing players, some probably better, and some a lot more expensive?

No, they just created a ludicrous cult around their own product, based on very faulty logic.

 

[AudioSceptic]

When we still used Vinyl in parallel to the CD, we found out that a very slight (pink) noise, in a very silent environment, changed the subjective perception of the room. When the noise was disabeled, the room felt somehow "colder", more "sterile". It was more of a chance experience we had while experimenting with analog active crossovers.
At that time, the reality of vinyl was not brand new, perfect pressings, but used, normal quality records, which had quite some background noise. It was well audible between songs.
For me, it explained most of the mystical world of analog sound. So the much lower S/N ratio and some distorion may be the simple explanation for all the analog hype. It may have some similarities to tube amp sound.
I must confess, one of my best sounding (subjective!) CD players has a tube output stage, which makes it sound better than played digitally, through external DACs.

Isn't "tube sound" a rolled-off HF and a small amount of even order (or just 2nd) harmonic distortion, or is it not that simple?

 

[AudioSceptic]

Quoting the manual:

Suspect it's comparable to the "Fozgometer" device, but that item sells for 400 USD.

Of course, thanks!

 

[Waxx]

Isn't "tube sound" a rolled-off HF and a small amount of even order (or just 2nd) harmonic distortion, or is it not that simple?

it is more or less that, but also how the amp reacts on speakers (or reverse) as the damping is low. But there is also a randomness factor that plugins can't do it seems. The behavior of a tube amp differs with temperature and what is before and after it. And also, tubes are not so precise in their specs, that's an extra randomnessfactor. The differences are small, but it gives a more "organic sound". Plugins that try to emulate that are sounding sterile and so bad because the randomness factor is still missing or not right done. Then i prefer clean amps over it. I have both (Ncore and tube amps) actually, used in different setups.