The Search for The Perfect Sound

[AudioSceptic]

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.

Thanks, I'd forgotten about the low damping factor, which softens and "stretches" the bass, which adds to the `'warm' sound.

 

[AudioSceptic]

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.

Yes, in the article the claim seems to be that something is always missing in digital, whatever the bit-depth and sampling rate, ignoring the fact that digital, from CD-quality and up, captures more than we (most of us anyway) can hear. They seem to mistake that for what's *added* in analogue in various distortions, pleasant though they can sometimes sound.

 

[Robin L]

Thanks, I'd forgotten about the low damping factor, which softens and "stretches" the bass, which adds to the `'warm' sound.

I've owned a lot of tube amps, mainly because I'm old and also that vintage tube gear was cheap in the 1970s and 1980s. I also owned and used the Stax SRM-T1 tube amplifier/energizer. The Stax headphone amp differed from my Fisher, Dynaco and Marantz amps in that it didn't have an output transformer. It was hybrid, used JFETs to drive a pair of triodes and didn't have as much of that "tube" sound as my other amps. I've heard some tube rigs that seemed neutral and I've also heard Audionote amps, which were anything but, albeit highly entertaining in their own sweet and glossy way. I'm gonna harbor a guess that most of what people think of as "tube" sound is transformer sound. With all those coils there's goin' be some kind of ringing going on.

 

[Robin L]

Yes, in the article the claim seems to be that something is always missing in digital, whatever the bit-depth and sampling rate, ignoring the fact that digital, from CD-quality and up, captures more than we (most of us anyway) can hear. They seem to mistake that for what's *added* in analogue in various distortions, pleasant though they can sometimes sound.

One of the classic LP distortions is pre-post echo, usually happens before and after loud passages. Magnetic tape can have this issue as well. It tends to "fatten" up the texture. For the longest time I was under the impression that digital recordings and LPs lacked ambient cues compared to vintage LPs. A lot of those recordings were of classical music. Eventually I was recording choruses and orchestras and hearing exactly what they should sound like "in real life". I then realized just how much mud my LPs added to the sound and texture. With the DAT recordings I heard the difference between my microphone feed—Neumanns, FWIW—and reality. I did make some decent sounding recordings, but nothing I heard on any recording made by anybody played back on anyone's audio gear sounded real after that. They could sound really good, worth the effort and so on, but never exactly like the real thing.

 

[HalSF]

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.

Another weird ASR thread leaning toward heaping contempt on analog/vinyl pretensions to offer sound quality equal to digital.

(That’s apart from the weirdness of the podcast mentioned in the OP dating back to October 2022, when the Washington Post was a different newspaper, now gone with the wind, back when their reporter Geoff Edgers was writing his excellent series of articles on audiophile and vinyl culture.)

Yes, the vinyl revival put out a lot of “vinyl sounds better than digital” bunk for awhile, but the argument around making it a competition has thankfully been exhausted and done to death. Anybody who’s still saying “digital sounds cold and sterile and bad compared with analog” in 2026 sounds like an idiot. I’m not sure there’s anybody left who’s making that argument. Even Michael Fremer has kind of piped down about it.

On the other hand, if you find yourself saying things about vinyl playback that imply it produces nothing but ugly primitive noise and distortion and can’t make music sound beautiful and pleasurable and true, you aren’t going to sound like a mental giant either. Mostly you’re just going to sound cranky.

 

[AudioSceptic]

Another weird ASR thread leaning toward heaping contempt on analog/vinyl pretensions to offer sound quality equal to digital.

(That’s apart from the weirdness of the podcast mentioned in the OP dating back to October 2022, when the Washington Post was a different newspaper, now gone with the wind, back when their reporter Geoff Edgers was writing his excellent series of articles on audiophile and vinyl culture.)

Yes, the vinyl revival put out a lot of “vinyl sounds better than digital” bunk for awhile, but the argument around making it a competition has thankfully been exhausted and done to death. Anybody who’s still saying “digital sounds cold and sterile and bad compared with analog” in 2026 sounds like an idiot. I’m not sure there’s anybody left who’s making that argument. Even Michael Fremer has kind of piped down about it.

On the other hand, if you find yourself saying things about vinyl playback that imply it produces nothing but ugly primitive noise and distortion and can’t make music sound beautiful and pleasurable and true, you aren’t going to sound like a mental giant either. Mostly you’re just going to sound cranky.

OK, but what's weird about the podcast? They were discussing the subject with Geoff Edgers.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

Anybody who’s still saying “digital sounds cold and sterile and bad compared with analog” in 2026 sounds like an idiot.

Many, many people are still saying it, sometimes (as I recently saw in a video shared positively here) in constructions like "vinyl can penetrate the soul more than digital ever could." And they sounded like idiots in 2020 as well.

 

[AudioSceptic]

Many, many people are still saying it, sometimes (as I recently saw in a video shared positively here) in constructions like "vinyl can penetrate the soul more than digital ever could." And they sounded like idiots in 2020 as well.

2020 seems like yesterday to me. Did you mean 2000?

 

[RexrothPigeon]

2020 seems like yesterday to me. Did you mean 2000?

I meant 2022, because that’s the year mentioned by the poster I was responding to

 

[Robin L]

"vinyl can penetrate the soul more than digital ever could."

Funny, I thought that was what focused listening does.

PVC as fetish gear could aid and abet the penetration of one's soul, I guess.

 

[AudioSceptic]

I meant 2022, because that’s the year mentioned by the poster I was responding to

OK, but the records referred to go back as far as the 1960s.

 

[spiral scratch]

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.

Always happy to read what you have to say regardless of how on-point it is (...which it is)

 

[RexrothPigeon]

OK, but the records referred to go back as far as the 1960s.

I don't see any records in the post (from @HalSF ) to which I was responding. Not sure what you're arguing with me about tbh since I was just replying to what he wrote.