Trying to understand the turntable/vinyl world...

[MattHooper]

You keep this shit up and I'll have to Sal1950 you.

Hey no problem JP. I completely understand. Everything I write in those terms is always in the context of my tag line

 

[MattHooper]

Oh, you're asking for respect and coherence?

I'm getting old and with some time you quickly know when you can ask for that

Admittedly I may be having a "dumber than usual" moment, but could you explain how that relates to my post..if it does? Thanks.

 

[MattHooper]

Makes perfect sense to me. The 6550’s have minimal distortion because the amp was designed for them. The KT120’s add distortion because the amp is not optimized for that tube. When Matt is not being chased out of a shark cage by a great white he is changing output tubes in his amps.

And that makes sense of my perception. With the 6550s in the amp, the imaging sounds VERY tight and focused, a voice or guitar or snare will just be pin-point "point to it right there" and dense in the soundstage. I put the KT120s in and play the same track and I can "see" the entire sound, including all the sonic images, sort of "de-focus" and expand in size with less precision and with slightly more blurred "outlines," - the sonic equivalent of when when you slightly de-focus a camera lense, image outlines expand as they get more fuzzy. It has the pleasant impression of making things sound "bigger" and slightly more immersive, but at the expense of that pin-point accuracy and focus. Which is why to me the 6550s sound a bit more neutral, and the KT120s are screwing around a bit with something in the amp.

 

[mike70]

Admittedly I may be having a "dumber than usual" moment, but could you explain how that relates to my post..if it does? Thanks.

It's not your fault Matt.
We were discussing some stuff related to vinyl SQ and other user takes me off with a bit unrespectful behavior (not directly to me, but to the ones who likes vinyl) and now the same user have 2 pages discussing about tubes.

It's ok, it's not with you.

 

[drmevo]

Maybe this is an odd position, but I somewhat enjoy the limitations of physical media, up to a point. It's enjoyable for me to choose a record, from my limited collection, throw it on our kitchen/dining room turntable while I grab a coffee and fry up some bacon on a Sunday morning, or sit in the living room with a beer after a long day of work at my main system. I don't (usually) care if it's less than perfect, although I do chase quality pressings of albums that are very important to me.

I never amassed a large library of quality digital files, and I don't really have any interest in doing so. The ones I have are mostly equaled or outclassed by streaming services these days. Streaming is fantastic and we're truly lucky to have just about anything we want at our fingertips, but...at the same time, just like having the Internet at our fingertips at all times, it can be overwhelming. Think of all the amazing things we could be constantly absorbing and learning, and yet we spend a good portion of our online time on social media, arguing on forums, watching stupid videos, etc. I don't know about you guys, but it can too often be a source of stress rather than enlightenment.

Similarly, with streaming, I sometimes can't relax...with vinyl, even more so than CD, I put the album on and I am almost forced to absorb it. Not skip tracks, not pick another artist/album, not wonder if there is something better out there I should be spending my time listening to. Like reading a physical book, I enjoy the simplicity of it. And by simplicity, I don't mean ease of use - obviously streaming an album is far more convenient. I mean in terms of the choices I have. Consequently, I end up digging into and appreciating those choices far more than I believe I otherwise would. And, yes, it can be a fun hobby trying to extract the best sound possible out of a somewhat primitive medium. I would never argue the quality is better than digital, but, it does generally have a quality that hits me a certain way that I really like, and that I don't always get with digital. As long as I get that feeling, I don't care if digital is technically superior or not.

All that said, I probably split my listening about equally between vinyl and streaming. My turntables are modest (vintage Philips 312 and upgraded Pro-ject Carbon EVO) and I don't see going for much more expensive models. My issue is, it's too hard and/or costly to find really good pressings of everything. Even with ultrasonic cleaning, some copies are just noisy. I'm not going to spend $4k on a turntable then have to buy $50-$60+ "audiophile" pressings of everything I want to listen to (not that they exist for most records I want) or hunt down older pressings of good quality and low noise, again probably for $50+ each. Thus, I still listen to a good amount of music via streaming. It's great to have options (when you want them )!

 

[Nutsfortubes]

Bought new in 1985 works as new. Easy to set up. Still using a VDH MC10 moving coil cartridge just rebuilt last year for the 3rd time. Cost me $3575.00 so cost of operation About $125.00 a year. This is a SOTA Sapphire vacuum which is a suspension TT but unlike others that have 3 springs under pressure the SOTA has 4 and the springs are being pulled open by the 40 pound platter so it is so isolated a gorilla could jump up and down and the record would skip.

 

[mike70]

View attachment 195224Bought new in 1985 works as new. Easy to set up. Still using a VDH MC10 moving coil cartridge just rebuilt last year for the 3rd time. Cost me $3575.00 so cost of operation About $125.00 a year. This is a SOTA Sapphire vacuum which is a suspension TT but unlike others that have 3 springs under pressure the SOTA has 4 and the springs are being pulled open by the 40 pound platter so it is so isolated a gorilla could jump up and down and the record would skip.

That's a turntable

 

[rdenney]

@mike70 Not telling you to change. Your standards are yours. Others are higher. For them, there’s a point.

I’m with you except for “higher”. We have got to get past language that implies this is a moral issue. Making it so confuses needs and requirements.

So, in systems engineering terms, it’s a matter of requirements verification, not needs validation. If a person wants to mess with LPs, then that’s what they want, because their use cases include that physical interaction. They can also desire high fidelity, but then they have to trace that back to their needs. A recording professional needs to play back as closely to the input signal as possible, and as a pro, wants to arrive at that condition as cheaply and quickly as possible.

We all say we want that, but there are other needs, too. For most of us, this is a hobby—a pastime. The cost is measured differently, and so are the benefits.

We can be as close to the input signal as it is currently possible to be with a streaming service, a decent DAC, a good headphone amp, and well-performing headphones. Yawn! For those who desire this endpoint, what reason is there to be here, except to sit in judgment of others?

But others may also have the use case of a high physical involvement with the apparatus as an expression of the hobby. That use case leads to requirements that may include high fidelity—within the context of that involvement. It also includes a requirement that changing equipment results in noticeable (audible) change, which is what makes changing stuff fun. That’s a requirement that isn’t easy to fulfill with modern digital equipment, given that they already finish faults below the threshold of audibility.

(I bought a new DAC, and it sounds…exactly like my old DAC. How cool is that?)

So, if a person wants to mess with stuff in their system, the latest digital system will not fulfill their requirements. They are left with two avenues: vintage equipment, obsolete media, or both. Those two directions richly fulfill requirements related to apparatus play.

(Maybe they can find ways to mess with stuff in software or in the computer upstream from the DAC—fine but they should not assume that is the same use case as messing with physical apparatus. For me, it’s too much like work.)

I get tired of the expectation of repeatedly acknowledging that LPs, analogue tapes, and even (for some) CDs can’t fulfill high-fidelity requirements. Of course. But it can certainly fulfill sound-good requirements, and attaining such can be quite satisfying given how difficult it can be. I would submit that great sound from an LP is more difficult, more learning-intensive, more productively time-consuming (and it is a “pastime”), and more satisfying than SOTA sound from a digital system. That will not be important to many, but it is important to some.

So, this is not a moral question, and making it so adds more heat than light. The engineering question is how to get good sound from flawed obsolete technologies, and that actually provides no shortage of opportunities for careful and informed engineering.

(We should not assume that LP enthusiasts do not also have SOTA digital capability in their system, by the way.)

Rick “one can challenge how to fulfill requirements, but stated needs are unassailable” Denney

 

[Newman]

I’m with you except for “higher”. We have got to get past language that implies this is a moral issue. Making it so confuses needs and requirements.

You're the one confusing standards with morals. There is zero moral dimension to having higher standards in technical performance. Pretending there is any such link is purely inflammatory, by you.

 

[rdenney]

You're the one confusing standards with morals. There is zero moral dimension to having higher standards in technical performance. Pretending there is any such link is purely inflammatory, by you.

If you think that post was inflammatory, in intention or in fact, then I don't know what to say but I'm sorry. But I would humbly suggest that calling it inflammatory is exactly an example of attaching a moral judgment that generates more heat than light. How else can "others hold a higher standard" be interpreted but "those who hold a higher standard, like, say, me, are better than those who don't, like, say, you"?

Rick "for whom standards apply a minimum level of attainment expected for a class of design contexts" Denney

 

[Bob from Florida]

You're the one confusing standards with morals. There is zero moral dimension to having higher standards in technical performance. Pretending there is any such link is purely inflammatory, by you.

 

[Bob from Florida]

If you think that post was inflammatory, in intention or in fact, then I don't know what to say but I'm sorry. But I would humbly suggest that calling it inflammatory is exactly an example of attaching a moral judgment that generates more heat than light. How else can "others hold a higher standard" be interpreted but "those who hold a higher standard, like, say, me, are better than those who don't, like, say, you"?

Rick "for whom standards apply a minimum level of attainment expected for a class of design contexts" Denney

I don’t believe that Newman was making any kind of moral judgment. What I do believe is the “higher” comment was clearly meant to define turntable enthusiasts as unsophisticated neanderthals. Moral judgement- not. Insulting - sure. Should anyone care - definitely not.

 

[rdenney]

I don’t believe that Newman was making any kind of moral judgment. What I do believe is the “higher” comment was clearly meant to define turntable enthusiasts as unsophisticated neanderthals. Moral judgement- not. Insulting - sure. Should anyone care - definitely not.

I'm sure I expanded "moral" to include "insulting," but I can hardly complain about brittleness in others when I'm occasionally brittle myself.

I just get tired of every discussion of LPs being visited by the folks who seem to think that if those who actually listen to LPs don't actively acknowledge their deficiencies every few posts, that somehow LP listening will receive validation they apparently cannot tolerate. And, of course, the implication that discussion of LPs and other obsolete technologies can't be scientific is also kinda insulting.

Rick "unsophisticated neanderthal" Denney

 

[Newman]

Oh that‘s OK then. Your inflammatory nonsense is 100% justified by your being tired of vinyl discussions having any balance or science. Here in ASR of all places. It’s clearly an outrage and I deserve all I get.

Keep digging.

 

[rdenney]

Oh that‘s OK then. Your inflammatory nonsense is 100% justified by your being tired of vinyl discussions having any balance or science. Here in ASR of all places. It’s clearly an outrage and I deserve all I get.

Keep digging.

Balance? Science?

Is there any possible way that the reader of this thread could draw the conclusion that obsolete analog media are, well, obsolete, and don't perform as well as state-of-the-art digital, without you and Sal dumping insult bombs every several pages? Do you really believe that only the two of you are protecting the cause of science? That hordes of the foolish will be led down dark paths of ignorance and error but for you? That the rigor of ASR will be sullied by discussions of vintage technologies?

It sorta makes me wonder why Amir reviewed, for example, Advent speakers and Holman preamps, which are clearly constrained by the same old pre-digital technology and prehistoric ignorance.

You could, of course, just avoid these threads.

There is a load of science involved in every aspect of making LP playback work as well as it does. In fact, that science is actually rather available for manipulation by hobbyists, and the results of such play are easier to hear and measure.

Rick "how about one standard disclaimer per thread?" Denney

 

[Bob from Florida]

Balance? Science?

Is there any possible way that the reader of this thread could draw the conclusion that obsolete analog media are, well, obsolete, and don't perform as well as state-of-the-art digital, without you and Sal dumping insult bombs every several pages? Do you really believe that only the two of you are protecting the cause of science? That hordes of the foolish will be led down dark paths of ignorance and error but for you? That the rigor of ASR will be sullied by discussions of vintage technologies?

It sorta makes me wonder why Amir reviewed, for example, Advent speakers and Holman preamps, which are clearly constrained by the same old pre-digital technology and prehistoric ignorance.

You could, of course, just avoid these threads.

There is a load of science involved in every aspect of making LP playback work as well as it does. In fact, that science is actually rather available for manipulation by hobbyists, and the results of such play are easier to hear and measure.

Rick "how about one standard disclaimer per thread?" Denney

The title of this thread is a natural draw for those that wish to “dump” on vinyl playback and those that wish to “defend” vinyl playback. I do agree that certain folks - Newman for example - like to show up and troll a bit to see what kind of reactions ensue. Best case is some kind of “sincerity“ with the comments. Worst case - JAMFingT (just another - think Samual L Jacksons other middle name - troll).

 

[MattHooper]

Balance? Science?

Indeed. The implication that vinyl discussions on ASR, this one in particular, don't have any "balance" is belied by the fact that virtually everyone has acknowledged the liabilities of vinyl. In literally every thread. There are very few people (if any that I've seen) operating under illusions of vinyl superiority or some such thing, and plenty of members (who spin vinyl) have contributed technical insights.

Vinyl just seems to tick some people off, making them see red rather than what is actually being written, unfortunately.

Agreed we should be down to one disclaimer "Yes We Know Vinyl Is Technically Inferior" at the head of a vinyl thread

(It's also a reason I put a disclaimer on my own sig line).

 

[Robin L]

Indeed. The implication that vinyl discussions on ASR, this one in particular, don't have any "balance" is belied by the fact that virtually everyone has acknowledged the liabilities of vinyl. In literally every thread. There are very few people (if any that I've seen) operating under illusions of vinyl superiority or some such thing, and plenty of members (who spin vinyl) have contributed technical insights.

Vinyl just seems to tick some people off, making them see red rather than what is actually being written, unfortunately.

Agreed we should be down to one disclaimer "Yes We Know Vinyl Is Technically Inferior" at the head of a vinyl thread

(It's also a reason I put a disclaimer on my own sig line).

Yes we know Vinyl is technically inferior, but if you'd rather listen to vinyl, you're not insane, merely misguided ( ). (We are willing to correct you until you cry uncle or leave the forum).

 

[MattHooper]

Yes we know Vinyl is technically inferior, but if you'd rather listen to vinyl, you're not insane, merely misguided ( ). (We are willing to correct you until you cry uncle or leave the forum).

Ha, I've no problem with that. I put on the target shirt with the bullseye - I'll take the tomatoes thrown my way. I'll keep zig-zaggin'

 

[MattHooper]

Speaking of which......

I was playing a favorite soundtrack (ripped CD) which is a pretty spectacular recording and loved it. I then threw on another old soundtracky album but on vinyl, and it was similarly spectacular, except the strings sounded even more "like real strings" to my ear in terms of texture, tone etc. Which isn't to say, of course, that it's always the case; just that both sound spectacular and I find the audiophile goodies in terms of sound quality are more dependent on the recording. (That takes in to consideration a certain tolerance of vinyl issues like some record noise here and there that will turn off some listeners. I didn't hear any during the music, but in between tracks).