Got me a record player!

Geez guys, you make me feel like I've been having a very public affair

Now what we need is a silverdisc spinner to offer the delights of this vinyl stuff, quality with reliability and convenience. I know how to get 30% off a Teac DV50

I still can't bring myself to say goodbye yet though

 

Merl, the same rep offered me 45% off IN FRONT OF DEALER, CUZ HE HASN'T SOLD ANY US available for $2800 WM

 

Merlin,

I am glad you recovered your senses, now, now, don't take me wrong, the only thing I have against TTs is that they are too much work, and I am LAZY... :zzzz:

Tell me more about the Air things, why didn't you test the 6.5" woofer model, I think it is more appropriate for your needs, subs and all...

Also, don't forget to try the Apogee Wide_Eye digital IC, it turned my sound into analog... :MILD:

 

I have to agree with you Antonio, it's really a case of whether you are prepared to put up with the inconvenience in order to enjoy the results. For me, and my listening habits, it is proving difficult. I like to do other things whilst listening to music, this is a problem when you have to change discs every 20 minutes or so. It's an eye opener though. The top end of vinyl is highly seductive and well resolved, putting even fine CD to shame. Whatever WM says, in terms of overall refinement, resolution and naturalness, even his highly tuned rig doesn't approach good vinyl. It's a question of listening for the signature, and once you recognise it, it's hard to ignore. If I had a sizeable vinyl collection my feelings would be very different, and I doubt I would be interested in CD as a format had I continued with vinyl since the eighties.

What we need really is one of the hi rez formats to get a foothold. Whilst it won't satisfy the vinyl guys, as it would not offer the same tactile experience, it would satisfy people like me who want both the quality and the convenience.

I am not sure that you would really like the Airs. I decided to try the 15's because I like the ease with which the big driver moves air. They are quite removed from the typical SF sound, they are monitors after all. Having said that, they are not hard or clinical, just not in any way euphonic sounding. It's a shame that so many studio products get missed by the hifi buying public. Apogee is a good example, although I have to say, the Kimber Orchid is substantially better all round. Put another way, if Meridian sold the Air 15's, with their built in DSP, Par Eq, Dac and Digital Amps, there is little doubt in my mind that they'd be looking for £7K ish Studio products generally sell with lower markups, so the 15'srepresent very good value indeed. the only issue really is having to use a wired remote to control volume

 

Can't you use the volume control on the processor ? As for the differences to SF, you probably haven't heard EAII, they don't sound euphonic at all, not with Bryston power, anyway one could always use EQ to adjust to personal taste, as long as they are accurate...

And the thing that attracts me most is the lack of wires all over the place, if I ever change my setup, I will get active speakers for sure...

 

I think the reason a lot of people prefer vinyl to CD comes down to CD's low sampling rate.

This weekend I heard a 24bit/96kHz live recording played back in its original version, then played again at CD quality.

The difference was most illuminating, and far from subtle. A lot of information was lost at 44.1kHz.

 

James , very strange most recording studio master in 24 bit 44.1KHZ then the final edit is upsampled to 96KHZ/192KHZ or even 384Khz now, even the CDS 3 is only 44.1

 

Utterly agree with that Red Book CD is certainly no more than adequate and very out of date these days. I have also heard some 24/96 recodings from Chesky played through my system, and would doubt whether vinyl would have such a following these days, had CD been settled on with 24/96 resolution in the first place.

There's something not qite right with the top end of CD to my mind, although I would admit I had never noticed it prior to the recent exposure to good vinyl. A good test was actually audience applause. Try it on CD, tell me it sounds like hands clapping. Now try the same on vinyl....the differences will be clear. Still, allowing for this apparent flaw, I still find CD's convenience just too alluring.

 

Sorry WM but virtually all studios now record and mix at 24 bit resolution with either 96khz or 192khz sampling rate. Have done for years actually. These masters then have to be downconverted to 44.1khz for copying to CD. This signal decimation seems to be one of the main causes of the typical CD sound. If the studios didn't have to downsample the signal, I am sure we would effectively get master tape performance from our silver discs (after all, most modern recordings are stored on hard drives anyway)

 

Hi Tony, what does this mean? Surely if it's mastered at 44.1, that's it - the information has gone, or am I missing something?

Merlin, yes applause is a good example. I'm not 'knocking' CD btw, I enjoy my CDs, but given the choice I would nearly always buy the vinyl version of an album. Having said that, there are some records which mis-track due to pressing problems.

 

I do have a couple of 24 bit 96khz recordings, and the treble is better, but makes less difference with the apogee...

 

Adie, My B-I-Laws, best friend owns a well know studio in London. When I spoke to him last, (Xmas) they had just under gone a £180K change to enable them to do 96Khz, now Sony then 'Advised them' to get 192Khz, although at the Time he catogoricaly stated they recorded in 24 bit 44.1khz, I have tried to ring him, but I have no answer as yet, but I will chase it up!
I do see where you coming from merlin, but Adie was most insistant on this. WM

 

Ok, update Time, Yes it's changed to 64 Bits and 192KHZ, just added a huge great add on, and large computing power, (but for the record, he prefers 24/44.1kz ) WM

 

Tony, my point was that if the recording is, say, 44.1, then no amount of jiggery-pokery, upsampling nor anything else will improve on that figure.

 

Quite right James, you can't 'Add bits' which arn't there in the first place, what the upsampling/oversampling does is to interperpolate a computer geneated curve to 'Fill in' the prosumed places on the curve, very accurately, but still a guesstimate.
I have a preference for direct multipules of 44.1 ie 88.2/132.3/176.4, the other 96/192 arn't straight multipilers, the farther up you go, the more perceieved detail/openiness/air and space you get, bigger stage etc, which you guys don't tend to worry about, the resolution rates I feel are more important, being able to change these and the sample rates manualy, you can gauge which gives the best presentation to suit your music.
For me optimium rate for Dynamic music I feel is 88.2 or the stunning 132.3, for the more jazzy/classical/female vocals the bigger number are better suited I feel.
But they do make a difference. Tone

 

I could warm to you, Merlin... Didn't think I'd ever read that from you of all people. Kudos for your honesty.

As to upsampling/downsampling, it doesn't matter if something is recorded at 64/192 if the CD is then mastered at 24/44.1. No upsampling CD player is going to restore what was lost in the downsampling process to produce the CD master.

-- Ian

 

Problem is none of you guys have got a decent enough TT Set up, (except Dean & maybe Re-Joyce) to make that judgement really
Arrgant no, smug no, just resolute determination on getting close that's all. and being a picky bastard

 

Well, my TT is certainly good enough for me to hear the differences Merlin is talking about, and Merlin's appears to be good enough for him to hear the same thing. I'm certainly able to make that judgement.

-- Ian

 

Exactly. What Ian said. Tony's on a rather ill-advised troll again.

This is why we prefer vinyl: the sound quality is better than CD. Where it loses out is convenience & fragility, that's all.

 

Yes Ian, I am sure your are not, but maybe things are just a little different here that's all WM