Needledrops and demo tracks - pro and cons discussion

That is a good answer have you decided you don't want to fight and diss all the time, well about bloody time.

I just don't see the point, if you want to listen to turntables and compare them then listen to turntables, if you want to listen to digital files or CDs and compare them then listen to them.

It is just as daft as me buying a cutter and copying a CD from a player onto an acetate and using that to playback and decide how good the CD player is

 

You are missing the point.
Nobody is suggesting that you would copy CD to Vinyl or vice versa as part of your normal listening routine, well not unless you want to archive something old and valuable perhaps.
Some of us are simply saying that as a tool for recording differences and allowing people to compare remotely and through their own systems, digital recording is more than good enough.
From what I can see, hundreds of people are doing this on forums and hearing differences - so there has to some merit in this, and their systems must be good enough to resolve the differences.
Or they are all lying on mass!

Perhaps Richard or others would like to start a thread to discuss the pros and cons of each medium. Should make a good discussion.

Probably not fair to have that discussion here as this thread is for the actual comparisons.

 

It is not a dac bake-off, it is a computer audio bake-off that obviously has to use a dac. And I am seriously not interested in your files of a Rega P9. The thought of a P9 through Quad amps just leaves me cold I am afraid, so there is no counting for taste apart from yours is definitely not the same as mine, which makes it a pretty pointless exercise..

 

Well that's a shame, but never mind.

 

Err...well..nearly right - just the other way round .

 

Specifically CD v Vinyl or analogue v digital in general?

 

Richard I don't fight and diss all the time.

The point of using and ADC to record needle drops is that most of us live hundreds of miles away from each other but we are sufficiently interested in vinyl to be prepared to put up with a facsimile of how someone's set-up might actually sound if it is capable of presenting the gross differences between set-ups.

It's no substitute for a good bake off, but it's infinitely easier to set-up.

Post edited by Dev

 

You realise of course that a recording is itself a facsimile?

The purpose of the needledrops is to get a better understanding even if they do come in smidgen size pieces . It can't happen with word description, you can't experience words in this way. Bake offs are better, but limited & only available to the selected participants. Needledrops are there for anyone interested enough to listen.

 

But they create the dellusion for some people that they are actually hearing some form of reality. They are not, and will make false choices if that is all they base those choices on.

 

Surely any audio enthusiast would know the limitations. Can we get on with the needledrops now?

 

I am not trying to stop them, I have just observed people at PF basing purchasing decisions on these things. I think that is a disservice to members there and here if it starts here as well.

I think the thread should have a warning to that effect like the warning on a fag packet, so I consider my posts to be that warning.

 

Start a thread on the subject if you want to debate the principle rather than interrupt the purpose of the thread.

 

Open mind, open ears, closed mouth.
So long as the adc is ok, differences are easy to hear.
Besides we're not looking to cure cancer here just getting a taste of others TT set ups-great fun IMO.
Cooky

 

Can we split this thread ?

 

what exactly is the difference (supposed to be) between this thread and the other needle-drops thread?

 

Done.

Sorry, you caught the threads during splitting.

Please keep the discussion/debating on this thread and the other for the original purpose. Thanks.

 

Indeed - makes more sense now

 

Dissent about the ability of a needledrop to be good enough for purpose.

 

Woops... while Dev was busy splitting the thread I'd started a fresh one and was in full swing
Now deleted and this what I'd posted:



For me there are many positives and only a few potential negatives.

Positives:

- We now have access to powerful high resolution ADCs with extremely high resolution and dynamic range, way in excess of any analogue audio equipment.
- The quality of this equipment is often equal to that used by professionals to actually record and process the music we play on our systems.
- Recordings can be presented blind to the listener as there is no need to show the name of the equipment under test on the file. You simply present two, three, four + examples and let people listen at home. You remove the potential for demonstrator and expectation bias in one fell swoop.
- You get to listen through your own system and are therefore not distracted by unfamiliar rooms or kit.
- You can demonstrably prove that a good ADC/DAC loop is very transparent by insertion into a tape loop and comparing directly to source. You can use an active buffered loop or an entirely passive one - and you can do this with any amplifier.
The comparison can be made instantly at the flick of a switch.
- This remote demo technique opens the ability to listen and compare to many thousands of listeners. Something impossible at a conventional dem.

Negatives:

- The ultimate worth of this technique depends on the quality of the ADC/DAC used.
A quiet laptop input will suffice to reveal most differences but won't be capable of revealing the full potential of a good source. It gives a taste, but a good one.
There are many good quality inexpensive dacs out there and £130 will get you something more than good enough from the likes of MF or Cambridge.
- Digiphobia.
Some people see digital as the work of Satan and will refuse to believe - even after demonstration proof - that it can work extremely well.


Some other things to consider when comparing vinyl systems:

Vinyl can undoubtedly sound superb and I wouldn't have around 4000 albums and be spending lots of cash on a good front end if I thought it was poor.
But it is hugely compromised in many ways.
Firstly it is extremely complex if you examine the process end to end.
Numerous electro-mechanical conversions to actually produce a master, enormous amounts of EQ at the production stage, more electro-mechanical conversion at the replay stage using devices riddled with audible resonances, and of course distortions climbing well into double figures at high frequencies.
Then we have the speed inconsistencies due to even minor warps and the stylus merrily bouncing around on its hinge compliance, plus that old trick of not getting the hole quite in the middle of the disc...... and of course another load of EQ to reverse the previous lot.
Then we have the effects of the TT unit - speed variations from the drive, arm resonances and the effects of feedback.

Not nice is it?
Add to this the fact that anything recorded in the last 30 years is probably a digital master in the first place.

In short, we have a string of destructive processes, and the idea that any half decent modern digital recorder is going to unacceptably mask the shinning quality of something produced via the above process is nonsense.

 

A half decent Audigy NX2 is good enough that when used to record and playback a needledrop its 90% as good as the vinyl and easily good enough to highlight the actual differences between decks.
Anyone who disagrees has not done it themselves.

At the bake off over on pfm I will do a recording and then play it back to the assembled masses, it will be listened to against the actual vinyl it was recorded from. I will ask for opinions and post the views on here.