I am currently using the 950/770 combo with dvd,cd ,phono pre-amp and OLD Harmond Kardon/Rabco turntable. Let me tell you something . Nothing sounds better than VINYL.I have LOTs of old stuff (over 1000 albums on vinyl) and over 3000 cd's. I also buy new stuff on vinyl like radiohead, soulive, whitestripes, pinkfloyd etc... You can never beat the dynamic range of VINYL.The record industry should be ashamed of itself!!!!!

I've heard some people in the record industry wishing they could abandon CDs and go back to LPs, if for no other reason than they can't be "ripped" as easily. I've also heard that some bands are releasing ONLY on LPs!!! I say good for them!!!

LPs rock. I listen to CDs 99% of the time. And every time I put an lp on, I keep hitting myself upside the head for not listening to them more often. But ... CDs are just more convenient.

I am convinced that I can "make" a better CD than most of the older recordings issued today, simply because most of them have been so limited and compressed (to try to make them sound "louder" but certainly not better), just by:

original issue lp => Shure V15 type VxMR cartridge => Sony PSX-600 turntable => Creek OBH-8SE phono pre-amp => either a) HHB CDR-830 Professional Compact Disc Recorder, or, b) Tascam DA-40 Digital Audio Tape deck.

Don't even go through the preamp. Direct.

Maybe there is hope for SACD or DVD-A...

Count me among the vinyl enthusiasts, too. I've got about 5000 LPs. When listening to vinyl, be sure you're listening through a Bypass setting on the 950 or, better yet, connect it to the 6-channel analog inputs.

The detail and fluidity of vinyl just can't be surpassed by CD, IMHO. Run it through a tube preamp prior to the 6-channel input and you've got sonic nirvana.

Sex, politics, religion ... analogue vs. digital: they're all guaranteed to draw a response - and should be avoided during pleasant dinner conversation.

But since the BBQ has cooled off, the friends have all left, and I'm feeling a little game with a dram of some very fine single malt in hand (a 21 year old Springbank) let me offer an opinion.

All else being equal, I'll take the digital version any day. Less noise, greater dynamics, much more convenient.

I like vinyl. I play several albums each month. But I choose to play several times more CDs than records. The records still sound good. CDs sound much better.

I've always said that the two biggest sources for either improvement, or degredation, are right at the input or output stages of the process. Great speakers and superb digital source material: nothing else in between will make as much of a difference.

That being said (and given that is a "950" thread) I must admit that the various processing modes available on the 950 are breathing new life into my old vinyl collection (and CDs for that matter). Yes I like to listen in "stereo bypass" mode to most of my records, but many of them take on a whole new life using PLIIM+CR and other such modes. It's getting me closer to those live performances by Frampton, and Supertramp, and the Stones, and Bowie that I attended in my (and their) younger days, than I've ever been able to do in my own home.

CD over vinyl. DVD over laserdisc over analogue tape.

But to each his own.

Jeff Mackwood

boblinds- I am sad. I am sad because at one point, I had about 1500 lps, and then I "bought" into the falsehood that is compact disc: "perfect sound forever." I got rid of, or swapped, lps for CDs until I was down to about 500 lps. Then I actually listened for myself. Now, I'm back up to about 700 lps. CD, by necessity, is only an approximation of lp. LP is analog. Pure, continous signal. CD isn't. Zero's and ones. Digital. It's a sampled version of the original analog signal. CDs are more convenient than lps. But for pure sound quality, lp wins. But you have to have the analog rig for that to be apparent.

Kevin,

But ooh them ones and zeros (with the little pauses in between) they do sound nice!

Semi-seriously, I never made the mistake of trashing my vinyl collection. In fact I'm still adding to it.

My late father had a huge vinyl collection - lots of it pre-stereo. Every time I go and visit the homestead I borrow a few from his collection. Original Goodman. Original Garland. They sound great. But my CD versions sound better.

Two weeks ago a friend from Montreal dropped off 300 albums that his recently-deceased neighbour had willed to him. He started with 350, and kept 50. I kept 50 and passed 250 on to my neighbour. And so on. Original Beach Boys. Original Beatles. Rush, The Clash, Ozzie. Pristine condition. I use a very good set-up to play them. The CDs still sound better.

And just think. To a whole new generation of music listeners out there, MP3 is all the quality that they need and want - or perhaps ever get to experience. Now that's a shame!

Jeff Mackwood

I was anxiously awaiting the release of the first CD player and when I finally got one, I sold a good deal of my LPs for a dollar or so apiece STUPID - STUPID - S T U P I D ! ! ! !

Not to dig too deeply - but I nagged Peter Tribeman to include a TUBE phono input stage in the RR2150 - He didn't - how sad




[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited July 14, 2003).]

There are plenty of good albums in all styles of music out there for the taking. Also there are nice quality TT (Music Hall and Projects) that are much better than anything you could get in the $500 to $1000 range years ago, and they have nice arms (I know I have the Project nine arms) and nice cartridges. Records can be bought at thrift stores, yard sales, from you friends who will give them to you just for carting them off. IT is a great time to be in Vinyl. There is so much on vinyl that will never make it to CD and it is good. I would still argue that before I got rid of my Sota Cosmos $5.5M and picked up a Project, and added a SACD player that the vinyl sounded better in my system. It is still close. A lot of the Blues, Jazz and Folk music that I have on LPs will never see a CD. All of our great heritage lost is we don't support this format and take care of a facet of hghend that is still growing, albeit slowly.

IMHO, vinyl definitely has a place. However I feel that the technology generally in place for playing back an LP could be greatly improved. It seems to me that it would not be out-of-reach for someone to develop an interference pattern laser (or some-such) LP groove reader for $500 or less that would allow the playback of vinyl collections without friction and it’s detrimental effects on the recorded material. Such a situation would allow someone to enjoy “pure analog” without the “guilt” of wear and tear. If such equipment were available, it might help in the marketing of vinyl by those that still have the capability of producing high-quality LP’s.

Actually you can beat the dynamic range of vinyl quite easily. Heck, Dolby-B on a metal CompactCassette tape beats the dynamic range of vinyl.

But there's a lot more to good sound than dynamic range.

I'm a big vinyl fan, too.

------------------
Philip Hamm

[This message has been edited by Philip Hamm (edited July 14, 2003).]

Oops! Double post.

[This message has been edited by Philip Hamm (edited July 14, 2003).]

I have to point out with all this lyrical rapsody about vinyl, that there was one heck of a lot wrong with vinyl too.

1) Ticks and Pops. These noises generated an entire accessory industry. I remember, having a discwashers, stylus cleaner and a static blaster that I used to keep dust from ruining my records. I even tried Phase Linear's Dynamic Tick and Pop filter.

2) Poor recordings made from a master that was many generations removed from the original was the rule rather than the acception. Was it called a "mother'? To compare audiophile recordings from today to the run of the mill from then is laughable. I am sure we all had/have our Sheffield Labs lps to remind us what true dynamic range was.

3) Tone Arm geometry and tracking issues. Do you have tone arm that pivots? If so, its my recollection that it only is properly alligned in the record groove twice on any LP. The complexity of setting up the horizontal and vertical allignment and tracking was a nightmare.




[This message has been edited by 73Bruin (edited July 14, 2003).]

Is there really a "better" sound from vinyl ?

Can anyone explain the advantages of records verses cd's - I have heard of better dynamic range and the use of such terms as "fluidity" etc.. , but is there an actual sonic difference or is this simply nostalgia ?

I actually miss the great artwork/creativity of the LP jackets - but don't miss the snap, crackle and pop of vinyl -

Technically, a CD will sound closer to the master tape than a vinyl LP will. LPs are a mechanical process, and as such, there are losses and distrotions that cannot be avoided.

B U T

LPs do have an undeniable appeal in their sound that would come under the "euphonic" category. What "distortions" they add are pleasing to the ear, much like tube amps, making them in some instances sound better than the master tape that they were created from.

True, ticks and pops, poor vinyl quality, and indifferent mastering of the LP are an issue, but the better "audiophile" LP pressings address this.



[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited July 14, 2003).]

In addition, the analog nature of reproduction in vinyl brings benefits as well, to my ears at least. Analog reproduction is more adept at recreating timbral subtleties and details. Instruments and voices sound more real to me in analog reproduction.

I think Soundhound and I may disagree slightly over this (he tends to have more faith in digital recording than I do), but, by definition, all digital formats are lossy formats because they SAMPLE the sound. I think you can hear this. IMHO it's one of the reasons that some people find CD's to be fatiguing in extended listening sessions.

Combine that natural loss of sound with the generally shoddy quality of recording, mixing and mastering in commercial CD's and you have really tiring sound. (Well recorded and mixed CD's, such as the ones Soundhound has done, can have INCREDIBLY detailed and refined sound. But that is definitely the exception in the commercial marketplace.)

CD is clearly superior as a storage medium and it provides a much wider dynamic range than LP. For most people, apparently, those are decisive advantages and sufficient to make CD a more attractive audio format.

[This message has been edited by boblinds (edited July 14, 2003).]

Boblinds:

While I would agree that "audiophile" quality LP's (from the 80's or later) may be better than commerical quality CD's, I am not sure that you could say that for the vast majority of commerical quality lps that were available in the 70's - 90's. I certainly remember searching for import pressings of lps because of the quality difference and that the general consensus of that time being that most US recordings were poorly made junk.

Shoddy mixing, recording and mastering is a reflection of the market a recording is sold for. I remember being told about various artists who mastered their albums to a 6x9 single cone car speaker because thats was the preception of the artist's audience. My sense is that if you only listened to those cds that came from "audiophile" oriented labels, many of your frustrations would go away.

Finally, since I still have my lps and since my 1050 doesn't have a phone section, what recommendations would you make for a cartridge and phone-preamp. I haven't played my records for over 10years and I somehow doubt that my old Sonus Blue cartridge has any life left. (Another advantage of CD's, no stylii to wear out or moving cartridge parts to fail due to mechanical breakdown and air pollution).

While it is true that songs intended for the popular music market were sometimes mixed or at least mastered on small speakers to simulate the home playback experience, this was not at all the case outside of this music segment. Classical, Jazz and other types of music were recroded with great care most of the time. There were instances where the "official" record label practices were such that the sound was not up to the best of standards, such as the mandatory bass rolloff below 50Hz at EMI for popular music recordings.

The real problem was horrible stamping vinyl quality by the majority of the labels, sometimes even using ground up discarded records to press new records - lables and all ! ! Even classical labels like Angel had bad pressings. The audiophile lables used actual virgin vinyl and manufactured them thick enough to withstand use.

Da Hound is right on. Angel US generally had horrible pressings! That's why you find so many Angel/EMI British, German and (even a few) French pressings in my collection.

[This message has been edited by boblinds (edited July 14, 2003).]

I agree on Angel in general, but they released some limited editions Classical in that time frame in 45 RPM that were pretty good. I still have a few of them around. But even in the 60's the golden era for RCA Shady Dogs and Mercury Living Presence, The Columbias Classical were the worst. The records were nice and heavy, nice vinyl material, but they were terribly over miked and just did not live up to other Columbia recordings of that Era. The Jazz and even the rock in the 6 eye era, or even the later singe eye series were great sounding. The Classical just did not sound good. The RCA and Mercury actions to keep it simple made for terrific recordings.

73b- Yeah, but there are very badly mastered CDs out there too. Most of 'em in my opinion. Here's what actually pushed me "back" to lp: I record a CD version of an lp that I have. I compare recording levels to the lp. I find that to not "spike" the meters, the lp level has to be much lower. Pops and clicks? No, not really. Just that most modern CD mastering is extremely limited and compressed, in a stupid attempt to make the recording sound "louder", which to an MP3-lover (!) might be construed as better. Poor mastering isn't limited to lps, not by a long shot.

See, that's one thing that really "chaps my hide" about CDs. The dynamic range *is* better than of lp. But except for *maybe* through the early 90's, recordings haven't come close to taking advantage of it.

LP then CD. Then MP3, and maybe now DVD-A/SACD. At least there's a lot of choice...

I agree, it would be wonderful if the master/mixing process got the careful attention it should and that poor mastering isn't limited to LPs. Consequently, it would seem that "audiophile" CD's or possibily SACD/DVD Audio are the way to go.

FWIW, I know that my wife does not appreciate dynamic range at all. She wants to be able to set the volume and have it stay there. This is especially frustrating in home theater. I have noticed my youngest daughter taking the same stance. I wonder if this is a more common occurance that recording engineers are aware of and possibly pander to while mixing?

There are times when a less-than-original dynamic range is helpful via "expansion and compression," such as listening in a noisy environment or when listening while you are busy with other tasks and are not available to pay attention to nuance. If there were full dynamic range at those times, you would either miss the “quiet” sounds or be “blown away” by the larger signals. Then there are the inconsistencies between one recording and another that, without expansion/compression, would leave you adjusting the volume on each song. The problem comes when you have a good system and the time to listen for listening sake. The effects and results of expansion/compression and other processing can be easily heard when they have been applied with a heavy hand, and they become irritating.

A non-viable solution, but one I would like, would be to leave a full dynamic range on each recording, even though that would make mixing more of a challenge, and let the consumer add expansion/compression as needed for the listening environment at the time. The problem is that so many consumers have trouble with the options already available to them that providing more options does not make good mass marketing business sense. There are many out there choosing sound equipment based not on the excellence of the sound, but based on the simplicity of operation. Some pay dearly for “less.” And how many out there really want to learn about “attack, release, threshold, ratio, peak,” etc., and become proficient in the use of such? And who will pay an extra $300 to $2k or more just for the privilege? Maybe a few, but that would be a special minority. Most consumers would say, “Isn’t that the job of the professionals anyway?”

So, there are different recording/mastering styles for different purposes, not to mention the “suits” trying to squeeze the production budget, that there is no single way to make everyone happy.

Personally I wouldn’t mind having ‘full range’ recordings available, which I would modify via software in my PC and then burn a ‘limited range’ version. That way I would have the appropriate version at the appropriate time.

Now let me put a foot in another quagmire … “radio” listening, whether good ‘ol FM, or streaming internet audio, or cable/satellite audio, or whatever … all these mediums modify the original signal for one reason or another, and usually the bottom line of all the various considerations is, “What makes the most sense for our business?” The “absolute best” audio is rarely the “real” consideration for those that make certain decisions and never “touch a knob.”

I think that "non-viable" solution is VERY viable. In fact, there is already a consumer precedent for it. Most Dolby Digital receivers and processors (the 950 included) have an adjustable "Night" setting that adds compression to the sound to narrow the dynamic range.

I suppose it is viable in some cases. If all the source material I would like to listen to came in non-compressed, full dynamic range, then adding my own compression, via the 950 or otherwise for some uses, would be a choice. The choice in many cases, however, is whether or not to add more compression to already compressed/processed material. There is no magic "go back to the original dynamics" button.

I'm still happy about the 950 and 770 and the sound I can hear from an Outlaw enhanced system!

- Dave

[This message has been edited by bestbang4thebuck (edited July 15, 2003).]

I remember my room mate and I had all kinds of processing boxes in the late 70's early 80's for dealing with vinyl pops/ticks/dynamic range. I also remember replacing the tweeter in one of my ADS speakers twice (not enough power).

The most important element in appreciating vinyl is impending middle age (or beyond). When I get my vinyl out it sounds really good on my 1979 Technics turntable with the 25 year old MicroAcoustics 2002e cartridge. Let's see, 2000 circa electronics and speakers, same turntable/ cartridge/ vinyl. Fewer (objectionable) tic and pop. Maybe the vinyl annealed in the attic. Or could it be I don't hear so well anymore?

I remember using a kit for cleaning and then "sealing/lubricating" my LPs. I think it might have been by 3M. Does anyone remember such a kit? You would spray the cleaner on and lightly buff it with a special applicator. You then HAD to follow it by spraying a protectant on the album and buff it also with a special brush. I used to use this before the virgin spin, it actually helped. Much better than just using the plain old Discwasher. There is another wonderful thing about vinyl that I haven't seen mentioned - WARPS. The worse was Jefferson Starship's "Red Octopus." I can still see the tone arm rising up and down and fearing what this was doing to my woofers. You know, I actually like pushing the skip button vs lowering the arm into an approxiamate grove. But I do miss the strobe light to set the pitch. And CD players just don't look as cool when they are playing.

Does anyone have or did have any of the tone arms that tracked the record horizontally?

Did these really work? Did they hold up to prolonged use? I remember seeing some with chain drives that seemed like they were extremely delicate.

I used to have a Rabco arm on my AR turntable. It worked well enough, but every time the small motor started to move the arm over, I could hear the acoustic feedback of it through the speakers to a slight degree. And of course when the battery (a "D" cell) went flat, the arm skipped!!! Good old days....

Back in my college days, I owned a turntable that had a main arm and a smaller lighter auxiliary arm. The cartridge head could pivot slightly in the horizontal plane. This meant that as the arm swung from the outermost groove area toward the innermost, the angle of the cartridge remained very close to 90 degrees from the radius of the groove at all times. An example of this method can be seen on a windshield wiper that has two parallel arms for a single blade assembly. As the wiper arms move through their arc, the blade can remain vertically oriented, instead of changing its angle of attack as the angle of the main wiper arm changes.

Yes, I still have mine. It is called Sound Guard - Total Record Care System. It even had date-of-application stickers so that you could easily identify the date you last treated each LP. It worked well for me, but I have no fluid left.

Well there is a new model Loricraft coming out in August that is a Laser Turntable. Uses 5 Laser beams. Claims No wear and accurate sound reproduction. Plays warped and rippled records and no needle scrap sounds. Now if I only had $10,500.

Bestbang4thebuck,

Wasn't that the Garrard Zero 100 model?

An interesting approach to linear tracking.

The additional pivot points have to be kept low friction.

There is something compelling about a linear tracking arm. But to do it right is expensive. I used a Harmon Kardon / Rabco ST7 for a while (I sill have it packed away somewhere) but the arm was very finicky. I think most current linear tracking arms use an air bearing design. Very low friction BUT a design tradeoff is getting acoustic energy (such as from the stylus or the arm mass/cartridge compliance resonance) out of the arm.

A good brand of tonearm, especially for the money, is the Rega series of arms. When I get around to upgrading my arm, Rega is going to be first on my list to consider, unless I win the lotto and can afford thousands for an arm. In which case the top of the line Rega would still be a contender.

Paul

------------------
the 1derful1

Paul: I don’t remember the exact model, but I think you’ve either hit it on the head or come very close.

I was intrigued by the principle of that parallel arms system, but my early impression of that product, once it was in my hands, was that it could have been constructed to slightly higher build standards without appreciable cost increase. Then again, the target market was the consumer that wanted better playback without true high-end pricing. As such, it meant that even while in college, I could scrape together enough $$ to buy one. So I merely resolved to be especially careful with that TT. All-in-all, a product I enjoyed.

I find it interesting that when linear trackers first came out, they were advertised as the next best thing to sliced bread. But look at what turntables are available today: not many linear trackers at all. I think the hype outweighed the benefits.

There was a company Finial something or other that had a laser-based turntable system a while ago. I believe they went out of business because the technology was too expensive to support the volume they needed to survive.

JWallace, thanks! Sound Guard was indeed the name of the record treatment system. As soon as I read your posting all kinds of memories of those days came back. It was a bit of a time consuming process, but it did protect the groves and definately reduced static and dust. I can still see the black box it came in. I have no idea where it is, probably ended up being thrown out when I ran out of solution and the CD craze hit, (it was expensive solutions compared to Discwasher). Thanks again.

Kevin,

I think the company with the turntable will have a hard time surviving if that is all they have on the plate. The ad was in the latest addition of Stereophile. The only other product the company advertised was a $1800 record cleaning machine. I really believe in record cleaning but not to the tune of $1800. May be a great product and a great cmpany but I am not familar with them and even when I was spending more on audio equipment than I do now I would not get a $10,000 turntable or a $1800 record cleaning system.

It is also a shame that I find the ads in Stereophile more interesting than the articles. My 25 year old copies were highly anticipated. They were not always on time and did not even ship monthly but I enjoyed them. Same with the Absolute Sound. But in my opinion they both sold out. Now it took a $1 a issue special to even get me to renew.

OFCCM- It's wierd because I am a recent subscriber to Stereophile (12-18 months), and I honestly ignore 90% of the text. But what I zero in on are the measurements. I think they do *some* of the best speaker reviews out there (along with Soundstage; they also do measurements, ... at the NRC in Canada! www,audiovideoreviews.com and look up the speaker reviews with the NRC logo next to them). I also have read a lot of letters to the editor at Stereophile, and makes me sad that I didn't become a subscriber earlier!


[This message has been edited by Kevin C Brown (edited July 17, 2003).]

I stopped subscribing to Stereophile when I found that Costco toilet paper was cheaper and softer to the touch (my wife appreciates that).

SH- I've found you just have to crinkle it up a bunch of times to get the paper soft enough...

But after a few crinkles, the ink comes off on your hands. Let's face it, guys, Stereophile really can be put to no good purpose unless you're trying to sell $10,000 CD demagnetizers or shakti stones.

[This message has been edited by boblinds (edited July 18, 2003).]

My concern was the ink rubbing off on another, less accessible area

Speaking of crap, Tell that you did not enjoy Steroephile and AS 25 years ago when they would listen to a piece of junk and tell you it sounded like crap despite the Advertising $$$ they might lose. I first noticed a change when they nailed a paticular Bob Carver product and he pulled all his adveritising and started a campaign for others to do the same. He may have even sued them but I am not sure. But they compromised and the road to Hades began. BTW I am not knocking Carver's products I have had a few of them in the past and thought they were pretty good for that era of equipment (Phase Linear for one). He also made a very sensitive tuner. Not as good as the older Macs but nice.

I used to read Stereophile 25 years ago, and yes, they were much better then. Audio magazine was also good back in the olden days before it started loosing it's identity, and finally dying off altogether.

I miss Audio magazine very much.

I agree that Stereophile was much better than it is now. I noted a rapid descent towards commercialism and mediocrity when they were bought by a big magazine chain.

I remember the Carver (bad review) fiasco. If any advertiser stops advertising in a magazine because of a bad review, it shows that the company was expecting a good review BECAUSE of the advertisements placed in (and revenue going to) that magazine.

A strong influence as to why I continue to subscribe to Stereophile is the low cost for a two or three year subscription. Plus the pretty graphs and stuff. Also, reading about a $1000 or more interconnect (per meter) or power cord just cracks me up!

If P.T. Barnum were alive today, he'd have a job selling or making "audiophile grade" accessories. A very successful job.

Paul

------------------
the 1derful1

I was formerly editor in chief of two national computer magazines for Ziff-Davis. I won't go into a rant here, but ...

Editors do get pressure from their publishers to kiss advertiser ass in print. A good editor fights the publisher sometimes at risk of his job.

But it's a stupid advertiser who pulls their ads because of a negative but honest (important concept: honest) review because:

A.) If the magazine has a large and viable readership, no ads means no visibility among their target customer base, and

B.) If the editors are disreputable enough to let YOU buy them with ads, they're also going to write good things about the crappy products your competition manufactures.

Even so, stupidity rules; hence, the current state of consumer electronics magazines.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by 73Bruin:
[B]Does anyone have or did have any of the tone arms that tracked the record horizontally?

I have an old technics linear drive turntable if that is what you mean by horizontal. The arm is attached to a linear drive rail which is built into the cover. When this cover is raised, the arm is lifted from the disc. It has operated flawlessly for many years - (until my 950 arrived without a phone preamp - now it lives under my bed !)
I'd love to hook her back up though, so what are you guys all using for phono preamps?