Vinyl and seperates

[MacManNM]

In this age of Digital dog doo, I dont understand how any of you people can sit there and say these high tech recievers (computers) can even come close to pure 2 chan stereo played on high quality gear. I would challenge anyone to come up with a 5 chan system that can image better than a good pair of old fashoned American speakers playing pure music from an analog source.

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

You cannot beat tubed separates with a good peice of vinyl. I can't argue with you there. I do have to question your setup though. Are you happy with it?

 

[MacManNM]

My setup? What is there to question? Yours needs questioned. Do those polks actually play any music below 70Hz? If they do, you sure dont have enough power to find out.

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

You must have rented a time machine to buy that setup. My Polks play a mean 35hz. Enough to bother my cats man. I like your BIC center channel. Did you redo the crossovers? Too bad you don't have the rest of the BIC setup. Dust out those cobwebs while you're at it.

 

[MacManNM]

35Hz? With my MQ 101 my room response is flat 20-20KHz. Time machine, maybe but its better than anything out there today. At least the rated power of my amp is truly the output and THD is a real number, not like the crap recievers out there today, .001% THD rated at 1 watt output, push it to 10 watts and THD jumps to 10%

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

Nice avatar. You are old school. Vinyl rules. I should post my Pioneer direct drive turntable with the auti-resonance arm under my equipment. Wonder how many audioholics still have one of those lying around? Wonder how many actually know what a good stylus costs, or is for that matter!

 

[zumbo]

Don't make me bust out my Soundesign all-in-one, complete with 8-track!

 

[mtrycrafts]

In this age of Digital dog doo,

Huh???


I dont understand how any of you people can sit there and say these high tech recievers (computers) can even come close to pure 2 chan stereo played on high quality gear.

Not rocket science. As long ago as the 1930s, Bell Labs demonstrated at least 3 speakers up front is needed. Only problem is that their technology could not deliver it to the home until recently.
2 speakers just cannot reproduce the soundstage of multi channel delivery. Old audio mythology that it can.

I would challenge anyone to come up with a 5 chan system that can image better than a good pair of old fashoned American speakers playing pure music from an analog source.

You made the claim, you demonstrate your hypothesis.

 

[MacManNM]

Not rocket science. As long ago as the 1930s, Bell Labs demonstrated at least 3 speakers up front is needed. Only problem is that their technology could not deliver it to the home until recently.
2 speakers just cannot reproduce the soundstage of multi channel delivery. Old audio mythology that it can.


if this is true then your saying the technology to make a 3 ch recording didn't exist until recently? How did they figure it out then? My C28 has a center chan output. With proper room acoustics and placement of speakers, the soundstage will sound infinite with a good 2 ch system.



You made the claim, you demonstrate your hypothesis.[/
No hypothesis needed, I'll put my XR16's and an old pioneer reciever (70's vintage which i can get both in excellent condition for under $400) against any 3 ch setup you can buy today for 3-4x the cost.

 

[MacManNM]

Nice avatar. You are old school. Vinyl rules. I should post my Pioneer direct drive turntable with the auti-resonance arm under my equipment. Wonder how many audioholics still have one of those lying around? Wonder how many actually know what a good stylus costs, or is for that matter!

I'm sure your right. A digital waveform CANNOT sound as true as an analog waveform. There is sampling error, heck you can say a recording is 16 bits, but how many effective bits is it? more like 12 or 13.

 

[mtrycrafts]

if this is true then your saying the technology to make a 3 ch recording didn't exist until recently? My C28 has a center chan output. With proper room acoustics and placement of speakers, the soundstage will sound infinite with a good 2 ch system.

When did vinyl have 3 channels on it? or 2, for that matter? Discrete?
It was not amps or pre that had the limitations as you can line up any number in a row, but software.


No hypothesis needed, I'll put my XR16's and an old pioneer reciever (70's vintage which i can get both in excellent condition for under $400) against any 3 ch setup you can buy today for 3-4x the cost.

Actually, what is needed is three of those speakers with the two ch and 3 ch ability to be switched and behing acoustic curtins so you are not biased, then we can see which setup is more accurate, more realistic, etc.
Your proposal with different speakers will tell not much other than speaker differences. But, even that can be tested though, DBT, of course.

2 ch is history. It cannot capture nor reproduce what a multi channel can.
But, if you like the 2 ch, no problem.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I'm sure your right. A digital waveform CANNOT sound as true as an analog waveform. There is sampling error, heck you can say a recording is 16 bits, but how many effective bits is it? more like 12 or 13.


What? You are not listeing the the digital waveform from Cd or any digital software.
Digital data is actually more accurate than the limited analog ever can be. One only has to review the research and papers on this, not folklore, mythology and audio voodoo.

Oh, your analog is even less than the 12 or 13 bits you speculate about. You will find out when you dig into the technical papers, not internet voodoo.

 

[MacManNM]

When did vinyl have 3 channels on it? or 2, for that matter? Discrete?
It was not amps or pre that had the limitations as you can line up any number in a row, but software.

A 3 chan analog recording would reproduce music better than an encoded software enhanced recording.


Actually, what is needed is three of those speakers with the two ch and 3 ch ability to be switched and behing acoustic curtins so you are not biased, then we can see which setup is more accurate, more realistic, etc.
Your proposal with different speakers will tell not much other than speaker differences. But, even that can be tested though, DBT, of course.

2 ch is history. It cannot capture nor reproduce what a multi channel can.
But, if you like the 2 ch, no problem.

You have 2 ears, in a live performance the performer is playing in front of you, everything else you hear is caused by the enviorment surrounding you. Movies, i agree surround and multi chan is the way to go, but to reproduce music it dosnt work.

 

[MacManNM]

What? You are not listeing the the digital waveform from Cd or any digital software.
Digital data is actually more accurate than the limited analog ever can be. One only has to review the research and papers on this, not folklore, mythology and audio voodoo.

Oh, your analog is even less than the 12 or 13 bits you speculate about. You will find out when you dig into the technical papers, not internet voodoo.


How can you not be listening to the digital waveform? is it converted from 1's & 0's by magic? Any analog-digital or digital-analog conversion is limited by the analog bandwith of the digitizer, the sample rate, and the # of effective bits. 16 effective bits is a little over 5 orders of magnitude, or about 53 db. are you saying that you cant make an analog recording that has 53db of dynamic range?

 

[nibhaz]

I'm sure your right. A digital waveform CANNOT sound as true as an analog waveform. There is sampling error, heck you can say a recording is 16 bits, but how many effective bits is it? more like 12 or 13.

Do you mean the waveform created after that stylus goes around the vinyl for the very first time? Or do you mean the new waveform created each time the friction of the stylus changes the surface of the vinyl ever so slightly…and then overtime…what have you then? Must be perfection!

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

Are you going to argue with the guy who just slapped $8000 on this tonearm?

http://stereophile.com/analogsourcereviews/804kuzma/

 

[MacManNM]

Do you mean the waveform created after that stylus goes around the vinyl for the very first time? Or do you mean the new waveform created each time the friction of the stylus changes the surface of the vinyl ever so slightly…and then overtime…what have you then? Must be perfection!


I agree the music is corrupted every time the album is played. In that aspect digital is truly superior. If music was digitized at an adequate rate with GOOD digitizers, it would be a different story. Digitizer technology has grown by leaps and bounds since the 80's (when it was implemented in home audio) lets get with the program.

 

[nibhaz]

Are you going to argue with the guy who just slapped $8000 on this tonearm?

Sure why not? It's like arguing with somone who owns a 10k automatic Rolex and believes that it keeps better time than a 25 dollar Timex. No amount of money or denial will change the fact that the cheapest quartz based time piece will keep better time than the most expensive automatic. And so it is with esoteric audio...

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

Satisfaction is in the eye of the beholder.

Drop that Timex out your car door or take it down 300 meters, and we'll see which tells time better.

 

[MacManNM]

Sure why not? It's like arguing with somone who owns a 10k automatic Rolex and believes that it keeps better time than a 25 dollar Timex. No amount of money or denial will change the fact that the cheapest quartz based time piece will keep better time than the most expensive automatic. And so it is with esoteric audio...

So a set of emerson speakers sound as good as your B&W's?