can turntables really sound that good???

[davidb1]

Really entertaining thread!
The most realistic system I have heard so far was in 1975- a pair of Magneplanars, they had 3 huge panels each. Playing a full orchestra, they were scary at times. However, in the same listening room was a pair of Dahlquist DQ-10's. Those sounded more "real" with Cat Stevens' voice.
I ended up with ADS 810's from that store.

Years later, I had the pleasure of listening to a friend play a full size upright acoustic bass. He had a small apartment and rarely was able to play loud. I don't believe any speaker could give the quite the degree of "woodyness" and bow noise and string noise and finger noise.

 

[62sunbeam]

What they all said and this:

Get a good clean copy of a well recorded LP and a good quality CD of the same.

(Keep near mint copies of Steely Dan Gaucho and Pink Floyd Animals for doing exactly this)

A and B the two and if the CD sounds better you need to work on your TT setup.
Possibly it needs better damping or isolation or a better cart or a new stylus. Maybe different loading of the cart or higher quality leads or if your receiver or if pre is older the phono stage might need recapping.

However, if the CD lacks the detail you seek speaker placement or general condition of your amplifier might be an issue.

Generally a good quality LP will outshine a CD easily on any system if your TT and cart are set up properly.

Your system will only ever sound as good as it can given the above considerations as well as room acoustics.

Also, Tracking test LPs help a lot in setting up TTs and can be had for less than $10 in most good used record stores.

Have fun.

Good luck.

 

[WmAx]

Sunbeam, I'm sorry, but comparing a CD and LP is no way a correct way to determine things. I have heard many LPs that sound better than the CD, and vice versa. It comes down to the master used to cut the version, and these can often be different.

If one takes a LP analog output, feeds it to a decent quality 44.1/16 ADC-DAC delay line set to minimum delay to act simply as a conversion device, one will not be able to determine the difference if they compared directly, the analog and digitized version, and using randomized blinded testing. This has been done time and time again, even on analog master tape in studios using respectable speakers, and only random guessing has occured in controlled conditions. Now, this does not apply to improperly functioning or simply badly designed ADC-DAC loops, which also exist apparently according to my investigation. But it's not difficult to measure/analyze the set up to ensure it is operating properly(though almost no one does this when doing these comparisons ironically).

What they all said and this:

Get a good clean copy of a well recorded LP and a good quality CD of the same.

(Keep near mint copies of Steely Dan Gaucho and Pink Floyd Animals for doing exactly this)

A and B the two and if the CD sounds better you need to work on your TT setup.
Possibly it needs better damping or isolation or a better cart or a new stylus. Maybe different loading of the cart or higher quality leads or if your receiver or if pre is older the phono stage might need recapping.

However, if the CD lacks the detail you seek speaker placement or general condition of your amplifier might be an issue.

Generally a good quality LP will outshine a CD easily on any system if your TT and cart are set up properly.

Your system will only ever sound as good as it can given the above considerations as well as room acoustics.

Also, Tracking test LPs help a lot in setting up TTs and can be had for less than $10 in most good used record stores.

Have fun.

Good luck.

 

[62sunbeam]

WmAx I agree with you completely but what I was getting at is that it seems the OP has HIS system set up in a way that neither source would reproduce well on but the TT is going to be hampered even more so by the fact that it's probably producing feedback from his speakers which are located on the same shelf.

The point I was trying to make is this: If a CD of well regarded quality sounds good on his sytem but an LP also of well regarded quality doesn't I'd suspect the TT setup.

If the CD fails to meet his expectations I'd look at the overall condition and setup of his system.

And not to belittle his system in any way but he did get the speakers out of the trash and the receiver was a thrift store find after all. ( do the speakers have crossovers that need to be recapped? Does the receiver need recapping or other service?)

The CD represents an acceptable audio standard that can be used as a benchmark for subjective comparison.

Basically: If I have one CD and I play it on all my friends systems and it sounds great on all but one I blame that one system not CD's in general.
Also if my FM tuner sounds really good and my CDs and DVDs do as well on my systems but everything I play on my TT falls flat I blame my TT or something associated with it.

I personally like to use Steely Dan records and CDs when comparing TTs because I know them to be well recorded, produced and manufactured.

I also recommend Cartridge setup LPs as a great way to bot setup and evaluate a TT.

I'm just saying.

Eric

Sunbeam, I'm sorry, but comparing a CD and LP is no way a correct way to determine things. I have heard many LPs that sound better than the CD, and vice versa. It comes down to the master used to cut the version, and these can often be different.

If one takes a LP analog output, feeds it to a decent quality 44.1/16 ADC-DAC delay line set to minimum delay to act simply as a conversion device, one will not be able to determine the difference if they compared directly, the analog and digitized version, and using randomized blinded testing. This has been done time and time again, even on analog master tape in studios using respectable speakers, and only random guessing has occured in controlled conditions. Now, this does not apply to improperly functioning or simply badly designed ADC-DAC loops, which also exist apparently according to my investigation. But it's not difficult to measure/analyze the set up to ensure it is operating properly(though almost no one does this when doing these comparisons ironically).

 

[131east23]

I just want what the artist intended, meaning I don't expect a "live" sound from my studio albums, just a well engineered masterpiece (rare). Listening is at times like watching a great movie, in that you must suspend a bit of reality to get hooked into the plot. Sometimes, just closing your eyes is enough and I have found, even on my meager system, that there is a soundstage but right now not quite as deep (forward to back) as I would like, even on well engineered albums. More speaker placement experiments are needed as well as a new or upgraded pre-amp/phono-stage...

 

[woodj]

The Quest for the "live" experience

Would be the parent(s) of High Fidelity at it's inception. Stereophonic sound was conceived to enhance that experience. True HiFi equipment did it as well as could be expected from recording, fixing and replaying the material (the quest goes on). Vinyl seems to have preserved the pitch, tone and timbre of original material better than others (i.e. tape hiss (on home tape equipment and small tapes) removed with dolby - modifying the sound, digital - ? of timbre reproduction etc.). Trade offs w/vinyl include noise from the stylus rubbing on the surface combined w/dirt.

But in the mid 60s, another phenomena was injected. Before that time recordings (either made in studios, concert halls, basements or garages) came from high quality tape equipment and these were tweaked, cleaned, cut and pressed by record manufacturers. But then, with new mixing and remodeling equipment even some awful sounding performers could sound good (don't get me wrong, the better sounding performers still sounded great).

In time, it was expected that the live performances sound like the recordings rather than the other way around.

So, the performers began to bring their engineers, mixers, and audio amplification equipment on stage so that they would sound like their recordings.

And the quest goes on.

 

[WmAx]

I just wanted to clarify, when I think of and speak of live sound, I mean non-amplified natural acoustic space and sound properties. No PA system of any quality has ever sounded satisfactory to me.

Would be the parent(s) of High Fidelity at it's inception. Stereophonic sound was conceived to enhance that experience. True HiFi equipment did it as well as could be expected from recording, fixing and replaying the material (the quest goes on). Vinyl seems to have preserved the pitch, tone and timbre of original material better than others (i.e. tape hiss (on home tape equipment and small tapes) removed with dolby - modifying the sound, digital - ? of timbre reproduction etc.). Trade offs w/vinyl include noise from the stylus rubbing on the surface combined w/dirt.

But in the mid 60s, another phenomena was injected. Before that time recordings (either made in studios, concert halls, basements or garages) came from high quality tape equipment and these were tweaked, cleaned, cut and pressed by record manufacturers. But then, with new mixing and remodeling equipment even some awful sounding performers could sound good (don't get me wrong, the better sounding performers still sounded great).

In time, it was expected that the live performances sound like the recordings rather than the other way around.

So, the performers began to bring their engineers, mixers, and audio amplification equipment on stage so that they would sound like their recordings.

And the quest goes on.

 

[catman]

G'day all, I'm sorry but I missed the point about 'live' sound in the original thread post. This is in fact quite interesting as up until quite recently I was a regular attendee to live (acoustic) concerts at various well designed (acoustically) venues and my perception is that a good vinyl playback system can come very close, but can never quite equal the sound quality of a live performance.

In fact in some respects recorded music sounds 'better' than the real thing, in a sense. For example, stereo imaging. I have seen orchestra's performing live where the apparent 'stereo effect' was only just detectable despite being seated roughly midway! On recordings, the 'stereo' imaging always appears to be more apparent, possibly for obvious reasons.

I think the sense of that wonderful acoustic 'ambience' is probably best in a live performance. This is probably a function of the acoustic environment in the venue to a large extent. Often also I have noted a sense of musical 'fluidity' and 'effortlessness' that seems to be inherent in live performance, but is rarer in vinyl playback, but not impossible. In the end, I always take the sound of a live performance as 'reference' and electronic recordings and playback can only hope to approach it, hopefully very closely. Regards, Felix aka catman.