[sdiy] Nifty Slider/Fader alert

[Ralph Karsten]

Alright,

You had to know that I couldn't just sit here and see this stuff without saying *something*.

So far, the state of the art in digital:

MSB for redbook and DVDA
Accuphase for SACD

-falls well short of the not so state of the art in LP.

The idea that LP has nowhere to go is ridiculous. Why? LPs are mastered on amplifiers and there's a lot of room for improvements in amplifiers. Checkout:

http://atma-sphere.com/products/ma3.html

-and you will see what I mean. Try using one of these for mastering. If you did, it would be the first time that an output transformerless amplifier had been used for LP mastering. This fact is beyond dispute.

Some years back I heard a very impressive digital 5 channel mastertape (1/2inch reel to reel) that Sony did at CES. For the first time in 20 years of Digital Winter, I heard a sound that *finally* did not have me acutly aware of the colorations that plague digital audio. The sound was natural and the usual digital harshness was gone.

Two years later the Sony SACD of the same recording arrived. Gone was the relaxed qualities that I mentioned above. Why? Mastering, obviously, but if one digs further, one finds that Sony has been busy shooting themselves in the foot with the SACD format the same way they did with Betamax.

EQ systems that are not needed, additional DSp functions that are not needed, and a contract with all SACD manufacturers that requires use of the Sony chipset with all these built-in limitations.

SACD *should* be better then redbook, but the best of redbook playback (current MSB holds that distinction) is actually better. LP still stomps that, nothing for it. 

On this subject, it is best not to make two common mistakes that I have seen in this thread: Just because you mistreated your LPs does not mean the format is faulty, and just because you use inferior playback techniques (bad turntable, poor preamplification, godaweful squalid-state amps :)  does not mean the CDs are better. 
To make a statement otherwise without a decent reference system is highly suspect at the least and ludicrous at worse.

Kinda the difference between the Nord Lead 3 and a Prophet 5. One has amazing features and capabilities, but sounds like hell. The other is arcane, limited and perhaps quaint in its technique, but sounds awesome.  

I for one would love to see digital work right. In the last 25 years a lot of serious progress has been made- I can finally find playback units that I can listen to without an instant headache- in fact I can listen all day. No doubt its sucking me in. But better then LP? Nah.

-Ralph

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 12:29:03 -0400
harrybissell <harrybissell at prodigy.net> wrote:

> 
> > A basic test is that CD will reveal imperfections in master tapes from the
> > 60s and 70s, while vinyl often disguises them. The latter may sound nicer,
> > but it sure as hell isn't accurate reproduction. If you want nice, then
> > obviously vinyl is the 'best'. But it's a very contingent and limited best
> > and - as I said - it's not going to get any better, while digital still has
> > quite a lot of quality headroom to explore.
[snip]