Achieving much better sound could be just one component away :)

[markie]

I thought you guys would be amused, and perhaps intrigued, by something I just found on AudioCircle. A guy has a sweet rig, including vinyl and tubes. But he finds that music coming through his cablebox of all things puts it all to shame! Why exactly this at would be is a still a mystery. But it tells me something is wrong somewhere in the chain, because his system *should* sound better than his cablebox!

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=121535

It also goes to show that reasonably conscious people are not slaves to expectation bias!

Mark

[GirgleMirt]

Define 'better'... Better is subjective right?

As for me I'm not surprised. Vinyl and tube technology is rather ancient now. It's funny when you think about it, that in audio some still think it's better than current technology. LOL

What I find surprising is that someone who seems to have been quite into vinyl and tubes has the honesty to admit that his vinyls and tubes actually might sound worse than digital and solid state. Most don't have that intellectual integrity and the fact that they've wasted thousands of dollars is far too frightening to admit. So they'd just reject that possibility.

[markie]

For sure, better is subjective when it comes to appreciation of audio. But when the vast majority of listeners say something is better, then, well, we can pretty much say it is just ... better.

In the case of the person who posted that his cablebox sounded better, it was such a noticeably positive difference that I have very little doubt that the vast majority of listeners would agree with his assessment if they were to listen for themselves. An assumption on my part.

I happen to believe that the great majority of people *do* have the integrity to admit when something sounds much better to them than their own prized system, even if it costs much less.

Mark

[GirgleMirt]

Define 'better'...

For sure, better is subjective when it comes to appreciation of audio. But when the vast majority of listeners say something is better, then, well, we can pretty much say it is just ... better.

You've not really defined 'better', looks to me like you've done more of an appeal to the masses rather than define what 'better' actually is. "Argumentum ad populum", it's a logical fallacy.

Popular does not mean it's better. For instance, B053 or Monster are more popular than Ascend. Does that mean they're better? If by better you mean they've sold more units then ok... But that's not 'better'.

I happen to believe that the great majority of people *do* have the integrity to admit when something sounds much better to them than their own prized system, even if it costs much less.

I disagree. I believe most vinyl/tube audiophiles would not allow themselves to prefer digital/ss above tubes/vinyls. Just like Apple iCrap, Monster Beats, etc., it's often a status/fashion statement more than actual performance. If it's analog it's better, either you know this or you're lower-class and/or not a true audiophile.

I'd bet a thousand bucks that in a DBT test, a listener couldn't tell the difference between the same mix played on a vinyl pressing vs a WAV file with added snaps/crackles/pops & EQ'd as to match the vinyl+turntable FR aberrations.

It's the same thing as when people taste wine, the most expensive wine always comes out on top, even when they're drinking cheap wine, just the fact that the bottle is labeled 50$ instead of 7$ makes it taste a lot better.

[Harro]

It's the same thing as when people taste wine, the most expensive wine always comes out on top, even when they're drinking cheap wine, just the fact that the bottle is labeled 50$ instead of 7$ makes it taste a lot better.

You mean that guy on the side of the road selling me wine for 100.00 in a cardboard container stating it was the best, really was only grape juice? :P

[dislocatedday]

I'd bet a thousand bucks that in a DBT test, a listener couldn't tell the difference between the same mix played on a vinyl pressing vs a WAV file with added snaps/crackles/pops & EQ'd as to match the vinyl+turntable FR aberrations.
[/I].

There are too many generalizations being thrown about in this thread. The debates about 'vinyl/analog' vs' 'digital' happen all too frequently with the threads often turning into a 'us' against 'them' (..not saying that happens in this forum, but other forums it does..).

Referring to anyone as foolish and snobbish for enjoying and preferring the vinyl format to digital is itself a rather snobbish statement (just as any person who prefers vinyl looking down on a person who is all digital is snobbish).

The quoted statement above does not take into account 'mastering' differences between different versions of albums (the same mix, but different mastering and possibly different source tapes were used if it was originally an analog recording).

I have a vast collection of both vinyl and digital music (CDs, SACDs, DVD-As, BDs, and some downloads). I do not think vinyl is superior to digital or vice versa, but I do have many albums where the best mastering is the vinyl version. In these cases, the vinyl versions typically are not nearly as compressed as the CD or other digital versions. The statement about adding EQ to a digital version to match the vinyl and adding 'crackles and pops' would not account for any dynamic range compression differences. Those can't be undone.

[GirgleMirt]

Referring to anyone as foolish and snobbish for enjoying and preferring the vinyl format to digital is itself a rather snobbish statement (just as any person who prefers vinyl looking down on a person who is all digital is snobbish).

Is it really? There's as much vinyl fanboys as there are Apple, ****, Monster and other garbage. I've literally heard people scuff and walk out of audio rooms because there wasn't a turntable in a 50000$ system... Yet the same people had no issue listening to an very old and worn vinyl with ample artifacts. It's mental. It's like scoffing at a model with a pimple, then gushing over another with smallpox.

https://youtu.be/v9JQsXPd41U?t=1m30s

I'd bet a thousand bucks that in a DBT test, a listener couldn't tell the difference between the same mix played on a vinyl pressing vs a WAV file with added snaps/crackles/pops & EQ'd as to match the vinyl+turntable FR aberrations.

The quoted statement above does not take into account 'mastering' differences between different versions of albums (the same mix, but different mastering and possibly different source tapes were used if it was originally an analog recording).

Of course it doesn't... What is of interest is the actual quality of the medium; vinyl vs cd. There's no contention that the actual content of a medium might differ, but it's besides the point when considering the actual quality of the medium. Which is the entire point here. My contention is that most who praise vinyl for its superior audio qualities vs CDs are deluded, and that if you added snaps crackles and pops, messed with the FR, added distortion all the other negatives of vinyls to cd quality sound, only a minority, if even that, could tell the difference.

I have absolutely no issue with someone who says that he enjoys vinyl, and if it's because of better mixes, hard to find or non-available recordings, etc., I am 100% for it. My issue arises when people claim that it's better than cd. Better how? "It sounds better"... Oh really?

I have a vast collection of both vinyl and digital music (CDs, SACDs, DVD-As, BDs, and some downloads). I do not think vinyl is superior to digital or vice versa, but I do have many albums where the best mastering is the vinyl version. In these cases, the vinyl versions typically are not nearly as compressed as the CD or other digital versions. The statement about adding EQ to a digital version to match the vinyl and adding 'crackles and pops' would not account for any dynamic range compression differences. Those can't be undone.

Of course, and the opposite is true too. If you have a worse recording/mastering/mixing on a vinyl than you have on a CD, the CD will clearly sound better. But that's beside the point of the actual medium. A vinyl degrades with each play. What is the % of pristine records in your average vinyl collection? It usually takes less than 1 second to differentiate a vinyl from a cd because of all the noise & artifacts of a vinyl... It's not a subtle difference...

Sure, if you have a 10000$ turntable, it doesn't damage the vinyl as much as if you have a normal turntable, and it doesn't sound as bad as a 500$ turntable, yadda yadda... Point is a 100$ Sony cd player can play the same CD 500 times and it'll sound exactly the same as on the 1st play... And the 100$ cd player will sound cleaner than vinyl... And seriously, if the source; the vinyl, isn't pristine, wtf is the point of the high end turntable? It's like getting the RAAL towers and using this + radio as a source...

Seriously, how can some argue that vinyl is superior to cd? It's ridiculous...

[GirgleMirt]

lol, u dont want to know where that bitterness came from

It's always surprising, the tube thing also spread other places. Guitar for example, so many guitarists so deeply believe tubes sound better, some companies included tubes on some pedals where the tubes weren't even part of the circuit... Simply there for guitarists to believe they were analog and so better sounding than ss...

Another 1000$ wager I'd do; real tube amp vs solid state with tube modeling. I'd bet nobody could tell them apart...

[petmotel]

Yep, add a pair of Ascend speakers, and you're there! Oh wait that might be two components?

Jay

[markie]

Speaking of two components, today I read an article at cnet which asked the question : can it pay off to get separates (amps + processor) instead of a single receiver? Steve Guttenburg thinks it does, at least in the case he evaluated. Oddly, the two Emotiva components were exactly the same two I'm planning on getting.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-57...eivers-part-2/

As the Ascend speakers get more revealing, the upstream components become that much more important.

Mark