Keith Levenberg
Keith Levenberg
The source is what was going on in the recording studio. The player is just a conduit.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
A nice budget small scale audiophile stereo set up for those of you who want to jump in
- Thread starter BJ
- Start date
Thank you Jason, Brad, Keith, Pete, and Yixin for your input.
With respect to my room, I live in a fairly small studio/efficiency space right now, so I am guessing a high end system will probably be unnecessary overkill. But, I definitely want to upgrade from my current setup, which is basically just a cheap, portable turntable I bought when I first got into buying used vinyl.
I'm actually thinking of following Brad's setup in his original post, and maybe upping one of the components with something better and than getting whatever he recommended for the other components.
Basically, the vast majority of my vinyl albums are indie rock/pop albums, with some jazz, blues, and classical sprinkled in (mainly jazz).
Funny enough, the one genre in which I buy CDs is classical, primarily because there is some more bang for the buck there than with popular or jazz IMO (all the double CD compilations for $15). But, I got a CD player right now which I can plug into my new setup once I get it.
With respect to my room, I live in a fairly small studio/efficiency space right now, so I am guessing a high end system will probably be unnecessary overkill. But, I definitely want to upgrade from my current setup, which is basically just a cheap, portable turntable I bought when I first got into buying used vinyl.
I'm actually thinking of following Brad's setup in his original post, and maybe upping one of the components with something better and than getting whatever he recommended for the other components.
Basically, the vast majority of my vinyl albums are indie rock/pop albums, with some jazz, blues, and classical sprinkled in (mainly jazz).
Funny enough, the one genre in which I buy CDs is classical, primarily because there is some more bang for the buck there than with popular or jazz IMO (all the double CD compilations for $15). But, I got a CD player right now which I can plug into my new setup once I get it.
Eden Mylunsch
Eden Mylunsch
But if you don't enjoy great music regardless of how it's reproduced, then it is just a numbers game.
But that's no different than my plastic surgeon who is "into" wine. He's got a beautiful cellar filled with wines that got high scores from The Loire Schnauzer back when reading dog-boy's newsletter was de rigueur for the trenchermen. As far as he's concerned, the doc is drinking chardonnay and cabernet sauvignon because he doesn't know any better, nor does he care. He does know points and he likes to call wines "smooooooth" in a Barry White tone of voice to impress the ladies
He's probably even using Riedel Grand Cru White Burgundy stems to drink his Huet out of (ha!)! (extra exclamation), thinking that it's White Burgundy. But he doesn't mind and his guests don't mind. They all get a kick out of drinking all these wines that got a high score from someone, whether it's Wilfred Wong or Jay Miller.
As geeky as I am about stereo stuff, I appreciate that it's about the music. So even if you're "listening to the wrong turntables", at least you're listening.
-Eden (at least the audience is listening).
But that's no different than my plastic surgeon who is "into" wine. He's got a beautiful cellar filled with wines that got high scores from The Loire Schnauzer back when reading dog-boy's newsletter was de rigueur for the trenchermen. As far as he's concerned, the doc is drinking chardonnay and cabernet sauvignon because he doesn't know any better, nor does he care. He does know points and he likes to call wines "smooooooth" in a Barry White tone of voice to impress the ladies
He's probably even using Riedel Grand Cru White Burgundy stems to drink his Huet out of (ha!)! (extra exclamation), thinking that it's White Burgundy. But he doesn't mind and his guests don't mind. They all get a kick out of drinking all these wines that got a high score from someone, whether it's Wilfred Wong or Jay Miller.
As geeky as I am about stereo stuff, I appreciate that it's about the music. So even if you're "listening to the wrong turntables", at least you're listening.
-Eden (at least the audience is listening).
originally posted by BJ:
Well, we just showed the gang the world of audio is worse even than the world of wine in geekdom.
I listen to music, not numbers.
If you can't hear the difference between a $200 turntable and a $500 turntable, you're listening to the wrong turntables.
The difference is there, granted. But I would rather spend the extra $300 on an amp (with phono input) - that's my point. Cheaper amps really, really muck up the music.
And I'm not that geeky, but I noticed a lot more difference between cartridges than turntables.
Keith Levenberg
Keith Levenberg
If anyone's interested in trying out some 24-bit digital audio, the code "peachtree2011" gets you 20% off at hdtracks.com through today.
The main limiting factor in digital isn't file size, it's the DAC, whether it's outboard or inboard on a CD player. A bigger file size (I'm talking here about the newest jump) doesn't make a difference unless you are at the high end, regardless. At least to my ear.
Yixin, I just disagree with you. We're talking in generalities (as if it's just a matter of cost, which it's not) about where to put resources. But I can think of a bunch of $200 amps/receivers I'd be reasonably happy with, and no $200 turntables I'd be happy with.
One thing shared between the world of audio and wine: Knowledge is gained in the end by experience. At the end of the day it takes a lot of drinking or listening to be discriminating. A few listens here and there don't do it, just as reading reviews doesn't teach you about wine.
Yixin, I just disagree with you. We're talking in generalities (as if it's just a matter of cost, which it's not) about where to put resources. But I can think of a bunch of $200 amps/receivers I'd be reasonably happy with, and no $200 turntables I'd be happy with.
One thing shared between the world of audio and wine: Knowledge is gained in the end by experience. At the end of the day it takes a lot of drinking or listening to be discriminating. A few listens here and there don't do it, just as reading reviews doesn't teach you about wine.
Dan Donahue
Dan Donahue
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
If anyone's interested in trying out some 24-bit digital audio, the code "peachtree2011" gets you 20% off at hdtracks.com through today.
Thanks Keith. I'll take a look.
I probably have 30 SACD disks (Hyperion, Bis, Chandos classical releases). Most released 10 years ago. I've never invested in a quality SACD player so I really can't judge quality level against, say, RtR which for me was the high point of recorded sound. My DVD player has SACD capability and the sound quality is different than the red book layer, usually "better" but not always (of course that could relate to certain decisions made in the studio). At this point not enough is being released to cause me to make the investment in a stand alone player.
My last Rotel CD player supported the HDCD format. So does its recent replacement, but I didn't realize it until about 3 months after purchase when a tiny LED I hadn't noticed before lit up half way through a Decca compilation release.
Keith Levenberg
Keith Levenberg
Well, yes and no, I think. The difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96 isn't just file size, you're also talking about greater dynamic range. (The equivalent in digital imagery would be not only increasing the pixel resolution, but also increasing the number of colors.) No doubt it's wasted if you're not using a good DAC, for sure. As for whether you can hear the difference - hard to say. I'd say it probably falls into the category of sometimes you can and sometimes you can't, so it's nice to have the capability just in case. If you can perceive the (supposed!) higher fidelity of vinyl over 16/44.1 digital, I don't see any reason you wouldn't perceive the higher fidelity of 24/96 over 16/44.1.originally posted by BJ:
The main limiting factor in digital isn't file size, it's the DAC, whether it's outboard or inboard on a CD player. A bigger file size (I'm talking here about the newest jump) doesn't make a difference unless you are at the high end, regardless. At least to my ear.
99.9% of my music is still at 16/44.1, but when the gap in price and convenience narrows I will probably make an effort to upgrade those recordings where a marginal improvement in sound quality would actually be meaningful to me.
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
If anyone's interested in trying out some 24-bit digital audio, the code "peachtree2011" gets you 20% off at hdtracks.com through today.
Sweet. Thanks!
I should revise what I said above re amps and turntables at $200. What I meant more is that I think there are any number of $200 amps that would show off a a good $500 turntable reasonably well, but I don't think the reverse is true. And I actually think you can put a very fun listenable turntable based system together these days for $300-400, if you're very strategic.
I go back to my original receiver recommendation - a solid, non abused $100 Advent 300 off ebay, which is renowned even in certain culty little circles for its phono pre-amp, would actually sound pretty damn good with a VPI Scout or restored TD124 or 125 or LP12 (not that I would recommend such an imbalanced system), whereas a budget Technics with a cheap cartridge played through a Supernait or whathaveyou is going to sound like, well, a budget Technics.
I go back to my original receiver recommendation - a solid, non abused $100 Advent 300 off ebay, which is renowned even in certain culty little circles for its phono pre-amp, would actually sound pretty damn good with a VPI Scout or restored TD124 or 125 or LP12 (not that I would recommend such an imbalanced system), whereas a budget Technics with a cheap cartridge played through a Supernait or whathaveyou is going to sound like, well, a budget Technics.
originally posted by JasonA:
Blame Napsteroriginally posted by Ned Hoey:
originally posted by Dan Donahue:
but the trend seems to be toward crappier sound rather than better.
I blame Steve Jobs!
Just to clarify, I hold Jobs most responsible. Napster was over before most people even had broadband. Also the scale of Jobs influence was far greater, he could have undone what Napster started. iTunes and the ipod sealed the fate HiRez audio. That cost alone really, in relation to processor speed, data storage capacity, bandwidth availability and the late arrival of lossless compression allowed lossy formats to strangle HiRez lossless in it's crib, is a shame.
originally posted by Yixin:
And I'm not that geeky, but I noticed a lot more difference between cartridges than turntables.
Totally.
All the pieces of a system contribute but not equally, In a vinyl system, the greatest contributor is the cartridge. It would be reasonable and effective to spend as much on that as the turntable itself. In a system overall, I'd say, the speakers. As the final transducer moving the air waves that reach your ear, their contribution is the most significant. Nothing will change/improve the sound of a boombox more than connecting better speakers to it. Plugging in a 15k CD player (assuming it had a line input) would do very little to improve what you heard, comparatively.
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
Well, yes and no, I think. The difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96 isn't just file size, you're also talking about greater dynamic range. (The equivalent in digital imagery would be not only increasing the pixel resolution, but also increasing the number of colors.) No doubt it's wasted if you're not using a good DAC, for sure. As for whether you can hear the difference - hard to say. I'd say it probably falls into the category of sometimes you can and sometimes you can't, so it's nice to have the capability just in case. If you can perceive the (supposed!) higher fidelity of vinyl over 16/44.1 digital, I don't see any reason you wouldn't perceive the higher fidelity of 24/96 over 16/44.1.originally posted by BJ:
The main limiting factor in digital isn't file size, it's the DAC, whether it's outboard or inboard on a CD player. A bigger file size (I'm talking here about the newest jump) doesn't make a difference unless you are at the high end, regardless. At least to my ear.
99.9% of my music is still at 16/44.1, but when the gap in price and convenience narrows I will probably make an effort to upgrade those recordings where a marginal improvement in sound quality would actually be meaningful to me.
I just am sick of people getting excited about the new format, and then when I ask them what their setup is, I have yet to find someone who would have a good enough system to actually hear the difference.
originally posted by Ned Hoey:
originally posted by JasonA:
Blame Napsteroriginally posted by Ned Hoey:
originally posted by Dan Donahue:
but the trend seems to be toward crappier sound rather than better.
I blame Steve Jobs!
Just to clarify, I hold Jobs most responsible. Napster was over before most people even had broadband. Also the scale of Jobs influence was far greater, he could have undone what Napster started. iTunes and the ipod sealed the fate HiRez audio. That cost alone really, in relation to processor speed, data storage capacity, bandwidth availability and the late arrival of lossless compression allowed lossy formats to strangle HiRez lossless in it's crib, is a shame.
And video killed the radio star...
originally posted by BJ:
I just am sick of people getting excited about the new format, and then when I ask them what their setup is, I have yet to find someone who would have a good enough system to actually hear the difference.
What I get tired of, and the reason that I never dreamed of calling myself an audiophile or hanging out with those that did, is the people who put the technology ahead of the music itself. Like Eden, I love music first and foremost, and I love getting a quality reproduction of it at home. None of this has ever replaced the experience of hearing it live, nor do I have any expectation that it ever will. I also used to silently laugh at those "audiophiles" who spent scads of money getting the best dynamic range and flat responses on their home stereos just so that they could play AC/DC or the Doobie Brothers on it. It's not only the source technology but also the dynamic compression in the recording studio and the musical style itself that dictate how geeky one should get about technology. As for the vinyl vs. CD debate, I am all too much reminded of the tube vs. transistor debates of a generation ago.
Mark Lipton
Now, anyone for a good knockdown-dragout about corks vs. screwcaps?
originally posted by MLipton:
What I get tired of is the people who put the technology ahead of the music itself. Like Eden, I love music first and foremost, and I love getting a quality reproduction of it at home.
It's not only the source technology but also the dynamic compression in the recording studio and the musical style itself that dictate how geeky one should get about technology.
Mark Lipton
That's why I collect "natural" recordings of live performances. Two high quality microphones and recorder. You get the vintage and the terroir sans all that spoof.
I also used to silently laugh at those "audiophiles" who spent scads of money getting the best dynamic range and flat responses on their home stereos just so that they could play AC/DC or the Doobie Brothers on it.
I've gotten so sick of all the Skynyrd BJ is always playin' I pretty much don't go over there anymore.