the truth about vinyl

NotTheArrow

Member
Back then we didn't need subwoofers. Stereo speakers were designed to handle all the frequencies and a good pair of 3 way 12s or 3 way 16s would do it.
Speakers were intentionally designed to NOT have flat response like studio monitors do, in order to enhance the low end as well as make sure the center of the vocal range (1k) was not too pronounced or burried. And of course stereos came with a loudness control that was used to enhance frequencies that are lost during low volume listening.
Gear back then was great, it seems speaker makers and amp/receiver makers worked together so that the gear was all compatible.
I still have a pair of Realistic Optimus T-100 tower speakers that were nothing more than 2 10s and a tweeter, and the things could rattle the windows. They made speakers very efficient then, you didn't need 200 watts to drive them louder than you want, 35 watts would do the job nicely with a 5 band EQ. And if you had a 60 watt receiver and 4 efficient speakers, you couldn't stay in the room with it.
Also, now they try to make speakers like studio monitors, and studio monitors are tools, they are not for casual listening and sound like hell for home listening.

I used to put my turntables either on some kind of home made damper such as two pieces of plywood with foam between them, or a concrete or marble slab to isolate them and keep the rumble down. I also normally had it far enough away from the speakers that rumble type of feedback wasn't a problem until it was cranked up, which , the stone slab took care of that.

I know full well about the needle jumping from bass, I used an Audio Technica AT13EA cartridge and that thing would track at a gram, I always set it at a gram and a half. So I had to dampen the turntable with a slab. It didn't feed back too easily, but any minute shock would jog the needle out of the groove.
So you’re actually saying they made speakers better back in the day than they do now?
Hmmm
 
For those complaining of the rice crispies, you have never used a micro line (or similar type) needle in a high quality arm before.
 

Rockledge

Member
So you’re actually saying they made speakers better back in the day than they do now?
Hmmm
For the consumer market, FAR better, by leaps and bounds. Most of the technology used today in speakers relies heavily on the R&D done by companies making them during the rock era.
Or, in the case of Bose who were always the forerunners, kept on with R&D into todays technolgy.
Most people don't even realize that all of the surround sound satellite speaker systems with sub woofers was invented by Bose with their original Acoustamass system.
Most guys now don't even care about good home stereo gear, they just want little toys to hook up to their computers to listen on. Or ear buds.
Which, ear buds were an advance in technology that was more modern, the ability to make tiny speakers that can sound as if they are full range.
But that still doesn't hold a candle to the amazing sound of a pair of Realistic 3 way 15s hooked to a 1970s Marantz black face blue light receiver.
Or Bose 901s. Those things were amazing, but you had to have them set up in a rather large room in order to place them in exactly the right place to appreciate what they could do.
But believe me, nothing in the world has even come close to the massive concert hall sound a pair of 901s sounded like in a specially designed room for them. I feel fortunate to have experienced that back in the 70s, it is an experience I will never forget.

Nobody cares about any of that now, they just want little portable things and could care less about high fidelity and clarity. So speaker makers just do not focus on that kind of sound now.
Manufacturers only do what there is enough demand for to make it worth their while.

That is exactly why music gear made in the 70s is so highly priced now. It is the holy grail of listening pleasure, and one that has become rare enough to become valuable.
 

Thedude99

Member
I'm still not sure what to think about about the resurgence of vinyl.

I dated a girl in high school who's dad was heavily into the audiophile thing--this was early '80s--so I know there are people who take this seriously.

Still, I can't help feeling that a lot of the resurgence is vaguely ironic.
What I have seen in my age group (40’s) is a lot of people that were really into music in the CD era coming back around to vinyl.

We are the folks that used to dig through CD bins, buy our favourite bands albums the day it came out, have listening parties, etc.

When the mp3/Apple Music/Spotify/etc came along we moved to that. And while convenient - lost a lot of what made music special.

Vinyl is about reconnecting with that. Better sound, adding value back to the music, the social aspect of getting together with friends to throw albums on, spend a Saturday afternoon hitting up record stores.

Plus, even throughout the digital era, I’ve been one for supporting bands I go see by buying albums at their shows. I need a turntable to do that now
 

Thedude99

Member
For those complaining of the rice crispies, you have never used a micro line (or similar type) needle in a high quality arm before.
A good setup, a good brush and a record cleaner does trick. Listening to the XX right now (very sparse album with a lot of space) loudly and not a crackle, pop or hiss to be heard.

Unless I have records that are older that were mishandled - my setup is dead quiet.
 

Thedude99

Member
One thing I have been told by people far more knowledgeable in this space than myself is that the farther you get into audiophile territory - the less forgiving the setup is to the quality of vinyl.

For example - I was advised by my local audio dealer on needles to stick with the OM30 and not move to the OM40 - as the 40, while better sounding is far less forgiving.
 

jawajt

Member
Another happy vinyl collector here. :wave Like others, there are a few reasons I enjoy listening to records. I like how it makes me pay more attention and “be in the moment”. I love going over the liner notes, and seeing who played what parts. I like being able to see and really appreciate great cover art. Most importantly, I like supporting the artists. As hard as it is for musicians to make a living now, I just can’t bring myself to rely on Spotify or Apple Music to pay an artist fairly. If an artist I like has put in the effort and money to release an album on vinyl, I’ll almost always buy it, especially if they’re not some big national act.
As for sound quality: I don’t know that one format is necessarily “better” than the other. I will say there are definitely records that I’ve bought/heard after only ever hearing a digital version, and been shocked how much better they sounded. The MoFi versions of Beck’s “Sea Change” and Miles’ “Kind of Blue” immediately come to mind. Not too long ago, I scored an original pressing of the first Rage Against The Machine record. At the risk of sounding like a cliche or hyperbolic, it was like I was hearing it for the first time. Sounded amazing! And my system is hardly high end. However, it is vintage. I think the stereo equipment from the 60s and 70s, in general, was really well made and made to last. You don’t have to break the bank for a nice vinyl setup. Whenever someone comes to my place and sees my records and turntable, they often laugh. They then talk about how they don’t like the hiss and pops of records. But once they hear a clean record on a nice system, they realize how good it can sound. And despite what people may think, there are still lots of bands and studios that record to analog/tape. DapTone records, Drive-By Truckers, The War on Drugs, and Foo Fighters come to mind. Hell, Dave Grohl made a great documentary about the subject of analog recording.
Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate having tens of thousands of songs in my phone. It’s great in the car or at work. And there are fantastic DACs being made now. So it’s not like digital can’t sound amazing too. But when I’m home, nothing beats vinyl for me.
Another cool aspect about vinyl that I had forgotten about, is hanging out in record stores and chatting with shop owners and other shoppers about music and records. I love chatting with the guy at my local shop. He’s turned me on to some records, I may not have known about otherwise.
 

sandcastle

Member
There is room for both analogue and digital. I come down in the analogue camp, but understand that many people don't understand that there is room for both.
 
The one thing I don't miss about vinyl is the crackling sound.
That's why I only stick with mint or near-mint albums.

Here is what gets me. For the most part, you can find good quality vinyl used from 10 -20 bucks, it is a better quality than current pressing these days I have heard.
Where are you getting that from? There's tons of amazing pressings out there from high quality labels ; MFSL and Analogue Productions, for instance. Lots of terrific pressing plants like RTI, Pallas, et al. which are infinitely better than what was available in the pre-CD era.

Some in this thread claim they don't like static, pops, clicks. Yet, I see people go to record stores and buy the 3 dollar bin stuff. You would be better off using any other medium than to deal with skips pops, clicking and noisy record ride. Cleaning won't help in most cases. If you want to have maximum listening with albums, stay away from bargain bins for the most part. If they were better, they wouldn't be a bargain. AND PLEASE, don't give exemptions to the rule, I have bought great stuff at garage sales for a buck; good luck waiting for the next deal to appear.
Agreed 100%.

Cd’s were supposed to be far superior with their digital technology and the truth is they never lived up to it.
CDs absolutely have. They are in every way superior to vinyl. Bass is in stereo, better clarity, wider range of frequencies, ability to have as much bass as you want on a record without worrying that some guy's crappy tonearm will jump, etc.

However, there's far more than meets the eye about it. There are tons of different pressings of each album and the range in sound quality is quite wide from terrible to amazing. In the 80s, when CDs were released, albums were released onto CDs by taking the same mastering done for vinyl and merely digitizing this. Unfortunately, there was no RIAA equalization done for CDs so the albums typically sounded goosed in highs with no real body to the music leading to crystal clean sound and an unsatisfying experience. Once mastering engineers finally understood a whole different set of mastering rules would need to be used for digital, the same albums sounded a million times better.

Sound quality of albums has gotten worse and worse over time.
That has nothing to do with the medium but rather the mastering trends of the period. The ridiculous amount of compression and limiting artificially made the recordings sound congested and brashly loud. You'll notice that if you took an original first-year CD release of an album (pre-1990) and compared it to a much-touted "Remastered" version released in the mid-to-late 1990s that the latter will sound much much louder. This process limits dynamic range which accounts for how the song breathes. Cutting DR makes everything sound lifeless and dull. It's loud and obnoxious. Unfortunately, this also has the consequence of inducing ear fatigue. Before I knew all this stuff, I didn't quite understand why I listened to music for hours on end with no problem in my early teens but couldn't listen to 1h straight without wanting to lower the volume and eventually turn off the stereo. That's why.

Using any tool to the extreme is usually not a good thing. To moot, some albums' DR is so restricted that the term "brickwalled" was coined to refer to how the lack of dynamics and the cranking of everything that is left makes a the waveform look like a big wall of brick instead of the varied spiky type. See the below example.



There was nothing like having a nice turntable plugged into a good receiver/amp running through a couple 4 way tower speakers. The clarity and separation of all the nuances in the recording was light years better than what we have now.
As mentioned earlier, that is factually incorrect. Modern audio gear is infinitely more revealing than what was offered 50 years ago. It's not even close. Nothing wrong with being nostalgic but if I offered a comparison of what you used before and had a competently modern setup playing the same material being switched in real-time, you wouldn't believe how much your setup sounded like mud. Nostalgia has a way of making us think certain things like that. If you don't believe me, grab an old Sansui and plug some JBLs, then grab a low-end decent amp like a Yamaha S-501 and a pair of mid-level Polk Audio. Night & day difference. And that's with a low-end setup!
 
And the skips, don't forget them. When I was a kid my parents had some records with songs with skips (they didn't have the $$ to replace the albums so we lived with them)-- and to this day I'm surprised when I hear one of those songs on the radio or streaming and it doesn't skip.
i was honestly never a huge fan of vinyl, it seemed every album i had , even if it was new, had skips and hiss....
That's because the average system back then sucked. Even a cheap AT-150 table today wouldn't skip unless it was not calibrated correctly.

I definitely think the comic is funny, but honestly it's only really an inconvenience if you don't take listening to music as an activity in itself and more as something going on in the background.
Exactly. I'd like to know if there is ANYBODY in this thread who doesn't use vinyl who actually sits down for a whole hour or more to listen to an entire album from start to finish without interruption or distraction (PC, smartphone browsing and texting). I'd be surprised if there is even one person who does that. People would LIKE to think they truly listen to music. The reality is listening habits of 99% of people changed. They listen through earbuds while on the subway or put it on while doing housework. Dedicated serious listening is almost entirely gone.

Convenience of digital also led to a huge drop in patience and appreciation for anything that doesn't offer immediate instant gratification. People will hear the first 10 secs of a song and skip it. With vinyl, due to its inconvenience, skipping isn't done as often and one develops an appreciation for songs which maybe didn't offer an immediate payoff. For instant, prior to using a high-end vinyl setup, I never had taken the time to shut the world out to listen to Goodbye Yellow Brick Road in its entirety. The hits are great but there are soooo many deep cuts that are utterly fantastic and it's amazing music that'd be easy to otherwise miss. In fact, my favorite on that album is Harmony, a track which wasn't released as a single.

Also, music of today is focused on songs as opposed to albums. To one extreme, there was the odd "album concept" but even generally-speaking, throughout an album of released many decades ago, there was a conceptual attribute you could hear. Now, most albums sound homogeneous to me... which doesn't help matters.

The major flaw in your post is DINERO! Now explain to the folks how much money one needs to spend to have digital that sounds better than VInyl I can put an awesome system together with used craigslist products for less than 800. Isn't that what a good dac costs?
"Better" is subjective. The funny thing is I've noticed what most people tend to react positively to with cheaper vinyl setups is what is removed from the music. Too much detail and too many hyped frequencies will lead to ear fatigue and frankly, it sounds unnatural. A cheap vintage setup removes all that because it's not capable of rendering the same sound... and people (usually) love it!

But if you want to be able to get everything you can from vinyl, you definitely need a system that costs many times that of a good digital one. Now, keep in mind that most people would never consider spending the cost of a Friedman amp on their home stereo but that is what I'm referring to. A digital-based stereo with a quality DAC will easily sound much better than a cheap vinyl rig... unless one responds favorably to what is removed.

For a vinyl rig to really come alive, one needs a quality dedicated phono preamp. There are some (and I use this term loosely due to the high cost of audiophile-caliber components in general) bargains out there especially when buying used and believe me, this is oftentimes a discounted or even unknown component to some! Yet, it's one of the most important ones.

When all the pieces are of great quality, the vinyl rig can easily overtake digital but it does cost more to get that accomplished.
 
There is also something to be said about the sequencing of the album. For instance, a trick George Martin used for The Beatles was to finish the A side on a climax and start side B with the quietest song to cleanse the pallet, kind of the calm after the storm.

On Sgt Pepper, that was done with the louder and louder build-up of random organ music clips strewn together and ending with that loud arpeggio... only to be followed by Within You, Without You. On Abbey Road, it was I Want You (She's So Heavy) that ends with a wall of white noise being cranked and stop suddenly, only to start the next side with Here Comes The Sun.
 
I'll easily take 24/96 flac files on 2 TB hard drive, thanks. Way more capabilities. And when you turn vinyl up loud it skips because of the vibration SPL in the air.
Wrong. A good properly calibrated/isolated table won't experience this. At all.

All of these issues you guys are describing - clicks, pops, skipping, SPL induced feedback, go away with a properly set up good turntable
Correct.

Sounds great. Not all colored vinyl sounds inferior. It’s come a long way with better materials.
All vinyl is colored. Yes, even black.
I used to spend insane money on MSFL, Nautalis, and Columbia special products half speed masters to get the higher frequency reproduction, the smoother lows, the clarity, and the less noise they offered, but they still had the tracking noise that combined with the music that colored it.
Nautilus and Columbia was crap. MFSL did some great things in the late 70s and 80s but by the time the 90s rolled out, they would goose the highs and lows and have a hollowed midrange. That period for MFSL isn't looked at very fondly.

But CD quality blows vinyl away as far as sound reproduction capabilities. No tracking noise, no pops and clicks, and virtually no crosstalk with perfect clarity. And it doesn't sound like someone is frying bacon in the background.
On cheap crap vinyl gear with LPs in terrible condition which haven't been cleaned, sure. CDs are technically superior but the mastering is oftentimes what ultimately makes the end result sound utterly terrible.

I don't miss the massive vinyl collection I had one bit. CD all the way for me. Second to CDs, Minidiscs work in a pinch.
MiniDisc is a terrible format which uses compression. IIRC, it was MPEG-2, MP3's predecessor.

You can get the "warmth" of vinyl by just cutting the treble on your receiver back to the point where vinyl is insubstantial in being able to reproduce highs. Of course you won't have the tracking noise that also helps limit the albums frequencies.
Wrong. There is way more to the RIAA equalization than cutting highs and rolled off highs aren't part of the sound of vinyl on a good system. Only cheap stuff. Then, there's that whole source and mastering bit which changes how things sound dramatically from pressing to pressing...

Today's vinyl is pressed from digital masters and is VASTLY INFERIOR to high definition files or the vinyl records of old.
Incorrect. Some are, some aren't.

As for what is inferior, that's another blanket statement in a thread full of them.

The source and mastering is what will ultimately make or break how the end result sounds. One technique is to digitize the source and provide the mastering engineer with those files. In some cases, it's the master tape but in others, it's a safety copy or a 4th-generation copy, for instance. The source is crucial. If that process is followed, the mastering engineer now has to master what he was sent. If the source is terrific, the potential for amazing sound is there. In the hands of capable pros like Bernie Grundman, Steve Hoffman, Kevin Gray and the like, the results can be spectacular. In the hands of idiots like Joe Reagoso, it's bound to suck!

And then, there are plenty of times when the actual master tape is directly used to master a new release in which case, that will almost always sound better pre-master. Again, if the mastering engineer is great, usually the end result is terrific. Master tapes in the hands of a dolt won't turn out sounding great either.

Vinyl records of old, as you call them, had tons of issues as well. All the pressing plants needed access to plates so the albums could be manufactured. The label would often provide some based on safety copies or Xth-generation copies so everyone could be ready for the release date, leading to quality dips all over the place. Who had access to plates created from the master tapes? Were there ANY? In a lot of cases, no. That, along with the far superior mastering gear, allows releases of today to easily eclipse ones of yesteryear.

I could name dozens of examples, easily.

Under optimal conditions, a good pressing of a good analog master could sound better than the digital counterpart but the equipment required for playback (read turntable, arm, cartridge, stylus, RIAA phonostage and interconnects for all of the above) costs much more than what a equivalent digital setup does.
All true.

Still, I can't help feeling that a lot of the resurgence is vaguely ironic.
It is but that is due to mastering trends. How albums were mastered 30 years ago is quite different than how the same task is tackled now. The volume wars opened the door to music fans who told themselves "Wait a minute. How come the digital version sounds so aggressive and horrible but the vinyl version sounds natural?"

There are a lot of associations done by some in this thread without much (if any) experience. There are a lot of factors contributing to the confusion and needless debating which is why a lot of disclaimers have to be used when making a correct statement of fact.[/QUOTE]
 

71strat

Member
You cant have True Stereo in Digital.

Also in Analog, you must use the Trinaural Processor to correct the Mathematical Flaw in Stereo production, that was never corrected in the 50s, until the early 2000s.

The device won Best Highend End Stereo Component at CES






Trinaural Processor
3,000.00
Closer to the Live Event
TRI-CHANNEL PROCESSOR
The Trinaural Processor is a totally unique device that addresses what Jim Bongiorno considered an inherent flaw in the traditional music playback system—specifically, that it only produces sound in two channels. According to Jim, there is very little absolute left or right information. The sonic panorama is shaped more like a large arc across the sound stage, wherein the most important information comes from the center. Thus, for tangible, truly live-sound emulation, it’s necessary to add a center channel to the setup.

The initial hurdle is how to properly integrate a center speaker. It won’t work to simply add a summed center channel, because normal power levels are not created to accommodate three channels and moreover, things would sound odd. Proper implementation requires re-vectorization of the composite stereo information for three channels. Enter the Trinaural Processor. Using the Trinaural Processor, typical two-dimensional stereo sound is transformed into immersive, life-like acoustic reproduction like you've never heard before.

An important technical note is that the Trinaural Processor is a linear, completely analog device with no digital processing. The Trinaural also has a bypass switch which allows you to connect your home theater pre/pro/receiver as a pass-through, enabling you to use your two-channel preamplifier for music reproduction without having to go through the Trinaural. So get ready—listening to music will never be the same again!

Quantity:
Add To Cart
Share

FEATURES CES “Best of the High-End” Award and Stereophile Magazine “Class A” Recommended Component

Creates a more real, live sounding experience than any traditional two-channel system can.

Completely analog processor; no digital processing

Home theater bypass

Subwoofer-out with built-in crossover and level control

Balanced design

XLR and RCA inputs and outputs

Compact design

SPECIFICATIONS Input Impedance 50kΩ Maximum Output Voltage 11V RMS unbalanced; 22V RMS balanced Output Impedance 47Ω THD (Awt) .001% max 20Hz-20kHz, 4V out Weight 6 lbs. Dimensions 6 ½" L x 17 ⅜" W x 2 ¾" H
 
Back then we didn't need subwoofers. Stereo speakers were designed to handle all the frequencies and a good pair of 3 way 12s or 3 way 16s would do it.
Uh, no. Completely wrong in every way.

Driver size doesn't have a direct correlation with how capable a loudspeaker is. Subwoofers came into play because of home-theater but quality musical ones are now integrated in some stereos to more faithfully reproduce lows and fill out the bottom-end. Plenty of loudspeakers made today are full-range but won't reproduce the entire frequency range. Speakers of yesterday were far FAR more limited in every way.

This is yet another one of those nostalgic ignorant comments boiling down to "Things were better before" when they factually weren't.

What did you use back in the day?

Speakers were intentionally designed to NOT have flat response like studio monitors do, in order to enhance the low end as well as make sure the center of the vocal range (1k) was not too pronounced or burried.
Where are you getting this? Speakers such as the famed LS3/5A model were available in the 70s and are praised for their accuracy. Why is it that every thread you post in, you do so with a sense of authority and knowledge on the topic when you're always wrong on every level? Doesn't that ever get old?

And of course stereos came with a loudness control that was used to enhance frequencies that are lost during low volume listening.
That was due to yesteryear's designs being incapable of having a linear response from low to high volume and is just an arbitrarily set EQ boost which obviously wouldn't take into consideration in any way how the music was mastered.

I still have a pair of Realistic Optimus T-100 tower speakers that were nothing more than 2 10s and a tweeter, and the things could rattle the windows. They made speakers very efficient then, you didn't need 200 watts to drive them louder than you want, 35 watts would do the job nicely with a 5 band EQ. And if you had a 60 watt receiver and 4 efficient speakers, you couldn't stay in the room with it.
Wow. So many crazy things written here.

Realistic? Seriously? Any $200 speaker at Best Buy wipes the floor with that junk. Volume doesn't have anything to do with sound quality. If you're concerned about volume exclusively, there are plenty of brands like Cerwin Vega that'd appeal to you.

Efficiency also doesn't have anything to do with sound quality. If you had the choice, would you rather have an efficient speaker that sounds like crap or an inefficient one that sounds great? Thankfully, there are efficient speakers which sound good.

Also, now they try to make speakers like studio monitors, and studio monitors are tools, they are not for casual listening and sound like hell for home listening.
Based on what? What system did you use to make that determination? Do you have an acoustically treated room?

SOME speakers are made to be accurate whereas others aren't. In fact, accurate flat-response speakers are actually a niche market so again, no idea why you keep posting made-up crap like this.

I know full well about the needle jumping from bass, I used an Audio Technica AT13EA cartridge and that thing would track at a gram, I always set it at a gram and a half. So I had to dampen the turntable with a slab. It didn't feed back too easily, but any minute shock would jog the needle out of the groove.
That's not a proper dampening scheme. You'd also need suspension for the slab, such as using isolation pucks, otherwise what you describe will continue to happen.

For the consumer market, FAR better, by leaps and bounds. Most of the technology used today in speakers relies heavily on the R&D done by companies making them during the rock era.
Where are you getting this? Designs of audiophile-caliber speakers are and away entirely unique from the ones from decades ago and have next to nothing in common from an engineering POV.

Or, in the case of Bose who were always the forerunners, kept on with R&D into todays technolgy.
Bose? They sound like crap and are rightly regarded by every audiophile as being horrendous. Using them as some sort of example of great sound is laughable! Their designs are for lifestyle types whom need their wife's approval to buy gear and those tiny cute things are so much nicer looking than those big awful boxes (i.e. regular loudspeakers).

Most people don't even realize that all of the surround sound satellite speaker systems with sub woofers was invented by Bose with their original Acoustamass system.
Wrong again.

Bose sold a system together that way which was popular but it was a 2.1 solution released in 1987. Surround as a 5.1 system wasn't released by them until 1996.

There were solutions on the market by other brands before each of those years.
But believe me, nothing in the world has even come close to the massive concert hall sound a pair of 901s sounded like in a specially designed room for them. I feel fortunate to have experienced that back in the 70s, it is an experience I will never forget.
An experience rooted in nostalgia as a direct comparison would present you with an easily dethroned set of Bose speakers. It's not even close.

Just like when I thought some shows I liked as a kid were amazing then, if I watch them now, I'm wondering "how did I ever think that was any good?" Same thing. Nostalgia is fine. Reality can be brutally honest.

Manufacturers only do what there is enough demand for to make it worth their while.
That's a healthy model for any business. Audiophile-caliber speakers is a niche market. And I'm talking about high-end stuff. Not the 70s Radio Shack stuff, here.

That is exactly why music gear made in the 70s is so highly priced now. It is the holy grail of listening pleasure, and one that has become rare enough to become valuable.
I have no idea what is meant by this. Makes no sense whatsoever in every way imaginable.

One thing I have been told by people far more knowledgeable in this space than myself is that the farther you get into audiophile territory - the less forgiving the setup is to the quality of vinyl.

For example - I was advised by my local audio dealer on needles to stick with the OM30 and not move to the OM40 - as the 40, while better sounding is far less forgiving.
There are many more components to take into consideration when using a vinyl setup. For the stylus, it's about its profile. If you have a conical-shaped one, you won't have much detail in the music and it will be much more forgiving of scratches and any other problem with the LP. If you have a Shibata-shaped one, it'll run into the groove a lot deeper and provide much more musical information but will also reveal every imperfection along the way.



You can either get cheap $1 records which aren't in great condition or you can buy near-mint ones which will be more expensive but it's much more worth it, IMHO. And there are so many pressings of all those albums we love that if you dive into this, finding the right pressing to get the very best sound quality possible is fun.
 
You cant have True Stereo in Digital.

Also in Analog, you must use the Trinaural Processor to correct the Mathematical Flaw in Stereo production, that was never corrected in the 50s, until the early 2000s.

The device won Best Highend End Stereo Component at CES






Trinaural Processor
3,000.00
Closer to the Live Event
TRI-CHANNEL PROCESSOR
The Trinaural Processor is a totally unique device that addresses what Jim Bongiorno considered an inherent flaw in the traditional music playback system—specifically, that it only produces sound in two channels. According to Jim, there is very little absolute left or right information. The sonic panorama is shaped more like a large arc across the sound stage, wherein the most important information comes from the center. Thus, for tangible, truly live-sound emulation, it’s necessary to add a center channel to the setup.

The initial hurdle is how to properly integrate a center speaker. It won’t work to simply add a summed center channel, because normal power levels are not created to accommodate three channels and moreover, things would sound odd. Proper implementation requires re-vectorization of the composite stereo information for three channels. Enter the Trinaural Processor. Using the Trinaural Processor, typical two-dimensional stereo sound is transformed into immersive, life-like acoustic reproduction like you've never heard before.

An important technical note is that the Trinaural Processor is a linear, completely analog device with no digital processing. The Trinaural also has a bypass switch which allows you to connect your home theater pre/pro/receiver as a pass-through, enabling you to use your two-channel preamplifier for music reproduction without having to go through the Trinaural. So get ready—listening to music will never be the same again!

Quantity:
Add To Cart
Share

FEATURES CES “Best of the High-End” Award and Stereophile Magazine “Class A” Recommended Component

Creates a more real, live sounding experience than any traditional two-channel system can.

Completely analog processor; no digital processing

Home theater bypass

Subwoofer-out with built-in crossover and level control

Balanced design

XLR and RCA inputs and outputs

Compact design

SPECIFICATIONS Input Impedance 50kΩ Maximum Output Voltage 11V RMS unbalanced; 22V RMS balanced Output Impedance 47Ω THD (Awt) .001% max 20Hz-20kHz, 4V out Weight 6 lbs. Dimensions 6 ½" L x 17 ⅜" W x 2 ¾" H
Complete and utter BS. Messing with the stereo image by artificially producing a narrower range for mids using phasing methods. There's a reason why every device like this one never caught on.
 

pickdropper

I am Soldering Iron Man
Vendor
Uh, no. Completely wrong in every way.

Driver size doesn't have a direct correlation with how capable a loudspeaker is. Subwoofers came into play because of home-theater but quality musical ones are now integrated in some stereos to more faithfully reproduce lows and fill out the bottom-end. Plenty of loudspeakers made today are full-range but won't reproduce the entire frequency range. Speakers of yesterday were far FAR more limited in every way.

This is yet another one of those nostalgic ignorant comments boiling down to "Things were better before" when they factually weren't.

What did you use back in the day?


Where are you getting this? Speakers such as the famed LS3/5A model were available in the 70s and are praised for their accuracy. Why is it that every thread you post in, you do so with a sense of authority and knowledge on the topic when you're always wrong on every level? Doesn't that ever get old?


That was due to yesteryear's designs being incapable of having a linear response from low to high volume and is just an arbitrarily set EQ boost which obviously wouldn't take into consideration in any way how the music was mastered.


Wow. So many crazy things written here.

Realistic? Seriously? Any $200 speaker at Best Buy wipes the floor with that junk. Volume doesn't have anything to do with sound quality. If you're concerned about volume exclusively, there are plenty of brands like Cerwin Vega that'd appeal to you.

Efficiency also doesn't have anything to do with sound quality. If you had the choice, would you rather have an efficient speaker that sounds like crap or an inefficient one that sounds great? Thankfully, there are efficient speakers which sound good.


Based on what? What system did you use to make that determination? Do you have an acoustically treated room?

SOME speakers are made to be accurate whereas others aren't. In fact, accurate flat-response speakers are actually a niche market so again, no idea why you keep posting made-up crap like this.


That's not a proper dampening scheme. You'd also need suspension for the slab, such as using isolation pucks, otherwise what you describe will continue to happen.


Where are you getting this? Designs of audiophile-caliber speakers are and away entirely unique from the ones from decades ago and have next to nothing in common from an engineering POV.


Bose? They sound like crap and are rightly regarded by every audiophile as being horrendous. Using them as some sort of example of great sound is laughable! Their designs are for lifestyle types whom need their wife's approval to buy gear and those tiny cute things are so much nicer looking than those big awful boxes (i.e. regular loudspeakers).


Wrong again.

Bose sold a system together that way which was popular but it was a 2.1 solution released in 1987. Surround as a 5.1 system wasn't released by them until 1996.

There were solutions on the market by other brands before each of those years.

An experience rooted in nostalgia as a direct comparison would present you with an easily dethroned set of Bose speakers. It's not even close.

Just like when I thought some shows I liked as a kid were amazing then, if I watch them now, I'm wondering "how did I ever think that was any good?" Same thing. Nostalgia is fine. Reality can be brutally honest.


That's a healthy model for any business. Audiophile-caliber speakers is a niche market. And I'm talking about high-end stuff. Not the 70s Radio Shack stuff, here.


I have no idea what is meant by this. Makes no sense whatsoever in every way imaginable.


There are many more components to take into consideration when using a vinyl setup. For the stylus, it's about its profile. If you have a conical-shaped one, you won't have much detail in the music and it will be much more forgiving of scratches and any other problem with the LP. If you have a Shibata-shaped one, it'll run into the groove a lot deeper and provide much more musical information but will also reveal every imperfection along the way.



You can either get cheap $1 records which aren't in great condition or you can buy near-mint ones which will be more expensive but it's much more worth it, IMHO. And there are so many pressings of all those albums we love that if you dive into this, finding the right pressing to get the very best sound quality possible is fun.
Agreed. Speaker technology has improved significantly since the 60-70’s. I’ve owned a number of vintage speakers over the years. Not bad, but things have improved by leaps and bounds.

I’m confused by the full range and efficiency comments. There have always been full range options. There may be more stand-mount options now than there used to be, but that’s a nice option for those with smaller rooms. There are myriad options with modern speakers where a separate subwoofer is not required.

The efficiency matters as it pertains to matching the speakers to the amp and room. Beyond that, not so much.
 
The efficiency matters as it pertains to matching the speakers to the amp and room. Beyond that, not so much.
It matters insofar as wanting to use puny solid-state amps in the 30W range along with any speaker possible. There are many different design philosophies, quite a few which resulted in better SQ but some happen to be less efficient. I guess it matters to those wanting to blast their ears at 95db while using those old puny SS amps but otherwise, I agree it's a non-factor in most cases.
 

71strat

Member
It won High End product of the year in 2003 at CES vs more than 15,000 other manufacturers.

Beat 15,000 other High End manufacturers.

It does work, and you ARE WRONG.

Stereo is actually not stereo because of the math flaw, which was never corrected, until this device came along.

Mr Bongiorono.. RIP.... was also chief engineer for Dynaco, Marantz, Harmon Kardon, and several other manufacturers.

James also invented Class A Solid State Power Amps.
Invented Servo Control, and many other electronic innovations.


James Bongiorno’s long and storied career spans two entirely distinct eras, from Hadley, Dynaco, Marantz, and SAE in the 1960s, to Constellation Audio in the second decade of the 21st century. Bongiorno designed amplifiers in six different decades, working alongside other industry legends such as Richard Sequerra, Sidney Smith, David Hafler, Morris Kessler, John Curl, and Bascom King.

But Bongiorno will best be remembered for Great American Sound (GAS), the company he founded in 1974 after leaving SAE. The GAS Ampzilla power amplifier was an instant classic, outperforming many much more expensive amplifiers and sending ripples through the industry. This was the dawn of the high-end renaissance, right about the time of Phase Linear and Audio Research, when the demand for relatively high-powered amplifiers was exploding. The 200Wpc Ampzilla was the first to feature a full dual-differential complementary amplifier circuit, a topology that is the basis for nearly every modern solid-state power amplifier. The Ampzilla not only sounded terrific and sold in huge numbers, but Bongiorno exemplified the maverick entrepreneurial designer who created his company from nothing but talent, a dream, and (literally) a kitchen table.

Here’s an overview of his work:

Hadley Laboratories 622C Power Amplifier, contributing engineer

Marantz Model 15 Power Amplifier, contributing engineer

Dynaco Stereo 400 Power Amplifier, Designer

Dynaco AF-6 AM/FM Tuner, contributing engineer

SAE (Scientific Audio Engineering)

XXXIB Power Amplifier, Designer

IIIC/CM Power Amplifier, Designer

IVD/DM Power Amplfier, Designer

VIB Stereo Tuner, contributing engineer

IC Stereo Preamplifier, contributing engineer

The following products continued to use my circuit topology:

2200, 2300, 2400, 2500, 2600, “A” series, “X” series

GAS (The Great American Sound Co.) Chief Designer

Ampzilla Power Amplifier

Ampzilla II (World’s first servo-controlled power amplifier)

Thaedra Preamplifier (World’s first (and only) servo controlled preamp

Thoebe Preamplifier

Son of Ampzilla Power Amplifier

Thalia Preamplifier

Grandson Power Amplfier

Sleeping Beauty Moving Coil Cartrdges

Sumo Electric Co. Ltd. Chief Designer

The Power, World’s first 450 watt/channel fully balanced Bridge Power Amp

The Gold, World’s first patented solid state Class A Power Amplifier

The Nine, World’s first low cost solid state class A power amplifier

The Nine+, Ruggedized version

Electra Preamplifier

“Charlie” the Tuner, world’s first premium low cost stereo tuner

The Half-power, stereo power amplifier

Andromeda, world’s first low cost solid state class AB Balanced Power Amp

The Sumo I, Magnetic Phono Cartridge

The Sumo II, Moving coil Phono Cartridge

Harmon-Kardon, Consultant, Completely redesigned the Citation 23 Tuner

Crown Radio, Japan, 4 luxurious Power amps, 2 Luxuious Preamps, a fully

Equalized (phase & amplitude) 3-way electronic crossover.

Spread Spectrum Technologies Inc.. Chief Designer

Ampzilla 2000, fully balanced monobloc power amplifier

Trinaural Processor

Consulting Analog Engineer - Constellation Audio
 

pickdropper

I am Soldering Iron Man
Vendor
It matters insofar as wanting to use puny solid-state amps in the 30W range along with any speaker possible. There are many different design philosophies, quite a few which resulted in better SQ but some happen to be less efficient. I guess it matters to those wanting to blast their ears at 95db while using those old puny SS amps but otherwise, I agree it's a non-factor in most cases.
In high-end, it also pertains to people trying to drive massively efficient horn speakers with a 2W (or less) SET tube amp.
 


Top