If Your Music Collection Could Only Be Vinyl or CD, Which Would You Choose?

[blue2blue]

[...]

 

My first choice would be humans playing instruments and singing.

Another iconoclast!

[Beck]

Has the AES withdrawn publication and repudiated the study?

 

If not, then it comes down to a matter of relative credibility, doesn't it? I'll go with the AES.

 

 

By the way, I'm thinking there must have been some article somewhere that pushed this back into the zeitgeist, as a very similar discussion has been raging elsewhere.

 

You shouldn't take anyone's word for it, but if it is important enough for you to be correct in citing your sources, studies, whatever, then it should be important enough to give you pause to consider issues that have been raised that discredit the study. Let me ask you this! Do you even know how a CD burner works in detail from ADC to DAC and everything in between. My guess is no one here has more than a vague idea except me. Meyer and Moran certainly did not.

 

About the AES: And this is really important for everyone to understand. The AES is not an entity that endorses experiments of it's members, such as Meyer and Moran. Any of us can be AES members. It's publications are full of information, experiments and ideas from members that don't agree with each other and regularly contradict each other. The AES is an organization with room for a lot of ideas. One of the big mistakes people are making, and which intimidates many of the uninitiated, is the idea that "The AES says" and so it is gospel. The AES does not say and does not endorse. Two people who happen to be AES members conducted a terribly flawed experiment, which was published in the AES Journal. It is a peer reviewed journal, and the most outspoken critics of Meyer and Moran are other AES members.

 

It doesn't even come down to she said he said. It comes down to the hardware... The HHB CDR-850, how it works, what it can do and what it cannot do.

 

.

[blue2blue]

 

You shouldn't take anyone's word for it, but if it is important enough for you to be correct in citing your sources, studies, whatever, then it should be important enough to give you pause to consider issues that have been raised that discredit the study. Let me ask you this! Do you even know how a CD burner works in detail from ADC to DAC and everything in between. My guess is no one here has more than a vague idea except me. Meyer and Moran certainly did not.

 

About the AES: And this is really important for everyone to understand. The AES is not an entity that endorses experiments of it's members, such as Meyer and Moran. Any of us can be AES members. It's publications are full of information, experiments and ideas from members that don't agree with each other and regularly contradict each other. The AES is an organization with room for a lot of ideas. One of the big mistakes people are making, and which intimidates many of the uninitiated, is the idea that "The AES says" and so it is gospel. The AES does not say and does not endorse. Two people who happen to be AES members conducted a terribly flawed experiment, which was published in the AES Journal. It is a peer reviewed journal, and the most outspoken critics of Meyer and Moran are other AES members.

 

It doesn't even come down to she said he said. It comes down to the hardware... The HHB CDR-850, how it works, what it can do and what it cannot do.

 

.

I'm afraid that I attach considerably more credibility to their study, my own experience and ABX testing, not to mention the existing body of scientific evidence, than to your conclusions.

[Beck]

I'm afraid that I attach considerably more credibility to their study, my own experience and ABX testing, not to mention the existing body of scientific evidence, than to your conclusions.

 

Well that's a start. We have some dialogue anyway. If you would like to look at my notes sometime I'll dig them out for ya. It's been a few years, so this is kinda old news for me now. You will see the signal path step by step through the HHB CDR-850. I didn't know in detail how a stand alone CD burner like the HHB worked either until I started digging into it at the component level. I had the advantage of owning one and gained understanding by popping off the hood, studying the schematics in the service manual and talking with HHB reps. Now I know exactly what's happening in that unit and why it it not a 16/44.1 bottleneck as Meyer and Moran presumed. You will be enlightened if you care to.

 

As for my personal ideas of what is more than adequate for bit depth and sampling rate I'm good with 20/48, but I normally do 24/48 when tracking just because I can. I could do 24/96 with the interface I have, but I don't really see the point. But it also comes down to the converters, the design and the analog components as well. Not all converters are created equal. We can't simply throw out numbers like 20/48, 24/96, etc. It depends on the quality of the product... the specific converters used. I still use the Echo Layla 24 and you'll have to pry them from my cold dead hands. I've found nothing I like better in the decade since I bought my first one. I now have three.

[blue2blue]

I think you should send your notes to Meyer and Moran. If the issue is valid, they deserve a chance to retract their paper.

[Beck]

I think you should send your notes to Meyer and Moran. If the issue is valid, they deserve a chance to retract their paper.

 

I don't think that would do any good. My info has been out there for some years now and others have expanded on it and have noted other flaws in the experiment.. This was Meyer and Moran's ABX setup. The alleged 16/44.1 bottleneck used was the HHB CDR-850. So just for grins consider the possibility I know what I'm talking about when I talk about that unit. If I'm right the experiment is fatally flawed. Invalidating the Meyer and Moran study does not settle the high-rez vs. low-rez debate. It simply means one cannot use Meyer and Moran to “Prove” anything. It's not something you want to hang your hat on.

 

 

[MikeRivers]

It's all about money. People who want to sell us high resolution material put their money toward advertising and hand waving. People who could do better testing such as listening tests over an externded period of time don't have the funding to do that. So what we end up with is semi-science that gets advertised as fact.

[Vito Corleone]

This is another of those audio issues that is best left to real life experience over time, not a group of eggheads sitting in front of monitors.

 

Ok, now where were we? Oh yes, what formats we prefer and we don't have to prove why. We just prefer what we prefer.

 

Very true. But the reason why we prefer what we prefer based on real life experiences over time very often has nothing at all to do with difference in audio "quality", but with all those other real life stimulations to our psyche that enhance our listening experiences.

[blue2blue]

 

I don't think that would do any good. My info has been out there for some years now and others have expanded on it and have noted other flaws in the experiment.. This was Meyer and Moran's ABX setup. The alleged 16/44.1 bottleneck used was the HHB CDR-850. So just for grins consider the possibility I know what I'm talking about when I talk about that unit. If I'm right the experiment is fatally flawed. Invalidating the Meyer and Moran study does not settle the high-rez vs. low-rez debate. It simply means one cannot use Meyer and Moran to “Prove” anything. It's not something you want to hang your hat on.

 

 

Again, I think you need to take this to Meyer and Moran. If there is a fundamental flaw to their experiment that is clearly demonstrated by reference to schematics, as you suggest, they will have no choice but to either re-perform or withdraw.

 

That said, if it was that obvious, one would think that there would have been tremendous uptake on your finding, yet you are the only person I have read suggesting this -- while I find some extremely technically adept individuals who continue to cite Meyer-Moran in lieu of credible criticism.

 

I think it's time to either step up with your contentions or put them to rest.

[blue2blue]

And, again, with regard to 'experience over time' -- there is NOTHING in the ABX testing format that precludes very long extended trials. Any suggestion otherwise is a straw man argument.

[Beck]

 

Very true. But the reason why we prefer what we prefer based on real life experiences over time very often has nothing at all to do with difference in audio "quality", but with all those other real life stimulations to our psyche that enhance our listening experiences.

 

I can agree with that, while at the same time realizing that certain formats to certain people are simply not enjoyable from a pure audio angle. Something annoys, takes a way, is hard on the ear, causing listening fatigue sooner and more profoundly. So i think it's a combination of the many things we address when discussing format preference.

[Beck]

And, again, with regard to 'experience over time' -- there is NOTHING in the ABX testing format that precludes very long extended trials. Any suggestion otherwise is a straw man argument.

 

I don't do straw-man. I know how to debate... to reason together... keep an open mind while having strong opinions when I'm not goofing around and discussing something technical. I enjoy the discourse with others that have at least some clue. A/B type testing can be useful, but it has to be done exactly right to a T. I think they overlooked a lot of the basics that we're all aware of in other audio settings, such as ear fatigue when mastering. We all do or should understand things like that. We take breaks and come back hours or days later because the human ear has limitations. Everything starts sounding the same.

 

And to clarify what I mean about real life experience over time; I really think that's how the average listener develops a preference that short-term focused listening tests simply cannot do.

 

I have changed my mind before and I will again. I just wish everyone could do that. At one time I was interested enough to contact Meyer and Moran and discuss the hardware they used, but not really so much anymore. Like I said, to me it's getting to be old news and so many people have criticized their methodology I'm just another voice lost in the buzz at this point. I'm very familiar with the discussion on other sites including the AES site. I don't want to bash them personally, but IMO from what I've seen watching them discussing their "Groundbreaking" experiment with others they are quite unmovable and. don't appear open to want to give any ground. There's a lot more issues going on here, not the least of which is human pride and other issues that have nothing to do with the technical side.

 

I'm still interested enough to discuss it among friends in forums like this.

[Beck]

If they didn't already understand how the HHB CDR-850 worked and CDR burners in general worked before they conducted their experiment I think they were in a little over their heads to begin with. A dedicated A/D/A converter, not a CD burner was the obvious choice for the experiment from the get-go. Why they didn't go that route I have no idea.

[blue2blue]

 

I don't do straw-man. I know how to debate... to reason together... keep an open mind while having strong opinions when I'm not goofing around and discussing something technical. I enjoy the discourse with others that have at least some clue. A/B type testing can be useful, but it has to be done exactly right to a T. I think they overlooked a lot of the basics that we're all aware of in other audio settings, such as ear fatigue when mastering. We all do or should understand things like that. We take breaks and come back hours or days later because the human ear has limitations. Everything starts sounding the same.

 

And to clarify what I mean about real life experience over time; I really think that's how the average listener develops a preference that short-term focused listening tests simply cannot do.

 

I have changed my mind before and I will again. I just wish everyone could do that. At one time I was interested enough to contact Meyer and Moran and discuss the hardware they used, but not really so much anymore. Like I said, to me it's getting to be old news and so many people have criticized their methodology I'm just another voice lost in the buzz at this point. I'm very familiar with the discussion on other sites including the AES site. I don't want to bash them personally, but IMO from what I've seen watching them discussing their "Groundbreaking" experiment with others they are quite unmovable and. don't appear open to want to give any ground. There's a lot more issues going on here, not the least of which is human pride and other issues that have nothing to do with the technical side.

 

I'm still interested enough to discuss it among friends in forums like this.

I haven't seen any of what I would call credible critiques of their method. Googling finds mostly nonsensical rants from fantasy fringe audiophilia sources. I'd be happy to be pointed toward serious, fact-based critique of their method.

 

And, again, if you're not going to try to 'correct the record' by publishing a criticism of the Meyer-Moran study, then you really don't have any standing to go on about it. The same materials you have access to are available to anyone else concerned with the matter, yet you appear to be the only one who has brought this criticism. That strikes me as highly persuasive. If you've got the goods, put them out there where they can be analyzed and commented on by people with expertise. Otherwise...

 

 

PS... with regard to the value of ABX testing. You are not a physiologist who studies perception. Perceptual scientists have established ABX testing and have a well-established rationale for its central use in audio perception testing. You're allowed to your personal opinions as long as you don't promote them as fact. But I think the balance of reason and evidence strikes me as clearly on the side of established science.

[blue2blue]

 

 

JAES Publication Policy

 

The AES Journal seeks original unpublished research papers and engineering reports of archive quality on subjects related to the audio domain. All submissions will go through a peer review process to check their suitability for JAES. Manuscripts should describe original work unpublished elsewhere and not being considered for publication elsewhere. Futher information describing the different types of possible submission is given here.

[Beck]

I haven't seen any of what I would call credible critiques of their method. Googling finds mostly nonsensical rants from fantasy fringe audiophilia sources. I'd be happy to be pointed toward serious, fact-based critique of their method.

 

I see all the crazy voodoo arguments out there too. Be careful not to fall into the trap of missing the sound arguments because there are so many more unsound arguments. But I consider a lot of others including Meyer and Moran as part of that fantasy fringe audiophilia group.

 

And, again, if you're not going to try to 'correct the record' by publishing a criticism of the Meyer-Moran study, then you really don't have any standing to go on about it.

 

Oh man... listen to what you just said there as though it were someone else saying that to you! I think on your best days you would do a facepalm over a statement like that. You just said what we can and can't talk about where and when we want to talk about it. And as a moderator you may want to be especially careful of that, because you're flat out telling people not to come here. See this thread for more info

 

http://www.harmonycentral.com/forum/...powers-that-be

 

The same materials you have access to are available to anyone else concerned with the matter, yet you appear to be the only one who has brought this criticism. That strikes me as highly persuasive. If you've got the goods, put them out there where they can be analyzed and commented on by people with expertise. Otherwise...

 

We've talked about it here before. Frankly I'm most surprised that anyone would cite their experiment these days. If enough people show interest in it maybe I'll start a thread outside of this one, but I'm not sure that many people care. That's been my experience. But the argument is simple. Maybe too simple. It's all about the so-called 16/44.1 Red Book bottleneck. They did not have one. If their comparison is supposed to be between higher rez formats of DVD and SACD vs. 16/44.1 then using a bottleneck that is anything greater than 16/44.1 invalidates completely. Meyer and Moran imply a more straight forward textbook PCM bit depth and sample rate for the "bottleneck."

 

PS... with regard to the value of ABX testing. You are not a physiologist who studies perception. Perceptual scientists have established ABX testing and have a well-established rationale for its central use in audio perception testing. You're allowed to your personal opinions as long as you don't promote them as fact. But I think the balance of reason and evidence strikes me as clearly on the side of established science.

 

What I'm talking about is basic recording 101 that everyone used to know. And you don't know anything about my formal education and informal pursuits. In a sound debate you don't have to and I don't have to know yours. We listen to the arguments, examine the evidence and present counterarguments if we disagree.

 

It's about the 1-bit Sigma-Delta converters in the HHB CDR-850 and the way HHB designed the monitoring system. Actually the way Pioneer designed it. They built it for HHB and one just like it in different skin for Fostex called the CR300.. The signal is sampled at 48 kHz and that's what you hear from the output when in record mode. And as I said, according to HHB they describe the Sigma-Delta converters they used as something equivalent to 20-bit depth. 20/48 is not 24/96, but it's not 16/44.1 either. The schematics, the service manual and the spec sheets for every component in that unit are available freely on the web. I've got a folder with all all of them. Look for that when googling, not some deity that is going to answer the questions for you!

[blue2blue]

[...]

Oh man... listen to what you just said there as though it were someone else saying that to you! I think on your best days you would do a facepalm over a statement like that. You just said what we can and can't talk about where and when we want to talk about it. And as a moderator you may want to be especially careful of that, because you're flat out telling people not to come here. See this thread for more info

 

http://www.harmonycentral.com/forum/...powers-that-be

 

[...]

I'll address your other points later, but I wanted to rush to respond to this because you are right. Frankly I don't think of myself as a mod here any more much at all, and hadn't even thought about that aspect as I was writing.

 

So I definitely want to apologize for potentially giving the impression I might have been speaking as a moderator. I was not.

 

I was only speaking as an individual member of the audio concerned community.

 

My apologies.

[blue2blue]

Here's the Boston Audio Society's explainer on the tests... http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm

 

As they note, elevating playback level by a substantial amount DID allow easy differentiation between the insert-loop path and the straight path. That doesn't argue directly against your scenario, but it's suggestive:

 

Several high-bit players were used for these tests, which made up the majority of our trials. In the early going we used the Pioneer. About three months in, we did a trial using the only disc we came across with an acoustic/electronic noise floor lower than our CD link (the Hartke disc listed in the Sources section).. We advanced the gain beyond our nominal setting by 20 dB and used the player’s A-B repeat to loop through a short segment containing only room tone and a couple of extremely quiet musical notes. The noise of the CD loop was easily audible at the listening chair. We corroborated this with a double-blind test, conducted by listening only to X, without the need for comparisons to the known sources, obtaining results of 9/9 and 6/6 correct.

The first of these trials was done with the Pioneer player, and the fadeup of the room tone at the beginning of the Hartke disc revealed a slight but audible nonlinearity in its left channel decoder. We did some tests with the Sony, which sounded clean at any gain setting, and then switched to the Yamaha DVD-S1500, which was used for the remainder of the tests at this site.

 

A note on system gain

The overall system gain is an essential factor in these experiments, or in any attempts to duplicate the work. Our standard system gain was calibrated using an octave of pink noise recorded at -16 dBFS, which produced a wideband SPL of 85 dB at the listening chair.

[...]

One of the authors, using a short repeated section of room tone on the Hartke disc mentioned above, obtained a positive result (15/15) at a gain of only 10 dB above our standard level. This setting produced sound levels clearly higher than those at the site, as the peak levels for this small vocal/percussion ensemble would have been 111 dB SPL on the loudest part of the disc. Many of our trials using classical and jazz material took place at higher than the standard gain setting, at the request of those subjects who wanted to listen for more details in softer passages; none were conducted at lower than the nominal setting.

The Hartke disc is not, we understand, the only source that can be used for this test, but we tried other discs at high gain without any detectable differences emerging. The vast majority of productions have a minimum noise level that swamps the residual noise in the CD link, and no differences in the quality of that noise, or of reverberant tails, could be heard.

 

 

With regard to the currency of the study, I've read repeated and numerous references to it in the mainstream press in recent weeks, largely due to "HD" audio being in the news lately. I've read it referenced in many periodicals including but certainly not limited to the UK's Guardian, CNET, and in a number of geek/tech sites like The Register.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/technolog...-192khz-review

http://www.cnet.com/news/sound-bite-...-pan-hd-audio/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/Print/2...ls_with_money/

 

If, as you suggest, Beck, the Meyer-Moran study is fundamentally flawed and you're (apparently) the one guy with the answer, it would suggest it looks like the audio community needs you to step up and make your findings known so that all the AES members who peer-reviewed the study prior to publication can correct their errors and the engineering report withdrawn from publication under the AES imprimatur.

[Beck]

I'll address your other points later, but I wanted to rush to respond to this because you are right. Frankly I don't think of myself as a mod here any more much at all, and hadn't even thought about that aspect as I was writing.

 

So I definitely want to apologize for potentially giving the impression I might have been speaking as a moderator. I was not.

 

I was only speaking as an individual member of the audio concerned community.

 

My apologies.

 

Appreciate that. Thanks for clarifying. Frankly I say let people come here. Let's ramp this place up. People that frequent this forum and have over the years are plenty qualified to be the ones to come up with solutions or observe things no one else has.

[Beck]

Here's the Boston Audio Society's explainer on the tests... http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm

 

As they note, elevating playback level by a substantial amount DID allow easy differentiation between the insert-loop path and the straight path. That doesn't argue directly against your scenario, but it's suggestive:

 

Yeah thanks, I'm familiar with all this documentation. Trust me there's not a thing I haven't read from them, including this from the Boston Audio Society. It's been a while, but back when this seemed like it might be still important was looking real hard at all of this. But then... no one cared. It wasn't because of Meyer and Moran either. We went to lossy compressed formats instead of higher rez for end-listeners anyway. As far as tracking in the studio no one will have much luck persuading engineers to track at 16-bit at any resolution. But we all know that is another story for another discussion.

 

 

With regard to the currency of the study, I've read repeated and numerous references to it in the mainstream press in recent weeks, largely due to "HD" audio being in the news lately. I've read it referenced in many periodicals including but certainly not limited to the UK's Guardian, CNET, and in a number of geek/tech sites like The Register.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/technolog...-192khz-review

http://www.cnet.com/news/sound-bite-...-pan-hd-audio/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/Print/2...ls_with_money/

 

Interesting to see that. Maybe it will become a worthwhile topic again. As I see it now, unfortunately Meyer and Moran has become urban legend and is referenced without question and without understanding.

 

If, as you suggest, Beck, the Meyer-Moran study is fundamentally flawed and you're (apparently) the one guy with the answer, it would suggest it looks like the audio community needs you to step up and make your findings known so that all the AES members who peer-reviewed the study prior to publication can correct their errors and the engineering report withdrawn from publication under the AES imprimatur.

 

Well you never know... I could be "The one." Why not? At the time, I was the only one looking at their so-called 16/44.1 "Bottleneck" because as I've explained I owned the unit and knew it well, like I do all my gear. Any other posts I saw regarding the HHB CDR-850 were people quoting me verbatim or very close.

 

Well the AES is not going to correct anything because as I said they don't take a stance on what is published as an entity. They could hardly do that since articles regularly contradict each other. They may publish something that claims to debunk Meyer and Moran, but again the AES is not going to have an official position on whether it has been debunked or not, just as Meyer and Moran's conclusions are not an official position of the AES. Peer review does not make any judgment on correctness, but only soundness of an experiment. It doesn't have to be perfect either. Qualified experts overlook things all the time. Have you ever watched two medical doctors argue and completely disagree on nearly every point of a diagnoses. I have. Engineers are no different.

 

That stuff is there for us to read in the AES official journal for us to evaluate and come to our own conclusions. It certainly has to pass some standard. I mean we can't come in and say an alien came down from Venus and told us Meyer and Moran were wrong. They're not going to publish that. And I'm not going to present any such thing (whether it happened or not).

 

Interesting though, don't you think? That they only used one "Bottleneck." People are missing so much here, so much else that Meyer and Moran have said that they didn't mean to say, wasn't the focus of the experiment, such as all 16/44.1 converters are the same or all CD burners are the same. In other discussions we hear differences between converters and differences between products and we have preferences... one over the other based on what we hear. Publications are full of reviews of different brands and models of CD recorders/players (Or were at the time). Meyer and Moran have unintentionally stated that they are all the same.

 

We should hear differences between two different brands/models of SACD players... unless we're deaf! That's another issue that's interesting, but not necessary to debunk their study.

[blue2blue]

 

Yeah thanks, I'm familiar with all this documentation. Trust me there's not a thing I haven't read from them, including this from the Boston Audio Society. It's been a while, but back when this seemed like it might be still important was looking real hard at all of this. But then... no one cared. It wasn't because of Meyer and Moran either. We went to lossy compressed formats instead of higher rez for end-listeners anyway. As far as tracking in the studio no one will have much luck persuading engineers to track at 16-bit at any resolution. But we all know that is another story for another discussion.

 

 

 

Interesting to see that. Maybe it will become a worthwhile topic again. As I see it now, unfortunately Meyer and Moran has become urban legend and is referenced without question and without understanding.

 

 

 

Well you never know... I could be "The one." Why not? At the time, I was the only one looking at their so-called 16/44.1 "Bottleneck" because as I've explained I owned the unit and knew it well, like I do all my gear. Any other posts I saw regarding the HHB CDR-850 were people quoting me verbatim or very close.

 

Well the AES is not going to correct anything because as I said they don't take a stance on what is published as an entity. They could hardly do that since articles regularly contradict each other. They may publish something that claims to debunk Meyer and Moran, but again the AES is not going to have an official position on whether it has been debunked or not, just as Meyer and Moran's conclusions are not an official position of the AES. Peer review does not make any judgment on correctness, but only soundness of an experiment. It doesn't have to be perfect either. Qualified experts overlook things all the time. Have you ever watched two medical doctors argue and completely disagree on nearly every point of a diagnoses. I have. Engineers are no different.

 

That stuff is there for us to read in the AES official journal for us to evaluate and come to our own conclusions. It certainly has to pass some standard. I mean we can't come in and say an alien came down from Venus and told us Meyer and Moran were wrong. They're not going to publish that. And I'm not going to present any such thing (whether it happened or not).

 

Interesting though, don't you think? That they only used one "Bottleneck." People are missing so much here, so much else that Meyer and Moran have said that they didn't mean to say, wasn't the focus of the experiment, such as all 16/44.1 converters are the same or all CD burners are the same. In other discussions we hear differences between converters and differences between products and we have preferences... one over the other based on what we hear. Publications are full of reviews of different brands and models of CD recorders/players (Or were at the time). Meyer and Moran have unintentionally stated that they are all the same.

 

We should hear differences between two different brands/models of SACD players... unless we're deaf! That's another issue that's interesting, but not necessary to debunk their study.

Well, I'm trying to take your claim as a real possibility since you appear to be sincerely convinced by your findings. That said, as noted, I'm having some difficulty reconciling the singular nature of your observations with what we would expect to see in terms of the observations of peer reviewers and downstream investigators.

 

"Peer review does not make any judgment on correctness, but only soundness of an experiment. "

 

Of course, that would be the only way it could work: we test postulates by experimentation. If that effort is invalidated by bad experimental design, procedure, or interpretation of results, we count on peer-review to help reveal those flaws and allow the work to be corrected or withdrawn.

 

Again, if what you believe is correct, you would appear to be the linchpin in any effort to correct what you claim is a serious flaw in a study that is widely cited both inside and outside the recording milieu.

 

If you're going to continue to claim that the Meyer-Moran engineering report is so flawed that its conclusions are ill-founded, I believe you have an intellectual and social responsibility to put your claims to the principals, Meyer-Moran and the AES in order to set the record straight.

[BushmasterM4]

I have a lot of vintage 70's stereo equipment which includes 3 reel to reel units, 3 TT's (all set up to spec), 2 Cassette decks, an 8-Track and 2 cd players and a media pc all driven by a Sansui 9090DB receiver out to vintage Polk Monitor 10's and a set of Sansui SP-3500 (JBL Made). Whatever I have on cd I also have on vinyl and some times on R2R. Of all the formats I prefer Vinyl or R2R. Sorry, no comparison in my opinion. Don't get me wrong digital is nice and convenient and can sound good (with a good dac). , But Vinyl and R2R have warmth to them. Plus the record covers are easier to read than those damn little jewel case inserts. Peace

[BushmasterM4]

One other thing. I heard the original Sony Play Station (The 1st one) is a fantastic cd player. Many audiophiles use them. Nice converters in it. May have to try one out.

[blue2blue]

I have a lot of vintage 70's stereo equipment which includes 3 reel to reel units, 3 TT's (all set up to spec), 2 Cassette decks, an 8-Track and 2 cd players and a media pc all driven by a Sansui 9090DB receiver out to vintage Polk Monitor 10's and a set of Sansui SP-3500 (JBL Made). Whatever I have on cd I also have on vinyl and some times on R2R. Of all the formats I prefer Vinyl or R2R. Sorry, no comparison in my opinion. Don't get me wrong digital is nice and convenient and can sound good (with a good dac). , But Vinyl and R2R have warmth to them. Plus the record covers are easier to read than those damn little jewel case inserts. Peace

The media (digital, analog tape, and grooved vinyl disk) do sound different. At the upper end of things, the difference can be difficult to perceive, but as we go down the quality chain for each medium, the differences become more apparent.

 

If someone has a preference for one over the other, that preference is theirs, and inarguable.

 

 

With regard to the ease of reading record covers vis a vis jewel case inserts, I'd say that is pretty well inarguable -- unless one is a Lilliput, I guess.

 

I certainly appreciate the LP jacket as a practical art form. At its peak. But it's only a tiny fraction of a percent -- to my thinking -- that rises to a level worthy of artistic appreciation. Like, one supposes, most human endeavor...