Any home audio geeks out there?

[Hotsauce]

Vinyl is the original high definition format. Digital symply doesn't have the dynamic range that a record does. Digital is a jagged edge that approximates an analog waveform. It doesn't have the secondary harmonics that a real analog recording has.

Its the same difference between a poor quality MP3 recording and a CD, ecxept a record doesn't have a sampling rate, its a real analog waveform.

Biju: I think the choice of turntable wil not be as much difference as the cart you use on it, and those 2 not as signifigant as what phono pre you use. A $20 garage sale turntable and a tubed phono stage will kill $1000 table/cart combo fed into a solid state pre.

Remastered usually means ruined. In most cases there is less background noise, but all dynamics are gone because of the compression used to supress noise. The wort 2 examples I can think of are Billy Joel - Glass Houses, and Jethro Tull - Aqualung. probably the worst 2 CD's ever made vs the record.

This link may help you understand.

http://www.xanga.com/sonickGQ/501878133/item.html

John C.

[WyrreJ]

You are talking about first gen masterings to CD which were often crap. I'm talking about double and triple dipping by the record labels where they RE-master from the original studio tapes and have FINALLY got it right. Just because a recording is on CD does not mean it must be over-compressed.

The record labels are pursuing this route because they can't sell their new artists to anyone who is not brainwashed by MTV, so in order to keep milking that market segment they keep releasing the same albums again and again. Except for artists like Jimi Hendrix who are constantly recording new tracks from beyond the grave, the only thing they can offer to convince people to rebuy CDs that they already have is with improved sound quality.

For example, just about the entire Rolling Stones catalog has been remastered (for SACD, but the same masters were used to make the CD layers on the same discs that only golden ears with solid-silver cables can distinguish from the DSD versions). Similarly most of Yes, Rush, Sabbath (Ozzy Years), Steely Dan, AC/DC, CSN(Y), Simon & Garfunkel, Dylan, etc name almost any great group from before the 80s and their stuff is getting remastered the right way. Even the Tull catalog has received a make-over, yet somehow they still can't get Aqualung right - at least not mainstream CD releases - DCC did a good job, just about indistinguishable from their vinyl edition.

So, for those albums, the difference is no longer equivalent to a poor-quality MP3 vs a CD, it is more like a high-quality MP3 - say 220Kbps VBR Joint-Stereo and the CD it was ripped from. Which is to stay, indistinguishable for 99% of the population.

And to take it one step further - there are plenty of crap-quality vinyl pressings - 'fixing' them is how boutiques like DCC and MoFi got started. Unless you've got an audiophile label pressing or an expectionally well engineered mainstream release, the correctly (re)mastered CD versions won't just equal it, it will greatly surpass it. Super-22Khz harmonics just don't mean jack when the base frequencies are lo-fi - and for those frequencies a properly mastered CD does not just approximate a waveform it exactly reproduces it. Nyquist's theorem is for all practical purposes an indisputable law of nature, just like the laws of gravity and electromagnetism.

[biju]

People, people...!

Great info, but to be honest - my interest in vinyl might disappoint some. See, I happen to think vinyl's just 'fun'. Yes, fun. It's a good conversation piece, takes a little more involvement and, yes, it sounds good too (warmer).

Sorry for the ingnorant question Hotsauce, but what do you mean by "pre"? Also, what kind of "cart" do you recommend?

Thanks.

-biju.

[AnalogVX]

The record labels are pursuing this route because they can't sell their new artists to anyone who is not brainwashed by MTV, so in order to keep milking that market segment they keep releasing the same albums again and again.

The only reason the record labels aren't selling any new artists is beacuse most of them are crap. Seriously, doesn't it suck when you buy a CD and there's only one good song on it?

There are some remasters that sonund good, the Rolling Stones on SACD that you mentioned, and some that sound like crap too, Van Halen's remasters, to me, sound horrible.
I love vinyl. Yea, it's fun, yea it takes work on the set up and maintenance, but that's half the fun! As far the CD vs vinyl debate, it's all subjective. I have CDs that sound good and some bad and vinyl that sounds good and some bad.

[snowtrooper1966]

That turntable is a work of art!
Sure it cost about the same as a used VX.....
Best,

[WormGod]

After the purchase of my 73" DLP recently, it was also time to update my surround sound. Didn't feel like piece-mealing a system like the "audio purist" I used to be, so I shopped around for a decent "home theater in a box". Found a pretty solid one on Newegg and made the order (not here yet of course). Going from a Yamaha Matrix 6.1 system to an Onkyo 7.1 TrueHD so it's a step up to say the least. Here's to good tv and good video games....

ONKYO HT-S7200 7.1 Home Theater System

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16882120144

[Triathlete]

Onkyo makes nice stuff. I have always liked their basic looks.

[Cobrajet]

I just upgraded from an Onkyo TX-SR605 (part of an HTIB) to the TX-SR607 to get the additional HDMI ports. Two just wasn't enough. Unfortunately, one of the inputs I wanted to use, my PC, looks TERRIBLE when run through the reciever, but looks great when run directly to my TV (Sony 46" XBR.) And, I was never able to get the audio to work through the HDMI port, so I just ran an optical SPDIF cable from the PC to the reciever, and HDMI directly to the TV. Not worth the money to upgrade for me. But, otherwise I like the Onkyo. The Audyssey equalization seems to bump up the gain too much on every channel, so I get a pooping sound whenever I jump forward on my DVR. I have to manually override the settings, which defeats the purpose. If I was a true audiophile I may use more of the features in this receiver, but i basically bought it to watch satellite TV, and hope it does all the audio processing automatically. YMMV.

[Riff Raff]

Cool thread. I used to run Yamaha brand "flagship" AVRs over the past 20 years, but both versions developed some sort of channel "drop out" over time. I also didn't care for the surround sound of the Yamaha's, which they refer to as "presence speakers" (more accurately, it's "Ambient Noise"). So, I said goodbye to all Yamaha brand AVRs and never looked back.

This past Summer, I purchased the "flagship" Pioneer Elite, SC-09TX (10.2 channel AVR) which has an MSRP of $7K. It uses the awesome "ICE" amp system, and does everything except dispense toilet paper. There is a blog/forum site dedicated specifically to the Pioneer Elite SC-09TX (aka "Susano") on AVS Forum. It's flawless in its audio/video reproduction, and its build quality is a work of art. Pricey yes, but I'm confident it will be the last AVR I will ever need or buy. One look at the AVR "flagship" Pioneer Elite, SC-09TX at www.PioneerElectronics.com will blow your mind to its capabilities.

My next HT purchases will most likely be the EPSON #8500U Front Projector (1080p) displayed on a Da-Lite 160" screen and a Sony-ES 400-disc Blu-Ray changer with BD/DVD/CD all-format playback capabilty. Gotta' buy the best today, because it will be obsolete tomorrow.

Martin-Logan brand speakers would be my choice for speaker upgrades.

[BigSwede]

Well, 11 is louder than 10, you know...