Home Theater Forum and Systems banner

101 - 109 of 109 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,261 Posts
For me vinyl has a fuller sound that is worth the ceremony required to play it. Not all the time but enough to make it a nice option.

I'm looking to buy a turntable. Am considering the Denon DP300F with Ortofon 2M Red or Ortofon Quintet Red moving coil. Any thoughts on the moving magnet v moving coil option?
Moving magnets are ideal for the beginner and audiophile alike. Most have replaceable stylii, and they're compatible with almost any phono preamp. They generally produce a more mellow sound than moving coils. Moving coils require a little more investment and attention. Instead of being replaced, the stylus must be rebuilt, and usually costs almost as much as a new cartridge. Moving coils can be finicky about the phono preamp they're paired with. Some even require step-up transformers. MC cartridges tend to sound leaner in the bass than moving magnets, with better tonality, transparency, imaging. (Paraphrased from this source).

But.. favoritism leads to debate, as the following excerpt reveals:

Moving Magnet vs. Moving Coil Debate
  • Moving magnet cartridges are more commonly found at the 'lower-end' of the market, while the 'higher-end' tends to be dominated by moving coil designs. The debate as to whether MM or MC designs can ultimately produce the better sound is often heated and subjective. The distinction between the two is often blurred by cost and design considerations - e.g. can an MC cartridge requiring another step-up amplification outperform well made MM cartridges that need simpler front-end stages?
  • MC cartridges offer very low inductance and impedance, which means that the effects of capacitance (in the cable that goes from the cartridge to the preamp) are negligible, unlike MM cartridges, which comparatively sport very high inductance and impedance. In the latter, cable capacitance can negatively affect the flatness of frequency response and linearity of phase response. This would account for a sonic advantage to MC types.
  • It is generally believed that MC cartridges sport lower moving masses. However, quality MM cartridges are able to offer as low or lower moving mass than some MC cartridges. For example, the state-of-the-art Technics EPC-100CMK4 with 0.055 mg of effective tip mass, of moving magnet design. Comparatively, the popular Denon DL-301 moving coil cartridge has an effective tip mass of 0.270 mg.
  • MC cartridges offer very low inductance and impedance, which means that the effects of capacitance (in the cable that goes from the cartridge to the preamp) are negligible, unlike MM cartridges, which comparatively sport very high inductance and impedance. In the latter, cable capacitance can negatively affect the flatness of frequency response and linearity of phase response. This would account for a sonic advantage to MC types.
  • It is generally believed that MC cartridges sport lower moving masses. However, quality MM cartridges are able to offer as low or lower moving mass than some MC cartridges. For example, the state-of-the-art Technics EPC-100CMK4 with 0.055 mg of effective tip mass, of moving magnet design. Comparatively, the popular Denon DL-301 moving coil cartridge has an effective tip mass of 0.270 mg.
  • To discriminate cartridges by engine (MC vs MM) overlooks the fact that the stylus tip shape and cantilever have a significant influence in the sound, and this may account for more variation of sound quality than the engine type used
 

·
Plain ole user
Joined
·
11,121 Posts
The other factor that is significant is that the extra pre-amplification needed can represent a large variable. You have to have a decent head amp for a MC cartridge. This may be exaggerated by the fact that many devices do not even have a phono stage these days, and many MM users are using very cheap phono preamps. Ironically, it is MORE important to have a good, and well matched, phono stage with a MM cartridge because of the higher impedance, but no one ever really discusses nor specs it out.

Back in the day when phono cartridges were prolific, and everything had a phono stage, there were some really good MM cartridges. These days, most of the market has shriveled and there has not been the level of development in MM that there has been in MC.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,261 Posts
Maybe I misunderstood him, but I believe Jack was refuting my comment that technically CD has greater dynamic range with lower distortion. Instead of giving technical data to back up his claim he made a general comment about it and also made a general comment saying vinyl "can be quite silent." Quite silent compared to what?
It's like if someone asked the difference between a Chevy Chevette & a Chevy Corvette and someone replied "the Chevy Chevette handles just fine and is fast enough." Not very useful info there.
I like your analogy! Taken alone, Savjac's statement is self-explanatory. He is merely expressing his subjective perception of the vinyl medium. I agree it was a general, sweeping statement and he could have elaborated with a comparison or two. But when you say "Not very useful info there" I have to ask, useful to whom? His description may be perfectly adequate to the OP, who is interested in how vinyl sounds, not how it measures.

Same with a statement like..."vinyl sounds in the deep and high frequencen more powerful and dynamic." Not much useful info there. If you are referring to the technical abilities of the media compared to CD, it is wrong. If you are giving an opinion based on certain LP's & CD's you've listened to, then great, but which LP's & CD's were compared.
Agreed. The subjective claim walks a thin technical line, and definitely should follow-up with supporting detail.

You mention.."Valiant attempts have been made on both sides to refute the claims of the other. This is an age-old debate which will never be resolved."
The technical aspects were resolved years ago. The debate will rage on forever because instead of comparing technical data between the formats...
Comparing technical formats is one side of the debate. Why would the other side convert to that mind-set? That's why there's a debate.

...people say "I listened to vinyl 'A' and it sounded so much better than CD 'X'," where you are not comparing the attributes of vinyl/CD, you are comparing the audio engineering/mastering of specific LP to a specific CD.
I agree such comparisons are unfair and unscientific, but not all people conduct flawed listening tests.

The OP asked for the difference between listening to turntable & CD, I believe posting correct technical data should be just as acceptable as people posting "CD sucks." You asked if I believe better technical specs means something is inherently better, my answer is "inherently not."
I like your style! You're absolutely right, and nobody questions your right to present the other side of the coin. I'm just trying to say that technically oriented people (objectivists) hardly ever agree with subjectivists, and vice versa. Neither will convince the other to give up their philosophy. It doesn't matter why or why not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,771 Posts
I remember buying the CD of Dire Straits - Love over Gold and was unimpressed with it, I preferred the Vinyl better.
This was when I owned a Sony CDP101 and interestingly, when I played a CD my two cats would run out of the room.
I upgraded to a Sony 200 CD stacker some years later and it didn't have the same effect on them and to me it sounded better.
My last two receivers have had optical in, and again, I feel the sound was improved by using their internal dac's over the CD's inbuilt one.

When I get my turntable setup again I will revisit Love over Gold and let you know my impressions.

So I guess you need to consider not just the CD/Vinyl but the players used as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
918 Posts
bigbadbill,

Prior to 1985, A/D converters did a poor job. The first CD's that came out had a sound that many describe as 'brittle.' Bruce Springsteen's CD Born in the USA suffered greatly from this. This CD (vs LP) was superior in terms of lower noise floor and cleanliness, but the music had a sound that was 'not up to the hype of CD.'
Dire Straits Love Over Gold album was recorded prior to 1985, not sure when your CD was transferred from analog to digital, but it would not surprise me to find the LP sounding superior.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,261 Posts
....Back in the day when phono cartridges were prolific, and everything had a phono stage, there were some really good MM cartridges. These days, most of the market has shriveled and there has not been the level of development in MM that there has been in MC.
The venerable Shure V15 Mkxx comes to mind. It's still around after all these decades for more than just its good value.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,771 Posts
The venerable Shure V15 Mkxx comes to mind. It's still around after all these decades for more than just its good value.
Yes, I love my V15 type 4 and it is still going strong.
I originally updated my turntable/arm/cartridge so that it could track the cannon shots on my Telarc 1812 Overture. :eek: That is one scary piece of vinyl.

bigbadbill,
Prior to 1985, A/D converters did a poor job. The first CD's that came out had a sound that many describe as 'brittle.' Bruce Springsteen's CD Born in the USA suffered greatly from this. This CD (vs LP) was superior in terms of lower noise floor and cleanliness, but the music had a sound that was 'not up to the hype of CD.'
Dire Straits Love Over Gold album was recorded prior to 1985, not sure when your CD was transferred from analog to digital, but it would not surprise me to find the LP sounding superior.
Thanks Glenn, it's amazing the advances that have been made over the years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
As I have very accurate & well matched equipment & in past have had the time to conduct extensive listening tests, this is what I have found & also researched. As one poster mentioned, there is a great variation over the years in AD/DA converters & have found best sound from cd is via optic to external high quality DA converter. Have also noted quite a difference in the quality of sound in work system that has had several home hi fi cd players over the years but high end English 80watt amp & $20,000 ProAc studio monitors have remained constant. Swapped the laser reader from one that demised but sounded really great into replacement that was a bit flat sounding & it was a major improvement (was a Sony laser in the demised Kenwood CD player). As the quality (& expense) of my system evolved I noticed MAJOR short comings in a very large number of my Vinyl collection, some really poor recordings & some very lack luster performances, e.g. had a direct cut Dark Side of the Moon that was really flat & swapped it for a standard pressing that sounded awesome (should have kept it $$$ in hindsight). The very nature of a CD means it has an order of magnitude more information & dynamic range than is remotely possible with vinyl...... however, analogue source produces predominantly 2nd order harmonics which are euphonic, we adore them & digital produces predominantly 3rd order harmonics which we really hate.These are unassailable facts regards CD & vinyl. Add to that the fact that in an effort to get high volume from Walkmans & then iPods, the recording industry cranked the recording gain up & went from 18dB head room to practically none or sometimes less, with the result that pretty well all popular & a lot of other music effectively became distortion to a beat & this affected both CD & vinyl but probably more so CD. So I have some remastered vinyl on CD & the original vinyl & it's a toss up which one sounds better, so much so that am copying my record collection into DVD quality files, repairing major pops etc & saving them as 44.1 cd sound file files straight to HD. there is no discernible difference sound wise but fig. that dealing with them in the higher Hz/dynamic format & then downsizing will introduce less grief. Conclusion have arrived at is a great CD sounds great as does a well recorded record, they just sound a bit different & both have pluses & both have short comings but on a state of the art system they are both awesome. At the end of the day you are listening to a recording engineer's interpretation of what the performance should sound like & where the players should image & everything is processed to death & then you go deaf. If you want perfect, learn to play something & get good & then have jam sessions with your mates in the garage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
849 Posts
It all comes down to the recording engineer and the mastering of the medium. Neither format holds the lead and I have many recordings in both formats. That being said, CD has far more potential to deliver a more accurate reproduction but unfortunately, its not being used to its greatest potential.
 
101 - 109 of 109 Posts
Top