Mixed metaphor but: bit-perfect cartridge?

Don't know that there is a an analogue equivalent, or even if there theoretically could be, but digital transports are talked about in terms of being bit perfect; they get all the information off the CD or whatever and pass it on to the next link in the chain their job done. Either that information is 'correct' or it isn't.

Cartridges are rarely talked about in this way though; surely their job is to extract as much information as possible from the vinyl then pass it down the line in as unadulterated way as possible. It seems to be taken as given though that that process will be compromised and to an even greater extent than the electromechanical device at the far end of the chain: the loudspeaker.

Is this a product of history, of the way that vinyl playback has evolved over the years? Why do carts seem to occupy a privileged position where the question of how well they do their job (wrt high fidelity) is not the first to be asked?

 

I judge them on things like, detail, clarity, timing, dynamics, balance, smoothness, frequency range - all good analogue terms oh and of course MUSICALITY hahahaha

 

It is fundamentally impossible to read the contents of a groove correctly with an electro-mechanical transducer.

Further, the record player system is about the only one that is self-defeating: a motor has to rotate a platter with constant speed, but at the same time sees a load modulated by the signal in the groove itself. Not even magnetic tape is so fundamentally wrong.

 

Closest I've heard would probably be the Dynavector DV17.
Ruler flat and probably as low in distortion as you can get.

If the absolute tracking ability were just a little better it would be my choice over everything else.

 

So why do good ones whoop the bit crunchers on realism, emotion and fun to use of course?

 

Yes, why?

Would to care to try an answer yourself?

 

Cos its lovely analogue all the way no dac polution or op amp issues perhaps but there are phonostages of course.
Plus there are more things to tune - cart, arms, decks, cables, SUT's, phonostages.
It is a wonder it works as well as it does, but it does...

 

Digital replay requires good science.
Building a cart is an art.
The various practitioners seldom cross over. They interact very little and they even speak a different language. Remember also accuracy isn't a good thing in industry eyes. If it is accurate then it can all tend to sound the same which would destroy the industry. Vive la difference!

 

They don't, Steve.

Chris

 

Agreed.

 

You are aware that every LP from the last 20 years or so comes from a digital master?

 

That's religion, not a possible explanation.

Given that a large number of people has an obvious subjective preference for such a replay, wouldn't you like to know what the real underlying reasons might be?

 

They are deaf?
Keith

 

It is all of the things listed above - however, I also find it one of the most emotionally sterile cartridges I have ever heard - everything it plays sounds very considered and precise, but also quite detached and 'matter of fact'.

I believe the new Ben Folds record is entirely analogue recorded and mastered - and I have other records, produced in the last 20 years, that have not been digitally mastered. Even then, I have digitally mastered records that sound significantly better than their CD counterpart.

I have NEVER heard a good CD player outperform a good record player - equal yes (on the right recordings).

 

I've had in mind for a while that vinyl replay recreates whereas digital reproduces.

This proceeds from the assumption that recorded music isn't in fact real music (where real = live, acoustic) but something else. In a similar way that instant coffee isn't real coffee but it's still a hot beverage.

The interface between cartridge and record is in itself recreating something of what real music is. This, I consider, is different from simply saying it's a process which adds pleasing distortion and is different to what some amps or speakers (particularly omni type devices) do to imitate 'liveness'.

 

You are on the right track indeed.

The whole concept of stereo-based high-'fidelity' is fundamentally flawed. It does not offer a means for consistently and repeatably either bringing (any) performance to (any) listening room, or moving (any) listener to (any) music venue.

Given this the objective transparency of a single link in the chain (e.g. digital being essentially blameless) is largely ... irrelevant.

Given this the objective flaws of a link (e.g. LP mastering/cutting/pressing/playing) may well make the result more palatable in the confines of the average listening room.

If you accept this there is suddenly no need anymore for pro-analogue (or pro-digital) dogma. I, for myself, remain keenly interested in both technologies and take them for what they are.

 

Hi,

Not true. Bands like The White Stripes used analogue mastering.

SCIDB

 

yes and many an old LP will sound better than a digitally mastered one!

Perhaps they are deaf in which case it makes no matter... to them...

 

The digital bit is neither here nor there IME, the mastering is all important.

You can take the most characterful of vinyl and shove it through a digital loop and you still get the character.
The digital system doesn't know where this character comes from - the performance, the venue, the mics, the process that commits the signal to vinyl or the equipment that retrieves it - digital just takes the signal and codes it.