Is it me, or should it sound better?

[rabski]

Self explanatory really. OlderMF pre-amp, 4 MF X seriesbi-amped into GB1s, but that's not the point. Or.....

CDPis £250Cambridge. Vinyl: LP12, Itok, Van den Hul DDT,Michell Delphini. TT is Valhallaandproperly set-up with anAudio Origami arm cable. Thissurely ought to be enormously better thanCD at the moment, but it's not. It's certainly more 'open' and the imaging is better, but the CD comes horribly close and on manyrecordings, it actually has the edge in terms of making music seem to come alive.

I want something that's untiring to listen to, butwhat's wrong here?Taken on its own, vinyl sounds wonderful. What I can't understand is why it doesn't sound a damned sight more wonderful, or why doesn't the CDP sound worse? Is it just that the rest isn't up to the job? Is it maybe the VdH? Can't believethat,but nobody else seems to use one.

Worse, I've got a new CDP coming in the next couple of days and, as I suspect, if it sounds even better, then I'm going to get seriously pissed off. Any suggestions?

[Ant]

Expectations may have something to do with it, you expect the TT to be better but they are both very close. Which one do you listen to if you have the same recordings on both formats?

Perhaps you prefer the more forward presentation of the cambridge, perhaps your TT is just setup with bits they are supposed to be good rather than what you actually like.

[rabski]

Ant wrote:

Expectations may have something to do with it, you expect the TT to be better but they are both very close. Which one do you listen to if you have the same recordings on both formats?

Perhaps you prefer the more forward presentation of the cambridge, perhaps your TT is just setup with bits they are supposed to be good rather than what you actually like.

Yeah, I'll accept the expectation bit, but if I had to replace both new, the TT would cost me about 25 times as much as the CDP. It's surely a reasonable expectation. I don'tprefer the presentation of the CD and sure, the TT sounds better. What doesn't seem right is that there's so little difference and that makes me suspect something just isn't right in the TT department.

[abnorm]

If you have the same recording in both formats try measuring the volume at the listening position. it is possible that whay you are hearing is a slightly lower volume with the turntable which is being peceived as a quality difference.

[rabski]

abnorm wrote:

If you have the same recording in both formats try measuring the volume at the listening position. it is possible that whay you are hearing is a slightly lower volume with the turntable which is being peceived as a quality difference.

I know I'm being Mr Negative here, but I'm as near certain as I can be that it's not that either. There are certainly differences and a good quality cut LP compared directly (switching from one source to the other) to the same recording on CD comes out with more detail and better imaging on vinyl, with no discernable volume difference. maybe I'm just expecting too much, or maybe my ears aren't up to it after 50 years of playing stuff too loud!

OTOH, I'd be interested if anyone, anywhere has tried the DDT and what they thought. For that matter, anyone around in North East Herts weekday evenings is welcome to have a listen and see whether I'm mad or not.

[Ant]

rabski wrote

Yeah, I'll accept the expectation bit, but if I had to replace both new, the TT would cost me about 25 times as much as the CDP.

I'd say it is a reasonable assumption, the TT is however in my opinion overpriced, not saying I don't like em mind, I prefer the solidity of a non suspended deck but that's just taste.

The DDT is supposed to be a good cart and I would imagine a good match for arm and record player. what loading have you got it set at?

[The Strat]

Why do people invariably expect a TT to sound better than a CDP? I appreciate yours Rabski is properly set up etc but there are far more variables in vinyl replay - quality of pressing, condition of records, stylus wear, TT isolation, quality of phono board, general set up etc.

[Papa Lazarou]

The Strat wrote:

Why do people invariably expect a TT to sound better than a CDP? I appreciate yours Rabski is properly set up etc but there are far more variables in vinyl replay - quality of pressing, condition of records, stylus wear, TT isolation, quality of phono board, general set up etc.

Good point.
For some reason many around these parts expect this without reason. I have a reasonable deck and it doesn't thrash my cdp at all. They sound different thats all.

[jon]

Clearly, CD is just a superior format ;) No wonder a CDP can sound better than a record deck costing 25x as much...

[rockmeister]

ah but the VFM point is valid...the Linn may be overpriced, but it should be much better, not worse. I like VDH carts and this ought to be contributing to a clean sound like wot u like in the cambridge, so shouldnt be a prob. Is it spotless? Silly question, but it is amazing how awful and catridge can sound when its got gungy. Just for peace of mind, risk some proper cleaner (alcohol based) and preferably use a vibrating pad cleaner and give it two or three sessions. Or maybe, your taste is just swinging towards a leaner, brighter sound?

[The Strat]

rockmeister wrote:

preferably use a vibrating pad ..........and give it two or three sessions. Or maybe, your taste is just swinging ............................

Clearly I'd overlooked some of the other pleasures that come with vinyl

shall i give my opinion or not????????

[Ant]

No

Ant wrote:

No

ok

[Ant]

For the record (no pun intended) my CD player is sounding better than my record player at the moment.

[Emma Royd]

rudolph hucker wrote:

shall i give my opinion or not????????

Yes

[rockmeister]

mine too, but then the rock IS disconnected

Emma Royd wrote:

rudolph hucker wrote:

shall i give my opinion or not????????

Yes

oh goody.


sell the lp12 and buy a good deck..... it wont sound better than a cd player as it's a 1970's designed deck...........

my full spec one sounded worse than a ps2......... so it went.



maybe a fully loeaded keel one will do the buisness but that's gonna cost 2k just for the sub-chassis..

has anyone heard the keel yet by the way?

[rabski]

rockmeister wrote:

ah but the VFM point is valid...the Linn may be overpriced, but it should be much better, not worse. I like VDH carts and this ought to be contributing to a clean sound like wot u like in the cambridge, so shouldnt be a prob. Is it spotless? Silly question, but it is amazing how awful and catridge can sound when its got gungy. Just for peace of mind, risk some proper cleaner (alcohol based) and preferably use a vibrating pad cleaner and give it two or three sessions. Or maybe, your taste is just swinging towards a leaner, brighter sound?

Thanks Rocky, and Ant. I did check the sharp pointy bit with a scope, but a few months ago so no harm in giving it a go. The Michell was set with the load that the VDH specsuggested, but it's worth a fiddle too. FWIW,I still much prefer the TT sound and it's better without any doubt, just not as betterer as I reckon it ought to be.

I'll get the new CDP infirst and I might try swapping some interconnects around too. After that, maybea different phono stage. And yes Rudi,I know what you think about LP12s, but when I bought it, it was by farthe best at that price level and anything better is likely to be way beyond my means these days.

[Ant]

rudolph hucker wrote:

has anyone heard the keel yet by the way?

I know someone who has. He has a full Linn setup and was a disciple.

He is now rethinking this.