Karousel

We use the Tune Method to evaluate performance

Moderator: Staff

FairPlayMotty
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 769
Joined: 2018-08-28 11:10
Location: Scotland

Re: Karousel

Post by FairPlayMotty »

PaulC wrote: 2020-08-21 20:12 The Karousel deck sounded more cohesive to me. It's a point when I stop paying attention to the parts and just experience the whole. I didn't have that experience with the Valhalla deck.

I've been thinking though that something is not strictly right with our use of recordings of audio playback as a means to determining which component is better than another in a HiFi system. Here's my reasoning, and feel free to smash it apart, because I am not completely sure of my logic:

I listened to your uploads, both being digitally streamed recordings of audio playback of a Stevie Wonder track on your HiFi. For this 'listening test' I listened through 'speaker A' on 'computer B' using 'browser C'. After listening to your uploads I then opened Tidal in browser C and listened through speaker A on computer B to the audio playback of the same track (I am assuming it is the same recording of that track). Guess what? Your recordings were more enjoyable to listen to! Now, in the context of using a comparison to determine which HiFi component is better than another, this outcome is highly problematic. This is because if we are attempting to determine which of your recordings gives the most faithful playback (which I am assuming is what we are trying to ascertain) then surely listening to the actual track through Speaker A on computer B using browser C ought to give a more faithful reproduction of that track than listening to a recording of the audio playback of that track through Speaker A on computer B using browser C? This because the recording of the audio playback of that track has added an extra step to the audio reproduction. If the recordings of the audio playback of that track are more enjoyable to listen to, one can therefore only conclude that it is not because the music is being more faithfully reproduced, but rather, because the recordings have added artefacts that make the audio sound more enjoyable to us. In other words, what is being experienced as 'better' cannot have anything to do with faithful reproduction of the recorded track.

Perhaps my logic is flawed. Enthusiasts on the forum, please let me know what you think.
It makes sense to me. But I am a little sceptical of the source of Stevie Wonder digital sources from this era. Often they claim to be from the master tapes. That's quite problematic as Stevie keeps the original master tapes at home.

As evidenced by the YouTube clip Beck referenced there's a magic in the best vinyl reproductions that's hard to replicate in digital. I love my digital servers and players but that YouTube video was pretty convincing. And with Stevie Wonder I've not heard a digital copy that sounds as great as the analogue vinyl. Charlie1's clips allow me to hear the magic from the record.
Everything is a remix: Copy, Transform, Combine.
User avatar
Tony Tune-age
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 1579
Joined: 2009-12-19 19:07
Location: United States

Re: Karousel

Post by Tony Tune-age »

You do bring up some good points Paul, some of which I haven't thought about.
Tony Tune-age
Charlie1
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4831
Joined: 2007-12-11 00:30
Location: UK

Re: Karousel

Post by Charlie1 »

Even when the masters are held by the record label, sometimes they have lost the in house knowledge and don't know what the master is. Sometimes the tapes labelled master are no such thing.

There's a great story on the Steve Hoffman website where the record label kept sending him what they thought was the master tape of Highway 61 Revisited. He kept sending each one back saying, 'no, that's not it either'. Eventually they said there only this one left, labelled something or other I've now forgotten and he said 'yes, that's it!!!' so even big labels sometimes haven't got a clue.
Last edited by Charlie1 on 2020-08-21 20:34, edited 2 times in total.
Spannko
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 2292
Joined: 2008-01-24 21:46
Location: North East of The Black Country, UK

Re: Karousel

Post by Spannko »

The drumming is excellent, but only on the Cirkus deck. Within two drum beats, it’s obvious the Karousel isn’t in the same musical league.


PS. It looks like the Lac is your support of choice these days Charlie1, and your enthusiasm for it has encouraged me to try one out again sometime 😁
Charlie1
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4831
Joined: 2007-12-11 00:30
Location: UK

Re: Karousel

Post by Charlie1 »

Gonna cost you!!! They are up to 6 quid now :(

PS Pre-Cirkus if you don't mind ;)
User avatar
lejonklou
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 6524
Joined: 2007-01-30 10:38
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: Karousel

Post by lejonklou »

PaulC wrote: 2020-08-21 20:12 The Karousel deck sounded more cohesive to me. It's a point when I stop paying attention to the parts and just experience the whole. I didn't have that experience with the Valhalla deck.

I've been thinking though that something is not strictly right with our use of recordings of audio playback as a means to determining which component is better than another in a HiFi system. Here's my reasoning, and feel free to smash it apart, because I am not completely sure of my logic:

I listened to your uploads, both being digitally streamed recordings of audio playback of a Stevie Wonder track on your HiFi. For this 'listening test' I listened through 'speaker A' on 'computer B' using 'browser C'. After listening to your uploads I then opened Tidal in browser C and listened through speaker A on computer B to the audio playback of the same track (I am assuming it is the same recording of that track). Guess what? Your recordings were more enjoyable to listen to! Now, in the context of using a comparison to determine which HiFi component is better than another, this outcome is highly problematic. This is because if we are attempting to determine which of your recordings gives the most faithful playback (which I am assuming is what we are trying to ascertain) then surely listening to the actual track through Speaker A on computer B using browser C ought to give a more faithful reproduction of that track than listening to a recording of the audio playback of that track through Speaker A on computer B using browser C? This because the recording of the audio playback of that track has added an extra step to the audio reproduction. If the recordings of the audio playback of that track are more enjoyable to listen to, one can therefore only conclude that it is not because the music is being more faithfully reproduced, but rather, because the recordings have added artefacts that make the audio sound more enjoyable to us. In other words, what is being experienced as 'better' cannot have anything to do with faithful reproduction of the recorded track.

Perhaps my logic is flawed. Enthusiasts on the forum, please let me know what you think.
Source first!

Experienced this a hundred times +. An in-room recording of a superior digital source will be more musical than playing your own lesser digital source. It's really strange that it works that way, but somehow the basic qualities of the source survives despite being treated horribly by an amp, speakers, room, a phone and playback of the file.
Spannko
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 2292
Joined: 2008-01-24 21:46
Location: North East of The Black Country, UK

Re: Karousel

Post by Spannko »

Charlie1 wrote: 2020-08-21 20:36 Gonna cost you!!! They are up to 6 quid now :(
Six whole pounds? I remember the day when I could catch a bus to Ikea, buy a Lac and still have enough change out of a fiver for a large roe and chips with a pickled egg on the way home.
Charlie1 wrote: 2020-08-21 20:36 PS Pre-Cirkus if you don't mind ;)
Oops! Sorry, I keep forgetting. That’s why yours sounds so good!

Does your top plate have the corner bolt? I’ve never heard a comparison, but I’ve wondered for a long time if it really improves the lp12 or just makes it more impressive?
Charlie1
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4831
Joined: 2007-12-11 00:30
Location: UK

Re: Karousel

Post by Charlie1 »

Spannko wrote: 2020-08-21 21:08 Six whole pounds? I remember the day when I could catch a bus to Ikea, buy a Lac and still have enough change out of a fiver for a large roe and chips with a pickled egg on the way home.
LOL!! :D

Not sure about the corner bolt. Certainly the Radikal deck has it. It's got several parts from my first deck (such as the bearing and platters) so wouldn't be surprised if it didn't.

You can also get mini-LACK and stretched-LACK now but neither sounds as good as the original:
https://www.ikea.com/gb/en/p/lack-nest- ... -40349263/
FairPlayMotty
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 769
Joined: 2018-08-28 11:10
Location: Scotland

Re: Karousel

Post by FairPlayMotty »

Some bargains lac(k).
Everything is a remix: Copy, Transform, Combine.
Lego
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 1147
Joined: 2007-04-18 11:42
Location: glasgow

Re: Karousel

Post by Lego »

Karousel has a funkier groove and I can hear more of SWs accent in his singing.Its almost making those Naim amp sound like Linn LKs
:0)
I know that tune
User avatar
V.A.MKD
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 862
Joined: 2019-10-09 15:33
Location: Skopje / Europe
Contact:

Re: Karousel

Post by V.A.MKD »

ThomasOK wrote: 2020-08-21 19:51 I listened to the black turntable to the end twice trying to figure out how you got Stevie in the room. The afromosia never got past the middle.
+1
Music First ...
Vlado
Charlie1
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4831
Joined: 2007-12-11 00:30
Location: UK

Re: Karousel

Post by Charlie1 »

Lego wrote: 2020-08-21 21:57 Its almost making those Naim amp sound like Linn LKs
:0)
Almost!!? 😡 😁
User avatar
ThomasOK
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4358
Joined: 2007-02-02 18:41
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: Karousel

Post by ThomasOK »

lejonklou wrote: 2020-08-21 20:44
PaulC wrote: 2020-08-21 20:12 The Karousel deck sounded more cohesive to me. It's a point when I stop paying attention to the parts and just experience the whole. I didn't have that experience with the Valhalla deck.

I've been thinking though that something is not strictly right with our use of recordings of audio playback as a means to determining which component is better than another in a HiFi system. Here's my reasoning, and feel free to smash it apart, because I am not completely sure of my logic:

I listened to your uploads, both being digitally streamed recordings of audio playback of a Stevie Wonder track on your HiFi. For this 'listening test' I listened through 'speaker A' on 'computer B' using 'browser C'. After listening to your uploads I then opened Tidal in browser C and listened through speaker A on computer B to the audio playback of the same track (I am assuming it is the same recording of that track). Guess what? Your recordings were more enjoyable to listen to! Now, in the context of using a comparison to determine which HiFi component is better than another, this outcome is highly problematic. This is because if we are attempting to determine which of your recordings gives the most faithful playback (which I am assuming is what we are trying to ascertain) then surely listening to the actual track through Speaker A on computer B using browser C ought to give a more faithful reproduction of that track than listening to a recording of the audio playback of that track through Speaker A on computer B using browser C? This because the recording of the audio playback of that track has added an extra step to the audio reproduction. If the recordings of the audio playback of that track are more enjoyable to listen to, one can therefore only conclude that it is not because the music is being more faithfully reproduced, but rather, because the recordings have added artifacts that make the audio sound more enjoyable to us. In other words, what is being experienced as 'better' cannot have anything to do with faithful reproduction of the recorded track.

Perhaps my logic is flawed. Enthusiasts on the forum, please let me know what you think.
Source first!

Experienced this a hundred times +. An in-room recording of a superior digital source will be more musical than playing your own lesser digital source. It's really strange that it works that way, but somehow the basic qualities of the source survives despite being treated horribly by an amp, speakers, room, a phone and playback of the file.
Agreed. The problem with the digital file you heard is that you have no idea where it came from. Was it from the original analog master tape? Unlikely as the companies don't like to give them out and usually provide a high-res digital copy instead. Even if it was the master tape that tape will have degraded significantly in the intervening decades, in this case almost five! Was it from the CD master? Maybe from a high-res digital master. Was it a straight master or a remaster that is somebodies idea of what it should sound like. As you can see there are many variables in where the digital file came from and what it sounds like. Add to that what I consider the fact that every digital transfer causes losses and you have the question of where that master came from and how many places it has been before it got to your computer.

So I am not at all surprised at your finding. Even though I don't see it mentioned often, I believe that vinyl, especially when it is a clean first pressing from the country of origin, is actually the best archival product. Even a new pressing made from the original master tape by somebody who knows what they are doing using an all analog cutting system (a very rare combination as is obvious by the lack of musicality in the majority of vinyl rereleases) you still are going to have the tape losses that weren't there on the original. Source first runs deep!
The LP12 Whisperer
Manufacturer, Distributor, Retailer and above all lover of music.
Charlie1
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4831
Joined: 2007-12-11 00:30
Location: UK

Re: Karousel

Post by Charlie1 »

ThomasOK wrote: 2020-08-21 23:51 Source first runs deep!
👍😉
David Neel
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 975
Joined: 2008-02-08 23:17
Location: The Magical Forest

Re: Karousel

Post by David Neel »

Spannko wrote: 2020-08-21 21:08 Does your top plate have the corner bolt? I’ve never heard a comparison, but I’ve wondered for a long time if it really improves the lp12 or just makes it more impressive?
My understanding is that the corner bolt was introduced to make it easier to set up the LP12, i.e. for the benefit of the dealer as much as the listener. I've still not got one.
The search for knowledge is not nourished by certainty, but by a radical distrust in certainty
Ianw
Active member
Active member
Posts: 148
Joined: 2019-02-22 11:09

Re: Karousel

Post by Ianw »

I’m having Karousel fitted today!
Lego
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 1147
Joined: 2007-04-18 11:42
Location: glasgow

Re: Karousel

Post by Lego »

Ianw wrote: 2020-08-22 11:00 I’m having Karousel fitted today!
Let us know how you get on Ian
I know that tune
David Neel
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 975
Joined: 2008-02-08 23:17
Location: The Magical Forest

Re: Karousel

Post by David Neel »

Ianw wrote: 2020-08-22 11:00 I’m having Karousel fitted today!
Enjoy it! And please report back :)
The search for knowledge is not nourished by certainty, but by a radical distrust in certainty
PaulC
Member
Member
Posts: 41
Joined: 2020-06-06 22:46
Location: Malmö, Sweden

Re: Karousel

Post by PaulC »

Thanks for responses. At first I felt convinced by the source first explanation. As I understand it, this explanation suggests that having an initial step that retrieves a high degree of musical information from a source recording results in a more faithful audio reproduction of the source performance than an initial step which retrieves less musical information, irrespective of the number of subsequent steps in the chain of audio reproduction. Would that be correct Fredrik?

After thinking for a while (yes, I know, I maybe should be using my Saturday for something else..) I decided to draw a diagram of the different steps involved when comparing a source recording listened to on a pc and a home recording of the playback of the same source recording also listened to on the same pc:

Image

First I need to state three assumptions. If any of these assumptions doesn't hold then the below counter argument doesn't hold:
1. In both cases we are listening to the same source recording.
2. In each step in the chain of audio reproduction some musical information from the source performance is lost/degraded.
3. The hard drive storage of the source recording and the home recording of playback of that source recording does not contribute to loss/degradation of musical information differently for the different recordings.

Source first argument: In the home recording there is a step in which a high degree of musical information is retrieved from the source recording, and which positively impacts the faithful reproduction of the source performance when listened to through a poorer audio retrieval pathway (my pc). Such a step does not occur at any point when listening to the source recording itself through the poorer audio retrieval pathway (my pc).

Counter argument: Because both recordings are being listened to through the poorer audio retrieval pathway (my pc) the uploaded home recording (stored in cyberspace) would need to contain a more faithful recording of the source performance than the source recording itself (also stored in cyberspace) in order to more faithfully reproduce the source performance.

If the counter argument is logically correct then I need to stand by my original claim. Of course, it is possible that one or more of the three assumptions were broken in this particular example. Nonetheless, it is worth performing a test in which we know that all of the assumptions hold to see if a home recording of playback of a source recording really does sound 'better' than the same source recording when both are played back through a 'poorer' audio retrieval pathway, e.g. a pc. If the logic of the counter argument holds then a home recording of playback of a source recording cannot possibly contain more of the source performances musical information than the source recording itself. If it sounds 'better' then it must be due to artefacts not related to the source performance itself.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Lego
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 1147
Joined: 2007-04-18 11:42
Location: glasgow

Re: Karousel

Post by Lego »

lejonklou wrote: 2020-08-21 20:44
PaulC wrote: 2020-08-21 20:12 The Karousel deck sounded more cohesive to me. It's a point when I stop paying attention to the parts and just experience the whole. I didn't have that experience with the Valhalla deck.

I've been thinking though that something is not strictly right with our use of recordings of audio playback as a means to determining which component is better than another in a HiFi system. Here's my reasoning, and feel free to smash it apart, because I am not completely sure of my logic:

I listened to your uploads, both being digitally streamed recordings of audio playback of a Stevie Wonder track on your HiFi. For this 'listening test' I listened through 'speaker A' on 'computer B' using 'browser C'. After listening to your uploads I then opened Tidal in browser C and listened through speaker A on computer B to the audio playback of the same track (I am assuming it is the same recording of that track). Guess what? Your recordings were more enjoyable to listen to! Now, in the context of using a comparison to determine which HiFi component is better than another, this outcome is highly problematic. This is because if we are attempting to determine which of your recordings gives the most faithful playback (which I am assuming is what we are trying to ascertain) then surely listening to the actual track through Speaker A on computer B using browser C ought to give a more faithful reproduction of that track than listening to a recording of the audio playback of that track through Speaker A on computer B using browser C? This because the recording of the audio playback of that track has added an extra step to the audio reproduction. If the recordings of the audio playback of that track are more enjoyable to listen to, one can therefore only conclude that it is not because the music is being more faithfully reproduced, but rather, because the recordings have added artefacts that make the audio sound more enjoyable to us. In other words, what is being experienced as 'better' cannot have anything to do with faithful reproduction of the recorded track.

Perhaps my logic is flawed. Enthusiasts on the forum, please let me know what you think.
Source first!

Experienced this a hundred times +. An in-room recording of a superior digital source will be more musical than playing your own lesser digital source. It's really strange that it works that way, but somehow the basic qualities of the source survives despite being treated horribly by an amp, speakers, room, a phone and playback of the file.
I always thought it was weird how the Kremlin could make the Sony/Tascam cd players in the BBC studios sound like an LP12, or was it Karik? :0)
I know that tune
User avatar
lejonklou
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 6524
Joined: 2007-01-30 10:38
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: Karousel

Post by lejonklou »

PaulC wrote: 2020-08-22 11:44 Thanks for responses. At first I felt convinced by the source first explanation. As I understand it, this explanation suggests that having an initial step that retrieves a high degree of musical information from a source recording results in a more faithful audio reproduction of the source performance than an initial step which retrieves less musical information, irrespective of the number of subsequent steps in the chain of audio reproduction. Would that be correct Fredrik?
Love your hardcore dedication to this, PaulC!

I am short of time right now, so apologies for an incomplete answer, but I would like to point out a few things:

* I am unsure of whether the term "musical information" is the best one to use for describing these findings. There are multiple steps of losses in the chain from master recording to the reproduction we listen to. Each step in the chain has its own character, it's own specific type of degradation imposed on the signal. What I'm saying is that there are some basic musical qualities from early in the chain that can be recognized even after many subsequent steps of degradation - even when the sound appears to be much, much worse. If the later steps degrade too much, there will of course be nothing left to recognize, so there is a point where the Source First principle breaks down. The surprising finding is that this point is much further away than I would expect. In other words, we have a surprising ability to "listen through" degradations that happen later in the chain.

* Source First is not a theoretical rule. It's entirely a practical finding. I have countless of times been baffled by these findings. Some of those are listening to phone-recorded in-room clips with my bluetooth headphones and finding the clip more musical than when played on the system I'm sitting in front of. Then with a change of (or to) the source component(s), the result instantly flips. I have failed to create an abstract understanding of this - at least a complete one. I simply accept what I experience and then try to see if any pieces of the theoretical puzzle might fit with it.
FairPlayMotty
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 769
Joined: 2018-08-28 11:10
Location: Scotland

Re: Karousel

Post by FairPlayMotty »

Charlie1 wrote: 2020-08-21 20:30 Even when the masters are held by the record label, sometimes they have lost the in house knowledge and don't know what the master is. Sometimes the tapes labelled master are no such thing.

There's a great story on the Steve Hoffman website where the record label kept sending him what they thought was the master tape of Highway 61 Revisited. He kept sending each one back saying, 'no, that's not it either'. Eventually they said there only this one left, labelled something or other I've now forgotten and he said 'yes, that's it!!!' so even big labels sometimes haven't got a clue.
Columbia/CBS seem to have made a real mess of taking care of the Dylan masters from that period.

Roger Ford in the attached link tried to document the history of Blonde on Blonde. There are so many versions around that differ markedly in track length it's astounding.

http://www.two-riders.co.uk/bobpt1c.html
[url]http://www.two-riders.co.uk/bobpt2c.html[url]

The only upside for me is how different the versions sound, particularly the mono and stereo editions.
Everything is a remix: Copy, Transform, Combine.
User avatar
ThomasOK
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4358
Joined: 2007-02-02 18:41
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: Karousel

Post by ThomasOK »

Interesting thought process Paul. The problem is that it all breaks down due to a big false assumption:
1. In both cases we are listening to the same source recording.

I tried to point out that it is extremely rare that we would be listening to the same source recording. This is especially true of an original analog recording as it had to be converted to digital and who knows how well that was done.

The other problem is we also have no idea how many steps a streamed digital signal has gone through. Was the original digital master (or remaster) uploaded directly to the servers at Tidal or Qobuz? Highly unlikely. More likely the file was uploaded from the digital master tape (or a copy of it) or HD to the servers of Columbia, Warner Brothers, Sony, etc. Then from there to the servers of Tidal or Qobuz somewhere, then distributed to other servers around the world or in large server farms. Also the equipment changes all the time in order to keep up with increasing demands and higher bandwidths. So the server Sony loaded the file onto ten years ago has probably been replaced at least two or three times by now with the files being copied over each time. A hard drive goes down and is replaced with a new one with the files restored from the backup, etc. As you can see the streamed file may have gone through countless transmissions, recopies and re-transmissions before it gets to your computer. On the other hand the clip goes from the digital recording to dropbox and to you. Certainly there are the same multiple server and equipment changes with dropbox but nowhere near the possible number of transitions for a file that was uploaded and downloaded within hours or a couple of days. So the transmission chain is also likely more convoluted for a streamed file.

Now if we could get a direct download from the original master tape file and compare that to a clip from a system we might reverse your initial finding. I suspect the download would have to come from a small label that is dedicated to quality like Linn Records or some of the artist owned labels.
The LP12 Whisperer
Manufacturer, Distributor, Retailer and above all lover of music.
User avatar
ThomasOK
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4358
Joined: 2007-02-02 18:41
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: Karousel

Post by ThomasOK »

David Neel wrote: 2020-08-22 08:13
Spannko wrote: 2020-08-21 21:08 Does your top plate have the corner bolt? I’ve never heard a comparison, but I’ve wondered for a long time if it really improves the lp12 or just makes it more impressive?
My understanding is that the corner bolt was introduced to make it easier to set up the LP12, i.e. for the benefit of the dealer as much as the listener. I've still not got one.
My belief is that it does improve the musicality of the LP12, but I have not done a direct A/B of two otherwise near-identical tables. It is true that it was fitted to make setup easier as there should be no rattling in that corner and with the bolt there that can be assured. Previous to the bolt you often had to re-bend the top plate to make it fit tightly to the plinth and not rattle. Unfortunately the same problem is just as likely to show up in the front corner and it isn't good to have it there either. So I still have to bend many of the top plates to get the proper fit, sometimes even on new LP12s. If bending the top plate sounds like a crazy thing to do I should mention that the part description for the top plate is "bent and finished top plate with stud" (or without stud as you can buy it either way). Yes, they come pre-bent from the factory but sometimes need additional work. And, yes, it is not a perfect science but more of a trial and error thing where you literally remove the top plate and bend down the side or the corner (depending on where the rattling is) then refit the top plate and check if it still rattles and repeat if necessary. One of the parts of LP12 setup where it is more experience and art than pure measurements.

The reason I feel it improves the musical quality of the LP12 is that there is a precise torque for the fastening nut at which the LP12 sounds the best. It is different with different nuts and so far I have not found a nut that sounds better there than a nylock nut so I always replace whatever comes on there with a nylock. Fredrik and Paolo have also tested this and we all agree on the most musical torque. It seems obvious to me that there is little chance of hitting the exact pressure that sounds the best on that corner by just bending it as you would without the stud. Hence my assumption that it is better with the stud.
The LP12 Whisperer
Manufacturer, Distributor, Retailer and above all lover of music.
User avatar
Tony Tune-age
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 1579
Joined: 2009-12-19 19:07
Location: United States

Re: Karousel

Post by Tony Tune-age »

Thank you for the thorough explanation Thomas. As usual, you have the actual experience to provide such useful information. And that's why you are the LP12 Wisperer!
Tony Tune-age
Post Reply