Agree 🙂

BEOVOX141 wrote:

Carolpa wrote:

BEOVOX141 wrote:

Jeff wrote:

How do these wonderful ANALOG record companies drive the cutting lathes that make the LP master

I dont know how its done today, but they used to be all mechanical supported by basic analog feedback loops in the electronics, just like any piece of CNC  equipment is today. They will without a doubt be controlled digitally though...

Use the "ignorance is bliss" gently, it cuts both ways!

But still the master was digitalized. So the reissued vinyl has somehow a digitalized origin. So this point/discussion has no meaning what so ever!

Words and terms are flying left and right...

This is what i consider the Master! (Jeff : "cutting lathe")  How does "digitalized" apply here?

In my opinion this is the MASTER, the tape from which te vinyl-negative is cut.

Login to view image

OR the file containing the digitalised (and processed) info of this MASTER tape

For sure Some vinyl produced in the last 20 years have been pressed from digital sources. However A few niche record labels like the ones I posted are re-issuing  vinyl sourced from analogue master tapes. These companies pride themselves on pure analogue releases and are marketing their records based on having no digitisation throughout the process. 

https://www.musicmattersjazz.com/the-sound-s/45.htm

I just realised the solutions to my problem may potentially lie with older speakers assuming they are not digital speakers. 

Would a set of Beolab 3s work as analogue speakers? Ie are these analogue ? 

Carolpa wrote:

BEOVOX141 wrote:

Jeff wrote:

How do these wonderful ANALOG record companies drive the cutting lathes that make the LP master

I dont know how its done today, but they used to be all mechanical supported by basic analog feedback loops in the electronics, just like any piece of CNC  equipment is today. They will without a doubt be controlled digitally though...

Use the "ignorance is bliss" gently, it cuts both ways!

But still the master was digitalized. So the reissued vinyl has somehow a digitalized origin. So this point/discussion has no meaning what so ever!

 

The original master tape is not the thing used to drive the final LP master cut. First it has to be tailored to the LP format, which means introducing RIAA equalization, summing the bass to mono below a certain frequency, etc. Some LP producers started doing that in the digital domain quite a while ago from what I have been told in order to apply the RIAA and other changes more accurately. But I freely admit I am not up on all the current incarnations of this particularly obsolescent technology.

If the OP wants a pure analog system, more power to him, even if I disagree that it will sound as good as a set of 5's or 50's or 90's, and that he may be shocked to find out that his pure analog sound chain has some digitization in it somewhere. It's like a story I read about a person who was convinced AC power was the devil incarnate, and had built a whole system using modified high end car amplifiers and such run off of batteries. He was showing the hifi writer this system and railing against AC, when the writer asked him, how do you charge the batteries. Which the guy had never considered, he was using AC wall power to charge the batteries!

But, as I say, if the OP wants to indulge a particular philosophical approach to audio, I can grok that. I happen to have a setup in my workroom using a single ended 6L6GC based tube amp, a whopping stomping 7.5 w/ch, driving a pair of single full range driver speakers I built using these old but fascinating Sansui drivers. To me it's like technological archeology, it's fun, and I like having at least one tube amp around. Doesn't sound as good as my half rack width Parasound preamp and 40 watt solid state amp driving a pair of Beovox P30s, but it brings a smile to my face nonetheless. And I also have a Karlsson speaker cabinet I'm building a mono tube amp for.

Back to the OP, all the older speakers up to and including the Beolab 9 are pure analog. If you want full range performance I can recommend the 9's, great performance and sound, analog crossovers and only a Class D amp for the bass, the mid and tweeter amps are more conventional. Same for the 3's, analog.

But is Class D analogue or Digital!?😁

Forget about it all and just buy the best speakers your budget can stand -  ultimately you'll be happier than having to explain  to all your friends that you could've had better but you sacrificed it all for an all analogue chain to play what you hope are all analogue recordings!

Puncher wrote:

But is Class D analogue or Digital!?😁

Forget about it all and just buy the best speakers your budget can stand -  ultimately you'll be happier than having to explain  to all your friends that you could've had better but you sacrificed it all for an all analogue chain to play what you hope are all analogue recordings!

I agree, the whole threads topic and such is kind of what I think of as anti-B&O, as in traditionally B&O has eschewed obsession over just how the music gets to your ears, it's there to let you kind of ignore the how and enjoy the what, that is good sounding music that's easy to access.

But audio nervosa takes many forms, and considering I have a weird single ended tube/full range single driver speaker setup, albeit a cheap one, just because, leaves me not too much room to talk. But I do anyway. 🙂

Thanks to all that inputted into this discussion, its certainly kicked up a debate.

An interesting and highly flammable discussion for sure.

I am slightly disappointed in the fact that no one seems to know for sure exactly how the 50s work, which I entirely attribute to the lack of accurate documentation. Today it seems like all the technical details from B&O are hearsay at best, from someone who listened to someone who listened to the grapevine, etc... and thus very difficult to assess.  

Has B&O ever been that forthcoming about what's under the hood? Granted it was simpler in the past, but still, their entire philosophy used to be, don't worry about the tech, listen to the music, ease of use, and style.

As for the original poster, I'd say either just hook the table to the speakers and enjoy it as is, it will sound marvelous I'm sure. Or, if you philosophically want a completely analog setup (ignoring the fact that digital may have snuck into the woodpile somewhere along the recording chain), you might seriously consider going truly backwards in tech. A table, hooked to a tube amp/preamp, and simple passive speakers. If you go farther and go with single ended tube amps and full range single driver speakers, it will be as pure a setup as you can get, in a philosophical/ideological sense. Will never sound as good, but they can be magical in their own way and fun to play with and own. As I said I have such a system myself and despite its limitations it always makes me smile. For serious listening though I always revert back to my BL9s and digital sources.

But it is fun to have both!

BEOVOX141 wrote:

An interesting and highly flammable discussion for sure.

I am slightly disappointed in the fact that no one seems to know for sure exactly how the 50s work, which I entirely attribute to the lack of accurate documentation. Today it seems like all the technical details from B&O are hearsay at best, from someone who listened to someone who listened to the grapevine, etc... and thus very difficult to assess.  

What more ‘documentation’ do you need than what is in the white paper/BeoLab 50