Oh, I get it - only opinions that agree with yours are worth posting, all others need not apply. I guess it's the sign of the times we live in. I, however, reserve the right to post any opinion I might have, and refuse to get pre-clearance from anyone. My post was to the point, I am familiar with the product, have heard it, and considered it for purchase myself. Voicing my opinion might have educated others as to the ADC/DAC nature of operation of this device, something that may have escaped their attention before. To many analog-minded people it could be important. According to you, if I have any words but of the superlative kind to say about the product, I have to "forever hold my peace". Why? This is a forum, opinions are what it's all about, and they don't all have to agree with one another. This is not North Korea, last time I checked.
To those in the sledgehammer-proof analog camp, I always say: if you have an LP that you think sounds better than a CD of the same album, then record the vinyl to your own CD-R, and play it side-by-side with the commercially recorded CD. If it still sounds better, then it's the mastering of the vinyl record that makes the difference, not the format itself.
You missed the point of my post entirely. Point where I mentioned differing opinions aren't welcome, please. I do not appreciate you putting words in my mouth via 2 rambling paragraphs.
I misunderstood your question and apologize for my confusion. Though it wouldn't affect me, I'm curious about whether it would alter these instances.
"Posting the device isn't for you doesn't serve a purpose. I don't need or want another turntable. You don't see me posting in every turntable thread that I don't need another one. What good does that do to anybody?" - If this is not an invitation to stay mum, what is?
I own both CD and vinyl versions of many an album. I have no need to create CD-R's to prove to myself what sounds better. I already know it. But again, this is descending into a fresh argument of analog vs digital. This forum has plenty already.
Discussing the device is one thing. Stating you're not interested in it at all doesn't serve a purpose, does it? I don't like Bruce Springsteen but I won't visit a thread announcing a new album of his to post "Never liked him so I won't be buying it."
You're missing the point. I'm not arguing against the fact that in quite a few cases, an LP can sound better than a CD of the same album. The reason why it sounds better is the point of argument. If you think it's because the LP was better-mastered and/or was produced from better-quality source material, then you're right. But if you think it's simply because the LP is "pure analog" while the CD is digital, then you should do the test I described.
I don't know how many times I have to repeat it for you - my post was not theoretical, I do have first-hand experience with the device, I considered it for a while. I also gave a specific, technical explanation as to why I decided against it. Isn't it the point of this forum? Just because I drew conclusions about it that are different from yours - why do you think it automatically disqualifies me from voicing them? Besides, did you read my post carefully? I did say I see the point of the SC-2, but it's too expensive for my liking. The SC-1 to my way of thinking is not as useful, considering the cost. Just got the latest catalog from Music Direct. The list the SC-1 at $1,999.00 - already $500 more than it was quoted at the Show last year. When I have a very noisy LP that cannot be helped even by deep cleaning - I simply buy another copy of the same LP, preferably new, or NM. Still comes out a lot cheaper than buying a $2K device that you will use only occasionally, by your own admittance, on records that are bad. This is the last explanation I will give you. If that is not satisfactory - feel free to block me from now on, for I'm getting tired of being on the defensive, and once I go on the offensive - I start getting warning from the friendly staff here.
We obviously got off on the wrong foot. If I misinterpreted your post, I apologize. However, I do find it remarkable that anybody would be able to discern the subtleties between the untreated VS the treated audio signal given how these shows are typically filled with blasted systems pretty much all over trying to overtake one another. My goal was not to put you on the defensive but purely to convey the idea that to denigrate the system based on the fact it digitizes the signal in order to manipulate it was misguided. If the user does not hear a difference, why should it matter? The device was not completed when it was shown at audio shows last year, one of which you attended. The manufacturer mentioned working out quite a few details of its implementation prior to release, hence why they were half a year late in delivering it to consumers. Did you, in all fairness, (seriously) audition the aforementioned 30-sec clip or are those impressions simply ported over from your previous experience? Lastly, I agree with you that these are expensive devices! Frankly, I could buy quite a few albums for 2K! Hopefully, the price will come down to a more reasonable degree, although I will mention in all fairness the company's fundraising campaign offered units at a significant discount.
I have only listened and examined these uploaded files. I have also compared the repaired file with the original file run through various settings in CR. I am surpriced how well the SugarCube works. I must admit much better than I would have thought.
I know these have had very positive reviews but how do they compare to the best phono stages? They involve converting the sound to digital and back so from a purist point of view they add something to the signal path. I think my preference may be for a better sounding all analogue chain with clean vinyl copies. For reproducing rare damaged records they obviously are a great idea and essential to some. I understand the digital bit can be switched out so comparisons can be made?
The SugarCube SC-1 and SC-2 are not phono stages, they work with your phono stage whether it's built in to an amp or receiver or a separate component. It's too bad they've had to up the price so significantly, it's now a much harder purchase to make for most. I guess those 6 months of extra R&D plus perfecting themanufacturing needs to be paid for. And Music Direct does no one any favors by not including any information about the devices in the mobile version their online listing! I've posted samples earlier in the thread of a very noisy LP of The Doors "The End", which you can listen to. Here are additional samples from an early UK DJM pressing of Elton John's 11-17-70 live album, around 2:40 of the first track, "Take Me to the Pilot". The record looks clean and shiny but sure doesn't sound that way. Turntable: Kenwood KD-5070 (1979) • Cartridge" Audio Technica AT33EV • Phono Stage: Vincent Pho-8 30 Seconds of Original Audio, 30 Seconds of Repaired Audio Throughout the Sample: Dropbox - 1_EJ_Pliot Live_30 Seconds Off-On Repaired Audio.flac Original Audio Only: Dropbox - 2_EJ_Pilot Live_Original Audio.flac Repaired Audio Only: Dropbox - 3_EJ_Pilot Live_Repaired Audio.flac
I want this device bad. If the SC-2 works anything close to what’s promised, I will buy one. I want to get ride of all my records and downsize my life. Anyone have real world experience with the SC-2 and recording?
I never denigrated the device. All I said was I personally chose not to get it, and explained why. That is no crime. Others will buy it and enjoy it - Mazel Tov! I'd love to get the SC-2, if it were more affordable. That sums it all up. Please, let's end it here.
Dang wrong thread! I was looking for the "Who Is Sick Of Wave Forms, Graphs And Audio Clips??" thread.
Jeez...$2000 for the SC-1 and $3000 for the SC-2?! I think they just shot themselves in the foot with this ridiculous pricing.
Thanks @DigMyGroove for providing those files to compare! I must say that the repaired version is remarkable. I hear no evidence of artifact of any sort when listening. The first 30 seconds are great to compare in that it is the silence between words where the clicks and pops really stand out. During the music, I get no sense of lost dynamics or tone in the slightest. No discernable distortion. It just sounds like a clean record, which is the point! I've taken the liberty to take the original file and declick it using the Vinyl Studio click repair at default setting. It did a very nice job and didn't sound really any different when I ramped up the sensitivity to max, even though it found about 10% more clicks. Listening to the VS declicked file was decidedly different than the Sugarcube, though. With the VS repaired file, while the clicks and pops are gone, I hear the slightest distortion on top of the underlying noise that is not there with the Sugarcube repaired file. To my ears, the noise in the Sugarcube file is smoother and more natural. It's almost as if the VS has allowed for a small residue of the original clicks in place of the clicks on the repaired file. Kind of as if the peak of the click waveform was chopped off, but there is still a little shoulder area left. I don't notice anything once the music starts, but you might in a very quiet passage. Check it out for yourselves. Dropbox - 01 - 3_EJ_Pilot Live_Repaired Audio Vinyl Studio.flac