Acoustic Sounds
Lyra

Pro-Ject

Vinyl NRS Box S3

Pro-Ject Vinyl NRS Box S3
By: Malachi Lui

November 8th, 2023

Category:

Accessories

Can Pro-Ject’s $399 Vinyl NRS Box S3 Effectively Reduce Surface Noise?

The most affordable real-time vinyl noise reduction system yet

In 2016, a company called Sweet Vinyl introduced the SugarCube SC-1 vinyl noise reduction system. Placed between a phono preamplifier and line preamp or integrated amp, the SugarCube digitizes the incoming signal at 192kHz/24bit, applies an adjustable real-time surface noise reduction algorithm, then outputs the cleaned-up signal. Though not for purists, the SugarCube made a good point: sure, you could digitally archive an especially noisy record, remove the annoying surface noise, and listen to the file, but then you lose the fun of actually playing the record. Digital noise reduction can easily be a disaster, yet according to Michael Fremer’s review, the SugarCube’s algorithm miraculously worked most of the time.

However, the original SugarCube cost $1999—money that could be spent replacing one’s noisiest records with quieter copies. The newer model with an improved algorithm, the SC-1 Mini, still costs $1500. Then last year, Pro-Ject released the Vinyl NRS Box S3, a similar product for a more attainable $399. Is it a viable option for those on a tighter budget?

Features

The Vinyl NRS Box S3 is a neat, intuitively designed unit small enough to sit atop my Rega NEO power supply unit and only take up half its surface area. If heat isn’t an issue, you could also set it on top of small phono preamps. The NRS Box’s leftmost on/off switch engages or fully bypasses the unit. The next button, marked “VNRS,” activates a pop and click reduction algorithm that the manual says “can reduce vinyl surface noise and turntable drive noise up to 6dB [the website says 8dB], while played music stays practically untouched.” It separates the signal into two frequency bands then two expanders, supposedly to increase the signal-to-noise ratio.

Pro-Ject Vinyl NRS Box S3 backThe large “De-Crackle” knob in the center adjusts the threshold for the de-crackle algorithm: all the way left is off, all the way right is the 8dB highest sensitivity. Pro-Ject recommends starting in the center. An “Intensity” switch will increase the algorithm’s strength, and finally there’s a -6dB switch, which to avoid clipping reduces the line level input signal by 6dB. Digitization is at 96kHz/24bit, which for this purpose is sufficient “enough.” Setup is easy: plug your phono preamp’s line level RCA output into the NRS Box’s input, and connect the NRS’ output to your line preamp/integrated amp.

Listening

First, I played a Columbia six-eye stereo Kind Of Blue (CS 8163) that I scored for $10 in “good plus” condition. A sensitive and highly familiar recording with all sorts of surface noise (but no skips), for the NRS box it was the perfect extreme test. Right away, there were problems. Flicking between a full bypass and the NRS’ highest setting, I noticed virtually no difference in surface noise, other than a select few pops being softened but by no means “reduced,” much less removed. The persistent background crackle was still present, but more prevalent was the NRS’ sonic damage.

Digitization will inevitably at least somewhat reduce the quality. If the noise reduction algorithm is good, though, it’s only a small price to pay for a smoother listening experience. In theory, the Vinyl NRS Box S3’s 96kHz/24bit resolution is fine. Unfortunately, the algorithm seems primitive, and the digitization degrades the music well beyond what I expected or hoped. On Kind Of Blue, the instruments became harsh and grating in a boring, one-dimensional space. The algorithm is particularly bad at distinguishing high-frequency transients, especially cymbals, from surface noise; in that, it feels more like a compressor than a reduction unit. With the NRS’ controls all at their highest setting, the ride cymbal at the beginning of “So What” turned crunchy and kept breaking up. Horn texture was gone, and the bass also became annoyingly flat.

I then thought that I should be more forgiving to the NRS Box—after all, Kind Of Blue is a stupendous recording that blows most other records out of the water. I pulled out an original UK pressing of The Style Council’s Confessions Of A Pop Group (Polydor TSCLP5 / 835 785-1)—a Sony 3324 digital recording cut DMM, possibly with another digital step in the LP cut—which had light surface noise on the first side. It’s not a great sounding record in general, but works as a time capsule of 1980s studio technology. Once again, on the opener “It’s A Very Deep Sea,” the NRS Box with only the “VNRS” button engaged (no de-crackle) distorted the cymbals and harshly emphasized the somewhat blocky piano and thin vocal sound. Testing the “VNRS” pop reduction, I put on an original stereo copy of Sonny Rollins’ East Broadway Run Down (Impulse AS-9121), which has a deep, thin scratch through side A. The consistent pop was still too obvious, and just like the Kind Of Blue test, the texture was sucked out.

How much of this comes from the algorithm(s) versus the digitization? I ran a couple tests for that. With only the digitization turned on, I played a quiet EU clear vinyl pressing of The 1975’s I like it when you sleep… (Dirty Hit DH00118 / Polydor 4769130), a heavily but appropriately compressed recording. Similar to that Style Council record, the loss from the NRS highlighted dynamic and textural detail on a record that I thought didn’t have much. For instance, the electronic snare drum on “Somebody Else” became completely dull and annoying, and the vocals weren’t as present as they should’ve been. Engaging the milder “VNRS” again, I listened to “All I Want” from Joni Mitchell’s Blue (Reprise MS 2038). My original US copy has three pops on that song, which the NRS merely muffled. Worse, it turned the recording’s sparkling transients into flattened cardboard. High-resolution digital has gotten incredible, but this is not a shining example of it.

When using the NRS, I only had to engage the -6dB setting on the loudest 12” singles. Even then, you can leave it turned off and there’s only minor input clipping that most listeners wouldn’t notice.

The analog full bypass sounds fine. I could tell that there was an extra obstruction in my signal path, but there was no tonal difference. My system sounded about 95% as good as it does without the bypassed NRS and an extra set of interconnects.

Conclusion

As a longtime vinyl listener, some light surface noise on an older record doesn’t bother me, though for severely noisy records I understand the appeal of a real-time noise reduction system. Pro-Ject makes a wide range of generally great products at many price points, and I sincerely hoped that the Vinyl NRS Box S3 would live up to their usual standard. Even after adequate break-in time, however, the digitization is really not good and the noise reduction algorithms barely work. It’d be a different story if the lackluster digitization also meant that the reduction algorithms actually reduced noise. As it stands, though, I unfortunately can’t recommend the Vinyl NRS Box S3, even for $399.

Specifications

Internal sampling:

96 kHz/24 bits

Internal processing:

56-bit accumulator, double precision

Frequency response 20Hz to 20 kHz:

-0,6 dB / +0,1dB

Frequency response 30Hz to 20 kHz:

-0,2 dB / +0,1dB

Clip indication:

-0,6 dB below real clipping

Bypass mode:

galvanic linked together (Rlink<0,3 ohm)

THD:

<0,009% (500 mVrms Input Level)

VNRS noise/rumble reduce:

up to 8dB (20Hz to 20 kHz)

De-Click reduce (basic):

8 dB (3kHz to 20 kHz)

De-Click reduce (intensity):

12 dB (2kHz to 20 kHz)

Outboard power supply:

18V/500mA DC, suitable for your country's mains supply

Power consumption in standby:

0W OFF/Standby, 2.2W ON (without outboard power supply)

Dimensions: WxHxD (D with sockets):

103 x 37 x 104 (119) mm

Weight:

340 g without power supply

Manufacturer Information

Pro-Ject Audio Systems
Wirtschaftspark A5
Analogweg 1
2130 Mistelbach
Austria

Fine Sounds Americas (Sumiko Audio)

11763 95th Ave N

Maple Grove, MN 55369

Comments

  • 2023-11-08 06:13:18 PM

    Zaphod wrote:

    Thanks for the honest review. Maybe you can do the other end if the pricing scale and give a review of the only vinyl noise reduction system done completely in the analog realm (at least as far as I am aware), the FM Acoustics FM 223 PhonoMaster.

    • 2023-11-08 07:17:47 PM

      Malachi Lui wrote:

      that one costs about twice as much as my entire system combined but certainly seems fascinating.

  • 2023-11-08 09:59:25 PM

    Anton wrote:

    Dang, I had high hopes. Thanks for the perfect over-view. When I saw the review title, my first thought was of an 'original' copy of KOB that I have and has lots of surface noise. You settled my has immediately! Alas, even the Sugar Cube fell short of what might have been. (I have heard it in real life several times and it did great for very minor noises: we could actually select "Listen to what is being removed" as one of the options, which is fascinating.) Bottom line for the Sugar Cube was that one of our local Hi Fi Club members had one, it was lost in a fire, and he never bothered to replace it. (I did not mean for that to sound dismissive, really.) I'll keep holdin' on until the perfect unit is produced. Thank you for the time and great review.

    • 2023-11-09 07:19:17 PM

      NLak wrote:

      I own two Sugarcubes and swear by them. I listen to mostly classical and need it for those albums whose condition I misjudge when buying. The surprising thing, though, is how infrequently I use it. Aside from a handful of bad albums I own, the occasional tick is fine. Heck, my creaky joints make more noise than my records. Still, if given the opportunity, I would get them again, as they are terrific at what they do without any sonic hit.

      • 2023-11-10 01:24:44 AM

        Anton wrote:

        I will give them another try. Thanks for your experience!

        • 2023-11-10 02:09:01 PM

          NLak wrote:

          Forgot to mention, the product also has regular software updates to improve the pop/tick-removal process, so it's always improving.

          • 2023-11-13 07:59:15 AM

            Jeff 'Glotz' Glotzer wrote:

            Great info! Thanks as well.

    • 2023-11-10 01:49:58 AM

      Malachi Lui wrote:

      'the perfect unit' at this point would probably be the highest quality A/D and D/A converter and a dedicated computer running izotope RX in real time. it would be a convoluted, expensive setup that requires work to figure out but it'd at least be very adjustable.

      • 2023-11-12 12:12:42 AM

        db wrote:

        Agree about Izotope RX de-click. I use it if I digitize an LP and it works great - better than others I have tried.

  • 2023-11-09 12:43:00 AM

    JACK L wrote:

    Hi

    When $399 can buy a superior design/built MC/MM phono-preamp as described below, we consumers would expect the Vinyl NRS Box delivers what the manufacturer claimed.

    ""Schiit Audio's new $399 Skoll MM/MC phono preamp features fully discrete, differential Class A zero feedback gain stages and a fully passive RIAA network. No op-amps are in the circuit. Skoll’s gain stage is a compound JFET-BJT pair running on "massive" 64V rails for enhanced linearity and freedom from overload. The result is over 100dB signal to noise ratio for 40dB of gain, and up to 70dB of gain available. Design/built in USA."

    JACK L

    • 2023-11-09 02:20:07 AM

      Malachi Lui wrote:

      the vinyl NRS box S3 isn't supposed to be a phono preamp. it's a surface noise reduction system placed between a phono preamp and a line preamp/integrated amp. the schiit skoll seems promising but it's an apples to oranges comparison.

      • 2023-11-09 07:18:45 PM

        JACK L wrote:

        Hi

        "the vinyl NRS box S3 isn't supposed to be a phono preamp. " qtd M Lui

        Please don't jump the gun. I never stated NRS is a preamp. I clearly stated : "we consumers would expect the Vinyl NRS Box delivers what the manufacturer claimed"

        I never compared them functiionally but instead I compared their money worth. OK !?

        JACK L

        PS: as a hobby audio handyman, I design/build/upgrade audios for decades. Surely I know would NOT screw up simple things like that !

        • 2023-11-09 07:29:09 PM

          JACK L wrote:

          PS: I never need to buy any vinyl noise reduction gadgets.

          Maybe I am always sooo lucky with my small collection of 1,000+ stereo LPs, 99.5% of them are re-owned which I picked up from thrift stores for a buck or so a piece since 7 years back. They are all in mint conditions - without pops & surface noise.

          • 2023-11-13 03:43:27 PM

            NLak wrote:

            Your passive line stage with SET amp isn’t revealing enough; it rolls the highs and dumbs down the music. It would be best to take some of your money market winnings and get something more dynamic.

            Sure sounds like your system isn’t analog-smart. Definitely a case of hearing is not believing.

            • 2023-11-13 06:34:20 PM

              bwb wrote:

              how do you know that? Properly implemented, a passive with an SET is magical. Key phrase... "properly implemented" My system is Emia phono stage >> passive Emia autoformer >> SET.... simply magical, nothing about it is rolled off or dumbed down..... On the other hand, done incorrectly it can be far less than ideal.

              • 2023-11-13 11:34:35 PM

                JACK L wrote:

                Hi

                " Properly implemented, a passive with an SET is magical." qtd bwb

                BINGO! "Passive" linestage is the best way to go musically for discerned music listners. Yes, it creates magic in the music literally when drivng a SET, like my system at home.

                The linstage of the MM phono-preamp which I design/built some 7 years back is an 1-stage active line amplifier with a direct-bypass feature which can be switched on as passive instantly. I always switched it to passive for high level programes, like my 24bit192KHz DAC, CD/DVD & tape player, driving my design/built 5W+5W all-triode SET power amp. Yes. "simply magical" musically !

                Listening is believing

                JACK L

            • 2023-11-14 12:04:02 AM

              JACK L wrote:

              Hi

              "Sure sounds like your system isn’t analog-smart. Definitely a case of hearing is not believing." qtd NLak

              How do YOU know as you have never auditioned it ? Simply your imagination ???

              To cut the long story short, I play, just one example, the Tchaikovsky 1812 Overture, both on LP & CD (of different label of course) & it rocks my 700sq ft basement audio den, nooo sweat !

              It delivers up to thundering powerful 102dB(C) peak sound level a as meaured at my sweat spot 11.5ft from the front loudspeaker panels wtith my digital sound level meter. Even at such climax levels, it is soo micro-detailed with wide, deep & tallll soundstage from very high to very low frequencies !!!

              Apparenty, you never heard such phenonenal sound effect. please don't be too smart in making such moot allegation, OK ? I am nice as not to condemn your above post as "rant"' as ignorance is not a sin.

              Listening to PASSIVE linestage is believing

              JACk L

              • 2023-11-14 12:20:09 AM

                NLak wrote:

                If I took you seriously I might have believed you, but…

                • 2023-11-14 12:35:35 AM

                  JACK L wrote:

                  But WHAT ?????

                  JACK L

  • 2023-11-09 09:06:03 AM

    PeterPani wrote:

    It is a nice idea. But in the end, I do not need such a device. If I like a record (that crackles) it is part of the hobby to find a better record. And I will never accept digitialization in my music chain, if I play an analog signal.

    • 2023-11-10 02:22:24 AM

      JACK L wrote:

      Hi

      " I will never accept digitialization in my music chain" qtd PeterPani

      BINGO! Me too, never ever !

      Let's face the fact: digitalization chops up the music sinewaves & claims to restore the bits pieces back to the original sinewaves form with smooth envelope like before ??

      Likewise, can a potato once mashed could be unmashed back to its original shape ??

      Common sense tells us it is impossible as of the digital technology todate. Skeptical ears can detect it.

      Listening to analogue is believing

      JACK L

      • 2023-11-10 06:15:37 AM

        Malachi Lui wrote:

        with all due respect, this is an irrational mindset.

        yes, an all-analog record is often the best possible listening experience. HOWEVER, hi-res digital—when done right, of course—can also be incredible. the idea behind products like the sugarcube and the pro-ject NRS is that digitization is a small price to pay for cleaning up surface noise. many of us have noisy records where getting a quieter copy is prohibitively expensive (thinking about the 'good plus' condition RVG blue notes i've got in the other room). i'd agree with these manufacturers that digitization for quieter playback is a fair trade-off, in the case that the reduction algorithm is good and the A/D and D/A conversion is good. unfortunately, in the case of the pro-ject NRS, neither is great. but that doesn't mean that the idea is bad, or that it can't ever work.

        is digital absolutely perfect? no! but neither is analog. the issue with digital is that any idiot with a computer can easily mess it up, but with analog you've got deteriorating tapes, equipment needing more intensive repair, and it's super expensive. would you rather every low-budget production be done in pro tools at 96kHz/24bit, or on a shitty four-track cassette?

        sure, i laughed when bruce botnick said that the 384kHz/32bit plangent-processed transfer of ‘the doors’ was 'imperceptible from analog'. that's not an insult to botnick, nor jamie howarth at plangent, whose process is legitimately brilliant and often very helpful for fixing serious problems in aging tapes. the truth is that i've heard many digital remasters (as both hi-res files and LPs) that pathetically pale in comparison to all-analog versions. AND i've heard quite a few digitally remastered LPs that sound significantly better than original pressings cut all-analog. cutting lacquers from original master tapes isn't always an option. a lot of tapes are literally flaking apart and you can only bake them so many times.

        listening to analog AND digital is believing, as long as you keep an open mind and actually use your ears. even in tracking angle's original 90s run, there were some positive sonic assessments of a few CDs. most CDs aren't great, but some are really good. you always mention the 40 disappointing digitally remastered LPs you've bought, and i guess you've just had bad luck with those choices. if something sounds good, i couldn't care less about analog vs digital.

        • 2023-11-10 07:09:34 AM

          PeterPani wrote:

          Owning all possible types of analog carriers (tape, vinyl, laserdisc) I dare to say, digital can sound fantastic when compared to analog directly. In 1:1 listening sessions digital sounds better in many cases. The strange thing is - on the long run all digital music sits on the shelf and I go for the analog titles. And that since 25 years. Is this just prejudice? I do not know. I have the impression (or mania) that after several plays of a known music piece, when the first impression is gone, there is something remaining in the analog tracks that makes it easier to connect with the flow. Because I am aware that I will in many times not play digital music at home I got cautious buying it. Maybe just out of pure stubbornness. On the other hand, I have friends with the same experience over the years, also stopping the buying of digital carriers. Better to stream music, when digital, and buy it when analog - the later makes sense, because to listen analog, I must own the music media.

          • 2023-11-10 11:18:44 PM

            JACK L wrote:

            Hi ] "Maybe just out of pure stubbornness. " qtd PeterPani.

            Not at all. Just be honest to what you hear to enjoy most out of the music.

            This is physics ! I know too well. I got a few 24-bit mastered reference CDs, 40+ digitally mastered/remastered LPs, I spent enough time to compare all these hardwired digital music with any of the 1,000+ analgoue old timer LPs I got at home. My analogue LPs sound more enjoyable, more OPEN, more being-there engaged. More 'blood & flesh' human which my digital music lacks.

            One got to be a seasoned music lover before one can appreciate what I just said. Yes, digital music may sound more appealing sonically to start with, but for long run, seasoned ears can find it too clinical & lack of musical delicacy & synergy which analogue music gets.

            Glad PeterP & yours truly are among those seasoned analogue music lovers.

            FYI, I so often listen to the piano practice at home & live church performance of my elder son, a classical pianist disciplined in our city's Royal Conservatory of Music (found 1886) with honours. I know too well only analogue vinyl music can come close enough to live. Digital is not even close musically, IMO.

            That said, I still play randomly my hard-wired digital music & stream to update myself what is going on musically worldwide. Mainly for conveniency particularly after my long day work, being tired.

            No, you are not "stubborn" at all.

            Listening to analogue is believing

            JACK L

            But

            • 2023-11-11 06:10:07 AM

              Malachi Lui wrote:

              " Yes, digital music may sound more appealing sonically to start with, but for long run, seasoned ears can find it too clinical & lack of musical delicacy & synergy which analogue music gets." qtd. JACK L

              being such a loyalist to any medium or process for anything is idiotic. i'm not saying that i don't usually prefer analog. but sometimes it really isn't the best option! nor did i ever say that digital music always sounds more appealing, because that's also not true. digital files get exhausting after 8 hours for me, digitally sourced vinyl is easier to listen to, but usually not as enriching as an all-analog LP.

              i encourage you to get an all-analog (save for one digitally recorded song) original japanese pressing of YMO 'technodelic' and compare it to the 45rpm box set cut from a bob ludwig-mastered 96/24 file. the AAA original sounds good and has some appealing qualities, but one would be completely deranged to say that it's more detailed and spatially expansive than the digitally remastered box set. the digital remaster cut to vinyl is the best version of that album. similar to the iggy pop mix for the stooges 'raw power'. the kevin gray cut from a digital file is more cohesive than the recent reissue that ryan smith cut from the tape. i reviewed it elsewhere on this site.

              as i said earlier, however, the opposite case is more common, where the all analog version obliterates any version with any sort of digital step.

              listening is believing, at least when you use your ears and keep an open mind instead of pigeonholing yourself into blind format loyalty.

              MALACHI L

              • 2023-11-11 06:14:58 PM

                JACK L wrote:

                Hi

                "kevin gray cut" qtd M Lui

                The below is taken out from Stereophile revIew on 5/06.2022 by Sasha Matson:

                " Recently, I took time to catch up with Kevin, learn about his approach to mastering and cutting LPs, and hear about the new, all-tube recording studio he built from scratch and installed next door to his mastering studio."

                So how come Kevin Gray would install a ALL-TUBE studio ??

                JACK L

              • 2023-11-11 06:42:49 PM

                JACK L wrote:

                Hi

                "keep an open mind instead of pigeonholing yourself into blind format loyalty." qtd M Lui

                May I ask a basic question: how many vinyl records to own & how much time you spend in spinning them say in a week before you would make such above comment ?

                As per my above post, I stated clearly I DO randomly play CDs & do streaming as my second programme source. Otherwise, why should I have collected 4 24-bit mastered reference CDs & 40+ digitally mastered/remastered LPs. So if I do "pigeonholing yourself into blind format loyalty." as you alleged, why should I pay to own these digital stuff ??

                JACK L

              • 2023-11-12 04:19:59 AM

                JACK L wrote:

                Hi

                "the new, all-tube recording studio he built from scratch and installed next door to his (Kevin Gray) mastering studio." qtd Sasha Matson of Sterephile magazine.

                In fact. Kevin Gray's all-tube studio is not the first recording studio employing tube only recording equipment.

                Back in 1999, TACET already produced a CD in Germany: "The Tube", a chamber music performed by the Stuttgarter Kammerorchester, using tube only recording equipment in the studio.

                The front cover of "The Tube" CD, which I also got some 20 years back, stated "Tube Only/Transistorfree".

                From the Naumann microphones - console mixers - the Telefunken master tape reel recorder were all vintage tube models. Worth mention is the Telefunken recorder M5 was a mono machine, & was then modified to stereo for this recording. The A/D converter was custom-modified to remove all solid state electronics, e.g. emphasis/de-emphasis coding, overload protection etc. So the master tape music signals went direct to the A/D converter.

                I can tell you the sound of this "Tube" CD is the most analogue sounding CD I ever auditioned !!! So I used it as my reference CD vs any DDD CDs available to me!

                Listening to analogue is believing

                JACK L

                • 2023-11-12 05:38:05 AM

                  Malachi Lui wrote:

                  a few things:

                  -kevin gray has a tube setup but can still cut from digital files. and this is not a conversation about tubes vs. solid state!!!! both have their sonic pros and cons.

                  -your '24bit mastered reference CDs' mean really nothing, since most things digital are now mastered at 24bit and dithered down to 16bit for CD.

                  -i own over 900 records and listen to records almost every day. sometimes i simply don't have time for records because i'll spend most of a day working on something in pro tools, but i still USUALLY prefer records. considering the site we're on, i find it rather hilarious that you question my listening preferences and habits.

                  -your experience with that 'the tube' CD should prove that the mics/preamps/boards etc and the mixing and mastering choices make more of a difference at this point than format/medium. so you're essentially contradicting your own point.

                  -your constant complaints about digital show some sort of blind format loyalty. doesn't matter what you own if you're constantly complaining about it.

                  • 2023-11-14 12:33:10 AM

                    JACK L wrote:

                    Hi

                    "-your '24bit mastered reference CDs' mean really nothing, since most things digital are now mastered at 24bit and dithered down to 16bit for CD." qtd M Lui

                    Really? Please pardon my ignorance.

                    Please just give me an example of such CDs to substantiate your statement "MOST things digital are now mastered at 24bit dithered down to 16bit for CD".

                    I am all ears.

                    FYI, the 4 24bit mastered reference CDS stated c;learly at the back cover: "24-bit mastered". How come I don't see such endorsement on my 100+ CDs ???

                    Have you compared such 24-bit master CDs with stand redbook CDs at all before you made such above statement?

                    I have & I can tell you my 24-bit mastered CD sound sooo much more detailed & more enjoyable than standard 16-bit CDs. The sonic difference is sooo obvious !

                    Come on!

                    Listening to 24-bit mastered CD is believing.

                    JACL L

                  • 2023-11-14 01:05:11 AM

                    JACK L wrote:

                    Hi

                    "-your constant complaints about digital show some sort of blind format loyalty" qtd M Lui

                    From your above posts, I can tell my involvemment in digital is not less, if not more than you.

                    I compared intensively & hear the sonic difference among LPs, AAD (like the "TUBE" CD), 24-bit master DDD CDs & 16bit redbook DDD CDs.

                    Have you done what I have done yet despite I am a die-hard analogue advocate ?

                    May I suggest you to remove your allegation against me & PeterPani in your post above: "with all due respect, this is an irrational mindset."

                    JACK L

                    I consider such allegation is libel !

                    JACK L

                  • 2023-11-14 02:11:45 AM

                    JACK L wrote:

                    Hi

                    "-i own over 900 records and listen to records almost every day. " qtd M Lui

                    Wow, you got as many vinlyl records as mine. So have you inrtensively compared the sonic dfference bewteen you vinyls & your CD & the like digital stuff like I have. You should hear the sonic difference, right ?

                    I love LPs way way more than any digitals in term of close-to-live, OPENness, details, being-there-emotion & enjoyment.

                    Apparently from yr vaious posts in this very thread, you sound like preferring digital.

                    "One's meat is another man's poison". So your allegation against PeterPani is "irrational" indeed;.

                    Analogue media, ie: vinyl, is Trackingangle.com' main theme by the site's title. Yes, I would be out to lunch advocating analogue should this web site be name as "digitalangle.com".

                    JACK L

                    If

        • 2023-11-10 01:04:13 PM

          Georges wrote:

          2 things changed for me about the supposed sound quality, playing music and the abx.

        • 2023-11-11 01:09:08 AM

          JACK L wrote:

          Hi

          "is digital absolutely perfect? no! but neither is analog. " qtd M Lui

          Nothing is "perfect" unless created by the Almighty. Yet, digital is less "perfect" than analogue musically, IMO.

          As I posted above, how can a potato, once mashed (analogy with A-D) be unmashed back to its original shape (D-A). It is impossible with the current digitalization technology ! This is simple physics.

          For those can't hear analogue superiority over digital, please fight with their own ears first before doing anything else. Music is a culture which needs time & personal involvement to DEVELOP. It does not grow on a tree !

          Enough said.

          Listening to analogue is believing

          JACK L

          • 2023-11-12 12:00:49 AM

            bwb wrote:

            really.. "enough said?".... you post the same diatribes you posted several times in this thread to every thread on this web site. Or at least it seems that way since I know I've read the same things from you multiple times recently.

            • 2023-11-12 03:50:07 AM

              JACK L wrote:

              Hi

              "you post the same diatribes you posted several times in this thread to every thread on this web site. qtd bwb

              Thanks for being so attentive to my posts "in THIS thread". I could be too forgetful. So you don't mind to substantiate your above claim by reiterating my "enough said"s repeatedly in "this thread & in which other threads on this web site ? I am awaiting your claim evidence !!!!!

              I must thanks the editors "on this web site" being so lenient to my repeating "enough said" so many times as per your allegation.

              So you are overriding the editors here to challenge me ! May I know who authorized you to do so ??

              JACK L

              JACK L

              • 2023-11-12 03:21:41 PM

                bwb wrote:

                Before you fire off another rant you should stop ranting for a moment and read what I said... I never said you reiterated "enough said." ...... Now go check before you rip off another rant.... OK.. .... take a deep breath... ... I said "you post the same diatribes .".....you should google "diatribe"......... Malachi seems to be a bit irritated with your oft repeated diatribes too as he said "your constant complaints about digital show some sort of blind format loyalty. doesn't matter what you own if you're constantly complaining about it.".... ..

  • 2023-11-09 03:32:41 PM

    andy wrote:

    Why no mention or review of the Parks Audio Puffin made by Shannon Parks (its around since 2018) or its successor the Waxwing it does a vast number number of things for circa $500 including having a function called "Magic" to reduce pops and clicks and does a great job of it?

    • 2023-11-09 03:33:35 PM

      andy wrote:

      https://www.parksaudiollc.com/puffin.html

      • 2023-11-10 08:11:47 PM

        Anton wrote:

        Man, a Sugar Cube vs. Waxwing would be a cool shootout!!

        • 2023-11-12 01:34:35 PM

          andy wrote:

          The Waxwing is not a direct competitor the the SC, it reduces quite a bit of pops and ticks but its a phono stage with a huge amount of functions including track 5 separate styli hours, cart setup functions etc

  • 2023-11-10 01:09:42 PM

    Georges wrote:

    I have several accessories from the brand, dust-covers, several MC cartridges, an S-arm (purchased with huge discounts). I don't think they make that (Ortofon supplies them with their cartridges).

  • 2023-11-10 07:17:02 PM

    anothercosta wrote:

    Would you mind elaborating on your "heavily but appropriately compressed recording" comment? Feel like I hear a lot of talk about compression being bad so thought a little bit of explanation might be educational. Thanks.

    • 2023-11-10 09:43:28 PM

      Malachi Lui wrote:

      compression is both a functional and stylistic tool. functional to control peaks and glue things together, but sometimes a thick, compressed sound is a stylistic choice. in the case of the 1975's 'i like it when you sleep', it's a modern synthpop record digitally mastered to (loud, compressed, heavily limited) modern levels. the EU vinyl sounds better than the files, but still very compressed. that's the sound of the past 20 years, and for that record, it works!

      too much compression used wrong can be bad, but a total lack of compression can also suck. even bruce swedien, who HATED compression, had a pair of vintage LA-2A's that he'd very lightly use when necessary. so yes, it's really about when compression is appropriate and when it isn't. also note that mixing and mastering compression are different. EVERY pop record for 60+ years now has compression of some sort: mix compression to tighten everything up, mastering compression as final glue, or in the days of shitty turntables, as a practical necessity for the record to track. nowadays, there's digital peak limiting to slam down the peaks for a louder overall level. sometimes it sounds fine, sometimes it's a complete disaster. just depends on the material and the approach.

      without any compression at all, most records would sound weak and thin and boring. so yes, everyone loves to complain about compression being bad, and sometimes that's the case, but it's a very complex subject that most people whining on the internet don't fully understand.

      • 2023-11-12 04:38:07 AM

        JACK L wrote:

        Hi

        "without any compression at all, most records would sound weak and thin and boring. " qtd M Lui

        Really?

        Per my post above re TACET "The Tube" CD (LP version also available), from the console mixers to the A/D converters, all compression electronics were removed !!

        Yet the music sounds soooo rich & live, sooo enjoyable, not a bit like coventional DDD CDs.

        Listening to analogue is believing

        JACK L

        • 2023-11-12 05:40:42 AM

          Malachi Lui wrote:

          maybe you mostly listen to jazz and classical. in which case, there's often a light bit of functional compression but not too much.

          for those of us who mostly listen to rock, pop, electronic, R&B etc, there's compression all over everything. get used to it. anyone denying this particular generality has never set foot in a studio, never talked to professional engineers, or never even read anything that the pros do just about every day.

  • 2023-11-11 11:28:48 PM

    bwb wrote:

    A bit more effort but Pure Vinyl from ChannelD also has a de-popping and de-clicking function. You need an Apple computer, a Pro Audio digital interface, and the PV software. More convoluted for sure but it also does much more (would also function as the phono preamp) and allows you to archive your vinyl so as an all in one solution worth considering. .. https://channld.com/purevinyl/

    • 2023-11-12 12:08:06 AM

      bwb wrote:

      On the other hand, if you are going to use an inexpensive digital box on a vinyl record, I think I would just stream the music in the first place, or like somebody said above, look for a better copy of the record.

  • 2023-11-13 08:06:59 AM

    Jeff 'Glotz' Glotzer wrote:

    Nice review Malachi. Thanks for the honest observations! I can see the other facets of being a writer / editor can be exhausting! (Lol... I love your responses to everyone and your efforts to stay logical.)

    • 2023-11-14 03:11:05 PM

      NLak wrote:

      I concur with Glotz, well done Malachi. I don't know where you find the reserves to responed to this dribble, but bless you all the same! Keep at it!