Analogue v. Digital...again (Washington Post)

The article is actually about Tom Port of Better Records, quite frankly he comes off as an off-putting nutcase. And he can’t help himself from trashing respectable companies like Analogue Productions. So he uses the following gear to listen to $7 common records and anoint a portion of them as $500 "super hot stampers":

• Dynavector Karat
• Triplanar arm
• VPI Aries
• Legacy Focus 20/20 Speakers

That’s a pretty damn good return on his circa-2000 gear investment. I’d be the richest man on earth if I could leverage my gear so effectively 😂

I’d rather if WP hadn’t focused on him - it’s not a good look for our hobby.

Where do you buy the system you listed for "circa 2000"? Presumably you mean dollars and not some exotic cryptocurrency.

Analogue v. Digital...again

Boring.

This topic is like watching paint dry..

in cold weather.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz 0.1..

On the other hand reading posts on this subject is like going to the dentist for a root canal ( without anaesthetic ).

So if you are a masochist keep posting and read on.

Where do you buy the system you listed for "circa 2000"? Presumably you mean dollars and not some exotic cryptocurrency.

I mean it’s exactly the kind of system an enthusiast might have bought 20 years ago, around the year 2000. Yes, it would be much more than $2000, even then. It's fine gear - but probably NOT a great microscope into recordings by today's standards. 

The article is behind a paywall now, but I was able to read it a few days ago. It’s really about Better Records and their selection process, so posing it as "Vinyl vs. Digital" is clickbait-worthy. The Better Records guy bashes all modern reissues (along with the companies that make them), chiding one particular reissue as sounding "dun dun dun" (or something like that) in the bass - and I can’t help but thinking it’s his old Legacy Focus speakers doing that 😂

I hope Tom Port makes a lot of money from the gullible and easily duped! 

I would say that I have had pretty good luck with remasters but I have come across some when compared to an original pressing from the 60's or 70's where I thought the original copy sounded better and in some cases much better. Most of my collection is earlier pressings from the 60's and 70's of primarily rock and if the copy is relatively noise free and I am happy with the sound quality I usually will not order a remaster. I am pretty selective with the remasters I order and the record companies producing them and where they are pressed and also look to who is the remastering engineer and also who is cutting the lacquer if available. 

What I will say is that I have rarely if ever been disappointed with Analog Productions or anything pressed at QRP under different labels and I am referring to their more standard issues in the $25-$75 range and not just the premium remasters like the UHQR releases.

Whatever the merits of the case, there is an obvious opportunity cost to being this obsessive (or perspicuous) about one's sound. Namely, there is only so much time left on this earth for each one of us, and time spent on this will come at the expense at further, farther, explorations of sound and music.

Everyone has to choose what they want to spend their time on, but for me, this would be like exploring the cracks in my neighborhood's sidewalk rather than visiting a new place. No thank you.

So, let me get this straight. We will compare analog vs digital artifacts by recording both as digital, compressing eh living crap out of it, and playing it back on a computer.

The only possible thing that this could prove is that the digital representation of each is perfect and we prefer some additive analog artifacts that are faithfully reproduced in one of the files. I’m not saying that’s the case, but its the only possible proof that can come of this.

If, in fact, the process used to code each example (A vs D) to a file is so very good that it can reveal the nuances of each, why not just record music with this astonishing approach int he first palce and put an end to the debate?

These sorts of comparisons underscore how little many really understand the signal chain. Apparently it does not stop writing and commenting however.

No, i have not dug into the specifics - it doesn’t really change the facts all that much.

This man's opinion is totally arbitrary, meaningless but, if he can make money at it. great. That is the American way. Consumer beware. 

+1 on the American way and capitalism

All these opinions are merely data points and incumbent upon each of us to trust but verify before reacting

I can only say my personal experience is different than his

I've got near 500 albums from the 70s and 80s

My parents have passed down their collection from the 60s and 70s, some great artists and original pressings of Elvis, Sonny and Cher, The Supremes, Roy Orbison, etc

My analog kit is moderate by today's standards but better than Mr Port's circa 2000 kit

During analog playback, I've got dozens of those pressings that sound spectacular, despite the pops and warps

But I've got a much higher percentage that sound average to nails on a chalkboard, the lack of quality consistency is the biggest analog let down for me

My digital playback is at least 95% as good as my best analog and the quality consistency is off the charts - nothing sounds like nails on a chalkboard and less than 10% sound average

I would submit that 90% of my digital playback is the best playback versions of these old war horses that I've been playing over and over for 40 years

For reference I stream everything and play fewer CDs than even records 

Again simply my personal experience on my kit in my space

The mileage varies for all of us, no wrong are right answers - just different experiences and preferences

Happy listening to all

@mulveling this article is NOT about Tom Port.  Did you read the entire article?

I wouldn't trash gear just because it's old. We are enjoying very modest incremental improvements on analog equipment these days. They are real advances, but small and expensive. Some old troglodyte in the 1960s with a Decca cartridge, Garrard turntable, Quad tube amps and electrostatics* was having a pretty good time and one that would stand up today as being very respectable.

*I chose these as all are still made today, an indication of their solid design and performance.

@tswisla I agree. I don’t think @mulveling read the whole article, and it was a long one, but worthy; the author is a good writer. To me, it was all about his journey back into vinyl and who he met on the way, to include not only the opinionated Tom Port but also Michael Fremer and the lady with the pop-up record store in Cleveland, Ohio and others ‘making the (vinyl) scene’ during the COVID crisis. He ends the article in Fremer’s basement listening to Bob Dylan and Joan Baez live recording from the Newport Jazz Festival: he was transported back in time, an experience  to which any fan of vinyl playback can relate, I think. 

The article is actually about Tom Port of Better Records, quite frankly he comes off as an off-putting nutcase. And he can’t help himself from trashing respectable companies like Analogue Productions. So he uses the following gear to listen to $7 common records and anoint a portion of them as $500 "super hot stampers":

• Dynavector Karat
• Triplanar arm
• VPI Aries
• Legacy Focus 20/20 Speakers

That’s a pretty damn good return on his circa-2000 gear investment.

The Triplanar is still one of the best tonearms money can buy. What is so year 2000 about that? The Triplanar has improved since 20 years ago FWIW...

Sorry guys, you’re right I inadvertently shorted that article (now it’s behind the paywall) - my bad. And I know Triplanar is by all accounts a great arm that’s been continually updated - but from the system pics it didn’t look like Tom has been keeping up with the "latest and greatest" for a while (e.g. the VPI and Legacy).