Can you imagine a world without vinyl?

Shadorne: Think girlfriends/wives of audiophiles get implanted with sonic mammaries?

What you will get is digital, and here we go again with the debate!

Perhaps they'll come up with a way like Arny had done to him in Total Recall....to implant you with sonic mamories?

Imagine it...you choose who you could be, say John Atkinson and take a weeks audiophile holiday!

Zaike:

content providers will look to higher resolution as a low-cost way to add value in order for them to charge a premium

Could you spread the word a bit -- as in whisper into marketers' ears about where their next promotion and performance bonus may come from :)

That's probably the only way they'll jump on this bandwagon. Cheers

Gregm: I imagine a scenario when super high-speed connection bandwidth and device storage capacity have both become commodities, and we're no longer tied to limiting physical disk formats, then service and content providers will look to higher resolution as a low-cost way to add value in order for them to charge a premium. Kind of like gas stations offering high-octane gas at a higher price for drivers of high-performance cars. You can see this as a logical extension of the HE industry trend right now touting "high def" as a way of generating new revenues. In the future, music and video consumers could be offered the choice of downloading resolution-reduced content at one or two different price tiers (call 'em "regular" and "mid-grade"), or paying more and getting the full native master resolution of digitally-recorded content ("premium" or "ultra"). Compared with today, when iTunes customers are supposed to be happy with resolution that's not even CD-quality, the optional availability of higher than CD-quality resolution every time you choose to download or stream content should have the effect of raising public awareness about the high end (the "high performance cars" of my analogy). I think it's inevitable that the mainstream industry will eventually come around to the profitable possibilities inherent in promoting sound quality rather than trying to sweep it under the carpet, it's just a matter of tech advancement rendering capacity a non-issue from the provider-cost and consumer-convenience standpoints.

Gregm...I agree that a live feed sometimes has a certain quality which I have not heard from any recorded media. However, FM radio has some limitations. As you may know, FM radio consists of two signals, a mono one up to 19KHz and a multiplexed one, (Left minus Right) above 20 KHz. The two signals (mono and demultiplexed L-R) are mixed to get Left and Right.

Have you ever listened to the L-R signal by itself? Even with a strong RF signal the L-R signal is pretty bad, and this gets mixed with the mono signal to get stereo. It's a wonder that it sounds as good as it does. Of course as the RF signal gets weaker the L-R signal goes from bad to awful, and we switch our receivers to mono.

I know that you said "improved" FM. Fat chance. What you will get is digital, and here we go again with the debate!

Zaike:

audiophilia may get a welcome kick in the pants from the availability for customers to choose just how high they'd like their rez.

That's my hope as well --
but the ONLY, tiny, indication of this actually being available one day seems to be the existence of improved live FM broadcast... i.e. the fact that a few people are actually making the effort today to provide "good sound" over the waves...

Johnnantais wrote ... vinyl is making a comeback ...

What planet are you living on? While there are (and always have been) a number of people like us who belive in vinyl as the way to go (given the current alternatives) to suggest this might turn into some popular vinyl revival is ludicrious. The number of new issues on vinyl compared to CD is, has been for years and will continue to be almost unmeasurably small. (not to mention the fact that the quality of new issues compared to the 50's and 60's mostly stinks). Be content with the old vinyl you have and can find but don't nurture any delusions of vinyl suddenly returning to its former glory days.
Pray and agitate instead for the music companies to move beyond either vinyl or redbook CD to a better place which is technically feasible if only the economic rationale presented itself.

Hey, we all listen to analog! CD, SACD, DVD, MP3, vinyl,tape, whatever. It has to be analog when it gets to your speakers - we can't hear digital. So it comes down to whether you prefer straight analog, or digital converted to analog. ( Or analog converted to digital and back to analog, for that matter.) Happy listening!

Again, posters like Hfeiner remain intent on conflating the notion of all digital audio with the limited medium of the CD. The question at the top was "Can you imagine a world without vinyl?", not "Can you imagine a world with nothing but CDs?" Anyway, it makes perfect sense that reviewers would inlcude listening to CDs in their evaluations, since that's the source most readers will be using.

Gregm: Think beyond the realm of the silver disk, be it CD, DVD or SACD. My hunch is that in several years when prerecorded disks are on the way out, and almost all music (and video) is delivered digitally over the 'Net and connection bandwidth/speed has ceased being a practical limitation, audiophilia may get a welcome kick in the pants from the availability for customers to choose just how high they'd like their rez.

Johnnantais sez:

While digitization is a great idea for storing information, music is more than just information, and in the conversion of music to digital quanta, the playback gives us just more information: the music has been filtered out, it's gone, in its place dead and sterile information.

While nicely put, it's not quite correct in the absolute sense: what you are complaining about is the sonic result of cdp which, in turn, relates to the IMPLEMENTATION -- not the possibilities of digital...

Already, there is a big difference between 44,1 and 48. And, as noted above, this is antiquated technology by digital standards...Why not play @ 96 or 192?
There's nothing wrong with digital -- we just don't have a digital audio product that compares favourably with analogue. IMO, we never will -- home audio is an unimportant market. Take dvd-a & sacd for example: good or not-so-good, whatever, they WERE attempts to introduce a new audio standard... not very successful businesswise.

I love vinyl too, but at this stage of my life, I just don't have the time that it takes to do all of the preparation it takes to just play and clean an LP on a prolonged consistent basis like I do cd's. I only keep a vinyl playback system around because of all of the LP's that I collected in the 70's and 80's that were not reissued on cd. For that reason I rarely buy new vinyl and for the same reason I am not willing to go to the lengths that it takes to get the absoloute sound out of vinyl. I've cobbled together a decent vinyl playback system and it is very satisfactory to me. I did buy myself a record cleaning machine a couple of months back...man, that was sure an eye-opener. That was the biggest upgrade that I've ever had in a vinyl playback system. Every now and then when I do play an LP and I get a pleasant surprise, I do think how good it may sound if I spent more money. Not now. Today, I prefer cd's for their convenience. They provide me with excellent sound and convenience that I'm content with.

I'm 53 yrs old and I'm retiring in 7 yrs. When I'm retired and have more time. You can bet that I will get me a cost no object kick-ass table, arm and cartridge and partake of some of those pristine sounds that Albert speaks of. I can't wait.

Now if someone could just create a reference quailty 5 disc cd changer...I'd be first in line.

Who could live without the constant care and cleaning of their plastic discs, then spending stupid amounts of time setting up and checking their rig, tonearm, cartridge, tracking etc., then ensuring that you put the stylus down in the proper position to ensure you don't have another pop from where it lands, then getting up to skip the next crappy song, or turn it over, or remove it for another 12 inch double sided gem that again needs to be cleaned and pampered, then "enjoy" the two good tunes on it.

And of course obcessing about what covers and inserts to put the discs in, and ensuing that the static build up is minimized, etc.

I can - I have a life. This is a hobby. If you're that concerned with the quality of your reproduction go to the symphony, or concert hall or local bar and hear what it's really about. This fawning over vinyl is pathetic.

We're all preaching to the converted here!!???......go to some other sites for the majority view that CDs and digital not only sound as well...but BETTER than vinyl??!...and how many reviewers in TAS and Stereophile (including the once venerable HP), are actually LISTENING to and reviewing equipment with CDs??!!
If THEY can't hear the lack of depth, soundstage, transparency and reality of CD compared to vinyl??....what hope is there for the population at large??
And yet for anyone who hears the comparison at my place.....it is astounding to watch their reactions.
Why can't the rest of the world hear the difference??!!

Johnnantais: You are entertaining and passionate and I enjoy reading your posts. However you are also, please excuse the phrase, a bit full of it, rhetorically speaking. Grandiosity and insinuations that some audiophiles are more equal than others won't sway many.

Anyway, let me cut to the chase: That explication of digital signal theory you quote is simply wrong, even if it repeats a popular miscomprehension, based on faulty inductive reasoning. My advice: Don't believe everything you read on the Internet. (Disclaimer: I am about as far from being a computer nerd as can be found on Audiogon.)

A more accurate advertising scenario is this: Man (of any physical type) holds a deed to swampland in Florida. Face it digitophiles, you've been sold a Bill of Goods, a Dud, a Failure.

While digitization is a great idea for storing information, music is more than just information, and in the conversion of music to digital quanta, the playback gives us just more information: the music has been filtered out, it's gone, in its place dead and sterile information.

Now, this information might sound impressive, might even sound fluid if you throw enough bucks at it, or like the fellow up above inject as many tubes as you can between the source of the information and the speakers, but it never, ever, sounds like music. What digital media does is convey (in the absence of an analog reproduction) the information about a certain artist’s latest creation, and if this information suggests something good, you go and look for it on vinyl. That’s what I do, and I’m certain, many others.

So here I have to disagree with Albert, and some others: A lowly Thorens TD-160 is superior to ever digital player of whatever sort ever manufactured, up into the stratosphere of price. That is, if you do indeed have an ear for music, instead of an ear for information. Given this, it is not true that digital is cheaper. A Rega P3 mounted with a Denon DL-103 ($150) into a Denon transformer ($300) will destroy any digital player on the planet, when it comes to making music. A restored idler-wheel drive will do this in spades, AND extract more information than any digital source in existence, again with a humble RB-300/Denon DL-103. There are alternatives, though they are to be discussed in hushed whispers. Perhaps a megabuck digital source will retrieve and deliver more INFORMATION than a P3 (but is not air, resonances, decay, gestalt, and PRaT a form of information?), but the stimulus of emotional and physical responses just ain't there. And since this is the Prime Directive of all audio equipment, then the P3 or Thorens TD-160 is superior to every digital system on the planet. Why? Because music is more than information, and in the process of digitization, something is lost, something NOT lost to either TD-160 or P3, something FUNDAMENTAL: the Music. Its loss is inexcusable in a piece of equipment intended to reproduce music. Like ordering a steak at a fine restaurant, and being served a dish of butter and spices: Sorry, we have no steak, and so offer you the spices, here's your bill. Inexcusable.

Analog, though - and vinyl IS analog - being an analog of the original signal (and hoping the original is of analog origin as well) - PRESERVES the original music by, as one definition (on a computer website) puts it: "Representing data in continuously variable physical quantities, in contrast to the digital representation of data in discrete units (the binary digits 1 and 0). Analog systems handle information which is represented by continuous change and flow, such as voltage or current. Analog devices have dials and sliding mechanisms. Digital information, in contrast, is either on or off. An analog is a representation of a pattern by a similar pattern; for example, an analog clock represents the sun circling around the earth. An analog device converts a pattern such as light, temperature, or sound into an analogous pattern. An example is a video recorder, which converts light and sound patterns into electrical signals with the same patterns. An analog signal such as a sound wave is converted to digital by sampling at regular intervals; the more frequent the samples and the more data recorded, the more closely the digital representation resembles the analog signal. Converting analog signals into digital makes it possible to preserve the data indefinitely and make many copies without deterioration of quality."

Even here, on a computer website, it is admitted digital can only APPROACH the analog signal. It is this Analogy, Analog Representation, which is the key. Break it down into the bits and bytes of digital information storage, and the original signal, which IS analog (soundwaves), is destroyed, the chain is broken.

Why do so many digitophiles feel it necessary to crash the Vinyl Party whenever they can and try to force by various means their point of view on analog-philes? Because they've been sold a Bill of Goods, a Dud, a Bad Idea; they've sunk money into it, they've sunk their egos into it, and they can't admit they've been taken; made a mistake; been had; been duped; fell hook, line and sinker; for a Fraud.

Not all ideas are good ideas, most things the majority believe in or support are in fact bad ideas (take Celine Dion, or "Reality" television for instance). And, unfortunately, many of those who do buy audio equipment are not blessed with a sense of rhythm (admit it, you ALL know people who are either tone-deaf or unable to dance because they are unable to follow a beat), or an ear for music, though it may be politically-correct to pretend we are all equal in our capacity to appreciate music. Should we be taking the impressions of the colour blind in an art gallery as Good Information (or do we pretend there are no colour blind?)? These handicapped (and in a world of MUSIC they ARE handicapped) are impressed and fascinated by sounds, and their contributions muddy the waters for those who are sensitive to musicality, gestalt, rhythm, timing. How can we tell who's who on a print forum, or indeed, even in person? While these musically-deaf folk are the first to cry "subjective!", it is because they cannot understand the objective reality of those who DO indeed hear these qualities, these differences. Since they cannot hear it, it cannot exist, and they are "objective" while those who are sensitive are to be dismissed by making "subjective" statements. It's like Chinese attempting a coversation with Russians, these two don’t speak the same language, though, to continue the “analogy,” they think they do.

Why do Analogophiles not crash Digital Parties and try to force their world-view on them? Because they're happy with their choice, and looking forward to more. As to why vinyl and analog source are not more prevalent, it's because the industry, which is driven by Profit, tried their damnedest to kill off Analog by, for instance, amplifying the noise issue into a Bona Fide neurosis, and by promising Perfect Sound Forever, which digitophiles bought hook, line and sinker. Also, indeed, because socially-dysfunctional computer addicts (the nerds referred to above) were in love with the technology, and just won't let this avenue go and continue to foist it on us. What a crock! And I've heard they are at it again, with the latest digital video systems (how many speakers does it take to make a bad movie good? Answer: 7, and if that doesn't work, let's pump it up to 9) being marketed as, once again, perfect. Those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it.

Vinyl, despite a determined effort by the press and industry to kill it off, is making a comeback. THIS is the reality. Why? Because the quality (of musicality) can be heard. It won't die, the Truth will Out, out out damned spot! Those who want quality should go vinyl; the foolish should continue to throw money at the conversion of music into information and stay away from vinyl forums. But they just can't stop picking at the scab.

Stop trying to be “reasonable” by granting this and that advantage to the digitophiles fellow vinyl lovers, drop the pretense of political correctness (which demands, simply because music IS being sold in digital formats, that digital software EXISTS, it MUST be respected as equal), it won’t work, you’re fooling yourselves, trying to fit in, submitting to peer pressure. They won’t be satisfied until vinyl is stamped out once and for all, you’ve eaten your words, conceded defeat (i.e. accepted a Lie).

Tell it like it is, follow your ears, which tell you this: vinyl is THE superior medium today (all forms of analog tape no longer being produced, live broadcasts rare, and soon as well to be digitized if Industry has its way), the ONLY medium (with the odd live broadcast thrown in) which obeys the Prime Directive of a home audio system: Make Music. All this talk of eulogy is, like the “horrendous cost” claims and the noise claims, misleading. Vinyl is growing, analog playback equipment companies multiplying by leaps and bounds, sales of analog equipment and LPs undergoing a Renaissance, reviews of analog equipment growing in number. Rejoice, and let the digitophiles stampede towards the next source of Perfect Sound Forever, with all its attendant required new hardware, and attendant profit for the industry. Me? I’ll continue to revel in the sound of my ca. 1960 Garrard 301 grease-bearing, and my ca. 1970 Lenco L75, and play my used records issued in the ‘50’s, ‘60s’ ‘70, ‘80s into the present. In the absence of the availability a given piece on LP, I'll buy the CD, because I love music. But I'll continue to look for it on LP. Now THAT, my friends, is far closer to Forever than the already outdated various digital formats, and Far Closer to Perfect, as it at least does not violate the Prime Directive of audio equipment for the home: Make Music.

My condolences Albert for the loss of your friend.

I want to point out that as this thread has evolved away from the starting topic, IMO many of the posts have too casually equated analog with the LP record and digital with the Red Book CD. I think disappointment with the Red Book CD gets carried too far as a general blanket condemnation of the potential of digital audio. It's still a young technology by the standards of the LP and its forerunners, but the CD is absolutely ancient by the standards of information technology. Recall the primitive state of the home computer at the time of the CD's introduction, then think about the cost vs. capability of computing power today. Yet the CD ploddingly persists (if no longer predominates in the mass market, where sound quality is the least of consumers' concerns). It's like being confined in 2007 to playing Pong and working in DOS. The theoretical advantages inherent in skipping at least a couple stages of signal transduction on the way from the microphones to the loudspeakers, combined with intrinsic robustness, manipulability, and portability/transmissability as a storage medium, clearly make digital the way of the future, today's audiophile vinyl renaissance notwithstanding. I'll never get rid of my records, but I don't expect them to always be my sonic preference.

Good debate but should we all be venting our anger and expending our energy in a CD vs vinyl debate when neither format has a significant future and both have significant flaws. It's time for the analog and digital audiophiles of the world to unite and imagine a better future where we are not the after toughts (no thought?) of the big music companies.
Apple reinvented music distribution in a way that the likes of Sony and the old school CD distributors could not imagine. They dramatically lowered distribution costs. Perhaps this offers some avenue for a high end digital download alternative (at a whopping $5 per song instead of $1). The marginal costs to apple of creating a super high res digital mastering of the original tapes might be minimal and the distribution costs could be identical to low res. This could be a very profitable niche market.

Perhaps we should stop fighting and move on to a better future for true music lovers

Those who listen ---> use Vinyl, those who read datas listen ----> to Digits.

Just like dining out, given the choice I will dine at best quality restaurant, (Vinyl) it that's is not available I eat at a midline place (CD). If nothing else is available fast food has to do (iPod).

Great stuff!

The marketing people at Axe Cologne need your talents... I can see the ad in my minds eye....

Computer Nerd with goofy glasses, greasy hair and a pocket full of pens listens to a CD.

Cut to ->

Slob with iPod surrounded by other slobs eating a mushy fast food burger whilst humming and spitting out bits of half chewed food.

Cut to ->

Tall, slender, dark, handsome male, adjusting his turntable arm, surrounded by bejewelled babes in sleek evening dresses and high heels, holding album covers...

Narrator says ,"For those who know how to listen...."

LOL. More seriously; Nick Hornby wrote an amusing book about this male phenomenon (Boys and their toys) called "High Fidellity"...it is an entertaining and an enlightening read (for any male with a passion for audio, you may find something of yourself reflected in its pages, I know I did).

Newbee

Upon reflection do you think that your 'over the top' self defense, even in the face of comments by others which are judgmental of your preferred format, might just generate in others with less experience or security a feeling that you are denegrating their choices.

My response was mostly at Eldartford who has attacked LP format almost since the day he arrived at Audiogon. Forgive me if the constant rubbing against my feelings occasionally cause me to cry out. If I were as persistent at visiting digital forums and criticizing everyone's choice, ragging on the flaws of digital and telling everyone it was the wrong way to listen to music, do you think someone might fly back at me with comments?

I think the answer is yes they would. Perhaps I should not defend analog and hide my feelings so those that don't choose it can feel like they have not missed anything.

Thomasheisig
When you say

I own DCS Equipment and I like it, but honestly, the Software is sooooo bad, it is frustrating. For my limited listening time it is a waste.

It sounds as if you agree with me that digital is good but not up to the quality of analog.

As for comments about music, I own 6K records, some CD's and even a few hundred open reel tapes. I even own an iPod. I am a music lover and will avail myself of music any way I can.

Just like dining out, given the choice I will dine at best quality restaurant, (Vinyl) it that's is not available I eat at a midline place (CD). If nothing else is available fast food has to do (iPod).

That does not change the fact that each is a different level of quality. Some people only eat fast food and some all the above.

Analog is superior on my system and of the tens of dozens of professionals I know in the audio business most prefer analog to digital. That may not make it a truth for everyone but it means I'm not unusual in my belief.

Come on, Albert is one of those who listen and he has his opinion. Other's think different or they link it with spending money. When I started in this "Hobby" I had nothing, no records, no CD's. I compared and I decided to go for Vinyl. Those who listen ---> use Vinyl, those who read datas listen ----> to Digits. This has been a fact 15 years ago, it is the same now and it will be the next 15 years. Unfortunately it is true, a good analog System is really expensive, no way out. But the satisfaction is worth it. Since I use my AirLine Arm I have problems to believe what's in the groove. Really amazing.
I own DCS Equipment and I like it, but honestly, the Software is sooooo bad, it is frustrating. For my limited listening time it is a waste.

Gregm,

It may be masochism or something else, or both. But, really, believe me, this ain't no nostalgia:)

I think you hit the nail on the head.

Nostalgia is for the Vinyl jackets themselves and the length of time they have been owned and when/where they were purchased. Or reminiscing when playing a song (which can be Vinyl, CD, Radio or whatever)

If I understood correctly, I think what you are describing is a ritualistic behaviour and aesthetic fascination of the beauty and elegance of TT/Vinyl. An engineering marvel that outwardely manifests its beauty rather than technology deeply burried/hidden on a sliver disc and inside circuit boards and software alogorithms (as in CD & Digital).

I can understand that. Music is Art. A beautiful TT is art too.

Albertporter,

Upon reflection do you think that your 'over the top' self defense, even in the face of comments by others which are judgmental of your preferred format, might just generate in others with less experience or security a feeling that you are denegrating their choices.

Your last post, for me at least, raises the issue of some of the same arrogance you decry when you announce how necessary it is (for others) to hear a (perfect) vinyl record to connect emotionally to the music being played.

I think many folks make an emotional connection with the music totally unconnected with the format of delivery. In fact, I will say that if someone cannot connect with music without dependency on the choice of format they have my sympathy!

We should all learn to be more sensitive to the many different approaches and needs of folks involved in this hobby.

Before you fire one back at me, remember that only your friends tell you when you have bad breath. Right now I know that I do! :-)

Its called consistency.. Vinyl in general can perform above many of the digital recorded counterparts.. Although there is great digital too. But for whatever reason analog done right is just flat out impressive, and people recognize it easier than with the same CD they have heard on 20 different systems.

As for accuracy and efficiency digital gets it done, but that does not make it more pleasing or musical.

I mean you could argue exacly the same with Tubes and Solid state.. and many musicians are still not giving up the marshall tube stacks, so what is wrong with the guys making the music? Same thing that is wrong with vinylphiles, its not nostalgia its preference. So you go figure it out, Ipod is not the answer to everything is the moral of the story.

Shadorne notes:

If Vinyl was so much better than other mediums then can someone expain why it has never been used as the reference storage medium for the audio industry. I mean why did the recording industry use analog master tapes and now digital masters if Vinyl was the ultimate

Tsk, tsk, Shadorne. You know why (among other reasons):
a) Tape is 1st generation; vinyl comes after.
b) Tapes offer much more storage space for music
c) Vinyl is hardly "ultimate" -- it's just relatively better. For example, live FM broadcast (good quality) sounds exceptional. For that matter, tapes sound excellent (but can you find pre-recorded R-R tapes?)

Nostalgic?
Hardly so in very many cases: many audiophiles AND music lovers used to be annoyed at the vagaries of vinyl playback in the old times -- myself included. And many, I'm sure, looked forward to the "new" medium... whether they admit it or not.

Looks apart (many TTs look beautiful fm an "engineering aesthetics" point of view), and hobbyism apart,
-- you need TWO pick up cartridge life cycles to match the life cycle of ONE laser pick-up if you;re lucky;
-- you have to set up the TT (but that's not rocket science)
-- you need a good tone-arm: this means inexpensive in the beginning or VERY expensive thereafter (OK, you can buy vintage)
-- Worse of all -- as Raul noted recently: you need a phono equaliser. These components are probably the most miserable sounding devices to hit the dealer shelves...

It may be masochism or something else, or both. But, really, believe me, this ain't no nostalgia:)

Hey, I'm actually one of those who is capable of enjoying a moderate degree of surface noise on old records of certain musical genres, but not so much with LP's, more so 45's and 78's. And not just noise from uncleanable dust'n'dirt and years of playing on a cheap old turntables/cartridges either, but from a patina of countless light scratches as well. The robustness of the physically larger grooves of the single formats, combined with the higher velocity and therefore pitch of the groove/surface noise generated by higher rpm playback, can allow for a very evocative atmospheric sound to be created in the ears of some devotees of older genres and records. It's not unlike the desirability of leaving the timeworn finish untouched on a piece of antique wooden furniture.

Albert, well put, with vinyl I get the goose bumps, the chills going up my spine when the emotion is felt. For instance, Herb Ellis, Joe Pass, Ray Brown and Jake Hanna playing Seven Come Elleven at Concord just burns with fire and passion. I have both CD and an LP. It's the LP that sets off the neurons and chemicals in my body to hyper sensitivity. I can hear and feel the guitar work, rythm and suspense, excitement in the crowd as they anticipate the musics next movement. I'm not much of a classical music fan, but the same thing happens to me when i hear Mozarts Eine Kliene Nacht Music by the Budapest Quartet. The beautiful sweet and quiet, then soaring clarinet, playing in front of the mourning strings, can bring tears to my eyes which a CD cannot do. After hearing this and a few other LPs, I was inspired to sit in on a few chamber music concerts. I loved it so much.
Jean is correct as well. It does not take a huge investment in time nor money, to get HUGE returns in musicality. What it takes is the right approach. One can have wonderful music, for under 1k. I say this because I just gave a turntablle to a friend who has crappy Sony electronics, old Pioneer speakers and he is in love with his 500+ 1950, 1960,1970s vinyl collection all over again because he had never heard the dynamcs and rythm and bloom which were in the grooves before! Lucky for him, most of his LPs are mint- Ellington, Basie, Professor Long Hair, Tatum, Jazz and rock, etc.
His system proves to me that it is really the source that matters. If you have a crappy turntable, it doesn't matter how good the electroncs and speakers and cables are. The source which plays the medium has to be good. Jean has a great recipe for a damn good analog source which has been proven to me and it is not super expensive.
Again, the emotion and musicality are what matters most to us audio nuts. Even with some clicks and noises, I get it most from LPs than with CDs. In large part, CDs were a marketing coup- convenience, noiseless, etc. But what they don't tell us is that it really lacks SOUL.
At our quarterly audio listening sessions, 4-6 audio fools get together and 95% of our precious time is spent spinning vinyl Hardly anyone attempts to play their Wadia, Meridian, Naim CD players. We eagerly pull out LPs because that's where the magic is. The music sound wave.
The question posted is can we live in a world without vinyl? maybe you can.

I am a bit bewildered by all these Vinyl eulogies...rather nostalgic IMHO.

If Vinyl was so much better than other mediums then can someone expain why it has never been used as the reference storage medium for the audio industry. I mean why did the recording industry use analog master tapes and now digital masters if Vinyl was the ultimate?

Even before digital existed, I thought most people accepted that Vinyl was an imperfect replica of original studio analog tapes, especially the LP's which undergo a form of compression to achive their long play....

Come on everyone, lets not make Vinyl out to be something it is not. I'll be first to admit that great Vinyl sounds absolutely awesome...nirvanna perhaps, but it ain't the only one that "sweeps away the world and delivers the goods."

Sure some people prefer the sound of Vinyl and I respect that, but that there can only be one is the corny stuff of Highlander fantasy movie.

From the article:

Even if the sound quality of vinyl contains some surface noise, as the static of records notoriously attracts dust, the imperfection is still welcome to many.

And

He also welcomes the unique sound of records. "The surface noise adds to lots," he said. "It gives it weight."

That's the first time I've read an article where noise and pops on an LP are described as beneficial. If my system matched their description I think the "romance" would disappear in about 15 minutes.

Mine is DEAD silent. We get maybe one or two clicks during an entire session that show up unexpectedly within the music. Otherwise the presentation from my turntable is identical to my digital (noise wise).

To single out the one or two clicks a night during a music session that spans 3.5 to 4 hours of LP swapping would be like test driving a Porsche Carrera and complaining about the experience because a gnat splattered on the wind screen.

Music is about emotion. I follow what works, I don't care how much labor it requires or how inconvenient is it. I just want to be in love with the music and analog delivers that emotion, goose bumps, chills and all.

When it's right, it tears at your emotions like the love of a good woman. Digital pulls at your ears but not your heart. Both can be exciting but only one of them sweeps away the world and delivers the goods.

Albertporter...I am very sad to hear about Dave's death. We did have a most enjoyable conversation by E-Mail, and exchanged some CD's that we thought represented exceptional performances.

About vinyl...PLEASE don't consider any comment I might make as an "attack". There are few enough of us audiophiles that we don't need a circular firing squad. Debate, yes, but an argument, no.

Now I will go play the Joshua Bell/ Ashkenazy performance of the Tchaikovsky violin concerto which Dave sent to me, and raise a glass to his memory.

Check this website out; it being of very convenient coincidence. A local record store; lp's as well as cds, ran this website exploring the benefits of vinyl playback. Nothing really new, but telling considering the source. http://media.www.marquettetribune.org/media/storage/paper1130/news/2007/01/25/Marquee/Vinyl-2669616.shtml?sourcedomain=www.marquettetribune.org&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com

I'm not sure by their responses that Albert and Raul totally get what I said above. I didn't say anything about the subjective sound of vinyl compared to CD or vice versa, at any limit you care to push the playback envelope, or at any budget, be it high or low, or anything about my own personal preferences. I'm just talking about the theoretical limits of closely approaching transmitting an exact copy of a mastersource using analog or digital means. (For those who may not know, my vinyl collection is over 10X larger than my CD collection at around 10,000 pieces. And no, I haven't come anywhere near pushing the envelope for playback of either format, and never will. All of which is irrelevent to my post.)

Dart:

Albertporter...Texas is the land of big everything...even, I notice, opinions! I thought we agreed that some aspects of digital, like convenience, to pick a non-controversial aspect, are "better" than vinyl

I have always stated that digital was more convenient, and that it was cheaper.

Do you remember our group member named Dave Kemp. You and he exchanged email's on the topic of classical music. Dave was found dead in his N. Dallas apartment three days ago. His brother says it was a heart attack and that he likely did not suffer too much.

Tomorrow night will be our first meeting without him. I'm probably not in the best spirit and certainly not in a friendly mood for attacks against analog.

Well I guess I will chime in. I have had the pleasure to hear a few very good vinyl rigs but none was good enough to my ears to convince me to buy a turntable. My 150+ albums will remain in storage. But to those who love it fantastic I am happy for you as this hobby is all about the enjoyment of music and equipment. I must confess though as a mechanical engineer some of those turntables are absolutely drop dead gorgeous. Mmmmmmm On second thought maybe I will buy one.

Chuck

Albertporter...Texas is the land of big everything...even, I notice, opinions! I thought we agreed that some aspects of digital, like convenience, to pick a non-controversial aspect, are "better" than vinyl. I really don't see why people who can't agree with your view need to be personally vilified.

Dear Zaikesman: +++++ " reaping the benefits of rich boys wanting to play with new toys; that's what the high end is all about. " +++++

I respect your point of view but I think that you really don't know nothing about, you don't know what " moves " almost all of us about LP/analog reproduction. First you have to understand these before you go on.

+++++ " records cannot faithfully transmit the sound of a mastertape. Digital has that possibility, as well as more " +++++

I respect your point here but you don't know nothing about: till today analog or digital can't transmit the sound of a mastertape and the " possibility " is on the digital and analog too.

This is what I posted on other thread:

+++++ " I don't think that your question: +++++ " Is Digital actually better than Analog? " +++++, could have a precise answer because both mediums are totally different and you can't compare apples with bananas or a car with an airplane: it does not have sens.

Today, both mediums have its own advantages and disadvantages and both can live together in an audio system and we can use it often depending our CD or LP priorities.

95% of the recorded music comes through CD technology and this fact tell us that it does not matters about CD vs LP if we want that music then we have to buy CD and we have to have a decent CDP, no question about. " +++++

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

For me, it's largely about the economics of digital versus analog, and in this regard the digital formats win.

Absolutely, and there are thousands of titles on CD that will never be on LP.

Well said. There is a cross-over point where spending less buys better music with digital, and more, better music with analog, at least for me.

I agree. I just don't understand why those of us that bust our ass to make analog work get hammered by the digital guys. I have owned top line CD players ever since they were introduced, I am a MUSIC guy.

I burns me up to push and work and save and make my system the VERY best it can be, no matter what it takes. I pride myself in that, the same drive that's won me tens of dozens of awards in my career of photography.

When I raced cars I held the track record. I did not get it by bullshitting, it took a lot of money and staying up the whole night before to make sure everything was 100%. Otherwise you saw the other guys tail lights.

So what's different about today? Everyone want's to have the "best" but only provided it's easy, cheap or convenient.

Albert,

"If you wish to argue on the basis of absolute quality, cost no object, then LP wins"

Well said. There is a cross-over point where spending less buys better music with digital, and more, better music with analog, at least for me. I can't find great quality used LPs. Occasional new ones, but even those are rare. The pops and clicks drive me crazy! I wonder about the dolby and dbx tape systems I used to have and how they might compare now. If I could go from master tape to home machine tape, would it be better, especially using today's technology? Hmmmm.....

I still say there can be a lot of overlap in quality between analog- and digital-sourced systems today. This is why this thread will go on forever, like all the other vinyl vs. CD threads with 100s of posts.

Arthur

Zaiks:

Let's just not get carried away from reality by all the rhetoric. No matter how much you want to expend on their playback, and no matter how much we might enjoy or fetishize them, records cannot faithfully transmit the sound of a mastertape. Digital has that possibility, as well as more relative practical advantages than you can shake a tonearm at.

I usually agree with you but you are 100% wrong, except for your comment that digital has made headway. I've posted that same response dozens of times here at Audiogon over the years.

The fact remains that LP provides better music.

If you disagree it's because you have not pushed both formats to the limit. If you wish to argue on the basis of money, digital wins.

If you wish to argue on the basis of absolute quality, cost no object, then LP wins. I find it interesting that those that argue against LP are always the ones that want to economize. Just speak the truth, you are unwilling to go to that much effort for the difference. That argument I will accept.

Dear Richard: +++++ " Can you imagine a world without vinyl? " +++++

Yes, I can imagine what I can't imagine is a world without MUSIC ( somebody posted about ).

50K records in 45 years?, that's mean that for 45 years you buy at least 3 records each single day over those 45 years!!!!!!!. You are a extremely music/record collector. Congratulations!!!!!! I own only 6K but normally I'm around 200-300 ( maybe less ) to hearing.

Now, it is obvious ( like other of you posted ) that we need a better medium/way of music home reproduction for the future recordings. I agree that for what are already recorded the LP is the best medium/way till today and I think that the LP reproduction audio items ( that we know/using ) most be improved ( because it can ), we are losting yet " music " from/in our audio systems, there is ( fortunately ) a " road " to improvements in the way of sound reproduction ( like somebody posted ) with better future designs ( I hope that. ): cartridges/tonearms/TT's/Phonolinepreamps/amplifiers/speakers/etc/etc.

Let me tell you these: over the last 30 years I don't know any single tonearm design ( and there are several very good today designs out there ) that could beat " vintage " tonearms designs like Micro Seiki MAX 282, Technics EPA 100MK2, Audiocraft AC3300, Lustre GST 801, SAEC, SME, etc, etc. In the same way we have very good cartridges new designs, but a real whole improvement over some " vintage " cartridges?, I can tell you, too, that ( unfortunately ) these new designs are not whole better than the older ( some cartridge manufacturers have better cartridges today but are better because their old designs were not good enough. ): I can't think/know any single today cartridge that could beat ( whole ) the Fidelity Researh MC702 or the Technics U205CMK4 ( MM ) or the Goldbug Brier or the Audio Technica ATML 180OCC or Micro Acoustics MA630 or Fulton HP or many others.
In the same way are the TT's, example: Micro Seiki, not only the top of the line SZ-1TVS+SZ-1M but the SX or RX series: IMHO I don't know any today TT ( and I don't hear all yet ) that really beats the Micro Seiki stuff.

Today, we all are paying " dream money " for tonearms/cartridges and TT's that give us/return a very small real " satisfaction " for what we invest on it and certainly almost all can't give us/return a real whole improvement over the very old " vintage " gear. Please, if you don't believe in what I'm saying: you can buy ( today ) on e-bay a MM cartridge ( new. ) like the Empire EDR.9 for less than HUNDRED DOLLARS ( they are on special!!: two cartridges for 135.00 dollars !!!!!) give 50 hours of play and then make a serious " hearing " from it, you can't believe how a MM cartridge for that " absurd " price could perform that nice!!!!! and at almost the very same level of any of those 3-5K new cartridge designs.

We have to ask/push/beg to the " new " TT/cartridge/tonearm very good designers to improve ( a real/big improvement ) their today designs. I think that we have to let to applaud with so paramount enthusiasm those every day newcomers designs till they be a real/whole quality sound reproduction improvement design, not only different but whole better.

In less proportion, we have to ask/push/beg to all the very good electronics and speaker designers. Why do you think that José and I work hard for many years to design/build our Essential 3150 phonolinepreamp? and why do you think that we are on the amplifier and tonearm design?: because we really think that we need a serious improvement in the quality sound reproduction of what we have and of what it is out there, we are trying it and we hope we could achieve that in the near future.

If we take a look in the last years the prices on the audio items go really fast ( higher ) against the quality improvements: the audio item price wins the " race " ( right now ), it is fair that we ( all customers ) ask for better audio item quality performance.

Last but don't less important is that the whole recording process could " suffer/change " for the better with new recording approaches: miking/mastering/edition/recording machines/cables/consoles/mixers/recording enginnering/producers/etc/etc. This subject is critical because is the SOURCE. I think that the recording manufacturers can do it but they are not interested on it, unfortunately.

Waiting for a better future!!!!!!!!!!!!

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

Albertporter...That depends on the definition of "better".

Big opinions as always from Eldartford. This has become a multi thread, multi year experience with Dart seeking out LP forums to place his jabs.

Those that have both formats at state of the art agree LP is better, but that doesn't stop Eldartford (who never got it right) from remaining steadfast to his position.

I get really tired of the smart ass attitude and smug assertions, especially from someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.

I guess I need to start going to every forum on digital and abuse everyone about their music instead of interjecting comments that digital has made headway.

Newbee gets right what Johnnantais misses in my opinion: It's typically the rabid vinylphiles who exagerate the shortcomings of CDs vs. what average digital-friendly audiophiles usually state about the shortcomings of vinyl.

Both formats have their limitations and strengths, but these days the most overheated claims about the inferiority of the other format are promulgated by the vinyl side. So too are most of the rationalizations, omissions, or dismissals of problems inherent in their own pet format also to be found on the vinyl side, as Johnnantais' comments above illustrate -- noise, quite real, is hardly the only such problem with records -- or his and Stevecham's cliched but meaning-free quips about computers and ones and zeroes. (The fact is that the major problems audible with CD sound are analog in origin: jitter- and filter-related primarily. But the basic theory of digital conversion is well-proven, and the remaining practical difficulties are known and addressable.) On the digital side at least work continues to be done in trying to establish higher-rez consumer protocols to supercede Red Book, which implies in part a more honest appraisal of the CD's sonic shortcomings, among other more marketable factors, and that evolution will be ongoing as the physical silver disk increasingly becomes a thing of the past.

And don't for a second try to tell me that the high end industry marketing to audiophiles what is essentially being treated as a 'new' format from a sales standpoint doesn't both drive and feed off much of the vinyl propaganda, same as when CD was first promoted to the general public, only much more expensively (it's not called the high end for no reason after all). Not since then has the high end seen such a bonanza of audiophiles lining up to be convinced once more that they must re-buy their music in a more costly audiophile format yet again, plus all the new gear to play it on. Just witness today's profusion of me-too turntables -- talk about cynical. But that's fine -- I don't have a problem with what is still a cottage industry in the larger scheme of things reaping the benefits of rich boys wanting to play with new toys; that's what the high end is all about.

Let's just not get carried away from reality by all the rhetoric. No matter how much you want to expend on their playback, and no matter how much we might enjoy or fetishize them, records cannot faithfully transmit the sound of a mastertape. Digital has that possibility, as well as more relative practical advantages than you can shake a tonearm at.

Well I agree with the vinyl-o-philes. When great vinyl recordings and pressings are played back over a great system they absolutely destroy CD's.

And this occurred so seldom (and I will honestly admit I lost a bit of interest in the music I had on my LP's) I took down my system. It wsn't worth the space it was occupying. I had ventured out and bought 'used stuff' and for the most part it was rarely both in good condition and was music I wanted.

I bought newly pressed reissues which I found, for the most part, as often plagued by pressing issues as the vintage stuff (which drove me to distraction in the late 60's and 70's) and often the sound was rarely improved in anyway by the re-mix and process.

What little I think I actually lose from loss of a vinyl playback system, I think I gain from no longer revisiting this issue of format superiority during playback of CD's. CD playback can sound dammed fine, and certainly it is not worthy of the denegration it recieves when the vinyl folks enter the arena. It was in the '80's, and to a lesser degree in the '90's, but thats no reason to rag on it now. If a person does it serves to say far more about themselves than the format!

The recorded music industry as we have know it is dying, the interest in major music formats is dying, the interest in serious stereo systems is dying, and yet we are engaging our energies in picking the bones of bodies in the desert. Go figure.

Johnnantais...You are quite correct that there is great potential for improvement of vinyl-based audio. I know that, because I had DBX records and playback electronics, and I found that all the well known problems of vinyl were drastically reduced by this system. Audiophiles missed the boat on this one, although stupid marketing by DBX played a role. If I had to describe DBX records in a nutshell, I would say that it amounts to dynamic equalization to replace the RIAA curve.

Albertporter...That depends on the definition of "better".

CD is better than it has ever been.

LP Is better than it has ever been.

Both formats taken to their limit, LP is better. I don't think there is any doubt about this. Ask those with EMM labs and Rockport or EMM labs and Walker.