2. analog
  3. 1340176293

Is a vinyl rig only worth it for oldies?

I have always been curious about vinyl and its touted superiority over digital, so I decided to try it for myself. Over the course of the past several years I bought a few turntables, phono stages, and a bunch of new albums. They sounded fine I thought, but didn't stomp all over digital like some would tend to believe.

It wasn't until I popped on some old disk that I picked up used from a garage sale somewhere that I heard what vinyl was really about: it was the smoothest, most organic, and 3d sound that ever came out of my speakers. I had never heard anything quite like it. All of the digital I had, no matter how high the resolution, did not really come close to approaching that type of sound.

Out of the handful of albums I have from the 70s-80s, most of them have this type of sound. Problem is, most of my music and preferences are new releases (not necessarily in an audiophile genre) or stuff from the past decade and these albums sounded like music from a CD player but with the added noise, pops, clicks, higher price, and inconveniences inherent with vinyl. Of all the new albums I bought recently, only two sounded like they were mastered in the analog domain.

It seems that almost anything released after the 2000's (except audiophile reissues) sounded like music from a CD player of some sort, only worse due to the added noise making the CD version superior. I have experienced this on a variety of turntables, and this was even true in a friend's setup with a high end TT/cart.

So my question is, is vinyl only good for older pre-80s music when mastering was still analog and not all digital?
solman989

Showing 6 responses by chadeffect

chadeffect
586 posts
 
Raulirurgas,
to answer your post to mapman if I may be so bold. People are synthesising these old pieces of kit because they have a sound. A sound which is familiar and much loved by many. Yes equipment is way better now as you mentioned but it has no character due to its transparency.

So some want the character. In a recording studio this is very important. It brings a statement to a guitar or vocal or drum sound etc.
chadeffect
586 posts
 
This is a tricky subject. Tricky because there are so many variables.

But all things being equal we are still screwed! This is because there is usually a different master for vinyl and another for the digital master. This is because of the recording level and EQ that can be squeezed on to digital formats.

We are suffering a limiting or compression war to get the most level out at the mastering process. This usually cuts the peaks in the waveform so you can get more on. Many pop records if you look at the wave form is almost ruler flat at 0db to use every last bit.

I wouldn't want to start the old analogue vs digital war, but they both have their pluses and minuses. Vinyl has a nice sound. But it is a coloration. Digital apart from brick wall filters has less colouration & massive signal to noise ratio compared to vinyl. The uber samples rates available today are capable of much better quality if only due to less signal path and processes in the production.

But to drive eveyone mad at the end of the day it's down to the recording and your gear.

The great things I have heard on vinyl (layering, depth, naturalness) I have heard on digital too. So therefore the prize goes to...
chadeffect
586 posts
 
Hi mapman,

I think as ever some recordings are worse than others and some genres are worse than others. But the software used to master and record with is much more sophisticated, clever and transparent now.

The name escapes me but there is a fairly new limiting software that was designed to limit in away the ear couldn't detect! Yes you read correctly. I think it was made by izotope. But it was amazing the levels you could get out of it without any pumping effects or nasty side effects.

If you wanted a hardware limiter of that standard it would cost thousands. But it could never compete with the software for the transparency or speed for several hundred.
chadeffect
586 posts
 
To follow on from Mapman's point, there are many attempts to copy the analogue effects in the digital domain as plugins. Some are very good and not far off, and I can only see them getting more effective.

I dream of a world where you plugin your system and with the press of a button you have an exact 300b sound, or a 45 tube, or whichever sound you like all in the digital domain without any of the expense or hassle of the real gear. You could have all the power you want. 1000w 45 tube sound to drive any speaker. There would be libraries of various tube types, TT types with mind boggling accuracy.

No that would be truly awesome.
chadeffect
586 posts
 
Rauliruegas,

I'm with you. I know guys who still swear by running instruments through a certain piece of analogue outboard gear. You can get depth that is hard to get otherwise. Plugins cannot do this... Yet!
chadeffect
586 posts
 
Rauliruegas,

I completely agree. Even though I have fallen in love with an old SET for my playback!

In the past we had to cover up the harsh reality of the sound that came out of DACs at the time, never mind the quality of the recording/mastering etc.

The lastest DACs have a purity that needs no help. For Hifi purposes, I believe, even though I have slightly fallen from the path, that you should playback exactly what is on the source. i.e the system should add nothing.

Now I do realise that in practise some recordings need some "help", but good and great recordings need none. The problem is it is so subjective. Hense a site like this with many opinions on what is best. Let alone an understanding of what the record you are listening to really sounded like. As for most people they only ever heard it on a couple of systems which could be adding or taking away all sorts of elements.

Imagine listening to hip hop on a lowther with a 300b amp or even a quad 57 and quad 2. You would only hear half the record! So imagine having an opinion about the bass if that was your reference!
More to discover