It really depends on what type of vinyl rig you set up.
The better the rig, the less ticks and pops on lps new or used.
I am not saying that all lps will sound better, just that it's too easy to lay the blame of noise on the vinyl medium.
I've had some poor pressing from the late 70's and 80's and some great old mono' from the 50's and 60's.
I've also had a few snaps and pops on my nice new thick re-issue of Ricky Lee Jones-Pop Pop-perhaps this was an inside joke, but it is an imperfect pressing, you can see an imperfection in the vinyl, a ripple type artifact, there from the day it was pressed.
Getting back to the quality of the vinyl gear,on a properly cleaned( and De-magged) LP,I hear less surface noise on my improved Vinyl system than I did on the less costly ones before it.
Not saying you need to pay out big bucks,but I've found that most lower end vinyl set ups seem to also be the most noisy .
That includes new and old pressings.
I have some very old lps that were still in good shape that I bought new in the mid 70's.
I thought I knew them well.
With the new vinyl set up and after a proper cleaning,demagging, I am hearing details that I never heard before with any of my previous vinyl set ups.
For those who think that vinyl systems are all snap crackle and pop, you need to visit someone( dealer,retailer) who has a properly set up vinyl system, with properly cleaned records
and then hear what we die hard vinyl lovers are raving about. |
I think there should be some distinctions about modern vs older recording techniques.
Most digital recordings are done in a Frankenstein type way.
Most of the musicians "phone" their parts in, they are pro(really PRO!)Tooled, and put through all kinds of signal processing, and just like processed cheese compared to the real thing, what you get is the producers idea of what will sell to the masses.
Now go back in time.
The whole group gathered in one room for the most part, and there were a minimal number of quality tube mics placed with great care to capture all the subtle shades and nuances of the performance.
The recording engineer likely knew the musicians or at least was familiar with the music and genre and knew what to do to capture on tape what he was hearing with his own trained ears.
Then the tapes were transfered to other masters who were well trained in the pressing and manufacture of vinyl records.Folks who took pride in what they were doing.
The group or solo performer was usually photographed by another trained professional and the final product was a real labour of love for the music, musician and the process.
Everyone involved cared and respected the music,they respected the quality of their craft as engineers and they respected their audience, the record buying public, who perhaps had seen the ensemble in the very same NY club or at the least wanted to re-live that expereince again and again in the comfort of their own home.
Saddly it's all about the bottom line today, and for most they are quite happy with free downloads of poorly recorded and poorly performed music.
Kind of Blue is an example of a Classic in a number of ways.
How many Classics have any of us heard in the last few years in the new age of disposable music formats?
It's great news that so many of these well recorded Classics are once again available in vinyl format and that for the most part, care has been taken to re-issue this music with few if any flaws for a new generation to appreciate.
In any format.
|
I still favour the sound of vinyl, whether old or new to cd, or SACD for that fact.
If vinyl replay has more distortions, then they are of the pleasing variety, much like poor measuring SET amplifiers which sound better than the specs would lead you to believe.
Which brings me to my point this time.
Good vinyl systems do sound very good, and good digital systems can also sound very good.
I upgraded both my sources, from a Rega P9 to a SME 10. SMEv arm, from the Rega Exact 2 MM to a Clearaudio Talisman V2 Gold.
I switched from an Audio Aero Capitole cd player to an Esoteric Ex-03.
Both moves were indeed upgrades.
The Esoteric is the best digital player that I've owned, but my friend has the full Scarlatti set up and he also has the SME30, with the Goldfinger MC.
Also,I have listened to his very high end computer based system, and heard detail I never heard with cd or sacd.
At the end of the nite, he switched over to his vinyl setup, threw on a $5.00 used Ray Charles LP, and the system took on a whole other dimension.
The vinyl sound was just more organic,less electrical or manipulated.
Perhaps it's all those nasty distortions that somehow manage to make music sound more realistic.
Especially music that was recorded without any type of digital interplay.
It was a more relaxed atmosphere,the music wasn't forced out of the speakers(Sonus Faber Strad)like it did with any of the digital set ups.It just flowed out, almost oozing all the fullness and naturalness of a live event, which in itself is wrought with distortions.
I am betting it is the inclusion of the distortions,captured in a true all analog system that is missing in the squeeky clean digital recordings and gear.
The stuff that digital algorithms fail to acknowledge and skip over.
But just like the god particles, are what holds the music together. |
R. What I feel is the problem with digital, is that it sanitizes too much of the natural distortions that are a part of everyday life,which includes the instruments themselves ,the room, the recording chain etc.
When you start to eliminate these natural occuring distortions at the time of the recording which are different from the things like groove distortion that you are focusing on at the playback end of the chain,you also eliminate part of the liveness that an analog recording and replay system has.
It's this warts and all type of realism that I am talking about.The distortions that we hear in everyday life that analog so faithfully reproduces and that digital omits.
It's an analog world, full of distortions.We have developed an attachment to them, and we sense when they are absent.Our ears and minds don't cancel out the distortions of our everyday lives,The distortions are part of life.Eliminate them, and you are left with only part of the picture, pieces of that picture are missing.And we can sense that something is not right.
Our minds are left restless and weary ,trying to fill in the missing gaps.
There's not much equipment induced distortions in my friend's superior system.If they're there in the recording you'll hear it, what I am saying is that his gear in either format, adds very little of it's own.
In light of this fact,this ultra resolving system quite easily reveals the superiority of vinyl in an area that seems to have never been experienced by most folks in the digital camp if they haven't heard a great vinyl set up.
It's the ease and relaxation that sweeps over you as you listen to vinyl on such a superb system.Something that is seldom realized with digital, and my friend agrees.
He loves to demonstrate all his digital gear and the computer based system of high res downloads which the Scarlatti reveals whether they are or are not high res.
My friend also likes to end the evenings listening with the aforementioned 5 buck used lp on the SME set up, just to make everyone shake their heads in awe and ask, "why would you need anythingelse than this?"And my friend agrees wholeheartedly.
He embraced digital replay with some of the best gear money can buy,yet at the end of the day,he is more impressed with the sound his vinyl gear makes.
He's not alone.
Yes the Scarlatti gear does great bits and pieces better than my Esoteric does, that's a given.It should.
But it still lacks that last bit of realism that the vinyl gear brings to the party.
It's the desert at the end of a great meal,perhaps all that you really needed. |
The higher sampling rate or higher res digital formats are superior to the limited redbook.Because information lost is replaced,by adding more ones and zeros.But this isn't reality.It's altering it.
Most people prefer the sound of higher sampling rates,as less information is lost.I contend that what is lost is natural distortions that make things sound real.The things that digital lose, analog retains.
In analog recording,because the music isn't being chopped up into bits and pieces, the performance is mostly intact. Upsampling doesn't even add lost information, it only increases the info that is already there to try and fill in the gaps.The missing gaps that most folks with trained ears,couldn't tolerate compared to analog.
Something wasn't perfect with the perfect sound.
No matter how much the specs and spin would try and make you believe.
Analog doesn't do this.
These are some of the things that I have read that tend to give support to my beliefs.
I also believe you can't replace what has been lost.Upsampling isn't the cure, it's a band aid.
For me, the little bit of extra distortion added in vinyl replay is less significant than losing information or limiting bandwidth.
Debating whether Esoteric or Scarlatti are the kings of the hill means nothing to me.Both are great,as are others. I like my Esoteric X-03, I presume that the newer versions are even better.
I do know that my friends full Scarlatti set up is the best digital sound I have ever heard.
But even it is not "perfect sound forever".
Still missing a few important ones and zeros that vinyl isn't.
Some folks say that vinyl has more air around the instruments.
Tubes also give you that.
R. feels these are distortions.
I feel that analog is reproducing all the distortions found in real life, not filtering or sanitizing them out.
If these are nothing but distortions,and should be avoided, then why do they sound more realistic to so many trained ears?
Why does most redbook cd sound flat and two dimensional compared to vinyl?
If distortions or I should say,the faithful reproduction of all the distortions and harmonics found in making a music reproduction,are left intact,I contend that you are closer to what was going on at the time the music was played.And you will enjoy the music more, feel more relaxed, and not even notice any added distortions from the gear.
Take anything out or away from it, and you've lost something that can't be fixed later on.The ear/mind reacts to this lost information which I feel needs to include all the natural distortions inherent in recording and playing music, by shutting down, and listener fatigue sets in.
We live in a distorted world, we have come to accept it as real,take these natural occuring distortion away or replace them with ones and zeros of something already recorded,and the ear/mind will recognize it for what it is.
And reject it as unnatural or foreign to our ears.
Here's an example.
An anechoic chamber is great for doing measuremnts on speakers, but it is not the ideal environment for enjoying music thru those speakers .
The sterile environemnet is uncomfortable, too much or a good thing,we need some room induced distortions and reflections and bounce to make the music sound as it does in real life.
Real life is imperfect.We don't exist in an anechoic environment. We acknowledge and accept imperfections.
When they are missing, we feel it and recognize the loss and we react accordingly.
Now take a stripped to the bone digital recording, with a low res sampling rate, little air around instruments and flat dimensionality, and run it thru sterile sounding soilid state gear a lot of folks feel is acurate because of it's superior spec and low distortion, and you have the perfect recipe for a few minutes not hours of music. listening.
|
No, I don't "got it".
I don't hear the distortions you refer to in my vinyl rig nor in my friends vinyl rig.
I am not aware of added distortions that interfere with the music, or that add harmonious colourations pleasing to my ears and the ears of others who have listened to my system or his.
I have heard a lot of noisy distortions on lesser vinyl gear, perhaps this is what you are more familiar with.
What you don't get is the fact that the bar for the sampling rate has always been set too low.
I have listened to pure SACD on my Esoteric and my friends Scarlatti, and it does eclipse the sound of redbook cd.
No arguments there.
Some of his hi res computer music(Amarra software, Naim )and played thru the Scarlatti dac and clock sound better than his DSD from the pure SACD Japanese discs.
Some not all.A lot of the hi res is not Hi res, which has disappointed him.His Scarlatti reveals the true sampling rates.
What you fail to "get" is the fact that the recordings from the late 50's to early 60's were pure recordings compared to what is done today.
You can't get much purer than simple miking and perhaps just riding the gain and having all the musicians in the same room, playing together in real time and capturing the sound of the room and all the air and distortions in that room.
Those master analog tapes are nearer to the original event, the truth, than what is being done today with even the best digital recording machines.
The problem with the current generation of digtal recordings is the reliance on after the fact fixes to the original recording.And most likely, all the musicians weren't even at the recording at the same time.Their parts are "phoned" in or pasted on after the fact.Now add in all the effects and toys and the orignal sound isn't even close to being called the original sound.
Of course this is a black and white scenario of the most extreme examples of recording music.
One I feel is an art the other is a learned skill.
When these early all analog recordings are played back on very good vinyl systems,as opposed to just a turntable, cheap cartridge and inhouse phono stage in a receiver,you get all the black ,noise free background and silence between notes that the better digital systems gives you.And then somethingelse that digital doesn't.
This includes all the nasties you have pointed out in the vinyl chain.
Somehow the well recorded lp's played thru good vinyl systems despite all the distortions you attribute to them,do sound more faithfull to the original event.
At least to my ears,which have been exposed to live music( I'm a musician)for over forty years.
Let me close by saying that although I don't get what you are saying, I do "get it" when it comes to recognizing the superiority of quality vinyl systems when compared to even more expensive digital systems.Despite how perfect to the original the digital manufacturer claims may be.There's more going on between the recording mic and your ear in digital than there is in analog.At least in the classic analog recordings of the past 50 or 60 years.
Think about this.
Why are the best digital systems always touted as "analog like"? Because analog when done right still sets the standard,distortions and all.
Since we are talking about vinyl I would like to mention that reel to reel analog can be even closer to the live experience most of us are searching for.
And vinyl replay gear was always compared to how close they came to matching the standards set by analog reel to reel set ups.
And even those reel to reel set ups of yesterday and today have distortions.
Distortions are everywhere,except perhaps in your perfect digital world.
Sixty year old recordings are still regarded as the holy grail,yet those recordings were recorded on primitive electronics compared to what is available today.
Why are they still so revered?
If they were as flawed and distorted as you contend, they should have been long forgotten and out of print.Yet here they are, in 200 gram,45 rpm versions that can sound better than the original pressings in some cases.
Perhaps they don't sound any better in your system,so I can't debate that they should, I haven't heard your vinyl replay system. I can state that they do sound great in mine.How can you debate that?
You can only speculate,whereas I have heard direct comparisons of redbook,pure SACD, Hi Res computer, and high end vinyl sources in a very well put together system.
I can lay claim to having a first hand experience with comparing the two formats,and my friend who owns the system has come to the same conclusion as me.
He enjoys the realism that vinyl has that none of his superb digital sources provide.
In this case we both "get it".
You don't. |
The original recordings were done so well that those master tapes can still be used to make modern pressings that can be better than the originals.
They may be a bit expensive,but the same used original lp's are costing more,and by used I mean less than pristine.
I've gone that route and it's getting harder to find treasures.
I would rather bite the bullet and buy re-issues from quality re-issue labels.
So I think we have to re-think the term "oldies" to include modern pressings of the cream of the crop recordings.
My first source was vinyl, back in the late 1960's.
I never abandoned it,never sold off my lp collection and some of my collection has become sought after and the values have increased.
I don't think we can say the same for any of my cd's in my digital collection.
I wish the same good fortune for those who are entrenched in the digital camp, but I fear I won't be around that long to find out.
Vinyl has survived and is flourishing, despite all the flaws and mechanical inaccuracies attributed to it that some folks like to point out.
If vinyl replay is such an inferior medium, why has it lasted so long and continues to flourish, while cd seems to be on the wane?
It can't just be the nostalgia ticket, becasue cd's have been around for quite some time.
I really believe that for anything to have legs in this hobby, it has to sound good.
If not it will be forgotten .
Quads, Ls3/5a, Acoustats, to name a few classics that I have owned and enjoyed, still sound good and can hold their own to most of today's speakers.People still want those things.
Perhaps they have the kinds of distortions and inaccuracies, that a lot of people find very pleasing.
Maybe just vinyl lovers like them?
I have nothing against trying to strive for accuracy in an audio system,and I try my best to rid my system of electrical and mechanical nasties that can mask the accuracy or what has been recorded.
But accuracy has to go hand in hand with realism,so that the mechanicals do not stand in the way of the music.
Some call this the great accuracy vs musical sound debate.
I don't think one should suffer for the other, there should be a balance struck somewhere, so that accuracy doesn't intrude upon or rob the music of it's ability to suspend our beliefs that what we are listening to happened not yesterday but more than a half century ago.
As well, the system or medium shouldn't be so coloured with pleasant harmonic distortions that we can't distinguish individual hand claps for what they are,and not background noise.
Ignorance is a pretty harsh word to use.Personally it's insulting and demeaning and reeks of arrogance.
It implies that the multitudes of people who enjoy vinyl over digital just don't have a clue or don't "get it" or lack the intellect to understand that the sound they enjoy is full of inaccuracies.
Well call me a dummy if you will, but I am in good company.
At the end of the day we vinyl loving dummies will place another flawed lp on our flawed turntables and listen as that flawed needle gouges out some more shreds of vinyl and sit in awe and enjoy the music as it envelopes around us.My 50 year old lp's should not be tolerable to the ear,yet they have few pops or snaps.
I do use a VPI 16.5 to clean them, and a Hammond bulk tape eraser to demag them.
But I only started to use those for the last 4 years.
Tonite,the ignorant amongst us, those who don't know any better,will be transported to another era or place and get so lost in the music that nothing else matters to them.
The destination not the means to get there is foremost on their minds.
Yup, time to cue up another 5 buck Ray Charles mono lp. |
"Vinyl definitely has a different sound and feel to it...."
Rockpig ,apparantly you are not bothered by the inaccuracies of vinyl,and acknowledge that there is something going on that is missing in the digital domain.
It's the "different sound" from the same master tapes that gives vinyl the edge, the certain something that only a good vinyl system brings to the table.
There are roadblocks to good vinyl replay, like worn out stylus, improper cartridge set up, mismatch of arm and cartridge,poor speed accuracy, vibration induced problems from the TT or it's proximtry to vibration inducing gremlins, not to mention poor quality control at the time of pressing,and poor hygene in storing and handling of lp's.And a host of other things that Mr.R would like to add I'm sure.
So many things that can go wrong singularly or all at once can make for a less than pleasing vinyl experience, and make the novice run for cover without ever trying it, or just give up when less than satisfactory( "my cd still sounds better")results come from dipping one's toes into the black licorice discs for the first time.
If you don't know what you're doing or have inferior sources, even the best original or re-issues will perform worse than digital.
But that's the way with everything in this hobby.
Loudspeakers of any stripe can only perform at their best when care and attention is taken to place them properly in a room and strap them to a compatible amplification device, which also has to have it's special needs addressed.Let's not forget about room treatment or the lack of it,in most cases.
There are very few free lunchs in this hobby.
To get better than "good enough " sound you have to work a bit.
Some folks stay on the merry go round , buying and selling one perfectly good system after the other, and never being satisfied.Then out of frustration they give up, blame the high end for ripping them off for selling them snake oil, and retreat to the safety of cheap shoddy gear under the guise that "it's all about the music afterall".
Well it's always been about the music.
That's why the good stuff is out there at all price levels.
But if it's not set up properly or you don't work at finessing it,then it is just a waste of time and money afterall.
This hobby is what "you" make of it.
It's all your fault, don't blame the gear or the reviewers or the mags or the manufacturers for your displeasure.
Cancelling your subscription to TAS or Stereophile isn't going to fix your problems.
Speaking of problems,there's a lot of things that a cd player needs to make it sound as good as it can.It's not exempt from the benefits of better fuses, power cords, balanced power and separate dedicated line.CD players are also not immune to vibration issues.They need a proper stablized platform to work their best.
The chances however of getting decent sound from a basic cd set up are much better than they are with first attempts at a vinyl set up.However some modern companies do have excellent entry level ,plug and play systems that have done most of the heavy lifting for you.
You may pay a bit more than what you would pay down at the thrift shop, but you'll get a sound that is closer to what some of us vinyl lovers are talking about, with a lot less frustration as a bonus.
The gap narrows in this instance.
People have tried to write off vinyl since 1984,( a coincidence?)yet it's still with us and will be for some time into the future.
I upgraded my turntable from the Rega P9 to an SME 10, SMEv,in the last few months.
Both are fine set ups , not the world's best, not even as good as my friend's vinyl set up,yet the sound is just so pleasing that whatever distortions or inaccuracies there are , they aren't noticeable , and none of us are deaf.
If I were deaf, both tables would sound the same,yet they don't to my ears or those of my audio friends(one of which purchased my Rega as an upgrade to his older table).
I didn't move backwards or sideways, only upwards in sound quality.That was the concensus.
Perhaps the SME system has more distortions, and that's what thrills us so about it?
I'm starting to like distortions the more I get of them.
As long as those distortions are the ones that were there at the time of the recording and not thrown away with the bath water.
I want the baby to come out just as intact as when he went into the bath, I want the original with all the bits and pieces and not a replica.
I recently read a review of a new DartZeel amplifier, and was surprised to find out that some of my "distortion" musings, may have some merit afterall.
Vinyl recordings and replay systems may have a few things going against them, that, firsthand, would look like it's a medium to shy away from.
The folks who are fixated on the specs and not the actual sound would never give vinyl the time of day.
Which is just sad. |
I've been catching up on this thread,still more to read, but thought I'd like to add.
Way back ,early in this thread I stated a preference for the recording talents of the folks from the 60's,who had none of the toys that the the new crop of "educated" recording engineers have today.
You know, all the stuff that can transform mediocre musicians into giants,and make live vs recorded sound a mute point to argue about.
I acknowledge that technology has progressed in the last two decades.
But has it given us any new classics?
Where's the new Kind Of Blue?
Is it Green Day?
Ok so I'm old,but it's not nostalgia.
I didn't like or appreciate KInd of Blue until a decade ago,when I heard it for the first time,on CD!
The sonics were great,yet it was a simple recording using simple, primitive gear by todays standards.
And yet something was captured on those analog master tapes,something that seems to be missing with most of todays newest all digital recordings.
I have heard some pretty poor examples of modern recording techniques that even good vinyl pressings can't fix.
For me, the best digital recordings played back on good digital gear,seems to be a pretty faithful reproduction of what went on in the studio.
By that, I mean you will hear all the processing that went on to bring a make believe reality into your home.
It's not the same as capturing the reality of a recording of real musicians playing in a real room(with real distortions)in real time.
The older simpler recording of the golden age, just sound more natural because they are.
There was little or no manipulation of reality.
You can't say the same for many of todays recordings.
They are the reality or conception of what the engineer/producer wants us to believe is reality.Or the total absence of it,depending on how far you want to alter and tinker with what was recorded.
You could compare this to the realist types of painting to the more abstract versions of paintings.
One strives to capture reality, the other strives to interpret it.
You can choose which one suits your own tastes.
There's lots of fun listening to studio manipulated masterpieces,and purist recordings.
What it comes down to is, which one would you use to assemble a hifi system?
Again this rests with one's experience to how live instruments sound.So that you can recognize when they are reproduced naturally or in altered form.Then judge what job your gear is doing.How much is it altering reality?
Would you like tone controls,add some more bass?Just how would you like it to sound?
Since few of us were there at the session, how would we know anyways if we did re-capture the same sonics?
Even the end user can't resist twiddling with the mix when given the chance.
Does anyone know what " real" is amnymore?
Do they even want it?
Perhaps it's a generational thing.
I personnally have no interest in any of the "reality" type programs that are thrust at us.
For me it's not a reality that I can relate to, and as such I find nothing to interest me.
It's a production, someone's take on what reality is for the masses of folks who are interested in such shows.
Much the way I find most modern recordings of modern groups are.
The music is very derivitive, the playing can be great, but the recordings are so altered, how can you tell if they are any good?
Only by seeing them live?
Then again look at all the lip syncing, and voice manipulations in supposedly live performances.
If oldies recordings more closely represent reality and that's what turns you on, then jump in.Buy that vinyl rig.
You also may like the way vinyl can reproduce the other reality of the recording studio too on good pressings.
Pink Floyd anyone? |
Something from my own musician point of view concerning cloning the sound of different tubes etc.
If you want the "real" sound of a Hammond B3 and Leslie, go out and buy the real tubed ones made decades ago.
The synth versions are just that, synthetic.
The synth versions can do a good job of tricking you that they sound just as good,until you hear them side by side.
Same with modeling amplifiers.
There's a lot of them around that promise to recreate the sound of old Marshall, or Fender tube amps,yet in reality, they pale in comparison to the real items.Stll want to clone the sound of an EL 34?
Ask Mr Carver why he uses the real tubes on his newest tube amps?
There's no substitution for the real things in life.
That's the reality.
Lots of folks do like these clones,they make sense, they're cheap and easy to maintain and they are portable.And they can buy them.It's hard to buy the originals and definitely not cheap.
They are an attempt to capture the sounds that made the original "analog" units so popular.
Think of this.
Technology marches on, yet it's purpose is to clone all that has gone on before. The old technology.Not chart new territories,the one exception being the Moog.
People buy the newest computer gear to download music that is derivative of another generation,which was derivative of the one before it.We keep reinventing the wheel.
Now that's progress. |
Yes I have all the new ones from Johnny, and I like them, even though I only have the cd's!.
I do have some old mono lp's from the man, and they aren't too shabby either.
I've never heard of Low, but I do like the group Lambchop, mostly for the music, again only on cd.
I have listened to Sufjan Stevens on cd and vinyl, and vinyl wins out, in whatever format he chose to record in.
I'm not saying that there's nothing good about modern groups or that they are less talented.They are mostly better musicians than myself and most of my peers.
I also appreciate the talents of groups like Widespread Panic,Phish,etc.
I just wish that the folks recording them were as talented in their trade.
Neil Young is an oldie who is still investigating ways to bring high fidelity back to the forefront.I understand he may bring something new to the format wars in the near future.Time will tell.
Then it will be up to the general public to pay up or shut up.
I've listened to his live recordings made at Massey Hall in 1971 using a simple tape deck and a few mikes.
I find them quite impressive.How much the masters were messed with I haven't a clue.If you make a mistake in a live recording we forgive you, please don't alter them.That is if you value realism.
I've also listened to them in high res playback thru the full Scarlatti rig, and the detail is better than Redbook cd by a large margin.But the original was analog afterall.
I've several Direct to disk recordings and always used them to evaluate my turntable setups.Still use them to this day,and I agree they are very realistic,because they were all about capturing reality not trying to create something unnatural.
I would presume there must be some direct to digital recordings also, but the temptation to alter reality, to sweeten things up, add a touch more reverb,to play with more toys is always there.
More is not better, less usually is. |
