Is a vinyl rig only worth it for oldies?

Hi Mapman, I can't agree with you on the 'laboratory experiment' comment. We have a cutting lathe that we set up with the stock electronics, then we substituted a variety of amplifiers and did the same cut with each of them.

You can take that lacquer and thus hear the difference between the amps on any system. We are now using our own amps that we modified for this purpose (the mods were only to make the amplifier easier to use with the cutter and were very slight).

It was easy! And also an advancement- we now have the world's first transformer-less vacuum tube cutting system.

If you were to talk to Acoustic Sounds, you would find that they have found a variety of ways to improve the pressing machines as well. These are all easy changes, the only reason you don't see more people doing them at various plants is that they are too busy to take the gear out of service!

Hi Ralph,

Glad you responded. I was thinking of this very initiative that you have mentioned prior.

A laboratory, whatever it's actual form, is wherever innovation takes place. That is what it seems to me you are doing in attempting to push the edge of what is possible with vinyl and I can easily see how it would well be successful.

The next step is to take a product to market and watch the market grow.

I think there is a niche market still obviously for new and better vinyl recordings and gear capable of playing it. It may well transition out of the "laboratory" stage and become a success. I truly hope it does, and might even set the benchmark for the immediate future sound quality wise in some regards, but there is no chance of vinyl winning the race over the long term, right?

Obviously its up to the OP who wondered and others to determine in the end for themselves whether a vinyl rig is worth it to them or not for new things in addition to for oldies.....

but there is no chance of vinyl winning the race over the long term, right?

Not sure about that, and right now, I'm not sure that the major labels think that either. I think they are tired of putting out CDs and then not being able to sell their stock as the download thing has really hurt them. So they have been turning to LPs as something they can sell that has a little more immunity. Its funny, in 1985 most of the labels were saying that they would be done doing vinyl by 1987; here we are 25 years later...

So as a result finding music on vinyl these days is the easiest its been in years. BTW 1993 was the year of the least vinyl production.

Now if they can come up with a digital format that denies duplication we might see digital experience a resurgence. But right now the LP industry is a growth industry and any player in it has as much work as they can handle.

I had arguably the best digital system made (Stahltek, $72,000) in our room at RMAF. The designer was there. I played him a cut on both the digital (192KHz 24-bit) and LP. He simply turned to me and said 'Digital has such a long way to go...' He was not mad- he loves analog, and I think its that pragmatic approach that is why he makes the best digital.

Ralph (Atmasphere) and other vinyl lovers -- a couple of comments and Qs:

I've been an audiophile hobbyist since my late teens back in the early 70s. I'm almost 60 yrs old now. I mention all this because I started with vinyl; pretty much the only game in town in the 70s unless you were a real-to-real-head.

Over the years, I've put together a rig that gives me a lot of pleasure. My systenm has both "redbook" CD and vinyl source inputs. Foundation now set for my comments and Qs.

The comments: As regards my CD source input, I've picked up some discs over the years that are very nice sounding. Some digital recordings from unexpected places and not so well recognized labels too. More dogs than diamonds I'm sorry to say. I attribute this more to the recording quality than the CD format.

As regards vinyl, similar comments. Some gems; some dogs. But . . . last night, I received in the mail an LP just purchased off the "Gon" -- Leopold Stokowoski conducting the London Philharmonic Orchestra, playing Stravinsky's Firebird Suite plus other goodies like Tchaikovsky's Marche Slave and Mussorgsky's Night on Bald Mountain (London Phase 4 Stereo SPC 21026). WOW!! WOW!! and one more time -- WOOWW!!

I closed my eyes and was there in front of the orchestra. Could even sense concert hall LF resonances that I could literally feel in my gut. There's was a certain life and energy to the music that I rarely if ever took away from a CD, even though I've come across some digital gems here and there.

I have other London Phase 4 and ffrr recordings that do great justice to the music too -- but not like the LP mentioned above. My bottom line thought is that I really like the vinyl medium. I find it very involving -- starting with pulling the LP out of the jacket and then reading the inner sleeve comments while listening to the music.

Yes . . . , I like my CD set up too and have no intention of tossing it in favor of vinyl or some other so called super hi-rez "niche" digital formats. And I'm just too old to start exploring computer based formats. Having said all of that, I still love my vinyl rig and would like to source more predictable, less risk high quality labels (vintage or new).

The Qs: Ralph, have you commercialized your LP set-up and if so, where can one purchase your recordings. Also, to avoid a lot of the risk and uncertainty when looking to buy quality LP recordings, is there any information source or web site where I can buy LPs (used or new) of top quality?

Thanks and regards,

Bruce (bifwynne)

I have a test pressing of one of Ralph's recordings. It features Ralph on flute and his then wife on vocals. Great recording and exactly what Ralph is talking about in this thread. Man, O' Man ... nothing like tubes from the beginning to the end.

Dear Atmasphere: +++++ " I would invite you to spend some time with a mastering lathe sometime. It may change your opinion. " ++++

thank's, I will take this seriously and next time I can be on USA I let you know. I know that could be a learning experience additional to meet you.

+++++ " There are those that say its a miracle that the LP system works, but its not a miracle, its simple engineering and an understanding of the nuances. " +++++

I know the enginnering that is inside the playback links on analog ( LP ) systems and what I posted was mainly what happen during LP playback where I can't read in your post nothing against my post.

Ralph, there is no way for no cartridge for no LP analog system that can " read/track " exactly all the grooves in the recording with no exception.

Forget all the " problems " during LP playback I posted and think for a moment how you or any one could gives " support " or speak of " superiority " to the LP playback when in this medium we can't even READ WITH ACCURACY WITH PRECISION ANY SINGLE GROOVE IN ANY LP!!!!!!!!!!

The LP playback medium IMHO is heavely faulty it does not matters that we like it or not. IMHO we can't " shout " the " superiority " of the analog over digital and in specific 24/176.8 recordings.

Ralph and any one of you: please test for two-three weeks the digital medium with out listening analog LP in between and then after those weeks return to analog and share your experiences about.

Gentlemans, I still enjoy the LP alternative as all of you but this is not the subject but what is happening down there.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

It seems to me, that the out of hand dismissal of CD sound quality, is a little out of date. Ironically, as LP became a"legacy" medium, the offerings of turntables, arms and phonostages etc, exploded in terms of quality and quantity.

I put legacy in quote marks for vinyl, as it seems to be going from strength to strength. If one medium is threatened, it's CD, with sales falling off a cliff and some manufacturers, like Linn, abandoning CD players altogether. Well what is left seems, compared to 20 years ago, to be of such better quality. Even middle grade CD players are excellent and the top end, Nagr's, Zanden's and Wadia's, quite superb. Better than top flight LP? maybe not, but the gap is smaller and the effort and cost of getting to top flight sound, a jolly sight easier.

The argument for having both, for me, is the greater access it gives yme, to the range of music I want in my collection. I am an opera lover and live in the UK, so the incomparable world of 50's to 70's EMI and Decca boxed sets, is available on E bay, garage sales and charity shops. In this instance, the CD copies of these recordings, I absolutely would agree, is nowhere near as good.

Is one better than the other? maybe, do I care, no. I weant access to the music I want, in the best format it's available on. That might be CD or vinyl.

Forget all the " problems " during LP playback I posted and think for a moment how you or any one could gives " support " or speak of " superiority " to the LP playback when in this medium we can't even READ WITH ACCURACY WITH PRECISION ANY SINGLE GROOVE IN ANY LP!!!!!!!!!!

Raul, this is blatantly false and if you actually believe that then you need to know its not true. Now, it is true that cartridges and arms have certain limits, some being better than others. Like I said before, its the mark of a good mastering engineer to understand those limits so he can produce an LP that can be played but still shows off the master recording (unless its directly to LP...).

Now I did comment directly to this issue of traceability above, but the *generalization* that no groove can be tracked by any cartridge is simply too much of a generalization. If that were true LPs would not still be around.

Again, you should spend some time around a mastering setup to see what the recording was like before it went into the grooves. Then listening to what the cartridge/arm combo thinks is there, sounds to me like you might be quite surprised at what is possible.

Its also helpful to make a recording and then put out an LP and a CD of it. That is perhaps the most telling. I have such recordings- one of the better known ones I have done is Canto General by Mikas Theodorakis (peotry by Pablo Neruda). Its pretty easy to discern that the CD **in no way** is able to keep up with the LP on a decent playback system.

I had a guy come into our room at THE Show this last January. He was somewhat notorious on the AudioAsylum.com website for his rants about phase and digital. He did not know that we had a phase switch on our preamp so he had us play a CD and then said that reversing the phase would make it better. I flipped the switch... so there was maybe a very small difference. Then he as insisting about how much better the digital was over analog if it was 'in-phase'... So I put on the LP for him, which instantly smoked the CD (we had a very nice digital system in that room BTW). So then he proclaimed that if there was an analog master tape involved that what he was talking about didn't apply. It was obviously a face-saving comment- he got up and left as fast as he could. I'm afraid we had a good chuckle at his expense.

Raul, I was pretty sure that you are making a phono stage and a tone arm. These comments of yours sound to me unlike what I would have expected- have you experienced a change of heart?

"If one medium is threatened, it's CD"

No doubt. DIgital downloads are a way bigger threat to CD than vinyl. SImilar to how digital downloads of books are a threat to the formally printed variety. Printing/publishing to physical media in general is a negative growth industry as a result of digital access and downloads. Many local daily newspapers would like to be able to be done with it already due to the relative costs and overhead of printing and mass distribution of printed materials. Lots of happy trees out there as a result I imagine!

"Now I did comment directly to this issue of traceability above, but the *generalization* that no groove can be tracked by any cartridge is simply too much of a generalization. If that were true LPs would not still be around. "

Yeah, its all relative. No encoding/decoding approach is perfect, digital or analog. Each has advantages/disadvantages.

No way vinyl will ever even come close to competing with digital moving forward though. IT may well outlast CD redbook as a niche market though in that digital will continue to progress beyond CD whereas vinyl will continue to provide an alternative for those who care I suppose.

Dear Atmasphere: +++++ " have you experienced a change of heart? " +++++

no, I did not but I'm not talking on that subject but to understand why:

+++++ we can't even READ WITH ACCURACY WITH PRECISION ANY SINGLE GROOVE IN ANY LP +++++

IMHO it's not a generalization. In a pivoted tonearm through all the LP tracks/grooves exist a tracking error but at two points and at this points does not exist that error at these two points the stylus tip in a pivoted tonearm is tangential to the groove and can " mimic " but this is only in theory because at those single points you can read that groove " if and only if " the VTA/SRA/overhang is perfect and the LP is absolutely flat with out no tiny waves, additional the stylus shape must me a exactly " copy " of the cutting head!

So now, please let me know in which recordings with which analog rig kind of set up we can read those only two points/grooves where does not exist the tracking error.

That I like the LP alternative and that I supported and support it can't means that I understand too that's a non-accurate medium and that's why persons like you work to hard trying to lower trying to help to those medium self imperfections. Do you think that if I don't like it the LP alternative I took my time with my PhonoLinepream or the tonearm design?

As you I try always to lower the analog medium distortion floor, this is the best we can do or " invent " a better medium.

You know I respect you because of your care and effort in your electronic designs in favor of the analog medium where you already have high success even that you choosed tube technology that in some ways does not fulfil my " priorities " and where you " elevated " what in some ways ( too ) are probably that technology limits.

The enemy against we have to " fight " in audio has a name: DISTOrTIONS/ACCURACY, every kind.

All what surrounded my main audio system targets is to lower the system's distortions all over each one auudio links in the audio chain and each time I achieve " some where " lower distortions/accuracy the rewards are immediate and worth all the effort.

As a medium for designers the analog medium is exciting because there is a lot of " land " to work about ( distotions/accuracy ) to improve the quality performance level.

I don't know which are the tube electronics limits but I know that on SS technology there are many " books " to write as in cartridges, tonearms and TTs.

Digital is diferent and more " perfect " and today in continuos development and grow up as technology. We " mere mortals " can do or can change nothing on digital technology it self where we can do " somethings " is on the analog design on digital audio items that's IMHO its Aqila's heel.

I'm with both mediums and as some of you I enjoy both. I agree that both have advantages and disadvantages and in strict point of view I prefer the HR digital trade offs.

I don't know for other people but for me the music foundation belongs to the bass low bass and here the LP alternative can't even dream what the digital can do even the redbook is better than the LP compared to live music at 3-4 meters from the source.
Both mediums can't performs the same/alike because are diferent with diferent distortion/accuracy levels.

My " excercise " in this thread is try to understand the LP playback " problems " that surround it and try to say that that hypotetic analog/LP superiority is only that: hypotetic but not real. Digital has its own merits and we have to recognize even if we don't like the digital medium.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Raul retains an open mind in his search for musical perfection and the force is now with him!

- -
\__/

for me the music foundation belongs to the bass low bass and here the LP alternative can't even dream what the digital can do even the redbook is better than the LP compared to live music at 3-4 meters from the source.

Boy, the ability to play bass IMO/IME has always been ruled by LP. I have never seen any digital system do as well! I can't agree with this statement at all, it is so false it seems crafted to be inflammatory, but knowing you Raul, I doubt that is the case. Curious.

A straight-tracking arm solves the tracking issue you describe if its engineered correctly (I am not a fan of air bearings!). But still I would recommend spending time with an LP cutter- the tracking error of radial tonearms is almost a non-issue relative to the overall picture, as long as the radial arm is built right, and there are a few.

This all has to do with the source recording- knowing what that sounds like and then knowing what the resulting CD or LP sounds like! That is why I say the tracking distortion, so long as the arm/cartridge setup is otherwise working correctly, is not important. So I cannot agree that a digital media, at least in its many existing forms, is somehow better- they all impose an audible artifact where the analog does not.

Now understand that I listen to a lot of lathe cuts- it is from that perspective that I write this. They just don't make any noise! Yet you can cut a 50KHz carrier tone into one and modulate FM stereo into it... crazy!

I cannot over-emphasize this point, apparently. You just have to experience it.

Dear Atmasphere: About that bass subject I made it a lot of test and compared those tests against live music in real venue " sitting/staying " at 3-4 meters from the source.

Main difference between digital and LP seems to me that reside in the time decay of the bass notes/harmonics where IMHO excist some kind of " overhang " in the LP performance where the digital it is not only more profound but sharper/solid/fast, less " obtrusive " and more natural/real with better definition.

Way before I understand the overall bass subject and before may subwoofers came to my system its performance in that frquency range was very good and I like it ( my speakers can go down to 16hz almost flat. ), I like the " organic signature " that came from my system: the floor and glass in the windows shaked and I was " proudly " about till I learned that that " shaked " was charged with a lot a lot of distortions that were what in reality shaked my room ( when deep bass in the LP playback. ).
Then my task was and is to lower those bass distortions and when subs came to my system I really knew that that " shaked " was heavy charged of distortions. Of course through the years I made several things to lower whole system distortions but when you lower the bass ones the quality level performance in any audio system improves a lot by a wide margin.
Today and with SPLs around 105dbs my room does not shake but I can feel the deepest bass on the recording when that recording ask for. The differences when we achieve the right bass range are just stunning and IMHO the LP can't compete against digital, not a wide margin but IMHO digital has an advantage down there.

As you and I already posted both formats have its own trade-offs. I like it both.

For me the bass range is perhaps the most critical to attain SOTA performance in any audio system. IMHO as goos a system bass quality performance as good the system overall performance.
Everything is important through the music frequency range but bass along the other frequency extreme put the frame/setting where the whole music will shine.

My experiences through many years and many tests brought me to that opinion.

++++ " Now understand that I listen to a lot of lathe cuts- it is from that perspective that I write this. " ++++

Course I understand it and that's why our opinion's differences. As I told you I would like to have those experiences.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Like Raul, I have carefully observed bass and most other parameters of sound at live events.

Based on that, I too have reached the conclusion that good digital, even CD redbook, has no problem doing realistic and accurate bass if implement well (always a big if).

Same true for vinyl but there are more challenges getting clean bass out of many records due to issues that are well documented with the format over the years (wow/flutter/rumble, manufacturing and other imperfections that only increase over time like warping over time, etc).

Most people will find it easier to get right with digital IMHO, not to say that it cannot be done very well in many cases as well with records. IT will just in general be harder and also probably a lot more expensive to address with vinyl. A lot will vary from record to record. Part of the expense will be finding a copy of a desired title on vinyl that is relatively free of any defects.

You should read Robert Harley's excelent article on this in the July/August issue of The Absolute Sound.

Like Harley, I agreee the mastering is typically much more important than the medium. I have about 2000 Jazz LP's, mostly from the 50's to 60's.

A great number of these are LP's that never got reissued or only got poorly mastered reissues as Harley describes. The record industry keeps reissuing the same couple hundred "Jazz Classics" in ever "better" reissues. Most of these are, actually, very good. But if you ever want to go much beyond Miles Davis' "Kind of Blue", and the other "jazz classics", vinyl is essential.

P.S. As to noise or pops and clicks on vinyl. I find it unacceptable. 85% of my LP's have no significant noise beyond MAYBE a few light clicks per side on the begining deadwax - and most are 50+ yrs old. The other 15% are either in remediation or on their way out. The way you do this is 1) insist on NM vinyl and send it back if it isn't 2) a very rigorous cleaning process (I clean mine on a Loricraft every time I play and they improve over time) 3) a very good TT - I have a Transrotor Fat Bob with ZYX Airy3 cart and Graham Phantom arm - the TT is the most important for noise. Of course you also have to realize that you can pay 100's to over a thousand dollars for a NM version of an earlier (forget original) edition of a Classic Blue Note while an excellent RVG remaster might be $25. That's why I also have a few thousand Jazz CD's.

Sorry, but there is no perfect answer here. Those who claim "Vinyl rules!" or "CD's are superior because vinyl = pops and clicks" are uninformed.

Raul,
I am absolutely astonished by your post on bass above and its importance to reproduction. Do you only listen to bass ?
Given that your room is not large, the analogue gear sits between your speakers, the miss-match of multiple drivers and amplifiers, I cannot see how your system can possibly deliver coherent musical timing. If it does it must be a complete fluke.

Although I prefer analogue by a long way, I agree with Mapman, it is going to come down to the quality of the implementation.
To me the biggest issue for analogue is the inability for most people to set a turntable up correctly. I can listen to simple music on digital, but anything with multiple instrumentation, eg orchestral, for me, digital cannot cope, and my digital reference system is way ahead of anything commercially produced.
With regards to bass performance, amplification/speakers/room will have a bigger part to play than which medium you use.
As my best mate says - "Nothing wrong with digital, it's only a little bit out all of the time" .

Dear Dover: No, I don't listen only bass. Fortunately my system bass is IMHO first rate and realy permit to enjoy the whole music frequency range in a way that maybe you can't even dream.

Yes, it is a complete " fluke ", a stunning fluke/surprise. I respect your opinion but IMHO you can't have an opinion till you can hear it. A " nice and different " experience I can say.

Anyway, other than distortions level what makes a system difference are not only our each one priorities but our each knowledge level and skills to achieve with success our each one targets.

Because your posts here and elsewhere I'm sure that your ignorance level is different from mine, your place in the audio learning curve is not the same that mine.

regards and enjoy the music,
R.

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.

Dear Lacee: +++++ " If vinyl replay has more distortions, then they are of the pleasing variety... " ++++

I have no doubt about and agree with you because that's what happen.

IMHO the main problem is that many of us are totally accustomed to those wrong but " pleasing " distortions in the same way many of you are biased and accustomed to tube electronics.

Nothing wrong with that but my point and main subject is that on playback the digital alternative is truer to the recording with a lot less distortions ( every kind. ). That we like it or not is a different matter.

This was posted for other person in other thread:

+++ " that we do have a long term acoustic memory of a sort - as well as a bias - sometimes so much so that it makes an unbiased hearing of something different very difficult, " ++++

In the same way that exist people that only listen to digital as there are people that only hear LPs and obviously like you an me whom hear both alternatives.
If you make an invitation to a " digital person " to listen LPs he still will prefer digital in the same way the other side around but if we take out our bias and only compare what we listen through both alternatives ( both with a set up that fulfill each one alternative needs. ) with what are our live event experiences ( better if those experiences were near field. ) we will know for sure which is really more near that live event experiences/performances and that IMHO is digital.

Lacee, I'm not against LPs experience/alternative it's only that I like to analize what happen down there through playback and all those added distortions during playback does not makes it a better alternative than digital.
I posted twice that both alternatives have its own trade-offs, there is nothing perfect.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

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.

Dear Lacee: +++++ " 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 ... " ++++

Sanitize????, well IMHO you are only speculating. Where do you learn/read/inform about? why sanitize those " natural distortions "? it does on purpose?

at the recording stage the microphone say at 1m. from the sound source takes the sound/music generated at high SPL mainly direct sound with all its distortions if any and for a digital is to easy to conform ceros and ones (0,1. ) all those information that is more complicated for analog because of the magnetic print out that's not perfect, the analog signal is a lot more complicated that the ceros and ones. IMHO there is no single sound that can escape to the microphone that can escape to the digital recording.

All those " natural distortions " that you and your friend like on analog playback does not existed during recording almost all were generated during playback. Lp playback is a " misery " and has not " natural distortions ".

Analog LP is a non-accuarte medium and you, me and no one else can do nothing about but only try to lower system distortions during playback at home.

Natural accuracy is perhaps the " name of the game " and digital is accurate. It is obvious that we don't like accuracy and that's why we like analog LP, tubes, fancy cables, BD TTs, and the like.Btw, I prefer the Esoteric K series to the Scarlatti, way better.

Anyway, I think I will follow enjoying both alternatives. Why not????

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Movies shot in Cinemascope have some unique inherent distortions (see the technical difficulties section in the referenced article) yet are generally quite lovely to watch.

How about modern digital Imax?

Which would you prefer?

Why should vinyl/digital audio, be any different?

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.

Dear lacee: I love analog but I realy like digital too.

Now, one " thing " is the redbook where its limitation reside on those limited 16bits but a HR digital as DVDA has 24bits: this is not over or up sampling but REAL bits/music in the same way than analog, I repeat not over or up sampling. First than all we have to understand what means DVDA native non-limits.

In the other side the K series by Esoteric came with 32bits DACs and this is something to hear!!!

My point is still the same: to understand what happen down there during playback in either alternative and IMHO to say that analog LP are a superior medium is ( again ) IMHO an absolute misunderstood on the whole playback subject in a home audio system.

IMHO your posts, that I respect, are " wrong " right from start because what you are " speculating " is not what realy happen during LP playback or : Do you think that during LP playback what is in the recording is what you are listening in your system with out those severe and several degradation stages where the analog signal muist pass?

I can't to go on talking on the same if we can't understand what is really happening how the signal is heavely " touched " my the analog rig.

What you hear are all those LP playback distortions and not what is in the recording. Those playback added distortions never existed in the recording process. All what you are saying happen because those non-existen distortions I repeat: NON EXISTEN DISTORTIONS COLORATIONS DURIN THE RECORDING AND CERTAINLY NEVER IN A LIVE EVENT°!!!!!!!!

Got it?

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

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.

Lacee,

I agree with you about the recordings from the 50 and 60s and how they were made in a manner that set a certain bar, distortions or not.

Now, given that we are in the year 2012 50 years later, does that mean that a vinyl rig is truly in fact only "worth it" for oldies?

I also tend to agree with Raul's latest position that digital is technically inherently more accurate than vinyl, which does not necessarily mean it sounds better, which I think Raul indicated as well. The case for CD redbook format specifically being more accurate than vinyl can be argued but definitely has more holes.

Dear Lacee: ++++ " 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.
" +++++

well if you and your friends can't hear all those added distortions developed through more than 20 playback different stages that contribute to the signal degradation then is useless to continue about because IMHO and with all respect or all of you are " deaf " or simple: you can't understand what happen in each of those different 20 stages in the anlog rig during playback .

+++++ " I have heard a lot of noisy distortions on lesser vinyl gear, perhaps this is what you are more familiar with. " ++++

could be. Btw, I'm " familiar " with each link in your analog rig ( including the Steelhead. ).

+++++ " Somehow the well recorded lp's played thru good vinyl systems despite all the distortions you attribute to them " +++++

I don't attribute nothing those are facts I'm not speculating or invented nothing: facts, only that.

+++++ " Why are the best digital systems always touted as "analog like"? " +++++

by ignorance.

+++++ " Distortions are everywhere,except perhaps in your perfect digital world. " +++++

I never say that, so don't put " words in my mouth ". I was very specific: both alternatives have its own TRADE-OFFS !!!

Lacee, for my part I think is enough and as I posted twice: I will go to enjoy both alternayives. Bye!

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

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.

Dear Lacee: IMHO you simple lost my/the point. We are talking of different " things ".

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

My answer to the OPs question: "is vinyl only good for older pre-80s music when mastering was still analogue and not all digital?"
I switched from vinyl to CDs in 1985 but at the start of 2012 I purchased a new TT/cart and started buying a lot of vinyl again. Some old used 50s to 80s stuff, audiophile reissued LPs and many others.
From what I have experienced so far I have to say it is much like CDs in that each record has to be taken on its own merits and no generalisation can be made. Some newer recordings on vinyl are very good and have that nice open sound while others have that dense digital feel to them. So it is a gamble. Shelby Lynne “ Just a Little Lovin’ is a 2008 vinyl release which is an example of a newer recording on LP that sounds really good, and only cost me $12.99USD new from Sound Stage Direct.
What I have noticed is that many older recordings (that have not been digitally fudged) sound great.
As far as the vinyl vs. digital debate I have found that in general vinyl is just nicer to listen to. When doing an A/B comparison of the same music, initially the CD sounds more impressive, clearer and more detailed in the short term, but lacks the warmth and bottom end of vinyl.
For example I have Fleetwood Mac “Rumours” on 2009 reissue vinyl and 2001 Japanese SACD. The SACD is very clear and detailed but the vinyl just sounds right and I prefer to listen to the vinyl than the SACD.
Vinyl definitely has a different sound and feel to it and I think it comes down to personal taste as to which is “superior”.
If you have not heard of Speaker’s Corner Records you need to check out their reissues. I have purchased many of them and they are spot on. I am amazed at how dynamic some of these older recording sound. Ella Fitzgerald “On The Sunny Side of The Street” is a gem, the horn hits are explosive and Ella’s vocals are great. Another beauty is Perez Prado “Prez”, a snappy Latin LP recorded in 1958.

"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.

My visit yesterday to Capital Audiofest reaffirmed to me that the days of "digitally impaired" digital are over. There was plenty of digital and vinyl to go around and neither ruled nor came up short categorically. Did they sound the same or even similar? Mostly no, at least in the better rooms. Each had a lot to offer. And I heard nothing that reeked of inherently bad or inferior digital.

What you hear are all those LP playback distortions and not what is in the recording. Those playback added distortions never existed in the recording process. All what you are saying happen because those non-existen distortions I repeat: NON EXISTEN DISTORTIONS COLORATIONS DURIN THE RECORDING AND CERTAINLY NEVER IN A LIVE EVENT°!!!!!!!!

I've been out of town the last week. Raul, I have to take you to task on this one. Before saying that vinyl is so distorted, especially in the bass, how about compare it and the resulting digital to the original master tape??!

If you ever get the chance to do so you may well change your tune. Both the digital and the analog have to be true to the master tape. On even the best digital out there, I can easily show that the superior bass of the LP is not distortion- that in fact that same bass is on the original tape, whereas the digital, while good, does not have the same resolution and fails to convey the same experience. And this is on the best digital out there (IMO/IME the Stahltek converter and transport).

So until you do this very sort of comparison, please refrain from such apocryphal remarks as they are patently untrue.

"Before saying that vinyl is so distorted, especially in the bass, how about compare it and the resulting digital to the original master tape??!"

I have heard this done once at United Home Audio in Md but tape/vinyl/CD recordings were not the same, so validity of the comparison is not clear.

Master tape won followed by vinyl then CD. Bass, dynamics, organic fullness of the recordings top to bottom was where I heard the difference.

However, since this was not an apples/apples test of the BEST of each format, I am not convinced that the CD could not have been mastered in a way that closed the gap with the vinyl.

Neither came close to the reference tape recording.

In lieu of the perfect test/comparison, nothing I have heard day to day since with either format causes me any real concern.

CD will never match top dynamics possible with tape or vinyl, that much is clear to me. Other digital formats might.

"CD will never match top dynamics possible with tape or vinyl, that much is clear to me. Other digital formats might."

I should qualify that to refer to macro-dynamics/overall dynamic range.

In regards to microdynamics and transient response, there I think the book is still way open and I do not expect it to ever close on digital.

Dear Atmasphere: You are talking of recording process and I'm talking of LP pkayback process: two different subjects.

I have not experience on the recording process, I'm ignorant down there and I have no reason to have doubts on what are your experiences in the same way I have no doubts on what Mapman posted in the same subject and where his experiences are not exactly as yours.

I can continue this dialogue with you or any other member if we can concentrate in the LP. playback process. Till today no one post nothing against what I posted in that specific subject. I can be wrong on what I posted and as always I'm willing to learn willing to low my ignorance level.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

At Capital Audio Fest, I got to finally hear high end Atmasphere amps driving the Classic Audio field coil speakers, which has been on my to do list for a long time. Two Words: very nice!

Everything I heard was sourced from vinyl, mostly acoustic music. What was there not to like? Nothing really.

I also heard the high end Tidal system sourced from a music server. Tidal gets a lot of buzz on this site so I had to hear!

Similar music types playing there.

What was there not to like? Nothing.

The two sounded as different as night and day. Room acoustics were different but not radically so.

SO what accounts for how two high end rigs could both sound so good yet so different?

I'll attribute to each doing a good job and choosing their distortions wisely.

I'm sorry Raul, maybe its a language thing. I think I stated it several times in this thread but let's be clear:

1) Make a good recording; a good master tape
2) release it on LP and CD
3) compare what you hear to the master tape

Now you should know that there is a 'test' of some sort that is part of the LP or CD release process. This 'test' (as in 'test pressing') is used to see how well the ***LP PLAYBACK*** is able to meet the sound of the master tape!

I emphasized the words 'LP playback' to prevent further misunderstanding.

I have to assume that you must have at least one test pressing somewhere in your collection... if not its something to work on. Test pressings are the first off of the stamper and so can sound better.

Anyway, if the test is approved then the mass production begins. Having been through this process a number of times (and mind you, I am not talking about listening to the lathe cut, instead we are talking about playback of an actual LP) I can tell you that unequivocally, the LP is:

1) not distorted, rather it should sound nearly identical to the master tape and
2) it will have better bass than the digital as well as smoother, more detailed and more dimensional highs.

So I am indeed talking about **playback**! If you are not experiencing the same advantages of vinyl, then adjustment or upgrading of your playback apparatus is indicated.

Dear Atmasphere: Got it and yes I own some test pressing samples that normally is not what any customer get.

Truer to the recording, this is my point. Which alternative is truer to the recording: digital or LP analog?
what mean I?:

an even comparison IMHO must be do it on the natural field of each alternative, this is ( for example. ). playback a DVDA against not an analog master tape but against the digital master tape and then the LP playback against the analog master tape. Don't you think?, apples against apples.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

It does not matter the master tape. You will find the LP to be the truer playback. If you spend some time in a recording studio you run into these comparisons all the time.

For example, we always record analog with a 24-bit digital backup. The analog tape of course sounds a lot better regardless of the digital recording means. What is interesting though is that the production LP made from the analog tape *also* sounds better than the digital master! If we cut the LP from a digital master it takes on many of the qualities of the CD, although the LP will usually still sound better even though they have the same digital master tape.

If you have ever produced a CD, the biggest degradation occurs between the master tape and the production CD. There is less degradation with the LP. So it should be no surprise that the LP can sound better even though the master tape is digital!

Digital just can't win in its present state. I am hopeful that it will get there, but mostly what I see from digital is a dive to the bottom- mp3s being a great example. But before that the WAV files were a pretty good example too.

IOW, the LP is truer to the recording in all cases.

Isn't the assumption that "sounds better" which is totally subjective is not the same as "more accurate" to the recording in this case?

I think it has been acknowledged that something can sound better and not necessarily be more accurate.

Also specific ideal test scenarios, whatever the outcome, do not determine what occurs in the real world. They are interesting from an R&D perspective but until that is translated into a viable commercial product, it may not matter to most.

In this case, by 'sounds better' I mean that how it sounds with respect to the master tape. For example I hear LP bass sounding very much the same.

Raul was suggesting that the sound of the LP is distorted compared to an analog tape and that is not the case. Further, he was suggesting that the sound of a digital copy of a digital master is less distorted than that of the LP, also not the case.

What is perhaps not understood is that the LP media is one of the lowest distortion and widest bandwidth media ever devised. If there is distortion, its an artifact of playback and as such if done right can be quite low- low enough that the distortion is not audible. There is no way you can do this with digital!

A simple test for anyone with a digital recorder is to record and play back sine wave sweep tones. You will be amazed at what you hear- the distortion digital has can be profound, easily heard, but unlike analog it tends to be related to the scan frequency rather than the musical tones recorded (in case you are curious what you hear, in the digital playback of the sweep tone you will also hear 'birdies', sets of modulation tones that change frequency as the fundamental changes). The distortion is easily heard even if the sweep tones are kept at a low level.

It is these distortions that contribute the brightness many perceive in the digital sound. I've pointed this distortion out to a number of pro-digital 'digi-phile' types in the past that have discounted it as a product of cheap converters, but oddly enough after 20 years (when I first heard it) its still with us. A lot has happened in the digital world since then but getting rid of distortion is not one of them.

Atmasphere,

I hear what your saying but of course the counter argument is that a test signal is not music so alone it does not completely address the problem.

I suspect there are other tests that can be done where digital would measure better.

There is seldom only one way to skin a cat. That's why that saying sticks! Audio and technology in general is no exception.

Plus, the OP is asking what is worth it or not, so lets assume the two formats do not have the same strengths and weaknesses which is a safe assumption and focus on what is really worth it or not.

Its amazing that some out here holding them selfs to be experts can be exposed to have so little understanding of analog. I am not talking about Atmasphere!

I don't see how anybody with a serious interest in the music of TODAY can tell someone they should be doing vinyl rather than digital. Maybe if the recommendation comes with an interest free loan it might go over better. Pay more for a more problematic format to play recordings that are mostly digitally mastered to start with. Makes sense to me.

Maybe if digital never happened and the world was still geared around analog technology I would feel differently.

Vinyl is a niche technology today. One with some nice things about but a niche nonetheless. There are many vintage vinyl recordings worth hearing on a good vinyl rig. That the worl today revolves around digital technology and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future is an irrefutable part of the value proposition.

I admire Atamasphere's products and his steadfast willingness to realize his visions but that does not change reality as a whole. Vinyl may sound better sometimes. That is about the extent of it. When the recording is digital to start with, all the vinyl in the world will not make it into something from years gone by that it is not.

Mapman, very well said and true.
Regards,

Mapman,
It is feasable that a digitally mastered recording could sound better through an analogue medium than digital because playing back via digital in the case of CD adds another A/D & D/A conversion, and if played back via computer/dac at least 1 other D/A conversion - each conversion being an inaccurate reconstruction of the recording or file preceding it.
The "value proposition" for analogue and digital are quite different. The value proposition for digital is providing a portable transportable medium for music.
The "value proposition" for analogue is to provide an accurate medium for transporting and playing back music.
Digital is simply an approximation of analogue via fundamentally flawed mathematics, no more no less, with the added advantage of easy transportablility or transferrability.
I hope you dont expect MacDonalds burgers to provide you with a healthy diet.

Lets review red book CD for a second. At 44.1 K HZ you get 44 data points to define a 1K HZ wave that is about a foot long. Not exactly high res. At 10K HZ there are 4 data points, yes 4 to define a 360 degree wave. 4 points works for a square?

With the 16 bit sampling size there are just over 65,xxx steps to cover the whole dynamic range. If you want to cover 100 db you need 100,000 steps. So CD is just under 1 db that way?

So you are hoping to hear the hall sound? Not really, maybe a hint, but not really

Think about the complex wave forms that music produces with steep wave fronts, what are the chances that CD captures it right. Its all in the so so odds.

Just like Las Vages has the odds to take your money. Red book has the odds to steal your music resolution.

Then there are the steep filters reqired with CD - "brick wall filters" because the sampling rate is so low. That hurts too.

CD is a "lossy format". Its a fact. It just is. Give it up.

Higher res digital? Well 96K sampling does not improve that much on 44.1. 192K is more interesting but the math is only a little over 4x better than CD. Still not so good.

Going from 16bit to 24 bit is a big jump. 16 bit having just over 65K steps while 24bit jumps to 16.7 million steps. Now that is a move.

Digital needs to improve the sampling rate which I am certain can be done except for the recording companies which are woried about copy rights. So digital is stagnet.

I got back into vinyl nine or ten years ago because I could see that digital progress would be slow for the above reason.

What I discovered is that LP was even better than I thought.

Look 10 years ago I had my old Dennon Dp52F and a Shure V
MR, I think I got that right. I hooked it up to my old conrad johnson PF1 pre amp and it was a little better than my big rig CD player. I decided to upgrade and never looked back. Yes I went big with a VPI Aries 2 and a ZYX Fuji 100 but it blew me away even though I had a lot to learn about set up.

What I have now is big bucks and it is even better. And I will admit that I could likely find a TT, arm, cart set up at half the price that might be just about as good.

I will take the best $4K TT arm cart against any red book CD at any price. So stuff the give me a loan thing. With digital its all about the money with small gains. Do the math.

I hope the mods let this post.

TD

Td,

What kind of music do you listen to? Is it current or "oldies"?

Are you recommending vinyl for current music?