Yeah it may be better than digital. But come on. 3K+ for a cartridge. Cleaning machines. Preamps. VTA adjustments. noisy records. expensive software. By the time you get it all set up you are ready to just turn on the tv and watch Sportscenter. Is there any alternative?
I agree that a comparison with live music is a humbling experience for those of us who take pride in our system's ability to reproduce music with lifelike qualities. What always gets me is the sheer explosiveness of the kickdrum at my local club, even when the band is just warming up. I don't know of any system that recreates this effectively- it is not just a question of 'loud,' or 'dynamic' or 'deep' but all of them, and more. This, at least, has been my experience in a relatively small venue, listening to bands of 4-5 pieces. (Saw James Hunter there Sunday night, terrific show). Classical and larger staged stuff- greater distance, the system seems very capable on massed strings, tympani, horn parts, etc. In fact, it is probably 'better' than real, a hi-fi attribute to make up for others that are missing. Is the vinyl thing like tubes in that both produce euphonic distortions pleasing to the ear? Or a lack of processing? Most vinyl records made in multitrack studios have progressively more processing added in later years- most of the later Beatles recordings are not very good, IMO, for this reason. The early, primitive recordings, and the audiophile ones that deliberately eschew fancy processing- are often terrific sounding, although the repetoire may be limited unless you have tons of used records and/or don't listen to much new stuff. As to musicians being the arbiters of a natural sounding system- I don't think so. I think they listen for something beyond, and totally beside, the sound quality. I too can enjoy music, for music's sake, on a small radio, a cheap car hi-fi, over the Internet or via a plastic boombox. But, when I want to really dig in, I like to fire up a serious playback system. If I were starting from scratch, perhaps digital would make sense. But, I'm not. And, it is amazing what you can pull from those musty old grooves. The best analogy I could come up with is a sort of 'purer' (or 'more involving,'-- you supply the adjective, I'm trying to avoid saying 'better'-- just more 'straightforward' perhaps) experience, in the same way that someone else here, in a different thread, remarked on what driving a 73 RS is like, compared to a modern Porsche. The later car is no doubt the better one for almost all purposes, but there is a good reason why the 73 model is so desirable. I surely wouldn't go so far as to make judgements about who is more serious teh music listener based on the equipment or format- by that standard, the one which points to the musician, we'd all be looking for the equivalent of a compact mini-stack.
Shadorne, I did express myself incorrectly. One can love music without caring about the quality of sound.
Gregg takes the trouble to go to sport events, so he likes sport. He does not take the trouble to go to opera/recitals/concerts. He even considers spinning vinyl as too much trouble. Hence, he likes music a lot less. I think this assumption is both fair and accurate.
To open this debate illustrates he doesn't get it when it comes to enjoying good sound. Good sound is not worth it to him if it requires even a small amount of effort.
I know a couple of serious music lover who listen exclusively to CD. They are as much music lover as I. But they also spend an inappropriate amount on their gear and software, and they also regularly attend opera/recitals/concerts.
It is not about vinyl per se. Gregg doesn't understand the pleasure audiophile get from listening to good sound. Because he doesn't, the effort, time and money invested in our equipment does not make sense to him. It is in his opinion, not worth it.
In short, he is on the wrong forum.
I took the time to look at your system. I am sure you love music too; otherwise you would never have spent the money you have. However, it is clear we seek totally different things in our enjoyment of music.
For me, I don't want to hear my system. I want to hear the piano. Nothing more nothing less. No amount of convenience will ever make a lesser quality sound worthwhile.
"As I said before if you do not really care much for music, CD's are fine. Vinyl is for people who really like and enjoy music to a high degree. You obviously don't."
What bovine feces. Arrogant, pretentious, etc etc. 'ol "tin ears" is right, tin ears or not! You are making a joke, or a point, but surely you are not serious.
Do you honestly think that vinyl sounds more like live music than CD's? If you do you should get out more often to live unamplified events. Both formats are so far from real music that I have heard that any comparisons, IMHO, are rediculous and no more than an exercise in mental masturbation.
FWIW I'm very familar with both formats in well set up systems and with live music as well as practicing musicians with one great notible exception. I didn't actually know Herbert Von Karajan. I assume you don't know who he was - FYI he was a great orchestra conductor from Germany who was very involved with the recording process as well as conducting his performances - announced upon hearing digital that "everything else is gas light".
The vast majority of musicians I actually know couldn't care less about the differences between vinyl or CD's. What ever is convenient will do just fine. Are you thinking that they don't like music or appreciate what they do with their life?
Pauly, here is a challenge for you. Tell us exactly what makes vinyl more enjoyable to "music lovers" than digital or any other format. But do this without using audiophile terms which only apply to the language of 'sound lovers'.
Paul that is a foolish thought that people who own CD's dont care about music. So my dad has almost 7,000 cd's does he love music? It would be easier to make the stretch that people who ignore CD's altogether dont really love music, seeing how only a fraction of music in the last 20 years has been issued on vinyl compared to digital. Also how could anyone ignore so many great performances of Classical(for example) as there has been no new Classical on vinyl for years. It would be equally easy to assume that if folks have more invested in equipment then music that they dont really love music, they love gear....but thats not always true.....right? Oh my dad also has 3500 or so Albums, so I guess he actually likes music....go figure. Anyway on one last note my father has around $40,000 in gear and atleast $75,000 invested in music, but seeing how most of his investment dollars were spent on CD's.....he isnt REALLY a music lover correct?
Dear Gregadd: +++++ " One thing I do is love music. If I just run across a musician playing music for donations at a subway entrance. If I hear a song on the radio and sit my car after I've stopped waitning for it to end. Listening to a walkman or ipod. I love music and don't care where it comes from. " +++++
This statement is of paramount importance for the people that care about music. We that love music almost always enjoy the music through a walkman or through a music hall live concerto.
I think ( for what I understand ) that the subject in this thread is if it is worht all the time and money that we need to enjoy the music through analog. I don't let very clear my opinion in what I already posted, well: yes it is worht!!!!!.
The point here is that through digital it is worht too, we can enjoy the music with digital sources too.
IMHO, the analog sound reproduction has several tolerance/obsessive people atittude grade levels. Where are we? is an answer that is different as different people are. I know that you enjoy/could enjoy the music through analog whithin your own grade level of tolerance/obsessive/tweak targets.
There are people that take a lot of time " playing " with VTA/VTF trying to obtain a better quality reproduction, their obsessive/tolerance grade about is really high, higher that your own grade level about.
I don't have very high grade level on VTA/VTF but I'm so high in tolerance/obsessive with distortion/noise on the cartridge signal ( step up transformers, caps, transformers, RIAA accuracy, intermodulation distortions, etc, etc ) or on the tonearm/cartridge matching. I take all the time/money I can trying to be near perfect on those areas for a better quality music reproduction. The best of all is that trying to have better quality music sound reproduction through analog I achieve too a better quality sound/music reproduction in the digital domain!!!!
Like I say: where are you? or you?
I think that all of us that cares about music take all the time/money trying to get better quality music reproduction. Obviously we are limited not only for the time/money that we can have but limited for our know-how/experiences about.
The critical problem with analog/digital music/sound reproduction is when we lost ( or almost lost ) the " energy/emotion " to take the time/money to enjoy the music in our home systems.
Gregadd, I invite you to re-start your energy/emotion on the analog music/sound reproduction.
As I said before. If you do not really care much for music, CDs are fine. Vinyl is for people that really like and enjoy music to a high degree. You obviously don't.
I often agree with your astute comments Pauly. However, this time you have me bewildered.
Surely people who like and enjoy music to a high degree would choose to listen to CD's or whatever popular medium of choice with the most widely available selection.
Gregadd's point about additional cost, limited music selections, and listening time lost tinkering around with previous generation technology is a fair one. Even if, as you contest, Vinyl always sounds better, it is certainly not without major drawbacks.
I have some lossy compressed iTunes music store stuff that sounds great when burned to redbook (despite the lossy compression). This is not always the case but I don't go round slamming iTunes as crap for non music lovers!
Anyone who cares to download Grace Jones "Slave to the Rhythm" Hot Blooded Mix from iTunes (and burn it to a redbook CD to play on their system) will be pleasantly surprised at the recording quality! Go on try it! It may be a bit over engineered but that is the recording engineer not the AAC 128 Kbit per second compression.
Now - try to find this track in a bricks and mortar CD store or try to find it on Vinyl!
So why did I download this poorer quality file?...because I love music!!! - so I do this kind of thing all the time to supplement my library. Music lovers hear something on the radio and bingo they impulsively want to get it. Music lovers often want all the alternate versions of a song/symphony that they like (live, re-mix, 12" monster mix, radio-edit, different venues, different conductors/orchestras etc.)
Given a modest quality Hi-Fi, music lovers realize that the musicians/venue/recording/mastering studio actually has a bigger impact on the sound & musical quality than the media it arrives; tape, Vinyl, CD, or iTunes. Just my two cents from 'ol "tin ears"!
"Far from making any vinyl-phile think differently, all you are achieving is demonstrating ignorance."
I took no hard position, this is a discussion, not the advocation of a position. "
I have posted on other threads that I enjoyed the "purification ritual"
I also said that digital is like a clone of vinyl it has no soul.
I just think vinyl wears on me. The price and the constant adjustments. Some people love it.
"If you do not really care much for music, CDs are fine. Vinyl is for people that really like and enjoy music to a high degree. You obviously don't.
One thing I do is love music. If I just run across a musician playing music for donations at a subway entrance. If I hear a song on the radio and sit my car after I've stopped waitning for it to end. Listening to a walkman or ipod. I love music and don't care where it comes from.
My daughter is a good example of how to answer this question. She is 19 and loves music. She grew up listening to music in various medias(radio, television, vinyl, satellite, CD, MP3, downloads, etc). Her download and CD collection puts my modest vinyl collection to shame. I gave her my michell gyrodec and a few lp's, I recently purchased a maplenoll(tweakers delite)and had the gyrodec just gathering dust. She now goes to yardsales, antiques shops, pawnshops collecting vinyl. Her taste are varied so she has records from the 30's to present. I ask her why, she said the vinyl makes her appreciate the music more and it is more intimate. The sound is much better than the most of the downloaded music and in her opinion has more passion or depth than her CD's. She readily says the vinyl is more timeconsuming and is a little fussy but when she is at home and has a choice she breaks out the records. I have quite a few CD's that I listen to in my car and have done side by side comparisons with my vinyl rig and feel the vinyl is better. I have a few SACD recordings of my favorite LP's and really can not tell too much difference but I personally prefer vinyl. In my opinion, yes the vinyl is more work but worth the hassle.
Greg, you frequently go see sports live ... however if you actually liked music you'd go see opera, recitals and concerts frequently instead. Hence, vinyl is too much trouble for you.
Now you start this thread on the analogue board to take a little side swipe at folks who do enjoy music to the level where the additional activities and cost associated with vinyl is of no consequence. Far from making any vinyl-phile think differently, all you are achieving is demonstrating ignorance.
As I said before. If you do not really care much for music, CDs are fine. Vinyl is for people that really like and enjoy music to a high degree. You obviously don't.
I have to say yes, it is worth it. I have decided to continue to tweak and improve my analog system. For me it is the whole experience of finding stashes of RCA Shaded dogs and original issues of artists that I enjoy. I don't feel that every album I listen to is better than some digital offerings, but when it is, I find it so engaging. There is something about playing a 45 year old album for my children. My 11 year old boy came up to me the other day and stated that I "may have something here with this turntable." This is a hobby to be enjoyed.
Sorry for this one I forgot to include this in my last post, but do you think the "wow" factor folks have when they hear analog is partly from surprise--that "old technology" can sound as good as it does? Either way there is something intangible about vinyl.
"Yeah it may be better than digital. But come on. 3K+ for a cartridge. Cleaning machines. Preamps. VTA adjustments. noisy records. expensive software. By the time you get it all set up you are ready to just turn on the tv and watch Sportscenter. Is there any alternative?" Gregadd
LOL, you do get up to make your own sammich, or wait for delivery? ;)
Apparently you have spent too much time reading the audio mags and threads by the analog BIG BOYS. Great analog can be done very well on a very modest budget. As far as the tweaking, cleaning etc. You can be just as anal about that as you want to be, but usually your efforts are rewarded.
The world is full of great vinyl that can be had for $1 or so. Sure, you can't sit at home in your recliner and find them, but the hunt is alot of the fun for those of us who enjoy such things. There is alot more pride of ownership when you have to search for and find some truly amazing vinyl for next to nothing. Much more so than left clicking on your mouse and waiting for the mailman to bring it to you.
There are also some very nice cartridges in the $150 or less range (Denon 103, 110, 160, AT440MLa to name a few). Very good DIY phono transformer stepup devices can be built for $150 or less.
You mention cleaning machines. I built a DIY RCM for $50. It may not look like a $700 machine, but it does the exact same thing. It sucks the suspended crud off the vinyl. Add $50 for fluids, $40 for brushes and viola, clean records. (The misnomer of vinyl being full of pops and tics is BS)
I think you would be surprised at how musical some of the vintage turntables can be. $500 or less spent wisely will be very satisfying for most. Again, it all depends on how deep in your pocket you want to go. My $200 Thorens would probably surprise you.
I would imagine that most of what I mentioned above probably does not appeal to you. Nothing wrong with that. But some of us still have the instinct to hunt, explore and build. Others prefer to stay home waiting for dinner.
I won't get involved with which sounds best, (you already said it with your first sentence) as that is for each to decide for themselves. But the premise that vinyl is too expensive, noisy and troublesome to persue just isn't the case. It can be done very well with very little investment.
When I am in a wheelchair and eat my meals thru a straw, I will then reluctantly convert all of my listening to digital. ;)
THe only experience I have with vinyl was though my parents collection when I was a kid. I was fascinated with the turntable and I think that is what really hooked me into Audio toys in general. As i grew older I never got into the, but just focused on digtal sources. Therefore I have no experience in finding good vinyl, but one question i have to you all with big collections: are they all purely analog or are there some that have been digitized at some mastering step, before conversion back to analog for the final pressing. If there are some DDA, or ADA LP's out there I wonder if any of you have compared them to DDD CD's and if so how did that sound? To me it would be a blow to the whole analog vinyl paradigm to have any "D" step in the chain at all; from a purely objective viewpoint it seems like you might end up with the downsides of digital (quantization error and others) encoded into the analog LP, as well as the usual vinyl playback issues. Anyway this is just a mild curiosity I have. I see all these LP's in place like music direct and I wonder how many of those are really digital with an analog wrapper? I still love the idea of the turntable and myabe some day I will own one just to bring back the very fond memories of playing with my dad's system in awe.
i swore off digital verses analog threads a year ago.....but i guess i can't help myself.
yes; vinyl has extended frequency response; likely similar to high rez digital. but the measured extention is not the issue; it's that vinyl does not use filters that muck up the phase in the highs. when correct phase is combined with considerably greater data density (not infinite....just lots more) the difference in regards to high freqency reproduction and overall degree of realism is dramatic favoring vinyl.
the reason DSD/SACD sounds more natural and vinyl like than PCM is it's more benign digital filter.
is vinyl anoying? is it worth it?
when i have visitors we always enjoy the digital; after about 45 minutes i throw on an Lp and usually that's the end of the digital listening......not to say the digital is not very good and satisfying.
the other day a friend was over. i put on the 45rpm box set version of Led Zep's 'Whole Lotta Love'. afterwards he just sat there and kept saying WOW again and again. i wish digital could do that......but it just can't.
To get digital to sound as good as analog (yes it is possible), it takes nearly as much tweaking and patience. There's really no substitute for fine-tuning a system to get the best out of any technology. The idea that analog is somehow better than digital (done right), is basically just holding onto yesterday.
Comparing seedee's to vinyl...Vinyl has such a greater frequency response than redbook that it is really an unfair comparison.
Since the emergence of SACD and DVD-A the gap has closed so recently-recorded music using these new digital formats has a chance to sound as good--and sometimes better than--vinyl.
There is also the possibility of downloading "studio master" quality hi-rez digital to a music server. Probably this is the way of the future but not much softerware is availble, yet.
I have not heard the latest crop of CD players to make any meaningful comparison, but when I'm told that a dcs stack, or the Zanden combo is SOTA comparable to vinyl replay, at even higher prices than a great TT, I'm not sure that CD is viable. Convenient? Yes. I don't use a TT in my car. But, for my serious system, I want to extract the most music I can, guided by my preferences. Part of that is, of course, the nostalgic fascination with vinyl, the packaging, the vintage pressings, the variations in same, and the whole ritual of preparing for playback. The 'tweaking' (and I am currently using an arm that some might consider pretty demanding in that department) is no greater than what i would expect you would have to do for other parts of a great system- paying attention, occasionally checking stuff (like tubes, connectors, etc.) and keeping it clean. I have over 8,000 LPs at this point. Not all of them are great, but if I stopped buying them today, I still couldn't listen to all this music in a life time. I guess I am committed. (Storage space is probably the biggest drawback to the format, not the cost or tweaking, in my estimation). Oh, yeah, and I kinda like how my current TT looks. Don't you?
I've been doing analog my entire life and have amassed a very fine vinly collection. Bottom line for me is that great vinyl played on a world class analog rig sounds far more real that great digital played on a world class digital player (same for moderate analog rig vs. moderate digital rig). Since I listen to the entire Lp, not a big problem. If you want to skip around from cut to cut, then the inconvenience could be a bigger issue. The answer is simple. Do both (analog and digital). Then you'll have the best and worst of both worlds.
Let me start by recommending a look at Rauliruegas' system. Now that's vinyl. For me though, I sold off most of my lps a couple of years ago because we moved and it was pointed out to me that the lps had been in the closet untouched for 12 years. Did they sound good? Sure. It's just that digital is so much simpler to listen to, and with my current rig sounds very good to me. I honestly don't care which "cost no object" sounds better. They both sound superb I'm sure.
Would I go out and get into vinyl from scratch today? Nope - not w/ two kids in college, etc. But after a stupid thread a year or so back, did I go and get the stuff out of storage and "the closet" and get a new cartridge and redo the den layout for optimized 2-channel? Guilty as charged, sir.
Truth in advertising - I do not obsess over the cleaning ritual. I'm using that older Dual, and I do enough to keep 30-35 year old records no worse than when they came back out of the closet (and I'm not admitting to anything about what some of them survived back then...). I've listened to a lot of the older inventory - and while there may not be 10K albums there were well over 10 boxes.
All that said, is it worth it? Is it magical? Sometimes, oh yes. There are some albums that were so well done and/or carry enough history & emotion that you just want to melt when they're on. But are there digital updates that beat some (if not many/most?). Yes, w/o a doubt. Layla/Derek & the Dominoes is one of the most frustrating excuses for a pizza platter that I'd ever spun. But the SACD - that was the first time I've heard a couple of those songs sound like even a fraction of what they should. There are others, but in general it's been a bit uneven when hoping for the old magic. Digital really has progressed in these two decades, but there are still a few records that will always be in the short stack.
If it's your hobby, if it's your love, then yes it's worth it to you. But if you're normal or sane, well - then you probably aren't an audiophool anyway, are you?
Raul- I'm confused. If there is a greater vinyl fanatic than you I'd like to meet them. Esoxhntr-Don't you own a SME 20/20 and a dynavector XV-1 that you purchased from Raul? Last I heard you were in pursuit of a Loricraft.
Yes anolog and vynil can be annoying . Yes it can be very expensive . Is it worth it ? To me , yes without a doubt . For me personally , the sound is a good bi-product of slowing life back to a time ,when we had the time to enjoy it without the impatience that does not allow us to enjoy today for the dread of tomorrow's furverous pace . In a more simpler vein of thought what ever pleases can,t be wrong . No differrent than the neighbor with the 50,000 dollar 4 X 4 that the closest thing to off road it sees is a speed bump in the parking lot of Wal-Mart but it makes him happy . Vynil is just one of those choices that some enjoy and for others is seen as a hassle . As far as the sound goes I won,t relive that argument as it to is very subjective to the individual himself .
Both my 67 Firebird and I agree that vinyl is worth it, and you simply don't have to spend 3K on a cartridge to make it so. Lots of contenders in the $500-$1000 price range that will make you very happy.
Having said that, digital gear has also gotten to the point where it is very satifying. My take is that there is no need to do vinyl unless you already have the software sitting around, or it's one of those things you have to try "because it's there". In my case I had over 1000 LPs already sitting around.
04-09-07: Cipherjuris This is a more interesting thread because it focuses on whether the extra cost and labor required for a performance vinyl system is worth the result, rather than whether analog or digital sounds better.
Exactly! There's no point in squinting your eyelids and leaning forward in your chair to listen for the sonic differences between an LP and the best digital available today. I like having multiple source playback ability to play music in its best format, whatever that is.
As for A-B comparisons, what it comes down to for me is emotional response. LPs more often put a grin on my face and make my wife get up and dance, sing along, and wave her arms to the music. Doing a little LP cleaning and dusting, and keeping the stylus clean and adjusted is a small price to pay to get that level of musical enjoyment.
OTOH, I purposely selected a rugged, unfussy turntable and cartridge combo--a Technics SL 1210 M5G with Shure M97xE that I play with the brush down. It'll track anything. I'm not chronically and obsessively tweaking and adjusting because it already far exceeds my expectations and elicits more emotional response than any digital disk player in da house.
The last 15 years I'm back into stereo and started out then thinking digital cd was the way to go. Now, at age 60+, I've committed to vinyl and feel that it's a superior medium. To my ears vinyl consistently sounds better than digital; my digital rigs have separate dacs, transports, jitter devices etc and my cd's seem to range from different types of music and age, recent-20 years ago---, digtal sounds flat, non-involving, clinical and dry. the highs are brittle and harsh but my vinyl never sounds that way. My systems are largely tubes and the combination of tubes and vinyl is smoooth, warm, relaxing and involving in a natural way. Digital sounds artificial and cheap. All my tts are used and cost about $300-$500 and I buy good used carts (high output MCs). I enjoy the time & effort of vinyl and love the search for cheap vinyl..the analogue hobby is not expensive and clearly it matches me better than digital...count me in the insane...... As someone said better than I, music is analogue and digital is numbers... Vinyl is a consistent treat, a joy,...digital is a bore. Each of us makes a choice with our time & money...for me the choice is easy..vinyl
Dear Gregadd: +++++ " But come on. 3K+ for a cartridge. Cleaning machines. Preamps. VTA adjustments. noisy records. expensive software.... " +++++
" 3K+ for a cartrige: not necessary " true ", you can do it at very good level with a " simple " MM $150 like the EDR.9 or many other options with low prices, the subject here is: know-how: exist a lot of " ignorance/non-knowhow / with us customers and a lot of mis-information from the " commercial " oriented audio magazines. Many of us don't " believe " that a cartridge in the hundred dollars range could perform at the same level or better than a thousand dollars cartridges: big mistake, because this kind of customer audio attitude is only in favor of high price carrtidges with out the same " care " about high quality performance. Today, thanks to that customer attitude, we have cartridges that sent you back 15K with a quality performance that compete with " old " cartridge technology of the fifthies-sixthies: this is what we have and it is our fault because for our " ignorance " we are buying those " great " very high price cartridges.
Cleaning machines: not necessary, in the past that does not exist those machines many of us were happy with out that " technology ". The subject here ( IMHO ) is that today we know that if we take care on cleaning deep our Lp's we can achieve a step higher on the quality sound reproduction, but it is something that we can do it or not. We don't have to be obsessive about.
Preamps, well this is not an obstacle the analog/LP reproduction needs the inverse RIAA eq. : a car needs gas to move, that's all.
VTA adjustements, this is part of the minimum adjustements that we have to make for a proper sound reproduction: in a car ( normally ) we use gasoline, you don't put alcohol instead gasoline because you want a proper car performance. The VTA is part of the LP/analog reproduction and here too we don't have to be obsessive.
Noisy records, well in some ways is part of the medium and in some ways is part of the care that we take about.
Expensive software, not always if you know the LP low price sources.
Now, if we have a good LP stock we have at least two options: try to handled all those subjects in the best positive manner atittude or put on sale our LP collection: easy!!!!
+++++ " Is there any alternative? " +++++
Yes, +++++ " just turn on the tv and watch Sportscenter. " +++++
04-09-07: Viridian ...For me, the reason that LP replay is essential is not the sound quality, but that so much of our rich recorded history is simply not available on any other format, and probably won't be.
Very true. In addition to that, there are a couple of other reasons to have an LP playback system:
1. I have never heard a CD reissue of an analog-era LP that comes close to the musical satisfaction derived from the original LP, and I bought a lot of CD reissues before I gave up & bought a TT. CD reissues of analog-era LPs sound bleached, threadbare, and shrill compared to the originals. LPs are a good match for people who like music from the late '50s thru the late '80s.
2. In classical music, there are some great performances in the analog era that were never reissued on CD, and later digitally recorded renditions are simply not as artistically satisfying. A couple examples are my wife's favorite, "Elijah" on Angel records with Dietrich Fischer-Diskau in the title role (1968), and my favorite, Bach's Brandenburg concertos by Collegium Areum on original instruments on RCA Victrola (1965). We both have later all-digital state-of-the-art recordings of both of these works, but we don't like the interpretations and performances nearly as much as the earlier ones.
For me, enjoyment of LP playback means watching for the slippery slope. Since analog is by definition infinitely tweakable, I have to set my boundaries on the point of diminishing returns. As long as my humble rig handily outperforms any of my CD players, I'm happy. Over time, I do intend to get a wall-mount shelf, some isolation footers, and a better mat, but in the meantime, I'm very happy.
This is a more interesting thread because it focuses on whether the extra cost and labor required for a performance vinyl system is worth the result, rather than whether analog or digital sounds better.
For me and my wife, we want and use both. Frankly, with my system and Ayre C-5xe universal 2-channel player, to get vinyl that anyone could tell sounded clearly better than SACD/CD/DVD-A required an analog rig that cost 5 times the cost of the C-5xe. This is a testament to how much better digital has become in the last 20 years.
However, even the uninitiated who never heard high-end audio before, are quick to say that the vinyl sounds "richer," "fuller," "more alive" and "right here in the room with us."
For parties and when I'm lazy or when I'm reading or working at home, we play digital. When we want to just listen to music, I play vinyl.
The most annoying thing about vinyl to me now is the frequently poor quality of new vinyl, despite the fact that you pay $30 or more for it.
Also, IMO, the 'Gon and 'Goners are the best thing to happen to high end audio in years, and I again thank all those who have helped me buid my new system over the past 18 months. Your advice and encouragement have been essential.
I love looking for cheap albums and do enjoy playing them and they way they sound. There are times when I just want to listen, last week I was surfing the net and cleaning around the house and after 2 LP's I got frustrated and put CD'S on so I could be away from the sweetspot for more then 20 minutes, still love to have the option on vinyl and all the positives that go with it.
Pauly-I don't wear boxers. I wear brief hybrid. I want the best of both worlds. I hate standing in line. I frequently do see sports live. My point is vinyl has suprassed "a little extra effort."
Eldartford-There is only one problem, digital continues to get incrementally better and vinyl is getting exponentially more expensive. Vinyl also appears to get more cumbersome in its infinitetesimal adjustments. This invites vinyl-files to have the temperment of an irate postal worker.(-:)
I think the usual argument is objective test of which is better. This is more subjective argument of is it worth it.
unless one has a huge record collection, stay with what you have. its fun 'and' anoying, and over the last year or so, new pressings are worse than ever. generally more expensive too (the sleeve quality is great). when everything lines up perfectly, it still rules as a format, but i would never recommend it to anyone but the insane.
The only thing that is certain about this subject is that it has been done many times before, and usually ends up in mud slinging. It is necessary to provide information to newcomers, so I suggest that two "white papers" be written each discussing in a rational way the pros and cons of the two media, one written from each point of view. Then, each time the topic is posted Audiogon should put up the two white papers, and close the thread to comments. Some provision should be made for the white papers to be occasionally updated.
One of the things that appeals to me about vinyl is the amount of time it takes. Cleaning, set up, etc. It gets my attention out of whatever else is/was going on and by the time the music plays I am fully ready for it. A little bit of mindfullness never hurt.
Having been the vinyl route in college I can only say that digital music reproduction is the single biggest advance in audio in the last 50 years.
The constant honing of devices for digital reproduction means that I (disclaimer: me-personally only and no one else & not to construed as disrespect to any analogue device nor to say vinyl is dead) will never own a TT again.
I'm with Elizabeth. I've picked up large collections just sitting in front of dumpsters. Much junk BUT many gems. Getting them to full life (ie. cleaning with various solutions) is half the fun.
When it comes to the table,arm,cartridge,....blah,blah,blah you really should just start with a cheap table and make DIY improvements. My P25 sounds atleast 3x better then when I got it new.
Just have fun with it and STOP LETTING EVERYONE MAKE YOU SOOOOO SERIOUS ABOUT IT.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
