TOTALLY CONFUSED about analog

And develop an appetite for bacon because once you begin to listen to vinyl there will always be some frying in the background.

That's a JOKE, folks!!!!

Thanks, pbb. It really is only a joke because bacon isn't always frying. Sometimes popcorn is popping and occasionally kids are setting off firecrackers in the back yard.

My suggestion: Buy a really good CD player or transport/DAC combo, some good cables, and some good CDS. Meet your obsessive cleaning needs by helping your spouse around the house. Meet your needs for manual dexterity challenges by building ships in bottles.

But if you have fun doing vinyl, then do it and don't apologize (or hassle others who don't do it).

Clueless (which you are far from, may I say), I really agree with you. At its best, vinyl offers lush, beautiful sound that, in my opinion, CAN BE but seldom IS matched by anything digital. It goes without saying, too, that there is an awful lot of wonderful material available only on vinyl. But from my perspective surface noise is a detriment to the listening experience that I find every bit as serious as the edgy sound of poor quality digital. And, while it is all very well to say that "if they sound like bacon they go to the trash," the truth is that if every LP with surface noise was discarded, there'd be damned few copies left to love.

Listening is for a me much more than a casual experience. It is a food group, right up there with rare beef, chocolate, and good beer. That's why I have Utopias, which I definitely CANNOT afford. My personal choice is to accept the steadily diminishing limitations of the digital domain in preference to the noise of vinyl and the time-consuming demands of its care and feeding.

I respect others who choose differently. One of the nice things about a-gon is that most people respect my choices, as well.

Keep having fun!

Yes, clueless, chocolate. REAL chocolate. Hershey is the Bose of chocolate.

Pbb,

I, at least, know where you are coming from. Sold my vinyl, my Linn, my Koetsu, my Keith Monks, et alia, years ago. Put the money into equipment that was good enough to be highly listenable but not so costly that I wouldn't be willing to turn it over regularly as the medium advanced. That philosophy still obtains and I am currently using a Rega Jupiter 2000 with a trade-up on the horizon in the next six months or so depending on the SACD/DVD-A silliness.

I've not regretted that decision, though I enjoy the occasional vinyl listening session with friends who unanimously think that I've either (1) sold out to technology, (2) suffered hearing loss, or (3) never had the right equipment/had it set up right from the git-go.

That being said, I have long been willing to acknowledge that vinyl has a warmth and liquidity that most CD systems/software lack. Some cynics say it is distortion but no matter, it sounds very nice. It is, however, a slight difference (despite what the vinylphiles say) and getting slighter with each passing month.

The point that I keep trying to make--and I think that you are trying to make--is that surface noise is every bit as valid a variable of determination in the listening experience as evanescent liquidity. The vinylphile says, "How can you give up that luscious sound?" and I reply, "How can you fail to be maddeningly distracted by surface noise?" Both are legitimate viewpoints, neither inherently superior to the other.

My appeal, as always, is for folks to quit preaching and pronouncing at each other and just go have fun.

You're right, Jimbo, it DOES sound strident and I wonder why? Mercy sakes, my friend, don't you READ what people write? I'll let pbb speak for himself but in my case I AM NOT ANALOG ADVERSE. I have been and will continue to be complimentary to and appreciative of good analog sound.

I made the conscious, deliberate choice to give up vinyl (of which I had a lot) and get rid of my analog equipment (which was eminently respectable and in which I had invested a lot of money) because I found surface noise more of a detriment to my listening enjoyment than the benefit of analog sound compared to digital.

Jimbo, did you ever hear someone say that they chose XXX speaker because it had such a phenomenal midrange (for example) even though they acknowledged that it didn't have such a totally wonderful low end or top end? Do you know of anyone who chose imaging and soundstage over maximum tonal accuracy or vice versa?

This is what we are talking about. It isn't a matter of being "analog adverse." For goodness sake, you'll hear a lot more negativity on the dear old 'gon about digital than you ever will about analog. It's a matter of people making personal choices that reflect their values in music appreciation.

Why get so exercised over something that's supposed to be fun?

Will