The OP said: "At this point I feel like I should give up on analogue playback and invest further in digital." Smart move, I did that 27 years ago in 1991. Analog is not better musically...but it is an interesting experience for those who still can get by the limitations and are entranced by the visual experience. |
Forum user above made the following statement about another user. In part: ...made by user "cleeds" who is like a festering, infected boil upon this forum he is ignorant, misinformed.... This name calling is not only sophomoric, it is demeaning and inflammatory while serving no legitimate literary purpose. Lets see if we all can, while perhaps having opposing views, keep our emotions in check and discuss this subject like adults. |
Perhaps, geoff...but, in my opinion, it is rare that any of these "variables" exist in sufficient magnitude to effect the audio signal sent to the speakers. And, if they do, the human hear cannot detect whatever difference these "variables" might make. |
i totally disagree. Commercially available CDs and other digital formats, due to corporate imperatives (profit) are by design not equal to analog.
This above is an opinion though stated as if it were a fact.
Hitler won an election. If he was so popular, how could he be so bad?
The only election Hitler ran in, he lost.
He bullied himself to power in the Nazi party...he then forced the government to give him "emergency" power as head of the government...which lead to dictatorship, war and the total destruction of Germany. He was popular with the poor because he promised utopia....but never delivered. |
In 5 years CD will be dead. In 20 years, vinyl will be dead.
Most people would opine that the CD is already dead, we just don't know it. Vinyl has been dead for 30 years but has risen from the grave for some people. This passing fad can't last. |
When digital photography was limited to 4 to 8 megapixels, "purists" said film was better; despite all the many disadvantages and expense of film and film processing. Now with 24 megapixels being the standard, nobody (hardly) argues that film is a better medium. Same with vinyl. Though I’m not sure why it came back at all, other than being retro-cool, soon most vinyl aficionados will realize that it just isn’t worth it to put up with the long list of reasons of why digital audio is so much better and convenient.
I’m currently living with family as we transition from Austin to Dallas. All my gear is in storage and yesterday I was listening to music on a cheap Bluetooth soundbar streamed from my phone. I was tapping my foot, really enjoying the music, when I realized (once again) it is so much more about the music than the equipment. |
chakster:
You covered too many bases and a response from me would just take too long. I'm glad, though, that my post got your chops churning and interested you enough to provide such a verbose reply.
I used film from 1972 to 2004. After digital reached 8mp I never looked back at film.
I would recommend that when you make a point that is an opinion, you state it as such. |
Chakster:
Not sure I get why you uploaded that "slide" image. To me it just looks like a a digital scan of a blurry purple haze. And since it is now a digital image, what I supposed to compare it with. |
akaim says: ...the differences really jump out at you with headphones. the ambience and depth with analog is superior. it's not something you'll always hear playing it through speakers in a room. it's a subtle difference...
I do not agree that analog has better sound quality than digital. Different for sure, but not "superior." And, I was raised on radio, records and tape and my first car out of college was a new 69 Firebird (400ci/335hp). I note in your quote above that you reference the difference (between analog and digital) as "subtle" but also describe the difference as "superior...and will jump out at you..." Seem like a contradiction there; though not as bad as some who will describe the subtle difference as "jaw-dropping." |
Chakster said: This is a proof of how cool those analog formats really is, otherwise they would not survive in the digital era.
They are cool! That is part of the appeal of retro. Listening to vinyl, as I've said before is, in my opinion, is all about nostalgia, the equipment, the process of loading a record and listening to that old familiar needle in groove sound. I get all that. Just does not make analog vinyl a better performing media (all else being equal). Like nostalgia? Great - go analog til your hearts content. I suspect, for me, like with film, the complete inconvenience of an antiquated system (records) totally eliminates vinyl in a competition with digital. Would I go back to having a turntable? Maybe...they are still very cool to look at (like my Garrard Zero-100) and the experience might be fun; but......... I loved and would drool over my Nakamichi Dragon. But the cassette tape was an awful medium from the get-go despite Dolby's (and others) later efforts. But I did love making compilation tapes using two Sony ES CD players and a mixer. Of seven Corvettes I've owned, my favorite was a '67 big block. But it is an antique; and while still very attractive, there is absolutely nothing mechanical about it that makes it a better automobile than just about any modern car with a 3.5 ltr motor. It is OK to be happy with analog - as you are...but you don't need to justify it by touting it as an overall better media. |
Elizbeth: thanks for your input trashing my first turtable from 50 years ago. Being you, and with my experience with you, I suspect you would trash any gear I mentioned.
Chakster: ditto. The Zero-100 was definitely cool looking. That was my point. You both completely missed it. |
Dyna, I’m going to go out on a limb here & say you missed there point. You have suggested vinyl as being antiquated & inferior (sound wise / I guess you like the looks) to digital, while using a Garrard Zero 100 as your standard. Probably not a fair comparison, unless you have another vinyl standard.
Boxer: Hmmmm....misunderstanding all around. I grew up with records. Listened to my parents' and my schoolmates' systems. The Zero-100 I purchased in 1972 or '73 was my first turntable. I owned others up until about '92 when I quit records altogether. I referenced the Zero-100 as an example of how turntables can "look cool." Both immediate respondents erroneously assumed that 50+ year old turntable was my vinyl SQ standard. They did not read (or understand) the context of my post and got it wrong. Plus, Elizabeth shows me no favor because, in jest, I teased her about using her refrigerator to "burn-in" her uber-expensive AC plugs. My opinion of vinyl use being mostly about nostalgia and "retro-coolness" stands. I find that outdated "system" terribly inconvenient and mechanically complex; others find it fun and completely listenable. However, IMO, no matter how much money your throw at it or how much you like it, the phonograph record cannot compete with digital as a playback method...assuming equality of other factors. . Again, in my opinion, analog equipment/media vendors are getting rich pandering to those that crave the latest fashion. Smart - but often dishonest - marketing. |
Boxer:
I assume that you have read my recent posts above. I stopped listening to records in 1992...after about 32 years of my life of that being the best media around. I do not have to spend thousands of dollars to buy
turntables (again) and music (again) that I already have on digital (mostly CD) in order to be fairly certain that vinyl is merely a current fashion.
Yes, I have auditioned vinyl on modern ultra-high end equipment. Sounds great...like well recorded records always did. Different than digital? You bet. Better than digital? To my ears, no. Convenience? No contest.
My main issue with vinyl, in addition to a long list of other inconveniences, is that you are stuck with the song selection and order pressed onto the record. And you have to flip the damn record. As in the old days, albums (with many exceptions) are typically two or three really good tracks and seven or eight of filler. Even if analog discs were scientifically capable of providing a better than digital playback, I could not tolerate being forced to listen to tracks I don't like to accommodate a out of date (albeit cool looking) media. Makes zero sense to me...and I've been around a while.
To your question....it has been 27 years since I've had a turntable. Audio memory is so perishable (a fact) it wouldn't matter what turntables I had back then...I'd be unable to compare that analog playback memory to present day digital playback of a well recorded CD or FLAC flie.
In recent memory, a number of digital "systems" failed though they were supposed to be better than CD's - DVD-Audio, Digital Tape, SACD and others. I fell for SACD. Was it better? Yes it was. But it failed because it wasn't better enough to buy all your music again. I dumped SACD after three years but I can still play my discs on my Oppo 105. Vinyl, I suspect will eventually fade away in the same fashion.
When the absolute sole "proof" of the superiority of records comes from vinyl aficionados, who tout that system as "sounding better," I'll take my ears, experience and science any day.
A sorta long-winded answer to your very polite question. My apologies.
|
Spatalking seems to be trying to compress 8 pounds of reasonable audio knowledge in a 6 pound bag - and the terminology he uses, which appears more intended to impress than convince, doesn't
help in determining what he is actually trying to tell us. Perhaps if you used less words we could better understand your point.
|
"Well, I had owned over 8000 Classical LPs..."
Goodness you owned over 2600 pounds of (just) classical records? If stored correctly that would take 266 feet of storage space - almost a football field in length. Or stacked eight rows high would still be a storage area 33 ft wide. And that is just your classical discs. I thought you lived in an apartment, Elizabeth? |
