Vinyl or wait for the new stuff??

I think I would take the plunge to vinyl. As so many others have mentioned, there just is nothing quite like listening to music on vinyl. Even with all the newest ways to listen to music,vinyl is still in a class of its own.

The fact that kids can freely exchange digital files and burn perfect copies without paying has certainly hurt CD sales.

As you hinted, digital will remain but distributed by other means and who knows how many of those might be in our future?

I think LP hangs on because the old die hard music people like myself prefer the sound. No question LP is more difficult to get right and more labor intensive to maintain.

Albert: it seems at this point that vinyl will outlast the plastic CD disc, other modes of digital not withstanding.

Screw the "new stuff" it'll be 20 years before they get it right!

Another 7 year thread. I love it! Keep em coming!

Ever heard of the 7 year itch? The only cure is the 7 year scratch.

You can only scratch with records. The thread lasted long enough to answer itself.

As Dr. Frankenstein stated "It's Alive, It's Alive!!!!!"

Another 7 year thread. I love it! Keep em coming!

Couldn't resist the resurrection of this vintage thread. Let's get past splitting hairs: Both digital and vinyl can be made to sound very satisfying. However, digital is and always will be a convenience format. If you want to easily access your music and don't like to fiddle with gear, go digital. If you enjoy a tactile experience with your software and playback gear, go with vinyl. I fall into the second camp. I have two lower-side of hi-end CD players (each was $1400 new) that satisfy me totally when I need to pop something in and do something that may demand my attention, like when I'm entertaining or drawing. However, when I want to LISTEN, I enjoy the enforced focus that vinyl provides. There is nothing more deliberate than sliding a 40-year-old slab of vinyl out of its beautiful jacket and dropping a needle whose pressure and position you set up onto it-- This act even focuses the attention of others whom you are introducing to the music.

Vinyl can sound great on cheap equipment, I know since I've been listening to it for 50 years. You don't need an expensive turntable etc,to enjoy vinyl. Yes, it's better but not necessary.
Yet, not all vinyl is equal. Some vinyl really sucks and is not as good as it's digital equivalent.
In many instances it comes down to the recording quality, and some digital, anyway, keeps getting better.
The wild card is digital played from computer files where there is no moving playback (such as a cd player). This has enormous potential and is believed by some (when lossless) to be far superior to any current cd player. If this is perfected and storage capabilities are improved then it could get very interesting.

Chashmal, why would you say SACD is a joke? I'm finding that it meets and/or beats vinyl, depending on the engineering. For instance, all the SACD reissues of the classica RCA recordings of the 1950s are as good or superior to my "shaded dog" copies of the same.

With the right playback equipment, even CDs are not "a joke." They leave something to be desired, but with new upscaling schemes to DSD, elimation of jitter in some machines and other enhancements, the format is finally living up to it's promise.

I too like the hi rez download direction, BUT downloading 3-gig files is a drag, particularly when there are errors in the middle of the download. Even on a T1 line the downloads have been slow and inaccurate for me.

Dave

I personally think that vinyl will outlast all digital forms in the end. Certainly there is no doubt that it will outlast CD. SACD is a joke. Downloads will be the next thing, once they loose all compression and more easily can be played from a hard drive. Yeah, yeah, I know...lossless still sucks. Vinyl beats everything and probably always will.

I've been reading Peter Aczel on and off since the mid-1970s. IMHO, he shouts to make his point of the day, but is as likely to flip-flop as a fish in the bottom of the boat. Yes, CDs can sound pretty darn good and digital can sound extremely good, but what we can order online is usually much better in vinyl. It has to do with the format first, but also the care with which the perveyors of vinyl put their offerings together.

Now it's getting harder and harder to buy a CD that's not seriously overcompressed. The SACDs are getting all screwed up trying to offer a surround version of a two-channel recording. With vinyl they're forced to stick to the basics and do a really good job of that.

I've got an incredible DSD recorder that'll give me 130dB of dynamic range and make better than vinyl 5.6MHz recordings, but there's no software available. We'll see what happens, but with the transition to downloads, all the momentum is toward mp3. There are some really good downloads, but they're few and far between.

Anyway, I wouldn't but a lot of stock in Mr. Aczel's rants.

Dave

Shall I make the move or just wait for the SACD/DVDA ?

Isn't SACD dying?
It seems like many new pieces of Audio gear do NOT support SACD. For example, I am hot to buy Nagra's high-end CD player and it does not support SACD.

Plus many new recordings are not coming out on SACD. It looks like Redbook CD is here for a few more years.

Regarding Vinyl, I just don't get it. I have heard a fancy system with really good vinyl and yes, it sounded great, but...
Can you put up with the pops, and scratches?

I am also thinking of what Peter Aczel wrote in the Audio Critic:

"Digital audio has brought us flatter frequency response, deeper bass, wider dynamic range, lower THD, lower noise floor, safer storage, and greater editability than any other technology in the history of sound reproduction. It has every reason to sound better than analog, and it does – the possible exception being 30-ips analog tape with Dolby SR, which is capable of sounding just as good… but which the tweaks aren’t even talking about. They talk about vinyl, for crying out loud; they say digital just doesn’t have the same airiness, smoothness, front-to-back depth, dimensionality, tonal gradations, etc. etc. This is truly sickening drivel, without any foundation in logical thinking or accurate hands-on observation.

Vinyl is not a primary medium; it is nearly always a transfer from tape, sometimes even digital tape, except for the very few direct-to-disc recordings. The process of transferring tape-recorded material to vinyl entails measurable losses and distortions, not to mention mechanical ticks, pops and swishes.”

There's been decades of evolution in vinyl technology and it shows in the results. Doubtful anyone one this forum subjects their records to a 1930's steel needle marconi. Digital technology is still a neophyte. Once clocking stabilizes on AD/DA converters at sample rates that can reproduce at least a fourth level harmonic undistorted then I'll throw out the table. In the meantime I'll still enjoy the soundstage and tonal fullness that only analog can provide.
So the recommendation depends on your patience level. If you can hold out for at least another five years then wait. If not, I'd suggest it's worth buying a decent used rig

I have to agree with Cardinal. What other format has withstood the test of time like vinyl? Vinyl has actually improved over the years, with the release of some original artwork/gatefolds and ultra sleek album sleeves/covers built to last, and reprints from original masters are being cut out of 180+ gram vinyl.

I've been making mix tapes with albums and CD's for many years, and the sound repro is usually very similar between the two formats. I do however love to really push my system, and with vinyl, I am constantly amazed and blown away by the realism of the format. It has withstood the test of time.

If I were you Myoussif, I'd be finding a decent turntable and diving right in. I mean look at the sales of used turntables on the net. It's unreal how much some of the higher-end tables are commanding.

This hobby and format is far from over, and although the DJ and the audiophile have held on to the format for dear life, young buyers are starting to push up the sales of singles, and a new age of listener might actually be starting a trend that depends more on the ear and the art of listening, instead of simply wanting portability.

By the looks of the packed bins of new vinyl at my favorite record store, the format is doing just fine. For me, owning a CD is like owning a poster reproduction. Owning vinyl, is like having the original masterpiece!

To all intents & purposes this makes a lot of sense -- ten years ago

I would have to say if I was starting over I would stay with digital and hope for better sound down the road.

Ten years ago, because digital seems to be sliding at the moment; much of it is lossy & severely compressed. So, we (and quite a few pro's as well) are still -- or back -- into vinyl.

I think we're a few years away from hi-rez digital that equals vinyl.

My Goodness, wouldn't that be great, I for one, am ready to wait a few years!

I think vinyl is clearly superior to SACD, based on listening on my relatively modest system. The Pro-ject RM10 with a Sumiko Blackbird is less than $3000 and will get you very near the ultimate in resolution.

1-bit technology with a 5.6mHz sampling rate CAN indeed surpass vinyl, but I think that the lack of consumer demand for high quality signals is going to limit the availability of high quality music in ultra high resolution fomats. I DID buy a Korg MR1000 to archive my vinyl and show off to friends and make the occasional live recording, but I think we're a few years away from hi-rez digital that equals vinyl.

Dave

Yes vinyl does sound better when properly set up? Why the question mark because most people are not that committed to better sound and with the troubles galore that can happen more with an analog based system than cd. Lets also look at the purchase of software new and old. I would have to rake my brain just starting now looking for vinyl. Where, how, and when would I find it. Would I travel about looking under every garage sale,old record stores,or maybe place an ad on Craigslist and hope for an old widow who is selling her dearly departed husbands 10,000 lp collection for ten cents a record,ain't happening fellows been down that road.What about purchasing newly pressed reissues, Thats another ball of wax. Their expensive compared to cd/sacds, many have to be returned and how long before they close thier doors or just stop pressing vinyl? I have a little over 2000 lps myself and a modest player compared to many on this post. I would have to say if I was starting over I would stay with digital and hope for better sound down the road.

Just enjoy some music, anyway you can.

I still think that vinyl is more relaxing than digital, if you stick to 1982 or earlier commercial lp's. Relaxation is definitly one reason we listen to music.

Vinyl is still king when it comes to ultimate realism. Once you experience a proper setup tailored to your system you will wonder how you lived without it all these years! Happy hunting!

Vinyl is just a ton of fun to mess with, from collecting, listening to perfecting the system. I could not live without it now. It can be expensive, but for $2,000 - $3,000 you can get yourself a very respectable and satisfying rig.

I just recently began to sort/archive my 400+ vinyl's, and find it quite stimulating to revisit my formative years. (more like hell-raising)

Tough decision, as I am also at that crossroads of having a good mix of CD and LP material. Personally, I am just filling in the gaps on my "favorites" list, and replacing those that are no longer "playable".

You may also want to consider finding those vinyl products that ARE NOT available on disc.

Vinyl IS the new stuff. Any other question?

I've read a lot of good responces and thought I'd add mine. I do have CD's....but I use them in the car only. When I listen to music at home, its vinly all the way baby!
There is a warmth that digital just does not "reproduce" well to my ears. Not to mention the vast aray of historic recordings that will never make it onto a newer format. I'm 47 years old and theres something about playing a record that was pressed when I was a child...or my father was a child...and I'm the first in many years to hear music come from that disk....Its like opening a time capsule every time I listen. I don't think anyone could say that about a CD. I for one would HIGHLY recomend going vinly....skys the limit as to what you will find and hear.

Buying old vinyl is a bit like gambling on the horses. You remember the good recordings at bargain prices (wins) and forget the unplayable junk (losses). In reality LP's cost more than CD's when you take the real costs into account. The situation becomes worse when you start buying new release on vinyl. I would still go for a turntable though. CD/SACD/DVDA do not cover all the bases. When you take into account that there are only a limited number of great recordings of the sort of music you like to listen to, you need to broaden the search as much as possible.

New formats are going to come and go ... digital is about convenience and transportability, which means that we're headed toward a non-physical-media digital world. On-demand and downloadable entertainment will be the norm sooner than you think.

Moreover, I'm looking at CDs of mine that I've had for 10 years or so ... the substrate is decomposing somehow. My Kieth Jarret "Sun Bear" collection is totally unplayable! Scratches on CD are way more annoying than on LP, and CD seems to be more easily scratched. YET ... I have 60 year old records that sound FANTASTIC.

More and more new vinyl is being released, there's plenty of old vinyl to enjoy, and it doesn't take much to get back in. The rewards FAR outweight the risks.

Friend

I have heard both DVD and SACD; and vinyl simply gets closer to the emotion of the performance. DVD and SACD on the other hand sound like great performances. So it becomes a matter of taste....real or great performanes.

Studio1

NO QUESTION. VINYL.
IF YOU'RE SERIOUS ABOUT MUSICAL REPRODUCTION, VINYL.
period.

" Nothing will beat vinyl, its been 1200 years and its still king " Maybe true and I am a analog freak but there is another forn of analog that I have been consistently been mentioning and nobody has responded accordinily. That is 4 track open reel tapes, factory pre-recorded. It has to be experincied to be beleaved. Truly amazing

Nothing will beat vinyl. It's been 100+ years and it is still King.

Go for the vinyl ASAP....I don't see anything good coming out from the future.

Unfortunately, I think vinyl isore of a personality issue than a format, as stated above. My feeling is, if you get good tube gear for digital repoduction, and wait out the bugs in format issues, you will be very satisfied with the tonal accuracy and lifelike quality.

This doesn't really move the conversation on much, just to say that I have a CD front end that retails for around $5000 and a Universal disc player that sold for $1200. This weekend a picked up a scratchy dirt-bag of a TT, an original Rega Planar 3 with the most basic of everything. (I'm not saying the P3 isn't a good TT, just that this particular one is in dire need of upgrading).
Anyway, the point is that this $400 (used) TT comes mighty close in sonics to my CD setup and even closer to my SACD player. As a previous LP12 owner, I know that good vinyl can blow away the best CD players. If a $400 TT can come close to a $5,000 CD player.....well, I think the point is made.
The only downside to vinyl in my opinion, is maintenance, storage and the whole convenience thing. When playing vinyl, if I want to switch a track I have to get up and walk 20 feet across the room, and whilst I could do with the exercise, it is a pain in the rear.
I guess it comes down to what is most important to the individual and what you are prepared to put up with in pursuit of your goals.

Rooze

I dumped SACD more than two years ago, probably three. I went back to CD and vinyl. I went through a complete tear down a year ago and now am back in SACD(EMM Labs) and Vinyl (SME30). I don't think it will get much better than this for a while. I hope to be alive when the time comes.

Bill

In simple science, you hear in analog. The instruments emit a wavelength that is analog, people speaking and singing are first detected in an analog waveform. The concept that the LARGER the storage medium, the more information is stored, the more spacious and deeper the soundstage is true. and lastly, getting off the couch every 20 minutes is good aerobics.

Definately go Vinyl! - If you wait for the new stuff you'll be waiting a long time. There is nothing on the horizon that can match vinyl. SACD may be better than CD but Vinyl is better. I won't even argue about it with anyone. SACD, DVD-A both have that CD edge which makes it sound mechanical. Something will sound better than records one day IMHO, but we're talking about years. DVD-A and SACD still haven't really taken hold yet, and they've both been around for years now. CD (redbook) still sounds excellent. I have vinyl (best sound) and redbook CD player (biggest selection of recordings) why would I want something in the middle (SACD & DVD-A)?

I'd wait for the new stuff. That way you won't have to wade through tens of thousands of analog titles trying to decide what to buy for music. You simply purchase the few titles offered in the new format, everybody needs another copy of Kinda Blue and Diana Krall on whatever the new format will be.
Besides, another cool thing about all the new digital stuff is the players don't last long so you can upgrade as much as you want. Those pesky TTs tend to last for decades.

I have what I consider to be a very good digital front end. Sony DVP-NC555ES into a Genesis Digital Lens into a Musical Fidelity Tri-Vista 21 Tube DAC. I just bought my first TT last week. A Music Hall MMF-5. I have to admit, even with a cheapie audio technica cart (I got the table used) I am having loads of fun. Already have approximately 300 records. Tons of stuff I have never heard before and ohh what fun it is to browse :)

I wouldn't give up my digital for the world but the TT bug has definately bit. Looking at a cart and other accessories already.

Good luck and have fun

Myoussif

I was in your shoes a year ago
I had a good digital fronend but wasn't there yet

I went two routes - a mid priced dvd-a
mostly for my movies and a few dvd-as
it was compariable or slightly less resolving to my redbook on the same material

then I went with a Nottingham spacedeck
a whoile world of difference and more musicality
opened up everything

now it's mostly vinyl at home and cd's at work and in car

if you like older music (sorry I'm in a rush and didn't read the whole thread)
take the plunge, you will thank yourself immensely

audiotom

Jphilips, bravo for doing your comparison and telling us the results. As you know, you are not the only one to have done such a thing--UHF magazine comes to mind, and also a German researcher who additionally used tubes vs transistors as a parameter. And many of us have done it too.

These comparisons are all needed, because of the snap judgements we humans like to impose based on what we think is consensus. In other words, we don't trust our own ears, and the proof needs to be demonstrated. I am sure nobody who has heard such a shootout goes away unchanged, but you have to hear the difference, not just hear about it.

Bravo for doing such a public demo.

If I were newly dissatisfied with CD ( maybe after Jphilips' demo ), I would be looking into vinyl and SACD as alternative sources. I would like to say that my own experience with hi-res digital, both SACD and DVD-audio, has not convinced me to add yet another source.

What surprised me the most was the relatively small difference between first-class CD and hi-res. I conclude that vinyl can remain a priority for me, because it's better than both when all three are done right.

Two questions arise about high resolution digital audio, of course.

First, is hi-res digital being done right, that is, to or near the limit of its potential? Both vinyl and 16/44 digital needed twenty years to reach theirs.

Second, if it is not yet being done right, what should be corrected? Perhaps the recordings chosen for issue on SACD don't offer genuine high-res, or higher-res than what you can get on vinyl and CD. Perhaps the playback technology has trouble extracting part or all of the extra info.

I have been told that both are quite likely. And this, plus my small listening experience, plus my own nature which is excessively prudent, leads me to conclude that I should not bother yet with SACD.

If I hadn't had several hundred LP's that I never got rid of, I would not have gotten back into vinyl. New LP's are expensive. Selection is good, but not great, and the care and feeding of the whole thing is a bit of a pain.

I do prefer the sound of vinyl when everything is right.

tfta,great post and dont feel silly bringing back an old thread.....Now,as you are "new" here,please visit WHO R U in the "Best of" and tell us ALL about you!
WELCOME tfta!!!
Dave

It seems silly to post this to a thread that's almost a year old, but...I can't resist. I've had the great pleasure of comparing top flight digital and analog front ends. Hi-end digital smokes low end digital by a long shot. Makes the unlistenable actually pleasureable. But a mid run turntable setup outperforms a top notch CD rig even worse. A top tier turntable you ask. Fuhgedaboudit! I suspect this lies mostly in the crappy software the record companies feed us, but that's a discussion for another day. The harmonic structures, decay, ambiance, musicality, fluidity and engaging nature of the analog disc has yet to be replicated, even by SACD. One day, somebody will have the b*!!s to spend $40 or $50 grand on an ADC and put out some decent CD's and maybe we can find out what digital is really capable of. Till then, vinyl will be king. Long live the king! I hate to admit this, but the ritual of putting on a record really makes listening to vinyl all the more involving. If you're finding that life is making more and more demands of your time and the treasured moments you spend in front of the stereo are being whittled away, shouldn't you spend those moments listening to the best medium there is? Well, as Forest used to say, "That's all I have to say about that".

Several years ago, my kid and I did his science fair project on "Vinyl Vs. CD." We had 4 LPs and CDs with the same source material, both classical and rock. Front ends were VPI HW19 Mk III with Benz Glider and Marantz 65 SE playing through a Musical Fidelity X 10D. Rest of system was the same. We had 10 listeners do A-B comparisons. I carefully matched the sound pressure levels.

Result - Vinyl smoked the CDs in all respects. Everyone preferred the vinyl sound.

Now, a more expensive CD player might have been a different story, but those were the results.

Besides, where else can you get great music for only a few bucks a pop? Get a good record washer and replace the inner sleeves after washing and you get great sound for alittle money.

Joe

Why not look at "L" cassette, or 8-track, or any one of the hundreds of formats that have come and gone, or will go as soon as they cook up some other inferior media. I have 30 year old vinyl that I will never trade for shinny bits of smoke and mirrors.

If you wish to get into Vinyl, you MUST get a record cleanner and invest the time to care for your records. My personal fav. is VPI 17F, and the Last products. If you want to start w/ a cheep entry to try it out, Look at the offerings from Music Hall, a music:$$ ratio that can't be beat.
Happy listening

hi tobias,

cd-players became commercially awailable in 1984. i double-czeched the linn website to werify its introduction of the lp12 in 1972. there were plenty of excellent-sounding, reasonable-priced turntables around at this time - both prior to, & after the intro of the lp12. the venerable ar-xa (correct model #?) is *still* a respectable piece, tweeks awailable to this day allow this humble 'table to perform up there w/the best of 'em.

i guess, bottom line is i must disagreee w/the point yure making. imo, good turntable technology was entrenched even *before* the linn intro, and the audiophile end of the audio industry was *extremely* cognizant of the lp's superiority over the cd, when cd was 1st introduced in 1984. in fact, most audiophiles know it's only been in the last couple years that cd-playback has been able to even approach winyl as an ultimate software playback medium. cd overwhelmed winyl not cuz no one was aware of winyl's superiority, but cuz cd was aimed at the mass-market, & the audiphiles were yust overrun by the sheer number of folks who tink the latest-n-greatest is what's adwertized in rags like stereo-review, and sold in stores like circuit-city. ;~)

i *do* agree that the cd's "premature ascendency" is what's kept winyl around as a wiable playback medium, tho - there *are* enuff folks out there that are interested in the quality of the *sound*, regardless of what the mass-media sez! :>) i'm sure winyl *can* be surpassed by another "technological cycle". but, i'm not sure when this may occur - certainly i don't see it happening anytime soon. there's no incentive for the music industry to push a higher-resolution digital format for audio, as the masses tink redbook cd is as good as it gets, awreddy. the sacd/dvd-audio wars will be fought more over the multimedia/surround-sound mass-market, & audiophile-quality audio-only software will be yust an afterthought. yust my opinion, of course!

regards, doug s.

Fun to read your reaction, Doug S. ; I have to say it was a bit of a chore reading through the spelling quirks but I understand it helps not to take all this too seriously.

No commercial CD player for 12 years after the Linn, you say ? I don't know. When I was selling in Canada in1974-5, we hadn't heard of the Linn yet. The Ariston RD-11 was the best we had ( and it was miles ahead of the rest and cost an astronomical $ 800 ).

Hi-fi was last on my hobby list in the early 80's but surely there was a commercial CD player by 1984 or earlier ?

My point is still pertinent in any case--the Linn being costly, relatively few people had heard it and could compare it to the new CD medium. It took time for Linn-type technology to influence the industry enough for people to try to duplicate the essential points for less money than the LP12. There just wasn't enough lead time for the LP playback revolution to establish itself firmly enough to counter the CD lie campaign.

That doesn't mean there's no point in finding out, by listening, if vinyl is what you really want. I wanted to point out that the CD's premature ascendancy in the market was what kept vinyl an interesting listening experience in comparison. Vinyl can undoubtedly be surpassed, and perhaps will be in the next technological cycle. Right now, it has something the other medium doesn't. The other medium knows this and is still trying to reach its full potential.

tobias, while i tink there's much merit in what ewe say, there's a major glitch - the linn sondek was awailable for 12 years prior to the introduction of the 1st commercially awailable cd-player. and, *many* less expensive players would smoke the cd-players, not yust the linn.

and, as far as being "condemned" to spend a lot of money if ya wanna listen to winyl, i disagree - a prudent shopper can get a way-musical winyl rig for ~$1k - yust ask bigo, from a recent thread in the analog section of these forums... his rig will smoke most any cd-rig at *any* price, imo... getting a nice winyl rig will condemn ewe only to listening to *music*, & wishing yer favorite cd-releases could be found on winyl! ;~)

doug s.

My response has a historical turn to it, because I think the question is the product of its time.

Vinyl was brutally attacked and discredited with lies by the CD's promoters when they needed market share to survive. The CD was only just good enough at that point to replace the vinyl LP for many listeners who had poor-quality turntables. Ironically, the Linn Sondek had only just come onto the market and started to convince a small number that the problems of music reproduction should be addressed at the source. We were not source-oriented before this.

The Linn was expensive. Cheap CD players replaced background noise with distortion in the highs and loose rhythm but these failings were of an order we were not used to. This unfamiliarity was enough to allow many to believe the hype and dump the LP for CD. However the attention that was paid to the source had the result of opening ears to the CD's problems and consequently CD media and playback have improved. Again ironically, if the CD had not appeared the way it did, it might have failed on the market and something with higher sampling rates and longer words, something genuinely competitive with vinyl, might have appeared five years later and convinced many more listeners the LP was dead. Recycling was not then in vogue, so much vinyl which might have been useful for raincoats would have wound up in landfill.

Vinyl and the CD have thus helped each other. The CD was introduced when digital technology was only borderline, barely ready as a music medium. Vinyl has preserved some wonderful music and served as a reference, showing us the promoters were lying. Perfect sound forever, for Pete's sake !

Vinyl and the CD complement each other. One gives more natural music, the other gives us performances we can't get on vinyl. CD is also more convenient to use, and that's good. I think it only makes sense to get into high-end vinyl if you already have a lot of records and you know you want to hear them. However, if you are not satisfied with your CD system and you have bought it using your ears ; if you have looked into room treatment, cables, power supply and component synergy ; if you have heard vinyl do it so much better that you know that's what you want ; then you are condemned to spend a lot of money on a turntable setup and a record collection.

But no reproduction system is perfect and you could instead rest where you are and concentrate on finding software you want to listen to. When there's a critical mass of good software available in another format, you can make the move. In the meantime, if you need to spend more money on music, you could, if you don't already do it, support live music in two ways : go to concerts, and subsidize young musicians to study and purchase instruments.