Vinyl***What If***

I have a system in which I listen to both digital sources and vinyl.

Both sound glorious.

But I'm really enjoying the various aspects of vinyl these days.

I totally understand someone looking at vinyl and thinking "why bother? My digital sources are so much more convenient."

Vinyl doesn't of course suit everyone.

On the other hand, the inconvenience factor of vinyl can be over-sold.
Yes, like anything in the audiophile world there is a continuum of tweaking that will reach to an extreme.  But no one has to place themselves toward the extreme end.

At a minimum, you just have to buy a decent turntable (and if you are dipping your toes in, you can get one that doesn't require heroic set up), and perhaps acquire a phono stage if you don't have one.   I mean...kids, teenagers, millennials, old folks, are all managing to do this every day.
If that's too much work, then there was never any motivation to begin with, which would make the question of getting in to vinyl moot anyway.
You have to have some motivation to do anything.

As to the other physical aspects: once you find you enjoy records, the physical aspect is actually part of the enjoyment.  Buying, holding physical records is a pleasure in itself.  Firing up the turntable and putting a record on is a pleasure in itself, because turntables are really cool devices - much more interesting than pushing a CD player button, or tapping some pixels on a phone.

If you care about not having dusty records, a single pass with a record brush is hardly a massive chore.

So when people wonder "why bother?" the first answer is "it's not that much of a bother, or doesn't have to be" and the second is "because to the degree it's more physical effort than digital, those aspects are actually part of the appeal.   If owning physical music with nice artwork doesn't appeal, or turntables don't appeal to you....then of course there's little motivation to bother with it in the fist place.

"Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS"

There’s nothing wrong with a little distortion. Some forms of distortion are pleasant (which is why it’s also often used in music itself). Tube amps can give some pleasant distortion that some people really like - and actually aid in appreciating the music they play in their system. Same goes for some of the vinyl distortions. Room reflections are a form of distortion, yet it’s well known listeners prefer certain types of added room reflection.

I’m afraid that slogans don’t help by over-simplifying.

I do not know one single solitary person who was into analog who went back.

Well now you do.   I grew up with records (I'm 55) and have got back in to vinyl big time.  Loving it.

If you paid much attention to the vinyl scene, you'd see plenty of people who grew up with vinyl have either dusted off their turntable or have bought a new one and are having a blast.  I read articles about it all the time, and know quite a few people who are back in to vinyl - many of my friends.

You should get out more ;-)

orpheus10

"Analog" is better IF, and only IF, you can afford to buy "High-End-Analog".

That's quite a short-sighted viewpoint.  It confuses your own likes and criteria with those of others.  People can find analog - in this case vinyl/turntables - "better" than their digital music for a whole variety of reasons.


As you acknowledge, the discussion in this thread clearly concerns getting in to vinyl/turntables.


The fact that YOU think you can only get "analog" satisfaction by spending lots of money on "High End" stuff doesn't entail this is the case for others.


Tons of people, young and old, have been getting in to vinyl.  They aren't spending tons of money on gear and they have been thrilled.  


And many like the sound of vinyl, even from cheaper players, better than their digital music.  It doesn't have to be better in some technically accurate sense for people to prefer their records.  And of course it's not only sound, but the wider experience of physical records, artwork, turntables, hunting for records, the way using records on any equipment seems to naturally focus many people on listening rather than as background music.   There are many reasons why people are enjoying vinyl without spending lots of money and it's far from everyone who gets on to an expensive upgrade path.  (And if someone DOES go down that path, it's because they want to, so there's nothing wrong there either).

It seems to me that they are trying to lure those with a low budget into this very expensive game, and I say "Not on my watch" .

I'm sorry, but what a silly, misguided attitude.  People want to buy a record player and play records, and you are going to be mister "Not On My Watch!!!' ??   


I'm glad it's not your watch; otherwise plenty of people would have been pushed away from getting in to something it turns out they truly enjoy.

rauliruegrass

my target is to stay NEARER TO THE RECORDING no MATTERS WHAT. Tubes never put me nearer to the recording just can't do it. Tube alternative is full of limitations agains a good solid state design.

That's perfectly fine of course FOR YOU.  If you want to describe your own goals I think anyone would be happy to listen. I enjoy hearing about the journey and criteria other audiophiles have.  But you don't keep it to "this is what I like, and these are my goals." Rather, you prescribe to other people what they ought to do: "enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS."


When you get pushy and tell other people how to engage in their hobby, you should expect some well-deserved pushback ;-)

What's the point if you're not going to get better than CD? Especially with all the problems that go with vinyl.

If you are honestly asking that question, you will never comprehend the answer unless you open yourself to understanding how other people think about it.

First, no one is claiming that some vast majority of consumers are going back to vinyl.  Obviously not.  It's a niche, though a growing one that has entered mainstream.  But of course it's unlikely to ever remotely compete with the convenience and cheaper cost of, for instance, streaming digital.

Please remember, also, that judgements about "sounding better" are subjective.  It's not the same as an objective technical claim "measurably more accurate."   I think my system sounds "better" than my audiophile friend's system, he thinks the reverse.  That's why we each bought different systems.

If someone likes the sound of A over B, it sounds "better" to them.


On my previous less expensive (very old Micro Seiki) turntable I often preferred the sound I heard from vinyl albums to my digital source.  Not every time, and I could hear ways in which the digital source was more accurate.  But there was some character to the vinyl playback that struck MY EARS as being very organic, spacious, with wonderful texture and presence and warmth.   You may be in a position to point out the technical failings of vinyl, but you are in no position to tell me that I can't or don't prefer what I prefer.

And if someone finds he prefers the sound of vinyl over digital, it's entirely rational to continue to get in to vinyl.

And as I said non one NEEDS some expensive turntable to PREFER vinyl to digital.  So long as someone's vinyl playback even sounds at all DIFFERENT from their digital playback, they may PREFER it.

And as i said, that has often been the case for people getting in to vinyl even without spending tons of money.  Many PREFER the sound, even if it's not as strictly accurate.  There are also many who do not prefer the sound of their vinyl rig vs their digital, but simply enjoy both for their differences. 


And you fail to factor in the DIFFERENT EXPERIENCE of turntables and vinyl records vs CDs, or streaming.   There is a different mind-set and experience that goes along with the physicality of searching for, buying and owning physical LPs, playing them on a turntable etc.  Millenials - the biggest demographic behind the vinyl resurrgance, have discovered this. They grew up with digital, but have discovered that playing physical records brings them in to a different mind-set and relationship to listening to music, which is why it is flourishing.

The fact that YOU may not care about these things, or prefer sticking with digital, does not entail anyone else is a sucker for getting in to vinyl, even at the non-audiophile level.  If someone is finding the experience energizing and fulfilling, who the hell are you to tell them they are a sucker or shouldn't bother with it?

Prof, it ain't that subjective; something that's rated Class A by Stereophile and TAS will sound better than something rated Class C.

Wrong.  Some people will prefer - "sounds better to me" - certain Class C speakers over A rated speakers.   That should be obvious.
I have a very old pair of Thiel 02 speakers, late 70's, the cheapest thing they ever put out - made to absolute minimum acceptable standards sold for a few hundred bucks.   I very much prefer their sound to any number of far more expensive class A or B speakers.  They do some things that sound "better" and more believable to me.  Again..you are in no position to tell me or anyone else otherwise.  That's subjectivity for you.

it can go beyond the bounds of all truth, to the extent that it becomes a subjective lie: "Hamburger tastes better to me than Grade A porterhouse steak"

You just don't understand subjectivity and value, do you?I've tried some of the most expensive and lauded foie gras and couldn't stand it...because I don't like the taste of foie gras!  I would vastly prefer a good hamburger which would taste better to me.  

It's perfectly possible and reasonable for someone to prefer - "tastes better to me" - a hamburger over an expensive steak.   For most of my life I've been in that camp;  I generally don't care for steak.  But I love hamburgers.  If you think you can tell me that I'm just "wrong" that a hamburger tastes better then you are clueless about subjectivity.  It's not like there is some objective rule written in to the fabric of the universe "steak tastes better than hamburger."  All such statements derive from subjective evaluations which are valid for the individual.

Now we got a brand new con game for new consumers who don't know, telling them how special it is, without telling them the price of that "special sound"; that's dishonest.

There you go again, mistaking your own subjective criteria as some rule, from which you can determine other people are being suckered.  Sure...all those naive people happily browsing in record stores and getting a kick out of playing vinyl on their non-high-end set ups are just suckers.  What they really need is someone like you to tell them "You SHOULDN'T be so happy and satisfied, it's just not valid...unless you spend TONS more money!"   

No point in going further; you don't really want to understand an alternative view.

orpheus10

Ok, so the cheap turntables you heard produced what you perceived to be flat pasty sound.  That's your anecdote and totally valid for you if that's what you perceived.

That's far from what I got from my original turntable.   And that is not a description I hear from most who have bought a turntable.  In fact "spacious"  "warm" tends to be common descriptions.  I have read tons of reports of people who have just got in to vinyl  and it is almost uniformly a report of enthusiasm if not outright joy!   Reddit is a great place to see plenty of people just getting in to vinyl.  I don't remember a single report of someone getting in to vinyl, buying a player (at least better than a Crosby) and reporting "actually, the sound stinks, I'm giving this up and going back to only digital."

It's weird that you just can't accept someone may like something other than what you like.   And that's ok.  You don't have to save anyone from having a good time enjoying modest turntables.  People have different preferences and criteria and goals, and that's ok.   Are you this much of a spoil-sport about everything, or is it just turntables and vinyl?

It’s not my target but the target for any one likes to listen through any kind of home audio system.

LOL.

I think we have a few "empathy" problems within this crowd. That is, a problem understanding that one’s own goals are not the default goals of other people.

We’ve been through your blinkered ideas on this hobby before so I’m not going to waste too much time. But...

Me: "organic, spacious, with wonderful texture and presence and warmth."

you are totally wrong with all those adjectives but presence because live MUSIC just does not performs in that way that only exist in a wasted dream/imagination BECAUSE the recording microphones are " seated " at nearfield from the MUSIC source 1m-3m and that’s what is in the recording ( other than recorder gentleman " manipulations to the micro signal. ) and if you experienced live MUSIC seated at near field position the no one of those adjectives could any one experienced with.

Uh...actually, yes it does. I own a pair of ears. Like anyone else I listen to live acoustic sources all day long. Aside from that, I’ve played, and been in the presence of live acoustic singers and instruments countless times - I grew up in a house with saxophones, clarinets, drums, french horns, trumpets, 4 different pianos, guitar, trombone - you name it. My dad was a jazz musician and music teacher who could play all those instruments and often did at home, and we all played many instruments.

I have been in plenty of studios recording music. For my job I record live acoustic sources all the time. I have done live vs reproduced comparisons of live instruments vs recordings of those instruments (and with voices).
So, spare me the "i know better than you" stuff about what live instruments, including recorded instruments, can sound like.

I didn’t claim that vinyl is more accurate or "better." Digital has the greater capability of being accurate to the source recording (or to the recording process itself). But vinyl *can* have attributes that are pleasing. And not just pleasing: some of the attributes can be *similar* or consonant with what I hear in real life sounds. When I examine real life voices and instruments I do indeed often find terms like "organic, spacious, texture, presence, warmth" come to mind. Sometimes...not all the times...sometimes a vinyl album will produce attributes that to me sound more like the real thing. Sometimes not, sometimes digital does.

But, hey, if you require a rant to get things off your chest....go ahead.I’m just trying to help you understand why your message is likely not getting across.

rauliruegas

Yeesh, you are mashing up so many ideas and drawing strange inferences it’s hard to know where to start.

Analog just can’t be nearer to that " truer to the recording " target as digital can. As digital and every other " stuff " analog has precise limits and are shorter than the digital alternative.

Geeze, thanks again for the lesson. I’ve only been recording sound for almost 40 years, much of that in a professional capacity. I moved from analog/tape recording to digital. I’m a bit familiar with the differences, and similarities.

Analog just can’t be nearer to that " truer to the recording " target as digital can. As digital and every other " stuff " analog has precise limits and are shorter than the digital alternative.

You are mangling a truth there.

It’s already been said, ad infinitum, and by me as well, that digital has the greater *potential* for accuracy to the source. But it’s sloppy to say that analog just can’t be nearer "to the recording" than digital. If something was recorded on analog, that IS the closest you can get to the "recording." It IS the recording. If you mean that analog recording can not capture the sound of instruments as accurately as digital, once again that needs caveats: You can have a badly made, inaccurate digital recording and a better, more accurately captured analog recording.If you mean that analog *reproduction* of the original recording "can not" be as accurate as a digital reproduction of a recording, again, we need to recognize caveats. It’s possible, and has happened often enough, to screw up a digital reproduction/mastering as it is analog. There have been plenty of digital mastering from original analog tapes that were crap - done by less talented mastering engineers, or with wrong assumptions, or on the cheap, etc.

This is why some original analog reproductions - e.g. reel to reel tape or even LPs, CAN and have been better, more accurate to the original than the later digital re-mastering. If you just think that playing a vinyl LP vs a CD version always defaults to the CD version for quality and accuracy, you just don’t know what you are talking about.

But IF you are ONLY saying that digital recording/mixing/mastering and reproduction of the original source has the greater technical potential for accuracy, well of course. That’s as I said already conceded!
And...all of THAT is a red herring! You’ve gone off on that tangent from the descriptions I gave of some vinyl recordings. Nowhere did I claim that THOSE records were technically more accurate than a digital version. I DID say I liked it, and that some aspects of the sound reminded me of certain qualities I hear in real life sounds.


Remember that when recording, microphones have colorations - exacerbated in any number of ways, through placement, angling, etc.And any additional EQ or mastering or mixing or production effects can typically add more colorations. The result of many, if not most, recordings of the human voice result in sibilant being sharpened/hardened/heightened to an unnatural degree. This is a very common coloration.

One of the tools used in mastering vinyl - due to limitations of viny/turntables - is "de-essing." to reduce sibilance. (It’ also used in mixing to a degree, but I’m talking of vinyl mastering now). The end result of this is that the sibilance emphasis that can be left on the digital version can be reduced in the vinyl version. I’ve heard this when comparing numerous digital vs vinyl counterparts of the same recordings. The result is that, when the sibilance isn’t sticking out as so obviously artificial and sharp, the voice on the vinyl sounds more naturally balanced to my ear, less artificial, more believable.

That’s just one way in which vinyl CAN sound "more natural, more like the real thing" vs digital versions. There are various other artifacts that can give a pleasing sense of ’realism.’ For instance, any number of LPs are eq’d differently, often with a bit more zip in the upper midrange/lower treble. (Or a cartridge, depending on how it’s set/impedance interaction etc can impart this). This CAN give a sense of greater immediacy and clarity. I was listening the other day to an LP of music that I also have as a digital file, and instruments like strumming guitar, bongos, snare drum etc just sounded more present, real, than the digital version.

I also have many old "library music" LPs recorded very beautifully in the analog era, and I have some of those that were released on CD or that can be streamed (CD quality) digitally from some sites. In terms of pure sound quality - richness, detail, spaciousness, texture, presence...in almost every parameter the LPs sound distinctly better. There are any number of factors why this may be so, including that whoever re-mastered them for the digital versions just didn’t do a great job. They sound very flat and canned vs the original LPs.

All that is to say is that it helps no one to just put blinders on and drive home one single view in a way that ignores all sorts of relevant details, and which presumes sometimes that someone is saying falsehoods when they have never done such a thing.
I’m out...