Hypothetical here: My new incoming Cayin integrated has a built in MM stage..IF I convinced myself I wanted to try vinyl & knowing absolutely nothing about set up,care etc..& do NOT like to constantly fiddle recommend me a complete,bare minimum setup... Speakers are Harbeth M30.1 & cables are Nordost Lief Series Red Dawn...Thanks much..
I was in the same position as yourself a few years back.
I had a Krell integrated and a Krell CD player and tbh the sq was pretty darn excellent!
Decided to try my hand at vinyl again and thought near enough exactly as yourself with a low budget.
Bought a Project Debut if I remember correctly and an el cheapo made in China tube preamp from ebay( think this was the biggest problem), about $370 all in.
Deeply disappointed is an understatement....
Enough so that at that time with my very limited set up experience and lack of tools to do the job right it all went back on ebay and shelved the idea.
Of course the bug had bitten but the next time around I did a lot more research and came to the conclusion a much larger budget would be required.
Now I had a McIntosh c48 preamp with mm/mc inputs and lots of loading options.
Along came a Clearaudio table cw Clearaudio Ebony cartridge I think, anyway about $1500 total.
Now we were getting somewhere and I could at least listen to vinyl quite comfortably.
But it is a serious addiction and I wanted, no , needed more!
Now I have 4 tables and I think 12 cartridges!
Main table, cart and phono stands about 6k in cost, and that's not much by some peoples standards but at this level I am LOVING my vinyl and listen every chance I can.
$350? Nope not even really going to get you a half way decent phono in reality ( yes there will be lots of dissension on that point I am sure!).
Boxer12-"
billstevenson, I sound like you have a wonderful analog set up. Just
wondering what $2K digital set up you have that equals or betters it?" I apologize for missing your question earlier. There is a lot of good stuff in this thread. Anyway, my digital setup is principally a Sony HAP-Z1ES, which is really quite good. Like I said $2K all in.
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.
Dear @freediver : It's not only to have enough $$budget for the analog rig or all the " inconveniences " analog has against digital or your self training on analog that will take almost years to be " there " but what about the software/LPs.
How many do you own? 300-500 hundred? because with out software the rigth software you just are totally out no matters what.
My take is that forget about LPs that can't really gives you nothing that today digital can for a lot less money and with out that " inconveniences ", but is up to you.
Btw, I'm a MUSIC lover and listen both alternatives: digital and analog.
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.
There was only one position for "overdrive" on our guitarists Fender tube amps for concerts ... 11...!!
I even used to run some mild distortion on my Peavey tube bass head as well. Although it could have been as much a sign of the times as a necessity ... Lol. The good old hair band 80,s.
Dear @prof 1 : "
Tube amps can give some pleasant distortion that some people really like... "
yes as LPs too or any phono cartridge or a SUT but that's not what I'm talking about.
I don't care what I like or any one likes through a room/system but 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.
Btw, @uberwaltz , I'm not a player and I don't care about. I only care of the listen experiences in a home room/audio system.
It's almost comical that I can't believe there are those who don't know what life was like before CD; that's how old I am, and fail to realize there are people so young they don't remember those days.
"Analog", is the first joke, only we just called them record players or TT's; that's all we had, so everybody had one. When CD's came out with no noise or "snap crackle and pop", we thought they were the most fantastic things we had ever heard, and the players were not expensive.
Someone queried "What's the big deal"? "Watchu talking about"? we responded. We didn't know that they owned "High end Analog". No longer do we have record players and TT's, now we have ANALOG.
Relatively few people have gone back to ANALOG, especially once they discovered the expense involved in "High-End-Analog". That was so long ago, that we actually have people who are not old enough to remember those days, and they are trying to discover what the big fuss is about. The people making the big fuss do not want to clarify; are we talking about "record players", "Mid-fi turntables", or are we talking about "Hi-End Analog", because there is a tremendous distinction between the three.
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" . Every time I see a thread that talks about "Starter Analog", I jump on it like a dog on a burger, because I know they're going to advise some cheap stuff that's a waste of money.
"Analog" is better IF, and only IF, you can afford to buy "High-End-Analog".
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 ;-)
"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.
I do not know one single solitary person who was into analog who went back. They don't even play their old records. The know, after a lifetime of records and record players, that the fuss is about "expensive" high end analog.
I'm not trying to influence people, you are. I only want them to know the truth; there is no big deal on a record without "high end analog". I want them to know "before" they spend their money, not after.
I hope there is a record player somewhere close buy they can hear and determine for themselves.
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.
And tbh the sq on the second rig is exceedingly good.
Technics sl10 linear tracker with Adzen p mount cartridge and Project phonobox.
Anybody can replicate this for similar money from eBay anytime.
Now does my main rig sound better? Sure it does and so it bloody well should!
But if I was hearing my second rig with nothing else to compare it to I would still be very happy as it is pretty close to cd replay in that system in detail and soundstage and head and shoulders proud in warmth and musicality.
Plenty of great cheaper options available for new vinyl enthusiasts, sure it is a slippery slope and it is also easy to spend money and be dissatisfied too.
Thinking more deeply about this whole philosophy we should definitely be encouraging new vinyl addicts at every opportunity.
Not telling them you need 3K minimum to play in our sandpit.
You're not talking to a "Newbee"; I've been around, I was at the Dead Sea when it died, and I was at the Red Sea when they dyed it red, I can go all the way back to the Gramaphone when vinyl really sucked.
When CD came out, the multitudes had Gerrard, Dual, and BIC tables that cost about $200. or less. Cartridges were "Shure" and others that cost $150. tops; not exactly high end, and that's why CD's sounded high end; no record noise or "snap, crackle and pop".
The multitudes never went back to records; especially after they found out what all the fuss was about (very expensive high-end) I have never seen or heard people so adept at "conflating" things; such as one of those old Dual turntables sound better than CD. That's a blatant lie, and guys who had them would laugh in your face. This new propaganda is just for the "Newbees" who don't know.
"You guys got stock in turntables, or something"?
Out of the multitudes who had those old turntables, they have upgraded everything except the vinyl end; the vast majority are out of vinyl forever, and the numbers reflect that. If the multitudes were into records, record stores would be overflowing, and there would be one on every other corner (slight exaggeration), but the fact that they were busier than a bee hive every Saturday is not an exaggeration.
Any new people who are seduced into vinyl without sufficient funds, will discover for themselves that their digital is better than cheap analog, and it takes almost 3K to even equal decent digital.
What's the point if you're not going to get better than CD? Especially with all the problems that go with vinyl. The multitudes who lived with those problems have said "good riddance", and the numbers reflect that.
After having said what I just said, I thoroughly enjoy the depth and holography of analog, but it ain't cheap, and a degree from analog university helps a lot as well. Do you bother to tell the "Newbees they need to go to analog U"; of course not.
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. The only thing that's subjective is the music one chooses to play on the equipment. While there is truth to subjective, 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"
My preference is Grade A "holographic" sound whether it's delivered by digital or analog is irrelevant; that's because I can get the best out of both. I didn't spend 30 years subscribing to UK stereo magazines, plus Audio, Stereophile, Stereo Review, and everything related to the reproduction of sound for nothing.
There is nothing the multitudes who lived with vinyl records don't know about it, and they have decided to live without it. 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.
Orpheus- what does all this do for you? I doubt any of my gear is rated in Stereophile. I also prefer bone in aged rib-eye to Porterhouse, and was a regular at Luger's back in the day. So what? Everyone finds their level. You've found yours. Next.
orpheus106,000 posts03-12-2019 1:03pmProf, it ain’t that subjective; something that’s rated Class A by Stereophile and TAS will sound better than something rated Class C.
>>>>I prefer not pay too much attention to what others think these days. I feel it’s kind of a scam on a certain level and the perpetuation of a scam. Can I say that?
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.
There are certain types of people who value convenience along with their sq and for them the good old CD and streaming is the way to go and possibly should never consider vinyl. Although my sl-10 could be considered as a one button operation? However for me vinyl is also about a lot of physical and sensory perceptions and actions. The chase for that lp in thrift stores and my lrs, I tell you nothing much puts a bigger smile on my face than that $1 bargain bin purchase that after a good clean really shines on the table!
The sensory and tactile operations involved with everything vinyl, from cleaning, sorting, actually picking up and inspecting and finally placing carefully onto the platter and lowering that needle down and hearing the first strains of sweet music.
It is NOT for everybody for sure as time and effort are involved but it is about much more than just the sq of the music, its about life and soul and sheer musicality.
I truly could not care less if a streamed version of an album is technically superior to some, if I am happy then so be it.
I ENCOURAGED my daughter 100% to try vinyl even though she was born in the iPod age and a very modest system has her now buying vinyl all on her ownsome ( she bought a Floyd bootleg few weeks ago at $65!).
I would also encourage anybody who is aware of the more lifestyle commitment to give vinyl a try as well and try to educate them on what is involved but NOT try to tell them they NEED megabucks to enjoy.
For sure once you get hooked it is very easy to spend, spend, spend on the hardware but you do not HAVE to in order to enjoy all that goes along with the vinyl experience.
Although my 35 year old son has been around records since he was born, he doesn't have a record, or CD player, and uses wireless headphones to listen to his music that comes from a source I know not where.
Now if I'm not making an effort to influence my own son, I'm certainly not going to make an effort to influence anyone else; however, I do believe I'm expressing more than an opinion in regard to cheap turntables, as being a waste of money for an aspiring audiophile.
"The vinyl experience"; without high end, it's not as good as CD; the multitudes will verify that. Unfortunately, the "Newbees" can't go to the library and spin a record or two, and then say "I tried it but I didn't like it"; they have to spend money, and I want to give them another point of view before they spend it.
BTW, I can relate to everything everyone says about vinyl except one thing; when that needle falls in the groove, if I don't hear sweet music, the thing can go in the trash as far as I'm concerned. Sweet music means better than CD.
Target: stay nearer to the recording and you/prof. posted:
"" That’s perfectly fine of course FOR YOU ... "
you said to orpheus that " opened his mind " and why don’t you do it?
the main/primary target for any audiophile must be that followed by the MUSIC enjoyment. It’s not my target but the target for any one likes to listen through any kind of home audio system.
prof 1: " 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 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.
So you like to live a lie, fine with you that’s what you like it. Fine with me.
If other people young or not to young think that vinyl is superior to today digital alternative that’s only by their ignorance MUSIC/audio levels.
And here I can tell you " that’s perfectly for you " but not for all when the target I posted is for all but ignorants bordering in the stupidity. Facts is the name of the game and you have no single fact other that " I like it ": so what?, is wrong.
I still am in analog because Iown 6K+ LPs but I’m not so stupid to try to " close " the sun with a finger saying that digital is inferior when even all human been hear through an ADC at our inner ear ! !
Yes, you could think I’m ignorant or maybe stupid but come here and with facts tell me ( facts no: bla, bla, bla, as you always did. ) where I’m absolutely wrong.
What are doing people/analog lovers as many of you or reviewers as MF other than spreading all over the young and not so young audiophiles: LIES with no facts.
There is no LPs come back sales as many of you and reviewers shout every day. What exist is a CORRUPTED scam coming from the LPs sources where over 90% of what they offer ( as " new ". ) are only re-issues in several and different ways:
180gr. version, 200grs version, 45rpm version, master recording copy version, one side LP version, UHQR version, japanese version..., DMM version...,, one step version, etc, etc
VERSIONs from the same old recordings and we stupid audiophiles followed their scam buying everything they have.
And yes we all are happy and yes I bougth some of those versions. Incredible I did it many times ! ! !
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.
Dear @prof 1 : This is at least the second time you tal of what you are but the " trouble " is not that at the end the matters is that we are talking of different issues.
When for you ""
that one’s own goals are not the default goals of other people... ""
those " other people goals " are personal ones and the target I name it is a " universal target " not a personal. My personal targets are in second step below the universal/main target just in the same way your goals are personal too.
I don't care of your goals or even mine but how acomplish that univeral/main AUDIO TARGET because with out this univeral target you and me just can't acomplhis our personal targets.
As nearer we are of that universal/main audio target as more easy we will acomplish/arrives to our personal MUSIC/audio targets.
That main target is not my personal goal is the AUDIO goal with out any gentleman name on it.
It's a target that is the bench-mark to compare where we are " seated " and to look which of our personal goals are not yet accomplished. Against what are we comparing if our " system up-grades " were really " up-grades " and not only more of the same but in different way?
We all need a universal audio bench-mark. Maybe you did not ! ! ? ? ?
"organic, spacious, with wonderful texture and presence and warmth."
Prof, you seem to claim that you can get those things from vinyl without high-end hardware. While all I hear is a flat pasty sound; the same one the multitudes rejected, and they also rejected the high-end gear necessary to get the sound you claim to hear without it.
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?
Here is what I learnt about vinyl after 20 years in this hobby. The more you spend, the better your setup gets, the closer it sounds to a good CD player. Eventually when you blow thru about $30K for table/tonearm/cartridge/preamp/cleaner, you'll get a system that sounds exactly as Chord Qutest. So "vinyl sound" is what you're after, don't blow a ton of money. More you spend, the closer to a CD it will be.
Prof, that reminds me of my first watch, it was Christmas and a "Micky Mouse" watch was one of my presents; it had a picture of Mickey on the face, and his arms and hands were the hands of the watch. I had to know what time it was every 15 minutes, that was the prettiest watch I had ever seen; I liked it better than I would have liked a Rolex.
I'm sure your daughters turntable sounds as good as any audiophile table to her young ears, and it delivers more than is required.
Back in the day you can find a TT labeled JC Penny that was actually made by CEC who made many TT back then for Marantz, etc. Try something like that first, spend some money on a decent cartridge to see if that floats your boat@
Exactly Orpheus. She is very happy and truly that is all that matters. So extrapolate that result to the many thousands who might wish to try vinyl too.
Who are we to tell them that ,no it cannot be done on a low budget? Sure they may end up being hooked and spending a lot more. Or they may just be content and revel in the whole vinyl experience thing.
Whatever how can we honestly tell them they should not even try vinyl. After all... YMMV.
Dear @prof 1 : In good shape: many recording microphones positions are at 1-3m. from the music source. Now, those microphones have a wide frequency range around ( some of them. ) 10hz to over 50khz and can accept over 120++ SPL coming from the source and can does this in continue way for " hours ".
"""
I grew up in a house with saxophones, clarinets, drums, french horns, trumpets, 4 different pianos ...."
with any of those instruments but maybe drums for how many hours/minutes/seconds can you listen it at 1m-2m. from it with the instrument player playing at live concert/presentation SPLs?
if we take a trumpet maybe you can listen for no more than 2 minutes and if you hold there more time you will suffer severe ears damage and I'm talking of 120+ SPLs.
3 Blind Mice LP recordings its microphones are not at 1m-3m but inside the instrument including with piano instrument.
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.
Analog and digital limits have its limit foundations in the whole recording playback overall proccess that you or me can't change. Both alternatives " lives " inside its own limits and we audiophiles listen and enjoy both mediums inside those limits.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R.
@uberwaltz , that your daugther likes analog or you like it or I like it is that the issue and means nothing on this dialogue. You are talking of a different issue that me, so we can't agree not that I'm against what you posted.
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...
Yes Schubert, your choice of components matter a lot in regard to your chosen music genre. That's most important in regard to choice of cartridge; which is why I pay little attention to cartridge recommendations around here. When they say best cartridge, they mean the best cartridge for Rock, and not jazz, where you listen to soft spoken female vocalists more than banging guitars and loud drums, plus that, jazz guitar is so different from rock guitar.
What's best for one genre, is not necessarily best for another.
@uberwaltz , that your daugther likes analog or you like it or I like it is that the issue and means nothing on this dialogue. You are talking of a different issue that me, so we can't agree not that I'm against what you posted.
Actually Raul, it is EXACTLY the point of this thread and means EVERYTHING in context. Point of the thread was did the op think he could be happy with a vinyl setup on the budget side yes? Answer is that it is most certainly possible to be happy with a budget vinyl setup as evinced by my daughters experience and mirrored by many more I am certain. So while I would agree that I am talking of a different issue to you I would suggest that is is yourself who is talking of the incorrect issues that have nothing to with the original intent of the OP. Peace.
Dear @uberwaltz : You are rigth and agree. The issue in prof, orpheus you and me dialogue is a little different and yes that dialogue in between is not exactly the OP but we have the opportuniy on the subject in between. Don't you think ? and I mean it when said: WE.
Actually, I view all audio from a ratings point of view; what I'm speaking of is some kind of metric to judge the quality of components.
I spent two years visiting high end emporiums, and auditioning components, comparing them to how they were rated in "Stereophile"; meaning "A"; "B"; or "C". I read how a component was rated in the magazine, then went to the Emporium and asked to audition that component. Just as there are many flavors of ice cream, there are many flavors of sound; for example Conrad Johnson, and ARC are at opposite ends of the spectrum from warm to cool, but both have models that are rated Class "A".
Every building has a foundation that it sits on; that rating system is "Stereophile's" foundation, they don't play games with it, and I found it to be quite valid. There are many different flavors in each class, but I more or less agreed with "Stereophile's" ratings in regard to whether a component should be rated "A"; "B"; or "C".
I was not in analog at that time, but as I recall, no Emporium had expensive cartridges that you could evaluate, and you can reason why they didn't.
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.
