@geoffkait "The assumption here is that all modern music is digital and all mastered the same."
Geez, talk about a Strawman argument. I never heard anyone make that assumption.
I made that assumption earlier in this thread. @atmasphere was referring to that post. I'm happy to fess up (I was oversimplifying). and +1 @alpha_gt . I think the record wear argument about LPs is overblown. If it happens, it's simply too slow to have any major effect on my listening habits. |
I've had many immensely satisfying experiences listening to each format. They are different flavors and neither is perfect, but either can provide those great moments when it all comes together the way it should. Then again, I can sometimes "get off" pretty well listening to a "stock" car audio system (not a "stock car" audio system).
|
snap, crackle, pop is for cereal |
Nothing has really changed, low end CD sounds better than low end analog. Anyone on a tight budget should stick to CD. Newbees who think beginner analog is going to have what's being discussed on this forum are in for a rude awakening.
Enjoy the music.
|
orpheus10
Nothing has really changed, low end CD sounds better than low end analog.
Perhaps the challenge for audiophiles should be how bad can you make your system sound. Why on Earth would anyone try to be just a little better than the worst sounding system? Whereas on the Kalahari you only need to be just a little faster than the slowest Wildebeest.
😧
|
Better? Yes, for me, but I started with the format as a child, in the mid- ’60s and never abandoned it. The first CD players were, to my ears, pretty nasty sounding, and I didn’t make the jump when the CD format was introduced, but instead doubled down on LP purchases when it looked like that format was going to be forced into extinction. I cherish the great records I have accumulated over the years and LP remained my sole source on the main system all these years. That said, there are many badly recorded/mastered/manufactured LPs. And digital playback seems to have gotten much better in the last several years. For recordings that were originally made back in the day, I’d probably still prefer the all analog copy. A lot of newer recordings are natively digital--so, there is little choice there, whether or not released on LP. (I listen to the LP copies only because I don’t really have a serious digital front end but that may change). And there are occasions where, despite the addition of a layer of digital processing, the end result of what was originally an analog recording has been improved, e.g. some of the Steve Wilson remixes of Tull.
But, if I were starting out today, would I jump in deep on LP playback? I don’t know. I think you have to be pretty committed. At the same time, has digital playback using computers, files, outboard DACs and streaming become "plug and play"? (I raise this more out of ignorance than snark). I think "better" is a relative term, depending on a lot of factors. For me, the LP has been a constant for more than 50 years, but whether the format is "better" for others is not something I can answer. I like playback that sounds "un-reproduced." When that happens, it is the equivalent of magic. But, even with a very good analog front end and the qualities of a good SET amp/horn set up, or my old standby, the original Quad loudspeaker driven by tubes, the illusion is hardly seamless. Cost,time, space, convenience, all play a role as well. I’ve just pulled 12,000 records out of my NY home about half of which will eventually be relocated to a new space across the the country. I haven’t lost the fever, but I’m more open-minded about format due to changes in the nature of source material, its availability and technology, old and new.
|
geoffkait... CDs sound relatively thin, disembodied, two
dimensional, compressed, congealed, thumpy, piercing, hollow, diffuse,
synthetic, amusical, generic, threadbare, edgy, bass shy, peaky, ugly,
phasey, irritating, detailed, unnatural, unimpressive, commercial, like
papier mache, airless and dry. I think it's time for you to upgrade your system! |
cleeds
geoffkait:
... CDs sound relatively thin, disembodied, two dimensional, compressed, congealed, thumpy, piercing, hollow, diffuse, synthetic, amusical, generic, threadbare, edgy, bass shy, peaky, ugly, phasey, irritating, detailed, unnatural, unimpressive, commercial, like papier mache, airless and dry.
I think it's time for you to upgrade your system!
Touche! Please note I said relatively so don't feel too bad.
Everything is relative. - A. Einstein
|
Why did everybody have to have a CD player when they came out?
Why did everybody buy CD's when they cost over $20. with so few titles available, and a new record $7.
Why did so many people sell their records?
Only people in the "High End" knew that analog was much better, and a lot of people on this forum were not in the high end when CD's came out, but had "Dual", "BIC" cheap Girards, that they thought were "The cat's meow", to use one of the many phrases that mean "Hot stuff".
Analog still costs much more than CD when you are speaking of "Audiophile quality".
Now back to the original question; when I spent over 3K on analog, only then did I discover it was better than digital.
|
In my opinion vinyl pales in comparison to the quality of a really great tape machine. I've worked on a Studer A827 a few times and it's hard to beat an ATR102. |
Parkinen, I don't think anyone will challenge that.. |
The same assumption could be made in regard to tube and SS; although in a bedroom system an SS amp would outweigh tubes based on practicality.
I believe the most valid observations are those that are made "unconsciously"; for example, that's how I made my most valid observations in regard to tube and SS. Ages ago, when I enjoyed the night-life, I wondered why did all the music on "jukeboxes" sound so good; it was because that was the first high end I had encountered, plus it was both tube and analog at 45 RPM.
My very first rig was SS, as probably everyone else's was because tubes were ancient. I was still enjoying the night-life when the "jukeboxes" changed to SS, but not digital, and somehow, the music had lost it's "sparkle". I didn't investigate, just quit playing the jukebox.
Not until my state of the art (according to "Stereo Review") SS needed to be replaced did I give those antiquated tubes another try, CJ it was, and never looked back to SS since. Now I wonder if my stance on tubes, is similar to this one on vinyl?
|
Really good thread. While digital can be done well for far less than a good table, cartridge and electronics it still to me sounds a bit artificial with a lack of depth. Perhaps it's because I started my audio trip prior to the invention of the CD but I just prefer listening to vinyl. I do have a nice system. VPI Scout with Dynavector 10X5 and Vincent PHO 700 phono stage and this helps. A lower end table with a mediocre cartridge is going to be a disappointment. Not close to top of the line but very good.
One place where I feel digital is superior is on poorly produced recordings. A good system and good tt will only reproduce what is on the vinyl, that is the original source. CD's for some reason, I guess because they are digital, make these sound better. However, the newer higher end Original Masters vinyl albums sound amazing. |
If you believe vinyl sounds better and live in Atlanta I'd love to be persuaded. (Actually, probably would hate to be persuaded, considering what it would cost to replace my 1,676 CDs with vinyl, and purchasing a decent table as well. Egads.) Let's get together for listening comparisons: digital at my place; vinyl at yours; or however if you have a better idea. |
Don't do it Danny!
I'm not in Atlanta but next time you're in NYC (everyone comes here at some point right?) swing by.
Ironically, the arguments in favor of why vinyl sounds better has less to do with vinyl per se and more to do with learning how to identify and recognize what's "wrong" with digital.
Once your ears can hear what's "wrong" with digital it will be the only thing that you hear and you will have 1,676 things that suddenly piss you off... Yes I'm serious.
I spent ~35 years in software engineering and can hear the "code" in digital music reproduction and was always of the opinion that code was obsolete as soon as it shipped and should always be improved on.
Once your brain is wired that way, there's no going back.
Sure I love listening to my digital library (CD's, ALAC, WAV or whatever) but you can't get past the fact that there's software between the source and your ears - unavoidable. Unfortunately, there are great software developers and crappy ones just as there are great studio mastering engineers and complete hacks.
|
Back in the 60's. When I bought my first LP.
I like the convenience of CDs and I listen to them pretty often. Some are even recorded well.
But, when I drop the stylus down, into the groove...magic!
My neighbors, my friends, find it remarkable when we compare digital to analog. Soundstage, tonal balance, bloom is much more precise (on my system).
Unfortunately, I find that most reissue LPs are poorly remixed. The recording engineers seem to think that they are improving the original LP by changing the sound- more bass, more vocals, more horns, etc. And they usually screw it up. Luckily, I still have my LP collection and managed to have kept them in good condition.
|
I agree that you can get respectable sound on the cheap with digital. About a year ago I put digital back into my system to listen to the hundreds of cd's I bought during the cd craze (& yes I started on the cd addiction before the high end addiction). I bought an older pioneer elite player & a Parasound dac. It sounds a whole lot better than I remember digital sounding like. In fact when my mood allows & with the right cd, it sounds awesome. That said, it still doesn't hold a candle to the analog portion of the system. But since I've got 5x that into the analog portion, not to mention a whole lot more work (I made the table myself), it shouldn't. |
I had an analog rig exclusively until 1994 when I finally bought an inexpensive Nad 502 which sounded better than the 3 previous more expensive cd players I'd brought home to demo and then promptly returned.
Records just sounded much better. I had a Kenwood KD-500 w/ Grace 707 arm and Supex SD-900 E+ and it always sounded good compared to any CD I had listened to at the time.
After the motor on my Kenwood started to not be able to keep the speed consistent, I bought a used Maplenoll Ariadne that took about 6 months to get right--many new parts. Then, it was a beautiful sounding table/arm.
I kept the Nad for about 14 years, then bought my first NICE cd player--the Modwright Sony 9000. It was night and day difference and suddenly, some cds sounded better than the records at times.
Fast forward to now, and I have a Modwright Sony 5400 Signature Truth with all the upgrades and it sounds absolutely stunning on some well recorded cds. Yesterday changed things again. Since getting a TRL DUDE preamp, I've been looking for a phono preamp that would sound as good as the DUDE. I went through a couple with each getting better sounding. I now have a Whest 3.0 RDT SE phono and it is my idea of sonic perfection, or as close as I'm going to need. I have a Super Lenco rebuild with most of JTN's upgrades, Trans-Fi Terminator arm, and Benz Micro Ruby 3 w/ myrtlewood body. Once I finally got the loading right on the Whest, the sound was considerably better than any analog setup I've ever had. Now, there are a few cds in the same league with the records, but most of the music is a big win for vinyl. Every single record I've listened to since yesterday has sounded much better than they did with a very good phono preamp I had prior. Vinyl again rules!! |
When? In 1960 when Canada Post shattered on delivery by throwing the package on the doorstep all my childhood post war England original priceless Miller shellac 78s. I thought--all the the way from the UK, and destroyed by a postal worker in the last 2 feet. If they were vinyl that would not have happened. That is when I knew vinyl was better. 57 years ago. The more things change, the more they don’t. |
1986. The first time I ever heard a CD player coincidental with my first VPI table. No contest. |
Sometime it's CD's sometimes it's analog. It's all good. There is my special times I just want to spin LP's.
|
To me it’s the music that matters. If a piece of vinyl and a good table makes it happen that day that’s great. I listen to different formats based on what each one reveals. I love vinyl. I love my CDs (and I love tubes except when I don’t). And sometimes I hate that phones don't provide the touch feedback that good speakers do (I only use subs for movies not music but I have heard at least 2 fabulous and moving systems with subs. . . ) I do love good phones sometimes and digital music while walking and thinking- I can listen in a way I can’t at home with vinyl. The turntable in the house I’m in has problems that can’t be addressed structurally (so it’s a matter of choosing a time when people are reasonably still). A good balanced system and CD is great music. It doesn’t have the warmth of vinyl sometimes but the pops and clicks do bother some more, and some more at times, than others. Honestly, I really don’t think there is a better criteria for which is best than which one makes you completely forget everything but the music.
|
I started to buy Lp in the late 60-70's bought a good system in the 70's...LP12 Supex900, LS3/5A, Meridian. and had always listened to CD, In 1987 I bought my first CD player(denon) because I was receiving CD from friends musiciens and wanted to listen at what they were doing. Never like what I was hearing. Actually I always thought the DEnon sounded awfull...Bought a Cambridge in the late 90's that sounded a bit better and I had bought a few CD's (Bartoli, Alanis Morisset, etc.....) but never really got involve seriously. I upgraded to a Naim system with CD player....but taht did not got me more into CD even if it sounds really good...The music I like I have on records bought since my teens and i'm still listening to those 90% of the time...Never bothered much with the digital stuff.
|
my first post...
why is it I record a vinyl LP onto digital, and yet the playback has that emotional connection of vinyl that so many report here?
Done that and then compared the bought CD, and yes the LP is warmer.
After the A/D conversion, both are digital now, why are they so feeling different. If I re-record the CD at the output of the DAC using the same recorder the difference is not obvious. I understand the playback gear for analog might have a warmer electronics, but that warmth Does come out at the output of a digital recording when the source happens to be an LP. |
to Alpha_gt I agree
I started collecting records in the mid 70's when that was all there was. bought some tapes for a while too. when CD's came out i also bought them. I've had both records and digital for years and never sold any of my vinyl so I've always had a record player. I don't get on either side of the fence I like both as I have collected both. resently i've started to stream and i'm loving that too. In a course of a listening night i'll losten to any combination of vinyl-CD-streaming (from Tidal). and i love it all. sure I hear a diference and have invested more money into vinyl playback but i really don't care as I enjoy the music as long as its engaging and gives emotion i'm there. I really don't feel the need to debate which is better enjoy both or one as long as you enjoy. Dont get me wrong i love the audiophile hobby and do love great sound but i don't listen to my gear as much as i listen to the music and how engaged i am (mind you vinyl tends to do that more for me). |
I like vinyl better because I can put a record on and listen to half the record. Then I am forced to stand up and interact with the medium. I enjoy pulling the record off, flipping it, setting the needle down and starting things up again.
Not for the sound. |
I been collecting for 40 years.... really I still have my original Kiss Alive II (totally trashed)
If you grew up on MP3 well then Duh!
As for real audio Vinyl will give you that soft sumptuous sound that only five grand worth of digital decoding can achieve (it goes up exponentially from there)
Long live the poor mans Audiophile.
long live Vinyl
|
I LOVE BOTH !!
There is both GREAT sounding music and BAD sounding music on both CD and Vinyl. Don't blame the medium! Any great sounding mix can be put on CD or Vinyl and sound great...... OR it can be poorly mastered, or over-compressed and sound terrible. Why do we have to choose?? |
When Julius Futterman explained the differance of digital vs anolog in his book back in the early 80s. And the difference has become greater with every turntable and cartridge upgrade.
|
why is it I record a vinyl LP onto digital, and yet the playback has that emotional connection of vinyl that so many report here?
Done that and then compared the bought CD, and yes the LP is warmer.
After the A/D conversion, both are digital now, why are they so feeling different. If I re-record the CD at the output of the DAC using the same recorder the difference is not obvious. I understand the playback gear for analog might have a warmer electronics, but that warmth Does come out at the output of a digital recording when the source happens to be an LP. @mferland651, analogue gear is not necessarily warmer, but playing a record on a rotating platter, then passing the vibrations picked up by the stylus through the electromagnetic field of the cartridge, and finally sending the signal up the tonearm (which can resonate) results in distortions being generated. The sound now has colourations which we perceive as being warm. These harmonic distortions are different than those produced by digital playback and are more pleasing to to the ear. Additionally, a vinyl record has been pressed with an equalization standard that has been set by the RIAA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalizationCD’s are mastered from digital files, even if the original source was analogue. Compression is used in varying amounts throughout the entire digital process. Right now, let’s assume we were comparing an analogue recording which was released on both vinyl and CD. A modern day digital recording which has been pressed on vinyl is not going to have the same sonic characteristics as a pre-digital age record (the good old days). It came from a digital file and has been equalised for vinyl, then your TT setup will add it’s colourations during playback. It's important to note that the entire analogue recording process imparts a certain sonic signature onto the recording due to the use of tape machines and different studio electronics, be they tube or solid state. |
mferland65
1 posts
my first post...
why is it I record a vinyl LP onto digital, and yet the playback has that emotional connection of vinyl that so many report here?
That is interesting. I find, similarly, that "digitally remastered" cassettes have more emotional impact than their CD counterparts. Digitally remastered cassettes such as Kind of Blue have more air, greater dynamic range and more of that certain, je ne sais quoi, let’s call it expressiveness or musicality. Digital rain striking the ground doesn’t sound like real rain, nor does digital applause sound like real applause. Not as liquid, not as coherent. Not even close.
|
Lowrider nailed it - this is sonic bliss:
"playing a record on a rotating platter, then passing the vibrations picked up by the stylus through the electromagnetic field of the cartridge, and finally sending the signal up the tonearm (which can resonate) results in distortions being generated. The sound now has colourations which we perceive as being warm. These harmonic distortions are different than those produced by digital playback and are more pleasing to to the ear." |
Really enjoying the comments and observations since I got involved with audio starting in the early 70's and worked at a nice audio store during college through 1979. Between manufacture reps coming to the store and going to several Electronic Shows, one source that I wish had been a commercial success was pre-recorded reel-to-reel tapes. Even quarter-track stereo recorded at 7.5 ips with dolby was great, but the medium has much room for improvement with 2-track at 15 ips encoded with dbx. Astonishing sound.
A major difference, as has been brought up as one of the reasons vinyl has a certain sound, is going from tape directly to tape eliminated the need for RIAA equalization. If you've really looked at how extreme the dB range is to compensated for the physical limitations of vinyl, it will surprise you, like me, how those LP's can sound so good.
But even vinyl had room for improvement and I see they are starting to sell them again - LP size records cut at 45 rpm. If they are anything like those from the 70's I heard, well worth the extra money and shorter play time.
Either way, both the turntable and reel-to-reel required your attention and gave you an involved, tactical relationship with a quality piece of equipment that made the listening experience all that much more enjoyable. I feel a bit sorry for the younger listeners that will never get past the convince of hitting a button on their iPhone or portable digital audio player, no matter how good the source is.
|
I realized that vinyl is not better, but that many recordings on vinyl are better than those on CD and that vinyl is more forgiving of not as good recordings then is CD. |
gregkohanmim
Lowrider nailed it - this is sonic bliss:
"playing a record on a rotating platter, then passing the vibrations picked up by the stylus through the electromagnetic field of the cartridge, and finally sending the signal up the tonearm (which can resonate) results in distortions being generated. The sound now has colourations which we perceive as being warm. These harmonic distortions are different than those produced by digital playback and are more pleasing to to the ear."
What’s perhaps even funnier is the whole concept of a nano scale laser beam attempting to stay on the nano scale data spiral under the duress of a fluttering, flopping disc and all manner of seismic and acoustic and other mechanical vibrations. Even the rather clever laser servo cannot possibly keep up. Something’s missing’ all right. What’s sounds like hyper detail is actually over-etched synthetic junk. And that’s what makes untreated CDs played on unisolated and un-tweaked systems so gol durn irritating, infuriating... unlistenable, really.
😛
|
This: "What sounds like hyper detail is actually over-etched synthetic junk."
Brought to you by Bose.....
:)
|
RIAA showed how well even extreme equalization could work. The equalization box with the Bose 901'showed that no matter what amount of equalization was applied that it can not compensate for a poor design. |
It is quite revealing how many of you guys support your self-fulling prophesy of vinyl adoration. The most revealing are the ones who denigrate cheap 1980's and 1990's CD players, as compared to your Koetsu's etc. Jeez! Get real. How many of you have actually compared comparably priced CD vs. LP equipment on a recording that had very specisl attention to quality and was released on both formats, with the LP on direct to disc? Try Sheffield's recording of Thelma Houston's "pressure Cooker", originally only on D to D vinyl, but decades later on CD from un-publicized, hidden(?) tapes. Then get back to us. It really would be a shame if your thousands of dollar, if not tens of thousands of dollar turntable systems sounded worse than a decades old, pre-worth-a-darn CD. I wonder if you could justify hearing a good CD drivin system without serious cognative dissonance.
|
First realized the superiority of vinyl in the early days, when I bought a CD of a favourite recording (Joan Sutherland, Lakme). Then I asked for in-home demos of digital and analogue at the same (high) price point. It was no contest then, and it is no contest now, although the price points have risen by an order of magnitude.
My dealer, a trusted man of good taste, astonished me by preferring digital. He explained that while he could hear electronic distortion, he didn't really mind it, but couldn't abide any degree of speed variation. With me it's the other way, and I have never heard digital that I could listen to, even a six box cost-no-object DIY.
|
Well, Dan, it seems that our minds think along similar lines. I composed my post before seeing yours. The similarities are striking, even down to the Koetsu! |
@danvignau that would be me also, I like cassette sound recorded on Nakamichi LX3 off Sony D-7 Discman when listening through the same hp amp and HD600 to the "master" CD. Extra wow and flutter must have painted over digital deficiencies and I find them more "natural" sounding. Mike Fremer said something similar in one of his YouTube blogs, that he prefers analog distortions |
@lowrider57
Thanks for the answer, I think I was trying to say what you are saying, you being more eloquent on the way of articulating it. I do believe the LP is warmer, but for the reasons mentioned, the EQ at the production stage, the "artist/mastering engineer" (that, after all, has the job of making a recording "fit" the LP media), and even (not odd, i.e. 2, 4, 6, 8, etc) harmonics distorsion, that we like to read this or not... After all, listen to a piano and punch the two C (one octave apart), IT IS warmer, much more rich than a single note, no wonder we humans like "even" harmonics...
On another note, I am always amazed how many people that I talked to in my youth, never noticed the distorsion (with the treble going out) of an LP near the inner grooves; out at the end of a side. You turn the record over, and suddently the sound comes less distorsioned and treble is at max. This can be explained for anybody who studied physics. The tangential velocity of an LP is probably double that of the one at the end. This means that at the beginning of the record, the 33rpm is like more equal to 16 rpm at the end, or 66rpm at the beginning would equal 33 at the end, something like this. I don't know the exact value, but it is quite heard... I often wondered, in fact, if more complex tracks were not put at the beginning of an LP for this reason. Yes the mastering engineer can relax the space between groove when the lacquer is cut, but the speed cannot be changed.
For the RIAA curve, I am not sure if I agree. Normally when you pre-emphasis and you de-emphasis using the same amount the result should be the same. However tolerances of the system may come into play. For that reason and for the fact that compression combined with the EQ (RIAA) your point may be valid. |
Exclusivity is at the core of this, as is most things audiophile. If CDs cost $100 each, we would all be singing the praises of digital. We always love and crave what the masses don't or can't have.
Cheers |
It is a done deal in my mind and in my system, digital is the way to go. I have a SOTA Sapphire vacuum TT with an SEAC tonearm and Dynavector 20X10 cart and a modified Oppo 103D. Of course the vinyl sounds great, but the hassle of pulling out LP's, cleaning them, and having to repeat the process every 30 minutes has gotten to be way to much of a hassle. I did a comparison last year with a guy who has a very fine system and we compared his VPI rig to his Modwright-modified Oppo CD player and I will be damned if I could hear a difference between the recordings. Nor could he. I think vinyl is a legacy sort of thing that folks don't want to abandon. If you have tons of vinyl available, its great, but if you are a newbie, my best advice is to forget about vinyl. My $500 Oppo is a world-beater and makes my life simple and musical. So does Spotify, which I listen to more and more everyday. |
I've never not had a Turntable. And I've owned digital since the first player released by Sony in 1979.
I've always seen digital as a listening convenience. It's like those who listen to a switchable amp like a Plinius with a Class A and Class A/B switch where one listens to Class A/B for not critical listening. But when you're ready for sitting in the sweet spot you switch that amp into Class A.
Vinyl far surpasses digital, and is less fatiguing to my ear. What's better is always subjective to the listener. But I've always scratched my head in respect to those who can't readily hear the obvious difference...head scratching!
|
This is a little like debating over whether the weather is nicer in Arizona or San Diego. Depends on what you prefer and what the weather was like when you were there.
That said, I do love the sound of vinyl. I find that the best go-to LPs please/impress more consistently than the vast majority of my 2-channel digital recordings. Now, some of the digital 5.1 stuff is a different experience, albeit the availability of source material is limited.
But I think the quality of digital can be a lot closer to analog than many people have experienced here. It's best to take the data off the spinning disk and play through an appropriately optimized computer or quasi-computer system. This optimization can be very intense trial and error, and involves a ton of both hardware and software variables.
So while many listen to digital through very high end gear, you can do a lot better by being an under the hood PC guy. Then you have to get compulsive about finding the best digital source material - re-buying CDs with better mastering and sometimes even remixing from what was available in the 80s and 90s, and of course hunting down genuine and legitimate hi res versions that are not just upsampled or poorly mastered.
Add the effort and you will be rewarded with digital. It's there. Not saying that the sound alone is superior, but you can get to the point where which is better is on a recording by recording basis rather than format vs. format.
Then if you add the convenience factor, digital has a legitimate reason to be in your audio lives, without sacrificing quality for the most part. |
I ditched my vinyl a long ago in favor of CDs. I
don’t miss the vinyl, though I can relate to the elegance of an all
analog path. After all, all speakers are analog, as they must be, since
our ears are. Having said that introducing a cartridge adds a transducer to the mix. People spend A LOT of money trying eliminate the coloration inherent. But just like speakers, there is not a perfect solution.
Digital is different. It can be as accurate as the technology of the DACs (both at the recording -- analog to digital and the playing digital to analog) will allow. Both sides are bound to improve and become less expensive (for the same level) over time. While there is inherent noise associated with vinyl there is no inherent noise to digital. (Do any of you guys still use film cameras? I thought so. ;) )
As for sound: with enough money you can make vinyl nearly noiseless (as long as your records are new) and there is a difference in sound. If you like that difference enough to forgo a Corvette, enjoy!!
As I said I ditched my records a long time ago. I
still have my 1,000 or so CDs, but I don’t listen to them anymore.
Instead I listen to FLAC files (I subscribe to TIDAL) for the following
reasons:
1). Economic: I get access to all of my CD’s (or near
enough as makes no matter) plus anything else I want to try on for size.
The $20/month I pay to tidal is nothing. There was a time I spent 20
times that amount or more on CDs.
In addition, I can try out new music without spending additional $. If I don't like it, I just don't add it to my favorites.
Plus I don’t need to spend a
lot of money on playback devices. Vinyl enthusiasts spend thousands on
turntables and cartridges. I see record cleaners costing more than
$1,000!!!
2) Convenience (guilty as charged): Tidal stores my music for me (though I
do store my favorite albums on my phone so I can listen to them when I
don’t have a high speed internet connection)
3) Longevity: My
FLAC files will never wear out, get scratched, or otherwise degrade. You
can’t even say that for CD’s though they are less susceptible to wear
and somewhat more forgiving of minor damage than vinyl.
4)
Portability. I can take all my music with me wherever I go. If I don’t
have an acceptable setup available for playing through loudspeakers, I
can connect my Oppo headphones to my phone (an LG V20 which sports a
decent DAC).
|
I suppose since I'm the OP that I should chime in.
Vinyl did not always sound clearly better to me UNTIL I started moving up the chain with a better amp, pre-amp and cartridge. And, the number one thing that opened the door to vinyl crushing digital was a great phono preamplifier. I bought a Manley Chinook and I immediately noticed a holographic image that digital just couldn't deliver.
Just about a year ago, I could A/B vinyl v. digital and I was a little bit apprehensive in setting up the audition because I wanted vinyl to win. Well, now that I have a fairly decent cartridge (Dynavector 20xh/Ortofon 2M Black), a real phono preamplifier (Manley Chinook), and a decent integrated (Primaluna Dialogue Premium HP), I just KNOW that switching the selector over to digital on the integrated is going to leave me wanting more.
I've had a turntable since I was a kid in the late 70s and was semi-serious as early as 1996 (I bought my first Rega then as a junior in college). But while I always liked things about vinyl I didn't see it as necessarily superior. I'm super happy to say that now I do see vinyl as better. My bank account can attest to that. All I want to do is spin black discs, and my Tidal account and DAC don't get weekly use.
The holography, texture, realism, and--well--lack of flat, smeary, boringness to the sound make vinyl a clear winner. I WISH vinyl wasn't better because I'd save money on music, record cleaning, cartridges, etc. The maintenance and tinkering are kind of fun though.
I'll say this. I'd move from tube back to solid state amplification (both for main amp and phono) before I'd move from vinyl to digital. |
The fact is you cant avoid digital as a format as there are many newer recordings not released on vinyl . I did the due diligence to improve my digital play back . I am using a Mac Mini as a server and sending my digital out AOIP to a pro audio converter and re clocking it a couple of times and I have the holography and texture thing going on . And yes it sounded so good it beat out my SL1200 MK 5 TT set up . So I upgraded that as well to a SP10 MK2 with a 12 " arm and a new Audio Note R02 phono stage . Yes they both sound great . I have a large digital music library . I don't have room for all those LPs . All I can say is the digital can sound as good if not better then the vinyl if you handle it right .I love both formats and will enjoy a larger collection of music to suit my mood . |
I like digital in my rig and it generally sounds fine (perhaps due to a good DAC and the tubes in my amp), but LPs can sound sort of amazing for all the reasons listed above and I have lots of them so I play the damn things. Somebody wrote a great thing about how digital recordings on vinyl can sound better than the CD version…a Brit HiFI mag, and I wish I child find the article…couple of years ago…made sense actually as somehow the LP is always analog…or something. I think it's true. |
