Why vinyl?


I understand the thoughts of a lot of you that digital is harsh and bright and has an edge. I know that analog has a warmer fuller sound, otherwise why would so many people put up with the inconvenience of records, cartridges, cleaners, tone-arm adjustments, etc. I used to be there. Of course all I had was a Garrard direct drive turntable. If the idea is to get as close as possible to the original source, why has not open-reel tape made a huge comeback. After all that's how most of the stuff was recorded in the first place. Very few were direct to disk recordings. Why would dragging a stylus through a groove be better than the original? There used to be a company out there called In-Synch that used the original masters and sold cassettes of them, dubbed at 1:1 ratio. I was the happiest person in the world when CD's came out and I could throw out my disk-washer and everything else that went with it, including the surface noise and the TICKS and POPS. Just something I've wondered about.
elmuncy
I give up. You're right. I've just ordered a new, to me, turntable, and can't wait. I dragged out my old Garrard DD75 and sat and actually listened, and could tell even from that. A shot cartridge and a crappy TT sounded wonderful. Thankyou all for helping me to "see the light"
Really bad analog to digital conversions is a good reason.
Sure the Rolling Stones and Beatles etc get state of the art treatment but if you like music from the 60s or minor artists the vast majority of it is awful. This holds true especially for soul and other popular music. I just listened to a great album by Shirley Ellis with her hit "The Name Game". Mono vinyl from 1963 and absolute incredible fidelty and recording quality. I pulled out one of those compilation CD's that had the track. It was like a different song. Probably some fifteenth generation dat dub. If you like modern recordings that are digital to begin with CD is fine, but if it's old stuff that you like you are missing out with the silver disc. My set-up cost an unreasonable amount of money but it does give me satisfaction each and every day. A bargain actually.
The CD version of Donovan's Mellow Yellow can't touch the Epic mono version. Incredible sonics for a pop album.
I was just browsing at the SF Stereo yesterday and came across two systems they had set in their lobby for auditions. The two systems were like opposite sides of the spectrum.

System 1 consisted of dynaudio temptation, Krell FB300, and Krell cast CDP.

System 2 consisted of dynaudio 1.3SE 25th anniversary, project RM-9, Project carbon tonearm, sumiko blue point, audio fidelity phono, and Krell KAV amp and pre-amp.

Before actually listening to either systems, I must be honest and say that I was more intrigue at system 1, mainly due to it's size and $$$$. However, after listening to both system, my ears were more attracted to system 2. The soundstage, depth, warmthness, and overall listening experience was amazing. Considering the difference in $$$, system 2 was up there if not more enjoyable to listen to then system 1.

Besides the sound characteristics of vinyl, I think prefer vinal over CDs because it's has a life. Records comes alive and will eventually looses its quality over time and usage, where CDs can have unlimited playing hours. Vinyl are in ways like human, which I think makes it more interesting and lifelike to experience over CDs. Vinyl requires tweaking, cleaning, and more hassels than CDs. I can say the same about keeping a human being alive. At end of the day it's all worth it.
The ticks, pops and maintenance of vinyl are just not worth it. Have you heard the remastered Stones CD's? They sound terrific without any harshness. But my system is certainly not an audiophile one.
Because it touches, moves and inspires every time.
that's why.
keep the vinyl spinning.