So vinyl isn't dead eh?

[rb122]

nobody is pressing new vinyl on a serious basis.

the vinyl phonograph record industry is reduced to a small niche market of die hard audiophiles. To most people, they are more like museum pieces than technology.

First, if by serious you mean not in large numbers, you are correct. If you mean that nobody is earnest and sincere about producing vinyl, you are not correct. Vinyl production is in a bit of a resurgence with labels such as Thrill Jockey and Chesky producing quality vinyl. And they're quite serious about it. Astride that, production and sales of turntables and LP playing accoutrements are at their highest levels since the middle 1980's. But vinyl will not, of course, be back with any strength resembling what it had prior to the CD's climb to prominence.

Second, yes vinyl is a small niche market, mostly comprised of audiophiles i.e people who care about sound quality. The mass market has declared that they are backing the CD. Mass markets are, by definition, large. They are NOT, by definition, correct. In this case, they took the convenience road, IMHO. Quality isn't always backed by the numbers of people. McDonald's is a case in point.

I agree with your final statement. But a Rembrandt painting is also a museum piece. Has Rembrandt been bettered? Well... that's a personal judgment call, the very same type of which the poster you've responded to will make despite any protestations or pleas by you and I. And that's the way it should be.

[skeptic]

When I said serious, I meant in large quantity with large sales volume. While there may be some small companies still pressing vinyl for the niche market, it is insignificant in terms of the overall market and in terms of the market for vinyl that once existed.

As for convenience versus quality, I don't think that holds up. Cassette tapes are far more convenient than vinyl. You can play them in your car, while you are traveling, or just about anywhere. They are far more durable and less prone to damage too. Yet cassettes even with the advantage of Dolby never replaced vinyl records. Vinyl was king until CDs came along. And it didn't happen over night. CDs used to cost nearly $20 each when vinyl was $3 to $10 and the cheapest CD players were $1000 and up. It was the adoption by the market that drove the prices of the players and the discs down. Vinyl was doomed even before you could record your own cds but if there were any lingering doubts, that cinched it. Small wonder then that at about age 22 vinyl is viewed by most cd buyers the way 78s were viewed by LP buyers when LPs were about 22 years on the market. That would have been about 1972. At that time, 78s as anything more than a curiousity were considered a joke.

The endless debate over which sounds better cds or vinyl will go on as always just like all the other debates such as tubes versus transistors, class A versus class B, moving coil versus moving magnet etc. You won't settle anything here.

[rb122]

When I said serious, I meant in large quantity with large sales volume. While there may be some small companies still pressing vinyl for the niche market, it is insignificant in terms of the overall market and in terms of the market for vinyl that once existed.

As for convenience versus quality, I don't think that holds up. Cassette tapes are far more convenient than vinyl. You can play them in your car, while you are traveling, or just about anywhere. They are far more durable and less prone to damage too. Yet cassettes even with the advantage of Dolby never replaced vinyl records. Vinyl was king until CDs came along. And it didn't happen over night. CDs used to cost nearly $20 each when vinyl was $3 to $10 and the cheapest CD players were $1000 and up. It was the adoption by the market that drove the prices of the players and the discs down. Vinyl was doomed even before you could record your own cds but if there were any lingering doubts, that cinched it. Small wonder then that at about age 22 vinyl is viewed by most cd buyers the way 78s were viewed by LP buyers when LPs were about 22 years on the market. That would have been about 1972. At that time, 78s as anything more than a curiousity were considered a joke.

The endless debate over which sounds better cds or vinyl will go on as always just like all the other debates such as tubes versus transistors, class A versus class B, moving coil versus moving magnet etc. You won't settle anything here.

Agree with your first paragraph.

As for cassettes, it was their LACK of durability that hurt them. Pre-recorded cassettes use the worst quality tape and after about 150 plays, they're as good as dead. LP's may deteriorate after 150 plays but they are still playable. It's the robustness of the medium that kept it in the forefront, between those two, anyway. With the CD, it isn't just about convenience in playing, it's also about convenience of care. With CD, very little to no care is required. That's the biggest convenience issue, IMHO.

Your comments about 78's to LP's is certainly valid as long as you're referring to the mass market. At this time, the LP isn't in the running to win back the mass market and likely never will. It's indeed a niche market. But I've never heard anyone say that the 78 sounded superior to the LP. On the other hand, I hear that said regularly with the LP over the CD. The people that say it tend to be those with high resolution systems, a high level of concern over LP hygiene and who regularly attend live musical events. That's not to say that those type of people never prefer CD, it's to say that the LP is probably rarely or never preferred by someone other than that type.

The debate will go on as long as there as two or more different possible preferences. As for the others listed, I could go either way and be satisfied. But so far, the sound of CD to my ears is grating and unmusical enough that it would be very difficult for me if CD's were all I had to listen to. Just my preference - I'm not trying to solve anything here. If you prefer CD's, you're better off than I as they are much more prevalent.

[hifitommy]

yup, thats what i said and thats what lincoln mayorga and doug sax said. it seems piano sounded better on 78s in some ways that begged for an answer.

they reasoned that maybe the reason was that there was no tape recorded in the way to slow transients and cause phase shifts not found in 78s. so, they got a cutting lathe and cut music from the mixing board to the cutter at 33 1/3 rpm. thus was born the premium recording market and the DTD phase of it.

thats a rather condensed version but that about what went down. dtd didnt survive due to cost factors and the pressure on the musicians to get it perfect the first time, with dtd, you cant fix it in the mix.

still, well recorded vinyl (and most of it was and is) continues to embarrass rbcd in palpable ways. sacd and dvda much less so than rbcd. yeah, we could go on ad infinitum and not make progress but vinyl is doing actually very well in the market, considering. plus, you can buy a better tt now than ever before for less and the choices are growing.

[joeychitwood]

Let everyone and anyone think vinyl is dead! The selection and price of classic and used LP's are great right now, but that will change if the whole world gets back into it. I've truly enjoyed getting back to LP's and haven't listened to a CD for 3 months.

[hifitommy]

http://www.recordcollectorsguild.org...rd_stores.html

bandwith prob gone now, this is a great resource.

[DMK]

yup, thats what i said and thats what lincoln mayorga and doug sax said. it seems piano sounded better on 78s in some ways that begged for an answer.

they reasoned that maybe the reason was that there was no tape recorded in the way to slow transients and cause phase shifts not found in 78s. so, they got a cutting lathe and cut music from the mixing board to the cutter at 33 1/3 rpm. thus was born the premium recording market and the DTD phase of it.

thats a rather condensed version but that about what went down. dtd didnt survive due to cost factors and the pressure on the musicians to get it perfect the first time, with dtd, you cant fix it in the mix.

still, well recorded vinyl (and most of it was and is) continues to embarrass rbcd in palpable ways. sacd and dvda much less so than rbcd. yeah, we could go on ad infinitum and not make progress but vinyl is doing actually very well in the market, considering. plus, you can buy a better tt now than ever before for less and the choices are growing.

I just hauled out my old 78 player and I'm spinning some shellac! It's an old GE with tubes! The actual sound is pretty crunchy but there's something about the authenticity of shellac when listening to those old swing tunes. Ziggy Elman's got a new baby right now and just before that Woody Herman was telling me about the faucet that keeps dripping and keeping him awake. "Bloop Bleep, the faucet keeps dripping and I can't sleep". When someone said "they don't write lyrics like they used to", do ya think they were referring to this song? I hope not!

[hifitommy]

we vinylites are accused of liking our sound because of nostalgia and those accusers are wrong. THIS however, IS and why not.

you just may be old enough to remember 78s being played as the primary record source, i know i am. i remember the changeover from steam to diesel trains as well. les paul and mary ford singing 'hold that tiger' on the radio in the late 40s. those big old zenith radios with the big speakers that had electromagnets that hummed.

but i play vinyl for its superior sound presentation. i'll admit that it doesnt hurt to get records for a buck!

[Mash]

Yea... LP's are dead. And maybe their non-popularity means some good buys can still be had. I went to an LP Speciality Shop that was closing in 1985 and bought LOTS of DGG, DECCA (NOT Decca London) and EMI LP's for $3 each. I cheated in many cases and bought discs that had such laruels as "Grande Pre du Disc Award". [The cheating provided very nice results....]

I believe CD's offer about 100 dB dynamic range while an LP offers about 45 dB maximum. Not much of a contest to me. And there is no way a stylus rubbing over a vinyl surface will produce the extremely low distortion inherent to a CD. One only has to remember that a quickie-rerelease of an LP on CD is not likely a good example of what a CD can offer.....

I have not messed with my SME for a while- I really plan to do so one of these days. I still have my LP trove. The thing about CD's is that they lack INVOLVEMENT ! I was always fiddling with the SME but I only have to put a CD onto the tray and push "play". Then it plays, or it doesn't play. If the former, I have no further involvement; if the later, well, too bad.......

[rb122]

[QUOTE=Mash] The thing about CD's is that they lack INVOLVEMENT !

Yes, the CD's lack of musical involvement is one of my complaints. For all the technical measurements that show CD's superiority, it just doesn't happen when the music hits the speakers.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

[QUOTE=rb122]

The thing about CD's is that they lack INVOLVEMENT !

Yes, the CD's lack of musical involvement is one of my complaints. For all the technical measurements that show CD's superiority, it just doesn't happen when the music hits the speakers.

Some CD lack involvement, not all of them. Some CD sound wonderful, others are terrible. Some LP sound wonderful, others sound awful. These comparisons should be done on a case by case basis, not as a format as a whole.

[RGA]

Paul bergman writes on that as well -- get the book.

This guy is using a pretyt low grade turntable in the Rega P3 and still gets pretty decent results. It would be nice if he used a listenable turntable arm and cart -- but I guess we all have budgets.
http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/...CDformats2.php

Also is there a reason to be dredging up uear old threads -- my last post here was in 2004? Do you have to go this far back just to "try" and be righht about something? Get a life people -- who really cares -- if you value music over gear then some stuff is only available on vinyl and regardless to whether something si 2db more of something or less if you want to hear the album you need to have both formats.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Paul bergman writes on that as well -- get the book.

This guy is using a pretyt low grade turntable in the Rega P3 and still gets pretty decent results. It would be nice if he used a listenable turntable arm and cart -- but I guess we all have budgets.
http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/...CDformats2.php

Also is there a reason to be dredging up uear old threads -- my last post here was in 2004? Do you have to go this far back just to "try" and be righht about something? Get a life people -- who really cares -- if you value music over gear then some stuff is only available on vinyl and regardless to whether something si 2db more of something or less if you want to hear the album you need to have both formats.

I think its rather easy to stack analog up to the lowest end of digital audio, but how does it stand up again DVD-A or SACD. Both of them have noise floors that LP cannot even come close to. Both have dynamic range far in excess to LP, and both have frequency extension much greater than LP. Even with SACD relatively high noise floor above 20
khz(a result of using noise shaping) it still exceeds LP by a fairly wide margin.

It looks like when the CD exceeded the performance of LP he minimized it, and where LP could compare, he emphasized that. That is not what I would call objective. The bottom line is this, if you took a recording that was prepared directly for CD using good recording and mastering equipment, and high quality D/A stages, the LP simply could not keep up with CD. I would seriously question the quality of his sources.

[risabet]

Specs are nice but all that matters in the end is the sound. On the basis of sound, in general, I prefer the sound of analog vinyl.

[RGA]

I think its rather easy to stack analog up to the lowest end of digital audio, but how does it stand up again DVD-A or SACD. Both of them have noise floors that LP cannot even come close to. Both have dynamic range far in excess to LP, and both have frequency extension much greater than LP. Even with SACD relatively high noise floor above 20
khz(a result of using noise shaping) it still exceeds LP by a fairly wide margin.

It looks like when the CD exceeded the performance of LP he minimized it, and where LP could compare, he emphasized that. That is not what I would call objective. The bottom line is this, if you took a recording that was prepared directly for CD using good recording and mastering equipment, and high quality D/A stages, the LP simply could not keep up with CD. I would seriously question the quality of his sources.

Well I would question his turntable as a source with Rega -- I have one btw but it happens to have a differnet name on the badge but it's a middle of the road turntable maker in the big scheme of things. The article is comparing CD to LP and it makes no excuses for it.

You want to bring in DVD-A and SACD that is something else but then enters the discussion on what you can ACTUALLY hear. I have not been convinced by a single SACD disc I've heard and I have yet to hear DVD-A because no one here has one set-up. The big two chains in my Province carry at best 50 titles (and this is a very very generous number. I'll wait till they can convince me it sounds good. After listening to some digital amplifiers that have been hyped to the hilt I am suspicious of another plot to remove people from their cash to have something cool.

UHF covers the issues such as dithering but I can't type up the entire chapter. I think ti is balanced as they are not totally for ONE of the two. If it's about the music you need both -- if it's about the gear then do whatever you want. And if it's about the argument then you'll have people who will stroke your ego -- see PatD. I could really care less -- Turntables have such a high pain the ass factor that I don't blame anyone who buiys a 300 disc mega changer (I did) and I enjoy it too. OTOH turntables can be fun tweakery for those so inclined. And if some misguided, in your eyes, indivuals enjoy listening to vinyl more becuase they subjectively hear more bass smoother treble and more dynamics then oh my the skies are going to fall...NOT.

I have both a DAC and turntable upgrade in my future...and if SACD ever shows me it sounds right then I will be in line for one of those -- but so far the music offerred isn't compelling me to make the leap. I'd probably have to buy a revceiver to run the surround and that alone would destroy "for me" any gain int he source.

[Pat D]

Paul bergman writes on that as well -- get the book.

This guy is using a pretyt low grade turntable in the Rega P3 and still gets pretty decent results. It would be nice if he used a listenable turntable arm and cart -- but I guess we all have budgets.
http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/...CDformats2.php

Also is there a reason to be dredging up uear old threads -- my last post here was in 2004? Do you have to go this far back just to "try" and be righht about something? Get a life people -- who really cares -- if you value music over gear then some stuff is only available on vinyl and regardless to whether something si 2db more of something or less if you want to hear the album you need to have both formats.

Is this a dig against my TT? Well, it is quiet, has low wow and flutter (inaudible to me), a very fine tone arm, and Rega has an excellent reputation. So does my Grace F9E cartridge. Just ask Hifitommy.

Now, about the reply: blame the software for the site, as when I looked at the browse list for the threads, the thread came up bold as having a new reply and your old post came up as the last! So I read it and replied. I didn't notice the date, not something I usually look for.

[RGA]

Is this a dig against my TT? Well, it is quiet, has low wow and flutter (inaudible to me), a very fine tone arm, and Rega has an excellent reputation. So does my Grace F9E cartridge. Just ask Hifitommy.

Now, about the reply: blame the software for the site, as when I looked at the browse list for the threads, the thread came up bold as having a new reply and your old post came up as the last! So I read it and replied. I didn't notice the date, not something I usually look for.

Well why would I make a dig at your turntable since I do not pay a helluva lot of attention to other people's system -- you don;t have it listed in your sig line and that's usually as far as I go.

And incidentally my NAD is a Rega turntable and even LOWER than the P3. Good for the money yes -- great tables they ain't.

[RGA]

Yea... LP's are dead. And maybe their non-popularity means some good buys can still be had. I went to an LP Speciality Shop that was closing in 1985 and bought LOTS of DGG, DECCA (NOT Decca London) and EMI LP's for $3 each. I cheated in many cases and bought discs that had such laruels as "Grande Pre du Disc Award". [The cheating provided very nice results....]

I believe CD's offer about 100 dB dynamic range while an LP offers about 45 dB maximum. Not much of a contest to me. And there is no way a stylus rubbing over a vinyl surface will produce the extremely low distortion inherent to a CD. One only has to remember that a quickie-rerelease of an LP on CD is not likely a good example of what a CD can offer.....

I have not messed with my SME for a while- I really plan to do so one of these days. I still have my LP trove. The thing about CD's is that they lack INVOLVEMENT ! I was always fiddling with the SME but I only have to put a CD onto the tray and push "play". Then it plays, or it doesn't play. If the former, I have no further involvement; if the later, well, too bad.......

You don't get more dynamic range with cd - what you get is cd manufacturers who changed the definition of dynamic range to suit a marketing campaign. CD's have Quantizing noise "an artifact of the analog to digital coversion process. If all were perfect that noise would be down where the last binary digit is. The noise figure would then be expressed by the formula:

20 log(2b-1) where b is the number of system bits. Most modern systems use 16 bits (but throw one bit away on the parity check), and so:

20 log(215 - 1) = 90.3db

Now a dynamic range over 90db is nough to make a recording engineer drool, but don't drool yet. That figure relates to the peak-to-peak value of the audio signal, rather than the usual root mean square voltage value. To convert you subtract the following from the noise value:

20 log (2 X Square root of 2) = 9.03db.

As you'll notice our dynamic range is now down to 81db. And you can't record at that level because the digital "ceiling" is far harder and more awful than that of analogdisc or tape. It would be a good idea to knock 8db off that figure. Total usable dynamic range : 73db even under ideal conditions. This isn't earth-shaking. A good analog recorder (12.5cm stereo, 76cm/sec) can boast dynamic range of some 74dB. Add dolby or dbx and ther's no comparison. Incidentally, all these figures refer to unweighted noise readings, treating noises of all frequencies equally. Weighting curves are often used by both sides to make the specs look prettier." (Paul Bergman).

[Pat D]

You don't get more dynamic range with cd - what you get is cd manufacturers who changed the definition of dynamic range to suit a marketing campaign. CD's have Quantizing noise "an artifact of the analog to digital coversion process. If all were perfect that noise would be down where the last binary digit is. The noise figure would then be expressed by the formula:

20 log(2b-1) where b is the number of system bits. Most modern systems use 16 bits (but throw one bit away on the parity check), and so:

20 log(215 - 1) = 90.3db

Now a dynamic range over 90db is nough to make a recording engineer drool, but don't drool yet. That figure relates to the peak-to-peak value of the audio signal, rather than the usual root mean square voltage value. To convert you subtract the following from the noise value:

20 log (2 X Square root of 2) = 9.03db.

As you'll notice our dynamic range is now down to 81db. And you can't record at that level because the digital "ceiling" is far harder and more awful than that of analogdisc or tape. It would be a good idea to knock 8db off that figure. Total usable dynamic range : 73db even under ideal conditions. This isn't earth-shaking. A good analog recorder (12.5cm stereo, 76cm/sec) can boast dynamic range of some 74dB. Add dolby or dbx and ther's no comparison. Incidentally, all these figures refer to unweighted noise readings, treating noises of all frequencies equally. Weighting curves are often used by both sides to make the specs look prettier." (Paul Bergman).

Paul Bergman clearly didn't know what he was talking about. My advice is not to get your technical information from that rag, UHF.

Aside from all the other crap, he has evidently not heard of dither. With a little dither, CD players can have good linearity down to below -110 dB, which should be impossible, according to Bergman. If you had read some good reviews, you'd know that. Look at the low level linearity measurements for different players. Here's a link to a review of an old Radio Shack portable CD player in Stereophile in 1994. Check out the low level linearity graph in Figure 5, which shows its linearity was pretty good even a -100 dB (and this player is nothing special).

http://stereophile.com/digitalsource...0/index12.html

Others have reasonable linearity down to below -110 dB, as with this SimAudio product (Stereophile doesn't seem to review many reasonably priced CDPs!):

http://stereophile.com/digitalsource...io/index4.html

So much for the myth that CDs don't have more dynamic range than analog tapes!!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Paul Bergman clearly didn't know what he was talking about. My advice is not to get your technical information from that rag, UHF.

Aside from all the other crap, he has evidently not heard of dither. With a little dither, CD players can have good linearity down to below -110 dB, which should be impossible, according to Bergman. If you had read some good reviews, you'd know that. Look at the low level linearity measurements for different players. Here's a link to a review of an old Radio Shack portable CD player in Stereophile in 1994. Check out the low level linearity graph in Figure 5, which shows its linearity was pretty good even a -100 dB (and this player is nothing special).

http://stereophile.com/digitalsource...0/index12.html

Others have reasonable linearity down to below -110 dB, as with this SimAudio product (Stereophile doesn't seem to review many reasonably priced CDPs!):

http://stereophile.com/digitalsource...io/index4.html

So much for the myth that CDs don't have more dynamic range than analog tapes!!

Thank you for this. Anyone who says that CD does not have a greater dynamic range than vinyl, is either dreaming, delusional, or totally uneducated in digital audio.