Vinyl is still KING

[DMK]

According to the latest Absolute Sound's Wayne Garcia, anyway. I don't normally read the audio mags but there was a nice article about high rez digital in it that I found interesting. Also, a nice review of the new Sota Cosmos - a turntable that I am still kicking myself over selling 5 years ago. I use that 'table as my reference against most of the problems the anti-vinyl advocates use, problems that are more theoretical than actual. I sold it because it was getting long in the tooth and I was unsure whether I'd ever be able to get it fixed since Sota went out of business. Now, of course, they're back and I could have upgraded mine to the latest iteration for a small price. Instead, I bought a Basis 2500 which I also sold and then I downgraded. The Sota is the one piece of audio gear that I wish I had back. It was the best I've ever owned. Read the article - it'll make you wish you had one!

Anyway, Mr Garcia states that vinyl is still the closest there is to the sound of live music. I have to agree. I certainly haven't delved deeply enough into high rez digital to know for sure but so far it doesn't conquer King Vinyl.

[hifitommy]

well dan,

ive forgotten which tt you now have but you could probably recover most of the cosmos sound with a sapphire. when i first heard a sapph, which seems like about 20 yrs ago, i felt like it was the most grounded (physically) and solid table sound i'd ever heard. still, damk hard to beat.

i too read the sacd article and need to reread it to capture exactly what sound it was about sacd that he objected to. in the meantime, sacd does so much right that i find it worth the effort of embracing it.

[DMK]

ive forgotten which tt you now have but you could probably recover most of the cosmos sound with a sapphire.

I could still go buy a Cosmos, I suppose. It's just that I HAD the dang thing in my possession and I let it slip away. You know how that goes!

As of now, I have a VPI HW-19 Jr with the mk III platter and one piece clamp. I'm not complaining about the sound too much. Personally, I like the table better than the several times more expensive Basis the VPI replaced - but I do miss the Graham arm that I had on the Basis (and the Cosmos).

I, too, embrace SACD. I bought the Sony player you recommended and if DVD-A takes off, I'll try to find a cheap player for that rather than a universal at this point. Perhaps later I'll check out a decent universal player. So far, SACD is considerably better sounding than RBCD. The hybrid discs are nice for comparative purposes!

[hifitommy]

NONE of the uni players sound good on both formats. THATS universal. better to buy separate dvda and sacd units that sound good.

[Pat D]

Anyway, Mr Garcia states that vinyl is still the closest there is to the sound of live music. I have to agree. I certainly haven't delved deeply enough into high rez digital to know for sure but so far it doesn't conquer King Vinyl.

Mr. Garcia is entitled to his preferences but how can vinyl, with its compression, extra noise, distortion, and non-flat FR be the closest to the sound of music?

That doesn't even make sense since surely the master tape is closer to the music, and since a digital copy can be made closer to the master tape than the vinyl can, then a digital copy can be closer to the music than vinyl.

Of course, I take it that Mr. Garcia and you are really just expressing your preference for vinyl.

[DMK]

Of course, I take it that Mr. Garcia and you are really just expressing your preference for vinyl.

Yes. It's always been a preference and no dispute about that. The dispute seems to be WHY we have that preference. He and I are in agreement that (from the article) "vinyl reproduction is still the standard of comparison to home playback as vinyl still comes closest to the absolute sound of live music". Also, red book digital is "crude, emotionally flat and uninvolving". In simple terms, we prefer vinyl because it is closer to the sound of live music and live music is the standard to which we judge recordings and audio gear- in our opinion, of course!

As for your question, I don't really know why the above is so based on the measurements you cited. Perhaps measurements don't correlate to sound. Perhaps the distortions of vinyl are simply less objectionable than those of CD. I have no idea. But as I posted on A/R earlier, if you doubt the superiority of vinyl, check out the 45 RPM reissue of the Fantasy catalog. I have the Bill Evans "Saturday at the Village Vanguard". If you want master tape sound, you'll find it here, not on any CD I've ever heard. Vinyl still reigns supreme, to my ears. I've heard too much live music (jazz) to be anything but a vinylphile. Perhaps it's different with classical which is played (recorded) in a large hall, I don't know. But for the live sound of jazz from a small venue, vinyl is King.

[Elgen]

I'm excited about the great history and variety of vinyls out there and to resurrect my old pile of vinyls I ordered as the first in Sweden a Laserturntable, ELP LT-1XRC.

It has a sweet analogue sound but are computer controlled and has five laserbeams plus convinience of of programmability and a remotecontrol.
With lasers there's no wear on the record and no pickupresonances.
No tangency errors and it can even play broken records.
I ordered the version that plays 78's when I find them, why can't that be standard on ordinary turntables? With the great heritage of vinyls out there?
But to utilize the quality of reproduction u have to be careful to clean the records and I got the recordcleaner VPI HW-16.5 for free!
Check out this unik device here www.laserturntable.com

[DMK]

[QUOTE=Elgen]I'm excited about the great history and variety of vinyls out there and to resurrect my old pile of vinyls I ordered as the first in Sweden a Laserturntable, ELP LT-1XRC.

Supposed to be a good one - enjoy! If the technology ever becomes more affordable, we might be able to get rid of those atrocious CD's once and for all! Ha Ha! I think we lost that battle already. But the Laser Turntable does seem to make CD's most endearing quality - convenience- a moot point.

I'm sure you'll love your new 'table and you'll be on your way to appreciating the superiority of LP's!

[skeptic]

"vinyl reproduction is still the standard of comparison to home playback as vinyl still comes closest to the absolute sound of live music".

As for your question, I don't really know why the above is so based on the measurements you cited. Perhaps measurements don't correlate to sound. .... But as I posted on A/R earlier, if you doubt the superiority of vinyl, check out the 45 RPM reissue of the Fantasy catalog. I have the Bill Evans "Saturday at the Village Vanguard". If you want master tape sound, you'll find it here, not on any CD I've ever heard.

I remind you that rb performed an at home experiment which proved at least to him and his wife that a cd dubbed from a vinyl record was indistinguishable. Therefore, when you are making judgements of vinyls versus cds, you may actually be comparing recording engineers techniques of yesteryear with those used today and with the slapdash reissues where they get 'em in, through, and out as cheap and fast as they can because they are only catering to the nostalgia crowd.

And you are entitled to your opinion of course but for me, the shortcomings of vinyl are so objectionable that I'll take a well made cd over a phonograph record every time.

I find it amusing that record lovers always seem to have to justify their preference to other people while those of us who like cds better, possibly the vast majority, rarely if ever feel the same compulsion. As for why there are audible differences that make some vinyls sound better than some cds to some people, we've been over that ground too many times before to make it interesting for me to discuss it again.

[rb122]

I remind you that rb performed an at home experiment which proved at least to him and his wife that a cd dubbed from a vinyl record was indistinguishable. Therefore, when you are making judgements of vinyls versus cds, you may actually be comparing recording engineers techniques of yesteryear with those used today and with the slapdash reissues where they get 'em in, through, and out as cheap and fast as they can because they are only catering to the nostalgia crowd.

And you are entitled to your opinion of course but for me, the shortcomings of vinyl are so objectionable that I'll take a well made cd over a phonograph record every time.

I find it amusing that record lovers always seem to have to justify their preference to other people while those of us who like cds better, possibly the vast majority, rarely if ever feel the same compulsion. As for why there are audible differences that make some vinyls sound better than some cds to some people, we've been over that ground too many times before to make it interesting for me to discuss it again.

I've done the same experiment as rb with somewhat different results. And I've heard all the arguments about CD's shortcomings being the fault of everything but the medium and, while I can possibly accept those reasons, it doesn't change the fact that most CD's I've heard are sonically compromised.

As for justifying our preferences, it's possibly because the CD lovers make up the vast majority but also because said people have never convinced vinyl lovers that they've ever maximized vinyl's potential. Most of the ones I know or who have posted on this board that prefer CD's took horrible care of their vinyl, used sub-standard equipment or simply enjoyed CD's convenience. Better than CD sound is out there and we're just trying to help folks who have been duped by the marketing ploys of the CD.

I'm aware of the reasons you and others have cited for why some vinyl may sound better than some CD's. While certainly many of them may be accurate, what really matters is that most LP's sound better than most CD's, IMHO. And I've found over the years that the more accurate one's audio gear, the more glaring (pun intended!) the shortcomings of redbook CD's are. Just my opinion, of course. You and anyone else are free to disagree.

[skeptic]

I've found over the years that the more accurate one's audio gear, the more glaring (pun intended!) the shortcomings of redbook CD's are. Just my opinion, of course. You and anyone else are free to disagree.

Yes I do disagree. While it's true that the mass market pop, rock, and nostalgia reissues are ground out with even more appalling sound than their original vinyl couterparts were, the creme de la creme and most demanding music is of course without any doubt classical. And the clarity, quiet backround, timbral accuracy, frequency and dynamic range and overall pleasure of well made cds can't be even closely matched by vinyl. Yes there are many shoddy poorly recorded new discs and badly remastered reissues there too. Not disagreeing there. But the pleasure of knowing you won't hear any pops or clicks or rumble on a recorded performance of Debussy or Ravel, or that a big crecendo in a Tchaikowsky symphony will reproduced without any harmonic distortion from mistracking or overmodulation or lack of impact from compression really augments my pleasure in hearing of recorded music. And the accuracy of human voices whether solo such as Pavarotti or massed such as the Mormon Tabernacle Choir is far more interesting than the best comparable vinyls. The added benefit of convenience, lack of fragility, portability, and fine inexpensive players just makes it all that much better.

[Feanor]

... Therefore, when you are making judgements of vinyls versus cds, you may actually be comparing recording engineers techniques of yesteryear with those used today and with the slapdash reissues where they get 'em in, through, and out as cheap and fast as they can because they are only catering to the nostalgia crowd. ...

That's about it. For my part, the best-recorded CDs sound great and are the equal of even the best LPs.

[jbangelfish]

I still have none that I would call better than vinyl but I'm still looking. I will admit that some are very good. I also believe that if you upgraded your analog rig, you might be surprised at how good it can be. Your point about only having a couple hundred LP's, well, you probably won't upgrade but still 200 LP's is quite alot of music. If you did upgrade, you might be inclined to buy more vinyl. I still buy it often and am very rarely dissappointed.
I listened to an LP from 1975 the other day of Virgil Fox playing Bach and it's a very good recording (Sine Qua Non #SQN 7766). Mr Fox's ability to play the pipe organ was as good as I've ever heard and it is certainly evident on this album. In spite of the few tics and pops that I heard, this album sounds much more real than any pipe organ CD that I have yet. I'm still picking up a few to see if it gets any better. So far, the CD's that I have of pipe organ music have a digital sound that destroys the sound of the organ. On the LP, I get the sense of air movement and a completely natural sound that I have yet to find on CD.
I also listened to Tori Amos, Under The Pink, on pink vinyl. I have never heard a piano sound better in my home. This is one very fine piece of vinyl. I will pick up the CD version out of curiosity and compare the two just for kicks. Skep, if you are reading this, let me know if you have the Virgil Fox LP that I mentioned or are familiar with Sine Qua Non, I never heard of them but it's a nice piece of vinyl.
I'd also suggest that you give the Tori Amos album a listen. There is some very beautiful music on this album and while you may not like all of it, I'm sure that you would get some enjoyment from it and maybe agree that there are young people today with talent who have a great understanding of classical music and composition. She is an excellent pianist, writer and sings very well. Whether the pink vinyl version sounds better than the black vinyl, I have no idea but I suspect not. The piano and other orchestral instruments (strings) came across as well as I've ever heard. For $20 or less, (the pink version was $20) you could hear it too, vinyl or CD version. If I had the capability, I'd burn you a copy from the LP but I do not yet have this capability, all in due time. I really would like to hear what you think of this LP. Are you willing to try a $10 to $20 experiment?
If you buy the CD and don't like it, I'll buy it as I don't have one on CD yet. How about that? A money back guarantee.
Bill

[zappafreak]

I remind you that rb performed an at home experiment which proved at least to him and his wife that a cd dubbed from a vinyl record was indistinguishable. Therefore, when you are making judgements of vinyls versus cds, you may actually be comparing recording engineers techniques of yesteryear with those used today and with the slapdash reissues where they get 'em in, through, and out as cheap and fast as they can because they are only catering to the nostalgia crowd.

And you are entitled to your opinion of course but for me, the shortcomings of vinyl are so objectionable that I'll take a well made cd over a phonograph record every time.

I find it amusing that record lovers always seem to have to justify their preference to other people while those of us who like cds better, possibly the vast majority, rarely if ever feel the same compulsion. As for why there are audible differences that make some vinyls sound better than some cds to some people, we've been over that ground too many times before to make it interesting for me to discuss it again.

IS IT POSSIBLE THAT YOUR DISLIKE OF VINLY IS BECAUSE OF YOUR PAST EQUIPTMENT?

[E-Stat]

Anyway, Mr Garcia states that vinyl is still the closest there is to the sound of live music. I have to agree.

While the redbook CD standard is superior to the vinyl format in most respects, it still has two challenges to overcome: high frequency accuracy and low level resolution. The absolute brickwall "nyquist" filter takes its toll on the top octave(s). Similarly, while analog resolves even through a low noise floor, 14 bit PCM goes deaf at the lowest levels. If you think differently, then debate the many engineers behind the SACD and DVD-A formats that seek to address these remaining shortcomings.

I have several recordings on the Windham Hill label in both analog vinyl and digital formats. With these minimally miked, very good recordings using Studer mics, I find the analog versions have a slight advantage when it comes to reproducing natural overtones with solo piano and twelve string guitar.

Having said that, I find the best redbook units such as the Burmester 969/970 to be supremely accurate reproducers of music, shortcomings aside. And there is no question that the lack of surface noise, ticks, and pops is more enjoyable.

rw

[soundhd]

I would not say that Vinyl is King..........I would say it's another source for listening to music........a very good source..........a source that takes alot to get it right but still a very good source..............

[spacedeckman]

with a Bruch chaser, followed by Willie Nelson's Stardust. (varied enough for you?) I will stand my ground there. The re-issue was only $20, not bad for a double album. It is quiet, and the recording is as good as you would expect...PA quality.

I always got a kick out of them. But you are right on the riffs, some are very cool.

You know, I don't trust people who can't break out of just one form of music. Too much out there.

BTW, I got a really cool re-issue of Yes, The Yes Album. Must have done some re-engineering because you can hear stuff that was so buried in the mix, I've never heard it before, and I've heard that album 1,000 times over the past 25+ years. Also new AC/DC, which I don't think is as good as the Sabbath recordingwise but wasn't bad. My college days return...with a vengeance. Midlife crisis?

Have a good one.

[hifitommy]

a quote form a local big screen tv seller. he claims to be the king of big screen tv.

anyway, youre right, theres no king except great sound. a great deal of that can be gotten from vinyl, some from cd, and certainly sacd. but the feeling of rightness happens more often with vinyl than any other mode. and it is done with more widely varyinng equipment than any other mode.

getting it right isnt as hard as some make out either. the cheeeeepest music hall tt can be VERY rewarding and it even comes with a good cartridge.

good rbcd is possible, but for cheeeep, one must buy a cheeeeep sony sacd/dvd/cdp such as the ns755v (about $250). and the sacd aint bad on it either. none of the products are state of the art but excellent values that are readily available.

[jrhymeammo]

[bobsticks]

You hearin' the crickets chirp down there, J?

[jrhymeammo]

Nah, just music

[basite]

holy thread revival!!

and yes, vinyl still rules

[spacedeckman]

Yeah, I go away for a while and I guess I don't miss much when I did. Kind of back to where I left off.

Space

[musicoverall]

Yeah, I go away for a while and I guess I don't miss much when I did. Kind of back to where I left off.

Space

LOL! I was just thinking the same thing.

I guess vinyl is still King, then?

[emorphien]

Vinyl is definitely great, and a lot of fun but it's hit or miss on whether an individual album or recording is better on vinyl or CD, same with SACD and DVD-A.