So vinyl isn't dead eh? [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : So vinyl isn't dead eh?



skeptic
02-18-2004, 04:16 AM
Yesterday I was in Borders buying some books. The "kid" behind the counter was looking up a book about Jackie Kennedy Onasis in his computer terminal for my sister. He had never heard of her. Or Jack Benny. Or Kim Novak. Or Jane Mansfield. The JFK era was to him the way the Civil War was to me when I was in school, ancient history. He had never seen a vinyl phonograph record, or a turntable in his life, only heard about them. He mentioned that he read that some audiophiles think they sound better than compact discs. He was neither stupid nor uneducated. He was a 19 year old computer geek type who is studying for a degree in computer engineering. I felt very old.

maxg
02-18-2004, 07:41 AM
Rumours of vinyl's death have been exaggerated. It has certainly been on the critical list for quite some time but if you ask me it shows some signs of recovery.

There are 16 shops selling vinyl within half an hour of either my home or my office. 16!!! hardly the end methinks..

kexodusc
02-18-2004, 08:31 AM
My record collection is to big for me to ever replace it...As long as I can find replacement parts for my Technics turntable, or a decent turntable cheap, I'll probably listen to records until I die.

I would venture that vinyl will stick around for at least another 60 years, for nostalgic value if nothing else.
Seriously, does anyone still own casettes? (Okay, I still have a few).

skeptic
02-18-2004, 09:04 AM
Oh here was the guy's joke;
Q: How many grooves are there on a phonograph record?
A: One.

E-Stat
02-18-2004, 12:20 PM
He was neither stupid nor uneducated. He was a 19 year old computer geek type who is studying for a degree in computer engineering. I felt very old.
The same can be said for classical music. Reports of its impending death have existed for years. Waddaya think the Gen Y-er would say if you asked him which rip of Beethoven's Ninth was his favorite?

rw

Woochifer
02-18-2004, 12:59 PM
The mainstream market may have transitioned over to CDs, and the audiophile market may be debating over whether SACD's their heir apparent to the beloved LP, but in the DJ market, vinyl is the undisputed king. Look over any list of the world's top club DJs -- all of them mix with turntables, and very few of them even bother with any kind of digital source in their rigs. All of the world's top dance clubs will have a rig with at least two Technics SL-1200s, while there's no guarantee that you'll even find a CD player in all of those sets. And you don't even have to venture into a high profile danceteria to see turntables showcased. Increasingly, restaurants, bars, lounges, and retail stores book DJs to add to the atmosphere, and in almost all cases, the DJs use turntables. Show me a DJ who only works with CDs or digital music servers, and I'll show you a hackmeister who's barely good enough for frat parties and weddings. The example of someone who's never heard a phonograph is obviously someone who doesn't get out much.

Even for people like me who don't use turntables for mixing, a lot of the music in hip-hop, electronica, house, nu-jazz, or any number of dance remixes, is not available in digital format. Keeping a turntable has nothing to do with legacy compatibility or sound quality or what not, for me it's a necessity in order to keep up with CURRENT music.

So long as you got DJs mixing with vinyl and a steady flow of 12" singles, vinyl will keep going indefinitely. I've always said that the Technics SL-1200 is the ultimate cockroach in all of audio because it will outlive all digital formats.

RGA
02-18-2004, 02:13 PM
Of course LP is not dead. When you can buy the latest albums from Springsteen, Madonna, the Dixie Chicks, Sarah McLauchlan, Moby, enter rock group here_______ and reprints of the Dave Brubeck Quartet and Beatles, Stones, etc then there is obviously a big market...not counting all the remixed singles for the clubs.

Sure the market isn't nearly as big as Cd but I suspect VHS will die before LP dies. As soon as you can buy the recordable DVD player for $100.00 VHS will only be around for those camcordering VHS.

Hell when a big box chain here started selling LPs again you know there is a market.

Sadly HMV here carried a rather impressive classical secion - a NAXOS wall of cds for $6-$7.00 Cdn each. They removed their entire classical section including Naxos....people are not willing to buy Beethoven for $6.00 when Britny Spears is available for $15.00 :rolleyes:

- Roll Over Beethoven at that thought :mad:

Future shop has classical music maybe 80 cds. Mostly Maria Calas and Andrea Botcheli (Sp?) and the 3 tenors and Charlotte Church -- anyone who has managed to produce name recognition or has a video on MTV like Church gets through their doors.

The opther poster is probably right, classical music seems to decline rather fast every year to the point where it is extremely difficult to find anything...I have never ever seen an audiophile label like Reference Recordings or Chesky actually in a store...and a lot of the Dutche Gramophone stuff so highly prized on LP is truly awful on cd - maybe it's just the one's I've been unlucky enough to get but NAXOS for less than half the price usually sounds pretty good. But then they don't get the bigger names do they? Sometimes.

I have been thinking of going to my University and picking up the complete Piano works of Beethoven(9 discs I think from London or Phillips).

happy ears
02-18-2004, 08:19 PM
Skeptic, you know how it goes those days become weeks then months followed by years and centuries. With out knowing your age I know what you mean. Apparently I have been left in the dark ages as I listen to CD's and records when I should be using MP3's and computers. I have been told that computers are better faster and cheaper, however I must be buying the wrong ones. Mine do not last that long and are not worth 10 cents on the dollar when they are three years old. Also must have a preference for old style stereo equipment, should do a DBT some day.

Shouln't the answer be usually one groove per side, once saw a Monty Python record that had two grooves on one side.

Lastly you didn't think that all that wisdom that you aquired overtime came without strings attached. The price is old age.

Have A Great Day and enjoy the music as life is to short

jbangelfish
02-19-2004, 02:10 PM
After that, who knows? My 22 year old son is very fond of it, along with a 23 year old friend of his. They have both heard it all of their lives and I expect it will live for them as long as they live as well. Who cares what a 19 year old Border's geek thinks or knows? If he's lucky, he'll get to hear some vinyl in his lifetime and maybe he'll then become a vinyl geek. Ya' never know. I know 30 year olds who have never heard vinyl but their opinions of music mean absolutely nothing to me. They listen on their HT systems and are happy. I've heard them and I would not be happy. To each his own.
Bill

happy ears
02-20-2004, 08:51 PM
Since I have upgraded my turntable l am counting on vinyl being around as long as Classical music has been. Well hopefully not before I die or cannot hear anymore.

Many people have asked has anyone ever heard turntable rumble. I can honestly say that I could not hear it on my old Dual tt, however compared to the michell tt it sure has a lot of background noise. Could not really hear it before, but with a better turntable I noticed the difference. It is just more quieter, clearer and better. Now we will have to start searching for records again.

RGA if you read this what is the availability of vinyl in the Vancouver area. Presently I am just working down the road from you, well if you can accept the Alaska Highway as just down the road. Last month when I was in town picked a great day, wet, very wet all day.

92135011
02-21-2004, 12:10 AM
I have been hearing a lot of good things about vinyl recordings.
My dad has an old technics back from the 80s that he doesnt use any more. You guys think it's still good to go? Those needles dont go for too much do they?

I guess if I'm spending money on speakers and all that, I might as well try out vinyl.

hifitommy
02-21-2004, 10:41 AM
thanks to the fools who dumped their LPs in the 80s, i have about 4-5k LPs acquired for 50cents or a buck each. i still get those prices in a couple of stores here in LA.

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

that site should help the rest of your that are so inclined.

i have two TTs hooked up to my arc sp3c, and a couple more in rest mode. several carts are mounted in headshells and ready for swapping, some MM and some MC.

i can go to virgin and tower and buy new vinyl plus other local stores have it as well. more and better TTs can be purchased now than ten years ago.

the death knell hasnt struck.

DMK
02-21-2004, 10:55 AM
...let's see what Antony Michaelson of Musical Fidelity has to say. MF has just issued their first turntable... not in 1963, not in 1973 but in 2003. Anyway, Mr Michaelson had a few comments that are pertinent to the topic:

"If people think that digital sounds better than analog, they must be deaf".

"There is a groundswell of people who are fed up with all this digital crap and they just want to have something that sounds human".

This from a company president that has made numerous CD players in the past and have just now introduced their first turntable. Yes, vinyl is dead and so are the tens or perhaps hundreds of thousands of music lovers and audiophiles that have recognized its superiority over CD. We are as dead as the sound of CD's. The good news is that we are in audio heaven! :)

I like those quotes! The first one is a little over the top, however. I may start collecting these quotes like some of the measurement folks collect citations. :)

hifitommy
02-21-2004, 06:55 PM
who is referred to on page 83 in the latest stereophile as PLAYING on a new SACD/LP project for stereophile. now THIS one may be worth buying. quite unlike POEM which i bought (LP) many years ago that had CRAP for music on it. that record was so bad musically that i cant tell you how good the sound is.

we shall see.

rb122
02-27-2004, 07:54 AM
Of course LP is not dead. When you can buy the latest albums from Springsteen, Madonna, the Dixie Chicks, Sarah McLauchlan, Moby, enter rock group here_______ and reprints of the Dave Brubeck Quartet and Beatles, Stones, etc then there is obviously a big market...not counting all the remixed singles for the clubs.

Sure the market isn't nearly as big as Cd but I suspect VHS will die before LP dies. As soon as you can buy the recordable DVD player for $100.00 VHS will only be around for those camcordering VHS.

Hell when a big box chain here started selling LPs again you know there is a market.

Sadly HMV here carried a rather impressive classical secion - a NAXOS wall of cds for $6-$7.00 Cdn each. They removed their entire classical section including Naxos....people are not willing to buy Beethoven for $6.00 when Britny Spears is available for $15.00 :rolleyes:

- Roll Over Beethoven at that thought :mad:

Future shop has classical music maybe 80 cds. Mostly Maria Calas and Andrea Botcheli (Sp?) and the 3 tenors and Charlotte Church -- anyone who has managed to produce name recognition or has a video on MTV like Church gets through their doors.

The opther poster is probably right, classical music seems to decline rather fast every year to the point where it is extremely difficult to find anything...I have never ever seen an audiophile label like Reference Recordings or Chesky actually in a store...and a lot of the Dutche Gramophone stuff so highly prized on LP is truly awful on cd - maybe it's just the one's I've been unlucky enough to get but NAXOS for less than half the price usually sounds pretty good. But then they don't get the bigger names do they? Sometimes.

I have been thinking of going to my University and picking up the complete Piano works of Beethoven(9 discs I think from London or Phillips).

I see turntables in Best Buy again as well as other places. Granted, they are pretty lousy ones but BB hadn't sold 'tables in years to my knowledge.

I found a 15 LP set of Beethoven's complete piano works but it's pretty awful sounding. The piano is tinkly and small. I can't recall the label but I've been told it's kind of the K-Tel of the 90's - cheap prices and lousy masterings. Even LP's can be made to sound poor. I'd bet that just about any CD would sound at least this good and likely better. On the other hand, I also found quite a few DG's on vinyl and they are spectacular. Three of them I already owned on CD and you're correct in these cases that the LP is much better.

Do you perchance have Border's Book and Music shops in Canada? The prices are high but they have row upon row of good classical music and jazz. Gift certificates from this store are what I ask for from obscure relatives for Christmas. It's easy to find and doesn't take time or thought. And I turn them into new music which for me is more rewarding than a bobble-head doll or a new sweater.

DMK
02-28-2004, 07:11 AM
I found a 15 LP set of Beethoven's complete piano works but it's pretty awful sounding. The piano is tinkly and small. I can't recall the label but I've been told it's kind of the K-Tel of the 90's - cheap prices and lousy masterings. Even LP's can be made to sound poor. I'd bet that just about any CD would sound at least this good and likely better. On the other hand, I also found quite a few DG's on vinyl and they are spectacular. Three of them I already owned on CD and you're correct in these cases that the LP is much better.



It's on the Murray Hill label and it sounds like hammered sh*t. I sold my copy. Maybe you're the knucklehead that bought it! :) Don't sweat it - I bought it first! Yes, occasionally CD's sound better than vinyl.

Absolutely agree about DG. Some of the CD's are decent but the vinyl is outstanding! Former poster Dougman that I've mentioned is a collector of DG vinyl and I've sold him a few that I had duplicates of.

rb122
03-01-2004, 04:52 AM
It's on the Murray Hill label and it sounds like hammered sh*t. I sold my copy. Maybe you're the knucklehead that bought it! :) Don't sweat it - I bought it first! Yes, occasionally CD's sound better than vinyl.

Yes, that's the one and maybe I AM the one that bought yours! Want it back? :)

Sealed
03-03-2004, 05:58 AM
I can associate with the Dalek....

Two local shoppes have closed down. One sold Only Vinyl, the other sold only classical music.

That's the bad news.

The good news is this:

At the Bristol hi-fi show last week, *EVERY* two channel sound system had vinyl to demo with! There were a slew of new turntables.

In the same period of time this past 365 days, SACD sold something to the effect of 100,000 units.

There were 600,000 vinyl units sold. That doesn't count the used gear/lps etc.

SACD has not taken off very well. It has been glacially slow at coming out with a few modest titles. Just imagine the growth CD had from it's inception 4-5 years later.

Yet vinyl has survived and is surging back.

After my recent listening I can see why. Even modest Rega and Michell turntables slaughtered the more expensive digital sources at the Bristol show.

Vinyl will not die for some time. Especially when many popular artists release on vinyl. IIRC Eddie Vetter of Pearl jam said: "We did it because vinyl sounds better". I bet the guys from Pink Floyd, and Boston would agree...among many.

DamianCarvaLho
04-25-2004, 10:45 PM
undefinedundefinedundefined If you asked me i would say that the record industry is accually growing! you can find new turntables littered all over the inter net. just the word "turntable" on google would bring you to a million websites that sell them for all different prices. although many people think it is dieing all we would need is a company to mass produce the newer soundtracks and every kid around my age (14) would have one in a split second. i was born when cd's were starting to take over. but when i heard the rich sound and the elegance of that shining black vinyl twirling on the table i got hooked! i probably have a collection of about 500 and would probably have alot more if it were easier to find records up-to-date with the main streem artists that the "younger" generation listens to. i usually get my friends to come over just to listen to te micheal jacson (not soo populare nemore) and REO Wagon albums i have. They too think that it has a higher quality sound oh and "retro". i got two friends to buy turntables off ebay. sure cd is so much "clearer" but vinyl is living, its true sound heard the way it was recorded.
Damian Carvalho

P.S. does anyone know where to get a record recorder? i would really like on so that i could put all of my cds on vinyl.

ppopp
04-27-2004, 12:09 PM
Incorrect. The answer is two. A vinyl record has two sides.
Heh-heh.

Raymond
04-27-2004, 03:11 PM
I suppose someone (or all of you) will throw some flames my way but since I'm new here and my asbestos suit has not been singed in any way - so far - so I'll risk the following :eek: .

I read through this entire thread from beginning to end in one sitting without skipping a beat. After a dozen or so posts, I was expecting that the next post (or the next one, or the next one, ...) to begin explaining the superiority of plastic mono 78 rpm's. I was glad to see that this regression did not happen.

I will agree that the K-tel's of this world are omnipresent and will continue to be. Some of the best vinyl is clearly superior to some CD's, the opposite is also true.

And maybe someone can pick me up on this one. My "conversion" to CD's happened mucho years ago, very specifically on the Supertramp Album "Breakfast in America". I simply loved these guys and when the audiophile series album finally came out, I was one of the first to purchase it. My ears went WOW in comparison to the "consumer" album I had been playing.

One of my buddies who was a Kyocera distributor let me borrow one of his demo CD players - $800 at the time !!!! - and as a test I purchased the CD version of the same album.

In comparison, the audiophile series vinyl sounded like a mono recording compared to the CD ! The dynamic range was simply - and finally THERE . And so I was sold and never really looked back. Over the years, I picked up some bad stuff, no doubt about it. But I can say the same for my vinyl purchases.

Was there something wrong with my ears ??

Yes, I do listen to classical, jazz, etc ...

Ray

hifitommy
04-27-2004, 06:23 PM
any good CDP can sound better than a $100 tt. the plastic pmount variety of tables just dont cut it most of the time. once you get to about $200 worth, turntables outplay CD handily. a $200 tt vs a $200 CDP isnt a contest. the vinyl is superior at that level.

up the ante to $400 and the gap widens in favor of vinyl, and on up the line as well. records are harder to take care of but warts and all, they still have a more relaxed and fulfilling sound.

new music is more available on CD but hopefully that will change back to a better balance, there ARE artists releasing new music on vinyl. there are an increasing number SACDs being sold and they share some of that relaxed feeling found on LPs.

one of the real benefits is the low cost of most used vinyl, especially if you live in a large metropolitan city.

so getting a table for about $500 would set you up fairly well, especially if used. dynamic range is better on vinyl in case you dont know. that statement will probably cause a war so be prepared, i am.

rb122
04-28-2004, 05:28 AM
As Hifitommy asked, what turntable/arm/cartridge were you using? Were your LP's cleaned and pristine? Or maybe you simply prefer the CD! Yes, that may seem incredulous to a lot of us but who are we to question your ears and preferences?

I actually went backwards with storage mediums. My parents had old beat up LP's and I heard that sound but when I was old enough to acquire a collection of my own, the CD has displaced the LP as the consumers medium of choice. I bought CD's. As a musician, I was painfully aware of how far away they were from the sound of live musical instruments but I suppose subconsciously, I reasoned that it was problems with the recording and playback of the discs.

When I first heard vinyl done properly, I was absolutely floored! FINALLY, violins sounded like violins, guitars like guitars, and saxophones like saxophones without the added distortion of what I had heard on CD. Rare in my collection is the CD that outperforms the same LP. I've found myself repurchasing numerous pieces of music I own on CD with the vinyl version and a direct comparison reveals that the LP usually sounds much better.

I'm told that there is nothing within the CD recording or playback process that would add distortion to CD's. Perhaps that is so but if it is, recording engineers are producing inferior product these days. As it stands, I can't really say that one medium is superior to another but I can say that in my experience (and I now own a few thousand of each medium), the final result is that the LP is more musically satisfying to me, more "live" sounding to me and more accurate to me. Your experience may vary.

Raymond
04-28-2004, 05:45 AM
You guys are giving me the urge to pull out my turntable - if I can find it, it's somewhere in the attic, well stored in its original box - and try some vinyl.

My turntable was a Technics, can't remember the model (will have to find it) but it was one of the really good ones. I took great care with my records, used white lintless gloves to handle, no one touched them except moi, etc ...

You see, I haven't played a vinyl record since that amazing "Breakfast in America" CD that converted me. Of course, back then I had younger ears and most likely, less refned tastes.

OK, you guys have convinced me ... vinyl is now on my "list of things to do". Hopefully, my turntable still works after 20 years or so in storage.

GREAT thread ... thanks :cool: !

Ray

skeptic
04-28-2004, 06:06 AM
I really hadn't intended to restart the endless debate over which is better vinyl or cd, again. I'm sure among audiophiles, it will never go away. I'm firmly on one side and if you've read my postings in the past, you know which one it is. What I was really getting at is that time marches on. Unlike vacuum tubes which have had a minor resurgence in the last few years (although you may have noticed that there are no new ones being designed, just inferior copies of the ones made 40 to 50 years ago in $hitholes like Serbia, China, and Russia), nobody is pressing new vinyl on a serious basis. Those under thirty may not know it but in vinyl's heyday, you could find it everywhere. Not only in record stores but there wasn't a department store in America or a five and dime that didn't have a record department. And the advertising was also everywhere. Every major department and record store used to advertise discounts on records in every Sunday paper, usually with full page ads. Who were the biggies? Sam Goody was vast with 3 stores on 41st street in NYC just to hold it all. EJ Korvette had a big department. So did the Record Hunter. And then Tower Records came to New York. Where are they now? All gone. Sam Goody was sold to Musicland USA in 1984 and now has cheap cd outlets in shopping malls. Tower Records went bankrupt recently and Korvettes is ancient history. As for the others, they'll sell some cds but it seems more out of just being able to say yes we have a cd department too. It seems to me the recording industry is dying and 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.

rb122
04-28-2004, 09:45 AM
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
04-28-2004, 06:19 PM
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
04-29-2004, 05:16 AM
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
04-29-2004, 06:05 PM
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
04-30-2004, 06:33 PM
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
04-30-2004, 08:46 PM
http://www.recordcollectorsguild.org/record_stores/record_stores.html

bandwith prob gone now, this is a great resource.

Mash
05-01-2004, 02:58 AM
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
05-04-2004, 05:07 AM
[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.

DMK
05-05-2004, 05:42 PM
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! :D

hifitommy
05-06-2004, 05:30 AM
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!

slbenz
05-06-2004, 09:26 AM
Just recently purchased a Sumiko Pro-ject 1.2 turntable to replay my LP collection that I haven't touched in over 15 years. Did a comparison of the turntable to my Sony CD player and the sound from the turntable sounded more natural and vibrant vs. the Sony. The CD of course did not have the pops and clicks but it certainly sounded much more edgy and harsh. Now I am rediscovering my LP collection again. Next project is look at one of those record cleaning machines vs. the standard record brush that I use currently that I purchased new back in 1981!

hifitommy
05-06-2004, 09:25 PM
try this:

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/vinyl/messages/296270.html

wet the brush in the sink, put a SMALL dab of dawn dish soap on your finger, and soap the brush. wet the record (all this with the faucet) and then wash both sides of the record. the brush follows the grooves pretty well and really gets the record clean.

rinse, rinse, rinse, and use a sink sprayer if you have one. it makes for a splattery mess but its worth it to get the dawn rinsed off. any sign of sudsing and you need to repeat the rinsing until there is NO sudsing .

dry with a paper towel thoroughly and air dry it by waving the disc in the air with both hands. it should now be ready to play. its no VPI but not bad.

slbenz
05-07-2004, 08:04 AM
Tr,

I'll have to give your suggestion a try. Used to "wash" the records years ago but didn't think to try the lint brush method. Surprisingly, my children now request that I play the records vs. the CD. They were surprised by the analog sound and now appreciate the "work" involved to play a record. May have to look this weekend at the various garage sales to see if I can find some quality LPs and maybe if I'm lucky, score on a record cleaning machine. You just never know. Thanks again for the suggestion to tide me over.

Ben

RGA
05-08-2004, 12:29 PM
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).

jrflanne
08-13-2004, 05:28 AM
Hey happy_ears,
I have that Monty Python album. The first time I queued up the "other" groove, I thought I was going insane.

shokhead
06-03-2005, 12:10 PM
Yesterday I was in Borders buying some books. The "kid" behind the counter was looking up a book about Jackie Kennedy Onasis in his computer terminal for my sister. He had never heard of her. Or Jack Benny. Or Kim Novak. Or Jane Mansfield. The JFK era was to him the way the Civil War was to me when I was in school, ancient history. He had never seen a vinyl phonograph record, or a turntable in his life, only heard about them. He mentioned that he read that some audiophiles think they sound better than compact discs. He was neither stupid nor uneducated. He was a 19 year old computer geek type who is studying for a degree in computer engineering. I felt very old.

I hear reel to reel is on the comeback. :D

Modernaire
07-18-2005, 01:37 AM
Yesterday I was in Borders buying some books. The "kid" behind the counter was looking up a book about Jackie Kennedy Onasis in his computer terminal for my sister. He had never heard of her. Or Jack Benny. Or Kim Novak. Or Jane Mansfield. The JFK era was to him the way the Civil War was to me when I was in school, ancient history. He had never seen a vinyl phonograph record, or a turntable in his life, only heard about them. He mentioned that he read that some audiophiles think they sound better than compact discs. He was neither stupid nor uneducated. He was a 19 year old computer geek type who is studying for a degree in computer engineering. I felt very old.

I think that this is an example of how "geek culture" has really come to over take how current generations and future music listening generations are appreciating music.

Its not about you being or feeling old. Its about how kids nowadays with iPods and iTunes, Sony Connect, ATRAC this, MP3 that, AFLAC this, OooG that and whatever to listen to music.

Its also incredibly hard to think the kid hasn't seen a record, either at a second hadn store or at least in PICTURES. He may be BS-ing you to MAKE you feel old and "unhip" in the corporate sense of the word...

And an educated kid that doesn't know about records at least, MAY BE uneducated in a way.

But this is not his fault completely, he's still responsible to EDUCATING himself on things. But also on companies like Apple and a few of the big record companies that promote the computer way of listening of music.

I think is the worst way to appreciate and enjoy serious music listening. Its the lazy way and distracting way. Some people get into the fascination of the computer rather than the music.

Much like computers and software, computer companies taking over the production of music. It makes the people making the music trip to much on the latest "Macs" or the latest "Protools".

oldskoolboarder
07-18-2005, 03:56 PM
Has he never gone clubbing? What does he think DJ's mix with? Sure some use CDs, but no club worth their weight in alcohol would do w/o turntables.

Pat D
07-19-2005, 06:48 PM
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/digitalsourcereviews/480/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/digitalsourcereviews/904simaudio/index4.html

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

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-22-2005, 05:25 AM
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/digitalsourcereviews/480/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/digitalsourcereviews/904simaudio/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.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-22-2005, 05:48 AM
[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.

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
07-22-2005, 05:53 PM
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/specsformats/LPvsCDformats2.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
07-23-2005, 02:46 PM
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/specsformats/LPvsCDformats2.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
07-23-2005, 02:57 PM
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.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-23-2005, 07:34 PM
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.

So why compare if emotion is going to be the standard instead of science? I also wonder if two channel vinyl lovers have heard enough multichannel hi rez audio to make a real comparison, or are they bound emotionally to the vinyl disc. I suspect the latter is the case most of the time, and no matter how good multichannel digital audio gets, they will hold on their discs. .

musicoverall
07-24-2005, 07:48 AM
So why compare if emotion is going to be the standard instead of science? I also wonder if two channel vinyl lovers have heard enough multichannel hi rez audio to make a real comparison, or are they bound emotionally to the vinyl disc. I suspect the latter is the case most of the time, and no matter how good multichannel digital audio gets, they will hold on their discs. .

Good question! Better to simply enjoy what you love than worry about comparisons.

This two channel vinyl lover has not heard enough multichannel high rez audio but much of what he's heard so far is very good. I can't compare at this point because I haven't heard enough. It's a little spotty but then again, so was the LP. Some were good, some not so good.

Yes, I will hold onto my LP's. Quite honestly, it is my fervent hope that sometime in the future I hold onto them because of either nostalgia or their value on the secondary market, not because their sound is superior. I think those days are coming and, in fact, they may already be here waiting for me to make the leap into multichannel.

Pat D
07-24-2005, 10:34 AM
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/specsformats/LPvsCDformats2.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.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-24-2005, 10:45 AM
Good question! Better to simply enjoy what you love than worry about comparisons.

This is smart, especially since any comparison made between the two HAS to be done on a scientific basis, not just emotion


This two channel vinyl lover has not heard enough multichannel high rez audio but much of what he's heard so far is very good. I can't compare at this point because I haven't heard enough. It's a little spotty but then again, so was the LP. Some were good, some not so good.

I have a VERY strong suspicion that this is true for most two channel folks. However I feel that many two channel folks have such a strong emotional tie to their collections, that even considering digital is too much for them. I think because of this tie, they would rather critisize digital, rather than actually listening to it(I mean very good examples of it) and coming to a NON emotional conclusion. I have heard analog recording, and digital ones that have moved me. It has always been on a recording by recording basis, not format wide. I am of the opinion that two channel folks love the distortions the format creates, rather than loving the format itself. A good SACD recording has all the benefits of both formats wrap up in one. It sounds pretty close to very quiet analog, without all of the drawbacks of both digital and analog.




Yes, I will hold onto my LP's. Quite honestly, it is my fervent hope that sometime in the future I hold onto them because of either nostalgia or their value on the secondary market, not because their sound is superior. I think those days are coming and, in fact, they may already be here waiting for me to make the leap into multichannel.

This is the most rational statement from a two channel guy I have ever read on this forum. Genius!

musicoverall
07-24-2005, 01:03 PM
A good SACD recording has all the benefits of both formats wrap up in one. It sounds pretty close to very quiet analog, without all of the drawbacks of both digital and analog.
!

I do own and play SACD's - just not of the multichannel variety. Reason? Only two speakers! I have already made plans to move into multichannel but have to wait until finances permit. I've heard enough to believe that when it's done properly, it's outstanding. I agree that SACD is phenomenal. HF's sound much more natural and not rolled off like they do on vinyl. They have the smoothness of vinyl and the extension of RBCD. Hard not to like 'em! I think most people thought that eventually digital would be done right and therefore overtake vinyl.

As for being "rational", while I appreciate your comment, I must point out to folks such as Pat D and FLZapped that Sir Terrence was commenting on a single post of mine, not describing me as rational overall. :)

RGA
07-24-2005, 09:33 PM
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
07-24-2005, 09:43 PM
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.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-25-2005, 06:05 AM
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.

As I have said earlier, it is easy to compare LP to CD, it would be much more difficult to compare good DVD-A amd SACD to LP, especially SACD.


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 am not sure what you mean by this. Are you referring to high frequency extension? That would be irelevant, its what you can hear right in the primary frequencies we can hear in that I am referring to. SACD has all of the clarity, low noise of digital, but the feel and sound of analog.



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.

I am not sure that most vinyl lover can be convinced. I don't think you guys really want to be. Your emotional tie to that vinyl disc may tough to overcome. There is too much good SACD out there for you not to have been convinced.


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.

Dither is not necesary with SACD, and I think that is why it tends to sound better to me than DVD-A. Dither is a band aid, and IMO it tends to cloud and de-focus the sound. In many cases its not necessary at all, the noise from the microphones, and mixer ought to be random enough to eliminate the need for dither. Tony Faulkner advocates not using dither during downconversions and his work sounds excellent.



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.

Actually I don't think they are misguided at all. What I think is that they are so attached to the format/disc, that it keeps them from making any subjective opinion period.

Turntables are a pain in the ass, so is maintaining vinyl.

Different strokes for different folks!



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.

Can't understand why in the heck you would invest in another DAC, but to each his own. If you think receiver will destroy any improvement SACD would make, then I am sorry that you are not well informed. SACD bypasses all the receivers internal DAC's, bass and treble controls, delay, and any other circuitry in the chain. As pure as you can get, so how can it destroy any gain in the source? Please enlighten me.

risabet
07-25-2005, 03:44 PM
So why compare if emotion is going to be the standard instead of science? I also wonder if two channel vinyl lovers have heard enough multichannel hi rez audio to make a real comparison, or are they bound emotionally to the vinyl disc. I suspect the latter is the case most of the time, and no matter how good multichannel digital audio gets, they will hold on their discs. .

I haven't heard enough multi to make a valid comparison in my own system. What I have heard, at good dealers through good systems is that both SACD and DVD-Audio are both "better" sounding (more like analog) than RBCD. The emotion you refer to is towards the music IMO, not towards the delivery system. I'd love to ditch the big 12" albums, record cleanig machine, freakin' expensive cartridges, fussy TT's, etc, for a simple little disc. Emotional atttachment to vinyl indeed!

RGA
07-25-2005, 07:53 PM
I grew up on CD and have no attachment to retaining vinyl - they're big take up too much space and are a pain -- but they sound better on good systems -- which rules out most systems I've heard. I have owned the top end Pioneer Elite Receiver and I own a basic one still - bypassing the DAC of the revceiver isn't the only problem with receiver's sound -- unless you worship the DBT Gods in which case all amps sound perfect.

Thanks there are a vast number of people who came and saw and heard SACD -- I heard the big Demo done by the brass at sony on a complete Martin Logan Bryston system with acoustic treatments decked out to the nines -- the store was CLOSED fot the event. It was neat -- didn;t sound remotely like a live event -- sorry but instruments at the symphony simply DO NOT sound like that from the rear. It may be cool and fascinating and one may even like it -- but IMO it's another gimmick -- and the person who started this thread who argues with me all the time on this AGREES. SACD is a sorry excuse for a surround medium more channels done badly isn't better than two done well no matter how you wish to slice it. But it makes no never mind to me -- if you like it better that is great and if most people like it better that is great -- after all for years they;ve been putting those Hall, Rock, Church, Dance DSp modes on receivers and so people must like listening to the Beatles in Church mode and Beethoven in Dance mode...give the people what they want. iPods and church DSP in a big colourful box with a remote that can control your cofee maker.

I make no judjements because I've bought into this stuff myself -- but I recognize it for what it is -- gimmicky toys not BETTER advances to music reproduction just because Sony says so. After all CD is perfect sound forever.

Woochifer
07-25-2005, 08:51 PM
I grew up on CD and have no attachment to retaining vinyl - they're big take up too much space and are a pain -- but they sound better on good systems -- which rules out most systems I've heard. I have owned the top end Pioneer Elite Receiver and I own a basic one still - bypassing the DAC of the revceiver isn't the only problem with receiver's sound -- unless you worship the DBT Gods in which case all amps sound perfect.

Oh brother, here's RGA on yet another one-size-fits all soapbox ready-fire-aim tirade.

Vinyl is one of those classic cases where you cannot speak to the medium without knowing something about the individual recordings. Are you saying that "they sound better on good systems" ALWAYS? Given the extreme variation that exists between recordings and even between individual pressings, I can point to plenty of examples where the vinyl sounds like crap and the best turntable rig in the world won't save it. And just as easily, I can point to examples of vinyl that sound better than every digital version that's come along.

Who gives a crap about that Pioneer Elite receiver you owned? That thing was a Pro Logic unit, with no DD or DTS decoding, no discrete 5.1 sources, and primitive bass management at best. And that Marantz that you currently use still had only two-speakers hooked up to it the last time I checked (and didn't you buy that thing basically to serve as a headphone amp?). Yeah, that makes you a multichannel expert.


Thanks there are a vast number of people who came and saw and heard SACD -- I heard the big Demo done by the brass at sony on a complete Martin Logan Bryston system with acoustic treatments decked out to the nines -- the store was CLOSED fot the event. It was neat -- didn;t sound remotely like a live event -- sorry but instruments at the symphony simply DO NOT sound like that from the rear.

And what location were you sitting in during this demo, how were the speakers arranged (in the ITU reference arrangement or some position designed to diffuse the surround effect with movies?), and were those speakers used in the demo all identical? Doesn't matter who's setting the thing up, you need to know for yourself whether the multichannel setup was done properly. Judging by this and your past posts, you still haven't figured that out yet.

And I was at a symphony hall just a few weeks ago, and the music didn't sound like the whole thing was limited to the front soundstage either. You go into a live venue, you experience sound in three-dimensions -- behind you, and all around you. No two-channel system I've ever heard can adequately mimic that kind of experience.

And with whatever recording you hear, the perspective will vary depending on whether the engineer wants to put you onto the stage with the conductor, in the middle of the symphony hall, or whatever location is desired on the recording. Chesky's 2/4/6 disc of Swing Live is recorded from the perspective of a seat in the middle of small jazz club in NYC. As good as the two-channel mix is on that disc, the multichannel version conveys the tightness of that space and the crowd perspective in a way that the two-channel version is simply incapable of.

I just got the 5.1 DVD-A of Telarc's 1999 re-recording of the 1812 Overture and the liner notes specifically indicate that the recording perspective of that recording is with the orchestra at an arc in front of you (much like the conductor's position at the podium). Given that you've never conducted a symphony orchestra, you wouldn't know squat about what the live event is supposed to sound like from that location.


It may be cool and fascinating and one may even like it -- but IMO it's another gimmick -- and the person who started this thread who argues with me all the time on this AGREES. SACD is a sorry excuse for a surround medium more channels done badly isn't better than two done well no matter how you wish to slice it.

SACD's a "sorry excuse for a surround medium"? So, I guess that makes it even sorrier as a two-channel carrier, right? And if SACD's a "sorry excuse" what does that make the CD? Are you attacking multichannel or are you attacking the medium or are you just firing in all directions without a clue as to what you're aiming at?


But it makes no never mind to me -- if you like it better that is great and if most people like it better that is great -- after all for years they;ve been putting those Hall, Rock, Church, Dance DSp modes on receivers and so people must like listening to the Beatles in Church mode and Beethoven in Dance mode...give the people what they want. iPods and church DSP in a big colourful box with a remote that can control your cofee maker.

Another false argument. Discrete 5.1 done properly is NOTHING like the gimmicky DSP modes that you're alluding to. If you think that 5.1 is no better than DSP modes, then you frankly have no clue what you're talking about. And why don't you tell us about the last 5.1 setup that you've actually done yourself?


I make no judjements because I've bought into this stuff myself -- but I recognize it for what it is -- gimmicky toys not BETTER advances to music reproduction just because Sony says so. After all CD is perfect sound forever.

This whole post is all about "judjgements" and your adherence to two-channel, and willingness to distort the merits of multichannel to suit that preference.

Pat D
07-26-2005, 03:09 AM
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.
How would you know?

RGA
07-27-2005, 11:21 AM
Oh brother, here's RGA on yet another one-size-fits all soapbox ready-fire-aim tirade.

Vinyl is one of those classic cases where you cannot speak to the medium without knowing something about the individual recordings. Are you saying that "they sound better on good systems" ALWAYS?

I stopped reading your post here -- I'm tired of the straw man. We have discussed this in the past and you know very well that isn't what i said or for that matter even imply.

RGA
07-27-2005, 11:23 AM
How would you know?

Well NAD doesn't hide the fact that they contract through REGA. And the other point is that I've heard the P3 with their arm and their top cart. Soundhounds is the Biggest Rega Dealer in North America. They're not bad -- good for the money -- but they carry a lot better.

Woochifer
07-27-2005, 12:32 PM
I stopped reading your post here -- I'm tired of the straw man. We have discussed this in the past and you know very well that isn't what i said or for that matter even imply.

Hardly a strawman at all. Your views on vinyl have shifted more than the San Andreas fault, so how's anyone to know what your current stance is?

If you don't like your posts on SACD and multichannel called out for the gross distortions and exaggerations that they contain, then I suppose it was wise for you to stop reading. Too bad, now it'll be just a matter of time before more erroneous posts on this topic pop up.