Will Vinyl Save The iPod Gen From Crappy Sound?

[atomicAdam]

Interesting little article from the NYT -

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/nyregion/07vinyl.html?_r=2&ref=nyregion

I personally think it is a bit of a fluke - but maybe not. Maybe a $100 turntable doesn't sound that bad?

What say you all? I know there is a bit of a push from the emo/hipster/fixie bike/ crowd with vinyl. But it can't be that big. I'm the only person of my age group I know that owns a turntable. Not that I hang out with people in my age group. I'm still trying to learn how to tie my shoes and all.....

[Ajani]

No, Vinyl will not save us from 'crappy sound'. Lossless and better yet... High Resolution Downloads will...

Vinyl will continue indefinitely as a niche product... It may even triple its market share to less than 3% of total album sales, but it will never be a dominant format again... CD, SACD, DVDA, BluRay Audio will all fade out before the light extinguishes on Vinyl... The reason simply being that all those formats are digital (like the downloads they compete with)... while Vinyl is both analog and fun (to hold, look at and collect)....

[atomicAdam]

No, Vinyl will not save us from 'crappy sound'. Lossless and better yet... High Resolution Downloads will...

Vinyl will continue indefinitely as a niche product... It may even triple its market share to less than 3% of total album sales, but it will never be a dominant format again... CD, SACD, DVDA, BluRay Audio will all fade out before the light extinguishes on Vinyl... The reason simply being that all those formats are digital (like the downloads they compete with)... while Vinyl is both analog and fun (to hold, look at and collect)....

Don't get me wrong. I don't think vinyl will ever be dominate. I'm just curious if it will help spur a new generation of audiophiles. Realizing there is better sound than an mp3.

[Ajani]

Don't get me wrong. I don't think vinyl will ever be dominate. I'm just curious if it will help spur a new generation of audiophiles. Realizing there is better sound than an mp3.

I think it might contribute but I don't believe it will be the major factor...

An interesting point that was raised on the Stereophile Forums the other day was whether the "new generation of audiophiles" already exists!

Someone pointed out how massive the movement on Head-Fi is... That there are many younger persons purchasing high end headphones and going to Canjam meets etc...

So it may just be that the traditional view of what an audiophile is has changed, with the new gen... New Gen seem to want portable, convenient, affordable and good quality....

Another possibility is that these headphone lovers will buy speakers, as the earn more income later on in life...

Ironically, without even intending to, I ended up being in the headphone crowd, along with my generation, based on the fact that it was the cheapest way to get real high-end sound + it was portable...

And when you really think about it... it makes sense that a generation raised on iPods would seek out high end headphones, instead of high end speakers...

[poppachubby]

I know there is a bit of a push from the emo/hipster/fixie bike/ crowd with vinyl. .


Dude, that is SO funny!! I laughed out loud....oh man, so true. Or should I say, so rad.
Vinyl won't save anyone from anything except maybe having to buy a frisbee occasionally. I think the people you've described so well have no clue about fidelity. They want vinyl cuz it's totally cool.

[Geoffcin]

Don't get me wrong. I don't think vinyl will ever be dominate. I'm just curious if it will help spur a new generation of audiophiles. Realizing there is better sound than an mp3.

I think the problem isn't the fact that vinyl sounds better, it's that to listen to it you actually have to sit and listen when you do. Most people now rarely just sit and listen to music. There's just so many distractions from so many other different forms of entertainment that music gets put into the background. Audiophilia has been steadily contracting even as the technology gets better. Witness the failure of DVD-Audio, or the minor inroads of SACD on CD. People simply do not spend the time or effort to actually hear the difference, so why pay a premium to get better quality? I know it's a pretty cynical view of the audio scene , but I'm just calling it as I see it.

[blackraven]

All I can say is that all the independent music stores in the Twin Cities (at least the one's that I visit) have huge Vinyl sections and business is booming!

[atomicAdam]

Dude, that is SO funny!! I laughed out loud....oh man, so true. Or should I say, so rad.
Vinyl won't save anyone from anything except maybe having to buy a frisbee occasionally. I think the people you've described so well have no clue about fidelity. They want vinyl cuz it's totally cool.

Dood - you know what is sad. I have a fixie. But I don't dress like a hipster and I take showers every day.

You know what is funny though. I went to a hipster music show a month or so ago. And besides from smelling a lot less than punk rockers, and a bit diff dress and sound, it was pretty much the same scene.

Oh, and one of the bands was using a tape deck, old keyboards, and old equipment. It was such a throw back in the days of software. I swear my other friend who is a real musician but does most of his work on the Mac could have played their whole set with a click of the space bar and it would have been better. Shiat, There was probably more processing power in my cellphone than in the pounds and pounds of old equipment they used.

Anyways....just a little rant.....

But I do hope that through the resurgence of vinyl there maybe birthed some real audiophiles who are willing to sit, listen, buy, and enjoy good equipment.

[pixelthis]

Just a fad.
I am from the days when records were serious, with shelves of records, zillions of record stores, and a lot of turntables to choose from.
I spent my gas money on Physical grafitti once.
But those days are gone, the pleasant surprize to todays kids that something sounds better than an 128 kbs MP3 to the contrary.
I have a turntable, one reason I started with Integra/Onkyo is their inclusion of phono preamps, but there is ONE place to buy records in this town, hanging on by its toenails.
That is just the reality, and I hate it, but records will die out eventually.:1:

[poppachubby]

You know what is funny though. I went to a hipster music show a month or so ago. And besides from smelling a lot less than punk rockers, and a bit diff dress and sound, it was pretty much the same scene.



Funny I was talking to Troy about this not too long ago. Years ago I roadied for my friends band, Shotmaker. Nick Pye, bass player. We came through Cali twice, once with Fugazi and another tour with Quicksand and Sparkmarker. We stopped in Oakland for one night with Fugazi. They played a club called the Music Hall, or something like that. Long time ago...

I've seen scenesters in almost every major city in N America. They are all the same. Arms crossed, possibly earplugs, don't look too happy or impressed, could possibly nod to the beat if the band starts cookin...

Sound familiar? By the end of any tour with these guys I was SOOOOO sick of the "scene".

OK, I put in my rant...

[bobsticks]

What say you all? I know there is a bit of a push from the emo/hipster/fixie bike/ crowd with vinyl.

HHhhmmmnnn...interesting question. Swishy is a consumate hipster and, despite being a notorious skinflint, is willing to spend some cheese on righteous wax. That's a plus. Finch is a biker dude but is completely into buying CDs in volume via the 50 cent bins...a wash...

Then there's the Emos...eventually a few of them will have to grow up and recognize the level of pretentious douchebagedness involved in wearing all black with pink and purple spiked hair while drinking Starbucks lattes in their mom's Saab amidst lamentations of suburban angst. These developing youth will eventually eschew all remnants of their embarassing past lives and create a boomerang effect. We may be seeing the last spike in vinyl sales right now.

Unfortunately, there are more goth wannabes than Swishies....

[poppachubby]

Then there's the Emos...eventually a few of them will have to grow up and recognize the level of pretentious douchebagedness involved in wearing all black with pink and purple spiked hair while drinking Starbucks lattes in their mom's Saab amidst lamentations of suburban angst. These developing youth will eventually eschew all remnants of their embarassing past lives and create a boomerang effect. We may be seeing the last spike in vinyl sales right now.

.

Ha! Well put.

[Feanor]

Interesting little article from the NYT -

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/nyregion/07vinyl.html?_r=2&ref=nyregion

I personally think it is a bit of a fluke - but maybe not. Maybe a $100 turntable doesn't sound that bad?

What say you all? I know there is a bit of a push from the emo/hipster/fixie bike/ crowd with vinyl. But it can't be that big. I'm the only person of my age group I know that owns a turntable. Not that I hang out with people in my age group. I'm still trying to learn how to tie my shoes and all.....
Pathetic. That's my reaction to the vinyl fad. Yes of course, LPs are going to sound better than 128kbps download. And I suppose it's true that popular music is typically severely compressed on CD, (from what I'm told since I listen most to classical). But there is no technical, economic, or rational reason why such a compromised medium as the LP should continue to be used.

Doubtless a properly engineer CD is superior in terms of fidelity to the LP equivalent. The same may be said for digital files that are lossless 16/44.1 or even 320kbps MP3. They will also sound better played using a good player, properly configured computer, and/or DAC. Granted, these conditions met too infrequently.

As Geoffcin mentions, the necessities of handling LPs tends to make people to listen with more attention. It's damned true that you will like a piece of good music better if you listen with degree of concentration -- if you don't like it better, the music is crap.

Also a lot of people simply like the rituals of handling vinyl. BTW, this was never my problem: I was a early convert to CD largely because I hated what was required to properly handle LPs. For that matter I no longer have much patience for handling CDs and listen instead to ripped copies.

[poppachubby]

[
Doubtless a properly engineer CD is superior in terms of fidelity to the LP equivalent. The same may be said for digital files that are lossless 16/44.1 or even 320kbps MP3. They will also sound better played use a good player, properly configured computer, and/or DAC. Granted, these conditions met too infrequently.

.

Fair enough. That's your opinion. You didn't address the potential of analog when properly set up though. Have you heard a high end Linn table? Believe me, it has a magical sound that digital could never hope to reproduce.

Clearly, you enjoy accuracy with your music Feanor. For that digital is fantastic. But analog has a soul...

[Ajani]

Clearly, you enjoy accuracy with your music Feanor. For that digital is fantastic. But analog has a soul...

Not to attack you poppaC, but WTF does that mean???

Analog and tube Lovers are perplexed as to why digital and Solid State audiophiles often regard them as lunatics...instead of trying to focus on the kind of measurements that would show why "analog sounds better" than digital, they instead choose to dismiss measurements (and science in general) and refer to witchcraft and mysticism in their explanation of why Analtube is better...

Why won't the Analtube Manufacturers stop being so lazy and start designing their own test measurements to show why "Analtube is better"...

I have no doubt that any real differences can be measured, but it's up to someone to show the initiative and start measuring...

SS/Digital have already designed measurements that support their position, so it's more than overdue that Analtube does the same...

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Fair enough. That's your opinion. You didn't address the potential of analog when properly set up though. Have you heard a high end Linn table? Believe me, it has a magical sound that digital could never hope to reproduce.

Clearly, you enjoy accuracy with your music Feanor. For that digital is fantastic. But analog has a soul...

I love the sound of good analog, but it is too much trouble to get to that good sound. Too much tinkering, too much cleaning, too much care in storage, it is all just too much. Also much like digital, not all analog is equal, and just like digital you run into far too many warts before you get to that rare spine tingling recording.

For far to many years we have been using the CD format as a comparison to good analog. The problem with that comparison is that digital has not been taken to the level that analog has. We(as in recording engineers) have not taken advantage of the lower noise floor and wider dynamic range, and only a few of us are recording, editing, and mixing on high quality digital equipment. Analog has had far more years for both recording engineers and end users to tinker with, tweak, and perfect. Only now do we engineers have the tools to create truly good digital recordings, but the adoption of the format that can best carry it out is slow in catching on in music only applications.(Bluray disc)

To be honest, I have never heard a analog recording (regardless of the cost of the equipment) that sounded quite as good as TrondheimSolistene: Divertimenti on Bluray disc. The recording, musicianship and music quality is breath taking.

[Feanor]

Fair enough. That's your opinion. You didn't address the potential of analog when properly set up though. Have you heard a high end Linn table? Believe me, it has a magical sound that digital could never hope to reproduce.

Clearly, you enjoy accuracy with your music Feanor. For that digital is fantastic. But analog has a soul...
Soul you say?? Pardon me but that is really a weary cliché. I've never understood what it meant.

Well, maybe I've never listened to high-end analog setup -- or maybe I did but it just didn't make much impression. But so what? For me it's irrelavant because classical music is basically completely unavailable in vinyl; (please don't talk to me about flea market bargins: these virtually not extent nowadays even if they were 10-15 years ago). Is it an odd coincidence that classical, the most demanding musical form, isn't available on vinyl? Maybe not.

[poppachubby]

OK, Terrence. That was an earful. You are a passionate guy, I like that. I know you're a man of audio science, and I am not. I only know what I hear. Digital has a harshness about it that at least to my ears, analog does not.

You could very well be right. I very well may be living in an audio fantasy land of my own creation. But what can I tell you? It's what I enjoy. I also LOVE the interaction with the discs and tables. It's a big point of pride for me knowing my LP's are in top shape, and my tables are set up correctly. I don't think that pride exists for CD lovers, but I could be wrong about that.

I also haven't heard the greatest offerings of digital format. I am familiar with studio work, as I am a musician and have been in a few studios. Realistically, digital will lead audio into the future. I'm sure the Blu-Ray sounds great. What makes it better than CD? Less compression? School me daddy-o, in layman's terms please.

As far as my reply to Feanor goes, I didn't feel that he was giving the potential of analog a fair shake.

[Geoffcin]

Pathetic. That's my reaction to the vinyl fad.


:eek: Wow Feanor, tell us how you really feel? :mad5:

While I agree on several points, I do feel that sitting down and listening to an album on vinyl isn't a pathetic thing.

One of the things I think is driving the resurgence in vinyl is the fact that people are interested in how things were in the past. We're more than a generation into the "Digital revolution" and people are curious about how music sounded in the past. More than a few are surprised to hear that the compressed ultra-limited CD's they are used to have nothing in common with quality vinyl. Sure high rez digital formats, or even a well engineered CD will eclipse vinyl, but give the kids the props for at least trying to find good recordings.

Of course there's always the element of "She'll think I'm cool with my retro-sound system" But that's been going on since time began. Heck, I've even done it back in the day. (hey baby, wanna hear my cool 6ft tall speaks?) :wink5:

[poppachubby]

Soul you say?? Pardon me but that is really a weary cliché. I've never understood what it meant.

Well, maybe I've never listened to high-end analog setup -- or maybe I did but it just didn't make much impression. But so what? For me it's irrelavant because classical music is basically completely unavailable in vinyl; (please don't talk to me about flea market bargins: these virtually not extent nowadays even if they were 10-15 years ago). Is it an odd coincidence that classical, the most demanding musical form, isn't available on vinyl? Maybe not.

OK, I won't use "soul" since it has everyone in an uproar. I will simply say that it has a sound that digital cannot replicate. Unless of course you've ripped an LP, but even then, not the same.

I enjoy digital just fine, so don't think I am against it. I have owned many dac's and have a small collection of CD and digital files.

My real love is for vinyl though.

[poppachubby]

Not to attack you poppaC, but WTF does that mean???

Analog and tube Lovers are perplexed as to why digital and Solid State audiophiles often regard them as lunatics...instead of trying to focus on the kind of measurements that would show why "analog sounds better" than digital, they instead choose to dismiss measurements (and science in general) and refer to witchcraft and mysticism in their explanation of why Analtube is better...

Why won't the Analtube Manufacturers stop being so lazy and start designing their own test measurements to show why "Analtube is better"...

I have no doubt that any real differences can be measured, but it's up to someone to show the initiative and start measuring...

SS/Digital have already designed measurements that support their position, so it's more than overdue that Analtube does the same...

No, I don't feel attacked at all. I have no numbers for you, but do you have any numbers for me? Personally, I don't care too much about numbers anyhow. I will trust my ears to tell me, and believe me, I am open minded.

I am not over the vinyl deep end. I just get sick of people taking a giant crap on the format. Infact, I am weary of extreme vinyl lovers who over tweak their tables with voodoo type changes. As I have said, I listen to all kinds of digital and like it fine. I probably wear my portable every other day, 320 kb MP3.

[harley .guy07]

I really don't think vinyl will go away but I think the future of high end audio is in music servers running lossless file formats that will have sound equal and probably superior in many ways to vinyl. Analog has came to the end of improvement level and vinyl is the best analog can bring which is fine and sounds great. But I think digital is just starting to show its ability to convey the same good things that analog brings with the lower signal to noise and distortion numbers of digital. I think physical media in any form has a limited time left for the new comers to this hobby. I do think there will be vinyl lovers around for a while but at some point the file based non physical media will be the next audiophile media. Just my opinion.

[manlystanley]

OK, Terrence. That was an earful. You are a passionate guy, I like that. I know you're a man of audio science, and I am not. I only know what I hear. Digital has a harshness about it that at least to my ears, analog does not.




I agree with you chubbs. Digital does have a harshness to it.

Best Regards,
Stan

[02audionoob]

In my line of work, I believe most of us are guilty of not only liking our own way of doing things but also of expecting our colleagues to like it, too...or else they're just plain wrong. In audio, I see the same thing.

[Feanor]

...
But what can I tell you? It's what I enjoy. I also LOVE the interaction with the discs and tables. It's a big point of pride for me knowing my LP's are in top shape, and my tables are set up correctly. I don't think that pride exists for CD lovers, but I could be wrong about that.
...

As far as my reply to Feanor goes, I didn't feel that he was giving the potential of analog a fair shake.
That part I believe. Basically that's what I said earlier: some people actually like these rituals. For me they hold no charm.

When I got into audio circa 1971, analog was all there was; actually apart from cassettes (which were very new and very crappy) LPs were all there was. In fact I had a pretty good setup: the sort that would cost ~$2k today. But in the dozen or so years before the advent of CD I'd had my fill of pampering LPs and was ready to move on.

Actually, my first CDP sounded pretty awful; really the stereotypical CD sound; it was relatively bright, harsh, etc., compare to vinyl. However never so bad as digital haters made it out to be. But that was then. Today, digital nasties are largely a thing of the past.

Hey, if you want smooth, try 256 kbps; a lot of people actually prefer its sound to full 16/44.1.

[Woochifer]

Your title seems to imply that vinyl by default sounds good and digital files sound "crappy," which is not always true and actually closer to false if you're talking about those budget USB turntables that have flooded the market.

The sound quality variation in vinyl playback is much much much wider than with any digital format. Back in the vinyl heyday, most record players sounded MUCH worse than what you currently get with 128k MP3 files.

The typical record player used in those days included an integrated non-replaceable cartridge, unbalanced tone arm, spherical sapphire stylus, along with a drop spindle changer used for stacking multiple LPs for uninterrupted playback. All of those factors conspired to create horrid sound quality, poor tracking (which many consumers solved by taping a coin to the headshell to weight it down), and premature wear on both the records and needles.

Differences between CD players work within much narrower range -- consider that nearly all of them can produce a near flat frequency response between 20 Hz and 20 kHz with minimal wow and flutter. And while MP3 sounds can be bad in their own right, their level of bad does not even approach how horrible vinyl can sound under less than optimal conditions. Plus, if you bump up the bitrate on MP3, it can gradually become nearly indistinguishable from the original.

Audiophiles have largely forgotten about how lousy much of the vinyl market actually was when it still reigned as a mass market format. The revisionist history getting passed around right now idealizes an audio paradise that never existed.

Vinyl CAN sound better than a CD version if you got a good turntable, a very good cartridge, took the time to counterbalance and adjust the tonearm overhang, and have an LP that was mastered and pressed well. The cheap USB turntables that I've seen in stores does not look like the stuff that can reveal the best that vinyl has to offer. In fact, the build quality looks more reminiscent of those wretched record changers from decades past. A decent cartridge alone (which is fundamental to getting decent sound out of vinyl) will cost more than what these USB turntables cost.

I've been hearing about the hype about the vinyl revival since the early-90s. As much as I love my vinyl, it will never amount to much more than a niche hobby. Just look at the LP sales. 2.1 million LPs sold is the highest level in nearly two decades, yet the sales from just one hit CD will easily eclipse that total.

The difference between the vinyl market today and how it was two decades ago when it crashed is that LPs today cost about 3X more than they did back then. In college, I kept my turntable going because it was simply cheaper to buy LPs than CDs. The motive for a college student today to go with vinyl would obviously be way different.

[02audionoob]

As much as I like my vinyl, the idea of keeping a turntable going because LPs are cheaper than CDs is still part of my motivation. I'll sometimes buy something on vinyl that I could have gotten on CD for the same or less money, but for the most part I like coming home with a handful of records for about a dollar or two each. So far, the records from the mono days have sounded better than the CDs in the cases where I've had the chance to compare. That's not the fault of the medium, though. They've apparently just been remastered badly.

Beyond my own collection of around 700 LPs I was given a collection of a few hundred records, from which I culled about 100 classical LPs in mint or near-mint condition before donating the rest. Those 100 alone were probably worth the price of my humble turntable scored on eBay, although the gift records came with a nice free turntable, too.

I do feel certain that vinyl isn't really coming back. I've never understood how we could get excited about it doubling (from a drop in the bucket to two drops in the bucket).

[audio amateur]

I'd like to get a decent TT in the near future, but looking at the price of vinyl is putting me off.

[poppachubby]

I'd like to get a decent TT in the near future, but looking at the price of vinyl is putting me off.

Start looking for second hand resources. Online and off. Ebay and GEMM, Amazon too. Check around for local shops that carry used stuff. Buying vinyl shouldn't have to be expensive. There's tons of near mint/mint vinyl sitting around in people's attics and basements....

[Auricauricle]

Even if vinyl doesn't hold the market these days, the interest of those like myself (and, no doubt, many others) in some of the "classic" recodings of yore will keep the LP lovers happy for a while, I reckon. Yes, CD's, etc. and the recordings of the present day are often very well recorded abd performed, but some of us still thrill to the sound of Beverly Sills, Bill Evans and other great musicians, whose obscure oeuvre may not make it to CD. Still others don't want to spend the extra money and are quite fond of pulling the old record out of its sleeve and sticking it on the record player....

I don't necessarily feel as poorly about the state of Audio and think that, although IPods and mp3 players, etc. have certainly made their presence known, many folks are just as interested in good sound as we once were. I have had many conversations with young people who quite like the thought of visiting friends with LP's and CD's in hand and sharing an evening with good music, wine and fellowship. I have spoken of my "Back Porch" sessions, which have become somewhat legendary amongst our friends....

So, will the LP wiggle its way into the mp3 crowd? Who knows....Just knowing that the love of music and good times is still alive nd kicking gives me hope, though....

[atomicAdam]

Your title seems to imply that vinyl by default sounds good and digital files sound "crappy," which is not always true and actually closer to false if you're talking about those budget USB turntables that have flooded the market.



Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to open the can of worms that is vinyl vs digital.

What I really wonder is if there will be an causation effect.

100 people by Cheap turntables. 30 think there can be better - 15 buy better turn tables, go on to be part of the audiophile society. Do that a few hundred times over and more people, their friends that come over to listen and their offspring.

Something along those speculative lines.

[Geoffcin]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to open the can of worms that is vinyl vs digital.

What I really wonder is if there will be an causation effect.

100 people by Cheap turntables. 30 think there can be better - 15 buy better turn tables, go on to be part of the audiophile society. Do that a few hundred times over and more people, their friends that come over to listen and their offspring.

Something along those speculative lines.

I love that expression! Where does one actually GET a can of worms?

Your calculus actually makes sense, but in a reverse way. If your looking for a TT it means that you think there's something wrong with your audio world already. These people are budding audiophiles whether vinyl grabs them or not. In any case just by making the effort to ckeck out vinyl they are likely to run into some seriously good audio rigs, and after you've been exposed to that, audio is never the same again.

[Auricauricle]

Peronally, I think no matter what these IPods and what not are made of--whether they're plastic, aluminum, vinyl or whatever--they still won't play as well as the real thing!

(Ummm...)

[02audionoob]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to open the can of worms that is vinyl vs digital.

There are worse cans you could open...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2781/4177462106_87aa85e055_m.jpg

[Woochifer]

As much as I like my vinyl, the idea of keeping a turntable going because LPs are cheaper than CDs is still part of my motivation. I'll sometimes buy something on vinyl that I could have gotten on CD for the same or less money, but for the most part I like coming home with a handful of records for about a dollar or two each. So far, the records from the mono days have sounded better than the CDs in the cases where I've had the chance to compare. That's not the fault of the medium, though. They've apparently just been remastered badly.

Yep, for all the energy wasted in the countless the vinyl vs digital debates, the point often lost is that a lot of recordings were optimized around the quirks of the vinyl medium. Those master recordings that produced great sound quality with LPs sounded horrible when transferred to CD. A lot of the remasters had to take a more careful read on the intended sound quality rather than simply taking a master tape and presuming that an unequalized playback was what sounds best.


Start looking for second hand resources. Online and off. Ebay and GEMM, Amazon too. Check around for local shops that carry used stuff. Buying vinyl shouldn't have to be expensive. There's tons of near mint/mint vinyl sitting around in people's attics and basements....

But, not nearly as much good stuff as before.

Problem with the second hand market is that the vast majority of the product was produced more than 20 years ago. More and more of what I see in the used record bins is not in great condition. That's just simply because as time elapses, those used LPs might actually get played a lot and go through multiple owners, many of whom don't know how or care to properly maintain their LPs. It's a finite supply whose value partly depends on the condition, and that condition that will only get worse over time as the LPs get played and resold.

When the CD began its ascension, people were dumping their LP collections right and left. Many of these records were practically brand new, and the record stores could barely keep up with the flood of used LPs coming through their doors. One of the stores in my old neighborhood had days where they would sell LPs by the pound (as in weight, not the currency) to open up space on their shelves. Back then, you could find some bona fide gems in those mass selloffs. Definitely not the case now.


I don't necessarily feel as poorly about the state of Audio and think that, although IPods and mp3 players, etc. have certainly made their presence known, many folks are just as interested in good sound as we once were. I have had many conversations with young people who quite like the thought of visiting friends with LP's and CD's in hand and sharing an evening with good music, wine and fellowship. I have spoken of my "Back Porch" sessions, which have become somewhat legendary amongst our friends....

I agree with the assertion about the state of audio. I don't think it's all that different now, and might in fact be better overall. Like I mentioned in my previous post, a lot of audiophiles tend to idealize the LP era as a time when more people cared about sound quality. But, it's hard to take that assertion seriously when recalling how LPs primarily got played back on portable record players, all-in-one systems, spindle changers, and any number of other devices that would make an iPod sound like extreme high end audio by comparison.

Then, just as now, the majority of the market was not investing in full sized component-based systems. Yesterday's all-in-one systems serve the same function as today's mini-systems. Yesterday's portable record players and boomboxes have evolved into today's iPod docks.

The audio market has been in a long-term movement towards mobility. That's why the wretched sounding prerecorded cassette had already begun outselling the LP before the CD format was even introduced. Those who value sound quality have always sought out ways to optimize their listening experience. I think the difference is that today, it's actually a lot easier to get decent sound quality from lower end equipment. With digital formats, you're really starting at a higher baseline than with analog. Analog CAN sound better, but a lot more steps need to be optimized along the way and that typically costs more money.


Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to open the can of worms that is vinyl vs digital.

What I really wonder is if there will be an causation effect.

100 people by Cheap turntables. 30 think there can be better - 15 buy better turn tables, go on to be part of the audiophile society. Do that a few hundred times over and more people, their friends that come over to listen and their offspring.

But, on the flip side, you might have the other 70 thinking "What the hell have these audiofools been smoking? I'd rather listen to AM radio than this crap!"

One of the things about vinyl's exile to the wilderness fringes of the audio market is that it weeded out most of the lower end equipment. For a while, it was actually hard to find a bad record player. Now, with the USB turntables beginning to gain a market foothold, you're seeing the return of the low end turntable with absolutely no documentation about the cartridge that they use. For anyone wanting to see what all the vinyl hype is all about, this is bound to disappoint in a big way.

[atomicAdam]

Now, with the USB turntables beginning to gain a market foothold, you're seeing the return of the low end turntable with absolutely no documentation about the cartridge that they use. For anyone wanting to see what all the vinyl hype is all about, this is bound to disappoint in a big way.


Yes - I worry about this as well. But also, what makes me giggle, is that I know some folks with some nice turntables, and some big homes in the hills, who say they like music, and then go buy the $199 USB TT to convert to mp3. Just makes me shake my head.

I don't know why though, someone would buy a USB turntable if they were just getting into vinyl.

[Ajani]

I agree with the assertion about the state of audio. I don't think it's all that different now, and might in fact be better overall. Like I mentioned in my previous post, a lot of audiophiles tend to idealize the LP era as a time when more people cared about sound quality. But, it's hard to take that assertion seriously when recalling how LPs primarily got played back on portable record players, all-in-one systems, spindle changers, and any number of other devices that would make an iPod sound like extreme high end audio by comparison.

Then, just as now, the majority of the market was not investing in full sized component-based systems. Yesterday's all-in-one systems serve the same function as today's mini-systems. Yesterday's portable record players and boomboxes have evolved into today's iPod docks.

The audio market has been in a long-term movement towards mobility. That's why the wretched sounding prerecorded cassette had already begun outselling the LP before the CD format was even introduced. Those who value sound quality have always sought out ways to optimize their listening experience. I think the difference is that today, it's actually a lot easier to get decent sound quality from lower end equipment. With digital formats, you're really starting at a higher baseline than with analog. Analog CAN sound better, but a lot more steps need to be optimized along the way and that typically costs more money.


Well said Wooch...

I'm getting kinda tired of the cries of doom and gloom from audiophiles... The claims that the hobby is dying... The over-romanticizing of glory days of Vinyl and Tubes that never really existed... I remember the Turntable my parents had in the Living Room when I was a kid... In fact I even got one of those all in one turntable boomboxes that my dad had back in college, when I was young... All of those items were far far far inferior sonically to an ipod playing 256K AAC tracks (downloaded from the iTunes Store)....

Considering that we can't even count the number of High End manufacturers available today, and that number keeps on increasing.... I seriously doubt that the hobby is dying...

As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, just check out head-fi and then try claiming that young people don't care about sound quality... In fact, while so many still claim that "MP3 killed our hobby and that young people don't care about quality", they ignore the fact that the largest "MP3" seller (Apple) upgraded all of their files to Higher Bitrates early this year... so now all iTunes downloads are 256K.... WHY would they increase the quality, if young people don't care??? Why has Rhino Records started releasing their material online in Lossless and High Resolution formats???

The only way to claim the hobby is dying is if you define an Audiophile solely as being someone who listens to Vinyl/analog...

Like with most debates in Audio, it comes down to the simple attitude that "whatever type of equipment I like is real High End (sounds like live music), and anything else is crap"....

[Auricauricle]

I'll jump on this one and suggest that the audio industry is in a state of flux. At the dawn of the Digital Age, when the CD was introduced, there was much hue and cry about the awful harshness and general sonic inferiority of that medium. Since then, manufacturers have risen to challenge to produce recordings and players that are pretty dern spectacular. Now that we are in the Internet Era, the audio industry has followed the according trends...Many of us are decrying the loss of quality and the deterioration of everything we hold dear. Eventually, I suspect these quirks and kinks will be worked out, and the mp14 players of the future and it's cousins will produce recordings of exceptional quality.

(Ahem.)

[Ajani]

I'll jump on this one and suggest that the audio industry is in a state of flux. At the dawn of the Digital Age, when the CD was introduced, there was much hue and cry about the awful harshness and general sonic inferiority of that medium. Since then, manufacturers have risen to challenge to produce recordings and players that are pretty dern spectacular. Now that we are in the Internet Era, the audio industry has followed the according trends...Many of us are decrying the loss of quality and the deterioration of everything we hold dear. Eventually, I suspect these quirks and kinks will be worked out, and the mp14 players of the future and it's cousins will produce recordings of exceptional quality.

(Ahem.)

I agree to some extent.... I've always said that MP3 was a transitional format... and truth is that the original MP3s aren't even dominant anymore... 256K AAC is far superior to 128K MP3 (just check John Atkinson's comparison of formats - last year on the Stereophile forums I believe) and for many persons is an acceptable substitute for lossless/redbook....

Also, any iPod can play 256K AAC and Lossless (CD Quality) formats... so it's just a matter of filling your iPod with quality tracks (and not some 96K MP3 Crap that you stole from Limewire)...

The Tech is already there.... I'm just happy to see so many High End manufacturers finally embracing what the New Generation of Audiophiles are into...

[poppachubby]

I agree to some extent.... I've always said that MP3 was a transitional format... and truth is that the original MP3s aren't even dominant anymore... 256K AAC is far superior to 128K MP3 (just check John Atkinson's comparison of formats - last year on the Stereophile forums I believe) and for many persons is an acceptable substitute for lossless/redbook....

Also, any iPod can play 256K AAC and Lossless (CD Quality) formats... so it's just a matter of filling your iPod with quality tracks (and not some 96K MP3 Crap that you stole from Limewire)...

The Tech is already there.... I'm just happy to see so many High End manufacturers finally embracing what the New Generation of Audiophiles are into...

Hmmm, maybe it's just me but it seems you are making some pretty tall claims also my friend. I said that analog has a soul, you say The New Generation of Audiophiles, isn't that Prince's backing band? Oh wait a sec....

I think we can re-visit the OP's article to find out that the new generation is looking past the predictable MP3 and portable route. The thing is, you are making some great points but you seem to have a hate on for analog. There's no room for it in your audiophile world or what? Not to be rude, but I am sensing that since you have not bothered to embrace vinyl or analog, you are rationalizing it out of the equation.

I indeed love my turntable more than my CDP, but I still acknowledge the benefits and reality of digital.

[Smokey]

Vinyl CAN sound better than a CD version if you got a good turntable, a very good cartridge, took the time to counterbalance and adjust the tonearm overhang, and have an LP that was mastered and pressed well.

Of course assuming that CD we’re talking about is not remastered, and optimized to full capacity :)

If everything is equal, Vinyl’s inherently lower dynamics and higher noise (even with proper setup) will put it a notch below CD in term of sound quality.

[poppachubby]

Of course assuming that CD we’re talking about is not remastered, and optimized to full capacity :)

If everything is equal, Vinyl’s inherently lower dynamics and higher noise (even with proper setup) will put it a notch below CD in term of sound quality.

Nope. Not really. The Beatles remasters that came out in '87 were awful. I've been listening to my old man's vinyl up until this year. The new remasters are quite nice on CD. Remastered doesn't always mean:


optimized to full capacity

[Feanor]

Nope. Not really. The Beatles remasters that came out in '87 were awful. I've been listening to my old man's vinyl up until this year. The new remasters are quite nice on CD. Remastered doesn't always mean: {optimized to full capacity}.
You're correct from what I hear about these Beatles remasters. They've have been criticized extensively for excessively high recording levels and compression.

Of course this doesn't have anything to do with the CD as a technical medium, only the way it is used. That's a point I've made for most of this decade that it's not the medium but the recording practice that is to blame. As a mainly a classical listen I haven't been nearly so afflicted by the abuse of the medium as people who listen to the more popular schlock but there are plenty of not-so-good classical recoridings too.

The same sort of argument applies to hi-rez. Is SACD or DVD-A techically better than CD? Maybe, but I can't hear it; (I'm deaf above 10kHz). However, do SACDs sound better on average? Yes, but it's because more care has typically been taken with the recording and mastering.

[Ajani]

Hmmm, maybe it's just me but it seems you are making some pretty tall claims also my friend. I said that analog has a soul, you say The New Generation of Audiophiles, isn't that Prince's backing band? Oh wait a sec....

I'm not sure what you are referring to as tall claims... Could you be more specific...

Also Prince's Backup was called The New Power Generation... Prince and The NPG produced some great stuff (clearly that's just an opinion)....


I think we can re-visit the OP's article to find out that the new generation is looking past the predictable MP3 and portable route. The thing is, you are making some great points but you seem to have a hate on for analog. There's no room for it in your audiophile world or what? Not to be rude, but I am sensing that since you have not bothered to embrace vinyl or analog, you are rationalizing it out of the equation.

Nope, I have no hate for analog... And I have no issue with those who continue to use it OR even new persons who want to adopt it... While I personally have no interest in it, I don't see how someone else liking it affects me...

What you are reading as me hating analog is actually my disdain for the mentality that only Analtube Lovers are Audiophiles! I am certain that Tubes and Analog can sound brilliant, but I find it ridiculous how many audiophiles want to reject anything digital or Solid State as not being high end...

I constantly hear claims in audio that Magnepan Speakers sound better than any B&W Speaker, Totem/PSB is the best value for money and will "Destroy" any other brand at 3 times the price... Recently (in another thread) I've even seen the claim (from someone who really hates high powered SS amps) that a set of B&W 802D Speakers sounded better with the power off than using Bryston Amps... And the list goes on and on...

Audiophiles constantly claim that people have never heard X Speaker, Y Amp or Z Source and that's why they buy the "inferior" stuff that they do... So many of us refuse to accept that someone else may actually have heard the gear we rave about and just not liked it!

It is all about about our sonic preferences... I've heard some highly regarded brands in the Audiophile community, and thought they sounded like nothing special to me (in fact one even sounded downright awful to me)... I also know that there are Audiophiles who have heard/owned the Equipment that I rave about, and didn't like the sound at all... This fact is true of both us Audiophile Consumers and Reviewers at the Major Mags... Take Stereophile for example, some of the Reviewers preach every month about Low powered Tubes and Vinyl... Others only go for Multichannel Sound... some love Digital and Solid State with traditional cone speakers... etc... These reviewers have different sonic priorities... It's clearly not the case that John Atkinson and Kalman Robinson have never heard Tubes, Vinyl and High Efficiency Speakers... yet they both still review, rave about and own a load of high powered solid state, digital and Low Efficiency speakers... So clearly they just like the way the gear sounds...

So to summarize this sermon:

IMO, anyone interested in better quality sound is an audiophile... Regardless of whether you love, low powered SET Tubes and Horn Speakers, Massive Panel Speakers that like to be dominated by a big brute of an amp, Rocking the Turntable or tape deck, Using a standalone CD Player, have gone discless (whether by computer, USB DAC or iPod Dock) or are listening to a multichannel mix with a SACD/DVDA/BuRay Source....

There is NO universally acknowledged "Superior" format... All this disagreement exists because we all have different sonic preferences (not because the other person has never heard our setup and would therefore immediately toss all their existing gear if they did)...


I indeed love my turntable more than my CDP, but I still acknowledge the benefits and reality of digital.

There's nothing wrong with that... If you enjoy that sound coming from the turntable then that's all that matters!!!

[Geoffcin]

Ok, who let the worms out?

[Feanor]

...
Nope, I have no hate for analog... And I have no issue with those who continue to use it OR even new persons who want to adopt it... While I personally have no interest in it, I don't see how someone else liking it affects me...

What you are reading as me hating analog is actually my disdain for the mentality that only Analtube Lovers are Audiophiles! I am certain that Tubes and Analog can sound brilliant, but I find it ridiculous how many audiophiles want to reject anything digital or Solid State as not being high end...
...
Know what? ... either do I -- whatever the impression I might have given.

I find the sound of vinyl agreeable. But I have the sort of mind that detests irrationality. The superiority of the LP format today -- such as it might be -- lies entirely in the production choices, not the medium. The popularity of LP -- such as some would like to believe -- is entirely based on trendiness and the appeal of gimickery. If the supposed "audiophiles" who are supposedly flocking to the format really wanted better sound, they would instead insist on better produced CD or hi-rez downloads. But if vinyl makes people happy, why not, eh? The same for religion.

BTW, Poppachubby, I hope you're not including me amongst the people who reject vinyl because they haven't tried. I hope you caught to fact that I was listening to vinyl for years before you were born and a quite few afterwards on a much more than decent analog setup, viz. ERA belt drive turntable, Grace 707 tonearm, Sonus Blue cartridge, Apt Holman preamp.

[02audionoob]

Of course this doesn't have anything to do with the CD as a technical medium, only the way it is used. That's a point I've made for most of this decade that it's not the medium but the recording practice that is to blame. As a mainly a classical listen I haven't been nearly so afflicted by the abuse of the medium as people who listen to the more popular schlock but there are plenty of not-so-good classical recoridings too.

Everything but your own choice of music is schlock. Typical.

[Feanor]

Everything but your own choice of music is schlock. Typical.
Pardon me: typical of what?

Chacun à son goût. Your entitled feel the same about my choices: I won't be offended.

[02audionoob]

Pardon me: typical of what?

Chacun à son goût. Your entitled feel the same about my choices: I won't be offended.

Typical choice of words for you. You make it point to offend.

[Ajani]

Ok, who let the worms out?

Let the Worms eat the rotting flesh of the ******** Lovers!!!!

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Geoffcin]

OK, I've officially banned that word.

[Ajani]

OK, I've officially banned that word.

:cryin:

I never get to have any fun....

[bobsticks]

OK, I've officially banned that word.

Can we guess what it was?

[atomicAdam]

Let the Worms eat the rotting flesh of the ******** Lovers!!!!

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


wow cowboy, calm down there.......

[Feanor]

OK, I've officially banned that word.
That's good, but I'm quitting this thread anyway. Same old anyway.

[Ajani]

wow cowboy, calm down there.......

I will not Calm Down!!! The only way to achieve lasting peace among all audiophiles is to eradicate anyone whose opinions differ from mine...

[audio amateur]

What was the word?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

OK, Terrence. That was an earful. You are a passionate guy, I like that. I know you're a man of audio science, and I am not. I only know what I hear. Digital has a harshness about it that at least to my ears, analog does not.

If this comment was posted 15 years ago, I would agree with you wholeheartedly. The harshness you hear comes from ringing from anti aliasing filters at the analog to digital conversion stage and reconstruction filters at the digital to analog stage, the lack of proper dither, and that problem has been tackled years ago. First came oversampling which pushed the filter response upward and away from our hearing so as to keep it from ringing. Some oversampling algorithms did an excellent job, and other sucked the detail out of the highs.

As this decade came along, we engineers learned to record at higher sample rates which eliminated the need for brickwall anti aliasing and reconstruction filters. The filter response was more gradual, which led to a lack of ringing, and a smoother better sounding recording and reproduction chain. Then we started recording with higher sampling and bitrates and downcoverting to the Redbook standard without the proper dither. This caused a digital hardness and glare that is also an early characteristic of digital audio. Once the proper dither was applied, these characteristic disappeared.

Now with DXD and Bluray disc, the filter response is so far beyond the capabilities of our hearing, that its impact is a none issue. No need for dither for downconversion because the sample frequencies are so high it is no longer needed. The thing about analog vinyl is it is loaded full of complimentary second order distortion that our ears find pleasing, but it is nevertheless distortion. The effect is very tube like, and another reason that audiophiles like tubes as well. CD's also have distortion, but it is MUCH less than vinyl, and pretty much third order which is not complimentary to the ears.


You could very well be right. I very well may be living in an audio fantasy land of my own creation. But what can I tell you? It's what I enjoy. I also LOVE the interaction with the discs and tables. It's a big point of pride for me knowing my LP's are in top shape, and my tables are set up correctly. I don't think that pride exists for CD lovers, but I could be wrong about that.

You are not alone in living in this particular audio fantasy, there are millions on your side on this.

You hit the mark on this set of comments. Audiophiles love vinyl for reasons beyond just listening. When you think about it vinyl has poorer separation, higher noise levels, and inferior dynamic range, yet audiophiles just love the experience of dealing with vinyl on many levels beyond just listening to it. Just like audio codecs, it is a matter of preference which you choose. Each format has its strengths and weaknesses. I choose digital because as higher sampling and bit rates have come into fruition a lot of the drawbacks of digital audio have largely disappeared. Over the years I have learned to appreciate analog and digital for different recordings. I love vinyl with smaller jazz and classical ensembles because there is not enough build up of second order harmonics to destroy the detail from individual instruments. With large classical works and large big band music, the second order harmonic distortion builds up to the point where individual tonal textures are destroyed. This is where digital excels, and why I prefer it for this type of music.


I also haven't heard the greatest offerings of digital format. I am familiar with studio work, as I am a musician and have been in a few studios. Realistically, digital will lead audio into the future. I'm sure the Blu-Ray sounds great. What makes it better than CD? Less compression? School me daddy-o, in layman's terms please.

What makes Bluray disc better than CD is the flexibility of the format. The CD redbook standard is 16/44.1khz for two channels. That is it! Bluray can come in any form from two channels to eight, from 48khz to 192khz, from 16 bits to 24 bits. A choice of PCM, DTS Master Audio or Dolby TrueHD or its lossy variants. That means that you can use DXD at floating 32 bit and a 352.4kHz sample rate, and lose nothing in the downconversion to 24/192khz. It is indistinguishable from the master at that level. You have a choice of anything from stereo to multichannel 7.1, a choice of codecs to efficiently pack the disc without loss of fidelity. We have never had a disc with that much flexibility, and the ability to transparently reproduce audio at such high resolution over so many channels. DVD-A was only able to transmit two channels at 24/192khz, and SACD had performance levels closer to 20 bit and had filters to reduce its frequency response to 50khz to keep amplifiers stable. Bluray disc format is not hampered by either of these two issues.

[kexodusc]

Sir T, Wooch, Geoffcin, Ajani, Chubdaddy,Feanor...some great comments guys. Just made my wait at the airport far less boring that it usually is.

Sir T...I hope you start using your Terrible Terrencely powers to push BluRay audio on the market some more...can you make any immediate recommendations of great music that is widely, commercially available in that format?

[Ajani]

What was the word?

I can't say what the word was, but it involved blending the words analog and tubes... So it was a very cute shortname for audiophiles who like Tubes and Vinyl...

Unfortunately, my creativity has been silenced by "The Man"....



Seriously though, I sort of agree with Geoffcin, the word sounded kinda nasty...

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I can't say what the word was, but it involved blending the words analog and tubes... So it was a very cute shortname for audiophiles who like Tubes and Vinyl...

Unfortunately, my creativity has been silenced by "The Man"....



Seriously though, I sort of agree with Geoffcin, the word sounded kinda nasty...

Is it lube that goes in a certain place that expels waste? Cause if it is, copyright it right away, it is a perfect word for the application. (no pun intended)

[audio amateur]

I can't say what the word was, but it involved blending the words analog and tubes... So it was a very cute shortname for audiophiles who like Tubes and Vinyl...

Unfortunately, my creativity has been silenced by "The Man"....



Seriously though, I sort of agree with Geoffcin, the word sounded kinda nasty...
hmmm ok

[Smokey]

Nope. Not really. The Beatles remasters that came out in '87 were awful.

Not the best examle what remaster CD can offer in term of sound quality.

Better example would be Rykodisc's reissue of David Bowie albums on CD as one isn't likely to hear better remastering.

And Rykodisc's Bowie's LP reissues are legendary as they used transparent green vinyl instead of traditional black for the disc. I have a copy :)

[pixelthis]

Not the best examle what remaster CD can offer in term of sound quality.

Better example would be Rykodisc's reissue of David Bowie albums on CD as one isn't likely to hear better remastering.

And Rykodisc's Bowie's LP reissues are legendary as they used transparent green vinyl instead of traditional black for the disc. I have a copy :)

Sounds like something I need , which one do you have?
And how many did they come out with?
and whats the website?:1:

[Smokey]

Sounds like something I need , which one do you have?
And how many did they come out with?
and whats the website?:1:

I have Changesbowie (2 disc greatest hits) on green LP, but CD versions will be much easier to find on Amazon and Ebay as Rykodisc's Bowie cataloge is out of print at this moment.

[harley .guy07]

quote from sir terrence the terrible:
As this decade came along, we engineers learned to record at higher sample rates which eliminated the need for brickwall anti aliasing and reconstruction filters. The filter response was more gradual, which led to a lack of ringing, and a smoother better sounding recording and reproduction chain. Then we started recording with higher sampling and bitrates and downcoverting to the Redbook standard without the proper dither. This caused a digital hardness and glare that is also an early characteristic of digital audio. Once the proper dither was applied, these characteristic disappeared.


This is what I meant when I said the future is going to be a digital file based format and not a physical one. I think lossless audio files on a music server computer or server component like many high end companies are already starting to make now are going to be where the newest media will most likely be at. There are websites out there now that specialize in lossless high quality audio downloads for purchase and they are promising to offer the best audio quality that can be had out there today. I believe if these formats are put through the right equipment they could sound better than any analog format ever dreamed of sounding.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

quote from sir terrence the terrible:
As this decade came along, we engineers learned to record at higher sample rates which eliminated the need for brickwall anti aliasing and reconstruction filters. The filter response was more gradual, which led to a lack of ringing, and a smoother better sounding recording and reproduction chain. Then we started recording with higher sampling and bitrates and downcoverting to the Redbook standard without the proper dither. This caused a digital hardness and glare that is also an early characteristic of digital audio. Once the proper dither was applied, these characteristic disappeared.


This is what I meant when I said the future is going to be a digital file based format and not a physical one. I think lossless audio files on a music server computer or server component like many high end companies are already starting to make now are going to be where the newest media will most likely be at. There are websites out there now that specialize in lossless high quality audio downloads for purchase and they are promising to offer the best audio quality that can be had out there today. I believe if these formats are put through the right equipment they could sound better than any analog format ever dreamed of sounding.

I agree that music downloads are definately the trend, and the direction the industry is headed. As far as music goes the disc is dead EXCEPT for more specialized classical and jazz music. However, if a server is where their going to get stored, the price of those things MUST come down. Servers are WAY too expensive for what they do, and it is very difficult to justify its purchase at the price levels they currently are.

I think downloads and music are a perfect match if there is some sort of bit checker or error correction system in the chain. There is too many chances along the pipline where a bit can get lost, and when too many are, the system faults. Without some sort of bit checker that makes sure all the bits arrive intact and in their proper order, the reliability of the entire system is compromised. Ones that happens a few times, the consumer is soured on the whole server thing.

If I want something, the price of it is never a consideration to me. I however cannot justify spending $5k on a music storage system when I can go into my media library and just pick the disc I want, and play it for a total charge of between $12-16 dollars.

[agentsteel]

The pressing process (even with a totally digital recording) adds a sonic character to the music that some people just prefer vinyl.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

The pressing process (even with a totally digital recording) adds a sonic character to the music that some people just prefer vinyl.

That is part of the problem. As a audio engineer, I do not want that sonic character imprinted over my mix.

[agentsteel]

That is part of the problem. As a audio engineer, I do not want that sonic character imprinted over my mix.

Well most engineers and musicians are usually (if they did a good job at the plant) happy with it.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Well most engineers and musicians are usually (if they did a good job at the plant) happy with it.

Bernie Grundman who is probably the best there is at cutting vinyl has publicly said that if you are looking for accuracy, stay away from vinyl. I have been a member of AES for close to 20 years, and most engineers I have spoke to on the subject have not stated any opinion, so I am not sure you can say they are happy with it.

[Feanor]

The pressing process (even with a totally digital recording) adds a sonic character to the music that some people just prefer vinyl.
That's been my suspicion for a long time. I.e., that vinyl imparts a euphonic distortion.

With some qualification, I suspect the same can be said for vacuum tubes.

[Geoffcin]

That's been my suspicion for a long time. I.e., that vinyl imparts a euphonic distortion.

With some qualification, I suspect the same can be said for vacuum tubes.

I wouldn't say it's the vinyls fault. I remember reading a spec sheet on the old Shure V15 type IV cartridge (one of the best MM carts ever) and it stated on the order of several % harmonic distortion from the stylus. In fact they were touting that the new geometry was able to get the distortion down to only 2.5%!?


http://www.shure.com/stellent/groups/public/@gms_gmi_web_ug/documents/web_resource/us_pro_v15iv_ug.pdf

[Ajani]

Whether Vinyl, Tubes and/or the cartridges add distortion, probably matters more to the engineers than to consumers...

If I was an Engineer, I'd be annoyed to see anything other than an accurate representation of my work being released...

However, if I was a consumer, and found that the harmonic distortion (or whatever) added "soul" as PoppaC (and many other Vinyl/Tube Users find) then why would I want to convert to a "more accurate" format that steals the life from the music???

It may be an objective science for the engineer, but It's all subjective art for the end user....

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Whether Vinyl, Tubes and/or the cartridges add distortion, probably matters more to the engineers than to consumers...

If I was an Engineer, I'd be annoyed to see anything other than an accurate representation of my work being released...

And I can say without reservation that is exactly what most engineers want.


However, if I was a consumer, and found that the harmonic distortion (or whatever) added "soul" as PoppaC (and many other Vinyl/Tube Users find) then why would I want to convert to a "more accurate" format that steals the life from the music???

The steal the life out of the music is an old myth from the early days of CD. It was because the anti-alising filters back in the 80's were brickwall, and they rang inducing jitter into the signal. This has long been conquered using oversampling filters, and higher resolution recording and playback chains. Since most recordings are of digital nature, a CD cannot steal the life out of any music. Digital cannot steal the life out of digital unless there is jitter present, or bits dropping.


It may be an objective science for the engineer, but It's all subjective art for the end user....

Which is why I like to produce accurate recordings of which the end user can pass through any sonic altering device they choose like tubes.

[Ajani]

And I can say without reservation that is exactly what most engineers want.



The steal the life out of the music is an old myth from the early days of CD. It was because the anti-alising filters back in the 80's were brickwall, and they rang inducing jitter into the signal. This has long been conquered using oversampling filters, and higher resolution recording and playback chains. Since most recordings are of digital nature, a CD cannot steal the life out of any music. Digital cannot steal the life out of digital unless there is jitter present, or bits dropping.



Which is why I like to produce accurate recordings of which the end user can pass through any sonic altering device they choose like tubes.

Yep... we're in agreement... I probably should have put "steal the life out of the music" in quotes though, to make it clear that it is not my opinion of digital (as should be clear from the lack of tubes and vinyl in my sig)...