Thoughts on the future of HiFi

[Ajani]

Every audiophile/reviewer I have met that owns a premium turntable rig and a premium CD player/SACD machine has said they prefer their vinyl rig. Every single time.

That doesn't necessarily mean anything; since most persons who own both a Vinyl rig and a CD/SACD Player don't spend similar amounts on them... Usually one is the main source and the other is used for more occasional duties... So both sources may be "premium" but the turntable may be far more expensive (higher quality) than the CD player... Also, a person who prefers vinyl is more likely to own both a TT and a CDP, than a person who prefers CDs. The reason being that a Vinyl fan may buy a CDP simply because he can't find a lot of music he likes on Vinyl. Whereas a CD fan can find almost anything on CD, so he has little/no incentive to own both rigs...

I am very impressed with Linn and Meridian's Soolos. They sound far better than most CD players I have heard and offer HUGE user friendliness and convenience. And they will get better and cheaper very soon. I am ALL FOR this stuff. And it sounds better than a lot of vinyl replay systems no doubt. Still I have not heard it yet beat the best vinyl systems I have heard (though to be fair those vinyl rigs cost significantly more dollars than the likes of the Meridian/Soolos or Linn set-up). And of course vinyl is a much bigger pain in the arse. So practically speaking it may be good enough to go this route.

There in lies a major issue I have with the belief that 'real audiohpiles' use vinyl and tubes... If we limit the discussion to State of the Art equipment then it is certainly conceivable that persons with unlimited budgets may consistently choose Vinyl and Tubes. However, that is not the reality for most audiophiles. We have to choose based on what performs best within our budget. Competent SS and digital can generally be had much cheaper than competent tubes and vinyl.

In fact lets take this line of thought a step further: so many audiophiles show utter contempt for the iPod and claim that it has destroyed music, young persons aren't interested in sound quality and other such BS... Here's the challenge: put together a TT/Tube setup that sounds better than an MP3 player of the same price... Forget even convenience like portability (since the TT/Tube setup would fail immediately), just compare sound quality at a comparable price... And note: no nonsense like scouring A'gon for vintage TT and Tubes and then putting in 18 hours of work to repair them. New gear versus new gear (cuz if you go used, then you need to compare to a used MP3 player - which can be had for like a dollar on ebay)... For persons on a truly limited budget, there is nothing comparable to an MP3 player + it can easily be upgraded by ripping your music to lossless and buying a decent set of earbuds..

I don't believe that people who have heard the best Single Ended amps and the best vinyl would choose CD or SS(of the non SE variety) would make those choices. And if so then I don't trust their hearing ability. If that sounds like I'm a pompous jerk so be it. I can't believe people can't hear what should be very bleeding obvious. Even the guys who design the best SS amplifiers in the business are moving to lowering feedback - they know it sounds better too - but it is more expensive and they can't sell measurements because they get worse.

Like?

People are slaves to numbers. More Horsepower, bigger breast size, higher torque, more watts, more damping factor, more mega pixels, whatever. In themselves they don't equate to better quality.

I thought we were talking about HiFi.

[RGA]

That doesn't necessarily mean anything; since most persons who own both a Vinyl rig and a CD/SACD Player don't spend similar amounts on them... Usually one is the main source and the other is used for more occasional duties... So both sources may be "premium" but the turntable may be far more expensive (higher quality) than the CD player... Also, a person who prefers vinyl is more likely to own both a TT and a CDP, than a person who prefers CDs. The reason being that a Vinyl fan may buy a CDP simply because he can't find a lot of music he likes on Vinyl. Whereas a CD fan can find almost anything on CD, so he has little/no incentive to own both rigs...

I agree with you if the audiophiles grew up on vinyl - I would say people in their mid 30s down like me that largely grew up on CD and SS would be another matter. Vinyl is making a resurgence over the last several years in sales growth (which isn't saying much) but nevertheless it is growing at almost an annual exponential rate. There are thousands of albums on vinyl that are not on CD. But of course most are back catalog. But even new artists that come out with Vinyl and CD releases often put an extra song or two on the vinyl release - I have a Jewel album that contains a couple of extra tracks. Phil Collins had different backing music on British releases on vinyl that were not on western prints. Some artists like Madonna came out with Hard Candy (yeah I know) but it included the 12 inch version of one song and also the CD for a couple bucks more than just the cd itself. There are non sound reasons to purchase vinyls like the superior cover art and often better liner notes. So I agree there are non "sonic" reasons that people buy vinyl.

There in lies a major issue I have with the belief that 'real audiohpiles' use vinyl and tubes... If we limit the discussion to State of the Art equipment then it is certainly conceivable that persons with unlimited budgets may consistently choose Vinyl and Tubes. However, that is not the reality for most audiophiles. We have to choose based on what performs best within our budget. Competent SS and digital can generally be had much cheaper than competent tubes and vinyl.

In fact lets take this line of thought a step further: so many audiophiles show utter contempt for the iPod and claim that it has destroyed music, young persons aren't interested in sound quality and other such BS... Here's the challenge: put together a TT/Tube setup that sounds better than an MP3 player of the same price... Forget even convenience like portability (since the TT/Tube setup would fail immediately), just compare sound quality at a comparable price... And note: no nonsense like scouring A'gon for vintage TT and Tubes and then putting in 18 hours of work to repair them. New gear versus new gear (cuz if you go used, then you need to compare to a used MP3 player - which can be had for like a dollar on ebay)... For persons on a truly limited budget, there is nothing comparable to an MP3 player + it can easily be upgraded by ripping your music to lossless and buying a decent set of earbuds..

No argument from me - I am 100% with you. I was convinced by vinylphiles that any entry level player would beat CD at 10 times the price. You've been around on forums long enough to have read those claims. So I thought what the hell let's buy a Rega P2 (my NAD 533 was a Rega P2 made by Rega for NAD - basically it was a different colour and said NAD) same thing. And at around $500 I was not at all convinced that it, along with a very popular very highly praised Shure M97xE cartridge, was better than most any similarly priced good digital front end. Though it often showed glimpses of better sound. For instance the odd record that I had where I also owned the same CD (I have a bucket of them know as I have bought vinyl versions of most of my CD collection in part to make comparisons and in part because I want the best version of the album (whether CD or vinyl) and many are rather similar especially new vinyl that were basically digital transfers.

To your point though I am not in the camp that says iPod has destroyed music. The iPod if you think about it is a glorified walkman. It is essentially a device to take music with you on the go. You could not put a vinyl/tube system that would compete with a walkman in the 1980s and you still can't today.

I say again - I am not in the either or camp. I believe you should buy both if you want the best recording of the music. Some people buy 20,000 albums which to me is just silly since you are never going to listen to that many a second time through. There isn't that much music that I like. So If I am sitting with a bunch of Ray Charles or Johnny Cash, or whoever albums I want the ones that sound the best. If it sounds better on CD great, if it sounds better on vinyl great - that's the one I want to listen to. Or if there are singles available on vinyl for DJs that never came about on CD or vice versa that is interesting as well.

The definition of competent is subjective. I consider the Sugden A21a to be the entry point of "good" sound. Sound that I could live with over the long haul on a budget. It's $2,500+. Someone might consider a Bryston Preamp and Bryston 4BSSt to be good - I think it brittle crap and it's no wonder why so much music sounds so bad - the engineers use this terrible sounding gear to record stuff with. Uggh. Any engineer using it has lousy hearing period end of discussion. So anyone calling them experts has no clue.

Vinyl is an expensive proposition - the tables and arms and carts of quality you're probably looking at the $1,500. On the flip side used vinyl is cheap. But so are CD's - pawn shops sell them 5 for $10. Mp3 is free with bittorent in Canada(legal) and America - if you don't get caught you're fine.