Why do bass drivers go nuts when playing vinyl

[Woochifer]

Turntables are the fussiest things you can buy in audio especially for people like myself who grew up on cd. I'm overly painfully careful with the turntable -- I had it about a year before I got it fixed err set-up correctly. Yes there is some surface noise on some Vinyl and some where there is practically zip. The trade-offs trounce either cd player I own.

Be very careful about the generalizations. The advantages of vinyl playback are more of a case by case proposition. The quality of the mastering, the quality of the pressing, remasterings done at different times, the compression and EQing that get applied to the recording, etc. vary a lot more with vinyl. Even with the same album, you'll get variations between pressings because of worn stampers, changes to the vinyl (formulation, thickness), etc. CDs are for better or worse consistent from disc to disc, and nowadays, the variations in the quality of the mastering are narrower than before.

A record cleaning machine supposedly greatly reduces and or eliminates surface noise and gritty sound between songs and will be my next purchase because I bought a pile of used vinyl cheap but some are quite dirty.

Record cleaning machines are effective at maintaining albums, but won't work miracles for used and abused LPs. A lot of what you hear on vinyl is simply wear and tear or bad pressings, and nothing can be done about that.

I have found the differences between vinyl and cd not as great with some systems that are designed for the cd SS crowd...and the phono stage makes a massive difference which I did not expect to be the case.

Huh? So what systems are NOT designed for "the cc SS crowd"?

The phono stage makes all the difference in the world because it has to apply the RIAA equalization and step up the signal to line level.

CD has it's own forms of distortion that is called jitter which gets bypassed - corrective feedback to highly process and re-integrate the sound. CD is the main standard and it's awfully hard to detect its faults when there is little to compare it against. I suggest you listen head to head a typical high error correcting cd player with many times oversampling and an Audio Note cd player that has no error correcting or fixing. The fixing players will look prettier on the graph but listen to em side by side. This will illustrate that what is being measured most of the time is meaningless. Putting a wow and flutter number on cd players is and was merely a marketing tool.

So are you saying that jitter causes audible distortion?

Once again, you're parroting Peter Q's rantings against "conventionalists". Your observations are flawed because you have no clue as to what the true causal variables are. No error correcting or fixing? I thought that error correction was built into the CD standard so that the player could still play through fingerprints or minor scratches on the surface. Error correction and oversampling are two different concepts. Just the way that you use them interchangeably doesn't speak well for your knowledge of the topic independent of whatever you read from Peter Q. It's fine to have a preference, but you've gotten into a habit of claiming that every other approach is therefore inferior, without even knowing anything about those approaches or if they're even the actual causal variable behind the differences that you're hearing.

As for oversampling, the original Sony CDP-101 had no oversampling or digital filtering, and it sounded horrible. If you think that's such a superior approach, why not grab one of those from a local antique shop? From my own listenings, even a $20 portable CD player is preferable.

Maybe you should find one of those models and compare THAT to the AN. If they sound similar enough, then maybe indeed it is the oversampling that you're detecting. But, if they sound very different, then you need to pay attention to other causal variables. In my listenings, the most audible differences between CD players often have more to do with the analog circuitry than at the digital end.

And how do the "fixing" players differ from the ANs "on the graph"? You're always talking about "the graph", well which "graph" are you talking about? Sounds like more rhetorical exaggerations are on display here, or just another excuse for you to say "prettier."

Do you actually know what wow and flutter sound like? When comparing analog components such as turntables or reel-to-reels or tape decks, you'd damn well better pay attention to the wow and flutter because the differences are often very audible. With CD players, wow and flutter is not an issue because they tend to measure almost identically, and audibly speaking, wow and flutter are not problems with the CD format. How would that be "merely a marketing tool" given how differences in wow and flutter are audible with analog equipment?