Vinyl is not as bad as I expected.

[Bob from Florida]

Reflecting upon this thread -- all y'all are almost ready for the ultimate medium.
Of course, I am referring to...

8trackin2 by Mark Hardy, on Flickr

Eight track.

ker-chunk.

Best of all, tracking alignment requires only a folded paper matchbook.

If you are doing eight track you need it installed in a vintage 1960's car - under dash unit with Jensen 6X9 Coaxial rear deck speakers. That actually brings back some memories.....

 

[Galliardist]

I repeat, you need to hear a good analog system. As a mechanical device, it's not everyone that can do that ... even worst for a digital native
You can think on a modern car when the most important aspects are controlled by computers ... you connect a PC based diagnostic machine and "voila".

But ... you can adjust the exact combustion point in a 60s mustang / Ferrari / whatever? You need the right skills. Kind of in vinyl.

I'm not pushing vinyl to the top, I only say that I see many debatable opinions about vinyl as a "second class" sound from people that really never experienced a real good analog system in their life.

But there are many of us who grew up with vinyl who see it clearly as “second class” after living with it for decades. Some of those s have ditched it, others keep it because they have a lifetime invested in record collections. But we know it for what it is. It’s expensive. Inaccurate, fussy, noisy, wasteful of resources.

I’ll go further. Forget all the snake oil, cable and power myths, dodgy speaker designs and such.

The demand that vinyl be preferable is the biggest and most expensive subjectivist
audiophile lie.

 

[mike70]

anyone can see vinyl as they wish ... i'm only showing my experience.
the negative experiences i think are really clear ... and in big amounts in this forum ... that's why i try to say something different (based on real experience and in measurements also ... many people looks for the ultimate THD and their speakers only can show the half of that THD, so the super duper DAC is the same as the old black record). Open mind, the basis of the curiosity and progress.

maybe someone takes some of my words to try other thing, and maybe find something unexpected. That's all, i don't need or want to convince anyone of nothing.

so, well, you can continue writing about how bad and horrible, expensive or inconvenient is vinyl.

 

[Mart68]

The demand that vinyl be preferable is the biggest and most expensive subjectivist
audiophile lie.

I know a fair few people who prefer vinyl. But like me they all grew up with it. It takes time to wean yourself off the vinyl sound. Even today I don't think bands like Zep or Jimi Hendrix Experience sound right to me on CD because of the zillion times I listened to them on vinyl in my formative years.

I think that's the reason for the preference.

I still have a Technics SL1200 with Nagaoka MP50/500 and a proper wet/vacuum cleaning machine and 600 odd LPs. I've owned maybe a dozen turntables, at one time I had five of them. I have friends who have turntable set ups exceeding £5K which I've had many listens to.

Also been to shows with the mega-money turntables on demo, forty grand, that sort of area.

So it isn't lack of experience, in my case anyway. I've heard vinyl at its absolute best and I still say it's too expensive, too much hassle, and just not as good. In particular that 'surface roar' that you can't do anything about,, once you become aware of that there's no unhearing it.

 

[DSJR]

If you have access to master recordings or good available digital created from them (hoping the mastering engineer doesn't screw up), I can assure you that vinyl is a definite step down from that level of quality, the limitation being the Sh***y black plastic discs themselves rather than the playback hardware itself.

 

[ahofer]

I grew up with vinyl, but switched to digital in the mid 1980s and never really looked back (I kept a turntable working until around 2000, and I still have it). The noise floor advantages for classical music and even jazz were, and are, huge.

I wasted money on a lot of crappy CD remasterings though, so it wasn't all great, but a good CD seemed to beat vinyl every time for sound quality, if not necessarily performance. I learned to stay away from the DG orchestral CDs from that era (some of the chamber music was OK). Phillips was hit-or-miss. Telarc did some great orchestral recordings. So it became a CD treasure hunt - which it still is today, to some degree, although streaming gives me a chance to check it out before buying.

 

[Frank Dernie]

anyone can see vinyl as they wish ... i'm only showing my experience.
the negative experiences i think are really clear ... and in big amounts in this forum ... that's why i try to say something different (based on real experience and in measurements also ... many people looks for the ultimate THD and their speakers only can show the half of that THD, so the super duper DAC is the same as the old black record). Open mind, the basis of the curiosity and progress.

maybe someone takes some of my words to try other thing, and maybe find something unexpected. That's all, i don't need or want to convince anyone of nothing.

so, well, you can continue writing about how bad and horrible, expensive or inconvenient is vinyl.

I worked with it as an engineer in the 1970s and know its strengths and weaknesses.
I have a lot of LPs and 4 turntables, 3 of which are currently in storage.
My Goldmund Reference is "in use" but rarely, I usually use CDs.
There is actually nothing I have seen or read yet about LPs and how to play them that wasn't already known by 1975.
I keep my record player for when I want to listen to one of my LPs. If I hadn't had a stream of steadily upgrading record players for the last 50 years I certainly wouldn't buy one now.

 

[Sal1950]

so, well, you can continue writing about how bad and horrible, expensive or inconvenient is vinyl.

Many of us here have been listening to quality vinyl playback since before most here were in diapers. I've had audiophile class vinyl playback since the late 1960s and I know exactly what it sounds like. Now if money is not an object to you and you can spend as much as you like on toys, an expensive vinyl rig is cool.

On the other hand, if MUSIC is your priority and you don't have unlimited funds, the smartest thing you could do is to sell all that vinyl gear while it's still in high demand and invest the money in better speakers and more quality digital recordings.

One other point, If you still living with 1960s stereo and haven't upgraded to a quality multichannel system, then you really don't know what great music reproduction can sound like. Quit dragging a rock thru that ditch and put together a audiophile level immersive audio system.
There is life after

 

[levimax]

I wasted money on a lot of crappy CD remasterings though, so it wasn't all great,

more quality digital recordings.

The "problem" with digital is not the technology but rather the "lost art of quality recording and mastering". I agree that a good digital recording can sound better (although not as much as the "measurements" would lead you to believe) than the same on an LP. The problem is that between dodgy compressed and EQ'd remasters of older music, and the ultra compressed modern mastering style, good quality digital recordings are much harder to come by than they should be and streaming services are not the best place to find them . I think having a TT and digital playback and streaming gives you the best chance of finding a good sounding recording of your favorite music.

 

[spiritofjerry]

I wasted money on a lot of crappy CD remasterings though, so it wasn't all great, but a good CD seemed to beat vinyl every time for sound quality, if not necessarily performance.

Amen. Who cares how performant digital is when the mastering is poor and the output is compressed to hell? I'm very lucky these days to have the digital tools to analyze said masterings, and make an informed decision. There are circumstances where I'll bear the clicks and pops of vinyl to actually hear the music like it was meant to be heard, though those circumstances are getting few and far between these days.

 

[symphara]

The "problem" with digital is not the technology but rather the "lost art of quality recording and mastering". I agree that a good digital recording can sound better (although not as much as the "measurements" would lead you to believe) than the same on an LP. The problem is that between dodgy compressed and EQ'd remasters of older music, and the ultra compressed modern mastering style, good quality digital recordings are much harder to come by than they should be and streaming services are not the best place to find them . I think having a TT and digital playback and streaming gives you the best chance of finding a good sounding recording of your favorite music.

Well you postulate this as if it’s some general rule but I have zero issues finding good digital recordings, and I listen to 5-10 new albums every week, curtesy of Apple Music recommendations.

If I ever listen to a dodgy digital record (I have some older stuff) I never wish for an LP of it. Just a better digital version!

 

[spiritofjerry]

I have zero issues finding good digital recordings, and I listen to 5-10 new albums every week, curtesy of Apple Music recommendations.

If I ever listen to a dodgy digital record (I have some older stuff) I never wish for an LP of it. Just a better digital version!

Unfortunately, for older recordings, you can't just "find" a better version in digital. It doesn't work that way. I wish it did. Some masterings were done before the original magnetic tapes were destroyed, for instance. Thankfully, some archivists and digital technicians are going over the original masterings where possible and cleaning them up, but that's just not true for every recording out there.

 

[antcollinet]

I don't think this is the issue. Yes vinyl can sound very good. I recently asked someone with a large LP collection to play for me something that would be excellent sounding and he produced Timeless (Abercrombie, ECM). It was excellent. Very nice LP mastering, the disc had no defects, it was pancake flat and very clean, there was minimal LP noise, we really enjoyed listening to it. Basically as good as I've heard an LP.

The issue is that the CD version sounds much better, there's more depth and clarity, the bass is deep and wonderful, you don't need to pay close to $50 for it, and you can digitise it so it's so much more convenient to use, and the digital copy won't degrade (at all).

Unless you have a large number of LPs with unique masters that aren't available in digital format - and this is unlikely - it's just nostalgia. The format is clearly (substantially) inferior, more expensive and far more inconvenient to use.

I don't know why people fall over themselves to demonstrate that LPs are somehow superior. They aren't. It's just nostalgia. Own up to it, there's nothing to be ashamed of. It's perfectly acceptable to choose something objectively worse because it makes you feel better due to its very quaintness and the ritual attached to using it.

You've pretty much described me.

For me it is not about the sound (although there is nostalgia around that), but the emotional connection. The physical handling of, and caring for music. I have one precious album that originally belonged to my (late) Dad. Playing the same physical piece of vinyl that he would have first played 57 years ago when I was a toddler brings a deep sense of him. It would be meaningless as a collection of files, or even a CD.

Having said that probably 3/4 of my collection is digital ripped from CD. However, I'm still buying vinyl for some stuff, and the criteria for selection of CD or Vinyl is not totally clear to me. It is about how the music makes me feel.

 

[spiritofjerry]

You've pretty much described me.

For me it is not about the sound (although there is nostalgia around that), but the emotional connection. The physical handling of, and caring for music. I have one precious album that originally belonged to my (late) Dad. Playing the same physical piece of vinyl that he would have first played 57 years ago when I was a toddler brings a deep sense of him. It would be meaningless as a collection of files, or even a CD.

Having said that probably 3/4 of my collection is digital ripped from CD. However, I'm still buying vinyl for some stuff, and the criteria for selection of CD or Vinyl is not totally clear to me. It is about how the music makes me feel.

I think humans have emotional connections to lots of things, and that's a very legitimate reason to enjoy what makes you happy. That said, vinyl is objectively inferior in playback to digital formats, all mastering equal. That shouldn't dissuade anyone from enjoying the format, however.

 

[rdenney]

If you are doing eight track you need it installed in a vintage 1960's car - under dash unit with Jensen 6X9 Coaxial rear deck speakers. That actually brings back some memories.....

The Craig Power Play.

Rick “playing Lynyrd Skynyrd” Denney

 

[rdenney]

The "problem" with digital is not the technology but rather the "lost art of quality recording and mastering". I agree that a good digital recording can sound better (although not as much as the "measurements" would lead you to believe) than the same on an LP. The problem is that between dodgy compressed and EQ'd remasters of older music, and the ultra compressed modern mastering style, good quality digital recordings are much harder to come by than they should be and streaming services are not the best place to find them . I think having a TT and digital playback and streaming gives you the best chance of finding a good sounding recording of your favorite music.

That’s not a problem with digital, it’s a problem mastering methods for pop music since the 90’s. Vinyl albums made since then have that same over-compressed mastering.

Early CDs did not have that beyond what they were doing anyway. Classical and jazz have never really had it in excessive amounts.

But it’s nothing to do with digital.

Rick “whose digital needledrops sound exactly like listening to the LP” Denney

 

[symphara]

Unfortunately, for older recordings, you can't just "find" a better version in digital. It doesn't work that way. I wish it did. Some masterings were done before the original magnetic tapes were destroyed, for instance. Thankfully, some archivists and digital technicians are going over the original masterings where possible and cleaning them up, but that's just not true for every recording out there.

I didn’t say it was the case that you’ll get a good master in digital format for everything. I was merely refuting the rather silly point that it’s somehow a general problem finding good sounding digital records, which is why we “need” vinyl. It isn’t, and we don’t.

I had a similar conversation with a friend who has a large CD collection but refuses to digitize it and prefers to physically handle the discs. That’s perfectly fine with me, but then he thinks it sounds “better” when listening to digital music this way. It’s not better. In this case, unlike with vinyl, it’s the same, just with more elaborate steps. But it’s a case of the ritual elevating the source and creating false impressions in the mind of the user. I wish he said “look, I like picking the disc, opening the case, looking at the artwork, ejecting the CD player tray and placing it there”. Then he’d have no quibble with me.

 

[Frank Dernie]

The "problem" with digital is not the technology but rather the "lost art of quality recording and mastering". I agree that a good digital recording can sound better (although not as much as the "measurements" would lead you to believe) than the same on an LP. The problem is that between dodgy compressed and EQ'd remasters of older music, and the ultra compressed modern mastering style, good quality digital recordings are much harder to come by than they should be and streaming services are not the best place to find them . I think having a TT and digital playback and streaming gives you the best chance of finding a good sounding recording of your favorite music.

There are two things of note here IMO.
Firstly CDs don't sound as much better than LPs as one may expect from the measurements is, I think, because the actual dynamic range and frequency range we hear is actually far narrower than we believe, so the shortcomings of LPs aren't as obvious as one may expect and that leads to the second, that the variation in the sound quality pf the recortdings we listen to is greater, often far greater, than the difference between the various bits of equipment and mediiums we choose to listen to them on.

 

[ahofer]

I was merely refuting the rather silly point that it’s somehow a general problem finding good sounding digital records, which is why we “need” vinyl. It isn’t, and we don’t

To clarify, I *did* find this a problem in the 1980s and early 1990s. No longer.

 

[levimax]

I didn’t say it was the case that you’ll get a good master in digital format for everything. I was merely refuting the rather silly point that it’s somehow a general problem finding good sounding digital records, which is why we “need” vinyl. It isn’t, and we don’t.

I will agree to disagree on how easy it is to find a "good sounding digital version" of some older music. As mentioned earlier if you grew up hearing music a certain way and it is changed (remastered) I find I tend to prefer the "original" version. In addition for me part of the fun of the Hi-Fi recorded music hobby is the historic and artistic context of the recorded music. Original LP's have the large artwork and "sound" like the original which includes the technology and mastering style of the day. For instance if an LP originally came out in Mono and was "remastered to stereo" years late I will almost always prefer the original mono version. Of course no one "needs" the ability to play LP's to enjoy listening to music but for me and apparently others it adds some fun and entertainment to the process. For me the more formats I can play the more opportunity for fun.... YMMV.