Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?

[Robin L]

On the flipside:

I've yet to see a thread on digital playback here where vinyl enthusiasts have entered to disparage digital playback and belittle the motivations of those who choose to play digital music over vinyl.

For that sort of thing, you'll want to go to Analog Planet.

 

[egellings]

I enjoy vinyl records and don't mind getting up to flip a disk, since I'd be doing that anyway to refill my beer glass.

 

[egellings]

One of the things about vinyl playback is the quality of the turntable, arm, cart, & RIAA preamp. The performance of those and their combinations can be all over the road, and sonic results can vary widely. With CD playback, there is much less in the chain the user can choose to change. You buy a box, maybe two, plug it into the preamp and it's a done deal. There's less chance of botching that up. Your chances of getting good sound are much better. A poorly set up vinyl system can sound mediocre, or if it's done right, can sound excellent. Once a properly set up T.T. is heard, interest can be sparked in the listener to get a vinyl setup. And, there's the recent cool factor in the recent vinyl renaissance driving an interest in it.

 

[theREALdotnet]

I've yet to see a thread on digital playback here where vinyl enthusiasts have entered to disparage digital playback and belittle the motivations of those who choose to play digital music over vinyl.

They usually come in disguises, like this one.

 

[MattHooper]

One of the things about vinyl playback is the quality of the turntable, arm, cart, & RIAA preamp.

I admit to having bought one of those over-built high mass turntables (second hand). It was from Germany's oldest turntable manufacturer (been making turntables since the early 70's) so I figured they at least knew what they were doing rather than being some new vinyl-bandwagon-hopping new company. Still, I'm sure it goes beyond what it needs to in order to realize decent vinyl performance (and it certainly did seem to make improvements over my previous micro seiki). But I also have no problem believing it's outperformed in some ways by well designed turntables that are much cheaper.

The thing that kills me watching the audiophile turntable market is this apparent "If X is good, the more X must be better."

So yeah, isolating the vinyl signal from additional spurious vibration is a good thing, and that's what turntable engineers have been doing for a long time.

But as in all things audiophile it's taken to crazy extremes. It starts with a regular sized turntable with a metal platter. Then the next model the platter is twice as thick. Then you have a 30lb platter, then 50 lb, then 80 lb - all in the name of "isolation." Then the massive platters are placed on isolation platforms of heroic construction - like layers of coliseum pillars with vibration isolation separating each layer. Slap on an $80,000 - $200,000 price tag and there you go! It's like, my god, just how much isolation is enough? Surely these things were well in to the "doesn't make any more audible difference" well before these massive structures were designed.

But it's sold in the same sense of "you can always do better, and you can always hear a difference." Even if in engineering/sonic terms it stopped making sense long ago.

Reminds me of the audiophile urge to continually tweak via ever more expensive cables, shielding, isolation devices, cable risers etc, to "lower the noise floor more each time." It's as if the ability to lower some mythical "noise floor" is infinite and human hearing has some infinite ability
to keep hearing down further. (Which is why this is so well explained as being people's imagination - our hearing isn't infinite, but our ability to imagine changes seems to be).

 

[Robin L]

I admit to having bought one of those over-built high mass turntables (second hand). It was from Germany's oldest turntable manufacturer (been making turntables since the early 70's) so I figured they at least knew what they were doing rather than being some new vinyl-bandwagon-hopping new company. Still, I'm sure it goes beyond what it needs to in order to realize decent vinyl performance (and it certainly did seem to make improvements over my previous micro seiki). But I also have no problem believing it's outperformed in some ways by well designed turntables that are much cheaper.

The thing that kills me watching the audiophile turntable market is this apparent "If X is good, the more X must be better."

So yeah, isolating the vinyl signal from additional spurious vibration is a good thing, and that's what turntable engineers have been doing for a long time.

But as in all things audiophile it's taken to crazy extremes. It starts with a regular sized turntable with a metal platter. Then the next model the platter is twice as thick. Then you have a 30lb platter, then 50 lb, then 80 lb - all in the name of "isolation." Then the massive platters are placed on isolation platforms of heroic construction - like layers of coliseum pillars with vibration isolation separating each layer. Slap on an $80,000 - $200,000 price tag and there you go! It's like, my god, just how much isolation is enough? Surely these things were well in to the "doesn't make any more audible difference" well before these massive structures were designed.

But it's sold in the same sense of "you can always do better, and you can always hear a difference." Even if in engineering/sonic terms it stopped making sense long ago.

Reminds me of the audiophile urge to continually tweak via ever more expensive cables, shielding, isolation devices, cable risers etc, to "lower the noise floor more each time." It's as if the ability to lower some mythical "noise floor" is infinite and human hearing has some infinite ability
to keep hearing down further. (Which is why this is so well explained as being people's imagination - our hearing isn't infinite, but our ability to imagine changes seems to be).

If I had to go back [I won't] I'd get one of the Technics direct drive revival tables. Even Technics' cheap, semi-disposable direct-drive models with P-Mount cartridges did a decent job [I owned 2], with the bigger, heavier models using mass in appropriate ways. KPFA had a few Technics P-10 'tables with SME II arms and Stanton cartridges that could take back-cuing, great, solid workhorses. But Technics has a limit on the craziness while having about the best performance specs as regards wow, flutter and rumble of any turntable. I wouldn't want to go any higher than Technics' current top of the line, knowing that the basic functions of the 'table can't be bettered.

 

[BDWoody]

Even Technics' cheap, semi-disposable direct-drive models with P-Mount cartridges did a decent job [I owned 2], with the bigger, heavier models using mass in appropriate ways.

My SL-10 and SL-15 are both nicely substantial, easy to use with that linear tracking, p-mount goodness, and came with a couple of cartridges that were actually pretty decent fwiu.

For @$1k these days, I think you could do a lot worse...particularly for those who don't like as much futzing around.

 

[carewser]

Nope, I listen on a 5.2.4 multich system.
Can't do that with cans. LOL\/

Sal, what the hell is a "5.2.4 multich system"?

 

[carewser]

Not everybody thinks that, obviously.

Well then why are they at this site?

 

[MattHooper]

Sal's right, the goal of hi-fi is to eliminate as many sonic flaws and blemishes as possible so I don't know what fucking planet you're from but it doesn't seem to be the same one he and I inhabit

I think your encounter with that huge shark might have set you mentally adrift

Yeesh.

It's like discussing listening to vinyl is akin to recommending recipes for eating babies.

Chill dude.

I also listen to full res digital music via my Benchmark DAC 2L and Benchmark LA4 preamp etc. Much of the time I'm listening to a vastly more accurate and revealing system than the average Joe. But I also really enjoy spinning vinyl for the reasons I've given. That ok with you?

Well then why are they at this site?

It was explained in the very post you quoted earlier.

The one that was "liked" by several regulars in the forum, who understood it.

 

[IPunchCholla]

If I had to go back [I won't] I'd get one of the Technics direct drive revival tables. Even Technics' cheap, semi-disposable direct-drive models with P-Mount cartridges did a decent job [I owned 2], with the bigger, heavier models using mass in appropriate ways. KPFA had a few Technics P-10 'tables with SME II arms and Stanton cartridges that could take back-cuing, great, solid workhorses. But Technics has a limit on the craziness while having about the best performance specs as regards wow, flutter and rumble of any turntable. I wouldn't want to go any higher than Technics' current top of the line, knowing that the basic functions of the 'table can't be bettered.

Technics current top of the line is kinda Pricey

 

[IPunchCholla]

My SL-10 and SL-15 are both nicely substantial, easy to use with that linear tracking, p-mount goodness, and came with a couple of cartridges that were actually pretty decent fwiu.

For @$1k these days, I think you could do a lot worse...particularly for those who don't like as much futzing around.

I’ve been looking around for p-mount cartridge measurements, but so far haven’t found many. Do you know of any good resources?

 

[Robin L]

My SL-10 and SL-15 are both nicely substantial, easy to use with that linear tracking, p-mount goodness, and came with a couple of cartridges that were actually pretty decent fwiu.

For @$1k these days, I think you could do a lot worse...particularly for those who don't like as much futzing around.

My last turntable was a Technics SL-D2, semi-automatic, pre-quartz. S-curved chromed tonearm, removable headshell. Fairly heavy by Technics standards. It had a Shure M44-7 cartridge tracking at 2.5 grams. Not the highest fidelity turntable I owned, but really good with trashed $1 records and better than all but a few turntables I've owned. $50 for the turntable [with a cracked dust cover] from Amvets. The replacement stylus for the cartridge was more and it was worth it.

 

[Robin L]

Technics current top of the line is kinda Pricey

But not insane.

 

[MattHooper]

I think some here might enjoy this.

This is a documentary by the much lauded cult-documentarian Alan Zweig. (I worked on one of his early films). It is absolutely fantastic.
Blew me away when I saw it during it's first screening. What you can get on an absolute zero-budget, so long as you have a compelling
film maker and characters.

This came out in 2000, way before the vinyl revival of course, and was shot during vinyl's nadir. Zweig was one of the vinyl hold outs, but the sheer neuroticism of his vinyl collecting finally got to him and he documented his despair and self-loathing on the subject in a searingly honest fashion. Along the way he interviews many other vinyl geeks at that time, a real parade of fringe characters as you might expect before vinyl became "cool" again. Ostensibly he's there to ask them about their vinyl collections and motivations. But it's mostly as a way of needling them on their psyche as in "look at yourself! Are you sure this is ok?" - he's bringing his own self loathing and skepticism to the party.

If you enjoy vinyl, ever had a vinyl collection, hate vinyl...or all of the above, I think you might find this oddly fascinating:

Vinyl, The Movie:

 

[MaxBuck]

I have absolutely no problem with people enjoying the hobby of playing polyvinyl chloride disks on rotating platters on which a complicated electromechanical gizmo permits a signal to be generated that ultimately approximates music. Just don't like those people snootily declaring that other means of approximating music are inferior because of a "lack of soul."

Let me assure you, neither the manufacture of polyvinyl chloride, nor the complicated electromechanics that permit sound waves ultimately to be generated from its textured surface, possesses a "soul."

 

[IPunchCholla]

But not insane.

I mean, it’s a thing of beauty, but out of curiosity, it would be fun to measure against my SL-QD33 ( with the same cartridge) that cost me $75 to see exactly what all that engineering and $18,924 gets you.

 

[Robin L]

I mean, it’s a thing of beauty, but out of curiosity, it would be fun to measure against my SL-QD33 ( with the same cartridge) that cost me $75 to see exactly what all that engineering and $18,924 gets you.

The greater part of 20 grand ain't chump change. However, that's nothing like the cost-no-object designs that are north of $100K.

 

[Ricardus]

 

[drewdawg999]

I mean, it’s a thing of beauty, but out of curiosity, it would be fun to measure against my SL-QD33 ( with the same cartridge) that cost me $75 to see exactly what all that engineering and $18,924 gets you.

The wow and flutter on my SL-QD35 is 0.025%. I believe the SL-1000R is at 0.015%, the smallest increment they could measure. So there you go, a 0.01% increase in speed stability. Seems a bit like diminishing returns to me. Slightly better tonearm though . Also not limited to P-mount carts.