Exactly, how much does vinyl suck less than it did 30 years ago? This needs to be quantified.

[tineared]

So, you're entitled to make fun of anyone whose behavior doesn't quite match your value system. I think that demonstrates the point Hal was making.

By your definition, most of my system is anachronistic--my preamp was made in 1979, my tuner in 1991 (tuner? TUNER!?), my digital parametric equalizer in 2000 or so, my CD player in 2002, my speakers in 2005, etc. My amp is relatively new and fairly modern, and there are whole threads on this forum devoted to explaining what's wrong with it.

But my system can sustain SINAD from source to amp speaker outputs between 85 and 90 dB. (No speakers are that good, period.) If you think that's easy because your DAC has a SINAD of 120 dB, then perhaps you should measure it and see. I have done so.

I totally get the problem of vinyl enthusiasts implying with their nostalgia (and sometimes outright claims) that vinyl is a superior medium for whatever reason. That's silly, of course. But I don't see that on this forum, except from the occasional troll. Given that this is an elsewhere problem and not a here problem, I don't know why we keep being forced to relitigate it, when in general there is no disagreement.

The question of this thread was this: Has vinyl improved in the last 30 years? Answer: No. It's as bad or as good as it was in its heyday. I think that was answered adequately on Page 1.

Rick "you are not entitled to make fun of people you don't know" Denney

I don't think you read my post very carefully.
I never mentioned using old gear. My speakers are 30 years old and the amplifier powering them is at least 25 years old.
I never made fun of anyone. I justified making fun of anachronistic behavior.
Playing vinyl that you already own is a given. Purchasing more is silly...

 

[EJ3]

I disagree.
We go to great lengths to eliminate noise from the audio chain.
Vinyl introduces noise that optical and electronic mediums do not.
I think we are entitled to make fun of anachronistic behavior...

Like Rick, my throughput is at least a SINAD of 90:
My 1977 APT/Holman preamps have a SINAD of 90 and 18 bits of dynamic range. MINE was Tested by Amirm.
My 1984 NAD 2200 amps SINAD of 95 (though the LAB inputs) and 19 bits of dynamic range and can put out (one of MY 6 was tested by Amirm)

Wow, we have one kilowatt of power coming out of this amp in short duration! (Tested by Amirm)

My 1987 tuner (yep, TUNER) NAD 4300 (with a MOD copied from Mike Bugaj): I put a filter in place of the board which netted me three 150khz filters. Selectivity increased dramatically. The noise reduction, in my opinion, works very well. Over on the right side is the tuning dial. This is the smoothest, slickest, most enjoyable tuning dial I have ever used. I fell in love with it. Don't tell my wife. The tuning is in 50khz steps. I don't see any way to change that, but that's minor.
And also a SUMO CHARLIE THE TUNER (not yet in the system).
My CD recorder and player (can record at up to 20 bits) 1989 SONY RCD-W500C: Frequency Response: 20Hz-20kHz 0.5dB, Signal to Noise Ratio Playback: >100 dB
Dynamic Range Playback: >95 dB
Video deck: oPPo 205 UDP (one was tested here by Amirm [not mine])

Also, as Rick said: (No speakers are that good, period.)
But my Dahlquist M-905's have an FR of:
When the bass curve was spliced to the room-response measurement, the resulting composite frequency response was flat within about ±2 dB from 26 to 20,000 Hz. The horizontal directivity of the tweeter was only discernible in the room measurement above 10,000 Hz.
That is certainly pretty good.

So, I can also sustain a 90 SINAD throughput with "ancient" gear. (with the exception of my phono section, a new Michael Fidler MM Pro MKII which gives me a SINAD of around 80 (I don't know for sure yet, as it has not been measured yet).

I fully agree with: "you are not entitled to make fun of people you don't know"

But I would like to know if your system can sustain a 90+ SINAD all the way through.
And if so, what are you using.
PLEASE enlighten us...

EJ3

 

[tineared]

Like Rick, my throughput is at least a SINAD of 90:
My 1977 APT/Holman preamps have a SINAD of 90 and 18 bits of dynamic range. MINE was Tested by Amirm.
My 1984 NAD 2200 amps SINAD of 95 (though the LAB inputs) and 19 bits of dynamic range and can put out (one of MY 6 was tested by Amirm)

Wow, we have one kilowatt of power coming out of this amp in short duration! (Tested by Amirm)

My 1987 tuner (yep, TUNER) NAD 4300 (with a MOD copied from Mike Bugaj): I put a filter in place of the board which netted me three 150khz filters. Selectivity increased dramatically. The noise reduction, in my opinion, works very well. Over on the right side is the tuning dial. This is the smoothest, slickest, most enjoyable tuning dial I have ever used. I fell in love with it. Don't tell my wife. The tuning is in 50khz steps. I don't see any way to change that, but that's minor.
And also a SUMO CHARLIE THE TUNER (not yet in the system).
My CD recorder and player (can record at up to 20 bits) 1989 SONY RCD-W500C: Frequency Response: 20Hz-20kHz 0.5dB, Signal to Noise Ratio Playback: >100 dB
Dynamic Range Playback: >95 dB
Video deck: oPPo 205 UDP (one was tested here by Amirm [not mine])

Also, as Rick said: (No speakers are that good, period.)
But my Dahlquist M-905's have an FR of:
When the bass curve was spliced to the room-response measurement, the resulting composite frequency response was flat within about ±2 dB from 26 to 20,000 Hz. The horizontal directivity of the tweeter was only discernible in the room measurement above 10,000 Hz.
That is certainly pretty good.

So, I can also sustain a 90 SINAD throughput with "ancient" gear. (with the exception of my phono section, a new Michael Fidler MM Pro MKII which gives me a SINAD of around 80 (I don't know for sure yet, as it has not been measured yet).

I fully agree with: "you are not entitled to make fun of people you don't know"

But I would like to know if your system can sustain a 90+ SINAD all the way through.
And if so, what are you using.
PLEASE enlighten us...

EJ3

Do you understand that my comment and this thread is about purchasing new vinyl?

 

[EJ3]

I don't think you read my post very carefully.
I never mentioned using old gear. My speakers are 30 years old and the amplifier powering them is at least 25 years old.
I never made fun of anyone. I justified making fun of anachronistic behavior.
Playing vinyl that you already own is a given. Purchasing more is silly...

Unfortunately, it's many times hard to tell the intent of what people say and how it is said, with just the written word to go by.
Which is why, I did not just block you.
As I actually hoped that I was not seeing the whole picture of what you intended to say.
Thanks for showing me that my initial thoughts were on the wrong track.
And "enlightening" us as to what you intended to impart to us.
EJ3

 

[antcollinet]

Purchasing more is silly...

By who's definition?

 

[tineared]

By who's definition?

Anyone who values the least amount of noise and the highest fidelity in their music source material.
See post #129

 

[DavidEdwinAston]

By who's definition?

Perhaps, people who consider that listening to music in their own homes, by electronic means, should be done with the least additional audible interference?

 

[Sal1950]

By who's definition?

Only those of us whose interest is buying the best sound available.
I completely quit buying big hole 45s back around 1965.
I was never of age during the 78 shellacs dominance but did watch it completely die in the 1950s
Every dog has it's day, vinyls relevance as a High Fidelity medium collapsed around 1985.
Lots of folks out there still have collections of crankup Victrola's and Edison cylinder machines, they can be fun to play with too.
But I wouldn't recommend anyone run out and buy one for 2026 music enjoyment.

 

[egellings]

Enjoy your music on whatever medium you like. Vinyl, although not up to digital format performance standards, is good enough to enjoy the music.

 

[EJ3]

Do you understand that my comment and this thread is about purchasing new vinyl?

Sometimes I'm glad that I was wrong. This is one of those times.

 

[Joe Smith]

Enjoy your music on whatever medium you like. Vinyl, although not up to digital format performance standards, is good enough to enjoy the music.

Amen to this. I enjoy high fidelity reproduction. By my definition, that includes good playback on vinyl. I have zero interest in chasing SINAD to the Nth degree.

 

[egellings]

Amen to this. I enjoy high fidelity reproduction. By my definition, that includes good playback on vinyl. I have zero interest in chasing SINAD to the Nth degree.

Agree. Once you cannot hear an improvement in sound quality after it gets good enough, then why bother? The race is over. You've crossed the finish line. Stop running.

 

[antcollinet]

Anyone who values the least amount of noise and the highest fidelity in their music source material.
See post #129

Only those of us whose interest is buying the best sound available.

What if people value other aspects of vinyl playback and are prepared to put up with a little (masked by the music in any case) noise while enjoying it. Doesn't that then make it a rational decision. Just one based on values that are different from yours?

 

[tineared]

What if people value other aspects of vinyl playback and are prepared to put up with a little (masked by the music in any case) noise while enjoying it. Doesn't that then make it a rational decision. Just one based on values that are different from yours?

No, it is not a rational decision for the reasons previously stated.
It is an emotional decision which is perfectly valid and you have every right to make.
Just be prepared for a bit of ribbing as this is a science-based forum.
There are plenty of folks out there who are perfectly content to listen to table radios, and that is fine too.

 

[Thomas_A]

Just a glimpse of how vinyl sucks at my home tonight.

Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

 

[antcollinet]

No, it is not a rational decision for the reasons previously stated.

Rational
of, relating to, or constituting reasoning powers.

You seem to be conflating the position of someone listening to "not the best possible sound quality" as being in some way not scientific, and therefore irrational.

That would only be the case if the person were denying the science - for example, by believing the sound quality were objectively better. Not the case for most people here.

Having *other reasons* than absolute sound quality for making a decision is not irrational, it is a reasoned decision taking other inputs into account. Especially the one (if it is relevant) that the objective reduction in sound quality does not detract in any way from the enjoyment of the music.

In that case it would be actually irrational not to take the individuals benefits they get from vinyl, in favour of objective sound quality which at that point brings them no benefit.


Oh, and don't think for a minute that your desire to only listen to the best objective sound quality isn't an emotional decision. Every decision we take as humans is rooted in the complete spectrum of our thinking - from pure emotion to pure rationality.

 

[Laika2]

Rational
of, relating to, or constituting reasoning powers.

You seem to be conflating the position of someone listening to "not the best possible sound quality" as being in some way not scientific, and therefore irrational.

That would only be the case if the person were denying the science - for example, by believing the sound quality were objectively better. Not the case for most people here.

Having *other reasons* than absolute sound quality for making a decision is not irrational, it is a reasoned decision taking other inputs into account. Especially the one (if it is relevant) that the objective reduction in sound quality does not detract in any way from the enjoyment of the music.

In that case it would be actually irrational not to take the individuals benefits they get from vinyl, in favour of objective sound quality which at that point brings them no benefit.


Oh, and don't think for a minute that your desire to only listen to the best objective sound quality isn't an emotional decision. Every decision we take as humans is rooted in the complete spectrum of our thinking - from pure emotion to pure rationality.

Well said, I'm mostly flac and CD but dug my 30 year old LPs a few years back and started listening to vinyl again. Some mixes sound better on vinyl, Roxy Musics Avalon on vinyl has a haunting wall of sound the CD does not, the CD (at least the early releases) was so clinical and surgical the wall of sound was gone and the mix is boring. Some mixes on vinyl simply sound better than CDs to me. They put the emotion back into the music. A blind buy, safer to go digital but some mixes sound much better on vinyl to me.

 

[krabapple]

Rick "you are not entitled to make fun of people you don't know" Denney

.......................................................................................................................................

Like all ASR threads about the mystery that is vinyl, this one is folding in on itself, like a pastry.
Layer on layer of the same....argument sequence.
So many times, I suspect the bottom layers of the Mystery have compressed to coal by now. Maybe diamonds?

 

[Sal1950]

Vinyl, although not up to digital format performance standards, is good enough to enjoy the music.

As always was AM radio, but I wouldn't want to use it as source for my Hi Fi.

I have zero interest in chasing SINAD to the Nth degree.

Who is? That isn't and hasn't been any part of this discussion, don't change the subject.

Once you cannot hear an improvement in sound quality after it gets good enough, then why bother? The race is over. You've crossed the finish line. Stop running.

Right, but the difference between the average vinyl and the average CD is easily heard.

What if people value other aspects of vinyl playback and are prepared to put up with a little (masked by the music in any case) noise while enjoying it. Doesn't that then make it a rational decision.

Have I expressed anything different.? If it's rational to you fine.
Does it equal digital for sound quality, not by a mile, and that isn't even bringing multich into the picture.

Roxy Musics Avalon on vinyl has a haunting wall of sound the CD does not, the CD (at least the early releases) was so clinical and surgical the wall of sound was gone and the mix is boring.

You think that sounds good? You should hear the new Grammy-nominated Dolby Atmos mix from Bob Clearmountain on BluRay, with 2, 5.1 and Atmos mixes to please all tastes. https://immersiveaudioalbum.com/roxy-music-avalon-dolby-atmos/
Now of course if you'd rather pay approx $40 for the same mix in Snap, Crackle, and Pop form, be my guest.

 

[antcollinet]

You should hear the new Grammy-nominated Dolby Atmos mix from Bob Clearmountain on BluRay,

Can I get that if I no longer have a bluray player? I'd quite like to try it.