Turntables - help me understand the appeal?

[MusicNBeer]

From my brief experience here, I agree Frank.

Though I can detect the sound of occasional gritting of teeth when vinyl is praised at all, generally I find the responses here balanced, thoughtful and civil.

I think I agree with this. There were a few responses that really irked me but overall the tone here is good. I do agree the analog zealots are worse; insane and completely disregard physics. I'm equally annoyed at the hi-rez zealots. Redbook CAN be damn good, when mastered correctly. 90+ dB is a boatload of dynamic range. I always shake my head when I read people recording 50 dB range vinyl to 24 bit.

 

[cjfrbw]

. 90+ dB is a boatload of dynamic range. I always shake my head when I read people recording 50 dB range vinyl to 24 bit.

Less than 24 bit dynamic range does not capture the hiss, pops, rumble and ticks with adequate fidelity.

 

[bigx5murf]

Technics tried to make cartridge replacement/upgrades easier and more modular when they introduced the T4P plug-in style cartridge format (some call it the "p-mount"). First introduced on the early Technics linear tracking models (the SL-7, SL-10, and SL-15), the T4P standard attempted to "standardize" cartridge weight and tracking force so that consumers could easily replaced a cartridge simply by removing a set screw, unplugging the old cartridge, plugging in the new cartridge, and then replacing the set screw. No further adjustments were necessary as long as the replacement cartridge met the T4P standard. Unfortunately, it was introduced just as CDs were coming onto the scene, so it did not catch on industry-wide.

Most of the T4P turntables, at least the ones above entry level, still had tracking force adjustment, but it was only +/- 0.25 grams of adjustment. Some of these models were computer controlled linear trackers, and needed adjustments to help it read the space between tracks.

 

[Killingbeans]

I think I agree with this. There were a few responses that really irked me but overall the tone here is good. I do agree the analog zealots are worse; insane and completely disregard physics. I'm equally annoyed at the hi-rez zealots..

My grandfarthers favorite saying was: "Unlike most people who won't admit their faults, I'd gladly admit mine - if I had any."

We all have silly beliefs, but it's okay as long as we either know how silly they are and won't impose them on others or are willing to identify them as silly when faced by evidence. On the other end of the spectrum mindless crusades are not uncommon. Knowing what battles are worth fighting in the name of science is not easy. Keeping a good tone definitely helps in finding a golden middle way.

 

[The Dragon]

Most of the T4P turntables, at least the ones above entry level, still had tracking force adjustment, but it was only +/- 0.25 grams of adjustment. Some of these models were computer controlled linear trackers, and needed adjustments to help it read the space between tracks.

Some of the later models did have a fine adjustment for tracking force (+/- 0.25 grams), but the default was still 1.25 grams. This adjustment was provided to accommodate some of the later T4P cartridges which did not comply with the T4P standard, such as the Grado models, which required 1.5 grams of tracking force.

The adjustment to help "read" the space between tracks were only for the "programmable" models and has nothing to do with the cartridge itself. It has to do with the light source on the arm being able to detect the reflected light from the tonearm correctly back to the light sensor.

 

[jsrtheta]

You have to straighten up you act.
Or quit getting caught.

You'll never catch me, copper!

 

[jsrtheta]

Turntables: never have so many struggled and spent so much so long and so hard to be so imperfect.

To embroider on a point already hinted at, one thing I've never heard a vinylphile explain is why, if they prefer analog, they don't go for reel-to-reel. If digital is really so inferior to analog (not an argument made here, to be sure), then why not a resurgence in R2R? After all, it was the mother of all LPs, without the limitations and surface noise.

It has been said here that some vinyl iterations of albums sound better than some digital counterparts, and that's true, though largely because of different recording and mastering processes. But do vinylphiles maintain that an LP will sound better than the analog R2R master (speaking of recordings where they exist, of course).

Growing up in the '50s, I remember that the real hi-fi nuts only bought prerecorded tape, not LPs. Yet while the hipsters have resurrected vinyl, where is the demand for analog tape, which could only sound better, all other things being equal?

'Tis a mystery...

 

[jsrtheta]

Always wondered, why the two arms?
So you can play two different tracks at once?

Analog delay.

 

[jsrtheta]

Interestingly, Fremer rips vinyl using a Lynx Hilo and all to showcase the LP format to a wider audience.

It’s the mastering and vinyl sound he likes, I guess. He is not trying to win a technical argument on analog vs digital, as far as I understand.

Fremer has been trying to kill CD and digital since it came out. Apart from lying about the accuracy of the sound, he also promoted the bogus "CD rot" idiocy.

He is not a good person.

 

[MattHooper]

To embroider on a point already hinted at, one thing I've never heard a vinylphile explain is why, if they prefer analog, they don't go for reel-to-reel. If digital is really so inferior to analog (not an argument made here, to be sure), then why not a resurgence in R2R? After all, it was the mother of all LPs, without the limitations and surface noise.

This was discussed earlier in the thread. RTR is an even more troublesome and expensive endeavour ( the way audiophiles want to do it) than vinyl. It's tough to find the machines, they are often super expensive, and actual content is both rare and almost always very expensive (I seem to remember in the hundreds of dollars for various audiophile approved tapes). And of course the catalogue is vastly smaller than vinyl - and plenty of vinylphiles enjoy hunting through bins, finding surprises and bargains, etc. That's never going to happen with RTR.

Even though many analog-loving audiophiles would love to have a RTR and a bounty of tapes to spin, the realities are that RTR is mostly for rich cats at this point and I think by nature it will remain super niche.

At least, that's my reading of the situation.

 

[JohnBooty]

then why not a resurgence in R2R?

Because there are vast reams of turntables and vinyl recordings, available for cheap, in thrift stores, basements, and attics all over the world. Compared to a truly (relatively) miniscule number of R2R recordings and decks... and they certainly aren't cheap.

Anyway, the percentage of "vinylphiles" proclaiming records are objectively better than digital in any objective way is very, very small. I can't even recall the last time I heard anybody claim that with sincerity.

The vast majority of people buying vinyl are doing it because they feel records sound subjectively better, like to have some physical artifacts of their music, and/or enjoy the way vinyl encourages you to listen to albums in their entirety.

(Mostly digital myself, but I do like those aspects of vinyl. Also friends and family tend to buy it for me for holidays and birthdays since I'm tough to buy for otherwise...)

 

[MattHooper]

Back to what I was getting at earlier in the thread: The relationship between the technical and measurable differences in the digital vs vinyl process, the actual results in terms of perception, and the issue of "sound quality."

I've been told that on this site "Sound Quality" refers to measurable accuracy. That's cool and the emphasis on understanding what's actually happening objectively is why I have enjoyed reading this site lately.

Though it seems to me that perhaps merely the term "Accuracy" or "Fidelity" may be a more suitable term, as "Sound Quality" generally has a heritage of meaning in terms of what we actually hear. After all, something can be measurably accurate, but that doesn't actually tell you what the "sound quality" will be of anything you'll actually listen to. Put a truly crappy recording on and no matter how accurately the system measures, you will be hearing what all would likely agree to be Bad Sound Quality. So it seems more conceptually clear to refer to a system's "accuracy" rather than it's "sound quality" if one is referencing measurements rather than perception.

But...that's my opinion. I'm keen to hear other opinions.


I don't believe that using "Sound Quality" - how something actually sounds to listeners - necessarily leads to pure subjectivism, as if it must be indistinguishable from "preference." Being able to agree on what something is like, beyond mere personal value judgements, is why we human beings come up with descriptions in the first place. I was over at my friend's place listening to his system. When we talked about the sound, we both agreed as to which descriptors applied. It was just insanely clean, clear, airy, transparent and detailed sounding.

And yet he loved how it sounded and I really did not, and I couldn't wait to get home to my system. So we can have different subjective preferences, but in principle we can agree on the "sound quality" as to the specific features of the sound.

Which gets back to the issue apropos of "why would any audiophile choose vinyl?" - we have this issue of the technical vs the perceptual; how much different something measures vs how different it actually sounds, if it does at all.

The descriptions of the vinyl-making process can easily lead to the conclusion that digital recording/mastering is vastly more advanced. (Which, it certainly is in a sense). But does an apt description of "vastly more advanced" or "much more accurate" automatically entail a commensurate description in what we'll actually hear?

I put on another LP I received recently, a collection of electronic/synth-based pieces from the late 70's early 80s. They are often quite good recordings. It had been put out simultaneously on CD and vinyl not long ago, and I've lived with the digital version. I put on the vinyl and...the background noise was super low, essentially inaudible from my listening chair. I put on the digital version and went back and forth between them.
Whatever the story of how each was made, and however they may measure differently, in terms of the actual sound quality I could perceive, it was essentially a toss-up. The vinyl version sounded super clean and clear. Try as I might, I could not hear any details gone missing on the vinyl vs the CD - every drum hit, cymbal, kick drum, guitar parts, all the variety of synth burbles sharp and dull - and every nuance of any bit of reverb, all seemed as intelligible and clean on each format. Both produced excellent sound quality.

The only difference was in a slightly different character to the vinyl presentation. It was a bit more forward and present tonally, with a sort of more palpable texture and density. Instrument imaging seemed a bit more put in relief, more as if they were "right there in the air" with more separation from each other, a really high level of discernability. And the sound generally seemed a bit more exciting in the upper mids, and a bit more full and punchy in the bass. Drum parts, from toms to kick drums, cracked the air a bit more and felt like they had somewhat more sense of "drive." The vinyl version had a bit more "bursting from the speakers" energy, the digital version sounding a tiny bit more canned and reserved in comparison.
So this may be some combination of deviations from the digital version for any number of reasons, including whatever the person mastering for the vinyl might have done differently. But the end result to my ears is very comparable "sound quality" with slight differences where people may differ in which they prefer.

I think the digital version is a bit more subtle in terms of instrumental timbre - my sense is that is particularly where I'm catching it being more accurate to the source, even lower distortion than the vinyl. But it's quite subtle, and it's amazing to what degree the sound from of such an old technology can hold up to the current one, and I can easily see why the vinyl version could be preferred on sonic grounds by some people. In fact, I found myself preferring the vinyl overall.

 

[bigx5murf]

I do have a RTR machine as well. Pre recorded tape is just too difficult to come by, and cost too much. It's hard to discern condition as well, often when it's been bound tightly for too long, the inner parts of the tape sound distorted from being stretched. New blank tape is around $50 for a bare pan cake, and you still need to buy two reels to play it. But then you're just recording other media onto the format. Changing sides by rethreading tape is a huge hassle as well. Even so, I don't think I'll ever get rid of my RTR machine.

 

[jsrtheta]

This was discussed earlier in the thread. RTR is an even more troublesome and expensive endeavour ( the way audiophiles want to do it) than vinyl. It's tough to find the machines, they are often super expensive, and actual content is both rare and almost always very expensive (I seem to remember in the hundreds of dollars for various audiophile approved tapes). And of course the catalogue is vastly smaller than vinyl - and plenty of vinylphiles enjoy hunting through bins, finding surprises and bargains, etc. That's never going to happen with RTR.

Even though many analog-loving audiophiles would love to have a RTR and a bounty of tapes to spin, the realities are that RTR is mostly for rich cats at this point and I think by nature it will remain super niche.

At least, that's my reading of the situation.

If the sincere argument against digital when it appeared was that analog trumped digital (and it was, vehemently: read, oh, everything written by Michael Fremer at the time), then there was little reason to promote the return of LP instead of an insistence on analog tape. Remember, a lot of this started when LP was not widely available anymore, and turntables were on the verge (though, honestly, never over it) of joining the 8-track in the dustbin of history. And it is certainly true that old turntables were far more available than old R2Rs. This is all true.

However, this reveals more than it obscures. First, if analog tape was always the preferred medium due to, if nothing else, accuracy and a lower noise floor, then why did LP dominate the market? Easy: Convenience. R2Rs are a pain in the ass. So right there, fidelity was sacrificed for ease of use. And it's understandable that the average Joe had no interest in winding tapes. He wanted to throw something on and not worry about it. But if high fidelity was in any way related to audiophilia, then audiophilia blew its cred decades ago.

And that, frankly, leaves ritual and nostalgia as the justifications for LP. (I understand that just because I say it with conviction doesn't make it so, to quote 48 Hours, so feel free to pile on.) To me, that kind of gives the lie to the entire "LP vs. CD" argument.

 

[Frank Dernie]

It’s the mastering and vinyl sound he likes, I guess. He is not trying to win a technical argument on analog vs digital, as far as I understand.

WHAT!!!!!
You cearly haven't been reading his writings over the years.
He mentions the superiority of analogue in pretty well every article.
Yes he uses digital rips but it is to demonstrate the differences in sound between various cartridges, arms, turntables and phono stages when he does talks etc. not anything to do with mastering.
I read his articles, less often nowadays, he has his opinions about the sound but it is his explanations of why that annoy me. He, in common with most others writing about record players, don't actually understand the mechanism by which they create an electrical output and most of what he writes about the "why" of any differences is balderdash.
This is not helped by the knowledgeable manufacturers keeping facts to themselves leaving non-technically minded enthusiasts in swirls of misinformation and marketing speak.

 

[JJB70]

At the risk of stating the obvious, something doesn't have to be better to have appeal. Something can be appealing based on a personal preference. I suspect most of us like things whilst recognising that they aren't the best performing or best technically.

 

[cjfrbw]

'Low Fi' reel to reel was my listening medium for over fifteen years, since I recorded from FM radio and borrowed records to record on the cheap. I wore out a few heads and ran a few decks into the ground.

Reel to Reel studio decks were giveaways a few years ago, until the high end re-adopted them. Nobody wanted them for a long time, and they were cheap as chips, even the best ones abandoned from studios.

The equipment was cheap, but the tapes were hard to find and not necessarily reliable. However, with well mastered tapes, I think analog tape at 7.5 ips and above is the best analog format of all.

Now, with all of the usual price inflation in high end, the equipment AND the tapes are expensive with the usual rubric and fussaholic justifications for exorbitant prices..

However, they are demo pieces for the most part, not enough stuff to play routinely without getting bored. I think that groups of audiophiles or audio societies should buy RtoR decks to pass around with a group of shared tapes, like a lending library, to divide the expense of the equipment and tape, so that members could appreciate the format from time to time. The members would probably wind up listening as much as if they owned the deck.

Do I want to go back to RtoR? Nope, I am very happy with vinyl as my antiquarian indulgence. Although the best high speed tapes are wonderful, the mastering isn't always. My Riverside copy of 'Waltz with Debbie' on vinyl sounds better than the very expensive RtoR remasters on 15ips that I have heard.

 

[bigx5murf]

'Low Fi' reel to reel was my listening medium for over fifteen years, since I recorded from FM radio and borrowed records to record on the cheap. I wore out a few heads and ran a few decks into the ground.

Reel to Reel studio decks were giveaways a few years ago, until the high end re-adopted them. Nobody wanted them for a long time, and they were cheap as chips, even the best ones abandoned from studios.

The equipment was cheap, but the tapes were hard to find and not necessarily reliable. However, with well mastered tapes, I think analog tape at 7.5 ips and above is the best analog format of all.

Now, with all of the usual price inflation in high end, the equipment AND the tapes are expensive with the usual rubric and fussaholic justifications for exorbitant prices..

However, they are demo pieces for the most part, not enough stuff to play routinely without getting bored. I think that groups of audiophiles or audio societies should buy RtoR decks to pass around with a group of shared tapes, like a lending library, to divide the expense of the equipment and tape, so that members could appreciate the format from time to time. The members would probably wind up listening as much as if they owned the deck.

Do I want to go back to RtoR? Nope, I am very happy with vinyl as my antiquarian indulgence. Although the best high speed tapes are wonderful, the mastering isn't always. My Riverside copy of 'Waltz with Debbie' on vinyl sounds better than the very expensive RtoR remasters on 15ips that I have heard.

Problem is the RTR machines are heavy to ship, fragile, and require maintenance since they're a cacophony of moving parts, lots of them unobtanium.

 

[andreasmaaan]

The appeal of vinyl for me is in the context of DJing. There's something more tactile (and challenging) about mixing vinyl compared with mixing on CDJs.

OTOH, the sound quality is obviously significantly lower, and frustratingly, this is compounded by poor mastering and pressing being almost standard for many smaller DJ-oriented vinyl labels.

But for many DJ-oriented genres (mostly techno in my case), it's still considered the standard distribution format, with many labels choosing vinyl as the only format for many releases.

This actually irritates me due to the inferior quality, but I can understand that these labels want to maintain control over the number of copies of a release in circulation, and to be (or to feel themsleves to be) faithful to the art.

Never got into it as a playback medium...

 

[JohnBooty]

If the sincere argument against digital when it appeared was that analog trumped digital (and it was, vehemently: read, oh, everything written by Michael Fremer at the time), then there was little reason to promote the return of LP instead of an insistence on analog tape.

Yeah, I mean, that was definitely something that a lot of people argued about in the 80s and 90s.

DACs (and the other bits and pieces that go into digital listening) have improved a lot since then, and the writing of Fremer and other audiophile magazine hacks have diverged even more completely from reality since then as well. There's a whole generation or two of audiophiles who don't even know his name; I'd be surprised if Stereophile's circulation is even a tenth of what it was in the 1980s and it wasn't exactly challenging Sports Illustrated even back then.

And that, frankly, leaves ritual and nostalgia as the justifications for LP.

Maybe for some. I'm not sure "ritual" appeals to me and I'm definitely sure "nostalgia" doesn't since I didn't grow up with vinyl.

Various folks (none of whom claim vinyl is objectively superior) have mentioned other reasons in this thread, though -- if you or anybody else is asking the question "why do people like vinyl?" in earnest and not simply as an attempt to complain about vinyl, you don't have to look very far for answers.

I've been told that on this site "Sound Quality" refers to measurable accuracy. That's cool and the emphasis on understanding what's actually happening objectively is why I have enjoyed reading this site lately.

I'd say that objectivist audiophiles tend to avoid the term "sound quality" altogether, because it's nebulous for exactly the reasons you said.

I'd also say that objectivist audiophiles are also totally comfortable with having subjective preferences. The point of being an objective audiophile is not to be a robot and be entirely driven by measurements! The point is to have a solid grounding in objective reality as we chase our goals in the hobby.

Audiophilia is weird in the sense that we're the only hobby I know of that has this weird "objective vs. subjective" identity crisis.

You don't see this in the auto world, for example, where nobody finds it bizarre to both understand how cars work and have preferences for certain cars over others. There's no conflict there! You can say that the 1983 BMW 320i is your favorite car ever, and the @jsrtheta 's of the world won't scoff and say "But if the goal is really to have the best car, there are other cars that are better. You must be into ritual and nostalgia! Or maybe you don't understand how cars work!"