Turntables - help me understand the appeal?

[Ratatoskr]

Turntables require albums, and you can't roll a joint on a CD jewel case.

 

[MattHooper]

The only gain is high frequency distortion because the wavelength of the grooves is longer. Similar to having a more sophisticated stylus profile.

When I upgraded from my original turntable to a better turntable and (purportedly) better "high end" cartridge, one of the unexpected (to me) results was that I noticed a very distinct lowering of the background noise-floor, and "noise" in general. Pretty much every record I played, which I'd played many times on my previous turntables, sounded quieter, closer to sounding new. It seemed in this way to somewhat revitalize my record collection and it is the rare record I purchase these days that actually sound objectionably noisy or hissy.

Puzzled about this I'd taken the question to another forum and a very technically knowledgeable member there (who rabidly promotes bind testing btw, not an audiophile air-head) explained that it was likely due to the better construction of the cartridge and stylus profile. Where the stylus is able to fit the groove better/deeper, which to some degree bypasses some of the grit/dust/damage that may be present on an LP, or that may have been caused by a previous cartridge tracking higher in the groove.

Does that make sense to you?

 

[Sal1950]

Turntables require albums, and you can't roll a joint on a CD jewel case.

But it's easier to cut a line.

 

[Sal1950]

Does that make sense to you?

Sure, you spend a lot of money on it.
Subjectively it will always sound better, that's human nature.

 

[MattHooper]

Sure, you spend a lot of money on it.
Subjectively it will always sound better, that's human nature.

Could be.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Does that make sense to you?

Yes.
Heavier tracking may also gouge dirt out when a lighter tracking cartridge will play it...

 

[Thomas_A]

When I upgraded from my original turntable to a better turntable and (purportedly) better "high end" cartridge, one of the unexpected (to me) results was that I noticed a very distinct lowering of the background noise-floor, and "noise" in general. Pretty much every record I played, which I'd played many times on my previous turntables, sounded quieter, closer to sounding new. It seemed in this way to somewhat revitalize my record collection and it is the rare record I purchase these days that actually sound objectionably noisy or hissy.

Puzzled about this I'd taken the question to another forum and a very technically knowledgeable member there (who rabidly promotes bind testing btw, not an audiophile air-head) explained that it was likely due to the better construction of the cartridge and stylus profile. Where the stylus is able to fit the groove better/deeper, which to some degree bypasses some of the grit/dust/damage that may be present on an LP, or that may have been caused by a previous cartridge tracking higher in the groove.

Does that make sense to you?

Noise is friction-related and is affected by vinyl purity, pressing quality, dirt, and stylus quality and polish. I measured around 5 dB lower noise of the Shure V15Vx with a JICO-SAS stylus compared to a Ortofon OM40.

 

[JJB70]

I have had a brainwave, audiophile records made out of Teflon, banish the friction!! Obviously, to maximise the sonic benefits of the "No noise" Teflon record you really need my depleted uranium turntable platter and an audiophile grade rotary converter in the power supply. And a BT dongle to connect the turntable to a tiptop wireless speaker

 

[JJB70]

Once you get past the intro advert stuff this seems like quite a level headed and reasonable video.

 

[MattHooper]

Sure, you spend a lot of money on it.
Subjectively it will always sound better, that's human nature.

Or not.

 

[ajawamnet]

Yes.
Heavier tracking may also gouge dirt out when a lighter tracking cartridge will play it...

But watch out for silverfish and the fungi that dine on their dung:
http://www.micrographia.com/projec/projapps/viny/viny0200.htm

"The vegetable agent in the picture below is an anonymous fungus. The mycelial threads are seen radiating from small lumps stuck on the record surface which are dried silverfish droppings. Four as yet fungally unexploited items of the same kind are seen in the right-hand portion of the picture. It has been estimated that one silverfish turd would keep the average fungus happily fed for God knows how long -- depending on the temperature and humidity conditions in the location of your record collection. "

 

[Zerimas]

I don't enjoy interacting physically with CDs...those damned jewel cases! They don't feel nice in the hand, and they always feel on the edge of snapping (which they so often do. The amount of broken jewel cases I had...especially ones that dared try to contain more than on CD!)

Really? I feel like putting a records back into their inner sleeve and then sleeved record back into the jacket (which sometime has another cover or whatever) is infinitely more frustrating and difficult.

 

[MattHooper]

Really? I feel like putting a records back into their inner sleeve and then sleeved record back into the jacket (which sometime has another cover or whatever) is infinitely more frustrating and difficult.

Oh yes, totally understood!

That's probably my biggest pet peeve in owning records: when a record is fiddly to get back in the sleeve. Hate it! Fortunately it's pretty rare, and I have bought some really great sleeves to replace original sleeves, the new ones slide in and out so easily they essentially remove this problem.
But still...very annoying with original sleeves.

For me, even in the case were a record has been fiddly to take in and out of the sleeve, the overall aesthetics/feel/look of the LP tends to make up for it. Whereas I feel no affinity whatsoever to the aesthetics or feel of CD jewel cases. They have nothing to make up for their detriments.

One thing I used to like were the liner notes that came with lots of CDs. Particularly "specialty" CDs. For instance many of the soundtracks I used to buy came with very nice notes about the history of the score, the re-mastering etc. That's something I miss in streamed and downloaded digital media.

Fortunately I get this with vinyl purchases. Just last night I was listening to the great, recent vinyl release of the Day Of The Dead score, and it came with a big multi-page insert, really nicely designed with set photos, behind the scenes, and notes from the various contributors to the movie, as well as a long article by the composer recounting the experience. And all in a nice, big readable format I didn't have to squint to read, like the tiny CD liner notes). Either way, for people who do not find they want what vinyl offers, vinyl certainly gives lots of reasons to avoid it

 

[Zog]

But watch out for silverfish and the fungi that dine on their dung:
http://www.micrographia.com/projec/projapps/viny/viny0200.htm

"The vegetable agent in the picture below is an anonymous fungus. The mycelial threads are seen radiating from small lumps stuck on the record surface which are dried silverfish droppings. Four as yet fungally unexploited items of the same kind are seen in the right-hand portion of the picture. It has been estimated that one silverfish turd would keep the average fungus happily fed for God knows how long -- depending on the temperature and humidity conditions in the location of your record collection. "

A new dimension. Vinyl replay depends on silverfish. Thanks for the warning. I will file that with Thetans taking over the earth.

 

[watchnerd]

Once you get past the intro advert stuff this seems like quite a level headed and reasonable video.

I like the "Turntable Sound is Mostly Bullshit" part at 4:20

He says cartridge is 90% of the sound (for a competent turntable).

I'd only amend that to "cartridge + loading + arm resonance match + alignment", but otherwise, yes.

 

[MattHooper]

Good video watchnerd! I saw that one a while back. I like the no-nonsense approach. I'm not qualified to assess all the technical claims in the video, and would only likely qibble with his conclusion that for people in to vinyl it's "just a feel thing," not a sound thing. As detailed in this thread, he's right about the distortions of vinyl vs digital, but there are many people buying prefer - or believe they prefer - the sound of those distortions, so they are indeed also considering the sound as one motivating factor.

And on that note...

I've said that I often have preferred the sound of many vinyl records to my digital source, or digital versions of the same recordings. This certainly isn't always the case. I've been spending some time listening to my digital source and really enjoying it (aside from the music ADD that always arises in me when I have direct access to a billion songs at my finger tips).

Everything But The Girl's album Amplified Heart has been one of my favourite CD albums since it's release early '90s. A beautiful and subtle integration of electronica into essentially acoustic/folky instruments and songs. A very "warm analog" feeling record, even though produced digitally. When it was recently, finally released on vinyl LP - half speed mastered at Abbey Road! - I was very excited and bought one. I figured that the addition of analog distortions that I seem to enjoy could be a perfect match for this album. Having done some direct comparisons with the CD version, I think if I had to keep only one, it would be the digital version. The LP does some of that "more present" stuff I hear from vinyl and it's cool. But it comes at the expense of that distortion slightly obscuring instrumental timbre. I find the digital version just a bit more beautiful and accurate in that regard. (And maybe prefer it also due to listening to that version for decades).

Last night I compared another new LP I own of a female singer/songwriter, to the uncompressed digital version on Tidal. Again, I could hear nice things about both versions. The digital sounded just that much more cleared of any haze, making for slightly more nuanced timbre in voices and instruments, and making some very subtle distant sounds more discernible. The vinyl had a more texturally present, solid presentation. I'd say the vinyl edged out the digital for my preferences, as it seemed a bit more punchy and dynamic.

Then I remembered that some of the very obscure "Library Music" that I"ve been buying on vinyl - beautiful analog recordings of jazzy/funky stuff from the seventies, analog synths, real drums etc - was starting to become available Tidal. I dialed up on Tidal one of my favourite tracks and was really first enjoying that clarity and timbral nuance of the synthesizers and other instruments. Reverb trails and all that really distinct. But, man, it was just somehow lacking in grabbing me the way it had been on the LP. It didn't seem punchy like I remembered, especially when the drummer really got going, the bass synth part was there...but wasn't so driving. The drum fills that had always seemed to pop out of the mix with a sense of realism seemed sort of limp - the whole presentation just felt sort of limp. Wondering if my memory of the LP was off, I grabbed it and spun it on the turntable. Yup, just as I remembered. It really was a different presentation, all of the sound was more dense and punchy, the drum fills "popped" out of the mix as I remembered, the sound had that drive I loved. In this case, though I could hear aspects of the digital presentation that were nice, it was an easy choice for me to prefer the record.

 

[watchnerd]

Turntables require albums, and you can't roll a joint on a CD jewel case.

TOTAL FAIL!

What kind of joint-rolling LP album cover list doesn't have a Bob Marley album on it?

Or at least Peter Tosh:

 

[RCAguy]

After 50 pages of this thread, the score is ~50\50 CD\digital v vinyl\analog. But these are mutually exclusive, as releases on one are not necessarily available on the other - most recorded history is only available in analog form, much of it wonderfully recorded. And while most digital technically is potentially cleaner and playing it is relatively trouble-free, the ultimate audio quality baked in an vinyl groove awaits your properly extracting it. By lowest distortion alignment, stylus choice, and anti-skating; by best frequency response (tone color, timbre) optimizing resonance, capacitive loading, and accurate RIAA preamplification; and by cancelling vertical artifacts by proper mono mixing; etc. Fun for many - and highly rewarding results - with my helpful Phonograph how-to reference book - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B071VBY71D

 

[watchnerd]

After 50 pages of this thread, the score is ~50\50 CD\digital v vinyl\analog. But these are mutually exclusive, as releases on one are not necessarily available on the other - most recorded history is only available in analog form, much of it wonderfully recorded. And while most digital is technically cleaner and playing it relatively trouble-free, the ultimate audio quality baked in an vinyl groove s awaiting your properly extracting it. This entails lowest distortion alignment, stylus choice, and anti-skating; best frequency response (tone color, timbre) by optimizing resonance, capacitive loading, and accurate RIAA preamplification; and cancelling vertical artifacts by proper mono mixing; etc. Fun for many - and highly rewarding results - with my helpful Phonograph how-to reference book - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B071VBY71D

Are you the author?

 

[RCAguy]

Are you the author?

Yes - my 2nd book after 50+yr an audio engineer & consultant, now in sharing mode. It has 5-star reviews in the US and Europe, but Amazon offers a free preview so you can decide for yourself whether you might need it. - Robin Miller (aka RCAguy)