Turntables - help me understand the appeal?

[SIY]

It's not clear that lasers give better accuracy or "vinyl sound." For example, their sensing is of the vinyl without the elastic deformation of the stylus. The idea has been kicking around for decades and no-one has really gotten it to work well enough to justify cost and complication.

If I were to have my wish for an LP technology to make a real comeback, it would be FM cartridges (like the old Weathers).

 

[SIY]

BTW, I have an interesting analog circuit made by Dimitri Danyuk, an incredibly smart engineer, which is intended to give a better simulation of vinyl than the various commercial plugins. Measurements to be posted after I dig out.

 

[NTomokawa]

It's not clear that lasers give better accuracy or "vinyl sound." For example, their sensing is of the vinyl without the elastic deformation of the stylus. The idea has been kicking around for decades and no-one has really gotten it to work well enough to justify cost and complication.

If I were to have my wish for an LP technology to make a real comeback, it would be FM cartridges (like the old Weathers).

ELP Japan makes a couple, though I have no idea how much they cost or how they "sound".

I figure the one incomparable advantage of laser is that playback isn't destructive.

Also, I have no idea whether vinyl records are mastered and cut in a way that takes into account stylus deformation (and other mechanical playback issues). So I very well could be talking out of my bunghole here...

 

[Blumlein 88]

Well, it would seem then that the rational solution is to find three or four other vinylphiles, all chip in on a top quality phono system, then rip all your albums to lossless files. Then you can sell off the rig and the vinyl and turn a tidy profit.

Better yet get a turntable and create some gobbedly-gook explanation for how you can rip vinyl more accurately and musically than anyone else. Charge people to rip their vinyl and profit. If Dimitri Danyuk's circuit really works all we'll need is a list of what the customer wants ripped and a Qobuz or Tidal subscription. We'll run it thru the circuit and call it ripped to better than perfection. In the case of Tidal you might even cal it an MQA vinyl rip. Charge extra for that.

PS_ I would feel obligated to give Mr. Danyuk a cut.

 

[SIY]

ELP Japan makes a couple, though I have no idea how much they cost or how they "sound".

"A couple" should be a hint. That basic design has passed from company to company since maybe the early eighties, and no one has made it a success.

 

[Frank Dernie]

#2. Music for me has historical and artistic context to it. Back ground music is one thing but with a Hi-Fi system I sometimes like to pay more attention and listen and learn about what I am listening to. There is nothing better for this than holding a big old album cover and reading it and looking at the pictures and dates. Album art is art and is for me a enjoyable part of the "Hi-Fi experience" you don't get with streaming.

Me too.
Personally I detest background music and much prefer silence to nonedescript "music" in the background. I mainly listen to classical music and, as you write, initially learned a lot about the music I was discovering by reading sleeve notes and the booklets in boxed sets I bought in the 60s and 70s. The only disappointment, for me, in CD was the size of the artwork and booklets.
I don't stream much since the idea of listening to odd bits of music and track hopping is appealing as background music - I hate it, but Quobuz is good for me to hear new recordings which I may buy, and their software has all the background info and album art to check up on and if I am looking at a new recording I read it on my laptop, just like I did with LPs in the 60s and 70s.

 

[Frank Dernie]

LP was the old version of MP3. Less expensive, and more convenient than the real deal of reel tape.

I quite agree. Last time I wrote that on another forum it was not a popular pov...

 

[Sal1950]

I said even a cheap (well made) digital source beats vinyl.

And there lies the end of the story. Why have we wasted 6 plus pages of this site discussing anything otherwise. Just a reminder that this is ASR, it's mission is to measure and objectively evaluate gear then investigate if it contributes to any advance in the SOTA in music reproduction. Vinyl ran out of relevance in that picture near 50 years ago.
There are plenty of places where "sounds good to me" leads the day.

 

[MattHooper]

And there lies the end of the story. Why have we wasted 6 plus pages of this site discussing anything otherwise. Just a reminder that this is ASR, it's mission is to measure and objectively evaluate gear then investigate if it contributes to any advance in the SOTA in music reproduction. Vinyl ran out of relevance in that picture near 50 years ago.
There are plenty of places where "sounds good to me" leads the day.

I appreciate all that...but I believe you have misconstrued the nature of this particular thread.

It's title: Turntables - help me understand the appeal?

With the author of the thread asking members why they are using turntables, and why they like listening to vinyl when high quality digital streaming is available.

The appeal clearly is not going to be "Vinyl Is More Accurate than digital." No one here would make that argument. No one here believes it. So that is not going to be the reasons we have for still using turntables.

Someone could have made the first reply: "Turntables aren't as accurate as digital - End Of Thread."

But what's the point? We all know that. Most important: it would leave the OP none the wiser as to the ACTUAL REASONS people here continue to use turntables/vinyl, which he asked about.

As I've written, among the reasons are the physical, tactile, aesthetics that I don't get from digital, the enjoyment of the nature of turntables, for me the fact I end up listening instead of browsing music, that I contribute more to the artist when buying new vinyl, and the fact I along with some others sometimes prefer the sound of vinyl records over digital counterparts, etc.

I get that you don't share those reasons, or use a turntable yourself (if I understand correctly). But then you wouldn't be in a position to answer the OPs question and I'm not sure what seems to be bothering you so much that those of who do have a turntable have tried to answer his question as honestly as possible, and without making claims that vinyl is technically superior.

Now, perhaps you don't want threads like this being made, which inherently may bring in subjective reasons and reference other goals like the ones I've mentioned rather than "high fidelity." I'm new here. Is a thread asking a question like this considered out of bounds around here? I didn't think this place was as strict about that as hydrogen audio?

 

[levimax]

And there lies the end of the story. Why have we wasted 6 plus pages of this site discussing anything otherwise. Just a reminder that this is ASR, it's mission is to measure and objectively evaluate gear then investigate if it contributes to any advance in the SOTA in music reproduction. Vinyl ran out of relevance in that picture near 50 years ago.
There are plenty of places where "sounds good to me" leads the day.

As this is an objective science oriented thread I would like to propose we do a ABX test with the members here to see if indeed 1000 times greater distortion and 100 year old obsolete technology is actually "miles worse" or even can be reliably perceived as different. If not then that leads to a lot of questions about what is really important as we try to build a better SOTA Hi-Fi system. I am not sure how to do this as there are legal issues involved but I recently tried and failed (85% chance I was guessing) to ABX a track (using foobar2000 ABX plug in) from the 1987 album "Pontiac" by Lyle Lovett. I have a near mint copy of the original vinyl and a copy of the original CD. This is an all digital recording of excellent quality, DR of 16 on the CD and DR of 15 on my needle drop. My needle drop was made with a 1970's vintage turntable I bought for $100 with a $250 cartridge and a very modest ADC so everything would be in favor of the CD sounding better or at least being able to tell them apart. My bias when I did this a month ago was that the CD was going to sound better and today my bias was that I could tell a difference. The ABX results were both the same.... I was guessing. I could provide the two files but I can't post them here. I am not trying to start a fight or make a point beyond I am interested in what really matters in Hi-Fi ....I really wish my DAC that has 1000 times less distortion than my $100 TT sounded even twice as good but it does not. If anyone is interested or has ideas on how to do this I think we could all learn something and it may well be that I am more or less deaf.

 

[Blumlein 88]

As this is an objective science oriented thread I would like to propose we do a ABX test with the members here to see if indeed 1000 times greater distortion and 100 year old obsolete technology is actually "miles worse" or even can be reliably perceived as different. If not then that leads to a lot of questions about what is really important as we try to build a better SOTA Hi-Fi system. I am not sure how to do this as there are legal issues involved but I recently tried and failed (85% chance I was guessing) to ABX a track (using foobar2000 ABX plug in) from the 1987 album "Pontiac" by Lyle Lovett. I have a near mint copy of the original vinyl and a copy of the original CD. This is an all digital recording of excellent quality, DR of 16 on the CD and DR of 15 on my needle drop. My needle drop was made with a 1970's vintage turntable I bought for $100 with a $250 cartridge and a very modest ADC so everything would be in favor of the CD sounding better or at least being able to tell them apart. My bias when I did this a month ago was that the CD was going to sound better and today my bias was that I could tell a difference. The ABX results were both the same.... I was guessing. I could provide the two files but I can't post them here. I am not trying to start a fight or make a point beyond I am interested in what really matters in Hi-Fi ....I really wish my DAC that has 1000 times less distortion than my $100 TT sounded even twice as good but it does not. If anyone is interested or has ideas on how to do this I think we could all learn something and it may well be that I am more or less deaf.

You'll usually get away with posting 30 second or less segments as far as copyright goes. As short segments and quick switching works better anyway that wouldn't be a problem. You could post level matched segments from each and let us try it in Foobar ABX. Or you could post several of them and let us see if we can pick them out.

I'll warn you, normally you get abysmal rates of participation for such things. It does sound very interesting to me.

 

[solderdude]

The DRmeter gives incorrect (usually too high) readings on vinyl.

There are lots of 192/24 WAV vinyl rips around on the web. Easy to compare these with CD versions. Who says the mastertape used is the same ?
The cutting master for the vinyl will be different from the CD version anyway.

Technically vinyl is inferior in any conceivable way. The appeal is the ritual, 'seeing' it work, handling/cleaning everything, dropping the needle, reading/seeing the cover. Also beautiful engineered equipment has its appeal (also true for every other man made thing)
And most vinyl lovers appreciate the tonal balance changes of the cartridge/pre-amp and what else is changed to accommodate the cutting lathe.

People are free to love the sound of vinyl and say they prefer it and sounds 'better' to them. They just should not say it IS better in terms of being closer to what's been recorded in the studio. It can't. It isn't.
No point in debating this with any vinyl aficionado though. They already made up their mind just as digital fanboys have.

I enjoy listening to the recorded quality and the music. For me vinyl comes close but no cigar.. pops, crackles, noise, rumble etc. ruin the experience for me.

 

[JJB70]

I still can't figure out why a rotating plinth could cost thousands and thousands other than because people actually want it to be expensive. However I guess that is true of all high end audio.

 

[Ceburaska]

One point that was brought home to me yesterday, when my internet was not working, is that records are sometimes a more reliable source.
Of course, the same is true of CDs, but I suspect that most digital fans have already shifted wholesale to streaming and/ or downloads. I certainly use that more than my CD player.
Really, I’d do better moving to somewhere less rural and with faster broadband. Moving house is however probably more expensive than vinyl. Just.

 

[Ceburaska]

I still can't figure out why a rotating plinth could cost thousands and thousands other than because people actually want it to be expensive. However I guess that is true of all high end audio.

It’s (almost?) a Veblen good. Like watches and education.
I’m certain that my Sony biotracers would be discounted from being SOTA record players for many reasons (Japanese, old, electronically controlled, fully automatic, mainstream manufacturer), but the fact that they cost less than the motor unit for a Linn LP12 would clearly signal their inferiority.

 

[Frank Dernie]

I still can't figure out why a rotating plinth could cost thousands and thousands other than because people actually want it to be expensive. However I guess that is true of all high end audio.

The manufactured parts of a record player will be more expensive than a DAC, which neither needs an expensive case nor a big power supply.
Certainly debatable though, when I was at Garrard the retail price was set at cost + 10% for the wholesale price with an additional 30% for the dealer and a 401 was £72 (iirc) after being re-costed as a bench build once the volume no longer justified it being made on the production line.
Funnily enough the sales went up when the price was increased...
That was a bare chassis, no arm or plinth and the “suspension” was rubber grommets, fine in a broadcast suite not good enough for home use, though non suspended record players are popular nowadays, probably because of the extra bass they pick up from the environment - who doesn’t like a bit more bass?
I look at something like the new Technics 1200G range and think there is a fair 2019 price for a properly engineered component. Unless a more sophisticated isolation system is required it is pointless to pay more.
Very many of the very expensive decks are quite poorly engineered (in the understanding the physics of how they and a seismic vibration sensor work) even if they are nicely made and finished. The STST Motus 2 looks like quite good value for a small volume hand made product, for example, the massive Clearaudio deck with a pendulum in it is awful.

 

[Soniclife]

As this is an objective science oriented thread I would like to propose we do a ABX test with the members here to see if indeed 1000 times greater distortion and 100 year old obsolete technology is actually "miles worse" or even can be reliably perceived as different. If not then that leads to a lot of questions about what is really important as we try to build a better SOTA Hi-Fi system. I am not sure how to do this as there are legal issues involved but I recently tried and failed (85% chance I was guessing) to ABX a track (using foobar2000 ABX plug in) from the 1987 album "Pontiac" by Lyle Lovett. I have a near mint copy of the original vinyl and a copy of the original CD. This is an all digital recording of excellent quality, DR of 16 on the CD and DR of 15 on my needle drop. My needle drop was made with a 1970's vintage turntable I bought for $100 with a $250 cartridge and a very modest ADC so everything would be in favor of the CD sounding better or at least being able to tell them apart. My bias when I did this a month ago was that the CD was going to sound better and today my bias was that I could tell a difference. The ABX results were both the same.... I was guessing. I could provide the two files but I can't post them here. I am not trying to start a fight or make a point beyond I am interested in what really matters in Hi-Fi ....I really wish my DAC that has 1000 times less distortion than my $100 TT sounded even twice as good but it does not. If anyone is interested or has ideas on how to do this I think we could all learn something and it may well be that I am more or less deaf.

I'm not at all surprised by this, I have quite a few albums where I would not be confident going into a blind level matched test between the formats. That the 2 mediums can sounds so similar at times despite one clearly having technical problems is fascinating.

 

[SIY]

As this is an objective science oriented thread I would like to propose we do a ABX test with the members here to see if indeed 1000 times greater distortion and 100 year old obsolete technology is actually "miles worse" or even can be reliably perceived as different.

Please see the Uwins article I linked previously. It's been done as part of preference testing, and done in a very smart way.

 

[GGroch]

Please see the Uwins article I linked previously. It's been done as part of preference testing, and done in a very smart way.

The Unwins article looks fascinating...but there is not enough info at the link to form a conclusion. This AES Description tells a bit more about it....that the tests includes non-auditory factors like interaction with the physical media. I concur that this gets us much closer to understanding vinyl's appeal.

 

[GGroch]

Suppose the subject of this thread was, instead of "Turntables, let me understand the appeal", "Live Performances, let me understand the appeal." Wouldn't most of the same critiques be valid?

The audio quality at nearly any live performance is far worse than recorded reproduction....you are lucky to get 40-50dB S/N.

However, if we scientifically analyzed the entire experience of attending a live music performance rather than simply measuring frequency response and S/N ratio would our conclusions change?

"The Medium is the Message" certainly applies here. Does "Hi-fidelity" mean faithfulness to the original recording...or faithfulness to the original artist's intended experience?

Attending a live concert requires far more active involvement on the part of the listener....and that involvement changes how we listen and appreciate music. Live concerts are also more social... forcing interaction with other listeners.

The required active involvement by listeners, (as well as improvements in home audio reproduction) does not seem to have hurt attendance at live events (edited). So, should we maintain it is less valid...less true to the original?

In terms of active involvement, the vinyl experience; from purchasing records in a store, to preparing to listening, to visual and social interactions. may in some ways more closely mimic live music.