Turntables - help me understand the appeal?

[MattHooper]

Another thing that many have mentioned they like about vinyl is something I relate to: The fact that the process tends to lead to listening to full albums, or at least sides at a time. It means you end up listening to songs that you many have skipped over quickly in the digital format. When I explore via digital, e.g. Tidal etc, I tend to end up with "best of" type lists, or just tracks here or there from an artist's catalogue.

But it was often the case growing up listening to albums on vinyl that I'd grow to like what initially seemed to be a lesser song on the album. In the case of Rush albums, I always would start with "A" being my favorite song...but upon playing the album "B" would become my favorite, then "C" and it would just revolve as I became more and more familiar playing the album over time. That type of experience often doesn't happen for me with digital. For instance when I was building an itunes download collection, it would involve quick samples of the songs on an album and I'd make instantaneous judgements "nah...nah....ok..." and I'd end up with just one or a few songs.

I'm currently really enjoying how I'm becoming familiar with whole albums again, and how my appreciation of the different tracks evolves over time.

Also, to echo what Killingbeans wrote about metal on vinyl: I get it. I'm not sure exactly why but rock - like Van Halen, Rush etc - just kills on the vinyl playback. Some of this may be a hearkening to how I heard it growing up, but just listening to how it sounds, like the new Rush vinyl remasters, it's absolutely thrilling in the combination of clarity and punch and excitement, it just sort of "bursts out of the speakers" but without ear-tearing aggression. Over the years I've had various Rush albums on CD, including remasters, and I'd dip in to them occasionally. But they never pulled me back in to my old level of desire to listen or appreciation. For whatever set of reasons, spinning the vinyl versions effortlessly engrosses me, bringing me back to my "Rush-Fan" phase.

 

[bigx5murf]

I have an RTR machine, and even though I put in the work to make everything work, and collected the missing parts. It's more a conversation piece for when I have guests, to wow them. The cost of tape, and lack of media keeps me from using it much. Along with the need to record in real time to create my own media.

 

[MusicNBeer]

One very simple huge appeal to me is spinning an old pressing I just bought from late 60s or early 70s. I'm listening to the same media someone was enjoying 50 years ago, and it sounds great!

 

[Killingbeans]

I have lots of younger friends who outright laughs at me when I tell them I've bought a CD. Some of them even gives me a blank stare when I mention the word 'album'.

I agree that one of the most positive things about vinyl is the way you are more or less forced to enjoy a whole abum (or at least half of it).

 

[Blumlein 88]

Though at 55 I don't think I can claim the "Hipster" label, in any case RTR is a bridge too far for me. The expense automatically rules it out, but mostly it seems to be even more inconvenience, and I find nothing appealing about the ergomics or aesthetics of RTR (I find RTR players pretty ugly). Not to mention the hugely restrictive catalogue of music on RTR tape. Plus it's a rather ungainly piece of equipment that, like a turntable, requires a certain type of shelf space - i.e. a large place on a top shelf - and those are at a premium in my set up, and I bet many others.
I barely managed to fit my turntable in the space I had for my equipment.

People like you are the reason they came out with cassette tape.

Wanta buy a Nakamichi?

 

[Sal1950]

People like you are the reason they came out with cassette tape

Ha Ha, I can't believe this discussion is still going on, sounds more like CA or WBF

 

[rwortman]

I think it depends on what type of music you listen to and from what era. While people will argue about whether or not DAC's and Amp's have reached "transparency" I don't think anyone will argue that any "source" is even close to transparent. I listen to my TT a lot but not for any recent releases (recent being the last 20 years or so) that were recorded digitally.... while the mastering on some of these recent releases "may" be better on vinyl the digital-vinyl-analog conversion process is expensive and can only degrade the sound. Having said that I do collect "original non-remastered CD's" of digitally recorded music to avoid the "loudness wars" issues of most re-masters.

For older music however (Mid-1980's or older and especially Mid-1950's through the 1970s ) I will seek out the original vinyl pressings. For most of the music from this era the "best source" is going to be the original vinyl pressings. Master tapes very often were mishandled, lost or stolen and they degrade over time. By the time this older music was transferred to digital in the 1980's the combination of worn out tapes, less than careful transfers, and early digital technology made many of these recordings noticeably inferior to the original vinyl. Unfortunately technology can not "fix" worn out tapes so the vinyl remains the "best sources" for decades of recorded music. I do a lot of ABX between original pressings and modern digital and vinyl reissues and in most (not all of course) cases the original vinyl sounds better... sometimes a lot better. In addition I like to go to used record stores and go "treasure hunting" both for artists I know and ones that are new to me.

If you are at all interested in pre-1980's music I would highly recommend you get a TT and check it out for your self. I think you will be pleasantly surprised what the "state of the art" was for recordings made in the 60's and 70's ... much different than the versions you will hear over the steaming services.

Agreed, This has been exactly my experience and I have some remastered audiophile SACD's and original mono LP's to prove it.

 

[Sal1950]

I think it depends on what type of music you listen to and from what era. While people will argue about whether or not DAC's and Amp's have reached "transparency" I don't think anyone will argue that any "source" is even close to transparent. I listen to my TT a lot but not for any recent releases (recent being the last 20 years or so) that were recorded digitally.... while the mastering on some of these recent releases "may" be better on vinyl the digital-vinyl-analog conversion process is expensive and can only degrade the sound. Having said that I do collect "original non-remastered CD's" of digitally recorded music to avoid the "loudness wars" issues of most re-masters.

What you have confused is that CD and better digital is fully transparent to the master it was burned with. LP's are very far from it, just measure one. It's the mastering that varies.

 

[levimax]

What you have confused is that CD and better digital is fully transparent to the master it was burned with. LP's are very far from it, just measure one. It's the mastering that varies.

I do not believe "flat transfers" from the master tape to consumer CD's or LP's or other digital sources are usually done, most all have some mastering applied and sometime the mastering is different between products and sometimes it is the same. I have some CD's and LP's that I believe are cut from the same digital source and I can not hear any difference in level matched ABX testing. I have an oscilloscope and FFT distortion analyser but not sure how I could use them to measure the differences, please explain the process as I would be interested in the results.

 

[RayDunzl]

I have an oscilloscope and FFT distortion analyser but not sure how I could use them to measure the differences

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/lp-sound-vs-digital.76/

 

[Frank Dernie]

My summary.
Digital is best for people who enjoy listening to music.
LPs are better for people who prefer dicking around with their kit.

 

[jsrtheta]

As for vinyl and artists intent, more and more musicians (including or especially indie bands) seem to be excited by putting out their music in the vinyl format. Not only because it's a source of some income, but because they themselves love the format, and having their music on a big physical format feels like they have "arrived" and they also feel it to be the fullest experience they can give for an album.

When it comes to musicians, I have rarely met one, at least one who either played rock, pop or blues, who had a stereo worth shit. In terms of their original intent for their sound, some are very good at recognizing what they like or don't like when they hear their own recordings in the studio. Many aren't. And the fact that they may prefer an obviously inferior playback medium is singularly unpersuasive to me.

But your post raises a question: Just why is it vital to reproduce what the original sound was? We are at the point where we can do it up to the point it hits the speakers and the room. We can analyze it if we want. But we can never duplicate the original sound without duplicating the playback system in the studio and the room itself. So we are always hearing a version of the original sound, but we shouldn't fool ourselves into believing we are achieving "high fidelity".

Most people are content to adjust the sound to their taste via tone controls, EQ, etc. This is anathema to audiophiles. Should it be? Why should we resist tailoring the sound to our own tastes and peculiar hearing range and limitations?

The late "objectivist", Tom Nousaine, once suggested that the resistance to EQ-ing causes a lot of people to listen to crap sound, to miss elements of the music that might require EQ to enjoy, given the listener's setup and room.

By pursuing an impossible goal of duplication of an event, are we missing the enjoyment of the music?

 

[MattHooper]

When it comes to musicians, I have rarely met one, at least one who either played rock, pop or blues, who had a stereo worth shit. In terms of their original intent for their sound, some are very good at recognizing what they like or don't like when they hear their own recordings in the studio. Many aren't. And the fact that they may prefer an obviously inferior playback medium is singularly unpersuasive to me.

I hear you. And this is why the issue of "the artist's intent" is so fudgey. And yet it *seems* to often be the underlying assumption in why one wants "Hi-Fidelity" in the first place.

But your post raises a question: Just why is it vital to reproduce what the original sound was? We are at the point where we can do it up to the point it hits the speakers and the room. We can analyze it if we want. But we can never duplicate the original sound without duplicating the playback system in the studio and the room itself. So we are always hearing a version of the original sound, but we shouldn't fool ourselves into believing we are achieving "high fidelity".

Most people are content to adjust the sound to their taste via tone controls, EQ, etc. This is anathema to audiophiles. Should it be? Why should we resist tailoring the sound to our own tastes and peculiar hearing range and limitations?

The late "objectivist", Tom Nousaine, once suggested that the resistance to EQ-ing causes a lot of people to listen to crap sound, to miss elements of the music that might require EQ to enjoy, given the listener's setup and room.

By pursuing an impossible goal of duplication of an event, are we missing the enjoyment of the music?

Exactly.

It really depends where you put your stake in the ground and why, and one position isn't *necessarily* more principled than another due to the messiness of it all. One can say "Look, I simply want to reproduce the signal on my source with as little deviation as possible - that's accuracy and Hi-Fidelity!" And if asked: "Why? What rational motivates this goal?" One can say "I just want to, that's all."

But really it tends not to be hermetically sealed like that, as there usually is some motivation underneath it to "hear the artists intent" or to "hear the music as it was put down in the mixing/mastering studio" or whatever. But as soon as you do that, we are in to the fact that for the most part recreating what they heard in the studio is impossible to do with true fidelity. It was in a different room, at a different time, with different equipment.

Now, if Floyd Tool ever gets his way the "circle of confusion" would be closed by having common standards of quality in mixing studios through to consumer playback, to maintain the chain of fidelity so we can indeed "hear a good facsimile of what they heard in the studio." But as we know, that's generally not the case as yet, and even if it started today, it's still the case the massive catalogue of music we will continue to listen to was recorded in studios of all different types and times, with crappy colored monitors in sketchy set ups, to good set ups. We can never recreate all the sounds from every mixing studio at home.

That's not to say that we just throw the concept of fidelity away, because it does actually mean something, especially in technical terms. But I think we need to retain some humility as to what we are actually likely to be able to accomplish. And given the compromises we all have to make, I think perhaps we should be somewhat forgiving of the compromises others have chosen to enjoy their systems.

I'm an "objectivist" in the sense that I strongly believe in the scientific method as the gold standard of understanding what's going on in the world, and I simply can not throw away my skepticism when it comes to audio just because it's my own hobby. (It's always amazing to me how many audiophiles completely accept scientific principles elsewhere, but seem to think their hobby is excepted from the same rules of skepticism).

But I will sometimes run in to curious issues with engineer-minded audiophiles who completely poo-poo things like records, or tube amplification - e.g. "tubes are for boobs" attitude, where no "reasonable" audiophile would use a tube amp when much cheaper and more accurate solid state amps would do the job "better." When I mention I use tube amps I sometimes get "Well, there you go; you have departed from the world of High Fidelity - you've essentially put a tone control on your system that you prefer, so it's all about preference for you, but for me it's about True High Fidelity!

And yet very often these same folks have no problem employing tone controls and eq (or even upmixing stereo to surround) when they find a track unsatisfactory!

Now of course the rational comes afterward that this is acceptable because tone controls are at the end of the chain and can be defeated. But even so this doesn't the fact that as soon as you use those tone controls, you are altering the sound to taste. Doesn't matter where you chose to do it in the chain - that's what you are doing. Now what happened to that "Fidelity to the signal?"

So it's been interesting that many objectivist-engineer-types mock audiophiles for the audiophile refusal to allow tone controls or EQ in to their systems. But also simultaneously dismiss certain choices of coloration an audiophile might choose, while choosing their own via their tone controls.

I have seen some hard-nosed objectivists who claim to virtually never touch tone controls and EQ and want to hear the signal as accurately as possible, warts and all. But then, again, this gets to goals. Is it really more rational, or noble, to want to grit your teeth through every bad recording, sacrificing enjoyment to some alter of "total fidelity to the signal?" Why? That seems sort of odd given most of us buy hi-fis because we want to enjoy listening to music.

The tube amplification I'm using (for sake of argument let's assume it's subtlety departing from accuracy in the way tube amps can do) give a gentle nudge of my system in exactly the direction I like; to my ears a bit more easeful and organic. I don't have an EQ because I virtually never feel like I need it. In fact I had a digital parametric EQ sitting dormant in my system for so many years that I recently sold it. For me this is better than fiddling with EQ per song, or album, or here and there. It doesn't even cross my mind and I just enjoy pretty much everything as is. There are other reasons, e.g. conceptual and aesthetic, for why I enjoy using tube amps, similar to why I also enjoy listening to vinyl part of the time.

I totally appreciate that other people have their own approach.

 

[Killingbeans]

Most people are content to adjust the sound to their taste via tone controls, EQ, etc. This is anathema to audiophiles. Should it be? Why should we resist tailoring the sound to our own tastes and peculiar hearing range and limitations?

I used to be one those who found EQ to be "dirty", but I think I've recently been enlightened.

Now I find the 'audiophile' detest of EQ to be deeply paradoxical. From what I can see, many of us/them spend tons of money on gear with non-flat frequency responses and/or non-ideal out- and input impedances and then play around with speaker placement. In essence a low tech form of 'EQ', that could have been achieved at a fraction of the cost using measurements and actual EQ hardware.

 

[Ceburaska]

Ha Ha, I can't believe this discussion is still going on, sounds more like CA or WBF

I can’t believe it’s taken you this long to make that comparison.
And surely this is a bit off topic for CA? I’m guessing that’s computeraudiophile, which I would assume rarely covers analogue!

 

[Ceburaska]

My summary.
Digital is best for people who enjoy listening to music.
LPs are better for people who prefer dicking around with their kit.

Having just broken one of the effing cartridge leads for one turntable (again!) I’m currently in 100% disagreement. It’s times like this I really feel like I just want to bin it all and buy a Sonos.
Still that’s why I’ve got four turntables on the go, redundancy!

 

[Frank Dernie]

Having just broken one of the effing cartridge leads for one turntable (again!) I’m currently in 100% disagreement. It’s times like this I really feel like I just want to bin it all and buy a Sonos.
Still that’s why I’ve got four turntables on the go, redundancy!

That was my tongue-in-the-cheek point. If you hadn’t been dicking about you would have been able to listen to music.
I am a music lover rather than kit fanatic, though I like good kit,whereas in the case of cameras I freely admit I am a camera enthusiast who takes a few good photos.
I spend far more time listening to music than evaluation sound quality and messing around with Hi-Fi whereas I spend far more time messing around with cameras and lenses than I do taking pictures.

 

[JJB70]

I get the euphonic distortion bit, that is a personal preference and I suspect most of us have some preferences when it comes to sound signature. However it seems more sensible to aim for accuracy in the signal chain and to use DSP and EQ if you want to adjust things to your own preference. Then if your preferences change you haven't invested $$$$$'s in getting a distorted sound you've grown out of.

On the ritual, I understand where that is coming from and don't question it is true for many, but it also seems to be a means of rationalising a belief that an inferior technology is in some way better. Making stuff more difficult to use because removing convenience adds enjoyment is not an argument we often see used to support a return to mechanical type writers, or to introduce unsynchronised gearboxes into cars for example. For all that, it is an attitude I've seen a lot in my travels. I've spent a lot of time in the less salubrious parts of the world and you often find people from wealthy developed countries visiting because they want to experience life for the other half. They see it from an air conditioned bus, and stay in good hotels (you can almost always find a good hotel if you look) and make sure they don't expose themselves to dodgy food. Basically they want to be able to go home and tell people about their wonderful adventure without actually doing anything as vulgar as experiencing discomfort themselves. I think vinyl is a bit similar in that it allows people to sample a little bit of pre-tech inconvenience without actually suffering any real inconvenience which allows them to believe they're living some sort of alternative lifestyle.

 

[Sal1950]

AHHH, the beautiful sound of pure analog.
And they're playing my favorite tune!

 

[RayDunzl]

...which allows them to believe they're living some sort of alternative lifestyle.

What's remarkable to me is that he seems to be sitting with Gogo Yubari and she hasn't yet killed him.

Or maybe she has, and she just got him back from the taxidermist and placed him there, just so...