.

[Grave]

.

 

[sergeauckland]

I like vinyl, have three turntables in regular use, but I like it in the same way I like steam locomotives, 1936 MGs or 1929 blown Bentleys. Great fun, but not daily transport.

In other words, fun when I want a wallow in nostalgia, a bit of ritual, or playing my SQ Quadraphonic LPs, but not for serious quality. There are just too many downsides to playing LPs, even more playing 78s, that I can't take them seriously as 'hifi'.

Still, wouldn't be without my LPs, 78s and turntables to play them on.

S

 

[Grave]

Listening some more I would say vinyl is equivalent to high bit rate lossy and not as good as lossless, so yeah, maybe not hi-fi. I do not think much of lossy.

 

[restorer-john]

The 'surprisingly good'ness of vinyl is directly proportional to the intake of alcohol. In the cold and sober light of day, it can be rather ugly.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Listening some more I would say vinyl is equivalent to high bit rate lossy and not as good as lossless, so yeah, maybe not hi-fi. I do not think much of lossy.

Sounds pretty good compared to budget vinyl setups I've had. What model is the TT and cartridge out of interest?

 

[Apesbrain]

Those of us who were around spent thousands of dollars on vinyl playback systems in the "pre-CD" era. Of course it was good and completely "hi-fi". Digital is equally good and a lot more convenient.

Not sure where you're getting the "lossy" comparison, but an LP on a quality turntable is capable of clean and clear response up to and beyond 20 kHz. Lossy can't do that. That said, 320 kbps can be pretty convincing.

Surface noise is probably the thing someone raised in the digital age will most fault about vinyl. We never knew anything other. As someone who grew up in the analog age, what I notice about modern recordings is the squashed dynamics. It's always something.

 

[garbulky]

(Subjective impressions here, no DBT).
I like vinyl. It depends on the turntable you play it on. My Pioneer sounds well, sort of like what you describe. I still enjoy it though. I heard it on a Rega RP6, and I was very impressed. It sounds as good or perhaps better than the best digital I had heard at the time. Unfortunately I only got a short audition time.

 

[Xulonn]

Surface noise is probably the thing someone raised in the digital age will most fault about vinyl.

Indeed! And even for old-timers. John's comment about alcohol reminds me that damage to LPs often happens when one is not completely sober.

But this old-timer (first mono system and vinyl LPs in 1957) is extraordinarily sensitive to pops and clicks. I just cannot block them out, and find them extraordinarily distracting. I have heard modern vinyl systems with almost no surface noise, but am happy with higher bitrate MP3s and especially FLAC files. I sometimes download higher bitrate versions of music that I already own when I find them, because I already own the license for the music. Also, I've read that stream-ripping of any type of broadcast for personal use is legal, and I sometimes do that.

While searching via Google for some information related to this thread, I stumbled across a fascinating article on the subject of noise and its role in recorded music. The 2017 Article by Damon Krukowski was published in the Paris Review. It is an excerpt from his book, The New Analog - Listening and Reconnecting in a Digital World. The book looks interesting enough that I just might buy a hardcopy on Amazon, where they sell for as little $12.

This all made me think about my many evenings spent listening to the Chicago Symphony Orchestra in the 1950's when I was a teenager working as an usher at Symphony Hall, and later in life listening to the San Fransisco Symphony as a subscriber with a second-row balcony seat.

There was always a light buzz of conversation as the hall filled, but shortly before a concert began, the members of the orchestra would filter in and begin tuning and "warming up," and occasionally talking to each other. After they were all in place, the concertmaster / first violin would walk on stage, and the musicians would go silent. The concertmaster would receive applause as he bowed to the audience, and then turn to the orchestra. The first oboe would play an "A" note, and the orchestra members would do their final tuning as the applause and murmurs of conversation from the audience faded. When the tuning was finished, the conductor would walk on stage, the members of the orchestra would stand, and the audience would again applaud. The conductor would shake hands with the concertmaster, ascend to the podium, face the orchestra, and from the silence of a big hall, the music would begin.

Except for the rare capture via live music and video recordings, these "natural" elements of a live orchestra classical performance are missing from most recordings. At age 76 and living in a remote region of Panama, I will probably never attend a live orchestral concert again, but this post make me want to download a couple of videos of notable concerts and enjoy them. I can't think of a better way to exercise my modest home theater system with its humble two-channel sound system.

 

[andreasmaaan]

@Xulonn that Damon Krukowski article was great, thanks. Will get my hands on the book I think.

 

[TBone]

The 'surprisingly good'ness of vinyl is directly proportional to the intake of alcohol. In the cold and sober light of day, it can be rather ugly.

Every endeavor is directly proportional to the intake of alcohol.

done it too many times ... play a rip and listener(s) had no idea it was vinyl based. More often than not, because the chosen LP/rips contain high dynamic content, they near always enquire about the "... mastering of the CD".

(and before you insinuate further ... no alcohol was involved)

 

[Xulonn]

TBone in the post above mentioned dynamic range, and most modern popular recordings are highly compressed with maximum recording levels applied, even to the point of actual clipping. Classical music is compressed during mixing and mastering if individual instruments or groups are close-miked, but often not compressed if an "ambient" stereo-mike arrangement some distance from the orchestra is used.

If my perception is correct, the advent of CD's was also when compression began to be used more and more for mass-market recordings. I remember a review of a Santana CD, I believe in the 1990's, where the reviewer lamented the use of much more compression than on previous releases.

In reality, I would rather have recordings with a greater dynamic range and a preamp/integrated amp/receiver with a compression switch or control rather than bass and treble controls. For a serious listening session, I like a lot of dynamic range. But when the music is in the background or for party music, I refer at least some compression. DBX apparently still makes and sells "professional" compressor/limiter/expander products, but no longer has a consumer line of "dynamic expansion" products. The DBX expansion units apparently never worked that well according to many people who owned them.

BTW, Andreas, while doing a bit of research about dynamic range, I stumbled upon a review of Krukowski's book by Kirk McElhearn, which had a few quibbles about Krukowski's writings, but added to the discussion.

 

[andreasmaaan]

TBone in the post above mentioned dynamic range, and most modern popular recordings are highly compressed with maximum recording levels applied, even to the point of actual clipping. Classical music is compressed during mixing and mastering if individual instruments or groups are close-miked, but often not compressed if an "ambient" stereo-mike arrangement some distance from the orchestra is used.

If my perception is correct, the advent of CD's was also when compression began to be used more and more for mass-market recordings. I remember a review of a Santana CD, I believe in the 1990's, where the reviewer lamented the use of much more compression than on previous releases.

In reality, I would rather have recordings with a greater dynamic range and a preamp/integrated amp/receiver with a compression switch or control rather than bass and treble controls. For a serious listening session, I like a lot of dynamic range. But when the music is in the background or for party music, I refer at least some compression. DBX apparently still makes and sells "professional" compressor/limiter/expander products, but no longer has a consumer line of "dynamic expansion" products. The DBX expansion units apparently never worked that well according to many people who owned them.

BTW, Andreas, while doing a bit of research about dynamic range, I stumbled upon a review of Krukowski's book by Kirk McElhearn, which had a few quibbles about Krukowski's writings, but added to the discussion.

Nice, thanks!

There are loads and loads of pro compressors available that would work equally well for home audio (if anyone can find a recording these days that actually needs it).

Or if your music goes through a computer, plenty of software solutions too

 

[TBone]

TBone in the post above mentioned dynamic range, and most modern popular recordings are highly compressed with maximum recording levels applied, even to the point of actual clipping. Classical music is compressed during mixing and mastering if individual instruments or groups are close-miked, but often not compressed if an "ambient" stereo-mike arrangement some distance from the orchestra is used.

I confess that I'm not into classical music, although I keep promising myself that I should become more acquainted. I've often stated, probably incorrectly since I have such limited experience with classical LP, if I was only classical based, I'd probably forgo analog entirely.

If my perception is correct, the advent of CD's was also when compression began to be used more and more for mass-market recordings. I remember a review of a Santana CD, I believe in the 1990's, where the reviewer lamented the use of much more compression than on previous releases.

Not quite ... very early CD, the original CD pressings based on older analog masters, contained as much DR as LP, and many early DDD recordings in the mid to late 80's had DR values well in excess of LP. That all changed in the 90's, a period in time in which compression crippled CD to near unlistenable levels. Things have improved slightly, but not nearly enough ...

The DBX expansion units apparently never worked that well according to many people who owned them.

Yep, needed careful alignment, or they "pumped" ...

 

[tomelex]

Records are fine, a quality record on a quality TT are nearly silent and pop free. Take out a piece of paper. Draw 5 circles on it of various dimaters but do not let them touch..thats the sound of digital, now those same circles have them all touch each other with as much touching as you can, that's the sound of vinyl. Its a soundstage thing built into the process, and digital sidesteps all that, and that is why digital sounds so clean. And with the weaknesses of two channel stereo, it really does need all the help it can get, and vinyl had built in "mechanisms.,..the touching together of your circles" that "helps" poor old two channel stereo come more to life.

 

[Wombat]

Every endeavor is directly proportional to the intake of alcohol.

done it too many times ... play a rip and listener(s) had no idea it was vinyl based. More often than not, because the chosen LP/rips contain high dynamic content, they near always enquire about the "... mastering of the CD".

(and before you insinuate further ... no alcohol was involved)

I have downloaded the occasional OOP album from torrent sites. I can always pick the ones ripped from vinyl by the usual extraneous artifacts captured in the process - and I have old ears.

I could hear the artifacts on my LP rips to Compact Cassette in my younger days. New LPs cleaned and played once before the ripping play. MC cartridge and Nakamichi 582 cassette deck.

I am puzzled that vinyl-lovers don't find this factor distracting.

 

[restorer-john]

I am puzzled that viny-lovers don't find this factor distracting.

I must need glasses. I read that sentence as "I am puzzled that vino-lovers don't find this tractor distracting"

 

[Wombat]

Sounds pretty good compared to budget vinyl setups I've had. What model is the TT and cartridge out of interest?

Technics sl10/Technics EPS 310MC.

 

[Apesbrain]

The DBX expansion units apparently never worked that well according to many people who owned them.

They worked fine, but most people pushed them too hard which created audible artifacts. I enjoyed my 3BX in moderation for many years.

Take out a piece of paper. Draw 5 circles on it of various dimaters but do not let them touch..thats the sound of digital, now those same circles have them all touch each other with as much touching as you can, that's the sound of vinyl. Its a soundstage thing built into the process, and digital sidesteps all that, and that is why digital sounds so clean.

"I'll have what he's smoking."

 

[TBone]

"I'll have what he's smoking."

lol, my thoughts exactly.

 

[TBone]

I have downloaded the occasional OOP album from torrent sites. I can always pick the ones ripped from vinyl by the usual extraneous artifacts captured in the process - and I have old ears.

I could hear the artifacts on my LP rips to Compact Cassette in my younger days. New LPs cleaned and played once before the ripping play. MC cartridge and Nakamichi 582 cassette deck.

I am puzzled that vinyl-lovers don't find this factor distracting.

Well, perhaps you're "special". Personally, compression artifacts, evident on so many CD's, "distracts" me a whole lot more.

So what was so "distracting" exactly ... because again ... without provided the actual rip(s) to relate, I've no idea or confirmation to what you refer.

But that said, I also hear "artifacts" with many rips, including many of my own. But certainly not all. Rips that don't work out perfectly, which I have plenty, IMO, don't justify vinyl's true potential. And when it comes to torrent vinyl rips, they're all over the place. PBThal rips are popular. His early work seemed to have no (or little) digital intervention, so you really got a chance to hear what his system was capable of reproducing. His later offerings have obvious signs of digital intervention, and although they may sound quieter, they don't really provide the proper insight toward his systems true sound. One chap, who's rips are also all over the place on the net, with Japanese type name resembling a tire manufacturer, claims his "Vinyl" rips are perfect ... and they certainly are ... that's because they are in fact an exact copy of the original high DR CD's, bit for bit.

Personally, although it's relatively easy to de-click & filter a file post rip, I prefer to share my rips with no post digital intervention, rather them judge based on reality, warts & all.

I've acquaintances who also are not into vinyl. For those 'philes, the turntable remains static which pleases me fine. Let's not confuse my love for vinyl as a slight against digital, I absolutely love digital, so those all-digital listening sessions are very much welcomed, and certainly, the inconvenience of searching, cleaning, playing LPs, for those who prefer the vinyl experience, may eventually drive me to loneliness.

However, for those who first visit, I routinely pull the same stunt ... I start by playing three specific re-masters, a Badco, Deep Purple, and Bowie CD. The Badco and DP songs are "extra" titles on the re-masters, absent from the original album. The beauty of these picks is since they didn't make the album, I presume they were left as-is, since little to no apparent compression was added (except for the DP Glover remix version). Not only are they most-often totally unaware of these cuts, they're also always impressed by the music. The third cut is a down-mix from Ken Scott's Ziggy Stardust SACD MC re-issue, which contains stellar DR, values, way in excess of every version of this album I've heard or own, in any format. Chances are, they never heard this version either, always seems to impress. But then, the stunt. I put on a high DR rip, one with very little to no apparent noise. Not once has anyone guessed it was a vinyl rip. Nada!!!! Instead, they act just as they did with the prior songs. I've pulled this "stunt" often, and its proved 100% consistent. When inform, they always ask to either hear it again, or claim "you'd never know that was a rip".

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe it's a flawed stunt, but considering the consistency, I don't think you and your "old" ears would have acted any differently.