Why Audiophiles Are Shopping for Vintage Turntables

[levimax]

https://www.askmen.com/deals/tech_deals/prime-day-deal-spotlight-vinyl-records.html

"Vinyl records were in jeopardy of going the way of the dial telephone, the fax machine, and the VHS, until music lovers across the world pointed out an inconvenient truth for CD and MP3 enthusiasts: the vinyls just plain sound better. The compression needed to fit all that great sound onto a single CD compromises quality, and the same dilemma was posed by early MP3 downloads, which had to work around the limitations of Internet speeds."

Ugh! That's an excerpt from yet another article on vinyl, spreading the typical misinformation about vinyl and digital technology and sound quality.
Being a fan of vinyl this stuff drives me nuts, and I can see why people who have digital set ups, and who value fidelity/accuracy and just plain "facts" can be put off by this vinyl phenomenon, given how much misinformation attends the hype.

There are some articles that acknowledge the technical disadvantages and quirky sonic results for vinyl, but many also post crap like the above.

For me as an audiophile, the only silver lining I see in the fact that most vinyl articles talk about the sound, is simply that "sound quality" is being made a "thing" again to some degree. Even when I read of a newbie who has just put together a turntable/amp/speaker system to spin his/her new vinyl, and they rave about the sound quality, they may certainly be mixing fact and fantasy, or misunderstanding why they think the vinyl is "better," but it's nice to see people actually listening for distinctions in sound quality and caring about it, nonetheless.

Some people are probably putting together their first audio system, moving on from listening via a laptop or earbuds, due to getting in to vinyl.

I'm not a headphone guy, but it seems to me the explosion of options in the headphone market, with a lot of serious attempts at raising sound quality in that market, also seem to have either grown, or grown from, some increasing desire for sound quality.

While the pro vinyl mob certainly throws out bogus technical arguments along with their meaningless subjective platitudes there is some "truth" in what they say about compression used in modern recordings (ironically because digital "can" over compress not because is "needs" to). I can't think of another technology that has gone so far in reverse as the art of recording music has over the last 60 years. I have records of jazz singers (Dinah Washington, Julie London, etc.) made in the mid to late 1950's using equipment that is stunningly limited compared to what is available today that sound fantastic compared to for example Amy Winehouse (I love her music but hate the production). Using the DR meter (I know all about "you can't accurately DR records" but it is still a reasonable guide) my 1950's records have a DR of ~11 and Amy Winehouse has a DR of ~5. Yes the new recordings are much quieter and have a wider FR but the compression just kills the sound quality to the point that I will take the noise any time. I believe if digital audio technology was not high jacked by the "loudness war" crowd and their self defeating attempt to "stand out" by being louder this "vinyl phenomenon" would never have materialized. I wish I could say I see the trend changing where digital fights back by using it's sound quality advantages to bury vinyl but I see the opposite. Currently many new releases (Like the Tom Petty reissues) sell the "brick walled compressed" versions on CD or to streaming services and issue the less compressed audiophile version only on vinyl. Oh well...

 

[audiopile]

I keep thinking of the LP's that people brought into the stores I worked in to audition equipment - Cat Stevens ,Supertramp , (much as I have been overexposed to it )-: DSOM .E.power Biggs . the 1812 overture in several versions . The cuts that got played over and over and over -were the passages that had sweeping dynamic contrasts - like most of us audio nutz -I am completely puzzled by why a format that really can beat out the old LP for S/N by easily 20 or 30 dB -has developed a engineering / production aesthete that doesn't use a bunch of that headroom ? Especially for headphone listening where you can assume some of the outsiide noise can be eliminated - the whisper to a scream is achievable.

 

[sergeauckland]

I may be able to offer a historic perspective on the compression of CD.
It goes back to the early days of FM radio, when compared with AM, which was always necessarily very compressed. Listeners complained that FM didn't 'sound right' and anyway, by compressing FM, it allowed a greater coverage so quite early on, FM got compressed.
When CDs started to get played on-air, again listeners complained that the CDs didn't sound like they heard the song on the radio, so after a short time, record companies started compressing pop CDs to sound like the radio, which if course further compressed the CD, so eventually with new products like the TC Finaliser, and the better air processors like the Optimod 8200 and later 8500/8600, the cycle was complete. FM was compressed to 1dB or less dynamic range, using all sorts of tricks like composite clippers and dynamic EQ and limiters, and so did CDs, which could also clip like buggery, but the normalise to just under 0dDFS and both would be as loud as possible.

Fortunately, classical and jazz on the radio never used extreme compression, classical using very little, just to optimise the dynamic range for FM listeners as the real dynamic range of an orchestra is rather more than FM can contain.

However, pop / rock was doomed. I remember seeing some listening tests done by one radio group that showed that listeners actually preferred the compressed version as it sounded livelier.

As someone who lived through the growth of FM, and the rise of compression in my broadcast industry days, then CD and the horrible things done there, it's no wonder we are where we are. Especially so now that so much listening is done 'on the go' where a wide dynamic range isn't necessary or even appropriate. The days of the masses making time to listen to music as a dedicated activity are totally over. Only a few dedicated enthusiasts still do it, and record companies don't care about us, we buy used LPs anyway.

S

 

[woofersus]

I may be able to offer a historic perspective on the compression of CD.
It goes back to the early days of FM radio, when compared with AM, which was always necessarily very compressed. Listeners complained that FM didn't 'sound right' and anyway, by compressing FM, it allowed a greater coverage so quite early on, FM got compressed.
When CDs started to get played on-air, again listeners complained that the CDs didn't sound like they heard the song on the radio, so after a short time, record companies started compressing pop CDs to sound like the radio, which if course further compressed the CD, so eventually with new products like the TC Finaliser, and the better air processors like the Optimod 8200 and later 8500/8600, the cycle was complete. FM was compressed to 1dB or less dynamic range, using all sorts of tricks like composite clippers and dynamic EQ and limiters, and so did CDs, which could also clip like buggery, but the normalise to just under 0dDFS and both would be as loud as possible.

Fortunately, classical and jazz on the radio never used extreme compression, classical using very little, just to optimise the dynamic range for FM listeners as the real dynamic range of an orchestra is rather more than FM can contain.

However, pop / rock was doomed. I remember seeing some listening tests done by one radio group that showed that listeners actually preferred the compressed version as it sounded livelier.

As someone who lived through the growth of FM, and the rise of compression in my broadcast industry days, then CD and the horrible things done there, it's no wonder we are where we are. Especially so now that so much listening is done 'on the go' where a wide dynamic range isn't necessary or even appropriate. The days of the masses making time to listen to music as a dedicated activity are totally over. Only a few dedicated enthusiasts still do it, and record companies don't care about us, we buy used LPs anyway.

S

Fairly broad sets of testing have shown that when compared side-by-side people tend to prefer the slightly louder version of something - a function of how our brains perceive and prioritize sounds. (and non-linear perception of frequencies over a loudness range) Back when I was dabbling in recording I read an interview with Rick Rubin for Gearslutz and he was asked about this trend, and specifically about the notoriously squashed and clipped RHCP album Californication, and he basically said "hey, we take these mixes and we a/b them against each other and this is what always comes out on top." My head nearly exploded at the realization he doesn't know you have to level match when doing an a/b comparison like that. I don't think at this point the people making these decisions even understand why it's happening or why it might be bad.

But I think the phenomenon you described is real and important to understand as I've talked with recording engineers who are pressured by bands to produce a sound that stands out next to other songs on the radio or to give them a "radio sound." And there are other recording practices that are dictated by the comparison factor that comes from playback on the radio, like pitch correcting every note a singer sings, replacing 90% of drum tracks with samples so the strikes are perfect, quantizing tracks to make the timing perfect, etc. It's all about what you may hear it next to. I think the invention of the iPod may have fast tracked some of this as well for that reason.

 

[Robin L]

For me as an audiophile, the only silver lining I see in the fact that most vinyl articles talk about the sound, is simply that "sound quality" is being made a "thing" again to some degree. Even when I read of a newbie who has just put together a turntable/amp/speaker system to spin his/her new vinyl, and they rave about the sound quality, they may certainly be mixing fact and fantasy, or misunderstanding why they think the vinyl is "better," but it's nice to see people actually listening for distinctions in sound quality and caring about it, nonetheless.

Some people are probably putting together their first audio system, moving on from listening via a laptop or earbuds, due to getting in to vinyl.

I'm not a headphone guy, but it seems to me the explosion of options in the headphone market, with a lot of serious attempts at raising sound quality in that market, also seem to have either grown, or grown from, some increasing desire for sound quality.

I've been using headphones right from the start. If one wants a studio playback, with every little thing in the mix exposed---the POV [POH?] of the producer/engineer on a project---headphones are the best bet. And, more often than not, it's headphones that are used for monitoring while recording. That was my experience as a recording engineer, where the other engineers/producers I worked with had their own selection of high-end headgear and left it at for most of the session. I had the Stax Signature 'phones, they exposed more of the mix than anything else I've used. I've heard systems that sounded more like music, but nothing that exposed as much of the sound of a microphone feed. I remember handing them over to Jack Vad. It didn't take long for him to say "I couldn't work with that", it was audio TMI for him, too much detail. His 'phones were Beyers, open backed, don't recall the model number. Those were mellow and laidback, like the Sennheiser 650/6XX with a little more "fog" in the upper and upper mid registers and a little less fat in the lower mids. But he could work with them all day long. He had little British "Shoeboxes" for monitors, similar principle of a sound: one can live with them during an eight hour recording session of dense, complicated music.

I'm pretty sure that a lot of people have a similar experience. Speakers always interact with the "sound" of any given room. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it can't. I remember a gentleman in Fresno who invested more than $20k on a system in a room with impossible acoustics. LP based, every tenth record sounded great, the rest were more or less a mess, imaging was hopeless. If one is aware of the role of room acoustics in determining audio quality, headphones are an obvious choice. If one is living in smaller quarters, that means there are limits on volume with speakers. If one lives with other people, there are limits on volume. And so on.

The biggest factor in making headphones a modern high-end thing is that modern, computer driven workplaces welcome the use of headphones for folks doing data entry and similar tasks requiring focus. So people were listening to headphones more anyway, very often to lo bitrate files off their smartphone. If that's the default experience for someone with cash to spend on audio gear and physical media, one can see the attractions of LPs. If one is obsessively pursuing "perfect sound" one eventually encounters digital done right. But tastes are different, we might want to sit in a different part of the hall. I want to be front row, center. Better still, where the conductor stands. But I understand that's a matter of taste.

Right now I'm listening to a Fleetwood Mac compilation, music I've heard thousands of times before. I've got a computer playing I-Tunes over Topping gear and Drop HD 6XX 'phones. There's a 31 band equalizer flattening out the lower midrange fat and lifting the drooping treble. Nothing sounds accentuated, but such things as the pitch of percussion instruments, or sibilant sounds are presented with greater clarity and lack of distortion than on the gear I used to have.

I know it might sound odd, but the fact that some things can improve gives me hope. I guess that's why I still pursue this hobby.

 

[Angsty]

Currently many new releases (Like the Tom Petty reissues) sell the "brick walled compressed" versions on CD or to streaming services and issue the less compressed audiophile version only on vinyl. Oh well...

Don’t forget about those dreadful LPs that are mastered from CDs. Talk about retro; I mean retrograde !

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

Don’t forget about those dreadful LPs that are mastered from CDs. Talk about retro; I mean retrograde !

Unless you're buying premium reissues which are cut from original analog master tapes, a digital original source is more the rule than the exception these days.

 

[anmpr1]

However, pop / rock was doomed. I remember seeing some listening tests done by one radio group that showed that listeners actually preferred the compressed version as it sounded livelier.

I don't know how it is with kids today, but when I was growing up a larger portion of our listening was done in a car with its AM radio. Single speaker, 6x9 or such. Probably until the advent of 'album oriented' FM rock stations. Pop tunes were mixed down to mono, and I'm sure the goal was for the final mix to sound decent on a car radio--either moving on the road, or parked somewhere and moving from back seat vibes.

A lot of the early 'stereo' pop releases were ridiculous. Vocals on one channel, instruments on the other side, nothing in the middle. Studio musicians would record the basic track, the singers would then come in and lay down vocals, and the producer would mix it down to monophonic.

 

[sergeauckland]

I don't know how it is with kids today, but when I was growing up a larger portion of our listening was done in a car with its AM radio. Single speaker, 6x9 or such. Probably until the advent of 'album oriented' FM rock stations. Pop tunes were mixed down to mono, and I'm sure the goal was for the final mix to sound decent on a car radio--either moving on the road, or parked somewhere and moving from back seat vibes.

A lot of the early 'stereo' pop releases were ridiculous. Vocals on one channel, instruments on the other side, nothing in the middle. Studio musicians would record the basic track, the singers would then come in and lay down vocals, and the producer would mix it down to monophonic.

Anyone remember the Auratone 'speaker? Apparently still being made, and pretty much the arbiter of portable radio/AM car radio sound right through the AM/FM era. Early stereo Beatles were like you described, not surprisingly many thought stereo was a gimmick. My father thought stereo meant that the high frequencies came out of one loudspeaker and the bass out of the other. He couldn't see the point!

S.

 

[Robin L]

Anyone remember the Auratone 'speaker? Apparently still being made, and pretty much the arbiter of portable radio/AM car radio sound right through the AM/FM era. Early stereo Beatles were like you described, not surprisingly many thought stereo was a gimmick. My father thought stereo meant that the high frequencies came out of one loudspeaker and the bass out of the other. He couldn't see the point!

S.

My newsfeed consistently gets ads from B + H photo, a recent offer included headphones with an adjustment available to mimic the EQ of the Auratones.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...6A0SwXV0ITYhsa8yjTLTGBaQSmgpOsjRoCMSAQAvD_BwE

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

Anyone remember the Auratone 'speaker? Apparently still being made, and pretty much the arbiter of portable radio/AM car radio sound right through the AM/FM era. Early stereo Beatles were like you described, not surprisingly many thought stereo was a gimmick. My father thought stereo meant that the high frequencies came out of one loudspeaker and the bass out of the other. He couldn't see the point!

S.

I used Aurotones in my 8 track studio back in the day. I seem to remember they didn't sound all that bad.

 

[audiopile]

I remember my dad building a FM radio so he could set up for WTMJ's stereo demo - tuned to 620AM for the right channel and they similcast the left channel on the relatively recently assigned FM channel. Completely different amps and speakers of course. Don't remember being particularly impressed. Any time there is a fundamental change in recording media -pretty understandably there is a period of experimentation with just how to use it. Not just pop music suffered from the all left-all right idea - early Mercury stereo Jazz recordings -did things like putting Dinah Washington in the left speaker and the band in the right -not so much a hole in the middle as a wall in the middle -took me awhile to find a good condition mono LP of that otherwise excellent recording. I have spent a fair amount of time trying to re-educate some of my CD-phobic friends to at least give CD's another try . I realize that there are folks who appreciate and collect these "originals" (those first 200 to maybe a couple of thousand CD titels)- but to my nun handles they are almost all really lousy sounding. Lots of followers of the orthodox fundamentalist analog only school -listened carefully at the begining of the CD revolution and went "EH!!!" and haven't bothered since. Whatever the format - the original mixed down ,EQ'd and generally F*&^%d with comercial recording is the only choice we've got -it matters more than anything we can do to it on the playback end.

 

[Victor Martell]

Don’t forget about those dreadful LPs that are mastered from CDs. Talk about retro; I mean retrograde !

Unless you're buying premium reissues which are cut from original analog master tapes, a digital original source is more the rule than the exception these days.

1.- Indeed "Mastered from Digital" is not the same as "Cut from a CD" - Gray market european labels are cutting out of European copyright recordings from CDs and selling those to mostly vinyl neophytes. I think that is wrong. But it is not the norm. It is a different issue.

2.- If you master and cut from Digital, well, results can still be outstanding. An LP cut from digital is not just a noisy big CD. Remember that the medium will colour the sound no matter the source. But still you have to know what you are doing. When you do, the results can be great. Proof are the recent Pink Floyd releases, the Zappa releases, among others. Some of the best sounding LPs have been Mastered from Digital, including some early Denon and DGs, including Lenny's DG Mahler Cycle.

But this thread has gone on long enough that I have posted this before... ah well... some of the arguments against has been made over and over. AGAIN, remember that you are in ASR. Those of us here that are vinyl aficionados KNOW our stuff. We are aware of the limitations and issues and also know a lot about, own and use digital; you are not teaching us anything... we just like vinyl. Silly? maybe; but so are sports cars and expensive watches. And expensive digital audio.

v

 

[Ken1951]

I enjoyed LPs for years, actually decades, but they just got to be too much hassle for me to deal with anymore. Totally understand those who continue to enjoy them and the hardware as well. Don't understand the crazy prices for some of the hardware, but that holds for loads of other hardware also. I do like looking at the rigs folks use though!

 

[anmpr1]

This may have been posted before. B&O are refurbishing some of their old linear trackers--updating with new parts and will be selling them in Europe. I guess they are also including a new MMC cartridge with the package. I didn't see a price tag. But I'm sure that it's a price is no object sort of thing.

https://www.bang-olufsen.com/en/speakers/beogram-4000c

 

[Robin L]

This may have been posted before. B&O are refurbishing some of their old linear trackers--updating with new parts and will be selling them in Europe. I guess they are also including a new MMC cartridge with the package. I didn't see a price tag. But I'm sure that it's a price is no object sort of thing.

https://www.bang-olufsen.com/en/speakers/beogram-4000c

I remember the B&O 'tables looking and sounding flimsy.

 

[anmpr1]

I remember the B&O 'tables looking and sounding flimsy.

They always looked flimsy. It was the streamlined Danish modern thing. Rosewood and Teak. Chrome. I'm surprised these refurbed decks are not using Rosewood and Teak, but rather Oak, which is decidedly downmarket.

I don't know about the sound, because I never owned one, or knew anyone that did. Marrying the cartridge to the entire deck as one integral unit has some conceptual benefit for the designer, but then the end-user is tied to the one cartridge, which might not be what you really want. And when the manufacturer stops production, you are left high and dry. Or dependent upon third parties to supply you with parts.

Back in the day our local McIntosh dealer carried the line. My impression was that it was mainly bought by professional types (cardiologists, attorneys, stock brokers) that weren't too interested in the best sound available, but wanted that 'Scan Design' look to integrate into their decor.

However, I admit that one of the best loudspeakers I ever heard was the B&O 5, which used Ice Power and DSP, along with those saucer shaped wave guides.

 

[Frank Dernie]

They always looked flimsy. It was the streamlined Danish modern thing. Rosewood and Teak. Chrome. I'm surprised these refurbed decks are not using Rosewood and Teak, but rather Oak, which is decidedly downmarket.

I don't know about the sound, because I never owned one, or knew anyone that did. Marrying the cartridge to the entire deck as one integral unit has some conceptual benefit for the designer, but then the end-user is tied to the one cartridge, which might not be what you really want. And when the manufacturer stops production, you are left high and dry. Or dependent upon third parties to supply you with parts.

Back in the day our local McIntosh dealer carried the line. My impression was that it was mainly bought by professional types (cardiologists, attorneys, stock brokers) that weren't too interested in the best sound available, but wanted that 'Scan Design' look to integrate into their decor.

However, I admit that one of the best loudspeakers I ever heard was the B&O 5, which used Ice Power and DSP, along with those saucer shaped wave guides.

I have a 8002 as one of my 4 remaining record players, an excellent TT and the cartridges are as good as any, in, iirc, 5 levels of cantilever/stylus.
I think neither teak nor rosewood are available as sustainable wood any longer.

 

[Robin L]

They always looked flimsy. It was the streamlined Danish modern thing. Rosewood and Teak. Chrome. I'm surprised these refurbed decks are not using Rosewood and Teak, but rather Oak, which is decidedly downmarket.

I don't know about the sound, because I never owned one, or knew anyone that did. Marrying the cartridge to the entire deck as one integral unit has some conceptual benefit for the designer, but then the end-user is tied to the one cartridge, which might not be what you really want. And when the manufacturer stops production, you are left high and dry. Or dependent upon third parties to supply you with parts.

Back in the day our local McIntosh dealer carried the line. My impression was that it was mainly bought by professional types (cardiologists, attorneys, stock brokers) that weren't too interested in the best sound available, but wanted that 'Scan Design' look to integrate into their decor.

However, I admit that one of the best loudspeakers I ever heard was the B&O 5, which used Ice Power and DSP, along with those saucer shaped wave guides.

I've heard more than a few. The audio shops I visited often were demo-ing the 'tables, obviously they looked good and the look was what sold B&O. A manager at a Wherehouse record store I worked at had one, managed to hear it for a couple of hours with music I was familiar with. I was a truly obsessive LP collector, often ran down multiple pressings of the same title. Big reason as to why I was working in a record store was the perks, the promos. I'd take promos to shops that took 'em in trade, got a lot of stuff at Poo-Bah's that way. So I would be going to all these different record stores looking for a "perfect" or at least acceptable copy of a given title, often wound up with three copies of the same title that way---Domestic, European and Japanese. This, being the 70s/80s, lots of warped records, US & UK. So, it was a question of how much one was willing to put up with. I remember listening to a Bonnie Raiit LP with a mild rim warp on a B&O table with a pivoted arm . The B&O 'table tracking that disc was not all that good compared to what I was used to---AR XA, Shure 91 cartridge. Everybody was going for light tracking force at the time, there were a lot of bad decisions made. The light & short arm of the B&O linear tracker, the light 'wand' of their pivoted arm were not champs with warped records. The overall sound quality was fast and light, which is a roundabout way of saying they lacked bass. Not the worst turntables I've heard, far from the best.

 

[anmpr1]

...the cartridges are as good as any, in, iirc, 5 levels of cantilever/stylus.
I think neither teak nor rosewood are available as sustainable wood any longer.

In the late '50s David Hafler imported B&O cartridges to the US. Even then the company was using the integrated plug in approach. Unusual for a 'magnetic' cartridge, Bang and Olufsen styli were not user replaceable.

An outfit called Soundsmith supplies updated replacement cartridges in varying levels of sophistication--said to be licensed by B&O. Because of this, B&O turntable owners are in better shape than owners of Shure, Stanton, ADC, Empire and many other cartridge makers.

Natural Oak is the one of the worst woods to frame an upscale product, from a cosmetic standpoint. They could have stained and lacquered it at least.