Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Vinyl still the king? Am I missing something?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Vinyl still the king? Am I missing something? - Page 2

post #16 of 91
Get a better digital setup....nowdays digital recordings are a lot better than they were in the past, and honestly I left vinyl for the nostalgic long time ago, mainly for conveninece and a cleaner sound issues, leave the LPS for the ones that want to care of them, clean them before playing, wasting huge space, wasting a lot of time everytime they want to listen one, etc...the difference in enjoyment (if any) does not justify all this hassle, the same as old reel to reel tapes....

And yes you are missing something, a completelly black background and a completelly clean sound of the digital media, with 0 crosstalk, that you will never get while playing an LP...
post #17 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by vpivinylspinner
You are right I just generically referred to MP3. Those are some pretty bold statements about phasing out high end CD Players. Are you refering to the standalone units like the Linn Kivor system or are you saying that a desktop computer with a good sound card will someday replace high end CD Players as a preferred source?
I mean something like Olive SYMPHONY for the most convenient way. Or just a computer as a transport, NOT as a D-to-A, since its much easier to implement outside the computer, i.e. standalone DAC.
post #18 of 91
Try using an equalizer to roll off the frequencies a bit from 10kHz up- pivot at 14kHz. Instant analogue.

See ya
Steve
post #19 of 91
I personally do not like the EMU1212, but I fail to see or hear how vinyl is superior to CD format.

-Matt
post #20 of 91

Hey Ruppin You Might Want to try this CD player out

So far to date, the one CD player that seems to make my 60/70's rock & blues CD's sound alive & incredible is my Pioneer Elite PD-59 which pops up on Ebay every few weeks & I actually prefer it to the PD-65 which is held in much higher regard. For the best sound on my CDs (which are remastered ones whenever possible), I actually have the PD-59 connected by optic cable straight to my Denon 3801 receiver which is connected to my 5 piece Orb Audio Mod 1 Speakers & Sub ( I listen in 5 channel unreprocessed stereo sound) & the tones coming out of this player are perfect with an alive warm sound (I prefer the sound on this player with a digital connection instead of analog). You can get this player for around $225 to $280 including shipping on Ebay. To date none of the other players I've tried comes close (even when using analog cables too) such as Rotel RCD-72, Sonys 707ESD & many others. Out of curiosity, I am going to try out the Eastsound CD-5 player this week, based on what I read on this board, to see if it surpasses my Pioneer for the music I like to play on my set up. If it doesn't, then other then trying out a tube CD player such as Jolida, Minimax or Ah Njoe, I'm basically going to quit shopping around for something that sounds better then this player, as maybe it doesn't exist. Again my comments are directed towards 60/70's stuff not modern recordings. As far as my vinyl records, we're talking 20 years ago where the cleaning products were not as advanced & even with that, my albums were so scratched up, they were beyond redemption.
post #21 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by hciman77
I have to humbly disagree - I had a decent turntable setup back in the early 1980s (Rega Planar 3/RB300/Nagaoka MP11 Gold) and I found that even my first generation CD player Marantz CD63 was preferable. I guess some people just prefer the low distortion, extended frequency range, dynamic range and non-existent noise of digital audio and some prefer the ah, um , er , something or other of vinyl
Interesting. I have always loved my Marantz CD63 which for all it's lack of resolution compared to any later machine as it just has a wonderful softness coupled with real presence which to me sounds almost analogue.

Comparing it to your P3/RB300/MP11 is pretty funny though because you seem to have hit upon a combo either by accident or design which would sound pretty similar to early CD.

The P3/RB300 was never really my cup of tea as far as budget turntables went but by fitting an MP11 you took a fairly grey sounding set-up, rolled off the treble to kill off it's characteristically analytic presentation, which is it's strongest suite, leaving it dim sounding but with quite a punchy bass.

Add to this the Nagaoka's crude spherical stylus which would prevent much detail being retrieved from your grooves and is really more suited to mono replay and hey presto ..you have a close approximation of the philips TDA-1540 chipset.

no wonder you preferred the CD player...
post #22 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garbz
There's no question about it CDs are a superior sound.
I politely offer a different opinion. I find analog, in my system with my gear, to be the preferred medium. I also find this to be true in a number of other systems I've heard. I note that while analog set-up can be a bit tedious (compared to the relative ease of digital), the exactitude spent in getting your kit right pays off huge in the sound department. YMMV.

If one would like to see a really superb analog system (great digital system, too), go here.
post #23 of 91
A well mastered CD or SACD can sound excellent on a good machine but none of them can match the sound of a 12 inch single or EP spinning at 45 RPMs on a good turntable.Fast plastic is the best source there is this side of the original master tape.
post #24 of 91
Vinyl vs. CD is always good for a nice fight

When I bought my first CDP in 1985 I boxed up my vinyl...never to be seen again.


I guess if you have the money to spend vinyl can be great...CD listening costs a lot less.
post #25 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by djbnh
I politely offer a different opinion. I find analog, in my system with my gear, to be the preferred medium. I also find this to be true in a number of other systems I've heard. I note that while analog set-up can be a bit tedious (compared to the relative ease of digital), the exactitude spent in getting your kit right pays off huge in the sound department. YMMV.
Forgive me I worded it incorrectly. On paper CD is a far superior format for the reasons mentioned above. I still use vinyl as my preferred medium too and enjoy it vastly more then any cdplayer or DAC I've ever used in my system, and it's seen a few.
post #26 of 91
It all depends on the source material IMHO. I happen to have a love of just about anything Marvin Gaye. I knew the sound of his vinyl recordings. They are some of the best I have ever heard, irrespective of the style of music. So it was quite surprising that some things I had taken for granted as a possible flaw in the pressing process actually turned out to be on the CD's as well. There was also no difference in the dynamic range compared to the MC cartridge I used.
In terms of "punch", the far better vinyl frequence bandwidth at the top and bottom end are also obvious. Lovers of reggae music played on both vinyl and CD may well have picked this up.
post #27 of 91
It's threads like this that increasingly convince me that different people REALLY hear different things.

For example, I have sat right next to other audiophiles comparing top-flight CDP vs. top-flight turntable (much more $$ than the CDP actually) and heard them say stuff like, "Oh, yeah, the vinyl WIPES the floor with the CD."

But what I (objectively?) hear is that they sound different. In general, vinyl rolls off and softens predictable ranges including the 1.5K-3K "presence" region, has warmer upper to mid-bass but severe low-bass rolloff (<30Hz or so), with unacceptable (to me) signal-to-noise ratio.

What vinyl does have going for it is the lack of choppy, edgy rough-pixel low-treble to upper-midrange of poory-produced CD's (read: most CD's out there). For these materials, I would prefer to listen to vinyl over the CD's. However, with superior CD material (vs. superior vinyl), CD clearly has superior resolution, frequency extension and control, much better signal-to-noise ratio, and lower distortion products.

When it comes to well-recorded, native 24bit/192kHz DVD-A, that's when mere "digital" "Wipes" you-know-what with vinyl, even the most well-produced vinyl. Just IMHO, of course, but I don't think YMMV
post #28 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon L


But what I (objectively?) hear is that they sound different. In general, vinyl rolls off and softens predictable ranges including the 1.5K-3K "presence" region, has warmer upper to mid-bass but severe low-bass rolloff (<30Hz or so), with unacceptable (to me) signal-to-noise ratio.

When it comes to well-recorded, native 24bit/192kHz DVD-A, that's when mere "digital" "Wipes" you-know-what with vinyl, even the most well-produced vinyl. Just IMHO, of course, but I don't think YMMV
Hmmm. If the low bass roll off is as severe as you indicate, it sure isn't following the RIAA response curve. The sub bass response on vinyl cut from an analogue source out performs that of a CD cut form that same analoguie source. The same goes for the high end.
It's the digital recordings that make CD "sound" better, especially when that digital recording is transfered to vinyl. Dynamic range compression is frequently used to then fit the digital recording on a vinyl without any wall tearing of the vinyl grooves.
This manipulation of the audio source during the cutting of a CD or vinyl is however ignored by many when stacking the two formats up against each other. But it is a major contributing fact in creating an apparent difference.
post #29 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Herandu
It's the digital recordings that make CD "sound" better, especially when that digital recording is transfered to vinyl. Dynamic range compression is frequently used to then fit the digital recording on a vinyl without any wall tearing of the vinyl grooves.
This manipulation of the audio source during the cutting of a CD or vinyl is however ignored by many when stacking the two formats up against each other. But it is a major contributing fact in creating an apparent difference.
But this is pretty much like what the RIAA curve in a phono section does , it applies a massive boost to some freqencies to make up for the physical problems of cutting such frequencies on vinyl. Both media use a variety of bodges to get around their intrinsic problems.
post #30 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreatDane
Vinyl vs. CD is always good for a nice fight

When I bought my first CDP in 1985 I boxed up my vinyl...never to be seen again.
That's what I thought, but it lasted 20 years in cardboard boxes, stored poorly.


Quote:
I guess if you have the money to spend vinyl can be great...CD listening costs a lot less.
For $500 (can be done cheaper, but I bought a VPI cleaner) and some time, I cleaned about 350 records of mine and my family's, including my parents'. Notwithstanding much abuse, 340 are playable, 150 are like new. How's that for saving money?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dedicated Source Components
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Vinyl still the king? Am I missing something?