Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Wow: Is vinyl the format of the future?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Wow: Is vinyl the format of the future? - Page 2

post #16 of 64
11/11/03 at 12:29pm
Quote:
Not only has vinyl software been improved since the advent of digital
Hm, maybe that's why my turntable sounds bad. I need a software update.


What, Old Pa?!!!!
Reply

Head-Fi's Best Sellers

post #17 of 64
11/11/03 at 12:33pm
Quote:
Originally posted by chadbang
Hm, maybe that's why my turntable sounds bad. I need a software update.


What, Old Pa?!!!!
Vinyl software = LPs
Vinyl hardware = cartridge + turntable + interconnects + any MC/MM phono section
Reply
post #18 of 64
11/11/03 at 9:28pm
Now if I could find some vinyl mabe i'd get a platter.
Reply
post #19 of 64
11/11/03 at 9:46pm
How come no one is into tapes?

I mean, tapes are analog too right?
Reply
post #20 of 64
11/11/03 at 10:11pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Musicfan123
How come no one is into tapes?

I mean, tapes are analog too right?
<cough> TROLLING... <cough> CRACK SMOKER!!! <cough, cough>
Reply
post #21 of 64
11/11/03 at 10:14pm
There certainly are people into reel-to-reel. Cassette is not generally considered a very hi-fi format, although it can be OK with the right deck and type of tapes.
Reply
post #22 of 64
11/11/03 at 10:15pm
Moderator please note, unsubstantiated deformation on calling me a crack smoker.


Quote:
Originally posted by Jasper994
<cough> TROLLING... <cough> CRACK SMOKER!!! <cough, cough>
Reply
post #23 of 64
11/11/03 at 10:35pm
I'm actually curious as to the answer of that question: why don't people like tapes if analog is so much better than digital? Besides the obvious problem of tape hiss and lack of dynamic range, what makes a tape worse than a record? I'm not quite old enough to have actually heard a real, quality vinyl setup, but those that I have heard have sounded grainy and muddy, which I percieved to be inherent flaws in the vinyl format. So was it just the quality of the table and the media, or are these real problems even in high quality vinyl gear?
Reply
post #24 of 64
11/11/03 at 10:39pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Harrath
I'm actually curious as to the answer of that question: why don't people like tapes if analog is so much better than digital?
Some people do. But there's obviously a lot less music available in reel-to-reel format than is available on vinyl, and what is available is beginning to deteriorate.

As far as cassettes, they're simply too narrow and move too slowly over the record/playback heads to offer much in the way of fidelity or resolution. They can sound decent, but are not really a hi-fi format.

That's the problem with blanket statements about analog vs digital. When you say "digital" do you mean 11.025/8-bit, 44.1/16, 192/24... PCM, DSD, what? When you say "analog" do you mean a modern LP, an 8 track tape, or do you mean a wax cylinder played on something from the early 1900's... see what I'm saying?
Quote:

Besides the obvious problem of tape hiss and lack of dynamic range, what makes a tape worse than a record? I'm not quite old enough to have actually heard a real, quality vinyl setup, but those that I have heard have sounded grainy and muddy, which I percieved to be inherent flaws in the vinyl format. So was it just the quality of the table and the media, or are these real problems even in high quality vinyl gear?
Probably the quality of the table (including cartridge/tonearm/etc), the phono stage, and/or the recording you heard. There is nothing inherently grainy or muddy about vinyl playback.
Reply
post #25 of 64
11/11/03 at 10:43pm
Some hardcore reel-to-reel fans are quite convinced that their format is better than vinyl and includes all of the 'analog advantages': more natural sound, less fatigue, etc.
Reply
post #26 of 64
11/11/03 at 11:14pm
I wish vinyl was the format of the future but its just not. In my area of the country I cant find any good record shops that carry vinyl. Garage sales usually have Bing Crosby or the Andrews SistersI am no longer conditioned to ignore the pops and clicks and I was surprised how much a less than pristine record bugged me. I dont have the money for a top notch turntable and I just dont want to hassel with all the setup requirements anymore. There is no doubt analog sounds better but I would never be able to find the recordings I truely prize in that format. For those of you that get to listen to vinyl on a regular basis; you are indeed very priviledged.
Reply
post #27 of 64
11/12/03 at 12:00am
I am vinyl sceptic for the simple reason that every time a dealer has puported to show me what vinyl can do, it has always ended up in embarrassment for the dealer. Anytime I listen to vinyl, there is always a megabucks CD Player around, If you listen back to back, all the imagined superiority of vinyl simply disappears IMHO. Of course, there is no discounting the fact some vinyl enthusiasts have optimised their systems for vinyl and hence most CD Playback sounds crap through their system. Secondly, I frankly do not have any nostalgia about record collection, I simply want to listen to music, the thrift thing does nothing for me. Having said that, a turntable is a must have for out-of-print vinyl releases that will never be released on CD until you archive it to CD.
Reply
post #28 of 64
11/12/03 at 1:54am
Thread Starter 
theaudiohobby,

An excellent point. However, Todd and I did listen to the exact same recording on vinyl, then on CD, then on SACD, and there wasn't really even a contest. The analog setup completely blew away SACD and CD in terms of tone and smoothness. Detail was just more natural with the vinyl setup. Dynamics were also significantly better. We were comparing the dark side of the moon, "Time," and the introduction of the album.

The rest of the setup was EXACTLY the same: I listened through HD600/cardas, the MOH(R), dimarzio m-paths. The source was the only difference. No contest.

Therefore both of your points, however valid, are perfectly null and irrelevant in the little listening session I had this Sunday: A "mega bucks" CDP (actually, two of them) were present, and the setup was DEFINITELY not rigged for vinyl (I brought my own associated equipment to demo on).

But hey, to each his own. I just couldn't even listen to CD after hearing vinyl, it just didn't sound even close to as real. It's sort of worn off now, but the realization that there's massive digital hazing in the highs created by the binary nature of the format is still apparent.

Cheers,
Geek
Reply
post #29 of 64
11/12/03 at 2:26am
Quote:
Originally posted by Geek
theaudiohobby,

An excellent point. However, Todd and I did listen to the exact same recording on vinyl, then on CD, then on SACD, and there wasn't really even a contest.
Just curious, but... how do you know all three of those formats were from the exact same master tape?

Actually they couldn't have been, because if the LP were an original pressing then the master tape would have been a lot newer when the LP was pressed.

Actually, I score this a big point in favor of vinyl in general... particularly for those people who like older music (pre-1990s, and especially pre-1980s). The LP will almost always be closer to the original master tape, whereas the CD will be "remastered" from most likely deteriorating master tapes (if it's even available).
Reply
post #30 of 64
11/12/03 at 2:34am
Thread Starter 
Fewtch,

I'm pretty sure that the SACD version was remastered. I'm not sure about the CD layer though, although the straight redbook CD of DSOTM was markedly inferior to the hybrid, so I'm assuming it's a better remaster.

But yeah, that could be one reason why this contrast exists.

I didn't get the chance to explore many other CDs. I spent the rest of my time exploring the new (to me anyways) format.

Cheers,
Geek
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dedicated Source Components

Head-Fi's Best Sellers

Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Wow: Is vinyl the format of the future?