[Eagle_Driver]

The problem lies with your mother's old system. Most low-end systems of that generation came with cheap turntables with really crappy performing ceramic (not MM or MC) cartridges that track at a very heavy, potentially vinyl-mulching force (weight). Add to that a lousy-performing, distortion-prone amp and speakers, and you'd end up with a scrap heap.

On the other hand, on a friend's system, CD actually sounds WORSE than AM radio - hollow, thin, tinny, shrill, screechy and ear-grinding. YMMV.

 

[Sovkiller]

OK, guys this has being an eternal discussion here, and nobody seems to arrive to the same conclusion, IMO a few opinions will not make a whole era to come back.....so I will not try to convince the LP lovers to change now to a digital media, keep on enjoying what you like and period, but please do not state "as a fact" that you are hearing a superior rig, as many well known are trusty people out there, does not agree on that, (not me of course...LOL...) and I hope, the same way we respect your preferences, and opinions, you respect ours, and I wish that one happy day, all of us, will be happy listening to a digital rig together that sounds the way you like....OTOH, I feel those adjectives: shirlness, lifeless, hollow, thin, tinny, screechy and ear-grinding is a huge exaggeration, you know that is not that bad, not even from a discman.

I'm not talking of a horrible ceramic cartridge grandma TT BTW, any TT will give you surface noise this is inherent of the media, you will hear the friction of the neddle in the groove....that is Physics...

This is the same case of the tubes, if you like tubes great, IMO those are from the past, but if you enjoy heating your butt with them, that is OK with me, but do not try to convince me that they offer a superior sound, or state that this or that headphone in particular likes tube amps, because this is not true, in the last meet I could listen, thanks to some of the folks here, some of the very best and finest tube amps, and honestly, the more tube amps I listen to with the best tubes available, the more I love my humble PPA.....IMO, I'm not missing anything from them, R-10, Qualia, K-1000, HP-1000, PS-1, CD3000, HD650, all of them were used through them, and the results were the same to my ears, thanks God I'm saving a lot of money that way...LOL...They do sound good, of course, so my humble PPA...

 

[john_jcb]

Sovkiller if you are ever in the Chicago area give me a ring then stop by and listen to my tube amp based speaker setup. It would be fun to contrast it with others you have heard.

 

[Eagle_Driver]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sovkiller I'm not talking of a horrible ceramic cartridge grandma TT BTW, any TT will give you surface noise this is inherent of the media, you will hear the friction of the neddle in the groove....that is Physics...

True there. However, proper TT setup can minimize the annoyances of surface noise.

On the other hand, lifeless, screechy, ear-grinding digital is NOT the result of the technology itself - it's more the result of indifferent digital mastering engineers of even today ("Hey! You want super-loud and super-bright? We'll give ya that!", according to that indifferent digital mastering engineer who shall remain nameless).

 

[Sovkiller]

Quote:

Originally Posted by john_jcb Sovkiller if you are ever in the Chicago area give me a ring then stop by and listen to my tube amp based speaker setup. It would be fun to contrast it with others you have heard.

I took your word

for sure I would like to talk and smoke a couple of cigars, with a nice Jack Daniels on the rocks and listening tubes, honestly tube amps sound good, and is not that I hate tubes, just that IMO are not my cup of tea....

 

[Sovkiller]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eagle_Driver On the other hand, lifeless, screechy, ear-grinding digital is NOT the result of the technology itself - it's more the result of indifferent digital mastering engineers of even today ("Hey! You want super-loud and super-bright? We'll give ya that!", according to that indifferent digital mastering engineer who shall remain nameless).

Well I could mention a lot of LP done the same way, that is why I have bassboost on my PPA, Unfortunatelly this is the logic applied in that market, the LPs were done that way, now the CD has to sound as the LP, and we have to copy the same stupidity, and make them sound thin again....But we could blame a format, just becasue of human errors, OTOH there are a lot of DDD nice recordings also.....

 

[immtbiker]

It's like a sickness, an addiction. I have to force myself to listen to CD's. Vinyl is so soothing, so majestic, so alive, it makes it hard to hear digital.
I want to, but like drugs, I start out with a CD in my hand, and it gets blurry, and the next thing I know, there's a record on the player, headphones on my head, and I don't know how I got there.

 

[cpw]

It's pretty clear that vinyl is alot more work. I have what I consider a fairly high end vinyl rig now (VPI Scout, XR-2 stage, Grado Platinum Ref. Cart) and I have lots of the same titles on CD and vinyl. I've done alot of A/B comparisons and most often the CD wins but in the other cases it's not even close; the vinyl is magic. I'm still getting used to the rig and I may not have it dialed yet but I love the ritual of vinyl. It's part nostalgia and part the anticipation of hearing something I've been missing from the CD versions. Plus it's great fun to go searching for great deals on used vinyl.
I've certainly been listening to more music since I got the TT.
CPW

 

[erikzen]

Maybe I'm not as discerning as some, but I don't think you need to spend a lot of money on a vinyl rig to enjoy records.

Turntable, Technics SL-1900: free (my father-in-law found it in the garbage)
Cartridge, Shure M97xE: $70
Preamp, Radio Shack: $20

I already have an amp and headphones so no marginal cost there. OK, I agree that there is surface noise, static, crackles, pops. Yes, I do need to clean the record and the stylus. Yes, it is more hassle than a CD. In 15 to 20 minutes I have to change the record as opposed to CDs that can run as long as 72 minutes. However, the sound quality, if you can look past the surface noise (and I agree that can be difficult) is at least as good as my CD player (which I also have to admit is not a modern $500 player but an 18 year old "$1200" player).

The bottom line is that until I hooked up the turntable I had 300 neglected records that were doing nothing but taking up space and collecting dust. Listening to records is nowhere near as big of a hassle as I had thought, and I'm listening to some great tunes. Is it as convenient as CDs? No, but it's not really all that difficult either.

 

[Geise]

Since there's no limit to how 'dense' a digital recording can be, won't digital keep getting better and better until eventually being far superior to any digital or analog available today? Of course that is resolution-wise. As for the 'warm' analog sound, well, it's totally possible to create any type of sound with digital, it's just up to the ones who make the recordings to do it right. What I'm saying is, digital may not be ultra good sounding today, but it has unlimited potential, literally. But for present day music, most choose digital simply because it's more abundant, and much easier and convenient to use. It's the practical choice, and it can sound damn good

Also, if you treat a cd with care, it can last as long as the plastic it's made with, without losing fidelity, even with daily use! Not many treat them that way since they can just buy another so easily

 

[erikzen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geise Since there's no limit to how 'dense' a digital recording can be, won't digital keep getting better and better until eventually being far superior to any digital or analog available today?

That seems to make sense to me but I'm not sure that's completely true. Wouldn't it depend on the type of instruments and micing techniques? For example, if I want to record an unamplified acoustic guitar wouldn't any kind of digital format always be missing something? Isn't it always a digital representation of something specificially non-digital? Won't there always be something missing even if it might be inaudible?

 

[Geise]

Quote:

Originally Posted by erikzen That seems to make sense to me but I'm not sure that's completely true. Wouldn't it depend on the type of instruments and micing techniques? For example, if I want to record an unamplified acoustic guitar wouldn't any kind of digital format always be missing something? Isn't it always a digital representation of something specificially non-digital? Won't there always be something missing even if it might be inaudible?

What exactly does the microphone or instrument used have to do with the format? An analog format can lose just as much (LPs will definately not be the most dense format that will ever exist

) A digital format that would allow 10 or more gigabytes per track could store such high resolution audio that it could make LPs sound very grainy and low-fi in comparison

Imagine a format that could offer up to 100 gigs per track! The main thing that limits digital formats is disk space and optic technology. You can't make a disk filled with ultra hi-res, big as hell audio tracks when you only have up to a few hundred megabytes of space and using current laser readers. We are living through the infancy of digital audio, and holy crap what a great start

 

[erikzen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geise What exactly does the microphone or instrument used have to do with the format? An analog format can lose just as much (LPs will definately not be the most dense format that will ever exist ) A digital format that would allow 10 or more gigabytes per track could store such high resolution audio that it could make LPs sound very grainy and low-fi in comparison Imagine a format that could offer up to 100 gigs per track! The main thing that limits digital formats is disk space and optic technology. You can't make a disk filled with ultra hi-res, big as hell audio tracks when you only have up to a few hundred megabytes of space and using current laser readers. We are living through the infancy of digital audio, and holy crap what a great start

I guess what I'm getting at is that the original instrument sound is analog and digital recordings are a representation of an analog sound. It would seem logical that there would be some loss of sound, but as you point out so would an analog recording. I am just thinking out loud. I'm not an engineer or anything.

The digital optical world you describe sounds fantastic. I can't wait to get there!

 

[Piccolo Daimaou]

I might as well chime in with my opinion...

Personally, I believe that CDs do sound better than vinyl, but the only analog setup I've ever had was an old Micro Seiki turntable and some records that have been sitting in my basement for years. But even listening to the vinyl, there just seemed to be something there, an intangible, that made me think "If only I had a better analog setup, this could really kick some ass." But alas, I don't have the kind of money required to assemble such a system, and I don't think any of the music I listen to is even available on vinyl.

But then again, I grew up with CDs, so my opinion is slightly biased. But even with that being said, I still think some of the analog advocates exaggerate a bit when they dismiss the "digital sound" as crap.

Just my two cents.

EDIT:

I was just thinking, too, about recent advances in optical media. Blu-Ray seems to be the first step towards cramming extremely large amounts of data on relatively tiny media. And when you factor in the prospect of dual layered, dual sided media, the possibilities become endless (well, almost).

 

[daveman_84]

I think it's a mistake to say vinyl always sounds better than CD or vice versa. Vinyl CAN sound better than CD, and CD CAN sound better than vinyl. I love both, and could never part with either.

And no, a $100 cheapie Sony turntable will NOT sound better than a $100 CD player. Not even close.