[judgmentday]

  I don't have an audiophile reason for liking vinyl. I like the experience of it. The big covers, the labels on the actual record, the physicality of the medium, watching the vinyl spin, looking at the light shine on the side of record platter (Technics 1210 here), and for some reason I'm more likely to listen to a whole album straight all the way through with vinyl. With other mediums I'm too tempted to skip tracks all the time.
 
Vinyl is also the best thing in the world if you are a Hip Hop producer. Having that physicality to manipulate the record right there and to be able to needle drop wherever is priceless.
 
The only thing that I really hate about vinyl is skipping. It pisses me off to no end when that happens. It completely ruins the experience.
 
I guess I have no business posting in here cause nothing I said was really "rational." Oh well

To me, your reasons to liking vinyl are very "rational". You are very lucky to have good ears, just like me. You cannot make deaf people listen to what you can listen. They want proof like data that they may see with their own eyes because they cannot hear. I cannot believe that most digiphiles cannot discern or detect brighness or thiness on their music.  Most people don't like vinyl just because they are too lazy to get off their ass to put the neadle on the LP or whatever it takes to enjoy a good LP recording or simply they cannot afford it.  It's a very expensive hobby that not every Joe can afford.  Good to hear from someone that really loves and talks positive of the great experiencie of listening to vinyl.

 

[Steve Eddy]

To me, your reasons to liking vinyl are very "rational".

No, it's decidedly irrational. Just that it doesn't matter when it comes to subjective enjoyment.

You are very lucky to have good ears, just like me. You cannot make deaf people listen to what you can listen. They want proof like data that they may see with their own eyes because they cannot hear. I cannot believe that most digiphiles cannot discern or detect brighness or thiness on their music.  Most people don't like vinyl just because they are too lazy to get off their ass to put the neadle on the LP or whatever it takes to enjoy a good LP recording or simply they cannot afford it.  It's a very expensive hobby that not every Joe can afford.  Good to hear from someone that really loves and talks positive of the great experiencie of listening to vinyl.

Digital beats vinyl by a wide margin on virtually every technical metric.

You just need to come to grips with the fact that you prefer vinyl because of its flaws, not in spite of them. Something which audiophile vanity and ego just can't do, sadly.

se

 

[nick_charles]

  To me, your reasons to liking vinyl are very "rational". You are very lucky to have good ears, just like me. You cannot make deaf people listen to what you can listen. They want proof like data that they may see with their own eyes because they cannot hear. I cannot believe that most digiphiles cannot discern or detect brighness or thiness on their music.  Most people don't like vinyl just because they are too lazy to get off their ass to put the neadle on the LP or whatever it takes to enjoy a good LP recording or simply they cannot afford it.  It's a very expensive hobby that not every Joe can afford.  Good to hear from someone that really loves and talks positive of the great experiencie of listening to vinyl.

 
 
What evidence do you have that your ears are anything other than completely average ?
 
For instance are you over 30 ? If so then your high end hearing is already on the wane.
 
All digital kit that is at least half-competent is utterly flat i.e not bright and not dull just neutral. if the digital music you listen to seems bright either it has been badly engineered or you are simply imagining it, since vinyl is so often rolled-off especially as you hit the inner groove you may be forgiven for making this mistake, but not in persisting with it. Take any super-expensive vinyl spinner inc arm/cart/phono stage and a competently designed and engineered  $500 CD player and the CD player will outperform the vinyl spinner in almost all meaningful criteria in the audible spectrum from DC (0Hz)  up to 20 Khz.
 
If you prefer vinyl that is of course your business but the difference in noise and distortion between a merely decent CD player and any absurdly expensive LP spinner (playing back an LP) you choose to mention will be not even close. If a CD player had the levels of noise/distortion found in a mega-$K LP spinner it would be considered broken. For instance just thinking about pitch stability
 
http://www.harbeth.co.uk/usergroup/showthread.php?2046-An-honest-appraisal-of-vinyl-v-digital-reality-v-romance&p=26390#post26390
 
Watch the video in the above post , it illustrates the difference between LP and CD playing back a 1 Khz tone and then a 15KHz tone, the LP's playback is frankly apalling

 

[old tech]

  To me, your reasons to liking vinyl are very "rational". You are very lucky to have good ears, just like me. You cannot make deaf people listen to what you can listen. They want proof like data that they may see with their own eyes because they cannot hear. I cannot believe that most digiphiles cannot discern or detect brighness or thiness on their music.  Most people don't like vinyl just because they are too lazy to get off their ass to put the neadle on the LP or whatever it takes to enjoy a good LP recording or simply they cannot afford it.  It's a very expensive hobby that not every Joe can afford.  Good to hear from someone that really loves and talks positive of the great experiencie of listening to vinyl.

Opinions dressed up as facts, yawn...  the same tired appeals and strawmen arguments, like ears not good enough, cannot afford good playback equipment, used by others like homeopaths, astrologists, clairvoyants etc.
 
If you want to convice people that vinyl as a format is superior to digital, how about discussing at least one objective parameter where vinyl outperforms at least CD redbook?  Surely that cannot be difficult if the superiority is so obvious.

 

[Exacoustatowner]

Vinyl? Upstarts. Give me good old Edison Wax Cylinders any day! Vinyl is HARD and hence harsh. 

 

[judgmentday]

No, it's decidedly irrational. Just that it doesn't matter when it comes to subjective enjoyment.

se

This is your opinion.  Get your ears checked.

 Digital beats vinyl by a wide margin on virtually every technical metric.

All the opposite, it's vinyl that beats digital any day of the week. Get your ears checked.

 You just need to come to grips with the fact that you prefer vinyl because of its flaws, not in spite of them. Something which audiophile vanity and ego just can't do, sadly.

I don't need anything, I don't have to proof anything to you. I have my golden ears to discern music that you only dream about.  What you need to do is have your ears checked by a very good ear specialist.

 

[judgmentday]

  What evidence do you have that your ears are anything other than completely average ?

I don't have to proof anything to you, though.

 All digital kit that is at least half-competent is utterly flat i.e not bright and not dull just neutral. if the digital music you listen to seems bright either it has been badly engineered or you are simply imagining it, since vinyl is so often rolled-off especially as you hit the inner groove you may be forgiven for making this mistake, but not in persisting with it. Take any super-expensive vinyl spinner inc arm/cart/phono stage and a competently designed and engineered  $500 CD player and the CD player will outperform the vinyl spinner in almost all meaningful criteria in the audible spectrum from DC (0Hz)  up to 20 KHz.

I have heard the best digital recordings even @ 24bit/96kHz and I'm not convinced, still are bad recordings.  You can argue all you want about specs; vinyl still king and beats digital hands down.

 If you prefer vinyl that is of course your business but the difference in noise and distortion between a merely decent CD player and any absurdly expensive LP spinner (playing back an LP) you choose to mention will be not even close. If a CD player had the levels of noise/distortion found in a mega-$K LP spinner it would be considered broken. For instance just thinking about pitch stability

I have a digital setup also but I have noticed that vinyl still sounds much, much better.  Digital is very convenient, but I really prefer to hear some of the background or floor noise on some LPs now and then but get a more fuller and live kind of sound than the free background or floor noise of the cd but cannot tolerate its brightness and thin sound.

 Watch the video in the above post , it illustrates the difference between LP and CD playing back a 1 Khz tone and then a 15KHz tone, the LP's playback is frankly apalling

If the CD was so good and better sounding than the LP no 180 grams LP would be so expensive. Some new LPs cost about $60.00 vs. $15 for the CD.  Some new collector LPs editions cost about $200.00 ~ $300.00 or even more depending on who mastered, the performer, time that was made, playable condition, etc.

 

[judgmentday]

  Opinions dressed up as facts, yawn...  the same tired appeals and strawmen arguments, like ears not good enough, cannot afford good playback equipment, used by others like homeopaths, astrologists, clairvoyants etc.

Interestingly enough, not having good enough ears or that people cannot afford playback equipment are just facts. A deaf sound engineer is not good, but may be hired by deaf producer. If you have a bad turntable and scratched, worn out or bad mastered LPs don't expect decent sound.

 If you want to convice people that vinyl as a format is superior to digital, how about discussing at least one objective parameter where vinyl outperforms at least CD redbook?  Surely that cannot be difficult if the superiority is so obvious

I don't want to convince no one about vinyl.  I just listed rational reasons to the OP as to why I listen to vinyl.  Go head and continue listening to your beloved bright and thin cds.  Nothing wrong with that, to each his own.

 

[arnyk]

  I don't have to proof anything to you, though.

 
in which case we say, "Well as bad as vinyl generally sounds, this guy actually likes it better. Go figure!"

 

[judgmentday]

  Vinyl? Upstarts. Give me good old Edison Wax Cylinders any day! Vinyl is HARD and hence harsh. 

What about this one:
 

 

Or what about this one:

 

[judgmentday]

   
in which case we say, "Well as bad as vinyl generally sounds, this guy actually likes it better. Go figure!"

According to your ears, yes.

 

[nick_charles]

  You are very lucky to have good ears, just like me. 

 
 

  I don't have to proof anything to you, though.
 
see your quote above, which is a very clear claim for the superiority of your ears
 
Pointless waffle removed here - Ed.
 
If the CD was so good and better sounding than the LP no 180 grams LP would be so expensive. Some new LPs cost about $60.00 vs. $15 for the CD.  Some new collector LPs editions cost about $200.00 ~ $300.00 or even more depending on who mastered, the performer, time that was made, playable condition, etc.
 
There's no accounting for taste
 

 

[BeatsWork]

  I don't have to proof anything to you, though.
I have heard the best digital recordings even @ 24bit/96kHz and I'm not convinced, still are bad recordings.  You can argue all you want about specs; vinyl still king and beats digital hands down.
I have a digital setup also but I have noticed that vinyl still sounds much, much better.  Digital is very convenient, but I really prefer to hear some of the background or floor noise on some LPs now and then but get a more fuller and live kind of sound than the free background or floor noise of the cd but cannot tolerate its brightness and thin sound.
If the CD was so good and better sounding than the LP no 180 grams LP would be so expensive. Some new LPs cost about $60.00 vs. $15 for the CD.  Some new collector LPs editions cost about $200.00 ~ $300.00 or even more depending on who mastered, the performer, time that was made, playable condition, etc.

 
For the record I do still enjoy listening to vinyl on occasion but even I have to call out logic of vinyl cost being proof of superiority. Much of the re-release vinyl and much of the new release is digitally mastered, not from analog source material. So if the argument is that something is lost in digital storage or conversion then these new releases would still be flawed. The price reflects limited production and demand and ability to charge premium to affluent buyers. It's artificial.

 

[judgmentday]

  Opinions dressed up as facts, yawn...  the same tired appeals and strawmen arguments, like ears not good enough, cannot afford good playback equipment, used by others like homeopaths, astrologists, clairvoyants etc.
 
If you want to convice people that vinyl as a format is superior to digital, how about discussing at least one objective parameter where vinyl outperforms at least CD redbook?  Surely that cannot be difficult if the superiority is so obvious.

That's why lots of people are confused about vinyl. If the master is digital then you are listening to bright, edgy and thin sound anyway already.  If the master is digital then vinyl is pointless, crap in crap out.  There are still people who master analog, it is very expensive but it is been done.  The mastering for vinyl has to be different than the one for CD. Also the mastering, mixing and recording engineers of today are deaf, nothing can be done about that.

 

[nick_charles]

  That's why lots of people are confused about vinyl. If the master is digital then you are listening to bright, edgy and thin sound anyway already.  If the master is digital then vinyl is pointless, crap in crap out.  There are still people who master analog, it is very expensive but it is been done.  The mastering for vinyl has to be different than the one for CD. Also the mastering, mixing and recording engineers of today are deaf, nothing can be done about that.

 
 
I see you list a Rega RP3 in your siggy, I used to own a Rega Planar 3, that was the last TT I owned and the no 1 reason I went digital in late 84.
 
Aside from anything else Regas,  including the latest RP3,  are notorious for running fast (approx 0.8% fast in the case of the RP3, my Planar 3 was 1% fast which is shocking) , so in fact when you listen to your Rega you are listening to an unnaturally bright sound as the pitch for all notes is falsely increased, do you not notice this?. Yet a CD that maintains a perfect pitch is somehow bright, hmm...