[fzman]

i'd strongly recommend finding a more solid base on which to place the turntable -- what is that you;ve got it sitting on now, an ink jet printer????

 

[moogoob]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fzman /img/forum/go_quote.gif i'd strongly recommend finding a more solid base on which to place the turntable -- what is that you;ve got it sitting on now, an ink jet printer????

I've got mine on my floor under a table, so by comparison Germania's system beats mine.

 

[milkweg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsaliga /img/forum/go_quote.gif No, they aren't. Frankly, you don't know enough about my listening tastes and experience to make that kind of judgment. Tell me something...how many different analog and digital sources do you have in your setup, and for what purpose? I'm still waiting for you to actually contribute something of substance to this topic...but I won't hold my breath. --Jerome

You open with, "It's not about the playback system, it's about the music." and yet all you have done is talk about the playback system. That makes you a hypocrite.

 

[jsaliga]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkweg /img/forum/go_quote.gif You open with, "It's not about the playback system, it's about the music." and yet all you have done is talk about the playback system. That makes you a hypocrite.

Why don't you just answer my question about what sources you are using in your setup, and why. Or are you so much of a coward that you refuse to discuss your setup and approach to music? Probably because you don't want others doing to you what you are doing to me. You see, it is easy to sit back and snipe at someone else's posts while not really saying anything meaningful. Just like you have done repeatedly here.

You really don't understand it, do you? Let me spell it out for you. The entire purpose of having analog setups such as a vinyl rig and/or a reel-to-reel setup is to: 1) gain access to music that doesn't exist on a digital format, and 2) to gain access to music that has not been ruined by hot mastering on CD as a casualty of the loudness war. The playback system is a means to an end...but it is not an end in and of itself, which is a point that seems completely lost on you.

So, it is precisely about the music...despite your pathetic attempts to suggest otherwise. If you want to call me a hypocrite because I tend to favor a setup that gives me the greatest possible access to music, and in formats of my choice that presents the music in its best possbile light...then so be it. But I think this says a lot more about you than it does about me. There are people who seem to have no other purpose here than to make petty arguments by singling out a single phrase from several posts in an effort to undermine someone just for kicks. They bend the meaning of words to their will and ignore the surrounding context or anything else that stands in the way of their pettiness. Moreover, all they have is criticism and they offer nothing by way of insightful analysis or anecotes. You sir, strike me as one such person, and I won't waste another moment of my precious time on you.

You are on my ignore list where someone such as yourself belongs.

--Jerome

 

[tjohnusa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsaliga /img/forum/go_quote.gif You really don't understand it, do you? Let me spell it out for you. The entire purpose of having analog setups such as a vinyl rig and/or a reel-to-reel setup is to: 1) gain access to music that doesn't exist on a digital format, and 2) to gain access to music that has not been ruined by hot mastering on CD as a casualty of the loudness war. The playback system is a means to an end...but it is not an end in and of itself, which is a point that seems completely lost on you.

Here Here....agreed

 

[Sovkiller]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsaliga /img/forum/go_quote.gif "...The entire purpose of having analog setups such as a vinyl rig and/or a reel-to-reel setup is to: 1) gain access to music that doesn't exist on a digital format, and 2) to gain access to music that has not been ruined by hot mastering on CD as a casualty of the loudness war. The playback system is a means to an end...but it is not an end in and of itself... --Jerome

Jerome that is true to an extend, and I agree to a playback system as a means to an end, but many times the audiophiles get lost on that fact, many times...

Now going back to the first point, today to be honest, there is not too much music that has not been released in CD, that is available in LP in good shape mainly if you are able to find one of those mystical copies, will be in a deplorable condition, given the natural deterioration of the media. OTOH there is absolutelly nothing that has been relesed recently in LP, that has not in CD first, or maybe a few exceptions, but it is not the standard.
About the mastering, that is true, but then we go back to the same argument, how many bad copies and/or bad pressings we can find in vinyl, if my memory serves good to me, far more than the ones ruined by bad production process in CDs as well (specially if they were not produced in US).
Today we have very good vinyl copies, made under the latest technologies, by good labels, but we have as well SACD and DVD-A, and very good audiophile copies in CD's HDCD's etc...done by MoFi and many other labels of many albums, so we are even...

I recall from the past, for example, and just to mention one, the Born Again from Black Sabbath, it is the same crap soundwise in LP and in CD, and if you add the noise, clicks, and pops to a miserable sounding LP, you have a real torture!!!

 

[jsaliga]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sovkiller /img/forum/go_quote.gif Now going back to the first point, today to be honest, there is not too much music that has not been released in CD, that is available in LP in good shape mainly if you are able to find one of those mystical copies, will be in a deplorable condition, given the natural deterioration of the media. OTOH there is absolutelly nothing that has been relesed recently in LP, that has not in CD first, or maybe a few exceptions, but it is not the standard.

It does largely depend on what kind of music you like. If it is 70s and 80s rock, then I don't agree with you at all. Good vinyl is plentiful and cheap for this kind of music, and I can go down a long list of LPs that sound better than the CDs (and I am not alone in that opinion). Finding good vinyl gets more difficult the further back in time you go. If you're a jazz fan and love Blue Note hard bop then chances are you aren't very happy with the RVG remasters on CD. I starterd out a big supporter of the series but since 2005 nearly every CD has come out mastered hot. It's a crying shame too. But getting good samples of original 1950s and 1960s Blue Note vinyl can be both difficult and expensive. However, some of these albums have been recently reissued on vinyl, from the original master tapes and are not hot like the CDs. I have a few hundred of these records: Art Blakey, Lee Morgan, Sonny Rollins, etc., etc., the list goes on and on. And these reissued records sound better than the CDs. So...you can either accept the hot RVG remasters or give yourself some alternatives with vinyl.

It gets even tougher for classical music fans who are interested in historical recordings. I have a pretty large collection of RCA Victor Red Seal LPs, original pressings from the 1950s and 1960s. They sound great, and many of these original albums have not been issued on CD. Many of them have, and some of them have been issued on SACD. And I have bought plenty of them on vinyl that ended up in the trash because they were simply worn out. It is something of a risk. But then again I usually only pay about 50 cents per LP because I buy in bulk lots of 100 or more records. At that price it is easily worth throwing 20 records away and be left with 80 records that sound amazing. BTW, I also disagree with your suggestion that vinyl somehow deteriorates over time. I have a lot of 1950s records that have jaw-droppingly good sound. What happened as you go farther back in time is that people did not take as good care of their records as later generations of music lovers did.

Recently I have added a reel-to-reel tape deck to my setup. Why? Because it gives me access to great music that I otherwise would not have. I love classical music, and commerical open reel tapes are plentiful and reasonably priced. Secondly, some of them simply sound better. For instance, I have a tape of Leonard Bernstein and the NPO performing Shostakovich's 5th Symphony. I have the same performance on CD. The tape sounds better all around, but the strings are particularly splendid.

So, for each generalization you can come up with about the superiority of digital, I can cite a specific instance where an analog recording in my library is better than it's digital counterpart on CD. Does that mean that I think all digital is bad? No, of course not. I own about 2,700 CDs, and if I truly felt that way then I doubt I would have that many. I still buy a lot of classical music on CD, and I have been very happy with the Verve Master Edition jazz releases. Sony (Columbia) has also done a good job with it's jazz (esp. Duke Ellington) and classical music releases. But I also own about 1,600 LPs, and there is not one of them on my shelf in which the CD has better sound. Not a one.

To me, having it be about the music doesn't mean accepting bad sound because something better is too much of a hassle. If you really care that much about the music, if it is that important to you, then do something about it. I have a vinyl rig and a R2R deck because they give me greater freedom of choice and access to music that people with only digital rigs don't have. For those who aren't into the kind of music I am they might not be missing much. And I won't always choose vinyl; sometimes a CD is more accessible. But, if it is jazz or classical music originally recorded in the 1950s or 1960s, then chances are very good that it will sound better on vinyl. I will at least check to see if it is readily available on the used market or has been recently reissued on vinyl before contemplating a CD. If I can't find a record and the music is that important to me then I will gladly buy the CD. If it is 1970s or 80s rock then I usually don't even waste my time with a CD since the vinyl is pretty much a sure thing and will be easy to find.

--Jerome

 

[Sovkiller]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsaliga /img/forum/go_quote.gif It does largely depend on what kind of music you like. If it is 70s and 80s rock, then I don't agree with you at all. Good vinyl is plentiful and cheap for this kind of music, and I can go down a long list of LPs that sound better than the CDs (and I am not alone in that opinion). . --Jerome

Well I do not agree specifically in that era, just see my prior post about the Atom Heart Mother of Pink Floyd, I beleived for years that the noise was scratch from the LP, and not only me, a lot of guys of my generation in my time did, while indeed was a guy frying eggs...Sorry but Black Sabbath in LP sucks, at least the versions I heard of them, and maybe the new recent versions are better, I do not know as I lost all my interest in vinyl.

Also do not forget that in order to maximize the playing time, that they were needing, they reduced the width of the grooves, to put more and more music, as they needed to fit more grooves per side, that impacted negativelly in the bass extension and performance of the LP versions of many rock bands, that if today you listen the remastered versions, you will feel how the bass was supposed to sound like...of course I'm not talking of the hot horrible mastered ones, and as logic indicates they are not a result of the media, they are indeed a human error, and I feel that nobody should blame the media responsible for those errors...Some of the late 80's recordings were even done digital from scratch as well...

 

[jsaliga]

I think we should just agree to disagree. It seems clear enough that we both understand where the other is coming from and nothing that either of us will say is very likely to sway the other. We could go on indefinitely like this, which just isn't a good use of my time.

You are welcome to have the last word if you must.

--Jerome

 

[Zanth]

Congrats Germania, Vinyl is superior to RBCD in most cases, even if from the same masters. I've heard just about the best digital system this world currently has to offer and I've been fortunate to hear some of the very best vinyl systems too. Even a "mid-fi" vinyl system trounces the best of the best. Vinyl, when well played and in good condition simply has no clicks and pops!

The caveat to all this goodness, is like anything worthwhile in this life, it takes effort. Clean records means a cleaning machine or hand washing. Delicacy when handling the records, a quick wipe with a dry brush before every play. This can add to the experience for some (like myself) or completely detract from it all. Best though are the 1 billion records out there and many are of albums never to appear on an optical disc ever!

 

[JayW]

The reason I prefer vinyl these days doesn't actually have much to do with the physical differences between LP reproduction and CD. The problem I started having with CDs is the poor production. Everything is being slammed with massive amounts of compression and processing these days, and I detest that sound. I cringe every time I see "Digitall Remastered!" which used to mean better sound, but it now means they've mangled my favorite music. CD players have also evolved to use lots of oversampling to keep them from skipping. A former HH Scott engineer told me "The problem with oversampling is that if it can't read the data, it practically makes it up." Obviously exaggerating, but I don't like the sound of my newer CD decks to my old ones, and I can't really afford a good DAC to make the issue moot. Plus, my Scott 355R receiver and PS-88 turntable cost me 10 dollars, the Grado cartridge cost me 50, and I can buy decent albums at yard sales and thrift stores for a few dollars. That old Scott has a *sweet* headphone out and decent phono stage, too.

 

[linuxworks]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayW /img/forum/go_quote.gif The reason I prefer vinyl these days doesn't actually have much to do with the physical differences between LP reproduction and CD. The problem I started having with CDs is the poor production. Everything is being slammed with massive amounts of compression and processing these days, and I detest that sound.

are you sure you are not confusing the cd *format* with the music *content* ?

you talk about today's music. fine, its as you say (I'll take your word for it, as I don't really listen to much 'current music'). but how is that at all related to CD ??

its not. you are referring to a style of mixing, production and sound. it has nothing - nada, zilch - to do with how good or bad cd's can sound. and its certainly not perfect in vinyl land. in fact, 'made for vinyl' is even worse if you really think about how much dynamic range vinyl has (and actually doesn't have). the whole reason compressors were in use was to 'fit' signal on media that could not fit the source's dyn range, which includes tape and LP records. you have to compress down to fit inside the bandwidth limits of the channel, in this case the phys medium.

the S/N and dyn range on 16bit 44.1k audio is way WAY higher than the vinyl's best day. its not even debatable, its just measurable on ordinary test equipment.

you can't argue that cd can carry sound with LESS compression (since that's one of your big beefs) than an LP. really? you can't really be saying that, can you?

I grew up with vinyl and I *never* ever thought of it as 'aaaah, just dig that huge dynamic range, man'. not once. we had to play single-ended expansion hacks (like dbx) to try to recover compressed-down dyn range but it wasn't a true encode/decode and so it was really an ugly hack.

there is far less range on vinyl and that means you HAVE to compress down further.

modern music may suck. that's not cd's fault, my friend

 

[jsaliga]

Quote:

Originally Posted by linuxworks /img/forum/go_quote.gif modern music may suck. that's not cd's fault, my friend

No, it isn't. But the mastering wankery that goes on these days does seem to be endemic to the CD format. Most contemporary vinyl releases don't seem to suffer from these problems.

Arguing theory and technical specs is fine but that will only get you so far. At some point, however, you have to start talking about what the music sounds like, and to do that you have to get into specific examples and leave the theory on the shelf. It doesn't matter, for example, if CD has the potential for more dynamic range if the music put on it sounds like crap. And it makes even less sense to take a music carrier that is capable of great dynamic range, and then compress the hell out of the music so it actually has less dynamic range than the typical LP. It doesn't matter about vinyl dymanic range limits, groove width, and the RIAA EQ curve if the record sounds better. We've heard all these arguments before. So please, give it a rest for a minute and focus on the music.

And let us not forget about the many shameful efforts to "enhance" classic rock to make it sound "better" on CD.

ZZ Top CD MP3 Clip

ZZ Top LP MP3 Clip

Now, I won't be intellecutually dishonest and argue that all CDs are like this, or that all CDs have compressed dynamic range. But I am saying that enough of them have these sorts of problems to make owning a vinyl setup very worthwhile for me.

--Jerome

 

[fzman]

let me weigh in here by mentioning that i am first and foremost, a music lover, but am also a high-end audiophile, a diy-er, and i sell high end audio for a living.

there are lots of posts on analog v. digital, or cd v. lp. most people seem to conflate a number of distinct issues, e.g.: is cd capable of sounding better than lp, or vice versa? do actual cds sound better or worse than actual lps? do I prefer the sound of one over the other? are used LPs capable of sounding as good as they did when new?

those of you who grew up in the cd era, or who's experience with vinyl is limited to $100 tables, with $20 carts, and whose vinyl was never cleaned or handled properly-- YOU HAVE NO IDEA what vinyl is capable of.....

cd can sound very good, sometimes even excellent. the best vinyl achieves a level of realism and coherence that the best possible cd playback has yet to achieve. specs show ludicrous peformance levels for current digital technology. cheap car amps also have 40000 watts mega-peak music power. it don't mean squat when it comes to determining whether the playback is musically authentic!

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fzman /img/forum/go_quote.gif the best vinyl achieves a level of realism and coherence that the best possible cd playback has yet to achieve.

This is really not true , CD has it all in terms of dynamic range, flat response, low noise and low distortion , LP (not Turntables themselves) is fatally flawed as a physical medium and no high end TT can fundamentally change that.

How can something be more realistic if it has so much added noise, crosstalk and distortion and has such a limited dynamic range ? and where it gets worse as you get to the center of the record ?

Preference is one thing and all well and good, and when I briefly heard vinyl again last year it did have it's own kind of sound that was pleasant to the ear, but portraying LP as more accurate is just not on. I am not saying vinyl cannot sound good but more accurate ?

I grew up with Vinyl and from 1972 until 1984 I was more or less happy with it, I followed the poor-boy upgrade paths (BSR Autochanger, Garrard SP25, Anonymous Sony, Transcriptors Saturn) , hand-brading speaker wire, isolation tables, different tonearms, then I bought my first and only "decent" turntable , a Rega, and good grief I could hear all the nasties on the LP as clear as day. Later that year I bought a 14 x 4 machine after a damascene demo in Charing Cross records.

Over the last few years I read so much about how great vinyl really was that I even bought a TT and some records as an experiment, this lasted about 3 months while I tried all sorts of ways to get rid of all the inherent noise, finally I gave up.