[dvw]

Anyone here uses reel to reel?

 

[Sleestack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dvw Anyone here uses reel to reel?

Yeah, when I'm fishing.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lini Hmmm, there's no denying that vinyl fares worse in practically any "classical" measurement discipline. Still, in comparision, the cd sounds somewhat unnatural to quite a few listeners... So it might make sense to further investigate and compare the common and specific flaws and their effects of both formats. Currently I tend to think that both timing and quantization errors in the pcm coding scheme might produce artifacts that are hard to cope with for our brain, 'cause these might seem less correlated to the signal and/or have no natural equivalent unlike the typical analogue flaws of vinyl.

That's true, but that isn't why some people prefer the sound of vinyl... The reason they like the sound is because engineers in the 50s and 60s took great pains to try to transcend the limitations of the medium through thoughtful and planned out miking and mixing. They're comparing shaded dogs and Merc Living Presences to modern recordings made with slapdash engineering, but a lot of digital processing.

Since analogue had constraints on the number of tracks, particularly in the "golden age" of vinyl, engineers always thought in terms of the whole. Today, digital recording has none of those constraints, so engineers focus on capturing each element separately and depend on the mix to put everything in the proper place. That sometimes works, but when it doesn't, it results in an auditory car wreck.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by philodox Have these recording techniques changed at all since 1999?

Massively. In 1999, you saw automated boards and techniques very close to the ones used on 24 track two inch tape tracking... today, you see a computer running the whole show and an infinite amount of tracks.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by djbnh I have found proper set-up of a TT and cartridge, while oft a PIA, is quite necessary to get the most out of a vinyl rig. The inherent initial tedium of checking and rechecking for spot-on cartridge alignment and VTF helps ensure you'll get the most out of your rig.

That is most important with elliptical stylii. Although most high end stereo dealers push ellipticals, they really aren't the best choice for everyday use. They go out of alignment very easily, and when they do, records get eaten. A conical stylii doesn't have quite the response in the "only bats can hear it range" but it's much easier to keep working properly.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Reel to Reel is the best sounding format of all. The pre-recorded tapes made in the fifties and sixties sound absolutely jaw dropping good, with none of the drawbacks of vinyl. And on ebay, it's possible to occasionally find airchecks from radio stations that contain one of a kind music. I got a whole box full of airchecks of a program called "Your Box at the Opera". It was presented by a major record collector who played a variety of extremely rare recordings from the dawn of recorded sound through the late 60s. You just don't find stuff like that on radio any more.

See ya
Steve

 

[Scrith]

There's a similar topic on Audio Asylum right now. In it I compared vinyl to a great steak that had been dropped on the ground and was now covered with dirt and grime. This is what the surface noise of vinyl does to the otherwise good-sounding music, for me.

I defijnitely prefer CD (or SACD or DVD-A), which (with a great DAC) sounds almost as good and as is wonerfully clean. It might not be filet mignon, but it certainly isn't chopped steak.

I also agree that reel to reel is probably the best of all...too bad you can't buy more music in this format.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scrith There's a similar topic on Audio Asylum right now. In it I compared vinyl to a great steak that had been dropped on the ground and was now covered with dirt and grime. This is what the surface noise of vinyl does to the otherwise good-sounding music, for me.

If you took good care of your records, they wouldn't sound like that. I have records that I have owned for thirty years and have played hundreds of times and they still sound like the day I bought them.

Most people who complain about records sounding scratchy haven't ever owned records, or haven't owned a record player in so long, they've forgotten how they sound. I'm betting you're too young to have ever owned a good turntable.

See ya
Steve

 

[memepool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dvw Anyone here uses reel to reel?

Yeah I have several r2r machines which i still use. A Uher 4400 for making recordings of live bands and occasionally location sound for documentary and stuff like that. It's big and heavy compared to a porta-DAT machine or even a Pro Walkman but it sounds better than either. It's about the size of a Nagra but lighter and runs on D cells which is always a great convenience.
I have a Revox PR99II which I use for listening at home. I also buy old tape collections from radio stations and have lots of original recordings from the 50's-70's including stuff like Gilberto Gil, James Brown, Thelonious Monk. It sounds awsome and is capable of higher fidelity than any other medium but tapes are big and heavy and hard to store. They need to be kept away from temperature extremes and humidity.They are more susceptible to damage than records or cds.

 

[Zanth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot If you took good care of your records, they wouldn't sound like that. I have records that I have owned for thirty years and have played hundreds of times and they still sound like the day I bought them. Most people who complain about records sounding scratchy haven't ever owned records, or haven't owned a record player in so long, they've forgotten how they sound. I'm betting you're too young to have ever owned a good turntable. See ya Steve

It is not about how good the table is...(I have a great dec) but moreso the quality of the media. Once again it comes down to what we have been discussing, but also the condition of the media. If someone buys exclusively used vinyl, there is a good chance that the folks who previously owned it did not have a quality cart (read: more than 50 bones) on a properly setup table. The cart destroyed the records + with the way they were cared for, those inner grooves look more like a Great White's dental array vs. the finely carved vinyl grooves we so love.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zanth If someone buys exclusively used vinyl, there is a good chance that the folks who previously owned it did not have a quality cart (read: more than 50 bones) on a properly setup table.

That depends on what kind of records you buy. If you are only interested in late 70s and early 80s rock, you are going to get a lot of bad sounding vinyl no matter how good a system it was played on. That was the height of the oil shortage. The record companies used a lot of recycled vinyl, and some records, (...like David Bowie's) never sounded good in any pressing (...other than the half speed mastered editions).

However, if you are interested in music from the 50s and 60s, you'll find a lot of great sounding vinyl in great condition. In the early days of the LP, there were a lot of what were called "hifi bugs" who tweaked their systems and treated their records like gold. I know, because a lot of my friends' dads were like this, and they had some amazing collections. Likewise, it is very difficult to find heavily worn or abused classical records. Kids' music might be beat up, but grownup music is generally in good shape.

It also matters where you buy your records. If you thrift shop, you need to take into account that the chances are a lot better that a record is going to be thrashed, even if it looks clean. You pay accordingly... However if you deal with a record dealer, the chances are a lot better that it's in good shape. Here in Los Angeles, we have a monthly record swap meet at Pasadena City College. You can find stacks of pristine vinyl there going for very reasonable prices. Even the dollar bins are packed with good records.

See ya
Steve

 

[Zanth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot However if you deal with a record dealer, the chances are a lot better that it's in good shape. Here in Los Angeles, we have a monthly record swap meet at Pasadena City College. You can find stacks of pristine vinyl there going for very reasonable prices. Even the dollar bins are packed with good records. See ya Steve

Nuff said, you need to hook me up

 

[auris]

The market has spoken on the respective virtues of analog vs digital a long time ago and digital won handily. Most initial purchasers were audiophile types who, like me, had a lot invested in lps' and who were quite happy with the new format, in spite of some fairly obvious flaws. When the mass-market came on board about 5 years later, vinyl dissappeared from the record stores very quickly.
************************************************** ********

Vinyl disappeared from the record stores not because trailblazing audiophiles adopted the cd format (followed by the mass market), but rather because decisions were made in corporate headquarters that the cd should replace vinyl -- the consumer really did not have a vote, or a choice.

The marketers picked up on the convenience of the cd and its supposed superior sonic characteristics and hyped the hell out of the new format. Record stores understandably did not really care -- they wanted to avoid the expense of carrying duplicate inventories and the record labels obliged them.

I am not anti-cd per se, or one who listens exclusively to vinyl. Both have their place in my music library. But, I will admit that I am probably a bit biased towards vinyl because that is what I grew up with. Also, perusing the cover art and backside of an LP is sure a hell of a lot more fun than squinting at the notes in a jewel case.

 

[drarthurwells]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leporello It may be easier on your ears. However, it is a well-known fact (outside the audiophile circles) that vinyl alters the sound. Those alterations are generally called "euphonic distortion". There are many who prefer those alterations to the purer and more authentic sound of cd. To sum it up: vinyl is great for listening to vinyl. For music listening, choose cd! Regards, L.

I agree completely with you. Cds are more neutral and accurate - free of distortion.

However, many do prefer the "musical" distortion of vinyl.

Same with tubes - distortion that sounds musical, but due to tube-induced-coloration. Give me Class A, zero global feedback amplification over tubes every time.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by drarthurwells I agree completely with you. Cds are more neutral and accurate - free of distortion. However, many do prefer the "musical" distortion of vinyl.

No one prefers "musical distortion". You're misstating why people collect and listen to records. People like records because there is an ocean of music on the format that will never be released on CD.

Flat disk shaped records were made from approximately 1900 to the early 80s. The musical sounds of the 20th century were recorded in grooves. If you only listen to CDs because of technical reasons, you are ignoring some of the greatest music made in the past 100 years.

As for sound quality, the only way to know how records sound, is to ask someone who collects them. I have LPs that would make you think you were listening to a CD for their clarity, quiet surfaces and dynamic punch. In fact, I could put a 78 of Caruso made in 1908 on my Victrola VV-X and you might think Caruso is standing in the room with you. I'm not exaggerating. Records really can sound amazing.

The main benefits of the CD format are related to convenience... smaller to store, easier to take on the road, etc.

As for tube amps, I haven't investigated that myself, but I have found that records sound best on high quality contemporary equipment. This is particularly true of acoustic recordings and early LPs from the fifties.

See ya
Steve