[marios_mar]

Why do people spend so much money for a SACD player when for he same amount they could buy a fantastic used turntable like a good thorens for example and get sound that is analog and still better than SACD and DVD-A? And after that the vinyl LPs can be found cheap in good used conditin and some recordings even in new. A store in my city closed down and sold all LPs for 60 cents. I bought myself some older stuff pop and rock.Bryan Adams, Chicago , and some older silier stuff like tina turner and bee gees. Not too much good stuff was left but i bought some that are listenable and known and why not for 60 cents. I also got myself about 15 brand new Deutsche Grammophone recordings . I should have bought them all it was good music. I read somewhere that vinyl was for the last years the ONLY format whose sales raised instead of dropping.
So to conclude is buying a SACD what the industry forces us to do or are there a lot of serious advantages over a good TT?
I mean vinyl is as analog as it gets.

I dont want to make anybody angry. I just am curious to know what other people think!

 

[fewtch]

This is a troll-ish thread but I'll reply anyway.

Some people don't like the surface noise and other PITA aspects of vinyl (they can truly be a pain sometimes), and prefer digital, probably considering the sound of SACD an improvement over CD -- it's likely just as simple as that.

Also, undoubtably many people feel that digital sounds better than analog -- more power to 'em, I say. I'm mostly into vinyl myself (altho getting more into CD's again recently). I don't even think things have gotten as good as they can get with CD mastering... suddenly they introduce SACD. If it ever goes mass market, look for some of the same crappy mastering jobs currently cranked out on CD's.

Anyway... yeah, it would be nice if more people were into vinyl... I guess. Less used and sealed NOS records for those of us who are though, they're a nonrenewable resource. I rarely buy new issue records personally, too expensive and too often not worth the money as far as SQ goes ($30+ for a record? Arrrgh).

 

[marios_mar]

Quote:

they're a nonrenewable resource

not always. For example I found at a local store a record shop that specializes in Jazz. They got Keith Jarrets albums for example for 21 EUROS on CD and 19 on double vinyl. Single ECM vinyls can be had for midprice too 8 EUROS. And they are all new sealed and fresh pressed.

 

[marios_mar]

what does troll-ish mean?

 

[kevin gilmore]

I have a really great thorens turntable. With a sme IV. And
a bunch of expensive phono carts. Been in the box since
i moved into this house, and it was 8 years ago. Going to
stay in the box too.

Turntable and Wilson speakers! You gotta be kidding.
The first major thump and the tone arm will be skipping
across the record. Unless i plan on putting the turntable
in the basement, or something like that, there is no way
i'm not going to get some kind of feedback.

And lets not forget the noise, the lack of stereo seperation
the fact that every time you play a record it gets worse,
and there is no such thing as 5.1 surround vinyl.

Nothing except the real master tapes come close to the
sound of sacd. Nothing. The latest direct to dsd recordings
are to die for.

 

[marios_mar]

What do you mean about the stereo seperation?

 

[joelongwood]

Quote:

Originally posted by marios_mar what does troll-ish mean?

It means that you're just trying to stir things up.
Be that as it may, to answer your question, I use both vinyl and digital (CD, SACD, MD, etc). Having grown up with vinyl, and being familiar with it's sound qualities, I would have to say that the surface noise is disturbing, particularly with such an intimate and revealing medium as headphones. Also, the 20 or so minutes per side is a royal pain in the ass at times.
SACD, for me, at least, is a good compromiuse. To my ears, it's very, very close to vinyl sonically, but retains the convenience of CDs.

 

[fewtch]

Quote:

Originally posted by marios_mar What do you mean about the stereo seperation?

There's no "lack of" stereo separation with vinyl, it's just that the separation isn't as good as with digital (and there's more channel crosstalk as well). I reiterate the "more power to 'em" for anyone who prefers digital -- listen to what you like. Also, some people care more about specs than others (digital measures better)... personally I don't give a whoop, and don't listen to test tones on either CD or vinyl.

Strange that Kevin's table is sitting in a box though, if it were me I'd sell it and recoup the money, or give it to a friend. Plenty of people looking for a good Thorens, and they can do quite well on Ebay. Let that thing out of the box and get it playing for someone who'd appreciate it.

 

[JMedeiros]

I'll have one of each please

John

 

[jumpy]

Ease of use.
Basically the ability of a digital source to quickly switch tracks or repeat one song.
The same goes for using a PC as a source: it loses some in quality but the ability to select any song, create any mix is great.
With vinyl you really have to like just about every track or it's a pain.
The best option is to hire a super fast butler you can play any vinyl track for you in the blink of an eye. mmMmm butler.

 

[markl]

1. You can't fast forward an LP.
2. You can't skip tracks on an LP
3. You can't load up 5 LPs into a massive LP changer
4. You can't stick an LP into your car stereo
5. You can't carry around a record player to listen to on the go
6. Pops and clicks
7. Vinyl degrades slightly every time you play it.
8. You have to stop listening, get out of your chair, flip the LP to hear other side

There are more resons, but you get the idea.

 

[lini]

markl:

>1. You can't fast forward an LP.

Well, uhm - ever tried 45 or 78 rpm?

>2. You can't skip tracks on an LP

There were a few players that could.

>3. You can't load up 5 LPs into a massive LP changer

Yes I can. It's called music box or Wurlitzer...

>4. You can't stick an LP into your car stereo

Wouldn't be that difficult - but one should probably better have something like a RR Phantom IV for that.

>5. You can't carry around a record player to listen to on the go

Yes, you can - there were several solutions, and some already reappear... I friend of mine, for exmaple, had a Sharp ghetto blaster with vertically built in tangential record player.

>6. Pops and clicks

Well, ok. But nicely complimented by more and more clipping on cds, nowadays.

>7. Vinyl degrades slightly every time you play it.

So? Don't you, either?

>8. You have to stop listening, get out of your chair, flip the LP to hear other side

Not, if you're already comfortably asleep, by then. Kraftwerks "Numbers" works for me every time.

Grinnings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

 

[kevin gilmore]

quote
Strange that Kevin's table is sitting in a box though, if it were me I'd sell it and recoup the money, or give it to a friend. Plenty of people looking for a good Thorens, and they can do quite well on Ebay. Let that thing out of the box and get it playing for someone who'd appreciate it.

It was a ces show demo model with a special all solid wood
Ebony base. Not for sale. Not now, not ever. At the time
i paid about $1200 for it. The tonearm was additional.

Fact is i rarely sell any of my old stuff. That is why i have
a basement full of goodies.

 

[elrod-tom]

For me, it's always been the surface noise. The pops and cracks are too much for me, particularly when I'm using headphones. When CD's first came out, the players were afwul in many respects. They were overemphasized in the high end, and sounded tinny and mechanical. I still preferred them to vinyl. So shoot me....

 

[joelongwood]

Quote:

Originally posted by kevin gilmore Fact is i rarely sell any of my old stuff. That is why i have a basement full of goodies.

Hey Kevin, are we related?