[Zanth]

I sit here looking at many cd's and I read perpetually the merits of vinyl. There are a bunch of used vinyl outlets in my town and there are a few small shops that import some cool electronica records on vinyl. Most of the new stuff I want though is on cd or slowly but surely, sacd.

So media is a small deterrant, but not a huge one. Most of the Jazz I want is on vinyl so that is a huge plus. I can get it cheap it seems too. But...vinyl does need replacing. My dad's heavily used Zepplin and Stones records are pretty near shredded. That is not a good thing. I want my media to last. CD's will out live me if I keep them in good condition. No wearing out at all. Bonus for the plastic discs!

Now then...equipment. TT's can be had for cheap...even decent ones. I'm not worried about that. Tone arms as well. I hate the idea that carts need replacing though. Another disposable part that requires replacing. One nice thing about TT's though is their mechanical vs. circut board electronic parts. I can fix many things mechanical and this makes TT's a nice investment. Problem though is that they are finicky bastards. That said, CDP's are much easier to control. Jitter is a problem but nothing like setting up a tt to sound good.

Phono stage is an added req as well, then the phono cable. Getting expensive I see. More than redbook or sacd. Of course the beauty of cd's is the ability to take them wherever I go, car, on the run, work etc. Easier to manage for sure.

That said, redbook is a fine cheap route to great sound. If analog really is the $hit, then it is expensive $hit. New Radiohead albums for instance go for $40 here...I can get the cd for $15. I have yet to fully enjoy a properly setup Vinyl system so maybe this is premature but at this time...I don't see myself going analog anytime soon. I did a couple of months ago, but not anymore.

 

[carlo]

Zanth,

Heathen.

1)While a turntable has more parts than a digital source (cart, tonearm, table, phono stage) the combined cost isn't necessarily more than a one box CD solution. Further, in some ways it allows a person to dial in the sound he (or she) is looking for, and we haven't even talked about vta and adjustments yet.

2)Radiohead is a bad example for album costs since their vinyl releases are sought after by trendy people without turntables (not to mention they're all imports and Amnesiac and Kid A were 10"ers). Generally an LP new is about $2 or $3 more than the digital release (American funds), but there's also a lot of used records available for favorable prices. Not to mention new transfers of older material are far more common with vinyl than it is through digital (with the stuff I listen to at least). Amoeba Online, Music Direct, and Sundazed are excellent sources for material in good condition with fair prices.

3)Its yet another thing that you don't need with digital, but a good record cleaning machine and some care will keep your vinyl pristine. Watch tracking force to reduce groove wear, and while it'll never have the 100 or whatever year promise CDs do vinyl will last your lifetime. Not to mention something damned good to pass along to someone else.

4)Vinyl is good and induces joy. Each time you think "damn, that's a nice paper case on this cd" think "damn, I wish I had this as a gatefold LP jacket." Drop the tonearm and watch the analog gods breathe life into your system.

5)I'm just biased and think anyone who's into HiFi should pick up an analog rig, if for nothing more than to get access to the world of material that never found its way onto CD (and I assume will never reach SACD).

I'll show you what you're missing at the Montreal HiFi show next year

carlo.

 

[Zanth]

Okay

I'll keep my options open until then.

 

[Tuberoller]

My wife is standing over my shoulder and read the comment about the people buying records who don't actually have a turntable.That's so funny because we know a guy that has purchased about 500 records because he thinks they look cool stacked in his apartment.

I say that you shouldn't pass judgement until you hear a very good analog set-up.This does not have to be as expensive as you think.Records can last a lifetime as well.I have thousands of records that are much,much older than myself or any CD that I own.

 

[kelly]

I've heard very good analog systems and liked some of them quite a bit. I debated a turntable in my system a few times. In the end, I decided against the turn table and it boils down to:

1. I can't afford to split my efforts between CD and vinyl sources. If I'd spent money getting a turn table, I'd have had to get a cheaper CD player. In fact, I probably should have gotten a cheaper CD player anyway but that's beside the point. I think it's cool for you guys that have a lot of money or don't have such a desire for a good CD source.

2. The CD software is portable. I can play it in my car or work system or at a friend's house. Vinyl software would be for home use only. So, kind of like my argument above, I just couldn't afford to split my budget (or alternatively buy the same album on both vinyl and CD).

I like vinyl but I don't really feel like I'm suffering with a bad digital source anymore at least. I admit it, this is a compromise. I just coudln't afford to do it all. If I had more money right now for audio (and I don't), a good speaker amp would be nice, then maybe a good tuner, a good home theater pre/pro, another good amp for the rear and center channels, then better speakers and maybe if I had all that and was able to do everything else I needed to do and could still afford CDs, then maybe I'd reconsider vinyl. I know some of you guys are already at this stage and that's really cool but I just don't have the money.

 

[Zanth]

If records can last a long time then I would be interested. As for new stuff, I will stick with cd's. However, all that jazz on vinyl is very very tempting.

 

[bootman]

Quote:

Originally posted by carlo While a turntable has more parts than a digital source (cart, tonearm, table, phono stage) the combined cost isn't necessarily more than a one box CD solution. Further, in some ways it allows a person to dial in the sound he (or she) is looking for, and we haven't even talked about vta and adjustments yet.

Any beginner/newbie setup recommendations?
Beginning price points?

Anyone can jump in with recommendations.

 

[kerelybonto]

Okay, I admit it -- I own a copy of Led Zeppelin's untitled album on vinyl and I don't have a turntable. I do, however, plan to get one at some point, hopefully soon.

Besides the things mentioned, there's one other main reason I haven't already jumped into analog: they take up a lot of space. I live in a dorm right now, and that completely rules out vinyl. I'm trying to move next semester, which is the only reason I'm considering buying a 'table. But, really, even then, CDs have a huge advantage over LPs simply because they are compact discs. A turntable and phonostage don't take up a lot more space than a CD player, but the media itself definitely do -- I figure I could store about twenty or twenty-five LPs in the space I currently store 100 CDs.

As much as I don't like to admit it, convenience is a factor in sound reproduction.

kerely

 

[Ohoen]

I'm a relative newbie to analog and, while I agree that there are a lot of drawbacks, it can be a very rewarding thing to get into. I'm just using a Technics SL1210 and a $50 cart right now and the sound quality seems very good to me. Not necessarily anywhere near to displaying vinyl's potential, but I'm happy. Sound quality and convenience aside, the best thing, for me, about vinyl is that I can go down to the used record shops in Montreal and get all kinds of great, old stuff dirt cheap that I wouldn't consider in CD format because of the price. Another added benefit is that there are a whole lot of people out there who view vinyl as crap... so they're happy to throw their old collections at you. Then there is the issue of availability, jazz and techno being the greatest examples of where vinyl triumphs in this regard. Also, and this is more of a question, people talk a lot about how early CDs sound terrible because the recording engineers were still doing things to exploit the benefits of analog, not digital. Would it not, then, stand to reason that recordings from the pre-digital era will sound better on vinyl than on cd (assuming no remastering)?

 

[Old Pa]

I don't have to like or not like analog and vinyl, they were just what was available when I started getting into music and now they are part of my culture. That said, I have not bought another LP since I went over to CDs in the mid 80s. With the dramatic improvements in the quality of CD sound and playback and the convenience and durability of the format, I have found no reasons to buy new vinyl. That said, I have kept up and improved my analog playback equipment as old equipment wore out and new analog playback technology improved and the market acted to provide good value (bang for buck). I am still waiting for SACD/DVD-A to sort out, develop just as redbook CD did, and the software and hardware to represent good values. Until then, I've got four and a half feet of LPs and over 800 CDs to spend my quality time with.

 

[jessica00]

why not use 8-track while you are at it?

 

[Old Pa]

One of my old (same age

) pals and I were reminiscing about 8-tracks and Quad ("4 channel sound-of-the-future") the other day. I had not "bit" on 8-tracks (having already prostrated myself before the Goddess Cassetta), he had gone into 8-track (at one time only second to LPs in popularity, or 1st if you were young and had wheels). The reason, Jessica00, is because all the 8-track tapes, if listened to with any regularity, ate themselves at least twenty years ago. The system was even more mechanically self-destructive than the LP! But we digress . . .

 

[carlo]

kelly,

Your digital source and my analog source are about the same cost, the similarities end there since you own an apple and i'm using an orange. Because neither of us (or from what I've seen most members) are wealthy a choice has to be made when one is looking for what medium they'll focus on: I'd like a nice apple but I doubt I can afford one anytime soon... stupid money. Instead I'll enjoy oranges (I like oranges).

I guess I'm saying that I feel your pain.

bootman,

If you're interested in my recommendations there's some stuff in the archives.

kerely,

Just to clarify: I know a few people who're building up vinyl collections before they purchase a turntable, a few others who keep records as collector's pieces but don't own anything to play it back with. Whatever floats your boat. My point was that current Radiohead LP releases have such a high demand that their current cost is by no means an indicator of how expensive new vinyl releases are (I bought two copies of Kid A for $17.50 on advance order, now the unsealed one has appreciated by more than two fold). Radiohead collectors, more so than any current band/artist, have a habit of driving prices well past an album's rarity (I saw "Itch", the Japanese only maxi-single, going for $25 used a couple of weeks ago). Supply and demand and all that, but I find it semi-amusing - the lesson to be learned here is to buy popular artist's albums within a few months of when they come out.

Vinyl does take up a lot of space, its one of the many sacrifices one has to make to enjoy that medium (as opposed to CD). However high-end audio is all about sacrifices, otherwise we'd only listen to $29.99 boom boxes blaring downloaded mp3s converted to wav files.

Ohoen,

As a generality first pressings of pre-digital albums are the best sounding recordings I've used. The challenge is finding them in good condition and without groove wear - some consider it a difficulty, record collectors think of it as fun.

jessica,

Because vinyl sounds better.

Info meant to amuse and/or for relativity: there was a time when I seriously considered investing in reel to reel, but didn't because of space restrictions, time, and difficulty in finding playback material. Vinyl by comparison is space saving and convienent.

best,
carlo.

 

[kelly]

carlo
But you still eat apples too. I don't have any oranges to eat at all because they're too messy and expensive.

 

[Calanctus]

Quote:

Originally posted by carlo Info meant to amuse and/or for relativity: there was a time when I seriously considered investing in reel to reel, but didn't because of space restrictions, time, and difficulty in finding playback material. Vinyl by comparison is space saving and convienent. .

Is reel to reel actually better than vinyl to your ears? I've heard this once before from an audio reviewer (in print but I forget where).