Why vinyl?

[Islander]

All valid points but I was hoping for something a little more technical.

Okay.... An Album/record is 12" x 12" and a CD/SACD's are about 5.5" x 4.75". A DVD-A is 6" x 5.5". So, to keep your "Herb" from falling off while trying to roll a "dobbie", it is much easier to use a Record.

I hope that clears things up!

Dennie

Sometimes it helps to have a hammer.

I'm guessing Thor was spinning vinyl when his "bud" recorded this:

[Invidiosulus]

I'm hungry.

[cornfedksboy]

Funny stuff!

[kaiser SET say]

Great info-mercial for multi use hammers Islander[Y]

Irie Mon, it's 4:20 somewhere!

[JBryan]

OK, since we're falling slightly off-topic. I picked up a few LPs this week and one of them is Virgil Fox's 'The Fox Touch' on Crystal Clear Records. Its a Direct-to-Disc recording, mastered by Stan Ricker and Richard Simpson on a John Curl designed console. In the notes, the author goes into great detail about the recording process "...No transformers were used in the signal path...no equalization, limiting or compression...to provide the cleanest path to the cutting lathes." He goes on to say that "...best results and proper balances will be achieved if played at high volume levels." Then a warning "...there is really great mid and low-frequency energy in the range from 16Hz to about 1.5kHz...these pedal notes are sustained for a number of seconds, so fusing your speakers...would be a proper caution."

I'm gonna spin this record tonight but has anyone listened to this recording and should I be concerned about the low frequency energy blowing my non-fused woofers? Anybody?...maybe Dave's still around, he's probably heard this before.

[Zen Traveler]

For me it's because we hear in analog unless you know person who's ear is a digital device. Analog for me is the truest representation of the music recorded or live. Like all things digital it has given us ease of use but at what cost or better yet loss?

Yep...But then you have to weigh in how many posters in this thread have been rock and rollin' (pun intended) for quite some time. My guess it's irrelevant whether its' analog or digital because time and short term memory loss makes any format enjoyable and debating the issue a new experience on any given day. []

OK, since we're falling slightly off-topic. I picked up a few LPs this week and one of them is Virgil Fox's 'The Fox Touch' on Crystal Clear Records....

Who the hell is Virgil Fox? [:|]

[Islander]

Who the hell is Virgil Fox?

I think he was kind of the Keith Emerson or Rick Wakeman of the Fifties, and played big pipe organs.

[Islander]

Yep...But then you have to weigh in how many posters in this thread have been rock and rollin' (pun intended) for quite some time. My guess it's irrelevant whether its' analog or digital because time and short term memory loss makes any format enjoyable and debating the issue a new experience on any given day.

Some might also have been doing the twist. [H]

[garymd]

OK, since we're falling slightly off-topic. I picked up a few LPs this week and one of them is Virgil Fox's 'The Fox Touch' on Crystal Clear Records. Its a Direct-to-Disc recording, mastered by Stan Ricker and Richard Simpson on a John Curl designed console. In the notes, the author goes into great detail about the recording process "...No transformers were used in the signal path...no equalization, limiting or compression...to provide the cleanest path to the cutting lathes." He goes on to say that "...best results and proper balances will be achieved if played at high volume levels." Then a warning "...there is really great mid and low-frequency energy in the range from 16Hz to about 1.5kHz...these pedal notes are sustained for a number of seconds, so fusing your speakers...would be a proper caution."

I'm gonna spin this record tonight but has anyone listened to this recording and should I be concerned about the low frequency energy blowing my non-fused woofers? Anybody?...maybe Dave's still around, he's probably heard this before.

Hey Bryan - I bought that LP about 10 years ago and although I haven't played it in a long time, my Khorns are still in one piece. I think you're safe. Crank it up and report back!

[T.H.E. Droid]

Go the vinyl, lol.

When CD's first came out they were discussing vile and pernicious, then they got better.

The CD was limited by the ability of the chips at the time and that set the sample frequency.

The designers in their efforts to get the most out of the chips in the $2,000.00 AU players limited the upper frequencies captured onto the CD claiming that you would not hear them anyway.

When blind tests were done with vinyl verses CD's on top shelf equipment the lay audience mostly picked the vinyl as being the CD since they expected the CD to sound better.

Then they brought out CD players that recreated the high frequencies "synthesised" that had been filtered on the original CD creation process.

The CD samples at 44.1khz so if it were to replay 22khz then there would only be 2 measurements for the whole of the wave form. Now if you use the analogy of a childs join the dots colouring in book. The CD joins the dots in straight lines where as the vinyl joins then in graceful curves as would the more experienced and refined child.

Therefore the CD is the infancy of digital discs just as this photo was for vinyl before I was born.

Your record for inaccuracy and hyperbole grows with leaps and bounds at every posting. That grammaphone you show doesn't play vinyl, that's still about 40 years in the future. I understand what you're trying to say, but your point raises more questions than it answers.

First of all, if CD's are an infant technology, why haven't they evolved? With analog stylus reproduction, the technology evolved from vertical groove recording on tin foil to wax cylinders to lateral groove recording on discs, then to long play, then finally to vectored groove technology (stereo) and finally to quadraphonic, which failed primarily because vinyl simply couldn't accurately reproduce the high frequencies where you claim it is superior.

Don't quote those double-blind tests unless you can cite the actual reference. These so-called "tests" seem to exist only in the land of audiophile mumbo jumbo. The simple fact that the music listening public voted for CD with their wallets in a truly massive way says that everyone could hear the difference. Before I bought my first CD player, I actually purchased CD's of several of my favorite vinyl albums, and I could certainly hear how much better the CD's sounded.

And that begs the question why CD hasn't evolved? It would be simple to have a CD system with a much higher sample rate than we do now. In Video, we went from reel-to-reel video tape, to pro cartride, to home cartridge, to cassette, to DVD and now to blu ray in about the same time period and CD has remained unchanged. Why? The answer is simple. It sounds great. Remember, we're living in a digital world where downloaded music comes in lower sample rate versions than CD, and people seem happy with that, too. Bottom line is that CD has more than enough frequency response for the general listener, whose hearing starts dropping off around 16khz and whose equipment can't produce frequencies higher than that anyway. Now I would consider myself a critical listener, and I have no complaints either. While I have certainly hear a lot of bad CD recordings, I've hear at least as many bad vinyl recordings. My reason for playing vinyl (and older technologies) is to be able to listen to music that isn't available on modern media. Given both CD and vinyl recordings, I've compared the two and always prefer the CD.

There's certainly a place for vinyl, just as there's a place for my old 78's and my Edison cylinder players, but vinyl does not have any mystical qualities that only a few special people can appreciate. To me, that's kind of like "art experts" who stand around crowing about a room full of dirt, and looking down on people who see a room full of dirt. That borders on delusion, and there's plenty of that going around in audiophile circles.

[Mallette]

Droid, I am not going into a big defense of rodrocket here, but I think you are missing the point as I got it. It's the ENGINEERING of digital that remains in in its teenage years, if not infancy. For well over the first decade, digital was engineered by seasoned analog veterans. Hard to come up with an accurate analogy, but perhaps like the first decade of jet planes...they were flew by former prop pilots and it took a while for the to learn that while the goal was the same, the means were very different.

Dave

[Mallette]

Who the hell is Virgil Fox?

Arghh... Well, hardly surprising that many would not be familiar. One of the finest performers ever, with his marvelous red lined cape and hat and 400 speaker Rogers traveling organ on a semi.

He never claimed that Rogers to be the equal of "the real thing," but he said it allowed him to take great organ repertoire to those who otherwise might not hear it at all.

The "Fox Touch" sessions remain, for many of us, one of the greatest technical and musical moments of the 20th century. Again, I won't go into the details, but I have both the Stan Ricker direct cut discs as well as the digital...which was WELL below CD sampling rates on a first gen Soundstream recorder done simulateneously with the analog DD discs and yet is easily comparable in sound quality.

These discs are hard to come by, but if you ever have the opportunity to hear the digital and analog back to back, it is a revelation for both formats and all the proof I need that it's not about the format or media, but about the ENGINEERING!.

Dave

[Invidiosulus]

The simple fact that the music listening public voted for CD with their wallets in a truly massive way says that everyone could hear the difference.

I think the simple fact that the music listening public has voted for .MP3 with their wallets in a truly massive way says that format popularity has very little to do with overall sound quality.

[Invidiosulus]

The only Virgil Fox I have is Heavy Organ Live at Fillmore East album.

I was fortunate enough to have Richard Morris as the organist/choir director for my wedding though,

http://www.amazon.com/Richard-Morris-Organist-Franz-Liszt/dp/B000003J9T

[Mallette]

I was fortunate enough to have Richard Morris as the organist/choir director for my wedding though,

http://www.amazon.com/Richard-Morris-Organist-Franz-Liszt/dp/B000003J9T'>

If you managed this for the normal honorarium you are a wizard...

That must have been pretty awesome...how did you rate this?

Dave

[Invidiosulus]

I was fortunate enough to have Richard Morris as the organist/choir director for my wedding though,

http://www.amazon.com/Richard-Morris-Organist-Franz-Liszt/dp/B000003J9T'>

If you managed this for the normal honorarium you are a wizard...

That must have been pretty awesome...how did you rate this?

Dave

Richard is the organist at the Latin Mass church we attended in Atlanta. Unfortunately they only have an electric organ, his playing was outstanding though. It was a full nuptial mass in the traditional Latin rite, our non Catholic friends and relatives suffered through it while we enjoyed every second of it.

[Mallette]

Richard is the organist at the Latin Mass church we attended in Atlanta. Unfortunately they only have an electric organ, his playing was outstanding though.

Hmm...Pardon my memory. I am pretty sure you told me this a few years ago.

Nonetheless, well worth hearing again. Good thing he was Virgil's pupil. If he'd have been one of E. Power's he wouldn't have touched the electric!

Dave

[JBryan]

Who the hell is Virgil Fox?

Arghh... Well, hardly surprising that many would not be familiar. One of the finest performers ever, with his marvelous red lined cape and hat and 400 speaker Rogers traveling organ on a semi.

He never claimed that Rogers to be the equal of "the real thing," but he said it allowed him to take great organ repertoire to those who otherwise might not hear it at all.

The "Fox Touch" sessions remain, for many of us, one of the greatest technical and musical moments of the 20th century. Again, I won't go into the details, but I have both the Stan Ricker direct cut discs as well as the digital...which was WELL below CD sampling rates on a first gen Soundstream recorder done simulateneously with the analog DD discs and yet is easily comparable in sound quality.

These discs are hard to come by, but if you ever have the opportunity to hear the digital and analog back to back, it is a revelation for both formats and all the proof I need that it's not about the format or media, but about the ENGINEERING!.

Dave

Thanks Gary, Dave! I knew you guys would be familiar. We had some lightning last night so I didn't play the record but there's always tonight. The thrift shop where I bought it had just put out 5 or 6 large boxes with some jazz but mostly classical and I really wish I knew what I was looking at. I'm still a bit concerned with playing through non-fused bass bins but I'll keep the volume reasonably low, especially considering how quiet low bass really is- more often than not the very low bass notes tend to pressurize the room and are felt more than heard. A friend recently blew his woofers listening to them while the mids and highs were not powered. He turned the volume up to normal listening levels not knowing how much louder the sound would be with the mids and highs playing (damage your hearing loud!). He learned an expensive lesson that day.

Anyway, thanks for the remarks and I'll carefully enjoy the record.

[Johnlw7]

I have several direct to disk recordings.Mostly jazz.I find that cd's sound like your listening through the screen door.These lp's are much have much more depth and sounstage than my cd's

[T.H.E. Droid]

Droid, I am not going into a big defense of rodrocket here, but I think you are missing the point as I got it. It's the ENGINEERING of digital that remains in in its teenage years, if not infancy. For well over the first decade, digital was engineered by seasoned analog veterans. Hard to come up with an accurate analogy, but perhaps like the first decade of jet planes...they were flew by former prop pilots and it took a while for the to learn that while the goal was the same, the means were very different.

Dave

That's actually a separate point, and I'm not sure you are making the point you intended. After all, isn't it these old prop jockeys that engineered all those analog recordings that ended up on vinyl? Flying a jet is exactly the same as flying a prop plane, after all, the laws of aerodynamics remain the same, only things can happen a lot faster in a jet. And I hate to break this to you, but pilots don't learn to fly in a jet, they learn in a prop plane.

That aside, I do agree that the weak point of music reproduction has always been the capture and engineering process. It's darn hard to capture music! However, there are a lot of things that have improved with digital, like lossless multi-track recording and mixing. I think some of the microphone technology has also been much improved but on the other hand, basement studios, synthesizers and things like autovoicing have seriously hit audio quality. I guess you'd have to show me that someone producing music for vinyl today has a better signal chain than everyone else, especially when producing for media with a very limited audience.

But the original question was "why vinyl?" If you can handle some of vinyl's shortcomings (which, by the way, made the vast majority of record buyers abandon the format) there's no reason why someone can't enjoy vinyl.