Why vinyl?

[T.H.E. Droid]

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.

Actually I think the main reason the current generation has embraced MP3 is because they can copy (us old farts call it stealing) music with little effort.

[nu2toobs]

" I just changed phono stages and it made a huge difference for the better."

Nu, what did you change too?

I need to change my avatar from the factory shot to mine don't you think

kaiser

I just bought a Jasmine LP2 MKII from the manufacturer. It transformed my vinyl frontend to a different level. I have a hard time describing sound, but all I can say is it sounds very tube-like. Once you get past the "made in China" stigma, I find it one of the true hi-fi bargains.

My arm board and 12" cherry arm look very cool and sound great, but not as good as my SME 345 which i'm using now. I install the woodys once in a while for the heck of it.

James

[sebrof]

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.

Actually I think the main reason the current generation has embraced MP3 is because they can copy (us old farts call it stealing) music with little effort.

I think the reason is because it's more convenient and almost nobody give a rat's behind about sound. You go from a walkman with 1 CD or a much smaller mp3 player with hundreds of CDs.

The world didn't transition from tubes to transistors, or from records to CDs to mp3s because it sounded better. Whether they do sound better is another topic, but it wasn't because of sound that the transitions were made.

[juniper8]

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

Fascinating point about, " well over the first decade digital was engineered by........ " Is this why everytime I buy a copy of a CD I have that is a re release it sounds awful? does anyone remember the disclaimers on CD'S when they first came out... In most instances I purchase a new re release I feel sorry for the general public.

[Mallette]

JBryan, you should be in for a revelation. I've played these discs at "realistic" levels, meaning you have to shout at the person next to you if you need their attention, and my K'horns handle it flawlessly, as do the Frazier Elevens. Your concern should be about your windows and knicknacks, and your pictures will wind up crooked as well.

I still had a tab open of a great interview with Stan.

"The organ was a really great instrument to record and it was a really fun
recording session. The pitch-depth
settings on the lathe went anywhere from 70 lines per inch to 440 lines per
inch, like this, you know, and I know it's gettin' louder, Hrmmm, Here we go! Increase the depth, decrease the lines per
inch. Then what was neat is both
controls turned the same way to achieve the opposite effect. That what was really cool. Clockwise on the depth gave more depth. Clockwise on the pitch knob gave less lines
per inch. And they were both relatively
linear. They could have been
Gilmer-belted together if the knobs on both were the same size. You could have done with just one knob, you
know."

I cannot imagine being that good with a live lathe and the explosive dynamics of that instrument with Virgil Fox at the keyboard.

This was a different breed of engineer.

Dave

[Mallette]

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.

Not at all. Only the OBJECTIVE is the same. Further, many of these people were more skilled at the motions of the analog technology than at the aesthetics. In fact, that is, IMHO, the key. They kept playing the piano they'd learned how to play even though the keyboard had been rearranged. As to re-leases (mentioned in another post by juniper8), the outcome would still be the same...bad sound, which is precisely what we got in a lot of CDs. Being competent at either analog or digital technologies in no way guarantees good sound. Only a good ear can do that. Further, and also MHO, analog is a far more forgiving methodology than digital.

Dave

[RRFL]

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

When reading a post ones context is decisive. I choose fun light []

So when considering context, from a certain context certain comments might become invisible [] e.g. "then they got better"

I'm not going to throw away all my CD's or my "Records", lol.

From having Asthma fluro lights on trains were very "Alfred Hitchcock" and I knew my hearing went out to 22Khz when the science teacher tested our hearing at school. So when CD's were released. I was very disappointed with the sound and the cause was eventually admitted and acknowledged by the manufactures.

The marketing machine went with the CD for obvious reasons, however, the misleading Philips commercial at the time, "someone else can go google that reference, good luck" suggesting that the CD was virtually indestructible was amusing. The baby banging the CD on it's edge on the table would not damage it but what they did not show was the baby rubbing the CD on a hard surface and scratching it.

James Russell invented the compact disk in 1965. James Russell was granted a total of 22 patents for various elements of his compact disk system. However, the compact disk did not become popular until it was mass manufactured by Philips in 1980.

I was always looking forward to the inevitable breakthrough development and it was obvious that the limits of the initial chips would leave a "retarding" legacy on the format.

When 1 bit was revealed, I was "YES" punch the air, now we could move forward.

Records are annoying in that you have to turn them over and they have surface noise but when played on say a Rega Plannar 3 or a Thorens etc that is set up properly with all the other millions of things you need to watch out for, like not sneezing when your face is close to the stylus while it's playing [] etc then allow yourself to listen through surface noise etc then there is a lack of edgyness that now days is much improved on CD's.

I actually rip most things to the computer in wav files and use a DAC to play it back for convenience.

CD's are much more convenient than Records and an iPod is much more convenient than a portable CD player. I have 3 iPods and my Phone is an A.N. Droid.[A]

[RRFL]

btw when solid state first came out it was even worse than CD's

I always preferred the 2 track master running at 30inches per second, myself.

I prefer loge seating.

If you can get it definitely [H]

[Mallette]

From having Asthma fluro lights on trains were very "Alfred Hitchcock" and I knew my hearing went out to 22Khz when the science teacher tested our hearing at school.

\

Ah, another one. I've known a few of us. I discovered the same thing when I stepped under an "ultrasonic" burgler alarm in an Indianapolis museum when I was stationed at old Fort Ben. Felt like someone had just shoved an icepick in both ears at the same time and I lunged forward and down...scaring the hell out of everyone else and getting the attention of the guard. I told him what happened and he smiled and gestured to the transducer in the cieling. He said about one out of a thousand had that response and explained it was a "new" alarm system. They never turned off the transducer since no one should be able to hear it...they just disconnected the alarm during the day.

It happened a few more times at banks and such, but, of course, by the time I was in my thirties I could no longer hear it. Another thing it explained is why I thought the "silent" dog whistle I purchased when I was 12 or so was defective or a sham...because I could clearly hear it!

Enjoy while you can, and it is my belief that even when age takes it away there is an "imprint" that remains. I probably don't have much past 13k anymore but I still clearly hear nuances I believe I "learned" when I heard into the ultrasonics.

I have recorded and produced CD's that others have pronounced "good as vinyl" so I believe there is nothing inherently wrong in that format that approaching it correctly cannot fix. I also discovered 1 bit as soon as it became available to "average" means and believe my Korg is quite capable of recording it ALL. Sort of like having an Ampex studio mastering recording record in one's pocket without the tape noise floor.

When it comes to surface noise, you can hardly beat a well worn 78. My well worn copy of "Rhapsody in Blue" with Gershwin at the piano and the Paul Whiteman band remains one of the most thrilling and real experiences I've ever heard even though the signal to noise ratio is probably 50/50 at best.

Clean it up? Heck, no. You cannot get better than perfection.

Dave

[StephenM]

Is this why everytime I buy a copy of a CD I have that is a re release it sounds awful?

Depending on how old of material we're talking about, deterioration of the masters may be a problem as well.

[RRFL]

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.

One cannot record or play 22kHz on a redbook CD. The low pass filters on the record end and the playback end will not pass that freq. The anti-aliasing filter in the player also smooths the staircase effect so that the curve is smooth. If it were not that way the distortion readings would be higher. If you want to talk about distortion, vinyl playback yields distortion typically over 3%, more at low freqs.

What's worse than Vinyl playback was mixing the master so it could be cut on the Lacquers in the first place.

Putting it on the tape was not an issue and on a CD, [^]

I was so excited when CD's came out so all that "[bs]" would be gone forever, but then, I heard the CD and then we played another and another and could not find one that, cut the mustard, it was nearly there but not quite there, so definitely, the development for closer to real had employment opportunities.

Don't forget, they did get better![]

[StephenM]

From having Asthma fluro lights on trains were very "Alfred Hitchcock" and I knew my hearing went out to 22Khz when the science teacher tested our hearing at school. So when CD's were released. I was very disappointed with the sound and the cause was eventually admitted and acknowledged by the manufactures.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't vinyl lose it's high end advantage after a handful of plays, negating its advantage for those with exceptional high frequency hearing?

[Mallette]

Is this why everytime I buy a copy of a CD I have that is a re release it sounds awful?

Depending on how old of material we're talking about, deterioration of the masters may be a problem as well.

I've heard that as an excuse. Makes no sense to me. I have ACETATE tapes that stayed in my attic for 30 years that still sound great.

I've no idea how "masters" can deteriorate unless they were stored with magnets or near a nuclear test site.

Certainly they become brittle and some, especially acetate, shrink and "bow," but on a good deck with adequate tension they still play fine. Even the print through is audible only during silence.

Dave

[RRFL]

Is this why everytime I buy a copy of a CD I have that is a re release it sounds awful?

Depending on how old of material we're talking about, deterioration of the masters may be a problem as well.

One thing we had to be aware of in using the "Fairlight" was re-sampling repeatedly. This had to be kept to a minimum so it was sampled onto the Fairlight from the "DAT" then mixed down onto a "DAT" or "BETAMAX" with a PCM demodulator and then to a CD and by then it sounded nothing like it did at the beginning.

Now the digital can pass from one device to another and not be re-sampled which is an advantage.

[Mallette]

From having Asthma fluro lights on trains were very "Alfred Hitchcock" and I knew my hearing went out to 22Khz when the science teacher tested our hearing at school. So when CD's were released. I was very disappointed with the sound and the cause was eventually admitted and acknowledged by the manufactures.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't vinyl lose it's high end advantage after a handful of plays, negating its advantage for those with exceptional high frequency hearing?

Yes, I will correct you. No, they don't show significant audible degradation until many, many playes if played with ANYTHING like a decent arm and cartridge reasonably correctly. And I don't mean arm and a leg audiophile.

I've a copy of the Mercury Living Presence "1812" overture I rec'd for Christmas, 1965 from my mother that still sounds "good." It was played for the first few years with a "flipver" ceramic cart on an RCA console stereo.

My "Dark Side" album is first year of release and the worst thing it's ever seen was a Stanton GyroPoise (681EEE unitized) and a seed burn crater. It still sounds better than the "audiophile" CD release.

And I am NOT a vinyl snob...but I know what I hear.

Dave

[Invidiosulus]

I also discovered 1 bit as soon as it became available to "average" means and believe my Korg is quite capable of recording it ALL. Sort of like having an Ampex studio mastering recording record in one's pocket without the tape noise floor.

Dave,

Have you played around with an MR2 yet?

http://korg.com/Product.aspx?pd=575

I like the idea of not being stuck with the internal hard drive, pair it with a wallet full of SD cards and you would have one heck of an Ipod.

[RRFL]

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:

[pi]

[RRFL]

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?

My Dad is starting to forget things now [], I had to connect his Heresy's to the TV as the stereo became to complicated.

[StephenM]

No, they don't show significant audible degradation until many, many playes if played with ANYTHING like a decent arm and cartridge reasonably correctly.

I'm not talking about significant audible degradation; I'm talking about LP's potential frequency extension out well past the (generally accepted) audible range (say to 50kHz or so) being lost after a handful of plays.

[Mallette]

Then you need to ask rodrocket. All I can say is "I don't care about what I can't hear..."

Dave