Vinyl vs. CD vs. IPOD--If the link don't work CUT and PASTE--AA medium thread, this should work.

[RAPTORMAN]

Published 2:15 AM PST Sunday, Dec. 11, 2005

Now hear this

Vinyl, CD or iPod? The best-sounding device is merely a matter of taste

By Chris Macias -- Bee Pop Music Critic

From left, Ben Casement, 18, Ashveer Singh, 17, and George Kostyrko, 42, are blindfolded as they listen to different music to see if they can differentiate among vinyl, a CD and an iPod.
Sacramento Bee/Bryan Patrick See additional images

var stRRURL = "Chris Macias ";

function getEmailVer() { window.top.location.href = "/music/v-email/story/13958292p-14792597c.html"; }

function getPrintVer() { window.top.location.href = "/music/v-print/story/13958292p-14792597c.html"; }

Close - X Recent Stories By Chris Macias

The quest for sound began in 1877 with Thomas Edison's invention of the tinfoil phonograph. Recorded music would evolve into a kind of spiritual experience, flowing through the ears and soaking into our souls.

It must somehow reach our ears, and that's where our ever-evolving stereo devices come in. They deliver Ray Charles' crackling voice on an old record, soothing a sadness only he can soothe. Or Madonna's "Hung Up" on an iPod, providing a last-minute energy burst on the treadmill.

"I call recorded sound a tool for living," says Mark Katz, a professor of musicology at Johns Hopkins University and author of "Capturing Sound - How Technology Has Changed Music." "It's not just entertainment. It helps us live."

But our experience of recorded music, the way we interact with it in our daily lives, is changing faster than Edison could have dreamed.

Few of us hold vinyl albums in our hands anymore. Those grooves on a record - analog sound - have disappeared into the digital realm of ones and zeroes to create the music on CDs and MP3 players such as the iPod.

Audiophiles mourn the near-extinction of turntables and vinyl records even as an iPod nation celebrates the liberation from lugging CDs and records - thousands of songs in the palm of your hand.

"There are those who like holding records, the ritual of pulling them out of the sleeve, cleaning them off, setting the needle down just right," says Katz, "whereas with CDs and MP3s, all you do is click a button and click a mouse."

Apple reports that it has shipped more than 30 million iPods since its digital music player debuted in 2001 - and industry analysts say that number is likely to be 37 million by year's end. That's a lot of dangling headphones. But will superior sound die with the turntable? What is more important to your ears - the ultimate high-fidelity experience or the ability to carry all your music wherever you go?

The best-sounding stereo device might just be a matter of taste. The sounds we hear, after all, are clouded by the preconceptions in our heads.

"We can scientifically measure the frequencies put out by different machines," Katz says. "But the way we hear is subjective, and that's shaped by our expectations, by our environment and by our mood."

---

Chris Kipp still believes vinyl sounds best.

"It's like a dot-to-dot picture vs. the photograph," says Kipp, 36, comparing CDs and MP3s with vinyl. "Analog is a continuous waveform, whereas digital is only samples of that waveform. You're missing so much (with digital)."

The garage of Kipp's Greenhaven home has been converted into a showroom for his high-end stereo business, Audio Gallery. So the Miles Davis record undergoes a thorough scrubdown before it's allowed on the turntable.

The album is sent through a vacuum powered cleaning machine, a kind of car wash for vinyl, that costs $500. Then the album is placed on the turntable, carefully, like it's a delicate truffle that plays music.

Kipp's turntable, a Basis 2800, looks like something from "A Clockwork Orange." It's translucent and an internal vacuum literally sucks down the record when it's placed on the platter.

"See all the counterweights in there?" says Kipp. "They're all solid gold, and it's dynamically balanced. The bearings are ridiculously smooth ... It's all on a hydraulically damped fluid suspension."

Translation: This record player will cost you $19,000.

If comparisons were made to wine, audiophiles such as Kipp would say that perfectly preserved vinyl is like Screaming Eagle Cabernet Sauvignon; CDs and MP3s are Two Buck Chuck (or 99 cent Chuck, if you download them from iTunes).

Others hold on to their records for nostalgic reasons. George Kostyrko, 42, remembers how album jackets used to double as hanging artwork in his bedroom. Every so often he'll fire up a vintage stereo system in his garage and place the turntable needle on his old rockabilly records.

"I'll never get rid of my vinyl," he says. "But once you get used to CDs, it's kind of an irritant that you have to turn the record over every 22 minutes."

---

The vinyl album was nearly wiped out once CDs started spinning in our stereos. When CD technology was introduced to the United States market in 1983, it boasted unmatched durability and fidelity. No more skipping needles or surface "pops." No more having to get up and flip over a record.

A CD is about four one-hundredths of an inch thick but holds about 74 minutes of music. There's no needle riding a dusty groove. Its laser beam translates a series of binary code into, say, the guitar rage of Green Day's "American Idiot."

But anyone who owns CDs knows they don't hold up well over time. Just like a record, they will skip and get scratched - and that'll cause some audible moaning and groaning.

Sales of CDs also are slumping. According to the Recording Industry Association of America, 766.9 million CDs were shipped in 2004, down from 942.5 million in 2000.

"I'm fairly certain that the CD is on its way out," says Katz, the music professor. "But I'm not sure if a new physical format will replace it or not."

---

Ashveer Singh doesn't worry about scratched records or CDs. He just pushes the "play" button on his iPod. The 17-year-old senior at Mira Loma High School reasons it's easier than lugging around 2,500 songs worth of CDs or records.

"Even if the iPod has a lower quality of sound, I would still listen to it because it has the features and accessibility," he says.

Singh definitely turns his nose up at turntables. He remembered how foul the fidelity was when his grandparents would play Indian music on a record player. No wonder he's never bought any vinyl.

Singh isn't much for CDs, either. He owns maybe 15 of them.

"The main reason I got an iPod was so I wouldn't have to (carry) a bunch of CDs around," he says.

So Singh's typical day includes a healthy diet of iPod. He plays it up to five hours a day.

"As soon as I'm in my room, I'll click it on," says Singh. "Even when I'm reading, I need to have background noises. I'm of the generation where I don't think we can work in silence."

But with the iPod, it's not as much about finding the sweet spot on the couch and sailing away while Carlos Santana's guitar resonates in the room. The iPod's headphones are like an aural umbilical chord that goes straight from your ears to the body of your music collection.

The iPod makes it easy to tune out what's going on around you. The music becomes an extension of whatever else you're doing: working, working out or waiting to catch a flight while reading a magazine.

"With the extreme portability of music, it's more of a soundtrack to our lives," says Katz. "I don't think the younger generation listens to music the (traditional) way. It's the whole multi-tasking phenomenon. They're doing homework, (writing) e-mail and exercising while listening to music."

---

Musical sounds are noisy ghosts that we welcome into our world. We can't see or touch that squealing Jimi Hendrix guitar solo on "Voodoo Chile," but we're still rocked by its presence.

These sonic spirits are summoned in many ways, through the kitchen boom-box spinning a Smashing Pumpkins CD, or the iPod strapped to a jogger's arm. And some are of the school that insist vinyl albums still rule.

But the technological landscape is now littered with a scrapheap of audio also-rans: 8-track cassettes, reel-to-reel tapes, 78 rpm records, DATs.

One thing is for sure: We will continue to be picky about how we experience sound. Even the iPod might even be obsolete in a few years, and CDs will likely be used more as coasters than as a source of music.

"I may be getting science fiction here, but music technology could become a part of our bodies," says Katz. "You hear these stories of people with chips planted in them, (so) you can imagine the iPod implant. How far off is that?"

In the end, the utmost in fidelity might not matter to many of us. It's practicality that's music to our ears.

"A relatively small population cares deeply about perfect sound," says Katz. "For those people, it's maybe about becoming one with the music, having no meditation between the sound and the person. It's almost the spiritual experience of music.

"There's quite the possibility of a generation of kids who will not feel that need to have (that), and will just be happy to have music come into their heads in whatever way."

PODCAST

Hear parts of our sound test on a podcast with The Bee's Chris Macias. See www.sacticket.com/beatnonstop.

Weighing the pros and cons

VINYL

Pros:

* If you're a music junkie, the ritual of opening a record, placing it carefully on the turntable and reading the liner notes can't be beat.

* A den that's full of vinyl albums looks more impressive than a bookshelf filled with CDs.

* If the vinyl's in good shape, it'll arguably sound better -or at least as good -as anything on CD or MP3, especially when it comes to acoustic instruments.

Cons:

* You have to be nearly obsessive-compulsive to keep records clean and free of scratches.

* Top-quality vinyl can be expensive and hard to find. Want to buy Green Day's "American Idiot" on vinyl? Be prepared to spend upwards of $35 -that is, if you can even find the album.

* Flipping over a record is kind of a buzz kill when you're using a stereo to set a mood.

CD

Pros:

* No "pop" and "crackle" sounds in the music, unless it was recorded that way.

* Recordable CDs make it a cinch to back up your MP3s and other digital music.

* CDs make good drink coasters once they're scratched beyond playability.

Cons:

* $17.99 plus tax is kind of a rip-off when you only like one or two songs on the CD.

* Don't believe the hype: CDs don't hold up well over time, and they're easy to scratch.

* CD sales are slipping, and they will someday go the way of the eight-track tape.

iPod

Pros:

* Your entire record collection, in the palm of your hand.

* The portability of an iPod is unparalleled. Who wants to carry around the equivalent of 2,000 songs on CD?

* The iPod has no moving parts, so you can jog with it and the music won't skip.

Cons:

* You're bummed when the newest iPod is released, because the one you just plunked down $299.99 for is now obsolete.

* Audio snobs beware: The iPod's sound will probably be too smooth and compressed for your taste.

* Though iPod battery technology is improving, the iPod's battery life is notoriously short; it'll cost you $59 for Apple's battery-replacement program.

---

Can you tell the difference?

Which sounds best: a turntable, a CD player or an iPod? Here's our informal audio test of listeners assembled at Audio Gallery, a high-end stereo showroom.

The five-person panel was blindfolded - and some of their answers would make an audiophile's heart skip a beat. Despite their biases, most panelists were struck by the iPod's clarity. Marks for vinyl records and CD were mixed.

TESTERS

VINYL

CD

iPod

George Kostyrko
Vinyl lover who still owns 300 albums
Age: 42
Occupation: Public information officer for the state Department of Corrections
Residence: Elk Grove

"The high end was super harsh and brittle."
(He guessed he was listening to a CD)

"Some distortion, but his voice was clear."
(He guessed he was listening to a vinyl record)

"Good bass response."
(He guessed correctly that he was listening to an iPod)

Ashveer Singh
Swears by his iPod and has never owned a turntable
Age: 17
Occupation: Senior at Mira Loma High School
Residence: West Sacramento

"The bass was the best."
(He guessed he was listening to an iPod)

"Overpowering bass that was sort of artificial."
(He guessed he was listening to a vinyl record)

"Really clear."
(He guessed correctly that he was listening to an iPod)

Jenny Esquivel
Thinks "jazz always sounds best on vinyl" but plays her iPod up to eight hours a day
Age: 28
Occupation: McGeorge School of Law student
Residence: Land Park

"Like you're sitting in a club in Paris listening to Miles Davis."
(She guessed correctly that she was listening to a vinyl record)

"That one was annoying."
(She guessed correctly that she was listening to a CD)

"The clearest."
(She guessed correctly that she was listening to an iPod)

Ben Casement
A digital guy who has 2.6 days' worth of music on his computer
Age: 18
Occupation: Senior at Sacramento Waldorf School
Residence: Fair Oaks

"The best overall."
(He didn't know what he was listening to)

"Hollow in the treble range."
(He guessed correctly that he was listening to a CD)

"Fuzzy and unclear."
(He guessed he was listening to a vinyl record)

Tony Edwards
Fan of the CD
Age: 33
Occupation: Drummer for the rock band Paradigm and substitute teacher
Residence: Rancho Cordova

"The piano didn't sound real to me."
(He guessed correctly that he was listening to a vinyl record)

"The upper midrange ... was so in my face."
(He guessed correctly that he was listening to a CD)

"(The hiss) was totally gone."
(He guessed correctly that he was listening to an iPod)

---

How did our volunteers do on their sound test?

Check out the results, by genre/song and platform: vinyl, CD and iPod (in order of testing).

GENRE/
SONG

PLATFORM

GEORGE
KOSTYRKO

ASHVEER
SINGH

JENNY
ESQUIVEL

BEN
CASEMENT

TONY
EDWARDS

1. Dance pop
Madonna, "Hung Up"

VINYL

wrong (CD)

wrong (iPod)

correct

correct

wrong (CD)

IPOD

wrong (vinyl)

correct

correct

correct

correct

CD

wrong (iPod)

correct

correct

correct

correct

2. Classic rock
Boston, "More Than a Feeling"

IPOD

wrong (CD)

correct

correct

wrong (vinyl)

wrong (vinyl)

CD

wrong (vinyl)

wrong (vinyl)

wrong (vinyl)

wrong (iPod)

correct

VINYL

wrong (iPod)

wrong (CD)

wrong (CD)

wrong (CD)

wrong (iPod)

3. Jazz
Miles Davis, "So What"

CD

didn't know

correct

correct

correct

correct

VINYL

correct

correct

correct

correct

correct

iPOD

didn't know

correct

correct

correct

correct

4. Modern rock
Green Day, "American Idiot"

iPOD

correct

wrong (vinyl)

correct

didn't know

wrong (vinyl)

VINYL

wrong (CD)

wrong (iPod)

correct

didn't know

wrong (iPod)

CD

wrong (vinyl)

correct

correct

didn't know

correct

TOTAL CORRECT

2

7

10

6

7

About the writer:

The Bee's Chris Macias can be reached at (916) 321-1253 or cmacias@sacbee.com.

---

- Get the whole story every day - SUBSCRIBE NOW!

---

In this age of CDs and iPods, Chris Kipp, owner of the high-end stereo showroom Audio Gallery, still believes vinyl is best. "You're missing so much (with digital)," he says. Sacramento Bee/Bryan Patrick

[crazytubepower]

makes you wonder...what set-up were they using the ipod in...did they have it hooked up to a $20,000 dac or what. And what tt and cd player where they using. I think without this knowledge this article is stupid

[DrWho]

so in conclusion:

vinyl lovers are deaf

women have exceptional hearing

and musicans have good ears

So pretty much nothing new [][][H]

(btw, this post is meant in jest, lol)

[Parrot]

Interesting: All of my CDs feature continuous waveforms. I wonder what

kind of weird non-continuous CDs these guys were listening to?

[mobile homeless]

vinyl lovers are deaf

women have exceptional hearing

and musicans have good ears

While the post may be in jest, I think you pretty much believe it. In my view, the only thing I see correct is that women have exceptional hearing in the high frequencies. Although many musicians might have a better sense of pitch (although this is debatable), most have horrible hearing when it comes to sound, the same with the average Engineer. As a musician of 35 years and someone that worked in and out of studios including running my own in the 80s (analog), musicians are the least to care about the same "audiophile" goals that most aspire to in this hobby (and I have to admit, many "audiophile" goals have little to do with music or musicality). Sitting in front of a system, most couldnt hear their way out of a paper bag. Ditto for many recording engineers (as evidenced by the proponderance of mediocre recordings).

On the vinyl vs digital debate, based on the many posts of yours I have read on the subject, it's obvious to me you have yet to HEAR a really top notch analog system. Digital has come a long way and I admit to using it often for ease. And achieving greatness via vinyl is a royal pain, I admit. Ultimate sound quality relating to musicality, naturalness, tone, and a sense of ease and "Rightness" STILL belongs to vinyl in my view, this if using a quality vinyl rig. Digital is still VERY young and has some ways to go... but it has bridged the gap quite a bit since its intro.

Dr. Who just for you....heh... Personally, I will give you my entire main system including '77 CW if upon comparison you dont hear the positive sonic qualities that separate a quality, correctly setup vinyl rig with digital. You could even bring your own digital solution if you desire or I have access to a Rega Planet, Toshiba 3950, or Sony SCD-777es. (yeah, this last paragraph is more of a cheap stunt of a post, but I would be go through with it in theory)

kh

[Jeff Matthews]

Dr. Who and MobileHomeless - just like the old Wylie Coyote and Roadrunner cartoons.

Vinyl is the best and CD's are better.

[mobile homeless]

Dr. Who and MobileHomeless - just like the old Wylie Coyote and Roadrunner cartoons.

Jesus, that is a scary post.... It's no pissing contest really, but I cant count how many people 100% in the digital camp have left shaking their heads in disbelief and surprise after having heard a good vinyl setup.

To be totally honest, I cant wait for digital to surpass vinyl in every category inlcuding musicality. Many times, I dont feel like the hassle of the turntable or @20 min side, not to mention the ritual, especially while I'm working. I listen to digital 90% of the time I am working and not wanting to bother.

kh

[DrWho]

vinyl lovers are deaf

women have exceptional hearing

and musicans have good ears

While the post may be in jest, I think you pretty much believe

it. In my view, the only thing I see correct is that women have

exceptional hearing in the high frequencies. Although many

musicians might have a better sense of pitch (although this is

debatable), most have horrible hearing when it comes to sound, the same

with the average Engineer. As a musician of 35 years and someone

that worked in and out of studios including running my own in the 80s

(analog), musicians are the least to care about the same "audiophile"

goals that most aspire to in this hobby (and I have to admit, many

"audiophile" goals have little to do with music or musicality).

Sitting in front of a system, most couldnt hear their way out of a

paper bag. Ditto for many recording engineers (as evidenced by

the proponderance of mediocre recordings).

On the vinyl vs digital debate, based on the many posts of yours I

have read on the subject, it's obvious to me you have yet to HEAR a

really top notch analog system. Digital has come a long way and I

admit to using it often for ease. And achieving greatness via

vinyl is a royal pain, I admit. Ultimate sound quality relating

to musicality, naturalness, tone, and a sense of ease and "Rightness"

STILL belongs to vinyl in my view, this if using a quality vinyl

rig. Digital is still VERY young and has some ways to go...

but it has bridged the gap quite a bit since its intro.

Dr. Who just for you....heh... Personally, I will give you my entire main system

including '77 CW if upon comparison you dont hear the positive sonic

qualities that separate a quality, correctly setup vinyl rig with

digital. You could even bring your own digital

solution if you desire or I have access to a Rega Planet, Toshiba

3950, or Sony SCD-777es. (yeah, this last paragraph is more of a cheap

stunt of a post, but I would be go through with it in theory)

kh

lol, I'll be sure to look you up the next time I'm in North Carolina.

Though if I don't like how it sounds, then I don't see why I'd want the

system (besides maybe the cornwalls) []

But at the same time audiophiles obsess over the gear too much and

forget to listen to the music (something musicians don't have any

problems with). I would also trust a drummer to know what a drum kit

should sound like, and likewise a pianist to know what a piano should

sound like. I wouldn't trust a pianist to know what drums should like

though...and by nature a lot of musicians key in on the instrument of

their expertise...at least that's been my limited experience with those

musicians that care the slightest bit about home audio (which most

don't). So though I do agree that they can't hear out of a paper bag

(lol) they do have their limited purposes in life []

As far as top notched LP systems...I have heard Artto's LP rig compared

against his fancy SACD player. I have heard Colter's LP system compared

against his standard CD player. And then I have heard a really

expensive LP with some dude not on the forum who lives in Michigan with

a room built around top of the line Tannoy speakers. I'm not sure if

any of those would be considered as high-end and it's prob not too much

help when I don't know the model numbers of anything. I have also had

personal experience with recording to reel to reel (both 2"

multitracking and just normal stereo) and DAT simultaneously (basically

the same thing as CD). Again I don't know the model numbers, I just

remember they were really expensive. All the mediums have their own

pro's and con's and if money weren't an issue I would love to have each

tool readily available. But alas, I'm a poor college student so I can't

afford a "high quality TT", nor do I have the aptitude to go through

the rituals, but most importantly most of the music I listen to just

isn't available on anything but CD. Also, just one click or pop is

enough to ruin the sonic experience for me. I didn't grow up around it

so I haven't learned to tune it out yet (and don't think I ever will).

[mobile homeless]

Dr. Who -

Well, you could sell my main system and buy something you might desire; cant say my system is optimized nor built around some of the music you prefer, that's for sure. Although I have a huge collection of indie music from my days in college radio but I imagine it would also sound rather alien. Though it might interest you that I've been down the path of high-end, high power SS amps and dont have any as all were sold, this when I realized that one of my $100 vintage tube amps actually sounded more musical with better tone and natural reproduction than my $2000 SS monoblocks. I came my way after being squarely in the high power solid state camp and after exposure to many a fine amplifier.

I'm with you on the audiophile aspect. I've left many a post over the years addressing the same subject. Herb Reichert summarized it best in a quote I posted here a few days ago:

There is also a sub-culture of audio consumers who believe that high end audio exists to be appreciated for its own sake. These people are pure audiophiles and for them hi-fi gear exists primarily for the purposes of studying and admiring the attitudes, sentiments and states of mind -- of the audio equipment and its makers. For them, composers, singers and songwriters are exploited primarily as tools to be used for the better understanding of the audio gear.

I think Audiophiles have taken the industry further astray from what is important, namely the music and the communication of the same with the listener on an emotional level. The idea of listening to the music as a tool to listen to your gear is ultimately pretty soul-sucking, although fun to do and addictive. Most audiophile recordings contain musical dreck in my view.

Interesting you bring up drummers. I have been a drummer in and out of bands since the age of 13 in everything from rock, to punk, to indie, to jazz, and most of it original since the early 80s. Still have my set of Ludwigs athough now in my friend's studio. Been playing guitar and bass for almost as long. Lost my 65 Fender Mustang, but still have a classic Framus hollowbody, a Fender P Bass, and a Washburn acoustic. As we both agree, most musicians could care less about audio systems and they're probably smarter for it.

A really good vinyl rig properly setup tends to minimize pops and scratches all things equal and usually places them apart from the music. It's a strange affect, I admit. Most records if properly cared for and not ruined from poor handling or subpar sylus wear sound amazingly good. As I have found, vinyl tend to get to the emotional core of the music better than anything. BUT....and it's a big BUT.... One can lose oneself in the music on a $40 boombox or AM car radio given the proper state of mind.

I'll be the first to admit wanting digital to succeed. As I said, it's come a loooong way since the early 80s when brickwall filters reigned and the engineers had no idea what they were doing when remastering..

kh

[Parrot]

Dr. Who just for you....heh... Personally, I will give you my entire main system

including '77 CW if upon comparison you dont hear the positive sonic

qualities that separate a quality, correctly setup vinyl rig with

digital. You could even bring your own digital

solution if you desire or I have access to a Rega Planet, Toshiba

3950, or Sony SCD-777es. (yeah, this last paragraph is more of a cheap

stunt of a post, but I would be go through with it in theory)

So your bet is a theoretical bet? Are theoretical bets even legal?

[Parrot]

Jesus, that is a scary post....

It's no pissing contest really, but I cant count how many people 100%

in the digital camp have left shaking their heads in disbelief and

surprise after having heard a good vinyl setup.

Have you considered that they may not be shaking their heads in

disbelief and surprise at how good it sounds but at how crazy the owner

is?

[mobile homeless]

So your bet is a theoretical bet? Are theoretical bets even legal?

Not in Georgia but we have fun with them here....

kh

[mobile homeless]

Have you considered that they may not be shaking their heads in disbelief and surprise at how good it sounds but at how crazy the owner is?

Perhaps a bit of both, considering the amount of recordings and gear. A home the size of your abode with barely enough land to occupy it, would cost about 3.5 million here in this location. Translation: My space is SMALLL relatively speaking. I would think more than a few might leave thinking the space I have devoted to music, either in the production or reproduction is a bit too heavy for sanity, even though it fits in. Coming from you, however, I am taking this as a compliment, and am feeling a bit warm and fuzzy towards my ole cohort, Parrot (warm and fuzzy, you know, the definition of those rolled off, distortion devices I sometimes use for amplification).

[Parrot]

Shoot! You have put a damper on my idea of having the next Klipsch get-together at your place.

[Parrot]

As far as crazy goes, it could apply to a good many audiophiles, maybe

most Forum members. It's all relative to the great majority of people

who have a couple dozen recordings, if that, and a boombox for their

system.

It is too bad that the article talks about a $19,000 turntable, as if

that's necessary to give vinyl a fair shake. The essence of vinyl

certainly comes through for a few hundred dollars.

[colterphoto1]

5 person self-selection bias. Nope, the statistics don't work at all. Next test.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE 30 or more samples. Period.

Somebody send these idiots to school for statistics....

Michael

[ranjith]

I personally think the iPod is over-rated, the Zen from Creative or some of the higher-end players from iRiver are just as good and in most cases a lot better sounding than the ipod.

[Parrot]

Somebody send these idiots to school for statistics....

Aw, man! This thread was going real well until you came in and called people names.

[maxg]

"It is too bad that the article talks about a $19,000 turntable, as if that's necessary to give vinyl a fair shake. "

Quite right Paul - why, you could get away with half that much - well almost!

[NOSValves]

BUT.... One can lose oneself in the music on a $40 boombox or AM car radio given the proper state of mind.

kh

Kinda like Moondog listening isn't it []