Vinyl ....goes for a final Spin ....

[Allan Songer]

Come on, guys. CD's sound a *LOT* better than records, unless the mastering process compromised the sound of the CD. Records have so many shortfalls that there's really no comparison. I suppose that you could find isolated instances where a record, for whatever reason, sounds better than the corresponding CD of the same performance, but by and large records are so inferior to CD's that there's no room to argue the point. While we might debate whether cables do or do not make a difference, or whether power conditioning does anything, or whether power cords impact the sound, or whether well designed amps sound different from each other, those are arguments that reasonable people can entertain. Whether CD's are superior to records, however, is such an obvious and uncontravertable fact that there's no room for argument. Records are a hideous medium compared to CD's. Noise, distortion, limited dynamic range - I can't imagine anyone seriously arguing that records can come close to CD's.

Granted, way back in the early to mid 80's a lot of CD's were mastered without an understanding of the medium, and their frequency response was mutilated pretty badly, but that's long behind us.

Arguing that records sound better than CD's is sort of like arguing that a 1963 Corvette Sting Ray is a better car than a 2006 Corvette. In it's time, it was a great car... but by any (*ANY*) objective measurement, the 2006 is simply so superior in every conceiveable sense that any comparison is ludicrous.

Nonsense

[maxg]

Come on, guys. CD's sound a *LOT* better than records, unless the mastering process compromised the sound of the CD. Records have so many shortfalls that there's really no comparison. I suppose that you could find isolated instances where a record, for whatever reason, sounds better than the corresponding CD of the same performance, but by and large records are so inferior to CD's that there's no room to argue the point. While we might debate whether cables do or do not make a difference, or whether power conditioning does anything, or whether power cords impact the sound, or whether well designed amps sound different from each other, those are arguments that reasonable people can entertain. Whether CD's are superior to records, however, is such an obvious and uncontravertable fact that there's no room for argument. Records are a hideous medium compared to CD's. Noise, distortion, limited dynamic range - I can't imagine anyone seriously arguing that records can come close to CD's.

Granted, way back in the early to mid 80's a lot of CD's were mastered without an understanding of the medium, and their frequency response was mutilated pretty badly, but that's long behind us.

Arguing that records sound better than CD's is sort of like arguing that a 1963 Corvette Sting Ray is a better car than a 2006 Corvette. In it's time, it was a great car... but by any (*ANY*) objective measurement, the 2006 is simply so superior in every conceiveable sense that any comparison is ludicrous.

I am still trying to decide if you are serious about this. If you are then you are completely deluded. Look at it like this:

What do all the really highest end systems out there (the ones that cost $50K and up) have in common? Some will be using horns, some planars, some big ala B&W speakers, Wilsons etc. Some will be using tubes, some SS, different pre-amps, different cables, different power supplies etc etc...

BUT - all will be using vinyl as the source!

(of course most will be using linear arms too - but that is just my justification [])

Honestly Ray - you need to get out and hear a good / well set up vinyl system - if you believe what you write you definitely never have.

[anarchist]

To argue record vs. cd loses track of the purpose - which is enjoyment. I just put my Thorens 125/SME3009/Shure M97XE into use. The sound is incredible, dynamic, and gives you a sense of realness that is hard to emulate. I have been spinning vinyl nonstop for the last three days and clicks/pops/surface noise aren't at all an issue while listening.

My daughter, unbiased by a cd vs. record debate nor concerned with specs, cost, or name, paid it the greatest compliment; Dad, it sounds like there is a band in your bedroom.

For those who would like to know what it takes to produce such realism, the bedroom system is a 1959 Eico HF-81(modded with Auricaps and Spragues), a set of Heresies, and the aforementioned Thorens 125. There is also a Sony CD player connected to the Eico and I go to bed playing Cd's and wake up spinning vinyl.

Format wars are stupid. The wise man has a large tool chest at his disposal and wields the appropriate tool for the assignment.

[RAPTORMAN]

Come on, guys. CD's sound a *LOT* better than records, unless the mastering process compromised the sound of the CD. Records have so many shortfalls that there's really no comparison. I suppose that you could find isolated instances where a record, for whatever reason, sounds better than the corresponding CD of the same performance, but by and large records are so inferior to CD's that there's no room to argue the point. While we might debate whether cables do or do not make a difference, or whether power conditioning does anything, or whether power cords impact the sound, or whether well designed amps sound different from each other, those are arguments that reasonable people can entertain. Whether CD's are superior to records, however, is such an obvious and uncontravertable fact that there's no room for argument. Records are a hideous medium compared to CD's. Noise, distortion, limited dynamic range - I can't imagine anyone seriously arguing that records can come close to CD's.

Granted, way back in the early to mid 80's a lot of CD's were mastered without an understanding of the medium, and their frequency response was mutilated pretty badly, but that's long behind us.

Arguing that records sound better than CD's is sort of like arguing that a 1963 Corvette Sting Ray is a better car than a 2006 Corvette. In it's time, it was a great car... but by any (*ANY*) objective measurement, the 2006 is simply so superior in every conceiveable sense that any comparison is ludicrous.

Your kidding, Right?????????? [][]

[Allan Songer]

To argue record vs. cd loses track of the purpose - which is enjoyment. I just put my Thorens 125/SME3009/Shure MX97e into use.

Which 3009 are you using?

[mark1101]

I always thought and still do think that vinyl can sound MUCH better than any digital music, properly done. I say this even though I gave up the vinyl a couple of years ago.

BUT...going digital still can be excellent in quality, and offers far more flexibilty as we all know.

I agree that the BEST system would be one that offered a variety of playback formats, including vinyl. I just can't handle that anymore.

[Cal Blacksmith]

Arguing that records sound better than CD's is sort of like arguing that a 1963 Corvette Sting Ray is a better car than a 2006 Corvette. In it's time, it was a great car... but by any (*ANY*) objective measurement, the 2006 is simply so superior in every conceiveable sense that any comparison is ludicrous.

Ray, Most times I agree with you and I respect you're voice here BUT...... in the above analogy, change the 2006 vehicle to a NOVA and you are on track. The CD did an excellent job of replacing the CASSETT tape (which is what it was intended to do) but it falls far short of the LP.

[LarryC]

Come on, guys. CD's sound a *LOT* better than records...Records have so many shortfalls that there's really no comparison. I suppose that you could find isolated instances where a record, for whatever reason, sounds better than the corresponding CD of the same performance, but by and large records are so inferior to CD's that there's no room to argue the point.

Good grief!! Not in my experience, either!

It would say that it depends on the comparative playback quality of the LP and the CD player. There is a great difference in playing quality between LP setups, but there is also quite a difference between CD players as well. My CDs have sometimes sounded better than LPs in some equipment combinations, and LPs much better in most others. My LP system is superior now. But, IMO, one is not absolutely necessarily superior to the other.

That said, it's not easy or cheap for a CD player to outdo a really good LP setup. As many here are saying, LPs will generally win.

[rplace]

Just a thought. I have not seen Paul Parrot posting in a while. Ray is typically a well versed and intelligent person. Making blanket statements across the board that X is better then Y is typically never true no matter what you are talking about.

Is it possible that Paul has hacked into Ray's life and taken over his online Klipsch persona? Doubtful, more likely Ray is just looking to get all of your collective panties in a bundle. I would say he has succeeded.

I totally agree with Anarchist - Get the right tool for the job. Both have their pros and cons, and each serves a useful purpose. The important thing is to enjoy the music.

Me, I'll take vinyl for critical listening, my CDs around the house and in the car and my 4000+ and growing collection of all my legally purchased CD, ripped to MP3 and playing like a huge personal-life-time-collection-of-MY-music-Jukebox for parties and out door music. Now where did I put those 8-tracks[:^)][*-)][8-)]

BTW Duke, glad to hear you have found what works for you. Reclaiming some much needed space is always a worthwhile task.

[garymd]

There's no question that CD's smoke vinyl when it comes to sound quality. Dynamic range, background noise, damage (ticks and pops on vinyl vs drop outs [rare] on CD's), wow and flutter, rumble... CD's simply sound a lot better than any record is ever going to sound. There's no possible argument about that.

Ray, Ray, Ray.....

Background noise??? Are you kidding??? There isn't a CD/SACD in my collection that has a more quiet background then a good LP. No, a half decent LP. The lack of background noise using a quality TT is SO much quiter than CDs it's not funny.

Like Allan said, Nonsense.

We still love you even though you're completely WRONG![]

[Ray Garrison]

rplace,

Nope, it's me...

I've owned (in rough order) a Dual 1219, Phillips 212, Denon something

or other direct drive, Thorens TD126mkII, Thorens TD320, and currently

a Rega Planer 3 (previous generation) with a Grado Platinum

cartridge. I have maybe 2 or 3 hundred LP's. They sound

okay. There are some I don't have on CD, and I enjoy listening to

them.

I've also owned (again, in rough order) a Hitachi DA600, a Denon 1500,

a Denon 1520, a Sony something or other, a Pioneer Laserdisc player

(last great series prior to DVD induced retirement) used as a CD

transport with the digital out going to an Audio Alchemy DTi into an

Audio Alchemy DTi Pro (version prior to Pro 32) into an Adcom GDA700

into a Musical Fidelity X10-D buffer, a Toshiba 3190 (?), and currently

a JVC DVD recorder.

The Hitachi didn't sound as good as LP's. This was

1984-ish. The Denons sounded better, more analog-like, still not

as good. The chain with the laserdisc transport and the AA jitter

boxes and the Adcom D/A turned the corner, and sounded better than my

records. The JVC (which I bought so my wife could transfer VHS

tapes of our daughter from 15 years ago over to DVD before they become

unreadable) does a better job of playing CD's than anything I've owned

to date. Go figure.

I think CD's sound much better than LP's. We're not talking about

a suble difference in tonality or dynamics or harmonic accuracy or

anything like that - we're talking night and day difference. I'm

well aware that this is a somewhat contrary position in the halls of

high-end audio, but what am I doing to do, lie about it?

And yes, I've heard analog sound at folk's where they really went over

the top - I spent some time at Gizmo's before he shuffled off this

mortal coil, and heard his system through the whatever-he-called-them

tiode monsters into his Tannoy Westminsters, using both analog

(clearaudio? maybe, don't really remember) and CD (some little Radio

Shack portable into a D/A converter that Clark Johnsen set him up

with.) He was absolutely convinced that the LP source was much

more edible, though he admitted the digital sounded pretty good.

I disagreed. Whatever.

I'm not saying LP's can't sound very good. Sure they can. Just not as good as CD's.

[Jeff Matthews]

Ray, it's the Nostalgia effect. LP's sound better to LP collectors because LP's are dying and becoming even more rare. So, the thrill of living in the increasingly-remote good old days is a boost out of the starting gate.

Yep. CD's are fine. And when you talk about convenience.... whew! It's a no-brainer. The real deal will be how long to keep investing in CD's now that you can store gobs of music on little chips that don't have to spin round-and-round and skip with vibration.

BTW, anybody ever see something "chip-packed" for me? I've seen the built-in hard drives, but they still spin.

[Allan Songer]

Ray, it's the Nostalgia effect. LP's sound better to LP collectors because LP's are dying and becoming even more rare. So, the thrill of living in the increasingly-remote good old days is a boost out of the starting gate.

Nonsense.

[Jeff Matthews]

Ray, it's the Nostalgia effect. LP's sound better to LP collectors because LP's are dying and becoming even more rare. So, the thrill of living in the increasingly-remote good old days is a boost out of the starting gate.

Nonsense.

Not really.

I won't go into the camp of whether LP sounds better at all. It might a little, but so what?

[anarchist]

Which 3009 are you using?

Hi Allan,

It is a Series III with the damper. Beautiful piece. I had considered getting a II and picking up the bronze knife edge that is available. Frankly, I can't think of a reason currently to do so. This thing tracks beautifully and is in mint condition.

What I do need is to pick up a new Phono pre so I can move the Thorens into my dedicated music room and use it with my Consonance. Right now, my short list is the AES PH-1, Hagerman Cornet II, or one of the cheaper pre's, i.e. Nad or Creek.

Any opinions or other suggestions in this price range? Ideally, I would like a Blueberry but that isn't happening anytime soon.

[Allan Songer]

If you like the Shure, then stick with the III--it's a perfect match. Unfortunately you will never be able to run a MC cartridge with that arm, but so what--the III was never intended to be used with any MC cartridges.

I heard one of these a while back--sounded NICE:

It's a kit out of Hong Kong and I think it's the best bang for the buck out there right now.

If you get a MM only version it's less than $450.

http://www.diyhifisupply.com/diyhs_cole.htm

[scott0527]

Which 3009 are you using?

Hi Allan,

It is a Series III with the damper. Beautiful piece. I had considered getting a II and picking up the bronze knife edge that is available. Frankly, I can't think of a reason currently to do so. This thing tracks beautifully and is in mint condition.

What I do need is to pick up a new Phono pre so I can move the Thorens into my dedicated music room and use it with my Consonance. Right now, my short list is the AES PH-1, Hagerman Cornet II, or one of the cheaper pre's, i.e. Nad or Creek.

Any opinions or other suggestions in this price range? Ideally, I would like a Blueberry but that isn't happening anytime soon.

That bronze bearing seems like and expensive piece of voodoo to me. How do you like the damper? Is it the black plastic trough deal that you fill with the goo and attach the paddle to the arm? I picked one of those up with an 3009 II once although never installed it.

[sunburnwilly]

Good thread Duke , the forum has been a little boring lately .

[Allan Songer]

That bronze bearing seems like and expensive piece of voodoo to me. How do you like the damper? Is it the black plastic trough deal that you fill with the goo and attach the paddle to the arm? I picked one of those up with an 3009 II once although never installed it.

The bronze bearing is no bigger an "upgrade" than going with the SME OE steel bearing--but both are an improvement over the plastic bearings found in later models of the 3009/3012.

[JJkizak]

Gee, I seem to remember all of the following happening to me when I used to

listen to records:

1....Excessive turntable hum at loud volumes

2....Excessive hiss at loud volumes

3....Pops and crackles on new records

4....Record holes off center causing excessive wow

5....Warped records causing wow an distortion

6....Record holes not big enough and using a pencil to expand it

7....Interference from the local ham operator---I could hear him plainly

through the cartridge (Shure V15 111)

8....Bass rolled off about 12 db like "Sound of Music"

9....High frequency transient response rounded off--instead of a click you hear a dlick.

This was a side by side comparison of the same artists , same album on CD and record. You can't hear the difference unless you do a side by side.

10....CBS test records only good for 10 plays---I still have them

11....What have I forgot?

JJK