LPs one more time

[garymd]

To me, there's a texture to the sound of vinyl that the digital format cannot reproduce. I do admit that my new Eastern Electric Mini Max Tube CD player comes as close as I've ever heard. Still not the same though. I really don't know any other way to explain it. I suppose the old saying holds true. "If I have to explain, you won't understand."

[MitsuMan]

But CDs have spoiled me with their lack of noise and their greater convience.

So this is personal preference. Yours, not mine. []

[fenderbender]

To me, there's a texture to the sound of vinyl that the digital format cannot reproduce.  I do admit that my new Eastern Electric Mini Max Tube CD player comes as close as I've ever heard.  Still not the same though.  I really don't know any other way to explain it.  I suppose the old saying holds true.  "If I have to explain, you won't understand."

I cant "30 out" yet

Definitely a personal choice.....I have @ last count over 5000 CD's (wife in the industry) and I was really getting sick of all my music.....look at the stacks and go "I have nothing I want to listen to"

I have activly been replacing and adding to my LP collection and TO ME, it's a whole other world........the same cd I was sick of, I can't get enough of it on vinyl.....

as garymd said, there is a certain something, richness, texture...that makes the vinyl come alive....I don't know what it is either, but I can tell you I'm listening all day long now........

[joshnich]

It's really quite funny that some people get indignant because there are people who prefer vinyl over CD. Haven't seen the same level of vitriol the other way around. I like the sound of vinyl significantly more than CDs. I would have saved a lot of dough if I didnt - believe me! But for me the cost is worth it because I do prefer the sound of vinyl. There are few things as satisfying as a great performance well recorded and playing on vinyl. Bass slam be damned!

Josh

[maxg]

"A well done remastered CD will simply blow away a vinyl pressing. Every time"

Somehow I seem to have missed ever getting my hands on these well done remastered CDs.

Stranger yet - never got hold of an SACD that outplayed a vinyl record either - nor a DVDa.

Actually that is not quite true- there are plenty of very average vinyl records out there - its just that the best of the best is ALWAYS on vinyl in my experience.

[garymd]

Glad you could join us Max. You and Josh are both dead on. Many of us would save a ton of cash if CDs did it for us (reminds me of that Jack Nicholson line in "As Good As It Gets"). When I say a ton, I mean a TON.

I have many CDs that sound really good and many LPs that sound really bad, but the cream of the crop and the "show off the system" music is ALWAYS on LP. That's just a fact.

[Mallette]

Ok, I don't think I have ever withdrew a "-30-" and I won't make a habit of it, but I felt I might have slightly overreacted to Don Richards and then a couple of other comments re-focused me.

Don, your response to my Parthian shot was measured and mellow. However, that list of vinyl "ills" you posted just kind of blew my mind. I would still maintain that 2/3 of them are red herrings, but I respect your opinion.

Max, I never heard how your digital experiments turned out. I really would like to hear that one you did that appeared to have issues and I'd really like for you to hear high res digital properly done. Odds are you haven't heard a properly done SACD or DVD-A (or CD for that matter) as they are precious few. Thanks to Mark for the reminding all of the "A/B" myth. It is so obvious to me that I guess I don't even really think about it but is so true. If you start a diet deficent in nutrients you don't feel it at an A/B test...but you will starve to death nonetheless. Took me 10 years to realized I was muscially starving to death on a diet of CD's.

Finally, I have seen a couple of posts about "saving a ton of money" buying CD's instead of records. That also is totally the opposite of my experience. While I splurge from time to time 25-50.00 or so for a prime used or new record it is paid for nicely by the 50 cents to 5.00 paid for the vast majority of my collecting over the past 15 years or so. 90 percent or more of these are excellent, and a few are priceless. I'd only have collect perhaps a fifth or so as much music if I'd been buying only new digital.

There. That wasn't so bad.

Dave

[maxg]

Actually Dave I have been kinda exploding on the digital recording front - for both video and audio. Been playing with 720p video on the computer -sure is impressive - even on a 15 inch computer display.

In the meantime I have just about sorted the recording issue save for a few minor quirks I am in the process of ironing out. The main problem I have yet to overcome is to find a more sensitive input volume control so I can ride it even lower to zero than I do now. Secondary issue is the brightness of the recording in comparison to the original For some reason there is a slight boost in the treble - which all the non-audiophiles of the house spotted immediately.

Current version of the recording is as good as I have gotten and very close to the vinyl - baring the treble issue. I think I will oversome this at the source by running my cart lower - laid back and therefore not as bright. Fortunately I have an arm that allows me to do this sort of change intantly - even on the fly.

In the meantime after some conversations with a few nice chaps at Microsoft I figured out why their toolkit wont read my wav file to produce a loseless WMA 96/24 file. Apparently my wav is not 24 bit but 32 bit floating - whatever that means???? The software will allow 24 bit straight so the very next recording will be in that format.

That's all for now - I can confirm that what I have produced is, by and large, better than anything else digital I have ever heard - including SACD on the Accuphase $15k player.....

[Mallette]

That's the ticket, Max. If all I had to go on was the commecially available stuff I'd have to say digital sux. It doesn't. Given the issues you still have and the fact that you are beginning to hear possibilities I think you will be a happy camper when you iron them all out. If you get tired of fighting them and have 600 shekels to spare, get yourself a Korg MR-1. Easy street.

Dave

[kfoss99]

I like both CDs and LPs and have, roughly, an equal amount of each. But I like LPs more. Some of my CDs sound better than my LPs and vice versa. In a perfect world, on a perfect system, with a perfect disk I have no doubt that the CD is scientifically better.

But, I like the minor pops and clicks, I like having to turn the LP over, taking care to put it in its sleeve, the smell of the vinyl, the smell of the cardboard, spending two hours in my local used record shop and sorting through thousands of records to find five I never intended to buy. I like the memories of doing all of this since the time I was six, or so. In antiques they call this "Patina," right? LPs are not perfect and because of it I like them, most of the time.

I have no connection like that to the CD medium. I'm sure many people have similar feelings for both medium. Maybe a new thread would be fun about why we like which medium. Hopefully, keep it light. Some of these discussions get heavy, man!

Thanks,

Karl

[Don Richard]

The switch to digital controls is cost driven. I can assure you that executives at Harmon, Sony, Panasonic and Phillips have no concern whatsoever for audiophile "sound quality." The industry is driven by a steady race to the bottom of the cost curve and nothing else.

The problem with that is that studios had to spend major money to go digital. As in, replace everything in the recording chain. And at first, results were disappointing. This was with the exact same engineers that made all of those wonderful sounding records on analog equipment.

The problem was, and still is, that analog is a more forgiving medium than digital. An engineer can go over 0 dB on an analog recorder and get acceptable results. In fact, that was often used to create a certain sound by some of those engineers. With digital, if one goes over 0 the results are catastrophic. There were other technological obstacles such as the need to synchronize the word clocks on the various pieces of digital gear in the studios.

Digital is also a more revealing medium than analog, much like horn loaded loudspeaker systems are. If the mixdown or the mastering engineer does a sloppy job on a digital project, you will hear it and it will sound bad. In spite of the difficulty of working with digital, excellent results have been achieved using that medium.

Digital, like it or not, is here to stay. Vinyl will exist only as an audiophile and dance club DJ medium, with the audiophiles ooohing and aaahing whilst listening through the surface noise to pre-digital performances and the clubgoers listening to the DJ scratching and Boom Booming as they writhe in ecstasy. Or is that on ecstasy?

[maxg]

"Digital is also a more revealing medium than analog, much like horn loaded loudspeaker systems are."

Not sure I agree with either of the above, however I would like to know what more revealing means in this sense???

"If the mixdown or the mastering engineer does a sloppy job on a digital project, you will hear it and it will sound bad. In spite of the difficulty of working with digital, excellent results have been achieved using that medium."

Now this is more credible. I am fortunate in that the music I love most - Opera and Classical happen to be far more massively available on vinyl than on CD. Further, the performances that I choose to listen to are, in the main, from the 1960's with a few early birds from the 50's and a few Johny come lately's from the 70's. This happened to coincide with the most dramatic competition for sales between the major players (DG, Decca/London, EMI, Philips etc etc.) on vinyl and an explosion in performances and recordings.

At that time there were 2 means of differentiating yourself (as a record company) from the competition - who you had signed up (Orchestra/Conductor) and how good a sound you produced. This provided very much a win win for buyers with pricing being quite an even playing field.

I have no doubt that the music I listen to - a tiny proportion of the total vinyl records produced is probably the creme de la creme both as original recordings and as new audiophile productions from the old master tapes.

It is therefore probably unfair to compare these to mainstream CD. There is a point however that the best of my collection goes to where digital has simply never trod and this is why I chose to invest my hard earned money into a high end TT.

Now I agree with you wholeheartedly that digital is here to stay but I do not use digitial as synonymous with CD in this case. MP3 and its equivalents are now King - CD is as outdated as is vinyl. I think you would find it hard to argue that MP3 is better than vinyl too - even if one were to spuriously accept that CD is.

Quality as a determining factor in purchasing is long gone. I do not believe it was ever the primary issue for CD beyond that initial marketing of perfect sound forever.

In simple terms then - were one to state that vinyl's superiority is merely a product of the greater care and attention payed to producing the best possible sound from the medium I would probably have no issue with the statement. I am, however, yet to find even a single digitial recording that is truely up there - and it would take just one to convince me.....

[Don Richard]

"Digital is also a more revealing medium than analog, much like horn loaded loudspeaker systems are."

Not sure I agree with either of the above, however I would like to know what more revealing means in this sense???

"If the mixdown or the mastering engineer does a sloppy job on a digital project, you will hear it and it will sound bad. In spite of the difficulty of working with digital, excellent results have been achieved using that medium."

Now this is more credible.

You have answered your own question by reading the complete statement that I made.

[Mallette]

>The problem was, and still is, that analog is a more forgiving medium than digital. An engineer can go over 0 dB on an analog recorder and get acceptable results. In fact, that was often used to create a certain sound by some of those engineers. With digital, if one goes over 0 the results are catastrophic. There were other technological obstacles such as the need to synchronize the word clocks on the various pieces of digital gear in the studios.

Dangit, shoulda stuck with my -30-!!!!!!!!!!!

Don, this is totally absurd. I do not know what your profession is, but I started life as an audio engineer with vacuum tubes, MagnaCorders, and Yard Boards. I'll only deal with one aspect of your statement. The extreme dynamic range of digital means I do not even monitor for practical purposes. Because there is so much more than needed, I leave at least -6db to spare. With a noise floor around 90db below that, I get results many of your friends and neighbors here find rather nice. In the analog days, I remained glued to the VU meters with a hand on the gain, as you had to go as hot as the medium would allow to stay well above the noise floor and even then if the performance had a very wide range you'd still have to ride to compress the dynamics to stay above the noise...which with acetate was around -55db at best.

Dave

[Don Richard]

Don, this is totally absurd. I do not know what your profession is, but I started life as an audio engineer with vacuum tubes, MagnaCorders, and Yard Boards. I'll only deal with one aspect of your statement. The extreme dynamic range of digital means I do not even monitor for practical purposes. Because there is so much more than needed, I leave at least -6db to spare. With a noise floor around 90db below that, I get results many of your friends and neighbors here find rather nice.

I'm an EE. You are comparing apples to oranges. I was talking about multitrack studios, and in fact that is what was happening in those studios around the time of digital's introduction. You seem to be talking about the recording of orchestras with 2 mics, out of the studio on location.

In the analog days, I remained glued to the VU meters with a hand on the gain, as you had to go as hot as the medium would allow to stay well above the noise floor and even then if the performance had a very wide range you'd still have to ride to compress the dynamics to stay above the noise...which with acetate was around -55db at best.

You have explained quite well why those old recordings have the limitations that they do. The tapes from which many vinyl records were made are compressed and gain-ridden just to get it all on tape. A similar process was done at mastering in the pressing facility, to get the recording onto the medium while ensuring adequate playback time. Such compression may be preferred by some. In voice communications work, compression was used to increase intelligibility. That's what had to be done to make it happen with the limited technology that was then available, to bring what you wanted "out of the mud".

All of the older recordings suffered from these, and other, limitations. Pressing to vinyl introduced more sonic limitations. Investing lots of $$ in sound equipment to hear noisy, compressed recordings isn't my cup of tea.

BTW, I used to have a MagnaCorder (mono, of course) from one of my brother-in-law's radio stations when I was in school. Playing around with it was what lured me away from amateur radio and into sound. Built like a tank, and nearly as heavy.

[Mallette]

Don:
Entirely correct about my background and experience. I complete eschew multitrack for the ills you describe. I find it suitable for making movies, video and such...but not audiophile music. I do not use a mixer of any kind.

As to the Maggie, I still have scars from trying to stop the reels one time when the tape broke. Big mistake. Not sure of the vintage of the one you used, but this one had no brakes. Full motor to the reels on rewind and you used the Forward/Reverse lever to carefully apply dynamic braking. Worked great until the tape broke (not uncommon with acetate) and you had 1200 feet of tape all over the place in about 5 seconds.

Dave

[artto]

To me, there's a texture to the sound of vinyl that the digital format cannot reproduce. I do admit that my new Eastern Electric Mini Max Tube CD player comes as close as I've ever heard. Still not the same though. I really don't know any other way to explain it. I suppose the old saying holds true. "If I have to explain, you won't understand."

as garymd said, there is a certain something, richness, texture...that makes the vinyl come alive....I don't know what it is either, but I can tell you I'm listening all day long now........

I can tell you what that “certain something” is.

In them thar grooves, there is, in fact, a “REAL”, physical, three-dimensional waveform.

[pauln]

I'll say it again, not everyone is listening for the same things in their systems.

I suspect that there are those that hear music as sound, and those that hear sound as music.

I can see why those that hear music as sound would prefer the digital formats.

I can certainly see why those of us that hear sound as music prefer the vinyl records.

I don't have a credible explanation except that all the technical defects seem to be classed into the "sound" aspect, not the "musical" aspect. Therefore, when listening to music as "sound", the perceived minor defects are either there (records) or not (CDs). When listening to sound as "music", any defects have to be much greater to impose into the listener's enjoyment because the focus is on the musical aspect, not the sound aspect.

There may be a better way to express this, but it is clear to me that we listen to different things when we hear the same recording, depending on our perspective from which we approach the thing mentally.

Another way of saying it is: since I am a musician my records sound cleaner to me than they should - I naturally hear into the music and hear through the defects. This is not a claim for having Golden Ears, maybe just the opposite - Music Ears!

Hope this clears everything up for everyone.

[Mallette]

Paul, I know you give these things philosophical thought and I am with you on this one. Long before there was digital I would look at the grooves in a record and consider that the record of the the energy therein was the REAL THING. Closest thing to a ghost I've ever experienced. When you consider a purely acoustic recording, those grooves represent as direct to disc as there could ever be. Each one represent the pure imprint of energy and a precise map of where that player was relative to the horn. I recall reading some years ago that it would be possible to use a computer to precisely map the positions of musicians from an acoustic recording...but not from an electrically made mono recording as there is an interruption there in the direct deposit of the waveforms.

Anyway, as I've said before in this thread and others, I love my music in all forms. Ancient acoustics, 30's 40's, and 50's 78's and LP's, Stereo LPs from the 60's to today, analog tapes in all formats from all periods, and digital in all its formats.

All music, all as good as the composer, performer, engineer, delivery medium and playback chain.

Dave

[kjohnsonhp]

I have been reading the owner's comments about some of the expensive Audiophile LPs that are coming out and there have been some with quality issues...I think RTI had some issues...scratches, bad labels, etc. The recent Doors Box set comes to mind and some of the $50 AP blue note jazz lps. The sellers have been very good about replacing the damanged lps. The problem might be for those who are "investing" and keeping them sealed. A few years later when they are resold who knows what lies under the shrink. I have read posts recommending buyers open them so they can get the issues resolved...if needed.

I think they understand that buyers of $50 records don't want waprs, mis-placed labels, scratches, etc.

On another note...it's interesting to compare not only digital vs analog but different analog pressings. I compared my re-issue Elvis 50th Ann. vinyl to my original and while the original had some surface noise and a little groove distortion the sound was more enjoyable...more dynamic, clearer, it really rocked where the re-issue sounded lifeless.

The AP and MM $50 Blue Note re-issues are interesting. You can buy a poorly reviewed $10 new vinyl re-issue, a $30 Classic reissue, and a $12 new cd of the same title yet the enthusiasts love the sound of these re-issues at $50. The Music Matters have especially nice gatefold covers and photos. They do sound great and I wonder if they will go up in value like the other AP issues.