Why does vinyl still exist?

[Doak]

Why does vinyl still exist? Apparently because it's a more interesting subject than computer audio if it's necessary to resurrect a 7 year old thread that was somewhat off topic for this forum in the first place.

 

My advice for those who don't like vinyl is to try and avoid listening to records.

Well stated Norton. +1

While digital audio is finally approaching the musicality and enjoyability of analog, my records won't be going anywhere in the foreseeable future. They are both capable of making music, though I still find it more readily and frequently through "necrotic tech"

(unlovely term concocted by someone who obviously doesn't have a clue)

[bluesman]

My advice for those who don't like vinyl is to try and avoid listening to records

...and stay out of Frederick's of Hollywood.

[davidbeinct]

...and stay out of Frederick's of Hollywood.

 

Alright Chris, where's that like button?!

[gmgraves]

Find someone with a 'silly money' system - you know, spent £5000 on mains leads, £20,000 on replacement fuses. You know the sort of thing.

 

Put this on : RICHARD THOMPSON "SOME ENCHANTED EVENINGS" 45 RPM, Limited Edition, 5 song EP

 

Go away a changed man!

 

If I could afford the £25,000 needed to replicate the system I heard it on, I'd buy it just to listen to this one album. It is, without doubt, the finest recorded work I've ever heard. This work is not available in any digital format, presumably because the bandwidth needed to do it justice is either not currently available or is prohibitively expensive.

 

That's why vinyl not only still exists but is currently enjoying a strong resurgence in popularity. On a good system nothing digital comes even close.

 

I have convinced quite a few digital audiophiles to stop putting down vinyl and to the notion that Digital trumps vinyl every time. I have two copies of the Mercury Living Presence recording of Stravinsky's The Firebird ballet with Antal Dorati and the London Philharmonic. One is the CD mastered by Wilma Cozart Fine (the Producer of Mercury Classics in the '50's and '60's and the wife of C. Robert Fine, the engineer responsible for the Mercury Living Presence sound) and the other is the same recording transferred to vinyl by the same Wilma Cozart Fine (in fact it was the last thing she did before she died). Of course, this vinyl re-release is on Classic Records and is cut at 45 RPM, single-sided 200 gram virgin vinyl. Since both version are from the very same master tape and were mastered by the same person, one would think that they would sound very close to one another, and that the differences would be that that CD will be more quiet, and would have better dynamic range. The truth is that this particular recording of this particular work, a recording that was considered a de riguer "demonstration record" in virtually all hi-fi shops when it came out on vinyl in the early 1960's actually sounds so lackluster in CD that it's actually boring. However the "new" 45 RPM LP is, without a doubt, the finest sounding commercial recording I've ever heard. The slam of the bass, the huge dynamic contrasts, the velvet background, the clean soaring strings, everything is just so much more alive and REAL sounding than does the CD, that it's difficult to believe that it's exactly the same recording! More than a couple of fellow audiophiles have left my place shaking their head in disbelief. A couple have looked, exiting my abode, like Charlton Heston as Moses coming down the mountain after his encounter with the burning bush. His previously black hair and beard turned white by his epiphany!

[esldude]

I have convinced quite a few digital audiophiles to stop putting down vinyl and to the notion that Digital trumps vinyl every time. I have two copies of the Mercury Living Presence recording of Stravinsky's The Firebird ballet with Antal Dorati and the London Philharmonic. One is the CD mastered by Wilma Cozart Fine (the Producer of Mercury Classics in the '50's and '60's and the wife of C. Robert Fine, the engineer responsible for the Mercury Living Presence sound) and the other is the same recording transferred to vinyl by the same Wilma Cozart Fine (in fact it was the last thing she did before she died). Of course, this vinyl re-release is on Classic Records and is cut at 45 RPM, single-sided 200 gram virgin vinyl. Since both version are from the very same master tape and were mastered by the same person, one would think that they would sound very close to one another, and that the differences would be that that CD will be more quiet, and would have better dynamic range. The truth is that this particular recording of this particular work, a recording that was considered a de riguer "demonstration record" in virtually all hi-fi shops when it came out on vinyl in the early 1960's actually sounds so lackluster in CD that it's actually boring. However the "new" 45 RPM LP is, without a doubt, the finest sounding commercial recording I've ever heard. The slam of the bass, the huge dynamic contrasts, the velvet background, the clean soaring strings, everything is just so much more alive and REAL sounding than does the CD, that it's difficult to believe that it's exactly the same recording! More than a couple of fellow audiophiles have left my place shaking their head in disbelief. A couple have looked, exiting my abode, like Charlton Heston as Moses coming down the mountain after his encounter with the burning bush. His previously black hair and beard turned white by his epiphany!

 

Surprised you posted this George. Digital trumps vinyl for fidelity. It simply does.

 

Now does higher fidelity always sound in a way it is preferred? No it does not.

 

It might be interesting to digitally record your LP and see how it differs from the signal on the CD. Plus you could see if the digital recording of the LP still sounds better than the CD (which I think it will because it is different).

[Fitzcaraldo215]

So, George, is this your swan song as far as digital computer audio is concerned?

 

I have that recording on a Mercury SACD which I play in 3-channel, as it was recorded. It is very good, especially for its day, and better than the stereo LP, IMHO. And, I am a big Dorati fan. But, I will take the Litton/Bergen Philharmonic on the Mch BIS SACD for recorded quality, thanks. The old "they don't make 'em like they used to" does not work for me when it comes to recordings.

 

But, true, many CD remasterings are sub-par. On the other hand, if you have not heard the Solti Ring on BD-A, you likely have not heard it at its very best.

[gmgraves]

Surprised you posted this George. Digital trumps vinyl for fidelity. It simply does.

 

It usually does, but not in this case. My point is that just because a release is digital, doesn't mean that it's better than the vinyl release of the same material. Now, if we go back to the actual recording capture master. I definitely agree. A digital master will always be better than an analog one. In fact I find it difficult to fathom how some people could get caught-up in this new (and very expensive) high-end audio fad of spending upwards of $400 each for 15 IPS half track analog tape copies of god-only-knows how many generations removed from the original analog master! The CD (and especially the SACD or high-res downloads) should easily beat-out these expensive R-to-R tape copies.

 

Now does higher fidelity always sound in a way it is preferred? No it does not.

 

Agreed, but that's not what I'm talking about. In my case the Classic Records 45 RPM, single sided, LPs just make the CD sound pathetic. Even the original 1960 LP sounds FAR better than the CD. I don't know what happened, Wilma Fine was a great mastering producer, and since she produced both the CD and the Classic Records LP reissue, I don't know what happened or what to say...

 

It might be interesting to digitally record your LP and see how it differs from the signal on the CD. Plus you could see if the digital recording of the LP still sounds better than the CD (which I think it will because it is different).

 

That I will definitely try to do when I get my records delivered to me by my buddy in CA who is storing them for me.

[gmgraves]

So, George, is this your swan song as far as digital computer audio is concerned?

 

Wishful thinking on your part, perhaps?

 

Of course not! This was merely an example of how vinyl at it's best can be very good, and differences in mastering techniques is more important to the final sound than is the medium.

 

I have that recording on a Mercury SACD which I play in 3-channel, as it was recorded. It is very good, especially for its day, and better than the stereo LP, IMHO. And, I am a big Dorati fan. But, I will take the Litton/Bergen Philharmonic on the Mch BIS SACD for recorded quality, thanks. The old "they don't make 'em like they used to" does not work for me when it comes to recordings.

 

The three channel SACD is not the same remastering as the original Wilma Fine produced CDs that she transferred from the master tapes at Phillips in the late 1980's. I have always wanted to hear the SACD, but have never had the chance. Perhaps I'll try to order one from Amazon. Usually one takes the old "they don't make 'em like they used to" recording for the performances of the great (now deceased) conductors, not for the ultimate in audio quality.

 

But, true, many CD remasterings are sub-par. On the other hand, if you have not heard the Solti Ring on BD-A, you likely have not heard it at its very best.

 

I'll bet. I have the Ring on Decca (London) vinyl, but I just can't get into Wagnerian opera. Don't get me wrong, the music is glorious. It's the long-winded singing that I can't take much of. When it comes to opera, Give me Italian any day (especially Puccini).

[wgscott]

Opera really wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for all the singing.

[esldude]

Opera really wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for all the singing.

+1 million

[徐中銳]

Good music is good music, regardless of... ?

E.g., soundtrack to this recent stop motion short is « performed by Enrico Caruso, recorded in 1904 » :

www.vimeo.com/33329117

 

Say' date=' compare it to[/url'] :

[gmgraves]

Opera really wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for all the singing.

 

+1!

 

But there are exceptions. What would the world do without recordings of Pavoratti singing Nessun Dorma, or Kiri Ti Kanawa singing Mio Babino Cara​. Yes there are certain arias (even if not the entire opera) that would make the world poorer for their absence in the musical firmament.

[esldude]

snip

 

 

The three channel SACD is not the same remastering as the original Wilma Fine produced CDs that she transferred from the master tapes at Phillips in the late 1980's. I have always wanted to hear the SACD, but have never had the chance. Perhaps I'll try to order one from Amazon. Usually one takes the old "they don't make 'em like they used to" recording for the performances of the great (now deceased) conductors, not for the ultimate in audio quality.

 

snippage

 

 

yes, If I remember rightly Mrs. Fine had nothing to do with the mastering of the SACD's. Her previous tape masters were handed over to others in Europe without her involvement. And I wonder about the LP. Bruce Hobson I think was heavily involved and may have made most of the decisions on the LP though Mrs. Fine was involved at some level in the LPs.

[20hertz]

I design audio gear all day , every day. I work with a colleague that calibrates recording studios country wide.

We both use the same test tracks, including Masekelas Stimela, which has good dynamic range on CD.

 

But the digital playback is NEVER as great or dynamic as the bit of used vinyl I play at the factory every day!

 

PS, I only have digital at home and have spent good money on it, sometimes it sounds great also.

[Rexp]

I design audio gear all day , every day. I work with a colleague that calibrates recording studios country wide.

We both use the same test tracks, including Masekelas Stimela, which has good dynamic range on CD.

 

But the digital playback is NEVER as great or dynamic as the bit of used vinyl I play at the factory every day!

 

PS, I only have digital at home and have spent good money on it, sometimes it sounds great also.

Yes, vinyl is gaining ground on CD simply because in most systems it sounds better-even at high end audio events like Munich the rooms playing vinyl mostly sound better (more lifelike) than those using digital. Digital playback is finally catching up though, but the majority of CD's will still need remastering to sound good IMO.

[Norton]

Previous 2 posts concur with my experience of both formats in my own system.

 

To me vinyl is so obviously more lifelike, dynamic, detailed and plain musical that I can only conclude that those who think otherwise must have radically superior digital systems.

 

I've spent plenty on digital hardware and software in last couple of years, but still waiting to hear anything that betters my 1950s deck. Listening to William Boyce symphonies (Argo 1978) as I write this, just sublime.

[gmgraves]

yes, If I remember rightly Mrs. Fine had nothing to do with the mastering of the SACD's. Her previous tape masters were handed over to others in Europe without her involvement. And I wonder about the LP. Bruce Hobson I think was heavily involved and may have made most of the decisions on the LP though Mrs. Fine was involved at some level in the LPs.

 

 

That is correct about the SACDs. I have no information about the LP mastering, but if Hobson actually mastered the 45 RPM single sided LPs, that would go a long way to explaining why the LP of the Firebird sounds so different from the Fine mastered CD.

[wgscott]

The amazing thing is you can rip vinyl to a set of digital files and it preserves all of the musicality and life-like properties.

[astrotoy]

As long as people buy enough LP's so that the manufacturers make a reasonable profit. It really doesn't matter what people who don't buy LP's think. BTW, essentially all of the current 15ips 2 track manufacturers are copying directly from their master tapes or a running master, one generation down. Much closer to the original tape than just about any LP.

 

Larry

[esldude]

snip...... BTW, essentially all of the current 15ips 2 track manufacturers are copying directly from their master tapes or a running master, one generation down. Much closer to the original tape than just about any LP.

 

Larry

 

And one generation down the tape is still not as close to the master as a digital copy of it would be.

[AudioDoctor]

Because I insist it exist. Does there need to be another reason?

[astrotoy]

And one generation down the tape is still not as close to the master as a digital copy of it would be.

 

Unfortunately, there are not too many hirez digital copies of the original masters, particularly of the 15ips 2 track tapes that are being released these day. ll

 

Larry

[esldude]

Unfortunately, there are not too many hirez digital copies of the original masters, particularly of the 15ips 2 track tapes that are being released these day. ll

 

Larry

Yes because they can charge more for tape than digital. There is a ready market for good digital copies of those tapes. But their shortsightedness is thinking the money is in $400 per copy tapes.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

The amazing thing is you can rip vinyl to a set of digital files and it preserves all of the musicality and life-like properties.

 

Yes, and the ticks, pops, skips and Rice Krispies, too. Ok, with great care and attention, those can be minimized, I know. The problems with digital dubbing are (a.) it is in real time, hence much slower than digital rips, and (b.) it has to be attended to catch the end of the dub for shutdown, unless you want to do a lot of editing afterwards. What a pain.

 

But, has anyone seen a bias-controlled listening test anywhere where people could tell the difference between a hi rez digital copy and the LP? I have not, and I have seen a lot of anecdotes from others indicating they cannot hear a difference. But, then it is not a burning issue to me at all. My turntable was not even unpacked from my last move to a new house over 4 years ago. It is still packed away with > 10-year old dust on it. And, it is a very nice, older model Oracle Delphi.

 

I also note that Mickey Fremer himself makes 96k digital needle drop copies that he plays at his vinyl seminars to illustrate the sonic differences between turntables, arms, cartridges, etc. Duh. Go figure.

 

I am also reminded of an old anecdote. It might have been from Peter Aczel. At a hi fi show, people came into a room and there was a turntable playing an LP up front. They sat down and commented on the sheer awesome beauty of the glorious analog sound. "It beats the pants off of digital". But, then the demonstrator walked up, lifted the tone arm, and removed the record. Yet, the music kept playing uninterupted. Turns out, the music had been from a CD player off to the side all along.

[gmgraves]

Unfortunately, there are not too many hirez digital copies of the original masters, particularly of the 15ips 2 track tapes that are being released these day. ll

 

Larry

 

I have a number of master tapes (2-track, 15 IPS of a major municipal symphony orchestra) and I have made a number of copies of them for associates of the orchestra, including the conductor. Believe me, even a 16-bit, 48 KHz DAT copy of an analog master tape sounds better than a one-to-one analog copy of same even with Dolby-A - by a long shot!