Why does vinyl still exist?

[r_w]

Audio over IP is looking interesting, some good experimenting going on, on head-fi..

 

Or have the engineering background, time, money, patience and inclination to optimize them.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Vinyl is the last true analog that is available. If you hear a truly good vinyl system, there is no comparison. You need at least 24/192 tracks with extremely low jitter in both the recording and the playback to match good vinyl IMO. I have send outstanding DAC's and digital gear to several reviewers with good vinyl systems. They dont even begin to compare any digital to vinyl yet. It's no contest. Maybe in the future...

 

Steve N.

Empirical Audio

 

Been there, done that quite a bit, myself. The last time was at a vinyl freak reviewers' home with about a $200k vinyl front end set up by the TT manufacturer himself, who was there, as well.

 

After listening for a couple of hours, a friend and I compared notes on our way out. No contest is right! Our much less expensive, though still costly, digital rigs sound much, much better. We were shaking our heads and laughing, especially given the exultant praise during the listening session for the sonic magic of vinyl. You gotta be kidding us.

 

But, it all depends. My friend and I are heavily into hi rez, mainly from SACD and mainly in 5.1: at its best, overwhelming better than vinyl at its best, and much, much more consistently, like night and day. Many, many vinyl albums sound like crap, even pristine without any Rice Krispies. And, just stereo from modern, native hi rez digital recordings, usually puts vinyl to shame.

 

If the comparison is just to CD digital, the choice gets tougher in some cases, I agree. And, it is very recording and listener preference dependent. I believe, again, based on thousands of both vinyl and CD albums in my collection, that CD was and is more consistently "good" sounding (I do not do compressed rock), at least the qualitative equal of only the very best vinyl, if different in sonic signature.

 

If if the choice is about availability of older music albums, again, vinyl has its advantages in some areas, especially given the unevenness of quality of many CD and, to a lesser extent, even some SACD or BD remasterings. Also, yes, there are many great albums never remastered in digital, even if their sound in absolute terms is not always top quality. If they were top sonic quality, likely they would have been digitally remastered long before now.

 

Listener preference, considering the ins and outs of the above and even more factors, rules at the end of the day.

 

My my own Oracle Delphi with an Eminent Technologies linear, air-bearing arm has not played an LP for well over a decade, and it probably played less than 100 LPs total in the last 20 years.

[Norton]

 

 

My my own Oracle Delphi with an Eminent Technologies linear, air-bearing arm has not played an LP for well over a decade

 

So you are comparing digital replay as at today with your memory of vinyl from a decade ago? I wouldn't want to compare replay more than minutes apart.

[Jud]

So you are comparing digital replay as at today with your memory of vinyl from a decade ago? I wouldn't want to compare replay more than minutes apart.

 

Comparing replay is pretty much hopeless unless it's volume equalized and a couple of seconds apart. What we are all comparing in actuality are imperfect recollections of emotional impressions. These do have validity of course since we're talking about art, but we should keep the inexactness of the whole enterprise in mind.

[Norton]

Comparing replay is pretty much hopeless unless it's volume equalized and a couple of seconds apart. What we are all comparing in actuality are imperfect recollections of emotional impressions. These do have validity of course since we're talking about art, but we should keep the inexactness of the whole enterprise in mind.

 

All well and good, but I'd imagine I'd (rightly) get short shrift on this site if I dismissed digital on the basis of my memory of what my Rega CD player sounded like in 2006..

I think the previous poster should listen again to the Oracle and report back...(or just give it to me...)

[realhifi]

 

 

My my own Oracle Delphi with an Eminent Technologies linear, air-bearing arm has not played an LP for well over a decade, and it probably played less than 100 LPs total in the last 20 years.

 

I'll take that off your hands.

 

One thing I've tried to replicate over the years was a demo of Laurie Andersons album, "Mister Heartbreak" which was a plain Jane vinyl copy of that recording played back on a decent (I think it was an air bearing Mapleknoll turntable) with their air bearring arm into some good but not great tube electronics then into some Stax F81 electrostatics.

Playing back all the digital copies, CDs, downloads, etc has not even come close to the visceral excitement, imaging (out of this world) and dynamics that the lp played back.

It has to be recording specific in order to have such wildly varying responses to either lp or digital playback is all I can gather. I think each of us has had such varying experiences with both (or all) formats as to skew what we think we know or understand about each. I love em all and have had fantastic experiences with most, but if pushed, my experiences with vinyl (today and yesterday) still win out as being the most memorable.

[gmgraves]

Originally Posted by GeneZ

The biggest problem I found with typical digital? Too many opamps are often times employed when it should be discrete in the audio chain. Electronic noise can be the result of too man opamps. Noise is added to the music. Upsampling is another thing I found I needed to get away from if I wanted realistic sound. I found that native mode can sound very analog in its smoothness when playing via optical (no electronic noise that is inherent to USB cabling and operation). I learned to set my sound card for 16 bit - 44100 hz. I have my DAC set strictly for native mode. On most music it gives what I sense is an accurate rendition of its source.

 

Audio, like any other discipline is subject to perception by those who are interested in that subject. Many perceptions are false, and others are obsolete. In audio, one of the most persistent misconceptions is that discrete transistors in the analog audio chain are somehow better than operational amplifier ICs. This notion comes from the fact that at one time, it was very true. Early op-amps from the 709. LM301, and 741 era (late 1960s through the early 1980's) and their direct descendants were quite poor when used in quality audio applications. Add to the poor op-amps, the practice of using electrolytic capacitors in the audio chain, and you have a recipe for sonic disaster. One case in point are the early Sony digital processors (PCM1610, PCM1620, PCM1630) used to master CDs. It's rarely spoken of, but these Sony processors were ubiquitous in the industry and a prime reason why many people found early CDs so unlistenable.

 

But today's audio op-amps are quite different. Op-amps such as the National (now TI) LME49710 are head and shoulders above any comparable amp circuit made with discreet transistors, resistors, and capacitors. Some reasons are that they exhibit almost zero THD+N figures and have extremely wide gain-bandwidth, with essentially zero offset and essentially infinite common-mode rejection. Finally, today's audio op-amps have symmetrical slew rates. This means that the path that a positive-going portion of a signal and the negative going portion of the signal follow through the device are exactly complementary. This did not used to be true. This made the waveform rise faster than it fell which added distortion. Where slew-induced distortion was common in early designs, it has been completely eliminated in modern designs.

 

One reason why today's designs are so good is because the processes involved in designing and producing such circuits have improved to the point that almost any design parameters required can be realized. Add to that the fact that all the transistors in the op-amp are essentially the same piece of silicon, and they all end-up with exactly the same characteristics. You can't get that with individual transistors, even if all the transistors in your circuit were to be from the exact same wafer start (and that is almost impossible to guarantee). Also, the resistor self-noise that individual resistor contribute to the circuit is practically eliminated with an op-amp. Lastly, because it's all one substrate, today's audio op-amps are thermally monolithic. That is to say, as temperatures fluctuate, the thermal characteristics of an IC op-amp will all change at the same rate and at the same time by the same amount. From an engineering standpoint, there is really no reason to use discreet amp stages in DACs, pre-amps and the like, and the only reason that they ARE still used is because of the prejudiced misconception (like that of GeneZ) and the further marketing misrepresentation that using inexpensive op-oamps is "cheap" and therefore would make it difficult for some of these companies to justify their astronomical prices.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

So you are comparing digital replay as at today with your memory of vinyl from a decade ago? I wouldn't want to compare replay more than minutes apart.

 

Nope. I agree that comparisons to decades ago would be invalid. I have revisited vinyl playback with reasonable frequency in tippy-top systems at dealers and at friends homes. Those sessions do not change my opinion at all. Most of my closest audio friends agree with me, by the way, and they have retired their turntables or they gather dust. We all have or had thousands of LPs in our collections, though some of us have liquidated our collections.

 

The thing about vinyl, beyond the retro playback technology, is that you are mostly locking yourself into older recording technology, as well. If you hate the current compression of many modern rock/pop digital recordings, maybe vinyl offers some relief. But, as a classical music listener, I can tell you that modern recordings have it all over oldies, though some of them are pretty good. Nothing gets close to natively recorded hi rez multichannel, in my opinion.

[gmgraves]

Nope. I agree that comparisons to decades ago would be invalid. I have revisited vinyl playback with reasonable frequency in tippy-top systems at dealers and at friends homes. Those sessions do not change my opinion at all. Most of my closest audio friends agree with me, by the way, and they have retired their turntables or they gather dust. We all have or had thousands of LPs in our collections, though some of us have liquidated our collections.

 

The thing about vinyl, beyond the retro playback technology, is that you are mostly locking yourself into older recording technology, as well. If you hate the current compression of many modern rock/pop digital recordings, maybe vinyl offers some relief. But, as a classical music listener, I can tell you that modern recordings have it all over oldies, though some of them are pretty good. Nothing gets close to natively recorded hi rez multichannel, in my opinion.

 

If I didn't know that your primary interest was surround sound, I would disagree with you. But with that in mind, you are probably right. Vinyl never did surround very well. However, all you have to do is listen to a well recorded Mercury or RCA Red Seal to realize why these recordings are so highly prized, some 60 years after they were recorded. But I will say this, modern two-channel recodings don't hold a candle to the simple, real stereo recordings of yesteryear.

[Rexp]

Nope. I agree that comparisons to decades ago would be invalid. I have revisited vinyl playback with reasonable frequency in tippy-top systems at dealers and at friends homes. Those sessions do not change my opinion at all. Most of my closest audio friends agree with me, by the way, and they have retired their turntables or they gather dust. We all have or had thousands of LPs in our collections, though some of us have liquidated our collections.

 

The thing about vinyl, beyond the retro playback technology, is that you are mostly locking yourself into older recording technology, as well. If you hate the current compression of many modern rock/pop digital recordings, maybe vinyl offers some relief. But, as a classical music listener, I can tell you that modern recordings have it all over oldies, though some of them are pretty good. Nothing gets close to natively recorded hi rez multichannel, in my opinion.

The thing is you only listen to classical and have enough good recordings to satisfy you but if you were a fan of classic jazz or any other stuff recorded before digital you would have kept your turntable because MOST DIGITAL REMASTERINGS SOUND LIKE CRAP.

[airheadair]

I am going begin this post with a disclaimer: my digital source so far is quite mediocre (just an off-the-shelf Onkyo CD player),

whereas my analog source is reasonably, not outrageously, good (Well-Tempered turntable with a van den Hul Frog).

I also have Stax F83 speakers, which Imention because someone referred to Stax F81's in a post above.

 

The nice thing about the CD player is that it doesn't sound bad, and costs a fraction of the cost of the analog setup, and is of course less trouble to deal with. I have several recordings both on vinyl and on CD. Usually, but not always, the vinyl sounds better to me; it depends partly on the mastering. I am hoping that a better CD player (especially one that will hand SACD's) will improve the digital sound, and I am waiting to try a Marantz SA-14S1.

 

To be a bit more specific, in my system:

 

The wonderful recording of L'Enfant et les Sortileges (Maazel, on DG) sounds more exciting, with a better sense of space, on vinyl than on CD.

The same applies to the recording of G. Crumb's "Idyll for the Misbegotten" (New World Recording) (vinyl wins).

Patricia Barber's "Modern Cool" sounds very good both on CD and on vinyl (I have the original Premonition release), but the vinyl is better. On the other hand, her wonderful "Verse" and "Mythologies" are better on CD than on the MF re-release.

 

The best sounding recording I have, by far, is a direct-to-disc recording, on RCA; RDC-1, especially side 2, for flute and percussion. Dynamics, focus, crystal clear highs and astonishing bass, dimensionality; it is all there.

 

All the above comments apply, of course, only to my impressions based on my current system. I do hope that a better digital front-end will improve the digital sound, and I think it can be done for far less money than it would cost to get a significantly better vinyl system.

[Norton]

Nope. I agree that comparisons to decades ago would be invalid. I have revisited vinyl playback with reasonable frequency in tippy-top systems at dealers and at friends homes. Those sessions do not change my opinion at all. Most of my closest audio friends agree with me, by the way, and they have retired their turntables or they gather dust. We all have or had thousands of LPs in our collections, though some of us have liquidated our collections.

 

The thing about vinyl, beyond the retro playback technology, is that you are mostly locking yourself into older recording technology, as well. If you hate the current compression of many modern rock/pop digital recordings, maybe vinyl offers some relief. But, as a classical music listener, I can tell you that modern recordings have it all over oldies, though some of them are pretty good. Nothing gets close to natively recorded hi rez multichannel, in my opinion.

 

It's interesting, I too listen to Classical 95%+ of the time, I too favour SACD as a digital medium (albeit not MCh) but I couldn't disagree with you more. From the evidence of your TT, I expect my system is more modest than yours, but I listen to vinyl ( mostly 50s to 70s recordings), SACD and other digital interchangeably on a daily basis and for me the sheer realism of vinyl is what makes it preferable 90% of the time, which I put down in large part precisely to the superiority of the "oldie" analogue recordings and of course of orchestras led by conductors who were household names in their time.

[r_w]

Lack of recording and mixing channels yesteryear dictated low mic count and the result was sometimes fabulous because the performance in the real acoustic space was better preserved.

 

The same could be done digitally today however, it's just that, in the main, it isn't.

 

Hence the mantra, "I've got an unlimited number of recording tracks and I'm not afraid to use them".

 

 

 

modern two-channel recodings don't hold a candle to the simple, real stereo recordings of yesteryear.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

It is my own doing, I know. But, we are now discussing two different things: vinyl for playback and recording mike technique.

 

You know my own views on vinyl playback on sonic terms. I grew up with it and it served me adequately for decades because there was no other realistic choice, though I tried reel to reel tape for awhile, as well. I bought a ton of albums including direct to disc and other audiophile rave discs. But, I was as critical of the flaws and general sound quality issues then, as so many posters seem to be in this forum about computer audio today. I, myself, have never been remotely happier with my sound than I am now with hi rez Mch, digital room correction plus bass management and the extraordinary quality of newer discrete Mch classical recordings played via my PC and DAC. For me, it is better than I dreamed possible even a decade ago. I am fortunate to be living in a Golden Age of audio, without vinyl, thanks.

 

Some senior audiophiles who went through a similar process starting from vinyl still love it for playback, but my sense is they are in the minority. Most, I think, have moved on, like me and most of my closest senior audiophile friends. We don't miss it at all. Some audiophiles might have come back to it. But, I think the current resurgence is driven more by younger folks discovering vinyl for the first time and its different, some say more euphonic, sonic signature as well as its more exclusive, retro appeal. And, let's put it into perspective. Vinyl is still a drop in the bucket niche, as market statistics show. It is over-prominently covered by high end magazines, I find, and therefore given its own overblown, in my opinion, mythology in the process by certain writers, as in digital = bad, vinyl = good.

 

Digital is sonically far from perfect, especially in its CD incarnation. Hi rez digital fixes many, though still not all, of those flaws, I find. But, vinyl is imperfect, too. I also think that inevitably, like most technologies, the rate of improvement of vinyl playback is very slow due to its age and market niche status, unlike the much faster rate of improvement for digital, which is still young by comparison and still has much untapped potential.

 

And, yes, a lot of digital remasters are not all that good, especially older ones. Some are also outstanding. But, it will not be too much longer before nothing can be remastered from aging, deteriorating analog tape, which has long, but finite shelf life. That has already happened with many great recordings from the past. They can only be remastered from earlier digital remasters, as the original analog tape has become unplayable over time.

 

A lot of anyone's comparison of the two formats is very recording and system specific and therefore anecdotal, as well. And, the variability of arbitrary personal preference based on whatever factors, including much more than just the sound, is really what dominates.

 

Some folks, even discerning ones, may just not have found a way to get good digital or vinyl playback in their own systems for whatever reason. So, their comparisons are not really of equal levels of quality. I try to avoid that, but I, my systems and others I have listened to may be imperfect, too.

 

As to minimalist miking, that was true for awhile in classical the early days of the stereo LP. But, most all producers moved on from that by the 60's for whatever reasons. There is a very tiny niche of recording producers still doing it today, but it ain't coming back in any meaningful way anytime soon. Pop recording and most all other genres have, of course, always been almost totally dominated by non-minimalist, stereo mixdown from multitrack recording starting from vinyl days.

 

We can argue the merits of minimalist technique, but that is not all that has changed in the technology of the entire recording, production, manufacturing and distribution chain. Mikes, recording, mixing and other processing devices have all vastly improved since the good old days. Optical disc manufacturing is very high tech, as opposed to low tech LP production. But, optical discs are hugely more efficient to make in volume, with statistically much higher freedom from manufacturing flaws and defects. The result is lower comparative costs and greater selection for consumers. And, we have not even considered the inevitable trend to digital streaming and downloading that will replace the optical disc eventually.

 

I know, I know, they don't make 'em like they used to. I am sure many stalwarts will still be spinning vinyl for a long time to come. But, enjoy that while you still can, because it will be a dinosaur inevitably over the long term. Yes, ever more used LP collections will be available as more and more audiophiles dump them. But, there is an eventual limit to that someday, though probably not in my remaining lifetime.

[davide256]

It is my own doing, I know. But, we are now discussing two different things: vinyl for playback and recording mike technique.

 

You know my own views on vinyl playback on sonic terms. I grew up with it and it served me adequately for decades because there was no other realistic choice, though I tried reel to reel tape for awhile, as well. I bought a ton of albums including direct to disc and other audiophile rave discs. But, I was as critical of the flaws and general sound quality issues then, as so many posters seem to be in this forum about computer audio today. I, myself, have never been remotely happier with my sound than I am now with hi rez Mch, digital room correction plus bass management and the extraordinary quality of newer discrete Mch classical recordings played via my PC and DAC. For me, it is better than I dreamed possible even a decade ago. I am fortunate to be living in a Golden Age of audio, without vinyl, thanks.

 

Some senior audiophiles who went through a similar process starting from vinyl still love it for playback, but my sense is they are in the minority. Most, I think, have moved on, like me and most of my closest senior audiophile friends. We don't miss it at all. Some audiophiles might have come back to it. But, I think the current resurgence is driven more by younger folks discovering vinyl for the first time and its different, some say more euphonic, sonic signature as well as its more exclusive, retro appeal. And, let's put it into perspective. Vinyl is still a drop in the bucket niche, as market statistics show. It is over-prominently covered by high end magazines, I find, and therefore given its own overblown, in my opinion, mythology in the process by certain writers, as in digital = bad, vinyl = good.

 

Digital is sonically far from perfect, especially in its CD incarnation. Hi rez digital fixes many, though still not all, of those flaws, I find. But, vinyl is imperfect, too. I also think that inevitably, like most technologies, the rate of improvement of vinyl playback is very slow due to its age and market niche status, unlike the much faster rate of improvement for digital, which is still young by comparison and still has much untapped potential.

 

And, yes, a lot of digital remasters are not all that good, especially older ones. Some are also outstanding. But, it will not be too much longer before nothing can be remastered from aging, deteriorating analog tape, which has long, but finite shelf life. That has already happened with many great recordings from the past. They can only be remastered from earlier digital remasters, as the original analog tape has become unplayable over time.

 

A lot of anyone's comparison of the two formats is very recording and system specific and therefore anecdotal, as well. And, the variability of arbitrary personal preference based on whatever factors, including much more than just the sound, is really what dominates.

 

Some folks, even discerning ones, may just not have found a way to get good digital or vinyl playback in their own systems for whatever reason. So, their comparisons are not really of equal levels of quality. I try to avoid that, but I, my systems and others I have listened to may be imperfect, too.

 

As to minimalist miking, that was true for awhile in classical the early days of the stereo LP. But, most all producers moved on from that by the 60's for whatever reasons. There is a very tiny niche of recording producers still doing it today, but it ain't coming back in any meaningful way anytime soon. Pop recording and most all other genres have, of course, always been almost totally dominated by non-minimalist, stereo mixdown from multitrack recording starting from vinyl days.

 

We can argue the merits of minimalist technique, but that is not all that has changed in the technology of the entire recording, production, manufacturing and distribution chain. Mikes, recording, mixing and other processing devices have all vastly improved since the good old days. Optical disc manufacturing is very high tech, as opposed to low tech LP production. But, optical discs are hugely more efficient to make in volume, with statistically much higher freedom from manufacturing flaws and defects. The result is lower comparative costs and greater selection for consumers. And, we have not even considered the inevitable trend to digital streaming and downloading that will replace the optical disc eventually.

 

I know, I know, they don't make 'em like they used to. I am sure many stalwarts will still be spinning vinyl for a long time to come. But, enjoy that while you still can, because it will be a dinosaur inevitably over the long term. Yes, ever more used LP collections will be available as more and more audiophiles dump them. But, there is an eventual limit to that someday, though probably not in my remaining lifetime.

I don't see myself dumping vinyl until source and DAC tech get better for price... it would cost me 5x as much in a digital front end to sound better than the analog front end I have.

[gmgraves]

The thing is you only listen to classical and have enough good recordings to satisfy you but if you were a fan of classic jazz or any other stuff recorded before digital you would have kept your turntable because MOST DIGITAL REMASTERINGS SOUND LIKE CRAP.

 

+1

[gmgraves]

It is my own doing, I know. But, we are now discussing two different things: vinyl for playback and recording mike technique.

 

You know my own views on vinyl playback on sonic terms. I grew up with it and it served me adequately for decades because there was no other realistic choice, though I tried reel to reel tape for awhile, as well. I bought a ton of albums including direct to disc and other audiophile rave discs. But, I was as critical of the flaws and general sound quality issues then, as so many posters seem to be in this forum about computer audio today. I, myself, have never been remotely happier with my sound than I am now with hi rez Mch, digital room correction plus bass management and the extraordinary quality of newer discrete Mch classical recordings played via my PC and DAC. For me, it is better than I dreamed possible even a decade ago. I am fortunate to be living in a Golden Age of audio, without vinyl, thanks.

 

Some senior audiophiles who went through a similar process starting from vinyl still love it for playback, but my sense is they are in the minority. Most, I think, have moved on, like me and most of my closest senior audiophile friends. We don't miss it at all. Some audiophiles might have come back to it. But, I think the current resurgence is driven more by younger folks discovering vinyl for the first time and its different, some say more euphonic, sonic signature as well as its more exclusive, retro appeal. And, let's put it into perspective. Vinyl is still a drop in the bucket niche, as market statistics show. It is over-prominently covered by high end magazines, I find, and therefore given its own overblown, in my opinion, mythology in the process by certain writers, as in digital = bad, vinyl = good.

 

Digital is sonically far from perfect, especially in its CD incarnation. Hi rez digital fixes many, though still not all, of those flaws, I find. But, vinyl is imperfect, too. I also think that inevitably, like most technologies, the rate of improvement of vinyl playback is very slow due to its age and market niche status, unlike the much faster rate of improvement for digital, which is still young by comparison and still has much untapped potential.

 

And, yes, a lot of digital remasters are not all that good, especially older ones. Some are also outstanding. But, it will not be too much longer before nothing can be remastered from aging, deteriorating analog tape, which has long, but finite shelf life. That has already happened with many great recordings from the past. They can only be remastered from earlier digital remasters, as the original analog tape has become unplayable over time.

 

A lot of anyone's comparison of the two formats is very recording and system specific and therefore anecdotal, as well. And, the variability of arbitrary personal preference based on whatever factors, including much more than just the sound, is really what dominates.

 

Some folks, even discerning ones, may just not have found a way to get good digital or vinyl playback in their own systems for whatever reason. So, their comparisons are not really of equal levels of quality. I try to avoid that, but I, my systems and others I have listened to may be imperfect, too.

 

As to minimalist miking, that was true for awhile in classical the early days of the stereo LP. But, most all producers moved on from that by the 60's for whatever reasons. There is a very tiny niche of recording producers still doing it today, but it ain't coming back in any meaningful way anytime soon. Pop recording and most all other genres have, of course, always been almost totally dominated by non-minimalist, stereo mixdown from multitrack recording starting from vinyl days.

 

We can argue the merits of minimalist technique, but that is not all that has changed in the technology of the entire recording, production, manufacturing and distribution chain. Mikes, recording, mixing and other processing devices have all vastly improved since the good old days. Optical disc manufacturing is very high tech, as opposed to low tech LP production. But, optical discs are hugely more efficient to make in volume, with statistically much higher freedom from manufacturing flaws and defects. The result is lower comparative costs and greater selection for consumers. And, we have not even considered the inevitable trend to digital streaming and downloading that will replace the optical disc eventually.

 

I know, I know, they don't make 'em like they used to. I am sure many stalwarts will still be spinning vinyl for a long time to come. But, enjoy that while you still can, because it will be a dinosaur inevitably over the long term. Yes, ever more used LP collections will be available as more and more audiophiles dump them. But, there is an eventual limit to that someday, though probably not in my remaining lifetime.

 

You continue to look at this topic in what I think is the wrong way. This is not, in my opinion an either/or situation. Vinyl, tape, even 78's, are mearly another music source. If you want performances that have never been (and likely, never will be) transferred to digital, then you have to get them from wherever they are available. While I would never buy a new release on vinyl (any more than I would buy a new release on 78's), I would continue to buy a performance I wanted on either, if that were one's only choice!

[Fitzcaraldo215]

I don't see myself dumping vinyl until source and DAC tech get better for price... it would cost me 5x as much in a digital front end to sound better than the analog front end I have.

My feelings are totally the opposite. Actually, IMHO, as I have said, even then vinyl comes up quite short from a whole lot of perspectives, starting with sound quality and extending from there to not having modern and the most technologically advanced recordings with vinyl. I also say that having heard vinyl front ends costing $100k and up in my travels. They offer me nothing that I want in terms of sound quality. My DAC cost $4k, and to me it sounds far better.

 

To each his or her own.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

You continue to look at this topic in what I think is the wrong way. This is not, in my opinion an either/or situation. Vinyl, tape, even 78's, are mearly another music source. If you want performances that have never been (and likely, never will be) transferred to digital, then you have to get them from wherever they are available. While I would never buy a new release on vinyl (any more than I would buy a new release on 78's), I would continue to buy a performance I wanted on either, if that were one's only choice!

 

I understand and appreciate the greatness of some older recordings musically. For those interested in those, vinyl can certainly be another aspect of the audio hobby. I have tons of those recordings myself, listened to many times, but they are no longer of much interest to me. Their very dated sound quality is an issue for most all of them. Ergo, my turntable gathers dust like my LP collection. As I have said, my closest audio buddies have all reached the same conclusion, independently.

 

To each, his or her own.

[gmgraves]

I understand and appreciate the greatness of some older recordings musically. For those interested in those, vinyl can certainly be another aspect of the audio hobby. I have tons of those recordings myself, listened to many times, but they are no longer of much interest to me. Their very dated sound quality is an issue for most all of them. Ergo, my turntable gathers dust like my LP collection. As I have said, my closest audio buddies have all reached the same conclusion, independently.

 

To each, his or her own.

 

 

So, let me sum-up my reading of what you are saying (and feel free to correct me if I've got it wrong). You are saying that any digital recording sounds better than any vinyl recording? Because if you are I have a a few vinyl records that would blow that theory out of the water. I have vinyl records recorded 55-60 years ago that sound more like real music than ANY commercially available digital recording I've ever heard; regardless of digital format or delivery method! In fact, I have some 78's that would, sound wise, give many digital recordings a good run for the money (allowing, of course for the fact that the recordings are mono)*

 

 

*These are 12" British Decca pressings which were produced in the mid 1940's (just after the war) using Decca's then new "FFRR" (Full Frequency Range Recordings) process. These recordings are fairly flat from 30 Hz to 15,000 Hz with a S/N of 60 dB and they sound like modern recordings due to a special microphone Decca developed for for British ASDIC (Anti-Submarine Detection. Identification, and Classification) during the war. I inherited these two record "albums" from an uncle who had had bought them new at the time. They require a special equalization to get the proper frequency balance and to take advantage of the 60dB S/N ratio called FFRR/LON (not RIAA), and I haven't had a phono preamp that could do that in decades, so I haven't heard them for a long time. But, with the correct EQ, they sound jaw-dropingly good!

[Jay-dub]

Early op-amps from the 709. LM301, and 741 era (late 1960s through the early 1980's) and their direct descendants were quite poor when used in quality audio applications. Add to the poor op-amps, the practice of using electrolytic capacitors in the audio chain, and you have a recipe for sonic disaster. One case in point are the early Sony digital processors (PCM1610, PCM1620, PCM1630) used to master CDs. It's rarely spoken of, but these Sony processors were ubiquitous in the industry and a prime reason why many people found early CDs so unlistenable.

 

 

The PCM1610 in particular sounded terrible, with a harsh high end. I don't think the main problem was the choice of op-amps and capacitors, though. The design of the antialiasing filter was the main culprit. There were recordings made with modded 1610's (aftermarket antialiasing filters and some other components) that sounded significantly better, though not as generally as good as the 1630, let alone later ADC's. In any case, if you're willing to sacrifice a couple kilohertz of bandwidth, you can listen to these old recordings with custom filters that correct group delays or remove the affected frequencies, and the result, to me, often sounds better than any vinyl or analog tape to hi-rez digital transfer that I have heard.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

So, let me sum-up my reading of what you are saying (and feel free to correct me if I've got it wrong). You are saying that any digital recording sounds better than any vinyl recording? Because if you are I have a a few vinyl records that would blow that theory out of the water. I have vinyl records recorded 55-60 years ago that sound more like real music than ANY commercially available digital recording I've ever heard; regardless of digital format or delivery method! In fact, I have some 78's that would, sound wise, give many digital recordings a good run for the money (allowing, of course for the fact that the recordings are mono)*

 

 

*These are 12" British Decca pressings which were produced in the mid 1940's (just after the war) using Decca's then new "FFRR" (Full Frequency Range Recordings) process. These recordings are fairly flat from 30 Hz to 15,000 Hz with a S/N of 60 dB and they sound like modern recordings due to a special microphone Decca developed for for British ASDIC (Anti-Submarine Detection. Identification, and Classification) during the war. I inherited these two record "albums" from an uncle who had had bought them new at the time. They require a special equalization to get the proper frequency balance and to take advantage of the 60dB S/N ratio called FFRR/LON (not RIAA), and I haven't had a phono preamp that could do that in decades, so I haven't heard them for a long time. But, with the correct EQ, they sound jaw-dropingly good!

 

No, George, I did not say any digital recording blows any recording on vinyl away sonically. I said it all depends on the recording, the system and the listener. I also said some digital remasters of analog were not very good, while others were outstanding.

[gmgraves]

The PCM1610 in particular sounded terrible, with a harsh high end. I don't think the main problem was the choice of op-amps and capacitors, though. The design of the antialiasing filter was the main culprit. There were recordings made with modded 1610's (aftermarket antialiasing filters and some other components) that sounded significantly better, though not as generally as good as the 1630, let alone later ADC's. In any case, if you're willing to sacrifice a couple kilohertz of bandwidth, you can listen to these old recordings with custom filters that correct group delays or remove the affected frequencies, and the result, to me, often sounds better than any vinyl or analog tape to hi-rez digital transfer that I have heard.

 

Well, I'm sure that there were other reasons, including the filter design, why these Sony processors sounded so bad, but I'll tell you, the aluminum electrolytics coupling the signal path and the 741 era op-amps certainly didn't help anything! After all, digital audio was in it's infancy and the entire industry was still learning.

[gmgraves]

No, George, I did not say any digital recording blows any recording on vinyl away sonically. I said it all depends on the recording, the system and the listener. I also said some digital remasters of analog were not very good, while others were outstanding.

 

 

Well good. I'm glad we got that straightened out!

[gmgraves]

Lack of recording and mixing channels yesteryear dictated low mic count and the result was sometimes fabulous because the performance in the real acoustic space was better preserved.

 

The same could be done digitally today however, it's just that, in the main, it isn't.

 

Hence the mantra, "I've got an unlimited number of recording tracks and I'm not afraid to use them".

 

Well, yeah! But I'm not all that sure that the likes of Lewis Leyton of RCA, Bob Fine of Mercury, or Bert Whyte of Everest records would have used multi-mike, multi-channel technology even if they had it! I'm not even all that enamoured of Fine's three spaced omnidirectional mike setup, but I must admit that he got some spectacularly good stereo recordings with it.