Jump to content
IGNORED

Why does vinyl still exist?


jeffca

Recommended Posts

 

Peter,

 

Huge thanks for taking the time out to answer all of our questions, that was some response.

 

I'm going to be listening further this evening and over the weekend trying all the different modes but playing with engine #3 the most ;-). Wish I could go home now and try actually.

 

I'm going to copy my brother in on this so he can try.

 

Now, all I need to convince you to do is lower the price for your fellow computeraudiophile readers.

 

Oh, and get Chris to try the software and give us his feedback. Afterall, he seems to have access to every configuration known to man from one computer!

 

Chris - WHERE HAVE YOU GONE?

 

 

 

Matt.

 

HTPC: AMD Athlon 4850e, 4GB, Vista, BD/HD-DVD into -> ADM9.1

Link to comment

"Chris - WHERE HAVE YOU GONE?"

 

I've been following this conversation closely. I haven't used Peter's software for quite some time. To be honest the last time I used XXHighEnd I thought the program still needed some serious work. Fortunately Peter has put a lot of serious work into his application and I'm guessing it improves every day. I guess I'll have to dig in to this one again and let you know :~)

 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment

 

Peter,

 

My brother is using Windows XP. Which one of your engines would you recommend he uses ? He has a Firewire DAC.

 

Tim,

 

You state that vinyl loses out on the numbers; I'm confused as to how. I mean, vinyl is not a numerical representation and thus cannot be compared. The bumps and dents represent the waveform in as accurate a way as the pressing allows. My understanding is that your SQ is limited (obviously by the original recording) by how good the pressing and your playback equipment is.

 

Matt.

 

 

Matt.

 

HTPC: AMD Athlon 4850e, 4GB, Vista, BD/HD-DVD into -> ADM9.1

Link to comment

My brother is using Windows XP. Which one of your engines would you recommend he uses ? He has a Firewire DAC.

 

This is a kind of dangerous anyway, because I hardly ever look at 1 or 2, and I think not many people use it. But if all is right 1 sounds "better", and when you bump into the 64MB limit it automatcally switches to #2 (in the Settings Area the #1 Engine will show red during that time).

 

Please note that I do not recommend XP at all, just because Vista (and #3) exists and it is so much better (you will hear that within a second). Nevertheless many people already find #1/#2 to sound better than anything, but I think that depends on the setup of the PC as well. -> Have that very good for Foorbar, and XP-XX probably sounds better than anyting. Note the difference with Vista/Engine#3 where all is selfcontained and the PC is under more or less complete control of the program.

 

Peter

 

 

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2.5      Ethernet^3     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to comment

Jeff, I feel to say sorry about hijacking your thread.

Matt, I think it is more friendly to open a new thread indeed when something more comes up.

I want to thank you though for seriously trying, and as you may recall I created the AIFF support especially for you a while ago, but with some bigger audience in mind of course.

 

About that audience, those who dare might even try MP3 over Engine#3. I never advertise it, but even MP3 support has been explicitly created for the best sound and you might be surprised what strange virtues come from that (which I will keep a secret for now :-).

 

 

 

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2.5      Ethernet^3     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to comment

Look at those dials!!!!!!!

 

No playlists, no album art, no genius bar. Just pretty spinny reels, bouncy needle things and all those knobs to turn and buttons to push. Oh mum..........

 

Do you reckon we could get Steve N to knock up a USB input for it? I'm thinking iTunes to Tape Deck here!! ;)

 

Link to comment

I hated vinyl long before we had CDs and didn't start my Classical music collection till CD players appeared. I'd assumed that vinyl's continuation was down to huff and puff from certain turntable manufacturers who claimed "CD players weren't ready yet", but now I know different.

 

Just as cars become objects of nostalgia for people of a certain age, so has vinyl and shops are appearing and selling it for absurd prices. It's also clear (vinyl isn't) that some audiophiles love fondling it as others do human beings or their old cars. I love my old cars www.kda132.com and ww.jel450.com and would rather pass razor blades than listen to vinyl!

 

The facts are compelling: Distortion - 30 db, crosstalk -30 dB intermodulation distortion 7 %, all with pops and clicks that are significantly louder than the music. Las year 990,000 LPs sold in the States and about 200, 000 in the UK, although there are plenty of exaggerated claims that it was more. I think Apple sold 9 Billion downloads.

 

My ten years on the Pro side not only showed that Master tapes had to be adulterated to play as vinyl, but also that Pros didn't like either. There was always a room "out back" with an old disc cutting lathe, a pair of old, obsolete monitors and a very old console. There was one good thing though and that was the direct drive platter from an SL1210, which is the most successful turntable in history. At its peak it was in service with 5,000 Broadcast Authorities.

 

Vinyl sounds horrid and nothing like as good as a 128 K MP3, but a tiny percentage of people (including non audiophiles) love it and good luck to them, I just wish they'd admit it isn't good, but they prefer it. Then I'd respect them.

 

Link to comment

“A compromise, like mp3s, designed for economics, convenience and ease of distribution, not superior fidelity”. That description is more appropriately applied to CDs and not vinyl.

 

Unless we are discussing the price of used records, CDs are significantly less than LPs. Convenience? – I only wish LPs could be as convenient as CDs. Size, weight and manufacturing duplication give CDs the clear advantage in ease of distribution.

 

The last issue, superior fidelity is the main reason why most audiophiles prefer LPs over CDs. But there is little point in arguing over which format sounds better since it is largely an issue of which one sounds better to you. All the arguments, endless debates and verbiage cannot change that if something sounds harsh to you, it is harsh. If something sounds lifeless to you, it is lifeless. If one format seems to provide better imaging, soundstage, depth or separation, that format is better to you.

 

I can say that it is the audiophile market that has kept the small niche market of high fidelity alive. And from what I have observed many audiophiles are willing to spend $30-50 for LPs and $20-30 for SACDs. If I use Linn Records as an example, the prices for the Dunedin Consort – Messiah album are: $12 for MP3 download; $15 for CD Quality download; $25 for SACD; $29 for Studio Master download; and $100 for 180 gram vinyl.

 

I also find that the differences between the best analog and the best digital are narrowing. And although I now believe that LPs and R2R provide superior fidelity I firmly believe that one day the majority of audiophiles will agree that digital audio has the better sonics.

 

So why does vinyl still exist? Because many people who love music are willing to spend enough money to get what they feel is the highest fidelity.

 

 

Link to comment

Ash, you just gotta know what's coming next!! So I won't bother saying it. :)

 

What I will say is that I don't think it's an 'old fogey' thing at all. My system is now all bits and bytes, whizzy platters and delivered by the Will of Bill. My son's extremely high end system has been built around flat black plastic dinner plates. He would probably be a bit annoyed if you nicked his CDP, but he'd fight you to the death over his plate spinner. :) You could quote figures at him until you dropped down dead of exhaustion - he'd just keep telling you it sounds better.

 

And shouldn't you be looking for a slice of that 200k action? At around £17 a pop I make that £3.5m !! ADM Vinyl.1's - built in tube pre-amp - built in tube power amps. With an iPod dock for good measure. There you go - don't forget my royalty fees if it takes off!!

 

Link to comment

Ashley I'm with you on this one!

 

Speaking from the other side of the fence, in the pro-audio field most sound engineers and producers always hated vinyl: poor dynamics, pops and crackles and above all distortion that was not present on the original tapes.

Thanks to people like Roger Nichols, who used to work with Steely Dan, when digital multi-tracks became available most pros went for it on day one and paved the way to modern recording techniques.

And when CD came along they were really really happy 'cause their hard work in the recording process was almost totally preserved.

 

You can buy whatever medium you like, as long as you can enjoy it thoroughly.

Vinyl is not for me, I'm completely sold on digital and the more bits the better!!!

 

Ciao!

 

Arin

 

Link to comment

I really do love my music and buy mine on it's merits, but recording quality is secondary to me unless it's vinyl then it's like scratching finger nails across to me! No one plays the Hayden D Cello Concerto like Emanuel Feuermann or sings the Brahms Alto Rhapsody like Kathleen Ferrier and I'm extremely grateful that both are available on CD! Gramophone quickly changed allegiance too, because the advantages were overwhelming with Classical music, they told me they were glad to see an end to vinyl. Likewise my favourite Classical Record Shop, Bath Compact Discs saw vinyl sales disappear very quickly.

 

Pop is different, it is much more "altered" than Classical and has much more hi end EQ in it, so benefits from the stylus quickly removing some of it.

 

As far as we're concerned we attract music collectors/enthusiasts more than equipment fanatics, so "hi end" is an anathema to them and us because it appears to be more about equipment than music and much of it defies rational analysis. Record players being a case in point.

 

Having said all that I'd say that the best modern systems do show such a big difference between vinyl and good digital recordings that it's hard to tolerate it now.

 

Link to comment

Quote "As far as we're concerned we attract music collectors/enthusiasts more than equipment fanatics, so "hi end" is an anathema to them and us because it appears to be more about equipment than music and much of it defies rational analysis."

 

No offence taken! :) :)

 

Don't suppose one could be an equipment enthusiast and a music lover?

 

Link to comment

Pity the poor music lover who loves the finest recordings and playback systems.

 

Why shouldn’t a music lover want a high fidelity playback system? Why shouldn’t a guitar player want a tube amp? Why shouldn’t a violinist want a Stradivarius violin? Why wouldn’t a pianist want a Steinway or Fazioli grand piano?

 

I can enjoy great music, poorly recorded and played back when I have to, but why shouldn’t I prefer great music that is well recorded and played back on a very high fidelity system. Criticize me all you want, but when it comes to recorded music, that's what I want - great music, well recorded, and played back on a very high fidelity system.

 

 

Link to comment

 

Yes, sorry Jeff, I've been gabbling on off topic for ages.

 

Peter - I'm leaving for home now; I shall be having another play with XXHighEnd this evening. It my limited testing last night, I really enjoyed it and will no doubt hear similar this evening.

 

Matt.

 

HTPC: AMD Athlon 4850e, 4GB, Vista, BD/HD-DVD into -> ADM9.1

Link to comment

I'm all for the finest playback system that technology will allow us to produce, but record players aren't in that category and neither for that matter is a sizeable chunk of hi end. One only has to look at measurements of some of the stuff tested by Stereophile to see that. Tim said, and I agree with him, that mid fi has probably caught and passed much if not all of it.

 

But this is not same for Guitar Amplifiers that distort like hell because they are overdriven and intermodulating with their power supplies. This is good for a guitar sound and bad for its replay via hi fi. Likewise the choice of musical instrument or for that matter the equipment used to record it can all be considered contributory factors in the end result. Some producers pick equipment for the sound it has, rather than for neutrality for instance.

 

However when it comes to replay, any form of distortion is the enemy because it is altering the sound made by the source material. Therefore if it can be shown that a particular medium such as vinyl has huge amounts of distortion, then it's failing in its primary goal, even if people love it and listen to it constantly IMO.

 

Link to comment

Hi audiozorro - I'm with you on this one.

 

Personally I love talent and quality. Talented musicians create amazing music that we all love. Quality components reproduce this music as transparently as possible. I think quality extends beyond sonority to the appearance, build quality, longevity, etc... of each component. There certainly isn't a right or wrong in terms of what we must or mustn't enjoy although many people like to assert that equipment has nothing or very little to do with this hobby. It's all about the music is one of the most frequently used phrases. One one hand yes, if it weren't for the music all the equipment would be unnecessary. In fact I would check out of this hobby without the great music. On the other hand I see nothing wrong with being a music lover and a lover of fine built goods. Heck, if one wants he can be a lover of fine built goods and not music. I don't really care if someone listens to equipment. It's not my thing but oh well.

 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment

Steve,

With all due respect, I think you are off-base on a few fronts.

 

First off, I have heard really good vinyl systems. They do sound very nice, but does all of processing necessary to get the final signal from the master tape to the listener's speakers via vinyl does not degrade the sound? Secondly, are you honestly proporting that vinyl is better than magnetic tape? And last, have you ever worked in a recording studio and heard a performance played back right after it was done?

 

Let me quote from another post I did:

___________________________________________________

I have two fantastic turntables. Both of them have been retired since I transcribed all of my rare vinyl to 24/88.2 digital about 5 years ago.

 

Secondly, it's not that I have poor quality vinyl, it's that I've had very good digital for a very long time.

 

Lastly, a properly rezzed down 16/44.1 track will sound almost exactly like a 24/88.2 track. The differences are vanishingly small.

 

So, let's count off just a few ways that digital is superior:

1) Sound to noise ratio: digital - 90db or better • vinyl - 65db at best

2) Frequency response: digital - ruler flat from below 20hz to at least 20khz, worst case • vinyl - maybe plus or minus 1db, 20-20k, best case for any rig under a thousand bucks (I'm sure that there are some super tweaked rigs in the $10,000 plus range that can do a little better)

3) Immunity to vibration: do I even need to go here?

4) Phase and transient response: digital - almost perfect • vinyl - average at best

5) Durability: digital - with proper archiving, infinite • vinyl - like a favorite shirt going through the wash, it only gets worse with every cycle

______________________________________________________

 

One other area where I think you are way off base: I went to the mod section of the Empirical Audio and wonder what idiot would pay you over $3k for mods to a $250 Behringer DCX2496 when they could buy a DEQX unit, a Xilica XD4080 ( and have $1500 left over), an HK Audio DSM 206 or any of a dozen other loudspeaker management processors that have drastically superior filter algorithms as well as inherently better analog sections from the start for the same amount or less? Honestly, if digital is so inferior, how is it that you can't hear how mediocre the 2496's filters are? Or have you just never heard a good LMP in a studio setting?

 

While I wish you well in your endeavors at fleecing the idiots who are involved in the mod/tweak craze that is growing in audiophilia these days, I don't give any creedance to you opinion.

 

jeff

 

Link to comment

Jeff wrote:

"I went to the mod section of the Empirical Audio and wonder what idiot would pay you over $3k for mods to a $250 Behringer DCX2496 when they could buy a DEQX unit, a Xilica XD4080 ( and have $1500 left over), an HK Audio DSM 206 or any of a dozen other loudspeaker management processors that have drastically superior filter algorithms as well as inherently better analog sections from the start for the same amount or less?

 

First, I never modded any Behringers. Not good enough IMO. I have however modded quite a few DEQX 2.6's over the years, and these are legendary. Some of my customers paid upwards of $7200.00 for my complete mod package, including a new separate outboard power supply chassis and integrated I2S/USB interfaces.

 

These mods were so good that DEQX adopted many of them and offered them as an upgrade to their customers. You can read the emails that were sent to these customers, giving me credit for the mods. Just ask anyone who owns one. The new version HDP-3 sounds really good partially due to implementation of my mods in their next generation. I have worked with Kim at DEQX for many years, and he is interested in my USB interface for his next generation. I dont mod DEQX anymore, because my subsidiary, Empirical Audio Legacy has taken over the DEQX mods. I am too busy with my own products for mods now, besides, they sound a lot better anyway.

 

Honestly, if digital is so inferior, how is it that you can't hear how mediocre the 2496's filters are?

 

Never heard one. It is probably just as you say.

 

Steve N.

Empirical Audio

 

Link to comment

 

This debate is getting rather heated.

 

For every person who claims one format is better, there is another providing all sorts of techy reason why another is. Let's remember that we all have our opinions and we all have our own ears.

 

Ash, I was able to compare my digital music with vinyl through your very own speakers, and I could not say which format I preferred. Vinyl always appears to have more space around the instruments, but that's my opinion. Your statement regarding MP3 vs vinyl made me chuckle; whilst iTunes is a great success I am so disappointed that Apple do not offer higher resolution files. A huge number of tracks I have downloaded from iTunes sound truley awful and I am 100% sure that a number of readers here will back that statement up. At 128kps very few tracks sound good to me - MP3 was made for portability and convenience, let's not forget that. But some can sound great, I agree. A 128kps file is no match for an uncompressed file. You sent me a 128kps MP3 once, it sounds awful. They certainly don't belong in the category of high end !! And are not match for a good piece of vinyl.

 

Why do you hate high end so much ? If people like to own a system costing many thousands, that may only sound like other costing a couple of thousand, then so be it. Good luck to them. I still like to read about some of those systems and I'd miss them if they didn't exist. I still read HiFi Choice.

 

Download from Linn; yep, I do - and I have some of their records too ... wonderfull stuff.

 

Lastly, how can you claim that you don't attract equipment fanatics when the ADM9.1's are step forward in technology that is bound to attract fanatics, tech fanatics. I love music and my equipment.

 

Jeff, you very conveniently leave out jitter, that digital harshness that ruins so much of our digital music. There are great points about both the formats.. But most disappointing were your comments made regarding Steve's products. Probably pushing things a little on what has always been a very laid back forum.

 

Matt.

 

HTPC: AMD Athlon 4850e, 4GB, Vista, BD/HD-DVD into -> ADM9.1

Link to comment

Unfortunately, the original post was not an honest question, but a bait or troll to get people into a debate of vinyl vs. digital. I happen to enjoy both vinyl and digital. My vinyl playback system happens to sound better than my digital playback system. On the other hand, my digital playback system is much more convenient than my vinyl playback system.

 

I think anyone following the CA recommendations for audiophile computer music servers will have an excellent front end for music playback. If your analog front end sounds better than the CA Recommended Music Server, good. If not, who cares except maybe for you and why should you care what anybody thinks, just enjoy the music. I am definitely enjoying the hell out of my “Audiophile Reference Music Server For A Song” along with many other recommendations I’ve picked up here.

 

One thing about digital and computer audio, the best is yet to come.

 

 

Link to comment

Audiozorro,

 

Well said mate.

 

Just settling down to some listening now; spent a little too long comparing ASIO with waveout in MM vs XXHighEnd. About time I just listened ... !!!!!

 

Recommend boomkat.com if anyone is interested in some real different music. FLAC download options ... Every album I have downloaded has been interested with good sound.

 

Oops - off topic post.

 

Matt.

 

 

 

HTPC: AMD Athlon 4850e, 4GB, Vista, BD/HD-DVD into -> ADM9.1

Link to comment

I'd have to agree with Matt there. I find the digital vs vinyl debate quite hard to call too. There are times when both have blown me away, and times when both have disappointed. But compressed digital, Ashley, is a mile away from good quality vinyl in my opinion. I'd rather buy an entire cd, new or from ebay, just for one song, than download and listen to empty, thin sounding MP3s. And i think the fact that one person can prefer something that I actually refuse to buy (MP3s), over something that I think sounds as good as anything I've heard (vinyl), just goes to show that this argument can, and will, go on for many years to come....................

Martin

 

iTunes / Media Monkey, PC, Presonus Firebox --> Mackie HR624 mkII Active Monitors, M&K VX7 mkII

Link to comment

So much to answer, so little time...

 

“Tim,

 

You state that vinyl loses out on the numbers; I'm confused as to how. I mean, vinyl is not a numerical representation and thus cannot be compared.”

 

-- Wrong numbers. I’m talking about the dynamic range, low frequency (and high) extension, miniscule distortion numbers and the nearly non-existent noise floor of digital that vinyl cannot match, on any turntable. And again, that still doesn’t mean you can’t like the way it sounds better.

 

“Look at those dials!!!!!!!

 

No playlists, no album art, no genius bar. Just pretty spinny reels, bouncy needle things and all those knobs to turn and buttons to push. Oh mum..........”

 

-- Bob, you are a very sick man and it was my pleasure to encourage you.

 

“The facts are compelling: Distortion - 30 db, crosstalk -30 dB intermodulation distortion 7 %, all with pops and clicks that are significantly louder than the music.”

 

-- Ash, thanks for supplying some of the numbers I was alluding to. I appreciate not having to do the research. As for the rest of your post, it is a an excellent example of the subtlety, restraint, and diplomacy that characterizes most of your posts about records. ?

 

“A compromise, like mp3s, designed for economics, convenience and ease of distribution, not superior fidelity”. That description is more appropriately applied to CDs and not vinyl.”

 

-- Zorro the keyword in my quote that you missed was “designed.” Vinyl was created as an economical, convenient, easily distributed, and extremely compromised substitute for open reel tape, long before there was any such thing as CD, which was created for fidelity and longevity.

 

Really guys, the heat is not necessary. Play what you like, prefer what you will. But the data for the superiority of vinyl is simply not there. If it was, it would be in this thread right now. Vinyl, like so many audiophile things, is a trust your ears proposition. Trust them. Just understand that it is a completely subjective judgment and don't expect everyone to agree, or submit to arguments devoid of evidence, and everything will be alright.

 

Tim

 

 

I confess. I\'m an audiophool.

Link to comment

Vinyl was not created as a substitute for open reel tape

 

I hate to quibble about facts but I believe that vinyl records were marketed years before magnetic tape was marketed. And of course records made of different materials were used since the 1900s or before. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramophone_record

 

In the 1930's Bell Telephone Laboratories invented a system of recording audio to magnetic tape but it was never really marketed. It was not until 1947 that reel-to-reel magnetic tapes started to be marketed in the United States.

 

 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...