[Phil A]

Phil,
Very informative and enlightening article. Thanks for providing a positive and constructive post to this thread.
Why not keep ALL the audio equipment in high regard. It's hard enough keeping the luv for high fidelity music as something relevant, something worthwhile. Whether one listens to ipods or hi-fi, is this not just appreciation for the enjoyment of "listening to music"? Yeah sometimes I feel it sounds like two children fighting over who has the best toy.. kinda childish. I would rather read posts sharing info like yours here or even who makes a great dac or tt, even the suggestions from owners of low budget models. That can be great info.

Everyone is always going to have preferences, whether it is perceived that one format is better or worse or just a matter of convenience.  Does not make one wrong or right.  There are lots of flavors of ice cream too.  Does not make it wrong or right if someone likes one flavor better than another.  For me I got out of vinyl over 30 years ago as I only had a limited number of albums in pristine shape.  Up until the last decade, I probably missed certain things about it.  With the advent of better digital and hi-rez recordings I don't have the desire to get back into it as I have a hard enough time having storage space for discs.  If I had to live with CD only quality, I still might have second thoughts.  I always try to just give facts (and if it is my opinion I usually try to note that) but sometimes their are particular individuals who either love a particular brand or format and don't seem to want to hear it.

I still have LDs and (two) players and there are advantages to those.  I have not played a disc in over 5 years.  I still have cassettes (in the closet and have a deck but it is in the garage) including many made from the nice LPs I had with DBX noise reduction the first or second play through (have not played them in years either).  The hobby to me is about enjoyment.

[Wind Chaser]

Both formats have their merits period. Which is better in direct absolute comparison ? Neither so there.

Yes, without a doubt, both formats have their merits. And regardless of which format you use, both can be very musical and very satisfying.

But there are some proponents of vinyl who would have everyone believe their preferred format is superior to digital. There are even those with nothing more than an entry level TT who think they have arrived. This is just out right laughable.

However, there may indeed be some truth to the notion of 'sonic superiority' if we're talking about a strain gauge pick up system (like the Soundsmith). Properly set up, there isn't anything in the analogue world comparable in design, operation or performance.

[vinyl_lady]

3K LPs! This is a lot of space and weight.
You should live in a huge mansion or a large wharehouse.
I would not want to live on the floor under your apartment.

I don't live in an apartment, a warehouse or a mansion, but a modest 1911 one and one-half story Craftsman style home, about 2,300 square feet. My music room is approximately 25 x 19. Most of the records are in that room with the audio gear. The remainder are in an unfinished basement. Doesn't take up too much space.

[FullRangeMan]

I like old houses and apts, usually they
are bigger than the current real state.

[Phil A]

Having a basement is a big plus for storage.  Here in FL where I am, there are none due to the water table.  Also, house floor plans tend to be more open with less wall space both for audio components and for media.  Many audiophiles here who have records, really don't have the proper room for them and a big portion are left to sit in a really hot garage and that is not good over time.  When I was in VA, except for the LDs which I built storage for in the finished part of the basement (which could have easily housed the same number of LPs - pic below), I had room for all my media between the grand room and bedroom and that included lots of DVDs and some Blu-Rays too.  Here all I have out are the Blu-Rays and everything else is in a closet.  With furniture and the open floor plans, there is practically no space for media - basically one wall for the equipment and a small portion of the opposite wall (the rest opens to the kitchen) for disc.

Old VA House Basement

[Freo-1]

Any records that are taken care of and cleaned with a wet vacuum cleaner such as a VPI 16.5 are void of surface noise. That whole knock on vinyl is so overblown.

Respectfully disagree.  I had one of those, and yes, it does help.  No way is vinyl void of surface noise, with or without a record cleaner.  While some types of music are certainly enjoyable with a good vinyl setup, other types, such as classical pieces with a large variation in dynamic contrasts, suffer from the limitations to the point that it's no longer enjoyable.

BTW, Before digital playback, the high end medium was reel to reel, not vinyl. 

[GentleBender]

Makes me wonder how people are handling their media with all the people talking about surface noise and pops when listening to vinyl. Buying vinyl from a garage sale or Goodwill normally requires cleaning. Leaving the record out of the sleeve collecting dust and other contaminants will also cause this.

I don't have anything to clean my vinyl yet so I only run a brush over it before play and rarely hear anything but music. I guess if you can't handle media properly, digital is best for you. Wash your hands and try not to handle where the grooves are. What I call not so common sense.

[dminches]

Makes me wonder how people are handling their media with all the people talking about surface noise and pops when listening to vinyl. Buying vinyl from a garage sale or Goodwill normally requires cleaning. Leaving the record out of the sleeve collecting dust and other contaminants will also cause this.

I don't have anything to clean my vinyl yet so I only run a brush over it before play and rarely hear anything but music. I guess if you can't handle media properly, digital is best for you. Wash your hands and try not to handle where the grooves are. What I call not so common sense.

Agreed.  And, I can tell you when I hear the occasional click and I pop I am not bothered by all.  I also wonder how many people listen to music with 0 ambient noise in their room.

I prefer reel to reel over vinyl but I am sure someone will then say that tape degrades over time.

[kach22i]

A greater question is how much does one have to spend on these things to attain that supposed superiority? A cheap arm, cartridge and pre ain't going to cut it. It takes bucks, big bucks.

This is a fair question, and one would think that there is a chart with a couple of curved lines or vectors which cross at a certain cash point.

Short of making such a chart, perhaps a personal story is in order.

My old Dual audiophile concept CS 503-1 belt driven TT when new 28 years ago sold for $250.00, I've modified it heavily.  It now sports it's own line out jacks hooked to $300 Cardas interconnects, and a $350 Grado Sonata cartridge.   Add in $50 of aluminum, $50 of acrylic bolted on to it plus some "duct seal" a clay-like substance for adding mass and I have about $1,000 invested.

Compare to a McIntosh CD player I've had nearly 20 years which retailed for $2,850.

I say depending on the particular record or the particular CD, they sound fairly equal with the record player winning by a nose the majority of the time.

Based on this single example of mine, I say that you have to spend two to three times on CD playback over that of vinyl playback to get comparable results.

The problems with this single example is the turntable has been hot rodded , and digital playback is in CD.  Plus the examples are really old, just like me.

The cost ratio of a well engineered stock turntable verses that of a digital stream or music server system (things I know nothing about) may be the subject of debate especially when one tries to obtain the very best sound which will be analog, be it vinyl or Master Tape on a Reel to Reel tape machine.

You also have certain thresholds at the lower end which we should note.  A complete $100 turntable system is going to get crushed compared to a $100 CD player. 

In the mid-1980's when things went from vinyl to CD people were comparing the sound of a $50 turntable to a $500 CD player and exalting the superiority of the new digital format. 

Most of these people didn't even know that a phono cartridge should be aligned and a record should be cleaned, so there ya go.

JD's original article on 6moons (http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews2/vu/1.html) had an attention grabbing moniker - which this discussion has pursued, at the expense of his core observations re the superiority of digital at a low cost point. It was about where the cost-SQ curves of digital & vinyl met & diverged, with an eye on the burgeoning popularity of vinyl with younger buyers.

I don't see the SF comment.

I do see where he says the crossing point is at several thousand dollars.  Meaning cheap digital is better than a cheap turntable/vinyl , but expensive turntable/vinyl is better than expensive digital.

The conventional wisdom so often funneled via the mainstream press says that few things sound better than vinyl. This is half truth at best. Getting an analogue front end that’ll provide superior sound to a decent digital streamer and DAC takes thousands of dollars and remains well beyond the financial reach of most millennials and thirty-somethings........................

I still wish there was a graphic chart of some kind showing these relationships.

[STEREOmole]

I would have to answer "YES" and "NO".

Given digital and vinyl, all other things equal, digital is superior in reproducing the original recording accurately IMO.  This opinion is based on my own experience of recording and mastering (both analog and digital) then transferring to vinyl and CD.  I've compared all the combinations, and in the end, digital is more accurate.  That's not to say that the inaccuracies of vinyl aren't musically pleasing, however! 

That being said, I have vinyl that sounds better than any digital release or remaster.  Maybe those original tapes had degraded by the time they were mastered for CD, maybe the transfer to digital was of poor quality, who knows why??  All that I know, is that in some cases, old vinyl is clearly superior.

In the end, I like the large format artwork, and enjoy listening to vinyl.  I prefer the accuracy and perfection (lack of surface noise, etc) of digital.  Both formats have their place and can peacefully co-exist.  In a perfect world, all new music releases would come out on vinyl and include a high resolution digital download.

[mav52]

I enjoy music regardless if its played from my turntable (Micro Seiki BL-91) or my DAC ( Chord) or my Streamer (Lumin A1/D1) or even my OPPO105/Bryston BCD-1 .  It all comes down to the quality of the recording.   I enjoy vinyl because I can set down and enjoy the experience. Maybe its because I'm from the LP generation and like to hold the jacket in my hands.  I think there are good downloads and good CD quality music out there and also some poor recordings in all mediums.   I guess it comes down to what your used to or have the time for.

[jsaliga]

Choice is a good thing.  Since we all do not have the same experience (by that I mean what we listen to, what we listen to it on, and the environment in which we listen to it), we are not going to be of the same opinion.  To me it is not a matter of which is better, and for those who want to frame it in absolute terms...well I think they are completely missing the point.

My experience has been such that I prefer analogue to digital.  But the vast majority of the music I listen to was recorded between 1940 and 1980.  My experience and my opinion applies only to me.  Why waste precious time trying to justify my choices or preferences to people who think differently?  Yes, yes, it is all for the sake of discussion.  I get that.  But this particular topic has been beaten to death a thousand times over.  Nothing to see here.

--Jerome

[Phil A]

Jerome - absolutely agree with what you said. It's about enjoyment. Someone may prefer vanilla and others chocolate - either is fine

[Hank]

+1

[Mojo Warrior]

Interesting discussion but no one is going to change their entrenched point of view. There certainly has been a lot of hype from both camps. Remember "perfect sound forever"? OTOH vinyl technology has made no significant breakthroughs in the past 40 years.

I enjoy both formats. I never gave up my vinyl collection, as did many of my friends because my vinyl sounded better than early digital. However, vinyl can never compete with the convenience, accessibility,  selection and cost effectiveness of modern digital music especially loss-less high resolution streaming.

What I have not read was the "Achilles Heel" of analogue, i.e. the phono cartridge is a transducer and the most inaccurate component of the reproduction chain (speakers also fall into this category). Translating a mechanical signal into an electronic one will never have the accuracy of a purely electronic signal.

One can argue that some listeners have a preference for certain types of distortion that are "euphonic" and therefore pleasing to the ear. For those listeners it is a rather simple proposition to reintroduce that euphonic sound signature.

There are no "perfect" transducers (speakers or cartridges) only preferences.

Do you prefer vanilla or chocolate?

[SteveRB]

I once witnessed a well dressed young man return a record because it did not come with a download card. He did not have a record player. After chatting with the clerk, apparently that wasn't the first time it's happened. The issue of 'millennials' buying LPs for reasons other than format preference is real. It's likely responsible for the inflated prices right now as well.

I look forward to buying stacks of un-played LPs in about five years when they get married and their partners' clean house...

[thunderbrick]

It's not a hoax, just a difference of opinion.......

[vinyl_lady]

The issue of 'millennials' buying LPs for reasons other than format preference is real. It's likely responsible for the inflated prices right now as well.

I don't think the bolded portion is true at all. In fact, I don't think buying vinyl for reasons other than format preference has any influence on the price. I also don't think the price of new LPs is inflated. I think the price correctly reflects the cost of mastering for vinyl, cutting the lacquers, plating and pressing a limited number of copies. With respect to reissues, consider the care and detail Chad goes through when he does a reissue--180 or 200 g virgin vinyl, remastering and the cost of obtaining the original master tapes all figures into the costs. Add amortization of the cost to purchase, rebuild and maintain the presses plus a profit. A $3.98 album in 1968, adjusted for inflation, would be $27.56 today. 

[SteveRB]

I don't think the bolded portion is true at all. In fact, I don't think buying vinyl for reasons other than format preference has any influence on the price. I also don't think the price of new LPs is inflated. I think the price correctly reflects the cost of mastering for vinyl, cutting the lacquers, plating and pressing a limited number of copies. With respect to reissues, consider the care and detail Chad goes through when he does a reissue--180 or 200 g virgin vinyl, remastering and the cost of obtaining the original master tapes all figures into the costs. Add amortization of the cost to purchase, rebuild and maintain the presses plus a profit. A $3.98 album in 1968, adjusted for inflation, would be $27.56 today.

Sorry, I should not have implied that is the only reason the prices are high. I agree that as the cost go up so does the price. But the rate of increase seems to be pushing what the market will bear, not what is reflected in the production. An LP that cost $20 five years ago now costs over $30...

Also, Are not a large number of re-issue labels simply buying the rights to press the record (4 Men With Beards)? No one is re-mastering Histoire de Melody Nelson for the countless labels selling that title as one example of many.

I've also heard industry insiders mention that some of the majors are looking to price out that market for LPs (conspiracy theory maybe). But the logic is they are running up the price to reduce demand. They spent most of the last two decades removing themselves from physical product and the infrastructure required: printing, pressing, trucks, warehouses... From what I understand they are not happy having to buy those services back to sell this 'inferior' product.


That said, we are all in different corners of the world buying different records, so our experiences will vary greatly. But this is a good discussion to have and enjoy reading the commentary.

[thunderbrick]

I don't think the bolded portion is true at all. In fact, I don't think buying vinyl for reasons other than format preference has any influence on the price. I also don't think the price of new LPs is inflated. I think the price correctly reflects the cost of mastering for vinyl, cutting the lacquers, plating and pressing a limited number of copies. With respect to reissues, consider the care and detail Chad goes through when he does a reissue--180 or 200 g virgin vinyl, remastering and the cost of obtaining the original master tapes all figures into the costs. Add amortization of the cost to purchase, rebuild and maintain the presses plus a profit. A $3.98 album in 1968, adjusted for inflation, would be $27.56 today.

+1!  Not bad analysis for a Mizzou fan.....

I do think the perceived value of LPs in some antique malls has gone through the roof, as dealers try to capitalize on the new-found popularity.  I've seen $10 (or more) LPs that were totally trashed.