"Is vinyl's sonic superiority a hoax?"

RPM123 · « **on:** 18 Nov 2015, 02:39 am »

Interesting read on "6 Moons" by Johnny Darko. "From a purely subjective standpoint, more expensive turntable sources lend music a vitality and presence that similarly priced digital playback systems do not. At least that was my conclusion when reviewing Pro-Ject’s Xtension 10 fitted with the aforementioned Dynavector 10x5 when pre-amplified by Vinnie Rossi’s LIO phono board." ..."vinyl’s audible advantages are erased by low-end hardware." Millennials are buying records not so much for the sound, as for the experience and ceremony associated with playing a record. Any millennials on the Ac care to chime in?

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews2/vu/1.html

galyons · « **Reply #1 on:** 18 Nov 2015, 02:46 am »

timind · « **Reply #2 on:** 18 Nov 2015, 02:53 am »

RPM123 · « **Reply #3 on:** 18 Nov 2015, 03:01 am »

Are there any "maybes"?

decal · « **Reply #4 on:** 18 Nov 2015, 03:02 am »

Maybe

jschwenker · « **Reply #5 on:** 18 Nov 2015, 03:17 am »

Maybe not.

thunderbrick · « **Reply #6 on:** 18 Nov 2015, 03:42 am »

What's a "millennial?" Anything like a minion?

glynnw · « **Reply #7 on:** 18 Nov 2015, 03:47 am »

Someimes.

G Georgopoulos · « **Reply #8 on:** 18 Nov 2015, 04:32 am »

if you dont mind pops and clicks,i think is as good as anything...

Devil Doc · « **Reply #9 on:** 18 Nov 2015, 05:06 am »

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But it certainly is a lot more fun.

Doc

Pete Schumacher · « **Reply #10 on:** 18 Nov 2015, 05:11 am »

Quote from: G Georgopoulos on 18 Nov 2015, 04:32 am

if you dont mind pops and clicks,i think is as good as anything...

rumble, hiss, higher noise floor in general . . . back in vinyl's heyday, it was regarded as the poor man's way into music at home. Any self respecting audiophile had reel to reel if they wanted fidelity.

Vinyl is not only not superior to digital, it's not even near the order of magnitude to compare.

The "superiority" is tied to many recordings that were mastered beautifully to shine on that medium which translated poorly to the new digital medium "compact disc." After engineers got used to the better noise floor, higher dynamic range, and the multitude of other benefits digital recording offered, the notion that analog, and especially vinyl, were superior was relegated to quaint notions of a flat earth and bodily humors.

All recording is done digitally for a reason. They certainly don't cut to vinyl to capture an excellent recording. That should tell you all you need to know.

G Georgopoulos · « **Reply #11 on:** 18 Nov 2015, 05:26 am »

Quote from: Pete Schumacher on 18 Nov 2015, 05:11 am

rumble, hiss, higher noise floor in general . . . back in vinyl's heyday, it was regarded as the poor man's way into music at home. Any self respecting audiophile had reel to reel if they wanted fidelity.

Vinyl is not only not superior to digital, it's not even near the order of magnitude to compare.

The "superiority" is tied to many recordings that were mastered beautifully to shine on that medium which translated poorly to the new digital medium "compact disc." After engineers got used to the better noise floor, higher dynamic range, and the multitude of other benefits digital recording offered, the notion that analog, and especially vinyl, were superior was relegated to quaint notions of a flat earth and bodily humors.

All recording is done digitally for a reason. They certainly don't cut to vinyl to capture an excellent recording. That should tell you all you need to know.

Pete you are right,those things like hiss bother you,to me don't,i don't live in a cpu universe,i like the simplicity of vinyl that's why i do it.
it's a lot of fun...

JackD201 · « **Reply #12 on:** 18 Nov 2015, 06:10 am »

Quote from: Pete Schumacher on 18 Nov 2015, 05:11 am

All recording is done digitally for a reason. They certainly don't cut to vinyl to capture an excellent recording. That should tell you all you need to know.

Savings in time and money. That should tell you all you need to know.

Fullrange Drew · « **Reply #13 on:** 18 Nov 2015, 06:41 am »

Low quality vinyl can be dreadful. A vinyl pressing of a compressed or heavily normalised digital recording captures the sonic disadvantages of both mediums. In many cases, even stunningly well (analogue) recorded pieces of music were never given a good transfer to digital format.

Well recorded digital can sound stunning provided the reading and conversion hardware is of good quality.

That said, a well recorded and well maintained vinyl version of many recordings has a naturalness, an accuracy of tone and timbre, well preserved timing etc that i have never heard from digital.

My Mono Columbia 6 Eye pressing of Sketches of Spain played on a Garrard 401 with Ortofon Rondo Blue and MF VPLS VPSU sounds better than any digital copy I've ever heard on any playback system. Now either there is a huge global conspiracy to make modern digital versions sound worse, or the digital industry is missing something fundamental in what they are doing.

The mileage others get from either medium may vary. For me, good Vinyl trumps Red Book digital every time unless the vinyl is in crap condition or was a dud pressing.

ajzepp · « **Reply #14 on:** 18 Nov 2015, 07:26 am »

I have to admit, I heard my first truly high end vinyl rig a little over a year ago, and I was pretty blown away by it. I was able to compare the same tracks digitally, and while both sounded great, the vinyl just had an organic quality to it that was undeniable. That being said, no way I'd ever be able to go that route...I'm too spoiled by the convenience of digital streaming.

But vinyl done right sure sounds sweet...

SteveFord · « **Reply #15 on:** 18 Nov 2015, 10:25 am »

My turntable makes digital sound terrible by comparison.

pumpkinman · « **Reply #16 on:** 18 Nov 2015, 11:49 am »

Quote from: Devil Doc on 18 Nov 2015, 05:06 am

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But it certainly is a lot more fun.

Doc

Here Here
I enjoy the process, ''Love it'' actually

Wayner · « **Reply #17 on:** 18 Nov 2015, 01:26 pm »

Quote from: Pete Schumacher on 18 Nov 2015, 05:11 am

rumble, hiss, higher noise floor in general . . . back in vinyl's heyday, it was regarded as the poor man's way into music at home. Any self respecting audiophile had reel to reel if they wanted fidelity.

Vinyl is not only not superior to digital, it's not even near the order of magnitude to compare.

The "superiority" is tied to many recordings that were mastered beautifully to shine on that medium which translated poorly to the new digital medium "compact disc." After engineers got used to the better noise floor, higher dynamic range, and the multitude of other benefits digital recording offered, the notion that analog, and especially vinyl, were superior was relegated to quaint notions of a flat earth and bodily humors.

All recording is done digitally for a reason. They certainly don't cut to vinyl to capture an excellent recording. That should tell you all you need to know.

All recordings are not done digitally. There are still many studios that do full analog. Vinyl almost has the same dynamic range that digital has. Vinyl can also reproduce the tiniest signals (and hence, the greater detail) that digital skims over.

Listen to a well recorded cymbal crash on vinyl, then digital. Vinyl wins for me.

Perhaps you have not heard a quality vinyl set-up.

neobop · « **Reply #18 on:** 18 Nov 2015, 01:32 pm »

Quote from: Pete Schumacher on 18 Nov 2015, 05:11 am

rumble, hiss, higher noise floor in general . . . back in vinyl's heyday, it was regarded as the poor man's way into music at home. Any self respecting audiophile had reel to reel if they wanted fidelity.

Vinyl is not only not superior to digital, it's not even near the order of magnitude to compare.

The "superiority" is tied to many recordings that were mastered beautifully to shine on that medium which translated poorly to the new digital medium "compact disc." After engineers got used to the better noise floor, higher dynamic range, and the multitude of other benefits digital recording offered, the notion that analog, and especially vinyl, were superior was relegated to quaint notions of a flat earth and bodily humors.

All recording is done digitally for a reason. They certainly don't cut to vinyl to capture an excellent recording. That should tell you all you need to know.

The blind man talks about visual acuity as if he still has it, but as memories fade so does the reality of the image. It becomes a caricature, a distorted snapshot of a moment in time he remembers in a certain way. There's no correcting this distorted image. It's only a memory and the blind can't see the actual image any longer, but he remembers it well.

"They certainly don't cut to vinyl to capture an excellent recording."

They certainly did.
neo

FireGuy · « **Reply #19 on:** 18 Nov 2015, 02:15 pm »

My early years were all about vinyl. There was nothing else except radio to transport music. Then came 8 track which enabled us to choose what songs we wanted to take on the road. 8 track quality suffered mostly and then came the cassette. That was audibly better but still suffered from degradation. These three mediums were relatively affordable and then.. wham. We got CD technology. It was like the music God touched us due to our diligence and pursuit of good sound. That lead to lossless files and I have not looked back.

The only way I would return to vinyl:

1) I have the $ resource to secure that high-end TT and associated components and watch those discs spin for days on end. These TT pieces btw are some the most gorgeous looking gear on the plant. 2) I could the find the vinyl of today's recordings I like (not 70's rock)... very tired of that.