[thunderbrick]

My wife thought the rush back to vinyl was ridiculous until I played a CD vs the vinyl version.

Now she buys vinyl.

Case closed.   

[RPM123]

"This discussion will go on for quite some time. This audio world is like politics or sports, in that we all use the statistics that work for our cause. It is fun to see all the different responses and that is probably why this thread was started. Format FIGHT!!!!"

It certainly was not my intent to start a "format fight", however, I am not surprised that it has evolved into one. The gist of the JD opinion piece is that one must likely spend big bucks in order to hear vinyl sounding better than digital and that lower priced digital systems sound better than similarly priced vinyl systems. Of course there are some folks who cannot tolerate any surface noise whatsoever, so they will likely never hear vinyl sounding better.

Personally, I prefer the sound of vinyl. However, I do listen to CDs fairly often (on a modded Oppo 105D), since digital players have come a long way and I also like their convenience. I have never heard any of the mega buck digital systems, so I cannot say what they are capable of. I have listened to some VERY expensive vinyl set ups that I lusted after. For the "record"... I use a WTT Versalex fitted with a Kiseki Purple Heart N.S.


 

[Art_Chicago]

I CANNOT BELIEVE I AM READING ANOTHER VINYL VS. DIGITAL THREAD!!!!

To each his own.

[thirdeye]

I CANNOT BELIEVE I AM READING ANOTHER VINYL VS. DIGITAL THREAD!!!!

To each his own.

Interesting... I see it the other way being its an "Audio Forum" you would expect the discussion will be about what format is best, or tube vs. solid state, or high efficiency speakers vs. low efficiency etc... What else is there to talk about here?

Kind of like the media all day talking about another terrorist attack, or the economy? If those discussions go away they can't keep spreading their propaganda so what are audio guys to do if vinyl vs. digital goes away for good!?!

[Art_Chicago]

Interesting... I see it the other way being its an "Audio Forum" you would expect the discussion will be about what format is best, or tube vs. solid state, or high efficiency speakers vs. low efficiency etc... What else is there to talk about here?

Kind of like the media all day talking about another terrorist attack, or the economy? If those discussions go away they can't keep spreading their propaganda so what are audio guys to do if vinyl vs. digital goes away for good!?!

I see your point except this discussion occurs rather regularly on this and other audio forums. I am just sick of it, and should not be reading it.
BTW, I am using both formats.

[simoon]

Both formats have their negative and positive aspects.

My problem with this debate, is the dogmatic "digital is better in every aspect", "vinyl is better in every aspect" positions that are often taken.

Both formats get quite a bit right, and quite a bit wrong. It all depends on which negative attributes one is fine living with, as a trade off with the positive ones.

Sometimes I am in the mood for the superior imaging of vinyl over digital. Sometimes I'm in the mood for he superior dynamics and lower noise floor of digital over vinyl.

Neither decision is based on nostalgia, as one poster so condescendingly claimed.

[JLM]

Like all stereophiles in the 70's I had a nice vinyl setup (my college roommate had a Beogram 4000) and put up with all the hassles (handling, cleaning, bouncy floors, cueing, pickup every half album, alignment, tracking, styluses wearing out, direct vs. belt drives) and shortcomings (pop, clicks, general surface noise, limited dynamic range, worn out vinyl).  Even spun vinyl at the college radio station.  But to this day I can only tolerate really good vinyl (which I still find really boring), but the shortcomings that I've heard even on high-end vinyl setups are nails on a caulk board to me.

A young audiophile recently brought over his $42 source (Chromecast and cable) and demonstrated his access to 8,000,000 songs via Spotify ($10/month subscription).  And frankly even using 320 kbps it sounds better to me than vinyl.  It makes me wonder why anyone buys CD's or vinyl when Tidal and HDtracks are available.

So frankly I'm left wondering what all the fuss is about vinyl and wonder what causes the differences in opinion.   

[vinyl_guy]

A young audiophile recently brought over his $42 source (Chromecast and cable) and demonstrated his access to 8,000,000 songs via Spotify ($10/month subscription).  And frankly even using 320 kbps it sounds better to me than vinyl. 

With all due respect, I would have your hearing checked, seriously!

[thunderbrick]

When I listen to "pop" recordings of the late 50s into the late 60s I am often astounded by the "real" nature of the sound.  That enjoyment transcends the surface noise for me.  Maybe it's the genre or the relaxed nature of the music.

OTOH, when I got my my recent preamp purchase dialed in I'm getting more enjoyment out of CDs (compared to CDs) than I did before.  More instrumental delineation, smoothness, wood and brass timbre, etc.

Still haven't settled on the on-board phono pre vs the Jolida phono, as much of the past month has been devoted to reorganizing my LP collection, culling out dupes that aren't in good shape, and seeing if I still like certain performers from 30 years ago.  In many cases, no, as the music is severely dated.  Even some DTD LPs.

Edit:  One disappointment that arose from listening to early rock LPs on a hi-res vinyl system was that groups like The Association were  poorly-done vocal tracks laid down over instrumental tracks that OBVIOUSLY were taped in an entirely different acoustic setting.  We didn't pick that up over the radio or Dual 1215s, but it sounds awful now.  Of course remixed CDs from 60s-70s rock often sound miserable compared to the original LPs.  Overly bright, vocals submerged behind percussion, compressed, etc.

[Larkston Zinaspic]

We are not slaves to a mastering engineer. He did his best and we listen to it. If you don't like his work, you can walk away from it. Slaves were lashed to their work.

No kidding. Citing historical slavery is irrelevant in this case. The mastering engineer does what he does, with the format he is working with. You can walk away from it, or you might like it, but his choices will be FINAL.

I'm not saying it's an easy job, but they are directly responsible for the final product, good or bad, and it's another variable in the analog vs. digital debate. What's the point of even having that discussion if human error is not acknowledged? There are no 'standards' that everyone agrees on.

You aren't held in bondage by any of it, but you have no say about it either. That's all.

[thunderbrick]

What's the point of even having that discussion if human error is not acknowledged? There are no 'standards' that everyone agrees on.

True, so when is it human error and when is it a difference in taste?

[GentleBender]

Justice League vs X-men, I choose X-men as long as Wolverine is part of the crew. 

[geowak]

I bought some gear from a dealer that sells high end audio. He had a very high $$ DCS digital front end system and also an analog system which he could allow anyone to hear. This was about two-three years ago. The analog was a Well Tempered turntable and he also had a Shindo Garrard turntable with very nice cartridges on each. I think the phono preamp was an ARC. To him the analog was much more involving and engaging, but different from the digital front end. The analog front end was about 1/3 the price of the DCS stack. Needless to say he liked albums much more. To me, I like both but have not spent the dime to reinvest in a TT, and albums. I like the variety of music I can hear on digital. To me, it's clean of artifacts or noise....which I do not like. In the end, it's like apples to oranges. Both are good, but what do you like.....

[rjbond3rd]

And we're all slaves to the mastering engineer, regardless of the medium.

Just curious, are you referring to the mixing rather than mastering? Mastering is just a bit of eq and levelling (and sometimes a bit of other processing) to the two-track mix, isn't it?

[G Georgopoulos]

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.

The same could be said about analog reel to reel tape!,i dont know why is better than vinyl?...if better records (mechanicly) can be made vinyl is better than tape and more lasting.

tape suffers from wear as well.

cheers
 

[orientalexpress]

I'm surprise in today western civilization ,Why can't we have both?I don't know any audiophile friends that have only Digital or Analog system.it seem like every DAC designer chasing or voicing there DAC to sound like Vinyl or analog sound.You don't see cartridge designer voicing there to sound like Digital 

[rajacat]

A young audiophile recently brought over his $42 source (Chromecast and cable) and demonstrated his access to 8,000,000 songs via Spotify ($10/month subscription).  And frankly even using 320 kbps it sounds better to me than vinyl.  It makes me wonder why anyone buys CD's or vinyl when Tidal and HDtracks are available.

So frankly I'm left wondering what all the fuss is about vinyl and wonder what causes the differences in opinion.   

Can you hear the difference  between hirez digital and Spotify? 320 kbps and 128kbps?

[JLM]

Can you hear between hirez digital and Spotify? 320 kbps and 128kbps?

Yes.

[JLM]

With all due respect, I would have your hearing checked, seriously!

Although I've never thought I had great hearing, my opinion of vinyl hasn't changed in 30 years (and I wear protection).  How do vinylphiles tolerate all the surface noise and lack of dynamic range?  And why would you limit yourselves to such a small/hard to find/expensive range of recordings?

[wushuliu]

Something something double blind testing.