Is a vinyl rig only worth it for oldies?

Something from my own musician point of view concerning cloning the sound of different tubes etc.

If you want the "real" sound of a Hammond B3 and Leslie, go out and buy the real tubed ones made decades ago.

The synth versions are just that, synthetic.

The synth versions can do a good job of tricking you that they sound just as good,until you hear them side by side.

Same with modeling amplifiers.

There's a lot of them around that promise to recreate the sound of old Marshall, or Fender tube amps,yet in reality, they pale in comparison to the real items.Stll want to clone the sound of an EL 34?
Ask Mr Carver why he uses the real tubes on his newest tube amps?
There's no substitution for the real things in life.
That's the reality.

Lots of folks do like these clones,they make sense, they're cheap and easy to maintain and they are portable.And they can buy them.It's hard to buy the originals and definitely not cheap.

They are an attempt to capture the sounds that made the original "analog" units so popular.

Think of this.

Technology marches on, yet it's purpose is to clone all that has gone on before. The old technology.Not chart new territories,the one exception being the Moog.

People buy the newest computer gear to download music that is derivative of another generation,which was derivative of the one before it.We keep reinventing the wheel.

Now that's progress.

Mapman,

Do you find any digital enjoyable when you hear it played on your gear? How about other gear?

Certainly! What do you mean by 'other gear'?

Raul:

IMHO any single open reel machine ( and I say any. ) has several failures. Yes, it is the best analog source but imperfect too, especially against digital one:

some normal specs on digital recording systems gives us numbers like these:

- flat frequency response from DC!!!, -THD lower than 0.004%, - signal to noise 93db RMS unweighted

First, the R2R takes a back seat to the LP; ever hear a direct to disk?? The dynamic range, signal to noise and bandwidth of an LP can far exceed that of R2R. It just happens that often the reel to reel sounds better for other reasons- poor signal chain in the LP, worn stampers, stuff like that.

In the THD spec of the digital you did not mention Inharmonic Distortion, which is very high!- enough that anyone can hear it on any kind of equipment without training. Compare that to analog which has none. You will never see the Inharmonic Distortion figure in any digital specs as it is terrible- sort of like the Emperor's New Clothes.

Raul:

Here is the same: why we like a faulty medium over a truer/accurate medium as digital?

Well, to begin with digital is not as accurate. Do I have to keep harping: Spend some time in the studio using direct microphone feeds, compare the digital and analog recordings and don't forget to compare the lathe cuts while we are at it???

The least accurate is digital, 2nd in line is reel to reel and the best is the lathe cut. If the mic feed goes directly to the lathe, the resulting LP will be the best representation of that microphone feed. I should point out that you don't need sophisticated gear to hear what I am talking about; anyone will easily hear the differences, even if the speakers are substandard by high end standards, even if the signal is sent through a cheap amplifier. It is very obvious to the untrained ear.

Lacee, have you heard any of Johnny Cash's LPs that he did just before he died? How about some of the recordings of Low on Kranky ('Trust' is a good place to start)? The sound is AAA and amazing!

Yes I have all the new ones from Johnny, and I like them, even though I only have the cd's!.

I do have some old mono lp's from the man, and they aren't too shabby either.

I've never heard of Low, but I do like the group Lambchop, mostly for the music, again only on cd.

I have listened to Sufjan Stevens on cd and vinyl, and vinyl wins out, in whatever format he chose to record in.

I'm not saying that there's nothing good about modern groups or that they are less talented.They are mostly better musicians than myself and most of my peers.

I also appreciate the talents of groups like Widespread Panic,Phish,etc.

I just wish that the folks recording them were as talented in their trade.

Neil Young is an oldie who is still investigating ways to bring high fidelity back to the forefront.I understand he may bring something new to the format wars in the near future.Time will tell.

Then it will be up to the general public to pay up or shut up.

I've listened to his live recordings made at Massey Hall in 1971 using a simple tape deck and a few mikes.

I find them quite impressive.How much the masters were messed with I haven't a clue.If you make a mistake in a live recording we forgive you, please don't alter them.That is if you value realism.

I've also listened to them in high res playback thru the full Scarlatti rig, and the detail is better than Redbook cd by a large margin.But the original was analog afterall.

I've several Direct to disk recordings and always used them to evaluate my turntable setups.Still use them to this day,and I agree they are very realistic,because they were all about capturing reality not trying to create something unnatural.

I would presume there must be some direct to digital recordings also, but the temptation to alter reality, to sweeten things up, add a touch more reverb,to play with more toys is always there.

More is not better, less usually is.

Dear Atmasphere: I did not mentiones ( inharmonic distortion. ) because I was ignorant of it.

Look, I appreciated your posts, thank's for that but in the whole subject I'm done.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear Lacee: ++++ " The music is very derivitive, the playing can be great, but the recordings are so altered, how can you tell if they are any good? " ++++

agree and agree almost with your whole post, good.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.