Vinyl or wait for the new stuff??

Merits to both formats. Some of the brand new digital recordings such as 'Pat Metheny and Jim hall', and the diana krall recordings sound excellent on my 44khz player. I would guess that they use tube mics to get that nice warm sound. On my equivalently priced cd/vinyl (about 3K each) systems, I do much prefer the sound of a vinyl recording to a CD. This preference has increased the as I listen to the record player more. I've only had it for a few weeks. Vinyl has won three a/b comparisons with different recordings from different eras (the trinity session, ricky lee jones, and the original glen gould bach preludes). I like the naturalness and sense of presence that a record has. A cd recording feels like it's floating on air, whereas the vinyl feels like its sitting on a concrete foundation. CD's have an ethereal quality to them. You're a little less 'there'. It's a little like driving a windows-up air conditioned 4x4 verses hiking. Easier but more forgetable. I am hoping the newer formats like SACD, and 96khz will bring some of this 'thereness' back. After all, many of the new records are digital recordings. One of my vinyl vs CD preferences, the wonderful 'trinity session' album was made on an RDAT machine w/one microphone. Their recording equipment could probably fit into a suitcase ! Perhaps much of CD's harshness comes from downsampling. Another source of harshness may be cheap cd players. A cheap cd player emphasizes the 'digital harshness', or brittleness. Once you hear it, it bothers you.

John_l, pleased to read your comments in defense of vinyl. Carl has expressed his preference, and now, so will I. The general topic is one of High End Audio, and therefore is NOT limited to "best value," or most convenient audio. To me that means that the ultimate performance people have a right to comments as well. Therefore, I say to Joe_coherent or anyone else that says that CD is superior to LP, then you have not heard vinyl at it's full potential. Perhaps the statement that inexpensive LP playback equipment will not compete with similarly priced digital gear may in fact be correct. The vinyl format requires tremendous work to make perfect, and if the work is put in, it can be made to work better than any other music format. This (of course) excludes those who have access to original master tapes of musical performances. I will not argue for vinyl concerning value, the availability of new titles, convenience of operation, or justify that everyone should put in the work required for a perfect set up. I WILL state that if the labor and money are invested, nothing will compete with the performance LP can provide. Personally, for me to get there, I have (at retail) $46,000.00 just in the turntable, phono cartridge and the equipment DIRECTLY associated to play an LP. This certainly does not include my music library, the record cleaning equipment or the substantial investment in the remainder of my system (including the Soundlab Ultimate 1's). You can ridicule my substantial investment, call me crazy, or just dedicated. However, if you have not heard LP playback at this level, you are correct ONLY within your realm of experience. To further clarify my personal position, I do not deal with any retail stores, I do advertising photography for the audio business, with ads in nearly every high end publication printed this month. I have been in or around the high end audio business for over 30 years, and am personal friends with many of the people who manufacture the products discussed at Audiogon. There are no manufacturers within my experience that will NOT agree that LP is superior. This may have to be discussed in the hallway at CES, or at their home, but it is none the less common knowledge in the business. This does not mean that CD cannot be wonderful, it certainly does not mean you should abandon digital and move to LP. It simply means that if the ultimate musical performance is really valuable to you, the LP format is a requirement.

Hi Albert,good to see you post again.Its not the same here when you arent around.As I agree with your above comments I really dont believe one has to spend $40,000++ to get superior analog vs digital sound.Also,you are so correct that ANYONE who really has ventured into analog playback and did it right has no doubt which is better.You dont but I do deal with audio dealers.They will take you straight to the CD players when you ask to hear something but when analog is mentioned their eyes light up!! This happens everytime and most dealers still have analog in their systems (at least the ones I know) So,yes your point is very true.It has to be done right or ya might as well live with inferior digital.Happy Holidays Albert! :)

I think some how I must be missing the point. The original question was "Vinyle or wait for the new stuff??" Are the vinyle opinions the only right ones and those who feel digital is looking forward and anolog has reached it's golden age just plane wrong and not worthy? It's sad that people can not feel comfortable expressing there viewpoint without being chastized for expression. I for one feel that my investment in software is one factor. I have a SACD player that I believe (my opionon) has raised the bar quite a bit. I for one will continue to move forward with the industry and enjoy my "inferior" equipment and lack of "natural" sound.

I agree Jade, it is sad when people must align themselves in such a way as to not see the other point of view, or horror of horrors, to USE BOTH VINYL AND CD....