When and how did you, if at all, realize vinyl is better?
orpheus10 Nothing has really changed, low end CD sounds better than low end analog. Perhaps the challenge for audiophiles should be how bad can you make your system sound. Why on Earth would anyone try to be just a little better than the worst sounding system? Whereas on the Kalahari you only need to be just a little faster than the slowest Wildebeest. 😧 |
Better? Yes, for me, but I started with the format as a child, in the mid- ’60s and never abandoned it. The first CD players were, to my ears, pretty nasty sounding, and I didn’t make the jump when the CD format was introduced, but instead doubled down on LP purchases when it looked like that format was going to be forced into extinction. I cherish the great records I have accumulated over the years and LP remained my sole source on the main system all these years. That said, there are many badly recorded/mastered/manufactured LPs. And digital playback seems to have gotten much better in the last several years. For recordings that were originally made back in the day, I’d probably still prefer the all analog copy. A lot of newer recordings are natively digital--so, there is little choice there, whether or not released on LP. (I listen to the LP copies only because I don’t really have a serious digital front end but that may change). And there are occasions where, despite the addition of a layer of digital processing, the end result of what was originally an analog recording has been improved, e.g. some of the Steve Wilson remixes of Tull. But, if I were starting out today, would I jump in deep on LP playback? I don’t know. I think you have to be pretty committed. At the same time, has digital playback using computers, files, outboard DACs and streaming become "plug and play"? (I raise this more out of ignorance than snark). I think "better" is a relative term, depending on a lot of factors. For me, the LP has been a constant for more than 50 years, but whether the format is "better" for others is not something I can answer. I like playback that sounds "un-reproduced." When that happens, it is the equivalent of magic. But, even with a very good analog front end and the qualities of a good SET amp/horn set up, or my old standby, the original Quad loudspeaker driven by tubes, the illusion is hardly seamless. Cost,time, space, convenience, all play a role as well. I’ve just pulled 12,000 records out of my NY home about half of which will eventually be relocated to a new space across the the country. I haven’t lost the fever, but I’m more open-minded about format due to changes in the nature of source material, its availability and technology, old and new. |
geoffkait ... CDs sound relatively thin, disembodied, two dimensional, compressed, congealed, thumpy, piercing, hollow, diffuse, synthetic, amusical, generic, threadbare, edgy, bass shy, peaky, ugly, phasey, irritating, detailed, unnatural, unimpressive, commercial, like papier mache, airless and dry.I think it's time for you to upgrade your system! |
cleeds geoffkait: ... CDs sound relatively thin, disembodied, two dimensional, compressed, congealed, thumpy, piercing, hollow, diffuse, synthetic, amusical, generic, threadbare, edgy, bass shy, peaky, ugly, phasey, irritating, detailed, unnatural, unimpressive, commercial, like papier mache, airless and dry. I think it's time for you to upgrade your system! Touche! Please note I said relatively so don't feel too bad. Everything is relative. - A. Einstein |
