Turntable got absolutely crushed by CD

@chrisoshea,

With this 'logic' one should probably not buy used records either. One never known how it has been handled, how often it was played and with what stylus, does one? Glad it isn't my logic, or else I wouldn't have any records.......

It has been said before, but bears repeating: what cartridges do you think those vintage records from the '50's and'60's were played with? We are debating on this forum whether sapphire is an acceptable cantilever material, but back in the day most people used a sapphire stylus! When the sound deteriorated it was worn and you simply flipped the stylus over to wear out the opposite one........

Yet most of these records have survived such crude devices, except in obvious cases of mishandling which are easy enough to see. The best of these are still considered the benchmark for sonic quality and many of them are worth more to collectors than the MC cartridges discussed here.

So why should you be so 'sensitive' about the condition of previously owned modern cartridges with a sophisticated diamond stylus? 

@glupson

Re: record storage.

That certainly is an issue. I’ve dived deep in to vinyl in the past couple of years and I find it completely energizing in terms of my passion for music and for listening to my system. 

Yet I also don’t want to end up featured on the TV show “Hoarders.” I absolutely love the physical aspect of LPs, but also don’t want to be overrun with them. So it’s definitely a battle - the desire for buying new LPs and having a place to store them. I’m not remotely close to the situation many are in here who have thousands of LPs. I think I’m probably around 400 or so at most.
But even then, I had my albums stored and displayed looking nice, neat and aesthetically pleasing. But now they are starting to overflow to look a bit more intrusive. So...on to new storage units.

I think something that naturally restrains me is that I’m not what I’d think of as a “record collector.” The distinction I make there is that a “collector” denotes for me one who collects for the sake of “collecting.” (Not necessarily purely, but that is a significant component). So a collector, to me, is someone who may for instance be a “completist” where if they like a band, they are driven to get every album available, or every pressing available of an album or whatever “for completion sake” to complete a set. Whereas I’m driven to buying an LP strictly on the basis I want to listen to that album. I’m not saying this is some more benighted motivation than the collector at all. Only denoting my approach from what I often see in folks who seem to like the “collecting” aspect as much or more than the music.

I was a comic collector for many years. So for instance, it was important for me to have “Spiderman 1 - 100” as a completed portion of that collection, whether I cared for every comic in that collection or not. I just don’t have that inclination anymore.

@inna

By the way, I disagree with those who think that good digital is less expensive, I think exactly the opposite.

That’s cool.
But then I suggest you should change the following:

You really need extremely expensive equipment to make digital tolerable.

To "I" really need extremely expensive equipment to make digital tolerable.

Because of course you really are just talking about yourself. I’ve found digital more than tolerable since the 90’s - I have luxuriated in the beautiful sound quality of music through my various systems over many decades, using digital sources. I’m far from alone.

(Not to mention, like any parent I have kids who only use digital sources for their music and they are DEEPLY moved by their music. I stream digital all the time in my car and I LOVE it).

There is a tendency from the further reaches of "both sides" of the digital/analog debate to see one’s own experience as some objective fact about the nature of the medium. "I don’t like digital so there must be SOMETHING about digital that is wrong or unnatural to the human desire for natural sound." It’s just one’s subjective take; it’s not a universal.Same goes for those who say "vinyl is crap, digital is obviously better."

@snowdog212

I have to echo the sentiments some others have expressed.

I'm not sure how to reconcile your observations about all the terrible surface noise obscuring the delicate musical content on LPs, with my own experience of vinyl on my system.

One of the most surprising and gratifying observations I had upon upgrading my old turntable and cartridge to my new system is how low the noise floor seems to have become on most records, and how incredibly clear and finely rendered even the most delicate musical detail is.

When I play LPs for some of my musician pals, they often comment it sounds as silent (in terms of record noise/hiss) as a CD.  I'm constantly amazed at how the tiniest musical detail just seems to go the edge of audibility.  I often can't even hear the noise floor on an LP.  Even when there is a slow fade out of a song, often it seems to fade slowly to the very edge of audibility and disappear in to blackness.   Not all records, of course.  But on a good portion of my records.


Now, I'm not going to jump on the 'your set up must be crap' bandwagon, as I don't have the greatest turntable one can buy, and yours sounds like it should be excellent.

So all I can do is notice how utterly different my observation and experience seems from yours.   Weird.