Let's consider the various responses written in response to this "love-fest". First we have Jyprez, who writes: "While 99% of my listening is vinyl because of its sonic superiority (particularly for the 50's and 60's Jazz that I listen to), I would switch in a nanosecond to an alternative digital format that provided analog quality sound without the many disadvantages of vinyl like surface noise, inner groove and other tracking distortions etc. What's amazing to me is that vinyl, as primitive as it is, has not been bettered in over 50 years. It's time we move on." This is an admission that vinyl IS the superior medium, and that the only real problem with vinyl, which again remains the superior format, is noise. Noise was made an issue by the Digital Brigade, who inflated the issue out of all proportion to a Neurosis/borderline psychosis as a means of promoting digital formats. So, lets throw the baby (music) out with the bathwater (noise). Plus, parallel-tracking tonearms eliminate end-of-side and tracing distortion if it is so bothersome (isn't to me, in all properly set-up pivoted tonearms/cartridge combos it is either inaudible or barely worth mentioning), and quality turntables eliminate or reduce noise drastically, and more if one chooses cartridges which are quite in the groove, seeing as it's such a problem.
Tgrisham writes that the cost of vinyl is too high. Again this is entirely misleading. I rarely if ever buy expensive vinyl, and again, a turntable of sufficient quality (and I'm talking a starting point of only a Rega P3) makes of used vinyl in good condition at a few bucks a pop - MUCH cheaper than digital formate, even used - very listenable and quiet. The trick is to buy used vinyl in decent condition, it's not all hacked-up Sally Ann disasters. He admits that we can only aproach vinyl. Lack of frequency response?!? Since when? Get a better turntable and tonearm. Digital cheaper?!? If it means that you have to use "tube output stages, reclocking, CD treatments, plus tube amplification" to achieve ONLY "most of what LPs offer" - and where are the compromises made, perhaps musicality? - then where are the savings, where are the advantages?
All of these objections are also admissions the LP is superior, and misleading in all kinds of ways - exaggeration of noise and distortions, exaggerations of cost, and deliberate diminution of abilities (frequency). Get over the noise fellow neurotics, and concentrate on the music. Back in the days of gramophones people listened ecstatic at the music emanating - with FAR more noise and distortions - from their lacquers on a steel needle through a horn. Why and how? Because the Digital Brigade has not yet raised noise to the level of a neurosis (same as various industries built on creating previously unrecognized problems in order to sell their solutions), and so they simply heard the music and were glad, in fact, ecstatic.
Me, I've decided to stop throwing good money after bad, trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, a computer's approximation of music. There is a way of improving the sound of vinyl: try alternate solutions with what we already have: better tonearms (need not be more expensive, consider the MG-1) better cartridges (need not be more expensive), better turntables (need not be more expensive). Address your various individual problems, keep the baby, clean up the bathwater, don't let yourselves be manipulated by a cynical industry (cynicism DEFINES current industry, Big Business). For the Here and Now, vinyl IS the superior medium. Let's improve IT, there are many ways which already exist.
Tgrisham writes that the cost of vinyl is too high. Again this is entirely misleading. I rarely if ever buy expensive vinyl, and again, a turntable of sufficient quality (and I'm talking a starting point of only a Rega P3) makes of used vinyl in good condition at a few bucks a pop - MUCH cheaper than digital formate, even used - very listenable and quiet. The trick is to buy used vinyl in decent condition, it's not all hacked-up Sally Ann disasters. He admits that we can only aproach vinyl. Lack of frequency response?!? Since when? Get a better turntable and tonearm. Digital cheaper?!? If it means that you have to use "tube output stages, reclocking, CD treatments, plus tube amplification" to achieve ONLY "most of what LPs offer" - and where are the compromises made, perhaps musicality? - then where are the savings, where are the advantages?
All of these objections are also admissions the LP is superior, and misleading in all kinds of ways - exaggeration of noise and distortions, exaggerations of cost, and deliberate diminution of abilities (frequency). Get over the noise fellow neurotics, and concentrate on the music. Back in the days of gramophones people listened ecstatic at the music emanating - with FAR more noise and distortions - from their lacquers on a steel needle through a horn. Why and how? Because the Digital Brigade has not yet raised noise to the level of a neurosis (same as various industries built on creating previously unrecognized problems in order to sell their solutions), and so they simply heard the music and were glad, in fact, ecstatic.
Me, I've decided to stop throwing good money after bad, trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, a computer's approximation of music. There is a way of improving the sound of vinyl: try alternate solutions with what we already have: better tonearms (need not be more expensive, consider the MG-1) better cartridges (need not be more expensive), better turntables (need not be more expensive). Address your various individual problems, keep the baby, clean up the bathwater, don't let yourselves be manipulated by a cynical industry (cynicism DEFINES current industry, Big Business). For the Here and Now, vinyl IS the superior medium. Let's improve IT, there are many ways which already exist.
