Is a vinyl rig only worth it for oldies?


I have always been curious about vinyl and its touted superiority over digital, so I decided to try it for myself. Over the course of the past several years I bought a few turntables, phono stages, and a bunch of new albums. They sounded fine I thought, but didn't stomp all over digital like some would tend to believe.

It wasn't until I popped on some old disk that I picked up used from a garage sale somewhere that I heard what vinyl was really about: it was the smoothest, most organic, and 3d sound that ever came out of my speakers. I had never heard anything quite like it. All of the digital I had, no matter how high the resolution, did not really come close to approaching that type of sound.

Out of the handful of albums I have from the 70s-80s, most of them have this type of sound. Problem is, most of my music and preferences are new releases (not necessarily in an audiophile genre) or stuff from the past decade and these albums sounded like music from a CD player but with the added noise, pops, clicks, higher price, and inconveniences inherent with vinyl. Of all the new albums I bought recently, only two sounded like they were mastered in the analog domain.

It seems that almost anything released after the 2000's (except audiophile reissues) sounded like music from a CD player of some sort, only worse due to the added noise making the CD version superior. I have experienced this on a variety of turntables, and this was even true in a friend's setup with a high end TT/cart.

So my question is, is vinyl only good for older pre-80s music when mastering was still analog and not all digital?
solman989
Superior in what way, because you can hear the scratches on vinyl that you cannot hear on cd ?? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Uh-oh, the cat's out the bag!

Personally, I would agree with the OPS premise and would think it applies to most except perhaps some of those who like turntables just because they are turntables. I fall into that category. I gre up with and love turntables but am realistic and practical about their advantages and disadvantages. I don't easily get all romantic and gobbly-goopy about them except when the right vintage recordings are playing.
"I don't easily get all romantic and gobbly-goopy about them except when the right vintage recordings are playing."

BTW, the right vintage recordings sometimes includes even old 78's that I occasionally purchase, play on an old Admiral ceramic cat table with 78 stylus hooked to my main rig when needed and recorded to CD for playback moving forward. The CDs sound just like the 78s and are a lot of fun and even quite musical though obviously imperfect in many ways.

WOuld love to own a properly restored Victrola someday!
I would say that there definitely was a "golden age" for record cutting. About 1970 to 1990...tube equipment evolving to transistors, state of the art cutting machines, and experienced engineers who loved their craft. (they even engraved their initials into the records they cut).
Going all the way through the CD generation from 80's and onwards to nowdays I've realized that vinyl's pops and clicks is the worst thing that can happen to the vinyl (agree with mentioned "owner quality" to keep records or CDs in playable condition) while scratches on CD will decline playback entirely. A hair-thin scratch on CD can stop playback on the scratch area entirely while vinyl will only pop or click.
There are many records are now being reissued and re-cut and cutting records isn't expensive procedure that is in many cases less pricey than manufacturing CDs so one can expect purchasing new records (the highest definition audio format indeed) at affordable prices again in our 21st century.

As to playback quality it more depends on component quality that is somewhat more complicated than for CD playback where you have to have a right combination of cart, arm, table and phonostage.

To say that vinyl is good only for oldies is entire misconception since vast majority of them including Motown, old blues and other old hits on 78rpm is available in digital formats with no clicks and pops. Vinyl provides best and natural sonic characteristics AND exceptional DURABILITY. CD will last 10 years in average and than the vacume between plastic plates will be compromised creating trivial oxide film around an aluminium disk which will basically end CD playback ability while first vinyl record ever created might still be OK. There are still lots of DJ's using vinyl playback(not only for scratch) on discoteques and parties. You can place styli on record before spinning turntable and than turn the motor on to start spinning... Can you do same with CD?

Frequent playback may destroy vinyl or decrease sonic performance. I have record of Frank Zappa("perhaps Shut Up and Play..." or other box set such as "Joe's Garage") that will have SIDE1 on first vinyl and SIDE2 on another vinyl so that if you played one vinyl and want to listen to continuation, instead of flipping, FZ wanted you to use different vinyl on "another side" so each vinyl from the album has "break" time while you're listening to a different one.
Vinyl definitely not CD and would NOT appreciate frequent song jumping. The preference is to listen to the entire side and if no desire to listen to the end, change to different vinyl.

My recommendation in that case would be to listen to one side of one vinyl and than switch to another vinyl to listen the other side later after vinyl takes "break".

And finally after all It's really great to have both formats! I often would burn vinyl onto CD in order to preserve the valuable and keep it in new condition as a collection. Whould you care doing the same to CD that you care to have as long as it's "alive"? All of the CD's I listen in the car are burned copies for the same reason as vinyls. Quiet electronic music is often better listen via digital playback while rock tunes are much better with vinyl so It's not worth to bash one or the other formats after all.