Is a vinyl rig only worth it for oldies?

Atmasphere is right. CD Redbook format has specifications that limit what is possible whereas vinyl does not.

Practically the issue is more how significant are the CD redbook limits and how often are the capabilities of vinyl recordings realized in practice?

The CD redbook format debate is well documented, no need to rehash that.

What is possible with vinyl is more an open book. My assessment/gut estimate is that overall less than 50% of modern vinyl format technical capabilities are realized in most popular recordings and even less most likely by most rigs used for playback, except perhaps for the very top, elite few %, and that comes only on occasional recordings via rigs that perhaps might be better classified as expensive laboratory gear than something the typical consumer is likely to own.

But Mapman what you described just highlights the potential for improvement in the sound of LPs. If somebody has a "typical consumer" phono playback system, he can still buy records and enjoy them, but later on if he upgrades his phono equipment the sound quality just gets better and better. While the same could be said for CDs, the magnitude of potential improvement is greater with LPs by far.

I think there should be some distinctions about modern vs older recording techniques.

Most digital recordings are done in a Frankenstein type way.

Most of the musicians "phone" their parts in, they are pro(really PRO!)Tooled, and put through all kinds of signal processing, and just like processed cheese compared to the real thing, what you get is the producers idea of what will sell to the masses.

Now go back in time.

The whole group gathered in one room for the most part, and there were a minimal number of quality tube mics placed with great care to capture all the subtle shades and nuances of the performance.

The recording engineer likely knew the musicians or at least was familiar with the music and genre and knew what to do to capture on tape what he was hearing with his own trained ears.

Then the tapes were transfered to other masters who were well trained in the pressing and manufacture of vinyl records.Folks who took pride in what they were doing.

The group or solo performer was usually photographed by another trained professional and the final product was a real labour of love for the music, musician and the process.

Everyone involved cared and respected the music,they respected the quality of their craft as engineers and they respected their audience, the record buying public, who perhaps had seen the ensemble in the very same NY club or at the least wanted to re-live that expereince again and again in the comfort of their own home.

Saddly it's all about the bottom line today, and for most they are quite happy with free downloads of poorly recorded and poorly performed music.

Kind of Blue is an example of a Classic in a number of ways.
How many Classics have any of us heard in the last few years in the new age of disposable music formats?

It's great news that so many of these well recorded Classics are once again available in vinyl format and that for the most part, care has been taken to re-issue this music with few if any flaws for a new generation to appreciate.

In any format.

I've been collecting and playing LPs since junior high school and now have a record collection numbering over 5000. Much of my collection is 1950s jazz, and most of them are mono recordings. Want to hear what mono jazz sounds like at it's best: Buy a mint recording of Dave Bruebeck's "Jazz In The U.S.A." Also, don't pass up mono classical recordings either. For example, some of the Mercury Living Presence records in mono are to die for.

Dear Solman989: ++++++ " 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. " +++++

I agree, the digital can't approach that type of sound. IMHO : Why can't approach it?, because analog/LP is totally faulty.

The analog signal is heavily manipulated, let see it:

when recorded and to be cutted ( LP. ) the signal must be equalized according to the RIAA standard and this means and equalization that goes from 20hz to 20khz +,- 20dbs!!!!!!!this deemphasis means added distortions, phase chnages, non-linear anomalies, added noise, additional stages where the signal have to pass through.
Then the signal is trasfered to vinyl with all imperfections where does not exist a perfect cutting system, here there is several kind of signal loses: certainly what is in the recording was not what was recorded before all that proccess.

When we want to hear the LP in our audio system that analog signal must be recovery through the phono stage for we can attain a flat frequency response ( just like exist ( with out RIAA eq. ) in a digital medium. ) so inside the phono stage that signal pass again for an additional RIAA eq. ( this time an inverse eq. ) with all the heavy degradation: distortions, phase problems, added noise, colorations, etc, etc, etc.

Inside that phono stage the very low output signal must be amplified ( sometimes 10K times!!! ) to a level where the preamp can handle it as it handle in "; natural"; way the digital signal that has a lot higher output level. Through the high gain proccess the signal pass through 3-5 additional stages that continue degrading the signal continue adding more distortions ( of every kind ), nothing of this happen with the digital medium. That very low output signal characteristic makes that the signal be extremely sensitive to be degraded by everykind of " pollulation " ( electrical/magnetic. ) where the higher digital output signal is a lot less suceptible of that kind of degradations.

All those is what happen to an electronics level now we have to add the worst of all the signal manipulation:

a cartridge to " read " the recorded information, a cartridge is a rudimentary " instrument " for say the least. Cartridge designers make some kind of " magic "/tremendous efforts for the cartridge can makes its critical/titanic job.

A cartridge is an " unstable " tool, everything affect its performance: kind of cantilever and cantilever build material, stylus shape and with which kind of quality was builded, room temperature, kind and quality of cartridge suspension, cartridge motor design, cartridge body resonances, cartridge ridiculous pin connectors, etc, etc, each part of the cartridge degraded the original signal with out exception.

After that the cartridge must be mounted in a tonearm for it can ride the LP and one of the first challenges that the signal has to deal with are the " stupid " tonearm wire connectors to the cartridge and then the in ternal tonearm wire and the the additional IC between the tonearm and the phono stage. In all those links the signal continue degrading, this does not happen in the digital alternative: so no signal degradation.

But the worst for the " end " ( sometimes I think the analog medium is: endless of problems. ):

now the stylus tip hit the LP grooves and at microscopic level that stylus tip start a heavy fight against the grooves/its compliance and tracking habilities to stay in the grooves to be in touch always and this happen almost never ( especialy with low compliance cartridges as the LOMC ones. ). The stylus tip is " jumping " generating distortions and harmonic distortions. All this " fight " is transmited through the cartridge body to the tonearm which start to resonate ( adding distorions, non.linear anomalies, atc, atc. ) according those cartridge self resonances and according the cartridge compliance/tonearm effective mass.

But all the information captured by the cartrdige has not only a doses of tracking distortions becuase non-perfect cartridge tracking habilities but distortions because the stylus tip never coincide with the grooves never coincide on how the grooves were cutted!!!!! not even in a linear tracking tonearms.

Why is that? for several reasons: the LPs comes all with waves that preclude a perfect alignement trhough all the LP tracks. There is no perfect tonearm/cartridge set up it doesw not matters which geometry alignment we choose: Baerwald, Lofgren, Stevenson, etc, etc, in all them there is tracking errors for a pivoted tonearm and that tracking errors means added distortions in the signal path. Btw and talking of set up there is no perfect cartridge set up_ VTA/SRA/azymuth, overhang/etc, load impedance, load capacitance, etc, etc. All these parameters all the playback time are changing because all the LP imperfections including different LP weights, excentricity LP " center " hole.
Don't forget the TT speed unaccuracies, speed unstability, rumble, wow&fluter, platter resonances, TT bearing ones, tonearm/TT mount board feedback and of course system SPL feedback that affect every analog rig.

I can go on and on and on with all the " thousands " degradation links where the analog signal must pass but as an example I think is enough.

Gentlemans, IMHO it is a " miracle " that we all after all those kind of degradations we still can enjoy the analog sounds!

+++++ " it was the smoothest, most organic, and 3d sound that ever came out of my speakers... " +++++

these and other adjectives that we audiophiles used to use when refereing to LP quality performance experiences does not comes in the recording in the original recording , those " characteristics " are a result of the heavy degradation that suffer the analog signal, degradation that does not exist in the digital alternative so that's why both mediums sounds different. Of course that digital has its own trade-offs, well I prefer it: is truer to the recording.

That we like it the analog alternative does not confirms and does not means in any sense that is right, IMHO is wrong almost dead wrong.

I prefer digital HR for music sound reproduction at home because I 'm nearest to the original sound that passed through the recording microphones with lower " artefacts " than in the analog domain.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.