Is a vinyl rig only worth it for oldies?

Dear Lacee: +++++ " I feel is the problem with digital, is that it sanitizes too much of the natural distortions that are a part of everyday life,which includes the instruments themselves ,the room, the recording chain etc. " +++++

+++++ " When you start to eliminate these natural occuring distortions at the time of the recording ... " ++++

Sanitize????, well IMHO you are only speculating. Where do you learn/read/inform about? why sanitize those " natural distortions "? it does on purpose?

at the recording stage the microphone say at 1m. from the sound source takes the sound/music generated at high SPL mainly direct sound with all its distortions if any and for a digital is to easy to conform ceros and ones (0,1. ) all those information that is more complicated for analog because of the magnetic print out that's not perfect, the analog signal is a lot more complicated that the ceros and ones. IMHO there is no single sound that can escape to the microphone that can escape to the digital recording.

All those " natural distortions " that you and your friend like on analog playback does not existed during recording almost all were generated during playback. Lp playback is a " misery " and has not " natural distortions ".

Analog LP is a non-accuarte medium and you, me and no one else can do nothing about but only try to lower system distortions during playback at home.

Natural accuracy is perhaps the " name of the game " and digital is accurate. It is obvious that we don't like accuracy and that's why we like analog LP, tubes, fancy cables, BD TTs, and the like.Btw, I prefer the Esoteric K series to the Scarlatti, way better.

Anyway, I think I will follow enjoying both alternatives. Why not????

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Movies shot in Cinemascope have some unique inherent distortions (see the technical difficulties section in the referenced article) yet are generally quite lovely to watch.

How about modern digital Imax?

Which would you prefer?

Why should vinyl/digital audio, be any different?

The higher sampling rate or higher res digital formats are superior to the limited redbook.Because information lost is replaced,by adding more ones and zeros.But this isn't reality.It's altering it.
Most people prefer the sound of higher sampling rates,as less information is lost.I contend that what is lost is natural distortions that make things sound real.The things that digital lose, analog retains.

In analog recording,because the music isn't being chopped up into bits and pieces, the performance is mostly intact. Upsampling doesn't even add lost information, it only increases the info that is already there to try and fill in the gaps.The missing gaps that most folks with trained ears,couldn't tolerate compared to analog.
Something wasn't perfect with the perfect sound.
No matter how much the specs and spin would try and make you believe.

Analog doesn't do this.

These are some of the things that I have read that tend to give support to my beliefs.

I also believe you can't replace what has been lost.Upsampling isn't the cure, it's a band aid.

For me, the little bit of extra distortion added in vinyl replay is less significant than losing information or limiting bandwidth.

Debating whether Esoteric or Scarlatti are the kings of the hill means nothing to me.Both are great,as are others. I like my Esoteric X-03, I presume that the newer versions are even better.

I do know that my friends full Scarlatti set up is the best digital sound I have ever heard.

But even it is not "perfect sound forever".

Still missing a few important ones and zeros that vinyl isn't.

Some folks say that vinyl has more air around the instruments.
Tubes also give you that.
R. feels these are distortions.
I feel that analog is reproducing all the distortions found in real life, not filtering or sanitizing them out.

If these are nothing but distortions,and should be avoided, then why do they sound more realistic to so many trained ears?

Why does most redbook cd sound flat and two dimensional compared to vinyl?

If distortions or I should say,the faithful reproduction of all the distortions and harmonics found in making a music reproduction,are left intact,I contend that you are closer to what was going on at the time the music was played.And you will enjoy the music more, feel more relaxed, and not even notice any added distortions from the gear.

Take anything out or away from it, and you've lost something that can't be fixed later on.The ear/mind reacts to this lost information which I feel needs to include all the natural distortions inherent in recording and playing music, by shutting down, and listener fatigue sets in.

We live in a distorted world, we have come to accept it as real,take these natural occuring distortion away or replace them with ones and zeros of something already recorded,and the ear/mind will recognize it for what it is.
And reject it as unnatural or foreign to our ears.

Here's an example.
An anechoic chamber is great for doing measuremnts on speakers, but it is not the ideal environment for enjoying music thru those speakers .

The sterile environemnet is uncomfortable, too much or a good thing,we need some room induced distortions and reflections and bounce to make the music sound as it does in real life.

Real life is imperfect.We don't exist in an anechoic environment. We acknowledge and accept imperfections.
When they are missing, we feel it and recognize the loss and we react accordingly.

Now take a stripped to the bone digital recording, with a low res sampling rate, little air around instruments and flat dimensionality, and run it thru sterile sounding soilid state gear a lot of folks feel is acurate because of it's superior spec and low distortion, and you have the perfect recipe for a few minutes not hours of music. listening.

Dear lacee: I love analog but I realy like digital too.

Now, one " thing " is the redbook where its limitation reside on those limited 16bits but a HR digital as DVDA has 24bits: this is not over or up sampling but REAL bits/music in the same way than analog, I repeat not over or up sampling. First than all we have to understand what means DVDA native non-limits.

In the other side the K series by Esoteric came with 32bits DACs and this is something to hear!!!

My point is still the same: to understand what happen down there during playback in either alternative and IMHO to say that analog LP are a superior medium is ( again ) IMHO an absolute misunderstood on the whole playback subject in a home audio system.

IMHO your posts, that I respect, are " wrong " right from start because what you are " speculating " is not what realy happen during LP playback or : Do you think that during LP playback what is in the recording is what you are listening in your system with out those severe and several degradation stages where the analog signal muist pass?

I can't to go on talking on the same if we can't understand what is really happening how the signal is heavely " touched " my the analog rig.

What you hear are all those LP playback distortions and not what is in the recording. Those playback added distortions never existed in the recording process. All what you are saying happen because those non-existen distortions I repeat: NON EXISTEN DISTORTIONS COLORATIONS DURIN THE RECORDING AND CERTAINLY NEVER IN A LIVE EVENT°!!!!!!!!

Got it?

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

No, I don't "got it".

I don't hear the distortions you refer to in my vinyl rig nor in my friends vinyl rig.

I am not aware of added distortions that interfere with the music, or that add harmonious colourations pleasing to my ears and the ears of others who have listened to my system or his.

I have heard a lot of noisy distortions on lesser vinyl gear, perhaps this is what you are more familiar with.

What you don't get is the fact that the bar for the sampling rate has always been set too low.

I have listened to pure SACD on my Esoteric and my friends Scarlatti, and it does eclipse the sound of redbook cd.
No arguments there.

Some of his hi res computer music(Amarra software, Naim )and played thru the Scarlatti dac and clock sound better than his DSD from the pure SACD Japanese discs.
Some not all.A lot of the hi res is not Hi res, which has disappointed him.His Scarlatti reveals the true sampling rates.

What you fail to "get" is the fact that the recordings from the late 50's to early 60's were pure recordings compared to what is done today.

You can't get much purer than simple miking and perhaps just riding the gain and having all the musicians in the same room, playing together in real time and capturing the sound of the room and all the air and distortions in that room.
Those master analog tapes are nearer to the original event, the truth, than what is being done today with even the best digital recording machines.

The problem with the current generation of digtal recordings is the reliance on after the fact fixes to the original recording.And most likely, all the musicians weren't even at the recording at the same time.Their parts are "phoned" in or pasted on after the fact.Now add in all the effects and toys and the orignal sound isn't even close to being called the original sound.

Of course this is a black and white scenario of the most extreme examples of recording music.

One I feel is an art the other is a learned skill.

When these early all analog recordings are played back on very good vinyl systems,as opposed to just a turntable, cheap cartridge and inhouse phono stage in a receiver,you get all the black ,noise free background and silence between notes that the better digital systems gives you.And then somethingelse that digital doesn't.

This includes all the nasties you have pointed out in the vinyl chain.
Somehow the well recorded lp's played thru good vinyl systems despite all the distortions you attribute to them,do sound more faithfull to the original event.

At least to my ears,which have been exposed to live music( I'm a musician)for over forty years.

Let me close by saying that although I don't get what you are saying, I do "get it" when it comes to recognizing the superiority of quality vinyl systems when compared to even more expensive digital systems.Despite how perfect to the original the digital manufacturer claims may be.There's more going on between the recording mic and your ear in digital than there is in analog.At least in the classic analog recordings of the past 50 or 60 years.

Think about this.
Why are the best digital systems always touted as "analog like"? Because analog when done right still sets the standard,distortions and all.
Since we are talking about vinyl I would like to mention that reel to reel analog can be even closer to the live experience most of us are searching for.
And vinyl replay gear was always compared to how close they came to matching the standards set by analog reel to reel set ups.
And even those reel to reel set ups of yesterday and today have distortions.
Distortions are everywhere,except perhaps in your perfect digital world.
Sixty year old recordings are still regarded as the holy grail,yet those recordings were recorded on primitive electronics compared to what is available today.

Why are they still so revered?

If they were as flawed and distorted as you contend, they should have been long forgotten and out of print.Yet here they are, in 200 gram,45 rpm versions that can sound better than the original pressings in some cases.

Perhaps they don't sound any better in your system,so I can't debate that they should, I haven't heard your vinyl replay system. I can state that they do sound great in mine.How can you debate that?

You can only speculate,whereas I have heard direct comparisons of redbook,pure SACD, Hi Res computer, and high end vinyl sources in a very well put together system.
I can lay claim to having a first hand experience with comparing the two formats,and my friend who owns the system has come to the same conclusion as me.
He enjoys the realism that vinyl has that none of his superb digital sources provide.
In this case we both "get it".
You don't.