2. analog
  3. 1340176293

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
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,748 posts
 
Lacee,

I agree with you about the recordings from the 50 and 60s and how they were made in a manner that set a certain bar, distortions or not.

Now, given that we are in the year 2012 50 years later, does that mean that a vinyl rig is truly in fact only "worth it" for oldies?

I also tend to agree with Raul's latest position that digital is technically inherently more accurate than vinyl, which does not necessarily mean it sounds better, which I think Raul indicated as well. The case for CD redbook format specifically being more accurate than vinyl can be argued but definitely has more holes.
rauliruegas
13,125 posts
 
Dear Lacee: ++++ " 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.
" +++++

well if you and your friends can't hear all those added distortions developed through more than 20 playback different stages that contribute to the signal degradation then is useless to continue about because IMHO and with all respect or all of you are " deaf " or simple: you can't understand what happen in each of those different 20 stages in the anlog rig during playback .

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

could be. Btw, I'm " familiar " with each link in your analog rig ( including the Steelhead. ).

+++++ " Somehow the well recorded lp's played thru good vinyl systems despite all the distortions you attribute to them " +++++

I don't attribute nothing those are facts I'm not speculating or invented nothing: facts, only that.

+++++ " Why are the best digital systems always touted as "analog like"? " +++++

by ignorance.

+++++ " Distortions are everywhere,except perhaps in your perfect digital world. " +++++

I never say that, so don't put " words in my mouth ". I was very specific: both alternatives have its own TRADE-OFFS !!!

Lacee, for my part I think is enough and as I posted twice: I will go to enjoy both alternayives. Bye!

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
lacee
811 posts
 
The original recordings were done so well that those master tapes can still be used to make modern pressings that can be better than the originals.

They may be a bit expensive,but the same used original lp's are costing more,and by used I mean less than pristine.

I've gone that route and it's getting harder to find treasures.

I would rather bite the bullet and buy re-issues from quality re-issue labels.

So I think we have to re-think the term "oldies" to include modern pressings of the cream of the crop recordings.

My first source was vinyl, back in the late 1960's.
I never abandoned it,never sold off my lp collection and some of my collection has become sought after and the values have increased.

I don't think we can say the same for any of my cd's in my digital collection.
I wish the same good fortune for those who are entrenched in the digital camp, but I fear I won't be around that long to find out.

Vinyl has survived and is flourishing, despite all the flaws and mechanical inaccuracies attributed to it that some folks like to point out.

If vinyl replay is such an inferior medium, why has it lasted so long and continues to flourish, while cd seems to be on the wane?

It can't just be the nostalgia ticket, becasue cd's have been around for quite some time.

I really believe that for anything to have legs in this hobby, it has to sound good.

If not it will be forgotten .

Quads, Ls3/5a, Acoustats, to name a few classics that I have owned and enjoyed, still sound good and can hold their own to most of today's speakers.People still want those things.

Perhaps they have the kinds of distortions and inaccuracies, that a lot of people find very pleasing.
Maybe just vinyl lovers like them?

I have nothing against trying to strive for accuracy in an audio system,and I try my best to rid my system of electrical and mechanical nasties that can mask the accuracy or what has been recorded.

But accuracy has to go hand in hand with realism,so that the mechanicals do not stand in the way of the music.
Some call this the great accuracy vs musical sound debate.

I don't think one should suffer for the other, there should be a balance struck somewhere, so that accuracy doesn't intrude upon or rob the music of it's ability to suspend our beliefs that what we are listening to happened not yesterday but more than a half century ago.

As well, the system or medium shouldn't be so coloured with pleasant harmonic distortions that we can't distinguish individual hand claps for what they are,and not background noise.

Ignorance is a pretty harsh word to use.Personally it's insulting and demeaning and reeks of arrogance.
It implies that the multitudes of people who enjoy vinyl over digital just don't have a clue or don't "get it" or lack the intellect to understand that the sound they enjoy is full of inaccuracies.

Well call me a dummy if you will, but I am in good company.

At the end of the day we vinyl loving dummies will place another flawed lp on our flawed turntables and listen as that flawed needle gouges out some more shreds of vinyl and sit in awe and enjoy the music as it envelopes around us.My 50 year old lp's should not be tolerable to the ear,yet they have few pops or snaps.

I do use a VPI 16.5 to clean them, and a Hammond bulk tape eraser to demag them.

But I only started to use those for the last 4 years.

Tonite,the ignorant amongst us, those who don't know any better,will be transported to another era or place and get so lost in the music that nothing else matters to them.
The destination not the means to get there is foremost on their minds.

Yup, time to cue up another 5 buck Ray Charles mono lp.
rauliruegas
13,125 posts
 
Dear Lacee: IMHO you simple lost my/the point. We are talking of different " things ".

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
rockpig
18 posts
 
My answer to the OPs question: "is vinyl only good for older pre-80s music when mastering was still analogue and not all digital?"
I switched from vinyl to CDs in 1985 but at the start of 2012 I purchased a new TT/cart and started buying a lot of vinyl again. Some old used 50s to 80s stuff, audiophile reissued LPs and many others.
From what I have experienced so far I have to say it is much like CDs in that each record has to be taken on its own merits and no generalisation can be made. Some newer recordings on vinyl are very good and have that nice open sound while others have that dense digital feel to them. So it is a gamble. Shelby Lynne “ Just a Little Lovin’ is a 2008 vinyl release which is an example of a newer recording on LP that sounds really good, and only cost me $12.99USD new from Sound Stage Direct.
What I have noticed is that many older recordings (that have not been digitally fudged) sound great.
As far as the vinyl vs. digital debate I have found that in general vinyl is just nicer to listen to. When doing an A/B comparison of the same music, initially the CD sounds more impressive, clearer and more detailed in the short term, but lacks the warmth and bottom end of vinyl.
For example I have Fleetwood Mac “Rumours” on 2009 reissue vinyl and 2001 Japanese SACD. The SACD is very clear and detailed but the vinyl just sounds right and I prefer to listen to the vinyl than the SACD.
Vinyl definitely has a different sound and feel to it and I think it comes down to personal taste as to which is “superior”.
If you have not heard of Speaker’s Corner Records you need to check out their reissues. I have purchased many of them and they are spot on. I am amazed at how dynamic some of these older recording sound. Ella Fitzgerald “On The Sunny Side of The Street” is a gem, the horn hits are explosive and Ella’s vocals are great. Another beauty is Perez Prado “Prez”, a snappy Latin LP recorded in 1958.
More to discover