Is a vinyl rig only worth it for oldies?

Isn't the assumption that "sounds better" which is totally subjective is not the same as "more accurate" to the recording in this case?

I think it has been acknowledged that something can sound better and not necessarily be more accurate.

Also specific ideal test scenarios, whatever the outcome, do not determine what occurs in the real world. They are interesting from an R&D perspective but until that is translated into a viable commercial product, it may not matter to most.

In this case, by 'sounds better' I mean that how it sounds with respect to the master tape. For example I hear LP bass sounding very much the same.

Raul was suggesting that the sound of the LP is distorted compared to an analog tape and that is not the case. Further, he was suggesting that the sound of a digital copy of a digital master is less distorted than that of the LP, also not the case.

What is perhaps not understood is that the LP media is one of the lowest distortion and widest bandwidth media ever devised. If there is distortion, its an artifact of playback and as such if done right can be quite low- low enough that the distortion is not audible. There is no way you can do this with digital!

A simple test for anyone with a digital recorder is to record and play back sine wave sweep tones. You will be amazed at what you hear- the distortion digital has can be profound, easily heard, but unlike analog it tends to be related to the scan frequency rather than the musical tones recorded (in case you are curious what you hear, in the digital playback of the sweep tone you will also hear 'birdies', sets of modulation tones that change frequency as the fundamental changes). The distortion is easily heard even if the sweep tones are kept at a low level.

It is these distortions that contribute the brightness many perceive in the digital sound. I've pointed this distortion out to a number of pro-digital 'digi-phile' types in the past that have discounted it as a product of cheap converters, but oddly enough after 20 years (when I first heard it) its still with us. A lot has happened in the digital world since then but getting rid of distortion is not one of them.

Atmasphere,

I hear what your saying but of course the counter argument is that a test signal is not music so alone it does not completely address the problem.

I suspect there are other tests that can be done where digital would measure better.

There is seldom only one way to skin a cat. That's why that saying sticks! Audio and technology in general is no exception.

Plus, the OP is asking what is worth it or not, so lets assume the two formats do not have the same strengths and weaknesses which is a safe assumption and focus on what is really worth it or not.

Its amazing that some out here holding them selfs to be experts can be exposed to have so little understanding of analog. I am not talking about Atmasphere!

I don't see how anybody with a serious interest in the music of TODAY can tell someone they should be doing vinyl rather than digital. Maybe if the recommendation comes with an interest free loan it might go over better. Pay more for a more problematic format to play recordings that are mostly digitally mastered to start with. Makes sense to me.

Maybe if digital never happened and the world was still geared around analog technology I would feel differently.

Vinyl is a niche technology today. One with some nice things about but a niche nonetheless. There are many vintage vinyl recordings worth hearing on a good vinyl rig. That the worl today revolves around digital technology and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future is an irrefutable part of the value proposition.

I admire Atamasphere's products and his steadfast willingness to realize his visions but that does not change reality as a whole. Vinyl may sound better sometimes. That is about the extent of it. When the recording is digital to start with, all the vinyl in the world will not make it into something from years gone by that it is not.