Is a vinyl rig only worth it for oldies?

Dear Mapman: I can't see how we can apply Synthesis to create something new when IMHO the analog alternative ( as I posted in my very first post ) is wrong and full of " anomalies ".

As I posted too, all that software/plug-inns that exist and that is used in the digital recording process has no sense to me: why " copy " something that's wrong by " definition " ?, yes the only reason is because people ask for it, we are hooked by the analog even that's absolutely non-accurate and non-neutral.

Many of us even thing and support that the R2R ( master tapes. ) are de " eden " of the analog and this IMHO is non true and only a myth created not only because our ignorance but for commercial reasons: AHEE corruption !.

IMHO any single open reel machine ( and I say any. ) has several failures. Yes, it is the best analog source but imperfect too, especially against digital one:

some normal specs on digital recording systems gives us numbers like these:

- flat frequency response from DC!!!, -THD lower than 0.004%, - signal to noise 93db RMS unweighted, - dynamic range 93db RMS unweighted, - wow and flutter: unmeasurable!! and I can go on and on.
No one R2R not only can even that can't even dream about.

And exist other analog problems: "" digitization of the audio signal ( ceros and ones. ) virtually eliminates the traditional analog recording problems, such as: background noise, tape hiss, distortion,wow and flutter, limited dynamic range and generation loss.

Since numbers rhater than analog representations are stored in the tape, digital recordings are immune from effects such as printtrhough, tape noise, etc. Audio reconstructed from the numbers are virtually identical to the original. Furthermore, copies of digital recordings are absolutely indistinuishable from the original recording since a copy is an identical set of numbers. """"

And remember that the R2R generate odds harmonics.

IMHO analog is a faulty medium where till today I can't understand ( bevcause my ignorance level. ) where exist any single advantage over digital, I can't understand for sure why I like it other that because I'm accustom to heard/hear it.

A 24/192 digital source as a DVDA is almost perfect and remember that today we have players that use 32bits DACs and recording machines at 32/64 with over 350khz sampling.

IMHO today non-exist a battle between analog vs digital as years ago, today that battle gone because IMHO there is no contest by the analog medium even R2R.

Any one can test almost all what I affirm in this post:

take a direct to dic LP recording like the Shefield Labs: Dave Grusin-- Diyscovered Again.
When this LP was sold out Shefield prssed a " new " LP that came from the analog tape recorded during the direct to disc session.

You don't have to believe in nothing I posted:

hear both LPs and you will know immediatly which one came from the analog tape which one came from the direct disc recording. The differences are not subtle but substantials.

In other direct to disc recordings by M&K happéned the same and you be aware of similar experiences.

The best analog tape (R2R ) IMHO: IS NO ANALOG TAPE, not only as a recording tool but as a playback source.

Can I be wrong?, vertainly but I need and I woul like to learn from some of you why I'm wrong.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

certainly. The Shefield LP title is: Discovered Again.. Sorry for the typos.

R.

Rr,

Leveraging vinyl in addition to digital would be the synthesized solution leveraging both together as needed only if one has the desird to hear certain recordings on vinyl in addition to digital. Or, vice versa.

If one is satisfied with one or the other only, then no dilemma exists.

It all depends on the individual's wants or needs, for whatever reason.

Solman989 said
"it (old vinyl) 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 have also experienced this, hence my return to listening to vinyl. Don’t get me wrong I still have many SACD and CDs that sound great as well.

I attribute this “3D” difference to various factors but I think the main two are these...
1. Compression of dynamic range. (DR)
2. Different approach to recording/mixing/mastering
I find it extraordinary that in theory CD is capable of a far wider DR than vinyl, but since 1995 we have seen the DR on CDs decline from around 20 down to 6. This flattening removes the dynamic life of a recording and I am sure many of you have seen the YouTube video that demonstrates this effect.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ&feature=colike
Use this link or search “loudness war”

I’ve basically given up buying new releases because the listening pleasure is just not in the recordings anymore. Instead I have been exploring used vinyl and true analogue reissues and discovered some really interesting music that sounds fantastic. Many of which were recorded 50 years ago.

Two examples of these reissues are both on Speaker’s Corner Records done purely analogue.
“On The Sunny Side of the Street” by Ella Fitzgerald and Count Basie 1963 and “Prez” by Perez Prado 1958.

I find the life and dynamics of these records very enjoyable and I’ve never heard anything quite like it come from a modern recording or CD.

You can have the highest resolution recording with extreme accuracy but this factor alone does not equate to an enjoyable listening experience. Well engineered recording and mixing is more important and far outweigh the benefit of “high resolution digital”.

Raulirurgas,
to answer your post to mapman if I may be so bold. People are synthesising these old pieces of kit because they have a sound. A sound which is familiar and much loved by many. Yes equipment is way better now as you mentioned but it has no character due to its transparency.

So some want the character. In a recording studio this is very important. It brings a statement to a guitar or vocal or drum sound etc.