Is a vinyl rig only worth it for oldies?

Can't fulfil the MM/MI asking needs.

Sorry for the typo.

R.

I've been catching up on this thread,still more to read, but thought I'd like to add.

Way back ,early in this thread I stated a preference for the recording talents of the folks from the 60's,who had none of the toys that the the new crop of "educated" recording engineers have today.

You know, all the stuff that can transform mediocre musicians into giants,and make live vs recorded sound a mute point to argue about.

I acknowledge that technology has progressed in the last two decades.

But has it given us any new classics?

Where's the new Kind Of Blue?

Is it Green Day?

Ok so I'm old,but it's not nostalgia.

I didn't like or appreciate KInd of Blue until a decade ago,when I heard it for the first time,on CD!

The sonics were great,yet it was a simple recording using simple, primitive gear by todays standards.

And yet something was captured on those analog master tapes,something that seems to be missing with most of todays newest all digital recordings.

I have heard some pretty poor examples of modern recording techniques that even good vinyl pressings can't fix.

For me, the best digital recordings played back on good digital gear,seems to be a pretty faithful reproduction of what went on in the studio.

By that, I mean you will hear all the processing that went on to bring a make believe reality into your home.

It's not the same as capturing the reality of a recording of real musicians playing in a real room(with real distortions)in real time.

The older simpler recording of the golden age, just sound more natural because they are.

There was little or no manipulation of reality.

You can't say the same for many of todays recordings.

They are the reality or conception of what the engineer/producer wants us to believe is reality.Or the total absence of it,depending on how far you want to alter and tinker with what was recorded.

You could compare this to the realist types of painting to the more abstract versions of paintings.

One strives to capture reality, the other strives to interpret it.

You can choose which one suits your own tastes.

There's lots of fun listening to studio manipulated masterpieces,and purist recordings.

What it comes down to is, which one would you use to assemble a hifi system?

Again this rests with one's experience to how live instruments sound.So that you can recognize when they are reproduced naturally or in altered form.Then judge what job your gear is doing.How much is it altering reality?
Would you like tone controls,add some more bass?Just how would you like it to sound?

Since few of us were there at the session, how would we know anyways if we did re-capture the same sonics?

Even the end user can't resist twiddling with the mix when given the chance.

Does anyone know what " real" is amnymore?

Do they even want it?

Perhaps it's a generational thing.
I personnally have no interest in any of the "reality" type programs that are thrust at us.
For me it's not a reality that I can relate to, and as such I find nothing to interest me.
It's a production, someone's take on what reality is for the masses of folks who are interested in such shows.

Much the way I find most modern recordings of modern groups are.

The music is very derivitive, the playing can be great, but the recordings are so altered, how can you tell if they are any good?

Only by seeing them live?

Then again look at all the lip syncing, and voice manipulations in supposedly live performances.

If oldies recordings more closely represent reality and that's what turns you on, then jump in.Buy that vinyl rig.

You also may like the way vinyl can reproduce the other reality of the recording studio too on good pressings.

Pink Floyd anyone?

Something from my own musician point of view concerning cloning the sound of different tubes etc.

If you want the "real" sound of a Hammond B3 and Leslie, go out and buy the real tubed ones made decades ago.

The synth versions are just that, synthetic.

The synth versions can do a good job of tricking you that they sound just as good,until you hear them side by side.

Same with modeling amplifiers.

There's a lot of them around that promise to recreate the sound of old Marshall, or Fender tube amps,yet in reality, they pale in comparison to the real items.Stll want to clone the sound of an EL 34?
Ask Mr Carver why he uses the real tubes on his newest tube amps?
There's no substitution for the real things in life.
That's the reality.

Lots of folks do like these clones,they make sense, they're cheap and easy to maintain and they are portable.And they can buy them.It's hard to buy the originals and definitely not cheap.

They are an attempt to capture the sounds that made the original "analog" units so popular.

Think of this.

Technology marches on, yet it's purpose is to clone all that has gone on before. The old technology.Not chart new territories,the one exception being the Moog.

People buy the newest computer gear to download music that is derivative of another generation,which was derivative of the one before it.We keep reinventing the wheel.

Now that's progress.

Mapman,

Do you find any digital enjoyable when you hear it played on your gear? How about other gear?

Certainly! What do you mean by 'other gear'?

Raul:

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

First, the R2R takes a back seat to the LP; ever hear a direct to disk?? The dynamic range, signal to noise and bandwidth of an LP can far exceed that of R2R. It just happens that often the reel to reel sounds better for other reasons- poor signal chain in the LP, worn stampers, stuff like that.

In the THD spec of the digital you did not mention Inharmonic Distortion, which is very high!- enough that anyone can hear it on any kind of equipment without training. Compare that to analog which has none. You will never see the Inharmonic Distortion figure in any digital specs as it is terrible- sort of like the Emperor's New Clothes.

Raul:

Here is the same: why we like a faulty medium over a truer/accurate medium as digital?

Well, to begin with digital is not as accurate. Do I have to keep harping: Spend some time in the studio using direct microphone feeds, compare the digital and analog recordings and don't forget to compare the lathe cuts while we are at it???

The least accurate is digital, 2nd in line is reel to reel and the best is the lathe cut. If the mic feed goes directly to the lathe, the resulting LP will be the best representation of that microphone feed. I should point out that you don't need sophisticated gear to hear what I am talking about; anyone will easily hear the differences, even if the speakers are substandard by high end standards, even if the signal is sent through a cheap amplifier. It is very obvious to the untrained ear.

Lacee, have you heard any of Johnny Cash's LPs that he did just before he died? How about some of the recordings of Low on Kranky ('Trust' is a good place to start)? The sound is AAA and amazing!

Yes I have all the new ones from Johnny, and I like them, even though I only have the cd's!.

I do have some old mono lp's from the man, and they aren't too shabby either.

I've never heard of Low, but I do like the group Lambchop, mostly for the music, again only on cd.

I have listened to Sufjan Stevens on cd and vinyl, and vinyl wins out, in whatever format he chose to record in.

I'm not saying that there's nothing good about modern groups or that they are less talented.They are mostly better musicians than myself and most of my peers.

I also appreciate the talents of groups like Widespread Panic,Phish,etc.

I just wish that the folks recording them were as talented in their trade.

Neil Young is an oldie who is still investigating ways to bring high fidelity back to the forefront.I understand he may bring something new to the format wars in the near future.Time will tell.

Then it will be up to the general public to pay up or shut up.

I've listened to his live recordings made at Massey Hall in 1971 using a simple tape deck and a few mikes.

I find them quite impressive.How much the masters were messed with I haven't a clue.If you make a mistake in a live recording we forgive you, please don't alter them.That is if you value realism.

I've also listened to them in high res playback thru the full Scarlatti rig, and the detail is better than Redbook cd by a large margin.But the original was analog afterall.

I've several Direct to disk recordings and always used them to evaluate my turntable setups.Still use them to this day,and I agree they are very realistic,because they were all about capturing reality not trying to create something unnatural.

I would presume there must be some direct to digital recordings also, but the temptation to alter reality, to sweeten things up, add a touch more reverb,to play with more toys is always there.

More is not better, less usually is.