TOTALLY CONFUSED about analog

You're right, Jimbo, it DOES sound strident and I wonder why? Mercy sakes, my friend, don't you READ what people write? I'll let pbb speak for himself but in my case I AM NOT ANALOG ADVERSE. I have been and will continue to be complimentary to and appreciative of good analog sound.

I made the conscious, deliberate choice to give up vinyl (of which I had a lot) and get rid of my analog equipment (which was eminently respectable and in which I had invested a lot of money) because I found surface noise more of a detriment to my listening enjoyment than the benefit of analog sound compared to digital.

Jimbo, did you ever hear someone say that they chose XXX speaker because it had such a phenomenal midrange (for example) even though they acknowledged that it didn't have such a totally wonderful low end or top end? Do you know of anyone who chose imaging and soundstage over maximum tonal accuracy or vice versa?

This is what we are talking about. It isn't a matter of being "analog adverse." For goodness sake, you'll hear a lot more negativity on the dear old 'gon about digital than you ever will about analog. It's a matter of people making personal choices that reflect their values in music appreciation.

Why get so exercised over something that's supposed to be fun?

Will

Psychicanimal, I make no promises, but this is the last from me on the never ending analogue/vinyl vs. digital/CD debate: on the inherent musicality of a system as judged by a third party who is not into this audiophile thing, I can take the case of my wife. The first thing she mentions when coming into the room when an LP is playing music with less than a relentless musical groove to hide the surface noise is that there is so much noise present. On the other hand, when I got a home trial of the Arcam FMJ CD 23 (which I ended up buying despite what is probably also to you a well known phrase: "but you have a CD player") she was amazed at the difference between my JVC 1010 in terms of the oft-touted "musicality" and opined that it simply sounded more like musical instruments than its predecessor. And this is a machine that many consider entry level into better CD reproduction. Briefly put: in the roughly ten year span between these two machines a lot has been accomplished in CD reproduction which is not apparent in the measured performance. What has happened is "musicality" that rivals that of analogue/vinyl even in the handicap race always proposed between the two, and which surpasses it when background and impulse noises are part of the equation (which they should, since I can't buy the arguments that you can simply dismiss these two distinct and intrusive noises while concentrating on the detailed, relaxed and liquid analogue presentation). My most basic point is that unless you have compelling reasons to get into vinyl (inter alia, inheriting an analogue rig and/or a decent LP collection), one would be better to concentrate resources on what is the current generally accepted system of music reproduction, unless that is the "hobby" aspect of analogue/vinyl is too tempting, in which case the person, such as the original poster who still can't believe what his simple question engendered, should set himself a budget and get a good used turntable of Linn, VPI, SOTA or Oracle manufacture (or other manufacture where parts are still available) along with a decent arm (which is probably already installed on the tt), together with a new cartridge. That same person could also give one of the better CD players a listen and then decide if all the negatives attributed to CD reproduction, such as aggressive highs, lack of detail, lack of warmth, no toe-tappingness and other now time-worn and un-applicable clichés, are real or simply a rehashing of twenty year old biases, and maybe save some money in the process.

Pbb, I think Sedond has it right on the money. He's been telling me about the modded ART di/o for MONTHS! Then I read that the VMPS speaker was best of the CES. The DAC? Modded ART di/o. If one combines this with professor Van Alstine's argument of using a cheap transport (that's what he used in his demo at the Chicago Audio Society) with a good DAC then one is set. Bueno. No need to spend a lot of money. Shouldn't for digital anyway. It's just ones and zeros...

Ken, please forgive us. If you like old music or have a collection of LPs, go for it. Keep it simple. I ordered the tonearm fluid damper for my TT last week and should get it anytime. Please e-mail me if you have any questions.

Hey man, I'm waiting for a record I got on ebay. It's the band that played in my ninth grade ball. Not on CD, extremely hard to get. Lots of impulse noise. But even more HOT street salsa music to make you forget about the noise!

Pbb the only thing I can see about your complaining of all that impulse noise is two reasons: Perhaps you listen to classical music almost exclusively (which indeed does have a lot of low volume passages in which I also consider the noise unacceptable) and/or maybe you don't really know how to take care of your vinyl (including proper cartridge setup).

As usual, there is no conclusion...get used to it, Ken!

Later,

I have always been almost maniacal in my care of LPs. And yes I listen to a lot of classical and jazz, but believe me blues is often heard in my room and rock also. As to the source of my disdain for surface noise, true enough solo flute or classical guitar or even orchestral music on soft or silent passages is what done it! Too bad we never did get analogue systems without the physical contact of stylus and groove! Some time ago, a system using optical means of pick-up was developped and marketed. Wrong time, it got killed by CD.

I wouldn't invest in a classical music vinyl collection, for sure. I've bought a few at record stores very cheap but it's not worth it, in my opinion. The noise would just get to me, especially as it gets worse with time.

Pbb, have you read "What to Listen for in Music" by Aaron Copland?