2. analog
  3. 1033078770

Why vinyl?

I understand the thoughts of a lot of you that digital is harsh and bright and has an edge. I know that analog has a warmer fuller sound, otherwise why would so many people put up with the inconvenience of records, cartridges, cleaners, tone-arm adjustments, etc. I used to be there. Of course all I had was a Garrard direct drive turntable. If the idea is to get as close as possible to the original source, why has not open-reel tape made a huge comeback. After all that's how most of the stuff was recorded in the first place. Very few were direct to disk recordings. Why would dragging a stylus through a groove be better than the original? There used to be a company out there called In-Synch that used the original masters and sold cassettes of them, dubbed at 1:1 ratio. I was the happiest person in the world when CD's came out and I could throw out my disk-washer and everything else that went with it, including the surface noise and the TICKS and POPS. Just something I've wondered about.
elmuncy
thomasheisig
568 posts
 
inpepinnovations, something more to say ?
Or is that all ?
It is a example my friend and btw, a picture shot with a SLR Camera and a colour slide film is much more sharper,has much more colour information than a picture shot with a digital camera.
The difference is in the detail.
Have a nice day.
gregm
3,412 posts
 
Come on, inpepinnovations -- that's 32 analogue frames/sec :). There's no d to a conversion... IMO, Thomasheisig was just making an analogy regarding the reproduction characteristics. Cheers!
inpepinnovations1e75
395 posts
 
Thomas & Greg, I am just pointing out the dangers of using an inappropriate analogy to try to make a point. And, don`t be so sure that the frames are analogue and not digital in the 32 frames/sec play back.

Salut, Bob P.
elmuncy OP
64 posts
 
I give up. You're right. I've just ordered a new, to me, turntable, and can't wait. I dragged out my old Garrard DD75 and sat and actually listened, and could tell even from that. A shot cartridge and a crappy TT sounded wonderful. Thankyou all for helping me to "see the light"
ntscdan
52 posts
 
Really bad analog to digital conversions is a good reason.
Sure the Rolling Stones and Beatles etc get state of the art treatment but if you like music from the 60s or minor artists the vast majority of it is awful. This holds true especially for soul and other popular music. I just listened to a great album by Shirley Ellis with her hit "The Name Game". Mono vinyl from 1963 and absolute incredible fidelty and recording quality. I pulled out one of those compilation CD's that had the track. It was like a different song. Probably some fifteenth generation dat dub. If you like modern recordings that are digital to begin with CD is fine, but if it's old stuff that you like you are missing out with the silver disc. My set-up cost an unreasonable amount of money but it does give me satisfaction each and every day. A bargain actually.
The CD version of Donovan's Mellow Yellow can't touch the Epic mono version. Incredible sonics for a pop album.
More to discover