Even if vinyl and tape sounds or look better, is it worth the loss in versatality?

[thecoolnessrune]

Based on the posts here I can easily conclude that most have no clue.

If you compare dirty old vinyl played on USB $112 player and $150 set of speakers it will lose to any digital MP3.

But, once set up properly with good table/stylus combo (Rega RP6), preamp/amp and decent speakers like even Dali Zensor or Regas / Martin Logans it will destroy flat digital sound.

Last, but not least the vinyl pressing is crucial as well. But that's beyond today's iListeners youth comprehension.

Based on your snobby demeanor and ridiculous claims I can easily conclude that you have no clue.

You're speaking 100% bullcrap. Not just any bullcrap, but scientifically disproven bullcrap.

Digital audio is 100% capable of matching not only our entire hearing range, but is able to *easily* sample audio at a rate that our ears can hear no difference. Thanks to the Nyquist Theorem, we know that at 48Khz, we are sampling at a rate that is 100% lossless to any audible analog waveform.

We also know that thanks to shaped dithering, that 16 bits is enough to cover our entire withstandable range of hearing, from the noise floor, to effectively 120dB. From hearing complete silence, all the way to instant hearing damage. Unless we develop bionic ears that can translate and send signals to our brain enabling better hearing than what we are equipped with, there will never be an improvement. 16bit/48Khz digital files losslessly capture the entire bandwidth and amplitude of human hearing.

We have the PCM waveform which guarantees that we always have this fidelity. And even better, we have fantastic lossless codecs such as FLAC (my personal favorite), ALAC, and others that ensure we are hearing an unadulterated waveform.

The best part? The files can do this over and over again. As long as the bits are unaltered, that file will always play the exact same way. No turntable adjustments, no stylus replacements, and more importantly, you don't have to buy ridiculously expensive gear to still have that same sub-par experience. Spending even $100 on a dead silent DAC gives you everything you need to go to your amp and speakers of your choice, (or heaphones as the preference may be), and you have a transport that is not only cheaper, but objectively better than your best analog transport.

That's not to say component selection doesn't matter. Noisy DACs are awful, and if you are listening to CDs, and you want accuracy, you must ensure that your CD transport is using the error correction built into CD's to ensure an original bitstream is being produced. A relatively small amount of money fixes the first problem, and the second problem is solved either with a great audio player or, my personal preference, using a good ripping program like EAC to make a file that I know is the original bitstream that is now saved in a lossless file to be perfectly replayed anytime I want.

The only people you're going to win over with that superiority crap are people who *want* to be swayed. Science has already proven all of the above. Now that's not to say you can't subjectively prefer Vinyl. I subjectively prefer Tube amplifiers because I love warm distortion they produce. But I know it is not objectively better. It is not true to the original waveform. It simply improves the sound in a way that I personally prefer.

It's odd that this "youth" comprehends this so much better than you do. :hmm:

 

[SMOGZINN]

Now that's not to say you can't subjectively prefer Vinyl. I subjectively prefer Tube amplifiers because I love warm distortion they produce. But I know it is not objectively better. It is not true to the original waveform. It simply improves the sound in a way that I personally prefer.

When I talk about vinyl having a sound that is hard to replicate, that is what I'm talking about. Every time I play a vinyl record on my turntable I get a slightly different performance, while digital recordings are played back pretty much exactly the same every time (assuming the same hardware).

Because I value the errors that vinyl can create I actually prefer old 1970's record players that have some quirks to them. I feel that If you are going to spend thousands of dollars to get the top end modern record players that can make perfect playbacks of records then I feel you might as well go digital. You will get the same sound and have spent considerably less.

 

[alkemyst]

Tape was never that great. I had one of the best players for the car and home at the time (I forget my home player, but my car was a Kenwood KRC-8001, Kenwood DIN models were also out, but my 1966 Mustang GT needed dual shafts).

I had metal/dolby settings etc.

A cheap CD player sounded much better once the tape was played much.

Vinyl is good because most pressings weren't don't crappy like they do with many CD's now.

CD is the superior platform providing the CD is recorded properly. SACD, DVD-A and the like even more so.

Here is music that has been heralded as recorded properly:

http://www.alkooper.com/hot100.html (limited in scope of genre)

http://www.stuff.tv/music/30-greatest-audiophile-albums/feature

In the day's of people just wanting a lossy MP3, the studios are spending big bucks on mastering and catering to making music that sounds good compressed.

That said, too many give too much credit to their crappy turntables and get hooked up in the 'vintage' part of the experience. Even back in the day, a generic turntable sucked ass. People were upgrading their cartridges/needles, tonearms, etc.

When I bought my first real HT system from a high end audio shop, there was a guy picking up a turntable and all the fixings for around $10,000 in 1995. The next month when I came in to pick up my order I asked about it and then was told he upgraded again for around double that price.

I bought my Klipsch Quartets, Academy and my Yamaha RX-V1050 from him along with some other tidbits that were just in one of his guest rooms.


This is an interesting turntable read: http://www.stereophile.com/category/turntable-reviews

 

[bigi]

Based on your snobby demeanor and ridiculous claims I can easily conclude that you have no clue.

...

Digital audio is 100% capable of matching not only our entire hearing range, but is able to *easily* sample audio at a rate that our ears can hear no difference. Thanks to the Nyquist Theorem, we know that at 48Khz, we are sampling at a rate that is 100% lossless to any audible analog waveform.
...

You certainly may get your thoughts here. Fine with me.

The whole deal here, is to have fully analog vinyl setup. Period.

All technical specs you were kindly copied here are irrelevant.

I'll not join this discussion anymore as your post only fortifies my statements about iGeneration crap which you seem to be a part of.

Be digital. Hats off to you.


To people with slightly more imagination:

Here is a quote from Audioholics' article "Analog vs Digital Sound Quality Test Results": (http://www.audioholics.com/editorials/analog-vinyl-vs-digital-audio/analog-vs-digital-results)

"I personally preferred the Vinyl recording myself as I felt Phil Collins vocals were more realistic sounding and the drums were far more dynamic."

 

[sdifox]

You certainly may get your thoughts here. Fine with me.

The whole deal here, is to have fully analog vinyl setup. Period.

All technical specs you were kindly copied here are irrelevant.

I'll not join this discussion anymore as your post only fortifies my statements about iGeneration crap which you seem to be a part of.

Be digital. Hats off to you.


To people with slightly more imagination:

Here is a quote from Audioholics' article "Analog vs Digital Sound Quality Test Results": (http://www.audioholics.com/editorials/analog-vinyl-vs-digital-audio/analog-vs-digital-results)

"I personally preferred the Vinyl recording myself as I felt Phil Collins vocals were more realistic sounding and the drums were far more dynamic."

prefer and felt are not acceptable as evidence. Plenty of people like vinyl sound, but claiming it is more dynamic than digital is just ludicrus.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Tape was never that great. I had one of the best players for the car and home at the time (I forget my home player, but my car was a Kenwood KRC-8001, Kenwood DIN models were also out, but my 1966 Mustang GT needed dual shafts).

When he said tape I think he meant the old reel to reel tape players that could actually get some decent quality sound, not the cassette players.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

You certainly may get your thoughts here. Fine with me.

The whole deal here, is to have fully analog vinyl setup. Period.

All technical specs you were kindly copied here are irrelevant.

I'll not join this discussion anymore as your post only fortifies my statements about iGeneration crap which you seem to be a part of.

So you're simply agreeing that this iGeneration understands how this works far better than you do. Fair enough.

 

[alkemyst]

prefer and felt are not acceptable as evidence. Plenty of people like vinyl sound, but claiming it is more dynamic than digital is just ludicrus.

Well if you read what he was speaking to, the vinyl recording were recorded better.

That's what is usually breaks down too. So much of our digital recordings, although capable; are recorded poorly.

 

[alkemyst]

When he said tape I think he meant the old reel to reel tape players that could actually get some decent quality sound, not the cassette players.

Reel to Reel was very limited and also suffered just like cassette tapes from degradation over repeat plays.

 

[sdifox]

Well if you read what he was speaking to, the vinyl recording were recorded better.

That's what is usually breaks down too. So much of our digital recordings, although capable; are recorded poorly.

well mastered is always going to sound better than crappy mastering, regardless of medium of choice. That is not what he said though.

 

[alkemyst]

well mastered is always going to sound better than crappy mastering, regardless of medium of choice. That is not what he said though.

Sounded to me that he was speaking to a vinyl recording of the same song was mastered better which is true often.

 

[tinpanalley]

"Is it worth" is a question not worth asking because every single person has a different value system.

 

[rickon66]

I grew up with vinyl.

It sucks in comparison to CD, both for quality and versatility.

Ditto here, it was a wonderful day when I sold my Zerostat gun and record cleaning gear at a yard sale. No more pops and cracks, just crisp clear sound on a Sony CDP-101 IIRC. For musical bliss nothing beats a quality mastered & recorded CD played with a tube amp.

 

[Zaap]

I'm sure vinyl on the finest equipment made sounded excellent back in the day. Or so I'm told. Never experienced it on anything but the ultra-crappy stereo setups most mere mortals (atleast those I knew) had back in the day, against which I'll take even entry-level of todays digital hands down.

And tape???

Again outside of the Dr. No types that had some awesome reel-to-reel collection and equipment on their private island....the tapes and equipment that I and others I knew had was total garbage compared to virtually anything digital today.

Yeah, pretty much I not only prefer digital, I wish I could take my digital library and equipment back in time and just burn all horrible 'mere-mortal' analog setups I suffered in the past.