Vinyl keeps surging

cfrizz

LOL! Nah Riglehart I think you are in the right forum. It's just that a few of the folks in here are delusional & unwilling to let go of the past to move into the future!;):p:D

riglehart wrote: »

I prefer ceramic or porcelein over vinyl. Even though the up front cost ism ore, it will last forever and it's much easier to take care...

oops. wrong forum.

TroyD

cfrizz wrote: »

I will take the greater clarity & improved sound stage of a cd over the warmer sound of a record any day of the week.

It's warmer because it simply can't play that loud. If it could it would sound like a cd & as you noted you have to turn up the volume excessively just to hear it play at a normal level. And then you have to put up with the increased sound of all the snap crackle & pop!:mad:

I don't have a problem with using my remote to turn down the volume to an acceptable level to enjoy the increased dynamics, clarity & sound stage of a well mastered cd. I don't understand why everyone else is so bent out of shape about having to do so.

Tell me does anyone worry about volume & brightness when they are at a live concert? I don't think so. And you don't get to save your hearing either unless you leave. So what's the big deal over the same brightness you might get with a cd?

I think people just have to look for things to *itch about!

Ok, Ms. anti-vinyl hifi insurgent!!

First, greater clarity and soundstaging isn't format inherent. The two main contributing factors are the gear you use for playback and the quality of the recording. Now, if your frame of reference is a cheapie 20 year old table with LP's that aren't properly cleaned, I'd agree with your conclusion. I'd also stipulate that to make a reasonable comparison, vinyl is a more expensive propostion....however, if cost was the only factor, we'd all be listening to boomboxes, I would imagine.

What's the problem with the brightness of a CD? Ok, what's the problem with the occaisional tic or pop on an LP? Who is to say which is more annoying? Let's say we take two recordings....I'm going to use the original Boston album as a reference. I have an original CD issue and a few LP's. The CD's top end is ridiculously hot through the entire CD. One of my LP's has 4 tics on one side and 2 on the other, a total of maybe a second and a half of interruption. So, for me, I'll take the 6 tics at about a second and a half total over 45 mins (or whatever the lenght is) of unnatural treble.

The issue I have is Cathy's argument, tongue in cheek as it may be, isn't giving vinyl a fair shake. If a **** table and dirty records (and they are dirty) is your frame of reference, you simply can't make an informed decision. Now, if it's cost prohibitive for you, that's one thing. However to say that one format is inherently better, it's an ignorant statement.

BTW, Cathy, it sounds like you are the one doing the bitching here . Some of us like vinyl, what's the problem with that? Wouldn't it really be boring if we all liked the same things? For example, I think that 200wpc being the gold standard is incredibly oversimplified. I'll take my 25wpc monoblocks and Quad 988's and in terms of sound quality say that they will lay waste to pretty much any rig you can come up with....but, I certainly am not going to bag on people who think otherwise.

BDT

RuSsMaN

madmax wrote: »

Sometimes, bad is bad... Huey Lewis.

CD sound is all glitz, glamor and wow factor. Vinyl is truth.
madmax

Again, the truth is too much for most. It's funny how the more 'modern' medium contains more 'artifacts'. Can't beat the ease of use, unless I'm thumbing through my iPod - cd's will remain in the house, but vinyl is where the JOY is at.

Tour2ma

Sure are a lot more LP luvers 'round here than I remember... Glad to see it...

TroyD wrote: »

I'm going to use the original Boston album as a reference. I have an original CD issue and a few LP's. The CD's top end is ridiculously hot through the entire CD.

Many "original" CD's were made from masters that were RIAA equalized... thus the hot.

cmy330go

cfrizz wrote: »

I will take the greater clarity & improved sound stage of a cd over the warmer sound of a record any day of the week.

It's warmer because it simply can't play that loud. If it could it would sound like a cd & as you noted you have to turn up the volume excessively just to hear it play at a normal level. And then you have to put up with the increased sound of all the snap crackle & pop!:mad:

I don't have a problem with using my remote to turn down the volume to an acceptable level to enjoy the increased dynamics, clarity & sound stage of a well mastered cd. I don't understand why everyone else is so bent out of shape about having to do so.

Tell me does anyone worry about volume & brightness when they are at a live concert? I don't think so. And you don't get to save your hearing either unless you leave. So what's the big deal over the same brightness you might get with a cd?

I think people just have to look for things to *itch about!

Your volume related to brightness theory is not accurate. The only reason most people experience a difference in volume levels is that most phono pre's don't have sufficient gain to bring it to the level of most digital sources. I would assume in most cases this is by design. If the manufacturer were to increase gain there is a decent chance that some higher output cartridges would cause clipping and therefore be introducing some distortion into the system before the signal even reaches the amp.

Many of us with quality phono preamps don't deal with this situation. In fact I'm pretty sure that the gain from my phono pre is slightly higher than my CDP. That being said......the vinyl is still the warmer, and more pleasant sounding format.

BTW.....As much as you complain about snap, crackle, pop....I really don't think you've truly experienced a nice vinyl setup.

shack

madmax wrote:

Wrong on each and every point.
madmax

While I agree that vinyl has some drawbacks, I think Chuck is probably right on this. As is her right Cathy certainly has her biases (200wpc is a MUST, digital is far superior, etc...) and because of that she is trying to make a case that simply doesn't exist. While there ARE many excellent recordings on CD there are many, many more that are simply bad. I think it takes some effort to produce high quality CDs and in many cases it simply isn't worth the time, expense or effort to create them. The consumer has a lot to do with this. The digital age has brought us compression, overmixing, bloated bass and so forth, because that is what the majority of the buyers want. The masses don't want "Hi-Fi" and the producers are more than willing to accomodate them.

I don't like the clicks and pops either, but I have grown fond of the sound of vinyl again. It is not the primary medium to which I listen, but I do spend some time with my several hundred LPs. I hate the "ritual" of LPs (cleaning, brushing, anti-static, etc), but the end result can be very pleasing.

That said, I still am more prone to load my CD changer up with 5 CDs and spend an evening going through those and maybe even more. But I also like to sit down, knowing I am going to listen to side one then side two of an LP from beginning to end. I find myself listening to music that I might skip right over (and missed) with a CD.

There are certainly bad sounding, poorly recorded LPs, but generally the sound of the "average" LP is more pleasing sonically than the average CD. There are CDs that sound as good or better than the comparable vinyl but then your are getting into the SACD, HiRez category and the availbity of titles is limited. I still like the abilty to pick up excellent music for a small price that sounds good. I like finding the LP that I really like that was never popular enough to rerecord on CD.

If you really love music...there is a place for both digital and analog.

skipf

I've found one thing that makes a CD sound as close to a vinyl recording as I've heard. The soft EQ circuit on the Carver SDA/490t tube player works wonders. Quite an amazing lil circuit.

danger boy

i would love to own one of those Carver tube CDP's. they don't come up for sale to often..

engtaz

skipt, that is a great CD player. Congrats owning it.

engtaz

amulford

As much as some people want to bash him, you have to admit Bob Carver has had some absolutely genius moments concerning circiut manipulation. Soft eq, sonic holography (not really my cup of tea, but neat nonetheless), tube emulation in SS amps...

That being said, I have to say again, there is SO much music, truly stellar recordings and once in a lifetime performances, that are ONLY available on vinyl that if you are really interested in the music, there is no way you can't embrace the medium.

Ricardo

amulford wrote: »

That being said, I have to say again, there is SO much music, truly stellar recordings and once in a lifetime performances, that are ONLY available on vinyl that if you are really interested in the music, there is no way you can't embrace the medium.

This is probably the biggest advantage I find in vinyl. And the fact that (generally) it is far cheaper than any other media.

cfrizz

As usual, Shack has the most balanced point of view. Thanks!:)

I don't really care who listens to what so long as they enjoy it. But I will always step up to counter the naysayers of the more modern technology just because it's cool to put it down when they think they've rediscovered the wheel with the old technology.

If everyone could let go of the snobbery, & divisive attitude regarding this hobby it would be a lot better off.

More people then ever are enjoying their tunes in a variety of ways, & places. That is TRULY all that is important.:)

shack

madmax wrote:

Sometimes, bad is bad... Huey Lewis.

If you had said Michael Bolton...we could have agreed. Huey ain't that bad. In fact I put this one on the TT not to long ago and enjoyed it...

skipf

danger boy wrote: »

i would love to own one of those Carver tube CDP's. they don't come up for sale to often..

You just miised an outstanding one on e-bay. It was rebuilt by Rolland at High Tech (the guy that has all the old Carver parts stock) and hasn't been played since the re-build. Went for $480 which sounds like a lot for a 20 yr old player, but the repairs were $280. I bid $430 for it even though I already have one so I wouldn't have to be without one while mine was in for service. IMHO, they are the equal of most of the best redbook players made.

treitz3

cfrizz wrote: »

As usual, Shack has the most balanced point of view. Thanks!:)

I don't really care who listens to what so long as they enjoy it. But I will always step up to counter the naysayers of the more modern technology just because it's cool to put it down when they think they've rediscovered the wheel with the old technology.

If everyone could let go of the snobbery, & divisive attitude regarding this hobby it would be a lot better off.

More people then ever are enjoying their tunes in a variety of ways, & places. That is TRULY all that is important.:)

Cathy, for me it has nothing to do with technology. It has everything to do with the end result as to what hits my ears. I don't get where you are classifying those that enjoy vinyl as naysayers? It's what we enjoy listening too. CD's can sometimes be annoying as hell.

Personally I like vinyl for what it has to offer and I also like CD's and SACD's for what they have to offer. They all have certain attributes and they all have there own deficiencies. I will tell you this though, If we could get the vinyl sound without the deficiencies of what is associated with vinyl, I wouldn't need any other format.

cfrizz

T3, just like Shack you also have a balanced view & acknowledge that all formats have their good & bad points. Most of the others feel the need to put down the other formats as inferior to make the claim that thier version is superior.

If the vinyl lovers would stop putting down cd's & other digital formats as being inferior I would stop taking shots at them for being snobs. It is the divisive attitude I'm fighting against, not the formats that people enjoy listening to.

Enjoy whatever format you want, but don't put down the others just to make yourself feel/sound superior.:)

treitz3 wrote: »

Cathy, for me it has nothing to do with technology. It has everything to do with the end result as to what hits my ears. I don't get where you are classifying those that enjoy vinyl as naysayers? It's what we enjoy listening too. CD's can sometimes be annoying as hell.

Personally I like vinyl for what it has to offer and I also like CD's and SACD's for what they have to offer. They all have certain attributes and they all have there own deficiencies. I will tell you this though, If we could get the vinyl sound without the deficiencies of what is associated with vinyl, I wouldn't need any other format.

Ricardo

cfrizz wrote: »

T3, just like Shack you also have a balanced view & acknowledge that all formats have their good & bad points. Most of the others feel the need to put down the other formats as inferior to make the claim that thier version is superior.

If the vinyl lovers would stop putting down cd's & other digital formats as being inferior I would stop taking shots at them for being snobs. It is the divisive attitude I'm fighting against, not the formats that people enjoy listening to.

Enjoy whatever format you want, but don't put down the others just to make yourself feel/sound superior.:)

Cathy, I think the reactions come because they put down the formats (Assuming that was the case....), not the listeners that prefer the formats, while you go directly at the vinyl lovers, calling them snobs or whatever.

cmy330go

cfrizz wrote: »

T3, just like Shack you also have a balanced view & acknowledge that all formats have their good & bad points. Most of the others feel the need to put down the other formats as inferior to make the claim that thier version is superior.

If the vinyl lovers would stop putting down cd's & other digital formats as being inferior I would stop taking shots at them for being snobs. It is the divisive attitude I'm fighting against, not the formats that people enjoy listening to.

Enjoy whatever format you want, but don't put down the others just to make yourself feel/sound superior.:)

Pot, meet Kettle....Kettle, meet Pot.

I couldn't even begin to tell you how many times I've heard the same attitude from you regarding your blanket 200wpc motto. Anyone who steps foot on this forum that dares run LSi's with a receiver is immediately rebuffed.

Face

cmy330go wrote: »

Pot, meet Kettle....Kettle, meet Pot

I agree, it looks like there's only one person in here with a attitude.

cfrizz

I have backed way off with the 200wpc advice. I don't care if they do run LSI's on receivers & blow them up. I know I never will.

Troy, I'm ALL about simplifiying this complicated & confusing hobby, that is precisely why I recommend the 200wpc because it gets the job done most of the time. I want to help those who are interested in doing it once, doing it right then sitting back and enjoying!!!

If people only want to hear a fraction of what their speakers are capable of by running them off of a receiver, be my guest, I know I never will again.

All the info is available to make wise decisions on running the speakers if people use the search function.

If others give out advice to run ill equipped receivers with the LSI's & the newbie blows them up they can deal with the fall out.

I know I won't have to because I gave them good info that 200wpc will drive most speakers that are hooked up to it.

cfrizz

Hardly Keiko, I too have a tape deck!:eek::D The rest of what you said is right on the money!:D

Keiko wrote: »

I listen to cassettes occasionally. Does that make me a snob?

Seriously though, I listen to several different formats ranging from vinyl, tape, FM, mp3 and CD/SACD. Super Audio is my favorite, hands down. However, as long as whatever format source your listening to sounds good and you enjoy it, that's all that really matters. As such, this has been pointed out already.

Rock steady,

K

skipf

cfrizz wrote: »

I know I won't have to because I gave them good info that 200wpc will drive any speakers that are hooked up to it.

Might need to qualify that one. While it's true that even 1 WPC will drive any speaker hooked to it (though most speakers not very well), and I agree with you that LSI's need a min. of 200WPC to reach their full potential, there are many speakers out there that will perform like LSI's driven by a 40 WPC reciever if they are powered by a 200 WPC amp. I'm driving my ALS Platinums with about 700 WPC, and they would handle more.

WilliamM2

Is that article correct? According to the numbers they give, vinyl has a whopping .26% market share. Hardly anything to get exited about.

I though vinyl already had a larger market share than that?

Erik Tracy

Ricardo wrote: »

Cathy, I think the reactions come because they put down the formats (Assuming that was the case....), not the listeners that prefer the formats, while you go directly at the vinyl lovers, calling them snobs or whatever.

I certainly did not intend to 'put down' any format when I posted my observations.

The differences I noticed are indeed limited to the specific CDs and LPs that I listened to -and the admittedly low-mid range equipment I have.

Yet sonic differences were marked - and like my observations stated - I'm undecided as to whether one is 'better' than the other as both have sonic qualities that I like and don't like. But that is just me.

There are crappy CDs and there are crappy LPs.

Enjoy what sounds best for you on the formats available - if you are so inclined to try them out and compare them.

World peace
Erik

cfrizz

:eek: I stand corrected!:D

skipf wrote: »

Might need to qualify that one. While it's true that even 1 WPC will drive any speaker hooked to it (though most speakers not very well), and I agree with you that LSI's need a min. of 200WPC to reach their full potential, there are many speakers out there that will perform like LSI's driven by a 40 WPC reciever if they are powered by a 200 WPC amp. I'm driving my ALS Platinums with about 700 WPC, and they would handle more.

F1nut

WilliamM2 wrote: »

Is that article correct? According to the numbers they give, vinyl has a whopping .26% market share. Hardly anything to get exited about.

I though vinyl already had a larger market share than that?

Hehe.......:D

madmax

cfrizz wrote: »

I have backed way off with the 200wpc advice.

Don't do that, you really should have 200 watts per channel. Any less and you end up relying on distorted signals to get higher volumes. Worst case out there for blowing up speakers is 100 wpc. Of course if you have old school efficient speakers or tubes none of this really applies.

Vinyl still rules!

Face

Anyone see the cover of Stereophile today?

Vinyl
Rules

F1nut

Stereophile LIES

At only.26 percent of the market share, it isn't ruling anything.

Face

What's SACD's market share?