A theory for preferring vinyl.

If you haven't already done so I would highly recommend checking out those recordings on the King Super Analog LPs. By far the best versions IMO

 

I think if anyone can follow these threads if they had to, they can see in our exchanges that you open these up, extend them and try to bully your way around the place at times. You just met someone that doesn't get bullied, doesn't like bullies and doesn't put up with them. I have zero time for any of that. So yes, it's a pattern alright and you seem to have a thing about trying to start them with me. Nice try, doesn't wash.

 

Thats not why vinyl was 'relegated.' I do note however that many early Decca / Deram CDs are wonderful sounding.

 

The sound of vinyl is an amalgam. It is the sum total of platter, mat, tonearm, stylus, cartridge, preamp, etc., all of which have an affect on the sound, and all of which are tweak-able by the end user. Digital has taken away the power that audiophiles had of fine-tuning the source. Perhaps we miss that more than we're willing to admit.

 

Or at least, the tweaking is just as present, but via different methods. DACs, cables for digital signals, different formats, different interfaces, hi-res, but much of it can be IT based that itself brings a different skillset. Equally, it can be as plug and play as you want it to be so yes, less fine tuning.

 

I don't miss it one bit. I haven't bought any new vinyl playback equipment in 13 years. I do enjoy an upgrade but that goes for digital as well. But I am not into tweaking. By the way, there are various digital processors for those who want to tweak in the digital domain. For me any choice between format is just about sound.

 

Yes digital is way more accurate and very listenable. Perhaps people that don't like it simply don't like accuracy. As a lover of music I'm forced to own a turntable because many things I like were never released on CD. But when I listen to vinyl its hard to ignore all the faults associated with analog playback. It sounds okay for what it but its faults are painfully obvious. As far as recording digital completely blows analog away. I would hope Science should work on important things like curing cancer not silly stuff like audiophile arguments.

 

Digital media is not always of a 'more accurate' quality unfortunately. Theres more to playback than theoretical digital accuracy at the outset. Theres the rest of the chain. Too much of the current state is like a package of warm rancid beef with a sticker on it saying 'cut & packaged under perfect sanitary conditions before shipping.' Accurate indeed.

 

1. just because one prefers vinyl to digital media does not mean one does not like digital media. 2. If you find the "faults" of vinyl hard to ignore I have to wonder if you have heard vinyl playback at or near it's best. Sure it can sound like crap when there is something wrong like a damaged or poorly pressed record, or if it's being played on crap gear or there is something wrong with the set up. But when it's right, all right there is hardly any fault to ignore. 3. If you feel certain that digital recording completely blows away analog I suggest you find a copy of the Performance Recording of Pictures at an Exhibition by James Boyk. It has the same exact mic feed recorded digitally and all analog for comparison. I think you might be surprised by what you hear.

 

Okay it has the potential to be more accurate I guess someone could still screw it up but that's true of anything

 

I never said that someone could not like both potentially. From a practical point of view there are more issues to sort out with vinyl then with digital as far as playback is concerned. What would I have to pay for top-notch vinyl playback? You can see my profile. If I have to pay more than that it's not worth it to me the digital trumps it. I like records from a nostalgic perspective but as far as serious playback it just can't compete at the price level I'm willing to pay.

 

A point that clearly escapes some. And of course, there's no "potential" about it. Both are excellent ways to enjoy music.

 

Vinyl can be more fussy and problematic, mainly in finding the right record. But like most endeavors... the more you put into it... the greater the rewards. Top level playback is eminently reachable with vinyl and, depending on the period of recording, often better than the best digital since both work off magnetic tapes, which were new and had the advantage or artist input at the time vinyl was the format. If I preferred music of the mid to late 80's and beyond I 'd probably find it preferable to go digital as my primary. As it is -- I prefer music of the 1970's and earlier, and after hunting down many 100's of titles in both CD and record format, can say with ease that the best vinyl pressing, 95+% of the time, trumps the digital. Thats also not saying anything bad about digital really because most of the tapes used as master sources are either many decades old, require more mastering for transfer, or, are copies where the first master is long missing.

 

You did say this "Perhaps people that don't like it (digital) simply don't like accuracy." This is a thread about a preference for vinyl not a thread about a dislike of digital. Top notch vinyl playback doesn't come cheap. That is no secret. And if price is a deal breaker I can see why one would not pursue it. You can't get a Ferrari for the price of a used Toyota. If you are going to make comments about the short comings of vinyl as a medium and you are basing it on your budget limitations it may be best to make *that* clear. Otherwise it looks like a universal assertion.

 

Accuracy schmaccuracy. How technically accurate does a Kinks analog or digital replication of their flawed recordings have to be? Rock recordings are largely a mish mash of distortion laden processes & functions. I realize accuracy is necessary to a point, but somewhere along the way, lots of audio hounds started to miss the point.

 

Wrong.

Mastering is paramount, of course. But if one is dealing with the same mastering, then the format obviously matters. And one can prefer either vinyl/CD/high-res and make a case for one over the others.

Hearing the same mastering on CD versus LP is quite different to my ears. In those cases, I'll spin the record and leave the bitch biscuit* on the shelf.

*copped this term from one of the greats on the forum

 

Not universal, no comment here is. Everyone has finite resources. I choose to maximize mine. If that was not clear my bad.

 

I prefer vinyl too, but there is a lot of really bad sounding vinyl out there. I am tired of the blanket statement that "one format is superior over the other."

If the mastering is identical, then sure, pick your favourite format... sounds like you and I would pick vinyl every time.

You could debate whether a digital master benefits from being converted back to analog for vinyl. I really don't care, I will still go with vinyl, as I have primarily invested in my analog front end and vinyl library.

Most sane people have a preferred format and stick with it. To say a person can't invest good money in CD format and not get good sound out of it is absurd. I do have some CDs, some of which sound damn fine played back on a measly PS3, and some of which are hard to differentiate from the vinyl version while switching back and forth between inputs.

 

We all maximize our resources. If I did not have the spare time I do, the storage space, the money, or, if I were starting out collecting now, or was focused on 1980's and later pop music (or perhaps classical music) -- I could see myself settling on digital (CDs) and learning to exploit system components and CDs in an effort to tweak my up to the best sounding, most satisfying audio I could. The potentials I'm sure are very close. As I said, effort and results are often complementary to each other. The audio hobby can be a lazy to very active endeavor.

 

Geez, this thread.

 

Unfortunate. I know this was not your intent...

Peace

 

I don't see any of that as being desirable at all.

 

Funny, I was thinking the exact same thing. I spent many hours over last weekend rehearsing and performing with a live symphony orchestra and choir. After the gig was over and with that sound still in my head, I had the urge to pull out some of my favorite classical LPs. UK Decca was well represented. And, I was struck how all my "best" sounding Decca LPs were made before about 1977. And my favorites that seemed to have most closely captured the characteristics of a live acoustic orchestra were made in the early to mid 1960s.

 

Well.... it is good to see some innocence still alive here.

 

I liked the "it's all in the mastering" at Post #2.....

To my ears vinyl and digital are different, not better or worse, each has pro's and con's. Digital is waaaayyyy friendlier to the wallet. And to my mental health.