The imperfections of vinyl playback, and isn't it wonderful!

My take away from all of this still.....

The media for most intents does not matter. (( assuming SACD, CD or Vinyl)) as all 3 are very capable of making great sounding music, that while not technically perfect ( any of them) they usually are close enough that in the end, the original recording and mastering determines the final sound, more than the media itself in most all cases.

I have about 20 reference CDs ( my opinion obviously ) that every time I play I keep wishing that ALL other recordings would be so well done.

If those 20 CDs can sound for most intents perfect, it stands to reason, the other ones that do not are merely not taking advantage of what CD has to offer, or are merely mediocre recordings.
In other words, the original material, usually is the weak link, not the CD format

 

I for one would be interested in what those 20 titles are.

 

No such word as vinyls y'all.

I listen to whatever sounds best. Almost all current classical recordings are only available digitally. For Jimi Hendrix I go with vinyl. Laura Nyro's "The First Songs"? Remastered Audio Fidelity vinyl. The new digital remaster of Jethro Tull's "Benefit" is awesome.

My listening is about 50/50 between records and CDs.

 

I'm seeing the word quite often in UK publications. It must be gaining acceptance there.

 

Is your opinion based on logic, or actually having listened to modern high-quality vinyl playback equipment?

 

As many of the contributors to this very forum attest, ignorance is gaining acceptance militantly and enthusiastically worldwide.

 

While I agree with you generally, in this instance it sounds similar to the complaints of crotchety editors everywhere, as the language changes and new words are coined. I know, I used to be one.

 

I need to look through my CDs to find them all!

Not a list technically, but give me a couple hours and I will find them all.

Working on things at home that I can not remove myself from!

Most are NOT forum favorites though, but a mixture of styles that I am very familiar with and have heard on great sounding speakers at one time or another, and they tend to retain the great sound on most decent to good home Hi-fi systems.

 

The masses need editors to learn from and thereby lift themselves out of their mediocrity and into the world of the intelligible. The ability to communicate effectively is power.

At the same time, change is constant and irresistible; stay current or get left far behind in its wake. (Doesn't mean you have to dumb down though does it? )

 

I know I haven't heard digital 'sound' like this since the late 80s!!! Even cheap DACs have left that audio stereotype behind decades back... Some people do like to champion one format, and one alone - beats me. The music's more important to me - not agonizing over the gear/formats. Life's too short. Use and enjoy both, and what makes you happy. There is no 'best' ultimately - all formats have their real world flaws. One will never convince another their format is the best. I like LP when the pressing and mastering is great, and the gear is all performing as it should. But I have to say, I'm getting far more enjoyment - hour by hour - from digital (especially through headphones) than I do from LP. Personal preference.

- John

 

Sorry was quite busy and still am. Took a quick break to eat and quickly go through some CD's
Not the most well thought out list and some are obvious stuff.

Dave Brubeck "Take Five"
Bjork "Post"
Dire Straits "Brothers in arms"
Beck "Sea change"
Larry carlton "Discovery"
Supertramp "Breakfast in america"
Buddy Holly "From the original master tapes"
Olive "Extra virgin"
Lucinda williams "Self titled album"
Suzanne Vega "Solitude Standing"
U2 "Achtung Baby"
Genesis "Trick of the tail"
Gorillaz "Gorillaz"
Ani Difranco "Living in clip"
Kristin Hersh "Strange angels"
Basia "Lonson Warsaw New York"

Lots of other "Obvious ones", like some Pink Floyd, Diane Krall etc..but most all agree on that stuff.

 

Usually are is incorrect in my experience. If you said: sometimes are , or, can be made close, that would be more accurate. Unfortunately for music recorded prior to the digital age, media does differ from format to format for reasons I mentioned in a prior post. The format seems to be less of an issue as we move into the 1990's and later.

 

My pet peeve about vinyl are pops and skips. I can deal with a little surface noise.

 

I couldn't agree more. Well said.

 

This mirrors my own experiences. A cheap turntable will tend to exaggerate surface noise, scratches, sibilance, etc.
A better quality turntable will minimize these problems and let the music shine through. Eventually, there must
be a point of diminishing returns, but I think spending more money on better analog equipment really does make
a difference. I progressed through three analog setups, and every step up yielded obvious and significant sonic
improvements. None of this is to say that vinyl can't be enjoyed on cheap equipment, but the many of the standard
complaints that people have about vinyl are greatly reduced with better equipment.

 

I don't know why you include SACD in your comments. Based on my experience, SACD is simply a superior format to CD; in fact, there is no question in my mind. If it sounds perfect on CD, the same material will sound better on SACD - but only if you have a good enough system (and system set up) and a listening environment (apartment in lower Manhattan? fine, stick with CDs) that allow its benefits to be heard.

 

This is a great video of the White Stripes Seven Nations Army played on the Bandai 8-Ban record player. I actually have one of these, and although I think it is incredibly cool, I would say that the sound is a tad inferior to my Clearaudio Ovation Turntable.

 

Actually the point of Diminishing returns comes into play at a rather low price. If we are really using the real definition of it. If we assume a $100.00 table and cart has a certain sound, doubling the price has huge rewards. Going from $200.00 to $400.00 the increase lessens. Going from $400.00-$800, it lessens even more and on and on.

I think some are confusing mention of diminishing returns with saying that spending more is not worthwhile or a waste. Totally different ideas.

The standard complaints about vinyl, are not usually people "Complaining" that the noise is so loud or annoying that they can not stand it, but some people are "Far more annoyed", by ANY issues with vinyl, and simply are bothered by just knowing they can exist.

A very wrong assumption is made often on the forum. Anyone that complains about noise or distortion with vinyl, automatically are labeled an owner of substandard equipment.

When in reality, some people are simply far more attuned to or bothered by these sounds or distortions.

 

I agree SACD is better, but it is a very incremental step, not something revolutionary. I simply meant that all 3 media tend to get the basic sound down pretty darn good to begin with. The major stuff like tonality and frequency response etc.

It is not that I do not find SACD an improvement so much, but that with most music, CD is able to capture most of the signal fully intact. There is not a ton or room to improve on CD to begin with. CD is not technically perfect, but its close enough that most are not able to easily hear the difference between it and SACD.

When I used to do SACD, a few years back, I found that I noticed it sounded better, when I was aware is was "hi-res" playing and I was listening for a certain sound quality.

Just walking in from outside and not knowing it if it was indeed "hi-res" or 16/44.1 playing, I usually had to listen for a bit first and pay attention to certain details.

To me that constitutes a minor improvement.

 

Here . My S.M.E. 20/12 table was a vast improvement over my venerable Linn Sondek CD12 . Greater detail indeed not to mention an improvement in every sonic perimeter .
One thing thats only been touched on here is how the system was setup and voiced and using which format as a reference .
My vintage system shows a clear preference to vinyl as the system was voiced using analog as a source . The old system is tube based and I've always felt tubes were a better match for vinyl . My modern all solid state system makes it imposable to pick a clear winner when formats are compared , not only to my ears to to many educated listeners that are members of are audio club .
A few years ago I decided to give up one source do to space constraints and since I had been used analog as a reference since the early seventies I decided that was the source that was to go .

 

IMHO vinyl is still - and will be into the foreseeable future - the high resolution musical medium. I respect (and listen to) digital, but my heart (and ears) will always belong to vinyl.

 

The SME 20/12 is my dream turntable. I heard one in a reference ARC tube system and it was amazing! A dealer in my area has a demo SME 10 priced at 4K. Wish I could swing it, but not at the moment. Using a turntable of the performance quality of the 20/12, along with an excellent phono stage will sure cut down on the "pops and ticks".......lol!

Nice to know a forum member is using and enjoying a turntable like the SME 20/12! Btw.....what cartridge and phono stage are you using?

 

Not giving you a hard time honestly, But while I think vinyl can sound fantastic a lot of the time, I also have a hard time equating it with being "highly resolving"

Great sounding, yes. Highly resolving, hmmm...to me that would imply an extremely low noise floor, extremely low musical sounds being able to be heard and not over ridden by or competing with "noise".

I see that phrase used on occasion, but have to wonder, what standards are you using to determine it is high resolution? (( other than subjective opinion obviously ))

 

Euphoric distortion?

 

I´m pretty sure that´s it! Or maybe euphonic distortion?