Rvance, they ran a feature in the LA Times a couple of days ago. LP's are "hot" in Los Angeles. Some of it is nostalgia. Some of it is due to the fact that LP's are not designed for the portability that necessitates ear plugs, but must be listened to in home systems, which tend to be better than portables. Real sit-down-and-concentrate listening. Which would also favor good digital.

Yet, the editorial catch phrase that recurred throughout the article was "warm." LP's are "warmer" than digitized (read, "chopped and sampled") hash, later reconstituted. I am not so sure that "warm" captures helpful differentia between analog and digital, since I have heard warm digital and cold analog, but it is a start. Perhaps "full" would be more accurate, since analog leaves nothing chopped out.

At any rate, it will be interesting to see how this new "discovery" plays out. I have no vested interest in the controversies. I already have plenty of analogue, if another LP is never produced. But, it is nice to see that modern music lovers are, once again, presented with a choice...

I think it's a fad. It's a new generation discovering and being fascinated by what amounts to a horse and buggy. It's going to boom and then it's going to die a quiet death in not so distant future.

Quote:
Yet, the editorial catch phrase that recurred throughout the article was "warm." LP's are "warmer" than digitized (read, "chopped and sampled") hash, later reconstituted. I am not so sure that "warm" captures helpful differentia between analog and digital, since I have heard warm digital and cold analog, but it is a start. Perhaps "full" would be more accurate, since analog leaves nothing chopped out.

Could it not also mean constrained by limited dynamic range and clear, undistorted highs as most vinyl systems (not the best but the average) tend to distort the high end and compress the middle.

If LPs are low tech, how come they cost more to make than a CD and we have turntables, cartridges, arms and phonoamps with 5 figure price tags just to play them?

For the same reason antique furniture costs an arm and a leg.

alex, i don't agree with you, but i have to give it up to you - that was a great comeback.

Here is the CBS News story. And here is the piece in the LA Times.

Nostalgia can suck it. I have very little nostalgia for vinyl. Ariel Bitran has no nostalgia for vinyl. There is something much bigger and stronger at play here -- some sort of connection to history, to something that is older, stronger, and more beautiful than us -- but it's not some wussy nostalgia.

Both of these articles, however, mention the demand for vinyl. This is a big thing: demand. That demand is pushing the record labels to produce more vinyl. We're seeing it happen, and the numbers prove it. The labels want something to sell, and the music lovers want something to buy. The artists, god bless them, are thrilled to see their work released on vinyl. This demand can't be denied or pushed aside.

Anyway. We should embrace it, whether we choose to listen to compact discs or whatever, because the vinyl resurgence is doing a small part at making the world a better, happier place.

Good stuff. I'm really too young for this to be purely nostaliga.

I think another factor here, as Stephen pointed out, is that the record companies like this "fad." They especially like it a lot more than the napster "fad." (fine, neither are really fads, but whatever). Therefore, the demand can be relatively low compared to other media and the record companies will still push it. Of course, the downside is they charge out the nose like they do. LPs really should be no more than $10.

I'm not embracing it. I'm not about to plop down another few grand for a TT and a phono board and I'm definitely not recreating my collection in vinyl and I'm not about to have my music in multiple formats.

Another thing to consider is that once this resurgence is over (and I believe it will be), all those who have embraced the format will be stuck having to recreate their vinyl in a different format.

If you enjoy playing records, then by all means enjoy it and spend your money in any way you like, but I don't think it's practical and it's going to cost you quite a bit in the long run.

I wouldn't ask you to spend your money on an analog system, Alex. I'm just saying that I think we, as audiophiles and music lovers, should be happy about the increased enthusiasm for music. Look at the people who are interested in vinyl -- the teenagers who are continuously cited in these news articles, the people like me who are coming to it for the first time, the older folks who are getting to revisit something that made them so happy earlier in their lives. The passion we feel for this is very special. It breeds happiness.

Of course, there's no way for me to be certain about this, but I really really really doubt that I'll ever regret going down this road. I'm enjoying it far too much.

Quote:
...all those who have embraced the format will be stuck having to recreate their vinyl in a different format.

Why?

I agree. I would also agree that "warmer" is not exactly the truth...always. I have some "bright" sounding vinyl that may be do to a poor following of the RIAA curve or just bad engineering. I think the resurgence of vinyl is an attachment to physical media, the enjoyment of the spinning disc, and the very good sound quality.

I just bought the cd equivlents of music I have enjoyed to a couple of vinyl dics I have played more than 200 times each. The cd arrived yesterday and sounded worse than my old, worn vinyl. I had my wife listen to verify my hearing was not getting worse. Go figure.

If I could have found used vinyl in good quality I would have done so. Those of us doing vinyl don't care about convenience, just sound quality. I enjoy SACDs, yet with no support from the labels it makes little sense. If more and more mainstream artist do smaller runs of vinyl, and the plant's websites I have viewed will do runs of a few hundred, so they know they will sell possibly a few thousand and make money at it, and marketing differentiate themselves at the same time from the pack of artists.

Vinyl resurgence is not some marketing ploy. I am amazed at the number of TTs being offered in 2008. It is quite amazing.

Quote:

Quote:
...all those who have embraced the format will be stuck having to recreate their vinyl in a different format.

Why?

Exactly- I never once thought of replacing my collection of LPs with CD or any other format. I do continue to replace favorite CDs with the vinyl version when I can. My ONLY regret is that over the years I did sell off a few here and there that I thought I was no longer interested in hearing. Of course, given enough time I pretty much always want to give them another spin.

But the bulk of my LP collection, many bought more than 15 years ago, is more relevant as a "platform" choice now than ever, and even if vinyl declines again they will still be as relevant. Seriously- things could never be as bad as they were in the mid 90's when the format was at it's low point. Hardware now is better than ever and I can buy literally anything I want on vinyl, even new usually.

I got started with jazz by receiving records my dad listened to in the early 60's and he didn't do much in the way of cleaning or care. Some were in rough shape, but surprisingly most were OK. If my son decides to take my collection for listening in the future he receive a near pristine library. With care and good cartridges records will last pretty much forever.

BTW Alex- I don't balme you for not wanting to get into the vinyl resurgance. For many the format just doesn't fit with their listening style, budget, tastes or whatever. No big deal as far as I'm concerned.

AlexO, don't worry about vinyl.

All the internet sellers pretty much sell at retail.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Quote:
I wouldn't ask you to spend your money on an analog system, Alex. I'm just saying that I think we, as audiophiles and music lovers, should be happy about the increased enthusiasm for music. Look at the people who are interested in vinyl -- the teenagers who are continuously cited in these news articles, the people like me who are coming to it for the first time, the older folks who are getting to revisit something that made them so happy earlier in their lives. The passion we feel for this is very special. It breeds happiness.

Of course, there's no way for me to be certain about this, but I really really really doubt that I'll ever regret going down this road. I'm enjoying it far too much.

I agree. If you enjoy it, if it makes you happy, then by all means enjoy it while it lasts. I was speaking from a purely practical standpoint.

It's good to see enthusiasm and passion in hi-fi again. It's something I haven't really seen in hi-fi industry and circles except for the headphone crowd.

Quote:

Quote:
...all those who have embraced the format will be stuck having to recreate their vinyl in a different format.

Why?

Because as this resurgence dies out, it will be difficult to get replacement parts, service and upgrades for your turntables, arms, cartridges. Your wife will want to reclaim the tremendous amount of space that records take up. You won't be able to find new titles or replacements for damaged records on vinyl, etc, etc.

Quote:
Because as this resurgence dies out, it will be difficult to get replacement parts, service and upgrades for your turntables, arms, cartridges. Your wife will want to reclaim the tremendous amount of space that records take up. You won't be able to find new titles or replacements for damaged records on vinyl, etc, etc.

Are you seriously suggesting that at some point in our lifetime there will be no turntables, tonearms, cartridges or records to buy? You

Quote:
I think the resurgence of vinyl is an attachment to physical media, the enjoyment of the spinning disc, and the very good sound quality.

I agree. I grew up with compact discs, and I loved them because they held my music, but compact disc packaging always sucked. Compact discs were almost impossible to open; plastic jewel cases proved unattractive -- unloveable -- and often shattered; and a compact disc's liner notes were often divorced from the compact disc itself, music collections relegated to boring black zip-up booklets filled with pages of mystery discs sheathed in more plastic. To hell with that.

Newer digipacs are better, but only because they mimic LP packaging. And, at that, they do a poor job.

In my opinion, vinyl is the way for music to be presented, to be kept, to be loved.

You kinda gotta thank goodness for MP3s because their many limitations gave rise to a hunger for something better. Happily, that better thing already existed in vinyl.

Finally, I do believe that vinyl will benefit us all in helping to produce more beautiful music. ALBUMS are going to become important again. It's already happening. As I mentioned before, artists are THRILLED to have their work released on vinyl. This is very exciting. That enthusiasm is going to give rise to greater art.

I've been talking a lot lately about all of the excellent new music available. (My viewpoint is limited to the music in the pop and indie rock genres.) I feel there's a direct relationship between all this outstanding new music and the vinyl revival. Similarly, the shit that we called music from, say, '99 to 2005, was thanks to empty, invisible MP3s.

When artists care more about the final product, they do better work. Vinyl is something to be passionate about.

Quote:
Similarly, the shit that we called music from, say, '99 to 2005, was thanks to empty, invisible MP3s.

Oh yeah? What do you have to thank for the shit we called music say from 1975 to 1981?

Quote:

Quote:
Similarly, the shit that we called music from, say, '99 to 2005, was thanks to empty, invisible MP3s.

Oh yeah? What do you have to thank for the shit we called music say from 1975 to 1981?

I don't know what you're talking about.

Quote:

Quote:
Similarly, the shit that we called music from, say, '99 to 2005, was thanks to empty, invisible MP3s.

Oh yeah? What do you have to thank for the shit we called music say from 1975 to 1981?

Let's see- the entire punk and New Wave movement was birthed during those years. I'd say we have Disco and Prog Rock to thank for that, and as bad as THEY were, if that's what it took, so be it.

Maybe Brittany and Hanna Montanna will have a purpose after all- to be the warm composte for the next wave of real musicians!

Quote:

Quote:
Similarly, the shit that we called music from, say, '99 to 2005, was thanks to empty, invisible MP3s.

Oh yeah? What do you have to thank for the shit we called music say from 1975 to 1981?

IMHO all music from the dawn of time has produced about the same amount of great music and dross. Today is in no way different except most of it is derivitive of the rock era and not really very original.

50 years from now todays MP3 wearing kiddies will be listening to a few hundred tracks from a few score groups from their 'golden age' of music. 100 years from now little of that will survive except as a curiosity, just like music from the roaring 90's. Some will remain like the American song book of the 30's and 40's. Some will disappear completely, like Disco and Rap...

" Some will remain like the American song book of the 30's and 40's. Some will disappear completely, like Disco and Rap... "

you mean ......disco is .....dead. oh noooooo.

you are right, same as it ever was.

Better happier place? Iraq, middle east, Georgia (hope they don't attack Tenn.) Maybe Acoustic Sounds needs to open a branch in Russia.....is Vinyl the opiate of the masses?

I hope DSD/SACD DVD-A makes a comeback...that's worth persuing, since it is superior, in every notion of playback, sound, ease of use, no "needles" to wear out...and it elimintaes that immeasurable flutter that takes away PFRATS or whatever that noise is. Bring back SACD....Bring back SACD

I don't know, JIMV. I have heard some awfully good vinyl systems that are nearly as cheap as CD playback systems. "Average" is a tough term to get a handle on. You can buy an excellent phono preamp for $200-$300, an excellent cartridge for about the same, and an excellent turntable/arm combo (think Rega or Music Hall, or Pro-Ject) for about the same, bringing you in for $600-$900, depending on how you mix and match.

"Average" nowadays is so much better than it was when I first started my ventures into home music systems (we used to call them "component" systems, not "high-end," as opposed to all-in-one consoles).

Anyway, it is very hard to get a good CD player for $500-$600, one that doesn't feature the flaws you attribute to "average" vinyl -- dynamic compression and glassy, even hashy highs (usually due to high jitter). In my experience, good CD sound is just as expensive as good vinyl sound.

Alex, I couldn't disagree more about vinyl's resurgent popularity being a fad. The only advantage that digital has over vinyl is portability. Once the teens who are just discovering vinyl now, and are excited about it, mature into their adult ways of life (family, house, and the like) they will be more likely to want nice home systems, not less, if they are music lovers. Of course, CD playback will be part of those non-portable systems, too, but vinyl will always be around.

The US is a marketing machine. If there is ANY demand for ANY product, it will continue to be marketed.

It's already back, DUP. When you gonna get up to date, you hopeless old superannuated fossil?

Acoustic Sounds just announced literally hundreds of new SACD titles coming down the pike over the next year.

Once again, DUP, "needles" don't wear out any faster than transport flywheels or anything else that resides in the guts of a digital sausage maker.

I enjoy all these types of software -- SACD, CD, and analog. But I enjoy the analog the most, even though I have spent FAR more money on CD players, over the past decade or so, including repairs on my older CD players, and new, better sounding machines when upgrading.

There is NO WAY good digital is less expensive than good vinyl, as time wears on and repairs and new upgrades take their toll. And don't give me any crap about Caliburn or the other $50,000 turntables. Burmeister, dC, and several other CD machine makers all put out $30,000+ stacks. A great sounding CD player costs about $10,000, and so does a great-sounding vinyl system.

And Audis, BMWs, and Mercedes models all cost $50,000 and up. I'd rather have a $12,000 Honda and a $20,000 record player. I really don't need the ego-boost provided by an expensive auto. Just get me to Symphony Hall for the first wave of the conductor's baton.

Quote:
I don't know, JIMV. I have heard some awfully good vinyl systems that are nearly as cheap as CD playback systems. "Average" is a tough term to get a handle on. You can buy an excellent phono preamp for $200-$300, an excellent cartridge for about the same, and an excellent turntable/arm combo (think Rega or Music Hall, or Pro-Ject) for about the same, bringing you in for $600-$900, depending on how you mix and match.

"Excellent" is a very subjective word. Can you get good, engaging sound in such a setup...I think so. Does it rival digital? Depends on the digital. All vinyl has limited dynamic range and only the best does the high end and bottom really well. The difference is, to my ears, that the errors are of the sort that the vinyl excells at. Missing or distorted highs and lows are simply not as objectionable in vinyl as in digital. I have no idea why.

Quote:
Anyway, it is very hard to get a good CD player for $500-$600, one that doesn't feature the flaws you attribute to "average" vinyl -- dynamic compression and glassy, even hashy highs (usually due to high jitter). In my experience, good CD sound is just as expensive as good vinyl sound.

You could be right about the price but the ultimate potential...no. Great vinyl sounds very good indeed, but the medium is in fact limited by its nature. No improvement in the system will replace dynamic range lost or details not in the grooves. It is in putting data into the music that digital excells. There is no limit to where that process can lead.

Quote:
I wouldn't ask you to spend your money on an analog system, Alex. I'm just saying that I think we, as audiophiles and music lovers, should be happy about the increased enthusiasm for music. Look at the people who are interested in vinyl -- the teenagers who are continuously cited in these news articles, the people like me who are coming to it for the first time, the older folks who are getting to revisit something that made them so happy earlier in their lives. The passion we feel for this is very special. It breeds happiness.

Of course, there's no way for me to be certain about this, but I really really really doubt that I'll ever regret going down this road. I'm enjoying it far too much.

I huddled in the analog bunker for 15 years, scheming on how to bring the evil digital empire down.

Every time I wandered out of the bunker, I resembled a frenzied madman with Tourette's, while I mumbled and stumbled about cursing the 'crazies' with their little silvery devil discs.

"My Kingdom for a Black Goldline!" I would rant.

Oh yes. Stephen: Indie, huh? Have you ever heard Mazzy Star's 'So tonight that I might See'? CD, it is now OOP. ouch. Now..try finding that on vinyl for under $100.

I'm in the middle of stripping and rebuilding a Chord Balanced Phono pre that someone gave to me in disgust when one of my modded units blew it out of the water. Lets see what the Chord does afterward....

For all you vinyl junkies... try and find this album on vinyl:

http://www.sheilachandra.com/albums/nadabrahma.html

A friend with over 10,000 albums..calls this 'the ultimate make-out album'. He owned a record shop,and had access to over 40k albums in the store, over the years..so he knows what he's talking about.

I also have another particular album that is 'top contender' that will be, once it is discovered, to be one of 'the best that ever was',and it is also one of the FIRST stereo albums recorded. They sell on ebay for about $5 to $30, right now..but I'm busy buying all of the good copies up right now! So it will be a while before I share that title and artist name. I expected the album to be selling for about $200-$400 when I started looking for copies..and was astonished that this one sold so cheap. I guess it hasn't been 'discovered' yet! A friend and I are in communication with Chaz at Acoustic Sounds, to see if he can get ahold of the master, to do some re-pressing of this content and quality absolute top level masterpiece.

Edit: I just checked Ebay...they're starting to get into the $100+ range. crap. Oh well, I can still find the odd Stereo copy in the $5 range. I keep buyin' em up!

Oops. JIMV, you said the magic word. "All." You just don't know "all," if you think the best vinyl is more dynamically limited than the best digital.

Or, you don't go to enough live symphonic concerts.

I have the best of both (no, I don't have the Caliburn, but I have heard it and it sounds no better than what I have), and the vinyl is MUCH more dynamic. And, I have no idea why. I can crank it up and up and up, and the dynamic contrasts just keep getting more and more believable. With digital there are limits. The upper midrange gives first. It just gets glassy and one-dimensional. The vinyl never does that.

You said, "missing or distorted highs and lows are simply not as objectionable in vinyl as in digital. I have no idea why."

I do. Distortion always is present. Irritatingly so. Comparably, closer fidelity to the source may (again, comparably) sound like something is "missing." Yes. And that would be the distortion.

You say "the errors are of the sort that the vinyl excells (sic) at." Huh?

Look. It is ALL illusion. There is no truth. There is only simulation. There is no "ultimate potential." There is only the narrowing gap between the live acoustic experience and the simulations of it in your listening room.

"The medium is limited by its nature." Huh? And digital ISN'T? All simulations are limited in their natures. Or they wouldn't be simulations.

I can't make much sense out of your logic. I suspect you can't make much sense out of my reporting of my listening experiences.

But words and phrases like "all," "in the nature of," and "errors...excelled at" leave me wondering what you are trying to say. Particularly when it comes to simulating the dynamics of live acoustic music. That, in my experience, is the most obvious area where vinyl excels. More music. Nothing has been sampled out.

I suspect you have been hearing distortion as an expression of relative loudness. Yeah. I hear that, too. And vinyl DOES minimize that, compared to digital. You were right about that much...

My "Honda" HR214 SX lawnmower was only $728. Back in 1987, Who on earth buys a $12,000 lawnmower, unless it's one of them commercial tractor types. Geramn auto is not "ego" boost but driving pleasure, control, etc. If it ain't GERMAN, it ain't a car. Where do you think the other brands got their ideas, certainly not on their own. And like AudioGon, if ya buy factory pre owned warranty cars that are just like new, without the large depreciation, you too can get the GERMAN experience. Honda does make great lawnmowers, but i prefer more car when doing 80MPH. What size balde is on that $12,000 lawnmower?

I see lotsa Audis BMW, Benz at those concert halls, doesn't the conductor get a limo Benz? $20,000 for a spinning platter is hardly prudent. If you buy that is why you drive a $12,000 Honda lawnmower...KIA will do it for less if you want super cheap, KIA barely has seat cushions....but it'll get you to the concert hall, so you can see the condutors new Benz or Audi S8......

Why is digital VIDEO so superior to analog video, yet digital audio is also so superior to analog audio, yet people keep insisting on going backwards, proclaiming obsolete LP's are better? HDTV is alive, and teh soon to be gone standard analog broadcasts are un watchable,

GASP!

Clifton can't hear how superior the Caliburn is to his own rig!

Blasphemy.

So now he has lost all credibility...if MF says it's superior to even AIR, it must be true. MF hears de magnetized plastic, how can you ever doubt that?

LP equals Fuzztone, blurr, hazey, distorted, fuzztone is a device added to guitars to DISTORT and change, to create, not reproduce. Fuzztone is not hi fidelity REPRODUCTION, neither are LP's with it's limited freq response, limited dynamics, limited ease of use, limited playback time, so any limits, so few upticks. The bigger covers are better that's all. They couldn't even punch the center hole properly on some LP's....how bad is that for mfg quality? LP is like the dinosaur oil they come from, dinosaurs. I guess all teh work going into optical recording, to improve ease of use, not wearing out on each use, much better specs, are all wrong, Philips, Sony, and the companies that produce the discs and stuff are all wrong, but MF is correct, right about how vinyl is superior.....don't think so. LP is still 33 1/3 RPM holds the limited data. CD moved to DVD to SACD to all recordable formats, now Blu-Ray soon Blu-Ray recordable....how come it keeps getting better, LP is still like the did in 1940's when they developed it, it's a dead medium....give it up, $120,000 can do lot more in digital than spinning a platter to play a 22 minute flawed medium...

Guys like you, DUP, should go and work for the Goebbels network and show of Bill O'Reilly.. who equate screaming obscenities and nonsense over the voice of reason equals some sort of truth. You'd fit right in.

Quote:
LP equals Fuzztone, blurr, hazey, distorted, fuzztone is a device added to guitars to DISTORT and change, to create, not reproduce. Fuzztone is not hi fidelity REPRODUCTION, neither are LP's with it's limited freq response, limited dynamics, limited ease of use, limited playback time, so any limits, so few upticks. The bigger covers are better that's all. They couldn't even punch the center hole properly on some LP's....how bad is that for mfg quality? LP is like the dinosaur oil they come from, dinosaurs. I guess all teh work going into optical recording, to improve ease of use, not wearing out on each use, much better specs, are all wrong, Philips, Sony, and the companies that produce the discs and stuff are all wrong, but MF is correct, right about how vinyl is superior.....don't think so. LP is still 33 1/3 RPM holds the limited data. CD moved to DVD to SACD to all recordable formats, now Blu-Ray soon Blu-Ray recordable....how come it keeps getting better, LP is still like the did in 1940's when they developed it, it's a dead medium....give it up, $120,000 can do lot more in digital than spinning a platter to play a 22 minute flawed medium...

If only this topic had been posted on the Analog Forum.

I don't like Bill O'Rielly nor do I agree with his opinions or manner of application of such opinions. Are you speakering of teh Heinrich Goebels that invented electric light 10 years before Edison's Patent? Heinrich had a evacuated perfume bottle in his store in N.Y.C back in teh 1800's, he took it to court took a decade for teh court to finally agree, he was first, but it was too late, Edison had a great marketing machine, so he got all the glory, kinda like how sony had people thinking they invented teh CD, when in fact Philips brought the working CD system to Sony after Matsushita didn't want in....so Philips went to #2 to get is selling in teh U.S.

Quote:
Oops. JIMV, you said the magic word. "All." You just don't know "all," if you think the best vinyl is more dynamically limited than the best digital.

Or, you don't go to enough live symphonic concerts.

It depends on the concert. Another rant...I believe too many folk who like to compare a live concert to a record or CD sort of forget that most live performances, especially rock, and unless one is dead center middle distance from the stage, and unless the performance engineer has the system set up correctly, and unless the audience keeps their big mouths shut and cell phones off, the actual live performance is a sonic mess.

I was noting a simple reality...the biggest difference between vinyl and digital is dynamic range.

Quote:
I have the best of both (no, I don't have the Caliburn, but I have heard it and it sounds no better than what I have), and the vinyl is MUCH more dynamic.

Not dynamic, as in 'big sound' but dynamic range, the difference between the loudest and most quiet bits of sound.

Quote:
And, I have no idea why. I can crank it up and up and up, and the dynamic contrasts just keep getting more and more believable. With digital there are limits. The upper midrange gives first. It just gets glassy and one-dimensional. The vinyl never does that.

I may be wrong, but I do not believe the vinyl media is capable of that.

Quote:
You said, "missing or distorted highs and lows are simply not as objectionable in vinyl as in digital. I have no idea why."

I do. Distortion always is present. Irritatingly so. Comparably, closer fidelity to the source may (again, comparably) sound like something is "missing." Yes. And that would be the distortion.

Vinyl has a higher level of distortion inherently but it sounds less objectionable.

Quote:
But words and phrases like "all," "in the nature of," and "errors...excelled at" leave me wondering what you are trying to say. Particularly when it comes to simulating the dynamics of live acoustic music. That, in my experience, is the most obvious area where vinyl excels. More music. Nothing has been sampled out.

When I gave up on vinyl long ago I stopped paying attention to the medium but I seem to recall that vinyl simply did not and could not have the dynalic range of digital. It is a medium limit. Digital does not have the same limit. Digital today has moved light years from 1983...has vinyl?

It has gotten more expensive, the gear used to hear it is more sophisticated and more tweaky but, aside from the records getting heavier, are they recorded in any way differently than they were 30 years ago? Con one fix dynamic range with outside gear? I don't think so.

JIMV, you mention that you gave up on vinyl "long ago." Well, the discs haven't changed, but the playback equipment certainly has. Contemporary cartridges, styli, turntables, arms, and phono preamps consistently reveal that the problem was never with the medium, but with the playback technology. It has improved more than CD technology, I believe. A $2000 contemporary playback system (including all of the above mentioned components), will reveal more of the medium than a $10,000 system would have in 1990.

I speak from experience. I have LP's that I bought in the 1960's. They obviously haven't changed. But the playback equipment has changed so radically, for the better, that the analog medium keeps sounding better and better.

The dynamic range in playback equipment is initially limited by noise levels and distortion spuriae created by the stylus hitting the grooves. Then the arm/platter/wire/preamp chain is stuck with whatever comes off the grooves. This entire playback chain has improved so dramatically over the past 20 years that even the oldest records sound transparent and dynamic in ways unachievable by digital.

I, too, switched to digital in the mid-1980's. I was initially seduced by the lack of background noise, compared to my vinyl, and I concluded that greater dynamic differentials, between ppp and ffff , were attributable to the new medium. Fortunately, I kept my LP's. As much as I liked the new medium, it sounded glassy and two-dimensional. But you could play it as loudly as you wanted. Less noise.

Well, as you suggest, CD playback improved. Illusional "space" got deeper and wider, and much of the glassiness went away with improvements in jitter suppression.

Then I upgraded my analog set-up, for the first time in literally decades, in 1998. I couldn't believe the differences, at first. No noise. No groove/stylus-related spuriae. Then I upgraded again, twice, 3 and 2 years ago. More transparency, greater dynamic range, wider and deeper illusions of concert-hall space...you name it.

I am sorry you gave up on vinyl. You gave up to soon. Digital cannot do this.

Repeat. I love my CD collection and the playback equipment I have for it. SACD is occasionally better, but not the cure-all once envisioned. But vinyl is the best of all. Dynamically, spatially, tonally -- any adverbial qualifier you wish to choose. Unlike CD's, vinyl demands constant cleaning. But it is worth it.

This is the one case where you blame the messenger. Concerning vinyl, the messenger has improved so dramatically that you no longer blame the medium.

Listen however and to what you choose. But there are dynamic limits in the digital domain that simply do not exist in contemporary vinyl systems.

DUP,concerning the "fuzz" you hear, I am going to say this once, and only once.

CLEAN THE GODDAM STYLUS!

Quote:
I don't like Bill O'Rielly nor do I agree with his opinions or manner of application of such opinions. Are you speakering of teh Heinrich Goebels that invented electric light 10 years before Edison's Patent? Heinrich had a evacuated perfume bottle in his store in N.Y.C back in teh 1800's, he took it to court took a decade for teh court to finally agree, he was first, but it was too late, Edison had a great marketing machine, so he got all the glory, kinda like how sony had people thinking they invented teh CD, when in fact Philips brought the working CD system to Sony after Matsushita didn't want in....so Philips went to #2 to get is selling in teh U.S.

Good on you DUP. We may not agree, but we at least might end up fighting from the same trench. As for the other..Sort of... Goebbels thought he invented propaganda, but it was actually Cicero - who took down Rome with the inadvertent help of the Visigoths.

Oh yes: As for the actual digital information on an optical disc...it was TEAC who did it first. But weirdly..it was 'FM' modulated! What a convoluted way to do it. I guess it was due to the FM modulated disc already being in existence, via pioneer laserdisk similars...Soooo.... Dey useded what dey gots. 1974-75, IIRC.

A dirty stylus ain't the problem.....the problem is having a STYLUS

Philips invented the "laserdisc".....maybe now Pioneer may in fact still make a player, I have one, Philips introduced the Laserdisc under it's Magnavox name here...it was analog, but so much better than VHS, then they moved onto Cd and DVD...now blu-Ray. And yes ain't it strange that the LP is still just the LP. Nothing has improved, nothing better, still a mechanical dragging pulling the sound off with a mechanical wiggle....how 1944 or so.

I think the FUZZ for DUP may very well be fraying synapses in the cerebral cortex...

Quote:
JIMV, you mention that you gave up on vinyl "long ago." Well, the discs haven't changed, but the playback equipment certainly has. Contemporary cartridges, styli, turntables, arms, and phono preamps consistently reveal that the problem was never with the medium, but with the playback technology. It has improved more than CD technology, I believe. A $2000 contemporary playback system (including all of the above mentioned components), will reveal more of the medium than a $10,000 system would have in 1990.

I don't disagree with that, but the improvements in the system after the media are limited by what is in the media. Unlike digital, one cannot upsample vinyl. In addition, SACD and HDCD are the sort of improvements not possible with vinyl. Vinyl is limited by what is in the thing. Nothing can be added. Digitasl is all about manipulating the bits..one can improve that, and, the media supports a lot of different standards. Anything is possible.

Quote:
I speak from experience. I have LP's that I bought in the 1960's. They obviously haven't changed. But the playback equipment has changed so radically, for the better, that the analog medium keeps sounding better and better.

The dynamic range in playback equipment is initially limited by noise levels and distortion spuriae created by the stylus hitting the grooves. Then the arm/platter/wire/preamp chain is stuck with whatever comes off the grooves. This entire playback chain has improved so dramatically over the past 20 years that even the oldest records sound transparent and dynamic in ways unachievable by digital.

Sounds more like wishful thinking that reality. Yes, the equipment playing the media has vastly improved (and increased in cost)but the media itself is limited and has no where to go.

Quote:
I, too, switched to digital in the mid-1980's. I was initially seduced by the lack of background noise, compared to my vinyl, and I concluded that greater dynamic differentials, between ppp and ffff , were attributable to the new medium. Fortunately, I kept my LP's. As much as I liked the new medium, it sounded glassy and two-dimensional. But you could play it as loudly as you wanted. Less noise.

Well, as you suggest, CD playback improved. Illusional "space" got deeper and wider, and much of the glassiness went away with improvements in jitter suppression.

Then I upgraded my analog set-up, for the first time in literally decades, in 1998. I couldn't believe the differences, at first. No noise. No groove/stylus-related spuriae. Then I upgraded again, twice, 3 and 2 years ago. More transparency, greater dynamic range, wider and deeper illusions of concert-hall space...you name it.

I am sorry you gave up on vinyl. You gave up to soon. Digital cannot do this.

I didn't give up to soon...I quite vinyl in 1983 and CD's of the period, warts and all, sounded MUCH better than my vinyl rig. I am back in it today because, as you note, the problems of vinyl have been largely fixed, the systems are fun and, unless one is trying to sound as good as digital, the hobby is less expensive. You can get an acceptable rig for under $1000 and have fun. That said, my digital rig is much better and will remain so. Just as I will not pay $2K for a cable, I will not pay $2K for a cartridge, tonearm, or platter not to mention a phono amp.

And this article says:

Quote:
Different audio media, such as eight-track and cassette tapes, have come and gone. And, as compact discs are increasingly supplanted by digital downloads, some speculate that even the mighty CD could one day fade into obscurity. However, if unit sales are any indication, vinyl, it seems, may indeed be forever.