DCAudioDIY.com

Before throwing bricks, I am not taking a stance on this article. I just though you might find it interesting.

http://www.psaudio.com/article/vinyl-vivid-or-veiled/

Tom

_________________
Walt

I think anyone who is honest about vinyl realizes how much of a pain it can be to get the best out the medium, there are some many variables in play in system selection, setup and playback, and it is so easy to be wandering in the wilderness and not getting the best sound. It takes a degree of patience, time, and a bit of obsession to achieve the its potential.

I have to say I have been enjoying the hell out my Marantz SA8005. Plug it in, throw in a silvery disc and it plays music without much hassle, and really sounds great with a good recording (as does vinyl for that matter).

I am not sure why there needs to constantly be this debate of analog vs digital. Do we have to make a choice?

There are 100,000+ recordings that only exist on vinyl and have not been remastered to digital. Why would we want to give up listening to these? If we want to listen to these, we, as audiophiles as well (presumably) music lovers, wouldn't we want as good of a playback system as one can afford. Why should we settle for poorly engineered digital remastering of analog recordings when we can listen to the original analog or a top quality remaster.

For new music that exists in the digital domain, why would we choose listening to a vinyl version from a digital dub if a high res digital format exists. Admittedly, the vinyl version off a high res digital master is likely better sounding than a downsampled 44/16 CD. But, shouldn't we want to have as good of a digital system as we can afford for high res and standard res digital, particularily for music only in digital format.

If you let music determine your choices, you really want both to get the best from your music collection.

I think part of the appeal of vinyl is the ability for the technically inclined audiophile to affect a significant change via minor tweaks in setup or cartridge changes. You have the ability to experiment and tailor your sound to your whims to suit your listening preferences, and often it does not cost you anything. That kind of flexibility can be part of enjoyment of the hobby. It is a bit harder on the digital side, since usually it involved wholesale replacement of a component (disc player, DAC, etc.) at considerable cost, and you are pretty much stuck with what you get, soundwise, between changes.

So, lets enjoy both.

Note that this article is written by a fellow who admits to not listening to vinyl for years. Of course properly setting up a TT takes skill, setup equipment and a set of ears. Digital is usually much more plug and play, although audiophiles can tweak and mod digital to their hearts desire if they decide to.

I listen to a LOT of digital, mostly streaming 16/44 or MQA unpacked material and I like it a LOT. I am probably 80% digital, 20% vinyl since I have >1000 LPs in comparison to over 25 million digital songs. I understand theoretically why modern digital should sound better. But when I throw on a Jazz LP, I usually laugh out loud for a few seconds after the music starts playing. A good LP sounds so much better, so real, no comparison really IMHO.

These analog vs digital arguments are specious at best. This is not some zero sum game, I think wise folks invest in multiple mediums for many reasons including sonics, available titles, nostalgia, collectibity, aesthetics etc etc.

David:

You have hit it on the head on many fronts. I have always said that any technology properly implemented by people who know how to overcome or at least mitigate the inevitable shortcomings of any of them will result in good sound. There is no silver bullet. As you have said the amount of time and money required by each technology may vary but at the end of the day for a DIYer that is usually not the biggest concern.

An example of this is the "Cherry Bomb" single ended class A VFET amp David and I built. There is no practical reason to get involved in such a project. There are lots of other ways to get the performance of that amp for a lot less money, time, and size. What I can say is building it was one of the most fun and rewarding projects I have ever done. And I now have a truly unique and cool looking amp. To me that is what DIY is all about.

I am constantly amazed by how good some of my old vinyl sounds. I am also extremely happy with not only the sound but the convenience of my home made music server. Thanks again for all the help with that from Roscoe. I couldn't agree more with the problems of some of the supposedly "superior" reissues. I have a reissue of Goodman's 38 Carnegie Hall jazz concert where all "the noise was removed and the sound improved". I listened to it just long enough to realize how badly the energy and detail of the original was treated. My original LPs are far better and retain the life of the performance even with all the noise and clicks. I have also heard reissues where the results were far superior to the LP because the limitations of vinyl especially in the bass were eliminated. So chose wisely and don't let anyone tell you there is only one road to take.

I noticed the very same thing with that re-issue. Glad I have a decent copy on vinyl...

Roscoe

_________________
I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you.

Spot on Dave, should just quote your whole post.

Charlie and I just spent the afternoon Listening to both records and hi-rez files. Both were great!

Just slightly off-topic but interesting and amusing.

http://nerdist.com/a-company-will-press ... nyl-album/

ray

Well, many say that vinyl is the only true archival medium*, so you (or your friends, family, or enemy), can enjoy the memorial into perpetuity.

*I remember reading this in connection to the Library of Congress. Tape and film is affected by breakdown of the film and magnetic coating with time. Optical discs suffer from breakdown of the aluminumized layer (laser rot) and dye (in the case of recordable CD/DVD). Digital files rely on hard drive/tape/optical disc technology, and we know how reliable that is. Flash storage is new, and who knows how long the chips will store the information. The conclusion was that vinyl records are only way to preserve recorded music indefinitely.

David

Vinyl is certainly one of the most reliable archive mediums especially if you don't play it often or they don't get physically damaged by fire, breakage, dog chewing, etc.. Digital has the ability to be truly archival and routinely played as well. The best way to archive digital music files is to have them stored on multiple drives. All my digital data including music is backed up on three drives in my house and one drive in my safe deposit box that I refresh on a periodic basis.

Digital files on any medium have the real possibility of degradation. Relying on one copy is not very smart. However, if they are occasionally refreshed, say once every 10 years, as long as the bits can be read they will copy to the new medium. That can be done indefinitely. So in reality with a little bit (pun intended) of effort anyone can have an archiving system for digital files for very little money. That includes ripping your CDs to back them up.

Having multiple copies of vinyl is not only expensive and space intensive, but requires a separate storage area to be really safe. Having safe external storage is probably beyond most audiophiles. Probably the best solution is to rip the LPs to digital and store them as above. That way if a catastrophe happens you at least still have the music. BTW, right now Amazon has a Western Digital 2 TB Elements USB 3 hard drive for $69. It easily fits in your pocket or safe deposit box.

Tom