I am an old timer (pre-baby boomer) so I too grew up with vinyl but still find all this attachment to vinyl illogical. I recently read an article in one of the science magazines "debunking the vinyl myth" and of course it struck a cord with my own feelings. The author pointed out that at 44,000 samples per second (for CD) the resulting recording more than covers the range of human hearing. And presuming you are using a lossless format and a play-back DAC of more than just 1 or 2 bits the signal's accuracy is very high, certainly higher than can be achieved mechanical by dragging a needle thru a vinyl groove whose side contours are different. And isn't the very definition of "hi-fi" (high fidelity) the faithful (i.e. accurate) reproduction of the original music?
The author went on to explain the "richer and warmer" aspect as a defect of the vinyl recording rather than a virtual. He said what people are hearing is "feedback" - because the needle is in intimate contact with the record the needle's vibrations are fed back into the record, where the large mass of vinyl acts as a sound board. Those altered vibrations re-enter the needle and are passed thru the playback system to affect the final auditory signal as "richer and warmer".
If the above explanation is correct, the "richer and warmer" component is really an "artifact" of the vinyl system and not part of the original music, again compromising the "hi-fi" aspect of vinyl recordings.
Ultimately I believe those who espouse vinyl do so for strictly psychological reasons (nostalgia, exclusivity, etc); I cannot believe they would try to maintain the scientific position that a purely mechanical, analog system could be "better" than a high quality digital one at achieving what a audiophile should desire - the ACCURATE, faithful capture and reproduction of the original audio signal (unless you happen to have been a TDC operator on a WW II American sub, when was the last time you saw an ANALOG computer).
Danny Tech
· 1 year ago
After being an album lover and collector since '74.
I couldn't say it any better. Well done.
Atane
· 1 year ago
Jeff, thanks for the response.
This is an age old argument, and it's one that people trying to find answers to scientifically will fail. In my blogpost I specifically mentioned that nothing about vinyl can be explained scientifically. Science deals with objectivity. Almost everything in hifi is subjective. I don't know one credible outlet that espouses or maintains that vinyl sounds better than digital scientifically.
This is no different than people who like solid state amps who don't "get" tube amps, and try to prove that there are no differences with science. I reckon, that's like someone who likes vanilla ice cream trying to prove scientifically why someone else would like strawberry ice cream. When you start tackling subjective issues with science, you simply miss the point entirely.
David
· 1 year ago
Cd's are ok...but nothing is like vinyl with the pics on back of the singer and also something about him/her. A comeback? That would be nice.
Gabrielle Myers
· 1 year ago
It's personal preferences.. i buy vinyl because I want to and I collect them.
Father Jim former R&R DJ 1
· 1 year ago
There's nothing like Vinyl. It's the real thing! I was in record promotion in the 1960's in Philly, then got into major market Rock and Roll DJing: New Haven, CT (WAVZ - JACK MITCHELL); WSCR/WARM (Scranton, PA). Worked with Joe Lenti/Lane - McCoy (WCBS-FM), Jerry Blavit (Philly'own Legend).
I worked with all the early Philly groups in record production, theatrical booking, producing (RecoArt/Sound Plus Studios'. It was great. I'm a Catholic priest now 30 years! Maybe someday GOD
Father Jim Jacl Mitchell
Father Jim former R&R DJ 1
· 1 year ago
That is maybe someday W G O D WGOD
vinyllover
· 1 year ago
As a long time electronic music lover, I still purchase vinyl. It's expensive. You can't find a single song for a buck.
They have now made software packages that let you play your mp3s on vinyl through your turntables. The record holds blank grooves which allows you to adjust the pitch through your turntable.
I just like the feeling of touching the vinyl and turntable versus the computer or fake CD DJ equipment.
Atane
· 1 year ago
It's a lovely feeling isn't it vinyllover? Nothing beats opening an LP jacket and pulling out a record.
The very mention of the word mp3 makes me shiver. We as music lovers should demand more than lossy, compressed, low quality audio. It's an insult to music. With FLAC, WAV, Apple Lossless etc, why on earth would anyone choose mp3 over lossless audio other than lack of knowledge?
Michael S. Dougherty
· 1 year ago
In response to Jeff's comment - I too don't understand this vinyl "comeback". As an early professional musician I always knew what music should sound like from a recording. In vinyl's heyday, it was the only high-end available (when compared to the older 78's and 45's), but was so far from what music actually sounded like that I continually preyed for someone to invent a superior method of delivering true sound. Then came CD's, which had some of the characteristics that I was looking for, but in their early years most were pathetic. As the technology matured, some engineers actually "got it" and produced really good albums. (It always comes down to the engineer to make or break.) I suspect that the really good engineers knew that they were close to achieving aural accuracy but it wasn't until SACD and DVD-Audio allowed them to bypass the compression of music that they could produce (some) truly inspiring albums.
I still have every vinyl LP that I purchased over the years. I just recently spent (way too much) time entering them into a database. Along the way I would take a selected disc and play it on my home theater system (7.1 channel). The ability of the newer AVR's to simulate surround sound (enhanced stereo) greatly increase the sound stage (which, subjectively, I like), but the disctactions of vinyl, which in my opinion have very little to do with turntable setup, reminded me of why I abandoned the format so long ago. Snap, crackle, pop. Not all the time, nor on all records consistently, but enough to bring back the efforts to negate that noise. Discwasher, D-4 liquid, anti-static mats, anti-static guns, etc., etc.
I must confess that I was recently curious enough to purchase the new Led Zeppelin set "Mothership" on 180 gram vinyl. I wrote a review on the vendor's website that kind of indicated that I won't be fooled into purchasing vinyl again. Now if they would only release that on SACD....
p0ps
· 10 months ago
Good discussion on an excellent post covering a fascinating topic. Michael Biel's explanations are enlightening. I see no reason to label anyone a fool, however. This is all about the love of recorded music playback, the importance this artform has for many of us. There are no rules for art. Appreciation is subjective and there is no higher purpose than personal enjoyment.
While I enjoy knowing more about the sonic science behind the capture and playback of music, I myself enjoy listening in a "live" environment. Whether it's at home on my (unnamed) system or thru earbuds from my portable system, I always pay attention to the mix of environmental sound, with the music playback usually (but, not always) being prominent. This makes each play of a favorite song, different. I guess it's the John Cage influence on my appreciation of music, art and the world.
I mention this as a reminder to those focusing only on the recorded music, that there is a world in which the music is playing, it is an uncontrolled, living world collaborating with the recording for your aural enjoyment.
Atane
· 10 months ago
Well said, and I agree. Like we discussed a few days ago, I enjoy listening a myriad of sources, and lately have been ripping a bunch of CDs via Apple lossless and listening via my network. As long as we are having fun and listening to music, that's what truly matters. I'm having a blast discovering all these new acts, and the CDs you lent me goes a long way.
Thanks p0ps.
Atane
· 1 year ago
Hi Michael, thanks for the response.
Have you looked at some of the future upcoming blu-ray audio discs? Hopefully multichannel audio takes off where SACD and DVD-A fell short. The special edition of Nine Inch Nails Ghosts album includes a blu-ray audio disc. Sounds incredible.
I must confess though, while many multichannel recordings do sound wonderful, I get the most immersion from good ol' fashion stereo. Two channel will always be the default choice for the most discerning audiophile. I don't recall any live show where some of the musicians were ever playing behind the crowd with the rest of the band scattered about to give the crowd a surround sound experience. It's a completely manufactured phenomenon. While I like multi-channel, I realize that it is not "real".
When done right, two channel in my opinion cannot be beat. I don't exclude SACD because many SACD's are in stereo only. Some of the best are.
With regards to snap, crackling and popping on vinyl. Again, this is something that just won't die. That happens when you have cheap vinyl, old vinyl, warped vinyl, awful source material or an improperly set up turntable. A properly fitted cartridge, counterweight and tone-arm and 180gram or 200 gram vinyl will playback crackle and pop free music. Any irregularities with sound is due to something wrong with the end users set-up and not the vinyl medium itself. I would venture to say that most people with turntables don't know how to properly fit their cartridge or adjust their tonearm.
Hyme
· 1 year ago
I have the vinyl and mp3 version of Radiohead's In Rainbows. I must say I enjoy listening to the vinyl version much more than the mp3 version. Mp3s are like watching a movie recorded on video tape. Vinyl is like watching a movie recorded on film and with Technicolor. Vinyl is better, period!
Michael Fremer
· 1 year ago
Sorry that Jeff Stevens finds the attachment to vinyl "illogical." Well, Mr. Spock, logic is really not the issue. Sound is. I have spent the past twenty years trying to foment the analog revival. It began when I heard my first CD at an AES demo in Los Angeles and the sound was horrible. It was an early player, the size of a refrigerator and they'd transferred Roxy Music's "Avalon," an album I was well familiar with. Because it was a new technology, I wasn't expecting immediate greatness but when the crowd went bananas for not just the technology but the cruddy sound as well I knew trouble lay ahead. You may apply logic, but I apply listening satisfaction and if you look at what 20 years of CD has accomplished, you will see that people really don't listen to music much anymore. They hear it but they don't listen. It's background or accompanies other activities. Few people today sit down and listen to music without also doing something else. The excuse is that there are more distractions and competition, but that's bogus. The reality is that CDs are still not inviting and still don't sound all that good and never will. And please, let's not have posts from anti-vinyl recording pros spouting their resumes to prove that they are correct. I know plenty of well-respected recording and mastering engineers who agree with me. I can tell you that Roy Halee, who recorded all of the great Simon and Garfunkel albums, and who knows what a master tape sounds like better than most anyone reading this, can't stand CDs. He hates them for the same reason I do..they just sound flat and glazed and dimensionless compared to a properly manufactured and played back LP. Ditto Neil Young and Bob Dylan (among many other musicians, recording engineers and mastering engineers). I have proven this to hundreds of skeptic, using original pressings played too often to count how many times, with the latest CD or even SACD re-master and the LP version always sounds more musical, more involving and more realistic for reasons that are not difficult to understand, particularly when the source was analog. And anyone who thinks digital recordings made today are superior to those made analog in the 1950 and 1960s really doesn't know what he or she is talking about--not that there aren't some very good ones being made today. What's happening now is that kids who grew up on MP3 files are getting to hear vinyl and for them it's like seeing HDTV for the first time. The reason vinyl is coming back, particularly among youngsters is because IT SOUND BETTER AND IT FEELS BETTER--more like real music. I have a subscription to The New York Philharmonic and symphonic music on vinyl sounds more life-like than any sterile, flat CD I've heard. Are there occasional pops and clicks? Sometimes, but not as often as some people claim. When I sit in Avery Fisher in a hall filled with mostly old and elderly people does their coughing and gagging and sneezing ruin the concert? No. Neither do a few pops or clicks. What ruins a recording is when it sounds glazed, hard and mechanical and that's what classical music CDs sound like. When you get to hear higher resolution digital, say 176k/24 bit, it's easy to hear what's wrong with CDs, and what's right about vinyl. Perhaps in the future with high rez downloads, the LP boom will diminish, but of course you can't beat the LP packaging because it's "the thing." I can look back over my collection and remember where I was when I bought just about every one of them. How many kids in 20 years will say "I remember where I was when I downloaded that file?"
The return of vinyl has ZERO to do with "nostalgia." Most of the anti-vinyl posters here have simply never heard vinyl done right. They are very defensive. Don't like what's happening? Don't bother with it. But please cut the condescension and what appears to be an almost bitter response to a really fascinating re-awaking among music lovers of all ages. There are logical reasons why vinyl, with all of its technological problems and limitations, which I don't deny, sounds more real. The notion that digital, particularly at CD resolution, represents "perfection" is ludicrous. That technology, like all technologies has its problems and limitations too. I've spend 20 years trying to bring vinyl back. It's back and growing at a pace I couldn't have predicted even ten years ago, but I'm not surprised because once people have a listen, they get it. -Michael Fremer senior contributing editor, Stereophile
Michael Fremer
· 1 year ago
One more thing: all of this talk about "snap crackle and pop" is way overblown. Clean a record on a machine, play it back properly, and assuming it wasn't mishandled, you won't hear "snap, crackle, and pop.' I invite anyone reading this to email me via my website and I'll be happy to email them an MP3 from a 60 year old Duke Ellington LP that I've been playing regularly for 30 years and you tell me where the "snap, crackle, and pops" are....and that's true of most of my collection. Bringing up "snap crackle and pop" is a phony distraction. It's like saying "I prefer frozen food because after a while the fresh stuff starts to stink."
Atane
· 1 year ago
Wow, this is incredible. Michael Fremer himself responded to my post!
I'm truly honored to have you respond Michael. This is like Tom Brady showing up at a high school football game.
I've been reading the Analog Corner in Stereophile for years now. In fact my October issue just came in the mail, and your piece on Dr. Feikhert's Analogue Adjust+ cartridge-setup program was a great read.
With respect to the people who for one reason or another don't get vinyl, I'll rattle out some applicable quotes I heard. I don't exactly remember who said it, but it's the message that matters because many in the anti-vinyl camp keep touting higher bits and how this or that measures in relation to this and that, as if that has anything to do with musicality.
Anyway, the quotes go like this....
"If something measures well, but sounds bad - IT IS BAD!"
"If something measures poorly, but sounds good, then you're measuring the wrong thing."
I don't know who said that originally, but truer words have never been spoken.
Scott Hickey
· 1 year ago
Amen, Mr. Fremer. The only way my Fisher 800 tube amplifier and Rega Turntable will ever be taken from me will be from my cold dead hands. And I was pleasantly surprised to receive an email from J&R advertising vinyl, considering vinyl "died" more than 20 years ago.
Jose Javier Gonzalez
· 1 year ago
My 2 reasons to still prefer vinyl:
1- LP's were made mostly from much newer master tapes. Most CD's available today from the LP's era are remastered versions made from much older master tapes. Some of this master tapes are in pretty bad shape and the mastering process is very challenging. The results are mostly an overprocessed recording.
2- There are hundreds or maybe thousands of recordings made in the LP era that still hasn't been released in CD. Reasons?... Lost or damaged master tapes... No interest of actual owners... The only choice: the LP version. As a matter of fact, a lot of digital versions are remastered from LP's and most people doesn't even notice it.
Rocko
· 1 year ago
Aren't most of these modern songs recorded or mastered on digital equipment? Isn't Pro-Tools the defacto standard? Are reel to reels still being used? Isn't vinyl mass produced just like CDs? Don't CDs and vinyl come from the same source?
The record companies can't get away with selling CDs for ridiculous prices, near any digital audio format is available for $1 per song or $10 per album, so now they're re-branding, re-marketing vinyl. It's pefect, you don't need to prove it sounds better, it "feels" like it sounds better.
audiophile: a person who listens to the equipment instead of the music.
Atane
· 1 year ago
Thanks for the response Rocko.
Most modern songs are recorded on digital equipment, but the number of artists who use analog equipment is growing. Perfect example is Shelby Lynne. I'm a big fan of hers and she just "gets it". Her latest album is a compilation of Dusty Springfield songs titled "Just A little lovin'", a great sounding record that was done on analog equipment.
Also, you mentioned how new recordings are mastered digitally. For mainstream record companies sure, but many smaller outfits are still pumping out gobs of stuff mastered on analog equipment and their archives are infinite of some of the arguably best artists of all time. Some of the best records I have ever heard were from analog masters remastered by Steve Hoffman. Look him up. He does a lot of remastering and it is brilliant.
The beauty of good music is that it is timeless. Good music bucks trends. It does not fade. It never goes out of style. Many of the artists that are still listened to today are from an era where all their recordings were analog masters. Think of all the Jazz and blues greats. Decades after their deaths they are still relevant. I still listen and many others do.
Many artists will gladly tell you to buy their vinyl editions over their CD's. The White Stripes are a perfect example. Jack White is passionate about vinyl, and he will tell you that at any given opportunity.
Vinyl is also not mass produced like CD's. I love vinyl and it is my preferred format, but I have no delusions of grandeur that it will replace CD's or an ipod for most people, it won't. Some vinyl pressings are less than 500 copies. That is definitely niche market stuff not mass production.
Some outfits might be re-marketing vinyl, but I need to reiterate this point. Vinyl never left. It has always been around and has always had a niche market within some audiophile crowds. The general populace is just coming up to speed about the wonders of vinyl. That's a good thing. Everyone should know that there is more to music than mp3's.
If you feel an audiophile is someone that listens to equipment instead of music, then you clearly don't "get it". Maybe you don't want to. Hopefully you will one day.
Rocko
· 1 year ago
Thanks for your reply.
You're right I don't get it. I think my ears have been damaged from concerts and such because I had a friend who said his vinyl sounded better, played for Billy Joel album and I didn't hear the "warmth" but I don't know what kind of equipment he had either.
If the artist recorded in analog, mastered in analog and then released in analog, it would sound better. The sound would be completely natural. My point is that many of these vinyl records are digital masters or re-masters transposed to vinyl so you're getting an analog version of digitally sampled sound that sounds better. What? And then it's being sold for a higher price. I dunno, maybe vinyl does cost more to manufacture since they make 1 million CDs to maybe 1,000 records (which is an instant collector's item for true fans). Based on my experience vinyl doesn't sound any better than a CD. Based on your experience it does.
I agree vinyl never went away, you can ask any DJ. I never thought there was an adequate replacement for the turntable. And digital turntables model themselves on analog ones. Until someone really thinks outside the box: http://www.djmag.com/index.php?op=story&sto... I hope thats the future.
G. Felix Thompson
· 10 months ago
This was an excellent article, especially for those of us that still play our old 33 1/3 records.
Now lets come up with a 8mm tape player that will play all those old video treasures we have collected
Michael Biel
· 10 months ago
As a baby boomer with a collection of about 30 thousand LPs (and many more thousand 78s, 45, open reel tapes, etc.) I was glad to see these thoughtful comments to this article. Vinyl was always a compromise. The original producers of the recordings usually felt that the LPs could only come close to the master tape but never actually equaled it. John Pfeiffer, who produced the original Victor Living Stereo classical recordings of the 50s and 60s, and Wilma Cozart Fine who produced the Mercury Living Presence records of the stereo era BOTH specifically said that the CD issues of these classics that they produced are closer to the master tapes than any of the LPs. I try to tell this to the Vinylfools (they call themselves "vinylphiles") and they say they don't care what the master tapes sound like, the TRUE sound of the recording is on original pressings of the LPs. Actually, it is the sound that they are used to after many years of hearing those LPs. Ironically the reviewers of the time -- when these records were new -- often commented that the mono copies had truer sound. The early stereo cutter heads were still evolving. They were not as good on sharp transients. And a few years later in the mid to late 60s as solid-state equipment started to come out there were the same type of complaints about the "transister sound" as we heard about the "digital sound" in the 80s. These people don't like transients. When reading the sonic descriptions by modern day vinylfools, you notice a lot of emphasis on "sound-stage". They talk about the placement of the instruments. They are listening to the space BETWEEN the instruments more than the overall sound quality. I have found that many of these people are more sensitive to the phasing of sound than most other people. For example, many of these people can clearly hear improper absolute-phasing that most people don't notice even when being played direct comparisons. Stereo effect is phase related in properly recorded records, more than just the variations of level of an instrument being louder in one channel and is thus located there. While level is all you have in over-dubbed type recordings, when the entire ensemble is recorded simultaneously the phase interactions and relationships are captured. This is why the vinylfools like the single-pair miking of Victor, Mercury, and English Decca (London) and hate the multi-miking of Columbia and others. Multi-miking screws up the phase relationships. Well, so does digital. The timing of the stereo channels can be improperly recorded and reproduced when the A to D and D to A converters take the two channels and put them into a single interlaced digital bit stream. Digital jitter might not affect the sound quality and the frequency response, but it does affect the phase relationship of the two channels. So there are legit reasons why some people prefer analogue, vinyl, and tubes while others don't. Tubes sorta smooth out the transients, ditto to vinyl, and both vinyl and analogue can be more accurate in retaining the phase relationships of the two channels. The accuracy in phase relationships is much more subtle than what you hear when the speakers are out-of-phase with each other. That's 180 degrees. This might be two or five or ten degrees, and might vary if there is jitter. And the other thing I mentioned, absolute phasing, this is when both speakers are in relative phase with each other but both are out of phase with the original sound. The speakers go inwards with the attack of each sound instead of going out. I don't hear the difference, but very few people do. It is called the "Wooden Effect." This is not a fault of either analogue or digital because it happens to both, but if people are sensitive to this, then they are also more likely to be sensitive to the phase relationships that create an aural soundstage.
All Comments
The author went on to explain the "richer and warmer" aspect as a defect of the vinyl recording rather than a virtual. He said what people are hearing is "feedback" - because the needle is in intimate contact with the record the needle's vibrations are fed back into the record, where the large mass of vinyl acts as a sound board. Those altered vibrations re-enter the needle and are passed thru the playback system to affect the final auditory signal as "richer and warmer".
If the above explanation is correct, the "richer and warmer" component is really an "artifact" of the vinyl system and not part of the original music, again compromising the "hi-fi" aspect of vinyl recordings.
Ultimately I believe those who espouse vinyl do so for strictly psychological reasons (nostalgia, exclusivity, etc); I cannot believe they would try to maintain the scientific position that a purely mechanical, analog system could be "better" than a high quality digital one at achieving what a audiophile should desire - the ACCURATE, faithful capture and reproduction of the original audio signal (unless you happen to have been a TDC operator on a WW II American sub, when was the last time you saw an ANALOG computer).
I couldn't say it any better. Well done.
This is an age old argument, and it's one that people trying to find answers to scientifically will fail. In my blogpost I specifically mentioned that nothing about vinyl can be explained scientifically. Science deals with objectivity. Almost everything in hifi is subjective. I don't know one credible outlet that espouses or maintains that vinyl sounds better than digital scientifically.
This is no different than people who like solid state amps who don't "get" tube amps, and try to prove that there are no differences with science. I reckon, that's like someone who likes vanilla ice cream trying to prove scientifically why someone else would like strawberry ice cream. When you start tackling subjective issues with science, you simply miss the point entirely.
I worked with all the early Philly groups in record production, theatrical booking, producing (RecoArt/Sound Plus Studios'. It was great. I'm a Catholic priest now 30 years! Maybe someday GOD
Father Jim
Jacl Mitchell
WGOD
They have now made software packages that let you play your mp3s on vinyl through your turntables. The record holds blank grooves which allows you to adjust the pitch through your turntable.
I just like the feeling of touching the vinyl and turntable versus the computer or fake CD DJ equipment.
The very mention of the word mp3 makes me shiver. We as music lovers should demand more than lossy, compressed, low quality audio. It's an insult to music. With FLAC, WAV, Apple Lossless etc, why on earth would anyone choose mp3 over lossless audio other than lack of knowledge?
I still have every vinyl LP that I purchased over the years. I just recently spent (way too much) time entering them into a database. Along the way I would take a selected disc and play it on my home theater system (7.1 channel). The ability of the newer AVR's to simulate surround sound (enhanced stereo) greatly increase the sound stage (which, subjectively, I like), but the disctactions of vinyl, which in my opinion have very little to do with turntable setup, reminded me of why I abandoned the format so long ago. Snap, crackle, pop. Not all the time, nor on all records consistently, but enough to bring back the efforts to negate that noise. Discwasher, D-4 liquid, anti-static mats, anti-static guns, etc., etc.
I must confess that I was recently curious enough to purchase the new Led Zeppelin set "Mothership" on 180 gram vinyl. I wrote a review on the vendor's website that kind of indicated that I won't be fooled into purchasing vinyl again. Now if they would only release that on SACD....
While I enjoy knowing more about the sonic science behind the capture and playback of music, I myself enjoy listening in a "live" environment. Whether it's at home on my (unnamed) system or thru earbuds from my portable system, I always pay attention to the mix of environmental sound, with the music playback usually (but, not always) being prominent. This makes each play of a favorite song, different. I guess it's the John Cage influence on my appreciation of music, art and the world.
I mention this as a reminder to those focusing only on the recorded music, that there is a world in which the music is playing, it is an uncontrolled, living world collaborating with the recording for your aural enjoyment.
Thanks p0ps.
Have you looked at some of the future upcoming blu-ray audio discs? Hopefully multichannel audio takes off where SACD and DVD-A fell short. The special edition of Nine Inch Nails Ghosts album includes a blu-ray audio disc. Sounds incredible.
I must confess though, while many multichannel recordings do sound wonderful, I get the most immersion from good ol' fashion stereo. Two channel will always be the default choice for the most discerning audiophile. I don't recall any live show where some of the musicians were ever playing behind the crowd with the rest of the band scattered about to give the crowd a surround sound experience. It's a completely manufactured phenomenon. While I like multi-channel, I realize that it is not "real".
When done right, two channel in my opinion cannot be beat. I don't exclude SACD because many SACD's are in stereo only. Some of the best are.
With regards to snap, crackling and popping on vinyl. Again, this is something that just won't die. That happens when you have cheap vinyl, old vinyl, warped vinyl, awful source material or an improperly set up turntable. A properly fitted cartridge, counterweight and tone-arm and 180gram or 200 gram vinyl will playback crackle and pop free music. Any irregularities with sound is due to something wrong with the end users set-up and not the vinyl medium itself. I would venture to say that most people with turntables don't know how to properly fit their cartridge or adjust their tonearm.
The return of vinyl has ZERO to do with "nostalgia." Most of the anti-vinyl posters here have simply never heard vinyl done right. They are very defensive. Don't like what's happening? Don't bother with it. But please cut the condescension and what appears to be an almost bitter response to a really fascinating re-awaking among music lovers of all ages. There are logical reasons why vinyl, with all of its technological problems and limitations, which I don't deny, sounds more real. The notion that digital, particularly at CD resolution, represents "perfection" is ludicrous. That technology, like all technologies has its problems and limitations too. I've spend 20 years trying to bring vinyl back. It's back and growing at a pace I couldn't have predicted even ten years ago, but I'm not surprised because once people have a listen, they get it. -Michael Fremer senior contributing editor, Stereophile
I'm truly honored to have you respond Michael. This is like Tom Brady showing up at a high school football game.
I've been reading the Analog Corner in Stereophile for years now. In fact my October issue just came in the mail, and your piece on Dr. Feikhert's Analogue Adjust+ cartridge-setup program was a great read.
With respect to the people who for one reason or another don't get vinyl, I'll rattle out some applicable quotes I heard. I don't exactly remember who said it, but it's the message that matters because many in the anti-vinyl camp keep touting higher bits and how this or that measures in relation to this and that, as if that has anything to do with musicality.
Anyway, the quotes go like this....
"If something measures well, but sounds bad - IT IS BAD!"
"If something measures poorly, but sounds good, then you're measuring the wrong thing."
I don't know who said that originally, but truer words have never been spoken.
1- LP's were made mostly from much newer master tapes. Most CD's available today from the LP's era are remastered versions made from much older master tapes. Some of this master tapes are in pretty bad shape and the mastering process is very challenging. The results are mostly an overprocessed recording.
2- There are hundreds or maybe thousands of recordings made in the LP era that still hasn't been released in CD. Reasons?... Lost or damaged master tapes... No interest of actual owners... The only choice: the LP version. As a matter of fact, a lot of digital versions are remastered from LP's and most people doesn't even notice it.
The record companies can't get away with selling CDs for ridiculous prices, near any digital audio format is available for $1 per song or $10 per album, so now they're re-branding, re-marketing vinyl. It's pefect, you don't need to prove it sounds better, it "feels" like it sounds better.
audiophile: a person who listens to the equipment instead of the music.
Most modern songs are recorded on digital equipment, but the number of artists who use analog equipment is growing. Perfect example is Shelby Lynne. I'm a big fan of hers and she just "gets it". Her latest album is a compilation of Dusty Springfield songs titled "Just A little lovin'", a great sounding record that was done on analog equipment.
Here's her take on vinyl.
http://tinyurl.com/4qlcoq
Also, you mentioned how new recordings are mastered digitally. For mainstream record companies sure, but many smaller outfits are still pumping out gobs of stuff mastered on analog equipment and their archives are infinite of some of the arguably best artists of all time. Some of the best records I have ever heard were from analog masters remastered by Steve Hoffman. Look him up. He does a lot of remastering and it is brilliant.
The beauty of good music is that it is timeless. Good music bucks trends. It does not fade. It never goes out of style. Many of the artists that are still listened to today are from an era where all their recordings were analog masters. Think of all the Jazz and blues greats. Decades after their deaths they are still relevant. I still listen and many others do.
Many artists will gladly tell you to buy their vinyl editions over their CD's. The White Stripes are a perfect example. Jack White is passionate about vinyl, and he will tell you that at any given opportunity.
Vinyl is also not mass produced like CD's. I love vinyl and it is my preferred format, but I have no delusions of grandeur that it will replace CD's or an ipod for most people, it won't. Some vinyl pressings are less than 500 copies. That is definitely niche market stuff not mass production.
Some outfits might be re-marketing vinyl, but I need to reiterate this point. Vinyl never left. It has always been around and has always had a niche market within some audiophile crowds. The general populace is just coming up to speed about the wonders of vinyl. That's a good thing. Everyone should know that there is more to music than mp3's.
If you feel an audiophile is someone that listens to equipment instead of music, then you clearly don't "get it". Maybe you don't want to. Hopefully you will one day.
You're right I don't get it. I think my ears have been damaged from concerts and such because I had a friend who said his vinyl sounded better, played for Billy Joel album and I didn't hear the "warmth" but I don't know what kind of equipment he had either.
If the artist recorded in analog, mastered in analog and then released in analog, it would sound better. The sound would be completely natural. My point is that many of these vinyl records are digital masters or re-masters transposed to vinyl so you're getting an analog version of digitally sampled sound that sounds better. What? And then it's being sold for a higher price. I dunno, maybe vinyl does cost more to manufacture since they make 1 million CDs to maybe 1,000 records (which is an instant collector's item for true fans). Based on my experience vinyl doesn't sound any better than a CD. Based on your experience it does.
I agree vinyl never went away, you can ask any DJ. I never thought there was an adequate replacement for the turntable. And digital turntables model themselves on analog ones. Until someone really thinks outside the box: http://www.djmag.com/index.php?op=story&sto...
I hope thats the future.
33 1/3 records.
Now lets come up with a 8mm tape player that will play all those old
video treasures we have collected