For all of us who know that a good 200 gram black platter will always sounds superior to any digital media that could ever be devised, post here.

Put in tech talk rather than entertainment because the intent is to discuss technical aspects of vinyl playback, not which new releases are out.

What cartridge do you use?
Preferred brands?
What are your system-show-off benchmark albums?

10/15/2007 5:49:37 PM

i suppose all i'll ever be is one of those people that hears crackling and such when listening to vinyls and so will always prefer my digital music on a good 5.1 or 7.1 system

*shrug*

10/15/2007 6:16:33 PM

^ then you've got poor equipment and poorly-kept records, my friend. But go with what's convenient. Remember the best is often hardest to get.

10/15/2007 6:19:05 PM

Quote :

"For all of us who know that a good 200 gram black platter will always sounds superior to any digital media that could ever be devised, post here."

Superior how? You're kidding yourself if you think you can hear the differences 1v1 on a given level of equipment.

10/15/2007 6:41:36 PM

vinyl's bad for the environment.

10/15/2007 6:42:46 PM

Quote :

"Superior how? You're kidding yourself if you think you can hear the differences 1v1 on a given level of equipment."

'Fraid not. The difference is stark, and should be to even those who do not have a trained professional ear.

10/15/2007 6:49:13 PM

the true waveform will always be better than an approximation

10/15/2007 6:53:37 PM

Worth a look:

http://www.continuumaudiolabs.com/

10/15/2007 6:56:29 PM

there's not enough 's to describe this thread

10/15/2007 7:14:20 PM

Quote :

"the true waveform will always be better than an approximation"

You mean a needle can perfectly reproduce lands and grooves from a piece of plastic, always? haha

Seriously, a good vinyl setup versus the same track on a good digital setup (SACD, etc) and I'll take the digital any day. I've listened to both. You have golden ears if you can discern the difference accurately every time.

10/15/2007 7:15:13 PM

Have you people never heard a true setup, or what? I honestly don't think it's fair to label us as hi-fi snobs when in fact it's the general population that doesn't bother to educate itself.

10/15/2007 7:36:43 PM

Quote :

"You mean a needle can perfectly reproduce lands and grooves from a piece of plastic, always?"

a clean record is the true waveform, that is the only stipulation required to beat any digital form

of course, i may not know what im talking about since i was a sound engineer for about 6 years but what does a sound engineer know about sound and mixes?

[Edited on October 15, 2007 at 7:57 PM. Reason : 

10/15/2007 7:56:09 PM

^ As a stretch, you'll only even get close to that on albums mastered before computers became common place.

I highly doubt any music done in the past 10 years wasn't converted to digital at some point, negating any supposed benefits of the analog.

And I would bet that you can experimentally prove that a high resolution digital audio from even a regular CD player has a truer reproduction of the audio than a record by frequency response.

10/15/2007 9:15:33 PM

Lemme guess, you're listening to all this on tube amps and just love that "warmmmm" sound?

10/15/2007 9:43:15 PM

Quote :

"I honestly don't think it's fair to label us as hi-fi snobs when in fact it's the general population that doesn't bother to educate itself."

You pretty much did that yourself with the title of the thread and first post. I won't argue that a very good vinyl setup isn't >= a very good digital setup because I have never had the pleasure of comparing the two. I can say though that every "vinyl enthusiast" I've ever talked to has had the same "fuck you, records are the best" attitude.

10/15/2007 10:08:01 PM

Here comes the science:

Quote :

"According to the Nyquist Theorem, you need twice as many samples per second as the frequency you're trying to digitize. Human hearing peaks out at around 20-24KHz, so it would stand to reason that we need a sample rate of 40-48KHz to reproduce the entire range of human hearing. But that's only half the story. It may only take two samples per sound wave to reproduce it digitally, but the quality of taking this minimum approach is less than desirable. Bumping it up to four samples or more per wave, however, creates truly compelling audio. A sampling rate of 96KHz is used in the DVD-Audio standard and by most professional digital recording equipment. This allows four samples for each wave in the upper limit of human hearing, and six to twelve samples for waves in the 8-6KHz frequency range, where most of the music we hear is."

For the purposes of human hearing, the digital reproduction of the waveform from a CD is indistinguishable from super-high quality vinyl for any musical recording.

10/15/2007 10:29:08 PM

^ The critical mistake is to approach sound quality scientifically. When you understand timber, tonal resonance, etc. you understand that there's a certain element that is just plain there.

What moron moved the thread?

10/16/2007 3:45:51 PM

youre also talking about CD and/or mp3 quality versus a record i assume, and not the recorded master file straight from a studio running out of pro tools or the likes...(which id guess you probably havent heard much of). Because I garauntee you the difference in THOSE (vinyl and the true loss-less recording) is miniscule if distinguishable at all to the human ear. Personally I think anyone who can tell the difference between those - its all in their head. This coming from someone who grew up listening to his dad's record collection which is how I got into metal in the first place.

Now in order to get this audio on CDs, or mp3 players or for streaming, these files are compressed like no other.

So im not completely disagreeing with your thread but it is a little misleading.

On the other hand im a tube humping guitar player if youre trying to compare them to any solid state/digital amp

[Edited on October 16, 2007 at 4:02 PM. Reason : ]

10/16/2007 3:59:58 PM

When I finally get the resources to make a record the proper way, I'm going to use the all-analog direct mastering process that Steve Albini used for the Breeders' "Off You" ten-inch single.

Yeah.

10/16/2007 4:10:24 PM

i mostly listen to my music digitally, and i have my audio-technica table for more sentimental albums (you can't download vinyl )

i don't know a whole lot about vinyl, actually. i use the cartridge that shipped with my turntable.

10/16/2007 4:27:15 PM

I'll try to get photos of my set up tonight. I'd like to see everyone's too.

10/16/2007 4:41:15 PM

^if i'd known you were a fan of the vinyl beforehand, i woulda brought my paul revere and the raiders and my paul mccartney albums up to raleigh last week. we missed out on a goldmine opportunity, my friend.

10/16/2007 5:15:55 PM

i can't say i really care that much about audio quality. what i can say is that there is definitely a difference in sound. but even that isn't what draws me to vinyl. there's a certain deliberate nature of listening to vinyl. you sit down, put on a record and listen to it. you're listening to the album (usually) how it was initially intended to be listened. but more than anything else, i like the idea of deciding to sit down and listen to a record. not to press play on a 1000 song playlist on shuffle, but to decide to listen to Abbey Road or whatever and to sit down and do that.

10/16/2007 6:13:35 PM

I recently threw away an entire trunk full of vinyl records that you guys would probably jizz yourself over.

10/16/2007 6:14:31 PM

are you trying to advertise the fact that you're so lazy you didn't even bother to sell them for a modest amount on here or at a record store? oh n/m you're just trolling.

10/16/2007 6:17:03 PM

i rescued my grandmas record player a few months ago...i love it. i bought a few new records from schoolkids (pepper, RHCP) sounds fantastic.

10/16/2007 6:32:36 PM

^^^^ spot on. Only thing missing is a tumbler of brandy (or beer, whatever your tastes may be)

[Edited on October 16, 2007 at 7:35 PM. Reason : ]

10/16/2007 7:35:34 PM

I have started a vinyl collection before I've even found a good record player.

Anyone have any suggestions for a lower end "all inclusive" device? (ie. speakers and record plaer all in one).

My stereo receiver doesn't have a phono input, so I'm relegated to having to find an all inclusive model.

10/16/2007 7:51:42 PM

Quote :

"I garauntee you the difference between vinyl and the true loss-less recording is miniscule if distinguishable at all to the human ear. Personally I think anyone who can tell the difference between those - its all in their head. "

10/16/2007 7:56:07 PM

Quote :

"i can't say i really care that much about audio quality. what i can say is that there is definitely a difference in sound. but even that isn't what draws me to vinyl. there's a certain deliberate nature of listening to vinyl. you sit down, put on a record and listen to it. you're listening to the album (usually) how it was initially intended to be listened. but more than anything else, i like the idea of deciding to sit down and listen to a record. not to press play on a 1000 song playlist on shuffle, but to decide to listen to Abbey Road or whatever and to sit down and do that."

i can understand that, but at the same time I love a good full album too. it was one of the reasons i loved the new BTBAM release. It was an ALBUM not a collection of individual songs and that really stood out among releases today to me.

10/17/2007 9:32:18 AM

I'll just copy and paste my response to moron's stupid reply to the very similar Classifieds thread.

Quote :

"I bet that record was mastered from a digital recording, defeating the point of having a record in the first place. Records are only unique for stuff that was done all analog from back in the days."

Not true at all. First of all, there are still people recording on analog equipment today. Secondly, digital recording equipment can operate at a much higher sample rate than supported by CDs. Just the shit I've got at my bedroom can record at 96kHz with 24 bits per sample, whereas the Red Book audio format that CDs use stores information at 44.1kHz with 16 bits per sample. Once again, this is what I have IN MY BEDROOM. You could easily go down to Guitar Center and buy some shit that's much higher quality than that.

10/17/2007 11:08:45 AM

I like vinyl because its harder to loose and has big pictures.

10/18/2007 8:31:08 AM

Quote :

"this is what I have IN MY BEDROOM"

What are the characteristics of the op amps in the signal path on the way in? How about the cables leading to the input? There are tons of other variables that go into the quality than just the depth and sample rate. All that means is you have more resolution in the noise as well as the audio that you want.

10/18/2007 10:31:18 AM

your point?

oh yeah and your earlier point about taking SACD over vinyl is noted, but it's just that hardly any albums are actually out on SACD whereas nearly all of older albums (and most of the newer ones i care about) are out on vinyl

[Edited on October 18, 2007 at 10:53 AM. Reason : .]

10/18/2007 10:52:02 AM

Do any of you guys have an opinion on a system like this:

http://www.bulverdehometheater.com/rcachaplin.htm

Let me explain--- my current receiver has no phono inputs and it's a lower end system with few inputs/outputs anyway. So, that virtually ruled out a turntable to receiver system. I need to find something that's more "all inclusive", especially since vinyl won't be my "primary" mode of listening.

Do y'all have thoughts as to the pro's and con's of the system I linked above?

[Edited on October 18, 2007 at 2:38 PM. Reason : .]

10/18/2007 2:38:00 PM

Quote :

"Not true at all. First of all, there are still people recording on analog equipment today. Secondly, digital recording equipment can operate at a much higher sample rate than supported by CDs. Just the shit I've got at my bedroom can record at 96kHz with 24 bits per sample, whereas the Red Book audio format that CDs use stores information at 44.1kHz with 16 bits per sample. Once again, this is what I have IN MY BEDROOM. You could easily go down to Guitar Center and buy some shit that's much higher quality than that."

Why not then just by the SACD/DVD audio version of the album then? You'd get better sound quality from those, than from a record.

The primary benefit of a record is going to be what sarijoul said, in that the experience of putting on and listening to a record is different than a CD. It's BS though to pretend that the typical records are wholesale better sound quality than the typical CD.

10/18/2007 3:07:18 PM

Quote :

" Why not then just by the SACD/DVD audio version of the album then?"

well for one thing, this version doesn't exist for 99.99% of albums

10/18/2007 3:36:53 PM

^ And the vinyl album does? I admit i'm a bit ignorant on the availability of records, but i'd have guessed that it would be easier to find a DVD version of a song (which supports up to 192Khz 24 bit audio IIRC) than the record.

10/18/2007 3:49:15 PM

most every album i've been excited about in the past few years has been released on vinyl, only the extremely popular are released on SACD or DVD audio (those and classics like blonde on blonde or something)

10/18/2007 4:03:25 PM