Why would someone chose buying a record over the HD Audio counterpart?

[Benni777]

I used to DJ and my vinyl collection might have topped out around 500 records before a bad breakup. Long story short wax had a certain sound to it. Maybe the fragments of dust which cause a mildly soothing sound. IDK, but I do enjoy a good record. That said I'm all about upping my game. Honestly, I've been streaming lately and am discontent with it. Maybe its the fact audio streams through my APP which has its own volume, then my computer which also has its own volume to my receiver which again has a volume to my speakers. You cant adjust two high and regulate the other. There's a sweet spot for all three volumes and the result is ok.

Anywho, I would like to experience better quality. So my journey begins.

 

[3db]

Back in the 1980's when I was in the service I had well over 2000 LPs. Once CD's hit the scene I sold the majority of them for the simple reason that the second you drop the arm on vinyl, you destroy it and I don't care how expensive a cartridge, arm and turntable you have. My practice at the time was to record the LP to Cassette on the very first play of the LP, put it into its jacket and store it and to listen to the cassette's. CDs made them both obsolete.

Destroy is inaccurate term. I'm 60 and play the vinyl I had in my university days and it still sounds very clean, 42 years later as I took care of my records and table. Everything plays like it did when new.

 

[WookieGR]

I remember back in the 80's when a study was conducted about vinyl's longevity. It will start to deteriorate after the 4th play. It's really up to the care of the turntable/stylus and environment the record is stored that keeps it sounding great.

For an upcoming video, I tried to restore an old Fantasia LP from 1947 that was a dumpster save along with a old Kraftwerk record. Both were clearly water damaged and had some signs of mold. I subjected them to almost 2 hours of ultrasonic cleaning. I doubt I'll post it since my recent record cleaning video bombed but the records weren't in any worse condition sound wise than the brand new records I've bought lately. They sounded ok.

I suppose if they were only played 4 or 5 times in their lifetime before ending up in storage, passed around and eventually submerged in sewer floods. The records could actually still sound new if cleaned properly. It's all about clearing the grooves for the needle.

 

[TLS Guy]

Back in the 1980's when I was in the service I had well over 2000 LPs. Once CD's hit the scene I sold the majority of them for the simple reason that the second you drop the arm on vinyl, you destroy it and I don't care how expensive a cartridge, arm and turntable you have. My practice at the time was to record the LP to Cassette on the very first play of the LP, put it into its jacket and store it and to listen to the cassette's. CDs made them both obsolete.

Your statement is absolutely false. Cecil E Watts did careful research with electron micrography and showed that a PU properly tracking at 3 GM or less did NOT cause permanent groove deformation. Back then 10 GM tracking forces were obsolete. Our Sugden/Connoisseur rig at our home back then tracked at 10 GM. The BBC were using the same rig. I as only a kid, but built a cartridge and arm that tracked at 3 GM. Cecil Watts paper stimulated other research. Decca and Ortofon met the challenge. Alastair Robertson-Aikman founded SME and made rapid advances in pickup arm design, as did Decca. The Garrard 301 turntable was introduced in 1953. It all came together very quickly.

I have played a vast number of LPs on the rig below since 1966, and they still play perfectly. You just need the right gear, obsessionally set up, and handle your records correctly.

In fact the LP has proved to be one of the most durable technologies for audio preservation ever. It out lasts magnetic tape significantly.

 

[WookieGR]

Your statement is absolutely false. Cecil E Watts did careful research with electron micrography and showed that a PU properly tracking at 3 GM or less did NOT cause permanent groove deformation. Back then 10 GM tracking forces were obsolete. Our Sugden/Connoisseur rig at our home back then tracked at 10 GM. The BBC were using the same rig. I as only a kid, but built a cartridge and arm that tracked at 3 GM. Cecil Watts paper stimulated other research. Decca and Ortofon met the challenge. Alastair Robertson-Aikman founded SME and made rapid advances in pickup arm design, as did Decca. The Garrard 301 turntable was introduced in 1953. It all came together very quickly.

I have played a vast number of LPs on the rig below since 1966, and they still play perfectly. You just need the right gear, obsessionally set up, and handle your records correctly.

In fact the LP has proved to be one of the most durable technologies for audio preservation ever. It out lasts magnetic tape significantly.

ok

 

[MaxInValrico]

Destroy is inaccurate term. I'm 60 and play the vinyl I had in my university days and it still sounds very clean, 42 years later as I took care of my records and table. Everything plays like it did when new.

Destroy was a little harsh. Degrade is better.

 

[TLS Guy]

Destroy was a little harsh. Degrade is better.

That is not even true. An LP looked after and played on good well set up equipment will play as new after over half a century of use. That is my experience. With proper care the vinyl LP is the most durable medium ever introduced.

 

[Alex2507]

the vinyl LP is the most durable medium ever

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Why would anyone choose vinyl over higher resolution audio?

Because it makes them HAPPY. And that’s the only reason they need.

 

[Alex2507]

Why would anyone choose vinyl over higher resolution audio?

Because it makes them HAPPY. And that’s the only reason they need.

We have to draw the line somewhere. You know, to divide happy from mental. Like no question the 8 track is mental.

 

[MalVeauX]

Vinyl makes sense from an audio perspective for records that were made and produced from an analog recording. You can't get more hifi than that because that's what it was (imperfections and limitations and all, completely reproduced, that's hifi).

New music that was recorded on a DAW, produced digitally, mastered digitally and then put onto a vinyl? That's just nostalgia or "retro cool" and adds nothing. If you just want the audio without compromise, you get the highest quality digital version of it.

There's argument for the reproduction, science, etc, of the audio capability and then there's just the emotional and psychoacoustic side of it. It's not wrong either way but it matters what perspective you take and what you value from it. People chanting vinyl's superiority on today's digitally produced music (virtually all of it) are parrots.

Very best,

 

[ryanosaur]

Why would anyone choose vinyl over higher resolution audio?

Because it makes them HAPPY. And that’s the only reason they need.

Crack makes some people happy, too!

 

[TLS Guy]

Vinyl makes sense from an audio perspective for records that were made and produced from an analog recording. You can't get more hifi than that because that's what it was (imperfections and limitations and all, completely reproduced, that's hifi).

New music that was recorded on a DAW, produced digitally, mastered digitally and then put onto a vinyl? That's just nostalgia or "retro cool" and adds nothing. If you just want the audio without compromise, you get the highest quality digital version of it.

There's argument for the reproduction, science, etc, of the audio capability and then there's just the emotional and psychoacoustic side of it. It's not wrong either way but it matters what perspective you take and what you value from it. People chanting vinyl's superiority on today's digitally produced music (virtually all of it) are parrots.

Very best,

There is an element of truth in what you say, but it is not the whole story.

There is a point in buying a CD version of an LP you own. I have done this to an extent, for my favorite LPs and bought the CD version.

Obviously a prime reason is to keep a pristine version. The other, and bigger issue, is bass response and dynamic range. Many quality masters have a dynamic range and better bass response than could be cut into the LPs unless it was dbx encoded. So the CD is actually often more faithful. The other issue is that digital recording preceded the CD by a significant margin,. The CD was actually many years ahead of the DAW. I used a rotating head PCM based system for live recording starting in 1984. Digital recordings by the commercial companies used DASH (Digital Audio Stationary Head). The advantage was the ability to edit without breaking down to analog. These machines used open reel magnetic tape machines, but the recording was digital. Computerized systems like the DAW did not become into use until the early two thousands. I built my first DAW in 2002. That was considered cutting edge then, and I had to pay for some professional advice on its design.

Now the big issue is deterioration of magnetic tape masters. These have a durability highly dependent on manufacturer of the tape, and production years. They are all over the map. So I would say you have to be careful of an old analog tape master digitalized many years after it was recorded. In that instance you are quite likely to be better off with the old LP made when the master was new.

I agree that there is no point in buying an LP cut from a computer based digital master. If that pleases you it is OK, but it is pointless.

This is all part of what has to be understood in the art of collecting.

 

[Swerd]

On the subject of 180 gm vinyl LPs. I've seen them advertised for sale at premium prices. Of course, I wondered what the greater weight accomplished.

Back in 1973-74, the first Arab Oil Embargo took place (it was really the Saudi Oil Embargo). The cost of new vinyl also increased. And as a result, the price of LPs increased while their audible quality also noticeably decreased. I was told at the time (by a record store owner, if I remember) that virgin vinyl was mixed with recycled vinyl to cut costs. And also, that compressed air was blown into the heated soft vinyl before it was pressed into an LP, expanding the vinyl, but leaving microscopic bubbles in the vinyl surface.

Any truth to those stories? Is that what 180 gm vinyl is about?

 

[TLS Guy]

On the subject of 180 gm vinyl LPs. I've seen them advertised for sale at premium prices. Of course, I wondered what the greater weight accomplished.

Back in 1973-74, the first Arab Oil Embargo took place (it was really the Saudi Oil Embargo). The cost of new vinyl also increased. And as a result, the price of LPs increased while their audible quality also noticeably decreased. I was told at the time (by a record store owner, if I remember) that virgin vinyl was mixed with recycled vinyl to cut costs. And also, that compressed air was blown into the heated soft vinyl before it was pressed into an LP, expanding the vinyl, but leaving microscopic bubbles in the vinyl surface.

Any truth to those stories? Is that what 180 gm vinyl is about?

That is absolutely true, at least the part about reground vinyl. They did not even take the label off and ground it into the mix. Over time this paper comes to the surface, causes pops, and also can get the stylus stuck in the same groove. This process continues for years. I still have some discs from that period, with paper still coming up and protruding. That was a bad time for the LP. It was much worse on US pressings. I have to admit a few UK pressings were prone, but they stopped. I made a habit in that period of only buying imported European pressings. The Germans and Dutch did not get involved in this practice. US EMI Angel label pressings were very bad for this.

I have never heard of the compressed air, and I suspect this may have been thought by some to be the cause, but it was paper in the mix.

 

[haraldo]

There are good reasons. The only two sensible ones are because you have a legacy collection, or you are collector and you want to seek out rare discs not available in digital form.

I have a large legacy collection. It is in good condition. I have bought very few LPs since the CD advent in 1984. I did buy quite a few discs though out of a large collection on eBay. This was from an estate collection of an owner who had superb equipment. All those discs were perfect and unblemished.

There are several issues about LP playing. Old LPs in general had superior manufacturing standards to most current offerings.

A turntable rig has to be to a very high standard and obsessionally set up. In addition handling and care of LPs has to be equally obsessional.

So, I agree that unless you are fascinated by the whole ethos of disc playing, have a legacy collection or want to collect rare discs, or music not otherwise available there is no pressing reason to get into LP reproduction. It is not something to undertake in a casual manner.

I own four turntables. All are vintage. Three I have owned for over fifty years, the other one, is a classic, that I restored after buying it cheap on eBay parts or repair.

It is complimentary to my reel to reel tape recorder collection and associated noise reduction units. It forms what I call the museum aspect of my system.

This is important, as playing equipment over a half century old in optimal condition shows actually that the progress we have made has been largely on convenience.

There is one other aspect to this, that in many ways recordings were far better engineered back then compared to now. Recording was a career with job security. Firms like EMI and Decca kept highly competent teams together over a long period of time. The results show.

I have astounded many visitors with the superb audio quality that can be obtained from these vintage pieces. These are items for view only, but to still savor and enjoy.

Many exotic modern efforts are full of the flavor of the day audiophoolery, whereas back then it was true research and engineering driven. It was not driven by over active imaginations.

Studio vintage turntable case.

Left to right Garrard 301 with Decca professional arm Decca cartridge H4E for LP and a Decca MK II for 78. Preamp is Quad 22 tube preamp with the codes to equalize pretty much any 78 RPM disc ever pressed. This has recently had a restoration and custom power supply with smoothing to HT and LT.

Middle is a Thorens TD 150, with SME series III arm and Shure V15 xmr. Preamp is Quad 44. On the left another Garrard 301, with SME series II improved, and Shure V15 xmr. Preamp is Quad 34.

Garrard Decca rig playing LP

Playing a 78 RPM disc.

Thorens TD 125 MKII with SME series III arm and Shure V15 xmr.

Preamp is Quad 34.

Disc reproduction is not plug and play. It takes experience and careful set up to get really good results. If you blindly forge into it, the overwhelming odds are for a poor result.

some unreal cool (classic) turntables you got there

 

[TLS Guy]

some unreal cool (classic) turntables you got there

Yes, its an unusual collection, especially the Decca collection with the tube Quad 22 preamp.

 

[haraldo]

Yes, its an unusual collection, especially the Decca collection with the tube Quad 22 preamp.

I also think about the Garrard 301... 2nd hand prices on that deck is unreal
And there is something special to a nice direct drive TT
The Garrard is direct drive, correct?

I´d like to get my hands on a Technics SP10-R

My take on Vinyl is, THE EXPERIENCE
I think it can be easy to forget what is the real deal, in the search for more, louder, more bass, more resolution....

The real deal is unreal experiences

 

[TLS Guy]

I also think about the Garrard and Thorens decks ... 2nd hand prices of those are unreal
And there is something special to a nice direct drive TT

They are both direct drive, yes?

I´d like to get my hands on a Technics SP10-R

No, the Garrard 301s are idler wheel drive with eddy brake speed adjustment. They do NOT rumble and are beautifully made turntables. They sere designed and made long before direct drive technology was developed.

The Thorens TD 150 is an AC synchronous Papst motor, driven from the AC supply and so required a different motor when I moved from the UK. It was the first belt drive turntable.

The Thorens TD 125 Mk II is also belt drive, and an AC Papst motor, but with electronic servo feedback control and speed adjustment.

The first audio device to use servo oscillator control was the Studer Revox A 77 tape recorder. That was a truly game changing revolutionary product. Hence my collection of them. The Thorens TD 125 was designed on the back of that technology, and they were both Swiss at the time. As I have said before my system is now part museum. But I do claim to have been able to spot some of the game changing technology along the way. That is why this 'museum' does contain good examples of true game changers, and in good condition as many examples have been owned by me from new.

 

[haraldo]

I Think the Garrard is made to last a century or more
Checking hifishark for Garrard 301 is a shocker , they are extremely valued out there