Budget turntable under $500

[bullitt5094]

You know, I was just as convinced of those facts as you apparently are. I now admit I was wrong.

 

[Mikado463]

I don't believe there is a point where analog can begin to stand shoulder to shoulder with digital. The technology is just not there, even with magnificent equipment the media has too many shortcomings. Those shortcomings are what propelled the CD's acceptance and dominance until we had cheap enough storage on our computers to make the downloading of CD quality music an attractive means to enjoy music.

that's fine, you can believe what you want but I doubt that you have ever heard analog (vinyl and or tape) done right .........

 

[sterling shoote]

that's fine, you can believe what you want but I doubt that you have ever heard analog (vinyl and or tape) done right .........

Yeah, I've heard it done right, like several thousand radio commercials I had the pleasure of producing when tape was the only appropriate medium out there for recording, mastering, and post production. And as good as it could get, it was in every manner inferior to mastering with professional DAT, which made analog stereo tape recorders as obsolete as fast as Panasonic, Sony, and Fostex could replace them with DAT recorders. So, I say, believe what you want; but, from your ignorance of the subject, I would think you might want to get more acquainted with this subject before professing anything about it.

 

[lovinthehd]

It was never meant for someone entering the analog realm, rather a point where analog can begin to stand shoulder to shoulder with digital.

I went from vinyl to digital for good reasons. I've heard even "better" rigs than mine and they still sounded like....vinyl. Vinyl has limitations and inherent noise that I just don't feel is worth it. Maybe it depends on what recordings you like most. I find there are well produced recordings on both vinyl and digital. I think digital easily outstrips vinyl without much expense. YMMV.

 

[3db]

I love vinyl and I always will. The process of playing vinyl is much more involving then that of CD or digital files. However, I do recognize its limitations as a medium and compared to CD, its not as good. That being said, vinyl is also immune to the loudness war that was running amuck on CDs snd digital files, (the latter Im not positive about ) and a properly mastered vinyl will sound just as good as its CD counter part. I refer you to Tom Petty's Mojo album which I have a copy of in both formats. All though CD has the capability of blowing away vinyl, it doesnt only because the recording engineers fo not take full advantage of its capabilities or compress the music so much that it loses its dynamics.

When it comes to playing music, I don't care what formatI'm using as I play vinyl, CD, cassette tape, and digital files as long as the music is good.

 

[3db]

that's fine, you can believe what you want but I doubt that you have ever heard analog (vinyl and or tape) done right .........

You come across as an elitist and you're dead wrong with your 5K budget as I gave clearly prooven.

 

[slipperybidness]

that's fine, you can believe what you want but I doubt that you have ever heard analog (vinyl and or tape) done right .........

The measurements clearly show that digital media is far superior to vinyl. Digi has less noise and greater dynamic range. Not to mention the ruggedness and portability.

I am format agnostic, I like each and I use each. But the numbers don't lie, digi is superior in every metric.

 

[sterling shoote]

The measurements clearly show that digital media is far superior to vinyl. Digi has less noise and greater dynamic range. Not to mention the ruggedness and portability.

I am format agnostic, I like each and I use each. But the numbers don't lie, digi is superior in every metric.

Interestingly enough, I was in the recording studio recently having a conversation with the recording artist who was on mic in the recording booth. I listened to her via studio monitors in my producers space. What I did not know was that part of a retake I asked for was actually already recorded and I was listening to that recorded retake and not the artist on live mic. It appears I could not recognize live from recorded. I suspect I could not discern live from recorded, since there just was not any noise from the digital recording. Now, if the session had been recorded to analog tape, I have no doubt, I would have known it was a recording I was listening to, since analog tape is just not as black silent as digital. At any rate, I think Mikado just does not know that he does not know. Maybe a studio session or two would change his thinking.

 

[slipperybidness]

Interestingly enough, I was in the recording studio recently having a conversation with the recording artist who was on mic in the recording booth. I listened to her via studio monitors in my producers space. What I did not know was that a part of what the artist said was actually a recording. I coud not recognize live from recorded, apparently. I suspect I could not live from recorded, since there just was not any noise from the digital recording. Now, if the session had been recorded to analog tape, I have no doubt, I would have know it was a recording I was listening to, since analog tape is just not as black silent as digital. At any rate, I think Mikado just does not know that he does not know.

I think Mikado is letting nostalgia and bias get in the way of facts and measurements.

I love vinyl, it has its place in my systems. I love digital, it has its place in my systems.

 

[Mikado463]

Yeah, I've heard it done right, like several thousand radio commercials I had the pleasure of producing when tape was the only appropriate medium out there for recording, mastering, and post production. And as good as it could get, it was in every manner inferior to mastering with professional DAT, which made analog stereo tape recorders as obsolete as fast as Panasonic, Sony, and Fostex could replace them with DAT recorders. So, I say, believe what you want; but, from your ignorance of the subject, I would think you might want to get more acquainted with this subject before professing anything about it.

That's fine sterling but the fact that you proclaim to have been in the business of making radio commercials should indicate that you understand the art of 'mastering' and for that both analog and digital have had their fair share of good and bad.

As for my ignorance, I don't claim to be the rocket scientist that you are but my 'acquaintance with the subject' is good enough to know that both digital and analog have their place. I've been involved with both longer than most on here.

I think overall most here have taken my stance that analog is the end all, that's is not what I'm trying to point out. there are good entry level analog rigs (like which have been talked about here) and there are others that do in fact bring it to another level. Simply put it costs a lot more to do analog well than it does digital ....... and I do like both !

 

[Mikado463]

You come across as an elitist and you're dead wrong with your 5K budget as I gave clearly prooven.

you're a funny boy db for you proved nothing other than what 'you' consider a proper budget ......good for you ! If your ears are happy that's all that matters !

I'll give you credit for one thing though .......at least you can now spell elitist, something you couldn't do in your first post !

 

[Mikado463]

I am format agnostic, I like each and I use each. But the numbers don't lie, digi is superior in every metric.

slippery, I understand but in music playback more than 'metrics' come into play (no pun intended), emotional involvement also plays a part. While the 'digi' realm has all the superior metrics going for it, they are not always executed that way, as pointed out by db earlier when he referenced the loundness and compression nonsense.

 

[slipperybidness]

slippery, I understand but in music playback more than 'metrics' come into play (no pun intended), emotional involvement also plays a part. While the 'digi' realm has all the superior metrics going for it, they are not always executed that way, as pointed out by db earlier when he referenced the soundness and compression nonsense.

Oh, I can't disagree with you there!

Perfect example from me on a different thread: I own several copies of Getz/Gilberto on various formats, as it is one of my all time favorite albums.

I own it on SACD and I own it on 180g 45RPM Vinyl from QRP / Analogue Productions. By far, I prefer the vinyl vs. the SACD. By all accounts, I "should" prefer the SACD but my own experience says "nope".

By the numbers, there is no arguing that digi is superior. Now, getting the engineers to actually use the improvements is an entirely different battle.

 

[Mikado463]

slippery, all too funny for I too have the album in various formats, I agree Stan was meant for analog !

 

[3db]

slippery, I understand but in music playback more than 'metrics' come into play (no pun intended), emotional involvement also plays a part. While the 'digi' realm has all the superior metrics going for it, they are not always executed that way, as pointed out by db earlier when he referenced the soundness and compression nonsense.

That would be loudness, not soundness .. E for the effort

 

[Mikado463]

That would be loudness, not soundness .. E for the effort

LOL.......Roger that !

 

[lovinthehd]

Okay @Mikado463 just what do you get for that additional 5x investment? What do you define/quantify that extra level aside from consumer fetishism?

 

[Verdinut]

Oh, I can't disagree with you there!

Perfect example from me on a different thread: I own several copies of Getz/Gilberto on various formats, as it is one of my all time favorite albums.

I own it on SACD and I own it on 180g 45RPM Vinyl from QRP / Analogue Productions. By far, I prefer the vinyl vs. the SACD. By all accounts, I "should" prefer the SACD but my own experience says "nope".

By the numbers, there is no arguing that digi is superior. Now, getting the engineers to actually use the improvements is an entirely different battle.

I entirely agree with you. Nowadays, there are not many engineers who can match the competence of the RCA and Mercury labels engineers who were involved with the Living Stereo and Living Presence recordings of the 1950's and early 1960's.

Also. while some slight distortion with analog tape saturation can to a little extent be tolerated, digital distortion is really unacceptable but , unfortunately frequent with a lot of of CD recordings and even some SACDs.

 

[lovinthehd]

I entirely agree with you. Nowadays, there are not many engineers who can match the competence of the RCA and Mercury labels engineers who were involved with the Living Stereo and Living Presence recordings of the 1950's and early 1960's.

Also. while some slight distortion with analog tape saturation can to a little extent be tolerated, digital distortion is really unacceptable but , unfortunately frequent with a lot of of CD recordings and even some SACDs.

Also hard to know what original recordings in what format are available to work with later on the consumer side. I've got both vinyl and cd versions of that Stan Getz/Joao Gilberto recording as it is also a favorite but I tend to like the lack of vinyl noise in the digital version for that reason alone but now I'm going to cue up both and check !

 

[sterling shoote]

I entirely agree with you. Nowadays, there are not many engineers who can match the competence of the RCA and Mercury labels engineers who were involved with the Living Stereo and Living Presence recordings of the 1950's and early 1960's.

Also. while some slight distortion with analog tape saturation can to a little extent be tolerated, digital distortion is really unacceptable but , unfortunately frequent with a lot of of CD recordings and even some SACDs.

Some of the Living Stereo sessions were recorded in three channels. The multi[channel SACDs of these are in a word, Awesome.