Hmm..

[davedotco]

In never having heard good vinyl playback, so few people have.

What most people hear, and apparently like, is the sound of cheap record player, by that I mean that the dominant sound 'character' is of the player itself, not the vinyl record. This characteristic is variously described as 'fat', 'warm', 'organic' or similar and is the dominant sound of modest players such as poular models by pro-ject or rega.

Really good players are a whole different ball game, their defining characteristic is not any of those mentioned above, but a sense of transparency, the ability to be able to see and hear into the music in all it's many respects.

This requires a pretty exacting player, not just the cartridge but phono stage, arm and turntable too, everything matters and sadly is pretty expensive. To my mind the entry level for serious players is now pushing £2k, more if you add in a decent phono stage and a lot more if you want something really outstanding.

Hearing such players, other than at shows, is now very rare for most enthusiasts, which is a pity I think.

Yes and in the end of the day - are the expenses worthy of the sound results ? For some they are...and for some it's too much to invest in Vinyl. I prefer a mediocre approach with Vinyl.

Is always intensly personal, dropping several thousand pounds every few years on a replacement m/c cartridge is not for everyone.

One of the pivotal reasons I moved on from my vinyl system was the expense, both capital and running costs. I decided that it was not worth the cost, others might have decided differently.

This is not to be hi-fi snobbish about this but if you are going to discuss the superiority or otherwise of vinyl playback, then you need to know what it is capable of, otherwise it is rather like forming an opinion on digital playback by listening to 96Kbps mp3s.

 

[MajorFubar]

We're always hearing about loudness wars, compression etc on digital formats compared to the "more dynamic" quality of vinyl but does that mean all vinyl recordings are perfect?

Most definitely not. Huge chunks of it was sub-par garbage, such as K-Tel and Ronco compilation albums. Not to mention even those premium-priced records that were pressed off centre by varying degress, or warped, and other random maladies like you was the poor sod who got the LP from the nearly worn out stamper, so the record sounded knackered the first time you played it.

From a sound quality perspective I couldn't wait to dump vinyl as a primary source and eradicate those kind of uncontrollable variables forever.

 

[insider9]

I can understand why people like vinyl but saying pops and cracks are the beauty of it is taking it too far.

 

[BigH]

Let me start by saying that I've never listened to a decent vinyl based system, the "best" I've heard was an LP12 through Quad 30/33 into Quad electrostatics & cant say I was impressed, it sounded somehow dull & lifeless, not to mention the crackles & rumble

My question is, are there bad vinyl recordings? We're always hearing about loudness wars, compression etc on digital formats compared to the "more dynamic" quality of vinyl but does that mean all vinyl recordings are perfect?

Well there have been bad pressings, some had to be redone, some record labels are not so good for vinyl apparently. Reading reviews then it does seem to vary considerably, even on the same album. Some records are not cut that well you can read about how it's done here: https://thevinylfactory.com/features/how-to-master-a-record-noel-summerville-vinyl-dubplates-the-clash/

 

[Vladimir]

Despite davdf's reservations, digital recording, usually 24/96 or better, is perfectly capable of accurately capturing a musical event.

So is 16/44. It only becomes problematic if a lot of resampling is done in production/mastering, in which case 24/96 is the better choice.

 

[davidf]

In never having heard good vinyl playback, so few people have.

What most people hear, and apparently like, is the sound of cheap record player, by that I mean that the dominant sound 'character' is of the player itself, not the vinyl record. This characteristic is variously described as 'fat', 'warm', 'organic' or similar and is the dominant sound of modest players such as poular models by pro-ject or rega.

Really good players are a whole different ball game, their defining characteristic is not any of those mentioned above, but a sense of transparency, the ability to be able to see and hear into the music in all it's many respects.

This requires a pretty exacting player, not just the cartridge but phono stage, arm and turntable too, everything matters and sadly is pretty expensive. To my mind the entry level for serious players is now pushing £2k, more if you add in a decent phono stage and a lot more if you want something really outstanding.

Hearing such players, other than at shows, is now very rare for most enthusiasts, which is a pity I think.

Agree DDC, and I’m sure that the supposed flaws and shortcomings of vinyl are well overshadowed by the degradation introduced by these budget pieces of plastic that have probably never been checked since the first one that rolled off the production line.

For me, decent players start with the Clearaudio Concept, but yes, £2k upwards can get something pretty special.

 

[emcc_3]

This is not necessarily true. I grew up listening to vinyl on my Dads LP12 which was well in excess of the amounts mentioned here at that time. (Was roughly 18 years ago).

My new rega planar, whilst not quite on the same level, is very competitive and provides a very accurate sound.

 

[emcc_3]

Not very scientific to offer the worst example (ktel and ronco) as proof that a whole format is. What about Decca classical, Columbia 6 eye jazz records?

 

[MajorFubar]

Not very scientific to offer the worst example (ktel and ronco) as proof that a whole format is.

I just truthfully answered Gaz's question as to whether the quality of vinyl records were always beyond criticism. And the answer is no, a huge swathe of them were crap. This is often forgotten.

 

[MajorFubar]

So is 16/44. It only becomes problematic if a lot of resampling is done in production/mastering, in which case 24/96 is the better choice.

Quite. It's same as when maths teachers tell you to work your mid-sum calculations to one decimal place greater than that required by the final answer to the question, then only round it to the lesser DP at the end.

 

[emcc_3]

Fair point, hadn't fully realised the context

 

[MajorFubar]

Don't get me wrong; I do love records. I like buying them, playing them, I like the tactility and the album art. I like the experience. But many of them were in fact crap. This is often 'forgotten' (read: glossed-over) by vinyl enthusiasts my age and older, and is unknown to those a generation younger. I grew up when records were the most prolific 'hi-fi' medium on which to buy commercially-recorded music, and my rose-tinted spectacles haven't disguised certainly my memories of their shortcomings. The quality of many of the records, and the players themselves, was utterly dire. CDs raised the bar enormously for most people, wiping the floor with anything they had ever heard before.

The generation who have grown up to listening to CDs and near-CD-quality MP3s on their mobile phones can't even begin to comprehend what a paradigm shift it was, completely re-writing the 'rubbish in, rubbish out' mantra so beloved of hifi magazines and dealers alike, because compared to records and turntables (carefully note that qualification), CD players sounded nearly alike.