That only matters if it's actually used though, when modern recordings are being mastered with 0db dynamic range it doesn't matter if it's recorded on CD, vinyl or a crisp packet.Erocia said:It's an absolute myth that vinyl is better than cd, compact discs superior dynamic range will leave vinyl for dead (the best in recorded music history).
Actually I think that sums it up very well. Though I've seen a few new-to-vinyl contributors on here who have been bitten by the bug having only known digital playback until that point (which makes me feel extremely old).TomSawyer said:Other will probably disagree, but to my mind, if you have an emotional connection to LPs, you know it already, and if you don't it just seems like unecessary complication and expense buying into a second format if you're content with the one you have.
Depends what you put on the cds! Interesting that some manufacturers of high end cd players are putting tubes in them presumably to add distortion and colour.Erocia said:It's an absolute myth that vinyl is better than cd, compact discs superior dynamic range will leave vinyl for dead (the best in recorded music history). Vinyl is the sound of distortion,which totally colours the sound especially the bass. And yes I have heard an high end set up, I owned an linn for several years.
Those must have been the cheaper models, we had the Quartz locked SLQ-202 which had a hefty platter, and metal tubular arm. There must have been an ample supply of cheap and nasty belt driven decks too.BigH said:The plinths on those Technics were not good, lightweight, transmit noise easily, just tap one with your finger nail. So yes poorly designed. The thin lightweight platter did not help either.TrevC said:It's the lack of suspension that makes it feed back, so it applies to all non-suspended decks regardless of make. If you can mount the deck on a firm base away from the speakers it isn't such an issue.manicm said:Those must have been badly designed direct-drive turntables then. Our Technics from the early eighties had no such issue. A badly designed turntable is just that, regardless of drive type.TrevC said:It's the microphony thing that made me reject direct drive turntables in the 70s. They can be made to feed back at pretty low volumes making the music sound muddy, whereas a good suspended deck like the TD150 i currently use is far better in that regard. I also think a cartridge that can't track the inner groove well is not worthy of serious consideration even if it does sound nice at the beginning of a side. This for me means a high compliance cartridge like a V15 in a low mass arm.
well apart from the odd high end amp Technics lost their way badly from the late eighties.TomSawyer said:When I owned a Technics TT in the 90s, I found closing the lid while playing gave a touch more headroom before it fed-back - which I needed back then given the volume levels *wacko*
I think you describe it well ... music stored and replayed electronically is technically superior, more efficient, functional and convenient than any physical analogue format could ever be. There is no need for an emotional investment in either the equipment or the format, just the content. In this horseless carriage age, digital music is the motor car and top-end turntables are faster horses. Some people just prefer horses.TomSawyer said:The newer is technically superior but there are subjective and/or emotional aspects that make the older preferable to some that makes them prepared to live with their shortcomings ... if you have an emotional connection to LPs, you know it already, and if you don't it just seems like unecessary complication and expense buying into a second format if you're content with the one you have.
I did that once and the cheese sandwich won by a country mile...luckylion100 said:
Both are great sources of calcium?luckylion100 said:
don't much fancy a chalk and pickle sandwich!ID. said:Both are great sources of calcium?luckylion100 said: