Actually you can beat the dynamic range of vinyl quite easily. Heck, Dolby-B on a metal CompactCassette tape beats the dynamic range of vinyl.

But there's a lot more to good sound than dynamic range.

I'm a big vinyl fan, too.

------------------
Philip Hamm

[This message has been edited by Philip Hamm (edited July 14, 2003).]

Oops! Double post.

[This message has been edited by Philip Hamm (edited July 14, 2003).]

I have to point out with all this lyrical rapsody about vinyl, that there was one heck of a lot wrong with vinyl too.

1) Ticks and Pops. These noises generated an entire accessory industry. I remember, having a discwashers, stylus cleaner and a static blaster that I used to keep dust from ruining my records. I even tried Phase Linear's Dynamic Tick and Pop filter.

2) Poor recordings made from a master that was many generations removed from the original was the rule rather than the acception. Was it called a "mother'? To compare audiophile recordings from today to the run of the mill from then is laughable. I am sure we all had/have our Sheffield Labs lps to remind us what true dynamic range was.

3) Tone Arm geometry and tracking issues. Do you have tone arm that pivots? If so, its my recollection that it only is properly alligned in the record groove twice on any LP. The complexity of setting up the horizontal and vertical allignment and tracking was a nightmare.




[This message has been edited by 73Bruin (edited July 14, 2003).]

Is there really a "better" sound from vinyl ?

Can anyone explain the advantages of records verses cd's - I have heard of better dynamic range and the use of such terms as "fluidity" etc.. , but is there an actual sonic difference or is this simply nostalgia ?

I actually miss the great artwork/creativity of the LP jackets - but don't miss the snap, crackle and pop of vinyl -

Technically, a CD will sound closer to the master tape than a vinyl LP will. LPs are a mechanical process, and as such, there are losses and distrotions that cannot be avoided.

B U T

LPs do have an undeniable appeal in their sound that would come under the "euphonic" category. What "distortions" they add are pleasing to the ear, much like tube amps, making them in some instances sound better than the master tape that they were created from.

True, ticks and pops, poor vinyl quality, and indifferent mastering of the LP are an issue, but the better "audiophile" LP pressings address this.



[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited July 14, 2003).]

In addition, the analog nature of reproduction in vinyl brings benefits as well, to my ears at least. Analog reproduction is more adept at recreating timbral subtleties and details. Instruments and voices sound more real to me in analog reproduction.

I think Soundhound and I may disagree slightly over this (he tends to have more faith in digital recording than I do), but, by definition, all digital formats are lossy formats because they SAMPLE the sound. I think you can hear this. IMHO it's one of the reasons that some people find CD's to be fatiguing in extended listening sessions.

Combine that natural loss of sound with the generally shoddy quality of recording, mixing and mastering in commercial CD's and you have really tiring sound. (Well recorded and mixed CD's, such as the ones Soundhound has done, can have INCREDIBLY detailed and refined sound. But that is definitely the exception in the commercial marketplace.)

CD is clearly superior as a storage medium and it provides a much wider dynamic range than LP. For most people, apparently, those are decisive advantages and sufficient to make CD a more attractive audio format.

[This message has been edited by boblinds (edited July 14, 2003).]

Boblinds:

While I would agree that "audiophile" quality LP's (from the 80's or later) may be better than commerical quality CD's, I am not sure that you could say that for the vast majority of commerical quality lps that were available in the 70's - 90's. I certainly remember searching for import pressings of lps because of the quality difference and that the general consensus of that time being that most US recordings were poorly made junk.

Shoddy mixing, recording and mastering is a reflection of the market a recording is sold for. I remember being told about various artists who mastered their albums to a 6x9 single cone car speaker because thats was the preception of the artist's audience. My sense is that if you only listened to those cds that came from "audiophile" oriented labels, many of your frustrations would go away.

Finally, since I still have my lps and since my 1050 doesn't have a phone section, what recommendations would you make for a cartridge and phone-preamp. I haven't played my records for over 10years and I somehow doubt that my old Sonus Blue cartridge has any life left. (Another advantage of CD's, no stylii to wear out or moving cartridge parts to fail due to mechanical breakdown and air pollution).

While it is true that songs intended for the popular music market were sometimes mixed or at least mastered on small speakers to simulate the home playback experience, this was not at all the case outside of this music segment. Classical, Jazz and other types of music were recroded with great care most of the time. There were instances where the "official" record label practices were such that the sound was not up to the best of standards, such as the mandatory bass rolloff below 50Hz at EMI for popular music recordings.

The real problem was horrible stamping vinyl quality by the majority of the labels, sometimes even using ground up discarded records to press new records - lables and all ! ! Even classical labels like Angel had bad pressings. The audiophile lables used actual virgin vinyl and manufactured them thick enough to withstand use.

Da Hound is right on. Angel US generally had horrible pressings! That's why you find so many Angel/EMI British, German and (even a few) French pressings in my collection.

[This message has been edited by boblinds (edited July 14, 2003).]

I agree on Angel in general, but they released some limited editions Classical in that time frame in 45 RPM that were pretty good. I still have a few of them around. But even in the 60's the golden era for RCA Shady Dogs and Mercury Living Presence, The Columbias Classical were the worst. The records were nice and heavy, nice vinyl material, but they were terribly over miked and just did not live up to other Columbia recordings of that Era. The Jazz and even the rock in the 6 eye era, or even the later singe eye series were great sounding. The Classical just did not sound good. The RCA and Mercury actions to keep it simple made for terrific recordings.