# Vinyl for Classical Music, Year or Nay? I say nay.



## christomacin (Oct 21, 2017)

The CD remains the best format yet devised for Classical music...aside from a live performance, of course. Does anyone feel otherwise?


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

Not me. I detest vinyl. Watching people pay ridiculous amounts of money for lps is highly amusing.

You will probably get an argument about CDs vs other digital playback, I.e. from a Hard Drive or a streaming service. The differences there are minuscule, and tend to depend on the quality and reliability of an individual’s setup


----------



## christomacin (Oct 21, 2017)

MP3 and streaming have disadvantages that CDs don't have. For example, I bought some CDs which came with "liner notes available online." A few years later the website changed and the liner notes were gone. Luckily I had saved the PDFs a few years before. you have to rely too much on someone else, and that's not acceptable to me. The Vinyl Cult (because that's what it is) will counter that with "I love the artwork.... I can feel it in mind hands.... blah blah". CDs have artwork and I can feel THAT in my hands, too. They do have a point there, but their cure is worse than the disease. The fact that the media is pushing the "vinyl comeback" story so hard is suspicious in itself. I wonder what the recording industry gets out of pushing vinyl at the expense of CDs. I think I know what it is, but that's tinfoil hat territory.

That said, streaming is a good way to audition a wide variety of music (and alternate recordings for Classical buffs) or have music available if you are away from home, but it is no substitute for owning music (with the accompanying notes and art the vinyl junkies love so). Storing high quality 320 kps MP3s and FLAC files has storage problems all their own after a while. You DO need to have quality playback equipment however, regardless of what format you choose.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Where’s the popcorn emoji when you need it?


----------



## christomacin (Oct 21, 2017)

Yeah, I'm waiting for the vinyl cultists to arrive. It should be fun.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

christomacin said:


> The CD remains the best format yet devised for Classical music...aside from a live performance, of course. Does anyone feel otherwise?


Yes. Spotify is better.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

christomacin said:


> Yeah, I'm waiting for the vinyl cultists to arrive. It should be fun.


Nah, the cassette revivalists would provide more (good-humoured) fun.

The content of the discussion about advantages and disadvantages of LPs and CDs is well-known. I've kept my big old LP collection, even when I later acquired CD versions of a good deal of the recordings. But it has mainly been for some of the rare repertoire, the durability of LPs (no digital erosion there), and the sometimes warmer, more natural, or at least different sound. Plus the object quality of them - with different covers, liner notes, and shopping/travelling memories. They still constitute maybe 2/5 of the collection & won't be sold. I even buy a new one at times, but only for rare repertoire, or the LP cover designers (perhaps a subject that will become more popular and dealt with generally later).


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

jegreenwood said:


> Where's the popcorn emoji when you need it?


Yep, another one waiting for the popcorn and the fireworks to arrive.



joen_cph said:


> Nah, the cassette revivalists would provide more (good-humoured) fun....


I doubt there's any such thing as a 'cassette-revitalist'. I can understand love for nearly any format except the cassette. Horrible, hissy, annoying, stretchy things.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Totally disregarding sound as someone who started with LPs (although often quickly copied to cassette tapes for convenience) in the mid-late 1980s, then enthusiastically embraced CDs and later listened a bit to LPs for fun again in the early-mid 2000s but not anymore since many years for mostly practical reasons, I think there is one feature of LPs rarely appreciated. As annoying it sometimes might have been to be a "disc jockey" within longer works, one is far less likely to skip within one side and overall I think the relative ease of CDs and even more digital playlists makes more superficial listening more likely. With LPs it takes (a tiny bit of) work to get the music going, to keep it going and to store it away properly because they are so fragile and sensitive. This can be good thing, helping to focus on the music. It can also be a bad thing leading to focus on technical problems or sound shortcomings.


----------



## christomacin (Oct 21, 2017)

Merl said:


> Yep, another one waiting for the popcorn and the fireworks to arrive.
> 
> I doubt there's any such thing as a 'cassette-revitalist'. I can understand love for nearly any format except the cassette. Horrible, hissy, annoying, stretchy things.


Then you would think wrong. Most Classical enthusiasts wouldn't ever do this, but it's what the general public does which effects our options with or without or consent. We don't' really carry all that much clout.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Merl said:


> (...)
> 
> I doubt there's any such thing as a 'cassette-revitalist'. I can understand love for nearly any format but the cassette. Horrible, hissy, stretchy things.


There are people buying cassettes again, but it's often youngsters liking the quirkiness of it. 
It's hard to imagine the sound being preferred for its quality, in an ordinary sense.

- https://www.theguardian.com/music/2...p-why-cassette-tapes-became-fashionable-again
- https://blog.discogs.com/en/cassette-trend-popularity-sales-2021/
- https://www.nme.com/blogs/nme-blogs/cassettes-resurgence-103-percent-increase-2711548


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I don't buy vinyl, but the sound reproduction of sound is generally better than CD. When you listen to the music Live, the music is much warmer than on CD, which is more discrete, and bright due to the digital encoding. On vinyl it is better replicated (more ambience, more realistic), because sound waves in performance is analog to begin with. 

I've tried tweaking CD or encoded recordings with sound editors, and am basically trying to replicate vinyl sound.


----------



## christomacin (Oct 21, 2017)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Yes. Spotify is better.


The dissatisfaction with streaming is what is driving the LP boom in the first place. I'm on neither side in this debate, as I don't really care for either. I stand by my original claim that CDs have more of the advantages and fewer of the disadvantages of all the other options currently available. I think people (myself included) probably have to much music generally and should own less but collect only what they really like and listen to it more seriously. I just don't think LPs (aside from being a collector's item perhaps) are a very practical solution to the problem. I DO agree that improvements in the durability of CDs could be made, but this doesn't negate my basic argument. Streaming isn't bad, if it is not your sole source of music and you don't become over reliant on it. If you really want to have something long term I wouldn't rely on technology to stay the same forever or expect streaming services to store everything you want on them forever. If history has taught one thing it's that this is not the case. Bottom line... I wouldn't even consider listen to Ein Heldenleben or The Alpine Symphony on the vinyl format and don't know why anyone would even want to have to flip over to the next side in the middle of something if they don't have to. If you don't listen to pieces that are in sections longer than 30 minutes I guess it's not such a big deal. Sure you don't have to flip anything over with streaming... but that's not why people are buying vinyl in the first place.

Perhaps a good argument could be made that ALL formats should be preserved and remain robust, and the consumer could chose on a case by case basis what format(s) they want for a given piece. Unfortunately, we are in a consumer based winner-take-all system and I fear one will win out of the others in the end. I think this is bad for music generally but particularly bad for Classical music buffs because all types of music are NOT all the same and have different demands, which one format might serve better than another. I am particularly concerned about the difficulty in buying CD players, which can only be had online in most locations. This doesn't look to me like all formats are being treated equally because those that would prefer that format (CD) tend to listen to a type of music (Classical) with little economic clout.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I care about music not technology. 

Throughout my nearly 60 year involvement with recorded music I've listened to what ever was the current recorded media, and never thought about it. If it were LP, I accepted the pops and scratches and skips as just part of the process. When cassettes came out it was the tape jams and wrinkled, ruined recordings. The CDs and the deceptive illusion of audio perfection, but then hearing the lousy transfers (loud harsh tambourines) for the first decade or two.

Now with streaming I am able to enjoy music the way I always wished: access to millions of recordings, and the ability to gather it into folders and playlists and listen to it with as much flexibility I can imagine.

I still don't care about technology and still listen to LPs, and CDs, iTunes, Spotify, but not cassettes.


----------



## christomacin (Oct 21, 2017)

SanAntone said:


> I still don't care about technology and still listen to LPs, and CDs, iTunes, Spotify, but not cassettes.


Fine, I just don't like the way the media is portraying this as a black and white choice of "LP or streaming". That's a false dichotomy. The only people who benefit from presenting the argument in that way are corporate executives. Anyway, there is no perfect format. If you want that you need to see a live performance, but that's not perfect either and can occasionally be worse if you have a cougher or someone forgets to turn off their cell phone or it's a bad performance. It all varies on a case by case basis. People should be more educated about this stuff and know how to weigh the pros and cons is all I'm saying. Darn, I'm starting to sound downright nuanced!


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

christomacin said:


> Fine, I just don't like the way the media is portraying this as a black and white choice of "LP or streaming". That's a false dichotomy. The only people who benefit from presenting the argument in that way are corporate executives. Anyway, there is no perfect format. If you want that you need to see a live performance, but that's not perfect either and can occasionally be worse if you have a cougher or someone forgets to turn off their cell phone or it's a bad performance. It all varies on a case by case basis. People should be more educated about this stuff and know how to weigh the pros and cons is all I'm saying. Darn, I'm starting to sound downright nuanced!


I ignore "the media", don't read "the news" or "social media" and live in blissful ignorance of much of what you seem riled up about.

Don't worry, be happy.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

joen_cph said:


> The content of the discussion about advantages and disadvantages of LPs and CDs is well-known. I've kept my big old LP collection, even when I later acquired CD versions of a good deal of the recordings.


So have I, but I don't listen to LPs any more. I have digitized all my LPs and thus only listen to CDs, which played by a music system of reasonable quality fully satisfy my needs for music reproduction. Whether one listens to LP or CD, the most important factor is, that the perception of the music presupposes a significant degree of mental abstraction (spatial and temporal), and I do not find that LP excels over CD as to this.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

christomacin said:


> The CD remains the best format yet devised for Classical music...aside from a live performance, of course. Does anyone feel otherwise?


Well, I'm keeping my CDs. Especially after certain improvements in the mid 90s, they usually sound very good. But if I was starting out today, I wouldn't buy CDs. They are bulky and heavy in large numbers. They can break or be destroyed by exposure to excessive heat or moisture, as when they are left in a car or other non-climate controlled environment. Eventually their aluminum coating can oxidize. As another poster has pointed out, even if one wanted physical discs, the newer blu-ray digital format can store far more music (or video) per disc. And digital files can now be downloaded into quiet, reliable storage and playback devices.

And I certainly would not buy vinyl LPs if I was starting out today. However, I'm not tossing out the ones I have either, at least not all of them. First, at least until the early 2000s, many classical records, even of the 'major' labels, had not been transferred to CD, especially from the 50s mono era. Even now, many of the digital transfers are available only if one buys huge boxes of CDs that I don't want to pay for or store. Others were released only in Europe or Japan and are expensive and/or difficult to obtain. American copyright law, especially after the Capitol v. Naxos case, has not been helpful. And many LPs from small labels will likely never be transferred.

Second, classical vinyl LPs long were available for free or nearly so, at least until vinyl became retro fashionable and 'hip'. Free is good.

Finally, at least for classical records, vintage vinyl is often in surprisingly good condition and the sound quality remains competitive with any other format. Yes, you heard me. I have done careful a/b comparisons of the same recording on vinyl, CD, and high-res SACD. Despite various forms of distortion inevitably found at least to a slight degree even in the best vinyl and completely absent from digital audio, it remains an excellent format for sound quality, even with relatively affordable equipment.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

The best thing about vinyl even if you never listen to the actual records: getting those giant, LP-sized libretto books in opera recordings. I've used those to listen to opera on CD and streaming before.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

My own impression is that the majority of LP connoisseurs are not classical music listeners and collect LPs not just for the sound (which has less to do with faithful reproduction than with the "analog sound" produced by vinyl) but for the rarity of recordings from the 50s, 60s and 70s. The LPs are like works of art; and it's when these collectors get equipment worth thousands of dollars that I really respect their commitment. They can produce a beautiful sound from LPs. I mean, I might also prefer it over CDs if I had a $10,000 turntable and $2,000 cleaning equipment. It's a hobby and a passion. Interestingly, there was just a long program on Tageschau about the whole niche—about a man who custom builds turntables and another who presses rare LPs. The latter was curating artists who had never made it to CD. Really rare stuff. I suspect that's less of a "thing" for classical LP listeners.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

SanAntone said:


> I care about music not technology.


Which is precisely why I still prefer CDs to streaming. <countertroll>Caring about music means caring about sound quality.</countertroll>


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

vtpoet said:


> Which is precisely why I still prefer CDs to streaming. <countertroll>Caring about music means caring about sound quality.</countertroll>


I think just the opposite: caring about the music means not focusing on the reproduction technology. I can enjoy music played on the crudest box, and don't allow audio defects to destroy, or even distract, my experience of the music.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

SanAntone said:


> I think just the opposite: caring about the music means not focusing on the reproduction technology. I can enjoy music played on the crudest box, and don't allow audio defects to destroy, or even distract, my experience of the music.


Oh sure, I can stream music on crappy technology and enjoy it just like you, but if I care about music, then I want to hear it as if it were being performed in the same room. But that's only when I care about the music I listen to. :devil:


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

vtpoet said:


> Oh sure, I can stream music on crappy technology and enjoy it just like you, but if I care about music, then I want to hear it as if it were being performed in the same room. But that's only when I care about the music I listen to. :devil:


We're just different regarding how much technology figures into our consciousness. I doubt you care about music more than I do, or any member of TC.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

While CD's (16/44.1) sound better than vinyl in almost all respects, there are still a couple of things vinyl does a bit better.

16/44.1 does not to create as realistic soundstage and does not seem create as much image specificity within that soundstage as vinyl. I own quite a bit of vinyl and the same performances on 16/44.1, but the vinyl creates a soundstage that I can seemingly get off my listening chair and walk into and among the musicians. With the digital, the soundstage does not have that open feel to it, and the image of the musicians within it have a bit more of a cardboard cutout feel to them. 

Despite the lower noise, the quieter background, the convenience, of CD, I will often get sucked into the performance a bit more with vinyl. 

Now, the great thing is, with DSD (direct stream audio), and to a slightly lesser extent, hi res PCM (24/192), all the best of digital is there, and the best of vinyl, too. DSD has comparable sounding open soundstage, and 3d image as vinyl, with the dead quiet and dynamics of CD.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Kreisler jr said:


> Totally disregarding sound as someone who started with LPs (although often quickly copied to cassette tapes for convenience) in the mid-late 1980s, then enthusiastically embraced CDs and later listened a bit to LPs for fun again in the early-mid 2000s but not anymore since many years for mostly practical reasons, I think there is one feature of LPs rarely appreciated. As annoying it sometimes might have been to be a "disc jockey" within longer works, one is far less likely to skip within one side and overall I think the relative ease of CDs and even more digital playlists makes more superficial listening more likely. With LPs it takes (a tiny bit of) work to get the music going, to keep it going and to store it away properly because they are so fragile and sensitive. This can be good thing, helping to focus on the music. It can also be a bad thing leading to focus on technical problems or sound shortcomings.


I agree with this too - ritualistic behaviors can add a lot to enjoyment of activities, and the act of picking out, carefully handling, dusting and dropping the needle is sometimes just very stress-relieving.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

fluteman said:


> Second, classical vinyl LPs long were available for free or nearly so, at least until vinyl became retro fashionable and 'hip'. Free is good.
> 
> Finally, at least for classical records, vintage vinyl is often in surprisingly good condition and the sound quality remains competitive with any other format. Yes, you heard me. I have done careful a/b comparisons of the same recording on vinyl, CD, and high-res SACD. Despite various forms of distortion inevitably found at least to a slight degree even in the best vinyl and completely absent from digital audio, it remains an excellent format for sound quality, even with relatively affordable equipment.


They still are. Demand for classical vinyl is far less than the supply, versus popular music, where the price of an early VG+ pop or rock album from the 70s has risen exponentially. There are a few exceptions, like the old-school record collector stuff (Decca UK blue-backs, Columbia SAX, RCA stuff that was in The Ultimate Sound or whatever that record guide was) but most stuff is out there for a few bucks a pop.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Pop music is crazy for vinyl but most of it is horribly produced; everything is so damned loud and distorted.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Noise and the lower dynamic range are also far less important in pop/rock than classical.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

fbjim said:


> I agree with this too - ritualistic behaviors can add a lot to enjoyment of activities, and the act of picking out, carefully handling, dusting and dropping the needle is sometimes just very stress-relieving.


I think the LP distributed the music in an ideal time chunk, about 22 minutes on each side is a perfect length to listen closely to music before your attention starts to flag. It sort of replicates a live set, six songs and a pause, then another six (set over) - I really prefer this kind of listening experience. LPs also don't offer the "random play" option. Sure, I like to do that when music is background for a dinner party - but for real listening, I want to hear the album as a "work."


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

SanAntone said:


> We're just different regarding how much technology figures into our consciousness. I doubt you care about music more than I do, or any member of TC.


You doubt, but you're not sure. I'll take that. It remains possible that I care more about music than you or anybody here.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

vtpoet said:


> You doubt, but you're not sure. I'll take that. It remains possible that I care more about music than you or anybody here.


No, I'm sure. You do care about something more than I do, but it's not music.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

I think CD is the best physical format, hands down (I do like DSD and Blu-Ray Audio as formats, but they are niche and require special equipment). And if you want liner notes, it's the way to go. But the experience of the music is identical to a CD-quality FLAC rip, and many downloadable releases contain a PDF of the notes, which can be zoomed quite a bit larger than the booklet.

I love CD for its ubiquity, its durability compared to vinyl or tape, its extremely robust used market, and its breadth of repertoire. I obtain a good chunk of my music via CD (perhaps 60%?). But then I rip it as FLAC to my digital audio player.

FWIW, after a good thousand hours of listening on my current setup, with extensive comparison listening to hi-res vs CD-quality versions of the same recordings, and online ABX testing, I do not think hi-res offers meaningful improvements over CD-quality audio. I am a Nyquist believer. But I will buy hi-res if it represents the best/most modern available mastering of a given recording. Mastering quality is by far more important than resolution above 16/44.1.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

SanAntone said:


> No, I'm sure. You do care about something more than I do, but it's not music.


Okay. You got me. Trolling you has been momentarily more enjoyable than the Stamitz I've been listening to.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

While, obviously, I don’t promote the use of cassettes now, back in the day, I created Classical music cassettes with my Nakamichi Rx-505 using Dolby C and top of the line Maxell tapes that were not far off CD quality. When I digitize these tapes for use on my iPhone they sound remarkably good.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

DaveM said:


> While, obviously, I don't promote the use of cassettes now, back in the day, I created Classical music cassettes with my Nakamichi Rx-505 using Dolby C and top of the line Maxell tapes that were not far off CD quality. When I digitize these tapes for use on my iPhone they sound remarkably good.


Remember "Metal" tapes? That was about when tape technology peaked. That said, I bought my daughter a walkman cassette player for Christmas. She's totally into cassettes-into the whole retro feel of it.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

I say an emphatic yea, with one important caveat: I record them in 24/96 Hi-Res, then use Izotope RX9 to reduce the surface noise. I get the more open, transparent sound of vinyl, minus the pops and clicks.

As for cassette, there's a $15.99 app in the Microsoft and Apple app stores called DDi Codec. It accurately decodes Dolby B and C noise reduction, to really free the analog sound. The sledgehammer approach used by most cassette decks actually muddies and muffles the sound, with Dolby engaged on playback.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

fbjim said:


> They still are. Demand for classical vinyl is far less than the supply, versus popular music, where the price of an early VG+ pop or rock album from the 70s has risen exponentially. There are a few exceptions, like the old-school record collector stuff (Decca UK blue-backs, Columbia SAX, RCA stuff that was in The Ultimate Sound or whatever that record guide was) but most stuff is out there for a few bucks a pop.


Yes, but the days when someone would just give you a few boxes from their, or their parents' attic, and those boxes had not been picked through and contained near mint classical LPs, are pretty much over. I got many great classical LPs that way, some that were still sealed. One I particularly remember from a friend and neighbor was a sealed 1972 German Decca 15-LP box of the first Solti set of Mahler symphonies. No great rarity -- I see VG or VG+ sets on ebay selling for $30, though I imagine you'll pay plenty for shipping, and most are from European sellers. I even see some that are sealed that sell for about $100 plus shipping, still not bad for 15 LPs, though one sealed set did recently sell for $390. But they aren't free.

In short, I'm done with hunting for LPs in thrift shops, yard sales, estate sales and ebay. The pickins have longe since become too slim. I will occasionally stop in a good used LP shop, of which a few still remain. But there is seldom much there that is worthwhile in the classical category.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

I'll let you know if I ever find the time to remove the stacks of CD's from atop my turntable.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I grew up with Vinyl but was mostly a child and didn't care about music; the ca. 2 years I mostly relied on LPs and cassettes when getting into classical music a a teenager I was basically waiting for CDs and as soon as I had a CD player the other media became secondary. CDs were so much more convenient and on the mediocre equipment I had clearly superior in the ways that mattered to me. 
More than 10 years later, in the early 2000s I got into contact with a few people more into HiFi and LPs, including some who clearly preferred the older medium and I had a change to list to high quality setups (such as Linn) As I never was terribly into sound quality this did not convert me to LPs but it showed to me that one could get great sound out of them, even old ones that didn't look mint at all. And playing around a bit with the old stuff I still had, I realized that I could get pleasant sound with fairly modest means. Classical LPs were often very cheap then and although I could not get them locally, one could by them by the bulk on Ebay for a pittance, so I acquired a few meters over several years. It was also a time (ca. 2002-05 when there was quite a bit of older stuff not on CD, even less easily findable as some grey transfer for download.) I also love the large covers. 
(Aesthetically, CDs are so much inferior, it would have been better to keep the vinyl single 7" format to have small but not tiny covers). 

Eventually I realized that I was not up to keeping and maintaining a decent LP setup, stopped getting more of the used stuff and gave all but about about 4 ft. of shelf space away. (I kept what I had some attachment to in the hope that I'll some day get a decent setup for LP playback again.)

Had I had more space, more technical expertise and interest and more money to try higher level playback for both media, I'd probably still be listening to both LPs and CDs. 

I totally understand that people who had already lots of LPs in the 80s or took advantage of people throwing out lots of them in the 1990s keep their LPs and listen to them.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Kreisler jr said:


> I grew up with Vinyl but was mostly a child and didn't care about music; the ca. 2 years I mostly relied on LPs and cassettes when getting into classical music a a teenager I was basically waiting for CDs and as soon as I had a CD player the other media became secondary. CDs were so much more convenient and on the mediocre equipment I had clearly superior in the ways that mattered to me.


That describes my experience too. I remember the first CD I put in and listened to. I was gobsmacked. When there was silence in the music, there was complete silence-no popping, no dust, no static. Pure. Silence. I thought I'd died and gone to heaven.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

To many people, particularly those under 30-ish, even the mere concept of a physical collection is obsolete. I guess that for anyone under 50-ish, vinyl is a sort of retro curiosity (e.g. part of the hipster fad) or an audiophile specialty. 

A while ago I was given a portable record player, I so got some vinyls on the cheap, mainly from charity shops, to try it out. It didn't last long, I ended up donating it since I couldn't be bothered finding a new needle.

Like many, I've gone through a few phases of culling my CD collection. At one stage I got rid of almost the lot. When I came to collecting again, downloading was widespread and streaming was just around the corner. A friend of mine advised against buying CDs, but I went back to old habits. I now see the logic of not owning a physical collection. Perhaps at some stage I will digitize what I've got.

If we got back to past generations, today's options in terms of recorded music would have been unthinkable. When mass produced recording started, complete works where a rarity. Early ones, like the first complete Messiah in the 1920's, consisted of around 30 sides on 78 rpm discs. It would have cost a small fortune. Even when LP vinyls came in, there was a limit to what stores stocked. My parents only had at most 50 vinyls, otherwise they where content with radio and the rare live performance which was a treat. Things have changed to the point that now we're overloaded with music, much of it free.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Sid James said:


> To many people, particularly those under 30-ish, even the mere concept of a physical collection is obsolete. I guess that for anyone under 50-ish, vinyl is a sort of retro curiosity (e.g. part of the hipster fad) or an audiophile specialty.
> 
> A while ago I was given a portable record player, I so got some vinyls on the cheap, mainly from charity shops, to try it out. It didn't last long, I ended up donating it since I couldn't be bothered finding a new needle.
> 
> ...


Yes, but broadcast classical radio was free, and at least in the major metropolitan areas I lived in or near when young, i.e., New York, Boston and Chicago, there was great classical music, not just easy listening classical hits, almost 24/7 (I think FCC rules prevented them from being 100 percent music). It wasn't so important to own the music yourself.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

I have largely deaccessioned several thousand LPs to keep the house from exploding -- and I miss them.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

Kreisler jr said:


> I totally understand that people who had already lots of LPs in the 80s or took advantage of people throwing out lots of them in the 1990s keep their LPs and listen to them.


I very nearly got rid of my records in the early 90s. Playing them again after my discharge from the Navy, they were far more plagued with static than I remembered. Come to find out, it was due to the P-Mount Cartridge turntable I bought in 1989. They sold well because they required little to no setup. But ease of use is where their advantages end. A half inch mount cartridge turntable, while difficult to set up, will literally short static to ground. P-Mount tables do not, so there's a steady static crackle playing back even the most pristine condition record. Particularly here in the desert. P-Mount tables are also very intolerant of even the slightest surface damage. They'll skip and repeat on a flaw a half inch mount table will take in stride. Now that I know all that, I'm grateful I kept my records.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I generally think that analog recording and reproduction offers more realistic audio than digital - even with the physical flaws with vinyl LPs.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

I've scratched CDs, to the point that I purchase back-up CDs for the ones I love-- ex: Richter's Mass in B Minor. I really wouldn't want to ruin vinyl records with my clumsiness.


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

progmatist said:


> I say an emphatic yea,


"year", "year" ...


----------



## Michael122 (Sep 16, 2021)

Personally, can't tell much difference between vinyl and CD.


----------



## Gothos (Jan 11, 2018)

Whaaaaat???Nary a mention of 8-tracks!!!I'm flabbergasted!
Kidding aside,I'm curious to know if anyone here listened to classical on 8-track way back when?I certainly remember when
they first appeared and then crashed due to numerous mechanical issues that would have been the envy of Icarus.
I ask because classical wasn't part of my listening diet in those days.


----------



## jim prideaux (May 30, 2013)

I still recall the tangible heartache scratches and other 'blemishes' would cause my younger self....It was OK with the first Clash album, Marquee Moon or Horses but with classical.......No!

I reacted really badly to a scratch on the Kondrashin/VPO recording of Dvorak's 'big one', lost my loaf and needless to say do not possess the 'record' today.......

Like many others I welcomed CD's and have thoroughly enjoyed the sense of well being when listening....not nervous about a scratch ( is it there or not? etc) and not having to change the record over.....

However before Xmas I found the box set of Bohm's recordings of the Schubert symphonies in a charity shop. I also looked back through my what remained of my classical vinyl collection finding things I had forgotten. I then also found two boxes of the Dorati Haydn recordings in another charity shop and they are now sitting there waiting to be listened to. I would never want to go back to pre CD days. but I must admit to enjoying the boxes for other reasons ( artwork, nostalgia, who knows?).....

I do know that in one shop there was the Jochum Bruckner cycle....and that is one major box!


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

joen_cph said:


> Nah, the cassette revivalists would provide more (good-humoured) fun.
> 
> The content of the discussion about advantages and disadvantages of LPs and CDs is well-known. I've kept my big old LP collection, even when I later acquired CD versions of a good deal of the recordings. But it has mainly been for some of the rare repertoire, the durability of LPs (no digital erosion there), and the sometimes warmer, more natural, or at least different sound. Plus the object quality of them - with different covers, liner notes, and shopping/travelling memories. They still constitute maybe 2/5 of the collection & won't be sold. I even buy a new one at times, but only for rare repertoire, or the LP cover designers (perhaps a subject that will become more popular and dealt with generally later).


It makes sense for people that retained their lp collections to want to play them, and to invest in equipment that will optimize playback. My lps were destroyed in a flood in the mid eighties. At the time I couldn't afford a CD player and there were no budget CDs. I had hated vinyl by them and wanted to embrace digital but was resigned repurchasing budget lps but they disappeared from shops almost overnight. No streaming services or YT back then. I saved up bought a CD Player and when that first disc played had the proverbial jaw dropping moment at the music emerging from a black background with increased dynamic range and was hooked.
I fell for the "vinyl is better" propaganda about 20 years later. There were also several old favorites that at that point hadn't been digitalized, and the albums were available easily between eBay and resale shops. I invested in a decent analog system and then the scales fell from my ears a few years later as I recalled why I hated vinyl in the first place


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

I have my old LPs and have always had a working turntable. I still play LPs with some regularity and see no reason to acquire the same recordings in other media. 

When writing an article on a piece by King Crimson around fifteen years ago I bought a lot of prog rock I didn't already own on used vinyl as background research — when the albums were selling for $3 - $4. Hey, what do you think I could get these days for all of the early Genesis and Yes albums on vinyl?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

jim prideaux said:


> I still recall the tangible heartache scratches and other 'blemishes' would cause my younger self....It was OK with the first Clash album, Marquee Moon or Horses but with classical.......No!
> 
> I reacted really badly to a scratch on the Kondrashin/VPO recording of Dvorak's 'big one', lost my loaf and needless to say do not possess the 'record' today.......
> 
> ...


During my DaDa phase, circa 1976, I kept my LPs in a crate without the cardboard covers. I thought of the resulting scratches as further developing the records with newly composed music.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

In the LP days, I knew a collector who'd put the LP covers away, since he thought they'd create 'noise' visually in experiencing the music itself. He later gave up the idea, however; and it seems a bit exaggerated.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

Michael122 said:


> Personally, can't tell much difference between vinyl and CD.


You're in good company. Most people can't in the same way, and for the same reason most people can't hear the individual notes in a chord. The way most young people would never qualify as a naval sonar technician. Because they can't hear the subtle differences between the various tones. Before investing a single dollar in training new sonar techs, the US Navy will thoroughly test candidates' hearing. To ensure they can in fact distinguish the various tones. One of my A School classmates was originally slated to be a sonar tech, but failed the hearing test. He instead trained to be an avionics tech.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

christomacin said:


> Yeah, I'm waiting for the vinyl cultists to arrive. It should be fun.


While I am far from a 'vinyl cultist', as I said in post #25, vinyl still does soundstage and imaging better (larger, deeper soundstage with a more 3d image), with more palpability, than 16/44.1.

So, despite the better dynamics, and lower noise, that CD has over vinyl, at times, that huge, 3d soundstage becomes too seductive for me, and I am willing to put up with the other drawbacks of vinyl to experience it.

But even with digital formats, DSD sounds better than CD. I have taken part in the double blind listening test, comparing 16/44.1, 24/192, and DSD. I was constantly (well above chance) able pick out DSD over CD quality.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

completely apropos of nothing, but just for fun, since young people buying vinyl was mentioned, there was a fun moment last year where people didn't know that a Taylor Swift release was pressed at 45RPM resulting in reviews like this



> In one comment, a user wrote, "The pressing is bad it sounds like a man", while another commented, "Vinyl look ok and the color, is beautiful, but the sound is really scary, it's like a Taylor's voice from beyond the grave... is this a disgusting joke about halloween? Not sure."


(to be fair, i think it was a 12 inch LP mastered at 45RPM which is fairly unusual outside of specialty audiophile releases, but still)


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

I collect classical vinyl and enjoy listening to classical on vinyl, but I admit there are weaknesses to the format that can be especially pronounced with classical music. To me, no genre sounds better on vinyl than jazz. Classical, with its complex dynamics and loud bombastic finales around the inner grooves, which are most prone to distortion, just isn't the best genre for it. That said, if you love vinyl, like I do, you put up with the downsides (the clicks and pops, the occasional distortion) to listen to that unique analog sound.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

I think the "analog sound" of vinyl is distortion, pure and simple. Surface distortion, vibration distortion, tone arm distortion, whatever. It's distortion and noise. If you like that distortion and noise, more power to you. I just think it's important to distinguish between "things I like" and "greater accuracy."

16/44 digital audio is completely and totally capable of reproducing the _exact _waveform of a vinyl album, it just eliminates that distortion and has a much lower noise floor.

This is a great video that explains the Nyquist theorem:


----------



## FrankinUsa (Aug 3, 2021)

When I was in my teens,vinyl was the only choice. I bought a few. But then CD came onto the stage and in short order CDs took over both in terms of selection(in stores etc) and what I purchased. IMHO,the vinyl resurgence is coming about because of nostalgia. There have been many good comments so I won’t repeat them. The only thing that I could say is that I have bought a vacuum tube amplifier and that has “improved” the sound;warmer,larger more open soundstage etc. The downside is that the amplifier generates a lot of heat and I have to pull it out of my system during the summer and use a standard amplifier. It also consumes much more electricity as much as an air conditioner. I have AudioResearch MKVII. Huge beast.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

During my vinyl years, in the later 1970s and early 1980s, I used the great SAE5000 electronic tick and pop remover. It was very effective on lighter vinyl scratches and irregularities. As a result, the cassette tapes I made in those days were free of a lot of that kind of vinyl noise.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Some sane remarks here.

Some insane remarks, too. Remarks like "CD is better than vinyl" or "vinyl is better than CD".

If one's goal is to achieve a quality of "sound" nearest to the actual "live" performance of a recorded work, a lot depends upon a number of factors including the successfulness of the recording process itself, the quality of the recording (whatever the medium), the quality of the medium, the quality of the playback equipment to achieve the "goal", the listening room design or the headphone design, the efficiency of the "ears" involved in the listening....

On my home system (which includes a VPI Scoutmaster II turntable with a JMW Memorial tonearm fitted with a ClearAudio Maestro Wood MM cartridge, and a SONY XA500ES CD/SACD disc player, all amplified by Jolida tubed equipment into Triangle speakers) both LPs and CDs sound good, especially when the media is well-cared for, as the vast majority of my collected discs are. There are quite a few instances where I have both vinyl and CD (and sometimes even the SACD) versions of a recording, and sometimes the vinyl sounds better than the CD, and sometimes the CD sounds better than the vinyl, and sometimes the SACD sounds better than both, but not always. A lot depends upon ... a lot.

I've been to many a live concert, whether in a local pub or a symphony hall, and I've never experienced the silent "black quiet" background often exuded by CDs, and, in many cases, quality pressed vinyl. Though I remain one of those who appreciates a recording to sound as close to "live" as possible, I have been to concerts and heard music that I would prefer to listen to on my stereo system. "Live" isn 't always better when measuring the effect a piece of music has on one. A recording, after all, is generally edited for a certain sense of "perfection" one cannot readily expect from a live performance.

Overall, I find vinyl warmer and more "dynamic" than digital playback, though I also have digitally recorded vinyl discs. I suspect I prefer "analog" to "digital" in most cases, but I do know that to hear my digital CDs they must be processed by way of a DAC (digital to analog converter) in order to play through my headphones, amplifier, or speakers. My earlier CDs tend to play rather more "harshly" than the later, more recently recorded, engineered and manufactured CDs in my collection, thanks much to improvements in the media and the recording process. Very early vinyl (30s, 40s, early 50s) generally isn't as rich and lifelike as vinyl from the classic late 50s, 60s, and early 70s eras; vinyl from the late 70s, 80s and 90s often tends to be poorly pressed and thus "noisy" compared to some of the earlier pressings; vinyl of the recent years, the revival years, can be better or worse than older pressings. Vinyl fans know all this.

CDs vary in quality, too. A look at Discogs for nearly any well-known work in the genres of rock/pop, jazz, or classical will reveal multiple releases. (Dave Brubeck's Time Out currently lists a couple hundred different releases. I have a couple dozen of them in my own collection.) They do not all "sound alike". Digital CDs may be composed of 0s and 1s in varying sequences, but so much is involved in the manufacturing process of the music and the media that even 0s and 1s don't sound alike, all other factors (playback equipment, for instance) being the same.

I have vinyl records I prefer the sound of over the CD version. I have CDs I prefer the sound of over the vinyl version. But generally my well-cared-for recordings sound "good" on my system, and that allows me to validly suggest that, with mixed media recordings of the same music, I generally play the CD when I want to hear the music in crisp, clear sound, but I listen to the vinyl when I want to invite the performer(s) into my listening room to share their "live music-making experience" with me.

I do know that I recall many an instance where I was listening to vinyl and had a "Wow" experience, as in "I can't believe that trombone sounds like it's playing in this room in front of me". Though I enjoy my CDs greatly and believe they have great sound overall, I do not recall a single similar "Wow" experience.

I've had guests come into the listening room and express absolute disbelief when hearing a vinyl record playing which they thought _had_ to be a CD "because the background was so quiet." Well-cared-for records played on a conscientiously put-together sound system will sound that way, and maybe even supply a bit of that "Wow factor" which really helps things come alive.

I have one of the first CD releases of the Brubeck "Time Out" record. It's so harsh sounding I can barely tolerate to listen to it, but the background is silent. I also have a very early vinyl release which I purchased used; the music is warm and satisfying, though there is surface noise. I much prefer it over the CD. But generally I will listen to this music on either one of the my later (and faily recent) vinyl reissues (Classic Records - CS 8192 or Analogue Productions - APJ 8192-45) or on the SACD version (Analogue Productions - CAPJ 8192 SA).

I don't want to talk about "convenience" here. Maybe that's important for some listeners, but I prefer to deal with the musical experience. Flipping a record on a turntable counts for little to me when, one to one, the sound of the vinyl beats the sound of the CD.

But don't insist that "vinyl sounds better than CD" or "CD beats vinyl every time." That's just silly.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

I'm gad that there are enthusiasts for both, since they're both a dying breed in the face of the market dominance of streaming (vinyl's "resurgence" is a proverbial drop in the bucket).

I think vinyl has a certain magic to it. I was listening to Thriller on my dad's turntable and was sort of wowed by the physical act of the waveform being read by a physical needle. It was amazing to me that you could hear the music unamplified from the disc itself if you got your ear real close.

For my own purposes and from my own experience, lossless PCM audio delivered by whatever means is superior. It doesn't wear out, doesn't get dirty, can be transferred from device to device and from format to format. It can contain and represent all the hall noise you like, or none of it if that's your preference.


----------



## FrankinUsa (Aug 3, 2021)

SONNET CLV
Great post. 
May I ask what was the cost of components strictly for vinyl. Turntable,needle,cleaning equipment etc. 
I’m assuming your “Preamp” handles both vinyl and CDetc playback. Some go with a phono preamp for various technical reasons. 
IF YOU PREFER NOT TO SHARE COST ,THAT IS COMPLETELY UNDERSTANDABLE


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

FrankinUsa said:


> SONNET CLV
> Great post.
> May I ask what was the cost of components strictly for vinyl. Turntable,needle,cleaning equipment etc.
> I'm assuming your "Preamp" handles both vinyl and CDetc playback. Some go with a phono preamp for various technical reasons.
> IF YOU PREFER NOT TO SHARE COST ,THAT IS COMPLETELY UNDERSTANDABLE


My current equipment was all purchased pretty much "on a budget" and no piece is extravagant by comparison with what is out there as advertised and discussed in magazines such as STEREOPHILE, of which I am an avid reader. Each piece was selected after researching critical opinions and auditioning where possible. The front end of my vinyl system is the real key to vinyl sounding like it does. The VPI Scoutmaster II turntable was, when I bought it, at the very top of what I was willing to pay; there were many more expensive turntable/arm combinations to be had. (The Scoutmaster II is an upgrade with better internal wiring -- pure silver, I believe -- over the non "II" table.) The table is currently out of production and has been replaced with something more expensive. The Scoutmaster II cost me at least 2K bills, well worth it with the heavy use I've gotten from it with no issues at all.)

The cartridge is an all-important component to whatever turntable one has, but a better quality table allows for improved sound from even a lesser cartridge. A lesser quality table will not allow a top-quality cartridge to shine to its full effect, but the VPI SII will allow less expensive cartridges to sound like they are worth much more. I have a couple of cartridges on hand, ranging from (when originally purchased a few years ago) about 700 to 1200 bucks. The Maestro Wood, currently on the table, was the most teeth-crunching purchase I've ever made for an audio component, but I knew the VPI should have a quality cartridge, and the ClearAudio was a quality mid-priced cartridge, better than any I had on hand. I have had it retipped by the guys at SoundSmith a couple of times, for a fraction of the original cost -- a worthy purchase.

Consider, that when I made these purchases I had on hand a couple thousand records, collected since my youth. Though CDs were already established, streaming was not. I had so much pop/rock, jazz, and classical on black vinyl that seemed well worth it to upgrade my vinyl playback equipment. (My previous rig was a good one by then standards, though a touch less costly in the end, though I was long a user of the legendary Shure cartridges which helped preserve the grooves on my discs.)

My phono pre-amp is from JoLida (a JD9), the same tube amp company that built my integrated amp (SJ-502A), which I purchased as a "second" since it had a slight painting flaw compared to the ones that did not. The flaw is barely noticeable. (I haven't seen or thought about it for years.) And it does not affect playback at all. Can't recall the price of the amp or preamp, but both were under 1k and the preamp only a couple of hundred. I did upgrade the tubes, and that costs me a couple extra bucks every now and then, but well-worth it for the improvement in sound quality, dynamics, liveliness, and "wow factor".

My cabling is modest, mid-priced stuff. Better than plain-old RadioShack lamp cord, but not the real exotic stuff either. The speaker wire (pretty good stuff) was supplied free-of-charge by French speaker manufacturer Triangle, from whom I purchased the speakers I now use, several years old now and modestly priced at under 2k when bought. The turntable and component connectors were generally recommended by the equipment manufacturers for good matching and reasonable cost.

And I use a line-conditioner, which cleans up the electrical signal. It costs a couple hundred, but is the single most valuable piece of equipment for improving sound quality of the system. I never noticed as big a single improvement as I did when I first inserted a line-conditioner into my system. I thought it was good before. I was wrong.

I clean records modestly, but carefully, using the yellow box non-electric Spin Doctor, under a hundred bucks when bought. Fortunately I've always taken care of my records, so they never did need a deep cleaning which a vac unit might do better. And for yard-sale buys and used-record-shop buys I give the record an extensive, heavy-duty manual scrub before putting it into the Spin Doctor.

I suspect the cost of my several thousand records (largely classical and jazz, with a couple hundred great rock and punk albums) far exceeds the cost of my playback equipment, which is as it should be, I'd suggest. After all, this is a hobby. (Though musical knowledge gained from listening to discs over the years was an important part of the jobs I've held over the years.) Other people buy cars and guns and golf clubs and booze and spend much more than I ever spent, but my hobby enjoyment has been going on for well over half a century now, so I'm satisfied with the experience and the cost. If I were to divide the cost of my equipment by the number of discs I've used it to play over the years, I suspect I'll be on something like pennies per play. I see that a downloaded tune can run 99 cents for one track. I've paid a lot less to hear hundreds of symphonies, jazz concerts, and rock tracks. And I still have those discs, they were not "expendable" purchases.

Hope that helps.


----------



## FrankinUsa (Aug 3, 2021)

SONNET CLV
THANK YOU for the detailed response.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

fbjim said:


> They still are. Demand for classical vinyl is far less than the supply, versus popular music, where the price of an early VG+ pop or rock album from the 70s has risen exponentially. There are a few exceptions, like the old-school record collector stuff (Decca UK blue-backs, Columbia SAX, RCA stuff that was in The Ultimate Sound or whatever that record guide was) but most stuff is out there for a few bucks a pop.


TAS - The Absolute Sound


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

joen_cph said:


> In the LP days, I knew a collector who'd put the LP covers away, since he thought they'd create 'noise' visually in experiencing the music itself. He later gave up the idea, however; and it seems a bit exaggerated.


Yeah - In my dealing days I went to look at an LP collection for sale in the 90s - beautiful collection - many rarities. One little problem - the owner had thrown all the jackets in the the bin and created his own card index system for the tracks.

Needless to say - no deal was done.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

I think we have a thread like this every few years. OK - here goes again.

Im 57 so my first system was a cheap record player - amp built in and a pair of tinny speakers - loved it to bits though.
CD was becoming big at a time when I was making my discoveries in classical music - ironically via a walkman.
Of course I had to have CD - I spent £300 on a Marantz player (CD50SE I Think) and had a fair amp and some rogers speakers. I bought around 200 CDs and had a great time. My best friend was also into classical and I used to spend time with him at his house - he had a competent Dual record player - a pioneer amp and wharfedale dovedale speakers. I noticed that his system sounded better than mine - something I could not understand - as I was using the latest technology. I went to some HIFI shows to investigate further and gradually came to realise that for all its advantages - a good vinyl system was better than any level of CD set up. Thus started my life with vinyl. I acquired some decent equipment and discarded CD for many years. I became a classical LP dealer at a time when a lot of people were getting out of vinyl - so there was some great stuff to be had and I made money too. I also met overseas LP buyers - I learned that far eastern buyers - Japanese, Korean etc - with few exceptions - were fascinated by LPs from the golden age - but they did not have the patience to listen to it. But european buyers and British/American - were LP audiophiles who actually were also classical music lovers and they did listen. So as a dealer I had 15,000 LPs in my house and I lived quite happily with vinyl for many years. Then I got married! Gradually - my system could not find a place - and I had other priorities. As a family we listened to CDs. I stopped buying more or less in 2001 and my stock of LPs was gradually sold and I moved into another business because with the emergence of ebay - sellers could get much better prices than I would pay. However - I divorced last year and am now living in my own space. I have my LP player here - but lost the power unit in the move - it was a dedicated unit and I have been in touch with the builder of my model about it. I have about 400 LPs left. But I now listen to a sony CD player with a £200 cambridge audio amp and some Eltax speakers - it sounds fine - I also listen via youtube through some speakers I bought for use with my laptop. I enjoy it all. I also listen in the car via the CD system and that sounds good too. However - I will echo what some other have said - that setting aside the limitations and faults of vinyl - a 1 side Mozart piano concerto on a good quality LP - maybe a decca or hmv recording - or Brendel on Phillips - sounds better than any digital source. I enjoy my CD system - simply because I have not heard how good vinyl sounds in quite a long time. Once I get my turntable up and running - I am sure it will be my main source. I get what people are saying about having to get up and flip the alpine symphony over - but it's worth it. And being a Mozart fan - a symphony, concerto sonata will fit onto 1 side - so it's not too much of an inconvenience. Hey - going to a concert is inconvenient - but if you want to hear live music. 
One anecdote. In my dealing years I once had some reviewers at my house - three of them (I think they were gramophone reviewers) came with about 1000 CDs to sell me (I sold all formats from a shop) and I noticed one of the CDs was Mahler's 2nd with Klemperer. I played them a crafty trick. I pulled out the original columbia SAX LP and asked if they would like a comparison. They beamed - saying yes by all means. I loaded the CD in mvt 1 and played the first 30 seconds or so - then I dropped the needle onto the LP - the quality of the attack on the string opening made them open their mouths - the CD was flat by comparison. They were speechless.

Well - there is my experience and opinion.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

Simon Moon said:


> While I am far from a 'vinyl cultist', as I said in post #25, vinyl still does soundstage and imaging better (larger, deeper soundstage with a more 3d image), with more palpability, than 16/44.1.
> 
> So, despite the better dynamics, and lower noise, that CD has over vinyl, at times, that huge, 3d soundstage becomes too seductive for me, and I am willing to put up with the other drawbacks of vinyl to experience it.
> 
> But even with digital formats, DSD sounds better than CD. I have taken part in the double blind listening test, comparing 16/44.1, 24/192, and DSD. I was constantly (well above chance) able pick out DSD over CD quality.


I never found vinyl to have a bigger soundstage. My experience is that soundstage is determined by amplification, particularly the use of tubes in the output stage. What kind of phono pre amp do you use?


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

Merl said:


> I doubt there's any such thing as a 'cassette-revitalist'. I can understand love for nearly any format except the cassette. Horrible, hissy, annoying, stretchy things.


Is that not a snake you are thinking about??


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

MatthewWeflen said:


> I think the "analog sound" of vinyl is distortion, pure and simple. Surface distortion, vibration distortion, tone arm distortion, whatever. It's distortion and noise. If you like that distortion and noise, more power to you. I just think it's important to distinguish between "things I like" and "greater accuracy."
> 
> 16/44 digital audio is completely and totally capable of reproducing the _exact _waveform of a vinyl album, it just eliminates that distortion and has a much lower noise floor.
> 
> This is a great video that explains the Nyquist theorem:


When a digital recording is downsampled from the original Hi-Res to 16/44.1 for CD production, it MUST be dithered...the intentional injection of noise. Otherwise, it sounds too sterile. If instead that same recording is distributed as a Hi-Res Flac file, no such dithering is required.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

christomacin said:


> The CD remains the best format yet devised for Classical music...aside from a live performance, of course. Does anyone feel otherwise?


I'd say hires streaming is best but yes, I agree with the sentiment of your post, IHO, vinyl is a poor choice for classical.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

*I think the "analog sound" of vinyl is distortion, pure and simple. Surface distortion, vibration distortion, tone arm distortion, whatever. It's distortion and noise. *

There is some level of distortion of course, minimal on a quality system - but then CD players have error correction. A good system will reduce the effects of distortion to a level where they are not significant - I think error correction on a DAC does the same? Even with streaming - you then have your amp - speakers - cables etc - and the acoustic of the room - and you ears. It is never going to be 100%.

But you can't try to rationalise the preference of many for the sound of vinyl by claiming we just enjoy distortion and noise - we enjoy and hear the illusion of live music. The illusion is often very successful - and that is the only thing that matters.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

MatthewWeflen said:


> I'm gad that there are enthusiasts for both, since they're both a dying breed in the face of the market dominance of streaming (vinyl's "resurgence" is a proverbial drop in the bucket).


1) Billboard reporting now, that for the first time in 17 years, the CD sale is going up (by 1.1 % in a year). We'll see if it's a trend.

2) JPC always has plenty of newly produced, expensive classical vinyls for sale, it seems to be a pretty established niche market, say in Germany.

3) some cases where my LPs sound better and much more spacious than the CD releases: a) All _Sibelius symphonies_ with Rozhdestvensky, a melodiya LP set b) _En Saga_ with Ashkenazy/decca


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

PlaySalieri said:


> *I think the "analog sound" of vinyl is distortion, pure and simple. Surface distortion, vibration distortion, tone arm distortion, whatever. It's distortion and noise. *
> 
> There is some level of distortion of course, minimal on a quality system - but then CD players have error correction. A good system will reduce the effects of distortion to a level where they are not significant - I think error correction on a DAC does the same? Even with streaming - you then have your amp - speakers - cables etc - and the acoustic of the room - and you ears. It is never going to be 100%.


The error correction used in CDs is not for the purpose of dealing with distortion. Trying to argue a general equivalence of inadequacies in vinyl and digital systems doesn't work. I grew up with vinyl and the exercise of getting good clean sound out of vinyl compared to CDs is daunting. If you're not fighting the limitations of the turntable, (wow and flutter etc.) and the cartridge plus needle wear, you're having to deal with the limitations of the vinyl record: poor vinyl stock, defects in the new vinyl record and the ever-challenging fight against dust that can be attracted to a vinyl record as if to a magnet.



> But you can't try to rationalise the preference of many for the sound of vinyl by claiming we just enjoy distortion and noise - we enjoy and hear the illusion of live music. The illusion is often very successful - and that is the only thing that matters.


I realize that the challenge to create the illusion of live music from vinyl can actually be a fun hobby in and of itself, but it is also my experience that modern digital recordings do an excellent job of doing the same thing.


----------



## Nawdry (Dec 27, 2020)

christomacin said:


> Vinyl for Classical Music, Year or Nay? I say nay.


I'm a definite Nay to vinyl, even though my early years were the era of transition from 78 RPMs to LPs. (Nobody to my knowledge wants to return to 78s). Leaving aside all the pops, clicks, scratches, difficulty in setting stylus into groove, etc., the notion of a diamond point dropping onto vulnerable vinyl restrained me for many years from listening to my recordings as much as I would have otherwise. CDs are not optimal, but a quantum leap from the drawbacks of vinyl.


----------



## Vahe Sahakian (Mar 9, 2018)

I have a large classical LP collection, the day I listened to my first CD I have not touched the vinyl, for me it is a dead format.
I can see where for pop and rock vinyl would be ok but for classical no way. The main problem with classical on vinyl is music's quiet passages, this is where surface noise starts to compete with the music. The better the playback system the more audio junk comes through.
I must also say that some folks are born with a noise decoder inside their brains, they sit down and listen to vinyl and love every minute of it, they just don't hear the noise.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

DaveM said:


> The error correction used in CDs is not for the purpose of dealing with distortion. Trying to argue a general equivalence of inadequacies in vinyl and digital systems doesn't work. I grew up with vinyl and the exercise of getting good clean sound out of vinyl compared to CDs is daunting. If you're not fighting the limitations of the turntable, (wow and flutter etc.) and the cartridge plus needle wear, you're having to deal with the limitations of the vinyl record: poor vinyl stock, defects in the new vinyl record and the ever-challenging fight against dust that can be attracted to a vinyl record as if to a magnet.
> 
> I realize that the challenge to create the illusion of live music from vinyl can actually be a fun hobby in and of itself, but it is also my experience that modern digital recordings do an excellent job of doing the same thing.


This video does an amazing job of detailing the error correction of CDs. And you are correct, it's not for distortion (because there is none). It's to compensate for any damage in the disc with a perfect substitution of the same data beneath the damage.


----------



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

It's important to incorporate perhaps the most important part of high-fidelity experience into this conversation: the ear-brain system. And how to optimize THAT.
The three biggies are: diet-sleep-exercise. Get your body health in good shape and even YouTube and Spotify can make you happy. I use those services quite a bit for sampling new or never-before-heard music. 
If I like a recording enough, then a CD purchase is the next step. Esp. for classical. 
Sometimes (rarely), I will seek out LPs (usually rare, OOP) of material that never made it to digital. E.g. promo copies, radio-station concert copies, etc. 
I have a high-end audio system, ripped most of my CD/LP library to my computer drives, and play those ripped files on all my home and portable devices. 
I have lots of experience as an audiophile and music fan (many genres). I adopted CD early (1986) but also kept improving my LP rig. 
One real pet peeve of mine about LP is inner-groove distortion. The LAST track (or minutes per side) -- especially on longer records with maxed-out sides -- suffer from this horrible effect. Some linear-tracking TTs may alleviate some of the distortion. But linear's have other issues.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

13hm13 said:


> It's important to incorporate perhaps the most important part of high-fidelity experience into this conversation: the ear-brain system. And how to optimize THAT.
> The three biggies are: diet-sleep-exercise. Get your body health in good shape and even YouTube and Spotify can make you happy. I use those services quite a bit for sampling new or never-before-heard music.
> If I like a recording enough, then a CD purchase is the next step. Esp. for classical.
> Sometimes (rarely), I will seek out LPs (usually rare, OOP) of material that never made it to digital. E.g. promo copies, radio-station concert copies, etc.
> ...


yes this last track distortion was worse on the early stereo LPs HMV and SAX in particular. The Klemperer Beethoven 9 was always a pain as the climax of the choral last mvt distorted horribly at the end of the 2 disc set. But the later reissue seemed to be ok. 80s pressings on labels like hyperion and chandos it seemed end of side distortion was not an issue.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

MatthewWeflen said:


> This video does an amazing job of detailing the error correction of CDs. And you are correct, it's not for distortion (because there is none). It's to compensate for any damage in the disc with a perfect substitution of the same data beneath the damage.


According to this article by John Siau, which discusses jitter, quantization errors, and aliasing, neither 16-bit CD nor 1-bit SACD fully addresses digital distortion, and 96 KHz 24 bit high resolution PCM is the answer. I actually remember buying and listening to a CD in 1995 and noticing the greatly improved sound quality. It turns out this was my first CD where noise shaping was used to defeat quantization errors, a technique that became standard in CDs at that time and greatly improved their sound. In the late 1990s, SACD came along, which relied heavily on noise shaping as well as greater sampling rates.

I don't argue with you or Mr. Siau that with today's technology distortion in digital playback can be reduced to inaudible levels. However, the digital recording process still introduces distortion that I can still hear in every digital recording playback.

https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/13124137-the-unique-evils-of-digital-audio-and-how-to-defeat-them


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

fluteman said:


> According to this article by John Siau, which discusses jitter, quantization errors, and aliasing, neither 16-bit CD nor 1-bit SACD fully addresses digital distortion, and 96 KHz 24 bit high resolution PCM is the answer. I actually remember buying and listening to a CD in 1995 and noticing the greatly improved sound quality. It turns out this was my first CD where noise shaping was used to defeat quantization errors, a technique that became standard in CDs at that time and greatly improved their sound. In the late 1990s, SACD came along, which relied heavily on noise shaping as well as greater sampling rates.
> 
> I don't argue with you or Mr. Siau that with today's technology distortion in digital playback can be reduced to inaudible levels. However, the digital recording process still introduces distortion that I can still hear in every digital recording playback.
> 
> https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/13124137-the-unique-evils-of-digital-audio-and-how-to-defeat-them


I dunno. I hear all of the distortion inherent in vinyl playback, and none of the distortion mentioned in this article. I also listen to live music, so I think I have a fair idea what it sounds like.

Perhaps this author has an axe to grind, since he sells devices that "fix" the purported "evils" of 16/44.1 digital audio?

It may be that my current equipment solves these problems and I am therefore oblivious to them. But I can't recall ever hearing them on older equipment, either. I also have plenty of 96/24 content to listen to. It sounds indistinguishable from 16/44.1 versions of the same music. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

MatthewWeflen said:


> I dunno. I hear all of the distortion inherent in vinyl playback, and none of the distortion mentioned in this article. I also listen to live music, so I think I have a fair idea what it sounds like.
> 
> Perhaps this author has an axe to grind, since he sells devices that "fix" the purported "evils" of 16/44.1 digital audio?
> 
> It may be that my current equipment solves these problems and I am therefore oblivious to them. But I can't recall ever hearing them on older equipment, either. I also have plenty of 96/24 content to listen to. It sounds indistinguishable from 16/44.1 versions of the same music. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


Yes, professionals in the industry tend to back the horse that pays their rent, to mix metaphors. Live music is kind of my main thing, singing and playing it as much as listening to it. And I must say, live music certainly can have sound quality problems too. But the way classical music usually is recorded digitally, usually with many microphones very near the sound sources, has its advantages and drawbacks too. I think the comments here about the better 'soundstage' of analog recorded old LPs have less to do with playback distortion, which is always significant with these old LPs, and more to do with the way those old recordings were made.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

MatthewWeflen said:


> I dunno. I hear all of the distortion inherent in vinyl playback, and none of the distortion mentioned in this article. I also listen to live music, so I think I have a fair idea what it sounds like.


I also never really experienced inner track distortion. Perhaps due to the alignment of my cartridge? In fact, I have the opposite experience: the outer track tends to sound dirtiest on a dirty record, getting progressively cleaner as the needle moves inward.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

progmatist said:


> I also never really experienced inner track distortion. Perhaps due to the alignment of my cartridge? In fact, I have the opposite experience: the outer track tends to sound dirtiest on a dirty record, getting progressively cleaner as the needle moves inward.


yes because the first track is the most played - and also people have this silly habit of picking an LP out with singer and thumb print at the edge. But this can be deep cleaned - what cannot be cleaned is groove damage caused by what are known as blunderbuss styluses - poorly made styluses from the 50s and 60s used by the majority of people. 
No matter how well aligned your cartridge is - those older LPs from the 50/60s could suffer from end of side distortion particularly with loud orchestral climaxes and choral like Mahler 2. But as I said in another post - I noticed from the mid 70s to 80s - this end of side problem was much less evident or even absent - maybe improved groove technology?
I will make one statement - I like and appreciate CD and other digital sources a lot more than I did in the 90s.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

progmatist said:


> I also never really experienced inner track distortion. Perhaps due to the alignment of my cartridge? In fact, I have the opposite experience: the outer track tends to sound dirtiest on a dirty record, getting progressively cleaner as the needle moves inward.


Are you sure your cartridge is aligned properly? Inner or outer track distortion should be the exception rather than the rule with well-made LPs.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

progmatist said:


> I also never really experienced inner track distortion. Perhaps due to the alignment of my cartridge? In fact, I have the opposite experience: the outer track tends to sound dirtiest on a dirty record, getting progressively cleaner as the needle moves inward.


Yeah, I am using a 12" tonearm, which has vanishingly low offset error. Therefore, the inner grooves on my system have no more distortion than anywhere else on the record.

Couple that with all of the cartridges I have used, being Micro Line, Micro Ridge, Shibata stylus geometries, and inner groove distortion is a complete nonfactor. Of course, there is still a slight loss of lows in the inner grooves, but it is pretty negligible.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Vahe Sahakian said:


> I have a large classical LP collection, the day I listened to my first CD I have not touched the vinyl, for me it is a dead format.
> I can see where for pop and rock vinyl would be ok but for classical no way. The main problem with classical on vinyl is music's quiet passages, this is where surface noise starts to compete with the music. The better the playback system the more audio junk comes through.
> I must also say that some folks are born with a noise decoder inside their brains, they sit down and listen to vinyl and love every minute of it, they just don't hear the noise.


I was working at a very high end stereo shop (Audio Research, Threshold, SOTA, Linn, Magneplanar, Acoustat, Sumo, and quite a few other very high end brands, while I was taking electronics at college. This was the same year that CD's were being introduced.

I remember how excited we all were on the day we were getting the 1st CD players in the store for evaluation, to see which one we were going to carry. The Sony and the Kyocera.

After my digital class was over, I went to the shop just about in time for their arrival. We unboxed them and set them up, and put on a CD of solo violin. Even through some of the best electronics in the world, and best speakers, it took us a while to figure out it was a violin playing. We then put on vinyl of the same piece, and it sounded so much more natural and palpable.

It wasn't until the early late 90's or early 2000's, that the best CD playback actually bettered vinyl playback. This, IMO, despite the greater dynamics, quieter backgrounds, more solid bass. Up until the days of CD bettering vinyl, for me, it was much easier to put up with the negative aspects of vinyl playback, than the negative aspects of CD playback.

And as I said earlier in this thread, despite all the positive aspects of CD over vinyl, vinyl still does a better job with creating a 3d soundstage, and better image specificity within that soundstage.

It isn't until you get to 24/192 or DSD, where digital has all the positive aspects (better dynamics, lower noise, better bass) AND all the positive aspects of vinyl (better soundstage, more 3d imaging).


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

I've been reading with interest the various comments of this thread, and I've contributed a comment of my own, but in the end I find most valuable the fact that I am here at home listening to the Bartok string quartets, on decades old vinyl records that sound new and pristine for being well-cared for, in a release by the Guarneri Quartet (RCA Red Seal - ARL3-2412) from 1977, and am enjoying every moment and every nuance these recordings allow, which are multitude.

I have the complete Bartok quartets on at least two other vinyl issues and on several CD issues, but I probably cannot enjoy these works more than on these well-played and well-recorded vinyl records, unless, perhaps, the Guarneri were to drop into my listening room, move my speakers aside, and perform the works live in front of me. But since that likely won't happen, I'll settle for the RCA Red Seal vinyl. My CD issues simply don't give me the seemingly present, alive and breathing quartet of musicians this RCA release provides. And _that's_ the power of vinyl playback, when all is ideal.


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

PlaySalieri said:


> One anecdote. In my dealing years I once had some reviewers at my house - three of them (I think they were gramophone reviewers) came with about 1000 CDs to sell me (I sold all formats from a shop) and I noticed one of the CDs was Mahler's 2nd with Klemperer. I played them a crafty trick. I pulled out the original columbia SAX LP and asked if they would like a comparison. They beamed - saying yes by all means. I loaded the CD in mvt 1 and played the first 30 seconds or so - then I dropped the needle onto the LP - the quality of the attack on the string opening made them open their mouths - the CD was flat by comparison. They were speechless.


And the reaction had you pulled the same stunt with Mahler 1, for instance?

I agree that, at its peak (best), vinyl sound can trump CD. But for durability (hassle-free durability, at least), reliability, convenience, CD wins hands down.
I say that as one who's primarily interested in the music rather than the playback mechanism.

I always had the impression, reading the cultists at _The Absolute Sound_ back in the 80s, that they'd take a shallow, but wonderfully recorded analogue Brahms 4 from Maazel on LP over, say Kleiber's digital VPO effort on CD. Which to me meant they'd missed the musical point entirely.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

GraemeG said:


> And the reaction had you pulled the same stunt with Mahler 1, for instance?
> 
> I agree that, at its peak (best), vinyl sound can trump CD. But for durability (hassle-free durability, at least), reliability, convenience, CD wins hands down.
> I say that as one who's primarily interested in the music rather than the playback mechanism.
> ...


I would hardly choose a piece with a quiet opening. We are talking about 1992 - I think that mastering of the Klemperer Mahler 2 was very flat on cd. 
I go for performance 1st - format is not the chief consideration. I listen to the budapest qt 1930s/40s recordings of Mozart for example - on CD. I also have the 50s LPs in Philips and they do sound good - mono sound but very rich. I understand some of those monos sound so good by comparison because stereo is a tall order for LPs.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

SONNET CLV said:


> I've been reading with interest the various comments of this thread, and I've contributed a comment of my own, but in the end I find most valuable the fact that I am here at home listening to the Bartok string quartets, on decades old vinyl records that sound new and pristine for being well-cared for, in a release by the Guarneri Quartet (RCA Red Seal - ARL3-2412) from 1977, and am enjoying every moment and every nuance these recordings allow, which are multitude.
> 
> I have the complete Bartok quartets on at least two other vinyl issues and on several CD issues, but I probably cannot enjoy these works more than on these well-played and well-recorded vinyl records, unless, perhaps, the Guarneri were to drop into my listening room, move my speakers aside, and perform the works live in front of me. But since that likely won't happen, I'll settle for the RCA Red Seal vinyl. My CD issues simply don't give me the seemingly present, alive and breathing quartet of musicians this RCA release provides. And _that's_ the power of vinyl playback, when all is ideal.
> 
> View attachment 162859


I have the original Juilliard Quartet's 1950 Bartok, with the formidable Arthur Winograd on cello, and their 1965 release, with the elegant Claus Adam, among versions by several other quartets, on LP. But when I wanted to put a set in my Walkman, I decided my Emerson CD, recorded in hazy 1980s digital, just didn't cut it. Instead, I paid for a download (which I rarely do), in 96 KHz 24 bit digital audio, by the Health Quartet. It's all worth listening to, even the 1950 Juilliard LPs (recorded in the late 1940s), which sound like the musicians are underwater.


----------



## Bkeske (Feb 27, 2019)

95% of my listening is on vinyl, and I highly prefer it, albeit, I also have a nice collection of CD’s, occasionally stream via Tidal, and also a fan of watching the Berlin Philharmonic live via The Digital Concert Hall in surround sound.

But, if I have a choice, I’ll pick vinyl every time. In order to really enjoy it though, IMO, you’ll have to shell out bucks for a good vinyl rig (table, arm, cartridge, and phono preamp). And after putting together a nice vinyl rig, In most all instances, I prefer vinyl on my system over digital. To me, it just sounds ‘right’, and more natural.

I’m 64, so grew up with vinyl, then transitioned away from it in the 80’s as we were told CD’s were perfect, was the future, and vinyl was dead. And, so, I followed suite, eventually boxing up my turntable and albums for years. A few years back, a brought up my old table and boxes of albums from the basement simply out of curiosity. The old table didn’t sounds so good by the standards I was now used to, but, I did hear that hint of ‘magic’ vinyl has vs. digital, and began my journey back to vinyl, and pleased I did. 

I won’t denigrate anyones choice of musical format, it’s up to you what sounds best, and it’s up to me to do the same. Enjoy the music. That is all that matters folks.

And one thing, if, if, you spend the time, and yes, also money, classical can be absolutely incredible on vinyl. A good vinyl rig can play complex classical with ease, and to me, sound awesome. But, that won’t happen on a $200 table and cartridge. A $200 Digital set-up will far surpasses an inexpensive vinyl set-up almost every time.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Even if I believed that vinyl had some advantage over the digital files such as those available at Presto and Hyperion and assuming I was ready to shell out the money to upgrade my vinyl system where necessary, I would still face the fact that relatively little classical music is being released on vinyl these days. 

Back in the day, you could go to a record store and leaf through stacks of new vinyl releases. It also would not be an alternative to rely on my ‘old’ vinyl records that have been sitting in boxes in the garage for decades. And, especially given the vulnerability of vinyl to scratches and other defects, I wouldn’t be interested in buying vinyl records on eBay.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

christomacin said:


> The CD remains the best format yet devised for Classical music...aside from a live performance, of course. Does anyone feel otherwise?


Vinyls are fine, very manneristic and larger cover arts. The only problem is money, as long as money allows, both vinyl and CD are welcomed, combined with some cult-class equipments one can really always build a real palace of music inside the house.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

GraemeG said:


> And the reaction had you pulled the same stunt with Mahler 1, for instance?
> 
> I agree that, at its peak (best), vinyl sound can trump CD. But for durability (hassle-free durability, at least), reliability, convenience, CD wins hands down.
> I say that as one who's primarily interested in the music rather than the playback mechanism.
> ...


Right. I was trying to make that point above when I mentioned the great Bartok string quartet cycles released in 1950 (Juilliard), 1965 (Juilliard again), 1988 (Emerson) and 2017 (Heath). All are well worth listening to, despite the great range in sound quality. But they are also good examples, imo, of bad analog, good analog, bad digital and good digital sound, respectively.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

There seems to be a "back to analog" movement taking hold - which I welcome. 

I enjoy vinyl and still have a significant number of LPs, and have bought new 180 gram recordings over the last few years. I am not interested in the technical reasons but to me if the LP is in good shape it can sound as good, sometimes better, than a CD or streaming audio. And, I enjoy having the large format physical item, in fact I prefer the size and shape of an LP over a CD.

So, I welcome vinyl, won't be getting rid of my CDs, and will still use streaming for most of my listening.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Bkeske said:


> 95% of my listening is on vinyl, and I highly prefer it, albeit, I also have a nice collection of CD's, occasionally stream via Tidal, and also a fan of watching the Berlin Philharmonic live via The Digital Concert Hall in surround sound.
> 
> But, if I have a choice, I'll pick vinyl every time. In order to really enjoy it though, IMO, you'll have to shell out bucks for a good vinyl rig (table, arm, cartridge, and phono preamp). And after putting together a nice vinyl rig, In most all instances, I prefer vinyl on my system over digital. To me, it just sounds 'right', and more natural.
> 
> ...


Yeah, it's pretty fun to observe the reactions I get when I play my vinyl rig for people who have only heard digital.

The vast majority of people who have ever heard vinyl, from the pre CD era, or even now with the vinyl resurgence, have never heard what really good analog can sound like. All those midfi turntables in the 70's, and all the schlocky turntable available now, with their less than mediocre cartridges, do not do justice to what vinyl is capable of. There is a a lot more musical information in those grooves than most people think.

I have heard my share of mega dollar turntable, arms, cartridges and phone preamps, and an argument can be made, that the best vinyl setup will still sound better, (not measure better, sound better) in some ways, not all, than the best CD setup. But yes, getting the best vinyl sound, costs more than CD.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

DaveM said:


> Even if I believed that vinyl had some advantage over the digital files such as those available at Presto and Hyperion and assuming I was ready to shell out the money to upgrade my vinyl system where necessary, I would still face the fact that relatively little classical music is being released on vinyl these days.


Most vinyl records from the 1980s on were/are digitally sourced anyway. Buying a Hi-Res Flac file is skipping the middle man.



Simon Moon said:


> Yeah, it's pretty fun to observe the reactions I get when I play my vinyl rig for people who have only heard digital.
> 
> The vast majority of people who have ever heard vinyl, from the pre CD era, or even now with the vinyl resurgence, have never heard what really good analog can sound like. All those midfi turntables in the 70's, and all the schlocky turntable available now, with their less than mediocre cartridges, do not do justice to what vinyl is capable of. There is a a lot more musical information in those grooves than most people think.
> 
> I have heard my share of mega dollar turntable, arms, cartridges and phone preamps, and an argument can be made, that the best vinyl setup will still sound better, (not measure better, sound better) in some ways, not all, than the best CD setup. But yes, getting the best vinyl sound, costs more than CD.


I would go out on a limb and predict those with the worst experiences with vinyl listened to them on a P-Mount cartridge turntable. That's certainly the case with vinyl transfers played on the Music Choice Classical Masterpieces channel. The constant static crackle is unmistakable.


----------



## Open Book (Aug 14, 2018)

fbjim said:


> They still are. Demand for classical vinyl is far less than the supply, versus popular music, where the price of an early VG+ pop or rock album from the 70s has risen exponentially.


Glad I read this. I'm moving and downsizing and have both classical and popular albums. I was going to take the classical albums but leave the pop ones for the junk haulers to take away since I listen to pop music much less nowadays. But now I'm going to take the pop LPs to a second hand shop and see what they're worth if I don't keep them. They're not originals from the 60's and 70's though, they were purchased in the 80's.


----------



## EnescuCvartet (Dec 16, 2016)

It seems odd to read comments saying that they detest vinyl. That they laugh at people who over pay for vinyl. 

Digital formats come and go. Licensing issues. Universal format changes. Etc. Try building a cd player after an A-bomb. Or even before one. Just try building a cd player. Yet, difficult as it sounds to me, a record player could be built. They're relatively simple. All that is superfluous, I suppose.

In the 60's and 70's, Deutsch Gramaphone had better sounding records than The Rolling Stones or The Kinks. They had a patent on cutting vinyl from a metal plate. And they pressed on heavier vinyl. Today, any kid in his garage band can get a better sounding vinyl than The Beatles had, because they can get them cut and pressed better. 

That being said, I don't only listen to 180 gram vinyl. I listen to rough vinyl as well. I also listen to many formats. Even Spotify, though for that I blue tooth it to a speaker. But when I'm in my house, I always listen to classical on vinyl.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Okay, it's settled then. After the apocalypse, EVERYBODY to EnescuCvartet's house for a listening party!!!!


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

MatthewWeflen said:


> I think the "analog sound" of vinyl is distortion, pure and simple. Surface distortion, vibration distortion, tone arm distortion, whatever. It's distortion and noise. If you like that distortion and noise, more power to you. I just think it's important to distinguish between "things I like" and "greater accuracy."
> 
> 16/44 digital audio is completely and totally capable of reproducing the _exact _waveform of a vinyl album, it just eliminates that distortion and has a much lower noise floor.
> 
> This is a great video that explains the Nyquist theorem:


 There is no way I would ever go back to vinyl . Sure, I enjoyed LPs for so many years until. CDs came along , but why return to the days of. snap, crackle and pop , sides which lasted no more than 25 minutes, easy scratching , and. deterioration of sound after numerous listenings ?


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

superhorn said:


> There is no way I would ever go back to vinyl . Sure, I enjoyed LPs for so many years until. CDs came along , but why return to the days of. snap, crackle and pop , sides which lasted no more than 25 minutes, easy scratching , and. deterioration of sound after numerous listenings ?


If there's a Hi-Res download of the same album available, the vinyl version is at a minimum superfluous. I don't have to get up and flip over a playlist of Flac files.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

superhorn said:


> There is no way I would ever go back to vinyl . Sure, I enjoyed LPs for so many years until. CDs came along , but why return to the days of. snap, crackle and pop , sides which lasted no more than 25 minutes, easy scratching , and. deterioration of sound after numerous listenings ?


Almost everything you mention above is due to mediocre turntables, arms and cartridges, and poor care for the album.

A well cleaned LP, played back on a good turntable, with a high end cartridge, correctly set up (with line contact type styli, correct azimuth, correct VTA, etc), will not cause a LP to wear to the point that it will be noticeable for 100's of plays. 

While I am certainly a fan of digital formats, and the now dominate my collection, I also have plenty of vinyl, that is dead quiet. When I play vinyl at my house for people who have never heard it, or have only heard it on mid-fi turntables, they accuse me of actually playing digital, and trying to fool them.

And as I stated earlier in this thread, vinyl played back on legitimately good gear, will still create a better, more 3d image and soundstage than CD's. Although, CD's do everything else better.

Hires (24/192 and DSD) files have all the positive aspects of digital, with the better imaging and soundstage of vinyl.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Simon, I have no doubt you have a good system and LPs sound excellent on it. I myself spent _*years*_ enjoying LPs on my system, so I'm no LP skeptic. I have experienced that you that can get a nice quiet playback on a well-maintained turntable with a freshly-cleaned record.

However, I require more information from you on your statement "vinyl played back on legitimately good gear, will still create a better, more 3d image and soundstage than CDs." 

To wit:
* What constitutes 3D imaging for you? Are the instruments integrated into a coherent playback showing their natural sizes and positions, or are they separated out into distinct, non-integrated instruments, as some have been fooled into preferring by such tomfoolery as the Carver Sonic Hologram™ Generator?

* What makes the soundstage better? Wider left-and-right stereo separation? Deeper imaging, appearing BEHIND the speakers? More forward imaging, appearing IN FRONT OF the speakers? Tighter stereo separation, with the instruments clustered together between your speakers? Does the bass rattle the snares on the snare drum? Does the size of the room where the recording took place suddenly become apparent (and thus recordings made in isolation booths sound unnatural and muffled)?

Inquiring minds want to know.


----------

