# Music best on Vinyl



## Geclef21 (Aug 5, 2010)

The best way to listen to classical music is on a vinyl rcord and a good tube amp A CD just can not match the rich and warm sound of a record If you have a good turntable and tone arm with a good cartridge you have it made A Ortofan cartridge is a good one to use for records For the price you can not bete the Dynaco St 70 

Happy listining to all 
Bill


----------



## Head_case (Feb 5, 2010)

Funny enough .... your set up of a LP player, tube amp and Ortofon (not Ortofan!) cartridge is what I listen to my music on. It was a very cheap cartridge, but the sound is better than my CD player by miles. 

What music are you listening to on your system btw. 

A friend of mine built his own hi-fi for about 1/4 the price of the equivalent. He's done it so that the mid-range vocals really shine in his set up. Really really sweet. Not as fast and punchy as a set up, so it's not so good for extremely dynamic music with bass, but he knows what he likes.


----------



## Chris (Jun 1, 2010)

I bought several hundred classical LPs from a friend and even on my fairly ordinary Pro-ject deck with moderate Goldring Elektra cartridge they sound delectable, way more satisfying than CD. I play them though a Sony AV amplifier. I'd love to own a valve amp but I can't justify the cost. I remember years ago you could buy them in kit form.


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

I was born in 1987, haven't ever really listened to a gramophone (maybe a few times in nursery school, but don't remember clearly), so I have a question - for those of you who did listen to records on gramophone - Is the sound really warmer, and maybe even more satisfying then on CDs and MP3s, or this is all maybe just audiophile bull**it and nostalgia for "good old times"?

For me personally, the ritual of putting the record on a turntable and listening to could be a pleasure in itself. However, when it comes to sound quality, I am skeptical, objectively CDs probably have a better quality then vinyls, but I am not sure.

Another question is the durability of vinyl records. How long can they last if you play them often?


----------



## 151 (Jun 14, 2010)

Whistlerguy said:


> I was born in 1987, haven't ever really listened to a gramophone


A Gramophone has a cone speaker, I haven't listened to one either but I'd like to buy one, thanks for reminding me. I suppose I could isolate the tweeter cone of a speaker, what do you think? 



Whistlerguy said:


> However, when it comes to sound quality, I am skeptical, objectively CDs probably have a better quality then vinyls, but I am not sure.


You can do the knowledge online.

Basically, CDs are 44.100Khz, 16bit stereo.

Vinyl is analog. They have a wider frequency range and are better at carrying low and high frequencies and have a full sound.

But.

Depends on your signal chain, the condition of the record, the quality of the original recording, the acoustics of your room.



Whistlerguy said:


> Another question is the durability of vinyl records. How long can they last if you play them often?


Are you going to be scratchin' n cuttin'?

If not then they should be fine. Meaning they will deteriorate over time just like you will. keep them in good nick, adjust the balance of your tonearm, be careful with cueing or moving the stylus.

If you listen to vinyl in a dead studio control room, you'll really notice the difference. The better your equipment, the more you can reveal, whereas, digital is transfixed in numbers.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I got a cheapy record player about 2 years ago. It's definitely on the low end of the spectrum, but it does the job. I just bought it so I could (obviously) listen to vinyl records, some of which come as cheap as $2 around here in op shops. I've amassed about 20-30 vinyl records, and it's good to get recordings that haven't been reissued onto CD. I prefer cd's, but I don't mind listening to vinyl once in a while, especially if it's a rarer recording that's hard to get on cd...


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

I love vinyl, but I don't know much how to get supplies for one; I think that either the cartridge or the speakers (or both) are going on my setup, and being on the threshold of college I feel like I'd just as soon wait until after before attempting to invest in a new one. I've got lots of records though, from my dad and a few gems from a used stuff store.


----------



## tahnak (Jan 19, 2009)

Geclef21 said:


> The best way to listen to classical music is on a vinyl rcord and a good tube amp A CD just can not match the rich and warm sound of a record If you have a good turntable and tone arm with a good cartridge you have it made A Ortofan cartridge is a good one to use for records For the price you can not bete the Dynaco St
> Bill


Touche. All the advancements in technology and DDD on CDs also cannot match the punch and the depth of a good vinyl being picked up by capable stylii and good amp/woofers/speakers.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

*The straight poop*



Whistlerguy said:


> I was born in 1987, haven't ever really listened to a gramophone (maybe a few times in nursery school, but don't remember clearly), so I have a question - for those of you who did listen to records on gramophone - Is the sound really warmer, and maybe even more satisfying then on CDs and MP3s, or this is all maybe just audiophile bull**it and nostalgia for "good old times"?
> 
> For me personally, the ritual of putting the record on a turntable and listening to could be a pleasure in itself. However, when it comes to sound quality, I am skeptical, objectively CDs probably have a better quality then vinyls, but I am not sure.
> 
> Another question is the durability of vinyl records. How long can they last if you play them often?


I'll respond to your questions in order:

1) The sound from the LP will be 'warmer' if the cartridge has those characteristics (a swell in the midrange, a droop in the high frequencies). Cartridges are available without those characteristics, i.e. the output is closer to 'flat'. The 'satisfying' thing is strictly subjective.

2) There is indeed pleasure to be gained from the routines of caring for and playing LPs. there is also pleasure in simply watching the tone arm traverse the LP. The emergence of music seems much closer to 'magical' than when listening to a CD, which you can't even see.

3) Assuming that the recording engineer(s) in both cases have done their job competently, the CD will have the wider frequency range, and no swells or droops throughout that range (which means that it will not be 'warm'). The CD also has greater dynamic range capability, though whether that is used depends on the music source (and whether or not the engineer wants it).

4) Played often, an LP will wear, no matter how well it and the (quality) playing equipment are maintained. It should sound decent for a long time though. If you avoid scratching, finger smudging, and other carelessness, the CD will last indefinitely; the laser beam doesn't wear the CD.

I own both LPs and CDs, and listen to both regularly. I am not 'talking through my hat'. However, LPs have collected a mystique about them since the 1980s; it's sort of like arguing religion. you may see evidence of that in this thread.


----------



## 151 (Jun 14, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> 3) Assuming that the recording engineer(s) in both cases have done their job competently, the CD will have the wider frequency range, and no swells or droops throughout that range (which means that it will not be 'warm'). The CD also has greater dynamic range capability, though whether that is used depends on the music source (and whether or not the engineer wants it).


The CD doesn't have a wider frequency range. Look it up.

As for dynamic range, have a look at this if you will.
http://www.audioholics.com/educatio...ynamic-comparison-of-lps-vs-cds-part-4-page-2

Just as the mechanics of the record player are involved with the sound, the D/A converters, sample and bitrate are usually involved in ripping from CDs. Vinyl is much nicer to efficient, lower impedance systems, you can push the levels of the analog recording with much more ease.


----------



## Head_case (Feb 5, 2010)

> Another question is the durability of vinyl records. How long can they last if you play them often?


I've taken really good care of mine - and my parents' LPs. They've had theirs from the 1970s - mine all play great.

As for CDs...there's something about their touted 'portability' which leads me to have a collection in the car which skips; mis-tracks, and eventually get replaced by another CD purchase. If I cared for them and only used them like a vinyl LP, then they probably would last as long as my vinyl LP. As it is - CDs aren't anywhere as robust as my Hi-MD mini-discs. These record at PCM-linear lossless quality. They are ripped off at the same frequency as CDs, but are only about 3 inches across and shielded. Much easier and safer to chuck around.



> 3) Assuming that the recording engineer(s) in both cases have done their job competently, the CD will have the wider frequency range, and no swells or droops throughout that range (which means that it will not be 'warm'). The CD also has greater dynamic range capability, though whether that is used depends on the music source (and whether or not the engineer wants it).


Hilltroll - on both counts, you seem to be supporting a kind of mystique and mythology for the CD format - the very myth which you decry.

As 151 states - the CD frequency is not wider: there is a deliberate cut off at both lower and upper frequencies, based on the theory that the human ear cannot pick up these extra-sensory frequencies. This is a basic principle of sound compression: in case you've forgotten - CDs are a form of sound compression and filing through the binary code system. Vinyl LPs use a different method - based on the depth of grooves on a vinyl plate. The depth which the cartridge needle traverses, gives rise to a quality and depth of bass, which you cannot get from CD.

In practice, your statement about 'greater dynamic capability' isn't borne out either: the drum n'bass; jungle music; house, beat box and hip-hop and modern dynamic pop music market select vinyl LP as their format of choice for release: the dynamics and speed of attack from a simple cartridge and needle dropped over a vinyl plate has greater dynamic capability and young people are more likely to pick up both the higher frequencies, and the dynamics. They're not going to buy some fuddy duddy format like vinyl LP just because 'it's trendy'. They listen to their questionable music tastes because of the sonic advantages of vinyl. Vinyl is far from 'trendy' - its peculiar sonic qualities have led to its survival despite all the multiple format shifts, from 2 tracks; 8 tracks, cassette, digital cassette; even mini-disc and countless audio formats.



> A Gramophone has a cone speaker, I haven't listened to one either but I'd like to buy one, thanks for reminding me. I suppose I could isolate the tweeter cone of a speaker, what do you think?


I've heard 78s and Shellacs and a traditional wind up gramaphone. Personally, I thought the sound quality was dire, however that is probably due to the 'in-box' design of the gramphone with no phono cartridge and poor amp/cabling/speaker combination. Not sure they would be as successful for classical music: the 78s are just too short for time...


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

*Yeah, baby*

 As I predicted to the OP, the shouting has begun.

Have at it folks; I have told it like it is, and and am retiring from the field of battle. The OP can research the facts on the internet, they are there amidst the 'enthusiasm'.


----------



## classidaho (May 5, 2009)

I have a great collection of CD's and vinyl. As displayed by my avatar, I'm really into analog equipment and sound.

That being said, I really enjoy both media for different reasons and realize, bottom line, it depends on your equipment and the individual reproductions.

I have fairly good quality equipment (Technics SL-1300 turntable, Pioneer PL-518 TT, Elac Miracord 46 TT and Magnavox CDB500 [Phillips Swing Arm] CD player) all fairly vintage.

The CD Player has a great dual digital to analog converter and I have looked at the output of my ADC and Shure supplied analogs on my oscilloscope and compared that with my Magnavox analog output and I can't be critical of either.

I enjoy shopping more for vinyl and love the mechanics of the turntables, but, bottom line 'good recordings, bad recordings' for both media. Even tho vinyl is my first love, if I had to pick one and use it only it would have to be the Magnavox, because I'm lazy and the sound is still wonderful to me.


----------



## graaf (Dec 12, 2009)

This reminds me of the MP3 vs CD debate. As someone said, it borders with religion.

When determining whether a person can distinguish between CD and MP3, he/she is gives CDs A and B - one having original piece of music (song, symphony, piano sonata, whatever), other having MP3 version of that piece of music, and CD named X which is copy of one of those two (A or B). All a person has to do is to determine whether X is copy of A or of B. It does not matter whether A or B is actually MP3, nor which one is original CD - since person is not required to know (and for a reason so) how to recognize MP3 per se; if he/she can see any difference in those two discs (and therefore can tell if X is copy of A or B) - that's good enough.

Guess how many audiophiles accept the challenge!

By simply guessing (or flipping a coin), person should be able to pass the test about half of the time. Therefore, it is required to do at least 10 "check-ups" and if person can pass 9 of them, there is 99% of confidence that it wasn't all just guessing (8 out of 10 gives you 95% confidence, and anything below that is scientifically unacceptable).

Of course, it is important to have good MP3 encoder, good listening equipment, and a lot of different music (castanets can be tricky) in order to do a valid experiment. In turns out that with good MP3 encoder, you don't need maximum bitrates (320kbps) in order to get MP3 indistinguishable from original (most tests with today's best encoders are done at bitrates as low as 128kbps - not saying that 128 is always good enough). The only problem for MP3 encoding is music either made on computer, or heavy altered by a computer. AAC, Ogg and other formats deal better with that issue.

Anyway, similar tests can be done to compare analog vs digital, but even CD vs MP3 is too much for most. 

So, the bottom line is - see if you can notice the difference yourself and leave people with their religion/nostalgia or any other kind of emotional attachment to audio equipment of choice. I know I am satisfied with my MP3s and I also avoid speaking about it in RL with people who gave thousands of euros for their beloved altar of audio equipment.


----------



## jurianbai (Nov 23, 2008)

I never have LP, but have passed the cassette tape era. still have a lot of them. their ribbon is useless over the time...... but not sure about the sound quality.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

I don't have a single LP, never bought one in my life. I'm CDs all the way.


----------



## 151 (Jun 14, 2010)

graaf said:


> Guess how many audiophiles accept the challenge!


I can tell, with vivid accuracy, the difference between 128kbps, 190kbps, 256kbps, 320kbps.

I've done the test before.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

*music in the car*



jurianbai said:


> I never have LP, but have passed the cassette tape era. still have a lot of them. their ribbon is useless over the time...... but not sure about the sound quality.


Yeah, I still have a lot of cassettes. Some of them still play, some of them don't, so get discarded. Back in the day the cassette tape was _the_ way to get canned music into the car. I transferred a lot of LPs to tape for that purpose. The cassette was way more reliable than the 8-Track configuration it replaced.

Aside from not having bands you could drop the stylus onto, the cassette's problem was (high frequency) hiss. Dolby B fixed that well enough. Top-of-the-line tapes and recorder/players could capture anything the LP could give.

Being an old coot (I'm 'junior' only inside my head) you'd think I would remember those as the Good Old Days. Well, not the cassette tape aspect of them.


----------



## graaf (Dec 12, 2009)

151 said:


> I can tell, with vivid accuracy, the difference between 128kbps, 190kbps, 256kbps, 320kbps.
> 
> I've done the test before.


Was it actually ABX test? Any possibility of placebo absolutely excluded?

If so (only if), with all due respect, do the test again, with latest LAME encoder. Obviously, the bad encoder was used.

PS
There wass even a saying about it, goes something like: "see a difference? - change encoder"... or similar.


----------



## ozradio (Oct 23, 2008)

I wouldn't argue that vinyl is better or worse but you inspired me top pick some up this evening. Hindemith's Mathis Der Maler (Ormandy/Philadelphia Orch), Vivaldi Concertos, and Gould playing Bach's English Suites. Four platters for $3 and a couple full evening of fresh music.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

ozradio said:


> I wouldn't argue that vinyl is better or worse but you inspired me top pick some up this evening. Hindemith's Mathis Der Maler (Ormandy/Philadelphia Orch), Vivaldi Concertos, and Gould playing Bach's English Suites. Four platters for $3 and a couple full evening of fresh music.


Nice find. A lot of young folks have discovered the economics of this approach. Just clean the discs first, please. (Or don't tell me that you didn't - that works too.)


----------



## ozradio (Oct 23, 2008)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Just clean the discs first, please.


Always. I use a solution mixed by a local vinyl specialty store. I buy classical mainly on cd but will experiment more with unknown material with records because they're so inexpensive.


----------



## classidaho (May 5, 2009)

The nice thing about classical on vinyl; either they are mostly unused or a different caliber of the species uses them because they are usually 'near mint'.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

*pitfalls of the system*



classidaho said:


> The nice thing about classical on vinyl; either they are mostly unused or a different caliber of the species uses them because they are usually 'near mint'.


This is true. The record condition rating system is visual, and classical LPs usually look good. Unfortunately, it only takes one 'dusty play' (the dust is usually heavier in the outer grooves) to permanently add surface noise. Subsequent cleaning cannot _repair_ the disc, though its appearance may be 'near mint'.


----------



## Head_case (Feb 5, 2010)

> This is true. The record condition rating system is visual, and classical LPs usually look good. Unfortunately, it only takes one 'dusty play' (the dust is usually heavier in the outer grooves) to permanently add surface noise. Subsequent cleaning cannot repair the disc, though its appearance may be 'near mint'.


Wow. You really take care of your records.

I'm never that fastidious with my vinyl LPs and I live with a cat. No problems either. Just first class sound.

Cleaning and brushing is more likely to cause problems. I'd love a vacuum pump machine cleaner. Maybe one day ...


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

*vacuum*



Head_case said:


> Wow. You really take care of your records.
> 
> I'm never that fastidious with my vinyl LPs and I live with a cat. No problems either. Just first class sound.
> 
> Cleaning and brushing is more likely to cause problems. I'd love a vacuum pump machine cleaner. Maybe one day ...


Differences of opinion civilly expressed provide one of the 'spices of life'. Anyway, check out the KAB EV1 vacuum device at www.kabusa.com. You won't have to take out a loan to own one. I've had mine for several years, and swear by it (not at it).


----------

