Ready to try vinyl

Hey John-whatever. You have gone well into the range of crankhood. Stop whipping out the overworked and under-defined term "scientific", and stop exploiting the piss-poor inference from "the experts used to think P but now we know that's wrong" to "the experts now think that Q so it must be wrong too." The experts can (famously) be wrong, but the fact that the experts agree on something is hardly a reason to think it's false!!! After all, it was the experts who in the end figured out the world was not flat, and it's only cranks on the margins who now disagree (loudly, and citing, e.g., when the experts agreed there was ether). Clever does not make a good argument, and zealotry does not make a "scientific" case. Making people laugh is not the same a being right (as if there were a right here).

No shock you have Psychic-organism on your side; the properties of DD and idler must be very different, but they do share unporpularilty among the experts in common. Cranks on the margins love company!

R-whatever, you miss the point as so many others, the experts of any given time were overthrown by what were perceived as cranks in their day, as is necessarily so, which were only in hindsight recognized as correct. Galileo was the crank and all those who taught the sun revolved around the earth were the experts. Darwin was the crank and all those who believed in instant Creation were the experts. If you only exercised that over-used and under-defined concept "logic" you might have seen this. As to under-defined science, I've defined it many times, it's really not very complicated, science, which is to say empirical science, rests on experiment and observation. In turntable terms, this means comparison and listening. Too complicated for you? Here's a litle primer from the days when the modern concept of science (as opposed to blowing wind) was being developed: "There is one science, he says, more perfect than others, which is needed to verify the others, the science of experiment, surpassing the certainty, however strong the reasoning, unless experiment be added to test their conclusions. Experimental science alone is able to ascertain what can be effected by nature, what by art, what by fraud. It alone teaches how to judge all the follies of the magicians, just as logic can be used to test argument." (Robert Bacon) In modern terms, take one Lenco and one high-end belt-drive and place them in the same system, plug them in, and listen and compare. Sorry, I can't make it any simpler than this. Is there a right or a wrong? Would you say that it is wrong to assert that a Galibier is better than a Project Xpression? Is there no difference in quality, no superior system? No? Then I think I'll go shovel some coal in my steam-driven 10-ton car, "combustion engine", kooky idea!

I think you guys may be running the risk of crushing the inertia of the original poster, who simply ask if he should venture into the world of vinyl.

Personally I am slow to suggest that move to anyone who is not already into LP's, its a big commitment and some feel the reward is worth the effort and others do not.

I have multiple sources including CD, SACD, FM tuner, LP and open reel tape. All have merit, but without question my favorite is LP, as it represents the best balance of reproduced music quality and availability of software.

If ABSOLUTE quality were the only issue, master tape dubs played at 15 IPS and 30 IPS on an open reel Ampex 351 is the clear winner, beating ALL turntables regardless of make or design.

That being said, I have owned most of the big names in turntables, including the Lenco, the Gerrard and the Walker. In my opinion, this discussion should center around bang for the buck / best performance.

The Lenco is a killer little table for NO MONEY. I bought mine at EBAY for about $100.00, added a Decca arm and Shure cartridge and had amazing sound for very little investment.

I did eventually sell this rig, not because it was not good, but because I was getting better results from my Walker and my open reel.

Open reel would be a great alternative if you could assemble a decent sized library of music. I will be lucky if I wind up with 300 to 500 titles before I run out of options. That being said, I enjoy my open reel, it's an important part of my high end system and serves as a reference to keep everything in perspective.

On the other hand, a young guy might have trouble finding ANY open reel tapes that appeal, unless he's into Jazz or Classical.

Great LP's are still being pressed and my Walker is better than many of the original tapes of this same music. The master dubs I have are the ultimate quality and the best LP's (45 RPM) offer about 75% of the quality of my best master tape dubs.

The Lenco may not equal this ultimate ($32K) table, or the VERY limited master dubs, but amazing quality at NO MONEY. The investment factor in a new format for a young guy is a big factor. So when we Audiogoners recommend a product to a newbee, remember to keep his investment low and safe until he can decide if this is really the way to go.

He may listen for three months, get bored with what's available and go back to strictly CD.

If it's fun and he can find software that makes him happy, shows what the format can do and connects him to the magic the world of analog can offer, we may have a convert.

Albertporter....the voice of reason! While I enjoy a good debate and have learned a great deal, thank you for bringing this thread back around to my original question. I found a MMF-7 new for 926.00 including cartridge. I decided to buy new so that I will not have to wonder if my used TT is at it's best. I think a TT at this level can give me a true sampling of what vinyl is supposed to sound like. This TT and a shiney new record should be able to tell me if I want to go forward or not. The entry level price is about double what I thought it would be. As related to my other gear purchases, double seems just about right! Thanks for the help.

Apologies to the OP, by the way. My $.02? Big diference between plug and play and tweak/diy/hunt/no dealer support. If you like the latter sort of thing, there are lots of options, but it's a big commitment and involves at least as much obsession and fiddling as listening to music. If that's your bag, go for it. Otherwise, get a Rega P3, get it set up with care by someone who knows what they are doing, and then start tapping your toes, 'cause vinyl sounds great.

Johnxxxx,

I have no doubt your Lenco sounds great. I absolutely agree that blind A/B comparison, done with care and patience, is the most probative way, though hardly foolproof, to decide what one is likely to prefer as a purchase for long term listening.

How did I miss your point? Was it just that the experts may be wrong? Duh. Did I say anything to the contrary?

Your comparison of yourself as an idler wheel crank to Galileo as a heliocentrist crank and Darwin as an evolutionist crank are absurd and ridiculously pretentious. Yeah right, idler wheel vs. direct drive vs. belt drive is a matter of revolutionary science, and you are a revolutionary scientist.

Moreover:

"empirical science, rests on experiment and observation" is not a definition (any logician could tell you that). Looking out the window to see whether it's raining or not is based on experience and it ain't empirical science.

Your Bacon quotation is pretty, and back in the day, it was important in the effort to overthrough scholastic appeal to authority as the gold standard in all matters of inquiry, but its idea of neutral collection of observational evidence was shallow, and hasn't been taken seriouly, except as a target of criticism, by theorists of science for a very long time. Obervation itself is theory laden -- that's the term of art in science studies -- so no observation is a pure foundation for theory.

The Galileo case illustrated the point perfectly. He didn't prove the Earth revolved around the sun. he showed how how one interprets various 'pure observations" will depend upon one's presuppositions, and that various bits of evidence cited by geocentrists against heliocentrism depended for their evidential force on question-begging assumptions involving the stationary character of the Earth. When it comes to "proving" the Earth does move, you need not just observations, but theory as well, and the former can never itself prove the latter. This point can be made as a matter of logic, by the way, which I dare say I understand better than you. If you knew any logic or actual theory or history of science, you wouldn't be so dogmatic in the absolute value of your "observations". And you'd realize that your own conviction that the Earth revolves around the sun isn't based on observation, but on appeal authority -- which is as it must be in most things. Knowing which authorities to trust is an essential epistemological skill, not reducible to some rule, and certainly not a matter of pure observation.

Oh, and yeah, some equipment sounds better than others. Duh. Your jumping up and down and screaming that the sky is falling doesn't make it so, however.