Vinyl Reason

For sound quality, and the $1-per-record used classical records. It's a great way to augment my CD collection. The record player more than pay for itself in that regard. It takes a cetain connoisseur to be able to certain and play records in this day and age. That is a fun aspect as well.

Oh, and Zaikesman I believe I qualify for your statement as have spent more on vinyl in the past 8 weeks than my whole front end is worth. But then again, I have a $200 record player! I sorely need something better! So do I spend my 'Forced Savings Program(R)' (read: tax refund) on a Teres turntable or do I just buy more records, CDs, and a build a computer instead?

Zaikesman,
I only have 200 or so records. Many of these are also on CD. Hi-Rez or not,I made up my own mind about what I prefer.
Vinly is a superior format to my ears.

I have about 1500 LPs which by any calculation makes them worth more than my TT/arm/cartridge. Some of the LPs date back to the mid 70's when I first started buying music, but I probably spent $500 at CES on Audiophile approved recordings too.

I listen to my TT because I like the music selection, but even more because it sounds better than my Sony SCD 777es. Digital is fine, but it's shortcomings are more and greater than that of analog.

Zaikesman, do you really think audiophiles are soo dumb that they jump on any bandwagon to come along regardless of whether or not it has anything to offer?

Aroc, therein lies the conundrum. Balance is the issue. A better playback system will preserve the quality of your collection, but you can buy a pig of a lot of LPs for the cost of a decent TT.

Thanks Nrchy.

"Zaikesman, do you really think audiophiles are soo dumb that they jump on any bandwagon to come along regardless of whether or not it has anything to offer?"

Well, I'm not going to generalize about all audiophiles, and I wouldn't necessarily describe it as being "dumb" (it's any audiophile's money to entertain themselves with as they please), but essentially, yes - depending on what you mean by "anything to offer".

Vinyl offers tweaky retro fun, a cool and exclusively 'clubby' image, another chance to buy aesthetically interesting gear, and maybe a trip back to your youth. I think all those factors, plus incentive from cheerleading audio columnists, the financial imperatives of the high end industry, and the plain old bandwagon effect of what one's peers are doing, have contributed more to the vinyl renaissance than supposed sonic superiority.

But even if I did perceive it as being mostly about sound, I'd still view the trend just as skeptically, because A) digital sound is not the universally inferior monstrosity it's made out to be, and B) because I'm a bad audiophile - I have a disparaging view of a hobby that I see as being more valuing of gear and sound than of appreciating music as art. And the vinyl renaissance exemplifies this to me: Whereas my own interest in records has little to do with sound or gear and everything to do with access to music, that's not what I commonly see with audiophiles who (re)discover vinyl. I think it's a gear-driven phenomenon, couched within a near-mythological pretext of better sound.

I'm just answering the question posed at the top. I've said why I've always been into vinyl, and conversely why I think a lot of audiophiles are into vinyl now. Those with large and interesting record collections know who they are - and have no reason to take offense from my rant - and those who've merely duplicated their audiophile-approved CD holdings on vinyl know who they are. Among the former, most aren't audiophiles, but some of us are. Among the latter, all are audiophiles, and although some of them will also be true music lovers, their dabbling in vinyl won't primarily be about that.