2. digital
  3. 1448398185

Tried analog yet again after decades of digital

Ok Im posting this on the digital format because Id be handed my head if on the analog side.I like many over the years decided to try analog again.Ive hauled around records for years from place to place and never really wanted to part with them,more a memory thing I guess.To the point,I purchased a VPI scout recently,mounting a benz micro cartridge to it and various phone preamps I have inside such things as receivers and integrated amps along with a stand alone phono.Bought the record cleaner machine and all the stuff necessary to use the format properly,I think.Set the table up with time and patience and dialed it in as best I could without getting anal about it.What Im finding is a format that is really inferior to digital IMO.I say this forgetting the fact I wasn't expecting much as years ago I tried the same venture with disappointment of the out come.The constant snap ,crackle pop even on unplayed records,the hassle of having to get up every 15 minute to change the side,constant cleaning,setup of the table,all the bobbles needed to make it all go.I think to even come close to digital one must spend tons of money and tons of time.Im sure there are sytems that sound incredible,but at what expense and how much time devoted to it..Dont get me wrong its fun to play music that never made it to disc but anyone thinking alone these same lines as to recapturing what was once the only game in town,think long and hard.
missioncoonery
rodge827's avatar
rodge827
468 posts
 
If digital is done properly it can sound superior to many a TT set up. The caveat is that you have to spend A LOT of $ to get there. A modest investment of $1500-$2000 can produce a TT rig that can out perform mostly all digital rigs in that price group. The downside is vinyl does require a lot more maintenance and user involvement than a dig rig. There are +'s and -'s to each and its up to the end user to decide.
chayro
1,801 posts
 
My experience with analog is very different from yours. I bought a Music Hall MMF-5 for about $700 or so and compared it side-by-side with my $10K digital rig. I realized right then that something was very wrong. But I do agree that if you don't hear what vinyl has to offer, there's no sense fooling around with it. You either hear it or you don't.
rtilden
156 posts
 
I am pretty much with Chayro. First, you need to be able to hear the difference. Second, you need to want it enough to go through the vinyl record playing regimen. For many of us who have done it for 30 years, it is second nature and takes very little time. I don't mind it a bit. Finally, I have very, very few records with ticks or pops. If you pass #1 & #2 above, I recommend looking into a different phono preamp. Many experts have noted that the correct treatment of RIAA practically eliminates that concern. My CODA phono preamp must be a good one. The few records that do pop have visible damage from some type of handling issue, if I look closely.
One concession: My CDP is an Aesthetix Romulus, and I like it a lot. My vinyl rig cost 3 times that, but it really kicks ass.
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
14,147 posts
 
I tend to disagree that expensive CD systems are the answer at least without doing a whole of things to them. If someone is not willing to put in the time money and effort with digital it will definitely sound thin, like paper mâché, bass shy, boomy, glassy, hazy, two dimensional, congealed, synthetic, electronic, metallic and generic. No two ways about it.
timrhu
2,778 posts
 
But I do agree that if you don't hear what vinyl has to offer, there's no sense fooling around with it. You either hear it or you don't.
Chayro

Another option is, either you prefer it or you don't.
More to discover