Can you imagine a world without vinyl?


Can you imagine a world without vinyl?
I have been into vinyl for 49 years - since the age of 8 & cannot imagine a world without vinyl.
I started out buying 45's & graduated to 33's (what is now considered LP's).
I have seen 8 tracks come & go, still have a kazillion cassettes, reel to reel & digital cassettes - have both the best redbook player & SACD players available, but must listen to my "LP's" at least 2 hours a day.
I play CD's about 6 hours a day as background music while I'm working, but must get off my butt every now & then & "just listen to real music".
I admit to being a vinyl junkie - wih 7 turntables, 11 cartridges & 8 arms along with 35K albums & 15K 45's.
For all you guys who ask - Is vinyl worth it - the answer is yes!
Just play any CD, cassette, or digital tape with the same version on vinyl & see/hear for yourself.
May take more time & energy (care) to play, but worth it's weight in gold.
Like Mikey says "Try it, you'll like it!"
I love it!
128x128paladin
Dear friends: I already posted my answer to the thread and some thoughts about.

The thread goes to the " never end " CD vs analog debate about which is better. Thinking on this subject I think that there are some different " areas " where we can analyse which medium is better, example: if we take which medium is more accurate ( I mean which one reproduce with the less deviation what was recording. ) perhaps we could say that the CD is better within its own frequency range, let " see " it:
in the analog sound reproduction the signal " suffer " two heavy degradation first the recording equalization ( RIAA ) and second the inverse equalization in the phonolinepreamp, the bigger problem here is that the inverse equalization that must be a mimic from the original ( the one that was in the recording ) is not really a true mimic: exist deviations where we lost the original recording frequency response, this inaccuracy is one of the imperfection subject in the analog medium.
Other subject is the cartridge frequency response where exist big deviations from the original recording due to the frequency deviations on the cartridge response: the best cartridges have, no better than, +,- 1db 20 to 20Khz in ideal play conditions ( not in our analog rigs ), this goes against the accuracy in the signal reproduction.
Then we have other subjects that preclude accuracy on the analog sound reproduction: record warps, rumble, woow and flutter, step-up transformers, necessity of high gain phonolinepreamps with out noise/distortions, the necessity to make a perfect cartridge set-up: VTA/VTFAS/AZ and the perfect tonearm match, the " sound/noises " that are not on the recording and that the cartridge generate when the stylus touch and " play " in the vynil, the LP suffer a degradation each time we play it, etc, etc.

What happen in the CD/digital medium: well there exist too two process where the signal " suffer " some degradation ( in lesser range than the analog one because is very dificult to " loose " bits with today digital technology ), analog to digital and then digital to analog , of course that the signal has some " problems " between all the process in the digital domain ( like hitter/clocking/etc ) but at the end of the " day " the final signal that we are hearing is more accurate to the original signal than in the analog medium.
Through the digital medium the signal " suffer " less degradation than in an analog medium, inclusive the digital medium does not need a phonolinepreamp because it could be connected directly to the amplifiers: the digital medium is more " clean " than the analog one.

From this point of view IMHO the digital medium is a lot better than the analog one.

Why then many of us preffer the analog over digital? ( other that we own a lot of LP's ), with all the analog imperfections and inaccuracies it has, at least, one advantage: frequency response wider range than the digital one, specially in the high frequency range. Here it is the digital Aquiles heel and here is almost the great differences in what we heard through analog against digital.
The digital promoters choose 16 bits for this medium and this resolution bits along with the 22.05kHz on the frequency response ( where the digital medium has to use filters to cut the high frequency response ) against 50kHz in the analog medium and this fact makes the difference. That's why we hear the silver records agressive, metalic, cold, with out " soul ", etc, etc.

Unfortunatelly the 24/192 digital technology almost disappear because no body ( other that a very small group of people that cares about music and cares about quality sound reproduction: like us. ) cares about quality sound reproduction, but this 24/192 digital technology ( specially the DVDA ) has nothing to envy to the analog one and in some areas surpass with easy the analog medium.
Yes, I think that this technology is superior to the analog one not only like technology it self but in the quality sound reproduction.

With all the inaccuracies that the analog medium has we like it more than the Redbook ( is a lot better in sound reproduction quality. ), as a fact we like the analog beautiful " colorations " and this is all about.

Till we don't have a true commercial 24/192 digital technology the analog one will be the better one in quality sound reproduction and I think that the analog stay here for ever or at least till we own LP's.

What we need is to " push " to the analog manufacturers devices to make a better design efforts to give us a better audio devices performers.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.
Raul:

until we don't have a true commercial 24/192 digital technology the analog one will be the better one in quality sound reproduction and I think that the analog stay here for ever or at least till we own LP's.

What we need is to " push " to the analog manufacturers devices to make a better design efforts to give us a better audio devices performers.

I agree, AND we must push the digital people to make available a digital format that exceeds anything analog offers.

I don't know how many times I've responded here at Audiogon with comments that digital could beat analog with technology available today. Problem is, downloading is a billion dollar business and LP and SACD together do not match it as a money maker.

We high end lovers are a limited market, and the big guys in the music business follow the money.

Analog is right here, right now and it works. Needle in groove has had 130 years to evolve, CD has had just over 20 years.

The best digital is still off in the future somewhere. No doubt there are some here at Audiogon that will live to see fabulous quality digital come to pass. However, I want the best sounding music tomorrow night when my group visits and I there are no big changes coming by then.
Actually Albert,
...Needle in groove has had 130 years to evolve, CD has had just over 20 years
Analogue, being what it is (well, "analogous")lends itself to engineering improvement. The dominant digital format is utlimately limited by its s/ware. Ain't much you can do about that even given the time

BTW, Raul, 24/192 is still perceptible. But it's neither annoying nor in yr face -- or any in any way grossly obtrusive. However, digital can do even better than that, apparently: I was present at a 1st gen master tape (analogue) copying into digital at a studio. The result, dig. copy vs "master" was exquisite. Rpo soundcards used of course, don't know the bit rates.