Quit vinyl?


I'm in the process of upgrading my system, and looking for a new amp. All modern amps have only line inputs, so I either have to keep my Rotel RQ 970 pre-pre, or find a suitable amp. Now I asked myself how often I use my turntable, and that is not much, actually: almost never. So should I quit vinyl, sell mu turntable and pre-pre, which also will provide some extra cash, or do you guys reckon I will kick myself in the head in a couple of years? Any experiences? BTW, it's not a question of sound quality, just convenience and space, and I own about 400 records....

Thanx, Satch.
satch
Satch: That's great news and i hope you enjoy the benefits of doing some simple yet necessary "investigative work" : )

As a side note, our musical tastes do change somewhat with age, but great music is great music. While some rock / pop is very simple in nature, that doesn't mean that you still can't enjoy it when you are "older & wiser" ( or is that "older & wider" ??? : )

My experience is that we build our systems in a certain "hi-fi" fashion and that fashion tends to reduce the versatility of what sounds good on it. You might find that some discs that you really enjoyed in the past simply don't sound as good to you as you used to remember. Not only has your hearing and musical tastes changed, so has your system. This is why striving for a neutral system that retains proper dynamics with good extension on both ends of the audible spectrum is important. This type of system can do justice to whatever type of music that you want to listen to equally well. A system with a lack of "prat" will never sound good on rock / pop music because that music is based strictly on "pace, rhythm and tempo". Obviously, your system still has "prat" as you're back to enjoying your "long hair" recordings of yesteryear : ) Sean
>
This is why striving for a neutral system that retains proper dynamics with good extension on both ends of the audible spectrum is important.

Bottom line.
I wouldn't dare to disagree with you guys, but sound quality ain't everyting. I will never like boybands, how lifelike they may sound, but the first time I heard Jimi Hendrix playing Angel I was blown away. An that was on some gear I don't even dare name (yes, dr. Amar. B. was involved.....). So for me the bottomline is that emotional impact is more important than sound quality. Don't get me wrong: a good sounding system (e.g. neutral) may get you closer to the music, but you'll also know why *N'Sync sucks on a highly revealing system. That said: I did some 5 records yesterday, it's raining and it's weekend, I already bought all the food I need yesterday, so guess what I'm going to do?
Satch: I think that you're equating "neutrality" with "sterility". I like "musical accuracy", which means you get to hear the details without losing the emotion or impact. As far as recordings go, naturally, i would prefer "good recordings" over "bad recordings". If it came down to it though, i would always choose a good performance over a good recording. Most "audiophile grade recordings" fall under the category of Holt's law i.e. a performance or piece of music that is recorded extremely well but something that you would never really care to listen to ever again i.e. "demonstration discs". Sean
>
I think we're agreeing here. Funny thing is I just got new loudspeakers, who have some snags (a bit brittle with my amp), but are also very revealing, allowing me to hear all kind of detail I've never heard before. And that makes me listen to music I've have listened to in a long while, just because it makes me wonder how it will sound. And that, in turn, makes me re-discover some great music (or I remember why I haven't listened to it in a long time :)). Anyway, at the moment I'm totally back playing around with music and my system. If I could just find the money for some potent mono tube-amps, like the ones I listened to when I traded speakers....