Back to analog ..was it a mistake???

I put my analog system on the back burner for many years while I focused on dialing in digital and coincidentially accumulating a huge collection of music not available on vinyl. I was pretty happy and I finally put the analog system away.

The the day for Goodwill donations approached and I was looking at all of that stuff and my cherished, but not often used collection of LP's, and couldn't make up my mind. One of the items I had to give away was a Denon 61F TT that I was given by my now deceased father in law. I had never set it up - it just sat in a box NOS! After all it was just a Denon with a cheapo Shure cartridge. :-)

Well I was curious so before I gave it away I thought I'd set it up and see if it was as bad as I expected. I used an old Magus for a pre-amp and played a good LP with lots of sonic potential including dynamics and bass. The thing that amazed me was the dynamics in the bass. Very tight!!!! Whoa, that's new!!! After a while I recognized that I was also hearing far too much info from the grooves that I had never heard before. Not music but groove noise. It was unnatural and I knew I wouldn't listen much. I then put on my old cartridge from yesteryear (a Benz Glider). It sounded much better. In fact most of the surface noise went missing. I changed a few tubes and it sounded even better. Then I dragged out my old ARC Pre and tuned it with my cartridge, still using the cheapo Denon, and the sound is now quite good. In fact better than my system with my probably poorly set up old Oracle.

I enjoyed the vinyl set up greatly but not for the ultimate difference in the acoustics so much as the ability to listen to some of my favorite old recordings on occasion. So long as I don't think of how it sounds compared to my digital system I'm good. The tics pops and other extraneous noise was still there but if the music is important you can listen thru it. And if the music is not worth it because of this noise ditch the disc!

IMHO analog is a fussy system and takes a lot of time both in set up and use. You really have to enjoy the process and, I think more importantly, the music you possess to make it worth while. For someone coming new to audio I would never recommend vinyl unless it was as a means to buy a lot of music to expand their exposure to, knowledge of, and collections of music (especially classical music) on the cheap, music not available on CD's.

FWIW. Only you can make the call on whether it is worth it or not to pursue analog further.

Mapman, Your comment, to me at least, reinforces the difference that we all may have in how we define 'image' or 'soundstage'.

We have discussed this before and I think we agree, that it is possible to have great soundstaging including the impression of depth which can be given by electrostats, omni's, panels, etc, yet be really unable to maximize the aspect of specificity.

For me one of the reasons I can find CD superior to vinyl is that vinyl has a groove noise that prevents you from having a totally black background. It is, IMHO, this black background that facilitates specificity, and can enhance all other aspects of soundstage as well. But, if specificity is not (as) important to you it is easy to overlook it absence.

Now if I had a vinyl system as well considered and used with the audio system that Fsonicsmith has put together I can appreciate his findings, but I do wonder if he has exerted the same effort in maximizing the potential of a total audio system based on advanced digital playback.

It would be fun someday to hear two separate systems in the same room, one max'ed out for digital and one for analog. Then the real argument of 'superiority' could begin. :-)

mapman, First a correction - I meant Lewm, not Fsonicsmith.

I appoligize for my assumption we agreed on something that we apparently do not.

For me specificity is hearing a signal unrestricted by system resolution, either from speaker design, sustem set up, or noise originating from the source or associated hardware or software. Whether its tube hiss, groove noise, phono noise floor, what-ever. It is noise, it can be audible and it contributes to the overall sound and resolution of the information in the source software.

In a perfect world resolution would be absolute and noise would be non-existant. But it is not so this is all a matter of degrees. When I listen to vinyl what I notice is groove noise, recording noise floor from recording system equipment, as well as all of the surface noise. This noise, when extant, is probably most noticible, if at all, by a loss of sharpness in image outlines on the sonic stage. Obviously this 'sharpness' can never exceed your equipments ability or your set up to maximize it.

That is one of the major distinguishing features between cones in boxes and electrostats, panels, and omni's. The design of the latter speakers contemplates an expansion of the sound thru utilization of room surfaces and thereby enhancing the sense of sound stage (where the former speakers (boxes/cones) do not and often, unless carefully set up, can present a closed in or smaller soundstage.) This obviously comes at a sonic cost, a lack of specificity, for example the original Maggies sounded great so long as you only listened to orchestral stuff, but never a solo vocalist or a solo instrument which filled the entire stage. There have been a lot of attempts to modify these types of speakers by inclusion ribbons, electrical delays, etc, to correct or compensate for the design but nothing is IMHO as successful in gaining the greatest resolution as those cone/box speakers which are designed to produce that effect.

I hope that sharpens up for you my meaning of specificity. :-)

I did a long edit of my post but too late sadly and I'm too lazy to do it over again. :-)

But for what it is worth, consider when evaluating user definitions of soundstage, that some folks prefer nearfield (for the sake of discussion) a 6' triangle arrangement, some mid field say a 10 to 12 foot triangle, some far field 15 to 20ft triangle (a HUGE room!) and some want to hear their music as they party and walk about the room. Ask each of them what kind of 'soundfield' they prefer and why. They just might give you the same answer, but consider if the experience they describe with the reality of if the equipment and room set up is possible of delivering it. I raised this issue not so much to raise issues of speaker design so much as to illustrate that one persons perfect soundstage, height/width/depth, may not be optimum for another. That was all. I had a kneejerk response to the use of the work ALWAYS.