2. analog
  3. 1169940293

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
aball
1,994 posts
 
I still say there can be a lot of overlap in quality between analog- and digital-sourced systems today. This is why this thread will go on forever, like all the other vinyl vs. CD threads with 100s of posts.

Arthur
tgrisham
1,179 posts
 
Albert,

"If you wish to argue on the basis of absolute quality, cost no object, then LP wins"

Well said. There is a cross-over point where spending less buys better music with digital, and more, better music with analog, at least for me. I can't find great quality used LPs. Occasional new ones, but even those are rare. The pops and clicks drive me crazy! I wonder about the dolby and dbx tape systems I used to have and how they might compare now. If I could go from master tape to home machine tape, would it be better, especially using today's technology? Hmmmm.....
albertporter's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
albertporter
4,927 posts
 
Well said. There is a cross-over point where spending less buys better music with digital, and more, better music with analog, at least for me.

I agree. I just don't understand why those of us that bust our ass to make analog work get hammered by the digital guys. I have owned top line CD players ever since they were introduced, I am a MUSIC guy.

I burns me up to push and work and save and make my system the VERY best it can be, no matter what it takes. I pride myself in that, the same drive that's won me tens of dozens of awards in my career of photography.

When I raced cars I held the track record. I did not get it by bullshitting, it took a lot of money and staying up the whole night before to make sure everything was 100%. Otherwise you saw the other guys tail lights.

So what's different about today? Everyone want's to have the "best" but only provided it's easy, cheap or convenient.
tvad
9,467 posts
 
If you wish to argue on the basis of absolute quality, cost no object, then LP wins. I find it interesting that those that argue against LP are always the ones that want to economize.
Absolutely. I can say without hesitation that my Yugo analog rig (Thorens TD160 MK II/Shure V15 III/Lehmann Black Cube SE) makes music equal to, or better than, most CDs in my system, disregarding the surface noise on the LPs.

I can imagine the sonic superiority of a reference vinyl playback system over a reference digital playback system (although I have yet to hear the new APL NWO 2.0 digital player).

For me, it's largely about the economics of digital versus analog, and in this regard the digital formats win.
albertporter's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
albertporter
4,927 posts
 
For me, it's largely about the economics of digital versus analog, and in this regard the digital formats win.
Absolutely, and there are thousands of titles on CD that will never be on LP.
More to discover