Is analog & vinyl anoying? Is it worht it.


Yeah it may be better than digital. But come on. 3K+ for a cartridge. Cleaning machines. Preamps. VTA adjustments. noisy records. expensive software. By the time you get it all set up you are ready to just turn on the tv and watch Sportscenter. Is there any alternative?
gregadd
Audiofeil, those old cars are great if you only need to go in a straight line!
Oh yeah,

I love looking for cheap albums and do enjoy playing them and they way they sound. There are times when I just want to listen, last week I was surfing the net and cleaning around the house and after 2 LP's I got frustrated and put CD'S on so I could be away from the sweetspot for more then 20 minutes, still love to have the option on vinyl and all the positives that go with it.
This is a more interesting thread because it focuses on whether the extra cost and labor required for a performance vinyl system is worth the result, rather than whether analog or digital sounds better.

For me and my wife, we want and use both. Frankly, with my system and Ayre C-5xe universal 2-channel player, to get vinyl that anyone could tell sounded clearly better than SACD/CD/DVD-A required an analog rig that cost 5 times the cost of the C-5xe. This is a testament to how much better digital has become in the last 20 years.

However, even the uninitiated who never heard high-end audio before, are quick to say that the vinyl sounds "richer," "fuller," "more alive" and "right here in the room with us."

For parties and when I'm lazy or when I'm reading or working at home, we play digital. When we want to just listen to music, I play vinyl.

The most annoying thing about vinyl to me now is the frequently poor quality of new vinyl, despite the fact that you pay $30 or more for it.

Also, IMO, the 'Gon and 'Goners are the best thing to happen to high end audio in years, and I again thank all those who have helped me buid my new system over the past 18 months. Your advice and encouragement have been essential.

Ed
...when everything lines up perfectly, [vinyl] still rules as a format, but i would never recommend it to anyone but the insane.
Jaybo (System | Threads | Answers)
Ha! I love it! The Truth, plainly spoken!
04-09-07: Viridian
...For me, the reason that LP replay is essential is not the sound quality, but that so much of our rich recorded history is simply not available on any other format, and probably won't be.

Very true. In addition to that, there are a couple of other reasons to have an LP playback system:

1. I have never heard a CD reissue of an analog-era LP that comes close to the musical satisfaction derived from the original LP, and I bought a lot of CD reissues before I gave up & bought a TT. CD reissues of analog-era LPs sound bleached, threadbare, and shrill compared to the originals. LPs are a good match for people who like music from the late '50s thru the late '80s.

2. In classical music, there are some great performances in the analog era that were never reissued on CD, and later digitally recorded renditions are simply not as artistically satisfying. A couple examples are my wife's favorite, "Elijah" on Angel records with Dietrich Fischer-Diskau in the title role (1968), and my favorite, Bach's Brandenburg concertos by Collegium Areum on original instruments on RCA Victrola (1965). We both have later all-digital state-of-the-art recordings of both of these works, but we don't like the interpretations and performances nearly as much as the earlier ones.

For me, enjoyment of LP playback means watching for the slippery slope. Since analog is by definition infinitely tweakable, I have to set my boundaries on the point of diminishing returns. As long as my humble rig handily outperforms any of my CD players, I'm happy. Over time, I do intend to get a wall-mount shelf, some isolation footers, and a better mat, but in the meantime, I'm very happy.