Why vinyl?


I understand the thoughts of a lot of you that digital is harsh and bright and has an edge. I know that analog has a warmer fuller sound, otherwise why would so many people put up with the inconvenience of records, cartridges, cleaners, tone-arm adjustments, etc. I used to be there. Of course all I had was a Garrard direct drive turntable. If the idea is to get as close as possible to the original source, why has not open-reel tape made a huge comeback. After all that's how most of the stuff was recorded in the first place. Very few were direct to disk recordings. Why would dragging a stylus through a groove be better than the original? There used to be a company out there called In-Synch that used the original masters and sold cassettes of them, dubbed at 1:1 ratio. I was the happiest person in the world when CD's came out and I could throw out my disk-washer and everything else that went with it, including the surface noise and the TICKS and POPS. Just something I've wondered about.
elmuncy
For a long time, I wouldn't buy a TT or records. Everytime I heard a demonstration of why vinyl was better, it wasn't, but it was different in most cases from CD's. I based my audio experiences on CD's and concluded that clean, low background noise and ease of operation was paramount.

I was at Andy Payor's home last year and heard vinyl for the first time and it was totally different than digital. It reproduced the room with air and space while the dynamics of the cd and the imaging of the instruments were the stock and trade of great CD.

I have both, but regularly consider selling my CD player. I probably never will, but I think about it a lot.

Vinyl is better. It is more detailed, more open, has more depth and is more lifelike. BUT. AND I MEAN BUT... I have never heard any other TT other than a Rockport Serius that I would have bought considering the pain in the ass getting into vinyl is. I have tolerated a phono stage making static noises for six months while being told it's something else. Returned it four times for repair and await its return. Have to clean 5000 records, sort, inspect and listen to crap. Building shelving to hold tens of thousands of pounds of records is expensive and so is the steel I beams to hold them up.

However, when I heard the real deal I was compelled to own and listen to records. I hope that more will have the opportunity to experience the full depth and emotion of great audio with a great turntable.

Bill E.
Just a couple of additional thoughts. When CD came out it was "the death of vinyl". Well not so fast. There has been a rebirth of interest in vinyl and I think it was initially fueled by the abysmal sound quality of alot of the early CD releases. Now there are more and better choices when it comes to TT set-ups. I can even think of several Turntable manufacturers that started up (and are still doing well) after CD came out. Why now? Well someone thinks its still a viable (and marketable) format.

Also another Neil Young analogy. He once likened digital sound to floresent lighting, you may not be conscious of the fact it is constantly turning itself on and off but it can irritate you none the less.

I listen to CD and LP on modest equipment. CD is getting better and if I could afford it I would explore the best digital. But if I had the coin it might end up going towards a top notch analog set-up.
I read an article about 5-6 years ago where sony built the best, 24-96 digital recorder they could, and they took it to oceanway studios. In short, the analog tape still won out. There are more posters here that would know more about that than I would.
There are meny ways to view the differences/superiority of cd's and records, but for sound, the record will always beat the cd provided the playing field is equal.
The first reason is there is a LOT more information that can be stored on a typical lp than a 16-bit cd.
The second is that the technology and cost involed for accurate reproduction of a cd is more complicated and costlier than a record.
For 100$ or 200$ it is probably hard to find an anolog rig that would sound better to most people than a cd player of that amount. But I could easily put together a record player for 400$ that would outclass a 400$ to 1000$ cd player. There are many record playing systems out there that cost 2500$ that no 16-bit player could touch in terms of sound quality at any price, that sounds so obviously better that it is not a matter of opinion.
The reason cd's get a reputation for sounding harsh the way you desribe is because when things go wrong in a cd player, or rather, things in the design are a limitation to sound quality, that is the first thing to happen with the sound quality. Vinal is the opposite. But you can easily have a record player that sounds harsh and nasty and metallic. For me, it is usually a struggle to get my cd player to sound as clean and detailed as my analog.
Consider this- a speaker is a magnet, with a coil, and produces sound by means of a varying electrical input. A microphone is a diaphram that has a magnet, a coil, and produses an electrical output. A tape head produces a signal through a coil onto magnetic tape. Do you see it? All processed the same way.
A cartridge is like a microphone but replaces a diaphram getting soundwaves from the air with a needle that gets signal from a hard surface. So it is pretty easy to understand that a record playing system can ultimately be so capable of a high level of fidelity.
There is a lot more that has to happen in a digital playback system to produce a signal to listen to. And that signal, which started from a magnet/coil has to end with a magnet/coil.
Sure, there are a lot of things/alterations that can, and do happen to the signal that make sound quality suffer in a record player, but a lot of these same things also apply in degragading the sound quality in a cd player. They just have a different effect on the sound quality. The same rules of preserving the integrity of the signal still applies.
If you don't believe me, (extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof), try spending some money on analog the way you spend it on digital. It's quite honestly hard to say how much, because the more you have spent on a cd player, the less of a percentage of that you would have to spend on a record playing system, But you could go to your local dealer, and say, "my digital system cost me 'x' amount of dollers, and if that analog system for the same amount sounds better than my cd, I'll buy it, and eat my shoe".
If it doesn't, e-mail me and I'll give you 10 bucks.
Thomasheisig, You realise, of course, that film playback is "digital" at 32 frames a second!? Be carefull in your analogies.
Salut, Bob P.