Your Old Vinyl Collection .....

[simon moon]

I have most of my vinyl due to most of the same reasons already mentioned.

So much of my jazz and mid 20th century classical has never been reissued.

I also have a pretty large collection of very rare (mostly Italian) prog on vinyl. Most of them sell for $500 to $2000. Hard to part with them.

CDs are demonstrably better in every regard except artwork.

Not in every way. Vinyl, through good (admittedly pricey) gear, images and reproduces the soundstage better than digital.

I have heard every format of digital through my system, and none of them have the same quality, 3d image and soundstage that vinyl does. Digital has it over vinyl in every other way.

it means somebody is still willing to put up with surface noise and rumble and scratches and pops

Almost nonexistent in my collection.

Nothing like having a good vacuum record cleaning machine to eliminate almost all of that stuff.

[rcarlberg]

Not in every way. Vinyl, through good (admittedly pricey) gear, images and reproduces the soundstage better than digital.

Define "soundstage." Explain how it can be separate from "every other measure" such as THD, DR, noise floor, etc.

I'm curious what you consider the "soundstage."

[BobM]

Soundstage is effectively the placement of instruments within the "window" that is projected by the speakers. So for example bass mostly right, singer front and center, drums a bit back behind the others and maybe sitting a little left of center, lead guitar mostly left, percussion in various locations, etc. Most importantly it also portrays the "room" where the music is being played and recorded. This "imaging" defines the soundstage, including the frequency response from deep bass to tinkly things and the "airiness" that helps define the room. It is the height, width and depth of this portrayal that most audiophiles will spend uber amounts of money on to achieve.

Yes, it's a fake out, since most modern recordings don't take place with all musicians in an open room. It's the engineers who define the "room" when mastering. But if you listen to minimally miked stereo recordings where the whole group is in fact playing in the same room (like many old jazz recordings) you will immediately hear this soundstaging on a good stereo system, as opposed to the usual very flat presentation given by a low end and even mid priced mass produced system sold by companies like Sony et al.

Vinyl does indeed portray this better than digital. The continuous waveform of vinyl seems to capture these little nuances in the music and the "air around the instruments" better than the 1's and 0's of digital. OK, high definition 24/196 digital does indeed do a better job of this than standard 16/44 CD quality recordings. Vinyl does it naturally when a recording is also made using analogue recording (tape) or HD digital. Not so much when the band is recorded digitally using base CD quality techniques.

Now add tubes to the system either in the phono stage, the preamp or the amp and things get even better. Sometimes the old technology wins hands down.

[Zeuhlmate]

Vinyl Demand:



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Music buyers prefer CDs, vinyl and cassettes over the Cloud

15% of buyers of physical formats have no intention of listening to them

In the last three months, one in six (15%) purchasers of physical music formats bought music to keep – not to listen to. Over half (53%) bought a vinyl record, 48% a CD, and 23% an audio cassette tape that they have no intention of ever listening to. This behaviour is driven by 18-24 year old music purchasers, with just over one quarter (26%) buying music to own not play.
http://www.icmresearch.com/media-cen...over-the-cloud

[mogrooves]

Mo, do you still have that 'Introducing The Beatles'?? I dread to think what an original Vee Jay copy of that is worth!

Yes, I still have it. It's authentic but not one of the rarest versions. I also have two "butcher" covers, one a "peeled", the other a "paste on." I haven't checked in years, so I don't know the current value of any of them.

[nosebone]

Soundstage is effectively the placement of instruments within the "window" that is projected by the speakers. So for example bass mostly right, singer front and center, drums a bit back behind the others and maybe sitting a little left of center, lead guitar mostly left, percussion in various locations, etc. Most importantly it also portrays the "room" where the music is being played and recorded. This "imaging" defines the soundstage, including the frequency response from deep bass to tinkly things and the "airiness" that helps define the room. It is the height, width and depth of this portrayal that most audiophiles will spend uber amounts of money on to achieve.

Yes, it's a fake out, since most modern recordings don't take place with all musicians in an open room. It's the engineers who define the "room" when mastering. But if you listen to minimally miked stereo recordings where the whole group is in fact playing in the same room (like many old jazz recordings) you will immediately hear this soundstaging on a good stereo system, as opposed to the usual very flat presentation given by a low end and even mid priced mass produced system sold by companies like Sony et al.

Vinyl does indeed portray this better than digital. The continuous waveform of vinyl seems to capture these little nuances in the music and the "air around the instruments" better than the 1's and 0's of digital. OK, high definition 24/196 digital does indeed do a better job of this than standard 16/44 CD quality recordings. Vinyl does it naturally when a recording is also made using analogue recording (tape) or HD digital. Not so much when the band is recorded digitally using base CD quality techniques.

Now add tubes to the system either in the phono stage, the preamp or the amp and things get even better. Sometimes the old technology wins hands down.

Agreed!
There is also considerable warmth that tape compression adds to the music.

[beano]

IMHO, Vinyl LP's aren't even worth the amount I paid full price retail in the 70's...I finally got someone to buy 600 LP's for $160...I can hear my kids or even grandkids cursing me out as they are told my collection isn't worth a thing when I'm long and gone..But I still love em', still play em'..

Yes, I still have it. It's authentic but not one of the rarest versions. I also have two "butcher" covers, one a "peeled", the other a "paste on." I haven't checked in years, so I don't know the current value of any of them.

[markwoll]

Agreed!
There is also considerable warmth that tape compression adds to the music.

[Shadow]

Just looked up one of mine and they had the value at 600 with a weird looking C next to it.

[Jerjo]

When I got my stereo about ten years ago I was told the soundstage (once everything got set up in the living room) would be exceptional. I was skeptical. I read somewhere that on Alison Krauss's live album, the soundstage for the vocals on "Down to the River to Pray" was extraordinary. On a good system she would be standing right in front of you. My wife has that CD. So once I got everything set up and I had popped the cherry on the speakers with "When the Levee Breaks", I put in the Krauss CD, sat back, and closed my eyes. I heard Alison take a deep breath and there she was, five feet in front of me. Damn near gave me chills.

[simon moon]

Soundstage is effectively the placement of instruments within the "window" that is projected by the speakers. So for example bass mostly right, singer front and center, drums a bit back behind the others and maybe sitting a little left of center, lead guitar mostly left, percussion in various locations, etc. Most importantly it also portrays the "room" where the music is being played and recorded. This "imaging" defines the soundstage, including the frequency response from deep bass to tinkly things and the "airiness" that helps define the room. It is the height, width and depth of this portrayal that most audiophiles will spend uber amounts of money on to achieve.

Yes, it's a fake out, since most modern recordings don't take place with all musicians in an open room. It's the engineers who define the "room" when mastering. But if you listen to minimally miked stereo recordings where the whole group is in fact playing in the same room (like many old jazz recordings) you will immediately hear this soundstaging on a good stereo system, as opposed to the usual very flat presentation given by a low end and even mid priced mass produced system sold by companies like Sony et al.

Vinyl does indeed portray this better than digital. The continuous waveform of vinyl seems to capture these little nuances in the music and the "air around the instruments" better than the 1's and 0's of digital. OK, high definition 24/196 digital does indeed do a better job of this than standard 16/44 CD quality recordings. Vinyl does it naturally when a recording is also made using analogue recording (tape) or HD digital. Not so much when the band is recorded digitally using base CD quality techniques.

Now add tubes to the system either in the phono stage, the preamp or the amp and things get even better. Sometimes the old technology wins hands down.

When I consider the better image and soundstage of vinyl (as per my original comment), it is those recordings of musicians playing together in a space that I was referring to.

Some of the Nonesuch contemporary classical chamber ensembles recoded in the 70's are a perfect example.

Like the ones in this series -


108079.jpg


It is spooky how holographic the musicians seem, and how well one can hear the space they were playing in.

Other similar type of ensembles, playing similar music, recorded digitally do not do this as well.

There is no question that digital is quieter, more dynamic, wider frequency response, etc. But this one thing vinyl does better.

[rcarlberg]

Soundstage is effectively the placement of instruments within the "window" that is projected by the speakers. So for example bass mostly right, singer front and center, drums a bit back behind the others and maybe sitting a little left of center, lead guitar mostly left, percussion in various locations, etc. Most importantly it also portrays the "room" where the music is being played and recorded. This "imaging" defines the soundstage, including the frequency response from deep bass to tinkly things and the "airiness" that helps define the room. It is the height, width and depth of this portrayal that most audiophiles will spend uber amounts of money on to achieve.

Yes, it's a fake out, since most modern recordings don't take place with all musicians in an open room. It's the engineers who define the "room" when mastering. But if you listen to minimally miked stereo recordings where the whole group is in fact playing in the same room (like many old jazz recordings) you will immediately hear this soundstaging on a good stereo system, as opposed to the usual very flat presentation given by a low end and even mid priced mass produced system sold by companies like Sony et al.

Vinyl does indeed portray this better than digital. The continuous waveform of vinyl seems to capture these little nuances in the music and the "air around the instruments" better than the 1's and 0's of digital. OK, high definition 24/196 digital does indeed do a better job of this than standard 16/44 CD quality recordings. Vinyl does it naturally when a recording is also made using analogue recording (tape) or HD digital. Not so much when the band is recorded digitally using base CD quality techniques.

Now add tubes to the system either in the phono stage, the preamp or the amp and things get even better. Sometimes the old technology wins hands down.

Well yes, this is an accurate description of "soundstage." The only part you missed is a reference to binaural recording, which is the only way to get an accurate soundstage (on time-aligned phase-coherent speakers).

However, the reference to the "continuous waveform of vinyl" versus 16/44 discrete digital is a hotly-debated but scientifically settled issue -- the ear cannot hear 44,000 discrete packets per second. If you think you can hear this, I'd advise you to stay away from motion pictures. They're only 24 frames-per-second.

"Adding tubes to a system" raises the THD exponentially, which many people say equates to a "warmer" sound but this is an even-order harmonic distortion not found in live music. I prefer my recorded music to sound like live music.

YMMV of course

[rcarlberg]

I put in the Krauss CD, sat back, and closed my eyes. I heard Alison take a deep breath and there she was, five feet in front of me. Damn near gave me chills.

Interestingly, this is indeed the image a well-recorded standard stereo recording will present playing over an accurate properly tuned speaker system.

On the other hand, the same system, playing a properly-recorded BINAURAL recording, would place Alison Krauss five feet BEHIND the speakers, with an acoustic space stretching out behind the plane of your speakers to the size of the recording studio (or concert hall) giving you, in effect, a window into the original recording. Instead of having it pop out front of the speakers and have no sense of the size & shape of the original venue.

[rcarlberg]

Vinyl Demand:

LMFAO

"Yeah, I like the sort of crackling..."

"There's more romance in a vinyl LP..."

"The artwork is bigger..."

Face it. This is a hipster "trendier-than-thou" trend. LPs went away for a while so they have a collector's cache now that CDs do not have. It's a fad, it'll pass soon enough.

I'll be the first to admit that a fresh LP on a good turntable can come very, very close to the accuracy of a CD. But then I'm not a hipster so that's as far as I'm willing to push it. I won't fall into fantasyland.

[strawberrybrick]

Thousands of records and CDs, bunch of different gear to play them on, and a man cave to play in. C'mon over. Bring some beer.

[beano]

That would probably be a Euro..But what LP do you speak of ? That's almost $800 USD..??

Just looked up one of mine and they had the value at 600 with a weird looking C next to it.

[rcarlberg]

When I consider the better image and soundstage of vinyl (as per my original comment), it is those recordings of musicians playing together in a space that I was referring to.

Some of the Nonesuch contemporary classical chamber ensembles recoded in the 70's are a perfect example.

Yup, many LPs from the '60s and '70s have marvelous soundstages. Before recording studios went to multiple up-close mics they would occasionally capture the sound of a real performance! Any of the "Living Stereo" recordings, Arthur Lyman's records, Dave Brubeck's original quartet, old Rudy Van Gelder or Manfred Eichner productions, lots of pipe organ records recorded from the rectory of the church.... These are real tests for accuracy of reproduction.

But.

These are good because of the simplicity and purity of the recording process. Not because the results were pressed on vinyl. The same recordings transferred to CD sound even better than the old LPs!

[beano]

Next time I go to The Windy City...IPA'S ? or a nice Barleywine??

Thousands of records and CDs, bunch of different gear to play them on, and a man cave to play in. C'mon over. Bring some beer.

[ronmac]

Yes, I still have it. It's authentic but not one of the rarest versions. I also have two "butcher" covers, one a "peeled", the other a "paste on." I haven't checked in years, so I don't know the current value of any of them.

The butchers are worthless these days. I'll buy them though, for nostalgia.

Seriously, though, don't ever peel that one copy. Since many have figured out how to perfectly peel them, the paste-overs are now becoming more rare.

Are they mono or stereo versions?

[Wounded Land]

LMFAO Face it. This is a hipster "trendier-than-thou" trend. LPs went away for a while so they have a collector's cache now that CDs do not have. It's a fad, it'll pass soon enough.

I'll be the first to admit that a fresh LP on a good turntable can come very, very close to the accuracy of a CD. But then I'm not a hipster so that's as far as I'm willing to push it. I won't fall into fantasyland.

Trendiness is certainly part of the vinyl revival. But it's not the whole story. To claim that it is is to insult a great number of people on this board who enjoy the format for what it is. I got really into analog playback within the past three or four years. Am I a hipster? Dude, I love music as much as you do, and I've spent a good deal of money to elevate my experience of recorded music in my home. Just because there are people out there buying terrible indie rock records cut from CD files through Crosley turntables doesn't mean that the format is inherently worthless or that people who are into it have no clue.

Plus- and I realize that you are a digital guy with strongly held opinions and someone you don't know on an online forum isn't going to change your mind- I highly doubt that you are really interested in the "accurate" reproduction of instrument sounds. If you've ever played in a band and heard what an actual drum set sounds like, you know that recorded drums don't even come close to capturing that. The lack of realistic sounds certainly hasn't stopped you from being emotionally connected to Hatfield and the North, for example. You seem like a music guy, first and foremost. I've read a lot of your posts, and I've never seen anything to suggest that you're the kind of guy who listens to crappy lounge-jazz by forgettable female singers because you are captivated by the throatiness of her voice or whatever.

In terms of tone quality, impact, dynamics, etc., I can think of both digital and analog examples that make me jump out of my chair. That being said, overall I feel like well-recorded music reproduced via LP grabs me more often than well-recorded music reproduced via CD. Why? I'm not sure. Granted, part of the appeal of vinyl are things beyond merely the way it sounds, and God knows there are plenty of times where a record really doesn't sound that good at all, but overall I feel a closer connection to my music on vinyl than other formats.

And judging the quality of a system by measuring THD doesn't make any sense to me, even by the criterion of "fidelity." It's not like we listen to live music in anechoic chambers or anything. Plus, this ignores the fact that any reproduction process introduces elements that cause it to deviate from the source in one way or another.

I suppose I just don't understand why people feel the need to belittle a format. CDs can produce great sound. LPs can produce great sound. Digital files can produce great sound. Each format has something it does well, some things less well. End of story, as far as I'm concerned.

Sorry for rambling. I really like records.

[nosebone]

LMFAO
I'll be the first to admit that a fresh LP on a good turntable can come very, very close to the accuracy of a CD. But then I'm not a hipster so that's as far as I'm willing to push it. I won't fall into fantasyland.

Fantasyland!?! You've got tin ears Mr. windbag.

[rickawakeman]

I didn't know there was a new vinyl thread, I'll jump in there too. I saw the Rick "Journey to the Centre..." vinyl in the store the other day, and there is also a "Return to the Centre..." double vinyl with Dean artwork, they looked sweet together, but at £40 for the pair I had to decline.

Roughly $30 each here in the colonies.

[Shadow]

That would probably be a Euro..But what LP do you speak of ? That's almost $800 USD..??

J.E.T. I've seen them sell for $1400. I'd venture to say it is an original pressing since most of my albums were bought in the 70's.

[Magic Mountain]

OK, high definition 24/196 digital does indeed do a better job of this than standard 16/44 CD quality recordings.

This article from another thread debunked that myth. In double blind tests, they were able to identify the 24/196 only 49.6% of the time, which means they were guessing.

http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

[rcarlberg]

Plus I highly doubt that you are really interested in the "accurate" reproduction of instrument sounds. If you've ever played in a band and heard what an actual drum set sounds like, you know that recorded drums don't even come close to capturing that.

I'd like to respond to you, because you're obviously a man of distinction, not a mouth-breathing moron.

You raise an interesting point. Lots of great music -- Hatfield & The North, Genesis, Yes, almost anything recorded in a major studio since 1966 -- lots of music I love & respect uses the recording studio as part of the process, to create music that is more than just a live recording. I'd have to say live recordings in general are less polished, less detailed, often less well-played than their studio counterparts. I love the way overdubbing and layering can create a sonic tapestry which takes many listenings to unweave.

So, I love all kinds of music, not just recordings that sound like a live band.

And you're certainly 100% right, MOST studio recordings sound NOTHING like a live band. Yes, a live drumkit, especially if you're up on stage with it, is 10x more visceral than all but a HANDFUL of recordings I've heard*. Even more to the point, saxophones and trumpets have a "bite" to them that is almost never captured on record*. Live music is more dynamic, more exciting and more physical than sitting in front of even the best stereo I've heard (which I hasten to add isn't my own). And I'm not just talking about amplified rock concerts, where mostly-deaf engineers try to bludgeon you with so many dBs that you can't hear any distinctions. No, I'm also (primarily) talking about acoustic instruments (horns, pianos, drums, vocalists) and the fact that heard live, they sound markedly more "present" and distinct than what you get in a studio recording.

Except for some "old masters" like Rudy Van Gelder, Manfred Eichner, Alfred Lion, Francis Wolff. They can come perilously-close to a "live sound."

These are the recordings I use for evaluating how accurate my sound system is. If really good live recordings sound live*, then I know my system isn't introducing a lot of coloration.

The thing is, once you've mastered "high fidelity" even the elaborate studio productions sound more live, more impactful. Little details pop out. Good or bad -- studio-added reverb will sound really artificial, especially if some instruments have it and others don't. Tape splices and flubbed notes are more obvious. By the same token though, excellent aspects are even more excellent when the stereo doesn't get in the way.

So (I'm prone to rambling too, because I feel passionate about the truckloads of dead wrong bullshit circulating as "audiophile expertise" these days) just because I'm "really interested in the 'accurate' reproduction of instrument sounds" doesn't mean I'm only interested in live recordings. Far from it.

It's just that it's the only way I know of to gauge.




* - And I'd love to discuss and share examples with anybody with an ear for accuracy -- as opposed to "warmness."