Hello everyone,
I listen to vinyls on pretty average setup (Pioneer and technics TT+Pioneer amp). and love the 'sound' of it. I read that in earlier times vinyl cutting process attenuated 'VERY' low frequencies (if there were any in the music) so as it doesn't get mixed with rumble noise of turntable and rumble noise doesn't get amplified. Also bass frequencies were made mono so as stylus movement is not too much and tracks easily. So Just asking out of curiosity ....
1) Do modern high end turntables have extreme low rumble noise specifications, So as very low frequencies can easily be reproduced without amplifying the rumble noise?
2) Suppose a music piece on outer most groove of the vinyl takes up 'X' amount of length on vinyl the same music on inner most grooves near record label will take less space but will require same movement of stylus, will both music sample sound same ?
3) Is it true that High frequencies are increased to suppress surface noise ?
4) Do stylus tip resonance and tonearm resonance get amplified even in high end systems ? How do they dampen it ?
5) If very low frequencies are still made mono so as stylus easily tracks the groove should we call it accurate sound reproduction ?
6) If all recording equipments are now digital wouldn't it make better sense to listen to digital medium rather than listening to vinyls which were cut using digital source ?
7) How accurate is frequency response of high end TT systems considering above points ?
Thanks in advance and best regards
I listen to vinyls on pretty average setup (Pioneer and technics TT+Pioneer amp). and love the 'sound' of it. I read that in earlier times vinyl cutting process attenuated 'VERY' low frequencies (if there were any in the music) so as it doesn't get mixed with rumble noise of turntable and rumble noise doesn't get amplified. Also bass frequencies were made mono so as stylus movement is not too much and tracks easily. So Just asking out of curiosity ....
1) Do modern high end turntables have extreme low rumble noise specifications, So as very low frequencies can easily be reproduced without amplifying the rumble noise?
2) Suppose a music piece on outer most groove of the vinyl takes up 'X' amount of length on vinyl the same music on inner most grooves near record label will take less space but will require same movement of stylus, will both music sample sound same ?
3) Is it true that High frequencies are increased to suppress surface noise ?
4) Do stylus tip resonance and tonearm resonance get amplified even in high end systems ? How do they dampen it ?
5) If very low frequencies are still made mono so as stylus easily tracks the groove should we call it accurate sound reproduction ?
6) If all recording equipments are now digital wouldn't it make better sense to listen to digital medium rather than listening to vinyls which were cut using digital source ?
7) How accurate is frequency response of high end TT systems considering above points ?
Thanks in advance and best regards
I can not answer all your questions, but here are a few thoughts:
1) LPs also have their own rumble, caused by disc warp and imperfect surface. This might be higher than TT rumble.
2) This is called inner groove distortion
3) True, refer to RIAA equalization curve
4) Stylus tip resonance is internally damped within the cartridge. Tonearm resonance (better said stylus compliance and tonearm + cartridge mass resonance) is not damped. It is tuned below the lowest audible frequency, around 10 to 15 Hz.
5) Natural low frequencies are mono, being pressure waves
6) Very true. But listening to vinyl is cool... Listening to AAA vinyl is the way to go.
7) It is as accurate as the frequency response of the cartridge. But frequency response is not the only parameter that determines listening pleasure...
1) LPs also have their own rumble, caused by disc warp and imperfect surface. This might be higher than TT rumble.
2) This is called inner groove distortion
3) True, refer to RIAA equalization curve
4) Stylus tip resonance is internally damped within the cartridge. Tonearm resonance (better said stylus compliance and tonearm + cartridge mass resonance) is not damped. It is tuned below the lowest audible frequency, around 10 to 15 Hz.
5) Natural low frequencies are mono, being pressure waves
6) Very true. But listening to vinyl is cool... Listening to AAA vinyl is the way to go.
7) It is as accurate as the frequency response of the cartridge. But frequency response is not the only parameter that determines listening pleasure...
My opinions... I expect everyone has their own:
yes and no - there's nothing audible below 16Hz. and you can't reproduce it even if there was... forget about it in practical terms, a non issue.
Length is equal to frequency. What changes is the velocity of the record under the stylus - it's just the rotation of a disc, faster on the perimeter than toward the center. So the length changes with the speed under the stylus. Yes, this is a problem in cutting a record. It does change the way things may sound on the record, but nothing to think too hard about.
Yes. See RIAA curve. (there are other curves as well...)
Sure if it is "in band" for the preamplifier. Usually these resonances are "out of band" for listening. Not always. The HF resonance can fall inside the listening range for some (imo not so great) cartridges. However the LF resonance can be an issue, so there is some art to matching the arm, the arm mass, the arm resonance to the cartridges' compliance. But generally speaking not a big issue unless you run really good subwoofers down very low... how to fix? Depends on exactly the nature of the specific case.
Vinyl can not be considered to be "accurate" because of the way it is made, and the considerations of cutting a master. However, the localization of LF depends mostly on higher frequency components, so "it works".
...sure, definitely so - in theory. But in practice most digital systems so far lack a certain "natural quality" that can be heard in vinyl (in many cases). Why this is has been discussed and debated, even here on DiyAudio.
Frequency response is just one parameter, one measure of performance. Perhaps the least meaningful one (within some degree of variation).
Btw, the frequency response of a vinyl recording potentially goes higher than the Redbook CD physically can...
Hope this helps some...
_-_-bear
EDIT: just saw oshifis post - #5) LFs are seen as "omni directional" in propagation, this is different than being "mono". For example it is easy to identify a sub woofer placed off to the side and behind you...
yes and no - there's nothing audible below 16Hz. and you can't reproduce it even if there was... forget about it in practical terms, a non issue.
Length is equal to frequency. What changes is the velocity of the record under the stylus - it's just the rotation of a disc, faster on the perimeter than toward the center. So the length changes with the speed under the stylus. Yes, this is a problem in cutting a record. It does change the way things may sound on the record, but nothing to think too hard about.
Yes. See RIAA curve. (there are other curves as well...)
Sure if it is "in band" for the preamplifier. Usually these resonances are "out of band" for listening. Not always. The HF resonance can fall inside the listening range for some (imo not so great) cartridges. However the LF resonance can be an issue, so there is some art to matching the arm, the arm mass, the arm resonance to the cartridges' compliance. But generally speaking not a big issue unless you run really good subwoofers down very low... how to fix? Depends on exactly the nature of the specific case.
Vinyl can not be considered to be "accurate" because of the way it is made, and the considerations of cutting a master. However, the localization of LF depends mostly on higher frequency components, so "it works".
...sure, definitely so - in theory. But in practice most digital systems so far lack a certain "natural quality" that can be heard in vinyl (in many cases). Why this is has been discussed and debated, even here on DiyAudio.
Frequency response is just one parameter, one measure of performance. Perhaps the least meaningful one (within some degree of variation).
Btw, the frequency response of a vinyl recording potentially goes higher than the Redbook CD physically can...
Thanks in advance and best regards
Hope this helps some...
_-_-bear
EDIT: just saw oshifis post - #5) LFs are seen as "omni directional" in propagation, this is different than being "mono". For example it is easy to identify a sub woofer placed off to the side and behind you...
Last edited:
turntables...
My answers to your Qs;
[1] Rumble , although not necessarily heard can be produced, and uses up a lot of "headroom". A rumble filter usually attenuates from about 15Hz on down. Most tables have a resonant frequency well below that. Most arm/cart combinations have a resonant frequency in the 7-12 Hz range.
[2] Not really. The linear speed of the groove doesn't remain constant as far as I know, although the angular speed remains constant.
[3] Not sure if the high frequencies are increased to reduce noise or overcome surface noise, but it would seem to me to be a contrary statement, although I can't say that I know this for a fact.
[4] Arm/cartridge resonance and compatibility is a significant issue. Every arm/cartridge system resonates. Lots of easy to find calculations , pick your arm/cart resonant do the math and hopefully no higher than 12Hz. Some arms use silicon fluid dampening, some use internal dampening. Cartridge dampening comes from the cartridge suspension and the cartridge body. Removal of the cartridge body can help (do a search for for "nude" or "re-body" Denon 103 or similar).
[5] It is a belief that the human ear cannot localize very low frequencies. I disagree. Try a little experiment. Get 2 matching subwoofers, and hook them up to a system. Using one for each side. Connect only one channel to each sub. Listen. Now do the same with 1 sub hooked up to both channels. Listen. You decide.
[6] There are some "direct to digital" analog recordings that can be very good. If digital recordings are made with care, they can sound very good, however I do find a certain "un-naturalness" to many "digital" recordings. I have a cd player, and an iPod. It doesn't mean I like them better, I may not be able to get the recordings I want on vinyl.
[7] Accuracy depends on input vs. output. In this regard modern tables (and even some "geriatric" turntables are excellent. The quality of the RIAA filter used during recording and the inverse filter during playback are perhaps one of the most misunderstood points about vinyl reproduction. The lack of resonances or ones that you can hear has already been stated. Do not overlook the actual quality of the cartridge as well. Line contact stylus types tend to get "more" of the information than elliptical and conical types.
[/LIST]
Hope I haven't over-stated my points. There are fine examples of each recording medium, whether analog or digital. Unfortunately there are terrible examples of each as well.
As this question is a "newbie" question, I'll make a few more comments:
Hope it helps. And to anyone else reading this: This is not intended to become an argument, only my personal observations and comments, nothing more...
My answers to your Qs;
[1] Rumble , although not necessarily heard can be produced, and uses up a lot of "headroom". A rumble filter usually attenuates from about 15Hz on down. Most tables have a resonant frequency well below that. Most arm/cart combinations have a resonant frequency in the 7-12 Hz range.
[2] Not really. The linear speed of the groove doesn't remain constant as far as I know, although the angular speed remains constant.
[3] Not sure if the high frequencies are increased to reduce noise or overcome surface noise, but it would seem to me to be a contrary statement, although I can't say that I know this for a fact.
[4] Arm/cartridge resonance and compatibility is a significant issue. Every arm/cartridge system resonates. Lots of easy to find calculations , pick your arm/cart resonant do the math and hopefully no higher than 12Hz. Some arms use silicon fluid dampening, some use internal dampening. Cartridge dampening comes from the cartridge suspension and the cartridge body. Removal of the cartridge body can help (do a search for for "nude" or "re-body" Denon 103 or similar).
[5] It is a belief that the human ear cannot localize very low frequencies. I disagree. Try a little experiment. Get 2 matching subwoofers, and hook them up to a system. Using one for each side. Connect only one channel to each sub. Listen. Now do the same with 1 sub hooked up to both channels. Listen. You decide.
[6] There are some "direct to digital" analog recordings that can be very good. If digital recordings are made with care, they can sound very good, however I do find a certain "un-naturalness" to many "digital" recordings. I have a cd player, and an iPod. It doesn't mean I like them better, I may not be able to get the recordings I want on vinyl.
[7] Accuracy depends on input vs. output. In this regard modern tables (and even some "geriatric" turntables are excellent. The quality of the RIAA filter used during recording and the inverse filter during playback are perhaps one of the most misunderstood points about vinyl reproduction. The lack of resonances or ones that you can hear has already been stated. Do not overlook the actual quality of the cartridge as well. Line contact stylus types tend to get "more" of the information than elliptical and conical types.
[/LIST]
Hope I haven't over-stated my points. There are fine examples of each recording medium, whether analog or digital. Unfortunately there are terrible examples of each as well.
As this question is a "newbie" question, I'll make a few more comments:
- bass from a properly tuned and playing turntable seems more natural than any digital that I have listened to
- digital is catching up, but only the mst expensive digital rigs get close to a vinyl system
- the sense of "space" and "atmosphere" (call it "soundstaging") is superior on a vinyl rig
- Pace, Rythm, Attach and Timing (the original context of "PRAT") is superior
Hope it helps. And to anyone else reading this: This is not intended to become an argument, only my personal observations and comments, nothing more...
Recording practices were affected by the fact that department stores would give the money back if the records "were defective". I have some 1955? mono Colombia recordings of E.Power Biggs on organ that have quite commanding bass. My favorite organ performance is a 1962 recording, "Bach Organ Favorites" that has fairly subdued bass. I believe Colombia mixed it with suppressed bass to eliminate returns. Real pipe organs will jiggle your belly on 32' bass. I bought in 1970 an AR turntable with a 1961 ADC cartridge that I immediately put a new stylus in. At that time Atco and ABC records were producing enthusiastically "Hot" (loud) 45 rpm records that the ADC would not track at 1.5 g. For example, "I wonder where she is tonight" by Tommy Boyce & Bobbie Hart. A new Grado FTE cartridge tracked it fine, making the woofers in my LWEIII speakers jump an inch and a quarter on that song. But the owners of "fine wood consoles" with ceramic cartridges that sold well to the upper middle class, always had the option of taking the record back. So probably, easy listening and classical records that sold to that market would have subdued bass. By 1980 at the end of the LP era, nearly everybody had pretty good cartridges, and records were mostly in discount stores that didn't take opened records back for refund. So my ZZ Top "Eliminator" and "Afterburner' LP's have really realistic loud bass drum (synth?) on their tracks. I use these albums as turntable and CD testers, since I have both LP and CD. So far, other than dust pops and snaps, the LP wins.
My BIC turntable with Shure M97 Era IV cartridtge, is set between the speakers, so if I turn the amp up "too loud" I do get an oscillation lower than the lowest organ pedal, which I think is 20 hz. It sounds like a rattle and you feel it more than hear it.My disco mixer has a bass cut that will stop it, but also stop audible bass some.
The BIC is the best I have ever owned, much better than the AR turntable. I was given a gerrard turntable by a friend but never used it because they always had audible rumble. After about 1980 most people had bass response good enough that most turntable manufacturers killed the rumble as good business.
My BIC turntable with Shure M97 Era IV cartridtge, is set between the speakers, so if I turn the amp up "too loud" I do get an oscillation lower than the lowest organ pedal, which I think is 20 hz. It sounds like a rattle and you feel it more than hear it.My disco mixer has a bass cut that will stop it, but also stop audible bass some.
The BIC is the best I have ever owned, much better than the AR turntable. I was given a gerrard turntable by a friend but never used it because they always had audible rumble. After about 1980 most people had bass response good enough that most turntable manufacturers killed the rumble as good business.
Last edited:
The "digital" medium of CD playback is really mixed. Only the amplitude is digitized. Frequency is dependent on the clock. Maybe if it was all digitized...
Since digital IS better, why deny it? Why not listen to pure digital? Don't bother converting back to analog, just to please the imperfect human ear.
I'm too imperfect to care about digital's perfection. I listen to an all tube analog system and am pleased by its imperfections.
To me, hearing nuances and real sounding instruments means more than perfection, so I'm a lost cause.
Listen for yourself with an open mind. Make your own choice based on your own ears. Who knows, that pure digital might really light your fire?
Since digital IS better, why deny it? Why not listen to pure digital? Don't bother converting back to analog, just to please the imperfect human ear.
I'm too imperfect to care about digital's perfection. I listen to an all tube analog system and am pleased by its imperfections.
To me, hearing nuances and real sounding instruments means more than perfection, so I'm a lost cause.
Listen for yourself with an open mind. Make your own choice based on your own ears. Who knows, that pure digital might really light your fire?
Thanks a lot oshifis, bear, Nanook, indianajo, sepolansky.
"the localization of LF depends mostly on higher frequency components" @bear, can you please elaborate a little more ?
Interesting to know that human ear cannot localize very low frequencies. So very low fq. in 'stereo' is not necessary. right ?
ZZ Top are one of my favorite. Few more recommendation of vinyls to test capabilities of a vinyl setup would be of great help.
Regards
"the localization of LF depends mostly on higher frequency components" @bear, can you please elaborate a little more ?
Interesting to know that human ear cannot localize very low frequencies. So very low fq. in 'stereo' is not necessary. right ?
ZZ Top are one of my favorite
. Few more recommendation of vinyls to test capabilities of a vinyl setup would be of great help. Regards
ZZ Top Afterburner is useful for testing bass response, as a bad setup will rattle. To hear some 32' (down to 20 hz) organ pedal on LP, try Peerless EXP21 stereo JS Bach organ works, Volume 1 artist Lionel Rogg at GrossMunster Zurich. Great miking. He also records CD's these days, see Mr. Rogg's website. This recording may also be available in the eastern hemisphere on a european label, it was recorded by Technical Service of Radio Zurich."the localization of LF depends mostly on higher frequency components" @bear, can you please elaborate a little more ?
Interesting to know that human ear cannot localize very low frequencies. So very low fq. in 'stereo' is not necessary. right ?
ZZ Top are one of my favorite
For mid-range and treble, distortions are more important. I find piano difficult to do correctly, and have only finally been pleased after forty years in hifi with my current setup of Peavey amp, SP2 speakers, & heavily modified disco mixer. You can hear a Steinway grand piano at any western college auditorium and many churches. Don't know how different a Bechstein grand is, never heard one live. On record the best miked and executed LP of a Steinway grand I have is RCA LSP-2482, Peter Nero, "Young and Warm and Wonderful", the Secret Love track with the solo top octave recorded pretty loudly. Not everybody's favorite type of music, but a great technical recording. A pretty good recording with very loud piano hits is Colombia LP MS6481 Three Favorite Sonatas #14,#8, #23. artist Rudolf Serkin. (Beethoven is author). Also available as Colombia CD MYK 37219. The mikes are not as modern as above. High piano tends to make systems produce intermodulation distortion, a buzzing sound. Also on piano mid-range, on these LP's I can hear the 1% harmonic distortion of my ST70 tube amp as a honkiness of the middle piano notes.
For extreme cutting velocities, pick up any Led Zeppelin 45 rpm from Atco of the seventies, or maybe any other Atco 45(they had a lot of black artists, too). Atco used the highest groove velocities of anybody I have found in the late sixties and early seventies, the beginning of the "loudness wars". My 1961 ADC cartridge refused to play these 45's.
Last edited:
What would be 'all digitized'? That clock that bothers you is really quite good, even on 'poor' quality digital.
G²
digital issues...
my personal take on digital is not that it cannot be good, but the original Red Book standard was settled upon too early, and the standard was set too low. Why couldn't 24 bit/ 192 kHz been used as "the standard". The digital format is an engineered one, so as long as hardware could be produced, the software could follow. And DACs can be as simple as an R2 ladder, so really only depends on Resistors, which have been very cheap for a very long time.
Of corse, more modern materials and better techniques have evolved, but why were the standards so limited at the beginning? Costs? probably, and just like the MP3 arguments, "most people won't notice the difference".
my personal take on digital is not that it cannot be good, but the original Red Book standard was settled upon too early, and the standard was set too low. Why couldn't 24 bit/ 192 kHz been used as "the standard". The digital format is an engineered one, so as long as hardware could be produced, the software could follow. And DACs can be as simple as an R2 ladder, so really only depends on Resistors, which have been very cheap for a very long time.
Of corse, more modern materials and better techniques have evolved, but why were the standards so limited at the beginning? Costs? probably, and just like the MP3 arguments, "most people won't notice the difference".
I'm a newb myself, but I feel I can chime in on [6]
I listen to a lot of indie rock, so naturally I have modern records to compare to modern digital recordings. On my currently modest mid-fi setup, I prefer a record for the reasons others have noted. Even if they happen to be colorations, the things records add seem to make music sound more 'musical' (or natural, if you prefer).
Nowadays it doesn't take anything to oversample recordings. A $100 ADC will give you 24bi/192khzt per microphone, which is more digital data than can be put on CD. Also, in the vinyl pressing studio they have the possibility of using a really kickass DAC, so the analog signal on the record may be substantially better than most.
Thats really just speculation on my end, and I can tell you it isn't always the case that records are made to sound their best. Some records are put out to make a buck off collectors and easily sound worse, flatter, and less airy than their CD counterparts. Records that sound better are a terrific little find, though. New or old.
I listen to a lot of indie rock, so naturally I have modern records to compare to modern digital recordings. On my currently modest mid-fi setup, I prefer a record for the reasons others have noted. Even if they happen to be colorations, the things records add seem to make music sound more 'musical' (or natural, if you prefer).
Nowadays it doesn't take anything to oversample recordings. A $100 ADC will give you 24bi/192khzt per microphone, which is more digital data than can be put on CD. Also, in the vinyl pressing studio they have the possibility of using a really kickass DAC, so the analog signal on the record may be substantially better than most.
Thats really just speculation on my end, and I can tell you it isn't always the case that records are made to sound their best. Some records are put out to make a buck off collectors and easily sound worse, flatter, and less airy than their CD counterparts. Records that sound better are a terrific little find, though. New or old.
I find no reason vinyl pressing studios using ordinary DAC. This is a good point, thanks superapplekid.
Regards
Thanks a lot oshifis, bear, Nanook, indianajo, sepolansky.
"the localization of LF depends mostly on higher frequency components" @bear, can you please elaborate a little more ?
Interesting to know that human ear cannot localize very low frequencies. So very low fq. in 'stereo' is not necessary. right ?
ZZ Top are one of my favorite
Regards
There are people who misunderstand this bit regarding LF, mostly WRT subwoofers.
Subwoofers radiate omindirectionally. Some people have misconstrued this to mean that this LF energy can not be "localized", so therefore subwoofer placement is irrelevant (for imaging) and two subs (for stereo) are not required.
However, it is true that most information coming from a subwoofer is simply sinusoidal waves that are fundamentals of higher frequency signals. So, the ultimate localization cues are the higher frequencies.
Even so, what I said is that it is easy enough to determine where a subwoofer is placed in a room, even though most of the localization information is coming from higher frequencies and therefore higher frequency drivers.
The example I used - exaggerated for clarity (although not an impossibility at all) is the placement of a subwoofer behind the listening position. You can tell it is behind you.
An easy example of how LF instrument's sound is played back through high frequency drivers is a bass drum. The fundamental can be very low, but the "hit" is mostly high frequency components which will in fact come out of the tweeter.
So I did NOT say that the ear can not localize LF energy. In a stereo system, for the most part the placement and the use of two subs can be important, imo.
_-_-bear
Go look up what parts were available in 1981 when CDs were being developed. Engineering is building something you want from parts you can get. The DACs back then could barely do 16 bits and you want 24. The RAM chips in the descrambler were expensive too. 2K bytes now is nothing but then it was a bigger deal. 44 K samples was 'up there' then. Don't be so hard on them. As it was, the first players were $900 in 1983 dollars and you wanted them to be more expensive since '"most people won't notice the difference". That $900 converts to $2050 today. Would you buy it?
It's possible to make excellent recordings to red book but there is little room for errors so it's important to know what you're doing. 24 bits at 192 K should be wonderful but in reality it's only a marginal improvement over 16 bit 44K
As far as LPs go, you're welcome to them but I jumped for joy in 1983 when I played my first CD and haven't looked back. The only discs I still have are the direct to disc recordings. The other 300 went to the Goodwill. Good riddance.
G²
Stratus, comments and Redbook standards...
Stratus,
I was only stating that the standard was set too low, based almost solely on Nyquist Sampling Theorem. I can appreciate what cd players cost in 1982, a friend had spent huge $$$ on a Toshiba (or similar, it looked like a cassette deck).
And who cares what it costed in today's money. There have always been people willing to spend money. That was not the point being made. The Redbook standard was pretty much set by 1976 or 1977. It was "introduced" in 1980. Basically Sony and Phillips sat on their butts for 3 years waiting for the market to "mature".
The discussion here is whether or not a high end table is good or not. This is not the same as turntable vs. cd. That discussion/argument has been had here (and pretty much almost every audio forum/magazine that I know of) ad nauseam.
Stratus,
I was only stating that the standard was set too low, based almost solely on Nyquist Sampling Theorem. I can appreciate what cd players cost in 1982, a friend had spent huge $$$ on a Toshiba (or similar, it looked like a cassette deck).
And who cares what it costed in today's money. There have always been people willing to spend money. That was not the point being made. The Redbook standard was pretty much set by 1976 or 1977. It was "introduced" in 1980. Basically Sony and Phillips sat on their butts for 3 years waiting for the market to "mature".
The discussion here is whether or not a high end table is good or not. This is not the same as turntable vs. cd. That discussion/argument has been had here (and pretty much almost every audio forum/magazine that I know of) ad nauseam.
I always laugh when I here people say that. Turns out, most had crappy cheap noisy turntables, so of course CD's sounded better.
jeff
Mr. Willing...
Jeff, can this be possibly true?
All:
I personally have never known anyone who had a good table instantly "convert" to cd instantaneously. They may have added cd capabilities, but few I know gave up on LP records.
The reality is that there is a ton of good music that will never make it onto cd or any other digital medium. And for new artists the digital format may be the only format record companies will ever put out (unless said record companies are dedicated to vinyl, such as MoFo, Chesky, Opus3, etc). For those of us who choose vinyl reproduction for our listening pleasure.
Again the question: High end turntables and sound reproduction - few questions
'nuff said
Jeff, can this be possibly true?
All:
I personally have never known anyone who had a good table instantly "convert" to cd instantaneously. They may have added cd capabilities, but few I know gave up on LP records.
The reality is that there is a ton of good music that will never make it onto cd or any other digital medium. And for new artists the digital format may be the only format record companies will ever put out (unless said record companies are dedicated to vinyl, such as MoFo, Chesky, Opus3, etc). For those of us who choose vinyl reproduction for our listening pleasure.
Again the question: High end turntables and sound reproduction - few questions
'nuff said
Well I didn't have a crappy turntable and a Shure V16 V needed to offer no apology. Who could put up with all the crap involved with LPs? And after all your best efforts there's still surface noise, crackles mistracking and God knows what. No way in hell you can ever convince yourself it's 'real' or 'you're there'.
So yeah. Good riddance. Picture tubes too.
G²
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.