Explain to me the allure of vinyl. Or better yet, stop me from spending my money.

[Gmok Bonecrusha]

So I finally bit the bullet and snagged some HD800's. I have a Schiit Lyr these are running with being fed from a TiT HD. Sweet right?! I know!

So I have been saying to myself...self, have you considered TRYING vinyl?

Then I think of all the hassle and hustle it would take getting the LP's, the space requirements, turntables would need looking after. My kids would have to be sacrificed. They scratch a potential James Brown LP, and they would need to be thrown in a volcano. Plus how hard would it be finding the genre of music, and artists that I like (R&B, Funk etc)?

Plus this time around purchasing equipment, I don't want to start small, and "waste" money building to what I really want. But I don't want to start big either, and not be satisfied nor enamored.

So my question to those who do listen to vinyl here on the [H] is this...Have you gone from high end digital music, to vinyl, and found it truly worth it? Or can you say, that it isn't worth the hustle? Or that the jump is like going from HD280's to HD800's.

 

[J Macker]

holy shizz... HD800's are expensive!

You're far beyond my care level for audio.

 

[TESLA]

Some say that vinyl is better, some say the opposite. For me though, it's just... different. It's less precise, more flawed, but this adds to character for certain recordings.

If you are curious, my advice would be to try it, without going all in. Start off with a Pro-Ject Essential or Carbon or a similar turntable. And you'll need a phono preamplifier if you do not have one. I'd place a fair cost of entry at around $500, and I would not go too far beyond this.

As for the vinyl itself, it's actually growing in sales. So it shouldn't be too hard to find. Nothing quite beats an old record store for the experience though, providing you have one nearby to discover.

 

[Nenu]

If you can afford it and are prepared to keep your equipment in good shape/set up well and look after the records, why not.

I have only been satisfied with my move away from vinyl after getting an external DAC using the ES9018 Sabre 32 Reference DAC chip.
I have 2 different ones (one for 5.1, the other is a bit better just for stereo), but each of them are over £1000.

You need a decent deck and a decent moving coil cartridge, moving magnet is cheaper but is a waste of a good record deck.
The cartridge should be religiously replaced after a certain amount of use to get the best sound and prevent wearing your records out.
If you have a dusty house, a record deck might not be the best idea.

You can often upgrade the playing arm, PSU, motor etc depending on the deck you get.

 

[atarione]

vinyl is just fantastic .... think about it music is analog records start out analog and stay analog. no matter how hard people try something always seems to be lost in translation with digital formats (imho).


my turntable is a vintage hitachi PS-48 (circa 1976) in really nice shape paired with a late 80s Pioneer VSX-D1S (135WPC monster... so nice) and some DCM timeframe speakers

I am a master of finding decent deals (he said immodestly?) meh.... anways my outlay for this gear $20 for the TT $40 for the receiver and $20 for the speakers

so assuming you found something similar your love for your children would surely exceed $80 US?

I do not have kids just a cat who is a cat of the highest "good cat" order and doesn't do anything destructive to my equipment nor furniture... I don't know if you do not think you can train the kids to leave the stuff be or how to handle it with care than maybe you should hold up...???

when I was a kid we lived on a farm so I had to know how to work around dangerous stuff that could kill you (guns, tractors, trucks ... horses , cattle... you name it) from a young age..... I would hope kids today could learn how to not messed up a record? or TT?... I drove a bulldozer for the first time (actually working it moving some massive dirt pile) on the farm when i was 10years old.

my TT

 

[Sycraft]

Well it is a good idea if you want your sound to get worse, but not otherwise. Records do not compare favourably to digital. There are five big areas they fall down on:

1) Bass. Records can't handle low bass. Too much deflection of the needle. They have 20dB of equalization applied (the RIAA equalization curve) to the low end to help deal with it and allow lower frequency encoding, but they can't do the really low stuff like digital can. Digital goes straight down to DC, of course.

2) Noise. Records have a lot of noise, no way around it. A really good, direct cut fresh record might get as good as 70dB (or a little under 12-bits if you want to look at it like that). Normal ones are about 50dB. Scratched and damaged ones can be much less, even negative (meaning noise is louder than signal). CDs are 90dB or more (the 16-bit format offers 96dB, but often 3-6dB is traded off in dither to offer better dynamic range and eliminate quantization noise), SACD is 120dB, and DVD-A is 144dB. Given that even the best converters and amps have trouble delivering 120dB or more of dynamic range, the high end digital formats are way more than enough, and as a practical matter CD really is too.

3) Wow, flutter, and rumble. The imperfect mechanical nature of the device means record players introduce speed variations in playback, which are wow (at low frequencies) and flutter (at high frequencies). Also the bearings in the turntable vibrate slightly, and induce that vibration to the record which then induces it in the needle as low frequency noise. Really good turntables minimize this, but there is always some. Digital does not have this since it is a buffered digital stream, not influenced by any mechanical stages.

4) Degradation. Every time you play a record, it gets worse. The needle makes physical contact with the grooves and wears them down, there's just no getting around it. Listen to something over and over and it'll wear out, no matter how careful you are. Same with reel-to-reel tape (though it wears out slower). No such problems with digital, in particular because even if the medium were to start to wear out, you can always make another, flawless, copy.

5) THD. Good record systems don't have a ton of THD, but they have around a percent, like most speakers. Digital has only whatever THD the DAC itself introduces and that is generally 0.01% or less.

If you like the particular artifacts that records introduce, then ok, though I'd argue you could add said artifacts cheaper with digital signal processing. However it is not more accurate or a more pure sound, it is less. Digital does a better job, it allows us to capture sound in greater detail, particularly in the aspects that matter to our hearing.

 

[drowsyhaze]

I have read all of these things before and still prefer vinyl, mostly when the music was recorded non-digitally, although I love the noise and mechanical interference. I'm pretty sure Sycraft is commenting on a lot of inaudible negatives (THD, bass that may not have existed on a non-digital track, and degradation which is not too much work to avoid, running out of volume...).

 

[King Icewind]

Vinyl is straight analog, man! That's full sinusoidal sound waves, none of this square shit. Digital is like turning a light switch on and off; there's no in between. Compare it to a normal roller coaster to a roller coaster trying to go up and down stairs.

That aside though, I've never quite understood why people hate on vinyl so much. The only real way to know is to try it out for yourself. I don't tell you what food you like.

 

[Sycraft]

Vinyl is straight analog, man! That's full sinusoidal sound waves, none of this square shit. Digital is like turning a light switch on and off; there's no in between. Compare it to a normal roller coaster to a roller coaster trying to go up and down stairs.

That aside though, I've never quite understood why people hate on vinyl so much. The only real way to know is to try it out for yourself. I don't tell you what food you like.

That is not how digital works. Watch, learn, and see digital sound on real analogue test equipment.

 

[King Icewind]

It's exactly how it works. Digital sound waves are square. Analog are sine waves (full curve).

You want me to watch a 23min video of converting digital to analog?

 

[LeninGHOLA]

I like the sound of vinyl, but in no way is it more accurate than current digital methods.

 

[wonderfield]

It's exactly how it works. Digital sound waves are square. Analog are sine waves (full curve).

The data representation is that of ones and zeros, but the waveform representation isn't binary. The waveform itself (in PCM) is represented by a number of individual samples with a range of values dictated by the word length.

 

[Sycraft]

It's exactly how it works. Digital sound waves are square. Analog are sine waves (full curve).

You want me to watch a 23min video of converting digital to analog?

I do if you want to keep spouting nonsense. In that video, you can watch as, using analogue test equipment, Monty verifies that indeed you get a perfect sinewave out, even at Nyquest. If you don't want to learn and understand that's fine, but then I'd say you need to take what I say on faith since I HAVE learned this stuff.

If you don't wish to learn and keep repeating incorrect information, that is quite ignorant.

 

[shadowlord]

it depends a lot on your preferences. It could be an expensive hobby, but the all analogue sound is quite an experience IMO.
don't get scared off by some vinyl myths.
Well cared for records have surprising little noise. (can be hard to find / expensive though)
A decent moving magnet cartridge would do fine. ( they are better than their reputation)

 

[jbltecnicspro]

I say go for it. Technics linear tracker with a Grado P-Mount cartridge + tube phono stage should have you set. I love vinyl - sounds wonderful. Key advantage that vinyl has is its need for better mastering.

 

[B00nie]

180 gram records are the way to go. A good turntable / cartridge / preamp combo will cost you sweet money. If you go with a budget starter kit you may get instantly disappointed.

Due to the analog nature of the LP the hardware REALLY makes a difference in the outcome. A 50 buck CD player will produce a clean sound which is flawless on paper - but if you use advanced measuring techniques you'll find out it suffers from many sorts of problems which most technicians do not measure or don't know about. One inherent limitation is the limited digital bandwith of a CD which was thought to be enough when CDs were first designed but later on was found to cause unexpected problems (hence the introduction of SACD etc.).

There are forms of distortion that traditional measurements can't reveal. Even with amplifiers, TIM distortion was overlooked totally and for a large extent, still is (when was the last time you saw an amp reviewer report TIM figures?). Köykkä with his legendary amps brought it up to common knowledge. TIM is a result of strong negative feedback and shows how misleading it is to just to stare at pure distortion figures. The higher negative feedback the amp has, the less distortion it measures with - but at the same time TIM increases due to internal overdriving of the amp and this produces amplitude modulation to sounds which is very audible but doesn't show up at all in traditional measurements. TIM can only be measured with a test signal that consists of a combined square and sine wave.

All distortions are not necessarily detrimental to the sound, for example harmonic distortion is very pleasant for the human ear. It softens up the sound. This is part of the reason why people like tube amplifiers as they produce a lot of harmonic distortion. Recent studies have also showed that the mic feedback of the record player cartridge also plays psychoacoustically well with the sound - this explains to a part why record players generally sound more alive compared to a cd.

Of course you need to remember that some people bash vinyl because they've used a cheap 70's turntable with a bad cartridge combined to crappy stereos with box speakers - you won't be able to hear ANY spatial information through a typical "hi-fi" that people have. In most cases they have OEM 5 dollar boxes hidden on a bookshelf lol. Just no clue.

 

[cageymaru]

OP should take his headphones and make a trip to a high end audio shop. There listen to the vinyl format and compare it to the cd format. Then he can decide what sounds best to his ears.

 

[GotNoRice]

I agree with many others here that you should really try it yourself.

One thing you need to be wary of are people who go out of their way to talk up the format. Generally speaking Vinyl does take much more of an investment than Digital in order to sound good. For many, taking part in that journey to get better sound connects them to the format on an almost emotional level. That's not a bad thing at all in terms of one's enjoyment of audio, but I do find that once someone is invested to that degree, it becomes difficult for them to be objective.

My personal opinion is that Vinyl is "different" rather than "better" or "worse". I find it's particular characteristics to be quite enjoyable in many different circumstances, and definitely worth having at least as a secondary source.

 

[leezard]

My personal opinion is that Vinyl is "different" rather than "better" or "worse". I find it's particular characteristics to be quite enjoyable in many different circumstances, and definitely worth having at least as a secondary source.

This exactly, I'm not an audiophile, I don't have high end gear, I just like vinyl.

I have a media server with about 50K digital tracks on it, and a decent size vinyl collection. I listen to the vinyl more than the digital just because I enjoy the experience more, not because I think it sounds better (my ears aren't good enough to tell the difference) I'm also a collector (what i collect changes from time to time, but still a collector) so finding rare gems on vinyl is another added bonus.

 

[Nenu]

I was glad to leave vinyl finally, its annoying having to keep purchasing your favourite records when they lose fidelity, decent cartridges arent cheap either.
Sigh of relief, I can now keep my collection forever and no longer get that feeling I shouldnt play some records that are wearing out.
Digital is a damn sight more convenient too.

Get a really good DAC, make a 2 wire USB lead with OFC, get some decent interconnects or make your own silver ones heh.
Job done

 

[B00nie]

I was glad to leave vinyl finally, its annoying having to keep purchasing your favourite records when they lose fidelity, decent cartridges arent cheap either.
Sigh of relief, I can now keep my collection forever and no longer get that feeling I shouldnt play some records that are wearing out.
Digital is a damn sight more convenient too.

Get a really good DAC, make a 2 wire USB lead with OFC, get some decent interconnects or make your own silver ones heh.
Job done

I've been 100% digital ever since I left C-cassettes in my early teens and bought my first CD player. Coincidentally it was the second one of the two first CD players that arrived in my home town. The other one was bought by my uncle

I have listened to vinyl mostly in trade fairs, showrooms and at friends. The digital way is far more convenient for daily use. But there is something pious, religiously satisfying in taking the physical record, putting it to play and putting the album cover on display while listening. Playing scratchy old jazz records for a conversational background... Sip of red wine and cheese...

There's just something there that choosing a FLAC or MP3 number 20248 from your server doesn't give you.

 

[wonderfield]

I think that's really a software issue. Most people tend to use iTunes, foobar or Winamp, but they don't really make music listening a 'full' experience. You just sort of click on song titles, for the most part.

The right UI could change that completely.

 

[B00nie]

I think that's really a software issue. Most people tend to use iTunes, foobar or Winamp, but they don't really make music listening a 'full' experience. You just sort of click on song titles, for the most part.

The right UI could change that completely.

Partly yes. But it can never replace the physical presence in the room an album will give you.

But let's face it - LPs are pretty outdated. You can't even finish the first bottle of wine before the record is already finished - not to mention what happens if your LP contains only a couple of gems and the rest is trash. No easy way to skip them.

 

[Nenu]

lol, and the accidents after 2 bottles of wine.
Scrrraaaatchh.

 

[Godmachine]

Vinyl has a nostalgic sound that I think that people from the generation who had to use them are fooling themselves into thinking it is vastly superior.

I own the HD800's so I can give you somewhat matched perspective on your question. Since you have such a good setup you can actually hear the differences between digital formats and analog using those cans. The HD800's expose detail in a way that only it and far more expensive cans can do.

But it also depends on what you think you hear. We all hear differently so it's something you'll have test out for yourself. Try and audition Vinyl with your HD800's before you buy anything. If you hear a difference then it maybe it would be worth while.

Either way do not listen to Vinyl fanatics. Listen to yourself above all.

 

[Mr. Bluntman]

Great thread, OP. But I agree with the consensus that the only way to really know is to hear it for yourself. Everyone's preferences are different.

 

[Chrisroman]

For me, vinyl creates a stronger connection to a memory. Music in general does that anyway, but something about the recognizable flaws of a vinyl recording really draw me in... they become a part of the music... the way you remember it. If you grew up during that era, that may make sense, otherwise it probably just sounds like a substandard recording. And without the memory to connect to, I suppose it is.

 

[wonderfield]

Partly yes. But it can never replace the physical presence in the room an album will give you.

A display is a physical presence.

 

[MrGuvernment]

OP should take his headphones and make a trip to a high end audio shop. There listen to the vinyl format and compare it to the cd format. Then he can decide what sounds best to his ears.

Should be comparing vinyl to FLAC or WAV actually, uncompressed vs uncompressed

 

[Nenu]

Its the other way round, CD is uncompressed, FLAC is compressed.
They are both lossless for the chosen bitrate/depth.

In very high fidelity systems where the CD player accepts FLAC input directly, you can sometimes tell a very small difference between them as the processing (uncompressing) of FLAC interferes with the electronic signals/power a tiny amount.
Whereas CD doesnt need processing, it is more direct throughput.
This results in a "tiny" amount of clearer detail on a few occasions with CD playback.
I've experienced this using an Oppo 105 player/ribbon tweeter setup, although I didnt notice it until it was pointed out, but the result was repeatable.
fyi

 

[GotNoRice]

Its the other way round, CD is uncompressed, FLAC is compressed.
They are both lossless for the chosen bitrate/depth.

I think it was pretty clear which type of compression he was referring to.

In very high fidelity systems where the CD player accepts FLAC input directly, you can sometimes tell a very small difference between them as the processing (uncompressing) of FLAC interferes with the electronic signals/power a tiny amount.
Whereas CD doesnt need processing, it is more direct throughput.
This results in a "tiny" amount of clearer detail on a few occasions with CD playback.

In a "very high fidelity system" the decoding of the data (whether it is reading PCM off a plastic disc or decoding a FLAC file into PCM) is going to take place in a completely separate component to where the Digital to Analog conversion takes place. If the PCM signal being fed into your DAC has distortion caused by some upstream component, it's time to fix your setup. The PCM signal, whether it originated from a CD or from a FLAC file, should be absolutely identical by that point.

Now if you want to talk about real differences between CD and FLAC... well you can scratch a CD, but you can't scratch a FLAC file...

 

[Nenu]

I think it was pretty clear which type of compression he was referring to.

Read it again, he was calling CD compressed and FLAC uncompressed.

I'm sorry but that is one of the dumbest things I've read in quite some time. In a "very high fidelity system" the decoding of the data (whether it is reading PCM off a plastic disc or decoding a FLAC file into PCM) is going to take place in a completely separate component to where the Digital to Analog conversion takes place. If the PCM signal being fed into your DAC has distortion caused by some upstream component, it's time to fix your setup. The PCM signal, whether it originated from a CD or from a FLAC file, should be absolutely identical by that point.

Now if you want to talk about real differences between CD and FLAC... well you can scratch a CD, but you can't scratch a FLAC file...

When you dont understand the issue, make insults
If you havent tried this, havent heard a good enough system or cant tell the difference, dont slate those who have and can, I didnt make it up.

If you are of the opinion that digital playback cant be improved on apart from the DAC, thats fine, its up to you if you want to keep your head in the sand, but you really shouldnt push this on other people.
There are many more factors that can impact the sound during conversion from digital to analogue, especially if your system is high enough clarity to reveal them.
The timing of the clock is absolutely critical for the signals reconstruction.
Anything that can cause this to vary can cause a signal distortion.

There are many ways the clocks timing can be influenced, lets see how many you can name.

 

[Neutrino]

Its the other way round, CD is uncompressed, FLAC is compressed.
They are both lossless for the chosen bitrate/depth.

In very high fidelity systems where the CD player accepts FLAC input directly, you can sometimes tell a very small difference between them as the processing (uncompressing) of FLAC interferes with the electronic signals/power a tiny amount.

Do you have actual data to confirm this?

Whereas CD doesnt need processing, it is more direct throughput.
This results in a "tiny" amount of clearer detail on a few occasions with CD playback.
I've experienced this using an Oppo 105 player/ribbon tweeter setup, although I didnt notice it until it was pointed out, but the result was repeatable.
fyi

Was the equipment that read the CD and the equipment that read the FLAC file identical?

Did you try to do a proper blind test? Because if not this could be a case of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_perception

the audiophile community seems to suffer a lot from that

Think a bit about it, why could you not hear any difference before it was pointed out to you? remember human perception is hugely malleable.

PS. please do not take my post as insulting or condescending, cognitive biases affect us all

 

[GotNoRice]

If you are of the opinion that digital playback cant be improved on apart from the DAC, thats fine

That's definitely not anything I ever said. I do think it's silly however to blame a file format for flaws introduced by a particular piece of gear you used. The decoding of FLAC should not directly influence the timing of the resulting digital signal. Perhaps it could, but there are a million things that could affect the timing. I would contend that there is more potential for clock timing issues trying to read PCM off a plastic disc using a laser than there would be reading a FLAC file from a memory card or even a hard disk.

 

[Nenu]

Do you have actual data to confirm this?

Nope, audible testing performed by 2 people as we were analyzing the speakers we had just built.
We both agreed that FLAC removed a few tiny details.

Was the equipment that read the CD and the equipment that read the FLAC file identical?

Yes.
The Oppo105 BD player plays disks and accepts USB hard drives with FLAC files.

Did you try to do a proper blind test? Because if not this could be a case of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_perception

We did a basic blind test where we each played back the 2 formats to each other many times, hiding what was being played by putting fingers in our ears and turning away during change around.
We both gave the same results identifying a little extra detail in some places on the CD.

Not all CDs/tracks mind, there were a lot.
Some arent mastered well enough to contain the fine detail anyway.
I can find out if my friend remembers which we heard a difference on if you like, it was over half a year ago.

the audiophile community seems to suffer a lot from that

Think a bit about it, why could you not hear any difference before it was pointed out to you? remember human perception is hugely malleable.

PS. please do not take my post as insulting or condescending, cognitive biases affect us all

I wasnt listening as critically as my friend, they are his new speakers and he is a bit fussier too.
But once he pointed it out, we had a bit of fun verifying it.

 

[Nenu]

That's definitely not anything I ever said. I do think it's silly however to blame a file format for flaws introduced by a particular piece of gear you used. The decoding of FLAC should not directly influence the timing of the resulting digital signal. Perhaps it could, but there are a million things that could affect the timing. I would contend that there is more potential for clock timing issues trying to read PCM off a plastic disc using a laser than there would be reading a FLAC file from a memory card or even a hard disk.

I'm not blaming either format, I'm posting about an actual result.
Please stop making assumptions.
Its not the format thats the problem its a noise isolation issue within a very recent high end player.
Other players might not even reveal the extra detail it will be interesting to test.

 

[GotNoRice]

I'm not blaming either format, I'm posting about an actual result.
Please stop making assumptions.

My posts have been in response to this quote where you directly imply that there is a difference due to using FLAC:

In very high fidelity systems where the CD player accepts FLAC input directly, you can sometimes tell a very small difference between them as the processing (uncompressing) of FLAC interferes with the electronic signals/power a tiny amount.
Whereas CD doesnt need processing, it is more direct throughput.
This results in a "tiny" amount of clearer detail on a few occasions with CD playback.

Its not the format thats the problem its a noise isolation issue within a very recent high end player.
Other players might not even reveal the extra detail it will be interesting to test.

You probably could have gotten into that with a little more detail in your earlier post, that you were talking about one specific player instead of what ended up coming off as a much more broad statement and almost like a warning about FLAC.

 

[Nenu]

double post

 

[Nenu]

My posts have been in response to this quote where you directly imply that there is a difference due to using FLAC:

You said I blamed the format, I didnt.

You probably could have gotten into that with a little more detail in your earlier post, that you were talking about one specific player instead of what ended up coming off as a much more broad statement and almost like a warning about FLAC.

A discussion is so that you can request information, I cant be expected to post everything in one post for a potentially complex issue.

I didnt want to say that only one player can be used to test this, which is why I didnt tie it down to just the one player.
It wasnt a warning, all I gave was my result.
Your interpretation was the issue.

Since then I have had a look online and came across others that have heard similar.
For example comparing WAV (uncompressed) to FLAC (compressed)
ie http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f...ce-between-wav-and-flac-same-ripped-cd-11066/
A lot of people rubbish it, but some do report a difference.
This can be tested with all DACs.

 

[B00nie]

A display is a physical presence.

That's almost like saying you can just hang displays on your walls instead of real Picassos or Monets. They're physically there aren't they?

The handling of the record is in itself part of the process. Vinyl forces you to stop whatever you're doing and dedicate a bit of your time for it. After you've seen the trouble it's easyer to get to the 'sit down and listen' mind set also.