Why no turntable?

[Mike]

Yes, proper turntable setup is key. Fortunately today with products like AnalogMagik by my good friend Rick Mak, we can get perfection. Mike who works for me, is a fabulous TT setup guy. Young eyes and a steady hand sure do help.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Al M.]

The most common issue I see is more fundamental. Lousy A2D converters used in studios. This in the past 5 years has really changed with the Merging A2D converters, but most used from 1981 to about 2015 went from bad to mediocre at best. Thankfully the newer ones are very good, but now we battle compression.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not sure about AD converters in pop/rock production, but I have a good number of classical digital recordings from the 80s that are great.

For example, this one, recorded digitally in 1984/85:

https://www.amazon.com/Hindemith-Harmonie-Symphonie-Pittsburgh-Symphony/dp/B0000287PI

Superior resolution, great tone. Nothing wrong with the AD converter they used back then.

 

[Mike]

Not sure about AD converters in pop/rock production, but I have a good number of classical digital recordings from the 80s that are great.

For example, this one, recorded digitally in 1984/85:

https://www.amazon.com/Hindemith-Harmonie-Symphonie-Pittsburgh-Symphony/dp/B0000287PI

Superior resolution, great tone. Nothing wrong with the AD converter they used back then.

Admittedly, classical can be better on digital because the quiet passages lend themselves to the digital format. Except for a few incredible original Decca recordings, if I’m listening to classical, I’m all digital I think.

But for rock, jazz, etc. hmmm....it all depends. Having both is great.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Al M.]

Admittedly, classical can be better on digital because the quiet passages lend themselves to the digital format. Except for a few incredible original Decca recordings, if I’m listening to classical, I’m all digital I think.

But for rock, jazz, etc. hmmm....it all depends.

It does indeed.

Having both is great.

In principle, no disagreement. In practice, agreement only with all the caveats I mentioned.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Admittedly, classical can be better on digital because the quiet passages lend themselves to the digital format. Except for a few incredible original Decca recordings, if I’m listening to classical, I’m all digital I think.

But for rock, jazz, etc. hmmm....it all depends. Having both is great.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

my listening is about 70% classical, lot's of large orchestral, and mostly digital, so i agree to an extent.....but......classical on vinyl has a higher upside and even on the quiet passages there is more 'there' than digital. and it's not limited to one label.

when i play large scale classical on vinyl it is (mostly) a force of nature. i do think that the nature of the vinyl format makes it challenging to fully optimize it. i don't want to side-track this enjoyable thread, but recently i've found that having active isolation under my whole signal path has taken vinyl to another level of lower noise and added coherence. what i mean by that is i have active isolation under both my mono blocks, my preamp (including my phono's), and my turntable. this 'breaks' the mechanical feedback loop that has always held back vinyl and has some fundamental implications in freeing up the format to soar.

i'm not speaking about clicks and pops, i'm talking about hearing into the noise floor.

essentially don't blame the format for execution shortfalls. feedback and ground noise effects every piece of the signal path and get's back to the surface of the record unless it's eliminated. quiet passage performance is there for the finding with vinyl. and when it's a quiet passage with vinyl, there is more substance to that quiet compared to digital (if the analog source was done well enough).

i'm in no way criticizing digital classical, it is fantastic and where i live. but.....

 

[Dre_J]

I’m curious, why don’t more audiophiles at least consider a basic vinyl rig? I’ve heard the regular reasons: too much care and feeding, I sold all my records, I’m not buying anymore vinyl, it’s too much hassle. But I personally don’t find that to be the case.

Wouldn’t having a turntable in addition to a great digital setup be nice?

The great thing about a turntable is that a great turntable today will be a great turntable in 10 or 20 years from now. Wouldn’t that be a good investment?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't know why, Mike.

Yes multiple sources can be fun and nice if the owner enjoys the use of those sources.

Regarding investment: That would depend on the owner's idea of what an investment is in terms of adding a turntable. If they enjoy using the format, yes it can be a good investment.

I have two Turntables, five tonearms, 8 cartridges, and 5 phonostages. I enjoy vinyl, the process of playing a record, and setting it up properly (which can be quick and easy, very difficult, or somewhere in-between depending on ones desire for complete optimization).

Seriously, you mentioned the reasons you have heard for "why no turntable" and (Surprise! Surprise!) they are repeated in the post of most who have responded. It was inevitable that would be the response.

Those who enjoy the process of playing an LP will gravitate to the format.

Those who like playing the lower HF resolution PCM/CD will gravitate to that format as will those who prefer the higher HF resolution PCM/DSD will gravitate to that format. (Note: Lower and higher resolution was referenced to digital format choices. Vinyl playback is not, nor was not, to be included in that contrast statement)

I believe it's a matter of preference for the most part. Sometimes, when a different preference doesn't fit our narrative, we humans tend to highlight/find the flaws and what-have-you to broadcast as a reason for others to move in our direction. What works better is to live and let live, so to speak. I tell audiophiles all the time to find your audio core, get comfortable with it, and let the rest go. As multiple forum posts tend to show, this is easier said than done.

I also say I'm format agnostic. Meaning I can listen to any and all formats whether it is some form of digital, vinyl, tape, or whatever. While I won't go on and trumpet a format preference over another here, hopefully your readers will seek out and listen to the different music source choices and find the one, or ones, that speaks to them and enjoy the fruits of their decisions.

Happy music listening to one and all, regardless of how it's delivered.

Dre

 

[ack]

A great thread Mike!

Why don't more people get into vinyl?

1) So many components involved: turntable, motor, speed controller, arm, cartridge, cables, phono preamp, record cleaner

2) Very tweaky: optimal gain, optimal "cartridge loading", optimal cartridge VTF, speed stability, bearing noise, bearing type, tracking errors & alignment, skating issues, choice of belt if belt-driven, more significant motor noise issues if direct-driven, hum and other noise issues, VTA/SRA differences per LP, acoustic feedback issues, platter material, platter-to-LP interface (e.g. "mat"), record clamps and periphery rings, vacuum holddowns, platter mass & inertia, acoustic signature of all materials involved including damping materials, cartridge bodies/cantilever materials/stylus shapes/stylus materials, azimuth, MC vs MM or other, cartridge output level, unipivot arms vs gimbaled vs linear trackers, deep vs shallow record cleaning, low-numbered LPs sounding arguably better than later pressings, record thickness and weight, stylus wear, surface noise, pops and ticks, a whole bunch of very bad pressings, cables cables and more cables all with varying degrees of signal loss and noise rejection (both of which are extremely critical for this application), arm rigidity and resonances, arm geometry (e.g. length) and how many can really set up an arm correctly, underlying support platforms :bonkers: ... there really is no end

3) Cost: very expensive to get the most out of vinyl, and totally disproportionate to tape which arguably can sound even better and is in many cases the true source of truth

The positives: truly hi-resolution sound, showcases superiority of hi-res digital recordings transcribed to LP over any redbook versions on CD. In this respect, I differ widely and wildly in opinion than my friend Al M.

 

[BlueFox]

Saturday night. Time for another non-stop 5-6 hours of excellent sounding music on random shuffle.

 

[mdp632]

A great thread Mike!

Why don't more people get into vinyl?

1) So many components involved: turntable, motor, speed controller, arm, cartridge, cables, phono preamp, record cleaner

2) Very tweaky: optimal gain, optimal "cartridge loading", optimal cartridge VTF, speed stability, bearing noise, tracking errors & alignment, skating issues, choice of belt if belt-driven, more significant motor noise issues if direct-driven, hum and other noise issues, VTA/SRA differences per LP, acoustic feedback issues, platter material, platter-to-LP interface (e.g. "mat"), record clamps and periphery rings, vacuum holddowns, platter mass & inertia, acoustic signature of all materials involved including damping materials, cartridge bodies/cantilever materials/stylus shapes/stylus materials, azimuth, MC vs MM or other, cartridge output level, unipivot arms vs gimbaled vs linear trackers, deep vs shallow record cleaning, low-numbered LPs sounding arguably better than later pressings, record thickness and weight, stylus wear, surface noise, pops and ticks, a whole bunch of very bad pressings, cables cables and more cables all with varying degrees of signal loss and noise rejection (both of which are extremely critical for this application), arm rigidity and resonances, arm geometry (e.g. length) and how many can really set up an arm correctly, underlying support platforms :bonkers: ... there really is no end

3) Cost: very expensive to get the most out of vinyl, and totally disproportionate to tape which arguably can sound even better and is in many cases the true source of truth

The positives: truly hi-resolution sound, showcases superiority of hi-res digital recordings transcribed to LP over any redbook versions on CD. In this respect, I differ widely and wildly in opinion than my friend Al M.

When you say truly high resolution sound.

How does one define that ? In the analog world.

 

[ack]

When you say truly high resolution sound.

How does one define that ? In the analog world.

There is a naturalness, ease, instrumental body, expanse of soundstage, purity of timbre, presence, and dynamism that you cannot get from lower-res media - at least I have not heard it. Vinyl is a very expensive bridge between tape and digital.

I have spent years modifying my analog and especially digital, bringing the latter lately to a very high level with fascinating results from redbook, yet, when I listen to vinyl, the increase in realism is quite obvious. I get some fascinating sounds from FM, digital and vinyl - and listen to all of them for long periods of time - but there is no mistaking which one is significantly better.

 

[Bruce]

The most common issue I see is more fundamental. Lousy A2D converters used in studios. This in the past 5 years has really changed with the Merging A2D converters, but most used from 1981 to about 2015 went from bad to mediocre at best. Thankfully the newer ones are very good, but now we battle compression.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree --with the exception of Mike Moffats "Gain System" his rendering of Muddy Waters Folk Singer--still one of the benchmark Digital CD's.

I knew Mike when this was being done and have couple of "beta" discs before the domestic run--the dynamic contrasts are superb.

Track one will give your system a workout for any susceptibility to these

Bruce

 

[Al M.]

A great thread Mike!

Yes it is!

Why don't more people get into vinyl?

1) So many components involved: turntable, motor, speed controller, arm, cartridge, cables, phono preamp, record cleaner

2) Very tweaky: optimal gain, optimal "cartridge loading", optimal cartridge VTF, speed stability, bearing noise, tracking errors & alignment, skating issues, choice of belt if belt-driven, more significant motor noise issues if direct-driven, hum and other noise issues, VTA/SRA differences per LP, acoustic feedback issues, platter material, platter-to-LP interface (e.g. "mat"), record clamps and periphery rings, vacuum holddowns, platter mass & inertia, acoustic signature of all materials involved including damping materials, cartridge bodies/cantilever materials/stylus shapes/stylus materials, azimuth, MC vs MM or other, cartridge output level, unipivot arms vs gimbaled vs linear trackers, deep vs shallow record cleaning, low-numbered LPs sounding arguably better than later pressings, record thickness and weight, stylus wear, surface noise, pops and ticks, a whole bunch of very bad pressings, cables cables and more cables all with varying degrees of signal loss and noise rejection (both of which are extremely critical for this application), arm rigidity and resonances, arm geometry (e.g. length) and how many can really set up an arm correctly, underlying support platforms :bonkers: ... there really is no end

Agreed, a major reason for me not to get into vinyl. I wouldn't want to do things half way either. But your efforts audibly have paid off.

3) Cost: very expensive to get the most out of vinyl, and totally disproportionate to tape which arguably can sound even better and is in many cases the true source of truth

Agreed. Vinyl done right is expensive.

The positives: truly hi-resolution sound, showcases superiority of hi-res digital recordings transcribed to LP over any redbook versions on CD. In this respect, I differ widely and wildly in opinion than my friend Al M.

Yes, we do differ in opinion on this matter, Ack! Also after I have heard your excellent vinyl many times. Yet I look forward to hear it again, since you have improved your system even further in the meantime.

I just found another substantial improvement in my own system too. It cost me zero dollars and was done in a few minutes. It's so trivial that I cannot believe why I hadn't revisited the issue earlier.

It's slight speaker toe out by just a few degrees. I had from previous quick experiments thought that with these speakers toe out/in largely did not change tonal balance, because unlike with my previous monitors the upper treble does not change much, unless toe out is extreme. But the rest of the frequency spectrum changes to give a substantially more natural timbre with more body. Duh. Could have figured that out earlier.

I only experimented once more since I wanted to move again to my closer seating position a few inches forward and there was bothered a bit by the treble.

 

[rbbert]

...The great thing about a turntable is that a great turntable today will be a great turntable in 10 or 20 years from now. Wouldn’t that be a good investment?

What makes you think this is a true statement? Are you saying that LP playback from 20 years ago is as good as it is today (because that is the implication)? And I don't know about you, but the idea of dealing with LP playback when I am in my late '80's is not a happy one.

And if one asks this question about LP playback, why not ask the same question about reel-to-reel tape?

 

[Mike]

What makes you think this is a true statement? Are you saying that LP playback from 20 years ago is as good as it is today (because that is the implication)? And I don't know about you, but the idea of dealing with LP playback when I am in my late '80's is not a happy one.

And if one asks this question about LP playback, why not ask the same question about reel-to-reel tape?

Because Linn LP12’s from decades ago are still around and still excellent and fabulous sounding. We hear from people all the time with a table from the 90’s or 80’s and they’re needing a new cartridge. They love their Basis or whatever table and no desire to change.

As for R2R, I have two Studer 810’s and a Technics 1500 (recently sold). Still awesome sounding after all these years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BlueFox]

What makes you think this is a true statement? Are you saying that LP playback from 20 years ago is as good as it is today (because that is the implication)? And I don't know about you, but the idea of dealing with LP playback when I am in my late '80's is not a happy one.

And if one asks this question about LP playback, why not ask the same question about reel-to-reel tape?

Good points. Another thing is turntable playback is, most likely, at its peak. On the other hand, digital is just getting started. In 20 years it will only be much, much better. Maybe even approaching Sci-Fi levels. Can’t wait until I can plug into my stereo.

 

[Mike]

Good points. Another thing is turntable playback is, most likely, at its peak. On the other hand, digital is just getting started. In 20 years it will only be much, much better. Maybe even approaching Sci-Fi levels. Can’t wait until I can plug into my stereo.

Agreed. To think how far digital has come in the past 5 years alone.

I still think it’s fun to have both. That was my whole point. Like having a daily driver and a weekend sports car. [emoji6]

 

[rbbert]

Because Linn LP12’s from decades ago are still around and still excellent and fabulous sounding. We hear from people all the time with a table from the 90’s or 80’s and they’re needing a new cartridge. They love their Basis or whatever table and no desire to change.

As for R2R, I have two Studer 810’s and a Technics 1500 (recently sold). Still awesome sounding after all these years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The point about R2R is why not ask why everyone doesn’t have one in their system (in addition to asking about LP playback).

I have tape and ‘table, just no longer hooked up, and see/hear no reason to change that.

 

[Mike]

The point about R2R is why not ask why everyone doesn’t have one in their system (in addition to asking about LP playback).

I have tape and ‘table, just no longer hooked up, and see/hear no reason to change that.

Glad it works for you.

 

[rbbert]

Glad it works for you.

And apparently for at least a few others here as well. At times in the past I spent more time, thought and effort on the mechanics of music playback, but now I "worry" mostly about the music. At some point in the future, that may change again...

 

[rbbert]

...I still think it’s fun to have both. That was my whole point. Like having a daily driver and a weekend sports car. [emoji6]

This pretty much answers your own question from the thread starter :congrats: