Re-discovered vinyl

scottpro1969 · Post by **scottpro1969** » Fri May 27, 2005 4:31 pm

I started this thread, and the only point I was trying to make/or say was that it brought me back in time when I took out my old vinyl lp's, and how good the vinyl actually sounded. The sound when I first put a record on, the sound of the needle hitting the record, then the slight crackle preceding the first note of a song. I could almost remember the first time I heard that song by just listening to that crackle before the song.

It brought my whole childhood back to me. And I was surprised at how good the records sounded. Now, obviously the digital age took over and made the music "sound" better.

I guarantee you that my 6 yr old son will not have an emotional feeling in the future when he does a simple search on whatever hi-tech pocket system is out there to get a song that I had when I took a big record out of it's jacket and held it by the edges up to the light to see if there were any scratches or smudges before putting it on to a big turntable.

That's not even to start to mention the art of a record cover!!! Plus, most cd's today would be double albums which would have a gatefold....more art. Moreover, the sleeve that held the record would usually have either readable lyrics or other pictures.

You get what I'm saying. I'm done ranting. I love technology. I just think that going to buy a cd and playing it (or downloading it) loses the human emotion of holding a piece of art. Call me a dork.

rictified · Post by **rictified** » Sat May 28, 2005 6:46 am

Yes, the thread did evolve a little bit as most do and junk science is science that has no basis in science like the baloney that is being pushed on the kids in some schools today about the origins of the universe and other things that are bases on beliefs rather than science. The technical differences between digital and analog recording techniques is not "junk" science it's a fact. The way it sounds to different people is subjective and is not in the realm of science at all but is a good way of explaining why one would either like it or dislike it.
Scott the things you like about it, pops, scratches etc. I dislike, haha! I just like the sound itself better.

soundmasterg · Post by **soundmasterg** » Sat May 28, 2005 2:36 pm

Bob, if you wanted to get into tube hifi at a reasonable cost, you could try to score up a Dynaco Stereo 70. More of these were made than any other tube hifi, and they can be made (with some careful mods) to sound VERY impressive. I got one that needs a restoration for $10, and I'm sure there are deals like that all around.
Someone else locally gave me an RCA Victor tube console setereo/record player unit. Its maybe 15 watts a channel and is VERY loud and sounds very nice. It also has RCA in's for a cdplayer. You could go that route too if you can find a decent unit. The console stuff never went up in price as compared to the hufu stereo units, and I think it is mainly just because of the size issue. They sound fine.

rictified · Post by **rictified** » Sat May 28, 2005 9:03 pm

Thanks Greg, I did own a few of them at one time, a few Scott's also and like the Macs a lot better, nothing has ever compared with them for me. I eventually want to get two MC275's and bridge them.

revolver · Post by **revolver** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 10:29 am

Besides the "square wave" vs. "natural wave" argument, there are further reasons as to why vinyl should sound better than current 44.1 kHz audio cd's.

All digital audio technology is based on sampling technology. The Nyquist theory states that a wave form must be sampled twice in order to get a true representation. The sampling frequency must be at least twice the highest frequency being recorded. As the average range of Human hearing is from 20 Hz to 20 kHz, a 44.1 kHz sample rate theoretically should be more than enough faithfully represent what we're recording.

This is fine, except that there is a theory that our ears / brain can perceive higher frequencies, and that while seemingly "inaudible" still add to the clarity and harmonics of the music we're listening to. We (along with our dogs)are hearing these higher frequencies on analog recordings, but CD's cannot replicate this. Ofcourse with the move towards higher sampling rates and SACD's etc. we're getting closer. But the 44.1 kHz CD really doesn't cut it.

Then there's the whole even order harmonics that tubes produce, but I'm sure we're tired of that one!