Does anyone still use or like vinyl?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Bryn #238, I think this is another case of that particular pressing run being rubbish, rather than the LP per se. I have Ormandy and the Philadelphia playing the Concerto for Orchestra on a CBS LP SBRG 72282; the vinyl is standard black with a blue label, not in the least floppy and sounds fine. It is dated 1965, whereas I suspect yours dates from the early/mid 1970s, when the manufacturers were skimping on vinyl.

I think Bryn is referring to a different recording - from the end of (N)Ormandy's career when he moved to RCA and re-recorded much of his repertoire. I had his RCA Rachmaninov Second Symphony from that era, and it, too, had the "wobble board" quality as you got it out out of the sleeve.

[umslopogaas]

Thanks fhg, I did wonder about that. Looks like I am lucky I bought the earlier one!

[Nick Armstrong]

Rather interesting article in the New York Times today

Fans of black grooves might also be interested in this site: http://www.analogplanet.com

[pastoralguy]

Rather interesting article in the New York Times today

Fans of black grooves might also be interested in this site: http://www.analogplanet.com

Thank you for the links. I do think that if the producers can afford to spend $5k for an obsolete screw then they must be making money hand over fist!

[VodkaDilc]

Rather interesting article in the New York Times today

Fans of black grooves might also be interested in this site: http://www.analogplanet.com

One more recommendation for Analogue Planet (even if I have to meddle with the spelling). I get an email each month with their latest topics - always informative but whimsical.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I do think that if the producers can afford to spend $5k for an obsolete screw then they must be making money hand over fist!

No - I mustn't, I MUSTN'T!!!!

[teamsaint]

No - I mustn't, I MUSTN'T!!!!

$5K for a screw?
Thats really bonkers

[Nick Armstrong]

No - I mustn't, I MUSTN'T!!!!

You needn't, you needn't (we're all posting it mentally)

[richardfinegold]

I think Bryn is referring to a different recording - from the end of (N)Ormandy's career when he moved to RCA and re-recorded much of his repertoire. I had his RCA Rachmaninov Second Symphony from that era, and it, too, had the "wobble board" quality as you got it out out of the sleeve.

The 1970s RCA lps were particularly atrocious in quality. I recently bought a big Ormandy reissued by Sony that features many of those recordings (Sony now owns RCA) and am delighted at how good they sound. The few that I tried to buy at the time were untrackable.

[richardfinegold]

One more recommendation for Analogue Planet (even if I have to meddle with the spelling). I get an email each month with their latest topics - always informative but whimsical.

So Mikey Fremer, who produces Analog Planet, is American, which means we can use the American spelling, right?
Fremer is also notorious for championing insanely priced gear, both analog and digital. He paid $200K for his own turntable and brags about mortgaging his house in order to buy it. His usual schtick is to proclaim something a "bargain" invoking the following logic:

Turntable A costs $50,000 and sounds wonderful. Turntable B costs 'only' $25,000 but sounds 90% as good as Turntable A, therefore making tt B a 'bargain'.

[pastoralguy]

So Mikey Fremer, who produces Analog Planet, is American, which means we can use the American spelling, right?
Fremer is also notorious for championing insanely priced gear, both analog and digital. He paid $200K for his own turntable and brags about mortgaging his house in order to buy it. His usual schtick is to proclaim something a "bargain" invoking the following logic:

Turntable A costs $50,000 and sounds wonderful. Turntable B costs 'only' $25,000 but sounds 90% as good as Turntable A, therefore making tt B a 'bargain'.

Presumably, the screws are better quality...

[umslopogaas]

#250 richardfinegold. I have a similar dialogue with my local hifi dealer, who is a man who knows his stuff and from whom I have bought many good items over the years. He thinks my "next step" (there always is one) is to upgrade my record deck and arm. I reply that the deck goes around at thirty three and a third rpm and doesnt rumble, and the arm is a SME 3009, which was the bees' knees at the time, it still tracks every LP without a trace of distortion, so why should I buy anything else?

Well of course, because he needs to sell kit to make a living and hates SME like poison because they laid down a standard thirty years ago and it still holds. But though I have spent significant money with him on other things like an AV amplifier, I am not, repeat not, going to buy a more expensive turntable. He maintains that the current turntables he stocks "sound better" than my Thorens/SME, and perhaps they do, but I dont think my ears (which are somewhat damaged after 66 years) will be able to detect the improvement.

I'll spend any spare cash on discs, not equipment to play them on.

[jayne lee wilson]

"If a thing is wonderful on Monday, it's still wonderful on Wednesday - even if something more wonderful came out on Tuesday."

(Ken Kessler, HFN)

[LeMartinPecheur]

(1) He maintains that the current turntables he stocks "sound better" than my Thorens/SME, and perhaps they do, but I dont think my ears (which are somewhat damaged after 66 years) will be able to detect the improvement.

(2) I'll spend any spare cash on discs, not equipment to play them on.

umslop: it's well worth putting 1) to the test if you have a good hi-fi dealer!

If you can hear a difference AND that difference is worth the extra dosh, then the Benthamite calculus might just be in favour of coughing up for increased enjoyment. At 61 I'm still surprised at what my ears can still hear, and possibly even more significantly, my wife - same age, and NOT a great supporter of increased hi-fi outlay - usually can too, even though she thinks her ears are less sensitive than mine. (NB I don't regard myself as particularly fussy and do not rush to 'improve' eqpt - usually I'm happy with what I've got till something blows up and I then find that I've got more money than last time I bought

But if that calculus still favours 2) then go for it!

[EDIT In case anyone thinks that I'm bound to believe the new kit sounds better because our brains don't like telling us we've wasted our money, I should stress that I'm talking about the experience of listening to the equipment in a shop's listening room, and making side-by-side comparisons of possible replacements.

Two examples: (1) when I needed a new CD player I listened to various models recommended by the dealer, one manufacturer in particular. I liked the cheapest, liked even more the next one up, and also listened to the top-of-range. But while I could hear even more detail with it, somehow the sound-picture was all trees and no wood - the previously well-integrated total sound was now too analytical, split up, dis-integrated. Came home with the middle one with no regrets at all.

(2) When a pretty high-class power amp bought s/h cheapo years before from a friend gave up, I went to a local high-ish end dealer and asked what he'd recommend on my budget. Didn't at that time believe I'd hear very much in side-by-side comparisons but he set me up two in his listening room, each wire-able between a CD player, pre-amp and speakers roughly comparable in quality to my own stuff at home. He then left me quite alone to swap the amps around as much as I liked.

I'd brought along a pile of CDs I knew well, a vital step as it's easy to be over-impressed by recordings you don't already know. At first I thought both amps were making a really nice sound, but closer listening revealed that one of them was somehow subtly removing the very fine detail like the tiny rough edge to the some notes on a solo violin where the player doesn't quite set bow onto string ideally smoothly, or the tiny breathy start to a singer's first note or a woodwind solo. To my ears it was kind of artificially 'perfecting' the recording, rather in the way orchestral film soundtracks are often so (artificially??) smooth and perfect that I kinda forget that there must have been a real human orchestra playing the score somehow, somewhere, somewhen...

So I bought the amp that left the 'hairy edges', though other people may have preferred the one with the, to me, over-perfect 'Hollywood' sound.

When I explained my preference the dealer nodded as if he too was aware of this difference.]

[richardfinegold]

#250 richardfinegold. I have a similar dialogue with my local hifi dealer, who is a man who knows his stuff and from whom I have bought many good items over the years. He thinks my "next step" (there always is one) is to upgrade my record deck and arm. I reply that the deck goes around at thirty three and a third rpm and doesnt rumble, and the arm is a SME 3009, which was the bees' knees at the time, it still tracks every LP without a trace of distortion, so why should I buy anything else?

Well of course, because he needs to sell kit to make a living and hates SME like poison because they laid down a standard thirty years ago and it still holds. But though I have spent significant money with him on other things like an AV amplifier, I am not, repeat not, going to buy a more expensive turntable. He maintains that the current turntables he stocks "sound better" than my Thorens/SME, and perhaps they do, but I dont think my ears (which are somewhat damaged after 66 years) will be able to detect the improvement.

I'll spend any spare cash on discs, not equipment to play them on.

I wonder if the turntables of today compare with those of 30 and more years ago. My present table, a Clearaudio Concept, is much better than any thing I had back then, but it ought to be. Back then I couldn't afford much. Several years ago I had bought Pro Ject's entry level table and I thought it compared unfavorably to my budget tables of youth, but who knows?