Is vinyl worth it?

[o0OBillO0o]

Originally Posted by TommyC

Does vinyl sound a lot better than high resolution music?

I have a Modwright OPPO 105D with NOS tubes. It is very musical, especially with high resolution files. But I've always wanted to try vinyl. However, the associated cost (e.g., TT, tone arm, cartridge, extra cables, phono stage, record cleaning machine, etc) can add up the cost. Plus, I don't have any record in my collection. I probably need to spend a few K's on records just to cover some of the music I enjoy.

Can an analog setup costing 17K (including TT, tone arm, cartridge, extra cables, phono stage, record cleaning machine, etc; plus 3K to buy records) sound better than a 20K digital player? I've heard numerous stories that high end analog sound different than high end digital, not necessary better, just different.

Any thought?

Originally Posted by Masterlu

Tommy... My personal experience is; you will need to spend more to Trump a $20K digital player.

I have confidence that Ivan is the authority here and looks like the answer to the question, "Can an analog setup costing 17K sound better than a 20K digital player?" is no.

[Bill Stevenson]

In my opinion the master tape is the key as to which will sound better. I have vinyl that sounds better than digital, but the reverse is true too. Sound quality is all over the map. Digital is definitely easier to buy, to play, to store. Vinyl can't compete in terms of measured performance: Signal to noise ratio, distortion, frequency response etc, etc, etc.. And yet vinyl can sound fantastic. It is also possible to prove mathematically that bumble bees can't fly. Vinyl is much more involving. If you like to fiddle, tweek, try different things, vinyl is decidedly more fun. Packaging is another big plus for vinyl. It has heft, often nice artwork, liner notes that you can actually read. Stuff like that. It can also be aggravating. A new LP can cost $35 or more and most of us can only find them on-line. When it arrives you might discover that it is noisy, warped (beware the mid-summer shipments), or otherwise unacceptable. You get to pay to ship it back. Did I mention aggravating? At the end of the day, if you don't already own a sizable collection of vinyl, this decision is easier to reach. But it is a lot of fun.

[o0OBillO0o]

Originally Posted by Bill Stevenson

In my opinion the master tape is the key as to which will sound better. I have vinyl that sounds better than digital, but the reverse is true too. Sound quality is all over the map. Digital is definitely easier to buy, to play, to store. Vinyl can't compete in terms of measured performance: Signal to noise ratio, distortion, frequency response etc, etc, etc.. And yet vinyl can sound fantastic. It is also possible to prove mathematically that bumble bees can't fly. Vinyl is much more involving. If you like to fiddle, tweek, try different things, vinyl is decidedly more fun. Packaging is another big plus for vinyl. It has heft, often nice artwork, liner notes that you can actually read. Stuff like that. It can also be aggravating. A new LP can cost $35 or more and most of us can only find them on-line. When it arrives you might discover that it is noisy, warped (beware the mid-summer shipments), or otherwise unacceptable. You get to pay to ship it back. Did I mention aggravating? At the end of the day, if you don't already own a sizable collection of vinyl, this decision is easier to reach. But it is a lot of fun.

Good comments.

I would also like to add it's certainly a ritual to put on a record (and a CD for that matter) and just listen. It has more meaning to me than all you can eat music.

[Douglas]

also you will discover music on Vinyl that simply does not exist on CD. For me that is a major part of the attraction. I love going to seceond hand vinyl stores and pull out a record from your childhood that you forgot existed.

[AlienViolet]

I have the entire Smoke Sessions CD jazz catalogue and their corresponding 200 gram audiophile LP sampler Vol. 1 which has cuts from 4 of the CDs. I definately prefer the CDs for their dynamic range, clarity and ambience. But with other labels, there have been instances where I feel the LP was more musical and had nicer bass. For example Patricia Barber's Cafe Blue and Dead Can Dance's Spiritchaser.

[Douglas]

Originally Posted by AlienViolet

I have the entire Smoke Sessions CD jazz catalogue and their corresponding 200 gram audiophile LP sampler Vol. 1 which has cuts from 4 of the CDs. I definately prefer the CDs for their dynamic range, clarity and ambience. But with other labels, there have been instances where I feel the LP was more musical and had nicer bass. For example Patricia Barber's Cafe Blue and Dead Can Dance's Spiritchaser.

I love Cafe Blue on CD, it sounds fantastic. AlienViolet if the LP sounds better then I simply must get it!

[cleeds]

The OP is asking two different questions here. The thread title is, "Is vinyl worth it?" But in the post he asks, "Does vinyl sound a lot better than high resolution music?"

Responding to the thread title, I'd answer that if you have to ask the question, it's probably not worth it.

Don't get me wrong - I love the LP and have no plans to abandon it. But, I grew up in the LP era, so I accumulated thousands of LPs before the CD era. And, because I never drank the CD Kool Aid, I never stopped enjoying the LP, even as I added CD and other digital sources to my system. So it's only natural that I continue to listen to LPs.

But, were I to start a system from scratch today, without any LP collection at all, I probably wouldn't bother. As others have noted, LPs are an expensive, fiddly, time-consuming pursuit and are a hassle to care for and store. Dollar-for-dollar, digital is a much better value.

Yet there's nothing like a fine LP. So the lowly LP endures, even as CD seems to be riding into the format sunset.

For me as an audiophile, LP is a lot like FM. If I were starting my first system today, I probably wouldn't bother with an FM tuner. But I bought a Mac MR-80 new, back when FM was still relevant. So, I keep the Mac in my system and still listen to it occasionally. For things like Prairie Home Companion, or WBGO or even some of the best of commercial radio, it's worth keeping. But the Mac cost $2,000 in 1979 - about $6,900 in today's dollars. I'd never spend that for FM today.

[o0OBillO0o]

Originally Posted by cleeds

The OP is asking two different questions here. The thread title is, "Is vinyl worth it?" But in the post he asks, "Does vinyl sound a lot better than high resolution music?"

Responding to the thread title, I'd answer that if you have to ask the question, it's probably not worth it.

Don't get me wrong - I love the LP and have no plans to abandon it. But, I grew up in the LP era, so I accumulated thousands of LPs before the CD era. And, because I never drank the CD Kool Aid, I never stopped enjoying the LP, even as I added CD and other digital sources to my system. So it's only natural that I continue to listen to LPs.

But, were I to start a system from scratch today, without any LP collection at all, I probably wouldn't bother. As others have noted, LPs are an expensive, fiddly, time-consuming pursuit and are a hassle to care for and store. Dollar-for-dollar, digital is a much better value.

Yet there's nothing like a fine LP. So the lowly LP endures, even as CD seems to be riding into the format sunset.

For me as an audiophile, LP is a lot like FM. If I were starting my first system today, I probably wouldn't bother with an FM tuner. But I bought a Mac MR-80 new, back when FM was still relevant. So, I keep the Mac in my system and still listen to it occasionally. For things like Prairie Home Companion, or WBGO or even some of the best of commercial radio, it's worth keeping. But the Mac cost $2,000 in 1979 - about $6,900 in today's dollars. I'd never spend that for FM today.

Actually $7,562.38

Calculate the value of $2000 in 1978 - Inflation on 2000 dollars - DollarTimes.com

Now about "Dollar-for-dollar, digital is a much better value." How are you coming up with that?

[cleeds]

"Now about 'Dollar-for-dollar, digital is a much better value.' How are you coming up with that?"

If I were stuck on a desert island, could I live with a $200 CD player if I had to? Probably. (shudder)

Could I live with a $200 turntable / phono section combo? I don't think so.

Good LP playback requires mechanical precision. That's expensive.

[o0OBillO0o]

Originally Posted by cleeds

"Now about 'Dollar-for-dollar, digital is a much better value.' How are you coming up with that?"

If I were stuck on a desert island, could I live with a $200 CD player if I had to? Probably. (shudder)

Could I live with a $200 turntable / phono section combo? I don't think so.

Good LP playback requires mechanical precision. That's expensive.

I liked your response. Now, remove the money spent as a notion for value. So if we're going on a desert island concept; cost no object what holds more value?

Here's an example of value. Why is the Ford F150 the number one selling vehicle, yet it's more expensive to own and operate than a Ford Fiesta? Generally, there is more value to people in the truck than the small car, despite one being less than the other in cost.