LP's, 78's, records and the players, a few questions ...

[samwheat123]

Hi Elisabeth. Just saw you post. I don't have any ELP albums, but I have a ton of records from the '60s, '70s, and up to present. On a decent stereo vinyl records have a warmth and natural sound that I really like. Don't know anyone in Dallas that repairs console stereos. I'm sure there is someone who does. My guess when you find someone, they will want you to bring your console stereo to them, which may not be easy. I recently put together a second stereo off ebay (Marantz 2230 receiver, JBL L100 speakers, and Thorens turntable) that will easily sound better than your console (and anything new under a couple $$$$). I would suggest going that route. Never say never.

[TinMan]

I visited a record store for the first time in decades. I remember going to the mall in my younger days and being outraged at the poor selection and high prices (“$8.99?!? That’s highway robbery!”).

Me, 2018: “$25 for a record?!? That’s highway robbery!”

[Chung Tran]

I don't have any ELP albums

good to know.. it's alright for a Chick, but had you posted that you own ELP records, I would have reported your post and lobbied to remove you from this Forum.

[TinMan]

Elisabeth, I have a little more feedback for you, since you have an interest.

I bought a classic rock album that I already have on CD. Something that was recently remastered, so it’s truly the same album both digital and analog. I played them side by side, switching from one to the other after each track.

There was a difference to my ears. The CD was crisper, almost bordering at times on that digital edge you sometimes hear with VOIP phone calls. Not so much that I would have noticed if I hadn’t been comparing to analog, I think (although I may not be able to unhear it from now on), but it was there. The sound had more punch, which did help with some tracks.

The record was warmer. If the production had been poor, it might sound muddled or mushy in comparison, but in this case it sounded better to me with most tracks.

One thing to note: I have a nice system. In particular, I have invested in a good pair of stereo speakers. I doubt it would be so noticeable with a lesser system. Plus, if I’m not paying close attention to the music (background audio), I wouldn’t notice one way or the other.

I won’t trash all my digital tracks for records, but I will continue to selectively buy records that I want to sit down and listen to.

[Chung Tran]

TinMan displays a true understanding of the science of sound. I abandoned records long ago.. too bulky, scratches, stylus needle gets worn, yada yada.. but the problem becomes acquiring a cd that is mastered correctly.. which is damn difficult.. it shouldn't be, but most mastering is heavily compressed, the sound is squashed into the midrange to purposely make it loud, and destroy dynamic range. people apparently like this, since the trend is 25 years old, and worse now than ever.


it's weird.. in the 1950's, Columbia, Capitol and RCA were trying their damndest, before Stereo existed, to make good-sounding records.. Johnny Mathis, Nat Cole, Sinatra. with relatively primitive tools available. today, the ability to produce good sound is much easier, yet Engineers CHOOSE to make shoddy recordings. kind of like food choices.. we know much more about nutrition now, and have the ability to keep food cold and fresh.. but I'll be damned if we don't choose to eat shit most of the time, LOL

[TinMan]

I’d read about the “loudness wars”, but didn’t realize how prevalent the problem is until I started listening to records again and had the ability to compare digital to analog. All my listening so far has been limited to artists whose catalog have been maintained with care, so their CDs sound good. I’m about to make a few purchases from artists who haven’t had the same attention as, say, the Beatles, so I’ll be interested in how those records sound.

[Gandalf4301]

This is really noticeable on some recordings, like the Beatles White Album. They remaster it and as far as I'm concerned it sucks compared to the records originally produced. But you do have to be careful with records as you all know, and replace your needles regularly or the record loses it quality through excessive erosion. Invest in good speakers, they will make up for a lot of lesser quality turntables and amps.

[Crock]

Today, the ability to produce good sound is much easier, yet Engineers CHOOSE to make shoddy recordings. kind of like food choices.. we know much more about nutrition now, and have the ability to keep food cold and fresh.. but I'll be damned if we don't choose to eat shit most of the time, LOL

So true, and so pathetic...

Invest in good speakers, they will make up for a lot of lesser quality turntables and amps.

I disagree. Good speakers will simply make it easier to hear whatever you send to them. Good speakers will allow you to hear quality, or they'll make crap equipment/source louder. They will not make crappy equipment/source sound good.

If you've ever built your own computer, you'll be familiar with the concept of a bottleneck. Basically, your system is only as good as your worst component. You can have the greatest audio system in the world, but if you play a crappy MP3 on it, it's going to sound crappy. Likewise, if you have a BluRay Audio disk playing on the best player, with the best amp with super Monster speaker wires leading to some little Bose speakers, it's going to sound crappy. Overall sound quality is limited by the crappiest aspect of your system.

[gladius82]

Elizabeth,

The problem might be that you are playing a new vinyl recording on an older turntable. Just like CD's the older ones have some differences. Try one of the newer turntable
consoles, even if you have to take the vinyl to the store for a try out before you buy the machine. PS. If the turntable only has two speeds 33 and 45 it is "newer". LOL
All of mine still have 33/45/and 78!!!!