I was set on constructing an analogue system, but I have seen several users criticize the various aspects of the vinyl medium.
(sound quality/accuracy, cost of equipment, effort to play/digitize)
I'm 20 years old and have never truly experienced vinyl. However, I am extremely intrigued by it. I very much like the idea of setting up an affordable but quality system to listen to vinyls on. Also, I would be digitizing my dads old albums and some of my own. I look at it as more of a hobby/interest than its practicality regarding current tech and sound quality. I like the idea of starting a record collection and listening to them with my friends. The nostalgia and audio technology are other aspects that interest me (big tech geek here). I'm aware of the imperfections of vinyl's sound and this is why I want to make sure I get a quality system to achieve the best possible sound the LP will produce (within budget). For my system, I had the Pro-Ject Debut Carbon and a pair of decent floor standing speakers in mind but was not set on which components I wanted to use with it (pre-amp + receiver, integrated amp, or just a receiver w/ phono inputs). This was originally the question I was going to ask you guys. Something I could connect my computer to in order to play music files is something I'd like to be able to do. I have always cared about sound quality and the majority of my albums are perfect CD rips (.flac). I currently do not have a hi-fi system to fully enjoy my music on which is another reason why I'm looking to purchase one. Also, this is something I plan to take with me and enjoy for many years to come.
-So I ask, how do you like the vinyl experience compared to the CD experience? Can the added complexities with vinyl add to the experience?
-Also, if I decide to go for a system, which device(s) combination might produce the best sound quality at a reasonable price?
Thanks for any input!
I was set on constructing an analogue system, but I have seen several users criticize the various aspects of the vinyl medium.
(sound quality/accuracy, cost of equipment, effort to play/digitize)
I'm 20 years old and have never truly experienced vinyl. However, I am extremely intrigued by it. I very much like the idea of setting up an affordable but quality system to listen to vinyls on.
<snip>
-So I ask, how do you like the vinyl experience compared to the CD experience? Can the added complexities with vinyl add to the experience?
-Also, if I decide to go for a system, which device(s) combination might produce the best sound quality at a reasonable price?
Thanks for any input!
Go for it. Get it out of your 'system'. As far as ' experiencing 'vinyl, I don't miss it in any way shape or form. Regardless of how careful you are, records wear out. The surface gets 'torn' on loud sections.
In electronics, the most damage to the signal always happens at the transducers - mics and speakers - worse with speakers IMO. With vinyl you INTENTIONALLY add not one fut two transducers into the mix - cutter heads and cartridges. Cutters use triangular tips but cartridges use circles or ovals and now you have tracing distortion. Supposedly it's compensated during cutting - but for what shape stylus? Then the warps, wow and flutter, acoustic feedback. Off center disc not only add aforementioned wow but angular distortion as the stylus shank SHOULD be (but rarely is) tangential to the groove. Use an inline tone arm. WRONG. It is actually worse than a conventional arm because it's shorter. Oh yeah, rumble from less than perfect mechanics and insane surface noise.
HA wants ABX testing to prove it's not your imagination. How do you ABX something so blatantly bad? Greynol will be unhappy with me but I will categorically state I can ABX vinyl vs digital with 100% accuracy. I'd be VERY surprised if ANY HA member can't make the same claim.
Interestingly, some have made CDs of LPs and ABXd those and said they can't tell the difference between the CD of the LP and the LP and I believe them. The CD faithfully captured all the musicality of the LP. My question then is - if the CD can reproduce all of the LPs quality, wouldn't recording directly form the console be equally 'perfect'?
BTW I gave several hundred LPs to the Goodwil when we moved 8 years ago but I still have the direct to disc LPs. I'm wondering why though.
I hold analog tape machines in the same vein though they can definitely be better than disc.
G²
I'm 20 years old and have never truly experienced vinyl.
Lucky you. I have experienced it and it is awful.
...how do you like the vinyl experience compared to the CD experience?
The "vinyl experience" is a lot noisier than the "CD experience."
Vinyl is destroyed as it is played.
Vinyl is heavier and takes more space than CDs.
CDs have an error correction system that makes them "damage resistant" (they can still play without noticeable quality losses even when damaged).
CDs can handle a larger dynamic range than LPs.
Can the added complexities with vinyl add to the experience?
The only complexities vinyl adds to the experience are: noise and distortion. Vinyl is a very primitive and obsolete type of media. It's main disadvantage when compared to CD is that vinyl discs are NOT digital.
Do it, almostmitch.
The Pro-Ject Debut III is a decent turntable...especially so for someone who doesn't want to throw a small fortune at analogue hardware. Mine (pre-"carbon tone arm") has a bit of rumble but it's not really noticeable unless listening to quiet passages on headphones. Good news is that can be filtered out if you plan on digitizing.
You'll likely be told by a lot of people here to not bother. The general consensus around here is that records are crap. I am not here to try to minimize their often legitimate complaints about the format, but I don't think you'll be doing wrong. Especially if you buy a decent, but not overpriced TT like the Debut Carbon. As long as you take care of the equipment and the medium it's a solid investment. You can sell the TT later if you decide it's not for you. Trade-in value of LPs at my local indie store far exceeds that of CDs.
I have a love/hate relationship with vinyl LPs: when they're good they're great. When they're bad it really irritates me. Be prepared to get about one shitty record out of every fifteen new ones you buy. If you're into metal, Century Media and Back on Black have always been above average pressings for me. Earache, OTOH, is has been IME an example of crappy quality control (that actually surprises me for a British company.)
Appreciating and collecting music, on any format, is about fun and what's right for the individual. Your system doesn't have to "measure well" as long as the sound is pleasing to your ears. Some people are understandably sick of records and have long moved on to digital. I personally am grateful for both. Just today I listened to music on my home stereo that consisted of two records, a CD, a DVD-A, and a full album that I downloaded from iTunes. Long story short: I don't care about the format as much as I do about the music.
Make sure you get a decent carbon-fibre brush and keep your needle clean.
Upon reading the first post I was preparing to write an answer which would have been identical, word by word to the one by Light-Fire.
That said, I only add @OP: if you want to make this experience just do it, of course, but throw the less money you can at it to start. Search for used, for example and only buy a new stylus, not to wear too much your records. Chances are you'll get tired soon of your new toy: sound quality apart, using vinyl for actual listening is a royal pain in the butt, I tell you!
Should you ever end up getting seriously involved into it, well you'll find plenty of inordinately expensive gears to improve (a little) your starting system.
The merits of vinyl are larger artwork (if you care for that), and sometimes better mastered albums than found on CD. From a pure technical standpoint it is inferior to CD in every way imaginable. A 50$ CD player is a higher fidelity system than any 1000$+ vinyl playback system. For me it's simply the huge technical deficiencies, and the fact that you have to throw a huge pile of money at your system to even reach a fraction of CD fidelity, which makes vinyl unattractive.
What about the following compromise:
- listen to your files
- buy vinyl albums you really care about, rather than other merchandise
- save the money you could have spent on a turntable on a few good-looking solid metal frames, and hang them on your wall in your living room
Downside: if you buy albums, the artists get virtually nothing. Rather than a second copy in a different format, buy a T-shirt.
Vinyl is entirely about the ritual around the medium; the physical item and the machinery required to play it. It's not about the music.
That's perfectly okay, but you have to be aware of that.
It's fun (if you like that kind of fun), but a lot of the benefits are in the minds of the listeners, rather than based in reality. Other people genuinely like the subtle distortion, speed variations, noise, and often smiley-face EQ of well-regarded vinyl rigs.
Some music was only released on vinyl, or is only released badly on CD (poor copy-tapes used as source, over-compression added, wrong versions used, etc).
CDs are easier to rip, and files are more convenient to carry around and backup.
You can spend as little or as much as you want. Avoid turntables/cartridges that are so cheap that they damage your records.
Hope this helps.
Cheers,
David.
Other people genuinely like the subtle distortion, speed variations, noise, and often smiley-face EQ of well-regarded vinyl rigs.
This is an excellent point David mentioned. Personally, I thought the anti-digital
audiophiles were expecting (or missing?) the extra distortion, crackles and breathy noises. Not to mention the HF roll-off (usually the complaint is, "CD is so harsh!"). I figured these same listeners were used to experiencing these analog
nuances because it would not be confused for sounds heard in the real world (i.e. the sound of a car crash in real-life vs. the Hollywood sample with the obvious vinyl flutter when the sound fades- "Whew, it was just the record!"). The reason digital/CD is better for me is minimal friction-noise/degradation from multiple playbacks. I figured the laser-driven phonograph endeavor was cut-short by the obvious advantage that CD was more compact (or perhaps that project was urban myth).
Someone who has the motivation to get a vinyl setup, I say, "Go for it." At the same time I also recommend to, "Go easy on it," as far as pocket expenses. If I was choosing to construct such a system I would research availability and cost of cartridges/needles and balance that with the quality they achieve. I am sure the responses from members here are worthy of consideration.
Vinyl is entirely about the ritual around the medium; the physical item and the machinery required to play it. It's not about the music.
That's perfectly okay, but you have to be aware of that.
That's a grossly presumptuous and offensively global statement.
When I go out of my way to find a vinyl pressing of a shamelessly brickwalled CD, is that not "about the music?" Rather than just ritually and lazily ripping CDs and reading EAC logs (now there's a ritual,) I actually listened to them as well. Due to my discontent with some, I sought out a better-sounding version of what *could* have been some great sounding CDs. Again:
about the music, I would say from personal experience.
As a side-note: I've rarely come across a modern record so inherently bad that it made me run right back to it's dynamically-clipped CD counterpart. When a nearly-flawless digital medium is so plagued with such completely avoidable flaws it makes the far more subtle but inherent flaws of the analogue medium inconsequential in comparison.
As a side-note: I've rarely come across a modern record so inherently bad that it made me run right back to it's dynamically-clipped CD counterpart.
I rarely encounter a modern record where it is obvious that it came off a different master than the CD counterpart. I mean, yeah, if I can choose between a 1986 vinyl and a 2012 re-issue on CD that's newly remastered, I will sometimes go for the 1986 vinyl. But if I get to choose between a 2012 release either on vinyl or on CD, I prefer the CD almost always.
Digitizing vinyl is fun and educational. You are essentially playing (re-)Mastering Engineer. You get to make all kinds of interesting technical decisions that affect the sound, and there's always more to learn and things you could do to make it even better. You'll dive into using an audio editor, you'll learn all about digital recording, you'll figure out what helps and what hurts. You learn what kinds of problems are tolerable and what requires further attention. Some of the shortcomings of vinyl will become more apparent to you when you do this, but so will the medium's strengths. So by all means, go for it, and come back here with your questions. Many of us will enjoy helping you out.
As for people's gripes about vinyl, take them with a grain of salt. In this forum we are used to being rather, um, detail-oriented. We speak the truth, but we often seem to contradict ourselves: when the topic of lossy encodings comes up, we will insist that nothing matters but transparency as ascertained by double-blind testing, and that objective differences, no matter how measurably huge, are irrelevant. But at the same time, some of us will point to things like the lacquer cutting head moving across the master disc in a straight line, while the playback stylus on a turntable sweeps in an arc, and swear, or at least imply, that the resulting distortion is truly a nightmare and a reason CD is infinitely superior.
There was a time when we just listened to the music, and we did this everywhere—at home, in our cars, on our Walkmans, blasting from tiny speakers on transistor radios and out in public shops. We said "oh good, I love this song" when we heard something we liked, not "better not turn it up too loud or we'll hear that it's on vinyl; God, the signal-to-noise ratio is horrendous as compared to CD. And man, I can't believe the stereo separation and dynamic range is so bad. Listen to that tracing distortion!" No, if you asked most of us at age 20 what we didn't like about vinyl, the list of problems would be very short, and would focus on the medium needing to be kept clean and scratch-free, and stored upright and away from heat so it won't warp. We wouldn't be talking about distortion, transducers, rumble, wow, stereo separation, electrical noise, and every other shortcoming as compared to digital. Those things didn't matter to us until we learned about them and started listening for them and comparing vinyl to CD.
We forget that quite a bit of invention and money went into record technology over multiple decades, coaxing as much fidelity and quality as possible out of the medium. It's pretty damn good, overall, considering how crude its basic underlying mechanism is. The sonic characteristics are more than adequate to allow you to enjoy music and not be distracted by imperfections or by what's missing...at least until you "know too much". It's a good 80% or more of the way toward "perfection" IMHO. Sure, CD/digital gets you the rest of the way, and it's way more durable and fault-tolerant (to a point; vinyl can really take more of a beating and still play, noisily)...but as someone once asked me, in an exasperated tone of voice, "how (f'ing) perfect does it have to be?"
I have a soft spot for vinyl, but let's not try and kid ourselves that it's a superior method of experiencing music.
I have an analogy for you. Some people are really into old cars. There is something "soulful" about them, and their incompetent handling and useless brakes can impart some degree of fun. But they are nowhere near as efficient a means of transport as a modern car.
Vinyl's a bit like that. The care required to get the best out of it is a bit like the high degree of maintenance required to keep an old car on the road. Who knows, you might be the type of person who enjoys the effort required in getting a good sound from vinyl.
But if your goal is to hear recorded music as well as possible, and you're wondering if by some chance vinyl is the route to achieving that, don't bother - it isn't. (With one possible exception - the mastering of some CD reissues is so messed up that the original vinyl does actually sound better).
Thanks for the responses guys, great input. I'll steal statements from various posts to discuss further.
Do it, almostmitch.
Appreciating and collecting music, on any format, is about fun and what's right for the individual. Your system doesn't have to "measure well" as long as the sound is pleasing to your ears. Some people are understandably sick of records and have long moved on to digital. I personally am grateful for both.
Long story short: I don't care about the format as much as I do about the music.
Make sure you get a decent carbon-fibre brush and keep your needle clean.
I agree completely and thanks for the tip. I think it's obvious that had I grown up with vinyl and not in the digital age this post would not exist. I can see how those who didn't have the convenience of digital mediums at first are sick of vinyls. I can see myself caring less about the quality of vinyls as a trade off for the nostalgia and curiosity of equipment. Well said though, Engelsstaub, it is more about the music, less about format/quality; even if that's against a typical audiophile's views.
What about the following compromise:
- listen to your files
- buy vinyl albums you really care about, rather than other merchandise
- save the money you could have spent on a turntable on a few good-looking solid metal frames, and hang them on your wall in your living room
This is a great idea and I will almost for sure frame the vinyl I do purchase. However, seeing the album art on my walls and knowing I can't listen to the physical record would get under my skin. Recommendation of cheap yet protective vinyl sleeves so I can get the best of both worlds here? (hang the art, have the vinyl readily available to play)
Vinyl is entirely about the ritual around the medium; the physical item and the machinery required to play it. It's not about the music.
I agree with this, however, I very much care about the music as well. IMO a stack of great vinyls is a far more impressive and tangible collection than a list of file names on an LCD
It's fun (if you like that kind of fun), but a lot of the benefits are in the minds of the listeners, rather than based in reality. Other people genuinely like the subtle distortion, speed variations, noise, and often smiley-face EQ of well-regarded vinyl rigs.
Well said and I agree. I feel like I may fall into this category.
As a side-note: I've rarely come across a modern record so inherently bad that it made me run right back to it's dynamically-clipped CD counterpart. When a nearly-flawless digital medium is so plagued with such completely avoidable flaws it makes the far more subtle but inherent flaws of the analogue medium inconsequential in comparison.
This sort of verifies the hunch I had that for the most part modern vinyls won't have as many nuances and sound as bad as an LP that's 20, 30+ years old.
Also helpful in the sense that almost all of the music I plan to purchase was released within the last 10 years or so. (exceptions of course)
I rarely encounter a modern record where it is obvious that it came off a different master than the CD counterpart. I mean, yeah, if I can choose between a 1986 vinyl and a 2012 re-issue on CD that's newly remastered, I will sometimes go for the 1986 vinyl. But if I get to choose between a 2012 release either on vinyl or on CD, I prefer the CD almost always.
I'm not sure how to interpret this. If the LP is of the same master as the CD, will it likely be of better quality, or the opposite?
Also, what are everyone's thoughts on what type of rig I should use to tie my speakers and TT together to achieve the best sound? While keeping a modest price tag that is.
...I rarely encounter a modern record where it is obvious that it came off a different master than the CD counterpart.
...
Not rare at all for me...and my musical tastes don't often conform to the "audiophile norm" as you can see from this example.
Previous Thread (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=95524)
I'm no recording engineer, so I'm not sure what we are calling a "master" here. It could well be the same master. But, as you can see from the illustrations in my previous post, the digital version was destructively normalized and most of the modern vinyl in my collection retains those spikes that usually indicate percussive sounds.
I could upload more samples of modern audio vinyl/CD comparisons with such a frequency that I would surely wear out my welcome.
...but to be fair many modern records are not
that much better in these regards. And as cliveb pointed out, vinyl is all about the maintenance.
OP: I would go with a pair of Polk Audio speakers like these (http://www.amazon.com/Polk-Audio-TSi200-Bookshelf-Speakers/dp/B0018QRO9A/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1354123008&sr=8-9&keywords=polk+audio+speakers) and a cheap two-channel amp. That more than suffices for me at the mo with the small room I listen in. That'll keep the price reasonable and still give you decent sound quality.
It's fun (if you like that kind of fun), but a lot of the benefits are in the minds of the listeners, rather than based in reality. Other people genuinely like the subtle distortion, speed variations, noise, and often smiley-face EQ of well-regarded vinyl rigs.
Well said and I agree. I feel like I may fall into this category.
Which category? You quoted two.
almost all of the music I plan to purchase was released within the last 10 years or so.
Looking for vinyl titles that are not subjected to the same disgusting DRC as their counterparts on CD is going to be a crapshoot.
If the LP is of the same master as the CD, will it likely be of better quality, or the opposite?
If differences can be detected and you aren't predisposed to like the artifacts of vinyl, the CD is guaranteed to be superior.
Recommendation of cheap yet protective vinyl sleeves so I can get the best of both worlds here? (hang the art, have the vinyl readily available to play)
eBay?
Digitizing vinyl is fun and educational. You are essentially playing (re-)Mastering Engineer. You get to make all kinds of interesting technical decisions that affect the sound, and there's always more to learn and things you could do to make it even better. You'll dive into using an audio editor, you'll learn all about digital recording, you'll figure out what helps and what hurts. You learn what kinds of problems are tolerable and what requires further attention. Some of the shortcomings of vinyl will become more apparent to you when you do this, but so will the medium's strengths. So by all means, go for it, and come back here with your questions. Many of us will enjoy helping you out.
As for people's gripes about vinyl, take them with a grain of salt. In this forum we are used to being rather, um, detail-oriented. We speak the truth, but we often seem to contradict ourselves: when the topic of lossy encodings comes up, we will insist that nothing matters but transparency as ascertained by double-blind testing, and that objective differences, no matter how measurably huge, are irrelevant. But at the same time, some of us will point to things like the lacquer cutting head moving across the master disc in a straight line, while the playback stylus on a turntable sweeps in an arc, and swear, or at least imply, that the resulting distortion is truly a nightmare and a reason CD is infinitely superior.
There was a time when we just listened to the music, and we did this everywhere—at home, in our cars, on our Walkmans, blasting from tiny speakers on transistor radios and out in public shops. We said "oh good, I love this song" when we heard something we liked, not "better not turn it up too loud or we'll hear that it's on vinyl; God, the signal-to-noise ratio is horrendous as compared to CD. And man, I can't believe the stereo separation and dynamic range is so bad. Listen to that tracing distortion!" No, if you asked most of us at age 20 what we didn't like about vinyl, the list of problems would be very short, and would focus on the medium needing to be kept clean and scratch-free, and stored upright and away from heat so it won't warp. We wouldn't be talking about distortion, transducers, rumble, wow, stereo separation, electrical noise, and every other shortcoming as compared to digital. Those things didn't matter to us until we learned about them and started listening for them and comparing vinyl to CD.
We forget that quite a bit of invention and money went into record technology over multiple decades, coaxing as much fidelity and quality as possible out of the medium. It's pretty damn good, overall, considering how crude its basic underlying mechanism is. The sonic characteristics are more than adequate to allow you to enjoy music and not be distracted by imperfections or by what's missing...at least until you "know too much". It's a good 80% or more of the way toward "perfection" IMHO. Sure, CD/digital gets you the rest of the way, and it's way more durable and fault-tolerant (to a point; vinyl can really take more of a beating and still play, noisily)...but as someone once asked me, in an exasperated tone of voice, "how (f'ing) perfect does it have to be?"
You make some great points. I agree with your first paragraph, it should be fun. The third paragraph definitely needed to be said. I feel like some of us can forget that when it's all said and done, it's mostly about the music.
I have an analogy for you. Some people are really into old cars. There is something "soulful" about them, and their incompetent handling and useless brakes can impart some degree of fun. But they are nowhere near as efficient a means of transport as a modern car.
Who knows, you might be the type of person who enjoys the effort required in getting a good sound from vinyl.
But if your goal is to hear recorded music as well as possible, and you're wondering if by some chance vinyl is the route to achieving that, don't bother
That's a good analogy. I think I could be that type of person. Also, I was fully aware before going into this that vinyl is not the way to hear recorded music as well as possible, I'm okay with that.
OP: I would go with a pair of Polk Audio speakers like these (http://www.amazon.com/Polk-Audio-TSi200-Bookshelf-Speakers/dp/B0018QRO9A/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1354123008&sr=8-9&keywords=polk+audio+speakers) and a cheap two-channel amp.
Thanks. Any suggestions for something that would allow me to play my digital files through as well? or do most of them have this capability? They seemed a bit pricey too, from the ones I saw. Also, my listening room is about 25' x 20'. Do you think those speakers will be adequate and pack enough punch?
Which category? You quoted two.
Oops I meant the category of listeners that enjoy some of the extra nuances with vinyl.
Thanks for the other info as well.
I grew up with vinyl, and I always
hated the "snap", "crackle", and "pop". I hated the hiss and the lack of high frequences on cassettes even more! I hated the fact that even though I tried to take care of my records, they still deteriorated and got damaged. When I'd listen to one of my records that I was familiar with, I'd know when that "click" was coming, and I'd be gritting my teath waiting for the click, instead of enjoying the music.
Also, I would be digitizing my dads old albums and some of my own.
That's a good reason to get a turntable. (I haven't used my turntable for
listening in many years.) However if you want the best
sound,
buy the CDs or MP3s (if they are available). If cost is an issue, look for used CDs. I've spent some long weekends fixing-up digitized vinyl, trying to make it sound as good as a CD.
I'm aware of the imperfections of vinyl's sound and this is why I want to make sure I get a quality system to achieve the best possible sound the LP will produce (within budget).
With analog, equipment does make a difference. You'll generally get better sound with more expensive equipment. For example just about every different phono cartridge will sound
different. Back in the vinyl days, I was always upgrading or
wanting to upgrade. You can quickly get to the point where it takes a big increase in price for a small improvement.
But no matter how much you spend, you'll never get "CD quality" from a vinyl record, and expensive equipment isn't going to help if you have a poor-quality or damaged record. (IMO,
most older records didn't sound that great when they were new... Once in awhile, you'd run across a gem.)
I don't know anything about the Pro-Ject turntable, but
the price "feels" about right... I wouldn't buy a $100 USD turntable (too cheap) or a $1000 turntable (too expensive for something that doesn't sound as good as a CD player). When it comes to phono cartridges, I figure you can't go wrong with Shure's best which you can get for less than $100, so I wouldn't spend much more thatn that. Again, I wouldn't want to go too cheap, or too crazy.
...and a pair of decent floor standing speakers
Of course, good speakers will be nice with analog and digital sources. When it comes to sound quality,
speakers make the biggest difference (especially with a digital source).
in mind but was not set on which components I wanted to use with it (pre-amp + receiver, integrated amp, or just a receiver w/ phono inputs).
Usually, a receiver is the most economical option. Modern recevers with phono inputs are rare, and they tend to be expensive "audiophile" items. But, you can get a phono preamp for around $50 USD and plug it into one of your receiver's 'Aux' inputs. Or, if you can find an older-used reciever with a built-in phono-preamp, that's an option too. A good quality older receiver should sound just as good as a modern one (assuming good conditon). The difference is most are now 5.1 & 7.1 channel "home theater receivers" with digital inputs, and they are generally higher-power than the older ones.
...Any suggestions for something that would allow me to play my digital files through as well? or do most of them have this capability? They seemed a bit pricey too, from the ones I saw. Also, my listening room is about 25' x 20'. Do you think those speakers will be adequate and pack enough punch?
...
I just connect my iPod Touch to my receiver via a cheap headphone jack-to-RCA cable. I thought about buying a dock but when I heard the "cheap solution" it sounded terrific. (Substitute "iPod Touch" for whatever device you use to playback your digital files as appropriate.) Those Polk Audio speakers are a great value and sound amazing in my room. I was prepared to throw >$1200 USD at a good set of speakers but took a chance on these first. They perform well above their price-point IMO. It doesn't hurt that they say "Polk Audio" on them either. Resale value is often found in a recognized brand name. They will pack more than enough punch: I was prepared to add a sub, but after I heard them in my room I happily noticed that that wouldn't be necessary. (I'll bet my neighbors downstairs would be grateful too if they only knew.)
So I would spend
at least that much on speakers, or you'll quickly come down with a really itchy case of upgradeitis from cheap ones. If you want to be thrifty, I recommend doing so on the receiver. You could always find a good used one at a thrift store or on Craigslist. 2-channel amp is preferable for your usage. ...and as before: you're golden with a Pro-ject Debut TT. It's a great "entry-level" table, IME. It's easy to set up and comes factory-fitted with a decent cartridge.
...but as to the tired vinyl vs. digital debate: I think the digital proponents, though sometimes obnoxious in their zeal, really have the upper-hand. Vinyl proponents can be equally obnoxious, if not more so. When all things are equal, modern digital formats really are superior in almost every meaningful way. Both "sides" of this debate are very firmly entrenched by now and are not likely to be evangelized. If we keep bringing it up over and over it's sort of like trying to resurrect that proverbial dead horse; it has long since been beaten to death and rotted away.
If you are playing old vinyls, and at the risk of TOS#8:
Not only will the stylus matter, but the wear from previous stylii will also. You may actually expensive less wear-related noise with a tip that has smaller radius, which will read the groove where it hasn't been that much worn ... then OTOH, that might mean digging in the dirt. Some drawings here (http://www.sowka.pl/szlif/). Other HA users might fill in details, and, likely, corrections – I haven't played vinyl since the Ortofon MC30 Super.
As always, there will be lots of pseudoscience around the 'net, especially in the higher price brackets. (S(h)urely, a $2000 Rohmann has to sound excellent and for some damn good reason, or what?)
From the historical records [sic]: http://shure.custhelp.com/app/answers/deta...and-record-wear (http://shure.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/4135/~/stylus-wear-and-record-wear)
I have a soft spot for vinyl, but let's not try and kid ourselves that it's a superior method of experiencing music.
I have an analogy for you. Some people are really into old cars. There is something "soulful" about them, and their incompetent handling and useless brakes can impart some degree of fun. But they are nowhere near as efficient a means of transport as a modern car.
Vinyl's a bit like that. The care required to get the best out of it is a bit like the high degree of maintenance required to keep an old car on the road. Who knows, you might be the type of person who enjoys the effort required in getting a good sound from vinyl.
But if your goal is to hear recorded music as well as possible, and you're wondering if by some chance vinyl is the route to achieving that, don't bother - it isn't. (With one possible exception - the mastering of some CD reissues is so messed up that the original vinyl does actually sound better).
Listen to this man. He is too modest to tell you just how much experience he has with vinyl.
From the historical records [sic]: http://shure.custhelp.com/app/answers/deta...and-record-wear (http://shure.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/4135/~/stylus-wear-and-record-wear)
I like that. Interesting claim that a perfect condition diamond stylus causes no wear on a perfectly clean record, but that after couple of hundred hours use the stylus is worn to a very damaging shape.
Cheers,
David.
Listen to this man. He is too modest to tell you just how much experience he has with vinyl.
I'm not familiar enough with cliveb's history to know if this is sarcasm or not.
which device(s) combination might produce the best sound quality at a reasonable price?
A motor car is far more comfortable, safe and user friendly than a motorbike. Some people prefer the bike because it's more fun.
Enough philosophising already. To practicalities. I saw this in a store window the other day.
Audio Technica LP120-USB (http://www.audio-technica.com/cms/turntables/583f30b3a8662772/)
It is dead ringer for the now discontinued and much missed, classic Technics 1210 DD turntable. With all the standard tweeks pre implemented. Plus a built in phono pre amp and USB connection. The AT95E cartridge is pretty decent as well.
Looks to be an excellent one stop shop for the aspiring vinylophile.
I find it hard to believe the internals can be up to the standard of the venerable 1210s but you never know? With a sticker price of £219 it looks a bargain whichever way you look at it.
Anyone have any hands on experience to report?
If you decide on a 2nd hand set of Technics instead then either of these look like excellent companions.
ART Phono Plus V2. (http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/may06/articles/artphonoplus.htm) £60
ART DJ Pre 2 (http://www.zzounds.com/item--ARTDJPREII) £30
#1 is essentially an audio interface ( what audiophiles refer to as a DAC) with a built in phono pre amp from a reliable and economical supplier. #2 is a more conventional device but very good value.
Discogs (http://www.discogs.com/explore) is an excellent site for the vinyl enthusiast. You can buy and sell almost anything and the facilities are very useful indeed. I use it for cataloging and tagging my rips. It's good for obtaining artwork as well. Occasionally (very nowadays) I discover I have a release or version not already on their database and it's nice to be able to contribute to a free service by adding something back.
That's all you need mate. Good luck and have fun.
Listen to this man. He is too modest to tell you just how much experience he has with vinyl.
I'm not familiar enough with cliveb's history to know if this is sarcasm or not.
Definitely not sarcasm. cliveb is possibly the most knowledgeable person at HA when it comes to vinyl.
When it comes to phono cartridges, I figure you can't go wrong with Shure's best which you can get for less than $100, so I wouldn't spend much more than that.
Of course, good speakers will be nice with analog and digital sources. When it comes to sound quality, speakers make the biggest difference (especially with a digital source).
The Debut Carbon ships with the Ortofon 2M Red which, from what I've read, is very respectable. One reason why I was set on this TT.
I'll be sure to choose speakers of the best quality I can afford, b/c even if the TT starts to see less usage, the speakers will still be used for my digital files.
As for recievers/amps, I had
this (http://www.crutchfield.com/p_022AS300/Yamaha-A-S300.html?tp=34948) in mind. From what I've seen it has good functionality and power for the price. One thing I'm still unsure about is impedance and how to correctly match wattage between the amp and speakers. If this amp is rated at 60 watts a channel, my speakers will need to handle at least that much, correct? Or is there more to it?
I just connect my iPod Touch to my receiver via a cheap headphone jack-to-RCA cable. I thought about buying a dock but when I heard the "cheap solution" it sounded terrific. (Substitute "iPod Touch" for whatever device you use to playback your digital files as appropriate.) They perform well above their price-point IMO. It doesn't hurt that they say "Polk Audio" on them either. Resale value is often found in a recognized brand name. They will pack more than enough punch: I was prepared to add a sub, but after I heard them in my room I happily noticed that that wouldn't be necessary.
So I would spend at least that much on speakers, or you'll quickly come down with a really itchy case of upgradeitis from cheap ones. If you want to be thrifty, I recommend doing so on the receiver. You could always find a good used one at a thrift store or on Craigslist. 2-channel amp is preferable for your usage.
...but as to the tired vinyl vs. digital debate: If we keep bringing it up over and over it's sort of like trying to resurrect that proverbial dead horse; it has long since been beaten to death and rotted away.
I'll use the 3.5 mm to RCA to connect my laptop. Seems like the most logical option. As for the speakers, they are the last thing I want to be thrifty on. You make a strong case for the Polks. I'm not sure if their bass will satisfy a guy that's used to two 12 inch woofers worth of bass. So I'll just have to try em and see, I can always add a sub. I'm wondering if there's something I'm missing that would make
these (http://www.crutchfield.com/p_107TSI300C/Polk-Audio-TSi300-Cherry.html) floor standing speakers worth the extra $100 over the seemingly identical bookshelf
speakers (http://www.crutchfield.com/p_107TSI200C/Polk-Audio-TSi200-Cherry.html?tp=186) you suggested.
I agree with your last point. Vinyl just isn't the best or logical option anymore.
From the historical records [sic]: http://shure.custhelp.com/app/answers/deta...and-record-wear (http://shure.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/4135/~/stylus-wear-and-record-wear)
Thanks for the very informative read. I'm glad I know that information now and not after it's too late.
Audio Technica LP120-USB (http://www.audio-technica.com/cms/turntables/583f30b3a8662772/)
Plus a built in phono pre amp and USB connection.
I find it hard to believe the internals can be up to the standard of the venerable 1210s but you never know? With a sticker price of £219 it looks a bargain whichever way you look at it.
Discogs (http://www.discogs.com/explore) is an excellent site for the vinyl enthusiast.
That's all you need mate. Good luck and have fun.
Thanks for the info. I think I'd feel safer spending an extra $100 for the belt drive, and more reputable cartridge on the Debut Carbon, but I will take the Audio Technica into consideration. And yes I agree, Discogs is an excellent resource, been using it for some time now.
I wouldn't worry about impedances and wattage ratings. All modern receivers will work just fine with all modern speakers. The only exception would be if you a) want to fill a large space with music, or b) listen to music so loud that your neighbors complain, or c) choose speakers that are unusually inefficient and need more than the usual watts to drive them.
...
I'll use the 3.5 mm to RCA to connect my laptop. Seems like the most logical option. As for the speakers, they are the last thing I want to be thrifty on. You make a strong case for the Polks. I'm not sure if their bass will satisfy a guy that's used to two 12 inch woofers worth of bass. So I'll just have to try em and see, I can always add a sub. I'm wondering if there's something I'm missing that would make these (http://www.crutchfield.com/p_107TSI300C/Polk-Audio-TSi300-Cherry.html) floor standing speakers worth the extra $100 over the seemingly identical bookshelf speakers (http://www.crutchfield.com/p_107TSI200C/Polk-Audio-TSi200-Cherry.html?tp=186) you suggested.
I agree with your last point. Vinyl just isn't the best or logical option anymore.
If you have the room for those floor-standing Polks, I think you should scoop them up. A powered sub may be in order, based on your musical tastes, but that can be had at a later time if you're running low on funds. I'm not the best person to ask about bass-related stuff: about the only album I own that would really give a sub some work is my Paul's Boutique record by the Beastie Boys.
BTW: I'm not trying to discourage you from getting into vinyl...I like it. I had very few records in the eighties as a kid. Mostly cassettes. That boiled down to convenience then as digital does now. (Except digital doesn't suck ass like cassettes did...
that's an analogue format I have no nostalgia for.)
I think that the case for wear of records is often overstated. (Ditto for "speed variations" but that's another story.) I pick up used eighties American vinyl of unknown origin quite frequently. Granted I get picky over the way it looks before I buy it...but none of them sound "worn" and many sound better than some of the new vinyl I have. Your stylus OTOH should be replaced as needed. The records themselves really only have to last for your lifetime or as long as you use them. Your grandchildren aren't going to want a record collection of your old-fart music.
Audio Technica LP120-USB (http://www.audio-technica.com/cms/turntables/583f30b3a8662772/)
It is dead ringer for the now discontinued and much missed, classic Technics 1210 DD turntable. With all the standard tweeks pre implemented. Plus a built in phono pre amp and USB connection. The AT95E cartridge is pretty decent as well.
Looks to be an excellent one stop shop for the aspiring vinylophile.
I find it hard to believe the internals can be up to the standard of the venerable 1210s but you never know? With a sticker price of £219 it looks a bargain whichever way you look at it.
Anyone have any hands on experience to report?
...
@ RonaldDumsfeld: If you have time and revisit this thread could you tell me a bit more about those pre-implemented tweaks? I'm really curious about this TT as well. I'm actually considering paying about 1200 USD for a NIB SL-1210. If this is even close to it for that sort of price, I'd be mighty stupid to not want to spend that extra cash I could save on something else.
One thing I'm still unsure about is impedance...
I second what pdq said...
You shouldn't need to worry about impedance. The unofficial standard for home speakers is 8 Ohms. It's all pretty-well standardized and virtually all amplifiers will work with 8 Ohm speakers. (Car speakers are usually 4 Ohms.) With lower resistance (or lower impedance), you get more current with a given voltage. So typically, you'll get twice the power with 4 Ohm speakers.
An amplifier rated for 4 or 2 Ohms will work fine with 8 Ohm Speakers.
However, if the speaker impedance is
lower than the amp's impedance rating, or if you hook-up too many speakers, you can "pull" too much power from the amp and damage the amp.
Or if you hook-up two pairs of 8 Ohm speakers, you'll have 4 Ohms (on each channel) and you'll get (about) twice the power... Makes sense, right? 100W from each speaker means 200W with 2 speakers and 400W with 4 speakers...
... and how to correctly match wattage between the amp and speakers. If this amp is rated at 60 watts a channel, my speakers will need to handle at least that much, correct? Or is there more to it?
This can get really tricky... So, I'm going to give you several different answers answers...
For most living room situations and most home speakers, 100 Watts is more than enough. If you double the power you get +3dB more volume (or half the power is -3dB). That's "noticable", but it's not a big difference. If you want to rattle the walls, that usually takes big woofers/subwoofers and big amplifiers.
It's pretty much impossible to predict how much power you need in a home situation... We don't know the SPL level you like to listen at. And, speaker efficiency varies all over the place. One speaker might be 6dB (or more) more efficient than another, and it takes a power factor of 4 to make a 6dB difference (4 times the power is +6dB, or 1/4th the power is -6dB). So a 50W amp/speaker combination may be play louder than a 200W amp/speaker combination. If you feel like you need to go louder, it's often better to get more efficient speakers than to get a bigger amp (or both ).
Pro PA speakers tend to be very efficient, so a PA speaker rated at 500W (maximum) might "blow out the windows" in your house with a 25W amp.
I generally wouldn't worry about connecting 25W speakers to a 200W amp, as long as you don't drive the speakers into distortion.
To much power s rarely a problem. But if there are loud parties and beer involved, you might want to be more cautious.
For professional music/performance installations, JBL recommends using an amplifer with twice the rating of the speaker. For guitar/instrument applications where there is often intentional distortion, they recommend the opposite... an amp with half the power of the speaker rating.
Speaker power ratings are complicated (and sometimes just plain made-up or exaggerated). They are rated for undistorted music which has an average power that's about 1/10th the peak power, with a particular frequency distribution (approximately pink noise). And tweeters cannot handle the power of the woofer, so you can burn-up the tweeter in a 100W speaker with less than 100W if you run high-power, high-frequency, test tones into it.
Sometimes the speaker manufacturer will have a "recommended minimum power" rating. This could be useful information, but its often meaningless. I've seen two speakers from the same manufacturer with same efficiency/sensitivity (the same loudness with the same power), yet the bigger speaker with a higher maximum power rating will have a higher recommended minimum power.
I wouldn't worry about impedances and wattage ratings. All modern receivers will work just fine with all modern speakers. The only exception would be if you a) want to fill a large space with music, or b) listen to music so loud that your neighbors complain, or c) choose speakers that are unusually inefficient and need more than the usual watts to drive them.
Oh okay thanks. Makes sense.
If you have the room for those floor-standing Polks, I think you should scoop them up. A powered sub may be in order, based on your musical tastes, but that can be had at a later time if you're running low on funds.
I definitely have the room for the floor standing Polk's but budget is coming into play. I know you said I should go for them but will the added performance justify the extra $100 spent? I guess I'm just wondering what difference(s) between the two will cause what differences in sound. I assume the differences in acoustics will give the floor standings deeper bass, but will they actually be louder?
BTW: I'm not trying to discourage you from getting into vinyl...I like it.
No worries, nothing you've said has come off that way to me. And no, that was not sarcastic
I think that the case for wear of records is often overstated. (Ditto for "speed variations" but that's another story.) I pick up used eighties American vinyl of unknown origin quite frequently. Granted I get picky over the way it looks before I buy it...but none of them sound "worn" and many sound better than some of the new vinyl I have. Your stylus OTOH should be replaced as needed. The records themselves really only have to last for your lifetime or as long as you use them. Your grandchildren aren't going to want a record collection of your old-fart music.
Yeah Shure probably does exaggerate a tad on that. It'd be cool if my grandchildren shared my music taste, probably a crap shoot though Regardless, I'll take good care of my vinyl.
I second what pdq said... You shouldn't need to worry about impedance.
Lots of info in your post, thanks. At least I have a better understanding of it now. I won't worry about it.
The most important thing is to ensure you set up the arm/cartridge properly. This not only minimises wear but also most of the vinyl's other weaknesses. Do take the time to read up on it if you're not already familiar with the procedure, and then use an alignment protractor to assist with the set up - Google will find you some free ones that you just have to download and print. Also don't be tempted to go for a light tracking force in the belief it will reduce wear. It's much more likely to cause mistraGood luck
I'd feel safer spending an extra $100 for the belt drive,
Why spend extra on an inferior product? The myth that belt drive TTs are intrinsically superior to direct drives has been known to be a canard for 30 years.
In 20 years as a naive audiophile I went through 8 belt drive TTs. Including models from well known brands including Dual, Linn and Thorens. They all broke down. Or needed constant preventive maintainence. Or both. Twenty years ago I bought a set of Technics 1210. They offer superb performance, have never given a moments trouble and, with 10 minutes elbow grease, could pass as new. Not only that, they are worth more today than they cost new in 1992.
could you tell me a bit more about those pre-implemented tweaks?
Technics enthusiasts discovered that could mod their kit very easily by simple rewiring or changing jumpers. These include balanced output, strobe disable, doubling the pitch change range, reverse play and slam stop. Google the specialist sites for full details on all these and more. What I noticed on the AT LP120_USB was a front panel buttons to instantly change the pitch slider between +/- 8 and +/- 16 and a reverse button.
CDs can handle a larger dynamic range than LPs.
What does sound better: an LP with good mixing or a standard CD with maximum lodness (aka clipping and compression) making it sound flat?
Which by the why leads the "better" dynamic range of the CD ad absurdum. An interesting link (maybe): The Loudness War Analyzed (http://musicmachinery.com/2009/03/23/the-loudness-war/)
If CDs were mixed like LPs used to be I'd go for CD anytime. But for now I keep my old records to remind myself what music used to sound like.
Just my thoughts.
Regards, Clobon
The most important thing is to ensure you set up the arm/cartridge properly.
I'll definitely have to read up on this. Is it something that should come properly setup out of the box? Or will it require fine tuning? Thanks.
CDs can handle a larger dynamic range than LPs.
What does sound better: an LP with good mixing or a standard CD with maximum lodness (aka clipping and compression) making it sound flat?
Which by the why leads the "better" dynamic range of the CD ad absurdum. An interesting link (maybe): The Loudness War Analyzed (http://musicmachinery.com/2009/03/23/the-loudness-war/)
If CDs were mixed like LPs used to be I'd go for CD anytime. But for now I keep my old records to remind myself what music used to sound like.
Interesting point. Even further justifies my future purchase
The most important thing is to ensure you set up the arm/cartridge properly.
I'll definitely have to read up on this. Is it something that should come properly setup out of the box? Or will it require fine tuning? Thanks.
...
If you're still intent on purchasing the Debut III, then the cartridge will be factory-fitted and adjusted. You may still want to read up on it for future cartridge changes. (Assuming you don't want to just take it to a specialist to have it done. One of my local audio dealers is very knowledgeable and charges a fair price. I personally feel more comfortable that way...up to you.)
I highly recommend you use a good stylus brush (
Always brush the stylus gently and only in the proper direction/same as that which it operates during playback.) A good carbon-fibre brush should be used on your LPs, even new ones out of the package, like this one here. (http://www.amazon.com/AudioQuest-LP-record-clean-brush/dp/B0006VMBHI/ref=sr_1_7?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1354549001&sr=1-7&keywords=stylus+cleaner)
If you're still intent on purchasing the Debut III, then the cartridge will be factory-fitted and adjusted. You may still want to read up on it for future cartridge changes. (Assuming you don't want to just take it to a specialist to have it done. One of my local audio dealers is very knowledgeable and charges a fair price. I personally feel more comfortable that way...up to you.)
I highly recommend you use a good stylus brush (Always brush the stylus gently and only in the proper direction/same as that which it operates during playback.) A good carbon-fibre brush should be used on your LPs, even new ones out of the package, like this one here. (http://www.amazon.com/AudioQuest-LP-record-clean-brush/dp/B0006VMBHI/ref=sr_1_7?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1354549001&sr=1-7&keywords=stylus+cleaner)
Thanks for the info. I'm set on the Debut Carbon (similar enough) and will begin hunting for the best place to purchase it from. I'll be sure to read up on the subject and get a brush as well.
The most important thing is to ensure you set up the arm/cartridge properly.
I'll definitely have to read up on this. Is it something that should come properly setup out of the box? Or will it require fine tuning? Thanks.
I guess you can expect a factory installed arm/cartridge to be set up properly. I'd still want to check though even if only for reassurance that things haven't gone "off" in transit.
I guess you can expect a factory installed arm/cartridge to be set up properly. I'd still want to check though even if only for reassurance that things haven't gone "off" in transit.
This was something I considered. I will most likely double check things, because as you implied, you never know what kind of beating the box took in transit.
As for people's gripes about vinyl, take them with a grain of salt. In this forum we are used to being rather, um, detail-oriented. We speak the truth, but we often seem to contradict ourselves: when the topic of lossy encodings comes up, we will insist that nothing matters but transparency as ascertained by double-blind testing, and that objective differences, no matter how measurably huge, are irrelevant. But at the same time, some of us will point to things like the lacquer cutting head moving across the master disc in a straight line, while the playback stylus on a turntable sweeps in an arc, and swear, or at least imply, that the resulting distortion is truly a nightmare and a reason CD is infinitely superior.
Perceptual coding and mistracking aren't really analogous.
There was a time when we just listened to the music, and we did this everywhere—at home, in our cars, on our Walkmans, blasting from tiny speakers on transistor radios and out in public shops. We said "oh good, I love this song" when we heard something we liked, not "better not turn it up too loud or we'll hear that it's on vinyl; God, the signal-to-noise ratio is horrendous as compared to CD. And man, I can't believe the stereo separation and dynamic range is so bad. Listen to that tracing distortion!" No, if you asked most of us at age 20 what we didn't like about vinyl, the list of problems would be very short, and would focus on the medium needing to be kept clean and scratch-free, and stored upright and away from heat so it won't warp. We wouldn't be talking about distortion, transducers, rumble, wow, stereo separation, electrical noise, and every other shortcoming as compared to digital. Those things didn't matter to us until we learned about them and started listening for them and comparing vinyl to CD.
Some of those things certainly did matter to me. I was endlessly frustrated by vinyl, back in the day when it was the best format we had (or at least, those of us who couldn't afford a reel-to-reel deck)
A good carbon-fibre brush should be used on your LPs, even new ones out of the package, like this one here. (http://www.amazon.com/AudioQuest-LP-record-clean-brush/dp/B0006VMBHI/ref=sr_1_7?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1354549001&sr=1-7&keywords=stylus+cleaner)
in what regard is the carbon-fiber brush you linked better than a cheap $5 one? the $25 brush wouldn't be the first bit of voodoo itt...
in what regard is the carbon-fiber brush you linked better than a cheap $5 one? the $25 brush wouldn't be the first bit of voodoo itt...
Price may not be a factor, but you should be wary of the way the brush itself is designed to be cleaned.
I have owned two carbon fibre brushes. The first was a Decca one, and the way you removed the dust from the brush itself was to drag it lengthways over a ridge on a plastic stand it came with. What this did was distort and loosen the fibres, which would then be deposited onto the record surface.
I replaced it with a Goldring which is cleaned by sweeping a pivoted metal flange sideways across the fibres. I've never had any problems with it, and must have owned it for at least 20 years now. The Audioquest brush linked to by Engelsstaub looks pretty much identical to my Goldring. It's probably made in the same OEM factory and just has a different name stamped on it.
A good carbon-fibre brush should be used on your LPs, even new ones out of the package, like this one here. (http://www.amazon.com/AudioQuest-LP-record-clean-brush/dp/B0006VMBHI/ref=sr_1_7?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1354549001&sr=1-7&keywords=stylus+cleaner)
in what regard is the carbon-fiber brush you linked better than a cheap $5 one? the $25 brush wouldn't be the first bit of voodoo itt...
I'm pretty certain I never said it was. For your convenience I went over the original quote, as reiterated above, and added particular emphasis to the word "
like."
My brush is identical to that in function but cost less as well. In linking to the brush I was merely trying to illustrate the type of brush that I felt should be used. cliveb did a far better job of describing such a brush verbally than I would have. That's why I, perhaps lazily, linked to a similar one.
I'm pretty certain I never said it was. For your convenience I went over the original quote, as reiterated above, and added particular emphasis to the word "like."
you wrote twice that he should get a
good fiber brush. and the one you linked to is $25. mentioning "good" twice suggests that bad ones exist. and one would suspect from your post as well that you linked to a "good" brush, not a bad one.
in any case, here in germany i buy brushes for €4 or so. the brush comes in some kind of mounting bracket and you clean the brush by turning it 360 degrees. (there is some plastic thingy in the mounting.)
I'm pretty certain I never said it was. For your convenience I went over the original quote, as reiterated above, and added particular emphasis to the word "like."
you wrote twice that he should get a good fiber brush. and the one you linked to is $25. mentioning "good" twice suggests that bad ones exist. and one would suspect from your post as well that you linked to a "good" brush, not a bad one.
in any case, here in germany i buy brushes for €4 or so. the brush comes in some kind of mounting bracket and you clean the brush by turning it 360 degrees. (there is some plastic thingy in the mounting.)
This sort of nitpicking is
really obnoxious. I did not say the OP needed a twenty-five dollar brush. I'm glad you can find a brush for four Euro in Germany. (That's impressive...must not be made in any German-speaking country or it would cost a whole lot more than the one I linked to
as a point of illustration.)
Let me be very clear: the word "like" implies that there are other brushes too. Please stop reading unnecessary things into my posts to start a trivial fight or introduce me to your super bargain-hunting skills.
When you say something without obvious emphasis (bolding) you don't get to pretend the emphasis was obvious and dismiss someone else's take as nitpicking. Take the high road and acknowledge that people may interpret what has been written differently than what was intended rather than be overly-defensive to the point that your tone becomes combative. At the same time I think we tend to be overly-alert for snake-oil peddling to the point that we cry foul too quickly.
It's time to take a deep breath and understand the point is to provide helpful information. We are not going down that path, currently. I think we can all agree that knowing that a good brush can be had at a quarter of the price is a good thing.
That's fair enough, greynol. I was providing helpful information to the OP.
This was in need moderation prior to my tone becoming combative. I'm not the only poster here who tried to correct this obvious nit-picking. I wish it would not almost always go unchecked until an on-topic poster becomes defensive.
Edit: I took the time to explain what I meant once. That should be exactly enough. If someone is still going to tell you what you really mean after that I would expect you to get a tone, as you often do.
Yes, that you have been helpful was not lost on me or vrtually anyone else, I'm sure. Telling someone that a good brush can be had for less than $25 is also helpful.
He was telling you how he interpreted your comment and then you dismissed him again as nitpicking. How many times it takes to make yourself understood is not your call to make.
Regarding your feelings about when someone should step in, I've followed this discussion regularly since it began and have already binned or split off-topic posts. I became involved in this instance specifically because of your tone.
Lastly, and directed at everyone involved in bickering (yes, I'm dismissing these extra posts as bickering), communication always goes more smoothly when you seek first to understand, then attempt to be understood.
I apologize for the tone and my part in the bickering.
In an attempt to be helpful and be understood even again I'm including a picture of the no-name generic brush I use which, when compared to the one I linked to, is obviously far cheaper.
) Again, I'm sorry. ...but moving forward: I hope that we can all see that the brush that cliveb and I are both recommending is of this design.
Now, in recommending such a carbon-fibre brush with pivoting flange, I hope there's no concern that I'm implying that some other type of brush is necessarily bad. I can only personally recommend this type of brush from own experience. If anyone else has a brush of different design that I've either never used or had a bad experience with I'm happy to take your word that it is equally effective.
A word of caution: I believe any carbon fibre brush is capable of leaving dislodged fibres on the record's surface. Since many records are still black vinyl it could be very difficult to see one if it happens. I was thinking there may be some sort of a paint-marker that would work well on carbon fibre. If the upper parts of the fibres (the parts that don't actually contact the record's surface) were painted a bright orange for example, it would be difficult not to see fibres that could have been left on record.
Anybody's thoughts on that last part are most appreciated.
A word of caution: I believe any carbon fibre brush is capable of leaving dislodged fibres on the record's surface. Since many records are still black vinyl it could be very difficult to see one if it happens. I was thinking there may be some sort of a paint-marker that would work well on carbon fibre. If the upper parts of the fibres (the parts that don't actually contact the record's surface) were painted a bright orange for example, it would be difficult not to see fibres that could have been left on record.
Good point. Are there any brushes with this feature?
I have an idea, instead of bickering at each other; how about everyone turns this into positive efforts of finding the best quality brush, for the best price!
..because I would like to get a brush.
I have an idea, instead of bickering at each other; how about everyone turns this into positive efforts of finding the best quality brush, for the best price!
..because I would like to get a brush.
OK, good idea. I have personally experienced a sample of two. The Decca was no good: it shed fibres. The Goldring (seemingly identical in appearance to Engelestaaub's and the Audioquest one previously mentioned) has been fine for over 20 years.
We might perhaps conclude that you should go for the type with the pivoted flange. But I see on the UK Amazon site a review of the Milty brush (http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/B0018A3AVM/ref=cm_cr_dp_see_all_btm?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending) which says it sheds fibres - and it again looks exactly like my Goldring.
So it seems that it could be a matter of pot luck. Perhaps that Decca brush I had was just a bad sample and there was no inherent design flaw. Not much help to people looking to buy a brush, of course. I reckon you will just have to buy one that's reasonably priced and hope for the best. It may be a good idea to buy one with a well-known brand name rather than a generic one, since they might have better sample quality control (even if the basic design is the same).
Mine has a plastic flange, so I would actually prefer your Goldring by virtue of the materials it was constructed with
I believe as long as one pays a modicum of extra attention, any such fibres should be noticed. Perhaps I've made a bigger deal of it then what it would be in reality. I've never noticed more than one occurrence in my own personal usage. I'm guessing that carbon fibres would not cling to a vinyl surface. Perhaps simply shaking the record would get one off rather quickly? They certainly should be less problematic than lint or other unwanted foreign matter, or else (I admittedly assume) they would use a different material for the bristles of a record brush.
I've had two Goldrings, bought from the same shop, both now over 20 years old. They looked identical, but the earlier one had much softer outer fibres. The later one had harder fibres - these would visible mark an LP if dragged across it in the wrong direction. But I'd wrecked the older one by trying to wash the fibres, after unfortunately using it to clean (what turned out to be) a greasy record.
Cheers,
David.
One thing that might be worth mentioning is that many techno records are solely released on vinyl... never mind the audio quality debate.
I have one of those with plastic pivoting flange (no brand) bought some 25 years ago and still in good conditions (used daily for about 15 years) and I remember the difference in cleaning ability with the velvet one I used before was quite remarkable. Never noticed shedded fibers.
I also remember back in the day they sold a version with a thin cable attached to the metal handler, intended to be connected to amp ground pin to discharge static from record surface.
By the way: what about those little brushes meant to clean the stylus from dust and other debris? I have one also, but resorted to use only very seldom (and very weakly).
...
By the way: what about those little brushes meant to clean the stylus from dust and other debris? I have one also, but resorted to use only very seldom (and very weakly).
Mine looks like an eyelash brush and I refill the bottle with 91% isopropyl alcohol. I use it gently after I play each record. Perhaps that is too often and a bit hard on the stylus? I'm not certain.
I use it gently after I play each record. Perhaps that is too often and a bit hard on the stylus? I'm not certain.
Cleaning a stylus with isopropanol should be perfectly safe, when you consider that Linn used to recommend sandpaper!!!
Honestly, I'm not kidding. You could buy expensive green stuff from them and the technique was to gently drag it from back to front each side of the stylus. As far as I could make out, their green stuff was something like 1000 grit wet-and-dry.
I use it gently after I play each record. Perhaps that is too often and a bit hard on the stylus? I'm not certain.
Cleaning a stylus with isopropanol should be perfectly safe, when you consider that Linn used to recommend sandpaper!!!
Honestly, I'm not kidding. You could buy expensive green stuff from them and the technique was to gently drag it from back to front each side of the stylus. As far as I could make out, their green stuff was something like 1000 grit wet-and-dry.
Thanks for the advice, cliveb.
I would like you to know that, based on your many unbiased contributions here and elsewhere, I greatly respect and appreciate your point of view regarding vinyl and audio in general. In fact, more so than anyone I know personally/offline.