Vinyl is where it's at???

Analoguemusic,

I agree with your assessment of the Hugo, but don't sell your LP12 and vinyl unless you really need the space or money. I suspect you will regret it.

I have a Hugo (with Naim streamer) on one system, and a Linn Klimax on another, but I still enjoy playing vinyl regularly. I did at one point stop buying LPs completely, and started transferring my LPs to digital format. However, instead I ended up upgrading my Turntable set-up and buying a Keith Monks RCM.

I also use Tidal for discovery purposes. The best of al worlds in my opinion. 

I was very very impressed when I first heard the Hugo - it did some things that surpassed the CD555/555PS x 2 that was the listening session benchmark.

But supplant vinyl? Oh no - definitely not for me 

Why not, modern Vinyl isn't really what is was. If it has been cut from a digital master, then you aren't really listening to an analog recording.

I re-read a very interesting post by Barry Diament on this forum (who re-remasted the Led Zeppelin albums) and he said that a CD ripped properly (matched to accurate rip database, and with the software settings done properly) is effectively the same as a digital master, and when I did that and listened, there is a lot more information there that I ever imagined possible. All my complaints about digital (lack of space, lack of ambiance, lack of reverb, congested sound, lack of fine detail, lack of timbre) are more or less addressed with a 100 % accurate CD rip.

On the depeche mode track personal jesus, near the end of the song, there are some synth effect that sounded quite digital to me on my cheap CD player, and when I got the Vinyl, it sounds very different. Well when I ripped the CD properly, it sounds very similar, almost identical to the Vinyl. I think all these years, the issue with CD players was that their transports could not get the 100 % accurate data out of the CD.

On tidal, I also hear the same as the ripped CD and the Vinyl.

Nowadays unless the path from the recorder (must be analog tape) all the way to the mastering is all analog, what is the point of great turntables like LP12 anymore? There can only be that many first or second generation analog master tapes, and I would bet good money that NOBODY uses these while cutting the vinyl.

I used to swear by superiority of analog, but even I have to concede, it is game over, and what a relief for me not to deal with that anymore.

Tidal is really superb. A music lovers dream come true with a great Dac like the Hugo.

it is a digital world, and once the tech goes mainstream (which it is with Tidal), goodbye Lp12.

Especially when Tidal goes Hi-res...

Another opinion ( different context obviously- no Naim amps for a start)

I was appreciating my vinyl on here the other day (P5 Dynavector 17D3 Zesto Andros), saying how much more I liked listening to it after enjoying the Naim firmware upgrade on my DAC, despite the digital also sounding better. Yes, I was perplexed by this. I needed a reality check.

I Invited a non- naim hifi mate around to listen to the latest iteration of my system. Could he confirm my feelings about the vinyl sounding good.  Took him 20 seconds to claim the Naim DAC XPS2 DR was walking all over the vinyl.  In short he said the vinyl sounded like a really nice record player, the digital sounded like the players were in the room.

importantly,

1. the music we were able to directly compare was Dave Brubecks Take 5 and Beth Orton's Central Reservation.

2. The vinyl "rig" uses Nordost's mid range Red Dawn  interconnects and some standard power cables, the digital uses Nordost's reference Valhalla power cables and interconnects.  All other system cabling Is Valhalla. The uber cabling does make a difference but it would double the cost of the vinyl rig to replicate the digital setup and I have about ten times the music on digital.  The vinyl is just for fun/ variety/nostalgia ( 13 tubes in my vinyl signal path) :-) 

Me, I like them both! I tend to mostly listen to digital because of the sheer convenience and, yes, many recordings sound better that way. But I've a large collection of vinyl, most of it old stuff, that still sounds great (try Led Zeppelin 1 & 2 on plum vinyl & then compare to any of the digital recordings...) and much isn't available on the digital medium. Record playing equipment continues to improve, as does digital reproduction, & who knows what's ultimately possible from either format?

Enjoy them both if you can.

analogmusic posted:

 LP12 and Vinyl belong (soon) in the garage sale, donation to charity and in a box in the garage, soon to be disposed of.

 

 

Must be time for a change of "analogmusic" member name

Hmack posted:

Gary wrote:

"The Hugo should have been called 'The Headache' imo"

I simply rest my case.

Rest your case for what, because i won't agree with you? Suddenly your opinion is more worthy than mine. Give it a rest.

Hmack posted:

Really, does anyone else feel the same way about the Hugo? Is it really that bad?

Haters gonna hate unfortunately.

For me, the Hugo seems to be such a taboo subject on this forum and I'm not sure why.

I tried and quite liked what the Hugo did but not its form factor.  I  chatted with Hugo's designer during the Hugo tour about DACs and whether A to D processing  needed a similar Hugo approach ( he said yes).

Despite that I do find the almost " born again" Hugo fan club a bit much.

In the earliest days of CD, it and vinyl sounded quite different. Both had their pros and cons:-

vinyl:
Analog nature preserved (if analog recording), vs compression of dynamic range on some material, easy to damage (accidents can happen no matter how carefully handled), susceptible to wear so gradual deterioration over lifetime if played a lot, relatively high noise floor (some discs worse than others),

cd:
Less compression of dynamic range than vinyl, convenience due to lack of need to turn over and raise arm at end, much less susceptible to damage so potential to last a lifetime unchanged if looked after, vs analog nature of music not preserved, with risk of change in sound.

For me CD simply didn't sound good enough at first - clearly, it seemed, the process wasn't as perfect as industry claimed - so the nominal advantages of CD were of no relevance. There was rapid development of CD players and by 1989 some players showed far more subtle differences in sound, such that at least to me with the Cambridge CD2 the advantages of CD took over, and I didn't buy any new vinyl from then on (but kept old vinyl going for another 20 years).

Comparing with a friend's LP12 based system soon after I got my CD2, musical differences were evident, though more as an overall impression (slight relative 'harshness' of CD) than anything it was possible to pinpoint. Rightly or wrongly I attributed that to the digital process, rather than limitations of the analog process (sound is analog, which the vinyl path (from analog recordings) preserved all the way through, whereas digital effectively chops it into pieces and reassembles, with, for example, step changes in level, not smooth changes, and meanwhile electronics involved such as steep filters could cause audible artefacts.) However, against that, CD scored with lower noise floor on quiet passages, and in the end neither medium was perfect, choice being a balance of the pros and cons.

At that stage I hadn't thought about any differences in mastering - I had presumed that the same would go to both vinyl and CD production, however one day I was quite surprised - indeed shocked - to find two copies of the same CD sounded different. Very different. Scrutinising them, dates etc were the same, and there was nothing to suggest any difference in mastering, the only discernible difference was that one was pressed in UK, the other in Germany. That blew the whole thing out of the water: if two CDs could be that different, how can you even start to compare CD and vinyl, unless you have information to confirm that they have been processed in precisely the same way up to the point of disc production?

Notwithstanding the above, for any music that has been recorded digitally, which I am led to believe is the vast majority of music produced today, and increasingly so over the past 4 decades, the advantages of analog as a medium are negated completely (other than, perhaps, the pleasure handling and viewing a physical LP album cover can give), especially if the original recording resolution is made available to the consumer, leaving only disadvantages. So that leaves vinyl as potentially having higher sound quality only for old recordings or rare specialist modern analog recordings.

When the Hugo came out, it seemed to be hailed by many as virtually a solution to world peace, which did become rather irritating. That doesn't mean it's not wonderful - I've never heard one and don't particularly want to - but it seems odd that it provokes such a strong reaction in some. It's only Hifi, it's not like it was anything important to warrant getting worked up about. 

Gary wrote:

Rest your case for what, because i won't agree with you? Suddenly your opinion is more worthy than mine. Give it a rest.

Not at all.

In fact, quite the opposite. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, especially in the realm of Hi-Fi, where if you take away specifications (as I think most of us do to a large extent), then all that is left are subjective opinions. I just dislike extreme responses intensely, especially where people seem to irrationally want to respond negatively (or indeed over positively) to any comment that is made about a particular bit of kit.

In this case, the Hugo is simply a rather good headphone amp and DAC. Nothing more or less than that. I am not even sure that it is the best DAC I use. I am equally fond of one of my other DACs.

Now I will "give it a rest".

HH wrote:

I"t's only Hifi, it's not like it was anything important to warrant getting worked up about". 

+1 to that.

Lots more important things in the world about which to worry.

Analoguemusic,

I agree with you to a large extent about a lot of modern digitally mastered LPs.

They are also often horribly expensive. However, I am currently listening to a 1979 pressing of a Jeff Beck album that I picked up in a well known charity shop for not much money. It sounds wonderful after a good clean in my RCM. It 'scrubs up well' as they say. 

It's amazing what you can pick up for a modest amount of money in a good charity shop such as Oxfam, or in your local second hand record shop. I pick up most of my 'new' vinyl this way.

Digital is certainly the way forward, but in the meantime it is also possible to get a lot of value and quality from vinyl as well. 

Innocent Bystander posted:

vinyl:
Analog nature preserved (if analog recording), vs compression of dynamic range on some material, easy to damage (accidents can happen no matter how carefully handled), susceptible to wear so gradual deterioration over lifetime if played a lot, relatively high noise floor (some discs worse than others),

Notwithstanding the above, for any music that has been recorded digitally, which I am led to believe is the vast majority of music produced today, and increasingly so over the past 4 decades, the advantages of analog as a medium are negated completely (other than, perhaps, the pleasure handling and viewing a physical LP album cover can give), especially if the original recording resolution is made available to the consumer, leaving only disadvantages. So that leaves vinyl as potentially having higher sound quality only for old recordings or rare specialist modern analog recordings.

 

Two points here - firstly, even my oldest vinyl discs sound wonderful. They've generally been well cared for over their lives and, whilst undoubtedly they must have worn somewhat, in the last 50 years this wear isn't discernible. Secondly, like lots of other folk here, we've got large collections of old vinyl, so the fact that modern discs rely on digital processing is of little relevance.

I had a LP12 which I used with entry level Naim separates so I am sure I wasn't getting the best out of the TT even though it had a basic arm and MM cartridge. I also used an entry level Naim CD player at that time and gradually listened more and more to CDs partly because I got a little bored of many of my old LPs and started to build a CD collection.

I eventually sold my LP12 and all my records and at that time it didn't bother me at all. More recently I bought a few CD versions of some of my old records (mainly a nostalgic episode) and have played them on my current mid classic Naim system and have been somewhat disappointed. I am not sure if this is because my expectations of the quality of music reproduction in the home has increased as my system has improved considerably (and the advent of hi res streaming I now use) or if the CDs of my old records have been compressed or remastered poorly. Anyway, I now have some regrets in selling my LP12 and my records.

But my musical tastes have moved on over the past 25 years. It also appears that most modern recordings simply aren't available on vinyl. Hi res stuff also sounds wonderful on my NDS - well most of it does. One problem I have come across is the wretched compressing of some modern CDs which of course is replicated perfectly when these CDs are ripped. Fortunately it seems to be mainly pop stuff that has been compressed which is less important to me. I too have an Alabama Shakes album that I have ripped and it is unlistenable.

So I have mixed feelings about the importance and relevance of the analogue medium but this is mainly driven by the quality of the digital stuff I prefer to listen to, the quality of modern recordings of my preferred genres/artists and the unavailability of modern recordings on vinyl. For me it makes more sense to focus my limited funds on digital replay for these reasons. But I can fully understand those who have a large collection of well produced vinyl that they still enjoy listening to, continuing to embrace vinyl.

My Hugo TT certainly gets closer to my RP10.. and I have noticed that I listen to less vinyl since installing the TT. But it will never replace vinyl in my system.... lots of room for both.

It's alive and well - certainly in this household. I keep my vinyl collection when those around me sold theirs to jump on the early CD promise of perfect sound forever. I'm about to go to an NDS after many happy years with an HDX but still keep my LP12/Keel/Kandid/tiger paw/radical in a system which also includes  a totally rebuilt Revox B77 - electronics, capstan, heads and all and a serviced Naim NAT01. Call me a caveman if you like but there's nothing like pure analogue and going back to some of those late 1950s pressings. My last LP12 served me for 25 years - sadly I can't see an NDS lasting that long as long but I guess that's progress!

tonym posted

Two points here - firstly, even my oldest vinyl discs sound wonderful. They've generally been well cared for over their lives and, whilst undoubtedly they must have worn somewhat, in the last 50 years this wear isn't discernible. Secondly, like lots of other folk here, we've got large collections of old vinyl, so the fact that modern discs rely on digital processing is of little relevance.

Although I looked after my vinyl, the ones I played most did show an increase in surface noise over time, as do those of a friend's collection - though admittedly I didn't have a cleaning machine, nor does he, which from this forum I gather has become ubiquitous, and I can't rule out the possibility of dust playing a part. However it would be interesting to compare the sound of two copies of the same pressing of a disk, one played heavily for years, and the other scarecely played at all...

Meanwhile I hope it was clear from my post that I did think vinyl from analog recordings tended to sound better that CDs apart from noise floor, though how much is due to different mastering is unclear. I ripped all my old vinyl and now enjoy digitally, though I have replaced some with digital downloads or CD rips. However, relevant to this is that my playback system now (Mac Mini/Audirvana/Gustard U12/Hugo) makes them sound better than I ever heard via CD playback (not just comparison to fallible memory: my vinyl committed friend no longer thinks my system sounds worse than his!).

Unlike some, other than having 'discovered' opera, my musical taste hasn't changed over the years, and I, too, frequently play even some of the oldest albums in my collection. I don't know which I have more of,  analog or digitally recorded music - I suspect the former, but feel that the digital medium now allows that to shine without impediment - but as with all things in music, personal preference and taste comes into it, and for anyone content with their vinyl system, there's no reason whatsoever why they should even consider changing. (And I do miss LP sleeves!!!)

Question: (this may already have been raised) but is the OPs preference for Rega RP6 over the Naim NDS down to the reproduction provided by the Rega, or the recordings / mastering?

I do recommend a vinyl cleaning machine - a well "scrubbed" lp, with static gone, has a barely noticable noise floor.

Am I really the only one here who can almost always hear the HF compression and distortion from analogue tape?

At least my hearing has now deteriorated to the point where I no longer hear the HF anomalies of vinyl as the stylus starts to approach tip resonance, so that no longer troubles me.  The lack of resolution in vinyl due to the poorer noise floor still bothers me though.

Eloise posted:

Question: (this may already have been raised) but is the OPs preference for Rega RP6 over the Naim NDS down to the reproduction provided by the Rega, or the recordings / mastering?

Using the Stageline-N. So the sound is as Naim as it gets..

Still - if I were to give one of the two up, it would be the RP6. Vinyl sounds better, but just isn't practical. Convenience trumps SQ. The DireStraits box set I bought over a year ago is still sealed. As are 4-5 other records.

What continues to amaze me though, is how a $1500 record player can even compete with a $15000 digital replay system.

RP6 preferred to RP8?

C.

Yes, but reasons are not what you would expect.