Is a vinyl rig only worth it for oldies?

Raulirurgas,
to answer your post to mapman if I may be so bold. People are synthesising these old pieces of kit because they have a sound. A sound which is familiar and much loved by many. Yes equipment is way better now as you mentioned but it has no character due to its transparency.

So some want the character. In a recording studio this is very important. It brings a statement to a guitar or vocal or drum sound etc.

Dear Chadeffect: Agree with you. Now, live music has that character and transparency with a natural accuracy.

IMHO that character you are talking about is an intrinsic music characteristic : or what is in the recording came just from the start with that " character " or not and in this case the added distortions generated through the recording and playback process has nothing to do/see with that music original " character ". Those added distortions ( mainly on analog. ) are signal modifications signal degradations.

The whole subject could be why a heavely faulty analog alternative likes all of us so much? and my " point " here is only that we can understand not only what is happening down " there " but why I affirm analog is a heavely faulty alternative.

Today digital is with out single doubt truer to the recording than analog. I'm with both alternatives but this is not the subject.
The subject is that many of us claim the superiority of the analog alternative and IMHO and trhough all what I posted that affirmation is absolutely untrue, that we like it does not means is a superior medium because I repeat: it is not and we have to know why it is not.

Today several audiophiles are " crazy " about R2R and these persons that in the past owned several TT and cartridges now have several R2R machines because they think is the " eden/panacea " and it is not: it is a way faulty medium with lower quality performance level that the digital alternative. As I posted, any one of us with that Shefield direct to disc recording ( Dave Grusin ) and the sample recording that came from the analog master tape can " live " on playback the huge differences huge differences because the LP that came from the R2R tape has distortions generated on the analog tape that the DTD LP has not because the signal does not passed trhough any single analog tape during the recording process, this is a fact not something that what we like.

Here is the same: why we like a faulty medium over a truer/accurate medium as digital?

Yes, we like all the analog make-up and nothing wrong with that. Insist why? other that because we are accustomed to. Are we all wrong?, could be.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Rauliruegas,

I'm with you. I know guys who still swear by running instruments through a certain piece of analogue outboard gear. You can get depth that is hard to get otherwise. Plugins cannot do this... Yet!

Dear Chadeffect: Thinking on " loud voice " there is something that maybe has more influence in why people do not like digital when they love analog, let me explain:

years ago when CD started the CDP were really " bad " and in our each one audio system we can easily aware of all the drawbacks of that digital technology. Those early and " primitive " DACs were part of the problem ( not the digital technology ".
The resolution of our systems were high and the CDs can't hide no one of its problems.

What happened through the years: digital technology ( DACs ) started to improve year after year, even today is almost month after month,. Today we have DACs on CDP with an incredible 32 bits on resolution with very high sampling too.

What's my take down here: that many of our audio systems has lower resolution against the today top digital technology and to really appreciate what today ( and in the future. ) digital can shows us we need better audio electronic designs wirth better : dynamic range, lower a lot lower distortions of every kind, wide flat frequency response, lower noise floor, lower crosstalk, faster response, etc , etc. All these could means that today the problem is not the digital technology but our each one system that was supersede by the digital technology.

We ( almost all ) live in an anachronism when we are using tube electronics ( IMHO an " arcaic " technology with no single advantage for digital. Please this is only an example and I don't want to open a window here, my words are with all respect to tube lovers and tube designers. ) that per se is a heavy limitation for today really high resolution: tubes can't cope with the today digital specs, even SS designs must improve about because several of them can't cope/mate with the digital advances.

Gentlemans, please think on that.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Rauliruegas,

I completely agree. Even though I have fallen in love with an old SET for my playback!

In the past we had to cover up the harsh reality of the sound that came out of DACs at the time, never mind the quality of the recording/mastering etc.

The lastest DACs have a purity that needs no help. For Hifi purposes, I believe, even though I have slightly fallen from the path, that you should playback exactly what is on the source. i.e the system should add nothing.

Now I do realise that in practise some recordings need some "help", but good and great recordings need none. The problem is it is so subjective. Hense a site like this with many opinions on what is best. Let alone an understanding of what the record you are listening to really sounded like. As for most people they only ever heard it on a couple of systems which could be adding or taking away all sorts of elements.

Imagine listening to hip hop on a lowther with a 300b amp or even a quad 57 and quad 2. You would only hear half the record! So imagine having an opinion about the bass if that was your reference!