TOTALLY CONFUSED about analog

I'm having a little difficulty undestanding why there are numerous off-subject posts on this thread, especially the diatribes against analog. Audiogon provides a nifty forum for digital for those who are so inclined.

How is this type of post helping Ken get started in analog?? PBB, perhaps you could start the ball rolling???

Forgive me if this post sounds strident, but if one doesn't like analog, why would one spend so much time here? I'm a sailor and don't care much for powerboats, but I don't spend my weekends at the power boat dealership haranguing their customers- I simply go sailing!!

Please, and with all sincerity, could any one of the analog-averse posters fill me in on why you are here and how the analog community is benefitting?

Sincerely
Jim

Good Bishop, I believe I have finally found the answer. Do you get chocolate in your vinyl? Explains a lot.

All Jokes aside, do you have to be a Bishop and a psychotherapist to attain that nice balance of view? I fear I have no chance.

Sincerely, I remain

jimbo3 - *thank* you!!! ;~) perhaps pbb's point to waxcylinder (those cylinders sound *much* better tha 12" vinyl, doncha know?) is: *don't bother* to get into analog. the main argument *against* analog, (which doesen't hold much water for me and my ears) is that analog has more background surface noise. as i said earlier:

"...while i acknowledge surface noise is an issue w/some albums, the overwhelming majority of 'em are emminently musical, w/o surface noise being a distraction, even the *oldies*. and, no edgy digital sound - who cares if the background is perfect, when the main event is irritating? :>) ..."

there is so much *music* on vinyl, it's easy *for me* to hear around the surface noise of all but the poorest-condition records. perhaps it's due to the fact that i've ben spinning viny since i was seven years old, & i'm used to it. mebbe a vinyl *newbie* couldn't cope.

doug s.

btw, an aside to bishopwell: invest in a modified art di/o dac, & get the best you're ever gonna get out of redbook cd w/o taking out another mortgage on your house.

You're right, Jimbo, it DOES sound strident and I wonder why? Mercy sakes, my friend, don't you READ what people write? I'll let pbb speak for himself but in my case I AM NOT ANALOG ADVERSE. I have been and will continue to be complimentary to and appreciative of good analog sound.

I made the conscious, deliberate choice to give up vinyl (of which I had a lot) and get rid of my analog equipment (which was eminently respectable and in which I had invested a lot of money) because I found surface noise more of a detriment to my listening enjoyment than the benefit of analog sound compared to digital.

Jimbo, did you ever hear someone say that they chose XXX speaker because it had such a phenomenal midrange (for example) even though they acknowledged that it didn't have such a totally wonderful low end or top end? Do you know of anyone who chose imaging and soundstage over maximum tonal accuracy or vice versa?

This is what we are talking about. It isn't a matter of being "analog adverse." For goodness sake, you'll hear a lot more negativity on the dear old 'gon about digital than you ever will about analog. It's a matter of people making personal choices that reflect their values in music appreciation.

Why get so exercised over something that's supposed to be fun?

Will

Psychicanimal, I make no promises, but this is the last from me on the never ending analogue/vinyl vs. digital/CD debate: on the inherent musicality of a system as judged by a third party who is not into this audiophile thing, I can take the case of my wife. The first thing she mentions when coming into the room when an LP is playing music with less than a relentless musical groove to hide the surface noise is that there is so much noise present. On the other hand, when I got a home trial of the Arcam FMJ CD 23 (which I ended up buying despite what is probably also to you a well known phrase: "but you have a CD player") she was amazed at the difference between my JVC 1010 in terms of the oft-touted "musicality" and opined that it simply sounded more like musical instruments than its predecessor. And this is a machine that many consider entry level into better CD reproduction. Briefly put: in the roughly ten year span between these two machines a lot has been accomplished in CD reproduction which is not apparent in the measured performance. What has happened is "musicality" that rivals that of analogue/vinyl even in the handicap race always proposed between the two, and which surpasses it when background and impulse noises are part of the equation (which they should, since I can't buy the arguments that you can simply dismiss these two distinct and intrusive noises while concentrating on the detailed, relaxed and liquid analogue presentation). My most basic point is that unless you have compelling reasons to get into vinyl (inter alia, inheriting an analogue rig and/or a decent LP collection), one would be better to concentrate resources on what is the current generally accepted system of music reproduction, unless that is the "hobby" aspect of analogue/vinyl is too tempting, in which case the person, such as the original poster who still can't believe what his simple question engendered, should set himself a budget and get a good used turntable of Linn, VPI, SOTA or Oracle manufacture (or other manufacture where parts are still available) along with a decent arm (which is probably already installed on the tt), together with a new cartridge. That same person could also give one of the better CD players a listen and then decide if all the negatives attributed to CD reproduction, such as aggressive highs, lack of detail, lack of warmth, no toe-tappingness and other now time-worn and un-applicable clichés, are real or simply a rehashing of twenty year old biases, and maybe save some money in the process.