Revisiting vinyl after years of CD's

[RickH]

This will probably be a "DUH!" post to LP lovers, but a friend of mine recently let me borrow a turntable for a while and since I had not listened to LP's since going CD in 1986, and just didn't really buy the "LP's sound better" claim, I thought I'd post a comment or two on my comparison findings after listening to some albums over the past few days. Now, this turntable is a JVC, it's not real high-end, it's probably considered "mid-fi" but i think it's got a pretty good Audio Techna (?) cartridge in the tone arm. Anyway, I have come to the conclusion that the sound of the turntable and LP's produce a sound that's more resonant, that seems to project the sound into the room better than CD's do, and I can also hear the difference when I'm listening from outside the room from a distance. No, the dynamic range of CD's isn't there, obviously, but the analog warmness and presence are a really pleasant trade-off, it's a sound that's more pleasing to the ear and much less fatiguing than digital. No, I'm not going back to vinyl but I'm gonna be transferring some old vinyl to my hard drive for cd-r transfer while I have this turntable. I am going SACD but I'm glad I'm getting the chance to re-visit the warm sound of vinyl and hear for myself what all the fuss has been about.

On another vinyl subject, RCA released some LP's back in the early 70's (light orange label) that were extremely light & flimsy yet they had excellent sound. "This Is Chet Atkins", a 2-record set is one I've been listening to that is this really light vinyl. Why were some LP's of that texture and some more rigid? Just curious if there was a sound quality factor with the light-grade vinyl.

[Grant]

If it's the same TT I have, it's not a bad table at all, with the right cart.

Whether LPs sound good depends on the LP pressing. I have LPs that kick the crap out of the CD counterpart. Likely, the LP was made from better source tapes and the CD wasn't, or was meddled with during mastering. Who knows. But I have examples of just the opposite.

Enjoy that table, and make sure you use a good soundcard!

[-=Rudy=-]

Originally posted by RickH
On another vinyl subject, RCA released some LP's back in the early 70's (light orange label) that were extremely light & flimsy yet they had excellent sound. "This Is Chet Atkins", a 2-record set is one I've been listening to that is this really light vinyl. Why were some LP's of that texture and some more rigid? Just curious if there was a sound quality factor with the light-grade vinyl.

Aaaaaaah, the mighty "dynaflex" vinyl. I don't know if that miracle vinyl of theirs ever amounted to much, but I've had varying degrees of success with it. Some LPs are fine, while others sound a little noisy. The sole purpose may have been to reduce costs. I know Fantasy also had some of their vinyl in that era pressed at RCA...I have a couple that are just as flimsy as the RCAs. Heck, you can almost bend those until the sides touch! :D

[thegage]

Dynaflex: here's one view I pulled off the web: "Dynaflex. Ultra-thin pressings of high-grade Virgin Vinyl introduced by RCA Victor in late 1969. Although considered crap by most collectors because they do not seem flat when held, they actually have much quieter surfaces then most of the popular records pressed by RCA in the mid-to-late-1960s due to the extraordinarily high percentage of Re-grind Vinyl used in all but its Red Seal, Vintage Series, and Original Cast pressings. Dynaflex was also less prone to breakage and permanent warpage in shipment. Its lighter weight reduced shipping costs and allowed for the use of a higher grade of Vinyl because less material was required. They were supposed to lie flat on the turntable due to their own weight, but RCA forgot that many people had changers with 8-inch turntables!"

Of course, a cynic might conclude that most of the above is a regurgitation of promotional twaddle, and the whole point was to reduce costs without reducing prices, thereby shafting the consumer. Then again, I wasn't around at any of their production meetings, and I'm not cynical. :laugh:

John K.

[Sckott]

Virgin vinyl, my foot.

[quadjoe]

I don't know about "virgin" vinyl, but I have several Dynaflex records and they have held up very well over the years. It seems to me that RCA was always trying something to "improve" the record. I have several mid '60's RCA DynaGroove recordings that sound wonderful: the gimmick of these discs was that the edge of the disc was raised as well as the label area so that when records were stacked on a changer, the playing surfaces wouldn't touch (assuming unwarped records, of course). Needless to say, in reality it doesn't matter what the record company does, people buy vinyl for the music.

[Grant]

I just bought a 180 gram pressing of Otis Blue By Otis Redding on Sundazed, in mono. It's only the third 180 gram LP I own with the other two being Jimi Hendrix. My cart and TT isn't the greatest, but this should be fun.

[John Doe]

How is it?