|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Sep 29, 2015 - 4:47 PM
|
|
|
By: |
John-73
(Member)
|
With the technology that's currently available to the us, for anyone to suggest that ultimate sound reproduction comes only with a massive price tag is a little silly. No one is saying vinyl can't sound good--it often does. The issue is about vinyl's fundamental technological limitations and how people often rationalize their preference to it through a profound and long-nurtured emotional bond. ETA: Just so I don't get accused of some sort of anti-vinyl bias which could call my objectivity into question, I should preface my comments with how I myself have come dangerously close to the kind of obsession that often characterizes record collectors and audiophiles. Back in 2001 I wrestled that embryonic neurosis into submission and brought home the Technics SL1200MK2 and that is as far as I will ever go again. I'm suggesting that for LP, you have to spend a fair bit to get good results, results that minimise vinyls imperfections and really bring out its strengths. You cannot do vinyl on the cheap and expect good results. The Technics SL-1200 you mention is, however, a superb deck, and one that was hardly cheap to buy when new either (by the way they're very highly sort after now - and have shot up in value! I wish I'd kept mine). When it comes to digital however, I absolutely fully agree with you. One can indeed get very respectable results from budget gear. Digital is the great leveller (and many audiophiles still can't handle that heheh!). But then you really do need a decent amplifier and speakers to get the most out of them. My pet hate is hearing people making definitive statements about the sound quality (or lack of) of certain releases, and then finding out they're listening on cheapo plastic computer speakers or crappy earbud headphones, or worse... But I'll save anyone from any further audio rants of mine now
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|