|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
64.26.145.10
Hi everybody,
I've been thinking of going into either SACD or Vinyl for variety beside red book CD. I have about 500 CDs and 10 hybrid SACDs and none of the vinyl.
I would like to ask what is the difference in sound between these 2 formats ? I know that vinyl requires more maintenance and are prefer by many, but would the SACD sounds as good ?
Which one is better at around $2000 price point ? Turntable or SACD player ?
Follow Ups:
Apart from the sonics, owning a turntable for me has something to do with the sheer mechanical enjoyment of operating it. I appreciate its attributes as an 'objet d'art' so to speak. Plus I had this vision of coming home from work, browsing through my jazz record collection and putting some great jazz on.This has nothing to do with sonics. Of course I like vinyl and it sounds better than many CD's I have. But there is bad sounding vinyl, just as there is bad sounding SA-CD and [name your format]. And vice versa. My system has reached a point where I can demonstrate the supererioty of any format over any other format :-) -it depends on the recording.
If you like the experience just do it and do not worry too much about the sound quality. Too many variables to give a conclusive answer.
To make a long story short, I will be buying more of the Oscar Peterson recordings. Thanks for trying some of those again on your system.I tried the one I had purchased again using different equipment and made sure the electronics were warmed up and the listening area was pretty much silent freeing me from distraction.
No one else really responded in the other post I made. Not sure how many jazz fans are still here.
I own over 500 SACDs and I was trying to convince myself they are better than vinyl. I own the incredible VSEI Level 5+ Sony 777 and I now have a Clearaudio Ambient table with a Benz Ebony L cartridge. I keep thinking there will be an SACD I clearly prefer to vinyl, but I have found it to seldom if ever to be the case.If you love Jazz and classic rock there is just so much more vinyl available. I have been shocked at the quality of the LPs I purchase for $2 or less, often they are as good as brand new LPs.
At the moment I am not trying to replace my Classical SACDs. The vinyl is just too expensive and especially the LIving Stereo SACDs are just superb.
Exactly! So you can afford to try lots of artists and music styles for minimal cost. And the used shops will often swop them back.What phono stage/preamp are you using?
Can you describe what you're hearing that makes you ultimately prefer vinyl over SACD with these fine source components?
and many obviously pro SACD posters. As a hobbyist for over 40 years, I have just gone back to LP's x 3 years. No comparison at entry or mid level, LP's sound better than my SACD's.I have vacillated for over 2 years while learning here and some day will improve my cd and sacd reproduction.
But, with so much fun collecting old "frozen" classical titles, such as Gilels playing Schumann old Angel from England for free, why? I just need to grow some. I do admit the ritual doesn't bother me. It relaxes me after a hard day at work.
I think analog still sounds better to most people and I might venture closer to the original on unamplified music. But, to each his/her own.
If you like classical music, SACD will offer you much choice. At this time, it is probably considerably easier to put together a good classical collection of SACDs versus a good classical collection of LPs. Because there are just a very few new classical LPs, virtually all reissues. These are usually expensive. If you don't buy these, you will have to buy used LPs. Used classical LPs often suffer from noise. There are plenty of great classical SACDs, easy to get, relatively cheap, and quiet.OTOH, if you like rock or pop music, forget SACD. There were a few good releases, Rolling Stones, Dylan, now out of print. Really, there isn't much at all. There are plenty of good rock and pop LPs, new, used, reissues.
That's what I would base a choice on. For me, the ultimate sound quality goes to LP, but I rarely mess with them myself, due to laziness.
My vinyl setup comes in at over $2k and my SACD player (modded Sony DVP9000ES) comes in at less than $2k. I listen to SACDs most of the time. They sound great and they are "plug and play" while the vinyl requires ritual (cleaning, brushing, flipping sides, tuning table). In other words, in my case I trade-off the possible benefits of vinyl sound for convenience. But when I want to listen to 60s or 70s rock there is no choice -- the SACDs for the most part do not exist.
I'd have to say that you've had more than enough great advice here to help you make an intelligent decision that you can surely live with happily. The question is, though, to what extent do you want to seek out this used vinyl that Kal and others have mentioned? It would take a long time and much money to collect the really good vinyl, and while everyone here appears to make you want to think that a bad sounding vinly LP was never made, that's just not true; I've got hundreds of them.Like Kal, I have thousands of records (about 3500 to be close to a full count), but some of them haven't been played in decades, or possibly as much as 35 years. I collected records starting about 1957, but stopped doing so in earnest about 12 years ago. Over the years, I had given away several thousands of older ones to make room for the newer ones. Sure, there has been the occasional purchase since i slowed down, but those have been used collectors' items that have never appeared in any digital format -- or if they had, the remastering was so bad as to render it useless to the avid audiophile.
As you get older though, you might decide, as I have, that the ritual for preparing an old LP for playback just isn't worth the time. I won't deny that LPs do sound better than digital recordings most of the time, but they're certainly far more inconvenient.
One poster mentioned that he doesn't play SACD all that often anymore, and I find this true chez moi also. In fact, just checking my collection database, I see that I've purchased only 29 SACDs -- 18 classical, 11 "other." And I'd venture that my SA-14 hasn't been fired up in a month or so. Why? Well, because it's my experience that there are literally hundreds more great sounding CDs in my collection than SACDs, and I have a CD-only player that sounds better than my SA-14. So, in order to preserve the SACD player for years to come without it becoming inoperable, I choose to use it only when necessary.
Having said all of that, I'd tend to disagree with all the well-meaning folks who've uged you to adopt vinyl playback, but only because you have placed a $2000 limit on the amount that you want to spend. For that kind of money, I don't believe that it's possible to put together a vinyl playback system that could rival the sound of a quality used SACD player that's been modified for optimum playback. Make it $10K and I'd be singing a different tune.
****and while everyone here appears to make you want to think that a bad sounding vinly LP was never made, that's just not true; I've got hundreds of them.*****
Amen! Many of the “vinyl lovers” that I know are really neophytes to the medium who have little meaningful experience with the format. They have a few (very few) cherry picked LPs that probably, in fact, do sound terrific. And they believe to the bottom of their shoes that what they have is representative of what the real world of vinyl is really all about. Much of the vinyl I have is flat out mediocre.As I pointed out in a response to one of Kal’s post many of the neo-vinylists that I know personally have decent turntable rigs but few have more than a 100 LPs and are really inexperienced with the good, bad and the ugly of the format. It’s no wonder that those of us who owned or have owned thousands of vinyl, while we do recognize it virtues, are not as enamored with the format as those who limit their collections to the “Absolute Sound” top whatever.
It was only during the late 70s and 80’s that I learned to avoid the really bad stuff. The consistency of good to excellent releases of SACDs is far superior to what was ever available on LP. I do acknowledge that CDs releases, at least, up until the time that I opted out of the medium altogether around 1990, did sound consistently worse to me than Lps. (Between 1990 and 1999 I bought almost no music. I did have hundreds of vinyl to sustain me). I have not found that (bad sounding) to be the case with SACDs, even after listening to very expensive turntable setups.
****I collected records starting about 1957***
I’d be really hearing your recollection of the transition from the mono era to the stereo era. I understand there were well entrenched prejudices against music lovers early adopted two-channels. In fact, I knew a couple of mono lovers who thought that two-channels were a gimmick (and this was in the late70s!). Was the transition smooth for you.
*****One poster mentioned that he doesn't play SACD all that often anymore, and I find this true chez moi also. In fact, just checking my collection database, I see that I've purchased only 29 SACDs -- 18 classical, 11 "other." [I understand you meant this year] And I'd venture that my SA-14 hasn't been fired up in a month or so. Why? Well, because it's my experience that there are literally hundreds more great sounding CDs in my collection than SACDs,****
I have little doubt that you have hundreds of great sounding CDs. Their seems to be a growing consensus (even in this forum) that CDs can sound great when compared to SACDs. I believe this consensus has damaged the credibility of two-channel SACDs beyond repair. Since I have almost no meaning full experience with CDs released after 1990, around which time my ears and brain simply could not take it any more, I assume that most of these CDs were released in the last 10-12 years are so.
As I have said before in this forum, I say this in all honesty, the Golden Age, for me, with respect to the quality of music reproduction in my home, is right now. Not 25 years ago, not 10 years ago, not with vinyl, CDs, or two-channel SACDs, but right now, today. The best recorded music I have ever experienced is sourced with multi-channel SACDs.
******I don't believe that it's possible to put together a vinyl playback system that could rival the sound of a quality used SACD player that's been modified for optimum playback. Make it $10K and I'd be singing a different tune.******
Regretfully, I may be coming to the realization that you might be correct on that one. I have listened to a couple of friends rigs (in their systems), one being a SME 10 system and the other being a lower cost Aries system. It is tough to make comparison under those circumstances and I may be able to have the SME rig in my house as a loaner. But based on what I can determine to meet my expectations, if I were to buy new, I will need to fork over about $8500-$10,000 for a turntable, tonearm, cartridge, matching phono pre, and in my case since I have a passive volume control, a phono pre pre.
From the better labels including Reference Recordings, Mofi, Groove Note, Harmoni Mundi, Dorian, BIS, Opus 3 and a real sleeper not generally centered around "audiophile" recordings per se but seem to have their act together very well when it comes to sound quality. The sleeper? ECM Records!!!And not only for sound quality sake. There is just so much more better music out there than lots of what has been released on SACD.
While the divorce is certainly final, the breakup was amicable and we are on friendly, albeit, limited terms. CD does have visitation rights.I may have given the impression that I have no more contact with CDs. That is not correct. I do have recent CD experience, probably more than most. True, I have only purchased or acquired few CDs recently, all jazz, the most recent being Scott Hamilton's "Nocturnes and Serenades" on Concord, The Classical Jazz Quartet (Kenny Barron, Ron Carter, Stefon Harris, Lewis Nash) "Play Rachmaninov"! on Blue Note, and Billy Hart "Quartet" (a Xmas gift) on HighNote. An interesting fact about the latter is that was recorded DSD on the Sonoma system. I have only purchased 25 or so CDs since 1999 (when SACD resuscitated my interest).
Also, I have a wife and young boys. There are CDs all over the house. But my serious CD listening is when several times a month friends come over to listen to music. 90% of the time they bring CDs, 10% of the time Lps), almost always jazz. Guess what they say, almost with unanimity? That CDs/Lps sound so two channel, so flat when compared to a live performance (recently we had a listening session immediately after leaving a jazz club) and that their favorite CDs simply don't hold a candle to the SACD multi-channel version when compared directly to the CD ("No Assembly Required" by Pieces of A Dream on Telarc). This is true even though previously they thought these same CDs were the cat's meow. Direct comparisons with SACD, especially multi-channel SACD are simply fatal to most CDs. I do acknowledge that very good CDs, and better yet very good Lps that sound great and are very enjoyable.
There is no question that CD is flush with good content and the 4000 SACD releases can't compete with that. But I can't listen to everything that I have already (on Lp, CD and SACD). And if I do have to have something that is not available on SACD, I will (and do) purchase the CD (or Lp). From that standpoint while I welcome more multi-channel SACDs into the catalog I really don't feel a dearth in music listening opportunities. Fortunately some of the labels you mention also release multi-channel SACDs.
Robert C. Lang
I happen to like vinyl quite a lot, and have a couple thousand LPs collected over 40+ years. And yes, many of them are audio stinkers, as are a few SACDs in my collection, and as are a comparable proportion of the many CDs I have purchased over the past 20 years. My vinyl taste runs to 50s and 60s small combo jazz, and at least on my setup, the LPs sound much better than most of the CD reissues of the same material. As you know, there is not a lot of jazz from that era on SACD, so vinyl is better way to go than redbook IMHO. But the SACDs of Monk, Coltrane, Davis, et al. that are available generally do sound terrific, with the vinyl reissues of the same albums running neck and neck. I think that many vinyl advocates are obsessive tweakers and tinkerers, and the work invested in keeping up a decent vinyl rig produces a form of cognitive dissonance reduction that biases their perceptions in favor of the LP. I know that I derive some odd pleasure from the daily rituals of vinyl that others would find quite annoying. And while I do enjoy SACD as a medium, my system is limited to 2 channel playback for a variety of social, economic, and environmental reasons. I have yet to hear a first class multichannel system, so I don't know yet what I am missing - there are only 3 specialty audio dealers in my area and none is setup for multichannel. Maybe that's a good thing - I need to top off my IRAs for 2006.
****I have yet to hear a first class multichannel system, so I
don't know yet what I am missing - there are only 3 specialty audio dealers in my area and none is setup for multichannel.***Welcome to the club. We have numerous specialty audio dealers in the San Francisco Bay Area and as far as I know *none* are set up for SACD multi-channel. Although you bet they can demonstrate HT multi-channel.
To get a SACD multi-channel demonstration you are strictly on your own to make it happen with the dealer.
Bob Woods of Telarc speakes to that very problem:
Robert C. Lang
Over time with CD, remaster after remaster in some cases (ie. Kind Of Blue), trial and error, different recording techinques and engineering with better equipment, etc. etc.SACD bases no claims to beat the top CD recordings released throughout the years, only the specific recording. No doubting with SACD the recording process is far from perfected which renders the name Super Audio a bit far fetched but I guess they needed to call it something.
The big benefit for which Robert Lang reiterates is multichannel and I agree. I unfortunately don't have the caliber of equipment he does. But I can hook up 3 add'l speakers to the Denon AVR3803 I have and hear the benefits depending on the specific recording and its quality.
Trouble here is most folks have high quality 2 channel amps and CDPs so the option isn't there nor is the interest for other reasons over and above that.Regarding vinyl, I chose to buy a $500 TT and a decent phono stage and buy used cheap LPs! That experience has been "priceless" and the resurgence is obvious.
CDs will have much better choice of software. And the original poster has 500CDs. Many people have not had a good jitter-free playback. They try to remove the digital nasties with cables, tubes etc. But once the jitter is fixed, then things get closer and closer to vinyl and sometimes I can understand when people say their digital beats vinyl (probably SACD or better recorded CDs).
Well I never really looked into improvements I can make regarding that as I have a XA777ES. Any recommendations or pointers where I may look to get some info regarding that?
What I meant to say about SACDs in my collection was that I've bought only 29 over the past two years.
The correct answer for me is both. It took about three times the purchase price of my SACD player ($2K) before my vinyl front end equaled by SACD player in 2CH reproduction. Neither 2CH SACD or vinyl comes close to MCH SACD sound.BUT.... I have far more records than SACDS and that is not likley to change. Great used jazz albums can be bought for pennies at thrift shops and used record stores. In addition, although I have most of the jazz SACDs available domestically, many of the albums I want are only available on vinyl or CD.
If you are a classical fan only you may(?) be satisfied with SACD only. But if you are a jazz or rock fan, you might find the pickings to be a bit slim.
My advice - Buy used equipment and get both for $2K. $1000 will buy you a good used SACD player and another $1000 will get you a good entry-level vinyl front end.
This sentence should read:It took about three times the purchase price of my SACD player ($2K) before my vinyl front end equaled MY SACD player in 2CH reproduction.
In fact, the SACD player still has a very slight edge in 2CH reproduction when comparing my best vinyl to my best 2CH SACDs.
.. and actually multiple responses could be just as viable depending on one's circumstances.In the long run I would suggest that you get into both formats as each has different virtues and both can provide excellent entertainment. But as you appear to be realitively new in collecting software I'd suggest that you stick with Red Book CD and delve into SA-CD.
I have said on this forum many times that vinyl sounds much better on my system than SA-CD, yet most of my time is spent listening to digital.
and so on.Until I got my VPI SDS and replaced my Krell integrated with BAT's integrated, I would have said SACD by a smidgen, at least for native DSD recordings.
Now, having done all that stuff, I'm not sure but what I'd go the other way on the question.
Fact is, I like 'em both . . . a lot!
I know, that doesn't help . . . assuming this is not just a troll.
There are significant differences between what's available on the two formats . . . so, if you really must choose, let your choice be driven by the availability of the kind of music that you like more than anything you might hear or believe about the technical merits of either.
It's also probably worth mentioning that, I've invested many times more $$$ in vinyl playback equipment than in SACD playback equipment. That, too, may make a difference.
I must "assume" that your response to my post was meant for CLE?But like you I also have more $ invested in vinyl than digital, especially when you factor in the software.
My response to CLE was only meant to suggest that the decision is not eclusionary, but a journey, and in his particular situation starting with SA-CD may be the most appropriate course of action.
I also believe that as your system improves the differences in formats can vary in order as well as amount of varience. What we usually fail to mention when we compare them is how satisfying they all can be and the joy they provide.
My follow up seemed to be a kind of follow-on to your point, not a contradiction.Although, if I have the choice, I prefer listening to a record or an SACD, I certainly have a number of RBCDs that are completely listenable and satisfying.
There are, however, a number of earlier CDs that I have, which don't meet that criterion. Things have gotten better over time, even in the RBCD world. For that matter, I have some crappy LPs, too; but there does not seem to be much of a relationship between their vintage and their sound quality, if the orginal recording was made after 1950. In fact, the poor quality vinyl used (for cost reasons) beginning in around 1975 compromises the quality of some of the 1970s and 1980s vintage records that I have. After 1990, I stopped buying records until I began to rejuvenate (and upgraded, substantially) my vinyl playback beginning in 1999. (When I first became involved with AA -- coincidence? I think not!)
.. I just thought that your comments addressed the original post more than my response. Actually I pretty much share your opinion on the topic.
Which do I want, sour cream or butter ... both.Which do I want, cookies or ice cream ... both.
Which do I want, the blonde or the brunette? Both, and the redhead.
You poor hairshirted bastards, self-denial is an evil plot foisted on man by the Puritans and other assorted repressives.
Always remember what Mae West said, "Too much of something good ... is wonderful."
I find listening to records and listening to digital discs both enormously rewarding and enjoyable, and this whole, "tastes better, less filling" debate is silly as hell.
Here is as good as it gets; the 7.5 IPS open reel tape of X, the original vinyl of X, the Japanese import of X, The MOFI or Nautilus half-speed remaster of X, the CD of X, the 20 bit re-master CD of X, the XRCD of X, and the SACD of X ... then, and only then, will you truly grok X and this completely insane hobby you have chosen.
15 and especially 30 ips open reel ain't bad either.
I got my $20 Teac going again and, armed with Wagner's Gotterdammerung on 3 London 7ips tapes, had a seat. I found the sound very good. Everything "musical" is there. Perhaps the tape didn't have the sweet high frequencies that rise up into the infinite, (like Lp's), but the standout to me was the sound's liquidity. (Another catchphrase I never understood until now.) The tape's liquidity--even with this old player's electronics--was slightly better than the Lp. Dynamic range could be surprising too. I thought the quiet parts subdued until loud sections came along. Great soundstaging and imaging, and I also found the sound very "intimate" as well as dark and cinematic, if that make sense. The sound reminded me very much of...SACD.
Dan Schmalle and Paul Stubblebine *are* working on some *new* reissues in 15ips open reel, Allen, in the near future. PFO will be following this project very closely.Check out the URL below for more information.
All the best,
david
...there was little or no progress.maybe your interest there will help move it along.
My three 15 IPS machines stand ready...
IMHO, we can only truly appreciate the virtues of DSD when we have solid experience with what analog(ue) can do.Dan Schmalle is located only about 3 hours from Portland, OR; he and I hope to connect in April/May to do a photo essay on this fascinating project for Positive Feedback Online.
Glad to hear that you're interested as well...we can *both* pester him!
;-)
All the best,
Dan or Paul?
Yes.All the best,
Ever heard of Tommy Lipuma?
.
And, yes, I am aware of the various mch LPs attempts but, imho, none are compelling.
Then again, I've only got two speakers.:-)
..
is that there is so much out there of very high quality- both in performance and sound- that can be had so incredibly cheaply that it's hard to ignore. For classical music, though, it's frozen in the past, as Kal says. But what incredible treasures there are frozen in that past. So if you are interested in classical music, and since you have no vinyl, you should seriously consider a move in that direction.However, vinyl van be a real pain in the ass compared to SACD. Putting up with noisy records, cleaning them, setting up TTs, turning over records in mid-performance, and having some sublime quiet passage filled with a background of obvious noise are some of the things you have to deal with. Many people, though, derive pleasure from some of these tasks. I don't derive any pleasure from mechanics of vinyl playback, but for me the wealth of fine performances and music not available in any other format makes it all worth it. Many do have superb sound with quiet backgrounds as well. I do have an SACD player as well, and listening to a well-recorded SACD in MCH can be wonderful.
The other night I put on the SACD of the Mahler 2nd conducted by Fischer. It has received raves here for both sound and performance. I listened in MCH and was not overly impressed by the sound, but that's not what I want to bring up. I pulled out an old vinyl recording on Angel of this work conducted by Klemperer. Angel recordings are often berated for their sound, and I certainly wouldn't call the sound on this recording superb. But the sound was very engaging; it immediately drew me in, and the strings had a degree of richness that was appealing. However, for my tastes there was no comparison in the performance. In the Klemperer version the opening of the first moment had a very strong emotional impact. It was almost terrifying, and the underlying funeral march was clear developed and you knew what it was. I just didn't get that from the Fischer performance, which sounded bland to me in comparison. My point here is not that one is a better performance in some absolute sense, but that I am extremely happy to have that Klemperer version, and it cost me only $2 at the local Streetlight Records in NM condition. I also have the EMI CD version, but it doesn't sound as good. I have not listened to the entire Fischer version carefully, and I have no regrets that I bought it, but listening to the Klemperer version on vinyl made me very happy that I had a TT. On the other hand, listening to the Dvorak SACDs conducted by Fischer makes me happy I have an SACD player.
You asked about the relative merits of the sound of the two formats. Vinyl sounds different from SACD. There are those who strongly feel that vinyl is better, while others feel that a well-made SACD will provide better sound. To me they sound different, and each has its own merits. I think you should listen to some good rigs of each type, look very carefully at whatis available in each format in the context of the music you like, and then make a decision. I'm happy I have both.
At that price point you'll probably prefer vinyl. As you move from there with source components, SACD probably surpasses a comparably priced vinyl front end on most counts. Finally, with a multiformat digital source $5K and up, your RBCD will probably surpass that $2K vinyl front end.
I have not heard any SACD player that comes upto the same level as an average turntable. Sometimes they're almost there, but more often than not the turntable sends them home with their tails between there legs. A plain jane Music Hall #5 will eat an SCD-1 alive with a better cartridge installed, and things only get better from there.
gary
"A plain jane Music Hall #5 will eat an SCD-1 alive with a better cartridge installed, and things only get better from there."I'll give you that one. But properly modified, by taking out what constricts the capability of the SCD-1, you'll have to spend 4 to 5 times as much as the modified player to get the same quality out of an LP. It is not the technology that compromises SACD's capabilities. It is the compromises made in the clocking and output sections of the players in order to meet certain selling price points in order for the companies to make $$$.
In general you're probably right with mid-priced players. But SACD on a well modded SCD-1 is another animal. By all measures SACD on my modded SCD-1 surpasses my analog system of Lyra Helikon/Graham 1.5tc/VPI TNT III with flywheel/modded Atma-Sphere MP-1 or BAT P10. RBCD is almost a toss-up.
I did both, and ended up paying more attention to vinyl. I think strings sound better, the soundstage and imaging is more anchored, textures more focused which makes rhythms spring from the speakers more engagingly. I listen to Classical which is obviously recorded with the natural acoustic preserved. (We hope.) I use a record cleaner and 99% of my used lps are dead quiet. If you haven't listened to Lps in 20 years your in for a big suprise. My turntable was $2500 list and cart was $550 list, but my loaner turntable, a Nottingham Horizon which was much cheaper, exhibited the same results. I was not in any way prepared for the quality of sound I heard from vinyl and was extrememly prejudiced toward SACD sound, especially multi-channel, until I heard what the former could do.A caveat though. Other genres on used vinyl seem to be harder to come by, and harder to come by in good shape, at least that's what I've noticed in the thrifts. This might be an issue. You might list what kind of music you like. In some cases, digital or SACD remasters might be the way to go. I still have an SACD player but it doesn't get much playing time.
there has been nothing new for decades. I have a decent LP collection still (> 2000 LPs) but it has not expanded for about 5 years because I want to hear something new and that restricts me to digital and, whenever possible, multichannel SACD. If you have no classical vinyl, then there's much to acquire and enjoy as long as you are content to be an anachrophile. :-)
****"If you have no classical vinyl, then there's much to acquire and enjoy....."****I think you have hit a key point here. What's "new" to the buyer is what's "new" to them, not when it was first released. I remember being excited by my first "new" SACD 40 year old Szell releases in 1999. From that standpoint vinyl does have a lot to offer.
But the funny thing is that among the many of people I know who are "vinyl lovers" most of them really have very little vinyl to speak of. They will have these $3000-$5000 turntable set ups and won't have even own a 100 lps. Then they will say as a key argument for the lack of new releases that there are oceans of vinyl out there. I say to them "Well, why don't you have any?!"
Robert C. Lang
Very true. I've been buying a lot of Tocanini mono LP's lately for a buck a piece. There just isn't any SACD that good! Sorry.
gary
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: