180 gram "audiophile" vinyl

I find myself a little torn between a rock and a hard place (but am not losing sleep over this).  I want to support the vinyl revival any feasible way I can, and a major way in the industry's eyes would be to buy new releases, whether they be new material from artists, or catalog sales.  Either way, common practice now for these releases is to mark them (and therefore manufacture them) in 180 gram weight (or more).

In the right place at the right time, with original posters, original pressing.  Now avail. in 180g.
http://www.yelp.com/biz/on-the-corner-music-campbell

This implies you are getting a superior product of higher quality than the norm.  From what I've read from multiple pressing plants, standard weight is 130-140 grams, +/-.  For an additional charge, you can upsize your project to 180.

I have also read from engineers (see first link below) that this extra weight does nothing for the sound (it just weighs more and feels more substantial in your hand).  If you've been around and seen more than your share of records, you may recall that RCA experimented with lightweight many moons ago; they marketed them under the trademark Dynaflex, claiming that the sound actually improved and that the result was much less prone to warping.  I can attest I've never seen a warped Dynaflex record, but the first time I picked one up, as it bent under its own weight in my hands, I thought to myself "what is this cheap business?"  RCA was kind enough to write an article on the inner sleeve, figuring that most everyone would ask themselves the same thing.

http://www.laweekly.com/music/why-cds-may-actually-sound-better-than-vinyl-5352162
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynaflex_%28RCA%29

So, naturally, I ask you, Joe Public, can anyone prove or disprove that the weight matters at all?  Sure, it sounds good, pun intended, from a marketing point of view, but what am I getting that I can hear?  Is it all just about having something nicer to handle?

P-mount vs. 1/2" cartridge

Ah, the amazing cartridge and stylus.  A technical dinosaur, yet simultaneously our hero of the day.  At face value, the thought of a needle grinding into grooves on a piece of vinyl, giving us our performance seems cruel.  One could also argue that the bond these two share means no performance will be exactly the same, ever again, lending some romance to the experience.  Engineers such as myself pondering this feel somewhat obliged to pay attention to the show and give it due respect.  Perhaps this is yet another reason I gush over records as I talk to friends and strangers alike.

This brings me to the piece of mental floss at hand.  My Denon DP-7F (circa 1985) has a P-mount tonearm.  This means changing the cartridge takes only a minute, and is set in place with a template of female receptacles in the arm itself for the mating cartridge leads.  The cartridge itself is secured with a single flathead bolt (and nut on the opposite side) which goes through the body.  There are typically no adjustments or calibrations to be made, as anti-skating and tracking force were hard-set in at the factory.  Changing said cartridge is quick, painless, and very convenient.  All that being said, models in this P-mount style have dwindled as it is not the style of choice for quality turntables...

For that we turn to the venerable 1/2" mount (below), whose standard and bar have been set for decades, and still follow true to the present day (never mind the style of the cartridge itself can be all over the map).  Ortofon, Shure, Audio Technica, Rega, and dozens of other brands all compete for your hard-earned dollars in this market.  The price range also covers as wild a spectrum as you can imagine.  It's fair to say that at some point a diminishing return enters the equation, but this isn't the point of the post.  These cartridges attach to the tonearm with a pair of flathead screws which again go through the body and are secured with washers and nuts.  More care, time, and effort is required in this installation, as you can change the angle with which it sits, the position front to back, and you are responsible for removing and reconnecting the four leads (two leads for each channel).

I've heard a P-mount Audio Technica very similar to mine show great definition on a nice setup.  How much difference do you all suppose there is in the potential of the P-mount architecture vs. its 1/2" brother, assuming for the 1/2" you aren't buying a beryllium-carbide, 40 kilo-newton rated model with a side of unobtanium included for fininepeptide replenishing?  Does the design somehow inhibit the stylus from singing with the best of them, or did the P-mount just never go the same distance because it was assumed the turntables they were on weren't worth the effort?  I realize this doesn't change what's available these days, but curious minds want to know...

For extra credit, but no definitive answer on the big question:
http://eu.audio-technica.com/en/resources/tutorials/A%20Guide%20to%20Phono%20Cartridges.pdf

Analog vs. digital, a.k.a. Vinyl vs. almost everything

No sense beating around the bush; I love both, but for different reasons...

Anyone who's talked to me in the last six months would be surprised to hear that, given my nonstop cheering for vinyl.  I have amassed about 1,200 records, but also have about 1,100 CD's.  After years of saying I would get my vinyl collection inventoried, organized, cleaned, and getting played, something happened, a switch flipped, and I jumped in with both feet.  This beautiful disease ("if there's a cure for it, we don't want it, we don't need it, we'll just eat it") makes me feel like a more rounded person, and takes the edge off when I'm fried from it all.

I've done a fair amount of reading, and one particularly memorable article had the caption "Everyone agrees that vinyl sounds better than digital, except for audio engineers, and the people who invented the Compact Disc".
http://www.laweekly.com/music/why-cds-may-actually-sound-better-than-vinyl-5352162

Most of the other articles I've read either pointed out the vinyl revival is enjoying double-digital growth year-over-year for the sixth year running (2009 was the beginning of the shot in the arm, shall we say), and that it just sounds and feels better, which I also believe, provided the vinyl is in good shape and it's played on a nice setup.  Something uncared for, full of scratches, is not anyone's idea of a good time.  Something clean, well mastered and mixed, and better yet, old, on the other hand, is really special.  Getting back to the major uptick in vinyl, the growth in the format isn't just catalog sales (older, established titles) for artists but also new releases from modern artists (more than you might think unless you've been to a big record store lately). 

Which leads me to the hook; how much of this is in my head?  Should I care why I feel the way I do when I play vinyl vs. any other format, CD, HDCD, SACD, DVD-Audio, Blu-ray, what-not?  The end result is the same.  Could it be the pageantry of the whole thing with vinyl pre-stages my mind for optimal appreciation?  You take an inner sleeve out of a beautiful jacket, full of artwork, pull out that 12" vinyl, look it over, carefully set it on the platter, maybe blow a little dust off with your handy can of air, make sure the stylus is clean too, gently drop the needle in the groove, and more often than with any other format (for me at least) play it through from start to finish (at least one one side) as it was intended.  This therapy is best achieved I believe with the "ugly lights" off, and some task/mood lights on.  I have a little task light for the turntable, a lava lamp (gotta have one for the old stuff), and a small lamp in the opposite side of the room.  Warm, mellow, and soothing.  You know what I'm sayin'?

CD's of course, you can take in the car.  Vinyl, not so much (although I will say there were some cars back in the day you could play 45's on - could you imagine?)  MP3's (I know, I know...) even more so.  In the car, I lower my expectations.  The fact I can take 2,000 songs at the drop of a hat with my iPod Nano 16GB is a miracle in itself.  This gets me through a couple months of driving around for business without having to think about restocking whatever car I'm in with new music.  This simple fact begs the question (and industry professionals all over ask themselves the same question): Is Convenience the New Quality?

I don't mind to diss the almighty CD.  The technical achievement of Sony and Phillips, particularly given this happened over 30 years ago, is still incredible.  It's convenient, portable, and as a format still high quality.  Once mastering, mixing, and studio equipment got where it belonged for the digital domain, there was no looking back.  Think of it, the form factor of the CD is what we are still using to this day for Blu-ray (which is the same as you know for the DVD before it), and as far as I know won't change when the next generation Blu-ray discs start shipping in time for Christmas (with UltraHD resolution).  CD's got a bad rap when some of the initial decks produced had less than stellar digital to analog circuitry, and albums weren't remastered from original studio tapes for the CD run.  CD's made today are a big cut above where they were in the 80's and 90's (when manufacturing issues also existed to top everything else).

Thoughts on the matter, and the question at large, is convenience the new quality?

Solid State vs Tube

This is a big can of worms I'm opening.  Remember that we're all here for the love of music and the experience...

My setup at home, like most everyone's, is solid state.  I have no tubes anywhere.  Just this year, my wife finally made me retire the 27" Sony Wega Trinitron TV I had upstairs, the last of the proverbial Mohicans.  My argument for the color, contrast ratio, and analog beauty was lost on the resolution, aspect ratio, and size/weight argument.  This was all a reality check; offering to give it away on Facebook to the first of my friends to speak up (with free delivery thrown in for the cherry on top) still took about a week.  Eventually it found a home in a co-worker's garage, where he wanted to set up a "retro gaming station".

That said, I've been to houses outfitted with tube preamps, and in other cases tube amplifiers, and everyone is generally united in their affection for the sound they put out.  It also seems to me that the earlier, the better.  China, hoping to get on the bandwagon (and perhaps at this point the leading manufacturer of tubes, by country), is offering amplifiers with tube stages.  I've heard some.  I have a hard time with these selling them as a cut above a good class A/B rig.  Preamps seem to be a different story.  Earlier tube amplifiers also seem to be a different story.  It's interesting to know that with tubes, you don't actually get their best and warmest performance unless you're pushing them hard.  This is why in some cases you'll see guitar amplifiers with settings for varying wattages; you won't actually be running all tubes if you select the lower power setting.  Running full bore on a 50W amplifier is enough to seriously make your hair stand on end, so some offer a "wuss" setting of half power, which gets you better sound at a livable level for your prolonged hearing and your neighbors' benefit.

It seems either that tube preamps are generally much more expensive to produce (supply and demand, maybe?) or everyone got the memo that the vinyl revival is in full swing and everything analog is in vogue, so therefore it should be marked up accordingly.  Dropping $500 for a stereo preamp seems par for the course, when you can get a more than adequate solid state for less than $100.

Without getting into the rate of diminishing return, I am curious what others think on this.  I know for instruments (electric guitar) the sound is incredible and this I attribute to distortion often being the goal.  Distortion in this application is good and can be warm and welcome.  Perhaps in small doses, interleaved with the music itself, making it more life-like, like vinyl can do is where people come to this conclusion (maybe being too perfect makes sound seem clinical and sterile?) 

I also find it interesting a couple people have knowingly postponed their tube purchase until their kids are old enough they don't worry about them reaching out and touching the glowing beauties with curious fingers...

Finally, for the what it's worth department, in my listening room, my California Audio Labs CL-20 player (DVD/HDCD) offers S/PDIF as an output.  My custom-built PC also offers Toslink.  My Denon AVR-1506 of going on 10 years has a single Toslink input and a couple S/PDIF's, so theoretically my signal to noise ratio from these two sources is infinite, something analog connections can only dream of.  This leaves everything to the amplifier and it's D/A converter and subsequent signal path.  In other words, having solid state is convenient for me and likely for others as well, so what would those of you who disdain this design do instead (if you're in this camp, I imagine the unbalanced 1/8" jack is an absolute last resort).

How much does size matter?

I've heard the adage there's no replacement for displacement, and in live events it certainly seems that with a wide open space you want the big guns and a ton of power.  "Sometimes you do need the Cadillac to tow the boat".  Bringing it back home, however, I have some fairly large speakers (DCM KX-12 Series Two - 12" woofers, bigger enclosures), and some smaller ones (Bose 401 - 6.5" woofers and a smaller volume enclosure).  I've been to houses with a pair of speakers similar in stature to the Bose 401's and been blown away by the performance.  You'd honestly think in a few cases with a powerful amp set to flat (no bass, no treble added) that you had a subwoofer stashed somewhere helping them out.  How do they do that?!

My wife was kind enough to point out early in our marriage that if I hadn't bought the DCM floorstanding towers before we were together, I wouldn't have them.  I can't imagine no other male has ever encountered such a statement. 

I realize that 401's aren't really small speakers (see Bose cubes, table top radios, and various satellite speakers, for example), but they are volume-wise probably a third of the DCM's.

In today's age (albeit what's under the hood of speakers is basically unchanged for some time), can one make a strong argument that you have to have large speakers to get the whole picture?  Let's assume for sake of argument that we aren't going for concert sound levels, but if we can get there, all the better.  A friend of mine always points out it's easier to turn it down than to turn it up.  A dealer customer of mine also once told me that the first watt is the most important (how often and for how long are we really moving a lot of power through our speaker wire, honestly?); doesn't mean that I don't want a bad-ass looking set of speakers if I have the means though!

Sealed or ported?

Over the years, I've heard many a speaker.  Bose, KLH, Tannoy, JBL, AR, Infiniti, Cerwin Vega, Magnepan, McIntosh, QSC, EA, Peavey, Meridian, Mackie, Polk Audio, DCM, MTX, Pioneer, Meyer Sound, you name it (along with others too custom for a name).  I heard from a friend of mine that it isn't what the speaker says on the icon that matters, or what you paid for it; it's how they make you feel.  This same logic can apply to amplifiers as well, but I'm getting ahead of myself.

In my listening room/den/study/office/getaway oasis, I personally own a pair of gorgeous Acoustic Research AR-4x's that date to 1969.  I also have a pair of Infiniti 4000-A's (information on which is hard to find, but it seems these are a California-only model sold in the 70's).  The AR's are a 2-way bookshelf speaker with an 8" woofer and originally a 2" paper tweeter in a sealed enclosure (there is no port for bass).  Once inside you'll find tons of fiberglass, which I imagine lowers their efficiency since you're attenuating the baffle.  The Infiniti's on the other hand are a 3 way floor standing speaker with a 12" woofer, 6.5" mid-range and a tweeter I can't recall off-hand.  They have a front facing single port about 1.5" in diameter.  Rounding out the aforementioned listening room is a single 10" driver ported subwoofer, a DCM TB1.  It has a pair of 3" ports and everything is down firing.

Downstairs in my living room off the family receiver, among other things is a sealed DCM TB1212, which is a 12" subwoofer with one driver firing downward, and a passive radiator firing outward.

It seems, to me at least, (understanding multiple variables have changed simultaneously), that the sealed speaker is more warm and musical than the ported, and I believe this is result is a combination of the larger amp in the 12" (250 vs. 100w), the larger driver (but that is also another topic for conversation), and the fact it is sealed (the port otherwise has a natural harmonic which makes for less even frequency response).  I've moved speakers around before so they're the only variable changing in the equation and my opinion stands just the same.

That being said, the 10" accomplishes as much with 100w in terms of impact (punch you in the chest as well as dBSPL) as the larger and stronger 12".  The frequency response isn't harsh at all on the 10", and in terms of bang for buck it can't be beat.  So if we set value aside within reason and focus mostly on the performance of the speaker itself (and size of the enclosure when we're considering some significant others), what are your thoughts on which you would consider, or would you just let your ears be your guide?  Ports, after all, make for noticeably better results with smaller drivers...