I've had my share of encounters with such people in the past, but what I didn't expect to encounter was such mean-spirited killjoys in the audiophile community. Getting bullied by people who like to listen to records seems incongruous to me because back when I considered myself something of an audiophile -this would have been around the late 1970s-we record collectors were a friendly and supportive community.
But now that vinyl records have been making a comeback, some audio snobs see themselves as inclusive and oh, so terribly special, and anyone else who discovers the joys of vinyl had better well enter the club on their terms. Which pretty much translates into "you're going to have to spend a lot of money or you're not good enough."
If you were heavily into vinyl records in the sixties and seventies (and who wasn't?) it was de rigueur to own a stereo system that was made up of various individual pieces, the purpose being so you could swap out your older components for the latest models as the technology improved.
This component system replaced the "Hi-Fi sterophonic console" of the late nineteen fifties and early sixties, which was a big, heavy piece of furniture. Although rich and impressive looking, the bachelor-pad Hi-fi couldn't keep up with the quickly moving advances in sound technology. An additional negative with the furniture Hi-Fi was that the speakers were incased inside the console; they were immovable. The Hi-Fi owner couldn't arrange his speakers the way he wanted, a frustrating situation for the 1950s bachelor-pad hepcat.
A bit later, the stereo component system that succeeded the Hi-Fi was more malleable. It consisted of an amplifier, a receiver, an equalizer, and a cassette deck (preferably dual), all stacked one on top of the other. You might also have an eight-track tape deck, because even though that platform went out of favor once cassette tapes took over, many music lovers still retained their massive 8-Track collections because that format had been The Big New Thing at the start of the seventies. At the top of this stack of components would be the star of your system: a primo, super cool, out-of-this-world, top-of-the-line turntable you could show off to your friends. That is, if you even had any friends. Because let's face it: audio nerds back then were just as insufferable as audio nerds today.
Completing your groovy stereo system would be two large wooden floor speakers set on either side of the stack of components which you could arrange to face however you wanted. And if you happened to be especially obsessive-compulsive, you'd buy a pair of tweeters, one to set on top of each speaker, each of them playing sounds so high-pitched that the average human ear could barely hear them. But that's how you were during the stereo era if you had money to burn: you became obsessive about every tiny detail.
By the late 1980's, Compact Discs replaced records as the superior format, and by the 1990's the record player had gone the way of the dodo. Cassettes held on a little longer with my generation, but they couldn't compete with CDs. Prior to the collapse of old-school media I myself used to have a massive stereo system with a state-of-the art record turntable, though I don't recall what eventually happened to it. Sold it all off to get money for diapers and baby food, I guess.
Everything Old Is New Again
2007 saw the start of an interesting phenomenon: a generation of young people who had only experienced music that magically floated to them over the ether, suddenly began to take an interest in seeing, holding, and actually owning music in its physical form, the way we geezers used to do in the olden days. This interest set off the 21st century Vinyl Revival, resulting in the sale of millions of long playing 331/3 records featuring modern artists as well as new pressings of classic albums from the past.
I have not been a part of that revival. Musically, I'm stuck in the past and have little interest in the work of current artists. But I do have a couple of boxes of old records left from my younger days, mostly novelty records and hits from the sixties. Sadly, those boxes are buried somewhere in storage and not easily accessible. Still, I've thought of one day finding and playing those records before I shuffle off this mortal coil, but even if I did come across them it wouldn't matter since I no longer have anything to play them on.
And then a year or two ago I found a small portable "suitcase" style record player at a yard sale that was still brand new and in the box, and I paid next to nothing for it. That's the record player you see in the upper left hand corner of this page: the Crosley Cruiser Deluxe. This model comes in a boatload of colors and designs; The one I found at the yard sale was a pastel turquoise style popular with women, but I didn't care. A bargain's a bargain.
The Crosley company has led the market in making available this retro-style record player, a model similar to the one my mom bought us when my brothers and sisters and I were little. These portable suitcase record players are ideal for first-time record buyers who have neither the funds nor the inclination to invest in an expensive stereo system, since the Crosley is an all-in-one: there are no additional components to buy. You just plug it in, put on your record, and voila! You're groovin' it old-school.
After I brought my yard sale Crosley home I tossed it into the back of my closet, figuring I'd pull it out if I ever came across my elusive LP collection.
This is where my criticism of some of those online audiophiles comes in. I did a Youtube search to see if I could find any reviews on the Crosley Cruiser, and I did. Quite a few podcasters recommended the Cruiser for first-time record buyers. It had a good number of positive reviews.
But I also watched other podcasters insult their viewers for even thinking about buying a Crosley Cruiser. According to these audiosnobs, apparently you shouldn't even bother listening to records unless you can afford a high-end system to play them on. Here, for example, is musicologist Michael Fremer, a key figure in promoting the joys of record collecting who has been aptly dubbed "the Pied Piper of vinyl." Yet for some reason he thought it would be a good idea to dump on many of his own followers:
"Crosley record players are very bad for this business. Kids are gonna buy these cruddy turntables, they're gonna play 'Dark Side of the Moon' five times and then the grooves will all be chewed up and then they'll say 'this is a stupid hobby, why did I get into this?'"
I lost a lot of respect for Fermer when I saw him deliver that rant. In the first place, his assertion that Crosleys will chew up your records is a flat-out lie, and he's supposed to be knowlegeable enough about records to know that. Fermer seems to be echoing the opinion of other self-anointed audiophiles who warn their followers that Crosley record players will "destroy" their records, "plow through their records leaving a wake of destruction," or "carve up the record grooves like a samarai sword through a watermelon."
That's worse than hyperbole, it's extremely dishonest. Sounds to me as if all these guys are operating in an echo chamber where they repeat what they keep hearing from each other without ever having any actual experience with the product they're panning. Michael should be ashamed of himself for stoking such fears in his younger followers. Chewing up your records? If that were remotely true, your parents' records would have been rendered useless decades ago because the typical brand-name record player of the seventies and eighties -Magnavox, to cite one example- often tracked heavier than the stylus on the modern Crosley Cruiser of today.
The fact is, the surfaces of all records are microscopically reduced over time through repeated playing, but it's really no big deal. As friction operates between the needle and the groove, eventually there is going to be tiny molecular wear to the record. But here's the thing: the natural teeny-tiny wear on LPs and 45s is so negligible as to virtually never be a problem. The needle on the Crosley Cruiser will wear out long before your records do, because those needles are typically made of saphire or ruby, a softer mineral than a diamond stylus. Your Crosley was manufactured that way in order to keep the price point down; such needles will not wear your records any more than a diamond stylus will, and you can easily replace the cheaper needle with a diamond one if you want to.
By the way, there is a distinction between "wear" and "damage." Record wear is a normal part of the life of your records and really nothing to worry about. Damage to your records is something else entirely, and will rarely occur simply by playing them, as long as you're not playing them when they're dirty or smudged. Vinyl records are designed to handle in excess of nine grams of weight from the tonearm. A high end cartridge puts about 1.8 grams weight on your record while the Crosley leans down at about 5.8, which is still well within the range of safety.
Your cassette tapes are wearing at a faster rate than your records ever will, and if you've played any of your old cassettes lately you may notice little discernable difference in sound quality with them, either. Most of mine are over fifty years old, and guess what? Pretty much everything that's ever been recorded on my cassettes has long ago been converted to CD or digital, either by the recording industry or by me, so I own little that is not replaceable. Besides, almost any record I may feel like listening to has by now been digitized by someone somewhere and posted on Youtube, including the very first record I ever owned as a child. So record wear is not something I waste time fretting over.
The real damage to your records comes from mishandling them or neglecting to keep them clean and as free of dust as possible. Experiments have shown that you would have to play each track of a record at least a hundred times for the miniscule wear to be noticeable with the kind of instruments they use for measuring such things, and even then any infinitesible difference in sound would be very difficult for the human ear to notice. Nevertheless, use some common sense. If you're spending five hundred dollars on a rare first pressing of the Beatle's Sgt Pepper album, you shouldn't have to be told not to play it on an inexpensive turntable. Play that one if you must on a turntable that has an adjustable tonearm, and use your Cruiser for records that you only intend to last over the course of your own lifetime.
Besides, when was the last time you played any record a hundred times, anyway? Actually, many years ago I played one particular track over and over again hundreds of times night after night while sitting alone in the dark after Marie DeVries broke up with me. And yet, 49 years after I got over that heartache, that same record remains perfectly intact, without a chewed up groove in sight. (My heart survived as well.)
So when you hear some goofball audiophool telling you that your records should only be listened to on high end audio equipment, remember this adage: "normal people listen to music; audiophiles listen to their audio equipment."
Fermer seems to have forgotten that there would be no vinyl revival if not for the Crosley Cruiser, since that company was responsible for producing the affordable, popular retro record players that were instrumental in launching the revival in the first place.
Take a look also at this one and a half minute clip titled "How To Set Up A Crosley Cruiser."
I don't like this guy. I've watched a handful of his videos, and he always comes off as smug and smarmy as he does here. Neither do I care for the way he insults Crosley owners, most of whom are kids who wouldn't be able to afford the high-end systems he insists are the only acceptable medium.
Here's the truth: the Crosley Cruiser is not a high-end turntable. But it isn't junk, either; it's actually very well suited for the market it was intended for. The problem I have with these self-anointed gatekeepers is articulated by the sensible audiophile below who discusses how tired he is of seeing grown men picking on kids:
Suppose some teenager inherited his grandfather's Iron Butterfly and Monkees records and he just wants something to listen to them on. Does this kid really have to spend $500-$1200.00 on a high-end turntable, and then also spend hundreds more on an amplifier and speakers? Or can he simply pick up a $46.00 Crosley Cruiser at Walmart and get it done? Is somebody afraid this kid is going to mutilate grandpa's records worse than his grandpa already did during his teens?
Or consider my situation. Do I need to spend a fortune on a system similar to the one I had back in my lonely bachelor days? No, I do not. All I really want to do right now is listen to the four Allan Sherman records I found at a thrift store in 2001. The Crosley should be adequate for that. And, as it turns out, it's more than adequate.
Applying The Teenager Test
My 13 year-old grandson happened to be visiting and it seemed like an ideal time to introduce the lad to music the way it used to be enjoyed. Nate was very enthusastic, as most kids are when finally given the opportunity to see, touch, and actually play an actual long playing record album. My biggest challenge was in selecting which records among the few I had on hand that might interest Nate. I skipped the four Allan Sherman records for now, since Nate wouldn't have been familiar with the songs being parodied. Likewise the Big Band records, a genre Nate is unfamiliar with.
I had not known Nate was familiar with that movie, but as the record played, he joined in, reciting whole sections of dialogue by heart, indicating he had seen that movie way too many times for a kid his age. (I'm going to have to have a word with his mother.)
What really surprised me, after hearing all the criticism of Crosleys, was how truly decent the sound on this record player actually was! I had been expecting the audio to sound a bit thin and tinny, but it was actually pretty good, not only in the parts with dialogue, but within the songs as well. We skipped around on the record in order to hear snippets of "Brave, Brave Sir Robin" and "Camelot" and they came off just fine. Of course, the true test would be in how the orchestral theme would sound, so when I had Nate lay the needle down on that track, we found that the music was perfectly clear.
Those snooty audiophiles had lied to me. The Crosley Cruiser was proving to be a pretty decent record player after all. The volume can be turned up pretty high, and although the sound might not be loud enough for a record hop at the high school gym, it would be plenty good enough in a teenager's bedroom. More importantly, the sound on this thing is more than adequate for my purposes.
Next, Nate and I put on The Temple City Kazoo Orchestra and played their version of Also Sprach Zarathustra (to you youngun's, that's more popularly known as the theme from 2001: A Space Oddysey). Nate went wild over that one, but his Grandma yelled from the next room for us to turn it down. You'll know why when you hear it for yourself:
Believe me when I tell you that even I can't endure this entire album in one sitting
Still, I found myself wishing I had my hands on some of my heavier record albums from the 1960s like The Electric Prunes, whose "I Had Too Much To Dream" features a psychedelic oscillating fuzztone that repeatedly moves back and forth from the right to left stereo channels. It would be interesting to find out how that revolutionary sound reproduces on the Crosley's small speakers. Here's how it sounds on a higher-end system with great stereo separation (listen with headphones to get the best effect):
Alas, I had none of those albums on hand. But The Osmonds "The Plan" was in this batch of recent rescues and the cut "Last Days" would be ideal for a test of how well the Crosley reproduces loud deep bass low notes. So Nate and I played a couple of cuts from that album, "Last Days." and "Mirror, Mirror."
That being said, the sound overall was not bad. I expected the audio to be merely adequate, but it was better than adequate. I'd have to say it was surprisingly good. You may not get all the very highs and very lows from every record you own through these speakers, but this is a player with darn good mid-range audio, and when you play a record on it you won't feel as though you are missing anything.*
*Nate's mother, who was properly raised by her dad on a diet of '60s garage rock and psychedelia, was listening from the kitchen and really took to "Mirror, Mirror," even without hearing it through headphones. But because there is an enjoyably wide range of audio effects in that cut, I showed her that with headphones it sounds even better.
As for a finger-snapping demonstration of the Crosley Cruiser's midrange capabilities, Lionel Hampton's vibraphone handles the sound quite nicely. Hampton's signature song "Flyin' Home" from 1940 comes off very well on this record player, and we also get to hear some cool hepcat honk & skronk from the saxaphone player:
Coming Up
In an upcoming post I'll show you how to upgrade a Crosley on the cheap so that the sound derived is much, much better than one might expect.
Meanwhile, do yourself a favor and watch the joy and excitement on the face of this young girl as she brings home the first record player she's ever owned. As you can tell from her opening comments, she's bought into the blatant lies (that this brand sucks and will scratch her records), but even believing that nonsense she doesn't care! She loves owning it anyway. So what kind of jerk would you have to be to want to ruin this sweet girl's joy?