How does vinyl deliver an experience superior to digital?

[KurtNYC]

Poll question: How does vinyl deliver an experience superior to digital?

The sales of CDs has been in decline for the last 4 years as online delivery of digital files dominates. Meanwhile, vinyl sales are surging and many current artists are releasing their work on iTunes AND vinyl.

Back in the day an LP came with some kind of fun freebie in the package from the Sgt Pepper cut-out mustache to a Hotel California mini-poster to Cheech and Chong's giant rolling paper. Some groups release their LPs in gatefolded covers (originally used only for double LPs) just to deliver more graphics. Like the vinyl itself, all of these things have a physical presence and are more lovable than nebulous digital files.

These days as CDs decline and vinyl comes back, many are asking what explains the staying power of vinyl ?

[MadHound]

1. Vinyl is analog,

It encompasses the entire range between 0 and 1, unlike digital, which only operates with 0 and 1.

[dballance]

10. You got it!

Analog and digital are very different. Digital can only approximate the analog but our ears are analog, not digital.

[originalpckelly]

23. Not true, you are digital.

Neurons send out action potentials in an all on or all off method. Look up action potential. Now, they might send off more at a higher frequency, or more at the same frequency to give a difference in signal, but you are digital.

[MadHound]

29. You don't know the definition of digital

Digital response is all or nothing. The human ear function is not all or nothing, but rather a gradation between all and nothing, hence it is is analog in nature.

[originalpckelly]

32. Analog does not imply that, it implies that an analog of a waveform is being stored and played.

The ear does not do this, as it operates in an all or nothing manner. You obviously know nothing about the way neurons work. It may use a lot of all or nothings to relay the information, but it is digital and binary.

Binary systems are not the only digital systems either. You can have ternary or quaternary or base-n system.

[MadHound]

35. If the ear mechanism were a digital system as you claim

All the hairs in the inner ear system would fire when there was a sound. As it is, the number firing depends upon the increase in pressure upon those hairs. An analog system, as are the neurons in our brain. Amount of firing is controlled by a gradation of chemicals being released, there is no either/or response you find in digital systems.

Computer geeks have been trying to tell us for years and years that human systems are digital in nature, and they get shot down every time you study actual human anatomy. I suggest that you study it.

[originalpckelly]

38. No, they don't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_potential#.22All-or-none.22_principle

Now, you might be able to encode a gradient, but it is really only an on or off thing doing the encoding.

In addition, the waves that come out of a speaker are smooth too. They are not binary, speakers don't respond that quickly. They have mass.

[MadHound]

48. Well thank you for linking to a source that backs me up

Saves me the trouble,
'Instead, they may convert the signal into the release of a neurotransmitter, or into continuous graded potentials, either of which may stimulate subsequent neuron(s) into firing an action potential. For illustration, in the human ear, hair cells convert the incoming sound into the opening and closing of mechanically gated ion channels, which may cause neurotransmitter molecules to be released. In similar manner, in the human retina, the initial photoreceptor cells and the next two layers of cells (bipolar cells and horizontal cells) do not produce action potentials; only some amacrine cells and the third layer, the ganglion cells, produce action potentials, which then travel up the optic nerve."

Graded potentials=analog.

I really think you need to study your human anatomy.

As far as speakers go, they reproduce what is fed into them. Feed a warm, analog LP into them, that's the sound that will be reproduced. Feed a cold, digital CD into them, that is what will be reproduced as well, along with the CD and compression hiss.

[yawnmaster]

113. You are getting that wrong a bit...nerve cells, in fact, do fire all or nothing...

They are digital, even the nerve cells in the ear - that is the action potential.
What is analog, to a point, is the triggering mechanism of the cell - the graded potential you mention above.

The analogy is a gun...
Each gun may have a different pull pressure required for the trigger (analog), but once triggered they all fire. The pull pressure of the trigger has no affect on the speed of the bullet.

The ear is loaded with nerves "each" can be triggered by different frequencies.
It is not completely continuous across the audio spectrum since there are a finite number of nerves, but it is perceived as being continuous, as the brain does wonderful things...
even with its all or nothing firing of neurons.

[saras]

174. Wow. You've got a LOT better speakers than I can afford.

AFAIK speakers are BY FAR the most nonlinear, distorting, inaccurate part of the signal chain, even at the $10,000 level.

A set of cheap-ass speakers can completely obliterate the difference between a 24-bit CD and a 64K MP3.

[Romulox]

40. Do you mind defining your terms? Nothing a M-w.com, for example, corresponds

to the way you are using the word "digital".

dig·i·tal adj \ˈdi-jə-təl\

Definition of DIGITAL

1
: of or relating to the fingers or toes <digital dexterity>
2
: done with a finger <a digital rectal examination>
3
: of, relating to, or using calculation by numerical methods or by discrete units
4
: of, relating to, or being data in the form of especially binary digits <digital images> <a digital readout>; especially : of, relating to, or employing digital communications signals <a digital broadcast> — compare analog 2
5
: providing a readout in numerical digits <a digital voltmeter>
6
: relating to an audio recording method in which sound waves are represented digitally (as on magnetic tape) so that in the recording wow and flutter are eliminated and background noise is reduced
7
: electronic <digital devices>; also : characterized by electronic and especially computerized technology <the digital age>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/digital

[originalpckelly]

42. You can indeed have a digital system that is not binary.

On the other hand, most people think of binary when they think digital. It has all been lumped together.

I can use a system that is base 10, and it will be digital.

Now, our brains are indeed digital AND binary in nature. They way they code things is actually within reach of more advanced supercomputers. A computer that was highly parallel could encode a signal the same exact way the CNS/PNS does, by increasing the frequency of on or offs or by increasing the number of ons or offs per cycle.

[Romulox]

57. That's not a definition. If you are using the word idiosyncratically, please define your terms! nt

[wtmusic]

139. Unless you've invented a multiphase transistor

all electronic digital circuits are binary.

[Leopolds Ghost]

254. Actually, someone DID invent an analog computer. I read about it in Scientific American.

They used evolutionary software to write the gate configuration in hopes of creating an evolutionary model for increasing the efficiency of transistor design by random mutation, moderated by an overall processing speed imperative for a single basic math problem, and after thousands of iterations, the software had left all the gates open and was using signal gradation to operate the chip at 100 x the normal processing speed.

Which the designers described as roughly akin to the way signals are processed in the human brain.

This was all done using a hobbyist's transistor board, basically a giant grid where the user is able to open and close individual gates to create a chip using software, which I believe is no longer produced any more.

The next great phase in AI, and it was completely ignored.


I RESURRECTED THIS THREAD ^3^

[ChairmanAgnostic]

37. NOT human ears. we are clearly analog listeners.

[dballance]

73. Sound is "Sounds Waves" - Analog

Sound waves are really pressure waves that travel through the air and hit our eardrums. They cause the eardrums to vibrate in a manner mathematicians would call "continuously" rather than "discretely." A continuous wave is not digital. Even the sound waves from my iPod are continuous (analog) pressure waves that make my eardrums vibrate even though the music is stored digitally on it's hard drive.

Unless you can convince me a wave is digital I'm not buying that our hearing is digital. Yes, neurons in our brains probably are pretty digital on or off. I can accept that as a possibility since I'm not a neuroscientist.

[yawnmaster]

115. eardrums do vibrate "continuously" but the "hairs" that are triggered by different...

frequencies trigger at specific frequencies...there are enough of them and the "hairs" to cover the hearing spectrum.
each neuron may have a different triggering response, but since there are a limited number of cells in the ear it is a "digital" signal that is sent to the brain and not continuous.
If you buy that neurons are on or off (and they are) then for a continuous response to be transmitted there would have to be an infinite number of neurons...
and there aren't, but there are enough for the perception of continuous.

[wtmusic]

133. Not quite that simple

There is also the process of convergence, where several nerve cells converge on one cell, and the varying rates of firing. The overall effect is an analog one.

I suppose you could argue that atoms of vinyl individual interact with atoms in a diamond stylus needle too, so nothing can be truly analog. You could argue with equal precision that nothing in the physical world can be truly digital.

[yawnmaster]

183. They all converge on a nerve cell and that cell still does an all or nothing fire...

as I said, the "semi" analog portion is in the trigger not the nerve fire.
Also, since the number of converging nerve cells is a finite number the stimulus itself is not quite analog either.
We are talking a precision much much less than the atomic or even molecular level.

[SkyDaddy7]

162. The wave is analog but the brain converts it to digital..

So, we hear digital. That is the way I understand it.

As for me personally digital music sounds better.

[cliffordu]

47. Yep, perfect.

[Brickbat]

2. I love it for "all of the above." (Except the "it doesn't" entry.)

[MineralMan]

3. Other.

À chacun son goût.

[LynneSin]

4. Other: The artwork

The one thing I loved about buying Albums back in the 70s & 80s was spending hours going thru my albums and admiring the artwork.

When Vinyls gave way to cassettes and then CDs - the artwork was still there but it was minimized.

Today I only buy digitial albums unless it's something special (I might get that Pink Floyd Box set), but I will buy Vinyl of some of my favorites if it's available.

[tridim]

5. CD > LP > iTunes

MP3's suck, and listening to them with ear buds makes them suck even more.

IMO LP's only sound good because people generally listen to them with high quality audio equipment.

[Jello Biafra]

17. FLAC>SACD>CD

There are other formats that are better. On the contrary, I have MFSL (Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs) half-speed masters that sound excellent. Vinyl is only as good as the original source that the mother was created from. MFSL used the original master tape to create the mother (I believe that Abbey Road was a copy of the original). MFSL's Steely Dan's Aja, for example is sonically great. The Beatles Abbey Road and Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon are horrible on half speed vinyl. The Abbey Road in FLAC format and the Dark Side of the Moon on SACD are incredible IMHO.

[OriginalGeek]

52. I would agree with that but

would add that FLAC is simply a method for compressing digital audio (almost always CDDA audio at 44.1khz/16bit stereo but I don't think it MUST be CDDA audio) so, as with vinyl, the end result is only as good as the source.

FLAC is lossless where mp3 (and all the others like ogg and whatever it is iTunes does) is lossy but they are both simply compression schemes.

If you take an mp3 and convert it back to CDDA and compare the wav file from before and after compression they will not be identical. IF you do the same with a FLAC (or an shn) file the 2 wav files will be identical. But neither will be the same as the original analog source that was used to make the wav file.

I don't know the specs for SACF but I reckon it's simply the same as CD only sampled at a higher bitrate and frequency range? ANd, if so, still it's only _samples_ of the original analog source.


Of course, this assumes an original analog source. I guess they can record directly to digital nowadays so I don't know where that fits in. I would assume it is still just sampled so, by definition, can only be _some_ of the total original sound that was made by guys playing instruments.

[guitar man]

108. Digital recordings

Digital recordings of actual instruments are done in basically the same way they were in analog, it's just that the medium is different. I've got a stand alone 24 track/24 bit digital recorder in my studio that took the place of the multitrack analog reel to reel machines I used to record with. We still mic up live drums, basses, keyboards and guitar amps like we always did :)

I didn't like digital at first but later learned to love it when I made the jump from 16 bit to 24 bit recording. 24 bit at 44.1 khz is 256 times as detailed as CD audio. No. it's not 2" analog and it never will be, but maintenence and media costs are negligible for a small operation like mine so it's a very practical format for us.

[Jello Biafra]

125. The Beatles FLAC recordings I referred to are 24-bit

here's a primer on FLAC:

http://www.eclassical.com/pages/24-bit-faq.html

I love vinyl like you do, but as you get toward 24 bit sampling, Fourier would have said that it is almost identical. Vinyl also has less dynamic range than digital recordings so the digital formats do offer some advantages. It's probably psychological, but I can appreciate both.

I have two copies of Sgt Pepper's on UHQR which I have never opened. They are 200 gram weight vinyl. Thought my turntable was not good enough to play it. They are 30 years old and still sealed. Will sell one one day for the right price...a friend of mine played his for me....unbelievable...the FLAC is very close to the UHQR IMO. The boxed set, which I have played was the best recordings until CDs came around and many will argue that the vinyl is still better.....

http://www.friktech.com/btls/mfsl/

The analog vinyl and digital FLAC are mixed differently so you hear differences...it's very interesting....

[OriginalGeek]

170. As far as I know I have no experience

with 24 bit recording so thank you guys for that information! This gives me more info for when I start planning my man-cave/theater/sound room. ;-)

[guitar man]

106. AJA is a sonic masterpiece

I always take it with me when I'm shopping for studio monitor speakers for my studio. :thumbsup:

[Scuba]

6. Other: My much larger collection of vinyl. n/t

[Demonaut]

7. you have to experience it for yourself, a decent needle and

pre-amp make a difference too, cd music does sound "chopped up" and it can over emphasis the high and low frequencies, vinyl is more subtle, smoother/natural.
if youre using a sub $200 new record player then it probably wont sound better, I use a early eighties technics turntable (direct drive)and a Pickering needle and I love it
I sold gear for many years and the cheaper newer TT's are built super cheap (as most products are today)and sounds like crap, get an older unit and a decent needle and you'll be very
happy and still spend less than $200.00
And another plus is that buying used vinyl is cheaper, especially if you go to the goodwill/arc stores

[lbrtbell]

8. Vinyl is only good under rare circumstances

You need extremely expensive equipment to make it sound good. Vinyl is also extremely vulnerable to damage and wear.

The only reason people have "rediscovered" vinyl is that a new generation of potheads has discovered that LP covers are good for rolling joints on. Aside from potheads and nostalgic boomers, few people care about vinyl. Gatefold sleeves? More graphics? Whatever happened to music being about, you know, music instead of Cracker Jack prizes?

The music industry loves vinyl because it wears out quickly (= people have to keep buying the same albums over and over), and it's harder to convert to mp3 than CD's are. They're also harder to shoplift.

The only reason CD sales are declining is that uninformed people with iPods don't have stereos, and therefore can't hear how much better CD's sound, compared to mp3's. If people had actual stereos instead of tinny mp3 players, CD's would continue to reign. All you have to do is play an mp3 and a wav vile ripped from CD in WinAmp, and the visual display will show you how much sound is lost in an mp3. Make a wav vile from vinyl, and a visual display will show you how bad its sound quality is, too.

Maybe it's because I have perfect pitch and have a lot of friends who are into doing remixes, etc., but I can hear the difference even without a visual display. However, whenever I show someone a visual of how crappy mp3's sound, they inevitably decide that it's a better bargain to buy the CD and rip their own mp3's (for portable music) with a higher bitrate than the junk sold on iTunes. ;)

[MadHound]

9. For a person with perfect pitch, you really messed up,

Apparently you don't hear the "hiss" of white noise on CD's, especially older ones, as opposed to vinyl, which being analog and not needing "filler" sound, doesn't have that hiss.

[OriginalGeek]

15. I totally agree with Madhound.

I sure as hell don't have ultra high end equipment and my vinyl sounds WAYYYY better than any of my CD's.

It's kinda funny that lbrtbell knows that mp3 is worse than cd but doesn't realize that cd is worse than vinyl for exactly the same reason.

I'm no sound engineer but I know people who are and I always hear them complaining about compression and mixing and mastering and all kinds of tricks that are done to CDs to get them to sound better but usually end up making things harsh and tinny and worse.


But then again, I am kinda biased. I LOVE that first needle drop onto a new record.

[KurtNYC]

22. me too. Love the needle drop.

There is a sense of drama to it. Like when a performer walks out on stage. You just don't get that from "shuffle."

[OriginalGeek]

51. lol I like it so much

that when I used to rip my vinyl to CD, I made sure to start recording before the needle drop so it would be there on my CD.



Of course, none of this means that I don't still want a car stereo with a huge hard drive (and/or USB input) to store days worth of mp3's on.

[originalpckelly]

28. Yeah, and after you've had the medium for a little while...

and the dust collects in the grooves?

Oh yeah, they call that hiss.

Any analog medium has noise too, sorry to say it. Digital noise is masked in a way that just about every person in the population cannot hear the difference. Especially the older individuals who claim they can. You don't even have the range of frequencies left to hear all those that can be reproduced by a CD, let alone the claimed range of a record.

[MadHound]

30. Well, I'm sorry you don't know how to care for vinyl,

And don't know how to get dust out of the grooves(hint, get a Diskwasher system). Clean you record and now hiss. Handle your vinyl by either the center label or edges, no dirt, no hiss. Be gentle with your vinyl, and no hiss.

Yes, the amount of digital hiss on CD's has been decreased, but it is still there and won't be removed because it is symptomatic in going from an analog performance to a digital recording. Not to mention compression and other digital tricks that leave their footprints behind.

Nice of you to ass u me what I can and cannot hear. Please don't ass u me such things.

[originalpckelly]

36. Actual research has been done that cannot find a difference between the two.

It is not possible to hear the noise on very high sampling rates like 192 kHz.

And most people will be lucky if they can get the 22kHz of an actual CD, the ability to hear higher frequencies declines as one gets older.

[MadHound]

43. Really?

"Another reason for vinyl's sonic superiority is that no matter how high a sampling rate is, it can never contain all of the data present in an analog groove, Nyquist's theorem to the contrary."
<http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/commentary/listeningpost/2007/10/listeningpost_1029>

More data, better music.

[originalpckelly]

49. The question is whether or not it can actually be picked up by the listener.

It doesn't matter what the medium has, it's all about what the listener actually hears.

And that is limited for most individuals, especially as you get older.

[MadHound]

50. Well, given the bounceback that analog audio is making,

It sounds like a lot of people don't like what they're hearing with digital music. The best, high end reproduction systems are compromised of an analog/digital hybrid, semi-conductors combined with vacumn tubes, because you simply can't get that rich, warm reproduction with digital alone, you need the full spectrum of analog.

This is also why you are seeing a resurgence in vinyl, because people like the warmth and richness of the sound, something that you simply can't get out of CD's. Again, you cannot pack the amount of audio information onto a CD that you can onto an LP. Thus, with digital music you have to skip bits, compress, etc., which all leads to audio artifacts, like hiss, that are unpleasant to listen to.

You may disagree with this, that's fine. Listen to your CD's or MP3's. But the fact of the matter is that the experts in the field are going back to analog in a big way. Not because of sentimentality or cult, but because of superior sound reproduction.

[snooper2]

202. I've seen this same story every year for a decade

There is no "bounce" back...

I'll see you next year with the same posts :P

[ProfessorGAC]

69. Very Very Few People

In fact, only about a small fraction of people over 18 hear above 20kHz. EVer have a hearing test? They don't even test above 12kHz. There's got to be a sound medical reason for that. Probably because half the people taking the test won't hear beyond the first test tone and it would just be wasting everybody's time.

I get one every year. I've got modest loss in my left ear at 12k. Pretty good in the other ear. But, i have no idea what it is above 12kHz. They've never tested that.

By the way, in case i'm not clear, i'm agreeing with you.
GAC

[wtmusic]

143. Aliasing noises extend quite a bit below the "half sampling rate" threshhold

A great demo is about 2/3 down the page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliasing

Extreme, but in high-dynamic classical music sounds like cymbal crashes on early CDs were pretty awful.

They've improved the tech quite a bit with digital trickery.

[Odin2005]

188. I can hear 21kHz., it actually drives me nuts!

I mention that something is emitting an annoying high-pitched whine and nobody else says they can hear it!

[wtmusic]

197. How do you know? nt

[Odin2005]

199. That "mosquito ring tone" website.

I visited it once and they have different frequencies available to download.

[wtmusic]

212. Were you listening on your computer speakers? nt

[Odin2005]

219. yes.

[Leopolds Ghost]

255. I've not lost most of my high-pitched hearing.

It annoys me when people talk about "inaudible dog whistles" such as the piercing screech at the end of the Sgt Pepper's LP.

And I can hear when the TV is left on or a bulb is about to burn out.

[Cronus Protagonist]

80. Asshat audio engineers put that hiss INTO Cds to try to make it sound like vinyl

Actual digitally recorded music is sweet and perfectly realistic. The engineers, almost to a person, like to add gated "aural exciters" to the vocals, especially so that the higher notes sound raspy or hissy, as they prefer that sound. It sounds like a needle running over somewhat smooth plastic, so they add that into the pristine recordings and, IMHO, spoil them. I hate it when I buy a great choral work and then find that the soprano sounds like she smokes 40 cigarettes a day. Even worse when the soprano is a little boy who sounds like he's got a bad cigar smoking habit.

And, by the way, if you check your kids equalizer settings, you will find they most likely have the bass and treble ALL THE WAY UP, and therefore the mid-tones are effectively non-existent. I check that everywhere I go and I have yet to find a listener under 25 who does not have their bass and treble all the way up.

[MadHound]

86. Actually it isn't, and it is demonstrably not

With analog, you have a smooth sweep up and down a song. With a digital recording, it is a set of steps up and down a song. Granted, the industry has been able to put enough steps in to generally make it sound smooth, but it is still a series of steps, and that hiss you hear is the sound of white noise filler for those steps.

You can take a digital recording and an analog, LP recording, and put them on some sensitive meters, like those in a high end sound studio. You can visibly see the "steps" of digital music, while all you see is the smooth curve of LP sound.

By the way, I have no kids, was a former DJ and sound engineer, and know how to arrange the EQ settings for optimum playback.

[Cronus Protagonist]

88. So you don't hear rumble, wow, dust hits, static, blunt needles, worn plastic and flutter on vinyl?

All that noise makes vinyl reproductions sound much less than the original. Digital sourced audio has less noise overall, and less noticeable noise as well.

[MadHound]

95. Not if you've got good equipment and take care of your vinyl

A good Technics direct drive turntable, with a good needle, handle you vinyl by the edges or label, clean everything with the Diskwasher system, and it's all good.

[Cronus Protagonist]

96. I've worn out about ten Dark Side of the Moon Vinyls

And I had high level gear. In fact, the better the gear, the clearer is the rumble wow and flutter you hear. I could buy a new album today, listen to it once and the very next time I listened to it, it was diminished, and on and on. I think it took about maybe no more than fifty plays before I'd be buying a new album, and at least one new needle a year, and still they were nothing compared to the crystal clear quality of digital recordings, which are also more durable, don't diminish no matter how many times you play 'em and don't require a special washer to sound perfect. Vinyl only sounds perfect the first couple of plays, and only on high end gear, in contrast.

I lived half my life with vinyl, half digital, and I'm an engineer. High end digital is way better, clearer and more powerful than high end vinyl system, and the difference becomes more and more apparent with each play as the vinyl changes every single time it's played while the digital files stay ever young.

Obviously you like the noise of the old systems and I prefer clarity. Diffrent strokes and all that...

[MadHound]

99. Obviously your gear wasn't all that high level,

You made the mistake a lot of people made, and thought that just because you were paying big bucks for something that meant it was top of the line.

The better the gear means you get direct drive, suitable shock prevention, etc. etc. If you were only getting fifty plays out of an album, then you were using crappy equipment somewhere along the line, either turntable, or needle. Speaking of needles, if you were getting a top quality needle, they should last you at least a couple of years. The radio station I worked with back in the day went through a needle a year, yes, but then again we were playing that turntable 24/7 year in, year out. And if you take proper care, not kiddy care, of your vinyl, it will last and sound perfect for years and decades. I've still got my original copies of everything from Caruso 78's to Mountain's Nantucket Sleigh Ride to It's a Beautiful Day's first self titled album, and so many more. All are in great shape, all sound like they did the first time.

As far as CD's go, sorry, but they get scratched and dirty, they need to be handled with the same sort of care. Not to mention that the media degenerates over time. I've a couple of CD's from the early days of the medium(ironically one of them is Dark Side of the Moon), and the sound quality, never great to begin with, has deteriorated considerably. And that's not taking into consideration the lessening of quality due to compression and digitalization, nor the simple fact that more audio information is carried in the grooves of an LP than can ever be carried on a CD.

You're not the only one who has lived with vinyl, CD's and now MP3's. Not to mention reel to reel, cassette, eight track and other tape manifestations. I was a DJ for years, and a professional sound engineer and know what I'm talking about, since I've worked with the various media and equipment much more extensively than most people.

[mistertrickster]

127. Thank you. Sometimes better really is better.

I had good eq and spent hours fooling with discwasher BS and, yes, you can't avoid skips, pops, rumble, too fast or too slow turntable etc. etc.

[Cronus Protagonist]

141. I built my own amp back in the day

I used all mil spec components from work. It was awesome. You could really hear the dust hitting the needle with that puppy turned up. I used to enjoy tinkering with all the electronics to try to get it to sound better... belt drive was out, direct drive was in, then we had heavy turntables and digital speed control with a strobe light and digital marking on the turntable to try to eliminate the inherent problems with spinning a warpy disc on a turntable and turning scratches on vinyl into audio... these were the days... lol

Last week I talked with a guy who was about 18 and he has never used a CD. I doubt he's ever heard anything at all in high fidelity - mp3 has really taken over. I'm sure he's never been asked "How many grooves are on a record?" (Two. One on each side.... except when they did that amazing trick where they interlaced two spirals on one side so you could hear one or the other version)

[mistertrickster]

153. Yup, brings back memories. My turntable had a strobe too.

Was nice to see how the damn thing never really ran at a constant speed, heh.

I wasn't as much of a fanatic as you but I did piece together my own system.

The ironic thing is that digital audio was fully developed by the early 70's and the RIAA wouldn't let the technology go forward . . .

[wtmusic]

137. Agree that high end digital is better, but...

IMO 44.1 16-bit digital vs. vinyl is a tossup, and the sonic quality of nearly all music sold today - MP3s - is just crap.

It's not just the 'noise' of the old systems that many people like - Vinyl introduces a dynamic which can be considered an instrument in its own right.

It's distortion - but not all distortion is noise. If you scope a note played on a trombone FFF you'll see a square wave. Is that noise or music?

[Cronus Protagonist]

142. That square wave off the trombone will be reproduced better by digital, but I agree with the rest

A lot of people like the hiss, click, pops, wow, flutter, rumble, skips, and so on of analogue gear, but it's not clearer at all. Not at all.

[wtmusic]

145. FFF trombones, Hendrix's strat through Marshall cabinets

we both like our distortion reproduced accurately. :crazy:

Segovia would have considered Purple Haze godawful noise. Or maybe not.

That's why arguing about good vs bad distortion is a little pointless, unless one kind is all you've heard. And with people under 20 and MP3s, that's pretty much the case.

[Romulox]

12. Lots of bad info in this post. Example: "Make a wav vile (sic) from vinyl..."

Exactly how does one do this, and is it possible that this is a non-trivial step? :hi:

[backscatter712]

18. You can buy a record player that plugs into your computer.

Just the top result from googling "usb turntables"

http://www.usbturntables.net/

Once you have the hardware, and it's not super-expensive, ripping your records and making wav files or mp3 files isn't particularly difficult.

I think a lot of the problem is the modern practices in mixing music that goes onto CDs. Compression, the overuse of Auto-Tune, and just plain sloppy mixing, makes a lot of music sound really bad. Another problem is that with the modern 44 khz sampling rate of CDs, and only 16 bits per sample, you do get subtle problems with the recording - high-frequency harmonics get messed up, really soft parts of music don't get captured well. Get a more modern standard with a higher sampling rate and more bits per sample to capture the low-volume stuff, and it will sound better.

Of course, the recording industry tried that with DVD-Audio, but because they put such obnoxious DRM on it and charged a fortune for it, nobody would buy it.

[Romulox]

19. I know. But the Analog to Digital converters have a HUGE impact on the quality of sound you get.

I use my Technics SL1200 into phono stage in my Kenwood amp into an Apogee Duet to rip vinyl, and even with high quality Analog to Digital converters, I have to use my judgment as to levels, etc.

That's the point--it's complicated! :wow:

[BrendaBrick]

98. Apogee?

Wow - You ARE serious!!! (And you're right - it IS complicated!)

[BrendaBrick]

109. Oops.

I thought you were talking about Apogee speakers.

[hifiguy]

181. I still have a pair of Apogee Duetta Signature speakers in storage

No room in the apartment, and anyway I do really like my Wilson Audio Sasha W/P speakers. :)

[guitar man]

111. Sweet!

The quality of the DA converter has a LOT to do with the quality of the recorded digital signal, and that's a quality DA converter you've got there.

As far as levels go, that hasn't really changed a lot, it's just where the numbers fall that are different. Back in the good old analog days, we had VU meters on our recording devices, with 0vu being where the meter started into the red then +1, +2, +3 and so on. digital meters are calibrated in DBFS, with FS standing for "full scale"

The trick to setting digital recording levels is to find out where 0vu is on your digital meters. On my ADAT HD 24 for instance -15 DBFS = Odb vu. A lot of the Tascam stuff has 0vu calibrated at -18dbfs and I've seen some calibrated as far down as -20 but they're all somewhere around that same range.

Just remember that wherever 0vu is on your particular setup, if you were recording on an analog tape deck, you'd be pushing into the red when you start to go above that. Sure, you might have another 18 or so db before DIGITAL clipping occurs, but you may be getting to hot on the analog side long before you reach the top of the digital scale.

I made a lot of recordings of overcooked analog circuitry before I finally figured that one out lol :hi:

[Demonaut]

14. I remember the argument that cd's were so tough that you could clean them in a dishwasher

and that DDD disc's were best, early cd's were better pretty durable but not anymore, I think they're as fragile as vinyl and the sides of the needle rides the ridges on the record so most of the wear is on the needle itself, vinyl can last a long time.
and you really do not need expensive equipment, just decent, I use a Yamaha receiver that has a decent phono preamp a parasound amp and Klipsch towers and it sounds great
btw, the DDD's disc were not always the best, my Robert Cray "Strong Persuader" was AAD disc and sounded better than almost any of my DDD's

AAD= Analog recording, Analog mixing, Digital mastering....DDD= Digital recording, Digital mixing, Digital mastering.


edited for spelling

[originalpckelly]

46. I think people said that because there is a lot of error correction built into Cd's.

If there wasn't, even an almost pristine CD would skip.

But one thing that they didn't think of was the rot than can happen on some discs where the actual medium containing the pits is destroyed over a much larger area than happens with a simple scratch to the plastic coating on the bottom of the disc.

But, whatever deficiencies there are with CDs, they are 100x worse with a record. There have been attempts to create a record that is read with a laser needle, but it actually had bad sound because the physical needle wasn't cleaning the grooves.

CDs are better too because the way they encode stereo signals is more discrete for each channel. A record needle has a lot of crosstalk between the L and R channels.

In addition, as you get closer to the middle of the record, there is a different rate of surface per second of sound being recorded. It makes the signal a lower quality as you listen longer. CDs and other lossless digital formats do not have this problem.

[Occulus]

34. Wow

"The only reason people have "rediscovered" vinyl is that a new generation of potheads has discovered that LP covers are good for rolling joints on."

Thanks for tipping your hand. Now I know where you stand on any number of issues.

[NashVegas]

58. Oh That's So CUTE!

1. People who buy vinyl as an option in 2011, as opposed to those who bought it in 1970 when it was the only option, place a high value on that record and are far more likely to preserve it well. In the bad old days before CDs and cassettes, audiophiles often bought high-quality, weighted vinyl editions and/or preserved their albums in special inner sleeves you could purchase separately.

2. The same people who allowed their vinyl to get scratched all to hell and their tapes to get sticky also allowed their CDs to get scratched all to hell and need replacing. mp3s are ideal for them.

[wtmusic]

131. More importantly - you need good ears to make it sound good.

Few people, even young people, can hear above 15k due to blasting earbuds. How could they possibly know the difference?

[Le Taz Hot]

158. What does "perfect pitch" have to do

with sound quality? Just FYI, all the people I've known with "perfect pitch" complained about the rigidity inherent in "perfect pitch." That and the inability to memorize phrases leaving them with only the ability to memorize note-by-note -- not only a tedious process but completely missing the complexity and inherent freedom of interpretation of phrasology.

[SOS]

11. A non-technical reply

Vinyl is, to my ears, the superior format for rock.
It is warmer, richer, less tinny and less grating than digital.

Example: "Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out" by the Rolling Stones.
This 1969 New York show is still my favorite live rock performance. Play it loud!

Then came the digital CD version...

It was truly horrible. Cold, tinny, choppy and sterile.
It was so bad, the record company released it again as an SACD - simulated analog CD.

We ditch our record players and LPs, only to have the record company try to recreate
the experience we had in the first place!

[in_cog_ni_to]

13. Children of Boomers discovered vinyls a few years ago and seem to like them as much

as we did when we were their age. My son asked for a record player and albums for his birthday last year...his 18th birthday. I couldn't resist the Sergeant Pepper's, Pink Floyd The Wall, Abbey Road, The Dark Side of the Moon, and some 45s and adapters...just for fun. :) I would spend hours upon hours just looking at some of the album cover artwork and reading all the tidbit of info on each. Great stuff. I REALLY enjoyed buying that birthday present. ;)

Now...when are the 8-tracks coming back? I HATED THOSE! They never lasted. I spliced more of those than I care to remember. What a pain in the ass 8-tracks and cassettes were. Some Players always ate them, no matter what. :(

At least if you take care with vinyls, they last. We still have some OLD, OLD, OLD vinyls (probably 50 years old) and they still play well....a little noisy, but they play.

[wtmusic]

163. Thankfully 8-tracks have gone the way of the dodo

although they do bring back memories - me and my girlfriend fogging up the windows in my Dad's Chevy wagon. Sigh.

I miss album credits. Nowadays you have no idea who's producing what, who's playing on what.

[HopeHoops]

16. Other - more authentic. The imperfections are closer to "live". ALSO...

You can't have a 3-sided CD. I'm specifically referring to Monty Python's "Matching Tie and Handkerchief". It had side one and sides 2&3. The 2nd and 3rd sides were interwoven at about a 1/3 offset, so on average side 2 would play twice for every time side 3 would play. It just depended on where the needle dropped. The first time we noticed, we thought we were just really fucking stoned. Closer inspection revealed the trick.

There are also a lot of legacy albums that will never find their way into production on CD. Someone may rip them from vinyl and upload them or burn them, but the albums will never really exist in digital form. I still prefer LaserDisc to DVD.

Face it, sometimes things can be "too" clean. Digitally touched up photographs are a good example. I used to do touchup in the dark room by waving wands over areas that needed to be brightened. It didn't change anything other than the exposure time for that local area.

[unionworks]

20. Strawberry Fields

...and vinyl forever! :hippie:

[yesphan]

21. I have both

a high end analog and digital system and can A/B a lot of my music. There are so many variables that it can get difficult to
say which is better. Digital is catching up to vinyl in many ways.
Love my modded '71 Klipsch horns.

[uncle ray]

148. mmm, khorns.

they are next item on my purchase list for my new tube system. my SS system has klipsch CF-3 speakers.

as you know, klipschorns are debated similar to analog v digital. they sound incredible, despite having technical specs that are not that good compared to modern high end speakers.

to expand on your comment on the many variables that influence sound, it really is a total package, and every component colors the sound in some way. how all those components work together along with the way the source material was recorded and mixed, etc. affects how the music sounds.

people debating which sounds more perfect, analog or digital are missing the caveat in the original post: which delivers a better listening experience? that is a different question than which is more accurate. accuracy can be measured, and it has been proven that digital recordings are more accurate. that does not make them sound better. the ears can tolerate, even enjoy a lot of really sweet sounding distortion from an analog recording, yet the distortion from digital can be much more fatiguing despite being a tiny fraction of that measured in an analog recording.

[yesphan]

151. Here's a link to the k horn upgrades

http://www.alkeng.com/

click the klipsch loudspeaker box on the left..

They sound magical.

[Romulox]

169. Another Klipsch user here: Chorus II w/ Crites titanium tweeters.

http://www.klipsch.com/chorus-ii-floorstanding-speaker

I recapped the crossovers on these bad-boys myself.

Of course, the HORNS are the dream. :thumbsup:

[Romulox]

24. Modern equipment stinks. My Technics SL1200 (1972) and Kenwood 9100 (1977) are works of art.

This thing sounds great with the power off! :wow:

[BoWanZi]

45. Beautiful! I am thinking about restoring an old Pioneer PL-550 turntable that is beautiful

Has a wood base and those gorgeous brushed aluminum knobs and switches. I just hope it works well.



Need to get a phono convertor so i can hook it up to my 2003 receiver.

[Romulox]

56. That Pioneer is a beaut!

I had my Kenny restored by Glenn McDonald ("Echowars" on Audiokarma.com) It was time consuming and $$$, but I couldn't find any modern pieces I liked half as much.

Again, beautiful turntable. :thumbs:

[BoWanZi]

65. Thanks, only dilemma is that I also have a somewhat more modern Technics direct drive as well

Not sure which one to go with. The Technics has a Pickering XSV 3000 which apparently is a decently regarded cartridge.

I love the looks of the Pioneer but the Technics is supposed to be more well regarded by brand name alone.

[Romulox]

207. The following may or may not interest you

Wooden plinths for Technics SL1200 series:





http://www.kabusa.com/frameset.htm?/

[B3Nut]

236. EchoWars is da man.

He's the vintage solid-state guru, especially for old Kenwoods.

(Yup, I'm on AK as well. :) )

Vinyl junkie here too (Dual CS5000 with Shure M97xe cart, Soundcraftsmen preamp, QSC power amp, kit-built 6 1/2" 2-way standmount monitors with Peerless drivers, Onkyo universal player for CD and SACD discs)

Todd in Cheesecurdistan

[lildreamer316]

84. Bought my husband the Technics MK5G1200's seven years ago..

..the Grand Masters. They're works of art also. Discontinued now.

[Romulox]

166. Can't believe the mighty "Wheels of Steel" are discontinued.

Good thing your husband is set for tables--those things are tanks. :thumbsup:

[lumberjack_jeff]

160. I have an old pioneer (1980) receiver that is far superior to anything you can get today.

There's resurgent interest in refurbishing these classics.

https://picasaweb.google.com/prasadb/Marantz2270

[Romulox]

167. There's talk among vintage gear lovers--everything seems to have changed around 1981ish...

We went from this:



To this:



What happened? :shrug:

[lumberjack_jeff]

171. Ronald Reagan. n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

172. Here's mine

[snooper2]

203. Since we are showing off our "stuff"

Wonder how many people will recognize this brand :)




I've got the rack with the EQ, Pre-Amp, Amp, All the original brochures and receipts..



Also when the guy was putting this system together in the late 70's, last item he bought for the rack that's not SAE is a Nakamichi 670ZX cassette deck... Paid $1094.00 on 11/24/80 for this (Mr. Byrne, I've got your system if you are reading this :) )

[Romulox]

210. I put a Nakamichi CD-400 deck in an older car recently, to maintain a close to stock appearance

The sound is excellent compared to OEM, to say the least. Sad to see Nakamichi leave car audio.

[hifiguy]

217. I remember SAE!

They were quite the cat's ass for solid state gear if you couldn't pop for the early Mark Levinson stuff.

BTW, this SOTA Cosmos Series III looks identical to mine, except my Graham arm has chrome, not gold, hardware.

[Romulox]

208. Very nice piece. Thanks for sharing the photo! nt

[BoWanZi]

206. It is very sad, I remember thinking in the late '80s how old and dated '70s era stuff looked

And I didn't want that old equipment. I thought that the '80s and '90s stuff was so much more modern looking with all the blinking lights and digital crap. Now to this day, I don't mind the modern uncluttered looking receivers but the '80s ones? Yuck! Still think that the classic silver/aluminum models are by far the best looking.

Now I would love to have a beautiful old receiver of some sort. I remember my dad's old Marantz receiver with the unique tuning knob and his fancy cassette deck that he got in the early '70s. The cassette deck was not like most, it was horizontal instead of vertical and reminded me more of one of those school tape recorders except it was a high quality model. That was around '73-'74.

[hunter]

25. RIAA equalization, vacuum tube amplifiers, and lost engineering arts...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization

The music was engineered every step of the way to sound sweet on vinyl. The sound engineering itself was high art, from recording on tape to pressing the vinyl records.

When original studio tapes, highly optimized for LP production, were first digitized for CDs, a large part of the art was lost.

It took a few years for the art of CD sound engineering to catch up, but by that time the reputation of CDs was ruined.

The same happened with MP3 music. Crappy 120 kbps CD conversions, often of music already damaged by the sloppy artless conversion of studio tapes to CD, ruined that medium's reputation.

Mathematically a 160 kbs MP3 ought to sound better than an LP, but the software and hardware implementation often fails somewhere on the long path between the musicians and the listener.

[originalpckelly]

26. Nostalgia and nothing more.

[AngryAmish]

27. Magic

[supernova]

31. SO is an engineer and audiophile

I'll see if he wants to weigh in on this thread later. :hi:

He can wax on and on about the sound value of a good turntable and needle, a great amp and speakers. In fact, he's looking at building some of his own equipment

To my fairly decent, but not expert ear, vinyl sounds warmer and is more subtle. It depends on what you are listening to. Sure, electronic and trance music are fine on CDs. The quality of the source is thin. But if you want to listen to blues, jazz, classical, old school rock or even roots music, vinyl will give you a richer auditory experience.

[lildreamer316]

85. ...and I have to respectfully disagree with you...

..on the electronic & trance sounding better. Husband is a turntablist of 14 years. As mentioned upthread I got him the Technic MK5G 1200's seven years ago. House/Progressive House/Trance sounds MUCH better - deeper fuller bass and tone expression - on the tables than on mp3.

In essence, we agree...the tables sound better. All around, however. :)

[davekriss]

33. converting analogue-to-digital

I have an Outlaw RR2150 which has an excellent embedded phono stage, good amp. I would like to convert my vinyl to digital, for preservation and portability reasons. I thought of using the record out from the Outlaw, an analogue signal, but quality drops off remarkably if I route it through my sound card. Anyone know of an affordable, quality Analog-to-Digital converter with USB output?

[OriginalGeek]

55. It has been YEARS since I was doing any of that kind of thing but

you CAN get a better sound card. I remember back in the 90s that in my price range I could get Turtle Beach sound cards that had ADCs that were light years better than anything that came on a motherboard sound card. And there were much higher end cards than what I used but mine was good enough for me.

No idea what people are using today but I bet there are things better than USB.

[uncle ray]

150. i've been looking into behringer products.

i've been looking for a DA converter for my computer. their stuff seems to perform very well, especially considering the price. a DA or AD converter will take the crappy sound card completely out of the loop.

[Edweird]

159. Behringer stuff can be utter crap. You can do a lot better for not much money.

This is $100 and will spank the crap out of anything Behringer puts out.

http://www.musiciansfriend.com/computer-audio-interfaces-convertors/m-audio-audiophile-2496-pci-digital-audio-card/701341000000000

[Edweird]

161. Personally, I suggest avoiding USB. If you have a desktop get a PCI slot card.

[thelordofhell]

39. It all depends on the mixing and mastering

There have been some albums that sounded like shit on vinyl that are incredible to listen to on CD (Iggy Pop, Pink Floyd, Pearl Jam) but others sound great on vinyl and stinted on CD (Ramones, Misfits, Velvet Underground). But on the whole, vinyl is around because of nostalgia and the fact that almost nobody can make their own "mix" vinyl........yet.

[originalpckelly]

41. Exactly. Most of the time it's just the amount of compression used.

Though they won't admit it, it is a general trend in music to compress the dynamics of content so that it can be played louder. That's probably all that is different.

[madamesilverspurs]

44. I can actually listen to my vinyls.

Two CD players bit the dust in as many years. Whole stack of CDs I can't listen to. My old stereo still has a functioning turntable, so it will be providing the music for my holiday party. = Superior Experience

[KurtNYC]

79. with the right cord, perhaps you could import the LPs to your computer

and you wouldn't need another CD player.

[FreeJoe]

53. Digital to Vinyl

Virtually everything recorded and produced today is done digitally. So when a band releases something on vinyl, it is releasing something that was digital and has been converted to analog.

I'm amused by the CDs are in decline and vinyl is coming back riff. CDs are declining from huge sales numbers while vinyl is increasing from tiny sales numbers. I'd be surprised if the best selling CD this year didn't sell more copies that all new vinyl albums combined.

I do miss real album covers.

[Erose999]

54. Vinyl and cassette don't clip the peaks off of the sound waves. Engineers have mostly compensated

for this nowadays, but if you listen to CD's from the first wave of digital mastering/CD's, the sound is pretty cold and mechanical.

But as far as vinyl making a comeback... its mostly just hipsters love of anachronism and nostalgia for a past that never existed...

[guitar man]

180. Neither does digital

Properly recorded digital audio doesn't clip the peaks off any more or less than analog. The "clipped off peaks" that are often observed on waveform views of finished cd masters are the result of the "loudness war". Record labels and producers have been at it for years trying to have the "loudest" recording in the cd carousel or iPod cue so their recording jumps out at the listener above the others. They demand that the mastering engineers make it loud so they hammer on it with compression and limiting until it makes your ears bleed and you see nothing but squared off waves.

It doesn't have to be this way, cd audio is an ok format that has been abused to death by such nonsense :(

[hifiguy]

216. No, but with digital it involves gain-riding or

setting the recording levels lower at the outset. The old timers at EMI and English Decca used to talk about you could drive certain tape formulations to +3-+6 and not get any noticeable distortion. Digital clipping is hard, fast and nasty, whereas analog tape saturation is quite a bit more forgiving.

[guitar man]

218. There's no reason to get anywhere near digital clipping

Especially when recording to 24 bit.

Digital recording meters are almost always expressed in DBFS, with FS meaning "full scale". On the DBFS scale 0 is at the top and is the absolute ceiling and you are correct, digital clipping is not a pleasant sound at all and should be avoided like the plague.

but, the old analog tape machines we used to use were calibrated and metered for DBVU, most often with the "red" starting at the 0 mark and then +1,+3, +6 being "in the red".

The most important thing to know when setting digital recording levels is where 0vu falls on the digital meter on your recording device. My main studio recorder is an alesis adat HD24, it's 24 tracks at 24 bits and the meter bridge looks like this.



The reason -15dbfs is red is because that's where 0vu is calibrated on this particular machine, so when it hits the next light up at -9, you're hitting the converter with the equivalent of the +6 on the old analog recorder's meter, and that's plenty hot enough, the rest is headroom. The yellow you see lit up at -3dbfs on track 8 is what I might see if a drummer were to swat the piss out of a snare or floor tom or something, but for the most part I try to keep them riding in those 3 segments from -24 to -9 so it more or less averages around 0vu (-15dbfs). That's unity gain structure and it's the best way to record. Gain riding and limiting to try and keep it up in the yellow but under clipping just makes a too hot sounding overcooked mess IMO.

Once I get them set for the session, I don't have to touch the levels much, just a little adjustment between songs most of the time. The best part of running a nice unity gain structure is at mixdown time, the tracks fall into place a lot easier and the mixdown engineer isn't stuck trying to tame a too hot mess. The result is a lot more dynamic, smooth and musical mix.

This is a screenshot what I'm working on mixing tonight, I recorded these tracks back in may. They came out with nice levels and they are proving to be a lot of fun to mix :)

[simmonsj811]

59. pioneer sliver

this pioneer sliver can be found on ebay it's was made for the analog sound and your LP's will sound soooooo sweet
http://silverpioneer.netfirms.com/collections.htm :toast: :hi: :woohoo:

[tridim]

64. The pics on that site are just awesome

Overkill much? :rofl:

[simmonsj811]

74. Yeah i couldn't afford

This back in the day but with Ebay i now have my dream system all top of the line Pioneer sliver.
And you could still get the parts to fix it when it does go down

[OwnedByFerrets]

60. MP3's are the McDonalds of audio

[kentauros]

192. And why that format is "good enough" for those with ipods.

For those of us with media-players of higher quality, such as Cowon, Sandisc, HiFiMAN, etc, only formats like FLAC, Ape and Ogg will do. While some of my music is mp3, none of them are sampled at anything less than 192kbps. Most of those are at 320kbps. I read Amazon.com's info on their music downloads and it's their opinion that there's no need for any sample rates above 192kbps. Probably because the majority of their buyers own ipods, so it's likely also true for them ;)

Here's a nice comparison chart for the various audio formats with links.

[NashVegas]

61. Funny You Should Post This

I picked up a used car, recently, with a cassette deck. While FFing the blank space after the last song on side one, what struck me about listening to the side and having to be active in moving it to side 2 auto-flip, is that when you're listening to a record album and it's an album you know well, you experience music in such a way that you know where you are as a point in time.

With digital - iPods, iTunes, mp3 mix CDs, whatever - time is a random factor. Possibly of your own control. Whereas, the 44 minutes of an album - busted up into two sides - gives you two opportunities to experience time as a linear moving point between two defined objects of beginning and end.

That's my theory today.

[taught_me_patience]

62. It's not.

I guarantee that 99.9999999% of listeners cannot tell the difference. There's one guy out of a million that would guess correctly twenty times in a row, but it would be pure luck.

Vinyl is inferior in every way. It doesn't sound better, it wears out, and you get annoying dust crackle. That, being said, I'd buy vinyl albumns while I was in college, ten years ago, for $1 at salvation army and enjoy cheap music.

[spanone]

63. when buying vinyl, i had to return about a third of the discs....skipped, popped

it's the content, not the medium

[OxQQme]

66. Back in 'The Day'

music was recorded live 'to one' and cut into a wax cylinder in real time during the artist's performance. Benny Goodman, Lionel Hampton, The Andrews Sisters, Frank Sinatra, Elvis, Johnny Cash, Bob Wills and The Texas Playboys, Merle Haggard, Jazz collections of all sorts.
All recorded in mono.
No overdubs.
Then transferred to a glass master disc.
Which was then used to mass cut into the vinyl that played @16rpm.
One side per song.
Cactus needle in the tone arm.
Tube amp playing through ONE speaker.

Now THAT was amazing.

[JuniperLea]

67. Raised on vinyl...

And as the granddaughter of an early audiophile who built his own high fidelity sound equipment, I got the bug for good sound very early. Shoot, my first 'record player' was high fidelity stereo. My first component system was one my grandfather built... and he even let me have his 40's vintage Garrard turntable! He would buy a vinyl album, record it to reel to reel metal tape, and that's what he'd listen to. I started putting my albums on metal cassette tape when I was still a teenager... that's why most of my vintage vinyl is near-virgin! 'Cept for the stuff that got toted around to parties... bummer, that.

I'd rather hear popcorn than digital chirps too.

[JVS]

68. Sales of CDs are down because the digital is easily pirated.

I guess you could pirate vinyl, but you'd either have to make a tape or make a digital copy.

[NashVegas]

91. Bootlegs

<grumpy old lady voice>

Back in the old days, it wasn't worth it to pirate a standard vinyl release, you'd be dealing with 2nd generation audio loss. Albums back then cost $5-$10 so it wouldn't have been a money maker. Why pay $4 for shitty sound when $6 will get you the real deal?

Instead, bootleggers would offer unique live concert recordings or unreleased songs that never made it onto a standard release, that made it worth the buyer's buck to have something they couldn't get any other way.

</grumpy old lady voice>

Digital has spawned a generation of people who don't really value music, IMO.

[JVS]

93. Shitty deals on music spawned a generation that won't pay for it.

[OnyxCollie]

70. My hearing's all shot to hell from loud guitar amps,

booming car stereos, and blaring headphones worn while cutting grass as a teenager.

Now I just listen to mp3's ripped from CD's at 192 Khz and that's good enough for me.

And I'd rather carry an iPod with 9,000 songs on it than drag around a bag with a bunch of CD's that will only end up in stacks on the floor, instead of being filed back alphabetically.

[LanternWaste]

71. Album Art and pimply teens playing DJ at the prom's sound-mixer

Album Art. For me anyway. (I think the trendy and popular use of sound mixers (ne' "DJ's") scratching vinyl as an addendum to the per-existing music may have a lot to do with it also). I think the "retro" movement may have a lot to do with it also (as long as olive green Formica tables never get "retro-ized, I'm ok with it)

But in the end, the album covers and inserts of Spyro Gyra, The Beatles, Yes, Vangelis, and some of the Chicago Transit Authority stuff are simply too delicious to look at on a post-card sized canvas.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

72. I like CDs better than MP3s. Don't like compression.

[Demonaut]

75. then you'll like vinyl more

cd is compressed

[thucythucy]

76. One major difference

I find between the two media (I mean CD vs. LP vinyl) is how an album used to be divided into sides. It seems to me that musicians who came of age during the period of the LP often organized their music with this in mind. For instance, each of the four "sides" of Dylan's "Blonde On Blonde" (originally a 2 LP set) seems to me something of an organic whole when you interpose the time needed to flip or change the record between, say, the last song on what used to be side 1 ("Sooner or Later One of Us Must Know") and the first song on what used to be side 2 ("I Want You.") Now the entire "Blonde On Blonde" album comes on one CD, without any indication of where the breaks used to be.

Probably an even better example would be the Beatles white album, also originally a 4 sided, 2 LP set. The last note on "Happiness is a Warm Gun" is obviously supposed to end an entire side, not just one song that immediately leads into another.

By contrast, take "One Beat" or "The Woods" by Sleater Kinney. For both of those albums I'd be hard put to divide the songs into a side A or side B. They just flow, one into the other. There's no sense, even if you divide up the time, of being "halfway through" an album--it's just song after song after song -- at least that's how it sounds to my ears. I'm not saying one manner of presentation is better than the other (and I LOVE Sleater Kinney), but there's definitely a difference.

As for sound quality itself, a lot of it probably depends on who is doing the mixing. I've heard music that sounded like mush on vinyl come alive on CD (for instance, Dylan's "Street Legal"), but generally speaking to my ears vinyl is superior. This is especially true of truly ancient recordings like Memphis Slim, or the old Muddy Waters Chess sides. That's how my ears hear it, anyway.

[wtmusic]

156. +1.

IMO a significant part of the experience is lost when broken into convenient chunks, but there are analogues (pun intended) in just about every aspect of contemporary culture.

[Taverner]

77. The argument I've heard is that Digital cuts off the high and low ends of the spectrum

However, that just may be CDs, and not high bitrate digital audio files

I can tell the difference between "Kind of Blue" on CD and Vinyl

I cannot, however, tell the difference between "Kind of Blue" on Vinyl and on a high bitrate digital recording of said vinyl

[BrendaBrick]

101. You mention high bitrate digital audio files

Can I ask if you know what precisely that bitrate is? Is this something new? Does it exceed 24 bit?

[Taverner]

104. On iTunes I chose for it to show bitrate

From a typical CD to mp3 it's usually 320 kbps, but it can be as low as 192 kbps

For flac files, the bitrate goes up, and the Vinyl->Flac version of Miles' "Kind of Blue" registers between 2000-3000 kbps

Of course, you can't play flac on iTunes, so I have to use Winamp

[BrendaBrick]

105. Hmmm.

I'll have to check that out. Thanks.

[Romulox]

164. You have control of the quality of file you create when you import into Itunes.

(preferences-->import settings).

Itunes doesn't do FLAC, but it does feature Apple Lossless format, which is excellent.

[kentauros]

193. You might also like the player "JetAudio".

It plays most of the formats I've ever seen and allows you to rip to those formats, too. I've been using it for many years. Never really liked itunes, but WinAmp is good.

http://www.jetaudio.com/products/jetaudio

:)

[wtmusic]

140. Digital actually presents low end more accurately.

But that's where we start to get into trouble. Many artists (in the old days) were present at mastering sessions, and their music was mastered specifically to sound good on vinyl. So when you listen to those tapes transferred to digital they often do sound lacking in low end, and it's probably not what the artist wanted you to hear.

I agree that new CDs are inferior to vinyl played on an audiophile system.

[KurtNYC]

78. You can't surf on a staircase -- A wave is not a series of individual values

It is continuous and smooth. Analog-based sound reproduction allows your ears to surf on natural, smooth, soothing acoustic waves. While digital chops the waves up into something like a staircase (or sawblade).

[Warren DeMontague]

81. that depends on the size of the PCM. though, doesn't it?

I mean an ocean wave appears continuous, but it is really made up of discrete water particles.. which, according to quantum mechanics, are also sort of like waves.


And so on.

[darkstar3]

110. And what about sample rate and DACs?

You're completely leaving out the fact that the sound waves coming out of your speakers are ALWAYS analog.

[guitar man]

118. Bit depth is where it's at with pcm digital

24 bit 44.1khz uncompressed pcm digital is 256 times as detailed as 16 bit 44.1 khz CD audio. Upping the sample rate extends high frequency response.

And you're right about DACs. cheap converters with poor jitter rates just make stuff sound bad :(

[phleshdef]

82. FLAC audio files are actually quite good, but can be 50-100 MB per song.

[kentauros]

194. And you can get a 1Tb drive now for under $100.

Not to mention media-players that accept 32gb mini-SD cards :hi:

Now, I would like to get a pair of Audio Engine speakers for my computer, but they start at $350 a pair...

[Warren DeMontague]

83. Analog was that 4th gen copy of the Dead at the Frost you copied from your roommate

and then spilled a beer on the tape, rendering it sticky and useless.

Digital is the well-archived lossless SBDs of that same show that you can download, decompress, listen to, copy, and hold onto in perpetuity with no loss of audio quality.

I'll go with digital.

[fishwax]

87. better sound, perhaps--experience not so much

I voted other, because I like the sound of vinyl, but not so much that I've found it necessary to invest in the equipment--to say nothing of investing in the catalog that I've got in one digital format or another, which would (a) be largely hard-to-find or unavailable on vinyl anyway and (b) be insanely expensive.

While I'm willing to entertain the notion that vinyl has better sound, I don't think the difference is as great as some others feel that it is, and for me the other advantages that I get from digital make it a better experience overall.

I think there's something to be said for the tactical experience of holding a record, flipping it over, measuring time, etc. But there's also something to be said for listening to Dark Side of the Moon driving through the Rockies at night or taking Rachmaninoff or Morphine as accompaniment on a walk through the park, and that sort of thing would be difficult with vinyl.

[kentauros]

195. Here.

Add to your catalog: http://music-favourites.blogspot.com

:evilgrin:

[Kurmudgeon]

89. My ears are too roached to tell the difference.

Being in bar bands for a decade with drummers that have no volume control did the trick.
It's ok though, I had fun, it was worth it, even now. ;)

[etherealtruth]

90. Vinyl provides a good nostalgic experience for us "oldies"

... nothing more

[madokie]

92. overtones and harmonics

However you like explaining one or the other but that is the difference between vinyl and digital. one has it the other doesn't. The one that has it is a better fuller sound. The one that doesn't not so much.

Fix that problem with digital then serious audiophiles may migrate to digital, Don't fix that problem and there will always be a market for vinyl as well as the electronics to handle it.

The harmonics is where the true music is

Link to better understand what I'm saying. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Overtone

[stuntcat]

94. I have a vinyl-to-digital setup, and I've wondered..

I've wondered if the vinylness is totally undone by my turning the record's sound into a digital file.

Aside from pops and clicks I can't tell the difference, but I do not have the ear for it! I just love music however I can get it.

[guitar man]

121. Of course it will never be the same

Once you take it off the vinyl into the digital realm it's going to introduce some artifacts unique to digital. How true it stays to the original will depend on how good your AD converters are and the bit depth and sample rate you record it at, bit depth being most important to preserving detail. 24 bit uncompressed PCM digital can give you some pretty incredible detail but it's going to burn some hard drive space, about 20mb per stereo minute, roughly twice as much as 16 bit CD audio. But the tradeoff is you get sound that's 256 times as detailed as CD audio :)

Even if you're going to take it all the way down to an mp3 file, the sound will benefit from recording at the higher bit depth, and with terrabyte drives being as cheap as they are, there's no reason not to record it at the best quality IMO :)

[BrendaBrick]

97. First, to address the poll question:

"How does vinyl deliver an experience superior to digital?" The short of it could be found (to some extent in so much as frequency range is concerned) on this YouTube video: "Audio Frequency Range of LP vs CD" (Little over 7 minutes):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eC6L3_k_48&feature=related

Beyond that, there are obviously many variables involved ranging from the acoustics of where the recording takes place, to the type of equipment used for the master recording along with the engineers/mixers fiddling around (and in my estimation, the less fiddling, the better)...and finally ending upon the final product, be it in digital or analog form.

I've heard some pretty crappy vinyl releases where it was just mixed to death - to the other end of the spectrum, say the clean and clear CD releases from Telarc using 20/24 bit recording techniques.

Some background info on Telarc:

The Telarc Sound. Everything You Hear is True.®

Telarc achieved its reputation for the exceptionally clear, natural sound of its recordings. Even before the public had heard of the digital process, they were embracing the sound of Telarc. Critics have praised it, and Telarc 's artists rely on it, knowing that Telarc's recorded sound gives them the most faithful possible representation of their artistry. "From their very first recordings," said renowned conductor Robert Shaw of his twenty-year recording history with Telarc, "Robert Woods and Jack Renner have brought intelligence, care and creativity to their work, which immediately challenged the standards of the entire recording industry. All audiophiles and lovers of music are in their debt."

"Telarc prides itself on the naturalness and transparency of its recorded sound," says Vice President of Production and Artist Relations, Elaine Martone. "Coming from a musician's background, I have always valued this aspect of our craft," she continues. "In our classical, jazz and blues recordings there is a tactile presence to the instruments and voices, drawing in the listener from the opening notes."

Since 1980, Telarc has been honored with forty Grammy Awards for performance, production, and engineering, as well as Label of the Year from Gramophone, the French Grand Prix du Disque and Diapason d' Or; Japan's Record of the Year; and Germany's Audiophile CD of the Year.

Although it began as a classical-only recording company, Telarc now boasts a catalog of more than 800 recordings, ranging from classical, classical-crossover, jazz, contemporary jazz, blues and country. Look for Telarc to break into world of pop/rock music in 2005 with releases from Alana Davis and Los Super Seven. The company releases more than sixty recordings each year, along with their partner-in-music, Heads Up International, working with a distinguished roster of artists, and backed by an outstanding staff of more than fifty employees in its Cleveland, Ohio-based headquarters.

Who and what enabled this comparatively small, independent American company to achieve this revered position? How is it still successfully challenging the majors in the recording industry? And what is it doing to ensure that it will keep its leading edge into the next millennium and beyond?

Stike one for American ingenuity here! (but even with all that, it does still have its limitations when compared to vinyl - but not too shabby!)

..And if your interested, here is a link for free downloads from Telarc: http://www.telarc.com/FreeDownloads/

(Also, some CDs digitally remastered from the original recordings from Chess Records sound pretty decent.)

Given all this, I voted for vinyl in this poll not only because of the depth, smoothness and natural subtlety...but because when I listen to a piece of music that isn't mixed to death (especially classical) and it relaxes me so much to the point that I would not be able to form a fist if my life depended on it...only happens for me on this visceral level with vinyl.

Finally, here's an interesting historical link: "History of Hi-Fi Music Players And Media" (some interesting little tidbits of information):

http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/hifi.html

Though (of course) it all depends on what type of system you have to listen to it all. I agree with many of the other posters here that the quality equipment from the 70's & 80's Technics, Pioneer, Klipsch horns (and I would add Marantz) just can't compare to the cheap stuff being churned out today. For my money, back in the 80's I invested in a pair of B&W 802 Matrix 2 speakers driven by a Klyne preamp and BEL (Brown Electronics Labs out of CA) low impedance amp and the experience has without a doubt, helped me to keep my sanity!!!

[dimbear]

100. I am big. It's the pictures that got small.

Black and white TV was better. Silent movies were better. Where's my flint ax?

[guitar man]

102. It depends

I've got vinyl records in my collection that sound fantastic and I've got records that sound terrible.

I've got CDs that sound great and CDs that sound terrible

First and foremost, a great recording is made by a great performance. Assuming the performance is great and the instruments and vocals sound great the skill and quality of the producer and engineers comes into play, and the quality of the equipment, acoustic environment etc. etc.

If I had my way about it, I'd sit in the studio listening to analog master tapes but that's not very practical. given the choice between a great sounding CD and a great sounding record I think I'd pick the record, but that's because I'm a nostalgic old fart :P

In the analog vs digital debate, one isn't necessarily "better" than the other, but they are different. It just depends on what's important to the end listener as to which one they choose

[BrendaBrick]

107. Funny that you use the term: "Great Performance"

Some of my favorite CD's (I think I have about half a dozen) are from the CBS "Great Performances" collection:

http://www.basicrep.com/cbs/index.html

[guitar man]

112. exactly

and the reason you like them probably has nothing to do with what they are playing on, it's what's being played that makes you like them. Of course, a quality recording never hurts :)

[BrendaBrick]

119. Yep.

Do you have any of the Great Performances CDs and/or a particular favorite?

One of my favorites is this one:



Though I couldn't find a version with Stern, I do like the 3rd movement played so passionately by Itzhak Perlman here (and in Russia to boot!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZrsXwUcPYc&feature=related

(Hope I'm not straying too far off the subject matter of the post here...)

[guitar man]

122. Yes

I have Copland: Four Dance Episodes from Rodeo - Billy the Kid Suite- Bernstein ad the NY Philharmonic. Love it, haven't listened to it in quite a while, must dust it off and play it :)

[darkstar3]

103. Like so many other things, there's a curve involved.

It's a money spent vs. sound quality curve.

If you're willing to spend a whole lot more money, vinyl sounds better. For the vast majority of consumer level electronics, however, CD beats vinyl hands down every time.

[BlueJazz]

114. As a Musician with PP I want to add my 3 sense.

1. So much depends on the source material and whether (or not) it has been processed to death.
2. Most people (with all due respect) have equipment that adds so much harmonic and intermodulation distortion
that I wonder if it truly matters what format they listen to. (great reproducing equipment is VERY expensive)
3. For a single instrument (say a Tenor Sax) played by itself with zero processing I CAN hear the difference
between a 24/44 wave file and a expensive tape recorder.
....add a room with flat and curved "stuff" in it and frankly my dear, I probably don't hear a damn...bit of difference.

:) :)

[guitar man]

117. Yep

As good as 24 bit audio is it's still hard to beat a well maintained 2" analog tape machine... but damn they're expensive to buy, and their care and feeding costs can be pretty high too :wow:

So as much as I'd like to run analog at my place, the budget dictates digital.I'm running an ADAT HD-24 as my master recorder and I have to say, it does pretty well. Here's a shot of my rig, I'm still moving it into a new location so it's still "in progress" :)

[BlueJazz]

124. Very Nice!.....Very Cool!

:)

[guitar man]

149. Thanks

It ain't Abby Road but we've screwed around and made a couple decent sounding records by accident :P

[sendero]

116. FWIW..

...I am a long time music lover. I started listening to music when there were no CDs. I find this whole notion somewhat silly.

Vinyl does not sound better than digital, its just that the things it can't reproduce are things we'd just as soon not hear.

Folks who believe it does are the same folks who believe things like "monster cables" and "exotic amplifiers" sound better when many double-blind tests prove otherwise.

It's a warm-fuzzy notion to think that old technology is somehow superior. It isn't.

[guitar man]

120. old tech is neither

Old tech is neither inferior or superior, it all boils down to what you like to listen to. Right now I'm listening to Little Feat "Feats Don't Fail Me Now" on a Fisher MT-6224 Studio Standard turntable running through a Crown D-75a power amp into a set of old EV Sentry 100a studio monitor speakers. I've got the same album on CD. Does the CD sound "better"? Yeah, by today's standards it does.... but I still enjoy listening to the old vinyl sometimes...takes me back :)

[sendero]

182. I have nothing against vinyl..

... and since I have literally hundreds of LPs, one of these days I'm going to hook up my turntable and listen to some of them.

There are wonderful things about LPs, the large space for artwork and credits (occasionally used to really add to the product's value :)) the fact that since you have to fiddle with it every twenty minutes you are more likely to Pay Attention to the music, etc.etc.etc.

It's just that the idea that vinyl sounds better is unfounded and frankly silly.

There is an audio guy out there, he's getting on in years and does not write much any more, called The Audio Critic who takes great pleasure in debunking the hi-end audio hokum, of which there is plenty. There is a lot of his stuff on the web still.

[guitar man]

185. Well performed music

...That is well recorded, mixed and mastered is the key to a great listening experience no matter what the medium.


When it comes to format, for sheer listening pleasure, I like listening to open reel analog tape. Then again my favorite meal is a hickory grilled ribeye and lobster tail with a baked potato with lots of melted cheddar cheese and a nice salad with plenty of ranch. I mean, come on, that should be everybody's favorite meal, right? :sarcasm:

As a recording engineer it was hard to come to terms with digital formats, especially lossy digital formats but I eventually made peace with it. Some people like to sit down and enjoy a filet mignon and some want a Big Mac and fries on the go. I've had to learn to serve it all to make a buck in the 21st century :)

[mistertrickster]

128. +1 Agreed. nt

[Generic Brad]

123. I converted my vinyl music collection to digital

Snaps, pops, and all.

[mistertrickster]

126. Vinyl sucks.

It bends, it scratches, it skips, it wears out after 8 plays.

The cymbals and the bass slime together in a hopeless mess.

The reason that people buy billions of CD's and vinyl is on the trash-heap of history is because digital is far, far superior.

The music coming out of my tiny computer speakers sounds better than a thousand dollar Marantz receiver paired with Bose speakers in 1975.

When I hear digitized versions of music I listened to on vinyl, it sounds like someone took cotton out of my ears.

People who prefer vinyl . . . let me put it this way, "you can't fool all of the people all of the time, but you can fool enough to make a very good living." (W C Fields)

[wtmusic]

129. You really have no idea what you're talking about

but music is a subjective experience. If you want to call a sow's ear a silk purse, then I'd say it's a fine purse you have. :D

[Logical]

134. The poster is correct, the love of vinyl is all in their minds for a time long gone!

[wtmusic]

135. Ah, another connoissieur of sow's ears.

Enjoy. :thumbsup:

[jmowreader]

130. Okay, let me get this straight...

If you record something in Pro Tools, which is digital...

then process it with a bunch of Pro Tools extensions, which are also digital...

and ship it to the record company in a digital format...

then convert it to analog and put it on a record...

all the humps and bumps and stairsteps that are supposedly part of the digital experience just go away. Riiiiiiiight...

In reality, there's quite a bit of distortion in a vinyl record that has to be there because the stylus can't react as fast as music can. Quick example is the 1812 Overture. If you make your recording properly, with an orchestral section, a percussion section and an artillery section, they have to compress the cannon fire because phono cartridges can't deal with sudden extreme transients. They only started getting good recordings of this overture when digital came along, because lasers react faster. The ear hears this distortion and thinks it is good.

The best way to play music? Blu-ray. 24-bit audio at 48kHz or 96kHz sampling rates, fed to large speakers, is very fine.

[wtmusic]

132. All the "stairsteps" do go away, to some extent

for the very reason you mention - the stylus can't react fast enough. Many people (me included) see that as a desirable, warming function of vinyl, working much in the same fashion as a tube amplifier.

[guitar man]

144. In reality

That's not exactly how most major record releases are made in the big studios. Sure, they may be recording in protools at 24/96 or 24/192, but mixing is often acccomplished through analog summing on a big Neve or SSL mixer with the sweet british analog eq sections and outboard processing gear including vintage UREI LA-2 compressors and the like, and mixdown goes to 1/2" analog tape at 30 ips to the vinyl plant and even for CD mastering. It's the best of both worlds and they can get a pretty smooth and convincing sound that way.

There are a lot of "hybrid" approaches going on too, such as recording to 2" analog tape and then transferring to protools for mixdown.

I do agree though, if you're going to listen to digital, 24 bit is the way to go... much smoother sounding than CD :hi:

[wtmusic]

146. Or vice versa

A buddy recently mixed a Natalie Cole Protools session to 1/2" Ampex 456 at 16ips. Sounded incredible...best of both worlds.

[guitar man]

147. damn I'm jealous

I'm jealous of anybody that gets to mix a Natalie Cole session :wow:

[trackfan]

136. I have both, and this one sounds way better.

[saras]

138. Many superiorities, some distinct weaknesses

Better:
Album covers are better than CDs for cleaning seedy pot and rolling joints. Modern cannabis technology has largely made this obsolete, and AFAIK, no one is nostalgically going back to dirtweed with seeds.

Larger physical size meant better art, especially when large posters were included.

Jethro Tull's "Stand Up" stand-up cutouts and "Thick as a Brick"'s multipage parody newspaper, the Feederz' "Ever Feel Like Killing Your Boss?" sandpaper album cover, etc.

The first CDs, and CD players, sucked donkey dongs. Some SPECTACULARLY awful sound. Old abused vinyl with gum on it sounded better. This distinction faded in the nineties for audiophiles as the industry learned about things like jitter. On the other hand, MP3s have lowered the quality expectations (and, to be frank, in many cases, the actual ability to hear audio quality) of the market (more people who don't care about quality are buying music anyways).

Analog systems, and human ears, can resolve signals buried 15-20db below the noise threshold, where digital audio usually loses this detail (digital theory suggests it's gone anyways, why preserve it?) unless everything in the system is carefully managed.

A really bad album is more fun to throw across the room, carve huge scratches and holes in, or melt into a dish.

Lots of bands don't really have that much good music, and a short album is less annoying than a short CD. CDs tend to encourage filler.

If you have no electricity, you can play vinyl with a lazy susan, a straight pin, and a rolled-up cone of writing paper. Yes, you can. I've done it many times.

Vinyl is still far better to DJ with, at least if you're a performer more than a mixer.

Worse:
Any music that benefits from a subwoofer. Vinyl is AWFUL in this regard.

Music (usually electronic) that places extremely atypical demands on the playback system. Vinyl was optimized for "normal" music.

CDs in a microwave oven are more entertaining than vinyl.

You can't get a cheap external vinyl press for your PC - yet.

[Lyric]

152. Vinyl sounds more like real life to me.

Although sadly, I don't own a turntable. I do still have my vinyl copy of "Rumours", though! With the original insert and all. It's just waiting for the day I manage to get a stereo with a turntable. :)

[wtmusic]

154. Check this out.

Remastered on virgin audiophile 180-gram vinyl:

http://www.turntablelab.com/vinyl/151/251/90202.html

It will probably sound better than the original, although no insert. :)

I had no idea these places existed until I got a catalog in the mail a few weeks ago. Almost any popular album from the 70s-80s is available.

[Lance_Boyle]

155. It only works if you have special hipster ears

properly attuned to the wavelength of skinny jeans, canned PBR and bullshit.

[wtmusic]

157. No, it just takes listening to a considerable amount of music.

No one who really knows and enjoys beer drinks PBR, do they?

[Romulox]

165. Not everything is a competition, dude. Some of us just like music. nt

[T S Justly]

168. One can't discover back-masking on digital...

Or can one?

[OriginalGeek]

173. sure ya can

rip the cd to wav and then load it up in Goldwave (or any of a 1000 other audio editing programs but goldwave has a free trial that seems to last forever) and play it in reverse.

It may not be as much fun as spinning your turntable in reverse but it's probably cheaper.

btw, there is no backmasking in Stairway to Heaven. Pure urban legend.

but if it gets fundie panties in a twist I'm all for letting them believe it.

[saras]

175. You can even do it in Windows Sound Recorder (or whatever the Windows 7 equivalent is)

It can't do much, but 'reverse' is on that short list. Not only free, but built in, though I haven't checked since XP. Unfortunately, they didn't include this in Windows Media Player - a stupid oversight, I think. I listen to WAY too much music backwards.

[hifiguy]

176. In sophisticated audio circles, in which I have run for many years,

the most commonly given explanation for vinyl's superiority is called "information density." Only with the coming of the (now rather moribund) SACD format did digital's information density begin to approach that of analog vinyl. Modern audiophile CD players upsample the datastream to 24 bits and either 96 kHz or - more often - 192 kHz bit resolution. Both offer a significant quantum of improvement with standard CDs, which are 16 bits and 44.1 kHz.

Psychoacoustics have a lot to do with this, mainly that the brain can process and account for information well above that which humans perceive as audible.

There's simply more stuff present on an analog LP than on any but the finest SACD recordings much less standard digital recordings. And human hearing is analog, not digital.

I could go on at exceedingly tedious length about this question, but let me leave it at this - I can discern and describe the difference, on extended listening, between different types of power cords, much less recording formats - being able to do such a comparative evaluation is one of the main reasons I have been writing about high-end home audio for 15+ years. The simple fact of the matter is that analog vinyl is the best commercially available format and open-reel tape is the best music storage format yet invented.

[EFerrari]

177. Omg, Frank Barone was right about his records!

:)

[wtmusic]

186. Open-reel tape? You mean the stuff that starts shedding oxide in as little as 10 years?

How on earth are you defining "best"? :crazy:

[hifiguy]

200. Umm, pro-grade tapes do not begin shedding oxide in 10 years.

At least if they are stored correctly. Recordings from the 1950s are remastered all the time on to LP and CD using the original master tapes. At the recent Rocky Mountain Audio Fest, at least half a dozen rooms were using open-reel tape as a part of their demos, mostly with freshly remastered material from the 50-55 years ago supplied by a company called The Tape Project.

[wtmusic]

211. Umm, do you work at the Library of Congress?

I've seen oxide coming off a reel of Ampex 456 which was ten years old after being stored in a recording studio closet. In a perfect storage situation you might get 50 years.

So it's a little amusing that you proclaim it as fact that open-reel tape is the "best music storage format yet invented". It adds a very distinct coloration/distortion which depends on the tape formulation and speed, and it's noisy. I happen to love the sound of tape masters (see upthread) but I wouldn't think of portraying my preference as fact, especially when there are so many other more permanent and predictable options.

[hifiguy]

215. All I know is that reissues of RCA, EMI, Decca/London and Mercury

classical recordings are being made as we speak from the original masters and the new LPs are often better than the originals thanks to advances made in disc cutting and pressing. Plenty of classic jazz that is 45-55 years old is being reissued from original masters as well with the same results.

And I heard an open reel tape dupe of a late 1950s Nat Cole & George Shearing master at the Rocky Mountain Audio Fest not two months ago. The sound was staggering, and better than any LP I have ever heard - and I am a vinyl diehard. The company that made it is called The Tape Project. The tapes are not practical for any but the most well-heeled audiophiles as they're several hundred bucks each, but the sound is there. To me, analog tape captures a sound that is the most like the real thing when it is done right, i.e., excellent original recordings, high quality tape, 15 ips playback. Perfectionist vinyl (Acoustic Sounds, Mobile Fidelity) is the next best thing, good original period vinyl the next after that. A couple of weeks ago I got the Mobile Fidelity reissue of Rod Stewart's "Every Picture Tells a Story" and compared it to my pristine original US LP from 1972. The MoFi stomped the balls off the original pressing, using a 40 year old analog tape master.

I am a musician with plenty of recording experience, and have been involved in perfectionist audio for 20+ years, writing about it extensively in print magazines and now the internet for nearly 15 years. It's only my opinion, but it's an informed opinion.

[wtmusic]

231. That Cole/Shearing tape you heard was a third generation copy

The second generation was from the master to 1" half-track, then to 1/4" half-track. So if you love 15ips tape distortion and hiss you're getting your money's worth. :D

I really don't begrudge people for liking what they like, and I believe you have plenty of experience. I'm tempted to pick up that Rod Stewart disc after your description, but it makes sense to me - a remaster from a newer lathe pressed to 180g vinyl would sound incredible.

What I do object to is the "perfectionist" and "well-heeled" labels which is pure snobbery. And the last time someone told me they could tell the difference between power cords he got called on it - we did a blind test with him (a masochist of sorts) and he not only lost out on the power cord, but couldn't distinguish between his "gold reference" cables and Radio Shack cheapies. So call me skeptical.

[hifiguy]

233. It isn't a question of snobbery.

Anyone can hear the difference between my high-end system and an average system. ANYONE. Friends who have said "I could never tell the difference" listen to one track on my system of the moment and say things like "It's so obvious" or "I get the point of this - it sounds so close to live music." Learning how to discern and describe the differences between something like interconnects or power cords takes a long while to do. And I personally do not consider blind A/B tests to be valid. The differences are often quite subtle but definitely noticeable, especially over the long term when listening to a lot of different kinds of music. Cardas Golden Reference cabling sounds very different from, say, Nordost's Valhalla in a high-resolution system. Sam may prefer Cardas and Sue may prefer Nordost, but there is a difference. A lot of the differences in taste have everything to do with the psychoacoustics of how a given person perceives the sound of live music, which is the only valid standard of comparison.

As for hiss on tapes, the background of the Cole/Shearing tape was absolutely, deep-space black silent. It was played back on a heavily modified Otari tape machine with an all-tube NAB stage through about 400 kilobucks worth of VTL tube electronics, Nordost Odin cabling and TAD Reference One speakers. I wasn't alone in calling that room's sound the best at the show. A number of audio writers with even longer track records than mine concurred.

We hifi nerds aren't any more snobby than any other hobbyist nerds are about their chosen pastimes. Geeks are geeks. :D

[wtmusic]

235. Of course you don't consider A/B tests to be valid.

Neither did my acquaintance after he got caught looking like an ass. The proof is in the pudding - you either hear a difference, or you don't.

And as an audiophile, certainly you know that the most expensive tube electronics in the world will do nothing to minimize tape hiss. If anything, they will make it easier to hear. You knew that, right?

And you know that 1/4" tape machines running at 15ips are consumer toys, never found in professional recording studios?

onedit: I used to do 15ips 1/4" mixes of commercials for AM radio in the 1980s to save tape (the sound was going to get mangled anyway). The engineer wouldn't even bother to re-align the machine; it was a joke. And now men in tweed jackets are probably listening to them somewhere on $half-million systems while stroking their beards.

Life is strange. :crazy:

[guitar man]

237. Actually, 1/4" 1/2 track can sound quite good

Provided it's recorded on the right type of machine ;)

[hifiguy]

238. You are so right.

The machines I saw at the Rocky Mountain Audio Fest ranged from Studer A80s (which are absolute beasts originally designed for the most lavish of recording studios and are still used for a lot of analog mastering) to studio-grade Otaris and heavily remanufactured Tascam machines that were plenty costly when available commercially.

Tape decks can be checked out at: http://www.unitedhomeproducts.com/reel_to_reel_hq_tape_decks.htm
with which I have no connection whatsoever.

[guitar man]

239. There are some nice decks there

I was afraid to look at the prices though lol .

I'd like to find a decent 1/2" 8 track like a Tascam model 38 or 58 to add to my studio setup. I can get everything to sound great on digital but sometimes , for the drum kit and bass guitar,I just miss the fat analog compression that only analog tape driven right to the edge can give.

8 tracks would be plenty to lay down the drum kit and bass, then dump it over to the digital 24 track to lay down the rest of the tracks :P

[wtmusic]

240. Yes it can - at 30ips.

which is what those machines were nearly always run at. The reason the Tape Project records at 15ips has nothing to do with sound but convenience - you would only get 1/2 album on each side of a 10" reel.

It's all about perceived value, and when you have no shortage of people willing to part with $500 - why not?

[guitar man]

242. Ah, if the reels have sides

... then that's 1/4 track, and yes it's a consumer format, a decent one on the right equipment though.

1/4" half track at 15 ips is good, and of course at 30 ips is excellent.

I'd like to add a 1/2" half track to my studio for mixdown from digital to send mixes out to master. At 30 ips, 1/2" kicks ass :)

[wtmusic]

243. In 1986-87 when DAT machines showed up

it was amazing how quickly 1/4" disappeared from mixing rooms. A few years went by, and people decided they were willing to put up with a little noise and less clarity for the warmth imparted by tape.

Part of the backlash against digital was due to producers recording mixes at 48k to play for record company suits, but after the conversion to 44.1 clarity would go out the window. Part of it was due to vet mastering engineers mastering bass-shy out of habit from working with vinyl. You can hear it easily by comparing CD and vinyl versions of albums from the late 80s and early 90s. They gradually caught on and started tweaking with EQ but it was never quite...the same.

The 1990s was when mixing on 1/2" really came into style. The machines require babying, aligning, constant cleaning, and good reels of tape are hard to find - but the result is worth it.

Good luck, I hope you can find one. I'm mixing to hard drive now but I have some classic tube gear and mics from the 60s which (sort of) makes up for it.

[guitar man]

248. I've still got my dat

Sony DTC A8, still works perfect, but never use it anymore.

I've been getting 1/4" analog tape from US recording media. RMG makes a tape they call an "equivalent" of Ampex 456 and it doesn't break the bank relatively speaking. Seems to work pretty good on my old teac 2340, I use it to do live recordings of my band sometimes.

[saras]

178. More advantages of vinyl...

You can make 12" singles that don't tell the user whether to play them at 33 or 45, and with the right vocalist and electronic music, you can make them sound believable at either speed. The ensuing controversy makes for great publicity.

You can code endless messages in the runout groove. CDs quit after an hour or so.

You can make multi-groove records that choose one of two, or four, programs at random when you set the needle down.

You can see the loud and quiet parts on the record before you even play a song.

You can set a pile of coins on top of the tone arm to play a skipping record. Can't do that with a skipping CD.

you can make a fuzztone punk version of a song by piling coins on top of the tone arm and playing the song over and over. Can't do that with CDs either.

Vinyl makes better frisbees. With a good wind, you can get an awful record to fly literally six blocks from the college radio station.

On the other hand, you can't put hidden tracks on vinyl, and you can't make them go silent for half an hour before hitting you with a burst of awful noise at full volume, like Beck's albums.

[TheKentuckian]

179. Other: Taste

I understand what wax lovers are talking about, it just isn't what stands out to my ear.

[yawnmaster]

184. Vinyl definitely tastes better than the cheap plastic CDs...

they both cut my gums though.

[TheKentuckian]

204. Ya gotta boil em with about an ounce of vinegar, salt to taste, and a lil crushed red pepper

[yawnmaster]

222. yeah, do that if you want to destroy all the vitamins in them. eom

[Mimosa]

187. Vinyl was way better for classical and jazz.

I miss my records. They could seduce me into listening.

[Quartermass]

189. Usually I can't tell the difference except for one thing.

Vinyl often has a scratchy or staticky sound that annoys the heck out of that digital doesn't. So I view digital as superior.

[Odin2005]

190. Vinyl sucks, it is hissy and wears out quicky.

I like a nice clear sound, I have very sensitive hearing and vinyl has this hiss and crackle that irritates the hell out of me.

[Canuckistanian]

191. What does "chop up the harmonics" mean?

I'm an electronics specialist in radio and telecommunications. And I've never heard that that term before.
And I know what harmonics are.

[guitar man]

196. Beats me

I'm a recording engineer, musician and record producer and I don't know what it means either :shrug:

[hifiguy]

205. Digital recording systems use sampled points to

capture a waveform; the more points used the better, but it's like the difference between a circle on a computer screen and one drawn on paper with a compass. You can never eliminate all of the pixelization on the computer image nor the like effect in digital audio. Analog recording captures the entire waveform.

[jmowreader]

226. We know that...

The problem is, those pixels aren't very large on an audio waveform and, unless you've got the stereo of the gods hooked to the speakers of the gods and ears that were never in the Army (where they have hearing-killers called cannons, helicopters, tanks and machineguns) you'll never know the difference between a GOOD digital music file and a GOOD analog record.

[boppers]

249. No, you cannot *ever* capture the original with a reproduction. Ever.

With your compass metaphor, every ridge in the paper, and distortion in your drawing tip, breaks up the original intent. It comes down to what levels of distortion are acceptable, or even desirable, to you.

[guitar man]

198. Did some blind testing tonight, inspired by this thread

Probably not very scientific, but as an aging recording engineer it's good to put the old hearing to the test every once in a while to make sure it's not time to hang it up.

A good friend that works with me was interested in helping so he brought some of his gear with him to help me out and we had some fun playing around with audio stuff.

We had two amps and two sets of speakers for the tests. The first setup was a Crown D-75a power amp with a set of EV sentry 100a studio monitors from about 1980-82 I think...got them used so really not sure of their exact age. the amp and speakers is a decent pairing and produces a pretty good "middle of the road" sound.

The second setup was his pair of B&W 683s and Harman Kardon HK 990 power amp. While not the holy grail of all things audiophile, certainly a several up the ladder from the crown and the EVs.

So, for the test I recorded some vinyl into my mac from a Fisher MT-6224 turntable and a Cambridge audio preamp and a Presonus converter using Logic Pro and wound up with some songs from Little Feat "Feats Don't Fail Me Now" and ZZ Top Deguello recorded in at 24bit/44.1khz. I then created copies of the songs dithered down to the 16 bit/44.1Khz CDDA standard.

After fiddling around with the mixer and db meter to get everything levelled as close as possible so there would be no volume difference when switching sources, we took a break and ate something to give my ears a chance to return to neutral and then we went at it.


First up was the EVs and the Crown amp. I put on a blindfold and sat down and listened while he switched bewtween the turntable and the two digital sources. At first I had a hell of a time telling the difference between the turntable and the 24 bit digital file. I nailed the 16 bit right away but I had to really concentrate to pick out the 24 bit at first.

Then we hooked up the B&Ws and the HK 990 and wow, what a difference. I could very distinctly tell the difference between each source right off the bat on the better sounding amp and speakers.... it was a really nice sounding rig he brought along with him.

I would like to point out though, while the straight turntable and the 24 bit digital file did sound different, neither one was unpleasant to listen to, just a little different. The 16 bit file was well...not terrible either, but the difference in detail was quite evident.

The moral of the story? I guess unless you're spending several grand on a system, the format you listen to really doesn't matter as much. The important thing is just to enjoy the music :hi:

[KurtNYC]

201. thanks for sharing

I'm rebuilding my system now. Will probably get new speakers in January but I would love to be able to test the ones I have now (11 years old) against a new pair to see how much they have lost.

[guitar man]

214. Cool

What are you looking at getting?

[wtmusic]

213. A very 'musical' evaluation.

:thumbsup:

[BrendaBrick]

220. I like morals to a story...

Kind of pays off for the time ya spent listening/reading about somethin' :-) (I mean, after all, we're all kind of dying here anyway - both alive and dying at the same time - right?)

Anyways - I like your moral of the story: The important thing is just enjoy the music.

You said it. Bottom line!

Shoot, if it were up to me, (getting back to the 'moral of the story' sentiment) I'd replace every bible in hotels with a copy of Aesop's Fables the world round in as many different languages as necessary.

I mean...(shrug) who is going to argue with a tortoise or hare?

The moral of the story.....

[guitar man]

224. Thanks :)

I'm an analog nut who out of necessity has had to learn to make peace with digital. When I'm not at my day job I'm in my studio and the bottom line depends on me delivering what my clients want, and at the level where I am and with the time and money I have, digital is the most effective and efficient way to get the job done. It's taken a lot of getting used to but fact is, we're in the 21st century and moving forward and I can't stop that.

I'd like everything I record to be done on analog tape and reside on fine vinyl, but in the real world the most high profile song I've recorded with some fairly high profile dudes was released a while back in download only 256k mp3 format. I cringed a little at the thought for a minute, but now my work has been exposed to the big wide world in a fairly big way finally.

It isn't perfect but I'll take it :P

[BrendaBrick]

225. "Adapt or die

is the law of nature."

(Are you old enough to remember that one?)

I think that quote came from an old "Mutual of Omaha" segment which branded itself into my brain because Marlon Perkins said it with such 'below the surface' natural gusto, vertebrata and certainty.

Adapt or die...is the law of nature.

Ya do what ya have to do. We all do. Positive aspects abound...even if it is with a bit of personal circumspect and apprehension.

You've got a great attitude. It isn't perfect, but I'll take it. Practical yet not losing sight of possibilities just over the horizon.

[guitar man]

228. I remember well

Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom :)

And in my line of work it's absolutely correct, the technology is growing all the time. 20 years ago I would have never dreamed that my session bass player would live and work in LA out of his studio and we'd be flying files back and forth to each other over the web... but that's exactly what we do and it works :)

[BrendaBrick]

229. Well hey - if it works, it works.

Though I do wonder...how do you plug it all in? (Curious.)

Is there not any form or method or style of synchronicity?

Is it (or has it become) that compartmentalized? To just plug it all in separately.

I suppose it has...evidently ~

Isn't something missing (do you suppose) from bringing all the musicians in one room...together? All kind of 'tapping' into the same vibe at the same time and this kind of takes on a special musical form all of its own?

I suppose it could (and obviously DOES work) in this fashion...I just wonder if some kind of collective human component isn't missing in all of this.

Something not quite tangible, yet palpable all the same.

Like food that is cooked with genuine love. Can't exactly pinpoint it - but you know it is there beyond a shadow of a doubt - because ya can feel and taste it...and its just the best kind of food, hands down! Unmistakeable.

Though, what do I know? (shrug) Could be quite possibly a manner of recording music by now across many borders that is truly beyond me.

[guitar man]

230. There's something to be said for "live in the studio"

...with the whole band recording at once. I remember reading about some Little Feat recording sessions years ago and they were big on laying it down that way. But multitrack recording has been around a long time, and overdubbing even longer. Les Paul was doing records virtually by himself all the way back in the 40s by bouncing tracks between cutting turntables and playing all the instruments himself. Stevie Wonder and Prince are big about playing a lot of their own parts in the studio. Most everybody knows Stevie as a brilliant keyboard player but not everybody knows he's also a badass drummer, and a lot of the drum tracks you hear on his records are done by him.

Basically, as long as there's a "click track" counting the tempo and everybody plays to it, we can lay down arrangements one track at a time until we get everything we want. the hallmark of good studio musicians is to be able to play to a click track and partially finished arrangement like they're playing in Carnegie Hall.

And speaking of studio musicians, my studio partner and I acquired some real badass players this year, and we were lucky enough to have them all together in the studio back in May so we got some good "live in the studio" basic tracks on the album we are working on.

On drums we have Chuck Blackwell. Chuck was with Leon Russell and Shelter Records in the 60s and 70s and he appears albums such as Leon Russell and The Shelter People, Leon Russell "Carney", Joe Cocker's "Mad Dogs and Englishmen" Taj Mahal's "Nach'l Blues" , Freddie King's "Texas Cannonball".... and the list goes on and on

On Keyboards we have Danny Timms. Danny has played with Willie Nelson, Kris Kristofferson, Bonnie Raitt, Rita Coolidge, The Highwaymen, Los Lobos... and on and on and on

On Bass is Ted Russell Kamp. Ted is a great solo artist but he's also the bass player for Shooter Jennings and the .357s....massive talent.

Then there's Matt and I who play some guitar in between exchanging shocked looks at either wondering "how did we ever score THESE guys to make records with?" :p

[BrendaBrick]

252. Little late in responding and who knows if you'll even see this...

But I have to give a :thumbsup: on your last sentence.

Personally, one of the best CDs I ever heard was sometime ago when there were still "record stores".

I was in one just browsing around and then, all of a sudden Al Green is singing - so, I think to myself, cool. Al Green...and I'm grooving to it -

THEN - Lyle Lovett chimes in...and I think - wait - what? Al Green AND Lyle Lovett?

Sure enough. The CD: "Rhythm, County and Blues" by MCA.

In fact, it is chock full of Memphis meeting Nashville and is truly an incredible collaboration:



Lowdown:

Legend: Title song, writer credits, performers:

1. "Ain't Nothing Like the Real Thing" Valerie Simpson, Nickolas Ashford Vince Gill, Gladys Knight 3:53
2. "Funny How Time Slips Away" Willie Nelson Al Green, Lyle Lovett 4:33
3. "I Fall to Pieces" Hank Cochran, Harlan Howard Aaron Neville, Trisha Yearwood 3:47
4. "Somethin' Else" Bob Cochran, Sharon Sheeley Little Richard, Tanya Tucker 2:50
5. "When Something Is Wrong with My Baby" Isaac Hayes, David Porter Patti LaBelle, Travis Tritt 5:21
6. "Rainy Night in Georgia" Tony Joe White Sam Moore, Conway Twitty 5:13
7. "Chain of Fools" Don Covay Clint Black, The Pointer Sisters 3:42
8. "Since I Fell for You" Buddy Johnson Natalie Cole, Reba McEntire 4:18
9. "Southern Nights" Allen Toussaint Chet Atkins, Allen Toussaint 4:44
10. "The Weight" Robbie Robertson The Staple Singers, Marty Stuart 3:37
11. "Patches" Ronald Dunbar, General Johnson George Jones, B. B. King 6:14

Patti LaBelle & Travis Tritt really belt it out...so do Natalie & Reba...along with the many others.

Neville and Yearwood are nothing less than tender.

Staple Singers and Marty Stuart really rock as do all of the other recordings in this set.

Last recording, I understand by Conway.

Shame that this is not more well-known. A true collaboration all the way around.

Someone ought to make a documentary about it if such clips about these sessions even exist.

Good stuff ~

[DainBramaged]

209. If you're in your 20's maybe it sounds better

I lost everythhing above 12K years ago, I'm happy I don't take a dump on low base notes now.

[FLAprogressive]

221. It's just more catharsis for people who don't want to let go of the past.

[Hoyt]

223. Ease of digital recording and portability make it possible for millions more to produce good music.

And digital makes it easier for us to access it.

After 45 years, I just sold my last tube phono amp. As someone who used to go to "record stores" two to three times a week, I buy on-line now. I like the little players and the millions of virtual albums I can tuck in my shirt pocket.

But, I sure enjoyed searching out new record albums, listening to analog for 45 years and reading liner notes over and over. It's just digital makes more senfse for what I like to do now.

[Zanzoobar]

227. Sound snobs. All.

[wtmusic]

232. Check out this homemade disc-cutting lathe using a NAIL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_-0tNiG15o&noredirect=1

[guitar man]

234. Wow, I'm impressed

somebody finally found a use for a Beogram :P

[Throd]

241. You're all fucking stupid. Please shut up. The music is starting...

[wtmusic]

246. I can't hear the music, your whiny-ass complaining is too loud.

:D

[hyphenate]

244. Well, that's good to know all my records won't be completely

obsolete, but I prefer CDs because of durability, and lack of scrathes.

Perhaps vinyl has a deeler sound, but I think true audiophiles like it because it has faults--crackling, skipping and hissing are the stuff of records, but if a person doesn't want to hear all that, and wants an experience beyond just the music, they should stick to CDs for purity.


I do, however, hate cassettes. I was mentioning this to someone the other day, saying that vinyl was more durable than cassette, and if I ended up with a cassette, it usually was broken or messed up long before a record, so I would get blank tapes, and copy the records to the blanks, and I would have a way to retape if a cassette went bye-bye. It was ludicrous to think cassettes where a better deal than records at the time.

[BrendaBrick]

253. Agreed.

You wrote: "I think true audiophiles like it because it has faults"

Indeed. I have a system that when I play flutist Herbie Mann and I can actually HEAR the spit rattling around in the flute every now and again...that is something that I really like.

Makes it feel to me as if it is LIVE!

To each his own for sure ~

[CJCRANE]

245. I know it's sacrilege...

but I preferred cassettes back in the day.

Being a teenager in the 80s they were more useful to put in your walkman or car stereo and you could make cool mixtapes.

Plus I always found it fiddly to put the needle on the record.

[harun]

247. Other: I just like that I can buy records at Salvation Army for a buck.

[killbotfactory]

250. Two words: Loudness wars

The modern practice of compressing cd's to sound loud on cheap stereos has killed all the benefits of modern digital technology. There is just no dynamic range anymore. A properly mastered CD and Vinyl should be just about indistinguishable to most people, but the properly mastered part is the problem.

I've scraped together a vinyl system from goodwill and thrift stores. The turntable cost me three bucks. It sounds great, and I've never bought more music in my lifetime. To me, despite the odd click and pop on some old records I own, it is more pleasurable to listen to. I can't listen to most cd's as loud as I can listen to vinyl. Most CD's tend to be more grating at loud volume. This also happens with electronic music, which for some reason tends to be grating on cd's and sound great on vinyl.

MP3's sound as good as CD's at high bitrates. The whole mp3's = crap, cd's = good is pretty much nonsense. Alternate blind tests have pretty much proven 99% of people can't distinguish a difference, and for those who can, it's only due to an odd compression artifact here and there and really shouldn't effect your enjoyment of the music.

As to the technical aspects of CD vs Vinyl, this article is pretty accurate: http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Vinyl_Myths

[LTR]

251. If you want good quality compressed audio, I suggest ogg vorbis

Great format! Sounds better than mp3 and even AAC. I encoded music for my Android phone in ogg at 160K (due to space issues). Sounds just as good as high bitrate mp3. Granted, ogg probably won't work on some devices (like iPhone) but works like a charm on Android devices and PCs.

And I agree with you on the Loudness Wars. Many have been bitching about it for a while now. Here's a good site about it:

http://turnmeup.org/

And a database of various CDs and their dynamic range:

http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/