Music: Any vinyl collectors out here?

[Stylizer1]

What makes vinyl enjoyable is that it captures a point in time with sound. As much as it's an art to write, play, and sing music it is also an art to engineer it. Most of the vinyl people are referring to here came from a time when sound was innovating. Every few years people were inventing new ways to produce analogue music. Your ear was what made the final cut just that.

Why paint when you can just Photoshop?

 

[goggog]

The biggest thing I've noticed on vinyl is that the instruments tend to be far clearer. Cd and mp3 sound smushed together and undynamic.

That's my big takeaway.

This. I don't know **** about music, but I inherited a turntable from the pops last year and decided to buy a couple records to give it a try.

My computer, CD player, and turntable are all hooked up to the same receiver/speakers and I prefer the sound from the turntable over anything else. It's not really even close.

 

[Eisen]

Digital bits can never perfectly reproduce an analog waveform, no matter how small the bits are or how many of them exist. On a digital recording, the slope of a musical wave is no longer a slope, it's a staircase. You're not getting a proper representation of the original recording.

At one point it becomes unnecessary though, as you will not hear the difference. It is an approximation but with more bits you can get very good results. Of course, that makes the files way bigger.

 

[Shareefruck]

As someone who prefers the Vinyl sound, I have a hard time believing it really has anything to do with analogue waves > digital staircases. Scientifically, to the human ear, that type of difference should probably be pretty indistinguishable. I don't really know what causes the sound to be better, but I'm guessing it would be more of a flavor/sound engineering effort thing than purely an accuracy of the technology thing.

 

[DeYarmond Edison]

Well if it makes you happy - sure, go ahead enjoy.

But all these lame reasons i've read here to justify buying it over digital is cheesy. "I love the graining sound" ...wtf?? That's delusional.

I have a feeling you have an incredibly bad taste in music to go along with your incredibly bad posts in this thread.

 

[Xelebes]

As someone who prefers the Vinyl sound, I have a hard time believing it really has anything to do with analogue waves > digital staircases. Scientifically, to the human ear, that type of difference should probably be pretty indistinguishable. I don't really know what causes the sound to be better, but I'm guessing it would be more of a flavor/sound engineering effort thing than purely an accuracy of the technology thing.

I think the answer lies in the engineering. For example, you cannot get too loud with vinyl or if you do, it must be transient. So what you get is a more forced dynamic between loud and quiet passages. In the original CD releases, before the loudness wars, the engineer would do less massaging of the dynamics to get a more raw sound. This is what makes digital recordings of orchestras more superior to vinyl. But for smaller ensembles, that forced dynamic changes enables smaller elements to stand taller allowing as one poster before saying, that individual instruments stand out more.

This engineering change I figure has much to do with bebop and late period swing of the 1950s when "hits" and "bombs" were employed in the composition of music.

 

[BergyDGD]

Vinyl records are just for hipsters. I don't get it, why are you guys wasting your money for music with crappy quality?

Seriously? I take it you have never fired up In The Aeroplane Over the Sea by Neutral Milk Hotel on vinyl. The warmth of needle hitting that record as it spins is something special. It's more than a musical experience, it's a journey.

 

[Stylizer1]

Vinyl records are just for hipsters. I don't get it, why are you guys wasting your money for music with crappy quality?

Why listen to live music then? It's not as perfect as studio quality. You know sometimes they even play different versions of songs live. What's up with that? No quality control.

 

[vdB]

Why listen to live music then? It's not as perfect as studio quality.

That's a very lame comparison and completely different.

Didn't mean to rub anyone the wrong way, but lets be honest, it's just a matter of time until vinyl is obselete.

 

[Shareefruck]

There may be additional factors at play with live performances, but it's really not any different from differentiating and having preferences between alternate mixes of the same album.

For example, Mono technically has inferior and outdated capabilities compared to Stereo, but there are Mono mixes that sound far superior to Stereo, particularly for things released in the 60s (everything Beatles before Abbey Road, for example). It's all about the process in which these discs were engineered giving it a different aesthetic/vibe.

You've repeated the same blanket dismissal over and over again, but I haven't seen much reasoning, or even an attempt to address points already made. Nothing beyond a vague kind of "I mean no offense by this, but you're a delusional moron!"

 

[Stylizer1]

That's a very lame comparison and completely different.

Didn't mean to rub anyone the wrong way, but lets be honest, it's just a matter of time until vinyl is obselete.

Why would you post in a thread where you don't like the topic? People who grew up with vinyl appreciate it and understand it on another level.

 

[vdB]

Why would you post in a thread where you don't like the topic? People who grew up with vinyl appreciate it and understand it on another level.

Fair enough. Ill stop posting.

It's just tough when you see people in a delusional bubble. You gotta say something. You can fit thousands and thousands of vinyl records on a little thumb drive. I think that sums up my thoughts.

 

[Shareefruck]

Fair enough. Ill stop posting.

It's just tough when you see people in a delusional bubble. You gotta say something. You can fit thousands and thousands of vinyl records on a little thumb drive. I think that sums up my thoughts.

I don't think you should stop posting. I think you should expand on your points and address actual responses instead instead of repeating the same conclusion. Do you think that vinyl does NOT have a different sound from CD, other than the drop in quality? Or do you think there is a different sound but the drop in quality overrides all other factors? Furthermore, when you listen to Vinyl, assuming you have, do you actually HEAR a noticeable drop in quality, or is it just indistinguishable to your ears? Or do you not think there is a drop in quality at all, it's just the lack of practicality that is making you say that? Furthermore, how much exposure have you had to listening to Vinyl? Is this based on the principle behind it rather than the experience, or have you had countless bad experiences?

You've posted several times now and yet still, nobody has any idea what your actual argument is.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

You can fit thousands and thousands of vinyl records on a little thumb drive. I think that sums up my thoughts.

Except this was (broadly) allowed. No one claimed that records are more convenient than digital. (There may have been a poster who suggested they weren't less convenient...)

You also suggested the quality is crappy, and failed to reply to any posts that countered this point.

 

[DeYarmond Edison]

Vinyl packaging is one of my favorite things. it seems like it would be insignificant but its great. Can't exactly put that on a flash drive.

 

[Stylizer1]

Vinyl packaging is one of my favorite things. it seems like it would be insignificant but its great. Can't exactly put that on a flash drive.

I remember s a kid when ever I got a new cassette we would read everything about that went into the album. The studio's they were produced at, the engineer, the shout outs, some had mini comics, nice art work.

My hard drive has about 300 albums and 1000's of songs. I take time out of my day to listen to vinyl and relax. Today there is more cookie cutter digital music that doesn't really warrant being put on vinyl. It's supposed to be a computer file.

 

[Stylizer1]

Fair enough. Ill stop posting.

It's just tough when you see people in a delusional bubble. You gotta say something. You can fit thousands and thousands of vinyl records on a little thumb drive. I think that sums up my thoughts.

The definition of quality is at the core of your argument. When an album was pressed in 1967 you hear 1967 for the rest of it's existence. A remastered version of the song takes that away.

Star Wars was an amazing movie in the 70's. no matter how much remastering/cgi they put into the re-releases it doesn't make the film any better to people who know the original. At the time George Lucas put what he had available to him into the film and changed standards of the industry.

 

[Stylizer1]

Vinyl packaging is one of my favorite things. it seems like it would be insignificant but its great. Can't exactly put that on a flash drive.

That's what I love about the Run The Jewels albums. They come with a free digital download, a poster, lyric sheets, sew on patches, and stickers.

 

[kook10]

The definition of quality is at the core of your argument. When an album was pressed in 1967 you hear 1967 for the rest of it's existence. A remastered version of the song takes that away.

Star Wars was an amazing movie in the 70's. no matter how much remastering/cgi they put into the re-releases it doesn't make the film any better to people who know the original. At the time George Lucas put what he had available to him into the film and changed standards of the industry.

A 1967 would have a 1" multitrack tape mixed down to a 1/4" tape master. There would be multiple masters for different purposes, (mono/stereo, etc) including specific eq for an end vinyl product. That master would be used to make the acetate master for vinyl pressings. That doesn't make it appropriate for other mediums. That not withstanding, those masters were often used for digital recordings. Additionally, many of the transfers to digital were done in its infancy in the 80s and the old tape machines were and are notoriously temperamental. One good example of this was the original mastering of the track Let It Bleed, which was audibly lower in pitch because the reel to reel it came from was slow and dying. Remastering is often just to get better encoding, sound specific to the medium, or to digitize directly from the original multitrack recordings which are 1st generation (whereas the 1/4" master may be 2nd or even 3rd). In short, I don't think it is a shift in artistic product 99% of the time.

 

[Shareefruck]

The definition of quality is at the core of your argument. When an album was pressed in 1967 you hear 1967 for the rest of it's existence. A remastered version of the song takes that away.

Star Wars was an amazing movie in the 70's. no matter how much remastering/cgi they put into the re-releases it doesn't make the film any better to people who know the original. At the time George Lucas put what he had available to him into the film and changed standards of the industry.

Now this I disagree with. For me, something is never good because of the nostalgia it brings you from the context of when it was made.

Star Wars is better when it's remastered, because it looks better. Star Wars is worse when it's injected with CGI because it looks worse.
I don't think it gets any more nuanced or complicated than that, personally.

I think that sentiment sells the value of Vinyl short, too. It doesn't get by on nostalgic memories. It sounds notably different, and I would say, that difference usually sounds like an improvement in any context. If we were used to CDs and Vinyl were a new technology, it would have similar appeal to what it has now, IMO.

 

[Stylizer1]

Now this I disagree with. For me, something is never good because of the nostalgia it brings you from the context of when it was made.

Star Wars is better when it's remastered, because it looks better. Star Wars is worse when it's injected with CGI because it looks worse.
I don't think it gets any more nuanced or complicated than that, personally.

I think that sentiment sells the value of Vinyl short, too. It doesn't get by on nostalgic memories. It sounds notably different, and I would say, that difference usually sounds like an improvement in any context. If we were used to CDs and Vinyl were a new technology, it would have similar appeal to what it has now, IMO.

To me music is a time capsule. Every step that goes in to producing a record is artistic. When you remaster something you are taking elements of that creativity away and replacing it. Why are original pressings more valuable than remastered ones? Scarcity with some, yes, but more importantly it's the sound. I don't have any nostalgic connection for music created before I was born but i own many non the less. The sound that comes from vinyl is the core argument for vinyl vs digital. In my explanation I was just trying to add a different angle, not that its the only one, just different that the "vinyl sounds better...."

It comes down to what your opinion of quality means.

 

[Shareefruck]

To me music is a time capsule. Every step that goes in to producing a record is artistic. When you remaster something you are taking elements of that creativity away and replacing it. Why are original pressings more valuable than remastered ones? Scarcity with some, yes, but more importantly it's the sound. I don't have any nostalgic connection for music created before I was born but i own many non the less. The sound that comes from vinyl is the core argument for vinyl vs digital. In my explanation I was just trying to add a different angle, not that its the only one, just different that the "vinyl sounds better...."

It comes down to what your opinion of quality means.

That's fair.

I agree that quality does not merely mean the more crisp a sound is, the better. Certain things can possibly sound better messy and low fi than ultra-polished, but I think that still comes down to what sound is more effective rather than caring about historical context. I think it has to do with the artist's original recording sensibilities possibly sounding better or worse than when it's ****ed with. I don't think remastering Star Wars really falls into that category, personally, considering that remastering is usually more about restoration than change.

I'm always a bit weary and allergic about the possibility that people are misled into thinking that the reason for something is just biased personal sentiment/historical significance rather than it actually being more effective. People often do this with old classic movies being "great for its time" and that misconception annoys me, because it's usually more to do with how good it actually is, even now.

I wouldn't want to mislead vDB even further into thinking it's something dismiss-able as only preferred as a mere time capsule that has inferior sound.

 

[hototogisu]

You've posted several times now and yet still, nobody has any idea what your actual argument is.

Sounds like the very definition of trolling, in fact.

 

[les Habs]

Doing my first Record Store Day next week. My list is at least ten deep, but the first five or so are the ones I really want. We'll see where I get in line and what I can grab. Anyone else going to out that day?

 

[beowulf]

That's a very lame comparison and completely different.

Didn't mean to rub anyone the wrong way, but lets be honest, it's just a matter of time until vinyl is obselete.

Well this is an ignorant comment.

People haven been saying that for how long? There is even a new HD vinyl coming out.

https://gizmodo.com/what-is-hd-vinyl-and-is-it-legit-1825378987

Last week a nerdier segment of the music world was abuzz with the news that an Austrian company Rebeat had taken a $4.8 million dollar investment to help bring its “HD vinyl” records to market by mid 2019. Huh? HD vinyl? How does one make the last analog music storage format (that people still care about) high-definition? It screamed pure marketing buzzwordship to us, but we consulted with some experts and surprise, it seems there’s reason to be cautiously optimistic.
Now, generally speaking, it’s pretty rare to hear complaints about vinyl not sounding good enough. That’s generally why people still like to listen to it: It sounds good! Well, that and hipster cred. But the thing with audiophiles is that there’s no such thing as “good enough.” It can always be a better, closer reproduction of the sound that came out of those actual instruments and voices. HD vinyl aims to make improvements, and that’s not a bad thing if it can pull it off.

One major problem that does exist about vinyl is that there’s currently a major strain on manufacturing. There’s been a re-explosion in popularity of records—vinyl record sales grew for the 12th consecutive year in 2017—that the world’s remaining pressing plants can’t keep up with. Additionally, lacquers can only be produced in certain finite quantities, has led to serious bottlenecks in production. HD vinyl could help alleviate that strain—But let’s back up.

The new method that is supposed to improve sound quality is based on how the records will be made.