-
Most new users don't bother reading our rules. Here's the one that is ignored almost immediately upon signup: DO NOT ASK FOR FANEDIT LINKS PUBLICLY. First, read the FAQ. Seriously. What you want is there. You can also send a message to the editor. If that doesn't work THEN post in the Trade & Request forum. Anywhere else and it will be deleted and an infraction will be issued.
-
Please read our Rules & Guidelines
Read BEFORE posting Trades & Request
Vinyl Collections
- Thread starter FatherMerrin
- Start date
- Messages
- 162
- Reaction score
- 0
- Trophy Points
- 21
I still have all my rave records from the early 90's. 1991.92 & 93 were golden years. I've looked up online how much my records are and a lot of them for worth a bob or two. You can't beat the old vinyl days 
LOL... vinyl can't even reproduct 12bit audio - let alone the 16bit found on CD... it isn't the medium, but the mastering processes why folks equate vinyl > CD. don't get me wrong - i LOVE vinyl, but for aesthetic reasons - artwork, nostalgia, etc.
12bit audio? lol, maybe in signal-to-noise in bass frequencies (more mechanic rumble than music).joebshmoe said:
I agree about mastering process. That's why I buy time after time some new album. Mostly only one different between CDs and LPs is loudness limiter.
Vinyl has one more advantage imho - frequency range.
theslime
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,234
- Reaction score
- 2
- Trophy Points
- 41
Compressed audio is popular because of small filesizes and portable devices. Nothing else. When higher bitrate is touted by marketers as important - i.e. bluray hype (DTS-HD in particular) - people will claim to not only hear a difference (which is mostly in the volume level, btw), but they say they actually care about it as well.
Even I, who both hear and care about the difference, use compressed audio because of the convenience factor. (I use high bitrate vorbis or lame-mp3, at least.)
On topic:
Mostly the difference between vinyl and CD is about mastering. And with quality of the pressing in the case of vinyl. Those who claim that CDs sound awful compared to vinyl and hi-res digital should listen to the DCC CD edition of Joni Mitchell's "Court & Spark" before they condemn a whole medium. I've still not heard any evidence telling me that DVD-audio and SACD are useful upgrades from that. Mostly audiophile digital is mastered with care - that's why it sounds pretty good. Not because of extra bit depth or better frequency range. 24bit/192kHz seems like trying to make print material in 1200 dpi resolution (for comparison: glossy magazines print just fine in 300 dpi, newspapers often use 200).
In real terms, vinyl often outperforms CDs because of mastering. That's why I have a lot of LPs and singles, because I don't think they sound inherently better. At best, they sound equal to what a well-mastered CD would sound like. (But well-mastered CDs are few and far between, so it's mostly a theoretical question.)
An often overlooked problem - and a much bigger problem - with older releases (mostly a problem with vinyl) is the MIX used. No duophonic/fake stereo vinyl release of The Beach Boys or Elvis is ever going to sound as good as the mono release on CD, even though the mastering on the new Beach Boys releases is too trebly and loud. Also, stereo mixes are WAY too often used when the mono mix is obviously superior. Compare a random new Motown collection (which uses new or vintage stereo (re)mixes) with the "Hitsville USA" box to hear for yourself.
Even I, who both hear and care about the difference, use compressed audio because of the convenience factor. (I use high bitrate vorbis or lame-mp3, at least.)
On topic:
Mostly the difference between vinyl and CD is about mastering. And with quality of the pressing in the case of vinyl. Those who claim that CDs sound awful compared to vinyl and hi-res digital should listen to the DCC CD edition of Joni Mitchell's "Court & Spark" before they condemn a whole medium. I've still not heard any evidence telling me that DVD-audio and SACD are useful upgrades from that. Mostly audiophile digital is mastered with care - that's why it sounds pretty good. Not because of extra bit depth or better frequency range. 24bit/192kHz seems like trying to make print material in 1200 dpi resolution (for comparison: glossy magazines print just fine in 300 dpi, newspapers often use 200).
In real terms, vinyl often outperforms CDs because of mastering. That's why I have a lot of LPs and singles, because I don't think they sound inherently better. At best, they sound equal to what a well-mastered CD would sound like. (But well-mastered CDs are few and far between, so it's mostly a theoretical question.)
An often overlooked problem - and a much bigger problem - with older releases (mostly a problem with vinyl) is the MIX used. No duophonic/fake stereo vinyl release of The Beach Boys or Elvis is ever going to sound as good as the mono release on CD, even though the mastering on the new Beach Boys releases is too trebly and loud. Also, stereo mixes are WAY too often used when the mono mix is obviously superior. Compare a random new Motown collection (which uses new or vintage stereo (re)mixes) with the "Hitsville USA" box to hear for yourself.
Ripplin
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,861
- Reaction score
- 0
- Trophy Points
- 41
Do you guys have much vinyl in different colors? I didn't until recently when I got red, green and yellow albums from the same band. (Huevos Rancheros) U.K. pressing only, despite them living in Calgary. :?
Oh! I do have a few more I keep forgetting about. I still have the ollllllld ALF records from Burger King. Haha. "Take Me ALF to the Ball Game" is the only one I can think of right now.
Oh! I do have a few more I keep forgetting about. I still have the ollllllld ALF records from Burger King. Haha. "Take Me ALF to the Ball Game" is the only one I can think of right now.
theslime
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,234
- Reaction score
- 2
- Trophy Points
- 41
The dithering process involved in "scaling down" is not perfect even when done right. Some of the best CDs I own that are from analogue sources are actually mastered straight to 16bit/44.1kHz. Steve Hoffman, for one, prefers it that way when mastering redbook CDs. The whole idea that you'll lose information if you don't use the highest possible resolution in the transfer (before downsampling/dithering/decimating to 16/44.1) sounds like such a nice common sense argument, but I believe you can prove it wrong without breaking a sweat. (Editing is a different story.)Ghostcut said:
Joebshmoe, what exactly are you referring to now? I'll also be interested to know where on earth you got the 12bit figure from. (And to avoid any confusion: I'm a digital fanboy, and only buy vinyl because CDs often happen to sound like shit.)
it is related to the limits of vinyl - the physical limitations of the medium (PVC, molecules, needle, grooves, etc.) which influences the dynamic range (~70db in pristine conditions).
and that is just theoretical. realistically (i.e. everyone not insane audiophiles) are hearing much less as equipment can be limiting (which also impacts CD playback!)
of course you also have distortion, damage, dust, wear, elasticity, needle, motor, swingarm getting in the way of the listening experience, so yeah - i'll take a DAC any day.
...buy there is something about listening to old blues on vinyl that is magic
and that is just theoretical. realistically (i.e. everyone not insane audiophiles) are hearing much less as equipment can be limiting (which also impacts CD playback!)
of course you also have distortion, damage, dust, wear, elasticity, needle, motor, swingarm getting in the way of the listening experience, so yeah - i'll take a DAC any day.
...buy there is something about listening to old blues on vinyl that is magic
theslime
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,234
- Reaction score
- 2
- Trophy Points
- 41
Really old blues should be listened to on CD, though. 78 needledrops and cylinder remasters have enough analogue shellac soul, you don't need to add even more with modern (vinyl) means.
I agree with the rest of what you're saying. It seems, however, that hardly anyone knows how to master for digital. Even a lot of modern releases sound better on vinyl because the analogue mastering engineer was the only one who knew what he was doing. Also, because of the inherent limitations of vinyl it can mask digital compression artifacts. The worst-sounding recording ever, Sleater-Kinney's The Woods, was made slightly better on vinyl because the CD reproduced all the gruesome detail of Dave Fridmann's awesomely bad digi-clipping so faithfully you're likely to get a splitting headache. The vinyl, on the other hand, masked the clipping noises.
That's of course not a case for the superiority of vinyl in absolute terms - quite the opposite, in fact. It's just a case for vinyl as what's often the best solution in real-life terms.
I agree with the rest of what you're saying. It seems, however, that hardly anyone knows how to master for digital. Even a lot of modern releases sound better on vinyl because the analogue mastering engineer was the only one who knew what he was doing. Also, because of the inherent limitations of vinyl it can mask digital compression artifacts. The worst-sounding recording ever, Sleater-Kinney's The Woods, was made slightly better on vinyl because the CD reproduced all the gruesome detail of Dave Fridmann's awesomely bad digi-clipping so faithfully you're likely to get a splitting headache. The vinyl, on the other hand, masked the clipping noises.
That's of course not a case for the superiority of vinyl in absolute terms - quite the opposite, in fact. It's just a case for vinyl as what's often the best solution in real-life terms.
theslime
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,234
- Reaction score
- 2
- Trophy Points
- 41
My fave example: This is the waveform of a song from The Red Hot Chili Peppers' Stadium Arcadium on CD (mastered by Vlado Meller) and vinyl (mastered by Hoffman & Gray) compared side by side:
Look at it and weep (or just click for bigger image). The vinyl version gets progressively louder during the course of the song - which is the whole point; it's called energy and dynamics - while the CD just lurches on in headache-inducing noise mode with no clearly defined anything, not even the noise is clearly defined, and with no noticeable increase in loudness either (it seems as loud in the beginning).
(I don't much like RHCP, but they make a good point since their CDs are so consistently awful. The White Stripes and several other bands make comparable cases.)
Look at it and weep (or just click for bigger image). The vinyl version gets progressively louder during the course of the song - which is the whole point; it's called energy and dynamics - while the CD just lurches on in headache-inducing noise mode with no clearly defined anything, not even the noise is clearly defined, and with no noticeable increase in loudness either (it seems as loud in the beginning).
(I don't much like RHCP, but they make a good point since their CDs are so consistently awful. The White Stripes and several other bands make comparable cases.)