"Music Sounds Better on Vinyl", I am so tired of this argument being brought up by the layperson Options

[Goratrix]

But the real hipster marketing play would be to sell mockups of LPs together with the digital version. You'd read the sleeve, handle the disk with a fake groove, and think about the Good Old Days whilst listening to proper reproduction. And your collection could once more take up major wall-space.

Something like THIS?

[PoisonDan]

That's actually quite cool. Not really useful, but cool anyway.

Reason for edit: removing unnecessary full quote of above post

This post has been edited by db1989: Oct 28 2011, 20:36

[Juha]

What 'bout sound of DBX 'coded' vinyls?

IMHO is that those I had were more clean and dynamic compared to std vinyl versions of them (i.e. sounded better to my ears). Never got a change to compare those against CD versions.

Juha

[Remedial Sound]

Here's another golden nugget from a reviewer at pitchfork (aka hipster-central)

http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/15971-we-stay-together/

There's another reason to get this record on vinyl: It sounds way, way better. That might seem odd, given that so much of Stott's sound has to do with using compression, distortion, and other effects to make his music not just strange but even ugly. But, on wax, his swollen low end growls in a way that's almost sensual. (If you must buy digital, pay the extra bucks for the FLAC version; the difference between the high-bitrate version and a compressed MP3 is very real.)

Two audio myths perpetuated in one paragraph!

[DVDdoug]

What 'bout sound of DBX 'coded' vinyls?

I dont remember DBX records, but I might still have a DBX cassette machine in my closet... .

It's one of those things like using an optical pickup to play a record... Once you have CDs, any improvements in vinyl just don't make sense (economically).

With DBX's 2:1 compression/expansion doubles any frequency response errors in the playback system, and if you've got any bad scratches in the record the expansion is going to make them worse.

[musicollector]

I still feel romantic looking and handling records thinking of the Good Old Days.

A Japanese company sells CDs that are miniature reproductions of the original LPs. But the real hipster marketing play would be to sell mockups of LPs together with the digital version. You'd read the sleeve, handle the disk with a fake groove, and think about the Good Old Days whilst listening to proper reproduction. And your collection could once more take up major wall-space.

I have to admit that I am not inspired by these small CD jewel cover-size graphics. Hohum! Those were the days when I listened to Jethro Tull's "Thick As A Brick", which is one whole song on each side, and magically get transported to St. Cleve, never ever getting tired of re-reading those news items and ads! I lived there and interacted with those people for the duration of the record! Or, "Living In The Past"'s gatefold jacket or Paul McCartney's "Red Rose Speedway". 50% of the excitement was listening to the awesome music and the other 50% was tirelessly reading (repeatedly, every time) the plethora of information. Nowadays, I listen to the CD's while reading the original covers! Then, there were all those great albums with lyrics printed right on the inner sleeve, like "Sgt. Pepper's". WOW!

This post has been edited by musicollector: Oct 28 2011, 18:34

[Raptus]

It is a matter of aesthetics and not (how laymen often erroneously think) a matter of fidelity.
If a CD production truly wanted the vinyl sound, it could simulate it, or go for the real thing: Press a vinyl from the mix, record it and press that to CD.

This post has been edited by Raptus: Oct 28 2011, 19:39

[MichaelW]

Something like THIS?

Oh dear, 5" artwork. No, I'm afraid that would be the worst of both worlds. But I didn't know that modern vinyl came with the option of a digital download. The only question then is, why bother to cut a real groove in the LP?

[db1989]

The only question then is, why bother to cut a real groove in the LP?

Haha…how many people would ever notice? Wait a minute [goes to check own records] WHY YOU LITTLE

[d_headshot]

New music on both vinyl and digital sounds terrible because it all comes from a brickwall limited distorted master.

[musicollector]

What 'bout sound of DBX 'coded' vinyls?

I dont remember DBX records, but I might still have a DBX cassette machine in my closet... .

It's one of those things like using an optical pickup to play a record... Once you have CDs, any improvements in vinyl just don't make sense (economically).

With DBX's 2:1 compression/expansion doubles any frequency response errors in the playback system, and if you've got any bad scratches in the record the expansion is going to make them worse.

DBX was a flash in the pan, just as Betamax was.

[musicollector]

I still feel romantic looking and handling records thinking of the Good Old Days.

A Japanese company sells CDs that are miniature reproductions of the original LPs. But the real hipster marketing play would be to sell mockups of LPs together with the digital version. You'd read the sleeve, handle the disk with a fake groove, and think about the Good Old Days whilst listening to proper reproduction. And your collection could once more take up major wall-space.

Well my turntable can be programmed to play any song in any order, repeat, etc. much like a CD, but with pauses as it finds the next song. There is a neat millisecond mute that kicks in when the stylus drops and lifts. However, it doesn't run the LP over - all this happens on one side!

[ron spencer]

doesn't this depend on the mastering? Everybody knows the issues with Rush's Vapor Trails.....aweful sounding CD. I have it and the vinyl...vinyl is soooooooo much better, nicer, easier to listen to. So in this case, yes, vinyl is better than CD, at least for me. But these cases are rare are they not?

[RonaldDumsfeld]

Something like This? smile.gif

That's Jeff Mills. He was also the first person to release a collection of locked grooves on vinyl. (AX-08, 1994).

Another of his projects is called 'Rings of Saturn'. The size of the used grooves and the space between them on the vinyl record are proportional to the actual rings of Saturn and and the planet itself.

It's a clever and harmless way for an independent musician to earn a living. Offer something you cannot download for free.

[musicollector]

doesn't this depend on the mastering? Everybody knows the issues with Rush's Vapor Trails.....aweful sounding CD. I have it and the vinyl...vinyl is soooooooo much better, nicer, easier to listen to. So in this case, yes, vinyl is better than CD, at least for me. But these cases are rare are they not?

Oh, I'm sure there are exceptions. I compared America's "Greatest Hits" on CD with the LP and the LP came out on top, by far. But, that was not the case in many other comparisons.

This post has been edited by musicollector: Oct 29 2011, 21:52

[Guest_smpltn_*]

It's all about the mastering at the time vinyl was popular compared to today.

[mixminus1]

It all depends on the choices made by the artists/producers/engineers.

I've bought a handful of albums on both vinyl and CD/download in the past few years. Most - such as Lady Gaga's "The Fame" and Depeche Mode's "Playing the Angel" - have obviously been mastered exclusively from the brickwalled CD master: the vinyl both sounds - and looks (waveform) - like a slightly distorted version of the CD.

However, there have been some - most notably Pink Martini's "Splendor In the Grass" and Radiohead's "The King of Limbs" - that had obviously different masterings for the CD/digital and vinyl releases, with the vinyl exhibiting no signs of brickwall limiting anywhere.

[ron spencer]

That's the rub then...one needs to know how the CD and vinyl were mastered. This is too bad really, with so much brickwalling going on, a person needs to know both the CD and vinyl sources. This begs another question, why are the labels messing up some CDs but then producing some stellar LPs of the same album that are so much better?

[pdq]

They probably think that people who buy vinyl are more discerning. On average, they are probably right.

[liffy99]

It's not the medium, it's the actual recording in my opinion. All else being equal I far prefer the freedom from most distortion that CD brings (and the convenience !). But there's little doubt in my mind that the actual recordings have been 'processed' so much more in the easier digital domain - often in a way to play to the lowest common denominator, like a phone or MP3 player. There was far less you could do to an analogue signal designed to live within the physical limitations of a vinyl groove.

That said I've now moved to a wholly streamed digital audio source (which has introduced its own set of compatibility issues).

A long, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away there was but a single source - the vinyl record - one ring to bind them all. The limitations as to how it then sounded post production was how good your system was and the time you spent tweaking it (great fun!). Now the producers play around with the source so much we have lost control - for example the compression built in to so many pop and rock records - it's like having a permanently switched on 'Loudness' button (remember those ?) that we can't turn off .

[pdq]

Actually the loudness button did something quite different. It boosted the bass as you turned down the volume control to compensate for how our hearing shiftes with loudness.

[Wombat]

How i was happy the first day i played a CD at home
No more clicks and pops, never!
I luckily don´t have to think about if there is a better vinyl version out there. It can´t! All vinyls will introduce noise that drives me mad.

[liffy99]

Actually the loudness button did something quite different. It boosted the bass as you turned down the volume control to compensate for how our hearing shiftes with loudness.

Well yes, I was just trying to say that sound altering controls have been taken away from us and built into the actual source whether we want them or not. If compression (average loudness raising) is wanted, why can't a button that does that be incorporated into a device (like an MP3 player) to be used at the listener's discretion ? And leave the source unsullied . . .

[pdq]

Well yes, I was just trying to say that sound altering controls have been taken away from us and built into the actual source whether we want them or not. If compression (average loudness raising) is wanted, why can't a button that does that be incorporated into a device (like an MP3 player) to be used at the listener's discretion ? And leave the source unsullied . . .

Totally agree!

[Arnold B. Kruege...]

Actually the loudness button did something quite different. It boosted the bass as you turned down the volume control to compensate for how our hearing shiftes with loudness.

Well yes, I was just trying to say that sound altering controls have been taken away from us and built into the actual source whether we want them or not. If compression (average loudness raising) is wanted, why can't a button that does that be incorporated into a device (like an MP3 player) to be used at the listener's discretion ? And leave the source unsullied . . .

As long as you are *allowed* to buy equalizers, whether hardware or software, sound altering controls are still available to you.