Vinyl anyone?

[idiotec]

Just curious if anyone else here is a vinyl freak.

I have always loved music, and over the last few years I have really gotten into vinyl. I can't say exactly what it is about it, but it is just a great way to enjoy music IMO. The sound, the feeling and the mood of it can bring out a completely different aspect of listening to music.

I can't place it on a tangible aspect, but there is just something about an LP and a glass of wine (or beer). Maybe it's the memories of my parents listening to records as I was growing up, IDK.

Anyone else?

[no_direction_home]

im some what of a vinyl freak myself i have about 50 records im my collection and growing but my record player craped out on me last week unfortunately :(

[McDeezy]

People always say they sound better than digital. I dont see how but I'm sure there's a reason.

[King_Nuthin]

When I just need background music I prefer easier options. But I prefer vinyl when listening to music. There is something magical about unsleeving the LP, dusting it off, carefully dropping the needle and sitting down to enjoy the music with no distractions.

McDeezy, think of a digital recording like viewing motion on a monitor and analogue like seeing it with your own eyes. Even though they are the same image your computer monitor is cycling through 60 still images a second whereas your eyes are seeing continuous motion. The brain processes both similarly but there is a difference. Digital audio is the same except you're talking about thousands of cycles per second. The true advantage of digital was supposed to be greater dynamic range, especially at the bottom end, which gets to the other problem which is that many producers don't take advantage of that range and that a lot of the equipment we listen to the music on can't accurately produce it even if they did.

Modern mixing techniques can be quite hard on the ears. Many "remixes" of classic albums involve little more than cranking up all the levels on the mixing board. Yeah its cool that some of those drum fills lost in the background are front and center now, but maybe there was a reason the original producer (likely with the band's input) mixed the stuff the way he did.

One other bonus, for whatever reason, even though it costs next to nothing to manufacture a CD, I can still usually buy a new vinyl album for less than that same CD despite the fact that pressing the vinyl is costlier and the album itself uses more packaging. Go figure.

[Intellectualdiot]

I appreciate vinyl, but I don't appreciate the intellecual ****wittery that these topics tend to spawn online, nor do I particularly care for the preening pretension of myopic fans on either side of the fence. The fundamental difference, and one that is far too often overlooked, is the engineering process utilized in each medium. There isn't a phenomenom within the vinyl era that readily parallels the insufferable, idiotic "loudness war" that we are still striving against.

As for me, I'm a fan of high quality recordings in whatever form that this term may encompass. I can be equally content with either a well-mixed CD, a loseless digital audio file or a high bitrate lossy format, or a vinyl. But, even this isn't a hard and fast rule - some bands - take, Femme Fatale or the Butthole Surfers for instance - simply aren't meant to be experienced in pristine aural quality. In some situations, the muddled and noisy mix contributes is a functional aspect of the aesthetics of a band.

I guess what I'm trying to convey here is a sense of relativity. I'd just really appreciate it if a discussion on vinyls remained civil for once ha.

[icantwaitforrockband]

I appreciate vinyl, but I don't appreciate the intellecual ****wittery that these topics tend to spawn online, nor do I particularly care for the preening pretension of myopic fans on either side of the fence. The fundamental difference, and one that is far too often overlooked, is the engineering process utilized in each medium. There isn't a phenomenom within the vinyl era that readily parallels the insufferable, idiotic "loudness war" that we are still striving against.

As for me, I'm a fan of high quality recordings in whatever form that this term may encompass. I can be equally content with either a well-mixed CD, a loseless digital audio file or a high bitrate lossy format, or a vinyl. But, even this isn't a hard and fast rule - some bands - take, Femme Fatale or the Butthole Surfers for instance - simply aren't meant to be experienced in pristine aural quality. In some situations, the muddled and noisy mix contributes is a functional aspect of the aesthetics of a band.

I guess what I'm trying to convey here is a sense of relativity. I'd just really appreciate it if a discussion on vinyls remained civil for once ha.

Seemed civil 'till your post..:p

[idiotec]

When I just need background music I prefer easier options. But I prefer vinyl when listening to music.

I am the exact same way. ;)



Modern mixing techniques can be quite hard on the ears. Many "remixes" of classic albums involve little more than cranking up all the levels on the mixing board. Yeah its cool that some of those drum fills lost in the background are front and center now, but maybe there was a reason the original producer (likely with the band's input) mixed the stuff the way he did.


This has a lot to do with the difference with the sound. For digital records, most studios use a form of compression (don't think of MP3/WinZip compression, this is different). They crank up the recording to make it louder, which a lot of people perceive as sounding better. However, in the process, they "flatten" the recording. The music looses some of its dynamics. This has nothing to do with the digital media, just the producers recording to it.


I appreciate vinyl, but I don't appreciate the intellecual ****wittery that these topics tend to spawn online, nor do I particularly care for the preening pretension of myopic fans on either side of the fence.
Well, let's not take it there. I am not going to stand on a soap box. I still listen to a ton of digital music, its great. Putting on an LP is just a different experience.

[Bakkster]

McDeezy, think of a digital recording like viewing motion on a monitor and analogue like seeing it with your own eyes. Even though they are the same image your computer monitor is cycling through 60 still images a second whereas your eyes are seeing continuous motion. The brain processes both similarly but there is a difference. Digital audio is the same except you're talking about thousands of cycles per second. The true advantage of digital was supposed to be greater dynamic range, especially at the bottom end, which gets to the other problem which is that many producers don't take advantage of that range and that a lot of the equipment we listen to the music on can't accurately produce it even if they did.

More importantly is that digital audio has a lower signal to noise ratio (SNR) than analog. This comes from only taking samples of the audio at some frequency, while analog is a (theoretically) perfect reproduction. CD audio is sampled at 44.1kHz. The highest frequency you can listen to at this rate is 22.05kHz, however at a very low SNR.

Fortunately human hearing stops at about 20kHz, and most music stops well before that. The digital noise is still noticeable in some cases, although not enough to ruin the music, especially in noisy environments. Of course, if you have a hi-fidelity audio system, there's no replacement for vinyl.

I'm waiting to inherit my dad's old record collection. This includes unopened copies of Blond on Blond and Led Zeppelin's II. I then plan to get a laser vinyl player to keep them is perfect condition. Pretty cool stuff.

[whofan]

I appreciate vinyl, but I don't appreciate the intellecual ****wittery that these topics tend to spawn online, nor do I particularly care for the preening pretension of myopic fans on either side of the fence. The fundamental difference, and one that is far too often overlooked, is the engineering process utilized in each medium. There isn't a phenomenom within the vinyl era that readily parallels the insufferable, idiotic "loudness war" that we are still striving against.

As for me, I'm a fan of high quality recordings in whatever form that this term may encompass. I can be equally content with either a well-mixed CD, a loseless digital audio file or a high bitrate lossy format, or a vinyl. But, even this isn't a hard and fast rule - some bands - take, Femme Fatale or the Butthole Surfers for instance - simply aren't meant to be experienced in pristine aural quality. In some situations, the muddled and noisy mix contributes is a functional aspect of the aesthetics of a band.

I guess what I'm trying to convey here is a sense of relativity. I'd just really appreciate it if a discussion on vinyls remained civil for once ha.

You talk about how you want everything to be civil, well everything was until you came in and started criticizing us audiophiles. But I'm not going to drop to that level and argue with you, I'm just going to point out the hypocrisy in your statement and leave it at that.

Regardless, I'm an audio nut and need things to sound their best. In 90% of the cases out there the original vinyl mixes are the best. On top of this the analogue nature of the recording and playback systems is easier and more "natural" to listen to. I can't really explain it myself, but there is a huge difference between analogue and digital.

My current vinyl collection consists of almost 200 items now including:
MANY "The Who" albums and singles (Both official and bootlegs)
The Travelling Wilburys, Vol. 1
An original, first pressing of the first Star Wars soundtrack
Several Queen albums and 12" Singles
Many Judas Priest albums (most of which are hanging on my wall in frames)

Regardless, I like both CDs and LPs, but just prefer the LPs