• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Prefer vinyls?

#41
1st: why i like cd's - forget that you've hear all the reasons however i must add that pianos are very difficult to capture on all but audiophile quality records. something to do w/the RIAA curve which i no longer remember the technical reasons. cd's seem to do a much better job in general on pianos.

2nd: why i don't like cd's & prefer vinyl on a quality stereo setup:
i have heard $65,000 cd setups at audio salons - as they are called & i have quite a good setup at home that took years to put together, however, cd's have one particular characteristic i've never liked. that characteristic they lack is called "imaging". to explain it simply, when i listen to cd's i have heard quality setups achieve wonderful wide side to side stereo & quiet passages are generally quiet. but, whether i listen to a rock, jazz or orchestral group or a requiem w/a multitude of singers i hear at best a great upfront & a great in back sound. the trouble: there is a severe lack of instruments or voices that create an image of coming from the middle. it sounds compressed. "imaging" is the ability to represent a stage with a distinctive front/middle/& back. with a good cartridge on a good table that illusion of live can be created, i have yet to hear a cd setup actually provide more than a front row & a back row. i've proven this to many people. check this out for yourself. you don't have to be an audiophile to hear it.
 
#42
I guess I said it wrong... CD allows the source to remain unchanged... vinyl compresses, and like i said it deteriates in clarity when the grooves thin out at the centre... among other probems... vinyl was very flawed. It certainly can sound great, 12 inch singles for instance were amazing, great warmth, bottom end and clarity etc... but for albums, especially albums that had more than 20 minutes a side, it was horribly flawed... but hey if you like that sound then u like it... nothing I can say, I respect that.
 
#43
sorry but nothing is more compressed sounding than only having front and back when listening to a stage that has musicians etc producing music between a front & back row & making them sound as if they are all coming from the back or front row. the biggest negative about records is quicker deterioration but the quality even with non-audiophile quality records-& i always bought normal non audiophile vinyl-is apparent to those who listen, cd's even the audiophile ones, and i have some of them have a wonderfully clear sound but still lack full imaging.
 
#44
marcray said:
I guess I said it wrong... CD allows the source to remain unchanged... vinyl compresses, and like i said it deteriates in clarity when the grooves thin out at the centre... among other probems... vinyl was very flawed. It certainly can sound great, 12 inch singles for instance were amazing, great warmth, bottom end and clarity etc... but for albums, especially albums that had more than 20 minutes a side, it was horribly flawed... but hey if you like that sound then u like it... nothing I can say, I respect that.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what technical issues oblige records to being compressed any more than a typical CD. But as for deteriorating quality, that is simple enough to explain, and I agree with you. The outside tracks can simply store more information/detail, because while the rotational speed of the record is the same, the outside tracks have a much higher linear speed.

I agree very much with your assessment of "track-crowding". If a disc has too many songs on one side, they have to lop-off the bass frequencies (which require a wider groove) in order to get the songs to fit. Most single-disc albums sound terrible. I love double-albums for this reason.

A good reference disc for modern quality production is the White Stripes self-titled album. It was produced entirely analog and without the use of computers. Pressed onto two discs. Not thin ones, either. They are one band that I believe releases everything on vinyl.
 
#46
I find that with imaging etc... modern records are being made by younger engineers who don't understand or have no experience with older techniques... imaging is not something you hear too much about anymore... yet some engineers come into the studio with that on their mind, most don't. In that respect I don't blame the lack of imaging on the format of CD, mostly that engineering techniques are changing... although I could be wrong...

whatever... I'm not against vinyl... infact I called good vinyl "true art"...
 
#47
Jiggybass said:
No way, bro, I completely agree with you. There's that "vibe" that you just can't get from CD's
Click to expand...


I've heard from a few people that CDs being better is NOT a fact at all. It's not just vibe, I guess Vinyl is just of a higher quality.

What many are refusing to acknowledge: YOUR CD PLAYER IS PROBABLY BETTER THAN YOUR RECORD PLAYER!! That isn't fair. You probably listened to a scratched up copy of pop goes the weasel on a kids record player and assumed it was a subpar means of listening to music.

IF you get a brand new state of the art record player, slap a brand new record on it, spin it, it will sound noticably better than CD.
 
#48
#1 no longer able to buy vinyl

#2 fell in love w/enya's 1st cd which was being played everywhere at the time i began looking-was in every shops demo room-& it wasn't available on vinyl. loved the haunting melodies of that cd.

cd's have been out for quite awhile now 'marcray' so i don't know about young engineers but again even audiophile quality cd's i've heard don't take care of this imaging problem. as to sampling something 50,000 times for a cd, i was once told that vinyl has an infinite number of whatever it is that corresponds to this & makes a record a record. (how's that for a near nebulous statement? i.o.w. can someone else explain this better or am i off the mark here?):confused:
 
#53
marcray said:
just for humerous debate... how many of you analogue/vinyl old school fans (of which I have nothing against) go to your local movie rental outlet and take the VHS of The Matrix or Lord Of The Rings instead of the DVD...
Click to expand...

It isn't that I think CDs aren't as good as analogue/vinyl it's I don't think they are really that much better yet, I personally like DVDs better than VHS and I also think DVDs sound better than CDs. I think there will be better things to come, but, I don't think we are there yet to were you can say digital surpasses analogue. If you really listen most early and even some new CDs they have distortion in upper frequencies, digital isn't perfect. I've worked in a recording studio and I do audio restoration every now and then as a side gig so I work in the digital world all the time, and it does make life easier, but, I keep saying to my self and to anyone that will listen, "there has to be something better coming along" "it has to get better then this". Why do old recordings sound better to me and MANY OTHERS? was it the gear? maybe. was it the players? maybe. It's not nostalgia I'm only 28, by the time I really got into music CDs were there and most of the "greats" dead or retired.
 
#54
kingmacaw said:
1st: why i like cd's - forget that you've hear all the reasons however i must add that pianos are very difficult to capture on all but audiophile quality records. something to do w/the RIAA curve which i no longer remember the technical reasons. cd's seem to do a much better job in general on pianos.

2nd: why i don't like cd's & prefer vinyl on a quality stereo setup:
i have heard $65,000 cd setups at audio salons - as they are called & i have quite a good setup at home that took years to put together, however, cd's have one particular characteristic i've never liked. that characteristic they lack is called "imaging". to explain it simply, when i listen to cd's i have heard quality setups achieve wonderful wide side to side stereo & quiet passages are generally quiet. but, whether i listen to a rock, jazz or orchestral group or a requiem w/a multitude of singers i hear at best a great upfront & a great in back sound. the trouble: there is a severe lack of instruments or voices that create an image of coming from the middle. it sounds compressed. "imaging" is the ability to represent a stage with a distinctive front/middle/& back. with a good cartridge on a good table that illusion of live can be created, i have yet to hear a cd setup actually provide more than a front row & a back row. i've proven this to many people. check this out for yourself. you don't have to be an audiophile to hear it.
Click to expand...


What you are talking about is the reason for SACD - which is the true audiophile medium! :)
 
#55
Aaron Noguer said:
It isn't that I think CDs aren't as good as analogue/vinyl it's I don't think they are really that much better yet, I personally like DVDs better than VHS and I also think DVDs sound better than CDs. I think there will be better things to come, but, I don't think we are there yet to were you can say digital surpasses analogue. If you really listen most early and even some new CDs they have distortion in upper frequencies, digital isn't perfect. I've worked in a recording studio and I do audio restoration every now and then as a side gig so I work in the digital world all the time, and it does make life easier, but, I keep saying to my self and to anyone that will listen, "there has to be something better coming along" "it has to get better then this". Why do old recordings sound better to me and MANY OTHERS? was it the gear? maybe. was it the players? maybe. It's not nostalgia I'm only 28, by the time I really got into music CDs were there and most of the "greats" dead or retired.
Click to expand...
Yup. I've got a 96/24 DAD of Cannonball Addrely's "Somethin' Else", it sounds amazing, like Miles Davis is right there in my living room. I've also got the SACD of Miles Davis' "Kind Of Blue". Lush and real is how it sounds. My LP record of Coltrane's "Blue Train" sounds stunning as well. Accurate audio reproduction is not something new or mysterious.

The biggest problem with LP is the hellacious noise floor. The S/N is dreadful because of it. However, for accurate reproduction of an audio wavelength other than that, it sounds very good. If you don't think so, you haven't heard it lately.

CD is a much more accurate medium, but LP ain't bad by any stretch.
 
#59
I've only recently gotten into vinyl.
Got a Marantz turntable & now starting to buy a few albums.

Any tips on how to clean look after them.
I inherited a lot of old, mostly unplayable stuff but there are a few that are in reasonable condition & I'd like to get bring them back to as good as condition as possible without spending a fortune on specialist gear.

I also want to keep the ones I've bought in as good condition as I can.
 
#60
davidmurphy said:
I've only recently gotten into vinyl.
Got a Marantz turntable & now starting to buy a few albums.

Any tips on how to clean look after them.
I inherited a lot of old, mostly unplayable stuff but there are a few that are in reasonable condition & I'd like to get bring them back to as good as condition as possible without spending a fortune on specialist gear.

I also want to keep the ones I've bought in as good condition as I can.
Click to expand...

This board probably has the most comprehensive info on vinyl anywhere. If you have any questions, check the FAQ and search the archives:
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/vinyl/bbs.html

You can get an inexpensive and effective LP cleaning kit here:
http://discdoc.com/

I'm a serious vinyl-junkie, and to my ears, analog (vinyl) preserves the natural humanity of the music far more convincingly than any computer-synthesized format (CD, SACD, DVD-A, etc.). Digital can indeed sound good, but it has a lifeless, mechanical quality that I usually find very fatiguing, particularly after extended listening.

In my experience, a properly setup and supported turntable, arm, cartridge, and phono preamp in the $1000 range will easily beat any digital player, no matter the cost, in terms of effortless musical flow, drama, scale, rhythmic drive, and emotional involvement. If you think vinyl sounds compressed, you've never heard a decent, well-setup turntable in a good system.

I have around 3000 LPs, and you'd be hard-pressed to find more than an occasional quiet tick or pop on any of them, even the thousand or so that I bought used. Good cleaning practices and stylus maintenance are a way of life in analog music reproduction, but the small hassles are well worth the amazing results.

IMG_0018sm.jpg
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back