Vinyl - new vs old recordings

[31HZ]

Lps (analogue studios) CAN sound better than cds. The souljazz label pressings of classic reggae being examples.

In my very limited experience with systems of this quality, a world-class LP playback system will beat a world-class CD playback system for sheer immersion.

At the consumer-grade level, CDs will beat LPs handily.

 

[BrotherMister]

I love vinyl. I make time everyday to sit down, do nothing but listen to a record on vinyl. Forget Netlix or Tv shows, that's how I spend my time! I love CD as well, for my money classical music absolutelly excels on CD in particular but the sound of so many albums on vinyl is just something else. Particularly what I've found is a lot of early synths and stuff really sound amazing on the original vinyl cuts than remastered digital versions.

With that in mind I'm always wary of modern pressings on vinyl. There a very limited amount of pressing factories and a very limited amount of equipment so you'll get a lot of stuff running way past capacity reviving a format for people who have no idea how to do it. There are a lot of European pressings of jazz records that look like they've been pressed by someone standing on them and the format has been an mp3 transfer to vinyl so it sounds awful. I tend to source original pressings where I can because the whole record was produced and mixed with the format in mind so it's all catered to that experience. So I do my search and spend a to of time digging crates.

Just because it's on wax doesn't mean it sounds better.

 

[dalkowski]

You make it sound like a debilitating condition.

Ex-record store employee here. My field observations from behind the counter indicate that it can potentially be a socially debilitating condition.

 

[chriss]

The difficulty in making a side by side comparison is that a good digital rig costs a lot less than a good analog rig. If you spend $1000 on digital and $1000 on analog, the digital will usually sound better. My CD player is old (audio alchemy ACD pro from about 1996) but is still a very good player and is somewhat comparable to my analog play back ( technics 1200, Benz glider cartridge and blue note phono pre) in original cost. The analog probably cost half again as much new and I generally prefer the vinyl rig. For what ever reason, I find it easier to become immersed in the music. One of my favorite tracks to listen to is Ship of Fools by Robert Plant. It sounds so big and alive. Same with side one of Don Juan's Reckless Daughter. When Jaco comes in on the first track it really grabs you.

Also, album covers are fun!

But there are so many variables in vinyl. I have multiple copies of some records and there is variation among them. As mentioned, the mastering and who mastered it, the quality of the vinyl itself, when it was pressed and of course the condition. Promo copies tend to sound better as the mold used to press the record is still new. And of course your table needs to be set up correctly.

In my opinion though, the biggest advantage of vinyl no longer exists. That is cheap records. Ten years ago every yard sale had a box of cheap records and good ones too! I recently moved my records from one room to another and had a blast finding that I had some really great records that I forgot I had.

It also just occurred to me while writing this, that it is much more fun to be an analog gear head than a digital gear head.

So I guess the point is there is much more involved than just a clinical comparison.

This thread has motivated me to go listen to some records. I found The Tubes live on my shelf the other day (probably cost a dollar when I bought it) and I think I will start there.

 

[Freight Train]

They are different animals and you shouldn't expect them to sound the same. Putting all external processing you might do aside such as eq, or using a tube preamp or whatever, there is a lot of coloration happening when playing vinyl, whereas digital is pretty much what-goes-in is what-goes-out. Clinical, straight-wire. In the case of reproducing a vinyl record, there is a HUGE transducer involved - the cartridge - and the cartridge can color the sound in ways ranging from subtle to extreme. The cartridge is converting mechanical energy to electrical energy using a transformer and magnets, which depending on how they're implemented can induce all kinds of warmth, presence, low-end roundness, brightness etc.etc. Choosing a cartridge is a really big deal for vinyl purists, and they will often have different cartridges that they will switch between depending on the genre they are listening to - more neutral for classical and jazz, more color for rock and blues etc. I've known purists who have specific cartridges for specific classical labels. Then there is the phono preamp. There is a LOT of eq required (the RIAA curve, if you want to look it up) at both the cutting stage in the record lathe, and the playback stage in the phono preamp. The quality of this filtering will determine how much phase distortion is added during playback. The better the phono preamp, the better the filtering is and the purer the playback is. Then on top of that there is the output stage in the preamp that raises the very low signal coming from the phono cartridge - similar to mic or instrument level - up to line level. That preamp stage can be any of a wide variety of circuit types, both solid state and tube, and that can also be chosen for a lot or very little coloration.
So if this can be summed up - vinyl is all about color. Digital is all about accuracy of reproduction. The amount of color you get from your vinyl will vary depending on your choice of cartridge and preamp. But even with the flattest cartridge and least colored preamp, it is still going to be distorted compared to digital, but it is positive, or musical, distortion. (Talking about distortion from cartridge and preamp there, not groove distortion, which is another matter.)

 

[beggar98]

I started buying records in the 90s, mostly because a lot of the jazz I was looking for had never been reissued on CD. Vinyl was cheap ($5-10, and don't even ask how much I paid for Keith Jarrett's Sun Bear set in 2002), CDs were overpriced, though the $18 I dropped on Chocolate Starfish and the Hot Dog Flavored Water was money well spent.

Nowadays, vinyl is overpriced. Anything decent is $15+, while used CD bins are full of treasures for well under $10. So now I buy CDs again.

As far as sound quality? I've never been able to afford a stereo that could really highlight the differences. Everything sounds pretty good to me, except a lot of the early CD reissues of old recordings were horribly mastered (but pretty quickly learned what to avoid). I think there is some truth to the idea of buying the format that was dominant at the time the recording was made, but even that is more a suggestion than a rule.

I also stream, a lot and constantly. Easily 90% of my listening is streaming, but it's important to remember that all of those playlists and collections that we've all curated on Apple Music (my personal choice) or Spotify or Tidal can all disappear at the drop of a hat. As many users as they have, Spotify is still about $2.5 billion in the red. At some point, that service is going away and all the curation is going with it.

As another aside to this, has anyone noticed the wave of legacy acts selling their publishing catalogs to investment firms for mega-bucks? Obviously the investors think there is value there, but someone is telling the artists to get out while the getting is good. IME, the whole thing is about to collapse.

 

[MordBass]

Unpopular opinion but I feel that the benefit of Vinyl is that you skip the conversion process by being an analog format.... hence you skip the DAC which is usually a weak point in most sources/receivers.

From my experience the advantage usually goes to a better quality source and/or external DAC vs a similarly priced turntable/cart. Plus when you start to compare the price of the music, things go quickly in opposite directions.

 

[chriss]

Ex-record store employee here. My field observations from behind the counter indicate that it can potentially be a socially debilitating condition.

That brings to mind the movie High Fidelity with John Cusack

 

[lucas303]

There are multiple considerations at play here.

As a medium for playing back music, vinyl is unquestionably lower fidelity than (lossless) digital. This is just science, and there's no room for argument. It is fact.

BUT, there's also the question of the quality of the recording/mix/mastering. Sometimes there is a different mastering for a vinyl release, and that mastering might be better than the mastering used for a digital release. If the difference is significant enough, the vinyl could actually sound better overall, but it has nothing to do with the medium and everything to do with the difference in mastering. Put the same mastering used for the vinyl into a lossless digital format and digital will give you a more accurate playback of the music.

Another thing to consider is the playback system. It costs a whole lot more to get a high quality vinyl playback system than it does for digital.

Overall, IMO digital is superior if the goal is high fidelity. If the goal is nostalgia or a tactile experience, then sure vinyl can be better.

 

[lucas303]

Unpopular opinion but I feel that the benefit of Vinyl is that you skip the conversion process by being an analog format.... hence you skip the DAC which is usually a weak point in most sources/receivers.

From my experience the advantage usually goes to a better quality source and/or external DAC vs a similarly priced turntable/cart. Plus when you start to compare the price of the music, things go quickly in opposite directions.

That may have been true years ago, but DACs are pretty much solved. To get a DAC that outperforms what the human ear can perceive costs very, very little these days.

Also you might be surprised by how much vinyl you buy today actually does have a digital step (or more than one) earlier in the process.

 

[MordBass]

That may have been true years ago, but DACs are pretty much solved. To get a DAC that outperforms what the human ear can perceive costs very, very little these days.

I agree they're significantly better than they were but it still makes a solid difference in the audio quality. Even a $200 desktop unit is immediately noticeable vs running my phone or laptop straight to the amplifier.

 

[dalkowski]

That brings to mind the movie High Fidelity with John Cusack

I have stories.

For starters, the guy who examined LP grooves minutely and painstakingly with a loupe yet never spent more than $1.99 on a record.

 

[DJ Bebop]

You've just asked a difficult question to answer.

I have over 4,000 vinyl Lps and bought my first Lp back in 1963. So, I love vinyl! But, I love Cds too.

Getting the best out of vinyl is expensive! Decent turntable and needle cartridge can cost hundreds of dollars even thousands.

I subscribe to Stereophile Magazine and it is being said that the best fidelity sound is coming from streaming. With some streamed songs about equal to the original studio recording.

If you are after fidelity, you are probably gonna get that best from Cds or streaming.

As much as I love vinyl, it ticks, pops and can have "needle ride" sounds.

I used to be able to go to the OSU campus on High St. to Used Kids Records and buy used Lps for $1.00 to $5.00. A much better value than $13.00 for a new Cd.

Now, Cds are going for really cheap and vinyl has gone popular and more expensive.

I now have way too many Lps and I've stopped buying them.

Vinyl is special. You can hold it in your hand and read the front and back cover. Has photos too. It a good feeling watching the Lps go around in circles. It's hard to explain why vinyl is special.

CDs are cool and all. Just on the older material, the source material comes into question. I've heard needle drops better than commercial CD releases because the commercial releases either didn't or couldn't get the best available source material. Then there's bitrate and all that.

Myself, I think the sound folks are nostalgic about is the mechanical nature of the playback equipment involved. The needle slapping down the sides of a vinyl groove and all that entails to reconstitute that into sound

The trouble I'm having is a culmination of life and living longer. Technology has improved so much. I've got a playback system that rivals anything that I could have owned to this point in my life. Headphones that adjust themselves to my ear placement. Specs that rivals the equipment used to make the older source material that I like to listen to.

Yet I feel like old Burgess Meredith in the Twilight Zone episode,
Time Enough at Last.

You know the one, banker who liked to read, H bomb comes and he is left alone, with his books,

But, he sits on his glasses,

That's me!

I've got the time, equipment, specs but most source material is of the MP3s quality and even if it's of a higher quality, old age is slowly diminishing my hearing so...

 

[JRA]

its more marketing collectibles/nostalgia.

i stand with all who love vinyl records/LPs. hooray!

but if i want to do some serious listening, to actual content (not to the medium itself!) = always digital, always CD quality (at minimum).

digital is the best we have for critical listening.


...but playing records is a fun thing to do!

 

[bmusic]

I just bought my last record, which was also my first record, back in 1978. In between, I did cassettes, CDs (which I was so down for) and iTunes, and then I got a turntable a couple years ago and wanted to put together a tiny collection (maybe 100 records?) so I have a range of things to listen to when I feel like putting a record on. And now, for nostalgia's sake (and because I just watched the great HBO documentary about the Gibbs), I have just re-bought "Saturday Night Fever." Seems like it's time to call it quits on the record buying, haha.

I really like the convenience of streaming—pretty much any song, in the palm of my hand!—but I also really like the experience of vinyl. The way listening changes when you're locked into a 20-minute experience, at the end of which you have to get up and take the needle off.

The quality, despite the way these things are sold to us, is beside the point. This guy gets it:

Is it better? In pure technical terms, no. But that's not really the point for me. The ultimate point of this stuff is how it makes you feel; it's not civil engineering or finance, where technical accuracy is crucially important above all.

When I got my new turntable a couple years ago, I hooked it up one evening while my wife was out. She got home late, a little tipsy, and lay down on the sofa just as I was about to put the needle down for the first time. The lights were dim, and when that Al Green record started to play, we were both transported into some kind of woozy audiophile wonderland. Man, that record sounded SO GOOD. And we were both like "Vinyl is so much better."

The next day I did an A/B listening test with that Al Green record and the CD of it, which we also have. I couldn't really tell the difference. But I do think we hear vinyl differently because the experience is different. Even those pops and clicks—the crap that made me run into the clean, loving arms of digital in the 80s—serve not just as an annoyance, but also as a reminder that this record has been used. Has been loved. Maybe (if you got it secondhand) it was somebody's make-out platter, or it kept them company during sad times. Digital not only can't do that; digital doesn't see the value in that.

But getting round to the OP's question (as others have already done so well), yes, the era matters. Radiohead is easily my favorite band of the century, and yet I hate the way they sound on vinyl. That music was made for digital. Earth, Wind & Fire, on the other hand—or any of that other stuff that came out in the 70s, made to be played on a record, when good home audio systems had become a thing...delicious. And you can tell me that my new copy of "Revolver" sounds better than my old used copy—or vice versa—but I prefer the one in the worn cover, whose pops and clicks sing a countermelody about a life lived in love with this music.

 

[beggar98]

And you can tell me that my new copy of "Revolver" sounds better than my old used copy—or vice versa—but I prefer the one in the worn cover, whose pops and clicks sing a countermelody about a life lived in love with this music.

Man, that's a great point. The little imperfections on YOUR copy become part of the experience. I once recorded a Pearl Jam off the radio onto cassette (Easter Sunday 1993) and I had to flip the tape halfway through "State of Love and Trust". Forever that song has a weird break in it in my ears, and hearing the full song doesn't sound quite right. It is obviously "better" to hear the full version, but I listened to that recording hundreds of times and the imperfection became part of my experience.

 

[Son of Wobble]

I will say, though, that even my old records sound better than they used to. I switched to CD's early on for the sound quality, but a few years ago, when I finally came full circle and got a turntable again, I was surprised that records I got in the early 70's sounded better than ever, probably due to having a better equipment.

On the other hand, there is more to the vinyl experience than sound quality. I'm reminded of the words of DJ John Peel: "Someone was trying to tell me that CDs are better than vinyl because they don't have any surface noise. I said: "Listen, mate - life has surface noise!"

Funny you mention John Peel, as I have him to thank -- as well as a vinyl pressing of my band's debut single -- for the band getting touted in Rolling Stone Magazine in 2004 by senior editor David Fricke as one of his favorite new acts of that year. I pressed the 45rpm onto white vinyl, and my singer (and then girlfriend) hand-delivered the record to Peel's BBC mailbox while in London, and Peel ended up spinning the track (and two more from the subsequent debut LP) on his BBC1 show, where it was heard by Fricke. Vinyl in that case definitely made a difference.

Here's a video the singer and I shot for the song in the catacombs below Paris. The band stuff was shot later in our drummer's catacomb below Portland. I'm actually not featured as I operated the camera throughout.

Incidentally, the first iteration of the band broke up within six months of all this in a punk rock crash and burn. Peel died shortly after. Rock arguably did, too. But that's for another debate thread.

 

[Peteyboy]

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that consumption of music via vinyl, like consumption of the written word via physical books, is one of the last refuges one can reserve for a solitary experience. It's private. Offline. No data-mining. No terms & conditions. No rating your experience. No cataloging of your consumer tastes. No marketing pitch based on your streaming history. Just you and your record collection.

As such records are one of the only subversive statements one can make by virtue of making no statement at all. I think Thoreau woulda listened to Black Market Clash on 10" vinyl.

Thank you Madame Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time.

 

[Son of Wobble]

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that consumption of music via vinyl, like consumption of the written word via physical books, is one of the last refuges one can reserve for a solitary experience. It's private. Offline. No data-mining. No terms & conditions. No rating your experience. No cataloging of your consumer tastes. No marketing pitch based on your streaming history. Just you and your record collection.

As such records are one of the only subversive statements one can make by virtue of making no statement at all. I think Thoreau woulda listened to Black Market Clash on 10" vinyl.

Thank you Madame Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time.

I LOL'd
Fair point, well-argued

 

[DJ Bebop]

Man, that's a great point. The little imperfections on YOUR copy become part of the experience. I once recorded a Pearl Jam off the radio onto cassette (Easter Sunday 1993) and I had to flip the tape halfway through "State of Love and Trust". Forever that song has a weird break in it in my ears, and hearing the full song doesn't sound quite right. It is obviously "better" to hear the full version, but I listened to that recording hundreds of times and the imperfection became part of my experience.

I did that with Frank Zappa

I had been a fan of Zappa and saw that he was going to be on the Dick Cavett Show. This was 1971. So I took my little kid cassette machine and taped it off of the family TV. I cherished and played that thing until it's death

I see it is on Youtube at about the same quality