I know this is blasphemous around here, but

love-boat-captain

One word... Compression

CDs sound great, no doubt about that, but you don't realise how much compression plays a part on CDs. Compare a new (mint) vinyl on a quality player against the CD recording of any album and you'll see how much warmer vinyl sounds.
There is no point on getting your dads old copy of led zepplin IV out the basement dusting it off and expecting it to sound better than the CD remasters. But listen to Off He Goes for example, on CD then on vinyl and you'll see the difference.

It's similar kind of difference between CDs and mp3s. Mp3s are even more compressed than CD quality.

I do have the records as well, but personally I'm a CD man. Consistent, good quality.

Better Dan

S.O. wrote:

Others touched on this already, but I dig the subject so please forgive the long post. It's not really the difference between records vs. CDs, it's the difference between analog vs. digital recording. A digital mastering will never sound better than a quality analog recording because it's essentially breaking true sound into bits/bytes. You're losing sound. That why a good analog recording played on an analog medium (needle to groove) is the truest sound you'll ever hear. Listen to your Hendrix CDs, then play the exact same songs on an old record and tell me you don't hear more. I've always made the argument that buying new records is pointless - if you're arguing for better sound - since analog recording doesn't take place in the states anymore. Unless you're going for the aesthetics (which is another cool part of records) you may as well buy it on CD. I don't buy new music on vinyl, but am a regular at garage sales and used record shops building my record collection. Vinyl/analog = the best it's ever been. CDs/digital = one of the biggest scams ever pulled on the consumer. MP3 and other digital files = unfortunate to say the least.

I thought I had read that some PJ records were mastered differently (specifically for vinyl) Is this true?

Better Dan

mookeywrench wrote:

DS114969 wrote:

DS114969 wrote:

I'd like to invest in a nice turntable setup, but unfortunately it looks to be quite expensive to set up. Is there a good system I can get for around 200 - 300? I've always loved record though. Just the look/feel of them..bigger artwork/packaging etc...

Bump. I've been interested in getting a setup for a while now but don't know where/how to get started. I would need everything (turntable, speakers, amp/preamp, receiver). Any advice would be greatly appreciated

start with the receiver. make sure it has a phono selection and all you need is a stereo receiver, not 5.1, 7.1, or 7.2 if it has a phono selection you won't need to worry about a preamp and then can always add an amp later on if you see fit.

getting only a stereo reciever (2.0) will allow you to spend more money on the power and sound quality of the receiver rather than bells and whistles that you'll never use.

turntable invest around 300-400 on your first, get either a direct drive, or belt driven with pitch control.

also invest in a nice cartridge....shure makes quality/affordable needles

Speakers are up to you, they won't have a direct effect on how your vinyl sounds when compared to a CD.

Thanks to you and S.O. for the help. I've been putting this off for too long

Your Camaro's hood

DS114969 wrote:

S.O. wrote:

Others touched on this already, but I dig the subject so please forgive the long post. It's not really the difference between records vs. CDs, it's the difference between analog vs. digital recording. A digital mastering will never sound better than a quality analog recording because it's essentially breaking true sound into bits/bytes. You're losing sound. That why a good analog recording played on an analog medium (needle to groove) is the truest sound you'll ever hear. Listen to your Hendrix CDs, then play the exact same songs on an old record and tell me you don't hear more. I've always made the argument that buying new records is pointless - if you're arguing for better sound - since analog recording doesn't take place in the states anymore. Unless you're going for the aesthetics (which is another cool part of records) you may as well buy it on CD. I don't buy new music on vinyl, but am a regular at garage sales and used record shops building my record collection. Vinyl/analog = the best it's ever been. CDs/digital = one of the biggest scams ever pulled on the consumer. MP3 and other digital files = unfortunate to say the least.

I thought I had read that some PJ records were mastered differently (specifically for vinyl) Is this true?

I'm honestly not sure. But, I think they are recorded digitally now because there aren't analog studio still in business in America which, in my opinion, defeats the purpose of owning vinyl. To speak to the other post about compression, I completely agree. That's why digitally remastering something, technically, is a fancy way to say we're taking an old recording and eliminating some of the sound just to make it cleaner. I don't agree, however, that you won't get a better sound by dusting off your dad's old Zeppelin records. There are CDs I grew up on that I feel I never really "heard" until I acquired them on vinyl - most of the time old, dusty, basement copies. An analog recording played on an analog medium can't be improved upon digitally.

mookeywrench

love-boat-captain wrote:

One word... Compression

CDs sound great, no doubt about that, but you don't realise how much compression plays a part on CDs. Compare a new (mint) vinyl on a quality player against the CD recording of any album and you'll see how much warmer vinyl sounds.
There is no point on getting your dads old copy of led zepplin IV out the basement dusting it off and expecting it to sound better than the CD remasters. But listen to Off He Goes for example, on CD then on vinyl and you'll see the difference.

It's similar kind of difference between CDs and mp3s. Mp3s are even more compressed than CD quality.

I do have the records as well, but personally I'm a CD man. Consistent, good quality.

compression occurs in the mixing/mastering process not during physical production, CDs actually have more dynamic range capabilities than vinyl.

hrd2imgn

I concur, if you have the right equipment and a good record it blows away any CD

that being said be ready to spend well over 500 to get the right equipment (the mid-low range of it)

Cd's are more convenient, records are just better and a bigger pain in the ass to keep nice

corduroykelly

I could not agree more Vinyl is so pointless. I hate how the ten club gives you these holiday singles on vinyl I have never played one of them they take up space and when I'm tired of looking at them I throw them away! People try being cool by saying oh I have that on vinyl I think to myself why? When can you ever even play it?

crazygeo

[u]Re: I know this is blasphemous around here, but
by csickels » 02 Sep 2009 15:56

ledvedderman wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytCEuuW2_A

it's an honest question, you could just answer it as opposed to being a smartass.[/u]

this song goes out to the Bastard who married my mama....Eddie Vedder Better Man

Didn't you realize that the probability of getting a Jack ass response was 2-5 here..
pretty sad..
I agree..the album is cool but it's not the 70's anymore...as collectors cool..but please play nice in the sand box or he is taking his shovel and going home!!!

Rearviewrelease

mookeywrench wrote:

love-boat-captain wrote:

One word... Compression

CDs sound great, no doubt about that, but you don't realise how much compression plays a part on CDs. Compare a new (mint) vinyl on a quality player against the CD recording of any album and you'll see how much warmer vinyl sounds.
There is no point on getting your dads old copy of led zepplin IV out the basement dusting it off and expecting it to sound better than the CD remasters. But listen to Off He Goes for example, on CD then on vinyl and you'll see the difference.

It's similar kind of difference between CDs and mp3s. Mp3s are even more compressed than CD quality.

I do have the records as well, but personally I'm a CD man. Consistent, good quality.

compression occurs in the mixing/mastering process not during physical production, CDs actually have more dynamic range capabilities than vinyl.

Not true.

Cd's can only handle so much high and so much low....so it cuts it out.

That is why Vinyl is almost always a fuller sound

mookeywrench

that's Frequency range not dynamic range


the lows are equal, and the high notes that would actually cause distortion on CD very rarely come into play with rock music

bazzer

S.O. wrote:

I've always made the argument that buying new records is pointless - if you're arguing for better sound - since analog recording doesn't take place in the states anymore. Unless you're going for the aesthetics (which is another cool part of records) you may as well buy it on CD. I don't buy new music on vinyl, but am a regular at garage sales and used record shops building my record collection. Vinyl/analog = the best it's ever been. CDs/digital = one of the biggest scams ever pulled on the consumer. MP3 and other digital files = unfortunate to say the least.

Don't forget that the digital recording is much higher quality (bit depth, sampling rate) than CD. Would you agree that if you sample fast enough, with enough bits that digital can not be distinguished from analog? This is what I believe, although exactly what those limits are is harder to say. Many people say that SACD/DVD-A are closer to the vinyl sound than CD.

Anyway, my point is that even modern digital recordings on vinyl can sound better than the equivalent CD.

Evacuation Rules

corduroykelly wrote:

I could not agree more Vinyl is so pointless. I hate how the ten club gives you these holiday singles on vinyl I have never played one of them they take up space and when I'm tired of looking at them I throw them away! People try being cool by saying oh I have that on vinyl I think to myself why? When can you ever even play it?

You can play them if you have a record player, dummy. :roll:

mookeywrench

the main problem with this whole debate is using the words "better" and "worse"

Its all a matter of preference with modern recordings.

pjfan021

Like previously said, you get yourself a decent $200 player, decent receiver, and some great speakers and that vinyl will sound better than your ipod. Until they can recreate the warmth of vinyl on mp3 i'm sold on my records. I listen to cds mostly but anytime i'm at my place or any of my buddies we're spinning records.

couple quick examples..

Riot Act has seems to be a little more bass heavy and overall better to me on record as opposed to the cd....if you listen to a cd recording of early thrash or metal and compare it to some vinyl you'll definitely hear the difference. I've got origianl pressings of metallica's first four ablubms and the mp3's and cd's just don't compare.

mookeywrench

pjfan021 wrote:

Like previously said, you get yourself a decent $200 player, decent receiver, and some great speakers and that vinyl will sound better than your ipod. Until they can recreate the warmth of vinyl on mp3 i'm sold on my records. I listen to cds mostly but anytime i'm at my place or any of my buddies we're spinning records.

couple quick examples..

Riot Act has seems to be a little more bass heavy and overall better to me on record as opposed to the cd....if you listen to a cd recording of early thrash or metal and compare it to some vinyl you'll definitely hear the difference. I've got origianl pressings of metallica's first four ablubms and the mp3's and cd's just don't compare.

the Riot Act bass opinion is either in your head or is based on the cartridge your using, there's no difference in bass in digital vs. analog because the sound waves are so huge and verrrrryyyyy easy to replicate.

the Metallica comparison is spot on because CD's from the 80's and throughout the 90's were all rushed to the market without really caring about the preservation of sound, which is why in early CD's you always see that warning that the sound is compromised when going from an analog to digital transfer.

Fahka

I like having both digital and vinyl.. I think putting on a vinyl is just more of a ritual.. nothing like slipping it out of the sleeve, laying it on the record player, and putting the needled over top.... So yeah, thats why i like vinyl, i like the ritual of it all

aNiMaL

csickels wrote:

fortyshades wrote:

A warm sound... Digital sounds harsher... I have Vitalogy on tape, CD and record (yeah, yeah bought the album 3x); record is the best...

hmmm, don't get that, but to each his own i guess. i would say digital sounds clearer.

I don't know about clearer as my LP's are as clear as a bell (for the non scratched ones that is). Digital actually compresses and chops off the real highs and real lows. Giving digital a little colder of sound. Analog has all it's highs and lows in tact and that tends to give analog a more warmer sound.

Now this really only comes into play with albums that are recorded in analog. If it is recorded in digital, then there is no real difference between the CD and LP in sound quality. Then yeah,it comes down to pure nostalgia.

And don't knock nostalgia either. There is something to be said for playing the music format of my childhood.

But yeah, having said that, obviously there is a time and a place for LP's, CD'S, MP3's, FLAC's, and so on and so forth.

Your Camaro's hood

pjfan021 wrote:

Like previously said, you get yourself a decent $200 player, decent receiver, and some great speakers and that vinyl will sound better than your ipod. Until they can recreate the warmth of vinyl on mp3 i'm sold on my records. I listen to cds mostly but anytime i'm at my place or any of my buddies we're spinning records.

Yeah, this is pretty much how I roll. CDs in the car, iPod at work, but I definitely try to play records more often than not when I'm home. At least when I'm chillin' in the man cave. Another positive about vinyl is it can be a very cheap, and fun, way to build a huge music collection. Unless you're a real collector who only wants originals, you should be able to find all the rock artists from the 60s and 70s, typically for $10 and under. And, as I've stated before, these records - as long as they were originally taken care of and you have good record cleaner and a good stylus - will usually provide a much more satisfying experience than the coldness of digital. I understand there are a lot of younger fans here though, and to most people I know under 30, the notion of physically collecting music seems weird. Y'all got me with this thread!! :P

Your Camaro's hood

bazzer wrote:

S.O. wrote:

I've always made the argument that buying new records is pointless - if you're arguing for better sound - since analog recording doesn't take place in the states anymore. Unless you're going for the aesthetics (which is another cool part of records) you may as well buy it on CD. I don't buy new music on vinyl, but am a regular at garage sales and used record shops building my record collection. Vinyl/analog = the best it's ever been. CDs/digital = one of the biggest scams ever pulled on the consumer. MP3 and other digital files = unfortunate to say the least.

Don't forget that the digital recording is much higher quality (bit depth, sampling rate) than CD. Would you agree that if you sample fast enough, with enough bits that digital can not be distinguished from analog? This is what I believe, although exactly what those limits are is harder to say. Many people say that SACD/DVD-A are closer to the vinyl sound than CD.

Anyway, my point is that even modern digital recordings on vinyl can sound better than the equivalent CD.

Good point. Thanks for the input.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

vinyl masks all the suck out of it with hissing.

j/k