Does Vinyl really make that much of a difference?

2

Comments

  • demetrios
    demetrios Posts: 98,322
    DewieCox wrote:
    ofthegirl99 wrote:
    Ok wrote:
    D, you are spot on with this. I can't recall a recent LP purchase that didn't also come with a download code for around $15-17 for a single LP - this is a great deal considering you really get two formats, including like you said bigger art, plus the smell of vinyl! I have completely switched to this approach in all of my purchases when LP are available.

    I can think of an LP that didn't come with a download. It was called BACKSPACER from the band Pearl Jam.

    Nice......I hardly ever get vinyl w/mp3 code or cd....Probably 1 out of every 10 new records I buy have one or the other. I'd rather have an actual vinyl rip compared to the mp3 code or cd, and if a band can't master some version/format of their commercially available music well enough, then me be lootin and plundering the www.

    I'm sold on vinyl, but I'd like to see them at least start mastering shit properly in all formats.

    Few record labels include an mp3 download to their website. I know SubPop does cause the last dozen or so lp's I bought from their website, I got mp3 codes in each vinyl sleeve. I doubt EVERY record company does it, but there are many that do. I bought a few LP's from InSound and in the note's online, it say's you'll get an mp3 download of the release. I wished Backspacer went the way of Self Titled '06. Well, the one's who bought a CD from 10club were able to download the album from their site. It would of been sweet if the fan's who bought Backspacer on vinyl were able to download the mp3 version of Backspacer for free. Oh well!
  • DewieCox
    DewieCox Posts: 11,432
    Evacuation Rules wrote:
    It's a scam. Vinyl only sounds better when it's mastered better. This is not the case with a lot of recent vinyl, including Backspacer. They basically took the CD version and made vinyl out of it, and people have deluded themselves into thinking it sounds better.

    That's true most of the time, but I think mellower or acoustic driven music sounds better on vinyl regardless of the mastering technique.
  • whgarrett
    whgarrett Posts: 574
    I would have to agree with the guy above. You all are being scammed. Vinyl is just trendy now. Most of the music is recorded digitally. Also vinyl is a huge waste of resources and doesn't recycle well. I think it's questionable that record companies are hurting in sales due to downloads so they decide to bring back a medium that can make them money. Sacd/dvd-audio. I would challenge anyone to make a distinction between those formats and vinyl(minus the static NOISE from Lp's). Scratch that...I challenge anyone to tell the difference between a pcm or wav quality recording and vinyl. No...how about 320khz and vinyl. Don't fool yourselves, embrace the future, don't regress. ;)
  • demetrios
    demetrios Posts: 98,322
    whgarrett wrote:
    embrace the future, don't regress. ;)

    If it's future ya talking about, it's True HD Bluray Audio baby! Few band's have released some album's on Bluray disc (aka NIN's Ghost). I say we release all the Pearl Jam records on Bluray.

    What say's you? :mrgreen:
  • DewieCox
    DewieCox Posts: 11,432
    whgarrett wrote:
    I would have to agree with the guy above. You all are being scammed. Vinyl is just trendy now. Most of the music is recorded digitally. Also vinyl is a huge waste of resources and doesn't recycle well. I think it's questionable that record companies are hurting in sales due to downloads so they decide to bring back a medium that can make them money. Sacd/dvd-audio. I would challenge anyone to make a distinction between those formats and vinyl(minus the static NOISE from Lp's). Scratch that...I challenge anyone to tell the difference between a pcm or wav quality recording and vinyl. No...how about 320khz and vinyl. Don't fool yourselves, embrace the future, don't regress. ;)

    The vast majority of my records sound better and more lifelike than any digital format I've heard. Alotta times vinyl is the only format that presents the songs as they're meant to be heard.
  • lolobugg
    lolobugg BLUE RDGE MTNS Posts: 8,195
    The only digital format that can replicate an analog master was SACD. It did not catch on. There is now hope with Blu-Ray, but Vinyl is an addiction for me. You can't describe it, you just get it. A lot of people on here have touched on it. It is the complete package, not just the audio side of it.

    livefootsteps.org/user/?usr=446

    1995- New Orleans, LA  : New Orleans, LA

    1996- Charleston, SC

    1998- Atlanta, GA: Birmingham, AL: Greenville, SC: Knoxville, TN

    2000- Atlanta, GA: New Orleans, LA: Memphis, TN: Nashville, TN

    2003- Raleigh, NC: Charlotte, NC: Atlanta, GA

    2004- Asheville, NC (hometown show)

    2006- Cincinnati, OH

    2008- Columbia, SC

    2009- Chicago, IL x 2 / Ed Vedder- Atlanta, GA x 2

    2010- Bristow, VA

    2011- Alpine Valley, WI (PJ20) x 2 / Ed Vedder- Chicago, IL

    2012- Atlanta, GA

    2013- Charlotte, NC

    2014- Cincinnati, OH

    2015- New York, NY

    2016- Greenville, SC: Hampton, VA:: Columbia, SC: Raleigh, NC : Lexington, KY: Philly, PA 2: (Wrigley) Chicago, IL x 2 (holy shit): Temple of the Dog- Philly, PA

    2017- ED VED- Louisville, KY

    2018- Chicago, IL x2, Boston, MA x2

    2020- Nashville, TN 

    2022- Smashville 

    2023- Austin, TX x2

    2024- Baltimore

  • Mahaloev
    Mahaloev Posts: 305
    DewieCox wrote:

    Sunday morning record playin goes on about every week. Ahhhhh, the smell of bacon, eggs, and vinyl.

    Yummmy... ;);) Long live vinyl!!!!
    The Stars, the Snow, the Fire
  • BinauralJam
    BinauralJam Posts: 14,158
    [

    When I shop for records there's always one that I'm shopping for and that one gets set back for me and the wife to after the girls go to bed, along with anything that's among our favorite bands. There's been a few times I've had to really be patient, but it's probably the fave ritual I have.

    Any time I'm watching "the game" a record goes on. Good thing I have dvr so I can rewind, b/c inevitably I focus on the music.

    Sunday morning record playin goes on about every week. Ahhhhh, the smell of bacon, eggs, and vinyl.[/quote][/quote]

    Thats sounds cool, wish my parents had been that cool., well thanks to everybody, dont really have the budget to start a vinyl collection just yet, but sounds worth getting into. Some day well need VINYL BOOTS!!!
  • musicman
    musicman Posts: 98
    [/quote]You wanna hear the difference.....Listen to Them Crooked Vultures' album in digital, then listen to the record or a good vinyl rip even.[/quote]

    Hell yeah! :ugeek:
    "I wanna rock and roll all night and PART OF every day"
  • musicman
    musicman Posts: 98
    demetrios wrote:
    whgarrett wrote:
    embrace the future, don't regress. ;)

    If it's future ya talking about, it's True HD Bluray Audio baby! Few band's have released some album's on Bluray disc (aka NIN's Ghost). I say we release all the Pearl Jam records on Bluray.

    What say's you? :mrgreen:

    Newer isn't always better. ;)
    "I wanna rock and roll all night and PART OF every day"
  • JzP
    JzP Posts: 933
    Word Up to Vinyl!!! It's not just the sound. It's everything. The whole process.
    ~JzP
  • blondieblue227
    blondieblue227 Va, USA Posts: 4,509
    stupid blonde statement

    yeah i don't get it either because doesn't vinyl sound all crackle-y?
    or does just old vinyl sound like that?
    *~Pearl Jam will be blasted from speakers until morale improves~*

  • EasyE
    EasyE Posts: 66
    Much of the great rock records recorded before 1989 will sound better as LPs. The Bob Marley catalog is a good example of this.

    Some new albums sound noticeably better than CDs. Other albums sound very similar in both formats.

    In both cases, LP sound quality depends on quality of home audio equipment and record cleanliness and upkeep.

    If you own a home, enjoy album artwork and enjoy rock music, set aside some cash and go for it. But, before you jump in, be ready to spend at least $500 to buy good equipment.

    If you still plan to move around and don't listen to many records at home, skip it for now.

    If you do jump into LPs, here's a good example of a "good buy" on the Web: I just spent $30 for The Black Crowes "Warpaint" and Tom Petty's "Wildflowers" on 180-gram vinyl. Free delivery from Elusive Disc.

    Both those records could be had in high-quality digital format for much less and they'd sound great on great digital home audio equipment.

    But I'm betting that if I share a joint and grab a beer, listening to Petty's "You Don't How it Feels" on spinning vinyl will be similar to viewing the Mona Lisa in Paris. But you can't smoke joints in the Lourve.
  • Elzar
    Elzar Posts: 966
    i gots some static problems!

    i cant keep the dust off of my vinyl! what kind of preventative measures does everyone do to keep the dust off?
    Sure, i can clean them with the record cleaning brush and fluid - but i would rather clean them as little as possible, but i cant stop this evil static - and dust jumps on the record instantly!

    my older records arent as static-ky - seems like newer and heavier weight vinyl attracts more dust.
  • redrock
    redrock Posts: 18,341
    whgarrett wrote:
    Vinyl is just trendy now. Most of the music is recorded digitally. Also vinyl is a huge waste of resources and doesn't recycle well.

    I agree, a lot of vinyl now is digitally recorded, therefore losing the advantage of the analogue recording. I'm also thinking that a lot of people hear the 'richer' sound, etc. because they convince themselves it's there (even on the digital recordings). Maybe, and just maybe, some may get a 'better' sound as they may have invested in better quality equipment than they had with just CDs (as vinyl aficionados will say you need damn good equipment to get full effect). I grew up with vinyl and I'm not convinced. There's no more ritual putting on an lp than there is putting on a CD.

    I do buy vinyl but for the art, though. I know I will need to duck from stuff thrown at me, but I don't listen to vinyl anymore and haven't for years. My turntable is in the attic.
  • EasyE
    EasyE Posts: 66
    redrock wrote:
    whgarrett wrote:
    Vinyl is just trendy now. Most of the music is recorded digitally. Also vinyl is a huge waste of resources and doesn't recycle well.

    I agree, a lot of vinyl now is digitally recorded, therefore losing the advantage of the analogue recording. I'm also thinking that a lot of people hear the 'richer' sound, etc. because they convince themselves it's there (even on the digital recordings). Maybe, and just maybe, some may get a 'better' sound as they may have invested in better quality equipment than they had with just CDs (as vinyl aficionados will say you need damn good equipment to get full effect). I grew up with vinyl and I'm not convinced. There's no more ritual putting on an lp than there is putting on a CD.

    I do buy vinyl but for the art, though. I know I will need to duck from stuff thrown at me, but I don't listen to vinyl anymore and haven't for years. My turntable is in the attic.

    Vinyl is trendy but not "just" trendy. Older rock albums simply sound better. More recent CDs however do sound very good.

    For me, playing records is a more satisfying ritual then playing CDs or high-res digital files from an iPod or computer.

    In my opinion, the best argument against vinyl is that it requires time, money and storage to execute well. In other words, it's pain in the ass. But there is a sound quality payoff for many, many records.
  • Evacuation Rules
    Evacuation Rules Posts: 2,162
    My point is that it's all in the mastering. There are plenty of old records that sound horrible compared to their CD counterparts. There are also albums that have never been mastered well on CD, so the vinyl sounds better. Some newer vinyl is genuinely mastered better than the CD version, yet others are exactly like the CD and really just a novelty item (Backspacer for example).
  • tkepearljamn
    tkepearljamn Posts: 586
    If I was the first post on this one I would have typed... Does Elmer Fudd have problems with his W's?
    07-02-98, 10-11-00, 04-22-03, 04-23-03, 06-09-03, 06-10-03, 06-18-03, 06-21-03, 06-22-03, 10-02-04, 10-03-04, 10-05-04, 05-16-06, 05-17-06, 05-22-06, 06-24-06, 06-29-06
  • tkepearljamn
    tkepearljamn Posts: 586
    I am a web designer. I go am at a computer 17 hours a day. I enjoy getting up and changing a record and hearing something warm.

    1 aspect that hasn't been discussed is speed of a record vs speed of a CD. Sounds silly, but some albums are slightly slower or faster on vinyl. A song at 142 beats per second on CD could be at 138 on vinyl. Now to the everyday user there isn't much of a difference, but it will sound slightly different.

    Th only reason I know that is because my friends album came out on vagrant. When the album was pressed to vinyl it was a different speed. Apparently this is a fairly common occurrence that there are slight variance in beats per minute.
    07-02-98, 10-11-00, 04-22-03, 04-23-03, 06-09-03, 06-10-03, 06-18-03, 06-21-03, 06-22-03, 10-02-04, 10-03-04, 10-05-04, 05-16-06, 05-17-06, 05-22-06, 06-24-06, 06-29-06
  • Evacuation Rules
    Evacuation Rules Posts: 2,162
    tkepearljamn wrote:
    \Th only reason I know that is because my friends album came out on vagrant. When the album was pressed to vinyl it was a different speed. Apparently this is a fairly common occurrence that there are slight variance in beats per minute.

    I think that has more to do with the turntable it's being played on, rather than the record itself. If you have a pitch adjuster, you can correct it.

Categories