What's with this vinyl

[Hawkeye]

There's been a Lot of 24KG (side note I believe I'm the first one to write that abbreviation and I personally love the way it looks!) discussion devoted to it being released on vinyl. Sorcerer999 even goes as far to say he might be equally to more excited over the vinyl aspect then even the fact were getting an album. That comment actually sparked the idea to make this thread.

Now are there actual tangible reasons as to why I should consider buying a vinyl copy. My dad has a player so I'd have to go there to listen. He also has quite a few records, so another option is I could buy my own player. But is there any real advantages with sound quality with vinyl beyond nostalgic "hey his brings me back to howitzer use to listen to music"


Not trying to mock anyone. Just wondering if there's some real tangible advantages to vinyl beyond like I said nostalgia or some novelty.

[Hawkeye]

Side to my sidnote, I now notice hours and hours already usd the abbreviation yesterday, although with a t in between the K and g. We may have yo do a poll for this abbreviation.

[HoursAndHours]

There's been a Lot of 24KG (side note I believe I'm the first one to write that abbreviation and I personally love the way it looks!) discussion devoted to it being released on vinyl. Sorcerer999 even goes as far to say he might be equally to more excited over the vinyl aspect then even the fact were getting an album. That comment actually sparked the idea to make this thread.

Now are there actual tangible reasons as to why I should consider buying a vinyl copy. My dad has a player so I'd have to go there to listen. He also has quite a few records, so another option is I could buy my own player. But is there any real advantages with sound quality with vinyl beyond nostalgic "hey his brings me back to howitzer use to listen to music"


Not trying to mock anyone. Just wondering if there's some real tangible advantages to vinyl beyond like I said nostalgia or some novelty.

Well, it's a limited edition collectors item, and vinyl (from my understanding) has unique sonic qualities that many people prefer. So if one or both of those appeal to you, than yes, absolutely get it while you can.

(note: this shouldn't be confused with differences between analog and digital recording, as even digitally recorded albums are often pressed to vinyl)

[HoursAndHours]

Side to my sidnote, I now notice hours and hours already usd the abbreviation yesterday, although with a t in between the K and g. We may have yo do a poll for this abbreviation.

Lol. Set up the poll. It's better than arguing over tracklists. :laugh:

[AnthonyMI]

If you do not own any vinyl or already have a record player, don't bother. The only "budget" turntables are the terrible Crosly type. They SUCK. The sound is terrible. Like... REALLY BAD. Cheap. thin sounding. Non 3 dimensional. Hissy. Barf. How the Hispters that buy those things at Urban Outfitters can stand them I don't know! Plus MOST of them plug them into modern day stereos with Digital Dignal Processing for Bass and equalization etc, and lack proper speakers that are even worth a damn. Unless you own a stereo that cost say... $3000 or more, your speakers and stereo wont be able to actually make the Vinyl sound much better than CD.

Even those USB turntables that you convert things to MP3s are terrible. NONE of those have a proper Cartridge. Why by Vinyl, just to convert it to lossy mp3? Buying it on CD would be better and then ripping it to the hard drive manually "lossless". But even if you did "lossless" on a USB turntable the needle built into those is terrible and cant keep up with the analog signal engrained into the vinyl.

It is true that vinyl sounds better than mp3. But most people can not tell the difference between mp3 and CD. So why bother?

A proper turntable will cost at least $300. Add in a Cartridge and it is another $100 for a halfway decent one. THEN on top of all that you need a Preamp. 99% of ALL Stereos lack a Preamp Phono input. The cheap phono preamps are just that... CHEAP. If you are spending that much money on a turntable AND Cartridge to get good sound and then plug into a cheap Preamp, you are defeating the purpose of the Vinyl. If you can find a vintage 1970s stereo that might work... BUT many of those need a total Recap of the capasitors and many transistors replaced just to get up and running properly.

I have a vintage Dual record changer, with a Shure cartridge, I paid around $100 for the turntable and rehabed it myself. A restored one is $300 on ebay. the cartridge was $80 on Amazon on sale. They are plugged into a vintage 1970's Pioneer 100 watt amp and run into 1983 Vintage JBL 300 watt L112 speakers. I can tell you, with this level of quality setup I CAN hear a difference in vinyl and CD...

My BEST system is Dual turntable, but connected to a 1980 vintage McIntosh Preamp and a (new) 70watt per channel Dynaco ST-70 (modified by Bob Latino) into Dynaco A25 speakers. On this setup I can hear the "stepping" waveform on CDs.

So basically, you can buy the vinyl, but ask yourself WHY? If you mainly are going to listen to the album in the Car, headphones, stereo, at home, etc... get it on CD or a MP3 off iTunes...

Your other option is buy the Vinyl, and then if there is Digital Copy code for iTunes with the vinyl, keep that, and let your Dad use the Vinyl copy at his place and you can "visit" it sometimes.

[BlueDenimLamp]

There's been a Lot of 24KG (side note I believe I'm the first one to write that abbreviation and I personally love the way it looks!) discussion devoted to it being released on vinyl. Sorcerer999 even goes as far to say he might be equally to more excited over the vinyl aspect then even the fact were getting an album. That comment actually sparked the idea to make this thread.

Now are there actual tangible reasons as to why I should consider buying a vinyl copy. My dad has a player so I'd have to go there to listen. He also has quite a few records, so another option is I could buy my own player. But is there any real advantages with sound quality with vinyl beyond nostalgic "hey his brings me back to howitzer use to listen to music"


Not trying to mock anyone. Just wondering if there's some real tangible advantages to vinyl beyond like I said nostalgia or some novelty.

Yes!!!

This brings up another question is 24K an analog or digital project???
Vinyl has a better sound as long as it's a completely analog project which means record using TAPE then press the vinyl...If you are going to use pro tools for recording the only reason to press vinyl is for the sake of having it...Once you go digital that analog feel is lost...

[HoursAndHours]

Yes!!!

This brings up another question is 24K an analog or digital project???
Vinyl has a better sound as long as it's a completely analog project which means record using TAPE then press the vinyl...If you are going to use pro tools for recording the only reason to press vinyl is for the sake of having it...Once you go digital that analog feel is lost...

Actually (and I will have to look up the studies for this), but my understanding is that the "analog" feeling is a product of the medium - in this case vinyl. To my knowledge, there haven't been any studies where anyone was able to consistently beat random chance in telling the difference between digital and analog, so long as they were compared on the same medium. :shrug:

[Fannymac]

I have a question......why are a lot of these albums being released as double albums, when there's just enough tracks for a single disc? For instance, the new Petty just has 11 tracks, with the 11 cuts spread out over three side and a "nice etching" on the 4th side. They're doing the same thing with the re-release of Carole King's "Tapestry."" There are no bonus tracks included.....why would a once single disc album now need to be put out as a double album??? (And cost over $25.00!!!).:shrug:

[sorcerer999]

Now are there actual tangible reasons as to why I should consider buying a vinyl copy.

I think the NUMBER ONE reason you should buy a vinyl copy is because you will get to listen to the whole album on September 29th instead of October 7th! :]:laugh:

[HoursAndHours]

I have a question......why are a lot of these albums being released as double albums, when there's just enough tracks for a single disc? For instance, the new Petty just has 11 tracks, with the 11 cuts spread out over three side and a "nice etching" on the 4th side. They're doing the same thing with the re-release of Carole King's "Tapestry."" There are no bonus tracks included.....why would a once single disc album now need to be put out as a double album??? (And cost over $25.00!!!).:shrug:

Look up the mechanics of how much music can fit on one side of a vinyl. It's probably a better quality pressing (plus limited ed, and $$$).

I think the NUMBER ONE reason you should buy a vinyl copy is because you will get to listen to the whole album on September 29th instead of October 7th! :]:laugh:

That might be the best reason of all, lol.

[BlueDenimLamp]

Actually (and I will have to look up the studies for this), but my understanding is that the "analog" feeling is a product of the medium - in this case vinyl. To my knowledge, there haven't been any studies where anyone was able to consistently beat random chance in telling the difference between digital and analog, so long as they were compared on the same medium. :shrug:

A lot of artists are going back to recording on 2" tape because it has a feel you just can't get from digital...

Here's an interview you might find interesting where Benmont Tench of the Heartbreakers discusses the finer points of going from tape straight to vinyl http://soundbard.com/go-ahead-and-spin-it-to-me-benmont-tench-breaks-down-why-he-loves-lucky-on-vinyl/

[KarmaContestant]

There are many reasons some prefer vinyl over CD. For me it's dynamics and compression. Vinyl has more range of sound, because the excessive volumes used on CDs would distort sound on vinyl, so the volume of the individual parts is mastered lower, which means you hear things that you'll maybe never hear on the CD because they are overpowered by other parts of the song.

Even digitally recorded music can sound better on vinyl, and often does - but it comes down to the person who did the mastering. Mastering for vinyl is something that takes expertise to do right, and there are reasons that certain engineers are so in demand - Bernie Grundman, Steve Hoffman - it's because they know how to master for vinyl. Many albums on vinyl are simply CD masters pressed onto a record, and that doesn't turn out very well. A separate master has to be made for each format, and they will not sound the same - they cannot sound the same, in fact, due to limitations of the vinyl format that require more careful technique when mastering.

I do not agree that you need a $3000 system to enjoy listening to records. I have a Sony turntable with a built in pre-amp that was only a hundred bucks - not great - but it's good enough. I'll upgrade it someday at the Gold Sound store down the street from where I live, where the local DJs buy their equipment. I use a Yamaha receiver that was about four hundred bucks, and old 4 foot tall Pioneer floor speakers that were given to me by a friend. I *love* the sound of records, and am often blown away at the incredible range of sound when records are mastered well. Jeff Buckley's Grace - ZOMG -Low parts are actually low, quiet parts are quiet - crescendos climb higher - not a single lick of static because it's a high quality pressing that I have kept painstakingly clean. In sum, if the record is well mastered, you get peaks and valleys of sound that are all compressed into a flat middle range, and hidden with loudness, on CDs, and made even worse on MP3s.

Anthony is right about those suitcase record players - they have no ability to make a record sound the way it's supposed to sound. Instead, they sound to me more like an old Victrola with the tube amp missing, which is charming, but not exactly the experience I'm looking for when I want to drown out the world by playing my music so loud the bass rattles my intestines.

As a teen I started buying music on vinyl, then the CD format came along, and I moved with it. About 10 years ago, I bought an old record player from a yard sale, and hooked it up to some car speakers that a friend had encased in wooden boxes. We put on The Wild Heart, and I was *blown away* at how real Stevie sounded. "Something in my heart died last night". Real, there, in the room, standing next to me singing. From that moment on, CDs have sounded artificial...perhaps because they are in a sense, but so are all digital recordings, being that they are simply binary code.

Dispute being convinced in my own head that vinyl LPs sound better, to some people they don't. The science and tech behind it all says that people are generally biased and crazy when they say vinyl sounds better, and they are probably technically right about that. Every human ear is a little different, though, and people like what they like, regardless of what experts say about it.

Music on vinyl costs more. It's harder to care for and keep clean. When a record is scratched, you're pretty much screwed. When it sounds bad, it's BAD. Listening to records requires attention - these double LPs, like 24 Karat will be, only have 2 or 3 songs per side - sometimes 4. You have to flip them, keep them free of dust, clean them before and after playing (well I do, anyway).

I still listen to a lot of CDs; certain artists I prefer on CD. Certain record labels don't make good vinyl. Lots of it is cheaply done with little thought to quality - it's just about the popularity of the format and the easy sale to vinyl enthusiasts. Even the same album pressed in different plants will sound different - UK pressings from Parlophone always sound better than the same title pressed by Capitol. Experience with records will give you an instinct about these things, and it doesn't take long to figure out what will be better on CD, but it's often hit or miss when you don't expect it to be.

Here's a good article about it: http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm

Also, in fairness: http://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?section_id=1&doc_id=1283449

[KarmaContestant]

I have a question......why are a lot of these albums being released as double albums, when there's just enough tracks for a single disc? For instance, the new Petty just has 11 tracks, with the 11 cuts spread out over three side and a "nice etching" on the 4th side. They're doing the same thing with the re-release of Carole King's "Tapestry."" There are no bonus tracks included.....why would a once single disc album now need to be put out as a double album??? (And cost over $25.00!!!).:shrug:


It's for quality, especially with older titles that are reissued. The grooves can be further apart with fewer tracks per side. With the grooves further apart, they can be carved deeper, resulting in a better product that lasts longer and sounds better and doesn't wear out with repeated plays.

Also, practicality. 25 minutes per side, or 50 total minutes for one LP, is about the most you can do without being laughed at. 42-44 minutes or less is best. If you have an album that is 68 minutes, what do you do with the other 18 minutes if you don't want to jeopardize the quality of your recording? Spreading out the songs across two records is the most efficient solution. Bella Donna is a little more than 41 minutes in length. In Your Dreams is almost 65 minutes without My Heart, 69 minutes with.

[KarmaContestant]

There are many reasons some prefer vinyl over CD. For me it's dynamics and compression. Vinyl has more range of sound, because the excessive volumes used on CDs would distort sound on vinyl, so the volume of the individual parts is mastered lower, which means you hear things that you'll maybe never hear on the CD because they are overpowered by other parts of the song.


To elaborate more on this, imagine a Boom Boom Boom, and in the background you hear faintly, a ting ting ting. At least, on a well mastered vinyl record, that's what you'd hear. For the CD version, for some reason, because every label wants to out-loud the others, you'll hear TING TING TING because the Boom Boom Boom has become BOOM BOOM BOOM, and in order to hear the ting ting ting they have to make it as loud as the other parts of the song.

On well mastered vinyl, the LOUD mastering cannot be done because it distorts the vocals and instruments, and so you hear it the way it was (theoretically) intended to be. If the ting was supposed to be ting, would the musicians not have recorded it that way?

:shrug:

:laugh:

[HoursAndHours]

A lot of artists are going back to recording on 2" tape because it has a feel you just can't get from digital...

Here's an interview you might find interesting where Benmont Tench of the Heartbreakers discusses the finer points of going from tape straight to vinyl http://soundbard.com/go-ahead-and-spin-it-to-me-benmont-tench-breaks-down-why-he-loves-lucky-on-vinyl/

Yeah, my understanding is that the "feel" is mostly psychosomatic/subjective - people think they hear a difference, but then when they're asked which they prefer, half the time they choose digital. All of this is fine though , if you like it better one way, by all means record and listen to it in your preferred format.

There's definitely a difference between vinyl and CD (and cassette, and digi download). I like the way vinyl sounds too, and the size of the packaging and having actual "sides" of the record. But I can't afford a turntable right now, so I will be buying it on CD.

It's interesting that Benmont Tench brought up the Stones in this interview though, as I don't think they've used analog for their studio projects in 25 years.

The science and tech behind it all says that people are generally biased and crazy when they say vinyl sounds better, and they are probably technically right about that. Every human ear is a little different, though, and people like what they like, regardless of what experts say about it.

Right, but if it sounds better to them, even if it is just in their heads, great - enjoy the record that much more. ;)

You make a good point about cheaply pressed records too. Cheap and/or damaged vinyl sounds horrible.

[michelej1]

This is when Ebay comes in handy. Search for quality turntables at a discounted price. When you decide on one, make sure the seller has plenty of good feedback. Buy it and then buy a new cartridge and you've got yourself a class system that didn't cost you a fortune.

Michele

[Macfanforever]

I say vinyl has a warmer tone then the tinny CD has also artwork that you dont need a magnifying glass to reed it as I need to see the artwork on a CD.

Also the album probably will out last the CD copy if its takin care of.Especially those cheap CD's.

[AnthonyMI]

Yes, you do not NEED to spend $4000 on a system to hear the quality of Vinyl. BUT, MOST ALL the stereos at BEst Buy are simply not capable of reproducing the quality of vintage systems.

A Yamaha is a good receiver though. Those, and Denon, are maybe the last quality receivers left that can sound good and bring back the sound of the old systems. However, only when connected to GOOD speakers. Not simple bookshelf speakers.

My Pioneer sx-1010 costs around $500 "restored" on ebay. It was original from 1974-ish. IT is consitered one of the best ever made. I also have a Yamaha CA-1010, also one of the best Yamaha produced in those years. Both have the solid state IN YOUR FACE sound that lots of Sonys off the shelf just dont do.