Buying new vinyl?

I know this touch has been discussed for some tome, bit the situation might have changed and I'm just getting into vinyl as I can't stand digital anymore. I thought it was just a matter of getting a good dac but I changed my mind when I tried one. It still sounded digital.

I see that new vinyl is being sold but some claim that Waxtime for instance is simply producing vinyl from CD's. Has the situation changed? Are there any places online to buy vinyl produced from the old analogue masters?
Music Direct. It will be mainly older recordings remastered. Almost anything being recorded new is being recorded to Digital. By the way I love vinyl but have almost stopped playing lps since I got my Metrum Hex dac. Non oversampling dacs like Metrum, Audio Note and the Teredac Chamelion sound very much like analog with no digital artifacts
There sure is. As stated above Music Direct and Acoustic Sounds are both top notch. Be sure you read the return policy. Check out Amazon, their return policy is bullet proof. Like Arh says, a lot of NEW music will be from digital masters, but not all. Do your homework before you buy. I buy new stuff from Popmarket and the few local stores that sell new vinyl. I still prefer vinyl to digital even though I have a decent digital front end (Meridian). YMMV, have fun.
Thanks Alan. Good to know. As for digital, I wish I felt the same. It would be so much easier. I'm not throwing away my CDs, though, but I now look at digital/analogue like transister/tube -- they will always be different.
3rd Amazon , just look for the original stuff . It will be used but at least it will not have had the life sucked out of it by being digitized .
With the resurgence of vinyl , I am finding the " Professional " flea marketers have some pretty good stuff for only a couple of bucks ! Usually equal to what Amazon charges $8 - $12 including shipping .
At the flea markets , don't be afraid of a few scuffs etc.
They may not look pretty but usually don't pose many problems . Mostly quite listenable , even if they do have a few freckles ! For $2 it is hard to go wrong !

Happy Tunes

I have a top quality analog set up. I have a reasonably decent digital front end too but never use it. I agree, digital always sounds like digital. I'm not talking about the digital glare of the 1990s but the flat lifeless sound which has never compared to good analog which still prevails. I've heard the best world class digital with HD downloads at show after show and I've never walked out of a room saying " I gotta have that," Yes, my cdp is going on this website this week in the hopes I can sell it. Several hundred cds are going to give away before Thursday for donation. By the way, digital on vinyl as Fremer says always sounds better than its aluminum cousin. He doesn't know why nor do I but it does. I need the room for more records. Let me add that ORG and most reissues pressed at QRP are sounding terrific these days AnalogProductions although I do quite a bit of buying on eBay or Music Stack.
I'm going to take a swing and say my hypothesis on why some people prefer vinyl to digital. Before I begin, let me state I like vinyl and have a big collection.

Having said that, I think many prefer vinyl for a few reasons.
1) It is the sound they grew up with and use as their reference for recorded sound
2) Vinyl has a much higher sound floor than CDs. CDs can be a little to accurate and people find that glaring. The noise level of vinyl masks hard sounds, it is like having a white noise machine on in a noisy office.
3) Not sound related but LP covers are great and add to the music experience.

Recording artists have nearly all moved to digital for numerous reasons, including it being easier, but the quality of digital is more accurate. Every time you re-record the analog master you lose something, with digital that is not the case.
You can buy some good quality albums at Although I will say try and find ORIGINAL used records from garage sales , friends, family, also, Used book stores, or a record convention. Most stores are getting pricey but you can still buy great records for 6 bucks or less from stores like Euclid records. ( stores in ST Louis, New Orleans)
The hunt is half the fun after all. Most new records sound like crap compared to something made in the 80's or prior. Its just to bad the art of record making is a long way from what it once was.
Of all the reissues I have bought, Speakers Corner and Analogue Productions usually provide good sound. It pays to investigate each album before buying.
It always amazes me that there are so many lp's available on ebay which are still unsealed, some as much as 40 or more years old. Many are the first pressings, I buy a lot of them (probably more for nostalgic reasons). Sure some pressings are better than others and not quite up to the quality of many newer audiophile pressings of today but the hunt is part of the fun!


Read my lips my friend. Digital sounds flat and uninteresting by comparison to analog. It isn't glare, at least not all of the time, it isn't record covers, and it isn't surface noise. This is echoed by most of my audiophile friends. I'm not alone. If you like digital, all I can say is lucky you.

Why does vinyl sound more interesting? Is it possible to describe without adjectives like warmer, more exciting, and "better"?

It is a fact that vinyl has a poorer SNR than CD. MC is worse than MM and people prefer MC. Why? Is it more detail even though the actual dynamic resolution is reduced or something else?

Flat to me means less dynamics. The dynamic range of a CD is much greater than that of an LP.

Like I said, I enjoy LP's too and probably have a collection that is much larger than many people on this site, but I understand that it is a limited reproduction system.
This is an interesting discussion. I can see both sides of the debate about digital vs. analog. My digital playback these days is a Sony HAP-Z1ES, which frankly just fixes a lot of problems with most CD players. For analog I have a VPI HW-19 MkIII with an SME Series 3, and a Technics SL1200 Mk2 with full KAB mods. A bunch of cartridges and a VPI-17 record cleaning machine. My electronics are current top level cj tube, speakers are Sony SSAR2. My ears are 66 years old and counting, but a recent check says my hearing is good whatever that means. Anyway, I have several iterations of favorite recordings, favor jazz, but listen to everything. Sometimes the digital sounds the best, especially some of the HiRez releases. Sometimes the vinyl sounds the best. A lot of reissues in mono kick ass on vinyl: Anything from Mosaic, the Beatles Box, a lot of Blue Note is exceptional either way. There is no way to make a categorical statement that one format is superior in all cases. It is a good time to be an audiophile.
The OP posed a situation where he can't stand to listen to digital anymore,
and asked this ANALOG FORUM how to avoid digitally-sourced LPs. In
swoops Scvan with his condescending, dogmatic doggerel about album
covers, familiarity with the sound of an inferior medium, yadda-yadda-yadda,
as though faith in measured numbers is supposed to trump the ear-brain
connection and how we respond emotionally to one medium vs. another.

Hey genius, we tried digital for years, 20 years in my case, and 20 years later
we still found it lacking. You're not going to convert us and most of us who
joined this thread are helping the OP find analog-sourced LPs. Hijacking a
thread to push your agenda is rude, and could be construed as trolling.
I think there's a great community spirit in the audiogon forums, and it's fantastic so many are willing to share their experience. It's great of some like digital. I enjoy it sometimes. The 10 best-sounding CDs in my collection sound really good to me. But my ears have started to recognize the limitations of digital, and I think we have been programmed by the industry to believe that digital is modern (more precise, cleaner, lossless, convinient for modern lifestyles, etc.). Long story short, I have simply fallen for vinyl and tubes from a purely sonic experience. My local dealer says digital can create the same feeling, but that it costs ten times as much. I listened to a 20k dac and was not convinced

Why so personal? Do you have an issue with opinions or facts, or maybe both?

How about a test? Come over with your favorite LP. We'll record at a low 44.1 16bit PCM rate then play it back. We can compare the recorded LP to the digital version of it. If there is a considerable difference I'll get my young ears checked.

The point of my response was not to be dogmatic at all. My point is that you will not hear a difference in an LP mastered in digital versus one that is mastered in analog. In fact the latest stereo set of Beatles albums got great reviews for sonics and those were ADA not AAA. The sound of vinyl comes from the vinyl.

I doubt many people here listen to tape on a pro player like a Studer. That is a more accurate format than LP but certainly doesn't sound the same. There are plenty 15 IPS tapes out there and that should be more analog, no RIAA or dust concerns.
If you like classic rock, punk rock, new wave, etc..70s-early 80s were a great era for vinyl...for the most part...plentiful and cheap...I'm not a big new or reissue guy...but for those that don't reside in a major city and rely on mail order, or for those that simply want a new product, some great options...Sundazed, mofi, etc.
Buy old pressings. There is a sweet spot before too much electronic gimmickry in the studio (and in the instruments themselves unless you are listening to electronic music) created an unnatural glaze. Many of these older pressings sound far more visceral than the "audiophile" re-do's. You have to do your due diligence but the cost of your time and effort will be rewarded and many of these records can be had cheaply if you know what to look for and have the ability to effectively clean the records.
PS: a lot of the audiophile remasters -not all- sound brighter and less of a piece than the original pressings. Whether that is a function of modern taste, the desire for more "detail" at the expense of cohesiveness or compensation for tape aging or other source-related issues, I don't know. But don't assume a fancy recut betters a prosaic original or early press.
Whart's hit the point which is true in most cases.
New audiophile re-s sound thin.
Fwiw...I was impressed with Amoeba records in Frisco...vast selection new/used, fair pricing, etc...believe they do mail order as well. Good luck!
Thanks again!
Scvan- I have no dogma in the fight over digital v analog, but I don't think that Beatles' stereo release was well received for a variety of reasons (the more recent mono set was). I bought one record from the stereo release- Revolver- and it was flat sounding (i.e. sterile and lifeless) and uninvolving. That said, there are plenty of good records on vinyl that came from digital masters (Alison Krauss' 'Live' on MoFi is a nice record) or were remixed and used digital processing to good effect (Tull's Benefit always sounded murky to me, but the re-do a couple years ago really improved the sound- different mix, and digital processing).
The problem that I have encountered is that alot of new releases are of unknown provenance- there is no disclosure requirement on remasters as to source, and even the marketing hype about 'taken from original analog tapes' isn't necessarily a guarantee. Whether it is all analog or not should not matter if the record sounds good, but the reality is, alot of the reissues on vinyl are pretty mediocre sounding. I assume this is because they were mastered from a digital file or the source used wasn't that great to begin with- the problem is, we just don't know until we hear it.
(Not speaking to what Chad does in Kansas, but there are labels that are known for being very hit or miss as to SQ). This means that the uninformed buyer gets jammed or is disappointed- what's the big deal about vinyl, they wonder? I can't tell you how many times I've replaced a record of unknown provenance with an early pressing- often nothing fancy, with dramatic improvements in sound quality.
It is something anybody can assess on a case by case and record by record basis- you can hear and decide pretty quickly if the record sounds more 'real' or more 'reproduced.' (No 'golden ears' required). The downside is, one can spend a fair amount of money having to buy multiple pressings of the same record just to find the one that sounds more like real music, and less like a "canned" reproduction. Whether that is purely an artifact of digital processing, or bad mastering, I don't know.
I agree. It all comes down the the mastering. I don't think the analog vs digital debate is honestly that important. You like vinyl, listen to vinyl, you like CDs, enjoy. But a poorly mastered recording is not going to be good.

As you stated there are some good ones now and some bad ones. I think it has always been that way. There was no "golden" age of mastering.

The buyer has always been uninformed of this, and the present is no different than the past.
The machines used to master an album (A or D) seems irrelevant to me. It is like asking what cutter head was on the cutting machine, or where is the vinyl sourced and what % is virgin. Largely irrelevant. It only matters if you like it or not.

I notice thesame thing with original older vinyl vs the reissue. The original press, even in standard vinyl sounds better than the reissue 180grams.
I think many cd's have been poorly recorded and or compressed to drain all dynamics out of them. Well recorded cd's uncompressed, sound quite good though. LP's in the past weren't compressed to the point the dynamics were lost. Some of the older cd's are way better dynamically than newer re-mastered ones, though they lack some of the new clarity. Wish we could have both the new clarity and old lack of compression more often.

I notice thesame thing with original older vinyl vs the reissue. The original press, even in standard vinyl sounds better than the reissue 180grams.