Turntable got absolutely crushed by CD
"Digital cost nothing…" https://www.amazon.com/Hotel-California-EAGLES/dp/B0052VI2V6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1543969607&a... https://www.amazon.com/Hotel-California-DVD-Audio-Surround-Sound/dp/B00005T5YK/ref=sr_1_1_twi_dvd_1?... It is about your age. Slightly more expensive digital than vinyl. |
If there are armies of vinyl-obsessed people in their teens, twenties, maybe even thirties, on these forums, could you please identify yourselves. We know you exist and vinyl is the only way and digital is horrible and younger crowd threw away their iPhones and Spotify and are fighting for a better place in line while waiting for a record store to open on the day of a new release. Due to popular demand, Wal-Mart in the USA may open vinyl department in all of the stores very soon. In fact, given the incredible resurgence of interest in vinyl, Wal-Mart is already too late to the party. And party is full of early twenty-somethings, and not of the crowd who knew nothing better than records in their youth. Nothing existed. Not nothing better, nothing at all. And then dinosauri got extinct... |
orpheus10, That is what I meant. It must have been wonderful, the best sound ever. I still suspect that today, compared to current players and all these debates about wires, fuses, blacker blacks, wider soundstages, and what not, they would be considered imperfect. However, emotional impact must have been beyond belief. I have never heard one. |
prof, Your inclination to keep things "proper and pure" is understandable. In theory, I am that way. In practice, some records I would have liked to listen to again (after a decades-long hiatus) had to be digitized regardless of the audiophile-approved result. Cars, Walkman for planes, and all that. None of which is audiophile environment, but I cannot change it. The semi-perfectionist worm inside made me go for DSD but that is the only concession. Which all reminds me that, once upon a time, there were record players for cars. And now we babble about minutia of the records meant to be played in them. We should ask kids who had dates in those cars listening to those records how they are really supposed to sound. I bet they were as low-fi as they could get and as exciting as anything we have these days, or more. |
By the way, I just copied that Famous Blue Raincoat record I had mentioned earlier into digital format (DSD 2.8). If there is a difference, it is not that is negligible. It is that it really does not matter. It is very very small, at best, and that is me giving it benefit of the doubt. So, it is a digital recording from last century, pressed on vinyl, played on a less-than-truly-audiophile analog equipment, and then transferred to decent digital format via the cheapest machine I could find. I have no idea what it all means except that digital is more convenient in the long run. Good news: There will be no more news about Famous Blue Raincoat. |
elizabeth, It is already slowly creeping up. The hippest of the hipsters in Williamsburg (Brooklyn) are already in for CDs and not LPs. The only correction your post may need is that their parents listened to CDs, not LPs. Why did hipster burn his tongue? He drank coffee before it was cool. (as told by an 11-year-old girl) |
kahlenz, It was me who mentioned Exile On Main St. I think I have same CD as you do. My record is from 1982. It sounds "perfect" to the point that I digitalized it so it is available for portable devices. My friend agrees. However, listening carefully, record is missing tones, even dynamics (hello loudness wars) and is objectively probably inferior. I like it more. It is likely due to it being what my mind tells me it is supposed to be. |
"Check out the CDs at most thrift stores and you’ll find by and large most of them are reissues that fall under the category of aggressively compressed. That’s because collectors of which there are a great number dump them like hot potatoes."The first part is likely true, but the second part may have different explanation. For example, people dumping CDs altogether. Not that long ago, my local library was overflooded with LPs. Some really old. It was not due to collectors dumping them. It was more like their descendants dumping them. Maybe people who owned these thrift-store CDs are not all dead yet, but they may be dumping the format they consider obsolete. |
folkfreak, "Reminds me of the old Linn Analog/Digital issue of tracks from Ossian -- one side recorded analog and the other digital..."The deal would be in finding exactly the same recording, recorded simultaneously in both formats, and then have analog on vinyl and digital on CD or whatever other digital format possible. This Linn record on one side invites "recorded digital and pressed on vinyl, no good" comments. However, it would still be interesting to hear if there is any difference. Let us know. |
minorl,
It was not that expensive when it was released, I think I paid $60 for it (it is three records in a very protective packaging, almost of Japanese kind). It is not something that I ever listen to, but bought it just because I was curious why it got such a treatment. I have a feeling they simply tried to make it as good as they could and wanted to charge for it. Sort of, expected it to be a "reference" level for the record people actually want to listen to. I may be wrong on all accounts. I really wonder how it would sound on some truly good gear that all of you have. |
"Digital recording pressed in vinyl vs a digital recording on digital. Now, listen to a real analog recording on analog record vs a the CD of that recording and we can talk." If Exile On Main St. is considered analog, I prefer the record but CD I have around would be objectively better. I think I like the record because it is how I heard it when it mattered. That is not that much of a recording pinnacle so it may not be fair to judge based on it. Beggars Banquet, Italian pressing from about 1980, is, to me, not as good as 2003 SACD. Same for German pressings of It’s Only Rock’n’Roll and Goat’s Head Soup vs. CDs. However, I enjoy watching the yellow label rotating and that is where record is unbeatable. For now, digital recording pressed on vinyl vs. a digital recording on digital seemed to me significantly better which is about the opposite from what OP found. Based on a minuscule sample of one, it may be less to it than all the theories we make would make us believe. I did no fine adjustments, obviously crossed analog/digital recording divide, and used less-than-revered analog equipment using integrated amplifier’s phono input. Is there any recording that exists as digital and analog at the same time? That would be the only way to compare without having objections that it is digital pressed on vinyl or vice versa. Unless we find such a recording, we may not have anything to talk about, it seems. |
Out of sheer curiosity, I just tried, more or less, what OP did but with less effort. Being one of the less biased participants here (I cannot care less what sounds better, in fact), I compared same album on a record and CD with one more added bonus. CD was Jennifer Warnes’ Famous Blue Raincoat, 20th Anniversary issue, regular one that used to be in stores for $15-20. Record was Jennifer Warnes’ Famous Blue Raincoat, 20th Anniversary issue, 45rpm, 180 g (maybe 200?), Cisco Music limited edition (1833/6000) in mint condition played maybe three or four times before this. On my, for this forum, low-fi equipment and with no expectations on which one would win, it was beyond simple. To paraphrase/quote OP, record crushed CD. It was really no dispute, not even remotely. Everything, but really everything, was better on the record. For once, it was even quiet like CD. Eerie, to be honest. Of note, my turntable was set up at some point in a couple of minutes, not months or years as some do. No VTA setting, azimuth, or any other sophisticated measurement. Just 52 mm to needle, set approximately by eyes and with a ruler. Azimuth approximated by staring at it. Kind of what you do when you do not want to spend life tuning-in your turntable. No special stands, isolation, nothing. This was the result of one record/CD comparison. Not much of a sample, for sure. It made me wonder about all the turntable set-ups and "matching" and whatever else that, sort of, discredited OP’s comparison. It seems to me that turntable is much less important than the record itself. In my case, to the point of "as long as it runs, it is good enough". It may not be in the format, but in execution of it. I also compared original CD from years before this 20th Anniversary issue wondering what the deal was with "remasters are no good, loudness wars, etc." I read from time to time. Well, remaster was better to me but a little bit of mental bias could change that for someone. Turntable is Technics SL-Q2 with Soundsmith Otello cartridge. Give OP a break, his stuff is actually decent. My turntable has more years than cartridge hours (20-25-30 hours, I would guess). Should I add that I think that digital is actually superior format. Even for me whose vinyl life is much simpler than most. No adjustments, no tweaks. |
dynaquest4, You are right but do not get too upset about this. cleeds seems to attract some negative energy and, despite frequently disagreeing with her/his views, I do not think it is deserved. This "infected boil" thing was mentioned in the past with humorous responses by other posters. It is obviously something else at play than just disagreement or personal animosity. clearthink does deserve a praise for consistency, effort, and thoroughness. It is not easy, practical, and convenient never to miss mentioning three things in a row in each sentence, thought, or description. It does seem like a part of a bigger problem, unusual presentation, or stronger feelings, and not only bad manners, unacceptable behavior, and lack of anything meaningful to say. Huh, this was not easy. |
chakster, One more thing. If it is fun you are in this for, and I believe you are and you should be, exploring digital may be a good idea. Give it a chance. You can keep your analog everything and start playing with digital. More toys you might have not even thought of. You, basically, double the fun and that is really fun. |
chakster, I understand the concept of master tapes and them not being for us and vinyl being some sort of our "original" although it is not truly original. I approach it that way, too, but original it is not.
Historically true but, if chasing the true sound that artists from then thought we would be hearing, we should not be buying turntables and cartridges now. Much less multi-thousand-dollar cartridges which are surely way better at extracting whatever is on the record. Artists in 1966 were not expecting us to use such things. They probably did not even exist. We should be playing on "period instruments". 1960s record on 1960s turntable etc. All else, following the logic "artists made it that way for us" may be overshooting the target.
In your case, I would say that a good digital copy may prolong the life of your record. I assume it is much easier to buy fancier and fancier cartridge these days than it is to buy records that you seem to prefer. It is much simpler to play digital files than records. There is really no comparison. I am not saying that the overall experience is better, but it is way simpler. "I can not take seriously anything in digital, i want an original phisycal media format (vinyl)" This is where you may be doing yourself disservice. Explore a bit. I am not saying you should stop buying records, but see if digital these days is as bad as you remember. Not your iPhone, of course, but some more audio-focused set-up. I also want everything in physical format, even if I put it on a hard drive as soon as I buy it, but that is a preference based on growing-up and what not. It is not some fantastic advantage.
Most of the "younger" people out there would disagree, if they ever cared to consider thinking about it. As far as higher resolutions go, I would disagree. It does get quite good.
That is true, it cannot be more true I think. That does not make digital horrible and those preferring it having no taste, though. I prefer the idea of records, convenience of digital, and sound of whatever I have around. "I had more fun with cassete tapes many years ago than with all that digital files today."Didn't we all have more fun with everything many years ago than we have today? Nostalgia can be a powerful perspective-changer. |
iamhe, The link you provided, as informative as it may be on some basic level, is a bit old and outdated on some level. DVD-Audio has practically died many years ago. Yes, it was better sound quality than CD but that might have been the only advantage and someone came up with other ways of file storage and here we are, 2018. |
Vinyl is a copy, too. It is not the original source. In your case (rare records), digital copies may be limiting factor and it is understandable that you do not want a bad digital copy. Try copying into good digital copy. Maybe it has improved since the last time and I am not trying to poke. It may surprise you, if you have not tried in a while. Maybe 50% (or whatever the percentage of digital-preferring crowd) people here are not completely clueless and do have some taste. Give it a chance. |
"Vinyl and analog gear is an investment, the real things that only rise up in price in time." Not so fast... https://www.audiogon.com/listings/lis97c3b-technics-sl-7-linear-tracking-turntable-turntables https://www.gramophone.co.uk/editorial/review-technics-sl-7-turntable. http://www.in2013dollars.com/1981-GBP-in-2018?amount=200 "In other words, £200 in 1981 is equivalent in purchasing power to £744.59 in 2018, a difference of £544.59 over 37 years" |
"Remember when you lost a Hard Drive with all information on it, it happens with computer hard drive." 4 TB hard drive can be had for $99 at times. They are simple to copy as a back up and can be stored in different locations for safe-keeping. Different houses, towns, continents. It does get a bit tedious to populate all those back-up drives with new music as it takes as much time as cleaning the record but there is something called "cloud storage" these days, too. Used, but "very good+" condition of 2014 Sgt. Pepper's mono record can be had for a bit over $100, if you are lucky, and more likely $150. In the most-space consuming digital formats, that hard drive can fit hundreds of Sgt. Peppers'. I may be the only one out there who has ever lost a record, but I am looking for two single records that I had somehow misplaced/lost. I bought new ones now and am, to prevent further loss, putting them on hard drives. So, I do remember when I lost a record but have not lost a hard drive yet. PS: All the examples above are from my own experience. Hard drive, Sgt. Pepper's, houses, towns, and continents. No cloud yet, though. |
"...when somebody walks in the room and makes the record player skip......in the long run to replace your records because they’re scratched......Been there done that."You are so right. I had a deja vu recently while copying some records to digital format. Telling everyone to walk lighter and be careful when closing the door. It was nostalgic, though, although not in the best possible way. And in the end, some records were noisy enough that I bought them again and am redoing it again. No walking, no door closing. Inconvenient for sure. Been there, done that, as you said. |
"I own thousands of LP’s...…...Analog needs not only money, a lot of learning patience..."I see that many of you guys have a lots of records and cannot but wonder if you ever thought of switching to digital because of space constraints. Even CDs take less space, not to mention hard drives. Although I am not on as sophisticated analog level as any of you, I avoid buying records because of storage issues and consider digital superior on that level. I know, it is not about the sound but it does play a role when choosing the medium. I do buy records, I am awaiting for ten of them to arrive these days, but it is when they are really unavoidable for some reason. Admittedly, for all ten of these the reason is expected sound quality. And then I digitize them and put them away. Blasphemy, I know. |
"I bet everyone would love to have a turntable and vinyl collection of the favorite albums..."That is a bit of a stretch. People do not even have favorite albums these days, much less are they interested in collecting them on vinyl in any number significant for anything except theoretical debate about marketing power. I know exactly zero people interested in having a collection of favorite albums on vinyl. I know one youngish lady (late 20s) who was very excited to buy a record player. She put it in her wish list on Amazon. A little $80 machine. She has no records and is not really planning to start buying them. She wants a record player because it looks cool and she wants to be cool. That is in her words, not mine. What the heck, even I am not interested in having a collection of my favorite albums on vinyl. And I actually have it and have just (this morning) bought yet another copy of Exile On Main St. (half-speed master) on vinyl which is far from my favorite album anyway. Those youngster LPs will find the way to thrift shops, once the urge to be cool gives way to reality of life and fitting the crib in the room becomes way more important than impressing some new companion. |
chadsort, This is to remind you that things sometimes are not what you were told they have to be. The idea of vinyl sounding superior to digital has become something close to religion. You are almost not allowed to say it is not always true. No matter how we take it, your example emphasizes the fact that digital is way more convenient and user-friendly for people who do not want to chase the sound. You could improve your analog sound by doing all things suggested, rightfully so, by all the posts here. It might move you more and you may find it phenomenal. However, it will take time and money. If it is ever not perfect, you will have many explanations why it is not. You not adjusting it right, capacitors doing something, equipment being mediocre, stylus having 18 extra hours on it, or something along those lines. Conclusion is always "if it does not sound heavenly, something is wrong with your set-up". It is never "well, it is just because that is the way it is with analog". Or you could slip a CD in your player, press "PLAY" and be just fine with not much less bliss. Having said that, I will put a record on my turntable now. I like it and it is truly inferior to my CD player. |
