Back by Popular Demand: Vinyl Records

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
Fueled by the nostalgia craze and the purists love for the real thing, record companies are failing to keep up with the demand since CDs replaced vinyl and most of the vinyl press shops went out of business. One company, Fat Possum Records solved the problem by opening its very own pressing plant. :cool:
 
I grew up with vinyl records and they sound like shit. If shit sounding nostalgia is your thing, vinyl is good for that.
 
lol, incoming cliches alert. What is old is new again and the more things change, the more they stay the same.
 
Methadras said:
Same, but the purists and n00bs want to hear the pops and clicks because they think that is the original intent of the recording.
Click to expand...

That was not the original intent of the recording. Those were limitations of the recording process. Trust me, if they could have turned out lossless compression audio in the vinyl days at a cost the average consumer could afford, the "record" companies would have.

No musician ever wanted their music to have pops and clicks in it. (I am sure there is an exception to that rule however.)

I do however get your point. It is however idiotic to me personally.
 
Methadras said:
Same, but the purists and n00bs want to hear the pops and clicks because they think that is the original intent of the recording.
Click to expand...

Yea I don't really get it myself. I think if they have any beef that might be valid it's with some of the newer albums being set "too loud" vs older CD releases but vinyl is too scratchy for my liking.
 
I also forgot to say that people have a never ending fountain of being dopey. Wanting vinyl is almost no different.
 
the purists love for the real audible noise floor with pops clicks scratches warble colored by temperature humidity dirty needles old tube power amps and speakers with crappy crossovers thing
Click to expand...

FTFY

But most "purists" are more like Neil Young and less like Nyquist.
 
Methadras said:
Same, but the purists and n00bs want to hear the pops and clicks because they think that is the original intent of the recording.
Click to expand...
It's a hobby like any other. I used to think like Kyle, until I got to know Harold Beveridge in the 1980's. He was a loudspeaker designer in Santa Barbara and most of his reference systems were top-end analog. In every respect (instrument placement, etc) I've never heard anything like it before or since. From vinyl.

I forget if it was David Byrne or David Bowie who said that digital music fills the ears and leaves the soul empty. That pretty much nails it imo. True fidelity isn't even in the realm of possibility, with the lowpass filters and other garbage required to get from analog to digital.
 
Methadras said:
Same, but the purists and n00bs want to hear the pops and clicks because they think that is the original intent of the recording.
Click to expand...
There were flaws / distortions in playback other than 'clicks' and 'pops' that a good producer would allow for that when a direct copy from the final master would not produce the intended result in digital. Or some fucking genius would decide to remix the song to put his artistic stamp on it. So when fans of old records first bought CD's the reproductions were usually complete shit.
 
i didnt realize there was a demand. the only reason vinyl is cool is for rare albums never produced on another format.
 
JeffDC said:
I forget if it was David Byrne or David Bowie who said that digital music fills the ears and leaves the soul empty. That pretty much nails it imo. True fidelity isn't even in the realm of possibility, with the lowpass filters and other garbage required to get from analog to digital.
Click to expand...

Yep, 44.1 KHz /16 bit LPCM used for Compact Disc falls short of what it should have been. I've been buying HD audio via DVD-A, Blu-Ray Audio or HD Tracks and going from 16 bit to 24 bit opens things up a lot.

Of course it really boils down to the quality of the initial source. If the master tapes/recordings are less than spectacular, then it doesn't matter if it's a perfect press of an album or 192 KHz / 24 bit FLAC, it's only going to sound as good as the lowest quality part of the recording or play back system.
 
JeffDC said:
I forget if it was David Byrne or David Bowie who said that digital music fills the ears and leaves the soul empty. That pretty much nails it imo. True fidelity isn't even in the realm of possibility, with the lowpass filters and other garbage required to get from analog to digital.
Click to expand...

I find it hard to believe people buying Vinyl today are doing it for any other reason than "it's the hip thing to do", kind of like it was the hip thing to do to dump all your CD's when MP3's and iTunes caught on......and it was the hip thing to do to buy everything you owned on Cassette and Vinyl on CD when those finally started to come out.

Next up, the return of large-format box photography....for the masses. iBoxCamera
 
44.1 KHz /16 bit LPCM used for Compact Disc falls short of what it should have been
Click to expand...

Patently false. Provide results of a blind comparison test that demonstrates people, even "golden ear" experts, can discern differences above 44/16. You won't, because in over three decades, no one has. Science > anecdotal garbage.
 
i bet they download audio from their bands off youtube and press that onto vinyl. hipsters will still love the "warmth" of crappy audio.
 
HeadRusch said:
I find it hard to believe people buying Vinyl today are doing it for any other reason than "it's the hip thing to do", kind of like it was the hip thing to do to dump all your CD's when MP3's and iTunes caught on......and it was the hip thing to do to buy everything you owned on Cassette and Vinyl on CD when those finally started to come out.

Next up, the return of large-format box photography....for the masses. iBoxCamera
Click to expand...

You might not be far off with the photography stuff, would not be surprised if daguerreotypes came back.
 
I can see it now the 12 inch slot in the dash of my car.

Re: photos. I don't think digital has equaled the quality of the old Kodachome stuff.
 
HeadRusch said:
I find it hard to believe people buying Vinyl today are doing it for any other reason than "it's the hip thing to do"
Click to expand...
It probably accounts for most imo, like any other fad, but it also ignores thousands or millions of audiophiles around the world. I still believe one is not in a position to finally judge unless they've heard top-end analog, which ime not many people have.
 
webdev511 said:
Yep, 44.1 KHz /16 bit LPCM used for Compact Disc falls short of what it should have been. I've been buying HD audio via DVD-A, Blu-Ray Audio or HD Tracks and going from 16 bit to 24 bit opens things up a lot.

Of course it really boils down to the quality of the initial source. If the master tapes/recordings are less than spectacular, then it doesn't matter if it's a perfect press of an album or 192 KHz / 24 bit FLAC, it's only going to sound as good as the lowest quality part of the recording or play back system.
Click to expand...

False, only a computer can tell the difference between 16-bit and 24-bit sound, the human ear is not fast enough/accurate enough to tell the difference

Not to mention the human ear can't tell the difference between at 160kbit mp3 or 120kbit OPUS file vs a FLAC file, a computer can, but the human ear can't

But people will forever insist FLAC is better cause of made up reasons, or they have "ears so good" only they can hear the difference

Its like that blind audiophile test they did years ago with several industry majors who all advocated raw/FLAC like formats, when put to the test they were incredibly wrong, so wrong they refused their names to be used, not because they were embarrassed they were wrong, but because if they said they couldn't tell the difference the rest of the "industry" would shun them

And why? Cause other producers also believe they can tell the difference

Just encode everything at 160kbit OPUS and you'll never need FLAC again
 
Vinyl records don't sound better. They just sound different. And they're nowhere near as accurate as a digital recording. These are the facts.
 
FLAC is better because it can be objectively proven. Whether it sounds better or not is moot.
 
One thing people might be enjoying more than the sound is the actual act of taking a vinyl record out of its sleeve, putting it on the turntable, and placing the needle. It's the same thing with folks enjoying physical books over e-readers (who I number among). The tactile experience is satisfying, and it can't be reproduced digitally by swiping your fingers around on a touchscreen.
 
Megalith said:
Vinyl records don't sound better. They just sound different. And they're nowhere near as accurate as a digital recording. These are the facts.
Click to expand...

Define accurate. Last I heard, analog sound uses sine waves and digital recordings are simulated sine waves. How could that possibly be more accurate?

Records are kind of pointless nowadays though because the music is being recorded digitally in the first place.
 
Knight_of_BAAWA said:
If they sound like shit, either you need a new needle or you need to clean the album. A clean album with a good needle sounds so much richer and warmer than a CD--especially in the current loudness-war-brickwall-because-idiots-will-buy-Beats-garbage-anyway climate.

Seriously: which of these would you rather listen to (for the record, they are both FLAC):

BonJovi-RaiseYourHands.jpg


Your idea of the lossless compression back then if-possible-and-cost does make sense.
Click to expand...

I am with you but Bon Jovi? Really?

Anyway, yes. A good vinyl setup sounds lush to me. Plus the album covers are sometimes sweet.
 
Record warmth is just the stylus dragging through plastic.

Meh, I'll take digital, I can grab the song faster before the mood for it is half gone.
 
prime2515102 said:
Define accurate. Last I heard, analog sound uses sine waves and digital recordings are simulated sine waves. How could that possibly be more accurate?

Records are kind of pointless nowadays though because the music is being recorded digitally in the first place.
Click to expand...

Accuracy is defined by the artist or mixer's original intent. The track staying in analog form is irrelevant because it's inevitably altered by the way that records are manufactured and played back.

I've come to believe that the "warmth" that vinyl enthusiasts go on about is grossly distorted low-end.
 
I always thought records sounded neat, but not more than that. It definitely is a different sound. Digital can still be good though, while the medium does have a role to play, the actual recording does too. For example the "loudness wars" thing. It just so happens back in the record days it was not a issue like it is now.
 
Knight_of_BAAWA said:
If they sound like shit, either you need a new needle or you need to clean the album. A clean album with a good needle sounds so much richer and warmer than a CD--especially in the current loudness-war-brickwall-because-idiots-will-buy-Beats-garbage-anyway climate.

Seriously: which of these would you rather listen to (for the record, they are both FLAC):

Your idea of the lossless compression back then if-possible-and-cost does make sense.
Click to expand...
As a "borderline" audiophile myself, those waveforms actually piss me off even more. I basically agree with Kyle's premise that, looking at the merits inherent to each format, high-resolution digital trumps vinyl any day of the week. I also agree with your premise that the loudness war is a travesty.

The real solution: end the loudness war, OR at least offer digital downloads of "audiophile" masters, equivalent to what's currently used for vinyl masters.

If anything, these separate vinyl masters that really are better (less compressed) only perpetuate the problem by giving more ammo to scientifically-illiterate vinyl hipsters. Reserving the superior master for the inferior format means everyone loses.
 
ShamisOMally said:
False, only a computer can tell the difference between 16-bit and 24-bit sound, the human ear is not fast enough/accurate enough to tell the difference

Not to mention the human ear can't tell the difference between at 160kbit mp3 or 120kbit OPUS file vs a FLAC file, a computer can, but the human ear can't

But people will forever insist FLAC is better cause of made up reasons, or they have "ears so good" only they can hear the difference

Its like that blind audiophile test they did years ago with several industry majors who all advocated raw/FLAC like formats, when put to the test they were incredibly wrong, so wrong they refused their names to be used, not because they were embarrassed they were wrong, but because if they said they couldn't tell the difference the rest of the "industry" would shun them

And why? Cause other producers also believe they can tell the difference

Just encode everything at 160kbit OPUS and you'll never need FLAC again
Click to expand...
You have a point, but you're exaggerating. It depends on the recording, as well as the playback system. There are certainly situations where 160-192 kbps MP3 is not transparent, and I've passed ABX tests on such clips (comparing against FLAC/WAV) with my modest setup.

Now, I would agree that 320 kbps MP3 is transparent is essentially every case. If you just want a good listening experience, maximum-bitrate MP3/AAC/OGG should suffice. But there are other advantages to lossless formats -- particularly the ability to transcode to other lossy formats/compression levels as needed. To put it another way, when I decided to dedicate dozens of hours to ripping my entire CD collection years ago, I chose FLAC because a) I have the space for it, b) it's a true backup of the disc, and c) I could then transcode to either lossy or other lossless formats as needed for the rest of my life without touching the disc again.
 
reel to reel tape was always a superior format to vinyl... vinyl the quality drops as you get closer to the inside of the record...

and before the "har har tapes suck" comments keep in mind most pre-90s digital recordings were made onto 2" 24 track tape masters long before they became CDs
 

*whistles....
j/k :D

I would if my father did with his Sylvania spinner and 8 track after he gave me his old stereo?
 
FLECOM said:
reel to reel tape was always a superior format to vinyl... vinyl the quality drops as you get closer to the inside of the record...

and before the "har har tapes suck" comments keep in mind most pre-90s digital recordings were made onto 2" 24 track tape masters long before they became CDs
Click to expand...

Yep, and that tape is VERY expensive. Casette tapes are to Casio keyboards as a professional reel-to-reel setup is to a Steinway concert grand.
 
Great! I love this trend. There is a 5-6,000 Collection of Vinyl Records in my family that I need to start indexing and then setup up a web site to sell them!

Can't wait!:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top