Styleforum › Forums › General › Entertainment and Culture › Records / Vinyl versus CDs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Records / Vinyl versus CDs

post #1 of 37
5/19/09 at 10:05pm
Thread Starter 
I was listening to WMMR (out of Phila) and the DJ (Pierre Robert) does a daily playing of vinyl.

He was talking to someone from Papa Roach and they were discussing how there's "new" vinyl (very thick) that actually sounds better, has better sound quality than CDs.

Anyone know anything about this or have an opinion?
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 37
5/19/09 at 10:09pm
That "new" vinyl he is referring to is probably the 180 gram stuff that tends to be done for reissues of certain alums. They usually have a seal that says "Audiophile Grade" or something. There is also 200 gram, which is usually found with jazz and classical. I believe the heavier the vinyl, the less prone they are to warping.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 37
5/19/09 at 10:11pm
I thought most records tend to sound better than cds.

Another question I have is that new vinyl that is released by current bands, isn't the majority of it recorded digitally....so how could it sound any different than cds?
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 37
5/19/09 at 10:15pm
This is a thread for Artisan Fran.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 37
5/19/09 at 10:25pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LabelKing View Post
That "new" vinyl he is referring to is probably the 180 gram stuff that tends to be done for reissues of certain alums. They usually have a seal that says "Audiophile Grade" or something.

There is also 200 gram, which is usually found with jazz and classical.

I believe the heavier the vinyl, the less prone they are to warping.



That sounds right. I remember them saying something about how "heavy" it was or how it was much heavier than the old records.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 37
5/20/09 at 12:28am
I have a bunch of heavy 150-180-200g vinyl and it sounds pretty good to me. However Michael Jackson 25th anniversary album was warped form the factory and Jeff Buckley Grace album had some dust and residue. So not all new vinyl is made well. It is usually produced by two "bearded dudes" or two "tattooed dudes" who don't care much about QC. So know your sources and Labels cause they don't like returned merchandise...
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 37
5/20/09 at 11:53am
A friend of mine works at Best Buy and he told me the reissues and new releases on vinyl sell better than the cds. When I went to his store a few months ago I was amazed at how many new albums were released on vinyl. "Chinese Democracy", Metallica's new one, and a few others, plus all the reissues of The Who and others. I've got a few hundred vinyl records and I inherited my uncle's awesome turn table {direct drive Sony, that probably weighs 40 pounds}, so when I get a little money, I may have to pick up some of these new records and check them out.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 37
5/20/09 at 1:24pm
I hate CDs for music. Carrying around a folder of albums in your car or whatever like everybody used to do sucks. Records at least sound better but they are even less practical to keep. I can see how CDs don't sell because you can just go download the damn things, I mean who wouldn't? Seems like people who buy records these days get them for different reasons than somebody buying a CD.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 37
5/20/09 at 2:46pm
I don't deal with physical media anymore.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 37
5/20/09 at 2:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biscotti View Post
I thought most records tend to sound better than cds.

Another question I have is that new vinyl that is released by current bands, isn't the majority of it recorded digitally....so how could it sound any different than cds?

It's the playback that makes vinyl sound warmer, not the recording process. Vinyl playback provides a wider range of frequencies than do CDs, particularly on the low end.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 37
5/20/09 at 3:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG View Post
It's the playback that makes vinyl sound warmer, not the recording process.
Yes, absolutely. Also for some reason, record companies seem to feel compelled to do a better job mastering and mixing LP releases than their CD counterparts, which get squished to make them play super loud.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG View Post
Vinyl playback provides a wider range of frequencies than do CDs, particularly on the low end.
CDs have far superior bass. CD can reproduce perfectly down to practically DC with its entire dynamic range. (It's not really DC since CD doesn't have infinite playtime, but 1/(60*80) Hz is DC for all practical purposes.) LP has mono bass, lots of bass distortion, and very limited bass dynamic range. LPs do have more extended high frequencies, but are orders of magnitude more distorted, have much higher noise, and worse channel separation. It's also debatable how important frequencies above 20 kHz are, and even if they are important, almost no speaker will play back those frequencies. --Andre
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 37
5/20/09 at 3:40pm
I am not a fan of buying records if I can find the title on a digital media. However that is strictly for my personal convenience. In terms of quality analog recording is a closer representation of the actual music being played. Even the most high-end digital recording methods are still limited to synthesizing sine waves as rigid 1's and 0's.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 37
5/20/09 at 4:22pm
I much prefer vinyl in terms of sound, but it's incredibly inconvenient. My father is an audiophile and prefers vinyl and SACD's and has a relatively expensive rig at his house.

I'm also spoiled because of that system. Most digital media is nigh-unlistenable to me if it's not lossless or a high bitrate. I think iAudio/Cowon players are the only ones available in the US that I feel have adequate sound quality. I eventually imported a Kenwood Media Keg.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 37
5/20/09 at 4:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeCaloFashion1 View Post
In terms of quality analog recording is a closer representation of the actual music being played.

Even the most high-end digital recording methods are still limited to synthesizing sine waves as rigid 1's and 0's.

Not really, and your explanation of digital recording isn't right either. Analog is about as artificial as digital is --- they're just different artificial ways of representing reality. For example, is a rock more analog or digital?

--Andre
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 37
5/20/09 at 6:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biscotti View Post
I thought most records tend to sound better than cds.

Another question I have is that new vinyl that is released by current bands, isn't the majority of it recorded digitally....so how could it sound any different than cds?

Keep in mind that on the production end, the digital resolution is probably 24 bit, 192 kHz-- whether or not that makes a tremendous difference is debatable. Also bear in mind the bottlenecks encountered on the consumer end. Not all DACs are created equal. Even a review of the $90,000 Continuum Caliburn turntable noted that it's still possible to get higher quality out of a CD, but an equivalently audiophile CD system would end up costing even more.

They're finally digitally re-mastering the Beatles catalog. For the last 25 years, the official recording have been the 80s masters from back before they figured out that you master for digital differently than you master for vinyl. Up until now, the canonical CD versions were the "Purple chick" recordings, which were digital recordings of vinyl. Matching the skill and equipment of the masterers of yore isn't necessarily a trivial task.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Entertainment and Culture
Styleforum › Forums › General › Entertainment and Culture › Records / Vinyl versus CDs