For the ❤ of vinyl

When CDs came out they were marketed as being fairly indestructible in day to day use type of environment. Besides the digital hype and the “CD” quality of back in the day DAC turning things into music I could plug into my analog amp. There were certainly growing pains. The CD was just easier than a record. You didn’t have to worry about them getting warped, they were easier to transport, store and the idea of cleaning a CD was child’s play when compared to the religious ceremony type of ritual that audiophiles adhered to when cleaning vinyl.

Here we are today, about 30 years after the “death” of vinyl and from what I heard, more music is being sold today on vinyl than on CD and it’s the number one source of actual tangible medium music sales.

I miss album cover art. I miss liner notes. Album cover art was an art onto itself, you could look at pictures and read about your artist while listening. There are artists that had entire careers solely on their prowess to produce covers, iconic covers. God damned Rolling Stones would have had a gallery wing all onto themselves with their album cover art. Even Warhol was prolific.

But this isn’t about album cover art, it’s about spinning vinyl being cool, to the point of exclusion by some. Pops, scratches, wear from a stylus, whatever it was. Other than the “analogue”, there was nothing going for vinyl, yet here they are. Certainly not dead.

For some of the reasons already noted, the fact that yo have to store for them, care for them, baby them to a degree and they’re a PITA to transport. Yes, I helped carry milk crates for DJ friends back in the day.

Would love to hear from someone who’s a vinyl head today. No judging, different formats, different times, the involvement and commitment that vinyl takes over other sources. I get that. I’m just not disciplined enough for vinyl but I’d love to hear what today’s generation has enjoyed, gained, rediscovered from the current revival of the medium.

Couple more questions, are today’s albums more resistant to damage? Is audiophile phono gear better today than it was back in the day?

2 Likes

dont forget about tapes too :smiley: lmao
i love collecting music, vinyl will always be my favorite

1 Like

For me I don’t think it’s better then digital My better half has a crate of favorites and honestly I think it’s just the ceremony and prep make it feel more special and powerful also it has a bit of a collecting thing to it and we all know how addictive that is. As far as cd’s go I had quite a few when I was younger but they are very cold they don’t require the human love and attention as much as records do. I guess what I am saying is records tape and cd teach you that music is special and that in our time now music doesn’t get as much care. For example I have 300 albums on this sd card oh cool. Now if I said I have 300 albums on Records wow you must love music. You are very dedicated to keeping your collection clean and working. But thats just my rambles on Vinyl. :woman_shrugging:

1 Like

Vinyl is my preference when listening. I love the experience of sitting down and listening to an entire album end to end. I love the cover art and liner notes too. There is a level of craftsmanship involved with producing a record that Is missing from other formats. I don’t hear too many discussions about who mastered a particular FLAC file or what techniques were used (at least I haven’t heard). I can tell you that without a doubt, different pressings of records can be dramatically different. Different CD pressings sound different also, but it is harder to figure out the source of the differences.
I have nothing at all against CDs or other digital formats. I listen to them more often when I have music on as background. I probably listen to more digital music than vinyl records, (at work, in the car, etc. ), but I prefer to listen to vinyl.

I guess cassette tapes still had it, but I always say the art of album sequencing was lost with vinyl. Look at Exile on Main St by the Rolling Stones. It’s a double album and each of the 4 sides starts and ends with an amazing song. That’s lost when you play it on CD or digital.

Also, because of the cost to produce vinyl, and the limited storage space a record contains, a lot of the stuff that gets released now would have ended up on the cutting room floor, or got moved to the next album. It forced artists to really deliver the cream of the crop vs. just saying “here is everything I recorded this year”. I don’t want to hear a new artist who’s debut album is an hour and 45 minutes long. Tighten that shit up!

1 Like

Good point. 12345678

Yes this was the real issue with Vynil, normally a positive master is made from metal, then a negative mold made from that, and records pressed from the mold that has a limited lifetime, and the records degrade as the mold wares.
The trendy thing to do for very high quality pressings was what was termed DMM direct metal masters, where a negative master is cut and records pressed directly off that.
CD was certainly a lot more consistent.

I don’t have a record player so I can’t use vinyl. If I did, I would use it.
CDs are actually like vinyl for me in a way, compared to just getting a digital file. I like having a physical representation of the music. Only problem is that they scratch easily.
And CD quality is also better than streaming. Unless you can find a good master on a high-res website.

1 Like

so you’re saying all CD’s have excellent masters?

You know that’s not true lol

that’s what he’s implying though…but perhaps unintentionally. :wink:

I don’t think so, I think he’s just saying he prefers CD’s, not that he’s dissing vinyl or anything

1 Like

I wasn’t necessarily referring to mastering. I was referring more to the sound quality and detail. An mp3 or ogg will have lost some detail due to compression. I can tell a difference when I listen to a ripped CD file vs a lossy file.
And yes, a lot of music is mastered badly. But a lot is also mastered well. It isn’t always black and white.

I wish I could blind A/B test you on CD vs HQ MP3 vs. Lossy. so many people say they can hear a difference when so many professionals and the vast majority of enthusaist’s say you can’t. :wink:

https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality

Might not be the best test but it’s a simple one

Also it’s pretty much been proven with good enough gear and a bit of experience it’s easy to get it 100% with good music

1 Like

Well, I certainly was able to. CD sounds a little more full and a little wider. Mp3 sounded a little more narrow and ever so slightly less clean. I would agree for the most part, but I do hear differences. And besides, if I am more happy with lossless rather than lossy, who cares?
EDIT: With my own music, not what M0N just linked.

I find it to change with the headphones you have on also if you have on iems or cheaper headphones you can’t hear the changes as much like if I have on the HD58X. I took the test multiple times and my best scores where with the HD58X

1 Like

Yeah. I think headphones and gear matters a decent bit too. I have Nighthawk Carbon which, while being much different in sound than most headphones, are actually pretty good at detail.

Yeah, most of the people here can clearly discern the differences lol. The whole “you can’t hear a difference” thing is mainly for the average consumer. Also I personally don’t know a single professional that would say that you can’t hear the difference between lossy and lossless. And the people who knowingly say there is no difference even though there is pisses me off (kinda like oluv and his idea of amps)

2 Likes

The better the gear, the better I’ve done on this comparison. The gear makes more of a difference than anything. First time round with a $100 dollar headphone and my computer sound card I could do 50/50 at best. Doing the comparison today I get 5 out of the six at a minimum.

I will say this however, if you’re not “LISTENING” you can’t tell the difference between a high high quality lossy and a lossless.

2 Likes