Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Back in the early 1960s, when I was in high school, Warshawsky sold a record player for cars, it played both 45s and LPs. I knew a fella who had one, he played “Louie Louie” constantly.
Everyone knows vinyl is better, so why do people buy cds?
Your statement is wrong, because if CDs weren't better then they would have been rejected many years ago. Vinyl is not better than CDs. People are mistaken because of the nostalgia associated with vinyl. It's just like the idiots who still drive a stick-shift when automatic is so much better and safer.
Going off of paper/technical specs, CD/"lossless" digital formats are superior. In the real world, it's more complicated than that, as far as the experience for the listener is concerned.
Vinyl/analog has a certain quality to it that some people (including myself) prefer. For lack of a better way to put it, in sounds more "whole" or "full", and "warmer" to me. Aesthetically speaking, vinyl > any other format for me as well - I like the large album covers/artwork, inserts, and photos. As a music aficionado, there's something about taking all that in, and dropping the needle onto the record that makes it the complete home music experience IMO. But on that note, I realize I'm in a "niche" category - not everyone cares about amazing sound quality, or wants to invest in a good quality turntable and stereo setup (i.e - requires $ and space at home).
As for CD's, sometimes it's the only physical format that some artists end up releasing their music on, and in that case, I'll still buy it, as much as I'd rather have it on an LP. Another good thing about CD's is cost - you can pick up some classics for dirt cheap used since tons of folks seem to be ditching their CD collections these days to go all digital/non physical, and/or vinyl + digital.
Back in the early 1960s, when I was in high school, Warshawsky sold a record player for cars, it played both 45s and LPs. I knew a fella who had one, he played “Louie Louie” constantly.
And around 1956, certain Mopars could be ordered with an in-car record player.
IMO, the equipment used for playback is important. If you're using high end phono carts and have a very good preamp and the record is well kept vinyl IMO is hard to beat.
CD's sound sterile and lack the warmth that vinyl has.
Your statement is wrong, because if CDs weren't better then they would have been rejected many years ago. Vinyl is not better than CDs. People are mistaken because of the nostalgia associated with vinyl. It's just like the idiots who still drive a stick-shift when automatic is so much better and safer.
I'm one of those idiots with a stick shift. Just sayin' "hi!"
Back in the early 1960s, when I was in high school, Warshawsky sold a record player for cars, it played both 45s and LPs. I knew a fella who had one, he played “Louie Louie” constantly.
John Lennon had a record player in his Rolls Royce Phantom V back in the sixties.
As for vinyl compared with CD’s....
What I don’t like about vinyl is you have to be very careful or with a lot of use
vinyl records can start to snap, crackle, and pop (and skip).
I had few old ones that sounded like frying bacon
I agree that vinyl in perfect condition, played on high end equipment sounds better (warmer)
than CDs but for most people CD sound is adequate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.