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.
I can understand the appeal of buying used records really cheap. But newer releases on vinyl are not that cheap. Used CDs are fairly cheap these days. To compare CDs vs. records, I can't imagine why so many people would want the records. Comparing CDs to downloads, I don't know what to say.
The World Almanac reported that vinyl sales have actually been increasing in the past five years. Don't get it.
I don't get it either, Robert, and I grew up on vinyl - starting with 78s in the 50s, moved to 45s and LPS in the 60s. I had some great systems with DUAL turntables, Shure and Empire cartridges, high-quality acoustic suspension speakers. I still have most of my 45s and a few LPs - some of them 50+ years old.
But I see no rational explanation....as my CDs and even most downloads sound terrific. I will admit, though, that I haven't had a decent turntable since the late 80s, so it's been a long time since I listened to vinyl. Still, my memory is sharp enough to know that if there is a difference to real human ears, it is negligible.
Another poster or two talked about it being cool and I think that is probably most of it. Me? I was "cool" for 35 years with vinyl and "cool" isn't very high up on my priority list today.
What we REALLY need to bring back is the great music that coincided with vinyl's heyday.
Re sound quality - why do you like the sound of vinyl more than CDs or MP3s? I remember when CDs got big, audiophiles complained about the lack of bass or the sound of an acoustic piano. I can't notice the diff. Also, with records you have to flip them over. I constantly go from one track to another. I'm old enough to remember 8 track tapes. I hated them because you couldn't rewind.
I am also of that age group. When CD's arrived, I guess my ears were not savy enough to rule then dynamically superior to vinyl. And while I thought the sound was initially clear, yes, they seemed to lack the full bass that adds depth. And then there is durability. While the old record albums were vulnerable to scratching, unless severe, they remained 'groovy' enough to play. CD's and DVD's pretty much become unplayable with even fingerprints, let alone scratches.
CD's and DVD's pretty much become unplayable with even fingerprints, let alone scratches.
CD and DVD's can be resurfaced if the scratch is not ridiculously deep. Try some toothpaste and a very soft cloth or try a used CD store for professional job. I only buy used CD's from a store nearby, they refinish them and guarantee they will work. They all look new....
CD's and DVD's pretty much become unplayable with even fingerprints, let alone scratches.
Not true at all in my 20+ years of playing optical media. Fingerprints are ignored by the laser unless they are ridiculous. Shallow scratches are invisible to the laser also.
Every play of a vinyl record causes some wear. Not much with good equipment, but wear and exposure to dirt no matter what.
A few years ago I was at a friends house and he has a nice turntable setup. I brought over a CD that he had on Vinyl. We played them side by side... Vinyl absolutely sounded better to both of us.
I got a "DEAN MARTINS GREATEST" record..... It was a RE-ISSUE from 1969 (All songs were made STEREO instead of the MONO they originally were)
COMPLETE GARBAGE!!!!!!!!!! -- SOUNDED LIKE CRAP!!!!!
I DO NOT LIKE RECORDS WHERE THEY DO THIS AND I DONT KNOW WHY I GOT IT.... I feel like smashing it into pieces and not bringing it back!! (I dunno if I want anyone else getting this piece of crap)
I got a "DEAN MARTINS GREATEST" record..... It was a RE-ISSUE from 1969 (All songs were made STEREO instead of the MONO they originally were)
Firstly a straight conversion of mono to stereo just involves duplicating the track so if that's all they did there is no difference.
Secondly the original would be what was recorded in the studio. It may have been remastered but just so it's clear that is not necessarily the problem, its the bad practice of jacking the amplification through the roof that is the issue. It's not just the old recordings but modern recordings too they have done this with. Results are going to vary, for example they are reissuing Led Zeppelin albums and Jimmy Paige is heavily involved with this process.
I prefer MONO actually..... And if the stuff IS MONO ORIGINALLY,it definetly sounds better that way..
That's not the way recording works, you would have multiple microphones. For example you would have one for the singer, multiple ones for the drums etc. Each is recorded to it's own track, from their it's mixed. Perhaps if we have two guitars you could for example place emphasis on one in one speaker and the other in the other speaker.
The only way you can have an original mono track is if there was only one microphone in which case there is no difference between mono playback and stereo playback because both the left and right track are identical.
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.
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.
