FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Vinyl
Vinyl
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
"I like the crackle. I find it soothing. But you know what I don’t miss? Fluff on the needle! " Yeah the crackle is definitely a plus. The fluff is never a problem, just clean it or a new needle when it's needed. | |||
| |||
"I like the crackle. I find it soothing. But you know what I don’t miss? Fluff on the needle! " I used to like listening to Alan Freeman  | |||
 | |||
"I still have all my old vinyl collection, but have you seen the price of it nowadays "I’ve got Slade on vinyl 45 and 33, do ya reckon there worth a few quid. | |||
| |||
| |||
"I like the crackle. I find it soothing. But you know what I don’t miss? Fluff on the needle! " I get fluff on the needle from my boxer's sometimes | |||
| |||
"I still have all my old vinyl collection, but have you seen the price of it nowadays
I’ve got Slade on vinyl 45 and 33, do ya reckon there worth a few quid. "Dunno about Slade, but there's plenty of Perry Como and The Nolans albums in charity shops   | |||
| |||
| |||
"I like the crackle. I find it soothing. But you know what I don’t miss? Fluff on the needle! " Fluff on the needle is a fantastic euphemism  | |||
"There is no compression on vinyl compared to a digital version of the same track/album, you loose quality when compressed and you loose some frequencies." Sorry did not see your post. | |||
Yes love Vinyl got loads of it, some not scratched  | |||
"Digital is compressed so loses quality...vinyl is not. I still have a lot of mine." Not only that. Digitally recorded music doesn't have room dynamics picked up from the mics they used to capture amps. Those nuances are so important to old music recorded properly | |||
 | |||
| |||
"Unlike streaming music or listening to a CD, playing an album on vinyl takes time and effort. It is a far more tactile experience. It requires care and attention. Removing the record from the sleeve, placing it on the turntable and carefully letting the needle drop into the groove. A vinyl album only holds (roughly) 40 minutes of music, so it is a more concise listening experience (too many artists felt obliged to make their albums 70 minutes long just because that’s how much data could be crammed into them digitally - quantity over quality became the CD norm). Unlike streaming music, a vinyl album has a beginning, middle (when we flip them over) and an end. And then there’s the cover art and packaging. These days the biggest down side to being a vinyl lover is the cost. I suppose the bottom line for me is that (to my ears) music on vinyl just sound better because it has a warmth that you don’t get listening to music digitally x " You my friend have summed up everything I have to say about the subject | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
"[8-track system Removed by HottNott poster at 19/09/22 05:06:02]" | |||
| |||
"[8-track system Removed by HottNott poster at 19/09/22 05:06:02]" It’s not the same ! Listen to Relax or Two Tribes , you just can’t do than using analog , even with 32 tracks! | |||
J | |||
"Vynil is different. cd's are digitised and put on cd at 44100kb. Totally different from records, they are analogue which means you get to hear all the frequencies and harmonics, which a cd cannot do" Plus digital is cut off at 25khz with analogue you hear the sub harmonics of the higher frequencies the ear cannot hear. | |||
"Vynil is different. cd's are digitised and put on cd at 44100kb. Totally different from records, they are analogue which means you get to hear all the frequencies and harmonics, which a cd cannot do Plus digital is cut off at 25khz with analogue you hear the sub harmonics of the higher frequencies the ear cannot hear." They hear things that cannot be heard ^ | |||
| |||
| |||
"Vynil is different. cd's are digitised and put on cd at 44100kb. Totally different from records, they are analogue which means you get to hear all the frequencies and harmonics, which a cd cannot do Plus digital is cut off at 25khz with analogue you hear the sub harmonics of the higher frequencies the ear cannot hear." If you're talking dynamic range that's wrong. From an article I found online. "Jason Corey, recording engineer and professor of performing arts technology at the University of Michigan says that by almost every objective measure, given an acceptable bitrate (the amount of data per second the audio file contains), digital is going to be superior to vinyl." "Dynamic range: The difference between loud sounds and quiet sounds. Digital allows for a much wider dynamic range than vinyl. Because an analog recording carves a continuous representation waveform into the vinyl while digital merely samples the waveform, vinyl-loving audiophiles sometimes argue that the sampling required to make a digital recording doesn’t get the full sound. However, that’s not quite the problem. Even though digital recordings require that snapshots of the audio are taken at given intervals, as long as enough snapshots are taken, we are still getting a true representation of the original sound, Corey explains. For example, if a digital recording contains at least 40,000 samples or snapshots per second — and CDs use 44,100 samples per second — we can accurately reconstruct the original, continuous analog waveform up to the limits of human hearing (frequencies up to 20,000 Hz)." A | |||
"Vynil is different. cd's are digitised and put on cd at 44100kb. Totally different from records, they are analogue which means you get to hear all the frequencies and harmonics, which a cd cannot do Plus digital is cut off at 25khz with analogue you hear the sub harmonics of the higher frequencies the ear cannot hear. If you're talking dynamic range that's wrong. From an article I found online. "Jason Corey, recording engineer and professor of performing arts technology at the University of Michigan says that by almost every objective measure, given an acceptable bitrate (the amount of data per second the audio file contains), digital is going to be superior to vinyl." "Dynamic range: The difference between loud sounds and quiet sounds. Digital allows for a much wider dynamic range than vinyl. Because an analog recording carves a continuous representation waveform into the vinyl while digital merely samples the waveform, vinyl-loving audiophiles sometimes argue that the sampling required to make a digital recording doesn’t get the full sound. However, that’s not quite the problem. Even though digital recordings require that snapshots of the audio are taken at given intervals, as long as enough snapshots are taken, we are still getting a true representation of the original sound, Corey explains. For example, if a digital recording contains at least 40,000 samples or snapshots per second — and CDs use 44,100 samples per second — we can accurately reconstruct the original, continuous analog waveform up to the limits of human hearing (frequencies up to 20,000 Hz)." A" I’m sorry but have to correct your statement “If you're talking dynamic range that's wrong.” This is not entirely correct. It’s all to do with the dynamic range. In main, it’s all to do with details which are missed and therefore the overall quality is reduced. This happens because the music is compressed which is why on a vinyl if you listen carefully to the music it will always sound much better. Because on a vinyl record the space of the grooves are more open, allowing a greater quantity of features to be heard. This allows you to locate and individuate particular instruments and sounds and observe how they contribute to the music as a whole. This way, diversity can be heard. Dynamic range. | |||
"Vynil is different. cd's are digitised and put on cd at 44100kb. Totally different from records, they are analogue which means you get to hear all the frequencies and harmonics, which a cd cannot do Plus digital is cut off at 25khz with analogue you hear the sub harmonics of the higher frequencies the ear cannot hear. If you're talking dynamic range that's wrong. From an article I found online. "Jason Corey, recording engineer and professor of performing arts technology at the University of Michigan says that by almost every objective measure, given an acceptable bitrate (the amount of data per second the audio file contains), digital is going to be superior to vinyl." "Dynamic range: The difference between loud sounds and quiet sounds. Digital allows for a much wider dynamic range than vinyl. Because an analog recording carves a continuous representation waveform into the vinyl while digital merely samples the waveform, vinyl-loving audiophiles sometimes argue that the sampling required to make a digital recording doesn’t get the full sound. However, that’s not quite the problem. Even though digital recordings require that snapshots of the audio are taken at given intervals, as long as enough snapshots are taken, we are still getting a true representation of the original sound, Corey explains. For example, if a digital recording contains at least 40,000 samples or snapshots per second — and CDs use 44,100 samples per second — we can accurately reconstruct the original, continuous analog waveform up to the limits of human hearing (frequencies up to 20,000 Hz)." A" In my original post I think I said digital music is superior in quality. Not quite explained like that, but along those lines. There's something about vinyl that digital music can't replicate though. Some people on this thread have given their reasons as to why they prefer vinyl over digital. I by far and away listen to so much more digital music. I love the ease, having anything I want at a click of button. Linking it up to my car or home stereo in an instant. The sound quality. All those reasons, it's fucking amazing. However I was sat yesterday, having a drink, getting my vinyl out, listening, and the joy, the physical and emotional feeling it gave me, far outweighed the pros that digital music has over vinyl. | |||
"Vynil is different. cd's are digitised and put on cd at 44100kb. Totally different from records, they are analogue which means you get to hear all the frequencies and harmonics, which a cd cannot do Plus digital is cut off at 25khz with analogue you hear the sub harmonics of the higher frequencies the ear cannot hear. If you're talking dynamic range that's wrong. From an article I found online. "Jason Corey, recording engineer and professor of performing arts technology at the University of Michigan says that by almost every objective measure, given an acceptable bitrate (the amount of data per second the audio file contains), digital is going to be superior to vinyl." "Dynamic range: The difference between loud sounds and quiet sounds. Digital allows for a much wider dynamic range than vinyl. Because an analog recording carves a continuous representation waveform into the vinyl while digital merely samples the waveform, vinyl-loving audiophiles sometimes argue that the sampling required to make a digital recording doesn’t get the full sound. However, that’s not quite the problem. Even though digital recordings require that snapshots of the audio are taken at given intervals, as long as enough snapshots are taken, we are still getting a true representation of the original sound, Corey explains. For example, if a digital recording contains at least 40,000 samples or snapshots per second — and CDs use 44,100 samples per second — we can accurately reconstruct the original, continuous analog waveform up to the limits of human hearing (frequencies up to 20,000 Hz)." A I’m sorry but have to correct your statement “If you're talking dynamic range that's wrong.” This is not entirely correct. It’s all to do with the dynamic range. In main, it’s all to do with details which are missed and therefore the overall quality is reduced. This happens because the music is compressed which is why on a vinyl if you listen carefully to the music it will always sound much better. Because on a vinyl record the space of the grooves are more open, allowing a greater quantity of features to be heard. This allows you to locate and individuate particular instruments and sounds and observe how they contribute to the music as a whole. This way, diversity can be heard. Dynamic range. " I've just read about a dozen articles on the vinyl vs digital debate (because I'm lying in bed bored). They all say the same. From a technical perspective digital will produce better sound quality. Digital audio doesn't have to be compressed, much like digital photography doesn't. The same argument has been around with film vs digital images for decades and the result is usually the same. Vinyl and film win for nostalgic reasons. Digital for superior quality. A | |||
| |||
"Unlike streaming music or listening to a CD, playing an album on vinyl takes time and effort. It is a far more tactile experience. It requires care and attention. Removing the record from the sleeve, placing it on the turntable and carefully letting the needle drop into the groove. A vinyl album only holds (roughly) 40 minutes of music, so it is a more concise listening experience (too many artists felt obliged to make their albums 70 minutes long just because that’s how much data could be crammed into them digitally - quantity over quality became the CD norm). Unlike streaming music, a vinyl album has a beginning, middle (when we flip them over) and an end. And then there’s the cover art and packaging. These days the biggest down side to being a vinyl lover is the cost. I suppose the bottom line for me is that (to my ears) music on vinyl just sound better because it has a warmth that you don’t get listening to music digitally x You my friend have summed up everything I have to say about the subject "I came here to say the same! Beautiful reply! x | |||
| |||
"Vynil is different. cd's are digitised and put on cd at 44100kb. Totally different from records, they are analogue which means you get to hear all the frequencies and harmonics, which a cd cannot do Plus digital is cut off at 25khz with analogue you hear the sub harmonics of the higher frequencies the ear cannot hear. If you're talking dynamic range that's wrong. From an article I found online. "Jason Corey, recording engineer and professor of performing arts technology at the University of Michigan says that by almost every objective measure, given an acceptable bitrate (the amount of data per second the audio file contains), digital is going to be superior to vinyl." "Dynamic range: The difference between loud sounds and quiet sounds. Digital allows for a much wider dynamic range than vinyl. Because an analog recording carves a continuous representation waveform into the vinyl while digital merely samples the waveform, vinyl-loving audiophiles sometimes argue that the sampling required to make a digital recording doesn’t get the full sound. However, that’s not quite the problem. Even though digital recordings require that snapshots of the audio are taken at given intervals, as long as enough snapshots are taken, we are still getting a true representation of the original sound, Corey explains. For example, if a digital recording contains at least 40,000 samples or snapshots per second — and CDs use 44,100 samples per second — we can accurately reconstruct the original, continuous analog waveform up to the limits of human hearing (frequencies up to 20,000 Hz)." A I’m sorry but have to correct your statement “If you're talking dynamic range that's wrong.” This is not entirely correct. It’s all to do with the dynamic range. In main, it’s all to do with details which are missed and therefore the overall quality is reduced. This happens because the music is compressed which is why on a vinyl if you listen carefully to the music it will always sound much better. Because on a vinyl record the space of the grooves are more open, allowing a greater quantity of features to be heard. This allows you to locate and individuate particular instruments and sounds and observe how they contribute to the music as a whole. This way, diversity can be heard. Dynamic range. I've just read about a dozen articles on the vinyl vs digital debate (because I'm lying in bed bored). They all say the same. From a technical perspective digital will produce better sound quality. Digital audio doesn't have to be compressed, much like digital photography doesn't. The same argument has been around with film vs digital images for decades and the result is usually the same. Vinyl and film win for nostalgic reasons. Digital for superior quality. A" Yes, but it’s your initial statement that was wrong. Also, reading about what others have written and actually listening to notice the difference are entirely two separate things. You are correct in the sense that the music is much crisper sounding, but I wouldn’t necessarily say it’s better simply because vinyl has much more to deliver. “Quality” is to do with it matching the nearest recording as well as the nostalgia which is why it makes it better. | |||
"[8-track system Removed by HottNott poster at 19/09/22 05:06:02] It’s not the same ! Listen to Relax or Two Tribes , you just can’t do than using analog , even with 32 tracks! " I still have the Relax single on cassette somewhere. Listening to the new York mix on spotify, I felt that it lacked the power of listening to it when I was younger. Maybe it hasn't aged well or the sound on spotify, even set on HQ, falls just short. I agree with Lacey Red, people forget that playing vinyl was like handling a ticking bomb. There's no fun in that or listening to scratched vinyl or CDS. I was heartbroken when an ex accidentally scratched a rare bootleg CD. I believe that in this digital age, the artists should release everything, demos, outtakes, disused songs. One of my favourite songs was unreleased for 29 years. I love the deluxe editions but now in this age of no attention span I fear that the album will die. This will be a real shame, the loss of the joy of listening to something fresh and brilliant. | |||
| |||
"Vynil is different. cd's are digitised and put on cd at 44100kb. Totally different from records, they are analogue which means you get to hear all the frequencies and harmonics, which a cd cannot do Plus digital is cut off at 25khz with analogue you hear the sub harmonics of the higher frequencies the ear cannot hear. If you're talking dynamic range that's wrong. From an article I found online. "Jason Corey, recording engineer and professor of performing arts technology at the University of Michigan says that by almost every objective measure, given an acceptable bitrate (the amount of data per second the audio file contains), digital is going to be superior to vinyl." "Dynamic range: The difference between loud sounds and quiet sounds. Digital allows for a much wider dynamic range than vinyl. Because an analog recording carves a continuous representation waveform into the vinyl while digital merely samples the waveform, vinyl-loving audiophiles sometimes argue that the sampling required to make a digital recording doesn’t get the full sound. However, that’s not quite the problem. Even though digital recordings require that snapshots of the audio are taken at given intervals, as long as enough snapshots are taken, we are still getting a true representation of the original sound, Corey explains. For example, if a digital recording contains at least 40,000 samples or snapshots per second — and CDs use 44,100 samples per second — we can accurately reconstruct the original, continuous analog waveform up to the limits of human hearing (frequencies up to 20,000 Hz)." A I’m sorry but have to correct your statement “If you're talking dynamic range that's wrong.” This is not entirely correct. It’s all to do with the dynamic range. In main, it’s all to do with details which are missed and therefore the overall quality is reduced. This happens because the music is compressed which is why on a vinyl if you listen carefully to the music it will always sound much better. Because on a vinyl record the space of the grooves are more open, allowing a greater quantity of features to be heard. This allows you to locate and individuate particular instruments and sounds and observe how they contribute to the music as a whole. This way, diversity can be heard. Dynamic range. I've just read about a dozen articles on the vinyl vs digital debate (because I'm lying in bed bored). They all say the same. From a technical perspective digital will produce better sound quality. Digital audio doesn't have to be compressed, much like digital photography doesn't. The same argument has been around with film vs digital images for decades and the result is usually the same. Vinyl and film win for nostalgic reasons. Digital for superior quality. A Yes, but it’s your initial statement that was wrong. Also, reading about what others have written and actually listening to notice the difference are entirely two separate things. You are correct in the sense that the music is much crisper sounding, but I wouldn’t necessarily say it’s better simply because vinyl has much more to deliver. “Quality” is to do with it matching the nearest recording as well as the nostalgia which is why it makes it better." It wasn't my statement. It was a quote from a sound engineer and music professor but hey........ It's a subject that people will always take one side or the other. Your idea of 'better' isn't mine. Nostalgia is an emotion, not a measure of quality or a benchmark that you can standardise. I'll take an expert's technical opinion on 'quality' over anyone else's any day of the week. Same as I'd take a decent car mechanics over a hobbyist, or a sommelier over someone who likes a tipple. But as I said. It's a subject where if you place any importance on nostalgia or emotions then that will sway your view. A | |||
| |||
"Vynil is different. cd's are digitised and put on cd at 44100kb. Totally different from records, they are analogue which means you get to hear all the frequencies and harmonics, which a cd cannot do Plus digital is cut off at 25khz with analogue you hear the sub harmonics of the higher frequencies the ear cannot hear. If you're talking dynamic range that's wrong. From an article I found online. "Jason Corey, recording engineer and professor of performing arts technology at the University of Michigan says that by almost every objective measure, given an acceptable bitrate (the amount of data per second the audio file contains), digital is going to be superior to vinyl." "Dynamic range: The difference between loud sounds and quiet sounds. Digital allows for a much wider dynamic range than vinyl. Because an analog recording carves a continuous representation waveform into the vinyl while digital merely samples the waveform, vinyl-loving audiophiles sometimes argue that the sampling required to make a digital recording doesn’t get the full sound. However, that’s not quite the problem. Even though digital recordings require that snapshots of the audio are taken at given intervals, as long as enough snapshots are taken, we are still getting a true representation of the original sound, Corey explains. For example, if a digital recording contains at least 40,000 samples or snapshots per second — and CDs use 44,100 samples per second — we can accurately reconstruct the original, continuous analog waveform up to the limits of human hearing (frequencies up to 20,000 Hz)." A I’m sorry but have to correct your statement “If you're talking dynamic range that's wrong.” This is not entirely correct. It’s all to do with the dynamic range. In main, it’s all to do with details which are missed and therefore the overall quality is reduced. This happens because the music is compressed which is why on a vinyl if you listen carefully to the music it will always sound much better. Because on a vinyl record the space of the grooves are more open, allowing a greater quantity of features to be heard. This allows you to locate and individuate particular instruments and sounds and observe how they contribute to the music as a whole. This way, diversity can be heard. Dynamic range. I've just read about a dozen articles on the vinyl vs digital debate (because I'm lying in bed bored). They all say the same. From a technical perspective digital will produce better sound quality. Digital audio doesn't have to be compressed, much like digital photography doesn't. The same argument has been around with film vs digital images for decades and the result is usually the same. Vinyl and film win for nostalgic reasons. Digital for superior quality. A Yes, but it’s your initial statement that was wrong. Also, reading about what others have written and actually listening to notice the difference are entirely two separate things. You are correct in the sense that the music is much crisper sounding, but I wouldn’t necessarily say it’s better simply because vinyl has much more to deliver. “Quality” is to do with it matching the nearest recording as well as the nostalgia which is why it makes it better. It wasn't my statement. It was a quote from a sound engineer and music professor but hey........ It's a subject that people will always take one side or the other. Your idea of 'better' isn't mine. Nostalgia is an emotion, not a measure of quality or a benchmark that you can standardise. I'll take an expert's technical opinion on 'quality' over anyone else's any day of the week. Same as I'd take a decent car mechanics over a hobbyist, or a sommelier over someone who likes a tipple. But as I said. It's a subject where if you place any importance on nostalgia or emotions then that will sway your view. A"
With all due respect, please do read your statement again and try to understand what the article by engineer has said.
Vinyl is a lossless format. The pressings are made straight from the masters and contain all of the detail the artist intended.
We can but agree to disagree, happy listening. | |||
"Vynil is different. cd's are digitised and put on cd at 44100kb. Totally different from records, they are analogue which means you get to hear all the frequencies and harmonics, which a cd cannot do Plus digital is cut off at 25khz with analogue you hear the sub harmonics of the higher frequencies the ear cannot hear. If you're talking dynamic range that's wrong. From an article I found online. "Jason Corey, recording engineer and professor of performing arts technology at the University of Michigan says that by almost every objective measure, given an acceptable bitrate (the amount of data per second the audio file contains), digital is going to be superior to vinyl." "Dynamic range: The difference between loud sounds and quiet sounds. Digital allows for a much wider dynamic range than vinyl. Because an analog recording carves a continuous representation waveform into the vinyl while digital merely samples the waveform, vinyl-loving audiophiles sometimes argue that the sampling required to make a digital recording doesn’t get the full sound. However, that’s not quite the problem. Even though digital recordings require that snapshots of the audio are taken at given intervals, as long as enough snapshots are taken, we are still getting a true representation of the original sound, Corey explains. For example, if a digital recording contains at least 40,000 samples or snapshots per second — and CDs use 44,100 samples per second — we can accurately reconstruct the original, continuous analog waveform up to the limits of human hearing (frequencies up to 20,000 Hz)." A I’m sorry but have to correct your statement “If you're talking dynamic range that's wrong.” This is not entirely correct. It’s all to do with the dynamic range. In main, it’s all to do with details which are missed and therefore the overall quality is reduced. This happens because the music is compressed which is why on a vinyl if you listen carefully to the music it will always sound much better. Because on a vinyl record the space of the grooves are more open, allowing a greater quantity of features to be heard. This allows you to locate and individuate particular instruments and sounds and observe how they contribute to the music as a whole. This way, diversity can be heard. Dynamic range. I've just read about a dozen articles on the vinyl vs digital debate (because I'm lying in bed bored). They all say the same. From a technical perspective digital will produce better sound quality. Digital audio doesn't have to be compressed, much like digital photography doesn't. The same argument has been around with film vs digital images for decades and the result is usually the same. Vinyl and film win for nostalgic reasons. Digital for superior quality. A Yes, but it’s your initial statement that was wrong. Also, reading about what others have written and actually listening to notice the difference are entirely two separate things. You are correct in the sense that the music is much crisper sounding, but I wouldn’t necessarily say it’s better simply because vinyl has much more to deliver. “Quality” is to do with it matching the nearest recording as well as the nostalgia which is why it makes it better. It wasn't my statement. It was a quote from a sound engineer and music professor but hey........ It's a subject that people will always take one side or the other. Your idea of 'better' isn't mine. Nostalgia is an emotion, not a measure of quality or a benchmark that you can standardise. I'll take an expert's technical opinion on 'quality' over anyone else's any day of the week. Same as I'd take a decent car mechanics over a hobbyist, or a sommelier over someone who likes a tipple. But as I said. It's a subject where if you place any importance on nostalgia or emotions then that will sway your view. A
With all due respect, please do read your statement again and try to understand what the article by engineer has said.
Vinyl is a lossless format. The pressings are made straight from the masters and contain all of the detail the artist intended.
We can but agree to disagree, happy listening."And digital lossless will contain all that detail with less noise and distortion as well as greater dynamic range (90db vs 70db for vinyl), without quality being impacted by any physical imperfections in either the vinyl itself, the needle or turntable used. We can agree to disagree, yes.
A | |||
"Unlike streaming music or listening to a CD, playing an album on vinyl takes time and effort. It is a far more tactile experience. It requires care and attention. Removing the record from the sleeve, placing it on the turntable and carefully letting the needle drop into the groove. A vinyl album only holds (roughly) 40 minutes of music, so it is a more concise listening experience (too many artists felt obliged to make their albums 70 minutes long just because that’s how much data could be crammed into them digitally - quantity over quality became the CD norm). Unlike streaming music, a vinyl album has a beginning, middle (when we flip them over) and an end. And then there’s the cover art and packaging. These days the biggest down side to being a vinyl lover is the cost. I suppose the bottom line for me is that (to my ears) music on vinyl just sound better because it has a warmth that you don’t get listening to music digitally x You my friend have summed up everything I have to say about the subject
I came here to say the same! Beautiful reply! x"Completely agree. That was the word I was looking for 'warmth'. Digital music lacks it. | |||
"Unlike streaming music or listening to a CD, playing an album on vinyl takes time and effort. It is a far more tactile experience. It requires care and attention. Removing the record from the sleeve, placing it on the turntable and carefully letting the needle drop into the groove. A vinyl album only holds (roughly) 40 minutes of music, so it is a more concise listening experience (too many artists felt obliged to make their albums 70 minutes long just because that’s how much data could be crammed into them digitally - quantity over quality became the CD norm). Unlike streaming music, a vinyl album has a beginning, middle (when we flip them over) and an end. And then there’s the cover art and packaging. These days the biggest down side to being a vinyl lover is the cost. I suppose the bottom line for me is that (to my ears) music on vinyl just sound better because it has a warmth that you don’t get listening to music digitally x You my friend have summed up everything I have to say about the subject
I came here to say the same! Beautiful reply! x
Completely agree. That was the word I was looking for 'warmth'. Digital music lacks it. "100% | |||
| |||
 | |||
"I've still got my ancient vinyl...there's definitely something warm about it...all recorded in analogue so it's never been chopped up digitally "Keep hold of them, since I very much regret having sold some of my vinyls, Denon and Marantz sound systems because I needed the money at the time. Vinyls lost which I cannot now easily find or buy. | |||
"I've still got my ancient vinyl...there's definitely something warm about it...all recorded in analogue so it's never been chopped up digitally
Keep hold of them, since I very much regret having sold some of my vinyls, Denon and Marantz sound systems because I needed the money at the time.
Vinyls lost which I cannot now easily find or buy. "Discogs is a good place to start | |||
"I've still got my ancient vinyl...there's definitely something warm about it...all recorded in analogue so it's never been chopped up digitally
Keep hold of them, since I very much regret having sold some of my vinyls, Denon and Marantz sound systems because I needed the money at the time.
Vinyls lost which I cannot now easily find or buy.
Discogs is a good place to start"Thank you xxx | |||
| |||
| |||
"I've been a record collector since the mid-70s. It's not just about how they sound - it's also aesthetics. The look of a record, the cover and the artwork that has gone into it, such as gatefold sleeves, lyric sheets, inner sleeve artwork, and sometimes coloured vinyl - the kind of scope you don't get with a CD. But I'm biased anyway, and I'll always say that music sounds better on vinyl! " Yes, album artwork and inserts are just great! | |||
"I've still got my ancient vinyl...there's definitely something warm about it...all recorded in analogue so it's never been chopped up digitally
Keep hold of them, since I very much regret having sold some of my vinyls, Denon and Marantz sound systems because I needed the money at the time.
Vinyls lost which I cannot now easily find or buy. "You can still pick up some great vinyl at bootsales too. | |||
"I've still got my ancient vinyl...there's definitely something warm about it...all recorded in analogue so it's never been chopped up digitally
Keep hold of them, since I very much regret having sold some of my vinyls, Denon and Marantz sound systems because I needed the money at the time.
Vinyls lost which I cannot now easily find or buy.
You can still pick up some great vinyl at bootsales too. "It’s rare can find good kept quality but yes you are right sometimes can get lucky... Thank you xxx | |||
| |||
| |||
"When the CD boom was in full flight and they were seriously expensive I really didn't have an interest..then when the prices started to drop I got into them..now that's all I buy..do I miss records..no I don't..I much prefer the cd format.... also I tend to buy load's of stuff on cd I'd probably never would have bought on vinyl..I also quite enjoy the random play selection with CDs so I can put an album on and it plays in a total different order that the band intended it to be listened to.. only thing I do miss about vinyl is you can't play a cd backwards and hear the satanic messages.. "Yeah but hipsters like vinyl. Most don't have a clue about the real cool bits of it. Too busy talking shite about hissing and skipping. None ever mention the wee messages on the records and sometimes on the record covers. | |||
" I’ve got Slade on vinyl 45 and 33, do ya reckon there worth a few quid. " Probably not, I have 27 Slade singles and 12 LPs [9 of those on CD as well) plus another 7 on CD | |||
"Records Not vinyl. No one ever bought vinyl except hipsters who now think it makes them cool. People bought records. Had record players. " Yup. Vinyl's what on my kitchen floor - the right place for it. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Records Not vinyl. No one ever bought vinyl except hipsters who now think it makes them cool. People bought records. Had record players. Yup. Vinyl's what on my kitchen floor - the right place for it." Totally. Boring as fuck all these hipsters now into vinyl and thinking it's cool and trendy. My record collection probably pisses over them all and I've bought one record since the mid nineties. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Personally, I suspect that there is a load of nostalgia and it was better back in the 'day ism". When I was young I lived between 3 places so lugging vinyl around was not happening so for ease cassettes were better. I think people forget that audiophiles back in the day listened on tape either reel to reel or super 8 or had really expensive hifi systems. Your average household system or bedroom all in one record player made a nice noise but was not " hifi". Certainly from a soul perspective it was nice listening to vinyl at home, but it was only when you went to club you heard the full potential. Back in the day the hiss and crackle was a sign a badly kept record. You gently lowered the needle on the record to avoid any noise. It was an art. Vinyl as someone said is incredibly fragile and wears out. Try making a mixtape with vinyl, go one try! Personally I was more a fan of digital cassettes, they were portable and the same sound quality as vinyl in my view. I still have 30 year old digital cassettes I inherited from older brother. When I play them to people they match vinyl, they were easily portable, contained more songs, and you choose what's on it. Vinyl is a marketing nostalgia trip in my view. " The 'hifi' mags, e.g. HiFi Choice or HiFi News, plus others no doubt, are currently having a major reel-to-reel revival - just wish I a) had the space and b) knew where to get a decent machine. Mr Bicpl | |||
"I like the crackle. I find it soothing. But you know what I don’t miss? Fluff on the needle! " If you like the crackle, try listening to 78rpm discs on a wind up gramaphone. I've got Cliff Richard and the Drifters, yes The Drifters as that's what they were called before becoming The Shadows, on 78 on a wind up gramaphone that's nearly 100 years old, and it sounds just like it was recorded in a chip shop with the deep fat fryer keeping tempo. | |||
"I like the crackle. I find it soothing. But you know what I don’t miss? Fluff on the needle! If you like the crackle, try listening to 78rpm discs on a wind up gramaphone. I've got Cliff Richard and the Drifters, yes The Drifters as that's what they were called before becoming The Shadows, on 78 on a wind up gramaphone that's nearly 100 years old, and it sounds just like it was recorded in a chip shop with the deep fat fryer keeping tempo. " Those Cliff and the Drifters/Shadows 78s are worth serious money (well, anything between £40 and £300, depending which one you have). 7 or 8 were issued between 1958 and 1960. I wouldn't play your one on your wind-up gramophone too much though - the heavy sound box will cause it to wear, no matter how many times you change your needle. | |||
