70s prog on vinyl
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Bands, Artists and Genres Appreciation
Forum Description: Discuss specific prog bands and their members or a specific sub-genre
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=40970
Printed Date: November 30 2024 at 19:19
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: 70s prog on vinyl
Posted By: robg
Subject: 70s prog on vinyl
Date Posted: August 17 2007 at 05:17
|
I expect this has been discussed before (I'm new here), but I'm interested in people's views on the old vinyl vs. CD debate.
I've always loved vinyl anyway, but recently I've come to the conclusion that original vinyl albums are the ONLY way to hear 70s prog as it was always meant to be heard.
I had quite a collection of remastered CDs, but I find them unlistenable now when compared to the warmth and dynamics of 70s vinyl pressings. A case in point was Caravan's In the Land of Grey and Pink. I loved the recent CD version, and thought it was a pretty good sounding remaster (although at that stage I'd never heard the original). Then I got the Deram LP from ebay and it was like hearing it for the first time.
Don't get me wrong, I think CDs are brilliant, without them I wouldn't have had access to a lot of ridiculously rare but excellent music. But for me vinyl is the ultimate way to hear an album - on the format that it was originally written, recorded, produced and mastered for.
|
Replies:
Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: August 17 2007 at 05:48
| Yeah, I prefer albums. I think CDs sound artificial, plus record album jackets are pieces of art, such as the Lizard gatefold album. |
Posted By: maups2
Date Posted: August 17 2007 at 06:41
| Oh vinyl is definitely better. I too had the same experience with Caravan's In the Land of Grey and Pink. Some bands are significantly better on vinyl than on CDs; listening to albums like Abbey Road and Foxtrot on vinyl is a completely different experience than listening to them on CD. |
Posted By: Detric
Date Posted: August 17 2007 at 06:47
| I think both are great. But can somebody explain why so many people pay so much for vinyls that were pressed in the 70's. On Ebay I see a lot of these vinyls that has to be on a certain label, and has to be first press or whatever. These vinyls go for twice (sometimes much more) as the price for the other "normal" vinyls. Is it because its a certain feeling, to have vinyls that were pressed in that time, or is it really because they have another sound? I was at my friends house some days ago, he played Moonmadness for us, on a first press vinyl from the 70's. I went home and played mine which is a re-release and I just couldnt understand why there is such a big difference, concerning the value of them. |
Posted By: robg
Date Posted: August 17 2007 at 07:28
Some reissues aren't as good quality as first pressings. A good example are the Polydor reissues of King Crimson's albums. Some of them though are identical to the original. I think it has more to do with owning the "genuine" original article. Like collecting first printings of books. Personally I'm not that fastidious about it (to go back to the Crimson example, I'm perfectly happy with my "palm tree" pressing of ITCOTKC and won't be shelling out the £100 (at least) needed for a "pink label" pressing.)
Moonmadness is an interesting example actually cos that's still a pretty easy LP to get hold of and a first pressing would only set you back about £12 - £15. Worth the investment I reckon.
|
Detric wrote:Posted By: magnus
Date Posted: August 17 2007 at 09:38
|
Detric, it's all about collecting value, really.
------------- The scattered jigsaw of my redemption laid out before my eyes Each piece as amorphous as the other - Each piece in its lack of shape a lie 
|
Posted By: Detric
Date Posted: August 17 2007 at 12:22
|
Yeah I think its for different reasons really. Some may claim its because they sound better when they are from that period of time which I dont really believe. The other thing is probably as Robq already said, its a certain feeling when you know these vinyls were already floating around in different houses in the 70's. Its like to get hold of a piece of history or whatever, but the prices on Ebay are pretty laughable at times. If I had the money for it, I would probably go for first press vinyls as well, because I think you get a good feeling when playing them. However, I dont mind buying the re-releases because its just that vinyl "sound" I really dig when listening to an album from that period of time. I doubt they sound that different from each other anyway :) |
Posted By: Chicapah
Date Posted: August 17 2007 at 12:46
|
Funny you should bring this up today. The first batch of CDs rolled off an assembly line in Germany on August 17, 1982. Twenty five years to the day.
I have found a nice balance between my cherished LPs and my growing collection of CDs. Both have their advantages and, to my aging ears, it's hard for me to tell all that much difference in the sound. If I was 21 again I probably would. ------------- "Literature is well enough, as a time-passer, and for the improvement and general elevation and purification of mankind, but it has no practical value" - Mark Twain |
Posted By: Hyperborea
Date Posted: August 17 2007 at 20:48
|
Vinyl has better quality, but cd's have better sound.....give me vinyl...i grew up with up it and next to my wife, is the most loved thing in my house. ------------- As i race o'er this beautiful sphere, Like a dog who is chasing his..... |
Posted By: Paradox
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 14:50
|
I don't yet own a record player, but own a fair few LPs (I buy them for the artwork). My outlook is that I would rather buy an album in CD format than LP and get to know it, then in the future when i'm rich (yeah...) I will seek out the vinyl versions. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Dick Heath
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 18:07
|
Not many responses to this thread, mainly because I would suggest, similar topics have been commonplace in PA, and maybe for many of us the subject has been exhausted: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/search_results_posts.asp?SearchID=20070820180419&KW=vinyl ------------- The best eclectic music on the Web,8-11pm BST/GMT THURS. CLICK ON: http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php - http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php Host by PA's Dick Heath. |
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: August 21 2007 at 10:57
|
Regarding sound it varies from album to album in my opinion. Some vinyls sound better than the CD issue of the same album to my ears, and it can also be the other way 'round. It's a personal thing. Listening-wise, it's the same for me. Some albums I prefer the vinyl version of, some the CD. It's never black and white, there are millions of shades of grey in between. Don't generalise, and everyone will be happier. |
Posted By: Tapfret
Date Posted: August 21 2007 at 12:22
I re-record all of my CD's with pops, hisses, scratches and compress the dynamic range before I convert to MP3 so they all sound more like vinyl.  ------------- https://www.last.fm/user/Tapfret" rel="nofollow">  https://bandcamp.com/tapfret" rel="nofollow - Bandcamp |
Posted By: Dick Heath
Date Posted: August 21 2007 at 18:07
Forgive me asking, but why? They didn't recorded it like that, they wouldn't have played it live like that. As written elsewhere, compression is means of fitting more than 15 minutes per side, in the form of a mechanical analogue signal - i.e. the groove on each side of the LP. The sub-30 minute, early Beach Boys LPs weren't normally compressed since there was little need. The 12" singles tended to have the best audio range if a tune was about 4 minutes or less - unless compressed for radio broadcast purposes (e.g. for stations with AM or poor quality FM). ------------- The best eclectic music on the Web,8-11pm BST/GMT THURS. CLICK ON: http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php - http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php Host by PA's Dick Heath. |
Posted By: Hallogallo
Date Posted: August 22 2007 at 23:22
I couldn't agree with that anymore. I never buy Prog albums on CD. It's ALWAYS the original pressings (if I can find them  ) I will buy. Vinyl just sounds so much better, the album covers are bigger to look at, and I love Gatefold covers! You never see gatefold covers like Warrior On The Edge Of Time by Hawkwind anymore  .------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Drekavac/?chartstyle=iTunesFIXED"> 
|
Posted By: docsolar
Date Posted: August 22 2007 at 23:44
|
I have a decent amount of prog LPs, my most recent acquisitions include Gentle Giant's Playing The Fool and Steve Hackett's Voyage of the Acolyte. I LOVE vinyl. I have only just started to collect it, but the sound is much warmer and less metallic and digital than CDs. I would take a record over a CD of the same album any day. ------------- 
|
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: August 22 2007 at 23:59
|
I own many LP's (vinyl) of the classic 70's stuff (ELP, Crimson, Yes, you name it), bought back in the day when they were released. I also own the CD's of same, which I listen to when I want more pristine sound. Agreed the LP's sound better, but there's one huge problem:
In spite of judicious use of Diskkeeper, replacing paper sleeves with plastic, etc., many times we were chemically altered while listening to this stuff and didn't necessarily treat them well. We were teenagers and didn't keep our needles replaced as recommended, or we had too high a tracking weight on the turntable which has unfortunately worn out some of the nuances. The high end equipment was not within our reach, and the LP's suffered. In short, the LP's are not always in that great of shape and don't sound anywhere near as good as they once did. Not that there are skips or other huge flaws, but there's a lot of extraneous noise due to sloppy treatment.
I guess I could sell my LP's on ebay, but the buyer is not going to get the original experience.
(Let me know if your interested
), now that you know the TRUTH. |
Posted By: BroSpence
Date Posted: August 23 2007 at 14:11
| I prefer vinyls by far. |
Posted By: asimplemistake
Date Posted: August 23 2007 at 14:17
| Vinyls, but only for the older stuff. CD's are for modern albums (for me at least) and I like older stuff in Vinyl format, although I do also get some modern stuff in Vinyl format when possible. |
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: August 23 2007 at 16:10
Very important point, and unfortunately one that seems to be forgotten or ignored in most of these discussions. |
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: August 23 2007 at 23:08
|
It occurs to me I may have been a bit harsh with regard to the good points of vinyl. For my collection, at least, yes the sound quality is no longer what it once was, though it remains, for lack of a better term, more "organic."
However, for those interested in album cover art, the vinyl versions are a revelation if you've not seen them. I probably would not get rid of mine for this very reason.
A couple of (obvious) examples for Crimson:
ITKOTKC: that screaming cover just JUMPS out at you.
Lizard: You can actually see that each of the panels, on which the letters are superimposed upon, relate to each of the songs. For example, the "I" in Crimson references "Happy Family".
This is very easy to miss on the CD art, and was actually a part of what made these classic LP's so, umm, classic.
|
Posted By: Tapfret
Date Posted: August 27 2007 at 03:22
Sorry, but compression is not limitted to the meaning you have presented. When somebody says, "...compress the dynamic range...", as I have, it has nothing to do with time. It is a method by which a recording has it's high and low volumes (mostly high) flattened out to prevent clipping and related distortion. The idea is to balance the intruments and allow the band to "mesh" better. Unfortunately it is possible to over compress and flatten out frequency response as well. This effect also occurs naturally with old worn out vinyl, which is were my tongue and cheek statement comes in regarding duplicating a vinyl sound quality on my digitally mastered reproductions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range_compression - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range_compression
------------- https://www.last.fm/user/Tapfret" rel="nofollow"> https://bandcamp.com/tapfret" rel="nofollow - Bandcamp |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: August 27 2007 at 15:48
|
Vinyl alway's better, if you can find the first or second pressing and in good condition, which is not easy at all.
Numeric is inferior, plus "rock" CDs are trafficked and bumped, which explain the lack of natural. Remastered versions can bring a better transparency compared to previous CD versions, but often it doesn't respect the original mix. |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: August 27 2007 at 15:50
This is a good word to define the analog sound: it has flesh, mateer, opposed to the thin, edgy numeric sound. |
Posted By: NotAProghead
Date Posted: August 27 2007 at 17:56
|
I like vinyls' cover art, but don't like the noise, especially in quiet music passages.
Additionally, in case of double albums you need to turn over disc one, then put disc two to your turntable etc..., sometimes it destroys the atmosphere of the music.
To say LPs sound better than CDs, you need to have quite good equipment (not necessarily hi-end, but more or less serious hi-fi). In case of cheap sound systems used by most people I think the comparison is senseless. ------------- Who are you and who am I to say we know the reason why... (D. Gilmour) |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: August 27 2007 at 18:04
| I agree with your last sentence. |
Posted By: kingdhansak
Date Posted: September 08 2007 at 03:37
|
I'm a complete supporter and lover on vinyl. As long as it's in perfectly good condition and played on half decent equipment, it beats CD hands down.
I've noticed many people commenting on the price of originals, etc. I must confess I will always try to gain an original if I can within reason though. If it's simply far too expensive, a re-issue will do just fine. It's all about owning the music after all.
I just love the look of vinyl, the warm sound it gives, the artwork. All these qualities are lacking in the CD format.
|
Posted By: magnus
Date Posted: September 08 2007 at 19:23
|
CDs technically have a better dynamic range than vinyls, but they often tend to be overcompressed, especially a lot of remasters. That's not really a prog-problem though, as prog albums tend to be mastered and remastered by non-senseless engineers.
------------- The scattered jigsaw of my redemption laid out before my eyes Each piece as amorphous as the other - Each piece in its lack of shape a lie
|
Posted By: Sckxyss
Date Posted: September 08 2007 at 23:40
|
Pretty much all my music is listened to on a computer or mp3 player, so for me to get an LP would just be silly. I haven't heard enough LPs to comment on sound quality, though I imagine a lot of fans enjoy it because it sounds the same as when they listened to it 30 years ago - an effect of nostalgia. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 09 2007 at 02:11
|
The ageless discussion ... for more than 20 years people have argued about this and the battle continues. To those of you who are sure that vinyl is superior to CD: Why then is CD today the standard format even for those genres which are far from mainstream and where most of the fans (customers) are audiophiles ... such as classical and jazz? If vinyl was so obviously superior to CD none of them would have purchased CDs ... but they did. I don't think that vinyl is in any way superior to CD ... on the contrary, it's inferior in almost every way, you just have to look at the technical specifications. But of course this does not imply that CDs sound better than vinyls ... as many others have said it really depends on the mix/mastering. Last year I bought a record player and started to acquire records ... some used ones from the 70s, but also many new ones with recent music - yes, many artists/labels still release vinyls, especially in the prog/metal/independent genres. I must say that the records really sound differently compared to the CD - but I wouldn't necessarily say that they sound warmer or less "numerical". ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to: 
|
Posted By: Abstrakt
Date Posted: September 09 2007 at 02:23
I'm thinking of getting vinyls every once in a while, since i found a brilliant store selling them from around $3 to $12 last summer 
Not sure how many of them are first or second pressings, though.
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 09 2007 at 02:26
|
^ the sound quality of vinyls also heavily depends on how often they were played ... even with a perfectly aligned stylus and proper care/handling a vinyl disc degrades each time you listen to it.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Abstrakt
Date Posted: September 09 2007 at 02:29
|
I got Iron Maiden's Powerslave there for only $3, but the sound quality was pretty bad.
Led Zeppelin IV's quality was also pretty bad, not only in sound, but also in the inner sleeve
 Genesis Live, in the other hand, sounds great (to my untrained-vinyl-ear)
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 09 2007 at 02:33
|
I'm only saying that with vinyl you have to be careful because each disc can sound differently, while with CDs they all sound 100% identical (unless they're different re-masters of course).
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Abstrakt
Date Posted: September 09 2007 at 02:36
| I've discovered dust on my vinyls, and that might be the problem. LZIV sounds very uneven, the sound seems to go up&down in pitch (sounds quite funny) |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 09 2007 at 02:47
|
^ another serious disadvantage of vinyl - pitch fluctuations. Apparently you can reduce them by using very expensive record players, but you can never completely remove them. It's particularly annoying with Post Rock or Ambient/Electronic albums, which usually feature long drawn chords.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Abstrakt
Date Posted: September 09 2007 at 02:53
|
I'm using my parents quite new record player (not a very good, trendy one). And it works fine for me, since i usually stick to CD's.
Their old record player's needle broke somehow
|
Posted By: Man Erg
Date Posted: September 09 2007 at 03:05
|
If you listen to a pre 1973/4 vinyl pressing,9 times out of 10 it will sound better than anything pressed or re-pressed during and after those/that year(s).
The 'oil crisis' hoiked up the price of oil and vinyl albums and record sleeves became 'sub-standard' because of this.The pressing plants pressed thinner,lighter albums and singles and the sleeves were either printed on thinner cardboard, double sleeves became single sleeves and 45's came in either plain white sleeves or in some sort of flimsy,plastic based material. RCA tried to pass the pressings off as a new 'invention' called 'Dynaflex'. If you see a second-hand album with 'Dynaflex' printed on the label,think twice about buying it.The quality was usually poor. Albums became practically like wobble boards and could almost be bent in half.Pink Floyd's WYWH was released in the wake of the 'oil crisis' and,I believe, holds the record for the most returned record owing to it's skipping because of sub-standard materials/pressing. Ironically,They didn't skimp on the materials sleeve-wise for WYWH.It came in a black plastic outer-sleeve and inside,other than the inner-sleeve,they repeated the DSoTM packaging by including posters and stickers/decals. EMI must have had their own oil fields just for album packaging . Shame that they couldn't have been more generous when it came to the thing that mattered;the record it'self. ------------- 
Do 'The Stanley' otherwise I'll thrash you with some rhubarb. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: September 09 2007 at 03:12
|
^ and it only got worse by the early 80s when LPs had become practically floppy-- even bootlegs were better pressed
|
Posted By: Man Erg
Date Posted: September 09 2007 at 03:15
Absolutely.RCA's green label releases were a joke.You almost had to put something like a steam iron onto the the player arm to stop it from 'jumping'. -------------
Do 'The Stanley' otherwise I'll thrash you with some rhubarb. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: September 09 2007 at 03:32
yes, PF's A Momentary Lapse of Reason was more like A Momentary Taste of Music ...you had to tape a penny on the arm to keep the LP from skipping... and the "cover", well... |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 09 2007 at 03:34
|
Listening to Dream Theater - Systematic Chaos right now ... on vinyl. 180gr, awesome artwork ... it's quite a package compared to the CD edition. Still, can't say that it *sounds* better.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: September 09 2007 at 03:37
|
oh I agree basically, Mike, I like my CDs.. and the re-release of old stuff with new notes is pretty great too.. you can bet much of this retro stuff coming out won't be on vinyl
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 09 2007 at 03:42
Yes, but much of the new stuff is being released on vinyl. I've become quite a collector ... I even ordered the new special vinyl edition of Porcupine Tree's Fear of a Blank Planet yesterday - costs me 60 EUR including shipping, the most expensive album I've ever bought.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: September 09 2007 at 03:44
| yeah, and I've seen the old Venom LPs in nice new printings, AngelWitch too |
Posted By: Tapfret
Date Posted: September 10 2007 at 13:03
I must admit, this vinyl talk has made me want to dig out my old Piece of Mind Picture vinyl. Fun version of Cross-eyed Marry on it.
 ------------- https://www.last.fm/user/Tapfret" rel="nofollow"> https://bandcamp.com/tapfret" rel="nofollow - Bandcamp |
Posted By: Thunder
Date Posted: September 10 2007 at 13:22
|
I don't know if it had been discussed already but: Isn`t it dangerous to listen to all these Albums on Vinyl all the time? The more often you listen to them, the quality get`s worse. Or am I mistaken?
------------- "The true perfection of man lies, not in what man has, but in what man is." - Oscar Wilde |
Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: September 10 2007 at 13:38
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: September 10 2007 at 13:45
| If the cartridge is good and well setted, the degradation is very small. Anyway, our life is not infinite. |
Posted By: Bellringer
Date Posted: November 19 2007 at 20:14
|
To bring another element into this, I work at a monotonous job which allows us to listen to music (on headphones) to keep us from getting bored (just). Right now I prefer CDs because I can't exactly bring my phonograph to work. Hell, if I had access to the internet, I'd just listen to uk70s off live365 all day. ------------- Psalm 69:6 |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: November 19 2007 at 20:59
My solution in the LP age was to record them to a cassette using dbx, which made copies that would sound as good as the LPs when played back on a dbx deck. And absolutely compressed to hell, when played on a non-dbx deck. I have recorded LPs to CDs when I was fairly certain they would never be released on CD. Inevitably, most have been subsequently released on CD. I've had a lot of LP experience and for a long time vinyl was the gold standard despite its flaws. And you couldn't beat it if the record came with a outstanding album cover art package. Those are the only vinyls I will hang on to. Nice to know there's a market out there for those albums now gathering dust here. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: November 20 2007 at 02:51
It's almost pointless buying modern LPs, as most are recorded digitally.
The whole point about early LP's vs CD is simply that an analogue master -> analogue consumer item sounds better than its digital counterpart.
I conducted a simple test with a work colleague of mine;
I recorded a first pressing of The Doors "L.A. Woman" at 24-bit/192khz - it was a monster WAV file, but sounded extremely close to the vinyl source.
I then re-rendered it to 16-bit/44.1 khz, and ripped the same track from a CD @ 16/44.1.
My colleague (who is a Hi-Fi buff, with an expensive soundcard, valve headphone amps and reference headphones) then played the 3 files back to back, and was immediately impressed with the presence, separation and dynamically musical quality of the 24-bit file.
Next preferred was the 16-bit version of the vinyl recording.
Last was the CD rip - despite being "the same" sound quality as the vinyl rip, and having a greater range - more top and bottom - it was felt that the CD was altogether more harsh and less musical.
This without knowing which was which - so I thought it fairly conclusive, although surprising, as I didn't think that a digital rendition of a vinyl recording would do it full justice - and compared to listening on my home system, even the 24-bit file seems a bit lifeless and lacking in (subjective) musical colour.
I've bought a few LPs recently, but most have been disappointing. The best by far was by Jet. The worst was by the Engineers, who sound great in concert (very Floyd), but sound awful on vinyl.
Back to '70s prog, Camel sound utterly incredible on vinyl - particularly Mirage and Moonmadness ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: limeyrob
Date Posted: November 20 2007 at 16:48
|
I agree with a lot that Certif1ed says. My main reason for preferring CDs is that you don't get the ticks and scratches that you get with vinyls. It may be may record deck or I am doing something but when I am listening intensively to an album the ticks and scratches have detracted from the music. Also CDs are much more convenient than vinyl and I prepared to scarifice a little bit of quality for this. Just as an aside for The Brits - I remember the watching theitem on Tomorrow's World heralding the digital age and the almost indestructable CD. Great I thought - no more scratches. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: November 20 2007 at 17:28
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: November 20 2007 at 18:44
|
I seriously need to catalog the vinyls in my collection I'd like to sell so they'd get good homes. Many have only been played once to record them. Will probably sell them through half.com. Will post a notice in Get The Word Out, if that is the appropriate place on this site. Would like to find good homes for the ones I don't care to hang on to. Lots of good '70's prog for you vinyl lovers.
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: PROGMAN
Date Posted: November 20 2007 at 19:39
|
A few years ago, I had taped a Status Quo ablbum, the vinyl version of "Blue for You" onto a blank tape, the quality was poor the playback was, but I don't blame the vinyl itself, it could be something to do with it going from one format to another maybe? I have been told before by someone that "LPs tend to have the sound at the back of the speakers, whilst CD are heared on front of the speakers when played" - surely that is a load of bull. Problems I find with with some CD remasters are not always original to their vinyl releases, especially the 1980s CDs, bands like ZZ TOP added 80s sound effects to their first 5 albums, with the naff 80s drum machine sounds etc, however now a couple of their album have been recently remastered now and includes the original mix, because TUSH didn't sound right with those blinking 1980s style drum remixes: however it sound better now in it's original mix. I think at one point they did this with FREE as well I remember at one point "All Right Now" had those annoying drum remixes. Frank Zappa re-recorded the rhythm section of Were Only In It For The Money and Crusing With Ruben and the Jets, thi was when they were first on CD in 1986, however since then WOITFTM on the 1995 CD remaster had it's original master tapes of the bass and drums, however CWRATJ still remains in it's dubbed 1980s remix/re-recorded on CD. OZZY OSBOURNE's first 2 albums were also messed up with on the 2002 cd reissues, BLIZZARD OF OZZ and DIARY OF A MADMAN were slightly re-recorded in 2002 removing the original bass and drums with new ones, whilst the 1995 remasters are remastered with the ORIGINAL bass and drums. Also the 2002 reissue of BARK AT THE MOON has had a major remix and some people have complained about it sounded different to the original, also the volumes and certain solos are now spoiled apparently, but that album was not rerecorded in any way apparently. Remasters are good as long as they are not heavily remix or not re-recorded and are remastered properly. Neu!, Neu! 2 and Neu! 75 were remastered and reissued on CD in 2001, apparently Klaus Dinger and Michael Rother had the albums remastered 3 times to make sure it sounded the way it should, quite amazing that story. ------------- CYMRU AM BYTH 
|
Posted By: ghost_of_morphy
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 02:11
As far as sound goes, I don't think it matters all that much most of the time. Being robbed of all of the design that went into the old vinyl albums, however, does matter.
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 04:11
------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 07:20
The Rykodisc was the first version of that album I heard. (I didn't own it.) I did not know that. I have a later remaster, which I'm is of the original version. I just wish they hadn't kept the line "Don't come in me in me don't come in me in me" censored. (Ryko's was not.) Oh well, there is plenty of crude and lewd material uncensored in many of his other albums. "Hey there people I'm Bobby Brown..." ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Nightfly
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 10:35
But I bet it looks loads better!
I haven't bought any vinyl in twenty years almost but I'm getting the urge to try one or two in that format again. I still have my Systemdek turntable conected to my Hi - Fi and still use it to play all my old vinyl.
I think that the vinyl pressings today are going to be far superior to a lot of the original pressings. I remember the late 70's/early 80's as a time when so many low grade pressings were around with really bad surface noise. Now of course they are aimed at audiophiles and at those prices they are going to have to be good or they wont sell.
|
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 14:23
My old amplifier (from the '70's gave out) I have a functioning and fairly new turntable. I need to get my setup functioning so I can record LPs that haven't been released on CD to a CD. Blasphemy for you vinyl purists? 
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 15:24
Not at all - I got a Project Debut III USB for that very reason 
 http://www.superfi.co.uk/index.cfm/page/moreinfo.cfm/Product_ID/3378 - http://www.superfi.co.uk/index.cfm/page/moreinfo.cfm/Product_ID/3378
Saves wear and tear on those precious First Presses.
Oh, and it's black ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 15:33
|
^ you're lecturing me about sound quality and how much digital sucks and then you use a turntable with an USB interface?
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Hercules
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 16:37
|
I was left a Pink Triangle Anniversary TT and around 800 vinyl albums (about 65% prog) by my late partner. He raved about vinyl's sound quality, but I had always thought CDs better. No more - there's no comparison. The Pink Triangle eases the most unbelievable levels of detail out of the grooves and it all sounds so natural. I use my CD player for new releases not around on vinyl, but when I have a choice, it's vinyl every time. ------------- A TVR is not a car. It's a way of life. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 16:41
|
Unfortunately the human brain is easily deceived ... that's why there are listening tests. People fail to tell high quality sources apart (for example CD vs. vinyl) in controlled experiments, but there will always be people who try to tell you that one is vastly superior to the other. My verdict: vinyl can sound great, CD can sound great! ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Visitor13
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 16:46
| I wonder which format can generate a deeper silence... |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 16:51
^ CD, hands down ... the signal to noise ratio is simply better.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 16:55
Nah, it's all crap. The format I prefer is that cylinder tin foil thingy that Edison first came up with.  Yeah baby, that's the ticket! ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 16:56
 
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Visitor13
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 16:58
Thought so. So any music that makes use of extended periods of silence, like John Cage's, should be listened to on a CD. |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 17:00
Or perhaps this model, the Edison Home Phonograph....  ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 17:02
|
By the way for those seriously interested in the history: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/edhtml/edcyldr.html - http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/edhtml/edcyldr.html ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 17:02
|
^ well, some might prefer vinyl ... if the silence is too perfect it doesn't sound natural. I guess that the rumble, hiss, pops and crackles of vinyl playback contribute much to the vinyl nostalgia ...
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Visitor13
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 17:10
They sure do, but at the same time they turn whatever music the vinyl holds into a kind of musique concrete. It's quite an invasive format, don't you think? And there's no such thing as a silence that is too perfect or deep. |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 17:13
I'll confess to a little vinyl nostalgia. When I first became a zombie prog person, I could get great used prog for $2 or $3 for a double album. My favorite store from then is still in business, Wax 'n' Facts. Haven't paid them a visit in years. They probably do sell used CDs these days. Nowadays for used CDs, I buy from the internet or a closer store called Ella Guru. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 17:29
Not in this thread I'm not
 As I said, it saves on wear and tear. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: November 21 2007 at 17:31
Cage's piece doesn't use silence at all - it's simply that no notes are played during a performance. The two concepts are completely different. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Teh_Slippermenz
Date Posted: November 22 2007 at 20:14
|
Vinyl > CD. I agree. Don't get me wrong, CDs are great for on-the-go or when you're at the computer, but CDs suffer from audio compression that LPs do NOT suffer from. (Case in point: Genesis's "Foxtrot") All of my progressive rock albums (except for Rush's "2112" and Yes's "Tormato"....and Pink Floyd's "Animals", "The Dark Side of the Moon", and "Wish You Were Here"....so not ALL of them) are on vinyl. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: November 23 2007 at 03:12
|
One of the advantages of the CD format is that it has a better signal to noise ratio ... or in other words: An increased range of loudness (between silence and the loudest possible sound). Whether a recording sounds compressed or not has *nothing* to do with the CD format ... it's a choice which the recording engineer makes.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Harry Hood
Date Posted: November 23 2007 at 03:20
|
A long time ago Aaron and I picked up Asia's self titled, Genesis' Duke and Yes 90125 for about $3 each. We don't have a turntable, we ust thought it'd be funny to start a collection of 80's pop prog. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Nightfly
Date Posted: November 23 2007 at 06:39
I have this for playing all my Prog 78 masterpieces . No Bass or Treble controls, just open the flaps on the front for more volume. What more could you want!
 |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: November 23 2007 at 08:06
You're right in a couple of respects; the CD of Foxtrot is appalling, and CDs suffer from audio compression that LPs do NOT suffer from in the literal sense.
However, audio also has to be compressed for vinyl - the argument could be made that it's worse, as vinyl has a narrower range overall, and requires roll-offs that CD doesn't need.
However, the absolutely binary nature of CD means that it does miss information that vinyl (or tape) doesn't.
So it's a matter of preference, ultimately, but given the right audio system, I feel confident that most would prefer the sound of vinyl to CD, even if there wasn't a good technical reason why.
Now you're just being silly - how could you fit a Wakeman solo onto a 78?  ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: arcer
Date Posted: November 23 2007 at 17:35
|
^ Although my memory is failing with advancing years I seem to recalling reading an article in Sound on Sound magazine or somesuch a number of years ago in which a respected vinyl mastering engineer posited the theory that it was in fact the compression that must be applied to cut masters that contributed vastly to the homogeneity of sound on 'pop' vinyl record, a quote corroborated by none other than Paul McCartney who added that he felt that cutting to vinyl always made him feel that it was the moment (when he listened to a cut record) that the whole performance sound liked a band playing together. Slightly geeky but I've been doing an A/B test today on the CD version of Led Zeppelin's Mothership with the vinyl versions of the same songs. I got Mothership because reviews had mentioned the superiority of the mastering and how it breathed new life into the songs and made you remember what made Zeppelin great. Have to say that the difference between the CD cut of Ramble On (played on a Roksan Kandy Mk III cd player through Myryad amps and Sonus Faber Concerto Domus speakers) and the vinyl version from Zep II played a Linn LP12 with Origin Live modded RB300, Sumiko Blue Point cartridge into a Graham Slee Era Gold MkV phono stage and through the same amps and speakers was negligible. The CD sounded marginally more sparkly through the very top end (the leading edge of the upper bass notes on the chorus was more clearly defined and more dynamic and the hand percussion more brightly lit), a little tighter in the lower bass but the vinyl did indeed sound more cohesive, even though it presented a wider soundstage. Vinyl also treated the acoustic guitar on the verses with greater sensitivity, placing it in the mix better, not so starkly. It just sounded a bit more natural. To be fair to the CD remaster, Plant's voice had better articulation, especially on breathing and note decay. Boring, but each I guess has its merits. It ain't as cut and dried as either camp would suggest though. Vinyl defintiely warmer and more naturally but (maybe it's my cartridge) with a little blurring of the edges. CD crisper and more brightly lit but with a slight feeling that things had been over-accentuated. Which is better? Who knows, I suppose the moral is: if you have a good enough replay system (analogue and digital) both are entirely satisfactory. And after all, some things just can't be got on vinyl anymore unless you're willing to spend, spend, spend. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: November 23 2007 at 17:59
Actually vinyl suffers from a similar effect: http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/iandm/part12/page2.html - http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/iandm/part12/page2.html Quote: " PVC is a Polymer. This means its molecules have been grown by joining together lots of smaller molecules. The results of this polymerization process will depend upon the details of the process. The average molecular weights of the polymer chains which are formed can range from a few tens of hydrogen atom masses to hundreds of thousands. As a result, the PVC molecules are much larger than carbon atoms. This has the effect of producing a material which is ‘lumpy’ with a typical quantisation size far bigger than a carbon atom. As a result, the value for 
we should have used for the above expressions is hundreds of times
larger than 0.5 nm, producing a much smaller dynamic range. As an
example, if we assume the molecules in LP Vinyl are 100 times larger
than a carbon atom, then resulting dynamic range might be expected to
fall by 40dB to around 70dB."In a nutshell: Just because the vinyl record is an analog medium doesn't mean it has an infinite resolution ... in fact it may even have a more "granular" resolution than a CD. IMO the ultimate recording medium is digital at 24bit/96khz. Of course something like 32bit/384khz would be even better, but considering the *fact* that typical human beings can't hear anything above 20khz and suffer permanent inner ear damage at levels of more than 90dB (which roughly equals 16bit resolution) makes 24bit/96khz seem like a very safe choice. If a recording in this format sounds "harsh" or too compressed or "overbumped" (as oliverstoned would put it) then it's much more likely caused by the signal itself (the recording, mix, mastering etc) than by the digital format. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Nightfly
Date Posted: November 24 2007 at 11:19
You've got me there
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: November 24 2007 at 15:29
http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm - http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm
------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: November 24 2007 at 16:09
|
^ I don't know what you're trying to say by posting this link ... it basically confirms my point. I think that a common mistake people make when looking at these kinds of diagrams is to assume that the perfectly round sine wave represents the analog recording typically found on vinyl discs. *Maybe* if you used vinyl discs with twice the diameter and rotate them a couple of times faster ... but where's the point? Humans can't hear such fine nuances ... our ears simply aren't sophisticated enough. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: November 25 2007 at 06:21
I wonder if any prog ever actually made it to the 78 format? Cool thing about this little unit is that appears to be totally hand crank powered. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Nightfly
Date Posted: November 25 2007 at 14:03
It is hand crank powered. You need to rewind it after every 2 plays or so.
Can't see any Prog making it to 78's as I don't think they were made after the late 50's as everyone was buying 45's and LP's by then. No great loss though as the sound quality is terrible!
 |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: November 26 2007 at 03:41
I know - tell me about it!!!  ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: November 26 2007 at 07:22
Well, if you're asking me to ignore facts ... I won't do it. Analog doesn't mean infinite resolution, it's as simple as that. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: PROGMAN
Date Posted: November 27 2007 at 18:58
You could probably manage to fit a massive Rick Wakeman solo on a 16 RPM record  Would the LP record have been better if it had adopted the 16 RPM speed instead of 33 rpm? I'm thinking in terms of longer length, but would have the sound quality have suffered?? ------------- CYMRU AM BYTH
|