Insights on vinyl

Yes, i still listen to vynil and "if not at CD level, then on SACD/DVD-Audio level" unfortunatly it doesn't changes things much.

oliverstoned wrote: vynil

^ you can listen to DVD-Audio on the computer with a budget 5.1 system, all it takes are $50 for a good Creative sound card (Audigy), a built in DVD drive and a set of speakers (decent quality speakers are available for $80).

I use this setup to listen to music frequently ... it's nowhere near a reall hi-fi system, but it allows you to listen to the surround sound 5.1 mixes on the DVD-A, and of course you can use it to watch movies - if you also attach a TV set, or even better: put the computer in the living room and use a LCD-TV instead of the computer screen.

But coming back to vinyl: I agree about the nostalgia, and that aspect is even more obvious in my room where the huge computer/LCD/5.1 speakers/cables etc. technical overkill is juxtaposed with the simple turntable + amp + speakers of my hi-fi (well, actually kind of "mid-fi") system.


Edited by MikeEnRegalia - October 07 2006 at 05:25

There's a notable difference in soundquality between the CD versions and the original LP versions of many albums in my library. Needless to say, I prefer vinyl records because of that. But for compatibility and, in particular, portability, the CD is far superior. 

Edited by Philéas - October 09 2006 at 05:13

I'm enjoying in listening to the vinyls, now even more than in my youth (let's say 40 years ago!); moreover I'm still regularly buying records (LPs) of my favourite bands and I'm especially delighted with first pressing examples being in a mint or near mint condition. I absolutely agree that it is a matter of nostalgia, cover art or even the opening of a gatefold sleeve, but most and above all it is this unique warm, reach and full analog sound that makes my ears feel pleasant.

unnatural ... what if - like the article says - some original pressings were flawed?

For sure it's mostly about preferences. But saying that there's no way of saying one is more natural or better than the other!

There was definitely a habit of over emphasising some aspects of the mix when CD first came in.  The ability to get much clearer and higher levels of high (and very low) frequency sound often drove sound engineers to turn these up and produce some very unnatural sounding mixes.  Couple that with the fact that there were some poor quality CD pressings around back then and you can see why some duff CDs are about.

^Indeed, there are some bands to whom vinyl is the natural environment; hearing the Beatles, the Stones, Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin (especially DSOTM and Led Zep II) on vinyl is like hearing the music for the first time - every time!

It also depends on the pressing, of course - the first presses are so full of detail you'd swear the band was in the room with you. The FP of "Rubber Soul", for example, is simply incredible, thanks to the solid, thick vinyl and, of course, relatively unworn stampers.

I recently managed to upgrade all of my 1970s Genesis vinyl to first press by finally tracking down a genuine FP of "Foxtrot" - and even though it sounds compressed in the last few minutes (due to packing all that music onto a side), the rest is much, much better than the awful CDs.

Comparing the CD of Foxtrot to the FP makes me realise why so many people think that the production is awful - it isn't, it's the terrible mastering job - which may have something to do with what HeavyFreight is saying.

However, the 24-bit remastered CD of "Script for a Jester's Tear" is sonic perfection and blows the (horrible, thin, 1980s) vinyl away!

Some remastering has practically made new records, though - DSOTM is a classic example. The FP sounds raw - like a Rock band in full swing, albeit with incredible production techniques. Later pressings (presumably either remastered or compressed through cheap vinyl) sound more homogenous and syrupy. The more recent re-masters sound even more syrupy and above all, digital.

That's not necessarily bad, just very different to the original!

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ what about the new vinyl pressings of DSOTM? As far as I know they're 180gr vinyl and DMM (Direct Metal Mastering) ... I'll definitely buy one of them and compare it to the CD versions.

    
I'm not so sure - I haven't heard any of the newer pressings, mainly because I was put off DMMs by the 3 Metallica issues (KEA, RTL and MOP were released as limited edition DMMs).

I read an article on DMM, and can concur that the overall sound lacks depth, although there is plenty of clarity because the top gets a boost from the process. I found the sound too brittle for my taste - but maybe they've improved the process since. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the comparison(s - you say CD versions = does that mean you have more than one CD version to compare it to?).


Here's a great link to a quality forum post on how records are made, for the curious; http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=44239

This link touches on some of the issues with DMM; http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/archive/index.php/t-68559.html - the real vinylphiles will appreciate the videos