Questions about vinyl

^ two very good points!  They show that the sound quality of vinyl depends on much more variables than optical discs (CD/DVD/whatever) - much more can go wrong and mess up the sound. Vinyl fans will undoubtedly say that none of this is a real problem - with the proper care taken. But even then the vinyl disc is still inferior in terms of frequency range, dynamic range and linearity.

The bottom line for me is that vinyl is a very enjoyable medium - I'll continue to collect vinyl releases - but it is not the most accurate - that's CD, SACD and DVD-A. They're objectively (beyond reasoning) superior to any of the old analogue consumer formats (vinyl, cassette). Subjectively however, there may be reasons to prefer analogue, because they sound different and some people may prefer that sound over the accurate representation of the source, just like some prefer the harmonic distortion of an expensive tube amplifier over the more linear sound of a good solid state amp.


Edited by MikeEnRegalia - May 28 2008 at 03:08

Certif1ed wrote: It has an almost tangible quality to it that digital sound DOES NOT REPRODUCE.   Maybe someone can do the science and work out why, because all the evidence points to vinyl being significantly inferior - and yet it still sounds better.

I think that the conclusion must be that the most accurate representation of the original recording is not always the one which sounds best (subjectively).

Perhaps it's the way the first pressing reproduces the music which you love so much - how that particular pressing was mastered, the material used, the quality of the manufacturing process etc..

For someone like me the world is entirely different ... for me the remastered digital releases are the benchmark. Vinyl can sound as good or even (subjectively) better, but there are many hazards along the way ... as I had to learn when I recently purchased the re-mastered vinyl edition of Metallica's Ride the Lightning. High quality, half-speed, 180gr etc. but sounds horrible.

I have to ask, have you had problems with first pressings coming from Decca Records, released 1966 -1971? Personal experience then showed that Decca QC for pop/record was far inferior to that of their classical label and the audiophile label Phase 4. But also listening to the recently issued Strange Pleasures box set from Decca of rock recordings 1966 to1975, you will find there is a wide range of standards in recording too from Decca over this period.  I feel somewhat reinforced in my arguement that the Moody Blues' Days Of Future Past was intended as pop/rock record for a handful of audiophile record collectors in the 60's (i.e. those few that had good stereo equipment - predominantly middle class and middle aged folk), since the audio quality of the tracks selected for Strange Pleasures is far superior to anything else heard on the set. Also let me repeat from elesewhere: the stereo version of "Beano" album John Mayall & The Bluesbreakers, was released by Decca several months after the mono version. I seem to remember a 6 week gap in getting the stereo version of the Rolling Stones Aftermath, after the official release date when i guess only the mono version was available. And I think the same was true wrt Cream's Fresh Cream (that was released by Track/Polydor). In other words, I think it is true to say, many (UK?) record labels weren't geared up for a high fidelity demand of rock records until (at best) the late 60's.

Edited by Dick Heath - May 28 2008 at 07:21

Dick Heath wrote: I have to ask, have you had problems with first pressings coming from Decca Records, released 1966 -1971? Personal experience then showed that Decca QC for pop/record was far inferior to that of their classical label and the audiophile label Phase 4. But also listening to the recently issued Strange Pleasures box set from Decca of rock recordings 1966 to1975, you will find there is a wide range of standards in recording too from Decca over this period.  I feel somewhat reinforced in my arguement that the Moody Blues' Days Of Future Past was intended as pop/rock record for a handful of audiophile record collectors in the 60's (i.e. those few that had good stereo equipment - predominantly middle class and middle aged folk), since the audio quality of the tracks selected for Strange Pleasures is far superior to anything else heard on the set. Also let me repeat from elesewhere: the stereo version of "Beano" album John Mayall & The Bluesbreakers, was released by Decca several months after the mono version. I seem to remember a 6 week gap in getting the stereo version of the Rolling Stones Aftermath, after the official release date when i guess only the mono version was available. And I think the same was true wrt Cream's Fresh Cream (that was released by Track/Polydor). In other words, I think it is true to say, many (UK?) record labels weren't geared up for a high fidelity demand of rock records until (at best) the late 60's.

Edited by Certif1ed - May 28 2008 at 08:52

Certif1ed wrote:     Cream's albums were released on Reaction before Polysnore took over (as they did other classic labels) - Hendrix and The Who were on Track

^Because it's great.

Edited by Certif1ed - May 28 2008 at 15:11

Certif1ed wrote: you're probably wearing sandals.

you don't know how right you are.

^Heh!

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ I'll definitely hang on to it ... listened to it yesterday, the pressing/mastering is awesome!  the new album is much, much more experimental. Only a few songs are "trip hop", the rest is an eclectic mix of styles with all sorts of influences including Anekdoten, Radiohead or even Silver Apples - it's still quite unique and original though. I think I'll even propose them for addition.

Edited by Certif1ed - May 29 2008 at 03:44

SA wrote poppy songs with "wooey" noises on their 1st album. "Contact" is a bit more interesting, but "You and I" sounds like Public Image Limited, and the wierder electronic excursions sound more like Kraftwerk's mid 1970s period.