Do you still collect vinyl?

[Szykneij]

This sounds like the ideal situation, but it does bring us back to the question of LP storage. My neighbour, as I've mentioned around here before, has a double garage stacked to the rafters with vinyl - none of which, incidentally, he's yet bothered to transfer to CD, AFAIK. If I were to begin collecting vinyl as insanely as he has, I'd have no option but to copy and resell. Either that, or sleep on the roof of my house.

Very true that space is a big issue. Fortunately, I have a garage, basement, and attic to make use of. At the moment, all of my uncopied vinyl is in my garage, which also serves as my office and quiet listening area. Each album that I copy goes into a crate, which is then transferred to my cellar when full. (I'm also creating an inventory on my computer as I go.) Eventually, if I have the discipline to continue the process, I'll have all my LPs safely sorted and stored away in my basement with the CD versions on my shelf for active listening.

[Valentino]

That LPs should offer superior sound to CD is of course BS, but they can sound remarkably similar.

The pops don't annoy me if the music is good, but the lack of those on CD is of course a big benefit.

[Shrunk]

That LPs should offer superior sound to CD is of course BS, but they can sound remarkably similar.

The pops don't annoy me if the music is good, but the lack of those on CD is of course a big benefit.

Not to get into an argument here, but the best vinyl reproduction I have heard easily surpasses the best conventional digital.  To my ears, of course.  I remain undecided on the new high-res formats like SACD.  However, the limited number of releases on those formats renders the question moot.

Of course, I would never claim that CD has no advantages whatsoever over LP.  Simply put, CD's produce less non-music, while LP's produce more music, if that makes any sense.

[head-case]

Of course, I would never claim that CD has no advantages whatsoever over LP.  Simply put, CD's produce less non-music, while LP's produce more music, if that makes any sense.

I don't think it does, actually.   

[Xenophanes]

First, an anecdote. A while ago, some neighbors who were moving to a new house a few blocks away had a yard sale.  They had a few 78 RPM records and didn't even know what they were.  They thought they were 33.3 LPs!  They're the wrong generation to know much about 78s. I don't think they even have a record player. I tried to explain how I knew they were 78s but I don't think I convinced them.  However, since I can't play 78s, I wasn't interested in buying any.

Since the mid 1980s, I have bought mostly CDs, but I have retained my LP collection, which must be close to 1300 by now.  I have a pretty good LP playing system and many of them sound acceptable to very good. I haven't replaced very many of them with CDs, mostly music I play fairly often.

I look for used LPs (and CDs, DVDs, even VHS tapes) in the used music stores, thrift stores, the sales at the public library, and perhaps yard sales, usually available very cheaply. Sometimes I find some interesting stuff, sometimes not.  I am now looking to cull some of my LP collection to make room for them, either because I don't like them (sound or performance) or because I have replaced them with CDs.

[Shrunk]

I don't think it does, actually.   

Sometimes brevity is the enemy of clarity.

This quote from an audio website pretty well summarizes the differences I hear between analogue and digital:

"From my own personal experience, all digital components made today still 'simplify' music compared to good analog, even to the degree that it will begin to sound 'mechanical' and 'artificial'.

"On the other hand, it would be foolish to ignore Digital's superiority to analog in a number of sonic parameters: Precision, outer detail, speed stability, noise and overall purity.

"Unfortunately, it also subtracts those aspects of the sound which are the vital essence of music; the conveyor of emotions. That is why Digital, at present, is more intellectually than emotionally satisfying. This is especially true for those audiophiles who are very familiar with good analog sound."

That quote is taken from here:  http://www.high-endaudio.com/index.html.

Of course, this is all subjective.  There's no way to prove either side of the argument. 

[sound67]

Of course, this is all subjective.  There's no way to prove either side of the argument. 

Oh yes, there is. ALL paramters (dynamic range, noise level, etc.) clearly show CDs to be superior in sound. The argument that 16bit resolution is not enough to reproduce music in all detail was always BS. The myth of the superiority of LPs dates from the early CD era, when some CDs were simply dreadfully remastered compared to the older vinly masters and the sound engineers of the analogue era were not fully capable of utilizing digital technology properly.

[head-case]

Sometimes brevity is the enemy of clarity.

This quote from an audio website pretty well summarizes the differences I hear between analogue and digital:

"From my own personal experience, all digital components made today still 'simplify' music compared to good analog, even to the degree that it will begin to sound 'mechanical' and 'artificial'.

"On the other hand, it would be foolish to ignore Digital's superiority to analog in a number of sonic parameters: Precision, outer detail, speed stability, noise and overall purity.

"Unfortunately, it also subtracts those aspects of the sound which are the vital essence of music; the conveyor of emotions. That is why Digital, at present, is more intellectually than emotionally satisfying. This is especially true for those audiophiles who are very familiar with good analog sound."

That quote is taken from here:  http://www.high-endaudio.com/index.html.

Of course, this is all subjective.  There's no way to prove either side of the argument. 

Ah, you subscribe to the maxim "if I saw it on a web site it must be true."

[Shrunk]

Ah, you subscribe to the maxim "if I saw it on a web site it must be true."

No, I just thought that quote did a better job of describing what I hear with my own ears than I could have done in my own words.

[Shrunk]

Oh yes, there is. ALL paramters (dynamic range, noise level, etc.) clearly show CDs to be superior in sound. The argument that 16bit resolution is not enough to reproduce music in all detail was always BS.

So do you think it would be possible to evaluate the quality of a recording just by measuring those parameters, and without listening to it?

[head-case]

So do you think it would be possible to evaluate the quality of a recording just by measuring those parameters, and without listening to it?

It is certainly possible to show that the signal that goes into a digital recorder is indistinguishable from the one that comes out (within some level of precision) and that the signal that goes into an analog cutting machine is very different than what comes out of your pickup cartridge when you play the record.  That shows that the analog process adds extraneous stuff to the recording, which you can quite legitimately claim to like.  This stuff about digital "stripping away" emotional content is nonsense, however.

[Mark]

This stuff about digital "stripping away" emotional content is nonsense, however.

With this I agree. LPs certainly have a warmth about them, but that warmth doesn't have any bearing on emotional content, IMO.

[Bogey]

And if one misses the hiss and pops, just start adding "historical recordings" on cd to your collection. 

[Valentino]

LPs certainly have a warmth about them, but that warmth doesn't have any bearing on emotional content, IMO.

Ah but you see, Mark: There is emotional content in low order even harmonic distortion.

I have some truly involving LPs and some binnable CDs, and vice versa.

[71 dB]

Every time vinyls are talked about this fight over the sound quality of vinyl and CD arises. 

CD is technologically SUPERIOR to vinyl. Period. Acoustic engineers describe vinyl this way:

"You scratch a plastic plate with a small stone and you try to get a good sound out of that." 

So, why do some people say vinyl sounds better than CD?

Because vinyl adds colourizations and distortions to the sound these people have learned to like. This learning has to do with golden memories, nostalgia etc. People remember the excitement of buying their first vinyl when they where young and that sort of things...

So, what's bad about this nostalgia?

These distortions do not belong to the music, whether you like it or not. If they did you'd find them on CD too. CD can carry the distortions (the "warmth") of vinyl with ease, if wanted. Good sound reproduction is faithful to the original sound. Good sound reproduction reveals also the "ugliness" of the original sound without trying to hide it and warm up everything to please the listener. A good sound reproduction chain is neutral.

So, can't people just keep enjoying their "warm" vinyl sound?

People are free to enjoy whatever they want and I have nothing against people enjoying their vinyls but they should understand the real reasons behind the enjoyment and realise CD is superior to vinyl.

[Shrunk]

These distortions do not belong to the music, whether you like it or not. If they did you'd find them on CD too. CD can carry the distortions (the "warmth") of vinyl with ease, if wanted. Good sound reproduction is faithful to the original sound. Good sound reproduction reveals also the "ugliness" of the original sound without trying to hide it and warm up everything to please the listener. A good sound reproduction chain is neutral.

That's certainly one way of looking at it, and I have no problem with it.  However, the other viewpoint is that the goal of an audio system is to allow the listener maximal enjoyment of recorded music.

You'll often read reviews of audio components in which the gear is praised for being "revealing", and the reviewer will warn that imperfectly engineered recordings may sound worse on this gear than on other, less "neutral" equipment.  Personally, I have no interest in spending my hard-earned money to make my music sound worse!

When I evaluate audio gear, I don't pay attention to soundstage, timbral accuracy, frequency response or all those other audiophile terms.  I listen for how closely it reproduces the experience of hearing live music.  By that, I mean the emotional connection to the performance.  My experience is that LP's reproduce this more consistently than digital.  YMMV.

[71 dB]

That's certainly one way of looking at it, and I have no problem with it.  However, the other viewpoint is that the goal of an audio system is to allow the listener maximal enjoyment of recorded music.

But what we enjoy comes from our preferences and those preferences are not fixed. Had vinyl never existed nobody would have learned to like it's "warm sound". People just like the way things have been done and have diffeculties with new, better ways to do them. When you open your mind you can learn to enjoy better ways.

You'll often read reviews of audio components in which the gear is praised for being "revealing", and the reviewer will warn that imperfectly engineered recordings may sound worse on this gear than on other, less "neutral" equipment.  Personally, I have no interest in spending my hard-earned money to make my music sound worse!

Yes, but on the other hand neutral gear sounds absolutely fantastic with well-done recordings. In my opinion these warnings are stupid. It's not the fault of neutral systems badly engineered recordings exists. In fact the existence of neutral systems encourage better engineering! "We better make a good recording because people are listening with revealing systems!".

I listen for how closely it reproduces the experience of hearing live music.  By that, I mean the emotional connection to the performance.  My experience is that LP's reproduce this more consistently than digital.  YMMV.

Digital? You mean CD? That's just one digital format and not even "state-of-the-art" anymore, a technology developped in the 70's but still superior to vinyl.

I don't know what clicks, pops, distortion, hum, rattle and reduced dynamics you hear in live performances. For me the sound of vinyl is pretty far from hearing live music. Of all sound formats I have heard in my life well done multichannel SACDs come pretty close to live performance. Well done CDs are good too but not as good as multichannel SACDs. Vinyl is a joke in comparison.

You are entitled to like vinyl more but be aware why.   

[head-case]

I don't know what clicks, pops, distortion, hum, rattle and reduced dynamics you hear in live performances. For me the sound of vinyl is pretty far from hearing live music.

Maybe he stuffs cucumbers wrapped in crinkly cellophane in his ears when he goes to the concert hall.

[Shrunk]

Maybe he stuffs cucumbers wrapped in crinkly cellophane in his ears when he goes to the concert hall.

Well, OK.  You're onto me.  However, it's not my ears where the cucumber goes....

[Szykneij]

Yesterday I saw a posting on a local e-mail list from someone who left a bunch of lps on the curb that were free for the taking. Luckily, I picked up my strapping 16-year-old son on the way to investigate because when we got there, we discovered over 1,000 albums in boxes and milk crates waiting for a home. It was very cold and getting dark, so rather than check them out on the street, we grabbed them all.

As a general music lover with tastes not limited to classical, I was surprised at how few of these albums I had an interest in when I started going through them in my cellar. The original owner was probably of Scandinavian descent because there were many Swedish/Norwegian/Finish folk song recordings. There was a huge amount of Country and Western that I can probably package up and sell on e-bay. It's amazing how many albums the Mormon Tabernacle Choir produced and I guess everyone can use five more recordings of Handel's "Messiah". I probably now have one of the largest Polka collections in town.

It was worth the effort, though, because the records were very well cared and I was able to come up with about 150 albums that I'll add to my collection. Among those I've put aside to listen to first are:


Prokofieff, Symphony 5, Martinon/Paris Conservatory
Liszt, 4 Hungarian Rhapsodies/ Vienna State Orch. - Vanguard  Stereo Demonstration Disc
Beethoven Quartet #14, Pascal String Quartet, Concert Hall Society issue
"Bach to Bernstein", Realistic quadraphonic recording
Glenn Miller Carnegie Hall Concert, RCA
Rachmaninoff Concerto No. 2, Rubinstein/NBC Symphony
Brahms Concerto No. 2, Gilels/Reiner/Chicago
Rachmaninoff Concerto No. 3, Van Cliburn/Kondrashin (Carnegie Hall live)
Zino Francescatti, Mendelssohn and Bruch violin concertos
Christine Walevska, cello, Bloch/Bruch/Schumann
Bartok, Concerto for Piano and Orchestra, Disques Vega
Duke Ellington, "In a Mellotone"
Chopin, "The 14 Waltzes", Brailowsky
Tchaikovsky, Piano Concerto No. 1, Entremont/Bernstein
The Dave Clark Five, "I Like it Like That"
"A Lorin Hollander Concert", Bach/Brahms/Schumann
Albert Schweitzer, Bach Organ Music volume VI
Tchaikovsky Symphony No. 5, Koussevitzky/Boston
Concerti for Horn and Orchestra, Vivaldi./Telemann/Rosetti
RCA "Meet the Artist", Szeryng, Janigro, Juliard String Quartet, et al.
75th Anniversary of the Boston Symphony/Pops RCA issue
Hank Williams "Ramblin' Man"
Brahms, Four Symphonies Box Set, Szell/Cleveland
"Classical Russian Poetry" read in English and Russian
E. Power Biggs, "Stars and Stripes Forever", autographed

Many hours of free fun to come!