ARCHIVED FORUM -- March 2012 to February 2022READ ONLY FORUM
This is the second Archived Forum which was active between 1st March 2012 and 23rd February 2022
it seems the uptake in vinyl sales isn't going away anytime soon.... vinyl album sales between January and March 2015 were 53% higher than the first three months of 2014 and have now surpassed 9 million sales for the 1st time in 20 years.
the US market has grown by 260% since 2009 and account for approx' 3.6% of all albums sold and globally account for about 2% of the music industries revenue.
What's interesting according to the Nielsen report who conducted the survey is the average age of vinyl consumers is under 35.
we tend to forget there is more to design than designing.
That has also driven more and more music back catalog re-issues which is great for me as I have quite a few albums I would like new copies of. I fall into the category well above the age of 35 though. :)
-sonavor
'...about 2% of the music industries revenue'
That's not much
...the average age of vinyl consumers is under 35'
Probably the youngster in this statistics compare the sound of a vinyl to the sound, they have heard from shi**y MP3 files on a crap set of earbuds.
No wonder, that they prefer the vinyl
I wonder if they have ever heard the sound of a decent mastered redbook file/CD on a good set of speakers?
Or maybe it is just the vinyl-hype, that they are attracted to?
The other end of the statistic will soon have reached EOL
There is no future in vinyl!
MM
There is a tv - and there is a BV
MM I'm sure B&O's sale percentage is not much in the global sea of sound and vision.....
niche is niche and normally niche is better ...... lets respect that.....
I love niche and niche is great but had only vinyl been around, I NEVER would of discovered the most incredible world music or remixes that I find on SoundCloud or Ibiza Sonica. Thanks to MP4 or MP3, i now own every piece of music that i've spent my entire life so far looking for :) I love Deepconsul which is a jazz funk band from a tiny village outside of Cape Town. There's no way my little record shop would of stocked their music for instance :)
It is more than the sound of vinyl. People can argue all day about the sound preferences of digital versus analog. That never solves anything and there really isn't anything to solve. It is like people arguing over solid state versus tubes. They both work so go with what you prefer and enjoy it.
A big factor in vinyl collecting is the collecting aspect of it. It is similar to people that collect physical books rather than a digital copy. You have the physical copy in hand. Vinyl record albums also have a lot of packaging that makes the collecting interesting. The prices for used vinyl is all over the place as some issues of albums are more collectible than others. There is also just something about having the disk and seeing it play on a vintage turntable. For those of us vintage audio fans, we also want to keep using our turntables so obviously, we will continue to buy vinyl for our listening pleasure. I'm not surprise a segment of the younger generation is discovering and enjoying the hobby of collecting analog recordings. Sure, analog will not return as the dominant audio source, but it isn't dead either. Analog music is just returning and finding its niche in the market.
Bravo sonavor, bravo! I do believe you've hit the nail on the head here. There is a significant collectors aspect, and the tactile pleasure of a big cover for art and liner notes and such is indeed good. I still have a Beogram and about 3 linear feet of vinyl, but don't really buy more. I seldom listen to vinyl but want to keep it around anyway. As for the young, they are into new experiences, so vinyl is not old hat to them, and therefore trendy.
To my ears digital sounds best, when done well, and the convenience can't be beat. Along with the great selection and new discoveries things like Spotify cna bring. I'm afraid if I had to choose between only one or the other...it'd not be vinyl.
Jeff
I'm afraid I'm recovering from the BeoVirus.
I agree vinyl is great for DJs in the clubs and bars with crowd interaction. And it's great IF but only IF you can find the music on vinyl that you are looking for. I think I read somewhere that the piece of vinyl selling the most is a Pink Floyd album, well that's hardly breaking new ground is it?
But I certainly won't knock vinyl and the art is wonderful. I love books and magazines and there's no way I buy a digital version of them instead but for music and indeed video, I prefer downloads :) My downloads do however work with turntables through Serato DJ Vinyl! :)
Jeff: I'm afraid if I had to choose between only one or the other...it'd not be vinyl.
I'm afraid if I had to choose between only one or the other...it'd not be vinyl.
sonavor: Jeff: I'm afraid if I had to choose between only one or the other...it'd not be vinyl. Except one doesn't have to choose. You can easily have your cake and eat it too. My music collection is made up of vinyl, CD/SACD and digital files (various formats) so I there is no sacrificing. -sonavor
You need some cassettes, John.
I forgot to mention cassettes. Yes, in order to make good use of my cassette deck collection, I have been buying a lot of blank cassettes and recording again.
But no 'reel to reel tapes'
sonavor: I forgot to mention cassettes. Yes, in order to make good use of my cassette deck collection, I have been buying a lot of blank cassettes and recording again.
I was just kidding, of course. I have purchased over a hundred prerecorded cassettes in the past 2 years. I NEVER bought any in their heyday.
So you're the cause of the rise in price of blank tape! :-) Seriously, though, check the thrifts. I find gently used Maxell XLIIs for 25 cents fairly often and the re-record just fine on a good deck.
Millemissen: But no 'reel to reel tapes' MM
I have exactly 1 blank and exactly 1 prerecorded reel.
Still no 78s. :-)
I have just last Sunday sold a very nice Beogram RX to my nephew (32) lawyer he is now promoting this to his friends and on FB, this is Mexico, where high quality audio never found consumers. My son (22, in DK) has a BG 1000 and his friends are collecting vinyl and playing it on his BG, since May last year my son has bought at least 30 LPs, new or used, he visit the Record stores 1-2 times a month.
Collecting Vintage B&O is not a hobby, its a lifestyle.
sonavor: It is more than the sound of vinyl. People can argue all day about the sound preferences of digital versus analog. That never solves anything and there really isn't anything to solve. It is like people arguing over solid state versus tubes. They both work so go with what you prefer and enjoy it. A big factor in vinyl collecting is the collecting aspect of it. It is similar to people that collect physical books rather than a digital copy. You have the physical copy in hand. Vinyl record albums also have a lot of packaging that makes the collecting interesting. The prices for used vinyl is all over the place as some issues of albums are more collectible than others. There is also just something about having the disk and seeing it play on a vintage turntable. For those of us vintage audio fans, we also want to keep using our turntables so obviously, we will continue to buy vinyl for our listening pleasure. I'm not surprise a segment of the younger generation is discovering and enjoying the hobby of collecting analog recordings. Sure, analog will not return as the dominant audio source, but it isn't dead either. Analog music is just returning and finding its niche in the market. -sonavor
We certainly all have our preferences.
I am listening to music, and I am interested in the artist/art-process behind the music. I am interested in the artists and their 'reaons for' making the music - what was their source of inspiration..... I am interested in how the music was recorded. Interested in which collaborators the artist had/have: mixing/mastering engeneers, cover designers, stage (if they do live) personel..... I am interested in the different versions of the same recordings - and why they are different......
And - of course - I am interested in just listening to the music....if possible, from the most accurate version I can get hands on.....
But I don't care for collecting big black pieces of vinyl in a paper sleeve (they require too much space in my home). And what the album covers reveal is way too little for me - through the internet I have access to much more of my wanted information.
And I don't care for needing to nurse this piece of vinyl like if it was a small child - I don't care for needing to wash a used/preowned vinyl, for dedusting and (almost) having to wear gloves, just because I want to listen to some music.
Collecting vinyls as a hobby is fine. But it is not my way to go - I am not a collector, just a curious guy listening to music.
Vinyls were fine, as we had nothing else, and the quality fitted well with the SQ of the analog recordings at that time.
Today - with the possibility (!) of high quality digital recording and gentle mastering - the digital files (as download, stream or on a CD/DVD/BluRay) is perfect as a delievery medium. And much more convenient!
Dream on millemissen.
koning: Dream on millemissen.
I love that comment - it is so intelligent.
I'm with you on this MM. Even back in the day, people got sick of vinyl and the pre-cassette was by far the best seller.
Also 27% of these new records sales NEVER get played, they are bought by collectors hoping to make a profit from them. I'm not knocking vinyl but having grown up with it... Each to their own but it's just not for me :) But if you love it, then good on you! Music is Life!
Vinyl's dynamics from a sound quality perspective is superior to (most) digital, that's one of the main reasons the vinyl boys love it so much.
Most modern music was recorded on 2-inch tape (analog). Unless you have access to masters and a Studer A-800 at home in your audiophile rig, the above argument falls to pieces. The 'sound' that people talk about with vinyl is the very familiar 'warmth' which is actually distortion. Its not closer to the master tape as high resolution discs like Blu-ray or downloads can get but then again some people like it. Vinyl starts wearing out from the first time you play it. Its easier to scratch than a CD,DVD or BR and so on. If you are careful with your ‘silver discs’ they will last you forever. If you are equally careful with your vinyl, it will wear out anyway. Its just the flawed nature of the format. That's why studios have made 24/192 backups of their masters. The point here is to dispel the idea that vinyl is the engine of an audiophile comeback. Read the numbers. It simply isn't.
I love digital’s convenience, its not-so-physical footprint and above all its cost or maybe lack thereof. With the advent of streaming music services like Tidal, Deezer and for now my favorite, Qobuz, I have an endless supply of the stuff at my fingertips, and it’s cheap too. For me digital music had always been a family affair, whereas vinyl has proven to be something of an experience that is solo shared. And B&O fits perfectly in to that picture.
But I’m be shocked how little of the CD's available dynamic range is actually used by most recording engineers. The loudness wars have taken a terrible toll on accurate dynamics. Too often, the CD version are technically inferior to the LP due to the hands of an intrepid engineers determination to make the CD release sound best for earbuds or tiny sound docks. The present trend is telling us there's something wrong with current incarnations of digital. We need to be more focused on getting source material that is closer to the master.
The human ear, regardless of how well one hears, is physically structured to readily accept vinyl sound far more than digital. Digital is more fatiguing to the ear, the musical sound stage opens right up with vinyl far more than digital. However, have a listen to the HDtracks 96/24 transfer of Bill Evans' classic album ‘Waltz for Debby’ and be surprised how much better it sounds than the original LP.
Whether or your media is analog, digital or both does not matter. We all have our preferences and that is the beauty of choice. Just my 'two bits'.
"Believe nothing you read and only half of what you see, let your ears tell you the truth."
Chris: The human ear, regardless of how well one hears, is physically structured to readily accept vinyl sound far more than digital. Digital is more fatiguing to the ear, the musical sound stage opens right up with vinyl far more than digital. However, have a listen to the HDtracks 96/24 transfer of Bill Evans' classic album ‘Waltz for Debby’ and be surprised how much better it sounds than the original LP.
It seems to me, that you are contradicting yourself here.
A (wellmade) digital file may sound better than a vinyl release, and is not (per definition) 'fatiguing to the ear'.
It is true, that a lot of people prefer the coloured, warm, pleasing sound of a vinyl - but that does not make it superior to a file from a good digital recording/mastering....even at CD specs.
I prefer the accurate reproduction of the sound, that the artists and engeneers intended.
If any 'colouration' should be done, it should be done by the artist/s and engeneers before deiievering the master files/tapes, and not by the medium (vinyl) itself used for the enduser.
Just my 'two grooves'.
I think for some people vinyl is all about the experience. My nephew (who is 19) loves music. Mainly his listening is digital but he now has 30 or so vinyl records and is collecting more. The appeal of vinyl to him is that it is tactile and for much of what he listens to (Dylan, Hendrix, Bowie, Led Zep) he wants the same experience in listening to his music that the original audience for the album had when it was first released on vinyl. Same art work; same sound of needle hitting groove, having to turn it over to get the second half etc etc. Its musical time travel.
That will not appeal to everyone. But it is similar to the reasons some people drive classic cars. Newer cars may be faster, more reliable, safer, far more useful on a day to day basis. But a classic car just has that feeling of originality. Its emotional.
another interesting nugget of our listening habits is radio figures in the UK and USA are rising.
89% of the UK population tune into the radio weekly (52% via digital platforms) average hours per listener is approx' 21hrs per week, DAB access is up 7% year on year, listening via DTV has dropped by approx -11%.
Duels: I think for some people vinyl is all about the experience. My nephew (who is 19) loves music. Mainly his listening is digital but he now has 30 or so vinyl records and is collecting more. The appeal of vinyl to him is that it is tactile and for much of what he listens to (Dylan, Hendrix, Bowie, Led Zep) he wants the same experience in listening to his music that the original audience for the album had when it was first released on vinyl. Same art work; same sound of needle hitting groove, having to turn it over to get the second half etc etc. Its musical time travel. That will not appeal to everyone. But it is similar to the reasons some people drive classic cars. Newer cars may be faster, more reliable, safer, far more useful on a day to day basis. But a classic car just has that feeling of originality. Its emotional.
I have a friend who has the same opinion about music. He is a recordist, has done a lot of field work recording folk music and story telling stuff, and has done remastering for the National Archives. He can play everything from Edison cylinders up to DAT tapes and such. He has an approach where he tries to listen to music on things that sound appropriate for the tech of the era. So, he has his main hifi setup, and a system that resembles something from the 20s/30s, small tube amp driving a horn. He has systems that mimic 40s and 50s era equipment, but from the late 60s and up he listens to his main system. It's a trip to visit him and listen to music.
As for the ear is designed for LP not digital above, well, if that's the case why, even when using analog tape as a master, did people always think CD sounded exactly like the master tape and LP didn't? I think someone has a very poor understanding about how digital works.
Jeff:even when using analog tape as a master, did people always think CD sounded exactly like the master tape and LP didn't?
If you compare some CDs and vinyl of the same recording, preferably of older albums (70s and 80s), on the same system it is easily recognized why there is a future for vinyl. Theory is the one thing, what you hear is the other. And there are many albums where anyone who can still hear can tell that the vinyl simply sounds better than the CD. I don't want to generalize because I simply can't but these cases do exist and I guess they are not rare. I've tried it and it was a real eye opener for me. I would have never thought that for some albums it's that obvious.
Cheers
@Manbearpig
If you compare some CDs and vinyl of the same recording, preferably of older albums (70s and 80s), on the same system it is easily recognized why there is a future for vinyl. Theory is the one thing, what you hear is the other.
How can you be sure, that they did not use different masters for each of them?
All I read is: you prefer the sound of a vinyl release!
And there are many albums where anyone who can still hear can tell that the vinyl simply sounds better than the CD. .
Are you insinuating, that I (and others) can't 'still hear'?
Don't forget 8-tracks: the format of choice for your souped-up Chevy Nova in these parts (about 40 years ago).
D
Jeff:This was in tests where the CD was well done, recorded specifically for the test, there are a lot of badly done CDs…
Thats exactly what I want to express in my earlier thread: “But I’m be shocked how little of the CD's available dynamic range is actually used by most recording engineers. The loudness wars have taken a terrible toll on accurate dynamics. Too often, the CD version are technically inferior to the LP due to the hands of an intrepid engineers determination to make the CD release sound best for earbuds or tiny sound docks.”
Jeff:LP never sounded like the master tape. Some people liked it better because they liked the euphoric distortions…
Very good point you made, technically LP can never be as good as the master tape. To give one example: the problem with vinyl that never seems to be discussed is that it suffers from inner groove distortion, thats a fact. Due to the constant angular velocity of vinyl, the inner grooves are rotating more slowly under the stylus than the outer grooves. So, music recorded near the end of a side of an LP is always inferior in quality to music recorded on the outer grooves.
Manbearpig:Theory is the one thing, what you hear is the other. And there are many albums where anyone who can still hear can tell that the vinyl simply sounds better than the CD.
Strangely enough, the human air accept the whole packet of distortion on records as nicer sounding to digital. In numbers it can’t be, the LP is inferior to CD. Perhaps somebody should write a thread on the problems with making an accurate vinyl recording.
Chris: Strangely enough, the human air accept the whole packet of distortion on records as nicer sounding to digital. In numbers it can’t be, the LP is inferior to CD. Perhaps somebody should write a thread on the problems with making an accurate vinyl recording.
There are so many variables in the equation (most of which are sort of invisible or hard to verify anyway) that I don't think it's of much help to take out one or a few more obvious ones of them to make generalized statements about which medium should in theory sound better.
Millemissen: How can you be sure, that they did not use different masters for each of them?
Why should that be of interest? In theory, maybe yes, if you want to make general statements like CD is better than vinyl or the other way round. Let me be clear again that I will not make a statement like that since, already by construction, it's prone not to be valid anyway. All I can do is compare what I can buy.
Millemissen: All I read is: you prefer the sound of a vinyl release!
I didnt write that. Not at all. In fact, there are some extraordinarily good digital recordings out there - in particular of music produced later than the late 80s (i.e. from times when the digital format was already established as a medium).
Millemissen: Are you insinuating, that I (and others) can't 'still hear'?
No. But since your answers imply that you believe that in general any recording sounds better on CD (or in general digitally) than on vinyl let me ask back: have you done the comparison? Same artist, same song, same equipment - one time on a CD release, one time, on vinyl? Please let me know. I'm interested.
Kai
In my experience, a good CD is better than a good LP. So if a completely level playing field, I would have a CD every time. However the field is not flat. There are some awful CDs and some awful LPs. The recording of some CDs in comparison to the LP can be atrocious - DSOTM is an obvious example with the LP being far better than a recently reissued version. But I do have a good CD version as well!!
Inherently a CD should be better - more headroom, no RIAA curve, no inner track problem etc - add the problems with the equipment used to read the LP and one can see why there are problems. But use a decent system and the warmth of an LP is very appealing. Of course a Beogram CDX can do the same for CD!!
Peter
I fully agree with you Peter. However, I'd like to add that from my experience with older recordings, there are pretty many really badly produced CDs. And the better your equipment gets the more you can tell. The most "audiophile" equipment and technologically advanced systems of reproduction are of not much help if the recording is already rubbish in the first place. When I got my first pair of higher quality Adam speakers and listened to many of my CDs again and compared to some really good recordings as a reference (like Dead Can Dance/Brendan Perry, Alan Parsons Project, Dire Straits, Yello, etc.), I was very disappointed by how little good speakers can make of bad recodrings. Yes, they can play loud, but not really pleasing to at least my ears. I have not done an equally comprehensive comparison amongst my vinyl collection.
Greetings,
Manbearpig: No. But since your answers imply that you believe that in general any recording sounds better on CD (or in general digitally) than on vinyl let me ask back: have you done the comparison? Same artist, same song, same equipment - one time on a CD release, one time, on vinly? Please let me know. I'm interested. Kai
No. But since your answers imply that you believe that in general any recording sounds better on CD (or in general digitally) than on vinyl let me ask back: have you done the comparison? Same artist, same song, same equipment - one time on a CD release, one time, on vinly? Please let me know. I'm interested.
No I haven't - and I won't do it.
Such comparisons are impossible, because they involve too many variables!
The sources for a vinyl release and for a CD/download release are basically different!
To make a vinyl you will have to make a great deal of equalization and compression of the source material to make it fit for the physical needs of the vinyl medium. (some find this 'pleasant').
That is not needed for the CD releases. (this is experienced as more 'accurate').
(In fact only a AD convertion to the 16 bit/44.1 kHz standart and the sequenzing (to be able to adress each track individually on the CD) is needed.
Although many mastering engeneers find it 'necessary' to flavour 'their releases' - and hot mastering (loud is better) often is demanded from the producers/record companies, a CD/redbook download in terms of reproducing the original source master is far superior to the vinyl.)
There are no two identical systems for playback!
The sound from a CD depends on the player used - mostly on the DAC involved.
And the sound from a vinyl depends on the condition of the vinyl disc, the turntable and (in particular) of the cartridge/RIAA part of it.
Then there are the placebo effects - and the influences of your own listening habits....
Even if you use the same amplifier and speakers - these kind of (objective) comparisons are not possible!
This is not about 'religion'!
This is about facts of the limitations and forces of the different delivery formats. It is about the gear used for playback, and it is about preferences and listening habits.
Don't make me the bad guy!
I still have some vinyls and a (BeoGram 4500) turntable - but I don't listen much to my LP's anymore - especially not after having access to WiMP Premium (FLAC) streaming. Note: I grow up with vinyls - but moved on.
The OP was about the significance of 'vinyl sales going up'. I just focussed on the 1 or 2 % of the market share and concluded, that vinyl is a niche product.
Whether it will stay as a niche product - when the 'oldsters' have gone and the 'youngsters' have lost interest in the hype - is hard to say.
Maybe 'those inbetween these two categories' will keep it alive? Only time will tell.
Personally I don't need vinyls (B&O has not made a turntable for years either) - and noone can convince me to think, that vinyl as a medium is overall superior to a digital 16/44.1 release.
Either of these can be bad or good as an end product - depending on the skills and intensions of the involved technicians.
But basically I am with the CD/redbook format streaming.
I for one am pleased to hear vinyl sales are on the up, but for no reason other than its good for the economy (hopefully) I'm thinking that a lot of people might well buy the vinyl and the digital version of an album they really like, so its available on all their players.
I spent a fair bit of time in recording studios as a session player back in the eighties and I was surprised that the final 'mix' was carried out/tweaked using a set of small monitor speakers (metal case jbl's IIRC) and most studios had a pair perched either side of the desk. This I was told was to check the mix sounded good on the type of speakers it might generally be heard on - i.e. small ones. So at that point the mix may well have been made to sound 'worse' on a full range speaker set up, same applies nowadays for earbuds I guess. So maybe quite a bit was lost anyway's?
As far as I remember that was before the advent of cd's as the main media, so most of the mixes I played on would have been destined for vinyl. Obviously that didn't alter what was actually on the master tape, so that still left the option of a full range mix, a radio mix and with the advent of club dj's mixing things up, a club mix, dance mix etc. I'm only talking about 'modern pop' style music here, I have no experience of recording classical, jazz or live recording.
So with that in mind its quite likely there are different mixes of the original for different formats and that may well account for the differences heard by some. I have a couple of albums on different formats but haven't ever compared them. Suffice the say that they all sound a lot better since I added B&O speakers!
Its all really a bit subjective sound wise as some people will prefer a different mix/sound to another and I guess only the artist or the original engineer would know which is more like the original sound (or their favourite!)
I like using vinyl when I have time to play it, and I have a lot of albums which just can't be found on cd/digital format - that;s why I got them out of the loft and bought another deck to play them on. In some cases the purchase of a 'record' might mark a particular point in ones life so there is a big element of nostalgia about it. I have records going back to the 70's and can remember where and when a lot of them were purchased.
Whether the sound is better I'll leave to others to decide, but for me its more than the sound, the art and information on an lp sleeve is a part of it too.
CD's and in particular digital formats for a lot of people is more about convenience (bearing in mind for a long time there wasn't the option to buy new vinyl) and it can't be denied that its easier to flick through a deezer playlist, skipping tracks here and there, noting those you'd like to actually own and those you wouldn't. But that does come at a cost sometimes and I think that's turning some music into a convenience, like pre packed food. In some circumstances that's wholly appropriate - imagine a party night with a few beers without the benefit of a continuous stream of dance music, but contrast that to playing a few highlight tracks from a symphony, when ideally its should be listened to as a whole to tell the full story (one of the benefits of a cd - no turning over!)
So each to there own and lets concentrate on the work the artist has put in to make the musical experience for us, no matter how its delivered.
DJ
I'm not making you the bad guy Millemissen. Actually I like you and your writing a lot. Always positive and constructive. Compliments for that. But I don't agree on what you are saying on the issue here. You argue from a theoretical point of view, picking out some variables making a case for why in theory CD should sound better than vinyl and that in pretty general terms. Such a line of argumentation seems to be widespread and well-accepted - in particular among the so-called audiophile community. Therefore, you probably will have the majority behind you.
However, all I can do is to stress that such a statement is not true from my point of view. I'm fully with Peter on this one. There are some albums where vinly in the end simply turns out to sound better than the CD recording (what is not to say that this is due to vinly being the better sound carrier than a CD). And I'm not talking about some minor differences which may be subject to individual preferences or tastes. Recordings/pressings can make a quite significant difference. And as long as these cases exist (I can't give you a percentage but it is more than a couple), this fact alone is enough reason for me to still use and buy vinyl other than the additional aspects that Dave Hutton has given above.
Again, I'm not talking about newly recorded songs which are simultaneously released on CD and vinyl from the same master recordings nowadays. I'm talking about original recordings from the 70s and 80s compared to their (often digitally remastered) counterparts on CD.
From my experience, most CDs that are copies of older sources are pretty badly recorded. Actually, I would estimate that less than 10% of the CDs I own are well-recorded. Most labels and/or artists simply don't seem to bother (due to costs?) or are not knowledgable enough or both. I can't make any statements about what it's like with vinyl. But what I report above is just what I have figured.
And this has nothing to do with being retro or liking the covers or the mechanics of a deck. Just telling by the end result.
Cassettes can sound pretty darn good too by the way, which in theory they shouldn't.
Manbearpig: I'm not making you the bad guy Millemissen. Actually I like you and your writing a lot. Always positive and constructive. Compliments for that. But I don't agree on what you are saying on the issue here. You argue from a theoretical point of view, picking out some variables making a case for why in theory CD should sound better than vinyl and that in pretty general terms. Such a line of argumentation seems to be widespread and well-accepted - in particular among the so-called audiophile community. Therefore, you probably will have the majority behind you. . . Greetings, Kai
.
Hi Kai,
Glad you approve my writing - in general
I enjoy writing and try to be as positive as I can - and constructive.
Apparently we don't agree on vinyls and their ability to reproduce, what was in the master recordings.
We have different kinds of preferences.
And I am fine with that.
I don't see myself as part of the 'socalled audiophile community' - in fact I have been through that, but came out pretty quickly with my feet still on the ground.
And I don't care much for 'majority' either - why should I?
More or less I am just an oldschool album listener - and I have found my way of listening....
.....just by listening
Greetings MM
P.S. And cassettes sounding good - I just lost you
While it's unarguable that there are good and bad examples in both formats, when properly done CD has been proven to be able to completely and accurately reproduce the master tape. At this point you have to realize that if on a truly well recorded CD you don't like the sound, the problem you have is NOT with digital, it's with the limitations of our ability to record music. LP is like a large multifaceted equalizer, if you happen to like that, fine, but don't argue that it's more accurate. Accuracy has a strictly defined definition. It's like if you like running your stereo with the loudness on, don't tell me it's accurate, it's your preference, which can't be argued about if you realize its a preference. Where things get off is when you tell a person it's more accurate than CD/digital or someone is deaf if they don't agree.
I don't think any of the proponents of digital here have claimed one is wrong for liking LP, or deaf, but accurate it most certainly is not. If the mastering engineer wanted to make a crappy sounding, compressed, harsh recording, CD delivers it to your ears in exactly the way the engineer wanted, as bad as that is. But it's an accurate representation of what he wanted, your beef is with their vision for sound, not with the medium.
Inner groove distortion is a given, it's not theoretical, it exists on every single LP ever made, and it doesn't matter if you use a tangential or radial table, it's there. Same for mono bass, limited deep bass, midrange and treble frequency and phase anomalies, etc. That's not arguable, it's there in EVERY LP. If you don't hear it, or like it, that's fine, but it's there.