Turntables & vinyl: just a fashion thing or a sincere appreciation for the sound?
- Thread starter Lawrie
- Start date
timpy
Snake Oil free!!!
Not in my experience either, even using the best in the way of cables etc.
. Tis true the basic character remains, and I could tell that it was my Avalon playing, but the copy had a slight hardness which wasn't in the original. A couple of people thought that this made it sound better than the original (searper with better focus), which was fine, until it got to the stringed instruments, which were just strident.Cheers
The Devil
IHTFP
Hi Jason,
Yes, it does take a bit of self-discipline to resist putting on a record, but I've got a lot of good music on CD too, and it seems a shame to never play it.
It's very difficult to describe the difference between the two media, but vinyl just tends to sound more 'natural', if that makes sense. In fairness, however, there is some grotty vinyl about as well.
Yes, it does take a bit of self-discipline to resist putting on a record, but I've got a lot of good music on CD too, and it seems a shame to never play it.
It's very difficult to describe the difference between the two media, but vinyl just tends to sound more 'natural', if that makes sense. In fairness, however, there is some grotty vinyl about as well.
tones
compulsive cantater
Re: Aro
Interesting - a phenomenon from which I've never suffered. Y'all have my sympathies.
Interesting - a phenomenon from which I've never suffered. Y'all have my sympathies.
Personally, I found that cartridges have a big influence on 'vinyl sound' and the ones I tried sounded all pretty different to me.
But as I have had a level/volume control on the two CD players I have owned, it was possible to match the level roughly with my turntable and switch between the two (using remote control source switching on amp). Some records/CDs that I have duplicates of (notably non-digitally remastered Warner Bros/WEA stuff, Neil Young, Joni Mitchell, Tim Buckley etc.) sound very similar, provided I used a Goldring 1042 cartridge which sounded the closest to CD.
Incidentally, I also found by doing this that my turntable (Linn Axis) was running a bit fast but it is possible to alter the speed of the Axis by turning a small screw-thingy in the base. Of course, I realised when I first tried comparing the two that the speed difference meant that the Axis was running slightly too fast not that it had better 'PRaT' (dontcha just hate that term?) or was more 'tuneful' or whatever!
But as I have had a level/volume control on the two CD players I have owned, it was possible to match the level roughly with my turntable and switch between the two (using remote control source switching on amp). Some records/CDs that I have duplicates of (notably non-digitally remastered Warner Bros/WEA stuff, Neil Young, Joni Mitchell, Tim Buckley etc.) sound very similar, provided I used a Goldring 1042 cartridge which sounded the closest to CD.
Incidentally, I also found by doing this that my turntable (Linn Axis) was running a bit fast but it is possible to alter the speed of the Axis by turning a small screw-thingy in the base. Of course, I realised when I first tried comparing the two that the speed difference meant that the Axis was running slightly too fast not that it had better 'PRaT' (dontcha just hate that term?) or was more 'tuneful' or whatever!
We used a have a very small collection of albums (I was into singles in quite a big way) stored on a kind of "flip over" stand in the lounge whereby the front cover of the top album was always in view.
I always used to put my copy of Never Mind..... at the front :JOEL: but mysteriously whenever I went back in it was always at the back
tones
compulsive cantater
Re: Re: Re: Aro
No longer alone! I've always dreamt of this day...
No longer alone! I've always dreamt of this day...
Excellent point Fox,
The music is always. more important than the format.
The music is always. more important than the format.
The Devil
IHTFP
Paul
Not if you are a hi-fi nerd like me (and everyone else here). We all bought music before we got our silly hi-fis.
Excellent news today.
Not if you are a hi-fi nerd like me (and everyone else here). We all bought music before we got our silly hi-fis.
Excellent news today.
Its all about the music :lol: :lol: :redrum:
You're right of course 
I was just saying it, 'cos i can get away with it
I was just saying it, 'cos i can get away with it
Hi Merlin,
I do a lot of listening at night to a Sony radio and headphones, Late Junction being a favourite.
Nothing wrong with listening to a great system of course as long as we bear in mind that it is just a means to an end. If an old favourite comes up on a pub jukebox I always really enjoy it, somehow the pub system doesn't get in the way. I have the same experience in record shops sometimes, perhaps I am at the first faltering steps of a cure to all this Hi Fi.
I bet there are a few relapses to come on the way though.
I do a lot of listening at night to a Sony radio and headphones, Late Junction being a favourite.
Nothing wrong with listening to a great system of course as long as we bear in mind that it is just a means to an end. If an old favourite comes up on a pub jukebox I always really enjoy it, somehow the pub system doesn't get in the way. I have the same experience in record shops sometimes, perhaps I am at the first faltering steps of a cure to all this Hi Fi.
I bet there are a few relapses to come on the way though.
The Devil
IHTFP
No, and I never said it! The differences are fairly subtle, but having said that, easily appreciated.
Alex S
User
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2003
- Messages
- 588
- Reaction score
- 0
Music goes in your ears and the brain decides if you like it. I'm actually much more fussy about music I hear on a mini-system - my brain has to work that much harder. I like almost anything on a good system - Is that good? Anyway, unlike bub and Jason I'm no longer a format snob.
Uncle Ants
In Recordeo Speramus
Re: Re: Re: Aro
It depends what you mean by quality difference. If you mean that "CD is way better than vinyl" or "vinyl is way better than CD" then yes, that kind of difference doesn't exist. That there IS a difference in the quality ie. the nature and character of the sound produced from each format for a given recording, is highly likely and born out by personal experience. Which is preferred is largely going to be down to personal taste.
Its a far more complex issue than most people are prepared to admit. The hifi mags for years assumed CD sound quality was superior to vinyl and now the current orthodoxy seems to be that vinyl is superior. Its posited by the press in black and white terms and the world ain't like that.
Its not as though you can even do a proper AB comparison. Even if you had a copy of the same album on CD and vinyl, if you ABed you wouldn't be able to tell whether the differences were down to
a)differences in the character of the playback equipment
b)differences introduced at the (re)mastering stage, or various other stages in the process of taking a recording to a final product. including the possibility of having a good or bad vinyl pressing.
c)what is left after these differences are considered which is the genine difference between the two ie. the intrinsic difference in character between the two mediums.
Who knows? All I can tell you is that I have some records on both vinyl and CD and often (but not always) I prefer the sound of my particular vinyl copy to my particular CD copy on my equipment - especially on a lot of older stuff. It is however (often enough for me to notice) sometimes the other way round.
For example I have a vinyl copy of Sticky Fingers and a CD copy and the CD copy is far superior - in comparison the vinyl version sounds muffled - like listening with socks in yer ears. On the face of just that you mightsay CD was better BUT the vinyl Sticky Fingers is a fairly recent "audiophile" 180g reissue from Virgin. I was given an original copy recently by an uncle and guess what - its as good as the CD and in some respects better. Basically Virgin screwed up the mastering big time on the vinyl reissue - they were just slapdash. This isn't an argument to say the vinyl is better than CD - its an argument to say that there are too many other factors to make a hard and fast statement one way or the other - in this case the mastering was the factor.
The really early Rolling Stones stuff on the Forty Licks CD kicks the arse out all the early stones stuff I have on vinyl (again a mastering issue I suspect, but this time the other way round).
My copy of Pink Floyds Meddle on vinyl is better than my CD copy. Reason? Who knows.
Not sure what you can conclude when its hard to tell the difference. I've a copy of the Byrds Sweetheart of the Rodeo on CD and recently got a Simply vinyl reissue - they both sound great - and both sound so close, I'm not sure you could easily tell the difference. (cracking good album btw).
I prefer records because physically they are big plastic things with nice big cardboard sleeves, which are great to collect and I'm proud to own. As regards to sound quality, they are certainly good enough for me. I am willing to put up with the hassle, the space they take up and the hit and miss nature of pressing quality, because for me the pros outweigh the cons.
I also buy CDs, because despite a revival, new music often isn't available on vinyl. CD has its pros too - its a more consistent product, it saves space and the sound quality is generally also good enough for me and I can play them in the car but the cons are that they are cheap looking throwaway items which give me no pride of ownership. Here for me the cons outweigh the pros.
Obviously I am an old git :MILD:
It depends what you mean by quality difference. If you mean that "CD is way better than vinyl" or "vinyl is way better than CD" then yes, that kind of difference doesn't exist. That there IS a difference in the quality ie. the nature and character of the sound produced from each format for a given recording, is highly likely and born out by personal experience. Which is preferred is largely going to be down to personal taste.
Its a far more complex issue than most people are prepared to admit. The hifi mags for years assumed CD sound quality was superior to vinyl and now the current orthodoxy seems to be that vinyl is superior. Its posited by the press in black and white terms and the world ain't like that.
Its not as though you can even do a proper AB comparison. Even if you had a copy of the same album on CD and vinyl, if you ABed you wouldn't be able to tell whether the differences were down to
a)differences in the character of the playback equipment
b)differences introduced at the (re)mastering stage, or various other stages in the process of taking a recording to a final product. including the possibility of having a good or bad vinyl pressing.
c)what is left after these differences are considered which is the genine difference between the two ie. the intrinsic difference in character between the two mediums.
Who knows? All I can tell you is that I have some records on both vinyl and CD and often (but not always) I prefer the sound of my particular vinyl copy to my particular CD copy on my equipment - especially on a lot of older stuff. It is however (often enough for me to notice) sometimes the other way round.
For example I have a vinyl copy of Sticky Fingers and a CD copy and the CD copy is far superior - in comparison the vinyl version sounds muffled - like listening with socks in yer ears. On the face of just that you mightsay CD was better BUT the vinyl Sticky Fingers is a fairly recent "audiophile" 180g reissue from Virgin. I was given an original copy recently by an uncle and guess what - its as good as the CD and in some respects better. Basically Virgin screwed up the mastering big time on the vinyl reissue - they were just slapdash. This isn't an argument to say the vinyl is better than CD - its an argument to say that there are too many other factors to make a hard and fast statement one way or the other - in this case the mastering was the factor.
The really early Rolling Stones stuff on the Forty Licks CD kicks the arse out all the early stones stuff I have on vinyl (again a mastering issue I suspect, but this time the other way round).
My copy of Pink Floyds Meddle on vinyl is better than my CD copy. Reason? Who knows.
Not sure what you can conclude when its hard to tell the difference. I've a copy of the Byrds Sweetheart of the Rodeo on CD and recently got a Simply vinyl reissue - they both sound great - and both sound so close, I'm not sure you could easily tell the difference. (cracking good album btw).
I prefer records because physically they are big plastic things with nice big cardboard sleeves, which are great to collect and I'm proud to own. As regards to sound quality, they are certainly good enough for me. I am willing to put up with the hassle, the space they take up and the hit and miss nature of pressing quality, because for me the pros outweigh the cons.
I also buy CDs, because despite a revival, new music often isn't available on vinyl. CD has its pros too - its a more consistent product, it saves space and the sound quality is generally also good enough for me and I can play them in the car but the cons are that they are cheap looking throwaway items which give me no pride of ownership. Here for me the cons outweigh the pros.
Obviously I am an old git :MILD:
