Honestly I'm interested in your thoughts on this, considering I'm 32 and have no idea what happened during that transition from vinyl to CD. And I didn't write that vinyl is more accurate, I said it sounds better to those that use it.
-
Is OLED burn-in a problem? We want your input on one of TV’s hottest topics!
MeanandGreen said:
That's insane.
Err, no, you transfer the library from the PC to the NAS and then just reference the NAS library from the PC if you want to play any audio.
See above.
GAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!!! If the other system had a NETWORK STREAMER you wouldn't need the iPod plugged into it at all, there would be nothing to keep synced! Both systems would just play from the NAS.
A little research wouldn't go amiss for a start...
Because the end result is the same. It isn't with vinyl, it does sound different, a CD never will never sound different from a digital file, especially if using the same DAC for both.
No, compared to playing a CD, the only difference is dropping the needle on the record (needle on the record). Other than that CDs are just as much of a faff AFAIC.
There's no effort in storing them, they sit in a cabinet, same as the CDs do. Stored properly they don't need any caring for. And before you say it, I've had plenty of second-hand CDs that have needed cleaning before they were reliably rippable.
Who in grud's name has a CD recorder? I don't even have a CD PLAYER, why would I have a recorder? So it's a two stage process? And you still need to separate each track into an indivual file and name it appropriately and and and... It's a faff, I'd rather just play the record!
It certainly can be, a vinyl rip won't sound different from the original vinyl obviously (assuming the same turntable) but it can sound very different from a digital version. I have boxset which includes CDs and a vinyl copy, so I did a direct comparison between two tracks I knew well, started them at the same time and switched inputs back and forth, I thought there would be a difference, but I didn't expect it in quite the way it presented itself. Listening to the CD all the instruments were presented on a flat plain but when switching to the vinyl it was like the drummer took three steps back, it actually felt like it was a band on stage with three dimensions to the sound, it was quite surprising and very noticable.
Perfectly but I don't get any of that from CD, it's a lifeless, soulless experience compared to vinyl, I might just as well listen to a digital file as CD, it's actually more enjoyable, to my mind.
Vladimir said:
I'm not going to become embroiled in which sounds better. I would just say that in a lot of cases, vinyl sounds nicer. When CD's were introduced, the thing that really attracted me was idea of no unwanted noise, and their apparent indestructibility. Also the fact that CD's can reproduce some quite amazing sounds. Naturally, the days of vinyl looked to be a thing of the past, so it was a logical move.
steve_1979 said:
I asked the original vinyl users because new adopters today don't have the larger chronological perspective what happened and why.
steve_1979
Well-known member
- Jul 14, 2010
- 231
- 10
- 18,795
Vladimir said:
I can't speak for anyone else but for me (if I stick with it) it's because I want something physical. A piece of mechanical engineering that looks cool and is interesting to use and watch. I like the big albums and album art. I like the sense of occasion of choosing a physical album, removing the record, putting it on the platter and gently lowering the arm into place and watching it spin round. It's not as a replacement for digital and all the great things that brings but it's a piece of hifi equipment for the sake of being a piece of hifi equipment. It's something a bit different. It's audiophillia for the sake of the hobby as well as just a tool to play music - I already have 1000's of ripped digital music files if I just want to listen to music.
Oh and I'm a hipster too apparently. 😉
MeanandGreen
Well-known member
- Dec 26, 2012
- 149
- 69
- 18,670
The_Lhc said:
I don't see how? They are two independent set ups. They are used separately. Considering the office system is made of an amplifier I've owned for 16 years, a CD Recorder I paid £30 for on eBay and use as a vinyl copier from the turntable I have in that system and the CD-R also serves as the DAC for the iMac in said office. It makes perfect sense to me.
The other system is my main system in my living room which has CD player, turntable, FM tuner (yes an FM tuner, WTF right?!), Blu Ray, smart TV, and iPod. It's a mix of kit I've owned for 16 years as well newer kit over the years.
It's no different to some people having more than one TV. I have more than one Hi Fi.
Why? It won't give me any functionality over what I have.
Are you for real here? Are you not reading what I've already posted?
I DON'T OWN A NETWORK STREAMER AND DO NOT WISH TO SPEND THE MONEY BUYING ONE. IT WOULD BE A POINTLESS EXPENDITURE. It would make ZERO DIFFERNCE to how I play a playlist.
It's like (2+2+2) or (2x3) the result is still 6.
I can choose to not spend a few hundred quid and play my stored music files on both of my systems as it stands.
Or I can buy a NAS drive and a streamer for a few hundred quid and still play the same music files on the same systems. All I've achieved there is a decrease in my bank balance I'm still getting 6 weather it's by the (2+2+2) route or the (2x3) route. It's the blooming same result!
I know enough to know that I don't need to fork out for a NAS drive and a streamer as I can do EXACTLY the same thing now.
A digital file of a vinyl copy will sound exactly the same as the turntable it was copied from playing the record. If you copy from the turntable you listen to then the copy sounds the same.
Im skipping over some of your other comments because it's tedious and I'm convinced you're deliberately being ignorant.
YOU don't get that from CD. Some OTHER PEOPLE do. This is my point, (I like it). It's personal preference and choice.
You don't like it so fair enough don't play CD's. I will continue to play them ALONGSIDE using a digital storage library in two different systems heaven forbid!
Vladimir said:
I haven't bought any vinyl for 25 years, and lent my turntable to a friend, and never asked for it back. I didn't feel the need because CDs seemed to offer a more practical option.
However I am now beginning to think about vinyl again, because it is clear from many voices (many on this forum) that vinyl and CDs do sound different. The rationale of my interest, is based around the following:
1 - most of my CDs were bought in the 90s/noughties, and many bear the sticker 'remastered'. At the time, I assumed that this meant that the old master tapes had been 'cleaned in some way' and then used to create the CDs with better sound quality.
2 - I now realise that my assumption was wrong, and that 'remastered' largely means that the dynamic range of the music was reduced (Loudness war) and then used as the source for the CD. So the CD can sound very different to the vinyl.
3 - I am now curious to hear the difference between vinyl and CDs, but to do it properly means buying a turntable and albums, and this is unlikely to happen in the short term.
But at least I can partly understand why there are die-hard vinyl lovers on the forum. The improved dynamic range probably partly explains why vinyl sales are growing again, and probably will not die for a long time.
Vladimir said:
I’m one of the old geezers. Quite a bit older than you, Vlad.
I moved from vinyl to CD in the late 1980s, when CDPs became affordable. (I was doing my PhD at the time and was short of cash). I think my first machine was a Denon. I forget which model. CDs were quite expensive back then; new releases were about £12 IIRC. But it was worth it because of the sheer clarity of the CD sound. None of the low level hash and muddiness and scratches of a collection of LPs that had, to be honest, suffered quite a lot of drink- and drug-fuelled damage. Especially drugs.
I think the first CD I bought was the Maazel/VPO recording of Mahler 4. It was a lucky choice, a beautiful recording that’s stood the test of time. The key thing was the dynamics. The 4th movement lives or dies on its dynamic impact (and the performance of the soprano), and the Maazel disc was a revelation. It rocked. My TT had never managed anything like it.
And of course there was the reassuring knowledge that the discs were effectively indestructible. No matter how much weed was consumed, the sound would be the same.
We were early adopters of Sonos. I think it was 2005. By then I was a responsible parent of two girls. We had some building work done in the house, smashed a wall or two down. I had Cat-5 cable installed right through the house and rigged up wall-mounted speakers downstairs in the kitchen and living space. It was wonderful. We still have three of the old CR-100 controllers, which are working perfectly.
I'm not really interested in the 'vinyl revival'. My younger daughter is: she has a Project Debut Carbon. But it gets very little use. LPs are too expensive for her and basically too much faff.
Blacksabbath25
Well-known member
- Sep 20, 2015
- 309
- 88
- 18,970
So is it my understanding that in order to get the very best out of vinyl you would have to spend say £1000 or more on a good deck and then £250 or more on a cart and a good rack to put all this on to make it sound better then a CD player ?
Blacksabbath25 said:
They are mechanical devices in a very limited niche market, so understandibly the prices are much higher than digital audio.
Blacksabbath25
Well-known member
- Sep 20, 2015
- 309
- 88
- 18,970
it's like anything today you get what you pay for so if you want quality get your wallet outVladimir said:
Blacksabbath25 said:
It's not a simple as that. Vinyl (imo) sounds different to CD. Some like the difference, some don't. To experience this diference, there's absolutely no need to spend a lot of money. You could easily buy yourself (for instance) an 80's Rega Planar 3 (with the RB300 arm), for maybe £200, and stick a half-decent cart on it for maybe £100. If you don't like it, no big loss, easy to sell on.
Frank Harvey
Well-known member
- Jun 27, 2008
- 567
- 1
- 18,890
I think most were suckered in by the "perfect sound forever" tag line, and the fact you could handle CDs while making a jam sandwich. Everything was going "digital" in the 80s, so this seemed a natural progression for audio. I have to admit I was part of this, being the impressionable teenager I was at the time, but I didn't sell my records. I didn't really buy any in the late 80s, but started buying used vinyl in the early 90s.
Many others were used to using budget turntables that sat on top of towering midi systems, which were just pieces of mass produced plastic - low quality parts and poor geometry, creating wow and flutter and excessive surface noise, and probably wore records out like nobody's business.
A word mentioned a few posts back is spot on - people were taken in by CD's clarity, not necessarily its quality - we already had that quality, but for a lot of people it was just being poorly reproduced on plastic slabs. As turntables have continued to improve, people are now hearing more of how their vinyl should've sounded, and it is better than it ever was. They're realising that background noise isn't necessarily inherent on the record, but is produced by the turntable. There are still many who are buying cheap tat, thinking a turntables is a turntable - i think they are the people who should be questioned as to why they are bothering with such an archaic format.
As already mentioned, vinyl now seems to possess better dynamic range, particularly against recent remastered CDs, but I doubt that accounts for that many as the majority probably aren't even aware of that.
What I don't get is the teenager thing, and that teenagers are only doing it because it's retro and cool. I hear too many stories of teenagers getting into vinyl AFTER hearing someone else's system. I don't get why teenagers would bother with records even if they are considered cool.
Many others were used to using budget turntables that sat on top of towering midi systems, which were just pieces of mass produced plastic - low quality parts and poor geometry, creating wow and flutter and excessive surface noise, and probably wore records out like nobody's business.
A word mentioned a few posts back is spot on - people were taken in by CD's clarity, not necessarily its quality - we already had that quality, but for a lot of people it was just being poorly reproduced on plastic slabs. As turntables have continued to improve, people are now hearing more of how their vinyl should've sounded, and it is better than it ever was. They're realising that background noise isn't necessarily inherent on the record, but is produced by the turntable. There are still many who are buying cheap tat, thinking a turntables is a turntable - i think they are the people who should be questioned as to why they are bothering with such an archaic format.
As already mentioned, vinyl now seems to possess better dynamic range, particularly against recent remastered CDs, but I doubt that accounts for that many as the majority probably aren't even aware of that.
What I don't get is the teenager thing, and that teenagers are only doing it because it's retro and cool. I hear too many stories of teenagers getting into vinyl AFTER hearing someone else's system. I don't get why teenagers would bother with records even if they are considered cool.
Frank Harvey
Well-known member
- Jun 27, 2008
- 567
- 1
- 18,890
If you compare entry level (£100-150) CD player and turntable, most would pick the CD due to low background noise, but as you spend more on a deck, they improve greatly. Once you get to £300, you can have a great sounding deck, which would probably be chosen in a blind demo over a CD more often than not. From there upwards, turntables just get better and better, with greater differences as you progress (due to engineering quality), whereas CD's differences get smaller.Blacksabbath25 said:
steve_1979 said:
Cheers, Steve! The work was well worth it and has been richly rewarded by a happy career teaching and researching at a UK uni.
If I broadcasted the subject of my PhD, I'd also reveal my identity (to anyone prepared to google), which I prefer not to do. *sorry2*
steve_1979
Well-known member
- Jul 14, 2010
- 231
- 10
- 18,795
matt49 said:
You have a PhD? Much respect due! I've seen the work and dedication required.
What's your thesis on?
David@FrankHarvey said:
Hmm, selective quotation. You failed to mention the bit in my post about the superior dynamics of CD.
There are many reasons why people moved from vinyl to CD. One of them -- and this was particularly important for people who mainly listen to classical music, which has excellent dynamic range on CD -- was that the dynamic range of CDs was (and is) better than that of vinyl.
Frank Harvey
Well-known member
- Jun 27, 2008
- 567
- 1
- 18,890
When and if they bother to use it. More often than not they don't, so...
Personally, the dynamic range doesn't bother me so much, as I have low scoring albums that sound great.
Personally, the dynamic range doesn't bother me so much, as I have low scoring albums that sound great.
Blacksabbath25
Well-known member
- Sep 20, 2015
- 309
- 88
- 18,970
so even with dac technology CD sound differences are getting smaller but it's Hifi all over you want the best possible sound your got to pay for that high quality sound or we would all go to curry's and buy Sony mini Hifi for £70 . I have had a record player in the past but it was just a basic pro jet record player back in the 1990s it sounded rubbish I remember when I was a kid and listening to my dads record player it sound nice a warm vinyl sound nothing like the deck I got in the 1990s so when I do get myself one this year I kind of want that nice old warm sound to play my sabbath records on . Kids today do anything that's cool or trendy it's a bit like iPhones everyone wants one its just a phone but it's cool to have oneDavid@FrankHarvey said:
So the general consensus seems to be that people massively switched to CD because of marketing and hype, and audiophiles have smartened up now and began a vinyl revival as the 'perfect sound forever' drug wore off. Vinyl is clearly the better format for sound quality and sonic immersion, and it's here to stay indefinitely. Also the weak link in a vinyl setup is the TT and the more money and time you invest in it, better your records will sound.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram