Vinyl vs. Digital (CD)

[Freddy58]

Just to add, my son is a 'flicker', flicking through tunes, not even listening through an entire track. I tell him to try an album, and he just listens to bits of a couple of tracks. It frustrates the hell out of me, as he obviously isn't 'experiencing' it...

Although I mostly tend to listen to whole tracks without skipping I admit to mostly listening to music on random because I can't decide what to listen to next and I like hearing the random tracks that probably wouldn't get played otherwise.

My music collection consists of about one third full albums and two thirds part-albums and compilations. I even have one massive compilation called 'Miscellaneous' where I put all the one hit wonders. That one has 564 tracks in it.

Don't get me wrong, I think that choice is a good thing, but I think that the 'art' of experiencing an album is dying. But then, I'm just an old git

You can have 'albums' and you have 'LPs', they are different and should be listened to differently.

Dave, we're talking at crossed purposes, and maybe I got my threads mixed up :doh: I was talking about how digital (CD) has resulted in a generation of 'flickers', flicking from track to track, and not really experiencing an album in it's entirety.

As I said in an earlier post, both formats have their value, both different...

No crossed anything here.

Albums are designed and produced to be listened to in it's entireity, LPs are just collections of songe on a single disc, there is a difference. It makes no difference if they are on CD or vinyl, in this case anyway.

And anyway, 'flicking' as you term it is a product of itunes and iPod, not digital as such.

Au contraire mon ami, digital in the form of a CD makes it so much easier to 'flick'. I've done it myself, with CD's that have been loaned to me. The rest of it (iTunes and the like) are merely an extention of that...

Nah, not true.

As a young man I would routinely sit on the floor, in front of the record player, and play LP tracks. As one was playing I would get an idea of what I wanted to hear next and line it up, 'flicking' from LP to LP in the process. You can do the same with CDs, it doesn't matter.

What made it almost obligatory was 'Shuffle' play and 'Playlists'. That is what killed the LP as an 'album'.

Well, I can honestly say that I never flicked through tracks with vinyl. Apart from anything else, it was too much hassle to get off my @rse to move it along.

 

[davedotco]

Just to add, my son is a 'flicker', flicking through tunes, not even listening through an entire track. I tell him to try an album, and he just listens to bits of a couple of tracks. It frustrates the hell out of me, as he obviously isn't 'experiencing' it...

Although I mostly tend to listen to whole tracks without skipping I admit to mostly listening to music on random because I can't decide what to listen to next and I like hearing the random tracks that probably wouldn't get played otherwise.

My music collection consists of about one third full albums and two thirds part-albums and compilations. I even have one massive compilation called 'Miscellaneous' where I put all the one hit wonders. That one has 564 tracks in it.

Don't get me wrong, I think that choice is a good thing, but I think that the 'art' of experiencing an album is dying. But then, I'm just an old git

You can have 'albums' and you have 'LPs', they are different and should be listened to differently.

Dave, we're talking at crossed purposes, and maybe I got my threads mixed up :doh: I was talking about how digital (CD) has resulted in a generation of 'flickers', flicking from track to track, and not really experiencing an album in it's entirety.

As I said in an earlier post, both formats have their value, both different...

No crossed anything here.

Albums are designed and produced to be listened to in it's entireity, LPs are just collections of songe on a single disc, there is a difference. It makes no difference if they are on CD or vinyl, in this case anyway.

And anyway, 'flicking' as you term it is a product of itunes and iPod, not digital as such.

Au contraire mon ami, digital in the form of a CD makes it so much easier to 'flick'. I've done it myself, with CD's that have been loaned to me. The rest of it (iTunes and the like) are merely an extention of that...

Nah, not true.

As a young man I would routinely sit on the floor, in front of the record player, and play LP tracks. As one was playing I would get an idea of what I wanted to hear next and line it up, 'flicking' from LP to LP in the process. You can do the same with CDs, it doesn't matter.

What made it almost obligatory was 'Shuffle' play and 'Playlists'. That is what killed the LP as an 'album'.

Well, I can honestly say that I never flicked through tracks with vinyl. Apart from anything else, it was too much hassle to get off my @rse to move it along.

I was born pre remote control. A totally different perspective.

I would sit, on the floor, record deck and amp to hand and just let the music take me on it's own jouney, track by track.

This does not mean that some albums were not played as such, but the track by track approach was the norm.

 

[davedotco]

The problem is that what works and makes a recording sound 'musical' to one person may not do so to the next, hence the necessity to audition equipment for youself rather than rely on other peoples views (reviews). Furthermore there is a tendency in some quarters to disregard entirely the requirement for the system to be as 'mechanically' accurate as possible in the search for a more 'musical' system, it is this perception that I have trouble with.

By then of course we're into the realms of personal taste, which of course has nothing to do with accuracy (or it might be, but the two aren't necessarily linked). Again it's difficult to argue against anyone choice of what they feel is a musical-sounding system.

I thought I just said that.

Though to make things perfectly clear, I am perfectly happy to argue against someones choice when it is apparent that they have no idea what they are talking about.

As you may have gathered, I am not exactly PC........ :silenced:

 

[Freddy58]

Just to add, my son is a 'flicker', flicking through tunes, not even listening through an entire track. I tell him to try an album, and he just listens to bits of a couple of tracks. It frustrates the hell out of me, as he obviously isn't 'experiencing' it...

Although I mostly tend to listen to whole tracks without skipping I admit to mostly listening to music on random because I can't decide what to listen to next and I like hearing the random tracks that probably wouldn't get played otherwise.

My music collection consists of about one third full albums and two thirds part-albums and compilations. I even have one massive compilation called 'Miscellaneous' where I put all the one hit wonders. That one has 564 tracks in it.

Don't get me wrong, I think that choice is a good thing, but I think that the 'art' of experiencing an album is dying. But then, I'm just an old git

You can have 'albums' and you have 'LPs', they are different and should be listened to differently.

Dave, we're talking at crossed purposes, and maybe I got my threads mixed up :doh: I was talking about how digital (CD) has resulted in a generation of 'flickers', flicking from track to track, and not really experiencing an album in it's entirety.

As I said in an earlier post, both formats have their value, both different...

No crossed anything here.

Albums are designed and produced to be listened to in it's entireity, LPs are just collections of songe on a single disc, there is a difference. It makes no difference if they are on CD or vinyl, in this case anyway.

And anyway, 'flicking' as you term it is a product of itunes and iPod, not digital as such.

Au contraire mon ami, digital in the form of a CD makes it so much easier to 'flick'. I've done it myself, with CD's that have been loaned to me. The rest of it (iTunes and the like) are merely an extention of that...

Nah, not true.

As a young man I would routinely sit on the floor, in front of the record player, and play LP tracks. As one was playing I would get an idea of what I wanted to hear next and line it up, 'flicking' from LP to LP in the process. You can do the same with CDs, it doesn't matter.

What made it almost obligatory was 'Shuffle' play and 'Playlists'. That is what killed the LP as an 'album'.

Well, I can honestly say that I never flicked through tracks with vinyl. Apart from anything else, it was too much hassle to get off my @rse to move it along.

I was born pre remote control. A totally different perspective.

I would sit, on the floor, record deck and amp to hand and just let the music take me on it's own jouney, track by track.

This does not mean that some albums were not played as such, but the track by track approach was the norm.

You think I'm any different?

 

[MajorFubar]

I am perfectly happy to argue against someones choice when it is apparent that they have no idea what they are talking about.

As you may have gathered, I am not exactly PC........ :silenced:

I can be happy with their choice so long as they're under no dillusion that their opinions are fact. Might even have been you who said earlier in this thread that one problem with the internet is it's a brilliant spawning-ground for all kinds of ridiculous theories that today's society is expected to devote as much airplay and credence to as proven theorems, which in turn are demoted to being little more than merely alternative theories. Nyquist-Shannon is a perfect example. Even if it wasn't you, it's difficult to argue with that point either.

 

[Jim-W]

I would also argue that it's a great second-hand buy, if you know what you're looking for.

In spite of my dislike of the LP12 I do agree with this.

Do they still need to be re-adjusted on a regular basis?

Do you mean the suspension springs? Well, if you do, I reckon the whole thing stiffens up after about a year or so but it can be shorter or longer depending on use. The worst thing is if you take it to a dealer who is situated a good few miles away; the journey home can knacker it up again. Best to do it yourself once you've been shown or get some geezer to come round and do it for you. Engaging the motor, in order to turn the platter, can be temperamental too and occasionally needs adjustment. This is no plug and play turntable.

The fokelore and all round BS that surrounds the LP12 is perpetuated by posts like this.

Setting up an LP12 is not difficult but it is a technique that needs to be learned and practised. The biggest issue is what I think can be termed as 'over tuning', it is possible to make the player sound that little bit better by overtightening and over 'tweaking' pretty much everthing, I have sat and watched a couple of 'set-up' artists debating and tweaking a player by simply adjusting the tightness of the screw that locks the arm cable into the base of the Ittok.

Such indulgent practises are what cause the issue, 'over tuned' players can loose their performance edge very quickly indeed, the performance deteriorates and the owner becomes dissatisfied in a matter of weeks, but a more sensible set up will remain stable for a couple of years, more in some cases.

Servicing a reasonably well used player every 18months to 2 years is a good interval, stylus check, suspension reset and a general checkover need not be expensive but by the mid/late 70's Linn used it as a revenue stream and an opportunity to sell ever more expensive updates to unsuspecting owners.

Forgive me my unworthiness, but just how is my post bs and how am I perpetuating folklore? I said a year, maybe longer; you say 18 months to two years. I also wrote that you can learn to do it yourself and this was stated, in my earlier post, with a certain amount of self-deprecation You've said very little, if anything, that contradicts my expressed opinion re the LP12. I cetainly did not mention a need to constantly re-tune the damn thing or imply that maintainance was beyond most people. Just so it's crystal clear, the LP12 is not a plug and play turntable but once tuned, it can run smoothly for, ok, 18 months; I think 2 years is pushing it a bit but I don't doubt that it's possible. I've written from my experience of my LP12 which I've had for some twenty years.

 

[the record spot]

Nobody has mentioned yet that with vinyl the temptation to listen to the whole album is greater than with either cd or other digital files where it is just to easy to skip tracks..

Skip tracks?

Pah! I just delete the ones I dislike and make my own compilations of all the good tracks that I never want to skip. Try doing that with vinyl.

:dance:

You've just proved my point. You throw away the ones you don't like, and in so doing, miss the chance of experiencing what the artist wanted you to hear/enjoy/perceive

Not really. I listen to albums from start to finish on CD but will skip out a track, or just finish the album early if I want to. Precisely the same as I did when I played records. I'd move the arm forward for the odd track when one came on I didn't like. Nothing different at all.

 

[Freddy58]

Nobody has mentioned yet that with vinyl the temptation to listen to the whole album is greater than with either cd or other digital files where it is just to easy to skip tracks..

Skip tracks?

Pah! I just delete the ones I dislike and make my own compilations of all the good tracks that I never want to skip. Try doing that with vinyl.

:dance:

You've just proved my point. You throw away the ones you don't like, and in so doing, miss the chance of experiencing what the artist wanted you to hear/enjoy/perceive

Not really. I listen to albums from start to finish on CD but will skip out a track, or just finish the album early if I want to. Precisely the same as I did when I played records. I'd move the arm forward for the odd track when one came on I didn't like. Nothing different at all.

Really? It's so easy these days, to just hit the 'next' on the remote, I've done it myself...

I ain't necessarily knocking it, it's just an observation...

 

[the record spot]

It's been that easy since cassette decks let you skip tracks, and CD payers have done this since day one, so "these days" is stretching out a bit now...

 

[Coll]

See that is the thing with CDs not only in my opinion better sound but so much easier to skip tracks etc.

I dont really believe in what some people call musical its what sounds good to you. As long as you are happy with your system sound that is what counts.

I have a theory that all the testers on what hi fi like bright sounding systems some to a lesser extent than others because what they all seem to like even the reviewers that say the sound is smooth or even dull I find bright.

I should add that I am 66 so my hf earring is probably not so good these days. I never found equipment was bright back in the 80s

 

[davedotco]

Just to add, my son is a 'flicker', flicking through tunes, not even listening through an entire track. I tell him to try an album, and he just listens to bits of a couple of tracks. It frustrates the hell out of me, as he obviously isn't 'experiencing' it...

Although I mostly tend to listen to whole tracks without skipping I admit to mostly listening to music on random because I can't decide what to listen to next and I like hearing the random tracks that probably wouldn't get played otherwise.

My music collection consists of about one third full albums and two thirds part-albums and compilations. I even have one massive compilation called 'Miscellaneous' where I put all the one hit wonders. That one has 564 tracks in it.

Don't get me wrong, I think that choice is a good thing, but I think that the 'art' of experiencing an album is dying. But then, I'm just an old git

You can have 'albums' and you have 'LPs', they are different and should be listened to differently.

Dave, we're talking at crossed purposes, and maybe I got my threads mixed up :doh: I was talking about how digital (CD) has resulted in a generation of 'flickers', flicking from track to track, and not really experiencing an album in it's entirety.

As I said in an earlier post, both formats have their value, both different...

No crossed anything here.

Albums are designed and produced to be listened to in it's entireity, LPs are just collections of songe on a single disc, there is a difference. It makes no difference if they are on CD or vinyl, in this case anyway.

And anyway, 'flicking' as you term it is a product of itunes and iPod, not digital as such.

Au contraire mon ami, digital in the form of a CD makes it so much easier to 'flick'. I've done it myself, with CD's that have been loaned to me. The rest of it (iTunes and the like) are merely an extention of that...

Nah, not true.

As a young man I would routinely sit on the floor, in front of the record player, and play LP tracks. As one was playing I would get an idea of what I wanted to hear next and line it up, 'flicking' from LP to LP in the process. You can do the same with CDs, it doesn't matter.

What made it almost obligatory was 'Shuffle' play and 'Playlists'. That is what killed the LP as an 'album'.

Well, I can honestly say that I never flicked through tracks with vinyl. Apart from anything else, it was too much hassle to get off my @rse to move it along.

I was born pre remote control. A totally different perspective.

I would sit, on the floor, record deck and amp to hand and just let the music take me on it's own jouney, track by track.

This does not mean that some albums were not played as such, but the track by track approach was the norm.

You think I'm any different?

Clearly you are.

If not in age then in the way you listen to music. In this case I am happy to accept the differences.

 

[Freddy58]

Clearly you are.

If not in age then in the way you listen to music. In this case I am happy to accept the differences.

You missed my point, but that's ok...

 

[BigH]

I'll give you an example from probably my all-time favourite album....'Selling England By The Pound' by Genesis. There is a track that precedes 'Cinema Show' which some may say (including me) is the best tune on the album, called 'After The Ordeal'. A pretty weak tune, yet it sets up wonderfully the following track. Another example, 'Tubular Bells', by Mike Oldfield. Most seem to prefer side A, yet I have come to love side B. Things change...

I know what you mean there. There are some tracks which aren't so great in isolation but when listened to in context of the whole album it just works.

The Fun Lovin' Criminals album 'Come Find Yourself' is like that for me.

A lot of 70s albums were like that carefully constrcted not sure about most now.

 

[Freddy58]

I'll give you an example from probably my all-time favourite album....'Selling England By The Pound' by Genesis. There is a track that precedes 'Cinema Show' which some may say (including me) is the best tune on the album, called 'After The Ordeal'. A pretty weak tune, yet it sets up wonderfully the following track. Another example, 'Tubular Bells', by Mike Oldfield. Most seem to prefer side A, yet I have come to love side B. Things change...

I know what you mean there. There are some tracks which aren't so great in isolation but when listened to in context of the whole album it just works.

The Fun Lovin' Criminals album 'Come Find Yourself' is like that for me.

A lot of 70s albums were like that carefully constrcted not sure about most now.

Careful, you'll get accused of being nostalgic

 

[Vladimir]

My personal thought is that vinyl or any analog media has zero sonic merrits compared to digital. I own both media, I read all the data and I made up my mind. Analog is a flint rock compared to a surgical steel knife or as Karajan said when he heard CD for the first time "Everything else is gaslight."

This doesn't mean I would avoid a cassette or a record like the plague. I gobble good music in any format available. I want to listen as much as music as possible in my life (I don't flicker), drink the spirit and don't bother with the bottle. I understand how vinyl is more appealing at an age when you think there are only 100 good albums out there and they were all recorded 30+ years ago. IMO analog is for the romantic, pedantic and nostalgic characters (this applies both for audiophiles and DJs) and that is ok, I don't meddle with people's preferences.

I enjoyed music much more on lo-fi electrical appliances in my youth just because I was free of spirit and emotional. I only cared for the music not the format or the fidelity. As I age I become more fussy, romantic, pedantic and nostalgic. Yikes!

 

[Covenanter]

My personal thought is that vinyl or any analog media has zero sonic merrits compared to digital. I own both media, I read all the data and I made up my mind. Analog is a flint rock compared to a surgical steel knife or as Karajan said when he heard CD for the first time "Everything else is gaslight."

This doesn't mean I would avoid a cassette or a record like the plague. I gobble good music in any format available. I want to listen as much as music as possible in my life (I don't flicker), drink the spirit and don't bother with the bottle. I understand how vinyl is more appealing at an age when you think there are only 100 good albums out there and they were all recorded 30+ years ago. IMO analog is for the romantic, pedantic and nostalgic characters (this applies both for audiophiles and DJs) and that is ok, I don't meddle with people's preferences.

I enjoyed music much more on lo-fi electrical appliances in my youth just because I was free of spirit and emotional. I only cared for the music not the format or the fidelity. As I age I become more fussy, romantic, pedantic and nostalgic. Yikes!

Wow!

 

[lindsayt]

One thing I can't help wondering is that if CD is as good as some people claim, then surely at some point in the 30 year history of the format, someone somewhere would have come up with a CD that sounds like a live feed. Or in the case of a studio album, like a set of live feeds from recording booths stitched together into a stereo track.

I have never come across such a thing. Every CD I've heard has had sound quality a few notches down from a live feed.

Surely someone somewhere some-time would have had the ambition and the technical nous to produce an audiophile recording that sounded as good as a live feed. Surely such a recording or range of recordings would have become famous on hi-fi forums by now for the particularly good sound quality?

In the absence of any CD's with live feed sound quality, I think it's fair to infer that there's something technically flawed about the CD recording and playback process.

 

[Kamikaze Bitter]

But all recorded music is artifice. Sometimes live sound is pretty ropey, like live performances with occasional mistakes. But that's not the point - live music isn't about the qulaity of the sound, it's about a connection with the performer.

Someone noted that reviewers have a prefernce for bright sounding systems. Could be true - a little bright colour give the impression of detail. Works with some kinds of music but makes other kinds unbearable, tedious to listen to. Same with the 'vinyl' sound. Seems to me it adds a mid/bass blooom that people like. But strictly that ain't fidelity.

Finally on the subject of flickiing and moving the sytlus on LPs - god how many disks (and probably stylii) did I damage like that! Certainly unwise when alcohol has been consmed.

 

[davedotco]

One thing I can't help wondering is that if CD is as good as some people claim, then surely at some point in the 30 year history of the format, someone somewhere would have come up with a CD that sounds like a live feed. Or in the case of a studio album, like a set of live feeds from recording booths stitched together into a stereo track.

I have never come across such a thing. Every CD I've heard has had sound quality a few notches down from a live feed.

Surely someone somewhere some-time would have had the ambition and the technical nous to produce an audiophile recording that sounded as good as a live feed. Surely such a recording or range of recordings would have become famous on hi-fi forums by now for the particularly good sound quality?

In the absence of any CD's with live feed sound quality, I think it's fair to infer that there's something technically flawed about the CD recording and playback process.

Wow............ Just wow..........!

 

[the record spot]

Beat me to it...!

 

[andyjm]

One thing I can't help wondering is that if CD is as good as some people claim, then surely at some point in the 30 year history of the format, someone somewhere would have come up with a CD that sounds like a live feed. Or in the case of a studio album, like a set of live feeds from recording booths stitched together into a stereo track.

I have never come across such a thing. Every CD I've heard has had sound quality a few notches down from a live feed.

Surely someone somewhere some-time would have had the ambition and the technical nous to produce an audiophile recording that sounded as good as a live feed. Surely such a recording or range of recordings would have become famous on hi-fi forums by now for the particularly good sound quality?

In the absence of any CD's with live feed sound quality, I think it's fair to infer that there's something technically flawed about the CD recording and playback process.

Lindy,

I have sat in studios and compared live music with what comes out of a 'live feed', and they sound nothing like each other - how could it?

I also spent the early part of my career analysing audio and video recording systems, and IMO what you put into a digital recording system is very similar to what comes out.

So if you are saying that listening at home to a CD is nothing like sitting in the studio with the artist, I would agree 100%. Sitting in the control room 2 sheets of glass away from the artist sounds nothing like sitting in the studio with the artist.

I would however say that comparing the output of a mixing desk with the playback of the same output after it has been digitally recorded is identical (to my ears at least).

 

[lindsayt]

andyjm, if we're talking about a live recording, then live feed sound quality would sound like the band had plugged their instruments and microphones directly into my hi-fi system and were using my hi-fi system as their PA. I haven't come across any CD's of live recordings that sound that good. They all sound a few notches below that.

If we're talking about studio recordings, live feed quality should sound like we've got the band in various recording booths around my house fed directly into my hi-fi system. Again, no CD I've come across has sounded exactly like that.

The closest I've come to live feed quality with my hi-fi has been with analogue tape recordings.

 

[geordie777]

This discussion got me thinking of what I would do if I was just starting out in the hifi world. I own numerous vinyl and CDs have a Spotify account and stream from my computer where I have a very large selection of lossless files. All formats have their merits and their flaws I feel but to say one is definitely better than the other is for me wrong. Vinyl I love, the whole experience I enjoy but this is what I grew up with so lots of good memories however the format is hardly user friendly compared to CDs where basically it's just plug and play and IMO sounds great. Streaming my music from my PC or Spotify is amazing. I use my iPad or iPhone using the Spotify app or the iTunes remote app and to be able to sit in the comfort of my armchair and basically listen to great quality music playing through my system without having to move is wonderful. So going back to what I said at the start what format would I choose it's got to be for me streaming and CDs which would be ripped then played from PC.

 

[alchemist 1]

My personal thought is that vinyl or any analog media has zero sonic merrits compared to digital. I own both media, I read all the data and I made up my mind. Analog is a flint rock compared to a surgical steel knife or as Karajan said when he heard CD for the first time "Everything else is gaslight."

This doesn't mean I would avoid a cassette or a record like the plague. I gobble good music in any format available. I want to listen as much as music as possible in my life (I don't flicker), drink the spirit and don't bother with the bottle. I understand how vinyl is more appealing at an age when you think there are only 100 good albums out there and they were all recorded 30+ years ago. IMO analog is for the romantic, pedantic and nostalgic characters (this applies both for audiophiles and DJs) and that is ok, I don't meddle with people's preferences.

I enjoyed music much more on lo-fi electrical appliances in my youth just because I was free of spirit and emotional. I only cared for the music not the format or the fidelity. As I age I become more fussy, romantic, pedantic and nostalgic. Yikes!

The word ''Barking'' comes to mind...........

 

[davedotco]

My personal thought is that vinyl or any analog media has zero sonic merrits compared to digital. I own both media, I read all the data and I made up my mind. Analog is a flint rock compared to a surgical steel knife or as Karajan said when he heard CD for the first time "Everything else is gaslight."

This doesn't mean I would avoid a cassette or a record like the plague. I gobble good music in any format available. I want to listen as much as music as possible in my life (I don't flicker), drink the spirit and don't bother with the bottle. I understand how vinyl is more appealing at an age when you think there are only 100 good albums out there and they were all recorded 30+ years ago. IMO analog is for the romantic, pedantic and nostalgic characters (this applies both for audiophiles and DJs) and that is ok, I don't meddle with people's preferences.

I enjoyed music much more on lo-fi electrical appliances in my youth just because I was free of spirit and emotional. I only cared for the music not the format or the fidelity. As I age I become more fussy, romantic, pedantic and nostalgic. Yikes!

The word ''Barking'' comes to mind...........

it certainly does, though I would apply it to a couple of other recent posts rather than the one quoted........