8mm Forum


  
my profile | my password | search | faq | register | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» 8mm Forum   » General Yak   » The come back of the vinyl (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!  
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3 
 
Author Topic: The come back of the vinyl
Pete Richards
Master Film Handler

Posts: 302
From: Australia
Registered: Sep 2010


 - posted December 10, 2013 05:09 PM      Profile for Pete Richards   Email Pete Richards   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Oh I agree, there can be a nostalgia to process and an enjoyment of ritual.
I enjoy the tactile ritual of cleaning film, mounting the reels and threading the projector. I used to enjoy selecting a record, removing it carefully from its sleeve and inspecting the surface, preparing the player and initiating the arm ready for playback.

That all has value and levels of pleasure and enjoyment, no argument.

I do get annoyed by people claiming that the audio quality of a vinyl pressing is better than a digital version, there is just no way it is possible when they are taken from the same master, the vinyl LP will have introduced distortion, and a smaller dynamic range. That is, it will sound less like 'being there in person' than the digital version will.

There are times when I want to enjoy the whole experience of getting out an album and playing it while reminiscing about time gone by, but there are also times when I want to *really* listen to a piece of music, and be as close to possible to the experience of being there at the recording session, and that will always be something like a Linn 24bit master recording on digital for me.

Two different experiences really.

 |  IP: Logged

Winbert Hutahaean
Film God

Posts: 5468
From: Nouméa, New Caledonia
Registered: Jun 2003


 - posted December 10, 2013 08:47 PM      Profile for Winbert Hutahaean     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I agree with Pete that today's music is created digitally from head to toe. So there is no point to hear the digital music from vinyl.

However for old musics that were created through analog system, then the best format to listen is through vinyl. I think the era will stop at around 1980s.

This what make me strange to learn the latest Beatles vinyl box is digitally remastered and yet people are buying it. Why we need to buy these albums? Go to those Beatles LPs which were released before 1980s and that is a true analog.

--------------------
Winbert

 |  IP: Logged

Michael O'Regan
Film God

Posts: 3085
From: Essex, UK
Registered: Oct 2007


 - posted December 11, 2013 12:41 PM      Profile for Michael O'Regan   Email Michael O'Regan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The Beatles albums sound just fine on the remastered CDs.

 |  IP: Logged

Paul Adsett
Film God

Posts: 5003
From: USA
Registered: Jun 2003


 - posted December 11, 2013 05:29 PM      Profile for Paul Adsett     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Incidentally, some of the early Beatles LP's are selling for a fortune on ebay.

--------------------
The best of all worlds- 8mm, super 8mm, 9.5mm, and HD Digital Projection,
Elmo GS1200 f1.0 2-blade
Eumig S938 Stereo f1.0 Ektar
Panasonic PT-AE4000U digital pj

 |  IP: Logged

Winbert Hutahaean
Film God

Posts: 5468
From: Nouméa, New Caledonia
Registered: Jun 2003


 - posted December 11, 2013 06:48 PM      Profile for Winbert Hutahaean     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Mike, if you compare the Beatles remastered CD vs analog press vinyl of the same title, you will hear (or feel) the different.

Paul, the high price for early press is more memorabilia factor.

--------------------
Winbert

 |  IP: Logged

Pete Richards
Master Film Handler

Posts: 302
From: Australia
Registered: Sep 2010


 - posted December 11, 2013 09:18 PM      Profile for Pete Richards   Email Pete Richards   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I much prefer the latest Beatles remastered set over my original LPs on vinyl. I thought it was one of the better remasters done in recent years.
Some of the early Beatles pressings are pretty awful sonically.

 |  IP: Logged

Michael O'Regan
Film God

Posts: 3085
From: Essex, UK
Registered: Oct 2007


 - posted December 12, 2013 01:00 PM      Profile for Michael O'Regan   Email Michael O'Regan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Winbert,

Yes, I've compared them and I can hear the difference - "difference" doesn't necessarily mean "better" though.

The remasters are excellent. Thje "difference" is just unimportant for appreciation of the beauty of the music.
This goes for all analog vs digital recording arguments IMO.
[Smile]

 |  IP: Logged

Winbert Hutahaean
Film God

Posts: 5468
From: Nouméa, New Caledonia
Registered: Jun 2003


 - posted December 12, 2013 08:29 PM      Profile for Winbert Hutahaean     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Mike, I can see where you talk from. You are a musician therefore the most important for you is the beauty of music.

But there is another group, the so-called audio lovers (please note: they are not necessarily music lovers). This group is concerned more about the audio.

In vinyl vs. CD arguments, the most terminology often used to win vinyl is "warm" to say that digital does not have this. "warm" is often used by general audio lovers. But the more hi-end person will have these below terminologies:

quote:


What are these terms used to describe speakers (or sound reproduction ........) ?

Airy: Spacious. Open. Instruments sound like they are surrounded by a large reflective space full of air. Good reproduction of high-frequency reflections. High-frequency response extends to 15 or 20 kHz.

Bassy: Emphasized low frequencies below about 200 Hz.

Blanketed: Weak highs, as if a blanket were put over the speakers.

Bloated: Excessive mid-bass around 250 Hz. Poorly damped low frequencies, low-frequency resonances. See tubby.

Blurred: Poor transient response. Vague stereo imaging, not focused.

Boomy: Excessive bass around 125 Hz. Poorly damped low frequencies or low-frequency resonances.

Boxy: Having resonances as if the music were enclosed in a box. Sometimes an emphasis around 250 to 500 Hz.

Breathy: Audible breath sounds in woodwinds and reeds such as flute or sax. Good response in the upper-mids or highs.

Bright: High-frequency emphasis. Harmonics are strong relative to fundamentals.

Chesty: The vocalist sounds like their chest is too big. A bump in the low-frequency response around 125 to 250 Hz.

Clear: See Transparent.

Colored: Having timbres that are not true to life. Non-flat response, peaks or dips.

Crisp: Extended high-frequency response, especially with cymbals.

Dark: Opposite of bright. Weak high frequencies.

Delicate: High frequencies extending to 15 or 20 kHz without peaks.

Depth: A sense of distance (near to far) of different instruments.

Detailed: Easy to hear tiny details in the music; articulate. Adequate high-frequency response, sharp transient response.

Dull: See dark.

Edgy: Too much high frequencies. Trebly. Harmonics are too strong relative to the fundamentals. Distorted, having unwanted harmonics that add an edge or raspiness.

Fat: See Full and Warm. Or, spatially diffuse - a sound is panned to one channel, delayed, and then the delayed sound is panned to the other channel. Or, slightly distorted with analog tape distortion or tube distortion.

Full: Strong fundamentals relative to harmonics. Good low-frequency response, not necessarily extended, but with adequate level around 100 to 300 Hz. Male voices are full around 125 Hz; female voices and violins are full around 250 Hz; sax is full around 250 to 400 Hz. Opposite of thin.

Gentle: Opposite of edgy. The harmonics - highs and upper mids - are not exaggerated, or may even be weak.

Grainy: The music sounds like it is segmented into little grains, rather than flowing in one continuous piece. Not liquid or fluid. Suffering from harmonic or I.M. distortion. Some early A/D converters sounded grainy, as do current ones of inferior design. Powdery is finer than grainy.

Grungy: Lots of harmonic or I.M. distortion.

Hard: Too much upper midrange, usually around 3 kHz. Or, good transient response, as if the sound is hitting you hard.

Harsh: Too much upper midrange. Peaks in the frequency response between 2 and 6 kHz. Or, excessive phase shift in a digital recorder's lowpass filter.

Honky: Like cupping your hands around your mouth. A bump in the response around 500 to 700 Hz.

Mellow: Reduced high frequencies, not edgy.

Muddy: Not clear. Weak harmonics, smeared time response, I.M. distortion.

Muffled: Sounds like it is covered with a blanket. Weak highs or weak upper mids.

Nasal: Honky, a bump in the response around 600 Hz.

Piercing: Strident, hard on the ears, screechy. Having sharp, narrow peaks in the response around 3 to 10 kHz.

Presence: A sense that the instrument in present in the listening room. Synonyms are edge, punch, detail, closeness and clarity. Adequate or emphasized response around 5 kHz for most instruments, or around 2 to 5 kHz for kick drum and bass.

Puffy: A bump in the response around 500 Hz.

Punchy: Good reproduction of dynamics. Good transient response, with strong impact. Sometimes a bump around 5 kHz or 200 Hz.

Rich: See Full. Also, having euphonic distortion made of even-order harmonics.

Round: High-frequency rolloff or dip. Not edgy.
Sibilant: "Essy" Exaggerated "s" and "sh" sounds in singing, caused by a rise in the response around 6 to 10 kHz.

Sizzly: See Sibilant. Also, too much highs on cymbals.

Smeared: Lacking detail. Poor transient response, too much leakage between microphones. Poorly focused images.

Smooth: Easy on the ears, not harsh. Flat frequency response, especially in the midrange. Lack of peaks and dips in the response.

Spacious: Conveying a sense of space, ambiance, or room around the instruments. Stereo reverb. Early reflections.

Steely: Emphasized upper mids around 3 to 6 kHz. Peaky, nonflat high-frequency response. See Harsh, Edgy.

Strident: See Harsh, Edgy.

Sweet: Not strident or piercing. Delicate. Flat high-frequency response, low distortion. Lack of peaks in the response. Highs are extended to 15 or 20 kHz, but they are not bumped up. Often used when referring to cymbals, percussion, strings, and sibilant sounds.

Telephone-like: See Tinny.

Thin: Fundamentals are weak relative to harmonics.

Tight: Good low-frequency transient response and detail.

Tinny: Narrowband, weak lows, peaky mids. The music sounds like it is coming through a telephone or tin can.

Transparent: Easy to hear into the music, detailed, clear, not muddy. Wide flat frequency response, sharp time response, very low distortion and noise.

Tubby: Having low-frequency resonances as if you're singing in a bathtub. See bloated.

Veiled: Like a silk veil is over the speakers. Slight noise or distortion or slightly weak high frequencies. Not transparent.

Warm: Good bass, adequate low frequencies, adequate fundamentals relative to harmonics. Not thin. Also excessive bass or midbass. Also, pleasantly spacious, with adequate reverberation at low frequencies. Also see Rich, Round. Warm highs means sweet highs.

Weighty: Good low-frequency response below about 50 Hz. Suggesting an object of great weight or power, like a diesel locomotive.

You can see "warm" is only one of them.

I am not that kind of person. But I can understand why there is analog vs. digital discussion.

Same thing with us here, why there is a debate between celluloid vs digital presentation.

The movie lovers will focus on the story (they don't care what medium is used to shoot and screen the movie), while on the other side of the pond is the visual lovers where "collecting Matrix on super 8 although don't like the whole story" [Wink]

And the later group is US now... [Big Grin] [Big Grin]

To sum up, on music there is music lovers vs audio lovers and on movie there is movie lovers vs visual lovers.

--------------------
Winbert

 |  IP: Logged

Michael O'Regan
Film God

Posts: 3085
From: Essex, UK
Registered: Oct 2007


 - posted December 13, 2013 04:50 PM      Profile for Michael O'Regan   Email Michael O'Regan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
But there is another group, the so-called audio lovers (please note: they are not necessarily music lovers). This group is concerned more about the audio.
Sure. But, these audiophiles, in my experience, totally miss out on the point of the whole thing.

I believe the same to be true of videophiles, who are so obsessed with the presence of the thinnest of lines on the latest restoration on Blu Ray that they are unable to allow themselves to just enjoy the film for what it is.

But....maybe I'm just a total artslob.
[Smile]

 |  IP: Logged

Michael De Angelis
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1261
From: USA
Registered: Jul 2003


 - posted December 14, 2013 04:20 PM      Profile for Michael De Angelis   Email Michael De Angelis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I think that the sound depends upon the equipment. Speakers, amplifiers, the turntable, the needle and the needle cartridge, etc.

I have a Technics Turntable. The disadvantage is that it does not play 78 rpm.

Otherwise a great combo that I use is an Orton needle and Lyle cartridge which makes it the the Eumig 938 / GS 1200 of equipment.

--------------------
Isn't it great that we can all communicate about this great
hobby that we love!

 |  IP: Logged

Roger Shunk
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 604
From: Phoenix, AZ
Registered: Nov 2011


 - posted December 16, 2013 06:10 PM      Profile for Roger Shunk   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Alright I'm going to add my 2 cents here for what it is worth because I'm a huge vinyl LP record collector and have been for many years. Vinyl is the closest
reproduction to the sound the artist was playing at the time the music was created! Records just sound better and CD music is an artificial sound. A vinyl record is like a fingerprinted reproduction of the music. The sound is etched into the grooves of the vinyl record, whereas with digital sound the music is compressed into 1' and 0's, which is a "binary sound".

So vinyl records are able to capture the purest quality of recorded music in true form. Analog recordings capture the bottom end (bass) while adding sweetness to the high end (treble) better than any digital recording ever could. Analog systems are still commonly used before they are digitally transferred to CD. This means that the sound then is altered in the transfer process when CD's are produced.

I clean my vinyl using half denatured alcohol and half of distilled water with a 100% cotton cloth. It really cleans the record and makes the vinyl really shine and looks like a brand new record. I mix it up in a spray bottle and then spray it directly on the vinyl and lightly rub with a circular motion with the cloth. Be careful not to spray it on the label. I heard that mixing 100% vodka with distilled water is good too providing you don't have a sip or two.

Paul I sold my Beatles Butcher Cover Album "Yesterday & Today" for $1300 not long ago to fuel my 16mm film addiction habit. It was in mint minus condition. The Beatles paste over & the butcher cover always go for high dollar.

RS

[ December 16, 2013, 08:19 PM: Message edited by: Roger Shunk ]

 |  IP: Logged

Michael De Angelis
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1261
From: USA
Registered: Jul 2003


 - posted December 16, 2013 08:21 PM      Profile for Michael De Angelis   Email Michael De Angelis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Roger I have the paste over cover.

What's it worth?

--------------------
Isn't it great that we can all communicate about this great
hobby that we love!

 |  IP: Logged

Roger Shunk
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 604
From: Phoenix, AZ
Registered: Nov 2011


 - posted December 16, 2013 10:16 PM      Profile for Roger Shunk   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Michael,

It would be hard to determine the value without first seeing it. The prices have come down quite a bit and I sold mine at the right time when the prices were up there. My copy was a 2nd state paste over in stereo and the cover & vinyl were both mint minus condition.
The condition of both really adds to the value.

I took mine to a local vintage record store to find out the value and he told me I could get at least $1200 to $1300 for it since it was in such great condition. He told me my copy was the best one he has ever seen in this pristine condition.

If you have a local vintage record store I would suggest you take your copy to see what yours is worth.

There are quite a few on ebay selling at different prices and most of them have not had any bids on them.

RS

 |  IP: Logged

David Roberts
Master Film Handler

Posts: 405
From: Suffolk. England
Registered: Apr 2004


 - posted December 21, 2013 10:28 AM      Profile for David Roberts     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
roger
I couldn't agree more,well put. vinyl just sounds more natural.

 |  IP: Logged

Robert Crewdson
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1031
From: UK
Registered: Jun 2013


 - posted December 21, 2013 11:36 AM      Profile for Robert Crewdson     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I agree with Roger; you might be able to baffle us with science, but my ears tell me that Vinyl sounds better than CDs. After playing nothing but CDs for about 2 years, I was surprised at the quality of Vinyl when I put it on. If you listen to some of the 78s produced in the 1950s, they sound much better than the 45rpm version, maybe the wider groove had something to do with it?
Can anyone explain why it was not thought necessary to include a bass and treble control on CD players?

 |  IP: Logged

Dominique De Bast
Film God

Posts: 4486
From: Brussels, Belgium
Registered: Jun 2013


 - posted December 21, 2013 12:00 PM      Profile for Dominique De Bast   Email Dominique De Bast   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Robert, I was surprised this morning by listening to a tape which I hadn't done for ages. I could hear no quality difference at all with a cd. I thought my ears were wrong...

--------------------
Dominique

 |  IP: Logged

Michael O'Regan
Film God

Posts: 3085
From: Essex, UK
Registered: Oct 2007


 - posted December 21, 2013 01:02 PM      Profile for Michael O'Regan   Email Michael O'Regan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Can anyone explain why it was not thought necessary to include a bass and treble control on CD players?

The amp through which the CD player is channelled has these controls. At least mine have always had.

 |  IP: Logged

Paul Adsett
Film God

Posts: 5003
From: USA
Registered: Jun 2003


 - posted December 21, 2013 01:59 PM      Profile for Paul Adsett     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Digital recording/playback is by definition an approximation to the original sound wave. If the sampling rate is infinite, then a digital recording should be as good as the analogue recording. But of course the sampling rate is nowhere near infinite, so electronic processing fills in the gaps between the sample wave peaks.
Analogue recording and playback is, as Roger well states, an exact fingerprint of the sound wave and, given a very good turntable, should be superior.

--------------------
The best of all worlds- 8mm, super 8mm, 9.5mm, and HD Digital Projection,
Elmo GS1200 f1.0 2-blade
Eumig S938 Stereo f1.0 Ektar
Panasonic PT-AE4000U digital pj

 |  IP: Logged

Michael O'Regan
Film God

Posts: 3085
From: Essex, UK
Registered: Oct 2007


 - posted December 21, 2013 02:18 PM      Profile for Michael O'Regan   Email Michael O'Regan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Yeah, Paul, but it still sounds just fine.
[Wink]

 |  IP: Logged

Robert Crewdson
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1031
From: UK
Registered: Jun 2013


 - posted December 21, 2013 03:31 PM      Profile for Robert Crewdson     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
There was a record company set up in the UK in the 70s that recorded the music straight to the master for pressing, they claimed that the sound was superior to recordings which were recorded to tape first then transferred to a master. Tape was introduced I believe sometime in the late 40s, before that the recording cut the master for the shellac pressings.

The disadvantage was that if a mistake was made, you had to start at the beginning; we are talking long players here, not singles, and the other disadvantage was that I think the pressings were limited to 250 copies before the master started to deteriorate.

Has anyone bought any CDs by Hallmark, they used to issue vinyl LPs and Videos. The CDs are very poor quality.

Is there anyone on here who owns an original 78rpm disc of Elvis singing 'Hound Dog'? Suzy Quatro described the guitar break as sounding like 100 girders falling. Listen to the recording on CD, and and it just does not have that power; the same can be said of the guitar break on Buddy Holly's 'Peggy Sue'

 |  IP: Logged

Michael O'Regan
Film God

Posts: 3085
From: Essex, UK
Registered: Oct 2007


 - posted December 21, 2013 04:53 PM      Profile for Michael O'Regan   Email Michael O'Regan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Listen to the recording on CD, and and it just does not have that power;
If you're referring to Moore's second solo, then you're probably right, Robert, but....so what?? It sounds mighty fine on CD. If it loses "power" as you put it, it certainly doesn't lose enough "power" to matter. That solo, and in fact the first one on that track also, is still a thing of beauty.

Any difference in sound quality just doesn't matter to anyone other than those interested in audio for audio sake.

It doesn't detract one iota from the beauty and integrity of the work.

[Smile]

 |  IP: Logged

Robert Crewdson
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1031
From: UK
Registered: Jun 2013


 - posted December 22, 2013 09:58 AM      Profile for Robert Crewdson     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
It matters to me Michael, because something has been lost. We were told in the 80s that CDs offered superior sound. Elvis' Hound Dog might be acceptable but it is not exactly as the original from 1956. I could name several records from the 50s and 60s where the original is superior.
just two examples are:
Bill Haley 'Rockin thru the Rye' Brunswick 78rpm.
Johnny Kidd & The Pirates 'I can Tell' HMV 1962.

 |  IP: Logged

Rob Young.
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1633
From: Cheshire, U.K.
Registered: Dec 2003


 - posted December 23, 2013 05:34 AM      Profile for Rob Young.     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Paul is spot on there.

Although digital recording is now extremely advanced and really a return to analogue recording would be a regressive step.

The variable qualities when we get to hear recordings at home are down to the distribution format; CD was never really a great format because it requires too much compression.

That said, "studio quality" downloads should really be exceeding the best vinyl quality.

There is still every good reason to choose a vinyl pressing of a digital recording over the CD version, as less vital information is lost; the very information that actually contributes to the musicality. Putting aside frequency range and surface noise, which with a good pressing on a good turntable become mostly irrelevant, and vinyl still captures the really important audio information, very much exceeding the very limited 16 bit technology of CD.

DVD-Audio and SACD came closer to a really good digital distribution format, but failed because the mass-market didn't want them.

MP3, which now rules the download world, is atrocious; I'd go so far as to say it is so compressed, there is barely any real musical quality left.

But, as been already stated here, high quality downloads are pretty good; we just need more of them!

Michael, I know what you're saying, music is music, but I still reckon a hike in quality improves the perception of the recording. I mean, a film on super 8 is the same film on 35mm, but I dare say the 35mm offers something extra, if you get my point. [Smile]

 |  IP: Logged

Michael O'Regan
Film God

Posts: 3085
From: Essex, UK
Registered: Oct 2007


 - posted December 23, 2013 12:39 PM      Profile for Michael O'Regan   Email Michael O'Regan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
...music is music, but I still reckon a hike in quality improves the perception of the recording.
Maybe, but not by enough to matter.
Happy Christmas, all.
[Smile]

 |  IP: Logged

Winbert Hutahaean
Film God

Posts: 5468
From: Nouméa, New Caledonia
Registered: Jun 2003


 - posted December 23, 2013 09:28 PM      Profile for Winbert Hutahaean     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
. If you listen to some of the 78s produced in the 1950s, they sound much better than the 45rpm version, maybe the wider groove had something to do with it?
Wider groove and speed do matter.

Even in digital format these also will apply.

--------------------
Winbert

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3 
 
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Visit www.film-tech.com for free equipment manual downloads. Copyright 2003-2019 Film-Tech Cinema Systems LLC

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2