This is topic The come back of the vinyl in forum General Yak at 8mm Forum.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=002898
Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on December 01, 2013, 12:40 PM:
The tv news made a report about the growing sales of the vinyl records. It seems that the phenomenon that (re)started a few years ago is more than a temporarily fashion. The average of the buyers is incredibly low (between 20 and 30). And it seems that it is not limited to Belgium but that is seen also in other countries. What will be next ? The real film ? Le't keep our fingers crossed...
Posted by Jim Schrader (Member # 9) on December 01, 2013, 03:29 PM:
still got all my vinyl records in the process of putting them on my iTunes library.
Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on December 01, 2013, 06:48 PM:
Vinyl has an advantage as new record players can easily be bought and there's no shortage of new product, but we must still do our best to convey that film is the visual equivalent of vinyl. If one or two of the specialist shops that offer vinyl could be persuaded to devote a little space to 8mm, that would be a good start.
Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on December 01, 2013, 07:02 PM:
Holding the vinyl artwork is definitely different experience with holding CD artwork,...moreover USB!
Posted by Bryan Chernick (Member # 1998) on December 01, 2013, 07:33 PM:
I've got close to 1,000 LP's in my collection now. The problem is they can be had for so cheap it's hard not to buy a good record when you find it when it's only a dollar or two.
A friend of mine has a record store in Hawaii that deals mostly in Vinyl and they are doing quite well.
Hungry Ear Records
Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on December 01, 2013, 08:24 PM:
The furniture item right below the screen in my screening room is a beautiful 1973 Zenith console stereo. The maple wood cabinet is gorgeous, and it has a great turntable, radio, and yes an 8 track tape player ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
built in. I have quite a few vinyl's and we play them on the stereo quite a bit at this time of year.
Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on December 02, 2013, 02:36 AM:
Vinyl LPs have a superior sound than a CD, but a CD scores due to its longer running time.
When LPs were first introduced in the late 40s, early 50s, they were 10inch with only four tracks on each side, the playing time was limited as the original material was taken from existing 78s.
The 12inch was at first reserved for classical recordings, but soon all the 10inch were superseded by the 12inch. I well remember the excitement when the Benny Goodman Carnegie Hall concert was released with its long tracks.
Posted by Paul Mason (Member # 4015) on December 02, 2013, 03:26 AM:
My wife and I still have 12 inch LPs but the singles went a long time ago. The only disadvantage with vinyl is wear due to heavy or careless use but at least they're thinner than CD cases. I'm not sure that the sound is better than a CD but a good LP's analogue sound is rounder and smoother sound than the clinical CD sound.
[ December 04, 2013, 09:48 AM: Message edited by: Paul Mason ]
Posted by Lee Mannering (Member # 728) on December 02, 2013, 04:56 AM:
No surprise re the LP scene here as we have a superb vinyl shop in our town which the younger adults love and even the older ones. Perhaps with all this social media about people are rediscovering just how sociable actually playing a record is if having people round what with thumbing through a record collection. My own Thorens gets plenty of use here and a warm sounding vinyl is as good as ever.
Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on December 02, 2013, 09:12 AM:
What is the best way to clean and maintain old vinyl records? And how often do you have to replace the needle these days?
Posted by Fabrizio Mosca (Member # 142) on December 02, 2013, 09:54 AM:
There are particular products for taking care of vynils (both spray and dedicated washing machines).
I usually clean them with the anti-static brush both before and after playing them(for removing the static charge). When they start to have too much noise on the background, I use one of the dedicated sprays for a deep cleaning.
Re the stylus, it usually lasts some hundreds of hours nowadays (but of course it depends on it's quality), but you may decide to change it when you hear the record playing not so well
Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on December 02, 2013, 10:12 AM:
If you are using a cloth or brush on an LP move it in a circular motion around the grooves.
In the case of a CD the opposite applies. Start at the centre and move outwards as in the spokes of a wheel.
Posted by David Roberts (Member # 197) on December 02, 2013, 02:05 PM:
for some of us,vinyl never went away,for the simple reason that with a half decent turntable,the sound is of much better quality than cd..
a decent moving coil cartridge,though not cheap(several hundred pounds) will last at least 2000 hours,or well over 2 years regular use. i use a linn lp12 turntable that is around 30 years old,though the model is still made.
to cd. 8in fact i hardly ever bother with cd,
Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on December 02, 2013, 04:47 PM:
Paul
I don't know if its the right thing to do, but I wash them in the garden with Palmolive dishwashing liquid, then with the garden hose wash down with water. ....then leave to dry.
Years ago I nearly gave away all my records, after all they were old hat and the CD was the now the thing....reflecting now, I am glad I kept them all and still adding more to the collection ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
I do find the sound of the CD a bit harsh.... to clinical and providing the records are scratch free, I think they sound better.
Graham.
Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on December 02, 2013, 05:13 PM:
I have a few hundred vinyl which I play only rarely. I have many more CDs which I play all the time.
To be honest, even though I'm a musician, I've never really been bothered by the whole analog vs digital thing when it comes to music. It all sounds beautiful to me.
Posted by Bryan Chernick (Member # 1998) on December 02, 2013, 05:42 PM:
I clean mine with rubbing alcohol and a soft cotton cloth. The same cloth I use to clean my film.
My wife and I listen to records at least 3 or 4 times a week. We have two RCA Victor console stereos similar to the one in Paul's picture. Were even having a cabinet custom made to hold many of our records. I don't think I will ever abandon records because of the way it keeps you engaged in the music since you have to attend to the records and turntable.
Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on December 03, 2013, 09:31 AM:
Rega were always great players;
http://www.rega.co.uk/
Or if you have the cash, Linn;
http://www.linn.co.uk/all-products
The Linn LP12 was / is one of the best sounding turntables ever made; mine certainly is! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
And for the money, Project decks are fabulous sounding;
http://www.project-audio.com/
The old rule is don't clean your records unless you really have to as it will probably just ingrain dirt into the grooves and make them worse.
If you have to, or you've bought records that need a clean, this stuff is pretty good and very effective;
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Record-Cleaner-for-Vinyl-Records/dp/B0015C0YYY/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1386084116&sr=8-2&keywords=record+cleaner
Reason CD doesn't sound as good is the massive compression required. 16 bit technology is ancient by todays standards.
Posted by Lee Mannering (Member # 728) on December 03, 2013, 10:51 AM:
Yup the Linn Sondek were always noted and a complete deck with tonearm will set you back about 12k today. Yipes!
The Thorens TD160 MK2 complete is nice and mine still has orig cartridge in it still fine, these go for about £300 on fleabay. Have a Project as well which are cheap as chips but sound like steak and excellent value for money. The Project Debute is a modern good value deck as well and complete ready to go. Project Genie is what I use in the cinema to play theatre organ music on prior to a screening, at a little over £200 is excellent and just the job.
Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on December 03, 2013, 01:09 PM:
Lovely set up Paul!
OK, I know I'll sound like a party pooper on this (especially as a recording artist myself), but, though vhynl (I know I spelled that wrong), may sound better to an audiophile, I can't stand scratches when listening to a recording, nor surface sound, background noise, from a record.
Besides that, the problems that at one time plagued early CD's you'd buy in the store are mostly long gone (a slight "tinny" sound to CD's ect), and the modern CD does sound quite good.
That, and the remastering of old classic pop tunes just has a sonic quality that really rivals the original recordings available on dem ole records.
Mind you, I have quite a few mint condition 45's that I still hold onto ... though!
Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on December 03, 2013, 05:40 PM:
Osi, I'm not sure people are looking for a perfect sound on vinyl records, but for a better sound. Better not in the sense of scratches free. It is a fact that cd and vinyl have different sounds and it seems that a growing number of people prefer the vinyl sound. The fact that a record is a "real" object compared with computer files or even cds is a plus.
Posted by David Roberts (Member # 197) on December 04, 2013, 02:14 PM:
the linn is easily available sh,mine cost £600 with a new power supply board,and a rega arm.
Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on December 08, 2013, 01:10 PM:
Another subject on the Belgian news today about the come back of the vinyl (this time on the public channel). They said that in 2011 the sales of vinyl records increased in Belgium increased of 39 % and that in 2013 in the UK over half million records were sold.
Posted by Pete Richards (Member # 2203) on December 09, 2013, 09:31 PM:
Seeing that most vinyl releases come from digital masters, and vinyl has a much lower SNR than even CD (let alone Linn 24bit master recordings like these) some people do still prefer the format.
I think part of the recent resurgence has to do with the loudness wars. We are in a very strange situation, when there is an identical release, like Daft Punk's latest Album Random Access Memories .
On that album, the vinyl version was not loudness compressed, but the CD and 24bit FLAC releases were. There is no good reason to do this, other than to artificially make the vinyl version sound 'better'.
Listen to Velvet Underground's White Light, White Heat in Studio Master 24bit, and you will never want to listen to it on Vinyl again.
http://www.linnrecords.com/recording-white-light-white-heat.aspx
Vinyl is a fun format, great for large artwork, but not all that great for audio as close to the master quality as possible.
And this comes from a Linn owner. I love vinyl, but when I want to listen to the best audio, I go digital.
Posted by Doug Arnott (Member # 4049) on December 10, 2013, 03:27 AM:
I love that younger people are showing the interest in vinyl again. I love the sound of my old Lp's played through an all TUBE amplifier. Still using my old Marantz 6200 turntable, a dynaco preamp, and 2 matching old organ amps (one for each channel) Whats fascinating to me about vinyl is that the tracks are an actual print of the soundwave that was made to record them, I think that's why the voyager space probe is carrying a gold plated lp record of "Hello" in most languages of the earth instead of a digital file somewhere in its memory.
Either way the difference is subtle compared to some of the high end digital systems out there, but still appreciable and very pleasing to the ear.
I use a record cleaning brush and water mixed with a very small amount of alcohol to clean mine each time before playing them. Its worked well for me over the years.
Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on December 10, 2013, 04:12 AM:
Pete, in the subject about vinyl in the news, a man said it was a ceremonial for him to listen to a record : choosing one among his collection, remembering the last time he listened to it, have a physical contact and so on. He added that he had not the same experience pressing a button of a mp3 or telphone list of songs. Sometimes, quality is only a part of the pleasure.
Posted by Pete Richards (Member # 2203) on December 10, 2013, 05:09 PM:
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.
Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on December 10, 2013, 08:47 PM:
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.
Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on December 11, 2013, 12:41 PM:
The Beatles albums sound just fine on the remastered CDs.
Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on December 11, 2013, 05:29 PM:
Incidentally, some of the early Beatles LP's are selling for a fortune on ebay.
Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on December 11, 2013, 06:48 PM:
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.
Posted by Pete Richards (Member # 2203) on December 11, 2013, 09:18 PM:
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.
Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on December 12, 2013, 01:00 PM:
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.
Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on December 12, 2013, 08:29 PM:
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]](wink.gif)
And the later group is US now...
To sum up, on music there is music lovers vs audio lovers and on movie there is movie lovers vs visual lovers.
Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on December 13, 2013, 04:50 PM:
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.
Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on December 14, 2013, 04:20 PM:
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.
Posted by Roger Shunk (Member # 2836) on December 16, 2013, 06:10 PM:
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 ]
Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on December 16, 2013, 08:21 PM:
Roger I have the paste over cover.
What's it worth?
Posted by Roger Shunk (Member # 2836) on December 16, 2013, 10:16 PM:
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
Posted by David Roberts (Member # 197) on December 21, 2013, 10:28 AM:
roger
I couldn't agree more,well put. vinyl just sounds more natural.
Posted by Robert Crewdson (Member # 3790) on December 21, 2013, 11:36 AM:
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?
Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on December 21, 2013, 12:00 PM:
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...
Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on December 21, 2013, 01:02 PM:
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.
Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on December 21, 2013, 01:59 PM:
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.
Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on December 21, 2013, 02:18 PM:
Yeah, Paul, but it still sounds just fine.
Posted by Robert Crewdson (Member # 3790) on December 21, 2013, 03:31 PM:
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'
Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on December 21, 2013, 04:53 PM:
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.
Posted by Robert Crewdson (Member # 3790) on December 22, 2013, 09:58 AM:
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.
Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on December 23, 2013, 05:34 AM:
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.
Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on December 23, 2013, 12:39 PM:
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.
Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on December 23, 2013, 09:28 PM:
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.
Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on January 24, 2014, 01:36 AM:
I've just seen a subject about the Beatles on the French television. It was said that in Britain the vinyl records (in general, not only for the Beatles) had 14 songs and only 12 in the US. Does anyone know why ? (if it is true of course)
Posted by Fabrizio Mosca (Member # 142) on January 24, 2014, 01:42 PM:
Dom, regarding the Beatles, British editions were effectively different from the American Ones.
For example, the first album "Please Please Me" was edited in America as "Introducing the Beatles", with "Please Please Me" and "Ask me why" missing from the album (but published as singles).
Furthermore, there are more albums in USA than in England (with different titles and different track listings), up to 1966. Things changed from Sgt. Pepper where all the albums (except Magical Mistery Tour) were the same as in England.
This was for a promotion/marketing reason.
Magical Mistery Tour, btw, was edited ad an EP in England and as a LP in USA, due to the fact that EP were not popular in the USA.
All data from "The complete Beatles Recording Sessions. The official story of the Abbey Road years", by Mark Lewisohn, a book that every Beatle fan should have!
Visit www.film-tech.com for free equipment manual downloads. Copyright 2003-2019 Film-Tech Cinema Systems LLC
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2