Some brainstorming lead me to come up with these PRO's and CON's.
PRO's-
Nothing is cooler than flipping through an actual record collection.
Vinyl sound is crisper, cleaner, warmer, and supposedly just better than CD or MP3.
Most are released nowadays as 'Limited Edition'.
Artwork on case is larger and can be put on display.
CON's
Big and Bulky.
Hard, time-consuming, and pointless to RIP to an MP3 player.
More expensive when released.
After doing a little research I found the following article on Wired.com. It said in 2007, Amazon.com launched a vinyl-only section stocked with a growing collection of titles and several models of record players. Why would they do this if vinyls weren't making a comeback? A lot of indie bands release their records on vinyl now and there has to be a reason for it. San Francisco indie band The Society of Rockets, for example, releases its albums strictly on vinyl and as MP3 files. "Having just gone through the process of mastering our new album for digital and for vinyl, I can say it is completely amazing how different they really sound," said lead singer and guitarist Joshua Babcock. "The way the vinyl is so much better and warmer and more interesting to listen to is a wonder."
So I pose the question to you Claptrappers... should I start a vinyl collection? Or would that just be way too hipster of me and a waste of my time and money?
Go for it man. There's a sense of authenticity that you get when you hold vinyl. Granted, you just paid a penny for it, but it's a nice feeling anyway. Plus, a player can be had for $50 or so (check the needle! - they are pricey) and even less-than-excellent speakers get you a full sound. I've only got about 25 or so, but I sure do like them.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I'd agree that it's making a comeback. I also say go for it. The big album art would be reason enough for me.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I've heard of other vinyl albums where they give you a free digital download...not sure how common that is though.
ReplyDeleteI started a very, very modest vinyl collection years ago. Recently, I decided to expand from about a dozen or so albums I owned to buying all my new music in vinyl form; I don't regret it in the least. I'm no audiophile, but I believe the sound is better and, as has been pointed out, it's very cool checking out the artwork four times the CD size.
ReplyDeleteMost new vinyls sell for about $20 or so ... which is essentially the same as the CD price. As OD said, there are some bands that give you a free digital download with a vinyl purchase (The National, for one). For those bands who don't, some modestly priced turntables ($60) can be plugged into your computer so you can rip the songs ...
As Woodrow Mandrake mentioned, you can get a lot of records for super cheap. And there's nothing cooler than putting on an old Cat Stevens or Johnny Cash record on the turntable and listening to music the way it was experienced 40 or 50 years ago (!).
You mentioned "time-consuming" as a con. I don't get that ... what's time-consuming about listening to music? I think nowadays people think of music as something that plays in the background. Those people, I guess, would get annoyed with having to stand up and flip their record, or carefully place it back into its sleeve or what have you.
But in my mind, this is a positive experience all to itself. Does it take a bit longer with vinyl to get that one song, or that one moment in an album? Yeah. But that's how the artist designed it, and there's pleasure in that. I find myself being more invested in the music I'm playing when it's a vinyl.
Plus, a lot of bands 20 years ago designed their albums with vinyl's format in mind. Instead of tracks 1-12, you get 1a-6a, and 1b-6b ... each side can tell a different story, or is built in a different way. Almost like two albums for the price of one.
So I say take the plunge. I got my turntable, receiver and speaker system for about $120. eBay, Craig's List and a lot of garage sales ... you could have a decent collection in no time.
Alright Claptrappers, I'm gonna do it. I am going to take the plunge into vinyl and will let you know how it goes.
ReplyDeleteThanks kw18. You made a lot of convincing arguments.
Do it! It sounds way better....but be warned, it'll spoil MP3s for you and your tastes will become too good for digital.
ReplyDeleteAlso, invest in some Grado SR60 headphones.
I hate to be the only downer on this one, but I think it is a waste of money. They are too big and bulky and terrible for on the go. When you compare them to CD's, they may seem like a viable option, but even CD's are going out of style. Are there any other Clapptrappers who have not bought a CD in 2009? How about 2008? I honestly cannot remember the last time I bought a CD and I have thrown out all CD's (burned and purchased) to clear clutter.
ReplyDeleteWe are already seeing the transition to electronic books and streaming movies. In five or ten years, I would prefer to not have to collect books or DVD's either. On demand is the way to go.
I admit that on the occasion I am actually at a record store, I flip through the albums as if I new what to do with them. But overall, unless you are a true DJ looking for samples, I think vinyl is just for looking cool.
I buy CDs all the time. But I realize I'm in the minority...
ReplyDeleteMondo, I don't see how they can be called a waste of money really. The artwork alone is worth the 10-20 bucks. Plus all the new shit comes with a Free MP3 download.
ReplyDeleteDont worry buddy I am still down on digital for on the go.
Vinyl is great - I totally love it. But I love it for its nostalgia value and the fact that record cover art is so much bigger and better than CD cover art. I also buy stuff that is simply not available on any other format - I have a lot of limited edition 12" singles from the 80s for example.
ReplyDeleteI don't subscribe at all to the idea that vinyl is in any way superior to CD though. I've heard some ridiculous arguments as to why it is. Like the fact that CDs are made using digital sampling (at 44.1 kHZ per second) as opposed to vinyl which is apparently a "direct reflection" of the original sound; implying that not all of the original sound is captured digitally (as if the human brain has even the remotest chance in hell to distinguish between 44100 digital samples per second and an analogue signal).
The truth is, the an analogue vinyl has all kinds of deficiencies not suffered by CD. Which the vinylphiles coneveniently ignore. Eg, the levels have to be lowered and the bass has to be cut off the original source on a vinyl 33 album or 7" 45RPM single so as not to introduce distortion (which is why 45RPM 12" singles were invented). After around 5 or 6 plays of the average record, most frequencies over 15 kHz are lost through degradation which never happens to CDs as the laser never touches the surface.
In fact that may be the real reason people say vinyl sounds "warmer", because the loss of those higher frequencies will obviously tend to give a bassier, apparently warmer sound - just like AM radio tends to sound "warmer" than (but hardly superior to) FM radio.
I regularly hear all kinds of crazy claims from vinylphiles, such as that the fact that to faithfully reproduce frequencies 20 kHz and over CDs use something called brick wall filtering and this totally wrecks the sound of CDs as proved by tests on brain waves. Even at the very peak of your hearing, 20 kHz is stretching things and brick wall filtering serves to retain those very high level, generally inaudible frequencies, not destroy them.
Or that really high end turntable styli can pick up to 75 kHz. But, honestly, so what? 1) The upper limit of human hearing is 20 kHz, and for most people around 15 kHz or less and 2) all but the very newest of vinyl doesn't have anything over 15 kHz to reproduce, so you're wasting thousands of dollars on a stylus capable of reproducing an extra 60 kHz of the audio spectrum which you are physically incapable of ever hearing anyway. Unless you want to scare away bats using a record player you have just totally poured your money down the drain.
Usually these people will then refer to "subconscious" and "liminal" audio facilities in the brain and other such unproven and unscientific ideas to keep the argument going. At which point I direct them to the nearest Church of Scientology office.
Ok, so this is in response to Daniel . . . when you compare vinyl to cd quality you need to remember that just because your numbers say that there is a minute difference in the sound quality doesn't necessarily make it so. What you are not realizing is that yes, technically the average person can only hear from 20hz to 20khz, but, and this is a big but; there have been many studies that have shown that when people hear two different recordings in blind tests- one that was recorded 44.1 sampling rate that can only capture up to 20 khz and another that is a higher quality recording producing frequencies higher that 20khz on a system that can accurately reproduce them, an overwhelming majority said that they like the higher quality recordings. Now you may ask yourself "How can they prefer the higher quality recordings if there not suppose to be able to hear a difference?" The answer is because they can hear a difference. Just because we really don't "hear" those higher frequencies doesn't mean that they don't have an effect on the overall sound. All the frequencies interact with each other and cause a sound that people can actually hear. They tend to have a hard time describing the difference, but for many people they know that one just sounds better, and one way they describe this sound is "warmer". - Just an viewpoint
ReplyDeleteThis is in response to the Anonymous response to Daniel's response...
ReplyDeleteWhile the double blind test you suggested may be true (it seems perfectly reasonable to me), the average person does not have speakers capable of reproducing any frequencies above 25kHz. They aren't desinged to do that because they don't need to be, for obvious reasons. Therefore, it would be impossible for harmonics above 25kHz to interfere with audible harmonics, because the 25kHz+ harmonics wouldn't be reproduced from the speakers in the first place.
Now, let's assume that somehow you get a pair of speakers with a fequency response of well above 25kHz (say 75kHz, as in Daniel's example), and that you own a stylus that can reproduce frequencies up to 75kHz. You would then have to assume that all recording equipment (microphones, tapes) could capture frequencies up to 75kHz, and to me that seems very unlikely as well. The point is, while theoretically it may be true, no analog or digital format of music is going to contain information at those frequencies because there is just absolutely no reason for it to.
Now, let's say somehow it DID contain information at those frequencies. The harmonics generated above the threshold of human hearing would become significantly smaller in amplitude past the threshold of human hearing anyway, so their affect on audible harmonics would probably be negligible. Either way, this will never happen outside of a laboratory. Even if it did, the market is long past its late 1970s prime of manufacturing stereo equipment for quality rather than profit, so they wouldn't even care much about producing equipment that would include your phenomina.
The human brain certainly cannot tell the difference between an analog soundwave and a digital sound wave sampled at 44,100 samples/second.
And the idea that highs sound more crisp and bass sounds more full on vinyl is nonsense. This argument that vinylphiles always point to is illogical: it is not a consequence of the CD itself. It is because of the mastering process that record companies use when transfering their analog tapes to digital format that any loss in bass or highs occurs.
If you record a digital copy of your turntable playing an LP and burn it to a CD, I can guarantee that not even the craziest pro-vinyl freak would be able to tell that it is a CD. It will have the clicks, pops, warmness, bass, and high characteristics that vinylphiles always rave about. The catch is - that digital copy of your LP will never wear down so you can listen to your LP forever! Best of both worlds. CDs win.
Daniel makes a point that I wanted to make... I recorded my first album in 1981. Since then, I've recorded and produced 15 or so others. In other words, I grew up, professionally, on tape and vinyl. I miss records like, it seems, everyone else over 40 who cares about music, but I can't tell you how frustrating it was to finish a recording and take it to mastering and find that your highs were too high: you could cut the wax with it all right, and it sounded fine in the mastering studio, but then you took the test pressing home and played it on a decent turntable and towards the end of each side the cymbal crashes distorted so much you had to cut again lowering those high frequencies - guitars and cymbals and, the worst, "s"'s in vocals - that on anything but the kind of turntable that almost nobody could afford sounded more like spitting than music. When CD's and such came along, we were freed of this constraint - what we heard in the studio was same as the manufactured and retailed version. A relief! I'm surprised I don't here people pointing this out more often. I listen to them so little, I don't know about MP3s; it's not hard to believe that there clearly inferior, but I do know about the limits of vinyl against CD's. I think some people PREFER the sound of vinyl for what it CHANGES in the sound, which I understand, that's fine, but that record is clearly less faithful to what the musician came out of the studio with than a CD. Not to mention that it's nice to have 79 minutes to say what you have to say as opposed to 40 or so...
ReplyDeleteTH.