What name would you use for the kind of person who's all like "I love vinyl, it sounds organic and way better than CD!" as they listen to their remastered Metallica records on a Chinese cardboard turntable?

I can't force it, sorry. He'll have to start a membership here.

Damn.

Maybe teddanson's got something.

A numpty in bollockstranglers that hangs out in Starbucks all day on a Macbook Pro and rides a Penny Farthing.

What about the remastering from the tapes to digital then to vinyl

Its one thing to enjoy the original pressing from analog to analog format but its another to do this entire digital wash to get it
to modern specs then to press it through computer to analog.

This is also why some or most early CDs are commanding money, they are transferred directly from the analog tapes thus
have the original sound.

I knew I was doing the right thing by stocking up on all these older first gen CDs

I don’t have any problem with this at all. The digital/analog way of looking at things is missing the point. As long as it was well done in the digital stage you’ll never be able to hear it because vinyl will be a step down in fidelity.

If there is any format I love more than LD it’s microgroove records and I’ve been buying them since the late 70s. HOWEVER, the kids these days...this vinyl boom...it doesn’t make any sense. People are overrating antique tech and Chinese plastic garbage because “analog” is so great...these people have never owned a good system, A or D. They have their speakers sitting on the friggn’ floor. The amp is T class brand free Amazon’s Choice level crap...wait...

The answer the original question, my term for these people for the foreseeable future will be “Amazon’s Choice”. If you’re a Prime member you know that Amazon’s Choice doesn’t indicate quality or user reviews or anything like that, it’s just what Amazon has a ton of and they want to dump now. Sometimes OK, often very bad, never amazing.

It's not that straight forward... 1st gen CDs (like my Iron Maidens) sound better not because the transfer was from tape (even the recent remasters were from tapes) but because they didn't over-compressed/brick-walled the mastering to sound loud/good on portable devices.

Example: http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list/year?artist=Iron+Maiden&album=Number+of+the+beast

In that case the vinyl/early CDs are the way to go.

But some early CDs were awfully mastered because the sound engineers were oldskool vinyl and didn't know how to properly master for digital.
Most of the early Beatles or Rolling Stones sound quite bad.

Remember how SONY would make a LOT of noise about Glenn Gould's Goldberg variation 1981 sounding the best on CD/Digital?
30 years later they conceded that it was better with the increase in technology to fall back to the Analog backup master and re-issued SACDs/CDs based on the analog tapes!

Yet, I have an example of a TERRIBLE Digital ->vinyl transfer: Imagine Dragons ‎– Night Visions
Unbearable, it's makes your ears bleed. Tried it twice, then promptly sold to a teenager in HK who thought it sounded "so much better than the CD".

Don't under-estimate the power of marketing and group-induced self-perpetuating influence

But we are in a new cycle now that makes things interesting again:

Vinyl -> compressed to within 20~20Khz due to media limitation
CD -> same then over-compressed starting mid-90's
Streaming -> compressed mix will sound flat, uncompressed mix sound better!

It's a nightmare for sound engineers who now have to release 2 or 3 different mixes -- and sometimes multiple different mastering levels depending on the streaming platform!

Very interesting video about this here:



Julien

Will check out the video but I go more by cheap, its cheaper for me to buy the CD, I picked up a first gen Stevie Wonder CD for 20 cents.

Less than a quarter and sounds fine to me.
Usually don't like paying much, but did get a first gen CD of Herbie Hancock Headhunters for 6 bucks on ebay with shipping.
CDs are very hit and miss with prices and then the sound deal.

Also my speakers were actually meant to be on the floor but they also have 15 inch woofers

Speaking of digital/analog sound misunderstandings, here's the video I recommend to everyone who insists that "vinyl better because analog". Also just great to watch if you want to learn more about digital sound.



My thoughts on vinyl are basically the same as my thoughts on LD: It's not better, but it's neat and I like it.

my ancient 1975 PIONEER PL-112D sounds decent enough;





yet, it still doesn't hold a candle to my semi-ancient 1988 PIONEER PD-91;

The only way its better on an older format is either price or if its not on another format period

I can't stand buying stuff that is just transferred directly from the vinyl, LD etc, its very bothersome to me even if its an official release
I understand Charlie Patton tapes aren't around and we have to take from the Vinyl but when there is too much of this on the
market it just gets to me and I try to stay away from it as much as possible.

But its like Chinese buffet, you need to eat those cream cheese dumplings with red sweet and sour sauce once in a while even if you
know they are total garbage they just taste GREAT!!!!!!!!

Seeing your PL112D really takes me back to the days when I owned its predecessor the PL12D at the time Pioneer’s 1973 entry level record deck and my first ever hi-fi separates turntable bought new for approximately £38 back then - happy times!

I mean, "digital" doesn't automatically mean "compact disc specs", right?

In technical spec, yes, and also in genuine practice. Better than CD recording is common even in commercial stuff now.

One good reason to buy a record of something is that you get to play it on your turntable. Turntables vary in sound as much as guitars do.

I can’t stress how much I love records, but it’s actually the distortion they generate that makes them special.

I reference this video ALL the time to analog nuts who say digital is evil. This is the BEST explanaition I've found.

It is worth checking out the Digital Domain site by Bob katz and reading through his Level Practices Pt1&2.

Also, as the Admin has mentioned, its all about the mastering process (ironically just like LD). CDs don't have to be brickwall limited, but they usually are these days. An LP record, by its nature, cannot fit that same waveform in its grooves and be analogous to the source. The RIAA curve requires the original tape master to be manipulated to get into the groove and then have the opposite curve upon playback. The audio in the groove is not accurate to the source as it exists in the groove. Kind of like how a film has to be manipulated into the NTSC format to be presented on LD because LD isn't designed for progressive 24fps playback (source).

It is, however, possible to record a sound either analog or digitally and capture and reproduce that sound digitally with more accuracy and resolution to the real world source without any additional processing. You absolutely cannot reproduce the full dynamics of an orchestra without audible noise or NR or over saturating the tape. The best ATRs were maybe 65-70db. Maybe. 16 bit is 96 on paper. Even if its more like 75-80 it is head and shoulders above analog with regard to SNR/Dynamic Range. All pro recording is now 24 bit digital or 2" analog. 24 bit is 144db SNR on paper and about 110 in reality. For reference that is about as loud as a rocket launching into space. You could also record whispers without noise. Tape can't do that. 2" analog, btw, has the same track size as 4 track 1/4" tape so while the tape is wider and theoretically that would equate to higher dynamic range you have 24 small tracks. Hey BTW, did you know that prior to (16 bit) DAT, all studio mixes were made on 1/4" analog tape? Your LP Albums and CDs are limited to the specs of quarter track 1/4" tape so the CDs CAN'T sound any better than that! There is a 2" 8 track format that will knock your socks off but no one has that in their home and it isn't necessarily standard for studio, more of a custom thing that then gets dumped into Pro Tools, lol. Even the albums that are being recorded to tape for aesthetic reasons get slammed in mastering (Robert Plant & Allison Krauss comes to mind). Check out the Honor Roll at the Bob Katz site, set up your monitoring system properly and enjoy.

Even if you were to compare an analog recording being played back on the same deck at the highest possible fidelity an ATR can provide it will fall short of a digital recording played back digitally. There is no analog process that even approaches the SNR of digital (even with NR). Frequency response is a similar story. Tape is not linear with regard to frequency response and requires bias to make it more linear. Digital is a flat line until nyquist.

I can clean off a CD with Novus or whatever and likely fix a slight imperfection easier than cleaning old records or even new records since dust is a killer. Found an original press? Cool. Hope it wasn't played to death on substandard equipment or else it may be trashed. Yes, you can DIY a vaccuum system for cleaning your LPs without spending $500 but you still have to maintain them unlike a digital file that the kids are using today.

That was fun. More Coffeeeeeeee!

Me? I'm committed to CD and know I couldn't get a decent vinyl setup without a significant outlay. I'd rather buy more old and/or Japanese CDs for my good CD setup than a new setup and new media for a new format. Have never owned vinyl, never will.

btw The CD vs Vinyl debate always reminds me of this:

I would only buy a vinyl if I have no choice, which is usually the case with pre-90s singles and even some 90s ones.

yeah there's a not insignificant amount of s**t that never came out on CD, makes me question my CD lifestyle choice, but not change it..

I picked up a cheap turntable years ago and it just sits there, may end up selling it and the handful of records I have.
Just don't use it and can buy those few LPs on CD or just live without them.

Thanks for giving me inspiration to sell this off.