GTPlanet Vinyling ClubMusic

[Cap'n Jack]

So I recently started collecting vinyl records and I thought it would be interesting to see if there were any other collectors on the ol' GTPlanets. I don't have a very impressive collection so far but I'm sure it will build over the coming months and years!

Here it is, sorry about the dodgy quick iPhone photo:

12" from top left:
Bright Eyes - Fevers and Mirrors (2012 re-pressing)
Conor Oberst - Conor Oberst
Cursive - Domestica
Desaparecidos - Read Music / Speak Spanish
Son, Ambulance/Bright Eyes - Oh Holy Fools (2012 re-pressing)
The Smith Street Band - No One Gets Lost Anymore
The Smith Street Band - Sunshine & Technology

7" records:
Desaparecidos - What's New For Fall EP
Desaparecidos - MariKKKopa/Backsell (also the newest to the collection!)


So if you've got a bit of a collection, how about sharing it with us!

 

[edawg456]

Got a lot of vinyl that its to many to count. Got everyone from Elvis and The Beatles to Black Sabbath. I have probably several hundred records some that I bought myself but most of them my dad gave to me.

 

[TyrrellRacing]

Started collecting around about August time.

As you can see it's quite minuscule at the moment, but the records I have now have set me back around £60 and the "Rap Trax!" one I didn't pay for.

 

[Antonisbob]

Never heard of any those albums.

I do however collect, I have 4 right now,

Def Leppard - On Through The Night
April Wine - First Glance
Nazareth - Razamanaz
& this, Budgie - Impeckable

If I ever get a phonograph I'll buy more, but right now it's only ones that really interest me.

 

[Slash]

No pics at the moment but I have Ozzy, Scorpions, AC/DC and a load more.

 

[adam46]

I have a nice collection of Feeder vinyls, that's about it really.

 

[Slash]

Actually I totally forgot I had a box of like 200 45's in my bedroom.

 

[JohneyPixel]

Started collecting around about August time.

As you can see it's quite minuscule at the moment, but the records I have now have set me back around £60 and the "Rap Trax!" one I didn't pay for.

I eye some Skreamizms and a Chestplate 12 in there, nice! 👍



No pics atm, I'll post them later but i can list my entire vinyl collection as it's 7 records, most of the stuff is vinyl only, i buy digital when i can

Benga - Crunked up/Electro Music/Skunk Tip
Coki - Haymaker/Revolution (god awfully mastered, such a shame )
Tolerance - Chamber of Secrets/Timeship
The Bug & Warrior Queen - Action Pak
Kahn & Neek - Percy/Fierce
KPK - Plaster
Hizzleguy - Drunk Dub/Dismantle remix

 

[niky]

Only pick up an odd LP every now and then. Have some Chicago (Jazz, not ballads), buncha Carole Kings, and some Beatles. Yeah, I'm a cornball. Was looking at getting Woodstock, but the guy holding it wouldn't sell unless I bought his phono, too. All I really want off that LP is Cocker's "A Little Help from my Friends".

My favorite is the Sergeant Pepper's Album, featuring Aerosmith's cover of "Come Together".

Looking at getting a little Queen this Christmas. Or Heart.

 

[Dan_]

Wow, didn't know there was so much people here who still had Vinyls.

I've got Guns n' Roses' Apettite for Destruction ( epic cover ) , some soap opera soundtracks, there's a Beatles collection of sorts ( don't recall the name ) and many many local artists in pretty crappy quality recordings. The vinyl player does not work, though.

 

[R0ssingt0n]

Hey guys, I'm doing a project for college comparing sound quality between CD and Vinyl, So when I need to do some research would I be able to get your opinion on which is better? Also +1 for having the Gun's N' Roses AFD Vinyl Dan_. That cover is awesome.

 

[Samus]

Hey guys, I'm doing a project for college comparing sound quality between CD and Vinyl, So when I need to do some research would I be able to get your opinion on which is better? Also +1 for having the Gun's N' Roses AFD Vinyl Dan_. That cover is awesome.

CD quality is fixed to what is called the red book standard, that is 2-channel 16-bit Linear PCM sampled at 44,100 Hz, it can therefore represent frequencies up to 22.05khz. That is obviously a very acceptable level but Vinyl has the possibilty to exceed that. Vinyl is obviously not digital so you cannot determine it's quality in simple numbers like the above

Another plus point for Vinyl in the modern era (Since the mid nineties or so) is that CDs, particularly rock and pop CDs, are mastered very loudly. See this simple video to see what I mean, if you're not aware:



That is the basic idea of it but feel free to look into it further. This mastering is very harsh on the ears as well as losing dynamic range as the video above shows. Because of the way Vinyl is created and played, a needle running in grooves the mastering cannot be too harsh because the needle would simply jump out of the groove. So that means that as long as the Vinyl is created from a master BEFORE the loudwar CD master it can and will have better dynamic range and be more pleasurable to listen to.

However one caveat of Vinyl is that unlike CD which will sound pretty much the same on any CD player (depending on the speakers) for Vinyl to sound great, or at it's best, you will need a good quality turntable and needle. If you buy a cheap system for £50 it will not sound very good and you're likely to hear the classic pops and crackles. This is a reason a lot of people think Vinyl sucks. Vinyl also needs to be clean but the same goes for CDs, the only difference is they start skipping if they're dirty or scratched.

Vinyl of course can be digitised with the correct equipment and this is a very popular thing for enthusiasts to do, the results can be amazing if done on high end equipment. Most people will capture vinyl at higher resolution than the red book format, 96khz and 24-Bit probably being the most popular but some people will even go as far as 192khz. The results, again being clear that it's dependent on quality of the pressing and quality of the equipment can sound stunning. If it's an old 70s or 80s record it can sound just as good as any CDs and even modern LPs can and do sound better than the CD version because of the higher resolution and lack of the loud war mastering. Because of this even if the Vinyl rip is downsampled to match CD quality red book it still sounds better because of the superior dynamic range.

To see that in the form of a Dynamic Range metered result check this website - http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/ and notice how much better Vinyl versions of many albums fair, especially modern ones.

Obviously I can't link you to any here but if you want to research some look out for rips by someone called 'pbthal', his rips are second to none. For example his rips of the Zeppelin records LZ II and LZ IV are unmatched by ANY version over the years.

Hope that helps.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Excellent post there, Simon! I was going to reply to the question at hand but my answer would not have been anywhere near as detailed! I do agree that vinyl sounds better than CD given you've got a good set-up. Although one thing I hate is when people refer it it having a "warmer sound", I tend to hear this from older people and I guess it might just be something to do with the nostalgia about the whole thing.


Also I've got one more addition to my collection; for Christmas my girlfriend bought me Bright Eye's A Christmas Album. I haven't listened to it yet but I can't wait. I've also got her copy of Wavves' second album Wavvves here since she doesn't have her own record player, if that counts for anything.

And another thing, it's great to see everybody's collections here. Good to see this wonderful format isn't dead here on GTPlanet!

 

[R0ssingt0n]

Thanks for the great responses! Useful opinions and info there It'll be put to good use.

 

[Samus]

Something I touched on but forgot to mention is a bit more detail is how a lot of modern Vinyl is being pressed from the same digital master file as the CD/digital versions, just slightly tweaked and with lowered volume. That means that whilst the frequency response may appear better it's actually basically the same, just not as abruptly harsh.

For a Vinyl record to really trounce the CD as well as the factors I already mentioned it also either needs to be pressed in an entirely analogue process if the music was recorded in analogue (Everything up to the early/mid ninties was) or if it's digital it needs to be pressed from a master file that hasn't already had the harsh loud wars mastering applied.

The 2011 release of Foo Fighters album 'Wasting Light' is a shining example of this. If you follow them at all you will probably know they recorded the album in Dave Grohl's garage and used old fashioned 2" tape to record it, all on analog like the old days before digital recording. They recorded it all analogue, they mixed it in analogue but unfortunately rather than pressing an analogue Vinyl record directly as they would have done in the old days they instead used the overly loud, compressed digital master used to make the CD. So instead of it being A>A>A>A it went A>A>D>A. As a result whilst the Vinyl version does sound a little better than the CD and not quite as harsh it isn't anywhere near as good as it could have been if they'd done it properly, 100% analog.

 

[R0ssingt0n]

I remember watching a video a while back of Dave Grohl talking about the making of that record. Thanks again for the useful info. I'll put Wasting Light on my to buy list.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Hey guys, I'm doing a project for college comparing sound quality between CD and Vinyl, So when I need to do some research would I be able to get your opinion on which is better? Also +1 for having the Gun's N' Roses AFD Vinyl Dan_. That cover is awesome.

Worked in a Hi-Fi shop for 17 years, so I formed some opinions. Firstly, I think it's important to recognise that 'quality' and what sounds better, may not be the same for everyone. If by quality you mean, the capability of faithful recreation of the original soundwave, then I think you'd probably have to give it to Vinyl, problem with vinyl is it comes with a lot of drawbacks and, certainly when compared to CD, unless everything is perfect you will never really get the benefit, and it's my personal opinion that too many hipsters jump on the vinyl bandwagon because of the old-school-cool factor and then make up some rubbish about it how sounds better when, on whatever set-up thay have, it will sounded worse! Okay, so I need to avoid ranting now.

You do have to spend a few quid on a deck to get a good one, but as with all Hi-Fi, spending a lot of money is no guarantee of quality. It's also no different to a CD-player, they don't all sound the same and you have to spend a reasonable amount to get something that will sound good. My all time favourite CD player is the Marantz CD-63 KI Signature edition, I once back to back tested it against about 5 other CD-players for a customer and it 'sounded' the best - at least to my ears.. the guy I was demonstrating it to at the time seemed to think that the Yamaha CDX 390 was the best.... might have had something to do with it being the cheapest. The fact is that the sound will be given its tone, its sound, from the DAC, and this will make different CD players sound different, the transport can almost be any old rubbish.

.. so, I think it's important to recognise that people like different tonal balances to their music, and they will normally infer that the model that offers the closest sound to want they want to hear, is the highest quality.

You can still get CD's with rubbish mastering though, as has been pointed out.

My overall view though is that CD is better. Vinyls advantage is largely a theoretical one, with so many variables and things that can adversely affect a turntable I don't accept that they sound better, and certainly in all my experience I never heard anything to change my mind.

The problem now is that rubbish compressed audio, and listening through rubbish computer systems or portable docking stations is prevailant, meaning that the industry appears to be chasing downloads more than it is chasing quality. The CD Redbook standard can be hugely surpassed these days for Hi-Fi purposes, to the point where there is no chance the human ear and brain could perceive the difference between a digital signal and an 'lab scenario perfect' analogue one, but this is not being pushed in any meaningful way because people want thousands of tracks for as cheap as possible and have no decent equipment to play them on anyway... and if there's not mass distribution, any newer (than Vinyl or CD) format will not survive (SACD, DVD-A).

 

[R0ssingt0n]

First of all sorry for De-Railing the thread somewhat. A new one would probably have been a better idea.

And thanks for the opinions and info MatskiMonk. And I'm fully aware of how opinion based this topic is and that'll go a lot into forming the overall verdict. Which is why I'm posting on as many forums/asking as many friends and family as possible because I cant just use my own opinion. Thanks again for taking the time to write that. Well actually thanks to everyone who has written such useful paragraphs.

 

[Tesla]

CD quality is fixed to what is called the red book standard, that is 2-channel 16-bit Linear PCM sampled at 44,100 Hz, it can therefore represent frequencies up to 22.05khz. That is obviously a very acceptable level but Vinyl has the possibilty to exceed that. Vinyl is obviously not digital so you cannot determine it's quality in simple numbers like the above

20kHz is the highest frequency any person with perfect hearing can make out. For most people, anything higher than 18 or 19kHz isn't audible. CD is audibly perfect in this regard.

Another plus point for Vinyl in the modern era (Since the mid nineties or so) is that CDs, particularly rock and pop CDs, are mastered very loudly. See this simple video to see what I mean, if you're not aware:

Since perhaps the late 1990s, vinyl will usually also suffer the same amount of compression as a CD as they are cut from the same digital master file. When CDs were first becoming popular they would have the file that was originally intended for the vinyl, making it sound quieter and other more subjective terms.

That is the basic idea of it but feel free to look into it further. This mastering is very harsh on the ears as well as losing dynamic range as the video above shows. Because of the way Vinyl is created and played, a needle running in grooves the mastering cannot be too harsh because the needle would simply jump out of the groove. So that means that as long as the Vinyl is created from a master BEFORE the loudwar CD master it can and will have better dynamic range and be more pleasurable to listen to.

I thnk that video is a good way to explain the very basics of what the loudness war can do, but sound engineers do not simply maximize the volume of the quiet parts then bring it down into normal listening levels again. While there is less dynamic range today, it's effects can be reduced by a good mastering session with proper equalization.

Please note that dynamic range does not equal a more pleasurable experience all the time. Most music is now listened to in situations where there is more background noise such as on a train or in a car. This means that to avoid having to turn your player up in the quiet parts and then having to turn it down again very quickly to avoid damage to your ears during a crescendo, it must be mastered to have reasonable compression of the dynamic range.

However one caveat of Vinyl is that unlike CD which will sound pretty much the same on any CD player (depending on the speakers) for Vinyl to sound great, or at it's best, you will need a good quality turntable and needle. If you buy a cheap system for £50 it will not sound very good and you're likely to hear the classic pops and crackles. This is a reason a lot of people think Vinyl sucks. Vinyl also needs to be clean but the same goes for CDs, the only difference is they start skipping if they're dirty or scratched.

CD players all sound slightly different depending on the DAC and amplifier combo that they have. Most will add some mid warmth or slightly roll off the treble, reducing the transparency of the original song. For the most accurate listening experience you'd have to use a computer with the audio coming out via USB to a transparent DAC which would then go into a transparent amplifier and out into speakers or headphones.

Vinyl of course can be digitised with the correct equipment and this is a very popular thing for enthusiasts to do, the results can be amazing if done on high end equipment.

Most "high-end" equipment in the audiophile world is snake oil. Go onto any audiophile site and see how many people genuinely believe that $500 cables make a difference. There is no need for high-end, only high transparency (which, with the right knowledge, can be created for only a couple of hundred of dollars).

Most people will capture vinyl at higher resolution than the red book format, 96khz and 24-Bit probably being the most popular but some people will even go as far as 192khz. The results, again being clear that it's dependent on quality of the pressing and quality of the equipment can sound stunning. If it's an old 70s or 80s record it can sound just as good as any CDs and even modern LPs can and do sound better than the CD version because of the higher resolution and lack of the loud war mastering. Because of this even if the Vinyl rip is downsampled to match CD quality red book it still sounds better because of the superior dynamic range.

I'm not proficient in 16 bit and 24 bit (seeing as any information I've found has been heavily biased and there are very few tests that show any audible differences), but I'd love to see a clear cut .wav sample of a 44.1kHz and a much higher sample rate being played through a spectrometer to see if there is any difference in our audible hearing range.

To see that in the form of a Dynamic Range metered result check this website - http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/ and notice how much better Vinyl versions of many albums fair, especially modern ones.

That's marketing. The people who have a setup that can play vinyl well will be looking for the best quality reproduction of that song, and if record companies can fleece them out for $10 or more for two or three songs in addition to attracting the normal crowd that listens to lossy digital files with no qualms, so be it.

 

[Samus]

Since perhaps the late 1990s, vinyl will usually also suffer the same amount of compression as a CD as they are cut from the same digital master file. When CDs were first becoming popular they would have the file that was originally intended for the vinyl, making it sound quieter and other more subjective terms.

I did mention this, there are still plenty out there not mastered from the CD master file though and certainly old archive releases aren't usually cut from a loud digital master.

I thnk that video is a good way to explain the very basics of what the loudness war can do, but sound engineers do not simply maximize the volume of the quiet parts then bring it down into normal listening levels again. While there is less dynamic range today, it's effects can be reduced by a good mastering session with proper equalization.

Indeed that video is just a very basic demonstration to give you a general idea of what is going on.

Most "high-end" equipment in the audiophile world is snake oil. Go onto any audiophile site and see how many people genuinely believe that $500 cables make a difference. There is no need for high-end, only high transparency (which, with the right knowledge, can be created for only a couple of hundred of dollars).

When I referred to high end and Vinyl I was referring simply to the deck and the needle where it's been conclusively proved that they affect quality greatly. You still don't need to go mad but they certainly do make a difference. Cables I'm you on though, they usually make no difference.

I'm not proficient in 16 bit and 24 bit (seeing as any information I've found has been heavily biased and there are very few tests that show any audible differences), but I'd love to see a clear cut .wav sample of a 44.1kHz and a much higher sample rate being played through a spectrometer to see if there is any difference in our audible hearing range.

Not sure what you mean here, you want a high res sample of something?

That's marketing. The people who have a setup that can play vinyl well will be looking for the best quality reproduction of that song, and if record companies can fleece them out for $10 or more for two or three songs in addition to attracting the normal crowd that listens to lossy digital files with no qualms, so be it.

It's not marketing, that website is sat up by an independent audiophile and the program itself doesn't lie. Also there isn't that much vinyl on there, it's mostly to test the DR of CDs.

 

[MatskiMonk]

It all sounds fine so long as you aren't using valve amps ...

...



Anyway, in the spirit of the thread... errm, actually I have no vinyl... I did many years ago (I was born in the late 70's so it's inevitable), but mostly it was rubbish, and I appear to have lost it over the years. Also, I've never owned my own turntable anyway.

I do know that the LP I've played the most, and was also the last one that I've played was 'Brothers in Arms' by Dire Straits. It was a demo-record we had at the shop.

 

[Fyshokid]

I'm not proficient in 16 bit and 24 bit (seeing as any information I've found has been heavily biased and there are very few tests that show any audible differences), but I'd love to see a clear cut .wav sample of a 44.1kHz and a much higher sample rate being played through a spectrometer to see if there is any difference in our audible hearing range.

I don't really care much about the whole digital vs. analog thing, I enjoy both, but I figured I'd show this: It's a 7500 Hz sine wave at a 44.1 kHz sample-rate.

As you can see, it's very jagged and almost looks more like a triangle signal than a sine.


Anyways, on-topic. I mostly have electronic music on vinyl. Daft Punk, Kerri Chandler, Mr. Oizo, Todd Edwards, I:Cube, Underground Resistance etc. Lately though, I've also started collecting some older stuff, like Styx, America, Electric Light Orchestra and the like. I'd love to get my hands on some Creedence.

 

[Marbles]

I'm trying to start a collection of rather rare records, mainly picture disks. I only have two so far, but I plan on getting more sometime soon.

I wish Hemispheres was in better condition, but I don't mind. I'm extremely lucky to have found any of these! P.S. sorry for the bad quality pics, these were just quick Iphone snaps.

 

[Antonisbob]

^ Officially jealous.

 

[Slash]

^^^You don't want to see mine then lol.

 

[Joey D]

I buy a lot of electronica records on vinyl, but that's about it. I do have a few rap records I got along the way too from a DJ buddy of mine, I think I got 12 different mixes of Get Low by Lil Jon . I have probably 20 or does different Tiesto records, along with some Daft Punk and Eiffel 65. I had a whole bunch of other assorted DJ's too.

I think the only classic rock vinyls I have are a couple of Pink Floyd ones and whatever was in my mom's collection when she was younger.

Oh and Saturday Night Fever on vinyl is awesome and will always be awesome.

 

[Camaroyenko]

I hate you.

 

[Marbles]

lol Don't worry, there should be some on Ebay or Amazon.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Here's my most recent purchase, Big Harp's new album. They're a great band from Nebraska, definitely worth checking out! I also picked up two more Bright Eyes records a few weeks ago, "Lifted or The Story is in the Soil, Keep Your Ear to the Ground" and their most well-recieved album, "I'm Wide Awake, It's Morning" and I have their album "Digital Ash in a Digital Urn" on it's way. I know, I'm obsessed.

 

[Slash]

Damn I just found out the 3 song picture disc of Ozzy's Mr. Crowley, Crazy Train and Suicide Solution is worth $80, and $100 new.....I got it appraised last year for $5 lol