Vinyl vs Digital
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /mu/ - Music
You are currently reading a thread in /mu/ - Music
What's your opinion /mu/
I use both, so I don't really care.
>>63726472
Yeah, but why do you use both?
Vinyl: Nice physical copies, collectable.
Digital: Free, but no real attachment to them whatsoever.
They both are good for different reasons.
>>63726508
So it's just about aesthetics then?
I love the sound that Vinyl gives, just sounds pure as fuck, especially for older music from the 50s-80s. As good as The Beatles remasters are for example, I think an original copy of Abbey Road or Sgt Pepper in Mono just has an amazing presence to them, I think it's something to do with the midrange. But it varies on different set ups, so its hard to say if there's a clear winner between Vinyl or Digital. Of course digital is a winner in terms of being cheaper (or free). But honestly, I feel like having something digitally (as amazing as it is to be able to have in one place) has largely devalued the actual content.
The packaging is a large part of it I love too, and there's a certain feeling of history about owning an old record that digital recordings can't compete with.
>>63726556
I would argue that they are good at different times, when I really like an album and I'm not poor I will get it on vinyl, but if neither of those conditions are filled I don't get it
I listen to vinyl at home, and digital out side
>>63726483
Not him but I used vynil for music I really like so I can collect them and digital for just good/decent albums or to explore
Thanks guys. I'm now convinced theres no real point to vinyl besides materialism. I'll just invest in a really nice pair of headphones instead. Thanks!
>>63726636
A good pair of headphones is always important but you're neglecting to realise that vinyl, unlike digital files, are not limited by compression or bitrate. It's like a roll of film not being limited by contemporary standards of screen resolution. Analogue formats have limitless (within physical reason) fidelity whereas digital files are designed for small file sizes which compromise audio quality. If you use $400 headphones to listen to mp3 files you've wasted a good $400. Listen to FLAC or vinyl with those headphones and, given a good sound system, notice a massive difference.
>>63727217
>vinyl besides materialism.
I don't get this meme that vinyl detractors use?
If anything, the modern way of listening to music (either through streaming services or pirating 10TB worth of music) is more materialistic than having a physical collection of LPs and CDs.
Streaming/Torrenting makes music so easily accessible that it becomes disposable by default and if the first note of the first song bores you, you can easily click to something else rather than give the album/song a chance. It's the music equivalent of channel surfing, and nothing else has defined "mindless consumerism" more than television.
People will say they don't do that, but you've done it, and will continue to do it. It's just the nature of the beast when you have that many options at your fingertips.
As for the topic. Any music fan should have a turntable. Many of the best masters exist on LP, and will probably always exist on LP since the original tapes have likely degraded.
There's also a shit-ton of music RYM has never heard of that exists on LP/45/78.
Sound quality vs. CD/Digital is negligible provided the record is in good condition and clean.
That said, if you're only interested in post-00 music, there's probably little point in investing in a turntable. Although modern music does sound better on LP due to the fact that the format's inherent limited dynamic range doesn't allow it to be compressed to Hell and back.
>>63727314
>>63727532
So FLAC+high fidelity headphones>>>the rest if I'm keen on sound quality and worried about $$$. I'm not one for collections or having shit in general. I do appreciate your opinions, thanks.
>>63727650
You're not going to notice the difference between 320 and flac let's be honest
>>63727650
>So FLAC+high fidelity headphones
FLAC is just a lossless copy of a CD. It doesn't "upscale" the resolution or improve sound quality. And in many cases will sound worse since it's played back through a PCs noisy environment. I won't tell you to invest in a standalone DAC, but if you start hearing hum or other artifacts, then the PC is to blame.
Anyhow, the best recipe for sound quality is:
Best master (the best master of an album could be on SACD, DVD-A, MFSL CD, or LP) + Speakers.
Headphones are simply a stop gap for people who lack the listening space to listen to speakers or can't listen to speakers due to living arrangements. Yes, headphones can get rid of some room problems, but soundstage, dynamics, and tactility are severely compromised.
But if speakers are a no go, yeah, invest in some good headphones.
the only downside of digital is the loss of clarity over time, vinyl is just for poseur
- Wolves
>>63727769
Mmm good insight. Saved, cheers.
>>63727843
No problem. In your search, beware of snake oil. Say no to fancy cables, uber-expensive DACs, and "HD audio" services (music doesn't work like video. You can have a 24/192 file, but it still won't sound any better than the 16/44.1 version unless it was remastered from the ground up).
Have fun.
>>63726454
>I make 24bit 96kHz flac rips of my vinyls.
Mostly I collect CDs mostly.
