What the advantages to vinyl records as opposed to CDs?
>>61163653
they both are good
that is why i buy both formats
swag
hipster cred
>>61163653
increased pretentiousness
Why buy either of those shit formats, just buy cassettes.
>>61163653
PROS OF VINYL vs CDS
>fun to collect
>fun to show off to your pleb buddies
>sometimes rare
>access to original copies of music released before the 80s
>sounds different than CDs
>can definitely sound better
>comes with goodies a lot of the time
CONS
>harder to carry around
>harder to digitize
>expensive (vinyl ($10-50) + turntable ($50-500 or+) + receiver ($50-500) + speakers ($50-500), vs. cd player (??) and headphones (10)) for what will be an almost indistinguishable listening experience...
>very likely you'll get called a wrong-generation tryhard (sounds like a pro more than a con lel)
for me there's no contest, I'd get a vinyl over a CD any day. Vinyl is the more interesting physical medium and if I wanted digital I would just find it (buy it) online.
>>61163653
Vinyls are a better quality by a long shot while CDs are only better if you have a speaker set or headphones that are high quality enough to present a difference. I buy both, but the CDs more so to have a physical representation of work I enjoy.
>>61163798
>fun to show off to your pleb buddies
Ebin kek m8.
>sometimes rare
Cds are sometimes rare too, I've sold rare ones for hundreds.
>sounds different than CDs
>can definitely sound better
First part is true, second part not true at all, vinyl almost always sounds worse due to surface noise.
>comes with goodies a lot of the time
Cds often come with booklets that the records don't have filled with nice info.
>>61163848
My vinyls played on my crosely sound so much better than those shitty digital cd 1 and 0 things I hate so much :>
>>61163798
price ranges are waaaaaay off. but this is a good post and i agree
>>61163653
Pros of Vinyl:
N/A
Cons of Vinyl: Can't get Speedin' Bullet to Heaven on Vinyl.
>>61163653
Pros:
/mu/ cred (not sure if this is a pro or a con actually)
Large artwork
Often have pretty colored vinyls
Can be fun to play
Cons:
Sound worse than cds due to surface noise and other flaws
Can't upload to computer as easily
Have to switch sides, which is bad for long tracks that you have to switch halfway through.
>>61163653
Not many to be honest.
Nowadays vinyl is more of a hobby than primary means of listening to music.
>>61163899
Price ranges seem pretty on point desu. A decent receiver is around 100, a decent turntable is around 250, records usually are at the lowest $10 online (cheaper irl if you know where to look) and decent speakers are 100+.
>>61163858
a lot of this is debatable. Can definitely sound better is for sure true. Vinyl and CD are inherently different. There is no reason why they couldn't sound inherently different, and if they can sound different than one or the other can be better.
Surface noise can be totally unnoticeable on a good vinyl rip. And then talking completely subjectively, a good vinyl rip just sounds to me a bit more coherent (what does that even mean..) and a bit thicker (...?). It makes me feel like I'm listening to exactly _one_ sound, rather than a superimposition of sounds, but again wtf does that even mean.
I dunno I just like the way vinyl sounds better usually, unless I'm comparing to like a super high quality SACD or good HDtracks rip. And even then an amazing vinyl rip could trump it, because clarity isn't always better than dat warm vinyl goodness. COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE what I'm saying, I don't need to point that out tho.
Surface noise is a feature
>>61163998
y'alls are most kind
That copypasta again:
Pros:
+ Vinyl records look nice and playing them feels a bit like a ritual. There's a certain charm to that.
+ Some albums are mastered differently on CD and on vinyl; when that's the case, the vinyl version is often preferable because many recent CD releases tend to be mastered "as loud as possible", resulting in clipping distortion and a butchered dynamic range (check out http://dr.loudness-war.info before you decide which version to buy).
+ Vinyl has been around for decades now and probably isn't going to go away anytime soon, whereas optical discs are on the way out; as for digital files, it's hard to know for how long mp3s and FLACs will be supported.
+ There are a few cool gimmicks which you can only get on vinyl, like locked grooves.
Cons:
- Expensive.
- Requires an expensive setup too. Bad equipment can rapidly damage your records.
- Surface noise is always there, whether you want it or not — you can't get a "perfect" clean sound on vinyl.
- Distortion is always there too.
- The sound quality can vary a lot depending on the quality of the pressing. And yes, it can get really bad.
- A 12" record can only hold up to ~25 minutes of music per side; meaning that if your album originally has seamless transitions and/or long tracks, they will have to be split up, which ruins the flow.
Notes:
• Those pictures that show a smooth curve for analog audio and stairsteps for digital are very misleading; the sample rates used on digital media are high enough that the human ear can't tell the difference, and you don't get "stairsteps" on digital audio because of the way DACs work (see: https://www.xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml). In practice, digital audio offers better fidelity than analog.
• Many records are pressed from digital masters anyway.
• If you have good equipment, record wear is usually negligible.
• How long CDs actually last is unknown; some CDs are known to be affected by disc rot over time, others are still fine after decades.
It's simple.
Digital for Autists
CDs for Plebs
Vinyl for Particians
>>61164031
>Can definitely sound better is for sure true.
Assuming they both have good masters the cd will always sound better.
>but again wtf does that even mean.
It means you are full of it.
>super high quality SACD or good HDtracks rip.
Muh audiophile snake oil. Anything over cd quality won't sound better unless you trick yourself into thinking it does.
>>61164099
>Digital for non music fans
>CDs for redditors
>Vinyl for /mu/ users that think they have good taste even though they all listen to the same 50 boring albums
>Cassettes- For the true patricians
>>61164132
Cassette revival is even more retarded.
I mean, it's okay to release demos, but full-length, well produced albums on cassettes?
>>61164132
No 8-track is the true Patrician format
>>61163998
our definitions of "decent" may be different, but unless you're getting super lucky with vintage equipment on craigslist/yard sales there's no way you're getting a good receiver or speakers for 100. try 250 and 500
>>61164103
assuming they have good master the CD will always sound clearer, flatter, more detailed. Is that better necessarily? I don't think so. You don't need infinite detail you need sound that sounds good.
>it means you are full of it.
cheers :P
>super high quality SACD or HDtracks
usually come from different masters than regular CDs, so yes they can sound better even if not because of the technology.
>>61164031
>here is no reason why they couldn't sound inherently different, and if they can sound different than one or the other can be better.
If one sounds different from the other, then one is inaccurate to the original recording. Guess which it's more likely to be?
>>61164197
>not Elcasets
>>61164227
accurate =/= better
>>61164207
I'm not talking great or amazing, just alright, acceptable. If we're talking great sound quality then yeah you're right.
>>61164222
Why isn't a clearer more detailed sound better?
Yeah Hdtracks or SACD only sound better if the master is better.
>>61164231
>not the phonautograph
>>61164248
fair enough. i would think people interested in collecting vinyl are interested in pretty high sound quality though.
>>61164312
It depends. I'd like to have extremely expensive equipment but my wallet just can't afford that right now. With the setup I have my records still sound good but down the line I'm going to be slowly replacing aspects.
You really don't need top of the line for vinyl to sound good. As long as you don't have a crosely and some 30 dollar speakers and invest a decent amount of money you'll be ok.
feels more intimate. bigger album art. it's cooler. everybody's doing it OP. what are you, a pussy?
>>61164243
When you're dealing with the reproduction of a work of art, accuracy is just about as objective a measure of quality as you can get. All you're doing is fetishizing the artifacts of your sound system.
>>61164282
because we use different words for different things. Better is what I enjoy more. Clearer is just clearer.
I'm unlikely to want to hear Joanna Newsom's shrill voice in ultimate clarity on SACD. I'd much rather listen to it on vinyl, with a little bit of dat warm fuzzy distortion to tame the sound.
>>61164293
>not archaeoacoustics
>>61163968
M E M E
E
M
E
>>61164432
>not listening to authentic original dinosaur sounds and jurassic lowercase
>being a pleb
>>61164403
Vinyl doesn't distort like that, only if you have a Crosley.
>>61164403
The only time I would prefer the distortion is if the artist intentionally added it to sound that way on purpose, or if I don't like the music much.
>>61164400
>accuracy is just about as objective a measure of quality as you can get
Yes, it's one of the many things that you can use to talk about sound quality. The way the sound sounds is another one, which doesn't necessarily have to do with more accurate sound, although yes the two are correlated, and probably more strongly than anything else.
>>61164469
you should try a tube amp! they sound great.
>>61164403
I'd rather listen to surface noise than Newsom desu tho senpai.
>>61164445
says the meme
>>61164568
plebb
As someone who grew up when there was nothing but vinyl and cassettes, I am proud to say I immediately sold all of my vinyl when I bought my first CD player and never looked back. I hate fucking vinyl, I barely tolerate cassette.
>>61164615
It's also possible that you grew up with shitty players as well.
I like the large artwork, I like owning something physically (cd's just get ripped to my computer anyway.) and I like owning something from the time the music was released.
Audio quality sounds better on CD's, but I enjoy the audio imperfections of vinyl as a relic from the past. There's an emotional quality to the imperfections, that make me aware of the time between the album's creation and the present that make the message of the musician more precious somehow.
>>61164669
No, I just fucking hated having to get up and change sides.
>>61164227
>If you put your guitar through a pedal you make it a less accurate sound, therefore only clean guitar tones can be objectively good.
>If you DI a synth it's a more accurate representation of the synth sound vs putting it through an amp and micing it, therefore DI synth sounds objectively better.
>If you put the mix of your song through mastering effects like multi band compression and long tail reverbs you make it less accurate to the original recording, therefore unmastered albums sound objectively better.
>If you use an eq on your stereo you make the sound less accurate to the original recording, so any time any listener has used eq on their system they make the sound objectively worse.
>Larger album art
>"Warm fuzzy sound"
More specifically, Daydream Nation on CD sounds like the low-end was mixed too low, but on vinyl it sounds just right.
>>61164978
I have the original cd from 88 and it sounds great.
>>61165020
Have you done a side-by-side comparison with the vinyl version?
>>61165042
I'm not gonna buy the record just to compare it to the cd, if the cd sounded bad I might buy it on vinyl. If you need more low end just turn the bass knob up.
If you're buying CDs you may as well just get digital surely?
>>61165085
>I'm not gonna buy the record just to compare it to the cd
Then shut the fuck up when you have no idea of what you're talking about
>>61165367
How about you buy all the cd versions to compare it to the record then, otherwise you shut the fuck up.
>>61165348
Digital copies aren't physical dipshit.
My general impression with the formats is pretty similar to the rest of the thread. CDs sound clearer but vinyl feels more natural and open sounding.
CDs are closer to the actual recording but vinyl feels more "musical" to me.
Etc.
So I'd guess that the only reasons to prefer vinyl would be subjective ones, while CDs would be a superior medium if you thought entirely objective about it.
>>61163653
I am materialistic, like big cover arts and want everyone to see what a superb music taste i have when they enter my apartment so i buy vinyl
Anyone who tells you that they buy it for some other reason is lying
>>61165516
>having you own apartment
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Okay thanks guys.
I was on the fence but records just feel so cool, like a collectable.
