>>66495525
>vinyls

>>66495525
>Are physical media types even worth the time and money?

No. Simple as that.

>>66495644
Why aren't they? I mean, it's kind of exciting and I hear lots of other people thoroughly enjoy them

>>66495525
>>66495644
>Are physical media types even worth the time and money?
Records are a nice thing to collect. I just buy my favourite albums to support the artist where possible.

File: image.jpg (369 KB, 2257x2051) Image search: [Google]

369 KB, 2257x2051

Don't do it. Do not buy records. Ever.

If you want physical, buy CDs. They're much much cheaper, last longer, you don't have to take care of them, they're more expendable, they're smaller, hold more music, etc.

Remastered records don't even work (I bought closer and unknown pleasures and half the songs are unplayable), and originals are priced up the ass. Digital and CD, that's it. Unless you want to be a massive faggot and buy records only for the sake of hearing music on an over priced format that's way to expensive so you can tell people how different you are.

>>66495745
>last longer, you don't have to take care of them
This is untrue

>>66495730
It's more of a luxury item. It's the same as buying a blu ray of a movie you like. You can download the movie online for free, in nice HD quality too, most likely. But if you absolutely love the movie, you can buy the blu ray deluxe package. Vinyl is great for having a tangible object for something you like, it's a nice big disk with a nice big sleeve, some of them are colored too. Also, a lot of old records exist on vinyl that aren't on CD or on the internet.

>>66495768
>doesn't elaborate why
If you throw them in the mud, then they'll break. If you have a shitty CD player, they'll break. Otherwise they're gold.

I bought ITCOTCK on record and it literally started to skip after five months.

>>66495805
I agree it being a luxury item but your blu ray analogy is false. Vinyl doesn't have better quality playback than digital, while a blu ray disc has.

Comparing blu ray discs to torrent brrips is like FLAC to mp3, there is no tangible difference between the quality but atleast you can recode your blu ray/FLAC to any other format without losing quality.

But yeah most people buy blu rays to "support" the authors and to have a physical copy

>>66495805
I like the way you put it being a luxury. If anything, I might get a few more of my *absolute* favorites

As for the records that don't exist online or on CD, I can vouch for that. An uncle of mine collected music his whole life and has hundreds upon hundreds of records that don't exist anywhere else. Shit's cash

>>66496001
go ahead and buy some of your favorite records, just don't be that pretentious guy who says vinyl "sounds better" and that you exclusively listen to vinyl

Most modern music will in fact sound worse on vinyl than digital, so pick out some older records where the analog hiss and crackle would fit the sound of that album

>>66495825
>I bought ITCOTCK on record and it literally started to skip after five months
If you can't look after your possessions, you can't blame the object itself.

>>66496272
vinyl actualy loses it's playback quality everytime you play it, while pressing play in your digital player doesn't change anything

>>66496356
Skipping doesn't happen just because you played it a few too many times, it happens because you've handled it poorly and not taken proper care of it.

It's kind of a hobbie, and an expensive one at that, at least where I live

If you want to do it, do it
If you don't, stick to your digital media

Also, Audio Technica LP120 is your starting point

DO NOT BUY THE LP60, NO MATTER HOW CHEAP

>>66496452
>DO NOT BUY THE LP60, NO MATTER HOW CHEAP
speaking as a person who owned for for a year before upgrading, it's a decent barebones starter table

they're extremely basic, but they're not the crosley-tier woodchippers people make them out to be