[punkaroo]

Hi everyone,

I'm a new member here...couldn't find a circle to post an intro post, but here I am! I'm also a member of Head-Fi.org. I got into this hobby a few years back. Very dangerous, very expensive...lol. I love my digital setup, but I'm inching closer to experimenting with vinyl.

My setup is very basic (Kenwood KD 2055 turntable, Marantz 2225 receiver, A25 Dynaco speakers, Grado Black cart). But I'm wondering...I listen to a lot of 90's/2000s rock...U2...Morrissey...Radiohead...my understanding is that a lot of vinyl that's released these days by said artist really isn't any different than the CD pressing. It's the same master but on vinyl format. Is this true?

If so, is older vinyl a better buy? By older, I mean anything pre-1990?

I apologize for my newbish-ness. Thank you all for your replies. Glad to be here!

- pat

[Jlappy]

Pat,

Welcome!  Yes a great, but pricey hobby!   

I don't have an answer for you on the 90s - 2000s vinyl yet someone here will.  yet, I haven't bought digital music once I got back into vinyl after a 18 year hiatus (cds & young kids -played into that) a year and a half ago and I can honestly say that all the new music pressings I have (that come with either cd or mp3 downloads), the vinyl blows away the digital in depth, tone and sound stage, etc..  I will frequently use Wilco's - Wilco lp for vinyl to digital comparisons and I've been pretty successful in converting my digital age friends.   

cheers,  Jim

[Photon46]

You've asked a complicated question that doesn't have an easy answer. If you are asking whether CD wav file resolution can be bettered by vinyl mastered from the same source, the answer is a big fat YES. Usually music is mastered these days in higher resolution digital bit depth than the cd format supports and vinyl allows the master's inherently higher resolution to be utilized. It's not always the case that this happens though. Plus, as you mentioned, it can get spendy buying vinyl hardware that allows you hear these differences. If you purchase well cared for used vinyl playback hardware, that can lessen the financial pain.  Just be prepared for some frustrating detours as not every equipment purchase is likely to result in the desired synergy you want and you'll have to buy and sell pieces in the quest for your own desired end result. I'm not sure if your current equipment setup will reveal these qualitative differences in cd. vs. vinyl that you desire, everyone has different perceptions about these things. The next aspect of considering  the value/cost relationship in post 90's vinyl collecting is the ever increasing costs of many releases. New vinyl releases are marketed to a more specialized demographic than was the case when vinyl was the dominant media. Way more thick, heavy 180 gram pressing, deluxe jackets, etc. I know inflation is in effect, but quite a few new vinyl release are still generally more expensive than releases were in the past. I'm amazed at how much room these new releases take up in shelf space compared to older releases. Not much of big deal if you're starting out, but if my 40 years of collecting vinyl releases were all were this thick, I'd need twice as much shelf space as I use now. Finally, you also have to think about where high resolution digital downloads vs. vinyl fit into the industry marketing equation moving forward. I'm not into that myself at present, but I am keeping an eye on this aspect of the evolving high res music business and could definitely see myself getting involved in the future.

[decal]

I find new music on vinyl is just like any era... you have the good ,the bad and the ugly   (Apologies to Sergio Leone )

[Wayner]

The master for the vinyl has been tweaked or modified. Vinyl has limited dynamic range, tho is actually close to the CD, however, it has to be limited for it to become playable. It is also been processed thru the RIAA equalization process.

Kevin Gray had a nice article on this, but you'll have to look for it.

Wayner

[Photon46]

The master for the vinyl has been tweaked or modified. Vinyl has limited dynamic range, tho is actually close to the CD, however, it has to be limited for it to become playable. It is also been processed thru the RIAA equalization process.

Kevin Gray had a nice article on this, but you'll have to look for it.

Wayner

All true, vinyl has limitations regardless of whether masters are analog or digital in origination. When comparing digitally mastered  cds and vinyl, the benefits I generally hear in vinyl are in the areas of increased microdynamic information, better bass pitch definition, better sense of the full range of an instruments timbre, and a more evident signature of the acoustic space in which the recording was made.

Another area of consideration I didn't mention was that of surface noise with vinyl. I've found that I had to invest in record cleaning equipment to realize the potential of vinyl. You can do a very good job with a steam cleaner, so you don't have to spend a lot of money. But you will spend either time (steam cleaning) or money (record cleaning machines are faster) to have clean, quiet surfaces.

[jakelieb]

Mark Knofler's vinyl totally crushes the sound of the cd.  Took a couple of recent pressing to a friend's house with a $$$$$ system and he was very impressed with the sound.

On the other hand I bought a couple of Lucinda Williams vinyls and it is not worth the $s.  CD's sound much better - go figure.  I recommend her cd's, they sound very good, but don't waste money on her vinyl.

[95Dyna]

I have hundreds of 30-40 year old records that I'm cleaning up little by little with a VPI HW-16 and they sound exceptional and always better than the CD in ways that Photon46 has described.  I find that the benefis are less discernable with louder more dynamic rock recordings than with Jazz and quieter classical pieces.  There are exceptions to this rule, however.

[Elizabeth]

I buy used music pretty much exclusively.
Whatever format I find it on, if i want the music, I buy it.
I have found plenty of 1990's 2000's on vinyl.
Certainly more CDs than vinyl, but that format is secondary to the music i want.
Mostly CDs because they are dirt cheap now, and more plentiful in used shops locally.

I do not think I have ever shopped around for the 'best' reissue, or format for anything. (except buying beatle Parlophone LPs.. instead of Capitol... the exception that proves the rule.)

[JoshK]

I found it pretty much hit and miss.  More miss.  If you like comtemporary music often vinyl is NOT better than digital.  It often depends.  I find those that say otherwise need to be discounted heavily.  Some are better, but those often had analogue in mind in the whole recording process.  The more typical release is more or less a mediocre pressing. 

That being said, if you have a lot invested in an analogue setup, likely you'll get better results with LP.  I just found a local vinyl store near my place (two blocks) that was HUGE and was stock full of new releases.  I will be happy a camper!  I never saw something like this in NYC.

[roscoeiii]

Any good sites folks know of that review the quality of a vinyl pressing? Or that compares the different pressings available?

[punkaroo]

Wow, thanks for all the replies! Very informative, very friendly. Thanks for your patience with a newb!

While I won't be upgrading my vinyl system for a while (or so she says ), it will be an interesting journey to 'hear' the differences in vinyl pressings vs. their CD (or in my case, Apple Lossless) counterpart.

Maybe it's a generational thing, while I could see vinyl being fun, it just doesn't have that convenience factor of opening iTunes and listening to whatever you want in a nano-second. However, I realize that's not the point. It's the journey, the process, the setup, etc.

I hope to learn more from all of you! Thanks again! First up: cleaning my current collection. I'll report on my listening findings!

[Photon46]

Any good sites folks know of that review the quality of a vinyl pressing? Or that compares the different pressings available?

I'd doubt the true utility of such a site, only because of the great differences in the way people hear and prioritize various aspects of sound reproduction. Vinyl reproduction hardware has a lot of variability in the way a given cartridge, tonearm, turntable, or phono stage renders recordings and when you combine all the possible combinations of each element of the chain, the possibilities boggle the mind. I've reached the point where I feel like my vinyl rig has has become a pretty good "time machine" that really gives a good sense of what the recording technology of the recording session sounded like. Microphones, mic arrays, recording venues, preamps, and every other variable in the recording session contribute to the end product. Depending on a given listeners system, these differences may or may not be heard or cared about it they do. We all hear and prioritize what matters in music reproduction so differently! So, given all this, does the basic goodness or mediocrity of a recording remain a perceivable given across many systems capabilities? In the past I would have said yes, now I'm not so certain.

My listening is probably 75% classical music and have been collecting it for 40 years or so. There are a lot of pressing on my shelves that are  sought after "collectible" releases that go for higher than average prices. In many cases, I have to scratch my head and wonder why they command such prices, they don't sound a bit better than many other releases that fly under the radar. Conversely, many digitally recorded lps from the 80's that lots of collectors avoid sound pretty darn fine to me now. With my earlier analog setups, my 80's  Karajan/Berlin Philharmonic set of Haydn "Paris" symphonies sounded mediocre. With the latest changes I've made in the last couple of years, the set sounds quite fine, although not "desert island great." Another example would be Dwight Yoakam's early albums on vinyl. I listened to "Buenas Noches From a Lonely Room" last night and it is stunning! No doubt it is a synthetic studio creation, but it sounds brilliant. On another system though, I could well imagine it might sound grating and harsh. Even though nine our ten listeners will agree that the Mobile Fidelity release of the Rolling Stones "Sticky Fingers" is sonic blahness with poor engineering, you'll always find one MFSL fanboy that will loudly proclaim it's virtues. I guess the point of all this long winded verbage is that perceptions of a recording's merits can be as variable as ideas about a hardware.