We used to have one that was built into a sideboard that was like 10 feet wide and had a lift up lid and 'integrated' radio. Nope.
I remember those mono record players, and the seven-inch records -- had a bunch (still do; my sister's hanging on to them) -- and they sounded considerably worse than CDs -- they sounded even worse than the 12-inch vinyl records! Those record players came with four speeds, by the way -- 16 RPM (????), 45 RPM (7-inch records), 33 RPM (12-inch records), and 78 RPM (the ancient 10-inch records that shattered when you dropped them). Here's the true oldies test -- do you remember when records (vinyl) came in both "mono" and "stereo" -- you could play the mono ones on a stereo system, but not the other way around, so if you only had a monaural record player, you had to check the record jacket for the "MONO" designation! {{ETA, I just read JohnnyX's post; my parents had one of those big sideboard-like things! The olden days before there were component systems!}}
So do I! Like "Meet the Beatles"! (and others) 8-track cassettes? ACK!! {{KT bangs her head against the wall}} I'm glad I never invested in that technology!
hmmm music, 1 of my loves iv got to say that vinyl is best for geting the fealing of the music, i have many old lps including most of the Beatles first pressings! I spent about 3k on my hifi, so maybe i can hear a small diffrence (not a lot i have to say)
personaly, i prefer teh ceramic hard disk drive to all these ancient technologies. honestly, you old people...where does it end...?
I think a lot of the "sounds warmer" with vinyl is due to the way the old record player system sounded compared to the clearer modern system. Do you think it woul dmake any noticeable difference making CD's higher definition?
Nope and yes. Depends what you are listening for. Vinyl sounds 'warmer' because the frequency reproduction tails off at 4khz and produces little over 15Khz. The human ear has evolved (naturally) to become sensitive to sounds made from 600Hz to 6KHz (mammalian vocal cords), so mid range and treble frequenies quickly become irritating. This is no fault of CD, as it's only as good as what you put in. If you feed in an original beatles master which sounds fine on vinyl, the CD may well expose harsh and aggravating frequencys, which the reference monitoring of that day wouldn't portray (moreover, the modern ear is better trained). As to Higher Definition CD's. Some people have said that they can't hear the difference between Vinyl/CD/MP3 etc already. Even so, I'd bet that subliminally, they can. They just don't know how to express the difference.
A mate of mine has an awsome CD System and is into the technology a bit. Anyway, he once told me (Andy Murray can correct this if wrong), that there are different qualities of CDs recordings that you buy. Some are higher than others. He said that somebody like Celine Dion's CDs are the highest quality. He swears that he can hear the difference on his system. Maybe I misheard or didn't really understand him properly. EDIT: Blummin heck! This is my 1500th Post.
So I guess its the weaknesses of the vinyl that made it sound better in the end. Another thing about music systems, I believe theres loads of snobiness like there is with wine tasting. I've read articles in music equipment magazines saying how computer CD writers greatly reduce the quality of music compared to the ones made specifically for Hi-Fi's. I've copied CD's and let friends listen and they've never known which is the original. I wonder how easily you'd know the difference between CD/vinyl if at all
Big money Artistes = Big Budget recordings, with more time spent, and state of the art equipment. Just like film though, sometimes the quality of production exposes the lack of talent. Enjoying music isn't necessarily about technical production, or rather, it becomes secondary to the purpose. Take Linkin Park, or Rage against the Machine. You don't notice the production, as it merely enhances, whereas modern pop chart pulp is mostly a product of a machined process.
Dad claims that vinyl sounds better, but he has a very sensitive ear. Music played on a cheap CD player that sounds slightly metalic doesn't really bother me, but it drives him crazy. Since I've only heard records played a few times in my life, I'm in no position to judge. Something also quoted pretty much directly from Dad, the sound that is heard is analogue. If something is recorded onto vinyl, an analogue sound is recorded. If it is recorded onto a CD, the analogue sound is converted to digital to store it onto the CD, and then back into analogue so we can hear it. There is always a loss of quality in conversion. Me? CDs, as has been pointed out, are far more practical. You can't press a record at home EDIT: Looks like Andy already said something about all sound being analogue
I love listening to LPs. My dad has a huge amount of them, and we just got his old turntable fixed up. Maybe it's just the old charm that they have, but there is definitely something about them that I enjoy more than CDs. Also, there are a lot of old classical and jazz recordings that were only ever released on LP...the recording companies have since gone under, or the originals have been lost, so they've never been released in CD form. Thankfully there are some devoted people out there in the industry who devote their time to saving such old gems.
CD's are plain more convenient nowadays Vinyl, though, for certain music, just has a better feel to it (in my opinion). For example, I don't think I could enjoy old blues or jazz classics that have only been done on vinyl as much if I don't hear that great crackle it has in the background from the vinyl. I would think to the untrained ear (like mine ) it would just be a matter of opinion and taste on cd vs. viynl sound
My ears really just aren't that sensitive. I don't usually sit and listen to the format (means), but the music (ends). And I'm 18 and have listened to LOTS of records. I do love the album covers. Pink Floyd, The Who.... Hmph, most people my age nowadays would probably say "The WHO?" :cry:
