/mu/ - Music (Temp full images)

>>53761051
Stop posting

>vinyls

do people do this on purpose

>>53761073
What's wrong with that?

>>53761073
Observe:
>>53761087
>This is a Yes.

>>53761051
>Are there any advantages to owning vinyls

Yes. And it's whatever advantage I decide they have.

>>53761067
>advantages to owning vinyls
no

>do people buy them just for the cred/sake of collection?

yes

>>53761133
Like what?
I just have trouble understanding the point of anyone making them anymore when CDs and various digital audio formats exist now.
I can think of no reason that one would want to own any outside of collection.

>>53761140
>thinking there is an advantage for anything

Fucking pathetic

>>53761051
In the age of digital music owning physical copies of said music is really pointless besides from a fan or collectors point of view. Tried comparing vinyl to digital many times and I never hear a difference that puts one above the other.

>>53761051
It really is sake of collection, and anybody who tells you otherwise is deluding themselves. It's nothing to be ashamed of though.

>>53761174
>Like what?

Liking the way vinyl colors or "distorts" the sound. When you start on comparing formats on a system that isn't a pair of shitty Miccas hooked up to a 20 watt Chinese amp, you'll discover you have something called preferences and that a particular record might sound better to you on vinyl than it does digital.

And appealing to "objective sound quality" tests is fuckin' useless. First off, a human being isn't an impersonal measurement device and will never hear what the device hears, nor will any setup you have recreate studio conditions. Also, everything distorts the sound, from your amp, playback device, to your household wiring, to your speakers. People will willingly spend a fortune on tube amps, which distort the sound more than solid state devices, because they prefer the sound. Same thing with speakers. Some speakers better enhance this, others better enhance that, and the only way to really find out what "sounds the best" is to listen to a variety of setups and formats.

>>53761051
>>53761051
Vinyl for analog
CD for digital
Cassette for everything else

and every medium has releases that you can only find on said medium


told you this last thread OP.

>>53761491
>Cassette
For what purpose?

Collecting vinyl copies of your favorite albums is fucking awesome!!

But there's no advantage or anything, it's just cool to have a big-ass copy of it, maybe colored in a very cool way, with cool pictures inside, a free mp3 download and tons of other cool shit that could go with it. It's definetely a fun hobby

>>53761550
basically this, find shit at GW or Antique shops, listen to old shit. Buy new pressings if you really like the band.

>>53761540
>For what purpose?

Not him, and I'm not really a collector of them, but they're cheap to collect, a fun medium to play around with, and their sonic deficiencies can be mitigated on good gear to the point where you can't tell if you're listening to a CD or a Tape. See Rotel's amps.

>>53761540
medium specific releases. all of my cassettes are from people who dont have CDs or Records

alot of unknowns cant afford vinyl pressing and CDs look cheap, cassettes can be the cheapest way to get your music out there and have a nice physical release.

I just think they're neat. I don't think I do it for cred of any kind I don't brag or show them off at all. I just like them.

One other thing I've noticed is like I have ADHD and I can pay attention to a record better than I can digital music idk if anyone else experiences this?

people that think that a record player sounds like an MP3 has either never listened to a decent record player & stereo, or have no idea what they're talking about.

>>53761626
also this, they are very cheap to collect, for about 4-6 dollars a pop you can get a nice haul from local and starting artists and it also supports them because they really are the ones fronting the cash for all of it

>>53761550
THIS
THIS
THIS
caps
a millions times this

>>53761550
This is why the new pressings are geting expensive +demand, theres a lot more going in to them like colors and free mp3s. I got the american football records, 2 for $30, and a decent book of their thoughts on the songs

>>53761073
they have to at this point

to impress ppl

paying for music piques your interest (vinyl or CD), mp3s although convenient, quick and easy, are disposable and valueless, nowadays anyway, hence the keen rejection of digital formats, people want to be able to collect and curate their own physical libraries/ identities and cant do so with itoons.

>>53761951
>paying for music piques your interest (vinyl or CD

Also you can introduce yourself to music you would've probably never discovered through digging for vinyl/cds/tapes, etc, since the process of discovery is more random than when you consciously search for something on a torrent or streaming site.

>>53761778
for new releases the best way to grab them is online, ive found 30 dollar new shit on amazon for 15, discogs even has great deals. record shops are for digging!

>>53762027
yeah, I had just been bored in a mall so I went in to F.Y.E.

Here's a good reason to buy vinyls, you ready?
> to listen music with vinyl

I really wish video game creators would still make ports for the N64

We've been over this many times. IT'S FOR THE SAKE OF COLLECTING.

>>53762087
It's more like comparing digital download games with physical discs/cartridges

>>53762115
except the discs are bigger than your head, have shit memory space, and aren't supported by most retailers

>>53762127
Except a vibyl record has bigger memory than a Nintendo 64 cartridge.

>>53762127
>aren't supported by most retailer
Errrr... What

>>53762098
>IT'S FOR THE SAKE OF COLLECTING.

And the way it sounds.

>>53762171
No.

>>53762187
some people like the way it sounds and that is why they collect them

>>53762115
You know what the equivalent of a physical disc in video games are? A physical disc. Vinyls are weird and niche and meant to cater to a specific audience with an entirely different device required to play them.

>>53762171
"no"

>>53762198
and people spend their money to buy them and these devices, thus demand goes up and they become popular. Welcome to capitalist economics

>>53762187
>>53762201

Well yeah, you won't hear the differences when played back through your Ion USB table and a pair of laptop speakers.

>>53762275
I would hear the difference and many others would as well but what people actually collect vinyl for is the sake of collecting.

>>53762314
>but what people actually collect vinyl for is the sake of collecting.

I'm not arguing that, but LPs can sound very different from digital releases, from the "warmth" to the soundstage. Now vinyl isn't always "better" (that's for you to decide), but when you start doing comparisons of your favorite albums and such, you'll invariably decide that this album might sound better to you on CD while this one sounds better on vinyl, etc, etc.

>>53762395
>I'm not arguing that
You did when you replied to my earlier post.

>>53762421
>You did when you replied to my earlier post.

No.

I said "and for the sound," meaning in addition to buying vinyl for collecting purposes you also buy because you like its specific sonic qualities.

>>53762441
Fidlar sucks.

Digital BTFO:

But then, settled into the lone leather chaise in Fremer's basement audio temple, nestled right in the sweetspot of his $65,000 Wilson MAXX3 speakers, I hear the needle drop on Air's "Run" from Talkie Walkie. It's a song I've never heard (kind of fell off Air after overusing Moon Safari considerably), but one that I'm now listening to all the time. Because, with all honesty, I have never heard anything like that song played on that stereo system at that moment. Ever.

The song ends, and after emerging from an opiate-like haze, I hear a hiss. And yes, while the record was playing, I heard a pop, a crackle or two. Isn't this as high-end an audiophile system as they come? Shouldn't the sound be of such purity so as to sustain life in lieu of water for days on end?

I mention this slight—very slight, but noticeable—hiss to Fremer, and it's probably a frequency that 50 plus years of rocking have eliminated from his spectrum. He doesn't even care. This is when I start to understand.

After hearing I'm a Bowie fan, Fremer drops into his near limitless stacks and spins a pressing of "Heroes" with part of the title track's chorus in German. I'm giggling with pleasure at the frankly obscene level of detail I hear (Ich! Ich werde König!), but of course, I'm hearing the pops and crackles that a 30+ year-old record is likely to have. Shouldn't a $350,000 stereo system be completely free of such impurities?

"It's like when you go to the symphony, and the old men are coughing—same thing," Fremer says. Necessary impurities. Reminders of being in the real world.

We play my solid 256kbps VBR MP3 of "Heroes" off my iPod; it sounds like shit. Free of pops and crackles, yes, but completely lifeless, flat in every way.

>vinyls

>>53762507
this is one of the most retarded things ive ever read

>I like it because it's worse

what

>>53763106
>I like it because it's worse

Where was that stated?

> Free of pops and crackles, yes, but completely lifeless, flat in every way.

>>53763148
>"It's like when you go to the symphony, and the old men are coughing—same thing," Fremer says. Necessary impurities. Reminders of being in the real world.

lol who wants to hear old dudes coughing during a symphony.

mp3 doesnt sound "flat" there's no proof of that. I dont have anything against vinyl collectors, just admit you're doing it o the aesthetic.

>>53763106
Flat and lifeless does not refer to the absence of surface noise, it refers to the difference in sound.

>>53763192
>mp3 doesnt sound "flat" there's no proof of that
Wut? Nobody here is denying it's largely about the aesthetic, but digital and analogue are mastered/pressed completely differently and the sound reflects that, for better or for worse. You ask anybody who's been collecting records since the 70s what's bad about digital and they will all use similar terms - flat, lifeless, cold, clinical. I'm not saying digital is worse, but if you think that there isn't worlds of difference between analogue pressings and mp3s then you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

basically any digital sound file (even lossless but way moreso lossy compressions like mp3) can a. only recreate sounds in a certain frequency range that is a "best fit" kind of range for just an average(see:pleb) person and b. by design can only support bit depths of 16-32 floating point. though it only makes a big difference on softer music it still kinda destroys some of the dynamics. also dithering

>>53763192
>mp3 doesnt sound "flat"

Have you done head-to-head to comparisons on a good equipment?

MP3s sound like utter shit half the time compared to vinyl or CDs. Tiny soundstage, shrill highs, and no detail in the mids.

Now, this isn't necessarily a result of any lack of information on an MP3 compared to lossless, physical formats, but the result of MP3 mixes and transfers from CD/Vinyl being optimized for shitty headphones and bluetooth speakers.

http://www.cnet.com/news/an-inconvenient-truth-why-music-sounds-bad/

>>53763224
that's what i assumed the original post was complaining about, the fact that since it doesnt' have any surface sounds makes it sound flat cuz that's what it was talking about before.

mp3s aren't better or worse than vinyl, and your average music listener probably wouldn't notice the difference outside of pops/crackles

>>53763276
>and your average music listener
Found the problem here. That's like saying there aren't differences between sneakers because the average American can't notice them.

>>53763256

The results of this are cumulative: as the music we buy becomes more and more influenced by the headphones we listen through, songs which do not sound good in headphones have a harder time succeeding in pop arenas.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmessitte/2014/04/19/how-earbuds-have-changed-the-sound-and-business-of-pop/

>>53763256
huh that's really interesting i didn't know that before
>>53763304
maybe i just have had a biased listening experience because ive only listened to really high quality mp3s

but there is no real objective quality to "Warmth" in vinyl

>>53763276
>it sound flat

Flat means little or no soundstage, and that's highly dependent on how the album is mixed.

MP3s, while they might pass an "objective" sound accuracy test, are flat when it comes to soundstage because of how modern MP3s are mixed and how older records might be converted, optimizing them for cheap headphones and speakers.

>>53763396
okay fine you win about flatness and warmth

but i would still rather not listen to pops and crackles and arguing that they somehow make the music better is retarded

>>53763359
>but there is no real objective quality to "Warmth" in vinyl

There is, actually. "Warmth" is a result of distortion, which can be objectively measured, and many people actually prefer that what that sounds like over the supposedly "more accurate" digital formats.

Think of sound accuracy like color accuracy. Some people like the look of over saturated colors over perfect color accuracy.

"Accuracy" isn't always the best in this case, especially. What sounds best is up to you to decide.

the sound man, the sound

>>53763451
>>53763440

thx for the response though

>>53763451
oh ok

>>53763462
>the sound man, the sound

From Bob Ludwig:

"There are times, however, that the LP sounds not only better than the CD but also better than the original master tape! Sometimes the echo seems to last longer on the disc than the master; sometimes there is more spaciousness on the LP; sometimes the record sounds brighter or more "open" in the top end.

Since I cut a lot of these LPs in the first place, I know there was nothing "artificial" done to them.

What is going on here? My CD master tape sounds identical to the original output of the analog recorder, but the LP sounds better than either of them!

To help answer that question for myself, I have done the following trick: I make a DAT recording of the surface noise of the particular pressing I'm comparing, perhaps from the 3 to 10 seconds of silence between movements. With a digital editor I make a long loop of that noise. Then I play back the loop of the surface noise and mix it through my console with the sound from the original tape. Presto! The CD master sounds nearly identical to the pressing. It is brighter and more spacious, and the echo seems longer! Take away the record noise from the CD and it again seems drier and more closed-in than the pressing. There are certainly some interesting psychoacoustic phenomena here!

So potentially, in some areas, the LP can offer greater musicality than the CD. It is not more accurate, but in my opinion it is sometimes more musical."

And anyone who has done extensive comparisons between digital vs. analog would agree.

Now, that's not to say, "Just buy vinyl all the time and call it day. It's more musical!" Sometimes vinyl's "liveliness" can be a detriment, especially with music that relies a lot on quiet interludes, like ambient or quieter Jazz/Classical (not talking about cracks and pops, mind you, but the way vinyl can even color silent passages or soft instrumentals with distortion). But vinyl's characteristics really shine in louder music.

Is vinyl the best archival format for recorded music?

>>53763589
oh, that's exactly what i've been thinking happens, it sound more pleasant but by no means is higher in quality of the sound

digital can never sound as good as vinyl, not even the 20mb flacc tracks

Something nice and physical that is a bit more fun than a CD. Plain and simple.

>>53762507
ofcourse if you play a 256 kbps mp3 from an ipod itll sound like shit. buy the cd or dl the flac and play it through a good dac and amp with some good speakers or headphones and itll sound more clear than the vinyl with no crackle pops