CD or Vinyl?

[Stephen Coates]

I just bought two new vinyl records ('Mika - Grace Kelly' and 'Calvin Harris - Acceptable in the 80s') and wondered what you all prefered.

After having listened to many record and many CDs, I think that the sound quality is about the same on both, therefore due to the ease of use of a CD I am going to have to vote for CD. Although vinyl records are good as well.

[J T]

A lot of people prefer vinyl because it sounds 'warmer' and say how the analogue nature of the recording reflects the analogue nature of music without introducing flaws from digital coding-decoding.

Personally, I've never really used records, and as such don't care for them at all and can't offer much of an objective view.

CDs all the way for me. Plus the ripping and burning aspects :JRflag:

[Teho]

For sound quality and ease of use, it's definitely CDs.

For some people, nostalgia and collectability is where CDs will never beat vinyl.

I don't care much for vinyl myself. I did use them when I was young, but I don't feel particularily nostalgic about them.

[Stephen Coates]

A lot of people prefer vinyl because it sounds 'warmer' and say how the analogue nature of the recording reflects the analogue nature of music without introducing flaws from digital coding-decoding.

Personally, I've never really used records, and as such don't care for them at all and can't offer much of an objective view.

CDs all the way for me. Plus the ripping and burning aspects :JRflag:

I think you only end up with problems with sound quality when you start to use crap like MP3s. Some MP3s can be good, but I find CDs much better.

[TiredOfLife]

Mp3s save lives, other peoples anyway.
If I didn't have my mp3 player for the trip to work and back, I would end up murdering half the bus.
Especially noisy brats.

I can encode mp3s from vinyl or cd so thats not a deciding facter.
Prefer to have my music without the background hiss and jumping of vinyl.
CDs for me.

[Submeg]

Ok, I would have to say, if you listen to 'new' vinyl records, they are produced using a different resin than they were back in the day, so they actually sound better than cds. I know, its impossible to believe.

For me, I am currently becoming extremely obsessed with music, and I am looking for some specific songs, check My Music search. (http://forum.classicamiga.com/showthread.php?t=508) So I will probably have to start a vinyl collection too.

[Stephen Coates]

Something I'm not sure about.

Was the sound originally recorded into a digital format?

i.e. When someone is actually singing, how do they record it? Because if they record it in a digital format, e.g. DAT, then copying that onto vinyl can't make it sound any better.

[AlexJ]

CD's for me - ease of use and not too much degredation.

Track selection can't be done on a record, a CD can be scratched (up to a point) and no loss of quality experienced and they are largely immune to dust whereas some of the records I've got sound like a warzone when they're played despite my best efforts to keep them clear of dust.

Having said that, I mainly play my music collection from MP3 (ripped at a high bitrate of 320kbps or 'acquired' from the highest bitrate source available (usually at least 240kbps)) because I can play any track from my collection at a click of the mouse.

[Harrison]

Something I'm not sure about.

Was the sound originally recorded into a digital format?

i.e. When someone is actually singing, how do they record it? Because if they record it in a digital format, e.g. DAT, then copying that onto vinyl can't make it sound any better.

This will completely depend on each recording. You can normally tell easily on the back of a CD as it has a small 3 letter code in a box somewhere that will look like AAD or DDD. Not all CD's will have this code, but a lot of them will. The code means the following:

DDD = digital tape recorder used during recording session, mixing and/or editing, and mastering of the tracks.

ADD = analogue tape recorder used during recording session, digital tape recorder used during mixing and/or editing, and digital tape recorder used during mastering.

AAD = analogue tape recorder used during recording session, analogue tape recorder used during mixing and/or editing, and digital tape recorder used during mastering.

In all cased you will always see a digital recorder being used at the mastering stage, otherwise the CD would not be possible.

Some people argue that Analogue is better than digital because it captures the true audio wave forms, whereas digital breaks the audio into chunks of data and recorded the lengths of the audio waveforms at set intervals. Obviously when the data rate is low for digital recording this can be the case so less chunks of information about the original audio waveform are digitally captured each second, and so the audio degrades, but as the data rate is increased digital recording can easily surpass analogue recording due to other limitations that effect analogue recording.

With analogue, each time a recording is played the recorded information gets slightly degraded. The first playback may in fact sound even better than a digital recording, but 3 or 4 plays and it will have started to degrade. Digital on the other had remains exactly as it sounded the first time, and will continue to without any degradation.

This follows through to the whole process of recording, not just the media the final recording is put onto. Many CDs do start life as an analogue recording session because the studio knows that an analogue recording can still capture more warmth and range than digital recordings, and they know that it won't degrade because they will only need to play it back once to lay the audio off to digital for the mixing and editing. Doing the mixing and editing digitally will stop any further degradation of the audio as each edit will be using the original digital data. In contrast if they did an analogue edit and mix, each pass through of the audio would degrade its quality.

You could easily test analogue degradation using two VHS recorders. You can instantly see some degradation in the picture quality when you view the first copy doing tape to tape via VHS. But to show how quickly quality degrades, if you did a tape to tape copy, then did another tape to tape copy using the copied tape from the first copy, and then finally did another copy using the copied tape from the second copy the quality of the image and audio on the fourth generation copy would look really bad. In contrast you could copy a CD or DVD and make a copy from the copy and their would be no difference.

So basically, some studios prefer to do ADD for CD recording these days and other DDD. You will see a lot of AAD due to the reduced costs of recording this way, or because many of the AAD CD's were originally from recordings made many years ago. DDD does tend to only be used mainly for classical and Jazz music though.

[Demon Cleaner]

The only thing I preferred on vinyl were the covers. When you bought f.ex. an Iron Maiden album back then in the early 80s, the covers looked quite amazing, with those bright colors and mean Eddy. It doesn't have the same impact on the CDs booklets.

[J T]

^^^^
Good point, handling records (carefully of course) also has a much more wonderfully tactile 'feel' and you really have to prepare to listen to the music. Sometimes with MP3s on PC it's too easy to just click and change tracks and the music is 'experienced' much less.

[Harrison]

The only thing I preferred on vinyl were the covers. When you bought f.ex. an Iron Maiden album back then in the early 80s, the covers looked quite amazing, with those bright colors and mean Eddy. It doesn't have the same impact on the CDs booklets.

The Iron Maiden covers were also one of the best things I loved about buying vinyl too, especially the double albums and the inner two sides would always contain some really cool artwork. In fact I still have all of my Maiden albums mainly just for the artwork. :)

[AlexJ]

^^^^
Good point, handling records (carefully of course) also has a much more wonderfully tactile 'feel' and you really have to prepare to listen to the music. Sometimes with MP3s on PC it's too easy to just click and change tracks and the music is 'experienced' much less.

True, it's the same as emulation. It's all too easy to dismiss a game in minutes, that you would have spent hours playing if you'd bought it when it was new, simply because there's 1000's of other games available.

[J T]

So true, so true - I do that very often.

[rayzorblue]

Well being an ex-DJ and the owner of over 500 records i have to say vinyl all the way there is nothing like the feel of it under your fingers as you cue up a mix and when you have 3 decks on the go and are trashing through your records to find that one tune you know is in their but you where too damn lazy to line them all up in the mix order its just so much more fun and more challenging than having all the tunes for your mix burned onto a couple of cd's in the order you need them.
For me vinyl feels so much more personal and it lasts longer than a cd which will erode in the end.
Vinyl is timeless much like my memories of all the records i own.

[Harrison]

I've often wondered about the lifespan of a CD/DVD. Commercially pressed CDs that are looked after should easily last as long as vinyl in my view, plus they won't suffer from warping, dust, scratches (as easily) etc... I doubt the metal layer and plastic a pressed CD is made from would erode much over time.

But CD-R and DVD-R are another matter. I'm not sure I actually trust writeable optical formats with any longevity. I do have CD-Rs I burnt in around 1997/8 and they still work fine, but that isn't exactly that long ago. I've also come across some from 2000/1 that wouldn't read any more, and although I've not encountered it myself I've heard of DVD-Rs that couldn't be read even a year or two after they were burnt. I'm betting they were cheap media though as I've never had a problem with known brand discs that are a few years old. It is still quite an unknown factor though and I would not fully put my faith into have a copy of any valuable data on a single DVD. I always make two copies and each is on a different make of media. Am I paranoid? or just safe?

[Demon Cleaner]

I always make two copies and each is on a different make of media. Am I paranoid? or just safe?I admire you, but to answer your question, it's paranoid :lol:

[rayzorblue]

I have a cd from 1989 i think called principles office by young mc and this unfortunately now is unplayable due to erosion of the Super Purity Aluminium layer at least i assume that is why.

[Stephen Coates]

I always make two copies and each is on a different make of media. Am I paranoid? or just safe?

Good. I suppose it is really too early to say how long a DVD-R will last.

We will know in 30 years time though.

[J T]

I always make two copies and each is on a different make of media. Am I paranoid? or just safe?I admire you, but to answer your question, it's paranoid :lol:

Points for effort, but yep, slightly paranoid :p

[Demon Cleaner]

We will know in 30 years time though.Probably less. I had already some Commodore (yes, unfortunately) DVDs that wouldn't work anymore, being only 2-3 years old. But as once mentioned, their DVDs are real crap (sorry).

[Stephen Coates]

Track selection can't be done on a record,

It can, but just a bit harder.

I usually find myself dropping the stylus on the the track after or before the one I want. It's also a bit hard to line up.

But it is a bit easier than tapes.

[Stephen Coates]

Does anyone remember someone doing a comparison of CDs, Vinyl and MP3s on the television, a few years back? I'm pretty sure it was on Tonight with Trevor MacDonald.

Or it could have been on The Gadget Show. I can't remember. I wasn't really as interested in the differences back then. I'm sure my hearing has probably improved since then.

[Buleste]

What?

[v85rawdeal]

Chances are it was James May discussing the ideal sound system for his car on Top Gear!