is this actually higher quality sound than a CD can offer? what is the appeal besides nostalgia?
>>129886587Every master of a particular album is different and you would need to compare yourself to determine your preference
>>1298865871. No. Record quality is not as good as CD quality. That said. If a record was recorded analog on tape in the 1960s, whats the point of going high fidelity? Besides it was mastered originally with the record format in mind. Its like saying you want a record from 1920 in high fidelity. Why so you can hear the hisd and pops in lossless sound? An old Nintendo game on a high def tv, you see every pixel. But the true intended experience and how developers created it was to be viewed on a shitty crt tv of the era. So same with music from the record era. Its the intended way it was expected to be listened to. 2. The ritual of it, the physically of it. It's an experience.
>>129886587CDs only reproduce audio frequencies. Vinyl can theoretically reproduce inaudible ultrasound too, which could matter if you're sampling it and pitching it down. Some CDs are deliberately ruined with loudness war mastering while the vinyl release is not (but often they use the same master). Other than that, CD is technically much better. Huge dynamic range, ultra-low distortion, zero surface noise, zero rumble, immune to most scratches thanks to robust error correction.
>>129886952>Huge dynamic range, ultra-low distortion, zero surface noise, zero rumble, immune to most scratches thanks to robust error correction.Also better stereo separation and sub-bass down to DC.
>>129886587Analog pressings on high-end turntables and speakers can, yes. But the average new record is going to be digitally mastered and likely sound better on CD
>>129886982>Analog pressingsPointless, as proved by MFSL releasing vinyl pressed from digital masters for years and nobody noticing until somebody leaked it.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Fidelity_Sound_Lab#Audio_sourcing_controversyOther than the ability to reproduce ultrasound, even the most expensive audiophile vinyl is technically inferior to CD in every way.
>>129887026I'm mostly referring to records made before digital recordings in the 1980s. I know a lot of the "audiophile" pressings are a scam.
VINILE OFFERS S MORE VISCERAL EXPERIENCE, LIKE THERES ADDED DISTORTION TO EVERY FUCKING THING YOU HEAR PLUS FRENCH FRIES PLUS CUMMULATIVE DAMAGE PLUS SAY THAT PRESS IS PARTICULARLY WONKY SO YOU GOT A SHIIITY LP. THEN THERES THE THING ABOUT INFRA AND ULTRA FREQUENCIES,IT IS REAL AMD ITS SENSED AND FELT BY THE BODY AND YOUR CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM. SO THERES MANY TEIXKERY INVOMCED WHUCH MAKES HARD TO ASSESS THE ISSUE OBJECTIVELY. BUT WHATS ACTUALLY OBJECTIVE IS THAT CD ARE SOME OF THE NERDEST FORMAT EVER, IT SIMOLY GOT NO RIZZ NO AURA ITS JUST THERE BEING A PLASTICKY PIECE OF SHIT, IT GOT THAT "DISCARDABLE" FEEL TO IT. ON THE OTHER HAND LPS ARE LIKE ANOTHER THING, THEYRE A MEDIA FLIP FLOP TRANSFER THAT YOU CAN TRACE BACK* TO THE SESSION WHERE FAG DID THAT BEND THAT PIERCES YOUR SOUL, SO AN LP IS LIKE A MOLD YOU MAKE FOR SCULPTURE, LILE BEETHOVENS MORTUORY MASK, ITS HIS FACE THERE, THERES STILL ESSENCE LINGERING IN THERE. CDS ON THE OTHER HAND ARE LITERAL REPRESENTATION WHICH IS SENSORY KEKOLDRY, ITS DESCRIBING YOU WHAT WAS THERE, YOU NEVER ACCESS the THING. EVER.*DOESNT APPLY TO MODERN CD TO VINYL PRESSES YOU HOMOOOO
>>129887050Most (all?) of those were albums recorded to analog tape first, they just went through a digital intermediate stage before being pressed to vinyl. But digital recording, even at CD quality if done properly, is completely transparent to human hearing, so nobody could hear the difference.
>>129886587>what is the appeal besides nostalgia?"warmth"
>>129887813this. vinyl music seems to be alive
Takes up less space. Isn't a gigantic pain in the ass to listen to. It isn't cringe as fuck like vinyl. Doesn't cost an arm and a leg.
>>129886587You can manipulate stupid art foids into sex when you show them your collection
>>129888517that's wrong and misogynistic
>>129888367An 8TB HDD takes up less space than the thousands of CDs it can store bit-perfect copies of and costs less money. Hard to imagine why someone who wants compact storage and low cost is arguing in favor of physical media at all
I rip cds for my music server for quality and convince. the cds act as a backup.
>>129886587>is this actually higher quality sound than a CD can offer?Buddy, vinyl quality is lower than cassette
>>129886648Fpbp. I prefer CDs in most cases. I like good quality clean digital audio. But it's not the format it's the mastering job. On vinyl the quality of the pressing matters too. Sometimes there's no good digital version and I download a vinyl rip instead.
So much utter retardation in this thread btw. Little room for nuance with a lot of you self proclaimed audio experts. You could argue with me about the nyquist theory or lossy codecs for hours and you might be right but that doesn't change the golden rule, garbage in garbage out. A hack job is a hack job regardless of the format it is released on.
>>129886587Vinyl is fun. It doesn't have to be "better."
I'll ask here instead of making another thread about vinyl. What's a good starter turntable? Preferably something I can connect headphones to directly. I've got powered studio monitors so I assume I'll need to connect some sort to volume control between the Line Out and TRS inputs of the monitors, right?I'm old enough to have listened to records unironically, but the turntable I used as a kid is a soviet antique, I don't think it even had stereo output, or any outputs at all, I remember that the dust cover was also a speaker.
>>129892308So a desktop PC is necessary to listen to music now? They’re really milking the anti-streaming meme for all it’s worth, aren’t they?>>129894034And each of those LPs cost $50+, probably closer to $100, and sound like a tin can. It’s only “fun” until you realize you’re being conned by speculators and boomers who run record shops as fronts. All for cardboard and plastic.
>>129887052This makes sense if you give it a sec
>>129894338They don't sound like a tin can. I'm a CD collector by the way and all the albums I want to buy are cheap and plentiful on vinyl but I need to really hunt to find good CDs. It's the bane of my existence when searching. If I had the space to have a proper setup I'd be into vinyl too.
>>129894338Nta, but I bought the /mu/ hipster canon of 60s and 70s albums for a couple bucks each 15 years ago. Vinyl is "expensive" if you're buying everything in 2026. It cost next to nothing if you got into it in 2008.
Its strengths, rather ironically for an audio medium, lie in haptics and visuals.It's nice to handle with your hands and work with. Also, that you can see the structure of the sound is very useful for, say, a DJ.It sounds worse every time you play it, channel crosstalk, and so on, it's meh at best in that regard.You can play a CD a million times and it will still sound exactly the same, this can't even do that once.
>>129895681>It sounds worse every time you play ithttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZOj-eO8Mvw
>>129894338>And each of those LPs cost $50+I have a modest citypop collection, most of which I got for $4-10 each at recordcity.jp/en.
>>129886587CDs are nostalgia also. You will be a nostalgia fag no matter what medium. Gayyyyyyyyyyyy
>>129886587analog master tapes pressed to wax sound better than plastic
of course it's higher quality, it has an infinite bitrate.
>>129896942>infinite bitrate.It does not, nothing has.It is still subject to the physical limitations of this universe.Neither does it move at infinite speed, nor is it made of an infinite number of atoms.Right?
>>129896924Vinyl is PVC, the same plastic my plumbing is made of
>>129895906I just bought a CD from them on Mercari for $30 lol. I thought it was a bit much but looking on Discogs it would be about the same from other sellers with shipping.>>129896924It still depends on a lot of variables. But during the era when most recordings we would be interested in listening to were analog and vinyl was the primary medium they were released on all of this was pretty much figured out. It was a solved problem. On the other hand earlier CDs tend to sound better than later ones because they were very conservative with their transfers.
>>129896896I just rip it to my computer then listen to it with my phone and the CD sits in a box. It might be fun to look at the liner notes sometimes.
>>129896924based wax cylinder patrician
higher quality ≠ good sounding
>>129899514Here's something I haven't got into yet that should seem obvious even though I've said a lot about mastering etc. When it comes to vinyl the quality of your own equipment matters a lot more for what kind of sound you get out of it. Also it could be the best pressing in the world but if it arrives at your house warped or damaged or dirty that's going to have an effect on how it sounds. CDs have error correction and are more fault tolerant. Even when I buy scratched up ex-rental CDs from Japan I can leave EAC to chew through them overnight and still end up with a bit perfect digital copy on my hard drive when I wake up.Simply put vinyl can sound great but it takes money to achieve that.
>>129899404tape sounds better than cd
>>129899577>if it arrives at your house warped or damaged or dirtyWhen that happens, you can get a full refund and often the seller will be such a stingy jew they'll spitefully tell you just to keep the record. I own lots of records with minor, undisclosed issues that were free for this reason. Ebay and discogs have extremely buyer-friendly moneyback guarantees
>>129899601Cassette tapes? Lmao no. They do sound better on a high end deck than most people would expect though. The real problem there is commercially released cassettes didn't get to the point where they sounded all that great until digital recording was becoming commonplace. Reel to reel is another beast entirely but most releases on that format are rare and expensive.
>>129899577>Simply put vinyl can sound great but it takes money to achieve that.it's true nowadays because it became an overpriced meme, and computers and phones have gotten a lot better, but for a long while boomers were giving away amps for free, and even the jankiest vinyl setup sounded better than the average cursed sound card which whined every time you opened a window or moved the mouse
>>129899601No they don't
>>129897027>Right?Was more of a rhetorical question anyways.Interestingly, anything with how you your ear hears sound, how your brain handles it, so on...It all works in distinct units, and while the numbers of possibilities involved are absolutely astronomically huge...There's always that one first step...damn, reality is fucking melodramatic sometimes!
>>129892308The main arguments for vinyl is MUH BIG ARTWORK AND WARMTH. The warmth is retarded and the artwork discourse is stupid. I have hundreds of cds and they take up very little space. If you're relying on a computer then that's just fucking soulless.
>>129899601You're out of your tranny mind if you seriously think this. Cassettes are, far and away, the worst listening experience out there
>>129899819I don't care about "warmth" I care about mastering quality. Also I like a lot of older music that isn't boomerbait rock nostalgia shit that hasn't been reissued a million times. If there are few options on CD or streaming for what you want vinyl can start to look more attractive. Right now I'm comparing the versions of Teena Marie's Emerald City. I own the original Japanese CD which is badly distorted on some tracks. I downloaded the original US issue CD and confirmed the mastering is identical with the same problem. Now I'm waiting for the modern reissue/remaster to see if it's shit or not. I'd bet the original 80s vinyl sounds fine.
>>129899894I kind of admire your autism. Good luck.
>>129899835ok relax no need to bring trannies into this, you sissy hypno addict. it’s called bait, homie. remember?
>>129899601Cassette is objectively lower quality but like vinyl, the altered frequency content inherent to the medium has an associated sovl. It's like how video games from the 2010s look better in some ways than modern cutting edge graphics with realistic tonemapping etc because simply slapping a piss filter over everything instantly tricks the human brain into thinking it's experiencing a foreign environment, and ascribing a whole emotional state to it. We are a very impressionable animal
We've moved on. Bluray pure audio is the standard now.
>>129899908It's basically the same just louder. Maybe they just ripped the original CD and tweaked it a bit.>>129900405Bluray, SACD, DVD Audio, 192khz FLAC web downloads... Who cares if the mastering is shit.
>>129900426mastering makes a huge difference woth some albums, bruh. are you 10?
>>129900449Some albums? I'd say most. More often than not when they are releasing it on audiophile snake oil formats an older version on a supposedly inferior format sounds better. But it's retarded to swing to either extreme. If there's a genuine improvement you should try to be aware of it and make sure the new superior version goes into your collection.
>>129899962now imagine we get into whether people reliably hear albums at all, did they tirn it up enough, is one speaker shot, are they too high, did they take acid and all music sounds like butter
>>129886903>It's an experience.naw, it was an experience to people up until the late 80s.anything after that was a style, a performance.
