Vinyl

You are spot on with this observation though - album covers used to rock and they just don't translate well to the small CD format.

Let me explain what all my tecno-babble means in lay terms. Have you ever gone to a college party with a stack of records (ie. vinyl) and have them totally f ucked up by the end of the night by the drunks at the party? You would get digs and scratches all over the damn records - not to mention sticky soda mixer and alcohol spilled on them etc.

That is reason #1 in my book to have gone to CDs - complete practicality. No grooves - no needle which wears out damn fast - ditto for the record - no skipping or crackles and pops. Give me CDs any day.

If you have a high-quality turnable and take good care of your vinyls the sound can be better than the sound on CD.

The difference in sound has nothing to do with vinyl vs CD it has to do with the analog vs. digital recording process.

I encourage you to read the following article:

http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-b...-CD-#community

I had a Ltd edition SWW picture disc but lost it!

We've just started to get back into vinyl - or will do when I pick up the turntable from the shop.

We have a handful of BJ singles sitting in the loft (Bad Medicine, Wanted, Lay Your Hands on Me and some others) that I want to check out, as well as various 80's albums.

i have a few 12" singles from New Jersey and KTF plus a ltd edition JBJ Miracle single with poster and interview on the bside where he says that he cant see the band getting back together

I just have to buy Jovi stuff :P I have bough old singles same way. And vinyls are old , something rare.

I have BJ through to KTF on vinyl simply for memorabilia. I dont listen to them on the vinyl and I dont expect to. Why would I when (as already mentioned) the digital/CD version is much better quality.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm


Or this article..

Or this article which mentions your link specifically:

http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-b...-refuse-to-die

Vinyl vs. CD myths refuse to die
Rich Pell
1/13/2010 12:55 PM EST
Some time back I blogged about the audio myths surrounding the vinyl and CD formats and how the former simply couldn't compete technically with the latter. Since then, I periodically receive emails from non-technical vinyl fans/audiophiles who have run across my post on the Web, and the discussion usually goes something like this:

Vinylphile: I saw your article about vinyl. You are wrong - vinyl sounds better than CD. There is NO WAY that the digital process can preserve the original analog signal by chopping it up into numbers and reconstituting it.

Me: Hey, if you prefer the sound of vinyl that's great. However that subjective judgment shouldn't be confused with the objective facts, which show that CD/digital does a far more accurate job of reproducing the original musical signal.

Vinylphile: Who says? Vinyl provides a warmth and immediacy that digital can't, and provides more continuity in the music. Digital veils the music. Obviously the reason is because digital is a much more complicated process than analog and results in "digital" music, while analog preserves the analog waveforms that our ears are designed to listen to.

Me: I'm afraid you're mistaken on several points. If you choose not to believe the technical facts regarding CD/digital - which have long since been demonstrated in theory and practice - and instead wish to believe that digital somehow audibly and mysteriously "veils" or fails to "preserve the continuity" of the original signal, or that the end resulting signal isn't just as analog as the original, then that's certainly your prerogative.

Vinylphile: You're talking about using electronic instruments to measure digital's "superiority," but these measurements aren't relevant to what our ears perceive. I let my ears judge - not some sophisticated electronic devices.

Me: [Sigh.] Thanks for your comments.

Obviously the subjective aspects of audio in music recording and playback will continue to remain fertile ground for discussion/debate among audiophiles. However, over 25 years after the introduction of the Compact Disc, there's no reason for there still to be confusion or misunderstanding over the technical basics of digital audio - even among the non-technical public.

So who's to blame? Audiophiles themselves must take some of the responsibility. Good technical information is readily available - on this site as well as many others - but won't benefit those who restrict their "research" on the subject only to resources like subjectivist audiophile publications and like-minded forums.

At the same time, it is possible for the unwary to be led astray by stumbling across authoritative-appearing sites on the Web that contain incorrect or misleading content. For example, several of the emails I've received on this subject have mentioned one url in particular (http://www.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm).

The content on that page, which presumes to answer the question "Is the sound on vinyl records better than on CDs," is, frankly, tripe. On a quick scan I counted six outright errors - mostly uninformed opinion being expressed as fact.

Unfortunately, this is notable because 1.) it appears on what is ostensibly an authoritative site, and 2.) this particular page comes up in the top search results on Google using the terms "vinyl" and "CD." It appears this content has been up for some time and has never been corrected.

Perhaps at some point I'll create a post here specifically refuting the technical errors on that page, as well as listing some of the many good technical resources available on the subject. If anyone has suggested links - or other material/comments - for such a page, please let me know.

Comments, questions or suggestions? Email me at rich.pell@verizon.net.

Related links:
Audio myth: Vinyl better than CD?
Vinyl LP comeback = wishful thinking
The death Of High Fidelity?