Why are people still collecting vinyl?

The quality is objectively worse. You know all audio engineers uses digital source to make their stuffs right? Preferring vinyl is one thing but you got to be a next-level autist to think analog sounds superior than digital. CDs are objectively superior technology, in terms of sound they will be closer to what a producer intends for you to hear. A well recorded and mastered CD will always sound more clear than a digital pressing on Vinyl. CD or digital is always the superior form for clarity, vinyl is a hobby but those who say that it sounds superior is justifying their overspent money rather than the quality of the sound itself. Ignore those autists, they're like talking to kids who put rims and spoilers on their cars and claims it helps the car go a little faster.

Digital will always sound better than analog. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Other urls found in this thread:

oregonlive.com/music/index.ssf/2014/11/does_vinyl_really_sound_better.html
youtube.com/watch?v=x4i66do8JgI
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>vinyl is a hobby

/thread

But why is it a hobby?

Vinyl looks cooler. I can hang them on me wall - Ringo

Because people like to own things.
Why do people buy books when there's a superior way to read?

Whats the superior way?

>Digital will always sound better than analog. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

t. someone who's never heard an analogue record

yeah i don't get this, OP [justifiably] trashes people who think the quality is better and then goes on to answer their own question

Digitally. How is reading exclusively on a Kindle not objectively superior to reading a physical book?
>More convenient
>Same typeface & font
>Easy copy and paste
>Easier on the eyes
>Less space

It's obviously a crazy thought for you to comprehend. But In general, people enjoy owning things and having physical tangible objects around them - even if there are superior ways of experiencing it.

t. someone who hasn't listened to a well-mastered CD of a recording.

Oh, so are we talking specifically Classical music?

I don't think you've heard a Rock or Jazz album on an analogue pressing have you.
Go pick up a Music Matters pressing and tell me digital sounds better.

I did, and digital sounds better.

Digital is superior for clarity - hence why so many classical fans prefer it over analogue.

However, in Jazz and Rock, it's much more preferred to hear the cluster of the recording studio, hear the small things that get washed away with digital compresion. Hearing musicians hands as they play guitar or voices in the background is perfect for rock since in general, you want to get as close as you can to be in the studio with them.

That sorta stuff all gets washed away with digital, it's the reason so many classic rock fans stick with analogue while Classical fans moved onto digital CDs long ago.

Digital s superior for everything, your memes can't change that.

I personally like their packaging more than any other physical music form.

I am a degenerate like many here who doesn't pay for digital, and often ends up making up for it for his favorite artists with LPs.

When in a record store, it's occasionally fun to go in, try out one or two tracks of their latest things they are selling then impulse buy. Kinda old school, and ultimately inefficient, but it's got for supporting more local music or very hard to find music that you may have inadvertently gotten for cheaper.

While it's true that from a technical perspective digital is superior in every way, there's a certain warm/comfy feel to analogue that digital just doesn't seem to be able to replicate. That way I get multiple ways to experience the same exact record. Even a record with an annoying vinyl rendition like say...The Seer by Swan with its wonky track order makes for an experience that you just won't get in the other digital formats because as long as one's okay with manual switching the tracks into the real order, you really hear accentuation to the more sorta gothic feel on that record. Or for MBDTF, whose vinyl version is otherwise hated by audiophiles, starts to sound something like what would happen if Phil Spector made hip hop with the sorta fuzzy feel to every track.

>frogposter
>is dumb

Vapid consumerism basically, no different than collecting vidya or anime dolls. All worthless plastic that's unnecessary in a post materialistic cyber world

I love listening to any live album on vinyl, especially a double or triple LP

Every side has purpose with where it starts/ends, and if I want I can listen to them in a scattered order and listen to the show in my preferred order

And there's nothing better than an LP with a perfect side, where as soon as it ends you want to just start it right over again. A single side of music is a measurement that isn't used at all outside of vinyl or technically tapes--a short little mini-set of songs meant to be listened in that particular order as one cohesive unit.

the problem with albums on vinyl is they don't actually exist
well, obviously the piece of vinyl exists but the music doesn't exist
the music is just absence of record, it's the part of the record they removed

somewhere that music is probably out there

upvoted

But music also doesn't exist on digital.

People buy vinyl because it sounds better than digital.

The thing is, most albums are mixed and mastered digitally before being pressed to vinyl. The "small things" you're talking about have already been removed from the audio before being pressed to vinyl, unless you're playing older records, but older records have usually already been worn down and scratched and shit and sound like crap.

this is simply not true. there plenty of records that clearly have different mixing on vinyl than what i listen to through official digital files. new stuff.

>older records have usually already been worn down and scratched and shit and sound like crap.
Bullshit.

smart ways of collecting vinyl:
-buying early pressings of albums released before the beginning of the digital age (early-mid '80s circa)
- buying vinyl-only releases
- buying albums from vinyl-friendly record labels recorded with analogue equipment

dumb ways of collecting vinyl:
-buying vinyl editions of recent albums
-buying recent vinyl reissues of classic albums

Oh yeah I forgot about this. That sorta anticipation about what may lie on the other side, it really makes sense why certain albums were made the way they were (eg. Black Flag's My War having the sludgy tracks on Side B.)

>want money from retards
>mix the vinyl different than the CD
>"vinyl just sounds better"
kek

What if they like the vinyl mix better


Then they do

You're an idiot

Your just a cunt that listens to FLAC converted to MP3 and back.

>The only deciding factor to preferring an audio format is the sound capabilities

Vinyl is my first pref because of the physical presentation and because I don't have to worry about the possibility of disc rot. Outside of that, sometimes the vinyl will have a superior mastering. If the vinyl is a known dud pressing / is too rare or expensive then I will buy the CD. I do the vast majority of my listening digitally, so for owning a physical copy I'd rather own the one that is physically more appealing.

Yes you will get a lot of retards meme spouting about vinyl being inherently better sounding on a technical level because of >muh limited bit depth and >muh limited bit rate but don't assume that everyone who buys vinyl is like that.

You couldn't even tell MP3 from FLAC.

then they like the mix
that has nothing to do with the format (vinyl)

>doesn't know how to green text

>muh first line was gree text

Beginners luck.

Agreed, but if that mix is only available on vinyl then it's a reason to buy vinyl. Think of it as like an exclusive vidya on xbox for example.

Honestly we're kinda in topsy turvy land where CDs which I think are, over all, capable of better sound quality and a more convenient and seamless listening experience have been heavily abused by normies and it's on vinyl where some albums seem to be pressed with more audiophile sensibilities. It's really fucking retarded.

>Getting caught up on petty details that don't matter at all

Isn't a CD just a disc with mp3 files burned on it? Why not use a DVD?

Not mp3 but yeah just high quality digital files.

The "why not use DVD?" is more or less what SACD is. It never took off as the vast majority of people don't see value in it because they can't hear the difference, they would've had to replace their already ubiquitous CD devices and there was no practical improvement as there was from going from tapes and vinyl to CD.

Honestly, CD sounds plenty good enough imho.

Is it bad if ou play the record without any speakers plugged in and just listen to the noise that comes from the stylus??

1) Vinyl sounds sounds better if you put forth minimal effort

2) If you buy anything new/reissue, it comes with a download code. Otherwise, you can spend five seconds online getting a digital copy to put on your phone or ipod or whatever

3) There's something to be said about having the dust jacket in your hands and looking at the liner notes or the picture in the gatefold or whatever while you're listening to has.
Music is fucking magic at best, 'stupid, subjective, human, bullshit' at worst and knowing that it's bullshit doesn't make much difference to your monkey brain.

I mean, laugh all you want, but compare clicking your mouse to play whatever flac files you have on your computer to sitting, jacket in hand, until that first side's done and you have to flip it.
Comfy.

This.
Hunting for shit you know and buying something you don't, but looks neat, is a ritual.

Really don't give a shit about Cd's because they might as well be digital with how easy it is to get a good quality download.

That's basically what the original record players did, they had no speakers and had a sort of cone/horn shaped thing to acoustically amplify the sound the stylus made on the record. So I think that's fine, but it's gonna be pretty quiet unless you find some other way to amplify the sound

But I heard something about that it could break something.

Are you retarded? You're gonna hear that shit even if it's through a receiver with speakers; have you never mutedyour shit? What's gonna happen?

>The quality is objectively worse.
So is streaming, do you bitch about that?

>You know all audio engineers uses digital source to make their stuffs right?
Implying there are no records from before the '80s available today.

> A well recorded and mastered CD will always sound more clear than a digital pressing on Vinyl
No one said that wasn't the case.

>vinyl is a hobby but those who say that it sounds superior is justifying their overspent money rather than the quality of the sound itself.
There are ignorant fags in any hobby, you're the one who's listening to them

>Digital will always sound better than analog. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Not true, it should and usually will, but that doesn't mean it always does.

>Vinyl sounds sounds better
You talking about the science or your false beliefs? Because science doesn't support your claim.

Assuming the premises ITT are true, why do people download lossless vinyl rips?

If it were recorded before CD's, it's true. If it's after, I either buy the record and it comes with a """"better""""" download code or I steal it from the internet in a comparable time.

cause they dumb mang

What if the album was mastered in analog format and the only availible CD copies are remasters? This isn't an uncommon scenario

Avoiding shitty remasters
Some albums only have a vinyl release
They think objectively worse sound quality and larger file sizes are worth it for the "comfort and warmth" of crackles and pops

You digital fags are one EMP away from losing all your music

>he doesn't keep his music in an EMP shielded Faraday Cage
lol

Because it's something to do.

>"comfort and warmth" of crackles and pops

The whole warmth thing is derived from the inherent distortion in the bass present on vinyl. Just gives it a little bit of a bloomy, tubey kinda sound. It's objectively less accurate but it's subjective as to whether or not it sounds nice. I think it definitely does in some cases, and there's nothing wrong with that as long as you understand that it's inaccurate.

you're argument has nothing to do with the scientific fact that vinyl is inferior to digital

you're trying to avoid that fact by coming up with examples of music produced and recorded on antiquated technology. if that same music was produced and recorded digitally today the fidelity and playback would be superior

this isn't an argument, this is me telling you under no legitimate direct comparison would vinyl sound better than digital, it's not possible

You are holding way to much value on intent. Chances are what you heard on a copy isn't even what you'd hear live. If you want a perfect listen then you'd have to hear it live

I personally don't like that because the crowds make me uncomfortable.

When you're trapped inside a dying body in a world operating, to you, on finite time, is that a bad argument?

No, I'm fucking not. If something was record and optimized at a time were records were the pinnacle, it's not gonna sound better on CD unless it was a garage job

I mean, like I said,if it's something that came after, I'm still going to buy it on vinyl because it'll come with the digital download or I'll be able to find one inn three seconds.

i think what OP is missing is that vinyl doesnt have a cleaner sound, it just have a diffrent sound you cant get on CD and some people dig that.
Maybe someone already said this but whatever

>collecting vinyl
>not spending your entire savings account paying the artists to play the music live in your home

Dude, if I like a band, I will see them every fucking time they come through. Do you know how many times I've seen the Queers?

>The quality is objectively worse
Stopped reading here, your autism was just to much for me.

right, you're talking about a specific scenario where digital can't compete because it hadn't been invented yet. your trying to claim vinyl sounds better than digital when what your really saying it that some old vinyl records sound good

understand that has nothing to do with the science. when the comparison is fair and not slanted in vinyls favor digital playback is superior to vinyls playback, its not up for debate

Aight, then we're in agreement. I'm not gonna blindly defend vinyl on a sound-point when it doesn't make sense to, especially when what I love so much about the format has little to do with the actual sound.

>Isn't a CD just a disc with mp3 files burned on it? Why not use a DVD?
in case you arent baiting, CD is WAV 44.1khz 16 bit. The frequency range is up to 22 khz, above the human hearing at it's best, most of us dont hear shit above 17khz past age 20-25.

But honestly, it's really hard to hear any difference between a 320 mp3 and WAV 44.1. It's most audible with low recordings with acoustic instruments with alot of "air"

But most of it is just transients and upper range frequencies (16khz+)

>Chances are what you heard on a copy isn't even what you'd hear live.

Sounds like you're also putting too much value of intent. Why are you assuming that artists intend on the live version being the ultimate? Some do, sure, but others might purposefully want them to be different from one another, or they could be straight up incapable of reproducing the studio quality performance live.

I can also just say fuck the intent and throw it right out of the window. I've heard heaps of live renditions that I didn't like as much as the studio. I couldn't care less about what the artist thinks, I know which one I like better.

OP's main concern here is that vinyl costs more. Everything else he's saying is bullshit

How does it feel being poor OP?

...

for the same reason people still watch movies recorded on film instead of digitally.

Gives it a certain quality that is lacking otherwise.

Nice argument.

that's all I'm saying. anyone thinking vinyl has a higher fidelity than digital is a full tilt retard. its an obsolete format, its literally impossible for it to sound better than digital if everything is equal (same mix, master, etc.)

there's no reason to buy vinyl that has anything to do with quality of the playback

But you understand that we're human beings. right? With all the Romanticism that comes with that?
I want to hold the gatefold in my hands. I want to turn the record over halfway through. I want to shitpost, look over my shoulder, and see my record collection sitting there, hanging out. Whatever else.

I'm going to get all that when I buy the record and then some. If I buy the digital copy or CD or whatever; I don't.
Why don't you wanna live when your alive? Fuck you.

You know what's cringer than vinyl collectors?

Cassette collectors?

I do wanna kill myself when I want to support a small band and they only have tapes for sale

it just sounds better man

This. Vinyl and CD fags need to unite together against cassettes. They have none of the strong suits of either vinyl or CD, there's no good reason for them to exist.

>But muh indie demo!

Just put it on the internet. I'd rather buy a digital copy (which I never like doing) than buy a fucking tape.

if you really want that cassete sound, just add a fucking tape saturator, taper off the high end and sub end and add some tape hiss on the master.

If you want the tape sound, just listen to a CD until your ears ring

none of that shit has anything to do with the music itself - which should be the whole point

you're not living, you're hoarding antiquated pieces of plastic and cardboard

>until your ears ring
they do all ready.

all the time

>which should be the whole point
I'm really going to disagree here. Do you listen to music for the sound only? If so, we might as well stop talking now.
Music means a lot more to mean than 'literally' what it is. I don't mind that. I admit to that. It's going to get my through my existence.

>you're not living,

I disagree, if it's going to get me closer to 'living'

> you're hoarding antiquated pieces of plastic and cardboard
But you understand none of this comes at my expense, right?
Knowing that I could download anything ever, at a decent quality, means I might as well buy the record if it brings me that life-affirming joy, right? If I buy the CD, I either can steal that quality, or can straight up be givin' that quality from buying the record via the download code?

Yeah, that's true. I only really notice and freak out when one of my ears is pressed against a pillow or something, though.

oregonlive.com/music/index.ssf/2014/11/does_vinyl_really_sound_better.html
Fuck you OP, there are good and bad qualities to Vinyls
>Like everything

>Do you listen to music for the sound only?
lol holy shit. no I listen for the way it looks flying through the air? wtf lmao
>literally what is
you mean sound? I mean goddam ha ha haaa are you kidding me
>life affirming consumerism
don't reply to me anymore retard seriously

If it's not locked groove it's shit

If it's not a sharp rp-117 it's shit

>lol holy shit. no I listen for the way it looks flying through the air? wtf lmao
I mean this seriously, the quality of the sound isn't the only thing. If it is, what kind of music do you listen to? Why?

Books are easier to flip through and mark. Kindles suck for any kind of book that isn't a light novel.

That's why I immediately write my name in any book I buy, so, in case anyone ends up with it later, they have to confront the fact that I lived and existed and like this book, too
It's all human

>if everything is equal (same mix, master, etc.)
That is the keyword

Vinyl today has better dynamic range than modern CD releases because the masters are different

If identical uncompressed masters are used, then I can't say that the digital source wouldn't be the best one to use

>antiquated technology
digital is done because it's cheap and easy, not because it's better

this was recorded over 50 years ago youtube.com/watch?v=x4i66do8JgI

but of course by the time the original master was dubbed onto an umpteenth generation tape for mass-duplication, it wasn't going to sound nearly as good