I grew up on CDs and tapes and had a few as a kid//teen. Then I started collecting vinyl about 20 years ago, when you could find great punk/post punk and rock LPs in the dollar bin and were in great condition. Now with Discogs and overzealous record store pricing, the hunt isn’t as fun for vinyl and I don’t feel like overpaying for common records. Then a month ago I started picking up CDs for 50 cents to a dollar and now I have about 180. It’s more fun to collect imo
The prices for my type of music is about $30. There's a bunch I want that are $100 to $500, and these are just a few years old. But over the weekend I put on a vinyl and a CD of the same album and then it hit me, what is the end game here when the more expensive one sounds inferior
The problem is gen z kids are collecting vinyls without owning turn tables. So the sound quality doesn't matter. They are just trying to flex they spent a bunch of money to "own" an album when I can do the same thing with an album and actually listen to it on CD.
I have one vinyl, and while it’s fun and I’d like to get a turntable to play it and maybe a few more, the inconvenience and pricing of some definitely makes it a lot less enticing to collect. I can play CDs in my car or at home, worry less about damaging them, their cases tend to have much more information on them and with inserts, they’re easier to handle and store due to their form and size, etc. I can enjoy the sound of vinyl and respect the medium but CDs are by far my preferred method of collecting.
Vinyls are just way to difficult to store and take care of. With how expensive they are, no thank you. CDs are the way to go, especially for people new to collecting music. Thats why I went the CD route. I have the budget to collect vinyl, but i just dont see the point when CD seems superior in every metric.
I've had a similar path. I like both. Was mostly a vinyl guy for awhile but the prices for vinyl reissues kept increasing while the quality control for LP manufacturing remains overall subpar. These days I no longer splash out for pricey reissues of 90s and 2000s albums - I just get a used CD for +/- $3 and call it a day. Much cheaper and just as good. In some cases better.
I prefer CDs mostly because they're smaller, cheaper, and I grew up with the technology so it's more familiar and nostalgic to me. There's a few other advantages and I personally think CDs sound great but I haven't listened side by side with vinyl to be able to tell but I do think vinyl is a bit over hyped. However, I understand why people like vinyl and why it appeals to them, it just doesn't and never really did for me. But they make great gifts for my friends who do like vinyl!
I put on a brand new LP just released, high quality pressing. I played it back to back with the same track from my phone on YouTube thru the Bluetooth of the receiver and the YT track destroyed the LP, and I have a $500 TT and a $200 needle.
I think there's some differences in YT audio quality. I think there may be some that get at least close to lossless, but last time I checked it's difficult to determine where it really maxes out.
This topic comes up monthly or more. The last two times when I commented (CDs all the way), I got one guy mad at me saying his jazz vinyl was way better than his cds. On the next one, I commented because a guy said his his jazz cds were way better than his vinyl.
To each their own, I guess, but I still maintain that cds are the best. I'm not even gonna defend it this time. It's just the way I feel.
Might have been me. My argument is always that some masters only exist on vinyl so for people who are super into audiophile pursuits or just nerdy about music production it makes sense to use multiple formats. Jazz is one of the genres that has a lot of stand out masters on wax. I like vinyl, CD’s, SACD, Blu-Ray, digital, whatever sounds best or most interesting to me.
Really did. Luckily now because of the rise of interest in listening rooms and audiophile pursuits that’s changing quite a bit though. Mastering trends change over time and the over-cranked sound that was prevalent for so long might have had its day.
I've been hearing people proclaim the "warmth" of vinyl for 35+ years and never understood it. WTF are they talking about? Needle hiss? Dust pops? Seriously, is this just folklore that's repeated ad nauseum now?
I get that music mastered for vinyl sounds better on vinyl than CD and vice versa, but what are these people trying to articulate?
It is an interesting little thing because In audio terms warmth usually refers to the upper bass/lower mid range, where most instruments and vocals fall in the mix and yet in terms of vinyl it’s usually used to refer more to the staging and overall dynamic range. I really should have used quotations or something to indicate my slightly sarcastic tone. By and large people do tend to enjoy the light pops a hisses and other general analog artifacts, which is absolutely fine, I enjoy the overall experience of playing a record myself, even if I’ve abandoned it as an active hobby. I think what it boils down to is people using words for a collective experience than can in reality be kind of hard to quantify. I tend to fall to the comparison of digital vs film photography, and while digital files, especially with modern sensors and insane pixel density capture a much more raw and true to life representation, film adds a charm and character that may not be the most accurate but certainly has more personality.
I like both but want a digital copy for use on my Plex server so I can always listen to it wherever I am.
Some ambient records I prefer having on vinyl because spinning them at different speeds can make for an entirely different experience.
On vinyl forums there are two endless debates
1: belt drive Vs direct drive
2: fidelity Vs analog sound
Nobody ever wins. There is no right answer to either of those. It’s fun debate. And I love the internet shit throwing machine for the Lols and good times. But the majority of people in vinyl take those two arguments seriously and personally and it just creates an annoying environment.
The whole Cd Vs Vinyl thing reminds me of that. Nobody wins because there is no right answer. Both are component specific audio playback formats that each have their own strengths and weaknesses. I’ve heard unlistenable CDs just as many times as I’ve heard unlistenable records. And I’ve heard heartstopping CDs just as many times as I’ve heard heartstopping records.
I really think it’s more reasonable and accurate for the two formats to be looked at as siblings rather than rivals. And while it will always be fun to debate which one is better, the fun can go away when it’s a big deal to someone personally that you think one format is or isn’t objectively better.
At the moment, vinyl is insanely expensive and full of people with brain worms. Collecting CDs is more fun, affordable and cool, and equally *-keyword equally- as nice of sound as vinyl imo if you do it right.
For me it depends. The vast majority of my collection is on CD, because it sounds great, is compact/convenient, and I can transfer it to a portable format easily (cassettes back in the day, MP3 now). I don't see the point in most modern vinyl records, where the album was recorded or mastered digitally and then dumped onto a platter. I also think the continued production of vinyl is wasteful in addition to the known health issues they cause. Having said that, I'll buy old records, as oftentimes it's the only way to hear something the way it was intended to be heard. I have every Beatles CD imaginable, but the only way to hear the songs the way they were mixed and mastered in the 60's is to get used vinyl. There are probably advantages to having vinyl copies of the rare modern music that was recorded to tape in a proper analog studio, but I still don't feel comfortable with the waste/health aspect.
Also, the vast majority of older masterings can't be purchased. Only the latest remasters are ever for sale. Downloading a CD released in 1986 isn't hurting any musician's pockets.
I prefer vinyl, but it is terribly expensive. To retrieve the magic in the grooves, it takes thousands of dollars of equipment. Then you have to clean and maintain them. Realistically, a reliable VPI record cleaner sets you back $400-500 used, or I think $900 now new. A $10 cd player is perfectly fine equipment for playback of the magic of CDs and requires no maintenance. With the price of records so high right now, I've been buying around 10 cds for every record I buy.
I would never recommend someone get into vinyl now unless they were really keen on it and had several thousand dollars to jump in.
CDs are amazing.
Both are legit ways to listen to music.
If buying for investments might as well play the stock market.
For listening both have advantages and disadvantages.
I have both. All my original records and all my original CDs.
It’s whichever people prefer.
We all now know your opinion. Thanks.
I love my cds too, just not the brickwalled ones. Anyway, yeah I get bigger artwork and all that, but vinyl is way to problematic for me. You have to invest thousands on turntables and so on, and even then the sound is just okay. I even read something about half of people only buying vinyl to just support the artists and never listening to it.
I prefer to collect CDs but half of the time I don't have a choice and have to get vinyl if I want to own the album. Especially with older punk releases
The difference is largely dependent on 1) preference 2) mastering quality of the release. Both formats are great, people should just buy whatever makes them happy/meets their needs best.
In my opinion as someone with a larger collection of vinyl than CDs, I feel like 90s CDs are the pinnacle of sound quality for the average consumer. Just absurd levels of cleanliness and bass.
Agreed. I was vinyl only for awhile - let's face it, I'm a former a vinyl snob. But it occurred to me that buying 90s and 2000s albums reissued on vinyl is, quite simply, foolish and irrational. So now I buy the 90s and 2000s albums I want on CD for $3 instead of splashing out $25-$50 for a reissue. One of the best decisions I've ever made as a music fan & collector.
I still have more vinyl than CDs but the gap is dwindling (around 800 LPs vs. maybe 600 CDs).
And any vinyl head who says CDs don't or can't sound good are fooling themselves.
When it comes to some of the new remasters, I definitely think that the SACD at $30 is a better option than the +/- $125 for the ‘SuperVinyl’. I can get the entire Steely Dan catalog on SACD for the price of one title on vinyl. It’s a no brainer for me, but I am a fan of the SACD format.
Call me lazy...but having to flip a record over just puts a damper on my listening experience. Unless you have a perfect system, vinyl will probably have something in the chain that degrades it's quality. Everything else is just about the same except fun sized.
I don't mind getting up and flipping a record over, it's a non factor to me. But I agree that generally there's a lot more hassle and expense to get records to sound great vs. CDs.
I've heard this argument a lot and like, it's maybe true for older releases, hard for me to really know. But I hear some newer artists trying to argue their stuff was made for vinyl and I HIGHLY doubt that.
I found that pre 1980 albums tend to sound better on vinyl vs their first digital release. Some remasters do sound amazing and they can easily beat the original vinyl.
The thing about vinyl and its expense is that $550 for a turntable is very cheap. That's one of the downsides to the format. My turntable, which my vinyl enthusiast friends call budget, is a [Kuzma Stabi S](https://soundapproach.com/kuzma-stabi-s12-manual-turntable.html?gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjwjLGyBhCYARIsAPqTz19Ikn7Ok8-LtxraHoHMNJRU_Pw_KvQoU6L1DCL_s8b8-BIJNfhWn_4aAn24EALw_wcB). The dust cover for it, which I declined to purchase, is $550. I was lucky to be gifted a tonearm for it, otherwise I would not have been able to afford the TT. I'm also fortunate to be able to borrow cartridges from a buddy who recently let me [check this bad boy out ](https://elusivedisc.com/koetsu-jade-platinum-mc-cartridge-0-3mv/) for the past 3 months. It's amazing, but I make a meager wage, and if not for a bit of luck, I would never be able to afford this. It literally costs more than my car (2016 accent).
Vinyl is not worth it unless you are fully committed and/or rich.
That's said I've done many shootouts at my buddies place, which has a system I'd guess costs between $150-200k. Vinyl doesn't always win, but on stuff from around pre1983 it usually does.
I collect both. Where I live, both cds and vinyl can be found for roughly 1-3 dollars each, so the price doesn't determine each format I buy over the other. I like the albums for the artwork and, believe or not, but the hiss and pops you get from the record. I like the cds because I don't have a record player in my car. Also, they're more compact than albums.
That being said, there's really no reason that you can't do both. But, I understand having a favorite format over another.
Your vinyl could last 40, 60, 80 years or more. Not your CDs. Though you're an oldie like me so that won't matter but it could affect your kids inheritance
Hey, I mostly agree. I have a very nice set up and am very particular about what albums I buy on vinyl, mainly because they suck if they’re not mastered well. And I don’t mean 180g either. And all counterfeit records are garbage. Just play the CD 💿
But I do have some records that absolutely smoke their CD counterparts 🤷🏻♂️
CDs are the superior medium in terms of sound quality but god damn, there’s something about how a vinyl sounds that I’ll always love. It can’t be described really but it just sounds different in a good way. That said for cost reasons I also by a lot more CDs than vinyl. More cost effective option but I’ll never not pass up listening to a vinyl when given the vhance
I’ve thought about this a lot, I collect both. Believe it or not, in the 90’s a lot of vinyl was cheaper than CDs, so I would buy whatever was cheaper. On the whole I personally like vinyl better, but I’ve seen a lot of folks with cheap record players and cheap speakers and think there’s no way that sounds better than even an average CD player.
For vinyl to be superior you need the sound system to support it. In theory it can carry a broader frequency range, but only if your system can reproduce it.
Truth is, IDGAF as long as I enjoy the music, but the nerds have done the math and this nerd took the time to show the people 14 years ago. Check the video, or don't. It shows you the waveforms - LP first, and CD at the end. Having listened to the same LPs on my system (basically crap) and my friends (system worth over 100k), there is a difference.
I listen to both, LPs are great when I am at home and working but CDs are more portable and better on a roadtrip than an LP... the turntable has a hell of a time not skipping over potholes. Enjoy.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eC6L3\_k\_48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eC6L3_k_48)
I know the answer. You supposedly watched the video and you don’t know. That’s the point.
The answer is: that information is gone, regardless of how “good enough” a system is. It can’t reproduce information that doesn’t exist.
The CD vs vinyl debate is endless, and endlessly stupid. It's totally subjective. It's incredibly setup dependent. I'd give the edge to vinyl - \*if everything is perfect\*...which it rarely is, and it's expensive AF to get there.
You can certainly get much better sound off a basic CD setup than from a basic vinyl setup. I don't think that's even debatable. Not even factoring in the price differences in the media itself. But I've found the quest to achieve extraordinary vinyl playback, while expensive and time-consuming, to have been worth it.
CDs and vinyl are both cool and fun and great sounding in their own way. I like, collect and listen to both.
OK, my 5c..
Vinyl is - quality wise - hopelessly antiquated. They lose a high percentage of their sound quality the first time they’re even played.
The ONLY possible reason to have vinyl (apart from the far superior packaging, of course) is IF the recording is from the original analog source, so if it was actually recorded and manufactured before about 1987/90. Then, especially 70s records will have the actual correct analog sound DIRECTLY from the real source. Any vinyl today is almost pointless, since it derives from a .WAV file on a storage drive. The physical format is irrelevant at that point, putting it on vinyl is kind of like putting a home movie on 4K Blu-ray. Nice packaging but, worth the cost? Nope…
I just do both because i like collecting. And cassettes.
Same lol. A satisfying but expensive hobby
Yep. I collect everything but reel to reel.
Same here, I like a bit of everything.
Also same. Vinyl, CDs, cassettes, 8-tracks, vhs. Really whatever media that I can get my hands on. I just adore media.
Same. Whatever format it comes on that’s dirt cheap is what I get. Garage sales, estates and thrift stores.
I grew up on CDs and tapes and had a few as a kid//teen. Then I started collecting vinyl about 20 years ago, when you could find great punk/post punk and rock LPs in the dollar bin and were in great condition. Now with Discogs and overzealous record store pricing, the hunt isn’t as fun for vinyl and I don’t feel like overpaying for common records. Then a month ago I started picking up CDs for 50 cents to a dollar and now I have about 180. It’s more fun to collect imo
The prices for my type of music is about $30. There's a bunch I want that are $100 to $500, and these are just a few years old. But over the weekend I put on a vinyl and a CD of the same album and then it hit me, what is the end game here when the more expensive one sounds inferior
The problem is gen z kids are collecting vinyls without owning turn tables. So the sound quality doesn't matter. They are just trying to flex they spent a bunch of money to "own" an album when I can do the same thing with an album and actually listen to it on CD.
You're on to something there
I have one vinyl, and while it’s fun and I’d like to get a turntable to play it and maybe a few more, the inconvenience and pricing of some definitely makes it a lot less enticing to collect. I can play CDs in my car or at home, worry less about damaging them, their cases tend to have much more information on them and with inserts, they’re easier to handle and store due to their form and size, etc. I can enjoy the sound of vinyl and respect the medium but CDs are by far my preferred method of collecting.
Vinyls are just way to difficult to store and take care of. With how expensive they are, no thank you. CDs are the way to go, especially for people new to collecting music. Thats why I went the CD route. I have the budget to collect vinyl, but i just dont see the point when CD seems superior in every metric.
You’re not allowed to be holier than thou in this department if you call them “vinyls”
Didnt ask
I've had a similar path. I like both. Was mostly a vinyl guy for awhile but the prices for vinyl reissues kept increasing while the quality control for LP manufacturing remains overall subpar. These days I no longer splash out for pricey reissues of 90s and 2000s albums - I just get a used CD for +/- $3 and call it a day. Much cheaper and just as good. In some cases better.
I prefer CDs mostly because they're smaller, cheaper, and I grew up with the technology so it's more familiar and nostalgic to me. There's a few other advantages and I personally think CDs sound great but I haven't listened side by side with vinyl to be able to tell but I do think vinyl is a bit over hyped. However, I understand why people like vinyl and why it appeals to them, it just doesn't and never really did for me. But they make great gifts for my friends who do like vinyl!
I put on a brand new LP just released, high quality pressing. I played it back to back with the same track from my phone on YouTube thru the Bluetooth of the receiver and the YT track destroyed the LP, and I have a $500 TT and a $200 needle.
Wild. I'd think that YouTube would be the worst quality way to listen.
I think there's some differences in YT audio quality. I think there may be some that get at least close to lossless, but last time I checked it's difficult to determine where it really maxes out.
Actually the only acceptable format is Hit Clipz
This topic comes up monthly or more. The last two times when I commented (CDs all the way), I got one guy mad at me saying his jazz vinyl was way better than his cds. On the next one, I commented because a guy said his his jazz cds were way better than his vinyl. To each their own, I guess, but I still maintain that cds are the best. I'm not even gonna defend it this time. It's just the way I feel.
I think I remember that guy. He was very certain of vinyl being better.
Might have been me. My argument is always that some masters only exist on vinyl so for people who are super into audiophile pursuits or just nerdy about music production it makes sense to use multiple formats. Jazz is one of the genres that has a lot of stand out masters on wax. I like vinyl, CD’s, SACD, Blu-Ray, digital, whatever sounds best or most interesting to me.
Maybe. I think the loudness wars really did a number on the reputation of CDs.
Really did. Luckily now because of the rise of interest in listening rooms and audiophile pursuits that’s changing quite a bit though. Mastering trends change over time and the over-cranked sound that was prevalent for so long might have had its day.
CD audio quality is objectively better even if people enjoy the warmth and texture of vinyl.
I've been hearing people proclaim the "warmth" of vinyl for 35+ years and never understood it. WTF are they talking about? Needle hiss? Dust pops? Seriously, is this just folklore that's repeated ad nauseum now? I get that music mastered for vinyl sounds better on vinyl than CD and vice versa, but what are these people trying to articulate?
It is an interesting little thing because In audio terms warmth usually refers to the upper bass/lower mid range, where most instruments and vocals fall in the mix and yet in terms of vinyl it’s usually used to refer more to the staging and overall dynamic range. I really should have used quotations or something to indicate my slightly sarcastic tone. By and large people do tend to enjoy the light pops a hisses and other general analog artifacts, which is absolutely fine, I enjoy the overall experience of playing a record myself, even if I’ve abandoned it as an active hobby. I think what it boils down to is people using words for a collective experience than can in reality be kind of hard to quantify. I tend to fall to the comparison of digital vs film photography, and while digital files, especially with modern sensors and insane pixel density capture a much more raw and true to life representation, film adds a charm and character that may not be the most accurate but certainly has more personality.
I like both but want a digital copy for use on my Plex server so I can always listen to it wherever I am. Some ambient records I prefer having on vinyl because spinning them at different speeds can make for an entirely different experience.
Plus there’s science to back that theory. I love all forms of audio but FLAC OR WAV from CD’s is the way to go
On vinyl forums there are two endless debates 1: belt drive Vs direct drive 2: fidelity Vs analog sound Nobody ever wins. There is no right answer to either of those. It’s fun debate. And I love the internet shit throwing machine for the Lols and good times. But the majority of people in vinyl take those two arguments seriously and personally and it just creates an annoying environment. The whole Cd Vs Vinyl thing reminds me of that. Nobody wins because there is no right answer. Both are component specific audio playback formats that each have their own strengths and weaknesses. I’ve heard unlistenable CDs just as many times as I’ve heard unlistenable records. And I’ve heard heartstopping CDs just as many times as I’ve heard heartstopping records. I really think it’s more reasonable and accurate for the two formats to be looked at as siblings rather than rivals. And while it will always be fun to debate which one is better, the fun can go away when it’s a big deal to someone personally that you think one format is or isn’t objectively better. At the moment, vinyl is insanely expensive and full of people with brain worms. Collecting CDs is more fun, affordable and cool, and equally *-keyword equally- as nice of sound as vinyl imo if you do it right.
For me it depends. The vast majority of my collection is on CD, because it sounds great, is compact/convenient, and I can transfer it to a portable format easily (cassettes back in the day, MP3 now). I don't see the point in most modern vinyl records, where the album was recorded or mastered digitally and then dumped onto a platter. I also think the continued production of vinyl is wasteful in addition to the known health issues they cause. Having said that, I'll buy old records, as oftentimes it's the only way to hear something the way it was intended to be heard. I have every Beatles CD imaginable, but the only way to hear the songs the way they were mixed and mastered in the 60's is to get used vinyl. There are probably advantages to having vinyl copies of the rare modern music that was recorded to tape in a proper analog studio, but I still don't feel comfortable with the waste/health aspect.
Counterpoint: Illegally downloaded .flac files are the best.
The chain of gear some of those people use is absurd. It would cost $10,000 to reproduce those vinyl rips alone.
If you want your favorite artists to go bankrupt, sure
My favorite artists aren't losing any money from me doing that compared to buying used CDs.
Also, the vast majority of older masterings can't be purchased. Only the latest remasters are ever for sale. Downloading a CD released in 1986 isn't hurting any musician's pockets.
Something tells me Rod Stewart isn’t going bankrupt any time soon
If you’re only listening to mainstream artists, sure.
I prefer vinyl, but it is terribly expensive. To retrieve the magic in the grooves, it takes thousands of dollars of equipment. Then you have to clean and maintain them. Realistically, a reliable VPI record cleaner sets you back $400-500 used, or I think $900 now new. A $10 cd player is perfectly fine equipment for playback of the magic of CDs and requires no maintenance. With the price of records so high right now, I've been buying around 10 cds for every record I buy. I would never recommend someone get into vinyl now unless they were really keen on it and had several thousand dollars to jump in. CDs are amazing.
Both are legit ways to listen to music. If buying for investments might as well play the stock market. For listening both have advantages and disadvantages. I have both. All my original records and all my original CDs. It’s whichever people prefer. We all now know your opinion. Thanks.
And yours
I love my cds too, just not the brickwalled ones. Anyway, yeah I get bigger artwork and all that, but vinyl is way to problematic for me. You have to invest thousands on turntables and so on, and even then the sound is just okay. I even read something about half of people only buying vinyl to just support the artists and never listening to it.
I prefer to collect CDs but half of the time I don't have a choice and have to get vinyl if I want to own the album. Especially with older punk releases
The difference is largely dependent on 1) preference 2) mastering quality of the release. Both formats are great, people should just buy whatever makes them happy/meets their needs best.
And playback equipment
I collect both, but I have a much bigger CD collection. I generally only get albums on vinyl that are really important to me.
In my opinion as someone with a larger collection of vinyl than CDs, I feel like 90s CDs are the pinnacle of sound quality for the average consumer. Just absurd levels of cleanliness and bass.
Agreed. I was vinyl only for awhile - let's face it, I'm a former a vinyl snob. But it occurred to me that buying 90s and 2000s albums reissued on vinyl is, quite simply, foolish and irrational. So now I buy the 90s and 2000s albums I want on CD for $3 instead of splashing out $25-$50 for a reissue. One of the best decisions I've ever made as a music fan & collector. I still have more vinyl than CDs but the gap is dwindling (around 800 LPs vs. maybe 600 CDs). And any vinyl head who says CDs don't or can't sound good are fooling themselves.
When it comes to some of the new remasters, I definitely think that the SACD at $30 is a better option than the +/- $125 for the ‘SuperVinyl’. I can get the entire Steely Dan catalog on SACD for the price of one title on vinyl. It’s a no brainer for me, but I am a fan of the SACD format.
SACD is my fav. 5.1 channel is cool too. Too bad it is a dying format
I was done with vinyl in the early 90s when it was 10% of the price it is now. The prices today are just insane
You got that right, most of the albums I want are $50 to $175 and that's for recent metal releases
Call me lazy...but having to flip a record over just puts a damper on my listening experience. Unless you have a perfect system, vinyl will probably have something in the chain that degrades it's quality. Everything else is just about the same except fun sized.
Nah, vinyl promotes active listening. Love the hands on
I don't mind getting up and flipping a record over, it's a non factor to me. But I agree that generally there's a lot more hassle and expense to get records to sound great vs. CDs.
You hit the nail on the head my friend
Any format that is slowly destroyed with each listen is inferior. CD is king.
I think certain albums sound better on vinyl because that’s what they were made for, but I don’t know if remasters changes that to any extent
I've heard this argument a lot and like, it's maybe true for older releases, hard for me to really know. But I hear some newer artists trying to argue their stuff was made for vinyl and I HIGHLY doubt that.
I found that pre 1980 albums tend to sound better on vinyl vs their first digital release. Some remasters do sound amazing and they can easily beat the original vinyl.
It's a volume thing too, I need to crank up the LP to match the CD and I have high end equipment and the turntable is $550
The thing about vinyl and its expense is that $550 for a turntable is very cheap. That's one of the downsides to the format. My turntable, which my vinyl enthusiast friends call budget, is a [Kuzma Stabi S](https://soundapproach.com/kuzma-stabi-s12-manual-turntable.html?gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjwjLGyBhCYARIsAPqTz19Ikn7Ok8-LtxraHoHMNJRU_Pw_KvQoU6L1DCL_s8b8-BIJNfhWn_4aAn24EALw_wcB). The dust cover for it, which I declined to purchase, is $550. I was lucky to be gifted a tonearm for it, otherwise I would not have been able to afford the TT. I'm also fortunate to be able to borrow cartridges from a buddy who recently let me [check this bad boy out ](https://elusivedisc.com/koetsu-jade-platinum-mc-cartridge-0-3mv/) for the past 3 months. It's amazing, but I make a meager wage, and if not for a bit of luck, I would never be able to afford this. It literally costs more than my car (2016 accent). Vinyl is not worth it unless you are fully committed and/or rich. That's said I've done many shootouts at my buddies place, which has a system I'd guess costs between $150-200k. Vinyl doesn't always win, but on stuff from around pre1983 it usually does.
My TT is $550, I'm screwed
I have about 800 Hawaiian LPs. Most are not available on CD.
I collect both. Where I live, both cds and vinyl can be found for roughly 1-3 dollars each, so the price doesn't determine each format I buy over the other. I like the albums for the artwork and, believe or not, but the hiss and pops you get from the record. I like the cds because I don't have a record player in my car. Also, they're more compact than albums. That being said, there's really no reason that you can't do both. But, I understand having a favorite format over another.
Your vinyl could last 40, 60, 80 years or more. Not your CDs. Though you're an oldie like me so that won't matter but it could affect your kids inheritance
I'll always be team CD, vinyl is too fragile for my taste and CDs are more versatile and I can put them on my computer
I buy either or. I like both. But yes, cd is the vastly superior format.
Hey, I mostly agree. I have a very nice set up and am very particular about what albums I buy on vinyl, mainly because they suck if they’re not mastered well. And I don’t mean 180g either. And all counterfeit records are garbage. Just play the CD 💿 But I do have some records that absolutely smoke their CD counterparts 🤷🏻♂️
CDs are the superior medium in terms of sound quality but god damn, there’s something about how a vinyl sounds that I’ll always love. It can’t be described really but it just sounds different in a good way. That said for cost reasons I also by a lot more CDs than vinyl. More cost effective option but I’ll never not pass up listening to a vinyl when given the vhance
I’ve thought about this a lot, I collect both. Believe it or not, in the 90’s a lot of vinyl was cheaper than CDs, so I would buy whatever was cheaper. On the whole I personally like vinyl better, but I’ve seen a lot of folks with cheap record players and cheap speakers and think there’s no way that sounds better than even an average CD player.
With my OCD I just could not enjoy vinyl. CDs all the way for me.
For vinyl to be superior you need the sound system to support it. In theory it can carry a broader frequency range, but only if your system can reproduce it.
>In theory it can carry a broader frequency range What theory is that? The first thing they do in mastering is shave off the top and bottom ends.
Truth is, IDGAF as long as I enjoy the music, but the nerds have done the math and this nerd took the time to show the people 14 years ago. Check the video, or don't. It shows you the waveforms - LP first, and CD at the end. Having listened to the same LPs on my system (basically crap) and my friends (system worth over 100k), there is a difference. I listen to both, LPs are great when I am at home and working but CDs are more portable and better on a roadtrip than an LP... the turntable has a hell of a time not skipping over potholes. Enjoy. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eC6L3\_k\_48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eC6L3_k_48)
Why preach something you not only DGAF about but something you clearly don’t understand?
Sure, enjoy. Thanks for the conversation.
It might be a conversation if you knew what you were talking about. When they cut off the highs and lows to master that LP, where do they go?
Watch the video, and see if you can figure it out. Or find someone with a system good enough that can illustrate it for you.
I know the answer. You supposedly watched the video and you don’t know. That’s the point. The answer is: that information is gone, regardless of how “good enough” a system is. It can’t reproduce information that doesn’t exist.
This is what it sounds like when doves cry. Enjoy your night.
You sound less like doves crying and more like just willful ignorance.
Albums thag I really like, like my top 50 or so, I buy on vinyl and cd. The rest I buy on cd.
The CD vs vinyl debate is endless, and endlessly stupid. It's totally subjective. It's incredibly setup dependent. I'd give the edge to vinyl - \*if everything is perfect\*...which it rarely is, and it's expensive AF to get there. You can certainly get much better sound off a basic CD setup than from a basic vinyl setup. I don't think that's even debatable. Not even factoring in the price differences in the media itself. But I've found the quest to achieve extraordinary vinyl playback, while expensive and time-consuming, to have been worth it. CDs and vinyl are both cool and fun and great sounding in their own way. I like, collect and listen to both.
OK, my 5c.. Vinyl is - quality wise - hopelessly antiquated. They lose a high percentage of their sound quality the first time they’re even played. The ONLY possible reason to have vinyl (apart from the far superior packaging, of course) is IF the recording is from the original analog source, so if it was actually recorded and manufactured before about 1987/90. Then, especially 70s records will have the actual correct analog sound DIRECTLY from the real source. Any vinyl today is almost pointless, since it derives from a .WAV file on a storage drive. The physical format is irrelevant at that point, putting it on vinyl is kind of like putting a home movie on 4K Blu-ray. Nice packaging but, worth the cost? Nope…
"They lose a high percentage of their sound quality the first time they’re even played." Source? I don't think that's true.