Vinyl v. Polycarbonate v. Silicon v. magnetic disc/tape v. ...

[Bryn]

Since we are still just about in 'silly season', let's hear arguments in favour and against various alternative playback options.

I favour polycarbonate discs for a combination of convenience, relative durability and presentation (packaging), silicon for compactness and portability, and magnetic disc for bulk storage. Vinyl, with its RIAA curves, questionable pressings, surface noise, etc. you can keep, except where no alternative exists.

How about others?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Anything solid, unaffected by magnetic fields. It looks like polycarbonate.

[mikealdren]

As an engineer, I know that analogue can ultimately sound better (no conversion to digital and back) but digital recording and technology has moved on a lot since CDs were introduced and my once 'high end' LP playback system and old LPs don't really compare with a high quality modern CD system even ignoring the extraneous noises.

However I no longer use polycarbonate beyond ripping to computer. My new (non CD) playback system sounds better and gives vastly better 'instant' access from a catalogue.

During the conversion I did also find a few CDs that no longer play but only a handful in 2,600.

[Dave2002]

As an engineer, I know that analogue can ultimately sound better (no conversion to digital and back) but digital recording and technology has moved on a lot since CDs were introduced and my once 'high end' LP playback system and old LPs don't really compare with a high quality modern CD system even ignoring the extraneous noises.

You are right, in so far as the digitisation process introduces a very small amount of additional noise, but analogue circuitry has to be at a very high level of quality in order for it overall to outperform well recorded digital recordings. Also, some techniques which are available using digital methods should give digital recordings an advantage - though that takes us into a discussion of recording techniques and theory. Some "purists" may prefer simpler methods and analogue recordings. Also, since around 1970 the majority of recordings have been made using digital techniques, so converting the digital masters back to an analogue format will make things worse.

Magnetic or solid state memory devices can store a lot of music in a very small space, so can be very useful for archiving, and clearly some users are less bothered about having a physical object containing the musical content.

I tend to prefer polycarbonate, but with solid state or magnetic hard drives as backups, and also for convenience with a digital player. I rather like having CDs which I can load, and also use in different players, plus I don't think giving downloads as gifts feels the same as presenting someone with a CD or box set.

Mostly I don't rate vinyl, and I don't have a system which can do vinyl full justice. However, I do think that if money is no object that there are some recordings which are better in their vinyl formats than in supposedly equivalent digital ones. That wouldn't normally be the case, but some masterings to CD or DVD of older material are just not good enough.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Also, since around 1970 the majority of recordings have been made using digital techniques. . .

Well, not really. Digital technology had been developing very gradually since the late 1930s, but only really got going in the very late '70s.

[richardfinegold]

My take on the current 'Vinyl Revival' is that many people are getting swept up in the wave of nostalgia of buying records. Many records are reportedly being bought by people that have no way to play them. As they explore actually getting a way to play them back, there will be a brief infatuation, but ultimately the disadvantages ofthe format will re manifest itself and as the nostalgia and hipster value recedes, so willthe resurgence of interest in the format

[Old Grumpy]

My take on the current 'Vinyl Revival' is that many people are getting swept up in the wave of nostalgia of buying records. Many records are reportedly being bought by people that have no way to play them. As they explore actually getting a way to play them back, there will be a brief infatuation, but ultimately the disadvantages ofthe format will re manifest itself and as the nostalgia and hipster value recedes, so willthe resurgence of interest in the format

Tend to agree - don't see what all the fuss is about!

DOI - not a hipster (but do have a beard!)

OG

P.S. Not an engineer either

[Dave2002]

Tend to agree - don't see what all the fuss is about!

DOI - not a hipster (but do have a beard!)

OG

P.S. Not an engineer either

I also tend to agree, with a few caveats.

I have done direct comparisons between some CDs and LPs, but a long while ago. LPs have all the disadvantages of surface noise, rumble (due to the turntable etc.) and possible distortion, but some claim that they can sound better, or "warmer". I didn't try too many comparisons, but when I did I was slightly surprised to find that tonally there was virtually no difference between the CD and LP on my equipment. I was also able to switch directly between the CD and LP while listening and I think I also did a check with another person to see if we could detect any differeences. We couldn't. Of course any clicks would have immediately given the game away.

However, I still think there are some recordings where the CD mastering is not good, and LPs might be capable of providing better results - but at a relatively huge price.
If I ever do play any LPs again (which seems increasingly less likely) I'll almost certainly try to digitise them to the best quality level I can manage, and then leave the LPs alone. That would really only be worthwhile for a small proportion of recordings.

What is DOI?

[mikealdren]

I've been surprised at:
1. How much some old recordings have been improved by digital editing.
2. How good some early CDs sound now I have better equipment.
3. How bad some CD transfers have been, especially cheap LP to CD transfers.

[Dave2002]

I've been surprised at:
1. How much some old recordings have been improved by digital editing.
2. How good some early CDs sound now I have better equipment.
3. How bad some CD transfers have been, especially cheap LP to CD transfers.

Andrew Rose of Pristine would seem to agree with you - http://www.soundonsound.com/techniqu...old-recordings and I'd say that some of his remasterings are better than most. I still have a suspicion that the original discs could sound better in some circumstances though, although for many people Andrew's remasterings will be good enough, particularly if they don't happen to have originals to compare with.

It can be quite a lot of faff trying to improve SQ using computer restoration techniques, so generally it makes sense for people like Andrew to do it, and for us to buy the results of their efforts. Similar issues apply to photo editing and also to video editing, which can be enormously time consuming. It's only really worth doing if the original recorded performances had significant merit, or if someone really wants it done and is prepared to pay. Some people may be able to do it themselves and will discount the pain if the material is important to them (particularly for photos and videos - e.g. family photos etc.).

[Old Grumpy]

What is DOI?

Declaration of interest

OG

[richardfinegold]

I've been surprised at:
1. How much some old recordings have been improved by digital editing.
2. How good some early CDs sound now I have better equipment.
3. How bad some CD transfers have been, especially cheap LP to CD transfers.

My experience exactly

[teamsaint]

The thing about comparing vinyl with CD or download is that you really aren't comparing like with like.
A great deal of rock , pop and Jazz was recorded specifically for the format. The time restrictions, layout, sound, packaging of the album were often an essential part of the of the creation . So for instance, track ordering was considered in relation to a two sided medium, lasting about up to about 22 minutes per side.to take the music away from that medium is to run the risk of losing something of the original. In terms of enjoying an album I tend to find that the inevitable "bonus material" on a CD, though desirable in one sense, can easily be something of a negative.
much classical ( pre 1955 and post 1990) music doesn't really suffer in the same way from the change of medium.

In the end, it really depends what experience you want. if it is all about perfect sound reproduction, ( as far as that is possible) then vinyl will likely lose out 99% of the time. But if it isn't all about that, or at least not every time you listen, then other formats still have a place.
also, something that is being added is the recreation ( or possibility of recreation) of a different listening experience for a generation that has grown up with wall to wall seamless music, other peoples playlists , "recommended for you", effortless consumption that is great in its way, but might lack an element of considered choice, contemplation of the artistic whole, and , for example, an effort that reflects in some very pale way, the creative efforts at the musicians' end of the process.