vinyl vs. cd

[Annabelle 0]

which do you prefer & why?

[ArkhamGlobe 0]

I prefer vinyl, even though I think CDs are more practical. I don't know, I just think vinyl has a certain character (for lack of a better term) that CDs lack.

[snuffbox 0]

I like cds because you can actually listen to them in more than one place.

[Red Baron 0]

where's the cassette love here?

[Toshiaki Koala 0]

Other than nostalgia or whatever, I really can't think of any advantages that vinyl has.

[BUTT 0]

Lots of scenesters will tell you vinyl has a "warmer sound". It's been so long since I've listened to a vinyl record that I can't tell you if they'd be right.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

I've never listened to a record since I started caring about music. I think I had a Fisher Price record player with an Oingo Boingo single around the age of 4.

[gWIL 0]

Vinyl is just much cooler looking. If I really like an album, I try and track down a vinyl copy of it. They never get used, but they look cool.

[Annabelle 0]

most people who don't like the sound of vinyl don't have a good amp...or output to get its optimum value. thus, a lot of the imperfections are compounded.

 

vinyl looks nicer. but thats not all. i noticed someone said they enjoyed cds because of their practicality. and that is the regular answer as to why most prefer cds. but for the greatest listening experience of an album, vinyl si the way to go. firstly, you can't just put a turntable on random & allow it to spit out songs. you must go out of your way to pick an album, and dedicate yourself to it. you must be around, or be paying close enough attention to turn the album over when each side is done. you have to get up, and turn that album over. and in most instances, albums are designed for that feature. especially in the olden days side a & side b have been selected closely. furthermore, most albums from the earlier years in music are a lot more concise in duration. now with cds there is so much extra garbage tacked onto an album because they can. with vinyl, outside of a few double albums, the music goes on for only 30-40+ minutes which is usually what msot great albums come in at. any longer than that the listening experience becomes a lot more laboursome. of course there are exceptions.

 

edit: most suckers now are forced to pay 10 extra bucks for worthless outtakes on a bowie album when they could just go to their vinyl store & find young americans for 2 dollars. it all seems so much more practical to me to get vinyl in that sense. now with ipods, i can detect that cds may eventually go the way of tapes. maybe.

[The Czech Republic 0]

The warmer sound of vinyl is actually a shortcoming of the recording medium, but we love it anyway. I listened to DSotM on vinyl, then CD, and I preferred the vinyl. Also, cover art isn't as compromised, so it's cool from that standpoint. While I prefer vinyl, I just listen to MP3s and CDs, because it's just practical, you know?

 

EDIT: now that you mention iPods making CDs extinct, I really hope it doesn't happen. Even if I put all my music on one, I like to have all my CD cases on a shelf, so I can be proud of them and all that. I can line up my 32 Frank Zappa CDs and say "this is my collection," and it actually exists in a tangible form. oh well

[Annabelle 0]

you can't do that with vinyl? i'm not saying buying music will become extinct. just that cd sales will probably sag more & more. no one says you have to sell your cd collection, either. just that i find purchsing them nowadays to be a fruitless venture.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Oh I can do that as well, and do, with what vinyl I have. I'm just saying.

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

Well, the way it is now with the downloading of music, either for free or for a price (like iTunes and similar programs offers), I see CD sales sinking, but only for bands that are flavor-of-the-month and show little-to-no lasting value. Bands that consistently put out, at the very least, above average releases will still see their CD sales stay steady so long as they keep their fanbase happy and grow, but bands that just cash in on a trend (or the labels use to cash in on a trend) will have their sales plummet.

 

As for vinyl vs. CD...it depends on the music. If the album is of a good length, as Banky said, about 40 minutes or over, and the arrangement of songs is done wisely, I'd certainly imagine vinyl is superior. But if the album is just the band's/performer's songs randomly thrown together with only a small sense of flow, then a CD would be better.

 

I'm still kicking myself for never picking up that vinyl of Kill 'Em All I found a couple years ago at Newbury for $5.

[Guest Coffey]

CD in every way.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

I too prefer cds vastly. They can be listened to straight through just as easily as vinyl. Plus, some albums just have shitty songs that I'd rather skip. I don't think Banky's argument holds water.

 

Especially when I could just run a cd player through a great soundsystem and have it sound excellent anyway. CDs don't deteriorate like vinyl does, they're smaller, cheaper to produce, and they fit in a car stereo.

 

Magnetic tape is the worst fucking medium for holding information ever.

[nl5xsk1 0]

Depends on the genre. Jazz, classic rock, punk & hardcore all sound more 'authentic' (for lack of a better word) on vinyl. It's a more true way of listening to them. Other types of music need the clarity that CDs bring to the table.

 

My biggest issue with records is that it's difficult to transport them, and you're really limited to listening to them at home.

[The Czech Republic 0]

But if the album is just the band's/performer's songs randomly thrown together with only a small sense of flow, then a CD would be better.

If the album is just the band's/performer's songs randomly thrown together, the band is lazy. Treat the album as a whole. I'm not saying every release has to be a rock opera, but a lot of stuff could have better transitions.

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

Czech...for once, I entirely agree with you. Some bands NEED that lack of flow to make the album fit their style (ie. most hardcore and grindcore bands), but most bands just don't think before compiling the tracklisting for their albums. I hate hearing the "epic" song a band puts on their album in the middle, as I feel the "epic" needs to come towards the end to help tie up the album. If it's not the last track, then have it be second to last, and the last track something to sing along to (if it fits the music).

 

But yeah. ZA rules.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Amnesiac's anti-sequencing works because the album is meant to be the antithesis of Kid A; instead of telling a story start to finish, it's just like short little bursts of memories flashing back with no rhyme or reason.

 

That said, I've browsed the backs of a few newer releases, and too many of them have the single as the leadoff track, and then, ostensibly, the songs get weaker as it goes on. That's not an album, that's a really long single. I'm not saying no album can ever put Track 1 out as the single, ever, but at least make them wait a few songs.

 

EDIT: I'm surprised punk bands opt for 7" vinyl citing expenses. I would think that CDs would be much cheaper to mass-produce than vinyl.

[Annabelle 0]

i think vinyl is cheaper to produce than cds. cds don't have better sound than records, either. thats a popular misconception. vinyl are made from the authentic analog tapes from recording sessions. with cds, they are digitalized snapshots that simply cannot capture the authentic sound of said analog.

 

as far as agent's discussion goes. i don't have a car stereo as mine was jacked several months ago. so cds in that respect are useless to me. the conveniance of an ipod has truly rendered the cd useless in every other respect. all one needs to do is forgo the cd player, buy a nice receiver/amp. they can get a jack to hook their ipod up to it. now they have the best of both worlds. in my opinion.

 

not only is listening to vinyl an intimate experience, so is the 30-60 seconds of cleaning it before putting it on. carefully placing the needle down & watching it cut through the grooves. sure the albums deteriorate each time one listens to it, but how outwardly noticeable is it? its a natural sound that isn't as tampered with as all of the numerous remastered & new mixes for classic albums. it just seems more natural. as if i haven't sued the word natural enough.

[Special K 0]

The only time I can tell the difference is with classical music, particularly piano, since I was a fairly decent classical pianist. Vinyl definitely sounds better there. However, I certainly can't listen to vinyl at work.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Special K, did you play any Rachmaninoff?

[Slayer 0]

I can understand wanting to hear material from the vinyl age on vinyl, just to capture the original experience created by an artist/band.

 

On the other side, I couldn't fathom listening to anything from the modern CD age (post-1995 or so) on vinyl.

[Annabelle 0]

but listening to a modern band on vinyl is the original experience. naturally most of the copies will be on the cd format, the aforementioned anolog aspect demonstrates that any album on vinyl is the original experience - and the closest that the listener will get to what the artist/group is attempting to accomplish.

[Skywarp! 0]

A bit off-topic:

 

Am I the only one that is lamenting the rise of the "dual disc?" Sure, one thing that the change from vinyl to CD did was shrink the cover art, but that didn't bother me that much, and it also gave the album art a new form of expression in actually decorating the tangible product itself (which, in several cases, turned out to be quite clever). Now, I feel like if the dual disc catches on, there's going to be even less art in the packaging, as CDs will be rendered bland little crome waffers. If given the choice, I'll choose the standard edition. And besides, it's not essential that EVERY album has the recording process meticulously documented. A lot of artists out there aren't worth the effort, and sometimes pulling back the curtain can just be a bit demistifying.

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

No, you're not. One of my favorite aspects of album art is the art on the CD itself. Many bands take advantage of this and place either their logo (be it one that remains intact, or the logo for that album) on it, a variation on the cover art, or just an interesting way to place the tracklisting. Something should be said about generic CD art, though, like most American Records releases. It gives the album a "classic" feel to it to see a somewhat generic logo with just the tracklisting and song lengths on it.

 

Banky, I agree partially with what you say, about vinyl being the true original experience for bands that record with analog tapes, but with the digital age here, more and more bands record digitally. Plus, with digital editing to be placed onto a CD, bands can alter the sounds, volumes, and other things on the computer and get a crisper sound. Vinyl has its place for certain styles of music (I'd hate to hear old big band swing on CD, and punk/hardcore sounds MUCH better on vinyl than on a CD), but for styles of music where differentiating the different layers is key to the entire experience? The clearer sound with CD and digital recording is much better.

 

As for why punk/hardcore bands still press 7", it's simple: it's actually cheaper to record a vinyl album than it is a CD, oddly enough. Vinyls sell for cheaper since the equipment is outdated, and since the equipment is outdated, that means it's cheaper to use than the modern digital equipment. Plus, as others and I have previously mentioned, punk/hardcore just sounds better on vinyl. That...and most people that listen to punk/hardcore (well, punk at least, and REAL hardcore, like Toxic Narcotic, not that generic Hatebreed-esque style that's popular with suburban kids these days) have less money to spend on albums, so buying vinyl ($5-$10 a pop) vs. buying a CD ($10-$17 a pop) proves to be a better financial decision.

[Murmuring Beast 0]

I bought a Tom Verlaine cassette today and I can't tell whether the quality of the tape is bad or the production is dreadful.

[Special K 0]

Special K, did you play any Rachmaninoff?

 

Never really tried. Grieg is the only composer who stood out, to me, as being brutal to play. Mozart's easily the most fun to play.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Considering the analog approach involves magnetic tape, I really like it less.

 

Mind you, I have recorded a split 7" of shitty punk music in my day, and the process is retarded. Going from reel to reel and all that shit. It's infinitely easier to record something digitally straight to a cd. For my own intents and purposes as sort of an advanced hobbyist when it comes to my own music, I'd much rather plug some midi shit into a laptop. Considering I'm broke as fuck, I'm relegated to a piece of crap 4-track. Black Sabbath style.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Here's a question, speaking of tape: does a mixtape have more sentimental value than a mix CD just because of the recording medium? I can't agree with this. As long as somebody went through the work of compiling the music for me, I'll appreciate the effort. I don't think the fact that the music is on magnetic tape rather than compact disc makes it more special, or heartfelt. I can't romanticize the tape cassette. Vinyl, I can see, because high-quality vinyl is second to none. But tape just sucks.