hemiolacadence

Hello Vinyl Collective,

There is a physical difference between an analog pressed record and a digital one.

 

my iPhone has a big fancy camera. I can take a picture and show you.

Sarcasm dude my number 1 rule is don't hang out with people that do pcp.

Look I came across the wrong way, listen to a digital sources records. I shelled out a ton of money on Revolver. It's a digital remaster the record doesn't sound right you lose sound you're better off with mp3s.

If it's analog it sounds better than both.

I realize people have spent a ton of money I have spent a lot as well, but if you listen without thinking I'm wrong you'll see I'm right. That's all I've done the past year.

That's my point if you collect records you're a faggot. You spend money for that sound, not something that sounds worse that you think is cool. 

 

I don't know if half the products on the market are good. But they're cool. And you are one the douche bags I have to encounter because of this hobby. 

Yea I was drunk sorry there's a lot of hipsters here who buy expensive digital records and I just assumed all of you think it's cool, but I'm sure some of you do.

Talking to myself but example 

 

In the old days the Beatles played fender amps with no distortion and cranked the volume knob until they broke up. 

 

If I play an old Beatles record my speakers physically break up, it's not distortion it doesn't affect the other instruments. The speakers just physically break up.

It might have to start analog I'm not sure. I've complicated this idea the more I've heard different records the only consistent thing is they're analog. 

Studies don't really mean anything. I mean it's what a computer told you. Computer listened to the digital and the analog and computer noticed things humans can quantify but computer can't hear what we can. 

 

It sounds real, I don't think that can be measured.

 

It's basically the way uncompressed audio was purported to be, but I notice such a small difference I use mp3s. 

From a completely "scientific" standpoint or whatever, vinyl is only truly superior to digital when the masters being pressed to vinyl exceed the 44.1khz/16bit standard that CDs are manufactured at. 

 

That said, fuck it, I buy tons of records and CDs. I just like music and I like collecting shit, who cares about the rest?

 

Yea I was thinking about this, but if you listen to analog and the timbre is more real. If it's done right. The digital masters don't sound good, I'd rather listen to a digital copy. It's something to do with how it's pressed. 

 

CDs supposedly have more dynamics, it just doesn't sound as real. Live. If it's done right and I can't figure out what it is.

 

Umphrey's did an amazing job on the live album. But Mantis sounds like it was a digital mix that was pressed onto the record without actually recording it, that has to be the reason, if it's recorded you know the sound then it captures the stuff it can replicate and if it's just pressed it doesn't.

 

One of their guys wrote what they did, I'm going to listen to the next one and see if it's lost the quality. I'm gonna stop spending money on these things for a while. 

Vinyl has made obvious what my dad told me following the advent of mp3s. People used to get into speakers and sound and vinyl necessitates that. 

 

I get a great sound from digital but it's kuind of by accident. 

 

Both are replicated close. Vinyl pressed right has the edge through, by a good deal. 

I used to believe that any recording put to digital and then put on vinyl would sound bad. 

 

I bought a copy of Umphrey's McGee class of 2011 and I'm sure the signal was digital at some point. 

 

What I think is if you record the sound onto analog it transfers the nuances. A digital copy sounds fine, I'm not bashing the digital stuff. But there is definitely a loss when digital is pressed in a certain way. 

 

Both at their peak aren't bad. They're different. 

 

Hope this made sense.

You went to the local store for two pennies and knew the dangers?

 

I live in Savannah, GA. It's what the nonmetro folks call the city. 

 

We have a market based economy with shops catering to consumers. When we use the interweb it's because we decide to.

So I've realized I need to raise my speakers and have them a certain distance apart to get the full experience. 

 

I don't want to spend $100 on a stand. Any ideas?

 

They're the 201s the smaller 301s some people call them tabletop.

I rage against the establishment of poser audiophiles, currently smoking pcp and listening to what the posers call teenage wasteland.

Cool.

 

Don't think people who prefer digital master records have much room to talk with sound quality. Digital is best digital.

 

It can be transfered to record Umphrey's proved me wrong.

 

I don't go around dropping $50 on a Beatles digital remaster box set. And then talking shit about Bose because I don't spend all my time looking for the coolest brand that sounds good.

If I can start a thread without anti-bose people coming in here and telling me to go buy some beats headphones 

 

I read the manual. Records and stereo mix it's so prominent. And so I need stands but what's good that doesn't cost money?

 

The 201/301s are good by the way. They sued because Beats took the expensive brand name market value. They're actually good speakers, even dude at the store who gave me shit about Bose said 301s are good. 

Put two pennies on it. It skip, not consistently. I went to a local store and I was aware of the danger before I did. 

2 Mint 2 Play

Rarely. Occasionally.

I got help. Everyone else started it. One person helped me the rest can fuck off.

I'm sure when you buy that 180g crap the subpar quality is enough ignorance is bliss.

How about I fix the one part and then record to audacity with 3/4s levels then normalize with audacity.

I bought a mint record for VG+ price fools. It was never listened to.

Of course you do not know how it is supposed to sound live. You're unable to hear an accurate reproductions and if you can't well I'm sorry but this won't get you laid.

Thanks for the serious response.

I'm glad y'all know the quality of a record without hearing it.

I'm sure most of your records are digital remastered and I you're doing this to be "cool".

Anyways I paid a lot for it and I need an answer soon.

It's not the stylus. 

 

Look you look at a record and you know, you play it to be sure. Sgt. Peppers well I knew and yea there are pops but inauduble. 

 

Either hasn't been played or taken care of (wouldn't know).

 

I saw something about an eraser on youtube but I don't want to ruin it.

 

They have that look. 

It's Steely Dan can't buy a thrill first pressing. It's mint you can tell from looking at it, but you absolutely have to play them. Dude never played it. Just let it collect dust.

 

Speaking of Sgt. Pepper's I bought that album for about $33 dollars but I trust that guy so much. I mean the other store it's like they didn't always have things priced right. I've overpaid and underpaid. Sgt. Peppers that album has like 2 pops and they're inaudible. 

 

Back to Steely Dan in the sun? How long? Or is this a joke? I put down about 20 for this.

 

edit: back to paying if you pay I'd rather pay what it's worth.