I hope you realize that that's not an answer to my question. Should I rephrase it?

Perhaps there is a follow-up answer.
I, too, would like to know what you mean by 'warm'. I'd only be able to understand if it was a vinyl from a century ago being played on an ancient pickup, that's got kind of a 'warm' fuzzy sound.

The 'warm' sound is basically just the white noise-like hissing/popping that comes from vinyl and to an extent tape.

You should really invest in a better cd player then, my cd player never scratched any of my cds, and I have played cds in it thousands of times. The one I have is an audiovox dm8700-60, it cost me like $10. Well it does cause some tiny tiny marks if you use the pause button, so I just never pause the cd when its playing. I've played cds that had lots of scratches on them, and over 99% of the time they work fine. Your laptop cd drive must suck if you can't rip cds with it, thats not the cds fault.

Come on. Somehow I doubt that the surface noise that largely comes with dirty, worn, defective, or damaged records is really what everyone is talking about when they say vinyl has a "warmer" sound. I think it's meant more as a claim that the sound of the recording itself comes out smoother, richer, and fuller with analog/vinyl ... you know, like, cold=harsh and shrill; warm=lush and pleasing - and I don't think extraneous surface noise such as popping and crackling has anything to do with it.

In criticizing the warmth claim, I think a more realistic counter-argument, and closer to the mark would be to say something about how the perceived "warmth" comes from some limitation in the ability of analog audio to precisely reproduce recorded sound and this limitation happens to produce an effect that renders the sound pleasing to the human ear/brain etc...

See, now there we have two basic, fairly distinct but related understandings of what analogue warmth is generally considered to be; in other words, broad explanations. What I'm getting at is that the term is very often tossed around without any clear definition and just as often used to argue for the superiority (and, uncommonly, inferiority) of analogue formats in comparison to digital ones. People make it sound like it's an elusive yet magical enhancing quality that makes shit sound so good, when it's really nothing more than extra colouring (distortion, compression, noise) picked up from the components of analogue circuitry in playback equipment, i.e. transformers and amplifiers, and everything else that the signal has to pass through. Of course, you also have other factors that affect the performance of these components, mainly wear and tear and heat accumulated from other nearby components, which introduces even more noise and artifacts. In turntables you get even more crud from moving parts and sensitivity to dust and scratches, which are in the end mere additions to all of the former.

Now for the real killer: has anyone listened to a CD on an old stereo system? Like from two decades ago at least. You might find an uncanny aural resemblance between those and your current turntable.

I don't know what it is but vinyls and tapes just sound better to me than CDs.

There is, actually, and I love it.

I like both, but CDs are much better in my eyes. Vinyl has a nice sound, nice artwork, I like the vinyl itself. And it is fun to pull it out of the sleeve and put it on the turntable, etc. but the sound of cds is more clear and hits harder than the vinyl. Cds can be played in the car, put on mp3 players, more easily stored, and they often come with bonus dvds and whatnot. I don't know about the technical aspect of it, but I prefer CD overall, although I do have some old Johnny Cash and Hank Williams records and they sound great. As far as metal goes, I think CD rules. I do have some cassettes as well and I think those sound more appropriate for metal than vinyl. Although I do love all three formats, cassettes and vinyls are more fun to listen to. It's more of an experience

The only reason why I carry vinyl with me (I have about 50 or 60 of them, including 7" ones) is that I do indeed like the big artwork; if the front cover looks very clean it will look AMAZING when framed or displayed somewhere. I can certainly understand that, as well as having a nice, tiny stack of records in a crate. Fumbling through them, looking for an album that closely matches your mood. Certainly, I think that's a cool thing.

But digital is the future. It has gotten a lot of flack for the "loudness wars" but if one were to overlook such a criticism they'll realize that the rule of thumb here is that digital, unlike analog (which degrades in sound quality, even if left alone), tries to get as close to the original recorded sound of an album as possible, using whatever current state-of-the-art technology needed to actively preserve it.

CDs can also be a "ritualistic" thing, just like with what vinyl lovers say about vinyl. A few days ago me and a friend met up at his place and we were sharing our OOP/early print CDs (mostly from the '80s and early '90s) with each other for ripping to lossless. He popped each CD into his hard drive, clicked "Rip," then 3-5 minutes later ejected the disc and proceeded with the next one. Then he ripped his CDs to lossless and burned a few data DVD-Rs for me containing the audio tracks. It was pretty cool, and we were listening to one of the ripped CDs in its entirety while he was ripping the rest for us.

Also, in the '80s, I could imagine how CDs at the time were treated as if they were something *grand* (like LPs) when some would go "I got the new Iron Maiden record... on CD -- it's fucking amazing." "Holy shit, really? Can you copy it to cassette for me so I can play it on my Walkman?" "Sure, man." Etc.

Now the Average Joe can easily buy a brand new CD-R for less than $1 and put up to 80 minutes of music each. I think it's bloody great.

You get what I'm saying, right?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with listening to vinyl or cassette (hell, I enjoy the "ritual" of making copies out of rare albums I own -- I have about 300 pre-recorded cassettes at my disposal). Like I said, I understand collecting. I understand the wonderful feeling of going to a vintage record shop, with thousands of LP sleeves around the store, just begging for your attention. We just have to move on with the times if we want the best quality entertainment with what we have provided as of yet.

Sigged.

To be ontopic, I prefer CDs ripped to digital format, so my 5.1 sound system can shine (I use it with my PC) and the discs won't be damaged!

Things I've learned:

1. CD's actually have a wider frequency range than vinyl.

2. Although CD frequency waves are "blocky", CD's have Digital to Analogue Converters, which makes that argument moot.

3. Vinyl records do scratch and can become dirty and degraded with each play, but CD's also scratch, and can suffer from "CD rot".

4. Vinyl records have bigger covers, so the artwork is often far more detailed.

5. The "warmer" sound, has more to do with older stereo systems with vacuum tubes than anything else, in my experience.

6. The "loudness war" is definitely an issue, and is worse now than ever. Compression/Brick-walling is a big problem, which hinders the quality of the original recordings, and make CD versions sound far inferior to vinyl or even earlier CD releases. This has more to do with the mastering techniques/equipment than the actual format. That said, sometimes remasters done carefully on quality equipment by someone who cares can be wonderful.

7. Used vinyl can be cheap, but record companies are jumping on the bandwagon and releasing overpriced vinyl editions. Trying to make up for lost CD sales, I guess. There are lots of ebay punks who are selling records (and CD's) for hundreds of dollars, even if it isn't rare or out of print.

8. Cassettes are inferior in every way. They have that annoying hiss, get stretched, crumpled and sometimes jam or spool incorrectly. They also have a lower frequency range, and can be damaged by magnetic fields form speakers, etc.

9. Buying a $500 record player, and comparing it to a $20 CD player will obviously give you skewed results. Quality CD players have better lasers, motors, circuitry, and overall materials quality than cheap ones, which do affect playback.

10. Speakers are what actually produce the sound waves that travel through the air. Their quality, frequency range, power capabilities, and placement in a room can make all of the difference.

11. mp3's are evil. They sound distorted, clicky, and inferior to CD's and Vinyl, even at higher bitrates. Lossless formats are better, but they can have drawbacks too. The only real advantage to digital files is convenience.

12. I can't say whether CD or vinyl is better. They both have pros and cons, and I'm glad they both still exist. Also note that some bands, such as Bolt Thrower have been known to master CD and vinyl editions of the same album differently, so that will be a factor.

MP3s at 320kps are pretty much indistinguishable from CD.

The large majority of professionally produced releases have different mastering for both formats.

If you're talking about normal bias tapes (like most pre-recorded ones), then I would agree somewhat. But I would not deny their sound quality because I have heard some EXCELLENT cassette recordings dubbed on chrome and metal tapes (and these types aren't as hissy as the normal bias ones). Also, maintaining your tape decks will keep your cassettes still sounding as good as they did 20 years ago. You just have to be smart with your equipment.

Very true, chrome and metal are pretty good, but not very common. I also recommend a quality deck. Regardless, I really feel that the quality of cassettes went downhill around 1995 or so. Earache cassettes of that time are junk. They jam easily and do not spool correctly.

No matter what, cassettes are cheap as hell. I regularly buy them for no more than 1.99 apiece. They are also in good playable condition.

The problem with chrome and metal tapes is that they are usually pretty expensive (the brand new ones, especially vintage ones) or three/four times as costly as a typical CD-R would cost you. I've managed to score on various chrome cassettes (brand new) from Maxell, Sony, TDK, Fuji-Film, and a few others. I only have ONE metal tape (again, brand new) and it is a Sony Metal XR-60. I haven't opened any of them (at all), nor have I really messed around with other used chrome and metal tapes too much because they, as you pointed out, are usually uncommon (and overpriced, so fuck it). I do have some pre-recorded cassette tapes that are dubbed on chrome tape (Cloven Hoof's debut, from Neat Records 1984 sounds pretty darn good).

But yeah, I'm all in for CDs (and ripping them to lossless for the sake of backup and the convenience of not having to dig through shelves looking for the next CD to play) because unlike vinyl or cassettes they don't cost a lot to make. The music comes first, regardless of the format I think.

I have some of Cathedral's early '90s cassettes (from Earache Records) and they sound really, really LOUD. I prefer to look for cassettes made in the '80s (and some from the early '90s) when they were quite common. I have heard some impressive DIY recordings on chrome cassettes which could put nearly all of today's music engineers and sound mixers to shame.

Have you ever actually compared the two? The loss in quality isn't going to ruin the music, but there's definitely a noticeable difference; I'm not sure how you can say they are indistinguishable from each other.

I like vinyl. I have probably 50 of them, mostly punk and metal bands. I'm not sure which sounds better, honestly I hardly notice a difference. I just like having a big piece of art come with your music, and the ritual of putting it on the turntable. It is a pain in the ass to rip vinly to mp3, though. I do like CDs for driving, though. I prefer digipaks, I think they look better.

The only difference between CD and vinyl for me comes down to aesthetics and usability. I absolutely love the the cover art is presented on vinyls. I feel as if I could frame my vinyl sleeves and hang them up on my walls and just admire them. Jewel cases on the other hand are horrid things that should go die. Digipacks are acceptable but still nowhere as fun to look at as LPs. But then on the usability side, obviously CDs are the preferred format, no explanation needed.

Sound-wise I don't notice a difference. It's such a subjective matter and so heavily dependent on one's specific setup, that it is utterly stupid to waste any energy trying to argue about microscopic differences in sound quality that may or may not exist (once again heavily subjective depending on your own ear/brain and audio setup).

Anyway, what's the point in arguing over CDs vs. vinyl? I happily buy either format depending on which is easier for me to get for a certain album. I even buy my favorite albums in both formats. Just get whatever suits your desires or needs, and be done with it.

The only drawback is that they take up significantly more space, and the only way they're going to sound worse is if you've somehow encoded them improperly.

I will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, understand hatred for mp3s or when people feel they ought not to pay for them.

Because some people like to have them on a shelf and say "Hey look, I own that. I bought that."

See, this explains why people like physical media, but enjoying and preferring physical media does not equate despising digital media.

Well I never said I don't like MP3s. I still have around 30 on my computer.

Sorry, but I lol-ed at this. I can't ever remember seeing a CD in a music store until the '90s. Maybe late 80s, but the Average Joe didn't have one; I clearly remember my first CD purchase. It was in 1994/5, and it was a copy of Twisted Sister's Stay Hungry. I had friends before that who owned CD players, but as I recall, most metal was on tape unless you had the money to buy all vinyls. I mean, I could be misremembering and more people had CDs before, but I remember it being more like "I got the new Iron Maiden RECORD" and then "Can you copy it to cassette for me so I can play it on my walkman?" I remember my friend's older sister had some Metallica CDs (RTL, MoP, AJFA) and we thought that was badass because we didn't own CDs yet.

Also I remember those catalogs where you could send away to have your band's demo pressed to CD, and it was like $500 for a few CDs because computers didn't have CDR drives or CD burning capabilities. As a consequence, demos were made on tapes. ^_^

As for vinyl, I have a nostalgic fondness for my older vinyl (stuff that was actually pressed before the 2000s) but I don't know. The difference could be that thigns are hooked up to different speakers with different settings now. A lot of new vinyl comes from digital masters, so I don't think there is a huge difference, if any at all. When I listen to my old Rolling Stones records, for example, there is a sort of bigness to sound, I think, but I could be imagining it, when compared to newer digital copies of the same albums on CD.

True. I have recently been annoyed with some people who were saying they would NEVER buy a video game on PSN, because they need the physical copy. It's funny, because I don't prefer mp3 albums partly because I want the physical thing. I have no problem buying a video game online or over PSN for download though, because I'm not a videogame collector; I just want to play the game. If I need the booklet, I can go to websites for that. As for music, I prefer a physical format but I can't deny that mp3s are convenient when you're in the car or on a bus, and want to listen a lot of different music without carrying around a duffel bag full of CDs.

As for actual sound, in many cases, I think the quality of your speakers and your headphones are still more important than the format of the media. Shitty quality mp3s suck, but good quality ones can still sound decent when you're using decent speakers/

[/mainly off topic rambling]


I can answer that, because I'm a cheap fuck! It's the same reason I am glad to have already graduated college before they started doing digital books on Kindles. In college, I would buy a book one semester and resell the next. For music, it's an insurance policy. If the CD sucks ass, I can resell it for a couple bucks and buy something that doesn't suck.

The other part of the equation are collectors, who want a physical format on their shelf as part of their collection, who feel that a digital copy does not "count." I'm not one of these, except in the case of some very few bands.

You still own mp3s though, if anything they are more convenient and will last infinitely longer than CDs...I just don't understand why people need physical copies of stuff to feel like they own it. it's strange.

Well, speaking for anyone who grew up owning physical formats, it could just be habit. For a long time, it felt strange for me to have mp3 albums, and for my few favorite bands, I still want vinyl/CDs/tape (because that is part of being a collector of that band, though some people are just collectors of music).

For a while, when I bought an mp3 album, and I did buy a few, I felt incredibly ripped off. like I paid money for nothing. I've rationalized this with myself since, but I still would miss the booklet when it comes to certain bands. Others, I can enjoy just having the music, but I still feel like it's analogous in my mind to having a dubbed tape from someone's actual vinyl when I was a teenager. Sure, you can enjoy the music, but it doesn't feel like having the album. For some people, this is important. To others, not so much.

I don't know why do you think that's strange. Not if I wouldn't have a bunch of wma-s (because mp3-s are too mainstream and crappier on the same bitrate), but physicals are better. Also imagine a hard drive crash if you don't have any means of backup. And I can't really be proud of a bunch of binary files, unless those represent a software I've written (I'm studying to be a software engineer).

First off, it's one's own fault if one doesn't have any backup....that's just a retarded idea already. The whole idea of paying for nothing? Wait, wait, so the music is worthless inherently then? I mean, that's the type if mentality that runs rampant with metal fans and its nonsensical. Also, what's there to be proud about, I mean, either way I've spent the same amount of money (let's say I buy just as many metal albums as you but I've got mine via iTunes or bandcamp), if anything more of my money has gone to the artist, and I have proven myself just as dedicated as you.

You're right about backup of course, but I still think many people don't feel the need and don't actually do it.

If csehszlovakze talked about paying for nothing, a lot of people don't consider digital files "real," for a variety of reasons.

I don't understand being 'proud' of a collection much, except that some people are very much into collecting and mp3s jsut don't fit with that mentality. They may have enjoy hunting down a rare release and paying exorbitant overseas shipping just to have it in their possession. none of this has much to do with paying the band, which many people don't think much about anyway (if I want to support a band, I usually buy merch). If people think mp3s are worthless, I think that has less to do with the value of the music as it does with filesharing, so many peopel have downloaded so much music for nothing that people don't ever want to pay for digital copies, so that also makes people value the music more, if they consider that the only kind of music anyone would pay for.

CD vs Vinyl? It depends on the band and sound they have I think. I personally think Mare fits the vinyl better then on cd. Besides that: Is it a race or something?

I grew up when vinyl was the only option. 8-tracks were preferred.

when i was young it was all about cassette and vinyl, we didnt know anything else so we bought it
when cds came along i was pretty fascinated and wanted to purchase them. they took up less space, were more convenient , sound was clearer
i still buy CDs and it's my preferred format. i have all my old records and would like to maybe get a vinyl player again someday, but i've no room for it atm
unless you have a great vinyl player and amp etc you are not going to get great sound from your records


i do envy some of my friends though who buy metal albums on vinyl. the artwork it so superior, gatefold layouts, posters, limited editions. i can see why they still buy it.

when i get a bigger place someday and have a 'music room' i'll maybe buy some vinyl

Im curious as to what members of this board collect. Ive been thinking about looking into vinyl and just buying albums I really like and hard to find stuff but I dont know if I want to invest in it or not. The only real draw of vinyl is the aesthetic to me so Im not sure how much use Id get out of it.

I collect CDs and I have a few vinyl albums that were given to me but no player

If you are only gonna use it for aesthetic purposes then I suggest just sticking to CDs.

About 95% of the music I buy is on CDs. I find them to be the easiest to listen to, easiest to make MP3s out of, easiest to store, and they have nice clear sound every single time. If you take good care of them like I do, they can last a lifetime.

I do enjoy vinyl records from time to time, but I'll only buy them if I really like a particular album and think the vinyl format suits the sound of the album, or if they have some exclusive songs on them. The downsides are they are usually overly expensive, they are sort of a pain in the ass to take care of, and the ritual of cleaning them for dust each time you play them is a real headache. However they do sound great, have nice large artwork, and cause you to be more "involved" in the process of playing them which can be very enjoyable.

As for cassettes, I grew up listening to them and they sucked back then, and they suck now. They don't sound very good with all that tape hiss, the artwork is tiny, they deteriorate after each listen, and they're a pain in the ass to rewind/fast forward. I'll only buy them if it's some rare demo that I want that only came out on cassette. Vinyl and CDs blow them away in every aspect, aside from them being small and easy to store.

MP3s are awesome for putting on my Ipod and listening to while I'm traveling, or in the car....but I won't pay for them. I will not pay for something that often times is a low quality MP3s, and that I don't really "own". Plus they often cost as much as just buying the actual CD, which is such a ridiculous ripoff. I prefer buying the physical copy, so I can make my own MP3s out of them so I can control the quality. I understand how some people can be happy with just having MP3s, but I feel they're missing out on not only shopping for the physical copy, but having ownership of the actual CD/vinyl/cassette and enjoying the artwork, liner notes, lyrics, etc.

Tapes.

I like the smell of old vinyl