Vinyl Records - Could it happen with film?

Moopheus

Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2006
Messages
1,219
Location
Cambridge MA
Format
Medium Format

Are we having a bit of a John Henry moment? I mean, in the old song, John Henry beats the steam drill, proving the superiority of human will and strength over the machine, but then he dies. Or today, goes bankrupt. I mean, if $30K of one kind of gear is better than $40K of another kind of gear, that's pretty irrelevant to the way most people actually listen to music. Or take pictures. I mean, most people don't really care if a Linhof Technika can best a digital Hasselblad. Heck, it's just these sorts of arguments that make people go out and buy Holgas.
 

accozzaglia

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
560
Location
T
Format
Multi Format
Moopheus, I'm so with you on that one. The audiophile fork of gear acquisition syndrome belongs to the realm of people who spend all their cash on the gear and have little to show in their depth of knowledge for the library of content available. I got so tired of hearing, "My $50K audiophile system setup is great. I even had an acoustic specialist find the best arrangements and equalization settings for my listening room." My reply, "That sounds nice. What's your library like?" Response: "Oh, I have some 'digital master recordings' from GRP Records -- DDD-digital is best! -- like The Rippingtons. Oh, and I have a MFSL mastering of the Led Zeppelin IV album." My astonished reply, "And that's all?" Their self-satisfied reply, "Yep!" It's in moments like those when I completely embraced and related to that scene in High Fidelity wherein they unleashed the aircon unit on Tim Robbins. I understand that others might not agree here.

If situated to select between spending money on gear or spending money on content, I'd gladly go with the latter (and since I never had much money to begin with, it's always easier to spend a few dollars on a piece of recorded media than save up for some crazy, hand-made, vacuum tube console costing $10,000 or more). The former is just GAS grandstanding, the realm of the post-space-age bachelor. All of a sudden, the gear becomes too precious in its own regard.

In that sense, it reminds me of the consumers who own a kind of high-dollar camera or lens only because it has brand reputation. No amount of money will eclipse good work. If you can record with cheap, old analogue equipment and make it sound great, then go for it. If you can shoot with a fifty-year-old TLR and the photos come out amazing, then go for it.
 

naturephoto1

Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
1,960
Location
Breinigsville
Format
Multi Format

Firstly, you have no idea what I have for a system or what is being built. My upgraded Denon DVD 5910 has been upgraded 2 times and was purchased used. This was a $3500 DVD player that I purchased for $2050 and had already been upgraded once. With an additional $650 for a 2nd or 3rd upgrade invested for the unit, now a total spent of $2700 for the unit has far exceeded the Esoteric player and DAC which together sell for $40,000. I do not just spend my money without consideration. Almost all of the other components in my system have also been upgraded by the same gentleman who is quite knowledgeable about installing the replacement parts with over 25 years of experience. Unfortunately when it comes to turntables, we are unable to make part replacements the way we can with the electronics. Even without the new turntable setup, my system probably performs comparably to a $100,000+ stock system. And no I did not pay anything like one third of that.

By the way I am preparing a very high end home theater and 2 channel system which will be moved to a new larger location once I move. And no, I will not be going bankrupt any time soon.

Rich
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Miskuss

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Messages
60
Location
Alberta
Format
35mm
I bought my stereo at the Salvation Army, records too. I find it gives a great ROI for me. Plus leaves me with money for Cuban Cigars and Malt Whiskey ;-)
 

phenix

Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
216
Location
penguin-cold
Format
Multi Format
The analogy, however, fails when saying the CD/vinyl relation is comparable to CCD/emulsion. It isn't. The former is a method of reproduction (playback), while the latter is a form of creation.

I'm happy you agree with this.

I used to play the "guess the vinyl" game with friends (...). Nine times of ten, the listeners would guess incorrectly.

I'm happy you agree with this too.

For the rest, I feel like we talk about different things. You asked me to focus on the physics (the objects and the way they work), while I asked you to focus on the relation we, humans, are establishing with these objects (perceptions and usability). In this respect, I can't say you are wrong, but I also know very well that I am right too.
 

phenix

Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
216
Location
penguin-cold
Format
Multi Format
Firstly, you have no idea what I have for a system or what is being built. My upgraded Denon DVD 5910 has been upgraded 2 times (etc.).

Sorry, but you do listen to CDs on a DVD player? This is like scanning negs and print them inkjet!
 

michaelbsc

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2007
Messages
2,103
Location
South Caroli
Format
Multi Format

Bingo! They were better produced in the early days. I watched the early CD market pretty carefully back in the 80's, and the artists and labels that were "early adopters" of the technology *CARED* about their results. Unlike today, making a digitally master and produced CD in 1983 was not easier than using the commonly available studio equipment of the day. Making a CD was vastly different than just releasing an album production on cassette tape. It was a production in and of itself, and most people didn't have the money or the inclination to do it. The one's who did jump on the band wagon were the one trying to push the envelope.

Today, however, the tables have turned, and the crud that used to be turned out in garage studios in analog audio are now turned out in garage studios in digital audio. Once in a while a real gem shows up in a garage, and after the debut can crawl out of the hole and become a respectable force in the industry. But frankly that's no different than years gone by. The number of "good" acts is probably exactly the same percentage as yesteryear.

MB
 

naturephoto1

Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
1,960
Location
Breinigsville
Format
Multi Format
Sorry, but you do listen to CDs on a DVD player? This is like scanning negs and print them inkjet!

Not really because the gentleman that has done the upgrades has upgraded everything to read CD, DVD, SACD, DVD Audio, etc. And the unit performs better than the aforementioned Esoteric CD player and DAC in the $40,000 price range. Not only is the sound better, but so is the picture quality. The same is true of my Denon Blu-ray player.

Rich
 

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
Scanning negatives and printing them with inkjet (provided you use good equipment and the proper settings) will give a print that is close to an analog lab made print. This does not consider archival quality, just the fresh result. I have done many such comparisons and am very surprised at this combination. It does work.

PE
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2003
Messages
15,708
Location
Switzerland
Format
Multi Format
Instant gratification - something you can get with downloading MP3s from iTunes and shooting with a digital camera. I don't think many of the younger generation sit down for the purpose of listening to music, they listen to music while they do something else. Driving, doing homework, working, at the gym, etc. Turntables and film cameras can be extremely impractical in those situations. Camera phone? Many don't want the experience of developing film, printing and smelling the chemicals. They want to immediately upload to their PC and email to friends, or send it directly from the phone.
I enjoy sitting down with a friend or two, have a couple of cold ones and sink the cartridge needle into the grooves of an LP and let the music be experienced. Vinyl sounds great - better than most high resolution digital formats even, warts and all. The audio mania out there though is steering towards higher end equipment, though, with steeper and steeper price tags.
If film photography goes the same way as vinyl is going, it's going to get expensive. It might get better too, but at a steeper price. A good turntable today will run you about $2,000, a good tone arm about $600, a decent cartridge about $500, and then you need to buy albums. Many of them cost as much as $50 a piece, and they are spectacular products, with sound quality we could only dream of from the medium twenty years ago.

To me, that meant that I am collecting less albums, but at a higher quality.

And CDs are improving in sound quality too - by a mile. The crap produced in the 90s sound like $hit - full of nasty digital harshness with tons of white noise in the high notes, and difficult to listen to when the music gets complicated with a collapsing sound stage.

Quality over quantity - I am the odd duck today, that's for sure.

- Thomas
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Aurum

Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2008
Messages
917
Location
Landrover Ce
Format
Medium Format

I'll whisper it here, but I use a scanner for doing a digital equivalent of contact sheets, then firing up the enlarger for the stuff that looks good, to give it the full treatment. I'd never get round to it otherwise
Certainly for my 6x9 stuff I don't have a choice, as the enlarger I have is designed for 35mm, and at most could handle 6x6. Just.

Now if I can lay my hands on an enlarger that I don't have to bolt to the wall, for a reasonable price........
 

AgX

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
29,973
Location
Germany
Format
Multi Format
When vinyl discs died they were only consumer related. And as such they reappeared.

Film however still has both a consumer and an industrial and medical use.


If film would die now, there would be no common base to form that analogy.
 

Mark Antony

Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
789
Location
East Anglia,
Format
Multi Format
I don't think vinyl ever 'died' as it had its non consumer use in DJ material, I can and always could walk into any HMV or Virgin here in the UK and buy DJ 12" vinyls.
This kept the pressing plants open in the early '90's when digital ate its lunch. Now you have small presses with very high quality 180 gram virgin vinyl, reissue labels like classic records
http://www.classicrecs.com/
that re-issue high quality pressing done by RTI on HD vinyl.
 

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
Yeah, but do you want to spend $20 - $40 for 1 roll of film and another $20 for processing? Those record prices reflect the market and so might film!

PE
 

Mark Antony

Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
789
Location
East Anglia,
Format
Multi Format
I'd thought about that PE, but those records are audiophile versions of regular records there are cheaper versions available too in most cases. They cost about twice the amount but have heavy card sleeves HD vinyl and have been re-mastered from the original tape (sometimes with drop outs)
I have Dave Brubecks Take five on a classic and a Sony Re-issue, the Sony sounds like you have stuffed wadding in your ears when compared! The CD sounds bright and fast with accuracy when in reality compared to a $5 re-issue from the 80's is fatiguing to listen to after 5 mins.
But I get where you are coming from, and yes film will be more expensive in the future- fill your boots now guys!!
 

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
I thought about it too Mark. We have Kodak, Fuji and Ilford products and then we have all of the rest.

Try making a list of complaints about the quality of big 3 products and the other companies and then compare prices. This is pretty much similar to what we are discussing here.

PE
 

k_jupiter

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2004
Messages
2,569
Location
san jose, ca
Format
Multi Format
nature, I doubt you'll hear a difference. You may think you do (expectation bias), but I sincerly doubt any human can tell the difference between a well engineered/mastered CD or record.

AutumnJazz san... you usually are pretty right on. In this case, nope. If you have a discerning ear, the diff between CDs and records is immense. Hell the diff between vinyl and virgin vinyl was incredible. From a technological POV, the diff is the response in the lower frequencies. CDs are just not able to get those deep deep lows that make a Louis Armstrong blues or a good classical recording come alive on a superior analog system. It's one of the reasons a lot of audiophiles are enamored with tube amplifiers. Solid state was a digression from true class A performance and CDs just don't cut it from a low frequency POV.

I love my records. They don't get played often, but when I get in the mood...

tim in san jose
 

AutumnJazz

Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2008
Messages
742
Location
Fairfield, C
Format
35mm
Technoglically, vinyl's only edge over CD's is in the bandwidth, which is the same as SACD's. SACD's were recently proven to not have a real-world (ie. us humans can't tell them apart) edge over CD's in a double-blind study. (Basically, they took SACD's and downsampled them to a Redbook level, then had a ton of people listen to both and say which was which. No one could.)

The most important part when listening to music is really just the transducer, and it is very easy to get decent speakers or headphones, and you don't have to spend that much on them. Whether you use a digital or analog source does not really matter. The fact of the matter is that CD's contain all the information that us humans can hear, and vinyl (or tape) include extra information on top of that that we cannot hear. Human ears are pretty crappy.

I love my records, too, which is why I simply "ripped" them onto my PC. (Phono to the input of a high-quality soundcard and Audacity.)

In actuallity, CD's also include more info than we can hear. I've never seen someone take a DBT where they could tell a V0 MP3 and a lossless file apart.
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2003
Messages
15,708
Location
Switzerland
Format
Multi Format
I don't want to make this into some sort of contest where we measure how far each of us can pee, but on a high resolution system I can tell a difference between 16-bit CDs and SACD within a fraction of a second. No joke. I have done it a million times. If you can't hear the difference you don't have a very good system to listen through. Simple as that. CDs have this white noise that's layered into the high notes (same as most digital cameras really) that is absolutely unmistakable.
My turntable costs about half of what my CD player costs, and I can listen to it for hours on end without fatigue. CDs I can manage about one disc and then I have to switch to vinyl again. CDs may contain more information than the human ears can perceive, but they also contain a bunch of extra stuff, called noise, which is very real and very audible.
Even with my Vacuum State modified Sony SACD player it's plain as day, and doesn't even take a trained ear to hear the difference.

I guess each to their own. I am very much an audio snob, and I'm opinionated about it. So take what I say with a grain of salt. It may not apply to you.

- Thomas
 

AutumnJazz

Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2008
Messages
742
Location
Fairfield, C
Format
35mm
The SACD blind test was done across a multitude of systems (I think the priciest one they tested on was over $20k).

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=57406

Basically, SACD has less noise if you listen at unhealthy levels.

I've talked with many, many sound engineers and producers about this, too. A father of a friend of mine is an engineer and producer, and has also talked of it. I also know someone in Hollywood who rips and sells old records and is involved in sound engineering.

The most important part is the engineering and mastering of the album. If it is crappily mastered, it is going to sound like ass whether it is on CD, SACD, DVD-A, or vinyl. If it is done properly, it will be impossible to hear a real difference.

Again, expectation bias is EXTREMELY powerful. Our brains are easily fooled. And that noise problem sounds weird, I think there is a problem with the CD player in your case. Have you tried different ones?

I hear no noise from CD or vinyl sources (ripped to my PC) through my HiFi setup.

Anyway, no one can say anything concrete about audio without doing a double-blind test first.
 

Steve Smith

Member
Joined
May 3, 2006
Messages
9,110
Location
Ryde, Isle o
Format
Medium Format
I'm not going to add anything to the argument about CD or vinyl being technically superior as I don't know any actual facts about it but I prefer vinyl for all of its quirks.
I actually like listening to music with the odd little scratch sound which is rythmically different to the music and the low level rumble from the turntable.

Its a bit like appreciating grain in a photograph even though, technically, it is a weak point of the system.



Steve.
 

k_jupiter

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2004
Messages
2,569
Location
san jose, ca
Format
Multi Format
T

I hear no noise from CD or vinyl sources (ripped to my PC) through my HiFi setup.

Anyway, no one can say anything concrete about audio without doing a double-blind test first.


Ya know?

No.

Screw the 'ripped to PC'. I suspect you have never heard a truly decent audio system. It has to do with those frequencies down in the 10 HZ range. The ones you can't hear but damn, you can feel. I remember going into high range audio places in the late 70's, places that served up B&O and the like. CD's of any ilk don't come close. If you think they do, go see a good audiologist. Your hearing is probably impaired.

Sorry to insult you but this conversation is absurd.

tim in san jose
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…