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.
Vinyl Records - Could it happen with film?
-
- Thread starter marylandphoto
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy WTB: Pentax LX for parts, or.
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale FS: Voigtlander Helomar 240mm f/3.5 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale Kodak TMax 400, expired, 150 ft rolls
- Started by MCB18
-
For Sale FS: TTH Cooke Series V 12x10 Lens Eq. Focus 16.3 inch
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
Sold SOLD!
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
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.
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.
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.
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:
QED.
I'm happy you agree with this.
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.
Sorry, but you do listen to CDs on a DVD player? This is like scanning negs and print them inkjet!
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
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
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
PE
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
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:
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........
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
PE
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!!
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!!
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
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
I've got an old roll of Tri-X with some Steppenwolf on it.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
I dunno about that but I have some Agfa 100 with Bob Marley on it. Kaiserslautern 1980. *L*
tim in san jose
Last edited by a moderator:
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |