# Classical Music: Vinyl vs CD



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

After much struggle with vinyl, I have found I much prefer CDs for my CM. They are easier to carry around, far less sensitive to wear and tear and don't tend to have that scratchy sound you tend to find on used vinyl. Yea, you could buy new vinyl, but you still have to care for them much more than their more durable peers, CDs.

What do you think?

I have started building my Classical Collection on CD with the money I got from selling my vinyl to Half Price Books.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> After much struggle with vinyl, I have found I much prefer CDs for my CM. They are easier to carry around, far less sensitive to wear and tear and don't tend to have that scratchy sound you tend to find on used vinyl. Yea, you could buy new vinyl, but you still have to care for them much more than their more durable peers, CDs.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> I have started building my Classical Collection on CD with the money I got from selling my vinyl to Half Price Books.


I was a late adopter regarding CDs. I stuck with vinyl until around 1991. About five years ago I switched over to downloads, only buying CDs when the are significantly cheaper. I still have my old Thorens turntable and my old Rega might be about somewhere.

I do not miss vinyl for the simple reason of scratches pops etc. It used to drive me mad. I knew where every scratch was, and I'd be waiting for it to arrive!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

HenryPenfold said:


> I was a late adopter regarding CDs. I stuck with vinyl until around 1991. About five years ago I switched over to downloads, only buying CDs when the are significantly cheaper. I still have my old Thorens turntable and my old Rega might be about somewhere.
> 
> I do not miss vinyl for the simple reason of scratches pops etc. It used to drive me mad. I knew where every scratch was, and I'd be waiting for it to arrive!


The only reason I don't go with streaming is because I enjoy physical media and CDs sound better, especially with the headphones I have. (Grado cans).


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

HenryPenfold said:


> I was a late adopter regarding CDs. I stuck with vinyl until around 1991. About five years ago I switched over to downloads, only buying CDs when the are significantly cheaper. I still have my old Thorens turntable and my old Rega might be about somewhere.
> 
> I do not miss vinyl for the simple reason of scratches pops etc. It used to drive me mad. I knew where every scratch was, and I'd be waiting for it to arrive!


^ I could have written the exact same thing, HP.. My old Sansui SR222 turntable is still sat in a box upstairs gathering dust. Do I miss it? Every now and then I miss the physical action of lowering the stylus onto the vinyl to hear that nostalgic rumble but then I remember that the rumble remained. I remember having to turn the album over, the scratches, the pops and crackles, the dust accumulation, it's lack of portability, etc. Much happier with cds and digital files. But at least vinyl can never ever be as horrible as hissy, stretchy, bassy, crappy cassettes.Yuch! I hated them.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Captainnumber36 said:


> ... and don't tend to have that scratchy sound you tend to find on used vinyl.


Don't "tend to" and don't even "begin to." No contest.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

HenryPenfold said:


> I was a late adopter regarding CDs. I stuck with vinyl until around 1991.


I bought my first CDs in 1984 and never looked back.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

NoCoPilot said:


> I bought my first CDs in 1984 and never looked back.


My friend had a CD player then and he tried to convince me to make the change, but I wouldn't budge!

I certainly haven't looked back since I made the change. Although I do miss the ritual and the big double album covers. No matter what tricks they come up with, CD packaging and marketing can't compete with the vinyl days ...

Sounds a bit like I'm looking back! :lol:


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> The only reason I don't go with streaming is because I enjoy physical media and CDs sound better, especially with the headphones I have. (Grado cans).


I'm no fan of streaming either - I just use it to suss recordings out and to listen to things I would never buy. But, as I said, I do buy downloads rather than CDs.

For me, the physical side of CDs is a poor relation to vinyl, and IMO, hardly worth it. I don't feel I'm missing much, in that regard. Concerning sound quality, I can tell no difference between downloads and CDs, but then I only have modestly priced cans, Beyerdynamic DT-1990 Pro, A 20 HP Amp and an inexpensive Cambridge Audio Dac. It's the same experiencewith the main system (period Naim set-up). But we're all different .....


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

Merl said:


> ^ I could have written the exact same thing, HP.. My old Sansui SR222 turntable is still sat in a box upstairs gathering dust. Do I miss it? Every now and then I miss the physical action of lowering the stylus onto the vinyl to hear that nostalgic rumble but then I remember that the rumble remained. I remember having to turn the album over, the scratches, the pops and crackles, the dust accumulation, it's lack of portability, etc. Much happier with cds and digital files. But at least vinyl can never ever be as horrible as hissy, stretchy, bassy, crappy cassettes.Yuch! I hated them.


I was going to mention cassettes, but a dark mood suddenly came over me and I felt quite down .....


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Bought my first CDs in 1984 also - never bought a single LP afterwards.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

mbhaub said:


> Bought my first CDs in 1984 also - never bought a single LP afterwards.


I have bought several ... to digitize and clean up, make a CD-R and then sell off again as fast as I can.

I don't miss the ritual of cleaning records, turning sides every 20 minutes, turntable maintenance, etc.... at all.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

mbhaub said:


> Bought my first CDs in 1984 also - never bought a single LP afterwards.


I was working for an audio manufacturer in 1979-1989, we got a prototype CD player in 1981 with one -- exactly one -- CD to play on it. It didn't sound as good as the product a few years later, but it was still amazing. I waited to start buying until 1) there were DDD discs available, 2) manufacturing ramped up to the point where the discs weren't $30 and 3) players had come down from $2000 to $800 to $300.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

For me, there is no versus. 
Love them both.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Rogerx said:


> For me, there is no versus.
> Love them both.


That's nice that they both work out for you, .


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

I have the The Juilliard String Quartet's 1965 recordings of Bartok's six String Quartets on both vinyl (the 1965 Columbia Masterworks ‎- D3S 717 _and_ the 2016 Speakers Corner Records ‎- D3S 717) and CD (Sony Classical ‎- 77119).

When I want to hear Bartok's music in crisp digital sound with clean black backgrounds, I play the CD.

When I want to experience the Juilliard String Quartet live in front of me playing Bartok in my listening room, I reach for the vinyl.

The comparison is profound.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

SONNET CLV said:


> I have the The Juilliard String Quartet's 1965 recordings of Bartok's six String Quartets on both vinyl (the 1965 Columbia Masterworks ‎- D3S 717 _and_ the 2016 Speakers Corner Records ‎- D3S 717) and CD (Sony Classical ‎- 77119).
> 
> When I want to hear Bartok's music in crisp digital sound with clean black backgrounds, I play the CD.
> 
> ...


Nice comparison.


----------



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

For CM, compact discs ripped to FLAC files, and I download art/scans from discogs, etc. Then play in Foobar or whatever software player my portable device uses.
My actual CD player unit is a high-end audiophile model, and has better sound than my file-playing system. So I may rarely spin discs.

For vinyl, although I have several CM Lp's, and a high-end VPI turntable, I almost never play CM records (well, not since the early 90s) . Mostly because CDs (or high rez download files) are very well mastered -- analog or digital source recordings. 

For non-CM (e.g. pop/rock), masterings vary and sometimes LPs are superior in sonics. Still, LPs are way too much work to play ... so I carefully ripped certain fave LPs and play back "vinyl rips" in Foobar or other software. I can't even be bothered to pull out the LP while the file plays (for handling joy or graphics art admiration) ... that's what discogs is for


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I was lucky that I got interested in classical music around 1986, so I went straight to CD. My favourite pop/rock LP's got replaced by CD's as well over the years.

Another one here for the charm of physical media over streaming or playing from computer.


----------



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

SONNET CLV said:


> I have the The Juilliard String Quartet's 1965 recordings of Bartok's six String Quartets on both vinyl (the 1965 Columbia Masterworks ‎- D3S 717 _and_ the 2016 Speakers Corner Records ‎- D3S 717) and CD (Sony Classical ‎- 77119).
> 
> When I want to hear Bartok's music in crisp digital sound with clean black backgrounds, I play the CD.
> 
> ...


Digital vs analog playback may _force one to use his ear/brain system differently._ 
Some claim that analog playback is more absorbing (musical) while digital is not so much (but is more detailed). 
I find them BOTH engaging and unique experiences .... almost as if one's brain "knows" something is missing and "colors in" its best guess.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I think CDs are far more convenient than LPs for obvious reasons. However, many older recordings converted to CD that originally arrived on LP or even 78s sound better on the LP than the CD conversions. I have found this almost universally true for Stokowski's recordings from the 1950s such as this one









Also many, many recordings made in the past on LP or 78 never made it to CD, download or any other media. This does not just include recordings from the 1940s like this one









it includes recordings from the middle 1970s and later that have never reappeared such as this one









For those reasons I find the idea that newer forms of media are always better silly.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

CD to FLAC or FLAC download all the way. Having all of my music on one device is the ultimate in convenience, and sound quality, for my needs. I live in a condominium in Chicago. I don't really have the space to store 1000 CD albums in my home, and playing CDs over a stereo system is not really feasible when I do most of my listening, at night. So I have my music on two hi-res Walkmans (WM1A and NW-A45) on two nearly identical 512gb SD cards. One Walkman feeds my MDR-Z1R headphones (for nighttime listening) and one feeds a Bose Soundtouch stereo speaker in my dining room (for mealtime or cooking listening). The amount of space required for a turntable or a CD/receiver is just not really there for me.

As far as comparing CD to vinyl, I have not done so with classical music. At my parents' house, there is a turntable and a CD deck attached to a large receiver-based stereo system. I have listened to jazz and pop on that system both ways. I would say they both sound equal to each other. The most telling comparisons were Michael Jackson's Thriller and Dave Brubeck Quartet's "Take Five." To my ears, vinyl sound a little thinner in the bass region but more apparently detailed (because of the thinness most likely), whereas CD has a "fuller" sound with more bottom end. But both are highly enjoyable. Vinyl has the drawback of fragility and degradation over time. But it also has big artwork. So they both have their pros and cons. 

But the con they share, physical space taken up, is decisive for me. FLAC all the way.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

HenryPenfold said:


> I was going to mention cassettes, but a dark mood suddenly came over me and I felt quite down .....


Well, there are aspects of them that I miss and I don't care who knows it. It was possible to find, and start/stop listening at, a particular point in the music (other than the beginnings of tracks) in a way one couldn't with other media, and they were far more user-friendly than CDs are for making one's own copies/compilations. Not all change is progress.


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

HenryPenfold said:


> I was a late adopter regarding CDs. I stuck with vinyl until around 1991. About five years ago I switched over to downloads, only buying CDs when the are significantly cheaper. I still have my old Thorens turntable and my old Rega might be about somewhere.
> 
> I do not miss vinyl for the simple reason of scratches pops etc. It used to drive me mad. I knew where every scratch was, and I'd be waiting for it to arrive!


Sorry for being nerdy but which Thorens deck did/do you have Henry?
I bought a TD150 at the tender age of 16 ploughed a years earnings from a paper round and some more into it, a few years later I added an SME 3009 series II arm which was a bit of a DIY project quite easy to complete with instructions sent from Thorens as to how to re-adjust the suspension spring settings for the different armboard and arm. It proved to be a great servant until my daughter was on the way and I converted to CDs as a space saving exercise. Turntable etc sold along with all my LPs, at that time I started seriously looking into classical music - 34 years ago roughly.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

Malx said:


> Sorry for being nerdy but which Thorens deck did/do you have Henry?
> I bought a TD150 at the tender age of 16 ploughed a years earnings from a paper round and some more into it, a few years later I added an SME 3009 series II arm which was a bit of a DIY project quite easy to complete with instructions sent from Thorens as to how to re-adjust the suspension spring settings for the different armboard and arm. It proved to be a great servant until my daughter was on the way and I converted to CD's as a space saving exercise. Turntable etc sold along with all my LP's, at that time I started seriously looking into classical music - 34 years ago roughly.


I cannot remember the Thorens model. It was a basic deck, but came with a decent MM stylus arrangement and a reasonable arm. I can't even remember whether my Rega was Planer II or III. Next time I'm in the loft, I'll check!

I wasn't too fussed about kit, so long as it was above average I was happy and I'd then focus on buying music.

Although I sold my vinyl around 2002, for some reason, I hung on to the turntables.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

I wasn't an instant convert. Far from it, in fact - until well into the 1990s I thought the prices for both discs and the gear to play it on were totally beyond what I was willing to fork out. That said, I didn't make the shift over to classical until that decade was nearly over - all I had on vinyl before that were two or three Wagner 'bleeding chunks' albums, so it's been exclusively CDs since then anyway.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

I have not soon forgot the ritual and skills involved in playing vinyl LPs: The careful removal of the disc by the edge from the sleeve. The flipping of the disc using the palms of the hands. The use of various brushes and liquids to clean the disc. Following the rule of never, ever touching the grooves. And then, the need to make sure that the turntable arm is perfectly balanced to prevent uneven and/or extreme groove wear. Add on the need to replace the needle periodically depending on the quality of the needle and cartridge.

During the 10 years before CDs took over, I had an electronic tick & pop remover that helped to provide clean sound from vinyl records. After the first few years of CDs, I packed up my vinyl records and turntables, never to return to them. Now and then I listen to a vinyl record recording on YouTube and am reminded why I have no interest in returning to vinyl and wondering why anyone else would.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

larold said:


> I think CDs are far more convenient than LPs for obvious reasons. ....


The above seems a commonly made statement by folks comparing CDs and LPs. But is it a valid point?

A flute is a more convenient instrument to travel with than is a piano, kettle drums, or a harp. But does that mean anything at all when it comes to considering the music of flutes, pianos, kettle drums, or harps?

The discussion about music reproduction formats should probably be concentrated firstly on the "sound" produced, not the convenience. In the end, I would think that the real goal of listening to recorded music is to hear what is closest to the "live" performance of the work as it was laid down at the moment of the recording. This includes the ambience of the hall, the precise timbre of the instruments used (violins don't sound all alike; nor do horns or oboes....). the positioning of the instruments or instrumental sections ....

When I confront a piece of music in my listening room, when the music bursts out of the speakers or my headphones, I am not thinking of convenience (whether I had to take a vinyl record off the shelf, pull it out of a sleeve, wipe it off, place it carefully on a turntable, press a button, lift a level, place the tonearm into position, lower a lever....etc. etc., or whether I had to press some buttons to search for and select a stored digital file ....), I'm concerned with hearing what the musicians played the day the recording was made.

I made a major residence move several months back, and the notion of convenience of LP albums v. CDs made some bit of sense in that context. Indeed, I could fit more CDs into a packing box and at a lesser weight than I could vinyl LPs. But my consideration of convenience here had nothing at all to do with the music, which is primarily why I obtain discs. I will say that I am hoping I will not have to make such a move anytime soon, and I'm still dealing with the unpacking and/or storage of discs and records. (I had planned to sell off quite a few items to a local record reseller in the area, but the Covid virus changed plans when the store shut down and contacts with store agents became impractical.)

The differences between analog and digital sound should be considered for what it really is in terms of "hearing the music" and not in terms of convenience. Convenience is an entirely different issue. One that is reasonable to consider (as in shelving/storage concerns, or moving concerns, or needs for transporting discs for whatever reason ...) and discuss, but which has nothing to do with the experience of listening to music.

Consider that playback equipment provides big differences in sound production from vinyl record or silver disc to ears. The same record/CD played on different equipment will sound different, better or worse, depending upon that equipment. My old SONY Discman portable CD player cannot match the quality of my XA5400ES CD deck (also by SONY) when playing a CD. Even the most nondiscriminating ears, I suspect, will quickly note a difference in how these two machines render 0s and 1s to the human ears, all other aspects of the sound reproduction chain remaining the same. Of course, for travelling purposes, the Discman is more convenient than the XA5400ES; the Discman will run on batteries at the lake where I go fishing, the 5400ES will not. But again, the discussion of convenience is not the place to start if the musical sounding differences between digital and analog or CDs and vinyl records are the topic of concern.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

larold said:


> ... However, many older recordings converted to CD that originally arrived on LP or even 78s sound better on the LP than the CD conversions. I have found this almost universally true for Stokowski's recordings from the 1950s...


Please don't think I'm picking on larold, but his recent statements prove a fine jumping off point for a deeper consideration of what exactly is the meaning of and the differences between digital v. analog (CD v. vinyl record) recorded music.

larold is astute to notice a difference in sound between the original record and the later conversion to CD. A lot depends upon a lot in such instances. What is the condition of the original source, for one. And what is the quality of the conversion equipment, for another.

Some of the early generation CDs which were made from analog sourced originals certainly sound harsh and even unrealistic in comparison to the original. Again, it's complicated. That old scratchy record from the 50s might sound better on a high quality turntable/cartridge rig than it does on a cheapy turntable with a ceramic cartridge, and it might even sound better in the CD version (depending upon how it was transferred). But don't lose sight of another important function of recording classical music -- to preserve distinctive interpretations.

The musical interpretations of Toscanini and Furtwangler and Vaclav Talich are almost always only available in what is not the best sound. But those interpretations may be vastly superior (or, more to one's preference) than recently made recordings utilizing top quality digital sound. Heck, you could record me playing Chopin on the best piano in the world with the highest quality recording equipment available to man, and you would still rather listen to the music performed by Rubinstein on a scratchy slab of vinyl.

That same scratchy slab of vinyl can be transferred to a digital file and then rendered onto a CD, but chances are that in the process of "cleaning up" the scratchiness, musical frequencies, and thus some of the realism, will be sacrificed. Which is one reason why old analog recordings often sound thin and artificial on digital discs.

Or, you can play the scratchy vinyl slab (after a thorough cleaning) on a high quality turntable and cartridge rig which, you'll likely find, renders much of the noise at a lower level and thrown off towards the sides of the sound stage, allowing for the fullness of the interpretation to flower. No, it won't sound live (as perhaps a new analog vinyl record may), but it will still please you more than the CD version.

Of course, after the digital revolution took hold, much of the music recorded for CD was never on vinyl. Quite a bit of the music that was made originally for vinyl has been, however, rendered on CDs. The sound quality is variable. I have many pieces (the same recordings) on both media -- vinyl and CD -- and sometimes I prefer the vinyl, but sometimes I prefer the CD. There is a lot that depends upon a lot here.

The real issue is: why do you listen to music? What is it you are after?

If you are not discriminating at all, I can send you a CDR disc, burned through my laptop, of me playing Chopin (though not on the world's best sounding piano, or recorded on the highest quality equipment in the world -- but that shouldn't matter to you anyhow). And, if the music doesn't even sound like Chopin, well ... all I'll guarantee is that there won't be any ticks, pops, or scratchy sounds coming from your speakers. And maybe that's all that matters to you?


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

larold said:


> ...
> 
> For those reasons I find the idea that newer forms of media are always better silly.


Indeed, larold, you're reasoning is absolutely sound. It _is_ a silly notion.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

My understanding of the differences in CD playback quality are that (all other equipment being equal) buffering and interpolation quality is the main determinant. The laser moves over the track of pits and lands, but the physical act of turning the CD, or damage to the disc, sometimes results in "skips" or losing the track, even briefly. So the player then either has to have read in advance the data to come, or it has to guess at the data that is missing because of the misread. Some players do this better than others.

Anyway, these concerns are completely obviated by ripping to FLAC. If there is a skip, the ripper just slows down and tries again, or polls other rips in the database to replace the damaged area. So you have a perfect digital file thereafter. I suppose an errant cosmic ray could hit a sector of a hard drive or SD card and make one bit flip from 1 to 0, but the odds of that are vanishingly small.

I love this guy's video discussions of sound technology:






He has also done vinyl, tape, and more.

As far as convenience, I agree it isn't a factor -- *unless *it prevents listening to music altogether. If reel to reel tape is a barrier to most people listening to music because of cost, size, ease of use, or space, then it is a "lesser" format, even excepting sound quality. Vinyl trips that trigger for a lot of users, I think. CD increasingly does for a lot of "kids today."


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Most of my present-day CM purchases are flac downloads.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

DaveM said:


> Most of my present-day CM purchases are flac downloads.


My guess for my collection would be 30% download 70% physical CD and rip. But box sets played a big role in that for me. If it's individual albums it's more like the reverse. But large sets tend not to be economical as a download, which mystifies me.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

SONNET CLV said:


> The discussion about music reproduction formats should probably be concentrated firstly on the "sound" produced, not the convenience.


Sometimes I like to take a CD with me in the car to listen to. Can't do that with an LP. CD wins.

When at home, and fidelity supersedes convenience, I find the dead-silent noise floor, the 90dB dynamic range, the crisp clear highs, the fulsome bottom, the 80-minute playing time, and the depth and precision of the imaging of CDs to be vastly superior to any other format. CD wins again.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

MatthewWeflen said:


> My guess for my collection would be 30% download 70% physical CD and rip. But box sets played a big role in that for me. If it's individual albums it's more like the reverse. But large sets tend not to be economical as a download, which mystifies me.


For me, the flac downloads from a site such as Presto Music offer instant gratification vs. ordering a CD. Plus I can purchase individual movements such as several different versions of Bruckner symphony adagios.


----------



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

There's a huge amount of psychology and brain trickery going on when dealing with physical formats. I have noticed that -- to some extent, regardless of the fidelity of the physical format -- I like a musical performance (album) _more_ if I ... take the time to handle and play the disc (CD or Lp) ... as opposed to simply playing back via a few lazy swipes and taps from my iPad controller. 
So time investment, physical interaction, focused commitment to the task hugely influences mood and bias. A lotta evolutionary psychology going on -- Nature does not like laziness 
But pulling out and shelving and un-shelving physical media is a time sink.
BOTTOM LINE ... so much music ... so little time. And I definitely want to explore the repertoire ... because YouTube and Spotify have shown me the huge variety and volume of CM is out there...including unsung composers, etc.

So how does one bypass some of that evolutionary psychology?

Believe it or not ... it's THIS ... posting and interacting on CM forums. Well, it works for me, anyway


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

DaveM said:


> For me, the flac downloads from a site such as Presto Music offer instant gratification vs. ordering a CD. Plus I can purchase individual movements such as several different versions of Bruckner symphony adagios.


Presto is amazing and I always look there first.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

I started with LPs in the early 1980s and didn't switch to CDs until probably 1989 or even 1990. If I happen to pass by a used record store in a big city, I might still purchase LPs because I like the cover art. Now that all but one of our kids has grown up and moved out of the house, my wife let me turn a spare room into an office where I do my work (we also can put the roll-away cot in there and make it into a guest bedroom). I keep my mostly CDs music collection well-organized in this office/guest bedroom room, and I use my old LPs as wall art. If you buy the clear shelves you can switch out your favorite old records when you feel like developing a new theme. So attached is an example of what I mean from _Rolling Stone Magazine_, except that instead of Jimi Hendrix, the Beatles and Bob Dylan; the way that *I* decorated my office is all classical records like one's I have on display that I also found images of on the internet. The Schoenberg portrait, by the way, is also a self-portrait. The composer was also an artist.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

13hm13 said:


> There's a huge amount of psychology and brain trickery going on when dealing with physical formats. I have noticed that -- to some extent, regardless of the fidelity of the physical format -- I like a musical performance (album) _more_ if I ... take the time to handle and play the disc (CD or Lp) ... as opposed to simply playing back via a few lazy swipes and taps from my iPad controller.
> So time investment, physical interaction, focused commitment to the task hugely influences mood and bias. A lotta evolutionary psychology going on -- Nature does not like laziness
> But pulling out and shelving and un-shelving physical media is a time sink.
> BOTTOM LINE ... so much music ... so little time. And I definitely want to explore the repertoire ... because YouTube and Spotify have shown me the huge variety and volume of CM is out there...including unsung composers, etc.
> ...


I relate to what you say here, if I understand you right. I'm glad I came up in classical music with LPs, because there was more of a respect for the music, I think. You had to buy the LP, take it home, carefully release it from the jacket, carefully place it on the turn table, carefully cue it up, carefully turn it over to the other side and cue it up, again; then carefully place it back in it's cover. When I used to purchase LPs, I'd carefully read the liner notes so I could learn as much as I could about the music. Yes, there was a certain respect for the music, and in the days before EVERYTHING could be heard on YouTube, whatever you want when you want it; you had to WAIT in order to but your next batch of records; so I would LIVE with Beethoven's 6th for while; or Tchaikovsky's 4th; or Shostakovich's 5th; get to KNOW the music and the musical vision before I could move on to the next one.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Coach G said:


> I relate to what you say here, if I understand you right. I'm glad I came up in classical music with LPs, because there was more of a respect for the music, I think. You had to buy the LP, take it home, carefully release it from the jacket, carefully place it on the turn table, carefully cue it up, carefully turn it over to the other side and cue it up, again; then carefully place it back in it's cover. When I used to purchase LPs, I'd carefully read the liner notes so I could learn as much as I could about the music. Yes, there was a certain respect for the music, and in the days before EVERYTHING could be heard on YouTube, whatever you want when you want it; you had to WAIT in order to but your next batch of records; so I would LIVE with Beethoven's 6th for while; or Tchaikovsky's 4th; or Shostakovich's 5th; get to KNOW the music and the musical vision before I could move on to the next one.


Very cool room, Coach G! The Don Quixote cover would definitely be a candidate for wall art if I were decorating.

Although it is true that the ease of access has increased, one can still chose to go through music systematically and read all about it. When I get a CD box set, I rip the music, scan the artwork, read booklets, and listen to the music, usually in order.

I doubt that many people just buy a bunch of classical willy nilly and then put it on shuffle or forget about it - though I could be wrong!


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Coach G said:


> you had to WAIT in order to but your next batch of records; so I would LIVE with Beethoven's 6th for while; or Tchaikovsky's 4th; or Shostakovich's 5th; get to KNOW the music and the musical vision before I could move on to the next one.


This is true. Music maybe was more _precious_ when you could only afford 2-3 albums per month.

But I wouldn't trade that for today's "any music you want any time with a single click." It may not be as precious, but it's a lot more accessible.

We have an Alexa in the bedroom. It's a wonderful treat to be able to say, "Alexa, play [any artist or composer]" and have it come up instantly. I only DREAMED of that instant access when I was a kid.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

SONNET CLV said:


> I have the The Juilliard String Quartet's 1965 recordings of Bartok's six String Quartets on both vinyl (the 1965 Columbia Masterworks ‎- D3S 717 _and_ the 2016 Speakers Corner Records ‎- D3S 717) and CD (Sony Classical ‎- 77119).
> 
> When I want to hear Bartok's music in crisp digital sound with clean black backgrounds, I play the CD.
> 
> ...


If you are speaking of that (sometimes spooky) reproduction of: the acoustic space where the performance was recorded, a very 3D image of actual musicians in that space, their correct location within that space and relation to one another, and other spatial cues, I agree.

Vinyl does that better than CD.

However, I have found, that quad rate DSD rivals vinyl for that aspect, and also does the black backgrounds as well as 16/44.1. DSD is the best of both worlds, IMO.

With that being said, I still buy plenty of CD's, a bit less vinyl these days, and a growing amount of DSD downloads.

To add, record wear, with high end cartridges (with line contact, Shibata, VanDenHull styli) and properly set up , is vastly overstated. And surface noise, after a good cleaning with an ultrasonic record cleaner, is also vastly overstated. Most people would be shocked at how quiet vinyl really is, once properly cleaned.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Simon Moon said:


> ...To add, record wear, with high end cartridges (with line contact, Shibata, VanDenHull styli) and properly set up , is vastly overstated. And surface noise, after a good cleaning with an ultrasonic record cleaner, is also vastly overstated. Most people would be shocked at how quiet vinyl really is, once properly cleaned.


I agree that if starting with an excellent perfectly-pressed high-quality virgin vinyl record and an excellent turntable and cartridge, record wear is the least of the problems and surface noise will likely not be distracting. But back in the day you couldn't count on good quality vinyl or reliable discs. Problems consisted of warping, surface defects, off-center pressing and groove-noise that was present from the beginning. In the U.S. RCA Victor pressings were some of the worst. Imports from the UK or Germany were far better.

In recent years, some high-quality vinyl records have been produced even in the U.S., but more recently demand has been outstripping availability and quality-control is suffering.


----------



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

About record wear .... I have LPs from the 70s that were played on vintage Dual and AR 'tables. But those records are still in great shape because:
I was careful in handling /cleaning ... even going back to my pre-teen years. Used poly sleeves, always returned LP to jacket after use, played with clean hands, away from meals. For parties and functions, I always used tapes.
About cassette tapes ... those were made on a Nakamichi deck and I taped favorite (frequently-played) albums for everyday use (home or portable) 
Made sure the arm / cart was properly aligned (tracking force, antiskating, overhang, etc)
Never played with worn stylus.
Used record preservative (LAST, Gruv-Glide, Sound Guard)

Yes ... vinyl was/is a big time sink.

In early 1986, I switched to CD and pretty much stuck with that format until recently (now -- streaming or downloads).


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

Captainnumber36 said:


> After much struggle with vinyl, I have found I much prefer CDs for my CM. They are easier to carry around, far less sensitive to wear and tear and don't tend to have that scratchy sound you tend to find on used vinyl. Yea, you could buy new vinyl, but you still have to care for them much more than their more durable peers, CDs.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> I have started building my Classical Collection on CD with the money I got from selling my vinyl to Half Price Books.


Digital rules. Better sound, better convenience. I really don't understand the comeback of vinyl


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

mbhaub said:


> Bought my first CDs in 1984 also - never bought a single LP afterwards.


This is me too, although those first CD players cost a mint; $1500 - $2000 back in 1983. I waited until the first price-busting Yamaha player came out - all of $650 back then - it may have been available in Australia in 85? The shipments were all pre-sold.
I bought half a dozen CDs (at $20 each - LPs were $17), all of which I still have.

The overwhelming, instant proof of the superiority of sound (notwithstanding those cultists at The Aboslute Sound who were still fuming about transistors replacing valves) was listening to Gilels CD of the opening of the Moonlight sonata. A clear night with the gentle tones pure and haunting. Then, listen to Kempff's LP. The constant sound of distant rain, a perpetual hiss of background shadowing every note the pianist played.

No comparison. I keep reading about this resurgence of vinyl in the 21st century and just shake my head. Yes, the physical LP object - at least the packaging - was very nice, but when it comes to sound and music, it's no contest.

I don't deny that fabulous sound IS possible from a great turntable and speakers, my word it is, but it so fussy and fiddly and temporary and prone to wear, disturbance (don't jump on the floor anybody), and dust that it's just not worth it.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Triplets said:


> I really don't understand the comeback of vinyl


Hipsters and contrarians.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

GraemeG said:


> The overwhelming, instant proof of the superiority of sound (notwithstanding those cultists at The Aboslute Sound who were still fuming about transistors replacing valves)


The bible of the hipsters and contrarians. And yes, you spelled "Aboslute" correctly.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

NoCoPilot said:


> Hipsters and contrarians.


There is a lot of truth in this.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

GraemeG said:


> This is me too, although those first CD players cost a mint; $1500 - $2000 back in 1983. I waited until the first price-busting Yamaha player came out - all of $650 back then - it may have been available in Australia in 85? The shipments were all pre-sold.
> I bought half a dozen CDs (at $20 each - LPs were $17), all of which I still have.
> 
> The overwhelming, instant proof of the superiority of sound (notwithstanding those cultists at The Aboslute Sound who were still fuming about transistors replacing valves) was listening to Gilels CD of the opening of the Moonlight sonata. A clear night with the gentle tones pure and haunting. Then, listen to Kempff's LP. The constant sound of distant rain, a perpetual hiss of background shadowing every note the pianist played.
> ...


This aligns with my impressions.

Now, personally, I never owned a turntable. My dad did and does still, but he adopted every format as it came out. He still has 8-tracks. I grew up on cassettes, for which the only strong argument was portability and "mixtape" potential. The actual operation sucked, and the sound sucked, too (comparatively). CD absolutely trounced cassette and felt like having cotton taken out of one's ears when it debuted.

When I go to my parents' house and we play a vinyl album, I can't deny that there is a certain magic to it, the ritual, the physicality of the sound being produced by the needle in the groove, and all that. But it's massively inconvenient, fragile as hell, and still isn't superior in terms of sound quality, at least to my ears.

I think CD was too perfect for its own good. People as a whole took it for granted, especially as it hit computers, not really appreciating it for the technological marvel it was (and remains).

Now, listening via FLAC (usually ripped from CD), I have moved beyond discs as my primary means of musical enjoyment. I get better and less fragile sound from my high-end portable player and headphones. But discs being read by lasers will always inspire that same burst of admiration and awe from me as they did on day one.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

GraemeG said:


> This is me too, although those first CD players cost a mint; $1500 - $2000 back in 1983. I waited until the first price-busting Yamaha player came out - all of $650 back then - it may have been available in Australia in 85? The shipments were all pre-sold.
> I bought half a dozen CDs (at $20 each - LPs were $17), all of which I still have.


I was working part time at a very high end audio store in Los Angeles in the early 80's (Threshold, Audio Research, Magneplanar, B&W, Acoustat, SOTA, Rega, Sumo, etc) as a tech (repairing audio equipment) and sales person, while attending Pierce Jr, College (well known at the time as having a university quality electronics dept) as an electronics major.

I clearly remember the day the store was getting in a sample of each of the first generation CD players to evaluate to see which one we were going to stock. The Sony, Philips and Kyocera flagship models were all arriving, and I couldn't have been more excited. After all, I was studying digital electronics at the same time. No one else in the store had any preconceived expectations of the sound. No one that I remember was dubious of the alleged claims being made.

I walked in the store just a few minutes after the salespeople unboxed and hooked up the Sony to some of the best equipment in the store; Threshold amp and preamp, Acoustat full range electrostatic speakers. Some very neutral and uncolored gear. Someone inserted a sampler CD meant to demonstrate the superior sound of CD, and the very first cut was a violin sonata. It seriously took me a few moments to even recognize what instrument was playing. We thought maybe the Sony was defective, so we switched to the Philips, then the Kyocera. The Kyocera was the best, but not by much.

*Let me make a late edit: and none of them sounded better than our best turntable, despite being quieter and more dynamic.



> The overwhelming, instant proof of the superiority of sound (notwithstanding those cultists at The Aboslute Sound who were still fuming about transistors replacing valves) was listening to Gilels CD of the opening of the Moonlight sonata. A clear night with the gentle tones pure and haunting. Then, listen to Kempff's LP. The constant sound of distant rain, a perpetual hiss of background shadowing every note the pianist played.


The superiority of CD playback was not evident, to my ears, until at least 10-15 years after their introduction. It wasn't until jitter was addressed, parallel ladder dacs were used, single bit dacs, delta-sigma dacs, higher resolution clocks and even the importance of the power supply were considered.

The lack of background noise, clicks and pops, and improved dynamic range, that CD was known for, was not immediately worth the loss of superior imaging and soundstage (among a few other things) that top quality vinyl playback was capable of, for me, until the mid to late 90's.

In fact, the owner of the high end store I worked at, went on to start Theta Digital, probably the first company to get digital right.



> No comparison. I keep reading about this resurgence of vinyl in the 21st century and just shake my head. Yes, the physical LP object - at least the packaging - was very nice, but when it comes to sound and music, it's no contest.
> 
> I don't deny that fabulous sound IS possible from a great turntable and speakers, my word it is, but it so fussy and fiddly and temporary and prone to wear, disturbance (don't jump on the floor anybody), and dust that it's just not worth it.


The vinyl resurgence is in large part, as others have pointed out, due to hipsters. I think it's a bit ridiculous myself.

As far as the caveats you mention with regards to vinyl, they are not nearly as extreme as you describe. As I previously mentioned, record wear is so low, that it is unlikely there are any audible effects for 100's of plays, if the record is treated well and played on correctly set up equipment. A correctly designed TT will not be affected by jumping on the floor. And record cleaning devices, that eliminate dust are pretty inexpensive.

Now don't get me wrong, I am, in fact a large fan of digital (DSD has all the positive attributes of digital: low noise, high dynamic range, low distortion, AND all of the positive attributes of vinyl: better soundstage and imaging than CD, with none of negatives of either), and the vast majority of my listening is digital. But if I have to listen to vinyl (if I have a recording that never got a proper digital release), you can be rest assured, the step down in audio quality over the best digital, is not a big one.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

SONNET CLV said:


> IWhen I want to hear Bartok's music in crisp digital sound with clean black backgrounds, I play the CD.


Not with 1965 recordings you won't.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

NoCoPilot said:


> Hipsters


HIPsters????????


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Simon Moon said:


> But if I have to listen to vinyl (if I have a recording that never got a proper digital release), you can be rest assured, the step down in audio quality over the best digital, is not a big one.


Having made close to a thousand CD-Rs by cleaning up LPs, I can concur -- a properly cleaned up audio file from a good-condition LP can be quite close to CD quality. Of course, you get no response below 50Hz. Your dynamic range is limited to 60dB max. And there's a background groove rumble which, though low level, is always present.

But none of these precludes a CD-R that sounds as good as a commercial CD made from LP pre-masters.

Since about 2010, digital masters have started including (often) the missing first octave, 16-32Hz. No LP could reproduce that, and many speaker systems won't either. But if yours will, you'll definitely notice the difference.


----------



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

CD had support from very early on ...







Berlin: 1981 .... 
Conductor Herbert von Karajan with Akiyo Morita, President of Sony, at his left and Joop Sinjou of Philips at his right.
https://www.philips.com/a-w/research/technologies/cd/black-giants.html


----------



## lucrescu (Nov 22, 2016)

I prefer vinyl because it sounds better to my ears. But, most of the time, I'm too busy/tired/lazy to give it the required attention, so I choose CDs and other digital formats.

I still search for my favorite music on vinyl. I can not pass a second-hand vinyl store without my blood rushing through my veins. I love vinyl, although I acquired the taste for it quite late in my life. I certainly don't consider myself a hipster.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

I loved LPs for years. I don't begrudge anyone the love of vinyl.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

I started with vinyl in the early 1980s as a teenager, started buying CDs around 1988 (?) while in college and finally upgrading to CD. Went off LPs almost completely after getting married. Since my wife had four kids already from her previous marriage and the biological father wanted no part of the children, I became a husband and a father on my wedding day, and a few years later after adopting the children legally, my wife and I adopted one more together. While the kids were little I never listened to my LPs because with kids jumping around the house the records would skip (and what's the fun in being a kid if you can't jump around the house). By the time the kids were grown up (the youngest is a teenager who still lives at home), my old stereo system that I used to play my records on was in need of a new receiver and CD player. After pricing said items I opted for a record player that also plays CDs for $50 and it works fine, and I'm having lots of fun playing my old records and even buying some new ones too. 

For a while in the mid 2010s I went digital but shortly went back to CDs and now I'm even back to purchasing records, not just because I like Golden Age classical recordings but because I'm a COLLECTOR. While I'm not living in poverty, I don't have very much of value apart from my music collection. I have my clothes, my car, my bicycle, and some books, and the only land I own outright is the cemetery plot I picked out for my wife and I for when the time comes. 

But the music collection to me is priceless. All the other things I own such as my car and my clothes are basically for practical purposes, and I don't care too much about clothes as long as they're comfortable. For me, as long as a car is reasonably priced, good on mileage, and reliable, that's all that matters. 

The music collection, though, is a source of pride for me. My CDs and records are carefully cataloged and I enjoy showing the collection off to visitors. My apartment is a Roach Motel for records and CDs and NOTHING is for sale. The recordings go in but they don't come out (at least not while I'm alive). And it's not just about the music. It's about the cover art, the history, the culture, the liner notes, and just the process and the fun of hunting through used book and record stores, Salvation Army and Goodwill stores, flea markets and yard sales, etc.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> After much struggle with vinyl, I have found I much prefer CDs for my CM. They are easier to carry around, far less sensitive to wear and tear and don't tend to have that scratchy sound you tend to find on used vinyl. Yea, you could buy new vinyl, but you still have to care for them much more than their more durable peers, CDs.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> I have started building my Classical Collection on CD with the money I got from selling my vinyl to Half Price Books.


Here's what I think: I started with LPs in the late 70s and switched to CDs in the late 80s, but never got rid of my LPs or turntable. In fact, when people started getting rid of their LPs, beginning with my own father, I quickly built up quite a collection, filling it out with the rarer items my father didn't have (alas, he favored the budget and reissue labels) from the secondhand shops for 25 cents to a dollar. Alas, all good things come to an end, and in the era of vinyl chic, when even the classical used LPs began to rise in price and the rarities disappear, my LP collecting days ended. There are a few newly issued audiophile LPs and those I've heard are very good, but there are not nearly enough to interest me.

Most CDs, though vastly more convenient and less fragile than LPs, had mediocre sound until 1995, when there was a sudden significant improvement. LPs were always highly variable in sound quality, but the best were well ahead of early CDs. In the late 1990s, high resolution digital audio appeared, first in the SACD and DVD-Audio disc formats. Those formats remain, especially as downloads, but in recent years streaming has begun to take over. I enjoy my LPs even now, but wouldn't have collected them had I started after 1995, or even 1990.

edit: I have that 1965 Columbia Juilliard Quartet Bartok box set too, by the way. But nowadays, I most often listen to the Heath quartet's set, a high-rez download. It's all good.


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

I love vinyl, but there's no denying it's a lot more trouble. Sometimes I want to put in the effort and sometimes I don't. I could never just have one, though.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

I too have started to reconstruct my LP collection -- but with a twist.

When I sold my LP collection in 2015, I made a spreadsheet of what was in there so I'd know approximately what they're worth. I used this to negotiate a fair price with a local shop who was just getting back into vinyl.

Using this spreadsheet, I periodically check it against the items I have already replaced with CDs, and making lists of LPs I remember fondly that I have not yet replaced, I found that some of them were in my CD collection already, just in different compilations. Some had different covers than I remembered. Some were totally missing.

These days it's dead-easy to find almost any recording online, so I've been filling out my CD and CD-R collection with reconstructions of my LP collection, putting together the tracks and covers I remember -- but with no surface noise, no ticks and pops, no fragile media. I'm almost done with this project, and I've gotta say it's been a lot of fun.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

I revisit this thread to make a comment.

I spent a few days listening to CDs only -- a wide variety of music, classical orchestral and chamber works, jazz vocals and instrumentals, pop, and experimental "soundscape" and "noise" music, stuff which always forms the crux of my daily listening sessions, culled from a library of several thousand silver discs, some of them in SACD and HDCD formats. All played by way of my SONY XA5400ES, a playback unit with substantial credits to its name. I heard a lot of great music, well-played, and well reproduced via my stereo rig playing CDs. I enjoyed the week.

The day came when instead of grabbing a CD, I took out a vinyl LP: _Lush Life_ by John Coltrane on the Prestige label. I set down the needle (mounted on a ClearAudio Maestro Wood cartridge) on the blue vinyl spinning on my VPI Scoutmaster and hurried to my listening chair, arriving just in time for Coltrane to blow that famous solo opening to "Like Someone in Love", 20 seconds or so of music prior to being joined by Earl May on his upright bass and Arthur Taylor on drums playing one of my favorite standards, a piece I've listened to dozens of times via this same recording. Only a few seconds in I heard myself unconsciously muttering "Oh my god!" and I realized I was back in the zone. And knew, also, that I had to write this comment on this thread.

I spent the remainder of the day, and a few days afterwards, listening exclusively to vinyl, combing through my record collection like an eager kid on Christmas day looking for music to spin, both old favorites and long neglected pieces. I had become genuinely excited again about listening to records. Again, there was nothing wrong with the CDs I played. But none of them had put the musician(s) right there in the room with me, playing privately for me with a full resonance of timbre that I just don't experience no matter how good the CD production.

I'll return to CDs, I'm sure. I have too much music ensconced in that format, and I enjoy so much of it. But for decades now, since the beginning of the CD explosion, which for me started in the late-1980s (I was a late-comer to the format and had actually purchased several CDs before I had a unit to play them with), I've listened to CDs without ever experiencing that "Wow" factor that I get again and again from vinyl.

Perhaps some folks believe that the vinyl resurgence is due to notions of misguided nostalgia by "hipsters and contrarians", but I, who am likely very un-hip and not so contrary in this older age, suspect it may be because folks value good sound, especially in their music. And vinyl still promotes something there worth hearing. It may just get you to saying "Oh my god!" or simply "Wow!" And after that, you'll be a believer, too.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

I bought the first CD model ever released by Technics and have a copy of _Alpensinfonie_ conducted by Karajan, which I believe was the first classical CD. Within a few years I had sold my record collection and given my Well-Tempered Record Player to a close friend. Oddly, I still have a Sony Walkman pro cassette player, which sit quietly in a closet. I think the small size is the only reason I keep it around.

My entire CD collection has been ripped to a hard drive (and two back-ups). The single disc cases are gone (too much space) but I still have the discs and the booklets (and the box sets). I started downloading hi-rez files occasionally about 10 years ago. Now, especially during the pandemic, the majority of my purchases are downloaded (CD quality or better) but price is an issue in my decision-making. I also stream CD quality.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Sorry, wrong number


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

SONNET CLV said:


> I revisit this thread to make a comment.
> 
> I spent a few days listening to CDs only -- a wide variety of music, classical orchestral and chamber works, jazz vocals and instrumentals, pop, and experimental "soundscape" and "noise" music, stuff which always forms the crux of my daily listening sessions, culled from a library of several thousand silver discs, some of them in SACD and HDCD formats. All played by way of my SONY XA5400ES, a playback unit with substantial credits to its name. I heard a lot of great music, well-played, and well reproduced via my stereo rig playing CDs. I enjoyed the week.
> 
> ...


I think the classic jazz fans have done the best with the 'vinyl resurgence'. Most if not all of the most famous ones have been reissued as audiophile LPs, including Coltrane's Lush Life, of course. Between original LPs, audiophile reissue LPs, and high-rez downloads in various formats, you have multiple good choices for many of those titles.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

fluteman said:


> I think the classic jazz fans have done the best with the 'vinyl resurgence'. Most if not all of the most famous ones have been reissued as audiophile LPs, including Coltrane's Lush Life, of course. Between original LPs, audiophile reissue LPs, and high-rez downloads in various formats, you have multiple good choices for many of those titles.


It's often said that one is drawn to the music that sounds good on his/her home stereo system. My system is currently optimized for chamber music (classical) and small acoustic ensembles (pop, jazz, folk, world), especially the turntable. Which does prompt me towards classic jazz quite a bit. I have so many jazz records that sound great, and I can't seem to ever play them enough.

I have _Lush Life_ on three or four sources, including CD. I most recently played Coltrane's _Lush Life_ on the Prestige 7188 reissue on translucent blue vinyl. I remain cautious about colored vinyl, which often does not have the quality (quietness, flatness) of traditional black, especially the 180grams and 200grams vinyl. But this Coltrane reissue proves the exception -- great sound quality, dead silent and flat-earth flat. Highly recommended.


----------



## golfer72 (Jan 27, 2018)

Ill stick with CD's. They sound better than vinyl and are more convenient


----------



## Mark Dee (Feb 16, 2021)

I listen to downloads, ripped CD's, CD's in a CD player, ripped vinyl, Vinyl on a turntable. Each one is a different experience for me. Listening to vinyl on a turntable is something I would class as a 'treat'. Then there is the collectable angle - mp3's are not collectable (at least not to me), but CD's and LP's are, although they take up more (sometimes too much!) room. It's a balancing act of ownership and collectability versus access. Maybe it's my age, but 'collecting' and the 'thrill of the chase' seems far more exciting than clicking on a 'download' button, but even so I have downloaded music I would not have had access to otherwise. I'm not a particularly avid streamer - I only use Accuradio, and there are some very good classical channels on that free platform with minimal ads (and full works without interruption), but snapping up a vinyl or CD bargain is always fun!


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

golfer72 said:


> Ill stick with CD's. They sound better than vinyl and are more convenient


While I agree with this to a large extent, vinyl still does one thing consistently better than 16/44.1. And that is soundstage and imaging.

For example: vinyl recordings consistently create a soundstage that extends beyond the outer edges of my speakers, when the same exact recording on CD, the soundstage stays within the boundaries of my speakers.

I will give 16/44.1 the edge in dynamics, lack of surface noise, better bass, but it does not better vinyl with regards to soundstage and imaging.

My collection of 24/192 and DSD files is growing, and these have all the best attributes of 16/44.1 AND the imaging and soundstage of vinyl. Especially DSD.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

I listen to CDs and streaming services these days, and haven't had a turntable for years and no more LPs. But I do miss dropping the needle down on that record. I'm glad LPs never died out entirely.


----------



## Radames (Feb 27, 2013)

Every once in a blue moon I buy vinyl when I see a deal on it in a shop. But it;s 99.99% CDs for me. I haven't even had time to listen to all mine. It would take me forever to put them all on a hard drive. I have over 10,000. I just got a bunch from a guy at work who has gotten interested in classical. I don't know where he got them but I gave some back to him and said he had to listen because it was such good stuff - like Hélène Grimaud playing Beethoven's 5th. I kept some for myself. I had to see what the Malaysian Philharmonic sounds like playing Rimsky. I also kept a disc of Nikos Skalkottas. Lots of his stuff isn't to my taste but some is good.


----------

