mikel Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 On 1/7/2018 at 16:47, mcnach said: It depends entirely on the production. Vinyl? it doesn't even have the lows as they've been removed and then added by your preamp (RIAA EQ curves)... A well produced vinyl and a well produced CD are both glorious. I'd personally take the CD (portability, resistance to damage -no immunity, but a lot more resistant-), but I loved the artwork on vinyl records... I have bought albums as a teenager sometimes based on the artwork alone! I said "Vinyl sounds better to me" Its subjective. CDs are too glossy and somehow superficial sounding. I have an original copy of Close to the Edge, by Yes, and it sound much better than the CD re mastered version I also have. The bass on the vinyl copy is more defined and has more depth and body. But we could argue subjective likes and dislikes for ever so I will leave it there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcnach Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 19 minutes ago, mikel said: I said "Vinyl sounds better to me" Its subjective. CDs are too glossy and somehow superficial sounding. I have an original copy of Close to the Edge, by Yes, and it sound much better than the CD re mastered version I also have. The bass on the vinyl copy is more defined and has more depth and body. But we could argue subjective likes and dislikes for ever so I will leave it there. and I was indicating one of several reasons why that might be. I'm not arguing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigRedX Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 20 minutes ago, mikel said: I said "Vinyl sounds better to me" Its subjective. CDs are too glossy and somehow superficial sounding. I have an original copy of Close to the Edge, by Yes, and it sound much better than the CD re mastered version I also have. The bass on the vinyl copy is more defined and has more depth and body. But we could argue subjective likes and dislikes for ever so I will leave it there. Yes it is entirely subjective, but I would also suggest that you have had anything up to 45 years to get used to the sound of the vinyl version, so anything that sounds different may well sound wrong to your ears. The only true test IMO is to take a brand new piece of music of your own creation and have in properly mastered for both CD and vinyl and then compare final results from each delivery medium. Having done this myself twice - for the "Invasion Of The SpiderQueen" single and the "SnakeOil For Snakes" LP by The terrortones, I can say IMO the CD version of both is not only sonically superior to the vinyl, but is also the version that sounds the way we wanted it to when we were recording and mixing it in the studio. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodinblack Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 1 hour ago, mikel said: I have an original copy of Close to the Edge, by Yes, and it sound much better than the CD re mastered version I also have. A better test would be comparing to the CD original rather than presumably a remastered version. I had trick of the tail on vinyl from new (year after, I was 12), or from second hand as my sister gave it to me because it was scratched (I got a non scratched one later, although I never really liked it as much without the scratch). It was one of the first CDs I bought back when CDs came out. It was great, same songs, but much more detail and you could hear the background and way more depth and those huge bass synths at full power. I recently got a Trick of the tail remastered. And frankly, to me, it is completely un-listenable. Absolutely can't stand it, it is completely wrong, it is not 'my' album at all, they have completely messed it up by moving some of the stuff around that actually changes some subtimings. But that isn't the CDs fault. Its the fault of the remasterer. I hope he can sleep at night with what he has done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcnach Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 22 minutes ago, Woodinblack said: A better test would be comparing to the CD original rather than presumably a remastered version. I had trick of the tail on vinyl from new (year after, I was 12), or from second hand as my sister gave it to me because it was scratched (I got a non scratched one later, although I never really liked it as much without the scratch). It was one of the first CDs I bought back when CDs came out. It was great, same songs, but much more detail and you could hear the background and way more depth and those huge bass synths at full power. I recently got a Trick of the tail remastered. And frankly, to me, it is completely un-listenable. Absolutely can't stand it, it is completely wrong, it is not 'my' album at all, they have completely messed it up by moving some of the stuff around that actually changes some subtimings. But that isn't the CDs fault. Its the fault of the remasterer. I hope he can sleep at night with what he has done. Not always. Some of the first CDs were indeed very good... but a lot of them, especially when they were reissuing older albums on CD, they seemed rushed jobs and not mastered properly for CD. It was very disappointing to buy CDs of albums I had had for years and find they lacked... 'life' , compared to what I was used to. The problem is not the medium, is what you put in it... Masters designed for vinyl are very different from those that are destined to CD, so you need someone to spend a bit of time remastering the thing to be issued on CD, and they didn't always put enough care, clearly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12stringbassist Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 The answer to the initial question (I haven't read the whole topic yet) is that a good guitar is a good guitar. Older ones can have a higher resale value, according to make / scarcity / condition. And of course they can all sound pretty much the same. There's a Flying V from 1969 on the front of this month's guitar magazine going for £30k. Would I pay that? No, it's way way out of my league money-wise. If I spent a big chunk of our savings on that, I imagine Mrs 12String would speak to me even less. Someone else will be able to easily afford it and relish having a historic guitar. I'd be as happy with whatever recent Gibson, or similar, that I could afford. Horses for courses. Dealers set these somewhat excessive prices and they only matter when someone actually pays that asking price. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Misdee Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 21 hours ago, Bridgehouse said: @Misdee - I do agree with most of what you say, even as a "vintage" owner. However, I would say that my 64 Precision is the least problem ridden bass I've owned. The neck seems to be the least susceptible to seasonal temp variations, the tuners the most solid for holding tune, and the output the most consistent. All with the proviso that if you have a nice old vintage bass that works well for you ( like a genuine 64 P Bass! ) don't give it up for scrap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bridgehouse Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 1 hour ago, Misdee said: All with the proviso that if you have a nice old vintage bass that works well for you ( like a genuine 64 P Bass! ) don't give it up for scrap. Hah! It's ok - I like it too much to scrap it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.gif.9ad672bb8b84505709f76b39c8c256ec.gif)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.