Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: ratherbebig on January 19, 2019, 09:21:16 AM
-
lately ive been thinking about buying vinyl records...
:-\
-
vinyl is in- you see records at book stores (from GnR to Rihanna) i think many buyers today use it as a statement piece in their office or home etc.
a record player "looks cool"
-
Phonograph records in good shape with their covers are wonderful items to own...I consider them equal to fine books. They are wonderful to watch while they play, and the larger canvas of the 12 inch square cover make them great to look over in their own right.
However, a CD's digital audio is technically better...
-
so it may not be a sign of aging, its something much worse
im turning into a hipster!
-
so it may not be a sign of aging, its something much worse
im turning into a hipster!
haha! its your money buy what you want :)
urban outfittters has you covered :)
https://www.urbanoutfitters.com/record-players
$59 for a cassette player
https://www.urbanoutfitters.com/shop/crosley-ct200-cassette-player?category=record-players&color=007&type=DEFAULT
-
i do think i would appreciate the music more, just sitting down with ONE record instead of having to skip a song every 20 seconds...
that being said, theyre not that cheap and im slightly bothered by all limited edition collectors edition 180 grams colored vinyl that cost a fortune stuff...
-
Seeburg Home Jukeboxes....
-
I said it many times when cd' was first coming onto the scene. Vinyl sounds light years better. If you have a pristine record and a good sound system with a good needle the flavors of the music really comes through. I can't speak for the new vinyl coming out that probably got loaded through a computer. It probably is no better than a CD. I have plenty of old vinyl. No comparison with the sound compared to cd's. Downloaded music is lacking too.
-
My vintage set up
-
My vintage set up
You need bigger speakers.
Just kidding though, great set up.
-
Phonograph records in good shape with their covers are wonderful items to own...I consider them equal to fine books. They are wonderful to watch while they play, and the larger canvas of the 12 inch square cover make them great to look over in their own right.
However, a CD's digital audio is technically better...
I have almost three bank boxes full of vinyl albums, including the yellow and red jacket, Miles Davis Sketches of Spain. Sadly, I don't currently have a turn table or decent sound system to play them on.
(https://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=651412.0;attach=769784;image)
-
You need bigger speakers.
Just kidding though, great set up.
LOL....thanks!
-
If I listened to music, I would buy vinyl, but I would prefer to invest in Six Star Nutrition Triple Chocolate protein powder from Wal-Mart.
Many people enjoy music, but personally - I'd rather be big.
-
Real hipsters are using cassettes.
-
EDIT: You should not touch the grooves with your fingers. finger prints wreck them.
-
My vintage set up
Nice - minimalistic and clean.
-
Real hipsters are using cassettes.
:D
that's me!!!
-
what's old is new again. such is the cycle of life. :)
-
I've been thinking about buying a greatest hits album by the Moody Blues lately.
-
Real hipsters are using cassettes.
Funny! I think I have some of those as well. My wife played Jump (For My Love) by the pointer sisters until the tape turned to circle of salt. ;D
-
Dress made from old scratched vinyl 45's
(https://gl-images.condecdn.net/image/ebP7gjKn5rW/crop/405/f/Kim-Kardashian_glamour_19nov14_rex_b.jpg)
-
I got a technics SL-1200MK2 with Shure M97XE cart. Technics are very overprice but built like a brick, but worth it if you can find at a decent price. Only turntables I will ever own. Funk those POS cheap urban outfitters turntables. If you're on a budget look at u-audio. Willing to spend more, look at pro-ject, hig-range audio-techicas, or Sony PS-HX500. Some people hate on the Sony model though.
-
lately ive been thinking about buying vinyl records...
:-\
LMAO vinyl Have been slowly back since 08' (within artist circuit) with general access growing since 3/4 years ago .
If available, I always go for vinyl first, in my opinion, is the only way you can consume an entire album .... you do have to make an investment though , a decent turntable and ortofon stylus to appreciate the sound as it should be .
WoooSHHHHHHHHHHH S U P E R
WoooSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
-
LMAO vinyl Have been slowly back since 08' (within artist circuit) with general access growing since 3/4 years ago .
If available, I always go for vinyl first, in my opinion, is the only way you can consume an entire album .... you do have to make an investment though , a decent turntable and ortofon stylus to appreciate the sound as it should be .
WoooSHHHHHHHHHHH S U P E R
WoooSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
I'm the opposite, I listen on spotify first, then if I can listen to the whole album straight, I then buy the record.
-
I'm the opposite, I listen on spotify first, then if I can listen to the whole album straight, I then buy the record.
Smart choice, as vinyls are a major expense .
WooSHHHHHHHHHHH
-
Smart choice, as vinyls are a major expense .
WooSHHHHHHHHHHH
Tell me about it, at one time I owned 250+, not a lot compare to some people. A lot for me in college though. I downsize my collection now. I used to store them in an Ikea book shelf... until that bitch broke on me. Invest in real storage.
-
(https://d29mtkonxnc5fw.cloudfront.net/site_assets/big-computer-frame-feature.jpg)
-
I started getting back into vinyl again about 6 years ago. I amassed a collection of about 250 albums so far.
-
I started getting back into vinyl again about 6 years ago. I amassed a collection of about 250 albums so far.
thats a lot of yngiwerhoads-records :o
-
Nice - minimalistic and clean.
Thanks!
-
Technically the records have a better sampling rate and have more information.
CDs have a lower sample rate but are better than an mp4 (what you get from itunes).
So the ranking is mp4 lowest worst sound quality - then cds - then vinyl.
I have a ton of old records that are scratchy and sound like shit with the signal to noise ratio being so heavy on the noise I will often use a cd version if I have if rather than the vinyl. But it's still fun yo go back and listen to the old records
-
Technically the records have a better sampling rate and have more information.
Phonograph records have no sampling rate, they are analog.
When I was studying electrical engineering, the formula given calls for a sampling rate that is slightly more than twice the highest sine wave signal you want to transmit.
Analog audio signals, no matter complex they appear, are made up of the sum of a series of sine waves up to the upper limit of human hearing. To digitize a sine wave you measure the upper top of the wave, and how low it goes under the zero crossover point. So therefore you are doing this twice for every sine wave.
Square waves are the sum of the odd harmonics of the fundamental frequency...triangular waves are made up of odd harmonics too, but the amplitude of the harmonics drop off with each increasing order...A saw-tooth wave is made up of odd and even harmonics.
The upshot is that the squiggly line that is sound is made up of various sine waves summed together, and to digitize it you have to sample twice as many times as the highest sine wave frequency in the signal.
CD's were designed to transmit a frequency range of 20 Hertz to 20,000 hertz. So they chose a sampling rate of 44.1 Kilohertz...a little more than twice the highest frequency.
As a comparison FM radio was designed with a very sharp 15 Khz cutoff. That is, it does not transmit anything higher than 15 Khz.
Cassettes "rolled off" generally above 10 Khz...With the high end chrome cassettes they could be made to record up to 15 Khz in high end machines. (Those "featured midnight albums" of hard rocks stations in the 1970's.)
LPs were generally rolled off above 20 Khz...
-
thats a lot of yngiwerhoads-records :o
;D
-
Phonograph records have no sampling rate, they are analog.
This is true, the records are analog and do not have a sampling rate.
If the record is in good condition and you have a good stylus the record will have information the cd or MP4 does not. Every time the record is played the sound quality will degrade though.
-
The limited run special edition releases make it a bit annoying at times,
as they become more collectibles than something that will be opened and used.
And then the next reprints might only be years later.
But otherwise, the artwork on a lot of the packaging can look terrific.
-
The limited run special edition releases make it a bit annoying at times,
as they become more collectibles than something that will be opened and used.
And then the next reprints might only be years later.
But otherwise, the artwork on a lot of the packaging can look terrific.
Yeah, I rarely buy limited runs, everything I buy I want to listen too and rip to flac.
-
If the record is in good condition and you have a good stylus the record will have information the cd or MP4 does not.
You seemed to miss that my post was a detailed and extensive explanation of why your statement comparing LP"s and CD's fidelity to the original waveform is wrong.
-
Phonograph records have no sampling rate, they are analog.
When I was studying electrical engineering, the formula given calls for a sampling rate that is slightly more than twice the highest sine wave signal you want to transmit.
Analog audio signals, no matter complex they appear, are made up of the sum of a series of sine waves up to the upper limit of human hearing. To digitize a sine wave you measure the upper top of the wave, and how low it goes under the zero crossover point. So therefore you are doing this twice for every sine wave.
Square waves are the sum of the odd harmonics of the fundamental frequency...triangular waves are made up of odd harmonics too, but the amplitude of the harmonics drop off with each increasing order...A saw-tooth wave is made up of odd and even harmonics.
The upshot is that the squiggly line that is sound is made up of various sine waves summed together, and to digitize it you have to sample twice as many times as the highest sine wave frequency in the signal.
CD's were designed to transmit a frequency range of 20 Hertz to 20,000 hertz. So they chose a sampling rate of 44.1 Kilohertz...a little more than twice the highest frequency.
As a comparison FM radio was designed with a very sharp 15 Khz cutoff. That is, it does not transmit anything higher than 15 Khz.
Cassettes "rolled off" generally above 10 Khz...With the high end chrome cassettes they could be made to record up to 15 Khz in high end machines. (Those "featured midnight albums" of hard rocks stations in the 1970's.)
LPs were generally rolled off above 20 Khz...
Nice post. Still have my entire collection of LPs... over 1000 of them. Most are mint.
-
You seemed to miss that my post was a detailed and extensive explanation of why your statement comparing LP"s and CD's fidelity to the original waveform is wrong.
I didn't miss your post, I said you are correct that records are analog.
One thing not mentioned in your post is analog recording techniques vs digital.
In the 90s most studios made the transition from 2" tape to adat or da88 digital format.
An analog record made from a digital recording will not have the same amount of information.
CDs are 16bit - adat or da88 is 32bit. So the cd immediately cuts the resolution in half.
Analog to analog has information that digital format never captures.
-
Analog to analog has information that digital format never captures.
This assertion is wrong....