Is it just me or is Vinyl Experiencing a Renaissance?
May 23, 2009 at 5:16 AM Post #61 of 85
Quote:

Originally Posted by ozz /img/forum/go_quote.gif
As was stated you can not beat the laws of physics if it moves and comes in contact with
a stationary object there has to be wear now that wear may be so minute that the listener gets adjusted over time and may not be noticeable till its compared against a never been played copy.


No worries. You then by a second copy for $2

Speaking of the laws of physics each time your heart beats it wears down until it wears out (only so many beats in a lifetime). The real question is, do you want to waste those beats listening to CD or vinyl... I've made my choice
smily_headphones1.gif
 
May 23, 2009 at 5:20 AM Post #62 of 85
Quote:

Originally Posted by ADD /img/forum/go_quote.gif
If you bought them used, how would you know what they sounded like new?


You pays your money you takes your chances.... but at $2 a pop, if you find one gem out of 5, it's still cheaper than buying a new CD and much cheaper than a new LP. And will most likely sound better than either on.

My hit rate is at least 60%.
 
May 23, 2009 at 7:49 AM Post #64 of 85
Quote:

Originally Posted by grawk /img/forum/go_quote.gif
ADD, please learn to multiquote


Actuallly, thanks for the advice, but I already know how to do that. I did what I did on purpose. Obviously the psychololgy went way over your head. Please don't tell me what or what not to do in any case. You are not superior to anyone else here so please stop attmepting to throw your imagined weight around.
 
May 23, 2009 at 2:50 PM Post #67 of 85
Quote:

Originally Posted by jjhatfield /img/forum/go_quote.gif
i think grawk is totally superior.


One of the few things I have read here today that makes any sense. grawk is a giant of a man, capable of feats of strength and intellect. He chews up "psychology" and washes it down with giant goblets of mead.

And yes, grawk is a superior member of this community.
 
May 23, 2009 at 2:59 PM Post #69 of 85
ADD, please use multi quote. Your troll like posts are annoying as a single post and even more so in consecutive posts. And, by the way, grawk is superior.
 
May 23, 2009 at 3:14 PM Post #70 of 85
Quote:

Originally Posted by ADD /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Respectfully, you are incorrect. The original post referred to a vinyl resurgence. It's main point was not about a rise in vinyl sales. The rise in vinyl sales was used as a supporting argument pertaining to a vinyl resurgence. My point - for the third and last time - is that RIAA figures do not support a statistically meaningful resurgence.

I call an increase in sales a resurgence. Nielson Soundscan shows vinyl sales up 15% in 07 over 06 and 89% increase in 08 over 09. Total record sales just under 2 million. This year in the first third sales are alredy at almost 700,000, which suggests sales will again increase this year over last. that is called a resurgence.



Thanks for the anecdotal evidence, but I would rather go by the RIAA figures. If you think a 0.7% increase in new vinyl sales is "way up" then I am not sure any argument is going to convince you otherwise.


See my answer to your first quote. 89% growth in a year is way not up ??? BTW: CD sales have been down around 20% per year over the time period.
 
May 23, 2009 at 3:17 PM Post #71 of 85
Quote:

Originally Posted by ozz /img/forum/go_quote.gif
As was stated you can not beat the laws of physics if it moves and comes in contact with
a stationary object there has to be wear now that wear may be so minute that the listener gets adjusted over time and may not be noticeable till its compared against a never been played copy.


I have compared. Several reissues and remasters to the OLD originals with hundreds if not thousands of plays. Have you? I have also compared two of the Beatles White albums. One i bought new when it came out and one sealed about five years ago. They sound the same. I am not saying albums dont wear. just that with minimal care they will last your lifetime. Anyone avoiding getting into vinyl can toss out the wear and tear part as a reason to avoid doing so.
 
May 23, 2009 at 3:23 PM Post #73 of 85
Quote:

Originally Posted by tom hankins /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I have compared. Several reissues and remasters to the OLD originals with hundreds if not thousands of plays. Have you?


At 51 did you think I had CD's as an option in my youth it was R2R or vinyl and yes I bought fresh copies of particular albums that I played frequently and before
you state the equipment was cheap my last rig was a Thorens with an SME
arm and a Denon MC cartridge set up by B&M Electronics in Houston if anyone
that lived here was familiar with their expertise.
 
May 23, 2009 at 3:53 PM Post #74 of 85
Quote:

Originally Posted by tom hankins /img/forum/go_quote.gif
They sound the same. I am not saying albums dont wear. just that with minimal care they will last your lifetime. Anyone avoiding getting into vinyl can toss out the wear and tear part as a reason to avoid doing so.


all it takes is one dust particle to wedge inside a track before a needle hits it.

then that 'bit' is now toast.

lp playing is like russian roulette
wink.gif
you never know when you WILL create an unfixable audio error simply due to friction, alone.

can anyone here show me a noise floor even CLOSE to what a cd has?

I can get 90db or better from a cd. can you even get 60 or 70 from an lp? doubtful.

I hate noise. I'll never choose LP due to the high noise levels, alone.

look at the audio capture wave form on both lp and cd. if you ever did, you'd know that the lp was inferior in every single technical way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top