[AudioDwebe]

LPs can sound better than their silver disc counterpart, but I don't find that to be the rule, per se.  And really, the only way anyone can make that comparison is if they have both the vinyl and CD of the same recording to compare. 
 
I've always felt that it's more costly to get into a vinyl rig than CD because you have the expense of the table (hopefully it comes with an arm), cartridge and phono preamp.
 
Don't know how much you're looking to spend, but you could probably get into a Rega P3 and Bellari phono pre for a few hundred bucks (assuming bought used) to see what vinyl is all about.  And if you decide to get into records, don't forget about the cleaner you'll also need.  Or you can just wash them in the sink.
 
Good luck.

 

[Subsequence]

Vinyl seems like a great way to give the loudness war the finger. I think i really should get into it.

 

[DxBecks]

I've been buying Vinyl records for three years now I think, and I absolutely love it. Make no mistake though, Vinyl is not perfect, and it is a major pain in the ass at times but the moments were it all seems to align and even that horrible beat up record comes to life it can be an amazing experience. The question of whether Vinyl sounds better than a CD is a long answer, if both existed in a vacuum, and the music contained on both discs were recorded by the same method, and played on similar quality equipment, I believe that Vinyl sounds better than a CD. In the real world? Maybe. If you listen to a lot of old rock like Pink Floyd or Led Zeppelin, where music was recorded on analog equipment, and mastered with care Vinyl really shows its strength. Part of that though is because some remasters (sadly the Led Zeppelin remasters have fallen victim to this) are mastered with loudness in mind. The sound difference between Led Zeppelin IV on worn 40 year old record sounds much better than the recent remaster, and infinitely better than tracks from the album Mothership. With more modern albums some of the Vinyl's are cut from the CD version of album, so while the loudness war doesn't exist on the Vinyl in the same way as it does the CD, and the dynamics will be slightly better, the Vinyl wasn't remastered and most of the dynamic compression still exists, and at that point the price difference and sound quality between the two really isn't worth it unless you love the format like myself. 

I do think Vinyl is something you should experience in your life however, eventually I will have to switch over to digital music. Vinyls are not going to last forever, or sound great forever for that matter, and eventually they will likely no longer be produced because lets be honest if music starts being recorded and available for download in Lossless 96000Hz/24-bit or higher quality, there really would be no point to buying a physical format anymore. 

 

[FieldEffect]

Sure there's a point! It's art. Some bands put a lot into the design of their vinyl releases.
 
People still buy oil paintings.
 
Quote:

if music starts being recorded and available for download in Lossless 96000Hz/24-bit or higher quality, there really would be no point to buying a physical format anymore. 

 

[naider27]

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm
 
Here is a link of some facts which puts you aware of the Vinyl superiority. But let me put this simple:
 
Any studio-recordable sound is "analog" by definition/convention. The interface you put it will define which kind of signal you will get: analog (like the senoid line on the first graph) or the binary approach to this "perfect" nature signal. In other words, you always lose. You will be aware of the sound, but will never get to its intrinsic priority, which only the pure signal on the vinyl will give to you.
 
Despite all the non-practical issues the vinyl brings, you will have the most true musical immersion experience with it.

 

[ozz]

I will take SACD and DVD-A over all of them especially  classical music.
I will admit some older music was mastered better on the vinyl and on a really good table,arm and cartridge can be pleasurable.
The DDD copy of Brothers In Arms CD played on an Oppo BDP-103 is quite pleasing.

 

[rockposer]

I have a Rega Planner II turntable. If I play my Japanese import vinyl or 180g vinyl then it'll beat CD hands down.

 

[yaaah69]

I really did not know just how much I would miss the lp's until now , and all the good recordings I had...also had a Telefunken player that went somewhere. I even miss the light scratching on the beginning of the records . I was a fool for dumping them and I hope to start soon on another venture with lp's and turntables....ciaofornow

 

[Podster]

This thread needs more pictures!
 
My current sweetheart

 

 

 

[520RanchBro]

Remember if you want your vinyl to sound it's best, you'll need to invest in some sort of cleaning method. Some people just use a brush and fluid but a vacuum record cleaner will go a long way to making the sound as clear as possible.
 
I slightly prefer vinyl to digital, sound-wise. But it also depends on the masters of each album so some sound better in a digital format and others sound better on vinyl. Generally, I just buy my absolute favorites to listen to on vinyl but most of my music purchases are digital, it's more convenient and with entry level gear, they sound abut the same. I did some A/B testing using my Schitt SYS switching between my Pro-Ject phono pre and Modi 2 Uber. Did not notice a significant difference, on most albums. I just love collecting them.
 
I'd say going vinyl is dependent on a few things:
 
1. Your home environment - If your place is dusty or full of cats (like my house, I have three), you'll need to invest in some cleaning tools and clean your setup often (records, dust the turntable, clean the stylus. Also if you live in a very dry environment, static pops and clicks will be an issue as well. You can always get an anti-static gun but they are not the cheapest and I've read mixed reviews.
 
2. You're preferred genres of music - If it's a lot of newer music, vinyl is going to be very expensive compared to digital. I don't own a lot of current top 40 pop, rock or hip-hop on vinyl, but I'm going to guess those big labels couldn't care less about mastering for vinyl, they're just going to churn it out for more money. Again this is more of a guess but I feel it's conceivable, maybe someone can weigh in.
 
3. Storage Space - You're collection might grow faster than you think, make sure you have a good way to correctly store your records without damaging them.
 
It sounds like a pain but I still love collecting vinyl, sometimes you get a real sweet master that just blows your digital copy away but usually they are about equal. I'd say if you're interested just based on sound quality, unless you have a giant budget, stick with digital.
 
If you want to collect and enjoy your favorite albums in a more personal way, enjoy occasionally better sound (subjective), and can deal with the extra maintenance and costs, I've found vinyl to be very rewarding.
 
 
Now these are just my personal experiences, many folks here have a lot more experience with vinyl over the years and could offer a completely different take. The more impressions the better.

 

[Cha Cha Cha]

Are 78 records still being pressed?

Planning on buying my first player and some of the lower end one require something extra or simply wont play them. Have very few records (mostly vinyl-only releases) from this past decade and the Pro-ject essential usb is fairly priced and comes with a phono preamp... Seems like a good buy for a newbie.

 

[yeahx]

I dont think they are and if so not enough get a table. They all would require a separate cartridge just for the 78s.

 

[formbypc]

Are 78 records still being pressed?

Planning on buying my first player and some of the lower end one require something extra or simply wont play them. Have very few records (mostly vinyl-only releases) from this past decade and the Pro-ject essential usb is fairly priced and comes with a phono preamp... Seems like a good buy for a newbie.

 
No. The only reason to buy a 78rpm TT is if you want to play your father's or grandfather's collection of them from before the 1960s. 
 
You can get specialist 78 TTs if you want them. You also need a specialised cartridge and stylus, and if you're really serious about it, a pre-amp that allows you to choose the EQ according to record label and era.

 

[formbypc]

Let's put something else in the mix - for albums recorded before the digital era, the original master tape MUST be an analogue tape. Any digital format which followed is either made from a direct copy from this master tape, or from an analogue working copy of the tape. 
 
Much will depend on when the digital copy was taken, and what state the analogue master (or copy) was in at the time. If it's been well preserved, and is clean and tidy, you may well get a good digital copy, and you may well get a good-sounding CD, SACD or DVD-A from it. 
 
If the tape has been used a lot, perhaps for a big-selling album, it might have suffered. Repeated plays will wear the tape and take off the high end, there may be drop-outs that need repair, any physical splices in the tape may be falling apart because of the splicing tape drying out ... all sorts of problems, including the famous Ampex situation, where the binder that holds the tape together falls apart, and the tape has to be baked before it can be played. It may have been stored badly. 
 
So, let's take as an example, Led Zeppelin 1, recorded in 1969. They finish in the studio, have their completed master tape, take it to a cutting room in London, make the master laquer, and that goes to the pressing plant. The first pressings of LZ 1 were this direct, and that's one of the reasons they're in such demand on the second-hand market. That's why virtually ALL first pressings fetch high sums on eBay and the like.
 
Compare this with the CD and special editions released last year of LZ 1. For the original CDs in the 1990s, probably taken from whatever master copy was to hand, just to get them on the market. For the special editions, probably from the original master, but from a master that was then at least 20 years old, with all that implies - ageing, decay, high usage, wear and tear, etc etc.
 
I've heard a couple of these early pressings compared to the remastering for the first Led Zep box sets, and the vinyl wiped the floor with them. Not even close. The vinyl had a big, room-filling sound, the CDs skulked around in or around the speakers.
 
Vinyl (early pressing)
 
Studio > Master Tape > Cutting Room > Pressing Plant > Public
 
Digital (early)
 
Studio > Master Tape > Storage and Usage > Digital Copy using the gear of that time > CD mastering > Pressing Plant > Public
 
Digital (late)
 
Studio > Master Tape > Storage and Usage, with even more wear from earlier digital mastering > Digital Copy using 'improved' digital gear > CD mastering > Pressing Plant > Public
 
 
Which is the most direct route? 

 

[dprimary]

  http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm
 
Here is a link of some facts which puts you aware of the Vinyl superiority. But let me put this simple:
 
Any studio-recordable sound is "analog" by definition/convention. The interface you put it will define which kind of signal you will get: analog (like the senoid line on the first graph) or the binary approach to this "perfect" nature signal. In other words, you always lose. You will be aware of the sound, but will never get to its intrinsic priority, which only the pure signal on the vinyl will give to you.
 
Despite all the non-practical issues the vinyl brings, you will have the most true musical immersion experience with it.

As it has been pointed out before that webpage is so flawed, people don't even where to start. 
 
Maybe here https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml
 
There is no lossless analog recording medium. Tape never sounds like what it was fed from the microphones and vinyl never sounds like the tape. It does not mean it not enjoyable.