NationStates Jolt Archive

Many of us know that there is no comparison to the musical quality of a Vinyl Record. The pitch, the frequency response, the depth, and the "feel" is unequaled. This is even moreso if you have hi-fidelity, true-analogue equipment for your records.

But wait, some of you are still under the impression that digital mediums are better than records! Well, face the facts: They aren't.

Vinyl records, depending on the equipment you have, have a frequency range of 10hz to 100khz. Now that's a lot of music! Considering that CD's and DvD's have a strict 20hz - 22.1khz frequency response, that is indeed awesome.

And often, people are turned off by the noise of vinyl records. Well, I'm here to tell you that such noise is only a myth... Somewhat. You see, the hiss that you hear on many records is from poor preamp, tonearm, and cartridge quality. It also comes from dirt and grime in the grooves of the records. But the main source is Tape Bias. Since most records are recorded in the tape-to-disc process, the tape film's audio bias is transferred to the vinyl, thus created an exaggerated hiss. Some studios record directly to disc, thus eliminating the tape bias, giving you a much cleaner sound.

But, even with the tape bias on most records, the audio is still far, far superior than even the highest-quality DvD's. And another bonus for analogue records is that they aren't compressed. Even DvD's are compressed, as they use a Digital Envelope algorithm, rather than magnetic signal responce. Simply put, there is no substitute for the classic Analogue LP.


So come on, talk about the recording medium that never should have slipped into the niche market. The medium that should still be #1. The medium that cannot be topped. The medium that *is* Music.

-snip-

agreed. mostly. oh, and if you happen to find a nice vinyl verson of a jefferson airplane album, listen to wooden ships and white rabbit. great, great stuff.

*Puts on Led Zepplin II LP and nods* :D


Damn straight...you wanna hear Cream, Led Zep and Hendrix at their best? Get a good vinyl player and turn up the volume!


And Focus too, with maybe some Emerson, Lake and Palmer...er better not start listing bands me thinks...

Damn straight...you wanna hear Cream, Led Zep and Hendrix at their best? Get a good vinyl player and turn up the volume!

damn straight. another song. listen to creams live verson of crossroads on vinyl. mindblowing stuff, man.

You know what *really* kicks ass on Vinyl?

Deep Purple.

And you know it.



Oh oh oh, and look at this site. If you want THE BEST analogue equipment, look no further. www.clearaudio.de . This stuff is absolutely outstanding. Even their lower-priced products sound better than most high-end stuff, that would usually cost you about $12,000 total. I'm gonna buy one of their Phono Stages in a few months with the money I'm getting.

I'm just going to play devil's advocate for a bit and remind you that you actually have to take care of vinyl, it doesn't last more than a few decades, and also bring up the point that you actually have to flip sides on those LP's.

:p

You know what *really* kicks ass on Vinyl?

Deep Purple.

And you know it.

havent heard it. but i shall. 'tis now my lifes goal.

I'm just going to play devil's advocate for a bit and remind you that you actually have to take care of vinyl, it doesn't last more than a few decades, and also bring up the point that you actually have to flip sides on those LP's.

:p

yeah... but... i mean...

you havent heard it in all its coolness, have you? (i would argue back, for enjoyment, but im tired and heading to bed now.)

I'm just going to play devil's advocate for a bit and remind you that you actually have to take care of vinyl, it doesn't last more than a few decades, and also bring up the point that you actually have to flip sides on those LP's.

:p

Silly advocate...go play with your little pieces of digital nonsense! :p

You're right about having to take care of records, along with flipping them to play the rest of the songs.

But, only lasting a few decades? Either you've got some D-Grade records, or you're storing them improperly. My Grandma kept a set of about 20 records in a cold, dark closet for a very long time, some records even dating back to 1913. They're still in the same shape they were the last time she played them (about 1955).

Digital mediums are the ones that don't last very long. If you store a bunch of CD's like my Grandma stored her records, you're gonna find a good amount of corrosion and chemical residue from the breakup of the particals. A Chicago CD my Dad bought in 1988 isn't even playable now, as it's decomposed thoroughly. It was stored in a wooden drawer in 1991. I happened to find it when I was cleaning last year, and it was a total mess.

Remember, though: Only clean your records before and after you play them. If you clean them on a regular basis (read: every week), they're probably gonna get damaged.

The life expectancy of CDs avarages about 7 years, depending on quality, storage and how well they are cared for. Cut polishing may make it work again, but at times you may just end up looking right through the CD. Never use nail polish remover to clean it with.

Digital mediums are the ones that don't last very long. If you store a bunch of CD's like my Grandma stored her records, you're gonna find a good amount of corrosion and chemical residue from the breakup of the particals. A Chicago CD my Dad bought in 1988 isn't even playable now, as it's decomposed thoroughly. It was stored in a wooden drawer in 1991. I happened to find it when I was cleaning last year, and it was a total mess.
.

That's odd. I have CDs floating around here that are more than 10 years old, scratched to buggery, and with a bit of polish, they still play fine.


But, only lasting a few decades? Either you've got some D-Grade records, or you're storing them improperly. My Grandma kept a set of about 20 records in a cold, dark closet for a very long time, some records even dating back to 1913. They're still in the same shape they were the last time she played them (about 1955).

Aye, but A or even B-grade records are hard to find. And when you actually *do* find them in a store, the cost will kill you.

I mean...$10 for a Led Zeppelin CD re-release or many, many times that for a half-decent vinyl record?

If the vinyl was a decent price, sure i'd take it over a CD though...

I've found superb Vinyl Records on Ebay. Got what I would call an A+ in Rocket To Russia by the Ramones.

I've found superb Vinyl Records on Ebay. Got what I would call an A+ in Rocket To Russia by the Ramones.

Wow, I just checked ebay and I stand corrected. The prices look very agreeable! For example. (http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=1593&item=4705901449&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW).

The life expectancy of CDs avarages about 7 years, depending on quality, storage and how well they are cared for.

Unless you use CDs as coasters, frisbees and the like, i'd disagree with that...

I mean, I have computer game CD's that are 11 or 12 years old, and work fine. I wasn't really into music then, so I cant vouch there.

I also prefer vinyl, but because of lack of money and space i'm quite obliged to buy cd's.. too bad, but i'll live. Maybe later i'll start collecting rare LP's!

I have Vinyl that is thirty or more years old, and is still in perfect condition. My difficulty is getting hold of decent equipment to play it on here. Imported electronics are too expensive and they simply don't make the stuff any more here.
On the durability of CDs. If you live in tropical or sub tropical regions they can easily go "mouldy" The aluminium layer starts to degrade after a few years of heat and high humidity. If you only use them at home, then this is no big disadvantage if you have air conditioning, however don't keep CDs in your car.

On the sound range thing. Yes vinyl analogue can reproduce a wider range, but unless you are a whale or a dog, there is no advantage to this. Human hearing is sensitive in the range 20 Hz to 20 kHz (source (http://www.cs.cf.ac.uk/Dave/Multimedia/node271.html) ) and anything outside of this is pretty much irrelevant. It may be argued that you feel subsonics physically, but the top end is just a waste of energy.

CDs have their advantages in their portability more than anything. Casettes are portable but a pig to find a particular track on. All in all I prefer vinyl for nostalgic reasons, it makes me feel good. In terms of sound quality, I simply do not have the money to spend on the expensive equipment necessary to show any difference.

CDs are dead.

All digital media is the way to go. *nod*

Best of all, richness of sound is limited only by storage space.

CDs are dead.

All digital media is the way to go. *nod*

Best of all, richness of sound is limited only by storage space.

Umm. A DDD CD is all digital.
If you mean on-line music then richness of sound is limited by the digitalisation method used, not just storage space.

Umm. A DDD CD is all digital.
If you mean on-line music then richness of sound is limited by the digitalisation method used, not just storage space.

True enough. Nevertheless, the flexibility or electronically stored media allows me to match my needs to my space available.

The only vinyl I've ever bought was a limited edition one of an album I already owned on CD just because I thought it was cool to have one (#700 of 1000). My parents have a lot of old records and we still have the player.

Apple Losses, for the Apple ipod, sounds better than a record or a CD.

The only reason that a CD from the 80s would be rotted and unusable nowadays is that a different plastic formulation was used then. Modern CDs use a different plastic that's less able to rot. If you just store them in a cool place and take care of them, CDs should last several decades.

"On the sound range thing. Yes vinyl analogue can reproduce a wider range, but unless you are a whale or a dog, there is no advantage to this. Human hearing is sensitive in the range 20 Hz to 20 kHz (source ) and anything outside of this is pretty much irrelevant. It may be argued that you feel subsonics physically, but the top end is just a waste of energy."


That is true. However, with the greater sound range, you can still hear much more audio, mainly due to the fact that nothing is comprimised. When you rip a Vinyl Record directly to a CD, there is much less sound. Anything outside 20 - 20 is definately not irrelevant. Listen for yourself, as there is much greater precision and clarity with 10 - 100.

And the fact that CD's don't have true pitch is another con. Record yourself talking directly onto a CD, and it sounds almost nothing like you. Do the same into an analogue medium (a good cassette, not the cheap 99 cent ones), and it's hard to tell the difference.

Vinyl is good.

serously we should all go back to vinyl...
ad: intrdouing the new alomst portable player!

Lol.

Although, there were companies in the 70's that made record players that were usable in cars. They had springs and shocks to keep it steady, plus they had clamps to keep the arm on the record.

You Luddite jokers.

"My vinyl goes up to 100 kHz!"

Great. Your dog says thank you! He can finally hear the whistle at the end of "Day in the Life" exactly as it was meant to be heard.

Churn me some butter.

I guess some of you people just don't get what it means to have uncompressed, uncomprimised audio.

There's a massive difference between Journey's "Departure" versions. The CD version is tinny, has very poor bass, and the guitars aren't prominent. The LP version is crisp, has deep, rich, pounding bass, the guitars are pristine, and the vocals are in the most perfect tone.

But, I guess you'd have to listen for yourself to see what I'm talking about.

You know what *really* kicks ass on Vinyl?

Deep Purple.

And you know it.


Damn Straight :)
We all came out to montreux
On the lake geneva shoreline
To make records with a mobile
We didn’t have much time
Frank zappa and the mothers
Were at the best place around
But some stupid :headbang: with a flare gun
Burned the place to the ground
Smoke on the water, fire in the sky
:cool:

im not much of a music person anyways...

I love the sound of vinyl too. All audiophiles can appreciate the unsurpassed tonal quality and 'real' sound of an LP.

I have an extensive collection of about 400 or so original records (well, extensive for someone who was brought up during the tail end of the vinyl days.)

I even have Pearl Jam's 'Vitalogy' on Vinyl, in first release (it was released on vinyl in an attempt to please purists and make tribute to vinyl.)

Sadly, my old Denon direct drive is broken, and does not appear to be fixable. It's getting harder to find parts for these old jewels - and harder to find, in commonplace merchant outlets, a decent turntable that you don't have to order to purchase. :(

Yeah, that's getting a little out of hand. Phazing out such a superior recording medium is just stupid.

Sony, Panasonic, and Philips should be... Well, something should happen to them for all the propaganda bullshit they made in the 1980's when they released their CD technology.

"CD sounds better than records! clear sound, no hiss, and you can skip tracks!" - This pretty much ended the dominance of Vinyl. Stupid, isn't it?

"You can play CD's in your car!" - This was the final blow to cassettes and 8-Tracks. As you may know, cassettes and 8-tracks have far superior sound quality, though not quite up there with Records.


Well, simply put, Sony pretty much ruined it. Because of them, we have a terribly shitty mainstream recording medium.

If it's a new record player you want, just search google. There's a surprising amount of sites that carry cheap, high-quality equipment.

Yeah, that's getting a little out of hand. Phazing out such a superior recording medium is just stupid.

Sony, Panasonic, and Philips should be... Well, something should happen to them for all the propaganda bullshit they made in the 1980's when they released their CD technology.

"CD sounds better than records! clear sound, no hiss, and you can skip tracks!" - This pretty much ended the dominance of Vinyl. Stupid, isn't it?

"You can play CD's in your car!" - This was the final blow to cassettes and 8-Tracks. As you may know, cassettes and 8-tracks have far superior sound quality, though not quite up there with Records.


Well, simply put, Sony pretty much ruined it. Because of them, we have a terribly shitty mainstream recording medium.

If it's a new record player you want, just search google. There's a surprising amount of sites that carry cheap, high-quality equipment.

I guess you could classifiy me as an audio file, as I can tell the difference between an 128k mp3 and a 150k MP3 and I never encode my music at anything less than 192k AAC. The fact is, records and tapes dont sound nearly as good as CD's or high briate OOG's and AAC's.
And Analog isn't nearly as flexible or nearly as enjoyable to listen to as digital music.

I'll admit that well records can sound fucking awsome, but that kind of stuff is so damm expensive. You can get one of these bad boys for that price http://i.timeinc.net/time/gadget/images/photo_ipod4.jpg

I guess you could classifiy me as an audio file, as I can tell the difference between an 128k mp3 and a 150k MP3 and I never encode my music at anything less than 192k AAC.]
:D
That was funny, did you replace "audiophile" with "audio file" on purpose?

You guys are just afraid of the future, aren't you?

You guys are just afraid of the future, aren't you?
Hey, I've backed up most of my CDs, tapes, and records into digital files on an external hard drive because I don't want to lose all my music when the medium I have them stored on wears out.

EDIT:
I'm not afraid of the future. The future is afraid of me!
http://artpad.art.com/gallery/?icqufld7c9o

I guess you could classifiy me as an audio file, as I can tell the difference between an 128k mp3 and a 150k MP3 and I never encode my music at anything less than 192k AAC. The fact is, records and tapes dont sound nearly as good as CD's or high briate OOG's and AAC's.
And Analog isn't nearly as flexible or nearly as enjoyable to listen to as digital music.

I'll admit that well records can sound fucking awsome, but that kind of stuff is so damm expensive. You can get one of these bad boys for that price http://i.timeinc.net/time/gadget/images/photo_ipod4.jpg


You're shitting me, right? CD's are digitally compressed recording formats, and OGG and AAC's are even moreso! You must have some really fucking bad records and equipment if you think that Digital is better than Analogue.

While I will agree with you on the issue of flexibility, there is one thing you can do. You can rip your records to 192khz, 32-bit, PCM. It's almost just like listening to the record, although you can tell that some sound's been missed, due to the digital enveloping. Ripping to very-high quality PCM is a good way to keep your records in a low-use state.

I love vinyl rips. They sound so much better than pure digital. I mean, there's a world of difference between the two!

You guys are just afraid of the future, aren't you?


No. I'd actually prefer it if we could record a true analogue waveform in Digital. But, since technology hasn't quite reached that state yet, Vinyl is still by far the best.

I'm just going to play devil's advocate for a bit and remind you that you actually have to take care of vinyl, it doesn't last more than a few decades, and also bring up the point that you actually have to flip sides on those LP's.

:p
but that's why idiots who can't take care of their vinyl shouldn't be allowed to enjoy music! And why only good bands still put out vinyl, because they know the people who listen to them arn't mtv trained drones rocking out to top 40 bullshit!

but that's why idiots who can't take care of their vinyl shouldn't be allowed to enjoy music! And why only good bands still put out vinyl, because they know the people who listen to them arn't mtv trained drones rocking out to top 40 bullshit!


Absolutely correct, my friend! I was in Sam Goody a few weeks ago, and whaddya know, they had a wall of brand-new LP's! I don't exactly remember the bands, but I noticed at least ten different ones. And album art looks FAR better on an LP's cover than it does on a CD's shrink-wrapped plastic.

You're shitting me, right? CD's are digitally compressed recording formats, and OGG and AAC's are even moreso! You must have some really fucking bad records and equipment if you think that Digital is better than Analogue.

While I will agree with you on the issue of flexibility, there is one thing you can do. You can rip your records to 192khz, 32-bit, PCM. It's almost just like listening to the record, although you can tell that some sound's been missed, due to the digital enveloping. Ripping to very-high quality PCM is a good way to keep your records in a low-use state.

I love vinyl rips. They sound so much better than pure digital. I mean, there's a world of difference between the two!

Ever hear of a little format called apple lossless? Ipod+Apple Lossless=Kickass

Yes, I have, I use it, and it is complete bullshit.

They mean "lossless" as in the fact that it doesn't lose any information from the original CD recording when they compress it. It sounds like a CD, and that's okay. It's still nowhere close to any analogue medium.

I love it how these companies try to fool people into thinking that "lossless" means that it's a pure, true interpretation of an analogue waveform.

You left out several main reasons vinyl LPs are better:

1) You can't play a CD backwards to hear the hidden message! "turn me on, dead man"

2) The art work. Check out some of the artwork on albums by the group Yes.

3) It's harder to clean your pot on a CD case than an LP.

If it's a new record player you want, just search google. There's a surprising amount of sites that carry cheap, high-quality equipment.

But none that ship to Brazil. (I chose to live here, I'll just have to suffer.)

Yeah, I forgot about playing them backwards.

Absolutely correct, my friend! I was in Sam Goody a few weeks ago, and whaddya know, they had a wall of brand-new LP's! I don't exactly remember the bands, but I noticed at least ten different ones. And album art looks FAR better on an LP's cover than it does on a CD's shrink-wrapped plastic.

I didn't, however, forget about the artwork. Read above.

And yes, it is far easier to hide *and* clean pot out of your LP storage :D.

But none that ship to Brazil. (I chose to live here, I'll just have to suffer.)

Brazil's pretty cool. I'd like to give you some records and audio equipment, but I don't have the money right now. I mean it, I'd really buy you some!

Yeah, I forgot about playing them backwards.



I didn't, however, forget about the artwork. Read above.

And yes, it is far easier to hide *and* clean pot out of your LP storage :D.

I stand corrected.
I wonder how many that argue in favor of CDs were even around to hear LPs and know the difference? Just curious.

Meh, Snice I dont hook up my 7.1 surround Bose surround sound system, I probably cant tell the difference.

My Grandma has a record player, sounds like shit, pops hisses, and that stupid static in the backround, pisses me off. I'll take a ipod!

I stand corrected.
I wonder how many that argue in favor of CDs were even around to hear LPs and know the difference? Just curious.


None that I've talked to have *ever* heard a record before. They, sadly, do not know what true reverb sounds like.

Reverb on a record is actually 3-dimensional. It's actually got the sound of the studio! CD's can't do reverb worth shit, nor can DvD's, for that matter. And no current digital format/medium can present true analogue tones. Records are generally higher-pitched than digital formats, which is one of the reasons they sound better.

Meh, Snice I dont hook up my 7.1 surround Bose surround sound system, I probably cant tell the difference.

My Grandma has a record player, sounds like shit, pops hisses, and that stupid static in the backround, pisses me off. I'll take a ipod!


Was I right or was I right? You've got god-awful, shitty equipment and no knowledge of Vinyl. No wonder you think that Digital is better.

I stand corrected.
I wonder how many that argue in favor of CDs were even around to hear LPs and know the difference? Just curious.

I always listened to records in my folks' basement when I was a kid. I prefer CDs. I'm of the opinion that people who furiously proclaim records as superior are either hallucinating, in denial, or just hotheaded about something that's minutely important at best. I've never picked up any great difference in sound quality. Pops and hisses annoy me, and records themselves are large and non-portable. I cannot listen to a record while skiing or grocery shopping. I'd call myself an audiophile because I am a music lover. A lot of people around here seem more like music stalkers.

I always listened to records in my folks' basement when I was a kid. I prefer CDs. I'm of the opinion that people who furiously proclaim records as superior are either hallucinating, in denial, or just hotheaded about something that's minutely important at best. I've never picked up any great difference in sound quality. Pops and hisses annoy me, and records themselves are large and non-portable. I cannot listen to a record while skiing or grocery shopping. I'd call myself an audiophile because I am a music lover. A lot of people around here seem more like music stalkers.


That's odd. You must have had some pretty bad equipment, too. People who genuinely love music would always take analogue over digital. There is a massive, vast, almost infinite difference in sound between analogue and digital, and I'll say this --- analogue is at the better end.

Of course you can't take a record with you while you're skiing or grocery shopping. That's what walkmans and cassette tapes are for. Cassettes, while not quite as good as Vinyl, are *far* superior to digital formats.

I've got stuff on vinyl and CD. The stuff on vinyl of mine is stuff that's either not out on CD or would be very hard to track down. On your average run of the mill stereo, sure there's a difference between the two, but if you have a higher end, balanced, brand new needle type turntable that difference is sharply narrowed.

But in either case, give me my 8 tracks any day!!!!! :p

That's odd. You must have had some pretty bad equipment, too. People who genuinely love music would always take analogue over digital. There is a massive, vast, almost infinite difference in sound between analogue and digital, and I'll say this --- analogue is at the better end.

Of course you can't take a record with you while you're skiing or grocery shopping. That's what walkmans and cassette tapes are for. Cassettes, while not quite as good as Vinyl, are *far* superior to digital formats.

There's no way you could convince me that grimy, short-lived, unwindy, overheaty cassettes are good for anything but decorating cars with after drinking binges.

I've got stuff on vinyl and CD. The stuff on vinyl of mine is stuff that's either not out on CD or would be very hard to track down. On your average run of the mill stereo, sure there's a difference between the two, but if you have a higher end, balanced, brand new needle type turntable that difference is sharply narrowed.

But in either case, give me my 8 tracks any day!!!!! :p


What? If anything, a better stereo system would show just how much better records really are.

And a decent tape deck is all you need to hear how much better cassettes are than CD's. Never once has my Pioneer ruined a single tape. It presents the tones, ambience, and speed of cassettes perfectly and flawlessly. I will never, *ever* play CD's in any car that I will buy in the future.

How do I have shitty stuff? I thought this was pretty good http://www.bose.com/images/home_entertainment/products/p_ls48_m_b.jpg

Not sure of actual price, beacause I won it. But it's supposed to be valued at 4000 Dollars.

I plugged my moms old record player into, and listened to a record, it doesnt sound nearly as clear as a CD. So CD's have to be better.

Brazil's pretty cool. I'd like to give you some records and audio equipment, but I don't have the money right now. I mean it, I'd really buy you some!

Thank you for the sentiment. Actually I have some 500 vinyl discs sitting here. (I imported them with myself from Blighty) The problem is decent equipment. Even if I were to get hold of a good deck, getting replacement needles would be a problem. Never mind, I just have to make a fortune, then it won't matter where I am living.

Yes Brazil is pretty cool.

How do I have shitty stuff? I thought this was pretty good http://www.bose.com/images/home_entertainment/products/p_ls48_m_b.jpg

Not sure of actual price, beacause I won it. But it's supposed to be valued at 4000 Dollars.

I plugged my moms old record player into, and listened to a record, it doesnt sound nearly as clear as a CD. So CD's have to be better.


Oh, it's a very good system. But your Mom's old record player is the shitty equipment I was talking about.

You need a new turntable, a new phonostage, a new tonearm, a new cartridge, and better cables. A good setup will sound vastly better than any CD, and will cost you about $400 total.

Oh, it's a very good system. But your Mom's old record player is the shitty equipment I was talking about.

You need a new turntable, a new phonostage, a new tonearm, a new cartridge, and better cables. A good setup will sound vastly better than any CD, and will cost you about $400 total.
phonostage?
tonearm?
cartridge?
better cables? These things costed as much as a low end stero, they dont need replacing.

What?

I dont know what any of that stuff is.

I dont know what any of that stuff is.

phonostage = pre-amp for the record player output before connecting it to your stereo (I assume - I'm not myself familiar with this particular term)

tonearm = the arm which tracks across the record

cartridge = the assembly that holds the needle and converts its vibrations into electrical signals

The best analogy I've heard to decribe the quality of vinyl is photogrphs. If you take a photograph using old fashioned film, no matter how much you zoom in, the picture is still there. Digital photographs will eventually pixelate. It's the same with music.

Exactly. And, normal photographs just plain look better than digital photographs. It all depends on the equipment.

Exactly. And, normal photographs just plain look better than digital photographs. It all depends on the equipment.
A little thing I might want to point out, Do not dispute me. A Digital Camera will look more shitty than a Flim camera, IF it's under 6 Megapixles. Why do you think photo stuido's and news papers use 12 Megapixle digital cameras? And not Flim Camera?

Anyway, wtf is a pre amp, i thought all you needed was the transciver for the speakers. And just plug it into the amp through the optic.

A little thing I might want to point out, Do not dispute me. A Digital Camera will look more shitty than a Flim camera, IF it's under 6 Megapixles. Why do you think photo stuido's and news papers use 12 Megapixle digital cameras? And not Flim Camera?

Anyway, wtf is a pre amp, i thought all you needed was the transciver for the speakers. And just plug it into the amp through the optic.

Sorry to burst your bubble but professional photographers do not use digital cameras. The technology hasnt caught up yet.

Sorry to burst your bubble but professional photographers do not use digital cameras. The technology hasnt caught up yet.
Sorry buddy, your stuck back in 2000, Ask Martha Rial, I know her, and she works for the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, a major newspaper. And ever snice 2003, they have been all digital.

Sorry to burst your bubble but professional photographers do not use digital cameras. The technology hasnt caught up yet.
Sorry buddy, your stuck back in 2000, Ask Martha Rial, I know her, and she works for the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, a major newspaper. And ever snice 2003, they have been all digital. 10 Megapixle digital cameras look much better than film. Same goes with video.

Sorry buddy, your stuck back in 2000, Ask Martha Rial, I know her, and she works for the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, a major newspaper. And ever snice 2003, they have been all digital. 10 Megapixle digital cameras look much better than film. Same goes with video.

Newspapers are black and white and dont need the picture quality of a professional image. Try to find a serious wedding photographer, artistic photographer, sports photographer, magazine photographer, or photojournalist who uses digital.

Newspapers are black and white and dont need the picture quality of a professional image. Try to find a serious wedding photographer, artistic photographer, sports photographer, magazine photographer, or photojournalist who uses digital.
Think again,
http://www.post-gazette.com/images3/20040919mr_wea_point_parkPJ_580.jpg
http://www.post-gazette.com/images3/20040919mr_wea_newbrightonPJ01_580.jpg
http://www.post-gazette.com/images3/20041101mr_eln_choicePJ_450.jpg
http://www.post-gazette.com/images3/20041101mr_eln_edwardsPJ_450.jpg
http://www.post-gazette.com/images3/20041108mr_fbn_houseboat_fans02PJ_580.jpg
http://www.post-gazette.com/images3/20050223obit_lambertsPJ_580.jpg

Flim
http://images.ibsys.com/pit/images/weather/auto/grandview_640x480.jpg
http://members.tripod.com/snickers99/photos/pittatnite01.jpg
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~har/usr1/misc/pittsburgh-at-night.jpg
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9608/10/japan.hiroshima.film/museum.lg.jpg
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9608/10/japan.hiroshima.film/ohmuta.lg.jpg

There is a huge difference. High End Digital Camera's are better.

And she is a professinal photographer as well. Here are the steps.

1. Taken with Digital Camera, About 10 shots are taken if possible,
2. It is Ran Through Photoshop and cropped

And thats it, it looks better, even though only on the website, but theres none of this development BS to go though.


And my dad does wedding video's and photo's on the side, in addition to his job at KDKA ( No, I am not lying, lying about somthing like that is stupid ).
And ever snice Digital Camera's have gotten better, he's been useing the..

My dad has this awesome Sony turntable...He said he paid an arm and a leg for it when it came out, and still replaces the needle every 2 years or so. He also has these 2 huge old school speakers with the vacuum tubes that are still in great condition. It's a beautiful thing, it is.

I was into that really hard rock crap a couple years ago...then my dad sat me down, and pulled out some of his old albums. Claptons's 461 Ocean Boulevard, Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon, Wish You Were Here, and The Wall, and Derek And The Dominoes' Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs, Led Zepp and some of his old Beatles stuff.

I'm 17, and I've been converted to a Clapton Fan because of vinyl. The artwork is awesome, the crisp crackle of blank vinyl. Hell, the smell of a good old album does it for me. And then there's nothing better than an album pressed in white vinyl. It's all the above, only better.

I love my MP3 player, but it doesn't do justice to classic rock.

Think again,
http://www.post-gazette.com/images3/20040919mr_wea_point_parkPJ_580.jpg
http://www.post-gazette.com/images3/20040919mr_wea_newbrightonPJ01_580.jpg
http://www.post-gazette.com/images3/20041101mr_eln_choicePJ_450.jpg
http://www.post-gazette.com/images3/20041101mr_eln_edwardsPJ_450.jpg
http://www.post-gazette.com/images3/20041108mr_fbn_houseboat_fans02PJ_580.jpg
http://www.post-gazette.com/images3/20050223obit_lambertsPJ_580.jpg

Flim
http://images.ibsys.com/pit/images/weather/auto/grandview_640x480.jpg
http://members.tripod.com/snickers99/photos/pittatnite01.jpg
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~har/usr1/misc/pittsburgh-at-night.jpg
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9608/10/japan.hiroshima.film/museum.lg.jpg
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9608/10/japan.hiroshima.film/ohmuta.lg.jpg

There is a huge difference. High End Digital Camera's are better.

And she is a professinal photographer as well. Here are the steps.

1. Taken with Digital Camera, About 10 shots are taken if possible,
2. It is Ran Through Photoshop and cropped

And thats it, it looks better, even though only on the website, but theres none of this development BS to go though.


And my dad does wedding video's and photo's on the side, in addition to his job at KDKA ( No, I am not lying, lying about somthing like that is stupid ).
And ever snice Digital Camera's have gotten better, he's been useing the..


Ah yes, Pittsburgh is a truly beautiful city, even when it's flooded.

But, I must criticize: The film versions were mostly night shots, and it looks as if the conversion resolution is *quite* low. And, I must say this: The people look a tad pixellated.

Take a look at a true professional's work. He's an Industrial Photographer from Germany. http://www.hfinster.de/StahlArt/index.html

He only uses film, because digital cameras cannot capture such fine details.

Many of us know that there is no comparison to the musical quality of a Vinyl Record. The pitch, the frequency response, the depth, and the "feel" is unequaled. This is even moreso if you have hi-fidelity, true-analogue equipment for your records.

But wait, some of you are still under the impression that digital mediums are better than records! Well, face the facts: They aren't.

Vinyl records, depending on the equipment you have, have a frequency range of 10hz to 100khz. Now that's a lot of music! Considering that CD's and DvD's have a strict 20hz - 22.1khz frequency response, that is indeed awesome.

And often, people are turned off by the noise of vinyl records. Well, I'm here to tell you that such noise is only a myth... Somewhat. You see, the hiss that you hear on many records is from poor preamp, tonearm, and cartridge quality. It also comes from dirt and grime in the grooves of the records. But the main source is Tape Bias. Since most records are recorded in the tape-to-disc process, the tape film's audio bias is transferred to the vinyl, thus created an exaggerated hiss. Some studios record directly to disc, thus eliminating the tape bias, giving you a much cleaner sound.

But, even with the tape bias on most records, the audio is still far, far superior than even the highest-quality DvD's. And another bonus for analogue records is that they aren't compressed. Even DvD's are compressed, as they use a Digital Envelope algorithm, rather than magnetic signal responce. Simply put, there is no substitute for the classic Analogue LP.


So come on, talk about the recording medium that never should have slipped into the niche market. The medium that should still be #1. The medium that cannot be topped. The medium that *is* Music.It hasn't slipped... as long as DJ's need scratchings... I still have my old LP's and still buy them when I can find them. Anyone know where I can get "Kids from Fame" records?

but that's why idiots who can't take care of their vinyl shouldn't be allowed to enjoy music! And why only good bands still put out vinyl, because they know the people who listen to them arn't mtv trained drones rocking out to top 40 bullshit!

1. I'm not an idiot. I'm just lazy. :)
2. I don't watch MTV, or listen to top 40 bullshit.

and album art looks FAR better on an LP's cover than it does on a CD's shrink-wrapped plastic.

I concede that! Hell, I'd like nice big lyric sheets and artwork, but you're lucky to even get those printed with CD's nowadays. :(

You guys do realise that I do concede that analogue music does have better quality, right? :p

(I play guitar, and I paid good money for a vintage style valve amp, over the shitty modern transistor ones...)

Bah, music is dead.

He also has these 2 huge old school speakers with the vacuum tubes that are still in great condition. It's a beautiful thing, it is.

Vacuum tubes > ALL :D

Can ANYONE talk sense for a change?
Let's have a try.


Digital rules.
Analog stinks.

Can ANYONE talk sense for a change?
Let's have a try.


Digital rules.
Analog stinks.


How about you try backing that up with some decent information? You'll find it quite impossible.

Ah yes, Pittsburgh is a truly beautiful city, even when it's flooded.

But, I must criticize: The film versions were mostly night shots, and it looks as if the conversion resolution is *quite* low. And, I must say this: The people look a tad pixellated.

Take a look at a true professional's work. He's an Industrial Photographer from Germany. http://www.hfinster.de/StahlArt/index.html

He only uses film, because digital cameras cannot capture such fine details.
This is actually ignoring the reason that news groups like the Pittsburg paper use digital-it's not quality, it's cost. 100 shots costs the same as 10, not so on film. Photography that has a higher demand to it (as you point out) will go with the better quality.

The best analogy I've heard to decribe the quality of vinyl is photogrphs. If you take a photograph using old fashioned film, no matter how much you zoom in, the picture is still there. Digital photographs will eventually pixelate. It's the same with music.
This is one of the main stumbling blocks for digital (I'm shocked this hasn't come up)-digital can't draw a true curve which is what a sound wave is. It can get close by degrees, but the vinyl will be true and thus sound truer.

Exactly. They do it for the money they save. If they wanted to go with quality, they'd use film, film, and more film.

And by the way, it's Pittsburgh.

And by the way, it's Pittsburgh.
Sorry, it's late. You're gonna wear yourself out chasing down my typos. I have a guy who does that as part of his job and, if he could, he would just spend his time winging pencils at my head.

He also has these 2 huge old school speakers with the vacuum tubes that are still in great condition.

Someone explain to me why a speaker would have tubes in it (ie. not why you would be using tubes in an amp, but what the hell are they doing in the speakers).

Someone explain to me why a speaker would have tubes in it (ie. not why you would be using tubes in an amp, but what the hell are they doing in the speakers).

I haven't a clue about the speakers, but can you help me but my record changer in the dashboard of my car?

I haven't a clue about the speakers, but can you help me but my record changer in the dashboard of my car?

It'll mean having to take the Plastic Jesus out first, you know that?

It'll mean having to take the Plastic Jesus out first, you know that?

That won't be a problem. Just don't mess with the oversized dice.

It's this simple, Analoug cannot provide that cool crisp sound that CD's provide.

Like when it comes to Vavle or Solid State Transvicers, I've always perfered Solid State.

You're saying that, and the only records you've heard are on your Mom's shitty record player!

Records are *far* more crisp than any digital medium. You just need better equipment (no, I'm not talking about your hom theater system!).

agreed. mostly. oh, and if you happen to find a nice vinyl verson of a jefferson airplane album, listen to wooden ships and white rabbit. great, great stuff.
"Volunteers", you bet. Liner notes were better on vinyl, too.

Hey, everybody, I'm real scared of progress and I'm having a party at my place this weekend! We can listen to some wire recordings I made last week, then put a couple of rolls through the player piano. It's awesome. It sounds just like there's a real piany in my living room. We can all drink some cherry phosphates out the ol' icebox and when we get into a dancin' mood, someone can crank the Victrola!

Please RSVP with a Marconigram if y'all can make it.

Hey, everybody, I'm real scared of progress and I'm having a party at my place this weekend! We can listen to some wire recordings I made last week, then put a couple of rolls through the player piano. It's awesome. It sounds just like there's a real piany in my living room. We can all drink some cherry phosphates out the ol' icebox and when we get into a dancin' mood, someone can crank the Victrola!

Please RSVP with a Marconigram if y'all can make it.


This almost saddens me. Almost.

I wholeheartedly agree with the first poster. Although I am a child of the digital age, altogether too young to have ever consciously experienced vinyl in its hey-day, I appreciate vinyl records very much. My father has a rather large collection. There is no denying, though, the advantages of digital media in the fields of convenience, etc.

That's quite true. Digital does have advantages in convenience and portability.

However, vinyl rips straight to digital sound almost as good as the original records, and are far, far better than recordings made in pure digital.

At home, I'll take a record player. In the car or anywhere else, a digital player with my vinyl rips.

It's probably the record player, I saw a price tag on it, it cost 90 Dollar in 1972.

And as for CD's rotting, ive never seen that happen.

I told you it was the record player... Ugh...

Anyway, $90 in 1972? What a piece of crap. A decent player way back then would've cost about $200. And that's about $450 now.

A Technics Turntable is around $500, and it's about as good as you can get. Well, besides the hand-crafted ClearAudio stuff. Nothing is that good.

Heh, But I've heard that record players dont work well with modren systems, because they use solid state? And that Bose Transcervier doesnt appear to be a valve amp, considering it's that small.

For that price I could buy an ipod photo, or 2 regular ipods, or 3 ipod minis, or 5 Ipod Shuffles! A Crappy CD player only costs about 30 bucks.

Let's just say that a system like yours is good with a great record player. If you wanna really "experience" vinyl, you need a turntable, phonostage, and a preamp. You also need a high-grade tonearm and cartridge.

You've not heard music until you've listened to a record on a setup like that.

I see, I still wonder more, this might go better on MSN or AIM, if you have them.

Someone explain to me why a speaker would have tubes in it (ie. not why you would be using tubes in an amp, but what the hell are they doing in the speakers).

I...hey, good point.

Vacuum tubes !> all.

I also prefer vinyl, but because of lack of money and space i'm quite obliged to buy cd's.. too bad, but i'll live. Maybe later i'll start collecting rare LP's!




I have a copy of Johnny Cash's first album, which on the face is no big deal, except mine is still in the original shrink, unopened, and unplayed.

Vacuum Tubes provide a true signal process, whereas transistors provide an emulated process.

In short, vacuum tubes are much more accurate at processing audio signals than transistors are.

I've noticed, that even though the speakers on that thing I have are tiny, it can shake the entire house. And I looked up vavle amps, some are only rated at 8 Watts, While the one I have is almost 700!

Yeah, only the extremely high-quality vacuum tube equipment can shake the ground. Most are just intended to play at a reasonably loud volume, enough so you can hear everything the records have to offer.

A good-quality set of vacuum tube speakers is good for about 30 watts. Different companies make massive floor-standing vacuum tube speakers that go to about 600 watts Per Speaker. If you want some of those, it will cost you about $20,000 for a set of four, plus a subwoofer.

Hey, you get what you pay for. Digital doesn't come close to analogue, and that's why it's so much cheaper.

I...hey, good point.

Vacuum tubes !> all.

The only thing close to vaccum tubes that I have seen inside speakers (as opposed to amps) are light bulbs used to protect the tweeters from excessive high end signals, however these are more of a feature in PA systems than in domestic speakers.

Take a look at this place. Not just the company listed on the link, but the rest of the companies here have superb Audiophile-quality equipment.

http://www.earthshakingmusic.com/cain.lasso

I have a copy of Johnny Cash's first album, which on the face is no big deal, except mine is still in the original shrink, unopened, and unplayed.

Were albums in 1957 actually shrinkwrapped? I doubt it, but I could be wrong.

Maybe I'm just an uncultured swine. Anyway, I simply have no desire to shell out large amounts of money to purchase top-end vinyl equipment, mostly because, no matter how good the sound is, it doesn't even come close to justifying the price. But if you can afford it, and you don't mind taking such careful care of the equipment, and don't mind it not really being portable, and don't mind not having features like shuffle, skip, and repeat, don't mind not being able to create a custom mix, and don't mind knowing that you could easily ruin the record itself...more power to you.

Vacuum Tubes provide a true signal process, whereas transistors provide an emulated process.

In short, vacuum tubes are much more accurate at processing audio signals than transistors are.

While I agree with you full-heartedly, sometimes vacuum tubes just aren't practical. I'm a bass player, and an upright bass player at that. The first amplifier I owned and gigged with was a tube amp, and let me tell you it was a heavy motherfucker. Damn, it was heavy. And it was only about 200 Watts (it was about a pound/Watt). By the time I got all my equipment inside from my car I was beat. The amplifier I'm using now is solid-state. It's the same Wattage, but it weighs about 18lbs. I can carry it in one hand! And to top it off, I personally think it sounds better than the tube amp. But I play mostly jazz, so I tend not to play very loud. Now, if I were to play electric bass at a rock show, then shit yeah I'd bring the tube amp, and I'd crank that mother. It really all depends on what you're listening to.

Vacuum Tubes provide a true signal process, whereas transistors provide an emulated process.

In short, vacuum tubes are much more accurate at processing audio signals than transistors are.

While I agree with you full-heartedly hear, sometimes vacuum tubes just aren't practical. I'm a bass player, and an upright bass player at that. The first amplifier I owned and gigged with was a tube amp, and let me tell you it was a heavy motherfucker. And it was only about 200 Watts (it was about a pound/Watt). By the time I got all my equipment inside from my car I was beat. The amplifier I'm using now is solid-state. It's the same Wattage, but it weighs about 18lbs. I can carry it in one hand! And to top it off, I personally think it sounds better than the tube amp. But I play mostly jazz, so I tend not to play very loud. Now, if I were to play electric bass at a rock show, then shit yeah I'd bring the tube amp, and I'd crank that mother. It really all depends on what you're listening to.

I reject this claim that tubes are more accurate than solid-state: they produce just as much colour to a sound, but to my ears they produce it at much more pleasent frequencies, giving a lovely rounded low-mid sound.

FYI, Records are much more durable than CD's. They also last much longer, and are virtually unbreakable in the normal sense of the word.

But, you're right about the other stuff. However, why would you need to skip tracks if you're listening to a truly good band/group? That's the problem with most musical groups today --- their albums consist of too much filler. Albums in the days of the LP had to be good, or people wouldn't by them. Now kids buy CD's just for one or two tracks, knowing that the rest of the album is shit.

If you really do like the music, shuffle, repeat, pause, skip, and rewind are nothing.

But as I've said before: You can rip records to 192khz, 32-bit, PCM format for your PC or MP3 Player. And these rips sound far superior to any pure digital music.

I still dont get how all those tiny speakers can shake the house.

But couldn't a high end PC sound card produce sounds better than any amp??

But as I've said before: You can rip records to 192khz, 32-bit, PCM format for your PC or MP3 Player. And these rips sound far superior to any pure digital music.

Surely once you run them through an ADC they are pure digital music, no? - unless you mean the AAA/AAD/ADD/DDD/etc. stages of their production.

Vacuum Tubes provide a true signal process, whereas transistors provide an emulated process.

In short, vacuum tubes are much more accurate at processing audio signals than transistors are.

While I agree with you full-heartedly, sometimes vacuum tubes just aren't practical. I'm a bass player, and an upright bass player at that. The first amplifier I owned and gigged with was a tube amp, and let me tell you it was a heavy motherfucker. Damn, it was heavy. And it was only about 200 Watts (it was about a pound/Watt). By the time I got all my equipment inside from my car I was beat. The amplifier I'm using now is solid-state. It's the same Wattage, but it weighs about 18lbs. I can carry it in one hand! And to top it off, I personally think it sounds better than the tube amp. But I play mostly jazz, so I tend not to play very loud. Now, if I were to play electric bass at a rock show, then shit yeah I'd bring the tube amp, and I'd crank that mother. It really all depends on what you're listening to.


It's all about ease of use. Of course, gigging with a sold-state amp is the way to go. But if you're performing a major concert, use tube amps.

And, if you're in one house for the long run, tube equipment is the only way to go. But if you move around a lot, get solid-state, because vacuum tube equipment is indeed very heavy.

But couldn't a high end PC sound card produce sounds better than any amp??

A PC sound card just produces a signal which then needs to be amplified in order to be heard, so you are still going to need to run it through an amplification stage and thus add colour to it.

I reject this claim that tubes are more accurate than solid-state: they produce just as much colour to a sound, but to my ears they produce it at much more pleasent frequencies, giving a lovely rounded low-mid sound.

No no no... There's something about a tube amplifier that's magical. I mean, when you bust out those low notes on a 500, 600 Watt tube amp, something special happens that you just don't get with a solid-state amp. It's not something that's neccessarily audible. It something you feel in your legs and in your chest. It makes the hair on your arms stand on end.

Surely once you run them through an ADC they are pure digital music, no? - unless you mean the AAA/AAD/ADD/DDD/etc. stages of their production.


Yes, that's true, they would be considered 100% digital. But I'm talking about them being fully superior to music that was originally recorded as digital. And Vinyl rips are far superior to said digital music.


And about the PC Sound Card issue: Depends. You have to look at the specs. Some cards are better than some amps, and vice versa.

It's all about ease of use. Of course, gigging with a sold-state amp is the way to go. But if you're performing a major concert, use tube amps.

And, if you're in one house for the long run, tube equipment is the only way to go. But if you move around a lot, get solid-state, because vacuum tube equipment is indeed very heavy.

Yes, but this is what roadies are for, and you should never underestimate the untold benefits of having castors on your flight case. As they say: don't lift it if you can drag it, don't drag it if you can wheel it, don't wheel it if you can leave it.

No no no... There's something about a tube amplifier that's magical. I mean, when you bust out those low notes on a 500, 600 Watt tube amp, something special happens that you just don't get with a solid-state amp. It's not something that's neccessarily audible. It something you feel in your legs and in your chest. It makes the hair on your arms stand on end.

I'm in agreement that a good quality tube amp will sound better than a comparable quality sound state amp, but the claim that a tube amp has a fully transparent sound without adding in its own (often lovable) qualities is spurious.

Yes, that's true, they would be considered 100% digital. But I'm talking about them being fully superior to music that was originally recorded as digital. And Vinyl rips are far superior to said digital music.

So basically you are saying that you prefer ADD music to DDD?


And about the PC Sound Card issue: Depends. You have to look at the specs. Some cards are better than some amps, and vice versa.

Unless you listen to them through headphones or run passive speakers off them (yuck) you are still going to need to amplify though, yes?

Ok, now you got me thinking, my moms record player must be really shitty, But I took it apart and cleaned it out. And cleaned some old records. Led Zepplian, I know what you mean when you " warmer ". And after I cleaned it, it sounded better, but all those pops and hisses are damm annoying.

Yeah, only the extremely high-quality vacuum tube equipment can shake the ground. Most are just intended to play at a reasonably loud volume, enough so you can hear everything the records have to offer.

A good-quality set of vacuum tube speakers is good for about 30 watts. Different companies make massive floor-standing vacuum tube speakers that go to about 600 watts Per Speaker. If you want some of those, it will cost you about $20,000 for a set of four, plus a subwoofer.

Hey, you get what you pay for. Digital doesn't come close to analogue, and that's why it's so much cheaper.

No waaaay. That's ridiculous. I bought 4 700 Watt high-end really clean studio-speakers and a sub for under 2 Grand. Give me a break. If you're buying $20,000 speakers they had better be made out of diamond or something.

Ok, now you got me thinking, my moms record player must be really shitty, But I took it apart and cleaned it out. And cleaned some old records. Led Zepplian, I know what you mean when you " warmer ". And after I cleaned it, it sounded better, but all those pops and hisses are damm annoying.

The worst of those surface noises are just signs of it having been being badly treated (or possibly loved too much), but to eejits like me the gentle hiss and quiet crackle at the start of a vinyl LP are like the sound of an indrawn breath of anticipation...

The worst of those surface noises are just signs of it having been being badly treated (or possibly loved too much), but to eejits like me the gentle hiss and quiet crackle at the start of a vinyl LP are like the sound of an indrawn breath of anticipation...
I guess I'm an eejit too. I like vinyl hiss.

No waaaay. That's ridiculous. I bought 4 700 Watt high-end really clean studio-speakers and a sub for under 2 Grand.

RMS, program or peak?

RMS, program or peak?

Man, you're asking the wrong person. Music tech class always did bore me to death. Thank god that's over with... No, if I had to guess I would say peak. It was a project that a friend of mine and I did. We set up a recording studio in his basement.

And I lied, it wasn't under 2 Grand... it was more like 4 Grand. And I probably lied about the Wattage too. So sue me... :P The fact of the matter is that you can get a set of insanely accurate speakers for under 2 grand. Spending 20K on a set of speakers is waaaay overkill.

Yeah, you can. But note the fact that I said floorstanding speakers, which are expensive even for digital.

And I looked up vavle amps, some are only rated at 8 Watts, While the one I have is almost 700!

:eek:

The first amplifier I owned and gigged with was a tube amp, and let me tell you it was a heavy motherfucker. Damn, it was heavy. And it was only about 200 Watts (it was about a pound/Watt).

:eek:

Okay...I have a 30w Laney valve amp. I tested it against a 120w transistor amp. It blew it totally away, in both sound quality and loudness. I have a hunch that it could probably upstage a 200w transistor amp. I could easily gig with it.

I can't even imagine what a 200w (or higher) valve amp sounds like. I mean, I can rattle windows with mine on a volume setting of 2.

And yes, they are heavy bastards.

No no no... There's something about a tube amplifier that's magical. I mean, when you bust out those low notes on a 500, 600 Watt tube amp, something special happens that you just don't get with a solid-state amp. It's not something that's neccessarily audible. It something you feel in your legs and in your chest. It makes the hair on your arms stand on end.

I agree. There's definitely enough of a difference to justify the increased cost and weight, in my opinion.

The Sex Pistols used tube amps back in the day (1975 - 1978). If you listen to good recordings of their gigs, you can tell that Steve Jones has a tube amp.

The reverb, the highs, and the mids sound special with tube amps. It's just something that transistors simply cannot do.

Jonesy used a 75-watt tube amp that he stole from David Bowie's house in 1974. Yes, he stole it from Bowie's house.

Jonesy used a 75-watt tube amp that he stole from David Bowie's house in 1974. Yes, he stole it from Bowie's house.

I think the actual story is that instead of breaking in to Bowie's house, he was involved in stealing a load of equipment from either backstage or from a trailer storing the gear used by Bowie.

Yeah, that's probably true. Jonesy is a bit of a liar :D.

I still dont get " warmer " . And I perfer it when they remaster an album, just sounds better.