I totally agree with you. You have to be careful when buying this box set. I was very careful and bought a used, mint copy on ebay, with the seller from the US. I got it for a very reasonable price but I was very edgy while waiting delivery. Happily, the seller was genuine. A perfect copy, still in shrink wrap but unsealed. I am well pleased.
That sounds good, especially if you got a good price. More recently I realized that you actually have to be careful when buying almost every collectible set like this one. Either look out for fakes or for products being graded wrong. Anyway, enjoy your set.
My thing with cd is it can present (especially 80s CDs) clean flat transfers of the master tapes. Now vinyl is nice but it is in its nature compressed form of music (it has lower frequency than cd) however i love vinyl for the mastering each engineer takes to a album to present a sound thats so different. I love cds most because of the flat transfer of albums (beatles 1987) I think however modern cds are definitely worse sounding as most digital music is made to be loud bass heavy its why i can see why in the 2000/2010s where vinyl came back as vinyls limits and compression actually in ways tempers the extreme volume in frequency on new music so it sounded more clear and dynamic
Well every pressing (CD or Vinyl) depends on the choice of master and mix used, of adding reverb, volume or removing stuff from those, on the choice to add compression etc. I see the CD as a medium with enough sound range that it can take enough dynamics if done properly.
the beatles albums were released on vinyl and its the way it was heard aside from radio ,,and millions of beatle fans will agree with that ,, so saying well ,, the cd's or some other format is better sounding ,,even if that is true the beatles changed not only how a record became more than a greatest hits package ,,the beatles covers and packaging became cutting edge and the beatles changed the entire record music and presentation as we know it today ...i understand some people dont want or have a way to play records ,,but it was a huge part of the whole experience and memories of that amazing time in music for millions of people . so for many .........its the only way
8:50 - I agree with you on E-bay. I have a mono CD box set but I wanted to get another one, just for the hell of it. I ended up with a fake one, none of the discs would play and the covers were falling apart, BACK it wemt!!! I did get a refund. Seller says he didn't know it was fake and apologized.
Yeah, ironically although Discogs has less protection for buyers, you find less fakes on there than sites like Ebay where anyone can sell almost anything.
Great video. I just purchased the mono boxed set 2 days ago! ( I've had the stereo version since 2009 ) For my copy of the mono, I paid over $250 with shipping charges and I agree if the asking price is low, I'd be suspicious. I researched all the reasons to spot a fake. Mine was unopened , shrink-wrapped and in excellent condition and definitely not a fake. Your opening talk on CDs is exactly how I feel. I used to have tons of vinyl and sold them ( which I kinda regret ) when CDs arrived because of CDs convenience and durability as you said. Vinyl is more delicate. I hoped in your video you would've talked a little bit more about your preferences for the mono vs. the stereo. A lot of people complain about the vocals being separate from the instruments on the stereo.
Thank you. And congrats on your purchase. I hope you enjoy it. Indeed prices vary a bit, but getting one at a good price and sealed is difficult. I think I was lucky back in March but I also kinda hunted it down to get one below 200 and got lucky on the transport. About the mono vs stereo, I will definitely have that in future ones. I already filmed a 3 part series comparing the two boxsets. Hope to start sharing it in the next weeks.
@@alfching2499 it depends on the ears and system as well I think. There are people who would swear there are clear differences. I wouldn't know, I would need to be able to compare. Maybe I'll do that one day.
We are all waiting to have that stereo be the main release. But I have to say, I did have difficulties listenting to some tracks on those, using headphones. But on speakers, if the speakers are not too far apart, they sounded ok.
Good Vibrations is not on Pet Sounds. It was released as a single then later showed up on Smiley Smile. Also, when talking about the Please Please Me album, you said you like the covers then proceeded to name Chains, Anna, Ask Me Why and Misery. The latter two songs are McCartney-Lennon originals. Enjoyed your video, though.
Indeed. Thank you. On the songs I just mashed together the songs I like (covers and all). Realized it after but could not edit it out so... just went with it :)
For which albums you mean? I would say maybe just for the 5 which have new mixed editions as part of the deluxe editions. The others only have a few tracks remixed on the recent red and blue.bAnd it kinda depends anyway. On most people being willing to buy them again. But most probably won't, and while the 2009 Stereos are still widely available, people with less interst in different mixes will still buy them, moreover the Mono set does not have its disks available in any other form yet, and from the deluxe editions the White Album doesn't have its mono mix, only Sgt Pepper and Revolver do. And until all albums get re-released this way, it will take years.
Congrats on that!!! That is damn good price, and totally worth it. Enjoy it to the max! To be honest, the realistic prices for both this and the vinyl version should be much lower than they are, but obviously are inflated due to them not being produced anymore. But always good to see someome getting one at a decent price.
Will be adding some small corrections on a few things I said during this. 1. Phil Spector of course did not initially mix Get Back/Let it Be, Glyn Johns did that, but then Spector was called in to re-do everything before the album was released. 2. The status of Sgt Pepper and Magical Mystery Tour as full on concept albums is debatable. 3. Vinyl is better than CDs. Naaah jk, have not been convinced of that yet. Maybe soon :) 4. The inner antistatic sleeves seem to be some sort of plastic vs the rice paper ones they are inspired by. 5. Obviously the element printed on LP covers and their replica's referring to the rpm is 33 1/3 and not just 33. Feel free to point out any other mistakes I've made down here in the comments. LE: thank you all for the corrections. 6. This one seems worth it to include in the list: Pet Sounds did NOT include Good Vibrations.
It does have that few page intro by Kevin Howlett, but indeed the rest is mostly the Mono Masters. That was kind of underwhelming to be honest. I think they did a better job with the individual booklets on the stereo box, and this one deserved more.
are you saying this is the only way to get the cd's in mono ? because im sure the first 4 cd's realeased in the late 80's were mono and can be found cheap
That's very possible, although I am not sure it has ever been positively confirmed. On one hand Wilson getting the US version is very probable given the availability of it; however by that time the UK albums were imported in the States and it would not have been uncommon for a guy like him to get his hands on the original album. I recall an interview where he mentioned a few songs, all of which are on both versions.
@@BurgundySkies Also Brian Wilson was heavily into non-prescribed chemical substances at that time and it is debatable how much of that period he can even remember. It is a nice soundbite to attach his influences to The Beatles but it was a long time after the fact that he said this so it may be something that he thought in retrospect.
That maybe true, but in the end this is something pretty widely accepted, based on his accounts. Now even if he did think about it in retrospect, does not mean it's not true. Nothing is 100% certain either way. I started understanding things about my personality and psyche in my young adult years, but only realized in my late 30s how certain things shaped my behaviour and state of mind, how elements of my childhood and adolescence shaped my choices and actions. So him being drugged up in his 20s or 30s and so on, does not discount his retrospective thoughts in his older years no? But oh well... who really knows? Maybe not even him.
That's good man. I mean if audibly you they are ok, and physically they were reproduced well... enjoy the music. At the point that I was in when I bought them, I just felt like I did not want to risk it. Also I've been listening to bootleg music a big part of my life, for regional and financial reasons mostly. A while back I decided I wanted to move away from that if I can.
@@BurgundySkies Thanks mate,I believe anything Beatles is a collosal rip off,the Beatles were a Boomers group,I'm now 76 which means I'm a Boomer, I bought all that was released at that time in the 60s and only bought mono,the 60s was mono,it will always sound better all coming our of the centre,I don't touch anything Giles martin meddles with,which is a another big Rip off.i bought enough original Beatles to see me out.
Well you did have the chance to do it from the get-go, which is great. You have to understand us later generations and especially behind the iron curtain were less fortunate then. So I guess we're over compensating. But I agree in terms of pricing. And the fact that many releases either did not improve on the originals or some even went downhill. Regarding them being a boomers group, it's true in terms of period and base fans. But then I guess 2nd, 3rd 4th generation fans are proof they transcended their period.
@@BurgundySkies I understand it is a matter of taste. Hopefully as your view shifts you will see the marvelous eclectic and hap hazard track listing as a work of art - whether It was intended that way or The Beatles just got lucky. In '68 it was not reviewed well but over the years more have come to appreciate it and I think among big fans like myself it ranks up there with Abbey Road for the most fans. Who'd a thunk it way back when. lol
At a certain point I will attempt to do a personal ranking. I tried to put one on paper a year ago, and then again a couple of months ago. They look kinda different. I do appreciate the unique build of this album, albeit one of the reasons for it being quite so eclectic is also their need to push put as many tracks as possible to get them out of their previous engagements. But beside that... when I will do my ranking there will be a couple of things that will influence my choices: 1. How many songs of each album I like (percentage wise)? 2. Does the track sound pleasant to me? Beyond this there dozens of other reasons, many of which very specific or personal, but those above are my main.
Understandable. To be honest, when I snatched the Stereo Box I did not have any intention of getting the Mono. Regarding the price, I would say for me it was so and so. There are definitely more expensive sets even in the CD realm. But it definitely is not cheap. I do think this a set that needs to be reprinted so more people have a chance to get it at normal prices. But... in the end what matters is we can enjoy the music regardless of the format or version.
“Obviously vinyl has become the preferred way for audiophiles to collect and listen to music” err… no it hasn’t? Vinyl collecting and being an audiophile are two entirely separate and usually mutually exclusive hobbies unless you are very wealthy. No analogue system below £2000 sounds vaguely acceptable to an audiophile and the vast majority of records in existence are either in poor condition, or poor quality pressings, or cut from poor sources. You’d probably be hitting an average of £60 per album if you were seeking out good sounding records. If you want a decent sized collection of, say, 500 albums you really like, that’s £30000. And you’d better be taking out insurance on that. So no, most audiophiles are not vinyl collectors, or if they are, they’re probably under the influence of some serious doublethink. CDs still outsell vinyl by volume in most parts of the world and I’d wager a higher percentage of CD buyers are discerning about sound quality than vinyl buyers, who are very clearly happy with overpriced noisy junk off of Amazon.
I mean I will not dispute that, but what I can say is that at least in the audiophile centric forums I visited, most people were talking about turntables, styli and the best pressings. I guess it also depends on the music itself. There are those who might own master tapes or copies of master tapes of certain albums, and depending on their setup that might be the best way to listen to those albums. On the other hand it seemed to me like it's an accepted thing among a lot of music collectors that they prefer (at least music from the 50s, 60s, 70s) on vinyl rather than CD. Not the case for me. Even if since I recorded this, I did build up a small vinyl collection as well, I still feel like many of my CDs sound better than their vinyl counterparts.
CDs vs. Vinyl: It's all *OPINION*. Here's mine: I prefer CDs for sound quality the vast majority of the time. CDs, to my ears, out-perform vinyl on high end (cymbals, high-hat, sung 'S's') and on fadeouts, which mostly fade away into dead silence. With vinyl, you've got wow & flutter, surface noise, and the occasional record where the spindle hole is not EXACTLY centered, causing a warped playback. CDs have their cons as well. Unlike their hype, they do NOT last 100 years without any degradation. Pre CD times, I listened to music on vinyl from 1964 to 1988 (when I got my first CD player). I *KNOW* vinyl. Very familiar with it. But today? Give me CD.
Agreed that it's all opinion. And no doubt that vinyl (even with CD rot and other stuff) are is way more fragile and prone to damage which results in sound getting screwed much easier. I have so many CDs with scratches and other marks in them that play without a hitch. I will probably have the chance myself to compare first hand sometime soon, but until then I maintain that in most cases the possible inferior sound on some CDs vs their vinyl counterparts are due to how the chose to cut/press them and the compression and/or eq choices they unexplicably sometimes make with regard to certain albums. Andrew over at Parlogram showed a recent example of the new Red and Blue. Why they would brickwall so many songs when compared to the exact same release on vinyl is beyond me. Still it takes finer ears than mine to catch that on the new Red and Blue CDs by just listening at a decent volume.
I like CD's too. The thing I miss most about getting vinyl albums is the size of the cover and liner notes. It's getting hard to see the small writing on CD liner notes. As far as CD degradation, I still have a few CD's I've had since 1987. They still play the same as they did when I got them. How long do you think a well cared for CD will last?
Well the 80-100 year estimations that were initially thrown around proved to not be accurate. But I can say this: I have some CDs of the Beatles from 87 and they look like new, the play like new. That's 36 years and counting. Then I also had a Billy Joel compilation from 85 which looked great, and played without the slightest issue. That's 38 years. So aside from discs affected by rot which are not all discs, but seem to have been some that had flaws in their production, and if cared for properly, I would say they would go above 50 years without being affected at all. CDs also have the benefit of having a bit of error correction where even if somr scratches or marks are there, we would not hear then, unlike vinyl where you can eveb hear dust.
So-called "audiophiles" who fall for the vinyl hype love the DISTORTION aded by stylus-in-groove. But don't tell them that bcause they'll get defensive and lash out. Some will even claim they can hear the difference between analog (tape, tape hiss, distortion) and digital. Yeah: they love the distortion that corrupts their "pure" listening experience.
Well I won't judge anyone's preferences. I am aware that my listening experiences might be different or even radically different than others. And that there are indeed many people with way finer and more precise and trained ears out there. Not too mention people that are more technically inclined. It's just that so far I haven't yet found the undisputed proof that vinyl beats CD in what it can offer listeners as a format alone. Rather (at least for thr music I listen to) it seems to be that vinyl may beat CD in quality because of how the albums in question were produced, mastered, re-mastered, mixed and re-mixed for each medium. I do think the vinyl craze has a big nostalgia element to it, and I think that is fine. I have it to when it comes to certain things. Whether people lash out... I mean... some do, some don't, but I pay it no mind. To each his own I guess. Anyway, I do not swear off vinyl forever, I will try vinyl myself if I can, just to make my opinions better informed and because (at least where my absolute favourite musicians are concerned) I do want to have the options.
I totally agree with you. You have to be careful when buying this box set. I was very careful and bought a used, mint copy on ebay, with the seller from the US. I got it for a very reasonable price but I was very edgy while waiting delivery. Happily, the seller was genuine. A perfect copy, still in shrink wrap but unsealed. I am well pleased.
That sounds good, especially if you got a good price. More recently I realized that you actually have to be careful when buying almost every collectible set like this one. Either look out for fakes or for products being graded wrong. Anyway, enjoy your set.
Very nice video. . I have this mono box set on CD and I enjoy it very much. The sound is wonderful. My system is set up for everything up to ATMOS.
Thank you very much! Sounds like you have a solid system there. Any details on the components you'd care to share?
My thing with cd is it can present (especially 80s CDs) clean flat transfers of the master tapes.
Now vinyl is nice but it is in its nature compressed form of music (it has lower frequency than cd) however i love vinyl for the mastering each engineer takes to a album to present a sound thats so different.
I love cds most because of the flat transfer of albums (beatles 1987)
I think however modern cds are definitely worse sounding as most digital music is made to be loud bass heavy its why i can see why in the 2000/2010s where vinyl came back as vinyls limits and compression actually in ways tempers the extreme volume in frequency on new music so it sounded more clear and dynamic
Well every pressing (CD or Vinyl) depends on the choice of master and mix used, of adding reverb, volume or removing stuff from those, on the choice to add compression etc. I see the CD as a medium with enough sound range that it can take enough dynamics if done properly.
the beatles albums were released on vinyl and its the way it was heard aside from radio ,,and millions of beatle fans will agree with that ,, so saying well ,, the cd's or some other format is better sounding ,,even if that is true
the beatles changed not only how a record became more than a greatest hits package ,,the beatles covers and packaging became cutting edge and the beatles changed the entire record music and presentation as we know it today ...i understand some people dont want or have a way to play records ,,but it was a huge part of the whole experience and memories of that amazing time in music for millions of people .
so for many .........its the only way
8:50 - I agree with you on E-bay. I have a mono CD box set but I wanted to get another one, just for the hell of it. I ended up with a fake one, none of the discs would play and the covers were falling apart, BACK it wemt!!! I did get a refund. Seller says he didn't know it was fake and apologized.
Yeah, ironically although Discogs has less protection for buyers, you find less fakes on there than sites like Ebay where anyone can sell almost anything.
Great video. I just purchased the mono boxed set 2 days ago! ( I've had the stereo version since 2009 ) For my copy of the mono, I paid over $250 with shipping charges and I agree if the asking price is low, I'd be suspicious. I researched all the reasons to spot a fake. Mine was unopened , shrink-wrapped and in excellent condition and definitely not a fake. Your opening talk on CDs is exactly how I feel. I used to have tons of vinyl and sold them ( which I kinda regret ) when CDs arrived because of CDs convenience and durability as you said. Vinyl is more delicate. I hoped in your video you would've talked a little bit more about your preferences for the mono vs. the stereo. A lot of people complain about the vocals being separate from the instruments on the stereo.
Thank you.
And congrats on your purchase. I hope you enjoy it. Indeed prices vary a bit, but getting one at a good price and sealed is difficult. I think I was lucky back in March but I also kinda hunted it down to get one below 200 and got lucky on the transport.
About the mono vs stereo, I will definitely have that in future ones. I already filmed a 3 part series comparing the two boxsets. Hope to start sharing it in the next weeks.
You still have your remasters from 2009? Those are on CD and nowadays CD'S are sacrilege
Why not? Many of them sound great. Granted some of the new mixes from 2015 onward sound awesome, but I wouldn't throw the 2009s out.
Nothing wrong with my pirate copy that you would notice,it sounds better than anything Giles Martin has mixed,I wouldn't have he's stuff for nothing
@@alfching2499 it depends on the ears and system as well I think. There are people who would swear there are clear differences. I wouldn't know, I would need to be able to compare. Maybe I'll do that one day.
Correction, the mono version of the first 4 albums were released on 1987
Indeed, forgot about those. Thanks!
The first two albums are only listenable in the original mono or a very narrowly squeezed or spectrally remixed stereo.
We are all waiting to have that stereo be the main release. But I have to say, I did have difficulties listenting to some tracks on those, using headphones. But on speakers, if the speakers are not too far apart, they sounded ok.
Good Vibrations is not on Pet Sounds. It was released as a single then later showed up on Smiley Smile. Also, when talking about the Please Please Me album, you said you like the covers then proceeded to name Chains, Anna, Ask Me Why and Misery. The latter two songs are McCartney-Lennon originals. Enjoyed your video, though.
Indeed. Thank you. On the songs I just mashed together the songs I like (covers and all). Realized it after but could not edit it out so... just went with it :)
I have to think the 2009 remasters are pretty much superfluous now given the recent releases.
For which albums you mean? I would say maybe just for the 5 which have new mixed editions as part of the deluxe editions. The others only have a few tracks remixed on the recent red and blue.bAnd it kinda depends anyway. On most people being willing to buy them again. But most probably won't, and while the 2009 Stereos are still widely available, people with less interst in different mixes will still buy them, moreover the Mono set does not have its disks available in any other form yet, and from the deluxe editions the White Album doesn't have its mono mix, only Sgt Pepper and Revolver do. And until all albums get re-released this way, it will take years.
Err… what?
no ...they are creating new beatle fans every single day
I got a sealed copy last week for 120€ on ebay. I was afraid that it would be fake, but fortunately, it is genuine 😅
Congrats on that!!! That is damn good price, and totally worth it. Enjoy it to the max! To be honest, the realistic prices for both this and the vinyl version should be much lower than they are, but obviously are inflated due to them not being produced anymore. But always good to see someome getting one at a decent price.
Will be adding some small corrections on a few things I said during this.
1. Phil Spector of course did not initially mix Get Back/Let it Be, Glyn Johns did that, but then Spector was called in to re-do everything before the album was released.
2. The status of Sgt Pepper and Magical Mystery Tour as full on concept albums is debatable.
3. Vinyl is better than CDs. Naaah jk, have not been convinced of that yet. Maybe soon :)
4. The inner antistatic sleeves seem to be some sort of plastic vs the rice paper ones they are inspired by.
5. Obviously the element printed on LP covers and their replica's referring to the rpm is 33 1/3 and not just 33.
Feel free to point out any other mistakes I've made down here in the comments.
LE: thank you all for the corrections.
6. This one seems worth it to include in the list: Pet Sounds did NOT include Good Vibrations.
The included booklet just talks about the mono masters CD and not the other albums.
It does have that few page intro by Kevin Howlett, but indeed the rest is mostly the Mono Masters. That was kind of underwhelming to be honest. I think they did a better job with the individual booklets on the stereo box, and this one deserved more.
Good Vibrations was famously not included on the Pet Sounds album.
"Magical Mystery Tour" has ALWAYS been a COMPLIATION. Side two was originally SINGLES.
@ianz9916 You're right. Not sure why I said that.
36:45 Magical m"I"stery tour
Yes. Indeed. Unfortunately too late to correct that one. 🥴
are you saying this is the only way to get the cd's in mono ?
because im sure the first 4 cd's realeased in the late 80's were mono and can be found cheap
Probably should have been clearer: the only way to find ALL the mono albums in mono on CD.
Brian Wilson was inspired by the capitol version of Rubber Soul which is pretty different from the UK version
That's very possible, although I am not sure it has ever been positively confirmed. On one hand Wilson getting the US version is very probable given the availability of it; however by that time the UK albums were imported in the States and it would not have been uncommon for a guy like him to get his hands on the original album. I recall an interview where he mentioned a few songs, all of which are on both versions.
@@BurgundySkies Also Brian Wilson was heavily into non-prescribed chemical substances at that time and it is debatable how much of that period he can even remember. It is a nice soundbite to attach his influences to The Beatles but it was a long time after the fact that he said this so it may be something that he thought in retrospect.
That maybe true, but in the end this is something pretty widely accepted, based on his accounts. Now even if he did think about it in retrospect, does not mean it's not true. Nothing is 100% certain either way. I started understanding things about my personality and psyche in my young adult years, but only realized in my late 30s how certain things shaped my behaviour and state of mind, how elements of my childhood and adolescence shaped my choices and actions. So him being drugged up in his 20s or 30s and so on, does not discount his retrospective thoughts in his older years no? But oh well... who really knows? Maybe not even him.
I bought this 12 years ago the pirate copy and it’s perfect it cost £25 eff paying £500 plus
That's good man. I mean if audibly you they are ok, and physically they were reproduced well... enjoy the music. At the point that I was in when I bought them, I just felt like I did not want to risk it. Also I've been listening to bootleg music a big part of my life, for regional and financial reasons mostly. A while back I decided I wanted to move away from that if I can.
@@BurgundySkies Thanks mate,I believe anything Beatles is a collosal rip off,the Beatles were a Boomers group,I'm now 76 which means I'm a Boomer, I bought all that was released at that time in the 60s and only bought mono,the 60s was mono,it will always sound better all coming our of the centre,I don't touch anything Giles martin meddles with,which is a another big Rip off.i bought enough original Beatles to see me out.
Well you did have the chance to do it from the get-go, which is great. You have to understand us later generations and especially behind the iron curtain were less fortunate then. So I guess we're over compensating. But I agree in terms of pricing. And the fact that many releases either did not improve on the originals or some even went downhill.
Regarding them being a boomers group, it's true in terms of period and base fans. But then I guess 2nd, 3rd 4th generation fans are proof they transcended their period.
No wonder old man McCartney is a billionaire,Hope he finds a way of taking it all with him when he passes 😅😅😅😅😅😅
WMGGW better than Dear Prudence, Yer Blues, Helter Skelter? You're right, The Beatles is not the album for you but it is for me - their best IMO.
I mean it's all a matter of personal preference. To be honest thought, my view on this album has shifted a bit since last year. So...
@@BurgundySkies I understand it is a matter of taste. Hopefully as your view shifts you will see the marvelous eclectic and hap hazard track listing as a work of art - whether It was intended that way or The Beatles just got lucky. In '68 it was not reviewed well but over the years more have come to appreciate it and I think among big fans like myself it ranks up there with Abbey Road for the most fans. Who'd a thunk it way back when. lol
At a certain point I will attempt to do a personal ranking. I tried to put one on paper a year ago, and then again a couple of months ago. They look kinda different. I do appreciate the unique build of this album, albeit one of the reasons for it being quite so eclectic is also their need to push put as many tracks as possible to get them out of their previous engagements. But beside that... when I will do my ranking there will be a couple of things that will influence my choices:
1. How many songs of each album I like (percentage wise)?
2. Does the track sound pleasant to me?
Beyond this there dozens of other reasons, many of which very specific or personal, but those above are my main.
Just a tad expensive, probably just stick with the ones i have 😢
Understandable. To be honest, when I snatched the Stereo Box I did not have any intention of getting the Mono. Regarding the price, I would say for me it was so and so. There are definitely more expensive sets even in the CD realm. But it definitely is not cheap. I do think this a set that needs to be reprinted so more people have a chance to get it at normal prices. But... in the end what matters is we can enjoy the music regardless of the format or version.
“Obviously vinyl has become the preferred way for audiophiles to collect and listen to music” err… no it hasn’t? Vinyl collecting and being an audiophile are two entirely separate and usually mutually exclusive hobbies unless you are very wealthy. No analogue system below £2000 sounds vaguely acceptable to an audiophile and the vast majority of records in existence are either in poor condition, or poor quality pressings, or cut from poor sources. You’d probably be hitting an average of £60 per album if you were seeking out good sounding records. If you want a decent sized collection of, say, 500 albums you really like, that’s £30000. And you’d better be taking out insurance on that. So no, most audiophiles are not vinyl collectors, or if they are, they’re probably under the influence of some serious doublethink.
CDs still outsell vinyl by volume in most parts of the world and I’d wager a higher percentage of CD buyers are discerning about sound quality than vinyl buyers, who are very clearly happy with overpriced noisy junk off of Amazon.
I mean I will not dispute that, but what I can say is that at least in the audiophile centric forums I visited, most people were talking about turntables, styli and the best pressings. I guess it also depends on the music itself. There are those who might own master tapes or copies of master tapes of certain albums, and depending on their setup that might be the best way to listen to those albums. On the other hand it seemed to me like it's an accepted thing among a lot of music collectors that they prefer (at least music from the 50s, 60s, 70s) on vinyl rather than CD. Not the case for me. Even if since I recorded this, I did build up a small vinyl collection as well, I still feel like many of my CDs sound better than their vinyl counterparts.
CDs vs. Vinyl: It's all *OPINION*. Here's mine: I prefer CDs for sound quality the vast majority of the time. CDs, to my ears, out-perform vinyl on high end (cymbals, high-hat, sung 'S's') and on fadeouts, which mostly fade away into dead silence. With vinyl, you've got wow & flutter, surface noise, and the occasional record where the spindle hole is not EXACTLY centered, causing a warped playback. CDs have their cons as well. Unlike their hype, they do NOT last 100 years without any degradation. Pre CD times, I listened to music on vinyl from 1964 to 1988 (when I got my first CD player). I *KNOW* vinyl. Very familiar with it. But today? Give me CD.
Agreed that it's all opinion. And no doubt that vinyl (even with CD rot and other stuff) are is way more fragile and prone to damage which results in sound getting screwed much easier.
I have so many CDs with scratches and other marks in them that play without a hitch.
I will probably have the chance myself to compare first hand sometime soon, but until then I maintain that in most cases the possible inferior sound on some CDs vs their vinyl counterparts are due to how the chose to cut/press them and the compression and/or eq choices they unexplicably sometimes make with regard to certain albums.
Andrew over at Parlogram showed a recent example of the new Red and Blue. Why they would brickwall so many songs when compared to the exact same release on vinyl is beyond me.
Still it takes finer ears than mine to catch that on the new Red and Blue CDs by just listening at a decent volume.
I like CD's too. The thing I miss most about getting vinyl albums is the size of the cover and liner notes. It's getting hard to see the small writing on CD liner notes. As far as CD degradation, I still have a few CD's I've had since 1987. They still play the same as they did when I got them. How long do you think a well cared for CD will last?
Well the 80-100 year estimations that were initially thrown around proved to not be accurate. But I can say this: I have some CDs of the Beatles from 87 and they look like new, the play like new. That's 36 years and counting.
Then I also had a Billy Joel compilation from 85 which looked great, and played without the slightest issue. That's 38 years. So aside from discs affected by rot which are not all discs, but seem to have been some that had flaws in their production, and if cared for properly, I would say they would go above 50 years without being affected at all. CDs also have the benefit of having a bit of error correction where even if somr scratches or marks are there, we would not hear then, unlike vinyl where you can eveb hear dust.
Fake.
huh?
So-called "audiophiles" who fall for the vinyl hype love the DISTORTION aded by stylus-in-groove. But don't tell them that bcause they'll get defensive and lash out.
Some will even claim they can hear the difference between analog (tape, tape hiss, distortion) and digital. Yeah: they love the distortion that corrupts their "pure" listening experience.
Well I won't judge anyone's preferences. I am aware that my listening experiences might be different or even radically different than others. And that there are indeed many people with way finer and more precise and trained ears out there. Not too mention people that are more technically inclined.
It's just that so far I haven't yet found the undisputed proof that vinyl beats CD in what it can offer listeners as a format alone.
Rather (at least for thr music I listen to) it seems to be that vinyl may beat CD in quality because of how the albums in question were produced, mastered, re-mastered, mixed and re-mixed for each medium.
I do think the vinyl craze has a big nostalgia element to it, and I think that is fine. I have it to when it comes to certain things.
Whether people lash out... I mean... some do, some don't, but I pay it no mind. To each his own I guess.
Anyway, I do not swear off vinyl forever, I will try vinyl myself if I can, just to make my opinions better informed and because (at least where my absolute favourite musicians are concerned) I do want to have the options.
@@BurgundySkies From earliest memories we had 78s. Then it was 45s. I bought my first LP in 1963. I have a ton of vinyl. It is surpassed by CDs.