Preferred Medium

[Newport Rebel]

I'm curious to know the preferred medium of buying/listening among folks on this jazz board.

[It Should be You]

Lately I buy cds and cassettes of recordings made on 78s on shellack. And when I can find someone who can play back 78s, I like to hear the original 78s on shellack.

[Newport Rebel]

Looks like I'm the lone soul for now.

[Pete B]

how about whichever option is cheapest? ;)

[Newport Rebel]

how about whichever option is cheapest? ;)

yeah that's a good option. Precisely why I got into vinyl in the first place. And then it got out of control from there.

[estallworth]

Vinyl is the method that I prefer but a lot of the arists that I am interested in are hard to find or very expensive. I usually go the cheaper route and buy the CD.

[estallworth]

I forgot to add the vinyl covers are like a piece of fine art

[It Should be You]

I forgot to add the vinyl covers are like a piece of fine art

I think of the labels on 78s this way, too (shellack, not vinyl).

[Tenorman]

I prefer good quality Vinyl for the quality of the sound

CDs for their handiness and general resistance to damage (as well as low maintenance hardware)

I prefer MiniDiscs for travelling and making compilations of my current favourites (Nothing beats the editing facilities outside of a computer)

[Harold_Z]

I'd be curious as how this shakes out when age is a factor. IOW - I grew up in the vinyl era. I remember 78s going out in favor of 45s. I still own some 78s, a lot of 45s and A LOT of lps (both 10" and 12"). Having said all that, what it comes down to for me is what sounds best - and that seems to be a matter of engineering and production rather than the medium it is presented on. Thus a J.R.T. Davis reissue sounds better than an early 60s lp (in most cases) - and the J.R.T. reissues sounded great on vinyl too ! So I don't worship vinyl - I bought many an lp home to find flaws inherent to a bad pressing and conversly there are many great sounding lps. I have a feeling that guys who grew up with vinyl feel pretty much the same as I feel. Great remastering is the key, whatever medium we are listening on.

OK - so in this poll I checked CDs, but that is really a simplification. My preferred medium is the one that sounds the best to my ears and that depends on what particular piece of music I'm listening to, and the quality of the mastering, remastering, etc.

[xricci]

I added the MP3/WMA/AAC/Download option today.

[Noj]

Given my choice, I'd rather have vinyl. But that isn't really the choice since more titles are available on cd. I collect both.

[Claude]

My vote would go to SACD if this option was available :confused2

I've started buying some LPs again during the last 2 years, to fill gaps in my collection. But I still prefer the CD version to the LP version of the same album. Could simply be that my turntable is not in the same league than my CD player (Thorens TD160 vs Sony SCD-XA777ES).

I also listen to a lot of MP3s at work and on the road, on a portable hard drive player.

[Newport Rebel]

Given my choice, I'd rather have vinyl. But that isn't really the choice since more titles are available on cd. I collect both.

I strongly disagree. I have about 100 jazz titles that are not available on CD. I have 2 CD's because they are not on vinyl. but both are compilations of 78's and 45's.

As for studio (and live) titles on CD that are not on vinyl...well, I'm not really looking for those.

[Noj]

I strongly disagree. I have about 100 jazz titles that are not available on CD. I have 2 CD's because they are not on vinyl. but both are compilations of 78's and 45's.

As for studio (and live) titles on CD that are not on vinyl...well, I'm not really looking for those.

I tend to collect records I can't find on cd. Since neither of my players are all that great for either medium and I just care about hearing the music, I guess I really don't care either way. Records are just kind of cool compared to cds. Serious collectors of vinyl I'm sure are privvy to the most material--however I was talking more about buying albums new...can all the albums found on cd be purchased on new, sealed vinyl and I am just out of the loop?

[horacesilver#1]

I get mostly cds, like "Noj" I only get albums on vinyl that I can't get on cd yet. Like Thornel Schwartz - Soul Cookin', Jazz Crusaders - Lighthouse 69', and some rare Horace Silver 80's lps, just to name a few in my collection.

[Newport Rebel]

however I was talking more about buying albums new...can all the albums found on cd be purchased on new, sealed vinyl and I am just out of the loop?

Well new is completely different story. You didn't say new before

[six string]

Generally speaking, I prefer vinyl. I don't mind cds They are handier and I can play them on the go. I buy a lot more vinyl than I do cds, especially when it comes to jazz. I don't spend enormous amounts on my records either. There are bargins to be had. You have to be patient. If I want my vinyl for the car, I burn it on a cdr and the warmth of the vinyl comes through, believe it or not.

[Noj]

That I didn't, my mistake.

I've heard drastically different sounds from used vinyl in comparison to brand new cds. The first example that comes to mind are my copies of Oliver Nelson "The Blues & Abstract Truth"--the cd sound is far superior, everything on the vinyl sounds distant in comparison, especially the horns.

All the same, I've heard vinyl that sounds very warm and full compared to the cd version of the same music. It is a very subtle difference between the two. Cds seem to have the least variation in sound quality--usually the sound on cds is more than acceptable by my standards, while used vinyl can be anywhere on the scale (usually reflected in the price).

[Harold_Z]

Well new is completely different story. You didn't say new before

A lot of today's new lps are digitally remastered. You're essentially getting a cd pressed into vinyl. That's really no gain...the same cd sound but vulnerable to all the various mishaps that can happen to vinyl.

[Pete B]

So very true. I was excited to pick up a copy of the "Blanton-Webster" box set on vinyl, reasoning that it would sound much better than the cds, which I thought were pretty bad. WRONG! The vinyl was a remarkably poor early 80's digital remastering which made the music sound absolutely DOA. It's a shame, because otherwise the box was nicely put together.

I originally got back into buying vinyl to fill holes where the music was unavailable on cd, but anymore I'd just as soon have the vinyl as the cd.

[Tim Givens]

I was glad when cassettes replaced vinyl. I was sick and tired of skipping records, even on top line turntables. I was ballistic for a while when CDs replaced cassettes, for the cost of having to switch formats. Then I got used to the convenience of CDs, and it turned out a lot of my old jazz came out on CD that was never done on cassette. Yet CDs are breakable, and much surface damage causes an uncorrectable skip. You can't stack pennies on the laser. So we're back to some of vinyl's problems.

True, I've been careful with my CDs. None of mine have a scratch, and I have some going on twenty years old. I run tape copies for the car. I will never have a CD in a car when a 30 cent cassette copy will do just fine. But what happened to good old cassettes being isssued by labels?

My current JVC system includes a dual cassette deck with music search, almost as fast as picking a CD track. Cassettes are tough, reasonably heat resistant, and long lived on a quality deck. You can make low cost exact copies, so the music can last indefinitely. A CD-R is not an exact copy of a CD. It has a different structure and poorer readability. The shortcomings of cassette were the slow speed giving lower fidelity, and noise.

Newer coatings and noise circuits were beginning to alleviate those shortcomings when the CD barged in. My thought is, how far could those coatings and circuits have progressed by now? Add in digital recording, and you have near CD quality sound. Make the tapes twice as large, running at twice the speed, and you might have matched CDs in sound.

I know Digital Audio Tape had a shot, but it wasn't really promoted, and little was issued. Everything was focused on CDs, and the cassette was dumped before it reached its full potential.

[six string]

I understand your love for cassettes Tim. I had a tape deck in my car until recently when it died and I replaced it with a cd player. I have to say that my tapes sounded as good and usually better than my cds. (It's not true when it comes to the house system.) I miss the warmth of the tape. The highs on the cd are too brittle sounding on some of the discs. Of course, the bass was sometimes a bit shy or muddy on the tapes too. I guess every modality has its strengths and weaknesses.

[Tenorman]

Tim,
If you haven't had a listen yet - try Mini-Discs.

They are the most indestructible medium so far. You can edit them better than any other medium. If you decide you don't like a track, delete it and replace with a new one - change the order etc. etc.

I travel with a Mini-Disc portable unit, and I use a Hi-Fi unit to make the copies at home. My Teac V8030S tape deck is almost redundant now. I recorded some tapes onto Mini-Disc and got an apparent improvement in sound (not actually possible - just an improvement in the dynamics of the sound which made the recordings sound better)

[shawn·m]

Here’s another nod to SACD.

[makpjazz57]

I've become an MP3 convert, since I can carry almost 5,000 tunes with me (not my entire jazz collection, but close) wherever I go. I do not use it in the house - much prefer CDs. I won't be one of those people downloading iTUNES to my iPOD, as I have more than enough CDs (probably between 600 - 700) to keep me busy. Additionally, I like reading the liner notes, seeing the pictures, etc. that come with the purchase of a CD (as opposed to downloading).

At home, because I do not have room for a turntable on my stereo rack, I play only CDs (though I love my vinyl). When time and $ permits, I'll change my stereo rack and purchase a decent turntable.

Marla

[Leeway]

I've got a real problem: I'm bi-format. That's right: I go both ways :eek2:

Yup, I buy CD AND vinyl. I have several thousand of each, in almost equal proportion. This creates all kinds of conflicts, duplicates, etc, but each format has its advantages. For contemporary jazz, I need to go the CD route. Also, for those hard-to-find Blue Notes and other rare jazz LPs, I need the CDs until I can get vinyl copies. More recent CDs have pretty good sound, which has made things more palatable. .

OTOH, a good vinyl (analog,not digital, vinyl, which is , to my mind, an oxymoron) album offers superior sound; there's a quality to analog that I can't give up.

SO, for me, both.

[BigDirtyFoot]

I only recently got into records (Saturday, actually. Hmm. And I'm only 17 so keep that in mind.) but I really was surprised with their sound. I had heard LPs on other's systems that I hated, but the player my parents have is pretty nice. However, I enjoy buying CDs. I think for new jazz I'll be looking to CDs, and for older jazz, LPs. I also have an iPod and keep a lot of music on it (only around 3750 songs so far) that I love dearly. But I prefer CDs over mp3s or my beloved AACs.

[Mark of Cenla]

I am almost 100% CD. I bought a CD recorder so I could convert all our cassettes to CD-R. I do have two DVD Audio discs that sound wonderful, and most of the DVD Video concert discs I have sound great too. But, alas, the DVD Audio format is probably dead in the water.

The new dual discs with a CD side and a DVD side seem promising. Regular DVD sound is very good. Peace.

[Bhobb]

That I didn't, my mistake.

I've heard drastically different sounds from used vinyl in comparison to brand new cds. The first example that comes to mind are my copies of Oliver Nelson "The Blues & Abstract Truth"--the cd sound is far superior, everything on the vinyl sounds distant in comparison, especially the horns.

All the same, I've heard vinyl that sounds very warm and full compared to the cd version of the same music. It is a very subtle difference between the two. Cds seem to have the least variation in sound quality--usually the sound on cds is more than acceptable by my standards, while used vinyl can be anywhere on the scale (usually reflected in the price).

I agree about the warm sound some lps have compared to their CD equivalents. It's my main sonic reason for preferring lps.

But lps also do it for me on a sensory/aesthetic level. I love everything about the lp - the look of the disc, the heft of an lp, the record covers (the artwork, gatefold sleeves, double albums, box sets!), the ritual that accompanies playing a record, the "thunk" of the stylus in the lead-in groove, the anticipation...I better stop now, the nurse is coming with my medication.

[Tenorman]

The biggest difference I have found is when comparing female vocalists - OK not everyone's favourite spin, but I happen to like a number of them.

A good Vinyl gives a warmer tone and wider range than a CD. Theoretically an SACD can match the Vinyl's range. However when I last replaced my CD player in the UK, I was not prepared to pay the 100% extra for an SACD player that could play my CDs as well as the player I was replacing, so I haven't been able to make that comparison yet.

PS For comparison In the UK we reckon Dollar for pound exchange rate for electronic products -- i.e. if it costs $100 in the US it will cost £100 in the
UK

We are used to it -- doesn't mean we have to like it!!!! :mad:

[clave]

Violin and piano are two other instruments (besides the human voice) that are good indicators, though so much depends on the engineering.

I have a copy of Barry Harris' "Plays Tadd Dameron" on LP (Xanadu). I love what he does, but the mastering is absolutely horrible!

Also, even though I prefer the warmth of vinyl, I've gotten rid of most of my LPs for two reasons (which go together): weight and frequent moves (out of pocket) over the last several years. It's a lot easier to deal with boxes of CDs than it is with boxes and boxes (and boxes!) of LPs. (Though I've now switched over to poly CD sleeves for most of my disc collection, and have no regrets whatsover -- I can keep them all at home now, not in storage.)

[Tenorman]

Me, I live on my own in a reasonably large (for London) flat, so there is no-one to tell me that the lounge is not the place for some 2000 CDs, LPs, as well as books and a pair of 4 feet high speakers.

Bachelorhood does have some advantages

[Joel]

still a cd guy here..but lately, the disk itself doesn't get enough spins anymore.

I encode them immediately as mp3 and listen to my ipod or from the computer.

[clave]

Me, I live on my own in a reasonably large (for London) flat, so there is no-one to tell me that the lounge is not the place for some 2000 CDs, LPs, as well as books and a pair of 4 feet high speakers.

Bachelorhood does have some advantages

Your collection isn't as much of a problem as mine (read: as large as) -- and then there are my books, so...

[peter rh]

A good Vinyl gives a warmer tone and wider range than a CD. Theoretically an SACD can match the Vinyl's range. However when I last replaced my CD player in the UK, I was not prepared to pay the 100% extra for an SACD player that could play my CDs as well as the player I was replacing, so I haven't been able to make that comparison yet.


have you not yet tried hybrid SACD's ? you might be surprised
links may help :http://www.sa-cd.net/titles/36/0/date/5/1
http://www.sa-cd.net/alltitles/162

[Tenorman]

I have not found a hybrid SACD that I already have on vinyl to be able to do a comparison. However there are many variables - you need to compare the two media using the same master.

Some modern discs sound better because they are produced from a cleaned up master.

Full SACD is capable of producing the quality of output of vinyl - at least in the lab. I am not yet prepared to pay the premium on the hardware. There is not enough software out there for me to want to change

[peter rh]

all SACDs are remastered.Don't you believe hybrid SACDs can produce
good results ? You don't have to change anything

[Tenorman]

The Hybrid CDs are still limited by the Red Book definitions. I would love to compare a like for like, but have not found any discs that I can do this with yet.

[peter rh]

The Hybrid CDs are still limited by the Red Book definitions.
I have only mentioned hybrid SACDs, not hybrid CDs

[Tenorman]

Sorry, a slip of the fingers. I did mean hybrid SACD - I didn't know there was such a thing as hybrid CDs.

Hybrid SACDs played on a CD player have to obey the Red Book restrictions, so, in theory they should not be any better than the CD - always assuming that the master is the same.

It is very difficult to compare formats, when the record company has been doing things with the master. How much of any improvement in sound is caused by the re-mastering?

[peter rh]

Hybrid SACDs played on a CD player have to obey the Red Book restrictions, so, in theory they should not be any better than the CD - always assuming that the master is the same.


"Super Audio CD (SACD)
Super Audio Compact disc (SACD) is a high-resolution audio CD format. Version 1.0 specifications were detailed by Philips and Sony in March of 1999, in the Scarlet Book. SACD and DVD-Audio (DVD-A)are the two formats competing to replace the standard audio CD. Most of the industry is backing DVD-A, with Philips and Sony being the major exceptions.

Like SACD, DVD-A offers 5.1 channel surround sound in addition to 2-channel stereo. Both formats improve the complexity of sound by increasing bit rates and sampling frequencies, and can be played on existing CD players, although only at quality levels similar to those of traditional CDs. SACD uses Direct Stream Digital (DSD) recording, a proprietary Sony technology that converts an analog waveform to a 1-bit signal for direct recording, instead of the pulse code modulation (PCM) and filtering used by standard CDs. DSD uses lossless compression (so-called because none of the data is lost in the compression process) and a sampling rate of 2.8MHz to improve the complexity and realism of sound. SACD can also contain extra information, such as text, graphics, and video clips."
http://searchmobilecomputing.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid40_gci514667,00.html
Red Book restrictions ? My only concern is the sound from my loudspeakers.
Remastering is most important, but also neccessary when hybrid SACDs or
regular SACDs etc are produced.

[Tenorman]

Peter,
I have obviously missed something in this discussion.

You asked me if I had heard hybrid SACD about two posts after I had said that I did not have an SACD player. I therefore assumed, since you had mentioned hybrids specifically that you were suggesting that the CD layer of a Hybrid SACD was better than a normal CD and/or vinyl.

My reply was that the cd layer of a hybrid had to obey the same red-book rules as an ordinary CD, and therefore logically at least should not be any better than a standard CD played in the same CD player

[peter rh]

Red Book restrictions are not about remastering or quality of reproduction.
Cd's and cd layers of hybrid SACDs do not all sound the same because of
Red Book restrictions. I'm not suggesting that all remastering automatically
produces an improvement, but neither does remastering automatically produce
a loss of quality - the former may be more common. In a thread last year
(Coleman Hawkins reissue K 2 remaster -
http://forums.allaboutjazz.com/showthread.php?t=6411
you commented that with Fantasy, only ZYX masters were available in UK shops. I provided a link (post #36) to 40+ Fantasy titles many are hybrid SACDs.
I don't own a SACD player but I have tried a number of hybrid SACDs, so I
do have some idea of comparisons. You seem to prefer dismissing any
possible merits by references to technical details, rather than actually listening to a cd layer of a hybrid SACD. Technical details do not tell you
how anything sounds

[jazzcritic]

8 track? Surely you must be joking to include this monstrosity, defunct technology. The damned things never worked well.

[Tenorman]

Sorry Peter, but my understanding of the technology is that a hybrid SACD contains a CD layer as well as the SACD layer.

The technology is such that the same master used on a CD and on a Hybrid SACD, played through the same CD spinner will sound the same.

Now if someone has some info that I have the totally wrong end of the stick here, from my readings of various Hi-Fi Mags, I'll have a go.

I have Hybrid SACDs and they are all good quality, at present I don't have two platters of the same original that I can make an honest comparison