Discussion in 'United Kingdom' started by Poodu, May 29, 2001.
vinyl rules but terrestrial tv and video bites
That's alright then, cos this one has an s-video scart output! heh heh heh!
But for ambient music always go with compact disc...
do not be so confident of this technological terror you have constructed...
yuh cant beat the hiss and crackle of vinyl
And the size of the those loverly 12" sleeves
Why does Arun love DVD but still prefer vinyl? ?
Pretty simple, I'd guess...
DVD = video
Vinyl = audio (uncompressed audio, even)
But DVD is the best video format out there right now!
Vinyl isn't, that's the point.
Have to admit I've never seen a film on vinyl, CA...
Laserdisc is the closest thing to it!
point is vinyl is for music, nothing else
last longer, looks nicer and plays louder than cds
and cos it's uncompressed, you don't suffer degradation of quality as opposed to CDs and MP3
CD's are *****...
Fact: You will always get a better sound pick up from vinyl..
Fact: the reason why major record labels have been promoting CD's is because they are cheaper to produce ( about 1p per CD 23p per vinyl record ) and thus make more money from us...
Fact: The record industry had planned to dispose of vinyl records altogether by 2000
Fact: No Chance
Fact: Vinyl sales have gone up 13% CD sales have dropped 8%
Fact: They look better on shelves
I'm more impressed by a decent vinyl collection than a CD collection.
Vinyl has a more collectable status too.
//Remembering to visit Fopp next time I'm in Glasgow
"last longer...than cds"
"cos it's uncompressed, you don't suffer degradation of quality as opposed to CDs and MP3"
DVDs are compressed heavily!
"Fact: the reason why major record labels have been promoting CD's is because they are cheaper to produce ( about 1p per CD 23p per vinyl record ) and thus make more money from us..."
Again, what about DVD?
Basically, how is preferring vinyl to CD any different than preferring VHS to DVD?
What are you arguing here, man? DVD is for high quality video and that it is.. we ain't arguing that point... but vinyl has the number one slot music-wise
Ben...a turd and a stick is better VHS
Oh come on! CD lasts a lot longer than vinyl, and why mess around putting on velvet gloves every time you take the damn thing out of the sleeve?
Besides, if DVD audio ever takes off, I'd be interested to see how music buffs compare it to vinyl.
Vinyl does not deteriate..I have records from 1957 that play as new...I have CD's from 1987 that don't...
I would compare VHS to audio tapes..both terrible and both last about 2 years..
As for audiophiles...they quite happy with vinyl as a musical format..I could play you a record that you think you know on my home set up and you will hear thing's that you never heard before..fret changes the lot..
I'm not etlitist about it I buy CD's as well as Vinyl and I record on mini disc...but if it came down to it I would go for vinyl everytime...hearing is believing
Can I just say that the velvet glove thing should apply to CDs as well as vinyl!
I have CDs that are scratched to hell.
Therefore, that argument doesnt count.
DVD audio won't catch on.. not until the whole world has gotten DVD compatible systems. DVD sells movies, cos the difference is marked visually... audibly most people ain't gonna notice a difference in quality, especially if a DVD audio disk is being sold for Â£20 as opposed to the CD which costs a tenner... I know which one the average punter would go for!
It's all bollocks; we've got DVD-Audio and SACD coming out soon which will 'meld the warmth of vinyl with the performance of CDs' - it is all marketing jargon to persuade you to get things you don't really need; my mam and dad have got a stereo in their room which they've had for 35 years now - and it still works with the original belt drive etc. My Sony Hi-fi is ready for replacement after about 7 years.
In my opinion, and this is by no means gospel, is that the majority of people cannot hear/see the difference ENOUGH to warrant the price of all this new stuff - I like listening to music; the format makes very little difference to me. I like watching films, but since I've spent the last five years collecting a vast amount of videos, I'm not about to ditch them in favour of DVDs just because it's marginaly better - and don't quote the spec at me because I review them for a living. I mean, how many videos have you knackered in your life through over watching?
As soon as I get my own place, I will buy a top of the range TV, a top of the range video, a top of the range Hi-Fi and they will last me or the manufacturers will be thrice cursed!!
ED: Arun - if VHS is so gay, how come we were all so happy with it until DVDs came out; if its a case of only just realising what you were missing, it seems a little poncey.....
apart from vinal geting damager ie scratches, it'll far out last cd's
A DVD player for films I'm going to get.. because the difference is outstanding and well worth splashing out for, in my opinion.
That doesn't mean I'm gonna ditch my videos and video player. For a start, I can't record onto DVD yet and second there's no way I'm gonna try and replace over 120 videos with their DVD counterparts!
However, hiring a DVD is much better sense. How many times have you hired a tape and it's been completely FUBAR? Too many for me to mention! DVD kinda cuts out that problem.
DVD Audio, as I've said and JG reiterated, will never catch on cos people can't justify the expense for the negligable difference (to their ears) in quality...