music Anypony collect vinyl records?

[Tacodidra 59,895]

Nope, I don't even have anything to play them on. Though we have a few old LPs somewhere a relative was going to throw away. Most of the music I want to hear is available digitally anyway.

I have a slight interest in shellac records, but there are things that keep me from getting into them either – being really easy to break, and again, not having a player.

[Pentium100 2,057]

I have a few hundred records, I also have some 78RPM records and a couple of players for them (I don't have a wind-up gramophone though). When I buy a new record, I sometimes (especially if I think I will be listening to it often) copy it to a tape (or a cassette if I think I'll be listening to it in my car or using a portable player), so that I can play the tape and not wear out the record as much.

[Splashee 28,537]

56 minutes ago, Pentium100 said:

I have a few hundred records

What is the best quality (in your opinion @Pentium100), a CD with 44,100 Hz sample rate or a record with a very high quality gramophone? This is almost a digital or analog kinda question, but since I don't have the right equipment to know myself, I just wonder out of curiosity?

[Pentium100 2,057]

1 minute ago, Splashee said:

What is the best quality (in your opinion @Pentium100), a CD with 44,100 Hz sample rate or a record with a very high quality gramophone? This is almost a digital or analog kinda question, but since I don't have the right equipment to know myself, I just wonder out of curiosity?

This question in an audio forum could start a flame war. 

IMO, it depends. The quality of the CD player is also important, not just the quality of a record player. However, some records sound better than CDs for another reason  - mastering. For some reason, record labels think that "more louder = more better" and compress the dynamic range to within a few dB in an attempt to make the CD as loud as possible (because, I guess, the executives think that the average listener does not know how to use the volume knob), sometimes the recording is even clipped. This makes the recording sound bad, especially on a decent system. 

However, you cannot really do that to a record due to physical limits, so they are forced to master the recording not as loud and with higher dynamic range. Also, they probably assume that records will be bought by audiophiles and try to make them sound better.

Someone with good ears and a very good system (and listening room) could tell minute details from the recording, but I am not that attentive, though I am starting to pick up lossy compression (mp3 and such) artifacts and when I do, they are really annoying. I would rather listen to a worn out record (as long as it does not repeat) or a partially demagnetized tape (no high frequencies) than to some TV channel with its 112kbps mp2 audio track (though that particular channel has an SD version with better sound quality, so I can use that).

[Splashee 28,537]

34 minutes ago, Pentium100 said:

This question in an audio forum could start a flame war. 

IMO, it depends. The quality of the CD player is also important, not just the quality of a record player. However, some records sound better than CDs for another reason  - mastering. For some reason, record labels think that "more louder = more better" and compress the dynamic range to within a few dB in an attempt to make the CD as loud as possible (because, I guess, the executives think that the average listener does not know how to use the volume knob), sometimes the recording is even clipped. This makes the recording sound bad, especially on a decent system. 

However, you cannot really do that to a record due to physical limits, so they are forced to master the recording not as loud and with higher dynamic range. Also, they probably assume that records will be bought by audiophiles and try to make them sound better.

Someone with good ears and a very good system (and listening room) could tell minute details from the recording, but I am not that attentive, though I am starting to pick up lossy compression (mp3 and such) artifacts and when I do, they are really annoying. I would rather listen to a worn out record (as long as it does not repeat) or a partially demagnetized tape (no high frequencies) than to some TV channel with its 112kbps mp2 audio track (though that particular channel has an SD version with better sound quality, so I can use that).

I just find this very interesting (not the flame war stuff).
 

I just think that the 44,100 Hz option that was done to fit a full album onto 650 MB of data, could potentially be a lower quality factor compared to an analog source. But I am one of those who doesn't know if something is played with 48,000 Hz or 44,000 Hz without hearing both. I can see the difference between 60 frames per second and 30 frames per second without comparing (even though we are supposed to see 24 frames per second as motion), but audio, I can't tell. Again, all of these are digital samples that are interpolated using a DAC (Digital to Analog converter). Of course, that can add to the quality, if something sounds smoother or not.

[Pentium100 2,057]

5 hours ago, Splashee said:

I just think that the 44,100 Hz option that was done to fit a full album onto 650 MB of data, could potentially be a lower quality factor compared to an analog source.

44.1kHz was used because at the time they used PCM converters that recorded the data on a video tape (basically, it created  "video signal" that was recorded with a normal VCR, though later I think integrated devices were built). The sampling rate needed to be some multiple of the horizontal frequency (so you get fixed number of samples in one video line) and the result was 44.1kHz or something close to it. 

At the time, storing so much data on hard drives would have been expensive. So, when they decided to add digital audio to laserdisc, they used the sample rate that was common. Then, later, when they decided to create the CD, they basically made a "digital-audio-only laserdisc".

5 hours ago, Splashee said:

(even though we are supposed to see 24 frames per second as motion)

And it was 18fps for silent movies (the later ones, early ones used random frame rates). The framerate was increased so that film was moving fast enough for the optical (or magnetic, both were used) audio track to have better sound quality.

 

Sample rate affects what's the highest frequency that can be recorded. It looks like 44.1kHz should be enough (since it allows for up to 22.05kHz which is above what most humans can hear), but it requires a very steep filter that can pass 20kHz, but completely block 22.05kHz. Using a higher sample rate reduces the requirements for the filter. 

[Dreambiscuit 8,138]

I don’t make a specific point of collecting them but I do have quite a few just the same. Most of them are Star Wars (and other John Williams) soundtracks, as part of my Star Wars collection. I have all the symphonic soundtracks as well as a bunch of ‘Story Of’ records and some Ewok Movie records and picture discs as well. There are also some other soundtracks from movies and shows that don’t go in that general collection, and I have some really old 78s from ancient times that my parents gave me. 

[Northern Star 1,023]

I like the older music and my family and relatives are going through the "this is old therefore its garbage" stage so...I've got a few.

 

Cheaper than rebuying them online .

[Sonic Shimmer 4,116]

I did for a while but the new ones are overpriced and take up too much space.