-
How much do you value your vinyl collection?
(I was not sure where to post this thread, but I guess it might be of interest to all, so "general audio" seemed appropriate!)
I pose this question because I recently started to realise the monetary value of certain records in my collection and decided to sell them on Ebay. I was quite astounded at how much some items were worth.
Back in the 1970’s I was an avid record buyer with particular interest in progressive rock. My interests in those days were hi-fi and music, I did not care or know much about labels and “first pressings”. These as you may know are records pressed with the first “stamper” and apparently are often the best quality as they are as close to the original as you could get. Certain labels are very collectable too. Virtually anything on the Vertigo “Swirl” label is worth money, particularly if it is a “UK first pressing”.
My interest in the value of rare or unusual pressing was kindled while surfing the net and discovering that the very early pressings of Pink Floyd’s “Dark Side Of The Moon” had a solid blue triangle on the label (as opposed to later pressings that had a blue outlined triangle) and the sleeve was very dark blue not black. These early copies are very collectable. I discovered I had that version and auctioned it on Ebay. To my astonishment it sold to a collector in America for £205.00! I have since seen an identical but virtually unplayed copy go for £570.00!
I soon discovered that quite a few records in my collection were very valuable indeed. For example I had a near mint condition copy of the album “Asylum” by Cressida on the Vertigo “Swirl” label. I put that on Ebay and it raised £367.00
I also had first pressings of Beatles, Stones and other UK progressive rock albums that were rare or collectable issues. In total, I have raised almost 2000 pounds in 3 weeks by selling them off. I have replaced the ones I still wanted with CD equivalents. The Cressida album on CD cost me £9.95, which makes a profit of £357.05 on that one item! And still have the music! The CD is the re-mastered version and sounds better than the vinyl I sold. I also replaced the Dark side of the moon with a 180g anniversary vinyl version for £20.00 – a profit of £185.00!
So the question is, given the potential value of some of your old vinyl, would you be tempted to sell it? Does it matter to you if you have the “Solid Blue Triangle” on the label of your Floyd album, or would you sell it, buy a new one on CD (or vinyl) and reap the profits?
As it happens I decided to buy a Nikon Digital camera with some of the money, but isn’t this a great way to make some money and upgrade your system? Assuming of course you have some records to sell !!
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Les Adams
...
So the question is, given the potential value of some of your old vinyl, would you be tempted to sell it? Does it matter to you if you have the “Solid Blue Triangle” on the label of your Floyd album, or would you sell it, buy a new one on CD (or vinyl) and reap the profits?
...
My old vinyl is nothing but clutter. I basically never listen to it. I would be happy to sell it for a few buck. I have only one LP that mgiht be worth a little more than garage sale value; that would be my original addition of Carlos Kleiber's Beethven 5th Symphony.
-
Such a pity. With a good quality phonostage, TT and cartridge, the sound of vinyl can be magical. Most well-recorded vinyl LPs can make for a much more intimate listening experience, where the meaning of the music comes through. For Classical music vinyl excels. There is less homogenization, which is important given that an orchestra has many instruments that play on large soundstage. But again - it depends on the rig. Vinyl definitely requires more care, and its much more expensive too get a decent rig set up.
-
I have a copy of Ricki lee jones(original master series) and the best price I saw was
20 bucks on EBAY. Certainly wouldnt sell it for that
And that copy of the first edition of HONKEY CHATEU by Elton John before he became a "sir", mom got me that one on my 14th birthday, wouldnt part with that either.
My collection has shrunk, thanks to water damage to quite a few when my brother had them (tornado).
The LA WOMAN issue with the yellow window , the first issue of exiles on main street,
the first issue of diamond dogs
But I still have fleetwood mac, Bob James, Gill-scott Heron, Led zeppelin, about eighty
all told.
And most have memories attached, and while we audio types treasure records it seems that the market doesnt.
Dont think I am going to be tempted by an offers of riches anytime soon that will even
come close to make me consider giving up on these memories :1:
-
This is humbug
Quote:
Originally Posted by O'Shag
Such a pity. With a good quality phonostage, TT and cartridge, the sound of vinyl can be magical. Most well-recorded vinyl LPs can make for a much more intimate listening experience, where the meaning of the music comes through. For Classical music vinyl excels. There is less homogenization, which is important given that an orchestra has many instruments that play on large soundstage. But again - it depends on the rig. Vinyl definitely requires more care, and its much more expensive too get a decent rig set up.
Sure, classical LPs can sound very fine. And doubtless a better analog kit will make them sound better. But to imply that analog is inherently superior for air and soundstage is invalid, IMO.
I have many murky-sounding CDs; I also have many with superb transparency, soundstage, and detail. It's the recording process that makes the most difference, not the medium. This applies to CD versus SACD too.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
My old vinyl is nothing but clutter. I basically never listen to it. I would be happy to sell it for a few buck. I have only one LP that mgiht be worth a little more than garage sale value; that would be my original addition of Carlos Kleiber's Beethven 5th Symphony.
You might be surprised that some of that "old clutter" may be worth a buck or two. Some of my old vinyl only raised £10-15 but I was never going to play those particular discs again or had already replaced them with CD's, so I asked myself if it was cash I found in a draw, would I put it back and not spend it? No brainer!
A bit of research into which pressings you have (especially if you bought them when they first came out and may be "first pressings" will tell you what you have.
My old Beatles vinyl albums raised a total of £287 and I have them all on CD!
As far as it being a waste is concerned, they went to good homes where they will be appreciated! I got a great new camera and some money to spend! No waste there!
-
Good advice!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Les Adams
You might be surprised that some of that "old clutter" may be worth a buck or two. Some of my old vinyl only raised £10-15 but I was never going to play those particular discs again or had already replaced them with CD's, so I asked myself if it was cash I found in a draw, would I put it back and not spend it? No brainer!
A bit of research into which pressings you have (especially if you bought them when they first came out and may be "first pressings" will tell you what you have.
...
Thanks, Les,
Yes, I'll do a little research. I probably have a few original or early pressings, and like you, I'd rather scoop some cash than hang on to these technology relics.
-
I have a few LPs that are worth more that the typical $2-$10.
Bob Dylan's Highway 61 w/ alternate "From a Buick"
Bob Dylan's G.H. Vol 1 w/Milton Glasser Poster.
I've got a few original pressing Beefheart records and a couple oddities from his catalog.
I have a handful of NM bop-era jazz records that are worth $30 each or-so.
Generally though, I think the value of this stuff has dropped since the advent of online auctions---things aren't so rare anymore. I mean if someone wants a copy of Highway 61 with the alt. Buick track, they don't have to wait too long to buy it. No hunting.
Although I'm sure online auctions work to drive the value of some items up, I think generally , for my stuff, it's been down.
I've regretted letting go of valuable vinyl in the past. I'm pretty much committed to keeping it for my own enjoyment.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
Sure, classical LPs can sound very fine. And doubtless a better analog kit will make them sound better. But to imply that analog is inherently superior for air and soundstage is invalid, IMO.
I have many murky-sounding CDs; I also have many with superb transparency, soundstage, and detail. It's the recording process that makes the most difference, not the medium. This applies to CD versus SACD too.
OUH ARRRR Scrooge. :crazy:
Own up Feanor. You've probably never even heard a good analogue rig. If you think the record player you have is capable of reproducing analogue in its full glory - think again. I have a setup sufficiently capable of extracting very good performance from both digital media and vinyl. I can tell you categorically that certain aspects of vinyl easily trounce any digital media you care to mention. Homogenization is an area where vinyl so clearly excels over cd. There is greater seperation and air around instruments. The sound blooms as it does in real life. There is much more natural definition without any artificial edginess. Trouble is, you've never heard a good vinyl reproduction system, so I think you should reserve your criticism until such time as you have. :skep:
-
Well, fine
Quote:
Originally Posted by O'Shag
OUH ARRRR Scrooge. :crazy:
Own up Feanor. You've probably never even heard a good analogue rig. If you think the record player you have is capable of reproducing analogue in its full glory - think again. I have a setup sufficiently capable of extracting very good performance from both digital media and vinyl. I can tell you categorically that certain aspects of vinyl easily trounce any digital media you care to mention. Homogenization is an area where vinyl so clearly excels over cd. There is greater seperation and air around instruments. The sound blooms as it does in real life. There is much more natural definition without any artificial edginess. Trouble is, you've never heard a good vinyl reproduction system, so I think you should reserve your criticism until such time as you have. :skep:
Quite right, I've never listened to a $10k vinyl rig at any length. Bully for you that you have such a rig. Lacking in objectivity as I might be, it pisses me off to be told by audio snobs and braggarts that I'm ignorant because I don't have an expensive enough system to appreciate this or that aspect of audio. :dita:
My own hi-fi experience goes back almost 15 years before the advent of CD and at one time I have a reasonably good analog setup. I gave up on because LPs were such a big pain in the butt from a usability point of view and that is still a big part of why I'm not interested in vinyl.
We agree on this: it takes sizable investment to achieve of the putative advantages of vinyl. I rule it out on that score too: I simply have much better uses for my limited funds than to buy an expensive analog kit.
Finally I'm mainly a classical music listener. The availability of new classical on LP is essentially nil, and I'm not interest rumaging yard sales for the odd, scratchy, disgustingly dirty, old LP.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by O'Shag
OUH ARRRR Scrooge. :crazy:
Own up Feanor. You've probably never even heard a good analogue rig. If you think the record player you have is capable of reproducing analogue in its full glory - think again. I have a setup sufficiently capable of extracting very good performance from both digital media and vinyl. I can tell you categorically that certain aspects of vinyl easily trounce any digital media you care to mention. Homogenization is an area where vinyl so clearly excels over cd. There is greater seperation and air around instruments. The sound blooms as it does in real life. There is much more natural definition without any artificial edginess. Trouble is, you've never heard a good vinyl reproduction system, so I think you should reserve your criticism until such time as you have. :skep:
We seem to have gone off topic a bit here, but what the heck!
O'Shag, I believe my analogue system is pretty good (feel free to comment by looking at the spec below, you may disagree), but I have to say that ticks and pops which are inherent in the medium are partly what spoils it for me. After getting used to the virtual background silence of CD which allows me to listen to the music without dirtaction by the offending noise of vinyl, I am finding myself enjoying the cd more. The ticks and pops become rather like someone eating pocorn behind me when I am trying to enjoy a good film at the cinema!
Also, I don't believe it is as clear cut as one medium being better than the other. Having replaced some of my vinyl with CD's, I have found merits and drawbacks with both. I depends purely on the pressings. Some CD's I have bought quite definately sound better in terms of clarity, soundstage and overall presentation than the vinyl pressings and there are examples where the reverse is true. No matter how good your analogue or digital system is, it can only be as good as the recording and pressing you are playing.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Les Adams
We seem to have gone off topic a bit here, but what the heck!
O'Shag, I believe my analogue system is pretty good (feel free to comment by looking at the spec below, you may disagree), but I have to say that ticks and pops which are inherent in the medium are partly what spoils it for me. After getting used to the virtual background silence of CD which allows me to listen to the music without dirtaction by the offending noise of vinyl, I am finding myself enjoying the cd more. The ticks and pops become rather like someone eating pocorn behind me when I am trying to enjoy a good film at the cinema!
Also, I don't believe it is as clear cut as one medium being better than the other. Having replaced some of my vinyl with CD's, I have found merits and drawbacks with both. I depends purely on the pressings. Some CD's I have bought quite definately sound better in terms of clarity, soundstage and overall presentation than the vinyl pressings and there are examples where the reverse is true. No matter how good your analogue or digital system is, it can only be as good as the recording and pressing you are playing.
Les, forgive me, I don't mean to condescend in the least.
Yes, clicks and pops, but not in well cared for or worn out records. Most of my records are silent. There's no doubt that vinyl is a much more finicky medium than CD. The potential for extraordinary performance is not so readily accessed, but in its highest form, analogue decimates CD. I know it because I've heard it. I wouldn't be so stupid to say it otherwise and I owe no special allegiance to vinyl. I won't harp on about it anyway. I only responded to Feanor as I did because his initial response (which he later modified) to what I said (in all friendliness) was rude and uncalled for. I am too experienced in Hi-Fi to talk humbug for a start.
What I don't understand, is that I've always been polite to Feanor and others.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
Quite right, I've never listened to a $10k vinyl rig at any length. Bully for you that you have such a rig. Lacking in objectivity as I might be, it pisses me off to be told by audio snobs and braggarts that I'm ignorant because I don't have an expensive enough system to appreciate this or that aspect of audio. :dita:
My own hi-fi experience goes back almost 15 years before the advent of CD and at one time I have a reasonably good analog setup. I gave up on because LPs were such a big pain in the butt from a usability point of view and that is still a big part of why I'm not interested in vinyl.
We agree on this: it takes sizable investment to achieve of the putative advantages of vinyl. I rule it out on that score too: I simply have much better uses for my limited funds than to buy an expensive analog kit.
Finally I'm mainly a classical music listener. The availability of new classical on LP is essentially nil, and I'm not interest rumaging yard sales for the odd, scratchy, disgustingly dirty, old LP.
Cantankerous old git, just because I have some decent audio equipment, I'm a braggart and audio snob? Just how little do you have to have in order to not be an audio snob?
I've always shown you the utmost respect and tried to be friendly - always. I have NEVER been condescending to anyone on this site. But your attitude is for shyte. The inital response you gave was agressive and disrespectful -FOR WHAT REASON!! How have I offended you in the past?? THAT is why I responded as I did. Because I will not put up will foggy old gits that get mad for nothing.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by O'Shag
Cantankerous old git, just because I have some decent audio equipment, I'm a braggart and audio snob? Just how little do you have to have in order to not be an audio snob?
I've always shown you the utmost respect and tried to be friendly - always. I have NEVER been condescending to anyone on this site. But your attitude is for shyte. The inital response you gave was agressive and disrespectful -FOR WHAT REASON!! How have I offended you in the past?? THAT is why I responded as I did. Because I will not put up will foggy old gits that get mad for nothing.
the thing is, that after the inital honeymoon with CD was over , vinyl types started appearing that claimed that vinyl was superiour to CD, a claim that is patently rediculous.
Recording engineers, experts, professionals of all types proclaim the inherent
superiority of CD and still you hear from "audiophile" types that think they have discovered something "new".
What you dont understand is that in 1975, seven years before the advent of CD, I was
listening to records, on Duals, gerards, you name it.
I currently have two turntables, one from the early eighties and one from the mid eighties,
both technics, one direct drive, one belt.
There is no reason these cant play a record as well as a new 5,000 rig, playing a record , despite what the marketing dept of whatever fancy rig you bought will tell you, is
rather straightfoward.
Your fancy rig works pretty much the same way as my two decade old platter, which pretty much works the same as a platter from the fifties.
CD is better, SACD is even BETTER, and while I still enjoy my albums, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE MEDIUM IS LIMITED.
I think that if analog types want to invest thousands in a obsolete medium with no future,
then more power to em, and to the sharks that will sell them overpriced toys
that wont outperform a twenty year old player :1:
-
Why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by O'Shag
...
I've always shown you the utmost respect and tried to be friendly - always. I have NEVER been condescending to anyone on this site. But your attitude is for shyte. The inital response you gave was agressive and disrespectful -FOR WHAT REASON!! ....
First let me say I accept that it wasn't your intention to be condescending. But it's all the other guy's perception: we can say things innocently that are misperceived by others. Sometimes candor must be tempered with sensitivity. I ought to know; I've been guilty of excessive candor too often over the years with regrettable consequences.
As for my original "humbug" remark, well maybe that was an instance of excessive candor too: sorry about that. As to why, because it is my opinion based on 35 years of audio experience. Hence I found your assertion that I don't know what I'm talking about because my equipment isn't good enough, to be offensive. Here's a clue: audiophiles with (relatively) modest systems really hate this line of argument; sometimes there's a grain of truth, more often it's just attempt by the audiophile snob to put his opinions beyond the criticism of others.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
the thing is, that after the inital honeymoon with CD was over , vinyl types started appearing that claimed that vinyl was superiour to CD, a claim that is patently rediculous.
Recording engineers, experts, professionals of all types proclaim the inherent
superiority of CD and still you hear from "audiophile" types that think they have discovered something "new".
What you dont understand is that in 1975, seven years before the advent of CD, I was
listening to records, on Duals, gerards, you name it.
I currently have two turntables, one from the early eighties and one from the mid eighties,
both technics, one direct drive, one belt.
There is no reason these cant play a record as well as a new 5,000 rig, playing a record , despite what the marketing dept of whatever fancy rig you bought will tell you, is
rather straightfoward.
Your fancy rig works pretty much the same way as my two decade old platter, which pretty much works the same as a platter from the fifties.
CD is better, SACD is even BETTER, and while I still enjoy my albums, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE MEDIUM IS LIMITED.
I think that if analog types want to invest thousands in a obsolete medium with no future,
then more power to em, and to the sharks that will sell them overpriced toys
that wont outperform a twenty year old player :1:
:mad2: C'mon PixelTwit - Vinyl is totally and utterly a mechanical medium. The signal produced from todays MC cartridges is minute. Noises which you may not perceive are easily picked up by the system and translate into distortion. The rig and the phonstage is critical. Unlike digital media, where a crappy player can produce ok results, a crappy record player will just make horrible noise. Have you ever heard a good modern-day vinyl reproduction system, or are you just saying that all vinyl rigs sound the same because its somehow intimidating to consider that it may not be the case?
Why did I ever stick up for you? Sir Terrence is right, you are a moron of the highest order. :dita: Jeez, morons are starting to come out of the woodwork around here..
-
As far as I'm concerned, you owe me an apology Feanor, because you levelled comments at me that were desrespectful and undeserved without any provocation. I would have expected that from PixelThis who is obviously talking out his arse inthis case, but not from you. But I couldn't care less if you give an apology or not. Until then, I will continue to consider you a cantakerous old git and will offer no further response to you.
-
Guess again
Quote:
Originally Posted by O'Shag
As far as I'm concerned, you owe me an apology Feanor, because you levelled comments at me that were desrespectful and undeserved without any provocation. I would have expected that from PixelThis who is obviously talking out his arse inthis case, but not from you. But I couldn't care less if you give an apology or not. Until then, I will continue to consider you a cantakerous old git and will offer no further response to you.
Yes, of course I'm a cantankerous old git. But you've had all the apology you're going to get from me. Recall I did apologize for my "humbug" remark. Other than that, I explained why your subsequent comments were offensive to me. Apparently the explanation when over your head. I'd say it's you who owes me and the other members an apology.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by O'Shag
:mad2: C'mon PixelTwit - Vinyl is totally and utterly a mechanical medium. The signal produced from todays MC cartridges is minute. Noises which you may not perceive are easily picked up by the system and translate into distortion. The rig and the phonstage is critical. Unlike digital media, where a crappy player can produce ok results, a crappy record player will just make horrible noise. Have you ever heard a good modern-day vinyl reproduction system, or are you just saying that all vinyl rigs sound the same because its somehow intimidating to consider that it may not be the case?
Why did I ever stick up for you? Sir Terrence is right, you are a moron of the highest order. :dita: Jeez, morons are starting to come out of the woodwork around here..
YOU STOOD UP FOR ME because you knew I was right, like I'm right now.
Vinyl is a "mechanical" medium. Whats your point?
And theres that buzzphrase again, "a modern reproduction system"
Well, what is so amazing about this "modern" reproduction system?
You know why turntables last so long? Because good ones are built really well,
and materials science hasnt advanced that much.
"Modern" record players have been improved, but the improvements have been incremental, at best, the rest is purely marketing.
Its the old law of diminishing returns rearing its ugly head again.
Buy yourself a music hall with a preinstalled cart, to increase its performance
by even 20% is going to cost thousands, and a german shepard would be hard pressed to tell the difference.
Your problem is that you bought the hype about a "modern" reproduction system,
I was 25 years when CD was introduced, what do you think I listened to before then?
None of the "modern" reproduction "systems" are much different than the "old"
reproduction systems.
The ball bearings, belts, servo controls, sure a "modern" player looks nice, and I bet it sounds really great, but I bet you would be hard pressed to pick one outta a lineup blindfolded.
I have seen it all, a turntable that used a friggin laser for a stylist, linear tracking,
"snakearm" and straightarm, you name it (my Pioneer snakearm was very nice, BTW)
and marketing flapdoodle doesnt impress me too much.
There was a thing going around in the eighties called an "airplane", actually it was a ponzi
get rich scheme, basically a chain letter.
Doesnt matter if it was called a "airplane"
And the marketing dept might call it a "modern" reproduction system, its still
a flippin turntable, and yes I have seen them, and several hundred more just like it, and have owned dozens
So dont tell the grizzled war vet that he doesnt know how to dodge a bullet, okay? :1:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by O'Shag
Les, forgive me, I don't mean to condescend in the least.
Yes, clicks and pops, but not in well cared for or worn out records. Most of my records are silent. There's no doubt that vinyl is a much more finicky medium than CD. The potential for extraordinary performance is not so readily accessed, but in its highest form, analogue decimates CD. I know it because I've heard it. I wouldn't be so stupid to say it otherwise and I owe no special allegiance to vinyl. I won't harp on about it anyway. I only responded to Feanor as I did because his initial response (which he later modified) to what I said (in all friendliness) was rude and uncalled for. I am too experienced in Hi-Fi to talk humbug for a start.
What I don't understand, is that I've always been polite to Feanor and others.
Ok, I agree to a point about vinyl, except that even well cared for records still mysteriously pick up ticks and pops. The 180g seem less prone to this for some reason. I do look after my records meticulously. Most of the records I sold recently were in near mint condition, even under bright light they had only minor swirls where they had been taken in and out of the sleeve and played like new. But there is always some noise and I guess I have got used to the absolute silence of digital media as I certainly don't recall being unduly bothered by background noise on vinyly when it was all I played.
As far as the personal matters on here are concerned, it is a great shame because I started a topic that I thought would generate some interesting comment about THE VALUE OF RECORDS and was curious to know who would and who would not sell their vinyl and replace it with CD if they found they could make some money. It was not intended to be a vinyl vs cd debate although I guess that is partly relevent.
I was certainly not expecting to come here and read all this name calling and agression. If I knew my posting this, or any other topic on here would result in unpleasantness I wouldn't have bothered. In fact it makes me feel like not bothering again. Who started it and who said what doesn't matter, but if there is a problem maybe there could be a less pulic way to sort it out and leave these pages to reasoned discussion and opinion as intended. Of course there are going to be differences of opinoin, it would be boring if there were not, but can we at least stay on topic and not get so personal, after all, its only hi-fi, nobody's life or reputation depends on it. Life is too short.
Can we get back to the topic now please?
-
In keeping on topic, I have to admit that, when I moved from New York to Denver in 1993, I threw out at least 300 records. Most were albums I hadn't played in many years, and with music I didn't much care for anymore. The "dump" included all of my mono LP's, and I don't regret getting rid of most of them (I still rue the day I threw out my one and only Peggy Lee album, with her classic, "Fever").
Most of those discarded were all of the albums I had on the Command label, most of those on the London Phase 4 label, all of my Ventures albums and all of those by Martin Denny. I learned years later that the Martin Denny albums were fetchng somewhere around $40 each, and in that respect, I wish I had kept them.
I still have over 800 LP's and play some of them some of the time. Would I sell them? Perhaps, but only if the album turned out to be worth a lot of money.
The topic, and the "LP vs. CD" argument are linked in that the decision to keep records is likely tied into whether or not one prefers the sound of a record to that of a duplicate CD. I'm one of those who prefers the CD, especially now that I have a really superb CD player (the Marantz SA-8001) that has virtually eliminated all the negatives that people once attributed to CD's (harshness, steely-sounding strings, etc.)
Another member, JohnMichael, said that my turntable would probably get dusty now that I've purchased this SACD player, and he's right - I haven't played a record since I got it. So, the temptation to sell off some of my record collection is even greater now.
-
It's funny I came across this tread. I argue ( in fun ) with a friend about turntables all the time. Me having a Yamaha p-550 and him having some high end what ya call it that cost 5000 or so. Then we argue about albums and CD's. Our biggest argument is that he can hear more sounds then I can on the same audio source. Everyones hearing starts to degrad at 40. Audio Geeks, which I call them say they can hear everything better then us poor smucks that will never have or even if I did have the money a 40,000 dollar system just to listen to vinyl.
I'm sorry, but really think if you put a well kept album on my system it will sound pretty darn close to what the artist meant it to sound like. Pops are albums that were not kept very well. Our of the 300 albums I have I would have to say 250 of them are pop free and they are mostly all from the 70,s and 80's.
I have to say I have always been anal about my albums in keeping them clean and stored,
Just my 2 cents.
jjp
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
Your fancy rig works pretty much the same way as my two decade old platter, which pretty much works the same as a platter from the fifties.
CD is better, SACD is even BETTER, and while I still enjoy my albums, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE MEDIUM IS LIMITED.
I think that if analog types want to invest thousands in a obsolete medium with no future,
then more power to em, and to the sharks that will sell them overpriced toys
that wont outperform a twenty year old player :1:
yeah, I know...
but your cd player also works on that very same way. based on a 30 year old technology, which was based on even older technology.
same for your amp, speakers, ...
and if you say that the 'overpriced toys' won't outperform the twenty year old player, you're actually also saying that the 'overpriced cd/sacd player', won't outperform the $20 crap from circuit city.
and yes, technically seen, vinyl is inferior to CD, but I've learned not only to trust the specs. I believe my ears, and my ears currently say that vinyl sounds better. No wait, technically seen 'better' isn't the right word, 'nicer', or 'more pleasant', 'more pleasing', 'more enjoyable'...
and isn't 'enjoying the music' what we strive for? well, in that case, I pick vinyl.
Keep them spinning,
Bert.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjp735i
It's funny I came across this tread. I argue ( in fun ) with a friend about turntables all the time. Me having a Yamaha p-550 and him having some high end what ya call it that cost 5000 or so. Then we argue about albums and CD's. Our biggest argument is that he can hear more sounds then I can on the same audio source. Everyones hearing starts to degrad at 40. Audio Geeks, which I call them say they can hear everything better then us poor smucks that will never have or even if I did have the money a 40,000 dollar system just to listen to vinyl.
I'm sorry, but really think if you put a well kept album on my system it will sound pretty darn close to what the artist meant it to sound like. Pops are albums that were not kept very well. Our of the 300 albums I have I would have to say 250 of them are pop free and they are mostly all from the 70,s and 80's.
I have to say I have always been anal about my albums in keeping them clean and stored,
Just my 2 cents.
jjp
TRUE ENOUGH, I hate to see decent vinyl abused from laziness.
Whatever albums I have left are not immaculate, but are quite clean, which is key to decent record playback.
Which is why they are a pain to put up with sometimes :1:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by basite
yeah, I know...
but your cd player also works on that very same way. based on a 30 year old technology, which was based on even older technology.
same for your amp, speakers, ...
and if you say that the 'overpriced toys' won't outperform the twenty year old player, you're actually also saying that the 'overpriced cd/sacd player', won't outperform the $20 crap from circuit city.
and yes, technically seen, vinyl is inferior to CD, but I've learned not only to trust the specs. I believe my ears, and my ears currently say that vinyl sounds better. No wait, technically seen 'better' isn't the right word, 'nicer', or 'more pleasant', 'more pleasing', 'more enjoyable'...
and isn't 'enjoying the music' what we strive for? well, in that case, I pick vinyl.
Keep them spinning,
Bert.
Well, good for you, but you are wrong on a few counts.
CD tech has advanced quite a bit, not just the player but the CD.
Anyone who listened to early CD will tell you that.
AND WHILE "20$ crap" from CC will sound half decent hooked up to decent gear,
its totally dependent on your setup, if you use high end dacs on a prepro or the like then
your CD player just has to spin the disc and read the ones and zeros.
This is why, if you have great dacs in your processor, an expensive CD player is a waste
of money, get a five disc changer, all you need is a transport, get one that saves trips to the player to change the disc :1:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
Well, good for you, but you are wrong on a few counts.
CD tech has advanced quite a bit, not just the player but the CD.
Anyone who listened to early CD will tell you that.
AND WHILE "20$ crap" from CC will sound half decent hooked up to decent gear,
its totally dependent on your setup, if you use high end dacs on a prepro or the like then
your CD player just has to spin the disc and read the ones and zeros.
This is why, if you have great dacs in your processor, an expensive CD player is a waste
of money, get a five disc changer, all you need is a transport, get one that saves trips to the player to change the disc :1:
oh yes, that's why they make $30k+ transports...
everything matters.
ever heard a setup with a great transport, and a great dac, and a great pre and poweramp?
you think to linear, to basic overall IMHO. Listen to things before judging something is a waste of money.
Keep them spinning,
Bert.
-
I too disagree with the concept of a basic, low-cost transport with a good sounding DAC as the way to go. In my experience, better CD players also do a better job of tracking certain discs than lesser transports do.
My latest purchase of the Marantz SA-8001 SACD player not only has signifiicantly improved the sound of all my CD's (some to far greater extents than others), but plays certain discs that either woudn't play at all, or did so with some difficulty on my older setup. I purchased the Robert Shaw performance of "A Brahms' Requiem" on Telarc and went through several replacement discs before I could get one to play without incessant "ticking" on my Adcom GCD-600/GDA-600 combo. Two discs from amazon.com were unlistenable, and then a replacement direct from Telarc played, but still with annoying tick-tick-tick throughout a number of the tracks. As this was the only disc in my entire collection that did this, I just assumed it was a bad run on the part of Telarc.
When I connected the 8001, the very first disc I played was the Brahm's Requiem. Not only was I stunned at how much better it sounded than before, but the disc plays absolutely perfectly now, with none of the annoying ticks that so annoyed me before. I suspect that any of the discs I returned probably would have played just as well, though I can't be sure of that.
And, why does the 8001 sound so good? Is it due to the transport, or the built-in DAC? I suspect it's largely the DAC, but I also believe that the transport plays quite a part too.
I could have improved the sound of my Adcom GCD-600 by replacing the GDA-600 with a better DAC, but still had the annoying problem I described above. I'm glad I didn't go that route.
-
To be truthful, I probably have CDs that more valuable than most of my vinyl collection. I'm a music listener though, not a music collector. To my mind the biggest distinction is that I don't sell off stuff, period. Directly related to that, since I'm not a collector, I don't really research the value of anything I have sitting around. Probably not the best move should an insurance claim ever need to be filed : )
If I happen across some information that addresses the value of something I have, it's kinda wild to think that someone would pay that much for a title in a particular format but since I'm not interested in selling the wonder is short lived.
One thing I've noticed is that in the market of non stop reissues stuff that was once "collectible" isn't so much once the reissues come out. Light Bulb Sun by Porcupine Tree on CD was the latest one I heard about. Not being a Porcupine Tree fan I might have been tempted to sell that one had I known about it in time : )
jc
-
I gave my brother a copy of Exodus on MoFi before their last death and resurrection and it's still sealed. He doesn't have a turntable, but he's a "collector" of anything that interests him. I bug him all the time about bringing it over to have a listen. He won't. I wish I had picked up 2 copies.
-
Been a while since I've looked up the price lists for some of my LPs. A lot of the stuff in my collection is pretty rare, particularly the audiophile pressings and 12" remixes (many of which were never issued on CD). Some of the more interesting items that I still have include ...
Pink Floyd - The Dark Side of the Moon (Mobile Fidelity Original Master Recording)
I've seen this LP fetch upwards of $200 on the collector's markets. It's very much considered a holy grail item, even though the latest 200g pressings from last year purportedly rival the MoFi pressings in sound quality. The quality of the MoFi pressing is amazing and sounds better than any of the CD versions I've done A/B comparisons with. Have yet to do an A/B comparison between the MoFi LP and the SACD, but that should be interesting.
Genesis - Three Sides Live (UK pressing)
This is a misnomer because the UK LP version actually has four live sides, including sets with Steve Hackett. The US version has studio material on the fourth side, and this material was initially issued in the UK on a separate EP. Once the CD came out, all versions of this album, including the UK version, went with the American track list. The live sets on side 4 of that original UK LP issue have never reappeared.
The Who - Who's Next (Deutsche Grammaphon pressing)
DG had a reputation for issuing stellar LP pressings, and they began producing limited edition pressings for several rock bands in the late-70s and early-80s. One of these bands was The Who, for whom DG reissued their entire studio album output. These albums have been popular with collectors, although my particular copy of this album actually sounds like crap -- inner groove distortion galore. I would have returned this album when I bought it, but the store had sold all of their DG copies for The Who and no more were coming in. This is one rare LP that I would probably be willing to part with.
Supertramp - Cannonball (Direct-to-disc 12" single)
45RPM 12" single done direct-to-disc -- very unusual for a mainstream rock studio album, but apparently Supertramp chose to record this song using a single live-in-studio take. Master disc cutter Bernie Grundman captured the session. The dynamics on this vinyl version are great with almost pin-point perfect imaging on the horn section and noticeably better sound quality than the CD version.
Pat Metheny Group - DG/ECM pressings
I have all of the PMG LPs from Pat Metheny Group through First Circle on Deutsche Grammophon pressings. The music is great, and these pressings are absolutely immaculate -- spot centered with minimal surface noise. Warner originally handled ECM's U.S. distribution, and those LPs had decent pressing quality. But, the quality went up markedly when ECM switched to Polygram as their U.S. distributor, and had the LPs pressed by the DG facilities in Germany. No idea how much these are worth, but they are relatively rare because most of Pat Metheny's ECM-era albums were pressed by Warner. The DG pressings were only produced for a short time.
James Newton Howard and Friends (Sheffield Lab direct-to-disc)
For years, this was practically a mandatory demo item at high end audio shows. Up to that time, this was probably the most aggressively recorded drum and percussion I'd ever heard, and it remains one of the most realistic recordings for drum, percussion, and keyboards (acoustic and digital) out there. Like all direct-to-disc LPs, this is a rarity due to limited production. Sheffield made these direct disc LPs even more valuable by purposely mastering the CDs from noisy backup tapes. Sheffield Lab was anti-digital to the extreme, and were accused of purposely making inferior CDs just to promote their agenda. The CDs are still available, and while they sound good, their sound quality is nowhere near as optimal as the LPs.
-
Hey Feanor, Guess what time it is....
Well, it's NOT time for me to start another rant on how LP is much more superior than digital medium. But you might want to try a modern LOMC cartridge before setting down to your conclusion. To me, most of MM and HOMC cartridges are NOISY and lack in macro and micro-dynamics. But I think I'll reserve my opinion for another time....
I think it's very important for "Music Lovers' to have basic knowledge of "Music Collectors". It certainly helps to know what to look out for.
For instance, any Jazz LP by Pablo offers great music and fidelity. They are pressed on flimpsy wax, and sold for under $5 NM. I always value cheap LP with great music and fidelity. Orignal BN, Verve, Impulse is always nice though:thumbsup:
Though my interest for classical music is growing, my knowledge is very limited. But, based on what I've read, it seems that Late 60's to Late 70's British/Dutch pressings on Decca, London, Argo LPs are superb and consistant.
Look for a letter "G" in the dead wax.
Regards,
JRA
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by basite
oh yes, that's why they make $30k+ transports...
everything matters.
ever heard a setup with a great transport, and a great dac, and a great pre and poweramp?
you think to linear, to basic overall IMHO. Listen to things before judging something is a waste of money.
Keep them spinning,
Bert.
Not really, some things matter not at all.
You are rather young, so I will forgive your relative ignorance of facts of life, you're pretty smart you'll learn.
For instance, theres always someone willing to spend 30k on a transport,
doesnt mean its worth it, nessesariliy, just means that if theres someone dumb enough to buy such a thing theres someone willing to make a buck off of him.
I HAVE HEARD ALL KINDS OF CD transports and dacs, truth is that a transport just have to read all of the info on the disc, a twelve dollar GPX portable player has to read the same info as a Linn handbuilt job, and both basically read it the same way, a Linn might be more reliable, stable, and pretty, but thats about it.
TRUTH is the way a CD is authored , and the album on it produced, has more to do with its sound than the transport.
A lousey disc will be just as lousey on a 30k "transport" as a 20$ portable fresh off of the boat from China :1:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
Not really, some things matter not at all.
You are rather young, so I will forgive your relative ignorance of facts of life, you're pretty smart you'll learn.
For instance, theres always someone willing to spend 30k on a transport,
doesnt mean its worth it, nessesariliy, just means that if theres someone dumb enough to buy such a thing theres someone willing to make a buck off of him.
I HAVE HEARD ALL KINDS OF CD transports and dacs, truth is that a transport just have to read all of the info on the disc, a twelve dollar GPX portable player has to read the same info as a Linn handbuilt job, and both basically read it the same way, a Linn might be more reliable, stable, and pretty, but thats about it.
TRUTH is the way a CD is authored , and the album on it produced, has more to do with its sound than the transport.
A lousey disc will be just as lousey on a 30k "transport" as a 20$ portable fresh off of the boat from China :1:
true, I'm young and i'll learn.
but obviously you're old and have never learned.
tell me, if you say the cheap player, used as a transport, with a good dac is as good as a expensive dedicated transport, with the same dac, then why do they sound SO VERY DIFFERENT, and this meaning the expensive transport sounds WAAAAY BETTER?
they have to do the same job in readin stuff, true. That's like saying a lada is equal to a rolls royce. after all, they just have to do the same job, drive, and they both do so, so what's the difference?
transports do the reading part, ever thought about the fact that there is more information on the disc than you'd expect? information that a cheap player won't read, or will misplace it, or jitter? and transports can be noisy.
A few weeks ago I heard a Metronome transport (looked pretty weird, but anyways), the thing cost €35k, the dac connected to it cost €19k. for a quick comparison, they hooked up another cheap transport. It was A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE, I tell you. The immense energy the transport could place in the room, how fast and detailed it was, how much more I heard with the expensive one compared to the cheap one.
Keep them spinning,
Bert.
-
Pixie's posts always seem to come from an orifice on his body at the other end than where his mouth is, and what he's posted here is no different. He just KNOWS whatever he claims to, and totally disregards any evidence or experience to disprove him. Basite and I have each provided conclusive proof that a transport makes a difference, but...
Oh well, it's still fun to see how ridiculous he seems each time something else comes out of his, ah, er, orifice.
-
Hi, JRA
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrhymeammo
Well, it's NOT time for me to start another rant on how LP is much more superior than digital medium. But you might want to try a modern LOMC cartridge before setting down to your conclusion. To me, most of MM and HOMC cartridges are NOISY and lack in macro and micro-dynamics. But I think I'll reserve my opinion for another time....
...
Regards,
JRA
Although I took exception to O'Shag's assertion that digital is essentially incapable of transparency, I've never been among those who say the CD is better than vinyl, (egronomics and surface damage aside).
My personal thing with vinyl is simply that it is irrelevant to my listening habits. I have always -- yes, well back in the pre-digital era -- been critical of recording practice and feel that it is the major determinent of sound quality well ahead of the medium. A well-record LP will whip a badly recorded CD or SACD any day.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by basite
tell me, if you say the cheap player, used as a transport, with a good dac is as good as a expensive dedicated transport, with the same dac, then why do they sound SO VERY DIFFERENT, and this meaning the expensive transport sounds WAAAAY BETTER?
When one's opinion is based upon speculation, all you get are speculative answers. I've heard the Burmester 969/970 combo at length in a really nice system vs. my GamuT CD-1. Yes, Virginia it does make a difference. :)
rw
-
The way I heard it
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
Not really, some things matter not at all.
You are rather young, so I will forgive your relative ignorance of facts of life, you're pretty smart you'll learn.
...:1:
The way I heard it, the process of reading pits on a CD is actually an analog process -- technically quite different from reading 1/0 from hard disk. The slightest scratch or fingerpring is liley to cause a misread. Error correction can attempt to correct misreads but, as I understand, isn't always able to do so perfectly. Also, "jitter", (timing errors), can be introduced by the transport; such jitter can be removed by reclocking the signal but not all DACs do this. So apparently there is scope for one transport to be better than another by reading more accurately and//or introducing less jitter.
The fact that the CD can be misread is the theoretical basis for surface treatments, green markers, stabalizer mats, etc. that are tauted to improve sound quality. Also, as I understand it, some player/transports read the CD multiple times. Thus they can discard, say, the one read in three that differs from the others, hence error correction process have less to do and bit-prefect delivery to downstream processes, (DAC), is more likely.
The advantage of decent computer ripping programs have over cheap transports is that they can reread the CD when any error is detected. Since they aren't constrained to real-time, programs can read a CD as many times as necessary -- once Exact Audio Copy (EAC) took over an hour :eek6: to read a very badly scratched disc I fed it!
Computers can take the output from the rip program and store it bit-perfectly; subsequently they are able to extract information bit-perfectly from storage and pass it to downstream processes. But computers aren't inevidably better than players because bit errors (rarely) or jitter (more often) can be insinuated after the data has been read and sent on its way.
-
Oh, boy, this is really devolving into vinyl vs digital. meh. To each there own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Clark
To my mind the biggest distinction is that I don't sell off stuff, period.
I know, right? I've never even thrown out anything, unless it was broken. I can't sell/discard stuff because I might want to listen to it. Sure I haven't played it in years, but I still might want to listen to it. How much would it suck if this weren't there to listen to.
As to value, I know I've actually got some pretty valuable rare stuff. But, it's so specific that it would be difficult to sell for top dollar, even with eBay. I've got alot of Touch and Go vinyl from the 80s. There's probably some guy out there willing to pay hundreds bucks for my pristine Scratch Acid debut EP. But what are the odds we would cross paths even on ebay? I'd never part with it anyway. If I sold it then I could never hear "She Said" again the way it was originally heard. I wanna hear it the way it sounded in the dorm rooms of the mid 80s.
Other probably very valuable stuff that I would never part with:
Lots of The Damned in good condition, including 10" EPs and various promo materials.
Lots of Cocteau Twins 12" and 7"
More Touch and Go records from Killdozer, Die Kruzen, Rapeman, ect.
Not very mainstream, but very valuable to punk, hardcore, and grunge fans.
In a gross genre swing, I've actually been picking up a lot of metal lately because it is getting harder to find, especially the various censored covers. There are alot of rare Scorpions covers that were censored, including an infamous one for Virgin Killer, but, you would have to be a fool to seek that one out, and no I do not have it. That one can get bid up very high on ebay, unless of course ebay discovers it and cancels the auction. But I do have original covers for In Trance and Love at First Sting, and am always on the look out for the original covers of Taken By Force and Lovedrive. If your curious Wikipedia has all the various censored covers, including Vigin Killer, but it is not safe for work. Then there are covers like Poison (Open Up and Say Ahh) and Wasp (Animal - F**k Like A Beast). They don't fetch alot of money in comparison with the Butcher Cover, but they are fun to collect.
-
I used to have a rather large collection of LP's. Somewhere around 3k. One day, the wife decided that they were taking up too much room. When I came home I panicked that they were gone. Then relived as she told me that she had only moved them. Then back to panic when she told me of their new location, behind the furnace.
As you can guess, I no longer value my LP collection.
Anyone want an old Technics TT for cheap?:thumbsup:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMichael
I used to have a rather large collection of LP's. Somewhere around 3k. One day, the wife decided that they were taking up too much room. When I came home I panicked that they were gone. Then relived as she told me that she had only moved them. Then back to panic when she told me of their new location, behind the furnace.
As you can guess, I no longer value my LP collection.
Anyone want an old Technics TT for cheap?:thumbsup:
Two sheets of glass and your oven at is lowest setting will do wonders for warped records, but I wouldn't want to try it with 3000. :D
|