Vinyl

My next topic: VINYL.   Although I originally addressed this issue awhile back, (Olde Music, 5/23/08), I’d like to tackle it again in more detail. 

I repaired my Cerwin-Vega speakers a few weeks ago, and upgraded the mat on my turntable to a cork mat, so I’ve been accumulating some 180 grain vinyl: the first 6 Black Sabbath albums, the Sabbath set at California Jam (1974), Grateful Dead Anthem of the Sun and American Beauty, Moody Blues Days of Future Passed, King Crimson In The Court of the Crimson King, and Hawkwind, Hall of the Mountain Grill.  Urban Outfitters and FYE are beginning to carry vinyl as well.  Obviously Vintage Vinyl, in Ford, New Jersey (about 20 minutes north of Rutgers) carries this format – which is where I got the CA Jam record.  Here are some thoughts on this.

1.         78s.  First there were 78’s, on thick shellac but very fragile.  They were 10” in diameter and could fit 3 minutes of music on a side.  Because the grooves are much larger and require a special needle, 78s need a record player specifically designed for them, and will not play on any record player which plays LPs.  Because the LP format (see below) came out in 1948, any depiction of someone playing music in the 20s, 30s, or WWII is likely to be of 78s. 

2.         LPs.  The more familiar 12”, 33.3 RPM format came out in the late 40s, developed by Columbia.  Because this format could fit 20-30 minutes per side, they called it “long playing” (LP).  To the extent vinyl is still around – and making a comeback – it’s in this format. 

3.         180 Grain.  The prior standard, from 1948 to the 1980s, was 130 grain. The recent reissues are in 180 grain, which means a thicker album which can accommodate deeper grooves and thus – theoretically – a richer, fuller sound and better sound quality.

4.         I don’t think I’ll get any vinyl versions of recent albums which were originally released on CD.  The Beatles records are re-released on 180 grain vinyl, but that includes Past Masters – which should be all those 45s – and the BBC records.  (Still no Hollywood Bowl live album).  On the other hand, one big plus of vinyl is that the jacket displays bitchin’ artwork much better than a CD insert, and that includes Age of Winters by The Sword (2006).

5.         In one case, Sleep’s Dopesmoker, I really have to wonder about the wisdom of releasing the 90’s era music, originally released on CD, on vinyl.  This album was one 60 minute song without lyrics.  It’s basically a humungous jam.   Noway, nohow, is that fitting on one side of an LP.  In fact, it fits on 3 sides.  Breaking up a continuous song on multiple sides?  Huh?  That sounds like back when 78s were in vogue, and a complete opera or classical piece had to be split up over upteen 78s (capacity of less than 3 minutes per side), contained in a binder (“album”) with sleeves.

6.         We still have most of the original vinyl we collected up until the mid 80’s.  I believe it was 1988 when my brother got his first CD player, 1989 when I got mine.  The last few vinyl albums I bought were Judas Priest, Turbo (Ram It Down was among the first CDs), Van Halen 5150 (OU812 was among my first CDs), the three Deep Purple Mark I albums (we have all the Mark II and III albums on vinyl, plus Perfect Strangers, House of Blue Light, and Deepest Purple), and the early Scorpions albums, e.g. Lonesome Crow, In Trance, Taken By Force, and Tokyo Tapes, all bought in summer of 1988.  Thus I can identify 1988-89 as the period when we stopped buying vinyl and started buying CDs. 

**         Since car CD players were still a few years away and very prone to skipping when they did come out, and CD-Rs were also years in the future, the advent of CDs did not spell the immediate end of cassettes.  In fact we still had to retain that format if only to be able to listen to anything in a car. 

7.         How does 180 grain vinyl compare to …not-180-grain vinyl?  On the turntable, through the speakers, and turned up somewhat, the 180 grain records sound very good.  Very rich, very full.  Better than the original vinyl?  Probably, but I don’t have the patience to check.  Better than a remastered CD?  Aha, that’s the real question.  The experts (audio engineers, not hipsters) say remastered CDs are better than vinyl.  I don’t trust the audiophile hipsters who swear by 180 grain vinyl to admit if they can’t tell the difference.

            Keep in mind that when CDs were first released in that format in the mid to late 80s, no effort was made to optimize them for CD sound quality; the labels simply wanted to release something that you could physically play on a CD player.  I suppose they assumed that the buyers would assume the sound quality was better.  Only later did they go back and remaster them.  The Beatles were an exception: their first generation CDs were remastered, but the audiophile crowd disliked the job so much that the Beatles went back and redid the remasters a second time. [I compared Help! on first generation CD vs. the newer reissue, and the new version does sound noticeably better].   AC/DC (Atlantic & Elektra), Black Sabbath (Castle & Rhino), King Crimson (thirty-fifth Anniversary remasters vs. fortieth Anniversary remixes), and now Led Zeppelin (first Atlantic and now second Jimmy Page supervised Atlantic) are all bands with not one but TWO series of remasters.  While the difference between the initial non-remastered releases and the first generation remasters are probably noticeable, I have to wonder if anyone – aside from hardcore audiophiles – can detect the difference between the two generations of remasters.  Then there are bands like Soundgarden who have remastered Superunknown, which was originally released on CD in the first place (1994).

            I do read yahoos on Facebook swearing that vinyl sounds much better than CDs.  Again, the experts claim that this might only be true with respect to first generation CDs (not remastered).  Someone posted a back to back replay of a Tina Turner song in both formats, and the difference was noticeable – in favor of the CD.  A minority of people guessed that the better sounding recording was vinyl.  WRONG. 

            Finally I listened to Sabbath, Bloody Sabbath on my stereo.  Exhibit 1: 180 grain vinyl version from Rhino Records.  How was it?  It sounded nice.

            Exhibit 2: SBS in Castle Remasters [which are VERY difficult to distinguish from the later Rhino remasters].  How was it?  It sounded nicer:  clearer, less compressed, breathing better. 

8.         Aside from hipsters making vague claims of vinyl superiority, the most cogent and understandable – and verifiable – claims on behalf of vinyl, and this applies to the first generation as well as the 180 grain reissues, is this business of having to put on the record, drop the needle, and flip the record, an elaborate, retro ritual.  I mean, having done all that, it MUST sound better….right?

9.         Authenticity.  Ironically, if your point in going with 180 grain vinyl is a tribute to nostalgia, because you insist that music originally released on vinyl should be listened to on vinyl, you’re missing the point with 180 grain vinyl, which was not available back in the 60s and 70s and is a modern vinyl format.  The more cogent argument is that you’re dead set on listening to this in a vinyl format, for nostalgia purposes, and simply want to optimize the experience and come as close as you can to remastered CDs with this experience.  Fine:  but don’t be an idiot and try to argue that 180 grain vinyl is superior to a remastered CD, because – as noted above – most audio engineers and a blind listening test will tell you otherwise.

10.       Herbal Enhancement.  I'll officially pronounce myself neutral on the topic of cannabis, though strongly in favor of its legalization, as it is non-lethal and non-addictive.  One area where I think cannabis is having an impact, possibly unexpected, is this vinyl business.  With CDs and digital formats, especially streaming, you can go out and about and listen to your favorite music:  while at the gym, while driving, etc.  Not an option for vinyl, which you have to listen to in the privacy of your (or a friend's) home.  And under those circumstances, packing a bowl to enhance the listening experience might well be almost required.  Under the influence of the herb, practically anything you put on that turntable will sound amazing.  Has any stoner tried comparing remastered CDs vs. 180 grain vinyl while blazed?  Somehow I doubt it.  Perhaps the 180 grain vinyl people should be subsidizing the cannabis industry.....

Ultimately it looks like this.  If you have a good stereo, with good speakers, and a CD/DVD player going through them, but NO turntable – audiophile or otherwise – save your money and stick with CDs.  If you have a turntable going through that same stereo AND feel nostalgic for vinyl, by all means do as I did and get a few records here and there.  Do not pay $50-100+ for any vinyl, especially if you can get a remastered CD for a fraction of the price.  And “audiophile” turntables start at $300, going up to $1000, with no guarantee you’ll be able to tell 180 grain vinyl from remastered CDs.  The experts (audio engineers, not hipsters) say CDs are better; logic suggests that modern technology should surpass mid-twentieth century technology as well.  Is there any compelling reason why your ears should disagree?