Record Players / Turntables

[Sneak]

As a Chrismukkah present to myself, I want to buy a record player and some records, so I can finally see what all the fuss over vinyl is about.

But, as with most things these days, there are a billion different kinds of record players available online, and I, the vinyl ignoramus, have not the remotest inkling as to where I should start looking or what makes one record player superior to its neighbor.

So, I turn to you. Basically, halp.

[thubby]

As a Chrismukkah present to myself, I want to buy a record player and some records, so I can finally see what all the fuss over vinyl is about.

the only thing to really fuss about is how much music hasn't made the format switch.

[Phae Nymna]

I use a Sony something or other. I don't really know honestly.
Mine is a hand-me-down and leaves some stuff to be desired. Try if you can to get one with speeds from 16 RPM to 78 RPM. That will pretty much cover everything ever.

16 RPM = Old Car Stereo
33 RPM = LP's and some/most EP's
45 RPM = Singles and some EP's
78 RPM = Your grandparent's Victrola foxtrot music

While on two speeds, the Crosley Revolution (http://www.crosleyradio.com/Product.aspx?pid=1869) is just too badass not to mention.



the only thing to really fuss about is how much music hasn't made the format switch.
That's not true! Manual recording still holds one distinct advantage over digital, one advantages that will never fall. When recorded in analog format, sound makes a physical indentation in the medium, making a perfect recording of what sound is being preserved. Digital will always suffer from being buffered/called forth from hard drives/and general nonsensical crap that files become subjected to on a computer. Analog all the way.

[Haruki-kun]

so I can finally see what all the fuss over vinyl is about.

...nostalgia, right?

I mean, there's no doubt that modern formats are better...they're less fragile and don't wear off as fast... I think.

[Nibleswick]

Actually there are wax recording cylinders for phonographs that are well over a hundred years old that are still in perfect shape. It's the same with ceramic and vinyl, if you take care of it, it will last for a very looooong time.

[Katana_Geldar]

You may want to have someone who knows vinyl help you put it on for the first time, just saying. I used to know how to put on a record, but I've forgotten how.

[Haruki-kun]

Actually there are wax recording cylinders for phonographs that are well over a hundred years old that are still in perfect shape. It's the same with ceramic and vinyl, if you take care of it, it will last for a very looooong time.

Weird. My mom told me vynil records all deteriorated over time simply by being played.

[Katana_Geldar]

Not just that, heat can warp them and they can shatter and get cracked.

However, I do have a mint condition Star Wars 1977 LP, never been played. :smallcool:

[Moff Chumley]

That's not true! Manual recording still holds one distinct advantage over digital, one advantages that will never fall. When recorded in analog format, sound makes a physical indentation in the medium, making a perfect recording of what sound is being preserved. Digital will always suffer from being buffered/called forth from hard drives/and general nonsensical crap that files become subjected to on a computer. Analog all the way.

Wat.

Vinyl distorts audio. That's the entire reason people like analog, because there's subtle distortions that make things sound warmer/fuller/better. With good AD/DA converters, digital is vastly more accurate than analog because it remains undistorted. With the right set of gear, it's completely possible to get breathtakingly good sound out of digital, for way less than analog.

But I digress.

Technics SL1200, man. Can't beat 'em. Find 'em used for cheap.

[Sneak]

I won't be giving up my 8000 song iTunes library when I buy my first vinyl LP. Most of the albums I would be buying I already have in either CD or digital format (or both).

Since I've never really listened to vinyl before, I can't comment on the sound quality, although according to some it is better or at least warmer than digital.

There's just something that appeals to me about records, though. Maybe it's the tangibility and physicality. Plus, I like the large format artwork, and the idea of coming home and putting a Velvet Underground record on and relaxing just seems cool. There's not much more to my pet obsession that that, but there it is. And I actually don't own any speakers (and my MacBook's built-in speakers are tinny and awful), so the sound quality is bound to be a step up regardless.

For the actual logistics of how to get it to play and all that...well, I hope I'll be able to figure that out myself. I like to think that I'm a pretty smart dude, capable of managing tasks such as that on my lonesome. But, if need be, my dad is a former hippie (and his records are still somewhere in the house somewhere, without a player to accompany them), so he should be able to help me with that if necessary.

In any case, thanks for the advice all.

[Moff Chumley]

In that case, get good speakers. I like JBL. But they're not altogether that cheap...

EDIT: And vinyl pressings of digital recordings do sound warmer, because of the nature of the vinyl itself. Unless you have bad D/As and speakers, digital files of analog recordings still sound quite good.

[Sneak]

I think I might shell out for some nice speakers before I go to college next year (well, I hope :smalltongue:), but for now I actually don't have much of a need for speakers. I'm doing alright with my current earbuds/headphones setup.

[thubby]

That's not true! Manual recording still holds one distinct advantage over digital, one advantages that will never fall. When recorded in analog format, sound makes a physical indentation in the medium, making a perfect recording of what sound is being preserved. Digital will always suffer from being buffered/called forth from hard drives/and general nonsensical crap that files become subjected to on a computer. Analog all the way.

except for the elasticity of the recording medium plus whatever's writing on it, among many, many other things.
with a digital medium you can not only more closely reproduce the original sound, you get the tools to compensate for any loses.

[Nibleswick]

Weird. My mom told me vynil records all deteriorated over time simply by being played.

Like I said, if you take care of it. Back in the day people would often copy their albums to tape and use the tapes for day to day listening, saving the vinyl for special occasions.

[Jimorian]

Like I said, if you take care of it. Back in the day people would often copy their albums to tape and use the tapes for day to day listening, saving the vinyl for special occasions.

Or just get a laser turntable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_turntable) that doesn't physically touch the grooves. :smallcool:

[factotum]

With good AD/DA converters, digital is vastly more accurate than analog because it remains undistorted.

That's not quite true...a digital recording will always have some distortion on it because it's an approximation of the original waveform, not a duplicate. Admittedly, any noise added by the distortions will be at the frequency of the recording, which is way beyond the upper range of human hearing for a 44kHz one, but to say digital is "undistorted" is nonetheless incorrect.

[Brother Oni]

I remember the last time I saw one of these arguments and it basically boiled down to this:

Digitial sounds more accurate to the original recording.
Analog sounds better due to the distortions caused by the medium.

Which you prefer is entirely up to you.

[Haruki-kun]

Like I said, if you take care of it. Back in the day people would often copy their albums to tape and use the tapes for day to day listening, saving the vinyl for special occasions.

Well, she did mention you had to change the turntable's needles every once in a while.

*shrug* I guess it's up to everyone. My own approach is: There's a reason why we went digital. (Applies to photography, too.)

[Vaynor]

Well, she did mention you had to change the turntable's needles every once in a while.

*shrug* I guess it's up to everyone. My own approach is: There's a reason why we went digital. (Applies to photography, too.)

There's also a reason many people still shoot film photography. Digital photography is definitely easier, but you don't get the same images.

[Kislath]

Vinyl has a fuller, richer, sound that simply can't be matched digitally. When CD's first hit the scene, many were reluctant to make the switch after hearing their favorite songs on CD for the first time. They sounded all wrong.
CROSLEY!

[Brother Oni]

Vinyl has a fuller, richer, sound that simply can't be matched digitally.

I disagree with this. There's nothing stopping somebody with the appropriate equipment and software from making an accurate CD recording sound like the richer and fuller vinyl version.

Or failing that, record a playback of a vinyl record and digitise into an mp3. Use a good quality microphone, the right codecs and a high enough bit rate and nobody should be able to tell the difference in a blind test.

[Haruki-kun]

There's also a reason many people still shoot film photography. Digital photography is definitely easier, but you don't get the same images.

I know, but it's rare. Heck, I had trouble finding places to develop film for photography class because most places didn't even have the machines turned on: they didn't expect anyone to show up with film. Getting a digital camera for said class was a breath of fresh air. :smallsigh:

[xPANCAKEx]

I love my vinyl collection - its just a richer sound format. CDs are just too sterile at times... But then i suppose it depends on what kind of music you listen to

if all you want to listen to is pop music, dont waste your time


BACK ON TOPIC
first consideration is your budget - how much you got

lot of people recommend this an entry level turn-table
http://www.whathifi.com/Review/Pro-Ject-Essential/

and i dislike the crosley - its got no dust cover from what i can see in the photos

[Jimorian]

There's also a reason many people still shoot film photography. Digital photography is definitely easier, but you don't get the same images.

1 second to snap the digital picture. 10 seconds to hookup and transfer it to a computer. 10 minutes in Photoshop to try to make it look like it was taken with film. :smallwink:

[Moff Chumley]

I'mma still insist that properly mixed and mastered digital recordings (IE, distort the crap outta 'em) sound just as good as vinyl. But quite a bit of digital music remains too sterile. Not because it has to, but because engineers are too afraid of distortion. NEEDS MOAR TOOOOOOOOOOBS

[Sneak]

Many of you are assuming that the finished product is the only factor.

I'm still a vinyl virgin, but as for photography, there's something that I love about the ritual of printing, developing, and mounting the photos yourself (although I never much cared for the complete darkness necessary for removing the film).

Even if the end result of digital photography is arguably more or less the same, the old fashioned way feels much more personal and intimate to me.

Perhaps the appeal of vinyl is similar.

_____

For my budget, I'd say anything under $500 would be acceptable, although ≤$200 would be more ideal. Cheaper is better, but I don't want to sacrifice too much quality.

One thing I will say is that I'll probably just be listening to records and not DJing, so some of the top-of-the-line models may be overkill. Also, mp3 conversion capabilities are not a necessity.

And thank you for the recommendation, wise Pancake. One question—in the tech specs for the Pro-Ject, it says that it doesn't support 78 rpm. Is this likely to be a problem with many older records? How old? (Music from the 60's would likely be the earliest I'd want to play.)

[Moff Chumley]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe 78rpm was obsolete by then.

I know there are plenty of audio guys who prefer working with analog gear for the same reason, but it depends more on what you're used to. I'm used to plugging a mic into an interface, and an interface into a computer, and getting sound recorded in about a minute. The half-hour (MINIMUM) or so nescessary to even set up an analog studio feels hopelessly distant to me. *shrug*