Give me your top 20 vinyl records to have - Page 2

Well, I'm glad we've got you to keep us idiots having a discussion, albeit a drifting one, about audio in check... I would hate to think the people who are appointed by the forum owners (Moderators I think they're called ) would have to be the ones to make that decision...

Whatever. I'm just curious to see what you guys will do with yourselves when there's no one left to argue with around here anymore.

You'll have to take out your aggressions elsewhere I guess.

Vinyl is dead
It is an inferior medium compare to CD

some zeppelin
some 'Floyd
Some Dead
Some Miles
Some Coltane
maybe something conducted by Leonard Bernstein
maybe ahh Stravinsky.......

The reason I respond to threads like these is frustration. Specifically, it is frustrating to see opinions such as "vinyl sounds better" or "more expensive electronics sound better" used as tacit assumptions, without even being stated and identified as opinions. It would not be necessary to "constantly" debunk such false claims if the previous debunkings had not been missed or ignored.

What?
my $12 akai direct drive tt with an AT cart included (both from thrift store 4 years ago) isnt good enuff? and it works perfect and sounds pretty good?

i had no idear. huh! how d' ya like dat!
guess i'm no audyofile.

One of the reasons lots of folks are interested in vinyl is that an early pressing preserves the way the master was, and reflects the desires of the artist/s. Later iterations can be off of mixdowns done by someone else for something else- early CDs seemed frequently to be off of dupes done for cassette tapes. And there is some thought that certain frequencies may disappear off masters as the tape is run over the read heads.

And there was a letter in Absolute Sound years ago talking about a MFSL vinyl remastering of, I believe, Steely Dan's "Aja". The original engineers worked very hard to bring down the drums and cymbals, which were recorded with too much presence. The re-masterers were very proud that they were able to restore much more "kick" to the drums.

Anyway, back to the original question, as I stare at my wall of vinyl:

Santana albums, particularly the first few, sounded great
The Doors albums on the original Electra label sounded great
Bob Dylan albums on the original Columbia sounded great. Sundazed has apparently done a fine job remastering "Blonde on Blonde" in mono
The Beatles albums on the British EMI pressings sound great. MFSL, not so much. And they were long thought to be poorly served on their CD incarnations; don't know now
Pink Floyd on British EMI sound absolutely fabulous
Joni Mitchell albums generally sound great, particularly "Blue"
War's albums sound great
Lou Reed's RCA albums generally sound great, "Berlin" particularly
I am told Nirvana albums sound great; they seem to have been mastered in an analogue tube chain
Miles Davis usually sounds great

Warners/Reprise albums generally sound extremely good
Columbia stuff from the late sixties to mid-seventies usually sound good
Electra stuff is usually very good
RCA didn't ever get into rock very heavily, but their artists usually were well recorded
Jazz released on the Pablo label, first pressed by RCA and then by Fantasy, usually sounds fabulous, particularly records with Norman Grantz's engineering
Just about anything engineered by Bill Porter. He worked for RCA in Nashville

Individual albums prized by the audiophile community:

"Blue" by Joni
"If I Could Only Remember My Name" by David Crosby
"Security" (it actually doesn't seem to have a name) by Peter Gabriel
"Sketches of Spain" and "Kind of Blue" by Miles
"Clap Hands, Here Comes Charlie" by Ella Fitzgerald
"Basie Jam" by Count Basie on Pablo
"Waiting for Columbus" by Little Feat
"Famous Blue Raincoat" by Jennifer Warnes
"The Very Best of Roy Orbison" on Monument
Chet Atkins' Living Stereo albums for RCA, engineered by Bill Porter
The direct-to-disk Thelma Houston Album with "I've Got the Music In Me" on it

...this should give you a start

I just picked up a Marantz 6270Q turntable vintage about 1980. Not expensive by any means but I'm certainly enjoying listening to my father's albums on it. Sure it's not perfect, many of the albums aren't in good shape, but some are in great shape, and have a unique or different sound to them than their corresponding cd's. I'm liking the vinyl and its fun to play with. I'm not sure why anyone feels the need to come pee on someone else's parade. If people enjoy their vinyl, let them enjoy it. Go listen to your cd's and let it be.

"The Beatles at the Hollywood Bowl".

so is Elvis

Picking up from the departed in last thread, any mention of top vinyl albums has got to include at least one of Jimi's doesn't it?

Take your pick either the double The Jimi Hendrix Experience album or the red record of the Hendrix Band of Gypsys or both.

Based on the preceding discussions, I'm waiting for someone to correct me on the colour red.

Correct on the second point. Apparently, however, there are "revivalists" trying to keep it alive.

"Vinyl is dead" may well have been true a couple of years ago, although for the dedicated few this has never been the case.

Vinyl is now enjoying a resurgence to the point that record industry watchdogs are predicting that due to music download sales, vinyl will be out selling CD in the very near future.

I use several forms of media through a mid level 2 channel system.

PC based FLAC via squeezebox / DAC
CD
Vinyl

For me the major influencing component is production quality. i.e bad recordings sound bad whatever medium they are presented in.

The usability of PC based and CD are great for the "I want it now" generation
I enjoy the whole experience of vinyl, Cover art,carefully cleaning each album and the carefull placing of your far too expensive cartridge.

I agree that CD should sound better, but I feel it still lacks the warmth and emotion of vinyl.

Oh, as for recommendations:-

Joni Mitchell > start with Hejira or Whispering of Summer lawns
Steely Dan > anything
Donald Fagen> anything.
Massive attack > Mezannine or Blue lines.
Air > Moon Safari
Zero 7 > Anything
Stevie Wonder > Innervisions and songs in the key of life.

An original or 180 gram reissue of anything recorded before 1980.

So have you compared these two (well, three actually) in particular to their corresponding CD versions?

I'm only interested in pursuing those vinyl titles which are clearly superior to the CD versions, those which have suffered the unfortunate fate of having been subjected to a mastering hatchet job, i.e., 'loudness wars' casualties, etc. (with the additional stipulation that it has to be an album I really care enough about to put forth the effort/expense, which Mezannine and Moon Sarari certainly qualify).

I recently ripped my Mezannine cd to flac, so I should go listen to it again via my Squeezebox for a reminder. Moon Safari is out in two versions; the original and the remaster. I've only heard the original, which I don't remember as being grating.

Ill give you a couple of great ones I've been listening to.. Best of the Eagles 71-75, and Best of Cream (with the veggies on the cover)

Oh..Btw.. how do I clean my vinyl? Back in the day i had a diskwasher wooden thing with velvet and the fluid fit inside it.

I was my intention to recommend well produced music rather than Vinyl that was of a higher quality than the CD counterparts.

I also have these albums on CD and FLAC, depends on circumstances/mood which media I would use at any given time.

Serious music listening sessions i.e Sunday afternoon, the vinyl would be the choice.

There are various record cleaning machines on the market mostly quite expensive.

Unless you have an extensive collection or prone to buying 2nd hand not really worth it.

I came across this link which gives a really useful guide to whats good and bad production quality wise.

http://www.justiceforaudio.org/forum/index.php

No, it's not a myth, the myth is blanket statements like "CD is clearly better than vinyl" started by people (such as yourself) who can't tell that MP3 sound isn't "flawless". (What a joke!)

Some CDs sound better than some vinyl and vice versa - it depends on a lot and it's pretty complicated. Rarely (maybe never) can you truly compare apples to apples in that comparison.

However, one thing's for certain - someone who thinks MP3s are flawless really has no business in the discussion to begin with.

To think something as easy to use as a CD system would cause an experienced audiophile to feel "threatened" is a complete joke. However, I completely believe you when you say your system isn't even close to high end - yet another reason to stay out of the discussion.

Actually, vinyl sales are on the rise and CD sales are on the decline, rightly or wrongly.

I sure do wish people who really don't know what they're talking about would stay out of the discussion - it's not helping anything.

Discwasher and similar are mostly a waste of time. It's important to get the vinyl wet, get the dirt or dust or gunk into solution, and then get all that solution off of there. Yet, as you say, record cleaners are outrageously expensive. Your best bet is a less expensive model on the used market. Or, you could try making one yourself from an old disk drive turntable and a plastic tube with a slit cut in it, hooked up to a real vacuum cleaner or perhaps a wet-dry vac.

IMO your best bet is to focus on LPs that are mastered differently (better, of course) than the available CD version. Not much sense in going to the trouble of vinyl when a better sounding CD version is available.


They are almost always better then the original studio version and used to be the standard. This isn't *always* true - the MFSL CD version of some Rush records was better than the original studio issues, but then the Hollywood Records CD reissues were better again (and cheaper!) than the MFSL versions.

(This is a good example of what I mean, by the way, when I say it's practically impossible to compare apples to apples vinyl vs. CD - which of these versions would you compare to a vinyl version?)

However nowadays some better sounding vinyl is coming out. For example, Classic Records reissues, Reference Recordings, etc. AC/DC has some great sounding reissues on vinyl. The Absolute Sound had a good issue 2 years ago on some of the best sounding rock LPs. The half-speed Van Halen LP blows the regular CD away.

I have about 200 albums in the closet ranging from Led Zep on virgin vinyl to Orig master recordings of the Police.

My Dual turntable went through too many moves but I saved the Grado cartridge....I may dig up a TT one day.

Whats a good one to look for used these days?

This is just plain silly. If you can't hear the difference between any CD players, then you have crappy hearing, your system has poor resolution, or you simply aren't really paying attention and/or have very little experience.

Are you familiar with jitter and do you understand why computers have been able to translate a signal flawlessly while most CD players cannot?

Ah, you're one of those. I think you can safely be ignored now. Run along.

First, if you're not into the really high end stuff, I'd get a table with no suspension. Much simpler to set up and you'll never have to worry it's out of whack. VPI HW-19 Jr for example. A Rega arm like RB300, slap your Grado on there and you're all set. Of course you don't just slap it on there - you spend a lot of time aligning and adjusting the cartidge and VTA. That has a whole lot to do with how your vinyl system sounds. But at least with a Grado (mostly) you're not worried about real low level signals, step up transformers, or high end moving coil phono preamps. Any premp or integrated amp with a phono input will sound OK with a higher output MM like a Grado.

It's important to get the vinyl wet, get the dirt or dust or gunk into solution, and then get all that solution off of there.

Or you can do what I often do (and I have a VPI record cleaner; actually, now I have two) and just go to the sink and wash them gently with dishwashing detergent, rinse them very well, then blot them carefully with paper towels and sit them with the label on a drinking glass and let them air dry, which they do in ten to fifteen minutes. It's better than nothing.

They are almost always better then the original studio version and used to be the standard. This isn't *always* true -

You are right that this isn't always true, though possibly things may have improved as the years have gone by. A doctor acquaintance and vinyl junkie and I did a comparison test with not even an original, though still fairly early, British EMI of Sergeant Pepper and one of the uber-expensive, teal boxed MSFL issues from the eighties (late seventies?). The MSFL had great bass and midrange but the highs weren't there, and with them the ambient information and transparency. An earlier pressing of the EMI would probably have been even better.

Absolute Sounders back in the day had similar misgivings about a great deal of the reissuers, feeling the DMM direct metal masters from Japan tended to be a bit bright, and that earlier Cheskies were not too hot. But of late, the Speakers Corner issues of Deccas and Mercuries and DGs and Jazz have been great, and the Classics likewise. And then there are the 45rpm reissues of the Blue Notes from the fifties, which are horrifically expensive but with great gatefold covers with additional B&W photography from the sessions and reputedly fantastic sound. And Sundazed does some great work at fairly reasonable prices of classic Rock from the sixties and seventies.

You are making a mistake so old that everyone should be immune to it by now: You are confusing what I own with what I have heard.
I have heard many insanely great systems, far beyond what I could ever afford (and likely beyond what you can as well.) In 100% of the cases where both analog and digital sources were available, the digital source sounded noticeably better. Indeed, the more high-end the system, the more obvious that superiority is.
The reason is quite clear when you think about it: The analog recordings available commercially are always at least a few generations away from the studio master tapes, with each generation degrading the signal. Analog home playback equipment adds yet another opportunity for degradation, and the recording wears out with repeated plays. By contrast, when the master tapes are converted to digital (or better yet digitally recorded to begin with), they can be copied an arbitrary number of times with zero loss and the signal can be flawlessly reconstructed by a digital home playback device an arbitrary number of times with zero wear.

mp3 encoding is too broad in quality variation to make any strong statements such as yours, or heraldthebarrel's for that matter.