$500 vinyl LPs....?

[miroslav]

If you had really precious disks, wouldn't you want to bounce it to digi to preserve it?.. assuming it was for playing rather than just collecting?

It's like the very expensive wines.....you pay a lot, and you can't really appreciate what you paid for until you drink it and then it's all gone....or you could also say it's like drugs...you buy, get high, and then it's gone.

I guess it's worth it to those people for a few pristine plays....and then it's just another used vinyl LP.

Vinyl is OK....but it also has it's sonic limitations and issues...just like tape or digital.
I think it's more about the ritual of playing a vinyl LP...it sorta' forces you to sit down and listen, as opposed to a bunch of digital music files that often are just used as background noise while you multitask....or jog.

 

[Lt. Bob]

If you had really precious disks, wouldn't you want to bounce it to digi to preserve it?.. assuming it was for playing rather than just collecting?

of course ..... why not?

But a following post suggests that playing a vinyl record even once or twice damages it and that's not really true IF you're using $7,000 cartridges with super-fine styli.

Don't misunderstand me ....... I'm NOT saying vinyl is the holy grail ...... but VERY few musicians have actually heard and/or used big money vinyl rigs which can easily reach 100,000 dollars.
Just like with big money recording gear, there's a reason that stuff exists even if it's wildly overpriced.

 

[BroKen_H]

People with insane amounts of money need to spend it, I guess.
Bought my brother a '78 Beatles SPLHCB, original Capital, unopened, Photo disk in the late 80s. Was $50 then, You can still buy unopened ones for $35 now...
Had a mint condition yellow vinyl Grand Funk RR We're An American Band with the naked on the hay bales picture inside. You can't even find those anymore. Mine got lost when I was in the AF...along with a whole lot of nice 70's music.

 

[mdainsd]

As Lt Bob said if you use the right equipment you arent hurting the recording by playing it. Handling and lack of proper cleaning do far more damage. So slide the disc out of the cover, wipe it with an old tee-shirt and stack it with ten other albums on an automatic record changer that has its tracking forces measured in ounces rather than grams and the quality will be lost first play. Use the right equipment and enjoy for years.

Who here has the right to criticize what someone else pursues, or what they spend on it?

 

[miroslav]

Who here has the right to criticize what someone else pursues, or what they spend on it?

It was a Yahoo news story....that's all...no one is carrying torches-n-pitchforks.

AFA wear...sure, if you have the $10,000 system it will help the vinyl last much longer....but each play will take something off. That was made clear by the guy in the story...that there are different quality levels based on previous play time.
Vinyl is still subject to friction and wear over time.....not that it's a big point for anyone who can drop $500 on an LP.

 

[The Ghost of FM]

Wasn't there a laser turntable at one point that was able to play records as if they were laser discs, hence: zero contact equaling zero wear?

Cheers!

 

[mdainsd]

Yes, there were indeed a couple of those produced, zero contact.

 

[BroKen_H]

And of course the old debate about linear track vs standard pivot arm vs air bearing LT arms...
But of course a lazer does cause wear. That's why you have to replace printed scan badges on occasion. It's very insignificant when you're dealing with wear on a vinyl album, but it does occur. And, of course, most decent linear tracks had lasers as well to keep the position of the cartridge in the groove.

 

[mixsit]

Wasn't there a laser turntable at one point that was able to play records as if they were laser discs, hence: zero contact equaling zero wear?

Cheers!

Yes, but was there some reason it didn't pan out? Or did it just not catch on? Seems like something like that could be a logical step forward.

 

[The Ghost of FM]

Yes, but was there some reason it didn't pan out? Or did it just not catch on? Seems like something like that could be a logical step forward.

My memory is a bit fuzzy at this point but the reason for its failure to catch on was likely the price tag, which I believe was $2,000. In that era, you could pick up a top end table and cartridge for less then half that much.

Cheers!

 

[Roozter]

If you wouldn't pay X amount of dollars to see them live, never pay more than that for their vinyl. Pretty simple. I'd pay 500 dollars to see maybe 4 artists, all of which are really dead. The rest of the bands I like? I'd never pay more than $200 ticket, and that would be for semi-decent seats.

 

[WarmJetGuitar]

It's like the very expensive wines.....you pay a lot, and you can't really appreciate what you paid for until you drink it and then it's all gone....or you could also say it's like drugs...you buy, get high, and then it's gone.

I guess it's worth it to those people for a few pristine plays....and then it's just another used vinyl LP.

Vinyl is OK....but it also has it's sonic limitations and issues...just like tape or digital.
I think it's more about the ritual of playing a vinyl LP...it sorta' forces you to sit down and listen, as opposed to a bunch of digital music files that often are just used as background noise while you multitask....or jog.

Hahaha... good observations here. In an ideal world we wouldn't have all that ridicoulus feticism mostly driven by vanity and prestige. In a less-than-ideal though more interesting world I'd sure pay good money for leftovers of Keith Richards' smack from the "Exile On Main Street" and snort it on a special occasion, say a recording session with a bunch of junkies making quality music

I've only twice payed 50 pounds for records and it was only because there wasn't any repressings available at the time. It was Cans "Tago Mago" and Spacemen 3's "Recurring". The only point I can see in paying big bucks for early pressings would be that many recent ones is cut from CD master