4 ms·

Vinyl FTW

by nicky0 9y ago

Vinyl FTW

KozmoNau7 9y ago
Vinyl is cute, and I love the huge cover art. But it's also fragile, takes up a ton of space and has compromised sound quality.
michaelgrafl 9y ago
I like vinyl. But as a backup medium CDs are just as good if not more robust, I think. I have yet to experience a single CD failing. Even CD-Rs turned out to be pretty robust unless being handled with an utter lack of care.
- jarman 9y ago
  Main difference is not robustness. It's that CD are digital and can be copied perfectly.
  - nilliams 9y ago
    Worth knowing most new vinyl records come with a copy of the digital download too. Amazon will also automatically add (most?) vinyl purchases to your Amazon Music Library, and allow download.
    - aoeuasdf1 9y ago
      Lossless?
      - nilliams 9y ago
        Hell no :) The Amazon downloads seem to all be 44.1 khz mp3 (just downloaded an album of mine to check).
  - ska 9y ago
    CD-R, and especially CD-RW variants, are not robust, and not a good archival form. CDs themselves are pretty good. Vinyl, with some care for environment, is really good for archival.
- wongarsu 9y ago
  >I have yet to experience a single CD failing I have never seen a professionally pressed CD fail. I have seen lots of self-burned CDs fail after about three years. Of course there are archive-quality CD-Rs with projected lifespans of 100 or 300 years (if burned really slowly), but that's not what most people use for backups.
- cyxxon 9y ago
  I have a pressed CD that failed. It is a regular audio CD from 1993 or 1994, and it developed tiny black flecks all over the aluminium foil. I guess it is not perfectly sealed. I think I still have it somewhere, even if I just bought a replacement for some € during a sale... so yeah, it can happen, after a small amount of years.
  - jdietrich 9y ago
    A small number of pressing plants produced bad discs during the late 80s and early 90s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Disc_bronzing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Disc_bronzing
- Arizhel 9y ago
  Wrong on the CD-Rs: I've seen them fail before, due simply to age. It happens with the cheap ones; the "archival quality" ones really do seem to be much better, but I have some ~15 year old cheapies that are dead. You can even see on the disc that the dye has changed colors and is uneven. I've never seen a mass-produced CD (the aluminum kind) fail due to age rather than physical damage. However I have read about it happening, where the aluminum layer wasn't properly sealed in the polycarbonate and over time got corroded.
thirdsun 9y ago
Frankly, I'm not a fan. I buy vinyl only as a last resort if it's a vinyl-only release or rare classic I'm interested in (yes, there's lots of stuff only available on vinyl - old and new). Then I just rip it and add the digital, lossless result to my collection. The vinyl format itself is too inconvenient for my taste and the audio quality is too dependent on various factors like used equipment, condition of the media and quality of the pressing.

Vinyl FTW

by nicky0 9y ago

Vinyl FTW

Vinyl is cute, and I love the huge cover art. But it's also fragile, takes up a ton of space and has compromised sound quality.

michaelgrafl 9y ago

I like vinyl. But as a backup medium CDs are just as good if not more robust, I think. I have yet to experience a single CD failing. Even CD-Rs turned out to be pretty robust unless being handled with an utter lack of care.

jarman 9y ago
Main difference is not robustness. It's that CD are digital and can be copied perfectly.
- nilliams 9y ago
  Worth knowing most new vinyl records come with a copy of the digital download too. Amazon will also automatically add (most?) vinyl purchases to your Amazon Music Library, and allow download.
  - aoeuasdf1 9y ago
    Lossless?
    - nilliams 9y ago
      Hell no :) The Amazon downloads seem to all be 44.1 khz mp3 (just downloaded an album of mine to check).
- ska 9y ago
  CD-R, and especially CD-RW variants, are not robust, and not a good archival form. CDs themselves are pretty good. Vinyl, with some care for environment, is really good for archival.
wongarsu 9y ago
>I have yet to experience a single CD failing I have never seen a professionally pressed CD fail. I have seen lots of self-burned CDs fail after about three years. Of course there are archive-quality CD-Rs with projected lifespans of 100 or 300 years (if burned really slowly), but that's not what most people use for backups.
cyxxon 9y ago
I have a pressed CD that failed. It is a regular audio CD from 1993 or 1994, and it developed tiny black flecks all over the aluminium foil. I guess it is not perfectly sealed. I think I still have it somewhere, even if I just bought a replacement for some € during a sale... so yeah, it can happen, after a small amount of years.
- jdietrich 9y ago
  A small number of pressing plants produced bad discs during the late 80s and early 90s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Disc_bronzing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Disc_bronzing
Arizhel 9y ago
Wrong on the CD-Rs: I've seen them fail before, due simply to age. It happens with the cheap ones; the "archival quality" ones really do seem to be much better, but I have some ~15 year old cheapies that are dead. You can even see on the disc that the dye has changed colors and is uneven. I've never seen a mass-produced CD (the aluminum kind) fail due to age rather than physical damage. However I have read about it happening, where the aluminum layer wasn't properly sealed in the polycarbonate and over time got corroded.

thirdsun 9y ago

Frankly, I'm not a fan. I buy vinyl only as a last resort if it's a vinyl-only release or rare classic I'm interested in (yes, there's lots of stuff only available on vinyl - old and new). Then I just rip it and add the digital, lossless result to my collection. The vinyl format itself is too inconvenient for my taste and the audio quality is too dependent on various factors like used equipment, condition of the media and quality of the pressing.