|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
208.28.186.79
The first LP I ever bought was "Joy" by Apollo 100. List price in April, 1972 for that LP was $4.98. A week later I bought my second LP, Badfinger's "Straight Up" with a list price of $5.98. When calculating inflation into these prices using an online CPI calculator, you get the following prices in today's U.S. dollars:$4.98 in 1972 equals $24.47 today.
$5.98 in 1972 equals $29.38 today.I think it's fair to say that we still get our money's worth excepting perhaps Classic Records' 200-gram garbage. See link below for the CPI calculator.
Ripple
Follow Ups:
Wasn't that a cool album? :)
I think the issue for many of us is not the cost per se as much as it is the quality control that too often seems to be lacking in what are touted as "audiophile" pressings. On the other hand we all have the absolute right not to purchase anything we believe to be too expensive, whatever the reason(s).
That doesn't work, as wages have not kept up with inflation. It's buying power that is important.
If so is there one for us poor Aussies I can track down.
OLLY
There is a list of national links n Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_price_index
How can you make a meaningful comparison to CD's in 1972 when there were no CD's back then! The cost of LP's compared to other products during that time would be meaningful, not any present day product. I think CD's came into the market around 1981 or so. A more fair comparison would be to the cost of gas or McDonalds, or Nike tennis shoes or the price of an automobile.I said it then and say it now, vinyl rulz. I love the sound of it, I hate the compressed digital signatures and overtones of some CD's I have listened to lately. It is a superior medium in regards to technology, not superior in overall emotional and dynamic realism, here we go again. This is friggin vinyl asylum.
Ciao,
Audioquest4life
And there is no Digital system anywhere that can capture all the ambiance, resolution and "you are there" feeling of the best vinyl, not 24 Bit 96kHz PCM, not DSD and certainly not low resolution 44.1kHz CD. This whole thread is another total joke as is the CD format itself.
"Music is love"
Teresa
Here in Pittsburgh, there was a price war. King Larry at Heads Together. This guy named Lou down on Forward Ave. A cheap place in Shadyside. And a fourth one down near Pitt. Great year for rekkids, '72.
Ah, the good old days. Heads Together, Lou's Virgo shop and Flo's in Oakland. Made many trips back then.
So many, many records in my collection came from Flo's.Once, I had a girlfriend, and it was her 16th birthday about a month after we met. I bought her a stack of LPs from Flo's, and she was disappointed it wasn't jewelry. After a month!
Yeah, but you gotta compare it to CD prices because you get more music on a CD and it sounds better.
I have finally gotten "some" CD playback that is listenable without pain. The very best CDs (there are so few) only make it to position 13. As far as Digital the better SACDs at position 5 can often get about 80% of the glory of the best analog but it is not possible for the lowly CD!In my system, the best sound (on average) is as follows:
1) Real Time duplicated 7½ IPS pre-recorded Reel to Reel tape such as those by Sound Ideas, Ambisonic, Sonic and Direct To Tape Company. 15 IPS would be even better but I can't play 15 IPS, all four of the above companies also offer 2 Track 15 IPS reels.
2) The better audiophile LPs from real audiophile companies such as Reference Recordings, Speakers Corner, Analogue Productions, Classic Records, etc.
3) Real Time duplicated audiophile Cassettes such as MFSL, Aesthetic Audio, Audible Images, Sound Ideas, In Sync Laboratories, etc.
4) Most slow speed duplicated pre-recorded Reel to Reels from the mid 50's to 1960's.5) The better SACDs especially from DSD or Analog masters.
6) The better DVD-Audios from 24Bit 96kHz or 192kHz PCM masters or analog masters.
7) The better pre-recorded commercial cassettes.
8) The later 1970's pre-recorded Reel to Reels.
9) The better HDCD CDs especially from Reference Recordings.
10) The better commercial LPs.
11) SACDs from low resolution 24 Bit 48kHz PCM or lower masters.
12) DVD-Audios from low resolution 24 Bit 48kHz PCM or lower masters.
13) The better CDs especially those from Telarc, Reference Recordings (non-HDCD), etc.
14-100) Poorly mastered recordings in any format. LP, Reel to Reel, Cassette, CD, HDCD, SACD or DVD-Audio. CD seems to have the most poorly mastered recordings but LP is close behind.
While I have listenable and sometimes enjoyable CD playback with perhaps the top 0.01% of CDs made. The percentage of fantastic LPs is closer to 1% to 2% of all LPs made, and over the years I am getting better at picking the right ones. And the best LPs sound so realistic and with a feeling of "being there" that even SACD cannot match. The best CDs by comparison sound like good recordings nothing more. Only the top LPs, Cassettes, Reel to Reels, SACDs and LPs could ever fool me into believing I am hearing real musicians in my listening room. I do not believe CD will ever be able to do this, of course I didn't believe that any CD would ever be listenable. Perhaps in another 20-30 years? I really doubt it though; it's just too much to ask poor CD to do. YMMV.
"Music is love"
Teresa
Interesting list. For me the best recordings I have are some prerecorded R2R tapes, then recordings I made of solo violin, violin with cello and violin with piano on my R2R. Then I would have to say the better lps from the labels you mentioned but with one exception: I have Wagner "The Valkyries" on Decca from 1965 with Georg Solti conducting. Amazing good recording on what Decca called their "Royal Sound" Stereo. Are you familiar with these Deccas? The middle label is actually Black with a small Crown on the left side. They are one of the very few Classical Lps that don't have distortion on crescendos so the stay clean even at full blast. Nice but I am not a huge Wagner fan...too bombastic.
But make sure they are NOT pressed in the USA. I prefer the UK and German Decca LP pressings. As you mentioned many Decca's have no strain on climaxes plus they have a "warm" ambiance with good solid bass and nice imaging and stereo spread. Some of the Phase 4 LPs are not so good, too many microphones, the one exception is the recordings of Bernard Herrmann. I love the Bernard Herrmann Decca's of him conducting his film music.Basically the early London/Deccas from the 1950-1960's are the best IMHO. Also I prefer London/Deccas on 7 1/2 IPS Reel to Reel but the LPs are pretty good too.
"Music is love"
Teresa
I said:1) Real Time duplicated 7½ IPS pre-recorded Reel to Reel tape such as those by Sound Ideas, Ambisonic, Sonic and Direct To Tape Company. 15 IPS would be even better but I can't play 15 IPS, all four of the above companies also offer 2 Track 15 IPS reels.
Should read:
1) Real Time duplicated 7½ IPS pre-recorded Reel to Reel tape such as those by Sound Ideas, Ambisonic, Sonar and Direct To Tape Recording Company. 15 IPS would be even better but I can't play 15 IPS, all four of the above companies also offer 2 Track 15 IPS reels.
I apologize for calling "Sonar Recording Corp." Sonic instead on Sonar. I missed it on the final proof reading.
"Music is love"
Teresa
With all those comparisons going on, do you ever just listen to music for fun and enjoyment?And why is it necessary to establish a hierarchy like that? If I worried that much about how it sounds, I'd be a nervous wreck.
when mentally reliving the experiences. In most formats I got lost in the music and am unable to do it at that time except to make mental notes on what one format can or cannot do that another can. In a perfect world I would be able to buy all the music I love on real time duplicated 15 IPS Reel to Reels at a reasonable price and own a machine to play them. But since this is not possible every single format has it’s own set of compromises I find owning multiple formats my answer to this dilemma.Historically for me CDs have been almost impossible to endure, it is only recently that my some miracle that CD playback took a giant leap forward into the area of listenablity, something I thought was totally impossible mainly do to CD's brickwall filter and other issues of 44.1kHz. But CD is not high fidelity yet and may never be. On the other hand if Blu-Ray does double speed DSD as some are saying we may just get a digital format that can give get close to the realism of analog.
The point I am trying to make is the best CDs are poor in comparison to the best LPs. CD almost a total and complete joke. At least on the new Yamaha players the PAIN is gone; this was not possible with even extremely expensive transports and separate DA converters of the past. 2006 may be know as the year this all changed if other companies use the techniques Yamaha has to kill “Digitalis” in CD. I can’t wait for this to make it to the high end. Imagine a high end CD player with all the resolution of a high end CD without the PAIN! We might even get CD playback up to the level of analog cassette. I’m not holding my breath but it may just happen. Only the future can revel this for us.
The reason I got the Yamaha universal is not for is “listenable” CD playback but for the SACD and DVD-Audio playback which get me about 80% of the realism of analog and offers music and musicians not available on any analog format. The fact that is CD playback was listenable was an unexpected bonus.
The fact that I own and listen to nearly every format (except 8 Track and Elcasette) puts me in a unique position to make these comparisons.
Analog: LP, 7½ IPS Reel to Reel and Cassette
Digital: CD, HDCD, SACD, DVD-Audio and 24/96 DAD
"Music is love"
Teresa
Just reading about it makes me nervous.
...john is right that the meaningful comparison is what comparable products cost, although inflation-adjusted pricing is a nice novelty.some things actually come down in price.
that said -- john...do you still simply listen to LPs because you have so much software already in that format? do you ever buy LPs today (new), or are you CD-only for anything that comes out in that format?
i see you post tons of good info on analog playback, but i also see you consistently say how CDs are better.
(i like records as an experience, and i do tend to agree with you that digital playback, as a medium, is not flawed when we are able to make our own CDs on a masterlink that still sound amazing -- it's more likely an issue of people who were inexperienced with the digital medium doing early, hasty mastering and it's sad that reputation has stuck.)
I never buy new LPs although I occasionally buy used ones on eBay, but I haven't done that in a while. Most of the new music I acquire is on CD unless it's old stuff that is available on vinyl, only. However, I think my vinyl collection is fairly stable at around 800 nowadays.Interestingly, I've recently discovered some old recordings from the early 1960s that were never issued on vinyl and have only been introduced recently on CD. Additionally, there are some even older recordings that benefit from digital restoration such as some Benny Goodman, Billie Holliday, Jelly Roll Morton, Django Reinhardt, etc.
Vinyl is a lot of fun, but digital is where it's happening, so to speak. ;-)
Stereo came to Reel to Reel tape about five years prior to LP and many of these great Reel to Reels many were duplicated in real time and were only released in "Stereo" on Reel to Reel as they were out of print by the time Stereo LP came along. Thus on LP all that was released was the mono versions.Plus there are Reel to Reels never released on LP in any form, it is good to see these getting re-treaded again though the lesser format CD. Many stereo recordings from 1954 on are of high enough quality to warrant SACD, DVD-Audio or even possibly 180 Gram audiophile Vinyl release. Maybe in the future?
"Music is love"
Teresa
.
thats abouyt what new vinyl ic costing these days. In real tearms it really isn't more expensive than it was.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: