#2 in the US after Bon Jovi...

Quote
kowalski

Quote
Kurt
The Vinyl LP was just delivered to my office!
Can't wait to get home and take it for a spin.

C'mon end of the day...

Let us know how it sounds when you get a chance!

The Vinyl sounds fantastic, in my humble opinion.
Heavy and huge.

I love buying new vinyl releases, like this one, since they usually come with a digital copy or a CD copy of the album as well.

This release reminds me why I used to like David Bowie so much!

Quote
Kurt

Quote
kowalski

Quote
Kurt
The Vinyl LP was just delivered to my office!
Can't wait to get home and take it for a spin.

C'mon end of the day...

Let us know how it sounds when you get a chance!

The Vinyl sounds fantastic, in my humble opinion.
Heavy and huge.

I love buying new vinyl releases, like this one, since they usually come with a digital copy or a CD copy of the album as well.

This release reminds me why I used to like David Bowie so much!

Thanks! I may give it a try as I'm disappointed by both the CD and the high res digital download.

Doesn't the vinyl have to be mixed differently because of the groove bandwidth on the album?

I remember more bass meant less album run time (wider grooves).

I would imagine that could be the case for high compression.

But what do I know.

Quote
GravityBoy
Doesn't the vinyl have to be mixed differently because of the groove bandwidth on the album?

I remember more bass meant less album run time (wider grooves).

I would imagine that could be the case for high compression.

But what do I know.

Actually most vinyls releases of recent albums are made from digital masters - sometimes in high res (24/96), sometimes in CD quality (The Beatles recent vinyl reissues for instance are made from CD quality digital files...).
This said there are still exceptions like Neil Young who is recording all his albums on analogue equipment and has his albums vinyl releases made from the original analogue masters.

Well maybe it's EQ'ed different.

More low end definitely means less album run time on vinyl.

I'm sure I remember that.

There's always the possibility they used a different mastering for the vinyl release...

.....David Bowie Exhibit Breaks Box Office Records

[www.voanews.com]

Quote
Rip This
.....David Bowie Exhibit Breaks Box Office Records

[www.voanews.com]

As well as seeing Charlie this weekend I'm going to this.

Have this on vinyl. Oceans apart from the cd. The vinyl has much more dynamic range. It sounds warmer. It is cut from digital files, but it is simply a different listening experience on vinyl than cd.

I still haven't recieved the vinyl.....March 28th seems to be the releast date for Europe.
Just wondering......has anybody compared the Heathen vinyl to the CD ?

I have both....but I haven't opened the sealed vinyl, I gotta buy one more sealed one, before I dare to.
Then again.....I think the CD sounds excellent, so I don't feel like I'm missing anything.

Quote
Blueranger
Have this on vinyl. Oceans apart from the cd. The vinyl has much more dynamic range.

It probably has LESS bottom end.

Which can be a plus.

Without going back through the many pages of this thread, I must admit that this is one of Bowie's best albums, if not the best, since "Scary Monsters." It arrived on Monday and I've played it at least 10 times. Great stuff

Bought the cd from a NUmber1 shelf in a store in England... that kind of moved me! Bowie has been a very big influence in my music... I love "Stars are out tonight" and have been listening to the Whole cd almost continuously... in my opinion, this guy's so ahead of us now that we'll appreciate the importance of this album even more in a few years time

Just received the Japanese CD version of The Next Day which has the great extra track God Bless the Girl. Well worth getting.

Quote
Blueranger
Have this on vinyl. Oceans apart from the cd. The vinyl has much more dynamic range. It sounds warmer. It is cut from digital files, but it is simply a different listening experience on vinyl than cd.

I'm a vinyl freak, but I buy very few new releases or remasters on vinyl. They are normally the same masters as the cd, so I just don't see (hear) the point. Analog and digital sound are two different worlds. Normally the dynamic range are far superior on cd's, but most cd releases in the last few years sadly are dynamically compressed in favour of loudness. If your vinyl copy sounds better in this way either the vinyl master is different, or your vinyl rig is ten times more expensive than your cd player.

Quote
Eirik

Quote
Blueranger
Have this on vinyl. Oceans apart from the cd. The vinyl has much more dynamic range. It sounds warmer. It is cut from digital files, but it is simply a different listening experience on vinyl than cd.

I'm a vinyl freak, but I buy very few new releases or remasters on vinyl. They are normally the same masters as the cd, so I just don't see (hear) the point. Analog and digital sound are two different worlds. Normally the dynamic range are far superior on cd's, but most cd releases in the last few years sadly are dynamically compressed in favour of loudness. If your vinyl copy sounds better in this way either the vinyl master is different, or your vinyl rig is ten times more expensive than your cd player.

Agreed. Not that I don't believe your vinyl sounds better, but I never understood people's fascination with buying vinyl these days. From what I've heard, there's no real difference between it and CD sound, as opposed to decades ago when the original vinyl sounded different from the initial CDs that came out of it. I have friends that like to buy the vinyl, for either sound reasons or for having the big artwork because its "retro". But coming from someone who loves vinyl, I buy old stuff because its cheap and there is a sound difference. I don't understand buying new vinyl that I'm told sounds no different and costs $20 at least, which I think is ridiculous.

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
Eirik

Quote
Blueranger
Have this on vinyl. Oceans apart from the cd. The vinyl has much more dynamic range. It sounds warmer. It is cut from digital files, but it is simply a different listening experience on vinyl than cd.

I'm a vinyl freak, but I buy very few new releases or remasters on vinyl. They are normally the same masters as the cd, so I just don't see (hear) the point. Analog and digital sound are two different worlds. Normally the dynamic range are far superior on cd's, but most cd releases in the last few years sadly are dynamically compressed in favour of loudness. If your vinyl copy sounds better in this way either the vinyl master is different, or your vinyl rig is ten times more expensive than your cd player.

Agreed. Not that I don't believe your vinyl sounds better, but I never understood people's fascination with buying vinyl these days. From what I've heard, there's no real difference between it and CD sound, as opposed to decades ago when the original vinyl sounded different from the initial CDs that came out of it. I have friends that like to buy the vinyl, for either sound reasons or for having the big artwork because its "retro". But coming from someone who loves vinyl, I buy old stuff because its cheap and there is a sound difference. I don't understand buying new vinyl that I'm told sounds no different and costs $20 at least, which I think is ridiculous.

Dylan's albums, 1997-2012, sounds much better on vinyl than what the CDs does. Don't know why, but they do

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
Eirik

Quote
Blueranger
Have this on vinyl. Oceans apart from the cd. The vinyl has much more dynamic range. It sounds warmer. It is cut from digital files, but it is simply a different listening experience on vinyl than cd.

I'm a vinyl freak, but I buy very few new releases or remasters on vinyl. They are normally the same masters as the cd, so I just don't see (hear) the point. Analog and digital sound are two different worlds. Normally the dynamic range are far superior on cd's, but most cd releases in the last few years sadly are dynamically compressed in favour of loudness. If your vinyl copy sounds better in this way either the vinyl master is different, or your vinyl rig is ten times more expensive than your cd player.

Agreed. Not that I don't believe your vinyl sounds better, but I never understood people's fascination with buying vinyl these days. From what I've heard, there's no real difference between it and CD sound, as opposed to decades ago when the original vinyl sounded different from the initial CDs that came out of it. I have friends that like to buy the vinyl, for either sound reasons or for having the big artwork because its "retro". But coming from someone who loves vinyl, I buy old stuff because its cheap and there is a sound difference. I don't understand buying new vinyl that I'm told sounds no different and costs $20 at least, which I think is ridiculous.

Dylan's albums, 1997-2012, sounds much better on vinyl than what the CDs does. Don't know why, but they do

as do John Hiatt, the Teletubbies, and Steve Earle...all are fantastic on vinyl

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
Eirik

Quote
Blueranger
Have this on vinyl. Oceans apart from the cd. The vinyl has much more dynamic range. It sounds warmer. It is cut from digital files, but it is simply a different listening experience on vinyl than cd.

I'm a vinyl freak, but I buy very few new releases or remasters on vinyl. They are normally the same masters as the cd, so I just don't see (hear) the point. Analog and digital sound are two different worlds. Normally the dynamic range are far superior on cd's, but most cd releases in the last few years sadly are dynamically compressed in favour of loudness. If your vinyl copy sounds better in this way either the vinyl master is different, or your vinyl rig is ten times more expensive than your cd player.

Agreed. Not that I don't believe your vinyl sounds better, but I never understood people's fascination with buying vinyl these days. From what I've heard, there's no real difference between it and CD sound, as opposed to decades ago when the original vinyl sounded different from the initial CDs that came out of it. I have friends that like to buy the vinyl, for either sound reasons or for having the big artwork because its "retro". But coming from someone who loves vinyl, I buy old stuff because its cheap and there is a sound difference. I don't understand buying new vinyl that I'm told sounds no different and costs $20 at least, which I think is ridiculous.

Dylan's albums, 1997-2012, sounds much better on vinyl than what the CDs does. Don't know why, but they do

as do John Hiatt, the Teletubbies, and Steve Earle...all are fantastic on vinyl

I get the feeling that some "old fashioned" artists make the CDs sound worse on purpose, so that only the people who are big enough fans to buy the vinyl-releases will get the full listening experience.
Well...of course they don't "make it sound worse on purpose" but I mean; that they don't *care* about how them CDs sound, because it's the vinyls that's the "real thing"

Or maybe I'm paranoid.

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
Eirik

Quote
Blueranger
Have this on vinyl. Oceans apart from the cd. The vinyl has much more dynamic range. It sounds warmer. It is cut from digital files, but it is simply a different listening experience on vinyl than cd.

I'm a vinyl freak, but I buy very few new releases or remasters on vinyl. They are normally the same masters as the cd, so I just don't see (hear) the point. Analog and digital sound are two different worlds. Normally the dynamic range are far superior on cd's, but most cd releases in the last few years sadly are dynamically compressed in favour of loudness. If your vinyl copy sounds better in this way either the vinyl master is different, or your vinyl rig is ten times more expensive than your cd player.

Agreed. Not that I don't believe your vinyl sounds better, but I never understood people's fascination with buying vinyl these days. From what I've heard, there's no real difference between it and CD sound, as opposed to decades ago when the original vinyl sounded different from the initial CDs that came out of it. I have friends that like to buy the vinyl, for either sound reasons or for having the big artwork because its "retro". But coming from someone who loves vinyl, I buy old stuff because its cheap and there is a sound difference. I don't understand buying new vinyl that I'm told sounds no different and costs $20 at least, which I think is ridiculous.

Dylan's albums, 1997-2012, sounds much better on vinyl than what the CDs does. Don't know why, but they do

as do John Hiatt, the Teletubbies, and Steve Earle...all are fantastic on vinyl

I get the feeling that some "old fashioned" artists make the CDs sound worse on purpose, so that only the people who are big enough fans to buy the vinyl-releases will get the full listening experience.
Well...of course they don't "make it sound worse on purpose" but I mean; that they don't *care* about how them CDs sound, because it's the vinyls that's the "real thing"

Or maybe I'm paranoid.

It seems that CDs are mastered for iToons while LPs are not. CDs are often BRICKWALLED while LPs are not.

By the way...I just ripped a Jim Reeves LP and it is fantastic...

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
Eirik

Quote
Blueranger
Have this on vinyl. Oceans apart from the cd. The vinyl has much more dynamic range. It sounds warmer. It is cut from digital files, but it is simply a different listening experience on vinyl than cd.

I'm a vinyl freak, but I buy very few new releases or remasters on vinyl. They are normally the same masters as the cd, so I just don't see (hear) the point. Analog and digital sound are two different worlds. Normally the dynamic range are far superior on cd's, but most cd releases in the last few years sadly are dynamically compressed in favour of loudness. If your vinyl copy sounds better in this way either the vinyl master is different, or your vinyl rig is ten times more expensive than your cd player.

Agreed. Not that I don't believe your vinyl sounds better, but I never understood people's fascination with buying vinyl these days. From what I've heard, there's no real difference between it and CD sound, as opposed to decades ago when the original vinyl sounded different from the initial CDs that came out of it. I have friends that like to buy the vinyl, for either sound reasons or for having the big artwork because its "retro". But coming from someone who loves vinyl, I buy old stuff because its cheap and there is a sound difference. I don't understand buying new vinyl that I'm told sounds no different and costs $20 at least, which I think is ridiculous.

Dylan's albums, 1997-2012, sounds much better on vinyl than what the CDs does. Don't know why, but they do

as do John Hiatt, the Teletubbies, and Steve Earle...all are fantastic on vinyl

I get the feeling that some "old fashioned" artists make the CDs sound worse on purpose, so that only the people who are big enough fans to buy the vinyl-releases will get the full listening experience.
Well...of course they don't "make it sound worse on purpose" but I mean; that they don't *care* about how them CDs sound, because it's the vinyls that's the "real thing"

Or maybe I'm paranoid.

It seems that CDs are mastered for iToons while LPs are not. CDs are often BRICKWALLED while LPs are not.

By the way...I just ripped a Jim Reeves LP and it is fantastic...

A good example of brickwalling is Bowie's "Station To Station deluxe" release from 2 years ago. The CD is very good, but the vinyl is fantastic....completely different listening experience.

At least for us with good ears. I have 10+ ears, documented by norwegian regime.......best "ear"ever tested in this country. I hear *everything* !

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
Eirik

Quote
Blueranger
Have this on vinyl. Oceans apart from the cd. The vinyl has much more dynamic range. It sounds warmer. It is cut from digital files, but it is simply a different listening experience on vinyl than cd.

I'm a vinyl freak, but I buy very few new releases or remasters on vinyl. They are normally the same masters as the cd, so I just don't see (hear) the point. Analog and digital sound are two different worlds. Normally the dynamic range are far superior on cd's, but most cd releases in the last few years sadly are dynamically compressed in favour of loudness. If your vinyl copy sounds better in this way either the vinyl master is different, or your vinyl rig is ten times more expensive than your cd player.

Agreed. Not that I don't believe your vinyl sounds better, but I never understood people's fascination with buying vinyl these days. From what I've heard, there's no real difference between it and CD sound, as opposed to decades ago when the original vinyl sounded different from the initial CDs that came out of it. I have friends that like to buy the vinyl, for either sound reasons or for having the big artwork because its "retro". But coming from someone who loves vinyl, I buy old stuff because its cheap and there is a sound difference. I don't understand buying new vinyl that I'm told sounds no different and costs $20 at least, which I think is ridiculous.

Dylan's albums, 1997-2012, sounds much better on vinyl than what the CDs does. Don't know why, but they do

as do John Hiatt, the Teletubbies, and Steve Earle...all are fantastic on vinyl

I get the feeling that some "old fashioned" artists make the CDs sound worse on purpose, so that only the people who are big enough fans to buy the vinyl-releases will get the full listening experience.
Well...of course they don't "make it sound worse on purpose" but I mean; that they don't *care* about how them CDs sound, because it's the vinyls that's the "real thing"

Or maybe I'm paranoid.

It seems that CDs are mastered for iToons while LPs are not. CDs are often BRICKWALLED while LPs are not.

By the way...I just ripped a Jim Reeves LP and it is fantastic...

A good example of brickwalling is Bowie's "Station To Station deluxe" release from 2 years ago. The CD is very good, but the vinyl is fantastic....completely different listening experience.

At least for us with good ears. I have 10+ ears, documented by norwegian regime.......best "ear"ever tested in this country. I hear *everything* !

Everything?

I just farted in Texas...didja hear that?

Quote
DEmerson
Just received the Japanese CD version of The Next Day which has the great extra track God Bless the Girl. Well worth getting.

I might say that God Bless the Girl is my favorite track. It's the new Bowie.

I didn't get the Japanese copy (unfortunately), so here's that track from YT. It's very good:

Quote
Erik_Snow

A good example of brickwalling is Bowie's "Station To Station deluxe" release from 2 years ago. The CD is very good, but the vinyl is fantastic....completely different listening experience.

At least for us with good ears. I have 10+ ears, documented by norwegian regime.......best "ear"ever tested in this country. I hear *everything* !

The 2010 reissue of Station To Station is excellent sonically speaking (the price was another thing). It's not brickwalled. Actually it's a flat transfer from the original master tapes.
However the Live in Nassau on discs 2 & 3 is brickwalled and doesn't sound so good. But I've heard the vinyl version of Nassau is much better.

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
Eirik

Quote
Blueranger
Have this on vinyl. Oceans apart from the cd. The vinyl has much more dynamic range. It sounds warmer. It is cut from digital files, but it is simply a different listening experience on vinyl than cd.

I'm a vinyl freak, but I buy very few new releases or remasters on vinyl. They are normally the same masters as the cd, so I just don't see (hear) the point. Analog and digital sound are two different worlds. Normally the dynamic range are far superior on cd's, but most cd releases in the last few years sadly are dynamically compressed in favour of loudness. If your vinyl copy sounds better in this way either the vinyl master is different, or your vinyl rig is ten times more expensive than your cd player.

Agreed. Not that I don't believe your vinyl sounds better, but I never understood people's fascination with buying vinyl these days. From what I've heard, there's no real difference between it and CD sound, as opposed to decades ago when the original vinyl sounded different from the initial CDs that came out of it. I have friends that like to buy the vinyl, for either sound reasons or for having the big artwork because its "retro". But coming from someone who loves vinyl, I buy old stuff because its cheap and there is a sound difference. I don't understand buying new vinyl that I'm told sounds no different and costs $20 at least, which I think is ridiculous.

Dylan's albums, 1997-2012, sounds much better on vinyl than what the CDs does. Don't know why, but they do

as do John Hiatt, the Teletubbies, and Steve Earle...all are fantastic on vinyl

I get the feeling that some "old fashioned" artists make the CDs sound worse on purpose, so that only the people who are big enough fans to buy the vinyl-releases will get the full listening experience.
Well...of course they don't "make it sound worse on purpose" but I mean; that they don't *care* about how them CDs sound, because it's the vinyls that's the "real thing"

Or maybe I'm paranoid.

It seems that CDs are mastered for iToons while LPs are not. CDs are often BRICKWALLED while LPs are not.

By the way...I just ripped a Jim Reeves LP and it is fantastic...

A good example of brickwalling is Bowie's "Station To Station deluxe" release from 2 years ago. The CD is very good, but the vinyl is fantastic....completely different listening experience.

At least for us with good ears. I have 10+ ears, documented by norwegian regime.......best "ear"ever tested in this country. I hear *everything* !

Everything?

I just farted in Texas...didja hear that?

I didn't hear it, no, but I smelled it. I got a big nose

Quote
kowalski

Quote
Erik_Snow

A good example of brickwalling is Bowie's "Station To Station deluxe" release from 2 years ago. The CD is very good, but the vinyl is fantastic....completely different listening experience.

At least for us with good ears. I have 10+ ears, documented by norwegian regime.......best "ear"ever tested in this country. I hear *everything* !

The 2010 reissue of Station To Station is excellent sonically speaking (the price was another thing). It's not brickwalled. Actually it's a flat transfer from the original master tapes.
However the Live in Nassau on discs 2 & 3 is brickwalled and doesn't sound so good. But I've heard the vinyl version of Nassau is much better.

Oops, I DID mean the Nassau 1976 concert (part of the Station to Station box)

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
Eirik

Quote
Blueranger
Have this on vinyl. Oceans apart from the cd. The vinyl has much more dynamic range. It sounds warmer. It is cut from digital files, but it is simply a different listening experience on vinyl than cd.

I'm a vinyl freak, but I buy very few new releases or remasters on vinyl. They are normally the same masters as the cd, so I just don't see (hear) the point. Analog and digital sound are two different worlds. Normally the dynamic range are far superior on cd's, but most cd releases in the last few years sadly are dynamically compressed in favour of loudness. If your vinyl copy sounds better in this way either the vinyl master is different, or your vinyl rig is ten times more expensive than your cd player.

Agreed. Not that I don't believe your vinyl sounds better, but I never understood people's fascination with buying vinyl these days. From what I've heard, there's no real difference between it and CD sound, as opposed to decades ago when the original vinyl sounded different from the initial CDs that came out of it. I have friends that like to buy the vinyl, for either sound reasons or for having the big artwork because its "retro". But coming from someone who loves vinyl, I buy old stuff because its cheap and there is a sound difference. I don't understand buying new vinyl that I'm told sounds no different and costs $20 at least, which I think is ridiculous.

Exactly what I mean. Vinyl these days are mostly just a gimmick or a marketing kind of thing. If they're from the same digital master as the cd, I just don't get it. A good example that the cd has better sonic qualities than the vinyl, is the 2002 Rolling Stones remasters which I own on both vinyl, cd's and sacd's. The vinyl editions sound very good, but the cd/sacd's are far superior sounding in every way. Then again, these cd's are not brickwalled the same way as new releases today. CD's today sadly suffer from the lound mastering/remastering as they're ment to be heard on itunes or flat mp3's. The cd's initial advantage over the vinyl was the wider dynamic range, but this has had to give way for extreme loudness and silly overpowered bass. I own expensive both phono and cd gear, but I have to say new recordings today sound no better here than in my childrens portable music players. Sadly.

Quote
Eirik

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
Eirik

Quote
Blueranger
Have this on vinyl. Oceans apart from the cd. The vinyl has much more dynamic range. It sounds warmer. It is cut from digital files, but it is simply a different listening experience on vinyl than cd.

I'm a vinyl freak, but I buy very few new releases or remasters on vinyl. They are normally the same masters as the cd, so I just don't see (hear) the point. Analog and digital sound are two different worlds. Normally the dynamic range are far superior on cd's, but most cd releases in the last few years sadly are dynamically compressed in favour of loudness. If your vinyl copy sounds better in this way either the vinyl master is different, or your vinyl rig is ten times more expensive than your cd player.

Agreed. Not that I don't believe your vinyl sounds better, but I never understood people's fascination with buying vinyl these days. From what I've heard, there's no real difference between it and CD sound, as opposed to decades ago when the original vinyl sounded different from the initial CDs that came out of it. I have friends that like to buy the vinyl, for either sound reasons or for having the big artwork because its "retro". But coming from someone who loves vinyl, I buy old stuff because its cheap and there is a sound difference. I don't understand buying new vinyl that I'm told sounds no different and costs $20 at least, which I think is ridiculous.

Exactly what I mean. Vinyl these days are mostly just a gimmick or a marketing kind of thing. If they're from the same digital master as the cd, I just don't get it. A good example that the cd has better sonic qualities than the vinyl, is the 2002 Rolling Stones remasters which I own on both vinyl, cd's and sacd's. The vinyl editions sound very good, but the cd/sacd's are far superior sounding in every way. Then again, these cd's are not brickwalled the same way as new releases today. CD's today sadly suffer from the lound mastering/remastering as they're ment to be heard on itunes or flat mp3's. The cd's initial advantage over the vinyl was the wider dynamic range, but this has had to give way for extreme loudness and silly overpowered bass. I own expensive both phono and cd gear, but I have to say new recordings today sound no better here than in my childrens portable music players. Sadly.

Then tell me why the 2010 vinyl box sounds even superior to the 2003 vinyls. They come of the same digital files, yet they sound way better.

Regarding the new Bowie on vinyl, Tony Visconti was the cutting session, so it is no just a straight transfer from the digital files. Some EQ and tweaking HAS been done. And the vinyl is not as boosted as the cd. It is a different sound experience.