"Songs of Leonard Cohen" - on vinyl

Humphrey Bear · Post by **Humphrey Bear** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 3:15 pm

Hi,

I recently managed to score three brand-new looking LP editions of Leonard Cohen's first album. I have "Songs of Leonard Cohen" on CD but this is the first time I have owned this album on vinyl. I do not yet have a turntable but I will buy one soon, so I have not listened to the three LPs.

I believe the one with the "Columbia 360 Sound" label is the original U.S. pressing from 1967. The other two are U.K. pressings, one of them being the original from 1967 and the other a re-pressing from the 1970s. I am not quite sure so if anyone thinks otherwise about this information, please correct me.

Take a look at these photos:

Does anyone else have this album on vinyl?
How is the sound quality compared to the CD version?

Humphrey Bear

jerry · Post by **jerry** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 4:28 pm

I have the vinyl and the sound on Essential is far superior to the vinyl,But only on Essential not the older Songs Of cd.Essential was remastered.

Humphrey Bear · Post by **Humphrey Bear** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 4:46 pm

EDIT: These are just general comments, they are not refering to you directly, Jerry:

There are some things to keep in mind when comparing CDs and LPs:

It is not right to compare CDs mastered from an analog source to LPs mastered from a digital source or vice versa. When one says "better" one should also be specific about how "better" is defined. Sure, vinyl will have some ticks, pops and a abit of surface noise depending on what kind of turntable and pick-up cartridge you are using. Remember that alot of remastered CDs that have been mastered from analog master tapes have been heavily noise-reduced and digitally compressed and the absense of tape noise gives the illusion of better sound to some.

Also one should not compare LPs and CDs by using a $100 turntable and a $1000 CD player. Cheap turntables are aggresively bad. The younger generation mostly only remember the sound of vinyl from their parent's cheap and noisy turntable with a worn-out pick-up cartridge.

Keep in mind that digital sound is just a mathematical representation of an analog waveform. That is all it will ever be. The amount of vinyl particles that pass the needle of a pick-up cartridge per second and the amount of magnetic particles that pass the playback heads in an analog tape recorder correspond to 24 bit information which is amazing resolution. A well-engineered LP properly mastered from an analog master tape when played back on a good turntable will sound much better than its CD equivalent. The standard 16 bit / 44.1 Khz CD format is very outdated by today's standards. Even the high-resolution 1 bit / 2.82 Mhz Super Audio CD format still uses vinyl as a comparison.

Fljotsdale · Post by **Fljotsdale** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 7:43 pm

Wow! Even if the quality is not good, what terrific additions to your collection of LC stuff, Humphry Bear!

~greg · Post by **~greg** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 11:10 pm

Pretty interesting stuff.

Here's a thread with some interesting comments about Comumbia's
CS 360 stereo series (there was also "360" mono) of the 1960s.
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showt ... hp?t=25276

I remember that after these, at the end of the '60s, records started
getting thinner, and floppy. Less useful for weapons. But better as frisbees.

Hope you got it with the lyrics sheet.

Your Columbia CS 9533 is certainly the first US
"songs of Leonard Cohen", as far as most people know.

I, however, have the true original.
(Which, incidentally, explains the true meaning of "Master Song".)

lizzytysh · Post by **lizzytysh** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 4:35 am

Hi Humphrey Bear ~

Those are in almost unconceivably good shape. Where did you 'score' them? The Columbia one resembles mine because of the outline of the record on the cover

.

Cheap turntables are aggresively bad.

Great way of saying it [see italics]

.

I still prefer the sound of vinyl because of the warmth. Almost the difference between 'cold, hard cash' and barter.

That's amazing, Greg. I remember those labels, from when I was a child. Coupled with Leonard's song; yes, couldn't be any more clear. That's a stunning label ~ the visuals in conjunction with his name and all that the list of those songs evokes.

Great thread, great finds, Humphrey Bear

! Welcome to the Forum

.

~ Lizzy

lightning · Post by **lightning** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 6:48 am

Humphrey,
Thanks for the technical information about CD vs. vinyl which I hardly understood but found interesting. It confirmed my own impression that vinyl sounds more natural, more lifelike and more enjoyable to listen to. I even find early mono richer than stereo and wonder why they bothered to go beyond it. They didn't know what they had. Even the large album cover is friendlier. You can stuff newsclippings in it, appreciate it as art , and have a large photo of a favored star. There is a back- to -vinyl movement among some young artists but it's probably impractical as ever people are listening to downloaded digital music in some kind of Ipod. And the music seems to me almost as cold and mechanical as the playback format. So cherish your LPs. Hope you didn't pay much for them because they can be had for a song.

tomsakic · Post by **tomsakic** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 11:51 am

Humphrey's explanation finally explained me some vinyl/CD issues, but still, I am child of nineties and LPs mean nothing to me but bad, complicated, to big technology. My CDs sound pretty warm and nice on my player, so I'll never believe this "sound was warmer" story I was told by my father and many older people also.
That's only generation stuff. Once I spoke to one lady who grew up on 1970s music, and she said that "LP is great because they're all the same size, nice pics, and when you have them in box, you can go thru them, not these CDs..."... I worked in CD shop then (and she in neigborhood antique shop:-), and I was confused. "But I think that CDs are great because they're all the same size, in boxes, you can simply browse thru your collection in CD boxes..."
Later one advantage of CDs come to my mind: I can see the side of CD with title - like on the book - while LPs usually, although they have printed label - are so think or pressed that you must took them out to see what it is.

CDs also have - Elizabeth (from another thread) - nice inserts, labels, art works, lyrics... Much better than LPs, I'd say (I have only Leonard's LPs, and only Yugoslavian pressings, for matters of collection

Don't have the LP player. Don't have Hi-FI either, only simple, cheap CD casette player)

Now, is my generation falling off new equipment... Because I'm starting to feel about Ipods the same the elders do about CDs. I look at those Ipod / MP3 hard-memory players etc... It's nice and very useful (no more CD player and plenty of discs in your bag), but I mean - no disc, no *actual* record, no sleeves, no anothing!? It's all only virtual tracks in your player? It sounds they're selling pure mistification to me. Leonard will produce new track in his studio, send it via email to Sony, and I'll buy it from their site?... Indeed, Walter Benjamin was right after all, his essay "The Work of Art in the Age of Its Mechanical Reproduction". He complained back in 1930s how everybody listen to jazz from records and nobody goes to see the real "aura" of music in concert hall... My teacher at college said what would Benjamin said if he saw CDs, and what with *burned* CDs, because original CDs were still seen as "original work of art" due to their art works, booklet... And burned CD is pure 'aura', pure myth, there's no original is existing anymore. And with Ipod it's completely done. There's no "original work of art" at all.

lightning · Post by **lightning** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 4:39 pm

Imagine what could be next after the Ipod. The music will be telepathed by its composer to all who are receptive. Then we won't even need little white earplugs , wires,or machines. That must be how the birds do it.

tomsakic · Post by **tomsakic** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 4:51 pm

lightning wrote:Imagine what could be next after the Ipod. The music will be telepathed by its composer to all who are receptive. Then we won't even need little white earplugs , wires,or machines. That must be how the birds do it.

Jesus Christ, lightning! Sound's like real horror! If this ever appears, I'll be the first to buy an old LP player and run into the mountains with fellow comrades

lizzytysh · Post by **lizzytysh** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 4:52 pm

< * ey yi yi ~ I think I'll go put on an album * >

~ Lizzy

Humphrey Bear · Post by **Humphrey Bear** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 5:09 pm

lizzytysh wrote:Hi Humphrey Bear ~

Those are in almost unconceivably good shape. Where did you 'score' them? The Columbia one resembles mine because of the outline of the record on the cover .

I was about to say that. For LPs which are 38 years old the condition is shockingly good. All three of them look unplayed. I bought them all three on Ebay. I paid $20 (U.S. Dollars) for each.

Cheap turntables are aggresively bad.

Great way of saying it [see italics]

.

I still prefer the sound of vinyl because of the warmth. Almost the difference between 'cold, hard cash' and barter.

[/quote]

Same reason why I prefer vinyl, but it is not only about warmth. Vinyl just sounds more lifelike, more natural and more three-dimensional you are actually hearing the original analog waveform which corresponds directly to the signal on the analog tape the vinyl was mastered from. The problem is that the very good turntables, the ones that can reveal how bad CDs often are, are quite expensive. Good analog sound from a turntable starts from $500 and up. In a day and age where you can buy DVD players for $50, not many people are willing to spend that kind of money.

Humphrey Bear · Post by **Humphrey Bear** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 5:12 pm

lightning wrote:Humphrey,
There is a back- to -vinyl movement among some young artists but it's probably impractical as ever people are listening to downloaded digital music in some kind of Ipod. And the music seems to me almost as cold and mechanical as the playback format. So cherish your LPs. Hope you didn't pay much for them because they can be had for a song.

There used to be a certain pride and sense of fulfillment when buying and owning music. I remember going out on a cold winters day to shovel a couple of driveways to earn some money, then waiting in the snow for a bus to go over to the local record store to buy the latest Iron Maiden album. Today, a kid sits in front of a computer eating pizza and downloads an album. And the neighbour shovels his own snow.

lizzytysh · Post by **lizzytysh** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 5:16 pm

Hi Humphrey Bear ~

I agree with your and some others' additional reasons in favour of vinyl, too. I just highlighted the warmth. For me, personally, in person, I can't hear every, single instrument separated out individually. So, listening to it that way doesn't have the merit as it does for some. In person, I hear the whole of it, with some separation, which varies from time to time.

I won't question that there's probably a share of nostalgia and sentimentality in operation here, as well. We all have reasons for our tastes that won't always square, logically or otherwise, with others'.

~ Lizzy

lightning · Post by **lightning** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 5:59 pm

Humphrey Bear,
You mentioned earlier a $1000 CD player. Does one really exist? It seems to me they all sound alike, and the audiophile quality is in other components, most importantly, the speakers.