| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
massif snake
= Cult of Ray =
United Kingdom
282 Posts |
 Posted - 10/05/2003 : 08:00:36
|
what are they?
have sex with the nuns at my school. |
|
|
Visiting Sasquatch
= Cult of Ray =
USA
451 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2003 : 08:43:35
|
| Nostalgia. |
 |
|
|
Ebb Vicious
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1162 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2003 : 09:04:26
|
fans of vinyl (quality analog) say that it has a warmer, more full sound than digital.
the origins of this opinion comes from the early days of CD, when there were no all digital recordings, only the old analog ones transferred over to digital. without being remastered, almost all of these analog recordings will have horrific artifacts when reproduced digitally.
in theory vinyl has higher aural "resoultion" than CD, but it's plainly not true.
the "warmer" sound you get from vinyl has more to do with the differences in equipment reproducing the sound than anything else. the techniques in mastering, recording, etc. all affect this too, obviously.
in theory, you could create a CD player which outputs sound akin to that of turntable, through software trickery. i haven't seen anything like this but i wouldn't be too shocked if it's out there. it would obviously be distorting the sound and not be true reproduction, etc. but i bet some people would buy it. you'd just have to market it as being the "new warmer digital". |
|
|
|
misleadtheworld
* Dog in the Sand *
United Kingdom
1222 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2003 : 09:11:28
|
i was told by a music tech guy that vinyls and cassettes record/play the whole frequency spectrum whereas CDs and minidiscs only use the sounds audiable by humans, and apparently this inaudable sounds have a different feel when added to the audiable sound, warmer...like you said, i suppose.
i really dont know what im talking about, just straining my memory here....
Joan my Clerk.... |
|
|
|
BLT
> Teenager of the Year <
South Sandwich Islands
4204 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2003 : 09:20:20
|
Commercially recorded cassettes were (and are) crap. In retrospect they sound almost as bad as 8-tracks.
I resisted CDs (in favor of vinyl) until 1991. The bass response on the first Killing Joke album sold me. I could blast it as loud as I wanted without the lows feeding back. I suppose that's more a comment on the stereo I had at the time, but compared to the LP it sounded GREAT. |
|
|
|
DruggedBunny
= Cult of Ray =
United Kingdom
395 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2003 : 09:56:46
|
'Feel'. It's undefinable.
|
|
|
|
Chris Knight
= Cult of Ray =
USA
899 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2003 : 10:01:17
|
| Being part of the generation that grew up with CD players, I was convinced for about a minute that vinyls are superior to CDs. I think it's true that the resolution and frequency spectrum are greater with vinyl (not so sure about tapes... bleah), yet you also have to take into account speakers, preamplification, etc., which impose a limit on the amount of "extra" information that reachs your ears (or nerves, in the case of inaudible frequencies). Besides, everyone knows that records acquire hiss and random artifacts from repeated plays and are cumbersome to handle and maintain in comparison to CDs. Records do sound truly great on the first few listens, though. Wow! |
Edited by - Chris Knight on 10/05/2003 10:02:49 |
|
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2003 : 11:29:18
|
Aye, vinyl has more 'sound' in it. A much wider frequency range, tho i can't comment on the 'bit depth'. I'm sold on frequency range tho.
Although we can't 'hear' sounds out of a supposed range, those sounds ARE important, we can still feel them, and they interact with the other frequencies.
CD's have their pluses, but as far as musical reproduction, i hope SACD or DVD-A take over soon....they sound SO much better. I didn't think it could, but after i heard it..wow. |
|
|
|
apl4eris
~ Abstract Brain ~
USA
4800 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2003 : 12:56:33
|
Cthulu lives in the grooves on a vinyl disc. Plus, they are like magnets - you have to pay attention, it's a ritual, like in the olden days when the old folks and the young folks gathered around the banjo and harmonica players on the front porch, or later sittin around the old glowing eye zenith shortwave, you gotta babysit that record, wait at the ready to turn it over, catch it if it skips, and -really- listen to it. It hums tunes besides the ones you think you're listening to, it grows...
It demands respect.
"Let x = x." - Laurie Anderson |
|
|
|
IceCream
= Quote Accumulator =
USA
1850 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2003 : 13:59:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Knight
Besides, everyone knows that records acquire hiss and random artifacts from repeated plays and are cumbersome to handle and maintain in comparison to CDs. Records do sound truly great on the first few listens, though. Wow!
Is it possible that cleaning the record could prevent this problem, or are all the products to clean records a large hoax? I have a record by a band called "The Illusion" released in 1967. It plays better than anything else I own. I cleaned it well.
|
|
|
|
realmeanmotorscutor
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1764 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2003 : 14:20:51
|
It's funny, I was just about to create this very same topic.
This summer I got a turntable/cassete deck encased in glass for just $1o and it came with speakers. I also got "Meet The Beatles" from the same people for a dollar! Anyway, I mostly collected old jazz records from yardsales and such and I find that the merits of vinyl over cd is the poor quality. I've heard from certain audiophiles that vinyl far outdoes cds in terms of sound and while that might very well be true my weak ears can't pick up on it. Instead I adore the hiss and cracks of old, loved records.
There are some contemporary albums I think it'd be great to own on record. DiTs would be great, SMYT all worn down would be charming as hell and Bonnie 'Prince' Billy's "I See a Darkness." All in all though I wouldn't exchange cds for vinyl simply for convenience.
What's SACD and DVD-A?? |
|
|
|
Ebb Vicious
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1162 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2003 : 14:34:33
|
the missing information problem really comes into play with MP3s, not CDs. MP3s drop information that supposedly is inaudible. i think some people got MP3s and CDs mixed up in here.
SACD and HDCD contain more information per second (in different ways) than a regular CD. i haven't had much experience with SACD, so i will refrain for comment there.
but every copy of Tool's Lateralus is in HDCD. if your equipment can't take advantage of it then it plays as a regular CD. but i have heard it both ways and it definitely sounds more full as HDCD.
depending on the recording and mastering processes a vinyl record can contain more information than a standard CD, but whether your equipment will take advantage of this is questionable. most people don't have a good enough setup to even take advantage of the information that's on a CD.
vinyl records do, however, wear out. they do have turntables out there that use lasers to read the vinyl, but then, this kind of goes against the point of vinyl. if a CD is properly cared for it will not scratch or wear out, that's one of the main advantages.
being cheaper to package and distribute -- and at this point, produce -- is another advantage.
anyway...it's fairly moot since so few things are available on vinyl anymore, and it's expensive to get a good setup. |
|
|
|
blackpurse
= Cult of Ray =
USA
299 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2003 : 15:38:12
|
Wow, my first post since the baby was born and its about this.... but anyway....
Steve Albini argues that we dont' know how long the encoding will last on a CD, plus he also argues that there are things you just don't get in digital that you do in analog. I can at least say that in photography, I have yet to be convinced that digital will beat out good ol silver gelatin in the long run ("you want molecules to encode that information, not pixels!" a photo friend once told me) so I've got to assume there's some parallels.
I think what Albini was saying is that Vinyl is more permanent, and not subject to degradation from electromagnetic sources (but then again, he's never had to listen to my warped copy of Physical Graffiti that melted in the back of my '78 Ford Pinto....)
"Sacred cows make the best burgers!"
|
|
|
|
glacial906
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1738 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2003 : 15:40:40
|
Hey, welcome back blackpurse. Congrats.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
Ebb Vicious
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1162 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2003 : 16:04:06
|
steve albini is dumb.
CDs are not encoded magnetically, the information is stamped into a metallic layer. it's much more permanent than vinyl, which is much, much more physically delicate. when you burn a CD you are melting a layer of opaque (well, semi-translucent) plastic between two clear ones, usually in modern ones with a reflective backing between the top layer and the dyed layer. in no way are magnets involved, except in the motor used to spin up the disc.
photography is very different in many ways, and no the resolution of digital cameras (still or motion picture) does not match that of traditional. this is not really a valid comparison, and the resolution of the film and the resulting pictures in photography, as you should know, depends on a lot of factors.
digital photography is about convenience, not quality. |
|
|
|
NimrodsSon
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1938 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2003 : 17:29:24
|
I don't know anything about the technical aspects and everything, but I prefer vinyl over CD. The only reason I would ever want a CD instead of vinyl is to listen to it in the car. I play my vinyl records all the time and none of them have lost any quality. I've also used many very nice turntables and the best sound I have ever gotten has been from my piece of shit $20 turntable/cassette deck I got from Goodwill.
 "Who the Hell is Frank Black? / I'm just in it for the free beer" |
|
|
|
Ebb Vicious
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1162 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2003 : 17:42:43
|
| hmm maybe the sound you like the best was out of a $20 turntable/cassette deck, but i guarantee that it sounded like shit objectively. |
|
|
|
glacial906
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1738 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2003 : 17:46:16
|
| Again, Ebb is correct. NimrodsSon, you are not right, because the great Ebb has spoken. Whatever you thought is secondary, because Ebb Vicious says it is not so. He guarantees it is so. Who can refute Ebb's guarantee that something is shit? |
|
|
|
Ebb Vicious
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1162 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2003 : 17:49:33
|
| and once again glacial wields sarcasm like a senior citizen in a porsche. |
|
|
|
Chris Knight
= Cult of Ray =
USA
899 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2003 : 18:11:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by IceCream
I have a record by a band called "The Illusion" released in 1967. It plays better than anything else I own. I cleaned it well.
Okay, but does it sound as pristine as a CD, i.e. no hiss, pops, clicks, etc.? |
Edited by - Chris Knight on 10/05/2003 18:34:10 |
|
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11687 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2003 : 18:19:56
|
The best feature of vinyl is that big, sexy canvas.
"Join the Cult of Frank / And you'll be enlightened" |
|
|
|
Chris Knight
= Cult of Ray =
USA
899 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2003 : 18:31:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ebb Vicious
the missing information problem really comes into play with MP3s, not CDs. MP3s drop information that supposedly is inaudible. i think some people got MP3s and CDs mixed up in here.
According to what I've read, frequency range in the digital realm only reachs half whatever the sampling rate is. At 44,100 samples per second (CD-quality), the highest you could go would be 22 kilohertz, or slightly higher than the cutoff for human hearing, yet there are frequencies much higher than this that not only interact with the audible frequencies but also serve as indication that what we're hearing is occuring in nature and not being "reproduced". Like I said, I'm not 100% clear on whether vinyl records actually contain these frequencies, but I know for a fact that studio quality reel-to-reel tape recordings do, and that that is one major reason why reel-to-reel machines are still being used in recording studios. Also, Steve Albini is not dumb. |
Edited by - Chris Knight on 10/05/2003 18:32:10 |
|
|
|
apl4eris
~ Abstract Brain ~
USA
4800 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2003 : 18:46:14
|
From what I have heard in an interview, the Library of Congress is transferring much of its music library to wax cylinder...
"Let x = x." - Laurie Anderson |
|
|
|
Ebb Vicious
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1162 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2003 : 18:46:27
|
right, the thing i was taking issue was the wording. MP3 drops supposedly inaudible data for the sake of space, CD just has an upper limit due to the technological limitations at the time it was created.
the question, like i said before, is can your equipment reproduce these sounds? check the upper limits on your speakers. the popular equipment out there can't even handle the highest (and lowest) audible frequencies, and a lot in between.
so the fact that CD is cutting off the really high end sounds -- which may or may not be lost during post-recording manipulation -- is immaterial in the majority of cases.
the fact that vinyl wears out with use is a fact, and anyone saying that you can play it over and over and over in a standard turntable and not have loss of clarity is full of it. |
|
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2003 : 21:10:53
|
Aye - that's a good point. Many systems (especially small, bookshelf ones) will be 'optimized' for the limits of CD, but i think most of the speakers you'll get that'll play with a turntable (ie, components) will have a much wider range.
However, they don't cut off right at 22khz, so on most any system, more 'content' should result in more 'sound'.
An SACD will sound better through $50 speakers than a CD. Not as much as a difference than a $5 system, but due to the fact that there's literally more audio coming out, it should sound better.
Kinda like taking a hi-res photo, and cutting it from say 300dpi to 72dpi, in this particular situation. |
|
|
|
DruggedBunny
= Cult of Ray =
United Kingdom
395 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2003 : 02:28:55
|
quote:
Cthulu lives in the grooves on a vinyl disc
She speaks the truth!
|
Edited by - DruggedBunny on 10/06/2003 02:29:56 |
|
|
|
El Barto
= Song DB Master =
USA
4020 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2003 : 10:42:19
|
Even tho I don't collect vinyl, the reason why I think they're cooler is the artwork...the album covers are so big and nice looking. So much cooler than a dinky CD.
 "I joined the Cult of Frank / Did anyone else have to give up their first born?" |
|
|
|
apl4eris
~ Abstract Brain ~
USA
4800 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2003 : 14:07:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by DruggedBunny
quote:
Cthulu lives in the grooves on a vinyl disc
She speaks the truth!
Why, thank you for saying so - I was beginning to think I was the only one that could see 'em...
"Let x = x." - Laurie Anderson |
|
|
|
Itchload
= Cult of Ray =
USA
891 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2003 : 09:12:21
|
I go through spurts where I like vinyl more and where I like CD's more.
Vinyl Pros--the record becomes personalized. No two vinyl LPs play exactly alike, the little pops and squirts inbetween songs are specific to yours, and when it's not distracting from the songs, it's nice. Also, the big artwork is great. The sound has something special about it that digital can't reproduce and there's something inherently cool about putting a needle into a groove and watching that somehow create sound. Finally, vinyl smells better. Vinyl seems more condusive to an intensive listening experience. YOu have to be on your toes to switch it over, and you can't just throw a bunch of records on then go do something else. I always really listen when I play a record.
Vinyl cons--They can be inconvenient, heavy, and they aren't very durable. Can't play 'em in the car.
CD-Pros. Convenience, consistent sound quality, you can load up as many CDs as you want, durability, walkmen, car, ext. Now that mastering is getting better, they do sound as good as vinyl.
CD-cons. Any CDs released before the 90's sound flat, many CDs released during the mid-90's still sound kind of flat. The plastic cases always break. Easier to lose track of. Smaller artwork. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Topic Locked
