Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › "the vinyl has been replaced by the CD, largely inferior in quality"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"the vinyl has been replaced by the CD, largely inferior in quality" - Page 4

post #46 of 437
Thread Starter 

 

Originally Posted by 9pintube View Post

 

Instant gratification almost always leads to poor quality in many aspects and not just music......Look at fast food, It's FAST but mostly crap, right.. A well prepared meal that a chef prepares with "his talents" usually taste pretty damn good, right..... So back to Vinyl playback music, YOU MUST have all your musical ducks in a row "equipment wise" to get the sound that WE vinyl lovers insist sounds so superior to the compact disk


I can't stand fast food, and your fast food/CD comparison really doesn't work for me. I've spent a lot of time tuning my audio rig, and when I get unmastered mastertapes dumps, they sound as good as their physical counterparts. This is hifi to my ears, I'm not interested in a hiccuping lofi source. But yes! I understand that some ppl like the black record itself because it arouses them: they like to use a brush to clean it, hear the background noise before the music starts, flip the record in due time, finetune the anti-skating knob, together w/ that obvious massive harmonic distortion that's added on top of their music.
 

Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post

IT SOUNDS BETTER TO THEM.


Yes, it's completely subjective....it doesn't sound *technically* better, they just like the high THD and crappy crosstalk/SNR. I've got no problem w/ that.

 

Anyway, I think my question in the OP has been covered, this thread is not your usual CD Vs Vinyl pointless debate...I was just wondering why that music producer would call his own opinion a fact, as there's no technical background proving that Vinyl might be more faithful to what's been recorded in the studio than a properly mastered/dithered CD.

 

Many vinyl lovers keep saying that the CD doesn't have enough resolution and that the vinyl is analog and provides a clearer waveform....I don't buy any of these, and they have no technical proof to back up their theory...just some subjective opinion based on their real world experience. The audio world is full of magical thinking that doesn't seem to require any technical hard proof whatsoever.


Edited by leeperry - 9/14/10 at 11:39am
post #47 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post


Yes, it's completely subjective....it doesn't sound *technically* better, they just like the high THD and crappy crosstalk/SNR. I've got no problem w/ that.



If people were trying to sound *technically* sound then SACD should had killed redbook a long time ago.  Today all of my digital stuff is still on redbook. 

 

Give it a rest already.

post #48 of 437

Quote:

Originally Posted by leeperry View Post

 

 The audio world is full of magical thinking that doesn't seem to require any technical hard proof whatsoever


Indeed !

post #49 of 437
Thread Starter 

 

Originally Posted by HyperDuel View Post

 

SACD should had killed redbook a long time ago.


CDDA and SACD are equally capable of conveying an unmolested stereo waveform...SACD benefits from a higher grade mastering, that's all. The last thing we need is an analogy between LP>CDDA and CDDA>SACD.


Edited by leeperry - 9/14/10 at 12:16pm
post #50 of 437

Quote:

Originally Posted by 9pintube View Post

...We/I will be the first to say "that sounds like crap" as soon as the stylist hits the groove on records/recordings that ether have been played to death (happens) or was recorded poorly (happens)........ 

 
I think 9pin hit on something here...
 
I remember reading an article (and unfortunately I can't seem to find it again) about the advent of the CD.  The author postulated that the point in time the CD came into vogue coincided with a huge upswing in demand for recorded music, and that the quality of vinyl record pressings, which are subject to very serious time-vs-quantity physics, degraded significantly as record houses ramped up production volume to try and meet the demand.  CD's, not being subject to the same mass-production limitations, showed great promise and in many cases clearly outstripped vinyl pressings in terms of audio quality to the average listener.   While many still quote technical advantages of CD's even today, such advantages were grossly overemphasized at the time CD's were the "new big thing."
 
Bottom line being, if there's a grain of truth to this, the whole argument of the whole media of Vinyl being superior or inferior to the whole media of Redbook standard audio is a little, well, silly.  As there still can be great disparity in the quality of pressings/masterings (and yes, by the way, I've heard some pretty poorly-mastered CD's, as well), we could just as well be comparing apples to kumquats.
 
Now, comparing a given specific recording in both its digital and analog formats, that's where we can be a little more scientific.  

Edited by Zaubertuba - 9/14/10 at 12:02pm
post #51 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post

 


CDDA and SACD are equally capable of conveying an unmolested stereo waveform...SACD benefits from a higher grade mastering, that's all. The last thing we need is an analogy between LP>CDDA and CDDA>SACD.


Oh really, last time I check everything is in bits. 
 

post #52 of 437

 Zaubertuba, You made a very valid point about the quality of vinyl Lps recorded in the 80's, Most were crap!  and RUSHED OUT THE DOOR TO RECORD SHOPS !! Remember what Joe Walsh said, "The Eighties were a waist of Time"......................Anyone looking for LPs today, stay away from most that have Bar Codes on the back cover.......leeperry, I can't help but ask, Have you ever heard a truly HIGH END Vinyl Play Back system??? Do you or have you ever owned a Turntable????     ALSO, QUOTE: I can't stand fast food, and your fast food/CD comparison really doesn't work for me.1) I'm Glad you don't do fast food, It's bad for Us.  Quote: I've spent  a lot of time tuning my audio rig, and when I get unmastered master tapes dumps, they sound as good as their physical counterparts. 2) That's Great, I'm glad for you!   Quote: This is hifi to my ears, I'm not interested in a hiccuping lofi source.  3). That's Your Right to have your own opinion, Again I'm Glad for You!!!                              Rock on !!!      HyperDuel Quote: SACD should had killed redbook a long time ago.  It Did, along with the new LPs, but most people are still satisfied with using RED BOOK Disc , even this Vinyl LOVER, uses them for headphone listening ......You Forgot,   DVD-Audio disc ........We won't go there...Great Debate and facts Guy's!!!!

post #53 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post

 

Prove it.

 


Skylab already did for me.

 

If digitized vinyl sounds like vinyl, what other explanation is there?

post #54 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by maverickronin View Post


Skylab already did for me.

 

If digitized vinyl sounds like vinyl, what other explanation is there?


I'm not talking about digitizing vinyl. If you're digitizing vinyl, then vinyl is a necessity to the process.

 

You said vinyl was unnecessary because identical results can be achieved by other means.

 

So the "prove it" was to prove that you can achieve identical results by other means. In other words, without involving vinyl in the process.

 

se

 

post #55 of 437

Do you have to nitpick?  Vinyl is unnecessary for the end user.  Only one record ever needs to be made at the factory, and then played back from a single turntable into a professional ADC, and then pressed onto a cd or made available for download.

post #56 of 437


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by maverickronin View Post

Do you have to nitpick?  Vinyl is unnecessary for the end user.  Only one record ever needs to be made at the factory, and then played back from a single turntable into a professional ADC, and then pressed onto a cd or made available for download.

 

I'm not nitpicking at all.

 

Don't you remember what you have written?

 

You said vinyl was unnecessary because identical results can be achieved by other means. And just before you said that, you said that "the vinyl 'sound' can... be added to the master and pressed to a CD."

 

You weren't talking about making the master from a vinyl LP. You were talking about adding something to an existing master, ostensibly to make it sound like vinyl. Meaning that vinyl is not part of the process.

 

And that is the context in which I said "prove it."

 

se


Edited by Steve Eddy - 9/14/10 at 2:50pm
post #57 of 437

ADC on vinyl in a way defeats the whole purpose on why vinyl has an edge on digital. 

post #58 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by HyperDuel View Post

ADC on vinyl in a way defeats the whole purpose on why vinyl has an edge on digital. 


How do you mean?

 

se

 

post #59 of 437

Vinyl is an analog format.  If the orginial master tapes are analog then it will be no suprise that vinyl will sound better than digital.  If the orginial source is digital then it will sound better on any digital format.  In my opinion doing ADC is defeating the whole purpose on vinyl:  digital is bits and vinyl is a pure wavelength.  

 

Personally I don't see the point of making digital stuff out of vinyl, it's not going to sound better than vinyl that's for sure.  

 

My Midnight Sugar XRCD doesn't sound near as good as my vinyl copy. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post




How do you mean?

 

se

 

post #60 of 437

Stan Ricker, would love this, Quote!

Quote:
Originally Posted by maverickronin View Post

Do you have to nitpick?  Vinyl is unnecessary for the end user.  Only one record ever needs to be made at the factory, and then played back from a single turntable into a professional ADC, and then pressed onto a cd or made available for download.


I'll Add ONE more post here!    MAVERICKRONIN, you need to read about "THE RECORDING PROCESS"
Just tryin' to help!

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › "the vinyl has been replaced by the CD, largely inferior in quality"