[CrazyRay]

Quote:

What I will say is this - I can guarantee that no one who came over to my house and listened to vinyl would leave thinking it didn't sound good

 
X2!
 

 

[CrazyRay]

Quote:

 
I count myself lucky to have seen the demise of both vinyl and SACD as serious recording media.
 
16/44k1 is here to stay. It's as good as it needs to be and no better and a huge fraction of the population recognises that. All these other guys are just being different for the sake of being different, or perhaps difficult for the sake of being difficult is closer to the truth; the prima donna syndrome, it's just a failure to grow up.
 
w

Hummmm....

 
You are really missing out on something really special.
 
 
 

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

Hummmm....

 
You are really missing out on something really special.

What, noise and distortion?
 
Speaking of, now that I've heard a good solid state amp I am done with tubes.

 

[bigshot]

What, noise and distortion?

No, a half century of fabulous music... And a half century before that on shellac.

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

No, a half century of fabulous music... And a half century before that on shellac.

Old vinyl's fine, but it makes sense that it is no longer a serious recording medium. Which is what wakibaki brought up. You missed the point.
 
You're focusing on the recordings. The thread is about the medium.

 

[bigshot]

No medium really matters. It's only a container for what counts.

 

[IPodPJ]

Quote:

Even in a court of law you get decisions that are described as perverse.
 
There are enough people out there who delight in being perverse to have revived vinyl production. There are enough people who delight in promulgating a controversy to sustain this argument. Why would that be a surprise? It doesn't make the decision any the less perverse.
 
I count myself lucky to have seen the demise of both vinyl and SACD as serious recording media.
 
16/44k1 is here to stay. It's as good as it needs to be and no better and a huge fraction of the population recognises that. All these other guys are just being different for the sake of being different, or perhaps difficult for the sake of being difficult is closer to the truth; the prima donna syndrome, it's just a failure to grow up.
 
w

I agree with you on the vinyl front and it is technically inferior to good digital, but on the 16/44.1 issue I think you are mistaken.  24/96 is superior for several reasons which have been discussed at great length in the source forum.  Most of my material is 16/44.1 though and I enjoy it immensely, but there is no disputing the fact that a good 24/96 recording (and going beyond that is rather pointless for playback) can certainly sound better if you listen at loud levels; then there are the issues with filters and oscillators.  16 bit only has 96dB of dynamic range, and while you certainly would never utilize the full breadth of 24-bit capability or you'd be deaf at 144dB, you can certainly find benefits in a recording that have greater than 96dB of dynamic range (i.e., 100 - 110dB).
 

 

[IPodPJ]

Quote:

No medium really matters. It's only a container for what counts.

That's not true.  If the medium will eventually wear out or loses quality over time from playing it, then it's not a reliable medium.

 

[bigshot]

That's not true.  If the medium will eventually wear out or loses quality over time from playing it, then it's not a reliable medium.

Then we're fine, because ever since Edison went from brown wax cylanders to shellac, records have been extremely durable as long as your playback equipment is in good repair.

 

[bigshot]

16 bit only has 96dB of dynamic range, and while you certainly would never utilize the full breadth of 24-bit capability or you'd be deaf at 144dB, you can certainly find benefits in a recording that have greater than 96dB of dynamic range (i.e., 100 - 110dB).

Not if you value your hearing. If you boost 96dB up high enough to be able to hear the quietest sounds, you would be over the line for hearing damage.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

16 bit only has 96dB of dynamic range, and while you certainly would never utilize the full breadth of 24-bit capability or you'd be deaf at 144dB, you can certainly find benefits in a recording that have greater than 96dB of dynamic range (i.e., 100 - 110dB).
 

 
My CD collection is about 85% classical, the biggest dynamic range on any of them is barely over 60db and that (Mahler 1, Solti/CSO 1984) goes from whisper quiet in the opening bars to very loud, I'm not convinced you would find many (if any) high res recordings with much more than that, and for rock, forget it. An orchestra may peak at 110+ db but in a concert hall you would be looking at 50 - 60db of that as background noise. I've honestly never heard of a commercial recording with a dynamic range of over 96db, but I am prepared to be proven wrong...
 
 

 

[IPodPJ]

Quote:

Then we're fine, because ever since Edison went from brown wax cylanders to shellac, records have been extremely durable as long as your playback equipment is in good repair.

Yes, but you will admit they won't last indefinitely.  You have a diamond, which is the 2nd or 3rd strongest known material (the others have been developed in labs, the most recent of which can support a weight of 10,000 lbs. with a 1 foot long by 1mm rod if I'm not mistaken) that rubs across the surface of the vinyl, and eventually the medium will lose some of it's information.  You don't have that problem with digital, since you can move a file from one hard drive to another with zero loss of quality.
 


Quote:

My CD collection is about 85% classical, the biggest dynamic range on any of them is barely over 60db and that (Mahler 1, Solti/CSO 1984) goes from whisper quiet in the opening bars to very loud, I'm not convinced you would find many (if any) high res recordings with much more than that, and for rock, forget it. An orchestra may peak at 110+ db but in a concert hall you would be looking at 50 - 60db of that as background noise. I've honestly never heard of a commercial recording with a dynamic range of over 96db, but I am prepared to be proven wrong...

I don't listen to much classical.  Some electronic music has a very wide dynamic range, although I don't know if it exceeds 96dB but I do have some 24-bit files that might.  However, I still think the sample rate is of much greater importance.

 
Quote:

Not if you value your hearing. If you boost 96dB up high enough to be able to hear the quietest sounds, you would be over the line for hearing damage.

I remember at CanJam '09 when I was in the RSA room and Ray told me he listened to music through headphones louder than anyone he knew, until I walked in.  At one point everyone was staring at me because of the volume coming from the HD800.  I don't listen nearly that loud anymore, but when I did it was never for more than 20-30 minutes max so I was within the OSHA guidelines.  Since that point I have improved my system to a significant measurable degree and a ludicrous subjective degree, and with such fidelity the desire to listen that loud in order to hear everything my system could reveal is no longer there.  So I agree with your statement, but if I wanted to listen that loud my system would be able to reveal up to the approximate 127dB maximum of my DAC.  Either way, it's much louder than I would ever listen.
 
On average I probably listen at around 90-95dB for about 30 minutes to 2 hours several times a week, and on rare occasions I may listen up to 105dB for short durations.  What blows my mind is how many people at concerts don't use earplugs.  I was recently at a Steely Dan concert and I didn't notice anyone wearing them besides myself and the person I went with.  They muffled the sound horribly (even though they were good quality earplugs) but I couldn't imagine not having them.  It was insanely loud.  My ears are sensitive (especially my right ear) and I would have been in a lot of pain and had ringing ears for at least a week.  We were only 7 rows back from the speaker stack (stage left).  People take their senses, especially hearing, for granted which is a real pity.

 

[grokit]

 
Quote:

Yes, but you will admit they won't last indefinitely.  You have a diamond, which is the 2nd or 3rd strongest known material (the others have been developed in labs, the most recent of which can support a weight of 10,000 lbs. with a 1 foot long by 1mm rod if I'm not mistaken) that rubs across the surface of the vinyl, and eventually the medium will lose some of it's information.  You don't have that problem with digital, since you can move a file from one hard drive to another with zero loss of quality.

 
With proper care vinyl will last as long as an optical disk, some of which have been known to degrade over time without even being played. And unlike hard or flash drives vinyl is impervious to magnetism, even the dreaded electromagnetic doomsday pulse

 

[bigshot]

Yes, but you will admit they won't last indefinitely.

No. They will last indefinitely if the equipment is in proper align. Even acoustic 78s tjat are played with a steel needle and a solid brass soundbox will last for more plays than any human would ever want to hear. Record wear is not an issue.

The dynamic range of redbook is more than adequate for any type of music and any listening situation. Most music doesn't even require half that.

Bitrates beyond redbook are just not necessary for playback of music. It's only needed for mixing.

 

[IPodPJ]

Quote:

 
 
With proper care vinyl will last as long as an optical disk, some of which have been known to degrade over time without even being played. And unlike hard or flash drives vinyl is impervious to magnetism, even the dreaded electromagnetic doomsday pulse

If we have a doomsday pulse, the fact that your impervious-to-magnetism vinyl won't be harmed won't change the fact that there will be no electricity to power your turntable.