[DJGeorgeT]

DJs like me have a huge mechanical fetish with vinyl and turntables. We are unwilling to compromise with the equipment because it is what we use to perform. We are however willing to compromise with the sound quality and use the turntable as a controller.

 

[leeperry]

And now Mr JMJ says: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lesnumeriques.com%2Fentretien-jean-michel-jarre-article-1240.html

Downloading 24 bit 96/192 KHz music files now goes as fast as poor MP3's. The public and suppliers have no excuses. With these files, you can get back to quality levels equivalent to analog.

 
Righty! So CDDA is unbearable, but 24/96 is a million times better. I knew it all along.
 
He also promises a new breakthrough pair of headphones, but personally he uses BOSE headphones. Figures, the man is a genius.

 

[Megaohmz]

I believe that a real audiophile appreciates fine analog equipment, as well as newer digital equipment and trying to make the best sound for his/her ears as possible, with whatever equipment you have. I love vinyl and I also love CDs, even 320 MP3s for my PS3. You have to appreciate the fact that new digital equipment is trying to get that perfect analog sound with higher bit rates etc. I want to start working with DVD quality audio, which is getting closer to the sound quality of a vinyl. If you listen to a record on a cheap system, well guess what? You get a cheap sound. Vinyl records are fun to work with and make digital recordings from IMO. Even if you get clicks you can easily remove them with programs like Adobe Audition CS5.5. Vinyl is not for everyone thank God. It is reserved for people who appreciate perfection and strive to accomplish it in audio. You have to have patience and a good ear to appreciate the subtleness in the details of a recording. I would hate to see a punk running around with skullcandys or the dreadded beats by Dr. Dre and telling everyone how they love LPs. I would throw up, and then get rid of my LP collection forever!

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

You have to appreciate the fact that new digital equipment is trying to get that perfect analog sound with higher bit rates etc. I want to start working with DVD quality audio, which is getting closer to the sound quality of a vinyl.
 
Vinyl is not for everyone thank God. It is reserved for people who appreciate perfection and strive to accomplish it in audio. You have to have patience and a good ear to appreciate the subtleness in the details of a recording.

Man, your post was good except for these two things.

 

[Megaohmz]

Well dissagree with me if you want to, it is your right, but I believe that a vinyl record has an infinite resolution in two channels, whereas a CD or DVD or even higher bit rates have a finite "limited number" to work with to record audio. Thats what I mean by getting closer to perfection (infinite). I belive that digital recordings will someday have the resolution of an LP someday, but it is not economical. We might have to use something like a holographic memory card capable of storing ridiculous ammounts of data to accomplish that. One day we will have it. 

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

Well dissagree with me if you want to, it is your right, but I believe that a vinyl record has an infinite resolution in two channels, whereas a CD or DVD or even higher bit rates have a finite "limited number" to work with to record audio. Thats what I mean by getting closer to perfection (infinite).

You should read this thread, then, because you're very wrong. Check out gregorio's Hi-Rez thread as well for the "limitations" of digital.

 

[bigshot]

High bitrate audio is pretty much identical to CD quality at normal listening volumes. CD audio exceeds the sound quality of analogue home audio, not the other way around.

 

[gregorio]

Well dissagree with me if you want to, it is your right, but I believe that a vinyl record has an infinite resolution in two channels, whereas a CD or DVD or even higher bit rates have a finite "limited number" to work with to record audio. Thats what I mean by getting closer to perfection (infinite). I belive that digital recordings will someday have the resolution of an LP someday, but it is not economical. We might have to use something like a holographic memory card capable of storing ridiculous ammounts of data to accomplish that. One day we will have it. 

I'm afraid you have completely misunderstood digital audio, don't know where you got it from. The "limited number" you are referring to is just for encoding and storage, think of it like lossless flac. The output of digital audio is smooth continuous infinite resolution waveforms. An LP represented as digital would be equivalent at best to about 14bit, baring in mind that bit depth represents dynamic range rather than resolution (which is infinite!).

Unfortunately, you have based your understanding on sound reproduction technology on purely your personal preferences, rather than on the actual facts. This has resulted in what you believe being exactly the opposite of the actual facts! It is beyond dispute that digital audio is more accurate in every way than LP. It is also accepted than many people perceive the inaccuracies and distortions of LP as pleasing. So you are taking your personal preference of liking the relatively distorted sonic signature of LP and saying that it is perfect. Based on this misapprehension, you then arrive at an erroneous conclusion: "the fact that new digital equipment is trying to get that perfect analog sound" - You couldn't be more wrong! Digital audio was invented to provide more accuracy and remove the distortions which are unavoidable in LPs. Think about it logically for a minute, what would be the point of a whole new recording technology if 50 years later we still haven't managed to achieve the level of fidelity possible from the previous technology. The reality is of course that digital audio has far surpassed the fidelity of LPs, in fact by orders of magnitude. I still like some LPs more than some CDs but that is because of the music, it's performance and it's production and I either try to ignore or try to enjoy the various different weaknesses of vinyl compared to digital.

G

 

[leeperry]

gregorio, I'm glad to see you back on head-fi. Would you be so kind as to give a call to JMJ at +33.144.909.170?
 
or you can email him at contact@aero-productions.com, he needs a boot camp on digital audio badly.
 

 

[Willakan]

I am amazed that so many people seem to think that vinyl is a perfect reproduction of the waveform - are the grooves in their records infinitely fine and precise?

 

[HiFi1972]

I'm a mixing and mastering engineer who has had the opportunity to listen to the difference between 24bit masters over my mastering-grade DAC/Monitor Controller (Crane Song Avocet) and then later on, the same projects on vinyl, which is what a growing number of my clients are doing.
 
Vinyl is not "perfect". It has a lower dynamic range than the CD format and even then, when applying a dithering algo that works best for the material, a well-crafted CDDA pre-master disc can sound nearly as good as the 24bit master (making sure you have the absolute lowest C1 errors and zero C2/CUs).
 
The lower dynamic range of vinyl gives it a unique sound, it is not the full resolution of the 24bit versions (because the format simply isn't capable of reproducing everything) and so I believe most fans of vinyl simply are used to hearing that familiar "limitation" and then translating it to what they perceive as a better listening experience. That's what is important here, in my opinion; if the listener prefers one format, that's excellent but to say that vinyl is "better" in technical terms is not true. Each time I listen to a project I've mastered on vinyl, I can tell the loss of definition right away but for my personal enjoyment, I digitize the vinyl versions and listen to those on my portable players but at home, I listen to the CD versions because that gives me the closest sound that I had when mastering it at 24bit (32bit float point) digital.

 

[bigshot]

To me, putting out a recording on vinyl that was originally recorded digitally seems pointless. It's like the audio equivalent of taxidermy... Sure, it looks lifelike, but that doesn't mean you didn't kill it.

 

[HiFi1972]

Quote:

To me, putting out a recording on vinyl that was originally recorded digitally seems pointless. It's like the audio equivalent of taxidermy... Sure, it looks lifelike, but that doesn't mean you didn't kill it.

If I understand your comment, you're implying that the digital recording already lacked something in terms of audio quality (versus older mediums like analog tape). If this is what you're saying, you're completely off base. Analog tape (and I'm talking about 2" media and properly-maintained 24-channel recorders) never captured as much sonic content as the top end 192k converters that studios have these days. Tape is another format that has its own flavor of noise/distortion that people tend to perceive as "better" than digital. I don't expect non-professionals to know that these days there are tons of options available (via both analog & digital processing) that can give us whatever saturation options we desire.
 
You could also say the same thing when applying your comment to tape. If you listen to recordings done on 24 tracks of 2" tape and then you hear the album on vinyl, you would hear the limitations of the vinyl format (this is why re-masters are done off the master tapes whenever possible and not from the vinyl versions, which people tend to glorify way too much these days).
 
Digital isn't perfect either. We currently don't have a recording format/medium that captures everything in a live performance, but high definition digital is the closest thing we have.
 

 

[HiFi1972]

On the other hand, if you're saying that putting out a well-recorded digital album on vinyl is pointless because of the lower quality of vinyl, I would have to disagree there too because of the "character" that vinyl has in comparison to any other format. There's a sound to vinyl that can't be replicated with any analog or digital processor; it's the process of cutting vinyl (lateral/vertical) and the limitation of the format that give it this flavor. It's an interesting effect because the only way you can get that "vinyl sound" that a lot of artists are trying to achieve these days is by actually cutting wax (we have already discovered that even using old analog outboard isn't enough).

 

[grokit]

 
Quote:

The reality is of course that digital audio has far surpassed the fidelity of LPs, in fact by orders of magnitude. I still like some LPs more than some CDs but that is because of the music, it's performance and it's production and I either try to ignore or try to enjoy the various different weaknesses of vinyl compared to digital.

Digital is definitely cleaner and more consistent in quality. In my record collection it's only about 1 out of 5 albums that can compete. But that one album is like magic!