[judgmentday]

  This part at least is true(ish). I've never heard vinyl that can approach the low background noise and lack of pops of digital, so if you can't tell vinyl from digital, something is indeed very wrong.

If you can't here the brightness, loudness and thin assss sound of CD, something has to be very wrong.  Very true, you have never heard a real vinyl setup.

 

[judgmentday]

A few words from my cousin:
 
I spent half my life mixing for vinyl on 16 track and FM radio in analogue and the other half crushing my beautiful 40 bit digital mix onto 24 bit Protools then dithering it down to 16 bit for CD and finally stamping all the life out of it to stuff it down a phone line as an mp3. There is no excuse for mp3 any more, we have the bandwidth to ditch this abomination forever along with the dial up modem it was created for. Sadly many people have spent thousands on iTunes for 128kbs transcripts of 16 bit CDs.
In comparison, the Audio Engineering Society (of America) has compared non Dolby 30 ips session tape, Dolby A 15 ips mastertape and new vinyl pressings as being equivalent to 32 bit digital. For “bits” read resolution. As required to capture nuance and detail.
It took a long time for analogue HiFi to get to reproduce up to 20 KHz. FM stereo never got there, being chopped off with a 15KHz cliff edge filter so the 19KHz pilot tone could operate the stereo decoder. But vinyl was always capable of 25KHz and beyond. It had to wait until the domestic amplifiers and tweeters caught up.
The biggest drawback of vinyl was the dynamic range. You had to be a skilled mastering dude to get loud stuff through the lathe. You can’t overcut vinyl with too much power. The diamond cutter head has 500 Watt amplifiers on both coils – it will dig a hole if you let it. The other issue is phase. Tape and digital have two discrete channels and can be unhappily out of phase and sound crap. But vinyl can only be cut into the plastic. Out of phase signals that ask the cutter to cut thin air will be lost …. Similarly, out of phase on an FM transmitter can cause havoc.
But all of that is just engineering. To work in an analogue studio you had to be a good musician too. The young band in the studio were totally reliant on your expertise to get takes on tape that were perfect enough to press thousands of copies. What they got away with on a live gig wasn’t good enough. Mistakes could turn very expensive.
Basically, vinyl was just better made. Far more care had to be exercised to release an LP. It was (and still is) very expensive to use. The record companies would audition musicians and only the very best got through. Everything was done to the highest possible engineering and artistic standards.
I think we listen to far too much music today and don’t appreciate it the way we should. Great granddad had to go to live concerts – no option. Granddad had the wireless, Dad had the vinyl LP and the tape recorder. All of these required one to sit down and listen for a while. Then came the transistor radio and later the cassette Walkman and everything went downhill ……
Ten thousand tunes on your iPod? In-ear buds? Spotify? You can keep ‘em.

 

[BeatsWork]

This part at least is true(ish). I've never heard vinyl that can approach the low background noise and lack of pops of digital, so if you can't tell vinyl from digital, something is indeed very wrong.

ROFL - but I do miss my full size album covers. The digital scans on my PC are just flat and too bright ...

 

[judgmentday]

I use my CDs to pickup my dog's poop. Ha, ha, ha.

 

[judgmentday]

  Oh - really ?
 
What you said regarding commercial recordings is probably true - they may well be even poorer than that.
 
Other is debatable. It is true that cartridges capable of full amplitude response to 20 kHz under RIAA are few - but they do - or better said - did - exist. When you combine the best recordings and play them back with this calibre of cartridges that do not go berserk even at full gas all the way to 20 kHz, this is entirely different game than CD.
 
It can not even be compared...
 
Most of these cartridges are also capable of "essentially flat" response to and beyond 50 kHz - test records that go to 50 kHz without the RIAA preemphasis ( all test records are made that way ). This "falling at 6 dB/octave/-20 dB by 20 kHz" mimics really well the maximum amplitude/frequency of the sound in music - when actually called upon to play > 20 kHz, such a great cartridge would have no trouble whatsoever.
 
Essentially, you and me differ in one thing regarding the vinyl; you represent the (lazy?) pro "bussiness as usual" approach ( citing each and every possibility why it can't be done ) - whereas I am trying to find each and every way how it could be done - IF and WHEN people are willing and able to go an extra mile.
 
Most definitely possible with vinyl - and proven many times over.
 
P.S: I think we two could, TOGETHER, bring vinyl much forward.

analogsurviver,
 
I applaud you for this! I wish someone would re-invent the LP so it would be more affordable, more resistant, etc without compromising sound quality.

 

[Sal1950]

  analogsurviver,
 
I applaud you for this! I wish someone would re-invent the LP so it would be more affordable, more resistant, etc without compromising sound quality.

They did, in 1982. Then new improved version is called the Compact Disc

 

[dprimary]

  A few words from my cousin:
 

In comparison, the Audio Engineering Society (of America) has compared non Dolby 30 ips session tape, Dolby A 15 ips mastertape and new vinyl pressings as being equivalent to 32 bit digital. For “bits” read resolution. 
 

 
When did AES ever make this statement? Journal number and page would be helpful.
 
I have many  fond (and a few not so fond) memories studer and ampex tape machines. But sorry protools plays back what I recorded to it. Analog tape never once did for anyone. The real problem is we have better recording tools then we have ever had, and most of the people using them barely know how to use them. 
 
 We just tested bunch of new analog equipment going into studio, analog tracking with digital recording mix down. All of it measured very well and I was shocked that close to hand built console had zero defects. There was few surprises, like a high end class A, DC servo parametric EQ that cannot output into a unbalanced input. We will likely put in some patchable transformers in case they ever need to feed it into an unbalanced input.

 

[old tech]

What a load of rubbish.  But that is the standard we've come to accept from the more zealot vinyl lovers, just like other zealotry that exists in homeopathy, astrology, creationists etc.
 
Please provide the reference to that AES article.  We know you have made it up, just like the other garbage you have posted, because most audio engineers can tell you the best 24 track analogue recorders were equivalent to about 14-15 bits (vinyl is about 12-13 bits, about the same as a mid rate lossy MP3 file).
 
Also, realise this is the sound science board. Surely you can find a forum somewhere that might welcome uninformed, juvenile contributions.

 

[cjl]

  A few words from my cousin:
 
I spent half my life mixing for vinyl on 16 track and FM radio in analogue and the other half crushing my beautiful 40 bit digital mix ...

In comparison, the Audio Engineering Society (of America) has compared non Dolby 30 ips session tape, Dolby A 15 ips mastertape and new vinyl pressings as being equivalent to 32 bit digital. For “bits” read resolution. As required to capture nuance and detail...

So the fascinating thing about these statements is that the very best systems available have around 20-21 bits of real resolution. "Crushing" a 40 bit mix down to 24 won't do a thing to it other than to remove the bottom 16 bits of noise (or, alternatively, removing the top 16 bits of completely useless headroom, depending on where you have the levels set). The actual resolution will be completely unchanged. Similarly, in order for tape or vinyl to be equivalent to 32 bit, it would need to have a minimum discernible signal 192dB below the maximum signal level. If this were the case, tape hiss (or record noise) would be completely impossible to hear, since with the max level set to 120dBA (live concert levels), this would make the quietest signal that could be recorded about 72dB below the threshold of hearing. I have personally heard both tape hiss and record noise, so clearly this statement is incorrect. Actual equivalent bit levels for records and tape are in the 11-13 bit range (maybe 14-15 for the very best tape), depending on the details of the signal, the noise reduction techniques used, and the quality of the media and playing equipment. CDs exceed this capability easily.

 

[CharlesC]

I've been listening to vinyl again for the last two months and I can say that the most rational reason for loving vinyl is that you like to play records. 

 

[Sal1950]

I do have to admit that jumping up every 15-20 minutes, going threw the record flipping/changing, record cleaning, stylus cleaning, squeezing the Zerostat, checking the turntable speed, then walking back to the listening chair, will provide good exorcise for the cardio vascular system.

 

[judgmentday]

Panasonic is making a new Turntable check it out:
http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=44314

 

[judgmentday]

  They did, in 1982. Then new improved version is called the Compact Disc

Yeah right,
Compact Disc = BigMac $3.99
LP = Rib eye steak, baked potato, garlic bread, salad, soup, wine, dessert, coffee, girl friend, etc. $100.00

 

[judgmentday]

   CDs exceed this capability easily.

Still sucks in sound quality vs. LP

 

[judgmentday]

  I've been listening to vinyl again for the last two months and I can say that the most rational reason for loving vinyl is that you like to play records.

You must be having lots of fun, good for you!  In my home stereo setup I only listen to LPs.