[Skylab]

LOL! Yes, 8-track sucked big time. I had an 8-track deck in jr high. The cassette deck that replaced it sounded much better, and cassette isn't even really a hi-fi medium.

 

[chinesekiwi]

Quote:

Yup...poor people...choosing their audio equipment based on what makes them happy...such a tragedy.

Let's notify the Ministry of Truth and file a report.

 
However being happy based on false beliefs is another thing. If you like the colouration, fine, but know that it isn't scientifically better.
 

 

[grokit]

 
Quote:

Regardless of your preference be it the analog or digital domain Vinyl is completely uncompressed. For anyone to believe that CD recorded at 48 kHz and then down sampled to 44.1 kHz is remotely close to what the track originally sounded like probably does not understand signal degeneration.
 
Almost all instruments produce an analog sound and this signal is then processed in the digital domain thus altering what the original signal sounds like. Sure enough a CD may sound nice and all. The clarity is great, you may be able to hear some of the nuances of the original track, and sure enough you are convinced that what you are hearing must be the original "sound". This simply is not the case.
 
Most of the artifacts you hear when you listen to vinyl is from sound produced by the various motorized parts inside the recording device. Most of these artifacts can be eliminated with modern technology. If anyone is going to make a fair comparison between CD and vinyl you will need to use a high quality and hi-fi vinyl recording and compare it to a CD recorded from something during the 1970's. This is because almost all music recorded today is horribly compressed even before being recorded at 48 Khz and then down sampled to 44.1 kHz. Most recording during the '70's was totally uncompressed so the only compression you will hear is from the 44.1 kHz sample rate loss on the CD.
 
I do agree it is quite difficult to find a piece of vinyl, a record player, and an amplifier that will make the sound have such a low signal to noise ratio that it will directly compare to a CD. This is most likely what you are hearing as the "quality" difference between CD and vinyl. All of the little crackles, snaps, glides, and scratches are all artifacts. Digital recording is excellent at producing extremely high signal to noise ratios. This appears as a better noise floor and a crisper sound, be it completely compressed at least twice. First from the recording to 48 kHz and then down to 44.1 kHz. The waveforms on the CD will be far different than the original recording whereas vinyl will show just about the same signal as what was originally recorded.

I think this was my original point whether it's "right" or not, thanks for saying it so much better

 
 
Quote:

Excellent post....just one thing...
 
A vinyl record can be compressed just not as much as a CD allows. In fact, a CD can actually allow for a totally uncompressed signal while an LP can't. As I have mentioned before...it all depends who is mastering what and how they are mastering it.

Yes again.

 
Quote:

LOL! Yes, 8-track sucked big time. I had an 8-track deck in jr high. The cassette deck that replaced it sounded much better, and cassette isn't even really a hi-fi medium.

I enjoyed the Pioneer Supertuner 8-track "under the dash" model that I had in my VW is high school, until it broke down and ate most of my tapes. I could have had a cassette deck, as the the tech was in transition at the time. I must not have known any better!
 
Having said that, the local community radio station that I volunteer DJ at was still using 4-track carts for producing local promos, pre-recorded features, and sponsored messages less than a decade ago. We finally transitioned to DAT for awhile which REALLY sucked, and now it's all on Mac/HDD and life is good.

 

 

[Willakan]

Wait, how does analog equate to "perfect?" If your vinyl was pressed by a process creating infinitely fine grooves, which are then read with a handy infinitely fine stylus, I suppose you're right. The rest of the stuff about digital degradation is just plain wrong - it makes the same giant mistakes as the howstuffworks article someone linked.
 

 

[sterling1]

NA Blur,
 
You suggest comparing vinyl to CD from the 70's. That would be hard to do since CD's were not introduced until late 1982.

 

[jcx]

"compressed" has a specific technical meaning, compression is  a nonlinear process, in audio it is typically applied in the studio to the signal during mastering
 
there is some "natural" compression when recording to magnetic tape - the 0 dB level is typically speced at 3% 3rd harmonic (compressive) distortion from tape particle saturation and dynamic peaks are allowed to be +10-15 dB - running the peaks into fairly strong compression/saturation of the tape
 
vinyl masters often employ heavier compression, sometimes for single instument feeds if not the whole mix - it is a "artistic effect" for Rock music
 
 
digital recording doesn't have to employ compression, digital representation is perfectly linear between the quantization noise floor and the peak numerical range,
 
with added dither linearity actually extends below the noise floor, at the cost of a slight rise in background noise correlated quantization errors are removed
 
 
the "loudness War" levels of compression are a choice by the industry, applied in the studio - not an inherent property of digital audio
 
 
 
 

 

[Skylab]

Quote:

However being happy based on false beliefs is another thing. If you like the colouration, fine, but know that it isn't scientifically better.
 

 
The point is, if you like the sound, who cares if one is scientifically better???  I don't "listen" to science.  I listen to MUSIC.  I know what the numbers say.  And I couldn't care less.  Again, we are talking here about the enjoyment of listening to music, not developing missile guidance systems.  I know CD measures better than vinyl in most respects.  I think most people do.  And yet there are a large number of people who choose their audio gear based not purely on the specifications, but on how they react to music played back on that gear.  And there is absolutely nothing wrong with this.
 
This thread was not started by someone asking if or claiming that vinyl was technically superior to CD.  It was started by someone ridiculing someone else for making a subjective claim that he prefers the sound of vinyl.  You cannot use scientific/technical "superiority" to negate the subjective preference people may have for something.  If you use science to genetically engineer an apple for a higher vitamin count and more antioxidants, but people think it tastes like poo, you should not be surprised that some people prefer the apple with the less impressive specifications.
 
(oh and for the record I think CD can sound spectacular and am not saying CD sounds like poo, lest anyone start to flame me for the wrong reasons).
 
 

 

[leeperry]

Originally Posted by Skylab /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
This thread was not started by someone asking if or claiming that vinyl was technically superior to CD.  It was started by someone ridiculing someone else for making a subjective claim that he prefers the sound of vinyl.

Not quite. If he had finished his sentence by "in my opinion", it would have been just fine. But he clearly pronounced the very sentence I put in the OP on the most watched french TV channel at 8:20PM when zillions of ppl all over the world watch the news. And he even wrote it on the homepage of his website as if it were a hard fact written in stone(we all know that everything that's written on the web is true).. It's apparently part of his sales pitch for the ipod docks he's selling. JMJ is very much technically savvy, he's using his reputation in order to push his opinion as if it were a well know undeniable fact.
 
And I keep seeing ppl raving about 24/96 Vinyl rips...who could possibly care about this? Why not 32/384kHz while they're at it? in order to capture clearer sounding clicks and pops maybe?
 
I thought it'd give some good food for thoughts to the science forum here, and so far all the "audible" improvements vinyl lovers claim end up being entirely subjective. All the "analog waveform"/"no digital quantization"/yada yada arguments don't hold water when OTOH you get lousy crosstalk/THD/SNR on vinyl.
 
What's the most evil between digital quantization -that will be oversampled to death and according to many scientists will allow a perfect reconstruction of the original waveform- or the popping feast and stellar THD you get on vynil? Plus the annoyance to clean the LP's, flip them in the middle of the album, buy new needles etc etc. It's pure nostalgia, and I fully respect that. JMJ means it as it if were technically true, and not a single technical argument from Team Black Wax has made sense so far.
 
I guess there are ppl who like NOS DAC's, vinyl and tube amps because they don't like a crystal clear SQ. They want it to sound sweeter and less "edgy". I see a pretty clear analogy w/ the kids who prefer MP3 over FLAC.

 

[jack black]

As it has been mentioned above, this thread is a waste of time, save for the entertainment value.
 
It's not like LP (or tube amps) were outlawed. The market fills in the needs for LPs, and one is free to use them if one can hear the difference and/or likes the esthetics of analog disk.
 
The same transition is now happening with CD and compressed formats.
 
Lets argue about important stuff instead, like which religion is correct

 

[Skylab]

Quote:

Not quite. If he had finished his sentence by "in my opinion", it would have been just fine. But he clearly pronounced the very sentence I put in the OP on the most watched french TV channel at 8:20PM when zillions of ppl all over the world watch the news. And he even wrote it on the homepage of his website as if it were a hard fact written in stone(we all know that everything that's written on the web is true).. It's apparently part of his sales pitch for the ipod docks he's selling. JMJ is very much technically savvy, he's using this to push his opinion as if it were a well know undeniable fact.
 
And I keep seeing ppl raving about 24/96 Vinyl rips...who could possibly care about this? Why not 32/384kHz while they're at it? in order to capture clearer sounding clicks and pops maybe?
 
I thought it'd give some good food for thoughts for the science forum here, and so far all the "audible" improvements vinyl lovers claim end up being entirely subjective. All the "analog"/"no digital quantization"/yada yada arguments don't hold water when OTOH you get lousy crosstalk/THD/SNR on vinyl.
 
What's the most evil between digital quantization -that will be oversampled to death and according to many scientists will allow a perfect reconstruction of the original waveform- or the popping feast and stellar THD you get on vynil? Plus the annoyance to clean the LP's, flip them around in the middle of the album, buy new needles etc etc. It's purely nostalgia, and I fully respect that. JMJ means it as it if were technically true, and not a single technicaly argument from Team Black Wax makes sense.
 
I guess there are ppl who like NOS DAC's, vynil and tube amps because they don't like a clear SQ. They want it to sounds sweeter and less "edgy". I see a pretty clear analogy w/ the kids who prefer MP3 to FLAC.

 
I do think that the preference for Vinyl is based largely around a subjective preference.  But I think you;re overstating your case (vinyl isn't nearly as bad technically as you have repeatedly tried to make it sound here with your statements like "utterly distorted"); and comparing it to a preference for MP3 (which has any potentially pitfalls of CD and then a whole set of new ones) doesn't hold water.
 
I guess the real question is, why YOU seem to have such an axe to grind with people who like the sound of Vinyl.  I like it, but I don't go around bashing people who only want to listen to digital...your claims that vinyl is "utterly distorted" and the like are pretty much as bad as people trying to claim that vinyl is technically superior to CD.  When you engage in such hyperbole, you only serve to detract from the validity of any real supposition.
 
 

 

[leeperry]

Originally Posted by Skylab /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
I think you're overstating your case (vinyl isn't nearly as bad technically as you have repeatedly tried to make it sound here with your statements like "utterly distorted") [..]
I guess the real question is, why YOU seem to have such an axe to grind with people who like the sound of Vinyl. I like it, but I don't go around bashing people who only want to listen to digital.

Hah, I don't! I also like clean sounding vinyl digital rips. I was just wondering if there were some hard verifiable facts that vinyl does some things better than CD...and there doesn't seem to be any. I'll keep listening to clean vinyl rips, but only because most them were never remastered to CD from the master tapes...it's a "take it or leave it" kinda deal here: good music is good music, even if it clicks and pops like hell

 
I've made up my mind on HD digital audio files, coz I tried to DBT 24/96 and 24/192 on several DVD-A's and blatantly failed. I fully agree that at some point, all you're doing is capture more noise...much like 4K in HD video. and Mr Lavry nails it by saying that all you really need is 70kHz and that anything above will do nothing more than introducing additional noise to the DAC process.
 
Vinyl is terrible THD/SNR and crosstalk wise, it's rather hard to deny IMHO.

 

[grokit]

 
Quote:

"compressed" has a specific technical meaning, compression is  a nonlinear process, in audio it is typically applied in the studio to the signal during mastering
 
the "loudness War" levels of compression are a choice by the industry, applied in the studio - not an inherent property of digital audio

 
Agreed, but just to nitpick a bit the term "compressed" when used for audio has two specific meanings, one is for the compression of analog sound dynamics, the other is for the compression of digital information:
 
Quote:

The same transition is now happening with CD and compressed formats.

 

 

[nick_charles]

Leaving aside, for now,  the question of whether they are audible or not vinyl does do two specific things better than CD. Frequency extension above 22049,  CD just does not go there - we can argue about how well (linearity) supersonics are captured/reproduced and whether it matters but technically LP can get above 22050 and conventional 16/44.1 CD just cannot. The 2nd thing is rise time with CD it is fixed at ~ 22uSec with LP (theoretically) it can be about 8uSec
 
 
Quote:

Hah, I don't! I also like clean sounding vinyl digital rips. I was just wondering if there were some hard verifiable facts that vinyl does some things better than CD...and there doesn't seem to be any.

 

[bigshot]

Although it is technically possible to create LP grooves with frequencies above 22kHz, in practice, this doesn't exist. Groove modulation in super audible frequencies is extremely delicate, and when pressed into soft vinyl, it turns to distorted mush after a dozen or so plays. From what I've been told, record plants would often polish their mothers to smooth off delicate modulations, bringing the upper frequency limit down to within the range of hearing so the records didn't wear out prematurely. Occasionally classical record producers would flag their lacquer masters "Do not polish" but this was the exception, not the rule.

 

[leeperry]

Leaving aside, for now,  the question of whether they are audible or not vinyl does do two specific things better than CD. Frequency extension above 22049,  CD just does not go there - we can argue about how well (linearity) supersonics are captured/reproduced and whether it matters but technically LP can get above 22050 and conventional 16/44.1 CD just cannot. The 2nd thing is rise time with CD it is fixed at ~ 22uSec with LP (theoretically) it can be about 8uSec

Fair enough, but apparently most(if not all) ppl can be fooled when blindly comparing a vinyl deck direct output to an additional ADC>DAC stage. So it's good to know that it could theoritically do some things better than the CD, but it all goes up in smoke when you barely have 60dB of SNR and 2.5% THD: http://www.tdkperformance.com/PageFiles/1058/TDK%20Turntable%20USB%20specsheet.pdf
 
Surely a laser deck will provide much better measurements, but we're not in the consumer market anymore.
 
Play vinyl through a tube amp and you're looking at ±5% THD?