[asebastian0]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacd lover /img/forum/go_quote.gif Plus, digital is to the developemental point where the sound quality rivals analog in most areas. With all the hassels of vinyl I just cant see analog in my future.

...But what about about a new analog format? (I know there isn't one). I can assure you 1" & 2" master tape is quiet as can be so it is not completely unreasonable for an analog playback medium to be quiet as well. I use primarily LPs and I agree that the noise is annoying (especially with headphones). I guess I just wish people in the audio hobby would not just accept digital as a somewhat necessary evil which *may* someday become as good/better than true analog. I think it may just be this acceptance which impedes any progress towards a new analog format. Which is a bummer because when I listen to an all-tube mic'd, all analog recording on LP (e.g. Art Pepper meets the rhythm section) I am immediately aware that I am listening to something truly special that I do not get with even DSD recordings. Seeing as many recording professionals still consider tape a standard, it is not unreasonable that progress toward reproducing that tape (in a more convenient, marketable medium) be made.

*SACD - Although I quoted you here my discontent is by no means aimed at you (or anyone) although I am curious what you and others might think about this matter.

Surely someone has to be working on something new. DSD mimics analog recording to a certain extent. What comes next?

 

[Duggeh]

Surely the next step is the re-introduction of LASERDISC to reduce DVD piracy?

 

[sacd lover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by asebastian0 /img/forum/go_quote.gif ...But what about about a new analog format? (I know there isn't one). I can assure you 1" & 2" master tape is quiet as can be so it is not completely unreasonable for an analog playback medium to be quiet as well. I use primarily LPs and I agree that the noise is annoying (especially with headphones). I guess I just wish people in the audio hobby would not just accept digital as a somewhat necessary evil which *may* someday become as good/better than true analog. I think it may just be this acceptance which impedes any progress towards a new analog format. Which is a bummer because when I listen to an all-tube mic'd, all analog recording on LP (e.g. Art Pepper meets the rhythm section) I am immediately aware that I am listening to something truly special that I do not get with even DSD recordings. Seeing as many recording professionals still consider tape a standard, it is not unreasonable that progress toward reproducing that tape (in a more convenient, marketable medium) be made. *SACD - Although I quoted you here my discontent is by no means aimed at you (or anyone) although I am curious what you and others might think about this matter. Surely someone has to be working on something new. DSD mimics analog recording to a certain extent. What comes next?

I had an old Technics reel to reel along with my turntable. But at the time I got this recorder cassette was gaining momentum and soon you couldnt get any music on reel to reel. I agree, I loved the sound and the music was quiet in comparison to vinyl. However, I do not see anyone releasing studio quality tape with all the measures being developed to copy protect. The move seems to be away from high res to compressed formats.

 

[909]

It can't be overlooked that vinyl has been around probably longer than all the audio formats combined and outlasted them too with the exception of the current audio formats CDs and MP3 and all things related. Vinyl has a staying power, which only time will tell with the current flavors.

 

[lini]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacd lover I had an old Technics real to real along with my turntable. But at the time I got this recorder cassette was gaining momentum and soon you couldnt get any music on real to real. (...)

So what happened, when you added real to real? Did you get surreal as result? How about using some reels, instead?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacd lover Copy that?

Not sure.

How about an lp with digitally recorded and mixed material: Would that qualify as an analogue original in your book?

Grinnings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duggeh /img/forum/go_quote.gif Surely the next step is the re-introduction of LASERDISC to reduce DVD piracy?

Nah, it'll be vinyl videodisc. You see the BMG/Columbia/AOL/Time/Warner/Chevrolet supercompany has been buying vinyl trees for years, now in one fell swoop that can capture the market of every consumer product. HAHAHAHAHAHAHhahahahahahahahahahahahahahah.

 

[sacd lover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lini /img/forum/go_quote.gif So what happened, when you added real to real? Did you get surreal as result? How about using some reels, instead? Not sure. How about an lp with digitally recorded and mixed material: Would that qualify as an analogue original in your book? Grinnings from Munich! Manfred / lini

LOL .... I kept looking at real and it didnt look right. It has been so long ago I forgot how reel was spellled.

A digital LP would be digital in my mind.

 

[zowie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teh Interweb /img/forum/go_quote.gif This has left big players in the industry, such as EMI, scratching their heads and wondering why teenagers are embracing a technology the music industry had dismissed as outdated and obsolete before most of them were born. Bingo. Go figure. Their fault to begin with, they suffer the consequences.

Comment 1: In fairness, the vast, vast majority of consumers also dismissed the technology. And based on my observations, of non-audiophiles that grew up with vinyl, even those who are music lovers and musicians, most talk of the lp with nostalgia but don't seem to have any interest in going back to it.

Comment 2: We tend to forget that before the CD made major in-roads, vinyl had lost like 55% of it's market share to cassettes, and I'd bet among the valuable youth market that percentage was higher. The cassette, not the CD, knocked vinyl off the throne as the reigning format. The CD glommed onto an already strong trend of the consummer away from vinyl.

 

[gevorg]

I hope I'm not opening a can of worms here, but whats the big deal about new (1980+) vinyl? Isn't it made from digital anyway, so there won't be much of a difference, other than some euphony of the media itself?

The only reason I can think of is DAT-to-Vinyl is better than DAT-to-CD, but now SACD steps in.

 

[asebastian0]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gevorg /img/forum/go_quote.gif I hope I'm not opening a can of worms here, but whats the big deal about new (1980+) vinyl? Isn't it made from digital anyway, so there won't be much of a difference, other than some euphonic coloration of the media itself? The only reason I can think of is DAT-to-Vinyl is better than DAT-to-CD, but now SACD steps in.

Actually, vinyl has gotten better and better. As long as the original recording is not digital then I personally still prefer the Vinyl to SACD (in most cases). A new LP pressed on virgin vinyl sounds much quilter than LPs from before the 80s. Now Classic Records is re-releasing on their Quiex SV-P, the sound of these is so improved (to my ears) that it is almost like an entirely new format. It has a real velvety, smooth sound though and some people may prefer regular virgin vinyl. But yes, if you copy a digital recording to vinyl you may as well listen to cds.

 

[zowie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 909 /img/forum/go_quote.gif It can't be overlooked that vinyl has been around probably longer than all the audio formats combined and outlasted them too with the exception of the current audio formats CDs and MP3 and all things related. Vinyl has a staying power, which only time will tell with the current flavors.

Vinyl is only a few years older than tape. If you really meant the microgrove LP, that is about the same age as tape. If you mean flat disc records, you're kind of right, but kind of not because you'd be including the wide grove shellac discs that were the format until the 40s and those have definitely not lasted.

It shouldn't be overlooked that the cylindar was the best sounding audio format (I know this personally) until it went extinct in the late 20s, but it was much less popular and dies out because it was less convenient and had less big corporate backing than the flat disc.

 

[909]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gevorg /img/forum/go_quote.gif I hope I'm not opening a can of worms here, but whats the big deal about new (1980+) vinyl? Isn't it made from digital anyway, so there won't be much of a difference, other than some euphony of the media itself?

I think it depends. If it's a current re-release of an original analog recording that's not made from digital. It's also assuming that every one records only in digital, which probably isn't the case.

 

[zowie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gevorg /img/forum/go_quote.gif I hope I'm not opening a can of worms here, but whats the big deal about new (1980+) vinyl? Isn't it made from digital anyway, so there won't be much of a difference, other than some euphony of the media itself? The only reason I can think of is DAT-to-Vinyl is better than DAT-to-CD, but now SACD steps in.

No, first many studios stuck with analogue well into the 90s.

Also, there's digital and there's digital. Don't confuse studio recording formats with playback formats. The question is whether, and when, digital became comparable (or nearly as good, or somewhat better, whatever) to studio analogue recorders. Ever here a 2 inch tape master? It's much better than LP and CD. In the early days of digital, the best digital was below-LP quality, and some digitally recorded or mastered LPs from the 80s suffer from bad digital. But for at least the last 12 years, studio digital has been superior to CD and then has had to be "dumbed down" to fit the limitations of 25 year old CD technology.

And let's not forget, while many love the sound of vinyl and may or may not prefer it to CD, there's also the palpability of the medium, the jackets, the collectability factor and other reasons why many think it's a big deal.

 

[zowie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 909 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think it depends. If it's a current re-release of an original analog recording that's not made from digital. It's also assuming that every one records only in digital, which probably isn't the case.

Because studio recordings are much higher quality than either LP or CD, and so it's a question of which consummer playback format relays the most, or the most preferable aspects, of the qualities of the studio master,

 

[asebastian0]

Well if what zowie says is true I suppose it isn't surprising. If you travel from the East Coast of the US to California you notice a dramatic degradation of architecture quality. On the East you have beautiful colonial/gothic/etc buildings but in the new west you find that buildings are practically made out of paper mache! I can't imagine what kind of world devoid of all substance and artistry we are headed into because of our obsession with the bottom line. That being said it's pretty cool that audiophiles are hanging in there and there is still somewhat of a balance (if the end user so chooses) between their passion and end cost, even as the mainstream industry tries with all their might (knowingly or unknowingly) to push it down the tubes with everything else.