[autoteleology]

I will, thanks for your support, man! I really like my posts, too. That's why I write them.
 
Could you give me a link to more of these wild conspiracy theories you've been giving us for the last page? They're really entertaining; I especially loved the part where the media companies are all out to get us.
 
I would then like to see some sources that explain how a large chunk of PVC with tiny grooves in it is technically superior at holding data than a hard drive or a CD, which work essentially on the exact same principle except without all the errors and maintenance analog usually brings into the picture.
 
I would also like to know why the same companies who currently use storage space as a premium when selling products would actively resist audio and video formats that take up more of it per item, thus making it more valuable and important to the consumer.

 

[ploppy666]

Tus-Chan: Vinyl sounds better than CD because it is an infinitely more accurate imprint of real life sounds. I suggest you use your ears a little more
 
Indian Sound Engineer 'Sauhraab Grover': "Every sound you hear in real life that doesn't come out of a speaker is analog. Analog audio is, simply put, an analogous record of sound, and an LP's groove is a literal imprint of the music's soundwaves. Analog magnetic tape is just as analog, but the waveform is recorded to the orientations of the iron oxide particles bonded to the tape. Tape or LP, analog recordings store audio signals as a continuous wave in or on the media and therefore have theoretically infinite resolution. Digital audio recording converts the original sound into a sequence of numbers; sampled to convert the analog signal to a digital representation. Sampling is the division of the signal into discrete intervals."
 
So there you have it, infinite resolution (vinyl) vs digital representation (CD), and CD is limited to 16 bit and and 44.1khz, which is massively inadequate.
 
Just because we can only hear up to and around 20khz doesn't mean you can chop off all the high end (everything above 22.05khz) and not hear the difference. I work in studios where the analog mixing consoles need maintenance from time to time. Usually the high end on a channel will "die" after a while, and people with trained ears can hear a 50khz roll off. Yes, 50khz. If we're recording drums through a "broken" channel, the missing high frequencies bounce down and affect the lower harmonics. The cymbals will sound "like ****". It's fact.
 
Try it. Try taking a hi rez file, lets say 192khz, listen for a while, and then run it through a low pass filter, chopping off everything above 44.1khz. The difference will be HUGE even to untrained ears.
 
I hate it when people just use supposed facts and figures to create lies about sound. You do a good job of that with your "humans can only hear up to 20khz". We can detect well above 50khz. That's where it's at.

 

[bigshot]

All audio engineers should be Swamis! Let's turn hifi into mysticism and reject the scientific facts of this temporal plane! I'm going to go listen to Beethoven in Plato's cave now....

 

[autoteleology]

Do you even have a basic understanding of how sampling works? Seriously, save the winky faces until you're a little more educated. You have made literally one of the weakest possible arguments you could have made in favor of vinyl, because it has already been debunked a million times over.
 
First off, your quote from some random engineer (who does sound engineering for some Indian reality show called "BIGG BOSS" - he must be a pro) asserted and proved no relevant points and honestly, I'm not even sure why you included it.
 
Secondly, you're going to have to provide some actual sources for such a grand claim when it comes to your assertion that the loss of extreme high-order harmonics audibly affect other harmonics and even fundamental frequencies, and not the other way around. This makes no sense to me, especially because this problem would manifest itself on any system with even a single component that is not capable of reproducing frequencies up to 50kHz, which is the lion's share of consumer and even professional equipment. Even my Stax can't do that - what are these engineers using that is so technologically advanced?

Thirdly, again, there is no need for additional sampling past 44.1kHz because the reconstruction filter can already perfectly mathematically reconstruct any complex waveform containing frequency ranges below 20.55kHz. The only thing that any additional sampling contributes is the ability to record higher frequencies, which the vast majority of humans cannot even hear at any amplitude in the first place, and contribute zero to any musical appreciation as they are usually too low in amplitude to be audible in music, as one can tell with a frequency analyzer (which is good, because as someone who can actually hear these frequencies up to 21.5kHz, all these frequencies do is hurt my ears at any volume).
 
Now that I've debunked your theoretical problem with digital, here are some obvious, real-world problems with vinyl:
 

If we're talking strictly format here, digital wins by a mile. Here's why vinyl is inferior from a technological standpoint:  
-> surface noise
-> reduced dynamic range
-> non-portable
-> more expensive
-> possible wow and flutter
-> degrades with every playback
-> less tracking control (unless you're a superstar turntablist)
-> requires continual maintenance to work correctly
-> requires more equipment and more complexity
-> vinyl releases often come out after digital releases
-> requires more effort to acquire (shipping/drive to store)
-> takes up more physical space
-> can break
-> difficult to copy
 
etc.
 
Other than that, the soft, variable arguments about differing masters, differing editions, etc. are there as well, but those can go either way. IMO, the better master is wasted on the vinyl because only the CD can take full advantage of it.

 

[bigshot]

You forgot warpage.

 

[ploppy666]

Wow, you are one stupid smart-ass. Rude, ignorant WUM. Convinced that 44.1khz is sufficient, when mixers and mastering engineers worldwide moved on from that dumb idea years ago.
 
Let me quote a passage from Bob Katz's "Mastering Audio, the art and the science" which, if you're going to take yourself seriously as a so called "hifi" connaisseur, you should buy it, read it, and calmly eat a massive portion of humble pie.
 
I apologize for any mistakes typing this out. So, page 249, chapter 20, Introduction (High sample rates: Is this where it's at?)
 
"I've been working with higher sample rates for several years. A great number of engineers think that higher sample rates sound better, pointing to their ability to reproduce extreme high frequencies. They cite the open, warm, spacious, extended sound of these recordings as evidence for this contention. But let's offer an alternative explanation. First, objective evidence shows that higher bandwidth cannot be the reason for superior reproduction since the additional frequencies that are recordable by higher sample rates are inaudible. How can our ears detect differences between 44.1kHz, 96kHz and even 192kHz sample rates since most of us can't hear above 15khz?
I believe the answer to the dilemma lies in the design of digital low-pass filters, used in oversampling A/D and D/A converters and sample rate converters (see figure on previous page (guess you'll have to buy the book )). Filters of lower quality or which are unoptimized, exhibit trade-offs such as low calculation resolution, higher distortion, ripple, ringing, and potential for aliasing. The artifacts of ripple are time-smearing of the audio, and possible short (millisecond) echoes. Aliasing is a form of distortion which occurs if the filter does not have enough attenuation in the stop band. (see side bar, guess you'll have to buy the book...). To avoid aliasing, we must use either a very steep filter, or a gentle filter with a higher cut-off frequency (which requires a higher sample rate). It is harder to engineer a steep filter with low ripple, but it is perfectly doable; this can be achieved with a large number of filter taps. For the same number of taps, a more gentle filter will have less ripple. Ripple in the passband should be less than 0.1dB."
 
And then he talks about oversampling etc etc, it's really very interesting. The book is 300 pages long, and the conclusion is, not only is analog more "hifi" than digital, if you ARE going to go digital, 44.1kHz is STUPIDLY  inadequate, and that Sony and Phillips made a huge mistake when CD's were first conceived.
 
Now, I can assure you, that there are tests out there where you can hear an identical mix/master at 44.1kHz, 96kHz, and 192kHz, and whether I listen in my studio, or on my home hifi, the difference is relatively huge. If you choose to keep your head up your own ass, that's fine by me. All I'm interested in is "educating" any people who may still be open to debate, rather than closed-minded fools. It's OK to admit being wrong, and only fools never change their minds.
 
I suggest you learn to use you ears, and if that fails, listen to what serious mastering engineers have to say about the matter. Bob Katz is the man.

 

[bigshot]

  And then he talks about oversampling etc etc, it's really very interesting.

 
You might want to read about oversampling, because that's the solution to those problems. It's been corrected in the design of even the cheapest DACs nowadays.
 
Since you're interested in sound reproduction, you might want to read this... http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths

 

[ploppy666]

If you're talking to me, I've already read the book mate...
 
The debate is CD vs Vinyl.
 
Vinyl destroys CD. To my ears, to science's ears, and to mastering engineers ears.

 

[autoteleology]

Did you miss the part where the entire problems described with 44.1kHz was with imperfect filters (which have continuously improved with time, and continue to do so), and not with the actual sampling rate? I would have thought the big, orange quotes all over the section would have made that fairly obvious (I own the book, too).
 
In addition, I would rather have a digital file with a few poor filters, than a large piece of partially recycled plastic with all the imperfections and flaws introduced by the end of this ridiculous process (I did an entire paper on how vinyl records were produced when I was in school). If you think a few digital filters are bad, go take a spin on that link. This doesn't help your argument either, though at this point, it's not as if I needed to point out even more flaws with the vinyl record (I have already pointed out many).
 
The conclusion of all this is that while digital may have problems, the problems it has are not nearly as bad as the ones that analog have, and digital continues to get better and better, while analog has already peaked, having had nearly a century to get as good as it is (and it hasn't been getting much better). Digital is still an emerging format; we haven't even really figured out how to properly distribute it yet, much less worked out all of the flaws. Digital is not only fairly obviously the now, but certainly the much brighter future.
 
Also, a friendly reminder that you may want to readjust your attitude lest you no longer be welcome on Head-Fi, or are you using a new account because you've already been banned before? If you believe that I am going to sit here and let you call me names and be a jerk, you are in for a reality check. Head-Fi is a place only for those who can disagree with each other while being mature about it. If you can't do that, I suggest you leave.

 

[ploppy666]

Then perhaps you might like to refrain from calling me "uneducated" on this matter right from the start. You don't know me, so quit judging, or is that how you welcome new members around here?
 
I'm not saying vinyl is perfect (no need for wiki links thanks). I'm saying they sound better than CD, which is what this topic is all about. Vinyl contains much more "real" sound than a CD is capable of producing. People who have ears agree with me, people who use them properly even more so. Not to mention mastering engineers whose job it is to use their ears. And mix engineers. And musicians. Etc...
 
Of course digital is getting better, but so is analog. Analog never peaked, it's still in development, and more and more studios are going back to more analog ways. Rightly so. Digital may be the way forward, and I'm certainly enjoying vinyl rips much more than my CD collection, and vinyl rips are digital. They sound much better than CDs too. Some hi rez releases (96kHz 24bit) sound pretty good, and nearly all of them sound better than CDs. Some of them sound almost as good as good vinyl. I guess digital must slowly but surely be catching up!
 
But I don't care if vinyl's are made from discarded yoghurt pots, if they sound better than CDs, they sound better. CDs are plastic by the way.
 
Your first paragraph (Did you miss the part where the entire problems described with 44.1kHz was with imperfect filters (which have continuously improved with time, and continue to do so), and not with the actual sampling rate?) is completely misleading. Yes there are problems with filters, as Bob Katz says "The filters in a typical CD player or in the converter chips used IN MOST OF TODAY'S GEAR ARE MATHEMATICALLY COMPROMISED". So that's the CD players. The rest of the article explains why the whole CD making process is flawed, i.e THE ACTUAL SAMPLING RATE. Of the CDs. So that's your orange quotes explained right there. Both ends of that chain are flawed.
 
Oh and the book came out barely 6 years ago. I guess that makes it pretty recent. I was recording bands at 96kHz over 8 years ago. Some people are still recording at 48kHz to this day. Big mistake.
 
So, you did a paper on vinyl production yeah? Did you do a paper on bit rot? Disc rot? I have a bunch of CDs that are unplayable due to disc rot. Ironic huh?

 

[PraetorXyn]

I don't bother with Vinyl because:
1. A lot of things aren't available in Vinyl
2. With dBpoweramp, you get FAR better ripping support with CD's.

 

[autoteleology]

I take zero shame in saying your initial argument needed more education (at no point in time did I call you anything) because it was made in a near complete vacuum of any actual factual evidence. It was almost entirely an opinion piece, and a laughable one at that; it shared many similarities with arguments I've heard from pre-teens on this forum. However, you had no such reason to call me the wide variety of far more insulting, demeaning, and unnecessarily rude things you chose to say.
 
Your entire first argument can be negated with the following three words: Argumentum ad populum. I need not say more.
 
It is irrelevant what CDs are made out of because it has no interaction or impact on the data stored, unlike with vinyl.
 
You then proceed to jump to conclusions and emulate the pot calling the kettle black at the same time by misapplying what I stated to the wrong portion of the section. I was discussing downsampling, not CD players.
 
And yes, I know what CD rot is.  It can be entirely circumvented at some point in the CD's lifetime by creating a disc image of the original disc and burning it to a new CD, or just ripping the CD into FLAC or WAV, which takes nearly no time, effort, or resources at all. Funny thing is, vinyl rots too, even without playback, if you get even a little bit of moisture on it, and your only way to preserve a vinyl pressing is to convert it to digital, which combines all the worst things about analog with all the worst things about digital.
 
I hate vinyl rips. Even the highest pedigree vinyl rips I've heard (and I've heard many, such as pbthal's Pink Floyd rips); they usually sound like V2 .mp3s with additional analog flaws thrown on top, and they get much worse on that (the ones from USB turntables are a joke).

 

[bigshot]

  Oh and the book came out barely 6 years ago.

 
How old is your computer?
 
I have over 15,000 CDs and I have yet to encounter CD rot. I have bronzed disks but they still play perfectly. I also have records that are 100 years old that play perfectly.
 
Tus Chan, you would like vinyl rips if they were of Frank Sinatra records from the 50s. Some things have been poorly mastered on CD. The LPs sound better.

 

[ploppy666]

Argumentum ad populum?  

  No. It's not how many people agree that vinyl sounds better, it's who agrees. When it happens to be every musician that I've ever worked with (they're the people playing the stuff that eventually comes out of the speakers in homes), the guys recording that music for them, and also the guys with magic ears who do the mastering, I'd say it's pretty conclusive. Then add to that scientific explanation that Bob Katz provides (WHY does vinyl sound better?), and it becomes irrefutable.
 
With the help of developers he has been frantically writing software to try to make digital sound as good as analog. He admits we're not there yet.
So when I meet a random guy who claims CDs and their 44.1kHz sample rate sound great, I just have to smile and walk away I guess.
 
It IS however possible to meet someone who prefers the sound of CDs, usually because they're in denial though, or don't want to get into the hassle of looking after vinyl so that it plays well forever, maybe they're too lazy to deal with the whole vinyl playing experience. Maybe they're just deaf to the subtleties that vinyl mastering preserves, or maybe they don't actually listen to the sound, they just listen to the music. Some people are less fussy than others. Some people will walk past a Picasso painting, others will stop and look, others will stand and stare for hours, noticing the detail, the brush strokes etc...
I mean I haven't even mentioned listening fatigue, which comes with CDs, and to a greater extent with Mp3s, but listening fatigue simply doesn't exist with vinyl. Because our ears and brain don't need to resolve any artifacts or issues with vinyl, it's all real sound.
 
You say It is irrelevant what CDs are made out of because it has no interaction or impact on the data stored, unlike with vinyl. Of course it's not irrelevant, I thought you said you knew about disc rot? I have my fathers vinyl, which is over 45 years old. It still sounds great, and better than CD. I have CDs that are less than 10 years old that don't play any more. But my house is damp, I've probably left them in the sun at various times, so maybe I didn't look after them properly. But I was always told CDs would last forever. Guess I was naive.
 
 
@bigshot My computer is 2 years old, why do you ask? I agree with you on vinyl rips, there are some dodgy ones out there, but I'd say 90% are worth keeping. My hifi sounds $20,000 more expensive since I've been downloading vinyl rips.

 

[ploppy666]

Perhaps it's a good time to define what "better" means in this sentence: "Vinyl is better than CD."
 
For me, when a band has recorded, mixed and mastered their album, the end medium (CD, LP, Mp3) has to be as close as possible to what they spent their time creating in the studio, or in other words, as close as possible to what was coming out of the studio monitors when the album was being mixed. That is "high fidelity" or hifi.
 
The word "better" is therefore interchangeable with the words "more hifi".
 
Too often bands will hear their album on CD for the first time after manufacturing and be disappointed, because it sounds a lot worse than what they remember mixing in the studio.
Why is it worse? We've already established why. 44.1kHz is not enough. It never was enough. Maybe one day it will be, but I doubt it. 96kHz has much more chance of being 'enough', but CDs can't handle 96kHz.
 
When a band hears the vinyl, they don't have that same disappointment. Because the vinyl shows up all the detail in their work. Hardly anything is lost in the vinyl manufacturing. Because it's analog.
 
Vinyl is more hifi than CD.