[Nocturnal310]

Hi guys,

i am kinda bored of listening to mp3 and was surfing around to find better source of musical experience..

came across this which made me think its time to try some vinyl

spoke to dad and maybe we ll be getting a vinyl player soon.

anyway..u can read it here:
Quote:

The answer lies in the difference between analog and digital recordings. A vinyl record is an analog recording, and CDs and DVDs are digital recordings. Take a look at the graph below. Original sound is analog by definition. A digital recording takes snapshots of the analog signal at a certain rate (for CDs it is 44,100 times per second) and measures each snapshot with a certain accuracy (for CDs it is 16-bit, which means the value must be one of 65,536 possible values). Comparison of a raw analog audio signal to the CD audio and DVD audio output This means that, by definition, a digital recording is not capturing the complete sound wave. It is approximating it with a series of steps. Some sounds that have very quick transitions, such as a drum beat or a trumpet's tone, will be distorted because they change too quickly for the sample rate. In your home stereo the CD or DVD player takes this digital recording and converts it to an analog signal, which is fed to your amplifier. The amplifier then raises the voltage of the signal to a level powerful enough to drive your speaker. A vinyl record has a groove carved into it that mirrors the original sound's waveform. This means that no information is lost. The output of a record player is analog. It can be fed directly to your amplifier with no conversion. This means that the waveforms from a vinyl recording can be much more accurate, and that can be heard in the richness of the sound. But there is a downside, any specks of dust or damage to the disc can be heard as noise or static. During quiet spots in songs this noise may be heard over the music. Digital recordings don't degrade over time, and if the digital recording contains silence, then there will be no noise. From the graph above you can see that CD quality audio does not do a very good job of replicating the original signal. The main ways to improve the quality of a digital recording are to increase the sampling rate and to increase the accuracy of the sampling. The recording industry has a new standard for DVD audio discs that will greatly improve the sound quality. The table below lists the sampling rate and the accuracy for CD recordings, and the maximum sampling rate and accuracy for DVD recordings. DVDs can hold 74 minutes of music at their highest quality level. CDs can also hold 74 minutes of music. By lowering either the sampling rate or the accuracy, DVDs can hold more music. For instance a DVD can hold almost 7 hours of CD quality audio. DVD audio discs and players are rare right now, but they will become more common, and the difference in sound quality should be noticeable. To take advantage of higher quality DVD audio discs, however, you will need a DVD player with a 192kHz/24-bit digital to analog converter. Most DVD players only have a 96kHz/24-bit digital to analog converter. So if you are planning to take full advantage of DVD audio be sure to look for a 192kHz/24-bit DAC.

Read more here: HowStuffWorks "Is the sound on vinyl records better than on CDs or DVDs?"


for me..i am surely gonna give vinyl a try

 

[progo]

The sampling rates are high enough, I couldn't tell a good vinyl from a good CD. But I haven't heard a hifi turntable, it's hard to say. Surely the records itself are sexier and look more musical

 

[memepool]

nonsense...rhubarb rhubarb....Nyquist...blah blah...96db snr...yada yada...limits of human perception...hrumph....my dog listens to techno ...yalla yalla...tree falls in the forest can you hear it...ho-hum....

just thought I'd save us the trouble

 

[linuxworks]

Quote:

A vinyl record has a groove carved into it that mirrors the original sound's waveform. This means that no information is lost

NO information is lost?


pffft!

game over. sorry but this is patently false.

 

[Listens2tubes]

mpool is all wet, vinyl lives!

 

[mape00]

That article is at best over-simplifying. I'd call it an outright lie. Actually, vinyl is limited to 16 kHz because of physical limitations. I.e., the articles claim that no information is lost is bollocks. CDs on the other hand retain up to 22 kHz (because of the Nyquist sampling theorem), which is beyond the limit of human perception.

However, vinyl can in many instances sound better than CD. That's mainly because of better mastering. (CDs rarely make use of their superior spec's.) So there might be instances where there are good reasons for using vinyl after all. But it's definitely not because analog recordings are technically superior. Only crackpots who failed maths would think that.

 

[PowderLegend]

This debate has raged since CDs were invented (and before that with tapes...). If you're talking in terms of signal purity, CDs have the edge because they don't need any EQ. Vinyl needs the all important RIAA curve and insane amounts of gain.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nocturnal310 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Read more here: HowStuffWorks "Is the sound on vinyl records better than on CDs or DVDs?" for me..i am surely gonna give vinyl a try

A better read would be Principles of Digital Audio, Ken Pohlmann.Vinyl and CD are indeed different and some people prefer vinyl, which is of course all well and good.

However by almost all technical criteria LP is inferior i.e SNR, Dynamic Range, speed stability, Distortion, and Crosstalk. How is this possible if vinyl loses no information ? Vinyl according to the article should have infinite dynamic range not the 70 - 75 db you can get.

The article is rather misleading, it is based on the "analog is infinite" notion that the analog camp have been trotting out for 25 years or more. Does the author think microphones are perfect, they would have to be in his world view. All recorded sound is an approximation but CD can capture amplitude variations far better than LP , this is by definition as the relative noise levels determine each systems resolution, so for CD you have about 65K discrete levels for LP playback you get about 8K. This determines the smallest difference that each system can render.

 

[krmathis]

The never ending story..

I stick with CD (ripper to PC) for now, but vinyl sure can be nice as well.

 

[TimJo]

I listen to vinyl 90% of the time. I have invested more money in my vinyl setup than my CD player. Why is this ??? What it boils down to for me is mastering. Most times, but not always, the mastering on vinyl is far superior to CD. Part of the problem is that modern CD's are overly compressed as part of the loudness wars. For me it isn't a question of is vinyl better than CD's, it's a question of which version has the better mastering, and oftentimes the vinyl version wins. I'm happier listening to a well mastered album on vintage vinyl (with all of the ticks and pops) as compared to a newly remastered digital version with mega compression.

 

[linuxworks]

timjo, that's just so strange that producers use a LARGER format medium (cd redbook audio) and yet are compressing it MORE than for lps?

I have not bought 'modern music' (anything from the last decade or so) in a long time. I don't experience the loudness-wars, apparently.

just strange that 'artists' are letting the cd format be abused like that and for NO good reason.

I can definitely see arguments about mastering. but that's not at all about the format or encoding (grooves an moving stylus) which is what the OP was getting at. a stylus in a groove will always render audio worse than redbook audio can.

 

[Uncle Erik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by linuxworks /img/forum/go_quote.gif NO information is lost? pffft! game over. sorry but this is patently false.

Yep. Part of the information is actually removed in vinyl. The phono stage puts that back.

This thread will probably turn into a technical argument over the benefits of each medium.

My position is that vinyl in a good setup sounds wonderful. Well recorded and mastered digital on a good CD player sounds wonderful. Since it is possible (and advisable) to own a good turntable and CD player at the same time, use both.

I give my preference to vinyl for non-technical reasons. For one, I've never had someone offer me a whole box of CDs for $10. And I'm funny about old technology - I've got other vacuum tube devices around as well as other obsolete toys. A turntable fits well with the collection.

 

[derekbmn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by linuxworks /img/forum/go_quote.gif a stylus in a groove will always render audio worse than redbook audio can.

As usual your statements border on being completely untrue.

One can argue about measurements until they are blue in the face and still get nowhere. You seem to be hung up on them. Can you tell me your experiences with a decent and well setup vinyl rig with properly cleaned records ? I really don't mean to sound so negative torwards you as you seem like a rather bright individual. (and I have rather enjoyed looking through your photo album-good stuff) But these blanket statements are simply unfounded.

In the end both mediums can sound fantastic when done right.

 

[linuxworks]

Quote:

Originally Posted by derekbmn /img/forum/go_quote.gif As usual your statements border on being completely untrue.

'thanks' for the insult.

maybe someday I'll repay the 'favor'.

(and welcome to my ignore list...)

 

[linuxworks]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yep. Part of the information is actually removed in vinyl. The phono stage puts that back.

puts it back? please explain. once data is lost you can't re-create it.