advertisement


Digital v Vinyl.

Real reasons - whilst vinyl may suffer through RIAA equalisation, non-linearity of magnetic elements in the signal path, tape hiss from analogue tapes, an all-analogue LP replay system won't have suffered from having the sound chopped up 44.1k times per second, stored, and then reconstituted on replay. You evidently don't regard that process as a form of 'distortion'.
Do you really limit yourself to records that haven't seen a digital process? Must be very constraining indeed.

It's quite amusing to rip records with a good reputation for sound quality and find clear evidence of a 44k1 AD-DA process....

Paul
 
Max,


The shit's cool, bro'.

Just saying that you can easily hear for yourself what vinyl's about. Maybe you will be bit by the vinyl bug — or much more likely you won't — but it's trivially easy to hear a decent table to at least satisfy your curiosity. I can't imagine anyone who's interested in audio not wanting to at least hear a table.

I didn't understand the fascination behind automatic watches for the longest time. Now I do because I had bothered to look into these mechanical watches more deeply than internet chat could take me.

I can tell you this and I'm sure it also rings true for many here: If I didn't like the sound I get with a decent table and good vinyl I sure as hell wouldn't have spent as much as I have on an analogue front end and piles of records. I understand the technical arguments in digital's favour and those against analogue, but none of them has any bearing on my enjoyment.

Joe
Cool Masta Joe-Da is :cool:
 
Can you give me one real reason why vinyl should sound better?

There are none. It should sound worse given it's less capable as a storage and transfer medium. It always audibly changes whatever enters the vinyl production and replay process. it will never capture as faithfully as digital can but this is more about the potential of the two mediums than the reality.

Ask yourself why it can sound better.
The vinyl can be better mastered, and it's lossy characteristics and complex pattern of distortions can be more pleasing to the ear.
 
Ask yourself why it can sound better.
The vinyl can be better mastered, and it's lossy characteristics and complex pattern of distortions can be more pleasing to the ear.

It always makes me giggle that anyone here thinks in simplistic terms of "better" at all. Surely any folk with even a slight interest in music need both as just so much material only exists in one format or another. This is especially true if one's interest lies away from the mainstream at all. There are so many thousands of classical, jazz, blues, folk, psyche, Krautrock, punk, indie titles etc that have never been issued digitally at all yet, and that's long before we get to the ones that have been largely destroyed in the process by truly awful digital mastering decisions. Then there is the matter of tape deterioration where the choice is effectively between a record cut 40 years ago from a nice fresh master and approved by the artist vs a CD made from a baked and crumbling third gen copy master with dropouts etc. Sure, finding that perfect original record may take some effort, but it is by far the best option this side of a time machine. Even some major pop titles have never made it to CD intact, an example off the top of my head being Days Of Future Passed by the Moody Blues. Apparently the master tape fell apart sometime back in the '70s and all CDs are based on a new remix from the multi-track, which sounds rather different. Want to hear it how it actually sounded in 1967? No alternative but to track down the original vinyl. Another example being the first three Kraftwerk albums. They have never been officially released in any digital form. Any CD or download that exists (and there are many) is a pirate made from often dodgy needle-drops. None have been anywhere close to a master tape.

All these discussions ever achieve is to reinforce my suspicion that I'm not an 'audiophile' at all. I'm just someone interested in music, and that means I need the mechanism to play the stuff in the format in which it exists. I can play 78s, 45s, LPs, CDs, computer / streamed music, even bloody cassettes if I go upstairs and grab a tape deck! It would never even occur to me not to be able to play any of this stuff!
 
1979 Bop til you drop, Ry Cooder. First digital album?


Denon released a string of classical recordings on vinyl a few years before Bop til You Drop came out but I do believe it was the first digital pop recording released on vinyl. Soundstream (Telarc?) might have started around the sound time with Pictures at an Exhibition or Rite of Spring IIRC. And then there was that awful Tomita release synthesizing The Planets.
 
Yes I agree Tony, I have all formats and enjoy them all
I get most enjoyment out of my Reel 2 Reel player but that is playing music recorded from my digital source via the DAC :eek:.
As my system develops each format is improving, there was a time when my digital system was better (and incredibly convenient) but that didn’t stop me enjoying the other formats.
last year I bought an Ortofon Kontrapunk b cart and that was a significant change to anything else I have had in the past. I didnt hear anything new from the records just presented differently from before but much more lifelike, I also realised that my phono stage was letting the system down so after a few changes I am now using a Paradise phono from the DIYA group buy, this again has elevated my Vinyl system to playing music with some incredible subtleties that I haven’t experienced before.

Alan
 
Denon released a string of classical recordings on vinyl a few years before Bop til You Drop came out but I do believe it was the first digital pop recording released on vinyl. Soundstream (Telarc?) might have started around the sound time with Pictures at an Exhibition or Rite of Spring IIRC. And then there was that awful Tomita release synthesizing The Planets.

Was the Cooder release the first digital multitrack?
 
I would think so. Great music and recording but then I'm one of those guys who thinks Ry can do no wrong;-)

"Jazz" was one of my favorites now that we're on early digital recordings. Terrific performances using period instruments! Putting that one on my playback list for tomorrow;-)
 
There are none. It should sound worse given it's less capable as a storage and transfer medium. It always audibly changes whatever enters the vinyl production and replay process. it will never capture as faithfully as digital can but this is more about the potential of the two mediums than the reality.

Ask yourself why it can sound better.
The vinyl can be better mastered, and it's lossy characteristics and complex pattern of distortions can be more pleasing to the ear.

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threa...-vinyl-sacd-or-an-open-reel-tape-copy.133328/
 
since vinyl is good before 80's, why would our ancestor / previous audiophile / music lover / recording engineer go into CD domain and brought us into this mess?

they should have hold their ground, then thinigs would not get so ugly
 
Blame it on Progress.

...same damn thing that took us out of the caves and huddling around fire for warmth.
 
1972438_10151934737710683_932648975_n.jpg

Progress
 
Surely any folk with even a slight interest in music need both as just so much material only exists in one format or another.

Being a seller of stuff you might say that :)

But no I'm not finding much I cannot access, I have or rather had a great interest in music and find that spotify and Quobuz and access to subscription services and listening to online radio has a far bigger collection than I ever had, so the only difference is I buy and download what is not available for streaming in the knowledge that eventually all rights issues will be sorted in the next few years and it will all be online and what I. Bought will be irrelevant.

A lot of folk here say you love music but it has to be on your terms, you say it has to be an original press or on vinyl or a particular master or some warmed up remaster served up on dual 45rpm disks leaving you to jackrabbit every time a new track is played. You compare and contrast looking for the best version and the best master and it completely overlooks the fact that we don't need all that. I acknowledge that a super duper original will sound better than a CD based on a third generation digital transfer of a master tape already rotting away, but I presently accept what I have access to as it is, for what it is and sit and listen to the music. if I have an urge to dig deeper I listen harder. More carefully or look at its transcription.

I think some of you say you love music, but you love a particular kind of experience of music, in your control, on your terms and pandering to your prejudices. That's not being a music lover, that's being a control freak.
 
since vinyl is good before 80's, why would our ancestor / previous audiophile / music lover / recording engineer go into CD domain and brought us into this mess?

A number of reasons. The fragility of vinyl and the price of good replay. The rising costs of the raw materials, pressing plants and reducing margins. Home taping. Portability.

For the average Joe, not in possession of a top separates system with expensive turntable, the CD represented a huge step forward in both convenience and sound quality. It was soon possible to have high quality sound whilst in the car or on the beach - and production costs shrank to tiny levels in a reasonably short period.

In contrast, vinyl costs were soaring and pressing plants were increasingly having to keep costs in check by lowering the quality of vinyl used. This led to inferior releases, making CD's inherent advantages even more apparent .

So in short, convenience and pure economics were every bit as much the drivers here as anything else. And the fact that vinyl survives thirty years down the line has a lot to do with it now pandering almost exclusively to those with the equipment to extract the performance inherent in the medium in the first place.

Meanwhile, those without such electronics have moved from the money spinning CD's envisaged by the record companies, to illegal downloads and streaming services. Some might see a touch of irony in that. :)
 
A number of reasons. The fragility of vinyl and the price of good replay. The rising costs of the raw materials, pressing plants and reducing margins. Home taping. Portability.

For the average Joe, not in possession of a top separates system with expensive turntable, the CD represented a huge step forward in both convenience and sound quality. It was soon possible to have high quality sound whilst in the car or on the beach - and production costs shrank to tiny levels in a reasonably short period.

In contrast, vinyl costs were soaring and pressing plants were increasingly having to keep costs in check by lowering the quality of vinyl used. This led to inferior releases, making CD's inherent advantages even more apparent .

So in short, convenience and pure economics were every bit as much the drivers here as anything else. And the fact that vinyl survives thirty years down the line has a lot to do with it now pandering almost exclusively to those with the equipment to extract the performance inherent in the medium in the first place.

Meanwhile, those without such electronics have moved from the money spinning CD's envisaged by the record companies, to illegal downloads and streaming services. Some might see a touch of irony in that. :)

Absolutely right. And today's equivalent of the CD is the MP3 file - convenience, portability and a half decent SQ, enough to satisfy 95% of the population. Indeed, our younger daughter prefers listening to her iPod or her PC over any of the hifi systems in the house.
 
But no I'm not finding much I cannot access, I have or rather had a great interest in music and find that spotify and Quobuz and access to subscription services and listening to online radio has a far bigger collection than I ever had, so the only difference is I buy and download what is not available for streaming in the knowledge that eventually all rights issues will be sorted in the next few years and it will all be online and what I. Bought will be irrelevant.

It depends what sort of music you are interested in. As a local example here I'd suggest RickyC6 couldn't ever get by digital alone as he's into well off-the-track '80s new-wave and indie and just miles of it has never been anywhere near a digital format and never will. It's an area I know very well as I was in such a band, one that, like so many of our peers, made a couple of records which have never been released in anything other than their initial vinyl pressing. I see no coherent argument for format fascism, only folk wilfully limiting themselves to consumer electronics marketing trends and fads. Thankfully many music lovers are not so easily led - one should be able to play music in the format it was made to be played, and for me that's playing a 78 on a gramophone (I have such a thing), a C86 cassette on a cassette deck or whatever. Records? I've a device for that.
 


advertisement


Back
Top