Vinyl

mono wrote: Get this for your pets!

My pets would have that thing torn to shreads in no time!

Check my signature picture, right one ;-) Guess:

1)Which album it is (beware, it's tricky one)

2)What format it is (for sure cassette)

3)How long do I have it

d.o.k wrote: Do I have to mention that by now, nobody has been able to prove that those dvd audio and SACD were providing better sound quality than cd ?

hmm...
Concerning audio DVDs: For the sampling frequency matter, noone can prove that 192kHz brings better results than 44.1, but the 24-bit depth brings a higher signal-to-noise ratio.
Still, you must have a very accurate and noiseless (and expensive) system in order to appreciate the difference.
SACD is based on 1-bit coding, said to be much more accurate than PCM used on CD. Of course, a high-end system is also needed here to make full use of this format...

I would say DVDs and SACDs are definitely not "the next format" as predicted by Sony and Philipps around 10 years ago... CD is the last physical format.

^ I also have some vinyls that IMO sound better than the CD versions ... but I think that's mostly due to a different mix. Vinyl is inferior to CD as far as the technical specifications go, so the difference can, objectively, only be in the mix or the mastering decisions.

mystic fred wrote: CD 's have been superceded by downloaded MP3's and are now obsolete - they were never intended to be audiophile quality, despite the claims, they were just another marketing ploy.   Vinyl is enjoying a resurgence as many find the quality of the sound vastly superior to digital technology, but steer well clear of those USB turntables, they are rubbish - a good quality vinyl system of used gear  could be easily put together  for around 400 GBP, and the results will astound you.  check out this site...   http://www.vinylengine.com/phpBB2/index.php

  Ha Ha Ha. There's a saying or old adage " he who laughs last, laughs the loudest". CDs had just gained momentum after I had came out of the air force during which time I had little time for my album collection. I held steadfast and refused to start buying CDs or a CD player until 1998 or 99. Poeple laughed at me . Family members shunned me. I was cut out of the family will. The dogs and cats wouldn't even aknowledge my presence. It was a lonely place and time.

Just kidding But people thought I was nuts holding on to my 5,000 or so albums as well as two turntables that I have held on to, one from 1980 and the other one an old Dual that could even be from the sixties. There's a local specialist store where I have them serviced and updated and my music sounds just as good as it did back in 1975!

I knew CDs wouldn't last. People just wouldn't listen. And now with all this new crap the recording arts are in jeopardy. Music is crap today. I was just out for a few beers with and old friend from high school the other day and he reflected that music died when Led Zep disbanded. A bit of a generalization but I tend to take his point figuratively. Technology has killed the arts. I'm glad that I still have my jewels from trhe seventies to cherish. I've even met people in second hand stores who are trying to buy their own vinyl back!


Edited by Vibrationbaby - January 26 2010 at 10:10

Mr ProgFreak wrote: Certif1ed wrote: WHATEVER.                     You've spoken fondly of MP3s (mostly) and turntables with USB connectors ... and I think you're knowledgeable when it comes to audio technology. Do you honestly believe that a pressing of Led Zeppelin II that you really like is so good because it's on vinyl - or because they simply nailed the mixing and (in this case) mastering? Just saying.

right but you still don't get the original audio boost from the pressing because the digital remaster is secondary, no?

Certif1ed wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: You've spoken fondly of MP3s (mostly) and turntables with USB connectors ... and I think you're knowledgeable when it comes to audio technology. Do you honestly believe that a pressing of Led Zeppelin II that you really like is so good because it's on vinyl - or because they simply nailed the mixing and (in this case) mastering? Just saying.   I'm not fond of mp3, except for the portability aspect - I've never heard a good one!   My turntable is a Project - a company that know a thing about record decks, even budget ones - I haven't heard the other USB turntables - who knows, maybe mystic fred is right about them, but he's dead wrong about the Project.   It sounds very good into a regular HiFi.   The other way it sounds pretty good is when you make a 24-bit WAV recording of a vinyl - I've done a test on an audiophile friend of mine at work - maybe you remember? In a "blind" test, he preferred the 24-bit WAV of the vinyl over the 16 bit version, which in turn he preferred to the CD.   I do not honestly know why vinyl sounds better to my ears and to those of other vinylholics (although there are some good arguments out there) - I can see that most scientific data says it should be otherwise and I understand the data. What I also understand is what my ears tell me, which is the opposite!     mystic fred wrote: ...steer well clear of those USB turntables, they are rubbish - a good quality vinyl system of used gear  could be easily put together  for around 400 GBP, and the results will astound you.  check out this site...     Actually, my turntable does not sound "rubbish" to me, and I consider my system to be of a good quality overall. The results often astound me.   Have you heard every USB turntable and done a side-by-side comparison with a non-USB version?   Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ But actually a lot of processing is done when mastering for vinyl ... dampening low frequencies and boosting them during playback, for example. I think that merely digitizing the mix is a lot less intrusive - and ultimately more audiophile in the true sense of the word.   halabalushindigus wrote: right but you still don't get the original audio boost from the pressing because the digital remaster is secondary, no?   Mastering for an analogue lathe in order to cut a vinyl disc is a completely different process to a fully digital system.   You have to be really careful with bass frequencies especially, or you can render the walls of the vinyl so thin that the needle goes through.   This is second-hand, vaguely remembered information - there's info on some of the better audiophile sites, like Steve Hoffman's, but I don't have time to trawl it right now!   A digital remaster is just that - a remaster of a source. If you're lucky, the source is the original master tape. If not, it could be a 2nd generation, in which case it'll definitely sound lacking, no matter how good the digital process, or worse, mastered from a vinyl copy.   No matter how accurate the digital process is, you can't put back stuff that isn't there, and to my ears, most digital remasters have too much gain to compensate for the additional compression. The sound is brittle and lacking in dynamic and tone...   But I'll freely admit that could just be me having a completely irrational bias for vinyl.

no irrational bias for vinyl, it just sounds better

Mr ProgFreak wrote: Well, you are using MP3 for some purposes and enjoying listening to it ... most of the other audiophiles that I've met here despise compressed audio and CD is as far as they are willing to go.

To prove that vinyl still rules I will play my old Led Zeppelin record Led Zeppelin III on my old Dual turntable. Then I will give it a new review.