Vinyl

^ not sure who you mean ... but nowhere is the old saying "no good deed goes unpunished" more true than in the internet. You can take pleasure from the fact that there might be many silent readers who approve of your posts though and find them helpful.

Edited by Mr ProgFreak - January 30 2010 at 05:01

Mr ProgFreak wrote: acdc7369 wrote: But why is it that vinyls sound way more dynamic than their CD counterparts a lot of the time? Compression would eliminate dynamics, and I prefer vinyls because they generally tend to be more dynamic. I don't think this is true - at least not from my experience. I guess it mostly depends on which vinyls and CDs you listen to - and which combinations you choose to compare. Maybe for someone who mostly listens to 70s vinyls and their remastered versions on CD it might appear like CDs are often worse than vinyls. I have a totally different perspective, since I am usually listening to modern recordings on CD. Many classic albums too of course, but I grew up with modern mastering techniques (90s and onward), so maybe I am simply more used to it. Not the overly compressed sound (I don't like that), but the kind of production that is done originally for digital formats.

Yeah, like I said before it literally is case by case.  There are some CDs that sound better than the vinyls...then there are some CDs that literally sound identical to the vinyls, and there are (IMO) mostly vinyls
that sound better than the CDs.  As far as modern recordings go, I grew up listening to Rage Against the Machine on CD and recently discovered their first two albums on vinyl.  Wow! The difference is night and day....no clipping and compression on the master tracks.  And those two albums were well engineered to begin with!  Their vinyls are definitely more dynamic.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: acdc7369 wrote: Fortunately, analog compression doesn't cause any kind of clipping or distortion that it is caused in the discrete domain. Every kind of compression adds distortion ... but there are different kinds of distortion. It can be harmonic and actually improve the perceived quality of the recording. But even then, it can't be called audiophile since it changes the original recording. Personally I would prefer an audiophile recording/mastering, preserving the original sound as well as possible ... and if I like a touch of analog/harmonic distortion I can always use a good tube amp to listen to it.

Well, it depends on what you would define as analog distortion.  I was actually referring to analog "clipping" which, technically is THEORETICALLY impossible if you have a power supply large enough to handle the power of the waveform you're trying to reproduce, circuit components with higher tolerances than the power of the signal, etc.  But I don't use tube amps when listening to music because of the harmonic distortion the vacuum tubes add to the signal when they saturate (in this case where, as you were stating, clipping/distortion/compression are the same thing). I guess I should have been more specific .


Edited by acdc7369 - January 30 2010 at 10:16

^ I think that aspect of the science has been beaten to death - CDA can be more accurate than vinyl - this is undisputable.

Vibrationbaby wrote: I thought all the anger and rage was supposed to be reserved for the anti-religion threads.

Duplicate Post


Edited by acdc7369 - January 31 2010 at 16:53

acdc7369 wrote: acdc7369 wrote: DJPuffyLemon wrote: Not to add MORE fuel to the fire, but this page: http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/49916-6-simple-newbie-vinyl-question has a shìt load of info which contradicts a lot of what's been said by the majority of the vinyl lovers in this thread...such as: To explain: Vinyl has limited dynamic range and a whole host of distortions besides, but some of those distortions give it a wonderful, resonant sound. Some audiophiles mistake this resonance for "accuracy," which is a technical term referring to the relationship between the recording and the output. But many people who love vinyl don't want to admit that what they love about it is, technically speaking, distortion. So they invent all sorts of pseudoscientific theories about how vinyl must somehow be technically superior to CD. I'm surprised you found someone making the argument that vinyl offers higher dynamic range, because that is so obviously wrong, but it gives you some idea of the lengths to which some vinylphiles will go to avoid facing up to the fact that what appeals to them about vinyl is a technical weakness of the medium. Well, CDs are capable of reproducing the audible frequency range -- 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz, more or less -- with the same excellnet fidelity from lowest to highest. LPs simply can't do that. > I've heard of this endless debate and am not trying to start another one. I > just finished reading lots of info and graphs on why analog is better than > digital since it has 'higher resolution', etc. > Perhaps you still have not read enough? Vinyl simply has less resolution, because of noise and distortion. Resolution is determined by the loudest and softest that the medium can reproduce. Vinyl has at best 70 dB or so of dynamic range (i.e. the difference between the loudest signal it can reproduce without significant distortion and the noise floor), and that is equivalent to only 12 bits or 13 bits of resolution. Most vinyl LP's have even less resolution because of excessive surface noise.   That's exactly the point I've been making the entire time:  the digital format IS superior.  I never once said that vinyl has more of a dynamic range than CDs...it's just that most CDs are poorly mastered and the music on them is less dynamic than on their vinyl counterparts.  If CDs are mastered correctly, there is NO disadvantage whatsoever to them.  Nothing in your post contradicts anything I've said or believe, because everything in your post is factual. Like I said, the vinyl medium itself is not superior.  But most recordings do sound better on vinyl, IMO.  I believe digital vinyl rips offer the best of both worlds.

I saw a Aust. Television show last night called The New Inventors and the bloke has invented a new way to clean vinyl. I was very impressed and to be honest I have never seen them come up this good. It is simillar to a womans face mask in Application and you should see how the records come up. Like new after the stuff has set and you peel it off. He calls it the Record Re-Virginiser. If you are keen here is the pod cast link  Gotta hear That Nat King Cole and George Shearing album,that is the inventors fav album

Us old guys think vinyl sounds better because our hearing is shot and we can't hear anything on the high-end anyway, having attended too many Who concerts

Slartibartfast wrote: On a side note, glass is also sort of a very slow moving liquid.  Panes in a window will get thicker on the bottom and thinner at the top as time goes by.

That's not true at all, the glass is thicker on the bottom of Medieval windows only because they weren't very good at casting glass yet.

My vinyls was in the cellar when a terrible accident happened. A freak of nature  flooded (the cellar). And every god forsaken vinyl I stored in the crllar smelled of old mold thereafter.. I took this a sign from God to get rid of those horrible pieces of plastic. And as time went by i somehow managed to fool the old drunken b*****ds at my local pub to take care of the problem. Now all my vinyls are in the caring hands of old long-haired stoners.

The end.



Edited by Rottenhat - March 06 2010 at 12:25