the importance of analog sound in prog

Sumdeus wrote: Dean wrote: creativity in djent wat. My mind does not compute these words being in the same sentence.

Regardless of analog vs digital (I tend to prefer the latter in terms of sound quality), I think the vinyl provides a more poignant aesthetic experience (unless you have surround sound). The existence of sides is one of my favorite things about vinyl.

Aquiring the Taste wrote: A valid observation & in most cases true, however on a high-end, full- range system, an LP ( originally recorded in analog & without extra processing)will give more fidelity.

Only in some subjective preference sense. Both tape and vinyl are imperfect storage mediums that add colour to the recording. Colouration is a change from the original sound and that change is by definition an infidelity. Vinyl has a considerably lower channel separation than (studio) tape or any digital media, this means that there is inescapable crosstalk between left and right channels that is by definition an infidelity. Vinyl has a poorer signal to noise ratio that tape, which in turn has a poorer signal to noise ratio than any digital media, this means that very very quiet signals cannot be heard and by definition that is an infidelity. A high-end (sorry, I don't know what full-range means in this context) system cannot improve or cure any of those infidelities, all it can do is endeavour not make them any worse, no system can give more fidelity (you cannot un-blend a soup).

^ And will go round and round and round.

Dean needs to upgrade his vinyl gear so he can speak intelligently about the analog vs digital debate.  He clearly is basing his subjective bias toward digital upon mediocre analog listening experience.

A restored vintage tube amp working at correct voltages, a pair of high efficiency horn driven speakers and a cartridge at least as sensitive as a Goldring 1012 would be a minimum entry level to then get you out of the analog fog he is speaking of.  The sky is the limit from there.

It seems to me is that even if it was proved that vinyl is better than CD in an all analogue set up, you'd have to pay a hell of a lot to get it. And you'd still have a crackly record to listen  too. Too big a budget for a dubious result for me. And I'm happy it's all in the past.  I spent far too much time taking albums back to the shop for being too crackly or scratchy. The best quality vinyl went to classical anyway. Rock music got the crap. Hi Fidelity? I don't think so.

Edited by Snow Dog - November 23 2012 at 14:13

It isn't a D vs A debate, merely the poor implimentation of the former.
Personally, I get sick of people making misleading claims for C.D.,
especially when it is based on a belief system rather than actual experience.
A good example is the claim that C.D. has nearly twice the dynamic range of an LP, when the retail product has, in most cases, considerably less.
The same is true of the seperation argument.

Surrealist wrote: Dean needs to upgrade his vinyl gear so he can speak intelligently about the analog vs digital debate.  He clearly is basing his subjective bias toward digital upon mediocre analog listening experience. A restored vintage tube amp working at correct voltages, a pair of high efficiency horn driven speakers and a cartridge at least as sensitive as a Goldring 1012 would be a minimum entry level to then get you out of the analog fog he is speaking of.  The sky is the limit from there.

Dean wrote: A crap recording is a crap recording whatever medium is used. That retail product would sound awful on vinyl as it does on CD just as a crap analogue recording copied from vinyl to CD sounds as crap now on CD as it did forty years ago on vinyl. Your argument (such that it isn't) is meaningless. Personally I don't get sick of the misleading boasts for vinyl, but I do grow tired of them.

That is frame-able :)  Click pop click pop click pop...
 


Edited by Slartibartfast - November 23 2012 at 17:29

Dean wrote: Aquiring the Taste wrote: It isn't a D vs A debate, merely the poor implimentation of the former. Personally, I get sick of people making misleading claims for C.D., especially when it is based on a belief system rather than actual experience. A good example is the claim that C.D. has nearly twice the dynamic range of an LP, when the retail product has, in most cases, considerably less. The same is true of the seperation argument. A crap recording is a crap recording whatever medium is used. That retail product would sound awful on vinyl as it does on CD just as a crap analogue recording copied from vinyl to CD sounds as crap now on CD as it did forty years ago on vinyl. Your argument (such that it isn't) is meaningless. Personally I don't get sick of the misleading boasts for vinyl, but I do grow tired of them.

Try adressing what I wrote,it is easily varifiable, crap recordings are another issue. Any damage done in the studio can't be repaired by any playback system.