Vinyl vs. CD
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General Polls
Forum Description: Create polls on topics not related to music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31020
Printed Date: March 01 2025 at 23:15
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Vinyl vs. CD
Posted By: unicorn coffee
Subject: Vinyl vs. CD
Date Posted: November 12 2006 at 19:10
|
Does anyone else still find "that sound" in records, if you know what I mean? I think records are just all-around way cooler than CDs as well. Also, does anyone know of any good place to buy vinyl online?
|
Replies:
Posted By: el böthy
Date Posted: November 12 2006 at 19:13
Cd for listening, Vynil for decoration and nostalgia 
------------- "You want me to play what, Robert?" 
|
Posted By: Masque
Date Posted: November 12 2006 at 19:14
CDs  ------------- |
Posted By: Jason_Clement
Date Posted: November 12 2006 at 19:15
| CDS! |
Posted By: The Miracle
Date Posted: November 12 2006 at 19:40
Same. I have a little vinyl collection, but no player yet  CD's are overall more convenient. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/ocellatedgod" rel="nofollow - last.fm |
el böthy wrote:Posted By: Meddler
Date Posted: November 12 2006 at 22:40
------------- [IMG]http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i165/amorfous/astro-1.jpg"> |
Posted By: Guillermo
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 00:18
|
In some cases the old LPs are better than the CDs. For example:
-Grand Funk Railroad "Closer to Home": the old LP has more bass sound in comparison to the first CD release of that album (1988).
-YES "Relayer": the Remastered CD of 1994 fades out the songs earlier in comparison to the old LP. I prefer the LP version of this album for this reason.
-Kansas "Two for the Show": the first CD version was better in sound that the LP, but the CD didn`t have "Closet Chronicles". The LP cover had inner sleeves with photos. The CD not. ------------- Avatar: Photo of Solar Eclipse, Mexico City, July 1991. A great experience to see. Maybe once in a lifetime. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 02:53
|
I like vinyl, but prefer CD ... better sound, better reliability.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to: 
|
Posted By: Open-Mind
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 03:51
|
CD'S for me ------------- "I'm on a roll, I'm on a roll this time, I feel my luck could change.. " |
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 04:02
| I prefer the sound (in most cases) and over-all presence of vinyl records. Cover art becomes more than just a coloured piece of paper inside the CD case. I buy CDs aswell though, because they're far more practical. Takes up less space, and can be listened to on convenient portable CD players while one is travelling or going for a walk. Some remastered CDs sound better than the original vinyl. |
Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 04:14
| I like both, but slightly prefer vinyls for the warmer sound and better looks. CDs are much more convenient though. |
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 04:32
|
Vinyl has a beautiful, functionalist design (it has the size it needs), I collect and play them. I think I hear 'that sound' too. If its not a special issue/collectors item, CD design has stayed the same, ugly, unpractical, breakable-plastic-sh*tty way for over 20 years. I rip them, hide them in a closet and play the files insted. ------------- Over land and under ashes In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
Posted By: Bj-1
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 05:20
|
Both! ------------- RIO/AVANT/ZEUHL - The best thing you can get with yer pants on! |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 05:33
|
Digital (CD) sounds awful (limited in bandwidth, dynamic, low/high, detail/transprency , lack of precense, narrow bi-dimensional imaging compared to "3D" analog, is boring and flat and breaks the ears) but is convenient. But soon, CD will probably and unfortunatly disapear cause most of you are on MP3 and so only very low quality digital will be available. Thanks guys! |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 05:37
I think it's more likely that soon the popular mp3/wma downloads will be replaced by lossless formats.  ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: Neil
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 05:46
I know that you are always complaining of being "got at" Oliver but what you have just written above is patently untrue. CD's have a higher bandwidth (difference between lowest and highest frequency reproduced) than any domestic analogue medium ever produced and 16 bit digital audio has a higher dynamic range (difference between quietest and loudest sound) than vinyl or any analogue tape can achieve. Those are undisputable FACTS. That doesn't mean that you can't prefer the sound of vinyl to CD, many people do, but making statements like the above just make the rest of your arguements look stupid. It's like claiming that a 747 can fly faster than a Concorde. ------------- When people get lost in thought it's often because it's unfamiliar territory. |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 05:50
|
On the paper...like tube distor more on the paper than solidstate. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 05:57
^ not just on paper - it just sounds good, so people don't notice it. Why is it so bad to admit that CD is technically superior to analog media? That doesn't mean that you can't still prefer vinyl. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: Neil
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 06:11
Where else would you measure it? You can't accurately measure audio performance just by someone's hearing because everyone will have a different opinion. Although looking at this poll more seem to prefer the sound of CD. Tubes don't necessarily distort more than semiconductor, they distort differently. A good quality semiconductor amplifier will beat a tube amplifier in the middle of it's power range but at the top of its range as it approaches distortion the tube amplifier will sound less harsh. Tube distortion is nicer to listen to than semiconductor distortion. Again it's personal choice. If you prefer the sound of a good tube amplifier then that's great; we should all listen to what we enjoy. ------------- When people get lost in thought it's often because it's unfamiliar territory. |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 06:44
|
To be precise, i prefer tubes in the mid/highs and solid state in the low, cause tubes are always a little "round" in the low and lacks the punch that very good solid state offer in the low. That's why i'm a bi-amplification's adept. Now, if i have to have only one amp, it must be tubes, as mid-highs is the most important and good low is the ultimate "luxury". This said, if you compare a good turntable to a good Cd on a good system, you'll understand all i said. I'm talking about the listening experience, the result, and not the theory. Compared to analog, digital is limited in bandwidth as a solidstate is limited in the highs compared to a tube. A good tuner or tapedeck limited at 16khz reproduces a far more realistic trumpet i.e, with much more matter, detail and emotion, DYNAMIC, image and precense, than a CD player going at 20 khz but with info missing, RESULTING IN A THIN, HARSH, COLD and EDGY SOUND; and i'm talking about huge Cd setups that you've maybe never heard in your life, nothing to do with the "little" integrated Studers CDs you'll find in studio. I don't care about the theory. Moreover, i'm comparing a 1000€ tapedeck, tuner or turntable to a 10 000€ digital setup, so it proves the absolute SUPERIORITY of analog over digital. |
Posted By: Tyrant
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 06:57
I think you have misunderstood something. A CD cannot reproduce frequencies higher than 20 000 Hz. And nothing below 20 Hz either. An LP can theoretically reproduce frequencies from 0 to 100 000 Hz. Most people only have a hearing range of about 25-17 000 Hz, but science have established that it is possible to feel frequencies below or above this, that will influence the sound that you actually perceive. That has been said to be the scientific reason that a good LP will always have a better sound than a CD, and is also one of the reasons that the newer super Audio digital formats now can reproduce frequencies up to 96 000 Hz. But the CD is stuck with its 20 000.
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 07:12
|
|
Posted By: TartanTantrum
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 07:22
| I have a lot of vinyl beacuse I am in my late forties. The trouble with CD's is I struggle to read the sleeve notes/lyrics of a lot of CD booklets. There is still somethisng special about opening a gatefold album! |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 07:27
|
Indeed! |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 07:34
Frequencies below 20Hz aren't sound, but simply vibrations. Even if such frequencies were recorded on a vinyl, the turntable would not reproduce them - audiophiles even use special devices to cancel out vibrations. As far as supersonic frequencies are concerned ... I haven't read any scientific papers which confirm this. I don't believe it, but I also cannot disprove it.
For such metaphysical debates I always like to come back to the good old listening test - and they show that most listeners (even those with "good ears") fail to tell CD and DVD-Audio / SACD apart. Even if there was a very slight, but noticeable difference ... I'm sure that it doesn't affect your listening experience. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 07:39
I guess you mean "objectivity". The fact that CD offers higher bandwidth and dynamics than vinyl is not a theory, it is fact - established by formulas, and confirmed by measurement. You could still be right in that vinyl sounds better than CD - but not if you're using properly defined terms like bandwidth and dynamics. Maybe this is a reason for our misunderstandings? ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 07:40
I return you the question  why is it so bad to admit that digital is a regression and that the fact that it's limited and that info are missing breaks the ears?
I would love that digital works, it'd save me a lot of work to find good condition first pressing vinyls to replace the awful unlistenable overbumped Cds. Despite that, i've invested a lot in a big CD setup and i'm happy with it cause it sounds analog enough to be earable (with the very few good Cds existing). But it's crap compared to a good tapedeck, turntable or tuner. |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 07:45
Our friend proved us that vynil has a unlimited bandwidth, Let's say that digital has theorically a higher dynamic over analog, but actually it's the reverse. |
Posted By: Neil
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 07:48
Who says a CD cannot go below 20Hz? In theory, if it were possible to make speakers and amplifiers to do this, any digital media can reproduce down to as close to 0Hz as you can get. True a CD cannot faithfully produce over 20KHz (going by the Nyquist theorem that states that you need a sampling rate of greater than two times the highest frequency that you wish to reproduce). I was incorrect in my previous statement about the upper frequency limits and agree that vinyl can get above 20KHz; but mechanical noise and distortion becomes a problem as imperfections in and damage to the vinyl become part of the signal. This is partly helped by the RIAA frequency compensation that boosts hf on to the vinyl and then cuts it as it when it comes off (works a bit like Dolby on tapes. However vinyl cannot possibly reproduce very low frequencies because of the electro mechanical nature of the analogue pickup. It produces a voltage proportional to the rate of change of the signal. As you approach 0Hz you have negligable rate of change and therefore negligable signal. This means that you need to amplify the lf as it comes off a vinyl and this leads to unwanted rumble and other problems. All this gives vinyl a very definite lower frequency limit. A digital device can keep sending the correct digital signature for the amplitude of the signal even if the signal isn't changing, therefore it can represent 0Hz (although we can't reproduce it). The thing that actually gives a CD player a lower frequency limit is the electronics, most specifically the coupling capacitors in the amplifiers (i.e. the analogue part). I also doubt these "scientific" tests about "feeling" frequencies outside human hearing limits. It is again all subjective; some say that these frequencies make the sound better, some say that they make the sound worse and most say that they can't tell the difference. But all this deep tech talk is missing the point. What I disagree with is the force of the language often used against CD. Sweeping statements about how CD audio is "awful", "terrible", "unlistenable". This poll shows that the majority prefer CD so it can't be unlistenable. It does have it's flaws, I can sometimes hear them myself and I have never said that CD was perfect. I have also never said that vinyl was rubbish. A good vinyl system sounds excellent, but you have to spend many times the money to get the same general quality of sound as a good CD and then it isn't portable. We could now have a modern CD system with 24bits and 96KHz sampling for a similar cost to normal CD. That system would be almost impossible to match, even with a phenomenal vinyl set up, but the market doesn't demand it. Nearly everyone is happy with CD as it stands, there is no real demand for an improvement. ------------- When people get lost in thought it's often because it's unfamiliar territory. |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 08:09
|
"also doubt these "scientific" tests about "feeling" frequencies outside human hearing limits. It is again all subjective; some say that these frequencies make the sound better, some say that they make the sound worse and most say that they can't tell the difference."
No. All people who'll do the test on a good system feel the same: a good condition-vynil played on a good turntable explode the same CD. Without talking about the fact that Cds are overbumped, making most rock Cds unlistenable as soon as you play it through a neutral and transparent system. More classical and jazz Cds are well equilibrated and you already agreed on that point sooner. "But all this deep tech talk is missing the point. What I disagree with is the force of the language often used against CD. Sweeping statements about how CD audio is "awful", "terrible", "unlistenable"." I said it cause that's the way it is. It hurts ears, it lacks precense and emotion, etc...why hide the sad thruth which is that digital is crap? "This poll shows that the majority prefer CD so it can't be unlistenable. It does have it's flaws, I can sometimes hear them myself and I have never said that CD was perfect." It proves nothing, as virtually nobody had the opportunity to make the comparison, and most listen to so poor equipment that the difference is unearable. Cause people are influenced by marketing, that's why everybody turns to plasma screens which are very bad compared to the old cathodic tubes; "I have also never said that vinyl was rubbish. A good vinyl system sounds excellent, but you have to spend many times the money to get the same general quality of sound as a good CD and then it isn't portable." False! A Linn LP12 with a good moving coil will cost 4000€ and will explode 10000€ Cd setups in term of PERFORMANCE and any cd until the biggest Mark Levinson setup in term of musicality and emotion! CD is EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE, and the most costy element in a system before the preamp. A decent digital setup is not under 5000€ new (drive/converter). But yes, a turntable is not portable! "We could now have a modern CD system with 24bits and 96KHz sampling for a similar cost to normal CD. That system would be almost impossible to match, even with a phenomenal vinyl set up, but the market doesn't demand it. Nearly everyone is happy with CD as it stands, there is no real demand for an improvement." Sorry but it doesn't works yet, for the moment classic 16 bits works better even if 24 bits should be better. |
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 08:29
which ones are they Olivier - can you list them?
 -------------  Prog Archives Tour Van 
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 08:43
The listening tests which I keep talking about are all conducted on good systems, which all the participants acept. Still, the difference between the sources is so small that they cannot reliably tell them apart.
The statement is crap, not the technology. You feel that you have to warn people about digital technology, I feel that I have to warn people about your statements! So we both have noble motives - we want to help people.
As I said above, listening tests for sources are typically conducted on *very* good systems ... otherwise there wouldn't be much point to them. And about plasma screens: Of course they suck ... but they're flat. Sometimes people will prefer usability over quality ... it's the same with low bitrate mp3.
Technical progress is an amazing thing ... my Creative X-Fi sound card sounds amazing. I generally don't believe in overly expensive consumer technology ... it becomes obsolete so quickly, especially in the digital realm. I'm 100% sure that my 120€ sound card from 2006 sounds as good as many 10.000€ players from 5 years ago. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 08:46
|
Mystic fred wrote:
"which ones are they Olivier - can you list them?" Prog: -Caravan/Deram remasters (especially "If i could" and "In the land"). -KC/Last HDCD japanese remasters (digipack) -Zappa/Uncle meat (1993 Zappa approved remaster) Rock/psyche US: -Doors remasters -Crosby/If i could only remember my name (old edition) To be completed... |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 09:02
|
I'm not against progress, but everything which is new is not -unfortunatly- better. In the video field, for example: While DVD offers a less natural image -but sometimes more precise- and a far less good sound than VHS, it's very convenient. Blue ray disc will bring a real improvment in term of image quality. Plasma screen is another example of regression in term of quality, but maybe people buy it cause it's thin! |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 09:05
|
"I generally don't believe in overly expensive consumer technology ... it becomes obsolete so quickly, especially in the digital realm. I'm 100% sure that my 120€ sound card from 2006 sounds as good as many 10.000€ players from 5 years ago."
Don't dream my poor friend!!!
There are 20 years old Cd setups which are still reference! It means absolutely nothing! You don't know what you're saying, obviously! |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 09:10
|
...like the Marantz CD12/DA12 big setup from the late 80's, early 90's, which works wonderful and certainly not outdated by high end 24 bits machines and even less by a computer card
Here's the inside of the beast (DA 12 converter) 
|
Posted By: Neil
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 09:21
Of cousre there are. CD technology has not changed since it was invented and since the original machines had far better mechanics and electronics (at a price) you would expect them to be better. More modern machines, except audiophile ones at ridiculous prices, are cheaply made and therefore do not perform so well. It's the same with vinyl; the best reproduction equipment came very soon after vinyl came into production. OK there may be small improvements in pickups etc (mainly down to materials technology) but they will be small improvements. Now if you could re design the system and use a different media for the disc and maybe cut and read by laser? I wonder how good that might be. ------------- When people get lost in thought it's often because it's unfamiliar territory. |
Posted By: Neil
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 09:42
But who in their right mind would spend 4,000 on an audio system? You can get very good sound for less than 1,000. As for 10,000 on a CD system. You yourself have taken great pains to point out how limited you think CD audio is, so why spend 10,000 on it? The missing info at the high end is still missing, you would just hear the errors in better quality. The problem here is our different points of reference. Compared to your average CD player your average Vinyl is not as good audio quality. If you spend many thousands on a vinyl system and buy specially pressed vinyls then I agree that you can beat a CD for clarity of hf sound, for the first few plays anyway. But a poor CD player will sound very good to most people and will always sound that good; play after play after play. It will also cost less that 100 (sorry, don't have a euro symbol on the keyboard). You cannot get a vinyl system in that price range to sound anything other than bad, and worse after each play. You must remember that very few people consider that 10,000 spent on an audio system is justifiable and to say that anything that doesn't cost that much is crap is insulting as well as inaccurate. Of course the more you spend the better it should sound but as the money increases the differences become almost negligable. The point us pro CD people are making is that CD offers good quality sound that is portable, long lasting and cheap and easy to reproduce. Vinyl might sound better to some but in order for it to sound better you have to spend a fortune and take lots of special precautions with cleanliness etc. Therefore CD is far more convenient as a quality sound source. ------------- When people get lost in thought it's often because it's unfamiliar territory. |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 09:46
The list goes on: Genesis/ Selling england, 1994 remaster PF/ London 66/67 Label: Pucka |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 10:03
I admire your self confidence! ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 10:08
|
You can, indeed, cause it's based on experience and not on smoky theories!
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 10:19
BTW: I bought a nice vinyl album today: ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: Tyrant
Date Posted: November 14 2006 at 12:50
|
I do not understand how anyone can say that it's impossible to hear the sound difference between CDs and SACDs! The sound in the latter is in 5 channels, as opposed to the formers 2. It is very easy to hear the sound difference. Which is better, can be debated though. DVD-Audio is generally believed to be a format of better sound quality. Unfortunately, very few music recordings are available in this format.
It also surprises me that many hasn't heard about the fact that people can perceive (not hear) sounds of higher frequencies than 20 000 Hz. I thought this was a well known fact. It was even stated in my high school physics book.
But of course, the difference in sound quality between analog and digital sound cannot be explained solely by Hz-bandwidth. Check out this article for more:
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm - http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: November 14 2006 at 12:55
|
1. When comparing CD and SACD we're obviously talking about 2 channel SACDs ... of course it would not make much sense to compare 2-channel and 5.1-channel sources. 2. Even if people can *perceive* frequencies higher than 20,000 Hz - I doubt that this perception registers as "music". Frequencies below 20 Hz are also not "heard", only felt (as vibrations). And let's not forget that those frequencies aren't recorded on vinyl and cassettes, media which audiophiles value so highly. So these frequencies can hardly be what supposedly makes analog so great ... ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: November 14 2006 at 12:57
|
Thanks for that clear explanation which points out digital big weakness which is info missing. Concerning the SACD issue, i'm not in favor of 5 channel, nothing can equals 2 channels IMO(with a sub if you like), on all criterias, especially the image which appears to be less focused and precise with 5 channel. |
Posted By: Tyrant
Date Posted: November 14 2006 at 14:06
Hmm, there must be something wrong with the link. I'll try to copy and paste the content. Here:
The answer lies in the difference between http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/analog-digital.htm - 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). 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.
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: November 14 2006 at 14:17
|
"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." That's a load of bullsh*t (sorry). The human ear has certain limits as far as frequency is concerned, and modern digital recording systems are well beyond that level. "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." Another outrageous piece of misinformation. Of course information is always lost in analog recording processes ... there is no such thing as a perfect analog copy. "The output of a record player is analog. It can be fed directly to your amplifier with no conversion." The crap continues ... of course there's conversion happening. First the movement of the stylus needs to be converted into an electric signal, and then that signal needs to be boosted and the frequency corrected. During all of this, of course information is lost. "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." Wow - thanks for admitting that there may actually be downsides to analog technology.
"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." These types of graphs are hugely misleading because they suggest that the human ear can actually hear these frequencies. Go to a pet store, buy a dog whistle and test if you can hear it (not a "fake" one which also produces audible low-range frequencies). ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: Viajero Astral
Date Posted: November 21 2006 at 01:19
Dont worry, the new Laser TV will change that http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/6216/52/ - http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/6216/52/ ------------- 
|
Posted By: Chus
Date Posted: November 21 2006 at 22:26
|
I kinda like the muddy sound of the LP... for me it's another ingredient of the music (sometimes).. but CD's are far more reliable ------------- Jesus Gabriel |
Posted By: tardis
Date Posted: November 22 2006 at 17:49
| Vinyl |
Posted By: Paradox
Date Posted: November 23 2006 at 11:44
I agree with you. However, the sound of vinyl is great too, but in a different way than with a CD. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Paradox
Date Posted: November 23 2006 at 11:46
|
I have a couple of SACDs (Weather Report's Heavy Weather and Roger Waters - In The Flesh: Live), but I don't have a SACD player. Where on earth would I find one?
-------------
|
Posted By: Neil
Date Posted: November 23 2006 at 12:00
|
"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."
These types of graphs are hugely misleading because they suggest that the human ear can actually hear these frequencies. Go to a pet store, buy a dog whistle and test if you can hear it (not a "fake" one which also produces audible low-range frequencies). Also, you may know of Fourier Analysis. This states that any repeating waveform can be represented by a series of sine waves with phase and amplitude co-efficients. What you tend to get with the digital representation of 16KHz from a CD is close to a square wave. A square wave is quite simple to represent using Fourier transforms. It's quite simply the original frequency (16KHz in this case) minus one third amplitude of the third harmonic (48Khz) plus one fifth amplitude of the fifth harmonic (80KHz) etc etc. If you add these sine waves together you get a square wave (people have been doing this inside synthesisers for years). Now a CD player will have an analogue filter straight after the D to A converter and this will very quickly "roll off" the frequencies above 16KHz. By the time you get to 48KHz (the next important frequency in the square wave) the amplitude of the signal is very low. The fifth harmonic is non existant. The result of this is that the actual output looks very like a 16KHz sine wave, because the harmonics that would make the waveforem square have been filtered out.
Sorry, can't paste the graph for some reason. ------------- When people get lost in thought it's often because it's unfamiliar territory. |
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: November 23 2006 at 12:05
VINYL SOUNDING MUDDY??
 not on your nelly - you probably need a new hamster!
 ------------- Prog Archives Tour Van
|
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: November 23 2006 at 12:07
http://www.ebay.co.uk/">
 ------------- Prog Archives Tour Van
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: November 23 2006 at 12:48
|
Heavyfreight: Yes, I know Fourier Analysis ... it was part of my college exams. Unfortunately most audiophiles will not accept these things ... it's all just "smoky theories" to them. Of course the real evidence for a non-scientist would be to try to hear the difference between 2khz sine and square waveforms (doesn't matter much whether digital or analog), and then the difference between a 16khz analoge sine wave and a 16khz sine wave from a CD. I bet that everybody will be able to tell the 2khz sine/square apart, but not the 16khz test. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: Chus
Date Posted: November 23 2006 at 16:46
hahaha that was perhaps not the word I wanted to use.... I just wanted to say that LP's create a pleasant enviroment... it makes me sleepy ... but indeed it's not the same to listen to a digitally remastered Tales From Topographic Oceans than from a vynil... personally I prefer the enviroment of that music on LP (although there's no much difference between the CD edition and the LP of that album hahahah)... I know it sounds crazy ------------- Jesus Gabriel |
Posted By: jalas
Date Posted: November 28 2006 at 13:48
|
CDs are better for the sound quality, but album sleeves were better. ------------- 
JOIN THE COMMUNIST PARTY! |
Posted By: progadicto
Date Posted: November 30 2006 at 01:07
|
Vinyl... always vinyl... sounds better that a CD if you have the propiate equipment...
------------- ... E N E L B U N K E R... |
Posted By: Mandrakeroot
Date Posted: November 30 2006 at 16:17
|
CD for new reciords and praticality, Vynil for old records
But I vote for CD!!! ------------- 
|