Forum menu
Fair point, all things being equal though and the mastering processes being the same...
Well, in the example I gave you both sources cost about £15k. How much do you have to spend for vinyl to demonstrate this superiority? You know there are a few parameters where CD is technically superior to vinyl, no? Still, not many of these technical details are what finally convince people of the suitability of a format, as this thread proves!
the operating frequency range of a CD is wider than the human ear can detect (both directions) and remember that you lose the ability to hear the top frequencies as you get older
the signal to noise ratio on CD is significantly better and the hippies excuse about it sounding cold is just the lack of the background noise, the sound of accuracy
How much do you have to spend for vinyl to demonstrate this superiority?
All said tongue in cheek of course, but being serious now, I think when you're comparing sources on proper Hifi equipment rather than studio reference kit, the Hifi kit adds in its own colouration to the sound which is going to add or detract (depends on your point of view) to the original source that you are comparing. The whole point of a good Hifi is that it flatters any recording, making it sound as good as it possibly can, whereas good studio equipment kinda does the opposite. It's designed to make the original recording sound as accurate and revealing as possible, showing up any flaws in the recording.
So how much do you need to spend? Well I'd say that with Hifi kit, the more you spend, the less you're going to be able to tell the difference in the source equipment most probably, it will all sound incredible past a certain price point!
You know there are a few parameters where CD is technically superior to vinyl, no?
Completely. I love vinyl, but as I said it's a big PITA. CD's are brilliant, and like I said I think even if it was invented today we'd still be raving about how good a format it is. But if it was the ultimate evolution of the species so to speak, they'd never have tried to surpass it with inventions like SACD and DVD Audio would they... ANY digital format is subject to limitations imposed by sample rate and bit depth, which an analogue source quite simply isn't. Digital audio formats don't suffer from analogue sound colouration though (tape hiss, pops and clicks on vinyl etc.) which is of course where it's vastly superior, but that can make it (to some people's ears) sound sterile which is where the "warmth" of vinyl is often romanticised about by the vinylista's...
But then you know all this already, so really all we're doing is educating the others on this thread! 😉
I think the point about the mastering process etc is very valid. I have CD's that quite frankly sound appalling, even more so when played on a decent bit of kit (like my Uniti). I point directly at Californication by RHCP, i mean whoever mastered that CD had earmuffs on, it clips, it has insanely bad volume changes and then the actual music itself is sh1t too. But anyway, all very interesting. I do enjoy a nice listen to something well recorded.
I think the point about the mastering process etc is very valid.
I have both the CD and vinyl of The Arcade Fire's latest album - the CD was clearly mastered by someone who thinks louder = better, the LP was clearly mastered by someone who understands dynamic range and clipping. I am beginning to wonder whether or not modern CDs tend to sound horrible is because they're mastered for the iPod generation, not a decent HiFi.
Music quality aside, that's why R1 sounds horribly compressed and R3 does not - R1 is designed for listening to in the car, R3 for relaxing with a port and cigar!
Jeez, you bores. If it's rock music, loudness is better!
Mboy...you say cds are compressed....how so?
You also mention distortion on vinyl...you mean noise?
While I couldn't care less what you use to listen to music, the idea that because I use mp3 I'm not listening properly is insulting and snobbish
While I couldn't care less what you use to listen to music, the idea that because I use mp3 I'm not listening properly is insulting and snobbish
It's neither insulting nor snobbish. Your previous argument however:
emsz - Member
I love the idea that you can't do a proper listening experience unless it's vinyl. Lol that's such crap.
was both naive and inaccurate.
By listening to an MP3, you're only listening to a fraction of the sound that was produced by the artist. Ergo, you're not listening properly. Though as has been discussed, the only real way to listen to music is live, but as much as I'd like to have The Arcade Fire in my living room, I think they'd get in the way a bit after a while....
Oh, and er, wunundred!
god this thread has turned out even more ****y than I expected.
By listening to an MP3, you're only listening to a fraction of the sound that was produced by the artist. Ergo, you're not listening [s]properly.[/s] [i]to all of the sound produced by the artist[/i]. Though as has been discussed, [s]the only real way to listen to music[/s] [i]the only way to listen to all of the sound produced by the artist[/i] is live, but as much as I'd like to have The Arcade Fire in my living room, I think they'd get in the way a bit after a while....
Fix that for you. To say anything more than that is snobbish.
Is-ought, Hume and all that.
[i]the only way to listen to all of the sound produced by the artist is live[/i]
I must say that is pretty clueless. Live the artist plays the songs in a live format.
When they record them, they sit in a studio, usually with a producer and tweak the songs into a recorded format. So the only way to listen "the sound produced by the artist" (more ****), is to sit in the studio while they listen to the final recordings on the monitors.
ie. you can't.
Fix that for you.
Well scuzz, you didn't fix it at all, you broke it.
You can watch a film whilst arguing on STW, but you're not watching it properly unless you give it your full attention on a decent sized screen, or preferably at the cinema. That's not snobbish, that's common sense.
I must say that is pretty clueless.
To use the vernacular that this thread seems to have degenerated into: bollocks. LOL
Proper: [url= http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proper ]to suit.[/url]
Sitting in a dark room with your DACs, Quads and KEF references is wonderful. It is not the only way to listen to (or enjoy) music. While it's horrible listening to low-bitrate, loudness-war'd to hell modern tracks on laptop speakers with onboard sound, it is suitable for a LOT of situations.
While I agree that people who haven't heared what music CAN sound like may be missing out, I wouldn't go so far as to say they aren't doing it 'properly'. MP3s suit their needs, and as such are 'proper'.
Some people genuinely don't care and are just enjoying listening to their music.
How come people on here don't get so excited over the comparison between digital and analogue watches?
Personally I don't think you're [i]really[/i] telling the time unless you've got an analogue watch.
You're not [i]really[/i] reading unless it's carved on slate.
But we can all agree on one thing:
You aren't really riding, unless you're on a mountain bike.
Ah yes, at least we can all agree on that eh?
😆
Mboy...you say cds are compressed....how so?
You also mention distortion on vinyl...you mean noise?
Ok, technically they aren't... It was just easier to write that than go into how and and why the 16bit depth and 44.1KHz sample rate they are recorded at, can miss out information that might otherwise be captured on an analogue source, and how slight volume step changes may occur in differences in quantisation levels within the digital recording. CD is not compressed as such, it just misses out some of the recording in the first place (the parts we can't hear anyway, but they can still affect dynamics), and introduces 65536 levels of different volume compared to analogue where there are no volume steps.
As for vinyl, yes I meant noise, slip of the tongue.
A completely subjective view: I prefer vinyl for playing music for other people, but digital for listening to music.
I used to DJ and whilst I can play with CD and MP3 decks, I just prefer vinyl. It feels more interactive and there's just something about the way that a record slips out of the sleeve, about the way that you need to give it a gentle brush to get rid of fluff, the cueing up.
Happy memories.
When it comes down to it though, MP3s are easier. You can fit a lifetime's supply of music on a laptop, and not have to worry about carrying a hernia-inducing record bag up an escalator on the way to some club.
I really should get round to ripping all my vinyl, but it just seems a bit wrong. I just can't bring myself to buy decks again though.
But we can all agree on one thing:You aren't really riding, unless you're on a mountain bike.
Rigid fixie 29er, presumably?
I really should get round to ripping all my vinyl
It took me six months just to listen to all the music on my iPod.
Even listening just once to every piece of vinyl I own, never mind ripping it, would take much longer. And I'm sure some of it wouldn't be as good as I remember.
nothing comes close to physically dropping vinyl into a mix.
when i've saved some pennies, i'm splashing out on some decks and serato gear.
used to own Final Scratch + 1210's years ago... no idea why i sold it all!
out of interest, how many of the people on here who prefer the [b]sound[/b] of vinyl (just sound, [b]not[/b] the experience) are DJs or ex-DJs?
yes.
Ripping is way quicker than listening.
Ripping is way quicker than listening.
To rip vinyl you've got to actually play it to record it and get it in the digital domain. Ripping therefore takes at least as long as listening. I suppose you could play a 33 at 45 and then slow it down again once ripped 😉
Not when you have vinyl. Not unless I want to run everything at 45rpm and then slow it down in software.
I remember, back when I was actually trying to make my own Hard House tracks, just how much time I was spending sat in front of my computer with the sampler software. I'd sit down, play with a few samples, mix in some effects, have a listen, then it would be midnight. Time would magically go.
That's probably the reason that I can't bring myself to start all that again. I can't handle late nights as well as I used to these days.
As for the sound of vinyl, I'm not sure. MP3s and CDs are clean, so the sound of the music hits your ears pretty much as it left the instruments. Vinyl has those little extra bits, the slight crackle, the odd pop, maybe a background hiss. it's that little bit of imperfection that sets it apart. Live music vs. studio sort of thing.
Anybody enjoy the first few seconds of crackle on a vinyl mix?
Ah - I'd missed my coffee, thought the discussion was re. cds...