Its because they told us CDs were the best sound, and we realized that it was a lie.

d



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2010 01:46PM by inkahootz.

I wouldn't say that compact discs are not capable of reproducing sound as accurately as vinyl records.

In fact, if you get rid of compression, and use a high-end cd player with good error-correction and a good DAC chip, and play it through a good amplifier, CDs and Vinyl records can have the same rich and vibrant reproduction. Vinyl played on a cheap turntable with poor vibration isolation, with a cheap needle and played through a low-end amplifier will suck just as much as a CD played through a consumer grade CD player and a consumer grade amplifier.

There's so much about sound reproduction that you can't claim that the storage medium is going to make or break the quality. A good ceramic cassette tape can sound just as good as a vinyl record or a CD like the Police's Synchronicity Gold Original Master Recording.

Every album up until maybe 1993, maybe even 1997 was mastered on 1/2" reel-to-reel tape.

The real advantage of a CD, if you don't put a lot of compression into the encoding, is that a CD can last 100+ years. A Vinyl record can last maybe as long, but it will degrade over time. With CDs, you can make exact copies without degradation, while vinyl does slowly degrade over time so any subsequent copies may not be as true to the original.

sound can be represented mathematically using waveforms with 100% accuracy. calculus wins.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/14/2009 05:45AM by Gravis.

Didn't we already have this debate circa 1983 and then again in the 90's when vinyl made another "comeback"?

Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Didn't we already have this debate circa 1983 and
> then again in the 90's when vinyl made another
> "comeback"?


And just about any time Meade is around

When I was a kid, everyone was trying to get the best sound possible from the music. People were constantly experimenting with speakers, turntables, needles, receivers, etc....Producers and engineers all through the 70's were trying to take advantage of the new "stereo" sound by improving recording techniques and equipment.

Then suddenly, in the late 80's and early 90's it all came to a screeching halt. It wasn't so much that CD's weren't that good yet, but more to do with peoples lack of interest in quality sound and recording. It has gotten steadily worse since then, even though the technology is there to create amazingly good audio (SACD, DVD, Blu-ray). We've officially reached a low point today where people actually think mp3's sound great and have pretty much made it the standard.
On top of all that, the popular music being churned out today is not really worthy of top quality sound anyway.

The best thing about growing up listening to records to me was putting the record on, cranking it up, getting good and stoned and looking at the album art and reading along with the lyrics. It was even better with headphones.

Its too bad Super Audio CD's didn't catch on. They were uncompressed and re-recorded from the 2" master tapes (not 1/2" as Bob thinks) often in 5:1 surround.

Audiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Its because they told us CDs were the best sound,
> and we realized that it was a lie.
>
>


Coming from Meade. A guy who believes you can hear the purity of vinyl when you listen to it played back on a YouTube video.

WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Audiophile Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Its because they told us CDs were the best
> sound,
> > and we realized that it was a lie.
> >
> >
>
>
> Coming from Meade. A guy who believes you can hear
> the purity of vinyl when you listen to it played
> back on a YouTube video.


LOL...I remember that thread!

inkahootz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Audiophile Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Its because they told us CDs were the best
> > sound,
> > > and we realized that it was a lie.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Coming from Meade. A guy who believes you can
> hear
> > the purity of vinyl when you listen to it
> played
> > back on a YouTube video.
>
>
> LOL...I remember that thread!

Reading the top of a Whitman's Sampler box is the closest Meade comes to understanding a sampling rate.

Someone told me last night that their favorite medium is still the 8-track for sound quality. I've heard musicians pine for the days of natural cassette tape distortion.

It's all subjective. I personally pay more attention to the song than the medium it's recorded on, but I'm just crazy like that.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Someone told me last night that their favorite
> medium is still the 8-track for sound quality.
> I've heard musicians pine for the days of natural
> cassette tape distortion.
>
> It's all subjective. I personally pay more
> attention to the song than the medium it's
> recorded on, but I'm just crazy like that.


I guess if you have a pristine analog source like a new vinyl record or un-played 8-track tape, there might be some appeal to the "warm sound" of analog when listening to something like rock. The problem is when you spin an album a few times or stretch a tape, the popping and crackling (with vinyl) and the warbling (with tape) more than offsets any so-called improvement in sound quality.

Meade... I think your Dad is calling. You'd better go take out the trash.

Oh, and CDs and records both suck. If I can't carry my entire music collection on a device that fits inside my purse, I'm not interested in the format.

Genevieve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Meade... I think your Dad is calling. You'd
> better go take out the trash.
>
> Oh, and CDs and records both suck. If I can't
> carry my entire music collection on a device that
> fits inside my purse, I'm not interested in the
> format.


Meade never leaves the house, so he has not problem using records.

WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MrMephisto Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Someone told me last night that their favorite
> > medium is still the 8-track for sound quality.
> > I've heard musicians pine for the days of
> natural
> > cassette tape distortion.
> >
> > It's all subjective. I personally pay more
> > attention to the song than the medium it's
> > recorded on, but I'm just crazy like that.
>
>
> I guess if you have a pristine analog source like
> a new vinyl record or un-played 8-track tape,
> there might be some appeal to the "warm sound" of
> analog when listening to something like rock. The
> problem is when you spin an album a few times or
> stretch a tape, the popping and crackling (with
> vinyl) and the warbling (with tape) more than
> offsets any so-called improvement in sound
> quality.

Everything degrades over time. CDs included.
I have CDs that are no longer playable because the laser cannot read the disc.
However, at least a record, no matter how old can be played to some degree because its analog

Furthermore, on hi fi systems, pops and clicks are virtually inaudible. And on regular systems they're really only present in between songs. Which may offend some, but to me, it really doesnt matter. The music sounds fuller and richer on the records.

Ive had CDs skip more too than my records. I think both mediums have their imperfecions, but overall records are more fun to listen to

Everything degrades, yes, but you can't just burn another copy of a record when it goes bad.

Was vinyl ever out of style??

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sound can be represented mathematically using
> waveforms with 100% accuracy. calculus wins.


Calculus always wins.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Its too bad Super Audio CD's didn't catch on. They
> were uncompressed and re-recorded from the 2"
> master tapes (not 1/2" as Bob thinks) often in 5:1
> surround.

I don't know why AMPEX made the Grand Master 456 1/2" studio mastering tapes then.

Bob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Numbers Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Its too bad Super Audio CD's didn't catch on.
> They
> > were uncompressed and re-recorded from the 2"
> > master tapes (not 1/2" as Bob thinks) often in
> 5:1
> > surround.
>
> I don't know why AMPEX made the Grand Master 456
> 1/2" studio mastering tapes then.


Because Grand Master Flash told them to! LOL

I just like to take bong rips while I listen to original zeppelin vinyl and pretend I am in 1976. I need a beanbag chair.

Fucking hippies.

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sound can be represented mathematically using
> waveforms with 100% accuracy. calculus wins.

An Analog waveform has an infinite amount of sample points, you would need infinite amount of hard drive space to convert analog to digital with 100% accuracy.

Now 99.999% is a different story.

Unless your a true Audiophile, Collector, or DJ. Then Vinyl is dead.

Audiophile Wrote:
--------------------------------------------
> Everything degrades over time. CDs included.
> I have CDs that are no longer playable because the
> laser cannot read the disc.
> However, at least a record, no matter how old can
> be played to some degree because its analog
>
> Furthermore, on hi fi systems, pops and clicks are
> virtually inaudible. And on regular systems
> they're really only present in between songs.
> Which may offend some, but to me, it really doesnt
> matter. The music sounds fuller and richer on the
> records.
>
> Ive had CDs skip more too than my records. I think
> both mediums have their imperfecions, but overall
> records are more fun to listen to

True, but it costs .5cents to make a backup of a CD,
and costs hundreds of dollars to make a backup of vinyl, or at least 5-10 bucks to buy another copy.

Mastering Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gravis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > sound can be represented mathematically using
> > waveforms with 100% accuracy. calculus wins.
>
> An Analog waveform has an infinite amount of
> sample points, you would need infinite amount of
> hard drive space to convert analog to digital with
> 100% accuracy.

wrong, you stupid fuck. sine, cosine and pi? do any of those ring a bell?


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."