221–230 of 347 posts
He can hear the difference between 0.1% THD and 1% THD, but can't tell Mozart from Beethoven, or Kenny G from Coltrane.
When people claim about how they are emotionally moved by certain speakers, but not others, chances are the music is shit.
When the music is good, I'm still moved by a 64 kb/s encoding using 8 bit uLaw, played through laptop speakers.
The ones that have kept records alive to this day (that is independent labels) are already suffering under the load major labels are pushing releases in, especially on record store days. Want your record pressed? Fine, but just after we press 20k copies of this Saturday Night Live OST LP, that's previously only been available in every flea market, record store and garbage can in the world.
When you cater for the crowd that flocked in during the trend are already switching to the next hip thing, soon all we are left with is tons of useless releases filling the bins.
It always makes me cringe when people say that records "sound better". Here's my unsolicited theory on why vinyl was preferred (by some) to CDs in the 90s and 00s. It wasn't the form factor, it was the dynamic range of the masters. I don't know if it was caused by the advent of digital recording, but the loudness war [1] certainly got going around the time that CDs were becoming popular. So comparing a classic vinyl…
As someone who started collecting vinyl about 3 years ago, it's about the difference between passive and active involvement in music. So much of our music consumption these days is a largely passive activity. We have music in our headphones while we work. We have music on in our cars while we drive. We have music on in the background of social events. While modern digital formats have given us true ubiquity of music…
This is the only explanation for this that I could actually understand. Anyone telling me that they think it sounds better just triggers eye rolling.
Since you simply cannot do this on analog storage, vinyl will not have these compromises and will usually sound better.
But compared to good lossless digital storage that makes the opposite sacrifice (ie: Take up more space to retain more quality) vinyl will almost always produce a less accurate reproduction due to the physical properties (degradation) of the record itself.
Though many people seem to find these analog losses appealing or 'warmer' and actually prefer it to a more accurate reproduction of the original master.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no "stair-stepping" in digital recordings. The sample-rate of a CD exceeds the effective resolution of even the best vinyl pressing. Furthermore, the Nyquist limit guarantees that it is impossible to perceive the sample rate of a CD, and even with a bit-depth of 16, you have 50% more dynamic range than vinyl is capable of. Add to that the fact that a master is generally 96Khz, 24-bit.
This is theoric considerations, not practical. For frequencies from about 2Khz to the limit, the dynamic range of the LP is over 100dB. The quoted 60-66dB dynamic range is only because takes into account low frequency rumble. CDs are mastered with 44KHz sampling rate which is now generally accepted as too low for high quality audio. Yes according to Nyquist, you could capture up to 22KHz with no problem with such sam…
With all due respect, there is nothing remotely practical about the theoretical ability of any medium to record frequencies above 22Khz. Do you play your CD4 quadrophonic records to your pets? On what? Ribbon tweeters?
Furthermore, the ability to perceive dynamic range attenuates with frequency. So once again, you are back at the limits of human hearing, even if I accept what you say about the theoretical DR of vinyl. And what if what you say is true? Can you show me any recording with a dynamic range exceeding, say, 70dB?
It is also relevant that the dynamic range of vinyl is a function of the circumference of a track, and decreases as the record plays. It also decreases every time you play a record.
And what you say about DACs has not been true for many years. These days, even run-of-the-mill DACs employ oversampling.
I collect my favorite artist albums on vinyl for a few reasons: * Big artwork and liner notes. I have shelves on my wall to display my current favorite albums and change them out over time. * Conversation piece. Friends can actually browse a collection and talk about common interests. It's fun to hang out and listen to records with people. * Vinyl requires some heavier duty stereo equipment. Regardless of how you thi…
I love that you call it a "hi-fi" which is what it would have been called the generation before mine. We always called it a "stereo". I've always been amazed by how rare it is for a person to be interested in a system that makes the music sound better. The difference between an iPhone with the default earbuds and a $5000 stereo rig with speakers is astounding but only a tiny fraction of the listening public cares
I remember when I bought my first pair of IEMs. They were pretty cheap, but still better than whatever earbuds came with my iPod at the time. After listening to the new IEMs for a while I was unable to go back to the Apple ones because they sounded so much worse. If you asked me a few days prior, I would have told you the earbuds sounded fine.
Then I got a real pair of headphones...
Frank Zappa on vinyl, BAM (Bay Area Music magazine) [1987]: http://www.afka.net/Articles/1987-01_BAM.htm BAM: Working with a computerized synthesizer, do you find that vinyl is no longer the most desirable way to present your music? Will you be releasing CD-only recordings? FZ: Well, vinyl never really was all that terrific a medium anyway. Some people cling to the belief that vinyl sounds better. I don't know. Not t…
Digital is a superior format. But I still buy vinyl because a good half of vinyl recordings out there aren't completely fucked by applying a compressor that destroys the dynamic range.
As someone who started collecting vinyl about 3 years ago, it's about the difference between passive and active involvement in music. So much of our music consumption these days is a largely passive activity. We have music in our headphones while we work. We have music on in our cars while we drive. We have music on in the background of social events. While modern digital formats have given us true ubiquity of music…
As a vinyl collector myself, another thing that interests me is the feeling of quality you get when you buy vinyl. I love looking through the lyric booklets in 10/12" format, beautifully printed and often a piece of art in its own right. I actually feel like I _want_ to sit there and listen through a whole album when you have all that to gaze through at the same time.
As someone who started collecting vinyl about 3 years ago, it's about the difference between passive and active involvement in music. So much of our music consumption these days is a largely passive activity. We have music in our headphones while we work. We have music on in our cars while we drive. We have music on in the background of social events. While modern digital formats have given us true ubiquity of music…
While I can understand the nostalgia of playing music on a record player (many of us had lots of records when we were younger), and how that experience could be different for you, perhaps in a very pleasant way, I find the idea that the experience of using one medium over another somehow makes you more "serious" about the music (or more engaged with the music, or whatever else you want to call it) is laughable. You c…
I believe you missed the point. He says the ritual makes the listener more involved with the music. He doesn't say different media make one more or less serious about music. It's similar with food: you can be serious about your food whether cooking it yourself or ordering it at a restaurant (or eating at a buffet.) But you're more involved with the food if you select your own raw ingredients and cook it yourself.