Vinyl Records
-
One major difference from "then", meaning the 60's and 70's to "now" is that an old-time audio systems typically a small fraction of the THD (total harmonic distortion) that not only acceptable, but even common place in the "now". I've seen modern equipment rated at 5% - even 10% THD (such as boom boxes), and earbuds? Give me a break. My system was 0.5%. An audiophilic friends' system clocked in at 0.2%. Even now, suddenly there's rediscovery of over-the-ear phones - like they always used to be. Only then, the sound quality between those big cushiony phones was extraordinary. Vinyl Better? An absolute absurdity on its own. However, the current digital is geared towards the vast armies of the hearing-impaired identified by the constant wires protruding from their ears. Converted vinyl should sound exactly like the original - or more correctly, should sound like it. that, however, assumes a true conversion. HiFi had a meaning: High Fidelity. Fidelity implies trustworthy accuracy. That once was a goal. Now, it's a four-letter acronym, the fidelity of it's meeting now gone. Among my first few CD's, Tchaikovsky's Nutcracker. The triangle played in one movement was so real it was astonishing. That, of course, was when CD's were trying to outperform the current popular media. Cassette and eight-track tapes were designed for cars - but became the central audio medium for many. That was an early nail in the coffin. You're living in an age where jerks will actually pay big bucks for tickets to a live concert - where the (alleged) artists lip-synch! If anything's wrong with digital, it's that the consumers accept crap.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
W∴ Balboos wrote:
inyl Better? An absolute absurdity on its own.
Not so. Digitised music is clipped and doesnt have the attack you get in an anlog reproduction. It is also less subtle, and lacks depth.
-
Actually, vinyl sounding better is an audio illusion. In fact, it is impossible in most cases for vinyl to reproduce the original sound as performed. This is because the dynamic range of a groove is physically limited, and in order to get the full sound to fit into the recorded track, the "louds" must be made quieter, and the "quiets" must be made louder. This enables the brain to have an easier job to hear all of the content, and as far as the brain is concerned, easier is better. There were devices available that attempted to re-expand the dynamics of a recording, called a "DBX". However, this expansion was artificial, making quiet pieces quieter and loud pieces louder, regardless of their original amplitude. So, if you want better reproduction of the original performances - digital is the way to go. If you want easier to listen to, the the old way is better.
Cheers, Mick ------------------------------------------------ It doesn't matter how often or hard you fall on your arse, eventually you'll roll over and land on your feet.
Midi_Mick wrote:
he dynamic range of a groove is physically limited
The limitation was imposed by engineers to squeeze more music time onto the record. There are specialist recordings that deliberately don't use this compression in order to increase dynamic range. I still have one I've Got the Music in Me (album) - Wikipedia[^] which sounds pretty impressive. Wasn't dbx simply a method of tape noise reduction?
Peter Wasser "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
-
Midi_Mick wrote:
he dynamic range of a groove is physically limited
The limitation was imposed by engineers to squeeze more music time onto the record. There are specialist recordings that deliberately don't use this compression in order to increase dynamic range. I still have one I've Got the Music in Me (album) - Wikipedia[^] which sounds pretty impressive. Wasn't dbx simply a method of tape noise reduction?
Peter Wasser "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
pwasser wrote:
Wasn't dbx simply a method of tape noise reduction?
No. A DBX expanded the dynamics of a recording, although it was often used as a noise reduction system (making the noise to quiet to hear). Google "DBX Expansion" and you'll see what I mean. And yes, you are right. Additional limitations were imposed to allow more music to fit onto the record. There is still a physical limitation imposed by the flexibility of the head of the record player and the groove - as such you would need a very high quality head and needle to properly play records with the expanded dynamics. Otherwise, the needle would just jump over the large grooves, and actually produce noise. I used to work for a record company in the early '80s, and to hear the difference between the original tapes and the vinyl did turn me off a bit. When CDs became available, I was impressed with the improved quality. However, accounting for all of that, the piece of Hifi equipment that made the most difference to the end sound was always the speakers. If everything else is top quality except the speakers, everything still sounds crap. Even with mediocre equipment, if you have good speakers, the final quality is generally still quite reasonable.
Cheers, Mick ------------------------------------------------ It doesn't matter how often or hard you fall on your arse, eventually you'll roll over and land on your feet.
-
pwasser wrote:
Lots of things have come a long way in 50 years but in my opinion an mp3 played on a headset just doesn't come close to a record played through a good hifi.
And guitar played through a transistor amp just isnt anywhere near as good as played through a valve amp. Some technologies do peak. As for records, yes, analog. The depth and richness, and subtelty is entirely missing from even CDs (and an mp3 is heavilly compressed CD even, so its even worse).
Munchies_Matt wrote:
isnt anywhere near as good as played through a valve amp.
You mean a tube amp?
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
Munchies_Matt wrote:
isnt anywhere near as good as played through a valve amp.
You mean a tube amp?
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013Yep, 600 volts of pure chewey sound. :)
-
W∴ Balboos wrote:
inyl Better? An absolute absurdity on its own.
Not so. Digitised music is clipped and doesnt have the attack you get in an anlog reproduction. It is also less subtle, and lacks depth.
-
Yep, 600 volts of pure chewey sound. :)
Why on Earth would I listen to Wookie music? :~
* CALL APOGEE, SAY AARDWOLF * GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X * Never pay more than 20 bucks for a computer game. * I'm a puny punmaker.
-
Why on Earth would I listen to Wookie music? :~
* CALL APOGEE, SAY AARDWOLF * GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X * Never pay more than 20 bucks for a computer game. * I'm a puny punmaker.
nerd
-
nerd
As if my whole signature isn't explicit enough :rolleyes:
* CALL APOGEE, SAY AARDWOLF * GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X * Never pay more than 20 bucks for a computer game. * I'm a puny punmaker.
-
Digital music does not have to be clipped. The general public think loud is better so we have the loudness wars, this pushes down the dynamic range and makes the music sound crap. Early CD's sound much better than the newly mastered stuff.
But usually is.
-
DACs can be surprisingly good but ultimately analogue will always beat digital when it comes to sound.
Slogans aren't solutions.
-
Digital music does not have to be clipped. The general public think loud is better so we have the loudness wars, this pushes down the dynamic range and makes the music sound crap. Early CD's sound much better than the newly mastered stuff.
The Presence on a well recorded CD is astonishing. In interesting analogy between movies and recorded music. Lots of remakes - but not as good as the original. Concentrating on special effects instead of quality. OH BRAVE NEW WORLD!
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
DACs can be surprisingly good but ultimately analogue will always beat digital when it comes to sound.
Slogans aren't solutions.
PeejayAdams wrote:
... but ultimately analogue will always beat digital when it comes to sound.
Until that annoying crackle or rhythmic pop starts up, or the needle comes to that little scratch and skips half the song.
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.
-
PeejayAdams wrote:
... but ultimately analogue will always beat digital when it comes to sound.
Until that annoying crackle or rhythmic pop starts up, or the needle comes to that little scratch and skips half the song.
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.
Doesn't happen if you look after your records!
Slogans aren't solutions.
-
I was in a charity shop the other day and a record (vinyl) cover caught my eye. It was this Bert Kaempfert | Album | A Swingin’ Safari[^] which I recognized as an album my Dad had owned in the sixties. What I remembered was that the music was very corny but the recording quality good. I checked the disc and it looked almost unplayed so I bought it for $2. I took it home, put in on the turntable and was amazed. Lots of things have come a long way in 50 years but in my opinion an mp3 played on a headset just doesn't come close to a record played through a good hifi. I am now playing Dire Straits, Love over gold and that sounds pretty good too. The record store label from where I bought it states 5-10-82 which was just on the cusp of cd's. Looks like a bottle of red and some chicken wings tonight - oh and of course dig out some more old records.
Peter Wasser "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
The only thing I miss from my vinyl days is the large format art-work. And that, at that time, had not enough money for a rega planar turntable.
I'd rather be phishing!
-
W∴ Balboos wrote:
inyl Better? An absolute absurdity on its own.
Not so. Digitised music is clipped and doesnt have the attack you get in an anlog reproduction. It is also less subtle, and lacks depth.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Digitised music is clipped and doesnt have the attack you get in an anlog reproduction. It is also less subtle, and lacks depth.
That has nothing to do with it coming to you in digital format. It has everything to do with songs being over-compressed in the [The Loudness Wars](http://www.npr.org/2009/12/31/122114058/the-loudness-wars-why-music-sounds-worse)[^]
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.
-
pwasser wrote:
Lots of things have come a long way in 50 years but in my opinion an mp3 played on a headset just doesn't come close to a record played through a good hifi.
And guitar played through a transistor amp just isnt anywhere near as good as played through a valve amp. Some technologies do peak. As for records, yes, analog. The depth and richness, and subtelty is entirely missing from even CDs (and an mp3 is heavilly compressed CD even, so its even worse).
Lossy digital compression is not the same as audio compression; lossy digital compression does not affect the dynamic range of the audio signal, audio compression does. Two completely unrelated animals. Old vinyl records were produced before audio compression was used so heavily as a technique to increase the apparent loudness of the recording. This is done in the mastering stage of the recording. A heavily compressed recording can then be put on any medium, be it digital or vinyl. I think there's a lot more nostalgia than actual audio quality behind the claim that vinyl sounds better than digital.
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.
-
I was in a charity shop the other day and a record (vinyl) cover caught my eye. It was this Bert Kaempfert | Album | A Swingin’ Safari[^] which I recognized as an album my Dad had owned in the sixties. What I remembered was that the music was very corny but the recording quality good. I checked the disc and it looked almost unplayed so I bought it for $2. I took it home, put in on the turntable and was amazed. Lots of things have come a long way in 50 years but in my opinion an mp3 played on a headset just doesn't come close to a record played through a good hifi. I am now playing Dire Straits, Love over gold and that sounds pretty good too. The record store label from where I bought it states 5-10-82 which was just on the cusp of cd's. Looks like a bottle of red and some chicken wings tonight - oh and of course dig out some more old records.
Peter Wasser "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
I wish I still had my vinyl collection, the quality is 1000 times better then CDs.
Someone's therapist knows all about you!
-
I was in a charity shop the other day and a record (vinyl) cover caught my eye. It was this Bert Kaempfert | Album | A Swingin’ Safari[^] which I recognized as an album my Dad had owned in the sixties. What I remembered was that the music was very corny but the recording quality good. I checked the disc and it looked almost unplayed so I bought it for $2. I took it home, put in on the turntable and was amazed. Lots of things have come a long way in 50 years but in my opinion an mp3 played on a headset just doesn't come close to a record played through a good hifi. I am now playing Dire Straits, Love over gold and that sounds pretty good too. The record store label from where I bought it states 5-10-82 which was just on the cusp of cd's. Looks like a bottle of red and some chicken wings tonight - oh and of course dig out some more old records.
Peter Wasser "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
pwasser wrote:
an mp3 played on a headset just doesn't come close to a record played through a good hifi.
that's probably true
-
One major difference from "then", meaning the 60's and 70's to "now" is that an old-time audio systems typically a small fraction of the THD (total harmonic distortion) that not only acceptable, but even common place in the "now". I've seen modern equipment rated at 5% - even 10% THD (such as boom boxes), and earbuds? Give me a break. My system was 0.5%. An audiophilic friends' system clocked in at 0.2%. Even now, suddenly there's rediscovery of over-the-ear phones - like they always used to be. Only then, the sound quality between those big cushiony phones was extraordinary. Vinyl Better? An absolute absurdity on its own. However, the current digital is geared towards the vast armies of the hearing-impaired identified by the constant wires protruding from their ears. Converted vinyl should sound exactly like the original - or more correctly, should sound like it. that, however, assumes a true conversion. HiFi had a meaning: High Fidelity. Fidelity implies trustworthy accuracy. That once was a goal. Now, it's a four-letter acronym, the fidelity of it's meeting now gone. Among my first few CD's, Tchaikovsky's Nutcracker. The triangle played in one movement was so real it was astonishing. That, of course, was when CD's were trying to outperform the current popular media. Cassette and eight-track tapes were designed for cars - but became the central audio medium for many. That was an early nail in the coffin. You're living in an age where jerks will actually pay big bucks for tickets to a live concert - where the (alleged) artists lip-synch! If anything's wrong with digital, it's that the consumers accept crap.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
Quote:
eight-track tapes were designed for cars - but became the central audio medium for many
In my youth, I volunteered as a local Hospital DJ running the "graveyard shift" (this name was not to be mentioned on air to the patients). The system used eight-tracks to broadcast to the bedside headphones and into the nurses' break-rooms. I had a bank of six eight-track players and shelves of eight-track cartridges to choose from. Not a computer in sight! Being the night shift, I was basically playing stuff for the nurses - often/usually by request. It was a great way to get dates! I remember how good the quality of those eight-tracks were. Way better than compact cassettes. It's a pity that CC took over at that time. These days I play music from MP3s but never use in-the-ear headphones, only regular speakers or good quality over-the-ear headphones and am quite happy with the quality.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
