10 Jun '11 06:06>
Discuss.
Originally posted by Thequ1ckThis is the "myth" I am referring to.
Vinyl is more tactile and tangible. That's something that digital can only imitate.
Originally posted by FMFTechnically speaking both are able to provide sound quality beyond
This is the "myth" I am referring to.
Having said that, I don't really know what you mean when you refer to sound as "tactile and tangible".
So the assertion that 'vinyl is better than digital' stands accused of being a myth. Can you offer anything in vinyl's defence on a technical level?
Originally posted by Thequ1ckSorry for the misunderstanding. This thread was intended to be about sound quality. Yes, 1 ft x 1ft LPs with artwork and all the rest were nice. Handy for skinning up a fat one and then gazing at after the fat one. No argument there, although I also like the hard and chunky feel of conventional CD packaging. But a 'nostalgia v modernity' debate would perhaps belong on "culture".
Technically speaking both are able to provide sound quality beyond
our ability to recognise but is a meal only about the food? No.
I would argue that using a record player is a more pleasant and
sincere method of listening to music and adds to the 'flavour' of the
music.
Originally posted by FMFI know what you're saying and it's a moot point. Firstly there's no such thing in science as 'superior'. That belongs in the spirituality forum where they believe in absolutes. Secondly sound quality is only one of the factors that are involved in the enjoyment of music. The ritual of playing a record creates an emotional involvement that is real and tangible. I believe this is largely
Sorry for the misunderstanding. This thread was intended to be about sound quality. Yes, 1 ft x 1ft LPs with artwork and all the rest were nice. Handy for skinning up a fat one and then gazing at after the fat one. No argument there, although I also like the hard and chunky feel of conventional CD packaging. But a 'nostalgia v modernity' debate would perhaps bel ...[text shortened]... ic] issue here is the assertion that vinyl produces sound that is superior to digital sound.
Originally posted by FMFTactile and tangible means you can hold it in your hand, read the label all by yourself with no help from digital technology.
This is the "myth" I am referring to.
Having said that, I don't really know what you mean when you refer to sound as "tactile and tangible".
So the assertion that 'vinyl is better than digital' stands accused of being a myth. Can you offer anything in vinyl's defence on a technical level?
Originally posted by FMFIn that case there isn't much room to debate. The best digital sound technology will undoubtedly surpass the best analog technology. Mathematically, "discrete" (digital) data can only approximate "continuous" (analog) data, but there comes a point when the discrete data is so minutely refined that no speaker transmitting the sound will be able to render the difference. And even if the speaker could render the difference, the human ear would be deaf to it.
The [scientific] issue here is the assertion that vinyl produces sound that is superior to digital sound.
Originally posted by sonhouseThe essence of what you're saying is 'vinyl will last forever, while its 'rivals' won't'? Right?
Tactile and tangible means you can hold it in your hand, read the label all by yourself with no help from digital technology.
The problem with digital is the very advancement that gives higher quality: What do you do when the old technology dies and something new takes its place? Take a look at Betamax. I bet there are some 80 year olds out there with a ...[text shortened]... tographed or holographed and the sound retrieved.
Try that with a thousand year old hd.
Originally posted by shavixmirLP's generally have a smaller sound range and have trouble accurately storing high-pitched sounds. This is why people often say the LP sound is "warmer" - the sound is distorted to sound lower-pitched than intended. The sampling rate of a CD is 44.1 kHz, which means it cannot render frequencies higher than around 22.05 kHz, however very few humans (if any) can hear such high-pitched sounds. MP3 formats throw away some of the data, but only the most well-trained ear can distinguish a high-quality MP3 from CD format; the vast majority of people cannot distinguish between 192kbps or above and CD.
I've been told (but don't know for sure) that LP's have a longer sound range.
CD files have the top and bottom ranges limited and MP3's have them limited even more.
So, even though the sound of a CD is clearer, the sound of an LP is fuller.
Personally, I can't tell the difference between mono or stereo and the only reason I prefer an LP is because i ...[text shortened]... ays).
The only reason I prefer CD's is because LP's are a hassle to play in the car.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThat is true but there is something called phase purity that digital players sometimes fall short, which can be heard when cymbals are playing, the phase of the recreated audio can be way off because of digital artifacts. It gets less so with very high rates and 24 or 32 bit sound however. At 16 bits and 44100 rates phase accuracy is compromised. Most people can't tell the difference though, which explains the proliferation of mp3 players which knocks out 90 percent of the real sound leaving only the most audible artifacts to present to the ear.
LP's generally have a smaller sound range and have trouble accurately storing high-pitched sounds. This is why people often say the LP sound is "warmer" - the sound is distorted to sound lower-pitched than intended. The sampling rate of a CD is 44.1 kHz, which means it cannot render frequencies higher than around 22.05 kHz, however very few humans (if a ...[text shortened]... om CD format; the vast majority of people cannot distinguish between 192kbps or above and CD.