10 Jun 11
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.
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?
10 Jun 11
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?
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.
10 Jun 11
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.
The [scientific] issue here is the assertion that vinyl produces sound that is superior to digital sound.
10 Jun 11
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.
what this 'myth' is based on.
Science isn't all scales and sprockets you know?
10 Jun 11
1 edit
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?
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 nice collection of beta tapes. What do they do when the beta machine dies?
Digital can go the same way. As we get more and more bits/cc, the technology of the older less dense formats slowly disappear, like how CD's are giving way to flash drives, and even mp3 players are being superseded. What happens when all those flash drives and hard drive based sound systems are replaced by something else, say some form of direct optical encoding, whatever that may be, where the presence of one wave of recorded light of some wavelength represents a 1 and the lack represents a 0. You can't use an mp3 player for that nor a hd, nor anything else on the market today. But you can bet something like that will take over the digital market we have today.
Meanwhile, the dude with the vinyl collection(like me, 2000+) still can use the old direct drive panasonic turntable with the diamond needle that lasts virtually forever and hook it up to an amp and speaker, all old tech that has to accompany any digital playback system so they can always be used to hear the vinyl.
Ten years from now, are you going to be able to say the same thing about your touted digital system?
Sure you can just upgrade, fine, but what about the people unable to or don't know mp3 players are going under? The flash drives don't store information forever, nor do hd's or any other present digital technology.
For instance, what do we do about preserving books?
In ancient Egypt, we can still read the old papyrus rolls, they last thousands of years.
What will books look like if they were put in cold storage for 3000 years?
What will the information on a flash drive look like in even 100 years?
Pretty much zero and you can take that to the bank. Meanwhile, if kept in a decent environment, those vinyls will be able to play in a thousand years because it is based on a physical phenomena, long lived plastics.
Even if they were fragile beyond redemption a thousand years from now, if it can be handled at all, the grooves could be photographed or holographed and the sound retrieved.
Try that with a thousand year old hd.
10 Jun 11
1 edit
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.
The same can be said for digital photos (rendered in pixels) as opposed to film.
11 Jun 11
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.
12 Jun 11
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 it's larger and the artwork stands out better (except, of course, that you stack the LP's with their edge towards you, so you don't see the art anyways).
The only reason I prefer CD's is because LP's are a hassle to play in the car.
12 Jun 11
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.
12 Jun 11
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.
Even at that, it is better than most cassettes though.
I was really surprised at the quality of the recording of a little flash drive recorder, an olympus sold at Radio shack for about 100 bucks, can hold a 16 gig card, has a 2 gig card internally with 2 high quality mics.
I set the thing down on a table and recorded my guitar, some compositions I was working on, and played it back just through earphones and was surprised at how well it recorded at CD level, 16 bit, 44.1.
Sure would like to have had something like that when I had my band back in Venice Beach! We used a Teac 3340 4 track machine, 10 inch reels, 15 IPS. It sounded great also, but was clumsy to carry to gigs. We recorded a lot of stuff in our living rooms with it though.