The Old Acclaimed Music Forum
Go to the NEW FORUM
What do you guys think about these I just bought basically an hour ago. Plus on vinyl 
Arcade Fire - Funeral
Bob Dylan - Highway 61 Revisited
Joy Division - Closer
Pixies - Surfer Rosa
The Stooges - Fun House
I've been wanting to get Fun House on vinyl for awhile.
What's the story on buying new releases on vinyl? Do they sound better? The reason I like old LP's so much is because so many old albums have been remastered and I want them in their original form. I don't know if I'd buy a vinyl new release.
Wow, 3 of those are some of my all-time favourite, though they're all great.
Well, I guess you really match this forum's tastes
john, generally CD's sound better than vinyl. however, if you already own some expensive turntables, it probably isn't worth the upgrade.
as for original masters, i'm the opposite! maybe we should do a trade haha. i have a fair few original masters that i would trade for remasters.
John: I get new releases on vinyl simply because I don't buy CDs anymore. I just like the sound better and I lost so many CDs taking them places so I don't take vinyls around.
jonmarck: Which 3?
Moeboid: I always heard that vinyl can give better bass sound and CDs give better treble.
Vinyl always gives a better sound. Unless you're using a paper clip as a needle there won't be any comparison. Digital music samples the analog waveform, then compresses it according to its bit depth (16-bit for CD's). Information is lost in both conversions so CD's only hold an approximation of the original sound. Since vinyl is a direct analog to analog transfer it doesn't lose anything (depending on how consistent the lathe).
Technically maybe, but I really don't hear the difference between a vinyl release and a CD release when you have proper equipment for both.
One of my friends claims vinyl sounds “better” because LPs emit two low frequencies and one higher frequency that you can’t hear, but your brain registers – resulting in a more pleasing sound.
Has anyone heard of anything like this, or is he full of shit?
Answer : B
He's full of shit.
This just in: ears are the human organs of hearing. If your ears cannot detect a frequency, you don't hear it. Claiming that soundwaves can magically be "registered" by the brain without passing through a sense organ is a sign of someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.
And I'm sorry to disagree with jonmarck and H61R, but there is absolutely no evidence that human ears can tell any difference between analog and digital reproduction. The information that is "lost" in digital reproduction just can't be detected, any more than our eyes can detect individual pixels on HDTV.
There may be good reasons for preferring vinyl to CDs; I think a vinyl LP is just a much more pleasant physical object than a CD--and I suspect that's part of what makes listeners THINK that vinyl "sounds better". That, and a kind of wistful romance for the days of dropping the spindle.
I challenge anybody to attempt a double-blind comparison between vinyl and CD versions of the same album. Assuming no scratches or pops, your chance of correctly identifying which one is the CD will be 50%.
Wait a minute here.
Infrasound frequencies: "a sound with a frequency too low to be heard by the human ear." These tones have been observed to evoke certain feelings in humans.
We’re talking about perception here. It’s possible to not notice sensory input (ie. unable to perceive it) but still have the signal recognized by your brain. No?
Yeah, I had a lecture along those lines yesterday. I think you're right Anthony.
Sorry Schleuse but that's plain incorrect. Anyone who A/B's a vinyl recording against its CD counterpart will be able to tell the difference very easily. Many tests have shown this, and even then it's been common knowledge in the recording industry since digital music was introduced. Heck, I had an entire class in recording school dedicated to the shortcomings of digital audio. The exception is when a recording was done using digital equipment (set to CD standard 44.1khz/16bit), then transferring it to vinyl afterwards. That won't make much of a difference (though some claim it helps). It would be like buying a limo to do groceries.
Sure, you might not be able to detect the individual frequencies lost but when summed together the experience is much different. There have even been studies done that show when you add frequencies above 20kHz (the max hearing range) people have responded positively. The aural experience is much more complicated then simply 20-20k Hz, 0 - 130 dB. Every little bit of information makes a difference.
Of course usually the broken link in the chain is the sound system. If you're using ratty old 6 inch speakers analog vs. digital won't matter one bit.
And Anthony's friend sounds like he played broken telephone with the correct information.
Well, that's two different issues.
It's certainly possible to not notice sensory input--we've all had the experience of hearing something in a song, or seeing something in a painting, we've never noticed before. But in principle, if it's sensory input, you CAN focus your attention on it and "notice" it. Infrasound, by definition, is sound at wavelengths outside the range of human hearing--you cannot hear it no matter how hard you try, any more than you can see infrared wavelengths if you just squint hard enough.
The wikipedia article on infrasound does include the claim that infrasound has effects on humans. But the citation takes you to a research foundation which focuses on “Tesla, UFOs, radionics, and more.” You’ll forgive me if I’m dubious.
It is possible, I guess, for the human body to detect sound waves (which are just waves of force moving through matter, usually air) through our sense of touch—we’ve all felt our seats rattle during a loud movie. And I'm no scientist, but I see no reason in principle why this shouldn't include wavelengths of sound outside what we can hear. But it’s a real stretch (in fact, I think it's ludicrous on the face of it) to make a claim for that as part of a musical experience. Unless you count feelings of fear or nausea as part of a musical experience.
My previous post was in response to Anthony. This one’s for jonmarck (although some of the points in the other one are also relevant here).
jonmarck, I realized while writing my riposte to you that I’m a layman arguing with a professional, so I probably shouldn’t be too dogmatic about anything.
However, I remain skeptical. With all due respect, it’s perfectly possible for “common knowledge,” even among experts, to be incorrect (take it from a veteran of several graduate courses in literary theory). I’m not saying it is incorrect in this case, just that “common knowledge” doesn’t clinch the argument for me.
You say that it’s very easy (with proper equipment) to tell the difference between analog and digital, and that tests have shown this. Great. But what is that difference, exactly? What do you hear on vinyl that you do not hear on a CD? Is it, I dunno, finer tone discrimination? Different timbres? What? I’m not talking about calling it a deeper or richer experience—that’s subjective, and tells me nothing. Generalities make me doubtful; give me something that, at least in principle, is testable.
(Sorry to turn this into Science Corner.)
Your point about the sound system being the weak link is fair enough—I’ve never been an audiophile, and the most sophisticated piece of audio equipment I own is my Bose mp3 player.
Again, I’m not attacking vinyl. If you love it, power to you—I’m fond of it myself. I’m just asking what the difference is.
I actually don't own any vinyl. I prefer CD's cause they're easier to manage and rip.
I guess the best way to describe the difference would be definition. If digital is like being splashed with water, analog would be submerging yourself in it. It's pretty much the same difference between normal and HD TV. Since analog provides more information it's easier for your brain to interpret what is happening and provide a more accurate image. It's truer to reality, so listeners don't need to rely on their imagination so much. Think about watching a really staticky TV program and how tough it is to try to interpret what's going on compared to a normal picture.
Definition—that, I understand, and the TV analogy helps. Thanks, jonmarck—you explained that well.
If that’s the case (and I’m unlikely to perform the experiment myself), I wonder how sophisticated your reproduction equipment would have to be for the difference to really be detectable; something tells me that the threshold is a lot higher than “ratty old 6 inch speakers.” I’m not going to lose sleep over it, anyhow.
I’m still not convinced about infrasound (wavelengths lower than the audible range), but apparently it is possible in some cases to “hear” ultrasound (higher than audible), which can sometimes vibrate the skull and reach the inner ear without passing through the middle ear--although the description I read doesn't make the effect sound very pleasant. Maybe I'll put my head up against the speaker to see if I can hear the alleged dog whistle right after "Day in the Life" at the end of Sgt. Pepper.
However, I retain the old-fashioned notion that if something passes through your auditory organ on its way to the brain, then, dammit, you’re hearing it. If it’s sensory, then you can notice it.
oulala, schleuse -anthony with jonmarck too and a lot of posts !
let's read this
Just FYI my vinyl player setup is as follows:
Pioneer Quartz-PLL Full-Automatic PL-7
Kenwood KR-720 Stereo Receiver
2 Realistic Speakers
This is all from the 70-80's by the way, my mom gave it to me last year and I'm only 14 so I can't exactly afford a high-tech system 
Yeah I don't really care about high definition and all that. I just thought it would be best to set the record (pun intended) straight on analog vs. digital. I'll take a hoarse basement tape recording of great songs over some oil-slick pop group any day.
One thing I forgot to mention though...
Mastering technology has improved quite a bit over the past few decades, so CD remasters might sound better than the original albums. There's less sound information being conveyed, but because of new technology it's the right information, balanced in the most advantageous way.
Ummm, I can hear that whistle at the end of "A Day in the Life" clear as day.
In fact, every time I listen to that song, after the final chord, I fast forward because I know that tone is coming and it almost hurts to hear it.
Here's a picture of my turntable if anyone's interested.
http://i21.ebayimg.com/06/i/000/d7/11/4874_12.JPG
Yep, just tried it again.
It enters in all its eardrum-splitting splendor at 5’06” – and that’s using an iPod and Altec speaker/dock here at work.
I'd be interested in hearing what kind of setups you guys have.
I have a Harmon Kardon AVR 147 Receiver, Technics SL1200-MKII turntable, Utah WD-90 vintage speakers (they're very cheap if you can find them with a really great sound- as long as the foam is still intact) and I run CD's off my Xbox 360 which I have been amazed at the sound quality it reproduces for CD-Audio.
I just have an old sony ghettoblaster. It's all I need. We have pro monitors at work but I don't do any recreational listening there.
I was joking--I've always been able to hear the dog whistle, too. In fact, I usually skip forward to the next disc about halfway through the fadeout on "Day in the Life," since it turns out that ultrasonic frequencies are so irritating.
I'll shut up now...
I find it amusing that the educated sound guy on this forum listens to music on piece of technology that dates back to the walkman.
That's like schleuse using a quill and ink.
I'm running 90-minute Maxell XL-II High Bias cassette tapes through a first-edition Sony Walkman cassette-player that weighs five pounds. Factory-issue foamy speakers. Works pretty good for me.
Oddly enough, my mother just called to let me know that my stepfather is planning to throw out his old record player.
I stopped her. In a few days I'll have my very own record player.
(I also get his record collection, which runs heavily to Buck Owens, Willie Nelson, Conway Twitty, Waylon Jennings...)
The problem now, is that these people are expecting a show. Ladies and gentlemen, mister Conway Twitty!
Loophole - hilarious!
hehehe... moeboid knows his audio-tech.
the shortcomings of both vinyl and CD:
did you know that when you buy vinyl, you're buying a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy? when they "cut" to vinyl, they cut to a special disc, which is actually aluminum coated with vinyl (aluminum to make it a bit more sturdy). they then take an inversion of this, which is in turn used to make the metal master. the metal master is a solid aluminum disc, which won't deteriorate over time. they then make inversions of the metal master, which they use to press consumer vinyls. so what you buy is a copy, of a copy (metal master inversion), of a copy (metal master), of a copy (original inversion). during each copying process, you do lose quality. not much, but it's significant.
vinyl also can't reproduce bass very well. so much so that they have to EQ out the bass before cutting to vinyl, and then EQ it back in on playback (more processing = less quality). another problem with vinyl and bass is that you can't "pan" it. panning is moving the sound to either the left or the right speaker, if you attempt to put bass anywhere other than the center (in both speakers), you run the risk of the needle popping out of the slot! that isn't something that makes vinyl sound bad, just something that limits the audio engineer. speaking of panning, with vinyl, the two channels (left and right) aren't entirely separate like they are with CD's. a small portion of the left channel will always be present in the right channel, resulting in a narrower soundstage.
since vinyl spins at a constant speed, the speed at which the vinyl goes past the needle is not constant, resulting in a degradation in quality towards the center of the disc.
other, more obvious problems with vinyl are they're more sensitive to scratches and dust. and they also get "worn out" once you've played them heaps. their quality is also dependent on the quality of the vinyl and since most records are made with recycled vinyl these days, quality isn't high.
in a battle of dynamic range, the CD wins hands down. but CD's have their shortcomings too..
the upper limit of human hearing is 20kHz (if your ears are good. sorry, a day in the life is only 15kHz from memory). the highest frequency that digital audio can produce is half its sampling rate. any frequencies above double the sampling rate MUST BE FILTERED OUT BEFORE THE CONVERSION FROM ANALOGUE TO DIGITAL. if they are not, then the conversion process will turn these frequencies into other random frequencies. CD's sampling rate is 44.1kHz meaning that any frequencies above 22.05kHz must be completely filtered out. to do this without affecting 20kHz, a filter with a slope of 682dB/octave (a "brick wall" filter) is necessary. it's not hard to construct a filter that steep, but it is hard to construct one that sounds good. they tend to mess up the high frequency response. in the early days of the CD, this was a big problem. technology has improved since then and these days such filters can be constructed well. i'm not sure about now, but i know for certain that in the early days of the CD, vinyl certainly had a much nicer high frequency response. the high frequencies from a CD could sound harsh, distorted, and intrusive, where as the high's from vinyl sounded smooth, warm, and natural.
so yes, in the end, most people will agree that CD's do sound better overall, but in almost all cases, the weakest link will be your soundsystem i can't imagine many people here have had the opportunity to listen to either CD or vinyl to their full potential...
Well put Moeboid. Here's a few thoughts:
- No one should be panning bass anyways. The lower the frequency the less we perceive the direction that it comes from. This is why the sirens of vehicles are always high pitched. Anything below 100 Hz should always be panned dead center.
- You haven't mentioned sample rates. The way analog to digital conversion works is that the converter takes a number of snapshots of the analog wave, changing it to binary. A CD has 44.1 kHz, or 44100 snapshots, every second. That might seem like a lot (it's why the sound seems so seamless) but compared to vinyl, which doesn't alter the analog signal at all, it's like swiss cheese. It would be like if I said turn off every second pixel on your monitor.
- Digital conversion also samples bit depth, which relates to amplitude. CD's are 16 bit, which is very noticeable. Heck, most studio run at 24, even though they know they'll have to convert before they burn to CD. Digital conversion requires the compression of the dynamic range of the waveform, and in the case of CD's, it gets compressed drastically. Analog doesn't change a thing.
Sure, a worn down record sounds crappy, but when they're both at their peak analog will always take digital.
...a little bit more on bit depth...
Each bit corresponds to 6 dB, meaning if a signal comes in at 44 dB, upon conversion it will be changed to 42. If three signals come in at 63, 65 and 68 dB, they will all be converted to equal amplitude at 66 dB. Really, by saying 16 bit recording, we mean 16 possible amplitude values in the sound. This compression does not happen with analog.
bit depth = dynamic range. 16 bit gives a dynamic range of 96dB, and it does NOT round up or down to the nearest 6dB, not even to the nearest 1dB. it rounds to the nearest sampling step, and there are 2^16 sampling steps. our ears have a dynamic range of approximately 120dB. unless your listen to music at above 96dB, and the background noise in your lounge room is something crazily small like 5dB (it's not likely to ever fall below 10dB), the dynamic range of CD is more than enough. more to the point, it's far far greater than vinyl.
as for studios using 24 bit, doing so is not unnecessary if you're just going to cut it down to 16 bit, quite the opposite. when you process digital audio, errors accumulate in the final few bits, so it's always a good idea to have a higher bit depth than the final media. in fact, most programs will add a whole bunch of extra bits on the end of each sample (sometimes up to 16 extra bits, so 40bits total), just to soak up the errors. that way, the finished product might be good right down to 24 bits.
by the way, on a good soundsystem, the difference between 16 and 24 bit audio is noticable.
as for sampling rates, sampling rate affects high frequency performance... i pointed that out in my last post. with modern filters, 44.1k IS enough. only just, but it is. i've listened to digital audio with a much higher sampling rate, and there is a noticeable difference in the top end
now i thought i was comparing vinyl to CD, not analogue to digital, but if that's what we're doing, here goes:
i have had the privilege of using a studer 2" reel-to-reel 24 track analogue tape machine and, surprise surprise, it sounds absolutely unbelievable. unfortunately i've never had the chance to use high end digital equipment, but from what i've heard, it's also amazing and the choice between high end analogue and high end digital is just personal preference.
oh, and about panning bass, it's true that instruments like the kick drum and bass guitar are usually panned dead centre, but it's far from criminal to put them elsewhere.
Moeboid, when we talk about bit depth we are not talking about sound pressure. We are discussing voltage. The 96 dB that a CD gives you does not mean that you will hear 96 dB when you play a CD, it means there is 96 dB of range between the loudest and quietest sound. You can play a CD at any volume you want, it's the dynamic range that you can't change.
As for the technical specs on dynamic range in vinyl vs. CD here's an article that shows how the high CD noise floor ruins its bit depth. http://www.audioholics.com/education/audio-formats-technology/dynamic-comparison-of-lps-vs-cds-part-4/dynamic-comparison-of-lps-vs-cds-part-4-page-2
Most living rooms will have SPLs of about 40 dB at their quietest. 5 dB is practically unimaginable. You would need some serious high tech insulation to achieve that.
I'm not sure what you mean about errors accumulating in the final bits but you're completely right that working in 24 bit is advantageous even when you know you'll have to downconvert to 16 later on. This has to do with knowing how mixing works with a dash of good old common sense.
The difference between 16 and 24 is definitely noticeable. Even more noticeable is the difference between 8 and 16. Yikes!
I know you pointed out the Nyquist theory in your previous post, and you explained it very accurately, but what you left out was that sampling is sampling! It's taking snapshots of a waveform, losing any information that passes outside of its limited rate.
Check out this article for a more in depth explanation:
http://themixbus.com/2007/06/20/digital-audio-basics/
Vinyl vs. CD is directly related to analog vs. digital. That's where the main difference lies.
The choice between analog and digital gear is rarely personal preference. It has to do with misunderstandings among the general public. Only a couple hours ago I was covering a Metric show for chartattack.com when I saw the remote truck that I used to volunteer with was parked out back to record the concert. I went in to say hi and was surprised to see a brand new SSL console in the place of where the old analog board used to be. It was a ridiculously expensive expense for the owner, not only because of the cost of the board but because he had to rebuild the interior of the truck to fit it, and it's not one that he did out of personal preference. The new digital board does not sound as good (despite its hefty price tag), it is overly complicated, and if anything breaks down..... Used to be you could just pull out a schematic and soldering iron and stick it back together. If that didn't work you could figure out a workaround. If anything goes wrong with anything with a digital board the whole rig is absolutely useless. You can't bypass channels, you can't use Pro Tools, sometimes you can't even access the disk drives required to reboot the bloody things. The engineer in the truck was so nervous about it that he had two backup systems, one entirely analog, running just in case the system called it quits in the middle of the show.
So why did he switch? Marketing. Audio engineers who have been around long enough know that digital mixing boards are crap. Everyone else, including every client that remote truck will ever serve, is amazed by how many blinking lights and automated faders they have. He was forced to make the move to digital simply because it is assumed to be superior by people who don't understand the technology. If it was up to personal preference digital wouldn't stand a chance.
Of course that's in the live music world. In the recording world we use computers all the time. I'm not going to bother trying to calibrate a tape machine when I can use Logic, but that's purely for the sake of convenience and economy. Everyone knows that it would sound way better if we recorded to tape and then transfered to digital. It would just be too much of a pain in the ass. Also,no one with half a brain will ever deny that a real 1176 sounds a million times better than the plug-in version.
I've never heard sound below 100 Hz intentionally panned anywhere other than dead centre on a professional mix.
jonmarck, i really don't know what to say anymore. it's obvious that i'll never convince you that CD's sound better than vinyl... but i feel i should point out some flaws in your post.
first of all, when i say 96dB, i am not referring to a sound pressure level, nor a voltage. decibels are a ratio, and that's how i was using them. there is a 96dB difference between the loudest and quietest sound. what i tried to explain was that if you're listening to a CD at say 70dBSPL (now i am referring to a sound pressure level), then the quietest sound on that CD could be -26dB (far far from audible). so if the background noise in your living room is 40dB (it could certainly be quieter), then you need to be playing your CD at over 100dBSPL in order to fully appreciate its dynamic range.
as for a CD's having a high noise floor... i'm sorry, that's just plain false. i read part of that article, and any noise on the CD can only have come from other sources. it could be something as simple as the audio engineer not bothering to silence the noise that was picked up by the microphones. i'm sorry jonmarck, but the noise floor of any digital audio is completely silent. if you hear any noise, i guarantee it has nothing at all to do with the CD. it's almost certainly coming from your CD player or your amplifier.
as for missing digital audio missing information between samples, that is also false. sampling at 44.1kHz gives truly accurate audio right up until the Nyquist frequency. any extra information simply isn't necessary.
i think i mentioned before that the difference between 16 bit and 24 bit is noticeable? well that's true on a good soundsystem. you know what's not noticeable except with excellent ears and an amazing soundsystem? the difference between 44.1khz and 88.2 or 96kHz sampling rates. that really is a tough thing to pick. the point of this, if it's tough to hear the difference between 44.1 and 96kHz, then it's tough to argue that 44.1 is insufficient. if you want to read about sampling, read papers by people like Nyquist... poeple who have REALLY looked into this stuff.
now as for your friend with the truck... i have no idea what to say. first of all, analogue consoles have just as many flashing lights, and they certainly have automated faders... secondly, there's no way SSl would release a piece of crap desk and anyone who calls an SSL a piece of crap can only be a total idiot.
now when i read your post, i thought "geez, i didn't know that SSL made digital consoles..." so i just looked that up on their website then and... as far as i can see, they don't. they make digital consoles under a different brand name, but that hardly counts. SSL, from what i can see, only make digitally controlled analogue consoles. maybe that's what your friend was talking about. if he was, and if he was saying that it sounded crap, they he was talking about an analogue console...
jonmarck, we started out discussing whether vinyl sounds better than CD. then you started telling me that analogue sounds better than digital (in a way that makes me think that you assumed that i thought the opposite. i assure you, that's quite untrue), and now, in your most recent post, you are telling me that actual limiters sound better than their corresponding plug-ins. well... DUH! i really hope that you weren't expecting me to say the opposite.
now let me just make this clear.
1. i think that CD sounds better than vinyl.
2. i think that the top end analogue gear is on par with top end digital gear.
3. actual gear sounds better than its corresponding plug-ins.
jonmarck, i'm interested to hear what you have to say, but i don't think i'll be participating in this any longer. there isn't much more i can say.
Interesting discussion guys. I've always just watched the 'fight' between CD and vinyl (because I don't know too much about it) and neither side ever wants to give in to the other side.
I saw Ghost World yesterday which has a scene with record collectors and one of them also brought up the argument. Made me laugh, because you guys were just discussing this here. (the CD won the argument in the film)
"first of all, when i say 96dB, i am not referring to a sound pressure level, nor a voltage. decibels are a ratio, and that's how i was using them. there is a 96dB difference between the loudest and quietest sound. what i tried to explain was that if you're listening to a CD at say 70dBSPL (now i am referring to a sound pressure level), then the quietest sound on that CD could be -26dB (far far from audible). so if the background noise in your living room is 40dB (it could certainly be quieter), then you need to be playing your CD at over 100dBSPL in order to fully appreciate its dynamic range."
But the point is that it is compressed within the range. Each volume is rounded to the nearest sample value.
Also, you're showing how negligible dynamic range really is. If you don't need a CD's full range why are you describing it as an advantage?
"as for a CD's having a high noise floor... i'm sorry, that's just plain false. i read part of that article, and any noise on the CD can only have come from other sources. it could be something as simple as the audio engineer not bothering to silence the noise that was picked up by the microphones. i'm sorry jonmarck, but the noise floor of any digital audio is completely silent. if you hear any noise, i guarantee it has nothing at all to do with the CD. it's almost certainly coming from your CD player or your amplifier."
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=0ee333593a16e0b196fc80690e51aef8&showtopic=58935&pid=545693&st=0&#entry545693
"as for missing digital audio missing information between samples, that is also false. sampling at 44.1kHz gives truly accurate audio right up until the Nyquist frequency. any extra information simply isn't necessary."
No information is unnecessary when creating an aural image!
"i think i mentioned before that the difference between 16 bit and 24 bit is noticeable? well that's true on a good soundsystem. you know what's not noticeable except with excellent ears and an amazing soundsystem? the difference between 44.1khz and 88.2 or 96kHz sampling rates. that really is a tough thing to pick. the point of this, if it's tough to hear the difference between 44.1 and 96kHz, then it's tough to argue that 44.1 is insufficient. if you want to read about sampling, read papers by people like Nyquist... poeple who have REALLY looked into this stuff."
Actually many studies have shown that people notice a significant difference between a 44.1 kHz sampled signal and the original one.
"now as for your friend with the truck... i have no idea what to say. first of all, analogue consoles have just as many flashing lights, and they certainly have automated faders... secondly, there's no way SSl would release a piece of crap desk and anyone who calls an SSL a piece of crap can only be a total idiot."
I'm not saying it was a piece of crap. I'm saying digital consoles bring a whole host of new problems that most would rather just not have to deal with. It's not really related to the original discussion except to show how digital vs. analog is much more political than simple personal preference. The main reason why the CD was successful in the first place was because Sony transfered their entire catalog to it and stopped all vinyl production. People wouldn't have switched were they not forced to.
"now when i read your post, i thought "geez, i didn't know that SSL made digital consoles..." so i just looked that up on their website then and... as far as i can see, they don't. they make digital consoles under a different brand name, but that hardly counts. SSL, from what i can see, only make digitally controlled analogue consoles. maybe that's what your friend was talking about. if he was, and if he was saying that it sounded crap, they he was talking about an analogue console..."
The C200 is a digital console.
"jonmarck, we started out discussing whether vinyl sounds better than CD. then you started telling me that analogue sounds better than digital (in a way that makes me think that you assumed that i thought the opposite. i assure you, that's quite untrue), and now, in your most recent post, you are telling me that actual limiters sound better than their corresponding plug-ins. well... DUH! i really hope that you weren't expecting me to say the opposite."
No I was only showing some examples of how digital is taking over the music world, and not always with the best results. What it comes down to is that vinyl sounds better than CD because it reproduces the analog waveform whereas CD's sample it. I'm not thinking of converting my music collection to vinyl, I'm just saying that with both at their peak vinyl sounds better.
Here's an interesting account of a do-it-yourself vinyl vs. cd test:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=21&t=7953
jonmarck, that isn't a comparison of CD and vinyl!!! it's a comparison between vinyl, and a digital recording of that same vinyl. but seriously, even if it was a comparison of CD and vinyl, why should i listen to what some dumb ass on a forum has to say? i've DONE the comparisons. i know what sounds better. i'm not going to change me opinion, or even doubt my opinion when i hear someone say the opposite.
Gee, big difference. All that was left to do was burn it.
I just talked to another old friend about vinyl vs. CD. He's spent his lifetime working with audio. He produced John Lord of Deep Purple's solo album, he owned a company that built and sold consoles to The Rolling Stones, The Who, Yes, etc. he worked for Hammond organs for a number of years...he knows what he's talking about. First he went through the drawbacks to using vinyl (which have already been discussed here) then said that when both formats are at their peak there won't be any question that vinyl will wipe the floor.
Then I told him that you said there was no perceivable difference between 44.1 kHz and 96. He had a good laugh at that.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything Moeboid, but there's no way anyone will say something like CD's always sound better than vinyl around me and not expect an argument. That's simply not true.
I much prefer 8-track sound, but don't get me started.
this topic is a total waste of my time... jonmarck, from what you've posted, it's quite clear to me that you have a very limited knowledge of digital audio. you don't understand the basic concepts like bit depth, and sampling theory. you've posted information that is entirely false (like CD having a high noise floor for example), and tried to back it up by linking me to information on other forums that you've obviously misinterpreted. and speaking of misinterpretation, you've even misinterpreted things that i've said, despite me trying to be as clear as possible. for example, never said that there was no noticeable difference betwen 44.1 and 96kHz, read my post and you'll find that my exact words were something like "that's a really difficult to pick". and although i did mean it literally, i also meant difficult compared to picking the difference between 16 bit and 24 bit. now i can't help being slightly insulted by you posting about your friend laughing at me. what's worse is that i also can't help thinking that you intentionally misinterpreted me because you wanted to insult and discredit me. that's no way to debate, jonmarck.
now i might be willing to continue this debate if you want to do it intelligently. ie keeping this strictly to CD versus vinyl. NOT analogue versus digital, NOT the impact of digital on the audio world, and certainly not plug-ins versus actual studio gear. on top of that, i don't want to hear the opinion of any one person (no matter now knowledgeable they are). only yours, and even then only if you state it as your opinion, not as fact. i will look at things like surveys, if you can find them. objective tests like the one you posted a while back (though, you clearly misinterpreted it. most of what that was comparing was the mastering, not the actual media). and, of course, statistics. oh, and no more posting false information, and no more linking me to boring info for novices.
Alright Moeboid, let's go over some of the things you've said:
"you know what's not noticeable except with excellent ears and an amazing soundsystem? the difference between 44.1khz and 88.2 or 96kHz sampling rates."
then
"for example, (I) never said that there was no noticeable difference betwen 44.1 and 96kHz"
"unfortunately i've never had the chance to use high end digital equipment, but from what i've heard, it's also amazing and the choice between high end analogue and high end digital is just personal preference."
then
"then you started telling me that analogue sounds better than digital (in a way that makes me think that you assumed that i thought the opposite. i assure you, that's quite untrue)"
"i'm sorry jonmarck, but the noise floor of any digital audio is completely silent."
This is absolutely ridiculous. Noise is added INTENTIONALLY to digital audio through dithering to compensate for the deficiencies in 16-bit audio.
"i think that CD sounds better than vinyl."
But by this point you've agreed that there's a perceivable loss in quality when comparing 44.1 kHz to 96 and 16 bit to 24. How much greater will that difference be when you compare it to the actual waveform?
Now, I've been out of recording school for a while, so I'm a little rusty on some of the finer points, but what it always comes down to is that when both formats are at their peak there will be no question which holds higher quality audio.
jonmarck, i'm going to stop letting you waste my time, and not post anymore.
May I mark? By quoting the virtual saying "Frequencies don't kill music. People do."?? Thank you. I'm off.
This is gonna' seem from out of left field for a thread about somebody buying some new albums, but how did you like those records, H61R?
EdAmes: This is gonna' seem from out of left field for a thread about somebody buying some new albums, but how did you like those records, H61R?
I've been waiting for this to get back on track.
I've had Highway 61 Revisted in for the most part, listening to Desolation Row every chance I get. I tried Surfer Rosa but I think I'll have to wait a little longer to appreciate it better. Joy Division's Closer was amazing. And I still haven't listened to Funeral or Fun House.
Alright H61R, glad you're still with us.
Great selection of records you just bought-regardless of formats...check out 'Brick Is Red','Down on the Street' or 'Tunnels'.
I wish I'd been as discerning when I was 14. Or maybe I was-I really can't remember...