What is Digg?271 Comments
- Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -4/+69What Happened To Dynamic Range?
http://www.cdmasteringservices.com/dynamicrange.htm - newevilmind, on 10/12/2007, -12/+71vinyl is analogue therefor it does have a slightly bigger dynamic range and a better sound. but who cares??? vinyl is a pain in the ass.
this article is irrelevant. like teens are now going to give up their iPods to lug around crates of records like some 80's hip hop DJ?? - blhack, on 10/12/2007, -12/+45from a technical standpoint, vinyl DOES have a better sound that any other format. This is because the grooves on a vinyl disk are an exact representation of sound waves. A cd is simply a digital representation of these grooves. Think about it like a digital photograph, if you zoom in enough (no matter how high quality the camera you used was) you are going to start seeing the edges of things as squares, pixels. With vinyl, no matter how far you "zoom in" the curve remains smooth until you get to the molecular level.
Granted, you are going to have to spend a significant amount of money on tube pre-amps. Amplifiers, speakers, needles, turntables, etc etc etc etc.
If you spend $400 on a stereo with a cd player as a head unit, and the same amount on a vinyl setup, chances are that the cd is going to sound better.
Technically vinyl is better, but practically, digital is. - burke, on 10/12/2007, -4/+32IMO, records are fun (I listen to a lot of old (70s, 80s) music), and they definitely have a different sound (seems much warmer and as was said above, higher dynamic range), but the only way to go is digital, nowadays. (ie. MP3/OGG)
- paryl, on 10/12/2007, -8/+33From the article:
Hayes research subjects said they liked the visual appeal of LP jackets and the challenge of seeking hard-to-find releases... In yet another turnaround, teens overwhelmingly insisted the sound quality of LPs was superior to that of modern formats. They characterized LPs and the LP artists of the past as more authentic than the barrage of youth-oriented music being aggressively marketed to them today.
____
I find it funny that that only reasoning they come up with has /nothing/ to do with /actual/ sound quality... because those hardcore vinyl junkies insist vinyl sounds better because it records a wider spectrum. In this case though, it's simply that it's cool to collect vinyl now. They're being different, just like everyone else. - soogy, on 10/12/2007, -21/+44"Err... no" indeed. What the hell did they expect from interviewing "teens."
"Oh the sound quality of vinyls are much better than lossless FLAC compression!!!11" As a matter of fact, I think I'm going to start using the 8-track player I have lying around. - memerot, on 10/12/2007, -3/+26It is NOT that vinyl has the potential to outperform cds - they just don't have the dynamic range. The difference most likely is that today's audio engineers are idiots. Put on an album of some 80s music (vinyl or cd i don't care). Listen to how the quiet parts are quiet, and the loud parts are loud. Put on a top 10 album from last year (again vinyl or cd i don't care). Hear how the entire thing has been compressed, and it all sounds 'loud', like your stereo had 5 loudness buttons and they were all turned on. Today's audio engineers don't take advantage of dynamic range. If you have sound forge or something like that you can see it in the visual representation of the sound waves.
To those who think vinyl sounds better because it's analog - wake up it's not the 60s anymore. Every commercial album coming out today is digitally mastered and engineered before being pressed to either vinyl or cd. You cannot get any album that was recorded on and mixed on analog equipment anymore. Nor would you want to. Things used to be recorded to magnetic tape in the studio, then the different tapes would be played together and mixed and recorded to another tape. Sure it was all analog, but I'll bet you remember how great tapes of a tape of a tape sounded back when you still used cassettes - it's an inherently lossy process as digital is not.
The biggest advantage of vinyl is that it's lasted so long as a recording medium. You can still plop a 100 year old record on your turntable and listen to it - i don't think I'll be listening to many cds in 2106. - mandarin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23Hey Vinyls are superior to CDs.
If a zombie invasion comes out, would you rather throw Vinyls at them or CDs? - dorkafork, on 10/12/2007, -10/+29All of you saying that analogue sound is "technically" better because it's an "exact reproduction" are wrong. According to the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem, any signal can be perfectly reproduced if the bandwidth is less than half the sampling rate. (Though in practice the sampling rate should be higher.)
Put in simpler terms, a CD is a collection of 0's and 1's representing samples of a waveform. Picture dots on a curve. And the CD has so many dots on the curve that it is indistinguishable from the curve because the spaces between the dots are so small. Not to mention the fact that the information goes through a digital to analog converter on its way to the speaker and out to your ears. There are limits on human hearing, and however much of an audiophile you may be, it will be physically impossible for you to hear the difference.
Any "warmth" you hear on vinyl is noise. You may like the sound (I kind of like the noise on old Benny Goodman recordings), but don't pretend it's superior. - Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -6/+22^ Why CDs are not as good as you think they are.
- dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -10/+26I was about to say, as newevilmind did, you're talking about analog reproduction.
Recorded sound is on curves, and any sort of compression lowers the resolution of those curves. Any print people would compare this difference as the difference between an Illustrator file and a bitmapped Photoshop file.
The records ARE in fact, better, because they have that infinite resolution of clarity, but, as was stated, they ARE a pain the ass, unless, of course, you have that super-awesome vinyl player that suspends the record in a vaccuum. About $12000, but I guess some people consider it worth the price... - manicarzo, on 10/12/2007, -10/+24Vinyl does sound better than CDs (not to mention that most tracks are maximized to hell for radio playability and general loudness) but CDs are much more convenient. There are trade-offs, like the compression of MP3s vs the CD. You're paying for convenience.
- joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Sure you can:
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y249/mercurialn/CarRecordPlayer1961.jpg - CaseyB, on 10/12/2007, -9/+22"from a technical standpoint, vinyl DOES have a better sound that any other format."
Nope. All you dittoheads that keep saying analogue audio is better than digital because it's infinitely variable are wrong.
"This is because the grooves on a vinyl disk are an exact representation of sound waves. A cd is simply a digital representation of these grooves."
By that argument, hiring me to come to your house and sing the album is better than any digital recording. My brain and voice are entirely analogue and infinitely variable. The problem is that I can't ACCURATELY REPRODUCE THE SOUND. The grooves are NOT an exact representation of the sound, they're a wobbly, half-assed guess at what the original sound was, because the technology to press albums is imperfect. - MyNameIsFred, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16While I understand your perspective. The one thing about LPs that drove me up a wall was the pops and clicks. I was anal compulsive with regard to caring for my LPs, and I still had pops and clicks. For me, that destroyed the listening experience. I kissed the ground when CDs came out. (And don't get me started on tapes and 8-tracks. The hissing was worse than the pops and clicks.)
- analdisco, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Fred, I think you mean "anal retentive". The phrase comes from a newborn's habit of refusing to take a *****, because it's nervous and afraid. Saying "anal compulsive" would probably mean you spray ***** everywhere in baby terms, and in your case, you throw records on gravel and whatnot.
So yeah, for future reference, it's anal ~retentive~. - Otto, on 10/12/2007, -14/+26-Whether it sounds "better" is a matter of opinion.
-Whether it's a more accurate reproduction of the original sound is not.
CD beats the ***** out of vinyl when it comes to accurate sound reproduction, period. Doesn't matter how much you spend on the turntable or the cartridge, CD is just far more accurate at reproducing the sound.
Vinyl introduces distortion. However, it tends to be the kind of distortion people like. Because they can't describe it accurately, they tend to describe it as "warm" and other nonsensical phrases like that (WTF is "warm" audio? Does it make your ears burn?). But just because they like it more doesn't mean that it's more accurate. It's less accurate, just in a way that they happen to prefer. - joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16Vinyl *is* superior. No crappy DRM on them. ;o)
The article, in all fairness, I think makes the point is that Vinyl is more fun...which is certainly plausible. I have to admit, collecting MP3s doesn't have quite the same tactile/sensual gratification that collecint Vinyl did back in the days of mail orders and giant newsprint catalogs. - regyt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14On any wage, I'm downloading for free.
- LemonHerb, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14It turns out I can't play vinyl in my car.
- DougieD, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13A big downside to vinyl is that they cannot produce a silence, opposed to CDs and any other non-analogue medium. So a silent part of the CD will still have a scratchy raspy sound.
- bdr529, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16i bet he did his research at a record shop
- g30ph, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16personally I don't analyze wave spectrums when I'm listening to the doors. Whether it's a cassette, cd, or mp3, or my new 4 frickin hundred dollar ipod, it's all good.
- fyngyrz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10The degree of misinformation here is astounding.
First of all, the dynamic range of digital is directly related to the number of bits handled and the linearity of the conversion(s). Digital is capable of dynamic range that *far* exceeds anything even remotely imaginable, much less ever achieved, with vinyl (or most other analog) technology(ies). The noise floor for vinyl is very high, and there is no point in recording detail below the noise floor -- that in itself limits the bottom end of the dynamic range. The high end of the dynamic range is limited by the mass and compliance of the phono cartridge and stylus system along with the maximum width of the groove (and the wider the groove is, the less you can record, and the lower the frequency that can be represented at any one turntable speed at full amplitude.)
What people respond positively to when they listen to old vinyl as compared to a modern CD or other digital format has very little, if anything, to do with the recording format. What it has to do with is the recording *technique*; modern recordings typically use all manner of dynamic range control tools. One (sad and misguided) reason is to "keep the music loud"; which is what happens, but which also makes soft passages louder and therefore a less realistic reproduction of the reality if we're talking about a live signal or an original, uncompressed mix of any set of instruments -- in other words, you're not hearing what the musician's produced, you're hearing a highly compressed version of it. Which your brain can tell in an instant. When vinyl was the predominant recording media, compression wasn't a commonly used technique in either the recording studio or by individual musicians. In the 70's, guitarists began to use compression to get more sustain on solos, and some tube compression units were used earlier, but not all that often. This wasn't a consequence of vinyl; it was a just coincidence that compression wasn't a big deal -- yet.
Also, many radio stations add their own compression to the reproduction line, and that just makes things worse.
Harshness: In the early days of CD's, some recordings were not properly band-limited prior to digitization. This causes aliasing, and that in turn creates a harshness that many people (incorrectly) attributed to digital recordings.
In order to record a CD, for instance, with a sample rate of 44 KHz, we know that no frequency above 22 KHz can be properly recorded. In fact, if we try, we will (not *might*, but WILL) get "aliasing", that is, the apparent presence of frequencies that were never there. Harshness is what you'll call it when you hear it. So what has to be done is that the recording material must be passed through a low pass filter that does not let anything beyond 22 KHz (probably more like 20 KHz) through; that in turn assures that what is digitized can be reproduced correctly and that aliasing will not occur.
All modern professional recordings properly band-limit the recording material, and for this reason, you would never encounter that harshness on a pro recording.
Given the same signal to record, a decent digital format (like CD, or better) will do a better job than can be done with vinyl. Every time. Less noise, better dynamic range, quieter "quiet", more linear frequency response, less harmonic distortion, and of course, no aging.
Add a recording engineer or mastering house in there with a compressor, and *now* you've found why old vinyl recordings sound better. Tapes too. Don't blame the media. Digital is better in every way. Blame the engineers. Trust me on this -- I am one. :-)
Frequency response: CD's are uniformly good to 20 KHz. You, dear human, probably cannot even hear 18 KHz, though there are exceptions. However, frequencies above 20 KHz still count, and you can still hear the *effect* they have on lower frequencies. This is because the total signal is a pure sum of all the frequencies it contains. When you add 20 KHz to 30 KHz, you get four resulting signals in the sum: A, B, A-B and A+B. These vary in amplitude, depending on the phase relationships between the two incoming signals. So in this example, you'd have the two "fundamental" frequencies, 20 KHz and 30 KHz, and for argument's sake, we'll say you can hear the 20 KHz one. 20+30 = 50 KHz, and you can't hear that, so we can ignore it. But 30-20 = 10 KHz, and you can *definitely* hear that. And, that will indeed be recorded on the digital version. So we can show that of the original signal, you get a very accurate reproduction of the signal at the position where the recording microphone is placed, assuming a microphone is what is being used.
Here's the only difference: In the reproduction environment (your stereo, soundspace or soundstage (often AKA your living room), and ears) there are various surfaces that reflect signals of different frequencies differently. That means that the mixing of the live signals of 20 KHz and 30 KHz are modulated, or controlled, by your room's surfaces. the 30 KHz might not bounce very well to your ear, but the 20 would, and so no mixing occurs at your ear. In this case, not having the 30 KHz in the recording would not hurt. If, on the other hand, your room was highly reflective (let's say it's glass-walled) then the 30 KHz *would* have reached your ear, mixed with the 20 KHz there, and so had an effect on the final human-hearable sound. But, since the 30 KHz signal is not IN the 22 KHz band-limited recording, NOW we've discovered a difference in how a record and a CD would behave.
The question now is, can this be resolved so there is no difference? The answer is yes.
The problem is a consequence of not recording the higher frequencies. A higher definition format, with a higher sampling rate, can do the job. A 96 KHz recording can accurately capture components up to 48 KHz. So if you think that you need more high frequencies, there is a path for you to follow. Hopefully, you'll be able to find recorded material that will meet your needs -- that's the main problem with limited use high-frequency capable digital recording technology. But again, I want to emphasize, this is not a limitation of "digital" or any inherent benefit of "analog", it's simply a consequence of choices made for consumer recording formats.
Finally, and with considerable humor, I wish to point out that the demographic that can most afford high end audio gear is old guys and gals who typically can no longer even hear 15 KHz, much less 20.
To sum up, most of what you hear as a "warm difference" is compression.
And don't even get me started on tubes. :-) - Roscoe1976, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15And songs downloaded from iTunes sounds better than a CD too. Teens go with whats cool, not whats always better.
- rabiddogma, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10You are correct sir! That's because all modern recordings are compressed as ***** to make them sound as LOUD as possible. Dynamic range is the key.
- headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Um, did you miss this "teens overwhelmingly insisted the sound quality of LPs was superior to that of modern formats" inside your own quote of the article?
- elioty, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Vinly is, like, so hot right now.
Its that and the fun in "seeking obscure recordings" that they like, not the sound quality difference. So.. I'm pretty sure that "teens consider vinyl superior to CDs" is just a bit of an overstatement. - Roscoe1976, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Exactly my point. I was being sarastic! :)
- mulletbum, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Oddly enough, 16mm film also looks better than HD
- TheTankengine, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Where do you shop? Records are expensive.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+16In a related story, teens will things to make themselves sound cool regardless of their truthfullness.
- happbando, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Newer music does not lack dynamic range because it's on CD. Digital media has potential for much more dynamic range than vinyl. We experience diminish decreased dynamic range because today's music is heavily compressed, so as to seem louder.
- superfunkypants, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I'm a big vinyl fan (in my 20's)...and here's why:
You can buy a Mr. Mister or Foreigner album for 50 cents. - dlvolk, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13According to the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem:
CDs are sampled at 44kHz, so all sounds under 22kHz are PERFECTLY recorded. So unless you are some sort of mutant human who hears sounds above 20kHz, or a dog, there is no reason why vinyl is superior to Cds - rabiddogma, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9It's true vinyl has superior packaging. Ever try to roll joints on a CD jewel case?
- bigstinky, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I would say that music seemed more "rich" recorded on vinyl, but you have to get past the "pfffts", "pops", "crackles" and hiss. the first play was always the best. Especially when played through a Macintosh sound system with Klipsh speakers. Still prefer CD's. MP3 loses way too much fidelity in my opinion.
- cmicali, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Well considering that almost all vinyl these days is pressed from digital source material, it seems strange that anyone would still argue that vinyl really sounds better. Sure using a good cartridge and a good amp will make it sound warmer than an average cd player, but the actual audio content is only as good as it's source. I love records, and I think there is something special about having the physical item (which is probably why the kids in this article responded the way they did,) but in today's digital era almost everything is recorded digitally (and I'd argue an even higher percentage of the indie/budget/smalltime people that press the most vinyl use digital recording.)
- numarc, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12As a hip-hop DJ and and ipod owner. I can tell you first hand that listening to the same song on vinyl, mp3, and cd on the exact same studio monitors. vinyl wins hands down. It has superior sound quality. Many who have heard me spin notice it immediately. Yes when I'm out and about i prefer my iPod but when I'm at home its all vinyl.
- saska, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Collecting vinyl was cool 20 years ago when CDs were just becoming mainstream. It's the 20-year return of the fad, that's all. No surprise; crappy 80s fashion is making inroads too.
- Filoviridae, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7"A Canadian scientist" Enough said.
j/k :) - DrewBlood, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I'm no teen at 27, but I did start buing vinyl when I was a teen. I tend to like a combination of vinyl, CD, and mp3. I mostly listen to punk, and I can get music cheaper on vinyl. I do like the additional artwork and inserts available through the format as well, and it feels like more of a keepsake. As someone who's been collecting digital music since 95 or 95, having a 12" slab of music feels somehow more substantial than something that can downloaded and deleted with ease, or in the case of CDs something convenient but which I tend to leave in cars and ruin way too often. Also I appreciate the ritual aspect of finding a record in my collection, cleaning it off, putting it on the turntable, changing sides. Vinyl demands your attention. If I go to a show I will always buy vinyl over another format.
I don't mind CDs but these days, frankly, it gets ripped and stuck in a box as soon as I get it. I don't appreciate it as much. And yes, you sharp ones will notice I'm not mentioning sound quality, because I like it any way I can get it. I'm no audiophile. My opinions on formats are based on how various media make me feel and react to the music. - depape0, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13Vinyl is the only physical object that has worth for music.
CD's are just a bridge to true digital music, which is just data.
Vinyl is friction, it's beautiful. I buy vinyl and just download the record to my iPod, since i own the rights to the song via vinyl. Listening to vinyl is just a great experience. - sound, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Yes, most music is processed digitally, but at much more than the marginal 44.1 khz / 16 bits that CDs deliver.
- dr-steve, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"Well, lets see. Your brain is analogue, your ears are analogue, your speakers are analogue, your amplifier is analogue, your pre-amp is analogue, the output of your CD player is analogue (DAC's), but the CD itself is digital. Or, a record is analogue."
Wrong. Ears are digital devices. Information is quantized and transmitted as a series of pulses between your cochlea and brean.
So we should drop this "analog playing is better because the rest of the chain is analog" argument.
Not to say: the only real arguments are those of aliasing artifacts due to the sampling rate in the digital medium vs. the noise and artifact levels accumulated within the analog medium. At this point, what you're comparing is the different kinds of error. - mtlea, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@matts0344
Yesss...if only there existed some sort of audio DVD, or shall I call it DVD-Audio format. Hmmm... And if only there existed some portable playing device to play this so-called DVD. - FirstStrike, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4WTF ???
I am a Dj with 1000's of vinyl ,none of which i play out any more because i have gone to CD's. Everything that is being said here is the same as the debates djs were having a few years ago. Now a few yeas on with almost every top dj using digital formats its excepted that digital (in what ever format it may be) is the way to go , with only a few traditonalists holding on to the whole vinyl thing.
As for a CD can reproduce the sound of a vinyl thats simply not true. Whilst not a scientifc test by any means, the vinyl which i have recorded onto CD sound 100% the same on every system from i have played them on from huge festival instlations to my PC.
Vinyl is cool no doubt & some people like the pops and scratches but is an inconsistent (any one who has a lot of vinyl will tell you some they have sound like total *****) medium and inferior to CD......... - joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7"Listening to vinyl is just a great experience."
I think that's the main benefit that folks find that lean towards vinyl. It is absolutely a different experience and that often means much more than the intracies of the sound reproduction itself. - memerot, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7This page:
http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/10109
Has a clear graph showing how a track should be mastered, and how today's commercial music is mastered. - Craig1394, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Social Engineering, that is all this is. I am sure with enough time and persuasive power, you could also convice those same teens that the Earth is flat.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 269 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 