4 ms·

Not just that, vinyl does have much higher bandwidth, up into the 50kHz (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eC6L3_k_48 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eC6L3_k_48

by eecc 8y ago

Not just that, vinyl does have much higher bandwidth, up into the 50kHz (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eC6L3_k_48 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eC6L3_k_48) Of course we cannot hear above 20-22k but I expect the non linearities in the equipment to downmix some of that into the audible baseband. "warmth" is not a myth after all ;)

TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
Vinyl warmth is created by the RIAA curve that removes most of the bass and tries to recreate it in the preamp. This adds some nice creamy distortion to the low end. Vinyl also has a much lower dynamic range than CD. I've actually come to hate vinyl as a format. I love the artwork, but I hate the impracticality, the cultishness, and most of all I hate the distorted low-fi sonics. Nothing matches a high resolution digital source file played on good equipment.
- isolli 8y ago
  I have to disagree: a well-mastered recording on vinyl is superior to a high-resolution, digital recording when the music has been auto-tuned, mastered, remastered, and compressed to death. (I'm talking about dynamic-range compression here.)
  - nkozyra 8y ago
    Sounds like you're conflating the playback format with the production then. Nothing's stopping you from putting brick wall compressed mastered music on record just as nothing's stopping you from putting a track with more dynamic range on cd.
    - isolli 8y ago
      You're right, except that in practice some wonderful historic recordings are only available on vinyl, so a blanket statement like: "I have come to hate the vinyl format" should be qualified.
      - mikestew 8y ago
        some wonderful historic recordings are only available on vinyl Now you're conflating the media with the content.
  - timrichard 8y ago
    Have to disagree. With the mechanical wear interaction between the stylus and groove, it's often estimated that you start to lose detail after about 10 plays. Plus a whole lot of EQ compromises have to be made to stop the stylus jumping out of the groove, which don't exist on digital formats. So if you add up the HF and LF rolloffs, rumble, wow, and general snap crackle and pop from vinyl that probably isn't completely dust-free, you have a grab-bag of imperfections that won't exist in a FLAC file ripped from a CD when it was mint and free of read errors.
  - stordoff 8y ago
    There's nothing stopping you avoiding all of these things on CD. All things being equal, the CD will sound superior to the vinyl (at worst equal to it).
    - isolli 8y ago
      Some recordings are not available on CD, or only terribly remastered. I haven't looked into downloads, but I doubt they are better remastered.
      - einr 8y ago
        This has nothing to do with the technical characteristics of the format.
        isolli 8y ago
        Of course, but it has everything to do with real-life availability of records.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
marcosdumay 8y ago
> Of course we cannot hear above 20-22k You need a 44kHz digital signal to reproduce a 22kHz analogical one. That's why CDs default to 44.4kHz. I don't think tapes got anywhere nearly as high.
- einr 8y ago
  Small correction: the CD sample rate is 44.1 kHz. A perfectly recorded metal tape (I believe metal tapes are no longer manufactured) in a very high-end deck can maybe reach 20 kHz under optimal conditions. For normal cheap-o ferric tape you're looking at maybe 12-16 kHz. Add in faster than real-time factory dubbing, tape wear, and substandard playback equipment and you're probably usually not even getting 12.

by eecc 8y ago

TheOtherHobbes 8y ago

Vinyl warmth is created by the RIAA curve that removes most of the bass and tries to recreate it in the preamp. This adds some nice creamy distortion to the low end. Vinyl also has a much lower dynamic range than CD. I've actually come to hate vinyl as a format. I love the artwork, but I hate the impracticality, the cultishness, and most of all I hate the distorted low-fi sonics. Nothing matches a high resolution digital source file played on good equipment.

isolli 8y ago
I have to disagree: a well-mastered recording on vinyl is superior to a high-resolution, digital recording when the music has been auto-tuned, mastered, remastered, and compressed to death. (I'm talking about dynamic-range compression here.)
- nkozyra 8y ago
  Sounds like you're conflating the playback format with the production then. Nothing's stopping you from putting brick wall compressed mastered music on record just as nothing's stopping you from putting a track with more dynamic range on cd.
  - isolli 8y ago
    You're right, except that in practice some wonderful historic recordings are only available on vinyl, so a blanket statement like: "I have come to hate the vinyl format" should be qualified.
    - mikestew 8y ago
      some wonderful historic recordings are only available on vinyl Now you're conflating the media with the content.
- timrichard 8y ago
  Have to disagree. With the mechanical wear interaction between the stylus and groove, it's often estimated that you start to lose detail after about 10 plays. Plus a whole lot of EQ compromises have to be made to stop the stylus jumping out of the groove, which don't exist on digital formats. So if you add up the HF and LF rolloffs, rumble, wow, and general snap crackle and pop from vinyl that probably isn't completely dust-free, you have a grab-bag of imperfections that won't exist in a FLAC file ripped from a CD when it was mint and free of read errors.
- stordoff 8y ago
  There's nothing stopping you avoiding all of these things on CD. All things being equal, the CD will sound superior to the vinyl (at worst equal to it).
  - isolli 8y ago
    Some recordings are not available on CD, or only terribly remastered. I haven't looked into downloads, but I doubt they are better remastered.
    - einr 8y ago
      This has nothing to do with the technical characteristics of the format.
      - isolli 8y ago
        Of course, but it has everything to do with real-life availability of records.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

marcosdumay 8y ago

> Of course we cannot hear above 20-22k You need a 44kHz digital signal to reproduce a 22kHz analogical one. That's why CDs default to 44.4kHz. I don't think tapes got anywhere nearly as high.

einr 8y ago
Small correction: the CD sample rate is 44.1 kHz. A perfectly recorded metal tape (I believe metal tapes are no longer manufactured) in a very high-end deck can maybe reach 20 kHz under optimal conditions. For normal cheap-o ferric tape you're looking at maybe 12-16 kHz. Add in faster than real-time factory dubbing, tape wear, and substandard playback equipment and you're probably usually not even getting 12.