4 ms·

Cassettes have good bass and midrange. Vinyl is great and more defined. CDs have too much treble and anything digital can’t really produce the same waveforms ex

Cassettes have good bass and midrange. Vinyl is great and more defined. CDs have too much treble and anything digital can’t really produce the same waveforms exactly.

hluska 6y ago
Pure analogue recording studios are in the minority and by the time you expand your search to pressing plants, the vast majority of vinyl has been digital before it hits our ears. (I belong to the vinyl cult too and badly want to believe what you’re saying.)
- klingon78 6y ago
  What I said was true. Whether it was digital or not can be a subtle difference. I never said that vinyl is only analog or that that is the reason for the difference in sound between vinyl and other formats, because it’s not. The “warmth” is cassettes and more so with better balance in vinyl is known. Digital didn’t kill music quality; it did affect waveforms, but that’s not the reason for vinyl sounding better to most. Of course, there are many more reasons that music sounds better or worse.
  - hluska 6y ago
    I wonder if we’re really getting into mechanical differences between turntables? It’s hard to talk in terms of sound but you sound like a lot of fun. If you’re ever in or around Regina, Canada let me know. I have two Technics 1200s that I’ve modified heavily. If you’d like, I can show you some cool stuff with three tonearms (the stock 1200 tonearm, a straight tonearm that will tell you precisely when I went to raves and a tonearm that is engineered for better sound. You’ll hear the difference right away. Then I can show you some differences between cartridges, proper cartridge alignment (a fraction of a degree makes a huge difference) and even styluses. One downside of the proliferation of turntables is that most don’t work with shit. It’s been happening since everyone was a DJ and is still happening now!!! :)
sramsay 6y ago
Saying "CDs have too much treble" is like saying "books have too many adjectives." And no, for millionth time. Per the Nyquist theorem, the waveform being generated is identical -- the same, without any difference whatsoever -- when the sample rate is twice the frequency being reproduced. Which it is, because the sample rate of a CD is more than twice the theoretical upper range of human hearing. You can talk about aliasing if you like. I see some people in the thread with super-human hearing can detect the buzz of CD drive motors. But this "digital is not as good because it's discrete and audio is continuous" is complete nonsense. If you are thinking that the "digital waveforms" (?) coming out of your speakers don't sound as good because they're not continuous, or "choppy," or missing information . . . you're really not making any sense at all.
- klingon78 6y ago
  See: Analog vs Digital[1]. I said there were differences. A lot of people putting words into my mouth. I was actually alive and aware listening to pre-1980s vinyls, 8-tracks, cassettes, CDs, etc. unlike some of you. CDs added additional frequencies into the high range, which people thought sounded crisp and new, but it never had the warmth of cassettes and vinyl. The waveform thing is true but I never said that it was the reason for the difference in warmth. [1]- https://innersense-inc.com/analog-versus-digital/ https://innersense-inc.com/analog-versus-digital/
  - NobodyNada 6y ago
    > CDs added additional frequencies into the high range, which people thought sounded crisp and new, but it never had the warmth of cassettes and vinyl. Sure, there is an audible difference between digital audio and vintage analog equipment — but it has nothing to do with quality problems in digital audio. In fact, it’s exactly the opposite: vinyl and cassettes deliver low-quality, heavily distorted audio (with a dynamic range equivalent to that of 5 or 6 bit digital audio). This does create a distinctive “warm” tone, and a lot of people really like the sound (or the nostalgia) created by this distortion. The article you linked does not demonstrate quality problems with digital audio; it is a bunch of nonsense intended to sell a product. First of all, it compares a “digital square wave” with an “analog sine wave”, and remarks that “the digital signal does not follow the smooth flow of its analog compliment.” Of course they look different, they’re not the same wave! A square wave is “supposed” to look blocky, it’s not a digital vs. analog thing. At least it mentions the Shannon-Nyquist theorem and gets one thing right: “there is no difference whatsoever between an analog sine wave and a digital one” But then it totally blows it again with its comparison of a “digital” square wave to a “natural” one, observing that the “natural” square wave is more curved. Again, this is nonsense because you’re not comparing the same wave! The “digital” image is of an ideal, mathematically pure square wave, whereas the “natural” image is bandlimited. The first mathematically pure wave cannot exist in the real world, because it would require infinite bandwidth — the voltage would have to change instantly. In fact, a digital signal is bandlimited; it’s just a bad illustration. The digital square wave, when converted to analog, will not include any frequencies above half the sampling rate, making it match whatever our bandlimited analog signal is supposed to look like. Then the article goes into full-on snake oil mode, trying to convince you that “technology that resolves that problem, by creating infinite phase, is currently available” if only you buy their “Sensorium™ LSV III Function Generators and Altitudinal Oscillators [that] utilize a polynomial transition region algorithm”. This is very much nonsense; by the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem, you can reproduce a bandlimited waveform exactly from a sampled signal, no matter how “complex” your waveform is. For a more detailed overview about how and why digital audio works, I recommend this video: https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml
bch 6y ago
Let Monty Montgomery of xiph.org provide an illuminating tear down of “digital can’t really produce...”: https://youtu.be/cIQ9IXSUzuM https://youtu.be/cIQ9IXSUzuM Edit: fix auto-incorrected xiph.org domain
jankeymeulen 6y ago
Nyquist and Shannon disagree with you.
stjohnswarts 6y ago
That's incorrect. CDs can reproduce anything that a tape can with higher fidelity and much more dynamic range. You could "master" from a cassette tape and not be able to tell a difference between the CD and the cassette tape without signal analysis. Humans claim a lot of things but those claims fall apart in double blind studies when it comes to music and wine.

Cassettes have good bass and midrange. Vinyl is great and more defined. CDs have too much treble and anything digital can’t really produce the same waveforms exactly.

hluska 6y ago

Pure analogue recording studios are in the minority and by the time you expand your search to pressing plants, the vast majority of vinyl has been digital before it hits our ears. (I belong to the vinyl cult too and badly want to believe what you’re saying.)

klingon78 6y ago
What I said was true. Whether it was digital or not can be a subtle difference. I never said that vinyl is only analog or that that is the reason for the difference in sound between vinyl and other formats, because it’s not. The “warmth” is cassettes and more so with better balance in vinyl is known. Digital didn’t kill music quality; it did affect waveforms, but that’s not the reason for vinyl sounding better to most. Of course, there are many more reasons that music sounds better or worse.
- hluska 6y ago
  I wonder if we’re really getting into mechanical differences between turntables? It’s hard to talk in terms of sound but you sound like a lot of fun. If you’re ever in or around Regina, Canada let me know. I have two Technics 1200s that I’ve modified heavily. If you’d like, I can show you some cool stuff with three tonearms (the stock 1200 tonearm, a straight tonearm that will tell you precisely when I went to raves and a tonearm that is engineered for better sound. You’ll hear the difference right away. Then I can show you some differences between cartridges, proper cartridge alignment (a fraction of a degree makes a huge difference) and even styluses. One downside of the proliferation of turntables is that most don’t work with shit. It’s been happening since everyone was a DJ and is still happening now!!! :)

sramsay 6y ago

Saying "CDs have too much treble" is like saying "books have too many adjectives." And no, for millionth time. Per the Nyquist theorem, the waveform being generated is identical -- the same, without any difference whatsoever -- when the sample rate is twice the frequency being reproduced. Which it is, because the sample rate of a CD is more than twice the theoretical upper range of human hearing. You can talk about aliasing if you like. I see some people in the thread with super-human hearing can detect the buzz of CD drive motors. But this "digital is not as good because it's discrete and audio is continuous" is complete nonsense. If you are thinking that the "digital waveforms" (?) coming out of your speakers don't sound as good because they're not continuous, or "choppy," or missing information . . . you're really not making any sense at all.

klingon78 6y ago
See: Analog vs Digital[1]. I said there were differences. A lot of people putting words into my mouth. I was actually alive and aware listening to pre-1980s vinyls, 8-tracks, cassettes, CDs, etc. unlike some of you. CDs added additional frequencies into the high range, which people thought sounded crisp and new, but it never had the warmth of cassettes and vinyl. The waveform thing is true but I never said that it was the reason for the difference in warmth. [1]- https://innersense-inc.com/analog-versus-digital/ https://innersense-inc.com/analog-versus-digital/
- NobodyNada 6y ago
  > CDs added additional frequencies into the high range, which people thought sounded crisp and new, but it never had the warmth of cassettes and vinyl. Sure, there is an audible difference between digital audio and vintage analog equipment — but it has nothing to do with quality problems in digital audio. In fact, it’s exactly the opposite: vinyl and cassettes deliver low-quality, heavily distorted audio (with a dynamic range equivalent to that of 5 or 6 bit digital audio). This does create a distinctive “warm” tone, and a lot of people really like the sound (or the nostalgia) created by this distortion. The article you linked does not demonstrate quality problems with digital audio; it is a bunch of nonsense intended to sell a product. First of all, it compares a “digital square wave” with an “analog sine wave”, and remarks that “the digital signal does not follow the smooth flow of its analog compliment.” Of course they look different, they’re not the same wave! A square wave is “supposed” to look blocky, it’s not a digital vs. analog thing. At least it mentions the Shannon-Nyquist theorem and gets one thing right: “there is no difference whatsoever between an analog sine wave and a digital one” But then it totally blows it again with its comparison of a “digital” square wave to a “natural” one, observing that the “natural” square wave is more curved. Again, this is nonsense because you’re not comparing the same wave! The “digital” image is of an ideal, mathematically pure square wave, whereas the “natural” image is bandlimited. The first mathematically pure wave cannot exist in the real world, because it would require infinite bandwidth — the voltage would have to change instantly. In fact, a digital signal is bandlimited; it’s just a bad illustration. The digital square wave, when converted to analog, will not include any frequencies above half the sampling rate, making it match whatever our bandlimited analog signal is supposed to look like. Then the article goes into full-on snake oil mode, trying to convince you that “technology that resolves that problem, by creating infinite phase, is currently available” if only you buy their “Sensorium™ LSV III Function Generators and Altitudinal Oscillators [that] utilize a polynomial transition region algorithm”. This is very much nonsense; by the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem, you can reproduce a bandlimited waveform exactly from a sampled signal, no matter how “complex” your waveform is. For a more detailed overview about how and why digital audio works, I recommend this video: https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml

bch 6y ago

Let Monty Montgomery of xiph.org provide an illuminating tear down of “digital can’t really produce...”: https://youtu.be/cIQ9IXSUzuM https://youtu.be/cIQ9IXSUzuM Edit: fix auto-incorrected xiph.org domain

jankeymeulen 6y ago

Nyquist and Shannon disagree with you.

stjohnswarts 6y ago

That's incorrect. CDs can reproduce anything that a tape can with higher fidelity and much more dynamic range. You could "master" from a cassette tape and not be able to tell a difference between the CD and the cassette tape without signal analysis. Humans claim a lot of things but those claims fall apart in double blind studies when it comes to music and wine.