5 ms·

Diehards also think vinyl sounds better than CD, or at least many used to. (You know, because CD's are digital, which limits their dynamic range and frequency,

by oofbey 4y ago

Diehards also think vinyl sounds better than CD, or at least many used to. (You know, because CD's are digital, which limits their dynamic range and frequency, whereas analog can be "perfect" in theory if you don't think too hard about it.) Some people are just allergic to anything that "improves quality". The reason these technologies exist is because _most people_ think it does improve quality. Haters gonna hate.

blangk 4y ago
Writing off subjective assessments of modes of art as 'haters' seems like something a true hater might do. If you admit there is a qualitative difference then it seems obvious there would be mixed opinions about the different modes. Latest isn't always greatest.
ShadowBanThis01 4y ago
Plenty of wrong here. "CD's are digital, which limits their dynamic range" No. In fact, some CD players used to come with discs intended to demonstrate the huge dynamic range of discs. My Sony portable came with Dire Straits' Brothers in Arms, one of the earlier full-digital releases; it was noted for its dynamic range. Also, fake frames inserted into material shot at a lower frame rate can't "improve" quality. It's a gimmick. SHOOTING at a higher frame rate? Sure, that improves motion quality. On a side note: Almost all the popular music you hear today on streaming services and on "remastered" albums has been destroyed with dynamic compression to make it "louder." Many engineers cite the early '90s as the peak of mastering quality. So don't act as though people objecting to "new" things are automatically wrong.
- seabass-labrax 4y ago
  My father and I are listening through each CD in my late grandmother's collection. There's lots of truly excellent recordings from the 80s in there, from a time when record labels took the idea of 'digital quality' _really_ seriously. When I buy CDs for myself of my preferred genre of progressive rock, I make a point of searching for non-remastered CD copies (MusicBrainz is useful here), as the remasters inevitably limit the dynamic range. Another symptom of 'industrial disease'!
  - ShadowBanThis01 4y ago
    Absolutely! Don't get rid of those CDs! The dynamic-compression problem is so severe, widespread, and yet under-recognized that I don't think music will ever recover. I have 45s from the '80s that sound way better than "remastered" digital releases today. And that has nothing to do with "vinyl vs. digital." It's about everyone having access to devices capable of incredible fidelity today, and nothing but ruined trash to play on them.
    - dylan604 4y ago
      let's face it, there is a very large amount of music consumed on nothing more than earbud level of speaker. so large, that if they make it sound good on those and not so good on larger speaker systems, most people wouldn't know. that leaves a small number of very vocal people to bitch about it. however, these are the same people that believe you have to have gold plated cabling and all the other nonsense that audiophiles believe. so, if you mix for something that keeps >90% of people from bitching while cashing in all of those $9/month subscription fees, then sounds like a pretty decent bizplan. even "room" sound is nothing but bookshelf sized speakers. i miss my towers with a 12"-18" sub, a 8"-10" mid, and a 1"-2" tweeter. i cried a bit having to get rid of those.
      - ShadowBanThis01 4y ago
        The problem is that dynamic compression doesn't help ANYONE. Earbuds, speakers, headphones... they all benefit from more dynamic range. Plus, if compressed shit were such a huge priority with people, it should have been added to the DEVICES. And in fact... it was, decades ago. Even stock Ford CD players had a "Compress" button on them, in case you were listening to classical while driving in a noisy car. Easy solution that didn't ruin generations' worth of music.
- bee_rider 4y ago
  The parenthetical that you seem to have skipped makes it seem like what you’ve quoted was actually intended as sarcasm.
  - ShadowBanThis01 4y ago
    If that's addressed to me, I don't know what you mean.
    - bee_rider 4y ago
      >> You know, because CD's are digital, which limits their dynamic range and frequency, whereas analog can be "perfect" in theory if you don't think too hard about it. > No. In fact, some CD players used to come with discs intended to demonstrate the huge dynamic range of discs. They appear to be mocking the belief that vinyls have more dynamic range based on the italic text.
      - ShadowBanThis01 4y ago
        Ha, well fair enough. I wasn't sure if the whole thing was sarcastic either. I guess we'll never know unless he comes back to elaborate.
        oofbey 4y ago
        It's not exactly sarcasm. From a purely theoretical perspective vinyl actually does have a higher dynamic range and wider frequency response than CD. The dynamic range of CD is fixed by its 16-bit format to ### decibels (I'm not going to bother looking it up). Whereas _in theory_ there is no limit to the dynamic range of vinyl except for the size of the atoms in the needle, which is much higher than a CD. In theory. Similarly, CD's are physically incapable of producing sounds with a frequency higher than 22kHz, whereas a vinyl record can in theory wiggle that needle much faster than that with atom-sized variations. But in reality this is absurd. So I'm mocking the die-hards who think the old technology is better. Because even though the vinyl-lovers have a point in theory, in practice they're just wrong. I assert the same is true here. I assert that most people prefer interpolation in both space and time to "preserving the original content". If you play a DVD on your 4k television, do you really want big perfectly rectangular blocks where the pixel boundaries are? And do you want those staying exactly the same for 33ms and then jumping to the next set of square blocks? Cuz that's the original content. I think most people would prefer to have something intelligently try to infer what the original content likely was before it got sampled (in space and time). Then you get smooth edges and smooth motion. Feel free to disagree with me. Important people do - I know there are big names in cinema who think 24fps is the best for some reason and it hurts their extremely well trained eyes to see smoother motion. But any gamer will tell you that higher frame rates look more realistic and natural and just better. I like my tv's frame interpolation because it looks smooth and buttery to me. But I assert my opinion (that having software interpolate both space and time) is what most people in the world prefer, which is why the tv makers do it.

by oofbey 4y ago

blangk 4y ago

Writing off subjective assessments of modes of art as 'haters' seems like something a true hater might do. If you admit there is a qualitative difference then it seems obvious there would be mixed opinions about the different modes. Latest isn't always greatest.

ShadowBanThis01 4y ago

Plenty of wrong here. "CD's are digital, which limits their dynamic range" No. In fact, some CD players used to come with discs intended to demonstrate the huge dynamic range of discs. My Sony portable came with Dire Straits' Brothers in Arms, one of the earlier full-digital releases; it was noted for its dynamic range. Also, fake frames inserted into material shot at a lower frame rate can't "improve" quality. It's a gimmick. SHOOTING at a higher frame rate? Sure, that improves motion quality. On a side note: Almost all the popular music you hear today on streaming services and on "remastered" albums has been destroyed with dynamic compression to make it "louder." Many engineers cite the early '90s as the peak of mastering quality. So don't act as though people objecting to "new" things are automatically wrong.

seabass-labrax 4y ago
My father and I are listening through each CD in my late grandmother's collection. There's lots of truly excellent recordings from the 80s in there, from a time when record labels took the idea of 'digital quality' _really_ seriously. When I buy CDs for myself of my preferred genre of progressive rock, I make a point of searching for non-remastered CD copies (MusicBrainz is useful here), as the remasters inevitably limit the dynamic range. Another symptom of 'industrial disease'!
- ShadowBanThis01 4y ago
  Absolutely! Don't get rid of those CDs! The dynamic-compression problem is so severe, widespread, and yet under-recognized that I don't think music will ever recover. I have 45s from the '80s that sound way better than "remastered" digital releases today. And that has nothing to do with "vinyl vs. digital." It's about everyone having access to devices capable of incredible fidelity today, and nothing but ruined trash to play on them.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    let's face it, there is a very large amount of music consumed on nothing more than earbud level of speaker. so large, that if they make it sound good on those and not so good on larger speaker systems, most people wouldn't know. that leaves a small number of very vocal people to bitch about it. however, these are the same people that believe you have to have gold plated cabling and all the other nonsense that audiophiles believe. so, if you mix for something that keeps >90% of people from bitching while cashing in all of those $9/month subscription fees, then sounds like a pretty decent bizplan. even "room" sound is nothing but bookshelf sized speakers. i miss my towers with a 12"-18" sub, a 8"-10" mid, and a 1"-2" tweeter. i cried a bit having to get rid of those.
    - ShadowBanThis01 4y ago
      The problem is that dynamic compression doesn't help ANYONE. Earbuds, speakers, headphones... they all benefit from more dynamic range. Plus, if compressed shit were such a huge priority with people, it should have been added to the DEVICES. And in fact... it was, decades ago. Even stock Ford CD players had a "Compress" button on them, in case you were listening to classical while driving in a noisy car. Easy solution that didn't ruin generations' worth of music.
bee_rider 4y ago
The parenthetical that you seem to have skipped makes it seem like what you’ve quoted was actually intended as sarcasm.
- ShadowBanThis01 4y ago
  If that's addressed to me, I don't know what you mean.
  - bee_rider 4y ago
    >> You know, because CD's are digital, which limits their dynamic range and frequency, whereas analog can be "perfect" in theory if you don't think too hard about it. > No. In fact, some CD players used to come with discs intended to demonstrate the huge dynamic range of discs. They appear to be mocking the belief that vinyls have more dynamic range based on the italic text.
    - ShadowBanThis01 4y ago
      Ha, well fair enough. I wasn't sure if the whole thing was sarcastic either. I guess we'll never know unless he comes back to elaborate.
      - oofbey 4y ago
        It's not exactly sarcasm. From a purely theoretical perspective vinyl actually does have a higher dynamic range and wider frequency response than CD. The dynamic range of CD is fixed by its 16-bit format to ### decibels (I'm not going to bother looking it up). Whereas _in theory_ there is no limit to the dynamic range of vinyl except for the size of the atoms in the needle, which is much higher than a CD. In theory. Similarly, CD's are physically incapable of producing sounds with a frequency higher than 22kHz, whereas a vinyl record can in theory wiggle that needle much faster than that with atom-sized variations. But in reality this is absurd. So I'm mocking the die-hards who think the old technology is better. Because even though the vinyl-lovers have a point in theory, in practice they're just wrong. I assert the same is true here. I assert that most people prefer interpolation in both space and time to "preserving the original content". If you play a DVD on your 4k television, do you really want big perfectly rectangular blocks where the pixel boundaries are? And do you want those staying exactly the same for 33ms and then jumping to the next set of square blocks? Cuz that's the original content. I think most people would prefer to have something intelligently try to infer what the original content likely was before it got sampled (in space and time). Then you get smooth edges and smooth motion. Feel free to disagree with me. Important people do - I know there are big names in cinema who think 24fps is the best for some reason and it hurts their extremely well trained eyes to see smoother motion. But any gamer will tell you that higher frame rates look more realistic and natural and just better. I like my tv's frame interpolation because it looks smooth and buttery to me. But I assert my opinion (that having software interpolate both space and time) is what most people in the world prefer, which is why the tv makers do it.