4 ms·

There are plenty of reasons to listen to vinyl and it's fine if you are doing it to be hip. I do it because of the sound quality. CDs were invented in the 1980s

by markfig 14y ago

There are plenty of reasons to listen to vinyl and it's fine if you are doing it to be hip. I do it because of the sound quality. CDs were invented in the 1980s. The digital resolution is simply not very high. Remember what the first digital cameras looked like next to film? That's the CD next to vinyl. And MP3s and AACs are so much worse. It's like comparing a compressed JPG to an Ansel Adams print on a gallery wall. In theory newer digital audio formats should be able to get a lot closer to the sound quality of analog soundwaves perfectly preserved in wax and traced by a diamond needle. But I've not heard a digital format yet that quite captures it. Hopefully one day there will be. But we're not there yet, not to my ears. Listening to digital formats is wonderfully convenient but you are simply hearing a pixelated approximation of your music. You're trading audible detail and richness for convenience. That's no crime. But if you love music, I mean LOVE it, you owe it to yourself to give vinyl a try.

kefka 14y ago
I have access to quite a different formats in our house. Our materials go all the way back to our edisongraph, with the cylinder box-eulas. The best format I've heard is 24 bit depth, 96KHz full stereo audio files. That is assuming the microphones were tuned appropriately for their response. MP3's clip higher frequencies, as well as 'round the tops'. Other lossy encoders do other hard-but-easy to hear. Of course, one also has to deal with the Monster crowd and other golden ear audiophiles. I've only seen one true audiophile: I attended an amateur radio club (fellow ham here). A guy named Stephen, who has been blind since birth, brought his 1 watt Argonaut with a crappy little omnidirectional antenna. We were in the basement of the red cross building (in the Midwest). After 10 or so minutes, he starts hearing something.... And initiates a QSO (contact)... With Hawaii! He talks for perhaps 11 minutes before signing off. Nobody else could hear the chirps of morse code through that layer of static. He could, even in the basement of a steel and concrete building.
- snogglethorpe 14y ago
  There are applications that benefit from high-resolution (bit-depth and sample rate) audio formats, but it's not really clear that listening to music is one of them: http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html [TL;DR: "Unfortunately, there is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format. Its playback fidelity is slightly inferior to 16/44.1 or 16/48, and it takes up 6 times the space."]
taylodl 14y ago
I grew up in the analog age. Trust me, there was much rejoicing when CDs came out. Your lament about the digital resolution of CDs is baseless: the resolution is far beyond what the human ear can discern. We've already been through all this in the 80's. It's comical to watch you hipsters stir up this old dust that had settled long ago. Oh, and it's well-known that some people prefer the sound of vinyl. It's a particular distortion accentuating the midrange. This distortion provides a "warmer" sound. But let's not kid ourselves - it's a distortion. But if you prefer the warmer sound of vinyl then I suggest you try 7,5 IPS reel-to-reel. It'll knock your socks off!
- snogglethorpe 14y ago
  > Oh, and it's well-known that some people prefer the sound of vinyl. It's a particular distortion accentuating the midrange. This distortion provides a "warmer" sound. But let's not kid ourselves - it's a distortion. Indeed. In fact, surely there must be filters (the digital kind) around that simulate the distortion caused by vinyl (both the mastering differences and the effect of the medium itself). Consumer electronics could have a "vinyl" button right next to the "megabass" button ... :]
- markfig 14y ago
  Sorry I missed this when first posted. But it needs a response. You say "the resolution is far beyond what the human ear can discern" as though that were undisputed science, which I should simply have looked up. But that is not the case. You listen to two recordings of a high-hat. One CD, and one high quality analog such as pristine vinyl. And then you tell me you cannot discern the compression on a cd in comparison to vinyl. It's in the highest frequencies that the redbook cd format creates the most audible distortion. (Vinyl has issues too, obviously - but different ones.) But nobody could reasonably claim that redbook CDs are undistorted while vinyl is distorted. Both formats distort sound. If you can't hear the difference, that's fine, but let's not pretend it is a scientific fact that CDs are somehow "accurate." Edit: to be clear, I am not talking about frequency (highs and lows), I am talking about frame-rate. And I'm not talking about what is theoretically possible in "digital sound reproduction" I am talking about what is implemented in the standard format for audio CDs sold today. Regarding reel-to-reel, I bet you're right! But it's not for me. If you grew up in the era of records, I dare you to go find a record of one of your favorite recordings that you currently listen to on cd.... go find the record and listen to it. I dare you.

by markfig 14y ago

kefka 14y ago

I have access to quite a different formats in our house. Our materials go all the way back to our edisongraph, with the cylinder box-eulas. The best format I've heard is 24 bit depth, 96KHz full stereo audio files. That is assuming the microphones were tuned appropriately for their response. MP3's clip higher frequencies, as well as 'round the tops'. Other lossy encoders do other hard-but-easy to hear. Of course, one also has to deal with the Monster crowd and other golden ear audiophiles. I've only seen one true audiophile: I attended an amateur radio club (fellow ham here). A guy named Stephen, who has been blind since birth, brought his 1 watt Argonaut with a crappy little omnidirectional antenna. We were in the basement of the red cross building (in the Midwest). After 10 or so minutes, he starts hearing something.... And initiates a QSO (contact)... With Hawaii! He talks for perhaps 11 minutes before signing off. Nobody else could hear the chirps of morse code through that layer of static. He could, even in the basement of a steel and concrete building.

snogglethorpe 14y ago
There are applications that benefit from high-resolution (bit-depth and sample rate) audio formats, but it's not really clear that listening to music is one of them: http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html [TL;DR: "Unfortunately, there is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format. Its playback fidelity is slightly inferior to 16/44.1 or 16/48, and it takes up 6 times the space."]

taylodl 14y ago

I grew up in the analog age. Trust me, there was much rejoicing when CDs came out. Your lament about the digital resolution of CDs is baseless: the resolution is far beyond what the human ear can discern. We've already been through all this in the 80's. It's comical to watch you hipsters stir up this old dust that had settled long ago. Oh, and it's well-known that some people prefer the sound of vinyl. It's a particular distortion accentuating the midrange. This distortion provides a "warmer" sound. But let's not kid ourselves - it's a distortion. But if you prefer the warmer sound of vinyl then I suggest you try 7,5 IPS reel-to-reel. It'll knock your socks off!

snogglethorpe 14y ago
> Oh, and it's well-known that some people prefer the sound of vinyl. It's a particular distortion accentuating the midrange. This distortion provides a "warmer" sound. But let's not kid ourselves - it's a distortion. Indeed. In fact, surely there must be filters (the digital kind) around that simulate the distortion caused by vinyl (both the mastering differences and the effect of the medium itself). Consumer electronics could have a "vinyl" button right next to the "megabass" button ... :]
markfig 14y ago
Sorry I missed this when first posted. But it needs a response. You say "the resolution is far beyond what the human ear can discern" as though that were undisputed science, which I should simply have looked up. But that is not the case. You listen to two recordings of a high-hat. One CD, and one high quality analog such as pristine vinyl. And then you tell me you cannot discern the compression on a cd in comparison to vinyl. It's in the highest frequencies that the redbook cd format creates the most audible distortion. (Vinyl has issues too, obviously - but different ones.) But nobody could reasonably claim that redbook CDs are undistorted while vinyl is distorted. Both formats distort sound. If you can't hear the difference, that's fine, but let's not pretend it is a scientific fact that CDs are somehow "accurate." Edit: to be clear, I am not talking about frequency (highs and lows), I am talking about frame-rate. And I'm not talking about what is theoretically possible in "digital sound reproduction" I am talking about what is implemented in the standard format for audio CDs sold today. Regarding reel-to-reel, I bet you're right! But it's not for me. If you grew up in the era of records, I dare you to go find a record of one of your favorite recordings that you currently listen to on cd.... go find the record and listen to it. I dare you.